Did Ezekiel Prophesy Correctly About Tyre? (Part 5)

The Origin of Tyre

Whether Tyre originated on the land or the island seems to be in some dispute, but for our purposes it is not relevant. Neither is it relevant to determine the location or influence of Tyre in the distant past, well before Ezekiel’s day. What is relevant is Tyre in the period leading up to Ezekiel, which is the context of the prophecy in Ezekiel 26.  We are not concerned about questions of whether Tyre was on the island or the land prior to its heyday.

The Scope and Influence of Tyre at Its Peak

Hiram was king of Tyre starting in c.969 BC. and was a contemporary of Israel’s kings David and Solomon (2 Sam. 5:11; 1 Kings 5:1 – 10:22). By Hiram’s day, Tyre was a major economic powerhouse and a major independent sovereign nation. Hiram sold cedar to David and Solomon, which tells us Hiram had ownership of the mainland forests of Lebanon. Hiram sent Solomon quite a large sum of gold (2 Chron. 9;18, 1 Kings 9:14). In payment of some trade, Solomon paid Hiram with 20 towns (probably villages) , all in the land of Galilee, which was about 25 to 30 miles from the coast of Tyre. At some point Hiram gave some towns to Solomon also (2 Chron. 8:2).

Secular history corroborates Tyre’s vast size and wealth.  In The Heritage of Tyre: Essays on the History, Archaeology, and Preservation of Tyre, by Martha Sharp Joukowsky, ed., (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall / Hunt Publishing, 1992)*, we not only find that the Bible’s accounts of Hiram are accurate, but also learn that Tyre was large enough to have “many colonies” (p.50) including ones at Carthage, Kition, and Libya (p.47, 48, 52). “Tyre seems to have been in control of a good part of the Phoenician coast” and likely had established trade routes to Africa and modern-day England (p.50). Indeed, Tyre was a “sea empire that knew no equal in ancient history.” (p.47). Tyre was “the cosmopolitan center of the ancient Near East”(p.9). The wealth of Tyre was vast:

The prophet Zecheriah [sic] reports (9:3) that Tyre “has heaped up silver like dust and gold like the dirt of the streets.” There is probably more than some truth to this as even today there are people who make a living on the beach at Tyre by panning — California Forty-Niner style — for gold dust. (p.49)

Thus even the poetic language of Zechariah appears to be literally fulfilled.  The mainland control and influence of Tyre was huge, going well beyond the island and the immediate mainland city.

Further, the island had no water or fuel sources. Fleming tells us water was brought from Ras-al-Ain (about three miles inland) via an aqueduct, then loaded onto boats and offloaded onto the island. The island contained a royal palace, a temple, two ports, a “grand square’, multi-story buildings, and presumably government offices.

When we consider the structures on the relatively small island, which was only about three-quarters of a mile wide and two percent of the city, the large size of the economy, and the influence of Tyre that controlled vast landholdings onshore and across the sea, we can be safe to conclude that in its heyday, Tyre was both the island and the land, not one or the other. While the island was the capital and the keep, it is not true that the island equals the main part of Tyre, for Tyre was vast.

The Effects of Nebuchadnezzar’s Attack

Ezekiel predicts Nebuchadnezzar will attack Tyre, and the Bible and secular history tell us this was literally fulfilled. He attacked the city, demolished the mainland, but after a 13-year siege, failed to take the island fortress. The question then arises of whether we can say Nebuchadnezzar defeated Tyre.

Consider this comparison. Let’s pretend that in the war of northern aggression, southern general Robert E. Lee captured Maryland, New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, and all the other northern states, but exhausted his army and resources in a failed attempt to capture Washington DC, then went home. Did he defeat the US? Well the US government would still be standing and in power, so in that sense, no, he did not. But there would not be a “United States” left to govern, for all the states had been captured, killed, turned over to the enemy, so the country would be the United States in name only, but not in the same sense as before, certainly not in the same level of power and influence.  Would Robert E. Lee be considered the winner? Well, he captured 98% of the country but went home broke and with most of his men dejected. Such is the message of Ezekiel.

After Nebuchadnezzar, Tyre later surrendered to the Persians, leaving her in subject to them for years. By the time Alexander the Great arrived in 332 BC, Flemming tells us “Alexander began the siege. He seized Palaetyrus which was in great part in ruins or deserted of its inhabitants.” This tells us that after Nebuchadnezzar, the mainland portions of the city were in ruins for centuries, even though no doubt people still lived there and the island continued a good business.

