“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out!”
“For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?” (Romans 11:33-34).

I found the following article by Michael Cook, over at MercatorNet.com, on the catastrophe in Haiti, to be a well-thought-out, Spirit inspired reflection, on the search for meaning, of a disaster that has been for most of us, simply unfathomable.

Michael Cook Tuesday, 19 January 2010

“Searching for meaning in disaster”

“Is it really so stupid to ask why this had to happen to the poorest nation in the Western hemisphere? Is there a meaning to Haiti? 200,000 dead; 1.5 million homeless; the chaos of looting and raping, hunger, thirst, disease. The randomness of the deaths–children, an archbishop, a head of United Nations operations, slum dwellers, police. The Haitians were already living in one of the poorest, worst governed nations in the world. Now they have to struggle with the worst humanitarian disaster ever faced by the UN. Why?”

“The view taken by most of the media seems to be that you have to be either loopy or stupid to venture an answer. Admittedly, there was some justification for that after the aged evangelist Pat Robertson told his Christian Broadcasting Network that Haitians are a people accursed because they had made a pact with the devil to win their freedom from the French in the 1790’s. Idiotic, callous and stupid were some of the kinder responses. A very different interpretation was given by Hollywood actor Danny Glover. His view was that the disaster happened because the world failed to reach a pact on global warming. Nutty and obscene, said bloggers.”

“Surprisingly, some Christian spokesmen were unprepared for the question. The Anglican Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, told the BBC he had “nothing to say to make sense of this horror”. Well, to tell the truth, he had plenty to say but none of it made a scrap of sense.”

“Not surprisingly at all, Christopher Hitchens, press officer for global atheism, said that it had no meaning at all:

“”It’s idiotic to ask who’s fault it is. The earth’s thin shell was quaking and cracking millions of years before human sinners evolved, and it will still be wrenched and convulsed long after we are gone. These geological dislocations have no human-behavioral cause.”"

“The proper response, he believes, is neither prayer nor blasphemy, but nuts and bolts stuff like donating to a worthy charity (he suggests Non-believers Giving Aid), liberating Haitians from witchcraft, and reducing their numbers by setting up more family planning programs.”

“A similar reaction comes from Andrew Brown, a British science writer for The Guardian:

“”The only proper responses to an earthquake are manners, or style; and kindness; immediately helping the wounded in the ruins, and neither philosophising nor planning an auto da fe.”"

“Refusing to philosophise about disaster is the stock-standard response of theological sceptics. The master of this is the 18th century French writer Voltaire whose “Poeme sur le desastre de Lisbonne” and novel “Candide” ridiculed Divine Providence as an explanation for the cataclysmic Lisbon earthquake of 1755. This had flattened the city in a minute and a tsunami a few minutes later killed thousands in Portugal, Spain and Morocco. As in Haiti, death came for believers and unbelievers alike. It was the feast of All Saints and congregations were buried under the rubble of their churches. There is no meaning to tragedy, writes Voltaire. “Il faut cultiver notre jardin”, “we must cultivate our garden” and not ask pointless questions like “why?”"

“But isn’t refusing to ask questions deeply anti-intellectual? Humans are the only beings in the universe that seek meaning in their lives; inquiry, be it scientific or theological, is what sets us apart from animals. The very earliest works of human literature–Gilagamesh, the Book of Job, the Iliad–are attempts to discover why the gift of life is so often accompanied by pain and ends in death. Furthermore, if you deny that there is meaning in natural disasters, there can hardly be meaning in the disastors we wreak upon each other. Were the deaths of a million Cambodians bereft of meaning? of four million Congolese? of six million Jews? of 40 million Russians?–to cite only a few calamities in recent times. If they were utterly senseless, must we not conceed, too, that there can be no hope whatsoever of justice? And, if so, what point, really, is there of striving to right wrongs, heal wounds and console survivors?”

“If people truly believe that there is no meaning, most of them will end up reacting as callously as US shock jock-Rush Limbaugh, who advised listeners not to contribute to Haiti appeals: we’ve already donated to Haiti. It’s called the US income tax,” he said.”

“The problem for atheists is that the search for meaning always leads to God– who weighs our all-too-brief lives in the scales of eternity, but hidden behind an impenetrable veil of mystery. That’s why they cut question time short, like a politician at an uncomfortable press conference. To use the language of philosophy, they arbitrrarily limit their spirit of inquiry to efficient causes and ignore final causes.”

“The problem for Christians is that definitive answers to our suffering come in the afterlife. It would be more convenient if we could publish them gloatingly on tomorrow’s New York Times op-ed page, to the discomfiture of scoffers, but that is not how God works. Even Christ on his cross posed the anguished question , “Eli Eli lama sabachthani?” “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Dogmas do not give cookie-cutter answers and Christians of every generation have wrestled with suffering and death. Sometimes their answers ring of blasphemy, as in King Lear–”As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; They kill us for their sport”. Sometimes they are optimistic, as in T.S. Elliot’s “Little Gidding”–”And all shall be well and/ All manner of thing shall be well”. But their questions are all the bolder because they are sustained by the hope that eventually they will know the answer. Without that hope, no wonder Mr. Hitchens thinks it is idiotic to use the brains God gave him.”

“So what is the meaning of Haiti, then? I am not game to venture an answer as to why the wretched of the earth have been swept away and we, the chardonney and latte set, live on to download our iPhone apps. But it has always struck me that the Christian God does not deal with souls by the gross, but one by one, tenderly, all 200,000 of them. Divine Providence does not mean that we shall never suffer, but that having suffered, we shall be loved. One of the best expressions of that comes in Thorton Wilder’s Pulitzer prize-winning novel “The Bridge of San Luis Rey”. A monk in 18th century Peru sees five people plunge to their deaths when their rope bridge snaps and hurls them into a canyon. Why them? He spends six years in research and concludes that “each of the five lost lives was a perfect whole” and that each had been ended by “a sheer Act of God.” The novels celebrated conclusion is:

“”But soon we shall die and all memory of those five will have left the earth, and we ourselves shall be loved for a while and forgotten. But the love will have been enough; all those impulses of love return to the love that made them. Even memory is not necessary for love. There is a land of the living and a land of the dead and the bridge is love, the only survival, the only meaning.”"

“In any case, amazing as it seems to the American and British journalists trudging through Port-au-Prince, Haitians are sure that there is a meaning to their suffering. As Rosena Roche, whose husband died in the quake, told the Washington Post, “I still have faith in God,” Roach says. “I want to give glory to God.”

The indescribable devastation and suffering being experienced by millions of impoverished people in Haiti is absolutely heartbreaking. The images of young children and toddlers in a state of misery, confusion and desperation provoke tears of intense compassion. Their innocence, after all, is supposed to be the last vestage of natural sanctity known to man. As Bill Hemmer, of Fox News, said in an on the scene report yesterday, “If your heart doesn’t break for them (the victims), you don’t have a heartbeat.” Hemmer’s colleague, Steve Harrington, in a separate report, regarding a young woman, who lost five children to the quake, all of whom were below the age of reason, broke down as he attempted to relate the story. In his grief, Harrington was compelled to walk away from the camera, in keeping with professional standards that he, himself, had vowed to abide by, in advance of his arrival in Haiti.

The tragedy should make each of us aware of  the fragile and tenuous nature of the day-to-day events of our individual lives. Certainly, the calamitous events unfolding before our eyes, provide an opportunity for us to be mindful of the necessity to be reconciled to God for our transgressions. In so doing, we will never lose sight of the fact that, our strength and our every success, is manifested solely through the grace of God.

God has promised in Scripture that, by meditating on His Words we will achieve success and prosperity in our every endeavor. Reflecting meditatively on Scripture is to apply God’s Word to every facet of our lives, in order that we experience the great joy which He has promised to all those who do this. Only through daily meditation on His Word, can we be successful in experienceing the fulfillment of the following Scripture:

“Praise ye the Lord. Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord, that delighteth greatly in his commandments.”

“His seed shall be mighty upon earth: the generation of the upright shall be blessed. Wealth and riches shall be in his house: and his righteousness endureth for ever.”

Prior to the devastating events in Haiti, the inspiration for this post came from Bill Gothard, of Basic Life Principles, an online mentor for meaningful meditative Bible study (http://www.iblp.org). Said Gothard, well in advance of the Haiti tragedy, “There is no better way to exhort others than by sharing the overflow of our meditation…As we meditate on Scripture, God will bless us in significant ways. As we share these blessings with others, they should be motivated to follow our example and meditate on Scripture day and night.”

I would like, therefore, to share with the C4C community, several verses of Scripture which have greatly inspired and sustained me over many years, in my deep Christian faith. In light of current events, this post is entirely dedicated to those who have perished in the Haiti quake, and also to those survivors of the catastrophe who suffer untold misery, uncertainty and anguish. May this be for us an occasion for Spiritual renewal.

(Psalm 19: 7-9) “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.”

“The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

(Proverbs 3: 5-7) “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”

“In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.”

“Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil.” [See Romans 12:16].

(Isaiah 51: 6-8) “Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.”

“Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings.”

“For the moth shall eat them up like a garment and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, and my salvation from generation to generation.”

(Isaiah 55: 9) “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

(Matthew 13:15) “For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.” [See: Isa 6:10, Mark 4:12, Acts 28:27].

(Matthew 16: 15-17) “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?”

“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

(Matthew 28: 18-20) “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

(Luke 11: 1-4) “And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.”

“And he said unto them, when ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth”

“Give us day by day our daily bread.”

“And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.”

(John 3: 16-21) “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shoud not perish, buthave everlasting life.”

“For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”

“He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the only begotten Son of God.”

“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”

“For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.”

“But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.”

(John 4: 25-26) “The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.”

“Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.”

(John 8:58) ”Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”

(John 10: 9-11) “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.”

“the thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they may have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”

“I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”

(John 10:30) “I and my Father are one.”

(John 14: 20-31) “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.”

“He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.”

“Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou will manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?”

“Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.”

“He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.”

“These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.”

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

“Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.”

“Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.”

“And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it come to pass, ye might believe.” 

“Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.”

“But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.”

(John 15: 4-6) “Abide in me , and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.”

“I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.”

“If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.”

(John 16: 15-16) “All things that the Father hath are mine: thereforesaid I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.”

“A little while and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.”

(1 Corinthians 1: 18-19) “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”

“For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” [Isaiah 29:14]

(1 Corinthians 3: 18-23) “Let no man decieve himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.”

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” [Job 5:13].

“And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.” [Psalm 94:11].

“Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;

“Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;

“And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.” 

(2 Corinthians 5: 17-21) “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”

“And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given us the ministry of reconciliation.”

“Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.”

On Feeling Unworthy To Come To Christ:

(2 Corinthians 12: 9-10) “And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.”

“Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then I am strong.”

(1 Timothy 4:13) “Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.”

(2 Timothy 2:2) “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 

(2 Timothy 3: 12-17) “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.”

“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”

“But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ.”

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

“That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

A few of the several sites by which we can donate money for the quake victims are these: www.redcross.org., clintonbushhaitifund.org, and compassion.com.

Can a society seemingly bent, primarily on technological advancement, at the same time, be mindful of its loss of morals, values and virtues?…and also of the spiritual consequences of the latter?

Technological progress is beneficial, of course, but only if it does not conceal from us the essence of our spiritual being. If, for example, technological betterment becomes our exclusive goal, we risk lapsing into a spiritual poverty. We risk losing sight of the fact that, millions of our brothers and sisters in Christ live in misery, many, as a result of the damaging effects which resulted from recent highly speculative financial wheeling and dealing at the highest levels of corporate America.

The enormity of the scandalous financial collapses, which impacted countless numbers of hard working Americans, should lead us to reflect, as contemplative Christians, on our interrelations with those who are suffering. 

At least presently, rather than coveting revolutionary advances in technology, our priority spiritually, should be in providing solutions to problems impacting our fellow Americans; problems which will ultimately impact the good of humanity globally. Our financial problems domestically, after all, are inexorably interconnected with those of the entire world; a world in dire need of cultural and spiritual renewal.

Our emphasis, though, must be on accentuating experiences which are positive, and on rejecting those which are negative. Indeed, our culture offers us a great deal to reject.

Of course, such a journey requires a firm commitment. The state of our culture, provides us ample opportunity to discern and visualize the future we desire for our children, and for our country. Does a God-fearing family of four, or five, or six, for example, really need to take in the latest blockbuster movie which features lots of gratuitous violence? Couldn’t the price of admission be directed more wholesomely elsewhere?

To proceed with confidence in this vision, and in the Spirit of God, is an appropriate method by which to resist a sense of resignation, that the task of reclaiming our greatness as a nation is too daunting. After all, it was only a few decades ago, that America was known as a “moral beacon” within the world. I’m confident that we can soon reclaim that title.

Jesus preached charity throughout His earthly life; a charity which was manifested and which culminated in His death and resurrection. Jesus’ charity constitutes the impetus and rationale for the love for one another we long to experience and demonstrate in our everyday lives; a love which inspires in us a yearning for peace and justice.

It is a love which finds its origen in the Absolute Truth and everlasting love of God. By adhering to God’s plan, we ultimately come to the realization of this great truth and, in turn, free ourselves from the bondage which besets us day to day.

In expressing and defending this great truth with conviction and with humility, and, in bearing witness to it, through example in our daily lives, we truly exemplify the virtue of charity as taught to us by Jesus Christ.

It is inate in each of us to express love. When we earnestly seek to love, it is Jesus’ promise that we will never be bereft of love in return. Love is an emotion which God has embedded in our hearts and minds. In seeking love and truth with humility, Jesus promises to reveal reciprical love to us, as well as truth.

Charity and truth are the essence of Christ Jesus. Jesus is the Truth (John 14: 6). And Jesus taught us that love of God and charity toward our neighbor are the two greatest commandments of God’s Law (Matt. 22: 36-40), (Mark 12: 30-31), (Luke 10: 27).

Our personal relationship with God and neighbor resound in these verses. John expounds upon these central principles of Christian faith in 1 John 4: 8-21.

Love and charity, motivated by the guiding light of the Truth of Jesus, are the very foundation of our Christian faith.

Jesus is love (John 13:1). His love is made manifest in our hearts through the power of the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5). Through Him, we become instruments of God’s grace, and examples of His charity.

It is for us to demonstrate this great love and charity within our culture. To be charitable is to manifest God’s love in our day-to-day endeavors, for our salvation, and for the salvation of those we encounter. Jesus calls on each of us to practice this charity in our respective vocations, and in accord with our varying levels of influence.

To walk meditatively in the footsteps of Christ is to take the first step in the development of a cognizance of Truth, Love and Christian charity (Romans 12: 5-21).

There are a group of four wonderful and Spirit filled ladies, who, since Christmas, 2007, have been placing billboards heralding the true meaning of Christmas in areas close to shopping centers. The ladies, who head up the organization are: Joanne, Pat, Judi & Linda. Their web address is: merrychristmas1225@yahoo.com.

In 2007, the ladies were able to place only one sign. In 2008, they placed 10 signs. That number grew to 28 signs placed thus far in 2009. The signs bear two different legends: (1) ”It’s OK to say “Merry Christmas”- Jesus… and, (2) “I miss hearing you say, “Merry Christmas”- Jesus”.

My prayer is that, the appearance of two of these ladies on “Fox and Friends” this past Monday, will result in hundreds of these billboards going up all around the country next Christmas. Maybe you can share this post with “Friends of C4C,” OS. These gals deserve maximum exposure. May God continue to bless these inspired ladies in this wonderful calling.

Here is the “Home,” “About Us,” and “Some Statistics” pages from their website:

                                     ”Merry Christmas Billboards”

“With Christmas fast approaching, it becomes even more important for Christians to take the message of the Merry Christmas Billboards to heart. Their message is simply that Christmas is about Christ…as the saying goes, “No Christ, no CHRISTmas”. The message is one of love, love of God, and love of neighbor. It is a time to strengthen relationships, those between us and God, as well as between us and other people. It is a time to forgive …and a time to ask for forgiveness to bring healing. While remembering those we care about with gifts, it’s important to make the material things more important than the people whom we are gifting. The best present we can give to another is ourselves. And in the midst of the hustle and bustle, lets try to put aside a little time each day for prayer, for reflection on the real blessings and significance of Christmas…the birth of our Lord and Savior. The Merry Christmas Billboard Ladies wish you a most blessed, joy and peace-filled Christmas.”

“To share in helping to put up billboards, please make checks payable to Merry Christmas Billboards. Please send to:

“Merry Christmas Billboards, Post Office Box 175, Niles, Ohio 44446. Contact us by email at: merrychristmasbb1225@yahoo.com.”

“Thanks to Tony Peduto, CEO of Drive Media for donating TWO billboards in Abilene, TX.”

“Thanks to Attic Away From Home, of Townsend, DE. for contributingTwo billboards.”

“Thanks to Jerry Razwick, President, TechnicalGlass Products in Snoqualmie, Wa. for donating FOUR billboards in Kent, Wa.”

“About Us”

“A few years ago, it became apparent, as we went about our shopping in preparation for Christmas, that many retail stores and restaurants in our area were no longer using the familiar Christmas greeting. We kept hearing “Happy Holidays”. We found it peculiar at first, but then found it disturbing when we became aware that employees in the retail stores were being prohibited from using “Merry Christmas”. The business owners were afraid they would “offend” the small percentage of people who do not celebrate Christmas. What was apparent to us was that there was a deliberate effort being made to take Christ out of Christmas.”

“At this point, we were the ones being offended. We could no longer stand by quietly and let this happen. As we sat around the table, we asked ourselves how a few women could make a difference in this situation. How could we get out our message and evoke a response from others who had similar concerns and frustrations? Billboards! After some serious discussion and prayer, we commited ourselves to placing  just one billboard, which we would fund in an area as close to our shopping center, as we could afford. As other individuals heard of our project, they asked if they could share in paying for the billboard. “Merry Christmas Billboards” was born. One billboard grew into 4. Then in 2008, 10 billboards were erected in 4 Ohio counties. Thus far in 2009, 28 billboards are being erected, but this time, the project has expanded into 5 Ohio counties, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Washington and Texas. It is through the private, non-tax deductible contributions that the Christmas message can be spread.”

                             “Some Statistics”

“Retailers would prefer to offend 78% of Americans who consider themselves Christian by taking Christ out of Christmas. They prohibit their retail employees from saying Merry Christmas, or from displaying anything referring to “Christmas”. The same retailers want business from Christian customers, and rely on Christian customers for the vast bulk of their business during the Christmas season. The same seventy-eight percent of Americans account for a 37% in clothing sales, a 137% increase in jewelry sales, and a 46% increase in electronic sales in November and December. Without Christmas, retailers bottom line would be devastaded.”

I know that, a Spirit-filled support of these ladies will result in a tremendous number of billboads being placed throughout the country for Christmas 2010. Please consider a small donation to enable these ladies to mount an unprecedented effort for Christmas, next.

Despite the “doom-and gloom” headlines that dominate the news, may we resolve, at the height of the Advent season, to pay little heed. As our Hollywood and hip-hop culture spews out obscene fare on a daily basis, may we affirm, at this joyous time, to pay little heed. In the few days which remain before Christmas, may our thoughts be centered on just one, guileless, credulous word…Emmanuel…God is with us.

Jesus came in the flesh and dwelled among us. On the cross, He shed His precious blood. He bridged the formidable gap between us and God.

Only our God has done this. And He remains with us still.

Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and company, speak of a God of anger and vengeance. But, does a God of this description come into the world in the same flesh as those He created, to offer them expiation from sin? Does a contentious God allow Himself to be persecuted according to worldly law?–a world which He created? Does a God of vengeance accept and subject Himself to an excrutiating and humiliating death on behalf of the very people who put Him to death?

Yet, many still don’t “get it.”

The significance of Jesus’ walk on this earth, to many, remains unnoticed, or misunderstood.

Through Jesus, and through the intercession of His Holy Spirit (of whom we have spoken amply in these threads), we are in no way separated from the love of God. So great was God’s love, that, He allowed His Son to become a lowly servant, in order to free us from, and cleanse us from sin (“Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a proptiation through faity in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus”). (Romans 3: 22-26).

Let us fix our gaze, then, on Emmanuel. The remaining days preceeding Christmas are a time to become fully cognizant of God’s inexpressable and awesome gift.

I extend my heartfelt wishes to my brothers and sisters in Christ, here at C4C, that they experience a blessed and joyous Christmas. To others, I offer a heartfelt expression of peace.

How old has this case gone on for? Seven years?

Two FBI agents grilled Brian David Mitchell during an intense interrogation shortly after the man accused of kidnapping and raping Elizabeth Smart was found in 2003.

At times, the agents got directly in Mitchell’s face, yelling at him that he was not of God, and nowhere did God preach kidnapping and abusing young girls.

Mitchell, however, looked composed and relaxed, even slouching in his chair and at times propping his feet up on another chair.

“He dispatches the questions they have like a matador,” Dr. Michael Welner said, reacting Monday to a videotape of the interrogation.

Welner testified during the sixth day of a hearing in federal court to determine if Mitchell is competent to stand trial. It was Welner’s second full day of testimony.

Welner talked about a wide range of topics Monday, including Mitchell’s apparent history of pedophilia. He said Mitchell was looking for a young girl to kidnap before Elizabeth.

“He was stalking girls all over Salt Lake City before kidnapping Elizabeth Smart. The reason he didn’t do it (kidnap others), he couldn’t figure out where they lived,” said Welner.

Blah, blah, blah. The girl was found with her molester by the police. It infuriates me that my country refuses to execute anyone that is a convicted abductor, a convicted rapist, a convicted BDSM enthusiast, and a convicted FLDS Islamist. Just being one of those things ought to be grounds for execution. This man was convicted on at least one of those accounts immediately. That should have settled his sentence right there. Yet we live in a society where liberals control the justice system. Under their limp-wristed hands, we now have to go through finding out EVERYTHING this mutated mullah has done. Then, we have to decide his sentence. So far, I have heard no talk about the death penalty prescribed for this man, so Elizabeth may have to live with the thought that he will break out of prison (if he is even sentenced, which may very well be prevented by the liberals, such as “Dr” Stephen Golding) for a very long portion of his life. If there is talk, the cackling liberals will denounce it as ‘barbaric’ (because we should all be worried about the barbarity of the sentence, not of the criminal) and ‘flawed’ (we have clear evidence this is our man).

So, to my liberal adversaries who believe that the death penalty is wrong in all cases, what do you think of these people?

This is the perpetrator in question. He put Elizabeth in a burqa, but feminists don’t care. He still doesn’t deserve the death penalty, according to them.

Josef Fritzl shouldn’t have to have the death penalty, according to liberals (and the pedophile-controlled justice system of Austria), even though he locked his victim in a basement and raped her. One of the kids he made with her was forced to crouch down constantly for a few years because the basement ceiling was too low; three out of five of the kids did not receive sunlight exposure for their entire lives (which went up to 19 years). But guess what? THE DEATH PENALTY IS BARBARIC!!!1!

If you kidnap a girl for 18 years and father two children with her, should you receive the death penalty? “No,” say the liberals. While I have actually heard of talk about executing Philip Garrido, it sounds like he will not face the wrath of the American people, either. At least his case is proceeding much faster than this case is.

The sad thing is that his victim, Shawn Hornbeck, appeared to submit to Michael Devlin’s requirements of him. He agreed to pose for pornographic pictures and be raped in exchange for having fun at the mall and the pizza place Devlin owned. It sounds like he taunted his parents, too. Mr. Devlin should certainly receive the death penalty, and Shawn probably shouldn’t be allowed to roam the streets without professional supervision. Still, despite the money this man’s made from posting pictures of his captive online, he shouldn’t get the death penalty. Oh, no. That would be barbaric.

There is no rational explanation for exempting these exceptionally convoluted Sirens from the death penalty. Only those who have or plan to rape, kidnap, and murder have any reason to stop the death penalty… and it looks like 31% of Americans have done, or plan to do just that.

