Donald R. Fox

I remember the old movie made in 1949 called “Battleground." Some may have viewed this outstanding movie about WW2 and the Battle of the Bulge. There is a brief talk near the end of the movie by the actor Leon Ames who played an Army Chaplain. With very cold and worn-out soldiers, the Chaplain starts off with the following, “Was this trip necessary?” Trying to explain the reason for this necessary trip to Europe, to kill off a murderous political system that has already killed millions. Before the end, the tables turn in the Allies favor.” (Reference: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041163/reviews-10)

As I viewed this movie and the words of the Army Chaplain, I thought as he spoke, we are in a like war. A war of godless bloodthirsty killing by Islamic fanatics who believe they are doing the will of their god. During WW2, Nazi, Germany was also doing the will of their god, Adolf Hitler. How very sad to accept and allow a deranged person, a religion or a like political power system that induces individuals to perform ungodly human slaughter thus creating of uncivilized mayhem.

There are many people alive today that have no knowledge of World War Two. From the period of September 1, 1939 to September 2, 1945, the world was at war. The U.S.A. did not enter the war until December 7, 1941 at the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Movie stars, professional athletes and even men who served in WW1, and all other types of men and women volunteered to serve. We younger folks kept up with the war to the end. With the war ending, there was great happiness spread throughout the land. The Army of Occupation after the war stayed, supervising and controlling the past enemy until stabilization was met. Our end of the war plan worked. Our former enemies, both Germany and Japan are now our strongest allies. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

Side Note: Our current governmental administration should have learned lessons from WW2. Because of baseless political promises, ill-advised decisions were made. You do not abandon, pull ground troops out of a nation that is not well-balanced and has a need for stabilization. Sadly, they did not follow lessons learned from prior USA military commanders and World War Two leadership from Washington, D.C. WW2 should have been the textbook for any future conflicts. We are now reaping the bitter fruits of our current poor leadership.

Let us go to the Chaplain’s question, “Was this trip necessary?” This question cannot be asked now. Our Chaplain could advise. We need to start our trip to destroy radical, blood lust Islam. Will the free world come to the aid of those who are being killed in this genocide? When our mission is completed, we can say this trip was necessary. God help us!


To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.” (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 KJV)

Every purpose is established by counsel: and with good advice make war.” (Proverbs 20:18 KJV)This, and a number of other proverbs, are oriented toward the decisions that would have been required of a monarch, such as Solomon. Christ might have had this in mind when he said, "What king, when he goeth to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand (Luke 14:31)?" (Reference: James Burton Coffman Commentaries on the Bible.)

NOTE: For information on Adolf Hitler see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

Hallelujah! What a Savior! by Robert Johnson

Hallelujah! What a Savior!
Robert Johnson 
“Guilty, vile, and helpless we; Spotless Lamb of God was He; ‘Full atonement!’ can it be? Hallelujah! What a Savior!” (Song by Philip P. Bliss - 1875). This song communicates two truths about the sacrifice of our Lord that are important for us to realize, essential for us by which to live.
First, we must never forget the price that was paid for our forgiveness from sin to be achieved. The familiarity we have with the cross can sometimes minimize the esteem we hold for it. It is incredible to consider the Son of God coming to earth as the Son of Man, to take flesh and blood and live a human existence, so our sins might be pardoned. For Deity to be humbled and become part of creation is amazing to consider. “Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:6-7).
Not only is the incarnation amazing to consider, but also is the death to which it led. Christ became human knowing it was to die for our sins, the most horrific, painful, shameful death conceivable. What greater act of love can be shown than God offering His Son for our sins? “By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us” (1 John 3:16). “For one will scarcely die for a righteous person, though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die, but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:7-8). The enormity of all this should never be lost on us, those who would perish eternally without such a sacrifice being made on our behalf.
Another truth we must understand is that all Christ did for us in becoming human and dying on the cross, he did willingly, from love, and this should be a source of joy for us. It reminds us the value we have to the Father. “See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:1-2). God wants fellowship with us, and He is willing to do everything necessary for it to be possible. “What is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor” (Psalm 8:4-5). What an honor for God to so love us and provide so richly for us. We can rejoice that God so cares for us.
We should never take for granted what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. We should be humbled and in awe that God so loves us and that our Lord has done so much for us. We also should never forget how precious we are in God’s sight, our value and worth to him. We ought to commit ourselves wholly to loving and living for Him. “We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). “Lifted up was He to die; ‘It is finished!’ was His cry; Now in Heav’n exalted high. Hallelujah! What a Savior!”

"THE GOSPEL OF JOHN" For Those Who Will Believe (17:20-26) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE GOSPEL OF JOHN"

                 For Those Who Will Believe (17:20-26)


1. In previous lessons devoted to "The Greatest Prayer Ever Prayed", we
   noted that...
   a. Jesus first prayed for Himself ("Father...Glorify Your Son") - Jn 17:1-5
   b. Jesus next prayed for His disciples ("I Pray For Them") - Jn 17: 6-19

2. Jesus then prayed for "those who will believe through their word"... - Jn 17:20
   a. I.e., those who would come to believe in Jesus through the teaching of the apostles
   b. This would include everyone who believes in Jesus today

[In this third and final part of Jesus' prayer, we learn what was heavy
on the mind of Jesus concerning His followers during this difficult time
just before His arrest and crucifixion.  In our text (Jn 17:20-26), we can read of...]


      1. The nature of the oneness Jesus desires - Jn 17:21,23a
         a. As He and the Father are one
         b. Together with the Father and the Son
      2. The purpose of the oneness Jesus desires - Jn 17:21c, 23b
         a. That the world may believe the Father sent the Son
         b. That the world may know the Father sent Jesus, and loved them
      3. The means to the oneness Jesus desires - Jn 17:22
         a. The glory which God gave Christ - Jn 17:22
         b. B. W. Johnson offers the following insight as to what this 'glory' might be:
            1) "God gave Christ the glory of Sonship and this resulted in their unity."
            2) "So Christ gives to his disciples the glory of becoming
               the sons of God (Jn 1:12; 1Jn 3:1)."
            3) "This glory, the  adoption and gift of the Spirit, ought
               to effect that they be one as we are one."
         c. Adam Clarke rephrases Jesus' words in this way:
            1) "I have communicated to all those who believe, or shall
               believe in me, the glorious privilege of becoming sons of God;"
            2) "that, being all adopted children of the same Father,
               they may abide in peace, love, and unity."

      1. That we be with Him where He is - Jn 17:24a
         a. That is, in heaven, as He had mentioned earlier - Jn 14:3
         b. Using the futuristic present form of speech (e.g., Jn 17:4)
      2. That we behold His glory given to Him by the Father - Jn 17:24b
         a. That glory prayed for earlier - Jn 17:1
         b. The eternal glory He had with the Father before the world was - Jn 17:5
         c. When the Father loved Him before the creation of the world - Jn 17:24c
         d. Glory like that depicted in the visions of Revelation - e.g., Re 5:6-14

      1. The Father has loved us - Jn 17:23
         a. Manifested by sending His Son - Jn 3:16
         b. Manifested by offering Him as a propitiation - 1Jn 4:10
      2. The Father will love us - Jn 17:26
         a. With the same love He has for His Son!
         b. For all who keep His commandments - cf. Jn 14:21,23

[Such is Jesus' desire for us as expressed in His prayer:  1) to be one;
2) to behold His glory; and 3) to be loved by His Father!  How shall we
react to such a prayer?  Let me suggest...]


      1. Preserving the unity of the Spirit - Ep 4:3-6
         a. Keeping that which Jesus accomplished for us
         b. Through doctrinal faithfulness to each of the seven 'ones'
      2. Attaining unity of mind and judgment - 1Co 1:10-13; Php 2:1-5
         a. In our dealings with one another as brethren
         b. By developing and displaying the mind of Christ
      -- That the world might know that God loves them and has sent His Son

      1. To remain steadfast to the end - He 3:12-14
         a. There is a real danger of developing a heart of unbelief
         b. We are partakers of Christ (and His glory) if we remain steadfast to the end
      2. To receive the crown of life - Re 2:10; 3:21-22
         a. We must remain faithful till death
         b. We must overcome if we are to sit with Him on His throne
      -- That we might behold His glory in heaven and throughout eternity

      1. Love for God - Mt 22:37-38; Jn 14:15,21; 1Jn 5:3
         a. The greatest commandment of the Old Law
         b. Demonstrated by keeping the commandments of the Lord
      2. Love for the children of God - Ep 5:1-2; 1Jn 5:2
         a. Imitating God who loved us
         b. Demonstrated by keeping the commandments of God
      -- That we might remain in His love


1. If we take Jesus' prayer seriously, we will do all we can to...
   a. Walk in unity
   b. Walk in faith
   c. Walk in love
   -- Are you doing your part to see that His prayer is answered?

2. We note the concluding words of "The Greatest Prayer Ever Prayed"...
   a. Those disciples with Jesus knew that He was sent by God - Jn 17:25
   b. He taught them that they might know the love of God and the
      fellowship of Christ - Jn 17:26

3. Years later, the disciple who recorded Jesus' prayer wrote an epistle...
   a. That we might have share in the fellowship of God and Jesus - 1Jn 1:1-3
   b. That our joy might be full - 1Jn 1:4

Both Jesus and John would have us share in the wonderful love and
fellowship with God.  May "The Greatest Prayer Ever Prayed" always
encourage us to do what we must to experience it...!
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

"THE GOSPEL OF JOHN" I Pray For Them (17:6-19) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE GOSPEL OF JOHN"

                       I Pray For Them (17:6-19)


1. We noted that one of the reasons Jesus' prayer is "The Greatest
   Prayer Ever Prayed" was because of the content of the prayer

2. A previous lesson examined that part of the prayer in which Jesus
   prayed for Himself ("Father...Glorify Your Son") - Jn 17:1-5

3. In this study, we shall consider the second part of the prayer...
   a. In which Jesus prays on behalf of His disciples
   b. In which He prays for those He would soon leave behind on earth

[As we closely examine this part of the prayer (Jn 17:6-19), we note
that Jesus makes a threefold petition in behalf of His disciples...]


      1. Note this plea in verse 11
         a. "Keep through Your name..."
         b. "...that they may one as We are."
      2. Jesus' departure would tend to scatter the disciples - cf. Jn 16:32
      3. While with them, Jesus had kept them together - Jn 17:12
      4. With His departure imminent, it is understandable He was
         concerned they be kept in unity
      5. The importance of such unity is explained later in Jn 17:20-26,
         and will be examined in our next study

      1. This petition is found in verse 15
      2. Jesus knew that with His departure Satan would shift his
         efforts from Him to His disciples - cf. Re 12:1-6,13-17
      3. Even so, Jesus does not ask for their removal, but their protection
         a. Disciples need to be in the world that their presence might bless it 
              - cf. Mt 5:14-16; Php 2:15
         b. The protection for which Jesus prayed is described in 1Co 10:13; Ro 8:35-39

      1. This part of the petition is found in verse 17
      2. That is, to set them apart for a holy purpose
      3. Jesus even mentions the instrument of sanctification:  the Word of God!
      4. Through sanctification by the Word, the other parts of His
         petition would be realized
         a. The Word would keep them united in Christ
         b. The Word would keep them from the evil one (even as it did
            for Christ when He was tempted by Satan, cf. Mt 4:4-11)

[Thus Jesus prays for His disciples:  1) to keep them in unity, 2) to
keep them from the evil one, and 3) to sanctify them through the Word of
God.  In His prayer, Jesus also provides several reasons...]


      1. Notice Jesus' words in verse 6:
         a.  "...the men whom You have given Me out of the world."
         b. "They were Yours, You gave them to Me..."
      2. J. W. McGarvey made the following observation:
         a. "The Father is possessor of all humanity as the Creator."
         b. "The Son by gift from the Father possesses the believing
            portion of humanity as its Redeemer."

      1. They kept His Word - Jn 17:6b
      2. They knew that all things God gave Jesus came from God - Jn 17:7
      3. They received the words Jesus gave them, and believed He was sent by God 
          - Jn 17:8

      1. Jesus' prayer was for those who were both the Father's and the Son's 
          - Jn 17:9-10a
      2. The Father would naturally have a similar concern for the disciples
      3. For they are not only the disciples of Christ, but children of God!

      1. Jesus was glorified in His disciples - Jn 17:10b
      2. He is glorified when sinners become saints, for it is only by
         His blood and transforming power that such is possible
      3. If Jesus' petition was not answered, then Jesus would not be glorified!

      1. Jesus was going back to the Father, leaving the disciples on earth - Jn 17:11
      2. He had preserved them all while on earth, save Judas as foretold - Jn 17:12
      3. Now leaving them, He wanted them to have His joy fulfilled in themselves  - Jn 17:13

      1. Because they are not of this world - Jn 17:14-15
      2. Just as Jesus was not of this world - Jn 17:16
      3. Following Christ had put them at odds with the world!

      1. As Jesus was sent into the world by His Father - Jn 17:18a
      2. So Jesus was sending His disciples into the world - Jn 17:18b
         a. A world which hates them
         b. A world under the influence of the evil one
         c. A world which rejected the Son of God

      1. For their sakes, He was willing to sanctify Himself - Jn 17:19a
         a. To set Himself apart for a holy purpose (the meaning of sanctification)
         b. Which He did by presenting Himself as the Lamb of God, to
            offer Himself for the sins of the world - cf. Jn 1:29
      2. That His disciples might also be sanctified by the truth - Jn 17:19b

[On the basis of eight reasons, Jesus prayed for His disciples, that His
Father might 1) keep them in unity, 2) keep them from the evil one, and
3) sanctify them through the Word of God.  Before we close our study, consider...]


      1. That we be kept in unity - cf. Jn 17:20-21
      2. That we be kept from the evil one - cf. 2Th 3:3
      3. That we be sanctified - cf. 1Th 4:3

      1. Disciples are the Father's gift to the Son - cf. Jn 6:44-45
      2. Disciples have received God's Word - e.g., 1Th 2:13
      3. Disciples are a joint possession of the Son and the Father - cf. 1Co 3:23
      4. Disciples glorify Christ - cf. 2Th 1:11-12
      5. Disciples no longer have Christ on earth - cf. Ac 3:21
      6. Disciples are not of the world, even hated by the world - cf. 1Pe 2:11-12; 4:4
      7. Disciples are sent out into the world - cf. 1Co 5:9,10
      8. Jesus sanctified Himself for disciples today as well as those then - cf. 1Jn 2:1-2


1. Jesus prayed for His disciples because...
   a. They received the Word - Jn 17:8
   b. They believed the Word - Jn 17:8
   c. They kept the Word - Jn 17:6b

2. If we desire Jesus' prayer in our behalf today...
   a. We must receive the Word - cf. Jm 1:21
   b. We must believe the Word - cf. Ro 1:16
   c. We must keep the Word - cf. Jn 8:31

3. Otherwise, we will not...
   a. Be kept in unity
   b. Be kept from the evil one
   c. Be sanctified by the Word of God - Jn 17:17

Jesus still prays for His disciples today (cf. He 7:25).  His concerns
are still the same.  Are we doing our part by receiving, believing, and
keeping His Word...?

Don't Muslims and Christians Both Believe in Jesus? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Don't Muslims and Christians Both Believe in Jesus?

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.


“In a Muslim seminar, an Imam stated that both Christians and Muslims believe in Jesus, but of different faiths. What say you?”


Muslims are quick to emphasize that they, too, believe in Jesus. Their claim is correct. After all, the Quran alludes to Jesus in a favorable light several times (e.g., Surah 3:45-51; 5:110; 21:91; et al.). But this claim is misleading, since it fails to own up to the fact that Christianity and Islam are in hopeless contradiction with each other regarding the most crucial contention of New Testament Christianity: the divinity of Christ. On this solitary point, Islam and Christianity, the Bible and the Quran, can never agree. This disagreement is of such momentous import and great magnitude as to make the inexorable incompatibility permanent.
You see, while the Quran speaks favorably of Jesus as a prophet of God, it vehemently denounces the deity of Christ. For example, consider Surah 18:1-5 (as translated by Muslim scholar Mohammed Pickthall)—
Praise be to Allah Who hath revealed the Scripture unto His slave…to give warning of stern punishment from Him…and to warn those who say: Allah hath chosen a son, (A thing) whereof they have no knowledge, nor (had) their fathers. Dreadful is the word that cometh out of their mouths. They speak naught but a lie.
And read Surah 19:88-93—
And they say: The Beneficent hath taken unto Himself a son. Assuredly ye utter a disastrous thing, whereby almost the heavens are torn, and the earth is split asunder and the mountains fall in ruins, that ye ascribe unto the Beneficent a son, when it is not meet for (the Majesty of) the Beneficent that He should choose a son. There is none in the heavens and the earth but cometh unto the Beneficient as a slave.
Or Surah 23:91—
Allah hath not chosen any son, nor is there any God along with Him (also 25:2; et al.).
These references demonstrate that the Quran depicts Jesus as a mere man—a prophet like Muhammad—who was created by God like all other created beings (Surah 5:75; cf. 42:9,13,21). Indeed, when Jesus is compared to any of the prophets (listed as Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob), Allah is represented as stating: “We make no distinction between any of them” (Surah 2:136; 3:84). Though the Quran seems to accept the notion of the virgin conception (Surah 21:91), to attribute divinity to Jesus, or to assign to Jesus equal rank with God, is to utter a “dreadful” and “disastrous” thing—to formulate “nothing but a lie”!
Here, indeed, is the number one conflict between Islam and Christianity—the deity, person, and redemptive role of Christ. If Christ is Who the Bible represents Him to be, then Islam and the Quran are completely fictitious. If Jesus Christ is Who the Quran represents Him to be, then Christianity is baseless and blasphemous. On this point alone, these two religions can never achieve harmony. But the New Testament is very, very clear: the heart, core, and soul of the Christian religion is allegiance to Jesus Christ as God, Lord, and Savior. Jesus identified Himself as the “I AM” of the Old Testament (John 8:58; cf. 20:28-31). In Colossians, Paul forcefully affirmed regarding Jesus—
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist (1:15-17). For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (2:9).
Such depictions of Jesus are frequent in the New Testament. Jesus was certainly a prophet, as the Quran affirms (Surah 4:163); but Jesus was not just a prophet. He was God in the flesh. In fact, oral confession of the deity of Christ is prerequisite to becoming a Christian (Romans 10:9-10). This singular point makes Christianity and Islam forever incompatible. One must be a Christian to be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12), and yet one cannot be a Christian without believing in, and verbally confessing, the deity of Christ, and then being immersed into Christ (Romans 6:1-4; Galatians 3:27). The Bible declares that Jesus was the final revelation of God to man (Hebrews 1:1-3). There have been no others.

