simpleandy-blog

[simpleandy-blog]

This song has been in my head non-stop lately. Here's me doing a basement acoustic cover. 

[simpleandy-blog]

Poem for Before & After

Tonight my new church home, The Crossing is kicking off a new sermon series titled Before & After that will focus on what life is like for a person before and after Christ. As someone who has been a follower of Christ for quite a while now, I'm really looking forward to being reminded of where I was before I came into a relationship with Christ. As I was preparing my heart for this series, I wrote this poem. Enjoy.

When did You seek this soul, O Lord? What was it that You saw? In all my shame, Your glory shone In no less fragrant awe You took my spirit's shabby state All overgrown with sin, Anointed it with Your Son's blood And made it new again O sing, my soul. Your day was dark The light; the only cure The only man to heal this house Was Christ, the carpenter

[simpleandy-blog]

Atheism: If God’s Existence is Not Impossible, Do You Think it’s Irrelevant?

“But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”

-G.K. Chesterton

A few weeks ago, I posted a response to this question asked on my blog, “Are you an atheist?” This simple question excited a lengthy answer from me as to why I am certainly not an atheist and why I am a Christian. In my response, I took atheism as an assertion of the certainty of no gods. This definition irritated many atheists who read my response. I give you my sincere apologies. I truly thought there was more bite to atheism’s bark. Despite the jagged rhetoric of the new atheism, which I thought implied a certain confidence in their position, most atheists were offended that I even suggested that they claim certainty in this area. The atheists I came into contact with, while very reluctant to defend the title of “atheism” with any assertions or premises, seemed to be more in favor of an argument for the irrelevance of theism rather than what my original post laid out. I don’t blame them at all for correcting me on my terminology. I totally agree with that accountability. Now let’s talk about my reasons for Christian theism through the lens of this more updated and (I hope) accurate atheistic claim that theism is irrelevant.  My first reason in the original post was the problem of origins that the cosmological argument presents. There is good reason philosophically and mathematically to believe that this universe is not eternal. That is to say, it doesn’t have an infinite past. In William Lane Craig’s words, here are the premises and conclusion of the Kalām cosmological argument:

1. If the universe began to exist, then it has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The law of causation supports premise 1. The evidence from physics and cosmology points to an expanding universe, leading us away from the idea of an infinite universe in support of premise 2. This is a sound conclusion.

“All the evidence we have says, ‘The universe has a beginning.’” -Alexander Vilenkin (theoretical physicist with over 25 years in the field of cosmology) 

We exist. The evidence we have points toward an origin. I think the cosmological argument deserves any thinking person’s attention.  I then spoke briefly on the teleological argument. This argument sums up the possibilities of the existing universe based on what we’ve been able to study and learn about it, concluding that it could exist as a result of 3 different possibilities: physical necessity, chance, or design. Since there is no evidence that the universe exists out of necessity and the odds are so incredibly unlikely that the universe could exist out of chance, design needs to be examined. The evidence of this finely tuned universe is remarkable and should be anything but irrelevant for a person who is trying to explain an existing universe without intelligent design. A designed universe is the most probable explanation.  The next section of my original post was more of a critique on naturalism. Naturalist thinking is so contradictory to reason and experience that I find it amazing that people who claim to be logical or free-thinking can call themselves naturalists. According to Dr. Alex Rosenberg’s book, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, naturalism rejects the possibility of the supernatural and claims that a human brain cannot truly think about anything, yet I’m thinking about naturalism right now. Take a moment to check your mind. If you’re thinking about naturalism (or anything else), you can conclude that naturalism is not true. Naturalism also claims that life is mass, energy, and chemicals, but has no meaning. According to Rosenberg, even the words and sentences in his own book are in fact, meaningless. Yet who would dare utter such words? To make any statement against the legitimacy of all statements would require words and in doing so, be self-defeating. If an atheist claims this weird philosophy, I’d recommend they take a break from criticizing Christianity and examine the contradictions in this very popular view.  I finished answering this question by giving some experiential reasons why I believe and follow the God of the Bible and Jesus as the son of God. I did also want to add in this post that the more I investigate biblical history, the more verifiable and clear the books of the Bible become. Scientific evidence and discoveries also greatly support my position of faith in God as intelligent designer.  If an atheist holds a position contrary to mine, I would like to hear their position explained. In all the time I’ve spent listening to and considering the different problems that atheists have with Christianity, I still haven’t heard any decent scientific or philosophical responses to the cosmological, teleological, or ontological arguments. I’ve also yet to find any positive evidence in favor of an atheistic worldview. For a person to say, “I’m an atheist” means that they’ve weighed the evidence for atheism against the evidence for theism in an unbiased way and found atheism to be more probable. To claim that the entire discussion is irrelevant, to me, is anything but a conclusion. This is why I would encourage atheists to think through these problems with their worldview and if the problems remain and the contradictions persist, then there is no good reason to maintain an atheistic worldview.

[simpleandy-blog]

The End of a Bottle Rocket - Reflections on The Corners

A few weeks ago, my band, The Corners drove back into Hannibal from our last long drive ever. Eleven hours of driving brought us home from a beautiful Appalachian city called Pikeville, Kentucky. It was our last concert as a band. During the long haul back to Hannibal, I got to reflect a little bit on The Corners and its impact on my life over the last four years. Here are some good, practical things I’d like to pass along that I learned while on the road with this awesome group of guys:

1) Songs are worth singing. It’s amazing how a song can get stuck in your head and somehow wiggle its way down into your heart. Ideas are contagious like that. It has been so humbling to hear how people have been ministered to, called into areas of ministry, and even led to salvation by God and that He used lyrics that I’ve written as a vehicle to convey those messages. As long as God speaks to people through music, songs are worth singing.

2) Faith is worth having. Faith used to be more of an abstract thought that seemed barely beyond my ability to fully understand it. I utilized faith for belief, but not usually for day in, day out, practical living. Taking the leap into full-time ministry without any financial safety net was extremely scary. Before that leap, there were so many areas where I naturally outsourced my faith in God’s provision to areas of financial stability. In other words, I had faith in my bank account to save me so that I didn’t have to worry whether or not God would. Having removed that steady income and hitting the road with the band truly showed me that when a person steps out of their own earthly support system and pursues what they know the Lord wants for them, faith is not just a part of philosophy, its a very real part of how God wants to work in and through us. Our faith in God truly is the “evidence” or “substance” of things unseen as the writer of Hebrews puts it. I was amazed time and time again how our Lord truly is Jehovah-jireh. For those who believe, yet have not experienced faith in this way, I would encourage you to trust our Father fully and watch how He allows you to glorify Him in amazing ways. God is all about giving God glory and when you jump into that effort, you’re not alone. He will sustain you. 3) People are worth loving. Jesus often ministered to the marginalized; those who were passed over or looked down on because they weren’t as noticeable with human eyes. These people are important to Jesus and they should be important to us as well. Over the last 4 years, I’ve been blessed abundantly by getting to witness God’s transformation of lives that were marginalized in the past, then used to carry enormous, life-changing messages. The Lord continually showed me that all people everywhere are worth loving and no one is in any place to treat another person otherwise.

As The Corners ends and I begin the next chapter in my life, I look forward to using these big principles that were learned on the road from Hannibal, Missouri to everywhere else over the last several years. To God be the glory for this amazing adventure that I’ve been on and continue to get to be on in witnessing His greatness. Whether home or far from home, He is good and will always allow us to witness His glory as we’re obedient in sharing it. Huge thanks to everyone who has supported The Corners over the years! You were a blessing to us and in turn, allowed us to bless others.

If this is your first time to hear about this band, listen to the music of The Corners HERE.

[simpleandy-blog]

Waiting for My Batmobile

All too often, I witness atheists who seemingly try to step inside the Christian worldview and run (whether intentional or not) an insincere reductio on it from the inside out. Here’s a good metaphor for an insincere reductio: I could step into a nice, dependable car and drive it in a way that causes it to break down. In this case, it doesn’t follow from the burnt up engine that the car was undependable, only the driver. As a 5 year old, I specifically remember a time when I was riding in the shopping cart at Walmart and I asked God to have a real Batmobile ready for me in the driveway when I got home. God didn’t come through on my request...bummer. There is a "proof" that God doesn't exist on Godisimaginary.com under the title "Try Praying" that would like for us believe that all you have to do in order to prove that God doesn’t exist is test Him by saying a prayer that they recommend. This test promises 2 possible results: either God doesn’t come through on your terms or you’ll successfully fool God into granting your wish. Not only does this contradict Old and New Testament teachings concerning testing God (Deut. 6:15; Jesus quotes the Deut. passage in Luke 4:12), but it is intellectually dishonest to draw a conclusion from such a weak experiment. Godisimaginary draws the conclusion that the God they don’t believe exists is a liar. If I refuse to come into contact with all objects that are 32 °F or below, it would be a very unreasonable claim that ice does not exist. It is such a tragedy that so many atheists have put similar intellectual barriers into their lives in order to guarantee their avoidance of the presence of God.

[simpleandy-blog]

Are you an Atheist?

Dear anonymous person, 

Thank you for asking. Here's the short answer:

No. I'm not an atheist.

Here's the long answer: 

The word "atheism" means "without gods" and asserts a position of certainty that no god exists. Some atheists claim that atheism does not assert that and is, in fact, the absence of an assertion, which is ridiculous to me. If atheism is the non certainty that there are no gods, then the term "atheism" fails to mean anything.

Atheists on either side of this definition will claim that there is simply no reason to believe in a god since there is no evidence to affirm His/Her/Its existence. Even if this statement were true, which it isn't (and I'll get there in a minute), atheism's lack of evidence does not in any way disprove the existence of a god. Simply put, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. I find it absolutely incredible that a person can start with the reasonable consideration of a universe without a supernatural creator and then from there, make the enormous leap to the certainty of no god with no real evidence to bridge this massive gap.

Atheism, as an effect, has been struggling since its own beginning to provide an adequate explanation for the origin of the universe. In this cause and effect universe, something always has to come from an antecedent something else. Ex nihilo (or "out of nothing") cannot exist, so atheists go far out out of the way of observable evidence to speak of multiverses and big nothings colliding. Anything to avoid the supernatural big bang of an intelligent designer. 

The only reasonable way to end this infinite regress is the existence of a being capable of commencing an initial force, or big bang; a being which lives outside of the natural universe. A supernatural force is the only logical primary cause to this big effect in which we exist.

This is why the existence of a creator is what I would consider a logical axiom. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga refers to this type of belief as properly basic. 

How do I know that God truly exists?

How do I know that other minds truly exist outside of my mind?

How do I know that the past truly exists; that I didn't just come into being seconds ago with preconceived, false memories?

None of these questions can be answered outside of subjective thought and yet most everyone operates within these and other axioms that simply don't require the justification of other beliefs.

So why am I a Christian theist?

This properly basic belief has been confirmed by the personal revelation resulting from an honest pursuit of God. I simply witnessed the God who was there as revealed through the Bible, the historicity of Jesus, and the personal experience of the Holy Spirit.

Believing in God based on personal experience is just like believing in the past based on personal experience. Christian theism, to me, is not only the more plausible worldview, but the only possible worldview based on everything I logically know and understand, including the the way in which I can come to know and understand anything else. The ability to even consider and doubt God presupposes His existence in the life of that mind.

Whew, thanks anon. I've been meaning to get my thoughts sorted out on concerning all that. Whatever your reason was for asking, I hope I've expressed my views loud and clear. If anyone else would like to ask a question about anything, I'd love to try to give my best answer. Just click the tab to the left that says "ask me anything." 

[simpleandy-blog]

False Dichotomy Vs. God - a response to Evolution Vs. God

I will forever think of Rice Krispies as “Rice Bubbles”--a term given by Ray Comfort over breakfast at my parents’ house when I was a kid. Ray stayed with us for several days as he gave a seminar at our church. He preferred to stay with families at homes rather than hotels. My family and I enjoyed our time with Ray. I have a tremendous amount of respect for him as an evangelist and in no way do I wish to question his character or motives, but here’s the deal--I watched his latest short documentary that he released on Youtube last Tuesday titled Evolution Vs. God and I’d like to voice some concerns.

Before even watching the film, I had already taken issue with the title. Evolution Vs. God? This kind of polarity falsely assumes that if the world of science ever finds sufficient major changes in the genomes of biological life over successive generations, then God cannot exist. While I am a Christian and not an evolutionist, my faith in God is not resting on the fulcrum that evolution is impossible. It‘s quite possible. All we can really do is speculate on its probability. There are many Christians such as Darrel Faulk, Denis Lamoureux, and Francis Collins who are active in scientific communities and believe that evolution is a great explanation for how things are likely to operate here on Earth. There is no good reason to condemn the faith of people like Faulk, Lamoureux, and Collins solely on the fact that they find evolution to be probable. We don’t have to assume an either/or mentality here. Evolution Vs. God is composed mostly of a series of intermittent questions posed to college students and professors. Overall, the nature of these questions camped just outside the realm of observable evidence, pushing toward a critical view of the evolutionists' faith in their beliefs. “If you believe in evolution, prepare to have your faith shaken.” -quote from the Evolution Vs. God trailer While the recurring word “faith” may have been used lightly to throw atheists off and hopefully find some vindication for atheism’s criticism of Christianity’s faith in God, I was not at all comfortable with the rhetoric that implies a comparison between my Christian faith and the faith that one might have in evolution. Drawing incorrect comparisons between the Christian and the evolutionist on faith can create a confusing semantic battle in the areas of evangelism and apologetics. There is no need to be part of the problem by muddying the waters of rhetoric. Dear Christian, if science could provide conclusive evidence for evolution, would you have to abandon your faith in God? If so, your faith is on shaky ground and you have given your assumptions more authority in your mind than the One who is at the foundation of everything you know and see. Don’t let your view of creation turn God’s sky into a mere ceiling. I would like to appeal to a robust and well-informed agnosticism concerning the topic of evolution. Let’s allow the Lord to have accomplished Genesis one and two in whatever fashion He desired while encouraging scientists to stay honest to their findings without wandering too far from the actual evidence. In conclusion, I would not recommend sending Evolution Vs. God to all your atheist friends. Despite the trailer’s claim, this film will probably not bring people to the conclusion that there is no evidence for Darwinian evolution. Click here to view Evolution Vs. God.

[simpleandy-blog]

The Chastity Principle That Continues

“The essence of chastity is not the suppression of lust, but the total orientation of one's life towards a goal. Without such a goal, chastity is bound to become ridiculous. Chastity is the sine qua non of lucidity and concentration.” -Dietrich Bonhoeffer

[simpleandy-blog]

Zeitgeist of the Internet Atheist

In 2007, a guy named Peter Joseph released a documentary called Zeitgeist: The Movie. The German word "zeitgeist" translates as "spirit of the age." In this internet movie, three different conspiracy theories are shared, but I'd like to address what was said about Jesus, the Bible, and Babylonian mythology.  About a month ago, I had an online discussion with an atheist who seemed to hold similar views of Jesus and Babylonian mythology as shared in Zeitgeist, but I wasn't too familiar with this view. The reason why I have heard very little about the so-called pagan parallels to Jesus is because these views were dropped by scholars pretty quickly on good cause. At the University of Göttingen, Germany, a group of Protestant theologians got together and started a movement in the late 1800's called the "History of Religions School". The explicit goal of this movement was to show that all religions of the world share a common lineage and that this could be proven by their parallels to each other. The implicit goal of this movement was an attempt to bypass the Jewishness of Jesus so that these anti-Semites could at last have their own Aryan Jesus grounded in Greco-Roman history. The History of Religions School died out in the 1930's due to a severe lack of evidence.  Zeitgeist's pagan copycat theory is just an attempt at repackaging an old version of racist German theology and is actually being spread around the internet as fact. Most of the literature referenced in this documentary comes from this outdated movement, a very selfish and historically dishonest zeitgeist in and of itself. In this screenshot of the film, you can see some of the claims that Zeitgeist: The Movie tried to make concerning Jesus and Horus that simply aren't there:

BORN ON DECEMBER 25TH: There are no biblical references of Jesus being born on any specific day. The stories of Horus contain three different birth accounts. One of those lands on December 25th. Even if there were one singular account of Horus being born on Dec. 25th, nothing can be said of a parallel here. During Jesus' birth, we know Caesar Augustus issued a census and that this was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-3). If there was any evidence of Horus being born during a census of some kind, we might have a parallel. Christmas is named after "Christ's Mass" -- it's simply a feast of the liturgical year when Christians commemorate Jesus' birth. BORN OF A VIRGIN: According to Ian Shaw's The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, the Babylonian myth has it that Osiris had been murdered, cut into several pieces, and spread all across Egypt. Isis, Osiris' sister/wife found almost all the pieces and put Osiris back together. Almost all the pieces. She was short one piece...his penis. That part was said to have been thrown into the Nile River and eaten by catfish. Isis used her magic powers to resurrect him with just enough strength for one last sexual encounter and he was fashioned with a new golden penis so that their son, Horus could be conceived. This account can be called, bizarre or kinky, but one thing that it cannot be called is a virgin birth. STAR IN THE EAST/ADORNED BY THREE KINGS: Since Zeitgeist was wrong about Jesus' birth being on December 25th, the assumption of the star in the East and three Kings following it is also wrong. Zeitgeist's argument for a parallel "star" and "kings" hinges on this specific day of the year. As mentioned earlier, one of the three birth stories of Horus was December 25th which this film says is the day after Sirius (a bright star in the East) lines up with what Zeitgeist calls the "Three Kings" (Orion's belt). There is also a very important astronomy mistake here. Sirius lines up with the stars in Orion's belt every single night, not just the 24th. On December 24th, these four stars can be found straight up in the sky, leaving them in the Western sky when the sun rises, as opposed to a straight line with the sun when it rises. Check it out for yourself this Christmas Eve. Concerning the "Three Kings" specifically, we have another simple error that could have been avoided if the makers of this film had just read the Bible. According to the book of Matthew--which is the only book of the Gospels that gives an account of the magi visitation--an unnumbered group of wise men came from afar and gave Jesus three gifts (Matthew 2:1-12). I couldn't find any account of Horus' childhood which mentions three kings (other than the Zodiac comparison), but even if this was in the stories, it makes no difference. This is simply not the story of Jesus that the Bible tells us. BAPTIZED/MINISTRY AT 30: The Bible actually does say that Jesus was baptized and started his ministry at "about 30 years old" (Luke 3:23). So if there is any account of a baptism or anything related to a ministry of Horus at the age of 30, we might have a parallel. The only information that I can find on this particular parallel are the writings of an English poet and self-taught Egyptologist named Gerald Massey. He wrote a book called The Natural Genesis in 1883 (when the History of Religions School was very popular) which attempts to draw parallels between Horus and Jesus. This book has been unanimously dismissed among actual Egyptologists due to lack of evidence. 12 DISCIPLES: Zeitgeist: The Movie movies says, “probably the most obvious of all the astrological symbolism around Jesus regards the 12 disciples.” There are 12 constellations that travel around with the sun (Horus), so according to this film it's "obvious" that Christianity copied this in their story of Jesus. What Zeitgeist calls "obvious" is actually quite a stretch. The only similarity is the number 12. There is, however, an obvious explanation for why Jesus chose 12 disciples. As a matter of fact, Jesus plainly stated why He chose 12. He said to his disciples in Matthew 19:28, "you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Jesus was obviously fulfilling the old covenant of Israel, where Christianity actually came from. You can buy a carton of one dozen eggs from the store, but that doesn't infer that the selling of eggs are a direct consequence of Babylonian astrology. LAMB OF GOD/THE LIGHT Jesus was called the "Lamb of God" to represent his death as the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial system of the Israelites. "Lamb of God" in reference to Jesus makes perfect sense when you put it in the Jewish perspective. For the life of me, I can't find anywhere where Horus is referred to as the "Lamb of God." Someone please chime in here if you know of a legitimate source that does so (a URL  kin to godisdumb.net or atheistpropaganda.org doesn't count). Horus is the sky god of mythology. This contains the sun (Horus' right eye) and moon (his left) and also the image of a falcon. Light comes from the sun, so if you wish to call Horus "the light," I suppose you could make that vague stretch, but to call this a parallel story to that of Jesus is still preposterous. CRUCIFIED Crucifixion is a very real form of execution that was used by the Romans during the time that Jesus lived. Since Zeitgeist is claiming that the mythical stories of Horus predate Jesus by several thousand years (Zeitgeist claims 3,000 B.C.), it would be ridiculous to assert that Horus was crucified. Crucifixion didn't even exist until around 600 B.C.  DEAD FOR THREE DAYS/RESURRECTED Same as the "Lamb of God" reference, I can't find any sources that have a record of these events occurring in the stories of Horus (other than Gerald Massey's pseudo-Egyptology which was already addressed as lacking in legitimate scholarship). Horus' dad, Osiris almost/sort of resurrected. After Osiris' death, he was made king of the underworld. He didn't have a bodily resurrection and wasn't sacrificed for mankind, but he did continue to exist post mortem. I know that's two huge stretches, but that's all we've got in the area of parallelism here. There's actually no original account of Horus' death. MY FINAL APPEAL (FOR TODAY) I'm not at all against anyone and everyone making arguments on behalf of their worldview, but please, be reasonable. If disavowing the life of Jesus requires you to reject Babylonian and Jewish history, consider anti-Semitic theology, get a D- in Astronomy 101, or confound clearly defined terms, then you've crossed the line from rational inquiry, fallen off of Occam's razor, and wandered into the land of mere wish fulfillment. Any honest skeptic should reject the indoctrinating lies of Zeitgeist: The Movie and other related internet garbage, but do not take my word for it. Research this for yourself. As in the case of the History of Religions School, people used to hide behind the name of God to do their puppeteering, now with the advent of internet atheism, they're just doing it outright.

