October 27, 2010

The Tax System - Explained in Beer

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed
of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent
virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
— Winston Churchill

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.


The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.


The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?


They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.


So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.


And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).


Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.


"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, " but he got $10!"


"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"


"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"


"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"


The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.


The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!


And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics

October 23, 2010

Where Does It Stop?

I was going to give these topics a rest, but something came up.

On a previous post, Zach made a comment, and I am excerpting it here. His first sentence is an answer to a question I had asked him. Hope you're not embarrassed, but I want to give you a more complete response than the comments section would allow:
My lack of belief in the supernatural is pretty much complete - I have never seen any reason to attribute a supernatural cause to phenomena. I suppose I rule out supernatural explanations because once you let one in, where do you stop? I look at an event I do not understand and go immediately to natural causes. Even if I can't figure it out, I still would assume it had a natural explanation. I'm worried that if someone started attributing causes to supernatural events, they would skip over the whole 'natural cause' thing and go straight for the supernatural, because technically everything is potentially explainable by an omnipotent being, no?
For various reasons, I believe that Zach is much younger than me; I am old enough to be his — professor. Now I will attempt to act like one.

First, a bit of advice to him, and anyone else that may wish to heed it:
  • Realize that you have a great deal to learn about Life, the Universe and Everything; the more we learn, the more we realize that there is still more to learn. Other people can know and understand things that we do not know. This bit of wisdom should help us become more patient and willing to listen.
  • Define your terms. (Later on, you'll read how I qualify my "belief in the supernatural".) You can fight over misunderstandings as well as agree on things that you did not know about; I argued with a guy for two days and then found out that we were in agreement all along, the problem was just in how we understood certain words! Embarrassing, and I've remembered that for incident for (mumbles) years.
  • Frame your questions without your bias showing. While we all have our biases, we do not need to act like we are tolerating the ravings of a madman when we ask our questions. You may be surprised that said madman actually knows more than you thought. If you begin like a flamethrower, do not cry because you get flamed right back.
  • When discussing things, pride is your enemy. You may not only have to eat your words, but possibly a bad attitude (or slink off into the darkness like some people I have encountered). Just be ready to listen. You can develop patience and diplomacy if nothing else.
  • Remember that people are different, and not everyone knows the same things that you know. Besides, you may find yourself actually liking someone despite your philosophical differences. It's happened to me, and it can be a bit unnerving sometimes.
  • Don't quibble about small stuff. I've seen people that were all too happy to find some excuse to vilify someone and missed the point that was being made because they majored on minors, slip of the tongue, misspeaking, typo pouncing &c.
That's enough, I want to get to what he actually said before the lot of you doze off.


Zach has admitted to having a materialistic bias. That is excellent to know and admit to having a bias, because so many people think that they are totally neutral and make their decisions based strictly on the facts. The problem with a bias (or presupposition) is that you have to be careful that you do not preclude other possibilities, especially with a naturalistic bias. If you become adamant that there is no other explanation outside of what can be experienced or measured, you are being illogical. Why? Because you are assuming a kind of God-like role of knowledge, and you are declaring an absolute negative.


I like to point out to people that just because something is outside your realm of knowledge, experience or the senses does not mean that something does not exist. For example, I have never been to China, but I know it is there. I have seen pictures, heard the testimony of Tibetans who escaped from China into the United States, read history reports and so on. It's a matter of faith. Many atheists rail against the concept, but yes, they do have faith: Faith in the philosophies of science, faith in evolution, faith in the Big Bang, faith in themselves.


When it comes to the supernatural, what then? If a naturalistic approach is an unmovable law for someone, then they have to dismiss evidence that does not fit into their preconceptions. By doing so, they are rejecting possible explanations out of hand. When people are locked into their preconceptions, they often get very illogical: "Creationists are not scientists because they believe in Creation" (circular reasoning), or, "Creationists are religious fanatics that are not scientists because Dawkins said so" (erroneous appeal to authority). Those statements are both wrong because Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are actual scientists who have degrees from actual accredited universities. Just because they believe in the "wrong things" according to this bias does not negate their credentials.


Zach's approach of going to the natural explanation is, in my view, the proper way to go. Years ago, I learned something about UFOs: Look for the rational, normal explanation first before going after the supernatural; try to debunk an encounter. Where did I learn that? From believers in UFOs! Whether it's God, UFOs, ghosts or what have you (see "Ghost Hunters" on this), if you run screaming into the street with "proof", you look like a fool when the claim is soundly debunked. (Note that I said "soundly debunked". That is a far cry from being unconvinced by the evidence, or disbelieving it because it does not fit into preconceptions.) Then you can build up a reputation for being cautious and thorough instead of being gullible.


I believe this is where your question about supernatural explanations, "once you let one in, where do you stop?" applies. If people are willing to examine the evidence and not blame or credit the supernatural at the drop of a hat, "false positives" can be avoided. As you well know, I believe in the supernatural. But let's be careful, shall we? That word covers a great deal of ground, so it has to be limited. Right now, I am limiting my use of that word to people and events in the Bible.


You have seen how I reject evolution. I have seen strong biases proclaiming its truth but denying its errors. My conclusions led me to reject evolution on scientific grounds. Funny, too, because I used to be a "theistic evolutionist", believing that God used evolution to create the world.


I think I'm hesitant to come out and say that I have to accept belief in God as an explanation.


"Why do you feel that way, Cowboy Bob?"


Because I have reached my conclusions many years ago, and they are constantly reinforced. For those reasons, it is difficult for me to lay out my reasons for going to the supernatural as an explanation and having you think that I am "jumping" over there. I suppose I want to say that belief in God (or, as many atheist accuse us of believing, "Goddidit") was not without serious thought.


Now I have to get more personal and tell you my own story. I'll cut out as much superfluous matter as I can, this thing is long enough already.


I was raised in a Christian home. My father was a United Methodist pastor, and that is one of the most liberal denominations that you can find. When I went to a Christian high school, my beliefs were challenged, because they were very conservative. Someone would make a statement of belief, and I would want to know, "Where did you get that?" I have long been skeptical, and needed "chapter and verse" to back things up, even before I received serious Bible teachings.


Great, so I'm getting answers for where my beliefs can be found. But next, I needed to know why I believe. What's so special about the Bible? One book that I recommend to anyone that inquires is Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell (I highly recommend that link). You don't exactly read it, you wade through it because it is very scholarly. McDowell wanted to shut Christians up once and for all, so he set out to disprove the Bible and tear it apart. He became a Christian and one of the leading apologists. This book, and others, helped me. (You are fortunate, scores of apologetics links are available right here. I had to read books back in the olden days.) Some things I've learned, briefly:
  • Internal consistency. Get ten of your friends together and ask them about theological, philosophical and other controversial subjects, and see how much agreement you get. Compare that to the Bible, which was composed over thousands of years through different cultures, languages, occupations, rulers and so on, yet with uniformity. Rewrite: The Old Testament was written from about 1400 BC through 400 BC, and the New Testament was written from about 50 through 90 AD.
  • Textual variations. You would think that texts that were, say, five hundred years older than other texts would be vastly different. Instead, there are startlingly few variations, comprised mostly of slight wording and writing differences, but nothing of substance.
  • Abundance of translations. There are far more copies of all or parts of the New Testament than any other ancient book. If you doubt the Bible, you should also doubt the reliability of the writings of, say, Julius Caesar, since there are about one tenth of the copies of his works in comparison.
  • The ring of truth. C.S. Lewis referred to the "ring of truth", because the Bible presents people with all of their flaws and failures. Tell me, if you were going to create a religion, would you have disciples denying their Lord, cowering in fear, disbelieving in his resurrection? Me, neither.
  • Archaeology verifies it. Sure, people claimed to disprove parts of it. Guess what? The disproofs were disproved. Archaeological and historian heavyweights affirm the validity of the Bible.
Whew, this is long. Hope you click the links and get more information when you have time.


Another important reason for me to accept the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the testimony of people who have had their lives radically changed. I was a fool and put God on the back burner for fifteen years, only recently coming back to my faith. I had sinned and broken God's moral law. How many times have I taken his name in vain (Exodus 20.7), lied (Exodus 20.16), stolen (even though it was small stuff, Exodus 20.15), lusted (committing adultery in my heart, Matt. 5.28), tried to reshape God to suit me (Exodus 20.3), I cannot say. But God knows that I mangled all of the commandments. And I know that Jesus died a horrible death on a cross to take my punishment (1 John 4.10). He arose from the dead (1 Cor. 15.3-8). Now I belong to him (Galatians 2.20).

God does not make sense because he is God. How can the creation understand the Creator? He loves us, and we have broken his laws. How can we understand that? Jesus explained him, the Bible explains him. If we humble ourselves and stop trying to make God act in a manner that is pleasing to us (which includes the way he is supposed to manifest himself), he will come into our lives, save us from the punishment of our sins and give us new life (2 Cor. 5.17). He gave me something to live for, not to fight against.

Well, I hope your answer was in there. If not, ask further questions. I won't make a grand essay of it next time. Thanks for writing.

October 20, 2010

Atheistic Disunderstanding


"It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."
— Sir Francis Bacon

I have to admit that I'm stumped about something. And I do not like writing an article of this nature, where I am responding to something said about me in the comments section of another Weblog. But I feel that I should.

There was a comment about me at "Atheist Central", but I am reluctant to name the source. I'm thinking that he (?) may not want to be named outright, here. Well, if he (?) wants to leave a comment and claim it, then fine, I'll acknowledge it. But he will not, since he said (among other hateful things), "Thankfully, my atheistic morality prevents me from visiting the blogs of hate-filled, angry, bigoted, and racist people such as yourself." (Racist? Where did that come from? Everyone annoys me equally.) It is indeed unfortunate the this craven little coward cannot back up his (?) accusations, preferring to live in a neurotic, self-created world. Atheistic morality? Uh, yeah, seen it in action, it's situational convenience, nothing more.

The quote goes as follows, and I quote, "Stormbringer, for example, would rather see atheists burn in hell than show or tell them of God's love for them." Not only did this do nothing to advance an argument, but the paragraph to which it was attached was in reference to Hitler. Horrible use of logic, or even of writing itself; such an accusation deserved to be in a separate paragraph, with supporting sentences.

In the comments section of Atheist Central, there are one or two Christians that I consider embarrassing. They remind me of a guy in a video clip who was waving a "Jesus (heart) You!" sign and dancing around on Hollywood Boulevard. I'm not into being a cheerleader, or inviting everyone over to sing "Kumbaya" and serve ice cream sandwiches. That's not God's love, that's sappiness. One guy in particular blows so much smoke, I'd be afraid of getting TB if he was nearby.

This is the problem that I have with the aforementioned antagonist and to many other "new" atheists who claim to love "reason" and "science" is that they have their preconceptions and cannot be shaken by contrary evidence. In fact, contrary evidence is disallowed by default: If it is not offered by an atheist scientist, then it is not science and it is bad reasoning. Rubbish. As I have pointed out before, atheists are demanding proof for the existence of God, but refuse to look at apologetics links or other arguments that are offered because "I know what it's going to say, and it's dumb". Really scientific and logical, Poindexter.

If one of the few intellectually honest and courageous (or curious) atheists wants to examine evidence for the existence of God, or for the validity of the Bible, I have apologetics links available near the top of the page, just below that introduction box thingie. Hopefully, you won't be like that coward and dismiss things out of hand just because you're afraid of being proven wrong. Follow where the evidence leads — I dare you.

I try to get these people to think. When I catch them in errors of logic, naturally, I get excuses and the equivalent of a rude gesture to prove that they are my intellectual superiors simply because they said so and xtians are big dumb stupidheads. So they get offended because I show them flaws in their logic — that thing they claim to admire so much. The problem is, and perhaps they know this intuitively, that if they see cracks in their armor, then they may have to admit that there is more to reality than they originally thought.

As for the charges that I do not show or tell of God's love — waitaminnit! Why should he (?) care? God, Hell and everything else do not exist in this worldview. Is it self pity, or just lashing out in hate? This guy (?) has problems.

Before I interrupted myself, I wanted to prove my point, that there are articles in this Weblog that belie the notion that I want them in Hell. (And remember, I had not recommitted my life to Christ until April, 2010.) Here are some of the more blatant examples:
  • May 7 article
  • May 17 article, with a rock song about Hell. It doesn't have to end that way!
  • May 24 article, part 2 of "Why I Cannot Trust Atheists" has a strong appeal near the end
  • June 30 article, another good rock tune and a message afterward
  • July 1 article was a flat-out appeal, plus a five minute audio message attached
  • October 2 article was an appeal to use reason and not biases
  • October 11 article was a springboard from a quote by Aldous Huxley
  • October 19 article, published the morning before his (?) attack had a strong message
I've lost count of the number of times I've advised people to dump the hate because it clouds reasoning ability. Too bad this intellectually dishonest coward will not see where he (?) is proven wrong.

Note that this is a multi-purpose Weblog, not just for the entertainment and education of atheists. Also, it is not a "ministry", but I do have spiritual values that I insert in some of my articles. If you don't like them, read around them. If you care to browse, you'll see all sorts of fun things. And since it's multi-purpose, plus the fact that I'm very, very, very tired of banging my head against the brick wall of anti-theism, I'm going do deal with other things for a while.

October 19, 2010

More Atheist Troublemaking

Buona sera. On the surface, it really baffles me that ("new") atheists are making total war with Christians and Theists. Why? What is the real reason (not just some nonsensical excuse you've conjured up so you can pretend that you have a valid cause)? Why put anti-Christian signs on buses, vandalize crosses at public war memorials, stashing 666 copies of  failed DVD "The God who Wasn't There" in churches for Easter, protest the Ten Commandments in public — and protest the Sunday morning meeting of Answers in Genesis? Anyone watching from the outside will probably say, "What a bunch of jerks. If they're smarter than all the Christians, then why not just go on about their business, confident in their superiority?"

Addendum: The follow-up to the protest is here.

I have asked several times, without response, why they attack and troll Christians, but not easier targets like Mormons, UFO enthusiasts, New Agers, witches, Satanists, Muslims — well, the last two may very well track them down and hurt them, so I'll give them a pass there. But otherwise, they prefer to attack Christians.

Anyone who knows the Bible understands why atheists (and other anti-Christians) attack us:
"Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
(John 8:43-44 NAS)

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
(2 Cor. 4:3-4 NAS)

For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life.
(2 Cor. 2:15-16 NAS) Get that? We stink to them.
Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
(2 Tim 3:12-13 NAS)
Maybe, deep inside their Satan-controlled spirits, they are rebelling against their final destination:
And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
(Rev. 20:15 NAS)
It grates on me when atheists cry about having it rough. But there has never been widespread persecution of atheists, but boy, have atheists caused widespread persecution and murders of millions of of Jews and Christians. But note that it doesn't have to end with the lake of fire. If you're reading this, you still have a chance to repent of your sins and make the resurrected Jesus Christ the lord of your life. While there's still time. You may not have tomorrow, whether through sudden death, or the return of Jesus. Trust me, you do not want to be left behind!

And a word to "religious" people: You're not going to make it. Religious rituals, intellectual assent, your "opinion" or "sincerity" — it's all worthless. You had better be certain of your salvation (2 Cor. 13.5). There will be quite a few religious people that are in for a rude surprise (Matt. 7.21-23). You, an atheist, someone that is complacent, an agnostic, a Muslim, a Satanist or anyone else can repent of (that is, turn from) your sins and make the risen Christ the lord of your life. Again, while there's still time.

I've never been more serious.

October 14, 2010

Exposing Another Scammer


The same thing I've told you about before. They want to settle an estate in the UK, but do not even put my name in the e-mail. The headers indicate "Yahoo" for the mailer, not what is written in the letter. Nothing wrong with Yahoo Mail, but established legal firms do not use free Web mail services. For people who are not regular readers, this is a scam. If you get a letter like this, delete it.

What is funny is at the very end, they have the "misuse of this letter may be illegal" tag line, when the entire thing that was sent to me is illegal. Ha! 

I put in extra line breaks to make the letter fit:

From: Mrs Kathy McGowan
AGGS Consultants Service Ltd.

This is a confidential message from AGGS Consultants: private consulting firm in London, 
United Kingdom.

I have been directed to contact you with regards to ongoing investigations involving a 
deceased client of Royal Bank of Scotland. The client, who shared the same last name with you, 
died intestate so it is standard and mandatory that a next of kin be sought who may inherit the 
estate. Kindly clarify the following:

 - Are you aware of any relative of yours whose last known contact address was Zurich, 
Switzerland, with investments of considerable value with Royal Bank of Scotland?

 - If you answered yes to the above then can you establish beyond reasonable doubt your eligibility 
to assume status of next of kin to the deceased?

Understand that we are at this point contstained to share more details of this matter with 
you. We will need to hear from you urgently and hope you can assist us in bringing this inquiry 
to a conclusion.Please respond to my private email below as soon as possible to afford us the 
opportunity to close this investigation. Thank you for accommodating our enquiries.

Yours sincerely,
Mrs Kathy McGowan
AGGS Consultants Service Ltd
For: Royal Bank of Scotland.
364 Windbridge,London Uk.
Email: McGowan.aggs@consultant.com
to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have 
received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, 
copying of, or any action taken in reliance upon it, is strictly prohibited and may be illegal.

Tel/fax: +44-7005-921-477

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) 

October 12, 2010

Reserved Word Rumble


Buon giorno. This has been fermenting in my mind for quite a while, and finally got tapped and poured out. 

Do you know what a "reserved word" is? Normally, it's computer jargon for, "Don't go there, girlfriend". Ever try to name a file and get a "reserved word" error? You cannot use certain words in your file name because they belong to the computer system or application.

I've taken the expression and used it in other ways.

F'rinstance, a high school clique starts bandying a word about in their enthusiasm. Normie Nerdley tries to get in on the fun and uses the word along with them. Silence and death stares ensue. He did not earn the right to use that word with them, it was like a reserved word for that clique.

The most common example I can think of is the word "nigger". (Yes, I still have free speech and the Politically Correct Police haven't caught up to me, so let me get on with my example. It's not like I'm using it in reference to someone...sheesh.) Anyway, it's an emotion-laden, hate-filled word. Unless is used by black Americans. Have you seen the movie "Rush Hour"? No, the first one in the series... Chris Tucker's character is greeting people with, "What's up, my niggah?" Later, Jackie Chan's character (just in from Hong Kong), tries to be friendly and say, "Woss up my niggah?" Race riot ensues; he used the reserved word ("That's our word", I've heard people say, even though it should be nobody's word because of the anger it produces, capice?). Also, in "Silver Streak", Patrick McGoohan calls Richard Pryor a nigger, and Pryor says, "You don't know me well enough to call me a nigger!"

But I'm beginning to digress into funny scenes from movies.

Now I'm coming across a new, ugly episode of reserved words: freethinker (written various ways). Yes, I know that word has been around a long time, but it's growing in popularity. So is its reserved word status.

I even saw a Weblog rant about how Christians cannot be freethinkers because — now get this — by some kind of definition, Christians are not "freethinkers". Yep, Leroy Logic is using circular reasoning to protect a reserved word: You have to be an atheist or "skeptic" to say it, and Christians are not freethinkers because they're not freethinkers because we said so.
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith earned three doctorates

I've noticed that "skeptic" is becoming a reserved word, along with "rationalist", "logical" and other words that, in context, mean, "I do not believe in God (or Christianity, or Jesus, or the Bible), and I clam those words as our words, and you can't use them!" Ironically, some so-called "freethinkers", "rationalists" &c. are actually badthinkers.

So, when you come across words like "freethinker", "skeptic", "rationalist" and similar, check the context. It's probably being used as an anti-Christian diatribe or other sneer. 

Those people love to play word games and bait others. I've encountered codswallop such as, "You xtians are deluded. I'm a freethinker!" (Another tangent: They use "xtian" as an emotional provocation, and then say, "What? It's a common expression. Don't be so sensitive". Yeah, you're fooling me big time, Blossom. And no, you don't own those words or have the right to control them.)

I'm just saying to watch for it. You'll see that I'm right. Again.

But guess what? I'm a freethinker, too; I don't have to think in the way you "skeptics" tell me to think. Now excuse me, I'm going to check and see if there's a new article by True Freethinker. Hey, dig this one on Nietzsche! Arrivederci.

October 11, 2010

Another "I Told You So!"


"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He's also concerned to prove that there's no valid reason why he should personally not do just what he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously a liberation from a certain political and economic system and a liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."
—Aldous Huxley, in Confessions of a Professed Atheist
Another "I told you so!" for me. Several times, I have pointed out to atheists that the cornerstone of their religion is evolution. If there is no Creator, then you can justify your actions, there is no objective morality, nobody to whom you have to explain yourself.


But that is just wishful thinking. The truth is, there really is a Creator. He makes the rules, we had better find out what he has to say. Jesus has been here once, and he is coming back. And he won't be "Mr. Nice Guy" like people have in their imaginations. No, he is going to be a fearsome judge, and we have to stand before him and explain ourselves. Some will enter into everlasting joy, others will enter into everlasting condemnation (Luke 16.19-31). Yes, Hell is real (Revelation 14.11). You don't want to go there; you don't have to go there (Romans 6.23).

Subscribe in a reader