By Josh Klein
The Four Horsemen of atheism burst onto the cultural, philosophical and spiritual scene at the beginning of the 21st century. Their dogmatic atheistic (or even anti-theistic, depending on who you talk to) positions immediately gained popularity.
The late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris were part of the team. They took their vitriol against religious thought into the mainstream, seeking, for what seemed to be the first time, to proselytise religious people into conversion to atheism. These men were dubbed “The New Atheists” by popular culture and seemed to take the world by storm, often denigrating their opponents as stupid and backward.
Simple believers in myths.
Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion , sent ripples through Christianity and the religious mainstream, as his caricature of God as the “flying spaghetti monster” had the world laughing and ridiculing Christianity, and other faiths, as ignorant at best and malevolent at worst. Daniel Dennett’s take on consciousness sought to banish the epistemic belief that only religion could explain consciousness as a reality, going so far as to suggest that consciousness is nothing more than an illusion, and the late Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Good sought to expose religion as a poison for the masses that results in horrific abuses of power and violence. But all of these men did not cause the waves that the seemingly even-tempered Sam Harris did.
Sam Harris, with his quiet, understated personality, approached debates differently from his peers. Hitchens indulged in sophistry and sarcasm, Dawkins in nasty denigration, and Dennett in condescension. Sam Harris was different. I found the tone of the other three off-putting, and their arguments were either humorous but unconvincing or intellectual but boring. But Harris had a way about him that appealed to me. I think what attracted me was his unwavering commitment to objective morality and the honest way he assessed different religions. Harris has been honest in praising what he sees as positive about Christianity, while at the same time holding Christians to the fire . [i]
I found his style engaging, even if his words were not, and his reasoning sensible and unemotional. He was, in a word, compelling. His seminal work, The Moral Landscape , sought to address a substantial problem in the atheist realm. Without God as the bearer of moral standards, are we left with moral subjectivism? [ii] And if so, who is to say that the Nazis were, in fact, evil? Or that murder is unjust? The moral argument for the existence of God remains one of the most powerful arguments for theism [iii] , but Sam rightly understood that embracing moral subjectivism was untenable for the reasonable man, and so an effort was born to promote objective moral values based on atheism. For Sam, a moral landscape could be (he might say should be) established using scientific reason, rationality, and, as he says, the facts.
“Controversies about human values are controversies about which science officially has no opinion. I will argue, however, that questions about values—about the meanings, morality, and larger purpose of life—are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures. Values, therefore, translate into facts that can be understood scientifically: about positive and negative social emotions, retributive impulses, the effects of particular laws and social institutions on human relationships, the neurophysiology of happiness and suffering, and so on . ” [iv]
Sam’s commitment to objective moral values based on scientific facts intrigued me, and his book laid out what seemed to be a plausible account of objective morality. That is, until the reasoning was challenged. Upon further investigation, one realizes that Sam often smuggles in assumptions about human flourishing to make his argument palatable. While Sam addresses the what of morality, he can never come up with an honest why, as his discussion with Jordan Peterson revealed just a few years ago. [v] What are those objective moral values? Well, they are what Sam says they are. They certainly could not be based on Nazism or Islamism. However, one could certainly argue (and both do) that both Nazis and Muslims believe they seek to contribute to the natural flourishing of humanity. Sam has inadvertently hitched his wagon to moral relativism by virtue of scientific facts not adequately explaining human flourishing.
It should come as no surprise that Harris, admittedly on the far left of the political spectrum and extremely anti-Donald Trump, had this to say regarding the 2020 election cycle silencing of the Hunter Biden computer story:
“[It was] a conspiracy by the left to deny Donald Trump the presidency. Of course it was. Absolutely, but I think it was justified” [vi] .
When pressed about his statement by the podcast hosts, one of whom had a problem with the idea that a conspiracy should be used to deny any political candidate office, Sam Harris upped the ante, comparing the conspiracy to a room full of scientists meeting to steer an asteroid off a collision course with Earth. Some might be surprised that Sam would say such a thing, given his distaste for subjectivism. However, if you examine his work closely, it becomes abundantly clear that he finds it necessary to be the arbiter of what is and is not objectively moral. To put it another way, Sam Harris, to himself, is a god.
Sam Harris is a consistent communicator, but his positions are often conflicting. His embrace of objective morality as an atheist is admirable, but his claim that free will is illusory is cumbersome to the argument and seems diametrically opposed to it. If free will is illusory, then how are agents morally culpable for their actions, and how does objective morality fit in? Harris insists that the two are not at odds, but his insistence resists scrutiny. On their own, his arguments seem coherent. Combined, they often directly oppose each other. One cannot live life according to the philosophy Harris espouses consistently, so Sam often suggests that one must live within the illusion.
