Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Thus Spoke Jesus by Chris White

Zoroaster

The official starting point for Zoroastrianism is around 600 bc in what was known as Babylonia (present day Iran and Iraq) by the son of a camel merchant named Zoroaster or Zarathustra. Technically Zoroastrianism is claimed to be the primeval religion of man that was lost but eventually reclaimed by Zoroaster during a spiritual quest in which the true God Ahura-Mazda was revealed to him.

Like Muhammad, Zoroaster had little success in the early days of proclaiming the truth that had been revealed to him. Finally a local king in northern Persia named Vishtap embraced his message and made it the official religion of the small kingdom. After his death Zoroastrianism eventually spread throughout the Persian empire and became its official religion for nearly 1000 years. Today there are less than 500,000 adherents worldwide who are called Parsis or Zarathustis.

Zoroastrian followers have two major goals as they live out their faith. The first is the maintenance of life. To do this adherents work the soil, raise cattle, marry and have children. Things like asceticism and celibacy are eschewed because they do not promote life. The second goal of the Zoroastrian is the struggle against evil. Evil acts and people associated with them are avoided. Because physical death came as a result of evil attacking the earth, disposal of corpses is carefully done under prescribed methods to avoid defiling members. Zoroastrianism is a very personal religion because each person must struggle against evil in his own way and will stand before God in the final judgment for his or her actions.

Zoroastrian theology claims to be monotheistic yet seemingly contradicts this in their world view. There is one God named Ahura-Mazda. He is the good and perfect creator who is all powerful, all knowing, all wise, perfect and benificent. But Ahura-Mazda has an evil twin named Angra-Mainyu. Angra-Mainyu is co-equal and co-eternal with God and is the source of all evil and corruption. These two forces of Good and Evil are in a state of continual war and have their own angels and archangels in the battle as well. Humanity must resist evil as they participate in this battle as well.

Zoroastrianism teaches that heaven is achieved through doing good works in this life and resisting evil. When a person is deceased they will be judged by Ahura-Mazda as to whether or not their lives were basically evil or basically good. The basically good will inherit heaven and the basically evil will be sent to hell for purification. Hell is not an eternal state but rather a place where justice is meted out and then the person is restored to God afterwards. While the emphasis is on personal responsibility rather than a savior of some kind, Zoroastrians are looking for a future Saoshyant (Savior) who will be born on earth to a virgin and will at the end of the world finally defeat evil and restore righteousness.

Zoroastrianism claims that all religions are equal because they lead people to goodness and faith in God and that is the goal of human life. Because all roads lead to God, Zoroastrians do not seek converts but rather seek to expand their numbers through marriage and childbirth.

When Zoroastrianism and Christianity are compared there are some points of commonality but mostly fundamental disagreement. On the fact that there is one God, good and evil that is to be embraced and shunned, and that there is an afterlife that includes heaven and hell there is agreement. But Zoroastrianism is in essence a religion of works. One earns his salvation through doing good and avoiding certain evils throughout his lifetime. Christian belief emphasizes that while man has the capacity for good, he is radically committed to doing that which is against the law of God. It is only through the restoring work of the God sent savior Jesus Christ that man can be right with God. Christians are expected to do good works as a sign of their faith, but their faith is in Christ not their goodness to save them from hell.

Another point of disagreement comes in the area of the struggle between good and evil. Christianity teaches the existence of Satan who is a fallen angel and the force of evil in the cosmos. But Satan is not equal with God and has circumscribed limits as to what he can do. He will live eternally in hell when God decrees the end of time and culmination of all things in this order of life.

Finally, there is disagreement in the assertion that all religions are equal and lead people to goodness and to God. Ostensibly, Satanism actually leads its followers to do evil and resist God. Buddhism is a world religion which has no connection worshipping any God. Hinduism is a religion with millions of gods but has no factual basis for most of them. All religions are not true nor are they equal. Religions are of value insofar as they lead us to a correct appraisal of reality and how we are to respond to it. It might be fun to build my own religion around worshipping my belly button, but it would do little to answer the questions of; why are we here? where are we going? and why are things the way they are?

Zoroastrianism answers some of these questions and admittedly has some similarities with the Christian religion, but in the end it calls men and women to trust themselves and their goodness to please a perfect and holy God. Given the reality of the human soul, it seems unlikely that this is ever achievable. Long before Zoroaster ever lived, God spoke to another man living in the exact same region. He told Abraham to leave his family and homeland and follow Him. God made a covenant with him that if he would leave his idolatrous people, he would make him into a great nation and through him all the peoples of the world would be blessed. Abraham entered into this covenant and through him the nation of Israel was born. It was through the lineage of Abraham that God came in human form. His name was and ever more shall be Jesus Christ. It is only through Him that we can truly battle evil and find true life.

" I am the way, and the truth, and the life;
no one comes to the Father, but through me"
--Jesus Christ (John 14:6)--

Mormonism and Christianity in Contrast by Chris White

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormons, has a worldwide membership of over 13 million people. Although located in 162 different countries, the LDS church is largely concentrated in the western United States. Perhaps the most visible aspect of the Mormon church is their missionary enterprise which is made up of more than 50,000 members mostly between the ages of 19-26. Although primarily male, around 15% of the missionaries are single women and older couples.

The Mormon religion is based on three overarching ideas. First, that Joseph Smith was visited by God and Jesus Christ at age 14 in 1820 and three years later by angelic beings, John the Baptist, and the Apostles Peter, James, and John. The content and information dispensed during these visitations comprise the bulwark of Mormon doctrine. Belief in God and Joseph Smith as his prophet are of paramount importance in receiving salvation. Secondly, the LDS Church is not a new work of God but rather a restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ as originally established by the Savior. According to official church teaching, the true gospel was lost in a worldwide apostasy (falling away from orthodox belief) and not restored until Joseph Smith's visitation and revelations in the 1820's.

Thirdly, the goal of the Latter Day Saints is to become divinity. Classic Mormon theology states "as man is, God once was; as God is, man may become. By keeping the ordinances of the church, entering the Mormon priesthood, receiving endowments in the Temple, and holy living, members seek to be worthy of exaltation into godhood. The journey towards divinity is begun in this life but usually continues even into the afterlife.

Adherents to the LDS church embrace basic Christian doctrines with their own series of modifications. A prime example is their belief in the Holy Bible. Mormons believe that the Old and New Testaments are the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly." This caveat exists because Latter Day Saints do not believe it is the complete or final word from God. In addition to the Bible, Mormons embrace The Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price as essential revelation from God. Furthermore LDS theology is open ended in the sense that the Church President is a living prophet and may receive fresh revelations from God which may cancel or supersede anything previously written.

Another modification is their belief in the Godhead. Mormons believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but unlike orthodox Christianity which teaches that there is one God in three persons, they believe in three Gods who are one in purpose. God is the God of other Gods, but even He had a father and mother. All humans when they are finally exalted will become Gods and through celestial marriages (which are performed in LDS temples) they will have spirit children who will someday become mortal and become Gods through exaltation as well.

The Mormon doctrine of man seems to be a hybrid of ancient Hinduism and Christianity. In the LDS conception, man's life has several phases. First man is pre-mortal. He lives with a spirit body made of a substance different from earthly bodies (problematic in this is how gods with bodies like ours give birth to people with spiritual bodies unlike theirs). Second is his mortal existence. At this time his spirit and an earthly body are joined. He has no remembrance of his spirit existence yet choices he made in the spirit world effect his lot in life here on earth (i.e. poverty, color of skin, health). Following death man lives in a disembodied state on earth until his resurrection. Finally man reaches immortality. In this final stage his body will be resurrected and joined to his disembodied soul and will live forever. If he is worthy enough to attain to the highest level of heaven (the celestial kingdom), he will become a God in his own right.

