Matt Slick #fundie #conspiracy #homophobia carm.org

Is CARM homophobic? No, CARM is not homophobic. We don’t fear homosexuals. For the most part, they are productive and helpful people in society. We are no more homophobic than they are heterophobic. Rather, CARM recognizes the moral and social implications of the homosexual agenda that seeks to move into all areas of society and redefine morals in a manner consistent with the homosexual agenda. What is the agenda? It is to make homosexuality an accepted lifestyle in society, to have it be considered a normal and healthy lifestyle, a legitimate marriage choice, and a morally sound option among all people.

To this, CARM stands in opposition because the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Rom. 1:26-28). Therefore, we exercise our right to express our religious views, defend what the Bible teaches, and expose the spiritual, physical, and emotional harm that homosexuality poses.

Furthermore, we reject the label of being homophobic (see The battle over words ) since it is a negative term designed to bring derision and emotional condemnation upon those to whom it is applied. We are not homophobic. We are pro-traditional marriage and we are pro-traditional sexual practice. It is the homosexual community that wants to redefine proper sexual conduct and marriage definitions. We could easily say that the pro-homosexual movement is heterophobic and/or Christophobic.

Words mean things.

Matt Slick #fundie carm.org

We know the Bible is the word of God because it says so.

1.We do not use logic and evidence to prove that the Bible is God's word. otherwise, the Bible is subject to logic and evidence. It is sufficient that God's word testifies of itself.

2. This will not convince unbelievers, but the redeemed know the Bible is the word of God because Holy Spirit who lives in us bears witness to this truth.

3. We are enabled to know the truth of God's word because of the cross of Christ that brings us to a saving relationship with God who then lives in our hearts and reveals truth to us.

4. Christians know and trust God's word because they hear and know the voice of Jesus.

Matt Slick #fundie carm.org

Let's say that I am at your house and we are having a discussion about the nature and extent of the atoning work of Christ. In my excitement, I knock over a lamp and break it, but you are a gracious person, and you forgive me for my offense against you. However, you then require $10 as payment even though you have forgiven me. Is it true forgiveness to require a payment for what you have forgiven? Of course not. But the lamp needs to be replaced. So, in true forgiveness who is left to pay for the replacement of the lamp? You are (now in a real-world situation I would, of course, offer to replace it, but this illustration is meant to exemplify what true forgiveness really is as it relates to payment). If I were to pay for the replacement of the lamp, a payment has been made and you, the owner, are satisfied. With God, we the lawbreakers are not capable of making a sufficient payment to rectify our sin problem because our righteous deeds are filthy rags before God (Isaiah 64:6). Since we are not capable of making a sufficient restitution payment, the only one left to do this is God. Therefore, logically, God must be the one who makes the payment just as you, the lamp owner, in true forgiveness, would pay for the replacement of the lamp. God is the one who is offended by our sin against him, yet He also forgives.  But His forgiveness does not negate the necessity of the law being administered because the law, which is a reflection of the character of God, states that he who sins must die (Romans 6:23). Sin is breaking the law of God (1 John 3:4), and God cannot arbitrarily dismiss His law, otherwise, He is not just. So, He takes the law upon Himself via the transference of our legal debt to Himself on the cross and dies with it. Therefore, the law is satisfied, and we are forgiven.

Matt Slick #fundie carm.org

Some people think that the substitutionary atonement doctrine is immoral because it amounts to child abuse (the Father sent the Son to die for us) and that it makes the innocent suffer for the guilty (Jesus was without sin and suffered for us).

As far as the criticism that the innocent has suffered for the guilty, there is a factor which this criticism overlooks. It is that God is the one who is offended, and He has the right to forgive. Since Jesus is God in flesh, He is the one who is resolving the sin problem which is against Himself.  In other words, the one offended is also the one atoning. The criticism, on the other hand, excludes this point.

Matt Slick #fundie carm.org

Recent Quotes from the same fundie
Quote# 117934

I often receive complaints from atheists about the God of Christianity. They accuse Him of being a monster and a moral tyrant. They just don't like Him. Apparently there isn't enough room in the world for two moral judges: God and themselves. So, they want to dismiss God and judge Him. Okay, so what gives them to right to judge God? Where is their standard from which they base their moral assertions about what is right and wrong? The problem is that they can't produce any objective standard. They only have their subjective opinions and that is a problem--a big problem.

Now, just because they have a dilemma on their hands about rationally and morally justifying any sort of standard of righteousness by which they can make moral judgments, it doesn't mean they are going to give up their moral self-righteousness (isn't that what it is?) when someone shows them the irrationality door and firmly escorts their rears through it. After all, when you get to play God and make yourself the moral standard of right and wrong, that is hard to give up. I'm sure there's some internal satisfaction that permeates the atheist's soul when declaring what is good and bad and then passing judgment on others. The problem is that no atheist I've encountered has been able to provide a rational justification for his moral judgments.

Let's just take a look at their dilemma. You see, if an atheist wants to complain about the God of the Bible, that is his privilege. I will defend his right to have an opinion--even such a stupendously wrong one. But what logical argument can an atheist provide that would justify his saying that anything God does really is wrong? Think about it. The atheist could only have three possible options for the source of a moral standard:

He can develop a moral standard out of his own opinions.
He can adopt the moral standards of society.
He can use a combination of his own opinions and the morals of society.
Other than those three, I don't see any other options. So, let's take a look at them.

Deriving morality from one's own opinions
If an atheist wants to develop his moral standard based on his own opinions, then what justifies his opinions as being the right ones? His opinions are subjective--not objective. They are based on his opinions, so why should we take his moral opinions seriously? And what right does he have to say that anyone else's moral position is right or wrong? Isn't their opinion on morals as valid as his? Furthermore, if he tried to say that anyone else's morals were wrong, then isn't he being arrogant by judging another's subjective opinions based on his subjective opinions? These questions expose the problem of deriving morality from one's self.

Deriving morality from society
If we go with the second option where the atheist derives his morality from society, then what makes one society right and another wrong? Haven't societies been wrong before? Think of Nazi Germany or America in the 1800's regarding slavery. Furthermore, who's to say that in the future a new moral majority might condemn atheism as an ethical danger to society? Would they be right? How would you know? The point is that deriving morality from society doesn't mean it is correct. History has shown that to be the case. Many atheists respond to this criticism by saying that society is evolving and getting better morally. Okay, but that is just begging the question. In other words, they are saying society is getting better morally because we are evolving. Really? In other words, societies are getting better morally because societies say so?

Deriving morality from opinions and society
Finally, if the atheist uses his own opinions in combination with those of society, then he is subjectively deciding what he thinks is right and wrong in the society around him. He is judging society's morals and deciding which ones are right and wrong, which ultimately brings us back to the first problem where he's deriving morality from his own opinions. He's logically befuddled.

So, the atheist doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on when it comes to making moral assertions and actually defending them as being the right ones.

Since he doesn't have any moral standing by which to make objective moral claims, then all he can say is that he doesn't like the God of Christianity. He can't say that the God of Christianity as found in the Bible is objectively morally wrong because he doesn't have an objective moral standard by which to make such a judgment. He only has a subjective opinion. If he then tries to impose his opinions on others, he then becomes guilty of arrogance and judgmentalism.

Atheists are stuck, but they don't care. All they have to do is ignore the logic, ignore their moral dilemma, and continue along in their subjective, opinionated, emotional path of moral relativism while they condemn the actions of anyone who doesn't agree with them. I guess rational ignorance is bliss.

matt slick #fundie carm.org

Why was God so harsh with those in idolatry?
We must understand that God dealt very harshly because it was through the people of Israel that the Messiah would later come. Satan, in his perpetual effort to oppose God, sought to have the people of God fall into false worship and through intermarriage with other people to destroy the messianic line and make not only the promises of God null and void but also destroy means by which the Messiah could be born. If this could be accomplished, then none would have any hope of deliverance from sin. Therefore, we see in the Old Testament God being very harsh and strict according to the Law.

matt slick #fundie carm.org

God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Is that right?

