Compelling Historical Evidence for the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ

Posted on by

Here is some compelling evidence of Christ's birth.

  1. Documented by a physician & world-class historian.

The virgin birth of Jesus Christ was documented by a physician and world-class historian who interviewed eyewitnesses, probably including Mary herself, for his account of this world-changing event. Luke gives the most detailed account of the Nativity and mentions Mary 12 times, more than any other biblical writer.

The accuracy of Luke as a historian was confirmed by the famous historian, A.N. Sherwin-White, who carefully examined his references in Luke/Acts to 32 countries, 54 cities, and nine islands, finding not a single mistake. Sir William Ramsay, who spent years in Asia Minor following and examining Luke’s account of Paul’s travels, wrote in The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, “You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment.”

  1. Affirmed by modern archaeology.

Luke’s status as a world-class historian, accurate in even the smallest details, was brought to light by modern archaeology. For example, Sir William Ramsay, considered one of the greatest archaeologists of all time, originally thought he would scientifically discredit Luke’s accounts by visiting and examining the places mentioned in his Gospel and Acts.

Ramsay was a student of the sceptical, German higher criticism of the 19th century and was taught that the New Testament was an unreliable religious treatise written in the mid-second century by individuals far removed from the events described. But after years of retracing Luke’s account of Paul’s travels and doing archaeological digs along the way, Ramsay completely reversed his view of the Bible and first-century history.

Ramsay became convinced that Acts was written in the first century by the traditional author, and he acquired a very high regard for Luke as a historian. He wrote, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense; in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.”

William F. Albright, archaeologist and late professor of Semitic languages at John Hopkins University, is considered by many to be the greatest of archaeologists. Like Ramsay, he began as an agnostic, sceptical of the Bible as a reliable book of history. But, like Ramsay, his views were also completely changed by doing the hard work of an archaeologist in the field.

Albright discovered that not only was Luke reliable, but that the entire Bible was a reliable source of history. According to The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Albright wrote, “Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and brought increased recognition to the Bible as a source of history.”

   3.  An agnostic professor of mythology is convinced. 

C S Lewis was the agnostic professor of Renaissance literature at Oxford University, a prolific author and a recognized expert of mythological texts. He too had bought into the idea that the Bible was not a book of reliable history and that the New Testament was filled with all sorts of mythical stories, created by individuals far removed from the events described.

But through the influence of his childhood and friends who challenged his atheism, Lewis began to read the Bible. He was astounded at what he encountered in the Gospels, for it was obviously a different genre from the ancient mythologies with which he was so familiar. His surprised response was, “This is not myth!” Lewis went on to become a dedicated follower of Christ and perhaps the most significant Christian apologist of the 20th century.

  1. Predicted centuries in advance by OT prophets.

Genesis 3:15 said, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel.”

These words were spoken by God to the serpent after the fall of our first parents. The “seed of the woman” in this passage is an allusion to a future descendant of Eve who will defeat the serpent and reverse the curse brought on by his deception.

The Bible normally speaks of the seed of men, but in this case it is the “seed of the woman.” This is a prophecy that clearly anticipates the future virgin birth of Christ—a birth in which the seed of a man is not involved. The beloved Methodist theologian, Adam Clarke, wrote in The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments with a Commentary and Critical Notes, “The seed of the woman is to come by the woman, and her alone without the concurrence of man.”

According to this prophecy, the “seed of the woman” will receive a temporary wound from Satan—”you will bruise His heel”—but the “seed of woman” shall inflict on Satan a final and mortal wound—”He will bruise your head.” This Messianic promise was fulfilled through the virgin birth of Jesus and through His death and resurrection.

Isaiah 7:14 said, “Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: The virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

The Hebrew word translated “virgin” in this passage is almah and refers to a young woman of marriageable age, but would usually include the idea of virginity, since that was expected of a young Jewish woman being married for the first time.

That “virgin” is an accurate English translation is confirmed by the Septuagint, which uses the Greek word parthinos to translate almah. Parthinos specifically means a young woman who has never had sex with a man. Parthinos is the word used by both Matthew and Luke in their description of Mary, affirming that she was a young woman who had never had sex with a man when Jesus was born.

Further evidence that this Son born of a virgin is a Messianic prophecy referring to Jesus is indicated by Isaiah’s statement that he shall be called Immanuel, which means “God with us.” This is a clear statement concerning the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ, and reminds us of the words of Gabriel to Mary that the Son she will bear “will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest” (Luke 1:32).

  1. Believed universally by the earliest Christians.

That the virgin birth was universally believed by the earliest Christians is verified by “The Apostle’s Creed,” an early confession of faith that dates from the second century and was used throughout the church. By including the virgin birth in their creedal statement, these early believers made clear that they considered it an essential doctrine of the Faith. The Creed reads in part:

“I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary” (emphasis added).

This belief in the virgin birth was confirmed by the Nicene Creed of A.D. 325 and has continued to be the belief of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Christians.

Note the words of the 18th century hymn, “Hark the Herald Angels Sing,” written by Charles Wesley, an Oxford graduate and Anglican minister, and with his brother John, the leader of the great Methodist revival. Because of the references to the virgin birth, this hymn became a popular carol sung at Christmas:

“Christ by highest heaven adored/Christ the everlasting Lord! /Late in time behold Him come/Offspring of a Virgin’s womb! /Veiled in flesh the Godhead see/Hail the incarnate Deity! /Pleased as man with man to dwell/Jesus, our Emanuel/Hark the herald angels sing/Glory to the newborn king!”

Extract from article by Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt. He is an author, historian and biblical scholar.

Is God using ISIS (Assyria) in these last days?

Posted on by

Jonathan Cahn makes the case in this video. Just as God used the kings of Babylon and Assyria to chasten His nation Israel. He is using Assyria again today. He is in control. He is bringing about the events prophesied in His book (HOLY BIBLE) which tells His story from the beginning to the fiery end of this cosmos. The good news is the new heaven and new earth which John foresees in Revelation  21 – A New Heaven and Earth are Created.

LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS I HAVE LOVED YOU

Posted on by

Consider how easy it is to tell the religious faith of many people in the world by their dress or actions. One religion’s members shave their heads, wear saffron-colored robes, play musical instruments, and chant and sing in public. The faithful of another religion stop and kneel for prayers, wherever they are, five times a day. Another religion’s orthodox members wear black coats and hats, white shirts, and have long, curly locks of hair or beards.

hindusburqa image

There is only one mark Jesus asked His followers to display to the world: the mark of love. He told His disciples,

“By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35)

It is not if we dress or speak a certain way or act religious in a certain way, but if we have love for others. Loving people the way Jesus loves people is the true mark of His followers. Love is the highest kingdom value (see Romans 14:17; 1 Corinthians 13:13).

Let our love and service for Christ be translated today into love and service for others.

ARE WE READY FOR JESUS COMING?

Posted on by

Many Christians, including me, like to think that God will keep us from the last days Tribulation period (7 years, particularly the last 3 ½ years), when He pours out His wrath upon the earth.

“Because you have kept my command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell upon the earth.” Revelation 3:10

This is one of the strongest declarations that the church will not go through the Tribulation period. Nevertheless there are differing views which are worth considering so I suggest you take a look at the video by Nelson Walters.

He puts the view that “unless an individual is 100% sure of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture, it is the moral imperative to prepare to face at least the first 3 ½ years of the Tribulation and therefore the Antichrist.”

He says, “It is not just your own personal life at stake but the lives and souls of everyone you teach and come into contact with.  What could be more important?”

Sadly there is very little teaching in churches on what the Bible teaches on “end times” and yet the Bible clearly tells us that there is a great falling away during the “end times”.

Bottom line; we can trust God to be with us regardless of our circumstances, so draw closer to Him by spending more time in His Word and prayer.

