"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. 1But all these things will they do to you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin. He that hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no other did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But this comes to pass, that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause." John 15:18-25


Is this something new, this hatred for Yahshua the Son of Man, and for Father Yahweh?  Why would Yahshua make such a statement?  What would cause such hatred?


For the wrath of Yahweh is revealed from heaven against all lawlessness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; because that which is known of Yahweh is manifest in them; for Yahweh manifested it to them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and majesty; that they may be without excuse: because that, knowing Yahweh, they glorified him not as Elohim, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasoning's, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible Elohim for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore Elohim gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: for that they exchanged the truth of Yahweh for a lie, and
worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause Yahweh gave them up to vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.
And even as they refused to have Elohim in their knowledge, Elohim gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hateful to Elohim, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: who, knowing the ordinance of Yahweh, that they that practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practice them. Romans 1:18-ff


They are turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, who refused to hear my words; and they are gone after other elohim to serve them: the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers. Therefore thus says Yahweh, Behold, I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape; and they shall cry to me, but I will not listen to them.  Jeremiah 11:10-11


What stands out in these two passages?  The refusal to keep the commandments, exhibited by outright rebellion against the ordinances of Yahweh.  This rebellion was plainly exhibited from Genesis 3 on down to our era.  I would like you to read the following article for some reference on a major source of unbelief and lack of faith.




- IMPACT No. 257 November 1994
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.*

© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved

It seems that atheism has become the official stance of America's school system. One way in which many schools and teachers are attempting to indoctrinate students is by the use of new terms to hide the actual intent of the policy maker. For example, the current euphemism for an atheist is a
non-theist or naturalist. Even if a naturalistic explanation is not true, scientists must still try to explain all events from this worldview. That the atheistic belief structure is the norm in science was forcefully brought out by Nobel Laureate Weinberg as follows: (Romans 1:25 Emphasis mine)

Among today's scientists, I am probably somewhat atypical in caring about such things [as G-d]. . . .
on matters of religion, the strongest reaction expressed by most of my fellow physicists is a mild surprise and amusement that anyone still takes all that seriously. Many physicists maintain a nominal affiliation with the faith of their parents . . . but few . . . pay any attention to their nominal religion's theology.... Most physicists today are not sufficiently interested in religion to even qualify as practicing atheists.[1](Romans 1:28 Emphasis mine)

In Carl Sagan's words, the cosmos—the physical universe—"is all that is or ever was or ever will be."[2] No G-ds, angels, devils, or other spirit creatures exist—only that which scientists can measure with their instruments—which means they believe that only the visible, physical, tangible, universe exists. Of course, these scientists have a belief structure, which Harvard's Stephen J. Gould notes includes the conclusion that humans are ". . . a wildly improbable evolutionary event . . ."[3] and ". . . a cosmic accident . . ."[4] and that if the evolutionary tape were played again and again, humans would not be expected—even if it were replayed a million times or more. This worldview stands in direct contrast to the creationist's belief that humans were fashioned for a purpose. The dominant view of naturalistic scientists is that we are only "a detail" of history and do not exist for a purpose. [5] The only purpose of life, they teach, is that which we arbitrarily give to it if we so choose. Gould feels that it liberates us to give life any purpose we want which, he believes, is not nihilistic, because it offers us "maximum freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way."[6] The religious worldview, in contrast, believes that some morals and values are superior to others and, in the long run, living a moral G-d-fearing life is most conducive to happiness. This conclusion has been well documented by empirical research.[7]

Knowing that their functional atheism could hinder them from obtaining grants or public support, scientists often skip around these conclusions in their writing and teaching. Some, though, are open and honestly reveal their atheism. One example is William B. Provine, professor of biological science at Cornell. He notes that at the beginning of his class about 75% of his students "were either creationists or believed in purposive evolution" guided by G-d or a divine power. Research on his incisive, direct, hard-hitting teaching on origins (how students often describe his lectures) reveals that the number of creationists and those who "believed in purposive evolution" dropped to about 50% by the end of the course.[8] No one has hauled him into court for his openly indoctrinating students in atheism, and indeed, scientists in general have applauded him.

