What Really Matters --Ray Comfort

"Ray, I have a question for you. I am getting frustrated having to try and 'prove' God's existence day in and day out to unbelievers all the time. Do I really need to 'prove' God to anyone or just preach the gospel? I don't see why I should have to 'prove' what God has already said in His word. I'd love some advice on how you handle this." LaurenWe don't have to prove that God exists to the professing atheist. This is because he intuitively knows that He exists. Every person has a God-given conscience. The Bible tells us that this is the "work of the law written on their hearts." Just as every sane person human being knows that it's wrong to lie, steal, kill and commit adultery, he knows that God should be first in his life. The professing atheist not only has the testimony of his impartial conscience, but he also has the testimony of creation. It "declares" the glory of God, and the person who denies the voice of conscience and the voice of creation is without excuse. If death seizes upon him and he is still in his sins, he will face the wrath of a holy Creator, whether he believes in Him or not. This is why I don't spend too much time trying to convince anyone that there is a God. To do so is to waste time and energy. What sinner's need isn't to be convinced that God exists, but that sin exists and that they are in terrible danger. The only biblical way to do this is to go through the Moral Law and explain that God considers lust to be adultery and hatred to be murder, etc. It is the revelation that God is holy and just, and sees the thought-life that convinces us that we are in danger of eternal damnation. That's what sent me to the cross for mercy and that's what sinners need to hear. So never be discouraged from preaching the gospel, and don't get sidetracked by the rabbit trails of issues that don't really matter.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The Religion of Atheism

"We have told all of you a gazillion times: atheism is NOT a religion." G.E. It's interesting to note that one definition of religion is:"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." That rightly describes the ardent atheist cause. Despite protests to the contrary by its faithful adherents, atheism is a form of religion. Though their numbers are small--only 2 percent of the world's 6.5 billion inhabitants-atheists are an ever-growing group of people with a "belief" system. Although many flinch at the thought that they have faith in anything, they believe that there's no God, and even have "works" to confirm it. Their lifestyle is fruit of their belief system.LAW OF THE LANDCourt rules atheism a religionDecides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion. "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said. The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists. Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence." "Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling. The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion. Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence." "It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited," Fahling said.

Darwin and Dope

"Jaser said... Ray, your scholastic endeavours I'm afraid fall woefully short of most people's standards. If you can substantiate your claim that Darwin was 'high on hash' during the voyages of the Beagle, then please quote verifiable sources, and we'll all be in agreement. I suspect that there are no such sources, and that your comment was one made in scorn, with no basis in fact."Jaser...I have never claimed that Darwin was high on hash or any other drug. Your accusation falls woefully short of most peoples' standard of integrity, and has no basis in fact. My claim is that Charles Darwin was a deluded dreamer, who dreamed up a ridiculous and unscientific theory that is on a par with a child's fairy tale. To use the word "science" and evolution together is the oxymoron of the century. I am continually amazed with the irony that this one man has been able to amass millions of deceived followers, who blindly believe the theory as if it was a fact, and then call themselves "intellectuals." The theory of Darwinian evolution is the opiate of the people.