Romans 9:17-18

(Romans 9:17-18) - "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." 18So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires."

Romans 9:9-23 is some of the most controversial scripture in the Bible. When reading through it, one quickly finds the sovereignty of God in distinction to the free will of man. What is going on?

Basically, God has the right to do with His creation as He wills. We see from the Word that God is in control, "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," (Acts 4:27-28). In other words, God is in control. God can also move peoples' hearts (Prov. 21:1) and directs history to where He wants it to go.

God raised up Pharaoh for a purpose: to demonstrate His power. How was this done? It was done by working miracles through Moses and delivering the Israelites. Does God have the right and ability to harden whom He desires in the process of accomplish His will? Absolutely for that is what it says in 9:18. Does this make God wrong in anyway? Not at all. God can do no wrong. Pharaoh was a sinner who deserved the righteous judgment of God. Some say that God simply strengthened Pharaoh's heart towards its natural tendency. Others maintain that God actively hardened his the heart. Whichever the case, Pharaoh rejected the true and living God and God used him for His own purpose.

matt slick #fundie carm.org

The doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible means that the Bible in the original documents is God-breathed and that it is a divine product. And because it is divine, the original documents are inerrant. The copies of those documents are not inspired. We have copies of inspired documents.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." Paul who wrote this epistle was obviously referring to the entirety of the Old Testament as being inspired. The word, "inspired," is literally "God-breathed." This is an interesting phrase since it implies that the Scriptures are from the mouth of God. Likewise, Peter says in 2 Pet. 1:21, "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Notice that Peter is stating that prophecy is not the product of human will. Instead, prophecy occurs by those moved by the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, we can easily see that the Old Testament Scriptures are full of statements and phrases claiming to be the Word of God.

"Thus says the Lord" occurs 418 times in the NASB, 413 in the KJV
Exodus 4:22, "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, Thus says the Lord, 'Israel is My son, My first-born.'"
1 Kings 11:31, "And he said to Jeroboam, 'Take for yourself ten pieces; for thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will tear the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and give you ten tribes.'"
Isaiah 7:7, "thus says the Lord God, 'It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass.'"
"God said" occurs 46 times in both the NASB and the KJV
Genesis 1:3, "Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light."
Exodus 3:14, "And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you."
Exodus 6:2-3, "God spoke further to Moses and said to him, 'I am the Lord; and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them.'"
God spoke through prophets
1 Kings 14:18, "And all Israel buried him and mourned for him, according to the word of the Lord which He spoke through His servant Ahijah the prophet."
2 Sam. 24:11-12, "When David arose in the morning, the word of the Lord came to the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying, 12 'Go and speak to David, Thus the Lord says, "I am offering you three things; choose for yourself one of them, which I may do to you.'"
Zech. 7:7, "Are not these the words which the Lord proclaimed by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and prosperous with its cities around it, and the Negev and the foothills were inhabited?"
The Spirit of the Lord spoke through people
2 Sam. 23:2, "The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue."
1 Kings 22:24, "Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek and said, 'How did the Spirit of the Lord pass from me to speak to you?'"
2 Chron. 20:14-15, "Then in the midst of the assembly the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel the son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, the Levite of the sons of Asaph; 15 and he said, 'Listen, all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and King Jehoshaphat: thus says the Lord to you, Do not fear or be dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God's.'"
As you can see, the Old Testament Scriptures are clearly full of statements showing the inspiration of God through the writers. The Old Testament assumes and speaks from the perspective of divine inspiration. Should we do any less?

What about the New Testament?
We see that the Old Testament is repeatedly spoken of as being inspired via the numerous references cited above but what about the New Testament? Are the New Testament books inspired as well?

The Christian church has always considered the New Testament documents to be inspired. Though in the early church there were some debates on which New Testament books to include in the Bible, God worked through the Christian church to recognize those inspired works. Therefore, we now have 27 inspired books for the New Testament.

