Answering Atheist Arguments: You Christians Are Stuck in the Bronze Age!

The Reason Rally has inspired me to write a new section on my blog. Every Tuesday I plan on looking at a common atheist argument and responding to it in a quick paragraph to show why it doesn’t work in the argument against Christianity or the belief in God. Atheists, especially the ones I met at the Reason Rally, use a lot of strong and angry rhetoric. Quite often it is just to score a rhetorical point, but can be easily refuted. These are not arguments for Christianity; these are just simple refutations of common arguments against Jesus or the belief in God.

Today’s argument is extremely popular in atheist circles.  It has a couple of rhetorical advantages that make it a valuable weapon in the utility belt of anyone who has a gripe with God, or who wants to undermine Biblical morality.  Though this tool can be useful against many religions, it is utterly useless against the unique message of freedom, preached by Christianity.

How often have you heard an atheist quote an old law from Leviticus or Deuteronomy and try to embarrass you. They’ll say something like, “Do you believe we should stone people for committing adultery?  After all, in Leviticus 20:10 that’s what it says!  You Christians believe in Bronze Age laws!”  The implication being that if you really believed the Bible, you would believe we should stone adulterers, and if you do, then you are barbaric.  Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, gotcha Christians!  It’s worth mentioning that there are hundreds of possible ways to say the same thing on the atheistic side, which is one of he reasons this is so popular.  This is a formidable challenge to religions like Judaism and Islam, but this should not worry a Christian at all.  Here’s why:

Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is God in human form.  The reason He became a man was to accomplish the Law/rules in the Old Testament perfectly.  He was perfectly sinless.  He then willingly offered his sinless record up as a sacrifice to the God the Father for you, thereby offering you a perfect record in exchange for your punishment, due to you by your imperfect record.  This exchange is permanent for those who put their trust in Jesus and what that he did for them.

One of the side effects of this exchange is that those who take advantage of this offer, in God’s eyes, have perfectly fulfilled all of his Law.  Leviticus, Deuteronomy, the entire thing has been accomplished by Jesus, credited to the Christian.  This means that Christians are totally and completely free from Old Testament obligations.  We are not accountable for fulfilling the law ourselves because in God’s eyes we have already done so.  Notice, that this exchange is not based on anything the you do, its all about what Jesus has already done.   You don’t need to clean up your act, you don’t need to be a better person, you don’t need to do anything except trust in what Jesus said and did.  This is a great offer.  Its total and complete freedom from the weighty requirement of perfection under the Law of the Old Testament.

Now does this mean that Christians just do whatever it is they want to do?  Not at all.  The morality in the Old Testament is still valid, but the ceremonial aspects  and punishments are no longer in play for us.  In other words, what was moral then, still has the same moral value now.  Take the given example of adultery.  In the Old Testament, adultery is identified as wrong.  Today adultery is still wrong.  The moral value doesn’t change and if I love and trust Jesus the way I say I do, I should not commit adultery.  If I were to commit adultery at some point in the future I would be doing so in a way contrary to my trust in Jesus.  I can tell you honestly that its hard to even write/think about doing this and as I write about it I know how devastated I would be if I were commit this act.  The important thing is that if I did this, that sin would be covered by what Jesus did on the cross, and in God’s eyes I remain perfect. 

If I were to commit this act and it didn’t bother me, or maybe I did it again, and again and I felt just fine about it, that is a sign that I do not trust Jesus at all, and I am not taking advantage of the offer.  I would be spiritually dead.  Despite saying I trust in Jesus, I have shown by my actions that I do not.  The punishment prescribed in the Old Testament (stoning)  is not in play anymore since Jesus already fulfilled that Law, but the eternal punishment for that act is still death.  If I truly take advantage of God’s offer, I will trust Jesus more than I trust anything else, including my own desires, and so I will want to do the things he says I should do.  I will no longer be a slave to my immoral desire to commit adultery.  I will be free.  That’s the Gospel.  It is not about following rules.  It is about taking advantage of freedom, through trust in Jesus.

The next time someone tries to embarrass you by quoting Old Testament law.  You can simply say, “I can see you have a gripe with the Old Testament law. We can talk about that if you want, but Jesus fulfilled that law and I am no longer under its obligations.  I hold to the Gospel.”   Morality is the same, it never changed.  Ceremonial law, ritual law, dietary law and punishments, are no longer in play, though the ultimate punishment for immorality remains death, unless you are covered by what Jesus did on your behalf.

