why people reject God and salvation

People who reject God

Today, people in the West reject God because they do not believe in creation or disagree on moral issues.

If we take a look at the Acts of the Apostles, we can see in chapter 13, how Paul's own people rejected the Gospel, Christ, and the possibility of turning to God. People of that time looked down upon the gift of eternal life, which was offered to them. They took a negative attitude towards the idea that one could get to the kingdom of God through His Son, Jesus Christ:

- (Acts 13:45,46) But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spoke against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, see, we turn to the Gentiles.

Many people of today also reject God and the Christian faith. The trend in the last couple of hundred years has been that more and more basic truths of the Christian faith have been questioned. The Book of Genesis in particular has been the target of attacks. It has been thought that if Darwin's theory of evolution is an accurate description of the past, then the Bible's account cannot be true. This is quite a logical conclusion, because two completely opposite views cannot be valid at the same time.

Since Darwin's theory was adopted, there have been many other views that have clouded people's view of the Christian faith. The change has taken place slowly, because a few decades ago schools and society taught much more about this area. The basics of faith were clearer to people and Christian teaching was respected. Now it has gradually been abandoned and these teachings have been increasingly questioned. Change in that direction has been happening all along.

The following lines discuss some of the basic truths of the Christian faith and the reasons why people reject the gospel about Jesus Christ and eternal life. The purpose is that people could better understand these basic truths of the Christian faith and that they could get in touch with God. The topics covered are:

• Creation and early stages

• Moral issues

CREATION AND EARLY STAGES. When it comes to the accuracy of creation, everyone knows that atheist scientists don’t be-lieve in it. They don’t believe that God exists, that He created all and everything and especially that creating everything would have taken a little time and happened around only some thousands of years ago. Instead, these scientists believe that the universe came into existence by itself from nothing and that all current species derive from one primordial cell. These, in short, are the basic beliefs that these scientists believe in.

What about the rationality of these explanations? If these materialistic accounts are true, then scientists should give explanations to the following questions. They should be easy to answer if they are scientific theories.

How can something come from nothing? Scientists should tell how something can come from nothing, as is supposed to have happened in the Big Bang. This notion goes against the laws of physics and common sense. It has never been observed that stones, rocks, road signs or other objects appear by themselves out of nowhere. Why would a universe many times larger than them be an exception? Why was only the universe able to appear out of thin air when we don't observe the same for other things? Scientists abandon common sense and turn to fables when they believe such theories. It is absurd to adhere to this kind of false theory, in which everything is assumed to have arisen without reason from nothing. Furthermore, it is a mathematical impossibility. If there is nothing, it cannot become nothing by itself. If zero is divided by any number, the result is always zero. David Berlinski, a mathematician, and Roland Nash have taken a stand on the subject:

”It is pointless to argue that something comes into existence out of nothing, when any given mathematician understands this to be complete nonsense” (Ron Rosenbaum: ”Is the Big Bang Just a Big Hoax? David Berlinski Challenges Everyone.” New York Observer 7.7.1998)

Philosopher Roland Nash: …one does not need to be a theist (one that believes in God) to see the problem in understanding or accepting the belief that the universe came into existence without any reason and out of nowhere. (1)

Several other researchers question the whole Big Bang theory. They see it as contrary to real science. To illustrate, in 2004 secular scientists who doubted this theory wrote an open letter to the New Scientist magazine. More than a hundred other cosmologists supported the letter. The letter said: "There is no open exchange of ideas, doubt and dissent will not be tolerated. In no other field of physics can constantly resort to new hypotheses to bridge the gap between theory and observations."

