This entry is part 1 of 2 in the series Therefore Choose Life

The difference of how you play the game depends on the goal of the game. Some card games are won by having the most cards at the end of the game like “Go Fish” or “Old Maid”. Other games are won by getting rid of all your cards like “Uno” or “Phase 10”. Strategies for winning are based on the object of the game. You cannot play both objectives at the same time. To win one is to lose the other. Understanding the object is key to your success. If you play the entire game of “Uno” trying to hoard up cards so you can create pairs like “Go Fish” you will lose.
Every day Christians and Evolutionists try to win the same game to which they have opposing objectives. Let’s look at the primary goal of these competing belief systems: The Evolutionist’s goal is survival. The goal of the Christian is godliness. Christianity’s goal is compassion, love, sacrifice, and selflessness and is consequently at enmity with survival. Christ said, “whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.” Compassion causes us to protect the weak. Ethics keep us from advancing when those advancements are at the expense of another. Morals cause us to be victims instead of victors. Because Christianity is “won” by being Christ-like, to follow in the steps of our Model is to give yourself as a sacrifice. Mottos like “The first shall be last and the last first” and “the greatest commandment is love” mean the exact opposite of survival. There is ever an attempt between the two belief systems to compromise, as we share the same laws, social network and world, but because the end goals of these two belief systems mean the extinction of the other, they will always be at war with one another. They are diametrically opposed to one another. Evolutionists believe there is no God. The weak are a stumbling block to survival. Morals imposed on them keep them from important knowledge useful to self-preservation. Scientific advancements many times cannot be made without the sacrifice of others whether made by humans or animals. If the Christians win, man will never evolve, diseases will never be cured and there will always be poverty. If the Evolutionists win it will be by ridding the world of genetic and mental defects (one of those defects being the belief in a god who doesn’t exist.)
Riding the moral fence between evolution and Christianity is to give points to the other team. Either you are serving the one, or you are aiding the other. It escapes me why people cannot understand this. Most of Congress’ time is spent trying to pacify these two opposing factions. There is no “live and let live”. The life of the one ultimately is the destruction of the other. The easiest fix is to let the Christians be the sacrifice needed for the scientists. That would work if the scientists would not ultimately destroy themselves as well, but that is a topic I will discuss later. My point here is that there is no peaceful coexistence, and that Christians who are not against anti-life issues are pawns for the opposing team.
The idea that there is no God can be called many things. You might call it atheism or humanism or evolutionism .
Whatever brand of atheistic belief system you go under, they all lead to the same end thinking. That is a devaluation of life and a utilitarian view of thinking in regards to others. An anti-theistic belief system can be likened to a fire. We generally think of the benefit, warmth and beauty of fire when it is contained, But the truth is it’s properties are always destructive. It’s nature is always to devour. It destroys everything it touches. It is only considered tamed when it is only allowed to devour things that don’t matter; when it is burning that which is unimportant or made for the purpose of consumption. When the fire contacts things that are valued or useful, it is tragic. I say that anti-theism is destructive because it’s deductive conclusion is always death. The one restraint that protects us from one another is the presence of consequences. Someone is watching and protecting. Someone will be unhappy should their possession come to harm. While we can get away from man’s watchful eye, there is that ever-looming fear that Someone who sees when no one sees will recompense us. Karma alone or even a well placed camera is enough to keep us from stealing or lying or defrauding someone else. Take away that All-Seeing-Police-Man, and you will have vandalism, theft and loss.
Anti-theism is generally arrived at because a person is following a train of thought. What I mean is that people who don’t believe in God have come to that conclusion. They have thought it over. Not all people who believe in God or are religious have really given it thought. They may have had a religious upbringing or go to church simply because that is what their spouse wants to do or because that is where their friends are. But people who decide there is no God no always, but usually have made a conscience decision to reject the idea of God. There may be all sorts of underlying reasons, maybe because of tragedy that had no explanation, or lack of scientific concrete evidence or disappointment in religious systems or people. Whatever the reasoning, my point is that these people are reasoning people. They are people who think about cause and effect and make decisions based on the knowns. There is a greater chance of this person to draw further conclusions based on their belief that there is no God.
Let me illustrate. Let’s say a person grew up with guns in the house. They never thought about the pros and cons or politics of gun ownership. When asked “should a person be allowed to own guns?” He remembers his father’s guns and answer, “sure, why not. My dad had guns. No one was ever hurt.” Now let’s say a man not only grew up with guns, but went hunting with his father and later his sons every year during deer season. The second man is clearly more vested in the pro-gun view. He has more reasons to draw from. He is more likely than the first to join the NRA, more likely to pursue information on gun laws and issues and less likely to be influenced by opposing views. In fact the more vested a person is, the more involved he will be in asserting his views. The more thought an issue is given, the more likely consequential actions will ensue. Of course this would be true with any issue and any side of that issue.
That being said, that atheists are thinking people and act consequentially, and that anti-theistic belief systems are like a fire: deductive reasoning is like fuel on that fire. Let me state that I am not saying all atheists are thieves and murderers, as of course they are not, but that the propensity for ugly and gruesome acts are often the result of these two forces: very motivated reasoning people and a belief system that promotes the devaluation and utilization of human beings coming together. Not usually with that end result in mind we have the genocides and holocausts of recent history.
Let me also interject here that all theistic belief systems are less destructive. Any view where god is seen as approving of slaughter or just apathetic to the harm of others is just as destructive of a fire. Activists of these types of religions brought us the inquisitions. My point is that when you have motivated people following a system of death, you get very nasty results. There can be no “live and let live” when one faction is bent on the destruction of the other. Playing with fire will get you burned, and quite possibly everyone in your house or beyond.
Metaphorically, the purpose of this book is to keep well-meaning Christians from haplessly carrying in more fuel for that fire, or providing the oxygen to heat it up as they are “sucked in”, or worse becoming a the combustible that turns a wild fire into a firestorm.
It can seem harmless and contained but the more people believe and act on those belief, the more evident its hellish fire is felt. Every once in a while a particular branch of Godlessness catches hold and goes unchecked. When it does, we can see the all-consuming, destructive flames for what they are. One such wild fire was eugenics in the early 20th century.

Series Navigation