By Brian Chilton
After Bible study, one evening, a good friend of mine and I discussed the problem of evil. He asked an excellent question, “Did God create evil?” I said, “No, I don’t think he did.” However, my friend objected because he said, “God created everything, so he must have created evil.” This conversation was quite good, and we found common ground by the end of our discussion. This article relates some of the issues that we discussed.
One of the first issues we needed to define was the nature of evil. What do we mean when we say something is evil? He was using the term to define any type of disaster or bad thing. I was using to term to define immoral behaviors, such as torturing babies. How do we answer this question? Did God create evil? In this article, I would like to look at four common tricky areas that need to be dissected in order to answer the question.
Ontology and Epistemology of God and Evil. The terms ontology and epistemology are philosophical terms but are important to this area of conversation. One cannot neglect philosophy because bad philosophy often leads to bad theology. First, let me define the terms and how they play a role in this discussion.
Ontology is the study of the nature of being. It deals with how we know something exists. For instance, does a pizza exist? How do we know a pizza exists? These are ontological questions that deal with the nature of pizza’s existence. And oh, how tragic life would be without the existence of pizza!
Epistemology deals with the theory of knowledge[1]. This area deals with how we know something to be true. What is the nature of such and such? To use our illustration of pizza, ontology would ask, “Does pizza exist?” whereas epistemology would ask, “Is pizza good? Can we know that pizza is tasty?” So, a created thing would deal with the area of ontology, whereas the nature of the thing would deal more in the area of epistemology more or less.
When we talk about God creating all things, we must understand that God created everything that exists including the potentials to do certain things. However, if we grant the existence of human freedom, then God is not responsible for the actions that people take. Yes, God provides the means and conditions that can lead to a person’s actions and God knows the free actions that a person will take, but the person is responsible for his or her own actions[2]. Therefore, God created all things and created the conditions where a person could do good or evil. But, God did not create evil, because evil is not a thing to be created. It is not like a virus or slab of concrete. Evil is an attribute. It is a personal rejection of the good, the good which is an attribute of God.
The Moral Character of God. God is thoroughly identified in the Scriptures as being the ultimate good. John tells us that God is love (1 Jn. 4:8). Scripture also indicates that God is absolutely holy, which means that he is set apart and absolutely pure (1 Sam. 2:2; 6:20; Ps. 99:9; 1 Cor. 3:17; Rev. 4:8). Since God is the absolute good and absolutely pure, it is false to claim that God does evil. James says that “No one undergoing a trial should say, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ since God is not tempted by evil, and he himself does not tempt anyone. But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desire. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death” (Jms. 1:13-15). James answers the question for us in great detail about God’s relationship to evil. God cannot do evil because God is the absolute good[3].
So, how do we know what is evil and what is good? If you are driving down a highway, you will see a sign that posts the speed limit. In town, the speed limit will most likely be 35 miles per hour. How do you know that you’re breaking the speed limit driving 55 miles per area in that zone unless there is a speed limit posted stating that one should only go 35 miles per hour? The law must exist before you can know if you’re breaking the law. Moral standards must exist before one can know that he or she is doing evil. Objective moral standards come from God. Again, evil is not something to be created. Evil stems from a rejection of God’s moral goodness.
Ra’ah, Disaster, and Evil. Let’s face it. Biblical interpretation is tough especially when it comes to the original languages. Some individuals have spent their entire lives seeking to master the biblical languages but are still left with questions. If that is the case, should those of us with less training in the biblical languages not have much more humility when it comes to such terms? I think so.
Often, Hebrew words can take several different meanings depending on context. I remember when taking Greek that Dr. Chad Thornhill would often emphasize context, context, context when interpreting a confusing term. In Hebrew, one such example is the confusion that occurs with the term ra’ah. Ra’ah describes a disaster, but it can also be used to describe something evil. Ingrid Faro explains with the following:
“For example, the Hebrew root “evil” (ra’; ra’ah; r’ ’) occurs 46 times in Genesis and is rightly translated into English using at least 20 different words, and nuanced in the Septuagint by using eight Greek forms (11 lexemes). Yet English-speaking people often incorrectly assume an underlying meaning of “sinister, moral wrong” and interject that into each use of the Hebrew word.”[4]
In Amos 5:3, it is noted that “If this is a judgment announcement against the rich, then the Hebrew phrase עֵת רָעָה (’et ra’ah) must be translated, “[a] disastrous time.” See G. V. Smith, Amos, 170.”[5] Thus, the term ra’ah can indicate a disaster that has befallen a group of people and does not necessarily mean “evil” as some older translations have indicated.
But, doesn’t disaster indicate something evil? If God brings disaster, does that not indicate that God does something evil? No, not at all! God is holy. If a people are unrepentant and are unwilling to stop doing evil, then God is completely justified in bringing judgment. The disaster is not evil if it is due to justice. Like a parent disciplining a child or a judge executing judgment against a convicted criminal, disasters are sometimes the judgment of God poured out upon an unrepentant people. I think it was good that the Allies stormed into Germany to overtake the evil Adolf Hitler. Likewise, it is actually good for God to bring judgment as it coincides with his holy nature.
Evil Allowed to Permit the Ultimate Good. So, the final question that must be tackled is this: If God is good, then why would he allow evil to exist in the first place? Why would he create a condition where evil could exist? The answer to this is quite simple. God’s allowance of evil is to allow a greater good. What is that greater good? Love. For love to truly exist, it must be free. It must be freely given, freely received, and reciprocal between both parties. God could have created us as robots or automatons. But, that would not provide true love. The ultimate love was given in Jesus, who experienced the horrors of torture and experienced the just punishment that we deserve. He did so that we would have life eternally. The penalty of our eternal punishment was paid on the cross at Calvary. God lovingly confers his grace to all who would willingly receive. His grace is freely offered and is freely received. This kind of love would not be possible if God did not allow the conditions that would allow evil to exist. A greater good has come. One day, those who have trusted Christ for their salvation will no longer need to worry about evil because evil will be vanquished. The redeemed of Christ will be transformed. We will experience the bliss and glory of the heaven that awaits us. To God be the glory!
So, did God create evil? It depends on what you mean. God created the conditions for evil to exist but did so to allow a greater good which is the free love that is experienced between the Lover (God), the beloved (us), and the spirit of love between the two. Evil is not a thing to be created. Rather, it is a condition that exists when a person or group of people reject God’s goodness and his holy moral nature.
Notes
[1] “Epistemology is the discipline that deals with the theory of knowledge. The term can be broken down into epistem-ology (Gk. episteme, “to know; logos, “study”). It is the study of how we know.”[1] Norman L. Geisler, “Epistemology,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 215.
[2] In Ezekiel, God notes that each person is responsible for his or her own actions. “But suppose the man has a violent son, who sheds blood and does any of these things, though the father has done none of them… [The son] will not live! Since he has committed all these detestable acts, he will certainly die. His death will be his own fault” (Eze. 18:10-11,13). It is true that God has control over history and the like. But remember, a person is responsible for his or her actions. God’s sovereignty does not negate human responsibility. God does not force a person to do anything. His Spirit may woo a person to receive his salvation, but he will not force a person to do so. Unless otherwise noted all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).
