All Comments (262)

Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/Buy_Viagra_Online/]buy viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/Buy_Viagra_Online/]buy viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE] buy viagra online [/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE] buy viagra online [/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra buy viagra
[url=http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=284536&u=buy-viagra] buy viagra [/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra buy viagra
[url=http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=284536&u=buy-viagra] buy viagra [/url]
Thank you!

There is no happiness like that of being loved by your these returning vnhxtrrpczayd was very pleasant or desirable no magnet drew me.

There is no happiness like that of being loved by your these returning vnhxtrrpczayd was very pleasant or desirable no magnet drew me.

There is no happiness like that of being loved by your these returning vnhxtrrpczayd was very pleasant or desirable no magnet drew me.

There is no happiness like that of being loved by your these returning vnhxtrrpczayd was very pleasant or desirable no magnet drew me.

aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf

aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf

aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf

aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf

viagra, order cheap viagra [url=http://www.uc.fas.harvard.edu/tmp/viagra/buy-cheap-viagra.html]order cheap viagra[/url] , pills for men, buy viagra

Hello, nice site :)

Hello, nice site :)

cheap viagra cheap viagra [url=http://lipstick.com/user/Cheap_Viagra_By_Doc/]cheap viagra[/url] cheap viagra

cheap viagra cheap viagra [url=http://lipstick.com/user/Cheap_Viagra_By_Doc/]cheap viagra[/url] cheap viagra

You can find a reply to your post here Cheap Pharmacy

itoqz qyohzmg oqtzjxbk rydmzlbsa izdqbtp rsiqfcbt rfba

itoqz qyohzmg oqtzjxbk rydmzlbsa izdqbtp rsiqfcbt rfba

itoqz qyohzmg oqtzjxbk rydmzlbsa izdqbtp rsiqfcbt rfba

m979k

Kenalog is used for the treatment of common mouth ulcers.

FedEx next day delivery, free prescription with your order and 24/7 live help and toll free customer service, www.BuyTramadolOnline.ws

While I agree with Dr. Mohler's basic assumptions concerning Truth, I must disagree with at least 2 assumptions that appear to underly his comments.

The first is that there is some value to "conversation" which leads to finding "common ground." I find this assumption to be without merit. For the Christian and the non-Christian, there can be no common ground. The non-Christian is at root a hater of God, one who despises the idea that he or she needs to change and plead for salvation.

The Christian's own nature is also to hate God, but this is where any commonality ends. The Christian, by God's grace, is in the process of putting to death his or her own nature and taking on the nature of Jesus Christ. As such, the Christian has the capacity for love of and obedience to God, and is motivated by such things. No amount of "conversation" can paper over the fundamental rift between the Christian and the non-Christian, and no common ground should be sought nor can be found.

The obligation of the Christian is to deliver the Gospel message to the lost - the message that Jesus Christ, God the Son, allowed himself to be sacrificed so that our sins might be forgiven and that we might escape the eternal torment of hell. Jesus Christ is our Lord, He rose from the dead and reigns forever as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Because He lives, those who belong to Him also have the hope of life. Those who do not belong to him have no hope.

We have no obligation to make this Truth pretty. We have no obligation to to make this Gospel relevant in a post-modern era, inoffensive, or in any way pleasing to the non-believer. Our sole obligation is to proclaim the message at whatever cost to us may be required.

Neither in this or any other era is there any common ground to be found here. The Gospel cannot and will not be compromised by God's people.

The second assumption with which I disagree, one inextricably related to the first, is that "Christian evangelicals" must treat the beliefs of others with "respect." Actually, as I recall Dr. Mohler explicitly states this, so it is actually assertion rather than assumption. And, it is nonsense.

In matters of faith, why should the Christian, who, again by the grace of God, possesses the Truth, respect the error of the damned? In fact, any acknowledgement that the non-believer might "have a point" is not only foolish but dishonest. The Christian does not believe that the non-Christian's beliefs concerning faith are worthy of respect. The Christian hates those beliefs as much as the non-Christian hates the Truth. There is no common ground, and no basis for respect. The non-Christian is dead. If there was such a thing as a spiritual EKG, the non-Christian would be a flatliner. There is absolutely nothing within the non-Christian to respect, and, absent the regeneration of God, there never will be.

And so we need to be honest. As Christians, the more we try to find "common ground" with those who do not belong to Christ, the more we will water down our message to make it paletable. There is already too mcuh of that going on these days. We must remember who we are and what our job is. We leave the compromises, errors and heresies to the Rick Warren's of this world.

Let me get this right:the bible(talmud/christian addenda)is the inerrant word of god. So let's see:we have Jesus raping his virgin mother, we have Lot offering his daughters to roving rapists, we have god snooping around his earthly garden and scoping out the lusts of Chavah and her living and breathing hunk, we have ole noboddaddy scraping his creations a couple of times, we have Moshe syncretizing the best in Mediterranean patriarchal biases, we have Joshua puttering about with the fine points of genocide and finally Yoshue tapping the essence in Essene thought in the best of Reader's Digest reductions. And to boot, it's a boring read. Much better the Aeneid or the Iliad: give me that blessed wine dark sea. At least one can sense the presence of a creating human mind rather than a passle of dried up scriveners.

Anyway,

IO SATURNALIA TO ALL AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT

Part of "classical logic" is that two opposing statements can not both be true. If person "A" makes a claim, and person "B" makes another that is in direct conflict, then the following statements are true:
1. BOTH can not be right.
2. ONE MAY be right.
3. BOTH MAY be wrong.

As a Christian, if I have the presupposition that the Bible is infallible and true, then any statement that is in direct conflict with the Bible must therefore be viewed as false by me. Where I must be careful (and where many Christians are NOT) is that my interpretation of individual Scriptures may be flawed. The Scripture itself is not flawed, but my fallenness may give me imperfect understanding.

The same is true for any religion. Any interfaith dialogue must understand that the "other" side believes that THEIR source documents are the absolute truth. Islam says Jesus was merely a great prophet. Judaism says he is NOT their Messiah - that the Messiah is yet to come. Chrisitianity (which is "fulfilled Judaism") says Jesus is the Jews' Messiah. Obviously, only one of the interpretations can possibly be true.

Al Mohler rocks! The world could use a few more Al Mohler's - a lot more.

Many claim that an "interfaith dialogue" cannot take place because evangelical Christians start from a presupposition of claiming that the Bible is the Word of God and is therefore absolute truth. This begs the question: what is the purpose of an interfaith dialogue? Any honest evangelical Christian (such as Dr. Mohler) will explicitly say that his or her primary, if not exclusive, motivation for participating in such a dialogue is to share the good news of Jesus Christ so that those who do not know Him will come to know Him.
Most evangelicals do not rely on their own powers of persuasion or some vast overwhelming body of evidence (although such a body of evidence does exist) to convince unbelievers of the truth of Christianity. Evangelicals simply continue to proclaim the same message they have for some two-thousand years: Mankind is separated from God because we have sinned and fallen short of His glory (we have not lived up to our status as God's image bearers); God has assigned the death penalty for all humanity because we have sinned (this penalty includes both physical death and everlasting separation from God); God so loved the world, despite our sin, that He sent Jesus Christ (God in flesh) to perfectly bear God's image in our place and take our punishment for failing to bear His image; He raised Jesus Christ from the dead (an irrefutable truth upon which all of Christianity hinges ("for if Christ is not raised then our faith is in vain") to show that the work of Christ is acceptable to Him. The only way for us to be reconciled to God is to BELIEVE these truths and repent of our sins and turn to God as our only hope.
An interfaith dialogue is possible because evangelicals believe that anyone who has ever truly embraced what I have written above has done so because he or she has been "born again" (given a new heart and mind by God through His Holy Spirit). By virtue of this fact, unbelievers need not fear that evangelicals will practice coercion in promulgating what we believe.

Truth is NOT relative. Truth, by definition, is absolute. Opinion, however, IS relative. That is at the base of the discussion regarding the authoritativeness of Scripture.

The problem with these ecumenical discussions is that everyone is under the assumption that all positions are equally true - a false assumption. Another assumption is that all are there to learn. If so, who would teach? How are we to KNOW which truth is reliable and which is faulty if all positions are equally valid?

Faith is the issue, and it always will be. What (or better yet, Who) will you trust? You might be sincere in your faith, but you may also be sincerely wrong. Why not approach the Scriptures with a different tact - the "what if it's true" tact. What are the implications on our lives, our communities, our nations, and our world? What would be the destiny of the millions of people who arrive at a different conclusion? Everyone must die at some point, and meet the truth. Opinions don't matter at that point. What then? What will be the cost of living a life in rejection of the Bible because you "don't like it" or disagree? If we approach it as "true" and live accordingly (I don't mean perfectly, but the Bible shares the means of dealing with our fallibility), rejecting the Lord's teachings has dire consequences. What are you willing to risk to have your own way rather than the Bible's?

Matt. 10:14-16

14And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. 15Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.16"Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

I think the important thing here is one's reason for engaging in the conversation. Are you here to learn something or simply to try to convert others to your way of thinking?

Seems to me it's hard to come in with a desire to learn if you start with a claim to "a biblical authority that is absolute, universal, and timeless". You've already placed a definite limit on the conversation there.

I'm also troubled by the claims of special personal revelation. How does one separate mere opinion from Divine revelation? Isn't it harder to change your opinion; to learn anything if your opinions are to be afforded the authority of having emanated from God?

For Christians, it's all about a personal encounter with Jesus Christ. The believer has an encounter with the person of Jesus Christ and, as a result, his or her mind is renewed. Non-believers call this "indoctrination." From the outside looking in, it may appear like indoctrination. But that is the impression of someone who hasn't experienced that renewal first-hand.

"All I know is I was blind and now I can see." Everyone who genuinely believes in Jesus Christ for salvation has had that same experience, told in a way that uniquely reflects his or her redemption. The Bible says that those who don't have Christ are seeing the world through a veil. The authentic Christian believes this to be an accurate statement of non-Christians. Does that make us hate non-believers?

Take an honest appraisal of the legacy of Christianity--it's positive attributes. What lengths have believing Christians gone to to love their brothers and sisters? What faith has built more hospitals, orphanages, soup-kitchens, schools, libraries, and universities than Christianity? If we consider the positive aspects of Christianity, its impact on the world is unequaled.

A genuine faith in Christ makes a person love more, not less. Authentic Christians go to extraordinary lengths to care for the people of the world.

Rev. 22:12-15

12"Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." 14Blessed are those who wash their robes,[a] so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. 15Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

Someday they will know Jesus! But they will be outside the gates with the dogs!

DON,
Thanx for perceiving and emphathizing with my weariness and for the gentle rebuke. For years, I have been increasingly agonized about all that is opposed to God not only in this world but deep down in me. I rejoice exceedingly that even as we type, Jesus is seated in omnipotence subjecting all things to Himself. I don't often allow myself to be exposed to the ramblings of the ungodward, so the journey through these comments depressed me.

I hope this thread has fizzled out since I don't think some of these folks would appreciate being referred to as "vessels of wrath." But indeed, we are all either eternal glorious containers of grace or containers of God's beautiful wrath. I shudder to watch as men, who will be justified by their words or condemned by them, continue to "store up wrath for the Day of Wrath."

He Reigns!

Ed,

I kow how you feel, believe me. I don't know how Dr. Mohler can keep on reading these articles by militant atheists. It would drive me crazy! But the apostle Paul was a vessel of wrath, as we all were at one time, and look what the Lord did fir him--and us! Matthew 5:43-48.

DON,

Alas..sigh, you are correct. Light need not have fellowship with darkness, but we must proclaim Christ to all. Thank you for the reference to wise Paul in Athens; indeed we must engage those who remain hostile to the Supremacy of Christ and persevere with them.

Come quickly, Lord Jesus. I am much less patient with these vessels of wrath than you, sweet Lord.

DON,

Alas..sigh, you are correct. Light need not have fellowship with darkness, but we must proclaim Christ to all. Thank you for the reference to wise Paul in Athens; indeed we must engage those who remain hostile to the Supremacy of Christ and persevere with them.

Come quickly, Lord Jesus. I am much less patient with these vessels of wrath than you, sweet Lord.

Ed,

As a Calvinistic brother of yours and Dr. Moholer's, I believe that we ought to, indeed are commanded, to talk about the truths of Christ with those who do not believe. Is this not what Jesus commanded in the Grat Commission? Is this not what the apostle Paul did at Mars Hill? We are to do it with humiliyty (my previous remarks to atheists notwithstanding, but we are to do it with conviction, not as those who shrink back but those who persevere and are saved. Hebrews 10:39.

As a dear Calvinist brother of Al Mohler, I must ask 2 questions:

Can we who adore the self-revelation of God in Scripture have any fruitful conversation with men who deny the crucial premise that the Bble is indeed that Revelation?

Can a spiritual man substantively discuss spiritual truths with men who are still at enmity with God?

Mark L,

Well said. Particularly your final paragraph I find insightful and instructive. I hope this is the type of logic that will govern the "On Faith" forum going forward. One might call it ironic here (or profoundly appropriate) that Jesus exemplifies what we should strive to emulate in these type of discussions on faith: deep convictions held about what is truth, with humility and incredible patience towards those who differ.

It's fascinating to me that much of this discussion has captured precisely a misunderstanding Dr. Mohler is trying to adjust. I find your words spot-on, and indeed evidence of the essence of Dr. Mohler's post.

This is a fascinating discussion. It begins with a very good question -- about the possibilities of mutual respect where people hold to absolutes. Few questions are more significant in our world.

After Dr Mohler's post -- a clear one and without rancor or criticism of anyone else -- the discussion begins and at times becomes harsh, insulting, defensive, and demeaning.

It would seem that the only absolute is the absolute of tolerance and anyone who dares to think there is another absolute is anathema. In the name of tolerance the discussion becomes intolerant and mean.

This is an interesting problem.

I do not think the issue is whether people believe in absolute truth - I think the question is whether there can be humility and respect for others who differ. It is this that marked Jesus out as unique -- no one said more outrageous and fierce words than he, and no one should greater honor to his critics and opponents than he. Humility can be joined with commitment to absolutes.

John,

You say that faith and certainty are opposites. But the Bible says that ffaith is the certainty of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1. I find it curious that you lambaste Dr. Mohler for having the strength of his convictions. Wasn't it the Roman dictators and the Roman empire who believed there were many ways to their gods, and ended up persecuting the Christians? We need more men like Dr. Mohler who are firm in their convictions. Jesus demands nothing less.

Tonio,
I have enjoyed our exchanges. I am not sure I quite understand your dilema with anger and shame, but let me shift gears a bit. I believe their is a wrong kind of shame and a genuine kind of shame that are both related to moral issues. There is another kind of shame that is unrelated to moral issues altogether - the kind of embarrasment you feel for example when you make a verbal gaffe or come dressed the wrong way to a party unintentionlly. However, all shame I believe is related to the failure to meet expectations that are placed on us by ourselves or others. With regard to moral shame, it is possible and quite common in my mind to experience a flase kind of shame due to false expectations. In other words, one can be made to feel guilty when no real guilt is present. However, genuine and useful shame can result from real guilt. If a person steals what is not theirs, they ought rightfully to feel shame, because they have real guilt. Notice that shame is an emotion that is triggered by a conscience sensitive to guilt. However, guilt itself is an objective reality. If one steals they are guilty whether they feel guilty or not. They may only experience a degree of shame for their wrong-doing in connection to how properly informed their conscience is and how sensitive it is to their guilt. Nonetheless, a conscience can be defiled so that it is either hardened to guilt and therefore the experience of shame or misinformed as to what constitutes real guilt. In the latter case, one may experience shame from a false sense of gulit. For example, if a parent constantly harangues his child for poor grades in school and tells him over and over again that he is a stupid idiot, most likely that child will have a false sense of guilt producing false shame.

The important thing in this whole matter ties into my previous post. God has given us a moral conscience so that we know what is right and wrong. But that conscience as I said can be defiled. We can experience false shame and use that to justify all shame as being bad. But not all shame is bad. When we fail to meet God's expectations, we should feel shame because we are truly guilty. However, we need not live with that shame. Genuine shame is the conscience's warning system that tells us we must deal with our guilt before God. The wonder of God's mercy is that he freely offers total pardon and forgiveness for real guilt and shame. This is what is liberating about the gospel message of Christianity. It removes our guilt and shame and gives us peace with God and peace with ourselves and others. It is the showering of God's love upon undeserving sinners.

I'd love to dialog with you more. But perhaps this is not the best forum. You can e-mail if you like at scottjen@wildblue.net.

If the purpose of a conversation is to learn from each other and potentially change someone's mind, then the only person Dr. Mohler can have a conversation with is himself. He is not interested in changing or altering his opinion as he knows that he is right. He has a self-justified worldview that says he must share the "truth" but he is under no obligation to question it. He is willing to engage in conversation only so long as he has the potential to change someone's opinion to match his own, and therefore make him a fellow believer in the one truth known as Jesus.

I've spent many hours reading Dr. Mohler's work, listening to his shows, and have even had two brief conversations with him on his radio show. He is not interested in any truth other than the choice he has made. He seeks souls not common ground. He wants all people to be Christians and most Christians feel the same way. There is no need to converse since someone like Dr. Al has not only a closed mind when it comes to seeking the truth, he has a closed heart.

Someone wrote that the opposite of faith is not doubt but certainty. Dr. Al is forcefully certain that he is right and nothing short of a direct conversation with God will ever change that. He's perfectly nice to talk with, polite etc., but you have a better chance of learning another version of the truth and finding common ground with a brick wall. The version of Christianity that Dr. Mohler believes in can accept no other faith or version of the truth, period. Even other believers' fall short if they are open to more than one truth, more than one way to God, or the possibility that God may not really exist as the Bible says so. It is pointless to argue with people who believe that there is only one truth and that they know what it is. They stand on sand but as far as they are concerned, it is as solid as the tablets Moses carried down the mountain.

The best of them will continually try to save your soul. The worst of them will damn you to Hell. Both of them will do so in the name of “love” and “truth”. You can call a chat you have with a salesman a “conversation” but when was the last time one of them said, “Actually, you’re right, this product sucks and you shouldn’t buy it”? Dr. Al is a sales rep for Jesus. He has just one product and he no intention of ever altering his view regardless of what you might say. That as they say, is a non-starter…

Dr. Mohler;

Amen.

"But what we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed."

G.K. Chesterton

Scott, I will share with you my own experience of moral conscience. For all my life, whenever someone has gotten angry, I have had feelings of guilt and shame. This happens even when I have done nothing wrong, or even when I'm not the target of the anger. My conscience tells me that I've done something wrong when someone gets angry. I have those feelings of guilt and shame when I get angry. I almost never get angry, but when I do, the adrenaline hangover leaves me shaky for a couple of hours, and I feel intense feelings of shame for losing control of my emotions. In my view, if I was truly worthy of love and approval from the Christian God or from other people, I would never do anything wrong in the first place.

Tonio,
First of all, I am enjoying this dialog and you have good questions.

You said:
"If I believed that I was judged by God for my actions, I would not apply that belief to anyone else."

Do you not believe that the laws of a nation apply to the citizens of that country without general exceptions? Why should one citizen be immune from its law and another not? The analogy here corresponds to the teaching of the Bible which indicates that all people are under the moral law of God. You may ask where does this law exist? It resides in the human heart. According to Romans 2:14-15 everybody has a moral conscience based on the moral law of God. They have that law written on their hearts because God created human beings as moral creatures with moral responsibility. The very fact that all civilized (and even uncivilized for that matter) nations have laws to govern their people - to restrain evil and hopefully promote the welfare of its citizens testifies to the universal moral repsonsibility of human beings. This is part of what it means to be created in the "image of God." We bear the stamp of God's moral character.

However, the truth of God as reflected in His moral law written on our hearts has been spurned. We have supressed that truth by defiling our conscience and so rebelling against God. This is the careful teaching of Romans 1:18-3:20. Just as the laws of a nation have sanctions against those who violate those laws, so also God demands sanctions against human being because they stand guilty. The reality of their guilt is known within their conscience. However, humans supress their conscience and devise clever ways to justify their moral failure, usually by subtly exalting their own character and thinking more highly of themselves than they ought. The history of the 20th century alone ought to testify to the corruption of the human heart with all its wars and sensless slaughter of others. The host of holocausts in this century alone far outstrips the genocide all previous eras of recorded history. The prevalence of crime at every level of society testifies that no one is immune to this grand rebellion against the Creator. The Bible says that if we deny we have sin, we make God a liar (1 John 1:10). That is harsh sounding, but on the other hand humans have a remarkable propensity to cover up their own culpability.

You also said:
"Since any deity or deities can't be perceived by our five senses, is belief in these beings a matter of faith? Is it a matter of personal revelation? Is it a matter of personal experience of the divine..."

This question loosely ties into my previous comments. Again according Romans chapter 1 and 2 every human being is aware of God's existence. He has testified generally to all human beings through 2 avenues. The first is our moral conscience that I already mentioned. Our moral senses point to a supreme moral being who created us in His image (i.e. to reflect His moral charcater). The second way we know God is through what has been created. The remarkable order, design, beauty and purpose of nature (the Bible refers to it as creation) testifies to a wonderful Creator that cannot be denied. Yet, unfortunately this same text of Scripture indicates that we have supressed this reality in order to justify our rebellion against the Creator. In our modern day, the battle between Evolution and Intelligent Design/ Creationism is not simply a battle about what constitues good science. That is a smoke screen for a much deeper and more serious battle with the underlying rejection of God in our culture and the rabid desire to justify God's non-existence and therefore our lack of moral culpability before Him. These 2 avenues of knowing God is called General Revelation and applies to all human beings.

However, the more important avenue for gaining knowledge of God is thru Special Revelation. Christians believe God revealed Himslef in history and codified that revelation in the Bible. However, the greatest revelation of God came through the incarnation of His Son Jesus Christ who came to earth as a human being to comunicate the fullest essence of God possible. This is why Jesus is central to the Christian faith. He is the supreme and only mediator between God and man (Acts 4:12; 2 Timothy 2:5). General Revelation points to man's accountability before God and will serve to condemn him if he does not act in response to his rebellion to the great King. But it is only through Special Revelation (i.e. the Bible and Christ) that we can gain true access to God and the solution to our impossible predicament as human beings. The first kind of revelation is self-evident though often severely supressed as I said. The second kind of revelation must be accepted by faith. But understand that faith is not incredulous. It based on superb and undeniable facts of truths that ought to resonate with us all, but unfortunately do not.

All of this means that Christianity is not a personal religion that appeals to personal preference. I can decide what tooth brush to use to brush my teeth and should not demand that all people use that particular tooth brush. But we cannot dismiss the God of the universe who created all human beings to worship and serve Him. He has not allowed that option. Those who reject Him unfortunately must one day face Him. Those who are willing to search Him out and seek the truth shall find Him, and they shall find Him to be supremely loving, gracious and forgiving of our iniquities and weaknesses and shall strengthen us for every good thing that He has designed and prepared for those that love Him.

Anonymous, you are right. Everyone does defin good or evil as he or she sees it, and that is precisely the problem. Or, as the Bible stattes it, "Everyone does what is right in his own eyes." I don't remember whether it was Tolstoy or Dostyevsky, but one of those authors wrote that if there is no God, everything is permissible. I couldn't agree more.

Scott C,

I appreciate your comment about some Christians appearing to make threats.

"God ultimately judges all people for their actions. This is not the arbitrary teaching of Christians; it is the teaching of the Bible which is accepted by Christians as the revelation of God Himself."

I don't understand why one person's religious cosmology has to include other people. If I believed that I was judged by God for my actions, I would not apply that belief to anyone else. In my view, if I did that, I would be attempting to blame others for my actions, or else I would be attempting to claim responsibility for others' actions.

Since any deity or deities can't be perceived by our five senses, is belief in these beings a matter of faith? Is it a matter of personal revelation? Is it a matter of personal experience of the divine, what Christians might call experiencing God's grace? Or is it a combination of the three? To me, all three seem to be intensely personal experiences. I can't even begin to imagine what someone else's revelation or experience of the divine is like. If one person's personal revelation convinces him or her of the divinity of Buddha and another's personal revelation convinces him or her of the divinity of Jesus, I have no business telling either of them to reject those beliefs. I am not responsible for other people's religious beliefs.

"The whole matter turns on the authority of God and whether or not He has revealed Himself and His purposes for us. At the very least it behooves you to read the Bible (especially the New Testament) and consider the divine claims it makes for itself. As someone else previously noted, the Bible speaks for itself."

Again, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. My interpretation of what you said is that you seem to regard the inerrancy of the Bible and the existence of God as self-evident truths. I hold no religion's truths as self-evident, not even my own religious beliefs. As I said before, my impression is that believers hold certain truths because they have had some sort of personal experience or revelation of the divine. Is that accurate?

While it would be pointless of me to discuss my own disagreements with any religion's doctrine, I will share my own experience of reading the Bible. I have found the book to be very sad and very scary. But I don't expect or ask anyone else to have that same experience.

Don Maurer:

You stated "I ask you, who defines good and evil anyway, if there is no ultimate Source?"

I do. You do. Every person does. You believe you have an understanding of an ultimate source, others believe they also have understandings of other ultimate sources, and some of us don't think there is an ultimate source after all.

I think many non-Christians have reasons to challenge whether 'Christianity' provides a basis for behavior that we view as 'evil' -- both in the past and the present.

Dr. Mohler, thank you for your gracious, but strong conviction that the Bible is the Word of God revealing Jesus Christ. Twenty years ago Jesus Christ intervened in my life and I have never been the same. He took care of the greatest problem I had - my sin. My sin brought guilt and pollution to my heart and conscience. God the Father freely forgave me and cleansed me by the power of Jesus' blood. Jesus Christ saved me from sin, death, and eternal judgment. He saved me from the futility of this life! He saved me from my self-righteousness. Jesus Christ is a wonderful Saviour. He is a Friend for sinners!

Dr. Mohler, I am absolutely flabbergasted at the audacity of these atheists who call themselves "intellectuals." I thought this was supposed to be a reasoned dialogue, but apparently all these people are interested in is spewing their vitriolic hatred against you and all Christians. They call us "stupid" and "obscurantist." Yet, have any of these people, and their heroes--Harris, Dawkins, Gould, Hawking, etc.--even bothered or attempted to read Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin or Edwards, let alone the apostle Paul? They say that God is "evil." I ask you, who defines good and evil anyway, if there is no ultimate Source? Marx, Stalin, Hitler, and others tried to do that, and history recores the disatrous results. Atheists, if you are not afraid of the words of Christ, please let me quote them to you: "Physician, heal thyself." In other words, look in the mirror before you deign to call Christians "stupid" or "anti-intellectual." O, that the Lortd would grant you the ability to humble yourselves before Him and come to the Great Physician. Dr. Mohler, keep up the good fight.

Chris,

You stated:
"Truth is offensive - divisive at the core. Truth tells us that 'this is right' and 'this is wrong'. We wrestle with this issue because we confuse 'Truth' with 'belief'. Belief told Hitler that murdering Jews was to be encouraged - just because he believed it - did not make it True."

So, all I need to do is classify your world-view as 'Beliefs' and my world-view as 'Truth' and we're done -- didn't realize it was that easy.

The one thing most people object to in your article is that you believe that God has spoken truth to us through the Bible. I have seen several responses that assume you must drop this belief in order to enter the conversation. It seems that it should be the opening question of the conversation; "Has God revealed His truth through the Bible." There are many good reasons that Christians hold this belief, though it is often misunderstood as a product of dogmatics.