[simpleandy-blog]

I reject at once an idea which lingers in the mind of some modern people that cultural activities are in their own right spiritual and meritorious—as though scholars and poets were intrinsically more pleasing to God than scavengers and bootblacks. ...The work of Beethoven and the work of a charwoman become spiritual on precisely the same condition, that of being offered to God, of being done humbly 'as to the Lord.'

C. S. Lewis The Weight of Glory

--Amen. Colossians 3:17

[simpleandy-blog]

A Submissive Church (The Metaphor Reversed)

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior...Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy...He who loves his wife loves himself. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’. This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church.” -Paul (Ephesians 5:22-32) The last sentence in this passage got me thinking. Up until now, I had always thought of this passage as using Christ and the church as a metaphor for how husbands and wives ought to treat each other. At least that’s the context where I find these verses 99% of the time (typically at weddings). This might lead us to be more concerned with the state of men and women than with Christ and the church. But “Christ and the church” isn’t your average metaphor, not even close! This passage isn’t merely saying that wives and husbands are “like a bridge” or “like a tree”. Since the metaphor is “Christ and the church”, we can, and should look deeper for the greater truth that Paul (and the Holy Spirit) are delivering. Reverse the metaphor to find truth about God’s love for us and how we’re called to react to it as a church. Imagine the perfect married couple. He is a confident, yet humble man who leads out of sacrifice, not vain conceit. He loves her and would do anything to protect and serve her. She keeps his love in her heart and never wavers in that truth. She trusts him completely and possesses enough self-confidence through her husband’s love to feel completely secure in submitting to him as the head of their family. He gets to lead and sacrifice, she gets to be lead into a fulfilling life as she follows in step with him. They both are gladly willing to serve one another. I would love to see Christendom, as a whole, be a better wife. In this day and age, “submit” is often the more offensive “s” word in our vocabulary, but our command in this passage is clear; we are to “submit to our Husband” just as a loving wife who is confident in her husband’s leadership would submit. There are too many examples of Christ’s church distorting critical, life-saving, biblical truth in the name of relevance or a less abrasive style of church. We could be entertaining people in our church to eternal death, ignoring the very source of life that inaugurated the church. It’s so important that we trust and submit to our Husband. “This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church.”

[simpleandy-blog]

Letters To An Atheist Concerning Things That "Cannot Be Moderately Important"

This is, by far and away, the longest post in our discussion so far. I took careful consideration of Kiteman’s criticism concerning my “exclusion of direct responses” and carefully addressed mostly everything that I disagreed with from his last post. Each section in this post is organized by a bold heading. Since Kiteman and I have so many different irons in the fire, I would recommend wrapping this discussion up or confining it to only one or two of these topics. I’ll leave that up to Kiteman, but I will say that I have thoroughly enjoyed his passion and thought thus far and I am always delighted to throw in my fifty cents on these million dollar topics.

I went ahead and made a little table of contents for our discourse:

My first post: “Questions For The Evangelical Atheist” Kiteman’s first response: “Evangelising” My 2nd response: “At These Temperatures and Under These Conditions” Kiteman’s 2nd response: “Sigh”

Ad Hominem Generalization

I almost admire Kiteman for sticking to his guns. I pointed out in my last post the basic fallacy of his argument as he charged Christianity with being guilty by association with unbiblical actions committed by Christians. This is a very base form of argumentation that has generally led to racism, sexism, religious strife, and many other forms of ignorant hatred. He continued to proceed with the claims that violence by people claiming to be Christian indicates that Christianity is violent in and of itself. Despite my refutation of this argument and warning of its dangers, Kiteman remains unmoved. Oh well, I won’t keep pressing the subject. P. G. Wodehouse said it best, “Some minds are like soup in a poor restaurant—better left unstirred.”

Morality On the issue of morality, I’ve never claimed that atheists can’t be relatively nice and pleasant people. I take no issue on the idea that an atheist is fully capable of learning and following the rules. The preferential morality system of an upright atheist can be like a beautiful, intricate house; classic architecture inside and out, vibrant colors, hand-carved trimming, much of it handed down from generation to generation. There’s only one problem with this house: It has abandoned the foundation it was built upon and now sits on raw ground. The tectonic nature of moral relativism will not allow for anything less than an impractical structure void of virtue and objective meaning. Morals, in order to be authoritative, must be able to get past the simple, sandlike system of group preferences. 

That said, I feel the need to comment on this specifically:

“Morality is an emergent function of the complexities of human interaction. It cannot exist except between groups and societies, and is always based, at least in part, on what goes before, much like christianity is based on judaism, and judaism is based on the  Egyptian and Babylonian religions that existed earlier.” -Kiteman

I’ll brush off the purposeful historical ignorance and go straight to the accidental authoritative ignorance. This, Kiteman’s personal definition of morality, is what was used in an attempt to refute my point on how the consequences of moral relativism can play out on each individual person subscribed to it. I find it appropriately ridiculous that Kiteman chose not to refer to an expert in philosophy or ethics to prove or at least try to explain this point. No, he made up his own definition. He chose some really cool words like “complexities” and “function”, but why must I consider his definition as the true definition of morality? Why can’t I make up my own? I know some cool words too.

Merriam-Webster, Inc. defines morality as “conformity to ideals of right human conduct.” The controversial word in this definition is of course, “right”. This word goes well beyond simply explaining what is and isn’t; there’s a certain implied objectivity to it. Having a subjective view of morality, even a societally subjective view such as Kiteman’s implies that morality is nothing more than a glorified version of individual or group preferences. Preferring certain behaviors to be one way or another does not properly define morality. A group’s preferred conduct does not make it right. Kiteman’s view of morality through evolutionary psychology recognizes that attributes such as compassion and kindness are good because they’ve helped humanity survive and continue to do so. It is perfectly ok to make the observation that compassion exists in our societies, it’s also ok to speculate on why compassion exists and how it’s beneficial or pragmatic, but it is completely illogical to call this attribute “good” or “right”. Evolutionary psychology can only observe and describe which characteristics evolved within a species. By no means should that lead us to which characteristics should be valued and which should be avoided. Evolution has allegedly led humans to be kind and compassionate, but also aggressive and domineering. Just because these tendencies could be a direct result of our survival doesn’t mean they should be considered objectively good. We are not dealing with the rules of fair play, we are dealing with the authority of the issue and why I, as a thinking individual should or shouldn’t follow along.

The Afterlife.

“It is a sad fact that strongly religious individuals are the least likely to plan for the future, and to consider the long-term consequences of their actions.” -Kiteman

This is what Kiteman meant by my being wrong about the atheist postmortem. Again, Christians are unnecessarily lumped into a generalized category. Might as well say, “All you religious types are the same, what with your anti-reason and your littering and whatnot.” I respectfully enjoy this beautiful earth that God created. It is incredibly important for Christians to be good stewards of what God has made. As for my least likeliness to plan for the future and not considering “the long-term consequences”, I’d have to say that this couldn’t be further from the truth. I would encourage Kiteman to consider the longer-term consequences of unbelief. As C.S. Lewis said, “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.”

Worldview In the next paragraph, Kiteman says that I “exhibit amazing arrogance when assuming that any worldview that is not based on {my} own religion is inherently lacking in value.” Its not value that atheism lacks, its truth, reason, philosophy, and logic. I absolutely value the worldview of atheism; so thoroughly in fact, that I read everything I can on the subject. This is not always an easy task since so much of contemporary atheistic literature exhibits the very arrogance that I’m currently being accused of having. In books by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Coyne, and the like, the Christian worldview is consistently bullied with sarcasm and weak points of ridicule that show either a lack of understanding or a purposeful distortion of Christian teachings.

Atheistic Solidarity “It's simple: atheism means that you do not believe in any gods.” -Kiteman

I suppose it really is that simple. Since Kiteman put it in those terms, I can define theism just as simply; it means that you do believe in a god. Where you go from these 2 simplistic definitions is pretty crucial. Kiteman says that “atheists are ultimately responsible for their own behaviour.” Christians are also responsible for their own behavior “so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body” (2 Corinthians 5:10), but we also acknowledge God as the “lawgiver and judge” (James 4:12). So not if, but when a person in this society breaks the rules, we refer to the objective, authoritative standard which he should be judged by, not a shifting, preferential standard of the majority.

My Bad I will concede a mistake of mine. This is a great observation that Kiteman made from my last post. It will remain on that post as a mistake. I misused a quote from two scientists concerning science. That quote had mostly nothing to do with atheism. Similarly, many arguments within the Christian church have mostly nothing to do with God or the bible, but I'll get to that in a bit. On a side note, my back teeth are still a little sore from when I first read that Kiteman referred to journalist Christopher Hitchens as a “philosopher.”

What “Objective” Means “If your god is an ‘objective truth’, why do so many people disagree on whether he even exists? Such disagreement is not possible when being objective.” -Kiteman Actually, it is. First, let’s consider what “objective” really means. Objectivity does not ask for your permission to be, it just is. Philip K. Dick put it so well, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” A blind person might not believe that the grass is green, but I’m ok with that. For a person to think that they must believe in something for it to be objectively true, they are grossly missing the all-encompassing nature of the idea of objectivity.  That said, does God give us the libertarian free will to doubt or deny His existence? Absolutely. God exemplifies love and freedom by letting us choose to follow Him or not.

Christian Solidarity “If your god is an ‘objective truth’, why are there forty one thousand different denominations of the ‘one’ faith?” -Kiteman There are three main branches within Christianity; Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism. Each subgroup or denomination fits within one of these 3 categories. These denominations come from disagreements concerning secondary areas of belief or practice. Denominationalism is often a symptom of pride, worship service preferences, semantics,  and clashing personality types, not lack of an objective authority. 

Motive “The fact is that the majority of christians label themselves as such through family tradition and cultural inertia, not because they have encountered their god.” -Kiteman I agree, other than the fallacy that we should call a suspicion “fact.” There’s no way Kiteman or I could prove that. “That minority who claim to have come to their faith after meeting their god do so through personal revelation, the ultimate in subjectivity.” -Kiteman ...Unless that revelation were real, in which case it would absolutely be objectively true. While my worldview is consistent with my growing knowledge and understanding of reason, philosophy, history, sociology, and science, the main thing that draws me to our loving Creator is the empirical evidence of a personal relationship with Him. To me, it seems ridiculous that someone would try to disprove what they themselves have not witnessed. 

In Closing “If you bring factual evidence to the table, and keep the table in one place, then I'm happy to carry on.” -Kiteman As I said in my opening paragraph, I too, would not be opposed to continuing this discourse with the request that we limit the topics at hand. If Kiteman would like to discuss morality, Christian vs. Atheistic evangelistic motives, or anything else, I’d be happy to share my thoughts and the reasons for my thoughts. But let it be known that throughout this entire discourse, I’ve been putting out the effort of including other philosophers, journalists, thinkers, and scientists into our discussions to better represent each side of the argument. If we continue, I would prefer that Kiteman also show his work and scholarship, seeing as how none were offered in his last 2 posts. 

[simpleandy-blog]

At These Temperatures And Under These Conditions

Earlier this week, I had some questions for a particularly zealous atheist who goes by the anonymous superhero nickname “Kiteman.” You can read my first post here, and his response here. 

Right off the bat, his response kicked off with a basic ad hominem fallacy. 

“Since christianity is supposed to be an all-pervading concept, a life, not just a set of rules, then every act by any individual claiming to be christian is relevant to a discussion of christianity. That includes everything from the church-sanctioned genocide of the Crusades, through the deliberate lies told about contraceptives,  all the way down to a christian motorist flipping the bird when another driver cuts him up.”

Kiteman’s argument can be outlined like this:

A) Christendom is composed of a group of individuals.

B) Some of those individuals and subgroups of individuals have done some horrible and stupid things throughout history.

C) Christendom is horrible and stupid in every way that the individuals in it have been horrible and stupid.

This kind of logic is objectively incorrect. In the case of this model, A + B does not = C. Christians and atheists get into stalemates over this fallacy all the time. The atheist blames the Christian for the crusades and then the Christian blames the atheist for Stalin’s “Great Purge.” Personally, I enjoy atheist Richard Dawkins’ response to this weak form of argumentation, “We can’t just compile lists of bad people who were atheists and lists of bad people who were religious. I am afraid there were plenty on both sides.” So my initial point that Kiteman attempted to prove “rendered useless” is actually justifiable by basic rhetorical logic and by the quotation of one of atheism’s premier prophets.

The next point in Kiteman’s response was based on my criticism of humanism. He combats the doctrine of total depravity with the praises of his superiors.

“my head teacher recently praised me for the personal integrity I display, as well as the moral example I set for my students.”

He also, being the proud father that he is, brags on his atheist sons for being commended by their teachers as “outstanding young men.” That’s great. Keep up the good work. Or don’t. I guess its your choice either way, since you are your own relative moral authority. There is no reason why I would want to argue whether or not atheist kids can be good little boys and girls (or “brights” as Dawkins would like them to be called). My real question with atheistic discipline is this: when they are bad kids, what gives an atheist the right to reprimand a child who is simply doing what’s right to them? You have no moral authority to interfere with another person’s moral relativism. Good or bad, this is simply what kid-shaped particle clusters do at these temperatures and under these conditions.

The final portion of Kiteman’s response is too sporadic and vague to justify a response on each little point, but there were 2 things he said that I would love to hear more about.

1) I said, “You {atheist} believe there’s nothing beyond this life.” and Kiteman’s response was “Wrong.”

This is news to me. I’m very interested and would love to hear more about this new view on the atheistic afterlife. 

2) I said, “Your {atheistic} message is nothing if not against the Christian message.” To which Kiteman responded with “Damn straight.”

With this simple, two word response, he evidently concedes that his world view does not stand for anything inherently. Kiteman simply wants to play demolition derby with other world views. I know that not all atheists think this way, but it saddens me that Kiteman’s only motivation to share his views is to try to prove other views wrong.

Here's part of his closing paragraph:

“Every atheist agrees what atheism means, and every (thinking) atheist agrees on the consequence of atheism”

Apparently, I’ve read more atheists than Kiteman. Here to comment on this is the late Christopher Hitchens. A devout atheist to his dying day. Here are two quotes from him: 

“The disagreement between Professor Stephen Jay Gould and Professor Richard Dawkins, concerning ‘punctuated evolution’ and the unfilled gaps in post-Darwinian theory, is quite wide as well as quite deep.”

“My own annoyance at professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called ‘brights,’ is a part of a continuous argument.”

Mr. Kiteman wraps up his response by saying that atheists are far from perfect, but at least they take responsibility for their own actions. I’ll tell you what sir, you can try to hold the weight of responsibility for Stalin’s executions, but I will never stand beside the raping and pillaging of the crusades. Those abominable acts were in no way a part of biblical Christianity. Not only do I know what is wrong (something even atheists can do), but I also have an objectively true standard greater than my own faulted self in which fellow believers and I can stay grounded in solidarity (something atheists cannot do).

[simpleandy-blog]

Questions For The Evangelical Atheist

“Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." -Matthew 28:18-20

A Christian is naturally and logically motivated to evangelize because of these 3 reasons: the gratitude of salvation, the confirming personal revelation of faith (by the Holy Spirit), and the commission by Christ to “go and make disciples of all nations.” I find it fascinating that in the world today, Atheists seem to sport a similar level of zeal for preaching their message of fundamentalist anti-belief. Clearly, their motives would have to be different from mine and that’s what I’m trying to figure out. 

A very popular stance by many notable Atheists argues that their passion for the abolition of faith comes from their view of religion as intellectually destructive and inhumane. Great examples of this argument can be found in books like God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens or The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I've read both. A major problem I've found with this moral objection by Atheists is that evil, unchristian acts are being labeled as “Christian” for the sake of this argument (i.e. priest pedophiles, resistance toward scientific advances, the crusades, false prophets, etc.) and evil acts committed by non Christians are ignored altogether. Christianity certainly does not advocate any of these behaviors. Also, since Atheists are often humanists as well (meaning that they optimistically view humanity as evolving and improving), these kinds of issues present more of a problem for the humanist world view than it does for Christianity. The point being that Christianity isn’t bad for humanity, humans are bad for Christianity.

  There is a great explanation for these “bad” or "wrong" behaviors. For the sake of discussion, we'll allow atheists to borrow these morally charged words since they have no grounds for using them within their own philosophy. Students of Calvinism subscribe to the scriptural idea of total depravity. This doctrine is very consistent with evil human behavior (Christian or non Christian) in that it explains the natural fallen state of mankind and its bent toward evil. This doctrine begs the Atheist-humanist to come to grips with the reality that all of humanity is naturally evil; every tribe, tongue, and nation (Romans 3:23). Along with that, what about the fact that evil deeds have been committed by the Atheist and the Christian alike? Here's the difference though: a Christian's evil deeds show him to be consistent with his beliefs of total depravity while an Atheist's evil deeds show his beliefs to be inconsistent with humanism. This is a philosophical problem for the Atheist. "Where are your accusers? Didn't even one of them condemn you?" -John 8:10.  There are no stones to throw in this argument of evil deeds, but while I'm faulted and depraved, I at least have a consistent view of evil (along with a solid reason to strive to be better than that - "sanctification").

  2 basic questions for the evangelical Atheist: I believe there is hope and salvation for mankind. This is why I carry the Christian message. My primary question to this relatively new breed of evangelical Atheists is "Why? What's your reason?" You believe there's nothing beyond this life. No hope. No justice. Your message is nothing if not against the Christian message. No matter what your world view, why would you object to someone else having a life-sustaining hope grounded in faith and reason that leads a person to live their life with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control? Which of these fruits is giving you indigestion?

Special thanks to @KitemanX for sparking some conversation on Twitter (http://irregularprofundity.blogspot.co.uk/).

  and I'm @andy_rhea

[simpleandy-blog]

Humility is not thinking less of yourself, it's thinking of yourself less.

C.S. Lewis

[simpleandy-blog]

The truth is like a lion. You don't have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself.

St. Augustine  

[simpleandy-blog]

My Problem With Abercrombie (And How It Might Differ From Yours)

When walking down the mall corridor, The Abercrombie & Fitch logo always stands out on huge banners featuring men’s abs in black and white. Since I already have homemade abs of my own (slightly less toned, but at least mine are in color), I assume that A&F has nothing good to offer me as I walk on by.

I’m sure most of you have seen some of the quotes resurfacing from a 2006 interview with Mike Jeffries, CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch where he reportedly said, “We go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely.”

It's important for a person who lives under the Lord's conviction to know how to deal with A&F and the many companies like them. Don’t just want to do the right thing; want to do the right thing for the right reasons. That said, I will continue to not endorse Abercrombie & Fitch, but not because of their explicitly narrow demographic. I withhold my business from A&F because of their marketing morals, not because of their marketing ethics. As a Christian, this distinction very important to me. 

Every business has a target demographic; a group of people that they want to sell stuff to. Big & Tall markets big clothes to big guys, Curves markets a comfortable workout experience to women who want to shed some pounds, and Abercrombie markets to “attractive kids.” Personally, I don’t see how targeting any particular size, shape, age, race, or gender is inherently shallow, but there’s much more to a marketing campaign than who its aimed toward. 

Ephesians 4:19: Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.

A&F pursues young, “cool kids” in very shallow and sexually insulting ways. It is absolutely wrong for Abercrombie (and any other company) to use sexually charged imagery to draw attention to their brand. This is the part about Abercrombie’s marketing that we should be offended by. Here are some other brands that do the same thing: AXE, Hardee’s (a.k.a Carl’s Jr.), American Apparel, PETA, etc. When I don’t support these kinds of companies, I’m doing so to avoid and discourage sexual sin, not because I’m offended that their business model isn’t begging for my patronage. Let’s deal with these companies for the right reasons (their sexual sins) not the wrong ones (whether or not they carry your jean size).

1 Thessalonians 4:3–5: God's will is for you to be holy, so stay away from all sexual sin. Then each of you will control his own body and live in holiness and honor—not in lustful passion like the pagans who do not know God and his ways.