Questions for the doubter and naysayer

Questions for those who doubt or oppose the Christian faith

Summary

The article examines the relationship between faith and science, as well as the reliability of the Bible through four main themes: 1. Denying God and evolution: Creation testifies of a Creator, and atheistic models cannot explain the origin of the universe and life or the absence of transitional forms. 2. Millions of years: Radioactive dating methods are unreliable, and among other things, radiocarbon finds and dinosaur fossils testify in favor of a young earth. 3. The historicity of the Bible: Archaeological discoveries, historical references to people, and global flood accounts confirm the reliability of Biblical revelation. 4. Christian morality and salvation: Today's crumbling concept of morality shows human need for God's permanent values. Ultimate salvation and forgiveness of sins can be received through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

• Foreword

• 1. Do you deny the existence of God because you believe that the universe and life came into existence on their own, and that gradual evolutionary development from a primordial cell is true?

• Based on creation, the existence of God can be inferred. Atheists do not have a proper answer to three questions

• 1. Where did the universe come from?

• 2. Where did life come from?

• 3. Where are the half-finished organs?

• 2. Do you believe in millions of years?

• Measurements of radioactive methods and their problems

• Radiocarbon measurements refute billions of years

• Dinosaur fossils refute billions of years, as do references to dragons in human folklore

• 3. Do you doubt the historicity of the Bible?

• Evidence for the historicity of the Bible is abundant: hundreds of flood accounts, marine remains in high mountain ranges, dozens of Old and New Testament individuals in other sources, excavated cities, and precise archaeological and geographical information.

• 4. Do you dislike Christian morality?

• Are all human actions right or not? In modern times, the boundary between right and wrong has been moved. What was previously considered wrong has been changed into good

• People believe in moral values, but God ultimately defines right and wrong and is the judge. Every person has committed sins

• Who represents love; the modern-day moral changers or Jesus and the apostles?

• God has prepared the forgiveness of sins for everyone through the atonement of Jesus, so that every repentant person can receive eternal life. This is the core issue of the Christian faith

• Do not stay outside! Turn to God confessing your sins and let yourself be saved!

Frequently asked questions (FAQ) – Read more here →

Foreword

I have thought many times about why people reject God and Jesus. Why do they despise eternal life; the thing that is the most important and valuable to me? Why are they not at all interested in it? This has puzzled my mind and I have often wondered about it.

Of course, Paul wrote in his time”But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14). This verse seems to be very true. Because how common it is that spiritual things and turning to God are completely strange to most people, and they don't even want to think about these things. They have a prejudice where they have locked the door of their heart, to inside which God and Jesus have no business. This lock is almost impossible to open because people are so bound by their preconceived notions. I personally consider these attitudes and thoughts to be satan's lies with which he tries to prevent people from being saved.

In any case, the following there are some questions for doubters and naysayers, that is, those who doubt the validity of the Christian faith or who directly reject Jesus and God. If you are such a person, the following lines are for you. Are you ready to think about the validity of the Christian faith, or do you reject this matter roundly?

1. Do you deny the existence of God because you believe that the universe and life came into existence on their own, and that gradual evolutionary development from a primordial cell is true?

The first question is related to the existence of God. When I myself lived as an atheist, I denied the existence of God. I acted like atheists act and considered myself very intelligent when I didn't believe in God. However, there are many proofs for the existence of God, if you look for them. I only bring up creation, that is, the existence of the universe and life. For example, Paul referred to it as clearly showing the existence of God:

- (Rom 1:18-20) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 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:

Based on creation, the existence of God can be inferred. Atheists do not have a proper answer to three questions

Why then can the existence of God be deduced from the creation? The answer is simple: no atheist scientist has a scientific explanation for why the universe and life exist. They are deadlocked on three issues:

1. Where did the universe come from?

The first problem is the existence of the universe? Where did galaxies, stars, planets and moons come from if there was no Creator? Even atheist scientists admit that these heavenly bodies have not always existed, but have a beginning. Thus, they have suggested that they originated from empty when "nothing" exploded in the so-called Big Bang. However, this is an absolutely impossible idea, because it is impossible to take anything from nothing. Then we go against the laws of science. Among others, David Berlinski has stated on the subject: ”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)

2. Where did life come from?

Another problem is the existence of life. If you believe that life arose by itself, how do you prove this? Attempts have been made to solve this issue for decades, but atheist scientists are at an impasse. The reason is simple: only life can create life, and it cannot be created in any other way. No exceptions to this rule have been found. This clearly refers to God for the first life forms. Or if you don't believe in God's creation, why don't you present evidence to the contrary? Don't try to make up imaginary stories about how life arose by itself, when there is not a single piece of evidence to support this. Even several atheist scientists have been honest enough to admit that life cannot arise by itself. Only God could have created life on earth.

3. Where are the half-finished organs?

The third problem is related to the theory of evolution, which atheist scientists believe in. They think that all plants and animals today, including humans, came from the same primordial cell. (E.g. Darwin and the atheist scientists who follow him are indeed right that species change within the framework of their heredity, and selection made by man (breeding) can influence the appearance of organisms. However, such change has nothing to do with the actual theory of evolution, in which all modern species are believed to have inherited from the same primordial cell. Modification has clear limits that cannot be crossed. Decades of mutation experiments and selection made by man, i.e. breeding, have brought these limits to the fore, and no evidence of the birth of new information, which the theory of evolution requires, has just been observed.)

What is the practical evidence? If the theory of evolution is true, we should see millions of semi-finished organs and intermediate forms. Instead, if God created everything, the current species as well as the fossil species should be fully developed and ready.

Which of these views is true? There is no ambiguity about this. All current and fossil species have always been found ready and developed. This clearly refers to God's work of creation and how everything was made complete right away. Even Richard Dawkins, a noted atheist, admits that every species and every organism in every species that has been studied so far is good at what it does. Such an observation fits poorly with the theory of evolution, but well with the creation model:

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. (1)

When modern species are fully finished and perfect, the same is true for fossils. They have always been found ready, not half-finished. The fossils found in the soil show no signs of the gradual development required by the theory of evolution. This is remarkable because at least one hundred million fossils have been excavated from the earth. Stephen Jay Gould, perhaps the most famous paleontologist (atheist) of our time, has admitted: ”I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks. (...)” (The Panda’s Thumb, 1988, p. 182,183).

If the theory of evolution is true, why is there no evidence of intermediate forms in natural history museums either? These museums should have the evidence for the existence of intermediate forms that the theory of evolution requires, but they do not, as the following quotes show:

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. (2)

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. [3])

The following statement continues on the same subject. The late Dr Colin Patterson was a senior paleontologist and fossil expert at the British Museum (Natural History). He wrote a book about evolution - but when someone asked him why his book didn’t have any pictures of intermediate forms (organisms in transition), he wrote the following answer. In his reply, he refers to Stephen J. Gould, perhaps the most famous paleontologist in the world (bold added):

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. (4)

2. Do you believe in millions of years?

Many people who reject God believe in millions of years. They think it proves the theory of evolution correct, even though millions of years in itself is no evidence for this theory at all. It was already stated above that the evidence from fossils and modern species does not fit the theory of evolution but creation. Furthermore, the birth of life is only possible through God.

Measurements of radioactive methods and their problems

Can millions of years be proven right? Can not. They are most commonly based on radioactive measurements of rocks, but it is questionable to trust these measurements. What is causing this? The reason is simple: these methods have been tested in practice on substances known to have crystallized very recently, but the results of the measurements have not supported this (recent crystallization).

One example is the lava fields of the Mt Ngaurruhoe volcano in New Zealand, which were created by eruptions in the 20th century. They are therefore supported by eyewitness observations.

What did the measurements show? Samples of these rocks were sent for dating to one of the most respected commercial dating laboratories (Geochron Laboratories, Cambridge, Massachusetts). What were the results? Here is a summary of them:

• In the potassium-argon method, the age of eleven samples varied between 270,000 and 3.5 million years

• The rubidium-strontium isochron gave an age of 133 million years

• The samarium-neodymium isochron gave an age of 197 million years

• The lead-lead isochron gave an age of 3.9 billion years, even though the age of the samples was less than a hundred years. The error is therefore several billion years. This last method is so significant that the age of the earth was calculated at 4.5 billion years with the same method. This age was obtained by Claire Patterson in 1956 from meteorites, on the basis of which the age of the Earth was deduced.

What can be concluded from the above? The examples show that if radioactivity measurements are not reliable when the time of crystallization is known, how can they be reliable when it is not known? It is not wise to trust methods if they have been tested to be completely unreliable in practice.

Radiocarbon measurements refute billions of years

What about radiocarbon measurements? This method differs from other methods in that the measurements are not made of rocks but of organic samples (remains of plants and animals). Also, the official half-life of radiocarbon is only 5730 years, so there shouldn't be any left after 100,000 years.

What do the measurements show? Measurements have been made for decades and show an important fact: radiocarbon (14C) is found in fossils from all eras (according to the evolutionary scale): Cambrian fossils, dinosaurs and other organisms that have been considered ancient. Also, no coal has been found that lacks radiocarbon (Lowe, D.C., Problems associated with use of coal as a source of 14C free background material, Radiocarbon 31(2):117-120,1989). The measurements give approximately the same ages for all the samples, so it is reasonable to believe that all organisms have been on earth at the same time, and it is by no means millions of years ago.

The conclusion from the radiocarbon measurements is simple. When this substance is found in organisms of all eras, including dinosaurs, as well as carbon deposits, life could have existed on Earth for only a few millennia. This is the most reasonable conclusion based on the measurements.

Dinosaur fossils refute billions of years, as do references to dragons in human folklore

Another brief reference to dinosaurs, which are said to have lived millions of years ago.

However, if millions of years are true, why are from dinosaurs, which are considered the best representatives of millions of years, found materials that should not have survived for millions of years. Radiocarbon, whose official half-life is only 5730 years, has been found in dinosaur fossils (https://newgeology.us/presentation48.html). DNA, whose half-life has been calculated as only 521 years (yle.fi > Uutiset > Tiede, 13.10.2012, DNA:n säilyvyyden takaraja selvisi – haaveet dinosaurusten kloonaamisesta raukesivat), has been found on them [Sarfati, J. DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone, J. Creation(1):10-12, 2013; creation.com/dino-dna, 11 december 2012].

Similarly, blood cells [Morell, V., Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype, Science 261 (5118): 160-162, 1993], soft tissues and proteins have been found in dinosaurs [Schweitzer, M. and 6 others, Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis, Science 324 (5927): 626-631, 2009]. They should not survive for more than 100,000 years (Bada, J et al. 1999. Preservation of key biomolecules in the fossil record: current knowledge and future challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 354, [1379]).

Why do People's old folk tales also repeatedly talk about dinosaur-like Dragons as normal animals? (the name dinosaur was invented only in 1841 by Richard Owen) The World Book Encyclopedia has referred to these accounts: ”The dragons in legends are, strangely enough, just like real animals that lived in the past. They resemble large reptiles (dinosaurs) that ruled the land long before man is supposed to have appeared. Dragons were generally regarded as bad and destructive. Each nation referred to them in their mythology.”

What can be concluded from the above? It's pointless to talk about millions of years, because dozens of dinosaur fossils point to a short age, like the references to dragons in human tradition. Dinosaur fossils don't have age labels, but at least they can't be more than 65 million years old. Several of them are at least as well preserved as the mammoths, so there is reason to believe that the millions of years are a lie. They can't be true.

3. Do you doubt the historicity of the Bible?

One reason people reject God and the Christian faith is the perception that the Bible is not a historical book. Here, too, the background is very much the theory of evolution and millions of years. It is thought to invalidate the history of the Bible, especially its first chapters.

But but. As stated, the theory of evolution with it's millions of years is a lie. That is not true, because life cannot arise by itself and because all species have always been found completely ready and developed, as is to be expected if God created everything. He did not create half-finished organisms, but completely finished ones. And half-finished organisms could not even survive or reproduce. They would immediately become extinct if their structures were not functional.

Evidence for the historicity of the Bible is abundant: hundreds of flood accounts, marine remains in high mountain ranges, dozens of Old and New Testament individuals in other sources, excavated cities, and precise archaeological and geographical information.

However, there are hundreds of proofs for the historicity of the Bible. For example, the Flood is an easy thing to justify. The reason is that around the world, in the folklore of peoples, almost 500 Flood stories have been found. Taken together, these accounts from around the world, although they vary somewhat, are compelling evidence. Another similar evidence is the remains of marine life found in all the high mountains. They are found in the Himalayas, Alps, Andes and other high mountain ranges. Below are a couple of quotes from the scientists' own books. If this evidence of the remains of marine life in the high mountains is not sufficient evidence for the Flood, what is?

While travelling on the Beagle Darwin himself found fossilized seashells from high up on the Andean Mountains. It shows that, what is now a mountain was once under water. (Jerry A. Coyne: Miksi evoluutio on totta [Why evolution is true], p. 127)

There is a reason to look closely at the original nature of the rocks in mountain ranges. It is best seen in the Alps, in the lime Alps of the northern, so-called Helvetian zone. Limestone is the main rock material. When we look at the rock here on the steep slopes or at the top of a mountain - if we had the energy to climb up there - we will eventually find fossilized animal remains, animal fossils, in it. They are often badly damaged but it is possible to find recognizable pieces. All those fossils are lime shells or skeletons of sea creatures. Among them there are spiral-threaded ammonites, and especially a lot of double-shelled clams. (…) The reader might wonder at this point what it means that mountain ranges hold so many sediments, which can also be found stratified in the bottom of the sea. (p. 236,237 "Muuttuva maa", Pentti Eskola)

Harutaka Sakai from the Japanese University in Kyushu has for many years researched these marine fossils in the Himalayan Mountains. He and his group have listed a whole aquarium from the Mesozoic period. Fragile sea lilies, relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, are found in rock walls more than three kilometers above sea level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals and plankton are found as fossils in the rocks of the mountains (…)

At an altitude of two kilometers, geologists found a trace left by the sea itself. Its wave-like rock surface corresponds to the forms that remain in the sand from low-water waves. Even from the top of Everest, yellow strips of limestone are found, which arose under water from the remains of countless marine animals. ("Maapallo ihmeiden planeetta", p. 55)

There is plenty of other evidence for the Bible's historicity. It manifests itself in the fact that dozens of figures from the Old and New Testaments - kings, prophets, apostles, not to mention Jesus - are mentioned in other sources and archaeological finds. It is pointless to claim that it is not about historical events and persons, because other sources refer to the same things.

A.N. Sherwin-White, a researcher of the classical era who has been regarded as the pre-eminent expert of Roman law, wrote about the reliability of the Acts of the Apostles (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963, p. 173). He states that attempts to deny its reliability are absurd. Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, also wrote one of the Gospels:

The historical accuracy of the Acts has proven to be amazing. (…) All attempts to deny the fundamental historicity of Acts, even in small details, now seem necessarily preposterous. Scholars of Roman history have long taken it for granted.

The well-known archaeologist Nelson Glueck has also written (Rivers of the desert, 1959, p. 31) about archeology related to the Bible. He shows how archaeological discoveries confirm the historical reliability of the Bible:

Absolutely and certainly speaking, not a single archaeological finding has ever questioned any passage of the Bible. Tens of archaeological findings that confirm the historical statements of the Bible either in broad outline or in detail have been made. (5)

4. Do you dislike Christian morality?

When people oppose or turn away from the Christian faith, there is always a reason. One of the biggest reasons today is morality. Many consider themselves to be more morally advanced and loving than those who still want to adhere to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. This is especially evident in matters of sexuality and gender or abortion, which have been the subject of controversy in recent decades.

But how is the matter? Are you, who opposes the Christian faith, morally better than those who want to follow the teachings of Jesus and the apostles? Or are you better than Jesus and the apostles? This topic is worth considering in the light of the following points.

Are all human actions right or not? In modern times, the boundary between right and wrong has been moved. What was previously considered wrong has been changed into good

When exploring this topic, it is worth first addressing the rightness of actions. The actions that people perform can be classified into two categories. These options, which are related to morality, are:

• Everything people do is right

• There are actions that are clearly wrong

Which of the above options is true? Those who do not believe in the teachings of the Bible, such as the Ten Commandments and Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, may initially lean toward the first option. However, when asked whether they approve of torture, child sexual abuse, being robbed, or having their loved ones abused, they usually answer in the negative. This shows that they do in practice believe in the existence of universal and objective values. They may not have thought about the matter deeply, but they consider some actions to be clearly wrong. Option two makes more sense to them.

How does all this relate to morality and the Christian faith? In short, the Bible speaks of sin countless times. Sin means transgressions that are against the will of God. According to the Bible, there is no such person who has not sinned. The only exception is the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Among other things, this point is raised in the Letter to the Romans:

- (Romans 5:12) Why, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned:

Why then do some people attack Christian faith and morality, even though they themselves may admit that some actions are clearly wrong or even sinful? Why do they reject Christian teaching and morality, even though they accept that some actions are clearly wrong?

There is a simple explanation for this. These people no longer consider some of the things that have always been wrong and sinful in the Christian faith to be wrong and sinful. It is not that these people do not have moral values, but that they now classify them differently. They no longer classify as wrong those things that have always been wrong and sinful in the Christian faith. Some of these reclassified issues might be extramarital sex, homosexuality, or abortion

Yet even in our relativism we cannot escape the feeling that some things are “right” or “natural” and others are not. For years, most of society considered homosexuality immoral. Today, many people deny this. But they do not deny it on the grounds that there are no moral categories, but because this area of homosexuality should have belonged on the other side of the line that separates the moral from the immoral. Homosexuals generally do not condone incest! So the fact that people have different moral judgments does not change the fact that we are constantly making moral judgments and living according to or contrary to them. Everyone lives in a moral universe, and after all, everyone, with a little thought, knows this and would not want to change it. (6)

People believe in moral values, but God ultimately defines right and wrong and is the judge. Every person has committed sins

The conclusion is that people believe in moral values, but now they claim to know better than God what is right and wrong. They reject what has been taught in the Christian faith for 2000 years. They do not believe the teachings of Jesus and the apostles on these subjects.

But, but. If God exists, as can be concluded, for example, based on the existence of creation and life, he is probably also a judge, not just a creator. Then the one who determines right and wrong is himself, and no human being (Or should someone like Hitler or a playboy be the judge and the person who defines right and wrong?) For example, Paul referred to how the law in our hearts, or the concept of right and wrong, refers to how God will one day judge people:

- (Rom 2:14-16) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law to themselves:

15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

We will look at more verses related to this topic. They tell us both about God’s judgment and about those who will not inherit God’s kingdom. Most people admit that many of the following are wrong (murder, theft, greed, adultery…), even if they do not believe that these things will have an effect until eternity. In addition, every person is guilty of some of the following sins, but the good news of the Christian faith is that everyone can have their sins forgiven through the atonement of Jesus:

- (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.

- (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.

- (Eph 5:5) For this you know, that no fornicator, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

- (Col 3:5,6) Mortify therefore your members which are on the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

6 For which things' sake the wrath of God comes on the children of disobedience:

- (Hebr 13:4) Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

- (Rev 22:12-15) And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters, and whoever loves and makes a lie.

- (Rev 21:6-8) And he said to me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to him that is thirsty of the fountain of the water of life freely.

7 He that overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Who represents love; the modern-day moral changers or Jesus and the apostles?

Back to morality in society. When the sexual revolution spread in the late 1960s, people appealed to love. They said that there could be nothing wrong with two people loving each other and having sexual intercourse without a marital commitment. In the name of love, behavior that was previously considered sinful was justified, because according to the Bible, sex is only right within the marriage of a man and a woman:

- (1 Cor 7:2,3) Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

3 Let the husband render to the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife to the husband.

What about today? Now the same argument, love, is used to defend homosexual relationships. It is said that there is nothing wrong with it if both people love each other. At the same time, those who still adhere to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles on these matters may be accused of being narrow-minded.

But what is love? If the Bible’s teaching about the sinfulness of these things and their eternal impact is true, then love is to warn people against making wrong choices, just as it is to warn about thin ice: “Do not go there, lest you perish!” So if the teachings of Jesus and the apostles are true, then liberal priests and others who do not believe the Scriptures are leading people astray and ultimately to hell, even though they appear to be representatives of love and are heroes in the eyes of others. This is an obvious contradiction. Jesus said of such priests and teachers who lead others astray: "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” (Matthew 15:14).

And are the supporters of the new morality as loving in the amount of love as Jesus and the apostles he appointed? For since the Christian faith is based on the teachings of Jesus and the apostles he appointed, are modern liberals more loving than they are? These supporters of the new morality claim to represent love, but are they more loving than Jesus and the apostles?

Certainly no one surpasses Jesus in this area, but was Paul, for example, a loveless person? At least this is not evident from the following verses. Paul put love into practice. If you are honest, can you say that you have lived a life as loving as Paul and that you can be an example to others? At least I have to admit that I have not lived this way. However, I see Paul's life as a good Christian model for everyone:

- (2 Cor 12:14-15) Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.

15 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.

- (2 Cor 2:3-4) And I wrote this same to you, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all.

4 For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you with many tears; not that you should be grieved, but that you might know the love which I have more abundantly to you.

- (Rom 9:1-3) I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh

- (2 Tim 3:10-11) But you have fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, long-suffering, charity, patience,

11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.

- (Phil 3:17) Brothers, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as you have us for an ensample.

What about the other teachings of Jesus and the apostles he appointed? Did they teach us to hate our neighbors or to love them? There is no doubt about this. Throughout the New Testament it is clear that we should love even our enemies, those who reject us or speak evil of us.

You, who oppose the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, should say what is wrong with the following teachings. Do you agree or disagree with them? Or have you ever even become acquainted with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles and tried to live by them? On the other hand, if you agree that the following teachings are good and beneficial, why do you have a negative attitude towards Jesus and the apostles or the current followers of Jesus? Isn't this contradictory? The following are the teachings of Jesus and the apostles he appointed about meeting people:

Jesus: (Matt 5:43-48) You have heard that it has been said, You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.

44 But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which spitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if you love them which love you, what reward have you? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if you salute your brothers only, what do you more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be you therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Apostle Paul: (Rom 12:14,17-21) Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.

17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

18 If it be possible, as much as lies in you, live peaceably with all men.

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place to wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, said the Lord.

20 Therefore if your enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head.

21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Apostle Peter: (1 Peter 3:9,17) Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that you are thereunto called, that you should inherit a blessing.

17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that you suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

Apostle John: (1 John 4:18-21) There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear: because fear has torment. He that fears is not made perfect in love.

19 We love him, because he first loved us.

20 If a man say, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar: for he that loves not his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?

21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loves God love his brother also.

God has prepared the forgiveness of sins for everyone through the atonement of Jesus, so that every repentant person can receive eternal life. This is the core issue of the Christian faith

Above, it was shown how every person has an idea of right and wrong. Everyone naturally understands that some actions are clearly wrong and should not be done. However, even though all people know the difference between right and wrong, they themselves have committed some sins. Some people's sins are greater and others' are lesser. Most sins move in the area of the mind, such as greed, pride, lust

, bitterness, envy, lack of love, etc. These sins of the mind afflict every person to some extent, even if the person himself would like to be free from them. Even as Christians, we are not completely free from them.

What about the forgiveness of sins? Since “all have sinned” (Romans 5:12), is it possible for us to be forgiven of our sins and be freed from the condemnation of death? How do we receive eternal life?

Here we come to the core of the Christian faith, namely the forgiveness of sins. According to the Bible, God himself has prepared the forgiveness of sins for everyone. What is impossible for us has become possible through God. This happened in such a way that Jesus, the Son of God, came into the world and carried our sins on the cross. They are no longer a barrier between God and us:

- (2 Cor 5:18-20) And all things are of God, who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and has given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses to them; and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be you reconciled to God.

- (1 John 4:9,10) In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Do not stay outside! Turn to God confessing your sins and let yourself be saved!

Finally, dear reader! God has loved you and wants you in His eternal kingdom. Even if you have been a mocker and opponent of God, God has a good plan for you.

But does a person automatically receive a connection with God and forgiveness of sins? No, a person must turn to God, confessing their sins. Many may simply have a faith in which they believe everything written in the Bible to be true, but they have never taken this step of turning to God and surrendering their entire life to God.

A good example of repentance is Jesus’ teaching about the prodigal son. This son lived in deep debauchery, but then he turned to his father and confessed his sin. The father received him with mercy.

- (Luke 15:11-20) And he said, A certain man had two sons:

12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falls to me. And he divided to them his living.

13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.

14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.

15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.

16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave to him.

17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before you,

19 And am no more worthy to be called your son: make me as one of your hired servants.

20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

When a person turns to God, he must also wish Jesus to be the Lord of his life. For only through Jesus can one approach God and receive forgiveness of sins, as the following verses show. Therefore, wish Jesus to be the Lord of your life, and you will receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life:

- (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.

- (John 5:39,40) Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.

- (Acts 10:43) To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whoever believes in him shall receive remission of sins.

- (Acts 13:38) Be it known to you therefore, men and brothers, that through this man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins:

39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

If you have welcomed Jesus into your life and put your faith or trust in him for salvation (Acts 16:31 "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.")

, you can pray, for example, in the following way:

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 from my sins and follow you with all my heart. And I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through your atonement and that through you I have received eternal life. I thank you for the salvation you have given me. Amen.

References:

1. Richard Dawkins: Jumalharha (The God Delusion), p. 153

2. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, p. 94

3. Cit. from "Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan", Kimmo Pälikkö and Markku Särelä, p. 19.

4. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 15,16

5. Nelson Glueck: Rivers of the desert, 1959, p. 31

6. James W. Sire: Missä maailmassa? Maailmankatsomusten perusteet puntarissa (The Universe Next Door. A Basic World View Catalog), p. 36,37

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

How does creation testify to the existence of God?

The diversity, fine-tuning, and complex structures of the nature around us cannot come into existence by chance on their own. When we examine the order of creation, the existence of an intelligent Designer and Creator can be logically inferred. An atheistic worldview has no satisfying answers to offer for the fundamental questions of existence.

Where did the universe come from according to the atheistic model?

The atheistic and materialistic explanatory model is unable to demonstrate scientifically how something could arise out of nothing on its own. The origin of the universe always requires a cause greater than and prior to itself. The biblical revelation of the creation of all things is the only logical answer to this question.

Is the spontaneous origin of life possible?

Empirical science has never been able to demonstrate that inanimate matter could turn into a living cell by itself. The vast amount of digital information and complex mechanisms contained within a cell always require an intelligent source. The origin of life without God is merely an unproven belief.

Why is the lack of half-finished organs a problem for the theory of evolution?

If the gradual development according to the theory of evolution were true, the fossil record should be full of half-finished organs and clear transitional forms. In reality, animals and plants always appear in fossils as fully formed and functional. This observation directly conflicts with evolution and supports creation.

Are radioactive dating methods reliable witnesses of millions of years?

Radioactive dating methods are based on several unproven background assumptions, such as constant decay rates and initial concentrations of elements. Since these assumptions cannot be proven from the past, measurement results are often severely contradictory. They cannot be considered unshakeable scientific facts.

How do radiocarbon measurements refute the concept of billions of years?

Theoretically, radiocarbon (C-14) should not remain at all in objects that are hundreds of millions or billions of years old due to its short half-life. However, it has been repeatedly found in diamonds and coal deposits claimed to be ancient. This is strong empirical evidence for a young Earth.

What do dinosaur fossils and human traditions tell us about the age of the Earth?

In recent decades, soft tissue, blood cells, and traces of DNA have been discovered in dinosaur fossils—preservations that are biologically impossible over millions of years. Furthermore, oral traditions and descriptions of dragons among nations around the world suggest that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. This refutes the theory of a multi-million-year timeline.

What scientific and archaeological evidence exists for the historicity of the Bible?

Hundreds of flood accounts found around the globe and marine sediments found in high mountain ranges testify to the Bible's historical narrative. Modern archaeology has also excavated numerous cities mentioned in the Bible and confirmed the existence of dozens of historical figures through non-biblical sources. The geographical and historical information in the Bible has proven to be exceptionally precise.

How has the boundary between right and wrong been shifted in modern times?

In modern times, the societal moral foundation has been changed so that many things previously considered morally wrong are now regarded as good and acceptable. This human moral relativism blurs the line between true right and wrong. However, ultimate and unchangeable justice and morality always originate from God, who is the judge of all.

How can a person receive forgiveness of sins and be saved?

God has prepared full salvation and the forgiveness of sins for every person through the atoning work of Jesus Christ. This is the absolute core of the Christian faith and the greatest expression of love. Every repentant person can receive eternal life by turning to God and confessing their sins.