“The last thing I want to do is offend anyone with my words, but even that will offend somebody. Therefore, I must speak the truth in love, even when love is misinterpreted as hate.” – A. Baker
Category Archives: Culture Wars
Equal Access Relief Room
Here I am in the terminal of the Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C. As of this writing I still have an hour or two before boarding a 777 in route to Ethiopia, then Zimbabwe.
Please make sure to check out the guest posts which I’ve scheduled over the next week or so.
Now, the reason I’m writing this post while sitting in the airport is because I saw something I’ve never seen before.


I guess when men and women can use the bathroom of their choice, depending on how they identify at any given moment, I’m glad our animals now have a place to relieve themselves.
But what if, after all this travel, I feel DOG TIRED?
Just a thought. But how do you flush that hydrant?
Filed under America, animals, Culture Wars, Uncategorized
I Am a Soldier. This Is My Creed.
Soldier’s Creed
Hearing a soldier in the United States Military recite his particular “Solder’s Creed,” whether it be with the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, or Coast Guard, is something quite stirring.
Probably inspired by the military creeds of this world, an unknown author penned the following for soldiers in God’s Army, the Church: those bought with the blood of Christ, wearing the whole armor of God, and marching onward toward victory with the Sword of the Spirit in their hands.
The sooner we come to the realization that we are most certainly engaged in a spiritual war, the better. May we all be willing to stand unashamed…”and having done all, to stand” (Ephesians 6:13).
The Christian Soldier’s Creed
I am a soldier in the Army of my God.
The Lord Jesus Christ is my commanding officer.
The Holy Bible is my code of conduct. Faith, prayer, and the Word are my weapons of warfare.
I have been taught by the Holy Spirit, trained by experience, tried by adversity, and tested by fire.
I am a volunteer in this Army, and I am enlisted for eternity.
I will either retire at the Rapture, or die in this Army; but I will not get out, sell out, be talked out, or pushed out.
I am faithful, reliable, capable, and dependable.
If my God needs me, I am there.
If He needs me in the Sunday school to teach the children, work with the youth, help adults, or just sit and learn, I’ll be there.
He can use me because I am there!
I am a soldier.
I am not a baby. I do not need to be pampered, petted, primed up, pumped up, picked up, or pepped up.
I am a soldier.
No one has to call me, remind me, write me, visit me, entice me, or lure me.
I am a soldier.
I am not a wimp.
I am in place saluting my King, obeying His orders, praising His name, and building His kingdom!
No one has to send me flowers, gifts, food, cards, candy, or give me handouts.
I do not need to be cuddled, cradled, cared for, or catered to.
I am committed.
I cannot have my feelings hurt bad enough to turn me around.
I cannot be discouraged enough to turn me aside.
I cannot lose enough to cause me to quit.
If I end up with nothing, I will still come out ahead.
I will win.
My God has, and will continue, to supply all my needs.
I am more than a conqueror.
I will always triumph.
I can do all things through Christ.
Devils cannot defeat me.
People cannot disillusion me.
Weather cannot weary me.
Sickness cannot stop me.
Battles cannot beat me.
Money cannot buy me.
Governments cannot silence me, and hell cannot handle me.
I am a soldier.
Even death cannot destroy me, for when my Commander calls me from this battlefield He will promote me to Captain and then allow me to rule with Him.
I am a soldier in the Army and I’m marching, claiming victory.
I will not give up.
I will not turn around.
I am a solder marching, heaven bound.
(Author Unknown)
Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. – 2 Timothy 2:3
Filed under Christianity, Church, Culture Wars, Struggles and Trials
The Fill-In-the-Blank-ers Should Protest
In a culture where self-identification is the norm and homosexuality has become the new 90-foot golden statue of Nebuchadnezzar* before which all must bow, a lot of other sinners are getting shortchanged.
As recently as this June another, …umm, “popular” …umm, “Christian” musician (Trey Pearson) came out of the proverbial closet and admitted he is gay. The married (to a woman) father of two admitted that he’d been hiding his true feelings for too long, trying to be something he was not meant to be. Marriage vows and children aside, it was time to give in to his desires and finally enjoy his life the way he believe God intended.
From his “coming out” letter…
“I know I have a long way to go. But if this honesty with myself about who I am, and who I was made by God to be, doesn’t constitute as the peace that passes all understanding, then I don’t know what does. It is like this weight I have been carrying my whole life has been lifted from me, and I have never felt such freedom.”
