How do we stop “radical” Islam?

That question appeared in my blog stats recently, and I thought it might be interesting to offer a few suggestions.

As I’ve noted before, “radical” Islam is normative Islam.  One either follows the demands and teachings of Muhammad, the Koran, and the Hadith or one doesn’t.

Those demands and teachings are chocked full of violence, misogyny, and mayhem against anyone who would dare refuse to accept the “invitation” to convert to or obey the tenets of Islam.

There is no such thing as moderate or peaceful Islam, unless one is simply in abject rejection against the religion itself.

So, just how does a person, a city, a state, or country halt the growing cancer that is “radical” or normative Islam?

As with all cancers it first starts with acknowledgment that one has cancer.  Denying its existence or presence in the human body is not going to help it get better.

Also, supposing that cancer can co-exist with the human body by somehow appeasing its existence will surely and only lead to certain death.

America, you and the world have Islamic cancer.

Second, there must be a diagnosis as to what stage the cancer has spread.  That way the proper treatment may be administered leading to a cure.

Usually cancer diagnoses comes in four stages, with the last stage being terminal.  Using that as a baseline, and taking into consideration what David Gaubatz  wrote back in 2009 (Muslim Mafia) when he discussed the Five Stages of the Muslim Brotherhood takeover in America, I would speculate that America has Stage Three cancer.

Back then Gaubatz opined that the MB takeover had achieved a Phase III level, meaning that there was “Infiltration and Islamization of America’s political, social, economic, and education system, forming a shadow state within the state.  Escalation of religious conversions to Islam.  Manipulation of mass media, and sanitization of language offensive to Islam.”

In other words, Islam has spread beyond the mosque and family settings and is now affecting national policy which, in turn, is causing the host to suffer increasing community pain, suffering, and death.

Today, only four years later, the MB appears to have successfully progressed to Phase IV, which is “Openly hostile public confrontation over U.S. policies including rioting, and militant demands for special rights and accommodations for Muslims.”

Phase V is the “Final conflict and overthrow (jihad).”

The recent Boston bombings and the subsequent bureaucratic nonsense over food stamps, public assistance, and heavily subsidized education for the bombers, is a classic example of just how far Islam has come in turning the American system upside down.

So, America has cancer and it’s stage three.  Now what?  First, the good news: it’s not terminal—yet.  Now, the bad news: it is going to be extremely painful to garner a cure and there is going to be all kinds of opposition, resistance, and strident accusations thrown around.

Countries like Britain, France, and Spain, et al, are all stage four Islamic cancer patients.  Even America’s neighbor to the north, Canada, is teetering on the verge of passing from stage three to stage four.

Too many countries, though, have failed to do the proper self-examination concerning this cancer, and, sorry to say, it’s just a matter of time until they are history.  The United States and Canada can learn from their neglect.  The question is, will they?

A stage three remedy is going to require a complete revamping of the foundational worldview of all Americans, a heavy dose of common sense based on the fear of God as found in Scripture, and an excising of the cancer itself by cutting out the tumor.

The current foundational worldview of most Americans is predicated on relativism.  Relativism breeds complacency and there is nothing that evil, such as “radical” Islam, loves more to help it breed than those who presuppose there is no such thing as absolute truth as demonstrated in right and wrong decision-making.  That must change if America is to survive.

The only worldview that is objectively sustainable, as well as a supernatural antidote to the equally relative, but tyrannical form of “radical” Islam, is the Christian worldview.

Interestingly, most Americans claim to be Christians, even though they don’t think or live like one.  Again, that must change, if America is to survive.

Common sense based in the fear of God found in Scripture is the next logical step up from having a Christian worldview.  It simply means to wisely think God’s thoughts after him and then act accordingly.

If it is true that, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov. 1:7), and Americans want to know how to survive the cancerous onslaught that is “radical” Islam, then they better start finding out what God has to say about it, or they, too, will go the way of Europe.

Finally, the cancer must be excised.  It must be cut out, in other words, or physically removed from the body.

A few years ago I proposed that Homeland Security begin profiling Muslims shortly after the underwear bomber tried to blow up a plane over Detroit.  All kinds of cries accusing me of insensitivity of various kinds were the responses.

“You’re a bigot.”  “You’re intolerant.”  “You ought to be ashamed to call yourself a Christian.”  “If that’s the kind of God you worship, I don’t want any part of it.”  And so on and so forth.

