When I was about 8 years old I thought nothing of throwing a stone the full length of our street, just to see how far it would go. My problem was that I didn’t understand that sometimes actions can have serious consequences.

One day I was in a tree-filled empty lot, three doors along from our house. For some reason I threw a stone into the trees. Suddenly I heard the sound of glass breaking, and high-tailed it out of there like a rabbit that had just seen a hungry fox.

A few minutes later, the fox was at our back door. Then I heard my mom call my name, and then ask, “Did you just throw a stone through Mr. Prescott’s window?” I stepped out of my room and said that I had. I can’t remember anything else about the incident, except that my mom has said a number of times how proud she was that I had done the right thing by telling the truth.

When it comes to the issue of sin, we don’t understand that there are deadly serious consequences. We lie, steal, lust, covet, and blaspheme without too much thought. It’s no big deal. But every time we do so, we smash the window of God’s Law and that Law demands retribution. Now He’s waiting for us to do the right thing and ‘fess up. If we refuse to come out in the open we will pay for it ourselves, and there will be Hell to pay.

Ok, so the first three paragraphs are pretty straight-forward. I guess it took a while before Ray grew up to be the kook he is today. The last paragraph, however, is ripe for the picking. First of all, let’s take the issue of consequences. Ray is right to point out that actions have consequences, but speaking of people’s actions in a society, that’s not always true. Ray speaks (as usual) of laws and justice, but neglects to mention that there is such a thing as a “victimless crime”, an action that does not have a reaction towards another person. Drugs, for example, are often said to be a victimless crime, because it doesn’t actually hurt or affect anyone other than yourself. Thankfully, in most societies, the Biblical sins aren’t actually literally illegal, but if they were, most of them would also fit the description of a victimless crime. When I lust after another person, that hurts a grand total of no one. It is an act that doesn’t even have a reaction to any meaningful degree. It might lead me to take another action, such as approaching the person I’m lusting after, but that’s another act altogether. The act of lusting is a victimless crime.

Apparently, according to Ray, God is like some “universal judge” that will sentence all of us for the crimes we commit, supposedly, against him. Not mentioning the fact that this means the judge (who would have to remain impartial in order to be just) is also the victim, this means that not only is God the highest court of justice available (meaning no chance for appeal if you believe you’ve had an unfair trial), but he is also immune against prosecution from anyone else. In essence, God doesn’t have to follow his own laws.

How can all this possibly be called justice? Oh, silly me. You know what? Read the last paragraph again: “But every time we do so, we smash the window of God’s Law and that Law demands retribution.” Here I was talking about justice, when all God wants is revenge and retribution. Would we want judges in our society that cared more about retribution than about justice? If not, why would we ever accept a god that does exactly that?

There’s a game that’s often played by skeptics. They create hypothetical scenarios so that they can (in their own minds) justify rejection of the gospel.

So begins another one of Ray’s famous analogies. In this particular case, he is responding to the argument that, according to the religious doctrine of Christianity, even Hitler could get into heaven by simply believing. Ray, having no clue how to respond to such a problem in a direct, honest way, goes off on a tangent regarding atheists(!), and not his own religion, which was what it was all about to begin with.

A drug addict is dying because of a disease that is related to his addiction. But when a faithful doctor takes the time to point out the evident symptoms that are all over the addict’s flesh, he responds by saying that the hideous spots are normal, and that all his friends have them.

The doctor pleads with him to listen, and says that a large drug company has developed a cure for the fatal disease. To which the addict says, “What if an elephant fell from the sky and swallowed it before I could get to it? Huh doc. Huh! What about that? You and your stupid pill! I don’t believe the drug company even exists. You idiot. Rather than talk about this so-called disease and your brainless drug company, I want to talk about the age of this medical building.”

What does any of this have to do with the obvious problems of the “gift of salvation”? How is it the atheist’s fault that Hitler could get a clean slate without doing anything in return? How does this even address the question!?

Regardless, this post is about the analogy itself, so let’s address that:

The germ theory of disease (remember, kids, it’s only a theory) is accepted as fact, by both atheists and (most, just to be safe) creationists. Therefor, it is not really valid to claim that a drug addict would absolutely deny even the possibility that his addiction had gotten him infected with a disease. In fact, I think most addicts are well aware of the risks, and choose rather to ignore it. Further, Ray is nothing like a medical doctor. A medical doctor can show evidence that the disease he claims the addict is infected with, actually exists. There isn’t just one, single book which vaguely mentions it, there are entire encyclopedias, libraries even, filled with information and scientific data relating to it. Oh, and an actually sick person would notice his symptoms himself, not having to rely on the doctor to point them out to him.

Ray isn’t offering a pill. If Ray were a doctor, his remedy would be to just go home and hope the disease goes away by itself. The very act of merely showing up at the doctor is what Ray believes can heal people. It doesn’t work that way in real life, and you and I both know that.

Atheists don’t deny the existence of the “medical companies” representing Christianity. We are painfully aware of your religion. We just don’t agree that you have the only, unique cure to a disease no one but you even knows exists.

The “age of this medical building” is obviously a reference to the numerous attempts to have Ray clarify whether he is a Young-Earth or an Old-Earth creationist. While I agree that it is not technically important to the discussion, it would greatly serve to clarify whether he ignores all scientific methods and conclusions, or just the ones that most directly conflicts with his beliefs. Then again, we’re all more than reasonably sure that if Ray were ever to be infected with a disease, he wouldn’t stay home and pray, but get himself to the nearest doctor, and ask to be given a pill.

Nothing like a hypocrite to present an analogy that makes more fun of himself than anyone else.

It was only those who believed that the Titanic was sinking that got into the lifeboats. Had they not believed, they would have stayed on board and gone down with the ship. The atheist says that he believes that he has no beliefs, but he his own mouth betrays him. He has strong convictions (beliefs) that this great ship isn’t going sink. So he stays with his beliefs. Water laps around his neck and he says all is well. Death has him marked, and he refuses to even put up a fight. Don’t be like them. God has provided a lifeboat for those who believe, repent and trust the Savior.

No, Ray. This is one of your more over used analogies, and it’s still as false as it ever was. You see, the poor people on the Titanic (once again you show you have no qualms using the tragedies of others to further your own cause) didn’t have to rely on the words of other people that the ship was sinking. They were perfectly capable of noticing their physical ship sinking in this very physical reality. That’s why they did jump into the life boats (the few of them that were available, that is). Tell me, Ray: if I were on a cruise ship with you and suddenly ran up to you, shouting “the ship is sinking”! Would you simply take my word for it and head straight for the life boats? Or would you dismiss me because you could see for yourself that the ship isn’t sinking at all?

In fact – and this is the rather ironic part – I would bet good money that, should the scenario that Ray painted for us ever occur, Ray would be the one who stayed behind. Why? Because, damnit, unless God himself told him the ship was sinking, he would refuse to believe it!

Imagine a father tells his beloved son that he was going to buy him a bike for Christmas. The father carefully explains that it would be a red bike, with gears, high tech wheels, and that it would be extremely light-weight. He explains to the boy that it’s completely paid for and says that he will get it as a gift first thing on Christmas morning. What would you think if the son says, “How do I know this will happen?” Such a question would be an insult to his father’s integrity. It means that he doesn’t trust his own father.

Ok, let’s compare God with bicycles, since this is apparently what Ray wants us to do:

• A bike is something man has constructed, using engineering and knowledge of basic physics, whereas God is a concept that is proposed to exist somewhere, but can’t be shown or explained in any possible way.
• A bike is a physical object, that can be verified to actually exist in our universe, whereas God is ethereal/invisible/a force/hiding/extra dimensional/beyond time and space… Just pick whatever makes you most comfortable.
• A bike has observable properties, like the fact that it’s exterior reflects light in the red spectrum, that the material it is made of is a kind of metal and that the wheels really do spin when force is applied, whereas God is… Well, no one even knows, so there’s nothing to observe or test against.
• The promise of the bike existing can be easily falsified by simply waiting for Christmas day. If you receive a bike, you know it exists. With God, however, you must wait until after you are dead and lifeless, making any observation meaningless for everyone but yourself. A dead witness can testify to absolutely nothing. Thus, for those of us still alive, the problem remains.

By this logic, if I promised that I would give you a trillion dollars next week, you would have to be thankful towards me. Anything else would be… Well, Ray explains it as well as always:

Even the most sinful of us is offended when a person doesn’t believe something we tell them. When we don’t believe someone it means that we think that they are a liar. They are devious, and they are therefore not worth trusting.

So, there you have it. Whenever someone doesn’t believe me, regardless of what it is, I have a right to be offended because the other person obviously thinks that I’m “devious” and “not worth trusting”. It doesn’t matter if what you promise is to buy back a beer on the next round at the bar, or eternal life in the heavens with almighty father God. It’s all the same to Ray.

How would you react if you were guilty of violating civil law, and your dad loved you so much that he sold his house and spent all of his hard–earned savings to pay the massive fine, so that you could get out of prison? Would you point at your father and accuse him of some sort of crime? How perverse would that be? If you did that, you would not only be despising his incredible sacrifice, but you would also reveal something horrible about your own character.

Ok, so let’s break it down:

First of all, Ray will jump between severe criminal law and punishment, and misdemeanor or purely civil case law whenever and however it is most convenient. Usually, he’ll liken regular, decent people with pedophiles, murderers and rapists, to emphasize that we are utter scum, and we don’t even deserve to exist. However, in this case, he wants to lower the impact of what the father, in this example, does for his son. To make it sound reasonable, the “crime” in question is merely a speeding ticket, and the “sacrifice” is the guy’s father having to take a loan to pay for it.

Secondly, the problem isn’t really with the perpetrator, but with the victim. If we take Ray’s example and imagine a father paying his son’s speeding ticket, the only thing that matters is that the fine has to be payed. There’s not even really a victim to speak of, it’s a perfect example of a victimless crime. This isn’t at all like the situation with God and Jesus that Ray describes. If it were, the son would be accused of something much more serious, like murder, adultery, theft, etc etc. In short, he would be guilty of essentially everything. Rightfully sentenced to death (ironically, Christians seldom seem have a problem with capital punishment), his father would then offer to be executed in his son’s place.

With a crime that isn’t victimless, and where you yourself were the victim, would you accept this switch? Would you think it fair that someone else took the punishment that was personally set for your attacker? What if the person who offered himself in the sentenced man’s stead was a man who wasn’t a man, and who would be resurrected three days after his execution? How would you, the victim, feel then?

This is my problem with Jesus and his “taking of our sins”. It’s a racketeering game, where humans are born already guilty of the crime of sin, and where Jesus has already decided to take your place at the execution, regardless of what you yourself want. Not only that, but for that you are also required to be thankful. Imagine that.

While Christians describe Jesus as the most loving man ever in existence, I can’t see his sacrifice as being anything other than completely selfish. He doesn’t care what we want, he doesn’t care what we feel and he did it all for himself – he was really God in mortal form, after all. He set a trap for humanity, and proceeded to create us already caught in it. Is that an act of love?

I am reminded of the many people in the world who are victims of spousal abuse, and who repeat to themselves that “he really does love me” or “she really does care about me”. They don’t, but they like to think the do. Just like God likes to think that we’re grateful to him for forcing us to worship him.

This week, Ray is speaking about God’s “rich mercy” in that he will save those who worship him from damnation for breaking a law they didn’t know about. This is how he likens mankind’s state of sin with a lowly thief getting caught stealing:

Think of a wanted criminal. He has committed multiple and serious crimes. One night, he is stealing in the dark of a moonless night. The darkness gives him a sense of security. Suddenly police spotlights flood the area. He is exposed. The darkness is no longer a cover for his unlawful activity. He hears a loud voice tell him that ten sharpshooters have his pounding heart in their sights. One wrong move and he is a dead man. At this point he has a choice. He can try and make a run for it and die, or he can lift his hands high in surrender and live.

This is, of course, ridiculous, as I already pointed out in the comments of his post. A thief is defined as someone who willingly and knowingly steals something for himself, thereby breaking the laws set up in most, if not all, countries of the world. Stealing something from someone else has direct consequences, that person might really need the stolen goods, they’re lives might even depend on it. However, this in no way represents the situation God allegedly put us in, and then offered us to buy our way out of.

See, God invented sin, and before he even told Adam and Eve what sin was, or how it worked, they happened to do one simple thing that God inexplicably thought was very, very bad. Now, claiming to not have known you were breaking the law when in fact you did is not a good legal defense. You can’t say that you “didn’t know” you weren’t allowed to murder that sweet old lady who lived next door, because every intelligent human being knows it’s wrong to murder someone. However, when compared with Adam and Eve, we see that the consequences of their unlawful act is the very thing that actually gave them that human sense of “right and wrong”. Before they did the thing they weren’t allowed to do, they didn’t know the very meaning of not being allowed to do something, or at least not why it would be considered “bad”.

That isn’t even all. God not only judged Adam and Eve for doing what they couldn’t possibly have known not to do, but also decided to judge each and every living descendant thereafter, for all eternity!

If you start from the viewpoint that God’s word is law, and every command of his must be followed, then I suppose it all makes sense. However, in our modern times, the “I was only following orders” defense is no longer valid. You’re required to question orders from even the utmost highest of authorities, and should they be unlawful then it’s your duty to disobey them. In that case, disobedience is actually considered “good”, turning the whole scenario of Adam and Eve disobeying God’s orders to begin with upside down.

So not only is Ray’s analogy directly false, but it also doesn’t make a whole lot of sense when you start to really question things. If any Christians read this, that is my advice to you: don’t avoid questioning God’s orders just like you question anyone else’s. God, too, has motives, and as I’ve just explained he doesn’t really play fair all the time either.