People who reject God
Today, people in the West reject God because they do not believe in creation or disagree on moral issues.
If we take a look at the Acts of the Apostles, we can see in chapter 13, how Paul’s own people rejected the Gospel, Christ, and the possibility of turning to God. People of that time didn’t think much of the gift that is the eternal life, which was offered to them. They took a negative attitude towards the idea that one could join the kingdom of God through His Son, Jesus Christ:
- (Acts 13:45,46) But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spoke against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, see, we turn to the Gentiles.
Many people of today also reject God and Christianity. We have been headed to a direction over the last couple of hundred years, where the fundamental truths of Christianity have been questioned to a growing extent. The Book of Genesis, especially, has been under fire. People have thought that if Darwin’s evolution theory is an accurate depiction of the past, then the Bible cannot be true. This is a fairly logical conclusion, because two completely opposing views cannot simultaneously be true.
After Darwin’s theory was adopted, there have been many other views that have obscured people’s perceptions of Christian faith. There has been a slow change that is if we go back just a few decades, schools and societies were teaching more about Christianity. The fundamentals of it were clear to people and Christian teaching was respected. Now people have slowly quit teaching about Christianity and it has become more questionable to teach it. Change towards the current state has been going on the whole time.
On the next rows we will discuss some fundamental truths of Christianity and reasons to why people reject the Gospel about Jesus Christ and eternal life. The purpose of this is to get people to better understand these fundamental truths and that they would one day be able to join the kingdom of God. We will discuss the following topics:
• Creation and the beginning
• Moral questions
• What comes after this life?
• Get to terms with God
CREATION AND THE BEGINNING. When it comes to the accuracy of creation, everyone knows that atheist scientists don’t believe in it. They don’t believe that God exists, that He created all and everything and especially that creating everything would have taken a little time and happened around some thousands of years ago. Instead, these scientists believe that the universe came into existence by itself from nothing and that all current species derive from one single original cell. These are in summary the basic assumptions, which these scientists believe in.
What about the rationality of these explanations? If these materialistic accounts are true, our scientists should provide explanations to the following questions. They should be easy to answer, provided that these are scientific theories.
How could anything come out of nothing? Scientists should be able to tell us, how it is possible that something comes out of nothingness, as is presumed in the Big Bang theory. This notion goes against the laws of physics and common sense. Never has anyone seen stones, rocks, street signs or any other objects appear from nothing. Why would the universe, which is immensely larger than anything else, would make an exception? Why would the universe be able to appear out of nothing, when we haven’t witnessed it happen with any other object or matter? Scientists don’t look at this with their common sense, and thus rely on fiction if they believe these theories. It is insane to stick with this kind of false theory, which suggests that everything came out of nothing for no reason at all. Furthermore, it would be a mathematical impossibility. If there is nothing, then nothing can come out of it by itself. If you divide zero with any given number, the result will always be zero. David Berlinski, a mathematician, and Roland Nash have stated their opinions on the matter:
”It is pointless to argue that something comes into existence out of nothing, when any given mathematician understands this to be complete nonsense” (Ron Rosenbaum: ”Is the Big Bang Just a Big Hoax? David Berlinski Challenges Everyone.” New York Observer 7.7.1998)
Philosopher Roland Nash: …one does not need to be a theist (one that believes in God) to see the problem in understanding or accepting the belief that the universe came into existence without any reason and out of nowhere. (1)
Many other researchers question the whole Big Bang theory. They think it goes against real science. What best describes the situation is, when some secular researcher, who doubted Big Bang, wrote an open letter to the New Science magazine in 2004. There were over hundred other cosmologists, who supported the letter. This is what was on the letter: “There is a lack of open exchange in ideas, and there’s no tolerance towards suspicion and dissidence. There are no other areas of physics, where one could constantly rely on new hypothesis, in order to close gaps between theory and observations.”
The following comments also show how Big Bang is a questionable concept. One should not fall for it:
New data differs enough from the theory’s prediction to destroy the Big Bang-cosmology (Fred Hoyle, The Big Bang in Astronomy, 92 New Scientist 521, 522-23 / 1981)
As an old cosmologist, I see the current observational data repealing theories about the beginning of the universe, and also the many theories about the beginning of the Solar System. (H. Bondi, Letter, 87 New Scientist 611 / 1980)
There has been considerably little discussion about the possibility of the Big Bang theory… many of the observations that conflict it are explained through numerous unfounded assumptions or they are simply ignored. (nobelisti [nobelist] H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma 125 / 1981)
Physicist Eric Lerner: ”Big Bang is merely an interesting tale, which is maintained for a certain reason” (Eric Lerner: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe, The Big Bang Never Happened, NY: Times Books, 1991).
How did life get started? Scientists should also be able to tell us, how life began by itself. Life cannot be everlasting, because the Sun has not always existed. And without the Sun earth’s temperature would be almost at -273 Celsius degrees, all water would be frozen and it would be dark everywhere. Life would not be able to survive in those kinds of conditions.
Hence, when people admit that life has had a beginning, they should also provide us concrete evidence, which would prove that life really did begin to exist by itself. If no one can come up with an explanation, then why do so-called science books still say that life came about by itself, despite, everything? Isn’t that a conscious lie and an assumption that is based on wishful thinking?
This notion also goes against what we’ve been able to scientifically observe, which is that the existence of every plant and animal is dependent on previous life. They don’t exist because of themselves, as life can only come from an already existing life. No one has found any exceptions to this rule, so it must clearly suggest that our planet has an external source (in terms of first plants and animals), which is God. That is why naturalistic theories are built on weak foundations. The more knowledge we have acquired, the more difficult it has become for us to solve the problem with life coming into existence by itself. The only reasonable explanation to the existing life would be that God created it, which is what the following passages suggest. Only an almighty God can and could have created all this diverse life that we have on our planet:
- (Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
- (Rom 1:19,20) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
- (Rev 4:11) You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created.
- (Rev 10:5,6) And the angel which I saw stand on the sea and on the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,
6 And swore by him that lives for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer
- (Rev 14:7) Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
Stanley Miller’s statement allows us to better understand the problem with life beginning by itself. Miller has become famous for his experiments concerning the origin of life, and these experiments have been discussed in thousands of books. However, later in life he admitted in an interview that science may never find a solution to this problem:
He was indifferent about all suggestions about the origins of life, considering them “nonsense” or “paper chemistry”. He was so contemptuous about certain hypotheses that when I asked his opinion about them, he only shook his head, sighed deeply and sniggered – like trying to reject the madness of the human race. He admitted that scientists may never know exactly when and how life started. “We try to discuss a historical event that is clearly different from normal science”, he noted. (2)
Where are the transitional forms? In the preface we mentioned, how many doubt Christianity due to Darwin. They think that if what Darwin says is right, then the Book of Genesis must be wrong. They believe that life developed from a simple original cell into our current diverse forms.
However, these people ought to question Darwin and the prerequisite for his evolution theory, which is the idea that our current diverse plants and animals all derive from the same simple original cell. It’s not that Darwin didn’t make precise and exquisite observations. Surely he did, but his basic assumption (from simple to diverse) still remains unproven. Darwin’s examples (finches’ beaks etc.) and examples proposed today (the immunity of bacteria etc.) are only cases where variation occurs only within the created-kinds. It is not the same, as in the from-simple-to-diverse theory. Variation does occur, but it seems to happen only within set parameters. Mutation experiments that have lasted for decades have confirmed the constancy of species. Breeding has also shown that variation has its limits, which are quickly met and cannot be crossed.
How about transitional forms in fossils and in current species? Scientists should be able to show us these transitional forms that exist between fossils, and their semi-developed wings, arms, legs, senses and other organs. Provided that Darwin’s theory holds true, we should be able to find plenty of these transitional forms in the nature and in fossils (over one hundred million fossils have been dug up from the ground so far).
The problem is that we don’t see them, because species are fully complete.
Even Richard Dawkins, who is a well-known atheist scientist, has admitted that current structures are adequate for their purpose and organisms are fully functional, without being partially developed. Dawkins’ comment strongly suggests towards creation and that species have been complete from the beginning and not just partially developed. Why else are we only seeing complete and functioning structures in fossils and in the current nature?
The reality based on observations is that every species and every organ inside a species that so far has been examined is good at what it does. The wings on birds, bees and bats are good for flying. Eyes are good at seeing. Leaves are good at photosynthesis. We live on a planet, where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million species, which all independently indicate a strong illusion of apparent design. Every species fits well into its special lifestyle. (3)
The following statements describe well the absence of transitional forms. They discuss what evidence natural history museums have for evolution, or more precisely, what they don’t have:
Dr. Etheridge, world-famous curator of the British Museum: In this whole museum, there is not even the smallest thing that would prove the origin of species from intermediate forms. The theory of evolution is not based on observations and facts. As comes to speaking about the age of the human race, the situation is the same. This museum is full of evidence showing how mindless these theories are. (4)
None of the officials in five large paleontological museums can present even one simple example of an organism that could be regarded as a piece of evidence of gradual evolution from one species to another. (Dr. Luther Sunderland’s summary in his book Darwin's enigma. He interviewed many representatives of natural history museums for this book and wrote to them aiming at finding out what sort of evidence they had to prove evolution. )
The following statement will continue on the issue at hand. Late Dr. Colin Patterson was an older paleontologist for the British Museum (natural history) – he was also a supporter of evolution and a fossil expert. He wrote a book about evolution – but when someone asked him, why his book didn’t contain any pictures of transitional forms (organisms in the intermediate state), he wrote the following response. In this response he refers to atheist scientist Stephen J. Gould, who is possibly the most famous paleontologist:
"I agree completely with your opinion concerning the lack of illustrations in my book about organisms which are evolutionarily in the transitional stage. If I were conscious of any such, of a fossil or of living, I would have willingly included them in my book. You propose that I should use an artist to illustrate such intermediate forms but from where would he get information for his drawings? Honestly saying, I could not offer him this information, and if I should leave the matter for an artist, would it not lead the reader astray?
I wrote the text of my book four years ago [in the book he tells that he believes in some intermediate forms]. If I were to write it now, I think that the book would be rather different. Gradualism (changing gradually) is a concept in which I do believe. Not just because of the prestige of Darwin but because my comprehension of the genetics seems to require it. However, it is difficult to claim against [famous fossil expert Stephen J.] Gould and other people of the American museum when they say that there are no intermediate forms. As a palaeontologist, I work much with philosophical problems when recognizing ancient forms of organisms from the fossil material. You say that I should also at least 'present a photo of a fossil, from which the certain organism group evolved.' I speak directly – there is no fossil that would be a watertight piece of evidence." (6)
MORAL QUESTIONS. Creation was the first pivotal subject we discussed above. It is one of the fundamental teachings in Christianity, and it has been attacked many times ever since Darwin came up with his evolution theory. However, existing evidence much rather suggests towards creation, rather than towards any naturalistic theories. None of the scientific observations to our knowledge support the option that the universe and life would have came about by themselves from nothing. Also, we have not been able to prove the theory that all current species would have descended from a shared original cell. It is wise not to fall for these naturalistic theories, which don’t even have proper evidence.
Moving on to moral questions, which can sometimes be the reason, why many abandon Christianity and the Gospel. This is happening, due to disputes concerning sex, abortion and sexual minorities, and these disputes have become more common, especially, over the last decades. There didn’t use to be as much disagreement over these things in the past, but now they have become more prevalent. When discussing this matter, the following aspect should, however, be noted:
In the end it is a question of right and wrong
- (Isa 5:20) Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Ultimately, many disputes come down to what is right and wrong. Can all our actions be right or can there be some that might be wrong? Usually, it is agreed by everyone that there are moral values, which concern everybody, but there are still a few cases being dispute over on, whether they cross the line that separates moral from immoral. Thus, some secular people might say the following:
• “Sex without marriage is not wrong”
• “Abortion is not wrong”
• “Having homosexual sex is not wrong”
But a Christian trusting in the teachings of Jesus and the disciples also holds them in the position of highest authority. Hence, he determines what’s right and wrong based on the teachings, such as in the following list of passages. They tell us which acts are wrong and separate us from God if done deliberately. Many agree that murder and theft, for example, are wrong from the things mentioned in the list of passages. They admit that those acts belong in the immoral area:
- (Gal 5:19-21) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, jealousies, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Contentions, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
- (1 Cor 6:9,10) Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
- (Rev 22:15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters, and whoever loves and makes a lie.
Hence, it is not that some Christians today would be better than other people and that they would determine their own rights and wrongs. Instead, it is about the reliability of the texts that were delivered to us by Jesus’ chosen disciples. Are they true or false? Christians believe them to be true, but secular people might deny their verity and that their applying to the current day. That is the quintessential reason for disagreement on this matter.
Consequences. If we disregard the Bible and abandon the teachings of Jesus and the disciples, we can still draw some conclusions from the consequences of certain acts. That is, if the action comes with bad consequences, then the act itself must be bad. Thus, if we look at, for example, the belief “sex without marriage is wrong”, meaning that “it is right to have sex when you’re not married”, which has the following consequences:
• If people practice having sex with many different people, diseases will spread more easily. For example, in Africa AIDS has killed hundreds of thousands of people, because the disease has been able to spread due to people having sex with multiple different people. AIDS also spread heavily in the USA around 20 years ago among homosexuals, because they tend to have more sexual relations than the rest.
• The more affairs people are having, the more likely it is that families fall apart. Infidelity and cheating on your spouse are not good for the couple, because they tear marriages apart. Children will also suffer from the choices that adults make if they decide to break the family. This also has an economical effect, because it will increase social costs. For example, research in the USA conducted in 2008 showed that divorces and children born outside of marriage cost tax payers 112 billion dollars annually (Girgis et al 2012:46). Similarly, Etelä-Suomen sanomat explained on 31/10/2010 what the situation looks like in Finland: Institutional care for children and teens will soon require a billion, Children’s problems have heavily increased since the beginning of the 1990s... Institutional care for one child costs as much as 100 000 Euros per year... Additionally, Aamulehti reported on 3/3/2013 the following: marginalized teen costs 1,8 million. If we get even one back to society, the results will be a lot more positive.
• Parents having affairs is not a good place to start for a new born child. That is, if the parents are not fully committed to each other first, the child might often fall victim to abortion, adoption, or growing up with a single parent.
How about homosexuality and transsexuality? Many sincerely support these ways of life and demonstrate for them, but in reality, these orientations are thoughts and desires that people have in their heads. Every one of us has wrong thoughts and desires, but God invites us to life where we can be free of those thoughts. Unfortunately, more often than not we are far away from perfection, but God’s desire is that we wouldn’t live by those wrong thoughts and desires:
- (Mark 7:21-23) For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
- (Matt 5:28) But I say to you, That whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
- (Mark 4:18,19) And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,
19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.
- (Rom 6:12) Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in the lusts thereof.
- (Rom 13:14) But put you on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.
- (Gal 5:16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
- (Eph 4:22) That you put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
- (Col 3:5) Mortify therefore your members which are on the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
- (1 Tim 6:9,10) But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
- (2 Tim 2:22) Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
- (1 Peter 1:14) As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
- (2 Peter 3:3) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
- (1 John 2:16,17) For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passes away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of God stays for ever.
- (James 1:14,15) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.
- (Jude 17,18) But, beloved, remember you the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
Usually there are certain reasons behind desires and twisted thoughts (e.g. eating disorder anorexia nervosa is a good example of twisted thinking. A person might think that they are fat, although they were actually extremely thin) and some of those reasons could come from experiencing difficult relationships, sexual abuse and other similar causes. For example, female homosexuality could be partly explained by many those women not having a mother in their childhood. Homosexuality is reportedly more common amongst those kinds of women than among other women:
The study by Marcel T. Saghiri and Eli Robins (1973) was not based on a patient sample; instead, they recruited their homosexual interviewees through homosexual organisations. They noted that 27% of lesbians and 2% of heterosexual women had lost their mother before the age of 10. The relationship between lesbian women and their mothers had often been broken or was distant or indifferent. However, they had a warm relationship with their father. (7)
What about so-called sexually neutral marriages, and their ethicalness? From children’s perspective it is problematic. Because in cases, where homosexual partners want to have children (which is made possible, e.g., by sperm banks and surrogate pregnancies, or one of the homosexuals in the couple having been in a temporary heterosexual relationship), these children are being stripped away from their biological fathers and mothers from birth, simply because adults think such partnership is their right. Sexually neutral marriage law, thus, discriminates against children at the expense of adults. Adults’ freedom is placed before the fundamental rights of children.
Those, who have grown up in a homosexual family, have also criticized the system, which allows mothers and fathers to be taken away from children. Jean-Dominique Bunel, who grew up with his lesbian mother and his mother’s female spouse, tells us how he felt about it. He suffered from not having a father. He also says that if the sexually neutral marriage law would have been standing when he was growing up, he would have sued the whole state, because it would have enabled the violation of his child rights:
Not having a father felt almost like having an amputated limb… I suffered from not having a father, from the lack of his daily presence, his masculine character and example, which would have balanced my mother’s relationship with her lover. I was fully aware of these feelings from early on. (8)
How about the ethicalness of abortion? Why do so many people support abortion and consider it to be a good choice in certain situations? Why do they stand behind it? Probably because they don’t see abortion as something that is bad. These people should, however, consider the following questions:
- Do you think killing a person is acceptable?
- How do you argue that a fetus in the womb is not a human?
As such, when some try to support abortion, they might say that fetuses in the womb are not humans. They’ll end up thinking this, regardless of the fact that fetuses have the same body parts as new born babies: eyes, hands, feet, mouth, nose… Aren’t they simply letting go of clear scientific facts here? Isn’t it obvious that a fetus in the womb is the same person that is later born, meaning that it is now outside the womb? You should also remember that some prematurely born children are not much older than late-term aborted children.
If it is so that a developing fetus is morally equivalent to a child, then abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide. Only a few think that the government should let parents decide on their own, whether they want to be responsible for killing their child… Those, who are willing to defend women’s right to abortion, should make a statement on the argument that a developing fetus is equivalent to a human being, and then try to demonstrate, why the argument is wrong. It is not enough to say that the law should be neutral when it comes to moral and religious questions. Defending the right to abortion is equally as unneutral as demanding to ban it. Both parties await for an answer for this moral and religious dispute, which lies in the background. (9)
- (1 Peter 5:6) Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
Two things were discussed above that cause people to have a negative attitude towards the Christian faith; that is, naturalistic theories of the birth and development of life and moral issues. They are the two main reasons why people reject God. They may consider themselves wise and sensible when they have adopted a repulsive attitude toward God and the Christian faith. Likewise, they may be confident in their perceptions and not even want to learn and find out the basics of the Christian faith.
But as stated, these people actually believe in lies and defend injustice. They believe in lies when they reject God’s work of creation. Likewise, they defend injustice by approving e.g. abortion and extramarital sex.
What should these people do then? They should turn to God and humble themselves in their hearts, and no longer resist. God’s will is to save every person, but if man himself rejects God and salvation, such a person cannot be saved. Therefore, you who have opposed God and rejected him, do not continue on this path. Instead, turn to God and confess your sins. Also understand that God has already prepared a way for you to connect with Him. This path to God is through His Son, Jesus Christ, for Jesus said:
- (John 14: 6) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.
So if you want to be saved and get in touch with God, humble yourself before God. Confess to him your rebellion and your sins. Likewise, receive Jesus into your life. You can pray, for example, as follows:
The prayer of salvation: Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.
1. Ronald Nash: ”Miracles and Conceptual Systems”, Douglas Geivettin & Gary Habermasin (toim.) teoksessa In Defence of Miracles (Grand Rapids, IVP, 1997), p. 122
2. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley
3. Richard Dawkins: Jumalharha (The God Delusion), p. 153
4. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, p. 94
5. Sit. kirjasta "Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan", Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä, p. 19.
6. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 15,16
7. Ari Puonti: Homoseksuaalisuus – hämmennyksestä selkeyteen, p. 101
8. Jean-Marc Guénois: “J’ai été élevé par deux femmes”, Le Figaro 1.10.2013
9. Michael J. Sandel: Oikeudenmukaisuus (Justice. What’s the Right Thing to Do?), p. 283,284
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!