Monthly Archives: June 2013

Mormon Racism Revisited or Simply Revised

Thirty-five years ago one Mormon “prophet” decided to capriciously make a liar out of an earlier Mormon “prophet.”

In June 1978, Spencer W. Kimball, then President of the Mormon Church, decided to lift the ban on all black persons, thereby allowing them to be participants in the pseudo-priesthood of Mormonism.

The move by Kimball effectively made a false prophet out of the second President of Mormonism, Brigham Young, who declared that the negro would not be eligible for the Mormon priesthood until all the white guys, or descendents from Abel, received their priesthood blessings first.

Today, several are reminiscing on Kimball’s declaration, but by-and-large are completely ignoring that several of the doctrines which led to the banishment of blacks in the first place are still in effect in Mormonism.

For instance, the whole goofy idea that everyone lived in a pre-mortal spiritual state, having been conceived through some kind of sexual union between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, is still actively promoted among Mormons.

Then, there is the fictitious war that supposedly broke out in heaven, when Satan got all upset over HF accepting Jesus’ plan (Satan’s “spirit-brother”), rather than his to redeem mankind, who had not even fallen yet.

The war in heaven is really about another pagan idea that is bandied about in many Evangelical circles, and that is “Free Will.”  Mormons believe that Satan wanted to vanquish man’s free will to choose and simply save everyone.

Jesus, on the other hand, wished to protect human free will, and let men go to hell (or heaven), if they so chose.  HF was at the mercy of the sinner, waiting for him to make up his mind, rather than the sinner being at the mercy of HF.

All of the foregoing translated into a very bad plot for the negro.  Because, the negro was not always black.  His black skin is part of a curse placed on him when he did not fight valiantly for God during the war in heaven.

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote,

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages.  The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there.  Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:61).

Shortly thereafter he would conclude, “The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits” (ibid., 1:66).


But, it doesn’t stop there.  Since all the unfaithful, less-than-valiant,” spirits were now cursed with black skins when they came to earth, they exacerbated their plight by coming through the lineage of Cain.

Cain was white, who turned black, when he killed his white brother, Abel.  In fact, he apparently changed his race due to his indiscretion as well.

The “mark” (Gen. 4:15) that God placed on him for his murder has been interpreted by Mormons, and many Evangelicals, to be a black skin, even though there is nothing in the biblical text to warrant such a conclusion.

Of course, the Mormon hierarchy has tried to put a racial band-aid on the specious conclusion by saying that the negro is only being punished for the actual sins he did commit, which were committed where?  Why, in heaven, in the pre-mortal state, eons ago!

But, in 1978, all things changed, with the exception of one thing.  At that time the black man could receive all that Brigham Young said he could, but he retained the “mark:” his black skin.

According to the Book of Mormon, when the black man, or Gentile and a black man, received the Mormon gospel and repented, “their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people” (2 Nephi 30:6, 1830 edition).

In other words, those of Cain’s descendents would revert back to being “white and delightsome,” rather than cursed and “disadvantaged.”

Yet, there remains an untold number of black men and women in Mormonism, the former of which are now priesthood holders.  So, what happened?

What happened is that the whole racist story about the negro’s curse leading up to the ban was found to be bogus, just like everything else in Mormonism, and those same negroes are either spiritually duped (just like anyone else who might buy in Mormonism), ignorant of Mormon history and doctrine, or they simply have no idea what the Bible teaches.

There was no pre-mortal existence where a male deity copulated with a female deity to create “spirit babies.”

There was no war in heaven, since the biblical passage which speaks of a war in heaven is yet to come (Rev. 12:7).  Moreover, Satan has not been cast out of heaven.  That is yet to come as well (Rev. 12:10).

There was no council held in heaven to debate the merits of who had the better plan of salvation.  That is something that is of God, solely, and is non-negotiable or debatable.

The whole free-will doctrine nonsense that Mormons espouse is fraught with one biblical and logical inconsistency after another.  Not only does it put God at the mercy of fallen man, it actually exalts fallen man to the place of God, which is what the serpent tempted Eve with in the Garden of Eden.

As already noted, a man’s skin color has nothing to do with the fantasy story told by the Mormons.  It especially had nothing to do with the serpent seed doctrine that Mormons like to hang their hats upon, much less Cain’s murder of his brother Abel.

Men and women have a particular skin color because of God’s providential creation of them, and skin color has nothing to do with moral innocence or culpability.

That said, the whole “The black man has to wait until whitey gets his first” is not only extremely offensive, regardless of whether or not a person is a Christian.  It is purely diabolical.

Sin is what separates men from men, and men from God.  It’s not their skin color.  Moreover, it is God’s grace that unites men with men, and men to God.  It’s not their self-righteous actions leading to a change of skin color to “white and delightsome.”

So, thirty-five years have now past since one false Mormon prophet exposed another false Mormon prophet over the race issue.  Several will talk all around what led the Mormons to their conclusions, with very few addressing what remains in Mormonism and just how racist it remains.

Because if those doing the talking actually did get into the nitty-gritty of thinking hard about history and beliefs, then they would soon find that they either had to conclude that the Mormon Church is not doing anyone a favor by hiding behind a facade of prophetic revelation and human sensitivity or that the pundits, writers, and those doing the opining were complicit in promoting false beliefs and racism themselves.

For those who do address Mormonism as the continuing racist entity that it is, and do so by intelligently pointing out the history and beliefs inherent in Mormonism which led to their conclusion, all that can be said is “thank you.”  You are few and far between.

Not only do you do the human race a service by exposing the falsehoods as they are, you are to be commended for revisiting the darkness of Mormon racism and the continuing blight it is up society, and not attempting to revise it by bringing it up and failing to expose it for just how ugly it is and why.


Filed under Mormonism, Racism

Are the Political Alternatives Really Alternatives?

Every day, it seems, one can turn on the radio or the television and hear some talking head railing on his opponent or an opponent’s political ideology.  Ultimately the target at the end of the day is none other than the illustrious President of the United States, Barak Obama (aka Barry Soetero).

Then if the media pundits are not enough, then the politicians themselves get in on the fray, acting like rock stars when a microphone is stuck in their face, they rip and tear at those across the isle, some of which almost seems genuine.

But, when all the air in room has been used up at the end of the day, one is left wondering just what was accomplished, and, just what alternatives were offered that were really any different between the disputing parties.

Liberals tend to want to take everyone’s goods and spread them around to everyone else, regardless of whether they deserve them or not, thereby making people dependent upon the Liberals for handouts to survive.  Conservatives tend to want to enslave people in their own way by hoarding the profits at the expense of hiring more slaves.

Then in between there are all the remaining ideologies which are varying shades of the Liberalism and alleged Conservatism, each of which have their axes to grind as well.

Does anyone really know what’s going on?  Does anyone really care?  Or is all of this bantering, bickering, blustering just for show?  It is obvious that all the talk-show pinheads love it, because it gives them something to stir up their listeners, and make money.

It is obvious that many of the politicians love it, because it keeps them in office.  Plus, the feeling of power must be intoxicating to many of them.

But, once again, what really gets accomplished?  Are the alternatives being offered to solve problems really alternatives at all?  My conclusion is that they are not, which is why we keep seeing this continued downward spiral in morals and ethics among the politicians and the media.

From a Christian perspective, there is God’s way, and then there’s everything else.  Although many Conservatives and Christians wish to confuse the two, Conservatism and Christianity, the reality is they are mutually exclusive.  Most so-called Conservatives are no more Christian in their outlook on the world than are the Liberals.

Oh, they may be Catholic, Southern Baptist, or Assemblies of God, but that doesn’t make them any more Christian than if they were Metropolitan Community Church, Mormon, or Unitarian Universalist.

The label “Christian” is typically tacked on to the Conservative moniker to try and bolster the latter’s image.  But, a label that is devoid of substance is a fraud, and there are a lot of bogus “Christian Conservatives.”

The Bible says, “Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, Whom He has redeemed from the hand of the adversary” (Ps. 107:2).

If these talking heads, politicians, and media types really want to offer alternatives to what the other side is supposedly preaching—and they wish to be known as Christians—then let them say so.

Let us hear an exegetically sound alternative streaming forth from their mouths, instead of all the him-hawing around and speaking with forked tongues.

Otherwise, why should anyone not assume that amid all the special guests, extremist anomalies, and glaring problems, that those on both sides of the political/ideological spectrum are actually on the same side, dividing the American household until it is totally obliterated?

There are Christians and then there is everyone else.  Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, and then begin providing real alternatives to the ideas, that, left to fester among the political and media pundits, will only serve to destroy us.