The following comments also show that the big bang is a questionable concept. Anyone shouldn't believe in it:

New data differs enough from the theory’s prediction to destroy the Big Bang-cosmology (Fred Hoyle, The Big Bang in Astronomy, 92 New Scientist 521, 522-23 / 1981)

As an old cosmologist, I see the current observational data repealing theories about the beginning of the universe, and also the many theories about the beginning of the Solar System. (H. Bondi, Letter, 87 New Scientist 611 / 1980)

There has been remarkably little discussion of whether or not the big bang hypothesis is correct... many of the observations that conflict it are explained through numerous unfounded assumptions or they are simply ignored. (nobelist H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma 125 / 1981)

Physicist Eric Lerner: ”Big Bang is merely an interesting tale, which is maintained for a certain reason” (Eric Lerner: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe, The Big Bang Never Happened, NY: Times Books, 1991).

How did life originate? Scientists should also tell how life arose by itself. Life cannot be eternal because the sun has not always existed. Without the sun, the temperature on Earth would be almost -273 degrees, the water would be frozen and it would be dark. In such conditions, current life would not be possible.

Thus, when it is conceded that life has a beginning, concrete evidence should be shown that it actually arose by itself. If this problem cannot be explained, why the so-called in science books, despite everything, it is presented that life arose by itself? Isn't this a deliberate lie and an assumption based on wishful thinking?

This notion is also contrary to the scientific observation that the existence of every plant and animal is dependent on a previous life. They are not self-existent because life only arises from pre-existing life. No exception to this rule has been found, so this clearly points (for the first plants and animals) to an extraterrestrial source, or God. Naturalistic theories are therefore on a weak basis. The more information has been accumulated, the more difficult the problem of the origin of life by itself has been found to be. The only reasonable explanation for the existence of life is God's creation work, to which the following verses refer. Only an almighty God could have created the diverse life on Earth:

- (Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

- (Rom 1:19,20) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

- (Rev 4:11) You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created.

- (Rev 10:5,6) And the angel which I saw stand on the sea and on the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,

6 And swore by him that lives for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer

- (Rev 14:7) Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

A good idea of the problem of the genesis of life itself, is still given by the statement of Stanley Miller. Miller has become famous for his experiments on the birth of life, which have been told in thousands of books. However, Miller admitted in an interview towards the end of his life that science may never find a solution to this problem:

He was indifferent about all suggestions about the origins of life, considering them “nonsense” or “paper chemistry”. He was so contemptuous about certain hypotheses that when I asked his opinion about them, he only shook his head, sighed deeply and sniggered – like trying to reject the madness of the human race. He admitted that scientists may never know exactly when and how life started. “We try to discuss a historical event that is clearly different from normal science”, he noted. (2)

Where are the intermediate forms? In the preface, it was brought up how many question the Christian faith because of Darwin. They think that if Darwin's teachings are true, then Genesis must be wrong. They think that life evolved from a simple primitive cell towards the complex forms we have today.

However, these people should question Darwin and the basic premise of the theory of evolution, i.e. the idea that today's complex plants and animals originated from a simple primitive cell. It's not that Darwin didn't make accurate or great observations. He certainly did, but his basic assumption (from simple to complex) has still not been proven correct. Darwin's examples (finches' beaks, etc.) and the examples presented today (bacterial resistance, etc.) are those that only involve variation within the basic species. It is not the same as the simple-to-complex theory. Changes do happen, but it has been found to happen within certain limits. Decades of mutation experiments have confirmed the permanence of species. Breeding has also shown that there are limits to variation which will be reached very soon and which cannot be crossed.

What about intermediate forms in fossils and modern species? Scientists should tell where intermediate forms between fossils appear, and where semi-developed wings, arms, legs, senses and other organs can be seen. Because if Darwin's theory is correct, there should be plenty of these transitional forms in nature and in fossils (more than a hundred million fossils have been excavated from the earth).

However, the problem is that we don't detect them, but the species are completely ready.

Even the well-known atheist scientist, Richard Dawkins, has admitted that the current structures are adequate for their purpose and the organisms are fully functional, not that they are half-developed. Dawkins' comment strongly suggests creation and that the species were ready from the beginning and not just partially developed. We meet only complete and functional structures in fossils and modern organisms.

The reality based on observations is that every species and every organ inside a species that so far has been examined is good at what it does. The wings on birds, bees and bats are good for flying. Eyes are good at seeing. Leaves are good at photosynthesis. We live on a planet, where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million species, which all independently indicate a strong illusion of apparent design. Every species fits well into its special lifestyle. (3)

The following statements describe well the absence of Transitional forms. They deal with what evidence natural history museums have for evolution, or more precisely, what they don't have:

Dr. Etheridge, world-famous curator of the British Museum: In this whole museum, there is not even the smallest thing that would prove the origin of species from intermediate forms. The theory of evolution is not based on observations and facts. As comes to speaking about the age of the human race, the situation is the same. This museum is full of evidence showing how mindless these theories are. (4)

None of the officials in five large paleontological museums can present even one simple example of an organism that could be regarded as a piece of evidence of gradual evolution from one species to another. (Dr. Luther Sunderland’s summary in his book Darwin's enigma. He interviewed many representatives of natural history museums for this book and wrote to them aiming at finding out what sort of evidence they had to prove evolution. [5])

The following statement continues on the same topic. The late Dr Colin Patterson was a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (natural history) – he was also a supporter of evolution and a fossil expert. He wrote a book about evolution – but when someone asked him, why his book didn’t contain any pictures of transitional forms (organisms in the intermediate state), he wrote the following response. In his answer, he refers to perhaps the world's most famous paleontologist, the atheist scientist Stephen J. Gould:

"I agree completely with your opinion concerning the lack of illustrations in my book about organisms which are evolutionarily in the transitional stage. If I were conscious of any such, of a fossil or of living, I would have willingly included them in my book. You propose that I should use an artist to illustrate such intermediate forms but from where would he get information for his drawings? Honestly saying, I could not offer him this information, and if I should leave the matter for an artist, would it not lead the reader astray?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago [in the book he tells that he believes in some intermediate forms]. If I were to write it now, I think that the book would be rather different. Gradualism (changing gradually) is a concept in which I do believe. Not just because of the prestige of Darwin but because my comprehension of the genetics seems to require it. However, it is difficult to claim against [famous fossil expert Stephen J.] Gould and other people of the American museum when they say that there are no intermediate forms. As a palaeontologist, I work much with philosophical problems when recognizing ancient forms of organisms from the fossil material. You say that I should also at least 'present a photo of a fossil, from which the certain organism group evolved.' I speak directly – there is no fossil that would be a watertight piece of evidence." (6)

MORAL ISSUES. Creation was the first important topic discussed above. It is one of the basic teachings of the Christian faith that has been much attacked since Darwin's time. However, the existing evidence points to creation much more clearly than to naturalistic theories. No known scientific findings support the possibility that the universe and life arose spontaneously from nothing. Nor has it been possible to show that all current species originate from the same primordial cell. It is reasonable not to believe in these naturalistic theories for which there is no proper evidence.

Then to the moral issues, because of which many may reject the Christian faith and the gospel. The reason for this is especially the controversies related to sex, abortion and gender minorities that have taken place in recent decades. There weren't that many disagreements about these things before, but now there are. In this matter, however, it is worth paying attention to the following points:

Basically a question of right and wrong

- (Isa 5:20) Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Basically, in many disputes there is a question of right and wrong. Are all man-made acts right or are there acts that are wrong? In general, everyone admits that there are moral values that apply to everyone, but in a few things one can argue about what belongs to that side of the border that separates the moral from the indecent. So, secularized people may explain:

• "Sex without marriage is not wrong"

• "Abortion is not a wrong act"

• "Homosexual sex is not wrong"

On the other hand, a Christian who trusts the teaching of Jesus and the apostles also considers their teaching as the highest authority. Therefore, the border between right and wrong is sought in their teachings, such as e.g. from the following lists. They define actions that are wrong and separate us from God if we willfully practice them. Other people usually admit outright that eg. murders and thefts are wrong of the things mentioned in the lists. They admit that those acts belong in the immoral area:

- (Gal 5:19-21) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, jealousies, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Contentions, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

- (1 Cor 6:9,10) Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

- (Rev 22:15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters, and whoever loves and makes a lie.

So it is not a question of a modern Christian being better than others and figuring out for himself what is right and wrong. Instead, the question is the reliability of the writings that came through the apostles appointed by Jesus. Are they true or false? A Christian believes them to be true, but secular people may deny that they are true and relevant today. Herein lies the fundamental reason for the existence of controversies.

Consequences. If the Bible is not taken into account and the teachings of Jesus and the apostles are rejected, something can still be concluded from the consequences of the actions themselves. Because if actions have bad consequences, then the action itself must be bad. So, if we look at e.g. the belief that "sex without marriage is not wrong", i.e. "it is right to have sex without marriage", it has the following consequences:

• If people have many sex relationships, diseases spread more easily. For example, AIDS has killed hundreds of thousands of people in Africa because the disease has been able to spread due to people having sex with multiple different people. A good 20 years ago, AIDS also spread strongly among homosexuals in the USA, because they have more sexual relations than the general population.

• The more sex relationships there are, the more likely it is that families break up. Infidelity and cheating on a spouse is not good for a relationship, it breaks marriages. Children also have to suffer from the choices of adults and the breakup of families. This also has an impact financially, as society's social costs increase. For example, a study conducted in the USA in 2008 showed that divorces and children born out of wedlock cost taxpayers 112 billion dollars annually (Girgis et al 2012:46). Similarly, Etelä-Suomen sanomat reported on the situation in Finland on 31 October 2010: Institutional care for children and young people will soon cost a billion, Children's problems have escalated drastically since the beginning of the 1990s... Institutional care for one child costs up to 100,000 euros per year.... In addition, Aamulehti reported on 3 March 2013: marginalized teen costs 1,8 million. If even one is brought back into society, the result is positive.

• From the point of view of the children to be born, the separation of the parents is not a good starting point. Because if the parents are not properly committed to each other first, the child's fate may often be abortion, adoption or growing up with a single parent.

What about homosexuality and transsexuality? Many sincerely defend these tendencies and march for them, but in reality they are about the thoughts and lusts that a person has in his mind. Each of us has false thoughts and lusts, but God calls us to a life where we are more and more free from them. Unfortunately, we are often far from perfect, but God's pattern is that we do not live by lusts and false thoughts:

- (Mark 7:21-23) For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

- (Matt 5:28) But I say to you, That whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

- (Mark 4:18,19) And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,

19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.

- (Rom 6:12) Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in the lusts thereof.

- (Rom 13:14) But put you on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.

- (Gal 5:16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.

- (Eph 4:22) That you put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

- (Col 3:5) Mortify therefore your members which are on the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

- (1 Tim 6:9,10) But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.

10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

- (2 Tim 2:22) Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

- (1 Peter 1:14) As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:

- (2 Peter 3:3) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

- (1 John 2:16,17) For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

17 And the world passes away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of God stays for ever.

- (James 1:14,15) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

15 Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.

- (Jude 17,18) But, beloved, remember you the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

Usually there are certain reasons behind lusts and distorted thoughts (e.g. the eating disorder anorexia nervosa is a good example of distorted thinking. A person can imagine that they are fat even if they are extremely thin) such as difficult relationships, sexual abuse and other similar factors. For example, the tendency of female homosexuals can partly be explained by the fact that many of them have had no mother in their childhood. It has been found to be much more common than other women:

The study by Marcel T. Saghiri and Eli Robins (1973) was not based on a patient sample; instead, they recruited their homosexual interviewees through homosexual organisations. They noted that 27% of lesbians and 2% of heterosexual women had lost their mother before the age of 10. The relationship between lesbian women and their mothers had often been broken or was distant or indifferent. However, they had a warm relationship with their father. (7)

What about the so-called gender neutral marriage and its ethics? It is problematic for children. Because in those cases where homosexual couples intend to have children (it is possible, for example, through sperm banks and womb rental or that one of the homosexuals has been in a temporary heterosexual relationship), it means separating the child from its biological father or mother since birth, simply because adults think that such partnership is their right. The gender-neutral marriage law thus discriminates against children at the expense of adults. The freedoms of adults are placed before the basic rights of children.

