Hating God

If you've read very many of my articles, you probably know I spend a lot of time on YouTube. (OK, maybe too much time.) But I do manage to get involved in some interesting exchanges with different kinds of people, ranging from other sincere born-again believers who interpret certain biblical teachings differently than I do to hardcore unbelievers who refuse to so much as acknowledge the existence of God and who consider it their mission in life to mock and spew venom at those who do.

I got into another one of those last types of exchanges in the comment section of a YouTube video recently with a brash young man who is representative of a growing number of people who hate God so intensely that they viciously rip believers to shreds and arrogantly challenge them to defend their belief in God and the Bible.

They worship the god of science (a god they believe can easily crush absurd myths like the living God of the Bible), and demand scientific evidence while simultaneously insisting with supreme confidence that nary a wisp of such evidence exists. They act as if belief in God were on par with belief in the Easter Bunny, and treat believers as if they were a pathetic gaggle of brain-damaged bozos who posed a danger to society. Thumbing their noses at the (nonexistent) Creator is intoxicating—and they love it. They love hating God.

While many such people treat the Bible as if it were radioactive, some revel in using the Bible itself to attack belief in God. They tend to use a two-pronged strategy, and it is surprisingly easy to implement:

(a) Pick out passages from the Old Testament that describe the Israelites doing things that sound horrible or cruel, strip these actions of their historical context, and then accuse this so-called "loving" Creator of condoning such barbaric behavior—which proves God is a myth worthy of debunking.

(b) Pick out passages from the New Testament that can be spun in ways to create apparent contradictions, or to make it appear as if Jesus failed to fulfill some prophecy that Christians claim He did—which proves both Jesus and the Bible are myths worthy of debunking.

And the more motivated among them can keep this up for weeks.

The young man in this exchange (whom I will refer to as "Hitch" in honor of the late Christopher Hitchens, atheist author/speaker) used this strategy to its fullest, and I went toe to toe with him every step of the way, patiently trying to show him the error of what he was doing. (OK, I might have wobbled on the "patiently" bit a couple of times, but overall I managed to maintain my aplomb reasonably well.)

What I'd like to do in this article is share with you the bulk of this exchange, with a few additional comments and some minor editing on both sides. For example, I took the liberty of airbrushing out Hitch's vulgar language and corrected some typos, fleshed out some of my own responses a bit, and consolidated and organized some of the posts for a slightly smoother flow.

The spark that initiated the discussion was provided by several people who were arguing about Bible versions. A couple were KJV-Onlyists, who insist the King James Version of the Bible is the only inspired version in existence, and a couple were of the opinion that only the original autographs in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were inspired and that no English translation is perfect—but with the study tools freely available, there's nothing preventing anyone from understanding the Bible. I chimed in with my support for the second group, and that's when Hitch fired the opening salvo.

(Throughout, Hitch's comments appear in red and mine appear in blue.)

I don't care what version any of you clowns read, because the Bible is nothing but a bunch of fairy tales anyway. It's not my book. Listen, if you can prove even ONE supernatural thing has ever happened, ever, I will convert right now. Until then, shut your big, fat, stupid mouth.

So, all I have to do is prove to you that ONE supernatural thing has happened? The short answer is "NO."

The slightly longer answer is I'm not that big a sucker.

I know from experience that you will dismissively toss whatever anyone has to say about God or the Bible into the trash without so much as glancing at the evidence. Much less examining it.

I'm sorry, did I say "evidence"? The Old Testament contains over 300 specific prophecies concerning the birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus in His first appearance 2,000 years ago. All predate His birth by at least 400 years, and extremely few were subject to His control. Here's a list of 20 just to give you a tiny taste of what I'm talking about.

According to Old Testament prophecies, Jesus would...

• be born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14)
• be born in the town of Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2)
• come from the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10)
• be a legal heir of King David (Isa. 7:13–14)
• be preceded by a forerunner (John the Baptist) (Isa. 40:3)
• perform miracles (Isa. 35:5–6)
• speak in parables (Ps. 78:2)
• enter Jerusalem on a donkey (Zech. 9:9)
• be rejected by Israel (Isa. 55:2)
• be betrayed by a friend (Judas) (Zech. 13:6)
• be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (price for a slain servant) (Zech. 11:12)
• be deserted by His friends (they fled when He was arrested) (Zech. 13:7)
• be silent before His accusers (Isa. 53:7)
• be beaten and spit on (Isa. 50:6)
• be crucified (prophesied 800 years before it was invented) (Ps. 22:16)
• be crucified with sinners (between two thieves) (Isa. 53:12)
• have His garments gambled for (Ps. 22:18)
• have none of His bones broken (done to expedite death) (Ps. 34:20)
• be buried in a rich man's tomb (Joseph of Arimathea) (Isa. 53:9)
• be resurrected (Ps. 16:8–10)

And the rest of those 300 were fulfilled just as accurately (which bodes well for the fulfillment of the roughly 2,400 that pertain to the Second Advent).

Now, if the existence of a book filled with hundreds of prophecies that were fulfilled with that degree of accuracy is not supernatural in nature, then I'm afraid you'll have to share with me your definition of "supernatural." Oh, and please understand: Those 300 prophecies concerning the First Advent are only the tip of the iceberg as far as Bible prophecy goes. Don't even get me started about the end-time stuff.

I have read and studied the Bible for a number of years, and the reason I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that its Author is exactly who and what He says He is can be summarized in two simple words:

Fulfilled prophecy.

