Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
William

Is it Illogical for an Atheist to Question God's Moral Commands?

Recommended Posts

Staff

Ronald Christopher Troutman

 

It is illogical for atheists to question the moral commands of God for two primary reasons:

 

1) The Bible is clear that God is the one Who defines morality to start with. He says what is right, wrong, good and evil. And He, as the Creator of the world and of all life, also has complete ownership of all that He has created. If He chooses to end the life of some of His creation (which by the way is corrupt and evil by nature and is guilty of breaking His holy law) by His sovereign command, then He not only has the right to do so but is also entirely just in doing so. So it is illogical for a limited, fallible human creation of the unlimited, infallible God to question the moral law and judgments of the omniscient definer of morality.

 

2) If you are an atheist then you cannot believe in any kind of absolute, universal morality. Morality itself is nothing more than a social construct and is defined by society. Therefore there is no moral code that can be said to "right" or "wrong" and no moral code can be said to be better than any other moral code. How is it that you, as an atheist, can say that the actions of the Israelites were absolutely evil? If you are an atheist, there is no such thing as evil. So for you then to express moral outrage at the actions of God as described in the Bible is entirely illogical.

 

If you are an atheist, then you can neither define what moral "good" and "evil" are supposed to be with any kind of certainty, nor can you condemn the moral actions of anyone in the Bible, especially God, without both contradicting your own beliefs as an atheist and stealing from the Christian worldview of absolute, universal morality.

 

I should also add, that you yourself are guilty of breaking God's moral law and will be held accountable to Him one day. The only escape that you can possibly have is through the grace of Jesus Christ who will forgive all those who call upon Him for forgiveness. Repent of your sins and turn to him.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Poll Question: The Rich man and Lazarus Parable or Not?

      Is the story of the Rich man and Lazarus a parable and does it really make a difference?  Wouldn't the story still teach the same truths even if is a parable?   John Calvin held the view that it is not a parable but he also states "But that is of little consequence, provided that the reader comprehends the doctrine which it contains."

      in New Testament

    • Federal Judge Orders Removal Of Citizenship Question From 2020 Census

      By Kevin Daley - A federal judge in New York barred the Trump administration from including a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire. The decision appears to have significant implications for a related matter the Supreme Court is poised to decide in the spring. “The attempts by the Trump administration to mandate a question about citizenship were not rooted in a desire to strengthen the census process and would only undermine our immigrant communities,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. “Inciting fear in our residents is not only immoral, but also ill-conceived.” The Constitution mandates a census every ten years to apportion seats in the House of Representatives among the states. Population is also used as a basis for rewarding federal aid. A coalition of Democratic cities, states, and interest groups challenged the addition of a citizenship question to the census questionnaire in April 2018, warning it would discourage minority participation. An incomplete survey of minority populations, the plaintiffs feared, would result in diminished federal funds and congressional representation for urban areas. The plaintiffs charged that the addition of the citizenship question violated the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a federal law establishing protocols for the issuance of regulations. In his Tuesday decision, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman accepted the plaintiffs’ APA claims while rejecting their constitutional arguments. “[Ross] failed to consider several important aspects of the problem; alternately ignored, cherry-picked, or badly misconstrued the evidence in the record before him; acted irrationally both in light of that evidence and his own stated decisional criteria; and failed to justify significant departures from past policies and practices — a veritable smorgasbord of classic, clear-cut APA violations,” Furman wrote. Elsewhere in the decision, Furman said Ross was not truthful about his motives for adding a citizenship question. Though the secretary initially said publicly that the question was added at the request of the Department of Justice, subsequent evidence showed Ross discussed the matter with White House aides far earlier than initially understood. “Finally, and perhaps most egregiously, the evidence is clear that Secretary Ross’s rationale was pretextual — that is, that the real reason for his decision was something other than the sole reason he put forward in his memorandum,” Furman wrote. Former President Barack Obama elevated Furman to the federal bench in 2012. The plaintiffs sought a deposition from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross at a previous phase of the litigation. The Department of Commerce oversees the Census Bureau, and Ross himself authorized the addition of the citizenship question. Though Furman authorized the Ross deposition, the Supreme Court intervened to stop it in October 2018. Shortly thereafter in November 2018, the high court agreed to decide what evidence Furman could rely upon when making his decision. When plaintiffs challenge agency action in court, the agency itself generally turns over the body of documents and evidence it relied upon to make its decision. Those writings are called the administrative record. In most cases of this nature, the court will make its decision based only on the administrative record. However, Furman allowed the plaintiffs to gather evidence beyond the administrative record to challenge the citizenship question. The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether that decision was correct. The Justice Department may appeal Furman’s decision. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Federal Judge Orders Removal Of Citizenship Question From 2020 Census is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Ark Encounter Founder Offers Free Admission to Public Schools after Atheist Group Threatens to Sue Schools Who Visit it

      The Wisconsin-based atheist group, Freedom From Religion Foundation, warned public schools not to take their students to the Creation Museum or the Ark Encounter Park because of their “overtly religious atmosphere.” View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Electrical Question

      This is for the electrical engineers of the group, or at those who fancy themselves in that group.  I have a couple of motion sensor switches I want to install in my bathrooms.  The problem is that nearly nothing in this house is grounded, as it was built in the 50's.  My question is, is it possible, or simply inadvisable, to connect the ground wire of the switch to the neutral wire, which should ultimately be connected to the main ground out at the power pole?  Is this stupidly dangerous, or actually quite doable?

      in Computers & Technology

    • Why There’s No Such Thing as an Atheist

      Believe No One Who Calls Himself an Atheist     If what Paul says in Romans 1 is true, there is ultimately no such thing as an atheist. Anyone who calls himself one is wrong on at least three fronts.   First, someone who claims to be an atheist is suppressing the truth he knows. According to Romans 1, “What can be known about God is plain to them” (v. 19), and their denial is an expression of the fact that they are among those “men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (v. 18). Therefore, whatever they believe about themselves, the God who made them says otherwise, and we must believe God rather than man.   Second, anyone who claims to be an atheist is contradicting the God of truth. It is one thing for a person to be wrong about himself. It is quite another thing for him to be in disagreement with what God says about him. God says every man knows. Therefore, anyone who says he doesn’t know is calling God a liar. It’s a bit like a man arguing with his mother about what day he was born. Only in this case, it’s not his mother, but his inerrant, infallible, Creator.   Third, anyone who claims to be an atheist is ignoring his greatest need, and his only hope for its fulfillment. Man’s greatest and ultimate need is God. Apart from God, man is incomplete. Moreover, he is utterly incapable of achieving or attaining what he lacks. This is what drove Solomon to write, “Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun” (Eccles. 2:11). This is the state of every person apart from God. 1.   People Know There Is a God     As we have already seen, Paul makes it very clear that people know God exists. However, they suppress that truth in their unrighteousness. Nevertheless, the knowledge is within them.   We see it in various ways in even the most ardent deniers of deity. (1) We see it in times of crisis, like the days following the tragedy of September 11, 2001, or December 7, 1941. (2) We see it in times of great joy, like the birth of a baby or the moment their team wins the big game. (3) We see it in times of fear, like when the Apollo 13 astronauts were in peril, or during the Cuban Missile Crisis.   In times like these, men are well aware that God exists.   2. People Know There Is Truth     Much has been written about post-modernism and its denial of absolute truth. However, even the most hardened truth-denier believes you should take him at his word. The oft-used example is the person who states, “There is no absolute truth,” only to be faced with the response, “So you’re saying truth exists and Jesus is Lord?” To which he will respond, “No, that’s not what I said.”   Of course, this admittedly simplistic example fails to capture the complexity of postmodernity. However, the point is clear: all people believe in truth. They prove this every time they make a statement that they expect others to understand.     3. People Know There Is Right and Wrong     One of the first phrases children learn to say with conviction is, “That’s not fair!” We know in our bones that some things are just not right! Events like September 11, 2001, and December 7, 1941, stand as lasting reminders that there is a universal sense of right and wrong.   On those days, people didn’t stand around debating whether the Bible condemns murder; they just shouted, “That’s not fair!” Ironically, many of them did so in direct opposition to the worldview they had embraced. Nevertheless, in moments like these, even fools become wise—at least for a moment.     4. People Know They Are Not Righteous     Shortly after we learn to say, “That’s not fair!” we learn to say, “Nobody’s perfect.” This is our way of acknowledging our lack of righteousness without impugning ourselves. You see, if there is one who is perfect, then I am simply a sinner. However, if there is not one who is perfect, then I am no worse than anyone else, and, therefore, righteous by comparison.   Of course, there is One who was and is perfect. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to introduce those who have imbibed this falsehood to our perfect Savior.     5. People Know Judgement Is Necessary     On May 2, 2011, we discovered that an elite team of Navy SEALs had executed a predawn raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where they captured and killed Osama Bin Laden. Response to the news was almost universal, as people from all walks of life sighed in relief knowing that one of the most notorious terrorists in world history had faced swift justice.   Why do people respond this way? Why is the natural, visceral response one of almost universal approval of retributive justice? Because people know that judgment is necessary. They know that wrongs need to be set right. And if they know that, then they know, somewhere down deep in their own souls, that they, too, deserve justice for the sins they have committed. Of course, people suppress this knowledge in various ways, from appealing to others’ worse behavior to judging ourselves by our intentions rather than our actions But the fact remains that we know better.     6. People Know They Need a Savior     The fact that people know they are guilty leads inevitably to the fact that they know they need a Savior. Again, people don’t admit this. In fact, they suppress it. But they know it. Unwittingly, people will admit this knowledge in various ways. First, they will acknowledge their need for a Savior while claiming to be able to fulfill that role themselves.   For example, the one who believes that he’s “basically a good person,” is essentially claiming to be able to make propitiation for his own sin. The same is true for the person who believes he has done good deeds that make up for his sins. In both cases, the person compounds his guilt by (1) acknowledging God’s justice and the need for atonement while (2) elevating himself to the stature and status of God himself, “who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (1 Tim. 4:10).     The Hardest Part of Apologetics     The fact that people believe these things doesn’t necessarily make our job easier. In fact, the hardest part of expository apologetics is convincing others of that which they already know. The tendency to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” is not to be taken lightly or trifled with. People will fight tooth and nail against the aforementioned truths.   However, there is a power greater than man, and it is that power on which we rely. This is why the expository apologist must say with the apostle, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16). Voddie Baucham Jr. (DMin, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) is dean of the seminary at African Christian University in Lusaka, Zambia. The author of a number of books, including Family Driven Faith, What He Must Be, Joseph and the Gospel of Many Colors, and Expository Apologetics, Baucham is also a pastor, church planter, and conference speaker.

      in Atheism/Agnosticism/Sec.

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.