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

  • Alvin Plantinga’s “Warrant” isn’t an epistemic upgrade; it’s a design for inaccuracy. My formal proof demonstrates that maximizing the binary status of “knowledge” forces a cognitive system to be less accurate than one simply tracking evidence. We must eliminate “knowledge” as a rigorous concept, replacing it with credencing—the honest pursuit…

  • This article critiques the stark gap between the New Testament’s unequivocal promises of answered prayer and their empirical failure. It examines the theological “bait-and-switch” where bold pulpit guarantees of supernatural intervention are neutralized by “creative hermeneutics” in small groups, transforming literal promises into unfalsifiable, psychological coping mechanisms through evasive logic…

  • This article characterizes theology as a “floating fortress”—internally coherent but isolated from empirical reality. It details how specific theological claims regarding prayer, miracles, and scientific facts fail verification tests. The argument posits that theology survives only through evasion tactics like redefinition and metaphor, functioning as a self-contained simulation rather than…

  • This post applies parsimony (Occam’s Razor) to evaluate Christian Theism. It contrasts naturalism’s high “inductive density” with the precarious “stack of unverified assumptions” required for Christian belief, such as a disembodied mind and omni-attributes. It argues that ad hoc explanations for divine hiddenness further erode the probability of theistic claims,…

  • Modern apologists argue that religious belief is a rational map of evidence, likening it to scientific frameworks. However, a deeper analysis reveals a stark contrast. While science adapts to reality through empirical testing and falsifiability, theology insulates belief from contradictory evidence. The theological system absorbs anomalies instead of yielding to…

  • This post critiques the concept of “childlike faith” in religion, arguing that it promotes an uncritical acceptance of beliefs without evidence. It highlights that while children naturally trust authority figures, this lack of skepticism can lead to false beliefs. The author emphasizes the importance of cognitive maturity and predictive power…

  • This analysis examines the agonizing moral conflict presented by the explicit biblical command to slaughter Amalekite infants in 1 Samuel 15:3. Written from a skeptical, moral non-realist perspective, it rigorously deconstructs the various apologetic strategies employed to defend this divine directive as “good.” The post critiques common evasions, such as…

  • Modern Christian apologetics claims faith is based on evidence, but this is contradicted by practices within the faith. Children are encouraged to accept beliefs uncritically, while adults seeking evidence face discouragement. The community rewards conformity over inquiry, using moral obligations to stifle skepticism. Thus, the belief system prioritizes preservation over…

  • In the realm of Christian apologetics, few topics generate as much palpable discomfort as the Old Testament narratives depicting divinely ordered genocide. While many believers prefer to gloss over these passages, serious apologists feel compelled to defend them. They must reconcile a God described as “perfect love” with a deity…

  • This post examines various conditions Christians often attach to prayer promises, transforming them into unfalsifiable claims. It highlights how these ‘failsafe’ mechanisms protect the belief system from scrutiny, allowing believers to reinterpret prayer outcomes either as successes or failures based on internal states or hidden conditions. This results in a…

  • In public discourse, labels such as “atheist,” “agnostic,” and “Christian” often oversimplify complex beliefs, leading to misunderstandings. These tags are low-resolution summaries that hinder rational discussions. Genuine inquiry requires moving beyond labels to assess individual credences and evidence. Understanding belief as a gradient reflects the nuances of thought, promoting clarity…

  • The featured argument, often employed in Christian apologetics, asserts that the universe’s intelligibility implies a divine mind. However, a meticulous examination reveals logical flaws, such as equivocation on “intelligible,” unsubstantiated jumps from observations to conclusions about authorship, and the failure to consider alternative explanations. Ultimately, while the universe exhibits structure…

  • The piece discusses how historical figures like Jesus and Alexander the Great undergo “legendary inflation,” where narratives evolve into more than mere history, shaped by cultural needs and societal functions. As communities invest meaning in these figures, their stories absorb mythical elements and motifs over time. This phenomenon illustrates how…

  • This post argues against extreme views in debates about the historical Jesus, emphasizing the distinction between the theological narrative shaped by scriptural interpretation and the existence of a human core. It maintains that while the Gospels serve theological purposes, they do not negate the likelihood of a historical figure, supported…

  • 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…