Aug 29 2016

Is it Okay to Steal When You are Starving?

Working through the justices or injustices of poverty and welfare can be a like a wrestler groping at a sweaty opponent-it’s slippery!

Some, like our famous Thomas Paine, would claim that welfare for the poor is necessary for a ‘moral and humane’ society. Conversely, a 13th Century theologian claimed that the primary shortcomings of the poor is laziness, vice, and inebriation. The spectrum of who is right or not is very broad, but that does not excuse us from delving into the morality of poverty and welfare. It is easy to look down on the majority of the poor and even easier to miss the minority–those who are truly in need. poverty-1274179

Have you ever eaten out of dumpster? I have.

When I was in college, I took a class that introduced students to ministry in an urban environment. As part of the course, the students went homeless for a weekend. During this time, the following stood out to me:

  1. The thought of stealing food comes pretty natural.
  2. Can a homeless person pull themselves up by their bootstraps?
  3. Drug and alcohol dependency makes sense.

Justifying Sin

Thirty-six hours without food in the winter time and we were on the streets. Meandering into a gas station, I began browsing around. There was no money in my pockets of course, but at least it was warm inside. Passing an aisle of food, I looked at something that looked delicious and thought, “It would be so easy to just slip this in my pocket.” A split second later, I was shocked that I even thought about such a thing! Me! a goody two shoes Christian thinking of stealing. Never needing anything in life, much less food, a meager dose of reality hit home. I was hungry. But here’s the question, “Is it okay to steal when you are starving?” How about a man who is responsible for providing for his family and he has nothing. Is it okay for him to steal for his family?

“Go Get a Job!”

Throughout this little simulation, our professor kept on telling us, “Go get a job” to simulate the vast majority of people’s opinion about the poor. It is thought that it is so simple to go and get a job when you are homeless. This constant bantering of, “go get a job” frustrated me the most. The crunch, crunch, crunch under my feet directed me to a solution. I could have walked up and down the street asking people if they wanted me to shovel their driveway of snow for some cash. In the same gray-vaporized breath, I could have asked if anyone had odd jobs for me to do. I could have tried, but due to the nature of this real life class scenario, we weren’t allowed to do these things. But the point the professor was trying to teach us was that it is grueling and practically impossible for the poor to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps–their bootstraps have been cut off–or so the argument went.

Alcoholism or Drunkenness?

Lastly, as part of this experience of being homeless for a weekend, I could understand why people want to escape from reality and become slaves to alcohol and drugs. The misery of life drives us into despair and the desire to leave reality is ever present. For some, it is worth the consequences–or at least they think so. While on this adventure, a story was told about a woman who was a full blown medical doctor. She became dependent on some narcotics they had at the hospital. Due to her addiction, she was fired and eventually became homeless, prostituted herself, and within three years she died from an overdose. My lesson I took away? It can happen to anyone, even me.

The Solutions

Poverty and welfare is not an easy subject to sort through. It is not always black and white. Stephen Pimpare, author of A People’s History of Poverty in America wrote, “Poverty is not in itself a moral failure. Our failure to understand it may be.” The validity of this statement should stretch us out of our comfort zones. Does poverty in and of itself have moral bearings and is it God-honoring to justify sin, make excuses, and not call sin, sin?

“It’s not that they can’t see the solution. They can’t see the problem.” – G.K. Chesterton

Our task is to precisely find the problem so we can accurately find solutions. Like a band of soldiers marching together with a cadence, our orthodoxy must be in step with our orthopraxy.

 

For Further Discussion:

Tim Challies Book Review on: ‘When Helping Hurts’

Ligonier Ministries Devotional on ‘Reasons for Poverty’


Aug 22 2016

Voting, or Not, With Prudence

Should we vote for the sake of voting? Made in USA Ribbon

In the United States, we as voters and as Christians are often faced with difficult decisions. Our moral, biblical, and political responsibilities may often conflict, and the lines begin to blur. It is increasingly rare to find a presidential candidate that we agree with on all or even some points, and sometimes the most appealing option is to not vote at all. So, in elections where our presidential candidates act against our, and more importantly, God’s standards, should we vote for the sake of voting?