[3] The Bible makes clear that God cannot operate in a manner that betrays his moral nature. For instance, Paul writes, “God, who cannot lie, promised before time began” (Ti. 1:2).
[4] Ingrid Faro, “Semantics,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
[5] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Am 5:13.
Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2KDrafD
Why the Right to Privacy Argument for Abortion Fails
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy J. Brian Huffling
A common argument used by abortion advocates is: “A woman can do what she wants with her body! Since it is her body that is going through the pregnancy, then she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.” However, this “argument” fails for a number of reasons.
First, it is not an argument. It is an assertion. An argument is a series of at least two propositions that logically lead to a conclusion. That doesn’t happen here.
Second, there are a myriad of things that a person can’t do in the name of privacy or by appealing to “this is my body.” A person cannot do drugs (excluding marijuana in some places) and simply get away with it, even though it is his body that is affected by the drugs. A person, in most places, cannot prostitute herself, even though it is her body. (Some have actually argued that prostitution should be legal because it empowers women and it is their body.) Examples could be multiplied, but hopefully, the point is clear.
Third, and most importantly, it isn’t her body!!! When deciding to murder a baby in the womb, arguing “It’s my body, so I can do it” is simply asinine (that means incredibly stupid)! If a woman was going to abort herself, that would be suicide. Abortion takes the life of the baby, not the mother. The baby is a separate being with its own DNA, blood type, and gender. The baby is not identical with the mother. So, even if she could do what she wanted with her body, the baby is a different story.
Some will retort that at the moment of abortion (presumably in the first trimester), the fetus is not a human yet. However, this is ludicrous. The only reason to claim this is to justify abortion. What else would it be? The baby is a product of sexual reproduction, which can only reproduce another member of the parents’ species. Two humans cannot sexually reproduce another species. At conception, the baby has all of its needed chromosomes (the same number of fully developed adults). The fetus simply needs time to develop. Two humans can only reproduce humans. The fact that the baby isn’t fully developed doesn’t make it a non-human. Our bodies don’t stop developing until the early twenties as the frontal lobe of the brain is still forming (this is what connects reason and emotion, which explains why teenagers can be very irrational).
One cannot help but wonder why liberals are so concerned with women’s rights while simultaneously willing and even advocating for the outright murder of so many women (female babies). Such advocates are not advocates of love and compassion, but of hatred and murder.
Forgiveness
If you are reading this and have had an abortion, or know someone who has, it is important to know there is forgiveness in Christ. Yes, abortion is wrong. You probably already know that. But it doesn’t mean that you are outside of grace and forgiveness. God’s grace covers even abortion. Know that. Hear the words of John: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all [all!] unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).
As Christians, we should condemn abortion for what it is while also remembering and communicating the grace of Jesus Christ.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2N4yP3W
Apologetics Is About Love
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Ryan Leasure
Apologetics is about love. Wait, what? Apologetics? About love? You mean to tell me that apologetics — making a defense for the Christian faith — isn’t about academic scruples that few people care about? Don’t apologists thrive off arguments and heated discussions? How could it be about love?
While I can’t speak for my fellow Christian apologists, love motivates me to study apologetics. Jesus tells us the greatest commandments are to love God and our neighbor as ourselves. I believe one way we can obey these commands is to grow in our understanding of apologetics. Make no mistake about it; apologetics can be intellectually fulfilling. Love, however, must be the primary motivation. The goal needs to be winning people’s hearts, not winning arguments. And it’s my love for the following people that compels me to do apologetics.
LOVE FOR NON-CHRISTIANS
Like everyone else, I have friends who aren’t Christians. Some of these friends belong to other faiths while others are atheists. I love these friends and want them to receive salvation. Yet they, like me, are deeply entrenched in their worldviews. Quoting Bible verses to them often doesn’t persuade them because they don’t believe the Bible. They don’t care that Genesis says God created the world. For them, the Bible is a mixture of bad history and old wives’ tales.
I could respond to these friends in one of two ways. I could throw my arms up in the air and say what’s the use? They’re on their own. Or, I could try to learn about their worldview and do my best to show them why it doesn’t square with reality. Furthermore, I could also try to answer any objections they have to my worldview. I chose the latter.
Because I believe Jesus is the Son of God who died and rose again for our sins, I desperately want my non-Christian friends to trust in him. I want them to receive forgiveness of sins. I want them to have eternal life and experience true and lasting joy that only Jesus can give. And because I love these friends deeply, I’m committed to studying apologetics with the hopes that God might use it to draw them to himself.
LOVE FOR MY CHURCH
The reason I emphasize apologetics in my local church is because I love my fellow church members. We live our lives to the fullest when we pursue a dynamic relationship with Jesus. And in my experience, apologetics has bolstered my relationship with him.
Not only do I possess greater assurance for my faith — it’s reasonable to believe what I believe — I am also prepared to share my faith with more boldness. Trepidation doesn’t overwhelm me anymore. I’m prepared to answer most questions and objections people have about my faith. In a very real way, apologetics has increased my ability to fulfill the Great Commission (Mt 28:19-20).
Whether people realize it or not, apologetics is the evangelism of today and of the future. While we should never avoid sharing the simple Gospel message — that Jesus died and rose for our sins — we must be able to provide good reasons for believing that Gospel message to be true. After all, we live in a post-Christian, pluralistic, skeptical culture that distrusts any form of religion. They don’t take the Bible at face value. They think religion is a personal matter — your truth is good for you, but not for my kind of mentality.
Most Christians struggle navigating these kinds of conversations. As a result, they feel defeated because they didn’t know how to respond to the skeptic’s objections. Or even worse, they begin to lose their faith. For these reasons, I make it my aim to emphasize apologetics in my local church. This emphasis equips my church to more faithfully live out their life on mission for Jesus.
LOVE FOR OUR YOUTH
Multiple studies report that a majority of students leave the church when they head off to college. In fact, one Southern Baptist study reports that 88% of children born in evangelical homes leave the church at age eighteen.1 According to most of these studies, the main reason students leave the faith is because of intellectual doubt.
It’s no secret that professors at secular universities are more disposed toward atheism and skepticism than the general public.2 In fact, many of these same faculty have a general dislike for evangelical Christianity. How then do we prepare our students in the youth group for the onslaught? With more games? By focusing more on inviting friends than personal discipleship? With short lessons on moral purity?
We throw our youth into the lion’s den with little more than a butter knife to defend themselves and wonder why they don’t make it out. We’re failing our youth if we don’t change our approach. Fortunately, excellent resources exist for equipping our youth in apologetics. Currently, our youth director is taking our students through The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.
We have some great students in our church. I don’t want to see them become another statistic. I love them too much.
LOVE FOR JESUS
Jesus proclaims, “If you love me, keep my commands” (Jn. 14:15). I don’t know if most Christians recognize this, but God commands us to do apologetics. First Peter 3:15 asserts, “always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.”
Occasionally I’ll hear someone say Matthew 28:18-20 isn’t the “Great Suggestion,” it’s the “Great Commission.” In other words, Jesus was serious when he told his disciples to go spread the Gospel message. It’s not optional.
In the same sense, 1 Peter 3:15 doesn’t offer a suggestion, but a bona fide command to do apologetics. And doesn’t love for the Lord manifest itself in obedience? Christians aren’t simply hearers of the word, but doers also (Js. 1:22). I don’t always obey God’s commands as I should, but my love for Jesus compels me to do apologetics.
APOLOGETICS IS ABOUT LOVE
It’s not merely an academic exercise. It’s not about silencing your opponent. Apologetics is about persuasively sharing the Gospel to win people to Christ. It’s about fulfilling the greatest commandments to love God and our neighbor. In fact, Jesus tells us in the greatest commandment that we are to love God with all our “mind.” That is, loving God necessarily includes mental engagement. If you’re ever tempted to think that apologetics is unloving, I hope you’ll be reminded of Jesus’ words and think again.
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/2N8bbUr
The Big Questions in Life: Part IV
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Frank closes our current “Big Questions in Life” series answering some really tough questions. In this last installment of our 4 part series, Frank discusses the following questions: What is the source of objective moral obligations? Where does evil come from? Why do we have free will? What is the purpose or meaning of life? How should we live? Why do we feel guilt? How do we atone for our bad moral behavior? Why is there a New Testament? How did Christianity arise out of Judaism in first century Jerusalem if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead? & What happens when you die Don’t miss the episode that brings this series to a close!
¿Por qué Yahveh? ¿Por qué no Zeus? ¿Por qué no Thor? ¿Por qué no Zoidberg?
EspañolPor Evan Minton
Una pregunta frecuente que suelen hacer los ateos a los cristianos como yo es por qué creemos en el Dios de la Biblia en lugar de todos estos otros dioses en todas estas religiones inventadas. Ellos preguntarán “¿Crees en un solo Dios? ¿Por qué no crees en Thor, Zeus o Atenea? ¿Afirmas que todos estos dioses no existen? Sin embargo, ¿dices que tu dios sí? ¿Cómo sabes la diferencia?
En realidad, esta pregunta es una de las primeras cosas que me hizo dudar de mi propia fe cristiana. Hace años, no tenía manera de saber la diferencia entre el cristianismo y otras religiones. ¿Cómo sé que Yahveh es el único Dios verdadero? Si estos otros son inventados, ¿cómo sé que mi Dios no lo es? Afortunadamente, el Señor me mostró la Apologética Cristiana y me dio una buena manera de discernir entre ellos. Ahora, no voy a entrar en detalles con toda la evidencia del Dios de la Biblia en este momento. Si lo hiciera, esta publicación del blog sería extremadamente larga, increíblemente verboso. Más bien, voy a enlazar estos argumentos y pruebas que demuestran la verdad del cristianismo, y cuando termines de leer esta publicación en el blog puedes hacer clic en esos enlaces y estudiar los argumentos individualmente si lo deseas. Los enlaces resaltarán en color.
Una forma de saberlo es con el mismo Big Bang. De acuerdo con el Big Bang, ¡el universo entero surgió de la nada! Y según personas que han realizado estudios exhaustivos de las religiones del mundo (por ejemplo, Hugh Ross), las únicas creencias en las cuales Dios ha creado de la nada son el judaísmo, el cristianismo, el islam y el deísmo. Todas las otras religiones tienen a Dios o dioses creando dentro del espacio y el tiempo donde han existido desde la eternidad pasada. Entonces, el mismísimo origen del universo lo reduce a 4 posibilidades. Además, el origen del universo demuestra que la existencia de él debe haber sido creado por un agente causal. Un agente causal cuya existencia no está confinada al espacio, ni tiempo, inmaterial, poderoso, sin causa primera, sobrenatural y personal (ver el argumento cosmológico Kalam).
Si la evidencia científica del Diseño Inteligente pasa (por ejemplo, el ajuste fino del universo, ajuste fino local, la evidencia del ADN, la complejidad irreducible), puedes descartar el deísmo. Porque lo que argumentos como los argumentos teleológicos muestran que este Dios está moldeando activamente el universo y la vida para hacer que esté habitada por criaturas. Eso descarta el deísmo y se ajusta mejor al teísmo.
Además, debo agregar que el argumento ontológico demuestra que existe un ser muy parecido al Dios de la Biblia. El argumento ontológico, si pasa, demostraría que existe un ser que es Omnisciente, Omnipresente, Omnipotente y Omnibenevolente. Esto contradice a muchos dioses como Thor y Zeus. Las únicas religiones consistentes con un ser como este son las 3 religiones monoteístas. Los dioses politeístas como Thor son simplemente súper humanos (Stan Lee se aprovechó de este hecho). Pero no son omnipotentes ni omnipresentes ni nada por el estilo. La belleza del argumento ontológico es que no solo demuestra que Dios existe sino que presenta todas sus cualidades superlativas que no puedes derivar de otros argumentos de la teología natural.
De hecho, los argumentos de la teología natural pueden decirnos no solo que Dios existe, sino que pueden demostrar muchos atributos acerca de Dios. Atributos que la Biblia describe que Él tiene. El argumento cosmológico Kalam muestra que Dios es un agente afuera del espacio, del tiempo, es inmaterial, poderoso, sobrenatural y personal. Los Argumentos del Ajuste Fino (universales y locales) demuestran que Dios es increíblemente inteligente, al menos lo suficientemente inteligente como para saber cómo fabricar un universo adecuado para que puedan habitar las criaturas. Los otros argumentos teleológicos (ADN y Complejidad Irreducible) hacen lo mismo. El Argumento Moral demuestra que Dios es moralmente perfecto, ya que demuestra que Dios es el estándar por el cual medimos a las personas para determinar cuán buenas o cuán malas son en realidad. Demuestra que, en ausencia de la existencia de Dios, no habría nada que pudiéramos llamar objetivamente bueno y malo porque no habría nada con qué compararlo. ¿A quién o qué exactamente estamos comparando a Hitler o Bin Laden cuando los llamamos malos?
El argumento ontológico demuestra las cualidades superlativas de Dios (como ya lo mencioné anteriormente). Si pasa (es decir, si cumple los 3 requisitos para ser un buen argumento, que son: la conclusión debe seguir desde las premisas por las leyes de la lógica, todas las premisas deben ser verdaderas, y debemos tener buenas razones para pensar que son verdad), si este argumento cumple esos 3 requisitos, demuestra que existe un ser que es omnipotente, omnipresente, omnisciente, omnibenevolente y necesario en su existencia (aseidad).
Estos argumentos de la teología natural/revelación general, cuando se unen, nos dan poderosas razones para creer en la existencia de un Ser que se asemeja mucho, muy cercanamente, al ser que la Biblia describe como Dios. Además, lo bello de la teología natural es que derivan la existencia de este Ser sin apelar a ninguna escritura en absoluto. Entonces el ateo no puede acusarte de razonamiento circular (apelando a la Biblia para probar la Biblia). Podemos concluir que este ser existe basado solamente en la ciencia y la lógica.
Pero si quieres llegar al cristianismo y eliminar las otras 2 opciones, podemos revisar la evidencia de la resurrección de Cristo. Para mí, la resurrección de Cristo resuelve todo. Si se puede establecer históricamente que Jesús hizo afirmaciones de ser Dios, y luego resucitó de entre los muertos, entonces esa es una buena evidencia de que estaba diciendo la verdad. La resurrección significa que Dios puso su sello de aprobación en todo lo que dijo e hizo Jesús. Significa que Él es el Mesías y el Señor. Por lo tanto, cualquier cosa contradictoria a las enseñanzas de Cristo debe ser falsa. Pienso que la evidencia histórica de la resurrección de Jesucristo es muy poderosa. Te aconsejo que mires las publicaciones del blog Cerebral Faith (Fe Cerebral) en el que escribí sobre este tema. En la PARTE 1, doy la evidencia de los 5 hechos mínimos; (1) que Jesús murió por crucifixión, (2), que la tumba de Jesús se encontró vacía, (4) que los discípulos creyeron haber visto a Jesús vivo después de su muerte, (4), que un perseguidor llamado Pablo se convirtió sobre la base de lo que él creía era una aparición del Jesús resucitado, y (5) que un escéptico llamado Santiago se convirtió basado en lo que él creía que era una aparición del Jesús resucitado. En la PARTE 2, examino cuál de las explicaciones mejor argumenta esas hipótesis y muestro que solo la hipótesis “Dios resucitó a Jesús de la muerte” explica mejor los 5 hechos, mientras que las explicaciones naturalistas fallan.
Pero si quieres sumergirte en el estudio de este tema profundamente, te sugiero los libros El Caso de Cristo de Lee Strobel, “The Case For The Resurrection of Jesus” (El Caso por la Resurrección de Jesus) de Gary Habermas y Mike Licona, y también “On Guard” (En Guardia) de William Lane Craig (el libro de Craig también profundiza en 4 de los argumentos de teología natural que he enumerado anteriormente, pero también tiene un capítulo sobre las declaraciones de Jesús a la deidad y un capítulo sobre la evidencia de su resurrección).
Ahí lo tienes. Las razones por las que creo en el Dios bíblico en lugar de cualquier dios politeísta o panteísta. Espero que aunque seas cristiano como yo o un ateo, hagas clic en los enlaces de arriba y tómate el tiempo para leer esos artículos enlazados. Si eres un ateo, puede convertirte en un creyente. Si eres cristiano, es probable que fortalezca tu fe. Dios te bendiga.
Para un estudio más completo sobre esto, mira el libro de Evan “Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods” (Inferencia al único Dios verdadero: por qué creo en Jesús en lugar de otros dioses).
Evan Minton es un apologista cristiano y bloguero en Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). Es el autor de “Inference To The One True God” (Inferencia al único Dios verdadero) y “A Hellacious Doctrine” (Doctrina infernal) . Ha participado en varios debates que pueden ser visto en la sección “Mis debates” de Cerebral Faith. El Sr. Minton vive en Carolina del Sur, EE. UU.
Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2qBOgI7
Traducido por JanLouis Rivera
Editado por María Andreina Cerrada
¿En qué se diferencia el cristianismo de otras religiones en el tema de la homosexualidad?
EspañolPor Terrell Clemmons
Probablemente no es lo que tú piensas.
Salvando la Verdad en la Sexualidad Humana.
“Perdone si esto está fuera del tema”, la joven tartamudeó en el micrófono, “pero, um, he buscado respuestas, y parece que no logro encontrar ninguna, así que pensé en venir esta noche y preguntarle a ustedes. ¿En qué aspecto difiere el cristianismo, si es que lo hace, sobre la homosexualidad en contraposición a otras religiones, y si es así, cómo?”. Sus labios temblorosos y sus manos temblorosas revelaron la magnitud de la lucha que tenía solo al expresar la pregunta.
El auditorio quedó en silencio mientras todos los ojos tornaron a Abdu Murray, quien había tomado parte en un foro abierto de la universidad sobre las religiones principales del mundo.
Abdu, mantuvo silencio por un momento. Él sabía que ella no estaba en busca de otra opinión. Ella necesitaba una respuesta que la validara como ser humano. ¿Qué podría decir que no comprometiera la sexualidad bíblica y a la misma vez mostrara que Dios se preocupa por ella sin medida?
“Solo hay tantas visiones del mundo para elegir”, comenzó. Y ninguna de ellas proporciona una respuesta que valide incondicionalmente la humanidad de ella. Ninguna, excepto una. Pero antes de llegar a ella, él inspeccionó a las demás.
Considere el ateísmo naturalista, la visión del mundo que impulsa el secularismo progresivo. De acuerdo con el secularismo naturalista, los seres humanos son una vida animal altamente evolucionada. Esta visión es doblemente deshumanizante con respecto a la homosexualidad. En primer lugar, de acuerdo a la narrativa evolucionista darwiniana, no hay nada especialmente significativo sobre los seres humanos. “Una rata es un cerdo, es un perro, es un niño”, en palabras de Ingrid Newkirk, fundadora de Personas por el Trato Ético de los Animales (PETA), a tal punto que la única cosa que nos distingue de las moscas en el cristal de nuestra ventana es que estamos por encima de ellas en la cadena alimenticia. En segundo lugar, si, como nos dicen, la evolución darwiniana surge a través del proceso evolutivo, entonces la homosexualidad falla evolutivamente porque el sexo entre personas del mismo sexo no reproduce. De manera que, desde el punto de vista naturalista, los que practican sexo entre personas del mismo género son, como todos los demás, nada especiales, y los fracasos darwinianos no se pueden iniciar.
¿Qué hay de los sistemas panteístas orientales, como el hinduismo o el budismo o una espiritualidad a la manera de Deepak Chopra? Bueno, los fundamentos éticos de estas visiones del mundo son, en el mejor de los casos, ambiguos, ya que enseñan que la moralidad es relativa. Y entonces, ninguno de ellos proporciona una base objetiva para el valor o la identidad humana. Es peor para esos que luchan buscando respuestas sólidas, sostienen que el sufrimiento es una ilusión, lo cual es totalmente insultante para una persona con dolor. No ofrecen nada más que una psicología barata autorreferencial para el que lucha con su identidad.
¿Qué hay del Islam? Si bien ofrece solidez, con su base monoteísta y reglas claras que circunscriben el comportamiento sexual, el Islam es abiertamente hostil a la homosexualidad. En algunos países islámicos, los actos homosexuales se castigan con prisión, flagelación y, en algunos casos, muerte.
Finalmente, entonces, Abdu vino al cristianismo. Presentó dos puntos al respecto. Primero, todos intuitivamente sabemos que hay algo sobre el sexo que lo hace más que un simple acto físico. ¿Por qué el abuso sexual es tratado de manera diferente a un simple ataque físico? Como dijo, hay algo sagradamente frágil en la sexualidad, y las cosas sagradas son tan especiales que merecen protección. Dios quiere proteger lo sagrado de la sexualidad para que no se convierta en algo común, y los límites que se otorgan a través de la ética sexual bíblica protegen la especialidad sagrada de la sexualidad.
Pero, admitió, que eso no explica la proscripción que limita el sexo al matrimonio del sexo opuesto. Ese fue el tema de su segundo punto. Para abordar el principio del matrimonio masculino-femenino, se refirió al relato de la creación bíblica en Génesis, donde dice que Dios creó al hombre y a la mujer a su imagen. El hombre y la mujer creados a la imagen de Dios es un concepto blasfemo por el Islam, un concepto extraño en cualquier panteísmo y absurdo en cualquier secularismo naturalista. Solo el punto de vista bíblico, sostiene que todos los hombres y todas las mujeres llevan la imagen divina de Dios, proporciona una base objetiva para la dignidad y el valor humanos inherentes.
Y esta es la razón por la cual la sexualidad humana vale la pena limitarla a un matrimonio entre el hombre y la mujer: el sexo es la forma en que la vida humana llega al mundo. “El sexo entre un hombre y una mujer es el único medio por el cual un ser tan precioso llega a este mundo”, dijo. “Y debido a que un ser humano es el producto sagrado del sexo, el proceso sexual por el cual esa persona está hecha también es sagrado”. La ética bíblica limita la expresión sexual al matrimonio monógamo, masculino y femenino porque “Dios está protegiendo algo sagrado y hermoso”. A medida que nos sometemos a la guía de creación, “se nos concede el honor de reflejar un aspecto del esplendor divino”.
Concluyó su respuesta a la problemática joven diciéndole que Dios asegura toda la dignidad humana, incluyendo la de ella, y lo sagrado en su naturaleza eterna e inmutable. Se nos concede la dignidad supremamente elevada de reflejar la gloria de Dios en el mundo.
Entonces, ¿dónde difiere el cristianismo de otras religiones en lo que respecta a la homosexualidad? Resulta que, difiere bastante profundamente de todos los demás, pero no de la manera en que las voces culturales dominantes dicen que sí. Abdu relata esta escena en su libro recientemente publicado, Saving Truth: Finding Meaning and Clarity in a Post-Truth World (Salvando la verdad: encontrando significado y claridad en un mundo post-verdad). Aunque tenía mucho más que decir acerca de la naturaleza sublime de la sexualidad en el matrimonio natural, Saving Truth (Salvando la verdad) no se trata solomente de sexualidad. Ese solo es el tema de un capítulo, pero espero que te dé una idea de la belleza que la claridad bíblica puede traer a un área plagada de confusión.
Saving Truth (Salvando la verdad) examina todo un panorama de confusión cultural, ofreciendo refrescantes dosis de claridad para que podamos dar sentido a muchas otras confusiones:
Abdu nunca dio el nombre de la joven que hizo la profunda pregunta sobre sexualidad, pero sí concluyó la historia al notar que después de responder su pregunta, “parecía saber que ella había ‘comprendido’ la respuesta. Las lágrimas comenzaron a fluir, y ella me concedió el honor de orar con ella”. La verdad tiene una forma de calmar el clamor y provocar momentos profundos. Espero que revises el nuevo libro de Abdu, “Saving Truth”, y aún más, espero que busques la verdad ahí donde te encuentras. No importando lo que cueste, ni cuantas lágrimas pueda provocar, busca la claridad, busca la verdad. Allí es donde encontrarás tu significado.
Terrell Clemmons es una escritora y bloguera independiente que escribe sobre apologética y asuntos de fe.
Blog original: http://bit.ly/2utgbv5
Traducido por JanLouis Rivera
Editado por María Andreina Cerrada
Terrell Clemmons Interviews Nancy Pearcey About The Impact Of Secularism
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Wintery Knight
Salvo magazine is my favorite magazine for the discussion of issues related to the Christian worldview. They focus on the most interesting topics; sex and feminism, intelligent design and evolution, marriage and family, abortion and euthanasia, etc. One of their writers, Terrell Clemmons, has just about the best Christian worldview I’ve ever encountered. She interviewed well-known Christian writer Nancy Pearcey in Salvo magazine.
The first part of the interview has Nancy explaining what happened to her when – as a teen – she asked her family and church and Christian leaders for reasons why she should take Christianity seriously. She ended up having to construct her entire worldview herself. She spent an entire year and a half reading nothing but Christian apologetics books. And from that, she moved on to connect Christianity to every other subject that you can possibly imagine.
The part of the interview I liked best was when Terrell asked Nancy what the consequences would be in real life to the popular secular ideas that the universe is an accident, that human beings are just robots made out of meat, that there is no free will and no way that humans ought to be objectively.
Excerpt:
What do you see as the greatest threat to the next generation?
The greatest threats are the issues covered in Love Thy Body because they involve the family—and children who grow up without a secure, loving family do not do as well in any area of life, including their spiritual and intellectual lives. Practices like contraception, abortion, and artificial reproduction are already creating an attitude that having a child is merely a lifestyle choice, an accessory to enrich adult lives and meet adult needs. The hookup culture is destroying people’s ability to form the secure, exclusive relationships they need to create stable, happy families. Porn is decimating a generation of young people who are literally being trained to objectify others for their own sexual gratification. When they marry, they are shocked—shocked—to discover that they are unable to experience a sexual response with a real live person. They are only able to respond to pornography. Homosexuality and transgenderism are both creating a gender-free society by denying the value and purpose of biological sex as the foundation for gender identity and marriage.
We are often told that these issues won’t affect anyone else, but that is not true. As the law changes, we are all affected. In a free society, certain rights are honored as pre-political rights. That means the state does not create them but only recognizes them as a pre-existing fact. For example, the right to life used to be a pre-political right—something you had just because you were human. But the only way the state could legalize abortion was by first deciding that some humans are not persons with a right to legal protection. The state now decides who qualifies for human rights, apart from biology. That is a huge power grab by the state, and it means we are all at risk. No one has a right to life now by the sheer fact of being human, but only at the dispensation of the state.
In the same way, marriage used to be a pre-political right based on the fact that humans are a sexually reproducing species. But the only way the state could legalize same-sex marriage was by denying the biological basis of marriage and redefining it as a purely emotional commitment, which is what the Supreme Court did in its Obergefell decision. The state no longer merely recognizes marriage as a pre-political right but has claimed the right to decide what marriage is, apart from biology.
Gender used to follow from your biological sex. But the only way the state can treat a trans woman (born male) the same as a biological woman is by dismissing biology as irrelevant. That’s why public schools are enforcing policies telling teachers whom they must call “he” and “she,” regardless of the student’s biological sex.
Same-sex activists say the next step is parenthood. In a same-sex couple, at least one parent is not biologically related to any children they have. So the only way the state can treat same-sex parents the same as opposite-sex parents is by dismissing biology as irrelevant and then substituting a new definition of “parent” (perhaps based on emotional bonds). You will be your child’s parent only at the permission of the state.
And what the state gives, the state can take away. Human rights are no longer “unalienable.” These issues are sold to the public as a way of expanding choice. But in reality, they hand over power to the state.
You can see examples of the state stepping in to “fix” the problems caused by the decline of lasting, stable marriages. Divorce courts control a man’s salary and his rights to communicate with and visit his children. Civil rights commissions bully anyone who doesn’t celebrate they LGBT agenda. Universities punish men for real or imagined bad treatment of women without any criminal investigation or criminal trial. And we are all on the hook for the costs of the breakdown of the family, which results in more crime (for fatherless boys), and more unwanted pregnancies (for fatherless girls). In 2008, it was $112 billion per year, no telling what it is up to now when the out-of-wedlock birth rate is now up to 42%.
Although the secular left’s new view of the body and sexuality seemed to be all goodness and happiness – at least to them – it’s actually caused a lot of problems, and increased the intervention of the state into our affairs.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2zqWutv
Evil, Suffering and Evidence for God
Atheism, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Mikel Del Rosario
On November 13, 2015, coordinated terrorist attacks rocked Paris, France: A shooting rampage, explosions, and a mass hostage-taking that leftover 100 people dead and over 300 more badly injured; people who went out to see a band, a soccer game, grab a bite to eat or just enjoy the evening. The Islamic State claimed responsibility and the media called it the deadliest attack in France since World War II.
Many around the world mourned for those who lost their lives in this tragedy. Many Christians called for prayer via social media, punctuating their posts with #PrayforParis.
Still, some skeptics say prayer is nothing but an empty act of desperation or sentimentality. Like wishing upon a star. In fact, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science posted a “Pray for Paris” graphic on Facebook altered to read, in part, “Don’t Pray for Paris…” Why? Because of the naturalistic worldview, there is no deity who hears a thing people are praying. After all, how could God exist when stuff like this happens?
But what about this?
Does evil disprove God? In this post, I’ll share three reasons that evil and suffering in the world point us to the existence of God. First, we know objective evil is real. Second, this points us to an objective standard of goodness. And third, objective moral laws are real communications from God.
Something’s Wrong
First, skeptics who challenge the existence of God because of evil and suffering in the world have to assume that evil is real; that something’s terribly wrong with our world today. It’s pretty obvious that murder and terrorism aren’t just examples of people breaking social norms. No, these things are really, objectively wrong. Objective evil is real, and everyone knows this isn’t the way things should be.
Hit up your favorite news app or Web site, and you’ll find tons of examples of evil happening right now: stories of racism, human trafficking, you name it. But what is evil itself? What all these instances of evil have in common is that they represent a departure from the way things should be. St. Augustine wrote in The Enchiridion:
For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good?
Think about it like this. Evil is kind of like a donut hole. I don’t mean a little, bite-sized ball of dough and frosting. I mean, an actual hole that was cut out in the middle of a donut that was intended to be a solid one. And so you get a spot where there’s nothing, instead of more donut.
Kind of like this, evil is the lack of good—it’s when the good that should be there isn’t there. We all know people should be loving each other, not hurting each other. But the question is: “Where’s this idea of should come from?”
There’s no way you’re going to somehow trace the idea of should back to matter behaving according to law. But that’s basically what everything boils down to if atheism is true. No, it seems evil came as a result of free creatures using their free will badly; the total opposite of the way human beings were designed to function in a community.
“Should” Points to God
Second, the fact that we know there is a should point us to an objective standard of goodness. See, in order to even bring up this whole issue of God and evil, the skeptic has to borrow the idea of objective evil from theism; the worldview of people who believe in God. If there’s really such a thing as evil, it’s just more evidence for God.
Why? Because if you’ve got objective evil, then you’ve got to have an objective good. Not just something our culture made up, but something beyond us that actually establishes what good is—God’s own nature.
C.S. Lewis, a former skeptic, said:
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
An Objection to the Moral Argument
But wait. What do we say to the skeptic who challenges this idea by saying, “How can you say there are objective moral values when Muslim terrorists sincerely believe it is right to kill innocent people?”
William Lane Craig gave a good answer to this: Just because terrorists think terrorism’s a good thing, that doesn’t mean objective moral laws aren’t real. It just means the terrorist’s got it all wrong. Here’s what Craig says about terrorists:
If they sincerely believe it’s right, then they also believe in objective moral values. There’s no contradiction here at all. It’s just that we have a disagreement about what the objective moral truths are. To say that there are objective moral values doesn’t mean that there won’t be moral disagreements. Or that there won’t be moral growth as you come to see that maybe you were wrong in the past and now you have a clearer perspective on things.
Don’t confuse the reality of moral values with the knowledge of them.
To say that there are objective moral values doesn’t mean we are infallible in our moral apprehensions. I think we do apprehend objective moral values, but many times, we can make mistakes.
I think the Muslim terrorists have made a terrible mistake. And the reason is: I think they have the wrong god. The god that they think has commanded them to do this doesn’t exist. Therefore, they are terribly, and tragically mistaken. But there’s no contradiction at all here between someone believing that something is objectively right and there being objective moral values and duties.
Objective moral laws are real, and that fact doesn’t change, even if people disagree about whether or not a certain action’s good or evil.
Evil Requires a Good God
Third, objective moral laws don’t just come out of nowhere. They are a communication of one mind to another. This is totally different from some Scrabble letters that fall on the ground and happen to spell out a word. Totally different from what a Magic 8 Ball might tell you when you shake it up.
Objective moral laws have an undeniable force that you feel obligated to obey. That’s because they come from a moral lawgiver who has authority over you and me; a being whose jurisdiction is the universe he created.
In order for evil to exist, there must be an objective standard of goodness. Did you know you could have good without evil? But you can’t have evil without good; without a standard of goodness. Think about it like this: You can have a standard with nothing falling short of that standard, but you can’t have something falling short of a standard without a standard! Get it? Reminds me of an old Switchfoot song, “The Shadow Proves the Sunshine.” Objective moral laws are real communications from a good God.
Conclusion
We mourn with those who mourn. Christianity is very real about the problem of evil. This isn’t the way things should be. But the very concept of “should” points us to an objective standard of goodness: God’s own nature. Turns out, evil and suffering are evidence for God and not against him–a God who hears our prayers and to whom all people are accountable for their actions.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2KZNsrR
Did God Create Evil?
Atheism, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Brian Chilton
After Bible study, one evening, a good friend of mine and I discussed the problem of evil. He asked an excellent question, “Did God create evil?” I said, “No, I don’t think he did.” However, my friend objected because he said, “God created everything, so he must have created evil.” This conversation was quite good, and we found common ground by the end of our discussion. This article relates some of the issues that we discussed.
One of the first issues we needed to define was the nature of evil. What do we mean when we say something is evil? He was using the term to define any type of disaster or bad thing. I was using to term to define immoral behaviors, such as torturing babies. How do we answer this question? Did God create evil? In this article, I would like to look at four common tricky areas that need to be dissected in order to answer the question.
Ontology and Epistemology of God and Evil. The terms ontology and epistemology are philosophical terms but are important to this area of conversation. One cannot neglect philosophy because bad philosophy often leads to bad theology. First, let me define the terms and how they play a role in this discussion.
Ontology is the study of the nature of being. It deals with how we know something exists. For instance, does a pizza exist? How do we know a pizza exists? These are ontological questions that deal with the nature of pizza’s existence. And oh, how tragic life would be without the existence of pizza!
Epistemology deals with the theory of knowledge[1]. This area deals with how we know something to be true. What is the nature of such and such? To use our illustration of pizza, ontology would ask, “Does pizza exist?” whereas epistemology would ask, “Is pizza good? Can we know that pizza is tasty?” So, a created thing would deal with the area of ontology, whereas the nature of the thing would deal more in the area of epistemology more or less.
When we talk about God creating all things, we must understand that God created everything that exists including the potentials to do certain things. However, if we grant the existence of human freedom, then God is not responsible for the actions that people take. Yes, God provides the means and conditions that can lead to a person’s actions and God knows the free actions that a person will take, but the person is responsible for his or her own actions[2]. Therefore, God created all things and created the conditions where a person could do good or evil. But, God did not create evil, because evil is not a thing to be created. It is not like a virus or slab of concrete. Evil is an attribute. It is a personal rejection of the good, the good which is an attribute of God.
The Moral Character of God. God is thoroughly identified in the Scriptures as being the ultimate good. John tells us that God is love (1 Jn. 4:8). Scripture also indicates that God is absolutely holy, which means that he is set apart and absolutely pure (1 Sam. 2:2; 6:20; Ps. 99:9; 1 Cor. 3:17; Rev. 4:8). Since God is the absolute good and absolutely pure, it is false to claim that God does evil. James says that “No one undergoing a trial should say, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ since God is not tempted by evil, and he himself does not tempt anyone. But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own evil desire. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death” (Jms. 1:13-15). James answers the question for us in great detail about God’s relationship to evil. God cannot do evil because God is the absolute good[3].
So, how do we know what is evil and what is good? If you are driving down a highway, you will see a sign that posts the speed limit. In town, the speed limit will most likely be 35 miles per hour. How do you know that you’re breaking the speed limit driving 55 miles per area in that zone unless there is a speed limit posted stating that one should only go 35 miles per hour? The law must exist before you can know if you’re breaking the law. Moral standards must exist before one can know that he or she is doing evil. Objective moral standards come from God. Again, evil is not something to be created. Evil stems from a rejection of God’s moral goodness.
Ra’ah, Disaster, and Evil. Let’s face it. Biblical interpretation is tough especially when it comes to the original languages. Some individuals have spent their entire lives seeking to master the biblical languages but are still left with questions. If that is the case, should those of us with less training in the biblical languages not have much more humility when it comes to such terms? I think so.
Often, Hebrew words can take several different meanings depending on context. I remember when taking Greek that Dr. Chad Thornhill would often emphasize context, context, context when interpreting a confusing term. In Hebrew, one such example is the confusion that occurs with the term ra’ah. Ra’ah describes a disaster, but it can also be used to describe something evil. Ingrid Faro explains with the following:
“For example, the Hebrew root “evil” (ra’; ra’ah; r’ ’) occurs 46 times in Genesis and is rightly translated into English using at least 20 different words, and nuanced in the Septuagint by using eight Greek forms (11 lexemes). Yet English-speaking people often incorrectly assume an underlying meaning of “sinister, moral wrong” and interject that into each use of the Hebrew word.”[4]
In Amos 5:3, it is noted that “If this is a judgment announcement against the rich, then the Hebrew phrase עֵת רָעָה (’et ra’ah) must be translated, “[a] disastrous time.” See G. V. Smith, Amos, 170.”[5] Thus, the term ra’ah can indicate a disaster that has befallen a group of people and does not necessarily mean “evil” as some older translations have indicated.
But, doesn’t disaster indicate something evil? If God brings disaster, does that not indicate that God does something evil? No, not at all! God is holy. If a people are unrepentant and are unwilling to stop doing evil, then God is completely justified in bringing judgment. The disaster is not evil if it is due to justice. Like a parent disciplining a child or a judge executing judgment against a convicted criminal, disasters are sometimes the judgment of God poured out upon an unrepentant people. I think it was good that the Allies stormed into Germany to overtake the evil Adolf Hitler. Likewise, it is actually good for God to bring judgment as it coincides with his holy nature.
Evil Allowed to Permit the Ultimate Good. So, the final question that must be tackled is this: If God is good, then why would he allow evil to exist in the first place? Why would he create a condition where evil could exist? The answer to this is quite simple. God’s allowance of evil is to allow a greater good. What is that greater good? Love. For love to truly exist, it must be free. It must be freely given, freely received, and reciprocal between both parties. God could have created us as robots or automatons. But, that would not provide true love. The ultimate love was given in Jesus, who experienced the horrors of torture and experienced the just punishment that we deserve. He did so that we would have life eternally. The penalty of our eternal punishment was paid on the cross at Calvary. God lovingly confers his grace to all who would willingly receive. His grace is freely offered and is freely received. This kind of love would not be possible if God did not allow the conditions that would allow evil to exist. A greater good has come. One day, those who have trusted Christ for their salvation will no longer need to worry about evil because evil will be vanquished. The redeemed of Christ will be transformed. We will experience the bliss and glory of the heaven that awaits us. To God be the glory!
So, did God create evil? It depends on what you mean. God created the conditions for evil to exist but did so to allow a greater good which is the free love that is experienced between the Lover (God), the beloved (us), and the spirit of love between the two. Evil is not a thing to be created. Rather, it is a condition that exists when a person or group of people reject God’s goodness and his holy moral nature.
Notes
[1] “Epistemology is the discipline that deals with the theory of knowledge. The term can be broken down into epistem-ology (Gk. episteme, “to know; logos, “study”). It is the study of how we know.”[1] Norman L. Geisler, “Epistemology,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 215.
[2] In Ezekiel, God notes that each person is responsible for his or her own actions. “But suppose the man has a violent son, who sheds blood and does any of these things, though the father has done none of them… [The son] will not live! Since he has committed all these detestable acts, he will certainly die. His death will be his own fault” (Eze. 18:10-11,13). It is true that God has control over history and the like. But remember, a person is responsible for his or her actions. God’s sovereignty does not negate human responsibility. God does not force a person to do anything. His Spirit may woo a person to receive his salvation, but he will not force a person to do so. Unless otherwise noted all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).
[3] The Bible makes clear that God cannot operate in a manner that betrays his moral nature. For instance, Paul writes, “God, who cannot lie, promised before time began” (Ti. 1:2).
[4] Ingrid Faro, “Semantics,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
[5] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Am 5:13.
Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2KDrafD
Sexually Transmitted Unease: How Casual Sex Works Bad Chemistry From Good
CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Terrell Clemmons
“Want a Capri Sun?”
Those were the first words he said to her afterward. Rachel White, age fifteen, had been anticipating this moment for at least a year. She’d sneaked out on a snowy school night, shoes in hand. Then, wearing nothing but her wet socks, Ginuwine playing in the background, it was finally happening! Oh my god, she told herself, this is sex! Just move your hips to Ginuwine. When it was over, he locked eyes with her, opened his mouth … and offered her a kiddie drink in a disposable bag.
Nevertheless, delirious in the afterglow, Rachel shared all the details with her friends the following day at school. Soon though, her delirium morphed into a strange agitation. ‘He’ wasn’t her boyfriend or anyone particularly special. They had been “just talking” – her lingo for “just friends” – and since he was cool and good-looking, Rachel had picked him to be the one to whom she would lose her virginity. Once the deed was done, “I wanted something from him. I thought about him every five minutes.” She called him repeatedly, several times a day until finally, his weary mother asked her to please stop calling. Then depression set in. “I didn’t want to go to school. I didn’t want to eat. And if Ginuwine came on the radio—forget it.”
Rachel later blogged about her experience and found she wasn’t alone in suffering a post-sex funk. Kate responded, describing her first time this way, “He just sort of rolled off me, he was drunk and probably also high, and I just sat there for awhile and stared at the ceiling while he snored. I remember I got up … thinking, ‘That’s it? What the hell just happened?’” Others recounted stories of writing long embarrassing love letters or drunken explosions at parties. Clearly, joining the sexually initiated doesn’t always pan out as expected.
The Neurology of Sex
Any Grandma or psychotherapist worth her salt could have told them that this was bound to happen. In Hooked: New Science on How Casual Sex is Affecting Our Children, OB-GYNs Dr. Joe S. McIlhaney Jr., and Dr. Freda McKissic Bush explain, from a neurobiological perspective, why it happens and how. “Scientists are confirming that sex is more than a momentary physical act. It produces powerful, even lifelong, changes in our brains that direct and influence our future to a surprising degree,” they write. A single sexual encounter sets off a cascade of changes in a young brain, and modern imaging technology allows researchers to observe those changes more thoroughly than ever before. Hooked explains what they are discovering.
Three neurochemicals, in particular, are especially involved in sex:
Oxytocin. Oxytocin is the “bonding” chemical. While it is present in both sexes, it’s much more predominant in females. When a boy and girl touch in a meaningful way, even something as simple as a lingering hug, oxytocin is released in the girl’s brain, causing her to desire more of his touch and to feel an increasing bond to him. It also produces feelings of trust in him, whether or not he actually merits it. When sexual intercourse happens, her brain is flooded with oxytocin, causing her to feel connected to him and to continue to need this connection with him, as Rachel discovered. Oxytocin is also released when a mother nurses her newborn, causing similar, though non-sexual, feelings of deep attachment. “The important thing to recognize,” the doctor’s stress, “is that the desire to connect is not just an emotional feeling. Bonding is real… a powerful connection that cannot be undone without great emotional pain.”
Vasopressin. Vasopressin is the bonding chemical for males. Often referred to as “the monogamy molecule,” it hasn’t been as thoroughly studied as oxytocin but is known to play a role in bonding, both to the female sexually and to the children that result. In an article titled, The Two Become One: The Role of Oxytocin and Vasopressin, Dianne S. Vadney explained it this way,”Essentially, vasopressin released after intercourse is significant in that it creates a desire in the male to stay with his mate, inspires a protective sense (in humans, perhaps this is what creates almost a jealous tendency) about his mate, and drives him to protect his territory and his offspring.”
Dopamine. Dopamine is the “feel-good” or “reward” chemical. When we do something exciting, dopamine floods our brain and produces feelings of exhilaration and well-being. Not surprisingly, it also makes us want to repeat the behavior that produced it. Active in both males and females, dopamine is values-neutral, meaning it rewards pleasurable or exciting behaviors without distinguishing between those that are beneficial and those that may be harmful.
Hooked by Sex
“Sex is one of the strongest generators of the dopamine reward,” the Hooked authors point out. This is not inherently bad, but overstimulation can cause the brain to become relatively resistant to it, leading the indiscriminate to engage in more and more of the same behavior to regain the high, not unlike the spiral of addictive drug use. “For this reason, young people particularly are vulnerable to falling into a cycle of dopamine reward for unwise sexual behavior – they can get hooked on it.” But when the relationships are short-lived, the losses due to breakup are felt in the brain centers that feel physical pain and can actually be seen on a brain scan. It’s not hard to see how multiple relationships, each with its own cycle of bonding and breaking, can lead to profound pain, anxiety, and confusion, especially among teens still far from emotional maturity.
The results can be devastating. A series of studies published between 2002-2007 showed that sexually initiated youth are three times more likely to be depressed than their abstaining peers. The girls were three times as likely to have attempted suicide, and the boys were a whopping seven more likely to have done so. The studies accounted for other mitigating factors in their lives, ensuring an accurate comparison with their peers.
Natural Chemistry
Rachel White, who now writes for Cosmopolitan, Jezebel, and other sex-focused outlets, offers this suggestion for avoiding the pain of disappointment after first-time sex: “Maybe we need to throw out the idea of virginity altogether. Maybe we need to toss away the idea that you ‘lose’ something from a single act… Perhaps teaching this would help with those depression stats.” In other words, devalue the sex act altogether, starting with the very first one. Lower your expectations; the dismal thinking goes so that you won’t suffer the pain of disappointment.
Rachel can promote disposable sex until the cows come home, but it will never improve the depression or suicide stats. In fact, it will probably make them worse. It’s impossible for the neurochemical aspects of sex to be turned off. Here’s a better idea: Ponder deeply the remarkable work of oxytocin and vasopressin. Consider how the biochemistry of sex appears to be marvelously fashioned for the purpose of forging marriage and family bonds. See sex that way. And then act accordingly. Go with instead of against your natural chemistry.
And finally, lest the cheap sex authors convince you that sexual restraint equals sexual repression, reflect on the serendipitous, dual sex ministrations of dopamine. Only regular, monogamous sex keeps the dopamine rushes coming, strengthening the marital bond, infusing feelings of personal well-being, and smoothing the inescapable bumps that come with living together and, if fortune smiles, raising children. All that without the pain and fear of breakup.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2KJOeWT
The Big Questions in Life: Part III
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
After a quick break (previous episode) from our current “Big Questions in Life” series, Frank is back with another great installment. In this podcast, he discusses the following questions: Why can our minds discover truths about the external world? What is the source of the laws of logic and mathematics? Why is there such a thing as probability? Why are we conscious? and more!