The Problem with Christian Celebrity

The Problem with Christian Celebrity

By Robby Hall

The backlash against Lauren Daigle for her comments on homosexuality sparked debate amongst Christians who both defend and critique her.

John Crist, a Christian comedian, recently posted a video on his Instagram feed condemning those who judged her for her comments. Crist seemed to be unaware that he himself was judging other Christians for their behavior.   The thing is the church should make judgments on truth.  The New Testament constantly warns us of false prophets and teachers.  The apostle Paul tells us that “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.”  If a brother errs, we take them aside lovingly to correct them.  But what about someone like Daigle or Crist?  Do Christian celebrities have a larger responsibility to adhere to sound teaching or to speak the truth?  First, we should make a sober judgment against ourselves to see if we were in the same position, would we do any different.  Secondly, we shouldn’t confuse the act with someone’s salvation.  Each of us is a work in progress, and the point of the Gospel is that we as human beings, are constantly missing the mark.  This is why Christ came and died on a cross.

That being said, we can rightly judge actions that have larger impacts on public perception of the Gospel and the Church and correct those actions if need be.  When Jesus warned us “not to judge lest you be judged,” He wanted us to not judge hypocritically.  Paul put it this way in Romans “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another, you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.  We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?… While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?” Romans 2:2-3, 21&22

We tend to look to the famous for our theological marching orders.  However, this is a mistake.  Those like Daigle should be careful to place themselves under authoritative teachers, but we should be doing the same.  Celebrities can fall into the popularity trap and so begin to follow the path of Progressive Christianity[1]

We must strive as the Church to read the Bible, understand it’s history, proper hermeneutics, orthodox theology, and a good apologetic.  We also must not set up celebrities to fulfill a role they never were meant to.  If we show a brother their error, it is out of love and their edification and shouldn’t be to tear someone down.  But we shouldn’t look to a celebrity for our biblical instruction as they are in the entertainment business which is always a dangerous road for anyone to navigate and it shouldn’t surprise us when one fails in some fashion, but rather we should respond in prayer, grace, and truth.  Not every so-called Christian celebrity fails in this fashion as there are many who have a solid biblical understanding.  But we should be able to rightly divide the truth for ourselves by delving into God’s word and putting ourselves under solid, orthodox teachers and allow the truth to change us through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Note

[1] 5 Signs Your Church Might be Heading Toward Progressive Christianity http://bit.ly/2X1Kntn

 

Robby Hall is in the Secure Access industry for Information Technology. He has been married for 3 years and has just welcomed his first child, Bridget. He is graduate of the Cross Examined Instructor’s Academy and leads apologetics small groups at his local church.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ITkhoL

/by
Blinded by Science

Blinded by Science?

, ,

By Terrell Clemmons

Don’t Be; That’s Just the New Atheists Masking Their Faith Choice

In the November 2006 cover story of Wired magazine, Gary Wolf thoughtfully gave ear to some of atheism’s most aggressive voices and labeled the movement that they lead “New Atheism.” Envisioning a brave new world in which science and reason overcome religious myth and superstition, New Atheists labor to purvey a comprehensive worldview that explains who we are and how we got here (Darwinian evolution), diagnoses our most urgent ill (ancient superstitions about God), and, most importantly, prescribes a cure for that ill (eradication of religion).

In the same month that Wired reported on New Atheism, Time magazine artfully depicted the science and religion quandary with a combination double helixÆrosary on its cover. The title, “God vs. Science,” might have led a casual reader to expect a story about a theologian opposing science, but the article actually covered a debate between two scientists. Geneticist Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, and biologist Richard Dawkins of Oxford University weighed in on Time’s questions about science, belief in God, and whether the two can peaceably coexist in an intellectually sound world-view. Collins said they can; Dawkins said absolutely not.

Recent battles over textbooks in America lend credence to the notion of science and religion as perennial foes, and ABC News, reporting on a survey of atheism among scientists, casually commented that “the clash between science and religion is as old as science itself,” as if that’s what everybody with any gray matter already knows. But historians of science reveal a different story, one that is more in line with the view of Dr. Collins.

In his course Science and Religion, Lawrence Principe, professor of the History of Science and Technology at Johns Hopkins University, meticulously untangles the historical accounts of events commonly bandied about as proof that religion suppresses science, such as the trials of Galileo and John Scopes. Principe teaches that, contrary to irreligionist lore, the two disciplines were generally viewed as complementary until a little more than a century ago.

Principe identifies two late-19th-century publications as the origin of the idea of warfare between science and religion: A History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, written by skeptic scientist John William Draper in 1874, and A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, published in 1896 by Andrew Dickson White, first president of Cornell University. It is noteworthy that both writers seemed to want the church to back off; Draper wrote at the request of a popular science publisher, and White in response to criticism that he had received for establishing Cornell as the first American university with no religious affiliation.

Principe reveals that the premise of both books—that science and religion have occupied separate camps throughout history, and that religion has always been the oppressor of science—is unfounded, calling Draper’s book “cranky,” “ahistorical,” and “one long, vitriolic, anti-Catholic diatribe,” while White’s is “scarcely better.” Still, he credits the two sub-scholarly works with crystallizing in the popular mind the image of ongoing, intractable warfare between science and religion. Today’s New Atheists echo and amplify their war cries.

Are We Talking Science or Faith?

Skeptics ardently defend their right to reject religious dogma and make up their own minds about ultimate reality. Certainly, atheists, scientific or not, are free to adopt whatever belief system they choose, but can they legitimately claim science as the basis for atheism? Put more simply, has science disproved God, as the irreligionists maintain?

A closer look at Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins sheds light on that question. The most significant difference between the two scientists is not that one believes in biblical creation and the other in Darwinian evolution. Both affirm Darwinism. The salient distinction is that Collins allows for the possibility of God, whereas Dawkins does not.

But it wasn’t always so. The fourth son of two freethinkers, Francis Collins, was homeschooled until age ten. His parents instilled in him a love for learning, but no faith, and the agnosticism of his youth gradually shifted into atheism as his education progressed. He was comfortable with it, discounting spiritual beliefs as outmoded superstition until he began to interact with seriously ill patients as a medical student. When one of them, a Christian, asked him what he believed, he faced a rationalist’s crisis. “It was a fair question,” he wrote in The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. “I felt my face flush as I stammered out the words ïI’m not really sure.’” At that point, Collins realized that he had never seriously considered the evidence for and against belief.

Determined to practice authentic, what-are-the-facts science, Collins set out to investigate the rational basis for faith. Reluctantly, he found himself feeling “forced to admit the plausibility of the God hypothesis. Agnosticism, which had seemed like a safe second-place haven, now loomed like the great cop-out it often is. Faith in God now seemed more rational than disbelief.”

In contrast to Collins’s rational inquiry and personal struggle over the question of God, Richard Dawkins, the de facto spokesman for scientific atheism (think Madalyn Murray O’Hair with a Ph.D.), lays out his case for unbelief without struggle or reservation. In chapter four of The God Delusion, titled “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God,” Dawkins introduces his “Argument from Improbability,” and though the chapter waxes long, its reasoning distills to something like this:

  1. The universe we observe is highly complex.
    2. Any creator of this complex universe would have to be even more complex than it.
    3. It is too improbable that such a God exists; therefore, there almost certainly is no God.

The first two statements qualify as acceptable premises, but the conclusion that Dawkins reaches simply does not follow from them. This isn’t legitimate reasoning. It’s rationalization—that is, finding some plausible-sounding explanation for arriving at a conclusion that he has already chosen.

Dr. Dawkins is certainly free to choose to disbelieve, but his conclusion was not derived through scientific or rational means. Rather, it hints at an underlying personal, philosophical faith choice to disbelieve. Ernst Mayr, one of the twentieth century’s leading evolutionary biologists, made a similar observation when he analyzed reasons for disbelief among his Harvard colleagues. “We were all atheists. I found that there were two sources,” he said. One group “just couldn’t believe all that supernatural stuff.” The other “couldn’t believe that there could be a God with all this evil in the world. Most atheists combine the two,” he summarized candidly. “The combination makes it impossible to believe in God.”

Former atheist and biophysicist Alister McGrath concurs, noting that most of the unbelieving scientists he is acquainted with are atheists on grounds other than their science. “They bring those assumptions to their science rather than basing them on their science.” Dawkins’s rationalization, as well as the observations of McGrath and Mayr, reveal the choice to disbelieve for what it is—a personal, philosophical choice made apart from reason or scientific inquiry. I call it a “faith choice” because it involves choosing a foundational presupposition concerning a realm about which we have incomplete (but not insufficient) knowledge.

A Choice of Faith

Francis Collins’s conclusion, that the God hypothesis is not only plausible but compellingly supported by evidence, flatly controverts New Atheism’s premise that faith constitutes an irrational belief without evidence. It also reveals that the real conflict isn’t one of science versus God. It’s a conflict between those who allow and those who disallow the possible reality of God.

Polemicists will continue to clamor for converts to their side on the question of God because between the poles live thoughtful, educated people—not necessarily working scientists, but people who value science. Some believe in a supreme being called God, and others haven’t made up their minds. It is these theological moderates that New Atheism seeks to recruit with pithy epigrams such as “God vs. Science” and “My beliefs are based on science, but yours are based on faith.” What believers need is a calm, judicious counter-strategy when New Atheism advances under the guise of science, one that can transform verbal sparring into illuminating dialogue. Let me give you an example of what I mean.

My friend Dana has known Sam for decades. Over the years, Sam has peppered her with questions about her faith. Despite feeling intimidated—Sam is a highly respected leader in their community—she has answered as best she could and maintained their friendship. One evening over dinner in her home, Sam turned his questions on her teenagers, essentially asking them, “Do you really believe all that stuff and why?” Dana allowed them to speak for themselves for a while before intervening.

“Sam,” she started agreeably, “you and I have discussed this many times. I’ve told you what I believe and why, and you’ve told me all of your reasons for not believing.” Then she posed a question that she had never put to him before. “What if there really is a God, but you just don’t know about him? Are you willing to consider that possibility? Are you willing to ask him if he’s out there? Something like ïGod, I’m not even sure if you’re there, but if you are, would you show yourself to me?‘”

Dana let her question hang in the air. The teenagers likewise waited for Sam to break the silence. “No,” he finally said. “I’m not willing to do that.” And he hasn’t brought the subject up since.

Dana gently—but powerfully—pierced the facade of scientific skepticism with one question: Are you willing? It is not a question of scientific reasoning, but a question of choosing, of making a personal faith choice that, once made, establishes the starting point for one’s reasoning. Atheism isn’t founded on science or reason any more than theism is based on faith devoid of reason. The atheist, too, has made a faith choice. He has just chosen differently.

The Eternal Conflict

The “eternal conflict,” as it’s called, is not really between religion and science; after all, the two got along quite amicably before the twentieth century. No, as the following quotations indicate, the real quarrel has always been between those who believe that science and religion are at odds and those who do not.

“A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

—Albert Einstein

“It is… Idle to pretend, as many do, that there is no contradiction between religion and science. Science contradicts religion as surely as Judaism contradicts Islam—they are absolutely and irresolvably conflicting views. Unless that is, science is obliged to change its fundamental nature.”

—Brian Appleyard

“Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but both look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out the essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.”

—Freeman Dyson

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.”

—Pope John Paul II

“When religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion weak, men mistake medicine for magic.”

—Thomas Szasz

“Science is an effort to understand creation. Biblical religion involves our relation to the Creator. Since we can learn about the Creator from his creation, religion can learn from science.”

—PaulæH. Carr

“There is more religion in men’s science than there is science in their religion.”

—Henry David Thoreau

“Science makes major contributions to minor needs. Religion, however, small its successes, is at least at work on the things that matter most.”

—Oliver Wendell Holmes

Science as Religion

One needn’t speculate about whether science is a religion for Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins. In a 1997 essay published in The Humanist, Dawkins tackles this question directly, arguing that his onetime tendency to deny that science is a religion was a tactical error that he has since repudiated. Instead, he writes, scientists should “accept the charge gratefully and demand equal time for science in religious education classes.” The reason? Well, according to Dawkins, whereas science is a faith “based upon verifiable evidence,” religion “not only lacks evidence,” but “its independence from evidence is its pride and joy.” Thus, science is the only religion worth imparting to future generations.

Rather than delineate the evidence that makes science outclass “any of the mutually contradictory faiths and disappointingly recent traditions of the world’s religions,” however, Dawkins chooses instead to describe what science might someday do for a society that religion does today. Chiefly, this amounts to inspiring in people an awe for “the wonder and beauty” of the universe in the same way that God currently inspires awe in religious believers. Indeed, as far as Dawkins is concerned, “the merest glance through a microscope at the brain of an ant or through a telescope at a long-ago galaxy of a billion worlds is enough to render poky and parochial the very psalms of praise.”

But here is where the evolutionary biologist gets himself into trouble. Yes, science has given us access to astonishing truths about the hidden nature of the universe, and yes, all that it has definitively revealed is based on incontrovertible evidence. It is also true, however, that most religions in the world do not posit faith claims in opposition to such breathtaking factual findings. Rather, religion lacks evidence at precisely those points where science does as well.

The faith that is the “pride and joy” of religious believers is in an invisible God who created the world and still interacts with it. The faith of Darwinian scientists is in the power of evolution to create the world and then continue to adapt it. There is no conclusive evidence for either of these faith claims, which is why some have accused science of being a religion in the first place, as well as why Dawkins must hawk the replacement value of science instead of citing the “verifiable evidence” that makes science superior to conventional religion.

All this is to say that Dawkins is correct to concede that science is a religion for him, but wrong to contend that this particular religion accomplishes something that others do not. When it comes to the significant questions of life—Where did we come from? How did we get here? Why are we here? —Science’s answers prove to be as faith-based as those of even the most fundamentalist religious sect. That science might successfully fulfill the function of religion is thus hardly reason enough to warrant a switch.

 

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2J9O9vV

/by
7 Independent Lines of Evidence for God's Existence

7 Independent Lines of Evidence for God’s Existence

,

By Luke Nix

Introduction- Why Is God’s Existence So Important?

One of the most heated debates in any setting is the existence of God. If God exists, then He is the foundation for objective morality. One’s view of morality governs their thinking in everything from politics to workplace interactions, from scientific research to everyday behavior. If God exists, then there are objective behavioral boundaries which should never be crossed. If God does not exist, then no such objective boundaries exist, and anyone may behave however they wish in any situation without concern for the violation of some objective standard (that is not to say that relative/cultural/legal standards cannot be violated- but that is a topic for another time). If we do not examine this question carefully, we risk believing what is false about reality and morality, and such false beliefs will necessarily lead to behaviors that are not in keeping with reality and morality. This means that many of the political and ethic debates opposing people have come down to whether or not God exists.

Presenting A Cumulative Case for God’s Existence

Numerous lines of evidence and philosophical arguments have been presented over the centuries for God’s existence. All of them come together to create a powerful cumulative case. Much like a detective’s case for the guilt of an accused murderer, multiple independent lines of evidence are presented that all point to the guilt of the accused. If such a method is valid for discovering the truth behind the claim that a murder took place and for the specific identity of the murdered, then the same method is also valid in determining the truth behind the claim that God exists and the identity of this God.

God’s Crime Scene

One of my favorite books that takes some of these arguments and presents the cumulative case comes from cold-case homicide detective J. Warner Wallace. In his book “God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines The Evidence For A Divinely Created Universe.” Wallace presents seven independent lines of evidence that all point to God’s existence in the same way that he would present multiple lines of evidence to a jury for the guilt of an accused murderer. The lines of evidence he presents are summarized in these quotes from the book:

Does God Exist

  1. The Beginning– “The Standard Cosmological Model, accepted by physicists today is grounded on the foundational premise that the universe came into being from something beyond the space, time, matter, and energy of our universe.”
  2. Signs of Design– “The totality and interconnected nature of our galaxy’s unique backstory, along with its rare circumstances and unlikely conditions, overwhelmingly indicate design.”
  3. Consciousness– “In order to think rationally about our thoughts, we must have the freedom to do so, but this freedom is unavailable if the laws of physics and chemistry are controlling our thoughts.”
  4. Law and Order (Morality)– “Naturalism cannot adequately explain the existence of objective moral truths or objective, transcendent personal obligations.”
  5. The Origin of Life– “With each passing year, the level of complexity and interaction at the cellular level has become more apparent and more difficult to explain.”
  6. Free Will– “Choice is a feature of design and a reflection of intelligent agency. Designers make conscious choices between options. Their designs often reflect these decisions, especially when other options are available.”
  7. Evidence of Evil– “True evil requires a source of transcendent righteousness, a source for goodness that transcends the universe and everything in it.”

Wallace concludes by stating that as a detective, who must follow the evidence where it leads, “I believe God exists because the evidence leaves me no reasonable alternative.” If the objective standard of morality exists (God), then that standard is what must be used to judge ethical and political positions.

Conclusion- Prepare for Your Ethical Discussions With Objective Evidence For God’s Existence

If you find yourself involved in discussions of an ethical or political nature or just want to be able to more critically evaluate the political and ethical claims of others, I highly recommend that you pick up a copy of Wallace’s book to help establish a foundational point on which to begin evaluation and discussion. While not comprehensive on the case for God’s existence, it is one of the most accessible and engaging books on this topic, and it should not be passed up by anyone serious about investigating the truth of reality and morality.
For more great books on God’s existence, check out the many books that I have reviewed on this blog, and for the topic of ethics and politics, specifically, please check out my Top 5 Recommended Books for diving into those details.

 

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Xz6qvS

/by
El argumento epistemológico en contra del materialismo

El argumento epistemológico en contra del materialismo

By Maverick Christian

To begin, I will quote Alvin Plantinga:

The argument, in essence, is this: that we ordinarily think that the content of a belief, or an intention, or an action is relevant to the actions caused by beliefs, intentions, and actions. I believe that there is a beer in the fridge; we ordinarily think that it is in virtue of its content that this belief causes me to go to the fridge. I intend to get a beer from the fridge and I intend to do so; we ordinarily think that the content of this intention and of carrying it out is causally relevant to my action of going to the fridge. We don’t just ordinarily think these things; they are nothing but sobering truth. I’m going to argue that if materialism about us human beings… were true, then these things are false: It would not be in virtue of their content that beliefs, intentions, and actions do what they do. [1]

For simplicity, let’s just consider beliefs. In materialism, the belief coin has two sides: the neurophysiological/NF properties (certain neurons wire in a certain way, etc.) of the belief, and the actual semantic content of the belief (e.g., there’s a beer in the fridge ). In dualism (the idea that our minds are a composite of the physical brain and a nonphysical mental component, e.g., the soul) it is possible that the content of a belief can modify behavior; e.g., I believe something and on the basis of this belief my soul impacts my neural pathways in a certain way to cause a behavior.

On materialism, however, the content of a belief is causally irrelevant in the sense that (given materialism) a belief causes an effect in virtue of its NF properties, and not in virtue of its content. We can see this by doing a little thought experiment. Suppose a given person’s belief, say, the belief that there is a cold soda in the fridge , had the same NF properties, but a completely different content, such as that the moon is made of green cheese . Would the person’s behavior be different if the belief had the same NF properties, but different content? It wouldn’t, because having the same neurophysiological properties means that we would have the same electrical impulses traveling along the same neural pathways and thus emitting the same muscular contractions. So if materialism were true, the content of our beliefs would be causally irrelevant. The argument in a nutshell is this:

  1. If materialism is true, then the content of our beliefs is causally irrelevant.
  2. But the content of our beliefs is causally relevant.
  3. Therefore, materialism is false.

In response one might say that there is something wrong with the thought experiment, since it is metaphysically impossible for a given set of neurophysiological properties to have distinct semantic content. Even if I were a materialist, this does not seem at all plausible to me. The idea of ​​moving subatomic particles around producing semantic content seems almost mystical, and it seems easily conceivable that there is a possible world in which the same moving subatomic particles generate different semantic content, although as a materialist I would like to believe that this might involve the fine-tuning of some kind of physical necessity that makes the moving subatomic particles generate mental states. Still, to my mind’s eye such an adjustment seems conceivable and metaphysically possible.

But even if it is not possible for a given set of NF properties to have a different semantic content associated with it, does this prevent the statement “If a given set of NF properties were to have a different content, the behavior would be the same” from being meaningfully true? I think not. In philosophy, propositions of the form “If P were true, then Q would be true,” where P is an impossibility, are called counterpossible. There seem to be counterpossible statements that are meaningfully true. For example, suppose the renowned mathematician Kurt Gödel proved a certain theorem; it is impossible for theorems to turn out to be false, since they are necessarily true. However, as Alvin Plantinga points out, “If Mic were to prove that Gödel was wrong, mathematicians everywhere would be astonished; it is not true that if Mic were to prove that Gödel was wrong, mathematicians everywhere would yawn with boredom.” [2] So even if “if a given set of NF properties were to have a different content, it would result in the same behavior” were contra-possible, this does not seem to prevent the statement from being meaningfully true.

Reductive and non-reductionist materialism

Another way to try to avoid the semantic content of a belief being causally irrelevant is to take the view that a belief is just a combination of physical properties; the view that beliefs are reducible to physical states in this sort of way is called reductive materialism . Suppose we have P1, P2, P3… Pn to represent various physical properties (e.g., human neurophysiological properties), and let ∨ represent “or.” A reductive materialist might believe that a certain belief is just the disjunction (a set of things related by “or”) of certain physical properties like these:

P1∨ P2 ∨ P3…

Most likely, on reductive materialism a belief would be (merely) a disjunction of a set of physical properties that constitute a given mental state, something like this where & represents “and”:

(P1& P7 & P11…) ∨ (P5 & P63 &…) ∨…

The “∨” is necessary, since it is possible for different sets of physical states to correspond to a given belief (if materialism is true, for example, it would seem that alien neurophysiologies or mechanical silicon brains could also be configured to have a given belief). The above sort of structure “(A & B) ∨ (C & D & E) ∨…” is what logic and math gurus call a boolean combination . In contrast to reductionist materialism which says that beliefs are reducible to NF properties in the way described above, non-reductionist materialism denies this, but does make the claim that beliefs are determined by physical states. One might believe that a belief emerges from physical properties in a way that is roughly analogous to moisture emerging from the combination of hydrogen and oxygen in H2O.

A reductionist materialist might claim that since beliefs are just a (Boolean) combination of NF properties, it might well be that it is in virtue of having semantic content that a belief is causally relevant (this is not necessarily so, because belief is really a disjunction of sets of NF properties, so it would still be possible for a person’s belief to produce behavior in virtue of its NF properties rather than its semantic content, but a reductionist materialist might believe that it is at least possible for a human being’s belief to produce behavior in virtue of having content).

The problem with reductive materialism

Plantinga argues that even if it is true that a belief is causally relevant in virtue of its having a certain content, it does not follow that the semantic content is itself causally relevant. Plantinga gives the following illustration. Suppose Alvin throws a ball that has a mass of 0.2 kilograms, and the ball hits a glass window, causing it to break. If the ball had been much lighter (say, the mass of a feather), it would not have broken the glass, so the ball breaks the window in virtue of (among other things) its being 0.2 kilograms. Now suppose that the property of having a mass of 0.2 kg is Sam’s favorite property. Thus, we have the following:

Having a mass of 0.2 kg = Sam’s favorite property

Since having a mass of 0.2 kg is Sam’s favorite property (which is not his favorite property by definition, but reductionist materialists similarly do not [normally] believe that the identity relation between a belief and a boolean combination of NF properties holds by definition), then it follows that a ball breaks the window in virtue of having Sam’s favorite property. And yet:

Having a mass of 0.2 kg is Sam’s favorite property.

It doesn’t actually seem to have anything to do with the ball breaking the window, even though it is in virtue of having Sam’s favorite property of the ball breaking the window. Similarly, the fact that a set of NF properties is a belief doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the set of NF properties causing behavior, even though it is true that a belief causes behavior in virtue of having a certain semantic content.

I think we can make this clearer by considering the following thought experiment. Suppose that reductionist materialism is true and a mad scientist inserts a belief interface device (BID) into Smith’s brain, which acts as a new interface between Smith’s belief and behavior. For example, the mad scientist sets up the BID so that when Smith believes that I am thirsty, the NF properties of this belief electrochemically affect the BID and the BID subsequently causes Smith’s body to take a drink of water. The mad scientist can set up the BID at will so that any given belief can cause almost any behavior. For example, the mad scientist sets up the BID so that the NF properties of the belief that drinking water will kill me and I don’t want to die trigger an electrochemical reaction that (thanks to the belief interface device) causes Smith’s body to get a drink of water. The mad scientist sets up the CID again so that the NF properties of the belief that I will never see a Nicolas Cage movie cause Smith to go see a Nicolas Cage movie, and the NF properties of the belief that grass is air cause Smith to eat coconut ice cream after a fish dinner. All of this would be possible on reductionist materialism because a human being’s belief causes effects in virtue of its NF properties, not its semantic content, even if it were the case that beliefs are just (boolean) combinations of NF properties.

The DIC scenario shows that it is the NF properties of a belief and how those properties interact with the rest of the physical system that determines our behavior. DIC may be science fiction, but even in our own naturally occurring belief interface system, it is the NF properties of a belief and how those properties interact with the rest of our physiology that determines our behavior. To look at this slightly differently, let PS1, PS2, PS3… PSn each be a set of physical properties, e.g. PS1 is short for (P1 & P7 & P11…). Now suppose that the semantic content of the belief that I am thirsty is just a boolean combination of the physical properties like this:

PS1∨ PS2 ∨ PS3 ∨… ∨ PSn

Now imagine that Smith’s belief that I am thirsty is PS1. Plantinga would say that Smith’s belief does things in virtue of its physical (in this case, neurophysiological) properties rather than in virtue of the physical properties of being part of the Boolean combination that I am thirsty—just as when the ball breaks the window, in virtue of having a mass of 0.2 kilograms rather than in virtue of having a mass of 0.2 kg being Sam’s favorite property.

We can see that this is the case with any other thought experiment. Modifying Smith’s physiology a little, holding the NF properties of the belief (PS1) constant, and the NF properties of Smith’s belief that I am thirsty could cause something quite different, e.g. the physical properties of PS1 triggering an electrochemical reaction causing Smith to ignore the water around him and have to eat sand instead. This would be physically possible, since it is the NF properties of a belief and how those properties interact with the rest of the physical system that determine our behavior. Given materialism, it would just be a matter of luck (e.g. favorable physical laws) that belief and behavior are linked in a “rational” way by mimicking the semantic content influencing behavior, e.g. the NF properties of the belief that this plant is poisonous and hence I will not eat it causes me not to eat the plant, unlike the NF properties of the belief that grass is air causes me not to eat the plant. In any case, the thought experiment does illustrate that it is the NF properties of the belief and how those properties interact with the rest of the physical system that determine our behavior. Just as having a mass of 0.2 kg being Sam’s favorite property doesn’t seem to have anything to do with why the ball breaks the window, so too does PS1 being a member of the Boolean combination of I’m thirsty not seem to have anything to do with why PS1 does the things it does. If that is true, then the semantic content of a belief seems to be causally irrelevant in the sense that a belief does things in virtue of its NF properties, and not because of its semantic content.

Conclusion

Given materialism, the semantic content of a belief is causally irrelevant in the sense that a belief does things in virtue of its NF properties, not because of its semantic content. If a given set of NF properties had different semantic content, it would result in the same behavior (the same neurophysiological properties means we would have the same electrical impulses traveling along the same neural pathways and thus emitting the same muscle contractions). Even if reductionist materialism were true, beliefs seem to cause behavior in virtue of their NF properties, not because of their semantic content. The DIC scenario in particular illustrates that even on reductionist materialism, the semantic content of a belief can be absolutely unrelated to the person’s external environment when that belief causes behavior, for example, the situation in which the NF properties of the belief that grass is air cause Smith to eat coconut ice cream. So we have the following argument:

  1. If materialism is true, then the content of our beliefs is causally irrelevant.
  2. But the content of our beliefs is causally relevant.
  3. Therefore, materialism is false.

If materialism were true, a belief would do things in virtue of its NF properties and how those properties interact with the rest of the physical system. Even if the semantic content of a belief is just a boolean combination of physical properties, a set of physical properties that is a member of that boolean combination seems to have nothing to do with why that set of physical properties causally affects other things in one’s body, just as having a mass of 0.2 kg being Sam’s favorite property seems to have nothing to do with why the ball breaks the window.

Grades

[1] Plantinga, Alvin. “A New Argument against Materialism”  Philosophia Christi  14.1 (Summer 2012) p. 9

[2] Plantinga, Alvin. “A New Argument against Materialism”  Philosophia Christi  14.1 (Summer 2012) p. 21

 

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2ZVw4bT

Translated and edited by Jairo Izquierdo

/by

Mama Bear Apologetics

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

If you get between a mama bear and her cubs, you’ll be in big trouble. Frank interviews Hillary Morgan Ferrer, who joined up with other mama bears, to show you how you can protect your cubs from the trouble generated by the false ideas that are celebrated in our culture. These include:

Self-Help Culture: the false belief that we are capable of fixing all of our own problems

Naturalism: the false assumption that natural laws alone govern order and complexity

Emotionalism: the irrational faith that our emotions can define objective truth and reality

Moral Relativism: the dissonance of accepting all beliefs as equally true

Progressive Christianity: omitting difficult theology in favor of a more politically correct version

Don’t miss Frank and Hillary’s discussion about the five words that our culture has redefined, confusing our children to the point that they are leaving Christianity and making other dangerous choices.

To get the full benefit of this podcast, you really need to get a copy of Mama Bear Apologetics. It’s a guidebook for parents and mentors who want to help kids gain critical thinking skills needed to reject cultural lies but may not know how to address every alternative viewpoint a child will face.

Official Site: Mamabearapologetics.com

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at  Hello@CrossExamined.org.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

/by
Should You Raise Your Kids in a Christian Bubble

Should You Raise Your Kids in a Christian Bubble?

By Natasha Crain

If you read my “About Me” page, you’ll see that my mission as a mom is to raise my kids in a home where faith means more than going to church on Sunday.  Indeed, that is the whole purpose of this blog – to help inspire others to think deeply about what that means for their own families and to pursue the same mission.

I proactively seek to apply faith every single day for my kids, to surround their hearts and minds with God. But in doing so, I sometimes have wondered:  Am I building a Christian bubble around my kids? And if so, is that good or bad?

For clarity, let me define what I mean by “bubble.”  I’ve long held a negative (and unfortunately judgmental) view of Christians whose faith encompasses them so much that they’ve seemingly lost perspective on the world around them and can no longer relate to non-believers in a “normal” way. Faith seems to be the ONLY thing they think about.

“What are you doing for lunch today, Sarah?”

Sarah (in my perceived Christian bubble): “Well, Lord willing I’ll go to McDonald’s. If it’s God’s will, I’ll find a parking space. But you never know because it’s God’s plan, not mine! See you soon. God bless you.”

Of course, that’s an over characterization, but you get the point. I’ve been reflecting on this and have deconstructed my bubble concerns into two key elements: Bubble Visibility and Bubble Durability.

BUBBLE VISIBILITY: Can others see IN, and can you see OUT?

When I was about 8, we lived across the street from a pastor’s family. They had two girls, ages 5 and 3. We were playing one day when the 5-year-old suddenly asked if I had the Holy Spirit. I didn’t know what that meant at the time and responded, “I don’t know, but I’m saved.” That was the last time her mom let me play with her.

She was in a Christian bubble where no one else was allowed to see IN. This is not Biblical. Jesus calls us to let our light shine for the world to see. If we are in a bubble where we hide ourselves away such that non-believers cannot see us, we are ignoring our explicit calling. (Matthew 5:16)

When I was about 10, I invited my best friend to church. It was Bible trivia night. (Horrible night to bring a friend, right?) My friend had never been to church in her life. She got the question, “What is the first book of the Bible?” She had no idea. I remember being absolutely floored that anyone would not know the answer to that question. I asked her afterward, “Did you REALLY not know the first book of the Bible? EVERYONE KNOWS THAT.” She never came back to church again, and we drifted apart. I still wonder if that was her only church experience.

I was in a Christian bubble where I was unable to see OUT. I didn’t have perspective on the lives of others without the same faith experience, and therefore could not relate to my friend appropriately. This is like the Pharisees (the religious elite of Jesus’ time) who spent so much time focusing on their own religious laws that they missed the entire heart of Jesus’ message on loving and relating to others. (e.g., Matthew 9:11)

BUBBLE DURABILITY: How protected are you spiritually?

In college and for several years after, being a Christian was more of a “hat” I wore; it was an “extension” of myself. There was me, and there was my belief system attached to me. It never “got in the way” of life or of non-Christian friendships. There was no bubble at all. That doesn’t even mean I was taking off my Christian hat. If anyone ever asked, I would have proudly said I was a Christian. But it’s amazing how many non-Biblical things you can do while wearing something as inconsequential as a Christian “hat.” I certainly found it easy to wear that hat through all the parties I went to.

When you don’t have any Christian bubble– when you aren’t surrounding yourself daily by faith application – you are not protecting yourself spiritually, and you are at great risk for sin to dominate your life. John 15:18 says Christians “do not belong to the world.” We need to have a durable faith-based bubble to understand how to set ourselves apart as we are called.

Finding my current church about 8 years ago profoundly changed me because I was exposed to Biblically sound theology for the first time in several years. This shifted my belief system into true faith that started to transform my heart. A Christian bubble started to emerge as I spent more time in prayer and Bible study.

A bubble now existed, but it was still fragile. Non-believers could easily deflate me with questions I didn’t have good answers for.

My faith has grown a great deal in the last year, in large part (if not entirely) due to the conscious decision to raise my kids in a home where faith is applied every day.  In proactively seeking to make faith a part of everyday life for my kids, my identity has become wholly Christian in a way it never had been.

My bubble, crafted with daily faith application, is now durable. This bubble is indeed Biblical, necessary, AND prescribed for all Christians! What I call a bubble, the Bible calls armor:

(Ephesians 6:10-17) “…Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground… Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled round your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace… take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

THE RIGHT KIND OF CHRISTIAN BUBBLE

Reflecting on this breakdown of visibility and durability, I realized that the negative connotations I held about Christian bubbles were around visibility issues. Indeed, as Christian parents, we have to be concerned with making sure that the bubbles we build around our kids don’t obstruct their view out or others’ view in. But we should never fear building a durable, spiritually protective bubble around them. If we don’t, they will not be prepared to engage in the spiritual battle of life.

It’s your choice daily – are you giving your kids Christian armor or a Christian hat?

 

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2xaWvO5

/by
Can We Know Anything about the Historical Jesus

Can We Know Anything about the Historical Jesus? Yes, and It’s Much More than You Think!

,

By Brian Chilton

In 2000, I made the difficult decision to step away from my faith. I entered into what I call theistic-leaning agnosticism, one step removed from pantheism. I believed that some kind of God could possibly exist. However, I didn’t know that a person could know if that God really did exist and most certainly could not know anything about the historical Jesus of Nazareth. These doubts were brought on the claims of the Jesus Seminar who held that less than 14% of the sayings attributed to Jesus were actually his own. The Seminar claimed that the rest of the sayings were inventions from the apostles. Couple the Seminar with PBS’s show From Jesus to Christ, which claimed that the Christ of faith evolved over time from the Jesus of history, then one could see why I needed some serious answers. When I asked Christian leaders about how I could know if Jesus was accurately portrayed in the Gospels, I was met with scorn and hostility. Add to that the nepotistic hypocrisy I often saw, then stepping away from the faith was pretty easy.

However, everything changed in 2005. I was introduced to the writings of Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, and Gary Habermas. This past week, my journey came full circle. I had the honor to have one of my apologetic heroes, Gary Habermas, once again as a professor. The class investigated the New Testament creeds, which is the material in the New Testament that predates the New Testament writings. It is thought even by skeptical scholars that many of these creeds date to no later than 35 AD when Paul met Peter and James in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18-20). The NT creeds tell us much about the historical Jesus because this information is located at ground zero. The creeds tell us about the message of the earliest church, which in turn came from the historical Jesus of Nazareth. So, what can we know about the historical Jesus of Nazareth from these creeds?

Creeds Tell Us about the Nature of the Historical Jesus. As fascinating as it is, the creeds provide us with high Christology. In fact, the earliest church had the highest Christology. This decimates the claims that the church evolved the nature of Jesus from a prophet to a divine God-man over time. For instance, consider the Philippians hymn. The Philippians hymn notes that Christ Jesus “existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited. Instead, he emptied himself by assuming the form of a servant, taking on the likeness of humanity” (Php. 2:6-7a, CSB). The sermon summaries of Acts, all thought to be extremely early, denote the deity of Jesus as one who “has been exalted to the right hand of God” (Acts 2:33, CSB). Don’t forget about the Colossian’s creed where Christ is said to be the “invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” (Col. 1:15, CSB and see following Col. 1:16-20). One may say, “Okay, but this shows the church’s theology, not the historical Jesus of Nazareth.” In response, one must note that there is no historical presence of evolutionary development, not even legendary development. The earliest church held an extremely high view of Jesus. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth must have taught something about his divine nature, backing them up with miraculous works.

Creeds Tell Us about the Life of the Historical Jesus. While the majority of the creeds focus on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, the creeds do provide details pertaining to the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. The creeds note that Jesus was born a descendant of David (Acts 13:23; Rom. 1:3). Jesus was noted to have been a Nazarene (Acts 2:22; 4:10; 5:38). Jesus of Nazareth performed numerous miracles (Acts 2:22; 10:38) and fulfilled several Messianic prophecies (Acts 2:25-31; 3:21-25; 4:11; 10:43). From the creeds, the researcher begins to see a similar pattern of Jesus of Nazareth’s life that is portrayed in the biblical narratives concerning him.

Creeds Tell Us about the Death and Resurrection of the Historical Jesus. The majority of the creeds are based around the earliest kerygma of the church—that is, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Most notably, 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 denotes the resurrection appearances of Jesus, even stating that 500 people witnessed the risen Jesus at one time (1 Cor. 15:6). The sermon summaries of Acts also provide the same formula in that Jesus lived, died, and rose again. The Acts 13 sermon summary even gives a nod to the empty tomb. For Paul’s early message stated that “When they had carried out all that had been written about him, they took him down from the tree and put him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and he appeared for many days to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people” (Acts 13:29-31, CSB). The creeds denote the numerous witnesses who saw the risen Jesus. They sometimes provide details that other sources do not, such as Simon Peter’s private interaction with the risen Jesus (Lk. 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5) and James’ private meeting with the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:7).

The early creeds are impressive in what they tell us about the historical Jesus of Nazareth. Some will skeptically hold that since the creeds speak of the miraculous and the divine that they must be thrown out. However, such attitudes show more of an anti-supernatural bias than they do a quest for historical truth. At the very least, these early creeds tell us what the earliest church believed about Jesus. At the most, the early creeds give a fascinating description of whom Jesus was, is, and forever will be. Even if we did not have the New Testament, the creeds would tell us everything we needed to know about the historical Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ of faith! The creeds tell the life-changing truth that Jesus has risen. Will you allow this truth to transform you?

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for close to 20 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern, North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ZALSAi

/by
Are the Gospels “hopelessly contradictory”

Are the Gospels “hopelessly contradictory”?

,

By Erik Manning

Critics of Christianity love to compile long lists of alleged contradictions in the gospels to shake the faith of unsuspecting church-goers. One of the more famous of these critics is Dr. Bart Ehrman. Ehrman studied at Princeton under Dr. Bruce Metzger, a respected intellectual heavyweight, and a devout Christian. Sadly, Bart later lost his faith and has since written five best-selling books that are critical of Christianity. Bart’s a force to be reckoned with and is viewed by the media as an authority on the NT and the historical Jesus.

According to Ehrman, the gospels don’t just have minor variations but are “hopelessly contradictory.” But is Bart’s verdict on the gospels warranted?

First of all, how do we define a contradiction?

A real contradiction would occur when two claims contradict each other when one of them must be false, and the other true. For example, the Quran says that Jesus was not really crucified. The four gospels say otherwise, and both can’t be right. The Quran and the Gospels are hopelessly contradictory.

But we know that sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. We have cases in history where two events have appeared to be contradictory, but those contradictions were only apparent.

For example, who made the public proclamation of the Declaration of Independence in the old State House in Boston on the morning of July 18, 1776? Many accounts said that this proclamation was made by William Greenleaf, while others said that it was by Col. Thomas Crafts. But history now tells us that Mr. Greenleaf suffered from a weak voice. He first read the Declaration while Col. Crafts repeated it in a loud voice for all the crowd to hear. The seeming conflict disappears.

The more historical approach is that you can often resolve apparent contradictions through unstrained harmonization. That’s not a hopelessly unresolvable contradiction. Moreover, what if there is a contradiction that’s inconsequential to the main details of the story related?

Historical examples of this sort can be multiplied. To give one example: There was an embassy of the Jews sent to oppose the execution of Claudian’s order to place his statue in their temple. Philo says this happened in the fall. Josephus says it happened during spring. Both were contemporaries, yet no serious historian doubts that an embassy was sent or that the order was given.

It would take an entire series of posts to address all of Bart’s complaints of contradictions, but let’s pick on a few and see if they are as damning as Ehrman makes them out to be.

Jairus Daughter – Dead Already or Very Sick?

When asked on his blog if there was a “slam-dunk” contradiction that would be impossible to defend, Bart’s reply was this: “I don’t have one that is a slam-dunk. But there are dozens that are pretty good. Here’s one: Jairus came to Jesus to ask him to help his daughter: was the girl dead already and he wanted Jesus to do something about it? Or was she very sick and he wanted him to heal her before she died? (See Mark 5:21-43 and Matthew 9:18-26) I don’t see how it could be both!”

If you read those passages side-by-side, Bart looks like he has a point. But if we look deeper at Matthew’s account compared to Mark’s, we notice that it’s a lot shorter. Matthew tells us the story in just 8 verses, Mark takes 22. Here’s a list of omissions in Matthew’s version:

  1. Jairus is a ruler of the synagogue. Matthew calls him a ‘ruler.’
  2. The crowd following Jesus and pressing him.
  3. The second stage of the story where someone comes and tells him that his daughter is dead.
  4. Jesus takes Peter, James, and John with him.
  5. Jesus takes the girls’ parents into the room with him to raise her.
  6. Jesus’ direction to give her something to eat.
  7. Jesus’ command to keep silent.

That’s a lot of details left out, but Matthew does include the most important parts of the story: Jairus’ daughter died, Jesus said she was sleeping, people laughed Jesus to scorn, and Jesus raised her.

Reducing a piece of literature in terms of time or length to include only its necessary elements is a literary device called compression. Ancient writers used it all the time. As do many modern authors. Matthew has to intimate somewhere that the daughter is dead and not just sick. He shows this in the short summary of Jairus’s interaction with Jesus’ intentions, rather using his exact words.

Furthermore, according to Bible commentator G.A. Chadwick, Matthew’s phrase “has died even now” (ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν) is very close in meaning to Mark’s “at the point of death” (ἐσχάτως ἔχει).

A worried dad of a sick daughter might say “she’s dead by now” and mean what we’d convey by saying, “she’s at the point of death.” Jairus knew that his daughter was at death’s door when he went looking for Jesus. He may have used words to express that his worst fears already came to pass. Both explanations are plausible.

So after taking a deeper look, this isn’t a hopeless contradiction at all. This was supposed to be Bart’s go-to, and it’s pretty weak sauce.

Was Mary alone at the empty tomb, or were other women with her?

Let’s give Bart another shot. Here’s a quote from his debate on the resurrection with William Lane Craig:

“Who went to the tomb on the third day? Was it Mary alone, or was it Mary with other women?”

Here’s the text in John that Bart is referring to: “On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. She saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.” (John 20:1)

The other three gospels all include other women (Mt. 28:1, Mk 16:1, Lk 24:1,10).

John said that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb, but he doesn’t say others were not present. All we need to do is read the next verse, and we see that she had company. “So she went running to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said to them, “They’ve taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they’ve put him!” (John 20:2)

Wait for a second! Where did “we” come from? Mary Magdalene’s words say that there were others present. John reporting this implies that he’s well aware that there were other women at the tomb. As Greg Koukl says, “never read a Bible verse.” This feels like some hoodwinkery is going on here. But let’s give Bart another shot.

Did John contradict himself about the order of Jesus’ miracles?

Quoting Ehrman: “In John’s Gospel, Jesus performs his 1st miracle in ch 2. When he turns water into wine, (a favorite miracle on college campuses) and we’re told that ‘this was the first sign Jesus did’ (John 2:11) Later in the chapter we’re told that Jesus did ‘many signs in Jerusalem.’ (John 2:23) And then, in chapter 4, he heals the son of the centurion, and the author says, “This was the second sign that Jesus did. (John 4:54) Huh? One sign, many signs, and then a second sign?” (Jesus, Interrupted pp. 8-9).

Bart apparently thinks John can’t count. But Dr. Ehrman selectively cut off the last part of the passage in John 2. Let’s quote it in more detail: “this, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee…” Now let’s read John 4:54 for ourselves: “This was now the second sign that Jesus did when he had come from Judea to Galilee.“

Jesus did one sign in Galilee, then many signs in Jerusalem and then the second sign in Galilee. This is not a contradiction at all. It feels like Bart is trying to fleece an unsuspecting audience.

Reading with charity or suspicion?

If you’re a historian, you ought to not adopt a hermeneutic of suspicion, but rather use the principle of charity. According to literary theorist Rita Felski, a hermeneutic of suspicion is “a distinctively modern style of interpretation that circumvents obvious or self-evident meanings in order to draw out less visible and less flattering truths.”

That’s a nice way of saying you’re looking for trouble in the text. As a writer of 5 best-sellers, you’d expect Ehrman to understand what compression is. As a former seminarian who has studied at Princeton under Metzger, you’d think that he’d know better than to quote verses out of context seemingly order to score rhetorical points. But that’s what these contradiction lists are often mostly made up of.

They sound impressive, but when you actually read the text for yourself and use a little charity towards the text, they’re not all that hard to resolve by using a little common sense. There’s nothing hopelessly contradictory happening here.

Alleged contradictions in the gospels don’t have to be the boogeyman that Christians go out of their way to avoid. If anything, studying them out for yourself should increase your confidence in the gospels. You’ll often find that the critics have to resort to apparent dishonesty and glossing over obvious explanations in order to make their case.

Now that doesn’t mean that there are not some apparent contradictions that might be more challenging. This is why I purposely went after Bart’s favorite one first. If you’re willing to do your homework and tap into some resources out there, you’ll find that there are some very good explanations available if there is one that’s been troubling you.

Let me point you to a great resource: I’m indebted to Dr. Tim McGrew for much of the examples and explanations shared here. Tim has a 2-part series on YouTube where he addresses many more alleged contradictions in the gospels. He goes over many more in great detail. Just consider this post an opening act and Tim’s videos the main attraction. These examples, when examined in detail, show that the gospels are not even close to being hopelessly contradictory.

Alleged Contradictions in the Gospels by Dr. Timothy McGrew

Alleged Contradictions in the Gospels (part 2) by Dr. Timothy McGrew

 

Erik Manning is a former atheist turned Christian after an experience with the Holy Spirit. He’s a freelance baseball writer and digital marketing specialist who is passionate about the intersection of evangelism and apologetics.

/by
Cuál fue el pecado de Sodoma y Gomorra

¿Cuál fue el pecado de Sodoma y Gomorra?

By Greg Koukl

Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Was it really because of the sin of inhospitality and not because of homosexuality, the greatest judgment found in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation?

People find what they want in the Bible. But if you look hard enough, you can find “biblical” support for reincarnation, Eastern religions, Jesus as a guru, divorce for any reason, and flying saucers. Every sect of Christianity uses the Bible to validate its claims, as do some who practice the occult.

It is not surprising, then, that a recent trend among biblical scholars holds that a careful reading of Genesis in its historical context provides no solid basis for concluding that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has anything to do with homosexuality.

This view may seem far-fetched to biblical conservatives, but it is taken very seriously in academic circles. It represents a significant challenge to the average Christian who finds in the Genesis account a direct condemnation of homosexual behavior.

My goal is to provide an answer to that challenge. I have no interest in defaming, insulting, offending, attacking, lashing out, denigrating, much less belittling a group of people. I just want to determine one thing: why did God destroy those two cities? Did it have anything to do with homosexuality itself? Simply put, what was the sin (or sins) of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Genesis 18:16-19:29

Although the context of the story in question begins in Genesis 18:16 during God’s conversation with Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, the details of the encounter in Sodom are found in Genesis 19:4-13:

They had not yet gone to bed, when the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people without exception. And they called to Lot, and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out so that we may know them.” Then Lot went out to them at the entrance and shut the door behind him, and said, “My brothers, I beg you not to do wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you and do with them as seems good to you; but do not do anything to these men, for they have come under my roof.” But they said, “Stand aside!” And they said, “This man came as a stranger, and is already acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them.” And they rushed at Lot and were about to break down the door, but the two men put out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they struck the men who were at the entrance of the house with blindness, from the smallest to the greatest, so that they were wearied trying to find the entrance.

Then the two men said to Lot, “Who else do you have here? Your sons-in-law, your sons, your daughters, and whoever you have in the city—get them out of this place, for we are going to destroy this place, for its outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.”

What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Why did God destroy the two cities? The traditional view is that homosexuality was the primary offense (“I beg you, my brothers, do not act wickedly.”).

Yale historian John Boswell offers four possible reasons for the destruction of Sodom:

(1) The Sodomites were destroyed because of the general wickedness that prompted the Lord to send angels into the city to investigate in the first place; (2) the city was destroyed because the people of Sodom had attempted to rape the angels; (3) the city was destroyed because the men of Sodom had attempted to engage in homosexual relations with the angels…; (4) the city was destroyed because of the inhospitable treatment of the visitors sent by the Lord. [1]

John Boswell thinks that explanation (2) “is the most obvious of the four,” although it has been “widely ignored by biblical scholars” [2] . Boswell expands on explanation (4), which he seems to favor as the most consistent with “modern scholarship” since 1955:

Lot was violating the custom of Sodom… by welcoming unknown guests into the city walls at night without obtaining permission from the city elders. When the men of Sodom gathered together to demand that the strangers be brought out before them “so that they might know them,” it only meant that they wanted to “know” who they were, and consequently, the city was destroyed not because of sexual immorality, but because of the sin of inhospitality to strangers [3] .

The Englishman D. Sherwin Bailey also makes this argument in Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (1955). The men of Sodom only wanted to question Lot’s guests to see if they were spies. The sin of gang rape was also in view, not homosexuality. In a broader sense, the men of Sodom were inhospitable to Lot’s guests.

Apparently it did not occur to Boswell that possibilities (2) and (4) seemed to be in conflict. If “meeting” the angels basically means questioning them, then there is not an attempt at rape, but an attempt at interrogation. If, on the other hand, the men intended to have sexual relations with the visitors (according to the traditional view) and are guilty of attempted rape, then the interrogation explanation must be abandoned (as the interpretation of Boswell’s above summary with respect to the views of modern scholarship is somewhat incoherent).

Some of these explanations, however, are not mutually exclusive and may have been influenced differently. For example, the general wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah (1) may have included rape (2) and/or inhospitality (4).

My primary interest here is to determine whether the biblical record indicates that (4) homosexuality was a significant factor.

Text clues

Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? We can find clues not only in the Genesis account, but also in the books of the prophets and in 2 Peter and Jude in the New Testament. These give us insight into the way ancient Jewish thinkers, steeped in Jewish culture, understood these texts.

First, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged for a serious sin. Genesis 18:20 says, “The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and their sin is exceedingly grievous.” In fact, not even ten righteous people could be found in the city.

Second, it seems that the judgment of these cities was to serve as a lesson to Abraham and others that wickedness would be punished. In 2 Peter 2:6 we see that God condemned and destroyed the cities as an “example to those who would live ungodly afterward.”

Third, Jude and Peter describe the unique qualities of sin. Jude 7 portrays the activity as “they became corrupt” and went after “strange flesh” [4] . Peter wrote that Lot was “overwhelmed by the sensual conduct of unchaste men,” and “from what he saw and heard as he lived among them, he was daily tormented in his righteous soul by their unrighteous deeds.” They are “those who walk after the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority” (2 Peter 2:7-10).

Fourth, there are 27 references outside Genesis to the city of Sodom. It is the emblem of gross immorality, the deepest depravity, and great judgment.

Gathering the biblical evidence gives us a picture of the offense of Sodom. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was a grievous, continual, debauched, sensual act that Lot saw, heard, and was tormented by as he witnessed it day after day. It was an act in which the inhabitants gave themselves over to their corrupt desires, going after strange flesh, ultimately bringing upon themselves the greatest judgment found in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation.

What do we know about the behavior of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah that fits this description?

Just a couple of questions

Was the city destroyed because the men of Sodom attempted to rape the angels (option (2) above)? The answer is obviously no. God’s judgment could not have been for the rapacious attempt itself, since His decision to destroy the cities was made days before the encounter (see Genesis 18:20). Furthermore, Peter makes it clear that the evil acts were ongoing (“day after day”), not a one-time incident. The cry had already gone up before God for some time [5] .

Was it merely an interrogation? Although the Hebrew word “yada” (“to know”) [6]  has a variety of nuances, the New Living Translation appropriately translates it as “to have sex” [7] . Although the word does not always have sexual connotations, it often does, and this translation is more consistent with the context of Genesis 9:5. There is no evidence that a harmless interview was what the men of the city had in mind. Lot’s response—“I beg you, my brothers, do not act wickedly”—makes it clear that they had other intentions.

Furthermore, the same verb is used in the immediate context to describe daughters who have not “known” a man and who were offered to the crowd instead of the visitors. Are we to understand Lot here as saying, “Please do not question my guests, but rather speak to my daughters who have never been interviewed”?

Did God judge Sodom and Gomorrah because of inhospitality? Is it true that God’s judgment was not because of homosexuality per se, but because the men of the town were not courteous to the visitors, violating sacred customs by attempting to outrage them? Serious questions arise if we make a couple of observations.

First, the implication itself is strange. To say that the men of Sodom were inhospitable because of the attempted rape is like saying that a husband who has beaten his wife is an insensitive spouse. That may be true, but it is hardly an important observation given the seriousness of the crime.

Second—and this has more to do with textual evidence—it does not fit the collective biblical description of the behavior that provoked God’s wrath: perverted, lawless, sensual behavior that Lot saw and heard day after day, in which men went after strange flesh.

Third, are we to believe that God wiped out two entire cities just because they had bad manners, even granting that such manners were more important then than now? There is no textual evidence that inhospitality was a capital offense. Yet homosexuality was punishable by death in Israel (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). Did God overlook the capital offense, and yet wipe out two entire cities for an evil that is nowhere listed as a serious offense?

The only reason that fits

The prevailing modern view of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the attempted rape of Lot’s visitors violated the high code of Middle Eastern hospitality (19:9). However, this inhospitality is an inference, not a specific point made in the text itself.

Moreover, the charge of inhospitality depends on—and is overshadowed by—the grave crime of rape, though neither of these could be the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah because God had decided to judge the cities long before they were committed. What choice is left? Only one.

We know that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexuals, “both young and old, all the people without exception” (19:4), to the point of despising available women (19:5-8). They even persisted after being struck with blindness (19:11). These men were totally given over to an overwhelming passion that did not abate despite being supernaturally blinded by angels.

Homosexuality fits the biblical details. It was the sin that represented the flagrant wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah—the “gross,” “ungodly,” “wicked,” “sensual conduct of the profligate men” that tormented Lot as he “saw and heard” it “day after day,” the “perverse desire” of those who followed “strange flesh.”

In their defense, some might cite Ezekiel 16:49-50: “Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: Arrogance, plenty of bread, and complete idleness were her and her daughters; yet they did not help the poor and needy, but they were haughty and committed abominations before me [8] . And when I saw it, I put them to death.” There is no mention of homosexuality here.

Clearly, the overall wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was great. That is not in question. Our interest here is whether homosexuality was part of that wickedness. Our analysis of Genesis reveals that homosexuality was the primary behavior in question in that passage. Ezekiel simply lists additional sins. The prophet does not contradict Moses, but rather gives more details.

Pettiness and arrogance alone did not attract God’s wrath. Ezekiel headed the list of crimes with the word “abominations.” This word brings us back to homosexuality. The behavior that Moses refers to in Genesis 18 and later describes in Leviticus as “abomination” in the eyes of God.

Levitical

The Mosaic Law has two explicit citations regarding homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination” [9] . It is an abomination [toebah] [10] . Leviticus 20:13 says, “If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination [toebah]; they shall surely be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them.”

John Boswell offers the most common rebuttal to what appears to be the obvious biblical prohibition of homosexuality:

The Hebrew word “toebah,” here translated as “abomination,” typically does not mean something intrinsically evil, such as rape or theft… but rather something that is ritually unclean for Jews, such as eating pork or engaging in sexual relations during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters. [11]

As implied, Leviticus is not where we generally go for moral instruction. The sections cited deal with the worship service: sacrifices, priesthood, ceremonial washings, etc. These instructions have to do with ritual purity, not moral purity. A Jew who observed these laws could not worship after ceremonial defilement until he had cleansed himself to perform the ritual.

Others have pointed out that many details of the Mosaic law are archaic. Who cares about mixing wool with linen (Deuteronomy 22:11)? The death penalty itself does not mark homosexuality as particularly abhorrent. Disobedience to parents was also a capital offense, as was gathering firewood on the Sabbath, and yet no one considers these things punishable offenses today. [12]

This answer is riddled with inconsistencies. First, even if this prohibition were restricted only to ceremonial purity and worship, then it would apply only to Jewish clerics. However, many who use this approach see no problem with homosexual rabbis and defend such “diversity” as a religious virtue. On the other hand, if the Torah’s prohibitions no longer apply at all, then the difference between the ceremonial and moral aspects of Mosaic law is moot; none of it applies anyway.

Second, it is a grave mistake to conclude that if something in the Torah no longer applies, then nothing is applicable. Jewish thinker Dennis Prager observed: “It is one thing not to carry out a Torah punishment, and quite another to declare that a Torah sin is no longer a sin.” [13]  [emphasis in original]

Third, it is true that much of the law seems to deal with religious activity rather than universal morality. However, this observation alone is not sufficient to dismiss the Torah as a source of obligatory moral instruction altogether. Ceremonial and moral purity are not always distinct from one another.

Here, context is king. Note where the verses fit in. The “toebah” of homosexuality is found between adultery (18:20), child sacrifice (18:21), and bestiality (18:23). Was Moses saying that if a priest committed adultery, had sex with an animal, or burned his son on the altar to Molech, he must make sure to wash before coming to the temple?

More to the point, these sections were not addressed to the priests, but to all the “children of Israel” (18:2, 20:2). In addition to the prohibitions regarding adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality already mentioned, Moses also prohibited spiritism (20:6) and incest (20:12).

The conclusion of Leviticus 18 contains these words:

Speak to [the “children of Israel” (v. 2)], but as for you, you shall keep my statutes and my laws and you shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native nor the stranger residing among you; for the men of this land who were before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. (18:26-27)

Moses spoke just as clearly as in Genesis. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many things, but chief among them was the sin of homosexuality.

In this section of Leviticus, God gives instructions not only regarding ceremonial purity, but also commandments that were to be observed by every Jew and even by every visitor.

Homosexuality was a sin for Jews. It was also a sin for Gentiles who visited Jews (“strangers”). It was even an abomination that defiled the land when pagan inhabitants in Canaan practiced it long before the Jews arrived.

Homosexuality is a defiling sin, no matter who practices it. It has no place before God among any people, in any age, neither before nor now.

Grades

[1] John Boswell, “Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality” (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 93.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Some have suggested that the sin was seeking sexual union with angels (“strange flesh”). While this may be a possible interpretation, there is no indication that the men knew that Lot’s visitors were angels. Jude’s point is that the Sodomites, like the angels, “did not retain their original dominion, but abandoned their rightful dwelling” (v. 6). The “strange flesh”—the improper dominion—was not angelic flesh, but homosexual flesh.

[5] The answer that homosexual rape could still qualify as ongoing activity is unconvincing. Who would be the ongoing victims? They were not the men of the city.

Because of their sexual orientation, they were unlikely to be able to resist homosexual advances. Visitors would have to be targeted. But if those who did come were harassed “day after day,” I am sure that would put an end to the tourist business. The continuous supply of sexual candidates would quickly diminish once word got out, and many would avoid the area.

[6] Strong’s #3045.

[7] “To know” a person carnally, to have sexual relations… suj. and obj. Male (of sodomy) Gen. 19:5).” Brown, Driver and Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and

English Lexicon (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody ME: 1996), 394. See also Judges 19:22 ff.

[8] Curiously, this last sentence was overlooked in Boswell’s citation of the text.

[9] “Lie down” is the Hebrew word “shakab” and means “to lie down” (Strong’s #7901). In this case, it refers to sexual intercourse as in Genesis 19:32: “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father” (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 1012).

[10] Strong’s #8441.

[11] Boswell, 100.

[12] It is curious that some choose to conclude that homosexuality was a lesser crime since it was no more offensive to God than gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Both were considered capital offenses. If you want to know how God really felt about this, look at the punishment He exacts.

[13] Dennis Prager, “Homosexuality, Judaism and Gay Rabbis,” The Prager Perspective, 3/1/97.

 

Greg Koukl is a Christian apologist, radio host, author, speaker, and founder of the Christian apologetics organization Stand To Reason. Greg received his M.A. in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Talbot School of Theology, graduating with high honors, and his M.A. in Christian Apologetics with honors from Simon Greenleaf University. He is an adjunct professor of Christian apologetics at Biola University.

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2IplYdi

Translated by Natalia Armando

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada

/by

Is morality bad for business?

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

According to 180 CEOs, it is… at least the morality based on God’s Good nature. They claim that abortion bans go “against our values and [are] bad for business.” They claim abortion bans are a ban on “equality.”

What do they mean by equality?
What do they mean by bad?
What standard are they using to make such assertions?
Was banning slavery bad for business?
Are we supposed to base moral decisions on economic results?

Join Frank and as he unpacks this hot issue and shows why you shouldn’t be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. He also addresses a difficult question from a listener about believing in a God who allows so much evil.

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at  Hello@CrossExamined.org.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

/by