Often, atheists assume that God is responsible to us.  That God owes us something based solely on the fact that he created us.  Well, Alan Kurschner debunks that idea with this thoughtful post, God Owes Us Nothing.

Truly, as Kurschner observes, God doesn’t owe us anything at all.  In fact, to be fair, he “owes” us eternity in hell for all of our constant sinning against him.  Instead, he has elected to bestow mercy on some and allow us to spend eternity in heaven with him.

Grace is such a wondrous gift.  If you’re saved, how are you showing your Creator your thanks in being chosen out of the world for his glory and purpose?  Are you continuing in your sin, so that the only difference between you and someone in the world is that you go to church every Sunday?  That isn’t thanksgiving at all.  The apostle Paul urges us to be living sacrifices to God!

If you’re not saved, I urge you to find a good church and talk to the staff ASAP.  E-mail me if you can’t find a church or need help finding one.

Andrew Faris from Christians in Context has a very thoughtful post on homosexuality here.

Why do Christians treat homosexuality differently than they do other sins?  Someone who is gay is struggling with a sin the same as all of us struggle with our own sins.  We should be gracious and welcoming when a homosexual couple comes into our church, and point them toward the light of Christ, who can free them from their homosexual bondage.

I can hear the objections from the gay community already.  “Homosexuals are born that way.  God wouldn’t want us to deny a part of ourselves to please him.”  The problem is that Jesus does ask us to deny ourselves, take up our crosses, and follow him (Lk 9:23).  We are sinful creatures.  Denying any sin is like denying a part of ourselves, and this is what Jesus calls us as Christians to do.

Trust me: I struggle with my sins every bit as much as a gay person would struggle with his homosexuality after coming to Christ.  It is a daily struggle for me not to fall back into old patterns of sinfulness, as it will be for the gay person to come to Christ.  But there is no sin too big for Christ to handle, if we submit to his will.

Apparently there is a museum exhibit floating around that displays dead bodies.  The first I’ve heard of it was in this article from ZENIT.  This is the brainchild of Gunthor von Hagens and is called “Body Worlds.”  For some reason, Catholic prelates are opposing this.

“Catholic moral teaching regards the human person as a unity of soul and body, spirit and matter” and as such “more than just a vessel for the soul,” explained a joint statement by Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas and Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph. “The Church’s concern for human dignity extends to the body even after the soul is no longer present.”

ZENIT also notes Father Michael Seger, a professor of moral theology at the Athenaeum of Ohio/Mount St. Mary Seminary of the West:

The human person is a unity of body and spirit, he pointed out in the Cincinatti Enquirer newspaper Feb. 1. We love and suffer in our bodies and the exhibition of the preserved corpses “rip a person from the context of her or his life story,” he said. “They stand before us sadly anonymous: not mourned and not reverenced.”

“The plasticized bodies displayed for anatomical voyeurism belong to a person who deserves better,” Father Seger urged. “We are a society that prides itself on protecting and promoting human dignity, so we ask if this exhibit respects that noble goal.”

I find this ironic in contrast with the Catholic practice of digging up dead saints and displaying their bodies for public veneration.  This is a gross double standard and I find it inconceivable that any apologists still defend the Catholic faith and practice after something this blatant.

Vitaminbook, atheist and regular commenter on this blog, at asks the following question at his own blog:

9942 Apophis is a near-Earth asteroid with a small chance of hitting our planet on April 13, 2036. . . . Should the asteroid hit us, it would explode with many times more force than whatever caused the famous Tunguska Event, with potential casualties running into the millions. . . . As a Christian or other believer in some sort of God, what’s your reaction? Do you assume that God wants this to happen for some reason? Or do you believe that God would save us at the last minute rather than letting Apophis (ironically named after an ancient Egyptian god) destroy a sizeable portion of his creation?

How do you reconcile the possibility of sudden destruction from space with a Universe supposedly made for us by God?

I don’t reconcile it.  I don’t have to reconcile it, because the earth and all of the heavens are made for his glory alone (Ps 19:1; Is 66:1; Col 1:16), not mine.  Should this event happen, and this asteroid collides with the earth, I will take comfort in knowing that this is for God’s purpose, for he foreordained all things that come to pass (Is 14:24).

The universe was not made for us.  It was made for God, for his own glorification.

(HT: The Friendly Atheist)

It’s a German Bible… but it has a very different meaning in English…

Regular readers will note that I have been following the case of Madeline “Kara” Neumann, an 11-year old girl who died as a result of parental negligence.  Her parents refused to seek medical attention for their daughter, instead relying on prayer to heal her.  It appears to have happened again, this time in Oregon to a 16-year old boy.  No cause of death is ruled yet; an autopsy is planned and the parents are being investigated for negligence.

They are connected to a church that calls itself Followers of Christ, which isn’t linked to any mainstream denomination.

With all of my talk about parents rightly being charged for praying only and not seeking outside medical attention, readers must think that I have no respect for the power of prayer.  That just isn’t true–I have nothing but the utmost respect for the power of prayer, but I’m realistic enough to know that in most cases, prayer has zero statistical effect on the outcome of illness.  With this empirical data in front of me, I have no choice but to face the possibility that prayer is not meant for medical conditions.  Prayer, therefore, is for our own consolation in accepting God’s will for a given situation.  Prayer is meant to change us, not change God.

This isn’t a dreadful conclusion; rather, this is liberating.  It means that we can seek medical help and it isn’t a sin.  It means that God works his healing powers through secondary causes, the doctors and nurses involved in patient care.

What about all of the promises to answer prayer?  Well, simply put: none of it promises an affirmative answer.  None of it promises to deliver our wants.  God promises to hear us–and hear us only.  He promises to take care of our needs, not our wants.  We only receive what we want in accordance with his will.

Prayer should never go by itself.  Prayer should always be associated with action on our part.  For example, if I pray for a new job, a new job will not drop onto my lap unless I read want ads and apply for jobs.  Same goes for healing–unless you seek medical attention, odds are worse illness will beset the victim, and then, perhaps, death.

Out of respect for God, I have capitalized all pronouns that refer to him, to Jesus, and to the Holy Spirit.  However, after some careful consideration, I’ve decided that it will make life a lot easier, and essays much easier to proofread, if I cease this practice.

From now on, all divine pronouns will be lowercase.  This is consistent with most translations of the Bible, and many devotionals and other books that I’ve read.  This will affect all sites that I webmaster–this one, God is NOT Imaginary, God and Amputees, and Fast Food Management Secrets (though I doubt that this decision will affect the fast food site much!).

This post from Odder Stories defines “religious morality” this way:

• That morality is divinely inspired or divinely ‘given’ to us by God. Occasionally this is implied to be directly instilled in every human via the conscience, but more often it involves morality being codified in something like the Bible.
• That their particular brand of morality is absolute, objectively true and applies everywhere, in every circumstance.
• That morality exists independently of human thought or action.
• That morality is not bound in any way to utility. In other words, it’s enough that God or the Bible says that something is wrong; there doesn’t have to be any clear reason as to why.

This is almost accurate. Consider the first point. The Bible doesn’t codify morality for us that, as in the second point, “applies everywhere, in every circumstance.” Paul Copan, in “Is Yahweh a Moral Monster,” from the latest volume of Philosophia Christi (vol. 10, #1), argues that the morality codified for us in the Bible only applies to the ancient Israelites. The Mosaic law points to a higher standard of morality, but is not that standard.

Jesus was the end of the Law (Rom 10:4). That which was written the Law is for instruction (Rom 15:4; cf. 1 Cor 10:11 and Gal 3:23-24). By the prophet Jeremiah, God predicted a better day, which has now come:

But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jer 31:33)

So the Bible isn’t our source of morality–God has written it on our hearts. That is not to say that we are done with the Mosaic law altogether, for it still exists for instruction. This way, we have an objective, absolutely true sourcebook for when our feelings fail us.

It follows naturally that the morality exists independently of human thought and action.

Finally, the way that Vitaminbook phrases the fourth point makes us sound like cultists. In fact, it isn’t as bad as that, provided that one accepts two points. First, that God is Creator and therefore Lawgiver. Second, that as Creator, he would know better than us what is and is not harmful to us.

I’m sure that VB is primarily referring to something that is near and dear to his own heart, Leviticus 18:22. The reasoning behind that goes back to Genesis 2:18-24, an account which is confirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:1-12. Marriage is between one man and one woman, according to Genesis and Christ. Therefore, it is an abomination to the Lord for two men or two women to lie together.

That rule doesn’t seem arbitrary to me; it seems as though there is a clear reason why this rule is in place. The only problem is whether someone accepts the authority of God or not.

For those of you following the exchange between Antipelagian and Vitaminbook in the comments section of this post, Antipelagian has taken the battle to his own home front here.  AP pulls no punches when it comes to atheist morality, so be warned.  Vitaminbook has a response of sorts, pondering atheist morality here.  I’ll dissect that post later, when I have some more time.

Meanwhile, I encourage readers to follow up on that debate.  It is very interesting to say the least.

The charge against Madeline Neumann’s parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, survived a motion to dismiss on Tuesday.  A judge has ordered that they will stand trial, ruling that sufficient evidence exists for the charges to stick and for the couple to mount a defense.

Dale and Leilani Neumann have been charged with second-degree reckless homicide in the death of their 11-year old daughter Madeline (Kara).  Kara’s condition, a treatable form of diabetes, deteriorated over the course of a month until she was unable to speak or eat within the last 48 hours of her life.  Her parents stayed by and prayed instead of seeking medical attention.

Prayer has worked miracles, to be sure, but usually in conjunction with medical attention.  It is my sincere prayer that this tragedy is used by God to bring some good into the lives of everyone touched by it.