Podcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Let’s talk about respectfully engaging with Hindus. Why? More than a billion people around the world say they’re Hindus. That’s about 15 percent of the world. So if you haven’t met someone at least interested in some aspect of Hindu culture, you may soon. The more we engage with our neighbors, the more we see that religion is a core part of many people’s lives. I like how Win Corduan once said, “Loving our neighbors means getting to know them. And getting to know them means getting to know their religion.” We need discover what makes their religion attractive to them. Why did they convert? It they were born into it, what keeps them loyal?
At the Hendricks Center, we produced a Table podcast series focused on respectfully engaging with Hindus. I invited William Subash, who pastors Crossroad Church in Bangalore, India and teaches New Testament Studies at the South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies to help us think through Hinduism and what respectful engagement looks like.
In this post, I’ll the answers to three questions we discussed: What compels Hindus to stay Hindus? What attracts non-Hindus to Hinduism? How can engaging with Hindus happen respectfully?
Respectfully Engaging with Hindus
Before engaging with Hindus, you might ask, “What exactly is Hinduism?” The diversity represented by Hinduism means you’re going to get a range of responses. And they vary widely depending on who you talk to. For example, many Indians see Hinduism as a group of people, rather than a religion. In this context, Hindu practices are linked to cultural and family loyalty. In India, where about 80% of the population is Hindu, you’ll find agnostics, atheists, and polytheists all identifying as Hindus. Subash explains:
Hinduism is a conglomeration of many religions, many world views that often change, adapt, but will never have one claim. Indian Hinduism is different from the Hinduism practiced in Central America or Singapore, for example.
What Keeps Hindus Loyal to Hinduism?
Many Hindus remain because of cultural loyalty. There’s unity amidst diversity, and anyone who leaves loses their spot in the caste system— That’s a huge deterrent. The caste system is something you’re born into, and it dictates who you can marry, who you can work for, and even who you can talk to. There’s discrimination that still goes on today. For example, marriages usually only happen within your caste. And this whole system is supported by Hindu Scriptures: The Bhagavad Gita is part of Mahabharata scripture, which is divided into 18 chapters which talk about various tenets of the caste-based religion. People who violate these rules or leave Hinduism are sometimes even murdered. Keep this in mind when engaging with Hindus, as rejecting deeply held beliefs can be seen as a serious form of defection. Subash says:
They can go to the extent of “honor killing” …When a person marries from one caste to another caste or one Hindu religion to another religion, it becomes a major issue.
Why Do People Convert to Hinduism?
Many non-Hindus like the pluralistic nature of Hinduism. It accommodates the beliefs of animists, polytheists, and others who are sensitive to spiritual realities. But something you might not initially expect to find when engaging with Hindus is that agnostic scientists, atheist philosophers, or naturalists fit in, too. Beyond this, some are also fascinated by the idea of becoming a god or realizing their own divinity. Subash notes:
The ultimate desire of educated Hindus is to realize that they are gods. They say Aham Brahmasmi, “I am God.” …People get attracted because their fate is not properly defined. It is very attractive. They say, “One day, I am going to be God.”
While many Hindus incorporate Jesus into their worldview, Christianity’s exclusive nature challenges the extent of Hindu inclusivism. Still, many Hindus have responded to the gospel demonstrated through compassionate Christians meeting medical and educational needs, especially for those in the lowest castes. Even the promise of divinity falls short, as Hindu gods also suffer from imperfections. Those who recognize their need for freedom from sin may also discover the biblical concepts of atonement and redemption absent from Hinduism and come to find freedom in Christ.
What Respectfully Engaging with Hindus Looks Like
Humbly ask questions
When it comes to engaging with Hindus, begin by building a relationship, asking questions, and then gently begin to discuss spiritual things. Ask questions that help you understand who the person is and why they do the things they do, and why they believe what they believe. Be very careful not to come off like you think you’re better than your Hindu friend. The only way to break the stereotype of the “proud, know-it-all, triumphalist Christian” when talking to our Hindu neighbors is to consistently demonstrate humility.
Listen to their answers openly and honestly, without rushing into apologetic arguments. As you listen, understand what they mean by any Christian-sounding terms like “God” or “salvation.” For example, some Hindus use the term “born again” in the context of reincarnation. So don’t just think about engaging with Hindus as Hindus. Remember, some are agnostics or atheists. So engage each person as an individual. Get a spiritual GPS on your friend, so you can empathize and really get where they’re coming from.
Humbly talk about Jesus
Since most Hindus love talking about spiritual things, talking about your faith or their spirituality may not be as awkward as you might expect. Many Hindus are actually interested in Jesus’ teachings—especially his teachings about money.
Take it slow. Don’t rush into a gospel presentation or begin by critiquing Hinduism. It can’t look like an “us versus them.” Despite the exclusive nature of Christianity, it is important to note that Jesus is inclusive. Jesus is for everyone, and you don’t need to give up your cultural or ethnic identity to follow him.
As you continue engaging with Hindus, gently tell your story and explain how you came to know Jesus’s love. Unlike a God who is an impersonal force, Jesus forgives everyone who repents. While some schools of Bhakti Hinduism might suggest a loose concept of grace, you can’t get forgiveness for sin in that context. But this shouldn’t be a cause for arrogance. Jesus didn’t claim to be the only way as a pride thing. It’s just that he’s the only one who can step into the human condition and deal with the sin problem we all have. Hindu deities have no righteousness to give us. How can they get rid of anyone’s bad karma?
Engaging with Hindus: Conclusion
Here’s what I want you to take away from this post on engaging with Hindus: While many remain loyal to Hinduism for cultural and social reasons, converts are attracted to its pluralistic, adaptable nature. Hinduism can accommodate a spectrum of views, from atheism to the idea that you can become a God one day. Still, some people recognize their struggle with imperfection and find true atonement or grace absent from Hinduism. Many Hindus have become Christians through real relationships and a personal encounter with Jesus. Engaging with Hindus requires courage and compassion. And it’s best done by following Jesus’ example of not only speaking the truth but loving people well.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message by Ravi Zacharias: https://amzn.to/2MFuBDZ
The Reincarnation Sensation by Norman Geisler: http://bit.ly/2LbaXfW
Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek: http://bit.ly/2zm2VLF
World Religions: What Makes Jesus Unique? mp3 by Ron Carlson: http://bit.ly/2zrU76Y
Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2MFAvVt
Introduction
Is biblical faith blind or reasonable? This is one of the most hotly debated questions between believers and unbelievers. While most who say that faith is blind are unbelievers, I have also heard many Christians claim this as well. The claim is that faith and reason are at odds with one another and that the more evidence or reason that you have to believe something, the less faith that you need.
Is Faith Blind or Evidential?
In his book “Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes The Case For A More Reasonable Evidential Faith,” J. Warner Wallace emphasizes the evidential nature of Jesus’ ministry on earth. Jesus never asked people to believe His claims without a good reason to: the miracles that He performed. He performed miracles to demonstrate that His claims to be God (such as is found in His claim to be able to forgive sins in Matthew 9). Based on His followers’ witnessing His miracles (eyewitness evidence), He asked them to have faith in Him. This was not a request for blind faith, but an evidentially-based faith.
In the book, Wallace not only appeals to the entire ministry of Christ on earth but also to specific passages of Scripture where Jesus explicitly identifies this specific purpose for His miracles and where other New Testament authors also encouraged their readers to test claims:
John 10:25- “‘I did tell you, and you don’t believe,’ Jesus answered them. ‘The works that I do in My Father’s name testify about Me.'”
John 10:37-38- “If I am not doing My Father’s works, don’t believe Me. But if I am doing them and you don’t believe Me, believe the works.”
Acts 1:3- “After He had suffered, He also prested Himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during 40 days and speaking about the kingdom of God.”
1 Thessalonians 5:19-21- “Don’t stifle the Spirit. Don’t despise prophecies, but test all things. Hold on to what is good.”
1 John 4:1- “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”
These passages do not ask for someone to believe just anything based simply on the word of the person making the claim (“…because I said!”- a blind faith) but based on the actions of the person making the claim. Notice, too, that in the 1 Thessalonians and 1 John passages, the authors are so confident that the claims will pass evidential tests that they openly invite testing! None of these passages ask for blind faith; in fact, they encourage the exact opposite: a faith that is not blind rather a faith that is grounded in evidence and reason.
A Biblical Faith and The Resurrection
Biblical faith, correctly understood from Scripture, is not blind; it is tested and firmly grounded. In fact, today, we can test the central claim of Christianity: that Jesus rose bodily from the dead (1 Corinthians 15). As we investigate the evidence, based on tried and true investigative methods (as outlined in J. Warner Wallace‘s book “Cold-Case Christianity“) and historiographical methods (as outlined in Gary Habermas‘ books “The Historical Jesus” and “The Risen Jesus and Future Hope“), we discover that the only explanation that consistently explains all the evidence is that Jesus rose from the grave, as is claimed in the gospels.
Conclusion
Because this central claim passes the evidential test, faith in Christ is not blind or because “the Bible tells me so;” it is firmly grounded in proven methods used for discovering the truth of claimed events of the past. There simply is no reasonable reason to reject the Resurrection. While we certainly are free to reject the conclusion of the evidence and arguments, we should not fool ourselves into believing that the rejection is anything more than an emotional leap of blind faith despite evidence to the contrary.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Frank Turek: book, MP3 and DVD.
Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith by J. Warner Wallace: https://amzn.to/2U8wxWi
God’s Crime Scene: Cold-Case… Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe by J. Warner Wallace: book, MP4 and DVD.
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/30FWO0D
A while ago Jorge Gil received a message on one of his social networks from an atheist, it was a series of objections against theism. Of course, my friend Jorge does not have the time to respond to each of the messages or emails he receives, so he asked me to be the one to respond to the objections; and well, here I am. Since the text sent is extensive, I have decided to address his argument in four parts: three are objections to the general case in favor of theism and one is an atheological argument.
This is the first objection that Randy Riverol Arevalo, from Cuba, presents to us:
Hello, greetings from Cuba. I see that you are one of the few Spanish speakers who has a good command of the philosophy of religion. I wanted to explain my position and hear your thoughts on it.
