Many Christians today shy away from using the Bible to defend their positions when interacting in the political realm or other spots in the public arena. ChristianGovernance maintains that the Bible must be central as a source for argumentation when engaging with others in the public square. Pastor Doug Wilson provides a very clear rationale for this position in a recent article/interview recorded in the pages of the magazine Reformed Perspective, so we draw your attention to these comments as reflective of our position.
Excerpt from “A conversation with Douglas Wilson, pastor, apologist and movie star,” by Sarah Chase (Reformed Perspective, June 2010).
This article is largely an interview between Sarah Chase and Doug Wilson on the “behind-the-scenes action of the movie [Collision, which follows Doug Wilson and atheist Christopher Hitchens around and records their interaction and debates], as well as his thoughts on talking to atheists.”
Chase: You quoted scripture arguing with Hitchens. Is this approach – quoting scripture to an atheist – one you’d recommend?
Wilson: I belong to a school of apologetics called presuppositionalists, and what that means is that we want to reason from the Bible, not reason to the Bible – we want to assume that the Bible is the revelation of God, and reason from that. So I treat the Bible as the foundation of truth – the fundamental truth. I argue that, without the Bible, I lose my ability to argue rationally. I can’t claim a basis for morals without the Bible. I would press Christopher on this: that if there is no God, and He hasn’t revealed Himself in the Bible, then what is truth? And who cares? If we are just matter in motion, bits of protoplasm, then what do you mean by “truth”?
Not to say that I would be willing to do this, but suppose I were a mugger, robbing people. And I walked up behind somebody, and stuck a gun in his back, and said, “Your money, or your life.” And he laughed, shrugged his shoulders, and said, “You can’t do that, I don’t believe in guns.” Now, if I respond, “Oh, sorry,” and put my gun away, that means I’m an idiot. Ok? The fact that he doesn’t believe in guns does not mean that the gun’s not there. The issue is not whether he believes in the gun, but whether I do.
Now when Christopher Hitchens says, “I don’t believe in the Bible,” and I put it away, I’m not putting it away because he doesn’t believe in it, but because I don’t believe in it. If the Bible is the Sword of the Spirit, and the Word of God, why would I put it away because he doesn’t believe in it?
…
Chase: Christopher Hitchens said several times in Collision that you were a debater different from any other Christian he’s argued with. I think most viewers will sense that difference too. What makes you different?
Wilson: One of the differences, that I mentioned earlier, is the presuppositional method I employ. Most evangelical Christians are evidentialists, those reasoning to the Bible. I’m a presuppositionalist – that puts me in the minority. This means that people haven’t encountered that before.
But Hitchens said in the movie that I was different because I really appear to believe the Bible. What I’ve done for many years is, I have resolved to not apologize for anything in the Bible. Now, this is Christopher’s assessment. I’m not saying that the other Christian’s he’s debated are inferior. But part of the reason that I think Christopher drew that assessment about me is because I won’t back away from anything in the Bible, and I won’t say I’m sorry for it. …
Loading ...
This “presupposition” method you advocate is very flimsy and weak. You presupposition is simply wrong. The Bible is not a valid source material. Feel free to prove that it is. People have been trying for thousands of years and failed to prove it but maybe you’ll succeed. I doubt it but maybe.
Mike, the burden of proof is on you to disprove it. Your lack of Christian faith isn’t going to make me lose sleep tonight.
Wow. You can’t have a burden of proof to disprove something – it is YOUR burden to prove it! Are you seriously that ignorant? You can never “prove” a negative.
It’s your burden of proof to disprove the existence of fairies, Elvis, the Loch Ness Monster, Little Green Men on Mars, Santa Claus, Odin, Zeus, Allah…I could go on for all eternity listing made up things. Oh wait, you can’t disprove any of those? Well then: they all exist.
See how silly that argument was? Better come up with another silly argument “supporting” your wacko ideas that can be discredited in two short paragraphs.
Devin, you sound like a typical arrogant atheist who thinks he and/or his views are the starting point for reality, so people have to work within your paradigm in order for my views to be acceptable. In your paradigm, you also conveniently treat your rejection of God as a negative, as though you don’t replace Him with anybody or anything else, therefore putting the burden of proof on me. Sorry, “but that dog don’t hunt.”
As an atheist, you can’t account for the fact that you can count or for the scientific method because, as a relativist, you don’t believe in absolute values, nor do you know whether reality and the laws of “nature” will be the same 5 minutes from now as they are now. So you are a walking stream of chaos, and therefore are in no position to demand anything from me. How do you know that I am me anyway, or that I will be in 4 minutes? You live a life of presumption, not a life of logical necessity the way a Christian can because his knowledge is rooted in the Creator God and the absolute truth which He has revealed a portion of to us, sufficient for us to live responsibly in this world.
There’s no such thing as a god.
You’re welcome.
Mike says, ” The Bible is not a valid source material.” Proove it Mike! Where are the errors in the bible you so much hate? What makes it an invalide source in your opinion? If the errors do not exist then maybe you need to look at the illogic of your position. Even Time magazine, some time ago said that one thing you have to give the Christians is the accuracy of their bible.
Mike, you’re wasting your time with these morons. Best leave them to their tyrannical delusions.
Hmm…being governed by the sociopathic monster the bible refers to as god…no thanks, I’d trust a cannibal before I’d trust a christian.
“…as though you don’t replace Him with anybody or anything else”
I don’t “replace” God (or fairies, Richard Simmons, or Zeus) with anything. There is zero evidence for God. How do we know that the Loch Ness Monster doesn’t exist? Because there is no evidence pointing towards its existence. “God” is no different. And I’m the arrogant one? Way to tell me what I think, feel, and how I live my life.
“As an atheist, you can’t account for the fact that you can count or for the scientific method because, as a relativist, you don’t believe in absolute values, nor do you know whether reality and the laws of “nature” will be the same 5 minutes from now as they are now.”
That’s you telling me what I believe. I don’t believe that reality or the laws of nature will change in 5 minutes…you pulled that out of nowhere. My own morals are derived from life experience, reason, humanism, and compassion for others – not from blind adherence to (parts) of a fictional book written by several different people across thousands of years. That you think I have no morals is not surprising, because, being a religious wacko and not having the ability to reason or come up with novel ideas, you spout off ideas you have heard from others, and the “atheists have no morals” one is very popular.
“So you are a walking stream of chaos, and therefore are in no position to demand anything from me.”
Ignoring the meaningless strawman gobbledy-gook at the beginning of the sentence, I never demanded anything from you. Mike asked for you to prove your case, to which you responded, ‘no, you UNPROVE my case!’, to which I responded, ‘you are ridiculous.’ Seriously. Prove to me there isn’t a dead body in your trunk. Hmmm? Prove it, you murderer.
“How do you know that I am me anyway, or that I will be in 4 minutes? You live a life of presumption, not a life of logical necessity the way a Christian can because his knowledge is rooted in the Creator God and the absolute truth which He has revealed a portion of to us, sufficient for us to live responsibly in this world.”
More meaningless drivel. I presume nothing; it is you who presumes (that the Bible is true, God exists, etc). I look at what the evidence suggests and make informed decisions. You, on the other hand, make your decision and then try to fit the evidence around your decision. One way works better than the other (gold star if you can tell me which one it is!).
It’s actually really sad. You obviously know how to use words like paradigm, so there’s some hint of intelligence in you…but why be so ignorant, dogmatic, and blind to reason? You’re hurting yourself and others. Even if atheism made me unhappy – which it doesn’t – I’d prefer knowing the truth (or, more importantly, rejecting the false) over happiness.
Devin, you don’t read very well. You accuse me of saying you have no morals “That you think I have no morals is not surprising.” You quoted what I said, but you didn’t seem to understand it. What I said previously was not that you can’t count – or don’ t have morals. What I said was, “you can’t account for the fact that you can count” – you can’t make a logical case for why you have morals, or for the morals you hold over against the ones you reject.
You accuse me of setting up a straw man argument. This is exactly what you did.
You object to me telling you what you believe. First of all, I didn’t. I was simply using elementary logic to show the absurdity of (atheistic) relativism. Secondly, you again do exactly what you object to me doing: “You, on the other hand, make your decision and then try to fit the evidence around your decision.”
You write, “I look at what the evidence suggests and make informed decisions. You, on the other hand, make your decision and then try to fit the evidence around your decision. You, on the other hand, make your decision and then try to fit the evidence around your decision.”
Actually, I looked at what the evidence suggests and made informed decisions. The fact that less than 10% of the atheists on my blog today know the first thing about reason, and mostly threw out all kinds of predictable atheistic myths against Christianity that are decades old themselves, shows how unthinking, brainwashed and knee-jerk most atheists are. It’s certainly not the kind of anti-rational drivel that would interest me.
So…you “looked at what the evidence suggests and made informed decisions.” How did you go about that, I wonder? What alternatives did you consider, which did you dismiss and more to the point, why, and what qualified you to make those decisions? In short, what brought you to “believe” that you have an Invisible Friend?
You see, I can barely bring myself to accept that this is a serious website; large parts of it look like some sort of spoof. Are you actually working for Rick Mercer or David Letterman?
What on Earth makes you think you’re qualified to assess what others know about Reason when the central pillar of your world-view seems to involve something that is in no way rational?
This is my new favorite Christian internet site! Presuppositionalism became my favorite branch of Christian apologetics about two years ago.
It is so much easier to defend Christianity and the Truth of the Bible when you just assume that the Bible is God’s Word, first and foremost! Then, you don’t have to worry about the vast evidence for evolution, or how the Bible fails to match archeological evidence in a number of ways, or just how wacky some of the true tales in the Bible sound. Instead, all you have to do is inform an atheist that they have no way to account for intelligence. You can just keep asking, “but why?” like a petulant five year old, and eventually they’ll run out of answers. Then, you hit them with the Truth that they DO believe in God, but they are just such slaves to their sin they refuse to admit it.
The one thing I find frustrating is how so few unbelievers immediately drop to their knees and give their lives to Christ once they’ve seen their worldview so soundly rejected, and see how ridiculous it is to not believe in Jesus! But, at least the seed is planted, and the Holy Ghost will eventually force them to recognize how easy it is to know the Bible is 100% true when you embrace circular logic and no longer have to worry about evidence!
sinned34 “It is so much easier to defend Christianity and the Truth of the Bible when you just assume that the Bible is God’s Word, first and foremost!” People like you like to say things like this but you can’t show any areas where the bible is wrong, whether archaeologically or scientifically and still you deny the evidence which is clear. Making unsupportable blanket statements simply make you look like an ignoramus, not one who deserves a legitimate response.
The other responder is correct. You can’t counter a request for the support of a position with “You prove me wrong”. That is a child’s answer and I did not think I was dealing with a child. You are incapable of supporting your position and you know it and thus you refuse to try. How very unsurprising. How very typical. How very sad.
If you can find to reason to loose sleep despite being both wrong and afraid to support your position, I can only feel sorry for you.
Ian, the factual errors of the Bible are numerous. Here are a few:
1. The great flood never happened. Geology proves this.
2. Humans were not created ex nihilo, they evolved. Biology proves this.
3. The book claims that a magic man wandered the middle east preforming magic tricks such as transforming water into win, walking on water etc. Since these acts are all impossible, one must dismiss accounts (esp. unsupported accounts such as these) as fantasy.
There are three things the Bible says that are demonstrably incorrect, so why should the rest be given any credit. Ask yourself this: why do you believe the Bible and not the prose and poetic Eddas (once you look up what the eddas are, of course). They are equally fantastic, believed by many people in their time, and untrue.
“Actually, I looked at what the evidence suggests and made informed decisions. The fact that less than 10% of the atheists on my blog today know the first thing about reason, and mostly threw out all kinds of predictable atheistic myths against Christianity that are decades old themselves, shows how unthinking, brainwashed and knee-jerk most atheists are. It’s certainly not the kind of anti-rational drivel that would interest me.”
I simply can’t let this drivel pass without comment. You did not look at the evidence and consider it or you would not be a Christian. This is either self deception or a hypocritical lie.
It’s amusing that you claim other people know nothing about reason yet you arrogantly refuse to support your central position.
What exactly are those “predictable atheistic myths”? I can’t wait to hear this vast collection of strawmen.
I’m not blogging. You are. I’m commenting.
You can cry all you want to that you have replied but I, you, and everyone else knows you’re a big fat liar. You are still afraid to defend your core beliefs so you resort to inexplicably stupids comments about what I wear and other foolishness.
Support you central thesis or admit you can’t.
You’re pretty good at guerilla warfer, Mike. Wear your opponent down. There is plenty on this site and in my 3 books which address your question(s). There isn’t a groundswell of people demanding the same thing as you, so I”m not going to waste my time duplicating efforts I’ve already made to respond to an irrational dogmatist who asserts that if I was a thinker, I wouldn’t believe in God. You’ve determined your conclusion and you make the evidence fit your conclusion. You’re not teachable. You have no intention of honestly assessing any evidence. You’re a manipulative, deceiver with too much time on your hands. I have no intention of casting my pearls before swine (to use a Biblical illustration). You buy my books and read them and spend more time educating yourself on this site, then come back with an intelligent attitude and question.
Ah, so now the full truth comes out: this very strange, very wacko website – which to me and others (Samuel Ailor, for one) seems so ridiculous that it must be a parody – exists only to drum up sales for your books.
I really don’t think you’re doing yourself any favours here, Mr. Moustachio. I, Mike, and others HAVE demanded you to prove your case or accept that your ideas will (and should) be rejected. To expect otherwise is stupid (and you still haven’t proven that there is no corpse in your trunk, you murderer).
I’m not even going to address any of your “response” towards me…plain garbage. Nothing you said was useful, although I can admit that yes, you didn’t say that I don’t have any morals, just that I have no basis for them (which is splitting hairs).
What evidence supports the Bible? Name one piece of evidence that supports it – just one. And remember, you can’t using the Bible itself to support the veracity of its claims, because that is tautological (“the Bible is true, because, in the Bible, it says the bible is true”). And if you make it that far, then all you have to do is prove that every statement in the Bible is correct, which shouldn’t be too difficult.
Of course Mike and I realize this is a losing battle, because you are nuts. If you had actually looked at the evidence, you would not be a Christian, because there is no evidence supporting Christian beliefs. Don’t you realize how silly you are? I’ll probably check in to see one more ridiculous comment, and then leave and never return. And if I happen upon your nutjob organization anytime I’m in Ottawa, I will exercise my free speech rights (you know, one of those godless secular rights) to their fullest.
No, what matters is if the gun is loaded.
This analogy is flawed, the bible is a book and it is loaded with ideas. Ideas are intangible and their “truth value” is subjective based on your point of view whether its the ideas in the bible or the ideas in Hitchens book. But bullets are very tangible, they don’t require belief and they provide their own proof.
Objectively verifiable ideas that are both reproduce-able and can survive attempts at being proven wrong. But what Pastor Wilson offers is a classic argument from personal incredulity, he can’t imagine anything beyond the scripture so therefore it must be true.
And that’s fine if it is only to be true for him (unless of course it says something silly like he can own slaves or kill his neighbors) but in a society we have a lot of people and they may all have a different book telling them what is true so each person must prove any claim they make. Many of the claims are similar, good and have survived the test of time (falsification) such as don’t kill or don’t steal. But others (gays and women are of less value) don’t hold up to scrutiny so we don’t adopt them.
Devin,
“demanded” – that’s the problem. Since you haven’t proven you have the right to demand anything from me, you lose…
If you think that the distinction between saying you have no morals and saying you can’t logically account for why you have morals is “splitting hairs,” then you’re still sucking your thumb philosophically speaking and that’s why you’ve got the responses from me that you have. Now, go home and study…
PrimevilKneivel, You are using argumentation based on certain premises, which therefore reflect a particular philosophy. Many others hold to different philosophies of life and therefore different premises, and do not accept yours as credible. So that’s where the real debate lies. Whose premises stand up the best to logic, which are the most logically defensible. There are people who believe the material world is an illusion, so they won’t accept your claim about bullets providing their own proof as to being real. Are you going to dismiss them out of hand, or engage with their philosophy to demonstrate it’s absurdity?
In terms of the current political debates, even your way of framing objections to homosexuality as “gays are of less value” reflects a particular interpretation of what objection to homosexuality implies, and one that is a derisive and condescending caricature, framing the argument in a way that makes it easier to dismiss it out of hand rather than actually engaging with arguments against homosexuality on their own merits. The idea that our society doesn’t object to homosexuality today is due to objections not holding up to scrutiny is not an objectively verifiable fact. It assumes all kinds of things that aren’t proven, such as the idea that the move in this direction is real and sincere, and not something cultivated by the propaganda of media bias or intimidation through peer pressure, etc. It assumes that humanity is moving in a line from less moral to more moral as time goes on, and always moves in the same direction, such that today, we’re not in a temporary reversal. This also assumes that there is an objective standard of morality somewhere against which we can measure ourselves to know that we are becoming more ethical than we were before. It’s all philosophy and theory – nothing objectively proven just because it’s survived the test of time, or for any other reason.
Anyone who wishes to refute the proof of a bullet is free to do so (using their own life as collateral).
And I think I’ve demonstrated my willingness to engage with, and show the absurdity of the philosophy of others.
Contrary to what you claim my entire point was about the differences between philosophies. My example using homosexuals was paired with an equal example of women though you did not take offense to that. Despite what you think I believe quite fully in anyone’s right to “a particular interpretation of what objection to homosexuality implies”. What I object to is the notion that it should be legal to act on it. I have yet to hear an argument against homosexuality that has any merits. When I do, I’m more than willing to engage it based on it’s claims.
Ian Tuck said: “People like you like to say things like this but you can’t show any areas where the bible is wrong, whether archaeologically or scientifically and still you deny the evidence which is clear. Making unsupportable blanket statements simply make you look like an ignoramus, not one who deserves a legitimate response.
I agree. It’s pathetic when atheists don’t bother to point out that there’s no physical evidence that Moses led a massive migration of about half of the population of Egypt (the Jewish populace was estimated at one million, of an entire Egyptian population of arournd two million), and that such a massive group of people wandered the desert for forty years. They won’t even mention that every scientific discipline that touches on the origin of the universe or life (such as physics, astronomy, geology, and biology) contradicts the Genesis account of creation taking place in six days less than ten thousand years ago. And you certainly never hear nonbelievers point out that archeological evidence shows that Jehoiakim was not the king of Judah when it was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C., contradicting God’s Word in Daniel 1:1-2.
Thankfully, using Presuppositional apologetics allows us Christians to sidestep any conversations regarding difficult subjects involving actual evidence. Once you know the Bible is God’s Word, evidence can be hand-waved away easily by retreating into the safety of projecting our Jesus-based post-modern views of scientific endeavors onto the Satan-inspired knowledge crafted by some of Earth’s most brilliant scientists!
Praise Jesus, for even though He rarely gives us the answers to atheists’ rebuttals, He always gives us ways to completely ignore their questions!
Well, my ordered sick time is over and this silly little site’s entertainment value has run out. SiteEditor, whatever your name is, you are a ludicrous figure. You actually think that you can just stand up and prate and scream for attention and undeserved book sales while flat-out lying to people and expect them to treat you with respect and believe what you say. You are a pathetic fool. You are also an intellectual coward, knowing that you can’t support your positions, you simply refuse to do so.
For anyone coming to this site and actually believing any of this foul trash, stop now, please, for your own good and the good of society. Any one who has read the Bible (and I encourage everyone to do so to see how foul it is) can see how horrible it would be as a basis of government. The execution of everyone the Bible says should be executed would take up a huge amount of time alone.
It’s truly sad to see people like this site’s editor wasting their lives on harmful, false doctrines. I pity you all. I won’t be back to this cesspool.
Come now, have a bit of sympathy for these folks…they’re betwixt a rock and a hard place and most of them lack the wit or the will to recognize it.
On the one hand they’ve got their magic book, their weird collection of fables, fairy-tales and quaint superstitions, so bizarre that even a dim child wouldn’t swallow the crap unless they’d been subjected to indoctrination and outright brain-washing from early childhood.
Look at what that book offers them, or at least at what they think it offers them…a very crafty selection of booby prizes, designed to appeal to their baser natures. It tells them they resemble god…now, reflect on what that tells you about their vanity, and about god’s lack of imagination, and the idea that god apparently also shares some ancestry with the apes. It tells them that they’re special, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, and that they occupy a special place in the Universe, also false…in other words, it’s a pretty naked play on people’s arrogance. Or, at least, on the arrogance of people predisposed to accept such twaddle.
One by one the book plays on Human weaknesses. If nothing else it’s a brilliant job of selling snake oil to those uncritical enough to sense the cynicism because the simple are so entranced by the shiny prizes that they accept having to die to get them. It says nothing good about much of the population that generation after generation swallow this.
And yet there is hope for something like rationality. Even the catholic church is feeling the reins of power slipping from its grasp, sadly helped along by every new revelation about priests raping children. Christianity keeps splintering and each new cult makes itself even more bizarre so as to lure in the sheeple. I don’t think it necessary to comment on the wit of those unable to sense what they’re participating in.
So spare a bit of sympathy for the gullible and even for those who seek to manipulate them; in a sense they can’t help themselves. They’re wrapped up in a web of primitive hatefulness but time keeps moving along and no matter how lunatic they get, education and changing demographics will keep them on the fringe, which is the best we can hope for, apart from seeing them under psychiatric care. They could change but they don’t want to, or their arrogance won’t let them, and they’re pitiable for that as well.
It’s lack, not presence, of knowledge that makes them want to lead everybody back to the Dark Ages; they want everything reduced to a level even they can grasp. They don’t want to accept that Man created God, not the other way around for their world-view would collapse, and for some of them their income would dry up as well, were they compelled to stop selling fairy-tales to the simple. Surely all that merits an iota of pity.
Don’t forget to sign up for our e-letter. In the issue about to go out, in our “God’s law in brief” section, we provide the following content:
In view of the militant hostility we have faced in recent days from atheists who have fraudulently maligned God and the message of Scripture, we want to bring you another aspect of God’s law which reflects His mercy and kindness: Deuteronomy 15:7-11.
This is a call to show generosity to the poor. It is not a call for the state to coercively extract money from taxpayers for the poor. It is a call to personal responsibility by individuals. It is a repudiation of Atheism’s coercive socialist ideology. It’s a call to individuals to do the right thing without being forced to do so by the state or by anybody else.
“If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs.
“Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: ‘The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,’ so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to.
There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.”
You really are out of your depth, aren’t you? I can hardly malign god or scripture when I deny the existence of the former and regard the latter as cynical manipulation. On the other hand I very definitely can attack the egregious nonsense you’re spouting because happily this isn’t a theocracy and with folks like you working for the cause it won’t become one.
Tim, I really appreciate that latest examination of Deut. 15:7-11. It’s so sickening to watch, as our society moves away from Christian values, that Canadians have been embracing socialist ideas like telling homeless people to get a job. The Lord admits that even using personal responsibility to furnish the poor with all their needs, we won’t be able to solve poverty, which obviously is much superior to the way that unGodly governments also can’t end poverty! Sure, secular and somewhat socialistic countries like Norway and Sweden might have higher standards of happiness, coupled to lower rates of crime, teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, etc, but since they’re doing it without following the Lord – Look! A gay interracial couple burning a Canadian flag! Get them!
But getting back to God’s Word, don’t forget to move on to Deut. 17:2-7, where God gives us important instruction on enacting freedom of religion laws which we, His children, will be expected by Him to enact once we gain a majority in the Canadian government:
“If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
“And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
“And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
“Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
“At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.”
I can’t wait to introduce God’s loving Laws to Canada’s atheist hordes!
Consider the atheist, how they spout and they blather
For all their wrangling, we ask what’s the matter
No logical answer, no right indignation
No rational thought, of their angered fixation
Just made up stories, of misogyny and hate
Untenable accusations, they hurl without weight
They try as they may, to destroy what God’s built
The house on the Rock, not built in the silt
The floods they may come, the winds they will blow
Our house will not fall, God’s Word says it’s so
So if your an atheist, my heart goes to you
A better life you’ve rejected, to you Jesus wouldn’t do
You’ve been given all sorts of logical answers and rational thought, Ian. If it’s your choice to live in a world of fairy-tales and preposterous crap, so be it, the world will move on.