Pages

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Death bed conversion

What of the old Christian claim of death bed conversions?
QUESTION: Do you believe in “death bed” conversions? My uncle never wanted anything to do with God, but hours before he died our pastor supposedly led him to Christ. I hope he’s in heaven now, but I can’t help but wonder. — Mrs. J.W.
I know you're dying, so allow me to fill your final moments
with me pestering you about personal religious opinions.
So JW forced her uncle to talk to a priest against his wishes on his death bed? That sounds beyond pushy and disrespectful!
ANSWER: God’s promise is clear: Every person who sincerely repents of sin and puts their faith and trust in Christ for their salvation will be saved – even at the last minute.
How quaint. So Hitler in in Heaven then. How could anyone ever have a problem with understanding that to be perfect justice...?
The tragedy is that some people think they can hold off coming to Christ until the last minute – but then they never do.
No, the real tragedy is that Christians around the world see this as a perfect and just system. Under these rules, it doesn't matter if you are a good person. You can commit literally any crime and still go to Heaven. Mass murder, rape, torture, stealing the savings of the elderly. Under God's rule none of that matters if you believe. A man can rape a child and be rewarded with paradise. But if that child is a Hindu, he gets sent to Hell. How can any rational or moral being stand behind such an obviously flawed and unjust system?


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Musical outrage!

Those paragons of integrity and honesty at The Blaze are running a 'story' claiming that atheists are outraged about a new Carrie Underwood song. A piece of music so offensive that many a Christian news site is claiming that atheists are outraged, viciously attacking it, mad as Hell about it and want the song banned...

This is news to me. I had no idea that I hated a song that never heard of before. I also find it odd that I was never outraged by the 76.4% of country songs about faith that have preceded this song. Also, what about all of Underwood's other songs that where also about faith? We didn't care then, and we
don't care now.

Unsurprisingly, none of the sites can point to a single instance of an atheist or atheist group trying to ban the song or voicing their outrage. Free-thought Blogs did post a comment to one of the many erroneous stories saying as follows...
I so love being told what I'm outraged about. I can't imagine how I could possibly get outraged about a song I've never heard and almost certainly never will. That would require giving a shit in the first place what Carrie Underwood -- or anyone else, for that matter -- sings about.
And that about covers it. We don't care if Underwood sings about her faith. If we don't like her songs, we just don't listen to them. I don't like country music, hound dogs, or pick-up trucks but I'm not trying to get any of those many country songs banned either. I simply flip the station and listen to something else. What more, as an atheist, I have no problem liking a song that makes references to God or faith. A good song is just a good song.

We didn't care then, we don't care now.
In the name of science, I gave Underwood's new song, Something in the Water, a listen to see just how upset it made me. While is does have a decent beat, it is ultimately quite forgettable. Admittedly, I do not tend to like country music in general, but there is absolutely nothing about this song that would rile atheists to the dramatic fervor that all the conservative christian blogs imply with their headlines that turn out to be no more than complete falsehoods.

I hate to sound suspicious, but I have to wonder if this fake controversy was cooked up by Underwood's management team. This has become a strategy that religious marketing has adopted of late. Say atheists hate or want to ban your religious themed movie, book, song, etc and the religious base will respond by dramatically over-reacting and buy the product en masse. Congratulations Christian music fans, I think you've been had.


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Indiana Graham and the search for the missing god

