Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness. (KJV)

Then I saw that wisdom excels folly As light excels darkness. (NKJV)

People who do not accept that there exists an Almighty God who created this universe and all there is in it, come in all shapes and sizes. Atheists, agnostics, skeptics and infidels. Each have their own personalities and reasons for their stand against God. I try to size them up in their proper places but I may miss them completely. I see an atheist as one who will admit his stand and attempts to justify it by the pseudo-scientists' fraudulent reports of their "scientific" findings. He fears that he will be considered lacking in intelligence as he considers those who accept the "superstitions" of paganistic gods.

Agnostic: a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

The agnostic is the same as atheist except he doesn't want to argue the point.

Skeptic: a. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
b. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters. A skeptic differs from the agnostic in that he does not contend that you cannot know whether or not there is a God, but that he is unconvinced.

Infidel: a. An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.
b. One who has no religious beliefs.
c. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.

The infidel is the most obnoxious of all those who do not believe in a God. He is generally rude or offensive and tries desperately to sell his ignorance to others. They crave to have others agree with them. My own analysis of this person is that they know they are wrong and when they find a person who will listen and even partially agree, it soothes their conscience somewhat. They are prejudiced (biased) against God, probably because they do not want to give up their way of life and submit to a higher power. As I said, this is the way I view these people. Others may have them categorized differently. All of them need our earnest prayers and our efforts to teach them.

What happens when we're dead? The irony is that all our questions wil be answered after we die. We spend our whole life trying to figure out the truth and the only way we'll find out what it is, is to get hit by a bus. And the only comfort that religion offers is that God is driving that bus...John Ryman

Science and religion no more contradict each other than light and electricity...William Hiram Foulkes

To St. Paul, stripes, stones, shipwrecks, and thorns in the flesh were religious experiences; to Judas Iscariot, the daily companionship of Jesus of Nazareth was not...Leonard Hodgson

Public perceptions may be good or bad, true or false, positive or negative, helpful or hurtful. Once the public perception of Hitler was that he was revered as "the Savior" of Germany. Lincoln was once seen as "a low, cunning, clown" and that "His ambition is a clock that never winds down." Who is to blame? Each case has to be settled individually, and when decided, "public perception" will remain for good or ill. Let's consider the "public perceptions" of some righteous Bible characters.

Elijah was viewed as "he that troubleth Israel" (1st Kings 18:17). As a preacher, Elijah could be very caustic and sarcastic. He sometimes ridiculed those with whom he differed (1st Kings 18:21-40). So, the "public perception" was that he was the one "that troubleth Israel." In reply, Elijah said, "I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord." Though the people may have been offended by Elijah's withering words and sarcastic style, were they justified when they ignored and despised him? In similar circumstances today, should we say, "Elijah, I agree with you and the war you are waging against false teachers and their teaching, but you have such an awful public perception that I'm afraid I must join those who criticize, condemn, and castigate you"?

Jesus often had a very questionable "public perception." He was seen as a "deceiver," as one possessed with a devil, as a "mad" man (Matthew 27:63; John 7:12; 8:48; 10:20). When He spoke, some of his audiences would pick up rocks to stone him. Others would simply turn away from him (John 6:66). He was "despised and rejected of men" (Isaiah 53:3). Since his "public approval rating" often sank, were they excused who turned away from him? After all, if a man is going to be the Savior of the world, should we not at least expect a little more public approval and credibility?

Paul probably had the worst public persona of all the apostles. He was seen as weak, rude, crude, and contemptible; a "pestilent fellow," a "ringleader of [a] sect" (Acts 24:5; 2nd Corinthians 10:10; 11:6). Even "devout and honorable women, and the chief men of the city" rose up against him (Acts 13:50); talk about a terrible "public perception"! Since Paul and his cause were "every where spoken against" (Acts 28:22), should we say he was too blunt, too bold, too belligerent, and that if he had only "used a little more tact and judgment" he would not have ended up like he did?

What application can we make to our lives? In all eras, the way of truth has had a bad "public perception." If you live a pure, godly life, the public perceives you as "strange" and will speak "evil of you" (1st Peter 4:3-4). Expect it; do not be dismayed. If you "contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 3) you'll be tagged with the "public perception" as a narrow-minded, legalistic Pharisee who "majors in minors" and trusts in law rather than love for salvation. But, don't stop asking "for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it" (Jeremiah 6:16). Regardless of the "public perception" that God's way gives us, we must learn to live with the consequences and not be embittered when they occur. We cannot retaliate with evil for evil or compromise the truth. Instead, we must seek the Savior and serve him.

(Reprinted from Words of Truth and Reason)

A Horse, Ox, and Dog, driven to great straits by the cold, sought shelter and protection from Man. He received them kindly, lighted a fire, and warmed them. He let the Horse make free with his oats, gave the Ox an abundance of hay, and fed the Dog with meat from his own table. Grateful for these favors, the animals determined to repay him to the best of their ability. For this purpose, they divided the term of his life between them, and each endowed one portion of it with the qualities which chiefly characterized himself. The Horse chose his earliest years and gave them his own attributes: hence every man is in his youth impetuous, headstrong, and obstinate in maintaining his own opinion. The Ox took under his patronage the next term of life, and therefore man in his middle age is fond of work, devoted to labor, and resolute to amass wealth and to husband his resources. The end of life was reserved for the Dog, wherefore the old man is often snappish, irritable, hard to please, and selfish, tolerant only of his own household, but averse to strangers and to all who do not administer to his comfort or to his necessities...Aesop