by Guy Takamatsu

Created on: October 08, 2009

The intellectual case for Christianity is very strong: so strong that St. Paul would say that the unbelievers are without excuse. God has given us external and internal proofs of his existence and will. The creation is an external proof of God's existence and the law written on our hearts gives us an indication of his will. However ever since the fall, we have an imperfect conscience written on our hearts. Our knowledge of God is marred by our sinful nature. God has clearly spelled himself out to us in his revealed word, the Bible. Granted, the Bible does not tell us everything there is to know, but everything we need to know.

Christian speaker and apologist, Josh McDowell, in one of his speeches, remarked that 90 percent of the people who object to his message do so from a moral basis. Becoming a Christian means giving up a certain lifestyle. Granted some of these unbelievers may have a mistaken notion as to what one has to give up. These unbelievers may mistakenly think being a Christian means giving up having fun. But what is having fun? Eating or drinking to excess is not fun. Getting drunk and having a hangover does not strike this writer as fun. Granted some Christian denominations did impose restrictions which they considered Biblical separation. But it is possible that they went too far and added extra boundaries to God's word, just as the some of the later Jewish practices were added to prevent transgressing God's word. The motives may have been good, but that probably created other problems. God not only said not to subtract from his word, he also said not to add to his word. Later practices and traditions may have had good intentions, but one has to be careful not equate tradition with scripture.

Martin Luther once remarked that reason was the devil's whore. Luther did not mean that reason in and of itself was bad. But that reason used in the service of denying God was the devil's whore. Science used in the service of denying God's existence is one such example. Some may try to argue that science has disproved God's existence, but that is their interpretation. Most comical is Dawkins' claim that what one sees in nature is not design, but apparent design. Dawkins is halfway conceding God's existence by having to resort to a vain argument of apparent design. Perhaps Dawkins' books are not the product of intelligence, but apparent intelligence. That being the case Dawkins should not be eligible for royalties, since those are supposedly a reward

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>