Or, is withholding our vote a valid option?

Many argue that it is our absolute responsibility to vote, regardless of who our presidential candidates are. Despite that candidates do not fit our standards, not voting would be wasteful, so the argument goes. But in a scenario where, for example, all the primary candidates support abortion, which concern is greater? Are we called to vote and fulfill our responsibilities as American citizens, or is the ethical and biblical standard above that responsibility? In other words, does responsibility to participate in government outweigh the ethical responsibility to avoid being an accomplice to evil? This is not an easy question to answer.

The Bible certainly speaks about our responsibility, as Christians, to obey and respect our political leaders and our government. Romans 13:1 states, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God”. And certainly, we must submit to our government. But, when our government contradicts the law of God,  kneeling to God’s statutes and ways come first.

So, when man’s law comes into conflict with God’s, we have a higher power that holds us accountable. But, what about voting for the lesser of two evils? Should we vote for one candidate to combat the other? Even if we don’t fully agree with candidate A, perhaps candidate B is a far worse option. And in voting for candidate A, that’s a vote against candidate B. Right? Not necessarily.

Does our vote really matter?

Numerically, not so much. Even when considering the exceptionally small percentage of American citizens who vote, our individual votes still count for very little, in the grand scheme of things. That said, our votes still hold a great deal of weight, just not as you might think. They count because of the statement they make, and how they influence (and encourage) those around us. And as Christians, isn’t that one of our greatest responsibilities? To encourage and build one another up, seeking to glorify God with all our actions and decisions. And if we believe that voting for any candidate does not fall in line with that, then it is our responsibility to abstain, for sake of conscience if nothing else.

Our vote means more as a statement than a number.

So if we choose not to vote, mathematically, it makes virtually no difference. Choosing to vote, or choosing not to vote, is a personal and political statement. We should not look at voting and try to decide what the number will mean. Rather, we have a responsibility to choose based on what will best glorify God. And when man falls short of God’s law, perhaps the best choice is to not vote at all. What is good is not always the same is what is best.  –T.W.

For Further Discussion:

FEE provides an in-depth article; Not Voting: Powerful Dissent


Aug 15 2016

Where the Love is in Counseling

“Argh, don’t judge me.” said the uppity teen as she turned,  flipped her hair, walked away. But didn’t she know that there was a piece of toilet paper hanging out from her skirt? It was the loving thing to tell her that, right?

Granted, she is embarrassed now and would rather have her head in the sand about her issues. Her response, “Don’t judge me.” is all too typical. What is loving is not seen as good, but bad. This is what happens in the majority of counseling sessions today. The Freudian model of ‘blame everyone but yourself’ has taken center stage. Sadly, what is thrown in the dusty costume closet is that which is truly loving.

Freud’s Success in Counseling

The Freudian revolution was declared a success. There was only one major problem: The people being helped weren’t getting any better. Freud’s concepts removed responsibility and morality from people’s mindsets. It’s like taking the kitty litter away from the kitty and wonder why the house got messy. Don’t blame the cat! Freud’s model essentially gives the excuse our wicked hearts always desire. The excuse that it is not my fault. “I couldn’t help taking another cookie from the cookie jar.”

Around the 1960’s, Anna Russell wrote a folk song called, “Jolly Old Sigmund Freud.” Some of the lyrics go, “But I am happy; now I’ve learned the lesson this has taught; That everything I do that’s wrong is someone else’s fault.” This was a silly song that portrayed the truths behind the psychiatric movement set in motion by Freud. By blaming others, the problem is perpetuated and there is no hope of being ‘cured’. This is not loving. Is it sin or sickness? Sin can be helped, sickness cannot be helped.

When Rubber Meets the Road

Telling the truth and honestly helping people is the truly loving  act to do. Instead of showing them the picture of the promise land, lovingly take them by the hand and lead them to it! Speak the trupexels-photo-27633th in love. The truth is that the majority of our personal problems come from the sin we commit.

This example is one of many that proves the above:

G.L. Harrington worked at a V.A. Hospital in Los Angeles that had 206 male patients in a psychiatric ward. This particular ward was the last place to go–there was no hope. This was the end of the line. Many of these men could not take care of their basic needs and on average, only two out of 206 were released from this place. Harrington went into this place and within the first year of helping these men, 75 left the place. Two hundred were predicted to leave by the second year. What happened? What wasn’t working before that drastically worked for Harrington? It was a total responsibility program encouraging the men to own up to what they did wrong. And the results speak for themselves.

Years of ‘loving’ care and these men still ended up at the caboose of the train. Years of Freudian therapy that encouraged them to blame others, which in turn led them into a straight jacket. What if someone would have truly loved them from the beginning and told them the truth: That they were most likely responsible for their struggles? That potentially could have saved them years of heart ache. Freud’s idea of love is telling people they are too hard on themselves and that they are too harsh on their consciences.

Where is the Love?

The love in counseling is in the truth. Though the truth hurts, it is good, right, and honest and will be the most loving thing a person could hear. Of course this process seems easier said than done, but we must rid ourselves of the Freudian model and ethic and return to what the Scriptures teach.

 

For Further Discussion:

Listen to the ‘Truth in Love’ Podcast HERE.

 


Aug 8 2016

Significant Cause of Church Ineffectiveness

Tony struggles with sexual temptation. Katrina has been having desk-1375312_1920suicidal thoughts. Josh knows he is addicted to marijuana, but is too afraid to go to his church leaders—his father is the pastor. Michelle characterizes her habits as being OCD.

Over one hundred years ago, these people would have received a unified response from church and society. The local church was the expert for all mental and emotional struggles. It may seem strange, but there were two doctors back then: medical doctors and ‘soul doctors.’ The ‘soul doctors’ were the pastors who knew that the majority of people’s problems were sin issues, first and foremost.

The “Godless Jew”

Freud changed all that. A self proclaimed “hopeless pagan” turned the world upside down, simultaneously castrating the church.

The Father of Modern Psychology came onto the scene in 1891, with his first published work. He hated the church. In fact, many today believe he took his revenge on the church by creating psychology. Setting speculation aside, it is historical record that Freud wanted an alternative to the church for people to run to seeking help with life’s struggles. So what he did was ingenious; he invented a new genre of study in man, what we now call psychology. This movement gave birth to the what Freud himself called, the ‘secular priest AKA the psychologist.

Man is bipartite, made up of body and soul. But how would Freud steal a slice of the pie? By distinguishing between matters of the soul, and spiritual matters. In effect, he made man tripartite, whereby people with soul problems no longer go to soul doctors, but experts in psychology. Is it any wonder that psychology literally means ‘the study of the soul’?

Abdicating Responsibility

Freud’s cards were shown when he admitted that psychoanalysis is ‘study of the soul of man.’ He intentionally stole the church’s role of caring for people. The separation of man’s responsibility has produced seemingly insurmountable mountains to scale. The primary effect Freud has had on the church is demolishing its ministering potential. On the other hand, the principle consequence among individual people, is that we see out problems as allogenic (caused by others) instead of autogenic (caused by self). Simply put, we do not take responsibility, but blame shift.

Freud’s blow to the church was deep and his revenge cut to the core of the church’s effectiveness. Since Freud, the church has struggled in helping it’s members in their times of need. In the majority of churches, those of us who are in need of guidance are not helped by our shepherds, but are referred and deferred to outside agencies. A plethora of these agencies today are operating under Freud’s concepts, mainly, shifting the blame and negating one’s responsibility and not treating sin as sin. The church that operates under these principles is ineffective, for it fails to bring the Gospel to bear on all of life. Tony, Katrina, Josh, and Michelle could have their lives turned around, if only the church would refer them to the gospel, instead of a shrink.


