Saturday, January 27, 2007

A Challange To "Christian Materialism"

I found this to be an excellent essay in which Schaeffer challanges Christians to not merely treat our Christianity as a bunch of mental assents to doctrines about God, but a life of communion with the God of the doctrines. He compares it to observing/participating in the universe from the vantage point of two chairs, the Materialist chair or the Christian chair.

The Universe And Two Chairs
By Francis A. Schaeffer

In the course of this book we have focused attention on the way God looks at the culture of our day, and at both the men with the Bible and the men without the Bible who have turned away. In this final chapter we will examine the way God looks at those who have the Bible and have responded by believing in the God who is there and are relying on the finished work of Christ in space-time history for the removal of their guilt before a holy God.

As we have seen, Paul says in Romans 1:17 that the just shall live by faith. That is, they shall not only be initially justified by faith, but they shall live existentially by reliance on God and faith in Him. We turn now to see what living by faith means in our twentieth-century world.

First let us note that we who live in the second half of the twentieth century live in an increasingly complicated universe – much more complicated for us than for men just a few years ago. Our telescopes see further and we speak of light years running up into great numbers; the very magnitude of these numbers confuses us. On the other hand, our physicists deal with smaller and smaller particles, and as mass retreats into energy and energy into formulae, reality seems to slip through our fingers. As we look at those light years, we shrink away. And as we look at the tiny particles, we grow like Alice in Wonderland. But our size here does not really help us because we tend to become uncomfortable as we see material reality reduced to sets of mathematical formulae and energy particles dashing about at furious speed. Yet we must understand, if we are going to live as Christians, that while these things indeed are complicated and confusing, nevertheless from the biblical viewpoint the universe is simple.

Let me illustrate this. Imagine a room, the curtains pulled and the doors locked. Let us suppose that this room is the only universe that God has made. Now that would be possible. God could have made such a universe. So let us say that the only universe that exists is this room with the doors locked and the curtains pulled. There is nothing outside at all, absolutely nothing. We are in a universe that can be seen with one look around the room.

Now let us go further. Suppose we have two chairs in this room and that sitting on these two chairs are two men, the only two men in the universe. As we consider them, we find that they differ. One is a totally consistent materialist. As far as he is concerned, the universe is made up of nothing but mass, energy and motion; that is all there is to it. On the other chair sits a Christian who lives in the light of the teaching of the Bible as the propositional revelation of God. And these two sit facing each other in a universe in which they sit alone. After they have looked at each other for a while, the materialist says, "Now, I’m going to explore our universe." And the Christian replies, "That’s fine." So the materialist begins to analyse the universe, and it takes him a long time. He goes through all the scientific processes that we now use to examine our own universe. He uses the sciences of chemistry, biology, physics, etc.. He goes back to the periodic table, and behind the periodic table into the atom and examines it. He examines everything from the paint on the wall to the more basic particles. All this takes him a long time.

Finally as an older man, he comes to the Bible-believing Christian and brings him a big set of books, and he says, "Now here’s a set of books, they’re nicely bound, and they give in great detail a description of our universe." So the Christian takes a number of months, even years, to study these books with care. Finally the Christian turns to the materialist and says, "Well, this is a tremendous work. You have really told me a great deal about my universe that I wouldn’t otherwise have known. However, my friend, this is all very fine, but it’s drastically incomplete."

And you can imagine this man, who has spent his lifetime pouring out his heart to do his measuring and his weighing, suddenly taken aback. He turns and says to the Christian, "Well, now, I’m shocked that you tell me it’s not all here. What have I missed?" And then the Christian responds something like this: "I have a book here, the Bible, and it tells me things that you do not know. It tells me the origin of the universe. Your scientific investigation by its very nature cannot do that. And it also says nothing about where you and I as men came from. You have examined us because we, like the paint on the wall, are phenomena in the universe. You’ve studied something of our psychology and even given me several volumes on it, but you have not told me how we came to be here. In short, you don’t know the origin of either the universe or us."

"Furthermore," the Christian continues, "I know from this book that there is more to the universe than you have described. There is an unseen portion as well as a seen portion. And there is a cause-and-effect relationship between them. They are not mutually exclusive, but are parts of one reality. It’s as if you had taken an orange, sliced it in half, and only concerned yourself with one of the halves. To understand reality in our universe properly, you have to consider both halves – both the seen and the unseen."

In this sense "supernatural" is not a good word to describe the unseen portion. We must understand that the unseen portion of the universe is just as natural and as real as is the seen portion. Furthermore, the seen and the unseen are not totally separated. When we do certain things, it makes a difference in the unseen world and things in the unseen world make a difference in the seen world. The Christian would say to the materialist, "Your volume on the philosophy of history just does not hang together. The reason is that you are only looking at half of what’s there: you are only looking at half of history; you do not take into account the unseen portion. Consequently, your philosophy of history will never be sound." He is right: nobody has ever produced a satisfactory philosophy of history beginning with the materialistic viewpoint. There is too much in the seen world that does not make sense when taken as if it were all there is. One cannot produce a philosophy of history based on only half of history.

Now what happens next? These two men look at each other rather askance because their two primary views of the universe are set one against the other. The materialist replies: "You’re crazy. You’re talking about things you can’t see." And the consistent Christian responds, "Well, you may say I am crazy because I’m talking about things I cannot see, but you are completely unbalanced. You only know half of your own universe."
Let us notice something extremely important: these two views can never be brought into synthesis. One man is not a little right and the other a little right and a synthesis better than both. These are two mutually exclusive views – one is right and one is wrong. If you say less than this, then you reduce Christianity to a psychological crutch, a glorified aspirin. That does not mean that the Christian cannot glean much detail from the materialist’s observation. But as far as the comprehensive view of the universe is concerned, there can be no synthesis. Either this man is right and that man is wrong, or that man is right and this man is wrong. It is a total antithesis.

Pursue their situation further. Suppose that on the wall of their room there is a large clock. All of a sudden it stops. And these two men turn around and say, "What a pity! The clock has stopped." The materialist says, "That will never do, and because there are only you and I in this universe, one of us must clamber up the wall and start the clock. There’s nobody else to do it." The Christian replies, "Now wait a moment. Yes, it’s possible for one of us to climb up and start the clock, but there is another possibility. I may talk to the one who made this universe (one who is not in the universe in the sense of it merely being an extension of his essence) and he can start the clock."

Here is a tremendous difference in attitude. You can imagine the materialist’s reaction. "Now I know you’re crazy. You’re talking about someone we can’t see starting a material clock." Anyone who has been doing modern twentieth-century thinking will realize the relevance of this. And I also think we may here see why so many Christians have no reality. They are not certain that it is possible for the God who made the universe to start the clock when a Christian talks to Him.

Let me give you an illustration from experience. Once I was flying at night over the North Atlantic. It was in 1947, and I was coming back from my first visit to Europe. Our plane, one of those old DC4’s with two engines on each wing, was within two or three minutes of the middle of the Atlantic. Suddenly two engines on one wing stopped. I had already flown a lot, and so I could feel the engines going wrong. I remember thinking, if I’m going to go down into the ocean, I’d better get my coat. When I did, I said to the hostess, "There’s something wrong with the engines." She was a bit snappy and said, "You people always think there’s something wrong with the engines." So I shrugged my shoulders, but I took my coat. I had no sooner sat down, than the lights came on and a very agitated co-pilot came out. "We’re in trouble," he said. "Hurry and put on your life jackets."

So down we went, and we fell and fell, until in the middle of the night with no moon we could actually see the water breaking under us in the darkness. And as we were coming down, I prayed. Interestingly enough, a radio message had gone out, an SOS that was picked up and broadcast immediately all over the United States in a flash news announcement: "There is a plane falling in the middle of the Atlantic." My wife heard about this and at once she gathered our three little girls together and they knelt down and began to pray. They were praying in St Louis, Missouri, and I was praying on the plane. And we were going down and down.

Then, while we could see the waves breaking beneath us and everybody was ready for the crash, suddenly the two motors started, and we went on into Gander. When we got down I found the pilot and asked what happened. "Well," he said, "it’s a strange thing, something we can’t explain. Only rarely do two motors stop on one wing, but you can make an absolute rule that when they do, they don’t start again. We don’t understand it." So I turned to him and I said, "I can explain it." He looked at me: "How?" And I said, "My Father in heaven started it because I was praying." That man had the strangest look on his face and he turned away. I’m sure he was the man sitting in the materialist’s chair.

But here is the point: there is no distinction between the clock starting and those motors starting. Is it or is it not possible for the God who made the mechanistic portion of the universe to start the clock or start the motors? Is it or isn’t it? The materialist must say no; the Bible-believing Christian, at least in theory, says yes.
We are not dealing with God as though He were a machine. He is personal, and as we pray He does not respond mechanically, but as the Personal-Infinite God. The point is that He is there and He can, and does, act into the universe He has made.

Now then, let us get away from our small universe and suddenly throw wide the curtains, open the doors, push out the walls, the ceiling, and the floor, and have the universe as it is in its full size, as it has been created by God. Instead of two men, there are many men in the universe, but still represented by these two. What we must see is that no matter how deeply we get into the particles of matter or how much we learn by our telescopes and radio telescopes about the vastness of the created universe, in reality the universe is no more complicated than the room we have been talking about. It is only larger. Looking at the bigger universe, we either see it as the materialist sees it or as the Christian sees it: We see it with the one set of presuppositions or the other.

However, what one must realize is that seeing the world as a Christian does not mean just saying, "I am a Christian. I believe in the supernatural world," and then stopping. It is possible to be saved through faith in Christ and then spend much of our lives in the materialist’s chair. We can say we believe in a supernatural world, and yet live as though there were no supernatural in the universe at all. It is not enough merely to say, "I believe in a supernatural world." We must ask, "Which chair am I sitting in at this given existential moment?" We must live in the present: "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof " – "Give us this day our daily bread." What counts is the chair I am sitting in at any one existential moment.

Christianity is not just a mental assent that certain doctrines are true. This is only the beginning. This would be rather like a starving man sitting in front of great heaps of food and saying, "I believe the food exists; I believe it is real," and yet never eating it. It is not enough merely to say, "I am a Christian", and then in practice to live as if present contact with the supernatural were something far off and strange. Many Christians I know seem to act as though they come in contact with the supernatural just twice – once when they are justified and become a Christian and once when they die. The rest of the time they act as though they were sitting in the materialist’s chair.

The difference between a Christian who is being supernatural in practice and one who says he is a Christian but lives like a materialist can be illustrated by the difference between a storage battery and a light plug. Some Christians seem to think that when they are born again, they become a self-contained unit like a storage battery. From that time on they have to go on their own pep and their own power until they die. But this is wrong. After we are justified, once for all through faith in Christ, we are to live in supernatural communion with the Lord every moment; we are to be like lights plugged into an electric socket.

The Bible makes it plain that our joy and spiritual power depend on a continuing relation to God. If we do not love the Lord as we should, the plug gets pulled out and the spiritual power and the spiritual joy stop. Recall Paul’s statement in the benediction, ‘The communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.’ In French the word is ‘communication’. The reality of the communication of the Holy Spirit who lives within us and who is the agent of the whole Trinity is to be a continuing reality in the Christian’s life.

Let us be more specific. The Bible says that Christ rose physically from the dead, that if you had been there that day you would have seen Christ stand up and walk away in a space-time, observable situation of true history. The materialist says, "No, I don’t believe it. Christ is not raised from the dead." That is unbelief. The new theology is also unbelief because it says either that Jesus was not raised from the dead in history or that maybe He was and maybe He wasn’t because who knows what’s going to happen in this world in which you can’t be sure of anything. The historic resurrection of Christ doesn’t really matter, says the new theology; what matters is that the church got a big push from thinking He was raised in history. They see the importance of the resurrection as psychological, even though they say they leave open the door to actual resurrection since we live in a universe that we cannot be very sure of. The old liberalism, the new liberalism and materialism are basically the same. To all of them finally the same word applies: unbelief.

But now, here we are Bible-believing Christians. We stand and say, "No, I’m not going to accept that. I’m going to speak out against the materialist, and I’m going to speak out against the old and the new liberalism. Christ was raised from the dead, and He did ascend with the same body the disciples saw and touched. Between His resurrection and His ascension He appeared and disappeared many times. He went back and forth between the seen and the unseen world often in those forty days. And then, finally, He took an official departure at the Mount of Olives." But the Bible says that if Christ is raised from the dead we are supposed to act upon it in our moment-by-moment lives. Its importance is not just in past history.

So the Bible-believing Christian says, "Well, I believe it!" The materialist says, "I don’t believe it!" and he sits in unbelief. But what shall we say about the man who says, "I believe it. I believe it", but then does not act upon this in faith in his daily life? I have made up a word for it. I call it unfaith.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

The Colts' Unearned Superbowl Birth

The videos have been taken off the internet...the NFL has the rights to all the footacge and is picky about who gets to play clips. I doubt on an NFL endorsed video we will see the absolutely terrible officiating called out for what it was.

Ok so this is the first non-philosophical/theological issue I have posted on I think. Well, wait NO, this IS theological it has to do with justice! Well what I am talking about is the Patriots Colts game from last week. What I witnessed was the worst officiating I have seen since the advent of instant replay, the Colts should have lost the game but there were a few key calls that swayed the game to favor the Colts. I honestly had no real preference to win although I was rooting for the Patriots because you need to root for somebody. I am a Packers' fan, so I am a third party witness to this wretched officiating. There were three wrong calls that stand out which completely changed the game.

1) Pass interference on the Patriots

(Sorry no video)

Since the video isn't on the net here's what happened: a Patriot defender Hobbs, was guarding a Colt reciever in the endzone, the defender never touched the reciever but he did not look back to see the ball and it hit him in the back. FLAG! The announcers told us that a player is not allowed to do what Hobbs did "He didn't play the ball". This indeed USED to be a penalty but actually the NFL rules changed that about six years ago, it was called "face guarding". Now the rules have changed, it is ok so long as you do not physically interfere with the reciever prior to his making contact with the ball. CHECK THE RULEBOOK. So what was the result of this bad call? They get the ball on the one yardline which is pretty much an automatic touchdown for Indianapolis.

A Former NFL referee has a column: Ask Jerry Markbreit had this to say in response to a question about the call I am discussing:

"During the Colts/Pats AFC Championship game, defensive pass interference was called on Pats back Ellis Hobbs in the endzone while guarding Reggie Wayne. Was it because Hobbs bumped Wayne or was it because Hobbs never looked for the ball, jumped, and blocked the pass with his back? --Stephen Griffith, Bloomington, Ind.

Answer: A defensive player who makes no contact with an intended receiver, even though he is not looking at the ball, commits no foul, even if the ball hits the defender before it can be caught by the offensive player. If the defender contacts the offensive receiver without looking at the football, it is defensive pass interference. In the play that you describe, the interference must have been caused by the defender bumping into the intended receiver, without looking at the football."

There you have it folks...NO FOUL. I wish I could put the video up...

2)The UN-called Pass interference on the Colts

Wow, No call...

After seeing the replay online I have to say that this is absolutely ridiculous. This, unlike the other example is WHAT PASSINTERFERENCE IS. He is clearly making contact with the reciever prior to the ball making contact with the reciever. If called the Patriots would have gotten the ball on the one yardline, which is pretty much an automatic touchdown. So how did this change the game? Well, instead of getting the TD the Patriots got three points out of a feild goal instead, going up 34-31.

3)The Roughing the Passer call

Colts vs Patriots - Roughing the Passer


This is the one that really took the cake for me. CBS briefly showed the replay with no comment from the announcers, what you see for video is all that they showed. Clearly this should NOT have been called. I have seen Quarterbacks get maliciously leveled and there be no call, yet they call this at a crucial point in the game where clearly the defender was not in anyway making a cheapshot. I have put up some videos for comparison. This gave the Colts the ball on the 11, from where they handed the ball off three times and got a touchdown to put them ahead 38-34 to in the end "win the game".


I think I got so upset (My family members laughed at my indignation after the game) over this because I have a desire for justice, and when there is flagrent injustice occurs it is natural to be upset, it is part of being made in God's image. And I know it's kinda cheesey, but, this ultimatly should spur us to long for the world to come where justice will be upheld perfectly and there will be no "bad calls".

Saturday, January 20, 2007

C.S. Lewis on a Meaningless Atheistic Universe: Or the Argument From Evil

The current Atheist Papal AuthorityI have recently been reading through "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis and have found it to be a delightful book. Although I have hangups with some of Lewis' ideas of free-will and God's providence, I find this to be a wonderful read. To be blunt this man is brilliant, he is able to see truths so clearly and convey them in such a way as to paint a picture for his reader to give illumination to that truth. A portion I found particularly sharp is section where Lewis talks about the irrationality of his former Atheism, he writes:

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I com­paring this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: A fish would not feel wet.

Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense.

Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: Just as, if there were no light in the uni­verse and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." (Mere Christianity Book 2 chapter 1)

This is an arresting observation I think for the Atheist. He (the Atheist) wants to argue against existence of God because of the ubiquitous evil is in the world. Yet from where comes the idea that this world is screwed up? This is just simply what is, you can not say what is is wrong in any objective sense from an Atheistic standpoint. Thus, the Atheist really has no footing to bring up the problem of evil to challange the Christian worldview. Also, if the universe simply is and there is no real meaning where do we get the notion of meaning to even announce that the universe has no meaning?

I think this is an absolutely brilliant point which Lewis raises.

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Fundamentalist Atheism?

The current Atheist Papal Authority
"Fundamentalist Atheist" is a title that is unwanted by atheists but is beginning to be applied more and more. Atheists have tried to make their philosophy appear to be the free-thinking, rational, non-dogmatic worldview. This image is now being scoffed at as the stripes of Fundamentalism in Atheistic philosophy are becomming evident for all to see. This has become particularly clear in the polemical attacks from what seems to be an Atheist clergy led by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins has put out a documentary "The Root of All Evil" in which he makes the assertion that Religion (All) has been the root of nearly all the bloody wars in history, and really is stunting the intellectual growth of man in general. In short if religion was done away with altogether the world would be a better place.

The term "Fundamentalist Atheist" really begins to be applicable when we see that atheists share distinct commonalities with every other fundamentalist religious group. This is in claims of exclusivity (Atheists are quite dogmatic that there is no God and all theists are wrong) in holy texts (Darwin's Origin of The Species) evangelism (there are numerous atheist outreach groups, Dawkins movie is one example of Atheist evangelism) etc. This is well presented in the documentary "The Trouble with Atheism" which is at the bottom of this post.

Now, Dawkins and most atheists will explain the existance of religion as basically being a crutch for the intellectually weak. Now we have come to a place evolutionarily where God is no longer necessary, we are at a place where we do not need to elplain lightning and rain with deities science has filled those gaps. The only reason religion continues is because people are simply weak and need a pie in the sky promise. Most atheists will use the line: "Just like I don't believe in fairies, elfs, or unicorns neither do I believe in God."

But what of ethics? How is ethics/morality accounted for in an atheistic/evolutionary philosophy? Well evolutionarily of course. Morality is always changing, shifting to fit man's contexual needs. I can not give an atheistic ethical theory that ALL will agree to, however, MOST adhear to a kind of social majority view of morality (What is right and wrong is determined by the majority opinion in a particular society). This is generally based on what makes the majority happy or what is least harful for the majority.

I will address these points, and have a documetary at the end of this post which talks about the Fundamentalist nature of Atheism. (It is really really good)

I) Religion the Root of Evil?

Well from the outset this is absurd, because in order to even call something evil you need an objective moral standard from which you base your moral judgements. Dawkins does not have this, nor does any atheist (As we saw the best ethical theories atheists can contrive is consensus based so all Dawkins is really entitled to say is "Most people think religion is evil."). So in making this assertion the atheist is really guilty of unwarranted dogmatism. Yes it is true people flew a plane into the WTC on 9/11 in the name of God but the atheist has no objective footing on which to stand where he can say: "9/11 was immoral!" The atheist can an does say things like this all the time, but I would submit in doing so he is being inconsistant with his worldview and really borrowing from my objective Christian ethics.

The next problem that arises with this charge is the cherry picking of data and historical facts. Yes it is indeed true that many people of all religious stripes have done horrible things in the name of God, however, one only has to look to the 20th century communist regimes to realize that Atheism has blood on its hands as well. Communist Russia was an atheistic regime which exterminated over 20 million people, many of them specifically because they would not deny Christ. Richard Wurmbrand is an example of a Christian who suffered under the oppressive atheist Communist regimes for his Christianity. This is one of the tennants of Communism, to eliminate all religion and establish an atheistic state. This led to much bloodshed.

Not only this but there is an undoubted link between the Darwinian ideas of natural selection and its offspring eugenics. Eugenics is the idea that we will selectively eliminate the unwanted traits in human beings thus speeding the evolutionary process. Margrett Sanger the woman who started Planned Parenthood was a big supporter of eugenics (particularly directed at brown people). Not only this but all this talk of eliminating unwanted traits led to the concentration camps of Nazi Germany which was seeking to produce a "MasterThe consequences of bad philosophy... race". This ties directly into evolutionary theory, which is the foundation of all atheistic explanations of life.

This being so it is simply wrong to have a rosey/idealistic utopian picture of a society run without religion, people have done it, and it has led to oppressive Totalitarianism wherever it has been done. To make the assertion that religion is the root of all evil is simply absurd and selective of historical facts. Yes wars and evil is done in the name of God, however there are a lot of wars and a lot of evil done under Atheistic presuppositions. To not acknowledge this really is to either be ignorant of the facts or minipulate the data to fit a theory (Dawkins probably knows a lot about that being an evolutionist Paleontologist).

II) Religion a Crutch for the Weak

The thing about bad philosophy seems to be that the charge can always be turned on its head upon the one making it. Just as Dawkins and many atheists assert that Religion is just a crutch for weak minded individuals who simply can not deal with reality, so the Theist can make the same accusation to the atheist. Atheism the Theist can say is for the weak, who simply can not cope with the reality of not being autonomous but accountable to a Creator.

In like manner the oft repeated line of "Religion is just wishful thinking...people want to think there is a heaven awaiting them after death" can also be turned on its head.
For example one could say, "Atheism is just wishful thinking, for weak people who can not deal with the reality of standing before God Almighty and being the Atheist is engaged in wishful thinking, he wishes there is no God so he says there is no God."

In reality when we make such charges we are really playing Freud, we think we know how the other person arrived at the conclusion (wishful thinking). Indeed it is probably true that there are Theists who are Theists out of a wishful thinking but the same I think can be said of Atheists. However, to make a blanket statement that all Theists are such by wishful thinking is simply arrogant and presumptuous.

III) Ethics

Well I think the problems that are evident when we approach Atheistic ethical systems is the unavoidable relativism. When we base our ethics upon any particular (man's reason for example) rleativism is unavoidable. By relativism I mean that there is no fixed unchanging standard for what right and wrong are, in the example I gave above right and wrong are changing based upon a societies majority view. This leads to multiple problems, for instance if a particular societies majority has a view that homosexuality is wrong what is the standard that minority of people who say homosexuality is right base their morality? Society itself is the standard, so no real moral shifts could take place.

Likewise on what footing can one society critique another societies morality if morality is based upon majority consensus within the particular society within which one resides? For example on what basis can we look at Hitler's eugenics and say that it was wrong? Who is right when two seperate societies with differing morals disagree, how can we tell? We are arrogantly imposing our consensus based morality onto a consensus that does not agree. In this vacuum I think all that is left is power, the atheist is right based upon his worldview the society is the standard, however the society will ultimatly be led by a Totalitarian elite just like ALL of the Atheist based governments have been.

As a Christian I have no such dilemma. My ethical system is not based upon any particular but on an absolute objective Being that transcends time and space, this provides an adequate basis for universal and unchanging morality. In the Christian worldview ethics reflect the character of the Triune God revealed in His word, thus they are as unchanging and absolute as His character is.

Atheists almost always raise ignorant questions like: "What if tommorrow God said that rape is now good, would you listen?...Nope didn't think so, so your morality really isn't based upon God!" This is just dumb. It's dumb because the Christian Biblical God has revealed that He does NOT change (James 1:17) but is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8).
So if something apeared to me no matter how majestic and said: "Hey I'm God, about that rape stuff ya know I changed my mind..." I know that this is not the True Biblical God who is immutable (unchanging) and is an imposter.

In asking such a question like: "Can God make a rock that He can't lift?" the Atheist is commiting a catagorical fallacy. Can God do something He cant do? That is really what is being said in this "profound objection to Christianity". In the case of the "What if God one day said rape was good..." the Atheist is asking "What if God did something He can't do (Change His mind and go against His unchanging character)?"

I have just addressed these pop-Atheist arguments that I hear almost everyday from atheists. These arguments really are so philosophically schlocky I just find it sadly ironic that these are the guys who call themselves the "Free-thinkers" and the ones who live by pure reason. Our reason just like our souls needs to be redeemed and brought under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, for just like the inspired apostle Paul wrote:

"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools," (Rom 1:21-22)

We need to understand that not only will those who reject and hate God be judged, but also that their atheism IS judgement from God. As Paul states:

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." (Romans 1:24-25)

To conblude, here is the documentary I promised "The trouble with Atheism"

The Trouble with Atheism (part 1) by Rod Liddle

The Trouble with Atheism (part 2) by Rod Liddle

I found it to be a good response to all of the pop atheistic rhetoric. My only hangup is that Liddle did not approach this as a Christian, but from the supposedly neutral "agnostic" position. Still, there is good stuff here.