Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

Marriage is under fire… again.

The red wave in November might have helped put out the fire, but not when the wave is just a trickle. Unless something wild happens in Arizona and Georgia, the Democrats will retain the Senate majority. Republicans will gain a slight majority in the House of Representatives, but that doesn’t start till January. That leaves a one-month window for a democrat-majority House and Senate to cram everything they can into law before New Year’s. One of those cram jobs is the “Respect for Marriage Act.”[i]

Following Senate majority leader Chuck Shumer, Democrats are expected to pass the “Respect for Marriage Act.” The bill briefly mentions interracial marriages, which no one is disputing. that’s been legal in every state for decades now. That’s not the contentious part. This bill is written in direct opposition to the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act[ii] (1996), and intended to build on the momentum of the Obergfell decision (2015) which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Broadly speaking, the Respect for Marriage act would guarantee that any type of marriage recognized in one state must be recognized in every state. If you stop and think about that, it can get pretty absurd pretty quickly. Here’s the official summary of the bill.

Respect for Marriage Act
This bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages. Specifically, the bill repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.) The bill also repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.

117th Congress, H.R. 8404, 7/19/2022, Summary[iii]

Democrats seem to have a winning issue here though. The “marriage equality” rhetoric plays well to progressives, the LGBT lobby, and many libertarians. That means more publicity, votes, and money. As legislation, the bill already passed the House, and it has the votes to pass in the senate. It should have stalled out in the senate, for missing the 60 votes needed for cloture (ending debate/filibuster). But the 50 democrat votes are now joined by 12 Republicans supporting the bill.

Roy Blunt of Missouri
Richard Burr of North Carolina
Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia
Susan Collins of Maine
Joni Ernst of Iowa
Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
Rob Portman of Ohio
Mitt Romney of Utah
Dan Sullivan of Alaska
Thom Tillis of North Carolina
Todd Young of Indiana

This means, the Respect for Marriage Act can be put to a final vote, passing with a simple majority (51 votes). It will become the law of the land unless something drastic happens like senate democrats changing their vote, or a state election being overturned.

WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?

Those 12 republican votes are a little surprising, because republicans have mostly opposed redefining marriage. Plus, an earlier version of the bill raised concerns about religious freedom. The bill looked like it would force people to violate their conscience or their religion. Even the most liberal republicans and RINOs would have to reject that. Remember the cake-baker case[iv]? What about the flower-shop case[v]? Or the wedding-planner case[vi]? Without a doubt, there are left-wing legal teams determined to force Christians to violate their conscience and their religion (not to mention sacrifice free enterprise and freedom of speech). So, no matter what lobbyists may say, religious freedom is a live issue facing active threats.

That, however, was the old version of the bill. A new version[vii] was amended to protect religious freedom, at least for individuals and communities. With that revision in place, those 12 republicans were free to dissent from Republican ranks.

But does it protect religious freedom? A little, but not nearly as much as it may seem. It protects religious freedom at an individual and community level (like churches), but only generally, and only when it doesn’t include the state. It says:

“In General – Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the [US] Constitution.”

117th Congress H.R. 8404, 7/19/2022, Sec., 6, line 22[viii].

“GENERALLY TRUE” MEANS “OFTEN FALSE.”

One big problem with this amendment is the squishy phrase: “In General.” It refers to a general principle, and since the principle applies only generally, that means many times it doesn’t apply. Simply put, “generally true” means “often false.” In legal terms, squishy words like that tend to become escape clauses. They’re loopholes, so litigious activists can get around basic rights.

Plus, you can’t build much on squishy words. They aren’t absolute, universal, or even easy to clarify. So, it’s not a strong foundation for legal protections. Anyone who’s life and livelihood is on the line (cake-bakers and wedding planners included), they have only a cold reassurance that “maybe federal law will respect your religious freedom.”

Another liability with squishy legal terms is they can squishify and dissolve whatever they touch. Whatever follows from “In General” is only generally true, so there can be exceptions. Would your case be an exception? Who knows? Instead of clear, firm, and absolute statements protecting people’s religious freedoms, this amendment offers only a generality, a great big “Maybe?!” That’s little reassurance for the next small-business owner facing a class-action lawsuit with the full-force of the LGBT-lobby against them. A squishy fortress is no fortress at all.

IT VIOLATES LARGE-SCALE FREEDOMS

Another big problem with the amendment is that there’s not a single word protecting people’s freedom of speech and freedom of conscience in the form of state laws and elections. Voting is free speech. You can’t be legally forced to vote against your conscience. If the people across the state were to vote in favor of a state constitutional amendment or a particular law, that’s an expression of free speech. The Respect for Marriage Act threatens to strike down any competing state-level constitutions or laws, never minding the voice and conscience of the people who voted that legislation into existence.

Suppose for example, Iowans were to pass a law, across the state of Iowa, reflecting their deeply held beliefs about adoption practices and gay couples. If that law ran head-on into the Respect for Marriage Act, then the federal law would have right of way in the collision. The federal law would be violating people’s freedom of speech (in voting) and freedom of religion (in voting their conscience).

IT DISRESPECTS MARRIAGE

Setting aside the shaky amendment, there’s a deeper problem with the Respect for Marriage Act. It’s a glaring misnomer. It’s not respecting marriage at all, not unless we abandon the standing institution of marriage from the start of human history till about five minutes ago. Al Mohler calls it “Orwellian” because it hides a profound disrespect for marriage behind a sneaky politispeak title: “Respect for Marriage Act” (see, Al Mohler, The Briefing[ix], Nov. 17, 2022 – 23:42)

This Act treats marriage as merely a social construct that people can define and redefine at will. It’s as if states can create a new category of marriage, at will. But that framing runs contrary to human history, natural law, not to mention Scripture. Marriage isn’t a social construct, it’s more like a natural law, or even a force-of-nature. It’s built-in. It’s something we discover as a facet of God’s creation. We didn’t create marriage. God did (Genesis 2:19-25; Matthew 19:4-6). It’s also a gracious gift from God. We’re in no place to take God’s gift of marriage and say, “God, you didn’t design it right; here let me fix it up for you.”

Ethically speaking, we’re playing God if we think we have the authority to redefine marriage according to trending fashions. It’s pretty disrespectful towards God and towards marriage, to invent other partnerships that history, nature, and God never called “marriage” and think we have somehow expanded the institution of marriage to include them. We can play around with words all we want, but the institution of marriage precedes us. It’s bigger than us. And it comes from God. So, it isn’t subject to our language games. We can’t redefine marriage any more than we can replace the wings of a plane mid-flight.

IT’S OPEN-ENDED

It’s been said that people should be careful they’re not so open minded that their brains fall out. The same applies to an open definition of marriage. The Respect for Marriage Act fortifies an open view of marriage to where any state can change their definition and all other states would have to accept it, no matter how ridiculous that redefinition may be. Imagine if Utah reinstated polygamy. Or, if Texas lowered the age of marital consent to 12 (no offense Texas). Or, if California approved bigamy (2+ marriages at once). Or New York granted marriage status to any two roommates seeking tax benefits. Or if Florida granted dolphins “person” status so people can marry them. Or if Oregon allowed twelve different people to “identify” as just two people in marriage – every other state would be forced to accept any or all of these arrangements.

Bear in mind, marriage is what it is, regardless of terminology. Every state would have to affirm a lie, accepting as “marriage” what, in reality, is not a marriage. Every state in the union would have to adjust their health codes, family laws, child-protective services, domestic abuse laws, employment ethics, tax codes, health insurance, medical standards, adoption laws, housing and real-estate categories, and everything else impacted by these alternative “marriages”. All that because a federal law is demanding that everyone in every state: “Obey, or else.” Even if we set aside the religious, and ethical problems with this legislation, it’s so monstrously impractical it’s a disaster waiting to happen.

WE ALREADY HAD MARRIAGE EQUALITY

To be clear here, I don’t think society should prevent two mentally-fit unmarried adults from marrying each other. Even if they’re gay, bi-, or trans, they have the same natural right to marry someone of the opposite sex if they want. No one is stopping gay people from participating in their equal right to marry; and marriage is with someone of the opposite sex. That’s what marriage has meant for thousands of years, across all cultures, and all established world religions, to where it’s been a cultural universal and a common-sense admission by everyone everywhere till about 5 minutes ago. It’s redundant to even call it “traditional marriage.” It’s just called marriage. We’ve had to clarify in recent years that we (Christian conservatives) mean the same thing by “marriage” that almost everyone across history has meant by “marriage.” We mean it in the traditional sense. We don’t mean it in the recently revised socially-constructed sense. We’re talking about the long-tested and well-proven institutional bedrock for societies across every remotely successful civilization in history. We’re talking about the sacred social institution whereby women are protected, men are disciplined, and children are raised more effectively than any other family model. Even polygamous cultures treated marriage as one-man plus one woman; they just allowed the wealthier citizens to have more than one marriage at a time.

We already had marriage equality before worldly forces began playing language games with the term “marriage,” and before subversives began launching an open assault on the nuclear family. Not only did we have marriage equality, we had civil protections and privileges for marriage, we had respect for marriage, we even had healthier marriages and stronger families before all this.

If we Christian conservatives were willing to do the hard-work to protect and preserve the better parts of family-friendly faith-based culture, we might not be in this predicament. But there’s no sense in bemoaning past mistakes. we can’t change them. We can however learn from our mistakes, so we don’t have to repeat them.

At this point, the Respect for Marriage act is Exhibit Z in a long line of evidence proving how worldly forces are dead-set on subverting institution marriage and with it the nuclear family. Fellow believers and social conservatives have an upward hill to climb here. But God is still sovereign. And there’s still time for your state representative to take courage and do the right thing. Pray hard folks. Get the word out. And maybe write your local representative and tell them to vote against this Disrespecting Marriage Act.

What follows is the text of the Respect for Marriage Act (HR 8404). Accessed 20 Nov 2022 at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text?r=947&s=6

H. R. 8404

TO REPEAL THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT AND ENSURE RESPECT FOR STATE REGULATION OF MARRIAGE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATE

July 20, 2022

Received; read the first time

July 21, 2022

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

AN ACT

To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Respect for Marriage Act”.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.

Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed.

SEC. 3. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

Chapter 115[x] of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 1738B the following:

“§ 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

“(a) In General.—No person acting under color of State law may deny—

“(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or

“(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.

“(b) Enforcement By Attorney General.—The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates subsection (a) for declaratory and injunctive relief.

“(c) Private Right Of Action.—Any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against the person who violated such subsection for declaratory and injunctive relief.

“(d) State Defined.—In this section, the term ‘State’ has the meaning given such term under section 7 of title 1.”.

SEC. 4. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.

Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

“§ 7. Marriage

“(a) For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

“(b) In this section, the term ‘State’ means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

“(c) For purposes of subsection (a), in determining whether a marriage is valid in a State or the place where entered into, if outside of any State, only the law of the jurisdiction applicable at the time the marriage was entered into may be considered.”.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision to any person, entity, government, or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or any amendment made thereby, or the application of such provision to all other persons, entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 2022.Attest:

Footnotes

[i] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text

[ii] https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3396/text

[iii] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404?r=947&s=6

[iv] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111

[v] https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2019/91615-2-0.html

[vi] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2021-10/303-Creative-cert-stage.pdf

[vii] https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIN22420_1114.pdf

[viii] https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIN22420_1114.pdf

[ix] https://open.spotify.com/episode/08Prpo2UN4zXtOTROWJBZY

[x] http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-chapter115-front&num=0&edition=prelim

Whether Christians Should Study Philosophy

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By JD Kline

Question: I am curious whether Christians should study philosophy.

Answer: At some point, you may have heard it said, “Christians should not study philosophy because the Bible warns believers to beware of philosophy.” Colossians 2:8 describes it as “empty deceit” and of the “traditions of men,” or “worldly” and not of Christ. Some believe the very nature of its discourse will talk its followers right out of belief in God. Therefore, it is believed, that not only is the study of philosophy unbiblical. It leads one to skepticism. I was once told, “All you need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit.” Or “just have faith.”

However, this is not biblically accurate nor is it necessarily true. In the wrong hands, philosophy can be dangerous. But, in my experience, philosophy has brought me into a closer relationship with God. As the giver of wisdom (Proverbs 2:6, James 1:5), I can know Him more deeply and shed whatever intellectual barriers of reluctance obscuring a head-to-heart connection.

God is not anti-philosophy. God says, “Come, now, and let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18). Furthermore, the Scriptures teach us to love the lord, God, with our minds (Luke 10:27); and to destroy lofty arguments raised against the knowledge of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). The Scriptures, in other words, command us to develop our God-given rational faculties and use it to live our lives wisely in pursuit of Christ. We learn from 1 Peter 3:15 that we are to persuasively answer for the hope that is in us. Believe it or not, this is the task of philosophy. Listen, now, to the voices of our past.

Great Christian Thinkers on the Study of Philosophy

The late Norman Geisler states that “We cannot properly beware of philosophy unless we be aware of philosophy”[i] Furthermore, “God never bypasses the mind on the way to the heart.”[ii]

C.S. Lewis states, “If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if all the world were educated. But a cultural life will exist outside the Church whether it exists inside or not. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.”[iii]

Puritan, Cotton Mather once said, “Ignorance is the Mother not of Devotion but of Heresy.”[iv] This may not be about philosophy, specifically, but it is a charge against the anti-intellectual movement within the Church for all time. Therefore, the Church cannot afford to be ignorant regarding philosophy because philosophy leads to knowledge of God while the snake of heresy lies waiting to prey on the ignorant and twist the spirit of our devotion (truth)– for confusion and lies. Beware of those who try to reason you out of philosophy because their philosophy on Philosophy is philosophically ignorant. In their piety, they lead one not into devotion but heresy. Philosophy is a handmaiden for the truth about God.

The Philosophical Question about the Study of Philosophy

Notice, the very question itself demands the use of what it intends to refute. At its core, “why should Christians study philosophy?” is a philosophical question in nature. To answer a philosophical question, then, would require the use of philosophical reasoning. Therefore, to deny the use of reason would require the use of reason to successfully deny it. That is self-refuting. It is like saying, “never say never,” but only, “The reason we ought not to use reason is that there is no biblical reason for it.” False. In fact, we should study philosophy because philosophy informs readers of the Bible on how to interpret and understand the Bible. Have you ever considered the rules for interpreting literature? Philosophy guides the principles and methods we use of interpreting the Biblical text – a discipline called hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a philosophical enterprise. We couldn’t do theology, or any of the sciences for that matter, without philosophy. It is foundational to knowledge. Indeed, philosophy permeates every aspect of our lives and how we live it. Even if we don’t realize it, each of us has a philosophy about philosophy and whether Christians ought to study it. So, what is philosophy?

Defining Philosophy

Quite simply, philosophy is the love of wisdom. In other terms, philosophy is learning how to think rightly and logically about what is, such as: what is real, what is true, what is beautiful, and so on. It is the pursuit of truth. Jesus, who is God, is the truth (John 14:7). Therefore, in my view, when one studies philosophy, they are in pursuit of God. What we decide about Him then becomes a matter of faith – to believe or not to believe.

Conclusion

I can go on, but the truth is that much has been written about whether Christians should study philosophy and why. I would be remiss not to direct you to some prominent voices of our own time and allow their work to guide you.

For Further Study

J.P. Moreland. Love Your God with All Your Mind. NavPress; Revised edition (September 4, 2012).

Norm Geisler. Why Christians Should Study Philosophy.

Bibliography

Geisler, Norman. Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars. Bastion Books. Matthews, NC. 2012.

Lewis, C.S. Weight of Glory. HarperOne; 1st edition (March 1, 2001). Originally published in 1965.

Moreland, J.P. Love Your God with all Your Mind. NavPress; Revised edition (September 4, 2012).

Potter, Doug. Twelve Things from Dr. G for His Students. Originally posted at https://www.facebook.com/notes/1096515494112261/

Footnotes

[i] Norman Geisler. Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars. Bastion Books. Matthews, NC. 2012.

[ii] Doug Potter, Twelve Things from Dr. G for His Students. Originally posted at https://www.facebook.com/notes/1096515494112261/

[iii] C.S. Lewis. Weight of Glory. HarperOne; 1st edition (March 1, 2001). Originally published in 1965.

[iv] J.P. Moreland. Love Your God with all Your Mind. NavPress; Revised edition (September 4, 2012). 16

A Reflection on Giving Thanks

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Several years ago, I had the privilege of meeting a World War II fighter pilot. Then in his late 80’s, in 1944 he took part in a key battle of the war in the Pacific, a last-ditch effort by the Japanese to repel the American reoccupation of the Philippine Islands. Known as the Battle of Leyte Gulf, it pitted the last remnants of Japanese naval power against a vastly inferior American force, left behind to oversee the American landings while the bulk of American striking power had gone off in search of the enemy. The men who fought that day, on ships and in the air, exhibited much gallantry in facing a determined enemy. Though time had ravaged this man’s body, his mind remained sharp, and before long he was recalling details of that October day those many years ago. As our conversation came to a close, I took a moment to express my thanks for what he did during the war. I thanked him for his service and his courage, and for the opportunity it provided me to live in a more stable and peaceful world.