1 Comment

Filed under Barak Obama, Politics, Radio & Television, Social Issues, The Media

Watching Mormonism Impode Upon Itself

Be prepared in the coming months for a visit from the Mormons (i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).  Why?

Because of the desperate measures taken in the past few months by the Church hierarchy to curb the declining number of “missionaries,” there are going to be a greater number of them wandering neighborhoods, like yours, pestering people.

About eight months ago Mormon officials noted the decline in its volunteer “missionary” ranks from the mid-2000s and reduced the age requirements for anyone wishing to slave labor for the church on their own dime.

Whereas males had to be at least 19 years-old previously to apply to become a “missionary,” now the age limit is 18.  For the females, the age was dropped from 21 to 19.

That change has increased the ranks of Mormon “missionaries” by about 38 % reports the Deseret News, a Mormon news outlet.

But, what is this really saying about the health of Mormonism itself?  That it is on the increase or that it is imploding upon itself?

Initial assumptions are that more “missionaries” means more converts and better retention.  On the other hand, I will argue that it is the latter, mainly because Mormonism has always been a house divided against itself, and Jesus said that such edifices cannot stand (Matt. 12:25).  Let me explain.

Mormonism’s theological base is rooted, at best, in liberalism with a thin veneer of pseudo-conservative moral and ethical values to palliate the general public.

Liberalism has historically rejected biblical inerrancy and authority, which in turn leads to a wishy-washy human ethic where personal feelings become the sole arbiters of the truth.

Mormonism is all about feelings when it comes to anything.  If it feels good, then it must be good, of the Holy Ghost, and true .  If it feels bad, then it must be bad, evil, or false.

Joseph Smith completely rejected the idea that the Bible was God’s inerrant word to man, that He providentially preserved in writing, and would use as not only the guideline for human conduct, but eventually future judgment.

Smith even went so far as to almost completely revamp the biblical text to preserve what he thought God should have said, not what He did say.  It is called the Joseph Smith Translation.

When Smith rejected biblical authority and created the Book of Mormon to fill in the holes created by such a rejection, a virtual Pandora’s Box was opened which revealed one perversion after another.

God is an exalted man and men could become gods.  Men were damned if they didn’t practice polygamy, even though that was later glossed over because the U.S. Government intervened.  The dead could become gods by proxy baptism and a visit from the Mormon “missionaries” in Spirit Prison Hell.  And so on and so forth.

It was a Liberal’s dream come true!  In fact, few Liberals have been as creative as Joseph Smith and Mormonism when it comes to creating a caricature of Christianity.

Yet, caricatures are inherently flawed, some more so than others, and always crumble into nothing when the real McCoy comes along to expose them.

Mormonism over the recent years has tried to repair the cracks in the dam that is about to break with one public relations campaign after another, starting with the “Manifesto” signed by Wilford Woodruff repealing polygamy among Mormons, which was, and remains, nothing but a farce.

Add to that blacks in the priesthood, Mormon “missionaries” toting and giving out Bibles, (rather than a Book of Mormon), revisions in the Book of Mormon to hide discrepancies, a complete revamping of the Mormon Endowment Ceremony, the gay marriage debacle and Proposition 8, the homosexual controversy and Boy Scouts, and now the policy change in age requirements among “missionaries, among a longer list of other PR moves, and I think you get the drift.

Also, to try and prop up the Mormon image, many Mormons headed off to prestigious schools to get degrees in theology and philosophy, to compete in the scholastic world of ideas.

Mormon graduates from Oxford, Duke, Harvard, and Yale, and others recognized among the elite, pepper the landscape, as they skew biblical theology and morality with their liberal educations dressed upon in conservative parlance.

Mormonism is a house of cards imploding upon itself.  Although it tries to outwardly show everyone just how “conservative” it is, inwardly it is liberal and a mess.

This latest effort to clean up that mess, by placing wet-behind-the-ears boys and girls on more people’s front doors to tell them things that are patently uninformed, misinformed, or just downright ignorant, is simply more evidence of that implosion.

Does this mean that eventually Mormonism will completely collapse and no longer be recognizable one day?  Not necessarily.  Anyone who has ever seen an imploded building still know what it was before it came crashing to the ground.  The same will be with Mormonism.

Mormonism may completely implode, but given the hard-heartedness of its leaders, they will still try to make people believe that the rubble is of the finest architecture.

That because they vote Republican, then surely they must be Christian.  And sadly, many will continue to buy into that Mormon rationale.

In the meantime, be waiting for a visit from your friendly neighborhood Mormon “missionary” clearing house.

If you’re prepared, it could be a grand opportunity to take these children sacrificed to Molech and influence them for good.

Perhaps, at least some of them can be rescued from the impending implosion, even though those in the Mormon hierarchy don’t seem to realize that the roof is about to come crashing down on them.


Filed under Mormonism

Bigots calling others bigots

It is common parlance these days for many to label others unjustly for something that whomever does not like personally.  If so and so isn’t a “hater,” then they’re a “racist.”  And if so and so isn’t a “racist,” then they’re “intolerant,” “narrow-minded,” or God-forbid, a “Bible thumper.”

One thought-stopping label that has been pinned on me, particularly by Mormon and Muslim polemicists who cannot argue their position, is the word “bigot.”  In fact, one militant Mormon bravely decided not to include his name on a blog he specifically created to demonize everyone he just did not like.  What was the title of his blog?  The Online Bigot’s Watch.  Now, there’s nothing bigoted about doing something like that, is there?

The Online Bigot’s Watch is a personal ax-grinding blog that was created back in 2007.  A militant Mormon, who went by the screen name “oceancoast” in an online Mormon forum, capriciously decided one day he had enough of all the exposure that critics of Mormonism were leveling against it, and so he decided he was going to settle the issue once and for all.  He was going to become the self-appointed, “Exposer of all Bigotry” (his words, not mine; check out labels at the end of each individual post he made).

So, he set up his blog, and started labeling as many people as he thought, or had come into contact with, were “bigots,” by his own standard.

According to “oceancoast,”

“Bigotry can mean different things to different people. The definition for bigotry that we’ll use on this site is ‘a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.” Bigotry can come in the form of racism, religious intolerance, sexual orientation intolerance, or even political intolerance. It is way too prevelant in our society today, and I hope that this blog will start a discussion on the topic and raise the level of discourse on the web.”

Please note that prejudice involves rendering a judgment before the facts are known, or something that “oceancoast” never proved he possessed when he set out on what really amounted to a libel mission to smear as many people as he could with his skewed definition.

In fact, it was because certain individuals on the list were prepared with the facts about Mormonism that they ended up on his list.

And just who some of those informed about Mormonism that ended up on this Mormon bigot’s list?

James Walker, President of Watchman Fellowship, who just happens to be a former Mormon, and has done an excellent job over the years of exposing Mormonism to be the fraud that it is.

Dr. Robert Jeffress, Senior Pastor at the First Baptist Church in Dallas, who said publicly that Mormonism is not Christian and then correctly labeled it a “cult.”

Myself, Paul Derengowski, founder of the Christian Apologetics Project, formerly known as Apologetics Online.  Not only have I spent over three decades studying and writing about Mormonism and the cults, my website is heavily documented with primary sources to validate every argument against Mormon claims that it is a Christian representative.  It is a cult, just like Walker, Jeffress, et al, have concluded, and that regardless of the number of Mormon blogs that have been or will be set up to defame, personally, those brave enough to say so.

Some nebulous girl/woman by the name of “Jennifer,” that “oceancoast” culled the Web in search of information, that is no longer available, because she said something critical about Mormonism.

Finally, San Francisco performer, Paul Addis (who is now deceased after committing suicide in 2012) and entertainer, Kathy Griffin.  In neither case are the links on the illustrious blog working which “oceancoast” used to demonize either person.

That’s the sum total of this now defunct blog that some continue to see.  It is also the kind of bigotry that other bigot’s link to, to try and demonize or defame any of those listed above.

The Mormon bigot, “oceancoast,” fell on his own sword when he created his blog, and everyone who cites it, for the express purpose of prejudicially libeling others, also impale themselves as well.

Not only was everything he wrote skewed to misrepresent or demonize, “the exposer of all bigotry” became exposed.  It has now been six years since he set out to free the world from untoward thoughts about Mormonism; it has been six years since he last contributed anything to his effort.  Who knows?  Maybe by falling on his sword, he’s now dead as well.

So, if you’re into calling people racists, haters, or bigots, as the means to justify whatever it is that you think needs justification, please be warned.  Those kinds of thought-stoppers or that kind of name-calling is only a reflection of the kind of person YOU are.  You ARE the racist.  You ARE the hater.  You ARE the bigot.

It’s always better to argue based on what you think are the merits of your case, than to engage in prejudicial bigotry and then accuse others of it.  And if you cannot argue the merits, then either (1) re-think what it is that you supposedly believe, or (2) be quiet.

Dying for a lie and playing the part of a bigot in the process are not virtues in life.  If you think otherwise, then go ahead and set up your own blog, and do what “oceancoast” did, and see how long you last.  He didn’t.  Why assume, as a bigot, that you would?

1 Comment

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Cults & Cultism, Hate Speech, Mormonism

Having my own PIG

The Internet can be a wonderful thing in many ways.  Since its advent in the mid-1990s it has grown to become a source of information, community connection, and has made the world a lot smaller place.

Yet, although the Internet can be wonderful, it still contains a lot of darkness.  Mainly because there are some very dark individuals who lurk on the Internet to carry out their diabolical deeds.  They are what I call the Psychotic Internet Groupies (PIG for short).  Their whole mission is to harass, malign, and libel people they just don’t like for whatever specious reason.

Recently I’ve become aware that I have my very own PIG following me around.  It goes by a variety of pseudonyms (false names or sock-puppets): “Aron Nimozovitsch,” “Willard Gibbs,” or “Charles Berlitz,” have been its latest inventions.

My PIG’s whole agenda is to try and discredit or demean me because of what took place at Tarrant County College back in November 2011.  What the PIG does is selectively link to articles on the Internet which are, let’s just say, less than accurate in their reporting.

The PIG does this by placing them alongside comments I’ve made elsewhere on the Net in reference to stories or subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with TCC.

For example, the PIG recently stalked and then linked The Collegian’s (TCC’s college newspaper) article “Instructor’s classroom ‘hostile,’ district report finds” to a comment section on another site dealing with several counties in the State of Colorado, one of which I used to live in, and their consideration of seceding from Colorado.

Within moments of doing the PIG’s psychotic deed, it copied and pasted the very same smear attempt elsewhere which dealt with the atheists successful putting of a granite monument alongside a monument dedicated to the Ten Commandments in Florida.

In neither instance did what happened at TCC have anything to do with the subjects.  The PIG just thought it was cute to keep up it’s misinformed campaign of deception and demonization.

What the PIG conveniently fails to do is point out the lengthy rebuttal to the Executive Summary of Inquiry which clearly (1) rebuts The Collegian article, and shows (2) no investigation took place leading up to the libelous charge made by the TCC administration, and (3) the administration completely blew-off student complaints and grievances filed against the administration and the two Muslim students (Randa Bedair and Mohamad Khorchid).

There are at least 115 discrepancies, lies, distortions, conflations, and anachronisms in the 10 pages that TCC produced as a result of its non-“investigation.”  It is those facts that one does not find in The Collegian‘s article, nor in the PIG’s selective linking to it.

The TCC administrators, like so many today in our politically correct, we’re scared spitless of the Muslim world, listened only to Randa and Mohamad, and no one else.

Yet, idiots like the PIG want everyone to believe that the professor created the “hostile learning environment,” when the PIG wasn’t even there that night—just like The Collegian editor wasn’t, the Star-Telegram, nor the TCC administrators weren’t—and it refuses to include all the evidence and the testimony.

Such is what makes the Internet a dark place, at times, when the PIG can wobble around and hide behind faulty screen names and misinformation, all in an effort to further hide the truth and maliciously destroy whomever to satisfy it’s psychopathy.

Well, Mr./Ms. PIG, you’re not going to silence me, and the truth will eventually destroy you.  Given your style, I have a pretty good idea who you really are, which is why you choose to remain in the dark regarding your real identity.  So be it.

Just remember, if the day comes when you are found out, the same mercy you’ve extended toward me will be returned likewise.  Then we’ll see just how much your Oxford credentials and Humanly Father come to your aid.  You’ll also get to enjoy the wonderful side of the Internet, as you’re exposed for the Psychotic Internet Groupie that you are.

Leave a comment

Filed under Angela Robinson, Barbara Coan, Bill Coppola, Bill Greenhill, Bill Lanier, Erma Johnson Hadley, Islam, Josue Munoz, Ricardo Coronado, Rusty Fox, Sharon Wettengel, Tarrant County College, The Collegian, The Media

Atheist Monument Honoring Nothing—Nice.

In Gainesville, Florida, the American Atheists have won the right to erect a monument celebrating nothing to be placed alongside a monument celebrating the Ten Commandments.  That’s right; a monument celebrating nothing erected alongside a monument celebrating something.  Makes sense to me—not.

Apparently the contradictory atheists are at it once again, doing something that is totally inconsistent with what they claim to believe, which is nothing.  When a Christian group called The Community Men’s Fellowship petitioned county officials to erect their monument, the atheists took exception and sued to have their own monument erected as well.

Bradford County officials finally caved in and now they will have a monument honoring the hypocrisy of atheists all across North Florida and abroad.

A rather comedic comment is reported to have been made by a Dave Muscato, public relations director for American Atheists, when he told The Gainesville Sun that if religious groups are allowed to have monuments “it’s only appropriate that we have matching monuments.”

Here we all been told for the longest time that atheists were not religious, and yet now Mr. Muscato makes this kind of comment admitting that they are.

Another hypocritical atheist remarked elsewhere, “I don’t enjoy being condemned to hell every day…I got really frustrated with the fact that I was supposed to accept what they talked about and what they believed and they thought was real, but they wouldn’t even listen to what I had to say.”

Well, if you, Mr. Atheist, really believed in what you claim, then it wouldn’t bother you one way or another what anyone had to say.  Moreover, you wouldn’t worry about saying anything to anyone, because your worldview prescribes that you keep your mouth shut.

Besides, people don’t condemn anyone to hell, given that until God intervenes in the atheist’s life to redeem him, he’s condemned already (Jn. 3:18).  Yet, since the atheist says he doesn’t believe in God, then it should not bother him one iota if he feels condemned to hell or not.  So, why the inconsistency?

A consistent atheist worldview is predicated on relativism, meaning that the person holding to such a view does not believe in moral right and wrong.  Therefore, to be whining or complaining about what others are doing or saying about anything only serves to contradict what it is that the atheist supposedly says he stands for or upon, which is nothing!

If Bradford County officials and Gainesville Christians in the area would have simply challenged these atheists to be consistent, then maybe they would not now have a monument celebrating nothing placed alongside a monument celebrating something.

Yet, such is the world we live in today, where the foolishness of man has been equated with the wisdom of God, and those claiming to know the wisdom of God cower out of fear to those imposing their foolishness on them.

The Community Men’s Fellowship opined, “We want you all to remember that this issue was won on the basis of this being a free speech issue, so don’t be alarmed when the American Atheists want to erect their own sign or monument. It’s their right. As for us, we will continue to honor the Lord and that’s what matters.”

Actually, that is not correct.  The reason why the hypocritical atheists won had nothing to do with free speech, but a lack of preparation on the part of the Christians in the area to expose the inconsistency of the atheist worldview by taking the atheists to task.

As for saying that the CMF will continue to honor the Lord, that is patently untrue as well.  By erecting a monument to nothing, to stand alongside the Ten Commandments, is an affront to God and every Christian who failed to counter the atheist idiocy by kowtowing to their hypocritical arguments.

An atheist claimed, “I mean, I wouldn’t feel comfortable going to a courthouse when they’re publicly displaying the Ten Commandments.”  Again, if the atheist was consistent, whether he was comfortable, uncomfortable, in a state of total bliss or on the verge of having a stroke, would not matter at all.  He could wisp in and out of the courthouse without so much as a mutter, it wouldn’t matter.

Yet, it is because the atheist is a hypocrite and does not believe what he claims, that he opens his mouth in hypocritical disdain against God and anything relative to Him.  He hates God with a passion and his hypocrisy betrays him at every turn (Rom. 1:30).  Erecting a monument to nothing is nothing more than an outward demonstration of both his hatred and hypocrisy.


Filed under Uncategorized

Atheistic Hostility Toward God is NOT About Evidence

Atheists are such cunning deceivers, not only toward those they frequently try to encounter to garner some kind of respectability for their self-refuting worldview, but toward themselves, as they argue that the real reason why they refuse to believe in God is because there just isn’t any or enough empirical evidence to persuade them otherwise.

The reality, though, is that the atheist’s argument has nothing to do with evidence.  It has to do with morality, or more like immorality, which stems from a fallen nature.  They know God exists , but they suppress that knowledge (Rom. 1:18-19).  They would rather reign in hell than serve in heaven, as the expression goes.

Does this mean that all atheists are as immoral as they possibly could be?  Not at all.  Very few, if any, sinners reach the ultimate level of abject evil.  Even Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, or Pol Pot, as evil as they were, did not reach the level of sin that they could have.  In fact, they may have even done a few benevolent deeds along their way to hell (Matt. 7:11).

Most atheists try to lead clean, civilized, and lawful lives.  They just don’t have any objective reason for doing so.  It’s because of the lack of objectivity, though, that an atheist like Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot can capriciously perpetrate an act of evil upon the rest of the human race, and he feels self-justified in doing so.

Yes, yes, it has been propagated by some that Hitler was some kind of quasi-Christian, but as Jesus said, “By their fruits you will know them.”  So, so much for that argument.

It’s also because of the lack of objectivity that when the atheist appeals to evidence he either cannot be serious or he is trying to pull a ruse.  “Show me the evidence, and I’ll believe in God,” his argument often goes.

Belief in God, though, is not about evidence.  It is about being born of God, as Jesus said.  “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again [literally, from above by God’s Spirit], he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Saving faith (i.e. belief) is a gift from God which frees the atheist from the fallacy of futile thinking (Rom. 12:3; Eph. 4:17).  Not everyone has been given that gift (2 Thess. 3:2).  Only a few find the narrow gate by God’s grace that leads to life (Matt. 7:13 cf. Eph. 2:8-9), while all the rest of the atheistically-minded go the way of destruction.

As a substitute for saving faith the atheist exhibits a counterfeit faith; a faith centered in the dependence upon the atheist’s personal senses as the harbinger of truth and knowledge.  If he cannot physically touch, taste, smell, hear, or see the object in mind, then it cannot be true or real.  Little does he recognize that by painting himself into such a corner  he cannot appeal to anything beyond his physical senses to make sense of the world around him without completely contradicting himself.

Until the sinning atheist has been set free by the truth of God (Jn. 8:32), then he will simply go on railing against God, as an enemy of God’s (Rom. 5:10).  The content of his commentary will amount to futile speculations, as he professes himself to be wise, even though he is a fool (Rom. 1:22).

It is because of what God has to say about the atheist that the believer should take note when dealing with him.  Too often the believer falsely assumes that if he can pile up enough “evidence,” then presto!  The atheist will throw down his gauntlet and become a flaming evangelist.  Such is never the case, though.

Instead, the believer should consider God’s advice when dealing with the atheist.  “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him.  Answer a fool as his folly deserves, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Prov. 26:4-5).  In other words, when he asks for the “evidence,” know that his so-called request is rooted in folly.  Therefore, treat his folly as folly.  Otherwise, before long, he will make you look as foolish as he is.

If one really wants to deal effectively with an atheist, and make him think, go after what he presupposes to be true about anything and why.

Ask him why one should not commit a heinous crime, like molesting a child.  Ask him why he accepts one scientist’s conclusions about the universe, as opposed to another’s, even though both are looking at the same “evidence.”  Ask him why he appeals to faith when his physical senses leave him wanting.

Just be ready for a lot of obfuscation and evasive maneuvers.  Rest assure, though, it is questions like those which eat him alive from within.  It is those kinds of questions which will either make him or break him.  Make him hard for God’s judgment or break him for an infusion of God’s Spirit.

Depending on his responses will also depend on how to proceed.  If hardness is in the making, and all the atheist wants to do is mouth off, then let him, by exiting the conversation.  Conversely, if brokenness is in the making, then simply let the Spirit be your guide.  You’ll know what to say, because you won’t be the one saying it.

Yes, atheistic hostility toward God is not about evidence, it is about morality.  The atheist wants it every which way but loose, while he shakes his fist in God’s face and says, “I defy you!”  His evidential plea is a subterfuge to cover for his defiance.  Don’t fall into the foolish trap of accommodating him.

Challenge his morality and you will challenge him to think.  Play the fool along with him, and he just may make a fool (i.e. an atheist) out of you as well.


Filed under Apologetics, Atheism, Christianity, Foolishness, Recovery from Religion