I am an atheist, by this I mean that I believe that there are no arguments that indicate the existence of God. This is only valid if God is meant to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and necessary. God’s properties are metaphysical (that is, they refer to the ontology and basis of reality), for these properties to be justified, they require metaphysical evidence, since, of the three categories: conceptual, empirical, and metaphysical, [these] require evidence of their respective category, and, therefore, you cannot prove a metaphysical property with empirical evidence. For example, philosophical naturalism is the claim that only the natural exists, even with all or much knowledge of the natural world we are not justified in concluding that everything that exists is natural, since there could be something that we do not know or have not discovered. To prove philosophical naturalism, you would need metaphysical evidence, which we do not currently have a methodology to obtain. Therefore, if you try to justify a metaphysical property with empirical evidence, it is not justified, and if you try to justify it with the fact that induction is not perfect and that it always has this margin of error, [well] that is my point, you are trying to obtain a “metaphysical” deductive conclusion using “empirical” induction, committing a category error.
Ok. Let’s go step by step:
- The properties of God are metaphysical (that is, they refer to the ontology and basis of reality).
If by (a) you mean that properties tell us something about the essence of the object being predicated, then I see no problem.
- …for these properties to be justified requires metaphysical evidence, since, of the three categories: conceptual, empirical and metaphysical, [these] require evidence from their respective category, and therefore, you cannot prove a metaphysical property with empirical evidence.
Talking about the nature of properties is one of the broadest topics in metaphysics, so much so that I find your classification insufficient and problematic. [1] For example, what do you mean by empirical properties? You offer no definition, not a single example. If I were to take your classification literally, an empirical property would be one that is subject to sensory experience, but how is this even possible? For example, from the statement Peter is good you seem to mean that since Peter is an object of our senses, so is the property of being good. Is this what you mean by an empirical property? This seems to me to make no sense at all; not even a Platonist would claim that the property of being good is some kind of empirical object.
Since you don’t set out any clear concepts for your classifications of properties, I find it very difficult to understand why an empirical property requires empirical evidence. What kind of empirical evidence do you have to justify Peter’s property of being good? Why believe that the property of being good is empirical in Peter, but metaphysical in, say, the angel Gabriel? It’s like saying that the property of being good has the property of being empirical in a physical object, but has the property of being metaphysical in a metaphysical object. This certainly seems to me to be a rather complicated, if not absurd, ontology of properties. I think it’s a language for talking about properties that no philosopher holds.
So, for the sake of argument, let’s say that I accept your classification of properties. So, in what sense should I take your statements about properties? It seems to me that conventional language without metaphysical baggage is the best option. Instead of asking: What empirical evidence do you have to justify the empirical property of being good in Peter? I would ask: How do you prove that Peter is good? In response to this question, one could simply tell you to observe Peter’s actions to know that he is good; testimonies from people who know Peter would also help. In this way, I would understand that this methodology cannot be applied in the case of immaterial beings like God because he cannot be observed as in the case of Peter, but it does not follow from that that it is therefore impossible to know the properties of God, the only thing that follows is that at least another type of methodology is required to know the properties of God.
- To prove philosophical naturalism, you would need metaphysical evidence, which we currently have no methodology to obtain.
But Randy, why would you require metaphysical evidence to prove naturalism? If the claim of naturalism is that only the natural exists and under your own criteria of justification of properties, doesn’t this imply that you require physical evidence to prove naturalism and metaphysical evidence to prove supernaturalism? Now I don’t understand you.
- …if you try to justify [a metaphysical property] with the fact that induction is not perfect and that it always has that margin of error, [well] that is my point, you are trying to obtain a “metaphysical” deductive conclusion using “empirical” induction, committing a category error.
The problem is that you never bother to define an empirical property. Furthermore, if we apply your criterion of justification that only the metaphysical can prove the metaphysical and only the empirical can prove the empirical, then how do you claim that metaphysical properties, which are non-physical entities, refer to the ontology of reality, which in your worldview is physical? In the end, your own criterion of justification makes your classification of properties impossible.
To summarize, there are two problems with your objection:
- An insufficient and problematic classification of properties.
- A criterion of justification for properties that conflicts with the very definition of metaphysical properties.
Note:
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties/#KinPro
Jairo Izquierdo is a member of the Social Media team and an author for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He studies philosophy and theology, with his current focus being classical logic, epistemology, Christian doctrines, and philosophy of language. He is co-founder of Filósofo Cristiano . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance and a worship director at the Christian Baptist church Cristo es la Respuesta in Puebla, Mexico.
My blog has been quiet since earlier this year because I was finishing my next book (Talking with Your Kids about Jesus; March 2020). Now that I’ve turned it into the publisher and my kids are heading back to school, it’s time to resume blogging!
I debated what my first post should be as I start back up, but decided there were some especially important things to address with the headlines this week about Marty Sampson of Hillsong United saying he’s losing his faith. Hillsong is one of the most popular worship bands today, and Sampson’s announcement has led to endless discussions on social media this week. Last month, a similar high-profile announcement was made by Joshua Harris, a pastor, and author known for his book, I Kissed Dating Goodbye.
If you haven’t seen it, here’s what Sampson posted on Instagram:
“Time for some real talk. I’m genuinely losing my faith, and it doesn’t bother me. Like, what bothers me now is nothing. I am so happy now, so at peace with the world. It’s crazy.