I couldn't care less what unregenerate secular scholars say about the Bible. They are w-a-a-y too late for me, because I have seen the evidence...and to say that the evidence for the accuracy of the Bible is overwhelming is an understatement. It is light years beyond what is available for any other ancient text that is accepted without question.

Oh wait...don't tell me, let me guess:

The entire New Testament is fiction contrived after the fact by overly zealous disciples!

Of course it is, which explains perfectly why no residents of first-century Jerusalem cried foul when the Gospels were first circulated. The fact that many thousands of born-again believers willingly went to their deaths in the Colosseum rather than deny Christ makes perfect sense now—they had been fooled. It also explains why 10 of the original 12 disciples preached Christ and Him crucified and resurrected for the rest of their lives and were martyred without recanting their testimonies in spite of the fact that they knew it was all one big, outlandish lie. It's all clear to me now.

People like you make an emotional decision that God doesn't exist and that the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales without examining the evidence (and I know why you won't). That's exactly what you have done, and that's why I am reluctant to spend my time trying to "prove" anything to you.

But if you continue to reject God and the offer of grace He has made freely available to you while the end-time scenario continues to unfold at breakneck speed, and you reach the point where you want to know more about the reality of spiritual things, I hope and pray that the person you ask doesn't tell you to shut your big, fat, stupid mouth.

Comments: The Bible has a word for people who look around at the miracle of creation that surrounds us all and still make an emotional decision that God doesn't exist:

Fools. Note that the fool denies God's existence in his heart, and not in his head. Why? Because he can't deny it in his head. The evidence for the existence of a Creator is so overwhelming that no intellectually honest person can logically deduce God doesn't exist—it is strictly an emotional decision, and it's one born of hate. More on this later.

This hate manifests itself in angry demands for evidence or proof, all of which is disparagingly dismissed, which leaves them feeling powerful and justified in their denial of God's existence. That brings them back to square one, further hardened in their unbelief and demanding more proof.

Yeah, and Jesus failed to fulfill several prophecies as well. Biblical prophecy is not enough to prove anything. In fact, it's kind of a joke to think it is.

I asked for proof and you've done nothing but give me excuses and dodge the question. Just admit you have no scientifically verifiable proof.

Thanks for confirming everything I just said, Hitch.

You already knew your prophecies weren't scientifically verifiable. Why'd you even try using them?

I'm asking you for evidence, the thing you say I don't want to examine, and you're turning your back. Hypocritical coward.

I guess I'll say the same thing. You don't want to know the truth because you are indoctrinated into thinking your fairy tales are true without examining the evidence. You're scared of the evidence, and that's why you refuse to discuss the evidence with me. Thank you for proving me right.

Comments: Note the angry bluster and groundless accusations. I'm giving him excuses; I'm dodging the question; I know that prophecies aren't "scientifically verifiable"; I'm a "hypocritical coward" for some vague reason. He's just lashing out at me, but that's OK. I see an opening, and I grab it.

You said Jesus failed to fulfill several prophecies. OK, I'll bite. Name one.

Matthew 16:27–28; Romans 1:3; Acts 2:30; John 14:12; Mark 16:17–18, just to name a few. I could go on.

Ooo...I'm getting the tingles! This means you're writing me a book of excuses! I can't wait to read them. Let me guess, "It doesn't mean what it says! I'm right and you're wrong because you have a closed mind and you're dumb because you don't believe in magik! You just don't understand but I'm not going to explain it because I secretly don't understand either, I just like feeling superior."

I got ten bucks on you using that argument, lol.

Ooo...I'm getting the tingles too, but it's because I love discussing God's Word, and NOT because (a) it doesn't mean what it says (it means exactly what it says), (b) I'm right and you're wrong, (c) you have a closed mind, (d) you're dumb, (e) you don't believe in magik, (f) I secretly don't understand it, or (g) I just like feeling superior.

OK, let's take these one at a time:

Jesus is saying that there were people alive at that time who would not die before they saw Him in His glory, the way He will appear when He returns to establish the Millennial Kingdom. And you don't think that happened.

Hitch, look at the very next verse (next chapter). This is fulfilled in an event called the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–7), which you might call a preview of coming attractions. Six days after Jesus made the above statement, He took Peter, James, and John to a high mountain (it's not named in Scripture, but is traditionally identified as Mt. Tabor). There, Jesus temporarily took on His glorified body and Moses and Elijah appeared with Him. And Peter, James, and John witnessed the entire event. Prophecy fulfilled.

Next up:

Not quite sure what your beef is with these verses, unless it's the fact that Jesus is a physical descendant of King David and qualified to assume the Throne of David (which He will after the Second Coming), and you don't think that's true for some reason.

Jesus was in the male line of inheritance of King David through His father Joseph (as required to be the Messiah and sit on the Throne of David). But if Jesus had been Joseph's biological son, He would have been disqualified due to the fact that God put a blood curse on Jeconiah (a descendant of David) in Jeremiah 22:30, and ordinarily Jesus would have inherited that blood curse. But Jesus was Joseph's adopted Son, with full rights of inheritance. God was His real Father.

But Jesus is still required to be a biological descendant of David, which He is through His mother Mary. While Matthew's genealogy (which goes back to Abraham as required by the Jews) establishes that Jesus was in the male line of inheritance from David through His adoptive father Joseph, Luke's genealogy establishes that Jesus was a physical descendant of David through His biological mother Mary. Luke takes his genealogy all the way back to Adam to emphasize that Jesus, although the visible manifestation of an invisible God, was at the same time fully and physically a man, and thus qualified to atone for man's sin.

