Steve Siebold
Here’s an article that has been recently published by Yahoo from the Huffington Post. Let’s go through it and see how as Christians we can respond to these affirmations.
Most people are familiar with the story of the 10 Commandments. The short version is that God called Moses to Mount Sinai where he gave him two tablets of stone that contained the 10 Commandments. These 10 Commandments, according to the story, summarized the absolutes of spiritual and moral living that God intended for his people. The Jewish Torah and Christian Bible both contain the story of the 10 Commandments, and it can be found in Exodus 20:1-17.
According to a number of studies though, religion is in trouble. A survey by the PEW Research Center in 2012 saw record numbers indicating a huge upswing in Atheism, with 20 percent of Americans now identifying as Agnostic, Atheist or "Unaffiliated" with a religion. This was the highest percentages ever of "nones" or those who are unaffiliated in Pew Research Center polling. (Maybe the growing unaffiliated group is a fulfillment of the Bible prophecy which says there shall be a “falling away from the faith” before the son of Man appear in the clouds of heaven at the Second Coming. Paul said the falling away would happen in the “last days” and “then shall the end come.” Even Jesus questioned whether he would find faith on his return. He said, “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” The fact that organized religion is on a downward spiral does not necessarily mean that the Bible is false, maybe it is an indication that man made Churchianity is not fulfilling the spiritual needs of today’s generation. In China, we find just the opposite of a falling away, where many who have had almost 70 years without the gospel being preached are receiving Christ with open arms. Jesus himself predicted that the deceitfulness of riches would choke the word and it would become unfruitful. Maybe that is what has taken place in the former Christian nations of Europe and North America. The false religion of materialism, which teaches that ultimate happiness comes through the possession of certain things, has left Europe and America spiritually empty. Christianity has embraced the abundant life philosophy and its materialistic pursuits and lost its true bearings and goals.)
So with more people considering themselves atheist, what do they believe when it comes to the rules to live by? As part of the new book Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-first Century, authors Lex Bayer and John Figdor held a contest in which atheists were asked to offer modern alternatives to the Ten Commandments.
Here are the winners of the "Ten Non-Commandments:" (The Ten Non-Commandments is exactly right because the atheist has no objective moral authority to base his commandments on. His relativistic moral world view is meaningless. Why should he have any moral point of view at all if life is meaningless? Why should he have any moral world view if we are the result of random naturalistic accidents, made for no rhyme or reason? Isn’t that what Hitler and Stalin decided that there was no meaning to life except the evolutionary process of the survival of the fittest and that therefore “might was right,” which they followed religiously to its drastic results? Why in a meaningless, atheistic, materialistic, naturalistic worldview should we bother with morality and commandments any way, shouldn’t we just “Do It” because “We are gods?”Here the author is publishing his relativistic philosophy based on the opinions of men. Utilitarianism is the philosophy which says that whatever the majority of the people believe to be true or moral should be accepted as the moral guideline. But by making this type of conclusion the relativist and atheists have to presuppose that man’s thought and feeling processes are working accurately. If our thoughts and thinking processes are the result of natural non directed random accidents why should anyone assume that his thinking and feeling processes were capable of accessing the true nature of reality? The atheist has no reason to believe or accept the preconditions for rationality. How can an atheist account for making any moral stand at all? Where does he get his absolute authority from? Does he get it from what the majority think? But what the majority thinks can be and has been wrong in the past as we have seen with Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia, and with slavery and woman’s rights. The atheist really has no real authority on which to base his Commandments, so he must borrow from the Christian world view as we will see in some of the commandments he makes.)
1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence. (But we do not just find the truth because of new evidence. Evidence can be interpreted differently as we see with the creation/evolution debate. The same fossils are interpreted differently. The same rock formations are interpreted differently. The same bird’s beaks are interpreted differently. Your belief system determines how you view the evidence and very few people are willing to give up their cherished interpretation over new evidence alone unless they are very honest and are sincerely seeking for the truth. Men seldom change their opinion because of new evidence. They hold to their belief system regardless of the evidence. The theory of evolution is so full of holes that it holds no water and yet evolutionists and atheists will hold to it because it is tied to their belief system that God does not exist. For example, if I question the evolutionist/atheist with, How it is possible for evolution to occur when there is no biological mechanism that can add new instructive genetic information to the genome? How is it possible when neither natural selection nor mutations can add new instructive or directional genetic information? He will ignore the “new evidence” and say “we are still looking for the mechanism; we just haven’t found it yet.” His presupposed belief that evolution is true and that evolution has been proven, will forbid him from acknowledging any new evidence contrary to his belief system. Very few people will actually investigate and do a thorough research when their world-view is being threatened by “new evidence.” As far as being open-minded, is the atheist open minded to the possibility of the existence of God? Is the homosexual open minded to the possibility that his lifestyle is negatively affecting his physical and psychological health? Is he open minded to the possibility that his behavior may be abhorrent to a transcendent spirit being who created man and woman in his image to multiply and fill the earth with human life, even though that transcendent spirit being is merciful and loves him?)
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true. (Again, same as the above. Very few people are critical thinkers. They are often skeptical to view points they do not agree with. But they will not look with the same measure of skepticism on their own belief system which they believe to be true. They will not test their viewpoint to see if it is logically true, but they will more likely have an emotional reason for the position which they take. Like Aldous Huxley confessed, "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].)
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world. (If we kept to the scientific method in science it would indeed be wonderful. We could eliminate the Big Bang Theory because we cannot go back in time and run an empirical experiment to see if it is true. The Big Bang Theory is speculation which cannot be tested through the scientific method. It is philosophy or atheistic religious speculation and should be taken out of science and placed in philosophy class or in comparative religious studies. The internationally renowned astrophysicist George Ellis who worked with Stephen Hawking on the Big Bang cosmology said the following when talking about the Big Bang Theory: “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that can explain the observations .... For instance, I can construct a spherically symmetric universe for you with Earth at its center, and you cannot prove otherwise based on observations, (that it is wrong) ....you can only exclude it on philosophical grounds(that it sounds too much like the Bible.) In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that (in excluding the model that could be interpreted as confirming the Bible.) I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide it.” Stephen Hawking talking about the Big Bang in his “Brief History of Time” notes he must start with “a mixture of ideology (or in other words, philosophical assumptions).”
(The theory that life started millions of years ago spontaneously from pond scum cannot be proven through the scientific method, so it too should be discarded. The idea that the geologic column was laid down over millions of years cannot be proven through the scientific method so that too should be eliminated. The whole idea that new life forms have developed from other more primitive life forms cannot be proven by the scientific method so that too should be discarded. Stephen Gould famous American evolutionary scientist said that significant evolutionary change has not been observed. "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ...They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, it’s not evolution so you don't talk about it." Some evolutionists have admitted it themselves at times of honest confession. If we stuck to the scientific method we could eliminate much of the philosophical aspect of modern day science where evolutionary theory sits.)
(I think that would be marvelous. Creation scientists would applaud. Then people would see how much of what is proposed as science, is not science at all but rather atheistic religious speculation/philosophy. Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are nothing more than the atheist’s creation myth. Neither creation nor “molecule to man” evolution can be scientifically proven and verified by the scientific method. Matthew Harrison a British biologist and a Fellow of the Royal Society has said,"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." It would be wonderful if evolutionists would admit this fact and place the evolutionary theory in the religion or philosophical department and out of science. But the truth is quite the opposite as Professor Richard Lewontin has confessed, “"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of (evolutionary) science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.")
4. Every person has the right to control of their body. (The atheist wants to support homosexuality and abortion and euthanasia, so they would need to justify and sanctify their chosen lifestyle in their commandments. But, should we not consider the rights of the unborn child? The personal and political rights Western Europe and America have are mainly the results of Christianity’s influence on man’s culture. It was the influence of Christianity in England they led to the Magna Carta being signed. That all men are equated equal with undeniable rights is from the Christian world view. It is because of Christianity that society has progressed to the protection of the rights of the weakest members of society. It was the Christian William Wilberforce who almost single handedly pushed and obtained the abolition of slavery in the British Commonwealth. It was Christianity in England that pushed for the rights of the poor and disabled and led to social reform. The Bible tells us that in marriage we relinquish the control of our body to our mate. Paul admonishes couples not to withhold themselves from one another unless they agree together to do so. He said that in marriage, the wife no longer has control over her own body, but must yield to the man’s needs and likewise the man to his wife’s. In marriage both parties must humble themselves to one another or the marriage will not work. That’s the goal, but it’s not so easy to fulfill.)
5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life. (You do not need to believe in Him in order to have a full and meaningful life, but unless He exist why should we expect to be able to live a full and meaningful life. Why should we expect anything to be meaningful at all? Love for one another, brotherhood, and friendship are concepts that cannot be rightly accounted for in a meaningless, materialistic, naturalistic world view. The existence of love and beauty has long been used as traditional arguments for the existence of a Divine Maker. The fact that an atheist can live a full and meaningful life, does not prove the non- existence of God. Even though he does not believe in God, the atheist borrows from the Christian worldview in order to find meaning. He cannot explain where love comes from. He cannot adequately explain the bonds of human friendship and brotherhood. Why would we expect these non material entities to exist in a materialistic, naturalistic world view? But in the Christian worldview the Creator God is an adequate reason for the existence of all these qualities and more. The fact that the atheist may often seek to live a full and meaningful life shows he in fact needs God. Because his own worldview is meaningless and empty, he borrows from the Christian worldview to find his own fulfillment while denying the very existence of the transcendent spiritual being which gives reason for those qualities in life that make life meaningful.)
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them. (Sounds like he’s borrowing from the Bible’s “you will reap what you sow.” But why in his atheistic, materialistic, naturalistic worldview would he come to this conclusion? Why should he be able to trust his own reasoning ability if all is just a materialistic, naturalistic accident? Where do the preconditions of intelligibility come from? He has no sound answer. Nor for why he should make moral judgments. He has no reason for an objective moral code to uphold and therefore has no reason to make his own “Ten Non Commandments.”)