This is a soapbox moment so here I go… How many preachers fall? Many. No one talks about it. How many miracles happen. Not many. No one talks about it. Why is the Bible full of contradictions? No one talks about it. How can God be love yet send four billion people to a place, all ‘coz they don’t believe? No one talks about it. Christians can be the most judgmental people on the planet—they can also be some of the most beautiful and loving people. But it’s not for me.
I am not in any more. I want genuine truth. Not the “I just believe it” kind of truth. Science keeps piercing the truth of every religion. Lots of things help people change their lives, not just one version of God. Got so much more to say, but for me, I keeping it real. Unfollow if you want, I’ve never been about living my life for others.
All I know is what’s true to me right now, and Christianity just seems to me like another religion at this point. I could go on, but I won’t. Love and forgive absolutely. Be kind absolutely. Be generous and do good to others absolutely. Some things are good no matter what you believe. Let the rain fall, the sun will come up tomorrow.”
Some of the takeaways from Sampson’s announcement are obvious and have already been dissected ad nauseum this week (for example, no one should esteem Christian leaders to the point that if they fall away from Jesus, it impacts their own faith). However, there is a less obvious point I want to highlight today with implications for Christian parents specifically.
It’s not enough for kids to know that answers to faith questions are available.
As many have pointed out this week, Sampson’s claim that “no one” is talking about the various faith questions he raised is absurd if taken literally. Of course, people are talking about those questions, and they’ve done so for thousands of years. In fact, they’re so common that I’ve written about every point he raised in one or more of my books. He certainly didn’t stumble upon some kind of unexplored territory.
But I’m pretty sure he knows that, and it’s not what he meant.
In fact, he later posted a list of some apologists (authors and speakers who defend the truth of Christianity) for people to check out if they have similar questions.
Sampson clearly knew that answers to his questions were available. The problem here is not a question of available answers…it’s a question of available processing.
Building a Home Where Kids Process the Big Questions
When I talk to people after speaking engagements, a lot of parents will say something like, “It’s so good to know that the answers are out there! I want my kids to know that!” There’s no indication that they have any intention of personally digging into those answers with their kids. They feel it’s enough to point them to some ethereal box of knowledge when a need eventually arises.
Sampson’s statement attests to the serious problem with that idea.
He knew answers were out there, but was apparently living in a Christian climate that never really engaged with them. That silence screamed, “The Christians around me aren’t thinking about faith as deeply as I am, otherwise they would be talking about this more and questioning too.”
For adults like Sampson, this tends to be a function of the climate in the church you attend and the believers you fellowship with. For kids, it’s in large part a function of the climate in your home.
In homes that foster a thinking climate, parents:
- Proactively raise big questions for discussion—even when their kids aren’t asking them. (If you don’t know what those should be, there are seventy conversations to have with your kids in my first two books.)
- Explicitly tell their kids that questions are welcome and regularly ask what questions they have.
- Share their own questions about faith, and how they’ve searched for answers.
- Make it clear that biblical faith isn’t blind, and that God has given us much evidence for the truth of Christianity.
- Explore the beliefs and logical implications of other worldviews, so their kids better understand Christianity in context.
- Press kids to explain why they believe what they do, not just reiterate their viewpoints (on any topic, not just spiritual matters).
- Engage in conversation about hot cultural topics from a biblical worldview rather than avoid them.
- Model intellectual curiosity about faith by reading/listening to/watching content that grows their own understanding.
- Study the Bible with their kids for understanding, not just to memorize isolated verses.
In homes that don’t necessarily foster a thinking climate, parents tend to:
- Instill the idea that when we have questions, we just have to have more faith (but biblical faith is trusting in what you have good reason to believe is true).
- Assume kids will learn what they need about the Bible in Sunday school (but they won’t).
- Equate discipleship with raising kids with “good values” (but Christianity is far more than a set of values).
- Fear their kids’ questions, believing they will lose credibility if they can’t answer them (but kids can learn just as much from exploring answers with you).
- Believe they have no other spiritual responsibility than to pray for their kids (but we are called to be active disciplers).
Every Christian parent should take a hard look at whether they’re fostering a “thinking climate” in their home. Giving your kids opportunities to process questions (not just telling them answers are available) so they don’t conclude “no one” is talking about these things is a critical part of discipleship today.
And there’s one other related point I want to note from Sampson’s statement. He said, “Lots of things help people change their lives, not just one version of God.”
A lot of kids today—and clearly adults, too—are looking for the worldview that “works” for them. The one that “changes their life.” The one that “feels” the best. The one that “helps.”
The problem is, that’s not the decision-making criteria we should use when considering worldviews. The question should always be, What is true? What is the true picture of reality?
If Christianity changes my life, but Jesus wasn’t raised from the dead, Christianity is still a false worldview, and I shouldn’t hold it. It’s not true.
If atheism changes my life, but Jesus was raised from the dead, atheism is still a false worldview, and I shouldn’t hold it. It’s not true.
Kids not only need opportunities to process big questions of faith, but they also need direction on how to weigh the answers; they need to clearly understand that the search should always be about discovering what is true…not about what subjectively “works.”