This is how Sam is both the most and least effective new atheist. Take, for example, Sam’s openness to the multiverse theory:
“This is my candidate for the strangest idea that is still scientifically plausible” [vii] .
To be fair to Sam, he himself doesn’t advocate the multiverse, but he seems interestingly open to the idea from a metaphysical perspective. Which, to me, makes his statements about the idea of heaven all the more puzzling:
As I said on Twitter, I used to like Sam Harris. I thought his critiques of Christianity were necessary (if flawed) and that he was willing to engage in dialogue about faith rather than just debate it, but Harris has a nasty habit of building up ridiculous theological strawmen only to knock them down with a smirk as if he’s accomplished something.
Whether Sam believes it or not, heaven (the dwelling place of God) has never (in the mainstream Christian faith) been understood to be in outer space. This criticism of heaven theology is intended to denigrate its intellectual opponents as being as ignorant as the Greek theologians who believed in a literal Mount Olympus.
This has not been the orthodox understanding of the celestial kingdom for millennia, if ever. As Randy Alcorn states:
“The present and intermediate Heaven is in the angelic realm, clearly separated from the Earth.”
Randy is not making this up out of thin air. Even though Sunday school may make silly representations of heaven in the clouds or speak of heaven in human terms as being “above” us, this is not reminiscent of real theology. There is no biblical or theological position that indicates heaven is physically in outer space where telescopes can see. This is not Thor.
One might say, “Sam Harris is a naturalist, so he is assuming that if there is a heaven it must be in outer space, where we could see it.” But this argument fails for two reasons. The first is that when you are addressing the theology of a religion, you have to address its meaning for the debate to make sense. For example, if I were to debate a Muslim about the nature of Allah, I cannot bring in my interpretation of the Trinity to define Allah. If I apply my own view of the divine to Allah, I will have done a disservice to the conversation. Sam must interact, not with what he thinks heaven would be if it existed; he must interact with what Christians say heaven is. He can deny its existence (as I would with Allah) but he cannot do so on the basis of false premises.
The second reason this defense fails is because of Sam’s already soft position on the multiverse. If one can see the multiverse as plausible, how can one so easily dismiss a heavenly realm as impossible and attribute the characteristics of this realm to it? Sam would not do a believer in the multiverse the disservice of this uncharitable assumption regarding other universes, and therefore he need not do this disservice to the arguments for heaven either.
The Scriptures teach that the present heaven is a place in the angelic realm. This is true in both the Old and New Testaments. Isaiah 6, 2 Kings 6, Daniel 10:20, and John 18:36 indicate this. More specifically, the martyrdom of Stephen indicates a linking of the realms as well.
In Acts 7:56, as Stephen is being stoned, he says, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” In Daniel 10, Acts 7, and Acts 9 we notice a phenomenon about the current heavenly kingdom. It can be revealed to specific individuals and hidden from others. Meaning that the kingdom, although it exists physically and spiritually, is outside of our concept of this physical plane.
When Jesus ascends in Acts 1:9 there are many who might say that Jesus ascended into heaven. This could mean physical heaven! But it does not. A careful reading of the passage in question will note that the writer says, “After he had said these things, he was taken up as they looked on, and a cloud received him out of their sight.” This brings us to the image of Isaiah 6 and the glory of God.
In all of these cases, there is no indication that the angelic/celestial realm is in the stars themselves. Sam’s treatment of the matter was superficial and misrepresents, or misinterprets, the Christian doctrine of heaven. In scripture there are two heavens, one representing the sky and the stars (the heavens) the other, the angelic realm. The delineations are clear and obvious even to the casual observer. Sam’s irregularity in handling this subject undermines his credibility as a good actor on the philosophical stage and highlights the arrogance of his atheistic belief. In this brief interview, Sam reveals why his objective morality without God is meaningless and why his objections to Christian theology, in particular, are often not bona fide. And so his credibility is shaken.
Footnotes:
[i] https://www.samharris.org/blog/reply-to-a-christian
[ii] https://freethinkingministries.com/the-moral-argument-a-short-dialectic/
[iii] https://freethinkingministries.com/an-ignorant-objection-to-the-moral-argument-for-gods-existence/
[iv] Harris, Sam. “Introduction.” The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values , Free Press, New York, 2010, pp. 2–2.
[v] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey_CzIOfYE
[vi] https://nypost.com/2022/08/19/sam-harris-defends-silencing-the-post-on-hunter-biden/
[vii] https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-multiverse-you-you-you-you
Recommended resources in Spanish:
Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek
Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Josh Klein is a pastor from Omaha, Nebraska, with over a decade of ministerial experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his free time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married to Sharalee Klein for 12 years, and they have three young children.
Translated by Elenita Romero
Edited by Daniela Checa Delgado
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3mYnzhm
Mis cielos – no están en las estrellas
EspañolBy Josh Klein
The Four Horsemen of atheism burst onto the cultural, philosophical and spiritual scene at the beginning of the 21st century. Their dogmatic atheistic (or even anti-theistic, depending on who you talk to) positions immediately gained popularity.
The late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris were part of the team. They took their vitriol against religious thought into the mainstream, seeking, for what seemed to be the first time, to proselytise religious people into conversion to atheism. These men were dubbed “The New Atheists” by popular culture and seemed to take the world by storm, often denigrating their opponents as stupid and backward.
Simple believers in myths.
Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion , sent ripples through Christianity and the religious mainstream, as his caricature of God as the “flying spaghetti monster” had the world laughing and ridiculing Christianity, and other faiths, as ignorant at best and malevolent at worst. Daniel Dennett’s take on consciousness sought to banish the epistemic belief that only religion could explain consciousness as a reality, going so far as to suggest that consciousness is nothing more than an illusion, and the late Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Good sought to expose religion as a poison for the masses that results in horrific abuses of power and violence. But all of these men did not cause the waves that the seemingly even-tempered Sam Harris did.
Sam Harris, with his quiet, understated personality, approached debates differently from his peers. Hitchens indulged in sophistry and sarcasm, Dawkins in nasty denigration, and Dennett in condescension. Sam Harris was different. I found the tone of the other three off-putting, and their arguments were either humorous but unconvincing or intellectual but boring. But Harris had a way about him that appealed to me. I think what attracted me was his unwavering commitment to objective morality and the honest way he assessed different religions. Harris has been honest in praising what he sees as positive about Christianity, while at the same time holding Christians to the fire . [i]
I found his style engaging, even if his words were not, and his reasoning sensible and unemotional. He was, in a word, compelling. His seminal work, The Moral Landscape , sought to address a substantial problem in the atheist realm. Without God as the bearer of moral standards, are we left with moral subjectivism? [ii] And if so, who is to say that the Nazis were, in fact, evil? Or that murder is unjust? The moral argument for the existence of God remains one of the most powerful arguments for theism [iii] , but Sam rightly understood that embracing moral subjectivism was untenable for the reasonable man, and so an effort was born to promote objective moral values based on atheism. For Sam, a moral landscape could be (he might say should be) established using scientific reason, rationality, and, as he says, the facts.
“Controversies about human values are controversies about which science officially has no opinion. I will argue, however, that questions about values—about the meanings, morality, and larger purpose of life—are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures. Values, therefore, translate into facts that can be understood scientifically: about positive and negative social emotions, retributive impulses, the effects of particular laws and social institutions on human relationships, the neurophysiology of happiness and suffering, and so on . ” [iv]
Sam’s commitment to objective moral values based on scientific facts intrigued me, and his book laid out what seemed to be a plausible account of objective morality. That is, until the reasoning was challenged. Upon further investigation, one realizes that Sam often smuggles in assumptions about human flourishing to make his argument palatable. While Sam addresses the what of morality, he can never come up with an honest why, as his discussion with Jordan Peterson revealed just a few years ago. [v] What are those objective moral values? Well, they are what Sam says they are. They certainly could not be based on Nazism or Islamism. However, one could certainly argue (and both do) that both Nazis and Muslims believe they seek to contribute to the natural flourishing of humanity. Sam has inadvertently hitched his wagon to moral relativism by virtue of scientific facts not adequately explaining human flourishing.
It should come as no surprise that Harris, admittedly on the far left of the political spectrum and extremely anti-Donald Trump, had this to say regarding the 2020 election cycle silencing of the Hunter Biden computer story:
“[It was] a conspiracy by the left to deny Donald Trump the presidency. Of course it was. Absolutely, but I think it was justified” [vi] .
When pressed about his statement by the podcast hosts, one of whom had a problem with the idea that a conspiracy should be used to deny any political candidate office, Sam Harris upped the ante, comparing the conspiracy to a room full of scientists meeting to steer an asteroid off a collision course with Earth. Some might be surprised that Sam would say such a thing, given his distaste for subjectivism. However, if you examine his work closely, it becomes abundantly clear that he finds it necessary to be the arbiter of what is and is not objectively moral. To put it another way, Sam Harris, to himself, is a god.
Sam Harris is a consistent communicator, but his positions are often conflicting. His embrace of objective morality as an atheist is admirable, but his claim that free will is illusory is cumbersome to the argument and seems diametrically opposed to it. If free will is illusory, then how are agents morally culpable for their actions, and how does objective morality fit in? Harris insists that the two are not at odds, but his insistence resists scrutiny. On their own, his arguments seem coherent. Combined, they often directly oppose each other. One cannot live life according to the philosophy Harris espouses consistently, so Sam often suggests that one must live within the illusion.
This is how Sam is both the most and least effective new atheist. Take, for example, Sam’s openness to the multiverse theory:
“This is my candidate for the strangest idea that is still scientifically plausible” [vii] .
To be fair to Sam, he himself doesn’t advocate the multiverse, but he seems interestingly open to the idea from a metaphysical perspective. Which, to me, makes his statements about the idea of heaven all the more puzzling:
As I said on Twitter, I used to like Sam Harris. I thought his critiques of Christianity were necessary (if flawed) and that he was willing to engage in dialogue about faith rather than just debate it, but Harris has a nasty habit of building up ridiculous theological strawmen only to knock them down with a smirk as if he’s accomplished something.
Whether Sam believes it or not, heaven (the dwelling place of God) has never (in the mainstream Christian faith) been understood to be in outer space. This criticism of heaven theology is intended to denigrate its intellectual opponents as being as ignorant as the Greek theologians who believed in a literal Mount Olympus.
This has not been the orthodox understanding of the celestial kingdom for millennia, if ever. As Randy Alcorn states:
“The present and intermediate Heaven is in the angelic realm, clearly separated from the Earth.”
Randy is not making this up out of thin air. Even though Sunday school may make silly representations of heaven in the clouds or speak of heaven in human terms as being “above” us, this is not reminiscent of real theology. There is no biblical or theological position that indicates heaven is physically in outer space where telescopes can see. This is not Thor.
One might say, “Sam Harris is a naturalist, so he is assuming that if there is a heaven it must be in outer space, where we could see it.” But this argument fails for two reasons. The first is that when you are addressing the theology of a religion, you have to address its meaning for the debate to make sense. For example, if I were to debate a Muslim about the nature of Allah, I cannot bring in my interpretation of the Trinity to define Allah. If I apply my own view of the divine to Allah, I will have done a disservice to the conversation. Sam must interact, not with what he thinks heaven would be if it existed; he must interact with what Christians say heaven is. He can deny its existence (as I would with Allah) but he cannot do so on the basis of false premises.
The second reason this defense fails is because of Sam’s already soft position on the multiverse. If one can see the multiverse as plausible, how can one so easily dismiss a heavenly realm as impossible and attribute the characteristics of this realm to it? Sam would not do a believer in the multiverse the disservice of this uncharitable assumption regarding other universes, and therefore he need not do this disservice to the arguments for heaven either.
The Scriptures teach that the present heaven is a place in the angelic realm. This is true in both the Old and New Testaments. Isaiah 6, 2 Kings 6, Daniel 10:20, and John 18:36 indicate this. More specifically, the martyrdom of Stephen indicates a linking of the realms as well.
In Acts 7:56, as Stephen is being stoned, he says, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” In Daniel 10, Acts 7, and Acts 9 we notice a phenomenon about the current heavenly kingdom. It can be revealed to specific individuals and hidden from others. Meaning that the kingdom, although it exists physically and spiritually, is outside of our concept of this physical plane.
When Jesus ascends in Acts 1:9 there are many who might say that Jesus ascended into heaven. This could mean physical heaven! But it does not. A careful reading of the passage in question will note that the writer says, “After he had said these things, he was taken up as they looked on, and a cloud received him out of their sight.” This brings us to the image of Isaiah 6 and the glory of God.
In all of these cases, there is no indication that the angelic/celestial realm is in the stars themselves. Sam’s treatment of the matter was superficial and misrepresents, or misinterprets, the Christian doctrine of heaven. In scripture there are two heavens, one representing the sky and the stars (the heavens) the other, the angelic realm. The delineations are clear and obvious even to the casual observer. Sam’s irregularity in handling this subject undermines his credibility as a good actor on the philosophical stage and highlights the arrogance of his atheistic belief. In this brief interview, Sam reveals why his objective morality without God is meaningless and why his objections to Christian theology, in particular, are often not bona fide. And so his credibility is shaken.
Footnotes:
[i] https://www.samharris.org/blog/reply-to-a-christian
[ii] https://freethinkingministries.com/the-moral-argument-a-short-dialectic/
[iii] https://freethinkingministries.com/an-ignorant-objection-to-the-moral-argument-for-gods-existence/
[iv] Harris, Sam. “Introduction.” The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values , Free Press, New York, 2010, pp. 2–2.
[v] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey_CzIOfYE
[vi] https://nypost.com/2022/08/19/sam-harris-defends-silencing-the-post-on-hunter-biden/
[vii] https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-multiverse-you-you-you-you
Recommended resources in Spanish:
Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek
Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Josh Klein is a pastor from Omaha, Nebraska, with over a decade of ministerial experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his free time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married to Sharalee Klein for 12 years, and they have three young children.
Translated by Elenita Romero
Edited by Daniela Checa Delgado
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3mYnzhm
Can You Explain the 5 M’s? – Part 2
PodcastWhat worldview can best explain the major aspects of reality? And why do they even exist in the first place? What’s the purpose and meaning behind it all? Grab your notebook and join Frank on this midweek podcast episode as he continues to go through the 5 M’s that any worldview needs to explain if it’s going to be considered the TRUE worldview. And who knows, he may even throw in a sixth ‘M’ if you stick around to the very end!
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.
Jesus Wasn’t a Refugee
Culture CrossExamined, Jesus ChristIt seems that every few years, Christians must deal with a new cultural narrative about who Jesus is and what He came to do. Contextualizing turns into syncretism. Jesus’s name is mixed in with the “gods” of the people. Suddenly we have different versions of Jesus made to fit contemporary expectations, more palatable to the masses. White Jesus. Hippie Jesus. Activist Jesus. And now, refugee Jesus.
Let me be clear: I think people’s intentions can be pure. People are trying to do the right thing bringing Jesus to our level. But making God in our own image or in the image of the culture has long-term ramifications that don’t end well and muddle the identity of Jesus and the Gospel.
Forget that He was a monotheistic Jewish Middle Easterner, following the Law of Moses, who claimed to be God in the flesh and died for the sins of mankind.
Bor-ing. We need a new Jesus. A relevant Jesus. A Jesus that gets us.
How to Contextualize
I have no problem with Christians helping people understand who Jesus is and why He came, especially for those who don’t understand or might have a wall up to His teachings. I’ve seen Christians wisely use the cultural times to their benefit. But this is always done in context with the Bible and who Jesus actually is. Hence, where we get the word “contextualization.” We’re not settling for partial truths and political bias, but seeking the whole truth and correcting bias. Paul was probably the best example of this. He says in 1 Corinthians 9:20-22:
Notice something: Paul met people where they were at without compromising what was true about Jesus. This is brilliant. He sought to understand so he could be understood.
He did not make Jesus a Gentile to win gentiles. He did not make Jesus a sinner to win sinners. He did not make Jesus a politician to win at politics.
Get Out of Your Echo Chamber
There’s a big difference. We need to identify with the culture on some level when it comes to preaching the Gospel. I repeatedly see people refusing to leave their echo chambers to reach the lost. It’s as if they’re set in their ways and are almost cynical to the “youngins” and their weird hair, clothes, and language. We need to seek to understand the culture to reach them. But we don’t do this by deceiving people. Jesus was not an immigrant or a refugee as we’d see it today. As a child, Scripture records Him and His family fleeing from one part of the Roman Empire to another. But He returned home. Refugees find refuge in another country because they don’t or can’t return home. People conflate this story in Jesus’ childhood with our understanding of refugees today. It’s like nobody seeks to understand Jesus’s story. They exaggerate this to make Him culturally relevant today. We make it about us instead of Him.
Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is At Hand
He cared for the poor, helped the hungry, and healed the sick. But that’s not ultimately why He came. He came to save souls and tell people to repent of their sins. Yes, Jesus invited everyone to the table, but the problem is that not everyone wants to sit with Him! John 3 says that people love their darkness. They don’t want to come to light, to Jesus, because their sins would be exposed. This is the heart of humanity. It’s not like Jesus is saying, “come sit at the table and stay who you are because there’s no judgment here!” No. He confronted people like you and me with hard truths. He cared about you changing. He cared more for your heart than just your outward actions. Would we sit at the table with Jesus if we knew He would look deep into our soul and know our darkest sins and He would call us to repent from them? This is a more challenging Jesus for the masses to accept, but this is nothing new.
It seems rather anachronistic to think of Jesus as some sort of social justice warrior. Activism, as we know it today, would make no sense to Jesus back then. So, when we cram Jesus’s 1st-century culture into our 21st-century world, we drastically change His message. He isn’t our political mascot. He’s The Son of God, the Lord of all.
Recommended Resources Related to this Topic
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)
When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Melissa Dougherty is a Christian Apologist best known for her YouTube channel as an ex-new ager. She has two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education, and the other in Liberal Arts. She also has a bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.
Can You Explain the 5 M’s? – Part 1
PodcastHave you ever wondered why reality is the way that it is? And what worldview can best explain it? Some of the greatest thinkers in modern and ancient history have pondered the order and beauty of the universe, only to conclude that an “unmoved mover” or “cosmic lawgiver” is the BEST explanation for its existence. But sadly, many in modern society seem to ignore what’s staring at them right in the face!
No matter what you believe, all valid religions or worldviews ought to be able to explain WHY reality is the way it is. To do this, there are at least five aspects of reality that humanity has long sought an explanation for:
In this week’s podcast episode, Frank walks us through THREE of the 5 M’s – there was simply too much amazing stuff to squeeze in all 5 so stay tuned for ‘Part 2’! As Christians, we believe that God holds and sustains all things, but believing something and being able to explain it are very different things. Fortunately, today’s podcast will give you a better understanding of how the fundamental laws of nature and logic ultimately point to God. Once you listen, you may never look at reality the same way again!
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.
Is The God of the Old Testament The Same as the God of The New Testament?
Atheism, Theology and Christian ApologeticsThere’s no shortage of accusations claiming the Bible depicts a vision of two Gods: the grumpy, moody, and often volatile, curmudgeon like God of the Old Testament, and the mushy, judge free, glorified sugar daddy God of the New Testament. Is this the case? Does the Bible present a clash of the God’s? The malevolent God of the Old Testament and the benevolent God of the New Testament? Or does God suffer from a bad case of bi-bolar disorder, is he the first mental health patient, exhibiting fits of schizophrenia, or some sort of split personality disorder? Not quite.
Progressive Revelation
What the Bible presents is a God who reveals himself in both Testaments through progressive revelation. As the story unfolds, the revealed nature of God crystalizes, elucidating in greater detail who God is.
While it is true that one may capture clearer glimpses of God’s grace in the New Testament due to his ultimate grace coming to fruition at the cross, this does not mean the Old Testament is bereft of God’s benevolence toward humanity. Throughout the Old Testament the Bible presents a God who tirelessly pursues his people even after countless rejections of his warnings of impending judgment.
Mercy in the Old Testament
Yes, judgment comes, but it does so after they ignore his warnings to turn toward him. Even the prophets of the Old Testament as they rail against the nations, are in many ways messengers of mercy, by warning people and giving them a heads up, in advance, to make things right. When they don’t, sure judgment ensues. But so does the great hound of heaven, with another invitation to align to him once again.
Judgment in the New Testament
As you come to the New Testament, it’s not like God is morally indifferent. Like some pushover deity wrapped around our finger whose only aim is to indulge our hedonistic impulses. Not in the least. One’s not hard pressed to find God’s judgment at work there either. A cursory read of Romans 1-3, or Jesus’s clearing of the temple (Mark 11:15-17), or the hardening of the Jewish nations heart as seen in Romans 11:11-24 are a few salient examples. Not to mention the book of Revelation, which unfolds God’s plan of justice in the eschaton (Rev. 20:11-15) or the fact that Jesus addressed the topic of hell more than heaven. In the end, the Bible does not portray of dual headed god, but the entire canon unveils for us the fuller picture of One God who is both just and loving and of course so much more.
Other Recommended Resources On This Topic
If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
Is Original Sin Unfair? (DVD Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (MP3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
Bobby serves as lead pastor of Image Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is well known for his YouTube ministry called, One Minute Apologist, which now goes by the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also serves as the Co-Host of Pastors’ Perspective, a nationally syndicated call-in radio show on KWVE in Southern California. Bobby earned his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England) where he was supervised under David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Bobby’s also written several books including: The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, and Fifty-One other Questions About God and the Bible and the forthcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He’s married to his lovely wife Heather and together they have two grown kids: Haley and Dawson.
Shocking Egyptian Evidence for the Exodus Plagues
PodcastIs there evidence for the Exodus plagues that comes from Egypt? Shockingly, there is — at least there seems to be. In this midweek podcast episode, Frank examines the amazing parallels between the biblical Exodus and an ancient artifact known as the Ipuwer Papyrus.
It’s hard to believe, but as you’ll learn, the Ipuwer Papyrus, which was authored in Egypt sometime in the second millennium BC, expresses conditions in ancient Egypt that appear to be the results of the Biblical plagues. Of course, this is controversial, especially for those who think the Exodus never actually happened. We report, YOU decide.
Frank also shows that the plagues were not random — they were direct assaults on the Egyptian gods, and the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is a slam on the Egyptian theology of the afterlife. Moses certainly knew the Egyptian culture. How did he get it so right?
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.
Millenials: An Undeveloped Generation
Apologetics for Parents, Culture CrossExaminedMillennials tend to think and feel differently than previous generations. Their behaviors, buying habits, and brand loyalty (or lack of it) are far less predictable than those of their parents, and certainly grandparents. Yet the one thing that appears predictable among most millennials—is their abandonment of Christianity.
Despite the 24/7 streaming and uploading, millennials feel alienated, and carry with them a skeptical spirit to authority—especially in the church and in government. I have spent the past twenty years working with millennials, and have seen the good and the bad with these young people. I love this generation and feel they get a bad rep most of the time. So, I would like to briefly touch on three key areas that are commonly underdeveloped in millennials, and provide insight on how you can build relationships with them. Now before I go any further, my purpose in using the term “underdeveloped” is not a put-down of millennials, but a cultural and generational fact.
Underdeveloped Brains
In certain areas of life millennials are not progressing as quickly as previous generations did. This is causing many parents to be concerned, and has resulted in a rise of depression among millennials. According to psychologist Laurence Steinberg of Temple University, by the late twenties, “There’s better communication between parts of the brain that process emotions and social information—like what people think of you—and the parts that are important for planning ahead and balancing risk and reward.”[1]
It’s important to understand the underdeveloped brain because it affects the identity formation of every young person. If you have a twentysomething right now, your son or daughter is still figuring out who he or she is, what he or she likes, and what he or she should do. Choices and decisions are affected in a big way by the maturity of your child’s brain. With brains that are still maturing, these kids need mom and dad to help them make the right decisions.
Underdeveloped Faith
I have had millennials tell me they feel they’ve gotten the short end of the stick when it came to faith development. According to their recollections, the Bible was little more than an Instagram post in their lives. These young people clearly observed that the faith they grew up in was a cultural activity instead of a truly spiritual one. Today, older millennials have a hard time understanding how or why faith should play a role in their careers, personal interests, or future lives.
Yet, despite the underdeveloped faith experienced among millennials—they are yearning to believe and live out a faith that is true. Stop and think about that for a moment. After all the years in church, with millions upon millions of dollars spent on private Christian education, camps, retreats, and so on—nearly 20 percent of millennials under age 30 are no longer affiliated with the religion they were brought up to believe. However, these same young adults who left the religion of their upbringing didn’t trade it in for another religion. The majority of millennials, raised in a Christian home, became dissatisfied with Christianity because of their doubts, skepticism, and the hypocrisy they witnessed in the church. They simply abandoned their faith.
Underdeveloped Values
Sadly, the sacredness and purity of sex within marriage is seemingly lost in the culture embraced by millennials. Deep down that’s what they truly want, but they don’t know how to achieve it. So many young people aren’t getting married because they feel they ruined their chances by sleeping around, or they’re afraid if they get married they might get divorced like their parents.
Much more can be written about millennials, so I encourage you to get my book Abandoned Faith: Why Millennials Are Walking Away and How You Can Lead Them Home for more insight. But as I wrap up this post, I want to leave you with five action steps that you can apply to building a relationship with a millennial.
First, simply ask how you can pray for him or her. They may not be a Christian, but millennials often love to discuss spiritual matters.
Second, make time for them. Plan weekly engagements that allows them to feel safe, and open to talk about things they want to talk about.
Third, be as transparent as possible. Millennials have a “prove it to me” mindset, so if they feel you don’t care, or smell a hint of hypocrisy, they’re gone.
Fourth, teach them true doctrine. Millennials may not agree with what you believe, but they respect your belief, and hate it when Christians compromise in order to be relevant.
And fifth, release their creativity. Give them opportunity to serve and be a part of something that points to community, love, and true forgiveness found in Christ!
Endnotes
[1] Melinda Beck, “Delayed Development: 20-Somethings Blame the Brain,” The Wall Street Journal, August 23, 2012, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443713704577601532208760746.
Recommended Resources On This Topic
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)
Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set, and Complete Package)
When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4
Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)
Jason Jimenez is President of STAND STRONG Ministries and author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more info, check out www.standstrongministries.org.
Originally Posted at: bit.ly/3zky69b
How to Make an Effective Pro-Life Argument | with Dr. Sean McDowell and Dr. Scott Rae
PodcastThe overturning of Roe V. Wade in the summer of 2022 shocked advocates of both the Pro-Life and the Pro-Abortion movements. But how has the reversal impacted the fight for life? In this week’s episode, our friend and guest host, Dr. Sean McDowell, and leading Christian ethicist, Dr. Scott Rae, discuss the aftermath of the Roe V. Wade reversal and how this decision will shape the future of abortions in America.
Tune in as Sean and Scott update us on advancements within the Pro-Life movement as well as help us learn how to address common arguments in favor of abortion. They also answer questions like:
Many moms turn to abortion out of desperation, overlooking the consequences that have a lasting impact on their physical and mental health. This is the Church’s opportunity to get involved and show these moms that there is hope even in the midst of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into great discussions with like-minded Christians while providing financial support for our ministry.
Countering 12 Pro-Choice Arguments: https://bit.ly/3ocMHkA
¿Podemos legislar la moral?
EspañolBy Melissa Dougherty
Since the 1960s, there has been a dramatic decline in moral ethics here in the United States. Some would argue that it has been in a steady decline since the beginnings of humanity, as I would put it. However, here in the United States, the phrase “legislating morality” has come up more and more. Depending on the generation, many people have not heard this phrase or even understood what it means. Some use it as a cliché term to throw at the person who tries to promote certain morals that should or should not be permissible.
I say that, like the argument that there is “no absolute truth,” saying that we cannot legislate morality is simply self-refuting. Everyone everywhere knows intrinsically what is right and wrong. Many people would realize that it is obvious to enforce the law to distinguish right from wrong. As Romans 2:15 says, God’s law is written on our hearts. This is echoed in our Declaration of Independence as well. However, what morality are we talking about? First, one must determine whether morality can and should be legislated.
How can morality be legislated?
The brilliance of the Founding Fathers was to avoid the inevitable pendulum swing that many governments fall victim to by finding a middle ground. Instead of appealing to religion or a secular government, they appealed to the moral law to make their case. They then legislated those unalienable laws and rights into the Constitution. What makes this so clever is that it prohibits the government from establishing a national religion, but it does not prevent it from establishing a national morality. Their appeal to the moral law is not limited to just the United States. They appeal to an authority that many cultures and peoples have appealed to in the past. The Founding Fathers believed that these freedoms were morally right and needed to be preserved through legislation. This is literally legislating morality! This is also in the First Amendment. The government cannot establish a state-supported religion and will not force people to practice a particular religion. Unlike the popular political rhetoric we hear, this is not meant to shut up religious people.
Spoiler alert
No one needs the Bible to distinguish right from wrong. We know this intrinsically. That is why we see cultures appealing in some way to the moral law. They did not get together and decide this. Separated by thousands of miles, across all continents, without ever communicating, people knew this law.
Fascinating!
However, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a suppression of this within us. This is where it gets muddy. This is not only true for the far-left secular humanist, but also for the far-right. When making rules around society or individually, we appeal to this law. But it’s not always black and white. There are those who want to enact Old Testament law in the United States. At the other extreme, secular humanists want to restrict any religion in our country. They want to eliminate any appeal to a Higher Being. Both are wrong.
These self-evident truths are consistent with many biblical principles because of their common source: God. The purpose is not to create a Christianized country. The purpose is to create a moral one. This raises a question about whose morality. Should the individual decide for himself what is right and wrong? Or should we appeal to a higher standard than our own? This is a central question in this debate.
The thing is, without God… All we have left is the self.
As history has shown, forcibly establishing divine rule over non-believers does not work and is quite damaging. The same idea applies to forcing people to abandon their moral compass for vices. Secular humanism reinforces the desired authority of the “self.” As Natasha Crain says in her book Faithfully Different, feelings are the ultimate guide, happiness is the ultimate goal, judging is the ultimate sin, and God is the ultimate guess. For example, this is why when we debate someone who is pro-choice, they cannot ultimately say when life begins or what exactly is in the mother’s womb. They must appeal to the mother’s subjective perspective and say that it is up to her to decide what that is. Ultimately, they must suspend truth and reality to be consistent with secular humanism.
Right and wrong are not determined. They are discovered. The moral law is self-evident, but people have a way of suppressing this when it interferes with their own desires. As already stated, when our country was founded and the Declaration of Independence was written, Thomas Jefferson appealed to the moral law. This avoids the intolerance of a highly religious government and the moral relativism of a secular government. It is clear which way the pendulum is swinging in our country and why appealing to the moral law on which our country was founded is the obvious answer. This only works if people actually follow these rules.
The moral law is not an invented morality, but an inherited one. If we take away this law, there is no objective standard norm. In other words, relativists do not really have “morality.” Morality is doing what is right, not what someone finds desirable for their particular life or situation.
Recommended resources in Spanish:
Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek
Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Melissa Dougherty is a Christian apologist best known for her YouTube channel as a former New Ager. She holds two bachelor’s degrees, one in Multicultural Early Childhood Education and another in Liberal Arts. She is currently pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.
Translated by Yatniel Vega García
Edited by Mónica Pirateque
Original source of the blog: https://bit.ly/3o0VZQo
Why Do Some Christians Die Too Young? Plus More Q&A
PodcastWhy does God take some believers “before their time” and put us through so much pain and suffering during our time on earth? Shouldn’t He reward us for good behavior? In this midweek podcast episode, Frank addresses this and several other listener questions including how to talk to politicians about abortion, Jeremiah 29:11 vs. God’s promises to us today, and how do we know what we know (ontology vs. epistemology)?
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.