So what about the youth of America? When it comes to religion, should there be reason for concern?
Dear Rev. Graham: I get very concerned about the future, because young people today just don’t seem to care about God. Why is this? I suppose our generation has failed them, but what can be done about it? -- Mrs. K.D.
What is the world coming to? It's senses!
Rev. Graham: I understand your concern; young people today are subjected to pressures and temptations that those of us who are older never knew.
What they are subject to is much more information and evidence that previous generations didn't have available to them.
Our society also has become increasingly secular in recent decades, and many young people today grow up never thinking about God or believing in him.
Our country was founded as a secular nation. The only reason it may seem that our nation is becoming secular is because the theocratic leaning wrongs of the past are slowly being righted.
In spite of this, I find young people today are searching for answers and as a result many are turning to Christ.
More importantly, this honest searching for answers also leads very many to non-belief from Christianity and other religions. There is a reason that non-belief is the fastest growing 'faith' group.
Through our television programs and the evangelistic meetings our organization sponsors across the world, tens of thousands of young people are coming to Christ every year. They’ve realized the emptiness of the world’s promises, and have discovered that only Christ can give them the peace and lasting joy they seek. They know Christ’s words are true. “I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete” (John 15:11).
Childhood indoctrination is nothing to be bragged about. The same claim Billy is making can be made by the tens of thousands of Muslims or Hindus. It is also blatantly false and dishonest to claim that life without Christ is empty and without peace.
Yes, Satan is at work today; his evil hand is seen all around us. But God is also at work! God alone is sovereign, and some day his kingdom will come, and his will “will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). In the meantime, pray for young people you know. Pray, too, that God will work in the hearts of young people all over the world. Pray especially for evangelists and pastors who seek to reach youth. Don’t give in to despair, but thank God for all he is doing among young people today and ask him to use you to touch those around you with the love of Christ.
What the Hell is he waiting for then? It sounds like more false promises to me...


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Monday, October 6, 2014

Ample evidence

Is there ample evidence that Jesus was divine? Billy Graham thinks so...
DEAR BILLY GRAHAM: I agree that Jesus was a great man, but where did the idea come from that he was also God? I suppose some of his followers came up with this, but I don’t think Jesus was any different from you or me. — R.M.
Sorry, but the claim can not be used as evidence for the claim.
Thomas Jefferson was of a similar opinion. He actually took a scalpel to his copy of the Bible. He removed all the supernatural passages and left Jesus as a mortal moral teacher in what has come to be known as the Jefferson Bible.
DEAR R.M.: This wasn’t something his followers dreamed up; Jesus himself taught that he was not only fully human, but also fully divine. He boldly stated, “I and the Father are one.… Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 10:30; 14:9).
Sure, there are passages that sound like Jesus is claiming to be God, but there are also passages that make it sound as if he isn't. Jesus claims to be sent by God, not himself. He claims to work to please God, not himself. And he claims that God is greater than him, thus separate.

And what does it matter if he claimed he was God? People claim to be the returning Jesus every day. Shall we just take everyone at their word?
But was He right? Or was he deluded, or simply lying so people would listen to him (as some have claimed)? In other words, what proof is there to back up his claim to be the unique son of God? Let me mention two lines of evidence. First, Jesus demonstrated his divine nature by his life. Even his worst enemies couldn’t point to any sin he committed, and by his miracles he demonstrated his command over nature — something only God could do.
Stating that Jesus performed miracles is of no use since there is no historical evidence that these claims are true. And why would is matter if he was without 'sin'? Surely it's possible for anyone to achieve with enough discipline (ignoring 'original sin')... Not that it really matters since the Bible actually tells of a Jesus that is not without sin. Something I've talked about here, here, here and in an upcoming blog...
But Jesus also proved his divinity by his resurrection from the dead. Think of it: Death could not hold him!
An event that is also lacking any historical evidence as to its veracity. And if Jesus returning from the dead proves his divinity, what about all the other religious figures that are said to have returned from the dead as well?
If his enemies wanted to discredit him after his disciples claimed he had come back from the grave, all they had to do was produce his body. But they couldn’t because God had raised him from the dead. Jesus “was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4).
Is Billy oblivious to the fact that there are other possibilities? What if the body was moved? What if there never was a body to find or question? After all, there also isn't any evidence for Jesus' existence.
Only a divine savior could become the final sacrifice for our sins, and only a divine savior could come into our lives and change us from within. Don’t let doubt grip your soul any longer, but discover Jesus as he really is — and then open your heart and life to his transforming power.
Only a divine being could die every single day and return from that death. Such is the price Prometheus pays for bringing us the gift of fire.


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/billy-graham/article2500486.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/billy-graham/article2500486.html#storylink=cpy


Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/billy-graham/article2500486.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/billy-graham/article2500486.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/billy-graham/article2500486.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/billy-graham/article2500486.html#storylink=cpy

Friday, October 3, 2014

What evolution is and isn't

Through the years it has become apparent that those that tend to question evolution don't actually know what it is or what it says. In light of this, here is a compilation of many of these mistakes...