The Historicity of Job by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


The Historicity of Job

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Over the last several centuries, many have attempted to fictionalize the Bible. Atheists vigorously attack the Genesis account of Creation, calling it nothing more than a fictitious story that should be placed alongside myths such as the Babylonian creation account. Skeptics scoff at the biblical account of the worldwide Flood, calling it an altered copy of the uninspired Epic of Gilgamesh. Liberal theologians labor to make Scripture conform to secular sources, claiming that the Israelite religion is a mere “Yahwization” of pagan religions (i.e., attributing to Yahweh what pagan religions attributed to their gods). Certain professors at Christian colleges have even cast doubt on the historicity of Jonah. They have referred to it as “just a short story” that “might even be regarded as historical fiction.” “[A] lot of books today” may “have a ring of historical accuracy,” they say, “just like the book of Jonah,” but “[d]oes that make it history? Well, no. No, it doesn’t” (Pemberton, 2002, 22:26-22:44). Such attempts to fictionalize Scripture or cast doubt on the true nature of its historical accounts represent a blatant attack upon God’s Word and should be refuted with all diligence in “meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).
Some believe the book of Job is little more than a fine piece of non-inspired literature. Others contend it is inspired of God, but, like happenings in Genesis and Jonah, the book of Job is said to be a fictional story about imaginary people, places, and events, told for spiritual purposes. What do the facts reveal? Are there good reasons to believe that this story is a real, unembellished account of events that occurred long ago?


In a single day, the patriarch Job was informed of the loss of all 10 of his children, all of his livestock, and many of his servants. In chapter 1 of the book of Job, we learn that as one of Job’s servants was telling him about a group of raiders (the Sabeans) that had stolen all of his oxen and donkeys, and killed all the servants tending to the animals (except himself), another servant arrived even as the first “was still speaking.” This second servant told Job that fire came down from heaven and consumed his sheep and servants. Again, while this servant was talking, a third servant came and related to Job that another group of invaders (the Chaldeans) had stolen all of his camels and had killed all of the servants except him. Finally, while this third servant was talking, a fourth servant came and bore even worse news—Job’s 10 children had all perished when a great wind struck the house and caused it to crush them. His 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, 500 female donkeys, several servants, and 10 children were all gone in the blink of an eye. And, as if being stripped of his worldly possessions and children were not enough, Job’s body then became diseased from head to toe, his wife urged him to “curse God and die,” and the comforting counsel of his “friends” quickly gave way to judgmental accusations.
Based upon the extent of his physical destruction and mental suffering, as well as the limited time frame in which it all occurred, some critics doubt that Job was a real person. They believe that he simply was fabricated to teach a lesson about human suffering. Perhaps, they say, he is to be valued like such parabolic figures as the good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37), the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32), or the rich fool (Luke 12:16-21), but not like those who actually lived and died upon the Earth.
I will never forget having a discussion about Job with a Christian gentleman several years ago, who, with a skeptical expression on his face, informed me that he did not believe the story of Job was real history. The idea was: “No one has ever gone through that much pain that quickly.” Up to that point in time, however, I do not think this brother had ever considered the overwhelming evidence for Job’s reality.

Job’s Humanity

Unlike the good Samaritan, the prodigal son, the rich fool, and other parabolic figures, the suffering patriarch of the Old Testament, whose story is recorded in forty-two chapters of the most beautiful language this world has ever known, was given a name—Job. The book begins: “There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job” (1:1, emp. added). He wasn’t just an obscure man in a far-away land who was the main character of a “once-upon-a-time” kind of fairytale. He was a real, “mortal” man (cf. 4:17), of whom his Creator said: “[T]here is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil” (1:8). He “was the greatest of all the people of the East” (1:3). That Job was a real person is stated explicitly by God in his second speech to Job, when He declared that the mighty animal called behemoth was “made along with you” (40:15, emp. added).
In the book of Job, the patriarch’s wealth is catalogued, his homeland is identified (cf. Jeremiah 25:20; Lamentations 4:21), his father is referenced (Job 15:10), his children are numbered, his wife is quoted, his friends are named, his speeches are recorded, and his suffering is described in detail. Job spoke of his birth, and even his conception (3:3), and longed for death in order to escape his severe distress (6:8-10). His suffering was not here one day and gone the next, nor did it go on endlessly. It lasted for “months” (7:3; 29:2) and was specifically characterized by boils (2:7-8), bad breath (19:17), loss of weight (19:20), disfiguration (2:12), blackened, cracked skin that was infested with worms (30:30; 7:5), and bones that burned with piercing pain (30:17,30). Job’s suffering was as real as Job himself.

Job’s Descent

Still, some may contend, “We know that Eliphaz was a Temanite, Bildad a Shuhite, Zophar a Naamathite (Job 2:11), and that Elihu was called, ‘the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram’ (Job 32:2), yet Job has no revealed heritage.” “Who was his father? Where is his genealogy? Why don’t we know more about Job’s heritage, if he was a real person?”
The Bible is replete with real, historical men and women who have little, if any, background information given about them. Are we to assume that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego (Daniel 1:7), Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1), Diotrephes (3 John 9), and Lydia (Acts 16:14) were all fictional characters because we have no information about their families? And what about Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18), who was “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life” (Hebrews 7:3)? Was he an imaginary character? In truth, Melchizedek is as historical as Abraham, who paid him tithes (Genesis 14:20; Hebrews 7:2), and as real as Jesus, Who was a priest, “according to the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 7:17,21).
Similar to how Melchizedek’s ancestry was intentionally omitted in Scripture in order to illustrate the perfect type of priest that Jesus, the great High Priest, would be, the little information that we have about Job was no doubt intentional. Admittedly, patriarchs are often introduced in the biblical text with at least some genealogical information (e.g., Genesis 11:26-29), while Job is not. We know neither his family nor his race. We do not know for sure when he lived or exactly where he lived (i.e., precisely where Uz was cannot be said with certainty). However, as Perry Cotham concluded: “[T]his in God’s wisdom is all the better for the purpose of the great book because it makes Job a universal man, a representative, as it were, of all mankind in his relationship to God” (Cotham, 1991, p. 40). People of all colors, classes, clans, countries, and kingdoms can find great strength and encouragement from the real, true-life story of Job.

Job’s Name

Let us also establish the fact that the name “Job” (Hebrew Iyob or Iob in the Septuagint) was no literary invention; it was an actual name worn by various ones throughout history. Jacob had a grandson named Job (Genesis 46:13; or Yob/Iob, ESV, NASB). Furthermore, as Francis Anderson noted in his commentary on Job, “The name [Job—EL] is attested several times throughout the second millennium BC as an old Canaanite name sometimes borne by royal personages. It occurs in an Egyptian execration text of the nineteenth century BC…. Later the Ugaritic ayab agrees with the South Canaanite name A-ya-ab in Amarna letters” (Anderson, 1974, p. 78). Although some believe that Job means either “object of enmity” or “he who turns to God” (Genung, 2006), the eminent and respected archaeologist W.F. Albright believed these ancient references support the explanation that the name originally meant, “Where is (my) Father?” (Hartley, 1988, p. 66; Anderson, p. 78). Such a meaning fits perfectly with the book of Job, considering (1) no father or genealogy is given for the patriarch, and (2) throughout his speeches, Job longs to speak with God, his Father by creation (10:2-3,9; 13:3,20-22; 31:35-37).

Job’s Anonymous Wife

Some have suggested that since the patriarch’s wife is referred to but never named (Job 2:9; 19:17; 31:10), the book of Job falls in line more with a parable and not a literal story (cf. Cunningham, 2011). Such a claim, however, disregards two important points. First, several of the leading characters in the story are specifically named, including Jehovah, Job, Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, Elihu, as well as three of Job’s daughters: Jemimah, Keziah, and Keren-Happuch. Simply because someone in a story is not called by name, in no way relegates that story to a parable, especially when so many other individuals in the story are named. Second, there are many real, historical women in the Bible whose names are also unknown to us, including, and especially, the women of patriarchal times. Adam and Eve’s daughters are never named (Genesis 5:4), nor are Lot’s (Genesis 19). The wives of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth are omitted in Scripture even though they were crucial in God’s plan for mankind to repopulate the Earth. Other men living in patriarchal times whose wives’ names are not mentioned by name in Holy Writ include Cain, Lot, Laban, and Potiphar. Furthermore, the names of many women in New Testament times remain unknown to us, includingJames and John’s mother (Matthew 20:20), Peter’s mother in law (Matthew 8:14), Jairus’ daughter (Matthew 9:18), the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4), and many others (Luke 8:3). Obviously, then, the fact that Job’s wife, who is only mentioned three times in the book of Job, is not referred to by name has no bearing whatsoever on the historicity of Job.

Other Citations of Job in Scripture

Not only are there several indicators within the book of Job that the suffering patriarch was a real, flesh-and-blood human being (and not just a parabolic figure), Job also is mentioned in Scripture outside of the book that bears his name. In fact, Job is mentioned in three different verses in Scripture (outside the book of Job), none of which lead one to believe that Job is a fictional character. Rather, he is considered an actual, historical figure.
The first two places his name is found (aside from the book of Job) is in Ezekiel 14, verses 14 and 20. In verse 14, the prophet stated: “Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness, says the Lord God.” Verse 20 is worded nearly the same way: “[E]ven though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, says the Lord God, they would deliver neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness.” Ezekiel’s point in both verses was that the ungodly conditions in Babylon were such that even if Noah, Daniel, and Job lived in that city, no one else would be saved. Ezekiel spoke of all three of these men as being real, historical people, not legendary characters. If one recognizes Noah and Daniel as being real people of history, then there is no reason to think otherwise about Job. Yes, Job’s story is written in beautiful, poetic language and grouped with other poetic books in the wisdom section of the Old Testament. Still, God’s inspired prophet Ezekiel believed Job’s life was as real and genuine as Noah’s and Daniel’s. [NOTE: Numerous real people and places are noted and described in the poetic books of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. It would be unwise and inconsistent to disregard Job’s historicity merely because it is written largely in poetic language.]
The last place the suffering patriarch is mentioned in Scripture (and the only time he is mentioned in the New Testament) is found in the latter part of the book of James. The brother of the Lord wrote: “My brethren, take the prophets, who spoke in the name of the Lord, as an example of suffering and patience. Indeed we count them blessed who endure. You have heard of the perseverance of Job and seen the end intended by the Lord—that the Lord is very compassionate and merciful” (James 5:10-11, emp. added). James was not writing through inspiration about an imaginary person. Rather, he considered Job as real as Abraham, Elijah, and Rahab—historical individuals whom James also mentioned in his epistle (2:21,25; 5:17).


More than anything else, what causes the most skepticism about Job are the intense losses that he endured in such a short period of time. How can a man learn of the loss of 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, 500 female donkeys, numerous servants, and, most tragically, 10 children in one day? It simply is too much for some to believe.

Job and Evolution

Yet, some of the same individuals who doubt the historicity of the suffering of Job maintain that the theory of evolution is a fact. Both atheistic and theistic evolutionists believe that over billions of years of time, a multi-cellular creature evolved into a worm, which evolved into a fish, which evolved into an amphibian, which evolved into a reptile, which evolved into an ape-like creature, which evolved into a human. Allegedly, an amazing human being with functional eyes, ears, arms, legs, fingers, toes, lungs, etc., could evolve given enough time, mutations, and random chance processes. Supposedly, the unnatural, unproven, law-breaking theory of evolution is believable—but not the story of Job. “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” (Shakespeare, 2011, III.2).

Others Throughout History Have Suffered Greatly

It maybe that no one in world history has ever suffered as much as did Job in one day. However, there have been many tragic stories throughout history. Since likely everyone would agree that there have been innumerable true accounts of individuals and families throughout history losing virtually all of their wealth in the blink of an eye due to fires, floods, thefts, bankruptcies, depressions, stock-market plunges, etc. (e.g., Charles Prestwood, see Hundley, 2002), there seems little reason to document such financial losses. What’s more, even if we did document many such unfortunate happenings, it would be greatly overshadowed by the loss of all of Job’s children. When the life and death of those whom we love dearly comes into focus, often even the most materialistic among us see that financial ruin does not compare with the loss of loved ones.
But Job was also not the only one ever to have to deal with a great family tragedy in a short period of time. I know a woman who lost her mother and one of her two sons within one week of each other. She then buried her husband a year later. Portland, Oregon mother, Marva Davis, lost two sons on the same day—January 29, 2010. Her 23-year-old son died of heart and kidney failure in the morning, followed by her 25-year-old son being shot by a police officer later that night (“Oregon Woman…,” 2010). Alicia Appleman-Jurman was one of countless Jews who experienced heart-breaking losses and difficulties during the Holocaust. In addition to her suffering and surviving ghettoization, imprisonment, starvation, a trip to an extermination center, and a firing squad, all within a four-year period, she lost every immediate family member. The Nazis shot her mother, father, and two of her brothers. One brother was hanged, while another died needlessly in a Russian prison. Alicia was the only member of her immediate family to survive the Holocaust (Appleman-Jurman, 1989).

Many Faithful Believers Have Experienced Great Pain

The Bible is full of faithful men and women who suffered greatly. Imagine the sorrow that Noah and his family felt as they watched and/or heard innumerable souls (perhaps millions of people) perish in the Flood—many of whom, no doubt, were relatives. Consider the heartache that Lot, his wife, and daughters must have felt as their family members, friends, and home were destroyed with fire and brimstone—and then as Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt (Genesis 19:24-26).
The apostle Paul was “in prisons...frequently” and “in deaths often.” Five times he received 39 lashings. Three times he was beaten with rods. Once he was stoned. Three times he was ship wrecked (2 Corinthians 11:23-25). In addition to being in all kinds of “perils” (2 Corinthians 11:26), he was “in weariness and toil…in hunger and thirst,” as well as “in cold and nakedness” (2 Corinthians 11:27). Paul was a persecuted apostle, who suffered greatly, in addition to being in continual pain with some sort of “thorn in the flesh” (2 Corinthians 12:7). The apostles as a whole were “made a spectacle to the world,” were “dishonored…poorly clothed, and beaten, and homeless” (1 Corinthians 4:10-11). They were “reviled,” “persecuted,” and “defamed” (1 Corinthians 4:12-13). They were “made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things” (1 Corinthians 4:13). In addition to inspiration informing us that the apostle James was killed with the sword (Acts 12:2), Fox’s Book of Martyrs indicates that Matthew was slain with a halberd, Mathias was stoned and beheaded, Andrew was crucified, Thomas was killed with a spear, Paul was beheaded, and Peter was crucified (most likely upside down) (Forbush, 1954, pp. 2-5).
Faithful men and women of God have been “tortured” (Hebrews 11:35). “They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth” (Hebrews 11:38b). “Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented—of whom the world was not worthy” (Hebrews 11:36-38a). Job is certainly one of the greatest examples of steadfastness in the face of suffering, but he is far from the only one to suffer severely.

A Modern-Day Tragedy

One of the most heart-rending, instant, unexpected tragedies to happen to a family in recent years occurred near Milwaukee, Wisconsin on Tuesday, November 8, 1994. Scott and Janet Willis were traveling with six of their nine children on Interstate 94 to Watertown, Wisconsin to visit their older son, Dan, and his new wife, and to celebrate two upcoming birthdays. Before ever reaching Watertown, however, the Willis van struck a piece of metal that had fallen off of a truck. The metal pierced the gas tank, which quickly caused gas to leak. “Seconds later, sparks caused as the metal bracket dragged against the pavement ignited the van” (Backover and Lev, 1994). The van “exploded in flames” (“Parents Bury...,” 1994). Five of the children in the van died almost instantly in the fire. Another escaped with burns covering 90% of his body, but died later that night at the hospital. Scott and Janet were hospitalized for several days with first and second degree burns. Such physical wounds, however, did not compare with the “indescribable” pain they felt at losing six children in one freak accident (Gillmore, n.d.).
What are the odds of something like this happening? Sheriff’s Sergeant David Lushowitz commented on the accident, saying, “I’ve never seen an accident like this before…. The odds are astronomical” (as quoted in Backover and Lev, emp. added). According to Chicago Tribune staff writers Backover and Lev, “Highway statistics support the characterization by Milwaukee investigators that the van accident was a freak occurrence” (emp. added).

Remembering the Circumstances of Job’s Suffering

Although man has documented many cases of severe, instantaneous suffering throughout history, some still refuse to believe the events in Job (especially chapters 1, 2, and 42) actually could occur. In an article titled, “Could the Story of Job be a Parable?” Chuck Cunningham wrote: “Four calamities result from Yahweh talking to the accuser. There is one survivor in each calamity to tell the story of Job. What are the odds of this happening?... Job begins with seven sons and three daughters, which all die. Job ends up with another seven sons and three daughters. What are the odds of that happening?” The idea is: “It’s too much, too soon—all of which is too ironic” (2011).
Admittedly, even in light of the cases of acute suffering that secular history has recorded for us, Job’s affliction does seem somewhat inconceivable. However, there is one important point to remember: Job’s story does not begin in Job 1:13 (when the Sabeans first came and stole all of Job’s oxen and donkeys and killed all of the servants in the area). The story of Job’s suffering begins in Job 1:6, on the day Satan came before the Lord. When God mentioned His faithful servant to Satan, the wicked one arrogantly implied that Job did not serve God for nothing (i.e., the Lord allegedly is not innately worthy of faithful service). God had blessed the patriarch and apparently had not allowed Satan to harm him as the devil went “to and fro on the earth” (Job 1:7), “seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8). For reasons that God does not reveal, He allowed Satan temporary access to “all that he [Job] has” (Job 1:12), which later would even include his health (2:4-7). In ways unknown to us, Satan orchestrated the murderous raids of the Sabeans and Chaldeans, the fire from heaven, the great wind, and the physical suffering that Job endured (1:13-19; 2:1-7). The same Satan who tempted Adam and Eve to sin; the same devil who sought to ruin the perfect life of Jesus at His weakest point (Matthew 4:1-11); the same wicked one who “bound” a woman with “a spirit of infirmity eighteen years” (Luke 13:11,16) and “oppressed” many others in the first century (Acts 10:38), also afflicted Job immensely. Taking into account Satan’s personal role in Job’s acute, virtually instantaneous suffering, the “unlikely,” “improbable” events become plausible.


Some discount the historic reality of the book of Job, because they cannot reconcile an all-loving God with what He allowed to happen to Job and those around him. According to Cunningham, “This is not our Elohim,…but more like a Greek Yahweh who plays with the lives of men. These accounts contradict the rest of Yahweh’s Word and Yahweh cannot contradict Himself…. We have taken the Book of Job literally instead of taking it as a parable” (2011). Similarly, Kelvin Stubbs asked, “God allows this man to have all that matters to him taken away, his family killed…and we’re supposed to be inspired?... How can you love a God who treats one of his most devout followers in this manner?” (2009).

Did God Cause Job to Suffer?

In truth, it was Satan who “did this.” Yes, God did say to Satan: “[Y]ou incitedMe against him [Job], to destroy him without a cause” (2:3), and later, the book does speak of “all the adversity that the Lord had brought upon him” (42:11). The fact is, however, these statements are examples of the idiomatic language found throughout Scripture, which actually express “not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 823). The Bible writers often alluded to God’s allowance of something to take place as having been done by the Lord. For example, 2 Samuel 24:1 indicates that God “moved David…to number Israel,” while 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that it was Satan who “stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.” The meaning is: Israel suffered as a direct result of Satan’s workings in the life of King David, which God allowed.
Consider also that Moses recorded how “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (Exodus 7:3,13; 9:12; 10:1; etc.). But God did not directly force Pharaoh to reject His will. Rather, God hardened his heart in the sense that God provided the circumstances and the occasion for Pharaoh to accept or reject His will. God sent Moses to place His demands before Pharaoh, even accompanying His Word with miracles, but Pharaoh made up his own mind to resist God’s demands. God provided the occasion for Pharaoh to demonstrate his unyielding attitude, but He was not the author (or direct cause) of Pharaoh’s defiance (see Butt and Miller, 2003 for more information). Similarly, God permitted Satan to afflict Job, but He did not directly cause Job’s suffering. It was “Satan” who “went out from the presence of the Lord, and struck Job” (2:7).

Would a Loving God Really Allow Job and Others to Suffer?

Regardless of whether God “allowed” Job’s suffering or “caused” it, some do not believe that a loving God would remove His providential protection from a faithful servant, bring his name up to Satan for consideration, and allow Job and so many others (i.e., his wife, children, and servants) to suffer and even die. Such God-allowed suffering has led atheists to reject Job and God altogether, while causing certain professed Bible-believers to interpret Job as a parabolic drama. Since the “the evil, pain, and suffering argument” against God’s existence has been thoroughly and logically answered many times in the past (cf. Miller and Butt, 2009; Warren, 1972), we will only respond to the professed Christian’s accusation about Job—that the book must be parabolic because God would never treat someone like He treated Job, his children, and his servants.
How is a parabolic story about God allowing Satan to destroy Job’s children and servants, as well as cause great physical pain for Job, somehow acceptable, but not a real-life story? A parable may be a fictitious story, but it has a moral or spiritual meaning. The Greek word parabole (from which we get the English word “parable”) means “to throw alongside.” It is “a story by which something real in life is used as a means of presenting a moral thought” (Dungan, n.d., p. 227, emp. added). Even if Job was a parable (which the evidence is decisively against), how would that immediately solve the “problem” of God allowing Job and others to suffer? Whether a true-life story about God or a parabolic story, any God-inspired story about Himself is going to properly reflect His perfect attributes. Turning the book of Job into a parable in no way means that “nothing in the book as it relates to God is really what it seems to be.”
The fact is, God’s actions in the book of Job are real, and consistent both with His nature and with the rest of Scripture. God is all-loving (1 John 4:8), but such love is not contrary to God allowing His faithful followers to suffer. Even though He will not tempt His children to do evil (James 1:13), God will test us (Genesis 22:1; Exodus 20:20) and discipline us (Hebrews 12:3-11). He will even allow us to die, knowing that a much greater life awaits us on the other side of physical death (Hebrews 11:10,16; John 14:1-3). He allowed John the Baptist, Stephen, James the apostle, and many others, including the Messiah, to suffer and die. We must keep in mind, as Thomas  Warren observed: God created the world, not as man’s final and ultimate destination, but as “the ideal environment for soul-making” (1972, p. 16). The difficulties that God allows or even brings about in this life “encourage people to cultivate their spirits and to grow in moral character—acquiring virtuous attributes such as courage, patience, humility, and fortitude (James 1:2-3; Romans 5:3-4). Suffering can serve as discipline and motivation to spur spiritual growth and strength. It literally stimulates people to develop compassion, sympathy, love, and empathy for their fellowman” (Miller and Butt; cf. Warren, p. 81).
But why did God allow Job’s children and servants to die? Why did He not spare their lives as He spared Job’s? God does not give us the answer to these questions. He does not tell us everything He knows, or that we might like to know (cf. Isaiah 55:8-9; Deuteronomy 29:29). What we can know is this: God always has a good reason for what He does. Perhaps He was rewarding Job’s 10 children and all of the servants with an early entrance into Paradise (cf. 2 Kings 2:11; Philippians 1:21,23). Or, if the children and servants were wicked, perhaps God used the occasion to punish them with physical death, just as He has done many times throughout history (Genesis 6-8; 19; Leviticus 10:1-2; Numbers 16; Acts 5:1-11). The fact is, one cannot assume that God’s allowance of Satan to kill Job’s children and servants is inconsistent with His loving nature.


Although much about the book of Job remains a mystery (exactly when Job lived, who wrote the book that bears his name, where the Land of Uz was located, etc.), we can know that he was a real person who suffered greatly—perhaps like no person has ever suffered—and yet remained faithful to God. And therein lies one of the main purposes of Job’s preserved story: the patriarch is an inspiration to every child of God who is determined to follow the Lord “in the paths of righteousness,” even while walking “through the valley of the shadow of death” (Psalm 23:3-4). Knowing that Job persevered through all his trials and tribulations gives us hope that we can do the same when similar trials of less magnitude come our way (James 1:2-4; 5:10-11).


Anderson, Francis I. (1974), Job (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press).
Appleman-Jurman (1989), “Alicia Appleman-Jurman: Survival and Heroism of a Young Girl During the Holocaust,” http://www.datasync.com/~davidg59/alicia.html.
Backover, Andrew and Michael Lev (1994), “6th Child Dies After Van Wreck,” http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-11-10/news/9411100233_1_van-wreck-duane-scott-willis-gas-tank.
Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Butt, Kyle and Dave Miller (2003), “Who Hardened Pharaoh’s Heart?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/scrspeak/2003/ss-03-22.htm.
Cotham, Perry (1991), “A Dialogue of Heaven and Earth,” in There Was a Man Named Job (Memphis, TN: Getwell church of Christ).
Cunningham, Chuck (2011), “Could the Story of Job be a Parable?” Teleios Ministries, http://www.teleiosministries.com/pdfs/Understanding_Yahwehs_Word/the_book_of_job.pdf.
Dungan, D.R. (no date), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Forbush, William Byron (1954), Fox’s Book of Martyrs (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Genung, John Franklin (2006), “Job,” International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Electronic Database Biblesoft).
Gillmore, Mark (no date), “The Fiery Crash,” http://logosresourcepages.org/SavingGrace/firecrash.htm.
Hartley, John E. (1988), The Book of Job (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hundley, Kris (2002), “Enron’s Crushing Blow,” St. Petersburg Times Online, http://www.sptimes.com/2002/02/10/Business/Enron_s_crushing_blow.shtml.
Miller, Dave and Kyle Butt (2009), “The Problem of Evil,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=890, May2.
“Oregon Woman Loses 2 Sons in Single Day” (2010), Boston Herald, http://bostonherald.com/news/national/west/view.bg?articleid=1230028&format=text.
“Parents Bury Six Children in Eerie Freeway Fire” (1994), Los Angeles Times, http://articles.latimes.com/1994-11-20/news/mn-65246_1_older-children.
Pemberton, Glenn (2002), Advanced Intro. to O.T., Oklahoma Christian Univeristy, CD 22:26-22:44.
Shakespeare, William (2011), Hamlet, The Literature Network, http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/hamlet/10/.
Stubbs, Kelvin (2009), “My Path to Agnosticism,” Meditations, http://uctaa.net/articles/meds2/med39/med752.html.
Warren, Thomas B. (1972), Have Atheists Proved There is No God? (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press).

The Bitter Fruits of Atheism [Part II] by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


The Bitter Fruits of Atheism [Part II]

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the July issue. Part II follows below, and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]


Not only does atheistic evolution devalue human life, it also taints many of the most important areas of human interaction. Sexuality is one area of human behavior that has been completely disrupted by the erroneous concepts of evolution and atheism. In a work he titled Ends and Means, atheist Aldous Huxley wrote:
I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find reasons for this assumption.... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom (1937, pp. 270, 273, emp. added).
Following Huxley’s argument, if we assume that the world was not created by God, and that there is ultimately no real meaning to human existence, then we can have sex with whomever, whenever, and in whatever way we choose. Evolutionary atheism offers sexual deviance a blank check to be filled out in whatever way each “naked ape” chooses. Numerous examples can be shown in which atheistic evolution is used to explain and defend sordid sexual perversions.

Rape and Evolution

Working under the assumption of naturalistic evolution, and knowing the ethical implications of such, Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer co-authored a book titled A Natural History of Rape, published by the MIT Press in 2000. In their preface they stated that they “would like to see rape eradicated from human life” (p. xi). A noble thought—to eradicate such a detestable practice. Their self-professed purpose is to educate their readers as to the causes of rape. They feel this education will help their readers understand rape better, and be more fully equipped to initiate programs that will prevent rape more efficiently than the current programs.
Yet, as noble as their suggested aim may be, Thornhill and Palmer embarked on an impossible task. Since they apply naturalistic, evolutionary thinking to rape, they are forced to say, in essence, that there is really nothing ultimately wrong with the practice (although they do not like it and want to see it eradicated). In the third chapter, titled “Why Do Men Rape?,” the authors note: “The males of most species—including humans—are usually more eager to mate than the females, and this enables females to choose among males who are competing with one another for access to them. But getting chosen is not the only way to gain sexual access to females. In rape, the male circumvents the female’s choice” (2000, p. 53).
Comparing humans with animal species, the authors view rape as a natural way for males to circumvent the selection process. In fact, they claim: “Human rape arises from men’s evolved machinery for obtaining a high number of mates in an environment where females choose mates” (p. 190, emp. added). They further state that “[e]volutionary theory applies to rape, as it does to other areas of human affairs, on both logical and evidentiary grounds. There is no legitimate scientific reason not to apply evolutionary or ultimate hypotheses to rape” (p. 55).
In their proposed “scientific” reasons why men rape women, Thornhill and Palmer suggested that in some cases heavy metals such as lead “disrupt psychological adaptations of impulse control,” which may lead to a “higher rate of criminality” (p. 58). They stated: “Lead may account for certain cases of rape, just as mutations may” (p. 58, emp. added). Thus, rape may simply be caused when a male of a species is exposed to an excess of some type of heavy metal like lead or by mutations. Sam Harris added: “There is, after all, nothing more natural than rape. But no one would argue that rape is good, or compatible with a civil society, because it may have had evolutionary advantages for our ancestors” (2006, pp. 90-91). Joann Rodgers quipped: “Rape or at least rape-like acts clearly exist in many species, giving additional weight to both rape’s ‘natural’ roots and its ‘value’ in our biological and psychological legacy” (2001, p. 412). She further commented: “Even rape, fetishes, bondage, and other so-called aberrant sexual behaviors are almost certainly biologically predisposed, if not adaptive, and may therefore be what biologists call ‘conserved’ traits, attributes or properties useful or essential to life across all cultures and genomes” (p. 11, emp. added).
The fallacy with this line of thinking is that it flies in the face of everything humans know about moral decisions. Furthermore, it transforms a vicious, morally reprehensible activity into something that may occasionally be caused by mutations or other phenomena that exempt the rapist from taking responsibility for his actions. Such “scientific” explanations for an immoral action like rape are absolutely appalling. When boiled down to its essence, as Thornhill, Palmer, Harris, and Rodgers, have so well illustrated, proponents of naturalistic evolution can never claim that any activity is wrong in an ultimate sense. This being the case, any action that a person chooses to do would be considered just as morally right as any other action, since all human behavior would be the by-product of evolution. As Darwin himself said, “A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones” (1958, p. 94, emp. added). If a man follows his impulse to rape a woman, atheists cannot say, and more and more will not say, it is wrong.


In the section dealing with abortion (in part one of this series), we noted how evolutionists often appeal to nature to justify immoral behavior. They claim that if animals can be found to exhibit a certain behavior, it is then moral for humans to engage in that behavior as well. Evolutionists have followed this line of reasoning in their defense of homosexuality. For example, the Oslo Natural History Museum opened the world’s first exhibit documenting cases of “homosexual” behavior in nature. One of the statements in the exhibit reads: “We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear—homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, it is not against nature” (Doyle, 2006).
In a Live Science article titled, “Animal Sex: No Stinking Rules,” the author wrote:
Animals flout established rules when it comes to the game of love and sex. In fact, the animal kingdom is full of swingers. Bonobos are highly promiscuous, engaging in sexual interactions more frequently than any other primate, and in just about every combination from heterosexual to homosexual unions. Mothers even mate with their mature sons.... Bonobo societies ‘make love, not war,’ and their frequent sex is thought to strengthen social bonds and resolve conflict. This idea could explain why bonobo societies are relatively peaceful and their relatives, chimpanzees, which practice sex strictly for reproduction, are prone to violence (n.d.).
Of course, the fallacy of such thinking has already been exposed. Immoral behavior cannot be justified by referring to animal behavior. Furthermore, homosexuality is certainly “against nature,” that is, the natural way that God designed humans to function. The inspired apostle Paul condemned homosexuality:
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due (Romans 1:26-27, emp. added).
Homosexuality controverts human nature in at least two fundamental ways. First, on a basic physical, anatomical level, homosexuality disregards the natural use of the sexual organs of men and women. Males and females were designed to be sexually compatible in order to reproduce and bear offspring (see Genesis 1:28). If homosexuality was a natural, genetic occurrence (which it is not—see Harrub and Miller, 2004), the genes responsible for it would quickly disappear due to the inability of same sex couples to reproduce. Second, God designed men and women to be capable of a relationship, in marriage, unlike any other human relationship. When a man and a woman are joined together, they become “one-flesh,” a biblical phrase that describes the epitome of intimacy and compatibility (Genesis 2:23). God specifically designed Eve, and all future women, to be perfect helpers suitable for Adam and subsequent men. And, while it is true that sinful humans often fail to achieve the intimacy and oneness designed by God, it is not because of faulty design, but of people’s sinful decisions. God designed men and women to be naturally compatible both physically and emotionally. Homosexuality circumvents that inherent compatibility.

Sex Behind the Bike Sheds

In the United States of America, one would be hard pressed to find a person who does not understand that teenage pregnancy among unwed mothers is a colossal problem in this country (as well as many others). Contributors to the official Web site of The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, explain: “Despite hitting the lowest level in 30 years, 31% of teenage girls get pregnant at least once before they reach age 20” (“The National Day...,” 2008). The site further informs its readers that 750,000 teens per year get pregnant. In order to curb this destructive trend, the government sanctioned a day designated as “The National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,” the seventh annual of which occurred on May 7, 2008. Organizations that partnered in this effort included The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Medical Association, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the March of Dimes, the National 4-H Council, and a host of other well-known groups.
In the official Teen Discussion Guide of “The National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,” the authors noted: “Sex has consequences—both physical and emotional.” They further stated: “Not having sex is the best and safest choice to prevent pregnancy...” (“Teen Discussion Guide,” 2008). In a section of the guide titled “Fact or Fiction,” the authors wrote: “Fact: Abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy” (2008). It is abundantly clear that the general population of approximately 300 million people in the U.S. recognize teen pregnancy as a problem and would like to see it stopped.
The only sure solution to teen pregnancy is equally clear—total sexual abstinence among unmarried teenagers. When thinking about ideas or philosophical frameworks that would encourage such abstinence, where would one turn? The obvious answer is to the New Testament. The Bible repeatedly stresses the need for sexual purity, and condemns sexual activity outside of the marriage bond. Hebrews 13:4 makes that point abundantly clear: “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” The apostle Paul admonished his readers to “put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry” (Colossians 3:5, emp. added; cf. 1 Corinthians 6:18). The New Testament clearly and consistently presents sexual guidelines that, if followed, would prevent 100% of out-of-wedlock teen pregnancy.
When attention is turned to the philosophy of atheistic evolution, the situation is much different. Not only do the logical implications of evolution not prohibit teen pregnancy, they actually encourage and justify it. In June 2006, Dr. Lawrence Shaw, deputy medical director at the Bridge Centre in London, spoke at the 22nd annual conference of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (“Teenage and 60-Year-Old...,” 2006). In his speech, he explored the alleged evolutionary history of humans, and how that heritage affects present human behavior. Speaking directly to the issue of teen pregnancy, Shaw stated:
Therefore, before we condemn our teenagers for having sex behind the bike sheds and becoming pregnant, we should remember that this is a natural response by these girls to their rising fertility levels. Society may “tut, tut” about them, but their actions are part of an evolutionary process that goes back nearly two million years; whilst their behaviour may not fit with Western society’s expectations, it is perhaps useful to consider it in the wider context (as quoted in “Teenage and 60-Year-Old...,” 2006, emp. added).
Shaw’s rationale is in complete harmony with the implications of evolution, while at the same time completely at odds with what is morally justified. In Sex: A Natural History, Joann Rodgers wrote about a high school sophomore who was longing to entice the local football star into a “few stolen kisses” or a sexual “backseat tumble.” Concerning this teen, Rodgers wrote:
Her physiological need, her reproductive status, and her strategies are not altogether removed from that of the Florida black beetle, Lara the bonobo, or the castle-bound Guinevere longing for Lancelot. Athleticism and body building, one-night stands, romantic love, and jealousy, along with infidelity, monogamy, and homosexuality, are so universally demonstrable across species and cultures that they have long been presumed in large measure to have been drawn through the filter of sexual evolution and biology” (2001, p. 11).
According to evolution, promiscuous teenagers are not morally responsible for negative sexual behavior. They simply are programmed to pass on their genes to the next generation. Teenagers who are getting pregnant might not fit into “Western society’s expectations,” but they are not doing anything immoral or wrong—according to the theory. They are simply acting on their evolutionary impulses that span back some two million years, just like black beetles and bonobos.

Evolution and Adultery

Why would a person make a solemn vow to be sexually faithful to his spouse in a committed marriage relationship, but then break that vow and commit adultery with another person? Is there anything morally wrong with adultery? As with other deviant sexual practices, evolutionary theory explains adultery in purely naturalistic terms, absolving adulterous perpetrators of any moral delinquency. In her article titled “Are Humans Meant to be Monogamous,” Jeanna Bryner said: “Evolutionary psychologists have suggested that men are more likely to have extramarital sex, partially due to the male urge to ‘spread genes’ by broadcasting sperm. Both males and females, these scientists say, try to up their evolutionary progress by seeking out high-quality mates, albeit in different ways” (n.d.). Bryner quoted Daniel Kruger, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health, who said: “We’re special in this regard [the tendency to be monogamous—KB], but at the same time like most mammals, we are a polygynous species.” Bryner then explained: “Kruger said humans are considered ‘mildly polygynous,’ in which a male mates with more than one female” (n.d.). According to atheistic evolution, adultery is not a morally debased breach of a marriage contract, but rather simply the outworking of the “evolutionary urge” to pass on one’s genes to the next generation in the most effective way possible.
Joann Rodgers noted: “Indeed, lifelong monogamy appears to be as rare in us as in the animal world, at least among the so-called alpha or most powerful males and females” (2001, p. 341). Rodgers further stated: “Other evidence for a natural tendency to infidelity emerges from how easily and simply our behavior and our biochemistry can be subverted to the game” (p. 341, italics in orig.). She paralleled human sexual behavior with studies done on birds, such as the reed warbler, bluebirds, and the pied flycatcher, as well as other animals, such as primates and prairie voles. Concerning these studies, she said that “evidence for the prevalence and reward of promiscuity in females is considerable” (p. 342). Rodgers concluded:
And in humans and most animals, adultery and infidelity—what Fisher calls “nature’s Peyton Place”—are widespread, common, tolerated, and in fact reinforced by our biology. Only if promiscuity really maximizes a woman’s reproductive edge is it worth both the risk and her having evolved those subtle deceits such as hidden ovulation and the capacity to hide or fake orgasm (p. 343).
Notice that Rodgers takes it to be a matter of fact that humans naturally commit adultery. She reasons that such is the case because adulterous females maximize their reproductive “edge.” In fact, she is so bold as to state that if adultery were not evolutionarily productive, it would not exist, and the fact that it occurs so often, both in humans and in animals, is evidence that it is beneficial as far as evolution is concerned.
What does Rodgers have to say about the feelings of guilt and shame that often accompany adulterous relationships? She admitted that “[g]uilt and shame always seem to be part and parcel of sexual cheating” (p. 341). But she suggested that “shame, guilt, and concepts of sexual morality evolved just as surely as our tendency to stray” (p. 379, italics in orig.). Analyzing adultery, then, from an evolutionary standpoint, it is simply a natural, inherited behavior, that is often accompanied by the evolved emotions of shame and guilt, but it has several practical, reproductive advantages and that is why it persists. According to such evolutionary thinking, humans should hardly even attempt to regulate sexual activity or apply moral constraints to it. Rodgers quipped: “What seems to be the case is that human societies do best when they live and let live, up to a point, in order to keep our social responsibilities and our biological drives in some balance” (p. 353, emp. added).
Such thinking is debased and illogical. Sexual misconduct is not a product of evolution, it is the product of selfish decisions made by the parties involved. Society cannot clear its bespattered conscience with a single swipe of the evolutionary eraser. We must face the fact that we as a society are acting immorally, and we must resolve to teach the one philosophy that can remedy the situation: there is a God in heaven and we must live according to His Word.


Since sexual behavior such as promiscuity before marriage, adultery, and homosexuality are generally viewed by atheistic evolutionists as “mainstream” and harmless when involving consenting adults, most evolutionists have no problem openly declaring them to be products of evolution. Yet it is difficult, though not impossible, to find an “honest” evolutionist that will extend the logical implications of atheistic evolution to fringe, grotesque sexual behaviors such as pedophilia. In truth, if adultery and promiscuity are nothing more than the outworking of evolutionary urges, are not all sexual behaviors? Who is to say which behaviors are “moral” and should be maintained, or which ones are “immoral” and wrong? Such is the quagmire into which evolutionists have plunged themselves.
In a chapter titled “Bad Sex,” Joann Rodgers wrote: “In addition, even the criminal justice system is coming to recognize that while pedophilia and other forms of exploitive sex must be punished in order to protect victims, the perpetrators may also be victims—not necessarily of any abuse but of their biological predispositions” (2001, p. 429, emp. added). She then quoted psychiatrist Fred Berlin, who said: “Nothing in the research suggests that perversions are ‘volitional’ or that their expression is a failure of self-control” (p. 429, emp. added).
Notice the implications involved in these statements. Pedophiles allegedly are victims of their biological predispositions. Furthermore, their actions are not “volitional” (based on their own choices or freewill), nor are their actions a failure to control their urges. One has to wonder why, then, such behavior should be punished. If it is not volitional, or controlled by a person’s will, we cannot expect punishment to alter the behavior. Furthermore, if pedophilia is not a lack of self-control, why would we expect punishment to hinder those contemplating committing such acts in the future? If pedophiles are biologically predisposed to sexual perversion, cannot will themselves in any other direction, and are not suffering from a lack of self-control, punishment can neither change their behavior nor discourage them (or others) from future involvement in it. If evolution is true, then all sexual behaviors, including pedophilia, homosexuality, necrophilia, bestiality, polygamy, and promiscuity are equally “moral” options. As Rodgers wrote:
In the origin and development of species, no surviving component of sex, can be considered unnatural or unnecessary. All aspects of sex observable in animals today, no less than sexual reproduction itself, are what biologists and psychologists call “highly conserved.” All aspects of sex are the evolutionary winners across the eons of natural selection, of trial and error. They persist in us and every other creature precisely because of their importance in survival (2001, pp. 4-5, italics in orig.).


Not only is sexual perversion and promiscuity a direct and logical implication of atheistic evolution, but such sexual laxity is one of the primary aims of the atheistic community. In 2007, atheistic writer Christopher Hitchens wrote a book titled god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Hitchens has been critically acclaimed as “one of the most prolific, as well as brilliant, journalists of our time,” according to the London Observer. The Los Angeles Times stated that he is a “political and literary journalist extraordinaire.” In god is not Great, Hitchens repeatedly argues that biblical sexual purity and monogamous sexual fidelity are not only undesirable, but actually destructive. In his list of four irreducible objections to religious faith, he included that faith “is both the result and cause of dangerous sexual repression” (2007, p. 4). Just six pages later, he wrote that it is absurd to think that someone could know that there is a God and “to know what ‘he’ demands of us—from our diet to our observances to our sexual morality” (p. 10). Later in the book, Hitchens wrote:
The relationship between physical health and mental health is now well understood to have a strong connection to the sexual function, or dysfunction. Can it be a coincidence, then, that all religions claim the right to legislate in matters of sex? The principle way in which believers inflict on themselves, on each other, and on nonbelievers, has always been their claim to monopoly in this sphere (p. 53).
In opposition to the “sexual repression” that Hitchens assigns to all religions, he stated: “Clearly, the human species is designed to experiment with sex” (p. 54). He also stated: “Sexual innocence, which can be charming in the young if it is not needlessly protracted, is positively corrosive and repulsive in the mature adult” (p. 227).
In his final chapter titled “The Need for a New Enlightenment,” Hitchens concluded his book with a plea to banish all religions. He wrote:
Above all, we are in need of a renewed Enlightenment, which will base itself on the proposition that the proper study of mankind is man, and woman.... Very importantly, the divorce between sexual life and fear, and the sexual life and disease, and the sexual life and tyranny, can now at last be attempted, on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse (p. 283, emp. added).
From Hitchens’ writings, it is abundantly clear that one of his primary purposes for getting rid of God is so he, and those who adopt his atheistic propositions, can “experiment” sexually as evolved animals without any fetters of conscience. [NOTE: Many of the religions that Hitchens discusses are guilty of approving unbiblical injunctions regarding sex that deserve denunciation, such as forbidding to marry. Hitchens’ point, however, is clear: all religions, including New Testament Christianity, should be abolished so that no sexual restrictions hinder unregulated sexual experimentation.]
Hitchens is certainly not alone in his desire to see atheism propel human sexuality into an unregulated realm of experimental promiscuity. Militant atheist Sam Harris, in his Letter to a Christian Nation, attempted to explain to Christians that sexuality has nothing to do with morality. He wrote:
You [Christians—KB] believe that your religious concerns about sex, in all their tiresome immensity, have something to do with morality.... Your principle concern appears to be that the creator of the universe will take offence at something people do while naked. This prudery of yours contributes daily to the surplus of human misery (2006, p. 26).
Harris further commented that “any God who could concern Himself with something as trivial as gay marriage...is not as inscrutable as all that” (p. 55).
Other atheists have advanced the banner of sexual anarchy into realms such as pornography. David Mills, in Atheist Universe, titled chapter nine “Christian Fundamentalists and the ‘Danger’ of Internet Porn” (2006, p. 190). In that chapter, Mills extrapolates from his atheistic philosophy that pornography is harmless and morally neutral. He stated: “When viewed in historical perspective, it is difficult to believe that teenage males are genuinely harmed by sexual images.... No credible sociological or psychological study of this question has discerned any harmful effects whatever of a teenage male’s viewing photos of nude women or of adult copulation” (p. 197). Mills further proposed that senseless religious moralizing is to blame for the fact that pornography has ever been stigmatized as immoral. He brazenly asserted: “When all the religious and moralistic blathering is dismissed, opponents of internet porn have failed utterly to document any empirical ‘harm’ to teenage males...” (p. 198).
Mills is demonstrably wrong in his assertion that no documented empirical evidence verifies that teenage males are harmed by pornography. Numerous studies document that, among other deleterious effects, viewing pornography “can lead to anti-social behavior,” “desensitizes people to rape as a criminal offence,” and “leads men and women to experience conflict, suffering, and sexual dissatisfaction” (Rogers, 1990). According to one study of rapists, half of those surveyed “used pornography to arouse themselves immediately prior to seeking out a victim” (1990). In addition, heavy exposure to pornography “encourages a desire for increasingly deviant materials which involve violence, like sadomasochism and rape” (1990).
Mills, Hitchens, Harris, and many of their fellow atheists are attempting to strip away all moral “regulations” from human sexuality. Make no mistake: atheism justifies sexual conduct of any kind, and those atheists who understand this point are demanding that all societal regulations on sex be abolished. As Joann Rodgers aptly summarized:
Animals, insects, and bacteria, with their multiple desires, mutinous genders, alternative sex lives, and sometimes violent mating habits, behave in ways that we humans, in our arrogance, consider graceless if not immoral. And yet what we may consider profane in nature is indeed profound.... With evolutionary biology as our guide, however, we are better able to see what has long been concealed in our nature and nurture, and that the profound is not at all profane (2001, pp. 40-41, emp. added).


Of course, atheists do not sit idly by while their philosophy is accused of grotesquely immoral implications. They fire back with the idea that millions have been abused, tortured, and murdered at the hands of “Christians.” Atheistic apologists then proceed to detail horrible crimes that took place during the Salem Witch Trials, the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition. David Mills wrote: “The Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch burnings, the torture of ‘infidels’ were all carried out in the name of the Christian God. While it is unfair to hold Christianity responsible for perversions of its teachings, it is nonetheless indisputable that, historically more people have been slaughtered in the name of the Christian religion than for any reason connected to atheism” (2006, p. 48). Hitchens’ book god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything contains copious examples of crimes against humanity perpetrated in the name of religion. The second chapter of his book is titled “Religion Kills.” In it, he discussed several countries he visited. He stated: “Here then, is a very brief summary of the religiously inspired cruelty I witnessed in these six places” (2007, p. 18). The paragraphs that follow that statement document multiple tortures and murders done in the name of specific religions.
Hitchens and others can easily document atrocities performed in the name of religion. But does this prove that all religion is false, and that if a person can spot a flaw or comprehend a fallacy in one religion, then he has effectively disproved the validity of all religions? Absolutely not. Can you imagine what would happen if this type of argument were used in other areas of life? Apply such thinking to food: since many foods are poisonous and have killed people, all foods should be avoided. Apply the thinking to electricity: since many people have died while using electricity, all electrical use is detrimental to society. Or apply it to activities like swimming: many have drowned while swimming, thus all swimming leads to drowning and should be avoided. What if the logic were applied to surgery? Since it is true that thousands of people have died during or as a result of surgery, then all surgery should be avoided, because it leads to death or is in some way physically detrimental to society. Obviously, the ridiculous idea that all religion is detrimental to society, simply because it can be proven that some religions are, should be quickly discarded by any honest, thoughtful observer.
New Testament Christianity does not stand or fall based on the validity of competing religions. In fact, Hitchens and others are right in asserting that many religions are detrimental to society. But they are wrong to lump true Christianity in with the rest of the useless lot. New Testament Christianity is unique, logically valid, historically documented, and philosophically flawless. It does not crumble with those religions that are filled with “vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20). Instead, New Testament Christianity, as personified in the life of Jesus Christ, shines forth as the truth that makes men free (John 8:32).
Furthermore, it should be noted that atheism is not discredited based on the behavior of its adherents. Some atheists are kind to others, hard-working, and considerate. Does this prove that atheism is true? No. On the other hand, some atheists shoot their classmates because they consider them less fit. Does the brutal, immoral behavior of these individuals discredit atheism as a philosophy? Not necessarily. No philosophy can be correctly assessed based solely on the behavior of those who claim to follow it. Hitchens correctly stated: “The first thing to be said is that virtuous behavior by a believer is no proof at all of—indeed is not even an argument for—the truth of his belief” (2007, pp. 184-185).
Having said that, we must hasten to state that a philosophy can be correctly assessed by considering only the behaviors which are based on the correctly derived, logical implications of the philosophy. In regard to the crimes done in “the name of Christianity,” even atheists admit that such crimes were justified by twisting the teachings of the New Testament. Notice that Mills conceded: “While it is unfair to hold Christianity responsible for perversions of its teachings, it is nonetheless indisputable that, historically more people have been slaughtered in the name of the Christian religion than for any reason connected to atheism” (2006, p. 48, emp. added). Harris made a similar statement: “You probably think the Inquisition was a perversion of the ‘true’ spirit of Christianity. Perhaps it was” (2006, p. 11, emp. added). An honest reading of the New Testament lays bare the lucid fact that activities such as the witch hunts and inquisitions were not behaviors based on the logical implications of the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. Jesus taught people to treat others with love, kindness, and respect—the way they, themselves, wish to be treated (Matthew 7:12).
Notice, however, that the behaviors and views decried in this series about the fruits of atheism are directly derived from a proper understanding of atheism, and are propounded by the atheists themselves. Who said that atheistic evolution destroys all moral absolutes? Who stated that parents should have the option to kill a child a month after it is born? Who proposed that humans are no better than bacteria, and that 90% of the human population needs to be eliminated? Who suggested that sexual promiscuity, teen pregnancy, rape, and homosexuality are natural products of the evolutionary process? Evolutionary atheists are the ones promoting these ideas. Radical Christian fundamentalists are not building rhetorical straw men by concocting outlandish, grotesquely immoral behaviors out of thin air. On the contrary, the immoral actions and attitudes arising from atheistic evolution are clearly spelled out and advocated by the atheists themselves. If a person who claims to be a Christian kills a one-month-old child because the child is a hemophiliac, that person violates every principle derived from an accurate understanding of New Testament teaching. If an atheist does the same, he does so with the full force of a proper understanding of atheistic evolution justifying his behavior.


The concept of God is the only rational basis for an ultimate moral standard. When the concept of God is eradicated from a philosophy or society, that philosophy or society cuts off its ability to make moral decisions. In turn, it forfeits the ability to “eradicate” such actions as rape, theft, murder, or any other immoral vice. As John Paul Sartre appropriately commented, “Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself” (1961, p. 485). When the Bible succinctly stated, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God,’ they are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good” (Psalm 14:1), it offered accurate, divine commentary on every person, society, or philosophy that would abandon the notion that God exists—“They are corrupt.”
In truth, the false philosophy of naturalistic evolution fails on many accounts, not the least of which is its inability to provide a foundation for ethics. The denial of a divine, ultimate standard of morality throws one into hopeless confusion about how actions such as rape should be viewed. Naturalistic evolutionists who are honest with their theory’s implications can say they do not “like” things like rape, or they think it is best that rape be stopped, or that they think it might be more beneficial to the majority for the action to be limited or eradicated, but they have no grounds on which to say it is absolutely, morally wrong.
In stark contrast to the foundationless ethics of naturalistic philosophy, the concept of God provides the perfect rationale on which to base moral determinations. There is a God who sees both “the evil and the good” (Proverbs 15:3). He will call every person into account for his or her actions (Revelation 20:12-15). Therefore each individual is responsible to that God for any actions he or she commits in violation of His moral standard found in the Bible (Ephesians 3:3-4). Rape, murderous abortion, school slayings, genocide, and other such heinous crimes against humanity are not biological, evolutionary by-products passed down to humans from some mammalian precursor, nor are such crimes biological “malfunctions” caused by mutations. Such actions are sinful, morally reprehensible crimes against humanity and God by individuals who have chosen to ignore the ultimate moral standard God manifested in His Son Jesus Christ and recorded in His Word, the Bible.


“Animal Sex: No Stinking Rules” (no date), Live Science, [On-line], URL: http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.php?url=&cat=polygamous.
Bryner, Jeanna (no date), “Are Humans Meant to be Monogamous?” Live Science, [On-line], URL: http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/080319-llm-monogamy.html.
Darwin, Charles (1958), The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Barlow (New York: W.W. Norton).
Doyle, Alister (2006), “Birds and Bees May Be Gay: Museum Exhibition,” [On-line], URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061012/sc_nm/environment_homosexuality_ dc;_ylt=AhEiR4DtDaCUi1h7KCssWvms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlY wM5NjQ-.
Harris, Sam (2006), Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).
Harrub, Brad and Dave Miller (2004), “This is the Way God Made Me: A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the ‘Gay Gene,’” Reason & Revelation, 24[8]:73-79, August, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2553.
Hitchens, Christopher (2007), god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve).
Huxley, Aldous (1937), Ends and Means (London: Chatto & Windus).
Mills, David (2006), Atheist Universe (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).
“The National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy” (2008), [On-line], URL: http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/national/default.aspx.
Rodgers, Joann (2001), Sex: A Natural History (New York: Henry Holt).
Rogers, Jay (1990), “The Documented Effects of Pornography,” The Forerunner, [On-line], URL: http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0388_Effects_of_Pornograp.html.
Sartre, Jean Paul, (1961), “Existentialism and Humanism,” French Philosophers from Descartes to Sartre, ed. Leonard M. Marsak (New York: Meridian).
“Teen Discussion Guide” (2008), [On-line], URL: http://www.stayteen.org/quiz/assets/2008_ND_teen_guide.pdf.
“Teenage and 60-Year-Old Mums are Consequences of Evolution” (2006), European Society of Human Reproduction & Embryology, [On-line], URL: http://www.eshre.com/emc.asp?pageId=795.
Thornhill, Randy and Craig T. Palmer (2000), A Natural History of Rape (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).