Dealing with the problem of evil

The presence of evil in the world is often used by atheists and back-slidden Christians to justify their unbelief.  They erroneously claim evil would not be found in a world created by an all-loving and all-powerful God.  From there they conclude God cannot therefore exist.  This argument appears to have validity until the bigger picture is considered.

God is all-loving for those that accept him by faith.  He is also all-loving in the sense that he wants everyone to accept him and join him for eternity.  Jesus Christ sacrificed himself on the cross to make that possible. He submitted to evil to make freedom from evil, for eternity, possible for all.  God is also all-powerful, but there is abundant evidence that God never claimed he would use that power to prevent evil in a world that refused to honour him with the free will he had given its people.  In fact he judged the whole world in Noah’s time by killing everyone, other that Noah and his family.  He ordered the genocide of tribal groups  and he used war to bring down empires and judge his own people.  In John’s Revelation God fore-swears that he will destroy vast numbers of people  and devastate the environment in the end times Tribulation. This is not a God to trifle with.

It is simply not possible to reduce God to a IF he-has-these-attributes-THEN-he-would-do-such-and-such equation.  As we demonstrate in our article, all the factors pertaining to evil’s existence are far more complex than a manufactured argument that rests on bald assumptions about several facets of God’s nature. Atheists may be content with resting their case on this argument but all they will do is condemn themselves.  They can beat their chests about what they think God should do, but they cannot expunge God with an over-simplified and banal excuse.  Go to the articles section and read  The Problem of Evil – No Problem After all.   

A fairytale called evolution

There are many aspects to evolutionary theory that make it unbelievable. The very idea that the complexity of living organisms can have its origins in nothing but inorganic matter is ridiculous. Evolutionary scientists have no idea how it happened beyond wild speculation. The probability that amino acids could spontaneously order themselves in very specific ways to produce proteins which then form complex interacting groupings to achieve a myriad of complex functions is so ludicrous it beggars belief. How DNA, the brains behind cellular life, could ever form on its own is unimaginable. Then there is the way the universe, our planet and our solar system in particular are so very finely tuned to make life possible. These so called cosmological constants only have to be minutely altered to make life and even the cosmos impossible.  It simply cannot happen by chance.

But, lets get down to something a lot more basic that even we lesser mortals can ponder before concluding evolution must be wrong. One of the key evolutionary principles concerns what is called the survival of the fittest. Evolutionists claim life grew in complexity as it self-selected on the basis of survivability. The most complex and highly evolved ‘animal’, according to evolutionists, is us – Man. They claim we got to where we are today because some small apes decided to drop out of the trees, for which they were supremely well designed, and make it on the forest floor.

Think about it. Why would an animal, designed to depend on its tree-dwelling ability decide to head for the ground? Every fibre of its natural instinct would have told it to stay in the safety of the trees. To try to make it on the ground is to defy the very survival of the fittest doctrine. On the ground small apes are highly vulnerable to predators. True, they might have ventured on to the ground to forage for some types of food, but they would have fled to the trees every time a sabre-tooth headed their way. Their vulnerability would have mitigated against ground adaptation. Their whole pelvic design, for example, makes flight on the ground almost impossible. To adapt to terrestrial living they would have had to stay on the ground for many generations, according to evolutionary theory, but that would have left them at the mercy of just about every known predator. They would not be fit to survive on the ground. The great apes can survive on the ground because they are large enough to see off most predators, but even they are restricted to a very small habitat, suited to their survival. The small apes, the Australopithicines, which the evolutionists claim were our forebears, had no size or strength advantage, no speed advantage and no fighting advantage. Their only hope lay in the trees. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the man from apes idea is unworkable – using evolutionary theory’s own dictum.

The fact is real empirical science has been replaced , by evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, with scientism; a religious dogma that insists God cannot exist and therefore everything must owe its origins to chance and the sole operation of natural laws, even if those very laws cannot make something out of nothing and cannot emerge on their own from nothing.  Dawkins and his ilk pretend to get past this fact by waiving it aside with “we’re working on that”.  This is tantamount to the blind faith they attribute to Christianity.

What is even more sad than this self-delusion is the fact that so many Christians think that a fairytale called evolution needs to be superimposed over an all powerful, all knowing God to produce everything there is while God sits idly by and watches with impotent interest. They have adopted their own form of scientism. If Jesus is Lord then he is the king of and creator of creativity itself. If he is Lord he is capable of bringing everything into being and he has told us that is exactly what he did. If Jesus is Lord, no ape needed to swing down out of a tree. God created the tree, the ape and Man. When Christians swallow the evolutionary lie they deny Jesus is Lord – Romans 10:9. If they are prepared to believe in evolution any old lie that comes along will be just as easily accepted. The leadership of the Church has allowed this appalling state of affairs to develop and it is at them that God will point his staff of justice.

End times- a new article

Given the continued rise of globalisation, technological advances, increasing anti-Semitism and the Western world’s rejection of its Christian heritage, it appears humanity is rushing headlong towards the last seven-year period described in the Book of Revelation. In a new article headed Future (End times) History Drawing Closer Still Truth Watch provides its own summary of how the final seven years of this current historical era may play out.

We start by listing the things we know for certain. These are the events clearly described in biblical prophecy – the return of Israel, the Antichrist, the false prophet and the mark of the beast, the seven seals, the bowl judgements and the seven trumpets, etc…  We focus on the prophecies of Zechariah 12, Daniel 9 and Matthew 24. We speculate on what may happen around events once the Antichrist secures his false peace. We also delve into the debate around the rapture because it relates specifically to the Church.

The article is driven by the parable of the ten bridesmaids in Matthew 25 because it confirms the Church will be overtaken by events it has ignored, despite their prominence in Scripture. In the parable the Church is asleep, just as in the Song of Solomon (5:2-8) the Church is depicted as unprepared for Jesus return. Truth Watch exists because we are aware the Church has fallen into a stupor induced by false prophets and teachers. Our love for our brothers and sisters compels us to sound the watchman’s alarm even if few will listen. One day many in the Church are going to awake to find they have been left behind, because they failed to embrace and hold to biblical truth. The future history article is designed to jostle sleeping Christians into wakefulness.

If you think biblical predictions concerning a one world government and a one world leader are merely symbolic or allegorical consider these comments from these prominent one-world elitists, before going to the future history piece in our Articles section

We must move as quickly as possible to a one world government, a one world religion and a one world leader.” Robert Muller, former U.N. Assistant Secretary General.

What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiances of the people and to lift us out of the economic morass into which we are sinking. Send us such a man and be he god or devil we will receive him.” Paul Henri Spaak, first President of the U.N. General Assembly.