50 Questions Christians Should Not Answer

I try to live by a few simple rules: never smoke more than one cigar at a time; never argue theology with an unbeliever; there are others.

I got the first from Mark Twain; I got the second from the Bible.

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Proverbs 26:4 & 5.

If you engage in apologetic, as I do, you may have come across websites with titles such as "Top 50 Questions Christians Can't Answer" 

The poster invariably declares that he was a Christian until he really started "thinking" about God, the Bible, etc, after which he just couldn't believe anymore. He wants to help others see that their faith is rationally unsustainable, so he poses a series of questions which, he believes, demonstrate the irrationality of Christianity and will, therefore, lead any "thinking" Christian to abandon the faith.

Many well meaning Christians have tried to respond to such "questionnaires.". In doing so, they violate scripture in a number of regards and dishonor the Lord they intend to defend. Unfortunately, this is the approach of most apologetic "ministries."

When the unbeliever proposes such questions, he is not sincere; there are no "honest seekers." The Bible declares that all men are, by nature, in a state of rebellion against their creator. They do not want to know God. They suppress the truth of God that is in them and around them; cf Romans 1:18.

Further, by trying to give thoughtful answers to such questionnaires, the Christian legitimizes the questions and the questioner, in violation of the scripture cited above. By answering such questions as if they are legitimate, the Christian becomes "like unto" the unbeliever in that he accepts the unbelievers right to challenge God's word. 

The would-be apologist also makes the unbeliever "wise in his own conceit," by the fact that he does not challenge the believer's basic premise, i.e. God's word is not ultimate; there is something "higher" than God by which his word and actions can be tested. Ultimately that is man's autonomous intellect.

The motivation for such questions is really a desire by the unbeliever to justify himself ito himself. He is not sincerely seeking answers. What he is really saying is "If I were God, I wouldn't do this, therefore the Christian God does not exist (I once caught myself singing the son "If I Ruled the World" and realized that the lyrics were blasphemous).

The only Biblical response to such questioning is to challenge the unbeliever at the very beginning of his thinking. By what standard does he presume to question God's word, i.e. what is his epistemological position, and how has he validated, 'tested" this position. In spite of his pretended objectivity, the unbeliever will be shown to be without a foundation and inexcusable in his unbelief.

Thus, and only thus, can the Christian be a faithful and consistent witness to the Lordship of Christ.

Houston, We Have a Pope!

In case it is unclear from what follows, let me state at the outset that I believe the Roman Catholic Church to be an abomination, based on a collection of corrupt doctrines, pagan superstitions and political intrigues.

It has enslaved the minds and souls of millions of ignorant backward people. In witness of its corruption, it has given us the Inquisition, the Crusades, Indulgences, Papal idolatry, Mary worship, veneration of saints and widespread child abuse by the clergy (I’m sure some Stupid Evangelical will feel compelled to point out that such abuse has occurred within Protestant churches. The difference is, of course, that such cases are neither occasioned nor concealed by the institution).

In light of these realities, it was nothing less than astounding to see the slavish, fatuous, reverential manner in which the recent papal selection was covered by the mainstream media. This was only exceeded by the universal adulation with which the new Pope was greeted.

Pope Francis was pronounced to be a “humble man” who is committed to the poor and disadvantaged ( just how any of these reporters  could know that he is a humble man is not known – perhaps they were told by the same people who denied rampant child abuse and organized cover-up)

It is predicted that he will emphasize Roman “social doctrine” (a blend between socialism and communism) and work for world peace and reconciliation. Since he is from Argentina, it is expected that he will focus on elevating the condition of the poor and ignorant of that region.

How is it possible for anyone with the least knowledge of the conquest and exploitation of Latin America to miss the fact that the largest single determining factor in that area has been the Roman Church? It was the Roman church that enslaved the people of South America through the propagation of religious superstition  enforcing submission to the church and corrupt political leaders and continuing war against literacy. If they're so concerned about the poor Latinos, what in hell have they been doing for the last four hundred years.

Oh, I forgot to mention that this new Pope is a Jesuit? The history of  the Jesuits is littered with the bodies of “heretics,” the propagation of lies and political machinations around the world.

Even our self-described “Christian” President has hailed the selection of the new pontiff as a wonderful event and looks forward to working with him to accomplish the salvation of humankind. He refers to the Pope as “His Holiness” and pontificates that "As a champion of the poor and the most vulnerable among us, he carries forth the message of love and compassion that has inspired the world for more than two thousand years—that in each other we see the face of God."  Lest anyone think that these were just his personal sentiments, Obama began his comments “On behalf of the American people,” he offers Francis our "warmest wishes and prayers" - three Hail Marys and one Our Father, no doubt?

Perhaps not, since he declares "We join with people around the world in offering our prayers for the Holy Father as he begins the sacred work of leading the Catholic Church in our modern world." Does this mean that Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Pantheists, and Atheists will be joining together to support the Pope? 

Is it the official position of the US Government that leading the Catholic Church is a "sacred work" that transcends religious truth?

NB: One cannot help being struck by the Audacity with which the President declares the content of the gospel. Any other politician declaring a more faithful characterization of the gospel would be vilified for violating the separation of church and state.

Never mind that Christ specifically forbids such adulation of men, the President is above such narrow interpretation of scripture. Certainly, he will likely differ from “His Holiness” on such matters as abortion and gay marriage.

How have we come to such a state? It is because Stupid Evangelicals, who are either ignorant of or indifferent to the abuses that led to the Protestant Reformation, have adopted a sentimental view of Christian doctrine which leads to a “charitable” toleration of the “minor” differences between Catholics and Protestants.

Has not His Holiness Billy Graham declared that God loves you whether you’re Baptist, Methodist or Catholic? Protestant pulpits no longer thunder forth the proclamation of Roman abominations as they did in the past. No doubt our pastors are more enlightened now. Certainly, Luther and Calvin were intemperate when they referred to the Papal system as the anti-Christ. Surely, the Puritans could have been less judgmental in referring to the Roman Church as “the whore of Babylon.”

The Roman Church is viewed as just another denomination. Sure, they have weird practices; sure they pray to saints; sure they don’t value personal bible study; sure they carry a string of beads (a practice taken over from eastern religions); sure they talk about helping the poor while their priests live sumptuously; sure they believe in transubstantiation (whatever that is); sure they worship Mary; sure they believe that personal salvation is granted or withheld by the church; Sure they’re different, but hey, we’re all a little peculiar. After all, Protestants don’t agree on everything.

No need to get all worked up. I’m sure Francis is a wonderful guy. After all, he isn’t personally responsible for all the past abuses of the Roman system, even if he won’t disavow them. All that matters is that he is a “humble man” who wants to help the poor with someone else’s money.

So, let’s all hug and sing Kumbaya.

It's The Constitution, Stupid!

It was reported that during his first presidential campaign, Bill Clinton had a sign made to remind himself of the issue on which he needed to focus if he was going to win. The sign said, "It's the economy, stupid!" The term "stupid" was directed at himself and was a reminder to not get distracted by other issues.

As much as it pains me to suggest that we should emulate Slick Willie in anything, it might be wise for defenders of the 2nd Amendment to remind themselves that the contest is ultimately and exclusively about the integrity of the Constitution.


As usual, "conservatives" have allowed the advocates of government oppression to define the issue and then fecklessly respond to that. Gun control advocates have declared that the recent series of mass shootings is the result of too many guns. Gun advocates counter that guns are necessary for self-defense, including defense against government tyranny.


Gun control proponents declare that nobody needs a 30 round magazine and an AR-15 to hunt deer. This claim is appropriately, though weakly, rejoined that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.


And, so the game of see-saw continues; the anti-gun forces seizing the initiative and the other side trying to counter the miss-characterizations and, in the process, arguing about technicalities like background checks at gun shows. The outcome of this process is predictable: there will be some "common sense" compromise between the two "sides" which further infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.


The problem is that, as constituted, there are not two sides to the argument. There is only one side - the side that accepts the notion that government may impose restrictions on liberty as long as they make "sense." 

Everyone wants to prevent gun violence, don't they? Everyone is disturbed to see children killed at school, aren't they? We have to do something to insure that these things don't happen, don't we? Of course we do, but that's nothing to do with liberty.


The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution  It is a Right. It needs to be defended, not justified. It is a right, not a conditional privilege  Freemen do not have to be pre-approved in the exercise of rights. They don't have to register their intention to exercise their rights. They don't have to use their rights according to government regulations. 


It is irrelevant how many people use guns for self-defense; it wouldn't matter if no-one did. It is a Right. Gun violence is a tragedy; it is especially troubling when it involves "innocent" people like children, but that doesn't change the facts about gun possession. It's a Right.


But doesn't the government have a responsibility to act to protect citizens against violence? The simple answer is No. Government has neither the authority or ability to protect citizens by pre-emptive violation of liberty. People can and will misuse their liberties. The role of government in such cases to to punish such violations.


Some people misuse their right to free speech by slandering others. No one would suggest that government can or should attempt to identify these people in advance and prevent them from owning a computer or having access to the internet. The law provides for penalties for such inappropriate use of liberty.


But this is exactly the premise upon which pro-gun advocates are acting; government must identify in advance people who may "misuse" their right to keep and bear arms and limit or deny them access to weapons And, because everyone is "potentially" a mass murderer, the government ought to limit the types of weapons available to everyone.


Conservatives always want to appear to be reasonable and open to compromise. This "compromise" becomes the starting point for future incursions by the foes of liberty. Liberty is never secured by compromise; it is secured and defended by force. The only argument that can prevail and insure the liberty of citizens to keep and bear arms is "it's in the Constitution."

Let the forces of liberty stake their hope securely on this declaration and let the agents of oppression openly deny it. Make the gun control folks acknowledge that they don't care what the Constitution says. Then the issues will be plain and the lines of battle clearly drawn for those who value liberty.