The Effects of Alexander’s Attack

Alexander attacked in 332 BC, literally fulfilling Ezekiel 26:4, “make her like the top of a rock.” He did so by taking the ruins of the mainland and putting them into the sea to make a roadway to the island.

After Alexander conquered the island city, he killed great numbers. Fleming tells us holdouts in buildings “were overpowered and killed almost to the last man. There was a general slaughter in the streets and squares.” Alexander’s men killed an estimated eight thousand in the streets, two thousand were crucified on the seashore, and thirty thousand were sold into slavery.

An important note is that so many people were killed or deported that “Colonists were imported and citizens who had escaped returned.” Thus the city of Tyre had been destroyed, its inhabitants killed or sold, and a new ethnic colonists moved into the small island city. In the following centuries the language of the people of Tyre would change at least twice with the invading armies. (Joukowsky, 63)

There is an old philosophical conundrum that goes like this: A ship sets sail, headed for the far shore. During the voyage, the crew begins to remove boards and replace them with new ones. Every board on the ship is changed out for a new one. Before the ship arrives at its destination, even the crew is replaced. Question: Is the ship that arrived the same ship that left? In the case of Tyre, we now have the city destroyed and the people replaced. Is Tyre then the same, or another? Certainly it was not the same nation, but only Tyre in some lesser form only.

The scholars agree, for Joukowsky’s book tells us “After the siege of Alexander the Great in 332 B.C.E., Tyre was never again an island fortress.” (p. 61)  After Alexander, many nations that conquered Tyre. The list includes the Greeks, Ptolemies, Seleucids, Armenians, Romans, Byzantine Empire, Islamists, Egyptians, Turks, Crusaders, and finally the Islamists again. (p. 10) Ezekiel 26:3 was literally fulfilled when God predicted, “I will cause many nations to come up against you, as the sea causes its waves to come up.” This process took many years, with the Crusaders final battle in 1291 A.D., but Ezekiel did not put a time frame on the prophecy.

The Destruction of Tyre

To what extent was the destruction of Tyre? Part of the confusion occurs with the historians repeatedly telling us that still another country would conquer Tyre, but the city would still be, for example under the Romans, “relatively autonomous, superior in the maritime world, and rich from her production of purple dye.” (Joukowsky, 62) The answer is twofold.

First, while Tyre does indeed appear to be a viable city, the scholars admit that it was never again as it was in its heyday. Under Hiram, Tyre controlled much of the Mediterranean, with many overseas colonies and control of large portions of land including multiple cities. After Nebuchadnezzar, mainland Tyre was but rubble, the colonies were lost, the forests of Lebanon were lost, and Tyre was reduced drastically. We can be sure of this from Fleming’s repeated citations of Tyrian appeals to the controlling nation for water and fuel. Tyre begged for these items so much that he finally speaks of “the usual plea for wood and water.” This secular history proves true the New Testament passage in Acts 12:20, where Tyre had to beg the authorities to protect its food supplies. So whatever Tyre’s condition, it was a far, far cry from the vast powerhouse it was in Hiram’s day.

Second, the waves of invading countries finally decimated Tyre. Yet another in a long list of invading armies took the city in 1291, either killing the populace or selling them into slavery. In the years after still another invading army in 1291, Tyre was so poor as to not be able to sell provisions to travelers (Joukowsky, 78).

The extent of the destruction was severe. In 1350, the city was “almost deserted” and by 1432, the only inhabitants were in the surrounding hills (Joukowsky, 52). Flemming agrees when he tells us “From the close of the Crusades there is scarcely any story to tell, for Tyre lay in utter ruins.” (preface) Joukowsky tells us:

The city of Tyre was laid to ruin, along with other coastal cities, and never again regained the splendor it had always known. . . The great ancient city now lay buried under accumulated debris. . . Henry Maundrell wrote in 1697, “You see nothing here but a mere babel of broken walls, pillars, vaults, there being not so much as one unbroken house left.” A few years later, Constantin Volney passed through Tyre and noted that the port was so silted in that children could wade from one ruined tower to the other. The population then numbered a mere 50 or 60 families who lived in poverty, subsisting on the produce of their lands and by fishing. In 1881, Canon Tristam tells us: “The inhabitants are chiefly fisherman and some dyers, though the old Tyrian dyes are no more and we search in vain for Tyrian purple.” . . . Renan wrote (1864), “One can call Tyre a city of ruins built out of ruins.” (Joukowsky, 10-11)  

Apparently some of the old city has succumbed to the sea. “The columns visible in the eastern part of the southern harbor may have once belonged to a structure which has long since been eaten away by action of the sea.” (Joukowsky, 22) Thus Ezekiel 26:19 was literally fulfilled when God says “I bring the deep upon you, and great waters cover you.”


