Some people try to attack the character of God by judging His judgments, and one of those judgments is the Global Flood of Genesis. What I call the "Flood Morality Debate" is a discussion about this particular topic that took place on a comment thread attached to one of Ray Comfort’s Facebook posts. KD, presumably a non-secular humanist, attacked God’s judgment as immoral and “insanity.” I jumped in the discussion thread and asked KD to reveal the standard of judgment that

In Part 2 of the Flood Morality Debate, KD admitted that he did not have an ultimate authority or ultimate standard of judgment. This is despite the fact that he was trying to judge God as being immoral for His Judgment against humanity during the Global Flood of Genesis. KD was using his own standard of judgment, which is merely an opinion. God’s Word has much to say about standards of judgment, including these relatively well-known versus of scripture: Judge not, that yo

In Part 1 of the Flood Morality Debate, KD attempted to charge God with immorality and “insanity” regarding the judgment of the Global Flood. I challenged KD’s basic presuppositions with the following question: by what ultimate standard of judgment is he charging God with supposed immorality and insanity? That question kicked off my discussion with KD. The debate continues in Part 2 of 4 below. KD: KH, The bible is your absolute moral standard? If so, why? I have nothing c

As I discussed in my previous blog post, “Dismantling a Claim: Evolution is Like Gravity,” evangelist Ray Comfort posted an Answers in Genesis article on his Facebook page regarding the continued expansions at Ark Encounter. As expected, most of Ray's followers are Christians, but there is no shortage of secular and non-secular humanists that comment on various posts and engage in debates. I had engaged in two separate, but simultaneous debates. I shared one debate in my p

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.—John 3:19-20 (NIV) Many humanists that follow the Friendly Atheist (a blogger) revel in their hatred of God. If they truly believe their own worldview, that they themselves are accidental byproducts of random chemical processes, then why

In my previous post, I shared Part 3 of 5 of the Blame and Praise Debate which demonstrated a sad example of a person attacking the character of God in order to justify themselves. As I ponder this behavior once again, especially in regards to Part 4 of 5 of this debate, I am reminded of the chain of blame in Genesis 3. After Adam and Eve commit high treason against God, the following events occur: Adam and Eve try to cover their shame with fig leaves (Gen 3:7) and hide the

As I began to share in Part 2 of 5 of the Blame and Praise Debate, four humanists replied to my original comment and attempted to challenge the Christian worldview. Humanist DG was the first to reply, as I shared in my previous post. The second humanist to reply was OJ, who presented a bizarre summary of “God’s plan” by listing supposed “Steps” one through nine (except he forgot to list a Step 5). OJ’s comment is nothing more than a question-begging epithet, which is “usin

The "Friendly Atheist" blogger, Hemant Mehta, wrote a blog post that, in essence, criticized Christians for praising God for good things, but not blaming God for bad things. Specifically, the blogger criticized two Christian women for crediting God for the fact that they were able to save a child from a hit-and-run. Hemant had this to say: “Let’s all state the obvious together: If God really was there for Peyton, maybe He shouldn’t have let the child get hit by a car.”[i] T

There is much irony concerning the way many humanists try to justify their faith in humanism. They point out specific observations about the world and claim these as evidence against the Bible. However, it turns out that the opposite is true. As Christians, we can respond to humanist claims by asking key questions, similar to the method that Jesus used when refuting the claims of the Pharisees. I got to do this recently on the Facebook page of the American Humanist Associ

The debate that I discussed in my previous blog post did continue, but not for long. However, I believe the conclusion of the debate is worth its own blog post. Below are the final two posts: CT: All of those concepts were contemplated by Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates nearly 400 years before Jesus was supposedly born. The Bible doesn't have a corner market on it, sorry. As far as I am concerned you might as well be using the word of Odin or Zeus. It's all the same. Human c

…The fact that Jeffrey Dahmer's victims are in hell and he is in heaven demonstrates a problem with your dogma; any theology that punishes victims and rewards the criminal is flawed.—Facebook user FK [abbreviated] One of the major themes of this blog is to point out the religious beliefs of those who claim to be “nonreligious.” Atheists and agnostics will often try to condemn Christianity, or ultimately, condemn the Most High God of the Bible by using their warped standard o