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, so it is a failed theory.

The thing is that evolution is not about the dawn of life. Where and how life originated is a completely different field of study. Evolution is concerned only with how life changes and diversified after life started. To complain that evolution doesn't explain where life came from is akin to ordering a cake and complaining that the server didn't bring you a pie.

Evolution is too random to work.

But evolution isn't random at all. The individual mutations are random, yes. But the process of natural selection is not random. Natural selection will select against those that are harmful, and will select in favor of those that present an advantage. Those that are at a disadvantage will tend to live shorter, less successful lives, and will produce less offspring. Meanwhile, those with an advantage will usually reproduce more and increase the saturation of this trait in the gene pool. But this isn't all to say that all mutations must be beneficial to be passed on. Mutations that are neither positive or negative may be passed  along since only the negative is selected against. And these initially worthless mutations may be useful after-all when coupled with a future mutation.

If evolution says that we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

If the Bible says that mankind came from dust/dirt, why is there still dust/dirt? The quick answer is that evolution doesn't say that we came from monkeys. What it does say is that us and modern apes share a common ancestor. Unlike the popular evolution chart we have all seen, evolution looks more like a many branched tree. If we follow the human branch back, and the Chimpanzee branch back, we will find that the human branch and modern ape branch will intersect. While that creature would look distinctly more ape-like, it wouldn't by any stretch be a modern ape.

Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?

See above...

Evolution is 'just' a theory.

In everyday usage most use the word 'theory' to mean no more than a wild guess or hunch. But that's not the scientific meaning of 'theory'. In science a theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Scientific theories have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. So when we are talking about the theory of evolution we are using this sense of the word. Just as in gravitational theory or the germ theory of disease. A theory is the closest thing science has to a law or fact.

Evolution supports 'might makes right' and is responsible for the Holocaust and other immoral behavior.

Evolution is only concerned with the survival of species, not the eradication of others for whatever reason. Social Darwinism (as it's often called) is completely separate from biological evolution. It is no more than a hijacking of the theory to push personal goals and views. Blaming the Holocaust on evolution is like blaming the fork because you stabbed yourself in the eye. Misuse of something doesn't make it false or evil.

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

The argument here is that evolution is usually an increase in order. And the second law states that total entropy (disorder) can only increase over time. There are two problems with this though, and one is glaring. The second law is talking about total entropy. That means that amongst a sea of
disorder, it doesn't rule out a small pocket of order. But the biggest problem is that the second law only applies to closed systems. For the Earth to be an open system it would need to be receiving energy from an outside source. And the Earth does receive an amazing amount of energy from an outside source... the Sun!

Evolution works too slow. A half of something is no good to anyone.

True, evolution does usually work slowly, but this claim is still incorrect. Let's look at the eye for example. An evolution denier may say that half an eye is of no use. But this isn't true. Throughout nature we see eyes from the most basic and primitive, to eyes that are very complex, and everything in between. The remarkable thing is that all these different eyes can be rearranged to show the evolution of the eye from simple to complex. If we pick an eye from the middle of that list, it may not see as well as our eyes, but it is still better than no eyes. The problem is that some look at our eyes as the finished product when they really aren't. There are other eyes in the animal kingdom that can see in the dark, see color spectrums we can't, see many many more colors than us, and see clearly at much greater distances than we can. Given that those eyes do something better than ours can, does that make our eyes worthless now? Of course not!

Evolution is to improbable. It requires a male and female of each new species to evolve at the same time.

Actually, it doesn't require anything of the sort. Despite what some think, the lines between species that are diverging is rather blurred. When species are beginning to separate, they are still similar enough to interbreed. This allows a greater pool for reproduction. As time goes on and one population becomes too different to mate with the other, there will already be breeding pairs in the new species who will be able to generation after generation drive evolution on.

Interestingly, this fact gives us the answer to the question of "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" The answer is the egg. That is because what laid the first chicken egg was almost a chicken, but not quite.