Scientists generally not only support Provine's one-sided teaching but are determined not to allow the other side in the classroom. Further, scientific orthodoxy teaches that human existence has no G-d-given purpose, but is a chance event, a blip on the radar screen in the infinity of time. No G-d had any part in the creation. The authors of one of the leading biology textbooks openly state:

Darwin compiled enough support for his theory of descent with modification to convince most of the scientists of his day that organisms evolve without supernatural intervention. Subsequent discoveries, including recent ones from molecular biology, further support this great principle—one that connects an otherwise bewildering chaos of facts about organisms.[9]

This view has the backing of the scientific community and the state, and attempts by professors to discuss favorably another view, when challenged by the university or state, have in the past proved ultimately futile.[10] [11]

It is obvious that an attempt to censor the teaching of "the other side of atheism" in the college classroom is nothing more than a blatant attempt to insure that only one side of the controversy is presented. Those professors whom the non-theistic naturalistic evolutionists believe will influence the students in a positive direction toward theism are often fired, censored, or "reassigned."

If naturalistic evolution is true, why do its true believers have to use political or bullying tactics to quiet creationists (as this author knows from personal experience)? Why do they censor evidence in favor of creationism in textbooks, and intimidate creationist students and teachers to accept the evolutionist party line under penalty of failure, dismissal, or worse? The reason must be that non-theists have determined (for deeply held philosophical reasons) that others must be taught to believe as they do and accept only atheism or naturalism in science.

Another more important reason may be their intolerance toward creationists. Those who criticize creationists rarely define the term. A creationist is one who believes that G-d created or directed the creation of the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. [12] The core of the opposition of universities and the state is against any theistic worldview. The writer has yet to find, in a review of dozens of college biology textbooks for class selection, a single one in the past decade or more that espouses or objectively discusses even theistic evolution in a positive way, let alone special creation. Even the idea of progress is anathema in biology:

If evolution is held to be progressive, then it is all too easy to see it as being directed, following an arrow of improvement through time. And that is all too redolent of the notion of "divine" design of pre-Darwinian days.... "There is a profound unwillingness to abandon a view of life as predictable progress . . . because to do so would be to admit that human existence is nothing but a historical accident. That is difficult for many to accept." [13]

And as Gould stresses, the very idea of progress is a "noxious" idea in biology that must be avoided, because it hints that G-d exists, something that the science establishment cannot stomach. Conversely, he views human consciousness as a "quirky accident" that just happened. [14] No wonder one who believes that life has a divine purpose and that a creator G-d exists is so poorly tolerated and not to be trusted in the classroom. An unbiased viewpoint forces the conclusion that America has now adopted a state religion, supported by billions of tax dollars and enforced by the power of law. That state religion is atheism.

Many scientists are decidedly not neutral on the topic of G-d. Eminent scientist, Oxford University zoologist, and author Richard Dawkins openly says that his best selling book, The Selfish Gene,

. . . brings home to people the truth about why they exist, something they previously took for granted. No one had given them such a ruthless, starkly mechanistic, almost pointless answer. "You are for nothing. You are here to propagate your selfish genes. There is no higher purpose to life." One man said he didn't sleep for three nights after reading The Selfish Gene. He felt that the whole of his life had become empty, and the universe no longer had a point.
Another way of putting it is of people losing religious faith. People now felt they understood what it was all about, where previously they had been fobbed off with religious pseudo-answers. [15]

And as to the effect of evolution on the development of Dawkins' ideas, he makes it clear:

It was a mind-blowing experience to discover Darwinism and realize there were alternative explanations for all the questions with traditional religious answers. I became irritated at the way the religious establishment has a stranglehold over this kind of education. Most people grow up and go through their lives without ever really understanding Darwinism. They spend enormous amounts of time learning ch--ch teachings. This annoys me, out of a love of truth. To me, religion is very largely an enemy of truth. [16]

Dawkins is very open about his views—all theism is to be condemned, including theistic evolution.
How effective has been what now amounts to a relentless campaign to banish any support of the theistic worldview in our public schools and colleges? Eugenie Scott, the leader of the world's largest organization dedicated to advancing naturalism and counteracting the work of creationists bemoaned, ". . . maybe there is something we can do to raise our esprit de corps. . . . it's tough out here in the trenches where 49% of American adults think man was created in his present form 10,000 years ago."[17]

While some allege that there is no conflict between theism and Darwinism, the fact is that the majority of leading evolutionists are atheists, or at best non-theists for whom G-d is irrelevant to their daily lives and their views about the natural world and the universe.[18] In an extensive study of scientists, Roe found in her sample of sixty-four eminent scientists that only three were actively involved in a church and "all of the others have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and church plays no part in their lives...."[19]

Probably a majority of evolutionists would agree with Julian Huxley's pronouncement that "Darwinism removed the whole idea of G-d as the Creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion." Others might go further and accept the Dawkinsian view that the idea of a Creator is refuted by our human inability to account for His origin. A minority might echo Ashley Montagu's statement that "There is no incompatibility between belief in G-d and the belief that evolution is the means by which all living things have come into being." But I suspect they would, in some cases at least, echo it with more than trace of tongue-in-cheek![20]

When one compares the pessimistic, nihilistic worldview that evolution teaches—that life has no purpose or reason—with the Judeo-Ch--stian worldview that men and women are a special creation of a loving, caring G-d who provides for them and will guide them through the trials and travails of life, a G-d whose love for us is so great that He created the universe and all of its wonders specifically for our benefit and has given us the opportunity of everlasting life in paradise, it is obvious why most Americans prefer the latter view. In Scott's words, "I have been saying for years that the reason creationists can win the allegiance of some of the general public is that all we scientists do is present evidence, but creationists go after the heart and soul. In the words of Tom Lehrer, 'They have all of the good songs.'" [21]

© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved

[1] S. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory; The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature (Pantheon Books, New York, 1992), pp. 256-257.
[2] C. Sagan, Cosmos (Random House, New York, 1980) p. 4.
[3] S. Gould, Wonderful Life; The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History (W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1989), p. 291.
[4] Ibid., p. 44.
[5] Ibid., p. 291.
[6] Ibid., p. 323.
[7] Harold Cox and Andre Hammonds, "Religiosity, Aging, and Life Satisfaction" in Journal of Religion and Aging 5(1/2) 1-21 (1989).
[8] W. Provine, Creation/Evolution 32, 62-63 (1993).
[9] N. Campbell, L. Mitchell and J. Reece. Biology: Concepts and Connections (Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Redwood City, CA, 1994), p. 258.
[10] Bishop V. Aaronov, 723 F. supp. 1562 (ND Ala 1990).
[11] P. Johnson, "The Creationist and the Sociobiologist: Two Stories About Illiberal Education," California Law Review 80 (4) 1071-1090 (1992).
[12] P. E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Regnery Gateway, Washington, D.C., 1991).
[13] R. Lewin, "A Simple Matter of Complexity" in New Scientist 141 (1994) 40.
[14] Ibid., p. 40.
[15] R. Dawkins, "Interview" in Omni 12 (4) (Jan. 1990) 60-61.
[16] Ibid., p. 87.
[17] E. Scott, "Good Songs" in Science 263 (5154) Jan. 21, 1994), 310.
[18] Gilson, Robert J., Evolution in a New Light: The Outworking of Cosmic Imaginism (Pelegrin Trust, Norwich, England, 1992), 68.
[19] Roe, Anne, The Making of a Scientist (Dodd, Mead, and Company, New York, 1953), 62.
[20] Ref. No. 18, p. 68.
[21] Ref. No. 17, p. 310.
*Dr. Bergman is on the science faculty at Northwest State College, Ohio.


The above article was written in 1994.  The passage in Romans was written approximately 1900 plus years ago.  What insight did the Apostle Paul have concerning the reasoning's for denying the existence of Yahweh Elohim?  Were the people of his era of the naturalists genre?  Did they have their own version of Darwin?  Perhaps!  However, I believe they just hated Almighty Yahweh plainly stated. 


But my people listened not to my voice; and Israel would not hear me. So I let them go after the stubbornness of their heart, that they might walk in their own counsels. (Psalm 81:11-12).


Let's take a look at some terms for unbelief or perhaps reasons not to believe in a Supreme Being!




Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities. In antiquity, Epicureanism incorporated aspects of atheism, but it disappeared from the philosophy of the Greek and Roman traditions as Chr--tianity gained influence. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of atheism re-emerged as an accusation against those who questioned the religious status quo, but by the late 18th century it had become the philosophical position of a growing minority. By the 20th century, atheism had become the most common position among scientists, rationalists, and humanists ("60 percent of general scientists and a staggering 93 percent of top scientists"


In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative a- + theos "g-d") meant "g-dforsaken, abandoned by the g-ds". The word acquired an additional meaning in the 5th century BCE, expressing total lack of relations with the g-ds, that is, "denying the g-ds, g-dless, ung-dly", with more active connotations than asebes "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes translate atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also atheotes: "atheism". Cicero transcribed atheos into Latin. The discussion of atheoi was pronounced in the debate between early Chr--tians and pagans, who each attributed atheism to the other.

In English, the term atheism is the result of the adoption of the French athéisme around 1587. The French word is derived from athée "g-dless, atheist", which in turn is from the Greek atheos. The words deist and theist entered English after atheism, being first attested in 1621 and 1662, respectively, followed by theism and deism in 1678 and 1682, respectively. Due to the influence of atheism, deism and theism exchanged meanings around 1700. Deism was originally used with a meaning comparable to today's theism, and vice-versa.

Types of atheism
There are two main forms of atheism:

Weak atheism, also known as implicit atheism and negative atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. A weak atheist may consider the nonexistence of deities likely, on the basis that there is insufficient evidence. An argument commonly associated with weak atheism is that of rationalism: one should believe only what one has reason to believe. Theists claim that a single deity and/or group of deities exist. Weak atheists do not assert the contrary; instead, they refrain from assenting to theistic claims. Because of a lack of consideration, or because the arguments and evidence provided by both sides are equally unpersuasive, some weak atheists are without opinion regarding the existence of deities. Having considered the evidence for and against the existence of deities, others may doubt the existence of deities while not asserting that deities do not exist. They may feel that it is impossible to prove a negative, or that the strong atheist has not been relieved of the burden of proof, which is also required of the theist, or that faith is required to assert or deny theism, making both theism and strong atheism untenable. Agnosticism is the epistemological position that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown and possibly unknowable. Agnostic theism regards understanding that the existence of deities is unprovable and continuing to hold theistic beliefs. Similarly, agnostic atheism concerns understanding that the existence of deities is unprovable while being without theistic beliefs. For a discussion of agnosticism and its variants, see: agnosticism, weak agnosticism, strong agnosticism, agnostic atheism.

Strong atheism, also known as explicit atheism and positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist. This may be based on the view that there is insufficient evidence or grounds to justify belief in deities, on grounds such as the problem of evil, on arguments that the concept of a deity is self-contradictory and therefore impossible, or on the assertion that any belief in the supernatural is not rationally justifiable. It may also be based on an appreciation of the psychological characteristics of faith and belief (see True-believer syndrome, for example), and of a subsequent critical attitude towards any system that encourages faith, belief, and acceptance, rather than critical thinking, from its adherents.
Under the broader definition of atheism (that is, the "condition of being without theistic beliefs"), which is characteristic of "weak atheism", non-belief, disbelief or doubt of the existence of deities are forms of atheism. However, many strong atheists, agnostics, and theists use a narrower definition of atheism, according to which it is the active "denial of the existence of G-d or g-ds". Adherents of this definition would not recognize mere absence of belief in deities (that is, "weak atheism") as a type of atheism at all, and would tend to use other terms, such as "skeptic" or "agnostic" for this position.

Antitheism, the position that religion is destructive, is held by those who are opposed to religion on the basis that it promotes conflict among those who do not share the same beliefs.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Atheists or Atheism is the absence of belief in any Superior Entity.  These reject any notion regarding the existence of Elohim.


And even as they refused to have Elohim in their knowledge... Romans 1:28


For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.  Jeremiah 2:13


The oldest known expressions of atheism as we now understand it are attributed to Epicurus around 300 BCE. The aim of the Epicureans was mainly to attain peace of mind by exposing fear of divine wrath as irrational. One of the most eloquent expression of Epicurean thought is Lucretius' On the Nature of Things (1st century BCE). (It should be noted that Lucretius was not exactly an atheist as he did accept the existence of g-ds, and Epicurus was ambiguous on this topic too. However both of them certainly thought that if g-ds existed they were uninterested in human existence. Both of them also denied the existence of an afterlife. (Perhaps they are better described as materialists than atheists.) Epicureans were not persecuted, but their teachings were controversial, and were harshly attacked by the mainstream schools of Stoicism and Neoplatonism. The movement remained marginal, and gradually died out at the end of the Roman Empire, until it was revived by Pierre Gassendi in the 17th century. During the late Roman Empire, atheism — a capital crime — was a common legal prosecution against Chr--tians by henotheists. Chr--tians rejected the Roman g-ds, and henotheists rejected the exclusivity of Chr--tian monotheism. [Ibid ]


The Epicureans were seekers of pleasure.  Rejecting any form of Elohim that would command them to focus on something other than themselves was beyond their self-loving nature.  This reminded me of the narcissists of our own time.




nar·cis·sism (när'si-siz'?m) also nar·cism (-siz'?m)
Excessive love or admiration of oneself. See synonyms at conceit.
A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.
Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development.
The attribute of the human psyche charactized by admiration of oneself but within normal limits.


nar'cis·sist n.
nar'cis·sis'tic adj.

narcissism also narcism


A regarding of oneself with undue favor: amour-propre, conceit, ego, egoism, egotism, pride, vainglory, vainness, vanity. Slang ego trip. See self-love/modesty.

narcissism (närsis'iz?m) , Freudian term, drawn from the Greek myth of Narcissus, indicating an exclusive self-absorption. In psychoanalysis, narcissism is considered a normal stage in the development of children. It is known as secondary narcissism when it occurs after puberty, and is said to indicate a libidinal energy directed exclusively toward oneself. A degree of narcissism is considered normal, where an individual has a healthy self-regard and realistic aspirations. The condition becomes pathological, and diagnosable as a personality disorder, when it significantly impairs social functioning. An individual with narcissistic personality disorder tends to harbor an exaggerated sense of his own self-importance and uniqueness.
He is often excessively occupied with fantasies about his own attributes and potential for success, and usually depends upon others for reinforcement of his self-image. A narcissist tends to have difficulties maintaining healthy interpersonal relationships, stemming largely from a lack of empathy and a propensity for taking advantage of others in the interest of self-aggrandizement. It is often found in combination with antisocial personality disorder.


Narcissus, the fictional Greek hero after whom narcissism is named, became obsessed with his own reflection Narcissism is the pattern of characteristics and behaviors
which involve infatuation and obsession with one's self to the exclusion of others and the egotistic and ruthless pursuit of one's gratification, dominance and ambition. In everyday use outside the field of psychology, the word generally refers to people who just are inordinately fond of themselves, without the pathological connotations.

On the outside, a narcissist appears to have higher than average self-esteem. Paradoxically, the narcissist's self-esteem is lower. For the narcissist, self-worth comes from the belief that he/she is superior to his/her peers; it is not enough to be "okay" or "pretty good," the narcissist can only feel worthwhile by being the best. It is this struggle of the narcissist to convince others of his/her superiority that results in the outward appearance of high self-esteem, and the inadequacy that the narcissist feels from not being the absolute best that results in the narcissist's low self esteem. In addition to fragile, exaggerated self-esteem, narcissists are also characterized by a lack of empathy, that is, a lack of sensitivity to the feelings of others. These traits are present in most people to some degree but severe narcissism may warrant a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder.

The term narcissism was coined by Sigmund Freud, who named the phenomenon after the figure of Narcissus in Greek mythology. Narcissus was a handsome Greek youth who rejected the desperate advances of the nymph Echo. As a punishment, he was doomed to fall in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. Unable to consummate his love, Narcissus pined away and changed into the flower that bears his name.


1But know this, that in the last days grievous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, puffed up,
lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of Yahweh; 2 Timothy 3:1-4


In order to pursue their own goals and pleasures they must deny and reject any restraints in their life.  This means that Yahweh must cease to exist so they can exist in their own atheistic, narcissistic, agnostic world.  Almighty Yahweh cannot exist in their world.  His plan, His existence, interferes with their own self-loving agenda.


I wanted to lay some groundwork for this series.  Atheism stands in direct opposition to the Bible believing person.  The evolution theory also conflicts with the Creation account.  We will examine cause and effect in the following parts.  How has these teachings affected our thinking today?  Where do you find these teaching in Yahweh's Holy Word?




Yours in Yahshua, Hawke




©  Truth on the Net Dot Com 2005-13