“Sudden Death” posts are for the Christian


Many unbelievers have taken me to task for publishing my weekly “Sudden Death” posts saying that in no way do these articles scare them into believing that there is a God. They tell me that they know that they will die someday but that it is no big deal. They also say that I have a morbid fixation on death, I belong to a death cult, that I’m a ghoul, and that I, myself, am the one who is scared to death about death.

Let me correct these misunderstandings: They are wrong. Dead wrong.

These posts are for Christians. These posts are reminders that any day, at any time, a non-believer can be taken in an unexpected tragedy and whisked off to Hell for eternity. These posts are not-so-subtle urgings to do something now because the time is short. These unpleasant reportings are simply the passing on of the truth of the Ultimate Statistic: that 10 out of 10 people will die.

When I read these sad reports I shake my head in sorrow on how untimely these deaths can be. I wonder if the person had a chance to hear the Gospel. I ponder eternity again and am thankful that God has given me another chance to live, and has enabled me to tell others about the life that is truly life.

My hope is that I will continue to speak of the hope that is available through Jesus Christ until the day of my death.

Sudden or otherwise.


  1. LOL
    Superstition is amusing

  2. “These posts are for Christians.”

    That’s what I thought, but thanks for clarifying.

  3. It makes sense that you should censor.

    After all the character of Jesus in the Bible was known for refusing to engage in discussion because he was afraid of being mocked or insulted.

    Oh wait the Jesus figure was nothing like that at all, I wonder why his followers are.

    I see many faults in the character of Jesus as portrayed in the Bible but cowardice is not one of them. If he were real I am sure he would be ashamed of the low caliber of those who claim to follow him.

  4. I wonder why if Christianity is 1) correct and 2) a superior worldview, those who follow it are imcapable of rational and open discussion. I mean simple things like allowing opposing views to be heard, answering opponents with evidence or logical argument, supporting ones own arguments with evidence, being honest and confident in ones presentation. These are the fundamentals of civilized debate yet Christians in general seem to lack any ability to participate in them. Instead Christian “debate tactics” are all about censoring the opposition, unsubstantiated assertions, circular arguments and appeals to authority, none of which have any place in civilized discussion.

    Not that atheists don’t also engage in such things, some do, some also engage in pointless insults or mockery, I have at times been among them. The distintion I am proposing is that atheists are able to support the premise of disbelief without using the above tactics and have demonstrated such, I have yet to see a case when theists have done likewise. A few such as William Craig for example attempt to and they deserve credit for that, however a dissection of such arguments invariably shows that they are founded on unsupported premises.

    I personally think it is the side that is incorrect that would have to resort to such things. That is one solid argument in favor of atheism. Atheism can be supported using honest and evidence supported argumentation, theism can not. It is also an argument in favor of atheism as being a better default position for society. As atheism does not require flawed, illogical, and unsupported arguments and theism does, atheism provides a default position of honesty and objectivity which theism denies by its very nature. So regardless of any theoretical existence of Gods, belief in them is by default a negative influence on society and leads to ignorance and dishonesty.

    Note in the interest of the aforementioned honesty, I must declare the conclusion I reached in the previous sentence is an inferred opinion not a statement of fact. My reasoning is well laid out but I can not claim a logical proof resulting from it.

    • God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the “wise”. So, you have two choices:

      1. Accept Christ and become “foolish” in the eyes of the world.

      2. Trust in yourself and ultimately be shamed by what you view as being foolish.

      Like it or not, this is a true dichotomy and you will not get around it. By choosing to do nothing (or choosing to mock), you are making your choice.

      I will summarize with the words of a street preacher sign that I once saw:

      “I am a fool for Jesus. Whose fool are you?”

      • Glenn You have asserted that it is a “true dichotomy” but you have not demonstrated such. In reality there are many other posssibilities so it is no dichotomy at all. For example, I can simply trust in myself and not be shown foolish at all, which seems to be the case. I can also trust in logic, or evidence and also be shown not foolish. Also there are those who trust in Mohammed ofr Buddha or Rev. Moon. While I consider them foolish, I do not see how they are any more or less foolish than those who trust in Christ.

        For something to be a “true dichotomy” You would have to show that there are really only two choices with only two outcomes resulting from those choices. You have not done so, nor is it possible you could. I do however welcome an attempt to do so. If you would be so kind please lay out a logical argument through which you can show this is a true dichotomy as you asserted.

  5. Glenn

    I am no ones fool. It is pity that you think people must be fools. I am sad for you.

  6. These posts are for Christians. These posts are reminders that any day, at any time, a non-believer can be taken in an unexpected tragedy and whisked off to Hell for eternity.

    That doesn’t seem like a contradiction to you, Steve?

    Why would a Christian need to know about non-believers meeting an unexpected tragedy? The only thing THEY would need to worry about is whether they’re prepared or not.

    • Because it is an incentive to evangelize! Or at least a reminder of why we do it.

      • Because it is an incentive to evangelize!

        This has bugged me for several days…

        What incentive is there? Haven’t you said explicitly, Steve, that evangelization can’t change hearts or minds? When you said this, I asked why you evangelize, and you told me in no uncertain terms that you do it because you’re told to.

        So… if all you’re doing is following instructions, wouldn’t something from scripture be a better incentive, instead of examples of non-believers who never would have been saved by an evangelist’s words?

        PS. I doubt you really believe evangelization is valuable ONLY because you’re told to do it by God. I think, deep down, you believe your words can persuade people. This notion of scaring/alerting people with stories of tragedy only confirms it.

      • Did you not read my Atheist Tuesday post? All the answers are there!

  7. I, for one, a believer, truly appreciate the needed reminder. It’s so easy to slip into the realm of complacency with life and ease away from the necessity of sharing the gospel with people…daily. It may be the first and/or the last time they will have to seriously consider the greatness of the Good News before they are suddenly ushered into eternity.

    Whatever you do, Steve, don’t kill Sudden Death!

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.