If evolution is true, why aren't we still evolving?

Actually... we are. Some are now being born without wisdom teeth at all. The ability for humans to drink milk into adulthood is actually a fairly recent mutation. In fact, those that can't drink milk are still in the global majority. And one trend that may surprise many is that our brains are actually now shrinking rather than getting larger. So make no mistake, we are still evolving as a species. I just fear
that our over reliance on various forms of technology may cause us to become too lazy and detached, causing evolution to take us in a direction that I fear may not ultimately be in our best interest.


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter


Thursday, October 2, 2014

What makes the Bible any different?

What makes the Bible so special anyway? 
Q: I don't see why you think the Bible is any different from other ancient books. I'm sure it has a lot to teach us, but so do other books. I grew up in a religious family and was taught to believe the Bible came from God, but I don't hold to that anymore.
Considering that the Bible isn't backed up by evidence and is often wrong, I'd say that not believing that the Bible came form God is a pretty good idea.
A: You've hinted at one reason those of us who are Christians believe the Bible is different from every other book that's ever been written: We believe God gave it to us, and therefore it is God's Word. As the Apostle Paul wrote, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16, NKJV).
So what if Christians believe the Bible because their religion says it's God's book? Muslims believe the Qur'an because it says it is God's book. Billy will have to do much better than that.
I realize this isn't what you believe, but let me give you three reasons why the Bible is unique, and why I hope you'll take it seriously. First, the Bible is unique because it, and it alone, leads us to Jesus Christ. Why is this important? Because Jesus was more than just another great religious teacher or philosopher; He was God in human flesh. He demonstrated it by His life - and He proved it by His resurrection from the dead.
Sorry, but this is far from satisfactory. The Bible leading to Christ is only important if you are already a Christian. Personally, I think it's more important that the Bible is supposed to be leading to a person who history has recorded no record of his existence or acts. Furthermore, a Muslim could say that the Qur'an is unique because it alone leads to Muhammad. And since Billy is so big on Jesus, I bet he'd like to know that Jesus is also in the Qur'an.
Second, the Bible is unique because it tells us how God wants us to live. Why are we here, and how are we supposed to live? The Bible tells us - and your life will never be the same once you understand this.
This isn't unique either. Every religious book tells how their particular god/goddess wants us to live. Try again!
Finally, the Bible is unique because it gives us hope for the future.
Two problems here. The first is that there are many many books that can and do give us hope for the future. This statement  from Billy tells me that he is either very pessimistic or doesn't read very much.

Secondly, I don't agree that the Bible necessarily provides hope. I don't find a book that says that all are automatically deserving of Hellfire and to look forward to the (always just around the corner) end of the world as very hopeful.

So three for three, Billy fails to show why the Bible is different than any other old book. No surprise there.


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Because he made it

A discussion about morality took a strange turn the other day. Yet another Christian was claiming that atheists have no grounds on which to deem something good or bad. That the best we can do is subjective morality where anything goes. That's not really how subjective morals need be, but that's not important for this discussion. He then stated the old Christian claim that objective morals only come through God.

This is usually a good time to point out that God's morals are not objective either, since they change whenever it is convenient for what he wants. But I first led with asking if God is the source of morality, was it okay for him to kill so many in the Bible. To this he responded that it was, so I asked why it was okay. The answer given conjured up images of a grade-school kid belting out a childish answer... "Because he made them!"

Um... Sorry to disagree but that sounds like a terrible answer, and certainly not a moral example to aspire to. If God can kill people because he 'made' them, doesn't that mean that parents should be allowed to kill their children at any point in their life. After all, they made him/her.

Would it be right for someone who works at a car factory to steal and crash your car? Sure, they made it!

Would it be fine for the person who built your computer to smash it on any given day? Sure, they made it!

Would it be moral for your meal to arrive when you are eating out, only for the chef to rush out yank the plate out from in front of you and eat your meal while you watch? Sure, they made it!

Already, you should be seeing that the defense that  God killing people is okay because he made them is an absurd and immoral argument. What it does do is show the lengths some will go to to defend their psychotic violent god...


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter