Insulting and Libeling Unbelievers

Behold the arrogance of this Christian writer, Dr. Hugh Ross:

Barriers that block people from committing themselves to Jesus Christ and accepting His gift of salvation appear to fall under three general categories: 1) self-imposed ignorance, 2) pride, and 3) moral impurity. In time, the presence of any one of these three leads to the other two. Often the problem of clearing one’s way to the most important relationship in life boils down to discerning and removing the primary barrier.

Self-imposed ignorance

Refusal to carefully examine and consider the claims of Jesus Christ and the evidences for their veracity or to respond to the personal implications of those claims and evidences is self-imposed ignorance. The danger of this form of ignorance about the gospel is that it represents the starting point on the path to apostasy, which means “total desertion from faith in God.”


A person can break his fall into the trap of apostasy by seeing himself for what he really is, seeing God for what He really is, and recognizing that all efforts to bring God down to man’s level—to force Him into a human mold-are vain. One must put himself in humble perspective with respect to God.



The barrier of pride manifests itself in the following reasons for rejecting Jesus (see John 5:31-47):

  1. belief that Jesus is bearing witness to Himself (v.31); unwillingness to accept the tremendous claims that Jesus makes for Himself (vs. 36-38, 43).
  2. preference for a lesser light than the infinite illumination that Jesus offers (v.35).
  3. refusal to give God the prominent place He deserves in one’s life, i.e., rejection of the authority of the Word of God (v.38).
  4. failure to receive light in reading the Scriptures (v.39).
  5. lack of faith to yearn after the glory of God (vs. 36-38).
  6. suppression of the love of God that God Himself planted in one’s heart (v.42).
  7. greater desire for approval from peers than for approval from God (v.44).
  8. disbelief of the most fundamental teachings and prophecies of the Old Testament prophets (vs. 46-47).


The key reason a person enslaved by pride does not come to Jesus is that the comparison between self and Jesus devastates the ego.

Moral impurity

In light of the radiant purity of God, a person’s moral impurity—no matter how it is measured or rationalized—is exposed as horrible filth (Is. 64:6) and gives rise to unbearable guilt. One common and cowardly response to this guilt is simply to ignore God (1 John 3:19-20). The person who sees himself as a slave to moral impurity so much fears this comparison and exposure that he tries to run away from God. Sadly, by ignoring and running away from God, one is, in fact, making the pursuit of evil desires the god of one’s life (Col. 3:5).

The sin nature: an account of the links between barriers

These barriers to salvation clearly reveal the sinfulness of man’s nature; in fact, they arise because of that sinfulness. Human nature is in rebellion against God—challenging the very right of God to rule as God, i.e., choosing life that revolves around oneself instead of around God. All unrighteous acts and attitudes—including pride, self-imposed ignorance, and moral impurity—are manifestations of the sin nature and thus are inevitably interrelated.

Moral impurity leads to pride when one learns to salve his guilt by comparing self to a lesser standard than God. Compared with the moral decrepitude of others, his own filth seems justifiable.


A possible fourth barrier

If none of the three basic barriers exists in a person’s life to any significant degree and he or she still is unable to receive salvation, it is likely some door to Satan’s power has been left open. This “door” could be a deep-seated grudge against another (Eph. 4:26-27) or some unconfessed involvement in the occult either by the person or by some close relative. In the case of grudge-holding, one must develop a willingness to forgive (see Matt. 6:14-15 and Eph. 4:30-32). In the case of some involvement in the occult—whether it be dabbling in astrology, having a fortune told, playing with a ouija board, or whatever—one must repent of the involvement, i.e., agree with God that it is sin and turn completely away from such activity. (The latter may require the destruction of some books or charts or other items. See 2 Samuel 7:18; 2 Chronicles 7:14; and Deuteronomy 18:10-13.)

No, no, a thousand times NO! Many people don’t reject Christianity because they are ignorant, prideful, or wish to live in sin; they reject it because they DO NOT THINK IT IS TRUE! And they do not think it is true because CLAIMS MADE TO SUPPORT IT PROVE TO BE FALSE!

An example from Hugh Ross’ own website, Reasons to Believe, will suffice. Ross is an Old Earth Creationist who is supposed to be an astronomer. Yet he foolishly thinks he is expert enough on whale fossils to judge them and assumes that his ignorant readers will take his judgements about them as truth!

Whale Ankles- No Support for Neodarwinism

by Dr. Hugh Ross

Proponents of gradualism often trot out so-called “transitional” whale fossils as evidence supporting their view.1, 2 In my book, The Genesis Question, I explain why no other animal has a higher risk of rapid extinction and a lower chance of natural advancement than the whale.3 My short explanation for the fossil record’s “transitional” whales is simply that God likes whales. He repeatedly made new ones to replace those that went extinct.

A new challenge to the claims of naturalists and Darwinists comes from the first-time discovery of some relatively complete ancient whale ankle bones.4 Theorists have insisted that modern whales descended from either artiodactyls (archaic hippos) or mesonychians (archaic ungulates). Thus, expectations ran high that this discovery would settle the question. The surprising answer is that ancient whale ankles do not look anything like artiodactyl ankles or mesonychian ankles—or any other known ankles, for that matter. The Bible’s claim that God specially created the great sea mammals receives further affirmation.

  1. Hugh Ross, “A Whale of a Change,” Facts & Faith, v. 10, n. 3 (1996), p. 3.
  2. Hugh Ross, “Creation on the Firing Line,” Facts & Faith, v. 12, n. 1 (1998), pp. 6-7.
  3. Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1998), pp. 50-52, 55-57.
  4. J. G. M. Thewissen, S. I. Madar, and S. T. Hussain, “Whale Ankles and Evolutionary Relationships,” Nature, 395 (1998), p. 452.

Of course, whale ankles can change in form just like any other part of an organism, so this is hardly a serious blow to evolution even if true. But in fact, it is NOT true!

Using trees to make predictions about fossils: The whale’s ankle

Scientists used to think that whales’ ancestors were now-extinct carnivores called mesonychids. However, based on recent findings, scientists have hypothesized that whales are actually more closely related to hoofed mammals like hippos and ruminants such as cows and giraffes.


This hypothesized phylogeny leads us to predict that ancient whales should share some characters with their close relatives. The close relatives of whales have a type of ankle called a double pulley ankle, so we would expect that ancestral whales would also have a double pulley ankle.


And in fact, recent fossil discoveries have borne out that prediction. Scientists found ancient whales with hind legs and pelvises: these whales had the same kind of double pulley ankle bone that modern pronghorns, camels, cows and hippos have.

Compare the ankle bones of the two ancient whales on the left and right (the specimen on the right is missing some bones) and those of a modern pronghorn (center). Notice the double pulley structure boxed on all three.


So Dr. Hugh Ross LIED. Anyone who gets caught lying about something as obvious as fossil whale ankles shouldn’t be taken seriously when he makes assertions about why people don’t believe in Jesus.

8 thoughts on “Insulting and Libeling Unbelievers

  1. Pingback: The Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth | Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants

  2. Pingback: Private schools be damned! | Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants

  3. Pingback: A Critical Analysis of the The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Part One | Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants

  4. Pingback: Ken Ammi, Enemy of Truth, Round Two | Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants

  5. Pingback: The Wayback Machine preserves the debunked nonsense of hypocrites! | Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants

  6. Pingback: Another Creationist Meets his Maker | Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants

  7. Pingback: Bigotry in Religion | Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s