Since that time America has experienced one terrorist act after another, the most recent being the Boston bombings.  According to FBI reports, several planned attacks have been thwarted.

If America is going to excise the cancer, police and government officials are going to have to quit coddling the enemy, move into these hate-spewing mosques and militant camps that exist all across her land, and start arresting and deporting every Muslim sympathizer of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and any other organization (like CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MPAC, OIC, MILF, MSA and the MAS, to name just a few) hostile to the nation of Israel and western values rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Also, every foreign student of Islamic persuasion will have one year to complete whatever studies they have embarked upon in American universities and colleges.  Then they, too, will be deported for forced to leave.  Other foreign Muslim students will be denied the privilege to study in America.

All government officials, like Keith Ellison of Minnesota, will be recalled and replaced by someone intent on upholding the Constitution of the United States, not subverting it with the subtle introduction of Shariah Law.

All Muslims serving in the military will be discharged, and those Muslims currently being held in custody, whether it be Nidal Hasan or those in Gitmo, will be expeditiously tried and executed.

Frankly, I think most Americans are fed up with how they have been catered to, given their crimes, and it’s time to do something about them.

Since our prison system is overflowing with those who have converted to “radical” Islam, they, depending on their crime, will also either be executed or deported to their Muslim country of choice.  Moreover, they will be given the stern warning, if deported: Don’t come back or else.

Speaking of not coming back, America must secure its borders!  No one should be coming across the border, especially to kill its citizens, uninvited or illegally.

The longer it remains negligent in protecting its borders, the sooner it will be that one of these Islamic “radicals” is going to sneak a nuke across and set it off in a major city.  Then it will really be over except for the crying.  But, it will be too late.

Now, bring on the hate mail, which I’m sure I’ll receive.  How do I know?  Because it’s happened before.  But, if America really wants to deal with the “radical” Islamic cancer, these are just a few suggestions how.

It’s going to be painful.  All kinds of contemptuous name-calling will occur which will be followed by death-threats and possibly even death itself.  “Radical” Islam, though, will simply be rearing the same ugly head that it has raised before, going all the way back to Muhammad himself in the seventh century A.D.

Failure to admit that one has cancer, to diagnose its spread, and then offer the relevant treatment, regardless of how much it might hurt at first, will only lead to death: death of the nation, the state, the city, and the person.

America, you’ve been diagnosed with cancer.  You know what stage it is.  You now have a plan leading to a cure.  What are you going to do about it?

My guess is probably nothing.  Please prove me wrong.

Teachers Teaching to Cheat: Why not?

This may not come as a big surprise, but some teachers apparently are better at teaching students how to cheat than they are at teaching students how to think and then learn.

Recently the CBS affiliate out of Dallas-Fort Worth did an investigative report on the amount of cheating done by teachers in the DFW Metroplex.  Its findings were, as already mentioned, not really surprising.  It’s taking place all across the country and around the world.

Three hundred incidences of cheating in the Fort Worth ISD since 2009, Dallas 213, Plano 159, and Richardson 139 were the named culprits.

When asked why all the cheating is taking place, one Dallas spokesman, Jon Dahlander, cited “pressure.”  Another, Rena Honea, Director of Alliance AFT, cited “stress.”

Honea even went so far as to imply that non-education policymakers were at fault for imposing certain education decisions upon the teachers which supposedly compelled the teachers to cheat.

Although it was specifically stated that cheating was not “OK,” at no time during the investigative report did anyone explain why it wasn’t okay.  But, that is common parlance these days when it comes to moral problems and issues as reported by the media.  Problems and issues are frequently brought up, but no one really wants to get into the nitty-gritty of why something is wrong, much less provide a meaningful solution.  In the end cynicism festers that much more, which in turn leaves those in need of stable moral guidance (i.e. the students) fending for themselves.

So, what is cheating and why is not okay?  Cheating is the physical act of lying.  Whereas lying is spoken, cheating is actually putting the lies into motion.

In the case of all these teachers, they are encouraging the students to lie by actively putting down correct answers on tests that they otherwise did not know.

The reason why cheating is not okay is simply because in a universe created by God, cheating is also a fantasy which only serves to destroy the person who participates in it.  That is most likely going to be a far cry from what these “educators” are going to say is the reason for not cheating, but it is the truth, nonetheless.

Most secular educators are not going recognize God, as revealed through His Word, as the absolute reference point and guide to moral rectitude.

Instead, what they inevitably end up doing is cheat themselves, as well as the students, by making moral determinations divorced from God, and then foist them upon the students, as if the educators are the absolute reference points of right and wrong.

Then, when the students—many of whom can see right through the phony cheating facade that the education policymakers and teachers have propped up to take God’s place—rebel, the educators become afraid and upset.

To try and cover the glaring inconsistencies, a growing number of the teachers simply act out to the logical conclusion of all the cheating that has preceded them in the upper echelons of the educational structure by cheating in the classroom.

Sometimes it is reflected in test-taking, as in this investigative report.  Other times it is in direct contact, sexually, with the students.

So, this whole investigative report done by CBS is really no big shocker.  Does that mean that it should be condoned?  No.

But, unless those doing the reporting and making the educational policies can come up with something better than “It’s not OK to cheat,” then the natural follow-up question needs to be “Why not?”

And if someone gives a response other than God, in his created order, has mandated cheating is morally wrong because it leads to death, which is contrary to his character and is reflected in the image he created man, then no one can say it is any more wrong to cheat than it is right.

Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow—after the students have taken their tests and the cheating teachers have fled to another school district to teach how to cheat all over again—we die.

Just Who Hates Whom and What?

Frequently when the Christian encounters the non-believer or someone involved in a cult the accusation is tossed out by the non-believer or cult member that the Christian hates that particular person.  “You hate me,” or “You hate _________,” or “You’re just a hater.”

The accusation has absolutely nothing to do with what the Christian has said.  In fact, it has nothing to do with reality either.  It is simply a tactic the unbeliever uses to avoid the argument altogether; perhaps shut down the discussion, if possible.  It is a thought-stopping strategy.  (See: Cultogetics: How Those in the Cults “Defend” Their “Faith”).

To employ such a strategy is also a logical fallacy.  In academic terms it is known as ad ignominiam or the appeal to shame.  The whole idea is for one person to try and shame the other person into silence by accusing him of something that he would otherwise feel guilt, if it were true.

No one wants to be thought of as hating another human being, especially if one is considered to be a Christian or “religious.”

Hatred is supposed to be the opposite quality of a God-fearing person, even though God himself hates certain things, like sin (Ps. 5:5), violence (Ps. 11:5), wickedness (Ps. 45:7), “haughty eyes, a lying tongue and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that rapidly run to evil, a false witness who utters lies and one who spreads strife among brothers” (Prov. 6:16-18).

The Christian should hate those same things, if he/she, indeed, is a true follower of Jesus Christ.

But, who exactly is hating whom, and what is it that is really the object of hatred?  Is it the Christian who is hating the unbeliever or cult member or is it the other way around?  And just who or what is the unbeliever repulsed by: is it the Christian himself?

Jesus said, “The world cannot hate you; but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil” (Jn. 7:7).  Later on, though, he would say, “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before you” (Jn. 15:18).  Then he would conclude with, “He who hates Me hates My Father also” (Jn. 15:23).

The reality is, the person who is doing the hating, when the hateful accusation is thrown out, is not the Christian.  It’s the unbeliever or the cult member.  They hate Jesus and God the Father whom they see and hear in the Christian.

Now, some might put up a facade and even claim to be Christians themselves.  Almost all cult members claim to have some special connection to Christ and his “new and improved” or “restored” church, that they just happen to be a part of.

They are “Christians,” even though they deny or distort just about everything Jesus said and the Bible records.  They hate Jesus and God the Father, however, and their words and works prove it.  “By their fruits you will know them.”

So, for a Christian to be telling anyone the truth from God’s perspective, as revealed in His book, the Bible, is hardly an act of hatred.  Sharing what God has to say so that the sinner may be redeemed from an eternity spent in hell and the Lake of Fire is a conscientious decision made out of heart of love.

Moreover, countering the fallacious ideas that are the byproducts of unbelief and cultism is not hateful either.  It is a loving effort to shed light on a soul-damning belief or idea, so that the sinner may see the error of his way, repent, and live a life that is pleasing unto God.

The Bible makes it perfectly clear that humans are naturally at war with God as his enemies (Rom. 5:10).  Because of that enmity which exists sinful man cannot or will not accept anything God has to say (1 Cor. 2:14).  Instead, what the unbeliever does is go out of his way to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18).  One way he does this is by using thought-stopping measures, like accusing those telling the truth of engaging in hatred.

Therefore, if you are a Christian, and the next time you become involved in a conversation where you are accused of hating the person(s) you’re conversing with, simply ask them what it is that you said which they thought was hateful.