*Note: I posted a comment on the Desert News post. Their comments are moderated before they are displayed; however, I expect that they will not allow it to be displayed, simply because what I said might offend some Aspie Leftist Hippie. If it is displayed, then expect the Aspie Leftist Hippies to start crying about it in full force.*

” But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. ” (1 Peter 3:15-16)

I was compelled, once having read Thomas D. Williams’s book, “Greater Than You Think”, to both share the authors theological insight with this community, and also to more widely disseminate Williams’s revelations pertinent to the flawed “reasoning” of the “Big Four” of New Atheism, contained in their respective bestselling books. It was impossible to do justice to Williams’s knowledge, and introspective wisdom on this subject in the space of a single post.

In his book, Williams casts great light on glaringly shallow, naive, unfounded, and misinformed arguments offered by the atheist writers, with respect to the “question” of the existence of God.

A reading of “Greater Than You Think” affirms that, Williams has obviously analyzed this religion bashing quartet in-depth.

The tragedy, I think, of the growing popularity of each of these new atheist authors is that, many people are familiar with the arguments they raise, although, they have never heard comprehensive answers in opposition to the visceral vitriol and animosity the authors put forth in these texts. Where their arguments pertain to Christianity, for example, many among their minions have never heard the other side of the story.

In concluding the introduction to “Greater Than You Think” Williams posits that: “If anything positive can result from these atheistic writings, it is this: They offer believers an opportunity to set forth with greater clarity the reasons underlying their faith.”

Being in full agreement with Williams, I was strongly motivated to share the author’s meditative findings in this, as well as my previous post last week…especially in light of the citing by Williams of 1 Peter 3: 15-16 as an influence in his penning “Greater Than You Think”.

Following are additional excerpted paragraphs from Williams’s book:

” One of Richard Dawkins’s stated reasons for not believing in God is that God doesn’t answer our prayers. Dawkins is convinced that the existence of God can be verified or disproved using the scientific method: observation, hypothesis, experiment, and control. Therefore, if a personal God exists, He ought to behave in a logical, predictable way. As I slogged through the 416 pages of “The God Delusion”, more than once I found myself repeating the words of C. S. Lewis in reference to his Christ-figure Aslan: “But Richard, he’s not a tame lion!” In other words, who says that God must behave in a way that Richard Dawkins thinks is reasonable and logical? “

“…Dawkins and company would like to verify God’s responsiveness to prayer–and therefore His existence or nonexistence–in a laboratory. But when it comes to prayer and its results, what is needed is the basic understanding that God is God. His response to us isn’t dictated by scientific laws but by His knowledge of what is truly best for us. If we are willing to trust, we may begin to see. “

” It is well known that the founders of the United States believed, almost to a man, that the American experiment in ordered liberty depended upon religion. They were convinced that without belief in God, morality was impossible. In his Farewell Address of 1797, President George Washington declared that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Even Thomas Jefferson, whom Richard Dawkins cites extensively (though selectively), wrote in 1781: “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God?” And Jefferson’s friend and colleague James Madison (acclaimed as the “Father of the Constitution”) wrote in 1825, after retiring from the presidency, “The belief in a God All Powerful, wise and good is…essential to the moral order of the World and the happiness of men.” “

” It is a common myth of our day, not surprisingly propagated by atheists, that believers are undereducated folk who have abandoned the use of  reason in favor of blind faith. So Sam Harris writes that because of the religious beliefs of its citizens, the United States appears ” like a lumbering, bellicose, dim-witted giant.” It is not surprising, in fact, that two of the atheistic authors mentioned in this book are British, an island known in our day for its religious indifference. I have lived in Europe for seventeen years, and there is no question that Americans’ unapologetic religiosity makes Europeans uncomfortable. Yet many eminent thinkers, such as Alexis de Tocqueville, have interpreted religious conviction to be America’s greatest strength. “

 ” Hitchens and company claim to follow the Gospel principle of judging a tree by its fruit, but as for the tree of religion, they consider only the rotten fruit, never the good. The innumerable saints, geniuses, and benefactors given to humanity by the faith, or nourished by it, count for nothing. In making their case, Hitchens and company refrain from considering the almost countless ways that Christianity has benifited the world as we know it today. What of the hospitals? What of the orders of nuns established to care for the dying or to educate young girls? What of the soup kitchens and orphanages? What of the preservation and handing-on of classical culture? Instead, they choose to enumerate the things that Christianity hasn’t done to better the world, or hasn’t done well enough, or has simply done too slowly!”

” The second chapter of  Christopher Hitchens’s book bears the provocative title ” Religion Kills. ” This is a very serious accusation, and it merits a serious response. Does ”religion” kill? Unfortunately, people kill each other all the time. How much of this is religiously motivated? Percentage-wise, not much really. Look at the daily newspapers or watch the evening news. It is a rare thing indeed to hear of a murder commited for religious reasons.” “…Most killing is motivated by greed, pride, anger, revenge, and any number of human passions common to the religious and irreligious alike.” “…To make a real case, Hitchens would have to show that religion itself (again we must ask which religion) encourages people to murder and violence. Hitchens and his comrades-in-arms cannot make this case.

 ” Together, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot produced the kind of mass slaughter that Torquemada couldn’t have dreamed of, without even counting the misdeeds of lesser atheistic tyrants. An estimated 61,911,000 were killed in the Soviet Gulag State, 35,236,000 in Communist China, 20,946,000 under National Socialism (Nazism) and 2,035,000 by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have not managed to kill as many people in all of human history as have been killed in the name of atheism just in the past few decades. “

” Hitchens writes that the Apostle Paul ” hoped that time was running out for humanity.” Of course he offers no citations to back up his claim (there aren’t any) so therefore no one will call him on his allegation. A more sophisticated mind would recognize that there is a fundamental difference between believing that the world will one day end, endeavoring to be prepared for such an eventuality, and actively working to bring it about. I cannot speak for all religions, but I can say with absolute assurance that Christianity would unabashedly condemn any attempts to precipitate the destruction of the world. “

” Hitchens’s censuring of religious education extends to training in morality as well, especially when it conflicts with the censurer’s particular morality. A bizarre example of Hitchens’s understanding of “child abuse” is teaching one’s children that abortion is morally wrong. Hitchens advocates abortion as a form of birth control when other methods have failed (he calls abortion a “fallback solution”) and feels that others should see things the way he does. So where he has no problem with parents teaching their children that it is right to recycle and wrong to smoke cigarettes, he sees moral instruction about abortion as child abuse. One begins to see a pattern here. Any parent who doesn’t instill Hitchens’s peculiar worldview is abusive. “

” A distinctive characteristic of atheistic writers is their dogmatic certainty that God doesn’t exist. They intentionally distance themselves from agnostics who merely doubt the existence of God and plant themselves firmly in the camp of antitheistic certitude. Thus, though Richard Dawkins expresses unqualified openness to nearly everything, including the existence of other universes and intelligent life elsewhere within our own, he exhibits nothing but the most intransigent assurance regarding God’s nonexistence. Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris all share the conviction that the “God hypothesis” has been laid to rest, once and for all. “

” The underlying problem is that Dawkins’s God is not what Christians understand by “God.” Dawkins creates a straw man–or straw divinity–to his own measure, and then disproves his existence. The Supernatural Being that Christians call God is necessarily beyond the reach of the empirical sciences, since He is not a lump of matter or an energy force. He cannot be the object of observation and experimentation that the hard sciences require. To debate God’s existence, we must at the very least agree on what we mean by “God.” Atheists propose a god that is unrecognizable to religious believers. “

” As we have seen, early on in “God Is Not Great,” Christopher Hitchens lays out his four “irreducible objections” to religious faith, the first of which is that ” it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos.” “ 

” So whereas Christopher Hitchens decries religion, and especially Christianity, as misrepresenting the origins of man and the cosmos, others–even within the scientific community–heartily disagree. Francis S. Collins, the leader of the monumental Human Genome Project, offers another interpretation of the origins of the universe. ” The Big Bang cries out for a divine explanation. It forces the conclusion that nature had a defined beginning. I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force outside of space and time could have done that.” In other words, the Big Bang itself needs a cause. “

” In his book “God and the Astronomers,” astrophysicist Robert Jastrow wrote that ” the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” And the Nobel Prize–winning scientist Arno Penzias, who co-discovered the cosmic microwave backround radiation that lent strong support to the Big Bang, said: ” The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” “

” Whereas near unanimity reigns in the scientific community regarding the origins of the universe, science currently has much less to offer concerning the origins of life.” “…Thus the following quotation cited by Dawkins himself retains all its relevance: ” Hoyle said that the probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747. ” “

” Just as the Christian Church patronized the arts, so it vigorously supported scientific research. The caricature of an obscurantist, ignorance-promoting church simply doesn’t correspond to historical truth. Some of history’s greatest scientists–Newton, Pasteur, Galilei, Lavoisier, Kepler, Copernicus, Faraday, Maxwell, Bernard, and Heisenberg–were all Christians, and the list doesn’t stop there. “

“…Science flourished in societies where a Christian mind-set understood nature to be ordered and intelligible, the work of an intelligent Creator. Science grew where people assumed that the natural world is intelligible and bears the handwriting of its Author. Far from being an obstacle to science, Christian soil was the necessary humus where science took root. “

“…According to the studies of  John Galbraith Simmons, of the top twenty scientists in history, fifteen were religious believers (four of whom were deists), two were agnostic, and three were atheists. There were more Catholics among them (five) than either agnostics or atheists, and five more came from other Christian denominations. Thus a full half of of the most influential scientists in history were Christians. Again, this says little about the truth claims of Christianity, but it does dispel the myth that good scientists must be atheists. Sir Isaac Newton, for instance, whom Simmons considers to be the most important scientist who ever lived, was aided greatly in his scientific endeavors by his belief in an ordered universe created by a God of order. Thus he could write, ” It is the perfection of God’s works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion. ” He saw no incompatibility between his Christian faith and the purity of his science, as one complimented the other. ” In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence. ” “

” The great French scientist Louis Pasteur, number five on Simmons’s list, was a devout Catholic Christian as well as the developer of the germ theory of disease and the process of “pasteurization.” He was able to wed an endearing humility and rich faith to scientific genius. “

” A scientific hubris that denies the competence of both religion and other disiplines to make truth claims doesn’t do much to advance the needed dialogue between religion and science. Then again, maybe these atheists don’t want to encourage this dialogue. Hitchens does write, after all, that ” all attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule. ” If this is the foreordained conclusion, there is no sense continuing to dialogue. But then who is being closed-minded here–religion or “science” ?

Alas, as was the case in the “Richard Dawkins Takes Another Life” thread of November 24, 2008, again I have miscalculated in having projected a conclusion to this subject with two posts. There will be a 3rd and concluding post on this topic next week.

That said, I’ll proceed on this note: While I’m confident that I addressed the full spectrum of New Atheist philosophy in the post I refer to above, regular readers of this blog know that I have consistently deferred to the knowledge of theological scholars far more qualified than myself to elucidate on matters pertinent to the essence of Christian faith, and, in this case, specifically to where that faith regards the “question” of the existence of God.

Therefore, I yield to Thomas D. Williams, L C, ThD to address many of the arguments which have been put forth by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett. In his book, “Greater Than You Think”, written specifically to counter and dismantle the “diatribes” propagated by Christopher Hitchens in “God Is Not Great,” Williams, at the same time takes on Dawkins, Harris and Dennett, with equal weight, calling into question inconsistencies and fallacious logic in their writings as well. The following paragraphs are excerpted from Williams’s book:

“In God Is Not Great,” Christopher Hitchens asserts that, whereas religion depends “upon ignorance and superstition,” he and his atheist colleagues respect “free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.” He paints religion as an irrational embrace of rediculous superstitions, as opposed to atheists’ objective, patient sifting through of ideas. As it turns out, however, neither of these caricatures does justice to reality.”

” Richard Dawkins’s description of God deserves to be quoted in full. Alert readers may notice that Dawkins permits himself to stray slightly from the objective, antiseptic language we have come to expect from the scientific community: “

“ ” The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” “

” The ethnic cleansing and sadomasochism are one thing, but a control freak? Come on! Dawkins peppers his treatice with further divine name-calling. The biblical God is “interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering, ” a “psychotic delinquent,” and a “monster.” 

” Interventionist ” could be reexpressed as caring, ” sin-punishing ” as just, and ” thought-reading ” as sensitive. Calling God ” miracle-wreaking ” presents a facinating  juxtoposition of terms. When Jesus cured the paralytic or multiplied the loaves and fishes, for example, was that an example of ” miracle-wreaking “? If so, bring it on! As for the accusation of being ” prayer-answering, ” I am hard-pressed to see what Dawkins finds so sinister here. “

” What they do, rather, is select a few texts where God comes off looking like the big bad wolf and paste them together as if they were the whole picture. What they fail to notice–willfully or not–is that the God revealed in the Old Testament is above all a just and faithful God, One who keeps His promises and forgives the many transgressions of His people. “

” I have searched in vain through these atheistic tracts for a balanced treatment of the biblical text. Where, for instance, are the numerous references to God’s tenderness, His mercy, His love for His children, His patience, His desire for their well-being? “

” Christians believe that God’s self-revelation was progressive. The Bible didn’t fall from heaven ready-made but was written over time. Israel’s knowledge of God grew as well, as they contemplated His action in their history and meditated on His words. This self-revelation culminates in the person of Jesus Christ. As Paul wrote, “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Galatians 4:4-5). It is in Christ that the limitlessness of God’s love for humanity is made fully clear. “

” Though none of these authors received formal training in theology or biblical exegesis, they allow themselves categorical assertions that would be unthinkable in other disciplines. In chapter 3 of “The God Delusion, for example, Richard Dawkins puts on the hat of the biblicist and presumes to teach theologians about the Good Book. The outright errors in the section titled “Arguments from Scripture” are simply too many to enumerate here, but a few examples may prove illuminating.”

” Dawkins states: “Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world.” “

” One wonders how many theological works Dawkins read in order to make such a bold assertion. Never mind that he had already disqualified theology as a science; what he says here is simply false. While one can find biblical scholars to support virtually any interpetation of Scripture, there is nothing near unanimity in dismissing the historical value of the Gospel accounts. The Catholic position on this question, representing a mere 1.1 billion Christian believers, is stated succinctly in the 1965 dogmatic constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum: “[The] Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named , whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). “

” Regarding the genesis of the canon of Sacred Scripture, Dawkins claims that the canonical Gospels “were chosen, more or less arbitrarily, out of a larger sample of at least a dozen including the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Nicodemus, Philip, Bartholomew and Mary Magdalen.” Here it appears that he was taking theology classes from Dan Brown, since this summary of the formation of the New Testament looks as if it were lifted straight from “The Da Vinci Code.” He naively assumes that the mere title of “gospel” puts all the ancient texts on an equal footing, the same mistake made by Dan Brown and other purveyors of religious sensationalism. The fact is that the apocryphal “gospels” of Thomas, Philip, Mary, and others were rejected for serious reasons, such as the fact that they were written long after the accepted accounts, by non-eyewitnesses, to advance a dubious gnostic agenda. “

” Dawkins then states: “Nobody knows who the four evangelists were, but they almost certainly never met Jesus personally. Much of what they wrote was in no sense an honest attempt at history but was simply rehashed from the Old Testament, because the gospel-makers were devoutly convinced that the life of Jesus must fulfill Old Testament prophesies.” Where does he come up with this? On what authority can he state that the evangelists never knew Jesus? More incredible still, how can he judge the “honesty” of persons whose identity supposedly remains in the shadows of history? “

” Grave historical errors that can be begrudgingly swallowed in a work of “fiction” like Dan Brown’s become downright unconscionable for someone claiming to be a rigorous scientist. If an author such as Dawkins were to work with such sloppy methodology in biology, he would find himself booed out of the academy and looking for a job. I don’t know what he  would say if I–who have no more training in evolutionary biology than he does in theology–started pontificating on disputed questions of mammalogy, ornithology, or herpetology. “

” The fact remains that the four gospels continue to this day to be the best historical documents we have relating to the life and deeds of Jesus Christ. We have more than five thousand New Testament manuscripts, and many are dated within a few years of their authors’ lives, which means that the historical documentary evidence for the New Testament far surpasses that of any other work of its time. Recent scholarship has shown moreover that the Gospels were penned much closer to the time of Jesus’ death than previously thought, most certainly by eyewitnesses in the case of of three out of four. Strong evidence points to a completion of the entire text of the New Testament before the year A D 100. The first three Gospels, for example, prophesied the fall of the temple of Jerusalem, which occurred in A D 70. However, the fulfillment of the prophesy is never mentioned, which suggests that it hadn’t happened as of the writing of the text. There is a broad academic literature attesting to the historosity of the Gospels, such as Craig L. Blomberg’s “The Historical Reliability of the Gospels” and F.F. Bruce’s “The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? “ to name just two. “ 

” It is said that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. It appears that sometimes scientists and journalists make the same mistake. “

” Not content with knocking Sacred Texts,  our atheists  cast doubt on the very existence of  Jesus as a historical person. Dawkins, for instance, writes that it is possible “to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all.” For his part, Christopher Hitchens states that Jesus’ existence is “highly questionable.” What seems rather “highly questionable” is the rigor of Hitchens’s fact-checking, since his work is strewn with factual errors.”

” The simple fact of the matter is that we “know” Jesus really existed insofar as we can know any historical fact. “…But the historical record is as conclusive as we could possibly hope for.”

” Plenty of scholars have undertaken to collect all ancient historical references to Jesus. “…The celebrated Roman historian Tacitus wrote of superstitious “Christians” who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to the emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century. “

” The Jewish historical record confirms Jesus’ existence as well. The most famous ancient Jewish historian was Flavious Josephus, who, in his “Antiquities,” refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”

” Flavious Josephus also writes the following in “Antiquities”: “At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. “

” All of these writers, without exception, lived in or close to the time of Jesus. None were Christian or had anything evident to gain from reporting about Jesus. The rapid spred of Christianity after Jesus’ death and resurrection is amazing enough, in that it evidences the credibility (in Jesus’ case) of the incredible claim that a human being–one known to the believers –is God Himself. But it is difficult indeed to imagine that Jesus’ disciples, a handful of fishermen, succeeded in deluding so many serious writers of their own time about the very existence of their Messiah! “

” Still, perhaps the clearest evidence  of Jesus’ historical existence is the witness of literally thousands of Christians in the first century A D, including the twelve apostles, who were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. They could have escaped death by disowning Christ or stepping forward to say that it all had been a hoax. This didn’t happen. Some people will die for what they believe to be true; no one will die for what they know to be a lie. “

” Writing in the first century, the apostle Paul refers to the “church” (ekklesia) some five dozen times in his letters, and there is no record of anyone standing up and accusing him of innovating something that Jesus never intended. He speaks variously of the visable church as Christ’s body, as Christ’s spotless bride, as the community of Christian believers, as the household of God , as the pillar and bulwark of the truth. He moreover writes of “deacons,” “presbyters,” and “bishops”–giving good evidence that a differentiated Christian clergy was in existence as of the first century. “

” The apostle John uses the term “church” several times in his third epistle, and another twenty-odd times in the book of Revelation, whose authorship is generally attributed to him. The apostle Peter uses the term “church” in his first letter, and it can be found in the Letter of James as well. All three of these men formed part of the original band of twelve apostles, who, according to Christopher Hitchens, “had no idea that anyone would ever found a church.” Either they quickly gathered in a conspiracy to undermine their Lord’s wishes, for which there is no historical evidence, or Hitchens has got the story dead wrong. “

” But let us turn to the witness of Jesus Himself. Hitchens doesn’t even acknowledge the text that most clearly contradicts his claim. Matthew’s Gospel records Jesus saying to Peter, in front of the other disciples, “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). “

” What other evidence can be found of Jesus’ project? He carefully selected twelve “apostles” and set them apart from His many followers. He gave them special training as well as explaining many things to them in private that He didn’t announce to more general gatherings. This number twelve mirrored the twelve tribes of Israel, the people of God and expresses an intention to establish a new Israel. “

” The atheistic authors ‘ attempts at biblical exegesis fall flat, and the best advice they could receive is not to give up their day jobs. Jesus not only intended to found a church–He really did so. “ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christopher Hitchens pontificates in his book, “God Is Not Great,” that, organized religion is “…violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children.”

By means of a sentence steeped in odious absolutes, and obvious elitism, we are to conclude with certainty, one assumes, that billions of religious people worldwide exhibit these “well-defined” characteristics.

The most glaring thing about Hitchens’s book is the title itself. The title, “God Is Not Great” is taken from Saddam Hussein’s words: “Allahuh Akhbar” (“God Is Great”). Not only does the title subliminally liken all religion to Islamic fanaticism, but, predictably, Hitchens is all over the place within the context of the book, speaking of Christians at one point, and then of Hindus, and then, on to Muslims, painting all three belief systems with one broad brush.

The following paragraphs are excerpted from my December 10, 2008 post in the “Richard Dawkins Takes Another Life” thread of November 24, 2008 at this blog:

One of the most thorough reviews of “God Is Not Great,” was written by Stephen Prothero, chair of Boston University’s religion department and the author of: Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know–and Doesn’t.” While Prothero’s review is scathing, interestingly, he also says of Hitchens: “…there is no living  journalist I more enjoy reading.” A partial transcript of Prothero’s review now follows:

“Hitchens claims that some of his best friends are believers. If so, he doesn’t know much about his best friends. He writes about religious people the way northern racists used to talk about “Negroes”–with feigned knowing and a sneer. God Is Not Great assumes a childish definition of religion and then criticizes religious people for believing such foolery. But it is Hitchens who is the naif. To read this oddly innocent book as gospel is to believe that ordinary Catholics are proud of the Inquisition, that ordinary Hindus view masturbation as an offense against Krishna, or that ordinary Jews cheer when a renegade Orthodox rebbe sucks the blood off a freshly circumcised penis. It is to believe that faith is always blind and rituals always empty–that there is no difference between taking communion and drinking Kool-Aid (a beverage Hitchens feels compelled to mention no fewer than three times).”

“Hitchens describes the religious mind as “literal and limited” and the atheistic mind as “ironic and inquiring.” Readers with any sense of irony–and here I do not exclude believers–will be surprised to see how little inquiring Hitchens has done and how limited and literal is his own ill-prepared reduction of religion.”

“Christopher Hitchens is a brilliant man, and there is no living journalist I more enjoy reading. But I have never encountered a book who’s author is so fundamentally unacquainted with its subject. In the end, this maddenlingly dogmatic book does little more than illustrate one of Hitchens’s pet themes–the ability of dogma to put reason to sleep.”

Hitchens, and the other “acclaimed” New Atheist authors utilize a common ploy in classifying “religion” or “organized religion” as if it were an easily defined monolith.

Richard Dawkins is as smug, pompous and imperious as is Hitchens in saying: “I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they may have been or will be invented.

Daniel Dennett weighs in equally “authoritatively” with his “scholarly” insight into what religion is. He defines it as: “…social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought.”

Sam Harris, perhaps the most irrational of the neo-sophist athiests, and the fourth “member” of the so called “Four Horsemen” of New Atheism (See their glib and sophist “conclave” of the same name at You Tube), proclaims in his book, “The End of Faith,” that, belief in God must be stamped out forceably: “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them.”

These are the guys over whom a large segment of the mainstream media swoon, and proclaim as “geniuses” on the subject of religious belief.

Do they really think that self-indulgence and a “do-your-own-thing” general philosophy is beneficial for future generations of Americans and citizens of the world?

I believe, rather, that the “philosophy” they espouse is, in large part, responsible for the recent finding by a Washington-based “think-tank” that, 75% of young Americans are unfit for military service.

What I know, viscerally, and what I can state with confidence, is that, atheism is an unnatural, learned mindset. I think the more valid question is, not how one comes to believe in God, but, rather how a person logically embraces atheism.

I see atheism, plainly, as a willful rejection of God. How many contentious books have been written about other phenomena in which one has no belief? Only God seems to evoke such ferocity.

So that readers of this thread are better able to discern my “arguments” in future commentary in defense of Christianity, and in opposition to the New Atheist “agenda” I felt it was important to compile a “thumbnail” sketch of the philosophy of these authors.