Aug 1 2016

Atheism’s Archenemy

cemetery-959412All of us, deep down, desire to leave a mark on society and to impact the next generation.

Rich people donate their estates to a charity. Professional athletes work their bodies into the ground to win Superbowls and National Championships–only to be forgotten a few years later. Philosophers steal the minds of the youth to transform society into a reckless, egotistical ruin. All of these people wanting to leave behind a legacy. What is disturbing is when someone believes something their whole life only to have their entire framework in shambles hours before their death. Thinking what goes through the mind of an atheist on their death bed is sobering, pitiful, and heartbreaking. Atheism’s only hope is nothing. It’s end is meaningless and pointless which unveils Atheism’s archenemy: death.

No one desires their life to not have meaning-those who think their lives are meaningless typically commit suicide. Many times, they commit suicide because of the desire to have meaning, to live for something greater. All of this cannot be accomplished through atheism’s system.

Ravi Zacharias in his book, The Real Face of Atheism, mentions three things that death severs:

  • Relationships
  • Justice
  • Hope

Relationships

There is a sense of finality with death. Earthly speaking, we will not see a particular loved one again. My uncle recently passed away. While I live across the country from my family, I mourn with my family at the loss of a beloved uncle. I will never see him again this side of heaven. Death severed that relationship. Here is the difference between the two religions: There is hope within a Biblical worldview and there is not a shred of hope within Atheism, which leads to the injustice that occurs within this framework.

Justice

We look at the mass murderers, serial rapists, and genocide producers and think that ‘death is too good for them.’ Humanly speaking, death does not do justice to the pain evil causes. But with the True Judge, true justice will be accomplished. In the mind of an atheist, death severs justice. There is no true justice because Atheism can’t deal with evil, leaving the response as silent as the cold grave.

“Hope is that indispensable element that makes the present so important.”

                -Ravi Zacharias

Hope

Atheism nails its own coffin shut from the inside. After killing God, it is left with nothing to live for, no moral groundings, no purpose, and no hope beyond death. Thanks to naturalism, the last fifty years have left the generations with no innocence, no authority, no love, no hope, no reasoning, and no answers. As Ravi Zacharias has asked, “How do you reach a generation that listens with its eyes and thinks with its feelings?” Our society has dug its grave.

And yet, Eternity is on hearts. This is why people want to have a park named after them and impact the next generation. Originally, we weren’t meant to die, and now that we do, we have a drive on our hearts to make a difference because our life is a vapor. We don’t want to leave this world without making an impact. People can champion atheism all day long, but when the grave starts being dug, the practically of atheism goes out the window. It is only within the Biblical worldview that we can have hope beyond the grave. Because of this, one can truly leave an impact on the next generation.

 

For Further Discussion:

John MacArthur discusses what happens when a Christian dies: Click Here


Jul 25 2016

Solomon vs. Greek Mythology

blueredboxertoySisyphus is in the red corner: A king in Greek mythology who told a secret of the gods and his punishment was to spend an eternity pushing a boulder up a hill, watch it roll back down, and repeat the process. Sisyphus has been used in literature and philosophy as an example of the lack of purpose and meaning. And Solomon is in the blue corner: In Ecclesiastes he examines his life and exclaims, “Vanity! Vanity!” Solomon wrestled through the meaninglessness of life despite having everything a man of his time could dream of. The match is set and the bell rings-Round 1!

Round 1-Atheism’s Search for Meaning

Atheism denies God as creator, which then leads to the abdication of a moral law. Because of this, finding meaning and purpose is next barrier to overcome. If God did not create humanity what is the purpose to life? To what end is life if all that will happen is death and nothing more? Solomon sees vanity and Atheism keeps looking and looking. A few blows between Solomon and Sisyphus and there we have the end of round 1.

Round 2-Atheism’s Response

Next, the best response atheism can give is a change of attitude. Especially relevant is Albert Camus, a philosopher in the 1940’s and 50’s wrote a work called, The Myth of Sisyphus, and essentially said that a change of attitude needed to occur. There is an end purpose if attitude is changed, right? The end goal is to be happy. Solomon already tried that though. He says, “I denied myself nothing my eyes desired; I refused my heart no pleasure.” Finally, we have happiness in a meaningless world. It is a band aid on a bursting dam. A few more blows to the heads of the competitors and round 2 is complete.

Activity does not create meaning; it is the other way around.”

-Ravi Zacharias

Round 3-The Pit of Despair

“The exception to the rule proves the rule.” So it is that in order to know if something is fake, the authentic must be known. To deny God is to deny meaning, yet atheism contradicts and denies God yet affirms meaning. Whether the meaning comes through pleasure seeking, or in being a good person, if God is not in the picture, what is the point? Voltaire found futility in existence itself. Solomon found futility in his labor.

Solomon’s portrayal of life under the sun was exemplifying life outside of God. Solomon has a come around moment when he turns meaninglessness into meaning. Life under the sun is at the heart of atheism: Life is meaningless with a forced smiled only to be rolled back down the hill. Finally, it is only when life’s meaning is found in God that Solomon gives Sisyphus an uppercut; leaving Sisyphus falling face first to the ground–Knocked Out.

“You have made us for yourself and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in Thee.”

Augustine of Hippo

 

For Further Discussion:

Albert Camus’ Myth of Sisyphus: Click Here

 


Jul 18 2016

Whatever Happened to Duty?

graduation-679945_1920Duty. Honor. Lost concepts. During WWII, suicide was not an uncommon solution to a man who was not allowed to join the war effort. Duty to one’s family and country were held in such high esteem.

This degree of duty is unheard of in our society today. Something changed. In the space of 20 years, suicide was replaced by draft card burning. Society’s moral bearings shifted due to the widespread belief of natural selection and other atheistic teachings.

Duty to whom or duty to what cannot be answered satisfactorily if the starting point is natural selection. Of course many have tried to squeeze duty into their theories: utilitarianism and egoism amongst others. Amid these theories is autonomy—the law to one’s self. These concepts have been slowly integrated into the public school system and what we see now is a fully loaded freight train going down a hill with no brakes and going around a bend. Trying to sever the link between God and morality has turned into catastrophe.

Examining the philosophical masters, we need to look no further. A slogan from Jean-Paul Sartre, one of the most well-known existential philosophers of the last century, said, “It is forbidden to forbid.” In current jargon, that has turned into, “Don’t judge.” A glaring contradiction within Sartre’s convictions is his critical judgment on the Vietnam war as immoral. This comes from the man who doesn’t believe in morals and calls others to not forbid anything.

“There are no bounds to horrors of natural selection played out.”

At the heart of natural selection is the theory that the strong dominates the weak. Hitler took these theories and led them to their logical conclusions: Auschwitz. The death of God and the abolition of morals came to surface at the German concentration camps. At Auschwitz, 12,000 people were killed every day because they were ‘inferior’ to the Germanic people. At the Nuremberg Trials, German leaders were being tried for war crimes against humanity. These leaders defended themselves by saying that they operated in accordance to the law of the land and there was no law above that law. This is natural selection at its finest. If there is no ultimate moral authority, there cannot be any answer to who, when, or why.  According to natural selection, the NAZI’s actions were not only okay, but were intrinsic to the reigning world view.

We have come to an age where ethics are a thing of the past. Values have replaced morality. Interestingly, the word values, with its present connotations, can be traced directly back to Nietzsche himself.

“Only a moral system that is logical, meaningful, and practical has answers for any society. In hard terms, the morality that atheism teaches, implies, or espouses is unlivable.” -Ravi Zacharias

Duty. A word with a definition, but without meaning for today. In a world where it is forbidden to forbid and where autonomy is championed, duty is a thing of the past. There are atheists out there who have morals, but it is not consistent with the atheistic world view and cannot be justified within their set of presuppositions. What happened to duty? Like morals, it has slowly been stripped from society.

 

For Further Discussion:

Ravi Zacharias gives examples of intolerance from the ‘tolerant’ atheist: Click Here

 

 


Jul 11 2016

Laws Within a Lawless Mindset

When atheism abandons intelligent design, it will have to struggle to find the essence and purpose of man. The world in which we now live is called the great experiment, for, no society has ever attempted (and survived) to live without some type of deity or higher authority.

There has always been an obligation or ‘oughtness’ to good members of societies. Within the framework of oughtness comes with the idea of purpose. Purpose and that ‘oughtness’ cannot be separated, and, when they attempts are made to separate, what is met is disharmony of society, individuals, and eventually will lead to anarchy.

Here is the problem, within atheism’s self caused universe, there can be no such thing as morality. The individual is the highest authority. When everyone asserts their own personal morality, there is nothing refraining individuals from doing whatever they please.pexels-photo-54539

Friedrich Nietzsche condemned the Christian ethic as seen with helping the poor in the Sermon on Mount and he says that a society living like this is controlled by “losers.” Our society is hacking away at the foundations of morality—only to erect a paper skyscraper of human autonomy.

We are the first civilization in English historian Arnold Toynbee’s history that, societally speaking, have not married moral law/instruction together with our children’s education. Even the societies that did not claim a specific God still had a strong moral framework that permeated within it’s citizens.

Society is in the process of rewriting the rules.

1. Pragmatism has replaced duty and honor.

2. Expressing one’s self has replaced a higher authority.

3. Doing good has morphed into feeling good.

4. Collectivism has been trampled by the sole of individualism.

5. Facts have turned to preference.

“Honor, truth, and morality have been sacrificed at the alter of autonomy and self-worship.” -Ravi Zaacharias

Today’s mantra is “Autonomy at any cost.” In this emotionally driven world, the people don’t know exactly what they are asking for. It sounds great if you are on the winning side. Just like the German’s in WWII—thinking they were glad they weren’t Jews.

To conclude, the purpose of man has been stripped apart from what man ought to do. If the purpose of man is meaningless (evolution), it follows that there should be no oughtness to man. Man ought not to do good to his fellow man. Man ought not to love his neighbor and be compassionate. Friedrich Nietzsche’s superman is in direct opposition to this. Only the strong should survive. The weak should be annihilated. Anarchy is the next step. Such is the path of atheism and laws within a lawless mindset doesn’t make sense. No purpose, no oughtness—utter hopelessness.


Jul 4 2016

Science Proves Science Wrong

What takes more faith to believe in: Evolution or God?

Atheism confesses that God does not exist. With God not existing, an explanation must be given to explain where the universe came from and many theories have been created: The Big Bang, for example. The question needing to be answered is where did the material that collided with the other material come from? Charles Darwin claimed the eyeball has gone through a set of processes evolving from a lower form to a higher form. The problem with Darwin is he could not explain where the eye came from to begin with. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God.

Why put more faith in a system where there are three major scientific conflicts?

3 Scientific Areas of Conflict Within Evolution

1. There is no unifying system that brings together all areas of science into a homogeneous component.

2. Within the evolutionist community, there are several disagreements over 3 different time periods.

3. There have been so many theoretical possibilities of origin for the world. Which one is right?

The first mistake of atheism is the insuperable leap from evolution to first causes. The theories of the evolution process come after the known origin of anything in the universe. Its like trying to figure out a proof in geometry without knowing what numbers to start with. It won’t make sense. Evolutionary science can’t answer the questions of ‘how’ or ‘why’ of there being something instead of nothing. In spite of this, there are those who take the blind leap. All that comes from the scientists is an explanation that “fails to explain.”

startup-photosEvolution flies in the face of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics of physics. This law essentially states that heat can’t transfer from a colder body to a hotter body without it not affecting the other body. With evolution, biology is being pitted against physics and they end up working against each other, in an utter contradiction. Put differently, the biological world is trying to evolve to a higher quality while the natural world is going down the spiral of disorder and degeneration. If the world tends towards chaos and disorder, according to the 2nd law, than evolution is impossible.

What is the chance that molecular amino acids just randomly form together perfectly to create a protein strand? But it doesn’t stop there. What is the chance that every single system we have in the field of science has been brought together by pure chance? It takes more faith to believe in this than to believe in a perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing God to create this world in which we live. What is ironic is many who believe in evolution do not believe in miracles…every organism and every process is a miracle. If evolution were true, it would be a miracle. But then, a miracle by definition comes from the Divine.

To conclude, a theoretical physicist named Dr. Polkinghorne gave a speech at Cambridge University saying, “There is no free lunch. Somebody has to pay, and only God has the resources to put in what was needed to get what we’ve got.” There is no other suitable explanation. It would take more faith to believe in random chance than in God, but don’t take it from us, take it from the good doctor himself.


Jun 27 2016

To the Atheistic Skeptic: “Is man the measure of all things?”

The ultimate question: Can man live without God?

Pridefully, I look at my own life and think that I have things under control. It is truly amazing how ‘in control’ I feel until some unforeseen circumstance arises and reality hits that I am far from “in control.”

While looking at this question, Mortimer J. Adler said, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than any other basic question.” It makes sense: if there is no ultimate authority, it cannot be said honestly that there is an injustice if a child is molested, an unborn baby murdered, or a man steals ten dollars from his boss. The answer to this ultimate question infiltrates every realm of man’s life.

So is there a God or not?

With true atheism, the universe is mechanical—including man. With this thinking, determinism was the new buzz word amongst philosophers and psychologists in the nineteenth century. Charles Darwin began touting the idea that man came from natural selection—evolving from animals. This was all atheism needed; a “scientific supported reality.”

Darwin had such a consequential impact on the world as we know it today. Darwin laid the foundations of the modern Tower of Babel and impacted Karl Marx to the point where Marx dedicated his work, Das Kapital to Darwin himself. Marx, believing religion was used to control people and thereby creating societal hierarchies, took Darwin’s theory, applied it to economics, and believed he would create his man-made utopia consisting of a class-less society.

Another level of the Tower was laid.order-1398742_1920

Darwin, being a major scientific influencer just so happened to awaken a philosopher whose impact is currently in process. It has been like a hurricane that hit the coast and is still going strong throughout the country. This philosopher was Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s influence spread to the likes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini. Hitler schemed his ideas to eliminate the weak and breed the “superman” based off of Nietzsche’s ideas. These ideas were based on atheism.

The Tower Stretches to the Sky

Sigmund Freud could be added to the list of those influenced by Nietzsche. His ideals for sexual freedom forever marred the sacred marriage bed. Such is the fruit of a world without God. God is dead,” said Nietzsche.  Nietzsche tried to live out the outworking of atheism logically and he went insane the last 10 years of his life.

The Steeple of the Tower

The bloodiest period of history and a world gone mad in the 20th century was Nietzsche’s prediction since God was dead in the 19th century. Such utter hopelessness, hatred, and tyranny of the soul comes from atheism.

It is a suicidal philosophy that embraces a belief in God—so said Albert Camus, of course, an atheist. Ironically, at the height of atheism’s success, is simultaneously the height of the world’s suicide rate.

Just like in ancient times, the people building the Tower of Babel were doing so to essentially make themselves God. Man tried to be the measure of all things. And what did God do? He took the ‘control’ from them. The Tower was destroyed. And so it shall be for atheism.