DescriptivePrescriptive
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” (Psalm 14:1)“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer… with meekness and fear.” (1 Peter 3:15)
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” (Romans 1:22)“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you.” (Matthew 5:44)
“He that believeth not is condemned already.” (John 3:18)“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt…” (Colossians 4:6)
“The carnal mind is enmity against God.” (Romans 8:7)“Be patient with everyone.” (1 Thessalonians 5:14)
“Dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me.” (Psalm 22:16)“If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.” (Romans 12:20)
“They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable.” (Romans 3:12)“Speak evil of no man… be gentle, showing all meekness unto all men.” (Titus 3:2)
“The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.” (Matthew 5:16)
“Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14)“That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God… among whom ye shine as lights in the world.” (Philippians 2:15)

One of the most critical failures in Christian witness today is the confusion between descriptive declarations found in Scripture and the prescriptive dispositions Christians are commanded to embody toward non-believers. This confusion not only undermines the Gospel’s credibility in the public square but also contradicts the explicit commands of Christ and the apostles regarding how believers are to conduct themselves in a world that does not share their convictions.

Many believers are quick to quote, often with a tone of derision, verses such as Psalm 14:1“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” Used out of context and wielded like a cudgel, this verse is hurled in online comment threads, street corner debates, or casual discussions as a shortcut to condemnation. What ought to be a sober reflection on the tragic consequences of spiritual blindness is instead repurposed as a cheap jab — an attempt to assert superiority or mock the unbeliever. The ease with which this verse is invoked betrays a lamentable misunderstanding of its function in Scripture and a deeper failure to heed the ethical demands placed upon those who claim to follow Christ.

It must be emphatically stated: descriptive judgments in Scripture are not models for Christian posture. That Psalm 14:1 describes the internal condition of the unbeliever from a theological perspective does not license Christians to mimic the divine voice in personal interactions. The Christian is not God. The Christian is not the judge. The Christian is the ambassador (2 Corinthians 5:20), the vessel of reconciliation, not wrath.

Scripture is rich with prescriptive commands that clarify the required disposition toward unbelievers:

  • “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer… with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).
  • “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you” (Matthew 5:44).
  • “Speak evil of no man… be gentle, showing all meekness unto all men” (Titus 3:2).
  • “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6).

These are not instructions for a set of outward behaviors alone—they are injunctions to cultivate an inner temperament of grace, humility, and composure. They represent the dispositional stance the Christian is commanded to take.

There is a profound dissonance when Christians declare, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” with a tone of smugness or disdain, while simultaneously neglecting the disposition Christ prescribed—a posture of gentleness, humility, and grace. The biblical command is not merely to act kindly, but to be kind—to embody a spirit of meekness and reverent restraint even when facing opposition. When Scripture is cited with sneering contempt rather than sincere concern, it ceases to be a conduit of truth and becomes a weapon of ego.

Prescriptive texts such as “be ready to give an answer… with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15) or “speak evil of no man… showing all meekness unto all men” (Titus 3:2) demand not just external civility, but an internal attitude of patient empathy, even toward those deemed hostile to the faith.

So the question is not just What message are you conveying?—but What spirit are you channeling? If your disposition is self-satisfied and accusatory, even if your theology is correct, your witness is already compromised.

We must lament the misuse of Psalm 14:1 and similar verses in discourse. We must mourn how often they are weaponized, not out of faithfulness to God’s Word, but out of impatience or disdain for those who do not yet believe. And we must resolve, in light of Christ’s example, to replace contempt with compassion, derision with dialogue, and mockery with mercy.


As someone who no longer subscribes to Christianity, I engage regularly with Christians—online, in public forums, and sometimes in personal conversation. I expect disagreement. I welcome discussion. But what continues to surprise me is how often I encounter Christians who don’t seem interested in dialogue so much as domination—and who quote their own Scriptures in ways that blatantly contradict the very instructions given to them on how to treat people like me.

Take 1 Peter 3:15, for instance. I was reminded of it after a Christian called me a fool, accused me of willful blindness, and insisted I was suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. The verse says Christians are to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks… with meekness and fear.” Meekness and fear. Not condescension. Not smug certainty. Not spiritual one-upmanship. But humility and reverence.

Where is that spirit?

Too often, instead of conversation, I get caricatured. Instead of thoughtful engagement, I receive cherry-picked Scripture designed not to illuminate but to humiliate. And the most ironic part? The same people who denounce my views as foolish are the ones ignoring their own commands to show patience, gentleness, and grace.

I don’t mind disagreement. What I mind is the incongruence—the visible dissonance between what Christians say they believe and how they treat others. If their own Bible says things like “speak evil of no man” and “show all meekness to all,” why are so many of my interactions with believers marked by contempt rather than curiosity? Why is Psalm 14:1 (“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’”) not offered with sadness or compassion, but as a gotcha moment—an attempt to degrade?

Imagine being called a “fool” by someone who, according to their own sacred text, is supposed to “answer gently” and “let their conversation be full of grace.” It’s not just insulting—it’s theological hypocrisy.

I don’t need Christians to agree with me. But if they want to persuade me, then consistency matters. Disposition matters. If your faith compels you to believe I’m lost, shouldn’t that produce sorrow or empathy—not superiority?

It’s one thing to disagree about the existence of God. It’s another to watch someone claim divine love while modeling so little of it in their tone, words, or posture.

To those Christians who genuinely try to follow their scriptural imperatives—to speak with gentleness, to listen with care, and to argue without arrogance—I say thank you. You make it possible for people like me to engage without feeling dehumanized. You make discussion worthwhile.

But to the others—those who hurl verses like stones and ignore the heart of their own religion—I ask only this: Read your own book. Then live it. Until then, don’t be surprised when the people you’re trying to “reach” instead feel repelled.


Recent posts

  • Hebrews 11:1 is often misquoted as a clear definition of faith, but its Greek origins reveal ambiguity. Different interpretations exist, leading to confusion in Christian discourse. Faith is described both as assurance and as evidence, contributing to semantic sloppiness. Consequently, discussions about faith lack clarity and rigor, oscillating between certitude…

  • This post emphasizes the importance of using AI as a tool for Christian apologetics rather than a replacement for personal discernment. It addresses common concerns among Christians about AI, advocating for its responsible application in improving reasoning, clarity, and theological accuracy. The article outlines various use cases for AI, such…

  • This post argues that if deductive proofs demonstrate the logical incoherence of Christianity’s core teachings, then inductive arguments supporting it lose their evidential strength. Inductive reasoning relies on hypotheses that are logically possible; if a claim-set collapses into contradiction, evidence cannot confirm it. Instead, it may prompt revisions to attain…

  • This post addresses common excuses for rejecting Christianity, arguing that they stem from the human heart’s resistance to surrendering pride and sin. The piece critiques various objections, such as the existence of multiple religions and perceived hypocrisy within Christianity. It emphasizes the uniqueness of Christianity, the importance of faith in…

  • The Outrage Trap discusses the frequent confusion between justice and morality in ethical discourse. It argues that feelings of moral outrage at injustice stem not from belief in objective moral facts but from a violation of social contracts that ensure safety and cooperation. The distinction between justice as a human…

  • Isn’t the killing of infants always best under Christian theology? This post demonstrates that the theological premises used to defend biblical violence collapse into absurdity when applied consistently. If your theology implies that a school shooter is a more effective savior than a missionary, the error lies in the theology.

  • This article discusses the counterproductive nature of hostile Christian apologetics, which can inadvertently serve the skepticism community. When apologists exhibit traits like hostility and arrogance, they undermine their persuasive efforts and authenticity. This phenomenon, termed the Repellent Effect, suggests that such behavior diminishes the credibility of their arguments. As a…

  • The post argues against the irreducibility of conscious experiences to neural realizations by clarifying distinctions between experiences, their neural correlates, and descriptions of these relationships. It critiques the regression argument that infers E cannot equal N by demonstrating that distinguishing between representations and their references is trivial. The author emphasizes…

  • The article highlights the value of AI tools, like Large Language Models, to “Red Team” apologetic arguments, ensuring intellectual integrity. It explains how AI can identify logical fallacies such as circular reasoning, strawman arguments, and tone issues, urging apologists to embrace critique for improved discourse. The author advocates for rigorous…

  • The concept of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling is central to Christian belief, promising transformative experiences and divine insights. However, this article highlights that the claimed supernatural benefits, such as unique knowledge, innovation, accurate disaster predictions, and improved health outcomes, do not manifest in believers. Instead, evidence shows that Christians demonstrate…

  • This post examines the widespread claim that human rights come from the God of the Bible. By comparing what universal rights would require with what biblical narratives actually depict, it shows that Scripture offers conditional privileges, not enduring rights. The article explains how universal rights emerged from human reason, shared…

  • This post exposes how Christian apologists attempt to escape the moral weight of 1 Samuel 15:3, where God commands Saul to kill infants among the Amalekites. It argues that the “hyperbole defense” is self-refuting because softening the command proves its literal reading is indefensible and implies divine deception if exaggerated.…

  • This post challenges both skeptics and Christians for abusing biblical atrocity texts by failing to distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive passages. Skeptics often cite descriptive narratives like Nahum 3:10 or Psalm 137:9 as if they were divine commands, committing a genre error that weakens their critique. Christians, on the other…

  • In rational inquiry, the source of a message does not influence its validity; truth depends on logical structure and evidence. Human bias towards accepting or rejecting ideas based on origin—known as the genetic fallacy—hinders clear thinking. The merit of arguments lies in coherence and evidential strength, not in the messenger’s…

  • The defense of biblical inerrancy overlooks a critical flaw: internal contradictions within its concepts render the notion incoherent, regardless of textual accuracy. Examples include the contradiction between divine love and commanded genocide, free will versus foreordination, and the clash between faith and evidence. These logical inconsistencies negate the divine origin…

  • The referenced video outlines various arguments for the existence of God, categorized based on insights from over 100 Christian apologists. The arguments range from existential experiences and unique, less-cited claims, to evidence about Jesus, moral reasoning, and creation-related arguments. Key apologists emphasize different perspectives, with some arguing against a single…