Here are some verses that can help you make your point on this amazingly unique teaching of freedom in Jesus:

"For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace,"  - Romans 6:14

"know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified," – Galatians 2:16

"The law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith," – Galatians 3:24

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree,’" – Galatians 3:13

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus," – Romans 8:1

“The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached,” – Jesus in Luke16:16

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” – Jesus in Matthew 5:17

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. – Galatians 5:1

Response To My Moral Claim

Here is an interesting response to my most recent post about the atheist Twitter claim on morals:

in response to I think your analysis really misstates the core argument of non-believers though, and turns it into a nit-picky argument about the authorship of the bible. The argument that we non-believers have regarding morality really isn’t about the bible per se, it’s about the reliance on a belief in a great supernatural whozits up in the sky as the basis for one’s morality. And an objection to the contention that seems to follow from that belief: that those of us who don’t believe in supernatural forces can’t possibly be truly moral people, or have any real basis for our morality and moral actions.

This is a good comment because it highlight’s two important points.   One of them is a common misconception of the Christian stance, the other a very valid point. 

The first point stems from the posters objection “to the contention that seems to follow from that belief [the belief in morals based in God’s nature]: that those of us who don’t believe in supernatural forces cant possibly be truly moral people, or have any real basis for our morality and moral actions.”

This is not what Christians believe.  Christians believe that all people, regardless of what they do or do not believe, have a basis for morality.  The Bible teaches that moral law is “written on the hearts” of all people, believers and unbelievers alike.  This means that Christians understand every person’s moral beliefs to be grounded in the existence of a morally perfect God, who created every person in his own Image, regardless of whether or not they believe that He did.  Because of this, an unbeliever’s sense of right and wrong is real, even though certain aspects of it can be suppressed or resisted at any given time. 

When I lie, I am suppressing the belief in what I know to be true, that lying is objectively immoral, even if only for a moment.  There are those who do not believe that lying is objectively immoral.  Under the Christian view, lying still is objectively immoral, this person has just decided to permanently suppress the truth.

There is a second point implied in this comment, found in the phrase, “cant…have any real basis for our morality…”, probably referring to the Christian belief that without belief in God, the atheist has no way to ground the existence of objective morality.  This is true.  How can something be objectively moral or immoral, if there is not some kind of law that transcends personal beliefs?  If there is some kind of transcendent law, what could it be if not God?  If there is no transcendent law, then nothing is objectively immoral, that is, it is not immoral in and of itself.

Take the example of torturing babies for the fun of it.

Is it objectively true that “torturing babies for the fun of it" is wrong?

If you affirm that it is, you need to be able to ground that somehow.  You would need to appeal to a transcendent law that torturing babies for the fun of it, breaks.  This law would have to be immaterial because of its transcendent nature.  I have not ever heard of, or read an atheistic way to do this.  I am open to checking out possibilities, but most atheists are naturalists, and do not believe in non-physical things, therefore to most atheists an immaterial, transcendent, moral law could not exist.

If you say, “To me it is wrong, but it might not be to someone else.”  Then by definition you are saying that there are some situations in which torturing a baby for the fun of it is morally acceptable.   This is because when you say this, you are assigning the moral value of an act to the subject (the person perceiving or committing the act) rather than the object (the act itself).

Therefore, the Christian position does say that even though an atheist can and does perform morally good acts and does have a built-in basis for morality (being made in the image of a moral God), he does not have an adequate way to ground objective morality within his own worldview.  In order to affirm objective morality the atheist is forced to borrow from theism, the existence of a transcendent moral law.

We all know that torturing babies for the fun of it is objectively, universally wrong.  Everything in you knows the preceeding sentence is true.  If you know something to be true, that your worldview tells you cannot be true, then you need to consider why you believe your worldview at all. 

Answering Atheist Arguments: I Can Know Good Without God!

The Reason Rally has inspired me to write a new section on my blog. Every Tuesday I plan on looking at a common atheist argument and responding to it in a quick paragraph to show why it doesn’t work in the argument against Christianity or the belief in God. Atheists, especially the ones I met at the Reason Rally, use a lot of strong and angry rhetoric. Quite often it is just to score a rhetorical point, but can be easily refuted. These are not arguments for Christianity, these are just simple refutations of common arguments against Jesus or the belief in God.

Today’s post is inspired by a statement made by an atheist that I follow on Twitter, although I heard a lot of the same kind of statement at the Reason Rally.  Judging from her blog page this atheist is quite intelligent and obviously a careful thinker.  That being said, she still makes the common mistake of not fully understanding the Christian position on a subject, and thus attacking and knocking down a “biblical position”, that is not biblical at all.

The statement in question was offered via Twitter:  “Questions to worry Christians. If you don't know right from wrong without the Bible, how do you know Satan didn’t write it.”   The implication here is that Christians claim that one cannot know right from wrong without the Bible to explain it.  If something is morally good or evil only because the Bible says it is, it would seem to be arbitrary.  If it is arbitrary, then is good really good at all?  The tweet also makes it clear that the author’s intention is “to worry Christians” and is hashtagged accordingly. 

At the Reason Rally, I saw a similar point being echoed throughout the day as hundreds of people proudly displayed signs with the words “Good Without God!”.  The implication being that religion’s claim is that you cannot do good things, unless you believe in God.

So do Christians have a reason to worry here?  Have atheists identified a real problem with Christian philosophy?

Unfortunately for my new Twitter buddy and the “Good Without God” folks, the Bible does not teach that a person cannot know right from wrong without the Bible.  The Bible, in fact, teaches the exact opposite of this.  I am going to quote a verse from The Message, a Bible paraphrase written in easy to understand modern day language.  This passage can be found in literal translations at Romans, Chapter 2, Verses 12-16.

“When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God's law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God's yes and no, right and wrong.”

The more literal translations say that “…the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness.”

Biblical teaching clearly affirms the idea that you do not need the Bible to know right from wrong.  Christians know right from wrong, Muslims know right from wrong and Atheists know right from wrong.

Now, it is worth mentioning that there may well be Christians out there teaching that you need the Bible to know right from wrong.  This is not a position that can be defended biblically, therefore, those who teach this are in error on this point.  But for anyone who has heard someone try to use this error to attempt to  undermine the Bible’s truthfulness, do not be troubled.  You are not stuck believing that good and evil are the arbitrary whims of a god who has given us a book as the only way to know the difference.  This is not a Christian position, nor a position any of us should try to defend when talking with atheists.

Answering Atheist Arguments: Do You Believe in the Virgin Birth?

The Reason Rally has inspired me to write a new section on my blog. Every Tuesday I plan on looking at a common atheist argument and responding to it in a quick paragraph to show why it doesn’t work in the argument against Christianity or the belief in God. Atheists, especially the ones I met at the Reason Rally, use a lot of strong and angry rhetoric. Quite often it is just to score a rhetorical point, but can be easily refuted. These are not arguments for Christianity, these are just simple refutations of arguments against Jesus or the belief in God.

Sometimes when you begin talking with an atheist about the existence of God, they will try to score a rhetorical point by getting you to admit a belief they deem ridiculous or unreasonable.  The most common way they do this is by bringing up the virgin birth.   Christopher Hitchens famously started a debate with Dinesh D’Souza by asking him if he believed in the virgin birth.   Dinesh said, "Yes".  Hitchens quipped, “I rest my case.”   This is a witty response to be sure, but does it make sense?

If the question in a conversation is  “Does God Exist?” then presumably the atheist should supply reasons why he thinks He does not, and the theist should supply reasons for why he thinks the opposite.  Does the atheist assertion that the virgin birth could not have happened move the conversation forward at all? 

No, it obviously does not.

Even the atheist would agree, that if God exists, then presumably he would have the power to miraculously impregnate a virgin woman.  If He does not exist then it is correct that virgin birth is impossible.  But you see this is the very question at stake, does He exist or doesn’t He?  If He does, the story of the virgin birth is not hard at all to believe, so we need to get to the root question.  This assertion does nothing to address this question.

As a Christian, the next time someone tries to embarrass you by getting you to admit a belief such as this calmly tell him, “Yes I do believe in the virgin birth, but what does that have to do with the question of the existence of God?”  In other words, “How does that belief offer any evidence for, or against the existence of God?”<br>This is what is known as a “red herring” argument.  The atheist is trying to get you to debate the validity of a singular event that has nothing to do with the question at hand.   This is a strategy to get you off topic,  flustered, and thus to score a rhetorical point.  You could even concede this point right off the bat, tell him that your belief in the virgin birth has nothing to do with your belief in God, and move on quickly to the real topic at hand.  Look out for these “red herrings” and try to stay on topic as much as possible, and you will avoid much frustration.

Jesus' Greatest Hits: Glory in His Murder?

 Jesus’ Greatest Hits is a series about the life of Jesus. Some people think these stories are fictional. I say that the stories are too profound, too counterintuitive and too incisive to have been made up by a first century mind. Each week I will discuss one such story or saying of Jesus that I believe point to the supernatural aspect of the life of Jesus Christ.