One of the greatest differences between Mormon doctrine and Christianity is on the fall of man into sin. Judaism and Christianity both regard Adam's transgression as a fall from a higher estate of righteousness and blessing. Mormonism teaches that Adam and Eve had immortal bodies but Eve sinned and became mortal. Adam was forced to choose between obeying the command not to eat of the tree of good and evil and the command to be fruitful and multiply. By choosing the latter and becoming mortal through sin, Adam opened the door for billions of disembodied spirits to have a physical existence and thus provide them with the opportunity for becoming worthy of exaltation as gods in the world to come. Summed up, Adam's fall was a fall upward to godhood.

What should we make of these claims by the Mormon Church? They are hugely successful in their program of evangelism and many of their adherents are highly educated and conscientious people. Could Mormonism have some truth in it? Without going into every detail lets consider the three core beliefs of Mormonism: the prophetic office of Joseph Smith, the concept of being a 'restoration' of the original church, and the progression of man unto godhood.

Much has been written concerning the person and life of Joseph Smith. Mormon literature esteems him while non-Mormon writers tend to vilify him as the devil incarnate. While a person's character does relate to their credibility as a message bearer for God, this isn't always the case. John the Baptist and Daniel were certainly prophets of sterling quality but Moses, David, and Caiaphas had less than spotless records. Instead of examining the messenger, it is the message which should be given scrutiny. The prophet hood of Joseph Smith rests on the credibility of the book of Mormon. Mormon sources state the book was originally written in the Americas around 600 BC by the prophet-historian Mormon. These writings which were done in an ancient form of the Egyptian language were entrusted into the hands of Mormon's son Moroni who hid them in upstate New York. In the 1820's Moroni, now a resurrected being met with Joseph Smith and helped him find both the writings and the special means of translating them into English. It is here that some problems begin to emerge.

Despite the claim of authorship around 600 BC, the book of Mormon quotes verbatim literally hundreds of King James Version passages of the New Testament. It also borrows heavily from many books written about America that were published in Joseph Smith's day. Another problem is the fact that the Book of Mormon is a literal word for word, letter for letter, translation of the golden plates of the original. As a whole the book of Mormon translates into King James English. This was neither the language of the people in Joseph Smith's day, nor the language of the writers of the New Testament 1500 years earlier, nor would the language of reformed Egyptian (the existence of which has never been authenticated) be likely to translate out into the King's English. Many ancient writers of antiquity borrowed from the phraseology of the New Testament and even wrote using the names of the apostles as a way to honor them and gain credibility. What is incredible is someone like Mormon borrowing from writers who lived 700 years in the future and who wrote in a style that didn't exist for another 2,211 years!

What also seems a bit difficult to understand is how God has not seen fit to leave us the golden plates as a testament and proof of the veracity of Mormon's prophecy. He saw fit to leave a trail of ancient manuscripts which verify the text of the Old and New Testaments. It seems that a loving God would be concerned that His people would readily embrace this lost truth.

With regards to the LDS being a restoration church as it was originally formed by Jesus Christ, a couple of things seem to contradict this. First of all the worldwide apostasy of the church which is said to have happened after the death of the apostle John is very unlikely. If this is true then why has there been an unbroken chain of Christian martyrs from the book of Acts until the present day. People willing to die for their Christian faith hardly seem like people living in apostasy. Second, neither Jesus nor His Apostles spoke or taught on the mediation of an Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood. They instead continually emphasized Jesus Christ alone as the mediator of salvation. The Church has always been the community and fellowship of the faithful but Christ has always been the exclusive means to human redemption and salvation.

Finally, the Mormon belief in the exaltation of man unto godhood also seems to be an untenable position. This seems more akin to Hindu thought than Christian belief. Jesus said we could be His disciples and that through Him we might find eternal life. But eternal life was not to be found as a god but rather as a glorified and restored human being. Adam and Eve's sin in the garden of Eden was to reach after God's position and in doing so they fell from a state of grace to a state of falleness. It is at this point man is rescued by the Son of God that man might be finally restored to his original position as he was created by God.

Addendum:

The Disappointment of B. H. Roberts

Brigham H. Roberts is revered in Mormon history as one of the Mormon Church’s greatest theologians and historians. His six-volume Comprehensive History of the Church is still one of the most respected works of Mormon history. Roberts was a General Authority, member of the Mormon Church’s First Council of the Seventy, a group which is second only to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. In 1898 he was elected to the U. S. House of Representatives, although he was never seated because he was a polygamist.

As a young missionary in Tennessee, Roberts began to formulate his defense of the Book of Mormon. Upon one occasion he debated a Campbellite minister on the authority of the Book of Mormon. That debate was the beginning of his reputation within the Mormon Church as a leading defender of the Book of Mormon. In time he became recognized as the expert Book of Mormon apologist. In 1909 he published his chief defense of the Book of Mormon, entitled. New Witnesses for God.

The Doubts Begin

In 1921 an event occurred which forever changed Roberts’ life. A young Mormon from Salina, Utah, William Riter, wrote to Apostle James E. Talmage with five questions challenging the Book of Mormon. Riter had been asked the questions by a man from Washington, D.C. who was investigating the claims of Mormonism. Talmage was too busy to answer the questions, so he sent the letter on to Roberts. This was the beginning of an investigation which would trouble Roberts until his death in 1933. The study deeply challenged his faith in the Book of Mormon and ultimately changed his opinion of its divine origin.

Roberts’ personal struggle with his waning confidence in the Book of Mormon is recorded in three documents he produced in the last years of his life. None of these works was published during his lifetime, but they are now available. A comprehensive study of these documents was published in 1985 as Studies of the Book of Mormon by the University of Illinois. This book is edited by two Mormon scholars: Brigham D. Madsen edited the manuscript and Sterling M. McMurrin wrote an introductory essay.

Roberts studied the questions for four months without replying to William Riter. Riter finally wrote to him, asking if he had completed his response. On Dec. 28, 1921, Roberts wrote back saying he was studying the problems, had not yet reached a conclusion and would soon respond. The next day Roberts wrote an open letter to President Herbert J. Grant, to Grant’s counselors, to the Twelve Apostles and to the First Council of Seventy, requesting an emergency meeting with all of them to discuss the matter.

Roberts told the General Authorities: “I found the difficulties (raised by the five questions) more serious than I thought ... it is a matter that will concern the faith of the Youth of the Church now (and) also in the future.”

President Grant responded immediately to Roberts’ request for an emergency meeting of the Church’s top leadership. Within a week the brethren assembled for an intense two-day conference at which Roberts delivered a 141 page report entitled, “Book of Mormon Difficulties, a Study.” Roberts appealed to the collective wisdom of the brethren and said he was seeking the inspiration of the Lord in order to answer the questions.

Disappointed

It is fair to say the General Authorities “stonewalled” Roberts at the meeting. After two days, he came away disappointed and discouraged. In a letter to President Grant four days after the meeting he said:

“I was greatly disappointed over the net results of the discussion ... There was so much said that was utterly irrelevant, and so little said ... that was helpful.”

Roberts continued to discuss the matter through letters with President Grant and continued for some months to meet with a committee formed out of the larger group comprised of one of Grant’s counselors, Talmage, and Apostle John Widsoe. But, Roberts never was satisfied with the response of the brethren.

As his investigation continued, he became more and more disillusioned with the Book of Mormon; and he always resented the response he received at the two-day seminar. Two months before his death he told a friend, Wesley P. Lloyd, former dean of the graduate school of Brigham Young University, that the defense the brethren made for the Book of Mormon might “satisfy people who didn’t think, but (it was) a very inadequate answer for a thinking man.” He said Apostle Richard R. Lyman did not take the matter seriously and the others, “merely one by one stood up and bore testimony to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. George Albert Smith—in tears—testified that his faith in the Book of Mormon had not been shaken by the questions.”

Roberts told Lloyd “in a Church which claims continuous revelation, a crisis had arisen where revelation was necessary.”

Concerning the Five Questions

Of the five questions, Roberts was most concerned about the linguistic problem. (See accompanying sidebar “The Five Questions.”) However, he also discovered new problems. He told Lloyd he saw literary problems in the Book of Mormon as well as geographic problems. Of the geographic problems he asked:

Where were the Mayan cliffs and high mountain peaks in the Book of Mormon? The geography of the Book of Mormon looked suspiciously like the New England of Joseph Smith!

Joseph Smith Did Not Get The Book of Mormon From God!

Roberts eventually concluded that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself—that he did not translate it from gold plates. Smith produced it, Roberts said, by drawing upon his own natural talent and materials like Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews (published near Joseph’ s home a few years before the translation of the Book of Mormon).

Roberts’ Reaction:

Roberts became convinced that View of the Hebrews was “the ground plan” for the Book of Mormon. Roberts, the man who had started his missionary career defending the Book of Mormon and became its staunchest apologist, had to admit the evidence proved Joseph Smith was a plagiarist.

One must empathize with the elderly Roberts as he came to realize he had spent a lifetime defending something which he now knew was a fraud. It is heartbreaking. It is perhaps, this fraudulent perpetration of the Book of Mormon that is the most heartbreaking aspect of Mormonism. Millions of Mormons base their faith in Mormonism upon this book which is no more than the invention of Joseph Smith. Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt correctly identified the essential question concerning the Book of Mormon when he declared:

"If true, (the Book of Mormon) is one of the most important messages ever sent from God to man. If false, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions who sincerely receive it as the Word of God, and will suppose themselves built upon the rock of truth, until they are plunged, with their families, into hopeless despair."

What was the final resolution for Brigham H. Roberts? No one can say for sure. However, I am afraid for him. I fear that this giant intellectual, who could stand against the president of the Church and call the Apostles to task, committed intellectual suicide. In a conversation with Wesley Lloyd, just two months before his death, Roberts showed him what he called “a revolutionary article on the origin of the Book of Mormon.” In Lloyd’s opinion, Roberts’ work was, “far too strong for the average Church member.”

What Lloyd saw was “A Book of Mormon Study,” a 300-page document in which Roberts sets forth his reasons for concluding that the Book of Mormon was not of divine origin. In the document, Roberts investigated the documents (including View of the Hebrews) which Joseph Smith could have consulted in writing the Book of Mormon. He investigated “the imaginative mind of Joseph Smith.” He quotes Joseph’s mother who recalled how Joseph would give “amusing recitals” in which he would describe, “the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship.” All this, Roberts acknowledged, “took place before the young prophet had received the plates of the Book of Mormon.”

Roberts suggests that Smith became caught up in spiritual “excesses” out of which he imagined prophecies and manifestations:

“His revelations become merely human productions. … Morbid imagination, morbid expression of emotions (were) likely to find their way into the knowledge of Joseph Smith and influence his conceptions of spiritual things.”

The Gold Plates Didn’t Exist

Roberts, according to Lloyd, concluded that Smith’s visions were “psychological” and that the gold plates, “were not objective”—that is, they didn’t really exist! They existed only on a “spiritual,” or subjective plane.

Conclusion
God was gracious to B. H. Roberts. God let him see the overwhelming evidence of Joseph Smith’s fraud. We cannot be sure what his final conclusions were because he died before he could resolve these issues. However, the evidence indicates that B. H. Roberts was so steeped in the deception of Mormonism that he was unable to escape its spiritual hold. In his last conversation with Lloyd, with only two months of life before him, Roberts indicated that he had not yet given up on Joseph Smith. He said that although the Book of Mormon was of obvious human origin, perhaps the Church was still true. Perhaps he could yet establish the divinity of Joseph’s call. If the Book of Mormon failed him, perhaps he could find divinity in the Mormon Church’s secondary book of scripture, the Doctrine and Covenants!

www.mazeministry.com
©1991 James R. Spencer

THE FIVE QUESTIONS ROBERTS COULDN'T ANSWER

B. H. Roberts asked the General Authorities to answer these five question:

1. Linguistics: Riter asked—if the American Indians were all descendants of Lent—why there was such diversity in the language of the American Indians and why there was no indication of Hebrew in any of the Indian languages?

2. The Book of Mormon says that Lehi found horses when he arrived in America. The horses described in the Book of Mormon (as well as many other domestic animals) did not exist in the New World before the arrival of the Spanish Conquistadors.

3. Nephi is stated to have had a “bow of steel.” Jews did not know steel at that time. And there was no iron smelted on this continent until after the Spaniard conquest.

4. The Book of Mormon frequently mentions “swords and scimiters (scimitars).” Scimitars are unknown until the rise of the Moslem faith (after 600 A.D.)

5. The Book of Mormon says the Nephites possessed silk. Silk did not exist in America in pre-Columbian times

Postscript: In the spirit of truth and fairness I would encourage anyone reading this page to access the official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints webpage at http://www.lds.org/ . I would also recommend the Mormon Research Ministry at http://www.mrm.org/. Both sites are worth your time in researching and seeking the truth concerning Mormonism.

An Evangelical Explains Atheism by Chris White

Atheism is a transliteration of a Greek word which means “without God.” While there are various categories of “disbelievers” and disbelief, in common parlance, atheism means to have no belief in the existence of God.

Though considered an unpopular belief, Atheists are hardly a small class of people. Atheism is the 6th largest religion on earth and if combined with people who consider themselves ‘non religious’ they equal the entire Islamic world.

There are categories of Atheism as well. “Weak Atheism” is the position of skepticism about the existence of God. “Strong Atheism” is the position of faith that there is no God or gods. In the main, most atheists are not so strongly against religious belief as they simply cannot themselves embrace it with any kind of integrity or honesty. Many have found a path in life that brings them happiness and satisfaction without God and have even embraced some sort of moral code which would not be at odds with Christianity, Judaism, or any other world religion. One thing that many atheists feel strongly about is the issue of proselytizing by people who do have some sort of faith. They have a “live and let live attitude” and expect the favor returned. On the other hand there are some atheists who have a zealous fervor for converting people from religious belief. They see religion as such a colossal waste of time and energy that people must be liberated from its binding and deluding effects.
While most Atheists would resist being categorized (like most people!), there are some broad categories of Atheistic belief. These categories often explain the reasons for Atheism but in truth some do not believe in God just because they do not want to believe.

I. Categories of Atheism
 
Marxist Atheism: Religion is a manmade institution to ease emotional pain and the fear of dying. It is considered as a threat to social change and equality by numbing people with the hope of reconciliation of their class problems in an afterlife.

Freudian Atheism: God is a childish projection out of a desire to avoid death and have a father who is perfect and immortal.

Philosophical Atheism: Any statement about God or His existence is meaningless because it is impossible to empirically verify it. Generally speaking, the position of atheism is that if something cannot be conclusively proven, it is safer to take the position that it doesn’t exist.

Scientific Atheism: God need not exist because all things in the physical order can be explained by the laws of science or human decision.

Rejection of Religion Atheism: God does not exist on the basis of personal experience and feelings towards religion. These atheists often are people from a religious home or background who once practiced a faith of some kind and later came to reject it because of personal disappointment with God or clergy or out of rebellion towards their parents.

II.Atheism and Agnosticism
 
Atheism is different from Agnosticism. Agnostics hold to a middle ground between belief and unbelief. They may think the existence of God is improbable but they suspend judgement because know this cannot be conclusively proved. Both Atheists and Theists share in a commonality in the sense that they hold their views of God with certainty.

III. Some General Thoughts about Atheism and Christian Belief (without any pretension that I can prove the existence of God through rational argument!)
 
A. A Wrong Starting Point?
One of the arguments of atheism against Christianity is that we base our definitions of God and arguments for God based on our own religious writings. If we must rely on a source that is not considered a reality by all people to prove God, how can we say we have a strong argument for His existence? This is a very good point. Perhaps the best starting point in this discussion is to consider that if there is a God would He communicate with us? If God has spoken to man what form would it take? It seems a strong possibility that God would use human language so that we could clearly understand it. If this could be a possibility then it could also be possible that the Bible could be at least one of the modicums of God’s spoken communication to man. The argument about the divine inspiration of the Holy Bible is a lengthy yet solid one. It must be honestly studied because if the Bible is from God then its message has authority for everyone. If the argument of inspiration is disproven then the message is disproven. If inspiration is true then it would be a strong indicator that there is a God who has spoken. Arguments about other “holy writings” should be considered as well. What is their textual history, claims to authority, and consistency of message?

B. The Nature of Faith
Atheism also seems to misunderstand the nature of faith. Faith in the biblical sense does not always mean placing your hope in something that cannot be proven. Sometimes biblical faith calls for embracing and trusting God in a circumstance that is beyond our understanding. But more often than not faith is characterized as believing the evidence we are given. God worked extreme miracles for the Israelites that defied all sorts of natural laws. Jesus Christ is believed upon by Christians based on the resurrection. This is a historical event that if it did not happen makes our faith utterly meaningless. Once again there is good evidence of the truth of this incident. Most world religions can continue to stand apart from historic truth but Christianity cannot and does not. Atheism depends on no evidence whatsoever. It depends on the personal interpretation of “non-evidence”. If the burden of proof rests on the Theist to produce some hard evidence, it would seem the empty rock tomb in Jerusalem would be “hard evidence” enough.

C. A Cogent Picture of Reality
One of the noble purposes of philosophy is to help mankind understand and make sense of the reality he experiences in life. Christianity presents a coherent picture of reality that does fit all people in all places in all times. It presents man as a noble creature endowed with a knowledge of God and conscience that has been severely distorted through an act of rebellion in our primeval history. It explains why man no longer sees God and how God has made provision for our restoration. It also explains that mankind in general has chosen to depart from the original religion and make his own based on that which has been created instead of the Creator. Atheism fits into this category of worship of human reason even as some south sea islander has chosen to worship a tiger or bird-god. It’s a choice based on something. A person’s interpretation of reason to prove God, disprove God , or develop a substitute God is a human choice. As flawed humans it seems a dangerous proposition to lean entirely on my own ability to interpret reason. The doctrine of revelation in Christianity teaches that we are unable to find this path ourselves unless God helps us. It leaves no room for hubris of any kind. Christianity does not teach that “God helps those who help themselves”, but rather “God helps those who really cannot help themselves.” The understanding of our own reality and reality of the world around us seems just about as attainable as being to solve all of our own problems does.

D. Atheism is Progressive?
Gordon H. Smith in his book Atheism: the Case Against God writes: “Although atheism is negative in character, it need not be destructive. When used to eradicate superstition and its detrimental effects, atheism is a benevolent, constructive approach. It clears the air, as it were, leaving the door open for positive principles and philosophies based, not on the supernatural, but on man’s ability to think and comprehend.” Specifically, Smith envisions that through reason and human knowledge, mankind would be able to approach happiness, morals, and love apart devoid of any connection to a supernatural world or God. Atheism is touted not as a fall from grace but a leap forward for mankind. But atheism is hardly a new belief any more than theism is. With all the masses that adhere to atheism, why have they not led us into this great forward leap? Where are the positive philosophies and morals apart from conscience and God that will build the human race? All religions have their low points in history but surely they are not responsible for all the ills of humanity any more than atheists should be blamed for them. Man cannot achieve the leap forward because he will not, not because he knows not. Man has a tremendous capacity to think and reason. But reason and thinking frequently do nothing to effect the will of a man. Standing as witness to this is a world filled with chaos and injustices all with humanity as its root cause. In this way man is not integrated but rather dis-integrated. Religion in general and Christianity in particular lead men towards that integration as humans. We are fallen and in that state we cannot see God or truly comprehend Him. But as God reaches out to man and touches his will and his mind, He is once again able to be comprehended even if imperfectly.

E. Atheism For the Few
One final thought about Atheism concerns its adherents mentality that the “crowd-is-always-wrong”. This is not directly stated but is rather implied. The argument would be that since the large part of humanity has religious belief of some kind and this belief runs counter to what I believe, then they must be wrong as a whole. After all, look at how many other things mankind hasn’t been able to get right in all of its history why should religion be any different? But whatever else can be said, man does seem to have (at least by percentages) a religious nature. And while many of these religions are quite divergent in their belief systems, there are many points of commonality as well. An atheist could look at this and say this suggests the universality of stupidity and poor reasoning. An atheist might also want to look at this and consider the idea that behind all the disagreement there might be truth and light that is being ignored. The crowd isn’t always right but it isn’t always wrong either. Sometimes a crowd means there is something really good happening.

---

Sources:
Dictionary of Christianity in America
Religions in America
The Atheism Web. Internet site.
The New York Times World Almanac 1999 edition
George H. Smith, “Atheism: The Case Against God”

2 Scriptural Thoughts on "Tragic Death" by Chris White

‘Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. And Jesus said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate?  I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem?  I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”’ Lk. 13:1-5

One of the common misconceptions people have about tragic deaths is that they were either deserved (presumably because the deceased was actively pursuing evil) or completely undeserved (presumably because the deceased was innocent).  Its corollary is that a long life is a sign of God’s favor while a short life is a sign of God’s displeasure.  When Jesus spoke to this issue he brought up two groups of people we would all readily recognize.  The first group were martyrs to the Roman regime.  In our recent history America saw 3000 of her citizens martyred by the terrorist regime of Al Qaeda.  The second group of people Jesus mentioned were in the wrong place at the wrong time when a civil defense tower collapsed.  Do we not see this almost daily on the news where a building fails or a tornado or flood wipes out a town without warning?  In both cases the Lord corrects our popular misconceptions.  First of all, there are no innocent bystanders anywhere.  Innocence in people is only found when God is excluded.  Before Him all men stand condemned of sin because all are sinners.  There may be differences in the degree of our sinfulness (certainly an infant has less guilt than Charles Manson) but that is the only difference.  What we fail to see is that all sin is a heinous crime against a holy and just Creator.  Our tendency is to make light of our sin and consider the sins of others as greater evil.  The second misconception is that there is such a thing as a tragic death.  Now mind you I would prefer to die in my sleep rather than be burned alive or face an entire platoon of angry Samarai warriors.  Certainly some ways to go are better than others but reality according to Jesus is that the only reason any of us are even alive is strictly the grace of God.  We are all going to die eventually and while physical death is unavoidable and inevitable, the second death, what is often called “perishing” by Jesus is completely avoidable.  Rejecting the Savior is a very deliberate act which forces us to live with the full consequences of a lifetime of sin before an utterly holy God.  This is the true tragic death and one that happens so often as to be commonplace.  People don’t hear about Jesus without a preacher.  Are you doing something to spread the urgent message of the gospel today?  I hope so.  Do you know you are not walking with Jesus?  Repent and turn to him today.  The life you save may be your own.