Even as far back as after the Nebuchadnezzar siege, Tyre lay mostly in ruins. But for 600 years after the Crusades, Tyre consisted of at most 50 or 60 impoverished families, a different ethnic group than the old Tyre, with a different language, who lived in total ruins, with not one of the old buildings rebuilt, “a city of ruins built out of ruins,” literally a place for the spreading of nets, so poor as to not have supplies. Here is where the bulk of Ezekiel’s prophecy was literally fulfilled. Such a city is a far cry from the Tyre of Hiram.

Is the city of Tyre the same as that of the old Tyre? Flemming tells us no: “The present petty town of Sur has arisen since the Mutowalis occupied the district in 1766 A. D. Its humble story present little difficulty, but it is connected with the Tyre of history in location and name only.”

It is telling that Joukowsky’s list of Tyrian kings covers a thousand years, but the list of Tyrian kings and governing judges stops with Azemilcus who was in place when Alexander slaughtered the city. (155-6) The last member of the Tyrian royal family was exiled to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. (Joukowsky, 52)

God’s message in Ezekiel 26:13 says “I will put an end to the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps shall be heard no more.” Surely this was literally fulfilled, for the songs were the culture of the old glorious Tyre, a Tyre which is gone forever.

We can only conclude that the prophecies of Ezekiel 26 were literally fulfilled. The only lack of confidence in the Bible is with the reader, not the text of holy scripture, which is again proven reliable.


*NOTE: Joukowsky’s book is a publication from an archeological seminar held at the Smithsonian in the early 1990’s and contains the results of the papers presented at that seminar.











Posted in Apologetics, Bible, Church History | 1 Comment

Did Ezekiel Prophesy Correctly About Tyre? (Part 4)

I earlier completed three posts about Ezekiel’s prophesy about the city of Tyre (for the first, start here). Additional research has given more clarity. This post presents additional conclusions concerning the history of the city and the nature of the prophesy in Ezekiel 26. I suggest you read the first three posts since this current post assumes you know the context set by them.

The Size of Tyre

Before we can understand the destruction of Tyre, we need to understand the scope of the city prior to Ezekiel’s day. A very interesting history of Tyre can be found in a book written by William Flemming, called The History of Tyre (New York: Columbia University Press, 1915)**. Flemming quotes Pliny, writing in about 75 A.D., as saying of Tyre “It’s circumference, including Palaetyrus, is nineteen miles.” If my math is correct, this would give an area of 28.6 square miles and a diameter of just over six miles. Contrast this to the size of the island itself, which Flemming describes as having been expanded by Hiram, but still small: “The island attained a circumference of twenty-two stadia, about two and half miles.” This would indicate that the island had a diameter of about three-fourths of a mile and had an area of less than half a square mile.

The six mile diameter is supported by a major artifact that still remains, a large stone structure called the Tomb of Hiram. Flemming explains: “Three miles distant from the modern town of Sur, and before the village of Hannawe, stands one the most remarkable monuments of ancient Tyre that time has spared. It is called the Kabr Hiram, the tomb of Hiram.” The town of Hannaouiye is about five miles from the coast of Tyre, Such an impressive monument would not likely have been built in the middle of nowhere or laying in a farmer’s field. but rather within the city where it could be viewed. This aligns well with Pliny’s description of the city’s diameter being abut six miles.

Nebuchadnezzar’s Attack

As both Ezekiel and secular history attest, Nebuchadnezzar attacked Tyre with the strongest army in the world at that time. After Nebuchadnezzar, Flemming tells us “Palaetyrus remained in ruins until the time of Alexander.” Nebuchadnezzar destroyed everything on the mainland but not conquering the island. If we take Pliny’s measurements, the area of the city being 28.6 square miles, and the island being about a half a square mile, then Nebuchadnezzar destroyed over 98% of the city, which remained destroyed until Alexander, who destroyed the remaining island holdout.

With Nebuchadnezzar destroying 98% of the city, modern skeptics try to have us believe that his failure to take the 2% that was on the small island was a failure of Ezekiel’s prophesy, maintaining that the island was the main part of the city and the mainland the minor portion. Rather, the facts point to Ezekiel being correct.

Further, the main portion of Ezekiel’s prophecy, or at least the portion about Nebuchadnezzar, could only have been in reference to the mainland city, not the island. Ezekiel says that those that come against Tyre will “slay with the sword your daughter villages in the fields; he will heap up a siege mound against you, build a wall against you, raise a defense against you. He will direct his battering rams against your walls . . .” (Ez. 26:8-9). An obvious but perhaps overlooked fact is that this physically cannot be done to the island, for the walls on the island went to the very edge of the sea. Anyone building a walled city on an island that is only three-fourths of a mile across would leave no room for an invading army to unload siege equipment and men, allow them to camp and use battering rams against the walls. If this could have been done, then Alexander would not have needed to build a roadway out to the island. Alexander literally fulfilled Ezekiel’s prophesy when he scraped the coastline clean and dumped it into the sea, making a roadway out to the island.

Therefore the prophesy of Nebuchadnezzar using siege engines and battering rams leads us to the 98% of the city that was on the mainland, for it is physically impossible to have siege engines against the island, with the exception of the way Alexander did it. With the context of v.8 speaking about the mainland city, and the mainland city being the main part of the city, it is plain that the prophesy pertained to the mainland. Flemming agrees when he says, speaking of Ezekiel’s prophesy, “A large part of this description must have related to Mainland Tyre. Means effective on the mainland could not be employed against the city in the sea.”

The island contained governmental palaces, office buildings, and temples, but the bulk of the city was clearly the mainland. With the prophesy being so clearly aimed at the mainland, we can only say that the portion of Ezekiel’s prophesy dealing with Nebuchadnezzar was literally fulfilled.

Stay tuned for Part 5, where we will learn the extent of the destruction.

**Note: I have the Kindle edition of Flemming’s book, and most page numbers are difficult to determine.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

How Dark Were the Dark Ages?

A good video from Prager U. I suggest starting reading Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Contra Geniltes.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Theistic Evolution & Biblical Interpretation

Forms of theistic evolution seem to abound in Christian circles. Theistic evolution is a teaching that says that evolution was used by God to create mankind, even in evolution’s fullest sense of very gradual change through random mutations and natural selection.

To make theistic evolution work, Genesis 1 and 2 must be taken as some sort of figurative language, a theological passage teaching about mankind. The most common form I run into lately is that God picked one of the myriad of gradually-changing species and breathed a soul into it, thus creating Adam. In this sense, so we are told, Adam can be the first man, but there was a prior human-type being, even possibly the same specie, that did not have the image of God breathed into it. Such belief seems hard to visualize, considering the fact that human DNA has about three billion data bits, requiring an almost inconceivable number of gradual specie changes before God picked one to place His image into. On a practical level, it is hard to imagine any visible difference between the specie at 2,349,897,281 and the next one at 2,349,897,282.  To the theistic evolutionist, Genesis 1 is more of a theological explanation than a literal first creation of something human-like. Adam is presented as the first man with God’s image, not the first man.

But Genesis is not the only passage in the Bible that mentions creation and Adam. To make his system fit, the theistic evolutionist must fit these other passages into his theological system. Passages such as Romans 5 create a large challenge, requiring the evolutionist to continue Adam as not literally the first man in sentences that compare Adam to Christ, a person the Bible clearly holds as literal in the normal sense. The theistic evolutionist seems to be able to press his theological reading of Genesis into the New Testament.

I recently pointed out to a theistic evolutionist that Adam is mentioned in the New Testament in genealogies in Luke 3 and Jude 14. Adam is also listed in the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1 to 9. Undaunted, the response from the theistic evolutionist was that the genealogies are primarily theological teachings, not historical, for the purpose of making truth claims about humans being children of God.

So now we again have the intent of the author determining the meaning that is in the text, not the words themselves being the holders of meaning. As long as we can say that a passage was meant by the author to be teaching such-and-so, we truly have no ground for a text to give an objective meaning to anyone.

Keep in mind that the genealogies of Genesis, 1 Chronicles, and Luke have people in them that we know existed as real humans in the world. So the theistic evolutionist would have to hold that even though the long list of begats in these passages have real people, they are not historical and should not be taken as such.

Think of it . . . if something like a genealogy can be taken as non-historical, what passages are there that would force historical literalness onto the reader? Could we not place a theological framework on any passage, then tell ourselves that God never intended this to be literal, but rather a container of deeper spiritual teachings? If the genealogies are not historical, what passage is left that must be literal?

In reality, genealogies by themselves are merely statements of fact. Jesse begat David, and David begat Solomon. It is difficult to see how such tediously long lists of names throughout nine chapters of 1 Chronicles could be anything but a historical record. Adam is right there in the list, along with everyone else.

Once we start to spiritualize passages of the Bible, we have no clear stopping point. The book of Acts is a long story of the apostles, with dry facts about cities, shipping lanes, and weather mixed in with sermons and miracles, sometimes in the same sentences. We have no clear, objective way of extricating one from the other.

We do not have to guess at what happens when people begin to hold that Bible  passages are primarily not historical accounts but spiritual teachings. Theologian Rudolph Bultmann tells us in Rudolph Bultmann: Interpreting Faith for the Modern Era (Fortress Press, 1991) that the teaching that Jesus is the literal son of God is a pagan myth brought into Christianity, but that the ethical teachings of Jesus are valuable. He then explains:

Shall we retain the ethical preaching of Jesus and abandon his eschatological preaching? Shall we reduce his preaching of the kingdom to the so-called social gospel? Or is there a third possibility? We must ask whether the eschatological preaching and the mythological sayings as a whole contain a still deeper meaning which is concealed under the cover of mythology. If that is so, let us abandon the mythological conceptions precisely because we want to retain their deeper meaning. This method of interpretation of the New Testament which tries to recover the deeper meaning behind the mythological conceptions I call de-mythologizing — an unsatisfactory word, to be sure. Its aim is not to eliminate the mythological statements but to interpret them. (292-293)

We readily admit that the theistic evolutionist is not attempting to call Genesis myth. Nevertheless, the method and purpose they are using is the same as that of Bultmann and his followers, or at least is indistinguishable. The purpose was to hold that the normal, historical-grammatical reading of the text is not what is important, and we must dig deeper to find the true meaning behind the words. Such a method gave rise to an entire group of liberal preachers and teachers, men like Harry Emerson Fosdick and John Spong, who held that they believed the Bible, but denied Biblical miracles and most of the historicity of the entire Bible.

In conclusion, theistic evolution is a method that cannot hold up to the normal reading of the text of the Bible. Apart form Genesis, passages such as the genealogies and Romans 5 demand enough literalness so that they are historical texts. The various passages throughout the Bible that mention Adam give us no textual indication that Adam is anything less than a historical figure. Theistic evolution is something that must be read into the passages that speak of Adam, not taken from the passages. When we deny that Adam is the historical first man, we dig a dangerous hole for ourselves and end up wrenching texts of scripture from their moorings. I can only assume that most theistic evolutionists are trying to reconcile scripture with modern secular teachings of biology. I urge caution to all who are doing so, for they are on dangerous ground.

I urge everyone to take their positions slowly and carefully. As a student of church history, several times over the centuries Christians have taken positions that were designed to harmonize Christianity with the current perceptions of the world. They thought they were doing good, thought they were helping to save Christianity. But in the end, they did more damage to the cause of Christ than they ever imagined. People like Kierkegard and Bultmann thought they were helping Christianity, but their cure was worse than the disease they were fighting. Those of us who are apologists will spend the rest of our lives trying to undo what damage was done in theology and philosophy over the last 300 years.

For more on how such issues play out, see here, and here, and here.

Posted in Evolution, Theology | 17 Comments

How Can We Tell If The Universe Has Design?

This is another in a series of questions about Christianity from critics and skeptics.

Question: In most arguments from design, the universe is compared to a designed object. For example, Paley uses a watch to illustrate design, since we all know watches are designed. What other universe is the proponent of Intelligent Design comparing our current universe to so he can show design? We would need another universe that is designed or undersigned to compare this one so we can decide about design. With only one universe to evaluate, we can make no valid comparisons about design.

Answer: This question sets up a false dilemma. It is not true that we need another universe to compare ours. We can merely observe that everything that works toward an end has an intelligence behind it working toward that end. All things that are purposeless require no designer, a fact which many thoughtful atheists are quick to point out. Thomas Aquinas put it this way in On Truth (De Veritate), Q5.A2:

Those things that happen by chance, happen only rarely; we know from experience, however, that harmony and usefulness are found in nature either at all times or at least for the most part. This cannot be the result of mere chance; it must be because an end is intended.

Thomas is here saying that because we see harmony and usefulness in the universe on a regular basis, we can conclude that it is only reasonable that things are working toward an end. Atheist  Richard Dawkins has said “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” Such is a hard position to take consistently, for even Dawkins will tell us in the next breath that religion is evil, a fact contrary to what he has just told us. If evil truly exists, then something in the universe is working toward an end; if evil does not exist, then a primary criticism of religion is taken away, namely that no good God would allow pain and suffering.

Thomas continues:

What lacks intellect or knowledge, however, cannot tend directly toward an end. It can do this only if someone else’s knowledge has established an end for it, and directs it to that end. Consequently, since natural things have no knowledge, there must be some previously existing intelligence directing them to an end, like an archer who gives a definite motion to an arrow so that it will wing its way to a determined end.

We do not observe total randomness and chaos in the universe; if we did, the language we use to communicate is meaningless. Dawkins’ very statement, saying that universe is meaningless clear to the bottom, is itself a meaningful statement. Thomas Aquinas recognized that we do indeed observe things working toward an end, therefore some intelligence somewhere is directing something.

To maintain that no design exists, the atheist would have to maintain that all of the universe is total randomness and chaos, a meaningless pile on top of a meaningless foundation. Similar to Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, if the critic were to observe the world and conclude that the universe has no design, then the basis for us making the evaluation would have no meaning, and the critic’s argument self-destructs. Indeed, the very concept of the existence of a critic self destructs.

Yet we know the critic exists, we know good and evil exist, and we know things in the universe move toward ends.

Further, the implication in the question is that there is no independent way to verify design. Intelligent Design proponent William Dembski has responded with a simple answer, namely that if the structures and design in nature can be duplicated without intervention, the theory would be falsified.

We then hold that design in nature is reasonable, and denial of it is not reasonable. Any design needs a designer. This we call God.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Why Do Atheists Search For Meaning?

On the Facebook page of a college atheist club, I read a post by one of the atheist leaders. He linked to a news article about a humanist couple who had formed a group to help people find meaning and purpose in life. The atheist leader added “Great to see mainstream media writing about science-based, rational approaches to finding meaning and purpose in life.”

Now all this is well and good, for who could be against people finding meaning and purpose? We are, however, immediately reminded of atheist guru Richard Dawkins who has told us “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” Dawkins has repeated this concept, telling us that questions related to such things as the purpose for things in the universe are completely meaningless questions, on par with asking “what is the color of jealousy?”

Atheists have long held that the world from top to bottom is completely without meaning or purpose. In the 1890’s, atheist Friedrich Nietzche wrote “Whither are we moving? . . . Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing?” In the 1930’s agnostic Bertrand Russell, after pointing out that the universe will result in a vast inevitable death, concluded that our lives can be built “only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair.”

Yet in the news article and the post I read, we have atheists and humanists spending great energy and spraying grand compliments about finding meaning in life. How can this be? If the universe were indeed “nothing but blind pitiless indifference” from top to bottom, why do we, as parts of the universe, search for it and hold it valuable?

One atheist I met admitted to local meaning but no long-term, ultimate meaning. All such explanations seem to have arbitrary, conjured, and tortured distinctions. We are again left with the question: If there truly is no ultimate meaning, why would we care to pursue one?

Further, atheists spend much energy attempting to stamp out the perceived wrongs of religion. If all of life is meaningless, why care? Yet they do care. Why? And do not give me all this claptrap about searching for truth or how we care about people. Again, if things are as meaningless as Dawkins, Russell, and Nietzche tell us, there is no purpose in finding truth or helping our neighbor, both thoroughly religious concepts.

The answer to this problem is best answered generally through theism, and specifically through Christianity. No matter how much we deny that there is meaning and purpose in the universe, the truth is that we all long for it. We are wired with the thought that there must be more. We search for meaning because we know there we will find significance. We know that blind pitiless indifference is not something we want or will accept, for we protest against wrongs, uphold what is good, and search for meaning that we do not have.

We protest against wrongs done to us and our neighbors because we know there is an ultimate standard of good that transcends the universe. Jesus told us “I am the way.” He is the source where we find meaning.

For the atheist and humanist who deny Jesus, they are locked in eternal dissonance, at once longing for meaning yet denying its existence.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Some of the Most Educated People Are Christians

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment