Christianity DEFEATED in 10 Seconds?! | Pastor Reacts

The rest of you, get out! Get out! Get out in the name of Jesus!

Everyone is different and everyone is not bad.

You cannot have a hate symbol against a hate group.

That is cruel, it is inhumane, it is not kind, it is not generous, and that is not a God worthy of worship.

These kinds of folks don't understand what they're talking about. If non-believers failed to dethrone Christ and defeat Christianity these last few thousand years, they're probably not going to be able to do it today.

Even if their mustache is tremendously awesome. Welcome back to another TikTok edition of Wise Disciple. My name is Nate Sala and I'm helping you become the effective Christian that you were meant to be.

That means thinking, speaking, and acting more like Jesus every single day. Amen? Make sure to like and subscribe to the channel. And if this video blesses you, would you do me a favor and share it with someone else so we can continue to get the word out about this ministry?

I'd really appreciate it. Also, don't forget about the super awesome discounts over at Logos .com forward slash Wise Disciple. I've partnered with Logos because it is the Bible software that I use to study the Bible and it will level up your knowledge of the scripture as well.

The link for that is below. The rest of you, get out! Get out! Get out in the name of Jesus!

Everyone is different and everyone is not bad, said Scooter, who is a turtle. Different is special.

Well, that was pretty short. So, yeah. Essentially, we're forced to choose between one of two types, right? On the one hand, there's this screaming Baptist pastor who, by the way, I'm pretty sure is a pastor here in Nashville, where I live.

I think his church is actually near me, where I'm at. I can't remember the name of it offhand. Or there is a trans person. So it's the screaming Baptist or the LGBTQ. Those are our two options here. Is that right?

This is what's called in debate a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is where you are given two options. Both are horrible. When in reality, there's a third option. There's even more than three options to choose from.

A false dichotomy is a way of framing your argument in order to get your audience to go along with your way of thinking. Clearly, this TikToker wants his or her audience to choose the LGBTQ because at least they're not screaming, right?

And it looks like they're saying encouraging things, right? Whereas you have this Baptist who's having a conniption fit and berating people to get out of his church. I rejected this whole framing because of the fact that this is a false dichotomy.

A false dichotomy, by the way, is a logical fallacy. So, oops. Here's a better way to look at it, actually. Either you choose the LGBTQ or you choose Jesus. How about that? Go along with the teaching of the LGBTQ or go along with the teaching of Jesus.

There's your choice, right? Because in clear ways, these two types of teaching and the lifestyles, they clash with each other. Particularly with where we place our sense of identity. Amen? And so we owe it to ourselves to investigate this clash of ideas and make an informed decision.

I already replied to you, and you're not a Christian anyway, so I'm not even really talking to you at this video. But I think we need to have a conversation about what a hate symbol is and what a hate group is when you're using it in the way that we collectively use the terms hate group and hate symbol.

As I said, calling the cross of St. Peter a hate symbol is an incredible reach.

So, what's going on here? This person is drawing upside-down crosses on their face. And somebody else, I guess, has taken offense to this and said it's a hate symbol. And now this person is defending what they're doing by doing it again, I guess?

Do I have this right?

When, like I said, not only is the cross of St. Peter originally, for the majority of its existence, been associated with Christianity, you need to understand that you cannot have a hate symbol against a hate group.

I'm just made of questions right now. What is the cross of St. Peter? Do they mean the cross of Christ? Peter died on a cross as well, according to church tradition. And that story has him pleading with his killers to crucify him upside-down because he didn't feel that he was worthy enough to die in the same exact way that Jesus did.

But when we think of the typical symbols of Christianity, we don't usually think of Peter's cross, right? We think of Jesus' cross, don't we? Somebody can help me in the audience. Maybe I'm just speaking as a Protestant and there are other traditions that do it differently.

I don't know.

I don't know if one exists, but if there is an anti-Nazi symbol or something, that's not a hate symbol against Nazis. That's just an anti-Nazi symbol. Just because something goes against what you think does not make it hateful or oppressive.

And I said with my words that I hate Christians. But that doesn't mean that this is a hate symbol or I'm part of a hate group. You can hate things without being part of an organized group that wants to exterminate other types of people.

I'm trying to find a nice way to say this. This is just a bunch of incoherent sentences strung together as if it were a conversation. Like, if I were trying to—if this was debate and I was trying to flow these statements, right, in order, I would immediately notice that, first, they said that there is no such thing as a hate symbol against a hate group.

Okay.

Well, then, what is a hate symbol? Like, is there some kind of a definition of a hate symbol that doesn't beg the question for this individual? In other words, is there some kind of definition and criteria that applies to every symbol objectively?

Or is it going to be a thing where it's like, ah, well, everyone who disagrees with me is making hate symbols, but whatever I do is fine. The same thing goes for, like, a hate group. What's the definition of a hate group?

That doesn't somehow slip into these kinds of logical problems. The next thing this person said was, well, just because something goes against what you think doesn't make it hateful or oppressive. Wait a second.

Isn't that literally Christianity? Doesn't that criteria literally fit with the Bible, where the Bible teaches that the LGBTQ lifestyle is not according to God's design? And to pursue this lifestyle is to reject your Creator, which ultimately leads to separation from Him in eternity?

Isn't that literally going against what you think? So, if that's the definition of what makes something not hateful, why is Christianity hateful, then, to you? I don't—help us Christians understand the logic here, honestly.

We're not following it. Finally, they admitted that they hate Christians, but, you know, but then the symbol that they're drawing on their face now is not a hate symbol? Like, what do we even do with that?

I, like, I'm trying to work the math out on that one, but it doesn't add up. It seems to me that this person could have, in their own musings, fully exempted themselves, using their own definitions, from being called a hater and creating hate symbols, until they literally just said they hate Christians.

I don't think this person is listening to their own words. You know, I had a friend like this. He was a lot like this. We used to get into philosophical conversations, and it seemed like the only goal he had was to not get backed into a corner, intellectually speaking.

And so, you know, he would say some of the absolute craziest, wackiest stuff, and then say, you know, like, well, I would respond by saying, like, well, hold on, wait a second, you know, a minute ago, you said this.

And he'd go, oh, no, no, no, no, no. And then he'd just come up with all kinds of contradictory statements that negated everything he said five seconds ago, in order to not get got. And I feel like that's what this person is doing.

Like, this person does not want to get got.

Because the thing is, when I wear these symbols, I'm not wearing them to make the Christians around me afraid and make them feel threatened. They feel that way anyway, but that's not the purpose. My purpose is to show solidarity with other victims of Christianity.

It is, at this point, purposeful ignorance and incompetence if you won't accept that there has been a lot of damage done by Christians and Christian groups and people who call themselves Christians. I don't care about the true spirit of Christianity or what Jesus says in the Bible, because the people that I'm talking about don't f***ing listen to that s*** anyway.

You know, every now and then someone will ask me, Nate, how do I answer this person in my life? You know, they're challenging me on my beliefs, and I don't know how to respond. Sometimes the answer is, don't engage at all.

You know? The reason I brought this up is, notice they just said they're not interested in what Jesus or the Bible really has to say about the issues. So, if it were the case that, first and foremost, Christians don't fear or hate the LGBTQ, but instead we actually care about them, we love them, and wish the very best for them, wouldn't this person want to know that?

Like, what if this person interacted with folks back in the day who were not serious about God or the Bible, but instead they used the Bible as a weapon to control people and hurt them? It does exist, friends.

Like, this is a real thing that happens to people. And then they get hurt, and then they deconstruct, and then they go off on these tirades because they threw the baby out with the bathwater, essentially.

Again, I mean, that's a false dichotomy, is it not? What if there were more than two choices between going to a building led by abusive leaders who don't know the God they profess to serve and embracing the LGBTQ lifestyle?

What if the solution is just to, I don't know, do the hard work of truly understanding the God of the Bible? And I get it, you know? That's hard for people who have been hurt by others in the Church. I don't take any of that lightly, and I don't think any of us should, okay?

I mean, my goodness. I have friends who have been hurt by those in Church. I've been hurt by people in Church. I know what that feels like. I'm just more concerned about what happens to folks who, in the name of being hurt, reject the true solution to their pain.

I'm more concerned about what happens to folks who, because they were hurt, reject the one who can truly heal them. This would be the equivalent of me saying, well, you know, I've been hurt by a doctor before, so therefore medicines and hospitals are not for me.

How would this person truly know that that's the case? Like, how would someone even figure out whether the problem was an abusive leader of Christianity or Christianity itself, if they're not interested in what Jesus or the Bible really has to say?

Me showing solidarity with other victims is not anywhere close to me being part of a hate group, especially when there is a clear aggressor and victim. If somebody saw me with this in the street, they wouldn't think, oh my God, I need to cross the street because I'm a Christian because this person might kill me.

But if I saw somebody with an actual hate symbol, like, I don't know, a swastika, and I saw them on the street, I would f***ing cross the street and I would leave because I know that they would probably want to kill me if they knew who I was.

So this is what I'm not following. So let's flip this around, right? If this TikToker saw a Christian walking down the street coming at them, what Christian symbol is equivalent to a swastika? So they keep talking about swastikas, but what is the equivalent to that in the Christian community?

Is it the cross? Is it like the cross right side up, the cross of Christ? So if a person is wearing a cross and they're walking on the street, is this TikToker suggesting that they would fear that the Christian is going to kill them?

The reason why I'm asking is because much of what is being communicated here is implicit. There's what's being said with words out loud, and then what's being implied behind the words. They're saying that if they walk down the street, Christians won't have to fear for their lives.

Okay, so is that to imply that the inverse is true? So this person fears for their life when a Christian walks down the street. And why? Because of a cross necklace? I'm trying to understand. I'm trying to understand this.

If they have the balls to be a killer, of course. Not every white supremacist, not every Christian, not every nationalist, not every person of a hate group is a killer. But enough of them are to where you have to be careful.

And just to be clear, I'm not trying to pull a direct comparison from Christians to Nazis. I'm just trying to use the swastika as an example of what an actual hate symbol is, not St. Peter's Cross.

Well, what would that be, though? That's my question. Like, what would be the actual hate symbol from a Christian?

Even though some Christians do align themselves with Nazi beliefs, I'm not going to say that all of them do. There's nothing wrong with being a Christian when you practice it quietly and privately. But you have to understand, when you're part of this type of religion or majority group, that there are people who are victims of your religion who are going to have feelings about it, and you can't f*** about it.

You know, I was reading a book. It was actually unrelated to this. And it was on pastors by Paul David Tripp, and he said something interesting. He said that many pastors fall victim to the stories that they tell themselves.

Now, he was writing in the context of pastors failing morally and other issues related to church government, but I don't think what he said is just true of pastors. I think it's true of everybody. This whole entire video was an example of someone falling victim to the stories they tell themselves.

They tell these stories, and these stories act as a framework to understand what's going on in their life and why. And it all hinges on these unique terms and phrases that, by the way, were never defined.

They were never critically evaluated, at least not in this video. Never investigated to see whether or not they cohere within a meaningful system. And so, what do we do with something like this, you know?

Number one, I would just remind you, not everyone deserves an answer. Did you see that video I did recently? If not, you should take a look at it. Because the Bible describes certain kinds of people that we should not engage.

And I think that it's always your responsibility to determine who you're talking to before you fully engage, okay? But number two, if you do engage, ask the right kinds of questions that seek to clarify, to probe for reasonability and logical coherence, and then wait and listen to the answers.

Because very often, posing the question will do a lot of the heavy lifting to force someone to do something that maybe they've never done before, which is to figure out whether their beliefs are justified in the first place.

Hey, real quick, I hope this video is blessing you. Would you do me a favor and like and subscribe to the channel? It really does help me to get this video out to more and more people. I really do appreciate it.

To all my atheist friends out there, here's how you defeat any Christian in, like, ten seconds with one simple question. Anytime a Christian is trying to share the gospel with you, or anytime you see a street preacher on the street, just stop and say, hey, I appreciate you trying to share the gospel with me, but do you understand what the kingdom of God is?

Jesus was asked over 150 questions in the gospel, and he only answered three of them directly. All the rest he answered with deeper questions, or by telling stories that always started like, the kingdom of God is like, and then he would tell a story.

Those are called parables. And none of the Christians understand what those are. I'm trying to force the Christians to learn and, like, seek understanding, and so I'm just giving you the cheat code. Just ask them, if you don't understand the kingdom of God through the parables, why are you teaching me?

Doesn't the Bible say that teachers will be judged more strictly? If you don't even understand the parables, aren't you endangering yourself of causing me to stumble, which the Bible says would cause a millstone to be tied around your neck and you'd be thrown into the ocean?

It actually says it's worse than having a millstone tied around your neck and being thrown in the ocean. This dirty little secret in the Christian community is that none of them understand the parables, and therefore they don't understand the kingdom of God, and therefore they shouldn't be teaching you anything.

Okay, so I'm going to assume that at some point he's going to tell us what the kingdom of God and the parables actually mean, right? Particularly as a pastor and a Bible teacher, I would love to hear his answer.

But notice the original premise was, he's going to show atheists how to defeat any Christian in 10 seconds. And then he says, ask them about the kingdom of God, and ask them about the parables. So he's suggesting that no Christian today understands the kingdom of God or the parables.

Okay, but wait a second. What's this, though? John 5, verse 21 says, For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will. For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.

Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, here it is, whoever hears my word and believes Him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Now, this is not one of the primary passages that Christians point to with regard to the gospel message proper, but, I mean, nevertheless, you can see the gospel in this passage, right? So here's the question.

Is the kingdom of God referenced here? Is this a parable that Jesus is giving here? Nope. A similar sentiment is communicated in Romans 10, verse 9, it says, If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Again, is the kingdom of God referenced here? Is this a parable? No. Why are you bringing this up, Nate?

Great question. Let's say there's a brand new Christian who's inspired and on fire, you know? They're out there because they got saved and they want to share the gospel with someone else, right? Then this man walks up to the Christian and says, Well, excuse me, do you understand the kingdom of God?

Do you understand the parables? What if they don't? Does that do any work to undermine their understanding of the gospel? No, not necessarily. Not when you have passages like the one I read to you. And I didn't even go to Matthew 28, right?

The Great Commission. It's as if there's this suggestion that the gospel is only communicated when Jesus speaks of the kingdom of God and when Jesus teaches in parables, and then never anywhere else. And that's just not true.

All they're doing is taking Bible verses that they think they understand, loading them up in like a clip, like guns, and shooting them at you. We're trying to explain to you—.

Well, that's true, though. That's actually a legitimate critique of Christians, right? Christians do this, some of them. They load up the Bible passages and they just spray them at people like buckshot.

You know? As if the point of this endeavor is just to say words instead of helping the lost understand the word. Right? There's a difference. And, you know, when it comes to stuff like this, I think it's really helpful for us in terms of engaging others to be thinking more about Philip's encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch.

You know? When it comes to stuff like this. I mean, there's our model of communication.

Through their own esoteric interpretation of something, what things might mean, or give you an analogy that's called exhortation rather than evangelism, but none of them understand the parable. Guaranteed.

You hit them with the question about the parables. Or better yet, as atheists, go study the parables yourself. Read the Gospels. Read the Gospel of John. I pray that you get saved through doing it. Many have been saved.

C .S. Lewis among them.

I'm confused now. Is this guy an atheist? Is he trying to defeat Christians, or is he trying to make more Christians? Like, what is going on right now?

Trying to disprove God. And my hope is that you will seek the Lord, hoping to destroy Christians, and God will pull you into it like he did Paul. I pray that you all become Paul. I pray that you atheists enter the Kingdom of Heaven before we do.

I pray that Christians are made low in their arrogance in assuming they know what they're talking about. I pray that humility sweep over the Christian community, and we realize that we have no idea. Alright, my brothers and sisters, now you guys have no excuse.

You have to go learn the parables. Atheists are going to be asking you about it, and if you don't know, may their blood be on your hands for not knowing. And if you can't figure it out, if you read the parables and it's just like Chinese to you, that means you have to seek the Lord for understanding because you don't have eyes to see and ears to hear, which means you probably shouldn't be teaching in the first place.

And so my hope for you is not only that you learn these things, that it deepens your relationship and your understanding of Scripture, not just your knowledge of Scripture, but your understanding of it.

Not just what it says, but what it actually means. And I pray that if you aren't saved, that any false converts come to the knowledge of the Lord through this, and that if you are saved, that you have a deeper, more passionate relationship with God.

Salvation is not a checklist. It is not a formula. It is a relationship, and that's explained in the parables.

Interesting. That was a twist, okay? He got me. I got God, you know? It started out, hey, I'm going to teach you guys how to defeat any Christian in 10 seconds, right? Then it became, boy, I sincerely hope that you all know the Bible and get saved.

I don't... I don't know how to proceed at this point. I think you malfunctioned me. I suppose it would be a good thing for atheists to read the Bible, you know, for any old reason, right? Just so that they encounter the words of the living God for themselves, right?

However, I'm not sure I would have started off with his initial premise. You know, like I said, the kingdom of God and the parables are... I mean, they're incredibly important to read and understand, but they're not the only places where we get the gospel message.

And so to approach a Christian in order to undermine them by asking the question would be incredibly ineffective, especially when you find a Christian who knows the answers to those questions. By the way, do you know what the parables mean?

I'm about to go through the parables with my Patreon community in our Bible study, so are you one of the Christians that this man was talking to at the end of the video? You should check out my Patreon.

It's totally free to read the Bible with me. We do it Monday through Friday. The link is in the notes below. Anyway, let's move on.

When I think of Abrahamic faith, I think of slaughterings and burnings and mutilations, all in the name of God. I would never worship a God that would send someone to an eternal lake of fire to be burned forever for the simple fact of non-belief, when that deity knows what it would take to convince every single person on this planet that is cruel, it is inhumane, it is not kind, it is not generous, and that is not a God worthy of worship.

So it's interesting, you know, I've heard this stuff before. Have you, by the way? Has anyone ever challenged you in this particular way? And it's always interesting to me because the way it hits my ear, I can tell that they don't understand what they're talking about.

Let me back up. This is an incredibly emotional issue, and I know a lot of people who would say the exact same thing that this gentleman just said, and they would do so with the utmost sincerity, you know, which I suppose goes for this man, too.

I mean, he probably says all of this with the utmost sincerity. So I'm trying to take what was just said with a charitable view of who said it, okay? The problem is these kinds of folks don't understand what they're talking about.

Notice the way they talk about salvation and damnation. I would never worship a God who would send someone to hell for the simple fact of non-belief, right? That's what he said. Hold on a second. That's not what the Bible teaches, though.

That's not what the Bible teaches about what sends people to hell. So Jesus told Nicodemus what the problem is. John 3, verse 19, look at this. And this is the judgment. The light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.

Look around in verse 19. Do you see non-belief anywhere in there? Where is non-belief in this verse? Where are people judged for the simple fact of non-belief? John 17, 3, and this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

So is the basis of eternal life, which is what we're all talking about when we talk about salvation, is that merely belief? Is that what Jesus just said right here? I think a lot of folks like this gentleman here, they know just enough of the Bible to think that they truly understand what it's talking about when they actually don't, which is really a dangerous place to be because the Bible shows us that our eternal lives are at stake when we engage God's word.

That means we need to take what it says very seriously and seek to understand what it's teaching. The bottom line is, eternal life is an intimate knowing. That's what the word means. It's the kind of intimate knowledge that Adam had with his wife, Eve, where out of this type of close intimacy, children are born, which is not at all to make this sexual, what I'm talking about with the Lord here.

I'm just pointing out that the type of knowledge that the Bible is describing is intimate. Genesis 4, verse 1, now Adam knew—there it is—Eve, his wife, and she conceived. He knew her so intimately, they were so close in this way, that children were produced out of this closeness.

That's the kind of knowing that God desires for his children. He wants you to know him intimately and vice versa. In regular parlance, we call this a relationship. That is the hinge upon which our eternity turns.

It's an intimate relationship with God. But when you shrink all of that down to belief and non-belief, essentially, what you're doing is you're treating this relational intimacy with God described in the Scripture as if it were merely assenting to the fact that he exists.

And that's not what the Bible's talking about. As a matter of fact, the Bible says that the demons even have this kind of belief. James 2, verse 19, you believe that God is one, you do well, even the demons believe and shudder.

See, this man's idea of belief is actually the definition of what demons already have about God. It's not about merely assenting to the fact that God exists. That's not what the Bible means by belief.

It's getting at something much greater, and this person doesn't understand that. It's clear as day.

What's more, it would be damning all, I mean, the vast majority of everyone who's ever existed for not believing in him for a set of rules that he created.

The question I would ask at this point, by the way, is what is a God worthy of worship? Okay, so you say that Yahweh is not a God worthy of worship. In your opinion, what is a God that is worthy to be worshiped?

Because I suspect that the answer is no God. So I'm curious to see what that criteria looks like for this person, because it seems like the way that they made the comment, well, that, you know, he may be someone who's willing to worship the right kind of God, right?

So I'm just curious to know what that kind of God looks like, other than himself.

The Christian position is that the gift of, the invitation that God gives to the people that he made is so generous and came at such a high price.

A high price, he gave up a weekend.

That, uh...

He gave up a weekend.

Right.

He was God before.

Yeah, yeah.

He was God during, and he's God now. He gave up a weekend. If I knew right now that I could go off and die, and then not die, how, where's the gift in that, number one?

Wow.

I'm trying to think where this talking point originated, because none of what this man is saying is original. These are all talking points that someone else, you know, others have made in the past. What's interesting about this argument is, it implies that the significance of an event is based on the duration of time it took.

Do you see that? So if something took a weekend, well, then it must not be a big deal, right? Except, wait a second. A lot of horrific damage can take place in a single weekend, as well as a lot of wonderful good can take place.

And not even in a weekend, like in a single moment, right? I remember where I was when I turned on the news in September, 23 years ago, and discovered that over 3 ,000 people lost their lives. And that didn't take a weekend at all, did it?

No. What makes an event significant is what takes place in the event itself, not how long it takes. And what's not surprising, in the slightest to me at all, is that this man completely leaves out the moment that Jesus takes on the sins of the world and makes a way for all who repent and follow him to be redeemed and have right relationship with God again.

So that's what's going on in the thing that happened in the weekend that he thinks is not a big deal. Mankind now has the ability they never had to return to the Edenic intimate relationship they once had with God in the beginning.

That's the greatest news ever told right there.

Look at the grace that has been extended to me.

Yeah.

And I received it.

I want to make sure I can get it.

Yes. Okay.

So the way that I would commonly think of it is that if I gave up the life of my own son in exchange for your life, that it is okay then for me to make the invitation that God makes towards us.

So I don't want to be too critical of this Christian. I think he's a Christian. And he's trying to defend the faith here, it looks like. But these kinds of human analogies to explain what took place on the cross and in heaven almost always are unhelpful.

What I would have done instead is to lean in and ask this person some questions.

Okay.

Are you suggesting that the duration of time for an event is what gives it value? Or would you say that the content of the event is what gives it value? Do you know what actually happened on the cross?

Do you know what the Bible teaches? Here's a better question. What is a God worthy of your worship? Right? Describe this God. I'm curious. These kinds of questions force your interlocutor to justify their position with some good reasoning.

Okay.

Instead of trying to defend your own Christian convictions, ask leading questions to make your interlocutor defend themselves.

Is that moral?

Is it moral?

Is it moral? On a corporeal level.

Jesus took on the penalty that I deserve for the sins that I committed. If we're looking at, you know, the traditional Christian faith. And so I receive his gift of grace as a payment for the things that I had done.

So your question, is it moral or is it just, is it fair? I'm able as a Christian to say, no, it's not fair because I deserve the punishment that he took on himself.

And I think...

A little gospel there at the end there. Yeah, this kind of conversation, I mean, it really should never make you nervous or feel like you need to defend yourself. Even when you hear difficult things like what this atheist just said.

Just remember, the one who makes the claim bears the burden to prove it. Most of what this man said were claims. So when you hear the claims, just sit back, ask questions, and probe for reasonability and logical coherence.

And what you'll discover is, if non-believers failed to dethrone Christ and defeat Christianity these last few thousand years, they're probably not going to be able to do it today. Even if their mustache is tremendously awesome.

All right.

Well, that was an interesting exercise. But now it's your turn.

Okay?

How would you respond to these kinds of challenges if they were lobbed at you? Let me know in the comments below. Believe it or not, I was a lot like the last atheist, particularly in my attitude and rebellion against God.

And if He can save me, He can absolutely do it for these non-believers, too. So let's never forget to pray for these people. It's not too late for them. There's still time to repent and give their lives to Christ.