Incidentally, Mark gives no genealogy because his Gospel presents Jesus as a servant, and who cares about the genealogy of a servant? John's genealogy is simply that He was the Son of God, which is the main point of John's Gospel (that Jesus was fully God, and thus qualified to reconcile sinful men to the Father through His death).

Note that the part of the above verse about Jesus sitting on the throne will find its final fulfillment in the Millennial Kingdom here on earth in the not-too-terribly-distant future, when Jesus will rule for a thousand years in the kingdom God promised the Jews thousands of years ago. That promise is still pending, the political machinations of the world notwithstanding.

And last but not least:

By the way, the "greater works" Jesus referred to in John 14:12 are not miracles. This is a common misinterpretation of this verse. (Jesus raised the dead, so...what exactly would be greater than that?) He was talking about evangelization. Jesus personally led a relatively small number of people to faith, partly because He was focused on developing the faith of His disciples, who would go on to lead great multitudes of people to belief in the gospel.

The original disciples/apostles who were personally commissioned by Jesus were granted the power to perform miracles. This was needed to establish the validity and authority of Jesus' message. The body of believers known as the Church had to be established on something stronger than words—people had to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was from God.

Incidentally, anyone who claims to be an apostle today or to have the power to perform miracles is a shameless fraud (and sadly there is no shortage of such people). The miraculous sign gifts ended with the deaths of the original apostles because the Church was established and they served no further purpose. Miracles do not increase people's faith—they were never intended to. Miracles were meant to validate both the messengers and their message.

Now, does that mean that God doesn't heal people today, or answer the prayers of believers? No, because He does. But people who claim they have the power to perform miracles are working for the enemy, plain and simple. God is sovereign and does as He will, but those people are frauds.

So, the question is often asked, why don't we have people running around today healing people and raising the dead and demonstrating God's miracle-working power to an even greater extent than the original apostles (and the ones who claim to do so are phonies)? What gives?

The evening of Resurrection Sunday, Jesus appeared to His disciples in a closed room (John 20:19). Although they had either believed the reports of the empty tomb or seen it with their own eyes, when Jesus physically showed up He scared the pants off them. They thought He was a ghost, and He asked for something to eat to prove He wasn't.

But Thomas wasn't there, and when the other disciples found him and told him Jesus was alive, he refused to believe them:

Eight days later, Jesus appeared to them again and Thomas was there. After seeing the nail scars, he finally believed. But note what Jesus said to him:

Those who have not seen, and have believed. That's the Church, and that's why the Church gets the sweetheart deal of all eternity: All we have to do is believe the gospel in faith without the benefit of overt demonstrations of God's power and presence that other groups of people in other ages had (and will have during the Tribulation).

Bottom line: God just has a thing for faith.

I could argue that you owe me ten bucks, but you can keep it. Hitch, I'm sorry if I came across a little snarky earlier. I may be forgiven of sin, but sadly, like everyone else, I am not completely free from sin in this life.

If you disagree with what I have said, that's your choice.

If you think I'm a deluded moron, that's your choice.

If you insist the Bible is a bunch of baloney, that's your choice.

If you want to worship the god of science, that's your choice.

If you want to be your own god, that's your choice.

And if you want to reject the grace of a loving but holy and just God and spend eternity separated from Him, that's your choice, too.

Sorry, if the Bible means what it says then you should be murdering me right now for doing laundry on a Sunday. It's one of the 10 Commandments to kill people who work on Sunday.

Indeed I would, if we still lived under the Law of Moses. Luckily for you, we do not. By the way, you mean Saturday, not Sunday...but I get your point.

Jesus fulfilled the law perfectly on our behalf because we were utterly incapable of doing so. That's the fundamental reason He was born into the world. The New Covenant is based on faith in His death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sin—the law is dead and of no effect for those who are in Christ. (This is all over the place: Romans, Hebrews, Galatians, etc.)

That was the whole point. God gave Israel His law to prove to them (and ultimately to all of us) that there is no possible way we can live in a manner pleasing to Him in our sinful state, even when the requirements are spelled out in black and white. The point is that we are all sinners, and are all condemned under God's standard of holiness. He wanted us to understand that He would have to do it Himself, which He did by sacrificing His Son to take our punishment and satisfying His own perfect justice on our behalf.

So, relax. Launder away. =:D

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure Jesus said to keep the 10 Commandments. Unless the 10 Commandments aren't valid anymore either, that is.

Not exactly. In fact, Jesus went out of His way to violate the Jewish Sabbath laws just to get in the face of the Pharisees and to get them to see that they had reduced the spirit of God's laws to a useless rat's nest of legalism.

Here's one of my favorite examples:

The Law of Moses contains sacrificial, ceremonial, and moral laws. The sacrificial laws involved the shedding of the blood of innocent animals to temporarily cover sin, which foreshadowed what Christ would do for us permanently on the cross. Not doing, eating, touching, etc. certain things on certain days or under certain circumstances are all part of the ceremonial law. Things like not murdering, stealing, etc. are part of the moral law.

