What's In A Name?

Christians hate leprechauns! Did that get your attention? Most likely it did. While most would not find this to be an offensive claim against the fervently pious, how is the claim that atheists hate God, Jesus, Christians and the bible any different? The common Christian reply would be, "Well, leprechauns are fictional characters and God is real!" to which I could easily reply with, "Just like unicorns, satyrs, behemoths, talking serpents, burning bushes and immaculate conceptions are real?"; but we won't go down that path.

Instead, I'd like to focus on defining a few key terms, explaining how adding value judgments and connotations to a simple word can make it much more divisive than if used by its denotation. To do this, I will draw from Todd Friel as an example.

Todd loves nothing more than... God. Second to his love of God is his love of deceit. He habitually deceives his listeners into believing that atheists abhor God, that we absolutely cannot stomach the thought of God because if we were to do anything but hate him, the light of His truth would shine down on our iniquities. Can you tell I used to be a fervent believer? I'm going to show you how it is impossible for atheists to hate God.

Referring back to my leprechaun illustration, it is easy to see that Christians don't truly hate leprechauns. They don't hate them because they don't believe in them or, to put it into the form of a positive statement, they believe them to be non-existent. Here comes a blustering Christian, "I know leprechauns don't exist!". Do you really? Todd likes to probe atheists by questioning their stock of knowledge; do we know everything? No way! No one knows everything. Therefore, it is disingenuous of anyone to say that something absolutely, positively, unequivocally does not exist simply because they have not seen, experienced or interacted with it. For that reason, the vast majority of atheists (myself included) do not say there is no God like Todd would like people to believe. Atheists have a lack of belief in God... much in the same way our Christian in the example does not believe in leprechauns... or psychics, UFOs, holistic medicine, trepanation, etc.

Ask yourself this question: "What is theism?"

If you are being honest with yourself (why wouldn't you be?), you would say that theism is "the belief in god (being a higher power). What is a "theist"? A person who believes in a higher or divine being. What is an "atheist"? An individual who does not believe in a supreme being. Do you see the path of logic? The atheist simply does not believe.

Contrary to Todd's frequent and dishonest claim that atheists "shake their puny little fists at God in rebellion and hatred", we simply don't believe there is a god to shake our fist at. Would you, Mr. or Mrs. Christian, curse a centaur? No.

One major difference that may be the root of the atheist's perceived anger must be addressed: all of the fictional characters I have mentioned in this entry don't have throngs of people devoted to converting the world so they can escape the torture of eternal damnation. God does.

The (Opposing) View

For those of you who may be interested in reading more about views that differ from my own but don't have the time or the desire to wade through the mire that is Way of the Master, I have posted a new link in the left margin of this blog. It is relatively well-written and will give you a taste of what is being taught by WOTM. The writer's doctrinal views are incredibly similar to those of Friel, Comfort and Cameron all the way down to his concept of "grace through the law".

To better understand the mind of a fundamental, evangelical Christian literalist, visit Anathema Unbound (Jason Seipp) at "The 'ology' of Theology" and tell him Former Follier sends his greetings.

A corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit...

What kind of message do the Way of the Master and Living Waters ministries send when they support and endorse the viewership of a truly "corrupt" network, Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN)? Are you at all familiar with any of the scandal that has surrounded and continues to surround network co-founders Paul and Jan Crouch? No? Well, let me fill you in...

• TBN (a non-profit organization) generates almost $200 million annually, nearly two-thirds of which comes from viewer contributions. The rest is a kickback from the televangelists and prosperity preachers that air their programs.
• During fundraising drives, the hosts will often make emotional appeals to the viewing audience to pledge their financial support to "the ministry" although recent budget information shows a surplus of almost $600 million in the "ministry" fund.
• Many preachers and televangelists who have been under suspicion, charged and even indicted for money laundering, cooking the books and pandering have been featured in the past on the network; some have not been allowed to return and have sought out other venues such as BET to hook the late-night, minority audience and cash-in on their fear of mortality.
• In late 2004, Paul Crouch paid nearly $500,000 in an out of court settlement to a former employee who made allegations that Crouch made indecent sexual advances. The former employee was named Enoch "Lonnie" Ford. Crouch denied having a homosexual relationship but admitted to the pay-off. In my opinion, actions speak louder than words.

This is but a small list of the many criticisms that constantly swirl around the network and network heads (of the lineage of Paul). Knowing that TBN has such a shady and disreputable past, why would Kirk, Ray and mouthpiece Todd feel at all confident about buying airtime on the network for specials and weekly productions of the evangelical Way of the Master television show?

Do WOTM execs feel that it is more important to reach the masses at the expense of the conscience they speak so much of? Does Todd honestly feel comfortable sitting on-stage with a man who paid half a million dollars in hush money to the old office janitor? I wonder how Todd can so viciously attack false preachers and teachers when he relies on the viewership of these men (Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Jack and Rexella Van Impe, etc.) to pay his undoubtedly exorbitant paycheck.

Todd is right when he quotes the scriptures in saying "by your fruits ye shall know them"; Todd bears fraudulent, wicked fruit.

Judge not lest ye be judged...

Theists have pioneered and championed the use of the bad analogy. I've sat through my fair share of sermons in my lifetime and can still vividly recall some incredibly poor object lessons and analogies that were tossed out from the pulpit. I think I've finally found one that tops the list in none other than our very own Mr. Friel. It isn't so much a "bad" analogy as it is dangerous.

Todd prides himself in his ability to field "uncomfortable" biblical questions but he shouldn't sing his own praises too loudly because he only entertains such questions for a short time before shifting gears and imposing the Ten Commandments. He uses this tried and true method of "speaking to the conscience" in order to show his audience that they have sinned before an almighty god and are worthy of spiritual death followed by eternal damnation in a lake of fire. But Todd holds the keys of your heart (as god's servant) and can show you how your soul can be cleansed and Christ can do a transforming work inside of you, securing a place for you in heaven. The best part of the deal is that you don't have to do a thing in exchange for all of this goodness... except die to yourself... and repent of your sins and turn from them... oh, and to plead God's mercy through the death, burial and resurrection of his son, Jesus Christ. Other than that, salvation is completely free!

It sounds more like spiritual quid pro quo than a free gift, if you ask me.

What really gets me is the way Todd will solemnly and soberly appeal to the fear of his listeners and callers by equating sins against god with wrongs against man that are punishable in a court of law. Let me draw a basic mental image for you, one that is based on Todd's very own examples in his soul-winning efforts:

If a criminal guilty of a violent crime appears before a judge in a court of law, the judge will be forced to punish him in order to maintain justice. The judge will not accept pleas for a lessened sentence but will weigh the heftiest fine against him. Unless someone steps in and mercifully pays the fine, justice cannot be met.

If the false dichotomy cannot easily be seen, let me shed some light on it for you.

To begin with, a sin is supposedly the ultimate affront against a holy and righteous god and is punishable with eternal torment in a place that god created and set aside for those who trespass against his laws. There is no social equivalent to this concept especially not a mere monetary fine! The most imposing punishment one man can levy against another is capital punishment which is a finite punishment. How does infinite suffering at the hands of a wrathful god correlate with momentary physical pain?

Knowing that a fine is not a viable penalty to be imposed on a criminal guilty of committing the most heinous acts imaginable (under the assumption that god finds all sins equally and eternally offensive) but capital or, at the very least, corporal punishment, we can see that no court in this country would accept a substitute. Once tried and convicted, a criminal must suffer his own fate; his best-friend can't offer himself up to the courts as a sacrifice. That's (ancient) tribal mentality and doesn't appease the modern judicial system.

We can then go on to understand that, in a court of law, mercy and justice are not mutually compatible. If a stay of execution is ordered not because of the suspects innocence but on a whim, the Governor has exhibited (unwarranted) mercy. However, if the sodium pentathol is injected into his veins, true justice has been achieved (if one can call it that).

After exposing this fraudulent analogy, how then can Todd continue to use it to instill fear in the hearts of his throngs? It isn't difficult to see the psychological (cruel) game he's playing by beating people into emotional submission. Fundamentalist theology can be likened unto spiritual battered spouse syndrome! Once you have a captive, submissive audience, well...

So, can God be eternally merciful and just? It's exactly what the WOTM crew would have you to believe. Let's see what the dictionary has to say about the denotation of these two words (no need to apply hermeneutical principles here):

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Just -- Being what is merited or deserved: (a just punishment)

Mercy -- Lenient or compassionate treatment: (begged for mercy)

If these two terms are mutually compatible, I'd like to know how. Besides, before we go condemning others for their actions in the sight of god, shouldn't we prove his existence first?