In 1 Cor. 14:37 Paul said, "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment." In 2 Pet. 3:16 Peter said, "as also in all [Paul's] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." Also, Jesus said in John 14:26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." This means that the Lord has commissioned the apostles to accurately record what Jesus had said because the Holy Spirit would be working in them.

So, we can see that Jesus promised direction from the Holy Spirit, Paul considered what he wrote to be the commands of God and that Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture. In addition, since the Christian Church recognizes the 27 books of the New Testament are inspired and since we see internal claims of inspiration in the New Testament, we conclude that inspiration applies to the New Testament documents as well.

Inspiration violates free will.
Inspiration does not violate free will. What if the person through whom God is working has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and desires to have the Lord speak through him? Would this negate the ability of God to inerrantly speak through such a person? Would it also mean that the person has no free will if he has voluntarily subjected his will to the will of God?
Certainly, God has the ability to work through individuals to bring them to a place where they can record inerrant statements. Cannot God manifest Himself to someone, deliver to him a verbal message, and have that person record it? Would that statement not be inspired of God?
Prov. 21:1,"The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever He wishes." This verse clearly states that God is able to work through an individual's "free will" to bring about what God desires.
What about the numerous contradictions in the Bible?
It is true that there are difficulties with in the Word of God. But these are due to copying errors through the centuries. As more and more historical, archaeological, and manuscript evidence is uncovered, the fewer Bible difficulties there are. Nevertheless, for an examination of answers to the alleged Bible contradictions, please see Bible Difficulties.
The manuscript evidence doesn't support inerrancy of the originals.
This is a subjective conclusion. The more I have studied about the ancient manuscripts, the more I have concluded that the original documents were indeed inspired and inerrant.
The logical implication of the statements within the Bible is that they are inerrant since they claim to be offered from God. They either are or are not inspired of God. If they are not, then their claims of speaking for God are lies.
Inspiration applies to Scripture--not people.
God works sovereignly through people to inspire His documents: it is the people whom God indwells with His spirit and the people who are inspired by God to write His Word. If inspiration only refers to Scripture and somehow means that people are not themselves inspired, the Scriptures are still God-breathed and necessarily inerrant.

Robin Schumacher #fundie carm.org

At first blush, atheism and Islam couldn’t seem more different. Atheism denies the existence of any supernatural deity whereas Islam (whose name means "submission") is monotheistic and asserts a supreme supernatural god named Allah. Atheism denies any life beyond this world while Islam teaches that those Muslims whose good works exceed their bad will spend eternity with Allah after life on earth with both Muslims who lack works and non-Muslims being punished after death. And on it goes.

However, there is one thing that both the faith of atheism (yes, atheism is indeed a faith-based system) and Islam have in common: they aggressively do everything in their power to silence any voice that dares to challenge their ideology.

Now, to be fair, I must add a qualifier to both atheism and Islam in this regard. I have had dialogues with both atheists and Muslims who were very respectful, truly considered my arguments for Christianity, certainly respected my intelligence, and defended my right to voice an opinion that was contrary to their own. I have benefited greatly in discussions with such people and appreciate their correcting me on inadequate arguments that I asked them to consider.

By contrast, it is militant Islam and atheism (which I call hatetheism) that seeks to stifle any person that calls into question the validity of their worldview.

The fact that militant Islam practices such a thing is no news to anyone remotely educated on that movement. One needs to look no further than the high-profile imprisonment of Youcef Nadarkhani, who was arrested in 2009 for being a Christian and preaching Christianity in Iran. The formal charge labeled against pastor Youcef is blasphemy against Islam.

While militant Islam’s persecution against non-Muslims is widely acknowledged, what isn’t so well known is that hatetheism operates in the exact same way as militant Islam.

Hatetheism both insults and tries to humiliate anyone who professes faith in God and does everything it can to silence those it considers its enemies. For example, comedian Bill Maher has openly stated that the opinions of religious people should not be respected and has gone on to say: "We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking . . . . I think religion is a neurological disorder . . . . I am just embarrassed that it has been taken over by people like evangelicals, by people who do not believe in science and rationality.”1

Sporting such a spirit, it is not surprising that hatetheists have no desire for any dialogue with others who do not share their opinions. A case in point is the first “Reason Rally,” which was held in Washington D.C. on March 24, 2012, with headliners like Richard Dawkins and other similar famous atheists being present.

When Tom Gilson, editor of the book True Reason, contacted David Silverman of American Atheists to inform them that Christians would be present at the Reason Rally and were interested in having a respectful dialogue with the atheist group with a formal debate between Dawkins and Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, also being proposed, he was told the following:

"Make no mistake--you are not welcomed guests at the rally. We are not going to DC for ‘dialogue’ with people who believe ridiculous things--we are going to have fun with other like-minded people. Those who proselytize or interfere with our legal and well-deserved enjoyment will be escorted to the 1st Amendment pen by security, which will be plentiful, where you can stand with the Westborough [sic] Baptists and shout yourselves hoarse.

Spreading out among the crowd is not a substitute for a permit. Indeed, I will be meeting with the Parks Commission on Thursday to discuss how to handle your infiltrative permitless counter-protest."2

While Silverman and his group have no problem erecting billboards during times such as Christmas and Easter that mock Christianity and thus insert themselves into Christians’ holidays, it appears they have no desire to have Christians "intrude" into their events.

So much for being "free thinkers."

One last illustration of hatetheism doing its best to silence its opponents is when supposed "neutral" scientists, who are really devotees to philosophical naturalism, shut down any peer that dares to challenge certain teachings of evolution. A good example of this is the current legal case of David Coppedge vs. his former employer, NASA, who first demoted and then fired Coppedge after he shared DVD’s of intelligent design with some of his co-workers.

Commenting on how aggressive the adherents to naturalism can be, paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen has stated, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”3 Those knowing the history of this battle in academia will remember that Darwinian advocates only asked that their view be taught alongside intelligent design in the early 1900’s, but now they do everything in their power to shut the door in ID’s face. Noting the double standard in situations like this, Ravi Zacharias has said: “Is it not odd that whenever it has power, liberalism is anything but liberal, both in the area of religion and politics?" We can also add science to that list.

I think most everyone would agree with the argument that the only reason a person should believe anything is that that particular "thing" is true. If Islam is true, we should all be Muslims. If atheism is true, then we should all be atheists. If Christianity is true, we should all be Christ followers.

But the fact is, sometimes people who say that they are truth seekers aren’t interested in hearing the truth. There are other factors at work other than a commitment to what’s really true, and these influences can often bring together those who are otherwise enemies of each other.

Without a doubt, militant Islam and hatetheism seem to have absolutely nothing in common. But when it comes to shutting down anyone who dares to oppose them, they couldn’t be more alike and indeed make comfortable bedfellows.

Matt Slick #fundie carm.org

A man from the congregation, with a huge Bible that had gold pages, was somehow designated to speak to me specifically and to teach me about Jesus so I could receive Him as savior. At this point, we were all kneeling at the front of the church, beneath the pulpit, and each potential convert had been matched to a congregation member. I scoffed under my breath as mine began to recite scripture and blab some religious mumbo-jumbo that I seriously tried to ignore. I wanted desperately to leave.

Then, unexpectedly, a woman about ten feet from me who had also come forward, started to cry. She cried with such depth and feeling that I was shocked. It was weird. This fanatical display was not what I wanted to be a part of, so I just focused on getting through it so I could leave.

Then someone else began to cry the same way and another. I wanted out!

By now, I was nervous. I wasn't sure what to do or to expect, so I looked at the man I had been ignoring and decided to listen to him for just a second and then I'd continue to ignore him. All the while I was wondering how to get out of there. But, in that moment where I paid attention, he asked, "So, do you want to receive Jesus as your Savior?"

Now, I am not the "jump on the band-wagon" kind of a guy, not at all. I wasn't going to fall into this emotional hype sweeping through the church. So, I decided to focus and think logically. I examined this man. I remember very clearly looking at him. He seemed normal enough. Then a thought occurred to me. I realized that this situation might be important and I didn't want to simply scoff at it and ignore it. Maybe there was something to this God stuff. After all, I don't know everything. So, I thought about the options: If I choose God and He is there, I win. If He is not there, it doesn't matter. If He is there and I don't choose Him, I lose. Logically, I should give God a try. It made sense.

I knew that if God was real that I should, at least, manifest some form of sincerity even if it wasn't much. I figured that being flippant with God, if He were real, wouldn't be a good idea. It wouldn't hurt to try and be sincere and these people in the church seemed to have some common purpose and identity. It was, to say the least, interesting. So, I quickly addressed a prayer to God (not knowing if He was there) and said, "God, if you're there, then I'll try and be sincere and accept you. If you're not there, it won't cost me anything."

I looked at the man and said, "Yes."

"Good," he said. "Let's pray," and he led me in the sinner's prayer.

As I started to pray, I tried to manifest a sincere and honest heart. I was "giving God a chance." I followed the man's lead and I began to confess my "sins" to God and to ask Jesus to forgive me... everything was fine until something completely unexpected happened.

(I want to interject something here. I make no claims to being "spiritual" or "special" in any way. But, what follows is what really happened. And please remember that I have never been able to adequately convey the "experience" side of what happened in my soul that night. It is difficult to adequately describe. So, please bear with me.)

As I concluded my prayer, I became aware that someone "other" was there. Someone else was in the room with us and His attention was focused on me. This someone was not a member of that congregation. But I felt His presence dawning like a sunrise. This person was making Himself known to me in my heart. I somehow knew it was God. It was the Holy Spirit. He came to me slowly, gently, and then in a sudden movement, His Holiness overshadowed me with greatness and I became incapacitated. It was indescribable. He permeated my heart, mind, and soul. He washed over me in a burst of holiness and I was utterly undone. His incredibly deep purity shone upon my soul and I was instantaneously made aware of my utter sinfulness before a Holy and Righteous God. It was a supernatural experience of profound and utter depth. It wasn't emotionalism. It wasn't being psyched-out. It was God. I was in the presence of God Himself. I was in the presence of Perfect Holiness....and I knew it!!!

From the very deepest part of my soul, I felt a powerfully new and profound remorse for my sins, for offending God, for being unclean. I was a sinner! My body could not help but let loose a flood of tears of sorrow and guilt. I wept hard. I wept from the depths of my soul in guttural, heaving, moans of confession and brokenness. I was in the presence of incredible Purity, Holiness, and Love.. I was encountering God Himself. and I was a sinner. I could hardly stand to be in the presence of such deeply pure perfection and holiness. It was out of balance and I was profoundly aware of the disparity.

So, there I was, on the ground, sobbing like I've never wept in my life. I was a sinner and I knew it. The Holy Lord had revealed Himself to me and the natural result was to realize my own sinfulness. I kept sobbing and heaving out tears upon the floor. They came like a flood. And then.

This may seem unbelievable, but the only way I can explain it is that Jesus Himself manifested right there next to me. He had come to meet me on my knees. It wasn't as though I could see Him or touch Him. But, He was there. I was aware of His Holy awesome holy presence next to me. It was incredible. It was wonderful and I felt my heart enveloped and lifted by Him. His concern for me was precious and tender. It was marvelous. He enveloped me in His love, His holiness, and His awesome greatness. I knew He was there to forgive me. I knew He loved me. I basked in His presence. I was with Jesus.

Then, while I was kneeling there, utterly absorbed and drifting in the experience of His presence, He moved. He moved toward me and gently entered my heart. Instantly, I physically felt my sin leave me. I felt the sudden and wonderful burst of forgiveness wash over my soul. I was instantly cleansed and born again and with it came the most profound and absolute sense of security of salvation I had ever known. My salvation was in Him. I was forgiven and safe for ever.

Then, He gently lifted His marvelous presence from me. He let me breathe again, think again, and regain my composure. It took a while, but I was finally able to recover and eventually able to stand up. But I was not the same. God had touched me and I was forever changed. I was so ecstatic. My heart was overflowing with excitement, love, hope, intensity, and great joy. I was smiling so hard, that my cheeks were hurting and I couldn't stop. It was great.

Matt Slick #fundie carm.org

Without God, a collection of subjective preferences based on the personal opinions and desires of the collective whole of society and the declared moral truth that unnecessary suffering is wrong, is the best that can be offered without God. But, ultimately, it fails because it is subjective, not universal. If you think it is universal because all people don't like unnecessary suffering, then think again. There are people who prefer unnecessary suffering. The mentally ill, for example. Are they wrong for preferring it? If you say it's okay for them, then the moral is not universal since it doesn't apply to them. If you say it's not okay for them, then you are imposing of value on others and what gives you the right to do that in a subjective world?

Tony Miano #fundie carm.org

Dear reader: if you feed, clothe, and house people for the glory of God (Matthew 5:16), but you do not share the gospel with them, all you have ultimately accomplished is making those same needy people warmed and filled on their way to Hell. You have merely made their bodies more comfortable. You've done nothing for their souls.

More to the point regarding my friend's assertion: of course the unregenerate person doesn't want their Christian friends to proclaim the gospel to them. Why? They hate Jesus (John 15:18). They love their sin (Job 15:16) and they hate God (Romans 1:30). Cockroaches don't run to the center of the floor and square dance when you turn on the kitchen light. They flee to the dark regions underneath the cabinets and appliances. They hate the light, and so does the unregenerate sinner (John 3:20). Their love for the darkness of their sin is so great that any holy light brought to bear in their lives is not only uncomfortable and unpleasant, it is detestable.

Tony Miano #fundie carm.org

[This is from an article on how to "witness" in front of abortion clinics.]

There are two schools of thought regarding the use of signs outside abortion clinics. Some believe using graphic images of aborted babies, focusing on the death of the child, is a good visual deterrent for those who are entering abortion clinics. Others believe high quality images of living, preborn children are a more effective and less offensive visual deterrent.

Both schools of thought have merit. The decision whether or not to use signs, and what kind of signs to use, is a matter of conscience and therefore up to the individual.

A third option for those who wish to carry signs outside abortion clinics is to produce signs that have text, with no images. Appropriate pithy sayings or Bible verses can make for very effective signage.

Signs can be very effective tools in both pleading with people not to kill their unborn children and communicating truth in a limited amount of time.


In addition to citing Scripture, here are some short phrases one can quickly communicate to those walking into abortion clinics:

- "There are alternatives to killing your baby."
- "Give me your baby. Allow your baby to live and I will help you find a family to adopt your child."
- "You know this is wrong, for God has given you a conscience."
- "God hates murder. Please don't kill your baby."
- "God knows your child. He knit your child together in the womb."
- "Please do not kill your baby. He or she has been created in the image of God."
- "Please don't sin against God this way. You will stand before Him to give an account for what you are about to do."
- "You are making a choice. You are ending a life. You are killing your baby."
- "You do not stop being a mother after you kill your baby. You will always be a mother."


Most abortions are selfish acts of convenience. Abortion is an act of self-love in which mothers and fathers put the love of self before their love for God and other people -- especially their unborn children.

Matt Slick #fundie carm.org

Not to long ago, I was in an atheist chat room for about half an hour where I was repeatedly insulted, told that I was stupid, that I couldn't think properly, mocked, cussed at, etc. It was the usual fare from the atheists. I remained calm and eventually asked the question, "Why do you atheists hate God?" I knew the question would get an interesting response. It did. Foul language, insults, lies, misrepresentations, hatred, condemnation, and more. But woven throughout the numerous insults was the most common answer: "We don't hate what does not exist!"

I replied by asking how they knew that God did not exist. I told them that if they could not give me some rational reason for denying his existence, then their position is held by faith. In that case, why would they condemn me for my faith in God? That, of course, did not smooth things over with the obstreperous atheists. One person said that the God of Scripture could not exist because, and I paraphrase . . . "how God set Adam and Eve up for failure, gets jealous, smites people, sends lying spirits, sends strong delusions, provides instructions for slave ownership, and Jesus told the slave to obey their slave masters." When I asked if other atheists agreed with the sentiment (I asked several times), not a single atheist of the 30 or 40 in the room responded in the affirmative; neither did they deny it. I repeatedly asked for affirmation or denial with not a single response. Instead, for some reason they became even more agitated and vitriolic. Then, it finally occurred to me that they confirmed that they really do hate God even though they deny he exists. Let me explain.

When you hate someone, you speak evil of him, say negative things about him, call him names, accuse him of wrongdoing, lying, etc. That is exactly what they were doing to me. So, I pointed out that they were expressing great hatred towards me. And, since verbal condemnations reveal how a person feels about someone, I pointed out to them that their same behavior aimed at God demonstrated their hatred for God because they often condemn the God of Scripture. I told them that I have visited their room many times and read and heard their numerous hate filled condemnations for the God of the Bible.

Of course, this did not go over well with them since more insults followed.

Now, I'm not saying every atheist does this, but I've noticed it is pretty common for them to say they "lack belief in God" or "don't believe he exists" and then site Old Testament Scriptures where God does what they think is morally reprehensible (which is funny since they have no objective and absolute morals by which to make such judgments). They complain, mock, and pronounce ethical condemnation against the God of the Bible . . . just like you would do to someone you hate. Hmmm . . . So, they really do hate God.

But I'm sure atheists would simply say they only attack the biblical concept of God. Okay, but if they are only hating a concept of what God is according to the Bible, then they are hating the God of the Bible. Simple.

So, do atheists hate the God of Scripture? Well, according to my experience in various chat rooms on the Internet with atheists, I have to conclude that their regular condemnation of God, their accusations of his immorality, speaking evil of him, etc., clearly demonstrates that they hate God.

Matt Slick #fundie carm.org

The skeptic might say, "But God knows for a fact who will be bad and good. Why allow the people going to hell to be born in the first place?" But, if this is the case and if God arranged it that no "bad" people were born, then we would all go to hell. You see, Jesus is the only way to be forgiven of our sins. His sacrifice on the cross was necessary in order to make it possible for us to be saved because everyone, "good" and "bad" has sinned. If there were no "bad" people born, then there wouldn't be any "bad" people around who would have sent Jesus to the cross. If that never happened, then we wouldn't be saved from our sins because Jesus would never have been unjustly condemned and His sacrifice would never have happened.

CARM #fundie carm.org

Yes, Christianity is the one true religion. That may sound awfully dogmatic and narrow-minded, but the simple truth is that Christianity is the only true religion. Jesus said that He alone was the way to the Father (John 14:6), that He alone revealed the Father (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22). Christians do not go around saying Christianity is the only way because they are arrogant, narrow-minded, stupid, and judgmental. They do so because they believe what Jesus said.

CARM's apologetic page #fundie carm.org

How many children did Abraham have,
one or two?
Genesis 22:2; Hebrews 11:17 and Galatians 4:22
1. One son
A. (Genesis 22:2) - "And He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."
B. (Hebrews 11:17) - "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son."
2. Two sons
. (Galatians 4:22) - "For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman."
The answer to this apparent contradiction is found in understanding the typological representation of Isaac, Abraham's second born son, as a type of Christ. Abraham had Ishmael by the handmaiden Hagar. But Isaac was the child of promise, not Ishmael: "But God said to Abraham, "Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named,'" (Gen. 21:12).
If you look at the chart below, you will see the similarities between Isaac and Jesus. In other words, Isaac was a prophetic representation of Jesus. This is why Jesus said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad," (John 8:56). Abraham had, in a very real sense, seen the gospel presentation in the offering of his son, his "only begotten." So, we see here that the term "only begotten" is in reference to the unique son of God and Isaac was acting out the sacrifice of Christ, prophetically.