The Jews had to do it all. They not only had to obey the moral law, but mind the ceremonial and sacrificial laws as well. They had a laundry list of 613 detailed laws to keep, and they had reached the point where they believed that slavishly following these laws made them righteous. Before Christ, if the Jews obeyed the Law of Moses and had faith in a coming Messiah that God promised to send them, God accounted it to them as righteousness.

When Jesus stood in their midst (and right during the period of time foretold by the prophet Daniel) and said "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," He was saying "Here I am, I've come to bring you the kingdom. I'm the one you've been waiting for over 1300 years." But the Jewish religious leaders had become so proud and so hardened in their legalism that they rejected Him, preferring to stick to their petty observances of religious rituals as the source of their righteousness, rather than righteousness through faith in the Redeemer, the Messiah God sent them. The Messiah's blood would make complete atonement for sin, instead of just temporarily covering it as the blood of sheep and goats had done for so many centuries.

The Bible makes it clear that the Law of Moses has been done away with for those in Christ because its purpose was to point to Christ and what He would do for us. The Old Testament law was the theological equivalent of scaffolding—when the building is complete, the scaffolding is taken down. Jesus Christ is that building, and those who dwell therein no longer have any need for the scaffolding: It has served its purpose.

But God's moral laws are still in effect—they will never change because they reflect His unchanging character. Christ gave His disciples commands that in some cases were equivalent to Old Testament laws, only more demanding since what was external and physical under the Old Covenant became internal and spiritual under the New. For example, under the Old Covenant, murder and adultery were sins, but Jesus added that merely hating or lusting after someone were sins! That's what I'm talking about. So don't even sit there and think you're not a sinner in God's eyes. We all are.

Jesus told us to love God with all our hearts, all our souls, all our minds, and to love others as we love ourselves, which I like to think of as the Reader's Digest version of the 10 Commandments. To the extent we obey that command, to that extent we obey God's moral laws. But Paul made it crystal clear in Romans 14:20–23 that those in Christ are dead to the ceremonial aspects of the Old Testament law (which includes the Sabbath, just in case you're still sweating the laundry thing).

Of course, when we repent and believe in faith that Jesus' death and resurrection paid the penalty for our sin, we are born of the Spirit, and our sins are forgiven. We are sealed by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, justified before God, reconciled to Him, and our destiny is changed from eternal death to eternal life.

But god isn't real, though. Until you can prove otherwise, this discussion is pointless. Look up the meaning of "independently verifiable evidence." Show me that and I'll convert right now.

Comments: A calculated gambit. "Give me some proof, and then I'll have faith. Honest." If you take the bait, you knock yourself out to give them some solid evidence, they simply dismiss it with a sneer, and everybody loses. You feel like you've failed, and they walk away feeling justified.

No, you won't. Even if you actually mean that, which you don't, you won't. I know you won't, because you want something you can see, touch, or calculate. You want something scientific. Something that can be reproduced through an experimental procedure. You want something that can be filmed, photographed, expressed as a formula, or kept in a jar of formaldehyde. You want something that can be argued and proved with airtight logical precision. You want God to be the Pythagorean theorem. The law of gravity. The Higgs boson.

So did the Pharisees:

Just as Isaiah prophesied about Him eight centuries earlier, Jesus had been making lepers clean, the blind see, the deaf hear, the lame walk, the mute speak, and the dead live everywhere He went—and they knew it, too. But it was never enough for their hardened hearts. They came to Jesus and basically said, "Come on, Jesus, if you're really the Messiah, let's see you do a trick. Call fire down from heaven or something. Conjure up something that will blow us away and satisfy our carnal curiosity, and then we'll believe in you. Cross our hearts...we'll convert right now."

Of course, Jesus knew their hardened hearts would never be moved. He knew they would find a reason to not believe no matter what He did. They would always manage to come up with a rational explanation. Jesus told them the only sign they would get would be the sign of Jonah. I'm sure you're familiar with the account of Jonah being dead in the belly of the whale for three days before being barfed up alive on the shores of Nineveh. That's what Jesus meant: He would be raised from the dead after three days in the grave. That was the "sign of Jonah."

After Jesus was resurrected, He hung out on the Mount of Olives for 40 days, giving the Jews one last chance to believe. Oh, and those Pharisees who demanded a sign? They sat in Jerusalem and patted themselves and each other on the back instead of taking 20 minutes to walk across the Kidron Valley to see Him with their own eyes. Jesus had promised them the greatest sign in history and then He performed it.

Did they believe? Were their hearts moved to repentance and faith?

You know the answer to that one. Here's the thing:

People want to put God in their little scientific or philosophical boxes, and God says "Stop wasting my time and yours."

It's like I keep saying: God just has a thing for faith.

You want "independently verifiable evidence" (and not to brag or anything, but I actually do know what that means). Of course you do. The world always does. Well, God gave us the best evidence there is—fulfilled prophecy. Something only the Creator can do. If that doesn't do it for you, then you're out of luck...just like the Pharisees. His rules, not mine.

Oh, and by the way, fulfilled prophecy is indeed independently verifiable evidence. For example:

• God's Word says the temple in Jerusalem would be so completely demolished that not one stone would be left on top of another.

It was (AD 70). That can be independently verified.

• God's Word says that as a result their rebellion against God, their spiritual harlotry, and their rejection of His Son, the Jews would be driven from their land and scattered all over the world.

They were (following the above event). That can be independently verified.

• God's Word says the Jews would be regathered into their land and Israel would once again be a prosperous, Hebrew-speaking nation in the last days.