I was sitting in a church group recently that was discussing the need for teaching kids these things. One parent very honestly acknowledged his doubts about all this, saying, “It just seems like one more thing we’re supposed to do.”
If that’s how you feel, I want to leave you with this thought. If your child’s math teacher only wanted to teach them addition because subtraction is just “one more thing,” you’d think they were crazy. Subtraction is an integral part of math. In the same way, raising your kids in a home that presses in on deep questions of faith is not one more thing for Christian parents… it’s an integral part of discipleship today, whether you feel like engaging in that process or not.
As you begin this school year, consider what the temperature is in your own home’s thinking climate. If it’s been cold, don’t feel guilty—just turn up the heat. If you don’t, the secular world will… before you even realize your kids have burned out of Christianity.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith https://amzn.to/2U8N50p
Talking with Your Kids about God: 30 Conversations Every Christian Parent Must Have https://amzn.to/343tfbv
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/2Hv9srG
Podcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Who is your commanding officer? Is it Jesus or someone else? Is it Jesus or yourself? Is it Jesus or the culture? If you say it’s Jesus, well Jesus said, “If you love me you will keep my commands.” Yet we see people in the church today not only failing to keep his commands but denying they are commands at all, especially when it comes to sexual behavior.
Join Frank for completely politically incorrect, but biblically correct, insights into what’s right and true regarding sexual behavior. The show starts with LT Hiroo Onoda, a member of the Japanese imperial army, who refused to believe WWII was over and the continued to fight on a Philippine Island until relieved of his duty in 1974!
What relevance does that have? Listen.
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 Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
This past weekend, two mass-scaled shootings transpired on American soil. El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio experienced unspeakable carnage. Two men, fueled by hatred for mankind, slaughtered dozens of innocent people in cold blood.
In response, people of all stripes spoke out against these atrocities. Men and women, democrat and republican, Christian and atheist, all condemned these crimes. In other words, the denunciation of these senseless and cowardly acts has been universal.
But doesn’t this universal agreement fly in the face of our relativistic cultural values? “Don’t force your morality on others” suddenly doesn’t sound so appealing in situations like this. Don’t we all want everyone else to adopt our same moral position on murder?
This, of course, raises important questions. Does objective morality exist? That is, were those two men objectively wrong in what they did over the weekend? And if so, where does this agreed-upon morality come from?
Objective Morality?
Relativists argue that there is no such thing as objective morality. Rather, morality is subjective — dependent on individual opinions. So in situations like these mass shootings, the relativist cannot say that the shooters were wrong. If so, that would imply that an objective standard exists that these two individuals missed.
Rather, the relativist can only say they didn’t care for these events. They found them distasteful. “Murder is wrong,” and “rape is evil” are just opinions on par with “pepperoni is better than sausage.”
But isn’t it self-evident that mass murder is in a different category than pizza toppings? The very fact that society has universally condemned these acts ought to tip us off that something more than mere opinion is at work here. When we all cry “foul” in unison, we’re implicitly affirming that “fair” exists.
C. S. Lewis made this argument years ago. He wrote:
[As an atheist] my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe to when I called it unjust?1
What Lewis and so many others have argued is that objective morality exists, and this is most evident when people don’t live up to that moral standard.
If we learn, for example, that a man raped a little girl, brutally murdered her, and dismembered her body, would we say that he committed evil? If yes, then we recognize an objective moral standard exists that was not met. Our senses tell us that acts such as abuse, rape, theft, deceit, murder, etc., all fail to measure up to a standard of some sort.
This moral standard seems so patently obvious; it’s odd when people try to deny it. A quick rule of thumb is that when a certain group can’t condemn the Holocaust as evil, we conclude that their views are absurd. Of course, if those same relativists had been in those concentration camps, they’d drop their relativism and recognize evil for what it is.
Even the most committed relativist will come around if you steal his wallet or spread false rumors about him. Phrases like “that’s not right” or “that’s not fair” will come spewing out faster than you can blink your eye.
Where Does Objective Morality Come from?
The reality of objective morality raises a significant question. Where does it come from? For the naturalists (those that believe only the natural world exists), these objective morals are mere illusory by-products of evolution and social conditioning.
For most naturalists, science is the only begetter of knowledge. But science itself is amoral. Science cannot tell us how things ought to be. It can only tell us how things are. That is, science can tell us how to make chemical weapons, but it cannot tell us whether we should use them.
Objective morals simply cannot derive from something morally neutral like science. And they certainly don’t arise from Darwinian evolution. According to Darwinists, people only do good because it aids in their survival. But if that’s the case, can we really call their actions morally good? Fundamentally, the motivation behind “good” acts is self-serving, and thus not worthy of praise.
Also, doesn’t Darwinism, on the whole, make morality arbitrary? Couldn’t the human race have found rape or killing each other for food acceptable if it would have evolved like other species from the animal kingdom? Sharks do this all the time, but are they immoral?
Darwinists who find this notion uncomfortable typically adopt humanism — the belief that humans are the center of the universe and morality is based on what helps them flourish. But again, isn’t humanism purely arbitrary in a Darwinian world?
Darwin, after all, taught that every living species descended from the same common ancestor in the primordial soup. Thus, humans are simply one small branch on his tree of life. Other branches include crickets, lions, fungus, and every other living species. Why should we think the human branch is the most valuable? Why are we more important than crickets? Doesn’t this make us guilty of speciesism?
Ultimately, atheism’s understanding of morality is purely arbitrary. It simply cannot account for objective morality.
In the end, God is the best explanation for objective morality. God’s very nature grounds morality so that anything done that goes against his character is wrong and/or evil. Furthermore, because God made humans in his image, each person possesses intrinsic value.
Answering the Skeptics’ Objections
Without a doubt, the first objection raised to the claim that objective morality doesn’t exist without God is that atheists do good without believing in God. But this misses the point. Of course, people can still do good things without believing in God. The question is not: do we have to believe in God to do good? Rather, the question is: if God doesn’t exist, is anything objectively good at all? As I’ve argued, moral categories are arbitrary in an atheistic world.
If we acknowledge, however, that the two mass-shooters committed evil, then objective moral categories exist. And if objective moral categories exist, then a transcendental lawgiver is the best explanation.
Which leads to the second objection — the Euthyphro Dilemma. The dilemma goes like this: Is something good because God wills it? Or does God will something because it is good? Skeptics raise this objection to put the theist between a rock and a hard place.
For if we say something is good because God wills it, then good is ultimately arbitrary. But if we say God wills something because it’s good, then the objective standard exists beyond God. But the skeptic presents us with a false dilemma here. A third option exists which states God wills something because he is good. That is to say; he is the standard by which we get all moral categories.
Another frequent objection is that we don’t need the Bible to know that we shouldn’t murder or steal. After all, other religious books tell us the same as do most legal codes. But again, this is not the argument theists make.
Nobody’s arguing you need to read the Bible to know right from wrong. Rather, we’re arguing that objective right and wrong don’t exist in a world without a transcendent moral law. But the very fact that every world religion and legal code agree on basic fundamental morals suggests that a moral law exists that transcends the human race.
The Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 2:14-15. He writes, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.”
That is to say; people don’t need the Bible to know right from wrong. God has instilled this moral code in the hearts of all people.
Which raises a final objection. If a moral law exists, why is there so much disagreement on morality? Disagreements certainly exists around issues like abortion and sexuality. But does that imply no right view exists? Of course not. Which is why we strive to make our views the accepted ones. In fact, if culture adopts our views, we’ll say things like our culture is progressing. Progressing toward what? The moral standard we believe to be right.
Be that as it may, the human race generally agrees on several basic points. People have certain rights. We should treat others with respect. Love is better than hate. Honesty is better than deceit. Courage is better than cowardice. And so forth. As C. S. Lewis aptly states:
Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five.2
The universal agreement on the most basic moral categories suggests a transcendent moral law.
The Moral Argument for God
I believe that objective morality is one of the strongest arguments for God’s existence. Perhaps a more helpful way of looking at it would be this syllogism:
- If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist.
- Objective morality does exist.
- Therefore, God exists.
This argument is logically air tight. If premises 1 and 2 are true, then 3 necessarily follows. I’ve made a case for 1 and 2 in this article. It concludes then that God exists.
So can we be good without God? No, because if he doesn’t exist, nothing objectively good exists either.
Ryan Leasure Holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2KJFXnY
There are two kinds of truth. One depends on our opinion of things. This is called subjective truth. The other depends on the way the world actually is. This is called objective truth. Most people never think about the difference between the two. And that makes any discussion of the concept of truth a difficult one to tackle. But we must tackle it. The way we understand truth impacts every aspect of our lives. And the way we answer life’s biggest questions depends on it implicitly. Truth is an objective feature of the world we live in. It’s foundational to reality itself.
Subjective Truth
When I say cookies and cream ice cream is the best kind of ice cream, that statement is true. For me. It’s my opinion. And my opinion may be completely different than yours. We are both subjects making observations about the world. But our observations about which flavor of ice cream is best say nothing about the nature of ice cream itself. They may be true statements, but they are only statements about us and our preferences. That’s why it’s called subjective truth.
Unfortunately, most people treat all truth the same way they treat their ice cream preferences. They’ll say things like, “Well, that may be true for you, but it’s not for me.” And while that’s a perfectly valid statement when it comes to our favorite kinds of ice cream, it’s wholly inadequate when it comes to our assessment of the nature of reality.
Objective Truth
Making claims regarding the nature of reality requires that we recognize a different kind of truth. It’s called objective truth. And it’s called that because it says something about objects outside of us. Objective things do not just exist inside our heads. They are real features of the real world.
For instance, if I say the Earth revolves around the Sun, I am making a statement about the nature of the Earth-Sun relationship. I am making a statement about an objective fact. My opinion about it doesn’t matter. Neither does yours. The only way to determine if the statement is true is to look at the objects themselves and see if what I say about them matches the way they really are. If it does match, I have made a true statement.
Think of it like gravity. You don’t have to believe in gravity. But saying you don’t believe in gravity doesn’t allow you to step off tall buildings without consequence. Gravity is an objective reality. It doesn’t matter if you believe in it or not. Objective truth is no different.
The Correspondence View Of Truth
This is called the “correspondence view” of truth. And the technical definition of it is this:
If what I believe about the world matches the way the world actually is, my belief about the world is true.
This way of understanding truth is perfectly natural. Our minds are wired to recognize it. You evaluate the world you live in using this definition of truth all the time. In fact, you’re unconsciously doing it right now. You’re reading these words and comparing what the words say to the reality you experience every day. You do that because you are a truth-seeking being. Your Maker made you that way. You want to know the truth. And you don’t (at least, you shouldn’t) accept things other people say unless they correspond to reality.
The truth is out there. And we are made to find it.
Alignment with The Truth
We really can’t escape the truth. Even someone who says, “There is no truth!” is making a truth claim about the world. They are saying that “there is no truth” … is a true statement.
Living in the real world requires that we recognize this definition of truth. We should be doing all we can to align our beliefs with the fixed features of that world. Those features are external to us. We don’t create them. We discover them. And we rely on them to keep us safe. We do it all the time.
If you’re about to step out into the street, you look both ways for a reason. You want to know the truth about whether a car may run you over. Knowing true things means properly aligning yourself with reality. If you believe something false about the world — if you deny reality — we have a word for that. It’s called being deluded. And being deluded will quickly get you in trouble.
False beliefs lead us to act in defiance of the way the world actually works. And that’s why we need to know the objective truth about the existence and nature of God, and our relationship with Him.
A Post-Truth Culture
Most people do not believe in objective truth. In fact, in 2016, the Oxford Dictionary Word of the Year was “post-truth.” Some say we live in a post-truth culture. This becomes especially evident when the subject of moral truth comes up. But the answers to life’s most important questions depend on us finding the truth. In fact, the truth lies at the heart of the Christian worldview. And that means Christianity doesn’t allow us to accept the assumptions or demands of a “post-truth” culture.
The Truth of Christianity
Whatever belief system you hold to should reflect the way the world actually is. This is why I believe in Christianity. Not because it “works for me.” And not because it makes my life easier. Christianity doesn’t claim it will do either of those things. It actually warns us of the opposite.
What Christianity does do is offer the most reasonable explanation for the origin and nature of the universe. And it offers the most reasonable explanation for the origin and nature of the human beings who inhabit that universe.
Christianity corresponds to reality. More than any other religion, it makes sense of the world. I believe in Christianity because it’s true. Or, as my favorite Christian apologist put it:
“I believe in Christianity as I believe the Sun has risen;
not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
C. S. Lewis
This video by J. Warner Wallace gives a quick overview of how to think about the difference between objective and subjective truth…
Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at: truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal, and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and a M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/33LF1qT
By Chris Du-Pond
I am a Christian apologist. I am an engineer by profession.
My nature values reason, logic, truth and objectivity. However, those of us who are inclined to apologetics are susceptible to falling into errors that can cost us dearly. I am going to be very honest and, to some extent, open my heart a little to prevent you from falling into the same errors.
Therefore, in this section, I want to present 7 common mistakes that we apologists make in the area of spiritual formation:
Mistake #1. Confusing apologetics study with devotional time
When I was studying for my master’s degree in apologetics at Biola University, I took a class called “Spiritual Formation.” The book we used for the class is “The Quest for Godliness” by J.I. Packer. This book speaks of the closeness and passion of being connected to the Creator on a spiritual level. A book that impacted me deeply and confronted me with my intellectuality in need of spirituality. Studying Leibniz’s cosmological argument, the ontological argument, or the fine-tuning of the universe is NOT a substitute for spending time in prayer and contemplation with God. It is as if I invited my wife to dinner and during dinner, instead of spending time with her, looking into her eyes, listening to her voice…instead, I started interviewing her for a job. Studying God is not the same as loving Him. Studying apologetics or theology does not make you more spiritual or wiser. Don’t neglect your intimate time with God.
Mistake #2. Minimizing Personal Experience and Miracles
There is a tendency for many apologists to emphasize the objective and forget the subjective, especially among young apologists who are just starting out on this path. It is true that in apologetics the purpose is to SHOW that Christianity is true, but we forget that external evidence is not the only way God manifests Himself. A personal experience can encourage other believers. God continues to perform miracles and we must remain open to them without turning them into idols. Otherwise, we can close ourselves off to a rich spiritual life. I am not suggesting that we become mystics, but that we be open to God at all times and in all the ways He manifests Himself. Otherwise, we can miss out on rich blessings.
Mistake #3. Arguing to win the argument
The apologist who says he has never been guilty of this is lying. We are fallen beings with inflated egos, and too much knowledge can inflate your ego even more. The result is bragging and presumption. I am not saying that there should never be a place for debate against opponents of Christianity in a public forum. In such a setting the audience is the most important thing. But we must be very wise in how we contend for the faith and with whom we contend. But the most important thing is, with what intention are we contending: is it for the glory of God or for our own glory?
Error #4. The Discouragement of Loneliness
The typical apologist tends to be a loner and often misunderstood. Knowing the truth can give you a sense of urgency that most believers don’t share. Many don’t understand what apologetics is for, and most don’t even know what it is. This can be depressing. The feeling is like being in a castle under siege, and half of your soldiers won’t listen to you and the other half don’t care that barbarians have arrived at the gate and are about to tear it down. The best strategy is to find a few soldiers who do care and then spread the word and educate the rest. You’ll soon have a small team of “special forces” to team up with.
If you had told me five years ago that interest in apologetics would explode in Latin America as it has done so far, I don’t think I would have believed it. There is much to do, but there is also much to be encouraged about.
Mistake #5. Reading about apologetics instead of DOING apologetics
When I first began to study apologetics seriously, I found myself spending a lot of time watching debates, reading books, listening to podcasts, talking about apologetics with my apologist friends. At social gatherings I only wanted to talk about apologetics. The only thing I did NOT do was use apologetics as a tool for evangelism.
Apologetics is not an end in itself, but a tool. It is the heavy artillery in the battle of the gospel. The war tank to demolish arguments that rise up against the knowledge of Christ. Let us not lose our compass: if you are going to learn apologetics, it is not to inflate your ego, it is to remove obstacles so that people can see the cross of Christ clearly. If you have the gift of learning, use the knowledge to lead others to Christ or at least to bring them closer to the cross. Not to boast about how much you know. And the more you know, the more will be demanded of you.
How many people have you shared the gospel with this week? This month? This year?
Mistake #6. Not looking for a Mentor
It is very important to have a mentor to guide you, not so much in apologetics but in a spiritual way. Some questions that we should let a mentor ask us are:
- Are you spending time in DELIGHT with God? It is not only important to spend time with God. It is more important to delight in Him than to fulfill a duty.
- Are you living a holy life, separate from sin?
- When you study the Bible, are you seeking HIS glory and not your own?
- Are you asking others to pray for your needs?
- Are you using your Spiritual Gifts wisely?
Having a mentor who is wiser than yourself is essential to cultivating a fruitful Christian life. But you must be willing to give him or her the authority to ask you honest and difficult questions. Looking back, whatever little or much I have accomplished in the area of apologetics has been because of other people who have pushed, encouraged, and guided me. We all need help. Let us be humble in seeking it.
Mistake #7. Wanting to be an apologist like William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias… (or name your favorite apologist or theologian).
When you start out in apologetics, you can be dazzled by the brilliance of certain apologists. It’s okay to admire certain people and learn from them. But even the most brilliant apologists are fallen beings in need of grace . The only one worthy of imitation is Jesus. Let’s not make apologists our idols of the moment. I’ve been in apologetics circles for many years and a few years ago I became very disillusioned with some of them (when I got to know them better) of whom I had formed an idealized image. Don’t try to imitate them. It’s not worth it. One of my teachers, Sean McDowell, son of the well-known apologist, Josh McDowell, struggled for years with this. A woman once told him after one of his talks, “You did well, but I like your dad better.” One day he realized and said to himself, “I’m not my dad, and I’ll never be like my dad. I am going to dedicate myself to being what God wants me to be… not a reproduction of someone else.”
God wants you, above all, to be obedient and to use your gifts wisely. Be faithful with whatever God has given you, whether it be a little or a lot, and He will bless you and give you more if He believes it is so. Don’t try to imitate others. Be better every day and imitate Jesus.
Final Note
Ultimately, everything we do must be motivated by love: love for God and love for people. That requires that every time we do apologetics, we clothe ourselves in love and kindness. I like Dallas Willard’s words on this subject:
“Like Jesus, we must seek to reach out to others in love in a spirit of humility without coercion. The only way to do this is to present our defense with gentleness, as help given in love in Jesus’ way. But that’s not all. That means our communication must be gentle, because gentleness is also characteristic of the subject of our communication. What we seek to defend or explain is Jesus himself, who is the gentle and kind shepherd. If we are not gentle in the way we communicate the good news, how will people be able to find the gentle and loving Messiah we want to show them?”
Chris Du-Pond is a Computer Systems Engineer from the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, specializing in relational databases. Chris graduated with honors from Biola University with a Masters in Christian Apologetics and studied under apologists such as William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Sean McDowell, Clay Jones, and JP Moreland among others. He is a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the Evangelical Theological Society, and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. He currently attends Champion Forest Baptist Church in Houston, TX, with his wife Katya and two daughters, Juliette and Giselle, where he teaches an advanced theology class.
Podcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Jezebel was the most wicked woman in the Bible, a powerful seductress who killed the prophets led Israel into idolatry and immorality, and emasculated men. She was seductive and determined to snuff out the voices coming against her because these voices were calling out for repentance.
In 21st century America, Jezebel is not a person, and America is not in the Bible. But it’s as if the spirit of Jezebel is alive again today. The influence of the same demonic force is being felt in throughout America in overwhelming and undeniable ways. Join Frank and Dr. Michael Brown as they uncover and respond to these dark forces by unpacking Mike’s brilliant new book “Jezebel’s War with America.” You’ll hear:
- Who was Jezebel in the Bible?
- What is spiritual warfare?
- Should we really believe in demons and Satan?
- Why are people now celebrating abortion and the killing of infants?
- How prevalent are pornography and sexual slavery? (You won’t believe this!)
- Why is the church silent?
- Is Trump hatred justified in light of his policies and demeanor?
- What are some practical things you can do to advance the spirit of Jesus rather than Jezebel?
Learn more at Dr. Brown’s website: www.AskDrBrown.org.
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 Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher