Thursday, January 24, 2008


Read in the past week:

“It's impossible to convince an atheist that God isn't the problem, however, that perhaps it is their view of God that is at fault.

“Atheists are basically saying that our own free will is a mistake.”

“Of course, atheistic reasoning is always of this shallow variety. They choose not to believe and any argument is just a thin veil over that choice.”

“…I have not seriously attempted a collegiate level study of evolution. That is probably more than the evolutionists have ventured into the bible however.”

“Those who claim the Bible is dated and therefore irrelevant and of no value today often go unchallenged. Their assertion is that just because a text was written many years ago, it must therefore be outdated, of little to no use, and incapable of speaking to, addressing, or affecting things in the present.”

“They have merely assumed ahead of time that God does not exist, and therefore the Bible is just like any other book.”

“Nearly every atheist I've encountered who professed to have a deep knowledge and understanding of Christian theology had nothing of the sort, but instead seemed to have stopped studying once they felt their own suspicions were confirmed.”

No. Nope. Wrong. Not from what I’ve read.

It’s like getting the pain from a brain-freeze without the pleasure of the ice cream.


  1. "Nearly every atheist I've encountered who professed to have a deep knowledge and understanding of Christian theology..."

    Atheists typically have a deep knowledge of Christian apologetics (or the apologetics of the dominant religion in their society). Typically, theology begins with assumption that God exists; an assumption atheists typically don't share.

    Still and all, there are no small few atheists who, like yourself, come from a religious and even clerical background. Presumably they do know a lot about theology.

    But I do have to admit that theology does seem to me far too similar to taking a power drill to one's forehead: I'm not all that keen on getting personal experience.

  2. For example. What if I went on a rampage? I decide that I hate all Christians whose name started with “X” so I plan and execute murder. Technically those people would die “for” being a Christian. It was the reason they were picked. But the depth of their belief had nothing to do with it.

    Theres a significant difference...let's use Peter as an example...Peter KNEW he was going to would have he kept up a lie, knowing it would cost him his life...and even more so, he was a JEW, so he KNEW God existed...and knowing that, if he didnt actually beleive in Jesus he would also know he wouldn't end up in, if he knew Jesus was a lie...would have he kept up that lie, knowing it would cost him his life AND salvation?

  3. Wow! There’s a blast from the past. The first paragraph in Mike’s comment is from a post I did a few years ago Here. The better post to read would be where I fleshed out the subject Here.


    Let’s talk about Peter. Three questions:

    1) How did Peter die?
    2) What is your documentary source* for your answer to question 1?
    3) Was Peter given a chance to recant?

    *By “documentary source” I mean ACTUAL documents—Like 1 Clement, Tertullian, etc. Not: “Church tradition says…”

    And if anyone is interested in the myths regarding how the disciples died, Here is a good listing with links to documents.

  4. What, no quotes about pride? *Everyone* knows that atheists are so full of themselves that there's no room for God! ;)

    What's interesting about this is how all the quotes are operating. It's like they're saying that because the atheist doesn't agree with the Christian, the atheist has clearly not studied enough, has shallow reasoning, makes too many assumptions, and only reads for self-validation, and not in any search for the truth.

    The only way the atheists do the search "right" is if the atheist ends up becoming a Christian, it seems.

    Then again, perhaps the same can be said vice-versa.