How Should a Christian Respond to "There Probably is No God" Advertising
Posted: Wednesday, February 04, 2009
by Teresa Ortiz
Freelance writer/Speaker
Two-weeks ago, I was encouraged and challenged to write a story on the recent advertising on buses throughout London. I asked several questions while researching this information; what prompted this idea--and who's idea was it? I admit, my initial thought was anger, but then a passage of Scripture came rushing in to crush that thought:
"So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God" James 1:19-20
The slogan "There probably is no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life", was initially brought on as a joke by Comedian and journalist, Ariane Sherine, in June of 2008. This was in response to previous advertising by a religious group that posted a website, which told atheists that they were going to burn in hell if they didn't believe.
I wasn't aware of this when I first heard this news. Good thing I didn't start running my mouth without all the facts--thank you James chapter one--and thank you Google, for all the information I had available.
In hearing Ms. Sherine's reasoning, I had to be honest and say, they have every right to advertise as they choose. Granted, I disagree with their suggestion, but that is not the point. The point is, as a Christian and Bible teacher, I appreciate my freedom to write and publish articles about faith and teach a class anywhere I choose without the fear of being arrested; unlike many Christians who live in nations where it is illegal to share the Gospel. (Lord bless them.)
If we want the freedom to share the Gospel, then we cannot deny every other group the same freedom. I believe this is what Jesus taught throughout his ministry. The best example is the parable of the wheat and the tares found in Matthew chapter 13.
Jesus wasn't threatened nor offended by non-believers and scoffers--quite the opposite, in fact. We are told repeatedly in the Gospels that Jesus wept over Jerusalem because of unbelief. Jesus spoke about hell--more than He did about heaven, actually. Nevertheless, He never campaigned to silence the non-believer and their agenda, but continued to tell all who would listen that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He never robbed anyone of their freedom.
The Bible teaches that we are to expose false teachers and stand firm on and in the word of God, but it also says we are to do it with grace, love, and respect for all people. (2 Tim 4:2.)
Jesus told us this world is not our home; He told us that people are blind and dead in their sin without Him. I think we are guilty of forgetting that we were once blind and it is only by the grace of God that we were able to respond to the truth. It must be the reason we get up tight and self-righteous when things that challenge God come up. We think we are doing God a great service by standing up for him, when in reality; we are pushing people further away.
The Bible tells us that the ruler of this world is Satan and he blinds the eyes of non-believers. We say we believe in eternal separation from God--hell. If we truly believe this, shouldn't our response be to weep as Jesus did? Shouldn't our first thought be a prayer that God would lift the blinders from their eyes as he did ours? Unfortunately, this isn't always the case--instead we are angered and appalled. This is not the heart of God.
Frankly, I admire the faith of an atheist--I am not mocking. If I could have such an unshakeable faith--the faith Jesus spoke of in the parable of the mustard seed--wow, the things I would do for Him! A true atheist stands firm in faith that there is no God. They are fully convinced they can live as they please and they will not be held accountable. Think about it for a moment. No matter what comes their way, giving cause to doubt, they shake off and remain firm in their faith. How many Christians turn from God the minute they don't get their way?
Personally, I appreciate this add because of the word "probably". It gives room for the possibility that their is a God. Ultimately, each person will be responsible for his or her decision.
How should a Christian respond to this kind of advertising? This Christian believes it should be with weeping and prayer that those who read will think twice about the word "probably" and investigate for their self.
"...Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?" Romans 2:4
© Teresa Ortiz 2009
© Teresa Ortiz 2009
This Article has been viewed 666 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsTeresa, with nothing but prayer. As it says in the word some were made for the wrath and not all have their names written in the book of life nor do all come to Christ Born Again by more then a profession. Therefore some must go through the tribulation and the wrath to come. It really is simple for believers. Good job and best wishes and I'm glad your happy. RobertHi Robert, thanks for reading and adding this perspective. We do know the Word tells us that God draws all men to himself, but sadly, not all will respond. Just as Jesus said, wide is the gate that leads to distruction and narrow is the gate that leads to life and few there are that find it.Blessings to you always!! Yes, I am happy because God is working and its cool to watch :-)
Teresa, This is a great article and wonderfully written.....I feel sorry for the atheist who does not believe in God, not because I believe in him, but the fact that in the end his word will be the last, and is final. I would like to see saved souls from being damned forever. Articles like this one may help to save a few more people, a handful at a time is better than none......I loved this informative write, and I have a friend that is a atheist, but I'm working on him, I told him that I am bound and determined to help save his soul....he just laughs....inwardly, I wonder for how long? I keep praying for this young man.....Your friend in pen.......Gary....Hi Gart, thank you for reading and adding your comments. I hope this article encourages believers to be slow to anger and quick to listen and to remember we need to share the truth of God's word with love. We need to remember that we are not the Holy Spirit in people's lives. Our call is to live in obedience and be a living espistle as the Word says, it is the Holy Spirit's job to breathe life into the words so that it goes to the heart and the conscience of the one we share with. I also hope it encourages those who may have some convictions that there might be a God to give Him an honest chance before making their final decision. Because as you say, the soul/spirit of man is at stake.I am praying for your friend--May God break the chains that bind him, may he remove the blinders from his eyes, may he give him the grace and faith to believe, and may he open his ears so that he may hear God's voice calling him. In Jesus name, Amen!
Great article, Teresa. I feel that the preference of religion over spirituality has caused a great deal of the problems of the world. It's religion that prompts acts, in the name of God, that He warns about.I always learn from your work. Thank you!Hi Ken, you are correct. God calls us to a relationship with him through his Son, Jesus Christ. The book of James has a lot to say about why we fight and have wars among us--it is because of our selfish-sinful nature. If we would surrender to the Lordship of Christ and live as we should, things would be good and religious self righteousness would fade. There is pure religion that the bible talks about and it has nothing to do with a list of don'ts that religious groups come up with. It has to do with doing good deeds in helping our neighbors and those in need.Obedience to God's word by faith will cause a change in our hearts and lifestyle that will automatically cut out deliberate sinful behavior. And it all goes back to freedom of choice.Thanks again for reading and commenting. I know I have a bad habit of rambling when it comes to this issues, I suppose its because it is nearest and dearest to my heart.Blessings to you! Teresa
Interesting article, but you are misrepresenting atheists.You say "A true atheist stands firm in faith that there is no God".This is not the case for most real atheists.Most of us do not have "faith" that there is no God, we simply haven't seen any evidence that suggests there is likely to be one, so we don't believe.From Wikipedia:Faith is a belief, professedly without proof (i.e. above an acceptable standard of evidence).Whereas atheism, for most atheists, is simply a lack of a belief (in God) due to absence of evidence to support such a belief. No faith involved."They are fully convinced they can live as they please and they will not be held accountable"- most atheists believe they are accountable to other people, and to themselves, and will be held accountable for their actions by people and by the laws of the societies in which they live.Very few atheists believe they will not be held accountable for their actions, they just expect to be held accountable prior to their death rather than afterwards.[quote]Think about it for a moment. No matter what comes their way, giving cause to doubt, they shake off and remain firm in their faith[/quote]This simply isn't true for the vast majority of atheists, who don't consider faith a good reason to hold to a belief.If the evidence pointed to God's existence I'd happily accept it, as would most atheists.Most atheists accept the scientific method as being the most reliable way to determine the truth, and this means they go where the evidence leads, rather than having a position to hold tight to in the face of the evidence.There's no necessity for atheism to be true...atheists, like scientists, can change their mind when new evidence comes to light.With regard to the "atheist buses", there is no reason to be offended - the message is considerably more pleasant in tone than certain religious messages I've seen on buses (one being "the fool says in his heart that there is no God" and the other threatening non-believers, or believers in other gods, with eternal torment).I think your considered response to the buses is a positive one - there is no need to be angered by them, freedom of speech is important and something we should all be glad we can enjoy, and the atheist slogan doesn't threaten or insult anyone.Hi Ben! How are you doing? Thanks for stopping by. It's great to hear from you and I appreciate your input and think this is a great additon to this piece.You are right in that I lumped all atheist together, I apologize for that and I will go back and rewrite that sentence. I was specifically refering to the many confident atheists that I have had conversations with over the past 20 years. 100% percent of them chose not to believe the evidence, both scientific and historical evidence for God and the truth of the Bible. The problem is individually, what does one consider evidence. Christianity does not require blind faith. In fact, God told us to invesitigate, he provided proof and even the apostle Paul commended the believers in Berea for investigating what he said before they believed it. On the other hand, there have been some who are more open to the possiblity who gave God a chance and looked into all the supporting evidence who changed their minds. But like I said, these were less solid in their position as an atheist. I hope I am making sense.And I do know of many well-known former strong atheist who have changed their minds when they examined the evidence and have actually written amazing books regarding this. ( I just don't know them personally.) I am sorry, i don't have names of the top of my head, but I can get them for you if you would like to check them out.I suppose I used the term "faith" loosely, because my target audience for this piece is Christians, I should not have assumed all would understand my meaning. But basically what I was saying is that the atheist chooses to deny the evidence posed to them and they have faith (acceptance of their decision) that they came to the correct conclusion.My point was that if a person claimed a strong conviction in the truth of God, they should not be easily offended or worried by opposing views. Just as the person who is convinced there is no God in not worried about the possiblities of the truth of the Bible. Freedom of opinion and belief are available to all and I strongly believe in peace even in disagreement.Thanks again for your positive input. And again, I will make myself a bit clearer for future readers.Blessings to you.Hi Teresa, thanks for your thoughtful and interesting comment!
I can certainly agree with you about peace, freedom of opinion and freedom of belief. These are things that we should all be grateful to have, and things we should do our utmost to provide those who lack them!
Much as I'd love there to be "something more", an afterlife and a benevolent God watching over us, I've never found any evidence to suggest to me that these things exist. I see good, and I see evil, and both seem to come from how we humans interact with with one another.
I agree that if you are strong in your position (whatever it may be), then you should not fear criticism of that position. If you can justify your position in the face of that criticism, you strengthen it.
If you can't justify your position, you may begin to question it, and may eventually come to another, stronger position.
So either way, it is a positive form of self-development in my view.
thanks for taking the time to respond to my comment!
-BenWell said Ben, and you are welcome and thanks again for your input.
Religion - 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.-from dictionary dot comso Evolution can quite easily be called a religion, becausein there are words like (-esp- = especially) this doesnt mean alwaysand -Usually- which doesnt mean all the time.and the word -often- not meaning always.-for evolution not to be a religion these 3 examples would have to say the word always or a word which means all the time.so looking at this meaning of religion (by the way it is the first on the list) you could quite easily call evolution a religion.and it seems as though all people have a religion maybe apart from agnostics. (unless they (believe) in evolution).people may say there is no evidence for there being a God so they are an atheist, well there is no evidence which would point to there being no God,i used to be an atheist evolutionist, i feel because of brainwashing, but i left the evolution religion because of lack of evidence and became a Christian, because of overwhelmig evidence.an evolutionist may ask "who made God?" the creationist says he always existed.the creationist would ask "who made the first bit of energy and or matter" "or at least where did the energy come from to produce the first bit of energy" an honest evolutionist would say he doesnt know (if he is an atheist)or an atheist could say matter time and energy have always existed, but there is a problem with this because if time space and matter have always existed we would never have gotten to this point in time, it is like me asking you to count all the way to infinity and then i will give you a trillion dollars,well obviously you would never get the trillion dollars,just like we would never have gotten to this point in time, because infinity is forever,a creationist would say God made space,time, and matter all at once, and that he made the law that it takes something to create something i.e it took a human to make a complex (non living) thing such as the space shuttle, and it took a human or humans to make the humans to make the shuttle and so on going all the way back to God,i hope i dont sound like im attacking or sound rude i am just trying to say what Creationists like me believe, i put the word (like) in there if i didnt then it would most likely mean (all creationists), but i did put it there so i dont mean all, pretty much what i am trying to say is i hope you are not offended by (how) i am saying this.there are many evidences for there being a God,no evolution,and this earth being less than 15 thousand years old.the following numbers may not be totally correct but the correct numbers still show evolution cant have happened,1. the amount of salt in the oceans is increasing, they calculated that the accumulation most likely started around 4.5 thousand years ago (around the time of the flood 4.4 thousand years ago)2. the moon on average is moving away from the earth and when the dinosaurs where here or at least the land creatures that the dinosaurs (evolved) from where here , would have drowned because the moon effects the tides and bring in the moon 1/3rd the distance you get 9x the pull (inverse square law) and the moon would have been touching the earth at some stage if the world and earth have been around for billions of years,3.the oldest desert,coral reef,living organism (a tree) it is still alive from 4.4 thousand years ago,language,civilisation, all have dated back to less than 10 thousand years ago,4. the C14 equilibrium problem, the amount of C14 (carbon 14) being produced is increasing and they calculated that it would take 30 thousand years (from the beginning of the earths creation) for it to reach equilibrium (meaning it is decaying at the same rate it is being created) and it hasnt reached equalibrium yet, it was calculated to be about 1/3rd of the way there (10 thousand years)5. if the universe is 16-20 billion years old like most evolutionists believe. if evolution takes millions of years to happen and we all evolved from a single celled organism into creatures that have trillions of cells, wouldent that take millions of trillions of years?, if not evolution should be happening so fast that we should be able to see it (when in fact we dont) a bacteria should give birth to an organism with at least hundreds or thousands of cells.6. the layers of earth around the world (the geologic column) which are said to be millions or billions of years older than the layer on top of it, if this is the case why are petrified trees standing upright (sometimes upside down) found running though multiple layers, did the tree grow through solid rock? did they stand upright for millions of years while the dirt accumulated around and over it? did the trees grow the wrong way and down into the earth and have their roots at the top of the tree and not the bottom?7.petrification can happen very fast in nature it can happen in less than a few hundred years.8. carbon dating is based on many fault assumptions such as they assume the same amount of C14 has always been in the world or at least that it has reached equilibrium, since the C14 is increasing 5 thousand years ago the amount of C14 in the world would have been far less than we have now and 1 year after it died the device to measure C14 would say it was much older than 1 year, if you know what i mean.9. the magnetic field of the earth is weakening meaning millions of years ago the earth would have been so hot everything on earth would have died.10. termites eat their food but cant digest it properly the termite has a parisite living inside him that helps digest the food, the termite cant live without the parisite, and the parisite cant live without the termite, which one evolved first, symbiotic relationships these are called. (or something close to that)these are just a few off the top of my head for hundreds more check out Kent Hovinds video 100 reasons why evolution is stupid,or the venomfangx channel on youtube.P.S sorry if i offended anyone with how i wrote this or the manner in which i did, i may have gotten some things wrong such as numbers etc. it was not intentional.Ya-what you said. :-)Hi Anon, did you happen to read my response to a commentor on another article of mine? I am no scientist, nor do I care, shoot, I can't even understand why the water doesn't come gushing out of the dogs water dish, when the bottle has water in it and it is upside down, pouring into the dish!! Anyway, I so appreciate you adding this information here! It is what I believer but could have never said it as you did.You explained the points well and I hope it gives other readers information to ponder. have you read Cosmos and the Creator? I couldn't finish it. I didn't get it,way too scientific for me, but I know many evolutionists and atheist have raved about it.Anyway, thanks again. I just love where this article has taken this discussion. Who would have thought??!!Hello Teresathis is the first article of your's i have read, i will most likely read the others.I haven't read that book i'm no scientist either, but have an interest in it especially when it comes to glorifying God, i.e scientific evidence that supports young earth etc. i am pretty sure in the Bible it warns us of Science which is falsely so called.thank you for the reply to my comment,the people that i learned this from explain it more clear than me and in more detail.be well.Hi anonymous.You say evolution is a religion. It isn't.Using the definition you give:"Religion - 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"Evolution is not a set of beliefs, and it does not concern the cause, nature or purpose of the universe. It doesn't cover the origin of life either, that is covered by abiogenesis.I don't have time to cover all the errors in your comment, but here's a few:"5. if the universe is 16-20 billion years old like most evolutionists believe."The scientific consensus is that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. Evolutionary theory is nothing to do with this estimate."if evolution takes millions of years to happen and we all evolved from a single celled organism into creatures that have trillions of cells, wouldent that take millions of trillions of years?"Why on earth would you assume that? You started off as a single cell - a fertilised egg - and now have about a trillion - . Are you millions of trillions of years old?You seem to be making the false assumption that it must take a generation (at least) for species to increase the number of cells per individual by one.A mutation in just a single gene can lead to offspring that are larger or smaller than their parents...as an example, even if a human child grows up to be 1% larger (in volume) than its parents (who had a trillion cells each) then that child would have around 10 billion more cells than they did. In one generation."if not evolution should be happening so fast that we should be able to see it (when in fact we dont) a bacteria should give birth to an organism with at least hundreds or thousands of cells"Another unfounded assumption! If you understood evolutionary theory you would understand that it does not suggest or require that any organism would produce viable offspring drastically different to itself.It is a gradual process, and the change between generations would necessarily be gradual (i.e. slight) however much the process of evolution was accelerated."carbon dating is based on many fault assumptions" -this has nothing to do with evolution since Carbon 14 dating can only be used for relatively recent objects, not objects that are hundreds of thousands of years old.Radiometric dating is not based on assumptions, it is based on known physics, and has been calibrated with other independent forms of dating and is known to be accurate (accurate within specified bounds)If you want to attack evolution on scientific grounds you first need to know the science involved!Actually most if not all dating methods are very faulty, when dating a civilization for example if you where to look at the tools they had etc, this is very faulty because even today right now there are countries that have very good technology while other countries i.e some small island countries have nowhere near the technology of say USA or Japan,and actually radiometric dating,C14 dating, and many other methods are very faulty,you say C14 dating is only used for dating things that are very old well how do you know how old it is before you date it why not use C14 it may be 5000 years old, it seems as though before they date something they think ah it is a dinosaur bone it has to be millions of years old and use a dating technique that will give a year of millions of years old, when C14 would give it thousands, so they pick a technique they know will fit their pre-conceived idea that it is millions and say look! that proves it, i say use C14 and that proves it is thousands, i actually have no faith in most dating methods including C14.you speak of me starting as an egg well using this argument since i gained trillions of cells in 1 lifetime, why don't we see this happen in nature i.e a bird lays an egg and in its lifetime it grows to something the size of a german shepherd, and its mother was the size of a sparrow. this is making it easy on you i am only asking for a small % of change compared to a egg to an organism with at least a trillion cells.you speak about a 1% change what % of change was there when a single celled organism for the first time had an offspring with more than one cell, do we see this today any single celled organisms giving birth to multi-celled organisms and 100% of that multi-celled organisms ancestors had a single cell, i am speaking of it happening without human intervention of dna manipulation etc.so in your opinion does evolution happen quickly or slowly?,if quickly should we be able to see it happening i.e a single cell to multi cell?and if slowlyhow long would it take and is around 5 billion years long enough time for it to be un-noticeable?how was the process accelerated?so what does an evolutionist (believe) when someone asks where did the planets,stars,elements,life,humans,time,space,matter come from?and would most of them say pretty much big bang,rained on rocks,soup came alive,here we are etc.if so it seems like evolutionists do have a set of beliefs concerning the origin of the universe,so evolutionists don't even think about where life came from? abiogenesis people do? and are both these people believing in evolution? would they both pretty much agree that life came from a rock?, rained for millions of years turned the rocks into mud with water there soup came alive, ? and do they think that God had anything to do with it?"and actually radiometric dating,C14 dating, and many other methods are very faulty,you say C14 dating is only used for dating things that are very old well how do you know how old it is before you date it why not use C14 it may be 5000 years old, it seems as though before they date something they think ah it is a dinosaur bone it has to be millions of years old and use a dating technique that will give a year of millions of years old"You are still misunderstanding how radiometric dating works.It is not that each type will give automatically give you an age within certain bounds.You can try and use C14 dating on a 1,000,000 year old fossil, but you will immediately find that you simply can't get an accurate result (however, since the sensitivity of the measuring equipment is known you can get an answer of the sort "it is older than x years old", but with little clue as to how much older than x it is). The reason for this is because the amount of C14 will be too small to measure (because its half life is only 6,000 years).You can try and use Rubidium-strontium dating on a recent (say 4,000 year old) object, but you will have an error boundary probably be at least in the millions of years because the half-life involved is around 50 billion years (so the change over a small time period like 4,000 years would be so tiny as to be nigh impossible to measure accurately).It isn't a case of scientists picking one in advance to get the answer they want - they can apply all of them, and all will overlapping windows of "possible age". The one with the narrowest window is the most precise method for the sample in question.In most cases, various independent forms of dating are used, and the fact that they reliably and independently give overlapping windows of estimated age demonstrates their accuracy.As well as scientific dating methods, you don't seem to understand evolutionary theory either.As I pointed out previously, evolutionary theory neither expects nor requires any parent to produce offspring that are significantly different to themselves.In fact evolution expects precisely the opposite - the successful offspring will almost always resemble their parents extremely closely. All your questions still indicate that you are misunderstanding this key element of how evolution works.Also as I pointed out before, single celled organisms do not give birth.Generally speaking, evolution happens slowly, and drastic changes, such as between ancient fish and modern mammals, take many many generations. Generation times tend to be longer for larger, more complex animals.Evolution on a small scale HAS been directly observed, under controlled conditions, in repeatable experiments. New strains of bacteria can evolve in a timescale where we can "see" it happening."so what does an evolutionist (believe) when someone asks where did the planets,stars,elements,life,humans,time,space,matter come from?"An evolutionist will be able to explain where humans came from, as far back as the first life-form.Evolutionists don't have a unifying belief about the origins of the universe, because evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe - individuals can accept evolution without having to take a particular view on other matters.You might as well ask where do "Blue cars look best"-ists believe the universe came from....it's a meaningless question."so evolutionists don't even think about where life came from? "Another false assumption! Evolutionary theory doesn't explain where life came from, but that doesn't mean people who accept it can't wonder about where life came from.You can accept evolution, and believe a particular theory of abiogenesis (or admit we don't have a consensus on abiogenesis yet, or believe that God created the first form from which all others evolved)"would they both pretty much agree that life came from a rock?"Well, most evolutionists and anti-evolutionists alike think that life probably came from simple rock or dirt! It is what the scientific and Biblical evidence points to!The difference is in the process of turning that simple "stuff" into "replicating things" - abiogenesis."and do they think that God had anything to do with it?"A lot of people accept evolution but think God plays or played a part in it (e.g. either creating the first life form or directing natural selection in some way).Many (perhaps even most) evolutionists are religious, the Pope and the head of the Church of England for example.The people that invented Carbon dating estimated that it would take 30,000 years for the C14 to reach Eqaulibrium, and they also calculated that the amount of C14 that is in the world today suggests that the earth is 10,000 years old. but they dismissed this,how would you explain this? not asking you to explain them dissmissing it.how do you explain the salt in the ocean and many other things that show the earth to be 10,000 years old or less?-Best Wishes Anon"The people that invented Carbon dating estimated that it would take 30,000 years for the C14 to reach Eqaulibrium, and they also calculated that the amount of C14 that is in the world today suggests that the earth is 10,000 years old. but they dismissed this,how would you explain this?"
There's no facts to explain there, since this "C 14 equilibrium" method of dating the earth at ~10,000 years is nonsense, built on the false assumption that the production of C 14 in the atmosphere occurs at a constant rate. It doesn't.
"how do you explain the salt in the ocean and many other things that show the earth to be 10,000 years old or less?"
The salt in the ocean does not indicate the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
There is no "constant steady increase" in ocean salinity of the sort postulated in that theory.
To quote from utdallas dot edu:
"the sea has had about the same salt content for many hundred of millions if not billions of years. The salt content has reached a steady state. Dissolved salts are being removed from seawater to form new minerals at the bottom of the ocean as fast as rivers and hydrothermal processes are providing new salts".
Salt levels have been approximately the same for a long time, with the fluctuations up and down pretty much balancing each other out. There has been a small but noticeable increase in salt levels in recent years due to climate change (more evaporation, but less rainfall=increased concentration of salt), however melting of freshwater ice may reverse this in the future.
Geologists, many of whom are religious, put the Earth at ~ 4.5 billion years. They do this because that is the age the evidence suggests it happens to be, not because they had a preconceived reason to try and get the age to come out at that value.
The moon may well have been touching the earth - in fact it is thought to once have been part of earth, separated from the molten earth by a massive impact in the distant past. This idea is supported by many independent pieces of evidence, one of which is the composition of moon rock and its similarity to rock in the earth's mantle.it seems like we could be talking for a long time about this, i could say well how do you explain the poly strata fossils (those trees standing upright through many layers of rock said to be millions of years old each layer) and the termite thing and this and that, and i could still hold to my belief about dating C14 etcit seems as though it would be good to discuss these things but possibly this isn't the place for it.Best wishes.
hi t,i am so happy to be able to practice what i preach, and preach what i practice. i love being able to talk about God whenever i wish, and to share my experiences with others who also believe.you are right, i would hate to have to give that up.i'm sure all denominations would hate to give up their beliefs as well. thanks for sharing,my best,sueHi Sue,I agree completey. We must be fair and tolerant. Tolerant does not mean giving in to other beliefs, it just means giving others the same respect that we want.Thanks for reading and commenting!Love and hugs,t
Geez Teresa..What is this, the attack of the atheists or what? lolI don't excuse any Christian advertisement that uses fear tactics, and certainly consider it anti - Christian because it reaps the opposite effect, i.e., it actually promotes hatred of Christians.And so, I am not suprised by the atheistic reply, and whatever Christian group did write that initial fear invoking banner should rightly recieve what they have been given. It was certainly not the Holy Spirit inspiring them. The Holy Spirit is smarter than that.HI Jennifer,I agree completely :-)Thanks for adding this thought. Talk to you soon!Teresa
Teresa,Wow! Lots of people getting excited here.
What's interesting is that God is all powerful and His will, will not be denied, nor his plan thwarted, first and foremost. Another thing is that He obviously gave all his children agency or the ability to make one's own decisions. We can see freedom of choice being essential to people by the fact that more people come to America than any other country; the country with the greatest freedoms. But even though we are free to act we are not free of the consequences of our actions. A good enough reason to do His bidding, for sure. It has been made evident time and again by the world's greatest thinkers, secular and religious, that there are certain universal laws set in stone with certain and definite consequences.
We are all on spiritual journeys whether of a particular religion or not, for we all wonder at some time about our existence, birth, and death. This can not be avoided, for we all are born and die. Some who are spiteful of believers may say these people are weak, the cause of many if not most of the wars, just looking to control and so on. (And by "believers" I am speaking of people, people who are imperfect, people who in general have difficulty overcoming the self and a basic desire to control and dominate for selfish reasons, people who are made of the good, the bad, and the ugly--spiritually.)
But are not all of us weak? Prone to illness, sadness, and death? If non of these things happen to a person, then I will believe they are "strong" in the strongest sense of the word. (Funny how those on their deathbed, those encountering a life-threatening illness, those suffering calamity, or great familial loss become instantaneously "religious.") And because of our weakness, the majority are looking for a cure which usually comes in the form of a religious message because man in his infinite ignorance, lack of foresight (being only able to see into the future as far as that day's lunch menu goes--even so, there may be a last minute change), and subjective bias can not come up with a great message of healing and everlasting goodness on his own. He needs an all-seeing, all-powerful source: God.
God is alive and well, whether he is being worshiped by that name or not or not at all. At a point in their existence, whether in the here and now or the after, every knee shall bow and tongue confess that the Lord is the Christ, our redeemor and savior. Whether his children, those of infinite ignorance and pride, confess is immaterial. He will succor all to his bosom, but what one must remember is that mercy will never rob justice. We are all responsbile for our actions and make them with certain consequences of set universal law, whether we believe or not. But then again, we are not to judge that is His job. All we can do is send His word of LOVE and avoid contention, that of he who is at odds with all HE does.
God bless and God's love to you.Hi Jeff, I appreciate your input. You said some things that I wasn't focused on and it helps to bring added info to our discusssion here.It does boil down to each and every one of answering to God. We are all God's creation, but according to God, only those who receive Jesus Christ as Savior become his children. And only his children will inherit the kingdom of God. But each of us have to make our own choice and then deal with the consequence or reward of our choice.Lord bless you and yours as well!
Good points Teresa, It is kind of "funny" how Christians turn bitterly from God when they don't get what they want and Atheists turn to God when they are between a rock and a hard place. Human nature!Hi Val, you summed it up perfectly.Thank you for you input! Blessings to you, Teresa
Hi Teresa
Respond to the Ad with tolerance as after all what has the Ad to do with your personal relationship with God?
MeanwhileI have to be honest and say I am very offended by the Christian message that people who do not believe in the Christian God (there are thousands of Gods to choose from) will burn in hell. It is very discriminatory and offensive.It is exactly these types of statement that turn people away from religion as they are words of hate not love, they are words of prejudice not togetherness. Who wants to believe in a God of hate and prejudice?
I believe in God (my version of God not any religion's) but he's not one that tells people they'll burn for not following following a certain path or religion.
He's nicer I guess than yours ;)Hi CB, how are you doing? How is your little guy?Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Yes, we Christians, actually, all people need to have respect and tolerance for all beliefs, I certainly practice this, though by nature of being a Christian it may not seem so.I certainly understand how you feel, I used to feel the same way. But somewhere along the line, I recognized I was not perfect and that I have made mistakes which not only hurt me, but others. As I began to understand the concept of sin, I was better able to understand that God is loving and gracious, and not hateful. The whole concept of hell, isn' t as harsh and simple as not believing in the God of the Bible-Yahweh, whom Christians and Jews believe is the Creator of all things. It's not the 'not believing'' in this God that according to Him sends people to hell, it's the unforgiven sin that does. God never sends anyone to hell. According to the Bible, God was gracious and sent his son as savior, to redeem mankind from sin so that they could forever be with the God who created them. Hell was made for Satan and his angels, God wants no one to go there, but he also give man free will to choose.Jesus says he came to save sinners--the ones who knew they needed and wanted freedom from guilt. So anyone who does not see that they have a need is welcomed to follow anything or anyone they want. If a person truly does not believe in the God of Creation, they should not be offended by the message of the Bible.Christians are not the only ones who have intolerant people, every religion, even non religious people have groups of intolerant, evil and mean spirited people. The Christian faith is one based on redemption and what God has done for man. This is why it is different than other faiths.Hell is not the "Christian Message" It is God's message. Jesus spoke the words, Christians are merely people who have chosen to follow Christ and every part of the teaching of God. Not just the mushy-feel good stuff. Also, hell is just a small portion of the teachings of God. There is so much goodness, kindness, grace and mercy that flows from God. I am grateful that I am forgiven of my sin. My life has been full and rich since I have surrendered my life to Christ. This is a relationship, not a religion. You are right. Religion turns people off. But being a Christian is a privilege in that we can commune with God through Jesus Christ his son and this is available to every man in every nation, so it is not exclusive, it is a choice. It's not about rules. Religion is about rules. Relationship is about gratitude which causes a change of heart and lifestyle.I hope I have explained a little bit of why the message of hell. You still don't have to like it or agree with it, but it is a part of what the God of the bible teaches. God is intolerant of sin, not of people. He is a holy and just.Peace, love, and hugs,TeresaI have heard that once you die you go to 1 of 2 places Heaven or Hell.i have heard that limbo,purgatory are not real.what happens to someone that believes in God but chooses to ignore him and worships satan and or continues to live evil lives and don't repent and deny Christ?do they go to heaven also? because Hell is for satan and his angels?Hi, Anon,They go to hell. I'm sorry, I left a little confusion. There is no in between. Only one of two places. It is true that Hell was created for Satan and his angels and God desirres no one to go there, but if they continually reject God and Jesus Christ, and die without repentance, then they will go to hell because they died in their sin as Jesus tells us. I was mainly trying to point out that God does not send people to hell, people choose to go there by rejecting Christ.I hope this helps. Sorry for the confusion.
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.