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective. (Why does he not just quote Jesus’ own words, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?” Again, the atheist is borrowing from the Christian world view, yet claiming he came to his conclusion naturalistically. Again he has no reason to morally pontificate in a meaningless, naturalistic, materialistic worldview. Yet, he needs to, because he is God’s creature and has been wired by God with a moral conscience. Nevertheless, he denies his moral conscience comes from God, but he has no logical justification for its existence.)
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations (Again he’s borrowing from the Bible. God made man a tender of the garden. It is following the law of love that Jesus taught which is doing unto others what we would want them to do unto us that gives justification for why we should consider others. But in a materialistic, naturalistic, atheistic worldview why should we be bothered with the future generations since life is meaningless and just the result of random accidental materialistic processes? His conclusion above does not follow logically from his own worldview. But it does from the theistic Christian one.)
9. There is no one right way to live. (Then why make this lengthy article trying to offer a new moral code? Because he has been wired by God’s objective moral code, though at places where it confines his lifestyle he rejects it and places his own adaption which justifies his own aberrations. In his materialistic, naturalistic, atheistic worldview why should he have any moral code at all? By what authority does he make a moral code and how does it grow logically from his atheistic, naturalistic, materialistic worldview?)
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it. (Another adaption of Jesus’ law of love. I have no need to go over the same reasons why the atheist has no adequate justification for his moral stance.)
And there's your moral code. No need to carve it in stone or hand it down from a mountain. (Of course not, it may change by next week according to the whims of man and passing fades.) Did we ever really need a supernatural being or a book to tell us these things? (But how do these ideas follow logically from your own atheistic, materialistic, naturalistic worldview? Many of them do follow from the Christian worldview and God the creator. But the atheistic, materialistic, naturalistic worldview does not have adequate reasons for his desiring a universal moral code in the first place.) I think we'll be just fine on our own. (It has been man’s rejection of God and his simple law of love that has led to the mess of a world we have today.) All we need to do is start thinking for ourselves. (Why are we even able to think and reflect in a materialistic, naturalistic, atheistic worldview where everything is a result of random meaningless accidents?)
In fact, why stop at the 10 Commandments? Isn't it time we questioned the entire Bible? (That’s what he really wants to attack, the Bible.) The Bible is a book of symbolic literature. It's a fusion of stories, ideas, chronologies, and traditions woven together over at least 1,000 years. The authors, editors and the massive organization of people that followed set out to control the world through their view of morality under the threat of eternal damnation for noncompliance, and it worked. (Here’s a pretty sweeping generalization. To say that the authors and editors of the Bible set out to control the world has no evidential support. The fact is many of them died for their faith, were hated by the world and considered scum and outcasts by society. Perhaps false Christianity under the guise of Churchianity have used certain techniques to control their flocks, however Jesus set out to set men free from that sort of moral hypocrisy. He admonished, that if men would continue in his words, they would learn the truth and that the truth would set them free.) but that is not a reflection This wouldn't be surprising 2,000 or even 200 years ago, but in 2014 it's almost unbelievable.
Critical thinking says people don't believe in the Bible because it's believable; they believe it because they want to believe it. (People believe what they want to believe even when it is contrary to common sense and the scientific method. We have seen from their own confessions that evolution is a belief system not a factual scientific theory.) They need to believe it. The prospect of eternal death is too much for most people to bear. So instead of searching for truth, they cling to this book like a drowning man to a life preserver. (My search for truth led me from Catholicism to atheism to theism and ultimately to the true Christianity of Jesus Christ.) The most intelligent and emotionally mature people in society know this, yet most allow the delusion to continue in order to avoid panic, depression, and hysteria among the masses. Ignorance is not only bliss, in this case it's the glue that holds civilization together. Brilliant thinkers like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein, and many other prominent Americans in our history recognized that the Bible wasn't the word of God, yet they purposely tried to appease people by attempting to find the good in a bad book.
American's won't put their Bibles in the fictional file in our lifetime, but it will happen eventually if the country survives long enough. (Does he intuitively perceive what the Bible predicts, “The wicked shall be turned into hell and all the nations that forget God.”) All superstitions are eventually disproved by science and tucked away as remnants of past ignorance. The Bible will become an ancient relic of the past someday. (God has promised to preserve his word in spite of scoffers and skeptics.) Until then, we need to have the courage to question and probe every aspect of this book and the multibillion dollar mob that wields it as a weapon. (But will he apply the same skepticism to the Theory of Evolution and today’s dictatorial scientific leadership?) It's time we start putting polite conversation behind and begin debating the Bible in mixed company. (Peter admonishes us to be ready to answer the unbeliever, yet we should remain meek and loving, while holding to our convictions with boldness and speaking with authority and sound logic.)
It's time for Americans to begin engaging in serious discourse regarding the future of this country -- before it's too late. (It seems like it’s already too late, and will only get worse if men continue to reject God and lean to their own natural reasoning. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Let’s engage these non-believers with logical arguments while remembering that our greatest witness is love.)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment