I’m quite proud of myself, as I have been feeling mighty academic lately.  In the past two weeks, I’ve managed to read three books.

• One Thing You Can’t Do In Heaven by Mark Cahill
• The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey
• What’s So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D’Souza

The latter will be finished today.  I have more books on the horizon, as for some reason, I’ve really enjoyed reading lately, once again.  It is challenging me daily to study into different concepts and ideas.

One of which I have posted previously.  In fact, I briefly mentioned it on my very first blog post EVER!

In many atheist circles, there is a bogus claim that the story of Jesus Christ is just another account of a god, based off of previous stories told about other Egyptian, Roman, Persian, and Hindu gods.  I’ve had the privilege over the past 24 hours to speak with an atheist I met on Yahoo! Answers, and it has been fun to say the least.  I’d like to share some of the conversation here.

It all started as I responded to the claim mentioned above, that Christ came from the story of Horus, and that Horus was crucified, resurrected, fed 5,000 people with bread, and other great things.  I simply posted:

Can you please show me where these stories occur that pre-date Christ?

Really, it’s a simple request.  I just want to know where these stories originate from.  Show me the book.  Show me the wall paintings and translation of the hieroglyphics that tell the story of the time that Horus fed 5000 people with bread.  Obviously, if this is common knowledge, as is constantly suggested, it is nothing more than easily accessible.

That’s when my new friend approached me.  He sent me an email through Yahoo! Answers with two websites enclosed.  Let me copy and paste his first email below, as it really sets the stage for what ensues:

 http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm

3000 BC is 3000 years before your christ.

Horus, the Egyptian Falcon-god, is “lord of the sky” and a symbol of divine kingship. His name (“Har” in Egyptian) probably means “the high,” “the far-off,” “the distant one” and is connected with “Hry” (“one who is above/over”). The name appears on Egyptian hieroglyphs in the royal protocol at the very beginning of dynastic civilization (c. 3000 BC).

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

seriously man, do a little reading and learning before making claims against people.

I replied back to him after looking at the second link.  I agreed that Horus predated Christ as a story, but I was still wanting to know where I could find the story where he fed 5000 people, was crucified, born of a virgin, or resurrected.  In fact, I just wanted any information that was parallel to that story of Christ.  So, after I emailed him, I looked at the first link.  This was interesting to me and showed me how great of a debate this would be.  It is a Christian website that debunks the Horus vs. Jesus parallels. 

Since then, I have been called names, stupid, childish, and expletives.  I’ve still not had a single thing sent to me that shows me where Horus is compared to Jesus.  All in all, he has replied with nine emails, most of them filled with hate because I’m a Christian refusing to see the “truth” of….I haven’t figured that one out.

So, when he made those claims, I explained to him the story of Horus:

• Horus was known as the “sky god”
• Horus was not the son of a virgin.  Instead, his mother Isis was married to Osiris.  Nowhere are claims made that he was born of a virgin.  Although, he was born in a miraculous way.  Horus’ father was killed by Seth.  Isis decided to put Osiris’ body back together after he was dismembered and have sex with it.  Voila, we have Horus.
• There are no records of Horus’ mother being called “Meri” as many of them claim.  Her name was Isis.  It was not Isis-Meri, Meri-Isis, or just Meri.  It was Isis. This comes from the book by Acharya S. which many Christ mythers read and use.  The problem is when this claim is made, there is no footnote to where this claim can be validated…
• Horus was born in a swamp.
• Horus was never recorded as feeding 5000 people.
• Horus was not crucified.  Instead, there are two stories.  One, he is killed and cut into fourteen different pieces and cast into the water.  Later, he was fished out by a crocodile.  The second story is the prevailing story in which he is never killed at all.

It pays to know what you’re talking about.  A little research into the real stories behind Horus, Hercules, Isis, Osiris, Mithra, Zeus, Odin, or any of the other gods that atheists seem to be obsessed with quickly reveals what the real story is.  

After I presented all of this information to my new friend, he simply ignored it.  His response was, “Prove Jesus was real.”  One thing I have learned is that when you’ve ticked someone off because you’ve proven them false, they’re not going to listen to you.  I simply told him, “The moment that you present factual evidence for your claims, I’ll do the same for mine.”  That was five emails ago.  Poor guy.  I actually got four different emails while I slept.  He insulted me and my intelligence in all of them, but again, he never provided any proof for his claims.

The conversation turned to Hercules after Horus, which quickly was finished there too.

Basically, Hercules is claimed to have been killed on a funeral pyre when he was lit on fire which brought some sort of freedom to all people so they didn’t have to face his problems or something of the sort.  The problem is there are no stories where Hercules dies.  Before he is burned alive on the Pyre, he is brought to Mt. Olympus by Hera because he had suffered enough.  Also, no stories record his death as bringing salvation or anything to other people.

Mithra was next, but I think I made him mad.  I sent an article from Tufts university about Hercules.  I pointed out that this is definitely a neutral source.  I even appealed to the fact that Daniel Dennett, a renown atheist works at Tufts.  To this, he told me that is not a valid source as it is a church funded university, so everything they write would have a Christian slant.  To each his own, I suppose.

Simply put, Christ mythers ignore evidence.  Their sources are the movie Zeitgeist or something of the sort.  They’ll read books by Acharya S and Gerald Massey which present evidence but have no sources for their evidence.  A simple look at the real stories and translations of these pagan gods quickly reveals the truth.

I hope this has been interesting and helpful to somebody.  If you’ve ever debated with anyone, then you understand the frustration that comes.  If you’ve ever had doubts, then this should reaffirm you.  

Christianity is a unique story put in place by a wonderful, magnificent, Creator.

Back in September, it was released that the great comedian (great sarcasm), Bill Maher, would be releasing a movie on religion.  Thus, Religulous.  I posted this post in regards to the upcoming release.  This past weekend, I was able to get the movie at the library and sit and watch it.  I made sure to write down specific things to keep track of…by the end, I had typed four pages of notes.  All in all, the movie is typical atheist mumbo jumbo that presents no factual information against Christianity, but only seeks to mock it.  So, without further delay, let’s talk.

Maher opens the movie with the statement, “Religion is detrimental to the process of humanity.”  I somewhat understand what he’s saying here, surprisingly.  Wars, etc in the name of gods and religion.  Interestingly enough, watch the movie, and Maher doesn’t necessarily discuss religion per se, but makes it a personal attack on Christianity.  The movie is a little over 90 minutes, but 58 of those minutes are spent upon Christianity.  Feeling threatened, Mr. Maher?

Maher makes a number of erroneous statements throughout the movie.  In one, he is interviewing a group of Christian truckers at a truck stop in Raleigh at a service.  (I mean, he had to go get interviews with scholarly people, right?)  He states that he has problems with the fact that Christians believe in stuff that is not mentioned in the Bible, such as…and I quote, “Original sin…and the virgin birth.”  Say what?  Not in the Bible?  Apparently Mr. Maher has never read Romans 5 in regards to Original Sin, nor the Gospels in reference to the virgin birth.

My favorite error though is this.  It’s the book of Revelation.  There is no “s” at the end of Revelation in regards to the book found in the Bible.  There never has been, and there shouldn’t be in your movie.  This was at the VERY BEGINNING of the movie.  I caught it, rewound it to make sure I heard correctly, and then watched it twice more to verify.  At the end of the movie, on the screen, he quotes Scripture and actually spells it “Revelations” and then gives the reference.  Now, I’m not being nitpicky, but, to me this irked me.  If you are trying to make a movie to dispel the “myth of religion,” it seems to me that making it someone correct in the minor details would help to establish its credibility.  If you overlook details such as that, I think you start losing early in the game.  

Maher interviews Bill Westcott, a former homosexual who has started Exchange Ministries.  I’d love to see the real interview, because like the rest of the movie, Maher has had the interviews all edited to make him look smarter.  Maher claims that there has been the discovery of a gay gene, to which Westcott denies it.  The scene then shifts to Maher sitting with Dean Hamer and he says, “Now, you’ve discovered the gay gene?” Hamer says, “Yes.” Then it goes back to the interview with Westcott.  In regards to this, I am going to make a movie and prove that my best friend Jacob found a gene for being able to set people on fire using his mind.  My proof?  He said yes.

My favorite part of the movie was the interview with Ken Ham – Answers in Genesis director, and the head of the Creation Museum (or as I like to call it, “Museum That Makes Every Atheist Whine Like a Baby Even Though They Don’t Have to Attend, Support, or Talk About It”).  The interview was horrible.  I could see the rough editing from the beginning.  Maher asks some stupid questions, and edits it to make Ham look unintelligent, which anyone who has read or seen Ham, knows is definitely not the case.  I began to do research following the movie, and found two pieces on the interview with Ham.  They’re found here and here and I do challenge you to glance over them to see what type of liar Maher is.

The first is from Ham’s personal blog.  I recommend you to read that.  It’s pretty dirty how Maher did everything to get into the Creation Museum.  Long story short, the company never asked for Ham to interview with Maher, or informed them that the movie would mock Christianity.  Instead, it called and talked about how their documentary needed the Creation Museum because it was great, blah blah blah.  Liars.  Dishonest.  Call for Christianity to face up with the truth of the past and all that, and you are so dirty about the way you film your movie.  Liars.

Maher also visits the Holy Land Experience in Florida.  He gets and interview with the man who plays Jesus.  Seriously?  No offense to this guy, but if Maher wanted to interview me, I’d not do it, because I realize I am not a scholar.  Maher wants to really debunk Christianity?  Go talk to Norm Geisler, Ravi Zacharias, and other apologists.  Not the average joe Christian.  Anyways, the issue comes up of Horus, Osiris, and the typical argument that Christ is a myth taken from other stories.  And again, Maher presents NO evidence, but just states and argues with people that his view is true.  I’ve shown this website before, but go here for a response to that same ole mumbo jumbo that has no truth behind it.  Jesus is not a copycat story.

There’s a lot more, but it’s not worth it.  It does cover other religions briefly, but the time is definitely given to bashing Christianity and presenting pure trash about it.  Maher is a dirty person.  He was dishonest.  I hope atheists and anti-Christians who watch this movie realize how unfactual it truly is.

Here is possibly the briefest note on how atheists’ perceive religion. Not all atheists perceive religion to be a bad thing. In fact, I believe that religion was progressive when it first evolved into existence. However, one look at the list and you know why atheists believe religion is an impediment to human progress. This list acknowledges both the positives and negatives of religion identified by non-believers. It has been picked up directly from a BBC Website.

The bad-

1. Religion gets people to believe something untrue.
2. Religion makes people base the way they run their lives on a falsehood.
3. Religion stops people thinking in a rational and objective way.
4. Religion forces people to rely on outside authority, rather than becoming self-reliant.
5. Religion imposes irrational rules of good and bad behaviour.
6. Religion divides people, and is a cause of conflict and war.
7. The hierarchical structure of most religions is anti-democratic, and thus offends basic human rights.
8. Religion doesn’t give equal treatment to women and gay people, and thus offends basic human rights.
9. Religion obstructs scientific research.
10. Religion wastes time and money.
The good-

Most atheists willingly concede there are some good things about religion, such as:
1. Religious art and music.
2. Religious charities and good works.
3. Much religious wisdom and scripture.
4. Human fellowship and togetherness.

——————————————————————————————————–

Religion has had the advantage of hiding behind the veil of “love”, “charity”, “moksha” and the likes, for which its downsides have been systematically ignored or put off as a product of “human evil” rather than a consequence of religion itself. However, love, charity etc are all human traits and don’t need religion as justification of existence.

——————————————————————————————————-

Also Read: How Prayer Works.

Do you know why people see ghosts?

What Men Want – Comic

In case you haven’t heard - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/ap_on_go_ot/obama_under_god

It’s such a horrible thing for someone else to exercise their free speech for their choice of religion isn’t it?  

Aggressive atheism at its worst.

Seriously, these guys are at it again.  It baffles me their fixation with religion.  It’s almost creepy and stalkerish.  

I have no problem with them representing their beliefs.  Go ahead.  But I do have some opinions on how they do so.  

Most recently, the FFRF has posted a sign in the capital building in the state of Washington that has to do with Christmas…er…excuse me, the upcoming Solstice.  

The sign reads, “At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens our hearts and enslaves minds.”

Riiiiiiiight.  Hardens our heart?  I’ve heard that phrase somewhere before…oh yeah, the Bible.  Wonder if they meant to do that one?

This is next to the Christian display, put there by another private organization in which there is a nativity scene.  Freedom of speech, sure.  All for it.  My only problem with this goes back to the arguments that so many atheist groups bring out that Christians are intolerant of others.

If you watch this video you can see the interview with the atheist guru behind the sign.  Again, I have no problem with him if he doesn’t believe in the existence of a god.  Interestingly enough, I begin to have problems when the spokespeople for such organizations begin to bash those who have beliefs opposite of theirs.  And just to note, I hate when Christians take the same approach with atheism.  There is a proper way to do it and their is the wrong way to do it.  When someone deliberately mocks and laughs at someone else’s belief, taking on an aura of arrogance, Christian or Atheist…you’re a moron in my book.  

Dan Barker, co-president of the FFRF, says in the interview that I linked to that “December is a natural holiday…”  Not sure what he was getting at with that statement since December is a month and not a holiday, but he goes on to claim that Christianity hijacked Christmas from the pagans, blah blah blah.  Hey, that’s great.  English settlers took this land from the Native Americans…what is America now?  A land of freedom for all people.  What is Christmas now…well, that could go a number of ways…

Anyways, just thought I’d point out another great example of atheist intolerance while calling for equality in the wrong way.  

Amazingly enough, every atheist I’ve ever met and talked to is so wrapped up in an obsession with religion, I don’t understand how they miss it.  Every day they devote their lives to atheism and bashing religion…

It still baffles me how atheists get so ticked off the Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus, and most of the time are in better, more loving, and more tolerant moods.  Oh well, when you hate something that bad, I guess you even hate good things, right?

So, Merry Christmas from this Christian guy.  Know that there is only one God.  

For more information about what the FFRF is up to, check out Pastor Pusch’s blog – Reason’s Greetings.

Found an interesting article here, so for the full bit, go ahead and read it all.

Basically, here it is:  there are atheist groups around the country who are starting to put up billboards to promote their faith in…er….atheism.  

My favorite one is this one: “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.”  That one is in Washington D.C. and Philly.  It is put up by the American Humanist Association.

Now, I am not criticizing this act of atheists across the nation, but I am pointing out the inconsistencies.  If I have heard it once, I’ve heard it a million times…”Christians try to push their faith on others.  It’s all about evangelism and that’s all they care about and we’re tired of hearing it…”  That’s why I think this might be the most hilarious movement by the atheist groups across America.  

It’s downright ridiculous just to be honest.  

At the same time, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Madison, Wis., has hit at least nine states in the past year with billboards that look like they’re made of stained glass but say “Beware of Dogma,” “Imagine No Religion,” or — coming soon — “Reason’s Greetings.” The group also advertises on the liberal radio network Air America. One spot features Ron Reagan, son of the former president, who signs off: “Ron Reagan, lifelong atheist. Not afraid of burning in hell.”

I am okay with people being an atheist.  I mean, obviously I disagree with their position on almost all account, but this little movement is just basically downright childish.  

Organizers of such efforts generally say they aren’t trying to evangelize. Instead, they say their goal is to make the public more comfortable with the concept of atheism and give fellow nonbelievers a sense of community.

Hey, you call it not evangelizing….I call it evangelizing.  I totally hate whenever these movements try to disguise their ideas and concepts with a different name that seems to not be like Christianity.

So, here’s to you evangelical atheists:  I don’t care if you tell people about your non-belief, and even try to persuade them to come over to your side…but if you do, just call it evangelism of the masses, because that’s what it is.  Calling it by a different name, doesn’t make the action any different.

And here’s to you atheists who are great people who live the solitary life and try not to annoy anyone else by being arrogant and whatnot:  Thanks.

To Christians:  Spreading God’s Word is the most important task that we have as Christians, yet notice how you might have winced at some of the things said and done in that article.  I am all for evangelism…but we must remember that there are right and wrong ways to evangelize…and I’ll throw this one out there….try a relationship and not a billboard.

I recently reviewed the book “unChristian” and this is a post that flows out of that book, as well as from this post by morsecode on his blog.

The book mentions that it is a sad fact that that Christianity is defined more of what it is against, rather than what it stands for.  I believe there is a fine line to be walked here, but I couldn’t agree with the book more on this.  When people look at Christianity, they see as as anti-homosexual.  As I’ve stated, I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle in the least, and its pretty broad across Christianity that we don’t stand for it either, but why does it stop there?  We’re against it, and offer no hope, love, or support as a universal church.  There are those ministries which are loving.  There are those churches that are loving.  But they are few and far between.  We’re embarrassed to deal with the issue, so we react that way.

What about sex?  We react the same way.  Those people who engage in promiscuous sex, they’re outcasts!  We don’t want to have anything to do with them.  We stand firmly against immoral sexual acts…and we should!  But why should we stop there?  Why should that be the absolute only thing that people see!  Why do we present it with such a hateful attitude?  Can’t we be against something with love.  Loving people without an agenda?  

We have no problem with divorced people.  When someone goes through a divorce – the church accepts that.  We are against it, but we accept them still…well, at least to their face.  The question is, how much do we care?  Do we show that we care?  

To quote morsecode’s blog about what atheists believe:

“We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.”

Are we really pessimistic toward the lost and dying world?  How often do we present hope?  Do we challenge the people of our congregations to learn, or just absorb what we say and never actually make it personal?  Yes, let us preach sin and its negative effects, but the Lord brings joy to those who are forgiven.  What reactions do we have to homosexuality, pregnancy outside of marriage, divorce that arise out of fear?  We don’t necessarily have to “tolerate” the sin, but approach it with love.  And compassion – what a world of difference it would be to be a compassionate Christian toward every person.  Love without an agenda.

Hey – I’m finished.  No, really.  After only three months of reading, I finally managed to muster up enough strength to finish one of the most boring books I have ever read.  I had heard so many things about the book, but I was actually unable to find any objections to the fact that God exists – basically the book just follows the idea that Richard Dawkins hates religion, religion is evil, if you believe in a God then you are not smart, and Richard Dawkins hates religion.  See, now you don’t have to read the book.  

I folded down numerous pages in the book so I could post some quotes here, but at the end, I honestly don’t want to put that type of commitment into reviewing that book, because it seriously is one of the most boring books in the world. Dawkins does open up the book claiming that he hopes people will read and become an atheist (hmmmm….evangelism, eh?), but I am honestly thinking that if someone reads that and says that they became an atheist, they were well on their way and Dawkins’ book had absolutely nothing to do with it.  It only confirmed their way of thinking.

The only objections that Dawkins even presents about God is the fact that the Old and New Testament present a horrible God who kills people.  To this, I simply reply: “Come up with your own material, Mr. Dawkins.”  This has been the objection of atheists forever, that God was “an unjust murderer, blah blah blah, I don’t like God.”

I will say that Dawkins also says that he basically believes that Scripture was a giant collusion project.  Hey, if you want to be a skeptic, you’ll create any scenario to make it so, right?  I don’t believe that Richard Dawkins exists now.  I mean, I’ve never seen him.  The pictures and videos I have seen him in are just some delusional guy named Mark Jenkins and he’s from Toledo.  He also can’t write.  It’s just a number of people who don’t know Richard Dawkins trying to exalt his story of the coolest atheist in the world and they’re all getting together.  See?  I don’t have any proof, but I don’t want to believe it, so I’ll just disregard everything and whatnot.  

Finally, I just want to point out the most interesting fact of the book.  Christians and Atheists alike agree upon one of the most interesting facts that Dawkins is one of the most arrogant people ever to write.  His book is very arrogant and degrading (to which he sort of objects to the fact that he feels religions do…).  The thing that has stuck out for me about his book is the fact that the title is much MUCH smaller than his name on the front of the book.  Sure, it is probably marketing, but still, I find it funny that his name is twice as big as the title.

This will be quite a random post, as I haven’t posted in a while, but wanting to give something to read, in addition to making it on the subject of apologetics, I am posting a paper I wrote my senior year of college for my World Literature class.  Want to know the type of sarcasm that atheism employs when dealing with Christianity?  Read some Mark Twain.

            When speaking of literary humor, one cannot help but mention the name of Mark Twain.  Whether discussing his works in children’s literature or his diverse views on life, one recognizes that Twain’s maxims have become classics.  Yet, many people are unaware of the negative religious views and undertones found within his writings.  Unbeknownst to many of his readers is a deep abhorrence for religion – especially Christianity.  The writings of Mark Twain reveal his deepest objections to religion, the Christian God, the Bible, and Christian people, due to a strong skepticism and belief in science and a conservative, Calvinist rearing.

 

            One of the most obvious aspects of Twain’s writing is his objection to religion. Twain once said, “I cannot see how a man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious – except he purposely shut the eyes of his mind and keep them shut by force.” Twain was reared in a conservative, Calvinist home.  After the death of his father John, his mother, Jane, then began to raise the family in Hannibal, Missouri, where she had recently joined the Presbyterian Church.  Twain said of his mother, “On coming to Hannibal, she

 joined the Presbyterian Church, and her religion was that clean-cut, strenuous kind which regards as necessary institutions of hell and Satan, though she had been known to express pity for the latter for being obliged to surround himself with such poor society.”    The influence from Twain’s mother was apparent later in his life as her strict adherence to church attendance and Bible study seemed to push Twain away from Christianity.  Twain claimed that he often had to attend Sunday evening services at church as punishment from his mother.  As a result, Twain often considered this to be the worst discipline he endured from his mother.

            The influence modernism had on Twain is visible in all of his writings.  One such modernist, Charles Darwin, had a great impact on Twain.  Twain was very familiar with the writings of Darwin as he owned thirteen of his books.  He also had a deep admiration for Darwin’s work and often referenced it within his own writings.  The majority of these references to Darwin are positive, and become even more favorable as his literary career progressed.  It was through Twain’s acceptance of the Darwinian theory of evolution that his skepticism toward Christianity began to grow, leading to his lack of understanding as to why anyone would accept the Bible as literal.

            Secondly, Twain had an obvious objection to the idea of the Christian God.  One such example of Twain’s objection is found within his work Letters from the Earth.  Within this writing Twain tells about the creation of man and about Satan being banished to earth as punishment.  While on earth, Satan secretly writes letters to the archangels Michael and Gabriel to inform them of how humans live and act on earth.  It is in this writing that readers are exposed to Twain’s diverse views regarding the thought of a Christian God, mostly presented in a negative tone.  The views expressed by “Satan” in his letters essentially present the thought that man is incorrect in all of his ideas about God and Christianity.  In the letter, Satan relates of how God tells humans, “Thou shalt not kill” and yet, “it is plain that he cannot keep his own commandments.”  These same sentiments about the thoughts of God are echoed in other writings of Twain.  He writes in his autobiographical dictations:

In the Old Testament, [God’s] acts expose His vindictive, unjust, ungenerous, pitiless and vengeful nature constantly.  He is always punishing – punishing trifling misdeeds with thousandfold severity; punishing innocent children for the misdeeds of their parents; punishing unoffending populations for the misdeeds of their rulers; even descending to wreak bloody vengeance upon harmless calves and lambs and sheep and bullocks, as punishment for inconsequential trespasses committed by their proprietors.  It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere.  It makes Nero an angel of light and leading, by contrast.

 

            In addition to Twain’s objection of God’s unjust punishment of men, he also rejected the concept of Christ being God.  The concept seemed too implausible for him to accept.  He wrote, “If Christ had really been God, He could have proved it, since nothing is impossible with God. . . . When God wants to prove that the sun and the moon may be depended upon to do their work every day and night, he has no difficulty about it. . . . It is only when He apparently wants to prove a future life to us that His invention fails, and He comes up against a problem which is beyond the reach of His alleged omnipotence.”  In Little Bessie, one of his short, fictional stories, Twain expresses his views of skepticism through the medium of a three-year old asking her mother religious questions.  Bessie asks her mother if Christ is God.  After her mother explains that Christ is indeed God, Bessie answers, “I understand it, now, mamma, and it is quite simple.  One twin has sexual intercourse with his mother, and begets himself and his brother; and next he has sexual intercourse with his grandmother and begets his mother.  I should think it would be difficult, mamma, though interesting.”  Again, Twain’s satirical voice shines through in a way that tries to completely shake the foundations of Christianity in a perverse way.

            Further examinations of Twain’s writings reveal his objections to the Bible.  Twain was an extraordinarily knowledgeable person in Biblical literature, as he had read the Bible in its entirety at an early age, thus making him a “sharp critic” of the “Bible’s uncleanliness.”  Twain felt that Christians were “credulous people who venerate the Bible but do not examine it carefully, preferring to rely on what preachers or biblical commentators want them to believe.”  The same passages which reflect Twain’s objections to Christianity found within Letters From The Earth also reveal his attitude towards the Bible: “[The Bible] is full of interest.  It has noble poetry; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.  The Bible is built mainly out of the fragments of older Bibles that had their day and crumbled to ruin.  So it noticeably lacks in originality, necessarily.”  Twain, though speaking through Satan, reveals his skepticism of the thought of God speaking to man through the Bible.  In his autobiographical dictations he wrote:

With a message to deliver to men which is of infinitely more importance than all those other messages put together, which [God] has delivered without difficulty, He can think of no better medium than the poorest of all contrivances – a book.  A book written in two languages – to convey a message to a thousand nations – which, in the course of the dragging centuries and eons, must change and change and become finally wholly unintelligible.  And even if they remained fixed, like a dead language, it would never be possible to translate the message with perfect clearness into any one of the thousand tongues, at any time.

 

            A brief look into Twain’s writings reveals his obsession with the Bible.  The majority of Twain’s writing’s concerning the Bible was based on the book of Genesis, and the most famous of his writings on this subject were: The Diary of Adam, The Diary of Eve, and The Diary of Satan.  Twain’s writings on such subjects were often done in a satirical way in which he exaggerates the Biblical accounts to make them sound unbelievable.  He laughed at the fact that someone would take the creation story as a literal account, and many people have attributed Twain as “indirectly helping release the Eden story from a literal interpretation.”  Twain was also unable to accept the thought that “Adam is forbidden the fruit of a certain tree – and he is gravely informed that if he disobeys he shall die. . . . Adam was merely a man in stature; in knowledge and experience he was in no way the superior of a baby of two years of age; he could have no idea of what the word death meant.”  It never resonated with Twain that such a punishment would come from a fair and just God.

Finally, Twain reveals his objections to the Christian people through many of his writings.  It appears his staunch Calvinist upbringing pushed him to be very critical of Christians in general.  Twain once “confessed that he resented adults who made him read, as a child, about the wickedness of David and Solomon in the Bible.”  He often commented on the actions of Christians.  One such instance is found in Mark Twain’s Notebook, compiled by Alfred Paine in which Twain writes, “The first thing a missionary teaches a savage is indecency.  He makes him put clothes on.  He is as innocent and clean-minded up to that time as were our first parents when they walked naked before the Lord and were not ashamed.”  Twain’s objections to Christian’s actions became more critical as his writings progressed. 

Another writing of Twain which reveals his objections to Christians is The War Prayer.  In this book, Twain attacks Christians who pray to God for victory by reminding “all those who prayed for young patriots in battle what victory meant to the lives, lands, and homes of an enemy, or victims of imperialism.”  In the writing, Twain uses sickening language to mock Christians prayers by stating, “O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded writhing in pain; . . . stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!  We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek aid with humble and contrite hearts.”

In addition to The War Prayer, Twain states in section five of The Damned Human Race in an essay entitled  “The Lowest Animal” how all religious people, especially Christians, have committed horrible atrocities, thus making them lesser than actual animals.  He wrote, “Man is the Religious Animal.  He is the only Religious Animal.  He is the only animal that has the True Religion – several of them.  He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself, and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight.”  Thus, one can easily see that Twain’s attitude towards a Christian’s actions were usually very critical.

A small glimpse at Mark Twain’s writings reveals his sundry views on Christianity.  Whether it is his objection to a sovereign, personal Creator, or his skepticism concerning the Bible, his writings show his opposition to the core components of Christianity.  Though raised in a conservative, Calvinist family, his life would never bear the fruits of a Christian.  With his strong beliefs in science, skepticism of the supernatural comes naturally, thus influencing his negative tones regarding the Christian faith.  Though often merely remembered by many for his writings as a literary humorist, Twain’s anti-Christian writings will forever be recognized as a major part of his contribution to American literature.

 

Please comment and critique! 

The role of faith in Christianity is quite important.  In fact, in life, the role of faith is quite important.  What irks me, is atheists attitudes toward faith.  Maher’s new movie pokes fun at people of faith, claiming faith is essentially for the ignorant and uneducated.  In The God Delusion (almost done, I am hoping to force myself to finish it by Wednesday – that is if I can’t find anything more interesting to do, like anything else in the world – the book is boring) anyways, Dawkins says when speaking of religious ideas, “Faith (belief without evidence) is virtue.”  The paragraph goes on and on with a sarcastic attitude that Dawkins normally has.  When I read this last night, I just smiled, because Dawkins so subtly slips in “belief without evidence.”  I find this very ironic in the light of all that is going on….

First, as a Christian, I find Christianity very well defended and represented by the myriad of evidence.  Looking at the ancient scrolls from which we have translated the Bible, we’re doing pretty good.  My favorite of which would be the scroll of Isaiah found at Qumran with the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Here we have our modern day Bible, translated to English, from the scrolls we have.  When they discover these scrolls, the text of Isaiah is found, and is dated 1000 years before the previously oldest scroll.  Interesting to say the least, as the text of Isaiah we have in our Bible matches what was found on the scroll.  

That is just one of numerous examples of evidence defending the Bible.  We can look at the historical evidence of Jesus.  This offers me great joy, as it humors me because non-believers look at it and say, “There is no proof that Jesus ever existed!  People wrote about him some 70 years after his death.  There are no eye-witness accounts.  There is this and that and that and this and I don’t want to believe…”  Skeptics will be skeptics as long as they choose to be.  Looking at the Gospels and the writings of Paul though, its easy to see how the historicity of Jesus can be defended.  And the list can go on and on and on. 

So, do we really have faith without evidence?  No.  I have faith with evidence.  I know there is a God, without a shadow of a doubt from the evidence that I can see through texts and history.  And to use my favorite argument, I can see the working of God in my life and the world.  Why is this my favorite?  Because Bill Maher would consider me crazy…the fact that I believe in God and believe that He works in my life makes me crazy according to Maher.  Yet, I don’t know how you would explain some of the people who I know who have had cancer, and been healed completely.  I don’t know how they would explain some of the evil presences that my Haitian friends have witnessed, as well as many of the Americans.  I’m sure psychoanalysis would lead to some load of bologna.  When they choose to be skeptics, they will remain skeptics.

But now, I close with this…what person in this world doesn’t have faith – whether it be in a deity, or whether it be in the concept of faith that they will go to sleep and wake up in the morning.  I mean, if you make plans for tomorrow, then tonight when you go to bed and think about those plans, you are simply using faith, are you not?  Call it what you may – speculation, assumption, faith…

Thoughts on this?  I’d love to get some more people thinking on this blog and talking.  I am very glad to have who we do have discussing though.  Very special thanks to morsecode for sticking around and discussing, and not just discussing, but doing so in a very polite manner.  In my limited dealings with atheists, he is by far one of the nicest and open-minded.  I believe that Bob has poked his head in here a time or two, to which I also say thanks.  I realize there are a lot of objections that you as well as others have to Christianity.  Oh to be able to answer them all in one post, but stick around and be patient, and I’ll discuss with you any time.  Lastly, if you ever want to discuss with me, and not on this board, feel free to email me.

I’ve probably hinted at this before, but I don’t think I’ve ever devoted a whole post to the issue.  If I have, read it again.  Basically, here is my issue.  After hearing Maher’s interviews with highly respected theologians about Christianity (That’s sarcasm in case you missed it, in Maher’s movie, he seeks out those people that the news talks to after tornadoes.) in which he claims its ridiculous to base our belief on a book with a “talking snake” and a world wide flood, as well as my present reading of The God Delusion I have seen one big error in the ways of atheistic arguing.  

Basically, what Maher is saying is – “Snakes can’t talk.  The Bible mentions a talking snake.  Therefore, God does not exist.”  Better yet, in his most recent interview with The View he mentions the flood and the loading of two animals of each kind onto the ark.  Aside from the fact that he claims there are millions of species and this and that, assuming that all of the animals on the ark were the ones we have today (ie, 2 chihuahuas, 2 labradors, 2 english bulldogs, etc.) in any case, he claims that this is impossible, therefore God cannot exist.

I have heard bits and pieces of everything else before, too.  In the argument of the world, Creationists claim, “How did something get created from nothing?”  To which atheists never reply and answer, but use their own question to trap the creationists with, “The same thing with God.  Who created God?”  Many times, I have found, that Christians answer correctly, but in the wrong way.  ”God has always existed! He is outside of time!”  Very true, yet I feel it hits the wrong aspect of the argument.  This suddenly throws the rules of “logical debate” out, and makes new rules because we are talking about God.  (Yes, I will be the first to admit that the Bible tells us that the world views God and the Cross as foolishness, yet I think it is likewise important to understand the mindset behind their views.)  My answer is always, “If someone created God, then that means that God is no longer God, which thus means that there is a higher being who would be acting as God.  This means the circle never ends and we will never find the highest being.  The God of the Bible is that highest being.  You cannot create a Supreme and Almighty ruler, because if you created it, then you are more Supreme and Almighty than your creation.”  Whew…

So then, I move to the meat of my post.  Why then, if there are talking snakes, talking donkeys, people walking on water, and a worldwide flood, is this impossible – making God not exist?  If we have established that God is the Highest, Supreme, Almighty, and Most Powerful Being who created the earth, then we know anything is possible.  Thus, if He is everything we listed, then making a snake talk is not impossible for him.  Flooding the entire world (and thus contributing to a great fossil record) is not impossible for Him.  My point: they claim these things are impossible, thus God cannot exist, yet doesn’t this work backward?  If we’re talking about the Most Powerful, Unlimited God, then yes, it is possible.  These arguments work from the mindset that God does not exist, therefore these things are not possible.  Even though they claim the other way around, their initial reaction is working from the thought that God does not exist.  They never admit that if God “did exist” that these things would be possible.

It’s just one of my every day frustrations.  I don’t use all of that to say, “Ha! I told you God existed!” It would take much more than that.  My point with this post was simply that one has to admit that the things we find in the Bible are very much possible with an Almighty, All Powerful, Unlimited, Creator God.  If you say they’re not possible, then my guess is that you are still working from the wrong mindset.

Thoughts?

With the youth group, we are diving into a study of the book of Romans.  At times, it seems so deep.  In fact, last week for Romans 1:1-17 I spent 8 very in-depth hours worth of studying, plus other time reading and typing.  For Romans 1:18-32, it was less in-depth time, nonetheless, it was still a very, very deep subject.  After yesterday’s post, and today’s studying, I began to understand these issues in a much greater way. 

Paul writes about God’s wrath being poured out on unrighteous people who “suppress the truth.”  To borrow an analogy which one of my youth used tonight, suppose I am driving along a road and a bridge has been washed out by a flood.  To suppress the truth as it is used in the instance which Paul is speaking of is to continue driving toward that bridge.  I know that it is stupid and wrong to continue, yet I hide that away and continue driving.  Suppressing the truth is a continual theme in these verses.

Paul then gets to verse 18 and 19 speaking of being able to clearly see God in nature.  It wasn’t until today that I was able to better swallow this pill.  Before, I couldn’t reconcile that God could always be found in nature with the fact that there are millions of atheists in America.  God can be seen in nature, but they cannot.  I was not justifying it for their sake, but I just didn’t understand how in verse 19 they are without excuse, yet they don’t believe.

Interestingly enough, through the studying today, I began to realize that suppression of the truth does not just happen in dealing with sin.  It happens with God.  Now, the typical atheist response is “Nuh-uh.  I was just enlightened to the fact that I no longer believe in fairy-tales.”  Whatever cranks the ole John Deere.  

The passage continues on speaking of God giving the people over to their lusts and sins.  In other words, the people had already decided to sin, and they had become slaves to sin instead of slaves to Christ, so God gives them over to the sin.  They have the right to choose, and they choose sin.  Then we see the different sins.  This is another deep issue as we see twenty-three different sins named in the passage.  Obviously, because someone denies the existence of God doesn’t mean they are on a road bent on homosexuality, murder, and gossip.  I’ll be the first to admit that there are many moral atheists.  Some of them probably are better people than many Christians…yet we do see the progression in this passage of someone who allows unrighteousness to reign in their lives.

Overall, I just found it interesting how this passage clearly points out that people are born with the knowledge of God.  Atheists call it child abuse and conditioning, yet as a Christian, I fully believe the Bible is right.  There are too many clear pictures painted in the Bible and in life that point toward a Creator.

The fact that the world is ordered and perfect points toward a Creator.  The fact that people have a moral code within them (which we’ll be studying next week in youth group) points toward a Creator.  There are numerous examples of why I believe in God.  

This is more of a random post than anything – just my observations from Scripture and life, nonetheless, it easily relates to my passion – apologetics.

 I have one week left on my check out of The God Delusion.  I am a little over 100 pages into it.  Thus far, Dawkins has bored me to death.  It’s nothing I haven’t heard before.  Oh well, check back soon for that review.  

Also, thanks to everyone who has been reading and posting.  Wednesday, October 1, 2008 sets a new record for total number of blog views!  Totally stoked about that.  Thanks for the comments and everything!

Bill Maher is scared or something.  At least that’s the way I look at it.  After Ben Stein released Expelled back in the Spring, Maher is now releasing Religulous this weekend.  He claims it is not so much a documentary as it is a comedy.  Maher has some great quotes about Christianity – namely the same thing that every atheist says.  Although, in an interview with CBS Early Morning, Maher claims he doesn’t like the word atheist because it identifies with religion.  He claims, “I just don’t know.”  So, atheist, agnostic, whatever, he’s still obnoxious.  I have great respect for some of the atheists that I have discussed with online – they are bright, intelligent people who are nice.  They have objections to Christianity, but they don’t take it out and try to make Christianity look ridiculous.  Maher on the other hand is up there in my books with Richard Dawkins representing the “I’m an angry atheist” mindset.  Not only that, but in the CBS interview, he also basically claims he opposes Palin because she’s a Christian.  Good to know politics is the number one reason Mr. Maher votes for candidates and not personal bias – sure, he has the right to take that into consideration, but he’s completely anti-Christian, thus she loses his vote.  He’s annoying.  Either way, I just wanted to inform people of what was hitting the market this weekend….surprise – someone else hates Christianity!  

When I was a young lad, about four years old or so, the movie Ghostbusters was the stuff.  I mean, who didn’t love them?  They were so popular that one time I tried to call them.  I remember it vividly as my brother and I were in my dad’s “study” – which was more of a junk room – but anyways, I remember Brandon told me, “The number to the Ghostbusters is 9-1-1.”  In my genius moment, I picked up the phone and called them, but some impostor answered and I was deeply saddened so I hung up.  They called back, talked to mom, and for some reason, I got in trouble for it.

Today’s society has some pretty funny people in it.  Some people are skeptical of everything.  There are people who don’t believe we landed on the moon.  There are people who find a conspiracy in every event that happens in the world.  Some people think that the whole JFK assassination was a conspiracy…oh wait, I might be in that crowd, but anyways, people are skeptical of everything. 

Then of course, there are those people who believe anything.  You probably remember that girl from high school or in your youth group who you could always get.  In my life, I’ve convinced people I was friends with Rascal Flatt’s bassist, an author of children’s books, and that 48% of all deaths in Hawaii are caused by archery accidents.  It’s funny to me how trusting some people are of information that are presented to them.  When we break it down though, today’s society seems to accept a lot of information.

Today’s youth have some messed up views about religion.  Do any type of research and you’ll see there’s an increase in atheism nationwide.  Why is this?  Well, when I first began to do my research into the issues, I encountered a lot of scary information.  What are some of the things you can find on the internet?

1.) The Jesus vs. Greek/Egyptian/Roman/Misc. god Myth
     I think the first time I heard this one, it was a parallel of Jesus and Hercules.  Since then, I have heard of Horus, Attis, and Dionysius, as well as pretty much any other god you want to name.  Here’s the premise using Horus:

      1) Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.

      2) His earthly father was named “Seb” (“Joseph”)

      3) He was of royal descent.

      4) He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.

The list could go on and on.  I have found numerous pages that list these different things.  When I read all of this information I gasped.  I said, “How could this be?”  When it is presented this way, it sounds convincing.  I mean, if you look at these biased atheist websites, they present it in such a way that it’s convincing.  It’s scary.  Obviously, do a little research…look here to read on the whole issue.  

2.) There are too many contradictions in the Bible

Interestingly enough, when you read some of these, you don’t know how to answer.  I mean look at this…

or

Well, this blog has already gotten longer than I intended.  But I posted these things with no answers…1.) so I can address them later, and 2.) To make you research and find the truth.  

Overall, my point was the fact that people are willing to believe anything.  At the first sign of something being seemingly “unproven,” this generation accepts it willingly.  It’s sad to me, because there are many youth of today’s Christian culture not grounded in their faith, thus when they hear these arguments, and more, they turn and run from Christianity calling it a fable.  

What do you believe?

This is a response to a silly article that I found by chance when logging in.The author states atheism is irrational for various (well known and debunked) reasons, but what annoyed me was that condescendent attitude of “I’ve been an atheist so I don’t blame you, let me help you see the truth”.

So let’s start this.

First: you (author of article) have never been an atheist. A true atheist, and a true man does not admit mistake until his mistake is not made clear either by proof, or by arguments that he cannot beat. Now, proof, you don’t have, and if I can beat your arguments, don’t come back to atheism we don’t need pussies.

1. THE IRRATIONALITY OF ATHEISM. – This goes to prove the fact that you can’t deny God because you are not God. WHAA?? Listen kid, anything that has no proof to exist, does not exist, simple. You can start giving me the “but can you see your thoughts?” crap, well i can’t see my thoughts, but I think my thoughts therefore I exist, therefor my thoughts exist. Easy as pie. Your argument, that I can’t deny God because i am not omniscient has been torn apart in a Romanian atheist forum but i do doubt you can understand Romanian, or that God can give you a 1 hour course on Romanian language. Anyway, atheism believes in proof, not saying stuff that you really-really-really want to be true, and then start believing they are true.

The atheistic position is not logically impossible it’s the only logical position, and you can quote me to your church on Sunday.

On the first real, tangible, repeatable, measurable proof that God exists I will believe. Until then i will be doubtful.

You are using the “God is a different issue” argument (i don’t exactly know what kind of a logical fallacy it is) but I can tell you this: God is not an exception to the rule. He, presumably (from what you believe) made all the rules, so how exactly can he remove himself from those rules? Just to make these things clear: the fact that you can’t believe a giant purple frog exists is exactly the reason why you can’t say God exists without proof. And heck, we might still be able to find some giant purple frog somewhere. But we do seem to misplace this God person all the time.

2. NO PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS FOR ETHICS. This goes to prove that without God and his mighty murder inspiring/slave creating/bigot supporting book human kind would not be the… civilized species it is today.

First: Your God is not the first God of humanity. He ain’t. Granted, misinformed people have believed in much bigger crap, like the Sun God and the Storm God and killing virgins to please them. But guess what? Those Gods had rules too.

So, since people have survived long enough to get to be speared and burned at the stake for the glory of the God you are loving they must have found some sort of rules to follow. True? True.

You mention that old Nazi territory you Christians are raving so much about, I am starting to believe you actually enjoyed it. Yes, the Nazi regime was wrong. No questions there. But do you see the reasons behind it? Hitler was not an atheist as you state, as his dogma clearly believed the Germans were the new “God’s chosen people” and that he had to clear the world of all others. If that’s not a spin on Christianity in the modern times, and in a sick mind, I dunno what is. I won’t go to disprove the rest of this part, it’s just too badly written.

There are three ways to give humanity moral value:

Respect human rights!

Obey the law!

Follow your own reasoning!

Now, these are actually connected to each other, not separate things. They are like Asimov’s robotics laws, intertwined. If the law does not respect human rights, it should be changed. If your reasoning does not respect the law or human rights, change it. If human rights are respected and they still cause problems, modify them.

THIS IS TRUE ETHIC! The moral standard is not a bigot/slave loving/child killing God, it’s the Human Rights Bill. Read that, instead of the Bible for a while. Atheist my… foot!

3. SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH. – This goes to prove that atheists don’t believe in God because they are stubborn bastards who just won’t see the truth. Yeah, right! God’s proof is the fact that the world exists and you have to start believing he exists so that he can exist.

The first is called circular reasoning. It’s like saying my car works because the wheels are spinning. A car is not just wheels, and God does not exist because you say so.

The second is called self – delusioning. Yes, i can convince myself that Nicole Kidman is my flat-mate* but that does not turn my 30-ish male flat-mate into Nicole. Get it? I could also convince myself a mysterious person I never met died for me and my sins, but I would still ask “what the hell possessed you to do that, duuude?” So, no, i won’t make myself believe in this sort of illogical, irrational, unthinkable, unreasonable, unproven, unjustified Faith. And you can quote me on that too.

AMNESTY FOR ATHEISTS. – OOOOOh but we can all be saved (and brainwashed). “Wouldn’t you like to be saved?”

You know what? NO. If the after-life is what I imagine it to be it’s a big pile of nothingness. What you imagine it to be is a big pile of… oh yes, hell and tormenting if I don’t join you. Or, if i’m really, really lucky, after I waste my entire life bowing down to nothing and paying huge amounts of my income to some church, and repent, and do all those worshiping stuff you like, I might, just might, have some luck and get into a place where I will be forever bored. I truly prefer nothingness. At least it has simple and clear instructions.

STILL NOT CONVINCED? – I truly hope nobody is convinced by such circular reasoning. Just the fact you filled a good amount of text does not make anything you say true.

Other things: First, I noticed we share the template. I guess we have some things in common, like appreciating good contrast.

Second I noticed you did not allow commenting. I wonder why. I do hope the webmaster reads my ping-back and gives you the link.

*Third, for clarification: a flat-mate is a guy I share the rent with, dunno if it’s a good word, but room-mate was not appropriate.

Fourth, stop calling yourself an atheist, you were never a true atheist or you would know your arguments are… “wishy washy”

Fifth, I might have used or spelled some words wrong. I’m sorry, God-Spell-Check, won’t talk to me. I denied him too.

In the end I truly must say i agree with Faith. Faith in yourself, faith that you can be a better person, faith that you can do more for others, faith that changing the world starts with you, faith that you are beautiful and strong and unique, faith that others are exactly the same and that you should appreciate each person, faith that your life has a purpose that you must find that purpose yourself, faith that your pet is the greatest animal on earth and your kids the smartest beasts ever to walk the earth.

All the above are good faiths. But anything that rejects reason, anything that denies what you can see, experience, or learn from proof is not good Faith.

Happy God Denying!