Steer the conversation back to the real subject, since the ad ignominiam fallacy is an intended diversion.  The accuser not only wants to quit thinking about their erroneous ideas and sin, but he wants you to quit exposing it.

Be firm, be courageous, and don’t knuckle-under to whatever other appeals to pity and shame the unbeliever wishes to employ to guilt you into silence.

Conversely, if you are an unbeliever or a cult member, and you wish to engage in hate rhetoric as your means of defense, will you please stop a moment and think about what it is that you’re doing?

You’re engaging in a fallacy.  You’re trying to flee intelligent discourse intended to turn you from living a lie.  Ultimately, you’re trying to suppress the truth.

Then stop and ask yourself this question: Is that really how you wish to live your life; as one who suppresses the truth? as one who hates Jesus?  as one who hates God?  Really?

“Radical” Islam: Atheism on Steroids

With all the hype being bandied about by all the talking heads lately over the Boston bombers and their religious affiliation, Islam, and how it affected their decisions to commit murder, I couldn’t help but stop to consider just what “radical” Islam truly is.  After all, that’s what the media, as well as many Islamists, keep calling the Tsarnaev’s brand of Islam.

So, after giving it some thought I’ve come to the conclusion that “radical” Islam is really nothing more than atheism on steroids.  Let me explain.

First of all, “radical” Islam is what Muhammad and the Koran prescribe it to be.  Yes, we continue to hear all the either misinformed or outright deceptive claims of certain adherents to Islam who keep telling us that “Islam is a religion of peace,” but as Jesus said, “You will know them by their fruits.”  Islam has historically been anything but peaceful.

That led me to questions of just why (1) all these adherents either don’t know better, or, more likely, why they keep lying (taqqiya) about Islam, and (2) anyone would believe that the “god” of Islam is true, much less exists at all.  The only logical conclusion that I could draw was that real entity behind the “radical” Islamic deception is either man, demonic, or both.

Lying is prescribed in Islam when it becomes necessary to protect fellow Muslims or to protect the religion itself.  Muhammad said over and over that “War is deceit.”  So, it is not uncommon that “radical” Muslims will lie at the drop of a turban or hijab to thwart exposure to continue on with whatever nefarious or malicious attack they believe pleases “Allah.”

The lie, though, does not cover the fact that Allah is nothing more than an idol, born in Mesopotamia as the moon god Suen, who would later be adopted in Saudi Arabia and undergo a name change to Sin.  Ever wonder why the crescent moon is the symbol of Islam?  Now you know.

The moon god, though, is not the triune God of the Bible.  Some wishful thinkers who keep repeating the ill-conceived mantra that the three major religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—all worship the same God want everyone to think otherwise.

But the reality is Islam’s “god” is a pagan idol, and an idol amounts to nothing (1 Cor. 8:4), since it is nothing.  It is unreal, because it doesn’t exist except as a perverse, fanciful wish.

Whatever worship, therefore, the Muslim engages in amounts to self-worship.  The idol, as a figment of the Muslim’s imagination, becomes the reference point which the Muslim projects his own personal character.  It becomes a reflection of the individual and what he thinks Allah ought to be.

It’s not as though  the “radical” Islamist does not get suggestions about what the idol should be like.  He gets all kinds of help from the Koran, the Hadith, and the Imam at the local mosque.  It’s that when the “radical” Islamist puts into practice what he says he believes, the final arbiter of his actions is himself.  He is no different than the atheist.

When the “radical” Islamist straps on a bomb-belt, however, or drops off a pressure cooker full of nails and ball-bearings, that have been rigged with explosives to kill and maim innocent people on a busy city street watching a marathon, that’s when his atheism is figuratively infused with steroids.  He carries out his “radical” worldview with gusto to its logical end, which is nihilistic death.

That is not to say that all atheists nor all Muslims are planning on committing murder.  Most simply want to go about their lives minus any of the mayhem.  Yet, they are also the most inconsistent in putting into practice what their atheism and Islam prescribe, which is mayhem for everyone, when, once again, carried out to their logical conclusions.

So, there you have it.  “Radical” Islam is atheism on steroids.  A cheap facade is frequently placed before the public which the Muslim wants everyone to accept, which is that he believes in God.

But, when the facade is stripped away it is discovered that Allah is an idol created in the image of man.  Man becomes the center of honor and worship, which is exactly what one has in atheism.  Taken to it ultimate conclusion man worship implodes upon itself and takes everyone with it in its wake.

What happened in Boston last week is simply one in a long list of prime examples where “radical” Islam was carried out to its atheistic conclusion.  Will the media and the talking heads ever understand this?  Probably not.  Why?  Because too many of them share the same atheistic worldview as the Islamists and the Atheists.

So, history continues to repeat itself, as more people are fooled into believing something about Islam that is not true, until eventually another senseless murder event takes place and we’re all standing around being desensitized by all the clamor and wondering what to do.

God is dead: Where do we go from here?

“Put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil” (Eph. 6:11).

Recently I was invited by an apostate of Christianity, now turned full-bloomed atheist, to reconsider my Christian faith.  He has seen the light, he claims, and believes there is a “better way,” namely his way.

So, after giving it some thought, I’ve decided to momentarily concede the argument and accept his proposal.  God is hereby dead—yet not as Friedrich Nietzche once proclaimed, for even he knew that if God was truly dead, because “we have killed him,” then man must arrogate himself to the status of a god to take His place.

Rather, God simply does not exist.  Now where do we go from here?  Who determines our morals, what is right, and what is lawful?  Why should I give a rip about the hurting?  In fact, why should I not make those who do hurt, hurt all that much more?

Before we begin to venture a response to the questions, let me just say the atheist worldview or strategy is nothing new.  Way back at beginning of human history is an example of others who were tempted to declare God as deceased or non-existent and what happened when they decided to forge lives independent of God.

We read from Genesis 3:1-7 the following account:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.’” 4 And the serpent said to the woman, “You surely shall not die! 5 “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

Please note the “craftiness” involved.  First, the serpent, who is really Satan (Rev. 12:9; 20:9), questions God’s word as being authoritative in matters of right and wrong.  Has God said?  This refrain if constantly repeated by the minions of atheism.

Second, after Eve gives her feeble rebuttal, the serpent refutes God’s word.  That’s a lie!  “You surely will not die!”  A hallmark of atheist thought to call God a liar, which implies an omniscience on the part of the atheist that he denies when asked about it.

Third, the serpent twists God’s word, but he does so ever so subtly.  Blatant perversion of God’s word is not the serpent’s usual style and typically will not catch even the most biblically illiterate off-guard.  So, he dresses it up and make the recipient—in this case, Eve—believe that what God really meant was that by disobeying God she would be obeying him by becoming like Him.

As the story goes, the rest is history.  Eve was duped into believing that by thinking independently or autonomously she would be better off without God than with Him.  The lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and the pride of life was hers, which she passed on to her observant husband (Adam), and before long they were both standing naked before God passing the buck.

What that atheist proposed to me, therefore, actually has its roots in fallen human history.  Is there some reason to believe that there would be a different outcome?  Am I now the smarter, wiser, more free person, since I’ve at least temporally agreed that God does not exist?  Is life now better?  Lets take a look at some of the consequences of my unbelief.

Morally, I can now do whatever I want to do.  I’m now making up my own rules to live by and no one has the right to tell me otherwise.

Now, some might say, “Not so!  You must live so as not to hurt anyone.”  Who says?  Who gives whomever the right to tell me what to do?  Why cannot they simply mind their own business and quit trying to force their morality on us free thinkers?

Besides, one man’s hurt is another man’s pleasure.  Misogyny and masochism for everyone, if that’s their preference.  All is relative.  Who’s to say who can and who cannot do whatever they please?

Socially, since morals are relative, all police officers and those involved in law enforcement, including judges and lawyers, will be dismissed.  If each man is an island unto himself, then each man must defend himself as well.  Legislating morality is inhuman and violates human free will.  So, we don’t need a bunch of humans trying impose their will on everyone else.  That’s what the police and judges do, so they need to go.

Politically, who needs human government when morals and ethics are now self-determined?  Besides, given the amount of corruption and immorality in present-day government, whereby political officials repeatedly lord it over the people, then everyone would be just as well off without all the superficial lords telling them what to do, while the lords do just the opposite.

Educationally, as Pink Floyd used to sing, we don’t need it.  We’ll just all presuppose that humans are accidents of nature, like evolutionary theory already argues, and live accidental lives.  In fact, we’ll all start using accidental math to do our accounting and accidental language to do our communicating. That way no one will ever be in debt and we can mince words to make a lie into the truth.

Also, all doctors and medical researchers will be dismissed, since to curb disease and find cures to extend an accident is pure nonsense.  Just let everyone die whatever death fate has dealt them, and leave it at that.

Psychologically, since psychology involves the “study of the soul,” and the soul does not exist, then all mental health professionals will have to find something else to do.  Our mental institutions will be closed and torn down.  Of course, since most mental health professionals have long since abandoned the study of the soul, as well as belief in God, then this next step in human independence should be a very easy one to take.  Won’t it be great to know that our streets will now be filled with the mentally ill, even though such a designation will no longer have any merit?

Professionally, as in doing business, it is all about the bottom line.  Who cares whether or not the cost of something actually reflects the true value of the thing being sold?  What matters is lining the pockets of those doing the selling with gold and silver, since this life is all there is.  Go for the gusto!   And if that means screwing over the poor and the needy to do it, go for it!  Again, all is relative, nothing is right or wrong, get all you can while you can.

Spiritually, since God has been dismissed, we can’t talk about him.  So, we’ll talk about ourselves.  We’ll share our wonderful metaphysical experiences, even if that means contradicting our stated dependence on our physical sensitivities to make sense of the universe.  After all, spirituality is about making oneself feel good.  And if it feels good, do it.

 

I’ll stop here for now, because this whole renunciation thing just isn’t working so well.  By kicking God out and presuming the atheist position, life in keys areas just isn’t all that glamorous.

In fact, falling for the same trickery that Satan posed in the Garden of Eden with Eve appears to end with the same results.  I’m left standing bare naked before God trying to explain why things are the way they are, yet I’m at a loss to explain why life would be so much better without Him, than with Him.

Where does one go when God is divorced from the picture and the atheist worldview is adopted?  One goes from somewhere to nowhere. One goes from absolute meaning to necessary futility.  One goes from worshiping God to worshiping man.

Therefore, thanks to my atheist visitor for the invitation to reconsider my Christian faith.  Given the alternative, I’ll remain steadfast in the reality that God does exist and has given his creation all kinds of ample reasons to acknowledge Him.  All else is vanity and striving after wind (Eccl. 1:14).

Atheist Effort at Interfaith Recognition in Boston Denied

This morning I read where the atheists in Boston were denied any kind of recognition at an interfaith service held there in support of the recent bombing victims.  See No Room for Non-Theists at Interfaith Service by Becky Garrison (Religion Dispatches).

The article itself is a testament to the amount of hypocrisy that exists in the atheist community.  On the one hand the atheists repeatedly insult, deride, make fun of, dehumanize, anyone who believes in God.  But, when it comes to something like an interfaith service, precipitated by a tragedy, then all the sudden the atheist wants to associate with those they believe are essentially stupid.

According to the article Greg Epstein, an atheist chaplain at Harvard, observed “We weren’t asking to speak and would have been more than content with simply an invitation to sit in an official capacity or have the non-theistic community mentioned, as we have been recognized in other instances by Obama.”

Why of course Epstein and the gang were not asking to be speak—at least not yet.  That will come later.  All he and they want right now is to get their foot in the door.  It will be later on that the nonsensical speeches begin to flow.

Don’t worry, Greg, your day is coming.  Given the spinless demeanor of so many so-called “ministers,” it won’t be long until the interfaith community will wrap their arms around you and start calling you “brother.”  Then you’ll have a forum to spread what the apostle Paul called “gangrene” among the crowd.

Another atheist in the article, Zachary W. Bos reported,

We made it exceedingly easy for the Governor’s staff to find us and include us, but they chose not to do so. The exclusion of non-theists today no doubt deepened the hurt the people in the non-theist community are feeling. What principle was served by our exclusion, I don’t begin to understand.

As I’ve made it exceedingly easy to understand, time-and-again, but the atheist continues to choose to look the other way, there is no objective reason why any atheist should care, be hurt, or be angry about anything, bombings included.

So, why all of the sudden should the atheist be upset because believers in God would exclude them from something that the atheist abhors anyway?

The fact is, the atheist wants desperately to be recognized for his foolishness and virulence, even if that means having to whine about it, by trying to send everyone else on an irrational guilt trip.

Nevertheless, to make it perfectly clear to Mr. Bos, to exclude an atheist from an interfaith service (as lame and contradictory as most of them are) is analogous to keeping water and oil separated.  Belief and unbelief do not mix.  They are antithetical to each other in the same sense that God is the polar opposite of Satan and vice versa.

Perhaps the most stupid comment in the article, though, does not come streaming from the lips of an atheist.  Although judging by the nature of the comment, it easily could have.

Nathan Lean, Editor-in-Chief at Aslan Media opined,

Goodness is not associated with God or religion exclusively. Atheists, like people of faith, come in all stripes and the large majority espouse the values of love, kindness, compassion, and pluralism. At a time when our nation grieves those lives lost in the Boston attacks, their voices can be an important part of our collective healing process. Regardless of our particular beliefs, the common bond of humanity that binds us all together as one people should be emphasized.

First of all, this is a statement based in relativism parading about in absolute clothing.  Not only does it undermine the whole idea of faith in God, it assumes the very thing the atheist wishes to persuade everyone which is that goodness, morals, and values are inherently human.  That humans are the source of virtuosity and that simply because one is human, then regardless of how illogical, unreasonable, or ungodly the worldview, all voices need to be heard.

Contrary to Lean’s self-refuting opinion, absolute goodness can only be associated with God and no does good who fails to recognize God as the author of goodness (Ps. 14:1-3; Rom. 3:10-12).  In order to be a consistent atheist requires a complete and total denial of God’s existence, and in God’s estimation, that makes the atheist corrupt, foolish, and abominable.

So, just exactly what kind of “good,” “love,” or “kindness” can an atheist bring to the table, when he denies the author of those virtues who created and gives them absolute meaning?

Yet, as is typical, the Nathan Lean’s completely ignore what God has to say on the subject(s) and then makes an emotional humanistic appeal to cover up his ignorance.

As already noted, there is no need to worry about atheist exclusion, because it is his kind of ignorance that will soon burst open the interfaith doors.  Then all kinds of extra-ignorant sentiments can come pouring forth, all of which will exalt human feelings to the point of idolatry to the exclusion of worshiping and honoring God.  It is just a matter of time.

The article closes with a notice that the atheists will soon be holding a vigil for the victims.  One can only imagine the depth of spiritual nonsense that will come forth from that venture.

Atheists, who claim that unless something can be touched, tasted, smelled, seen, or heard then it cannot be true, appealing to the metaphysical realm for comfort and healing.  Is it any wonder that God would call the atheist a fool?

Atheist Contradictory Appeal to the Metaphysical

Atheists often argue that they are all about the evidence.  Science is the name of the game.  If it cannot be smelled, tasted, touched, seen, or heard—otherwise known as empiricism—then it isn’t worth considering. 

Man is the sole interpreter of the universe and he does it through his five senses.  There is nothing else or at least that is the projection the atheist wants everyone to believe.  But is the projected image necessarily true?

Most recently I’ve written a couple of blog articles questioning the reason why the atheists have set up and are taking donations to help the Boston bombing victims.  I asked upon what objective basis any atheist would do such a thing.  Thus far the reasons offered have evaded the question, plus there were the usual personal insults thrown in by the real intellects.

What was interesting about the non-insulting reasons is that not only were they non-empirical, they were appeals to something that the atheist says he doesn’t believe in anyway, namely an appeal to something beyond himself: the metaphysical.

Empathy, for example, cannot be tasted, touched, smelled, heard, or seen.  It is a metaphysical concept or something that is beyond the realm of the physical to be tested, like say, in a laboratory or through a telescope.

Yet, in several of the respondent’s replies empathy was cited as a reason they were willing to send their monies to Boston.  Not only is empathy a purely subjective reason to do anything, especially when it is divorced from the Creator of empathy, appealing to something that is beyond the atheist’s “scientific” explanation is completely contradictory to his stated worldview.

If the atheist was consistent, which he cannot be about anything, in answering the question of why help the bombing victims? he should respond with something like: “Because it tasted good to me to do so” or “It smelled good to me” or “It sounded good to me” or “It felt good to me” or “It looked good to me.”

But, then again, if he proffered such a response he would be once again be appealing to the metaphysical, since goodness is something that cannot be tasted, smelled, heard, felt, or seen.  He would be right back in the same boat of which he started having to explain, from an objective basis, what goodness is.

Trying to live the life of an atheist, much less attempting to defend it, is one endless, futile, contradiction.  In order to make sense of it all he must steal from the very Being he says doesn’t exist.  Otherwise, he is left making donations and attacking those who do believe in God, but can’t explain why.  Is it any wonder that God would reveal that those who engage in atheism are also engaging in foolishness?