Those who themselves grew up in a homosexual family have also criticized the practice of depriving a child of the right to a father or mother in this way. Jean-Dominique Bunel, who grew up with his lesbian mother and her female partner, tells how he experienced it. He suffered from the lack of a father. Elsewhere, he also says that if gender-neutral marriage had already been in effect when he was growing up, he would have sued the state, because it enabled the violation of his child's rights:

I experienced the lack of a father as if it were an amputation... I suffered from not having a father, from the lack of his daily presence, his masculine character and example, which would have balanced my mother’s relationship with her lover. I was aware of this shortcoming very early on. (8)

What about the ethics of abortion? Why do many defend abortion and consider it a good choice in certain situations? Why are they behind this thing? Surely the main reason is that they do not see abortion as a wrong act. However, these people should think about the answer to the following questions:

- Do you consider killing a person to be the right thing to do?

- How do you justify that the fetus in the womb is not a human being?

Thus, when some defend abortion, they may explain that the fetus in the womb is not a human being. They come to this solution despite the fact that the fetus has the same body parts as the baby being born: eyes, hands, feet, mouth, nose... Isn't this rejecting the clear scientific facts? Isn't it obvious that the fetus in the womb is the same person who will be born at a later stage, i.e. come outside the womb? It is also worth remembering that some premature babies are not much older than late-term aborted babies.

If it is so that a developing fetus is morally equivalent to a child, then abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide. Only a few think that the government should let parents decide on their own, whether they want to be responsible for killing their child… Those, who are willing to defend women’s right to abortion, should make a statement on the argument that a developing fetus is equivalent to a human being, and then try to demonstrate, why the argument is wrong. It is not enough to say that the law should be neutral when it comes to moral and religious questions. Defending the right to abortion is equally as unneutral as demanding to ban it. Both parties await for an answer for this moral and religious dispute, which lies in the background. (9)

STOP RESISTING!

- (1 Peter 5:6) Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

Above we discussed two things because of which people have a negative attitude towards the Christian faith; i.e. naturalistic theories of the origin and development of life and moral questions. Those are the two main reasons why people reject God. They may consider themselves wise and reasonable when they have adopted a dismissive attitude towards God and the Christian faith. Similarly, they may be certain in their ideas and do not even want to get to know the basics of the Christian faith and find out about things.

But as stated, these people actually believe lies and defend injustice. They believe lies in rejecting God's creation work. Similarly, they defend injustice when they have an accepting attitude, e.g. towards abortion and extramarital sex.

So what should these people do? They should turn to God and humble themselves in heart, and no longer resist. God's will is to save every person, but if a person himself rejects God and salvation, such a person cannot be saved. Therefore, you who have resisted God and rejected Him, do not continue in this way. Instead, turn to God and confess your sin. Also understand that God has already prepared a way for you to connect with Him. This way to God's connection goes through His Son Jesus Christ, because Jesus said the following:

- (John 14: 6) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.

So if you want to be saved and get in touch with God, humble yourself before God. Confess to him your rebellion and your sins. Likewise, receive Jesus into your life. You can pray, for example, as follows:

The prayer of salvation: Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.

References:

1. Ronald Nash: ”Miracles and Conceptual Systems”, Douglas Geivettin & Gary Habermasin (toim.) teoksessa In Defence of Miracles (Grand Rapids, IVP, 1997), p. 122

2. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley

3. Richard Dawkins: Jumalharha (The God Delusion), p. 153

4. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, p. 94

5. Sit. kirjasta "Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan", Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä, p. 19.

6. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 15,16

7. Ari Puonti: Homoseksuaalisuus – hämmennyksestä selkeyteen, p. 101

8. Jean-Marc Guénois: “J’ai été élevé par deux femmes”, Le Figaro 1.10.2013

9. Michael J. Sandel: Oikeudenmukaisuus (Justice. What’s the Right Thing to Do?), p. 283,284