“In sharing this publicly I’m taking another step into health and wholeness by accepting myself, and every part of me. It’s not only an idea for me that I’m gay; It’s my life. This is me being authentic and real with myself and other people. This is a part of who I am.” – click for source
Now, let’s not get all tangled up in the doctrinal issues surrounding Trey’s treatment the “peace that passes all understanding.” After all, how can we blame poor Mr. Pearson too harshly for his heresy when his mentor and former pastor is Love Wins! himself, Rob Bell?
No, for the sake of this discussion, let’s focus more on something else: the glorification, affirmation, and weight-shifting freedom associated with one admitting and embracing his divorce-inducing sexual activity.
Do a search of all the articles written in support of not only Trey Pearson, but Ray Boltz (came out in 2004) and others, all who left their wife and kids behind to follow the leading of their passions – their “true” selves. What you will find are accolades, praises, whole-hearted attaboys for men (and women) who’ve broken sacred vows and left their spouses and children to pick up the pieces.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but despite the illiterate notions that Jesus never addressed homosexuality, thereby condoning it, didn’t He say something very clearly about divorce? And what about adultery? Isn’t that one of the big “Thou shalt not’s”?
Here is my question and the subject for this post:
If homosexuality is to be considered a sin no longer, all because it corresponds with one’s sexual desires; and if one’s sexual desires should not be repressed if one’s sexual desires constitute one’s identity; what other up-till-now adherent behavior, along with all recognized “normal” behavior, could be used to justify breaking the clearly outlined command of God, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”?
Countless men are walking away from marriages and being praised for it. “Brave” and “courageous” are what they’re called. They succumb to desires which for some reason have become attached to their nature and demand to be respected. The wife and children are mentioned only as a sidebar to the “valor” of the adulterer, and the clearly delineated commands of God are relegated to a dusty “suggestion” box.
What then of the regular adulterer? What then of any number of definers by which one self-identifies? Fill in the blank with whatever you want – voyeur, philanderer, exhibitionist, pedophile, scumbag. Who are we to ostracize any of these if in the event of coming out of their own closets they bring about the destruction of a family unit? Should we not praise them for being brave?
Let us re-read the following part from Trey Pearson’s letter, only this time let’s replace “gay” with a blank.
“In sharing this publicly I’m taking another step into health and wholeness by accepting myself, and every part of me. It’s not only an idea for me that I’m ______; It’s my life. This is me being authentic and real with myself and other people. This is a part of who I am.”
What if we were to insert adulterer? For that matter, what if we were to insert “a fisherman“? As a heterosexual male, I was born – made by God – with a built-in desire to have sex with women. Should I say, “That’s my life, to have sex with multiple women,” would I be taking a step toward wholeness? What if I said, “Fishing is my LIFE!”? Should I be praised for walking away from my marriage vows to catch trout?
Because of the self-identification craze, more and more people are allowing themselves the excuse to give in to every carnal desire and label it as “health and wholeness.” Yet, sad to say, it is a false peace to which they are clinging as their understanding is darkened. They have believed a lie.
In the meantime, a whole lot of other guys are still paying the price for their taboo actions. When will the culture recognize they’re just being true to themselves? Hmmm?
Why should only certain groups have a monopoly on 90-foot idols? Maybe those fill-in-the-blank-ers should protest!
Meanwhile, Shadrach, they’re heating up the furnace.
* See Daniel 3:1-30
Orlando On My Mind
Still no computer, only an iPad, so here goes some thoughts on Orlando, sans fancy fonts and graphics.
Thoughts
The shooting in Orlando happened Sunday morning, but I’m just now getting around to writing anything about it. Of course, I did bring it up first thing that morning from the pulpit, but it’s just now that I’ve decided to sit down and pen – more like “thumb” – my thoughts.
But who am I, really? What do my thoughts matter? I’m not gay; I’m a straight male (born that way and happy with my biology). I do not affirm the homosexual lifestyle; I preach it is a sinful attack on the design of our Creator for human relationships, even an affront to the very nature of God. I’m not even anti-gun, nor do I want to repeal the second amendment to the Constitution; I think gun-free zones (aka “soft targets”) are the epitome of idiocy. So, who am I to speak out? It’s not like I’m going to be flying a rainbow flag in honor of the 49 killed, or anything.
