Review of Pete Turner's Whisper a Scream

Whisper a Scream is a Christian horror novel by Pete Turner, a friend of mine. The story concerns Solomon Noche, a man with a haunted past and an uncertain future. I'm not sure on just how much the author drew from his own experience, but Noche is a psychologist and a former Christian rock singer, the same as the author. But unlike Turner himself, Noche is suffering from deep personal loss: his wife and children died in a terrible accident, and Noche has never quite come to grips with this dreadful tragedy. In the prologue, we are treated to a flashback sequence in which, while in his father's church, the young Noche witnesses a man becoming possessed by a demon who identfies itself as "Miyah." The incident hints that Noche may harbor some type of sixth sense, as he is the only one who sees what's really happening. As a grief-torn adult, Noche finds himself blaming God for his family's loss (a coping strategy that is, unfortunately, quite common, even among Christians), and, in spite of his own psychiatric training, now finds himself drifting away from his relationship with Christ.
His real desscent into darkness begins, however, while routinely mowing his front lawn. He uncovers the entrance to an underground passage in his front lawn, which, naturally, he sets out to explore. What he uncovers is evidence of a sinister Druid-like cult which once throve in his isolated town of Retesville, including a sacrifical dagger, an pagan altar, and a strange journal belonging to a minister named Elija Darius. Excerpts from said journal are interspersed throughout the novel, giving tantelizing clues to the past. The cult is of Dagon, an ancient near-Eastern fertility god opposed by Yahweh, and who demands the blood of children. The journal reveals that Darius has witnessed these very atrocities. Has Noche really uncovered as sinister chapter in Retesville's history, or is his sanity, loosened the loss of his loved ones, finally beginning to slip?
There is an interplay between dreams, visions, and reality here that is never entirely clear. Are these visions merely products of a disturbed mind, are they truely demonic manifestations, or is Noche somehow experiencing the literal past? Noche also becomes haunted by visitations from a creature identifying itself as Miyah, which resembles a hideously deformed child. While the back-cover blurb is ambiguous as to whether Miyah is good or evil, the demonic nature of this creature is fairly obvious almost from the first time it shows itself. Both the Dagon cultists and Miyah refer to Christ, derisively, as "The Nazarene," and boast of the their power over him. Noche's bizarre experiences take on an increasingly real quality, until he finds himself facing what might be the ultimate nightmare for a Christian. Rest assurred, Noche DOES make the correct moral choice here, but on second thought, he is spared what might REALLY be the ultimate choice--if it were his family, not himself, that were threatened. If that had happened, I'm afraid I'd be rather confused, and I'm somewhat grateful Sol was spared that. I'm convinced Christ would not ask us to give up the lives of anyone else. On the other hand, He did ask us to deny our own lives, including our families, for His sake!
But now I've gone off on a tangent, as the story does not address that issue. What it does address is Sol's ability to renew his own faith in the Lord. At one point, he prays, saying in effect that there must have been a reason for the Lord's taking them. This of necessity assumes that God WAS rsponsible for the deaths, but for a higher purpose tha we humans, with our flawed wisdom, are unable to discern. This, in itself, is a matter or controversy tying in witht the "problem of evil"--does God control everything that happens, including all natural catatrophes which result in the loss of human life (even to the point of banishing free will, as the Calvinists beleive)? Does he simply not interfere (as a rule) in the natural world. This explanation actually works for me, becase if God were continuely suspending the rules of nature to save lives, the world could not function! I'd say that God basically leaves things alone--but back to the review.
The ending to the story is entirely unexpected, and it really came as a shock. I won't reveal anything here, except to say that it emphasizes that Noche's entire experience was indeed ultimately to bring him back into God's grace. The incident which occurs in the very last paragraph left me slightly confused, though. Part of the message that I got here was that Noche's allowing himself to blame God had damaged his relation with Christ, and had thus left him open to demonic attack. Now that the has renewed his relationship with Chirst, how do you account what occurs in the final passages?
All in all, this was a very thought-provoking read about the reality of spirtual warfare.

Buy the book on Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Whisper-Scream-Pete-Turner/dp/1453655220

What is The Fate of Pagans?

I was reading the other day a book by the author David Platt called Radical. I thought the book was so good I bought it--but I ended up being disturbed and shaken by it. Most of the book I am in much agreement with. He decries the poor state that much of modern Christianity is in nowadays. Especially how most preaching puts the self smack in the center of things. Most popular spirtual books constantly appeal to the self. What can Christ do for YOU. How can God get YOUR life in order. But Platt reminds readers that true Christianity is about denying the self and sacrificing one's worldly possessions for the sake of the Lord. He tell us that Christ's teachings about denying the world, disowning even one's family for Him were indeed very radical.

