Atheist Tuesday: Seek the Lord!


Periodically, in my daily reading of Charles Spurgeon’s devotional called “Morning and Evening,” I’ll come across one penned especially for the unbeliever. I read this on April 1 but thought it appropriate to post now as an encouragement to the non-born-again who visit here. I hope you enjoy it.

“It is time to seek the Lord.”
Hosea 10:12

This month of April is said to derive its name from the Latin verb aperio, which signifies to open, because all the buds and blossoms are now opening, and we have arrived at the gates of the flowery year. Reader, if you are yet unsaved, may your heart, in accord with the universal awakening of nature, be opened to receive the Lord.

Every blossoming flower warns you that it is time to seek the Lord; be not out of tune with nature, but let your heart bud and bloom with holy desires. Do you tell me that the warm blood of youth leaps in your veins? then, I entreat you, give your vigour to the Lord. It was my unspeakable happiness to be called in early youth, and I could fain praise the Lord every day for it. Salvation is priceless, let it come when it may, but oh! an early salvation has a double value in it.

Young men and maidens, since you may perish ere you reach your prime, “It is time to seek the Lord.”

Ye who feel the first signs of decay, quicken your pace: that hollow cough, that hectic flush, are warnings which you must not trifle with; with you it is indeed time to seek the Lord.

Did I observe a little grey mingled with your once luxurious tresses? Years are stealing on apace, and death is drawing nearer by hasty marches, let each return of spring arouse you to set your house in order. Dear reader, if you are now advanced in life, let me entreat and implore you to delay no longer. There is a day of grace for you now—be thankful for that, but it is a limited season and grows shorter every time that clock ticks.

Here in this silent chamber, on this first night of another month, I speak to you as best I can by paper and ink, and from my inmost soul, as God’s servant, I lay before you this warning, “It is time to seek the Lord.” Slight not that work, it may be your last call from destruction, the final syllable from the lip of grace.


  1. Glenn – I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make in paragraph 2.

    Paragraph 3, You’re so way off I’m not sure how to real you back in.

    I suppose you meant “causal” universe

    Typo, yes. So I can just ignore paragraph 3? Good, because you were trippy.

    Do you honestly think you are just one big chemical reaction?

    You’re getting trippy again. Obviously, no. I understand that you feel better by answering those questions with “God.” To me, that just stops the questions rather than actually answering any of them.

    Do you have a positive evidence for your God, or is this just “You can’t answer all the big questions, therefore God”?

  2. err…. Meant to say, “Just a big chemical reaction? Obviously, no.

  3. err. err. Of course, I also meant to close the italics after “just.”

  4. Glenn wrote: “If we really are created by randomness,

    I can’t speak for perdita, but I’m a determinist, so everything after and including this sentence is a strawman.

    What caused the universe?

    I don’t know.

    Better yet, what caused life?

    I don’t know.

    Why do you exist?

    Because my brain is functioning.

    Why do you care what anyone else thinks?

    Because I find what people think to be interesting, especially if they think differently than I do. If you want the meta-answer, then it’s because of the deterministic result of the emergent properties of neurons.

    Why do you have an innate understanding that there is something greater than you?

    Define “greater” in that context.

    If your question is basically “Why do you have an innate understanding that there is a God?”, then my answer would be:

    I don’t.

  5. Glenn
    Sophist that you are you wrote “Vocabulary is not understanding.”

    Correcrt as far as it goes. Scientific jargon is merely a shorthand way of describing a process. Instead of giving the same description of a process over and over again they use the scientific terms.

    So what you wrote is just shere sophistry.

    Try again.

  6. Glen obfuscated “Can we really cause anything to exist? I mean, sure, a man and a woman are required for a baby to come into being. But unless you are aware of some new science, there is certainly no guarantee. ”

    You do not have to have a guarantee in order for me to correctly assert that a man and a woman create a child. The term “create” may be defined as bringing into existence. No guarantee necessary.

    If you want it put out in plain langayge when a couple attempt reproduction and FAIL they have UNSUCCESSFULLY attempted to create a child. If they try and succeed they have SUCCESSFULLY attempted same.

    You then tried to shift the goal posts by writing “And you absolutely cannot determine what that life will look like if and when it does occur.”

    Irrelevant! A couple procreating are meeting the definition of creation. Anything hich meets the definition of a thing is that thing. Procreation meets one of the definitions of creation therefore it IS creation. Procreate and create are synonyms. Any other claim or assertion is shere sophistry.

    Glenn tried to mislead us by asserting “So, I would have to say that although we can mix the ingredients in a bowl, until we have some control over what happens, we are not “causing” something to exist, in the strictest sense.”

    What a load of rubbish. If I mix certain ingredients in a bowl I have created a cake. If I bring together sperm and egg and the result is the egg is fertilised I have created life.

    Glenn then tried to muddy the issue by writing “It would be analogous to putting a seed in the ground and watering it. Did we cause it to grow?”

    There is a big difference. See the sperm comes from ME the EGG from a woman. We may well come together with the intention of creating new life. According to you even if we succeed we’ve created NOTHING because Glenn has changed the definition of the word “create” to a whole new meaning.

    I repeat the word “create” may be defined as to bring forth or produce. If a couple produce a child they have created that child by that definition.

    If you disagree with the definition perhaps you should go and inform the writers of dictionaries. Tell them YOU can’t be wrong…your EGO tells you that you MUST be right so obviously you are. I’m sure they’ll agree. 🙂

  7. @ Glenn

    Let’s look at the dictionary definition shall we?

    Synonyms (Grouped by Similarity of Meaning) of verb procreate

    Sense 1:
    reproduce, procreate, multiply

    make, CREATE [my emphasis].

    I don’t care if the great God Glenn thinks he can invent new words. I’ll stick with english thanks. and in the english language procreate and create are synonyms.

    Now let’s look up the dictionary definition of a word which applies to you:

    ar·ro·gant (r-gnt)
    1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
    2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one’s superiority toward others.

    having or showing an exaggerated opinion of one’s own importance, merit, ability, etc.; conceited; overbearingly proud an arrogant teacher an arrogant assumption

    Tell me Glenn when was the last time your ego allowed you to admit you were wrong? Hmmm? Because from what I’ve seen anytime you’re shown to be wrong you just leave the discussion. No admission you just go and then sometime later make exactly the sqame claims all over again. Sounds like an exagerated opinion of the superiority of your own assumptions to me. And as we’ve just seen if a thing matches a description of a thing then it is that thing.

    Now will you admit error? My guess is 1) you’ll leave the discussion or 2) you’ll ignore me or 3) you’ll use the tu quoque fallacy to try and cover up your blunder.

    Show me I’m wrong Glenn. Show me you can admit to your mistakes.

  8. @ Everyone except Glenn

    It seems we have a new entrant in the fundie word redefinition project.

    In Glenglish the word “create” means “not only the origin of a process of reproduction but the absolute control over every stage of developement and total knowledge concerning the end result.”

    While in the English language the word create may be defined as “to bring into being, cause to exist, produce”.

    I think we have a winner here. Glenn has invented a whole new language all for himself. Hey Glenn I has a suggested definition:
    Glenn’s ego in Glennglish may be defined as God. 🙂

  9. Glenn, when you ask your ‘what causes’ questions, why should I consider supernatural over natural processes? Questions that used to be answered with supernatural explanations (like where does lightening come from) are now answered with natural explanations. What reason would I have to buck this trend?

  10. Glenn, in one of my comments to you I mistyped “reel” as “real.” Are you going to make another trippy paragraph on that?

  11. perdita,

    Why should you consider supernatural over natural? Burying your head in the sand and ignoring the supernatural is always an option. I just hope that you won’t take that approach.

    Here it is in a nutshell: God doesn’t just allow the motion of every molecule. He causes it. Without His constant upholding of this universe, it would cease to exist. Can you ignore that? For a short time. But eventually you will agree. For your own sake, it’s better if you figure it out now.

    Jesus Christ doesn’t really care about your intellect or your prowess. He is willing to save you, but it will be on His terms instead of your own.

  12. Christopher,

    Thank you for so thoroughly demonstrating the truth of Jesus’ statements about the human heart.

  13. Glenn wrote:

    Why should you consider supernatural over natural? Burying your head in the sand and ignoring the supernatural is always an option. I just hope that you won’t take that approach.

    When, in the history of man, has a supernatural explanation for something ever been the correct answer?

    From my perspective, supernatural explanations have a .000 batting average.

    For example, take explanations of the sun’s movement, or lightning, or rain, or earthquakes, or the stars, or an eclipse, or sandstorms, or the Aurora Borealis, or how the camel got his hump, or how the leopard got his spots… and so on.

  14. Glenn wrote:

    God doesn’t just allow the motion of every molecule. He causes it.

    Please support this assertion.

    Without His constant upholding of this universe, it would cease to exist.

    Please support this assertion.

  15. Glenn wrote “Thank you for so thoroughly demonstrating the truth of Jesus’ statements about the human heart.”

    I didn’t know that Jesus spoke about the worship of Ego. Because you did notice that you neither responded to My points nor admitted that you were wrong. You little ego worshipper you. 🙂

    Then again when you consider what Jesus was declared to have said about the Pharisees He [Jesus] described ego worship very well. Perhaps you should read those verses and apply them to yourself Glenn. It might shock you out of your ego worship but I doubt it.

  16. Evidence provided so far:

    We can tell the difference between naturally shaped rocks and rocks sculpted by humans, therefore all rocks are created and there must be a creator.

    Aren’t humans really unique?

    You can’t answer the big questions.

    God causes everything, therefore God exists.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.