As I reflected on this later, I realized that his actions in upholding freedom in a war-torn world did not actually involve me. He had done nothing directly for me; I was not yet even born. But I knew that if men and women like him had not risked their lives, and been willing to sacrifice all, I might not ever have been. They had earned my thanks. They, in turn, had people who had come before them, who had done things for them, and to whom heartfelt gratitude would be appropriate. Tracing backward in time, I saw for a moment an endless stream of thanksgiving moving back through the recesses of time to a beginning trapped forever in the mists of forgotten memory.

In that moment, I also saw that my gratitude was personal. It was directed at living, breathing human beings. I did not give thanks to machinery, to the steel that cocooned the pilot in the cockpit of his plane, or to the chemistry that allowed the fuel mixture to propel it forward. Nor did I thank the instruments that provided feedback to him or the gunpowder that charged his weapons. My thanks, appropriately, were directed at people – the ones who forged the steel, who had teased out the secrets of chemistry, who had built the machines and weapons that he used. My gratitude related not to the thing, but to the intelligent source that lay behind it. To a person.

What, I wondered, lies at the beginning of this seemingly endless chain? If gratitude is owed to a person, to whom did the first man and woman, or the first group of humans, give thanks? Evolution? An undirected process that did not have them in mind? And if much of what we are thankful for exists in nature – as part and parcel of the good Earth and all that is on it – to whom does this thanks belong? Giving thanks to inanimate objects is nonsensical, yet the desire to express thanks is universal. We all do it, regardless of to what time or place or culture we belong. I saw in that moment that the whole idea of gratitude, the innate desire to give thanks, presupposes an ultimate source to whom this gratitude is owed.

While the atheist too can give thanks to people who preceded him, how can he make sense of the beginning of this chain of personal thanks? With no one there who created the Earth with all its bounty and splendor, what point is there for gratitude? The Christian worldview, by contrast, does make sense of this. It is right and fitting that we express thanks to those who came before us, for their effort and toil paved the way for the good we now experience. But that chain of causation, the progression of events for which we are thankful, does not begin a month, a year or a even century ago; it continues to a beginning point, and to a source who was both all powerful and yet quite personal.

In the last analysis, it is God – a person – whom we thank for all that is good. Whether he acts directly, or through the things and people he created, it makes sense to express our gratitude to him. And what better time to begin than on this weekend set aside to remember… and to give thanks.

Escaping to Pandora

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

The Oscar-winning blockbuster Avatar is back in theaters in anticipation of the release of a sequel, once again wowing audiences with its 3D special effects. The plot, an allegory about the evils of corporate greed, thrusts a paraplegic space marine – Jake Sully – into a role pivotal to the future of the native population of a lush moon circling a distant star. Inhabiting his hybrid Avatar body on this distant world, Jake is forced to choose between doing his “duty” and protecting aliens to whom he is growing increasingly attached.

What does the film have to do with Christian apologetics? Very little, on the surface. But stories are often the best way to get a point across. With apathy and hostility two common responses to the Christian message, using a popular film to make an apologetics point can be an effective evangelical tool. Perhaps a film like Avatar can make a point about a very controversial topic: how it is a “loving” God can allow people to spend eternity in Hell.

Making this point involves recognizing that Hell is not a place of torture but is instead a place of torment brought on by separation[i] from an infinitely perfect – and therefore infinitely desirable – Being. Life in our current bodies is, in a sense, like living on Jake’s ship. Our bodies, like Jake’s, are quite limited, and not at all suited for life on the “world” – heaven- that is our destination. The ship we inhabit is capable of supporting us, and for providing the means of transition to a fuller life. In the movie, that transition involves a rather arduous conversion. Anyone on board can conceivably master the means of escape, the “pod” that serves as the interface between the ship and the lush garden world, but using the pod requires self-discipline and training. Not everyone will be willing to undergo the rigors of this process.

We are all free to reject the pod training, but if we do that, we have no choice but to stay within the confines of a room in the ship. With nothing much else to do, and no other way to make it to the garden paradise, we remain trapped on the inside, spending eternity thinking about…ourselves. To get out into the new physical world, by contrast, we need to look outside ourselves. We need to be willing to think of others, and to sacrifice. The struggle is worth the effort: on this other world, there is unlimited opportunity to live forever in a perfected body with others that we know and love. The choice is ours: from inside the ship, we are separated and inward looking; we can never unite with those on the new world.

Contrary to what many modern critics of Christianity believe, God is not in the business of punishing people to satisfy some sadistic desire. But this current life on this beautiful planet we call home is not the destination – it is instead merely the ship we inhabit for a time. The journey may at times be arduous, but it was never meant to be the final destination. In the end, God does all the work in transforming us into our Avatars. But we must willingly enter the pod, and begin the process of shedding our old, selfish selves and looking outward. We must take the step. He will not force it upon us. If we do, He offers unlimited rewards. If we don’t, well… we end up with what we are asking for – agonizing separation from the source of all life and goodness, and ultimately complete loneliness.

But for many, despite the rewards, the cost seems too high. They reject the option of loving God, and loving their neighbor, because they prefer to always be “in control.” “No one is going to tell me what to do,” they say, as they adopt the words of Frank Sinatra’s famous song “My Way” as their theme. Instead of submitting to the One who brought them into being, they instead concentrate on loving themselves, a futile and unrewarding task if ever there was one, never realizing that the best way to achieve happiness is to stop seeking it and concentrate on doing good for others instead. Choosing their own pleasure at every turn, they seldom stop to realize what they are giving up along the way. In the end, those who choose to stay on the ship – to stay walled in and to think only of themselves – cannot complain that God did not force them into the pod, and into heaven. They will have only themselves to blame.

A bit strained, admittedly. And probably not too useful to teach doctrine or present the Good News. But a first step, perhaps, in engaging a nonbeliever by talking about something to which they can relate.

Footnotes

[i] https://crossexamined.org/is-hell-torment-or-torture-and-is-there-a-difference/

Jesus is Our Lord, Not Our Mascot.

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Melissa Dougherty

Some churches and people make Jesus a mascot.

I’m sure a few people reading this might be scratching their heads, wondering what I mean by this. Others know exactly what I mean. Here in America, sometimes I think we take for granted that we don’t have to “hurt” to follow Jesus. What I mean by that is that we avoid any sort of struggle to obtain most of our Christian virtues.

In other words, we’re too comfortable.

We own a Bible and go to church and don’t get tortured for it. We praise God in our cars, listening to worship music with the windows down without fear of being imprisoned. Yes, I think we take this for granted. We make Jesus a symbol of our good decisions and a “good luck” charm. I remember a long time ago having lunch with a friend. She said that she had to make sure she went to church that week because she knew she was going to need to do good on an upcoming test. She reasoned that if she wore her cross, went to church and read a few Bible passages, then God would grant her grace. Like a give-and-take.

From time to time, we need perspective on this.

The definition of a mascot is “a person or thing that is supposed to bring good luck or that is used to symbolize a particular event or organization.” I submit that many people make Jesus out to be their mascot, not their God.

Once a week, it’s almost as if Jesus is brought out as a cheerleader to give advice on life’s struggles. Perhaps there’s a sermon about how to manage stress or how to deal with a particular sin. Some will depict Jesus as telling everyone how great they are, that He wants them prosperous and victorious. His main goal? Is to rebuild their confidence. He’ll fix all their problems. Just follow Me, and life will be great! People will then allow Mascot Jesus to reinforce in them what they think God should have us feel like: good and comfortable. He’s a motivational speaker. He tells people everything is just fine, and people are proud to be Christians and followers of this always happy, all-loving, all-tolerant, ‘Cheerleader’ Jesus.

Mascot Jesus is all about cheering us up as if life were like a football game.

But really, He’s put on the sidelines. It’s really about us. He’s just there in case we need Him. Then we get to call the shots and say it’s “God’s will” because this is the form of God that we’ve been taught. Even if there are some who claim to carry His Name, and call themselves Christian, they actually have very little reliance on him as Lord and God. Even then, I wonder if they know what it means to pick up their cross and follow Jesus as He says in the Gospels:

Matthew 16: 24-26: Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

He’s saying to “count the cost” of following Him, which means it will cost you something to follow Him. This doesn’t mean we live lives that are not happy and comfortable like some extremists. This means we know what we’re signing up for when we become a disciple of Jesus and understand the assignment.

For some, there’s not much evidence that they would have that kind of faith in the way they live. Then there are the Christians who say they do love Jesus, and do live for Him…

As long as He’s doing what they want.

As long as “Mascot Jesus” tells them about the “Goliaths” in their life and how to be the “David” overcoming them, they’re on board. Mascot Jesus makes the Bible about you. Mascot Jesus just wants you to be happy. Submission to this Jesus isn’t even hard. It just means following your feelings and making sure you only read the bits and pieces of Scripture that fit your mosaic of who you want Jesus to be. It seems like a contradiction, but many have redefined Jesus as someone they can both admire and ignore at the same time.

He’s Mascot Jesus. He’s convenient. He’s your cheerleader. He’ll make you feel good.

Praiseworthy? Sure! As long as He is in line with what we’re comfortable with and can be used when it’s convenient. As long as He’s a “Jesus” that’s culturally acceptable. Is He the God of your life, or are you? Do you follow the Jesus of the Holy Bible? Or do you follow Jesus that you’ve made in your own image?

Is Jesus your mascot? Or is He your Sovereign Savior?

Count the cost.

Got Doubts? Stop Doing This!

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

From working in public apologetics ministry for a few years now, one common mistake I see from Christians struggling with their faith is that they try and prematurely flex their apologetic muscles by spending tons of time listening to atheist YouTubers, podcasts or reading blogs but they don’t get the bulk of the Christian evidences strong under their belt first. When they come across a few things that stump them, they get troubled, anxious, or even set aside their faith altogether. This is falling prey to what the great English logician Richard Whately called “the fallacy of objections.”

Whately defined the fallacy of objections[i] as “showing that there are objections against some plan, theory, or system, and thence inferring that it should be rejected; when that which ought to have been proved is, that there are more, or stronger objections, against the receiving than the rejecting of it.”

I understand that you want to mitigate against your biases by listening to the other side. However, until you yourself can articulate a robust, positive case for Christianity, I don’t recommend that you do that. At all.

If the Bible is correct by describing faith as a “precious” thing (2 Peter 1:1[ii]) and you’re throwing your weak faith into the fires of criticism without understanding the shape of the argumentative landscape first, you’re not being “wise” by trying to minimize your biases, you’re being careless. And no, I’m not saying you should Pascal’s Wager yourself into faith or “lower the epistemic bar”, either. But I will say that you are not performing your duty of inquiry properly and you’re going to end up being another statistic, or worse, if you’re not cautious.

Regarding the Fallacy of Objections, Whately went on to write:

“This is the main, and almost universal Fallacy of anti-christians; and is that of which a young Christian should be first and principally warned. They find numerous ‘objections’ against various parts of Scripture; to some of which no satisfactory answer can be given; and the incautious hearer is apt, while his attention is fixed on these, to forget that there are infinitely more, and stronger objections against the supposition, that the Christian Religion is of human origin; and that where we cannot answer all objections, we are bound, in reason and in candour, to adopt the hypothesis which labours under the least. That the case is as I have stated, I am authorized to assume, from this circumstance,—that no complete and consistent account has ever been given of the manner in which the Christian Religion, supposing it a human contrivance, could have arisen and prevailed as it did. And yet this may obviously be demanded with the utmost fairness of those who deny its divine origin. The Religion exists; that is the phenomenon. Those who will not allow it to have come from God, are bound to solve the phenomenon on some other hypothesis less open to objections. They are not, indeed, called on to prove that it actually did arise in this or that way; but to suggest (consistently with acknowledged facts) some probable way in which it may have arisen, reconcilable with all the circumstances of the case. That infidels have never done this, though they have had 1800 years to try, amounts to a confession, that no such hypothesis can be devised, which will not be open to greater objections than lie against Christianity.”

Richard Whately, Elements of Logic, 9th ed.[iii] (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer, 1870), pp. 144-45.

Whately is spot on. The reason why I can read Bart Ehrman books, listen to secular historical Jesus classes online, or watch YouTube counter-apologists and be untroubled isn’t simply because I’m just so biased towards Christianity but because I have, for the most part, firmly in place the bulk of the evidence on the subject. Furthermore, I’m aware that everything doesn’t depend on whether I can answer this or that objection when I happen to stumble on something novel.

For example, over and over again, I have seen arguments against the Gospels be based on an over-reading, an argument from silence, or ignoring the possibility of real, independent access to events etc. I also know that even if I don’t know why Jesus said X or Leviticus says Y, or how to resolve that apparent contradiction, it doesn’t mean that my entire edifice is collapsing. The evidence for Christianity is a lot tougher than that, as Whately indicates. The same kind of thing holds true for many well-established scientific theories. We don’t toss out a good theory based on some counter evidence we don’t quite understand yet.

If you are easily shaken and troubled by pop counter-apologists online (and I don’t care if they have a PhD and have published dozens of books), here’s my advice: Stop listening to them. At least for a season. Learn the positive case for Christianity first. And here I’m not talking about a handful of philosophical arguments for the existence of God and some minimal facts argument for the resurrection.

At this point, I’m sure the skeptics would say that I’m just circling the wagons and saying “indoctrinate” yourself first. But that’s just not true. What I’m saying is this: Don’t act like “if Christianity is true, it can take the heat.” Christianity can take the heat, but an unprepared mind can’t. And investigation of the evidence for Christianity does not mean digging into everything anyone has ever said about or against it and having to give an answer. Skeptics can confidently assert a ton of (ultimately unpersuasive) objections as though they were real problems. But think about your approach to other issues. According to some theories, Jesus was invented by the Romans to pacify the people into being OK with slavery. How thoroughly do you investigate the “hoax” side of that argument? Wouldn’t an good informed atheist who believes in the historicity of Jesus recommend someone uninformed and confused about this issue read a good book or two on the existence of Jesus first before they get too muddled? Of course they would.

Again, once you have the bulk of the Christian evidences in place and you understand what the general argumentative landscape looks like, you don’t need to waste your precious time looking into everything that every dude with an internet connection and some video editing software has said against it. And when you stumble across them, you should be able to see the predictable patterns their arguments fall into.

In this context the words of George Horne, another 18th apologist, has some sage advice:

In the thirty sections of their pamphlet, they have produced a list of difficulties to be met with in reading the Old and New Testament. Had I been aware of their design, I could have enriched the collection with many more, at least as good, if not a little better. But they have compiled, I dare say, what they deemed the best, and, in their own opinion, presented us with the essence of infidelity in a thumb-phial, the very fumes of which, on drawing the cork, are to strike the bench of bishops dead at once. Let not the unlearned Christian be alarmed, “as though some strange thing had happened to him,” and modern philosophy had discovered arguments to demolish religion, never heard of before. The old ornaments of deism have been “broken off” upon this occasion, “and cast into the fire, and there came out this calf.” These same difficulties have been again and again urged and discussed in public; again and again weighed and considered by learned and sensible men, of the laity as well as the clergy, who have by no means been induced by them to renounce their faith…Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of that kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject. And as people in general, for one reason or another, like short objections better than long answers, in this mode of disputation (if it can be styled such) the odds must ever be against us; and we must be content with those for our friends who have honesty and erudition, candor and patience, to study both sides of the question.—Be it so.

George Horne, Letters on Infidelity

As Horne implies, Christians have answered the same tired objections over and over, yet that won’t stop an “exvangelical” with a TikTok or YouTube account from saying it triumphantly as if no one has ever responded to it before. Furthermore, answering objections often takes a lot longer than a short statement of them, even if the objections themselves are based upon “pertness and ignorance.”

And finally, for goodness’ sakes, stop looking at all apologists as defense attorneys or God’s public relations firm doing “damage control.” This is what many counter-apologists have claimed, but it just poisons the well. Maybe consider that at least some apologists are defending their faith after scrutinizing it for years; they are not just trying to defend their predetermined conclusion and soothe their cognitive biases. Don’t fall for this bulveristic, pseudo-psychoanalytical trash. According to the website Logically Fallacious[iv], bulverism is “the assumption and assertion that an argument is flawed or false because of the arguer’s suspected motives, social identity, or other characteristic associated with the arguer’s identity.”

The more apt parallel for a good apologist is to an investigative journalist, reporting for popular consumption the results of a fair and balanced inquiry. These same skeptics often also seem to think that honesty in investigation requires that we start off in disbelief. In response to that, here’s one last awesome quote from another one of those amazing 18th-century apologists, John Leland:

It is not necessary to a just inquiry into doctrines or facts, that a man should be absolutely indifferent to them before he begins that inquiry, much less that he should actually disbelieve them; as if he must necessarily commence atheist, before he can fairly examine into the proofs of the existence of God. It is sufficient to a candid examination, that a man applieth himself to it with a mind open to conviction, and a disposition to embrace truth on which side soever it shall appear, and to receive the evidence that shall arise in the course of the trial. And if the inquiry relateth to principles in which we have been instructed, then, supposing those principles to be in themselves rational and well founded, it may well happen, that, in inquiring into the grounds of them, a fair examination may be carried on without seeing cause to disbelieve, or doubt of them through the whole course of the enquiry; which in that case will end in a fuller conviction of them than before.

A View of the Principal Deistical Writers, 1837 edition, p. 129

Leland hits the nail on the head. If you listen to many of the counter apologists, it’s as if they’re saying that the Christian is obligated, in the name of fairness and honest examination, to set aside their faith while looking into it and that the questioner should spend most of their time listening to their negative case. (And often they themselves cannot give you a steelman argument for Christianity upon request.) But honest inquiry and the acquisition of knowledge can continue while still following Jesus. Setting aside your faith while you are investigating it would be a crazy thing to do if Christianity is true. Consider that you might have a lot more evidence for Christianity than you may realize that you’re just not recognizing.

Finally, If you don’t know what the evidence looks like, ask me or others and I can recommend some resources. Avail yourself of talkaboutdoubts.com [v]and talk to some scholars and experts 1-on-1. Find a community of apologists more experienced than yourself.

Then you can consider diving into the counter apologists’ material, one resource at a time, one objection at a time, rather than overwhelming yourself. Otherwise, consider that you’re probably being like an overconfident fool who, after learning a few fighting moves, tries to jump in the ring with more experienced fighters. You’re going to look foolish and get hurt.

Now again, lest I be misunderstood, I am speaking to less experienced Christians. For the more seasoned believer, I think that we should let the critics speak. Often they are in a good place to discover flaws in our own reasoning, which may be invisible to us. We ignore them at our peril. I believe in that and practice that.

We should be able to identify who the best critics against our view are and regularly seek out what they have to say. It is wise to step outside your echo chamber and recognize that smart people can argue in good faith and yet disagree with you. But I wouldn’t throw a novice a Bart Ehrman or a Sam Harris book and say “sink or swim, dude.” If one is going to read atheist apologists, one should read them with guidance from people who really do know how to answer them. But our highest priority should be showing the untrained believer how much good evidence there is for Christianity.

Footnotes

[i] https://historicalapologetics.org/richard-whately-the-fallacy-of-objections/

[ii] https://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/2%20Pet%201.1

[iii] http://books.google.com/books?id=eLgIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA144

[iv] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Bulverism

[v] http://talkaboutdoubts.com/?fbclid=IwAR278dE8CFdCYKbsT-bLD3fsnOPHW6jTq0wyIaqDLqbvQ2Ewh658SaJxHYY

Why Most People Would Rather Be Right Than Find the Truth

1. Does Truth Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mike Taylor

Can we be honest with each other for a minute and admit that being right feels good?

It makes you feel powerful. When you’re right, it implies that someone else is wrong, which feels like you have a higher social standing than the other person. There’s a moment of elevation that happens in our minds when we feel like we’re right.

Most of the time, the facts don’t matter. We’ll throw out research and data for the sake of feeling right. It doesn’t even necessarily matter if we’re right or not just as long as we feel right.

But why is that?

The Science Behind Why Being Right Feels So Good

When you feel as though you’re right or that you’ve won an argument[i], your brain is flooded with adrenaline and dopamine[ii]. This chemical cocktail causes you to feel like you’re on top of the world. We feel in control, dominant, and powerful. That feeling becomes something we can easily become dependent on for self worth. Before we know it, we’re addicted to being right.

This is why some people poke and prod just to get a reaction out of someone. This is why people jump into an argument on social media to bicker over a point that is essentially meaningless. It’s because they’re addicted to the feeling of being right. And in a world where there are hundreds of micro moments where we can feel right on social media, we find ourselves in a digital buffet of vices that feed our addiction.

This is why the feeling of certainty can also become an addiction. Whenever we feel like what we’re doing is not 100% right or 100% certain, then we start missing our adrenaline and dopamine hits because we’re not feeling like we’re “right”. That’s when we’re likely to switch gears or change directions to find that ever-elusive high.

One study[iii] found that “a rush of dopamine accompanies fresh experiences of any kind.” Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that helps us feel pleasure, and anytime we find something new or feel like we’ve won an argument, that dopamine makes us feel important and victorious.

So we switch from one fleeting moment of feeling right, certain, and confident for the next exciting moment rather than doing the hard work of digging in, pushing through conflict, and dealing with the friction of uncertainty. And we wonder why we don’t see progress in our personal and professional lives – but it’s because we’ve become addicted to chasing “right” rather than the pursuit of what’s true.

How to Overcome the Addiction to Being Right

The first step to overcome the desire to be right is to understand what’s happening in your brain. Whenever you get into an argument with someone, your body is automatically sending signals to release cortisol, which is your stress hormone. Cortisol causes your thinking, reasoning, and compassionate side of your brain to go off-line.

When this happens, you go into what you’ve probably heard referred to as “fight or flight“ mode. Your body is in “lizard brain” and its only goal is to survive. It’s in that moment that we begin the hunt for dopamine through some sort of victory. That’s why most people’s reaction to conflict is to fight.

But if you can understand and harness how your body responds to conflict, then you can start to put measures into place that keep you from doing something that damages a relationship.

For example, one of the most effective things you can do when you’re in an emotionally charged situation is to take yourself out of that situation momentarily. You have to do what could be referred to as “emotionally sobering up”.

Whenever you’re in conflict, your brain naturally becomes emotionally drunk, and it can literally feel intoxicating to attempt to shut down the other person’s argument. But now that you know what’s happening, you can take a step away, take a breath, and give yourself the space you need to make a reasonable and compassionate choice rather than fighting for a dopamine hit.

An effective way to bring your thinking brain back online is to bring yourself to the present moment. Box breathing techniques[iv] are particularly helpful to bring your mind to the present moment. You can also take notice of the objects around you or start counting your fingers and toes. The goal of this is to engage the part of your brain that thinks rationally and compassionately so your survival-mode lizard brain can take a break.

Another effective way to bring yourself out of your emotions is to simply read something that isn’t emotionally charged. Take 15 minutes and read a boring article about something you’re mildly interested in. Read part of a chapter in that book you’ve been neglecting. Count to 100 backwards while you brush your teeth. Whatever it takes, do not ruminate on the situation, and don’t formulate potential responses.

Ruminating and dwelling on conflict only feeds your brain‘s desire to be right. Then, whenever you see the person you’ve been in conflict with, all of those built-up scenarios and emotions will overflow on them (and not in the way you pictured it in your mind when you were ruminating) and you’ll be right back in the same unhealthy conflict.

Once you’ve given yourself some space and brought your thinking brain back online, start thinking empathetically. In other words, put yourself in the other person’s shoes without defaulting to putting your desires over theirs.

Think about why they’re so adamant about their position. Chances are, they have a good reason. What were their expectations that were not met? What were your expectations that weren’t met? These unmet expectations are at the heart of all of our conflict, so getting down to that will do wonders for driving healthy conversations going forward.

Next time you feel the need to be right, remember it’s probably your brain craving the comfort of another hit of dopamine. Instead of giving into the craving, give yourself room to sober up emotionally, bring yourself back to the present moment so you’re thinking rationally again, then let empathy drive your thinking going forward.

If you do these things, you’ll find that conflict actually becomes productive, the truth becomes more apparent, and everyone will be better off for it – including you.

Footnotes

[i] https://www.mikeptaylor.com/personal-growth/how-to-win-an-argument/

[ii] https://hbr.org/2013/02/break-your-addiction-to-being

[iii] https://brainworldmagazine.com/the-importance-of-novelty/

[iv] https://www.webmd.com/balance/what-is-box-breathing

Tweets Against Christianity

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Tim Stratton

Scott Clifton is a Hollywood actor who has gained fame as a soap opera star (One Life to Live, General Hospital, and The Bold and the Beautiful). He has also gained the respect of both sides of the aisle in the “God vs. atheism” debate.

Clifton is an ardent, but philosophically inclined atheist who goes by the moniker “Theoretical BS” (TBS). He recently tweeted out an argument against Christianity that left the Church scrambling. Indeed, many Christians did not know how to respond to Clifton’s logically deductive argument. Moreover, and sadly, many Christians who did respond to his tweet, provided reason to place one’s face in one’s palm.

Consider TBS’s tweet raised against the knowledge of God:

I must admit, Clifton provided a good argument for all to consider. It is based upon premises that many Christians affirm. Indeed, Theoretical BS was on his A-game to craft this argument, which, at the least, exposes the inconsistency of many churchgoers.

This led my friend Benjamin Watkins, who is also an avid atheist on Twitter, to Tweet the following:

To be clear, we are “born sick” and offered the cure. Each person is free to take the “red medicine” Christ offers, or to reject his love and grace. With that said, I was disheartened to see the lack of good responses from my fellow Christians on Twitter. I saw Calvinists suggesting that the first premise is false, and that “ought does NOT imply can.”

That’s a horrible move!

Discussing Premise (1)

Think about it: if someone says, “You really ought to fly like Superman and save the woman trapped on the 50th floor of a burning skyscraper.” You would look at him as if he were an idiot. Since you cannot fly like Superman, it makes no sense to say “you ought to fly like superman.” Now, if someone tells the trained lifeguard, “You ought to save the child struggling to keep her head above water in the 3-foot,” we know exactly why that makes sense — because the lifeguard has been trained and *CAN* help the child before she drowns.

Moreover, if you were in a boat and your wife said, “You really ought to walk on water,” you would not take her seriously because you can’t walk on water. However, if Jesus commanded you to get out of the boat and walk on water with Him, the reason why it would make sense for you to get out of the boat and run toward Him is because He would use His divine power to make it possible for you to walk on water. Thus, if Jesus says that you *ought* to walk on water, then it follows that you *can* walk on water.

Yes, the first premise of Clifton’s argument is intuitively obvious and true: “ought implies can.” To deny this premise makes Christians look foolish.

Discussing Premise (2)

Some Christians were trying to reject the second premise: “If Christianity is true, we ought to live without sin.”

Oh my! Whatever you do, do not reject premise (2). Think of all the commands to live a holy life and to avoid sin. Here is a small sampling:

Galatians 5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 13:14
But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.

Hebrews 12:1
Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us . . .

1 Thessalonians 5:22
abstain from every form of evil.

2 Corinthians 7:1
Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.

1 Peter 1:15-16
But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”

John 8:11
And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

This list could go on and on, but TBS’s second premise is supported via ample biblical data. Christians ought to avoid sin.

Discussing Premise (3)

Some might try to reject Premise (3) which reads: “From (1) and (2), if Christianity is true, we can live without sin.”

I agree with TBS. That is to say, regenerated Christ-followers can live without sin. Indeed, with the first two premises supported, it makes no sense to deny (3). We can avoid sin. That is to say, through God’s love, grace, and regenerating power, all Christians can live a holy life.

Discussing Premise (4)

This leaves only one premise remaining before we reach the dreaded death-blow of a deductive conclusion, “Therefore, Christianity is not true.” The fourth premise reads as follows:

“We cannot live without sin.”

I was shocked to see so many Christians in the Twitter-verse accept this premise. Indeed, many Calvinists (who affirm exhaustive divine determinism) advance this premise because if God determines all things, then when God determines a Calvinist to cheat on his wife (for example), it is impossible for the Calvinist to do otherwise. I was screaming at my iPhone as I was scrolling through the comments. Indeed, here’s a counter-factual:

Because of the lack of proper responses, IF I had hair, I WOULD have pulled it out!

I could not take it any longer. So, finally, I tweeted my own reply:

Only three “likes”? What’s up with that?

Anyway, because the Apostle Paul rejects the fourth premise, so do I. Indeed, based upon Paul’s words in his first letter to the Corinthians, it is possible for a Christian to avoid any sin. Consider this important passage of Scripture:

1 Corinthians 10:13

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Consider this awesome promise: every time you are tempted to sin, God provides a “way of escape” so that you do not have to sin. Thus, when you sin, do not say that “the devil made me do it,” and whatever you do, do not say that “God determined me to commit this sin.” No! That response is downright blasphemous. Instead, take responsibility for your actions. You chose to fall into temptation, but you did not have to. You could have done otherwise and taken the way of escape God provided.

This also means that you possess libertarian freedom.

Now, some might respond and say that no one has ever gone the rest of his life free from sin. Really? Is that true? What about the guy who only had five minutes left to live and he spent every remaining second of those five minutes praying and praising God? It seems that this person avoided sin for the “rest of his life.”

So, if it is possible for a Christian to resist temptation for five minutes, is it possible for ten minutes? If not, why not? Is it possible for 24 hours? If not, why not? Is it possible for for a week, a month, a year, or fifty years? If not, why not?

It seems that if one grants that a regenerate Christ follower does possess the power to “take the way of escape” for the last five minutes of his life, then asserting that it would be impossible to refrain from sin for any longer period of time is just plain arbitrary and ad hoc. Indeed, if Paul is right, and in every circumstance when we are tempted to sin God also provides a way of escape so that we do not have to sin, then it is possible (it is not impossible) that a Christian who has been transformed by God’s amazing grace can live the rest of his life always choosing the way of escape God provides (again, by His grace).

Discussing the Conclusion

In conclusion, TBS’s conclusion does not follow. This is the case because the fourth premise is false. Therefore, not only does the conclusion not follow, the cumulative case of arguments for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity suggest the exact opposite of what his failed argument concludes:

Therefore, Christianity is probably true!

Thus, it makes great sense to choose to put your faith in Christ alone.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton

UFOS, Aliens, And Christianity

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By J. Brian Huffling

many people throughout history and across the world have claimed to have seen UFOs and even have experiences with what are normally described as aliens. I’ve always had a casual interest in UFOs, but with the release of three Navy videos and the Unidentified documentary, I became more interested.

It is probably safe to say that most people think that talk of UFOs and aliens is crazy; however, the evidence for such phenomena has been mounting to the point that the existence of UFOs is beyond question. This article will look at a brief history of UFOs, focusing mostly on the U.S., some of the claims people have made, an examination of prominent theories of what is going on, and an overall assessment.

A VERY BRIEF HISTORY OF UFOLOGY (MAINLY IN THE U.S.)

It is popular to begin modern ufology (the study of all things UFOs) with Kenneth Arnold’s sighting of 9 objects flying, according to him, around 1700mph at Mt. Ranier, WA in June of 1947. Such was not actually the beginning of UFO sightings, even in the U.S. There was a massive wave of sightings (a wave of sightings is called a flap) around the country in the late 1890s of “airships.” Further, reported UFO activity (to include abductions) has gone on for millennia. (See Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times by Jacques Vallée and Chris Aubeck for a good history of ufology. Also, see Vallée’s Passport to Magonia: From Folklore to Flying Saucers for an explanation of how the modern UFO phenomena is very similar to religion and folklore of the past.)

About a month after Arnold’s sighting was the famous Roswell incident where at least one UFO supposedly crashed around Roswell, NM. The Air Force first said it was a “disk” but just hours later said it was a weather balloon. In 1994, the Air Force published The Roswell Report: Case Closed where they reported that what actually fell was a balloon related to the secret project called Project Mogul, which was a way of spying on the USSR’s use of atomic weapons. (The Roswell Legacy: The Untold Story of the First Military Officer at the 1947 Crash Site argues that what fell at Roswell was an actual UFO with aliens and is told by the son of the intelligence officer who was there and allegedly brought some wreckage home to show his family. UFO Crash at Roswell: The Genesis of a Modern Myth is an appraisal from a non-believer.)

Numerous UFO sightings that year led to the newly formed Air Force (formed in September of 1947) to begin a series of special projects to study the issue. The first was Project Sign in 1947, followed by Project Grudge in 1949, and then the famous Project Blue Book in 1952 that lasted until early 1970 (it was announced closed in December of ’69). The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects by Captain Edward Ruppelt, who led Project Grudge and Blue Book from 1951-1953, is required reading for anyone interested in the history of UFOs, especially as it relates to the Air Force, as is The UFO Experience by Air Force astronomy consultant J. Allen Hynek.

There was a flap in 1952 over Washington D.C. that led to the CIA becoming interested. In January of 1953 it held a panel in conjunction with the Air Force, informally called the Robertson panel. It officially concluded that UFOs were not an issue of national security, but it is disputed as to whether the Air Force really gave them the good files to examine. Many other sightings occurred in the 50s and 60s, including the well-known Malmstrom Air Force Base (AFB) incident where UFOs were seen over the nuclear ICBM missile sites when 20 ICBMs went offline. For that account from an eyewitness who served as an officer in the missile silo, see Faded Giant.

In the late 1960s the government gave The University of Colorado a grant to independently investigate UFOs. It was headed by Edward Condon and is informally known as the Condon Committee. It is well-known to have been biased against UFOs from the beginning, at least by the leader, and it recommended Blue Book be shut down, which it was.

Sightings continued through the 70s and 80s worldwide. Pilots in Iran chased a UFO and one in Peru shot at one. All to no avail. (It is reported by Ruppelt that in 1952 a U.S. Air Force pilot shot at one.) One of the most notable cases was the event that happened at RAF Bentwaters and Woodbridge in the U.K. in December of 1980. Several security police and others, including then the Deputy Base Commander, Lt Col Halt, saw UFOs. One claims to have actually touched it. This has been one of the most interesting and controversial cases ever. For a good source on this that was written by eyewitnesses, see Encounter in Rendlesham Forest: The Inside Story of the World’s Best-Documented UFO Incident.

2004 ushered in a new era with the now famous, and aforementioned, Navy videos. In August of 2020, the military started an Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF). In June of 2021, the Office of the Director of National Security provided a “Preliminary Assessment” to Congress. It stated that UFOs (or as the military now calls them, UAPs) are real and in 144 cases, unexplained. In July of 2022, top members of the intelligence community testified before Congress for the first time in over 50 years, also confirming the existence of UFOs and confirming that what the Navy videos show are still unexplained. The government has never claimed they are of extraterrestrial origin. It is well-known that the government is taking UFOs seriously, even if they (reportedly) don’t believe they are aliens.

For an excellent, but very detailed history of UFOs in the U.S. (from one who holds to the extraterrestrial view) see Richard Dolan’s 2 volume UFOs and the National Security State. For a less-detailed but good account from a skeptic’s viewpoint, see Curtis Peebles’ Watch the Skies! For an intriguing and important overview of UFOs as they relate to the military, see Leslie Kean’s UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record. For an excellent historical source in general, see Jerome Clark’s The UFO Encyclopedia.

THE NATURE OF UFO SIGHTINGS

While most of the above are sightings of objects flying around, hovering, or landed, there are many kinds of sightings or UFO events. Hynek provided the original classification for UFO sightings and that classification was updated to the following:

Daylight Disks: UFOs seen during the day
Nocturnal Lights: UFOs seen at night
Radar Visual: Objects seen on radar
Close Encounters of the First Kind (CE-1): Encounters of around 500 feet
Close Encounters of the Second Kind (CE-2): Encounters that leave some kind of physical effects, such as marks in the ground, trees, or affects on vehicles
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (CE-3): Inhabitants of UFOs are seen
Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind (CE-4): Contact such as abduction
Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind (CE-5): The individual suffers some kind of harm or even death

Certainly one of the most intriguing aspects about UFOs are the reported “alien abductions.” While many, if not most, believe that such abductions (and even sightings in general) are only experienced by “crazy” people, it does not take much research to discover that very sane and respectable people experience. not only sightings of UFOs but also what is usually categorized as “alien abductions.” Such phenomena have been occurring for hundreds of years (again, see Wonders in the Sky and Passport to Magonia).

THEORIES OF UFOS AND ALIENS

THE SKEPTICAL OR TERRESTRIAL VIEW

I’m going to lump the skeptical view together with the terrestrial view since they can both be held simultaneously. That is, some can be skeptical of UFOs in the sense of them being extraterrestrial while arguing for a terrestrial explanation. Indeed, about 95% or so of alleged sightings are explainable via natural means, such as astronomical phenomena, weather, simple misidentifications, and the like. Many are simply skeptical of UFO claims in general for this reason.

Some have tried to explain UFOs as simply being secret technology either had by the U.S. or other nations. It is indeed the case that there are advanced technological systems that causes UFO reports, and the Air Force has actually capitalized on people thinking they are UFOs in order to provide a cover for their own technology. Richard Doty is a famous (infamous?) example of one who has admitted to this happening.

However, it is a difficult pill to swallow that there were aircraft in the 1940s that could travel at speeds and perform aerial maneuvers that even today cannot be duplicated. The intelligence specialists who testified before Congress noted that we do not have any evidence that such technology is possessed either by the U.S. or other nations. Such has led some to another theory.

THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL HYPOTHESIS (ETH)

Undoubtedly the most popular view (other than the skeptical view, which cannot be accepted any longer) is the one that purports that aliens are behind the “flying saucers.” For proponents of that view, see Dolan’s works above, as well as Kean’s. The argument behind this view is that if UFOs are not explained by earthly means, and since they are evidently intelligently operated and even seemingly interact with people, they must be alien in nature. This appears to be a rational position but there are problems with it.

One problem is interstellar travel. Since I am not an astronomer or qualified to navigate this debate, I will defer to Hugh Ross, a former astronomer from Cal Tech, who argues this in his Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men (co-authored with Ken Samples and Mark Clark). I realize there are astronomers who argue that such travel is possible, but Ross makes some pretty convincing arguments to the contrary. In short, Ross argues that the distance is too great and would require multigenerational travel, even from some of the nearest systems. It would also take an incredible amount of energy to travel that far and fast. Further, as Ross notes, space is not empty. Going the required speeds would destroy a space ship if they so much as hit some of the smallest space debris.

Jacques Vallée is arguably today’s leading ufologist and has worked with Hynek in general and in his dealings with the Air Force in particular. Vallée is uniquely trained for his work given his background in astronomy as well as computer information systems. He has the unusual skill set to be able to organize UFO data and has researched them for decades. In the last book of his famous trilogy, Revelations: Alien Contact and Human Deception, he adds as an appendix a paper he delivered at an academic conference against the ETH. He offers 5 arguments against the view. Such arguments include the odd fact that there are thousands if not millions of UFO events where aliens are said to visit Earth and take samples of things like soil. This is strong evidence against the skeptical view, but he argues it is also evidence against the ETH as it doesn’t make sense why aliens would need to have so many visits and samples. Further, the reported means by which aliens supposedly experiment on people are even more rudimentary than our own technology. Another issue is the seeming impossibility of random evolution producing multiple species that have the same basic human anatomical structure with the ability to see and hear the way we do. He argues, as a naturalist, that to expect multiple species to arise from random chance with such similar structures is basically zero (of course, this changes if one holds to theism, as such would allow God to create as many similar species as he wanted). However, Vallée’s main argument against the ETH is that it just doesn’t take into account the history of ufology and the apparent connection to religion and folklore. According to him, the alien view is simply not strange enough.

Another problem with the ETH is the fact that UFOs do things that appear to violate the laws of physics. For example, they fly at extremely fast speeds that cannot be matched by earthly aircraft, perform right angle and 180 degree turns without slowing down, are transmedium, meaning they can fly through space, air, and water without being affected, appear from nowhere and vanish instantly, can change shape and size, and are seemingly impervious to being hit with bullets. (See Lights in the Sky for a good discussion of this.) Even the abduction phenomena exhibits problems with being physical since “aliens” reportedly walk through walls and take their abductees through walls and physical objects. Hynek actually argues for more of a physic (not exactly psychological) view in The Edge of Reality, where he has a fascinating discussion with Vallée on the topic of their physicality. For Hynek, UFOs are fundamentally non-physical but can cause physical effects, much like poltergeist phenomena. Further, there are reports of people being abducted while being watched by other people in the room, indicating that something non-physical is going on.

THE INTER-DIMENSIONAL HYPOTHESIS

Vallée’s preferred view is what he calls the inter-dimensional hypothesis. Vallée holds that UFOs are fundamentally physical, but can move through various space-time dimensions. While he does not use the interstellar argument against the ETH (that I know of), this view would alleviate that issue. The apparent violations of physics are supposedly explained this way, such as the objects appearing and disappearing from and into nothing and being able to change their form. This jibes more with the history of the phenomena, according to Vallée, and better explains the abduction issue. Rather than “aliens” trying to do experiments on humans, he maintains that these beings are ultimately trying to control our worldview. Another aspect explained is the way that UFOs seem to just outpace our own technology enough to be unexplainable. (Lights in the Sky also deals with this.) Before airplanes they were airships. Then flying saucers, etc.

The merits of Vallée’s view are the good points and arguments against the ETH, the historical points and connection to religion. However, it seems to be somewhat ad hoc since such dimensions are apparently debated. While Ross does admit to more than 10 dimensions being needed to explain reality, he notes that per Einstein’s theory of relativity, a person cannot simply jump between various dimensions. If this is true, then Vallée’s view would be, to use Ross’ word, “irrelevant” since it would be impossible.

THE SPIRITUAL OR EXTRA-DIMENSIONAL VIEW

A popular view among Christians is the view that while UFOs are real, they are not physical aliens from another planet. Rather, they are demonic spirits that are attempting to deceive people and draw them away from the truth of the Gospel. Ross calls this the extra-dimensional view. For a long time I wondered why demons would want to make people think they are aliens. Then I discovered two reasons. First, as Vallée argues, whatever these things are, they are evidently trying to control people’s belief system. Well, that’s a pretty good reason for enemies of God to want to appear as aliens. Another and related reason is that much of the UFO phenomena is directly and explicitly anti-Christian—not just anti-religious: anti-Christian. Much of the “teachings” of these beings are specifically against the deity of Jesus Christ and the teachings and truths of the Gospel. Some of their teachings claim that Jesus himself was an alien and was raised back to life by aliens. Indeed, there are many UFO cults.

Vallée himself has a book on this topic: Messengers of Deception. Lights in the Sky also deals with this aspect of the phenomena, as does Ron Rhodes’ The Truth about UFOs and Aliens: A Christian Assessment. A director for a well-known civilian UFO investigation group, Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), Joe Jordan and his co-author Jason Dezember deal with the demonic view in their Piercing the Cosmic Veil: You Shall Not Be Afraid of the Terror by Night. Their title is very apt, for “alien” encounters are reportedly very terrifying. Jordan, as well as other MUFON directors, have noted that “alien abduction” experiences are stopped when the experiencer calls on the name of Jesus. Jordan has hundreds of such examples. (See his website here.) Gary Bates has written about the demonic connection in his Alien Intrusion.

The door to the phenomena is reportedly opened by one dabbling in the occult or new age movement. Often, such a link can be found with the people directly involved in the experiences, and when that door to the occult is shut, the experiences stop. What about children? There are accounts of children having abduction experiences too. However, when people like Jordan do some investigating, it is often found that a parent or other family member have some connection to the occult. However, such is not always the case.

CONCLUSION AND IMPORTANCE

The investigation into what UFOs and aliens are is not a deductive one. In other words, it is not going to be proven beyond any doubt in this lifetime. Rather it is, no pun intended, an abductive one. That is, the truth about the phenomena will likely be what accounts for the data the best, namely, what has the most explanatory power (how well the data is explained) and explanatory scope (how much of the data is explained), and what less ad hoc (made up without evidence). I agree with Vallée that the ETH does not possess the greatest explanatory power or scope. It does not really seem to account for the history, the physical problems, or the anti-Christian themes. The data is well-accounted for with the demonic view. Such a view answers the material problems since the UFOs/aliens are not really physical in nature, but can, as Hynek suggests, cause physical effects. This also accounts for the anti-Christian teachings that are ubiquitous in the phenomena.

Apart from the UFO phenomena being interesting, it is also important. More than just a possible national security threat, there is an existential threat. If the demonic view is correct, then there is, indeed, a cosmic and spiritual battle for our entire belief systems, and thus our souls. Statistically, given the number of sightings and experiences, many people who go to Christian churches have had an experience (although, it can be argued that if people in the church dabble in the occult and new age less, then they won’t have as many doors open).

Often, people turn to new age, occultic, or otherwise anti-Christian sources either for answers to their questions, being lured by their own curiosity of the paranormal, or simply being drawn in by our culture pushing it on us. (An excellent source on this, especially as it relates to children, is Marcia Montenegro’s Spellbound: The Paranormal Seduction of Today’s Kids.) Churches and even apologetic ministries need to spend more time on the dangers of even dabbling in seemingly harmless actions that flirt with the paranormal and other dangerous areas, such as the new age movement. One excellent ministry that does just this is Montenegro’s “Christian Answers for the New Age.” Reasons to Believe (founded by Hugh Ross), Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries with Ron Rhodes, Southern Evangelical Seminary, and of course, Jordan’s ministry are also active in this area.

The UFO topic is an interesting one. I agree with Vallée, Hynek, and Ross that the alien view does not do the best job explaining the data. Given the spiritual nature of UFOs and especially “aliens,” there is a strong argument that such activity is really demonic in nature. If it is the case that the paranormal, occult, and new age are doors to such activity, it is imperative that Christians understand this and that it is clearly taught in our churches and homes. The Bible gives several commands to avoid involvement in such activity. Unfortunately, Christians and churches are easily caught up in the flow of our culture, rather than standing firm in the faith. This is indeed an important issue that deserves attention in the Church as well as in other ministries that teach the truth and importance of the faith.

Archaeology and Apologetics

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Deanna Huff

Upon entering the British Museum, the first display I encountered was the Assyrian section. The room was full of rocks voicing stories of the past. My breath was taken away as I realized I was standing in ancient history hearing the words of kings and their people.

The stones that surrounded me were the same stones that stood during the times of the kings of the Bible. Stones testify as memorials even in the ancient time period. Joshua was commanded,

Take twelve stones from here out of the midst of the Jordan, from the very place where the priests’ feet stood firmly and bring them over with you and lay them down in the place where you lodge tonight.…When your children ask in time to come, ‘What do those stones mean to you?’ Then you shall tell them that the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the Lord. When it passed over the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off. So, these stones shall be to the people of Israel a memorial forever. (Josh 4:3-7 ESV)

Archaeology – The Black Obelisk

The Assyrian Black Obelisk memorial dates from 825 BC and it was discovered in 1846 in Turkey. The relief sculpture attests the military achievements of King Shalmaneser III and his chief minister. These monuments inspired people with patriotism and unity for their society. The obelisk reveals kings of surrounding nations paying tribute to King Shalmaneser III in five scenes on five rows. Foreign kings are bowing down to King Shalmaneser III to indicate he is the ultimate king of the land.

The significance of the discovery for the biblical world is located on the second row of the obelisk. It identifies King Jehu (2 Kings 10:34) paying homage and presenting gifts to King Shalmaneser. This is the only contemporary carving of an Israelite king mentioned in the kings.

Apologetics – The Stones Provide Evidence

Archaeology like the Black Obelisk provides support for the reliability of the Old Testament. It offers a historical confirmation to the stories of the Scriptures. Dr. Price states, “archaeology aids in bringing the theological message of the Bible into a real world context where real faith is possible.”[1] Historical affirmations of the Bible can strengthen and enrich a person’s faith. Archaeology should not be overstated, at the same time it should not be understated.

The ancients left behind stones that speak truths of the past to the hearers of today. Discovering historical details of the ancients promotes accuracy of the biblical text. For example, “Excavations at Te Miqne uncovered an inscription that conclusively identified the site as biblical Ekron, a Philistine city mentioned in the Old Testament from the time of the conquest through the postexilic period.”[2] Other beneficial finds such as, the Merneptah Stele, the Rosetta Stone and the Sheba inscription confirm the world that interacted with the Bible.

Stones unearthed in archaeology today are sharing stories of the past and they are complimenting the historical accuracy of the Bible. Therefore, let us be awestruck when encountering the voices of the past as we walk through the halls of museums and use that knowledge to season our discussions with others to share the stories that matter for life.

Footnotes

[1] Randall Price, Handbook of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 27.

[2] Ibid.

WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?

“GENERALLY TRUE” MEANS “OFTEN FALSE.”

IT VIOLATES LARGE-SCALE FREEDOMS

IT DISRESPECTS MARRIAGE

IT’S OPEN-ENDED

WE ALREADY HAD MARRIAGE EQUALITY

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Great Christian Thinkers on the Study of Philosophy

The Philosophical Question about the Study of Philosophy

Defining Philosophy

Conclusion

For Further Study

Bibliography

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Science Behind Why Being Right Feels So Good

How to Overcome the Addiction to Being Right

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Discussing Premise (1)

Discussing Premise (2)

Discussing Premise (3)

Discussing Premise (4)

Discussing the Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A VERY BRIEF HISTORY OF UFOLOGY (MAINLY IN THE U.S.)

THE NATURE OF UFO SIGHTINGS

THEORIES OF UFOS AND ALIENS

THE SKEPTICAL OR TERRESTRIAL VIEW

THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL HYPOTHESIS (ETH)

THE INTER-DIMENSIONAL HYPOTHESIS

THE SPIRITUAL OR EXTRA-DIMENSIONAL VIEW

CONCLUSION AND IMPORTANCE

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Archaeology – The Black Obelisk

Apologetics – The Stones Provide Evidence

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic: