Why I Will Raise My Children With God Part 3

   The blogger writes God is unfair, hidden, and narcissistic. The blogger continues to make moral claims about God. She says God is “unfair” and “narcissistic.” But can the blogger justify moral absolutes, such as fairness, and selflessness, given her atheism? I think not. It is as if the blogger has shot bullets with a gun, and both, she cannot have in principle, since her worldview cannot justify such things. However, it is on the basis of Christianity, she can make such claims, since moral absolutes are justified by the Absolute, omni-benevolent God of scripture. The blogger is made in the image of God although she continues in self-deception to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. So we can take the bloggers assertions seriously only because Christianity is true. What do we make of her claims? First, no one is innocent, and therefore, God owes mankind only justice. To say that God is unfair is to bite the hand that provides and sustains the one that makes the claim. But more to the point, to make such a claim, one must be judging God by some moral standards that are rationally unjustifiable (e.g. moral realism, and moral relativism). Since the only necessary justifiable foundation for absolute moral standards is God’s absolute character. 

Is God selfish? No, since God is self-sufficient (in no need of anything) and morally perfect (doesn't lack any moral perfection).  Why then does he require man to repent and believe in him? Simply put, it pleased him to do so. He freely chose to condescend, and have communion with his creatures. He was not obligated to do so but he did. Mankind now is commanded everywhere to repent and trust in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection for salvation.     

Why I Will Raise My Children With God Part 2

Next the blogger says, “God is not logical." She gives evidence of her claim by appealing to God’s “apparent” hiddenness during pain and suffering. She says, “Why did God allow this [pain and suffering] to happen? The blogger interprets most common answer as, “We don’t understand, so we will not think about it or deal with the issue.” I think what best illustrates the bloggers argument is when she writes, “If there is a good, all-knowing, all-powerful God who loves his children, does it make sense that he would allow murders, child abuse, wars, brutal beatings, torture and millions of heinous acts to be committed throughout the history of mankind?” I must admit with the blogger that the evil we see is devastating. The pain people go through is real and brings much sorrow. But does such evil in the world make God illogical? I think the blogger is clearly confused between epistemology and ethics. But let us overlook this fact. If God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist, then there is no contradiction in saying God and evil exist. But perhaps, what the blogger is really getting at is, she expects God to intervene at every moment to remove evil.  Such a view would imply God must remove all causes of evil including human beings. Furthermore, it would remove the nomological laws of nature. Distinctions between physical laws and miracles would collapse.

Moreover, the blogger cannot account for moral absolutes, thus she is still not in a position to make moral claims against God. Even more, the atheist, cannot account for logic. Logic refers to invariable, immaterial, universal and necessary laws that human minds are obligated to conform to. They prescribe how humans “ought” to think. How can an atheist “justify” the laws of logic? Given atheism, there cannot be immaterial laws all humans “ought” to obey. But from a Christian perspective, we can effectively justify logic. Scripture teaches God is the standard of rationality. His thinking is the type that our thinking ought to be a token of. He is intrinsically logical and therefore, we are to reflect His thinking being made in the image of God. 

Why I Will Raise My Children With God Part 1

TXBlue08, an atheist, has written a blog post entitled “Why I Raise My Children Without God,” in which she argues why parents “ought” not to teach their children things about God. Link here: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-910282?hpt=hp_c2

I will quote her essay and then respond using the essay as a sample of how presuppositionalism is the most effective method of Christian apologetics. 

She says, “God is a bad parent and role model.” Since “Good parents don’t allow their children to inflict harm on others. Nor do “Good people… stand by and watch horrible acts committed against innocent men, women and children.” She goes on to attack the free will defense on the grounds that good parents still intervene, guide, and protect their children regardless if they have free will.

How to respond? First, one must understand that as Christians we respond fully committed to Christ, so our answers will flow from our allegiance to God and His Word.  Scripture teaches God is not someone we should think of as our equal. He is God and we are his creatures. He made mankind in his image thus giving us intellects, wills, emotions, and dominion over creation. God gave mankind the sole responsibility to take care of his creation. This entails man is responsible over their children to be representatives of God to them. Teaching them the truth of God and protecting them from evil. God created Adam who was the first man and representative of the human race.   God gave mankind commandments/duties that reflect God’s character for the benefit of the creature and the ultimate good.  The first man Adam violated God’s commandment and brought forth punishment for both him and the whole human race. The punishment stemmed from Adam to all mankind. Man inherited guilt, and an inclination to sin. This defaced the image of God in man. Man is not born innocent, but guilty. He is born a rebel against God. We are all born as enemies of God. We love sin and hate God. Hence the blogger is quite mistaken to talk of “good parents and innocent children,” since there are no parents or children that are truly good. The blogger quite frequently appeals to moral absolutes. She uses moral terms such as “good” and “should” but given her atheism how can she make sense of morality. She cannot have moral absolutes (even in principle) given her commitment to atheism. But as Christians we can account for moral absolutes since God has given us his moral law both in Scripture (Ex. 20) and innately (Rom. 2:14-15). However, the blogger knows these truths and this is why she cannot help but make moral judgments. A man or woman made in God’s image and who lives in God’s world, but wishes to be an atheist cannot help but be inconsistent. The atheist will have to make absolute moral judgments but not be able to provide the worldview that can justify those judgments. Furthermore, notice the blogger took up the right to put God on trial. But who gave her the moral right to judge God? She attempts to reason independently from God’s truth only to find her self caught in a vicious circle. She judges God; she does so by the right she has given her self. She is utterly arbitrary, and question begging. And yet she has the nerve to say she’s logical.

I think even Christians with the free will defense can get out of the bloggers charges. However, I would revise the free will defense if utilized. But here is a typical example I think that is immune to the bloggers charges:    

More comments on this essay to follow.