The atheist's problem

"Thank you Ray for keeping your blog updated. I'll continue to try not to believe as hard as I can though . . . the alternative is quite literally unthinkable to me." Kaitlyn

Kaitlyn has revealed the problem for the atheist. If she acknowledges that God exists, she acknowledges that she is ultimately responsible to him, and that's not a pleasant thought for a guilty sinner. Yet, her philosophy shows her shallow thinking. If I was born in a part of the earth that never saw sunlight, it still exists whether I believe in it or not. Yet, many (like Kaitlyn) have the philosophy that God doesn't exist simply because they don't believe in Him.

Who is the painter?

"Ray, when you see a painting, it is reasonable to assume that a painter painted it. Is it reasonable to assume that his name is Alan Jeffrey Pinkerton? How would you go about validating your claim? Would it be enough for you if someone just told you his name was Alan Jeffrey Pinkerton? What if somebody else told you that Alan Jeffrey Pinkerton never existed and it was really painted by Cecil P. Fitzwilliam? Imagine that it is your job to find out who really painted it. How would you begin your investigation? You see, creation = creator is all well and good... but how do I establish who that creator was?" CodewordConduit

In other words, it is obvious that there is a God, but what is His identity? Moses asked the same question on Mount Sinai.

The One who created the universe must be supernatural. With all our "genius," humanity can't create one grain of sand, a leaf, a flower or a bird, from nothing. The Creator must have powers that are infinitely greater than the greatest human being. The claim of the gospel is that this Creator will reveal Himself to all who repent and trust Jesus Christ.

This isn't a reference to a change of belief, or a change of religious philosophy. It's the supernatural experience of being born again. It was radical for me to be born the first time (natural birth). I didn't exist, then (in a matter of nine months) I was breathing the earth's air. The second birth (supernatural birth) I had on April 25th, 1972 was just as radical as the first. Only the Creator could do that. See John 8:31-32 for details).

Keep it Simple

"You march ahead unchanged, repeating the same falsehoods. I'm not talking about reasonable differences in interpretation, I'm talking about outright misinformation (such as the bizarre idea that male and female have to evolve separately for each species . . . " Euphimist

It’s difficult not to be repetitive with accusations such as the above. But here goes. There are an estimated 1.4 million species on the earth. Each species has both male and female (not counting worms and a few others). Let’s believe that each species did evolve. Let's then zero in on the giraffe. After the big bang, there was a pre-giraffe animal. Millions (perhaps billions) of years pass until today, and now we have a male and female giraffe. Evolutionists believe that the two didn’t evolve separately. Such a thought is "bizarre."

I know that you think I am intellectually slow, so please be patient with me and explain to me in very simple terms where you believe the female giraffe came from, and then explain how and why the other 1.4 million species ended up with both male and female.

I look forward to your comments.

Back from New Zealand

How can you demonstrate that you love someone? You could buy them an expensive ring. I’m sure that would help, because it's tangible evidence of a sacrifice. Still, it comes back to belief. If the person you love chooses not to believe that you love them, there’s nothing you can do about it.

I was in New Zealand recently at a university where local Christians had organized a debate between myself and an atheist. Just before it started a tall outspoken man named Ryan enthusiastically approached me and said something like, "I’m honored to meet you. I have watched your videos on the Internet, read your material, and here I am actually getting to meet you. I am really excited about this debate." As he was walking back to his seat I called out, "Which side are you on?" and he replied, "I’m against everything you stand for."

During the question-time Ryan asked some good questions. The next day he showed up at another meeting at which I was speaking, then he listened to me again, for another hour or so at a church service. Afterwards, we chatted, I signed a book for him, we had our photo taken, and he even helped on the book table. I really cared about Ryan and was pleased to hear him say at the end of the evening, "Man, why are you so likeable!!!" The fact that he could feel my love and concern for him was more powerful than any argument I could give him for the existence of God.

Some of you who are atheists read everything I write as if I write in hatred. Yet I love and care about you. If I could have lunch with you, I would, and I would gladly pay the tab. But if you refuse to believe that, I can’t do anything about it.