They were (1948) and it is. That can be independently verified.

• God's Word says the Jews would regain sovereign control over Jerusalem.

They did (1967). That can be independently verified.

I could go on, but the point is made. God confirms His Word by doing something only God can do: write history in advance. And people shut their eyes tight and simply pretend it doesn't exist. Nope, never happened. And then to top it off, they do what you just did—they throw this dazzling gem of illogic in people's faces:

If you can show me something that removes the need for faith, then I'll be able to have faith.

And you, uhm...don't see a problem with that. You're right, Hitch. Such a discussion really is pointless.

There are several mundane ways in which a prediction can be fulfilled. For example, there's retrodiction, where the so-called "prophecy" is written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.

There's vagueness. The prophecy can be worded in such a way that people can interpret a wide variety of outcomes as a fulfillment. The prophecies of Nostradamus are all of this type. Vagueness works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.

There's inevitability. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, like the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. Until then, they can say according to prophecy it will.

There's denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they have not. Or one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.

There's self-fulfillment. A person can act deliberately to satisfy a known prophecy. There are no prophecies in the Bible that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories.

I am a man of science. The scientific method is the best way to explore and analyze the universe. If evidence leads to a deity, I must follow it. But there is absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest a deity exists. None whatsoever.

"There are no prophecies in the Bible that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories."

Translation: "There are no prophecies in the Bible that skeptics cannot figure out a way to arbitrarily cram into one of those categories for the simple reason that they have no choice."

Nice try, but I can't think of a single biblical prophecy that can legitimately be placed in any one of those five categories. Emphasis on legitimately. Of course, that doesn't stop people from trying; but neither does it stop the Bible's prophecies from being fulfilled with absolute accuracy, usually centuries after being originally given. But it does show how desperate skeptics are to undermine people's faith in the inerrancy of the Bible.

The point is that if skeptics set one foot outside the tower of their bias and actually examined the evidence, they would be forced to admit there is a strong probability that God exists and His Word is true. Unfortunately, that would force them to confront the uncomfortably stark reality that they are ultimately responsible to Him and will face Him one day, which denies them the self-glorifying satisfaction of being their own gods. That's the rub.

So, you're a man of science. Speaking of science...you know, there's a big difference between real science and the agenda-driven hokum that often passes for science today.

Yes, real science. For example, take the theory of evolution. For over 150 years, people have been searching for the "missing links" that would have to exist if evolution were true. They have found none. Hitch, they are not missing: They are non-existent. Evolution is not science—it's a man-centered religion propped up by faith in known and deliberate lies.

Luckily you don't have to take my word for it. Here is what a few real men of science have to say about the theory of evolution:

And I could give you 50 more without breaking a sweat. As far as science and the Bible are concerned, the bottom line is this:

When we finally have a perfect and complete understanding of science and a perfect and complete understanding of what the Bible means, we will discover that they are in perfect agreement. How could they not? They share the same Author.

I readily admit that I snicker at some believers who talk about science as if it were the enemy; a scary bogeyman to be feared and distrusted. They regard science as if it had the power or potential to disprove God and/or the Bible. Oh horror of horrors!

Because it doesn't. That's the whole point. For example, how can carbon dating disprove God and/or the Bible? Who created the carbon atom? Who created the subatomic processes upon which carbon dating is based? Such people are fools. How can astronomy disprove God and/or the Bible? Who created space and the heavenly bodies that populate it? Such people may be sincere, but they're still fools with the letters "PhD" after their names.

Oh, speaking of astronomy, here's an item I came across a few years ago that you might enjoy. Scientists have determined the universe to be approximately 13.8 billion years old. So, of course, they toss this in the face of all those poor, deluded, Bible-believing dipsticks who actually believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days (incidentally, that is precisely what the Hebrew means), and created man at some point during the sixth day. How duh-lightfully quaint.

It occurred to a physicist that this figure of 13.8 billion years is measured from our point of view here on earth. Well, what about all that relativity business? How does that figure into this? He calculated how old the universe would appear to someone on the outside of the universe looking in from its edge, and he arrived at a rather surprising number: approximately 5.5 days.

Oh, and there is some fairly compelling experimental evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down to a minute but measurable degree. If that's true, the implications are staggering. If the speed of light is not constant, you can just toss a bunch of what today's scientists think they know about the universe and our physical reality.

Now, does any of this definitively prove the Bible is true? No, of course not. But it does serve to remind us that we don't necessarily know as much as we think we do about science.

So, let me turn this one back over to you. If the Bible really is a collection of fairy tales and God is a fantasy created by deluded simpletons, it seems to me that it would be a fairly straightforward matter to definitively prove as much. Well, who has done that, Hitch? What scientific superstar bears the title of "The Man Who Disproved the Bible and Debunked the God Myth"? A Nobel laureate, no doubt. Surely such an accomplishment would be heralded throughout the hallowed halls of science.

What are you talking about? We have the missing links. We have a ton of them. Where do you get off saying we don't?

Because we don't, Hitch. For crying out loud, we don't have a single one. I'm sorry, but apparently you have been misinformed about that, too.

Look, get off this thing about proving or disproving God. You can't really do either one scientifically. That was my point. It's an exercise in futility.

Personally, I am convinced beyond unconvincing that God is real, His Word is true, and I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ in complete faith and assurance. My sins have been forgiven, I have been reconciled to God, adopted into His family, and have His Spirit dwelling in me as a guarantee of my eternal destiny. I have been made a new creature in Christ, and old things are passed away and all things have been made new.

And my life has never been the same.

I'm sorry that you have no idea how wonderful that is, because I have no words to adequately describe it. When I talk to bitter, hardhearted people like you who arrogantly worship the god of science and mock spiritual things they don't comprehend, it just makes me sad. There is much more to life than pizza, online games, and music videos. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me." Now I understand what He meant. I get it. I see it. I believe it. I know it. It's true.

My fear is that you will never know what I am talking about, because these things are spiritually discerned. When I talk to people like you, I catch myself wishing I could rip the scales from their eyes so they could see what I see for 10 seconds. It would change their lives, both now and for eternity.

All I can say is that you'd better hope against hope that you are right about the Bible not being true and God not existing, because if God does exist (and He does), and if the Bible is true (and it is), and if its prophecies are coming to pass (and they are), then the world is being prepared to be plunged into the worst nightmare in its entire history. The final pieces of furniture are being moved into position, the actors are taking their places on stage, the lights are being dimmed, and the curtain is about to go up on the climactic scenario outlined in Scripture.

And when it does, the people of the world (many of whom are people just like you who sit there with their fleshly little arguments about how God isn't real) will know without a doubt that God is real, because they will see His hand moving in judgment. It's already starting, but it's really just getting warmed up. And when those days come, there will still be people who will angrily shake their fists at God, blaspheme His holy name, and refuse to repent (Rev. 9:20–21; 16:9, 21).

I pray you are not one of them, and there's no reason you need to be because God loves you enough to send His Son into the world to die so you could have an opportunity to repent and be saved. Anyone—and I do mean anyone—who realizes they are a sinner separated from a loving, just, holy God and believes in faith that Jesus Christ died and was resurrected to pay their sin penalty and calls on His name in faith for the forgiveness He purchased on the cross will be saved. Period.

Apparently nothing I have said has penetrated your heart to any perceptible degree, so I pray that someone or something will come along and provide the spark that will cause you to seek God with all your heart. If and when you do, you will find Him.

Fear tactics? Really? You're pathetic.

What about 1 Samuel 15:3, 1 Timothy 2:12; Genesis 6:6, and so on. Your god is disgusting. He demands your love and will light you on fire if you don't. That's not love, compassion, or benevolence...that's domestic abuse. And the Lord said: Love me or I'll light you on fire. Don't take my name in vain or I'll kill you. Don't worship strange gods or I'll have you raped. Don't question me, or I'll kill your whole family, and your neighbors.

And then what? Magically he had a kid and suddenly...none of that stuff happened anymore. Why? Because the kid was God and God sacrificed himself to himself even though death is meaningless for a deity. As far as I'm concerned, Jesus had a slightly bad day compared to what his followers have done to people. Jesus got off easy, was only dead for a little bit, then got a free pass into heaven, even though he tried to bitch out halfway through. Sounds like a good deal to me!

And to top it all off, YOU want ME to think that this story is true. Don't make me laugh. At BEST the Bible is about as accurate as any other fiction. Just because Lincoln existed, doesn't mean he hunted vampires. Just because Colorado exists doesn't mean The Shining is a true story. Just because New York exists doesn't mean Spider Man does, too. Get some REAL scientific evidence or get lost, you pompous megalomaniacal papist jerk.

You'll have to excuse me. I get angry when people try and justify rape, murder, and incest, especially when they call it good. I think these things are wrong. So, sorry if my completely justified anger upsets you.

Comments: "Aaarrgh! It's the gospel! Run for your lives! Quick, let me change the subject. Let me yank a few Old Testament verses out of context in an effort to make God look politically incorrect, which gives me an ironclad excuse to not believe in Him."

As you can see, Hitch is practically foaming at the mouth at this point. For the record, I have no clue where the part about lighting someone on fire came from, nor do I have the faintest idea what he is talking about when he mentions Spider Man, The Shining, and so on. I'm going to have to chalk it up as an apoplectic rant. I start off on a conciliatory note and proceed to take my time with this part, because I feel like this is my last shot at getting through to him to any degree.

That's OK. Don't worry about it. Trust me, I've been called worse. Please don't think I'm upset or offended—I'm not. There is nothing you can say that can upset or offend me. For some reason I seem to be immune to that when discussing God and the Bible. As soon as I start talking about God and His Word, all that stuff bounces off me like Nerf balls off the USS Nimitz. So, you are most definitely excused. It's all good.

I'll take the verses you mentioned one at a time. I can easily understand why people stumble over this verse in 1 Samuel, because on the surface it seems to make God sound like the sickeningly unjust ogre that some people are all too happy to assume He is:

They ignore the fact that this shockingly severe judgment against the Amalekites had been ordained five centuries earlier:

It was reiterated when the Israelites entered Canaan:

But God waited roughly 400 to 500 years to allow the cup of their iniquity to become full (or for them to repent, which they didn't). But why would God tell Israel to do such a thing? Back up two verses:

The Amalekites lived in the Sinai Peninsula, and were well aware of the hard bondage the Israelites had endured in Egypt, as well as the fact that God had shown them great favor. (People today forget that God's dealings with Israel were well known throughout the ancient world, and that word got around concerning God's miraculous displays of power and favor on behalf of what the world knew were His people.)

Yet when God delivered them from their bondage and they left Egypt, the Amalekites attacked them from the rear in a particularly dastardly manner. But what we have to understand is that they didn't just attack Israel—they poked their collective fingers in the eye of God.

The job of destroying the Amalekites fell to Saul, and God told him not to take any spoil—the destruction was to be complete. But Saul disobeyed and proceeded to make a royal mess of things, and God punished him for it.

The bottom line is that God was not being capriciously cruel or inhumane. In His view, the Amalekites more than had it coming and His intention was to use Israel as a tool to carry out that destruction. He wanted the world to know in no uncertain terms that He said what He meant and meant what He said when He gave Abraham the following promise:

Translation: "If you mess with my people, stand by."

People today would do well to remember that none of God's promises to His people Israel have been canceled or nullified. That includes naive, backstabbing nincompoops like Barack Obama and John Kerry.

God chose Abram (later changed to Abraham) to start a race of people who would be His own. God entered into an unconditional covenant with Abram (which means it doesn't depend on his or his descendants' performance—it only depends on God's faithfulness). God did this for four basic reasons:

(a) Israel was to be the vehicle through which God would give man His written Word. They were to write down the things God said and did as the Holy Spirit moved upon them and preserve them with absolute accuracy (Isa. 42:9).

(b) Israel was to be God's witnesses on earth that He existed and was the only God (Isa. 43:10–12). The miracles He performed on their behalf and His manifest presence among them was to prove to all mankind that He and He alone was the one true God.

(c) Israel was to be the instrument through which God would be glorified on earth (Isa. 49:3).

(d) Israel was to be the channel through which the Messiah would come to bring salvation to the world (Isa. 49:6).

People don't seem to realize that when the Jews are called "the Chosen People," that actually means something. God wanted the world to know what a nation in covenant with Him looked like, sounded like, and acted like. They represented Him and His character to the world. You don't think God took that seriously? Trust me, He did.

Why do you think God punished Israel so severely when they rebelled or disobeyed? Because He's the Great Cosmic Jerk? God wanted His people (and ultimately the whole world) to know that the Creator of the universe meant business. This may come as a shock to many today who lap up the "your best life now" pablum being spewed in churches across America.

As for His people, He provided for them, protected them, showed Himself mighty on their behalf, and blessed them to the point where they were the envy of the ancient world. Nations who showed kindness to the Israelites and lived in peace with them were blessed. Nations who attacked them or dealt treacherously with them were appropriately judged because Israel was the nation of people God chose to dwell with and call His own. To attack Israel was to attack Israel's God, and their God fought for them.

Throughout the Old Testament, we see God punishing and judging nations and individuals who messed with His people—the Amalekites just happened to be at or near the bottom of the barrel.

And no, there was nothing politically correct about it. Yahweh don't play dat.

During the reign of King Solomon, Israel was the wealthiest, most powerful, most feared, and most blessed nation on earth. All the nations of the world knew of them and their God, whether they worshiped Him or not. Israel was doing a reasonably good job of fulfilling (a), (b), and (c) above.

But since the Jews are sinful human beings just like the rest of us, born with a sin nature just like the rest of us, they blew it. Again and again, they turned away from their God to worship idols, and repeatedly abandoned the God who had so richly blessed them. He would bring judgment upon them, they would repent, return to Him, and God would bless them again. Once things got back to normal, the cycle would start all over again.

By the time He sent His Son to them two thousand years ago to establish the kingdom He had promised them, their religious leaders had become such hardhearted, legalistic hypocrites that they rejected their Messiah and had Him executed. As a result, God enforced the terms of His covenant with them by driving them out of the land and scattering them all over the world.

It is important to note, however, that He also promised to (a) regather Israel as a nation in the last days, (b) bring them back into their covenant relationship with Him, (c) purge them in the Great Tribulation and finally bring a remnant to faith in their Messiah Jesus Christ, and (d) usher that believing remnant along with believing survivors of the Tribulation into the kingdom here on earth God promised them so long ago.

Item (a) was fulfilled in 1948 and we're just coming up on (b), in case you're keeping score at home. But I figure there's little point in giving you an in-depth lesson in eschatology since by your own admission you have no interest in the ongoing fulfillment of Bible prophecy. According to you, none of this ever happened or is happening. Fine. Suit yourself.

My point is that when people like the late Christopher Hitchens, et al. cherry pick what appear on the surface to be shockingly barbaric passages of Scripture, they completely ignore the historical context in which these events occurred. Without that, it's the easiest thing in the world to paint God as a cruel monster and have people willingly fall for it.

There are tons of verses that people love to wave in Christians' faces after stripping them of any meaningful historical context and grumble "Looky at what your nasty old God did! How politically incorrect! How barbaric and unenlightened!" It plays well with the young, pseudo-intellectual atheist crowd, sells books, packs debates and public discussions, and makes legions of disaffected college sophomores swoon.

We know s-o-o much better today. And since we plan to make the world a better place through our own efforts, it would sure be nice if all you brainwashed Bible thumpers would grow up and get over your silly delusions and get with the program. Otherwise, maybe we'd all be better off if we just eliminated you.

We have to understand Old Testament events in their historical Old Testament context, not a politically correct, twenty-first century context. That's the fundamental problem with using skin-deep interpretations of Old Testament verses to impugn God's character. Unfortunately, people keep right on doing it because (a) they've already made up their minds they hate God, (b) it has become a rite of passage for anyone who wants to be considered intellectual or enlightened to any degree to mock and disparage a book they haven't read and don't begin to understand, and (c) they are only looking for excuses to remain in unbelief so they can be their own gods.

That is the nature of man—enmity toward God. Of course, these same people gloss over the fact that God's character is amply revealed throughout the Bible, and He shows Himself again and again to be simultaneously (a) infinitely holy, (b) perfectly just, and (c) supremely loving.

Naah, let's just ignore all that because it makes us feel so toweringly rational to elevate ourselves to a position from which to presume to judge our Creator and dismiss Him as a delusion for pathetic simpletons who are afraid of the dark.

You also mentioned women not being allowed to teach or be in a position of authority over men within the Church:

Some translations say "silence," but the Greek word used here (a form of hesuchia) doesn't necessarily mean "speechlessness" in this context. The Greek word suggests a calm, quiet submission to authority, not necessarily literally keeping one's mouth shut. And the next two verses tell us why:

Eve was last in creation, but first in transgression. So, it's not just some repressive cultural thing that pushes everyone's PC buttons. It's a divine mandate that many today feel compelled to toss aside due to political correctness and shifting social and cultural mores.

All I can say is if it offends your modern egalitarian sensibilities, feel free to find a church with a woman pastor. It won't affect anyone's salvation, but it's just not the way God intended it to be. Sorry.

Then there's God's "regret" over creating man:

Some translations say God "repented" of creating man, which is essentially the same idea: God was "sorry" He ever made us.

Properly speaking, God cannot "repent" or be "sorry" for His actions in the same way man can, and the reason is simple: We are clearly told as much elsewhere in Scripture. For example:

And so on. My point is that people who refuse to believe in God and in His Word go to great lengths to pick certain verses out of context and spin them into something they can claim is a resounding denial of the existence of God and the repudiation of His Word. Well, not so fast.

There are numerous passages of Scripture in which God makes statements in such a way that man can relate to what He is trying to communicate. In other words, God sometimes speaks in the manner of man so that we can better understand His heart and His actions.

For example, the Bible says the mighty arm of the LORD brought Israel out of Egypt. Well, God doesn't have an arm. But we do, and we get it.

God says He is sorry He made man. It's not that He is "sorry," but saying it in that manner allows us to understand the alienation of God's heart from man's consummate wickedness, as God portrays Himself as someone who is grieved at something He created and who is apparently in the mood to destroy it because it turned out to be so flawed. And we get it—at least some people do.

I suspect nothing I have written will convince you of anything. I know better—I learned the hard way. It's just that when people run down my God and impugn His character and His holy name out of their ignorance and the hardness of their hearts, it's difficult to let it pass unchallenged.

Hitch, if you're waiting for me to keep begging you to believe, you're in for a disappointment. I've said all that needs to be said, the ball is in your court, and you've ignored every word. So, feel free to tell me again to shut my big, fat, stupid mouth and we'll be done here. But thank you for the opportunity to lift up the name of Jesus, the name that is above every name.

By the way, "every knee" includes your knee, and "every tongue" includes your tongue, Hitch. Which reminds me...I cracked up when you accused me of using "fear tactics." =8O

That's not a fear tactic, Hitch. That's the truth. But do with it as you will.

P.S. I'm still scratching my head over "pompous megalomaniacal papist jerk." Papist?? What on earth did I say to make you think I was associated with the Roman Catholic Society of Useless Religious Rituals? (Sorry, but I have too much respect for the word "Church.") I mean, "pompous megalomaniacal jerk" I can relate to...especially before I've had my second cup of coffee. But "papist"? That came precariously close to hurting my feelings, Hitch. =;)

One reason I shared this discussion with you is because it is so typical. There are tons of people in the world today just like Hitch, who hate God and are so closed off to all things spiritual that there is just no getting through to them. No matter how patiently and biblically you deal with their arguments, it just bounces off them. They ignore everything you say and rage on. The angry bluster and denial remain intact, and you get nowhere.

In the end, all you can do is pray that you were able to plant a seed that the Holy Spirit can cause to take root. I pray that my poor (and occasionally in-your-face) efforts were able to do that, but I doubt if I will ever know this side of heaven.

What saddens me is that I know that many such people are genuinely hungry for truth, for something real. They are walking around with a hole in them, and they fail to understand and refuse to acknowledge that this hole is shaped like God. As a result, when they go off in search of something to fill that hole, nothing ever does. Surprise, surprise.

I think it's telling that people who don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, fairies, leprechauns, and unicorns do not hate them, nor do they hate anyone who does believe in them. They have no logical reason to.

But isn't it strange...people who so confidently and vehemently deny that God exists hate Him (and those who believe in Him) with every fiber of their being. Atheists will invariably insist they don't hate God (logically they must, for the reason just given), but that they just don't believe He exists. But if you talk to them long enough, you begin to realize they really do hate God. Intensely. I have yet to talk to one who didn't.

On second thought, maybe it isn't so strange after all. In reality, there is a reason they hate God, and the reason is simple:

They hate God because they love their sin. But logically they can't hate someone they don't believe exists, and that's the point:

In other words, all men have an innate awareness of God's existence, and have no excuse for believing otherwise. And that's why some people can consciously insist God isn't real and yet hate Him so intensely:

Down deep, on some level, they know God exists.

They just wish He didn't.

Greg Lauer — OCT '15

Top of the page

If you like this article, share it with someone!

 OCT '15 

Site Search

Powered by:
JavaScript Kit