Death of an Athiest

Great column by Cal Thomas

"Perhaps not since Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Carl Sagan has there been such an "evangelical" atheist as Christopher Hitchens, the writer and social commentator who died last week after a long and public battle with esophageal cancer.

Hitchens railed against those who believe in God. While an original writer, and smart, there was nothing original about his unbelief. Such views have been expressed since the dawn of humanity. They have also been answered by some of the wisest people who have ever lived. There is a difference between "smart" and "wise." As that Scripture in which Hitchens disbelieved says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." (Proverbs 9:10)

I have always found atheists to be interesting people because they just may be the world's smallest minority group, one that gets smaller still as its members pass on and meet God face to face. Still, atheists demand physical proof of God's existence, as if they could bring God down and make Him into their image. What kind of God would that be? He would be their equal and, thus, not God at all.

Evidence, alone, has never moved anyone from unbelief to faith. If proof were enough, all of the unbelieving contemporaries of Jesus (and Moses) would have believed in God because of the miracles they performed. Two people presented with exactly the same information can respond in opposite ways. Faith is not based solely on facts. It is a gift from a God who exists.

Hitchens wrote a book called "God is Not Great." It's a clever title, but how would he have known, since they had not been properly introduced?

C.S. Lewis, once an atheist and thus conversant with the subject, wrote after his conversion, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

Some people exist, however nervously, believing that this life is all there is. The late singer Peggy Lee put the result of such faith this way: "Is that all there is? If that's all there is to life, then let's break out the booze and have a ball, if that's all there is."

Why contribute to charity, or perform other good deeds? Without a source to inspire charity, such acts are sentimental affectations, devoid of meaning and purpose. If survival of the fittest is the rule, let only the fit survive. That was the sentiment of Ebenezer Scrooge before his visitation by those three spirits and his subsequent transformation. Let the poor and starving die, he said, "...and decrease the surplus population." Who is to say such a notion is wrong without a standard by which to judge wrong.

To object to God is to create morality from a Gallup Poll. In Gallup We Trust doesn't have the same authority.

Hitchens was a gifted writer, but who gave him the gift? Why was he not a gifted actor, surgeon or athlete? Why was he not talentless? Was it an evolutionary accident, which would mean his gift and his life were meaningless and merely a "chasing after the wind"? (See Ecclesiastes) Apparently he thought so.

An atheist will tell you he doesn't need God in order to be good, or perform good works. Maybe not, but the very notion of "good" must have both a definition and a definer. "Only God is good," said Jesus. (Mark 10:18)

Who is the author of evil? And if God is nonexistent, why do we call it evil? Is one person's evil another person's good? Does such a view lead to ethics that must inevitably be situational?

Scripture warns, "The fool has said in his heart 'there is no God.'" (Psalm 14:1)

In this season when many celebrate the object of their faith, there is no joy in the death of one who had faith that God does not exist. Hitchens now knows the truth and that can only be the worst possible news for him.

As for the atheists still with us, Christmas is a reminder there is still time to believe and receive the ultimate gift."

Committing to Marriage

About once a week I receive an email marketing tip from C. Richard Weylman. Some of them are really helpful and others immediately end up in the electronic trash bin.

Today's tip is about committing to your goals so you will see them become a reality.

Here are Weylman's tips on making and meeting commitments:

1. You must make a choice. When you choose your desired future outcome over your current reality, you remove the struggle that leads to compromising your commitment.

2. Choose your future outcome over instant gratification. Focus on your future outcome, working through the steps it will take to achieve it, and it will override your need for instant gratification.

3. It takes 100% commitment to be successful. Don't make excuses and exceptions - it will set you up for failure and make it harder to get back on track. Make your commitment and stick to it - no excuses, no exceptions!

4. Be sure you are completely dedicated to your commitment, not just casually interested. Your level of desire will determine your results - period. Ken Blanchard, author of The One Minute Manager, says, "There is a difference between interest and commitment. When you're interested in doing something, you do it only when it's convenient. When you're committed to something, you accept no excuses, only results."

5. Visualize your future outcome instead of momentary temptation. When you are able to focus on the end result, you will make the right choices that support your desired outcome.

Now go back and read the tips again, only this time, instead of thinking about business goals, think about what it takes to make a marriage successful.

Pretty cool, huh?

With nearly half of all marriages in the U.S. ending in divorce and with many couples choosing not to marry at all, a little teaching on commitment might be in order.

May God give us the grace to keep our commitments.

Some Things are Better Caught than Taught

Some things are better caught than taught.

I learned a lot about giving from my dad – not because he sat me down and taught me how to give – but because I watched him do it.

My dad was a union steelworker on the south side of Chicago for 38 years. Every Friday was payday. Every Friday he cashed his check at the bank and brought home a wallet full of $20 bills. For you younger readers, this was before the days of direct deposit, credit cards, and ATM cards.

When he came home from work, I watched him sit at the dining room table with my mom. The first he did was count out a certain number of bills and put them in the church offering envelope. The offering envelope then went into his Bible to bring to church the following Sunday morning.

What did I learn by catching my dad doing this?

First, I learned that giving was a top priority. My dad put money in the offering envelope before he gave money to my mom for groceries; before he put aside money for the mortgage; before he spent money on anything else. God was first place in his life. His giving reflected that.

Second, I learned that giving was proportionate to his income. The more money he made in a given week because of overtime or side jobs, the more money went into the offering envelope. Dad gave a fixed percentage of his income every week.

Third, I learned that giving was to be done regularly. Because Dad was paid every Friday, I witnessed his giving every Friday. He didn’t give once a month or on special occasions. He gave whenever he was paid.

Fourth, I leaned that giving was sacrificial. Dad put money in that envelope no matter how good the week was. And there were some lean weeks. Many times I overheard discussions about what how certain purchases would just have to wait. There just wasn’t enough money at that time. But money still went in the offering envelope every week – still went in the Bible.

Finally, I learned that giving was a privilege and something to done cheerfully. I never heard Dad complain about how he could have more money if didn’t give. He never talked about giving in order to gain God’s favor. Giving for him was a privilege; something that made him glad. My dad was a cheerful giver.

Some things are better caught than taught.

I often wonder what my daughters are catching from me. I pray that when it comes to giving, they’re catching the same thing I caught from their grandpa.

Is "Hate Speech" any Speech with which I Disagree?

Ken Howell has been fired as an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois because one student was offended by his beliefs.

Howell, who taught Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought at the university, sent an e-mail to his students who were preparing for their final exam. In the e-mail, Howell wrote:

"Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."

Uh-oh. There it is. Howell implied the Catholic Church viewed homosexuality as sin.

Evidently, an anonymous student in the class was offended by this. I say "evidently" because the offended student didn't come forward to complain. Instead, another student, claiming to be a friend of the offended student, sent an e-mail to the religion department head calling Howell's e-mail "hate speech."

Ah, yes. Hate speech. Any speech which I find disagreeable.

In his e-mail, "the friend" of the offended student wrote:

"Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing, declaring homosexual acts violate natural laws of man is another."

In his defense, Howell said he was teaching his students about the Catholic understanding of natural moral law. Howell said:

"My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches. I have always made it very, very clear to my students they are never required to believe what I'm teaching and they'll never be judged on that."

Never be judged on that. Too bad the University of Illinois didn't cut Professor Howell the same slack.

In an e-mail to other school staff, Ann Mester, an associate dean at the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences wrote:

"The e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us."

So the university has standards of inclusivity? Evidently firing a highly regarded professor for agreeing with the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality doesn't violate the school's standards of inclusivity.

I wonder if the University of Illinois would fire a biology professor, who not only taught students the theory of evolution, but also openly admitted he believed evolution to be true and creationism false. After all, that doesn't sound very "inclusive", does it. Would it make a difference if a student in the biology class wrote an email to the associate dean saying she was offended by the professor's opinion? Not a chance.

In it's effort to be "inclusive", the University of Illinois includes all opinions except those with which it happens to disagree. Those opinions they consider "hate speech."

I hope someone steps in to restore sanity at the University of Illinois. For now it seems the inmates are running the asylum.

Is America Becoming More Pro-Life?

In his most recent blog post, Albert Mohler paraphrased James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal with the following:

"It is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment, to observe that every pregnancy aborted today results in one fewer eligible voter 18 years from now. . . . It seems self-evident that pro-choice women are more likely to have abortions than pro-life ones, and common sense suggests that children tend to gravitate toward their parents’ values."

Think about that. It's been 37 years since Roe v. Wade. Is it possible the number of those in the pro-life camp is growing at a faster rate than those in the pro-choice camp because the pro-lifers tend to have more kids? Just wondering.

Be Still My Soul

Music is a gift from God. It engages both the heart and mind to focus us in way like none other.

David, the shepherd king, wrote music to express all kinds of emotions and thoughts. You can find David's songs in the Book of Psalms. In some, he offers praise to God. In others, he confesses his sin. Sometimes, he just delights in God's word.

Some songs have stayed with me my whole life. During my college days, there were what felt like desperate times to me. How would I make it through all that needed to be done? Who did God want me to be? What did He want me to do?

During those days, I came across a song by Russ Taff titled, "Be Still my Soul." I remember listening to that song over and over again from an old vinyl lp.

This morning, while reading Psalm 46 during devotions, I was reminded of this great song. I thought I'd share it with you. You'll have to get past the outmoded hairstyle and clothes. After all, it was 1983!

Loving Our Wives as Christ Loved the Church

A quote from St. John Chrysostom's "On Marriage and Family Life":

You have heard how important obedience is; you praise and marveled at Paul, how he welds our whole life together, as we would expect from an admirable and spiritual man. You have done well. But now listen to what else he requires from you; he has not finished with his example. “Husbands,” he says, “love your wives, as Christ loved the Church.” You have seen the amount of obedience necessary; now hear about the amount of love necessary. Do you want your wife to be obedient to you, as the Church is to Christ? Then be responsible for the same providential care of her, as Christ is for the Church. And even if it becomes necessary for you to give your life for her, yes, and even to endure and undergo suffering of any kind, do not refuse. Even though you undergo all of this, you will never have done anything equal to what Christ has done. You are sacrificing yourself for someone to whom you are already joined, but He offered Himself up for one who turned her back on Him and hated Him. In the same way, then, as He honored her by putting at His feet one who turned her back on Him, who hated, rejected, and disdained Him, as He accomplished this not with threats, or violence, or terror, or anything else like that, but through His untiring love; so also you should behave towards your wife. Even if you see her belittling you, or despising and mocking you, still you will be able to subject her to yourself, through affection, kindness, and your great regard for her. There is no influence more powerful than the bond of love, especially for husband and wife. A servant can be taught submission through fear; but even he, if provoked to much, will soon seek his escape. But one’s partner for life, the mother of one’s children, the source of one’s every joy, should never be fettered with fear and threats, but with love and patience. What kind of marriage can there be when the wife is afraid of her husband? What sort of satisfaction could a husband himself have, if he lives with his wife as if she were a slave and not with a woman by her own free will? Suffer anything for her sake, but never disgrace her, for Christ never did this with the Church.

I am humbled.