Today is Good Friday.   This is a day that everyone in the world is reminded about an event in ancient Middle Eastern history.  This event forever changed the course of human history.   This is the day Christians celebrate the unjustified arrest, vicious torture, and brutal execution of our Lord and Savior, Jesus of Nazareth.

I can hear the record scratch sound.   Say what?   Arrest, vicious torture, brutal execution, what in the world is there to celebrate?

The Passion of the Christ was an extremely controversial film.  It was disgustingly gory, almost enough to make even the most hardcore horror fan squeamish.   Most Christians I know do not watch gory films, yet I do not know a single Christian who has seen it, that was not deeply moved by it.   Are Christians just blood-thirsty?  I have heard people argue that.  But in my circle I don’t know a single Christian who you could describe this way. 

Christians don’t celebrate death and gore in and of itself.  This movie is so moving because we see the depth at which our God was willing to suffer on our behalf.  If the torture and eventual murder of Jesus was all there was, there would be no reason to celebrate.  Only a monster would celebrate that.  Instead, we celebrate Good Friday, and we celebrate the Passion of the Christ, because we know how the story ends.  Jesus is resurrected by God, on the third day.  This is what people think of, when they think of a glorious ending.  Truly amazing.

But there’s a problem with this view of the story.   The Bible records Jesus, just before his arrest, saying, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.” (John 12:23)  Throughout the book of John when Jesus speaks of his “hour” he is speaking of the time of his crucifixion, not his resurrection.  This means that Jesus considered his brutal execution on the cross as his “glorification”.

Think of what Jesus looked like in that final scene of Jesus on the cross in The Passion of the Christ.   Just as he died what did he look like?  He looked like a bruised, disfigured, bloody mess.  He says, “It is finished”.   Then He dies.   This is Jesus glorified, according to Jesus’ own words in the Bible.

No human could make this up.  The crucifixion story is so beautifully counterintuitive to all human sensibilities that the only reasonable conclusion you can come to is that it actually happened the way it was described in the Bible.  I challenge you to think of Jesus’ hour.  Would a normal first century Jewish mind consider this, glory?

I will leave off there for now.  Come back to check out my post on Resurrection Sunday, to talk about Spock’s (the Spock from Star Trek) approach to figuring out the truth of the Resurrection of Jesus.

Answering Atheist Arguments #2 - Bible Contradictions?

The Reason Rally has inspired me to write a new section on my blog. Every Tuesday I plan on looking at a common atheist argument and responding to it in a quick paragraph to show why it doesn’t work in the argument against Christianity or the belief in God. Atheists, especially the ones I met at the Reason Rally, use a lot of strong and angry rhetoric. Quite often it is just to score a rhetorical point, but can be easily refuted. These are not arguments for Christianity, these are just simple refutations of arguments against Jesus or the belief in God.

When I was at the Reason Rally last week I sparked up a conversation with man who got animated and loud about his atheism almost immediately.  I barely got my opening question of, “What is the best argument you have heard for the existence of God?”, when he jumped in;

“How can you believe the Bible?  It’s full of contradictions!”

Having heard this claim many times before, and being ready with a response inspired by my Pastor, Mike Doyle, I quickly retorted, “Name one.”

He clearly wasn’t expecting me to ask, so it took him a good 20 seconds to think of a good one.  He grinned, signifying that he thought he had me right where he wanted me, “One of God’s commandments is “Thou Shalt Not Kill” right?  So then how can Christians be in the military, and how does God then command Israel to take military action against other ancient nations in the Bible?”


Now when someone claims there are contradictions in the Bible, 90% of the time they are just bluffing.  They have heard there are contradictions, but have never actually read one.  5% of the time they have a specific apparent contradiction in mind.  I say apparent because it’s never a real contradiction, it just appears that way on first glance.   The last 5% involves not really knowing the Bible, and thus making up your own contradiction and claiming it’s a Biblical one.   It is in this last category, that my new atheist friend’s statement falls into.

The problem for my friend is that nowhere in the Bible does it say “Thou shalt not kill”.  It says, “Thou shalt not murder.”   The difference between killing and murder is vast.  By the way, where it says “thou shalt not murder”, it also goes on to talk about when killing is justified, or at least when it is not considered murder.

Notice also that the first part of his “contradiction” involved something that is not a Bible contradiction at all.   Even if it were true that serving in the military was contrary to the Bible, that’s not a Biblical contradiction, it would just show that the Christian was being hypocritical.  Atheists do this a lot, as if showing that a Christian wasn’t perfect somehow proves Christianity false.   This is silly of course, and we should point out this faulty logic when we hear it.