People only have true understanding (wisdom) when they look at everything from God’s perspective.  R.C.Sproul

Does John Lennon offer any answers in “IMAGINE”?

Posted on by

In the wake of the recent tragic terrorist attacks, a popular video on You Tube with nearly a million views shows an unnamed pianist before a crowd on the street in Paris playing a piano with a giant ‘peace sign’ painted on it. He’s playing John Lennon’s song, “Imagine”—a song with a strongly secular humanist, antireligious message. In the lyrics, Lennon writes:  Imagine there’s no heaven, It’s easy if you try, No hell below us, Above us only sky, Imagine all the people,  Paris-attack-John-LennonLiving for today …, Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too, Imagine all the people, Living life in peace.

Lennon was blind to the implications of this humanistic worldview he was promoting. If there is no heaven or hell, that means there is no ultimate reward or punishment for anything you do while living on this earth. This was what the apostle Paul meant when he wrote, “What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’” (1 Corinthians 15:32)

What does a world look like with no moral constraints from God? Far from the peaceful paradise that Lennon ‘imagines’, the history of the 20th century bore out the results, as the Marxist, atheistic communist regimes took over and committed murder and genocide on a mass scale never before seen in history. The simple fact is, the true morality of the Bible looks absolutely nothing like the actions taken by militant Islamists.

When terrible things like this happen, people always are moved to ask why a good God would allow such evil things to take place; but what people sometimes fail to realize is the very idea of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ that they are using to judge the situation comes only from God in the first place. Take this as an opportunity to share the Good News with those who are looking for answers!

Extracted from article by Paul Price http://www.creation.com

Prominent Islamist to Brits – “You work and we take the money.”

Posted on by

Anjem Choudary, prominent British Islamist, has urged his followers to quit their jobs and claim unemployment benefits so they could have time to plot holy war. “We Muslims take Jizya (Tax levied by Muslim state on non-Muslim subjects), which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar (non-Muslim). They give us the money. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar. We take the money.”

Choudary, who is married and has four children, enjoys a comfortable lifestyle that is being paid for, year after year, by British taxpayers. In 2010, the newspaper The Sun reported that he takes home more than £25,000 ($40,000) a year in welfare benefits

Even in a country with an established Islamic population such as Britain, Muslim unemployment languishes at 50% for men and 75% for women.

Do we think the situation is going to be any different in Australia? Our experience to date, shows us we have the exact same problem, but will our politicians take the difficult decisions to stem the Islamic tide.

Shariah Law for the UK

OTHER QUOTES by Anjem Choudary

“In the Quran it is not allowed for you to feel sorry for non-Muslims. I don’t feel sorry for him (British soldier killed by young Muslim terrorist).” — Anjem Choudary.
“Eventually the whole world will be governed by Shari’ah & Muslims will have authority over UK, China, Russia, USA etc. This is the promise of Allah.” — Anjem Choudary.
“Under the Koran the sale of alcohol is prohibited and if one were to also drink alcohol that would be 40 lashes.” — Anjem Choudary.
“We [Muslims] take the Jizya (tax levied by Muslim state on non muslims), which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar [non-Muslim]. They give us the money. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar. We take the money.” — Anjem Choudary.

For decades now, the mass immigration of Muslims into Europe has been labelled “enrichment.” Shouting “Islamophobia” does not negate how it is virtually impossible to think of a single country actually made richer by it.The idea that with time, Islam’s religious tenets will somehow moderate and dissolve, merely by being lodged in Europe (or Australia), is wishful thinking, especially in communities where Muslim migrants are already outnumbering indigenous Europeans.
Finally, is it not a grim irony that population growth in Europe — with its responsibility for female emancipation — is now to depend entirely on importing a culture in which women have far less freedom over their fertility, and much else?

It also seems ironic that, despite Europe’s need to increase the number of women having children, the vast majority of new arrivals, for “repopulation purposes,” are young, often openly aggressive males.

Given such a gender disparity, with whom will these Muslim men expect — and be expected — to procreate?

Europe’s females, as demonstrated by a number of recent unattractive incidents mostly ignored by the mainstream media, have good reason to be alarmed by the realities of the current crisis and the vision of their future that the continent’s political masters have chosen for them.

Extract from article by George Igler, a political analyst based in the City of London, is the Director of the Discourse Institute.

“Zionists have never done to us what we do to ourselves.”

Posted on by

Israeli soldier showing restraintThis picture of an armed Israeli soldier who did not strike back when he was viciously attacked by Palestinian women and children in Nebi Saleh, amazed many regional bloggers. “If such a thing had happened to us,” they wrote on Twitter accounts, “the soldier would have killed his attackers without hesitation.”

Civilian cameras often record events of startling cruelty carried out in Arab countries, in areas of conflict. We often hear Arabs privately saying, “The Zionists have never done to us what we do to ourselves.” This is usually said by Syrians, who have hated the Jews for generations, when they give their thanks for the medical treatment they receive in Israel. Despite the hatred fostered by Hamas, after the most recent military operation, many Gazans admitted that the IDF did in fact warn civilians before attacking terrorist targets protected by “human shields.”

The escalating Palestinian riot routine takes into consideration that risks are few, because of IDF restraint in dealing with “civilians,” as we saw in Nebi Saleh when the Israeli soldier who was attacked and bitten did not respond with gunfire to defend himself. Israel’s restraint only makes the slaughter, rape and expulsion of Muslims at the hands of Muslims seem all the more vicious.

Every Palestinian youth knows that the weekly riots at the “traditional friction points” serve as social events, later used by Palestinians operatives for propaganda. Often, in the finest Hollywood tradition, parties are held after the “conflict action scenes.”

Many of the bankrupt European countries hostile to Israel now find themselves faced with a massive influx of Middle Eastern and African refugees. They are the brothers and sisters of the hundreds of thousands of murdered Muslims and the millions of refugees in tents, with only Allah    ( s.w.a.t) to pity and protect them. Many die in leaky boats, in a desperate attempt to reach the safe shores of Europe. Those who do make it safely, join the Muslims in the Islamic enclaves where they have been plotting against their hosts for years.

The West has waited far too long to wake up to the realization that the Palestinian problem is not the cause of regional events. Therefore, The West’s obsession with forcing a “solution” on Israel and the Palestinians will change nothing for the better, it will only expand the catastrophe to the doorstep of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the only islands of security and stability for Arabs, Christians and Jews in the Middle East.

In the shadow of the calamity of the refugees, we are slowly understanding that the issue of the return of the Palestinians to “Palestine,” which we hang on to so frantically, is an anachronistic, politically manipulated mirage. There is nothing to be done but settle the descendants of the original Palestinian refugees as part of the overall settlement of all the Middle Eastern refugees — if, that is, our Arab brothers ever succeed in extricating themselves from the swamp of the “Arab Spring.”

What is strange is that the Gulf States, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which fund Islamic terrorism and pay the salaries of the radical clerics who incite murder and destruction, are silent when it comes to accepting refugees into their countries. Saudi Arabia has hundreds of thousands of empty, air-conditioned tents at its disposal, used only during the hajj pilgrimage. They could help shelter the millions of Sunni Muslim Syrian and Iraqi refugees. But Saudi Arabia does not open its gates to them, not even to a small number.

From an article by Bassam Tawil is a Palestinian scholar based in the Middle East.

WHAT GOD IS DOING WITH THE GATHERINGS

Posted on by

A report prepared by Pastor Ron Sawka of Arise 5

Unlike a conference with pre-determined speakers and pre-set teachings, in a Gathering believers answer a call from the Lord to come together to worship and wait on Him. These Gatherings (Gathering in His Presence) happen and  people come from all over because they feel led to attend. Perhaps the biggest component is the presence of God. It’s like Moses who said, “Lord, if You don’t go with us, then I don’t want to go” (Exod. 33:15, paraphrased). So, we gather because we feel led to. We worship and bless the Lord and then watch and obey as He leads.

For me, this walking together with others in the Gatherings began after the March 2011 Tsunami in Japan. One of the first things the Lord told me was to attend the Gathering/Homecoming in Hong Kong that July. Teddy and I attended, and I got the understanding that somehow He would use the Gathering to bring breakthrough in Japan.

This year, the Lord called us to have three large Gatherings. The first was at Kobe, Japan, in May. The theme the Lord gave us was that He was opening the gates (Ps. 24), and that these were gates of harvest—not just in Japan, but in every nation.

The second was in Hong Kong in July, and the theme was alignment. The scripture the Lord gave was Exodus 12:41. When God brought Israel out of Egypt, He brought them out as the “armies of the Lord.” They were aligned and organized. The Lord has been preparing the nations, and now they are aligned. Because of this, there is great authority for the advance of the kingdom of God.

“Do not remember the former things, nor consider the things of old. Behold, I will do a new thing, now it shall spring forth; shall you not know it? I will even make a road in the wilderness and rivers in the desert” (Isa. 43:18–19).

This time in Munich, the key verse was Isaiah 43:18–19, and the theme was how He is doing a new thing. He is releasing His water of blessing for the kingdom of God to spread throughout the earth. Not just rains from heaven—and thus rivers flowing—but also water springing up from the deep. It’s like tectonic plates under the earth are shifting and the underground and ancient water is coming up. Furthermore, the wells of salvation (Isa. 12:3) from earlier generations are also being reopened. It was no mistake that God had us meet in Germany, the land from which the first Reformation came. It was also prophesied that the wells of the Moravians (the group that began to take the gospel from Europe to almost every nation) are now being opened again. Those wells are being reopened, as are older wells—even those going all the way back to the early church are opening up.

There were many specific things that happened, some of which are as follows:

  • Israeli believers forgave Germany and blessed them. These two “father nations” are now arising to bless other countries.
  • As a prophetic act, Jewish believers blessed the Arab believers, knowing that Israel must first bless them (Ishmael came first [Gen. 16–17]) in order for themselves to be blessed.
  • This blessing will result in a great breaking off of the orphan spirit that hinders so many believers worldwide. On Tuesday afternoon, the Lord showed us that it was time for the spirit of fatherlessness to be removed and that He was doing it. (Note: Feeling of fatherlessness and the orphan spirit often come about because of antisemitism. Thus, part of the solution has been the healing for Israel to now be able to forgive and to bless others.)
  • There is a new fire of God being released in His people and giving birth to a youth movement in every nation.

The main point is that God has brought us to a new place and time, and that He is doing a new thing. He doesn’t want us to focus on old things, but know that He is releasing vast wells of salvation. He wants us to know and see it.

Several representatives of Watchmen for the Nations who organize the Gatherings, visited Australia in July, 2015  (Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne). A tentative time, place and name for a Gathering has been prayerfully submitted to Watchmen for the Nations. Please pray, God will show Watchmen for the Nations, His will in this matter.

Answering an atheist on meaning and purpose of life

Posted on by

I hope this article “Answering a reasonable atheist on deep philosophical questions” from Creation Ministries International (CMI) 30th September, 2012 provides helpful answers for Christians and unbelievers as well.

To demonstrate that not all of CMI’s opponents are hostile and unreasonable, we publish feedback by Tim W. of the USA to our article – Answering the ‘new atheists’ (interview with Doug Wilson). In this, Tim W. sought to defend the proposition that atheism can provide meaning and purpose. Tim W.’s email is printed in its entirety  (red), and then followed by point-by-point responses by Dr Jonathan Sarfati.

This is an interesting article. I think you are on the right track when you suggest that modern atheists are worried at the resurgence of conservative Christianity in the United States. Frankly, it concerns me that so many politicians have anti-abortion views with which I strongly disagree. Part of my moral beliefs value limited rights of women to choose the fate of their unfertilized eggs, embryos and their own bodies. Similarly, I understand that Christians have legitimate reason to be concerned that unbelievers will influence a policy or social climate that permits the destruction of actual or potential human organisms. The stakes are high so it should be no surprise that the voices of atheism rise to compete with the voices of religion.

I also agree with the author, and with Hume, that one cannot infer what ought to be, in a normative sense, from what is, was or will be the case. In this way, it is reasonable to say that naturalism or ‘scientism’ cannot suggest a specific theory or morality. However, that does not mean that morality is not compatible with materialism, naturalism or atheism. It only means that morality must come from philosophy (ethics) rather than from theology. There is no reason why an atheist cannot have a more sophisticated ‘sense’ or theory of morality than someone who bases their beliefs of right and wrong conduct (or thoughts) on the teachings of a formal religion. My own beliefs are more consistent with a general sense of basic ‘fairness,’ than obedience to the demands of a deity.

Lastly, I don’t understand the basis of a statement such as “The atheist cannot put forward, within his own framework, a justification for why reasoning is trustworthy, or even worthwhile,” or “the atheist can’t account for reason if there is no God.” These are philosophical questions that do not seem to be contingent on the existence of a God. Is reasoning trustworthy or meaningful? Those are matters of epistemology, not theology. Moreover, I think it is far from obvious that neither life, nor anything else for that matter, can have meaning unless one believes in God. God may give your life meaning, but that does not mean that nothing can provide meaning for an atheist’s life. I can imagine an atheist saying that her daughter, for example, gives her life meaning. Would you call her a liar?

Response

Dr Jonathan Sarfati replies: Thanks (on behalf of CMI and the article author).

TW: I think you are on the right track when you suggest that modern atheists are worried at the resurgence of conservative Christianity in the United States.

JS: What is really striking is how many modern atheists have become such delicate little flowers. They are hurt and offended by plastic baby Jesuses at Nativity scenes and are in danger of having a stroke if they hear a student-led prayer at a football game. (But of course, anyone objecting to obscenity or porn should just look the other way or change channels.) Even leading atheist Richard Dawkins is not such a wimp; he joins in Christmas celebrations. What a contrast the modern activists are with the far more robust atheists of yesteryear who vigorously debated the formidable G.K. Chesterton, and remained good friends even after finishing second.

TW: Frankly, it concerns me that so many politicians have anti-abortion views with which I strongly disagree.

JS: It would concern me if we didn’t have that many. Once we dehumanize one class of humanity, there is no limit. See for example article – Unborn babies may “be planning their future”: What now for the abortion lobby?

TW: Part of my moral beliefs value limited rights of women to choose the fate of their unfertilized eggs, embryos and their own bodies.

JS: Well, there’s the problem: the unborn is not part of a woman’s body. A reductio   ad absurdum I’ve explained is: this would entail that a mother carrying a son must have a penis.

TW: Similarly, I understand that Christians have legitimate reason to be concerned that unbelievers will influence a policy or social climate that permits the destruction of actual or potential human organisms.

JS: Yes, that’s exactly the issue. Without the protection of life, no other right, real or assumed, has any meaning. ‘Rights’ to private property, housing, employment, medical care, or anything else, mean nothing if one is not alive to exercise them.

TW: The stakes are high so it should be no surprise that the voices of atheism rise to compete with the voices of religion.

JS: The problem arises when voices of atheism try to silence the voices of Christianity. This includes university ‘speech codes’, ‘hate speech’, the persecution of Christians in atheistic communist regimes, and the GayStapo attacks on the Church and family. See Gay marriage, politicians, and the rights of Christians.

TW: I also agree with the author, and with Hume, that one cannot infer what ought to be, in a normative sense, from what is, was or will be the case.

JS: A key point.

TW: In this way, it is reasonable to say that naturalism or ‘scientism’ cannot suggest a specific theory or morality. However, that does not mean that morality is not compatible with materialism, naturalism or atheism. It only means that morality must come from philosophy (ethics) rather than from theology.

JS: It certainly can’t come from the axiom ‘God does not exist.’

TW: There is no reason why an atheist cannot have a more sophisticated ‘sense’ or theory of morality than someone who bases their beliefs of right and wrong conduct (or thoughts) on the teachings of a formal religion. My own beliefs are more consistent with a general sense of basic ‘fairness’, than obedience to the demands of a deity.

JS: But where does the notion of ‘fairness’ come from in an evolutionary world? Surely it’s just a delusion caused by certain neurochemical activity that happened to be useful for our ancestors to survive. Just like rape was useful to spread our genes, as two evolutionists seriously argued in a book (look how one squirmed to justify why rape should be considered ‘wrong’). Similarly, the article Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation documents how leading atheistic philosopher/logician Bertrand Russell could not explain why right vs. wrong was any different from choosing one’s favourite colours.

Think of consistent evolutionist and atheistic philosopher Peter Singer, who justifies infanticide, euthanasia, and bestiality. It’s also notable that some critics of my article Abortion ‘after birth’? Medical ‘ethicists’ promote infanticide claimed that Singer was an anomaly among atheists. Yet I showed that his pro-infanticide views were shared by the Journal of Medical Ethics and the vocal antitheist P.Z. Myers. See also Bioethicists and Obama agree: infanticide should be legal. He also wrote the major Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Ethics (1992), and earlier this year, the Australian Government gave him Australia’s highest honour, Companion of the Order of Australia.

TW: Lastly, I don’t understand the basis of a statement such as “The atheist cannot put forward, within his own framework, a justification for why reasoning is trustworthy, or even worthwhile,” or “the atheist can’t account for reason if there is no God.” These are philosophical questions that do not seem to be contingent on the existence of a God.

JS: I would say they are, as natural selection explains only survival value, not truth and logic. In Canada, one atheistic philosophy professor argued that these things would have selective value. I responded that this is not necessarily so under his belief system. After all, he must regard theistic religion as one thing that evolved for survival value, yet he would regard this as false and illogical. Thus survival, under his perspective, can be enhanced by the false as well as the true.

TW: Is reasoning trustworthy or meaningful? Those are matters of epistemology, not theology. Moreover, I think it is far from obvious that neither life, nor anything else for that matter, can have meaning unless one believes in God. God may give your life meaning, but that does not mean that nothing can provide meaning for an atheist’s life.

JS: One of my colleagues wrote in Answering life’s big questions: Only the Bible provides the answers:

Today we are effectively told, in the evolutionary story, that life is a fluke, a cosmic accident. In this case our existence lacks any purpose, so life is a farce. And where are we going, in this view? Fertilizer! In short, life is: Fluke … farce … fertilizer.

Evolutionist Richard Dawkins said that we live in a universe that has “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”. The evolutionists’ universe has no purpose because it is an accident; a cosmic accident. With evolution so widely taught in schools and universities, is it any wonder that so many lack any purpose or meaning to their lives?

As Susan Blackmore, psychologist and disciple of Richard Dawkins said, “If you really think about evolution and why we human beings are here, you have to come to the conclusion that we are here for absolutely no reason at all.”

TW: I can imagine an atheist saying that her daughter, for example, gives her life meaning.

JS: But hardly ultimate meaning, since both mother’s and daughter’s entire lives are just a blink of an eye in the uniformitarian cosmic scheme. Bertrand Russell said in his anti-Christian book Religion and Science:

Man, as a curious accident in a backwater, is intelligible: his mixture of virtues and vices is such as might be expected to result from fortuitous origin.

TW: Would you call her a liar?

JS: Not at all. A lie implies intentional deception, not just falsehood. As you could see from searching our site, we are very sparing with accusations of ‘lying’ (although some evolutionists justify deception and are just being consistent), as opposed to having a faulty interpretive framework. (However, we won’t deny that this prior adoption of this faulty framework is culpable according to Romans 1:20 and 2 Peter 3:3–7 and foolish (Psalm 14:1). But the point remains that a valid deduction from a faulty framework is not a lie.)