I am a voice, and that’s why my thoughts matter. I don’t deserve to be heard, but I have a right to speak my mind. And if I don’t take advantage of this right, while I still have it, along with the right to bear arms it might be taken away before what I want to say has a chance to be heard.
So, here’s my thoughts.
Guns and Gun-free Zones
It has been said that “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” It may be considered cliché, but it’s still true. I have multiple weapons in my home, even on my body, and I have no fear any one of them will rise up when I least expect it and try to kill me. I could yell at my Smith & Wesson from now till the proverbial cows come home, but it will never get offended, angry, or try to avenge itself. It’s only a tool.
As always when a shooting takes place, people are calling for more gun control in America. Some are even calling for repealing the Second Amendment. They argue that the only way to keep things like this from happening is to take away access to guns – all guns, not just assault-style weapons. But taking guns away will not take the murderers away, will it?
Gun-free zones? How’d that work out for you? Compare how many people have died in gun-free zones as opposed to gun-friendly zones. For example, when the eight were killed in Charleston, they were hiding behind and under pews in the church as the deranged freak reloaded his .45 multiple times! If just one or two of those poor folk had been armed as those in our church are, he might have emptied one magazine, but he sure as hades wouldn’t have reloaded and kept shooting!!!
When seconds count, the police will show up in minutes. In a world where Islamic hate is intent on wiping out all opposition; in a world where criminals care nothing about life or the law; because you will never be able to rid America of all its weapons, especially from the hands of criminals; only fools will sit like lambs waiting to be slaughtered as they seek comfort from the other end of a 911 call. Just in case the police don’t show up in time, I’d much prefer to be able to return fire. I’d rather die fighting than hiding.
Flying the Rainbow
Here’s the thing: I don’t hate homosexuals. I know that might be hard for some to understand, but it’s absolutely true. However, there are those who would call me a liar, all because they believe that it’s impossible to love people without affirming their behavior…because somehow behavior, self-perception, and inherent human value are inextricably linked. But where were the Christian flags outside the gay bars the day after Charleston?
No, I don’t hate gays, but I’m not going to jump on the bandwagon and change my Facebook profile pic to a rainbow. I’m not going to fly a rainbow flag in my front yard or from the church flag pole. I’m not going to yield to public pressure to give credence to a sexually-immoral lifestyle and anti-religious agenda by displaying the co-opted colors of God’s covenant with Noah. I will, however, continue to fly our flag at half-staff – because 50 lives were taken in a senseless act of hate.
The Blame Game
Right now the mainstream media and the social left are playing the blame game, but few are laying the blame at the proper feet. What happened in Orlando is not the fault of guns, a lack of security, or anti-LGBTQ bigotry and hate. What happened was not a result of me preaching that same-sex marriage is an abomination. What happened in Orlando was not incited by conservative talk-radio shows or Tea Party activists. What happened in Orlando at the Pulse nightclub was the result of Islamic, sharia-style, intolerant hatred.
Many want to blame all religion for what happened Sunday. Most, however, want to lay the blame at the feet of Christianity! No, Islam is not to blame, for it’s a religion of peace, or so we are told. On the other hand, were it not for those Christians who refuse to accept the forced change of their beliefs, none of this would have happened. The whole problem with that accusation is that it’s not true. Actually, it’s the complete opposite.
If you want to blame anything, blame man’s fallen nature; blame sin. The last ones to blame are those who try to pattern their lives after the One who gave His own life to save sinners.
In Conclusion
May God have mercy on and show compassion to those who mourn. May genuine love, not cheap pandering, reign supreme. May evil be exposed and the light of Truth shine bright.
Filed under Christianity, Culture Wars, current events
June 6th… Would We Do It Again?
Seventy-two years have passed since the pride of the Allies, 156,000 strong, stepped out of landing craft and jumped out of airplanes into the mouth of a monster ready to eat them alive.
Seventy-two years have passed since young men from America, England, and Canada (and we must not forget Australia, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Poland) landed on beaches called Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno, and Sword.
Seventy-two years ago, long before the fancy rock-climbing walls which are so popular in today’s health clubs and gyms, the 2nd Ranger battalion “led the way” up the 100 ft. cliffs of Pointe du Hoc.
Seventy-two years ago, on the 6th of June, 2,499 American and 1,914 from the other Allied nations, a total of 4,413, gave their lives for the sake of freedom.
Seventy-two years ago men were stepping on the backs of their comrades as they sloshed through red water, breathed in the mist of war, and wondered if they would live to see the ground only yards (meters) in front of them.
On June 6, 1944, seventy-two years ago, it was said of those who landed:
“They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate.” — President Franklin D. Roosevelt, radio broadcast, June 6, 1944
It is June 6, but are we a people with the stomach to liberate? If we were the ones living seventy-two years ago, where would we be today?
Ask those in pajamas talking on free smart phones. Ask the protesters who don’t even know why they protest. Ask those who are burning the American flag because “America was never great.”

It cost a lot to buy seventy-two years of freedom. Would we do it again?
A Battle Worth Fighting
Many times, especially as a parent, I’ve had to determine which battles to fight and which ones to just walk away from.
Then came Friday the 13th, 2016.
Well, because our family has been directly affected by predatory sexual abuse, this is a battle I will fight.
Please watch the attached video from ADF. Then, be bold and fight along with me – for our daughters.
Filed under abuse, Culture Wars, current events, Parenting, politics
The Bathroom Controversy: It’s Not that Simple
My Two Cents
I have to drop my two cents into the toilet (dropping them into the urinal would mean I might have to take them back).
Seriously, I feel compelled to share my thoughts regarding the current debate over allowing transgender and transexual individuals into the bathroom of their choice, and not necessarily the one which corresponds with their anatomy.
It might even turn into 3 cents.
What You’re Not Hearing
People are giving North Carolina all kinds of grief over HB2, the law that requires one who uses restrooms in public buildings and rest stops to choose the one which corresponds to the individual’s sex at birth (or what’s on the birth certificate). Bruce Springsteen cancelled a concert; Paypal cancelled plans for a facility; and a whole bunch of politicians in other cities banned public employees from going there on public money.
I’m sure you’ve all heard about it by now, especially since President Obama has now sent a prime directive to all public schools and universities.
But what you’ve probably missed is that it’s not just about a guy who’s had a sex-change operation going into a woman’s restroom, or a young person who is totally convinced he is a she and looks and dresses the part to perfection.
It’s not just about the teenage girl who’s won the legal right to be called a boy because she’s always lived as one, dressed as one, and thought she was one.
It’s not even about the psychological term Gender Dysphoria (a mental disorder) which describes most of the above.
No, it’s about the fact that a small percentage of society are doing their best to render any traditional classification of gender and sexuality irrelevant. It’s about eroding any taboos regarding erotic behavior and forcing morality to conform to the image of immorality. This is a generation that is pure in its own eyes, and yet is not washed from its filthiness (Proverbs 30:12).
It’s not about the less than 1% of society having a safe place to relieve themselves; it’s about the rape of morality and common sense: “We’re going in, no matter what.” And when there’s no more fight left, they’ll just grin and move on to another ideological victim.
The Camel In the Tent
Do you remember the story about the camel (or it could have been a horse) that wanted to come inside the tent? He was cold, so he asked his owner to allow him to come into the tent where it was warm. The owner refused, but that’s when the camel said, “Oh, please! What about just my nose? How bad could that be?” Long story short, once the camel’s owner allowed the camel to stick its nose inside the tent, the head came next, followed by the neck, then the front legs, and then the whole body.
All we hear in the news is that transgender and transexual students are being denied their civil rights. They say it is wrong that these pitiful folk should be harassed by being made to go into the bathroom or shower which corresponds to their anatomy.
But it’s FAR more complicated and convoluted than that! Do you seriously think that once you’ve let the transgender/transexual nose into the bathroom the rest of the gender-confused will be denied? Of course not!
If you think it’s just as simple as male/female/trans, think again!
The following are a consolidation of the 56 (yes, 56!) gender options offered by Facebook. You can read the whole article at Slate.com.
1. Agender/Neutrois — These terms are used by people who don’t identify with any gender at all—they tend to either feel they have no gender or a neutral gender. Some use surgery and/or hormones to make their bodies conform to this gender neutrality.
2. Androgyne/Androgynous — Androgynes have both male and female gender characteristics and identify as a separate, third gender.
3. Bigender — Someone who is bigender identifies as male and female at different times. Whereas an androgyne has a single gender blending male and female, a bigender switches between the two.
4. Cis/Cisgender — Cisgender is essentially the opposite of transgender (cis– being Latin for “on this side of” versus trans-, “on the other side”). People who identify as cisgender are males or females whose gender aligns with their birth sex.
5. Female to Male/FTM — Someone who is transitioning from female to male, either physically (transsexual) or in terms of gender identity.
6. Gender Fluid — Like bigender people, the gender-fluid feel free to express both masculine and feminine characteristics at different times.
7. Gender Nonconforming/Variant — This is a broad category for people who don’t act or behave according to the societal expectation for their sex. It includes cross-dressers and tomboys as well as the transgender.
8. Gender Questioning — This category is for people who are still trying to figure out where they fit on the axes of sex and gender.
9. Genderqueer — This is an umbrella term for all nonconforming gender identities. Most of the other identities in this list fall into the genderqueer category.
10. Intersex — This term refers to a person who was born with sexual anatomy, organs, or chromosomes that aren’t entirely male or female. Intersex has largely replaced the term “hermaphrodite” for humans.
11. Male to Female/MTF — Someone who is transitioning from male to female, either physically (transsexual) or in terms of gender identity.
12. Neither — You understand this one: “I don’t feel like I’m fully male or fully female. ‘Nuff said.”
13. Non-binary — People who identify as non-binary disregard the idea of a male and female dichotomy, or even a male-to-female continuum with androgyny in the middle. For them, gender is a complex idea that might fit better on a three-dimensional chart, or a multidimensional web.
14. Other — Like “neither,” this is pretty self-explanatory. It can cover everything from “I’d prefer not to specify how I don’t fit in the gender dichotomy” to “My gender is none of your damn business, Facebook.”
15. Pangender — Pangender is similar to androgyny, in that the person identifies as a third gender with some combination of both male and female aspects, but it’s a little more fluid. It can also be used as an inclusive term to signify “all genders.”
16. Trans/Transgender — Transgender is a broad category that encompasses people who feel their gender is different than their birth sex—sometimes known as gender dysphoria. They may or may not choose to physically transition from their birth sex to their experienced gender.
17. Transsexual — Transsexual refers to transgender people who outwardly identify as their experienced gender rather than their birth sex. Many, but not all, transsexuals are transitioning (or have transitioned) from male to female or female to male through hormone therapy and/or gender reassignment surgery.
18. Two-spirit — This term refers to gender-variant Native Americans. In more than 150 Native American tribes, people with “two spirits”—a term coined in the 1990s to replace the term “berdache”—were part of a widely accepted, often respected, category of gender-ambiguous men and women.
Summary
Let me summarize this nonsense. If I, a grown man with children, decided I felt like I had a few female feelings, then I could literally walk unabated into a women’s locker room, disrobe, and stroll into the open showers, genitalia showing, and have the full force of Obama’s Justice Department backing me up (more like spooning).
“But that’s crazy!” you say. “Someone would stop you.” Oh, really? And whom would that brave soul be? Should you stop me, then I would sue you for violating my civil rights. Who are you to judge me by my looks? Technically, I’m a Native-American (really, I am), so how could you say I’m not Two-spirited? Even more, it’s all about how I self-identify, right? So if I claim to be Gender-fluid, how can you tell by the way I look naked? What would that matter, anyway?
Have you ever seen the movie Starship Troopers? Remember the shower scene? That’s where we are headed if this lunacy is not stopped. The only difference is that this isn’t science fiction; it’s reality.
Here’s the naked truth: When nothing’s sacred, NOTHING will be sacred. That much is simple.
Filed under America, community, Culture Wars, current events, World View
The Real Problem with the Problem of Evil
One of the most common reasons for denying the existence of God is the problem of evil in the world. Just ask any group of atheists to give their top ten reasons for unbelief and surely one will claim as number one, “If there is a God, then why is there so much evil in the world?” For many, this is the pièce de résistance of rebuttals. How could a good God be real and allow all the suffering in the world to continue unabated – assuming He is even good? The eighteenth century philosopher, David Hume described the problem this way in Dialouges concerning Natural Religion, 1779:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?” (Stackhouse 1998, 11)
So, the “problem of evil,” and its source, has been an issue of philosophical debate for centuries. The existence of evil in the world, along with unanswered questions, has even become evidence enough for some to even embrace atheism. Therefore, because so many philosophers and theologians have tried for ages to reconcile the existence of God with the existence of evil, I dare say that nothing I write will be new. But, if anyone were to challenge my belief in God, along with my faith in Jesus Christ, with the argument that the problem of evil constitutes proof God does not exist, then I would possibly respond with arguments based on the following thought: without the existence of God, there should be no evil to be a problem, and that’s the real problem with “the Problem of Evil’

What exactly is “evil?” Now, that may sound like an absurd kind of question to ask, but if the existence of evil is the evidence that is supposed to expose my faith as a fraud, at best, or even a lie, then what is it? Is it something tangible? Is it metaphysical? Is ittheoretical? What is it, exactly? Does it have any particular form? How can it be distinguished from what is called good? On what do the atheists and agnostics base their definition of this thing called “evil?” Amazingly, the answers are not all the same, nor in some cases even grounded in reality. However, it is imperative to understand that we must define this God-killer, because its definition will determine our conclusions and help to clarify our assumptions. When C. S. Lewis was an atheist, for example, his “argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust.” (Lewis 1989) There he had it, or so he thought. God could not exist because so much evil exists. But how did he arrive at “this idea of just and unjust?” Lewis said, “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.” (Lewis 1989) “Tell me,” I would say, “what is evil, and how do you recognize it when you see it?”
To start, evil must be understood to be an adjective. Evil is a description of something that is not good. Evil is not a thing. The word “evil” only describes the thing, the thought, and the action. Technically, “evil” does not exist, only what it describes. Some people say that they cannot believe in God because why or how could a good God, if He was perfect, create evil? They think of evil as something that must have not existed until God made it. But evil “isn’t a kind of molecule or a virus…infecting or affecting everything it encounters. There was no time when God said, ‘Let there be evil,’ and there was evil.” (Stackhouse 1998) As John G. Stackhouse put it, “evil becomes a noun only in the abstract.” Additionally, in his book Can God Be Trusted, Stackhouse says of evil:
“An action can be evil, or an event can be evil, or a quality can be evil, or a being can be evil. And we can lump all these particular evils together in our minds and come up with a category ‘evil.’ We can even go on to discuss it as if it were a particular thing, so long as we do not forget that we are always dealing with a category or group of particular evil things, not a thing itself.” (Stackhouse 1998, 31)
So then, if evil is a description, how is it that we come to use the adjective, or as Lewis put it, the “crooked line,” without first having some idea of what is a “straight” one? Defining what is good is as important as defining evil. To know what is evil, we must first have some assumption as to what is not evil. The crazy thing is that if God does not exist, and man is nothing more than a collection of random matter, both good and evil are purely relative – their existence is based purely on one’s perspective. So, in other words, the one who says that there is no God, based on the existence of evil, is literally basing his belief on pure opinion, not on anything objective; therefore, in order to bring an accusation against the goodness of God, one must have a base line. What is the standard by which we determine what is good and what is evil?
Some use Man as the baseline. They compare God to the standard set by what is thought to be good behavior in this world. They rationalize that if God is real, at least according to monotheistic dogma, He must be all-powerful, perfectly good, and the supreme example of love, kindness, and providential care. Because it is preached that God is a better Father than earthly fathers, Mark Twain took it upon himself to write:
The best minds will tell you that when a man has begotten a child he is morally bound to tenderly care for it…[yet], God’s treatment of his earthly children, every day and every night, is the exact opposite of that, yet those minds warmly justify those crimes…when he commits them.” (Tonie Doe Media 2007)
So then, according to Twain, God could not exist because if He did, He would act consistent with our understanding of what a good and loving earthly father would do. In other words, if God cannot, in all His perfection, behave better toward His children than the most common man, His credentials are therefore revoked, and He must cease to exist. However, this is so illogical. Who are we to say that God, if He is perfect, and we are imperfect, ever treats His children poorly? Do the protesting cries of a toddler who has had poison taken from his grasp carry more weight than the decision of the earthly father to take it away? How, then, are we to automatically assume that the infantile tendencies of finite man are wiser than the infinitely Mature? Using Man as a baseline for what is good and evil is pure arrogance.
In reality, the problem of evil is really a problem for the atheist. He, who denies the existence of a Creator and accepts only the realities of evil in the world, essentially has nothing about which to complain. Everything should be just fine and dandy, but it’s not. The atheist knows that evil things happen to good people, as well as bad. He sees the hurt, feels the pain, and begs for justice. The reality of evil in the world causes men to cry out for justice; for things to be made right. This is a problem, though, because knowing that a crooked line is not straight hints at the fact that a Line-drawer exists.
Of course, there are others who take a different approach. They claim that God does not exist except in the evil intentions of his followers to control others through guilt. They claim that God is just a fabrication of priests to keep mankind from behaving “naturally.” They say that nature is good, and if anything, God is evil for trying to get man to behave contrary to the very way he was created to behave. One guru said, “It seems that for those who worship God, the opposite to God is not that which is ‘evil,’ but that which is natural.” He said of animals, comparing them to men, “They don’t worship God, they don’t go to church, they don’t have any theology. They don’t have any feeling of guilt, they are simply natural.” (Osho 2009) In other words, if there is evil in the world, it is because our belief in God has inflicted it.
But for the majority of the hurting world, pain is real, loss is real, and evil is manifested daily. Many see the things that happen to innocent people, especially children, and wonder, “If there is a loving God, why doesn’t he do anything about this?” These people, many of which hold on to hope as long as they can, finally succumb to their doubts and conclude that the only way to explain away the pain is to admit that it is just part of life, part of the natural world, part of what makes us human; alone, in our quest to make life easier, free of pain, free from evil; alone, without God. These are the ones, I believe, that lure more away from the faith than any Darwinist. They are the ones who have seen evil face-to-face and cannot fathom a God who would allow it to continue. And because their experiences are so painful and tragic, the devout are left speechless and without explanation. Ellie Wiesel is a good example.
Wiesel was a teenager when he saw his family murdered in the Nazi death camps. But it was only after witnessing one particular act of horror – the slow, hanging death of a young boy – that he turned away from his faith in God. In the book Night, his Nobel prize-winning autobiography, Wiesel said he heard a man behind him ask, “Where is God now?” As he stood there, being forced to stare into a pitiful, wide-eyed, swollen face of a dying child, a voice within replied, “Where is He? Here He is – He is hanging here on the gallows…” (Wiesel 1982) Because there was no justification, even in the big scheme of things, Ellie Wiesel’s God died with the executed boy. But as sad as it is, without God, who can say what happened to that boy was any worst than the slaughter of an animal? Are we not all just animals – some more evolved than others?
To me, the problem of evil is not a problem for the believer, but for the non-believer. Aside from the theological arguments about the character of God, without God, to turn Hume’s question around, “whence then is evil?” Without God, evil is relative to one’s desires and personal pleasure. Does it really even matter whether or not God could do anything about evil in the world when the whole question is moot if He didn’t exist? With God, evil is defined as that which is against His law, that which stands opposed to His standards, and that which describes all who take pleasure in such rebellion. Without God, evil is just a matter of opinion. That is the real problem of evil.
Works Cited
Lewis, C. S. “Atheism.” In The Quotable Lewis, by C. S. Lewis, 59. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1989.
Osho. The God Conspiracy: the path from superstition to superconsciousness. New York: Osho Media International, 2009.
Stackhouse, John G. Can God Be Trusted. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Tonie Doe Media. In The Atheist’s Bible, 129. New York: Harper Collins, 2007.
Wiesel, Ellie. Night. New York: Bantam Books, 1982.
Filed under Apologetics, Culture Wars, Faith, General Observations, Life/Death, Struggles and Trials
7 Words that Distinguish Our Founding Fathers from Modern Americans
“We hold these truths to be self-evident…” – Founding Fathers (Declaration of Independence)
If there were ever any words that are so antithetical to today’s culture, these stand out above them all.
Believe it or not, the founding fathers of the United States of America firmly held to the belief that there are absolutes, that there are transcendent truths, truths by which we are to judge between right and wrong.
They not only believed that there are “truths,” but they believed that these truths are “self-evident.” In other words, they believed that these transcendent truths, rooted in the nature of God, were not hard to find, but were plain for all to see should they only open their eyes. Hence the term self-evident.
Today’s culture has totally rebelled against the concepts of truth and anything that is self-evident. The truth is that God created male and female (Gen. 1:27; Mark 10:6), and what is self-evident are their differences. Yet, modern Americans cannot bring themselves to admit what is obvious, no matter how self-evident.
Not long ago a man named Joseph Backholm went to the University of Washington and claimed to be a 6′ 5″ Chinese female. Not one single college student dared challenge his claims, even though the self-evident truth was that he was a caucasian male.
People wonder how long America will survive. My contention is that it can’t survive much longer. How can it when the very foundational truth on which our liberties are grounded has been reduced to shifting sand?
“We hold no truth, and nothing is self-evident; all is relative to self-identification.” – Modern Americans
Filed under America, Culture Wars