You accuse me of making money from the sale of my books, but did you know that I have preached open air more than 5,000 times and never been paid? I do that because I love people and care where they spend eternity. If I didn’t care, I wouldn’t bother with preaching, blogging, producing a TV program, or writing Christian books. I had a very successful business before I became a Christian and could have made a good living, but I chose to spend my life pleading with people like you to consider where you will spend eternity.

So think about my motive, and then please think of God’s motive for the cross: "But God shows and clearly proves His [own] love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One) died for us" (Romans 5:8, Amplified Bible). That's the ultimate sacrifice. It’s up to you to believe it.

One more...before I leave

Sir Isaac Newton said, "Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds beasts and men have their right side and left side alike shaped . . . and just two eyes and no more on either side of the face and just two ears on either side the head and a nose with two holes and no more between the eyes and one mouth under the nose . . . These and such like considerations always have and ever will prevail with mankind to believe that there is a Being who made all things and has all things in his power and who is therefore to be feared."

Bone of contention

Despite your continual mockery, we love you and will continue to warn you, right up until the day you die. Then it will be too late. But you can’t say that we didn’t try.

I won’t be posting for a week or so because I will be in New Zealand. While there I will be at a university debating on the subject of evolution (Wednesday 18 March, 12:30-1.30pm at Ngaio Marsh Theatre, Canterbury University).

Here is my outline:

1. An atheist is someone who believes nothing created everything. If he denies that and believes that “something” created everything, he’s not an atheist.

2. Man can't create a grain of sand from nothing. How intellectually dishonest is it then to say that there was no Intelligent Designer?

3. Where did females come from (in every species)?

4. Which came first? The blood, the heart or the blood vessels?

5. There are variations within species, but no species to species transitional forms in the fossil record.

6. God made Archaeopteryx with teeth and a tail. It’s a bird, not a dinosaur. He made many weird animals. There's a huge mouse with a pocket in its front that hops all over Australia, horses with stripes, weird desert animals with humps on their backs . . . and He made some birds with teeth.

7. Paleontologists have a huge incentive to twist the truth, just a little. If they can find a bone with a lump on it, theorize that it was a limb or a feather, give it an impressive name, say it is 73 million years old, and suddenly he has his picture on the cover of National Geographic magazine, has a book deal and lectures for life. The human propensity to gullibility is evidenced by evolution's many believers. Malcolm Muggeridge: "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution . . . will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future." Evolutionists have done to science, what hypocrites have done to religion. We have men who call themselves scientists, when they should have instead got a job with Disney as imagineers.

I will be back in a week or so, God-willing.

Darwin’s Cabbage Racism

Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species hasn’t always had that title. The book's full title is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. For some reason, in the 6th edition of 1872 the title was changed. Deborah Drapper said, "Yes its title really is a bit too long. So why don't we call it The Preservation of Favoured Races? Don't you think it is time to give the other half of the title its turn. It might catch on really well."

Of course, Darwin’s followers don’t think he was a racist. When he was talking about "favored races," he wasn’t talking about people, but cabbages:

"Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalizing, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock."

However, before faithful believers stand in line to look at the facial hair of Charles Darwin in England’s Natural History Museum, they may like to rethink about the character of the man to whom they are paying homage. Darwin also said,

"Lastly, more than one writer has asked, why have some animals had their mental powers more highly developed than others, as such development would be advantageous to all? Why have not apes acquired the intellectual powers of man? Various causes could be assigned; but as they are conjectural, and their relative probability cannot be weighed, it would be useless to give them. A definite answer to the latter question ought not to be expected, seeing that no one can solve the simpler problem why, of two races of savages, one has risen higher in the scale of civilization than the other; and this apparently implies increased brain-power.”[1]

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”[2]

Could someone explain talkorigins.org means by: "Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries"?


[1] Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, page 181
[2] Darwin, C. R. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray. Volume 1. 1st edition.

A question about the flu

"Sorry to hear that you're unwell. I just wonder, why are you sick? I mean, really. Your irreducibly complex immune system obviously isn't complex enough to handle the flu, and we all know there's no evolution to make the virus evolve. Did God create the flu? Is it then part of His "mysterious ways"? I'm actually interested in your answer here (for once, I might add), because you often talk about the big things but rarely about the everyday things. What glorious explanation do you have for the flu?" Nathaniel

When God made Adam and Eve He made them perfect. There was no disease, suffering, pain and death. When they rebelled against Him, He cursed them and the earth, and we now live in what is commonly called a "fallen creation."

Study the soil for a moment. It naturally produces weeds. No one plants them; no one waters them. They even stubbornly push through cracks of a dry sidewalk. Billions of useless weeds sprout like there’s no tomorrow, strangling our crops and ruining our lawns. Pull them out by the roots, and there will be more tomorrow. They are nothing but a curse.

Consider how much of the earth is uninhabitable. There are millions of square miles of barren deserts in Africa and other parts of the world. Most of Australia is nothing but miles and miles of useless desolate land. Not only that, but the earth is constantly shaken with massive earthquakes. Its shores are lashed with hurricanes; tornadoes rip through creation with incredible fury; devastating floods soak the land; and terrible droughts parch the soil. Sharks, tigers, lions, snakes, spiders, and disease-carrying mosquitoes attack humanity and suck its life’s blood. The earth’s inhabitants are afflicted with disease, pain, suffering, and death.

Think of how many people are plagued with cancer, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, emphysema, Parkinson’s, and a number of other debilitating illnesses. Consider all the children with leukemia, or people born with crippling diseases or without the mental capability to even feed themselves. All these things should convince thinking minds that something is radically wrong. Did God blow it when He created humanity? What sort of tyrant must our Creator be if this was His master plan? Sadly, many use the issue of suffering as an excuse to reject any thought of God, when its existence is the very reason we should accept Him. Suffering stands as terrible testimony to the truth of the explanation given by the Word of God.

But how can we know that the Bible is true? Simply by studying the prophecies of Matthew 24, Luke 21, and 2 Timothy 3. A few minutes of openhearted inspection will convince any honest skeptic that this is no ordinary book. It is the supernatural testament of our Creator about why there is suffering... and what we can do about it. The Bible tells us that God cursed the earth because of Adam’s transgression. Weeds are a curse. So is flu and all other diseases. Sin and suffering cannot be separated. Again, the Scriptures inform us that we live in a fallen creation. In the beginning, God created man perfect, and he lived in a perfect world without suffering. It was heaven on earth. When sin came into the world, death and misery came with it. Those who understand the message of Holy Scripture eagerly await a new heaven and a new earth "wherein dwells righteousness." In that coming Kingdom there will be no more pain, suffering, disease, or death. We are told that no eye has ever seen, nor has any ear heard, neither has any man’s mind ever imagined the wonderful things that God has in store for those who love Him (1 Corinthians 2:9). Think for a moment what it would be like if food grew with the fervor of weeds. Consider how wonderful it would be if the deserts became incredibly fertile, if creation stopped devouring humanity. Imagine if the weather worked for us instead of against us, if disease completely disappeared, if pain was a thing of the past, if death was no more.

The dilemma is that we are like a child whose insatiable appetite for chocolate has caused his face to break out with ugly sores. He looks in the mirror and sees a sight that makes him depressed. But instead of giving up his beloved chocolate, he consoles himself by stuffing more into his mouth. Yet, the source of his pleasure is actually the cause of his suffering. The whole face of the earth is nothing but ugly sores of suffering. Everywhere we look we see unspeakable pain. But instead of believing God’s explanation and asking Him to forgive us and change our appetite, we run deeper into sin’s sweet embrace. There we find solace in its temporal pleasures, thus intensifying our pain, both in this life and in the life to come.

From Richard Gunther

A correspondent referred us to the February 2009 National Geographic. On inspection I find that this issue presents no evidence for evolution, despite its well-illustrated article about Darwin. In the article we are told that Darwin found the fossils of giant sloths and giant armadillos. He knew of much smaller, living relatives, and postulated that the giants had evolved into the smaller relatives. From this base he leapt off into fanciful assumptions unsupported by any good science.

Modern genetics has shown that within the gene pool of every creature is a range of possible variations, which express themselves when the environment alters. Darwin knew nothing about genes. He imagined that variability within a species was almost infinite. Modern science has discovered the barrier, an absolute barrier, beyond which a species can never go. Darwin was wrong.

Darwin made the same mistake when he observed finches on the Galapagos Islands. Environment and natural selection allowed the finches to adapt and change slightly, but they remain finches, and can all interbreed. Different beak shapes is not evolution in the Darwinian sense.

Fossils of extinct creatures are not evidence of evolution. They are evidence of extinction. When a series of intermediate forms is found, showing how one distinct species has changed into another, then Darwin might be considered correct, but no transitional series have ever been found. The problem is, there is no known mechanism whereby information in the DNA can increase in complexity. All DNA loses information, gradually. It never increases, which is what it would need to do to cause a species to evolve upwards. God said, in Genesis, that everything He made would produce "after its kind" and that is precisely what life continues to do. Variation is not evolution. It is a selection process from already present genes. If there are no new genes to choose from, a species remains stable and is conserved indefinitely.

Try again...

"Ray said: ‘I dare say that you could count hospitals and homeless shelters set up by atheists on the fingers of an armless man.’ Ray, have you heard of the 'Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation'? Ever wonder who set it up? And have you heard of Warren Buffet, Ray? Do you ever think there will come a time when you do some rudimentary research before opening your mouth? Paul silentsanta."

Neither Bill Gates nor Warren Buffet are atheists:

“In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a God or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid.” Bill Gates, http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Bill_Gates

“Risk is a part of God's game, alike for men and nations.” Warren Buffet,
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/warren_buffett/4.html

Atheist pope

“As to your question of whether we'd rather see you in Hell due to your lying, the fact you can ask that means you are aware that us atheists are generally more compassionate than you Christians. We don't think you deserve Hell. You do think we deserve Hell.” Chris

Chris… I have no idea if atheists are more compassionate than Christians, but I dare say that you could count hospitals and homeless shelters set up by atheists on the fingers of an armless man.

However, I do have a question for you. Who made you the spokesperson for atheists? Are you the atheist pope? Perhaps when you say “We don’t think you deserve Hell,” in your mind you are presuming that there is a chorus of atheists “Amen”ing you.

Who we think does and doesn’t deserve Hell has no bearing on the issue at all. It is God who has power to kill and cast into Hell. He is the One the Bible says is your enemy. He is the One whose just wrath “abides” on you (see John 3:36). It was only when I understood God’s Law that I realized that I personally deserve Hell. Remember, God sees your thoughts. He sees them from perfect holiness and absolute purity, and He warns that every single transgression of His Law (including thoughts) will come out as evidence of your guilt. Think about your sins, then think about the fact that God is rich in mercy and is willing to forgive. If you refuse mercy, you will get justice, and that’s fearful.

A plea to leave

Here is a sincere plea from Whateverman "to all of the skeptics, atheists, reasonable Christians and rational thinkers of all stripe. Please: Stop posting at Atheist Central . . . this isn't an attempt to mobilize anyone.”

Challenging science

“I could possibly respect you if you would stick to being a priest of whatever religion you are, but when you start challenging science it's like watching a train wreck.” Froggie

I would never challenge science. I thank God for it and for all that we have because of its progress. I’m enamored by men like Newton, Einstein, Galileo and Edison. However, the theory of evolution isn’t a science. It has nothing to do with science. It’s merely an imagination that has come to epitomize the gullibility of human nature.

If I didn’t care about you I would let you play your game of let’s pretend that there’s no God. But I know that it’s just pretend and that there’s a real world, and there is a Law that you have to face on Judgment Day. That deeply concerns me. Remember, if you as much as look at a woman and lust for her, you have committed adultery with her in your heart.

Have you ever watched a freeway chase and heard the commentator say, “What’s wrong with this guy? Every time he violates the law, he makes it worse for himself. He can’t get away. Why doesn’t he just give up?” I ask the same question of you.

The lying ball-thrower

“Lying is wrong (in nearly all situations). But not because the Bible says so... For example, ‘I threw a ball into the sky, and it never came down.’ Well that's a lie because we know the truth of gravity; the ball had to come back down if you merely threw it. To speak such a lie is evil because it is irrational -- it makes no sense to claim the ball never came down.” Matthew Foster

Matthew…what say a bird flew off with the ball in its big mouth? How about a low flying plane sucked it into its engine, or lightning hit it and it disintegrated?

Don’t be so quick to call the ball-throwing man a liar and “evil,” when you simply haven’t thought the issue through very thoroughly. If you do that, you are the one who is irrational.

If an atheist believes that there is no God and that there are no moral absolutes, then there is nothing morally wrong with lying. Instead, it comes down to what works best for each of us. It’s an issue of convenience rather than one of morality.

What’s then with the continual accusations of lying, as if I was doing something morally wrong? They are meaningless if there is no God, as you say you believe.

So, here are your two choices. 1. If you are right and there’s no God, my misrepresenting your beliefs (my so-called “lying”) is simply how I survive as part of this evolving species. 2. If I am right and there is a God, and I am guilty of lying, it will result in me being damned in Hell.

Which one would you like to be true?

Biology Professor calls author “incompetent idiot”

University of Minnesota biology professor, PZ Meyers, in commenting on his blog about the conspiracy to take down Ray Comfort’s new book, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence But You Can’t Make Him Think on Amazon.com, said, “Rather than a conspiracy of atheists falsely downrating his book, there is a simpler explanation for his lousy sales: it's a piece of cr-p written by an incompetent idiot, and his complaint just confirms that he doesn't know what he's talking about.”[1]

There is a running contention between the author and atheists about the “evolution” of male and female. Comfort said, “I don’t have the evident faith the professor has to believe in the theory of evolution, and so I am glad that he took the time to explain his beliefs as to why females had evolved along with males in every species in creation.” Meyers said on his blog, “I know Ray is rather stupid, but who knew he could be that stupid. This has been explained to him multiple times: evolution does explain this stuff trivially. Populations evolve, not individuals, and male and female elephants evolved from populations of pre-elephants that contained males and females. Species do not arise from single new mutant males that then have to find a corresponding mutant female — they arise by the diffusion of variation through a whole population, male and female.”

Comfort responded, “Okay, I’ve got it. Your belief is that species do not arise from single new mutant males that then have to find a corresponding mutant female. So, let’s take it slowly for those of us stupid folk who like empirical evidence. We are looking at a contemporary male and a female elephant. They are part of a population of elephants. Let’s go back to their elephant ancestors 10,000 years ago. They are still male and female elephants (they had to be because that’s how elephants reproduce). Let’s now go back one million years to what you called ‘the populations of pre-elephants that contained males and females.’ Obviously, they are still male and female way back then because that’s how pre-elephants reproduced.”

Comfort continued, “Let’s go back even further (100 million years ago) to pre-pre-elephants that also contained males and females. At what point of time in evolutionary history did the female evolve alongside the male? And why did she evolve? Then explain, if you would professor, why horses, giraffes, cattle, zebras, leopards, primates, antelopes, pigs, dogs, sheep, fish, goats, mice, squirrels, whales, chickens, dinosaurs, beavers, cats, human beings and rats also evolved with a female, at some point of time in evolutionary history. Professor, I know you believe, but please, give us who are healthy skeptics some emperical evidence. Remember, stupid people like me want good hard evidence before we, like you, become believers in Darwin’s theory.”

The best-selling author added, “One of the latest beliefs that is being pushed on the National Geographic channel, is the wild speculation that the dinosaur may have evolved into the modern-day turkey. There are no bounds to beliefs. Evolutionists have done to science what hypocrites have done to religion. They leap through the so-called paleontological record like a Disney cartoon kangaroo, making statements that have more to do with an overripe imagination rather than with true science. They are unregulated speculators with ridiculous theories that are leaving the minds of today’s youth bankrupt, and they need to be held to some sort of intellectual accountability. I’m just one incompetent idiot that’s trying to do that.”

[1] http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/its_a_conspiracy_1.php

Atheist plot uncovered

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743

Thanks again for the free publicity.

Sorry. No post. Had the flu for three days...

The below was broadcast on national television in New Zealand this week. It’s encouraging to have secular TV say something positive about our ministry:

http://www.3news.co.nz/TVShows/60Minutes/tabid/88/Default.aspx#video

Click on "Ray of light" in the video archive

No Right and No Wrong...

“Who was the atheist who said ‘lying is wrong?’ I didn't get his/her name. Anyway, there is no right or wrong in the natural world. However, there are things that are a good idea while other things are bad ideas. That is not ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in the moral sense, but ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in the sense that if its a bad idea it might get you into some type of trouble, while a good idea might keep you out of trouble.”

You did the right thing to call that atheist out on the admission that lying is wrong. He let the cat out of the bag. But in your effect to put the feline back in, you put yourself onto a slippery slope.

So you think that there is no right or wrong? There are just good ideas and bad ideas. Do you remember little Jessica Lunsford? She was the nine-year-old girl who was kidnapped from her home in Homosassa, Florida in the early morning of February 24, 2005. She was raped and later buried alive (clutching her teddy bear) by 47-year-old John Couey who was living nearby. Nothing wrong there. Just a bad idea. I wonder why the judge gave him the death sentence?

Six million Jews gassed to death by Nazis. Bad idea, depending on your perspective. There were 200,000 people murdered in the United States in the 1990’s. A lot of bad ideas. Never mind. Nothing wrong done there.

This good idea/bad idea philosophy sure is going to save our country a lot of time and money in the future, because there will be no need for court systems, judges, lawyers, and prisons because there’s no right or wrong, just good ideas and bad ideas. And you can’t prosecute someone for having a bad idea.

Atheist Bible Study

I have been reading the Bible every day (without fail) now for 37 years, and it never ceases to amaze me how it is so contemporary. For instance, Romans 1:18--23 (written nearly 2,000 years ago), perfectly describes the modern atheist--what he believes and why he believes it. Let me show you what I mean.

Verse 18 begins: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness...” The Scriptures tell us that the issue with the atheist is moral. He maintains that it is intellectual, but the Bible makes it clear that he is offended by the thought of God's moral government (see Romans 8:7). He knows intuitively that every one of the Ten Commandments is true, but he suppresses that knowledge, and in doing so, calls for God’s just wrath to abide on him (see John 3:36): “ . . . because what may be known of God is manifest in them [via the conscience], for God has shown it to them.”

This is how God has shown it to them: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse . . . ”

The professing atheist is without excuse--because creation reveals that there is a Creator. He doesn't need anything else. He doesn't need to have the Bible proven to be the Word of God, or see a miracle, or have God appear in front of him. It is because of this inbuilt understanding that he will be without excuse on Judgment Day. Then the Scriptures give more reasons for the atheist's just damnation:

“ . . . because, although they knew God [through creation and the conscience], they did not glorify Him as God [they refuse to give God due praise for life itself, and for this incredible creation in which we live], nor were thankful [the sin of ingratitude], but became futile in their thoughts [The Amplified Bible brings out the original Greek language--“But instead they became futile and godless in their thinking with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations and their senseless minds were darkened.” Wow, what a perfect description of the stupid speculations of Darwinian evolution, blindly embracing an unsubstantiated, unscientific fairy tale for grownups, because they foolishly think that it deals with the moral dilemma of having to face God], "... and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools [another amazingly perfect description of the atheistic evolutionist. He embraces an imaginary theory that came from the over-fertile mind of a man who was bitter at God because of the loss of his beloved daughter. And so the atheist calls all who don’t believe as he does, an unscientific knuckle-dragger], and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.”

So if you are a professing atheist, please rethink your beliefs. God doesn’t go away just because you don’t believe in Him. You have to face Him on Judgment Day, and you desperately need a Savior. Thanks for joining me in this short study of God’s Word.

The Ninth Commandment

“Ray is flat-out lying to you.”
“I'm sick of your constant lying, Ray.”
“You're a dishonest, lying for Jesus, punk.”
“Lying for Jesus again?”
“That makes you a liar Ray.”
"You liar, Ray!”
“So I repeat. Ray is lying. Lying is wrong.”
“You are an ignorant, lying idiot.”

"YOU ARE A LIAR. IF YOUR GOD EXISTS HE WILL CONDEMN YOU TO HELL"

Could an atheist explain to me why it’s wrong to lie, and from where do you get this moral code by which you judge right from wrong?

If you believe that it's shaped by society, if society says that lying is okay (91% of Americans lie regularly), is it then right?

The point is, you have a God-given conscience that intuitively tells you that lying is morally wrong. See Romans 2:15 to see what that conscience affirms...