Loading...

Several years ago a smart-looking young boy came to me and said, "Sir I am an Engineering College student. I have been reading the Bible for some time and have come to you to argue that  that God does not exist. I heard you are an apologist, and also a physicist, so you and I can have a great time talking". I was happy to meet him, and welcomed him for a cup of coffee. 


On the appointed day he visited me at my home, and was unusually eager to talk. I once again asked him whether he was sure he wanted to argue with me, and he said yes. I then asked if he would keep his conversation strictly at the scientific level, seeing that is what he said the day before. He said he would keep his arguments strictly at the scientific level, and added that this would be the appropriate approach seeing that he was an Engineering student and I that I had a physics background.


Without delay I invited him to present at least one experimental or observational evidence that disproves God. He was suddenly possessed by silence. In fact he was dumbfounded. He had read plenty of publications written against God, and thought that these are all scientific arguments, but when confronted to support his contention that he would use science to argue against the existence of God, he was unable to advance a single evidence.


He than asked me to list my reasons for belief in God, and that he would refute all of them. I asked him whether such a refutation would amount to a “scientific” proof that God did not exist. He paused for a few moments and then accepted that such refutation would not amount to a scientific proof that God does not exist.


I then reminded that right from the moment he sought me out, he had been working on the premise that he would “disprove” the existence of God using “scientific proofs”. After much silence he asked my leave for a few weeks after which he said he would surely come back to me with such arguments.


The young man never came back. I still wait for him. I wait for him in vain because nobody has proved that God does not exist, though plenty of people claim that science has disproved God. The ball still remains in the court of the so-called “rationalist”.

Recently "The Hindu" newspaper (June 24, Page 7, Kochi edition) reported that 6+2 lorries of Bibles were sent for recycling. All India Christian Council condemned this in strong words and asked the government to take action against it.

While even a single copy of a Bible readable condition should not be recycled, there is much more to the news than what meets the eye. Consider the following:

1. It is Christians who print and stock Bibles. Thus obviously it is Christians who are ultimately responsible for selling these Bibles as scrap, instead of distributing them to the needy. The Christian Council did not condemn Christians.

2. The Christian council says "We are not accusing anyone". Why not. If recycling of Bibles as scrap is wrong, the Christians who sold it as waste paper are to be condemned. The stand taken by the Christian Council is hypocritical.

3. Many in high-level Christian organizations are linked with each other. That is one reason why many are afraid to condemn others, for tomorrow they will return to condemn you. Is that the reason why the Christian Council members refuse to "condemn" any.

4. Interestingly, though they say they do not condemn anyone, the Christian Council shamelessly goes on to condemn the government for not stopping the recycling. This is double standard. Judgment should begin from the house of God. What have we go to do with condemning outsiders if we condone the sins of insiders.

5. The "source" from which the Bibles went out as scrap is known and is reported in general terms. It can easily be discovered if it is not known. Yet the Christian Council does not make an effort to condemn the source. They make no effort against Christians who are the guilty party.

6. In the ultimate analysis, it is obvious that some "Christians" in Andhra Pradesh were able to get large hoards of Bible (probably financed by American money) which was then sold as scrap. The rot is in the Christian church. It cannot be solved by accusing the government.

7. The Christian Council is hypocritically holding the buyer and the government as responsible for the "Christian" seller who sold the Bibles and pocketed the money.

8. If the rot inside the family is solved by pointing accusing fingers against the government, tomorrow the Christian Council will probably end up holding the government responsible for all those Christians who fail to have their devotions, family prayers, and who fail to participate in the Communion.

Is it not time for the Christian Council to remove the beam(s) from its own eyes?

PS: It seems that the prevailing Moral Relativism is prevailing with increased force within the Christian community!
Man is basically selfish. Though there are numerous philanthropists around the world, they are only an insignificant minority when one takes the total population into account. Thus one can safely say in general that mankind is selfish.

Look at the way selfish people cut you off in traffic. Look at the way people try to jump queues, get unmerited favor, and get privileges that they do not deserve. Go to countries where public facilities do not match between the demand-supply chain and you will see selfishness on its peak. Look at the world. You will see hundreds of wars ethnic strifes and warlords who have only one aim -- plunder the innocent and helpless.

Christianity is just the opposite. Instead of exploiting the helpless, the all-powerful God allowed Lord Jesus to die on their behalf so that they could be made rich. But the world has so much possessed the mind of Christians that now many so-called Christians have started defining God not as the "generous-giver" but as the selfish tyrant who is trying to selfishly create a kingdom of privileged unto Himself.

My reference is specifically to an aberrant teaching that is gradually rising its head among Christians that there is no need to preach the gospel and that there is no need to invite sinners to the free gift of salvation.

According to this new teaching, Christ did not die for the whole world. They claim that Christ died only for a select elite and that the non-elite cannot come to salvation because Christ did not die for them. Thus, according to them, telling common people that Christ died for them is wrong because the common people are not part of this selected elite.

It needs a lot of selfishness and depravity to reduce God's love for the "entire mankind" to a love for the "select elite", yet some have risen to say "Let us make God in our image, who is as selfish as we are".

Johnson C. Philip
http://www.BrethrenAssembly.com

Latest Activity

posted a new blog entry OM BOOKS.
3 years ago
posted a new blog entry OM Books Online.
3 years ago
posted a new blog entry ശൂലമി.
3 years ago

Share

Powered by