And it made me wonder too: would I be strong enough to deny anything, if the Lord were to require it?


I was actually cheering him on throughout most of the book. Until I got to the chapter on the unsaved. Platt basically argues with an equal egree of passion, that those who have never heard of Christ are necessarily damned. A common beleif, but also an obviously controversial one. Platt beleives those who have never heard the
gospel are subject to a different sort of accountability than those who have and willingly rejected Christ. But they are denied Heaven nonetheless. To support his postion he gives the example of an innocent tribal bushman who dies without knowledge of Christ. Would he go to heaven? Platt answers "Yes," then turns that answer upon itself. The key word here is "innocent." The innocent man, according to Platt, does not exist. In other words, we're talking about the whole idea that God demands absolute perfection, which, of course, is impossible to live up to, and the only answer is Christ.


To show that Heaven as a default destination for the pagan will not work, Platt puts his readers in the position of a missionary who tells a potential convert who previously has not heard of Christ, that before, he had an automatic ticket to heaven, but now that he's heard, he might go to hell! This last is a straw-man argument. I am not, and I doubt others are, suggesting that a person who has never heard that actual facts of Christ's life, death and resurection is going to heaven by default. Imagine: would King Montezuma of the ancient Aztecs go to heaven, after they sarificed hundreds upon hundreds of people to a pagan deity? What about Caligula, not to mention the other corrupt Romans who were into all manner of cruelty?




The inevitable reponse from a lot of Christians can almost be heard already. The moment you bring that up, the common response is, in general, that Christianity has nothing to do with behavior and everything to do with beleif. The whole "saved by grace, not works" thing. If you're an OSAS beleiver, then IF King Montezuma or Caligula had heard the right facts, and DID have a fleeting moment of genuine faith, then they both would be in heaven, and niether would even have had to repent! These two examples, the Aztecs and the Romans, show very clearly cultures dominated by sin-nature and in need of redemption by Christ. When it comes to those who have never heard, there is more of concern to missionaries -then promoting Christianity as a get-out-of-hell-free ticket. Which, by itself, will only appeal to self-interest.


But that's really the point, as far as Platt is concerned. What is really at stake when it comes to the position of Inclusionism (the belief that some may be saved apart from hearing the actual facts about Christ), is the fear factor. In other words, what really worries Platt and others like him is not so much that souls of the pagan will be otherwise lost, but the future of Christianity and Christian
culture in this life. If we were to tell a potential convert, for example, that he really should accept Christ, but he still can get to heaven if he doesn't, is he still apt to convert? Humans by nature, are conservative. And let's face it, the world is becoming increasingly secularized. The fear that one's culture is imperiled is understandable. However, Christ did not call his followers to be cultural warriors, and it is the fear of cultural anhililation that is, I beleive, behind the renewed insistence that those who have not heard are necessarily lost.


I have long taken the position of C. S. Lewis on this on. Lewis was an inclusionist, who took the position that virtuous pagan who ernerstly sought truth would make it to heaven, even if circumstances determined that he lacked the correct facts. In other words, it is the condition of one's that determines salvation, not access to the facts. The Word of God is written on each of our hearts as well as in the Bible.

The Freethinker's Child

Unfortunately, I haven't had time lately to post more topics--and there's a lot more I want to write on!

But The Freethinker's Child has been published. It is now available fromm Amazon.com:



Copy and paste this link:




http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1453737154/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0814410960&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=05M1WS0QVV7A721NNWYD




The Freethinker's Child
Authored by Sean Phillips
List Price: $9.99
5.25" x 8" (13.335 x 20.32 cm)
Black & White on White paper
192 pages
ISBN-13: 978-1453737156 (CreateSpace-Assigned)
ISBN-10: 1453737154
BISAC: Fiction / Christian / General

David Louther is a college grad with a promising career future ahead of him. But the isolated Montana small-town of Carlsville, where David's Bible-believing cousin, Richard already resides, proves challenging for a young man with doubts concerning his own faith. Carlsville is a rigidly pious, god-fearing town, even by Bible-belt standards. Except for the presence of one small atheist family, whose presence is an enigma. Then David meets Jebson Proust, the charismatic pastor of Carlsville Faith Community Church, a man of dazzling persona who virtually owns the town and its budding university. Holding an immediate interest in the young man and his prospects, Proust eagerly draws David into the community. But all is not as it seems in Carlsville; the town holds a darker secret, which even most of its inhabitants are unaware of. David is about to learn Proust's idea of what it means to be "Eternally Secure" in Christ.

In Defense of Theistic Evolution

It was not my orignal intention to defend theistic evolution on this blog, for fear it would alientate fellow beleivers. Then again, how many people, beleivers or otherwise, appear to be reading these posts? So I might as well go ahead.

I beleived in what might be called "theistic evolution" from a very early age. I never heard of the Genesis creation story in Sunday school. Somehow, it wasn't taught. I read all about the history of life on earth in Life's World We Live In book at home, and in the numerous books on dinosaurs and prehistoric mammals I brought home from the library. I knew all about the Mesozoic, Eocene Miocone and Plestocene well before school-age. I saw the intricate design in nature all around, and just assumed that somehow it was the work of God. I assumed the same thing about the how life developed on earth and simpler forms grew into more complex ones. God had to be somehow controling it. I'm not sure when I first encountered the Hebrew creation story, but it must have been sometime when I was in second or third grade, in the doctor's office with a copy of Uncle Arthur's Bible Stories. This contained beautiful paintings of the garden of Eden, with the newly created animals of all types. I loved those paintings. But the story implied these animls just appeared out of nowhere at God's will. There was no scientific explanation of how they were created. The general beleif of Creationists is, of course that they created by miracles. There was nothing scintific involved in the creation of the natural world at all.

My discovery of the creation story was initially frightening because it seemed to imply none of those hundreds of prehistoric beasts ever existed. All the animals depicted in those paintings were modern species. But I was taught that everything in the Bible was true. It seemed to imply that half my childhood had been a fraud. I asked my science-teacher father if the Genesis stories were true. He replied that, no they probeably weren't true, and I was greatly relieved. I assmued at the time that the origin of humans was a mystery, though I'd heard some thought we came form apes. But then my parents bought me Album of Prehistoric Man (I already owned the Album of Dinosaurs and the Album of Prehistoric Animals), and Zdenek Burian's book on prehistoric man man as a Christmas gift in the third grade. And I foud that humans really did evolve from apes, and the so-called "missing links" couldn't be missing. What was an australophithicus, then? I was fascinated that I could actually trace my ancestry back to non-human animals, clear back to the origin of life itself.

Creationists have always seemed to me to be pretty much kill-joys who, thankfully, are scientifically on wrong side of the debate. It would mean tossing the whole sceince of the how life developed through the intricately malleable structure of DNA out the window. Not that creationists ever deny the mere existence of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals. Perhaps some did in the past, but I've never read or heard anything by a creationist which denied the existence of extinct lifeforms; in fact modern creationists have created an entire idelogically motivated fantasy-world in which dinosaurs, mammals, and ancient near-eastern civilazations flourished on the continent of Pangea a were 6,0000 years ago! Sounds like something out of the lost-world pulps of the 1930s. Yet the creationists are promoting this fantasy as scientifically and historically accurate. The 1990s televised version of Conan Doyle's The Lost World featured a caraciture of a Bible-thumping creationist (a character not present in Doyle's story)who insists that "the devil mae that place!" Actually, any modern creationist would be absulutely delighted if a lost world of dinosaurs were discovered in the modern age! Some creationists with a passion for dinosaurs, are, in fact enthusiastic cryptozoolologists. Even the presence of Doyle's ape-men would be brushed aside, with the insistence that they were "just apes", despite their ability to walk apright!

Speaking of this, one of the greatest continuing falsehoods promoted by Creationists is the idea that there are no transitional forms. The fossil record is simply overflowing with them. As recently as twenty years ago, the evidence for whale ancestry was virtually unknown. Now the record of whale evoltuon is virtually complete, with all of the fossils of limbed whales discovered in the near east and North Africa. From Pakicetus to ambulocetus to durodon to basilosaurus and beyond. The record of human evolution, also, is virtually complete. Even the links between the links have now been filled. Australopithicus to Homo habilis to Homo Erectus to Homo heidelbergensis to Homo Egraster to Homo Neanderthalus and Hommo Sapiens--where are the supposed remaining gaps? But no amount of fossil record will be enough to convince creationists, most of whom even admit that they must hold to their beleifs no matter what. The reason for this is easy to discern. They beelive that once a non-literal interpretation of any Biblical passage is allowed, others will follow which may result in the outright rejection of Scripture and of Christ's sacrifice. This fear of "slippery slope" is why Young Earth Creationists such as Ken Hamm insist on the narrowest, most literal interpretation of Genesis possible.
Nor is this fear entirely unjustified. Darwin himself had his faith destroyed by the theory that made him famous. The recent film Creation, which details the life of Darwin following the return from his voyage on the Beagle protrays this effect on him as harrowing and tragic, escpecially in relation to the terrible early death of his young daughter. In spite of some unethical behavior on the part of a pastor it does not show atheism to be in any way "liberating" or "morally progressive," the way it championed by the current crowd of secular intellectuals. His newfound atheism does not lead Darwin to "freedom of thought" according to the movie, but to despair.
To demonstrate why the evolution=athiesm attitude is flawed, let me give an example from Expelled, the recent pro-Creationist movie by Ben Stein. At one point, he shows a CGI-animated sequence of the interior workings of a single cell. It is designed as incricately as a factory or computer program, the obvious point being that how could all this possibly have arisen by blind chance? The error which Stein and other creationists make is the assumption that evolution is itself
inherently atheistic and implies blind chance. But the very same evidence for design in that cell and innumerable structures throughout nature is also very much present in the evolutionary process itself. There are different types of theistic evolution, of course. One sort assumes that God created the first life in the ocean, then stayed out of it and allowed life to evolve independently. This is classic God-of-the-gaps, because it is simply replacing God with an unknown and assuming the first act of creation was a miracle. In other words, if it isn't spontaneous generation vis miraculous means, then God didn't do it. This is not, of course, what I am talking about here. I'm arguing that evolution itself is the process by which God creates. And as such, it is full of evidence for design. Some atheists have recently denied the notion that some lifeforms are "higher" then others, but this is not entirely accurate. Life evolves from simpler to to more complex (and in general more intelligent lifeforms in animals), while at the same time, branching out in order to fill all the availble ecological niches. As the environment alters, the niches change, and life forms adapt to refill them,or else they die out to be replaced by new lifeforms. Throughout the millions of years of earth history, the environment has altered and lifeforms have grown more complex as a result. The evolution of humans is indeed a story of advancment, though it also true that early human prototypes branched out into the then available niches. All of this is points to the conclusion that were created by scientific means, and that earth is a huge biological laboratory.
Most defenses of evolutionary theory, theistic or atheistic, are essentially defenses of science. However, there is one additonal defense which is from a moral standpoint rather than a sceintific one. It has to do with one of the cannards which atheists are fond of flinging at believers; Old Testement Atrocities. This is not a subject I care to discuss on Sabbath Keeper's Forum, becuase most people there passionatley beleive all of the Bible must be taken literally. I wager to guess that most are not emtirely comfortable with the massarces, unjust killings, and other atrocities either committed by or ordered by the Hebrew God. But they feel they must rationalize them some way because the Word is the Word. Some have taken the Genesis creation story as a allegory. But I beleive that the evidence shows that the OT writers just copied the story from a version in ancient Egypt. Admitting that some parts of the Bible might not be correct historically is just the point here; once you admit this, you no longer have to accept that OT atrocities are historical either. In fact, archeological evidence now suggests that no great wall encircled the city of Jericho at the time the invasion is supposed to have taken place. The conclusion? God didn't really order the deaths of those people. To belive He did means beleiving God is capable and willing to commit evil acts. The writers of the Old Testement likley wanted to emphasize the terrible and wrathful nature of their God. But they did so from a human-centered tribalistic perspective. This is precisely the way it looks when one examines the Old Testment. God was for the Hebrew people alone, and they commited genocides to appease His wrath. They writers may have accurately predicted the coming of Christ, but they got it wrong about the true nature of God (at least in some of their wrtings) and what sort of man the Messiah would be. He was not a war-leader, but a Prince of Peace, who taught that God was for the whole world NOT just the Hebrew people. Yes, Christ did indeed fulfill Old Testement prophecy, but he did so in a way totally unanticipated by those who had predicted him.

Atheism is not Ethical

Recently, I've recovered my email and got back on the site. It was my old school email, and it took a while, which is why I haven't been able to blog very much lately.

My story The Freethinker's Child should be published soon by Facebook, and I will post details here. I have a Christmas story, and some other ideas that I want to get published sometime in the near future by someone.

For now, though, I want to talk about atheism. I recently had exchange with an ideological atheist, who, rather typically, was rather rude in his response. This was in response to a post I made on his blog about how I don't beleive that the Lord sends people to heaven or hell based on beleiving in certain facts. His response was that I can beleive whatever irrational B. S. I choose, and he has every right to critize my beleifs. This (according to him) is because irrational beleifs lead to irratinal actions.

What irrational actions have I taken in reponse to beleiving that Christ is Lord? Specifically, behaving more generously toward others, and giving more to charity. This is what Christianity should be about. Atheism, by the way, has contributed nothing aleviating human suffering, despite the claims of tis propoants. Notice, I didn't say "science" "rationality", "skeptical inquiry" or any of the things atheists claim to value highly. I said "atheism,"; in other words, the mere lack of beleif in a higher power.

What said atheist is practicing is called "conversational intolerence." I wrote another post about just this, where I made the point that conversational intolerance will only manage to antagonize and alienate the relgious and will contribute nothing toward making the world a better place. The thing is, since atheists are at liberty disregard the teachings of Jesus, including the "golden rule," as "bronze age mythology", they are under no obligation to "Do Unto Others." They will say, of course, that being conversationally intolerant of religious beleif is actually a virtue, and that they are fighting for rationality, and essentially making the world a better place. As I have also shown before, there are atheists out there who are actually contemptuous toward the poor, and have a sort of "Social Darwinian" attitude toward struggling families

It is not lack of rationality that is the problem here, but plain old tribalism. Chimps, who have nothing that could be remotely classifed as a religion exhihbit a feirce and extreme form of tribalism, in which tribes of chimps slaughter other tribes, including infants. And I can't help beleiving that "conversational intolerence" itself is an expression of tribalism. True, atheists are not making war on theists today beyond flame wars on internet forums (though in past times, during the French Revolution and in Soviet Russia, self-styled rationalists were far less civil), but neither are modern Christians. We have indeed made much social progress over the centuries, and the social climate has a civilizing effect those of all ideologies. And atheists today are exhibiting very strong tribalistic tendencies, especially when it comes to of "conversational intolerence." Or to take another, related, example, when they disown even "moderate" Christians. Supposedly this is because "moderation" in religion provides cover for those who are more extreme, but where is the actual evidence for this? There are a good many "moderate" Christians who agree with atheists on issues such opposing creationism in the public school. But it seems most atheists refuse to join forces with these believers, even in pursuit of a common goal. This sounds very like tribalism to me, whatever the stated rationale.

Atheism, taken simply, is merely the beleif that no gods exist. It has no tenets, dogmas, or religious rituals. However, many athiests behave as though it does, regardless of the fact that they often state that an athiest may belive whatever he wants beyond the existence of a deity. I've been on forums where atheists will harshly criticize, even crucify those whose beleifs refuse to conform to majority, on topics like beleif in an afterlife, euthanasia or abortion--and this even includes fellow atheists.

Atheism may not technically be a religion. But the brand promoted by today's leading intellectual freethinker's is most certainly a worldview, an ideology, a beleif system, complete with its own norms and standards of right and wrong. Atheism isn't tribalistic? Don't kid yourself.

The Meaning of "Belief"

We are often told, in matters of Christianity, that one must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. Generally speaking, it seems most people, Christian or otherwise, take this to mean that only Christians may enjoy Heaven. That is, only those who beleive that the literal facts of Christ's unique character (he was God), and his death and resurrection, may escape hellfire. This is also problematic for many, for membership within a particular faith does appear to be, in and of itself, a moral issue. Even if one willingly apothesizes from the Christian faith, even though he makes a conscious choice, and willingly rejects the Bible, it does not seem partularly wicked or harmful, other than for perhaps making God angry. If he truely rejects faith based on what he honestly thinks is reason, where is the harm , outside of angering a supposedly benevolent God? The unfortunate picture I had for years was of a God who seemed petty and jealous, punishing us for any lack of attention. This, I've come to realize, is a terrible and devisive untruth.

C.S. Lewis was an inclusionist who beleived it possible that there are some humans who are or will be saved without knowing it. How so? Because although they not beleive in or even be aware of the facts regarding Jesus, they are ernestly and diligently seeking the Truth. This explains well the situation of those who simply have not heard of Christ, or were brought in a non-Christian culture and taught the what were simply the wrong ideas. What are we to make of the atheist who resides in a throughly Christian culture, but is convinced that the events described could not have happened based on reason, yet whom honestly desires Truth, and who commits acts of genuine virtue simply for their being virtuous?

We are told, of course, that works will not buy one's way into heaven. And indeed this is true. But the case I have described is of a person who is NOT attempting to do any such thing, as they do not even beleive in Heaven's existence! One may also do good works in order to impress others with one's supposed virtue; in fact this is quite common. I suspect even that one "atheist charity" I noticed somewhere might have been for this very purpose--atheists need to brighten their reptution before the religous world will begin to take them serioiusly. I am not to judge, but it's true that beleivers have a far better record of giving to charity than atheists. This is something the polls can attest to, and most atheists will even reluctantly admit. They often state that there is not one act of kindness that you NEED religion for, but that is not really the point. The point is, are athiests or people of faith the more generous? So far the answer has favored the faithful. Here is some evidence:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_uncharitableness

Concervapedia is admittedly very slanted; but this is one area of study to which athiests are not able to offer any solid refutation.

However, the situation I described was of an athiest who worked virtue for virtue's sake. And does the Bible have to say about those who do good works?

For when the Gentiles (non-Jews) which have not the law, do by nature
the things contained within the law, these, having not the law, are a
law unto themselves: which shew (show) the work of the law written in
their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their
thoguhts the mean while excusing or excusing one another..Rom 2, 14-15

One's good works are an index to what resides within one's heart. That is the inportance of good works, ans why they cannot be separated form one's faith. Can such as person, then be said to truely "beleive", in sense of having a saving faith in the Truth? They surely must.

Here is a post (got permission to use it) form Sabbath Keeper's Forum, on the topic of the meaning of "beleif":



We read this word "believes" and a definition comes to mind and we
read on. But in other translations we are left to our own educational
expereince about just what this word means in general terms. Then we
use that to attempt to understand what the writer is speaking of here.
Here it is "believes in Him". But what does "believes" mean in this
articulation? Well, the Amplified Bible details it for us in
parenthesis. It says the "believes" means "adheres too, trusts in, and
relies upon Him, giving himself up to Him". To me, this really puts
the meat on this word or phrase "believes in Him".


Those who believe in Him adhere to Him; they "stick to Him". If I take
super glue and stick your hand to your cell phone, it’s going to be
there for some time. Everywhere you go and in everything you do, that
cell phone will be stuck to your hand. All uses of your hand will be
affected by that cell phone being stuck to it. As in this example, the
evidence that we are stuck to Jesus is that we are with Him and He is
with us everywhere we go. He affects all we say and do.


Trust is an incredible gift. It's kind of like an unhatched egg. Trust
has so much potential for the future, yet it must be cared for and
handled with care. We all know that if the egg is broken, all the
king's horses and all the king’s men cannot put it back together
again. Trust, when broken, is extremely difficult to re-establish in a
relationship. It is near impossible.


See, trust involves an investment of the heart. It places extreme
value on fidelity. It provides one with security and it protects at
all cost, the value of the trust. Our believing in the Lord Jesus
Christ should have all kinds of things in place, in confident rest,
rest in Him and His unfailing love for us. Our love for Him should be
unfailing as well. He invested His heart, and so much more, into us.
Therefore, He has the right to expect us to invest our heart and so
much more in Him.


The last of these adjectives expresses one "giving himself to Him".
Please note that it is the believer, that gives himself to Christ.
Believing is giving, much like in a marriage. You give your very life
up, for, and too the other person. To me, that is why Paul said "I am
crucified with Christ". Christ gave all His life for me, and expects
me to give my life to Him in the same complete way, nothing held back.
No other loves! No other gods! When a person dies on the cross, that
entire person dies. We die to the old sin nature completely and
finally, and in the consummation of our giving ourselves to Christ, He
becomes alive in us. It is from that point on, not us living inside of
us, but Christ Himself supernaturally fused with our spirit. Selah.


We can "rely" on Him. In another place Paul tells us that He is ever
faithful to our relationship, even if we are not, because as God He
simply cannot be otherwise. Praise the Lord God Almighty.


Oh the depths of His riches and glory. I could go on and on about this
verse, but I think you are getting the picture by now. As a Body, for
each part to read this word "believes", we could all have a slightly
different understanding. But we really need to understand this word
and it's importance together, and be in one accord. Not only does the
Amplified Bible help in this way, but the Holy Spirit uses it to
unfold revelation after revelation, if only we will slow down, spend
time with Him and even meditate on what is being said in His Word.


It is my prayer, that you have come to a better place of understanding
our belief and it's value to us, and to God. It's more than just "I
know about". It is personal, intimate, bonded unity with the Creator
of all things. Oh how many adjectives we could use, and not even come
close to what "HE IS". Belief is so much more than just a whimsical
word, it is a new life entered into by leaving an old life behind. To
God be the glory, now and forever amen. – Lahry Sibley

Atheists and Christmas

Attention those out there reading blog:

I've corrected the embarrassing typo errors in the blog on Phillip Pullman and C. S. Lewis. And the Freethinker Child story is finally completed.

Recently, atheists have received a reputation of being anti-Christmas. From what I've read, some non-beleivers are just fine with the Christmas holidays; they celebrate and exchange gifts, though they pften place more emphasis on the pagan elements like Santa Claus and Christmas trees. But generally they aren't bothered by the religious trappings either, just because they don't happen to believe. Others, however, feel more harshly, and scorn the Christian elements. They take part in the festivities, but perfer to call it Yuletide or Winter Soltice, and loathe to wish anyone a "Merry Christmas". There are some atheists (not sure the percentage) who forgo the holiday altogather because of its Christian core. Never mind that Christians themselves often complain over the commercialization of the holiday, and some extremists even condemn Santa as Satan. Christmas is "Christian", and therefore even such as Santa Clauss and Christmas trees are scornfully viewed as "religous icons." They forbid their own children from sharing in the Christmas spirit as much as any devout Jehovah's Witness.

This sort of extreme negative reaction to the holidays is not common, but, though atheists may harber a diverse array of opinions about Christmas, the number Christmas-haters among committed atheists appears to be disproportionally high. Of todays leading atheist intellectuals, Christopher Hitchens, has, in particular expressed his deep personal revulsion at Christmas. At this point, I want to make a distinction between a "Scrooge" and a "Cromwell." A Scrooge is someone who keeps Christmas in his own way, and allow others to keep it in theirs. In a word, he loathes Christmas, but only wants to be left alone. A Cromwell, on the other hand, is someone who seeks to impose his own anti-Christmas sentiment on others by means of the state. The Puritan dictator Oliver Cromwell's initial opposition to Christmas was actually somewhat justified in light of the drunknesness and excessive indulegence Christmas celebration had become at the time. His solution--which outlawing even the baking of a mince pie during the season, however, is one few would not consider extreme. But of course, there is not doubt the Cromwell beleived he was fully serving Chirst and has the country's best interests in mind.
While thier ideology runs completly opposite that of Cromwell, today's ideological athiests doubtless have nothing but the best intentions regarding their opposition to Christmas. Are atheists the new Cromwells? Well, not necessarily. Most, as already said, would qualify more as Scrooges, although I am not sure about Hitchens. We've all heard about the "War on Christmas" by the politically correct Left, but I beleive it's generally blown out of proportion. However, there is no doubting the loathing some of the atheist persuasion feel regarding the holiday, and it comes as no surprise that such ideological opposition is in the name of supposed tolerance. Which brings me to the topic at hand. The the other day, I was doing research for my page George C. Scott's famous renditon of Dickens' A Christmas Carol:

http://clivedonnermovies.blogspot.com/2010/05/christmas-carol.html

While doing so I found a review site which appears to be done by someone who is an avowed athiest, and seemingly very liberal, but not one whom I'd call very consistent in his/her liberalism. It's a well written review, but hardly one partial to the Christian faith:

http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/1023/a-christmas-carol/

The reviewer gives Scott's Carol, a rousing endorsement, and I couldn't agree with him more about the following line:

As you might expect, the most watchable version was the one in which Scrooge was played by George C. Scott. The power of George C. absorbs the character of Scrooge and he is absolutely perfect in the role.

The fact hat he highly recomends the films, and especially Scott's performance, almost leads me to beleive his take on the tale itself might possibly be satire. But to prove a point about how Dickens Carol could indeed be misconstrued by those of the anti-Christian persuasion, I'll assume here that it's serious. The reviewer writes:

The message of this story is that it is okay to use the despicable practices of torture and terror to promote your religious agenda. It is okay for a law-abiding and legitimate businessman to be brutalized for his lack of religious beliefs.

Notice he assumes from the start that Carol is ideological, and that the Spirits' mission is cram Christianity down's Scrooge's throat. In a way, he's got a point. Dickens' Carol is a story with a message that is in fact a throughly Christian one, part of the reason it's considered the greatest Christmas story of all time outside of the Nativity story. However, this is in way that is often overlooked or downplayed by modern Christianity. The reviewer defends the unrepentant Scrooge by saying:

There is absolutely no evidence that Mr. Scrooge is doing anything underhanded or illegal, he merely loans money to people who borrow it from him of their own free will, and he tries to collect it when it is due.

Okay, so it's true that Scrooge shows no sign of being a dishonest or crooked business man. In fact, I've always pictured Scrooge as a ruthlessly honest individual in both his personal contacts and his financial dealings. He is no liar, cheat, or charlatan. As the reviewer rightly points out, when it comes to Christmas, Scrooge merely wants to be left alone. So what is his great sin? Quite simply: selfishness. Profit has become an idle to him, and this is precisely the reason that Bible warns agaisnt it. Though Scrooge goes out of his way to harm no one, he also shuts himself out to the poverty and hardship around him. Jesus talked repeatedly of the necesseity of doing good and helping others. As Christians, we are in fact commanded to do this. The reviewer goes on to say:

In an unforgettable night of terror, Scrooge is abused mentally and physically by uninvited spirits, as he deprived of sleep, humiliated, and threatened with death unless he “redeems” himself and becomes a believer in Christmas. This central theme is no different from what is practiced by modern day Christianity. The only thing that Scrooge was guilty of was his genuine desire to separate himself from the spectacle and hypocrisy of Christmas. His only crime was that he wanted to be left alone.

Actually, the spectacle is much different than is preached by modern day Christianity. Why? Because much of modern Christianity has dumbed down the message of Jesus. Over and over again those seeking to convert others downplay the message of good works, insisting in fact, that one need do nothing in order be accepted by the Lord, that good works constitute "Buying one's way into heaven." This is done to make Christianity look easy and a free ride compared with other faiths. Taken to its extreme form, this sort of preaching nearly makes a mockery of the actual teachings of Christ. I say this because I recall a lady in my Pastor's Bible study group, who happened to say, when Dickens' A Christmas Carol came up in the discussion, that the message of Carol was not a Christian one because promoted salvation through works. But it does not promote salvation through works. Nor, as the atheist reveiwer suggests, is it in the least true that Scrooge was merely bullied into good behavior by three ghosts. It should be obvious to anyone who has bothered to examine the story with any depth at all that Scrooge revisits his past in order to rekindle that quiet sensitive youngster he once was, then witnesses the hardship of those he has shut out from his world in his present. By the end of the story, Scrooge truely wants to change. Although the vision of his own possible future is indeed terrifying to him, even this is because of the great remorse he feels at that point in the story. His reaction on Christmas morning is one of joy and reformation, a true change of heart, not that of a cowed, bullied man, suffering fro,m intimidation and sleep-deprivation. The following text expert form Carol makes this clear:

"I don't know what to do!" cried Scrooge, laughing and crying in the same breath; and making a perfect Laocoon of himself with his stockings. "I am as light as a feather, I am as happy as an angel, I am as merry as a schoolboy. I am as giddy as a drunken man. A merry Christmas to everybody! A happy New Year to all the world!

Also a memorable scene in the Scott version, I might add. However, back to the reveiw:


Instead of being bitter, hopeless and suicidal over his small stature and crippling afflictions, he is cheerful and glib, and can induce more vomiting than a cattle car full of bulbous-headed midgets in clown suits. Tiny Tim teaches us that it is quite all right to be crippled and living under a death sentence because it reminds us of the Christ who healed the sick and lame. The fact that there is no Christ around to prevent him from dying a horrible death from the ravages of polio is conveniently never mentioned. The only salvation for Tiny Tim is Scrooge’s money; no gods required. He sings “Silent Night” and is continually saying “God bless us, each and every one”, as well as other cliched phrases that made me want to beat him to a lifeless, bloody pulp with the fat end of his crutch.

Do you get that in the first line? The reveiwer apartently thinks being bitter, hopeless and suicidal over one's affliction is a good thing while being cheerful and glib about it is to be admonished. Most kids who managed to be cheerful anad glib in the same situation as Tim would be commended for their courage--at least I'd rather hope so. Why does he find the reference to Christ so offensive? Possibly becasue it's just that--a reference to Christ. But Christ's teachings were to care for the sick and downtrodden--as Scrooge eventually does. So in that since, yes, Christ is there, as it is through His teachings and Scrooge's obedience to them that Tim is finally spared. Why phrases as "God bless us everyone" incites such violent urges in the mind of the review, is however, not something I would care to speculate on.


One last point he makes, in refence to the Albert Finney version in which Scrooge is actually shown a glimpse of himself in hell:

Mind you, this sentence of eternal torture is for merely choosing to be left alone and for not sharing the bizarre fantasies and hallucinations that possess the Christian brain at the end of December. This is a holiday that was stolen by the Christians from the Pagans, the celebration of the return of the sun; the winter solstice festivals. This scene is the greatest trailer for Christianity I have ever seen, showing the cruel depravity of the death cultists.


Again, not so. Scrooge does not "merely choose to be left own," although this is what he has convinced himself in the beginning. He has allowed himself to embrace a "survival of the fittest" mentality which proves destructive to both himself and to those around him. When one considers the following review line:

Only slightly less sickening are Bob Cratchit and his pandering wife. Typical breeders and deeply religious, the Cratchits are content to pump out their defective hellspawn despite their inability to adequately feed them.

It appears the reviewer himself embraces a sort of social Darwinism. Calling the children of the poor "defective hellspawn," is hardly an indicator of tolerance. Why does the author despise Christianity? His apparent problem wiht it appears not to be intolerance, but charity. Living for purely selfish reasons--I've heard it denied by atheists time and again that this could not possibly be reason for their atheism, so they say. It's all about reason and rationality--so they say. But it's even been occasionally admitted by atheists that Christians, in general, give substantiatively more than to charity than atheists do. I've been more than a bit critical of modern Christianity in this blog. But even so, Christians, so long as they're sincere, at least have one thing going for them that athiests don't--Jesus Christ.