Harmful Effect of Christianity #29

This post is the twenty-ninth in a series that addresses a list of “40 harmful effects of Christianity” that originated on the American Atheists Facebook page and has since made its way around the internet. In this post, I examine the following “harmful effect” from the list:

Harmful Effect #29:  Blue laws forcing other businesses to stay closed or limit sales, while churches can generate more revenue.

“By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.” Genesis 2:2-3

There are at least two problems with the assertion that Blue Laws are a harmful effect of Christianity.  The first is that there are no Blue Laws in the New Testament.  While work on the Sabbath[1] is forbidden for the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant, there is no prescription for civil government to restrict commerce on Sunday in the New Testament.  First century Christians, who were under Roman civil law, were not known for trying to lobby the government to restrict commerce on Sunday.  Christianity is typically understood to have begun circa 30 AD, at the resurrection of Jesus.  The first historical mention of the term “Blue Law” occurred some 1700 years later in the United States.  Thus, blue laws originated half a world away and hundreds of years after Christianity was founded in Jerusalem.  Can it be fairly said that such laws, while certainly adopted within cultures influenced by Christianity, are an effect of Christianity?

Secondly, is it the case that Blue Laws are harmful?  It’s hardly a given that they are.  To the contrary, it can be argued that a day of rest is good for workers and society, especially day where the sale of beverage alcohol is restricted.  It goes without argument to say that the sale and abuse of alcohol has been detrimental to society.  Even in the United States, where religious liberty is prized over theocratic fiat, Blue Laws have been determined to have secular benefit by governing authorities.  Supreme Court Chief Justice Stephen Johnson Field provided this legal opinion in 1896 regarding a Blue Law:

“Its requirement is a cessation from labor. In its enactment, the legislature has given the sanction of law to a rule of conduct, which the entire civilized world recognizes as essential to the physical and moral well-being of society. Upon no subject is there such a concurrence of opinion, among philosophers, moralists and statesmen of all nations, as on the necessity of periodical cessation from labor. One day in seven is the rule, founded in experience and sustained by science. … The prohibition of secular business on Sunday is advocated on the ground that by it the general welfare is advanced, labor protected, and the moral and physical well-being of society promoted.”

Whether or not one agrees with Johnson’s opinion, it is clear evidence that there are secular arguments for the enactment and enforcement of Blue Laws.  The authors of this list have once again provided a specious argument against Christianity.  Instead, they have taken a political policy they don’t like (the enacting of Blue Laws) and a condition they don’t like (churches receiving revenue), tenuously linked them, and deemed the result “harmful”.

“Jesus said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.’” Mark 2:27

In my next post in this series, I’ll address the following:

Harmful Effect #30: Mayors, senators, and presidents voted into office not because they’re right for the job, but because of their religious beliefs.

[1] Blue Laws typically restrict commerce on Sunday in modern times.  In ancient Israel, the Sabbath occurred from Friday evening through Saturday evening.  Also, modern Blue Laws typically restrict retail commerce, especially the sale of alcohol.  In ancient times, the work being restricted on the Sabbath was manual, agrarian labor.  There were no liquor stores of which to speak.

*Please note that the preceding is my personal opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of any entity by which I am employed, any church at which I am a member, any church which I attend, or the educational institution at which I am enrolled. Any copyrighted material displayed or referenced is done under the doctrine of fair use.

Harmful Effect of Christianity #27

This post is the twenty-seventh in a series that addresses a list of “40 harmful effects of Christianity” that originated on the American Atheists Facebook page and has since made its way around the internet. In this post, I examine the following “harmful effect” from the list:

Harmful Effect #27: School boards having to spend time and money and resources on the fight to have evolution taught in the schools.

This “harmful effect” presumes that it is somehow incumbent upon school boards to include evolution in the curricula of their schools. Evolution, which is a theory, is not affirmed by a significant part of the American public. A recent Pew survey found that 34% of Americans “reject evolution entirely”. Should school boards, which are intended to serve the public interest of their constituents, in communities in which evolution is largely rejected be expected to “fight” to have evolution taught in their schools? Hardly. The theory of evolution can become a point of “religious”dogma for some atheists, such as the atheist(s) who authored this list, to the point where they want to push their beliefs on others. Teaching it can become a mater of dogmatic aspiration for secularists because the theory of (naturalistic) evolution provides an explanation of human existence that doesn’t depend on divine creation. Outspoken atheist and biologist Richard Dawkins famously wrote that evolutionary theory made it possible for one to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist”. Thus, it’s not surprising that certain atheists would “fight” to have it taught in schools. That “school boards” supposedly have to do so doesn’t make the situation a “harmful effect of Christianity”.

The most famous “fight” to teach evolution in public schools was the “Scopes Monkey Trial” of the early 20^th Century. The trial was, at bottom, a publicity stunt cooked up by local businessmen in Dayton, TN more than it was a sincere intellectual contention for the theory of evolutionary. In 1968 the US Supreme Court struck down an Arkansas law preventing the teaching of evolution in the state’s schools. The teaching of evolution has since gone relatively unchallenged in the United States’ legal system. Where there have been legal challenges, there is scant evidence that “school boards” were the entities “fighting” to teach evolution, expending vast resources in the process. No evidence was provided by the authors for their contention. If anything, it is the detractors of evolution who are fighting to teach alternate theories in school, as evidenced by the 2005 case, Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, in which a school district was successfully sued by parties seeking to suppress the teaching an alternative to evolution.

The authors of this harmful effects list have demonstrated a feeble grasp of not only Christianity but history. Their grasp on science may be just as suspect. Evolutionary theory faces challenges from the religious and secular realms alike. Atheist philosophy professor Thomas Nagel recently published, in the Oxford University Press, a critique of evolutionary theory entitled, “Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False”. Two of Nagel’s statements warrant inclusion here:

“I realize that such doubts [about Darwinian naturalism] will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science.”

“For a long time I have found the materialist account of how we and our fellow organisms came to exist hard to believe, including the standard version of how the evolutionary process works. The more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes. This is just the opinion of a layman who reads widely in the literature that explains contemporary science to the nonspecialist. Perhaps that literature presents the situation with a simplicity and confidence that does not reflect the most sophisticated scientific thought in these areas. But it seems to me that, as it is usually presented, the current orthodoxy about the cosmic order is the product of governing assumptions that are unsupported, and that it flies in the face of common sense.”

It should not be taken for granted that evolution is the truth and any challenge to it is harmful. If atheists want to fight for it to be taught, they can. It doesn’t make their fight just or noble. It doesn’t make their opponents “harmful”.  If the theory of naturalistic evolution is false, and it is, then its advocates are in grave error. Man would do better to acknowledge the design and grace of his Creator, casting himself upon the mercy of God for salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ.

In my next post in this series, I’ll address the following:

Harmful Effect #28: Persecution of “heretics”/scientists, like Giordano Bruno (burned at the stake) and Galileo Galilei.

*Please note that the preceding is my personal opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of any entity by which I am employed, any church at which I am a member, any church which I attend, or the educational institution at which I am enrolled. Any copyrighted material displayed or referenced is done under the doctrine of fair use.

40 Harmful Effects of Christianity – #23

“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.” Exodus 20:4

This post is the twenty-third in a series that addresses a list of “40 harmful effects of Christianity” that originated on the American Atheists Facebook page and has since made its way around the internet. In this post, I examine the following “harmful effect” from the list:

Harmful Effect #23: The destruction of great works of art considered to be pornographic/blasphemous, and the persecution of the artists.

As is the case with the previous “harmful effect” addressed in this series, this particular harmful effect is not limited to Christianity.  History provides notable examples of the destruction of art by fascist (ex: Nazis), communist, and Muslim groups.  Certainly, communists wouldn’t destroy art because it was “blasphemous” given that communists are inherently atheistic.  However, communist China has outlawed what it deems to be pornography since 1945.  So, even by narrowing down the destruction of art to reasons of pornography and blasphemy, the atheist author(s) of this list can’t limit the destruction of art for particular reasons to Christianity.  Once again, he has merely pointed out a tendency of humanity that is not unique to Christianity and would in all likelihood exist without it.

Furthermore, his claim is feeble by its very nature.  Beauty, it is often said, is in the eye of the beholder.  What is a “great” work of art in the opinion of one may terribly lacking in the eye of another.   At best, the author can lament “the destruction of works of art that some people think if great by other people who don’t think it’s so great.”  In other words, “Somebody else did something I don’t like to something that I did.”  To this harmful effect, the Christian critic can curtly respond, “boo-hoo.”

Christians can, along with all others, recognize that aesthetic judgments about art are ultimately subjective.  However, ultimate moral judgment is grounded in the nature of God.  There are things, such as blasphemy, that God has expressly forbidden.  The destruction of blasphemous and pornographic works of art is a God-honoring action, despite the objections of those who don’t fear the Lord.  At the same time, the art produced by Christians can be aesthetically pleasing, even to those outside of the faith, while objectively respectful God’s moral demands.

In my next post in this series, I’ll address the following:

Harmful Effect #24: Slavery condoned by religious texts.

*Please note that the preceding is my personal opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of any entity by which I am employed, any church at which I am a member, any church which I attend, or the educational institution at which I am enrolled. Any copyrighted material displayed or referenced is done under the doctrine of fair use.

 

40 Harmful Effects of Christianity – #22

“So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord had spoken to Moses, and Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. Thus the land had rest from war.” Joshua 11:23

This post is the twenty-second in a series that addresses a list of “40 harmful effects of Christianity” that originated on the American Atheists Facebook page and has since made its way around the internet. In this post, I examine the following “harmful effect” from the list:

Harmful Effect #22: Holy wars – followers of different faiths (or even the same faith) killing each other in the name of their (benevolent, loving and merciful) gods.

Harmful Effect #22 is further evidence that the author(s) of this list didn’t give particular attention to Christianity but rather opined upon what they saw as the harmful of effects of religion in general.  If, for example, followers of Islam and polytheistic paganism warred against one another, this would not be a harmful effect of Christianity; nor would it be a harmful effect of Christianity if followers of Sunni and Shia Islam warred against one another.  Yet, both of these hypothetical situations (which have also been real situations in history) qualify as “harmful effects of Christianity” according to this list.

From a Christian point of view, God is (as this harmful effect points out) “benevolent, loving, and merciful.”  Therefore, any war sanctioned by God would be just given that it would flow from His perfect nature.  An example of such warfare would be the expulsion of the Canaanites by the Hebrews from the Promised Land after the iniquity of the Canaanites had become full.  Any warfare carried out in the name of God but not sanctioned by God, by Christian standards, is sinful.  The very problem with such religious warfare is that it is a rejection of the wishes of God.  To be specific, religious wars are not inherently harmful; unjust religious wars are.

Of course to declare the net effect of a war, religious or otherwise, as “harmful” is to engage in subjective judgment.  Those who win a given war might not deem its prosecution harmful, on the net, at all.  To declare a war objectively unjust requires an objective standard of morality, which atheism can’t provide.  I contrast, Christian theism can provide such a standard.  The Christian theist can, for example, deem the Crusades unjust.  These wars were religious in nature but prosecuted in an unjust way which defied the wishes of God.

Religious wars, it should be considered, are the minority of recorded history’s warfare. Philip and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars, chronicles some 1,763 wars that have been waged over the course of human history. Of those wars, the authors categorize 123 as being religious in nature, which is an astonishingly low 6.98% of all wars. However, when one subtracts out those waged in the name of Islam (66), the percentage is cut by more than half to 3.23%.  War exists in plentiful supply without religious motivation.  Even wars which are overtly motivated by religion, such as the Crusades, are arguably motivated by other factors such as nationalism, greed, or a lust for power (the same factors which underlie “non-religious” wars).  The counterfactual, “Religious wars would have been prosecuted for reasons other than religion if religion didn’t exist” can’t be proven, but it’s arguably plausible.  History shows that people have a tendency towards violence and religious motivations are hardly needed to beget war.

Harmful Effect #22 falls flat along with an atheist worldview.  The Christian worldview provides, at the very least, an explanation for why wars exist and which ones are just.  Furthermore, where there is death, war, and carnage, Christians can take comfort in the blessed hope of eternal life promised to them by the Lord Jesus and recorded in the Holy Bible.

In my next post in this series, I’ll address the following:

Harmful Effect #23: The destruction of great works of art considered to be pornographic/blasphemous, and the persecution of the artists. 

*Please note that the preceding is my personal opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of any entity by which I am employed, any church at which I am a member, any church which I attend, or the educational institution at which I am enrolled. Any copyrighted material displayed or referenced is done under the doctrine of fair use.

40 Harmful Effects of Christianity – #20

“For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies.  Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread.  But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10-13

This post is the twentieth in a series that addresses a list of “40 harmful effects of Christianity” that originated on the American Atheists Facebook page and has since made its way around the internet. In this post, I examine the following “harmful effect” from the list:

Harmful Effect #20: Long-term environmental issues ignored because of beliefs that the rapture/apocalypse or something will happen soon, so they don’t matter.

Harmful Effect #20 essentially restates Harmful Effect #19, substituting “long term-environmental issues” for “education”.  Thus, my previous criticism of that “harmful effect” is applicable to #20 without much further commentary.   However, since Harmful Effect #20 mentions the rapture and the apocalypse, I shall briefly address those subjects.

The first thing that should be noted about “the rapture,” a term which is not in The Bible, is that not every Christian believes in it or views it in the same way.  (The statement of faith of my own denomination doesn’t even mention it, though I and many of my fellow Southern Baptists believe that it is imminent.)  The Bible is clear that the end of the present world is coming but is it does not clearly state the exact time at which the end will come.  Article X of The Baptist Faith and Message addresses the coming end of the world in an appropriate and generally agreeable way:

God, in His own time and in His own way, will bring the world to its appropriate end. According to His promise, Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly in glory to the earth; the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness. The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell, the place of everlasting punishment. The righteous in their resurrected and glorified bodies will receive their reward and will dwell forever in Heaven with the Lord.

In the first century, certain people in the Thessalonian church were acting inappropriately due to eschatological confusion.  Some had ceased to even work in anticipation of the immediate end of the world.  The Apostle Paul disabused them of their errant practices and admonished the church to not grow weary of doing good.  Those who, in modern times, adopt the posture of those confused Thessalonians do so in opposition to the clear teachings of the biblical authors.

Being a responsible steward of the environment is certainly a good thing for Christians to do.  Like Harmful Effect #19 before it, Harmful Effect #20 is fallacious.   Like Harmful Effect #19 before it, Harmful Effect #20 it ignores the hopeless nihilism inherent in the atheistic worldview. Christians, at least, enjoy the comfort of having a blessed hope – the appearing of the glory of their great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for them to redeem them from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

In my next post in this series, I’ll address the following:

Harmful Effect #21: Wives told they will be tortured forever if they leave their abusive husbands (and vice versa).

*Please note that the preceding is my personal opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of any entity by which I am employed, any church at which I am a member, any church which I attend, or the educational institution at which I am enrolled. Any copyrighted material displayed or referenced is done under the doctrine of fair use.

40 Harmful Effects of Christianity – #19

“Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming.” Jesus

This post is the nineteenth in a series that addresses a list of “40 harmful effects of Christianity” that originated on the American Atheists Facebook page and has since made its way around the internet. In this post, I examine the following “harmful effect” from the list:

Harmful Effect #19: People who believe the world is about to end neglect their education, are not financially responsible, and in extreme cases take part in mass suicides.

No Christian has any biblical reason to neglect his finances or education because he expects an imminent end of the world.  According to Jesus, as recorded in the gospel of Matthew, no one knows the hour when Lord is coming back.  Jesus clearly stated that when He returned people would be carrying out the activities of everyday life such as working and eating.  There is absolutely nothing in bible that encourages Christians to essentially give up on life in expectation of the Lord’s coming.  In fact, the opposite is true.  In his second epistle the Thessalonian church, Paul admonished the people of that church to work instead of idly waiting for the Lord’s return.

The clear biblical instruction for Christians to live a productive life has unfortunately been ignored, along with other clear biblical doctrines, by pseudo-Christian cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  This particular cult has falsely predicted the time of Christ’s return and discouraged higher education among its members.  However, their predictions have proven false.  So, too, have those of radio evangelist Harold Camping.  Camping falsely predicted the coming of Christ to occur in 2011.  At least one of Camping’s followers spent his life savings advertising Camping’s false prophecy.  After his prediction failed, Camping admitted that he sinned and erred in making an end of world prediction that clearly contradicted scripture.  Neglecting one’s education and finances are not harmful effects of Christianity but rather harmful effects of ignoring its clear teachings.

Similarly, mass suicides ignore the Bible’s clear teaching to cherish life.  Groups which have engaged in mass suicide are at best, as is the case with Jehovah’s Witnesses, pseudo-Christian.  Notable examples of such groups are the David Koresh’s Branch Davidians, Marshall Applewhite’s Heaven’s Gate, and the Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple.  Each of these groups was involved in some form of sexual deviancy, mysticism, messianic claims, or communism.  All of these things are antithetical to a biblical worldview.  Jesus Himself correctly predicted that, “…many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many.”  Believers in false messiah’s who commit mass suicide do so outside of the body of Christ.

Not only does harmful effect #19 make a false claim about Christianity, it ignores the hopeless nihilism inherent in the atheistic worldview.  On naturalistic evolutionary models, human actions are determined and therefore morally meaningless.  There is no hope of life after death and no ultimate purpose in life.  Furthermore, the end of all human life can be anticipated in the Big Crunch, the eventual supernova of the Sun, or the universe’s inevitable heat death.  Such catastrophes, though millions of years from coming to pass, are essentially unavoidable.  In the short-term, calamities such as pandemic plague and global war threaten an immediate end to humanity and other forms of life.  On a multi-verse model of cosmology life is meaningless as well.  On such a model, every action a man takes, an alternate version of himself takes the opposite action.  This, too, robs a man of ultimate meaning.

On a Christian Worldview, actions are meaningful and hope abounds.  Mankind has been given dominion over the earth to work and learn.

When the Christian gets his reward, as song writer Jason Isbell puts it, he will sit “back in his chair beside the Father and the Son.”  Until that time, the Christian should heed the words of the Apostle Paul:

“Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve.”

In my next post in this series, I’ll address the following:

Harmful Effect #20: Long-term environmental issues ignored because of beliefs that the rapture/apocalypse or something will happen soon, so they don’t matter.

*Please note that the preceding is my personal opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of any entity by which I am employed, any church at which I am a member, any church which I attend, or the educational institution at which I am enrolled. Any copyrighted material displayed or referenced is done under the doctrine of fair use.

40 harmful effects of Christianity – #17

“What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?” 1 Corinthians 10:19-22

This post is the seventeenth in a series that addresses a list of “40 harmful effects of Christianity” that originated on the American Atheists Facebook page and has since made its way around the internet. In this post, I examine the following “harmful effect” from the list:

Harmful Effect #17: The demonization of other religions, e.g. Christianity demonizing Pagans (“They’re devil-worshipers!”)

This “harmful effect” of Christianity effectively laments demonizing demons.  It is peculiar, bemusing even, that the atheist authors of this list could not find a better term than “demonization” (since they don’t believe in demons) to describe the Christian tendency to condemn pagan religions.  According to Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians, the idolatry of pagan religions either is or is akin to the worship demons.  Since the atheist authors of this list neither believe in God nor the devil, the inclusion of this “harmful effect” on their list is perplexing.  Would the authors of this list consider it harmful if people who believed in Santa Claus demonized people who believed in the Tooth Fairy?  According to the logic set before the reader of this list, they just might.

Furthermore, the authors of this list do not at all address at the harmful effects of pagan worship itself, which include child sacrifice, emperor worship, and temple prostitution.  Even on a secular worldview such actions can be (and often are) condemned as harmful.  Harmful Effect #17 effectively states, “It is harmful for Christians to condemn child sacrifice, worship of the head of state, and religious harlotry.”   What an absurd claim.  This ridiculous claim is demonstrative of the insight provided by Paul in Romans Chapter 1, in which the Apostle asserts that deniers of God are dark-hearted men who speculate in futility.

God alone, and not any created being, is worthy of worship.  Worship of any entity other than God, as revealed in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ and proclaimed by the Holy Spirit, is a sinful affront to the Almighty.  To God alone belongs the glory.  Christians rightly decry the false worship of other religions as demonic.

In my next post in this series, I’ll address the following:

Harmful Effect #18: Children spending the period of their lives when the brain is most receptive to learning new information reading, rereading, and even memorizing religious texts.

*Please note that the preceding is my personal opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of any entity by which I am employed, any church at which I am a member, any church which I attend, or the educational institution at which I am enrolled. Any copyrighted material displayed or referenced is done under the doctrine of fair use.

40 harmful effects of Christianity – #15

“You shall not murder.” Exodus 20:13

This post is the fifteenth in a series that addresses a list of “40 harmful effects of Christianity” that originated on the American Atheists Facebook page and has since made its way around the internet. In this post, I examine the following “harmful effect” from the list:

Harmful Effect #15: Women having septic abortions—or being forced to have unwanted children they resent—because religious organizations have gotten laws passed making abortion illegal or inaccessible.

I’m certainly not going to argue that this “harmful effect”, like others on this list, is completely inaccurate.  To a degree, it is accurate.  Religious groups do support pro-life laws.  However, such religious groups are not necessarily Christian.  Muslims and Mormons, for example, are anti-abortion religions.  This list purports to be a listing of harmful effects of “Christianity” and yet the very wording of Harmful Effect #15 refers to “religious organizations”.

Not only is Harmful Effect #15 overly broad where Christianity is concerned, it’s implicitly condemnatory of democracy.  Notice Harmful Effect #15 does not state that theocratic governments have created anti-abortion laws but that “religious organizations have gotten laws passed”.  This could be and has been done in the setting of a representative democracy through the exercise of free speech and the democratic process.  One is left to wonder if the American Atheists aren’t, therefore, pointing out what they perceive to be a harmful effect of representative democracy and free speech.  Given the history officially atheistic nations (such as the USSR, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Communist North Korea, and Communist China), it’s clear that many atheists do not support systems of government where laws of any kind are made democratically and where speech is made freely.

This “harmful effect” seems to be predicated, at least in part, on the insidious argument made famous by Bill Clinton that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.”  It surely is that case that, where abortion is legal, women who want to murder their children are less incentivized to purposefully initiate septic abortions.  Such women can murder their babies in ways that preserve their own personal safety, while still completely disregarding the safety of the child they choose to murder.  As for the argument that some women “resent” their unwanted children, it may be true.  However, some women may resent their abortions and regret them for the rest of their lives.  Which type of resentment, on an atheistic worldview, is worse? It’s unknown.  Of course, the feelings of mothers speak nothing to the feelings of unwanted children themselves.  Their own desire to live is evidenced by their continued attempts at living.  There are many such children walking around, living their lives.  The phrase “unwanted children who wish they were aborted” is conspicuously absent from Harmful Effect #15.

If you are a woman reading this who is considering an abortion, please don’t do it.  Your unborn child is a human being made in the image of God.  It is a sin to murder him or her.  If you are a woman reading this who has had an abortion, you have committed the act of murder.  It is very possible that the weight of this sin against God and your own child is bearing down on your conscious.  Consider that if you repent of this sin and place your faith in Jesus Christ, you will be forgiven.   In accepting your abortion as permissible, you will only find wrath and judgment.  If you turn from your sin, you will find the eternal love and forgiveness in the Lord Jesus Christ.  Won’t you consider turning to Him now?

^“For the Scripture says, ‘Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for ‘Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” Romans 10:11-13

In my next post in this series, I’ll address the following:

Harmful Effect #16: Censorship (often destructive) of speech, art, books, music, films, poetry, songs and, if possible, thought.

*Please note that the preceding is my personal opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of any entity by which I am employed, any church at which I am a member, any church which I attend, or the educational institution at which I am enrolled. Any copyrighted material displayed or referenced is done under the doctrine of fair use.

40 harmful effects of Christianity – #14

“..do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:8-10

This post is theoiourteenth in a series that addresses a list of “40 harmful effects of Christianity” that originated on the American Atheists Facebook page and has since made its way around the internet. In this post, I examine the following “harmful effect” from the list:

Harmful Effect #14: “Abstinence-only” sex education, resulting in five times the amount sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancies – often leading to ill-fated “emergency” marriages.

The author(s) of this list didn’t do its readers the kindness of citing a source for this statistical claim. Thus, I cannot quickly determine whether or not it is veridical.  It’s just as well, since, from a biblical worldview, such statistics just aren’t relevant. What is relevant is what the bible teaches about sexual morality.  Its teaching is clear:

It’s not morally permissible to have sex with someone unless one is married to that person. 

I can remember a particular occasion when I was a teenager upon which an individual came to speak, about sex education, to the youth of the church which my family attended.  During the course of his talk, this individual claimed that condoms were not always effective.  He spoke about the size of sperm in relation to the integrity of the latex membrane of condoms in support of this claim.  I was perplexed and a little outraged.  I can remember thinking, “What does it matter if condoms work well or not?  The Bible says not to have sex outside of marriage.  Why isn’t this man just teaching everyone what the Bible says?”  This speaker was trading on statistics and a utilitarian ethic.  Such an ethic hasn’t much place inside the church of Jesus Christ.  This man was doing the youth of the church and their parents a disservice by putting stock in statistics instead of the sufficiency of God.

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17

It should be noted that this speaker was teaching the youth about the usage of condoms.  It was clear from his presentation (not that many in his audience didn’t already know) that condoms are useful in preventing sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy.  However, unlike abstinence, condoms are not 100% effective in preventing sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy.  Any responsible non-Christian sex education program teaches this as well.  Considering this, let’s analyze what “harmful effect #14” really says more closely:

“Abstinence-only” sex education programs which teach that condoms prevent sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy but not with 100% effectiveness result in five times the amount sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancies than do non- “Abstinence-only” sex education programs which teach that condoms prevent sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy but not with 100% effectiveness.

What an absurd claim.   Further scrutiny should only make the claim appear more ridiculous.

We’ve not explored the implied assertion that formal “abstinence-only” sex education programs are biblically-prescribed endeavors.  We’ve not explored the assertion any marriages which result from teenage pregnancies are either “ill-fated” or prescribed by the bible.  Having proven the claim absurd, it’s not necessary to chase these rabbits.

In closing, I would like to challenge non-Christians to consider what society would look like if everyone faithfully followed a Christian sexual ethic.  This would be a society without STD epidemics, unwanted pregnancies, or the emotional turmoil caused by adultery and divorce.  Such a society may not be achievable before the return of Christ, but it would nonetheless be prudent to strive for one.  We are not, as Richard Dawkins claims, “machines for propagating DNA” (by the way, if Dr. Dawkins is correct, trying to prevent pregnancy seems counterintuitive and futile) but rather moral beings made in the image of God for the purpose of glorifying Him.

“(Jesus) will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” Revelation 21:4

In my next post in this series, I’ll address the following:

Harmful Effect #15: Women having septic abortions—or being forced to have unwanted children they resent—because religious organizations have gotten laws passed making abortion illegal or inaccessible.

*Please note that the preceding is my personal opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of any entity by which I am employed, any church at which I am a member, any church which I attend, or the educational institution at which I am enrolled. Any copyrighted material displayed or referenced is done under the doctrine of fair use.

40 harmful effects of Christianity – #13

“I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.” 1 Corinthians 5:9-10

This post is the thirteenth in a series that addresses a list of “40 harmful effects of Christianity” that originated on the American Atheists Facebook page and has since made its way around the internet. In this post, I examine the following “harmful effect” from the list:

Harmful Effect #13: Friendships and romances severed or never started over religious differences.

I have friends who are not Christians. I would never think to exclude someone from my friendships only because he was not a Christian. Nowhere in scripture it such action prescribed. Where platonic friendships are concerned, this “harmful effect” is an objection to a commandment that the Bible doesn’t make.

Where romantic relationships are concerned, the bible very clearly forbids Christian believers to enter into marriages with nonbelievers. However, the authors of this list fail to make the case that this biblical proscription in harmful. They claim there is harm in the non-existence of relationships that never start. What’s the harm of something that never happened? The answer to this question doesn’t seem like anything anyone, except perhaps God, can know. Consider the following counter-factual:

If John had entered into a relationship with Suzy, they both would have had a happier life. However, John did not enter into a relationship with Suzy because he was a Christian and she was not.

It’s one thing to state a counter-factual such as this. It’s another thing to know that it’s true. Such a conclusion simply can’t be made given the limits of human knowledge. Atheists often demand proof of God’s existence. I’d like to see atheists try and prove such a counter-factual. When I analyze it, such a counter-factual seems unreasonable. People who disagree on something as fundamental as religious worldview are bound to clash over other important issues. It doesn’t seem wise that such persons should enter into a romantic entanglement. Romantic relationships that don’t work out often cause harm to the participants. Break-ups can be traumatic and depressing. Perhaps then, Christianity, prevents harmful romantic entanglements.

There is a counter-factual that can be proven true quite easily. Consider the following:

If there were no religions, religion would not be a hindrance to the formation of romantic relationships.

It’s made clear once again, this list item is not a polemic against Christianity, but against religion in general. Like other list items, it fails to demonstrate a harmful effect specific to Christianity. Like other items on this list, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. In fact, this item is so nebulous, it is difficult refute.

In my next post in this series, I’ll address the following:

Harmful Effect #14: “Abstinence-only” sex education, resulting in five times the amount sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancies – often leading to ill-fated “emergency” marriages.

*Please note that the preceding is my personal opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of any entity by which I am employed, any church at which I am a member, any church which I attend, or the educational institution at which I am enrolled. Any copyrighted material displayed or referenced is done under the doctrine of fair use.