Page 99 – CrossExamined

Warnings To A Godless Society

Earlier this year, I highlighted the warnings of rejecting God, coming from the mouth of an atheist. Richard Dawkins saw the moral degradation of world society and couldn’t help to understand that the world’s rejection of God’s existence (that he, no doubt, helped catalyze) has led us here. He warned that it would continue, and in recent months, America has certainly seen Dawkins’ warnings come true.

With the rejection of God comes the rejection of two important concepts that keep civilized society together: the existence of objective moral obligations and duties, and the existence of intrinsic human value that is grounded in our being created in the Image of God.

With the rejection of the first, there is no objective “right” or “wrong,” all thoughts, actions, and behaviors just are- they have no moral value whatsoever, and none can be correctly judged as “evil” or “good.” Every evil act, from the “eugenics” promoted by Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger to domestic and international child sex trafficking, have become common in our world. Politicians, the media, and even everyday citizens often turn a blind eye to these acts because “who is to say that these acts are ‘evil’?”

With the rejection of the second, there is no reason to think that humans have intrinsic value and should not be used; however, we wish towards our goals. A human’s value is wholly constituted in their ability to contribute to an arbitrary purpose set by someone in power over them. In the event that a person has a goal of achieving career development or sexual pleasure, that means that if a child must be murdered or raped in order to achieve that goal, the rape and murder are not wrong because that child possesses no intrinsic value and, of course, the rape and murder are not evil because there is no objective “right” or “wrong,” “good” or “evil” by which to properly categorize the rape or murder (or torture, or theft, etc.).

What Have We Become?

As a result of this rejection of God, people understand that they are now permitted to act however they wish to whomever they wish to get whatever they wish. While not new to them or their time in history, Frank Turek and Norman Geisler made this observation several years ago in their book “Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible“:

This rejection of God and the resultant moral turmoil in America has led to numerous evils; three of the most recent murders have been those of George Floyd, Cannon Hinnants, and Jacob Blake. Americans know that murder is objectively morally wrong. Because of this knowledge, we are horrified and desire swift justice. Unfortunately, many have used these murders as justification to act in ways that rational citizens and leaders would normally not tolerate, much less encourage.

Objective moral values and duties do exist, as evidenced by Americans’ reaction to the murders, and we must adhere to them no matter how tempting it is to rationalize their usage toward some “righteous” end. Yes, evil and injustice (properly defined) exist in this world, but repaying evil with evil will not fix the problem.

Rational and moral people understand that when we use evil to fight the evil that we betray a satisfaction with trading one evil for another evil. And in reality, when we fight evil with evil, we are not removing evil but multiplying its existence. We are taken less seriously because we have not taken the time to reason through our chosen methods for seeking justice (properly defined) to see the dire implications of such choices. Such knee-jerk reactions are completely emotive, devoid of any reason or morality. They are more about getting revenge (evil) rather than getting justice (good). Rational and moral people know that it is better to address the original evil with morally good means in order to accomplish a morally good end of justice (again, properly defined).

The Struggle For Power

But there is one major hurdle to overcome. As I mentioned, objective moral values and duties exist. This basic knowledge is written on the heart of every human being. But objective moral values and duties cannot exist unless God exists to be an objective foundation for them.

In America, it seems that so many on the various political sides (liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc.) are attempting to get along without recognizing the existence of the Moral Law-Giver.

Without the recognition of such an objective standard by which to judge what is truly a moral evil and what is truly a morally good method to resolve the moral evil, then everything is up for grabs, even within the various political parties (as we can see by the wide range of views even within the two main political parties in America).

If God does not exist, what is “right” ultimately comes down to a power struggle. Whichever side forces those who disagree into submission (no matter how) will ultimately determine what is right and what is wrong with nothing else to challenge them except for a stronger force that comes in later to turn everything upside down yet again. See this video from Reasonable Faith on God’s existence and moral values and duties:

In recent months, we have seen one side looting and rioting in an attempt to demonstrate their power and strike fear into the citizens in order to force what they want on those who disagree. Unfortunately, we have seen many in leadership, influential, and governmental positions in America encourage these actions for political gain.

What Will We Become?

Without the objective standard of God, we have no choice but to allow aberrant behaviors. For our distaste of them is merely that: taste. Without God, our aversion to the desires of those rioting, looting, and murdering (along with the actions themselves) is only an opinion that is no more valid or reflective of reality than the rioters’, looters’, and murders’ opinions. But Americans know differently. They know that objective morality exists. For this knowledge to be possible, God must exist, and unless Americans are prepared to recognize that reality and defend it, there is zero chance that order and freedom can be restored to our country on a long-term basis.

If Americans wish to get control of their country back and restore rational action across their cities, they are going to have to recognize the reality of God’s existence. Not merely paying lip service to His existence like so many politicians (and many Americans) do, but seriously commit to what His existence and objective moral standard means for each individual’s responsibility as American citizens. We have to put our pride in check (which is not something that Americans are keen on doing) and recognize our sinful condition and our tendency to try to correct past and current sins by committing even more sins and consciously choose the moral high ground and vote for those who also will choose the moral high ground.

It is only in our recognition of this common, sinful trait among all people (of all colors, nationalities, social/economic statuses, etc.) that we can find common ground to move forward. And it is only through the recognition of the need for forgiveness through Christ that we can stop pointing fingers and progress together towards reconciliation and being “one nation, under God” again. If God is removed from the American equation, the only result will be an irrecoverable loss of freedom for all.

Do the Genealogies of Jesus Contradict?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ry Leasure

If you’ve read through the gospels, you’ve probably noticed that they share much in common. In some places, the wording is exactly the same. In other places, they’re so different it looks like they might contradict. These similarities and differences are often dubbed the synoptic problem. The word synoptic means “to see together.” The synoptic problem has led scholars to ask, why are there similarities in the gospels? And also, why are there differences?

The prevailing theory amongst scholars is that the similarities in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) can be explained by the authors’ use of the same sources. Most believe Mark wrote his gospel first, and that both Matthew and Luke used Mark to compile their gospels. They’ve reached this conclusion because roughly 90% of Mark is found in Matthew, and about 60% is contained in Luke. Additionally, both Matthew and Luke shared another common source known as a “Q” – taken from the German word Quelle, meaning “source.” This sayings source explains Matthew and Luke’s common material not found in Mark. And then, both Matthew and Luke had their separate individual sources – sometimes referred to as M and L – which explains their own unique material. Luke’s prologue gives us a bit of a sneak peek into this process (Lk. 1:1-4).

In sum, these different sources explain both the similarities as well as the differences. Some, however, have tripped up over the differences. In fact, many go so far as to suggest that the gospels contradict one another. One such example is found in Jesus’ genealogies, to which we now turn our attention.

Jesus’ Genealogies

Only Matthew and Luke contain Jesus’ genealogy. And one side-by-side comparison reveals that the genealogies are radically different. So much so, that skeptics believe they’re irreconcilable. I’ve listed the genealogies from Matthew 1:1-18 and Luke 3:23-38 below for your convenience. Take a quick look at them so you can better understand the skeptic’s complaint:

At first glance, one glaring difference exists – Luke’s genealogy is much longer than Matthew’s. The reason? Luke traces Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam while Matthew stops at Abraham. In both genealogies, the line from Abraham to David is roughly the same. But once we move past David, the genealogies diverge. Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy through David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces the line through David’s son Nathan. Also, notice that Joseph has a different father in each account – Jacob in Matthew, Heli in Luke. How can we reconcile these differences? Lest we be tempted to think this is anything new, the church has dealt with this issue for almost two thousand years. And throughout that time, three different explanations have been given to explain the differences.

Option 1: Joseph vs. Mary’s Genealogy

One of the more popular explanations for the differences is to suggest that Matthew traces Joseph’s genealogy while Luke traces Mary’s. If this is true, the difference in genealogies makes sense. Think about your own genealogy for a moment. If you were to trace your father’s line and your mother’s line, you would get radically different family trees. Your father’s father and your mother’s father have different names. In Jesus’ case, his father’s father is Jacob while his mother’s father is Heli.

The reason some take this approach is because Matthew focuses his attention on Joseph in the birth narratives while Luke focuses more on Mary. In Luke, he describes Gabriel’s conversation with Mary, Mary’s Magnificat, and Mary’s visit to her cousin Elizabeth. Moreover, even though Luke doesn’t mention Mary in the genealogy, he couches Jesus’ sonship to Joseph by saying “as it was supposed” (Lk. 3:23). Each of these clues indicates that Luke didn’t intend to give us Joseph’s ancestry but Mary’s.

Option 2: Royal vs. Biological Genealogy

Another explanation for the differences is that Matthew traces Jesus’ royal line with an emphasis on his Messianic claim to the throne while Luke traces Jesus’ biological line. According to this view, Matthew gives us several clues to suggest that he’s giving us a theological genealogy with an emphasis on King David, not a strict biological line.

For starters, Matthew begins the genealogy by stating, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Mt. 1:1). It’s well-known that Matthew writes to a primarily Jewish-Christian audience who would have understood the expectation that the Messiah would come through the line of David (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Isa. 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Jer. 23:5-6). Therefore, from the outset, he tips off his readers to where he’s going with this genealogy.

Second, the mention of “Christ” alongside the name of Jesus in verse 1 also indicates Matthew’s intentions. While many may think of “Christ” as Jesus’ last name, it’s actually a title. It’s the Greek title for the Messiah. So, when Matthew prefaces his genealogy by stating that it’s the genealogy of Jesus Christ, he’s giving further evidence to his readers that his intention is to demonstrate that Jesus comes in the kingly line of David.

A third indicator that Matthew isn’t giving us a biological line but a royal one is his breakdown of the genealogy into groups of fourteen. In verse 17 we read, “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.”

A couple of points are worth noting here. Biblical scholars agree that the refrain “father of” or “son of” in genealogies don’t necessarily mean one generation after the next. Often times, genealogies will skip several generations. The language simply means that one is the ancestor of the next person in the line. Another point worth noting is the significance of the number fourteen and the Hebrew concept of Gematria. Gematria was the practice of ascribing a numerical number to a Hebrew letter – the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (Aleph) has the numeral value of one and so on. Interestingly, the numerical value of David is fourteen. D(4) V(6) D(4) – 4 + 6 + 4 = 14.

It’s as if Matthew has a giant neon sign flashing “Son of David!” Luke doesn’t use any of these literary devices. He simply records the biological line of Jesus. And while Americans may be unfamiliar with the concept of royal lines, our British friends know that the line doesn’t always pass down neatly from father to son. In fact, the current queen of England inherited the throne from her father who inherited it from his brother. And the next king will probably be the queen’s grandson. All that to say, the royal line often diverges from the biological line.

Option 3: Levirate Marriage

A third explanation for the differences is the use of Levirate marriage. Levirate marriage is detailed in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and states that if a married man dies without a male heir, his brother or closest relative must marry and seek to propagate with the widow in order to carry on the name of his deceased brother. This practice explains the Sadducees’ question to Jesus about which man would be a woman’s husband in heaven after going through seven brothers who all died (Mt. 22:24-28).

On this theory, something like the following scenario plays out: Jacob (Joseph’s father in Matthew’s genealogy) died before producing a male heir with his wife. Then, in order to fulfill the Levirate laws, Heli (a close relative of Jacob’s), marries Jacob’s widow and then conceives with his new wife which brings about Joseph. If this type of scenario played out, Joseph would be the legal son of Jacob and the biological son of Heli. Then Matthew traces Jacob’s line backwards to Abraham while Luke traces Heli’s line back to Adam. Scholars have listed several of these scenarios where something like this happened.

What’s the Best Explanation?

As I consider the three options, one of the options seems the least tenable. And that is option 1. While many have employed this option to explain the differences, Luke specifically states Joseph as the next person in Jesus’ genealogy, not Mary. He couches this relationship by stating “as it was supposed” because of his knowledge of the virgin birth. More than that, ancient Jewish genealogies always passed through the male’s line, not the female’s. Luke would have understood Jesus as Joseph’s adopted son.

This leaves options 2 and 3 as viable explanations, and my personal opinion is that a combination of the two best explains the differences in genealogies. Matthew clearly isn’t trying to give us a strict chronology with how he groups the names into lists of fourteen. Moreover, by tracing the line through king Solomon instead of Nathan like Luke, Matthew seeks to emphasize the royal nature of Jesus’ line. The levirate marriages could also help explain why different names exist in the genealogy as well.

In the end, we can’t be entirely certain which option is right. But one thing is for certain: we have viable explanations for why the genealogies are different in Matthew and Luke.

Reaching Gen Z with Dr. Sean McDowell

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Are you having trouble reaching your children—elementary school through college—with the truth of Christianity? If so, maybe it’s because you haven’t considered what really motivates Gen Z. Dr. Sean McDowell joins Frank to discuss How to Reach and Equip Gen Z, which is also the title of Sean’s brand new online course starting this week (go to Crossexamined.org and click “Online Courses). Among the questions they discuss on this show:

Who is Gen Z?
Why did you write a book about reaching them?
What are some misconceptions about this generation?
What is the defining factor of Gen Z?
What is their emotional state?
How does technology shape the way they think?
How is social media affecting them, especially on sexual issues?
What are the biggest questions being asked by young people today?
Do students care about the truth?
What is one thing parents can do to better reach them?

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

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

September 25, 2020/by Frank Turek

Who Cares About Philosophy?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Huffling

What do these questions have in common: Does God exist? Can God change? Does God know our future? How can a good God allow evil? How do humans know? What does it mean to know? What does it mean to be good? Can we objectively interpret the Bible? The answer: all of these questions are inherently philosophical.

With the recent decision by a very prominent evangelical institution to remove their philosophy department, why should anyone at all care about philosophy? Some would argue that Christians shouldn’t care about philosophy because, as Luther so colorfully put it, philosophy “is the devil’s whore.” In other words, man’s (autonomous) reason cannot be trusted. We only need to preach the gospel and not worry about worldly philosophy. Many in our culture argue that philosophy is mere opinion, worthless, impractical, and a waste of time. The study of philosophy is often seen as useless and a waste of a good education that could have otherwise been helpful in finding a good-paying job. Ironically, the reasons given for such positions are necessarily philosophical. Why? Because philosophy is unavoidable.

I personally found this out when I enrolled at Southern Evangelical Seminary in the fall of 2004. I initially enrolled at SES to study apologetics. I had no idea the impact philosophy would have on me. My first three courses were Intro to Apologetics, Old Testament Survey, and Hamartiology, and Soteriology (Sin and Salvation). None of these courses were inherently philosophical, at least so I thought. Dr. Tom Howe taught Old Testament Survey, and Dr. Norman Geisler taught the other two courses. As it turned out, all these courses were loaded with philosophy.

For example, Dr. Howe demonstrated the role philosophical presuppositions play in arguments marshalled against Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament). Such presuppositions were the product of rationalist thinkers like Descartes, Spinoza, and Hume. Dr. Geisler demonstrated the role philosophy plays in talking about the nature of truth, God’s existence, and miracles. He even showed how our philosophy of man determines our view of the soul and its relationship to the body (which is important for sin and salvation). Later, Dr. Howe demonstrated how integral philosophy is to hermeneutics (interpreting and understanding a text).

I found out that a philosophy course called Metaphysics (the study of being as such) was being offered in January of 2005. I asked Dr. Doug Potter, the SES Registrar if I should take that class. “Yes,” he said, “it’s the foundation of all that we do.” I really didn’t know what that meant, but I took it. As it turns out, from a philosophical standpoint, it really is the foundation for all that we do, whether in biblical studies, language studies, hermeneutics, etc. Philosophy really is unavoidable.

Is Bart Ehrman Right When He Says That Acts Contradicts Paul’s Letters?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman says, “the book of Acts in the New Testament contains historically unreliable information about the life and teachings of Paul.” In his book, Jesus, Interrupted Dr. Ehrman provides five examples of contradictions that exist between Paul’s letters and Acts.

Ehrman writes, “These are just a few of the discrepancies that one can find when one reads Acts horizontally against Paul’s letters. Many more can be discovered. What they show is that Acts cannot be relied upon for completely accurate detail when it describes the mission of the early apostles such as Paul.”

Since these contradictions are the five he handpicked for his book, he must feel like they’re some of the best. If the strongest examples aren’t even really contradictions, then that gives us a good reason to doubt Ehrman, not Luke.

After Paul’s Conversion, Did He Go Directly To Jerusalem To Confer With Those Who Were Apostles Set Before Him?

Leading off, Ehrman quotes Galatians 1:16-20: “I was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)”

Ehrman then writes: “This emphatic statement that Paul is not lying should give us pause. He is completely clear. He did not consult with others after his conversion, did not see any of the apostles for three years, and even then, he did not see any except Cephas (Peter) and Jesus’ brother James. This makes the account found in the book of Acts very interesting indeed. For according to Acts 9, immediately after Paul converted he spent some time in Damascus “with the disciples”, and when he left the city, he headed directly to Jerusalem, where he met with the apostles of Jesus (Acts 9:19-30). On all counts, Acts seems to be at odds with Paul. Did he spend time with other Christians immediately (Acts) or not (Paul)?“

Let’s read Acts 9:23-25 thoughtfully for ourselves before we take a scholar’s word for it.

“When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.“

Just how long of a period is ‘many days’? Looking elsewhere, we read that many days can be as long as 3 years! Take a look at 1 Kings 2:38-39: “And Shimei said to the king, “What you say is good; as my lord the king has said, so will your servant do.” So Shimei lived in Jerusalem many days. But it happened at the end of three years that two of Shimei’s servants ran away to Achish, son of Maacah, king of Gath…

So what about the journey to Arabia? Luke doesn’t mention it, but that doesn’t necessarily contradict Paul’s story in Galatians. This trip may have happened within Luke’s ‘many days’ in Acts 9:23, and Luke either didn’t know about it or didn’t mention it.

But let’s think about this for a moment. If Acts was written by someone with no access to the story of Paul’s conversion, why did he place it on the way to Damascus of all places? Damascus doesn’t even feature prominently in the rest of Acts.

But if Luke is using Galatians, he wouldn’t have put Damascus into his story while leaving out Paul’s trip to Arabia or to the passing of three years. Either Luke is carefully devious to include a small detail like Damascus while being a major blunderer at the same time by leaving out the trip to Arabia. Or, this casual correspondence about Damascus shows that Luke knew about Paul apart from his letter to the Galatians.

Did The Churches In Judea Know Paul?

Regarding Galatians 1:21-22, Ehrman writes: “Here again Paul is quite clear. Sometime after he converted, he went around to various churches in the regions of Syria and Cilicia, but he “was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea” (Galatians 1:21-22). This has struck some scholars as odd. According to the book of Acts, when Paul was earlier persecuting the churches in Christ, it was specifically the Christian churches in “Judea and Samaria” (Acts 8:1-3; 9:1-2). Why is it that Christians in the churches he had formerly persecuted didn’t know what he looked like? Wasn’t he physically present among them as their enemy earlier? According to Acts, yes, according to Paul, no.”

Acts 8:1-3 shows that Paul was persecuting the Jerusalem church, not the whole region of Judea. Acts 8:1 says that the believers in Jerusalem ‘were scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria.’

They very probably would have told the other Christians they met about Paul’s persecutions. That means the Judean Christians would’ve known Paul by his big, bad reputation but not necessarily by sight. This just isn’t all that hard to think through.

Did Paul Go To Athens Alone?

Here’s Ehrman again: “Luke again appears to have gotten some details wrong. When Paul writes his very first letter to the Thessalonians, he indicates that after he had brought them to faith and started a church among them, he traveled to Athens. But he felt concerned about the fledgling new church and so sent his companion Timothy back to see how the Thessalonians were doing. In other words, Timothy accompanied Paul to Athens and then returned to Thessalonica to help build them up in the faith (1 Thessalonians 3:1–2). The book of Acts, however, is equally clear. There we are told that after Paul established the church in Thessalonica, he and Silas and Timothy founded a church in the city of Boroea; the Christians there then “sent Paul away to the coast, but Silas and Timothy remained behind” (17:14–15). Paul proceeded to send instructions that Silas and Timothy should meet up with him when they could. He traveled to Athens alone and met up with his two companions only after leaving the city for Corinth (17:16–8:5). This is another discrepancy hard to resolve: either Timothy went to Athens with Paul (1 Thessalonians), or not (Acts).”

This so-called contradiction is pretty weak sauce. Let’s read 1 Thessalonians 3:1-2 for ourselves: “Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith.”

Paul doesn’t tell us how he arrived in Athens, all these verses say is that Timothy was with him in Athens at some point. It also suggests that Paul was in Athens for some time before he sent Timothy back. That’s why he writes, “when we could bear it no longer.”

Now let’s look at Acts 17:14-15. It reads, “Then the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there. Those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens, and after receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they departed.”

The Book of Acts clearly reports that a word was sent back telling Timothy to join Paul as quickly as possible. 1 Thessalonians 3 says Timothy was in Athens shortly afterward. Um, where exactly is the contradiction here?

How Many Trips Did Paul Make To Jerusalem?

Here’s Bart again: “According to Paul’s account, [the Jerusalem council] was only the second time he had been to Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18; 2:1). According to Acts, it was his third, prolonged trip there (Acts 9, 11, 15). Once again, it appears that the author of Acts has confused some of Paul’s itinerary – possibly intentionally, for his own purposes.”

Here’s what Paul actually writes in Galatians: “Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.” And here is Galatians 2:1: “Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.”

There’s debate among Pauline scholars about whether or not what’s described in Galatians 2 is the Jerusalem council that we read about in Acts 15. Bart seems to think this is the only possible interpretation. He could very well be correct that it is. But where exactly does Paul say that this was only his second visit?

Acts 11 says that between Paul’s two journeys, he did go to Jerusalem to bring aid to those harmed by the famine. But why would Paul have mentioned this trip to the Galatians? It had nothing to do with him meeting with the apostles about the Gospel message that he was preaching to the Gentiles.

I’m seeing little reason to think that Bart’s claim that Acts is unreliable is correct. But let’s give him one last shot.

Were The Congregations That Paul Established Made Up Of Both Jews And Gentiles?

Here’s Bart one last time: “According to the book of Acts, the answer is a clear yes. When Paul preaches in Thessalonica, Jews in the synagogue come to faith in Christ, as do non-Jewish Greeks (Acts 17:4). Paul indicates just the opposite. When he writes to this church in Thessalonica, he recalls how he converted them to faith in Christ and speaks of how they “turned to God from idols” (1 Thessalonians 1:9). Only pagans worshiped idols.”

Let’s again look at the actual texts in question. Here’s Acts 17:4: “And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.”

And here’s 1 Thessalonians 1:9: “For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.”

At first, it seems like Ehrman has a point, but there seems to be a bit over-reading going on here. Paul’s audience would understand that the ‘you’ that turned to God from idols is an exaggerated statement. In an epistle written to a group, Paul is referring to one portion of his audience rather than another. Paul tells the Corinthian church that “you are proud.” But he’s not referring to the entire church at Corinth as if they were all celebrating sin within the congregation! (1 Cor. 5:2)

As NT scholar Craig Keener points out, Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians has allusions to ideas that wouldn’t make sense to Gentiles lacking familiarity with Jewish eschatological thought. (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17) Paul also distinguishes believers from Gentiles, whose ways they shouldn’t copy, as if even the Gentile believers understand they’ve switched to a new lifestyle. (1 Thess 4:4-5) These points imply there where at least some Jewish believers in the church who could explain such elements to others.

Plus, when Acts says that Paul reasoned in the synagogues for three weeks, it doesn’t mean that Paul was only there for three weeks. You’ll see why that’s relevant in a moment. In her book Hidden in Plain View, Lydia McGrew points out that there’s a couple of interesting interlocking details in 1 Thessalonians that relate to these texts. In 1 Thessalonians 2:2, Paul says, “but though we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we had boldness in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in the midst of much conflict.”

We read in Acts 16:19-35 that Paul was mistreated in Philippi. He was beaten and put in jail even though Paul was a Roman citizen and wasn’t given a fair trial. Paul even had the officials from the city come and apologize to him and escort him out. According to Acts, where does Paul go next? Thessalonica. So this was all very fresh to Paul when he arrived there, and you can bet the Thessalonians heard all about it.

So while Luke focuses on the Jewish and God-fearing Greek converts, if he was just copying 1 Thessalonians, he would have made it clear that idol-worshipers were included in their number. And he would have made it more clear that Paul was in town long enough for the Thessalonians to know about his hard work ethic. (1 Thessalonians 2:9) It is interesting to note however that Paul reasoned with the Jews on the Sabbath, so he was probably working in the marketplace for the rest of the week, preaching the Gospel to whoever would have listened. (See Acts 17:17, 18:1-4.) I’m sure this would have included some idol worshipers.

Furthermore, Paul uncharacteristically rails against the Jews in his correspondence: “For you, brothers became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!” (1 Thess 2:14-16)

Elsewhere Paul prays fervently for his unbelieving Jewish kinsmen. (Rom 10:1) So what gives here?

The Thessalonians would have known the answer to this, as Acts 17:5-9 describes that the Jews spread a rumor that Paul was preaching against Caesar. They sparked a riot with the help of ‘the rabble’ and ran him out of town. They then followed Paul into Berea and used the same harmful tactics there. But as we’ve seen, the book of Acts is independent of 1 Thessalonians, but these details dovetail nicely with each other. The Thessalonians wouldn’t need an explanation of Paul’s indignation, they had witnessed his trouble up close, and one of their own — Jason — was dragged into it.

This goes against Bart’s earlier complaint that Luke’s account and Paul’s letters don’t mesh well. They seem to go together just fine being while remaining independent of each other. Luke perfectly explains why Paul would have spoken so strongly against the Jews to the Thessalonians, as well as why he spoke of his mistreatment in Phillipi.

Conclusion

With Bart’s top 5 examples of contradictions between Paul’s letters and the book of Acts, we’ve seen that his negative case simply is unsubstantiated and fails to give us a reason to distrust Luke as some sort of unreliable, blundering historian who is unconcerned with accuracy. In fact, historians acknowledge that Luke gets many nitty-gritty historical details right about Paul’s journeys, as I list out here.

There is a good reason a renowned classicist like EM Blaiklock remarked that “for accuracy of detail, and for the evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not a shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record.”

Systems Engineering in Nature

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Cathryn Buse

Before I had children, I worked as a systems engineer at NASA at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. Through my career, I met a lot of brilliant scientists and engineers who were committed Christians. But I also encountered a lot of intellectual skepticism to Christianity, especially on the question of God’s existence.

The question of God’s existence is one of the most consistent challenges Christians face. How can we adequately answer that question, especially when the questioner is scientifically minded? One way is through the evidence of design, something known as the “teleological argument.” It simply means where there is design, planning, and order there must be a Designer, Planner, and Organizer behind it. Something designed cannot be explained by just a natural process or material cause; design requires intelligence.

So if there is design in the universe, then there must be a designer. But is there design in the universe?

Atheists say there is not. Before we can adequately answer that, we have to determine what would constitute something being “designed.” It isn’t just that a system looks complicated or has lots of parts. For something to be designed, it requires several well-matched, collocated, and integrated components in order to work, where it would not work if any one of those parts were removed. Something like that would need a designer with intelligence and forethought to select the right components, size them accordingly, and integrate them together so it could function – and ultimately survive and reproduce.

From my background, I like to refer to this as systems engineering in nature. Part of my job at NASA was reviewing the Ares I Upper Stage design to make sure each system would integrate correctly so the vehicle could actually get off the ground. I would be checking for things like if propulsion lines were placed too close to an electronics box because of the extreme cold temperatures of the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Or I would make sure the battery boxes were located near a human access point so they could be changed out at the launch pad. I would verify that a valve needing power from the launch tower had a connector on the umbilical plate. One of my favorite projects was making sure the vehicle could be shipped without being damaged. It needs covers, environmental controls, and other ground support equipment, especially since it ships horizontally but sits vertically on the launch pad.

As you can see, a NASA launch vehicle requires lots of systems engineering – and lots of intelligent design! Each system must be designed alongside the other systems so they will function together. If one system changes something, it may have devastating effects on the other systems. It must be a collaborative design effort. A launch vehicle won’t function if only one system is in place while the other systems are being built. The propulsion system must work with the design of the structure, the avionics and software, the thrust vector control system, and the engine. Remove any one component and the vehicle won’t get off the ground – or worse, will have a catastrophic failure.

So the launch vehicle needs all of these systems and their components to be functional and integrated all at the same time in order to work. A successful launch vehicle requires planning, order, and design; it requires intelligence – and many Designers.

Granted, a launch vehicle is obviously man-made. But is there something comparable in nature? If we can show a biological feature that requires systems engineering, then, like that launch vehicle, it could not have been formed by natural or material causes. It must be explained by some intelligent power behind it.

Luckily, you don’t have to be rocket scientist to find design in nature. We can find systems engineering in the interrelationships of the human body organ systems. For example, the circulatory system pumps oxygenated blood from the heart to the other parts of your body so they can do work. The blood stream then returns the oxygen-depleted blood back to the heart. But the circulatory system cannot distribute oxygenated blood by itself. It needs the respiratory system to get the oxygen. Tiny air sacs in the lungs, called alveoli, transfer oxygen from the lungs to the blood vessels. When the deoxygenated blood is returned, the blood cells transfer carbon dioxide and water, the waste products from the cell, back to the alveoli so it can be breathed out. The circulatory system, therefore, is quite useless without the respiratory system.

However, both of these systems are dependent on the nervous system. The hypothalamus section of the brain controls the body’s autonomic functions, life critical functions our body continually does without us thinking about them, like breathing and pumping your heart. Without this part of the brain and the network of nerves running from it through the spinal cord to the organs themselves, our circulatory and respiratory systems could not work.

The circulatory system also depends on the muscular system. The heart is a specific type of muscle made up of a specific cell type that allows it to contract and pump blood around the body. And it even depends on the skeletal system. The bone marrow produces the red and white blood cells and platelets that the heart is busy pumping around our bodies. Without the skeletal system, there would be no blood to pump.

Even the urinary system is necessary for the circulatory system to function. All of the body’s blood is circulated through the kidneys, where waste chemicals and excess water are filtered out. The kidneys then return clean blood back to the bloodstream. And there is even an interrelationship between the circulatory system and the endocrine system. Hormones from the adrenal gland can speed up your heart rate when it senses danger so you can run away quickly. Hormones from the pancreas are used to control blood sugar levels, which can be deadly if not maintained properly.

We know that everything in our body is dependent on blood flow, but it becomes clear that our blood flow is also dependent on everything else in the body! The human body is the epitome of systems engineering design. What does the body sound like? It sounds like that launch vehicle where the propulsion system needs the structural system, the avionics & software system, and the engine before it can ever get off the ground!

Now if the launch vehicle is missing a system, it fails to launch; we are delayed from resupplying astronauts or sending new missions to space until the design can be completed. But if a system is missing from the body, the body cannot live. All these body systems must show up at the same time, in the same place, fully functional and integrated for life to exist. And like the Ares I launch vehicle, its existence cannot be explained by a random, natural process. The human body has been uniquely and perfectly designed. And design requires a Designer.

Evangelicals, Trump and the Election with Dr. Michael Brown

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Evangelicals today are deeply divided over Donald Trump. Some see him as a savior figure, anointed by God to protect the church and make America great again. Others see him more like the antichrist, doing great harm to the nation and bringing embarrassment to the church. Who’s right? Might they both have good points? What should we do to move forward?

Dr. Michael Brown, author of Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test? joins Frank as the 2020 election approaches. Among the questions they address are:

Evangelicals have been known as the “values voters” who are always proclaiming, “Character counts! Morality matters!” Have we been hypocritical in our support of Trump?
Are Christians losing their ability to witness if they support Trump for president?
During the 2016 primaries, you strongly opposed Trump before voting for him vs. Hillary. What changed your mind, and why do you plan to vote for Trump in 2020?
Should we be voting more for personality or policy?
Jesus scolded the politicians of his day for “neglecting the more important matters of the law” (Mt. 23:23). What are the most important matters of the law upon which we should base our vote in this election?
How do the two parties differ on the most important policies?
What do you say to pro-lifers who say that health care and poverty and climate change are pro-life issues and they outweigh abortion?
You state that “Jesus is my Savior, Trump is my president.” Why is that distinction so important?
What should Christians be doing in this election season regardless of who ultimately wins the presidency?

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

September 18, 2020/by Jairo Izquierdo

Defrocking The Priests Of Scientism

Philosophy of Science

By Bob Perry

The way large church authorities deal with heretics hasn’t changed much over the centuries. They demand adherence to dogma. They threaten or silence those who defy the hierarchy. Finally, they excommunicate those who refuse to submit to their demands. The religion of scientism is no different. Denying its dogma will have consequences. Heresy will be punished. No matter which denomination they represent, scientism’s priests are ruthless enforcers of the church’s rules.

We’re All “Religious”

The “skeptical” materialist, Michael Shermer has offered the following as a description of his atheism:

“There’s no, like, central set of tenets that we adhere to or believe in, or anything like … a Christian or a Jew or whatever. We don’t have anything like that, because there is nothing. It’s just simply we just don’t believe.”

Shermer’s denial of any adherence to religious belief is instructive. It pays to remember what a “religion” is. This is especially true because Dr. Shermer regularly rejects the legitimacy of any religious point of view in the scientific marketplace of ideas.

A religion is a template we use to understand and respond to the world. Everybody has one. Shermer’s religion is simply informed by a belief that God does not exist. But that assertion does not allow him to escape the fact that he holds to a systematic view of the world. He has just tried to construct his ideas about ethics, truth, and ultimate reality without God. The question is not about who holds religious views. The question is which of those views correspond best with the way the world actually is.

The Atheist Religion

Pointing out the religious nature of scientific materialism is not just a clever way to make a trivial point. Not when we have been trained to believe that any discussion about things that really matter must begin by accepting something like Shermer’s naturalism. Any view that questions that mindset is categorically dismissed as a matter of personal opinion that no one needs to take seriously. Only scientists may offer us “proof.” Our scientific culture ordains scientists as the source of all wisdom and authority.

They are scientism’s priests.

The Religion Of Scientism

If Materialism (the idea that everything is physical) is true, this all makes sense. If the physical world is all that is real, every phenomenon must be understood as a consequence of molecules in motion. And if material causes are the only kind we are allowed to invoke, it stands to reason that science – the study of the material world – is the only explanatory game in town. If science holds all truth, our belief in science – scientism – is our greatest hope.

But if Scientific Materialism is the only tool we’re allowed to use to analyze things, what do we do with things that it cannot explain even in principle? In other words, how do the priests of scientism propose to explain real things that are not physical?

Can Science Disprove God?

Surely you’ve heard this one: “Science has disproved God!” This is an odd claim. It has to take into account two mutually exclusive truths. First, that science is the study of the physical universe. Second, that no credible theist has ever claimed that God is part of the physical universe.

These details seem to be lost on the priests of scientism who proclaim their disbelief in the deity with a smug wave of the hand and a demand for “evidence.” They insist on having physical evidence for a non-physical entity. But the scientific clergy has already dismissed such a thing by mere assumption.

Do they not see the circularity in their reasoning? Without it, the entire scaffolding of scientism collapses under the weight of its own criteria for identifying truth.

The Language Of Science

Take mathematics. It is wildly ironic that the priests of scientism seem to be ignorant of the language of their faith. Science depends on mathematics to make its case. But Materialist scientists have described mathematics as “an abstract, immutable entity existing outside space and time.” Math describes the structure, orderliness, and invariant properties we observe in nature. Cosmologist Max Tegmark calls it “something bordering on the mysterious” that has “an eerily real feel” to it and satisfies “a central criterion of objective existence.” Stephen Hawking wondered where things like mathematics and the laws of physics and chemistry could have originated.* Even atheist Bertrand Russell once remarked that mathematics holds both “truth and supreme beauty.”

Mathematics is the language of science – the vocabulary of those who deny non-physical reality. Yet mathematics is a combination of numbers and concepts. Neither of these is physical. But both of them are undeniably real.

Faith In The Unseen And Unseeable

Scientists use mathematics to present the quantum metaphysics they use to evade the clear inference that a Big Bang requires a Big Banger. The design of the universe, they say, really requires no explanation at all. Their math tells them that the inexplicable degree of fine-tuning in this universe implies that our universe is just one among an infinite number of alternate universes. We just happen to live in the one that got things just right.

As Max Tegmark has put it, this “idea … seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will just have to live with it because it is supported by astronomical observations.”

Of course, the priests never address the fact that these alternate universes are, by definition, unobservable. In other words, the priests who demand “evidence” from theists actually hold “blind faith” in something for which they can never gather physical evidence.

They just want us to “live with it.”

Blind Answers To Life’s Big Questions

Agent causation. Life from non-life. Mind from matter. Each of these are things we see and experience every day. And each is completely inconsistent with a materialistic view of the world.

This is not to say that the scientific enterprise is misguided. Far from it. The point is that Christian theism understands science in its proper context. Theists see science as the rational method we use to discover and understand the order and majesty of God’s creative work. When you look at it that way, you see that theism makes each of these conundrums vanish. They each make sense inside a more comprehensive view of nature. It turns out that the explanatory power of Christian theism far exceeds the materialistic alternative.

Priests And Prophets

Scientism actually diminishes science. It idolizes a view of the world that cannot account for all of reality. It tells us, “Be patient. Science may not have explained these things yet, but it will. Just give it time.”

The priests of scientism think this is persuasive. But their pious exhortation serves only to confirm their religious zeal.

The priests, it seems, also fancy themselves as prophets.

* Quoted by Dean Overman, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization (New York, New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 1997), 159.

Modern Pelagianism and Its Failure to Recognize the Power of God

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Pelagius was a fifth-century British monk who caused a stir during his time. He denied the doctrine of original sin. As such, he believed that no one was truly impacted by sin, but rather chose to do evil rather than good by one’s own free will. Concerning salvation, Pelagius believed that Christ served as a salvific example. Therefore, God’s grace was not necessary to save a person, and neither was the atoning work of the cross. Rather, a person was saved by choosing God. Pelagius held to a doctrine that focused on man rather than God. A derivative of the doctrine is found in what is called semi-Pelagianism, the belief that God bestows grace after a person chooses God. Many have erroneously credited Wesleyanism and Arminianism as adhering to this viewpoint. Both John Wesley and Jacob Arminius believed that God’s grace first moved on a person before the person was given the opportunity to embrace or reject that grace. Semi-Pelagianism held that the person first chose God before God’s grace was granted. There is a nuanced difference between the two perspectives. While the nuance seems small, it holds major implications. Nonetheless, I digress.

Augustine of Hippo confronted Pelagius’s beliefs and noted that the grace of God was essential to overcome a person’s sinful inclinations. While still accepting the person’s freedom of the will, he noted that the grace of God was necessary to bring about a person’s salvation. Rather than emphasizing humanity as did Pelagius, Augustine rested the emphasis on God. In matters of trouble, God’s grace was needed. Augustine writes, “Therefore, also, does grace aid, good men, in the midst of present calamities, so that they are enabled to endure them with a constancy proportioned to their faith” (Augustine, City of God 22.22.4, 501). Even in matters of adopting a true philosophy, God’s grace was required. Augustine notes, “So that even those against whom we are disputing have been compelled to acknowledge, in some fashion, that the grace of God is necessary for the acquisition, not, indeed, of any philosophy, but of the true philosophy” (Augustine, City of God 22.22.4, 501). In Augustinian thought, God’s grace was necessary to overcome the sinful inclinations of human beings. As such, salvation was truly God’s gracious gift to humanity.

The Church recognized the errors of Pelagianism and condemned the view as heretical in 415 at the synod of Jerusalem. It is important to note that despite their differences, Augustine always treated Pelagius with the utmost respect, something from which modern believers could learn. (For a fuller treatment on the issue, see Wyatt Graham’s article “Augustine’s Surprising Treatment of Pelagius” at the Gospel Coalition. It can be found here)

Far too often, people think that they must do things or accomplish certain tasks to earn God’s favor. They think that their efforts politically, socially, or otherwise determine their standing with God, siding with the idea that a person must be x, y, or z to be a Christian. However, such thinking illustrates the adoption of a modern form of the Pelagian heresy. The apostle Paul reminds us, “For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift—not from works so that no one can boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time for us to do” (Eph. 2:8–10). Relish in the grace that God has afforded to you. Allow that grace to shine in your life so that others can see Jesus in you. Finally, trust in God’s sovereign plan. For me, the latter is the most difficult, as faith does not come easy to this cynical mind.

Source

Augustine of Hippo. “The City of God.” In St. Augustine’s City of God and Christian Doctrine. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Volume Two. Edited by Philip Schaff. Translated by Marcus Dods. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887.

Postlude

Concerning human freedom, one example of Augustine’s acceptance of human freedom is found in the following quote.

“It is He who, when He foreknew that man would in his turn sin by abandoning God and breaking His law, did not deprive him of the power of free-will, because He at the same time foresaw what good He Himself would bring out of the evil, and how from this mortal race, deservedly and justly condemned, He would by His grace collect, as now He does, a people so numerous, that He thus fills up and repairs the blank made by the fallen angels, and that thus that beloved and heavenly city is not defrauded of the full number of its citizens, but perhaps may even rejoice in a still more overflowing population” (Augustine, City of God 22.1.2, 480).

Las contradicciones filosóficas de la cosmovisión transgénero

Español

By Ryan T. Anderson

El pensamiento de los activistas transgénero es inherentemente confuso y lleno de contradicciones internas. Los activistas nunca reconocen esas contradicciones. En su lugar, de manera oportunista se basan en cualquier afirmación que sea útil en un momento dado.

La gente dice que vivimos en una era posmoderna que ha rechazado la metafísica. Eso no es del todo cierto. Vivimos en una época posmoderna que promueve una metafísica alternativa. Como explico en Cuando Harry se convirtió en Sally, en el corazón del momento transgénero hay ideas radicales sobre la persona humana, en particular, que las personas son lo que dicen ser, independientemente de la evidencia contraria. Un niño transgénero es un niño, no simplemente una niña que se identifica como un niño. Es comprensible por qué los activistas hacen estas afirmaciones. Un argumento sobre las identidades transgénero será mucho más persuasivo si se refiere a quién es alguien, no simplemente a cómo alguien se identifica. Y así la retórica del momento transgénero viene con afirmaciones ontológicas: las personas son el género que prefieren ser. Esa es la afirmación.

Los activistas transgéneros no admiten que se trata de una afirmación metafísica. No quieren tener el debate sobre el nivel de la filosofía, así que lo visten como una afirmación científica y médica. Y han cooptado muchas asociaciones profesionales para su causa. Así, la Asociación Americana de Psicología, en un folleto titulado “Respuestas a sus preguntas sobre las personas transgénero, la identidad de género y la expresión de género”, nos dicen: “Transgénero es un término general para las personas cuya identidad de género, expresión de género o comportamiento no se ajusta a lo que normalmente se asocia con el sexo al que fueron asignados al nacer”. Fíjense en el lenguaje politizado: el sexo de una persona es “asignado al nacer”. En 2005, incluso la Campaña de Derechos Humanos se refirió en su lugar al “sexo de nacimiento” y al “sexo físico”.

La frase “sexo asignado al nacer” ahora es favorable porque deja espacio para la “identidad de género” como la base real del sexo de una persona. En una declaración de expertos ante un tribunal federal de distrito en Carolina del Norte en relación con H.B. 2, la Dra. Deanna Adkins declaró: “Desde una perspectiva médica, el determinante apropiado del sexo es la identidad de género”. La Dra. Adkins es una profesora en la Escuela de Medicina de la Universidad de Duke y directora del Duke Center for Child and Adolescent Gender Care (que abrió sus puertas en 2015). Adkins argumenta que la identidad de género no es sólo la base preferida para determinar el sexo, sino “el único determinante médicamente apoyado del sexo”. Todos los demás métodos son mala ciencia, afirma: “Es contrario a la ciencia médica usar cromosomas, hormonas, órganos reproductivos internos, genitales externos o características sexuales secundarias para anular la identidad de género con el fin de clasificar a alguien como hombre o mujer”.

Esta es una afirmación notable, sobre todo porque el argumento recientemente fue que el género es sólo una construcción social, mientras que el sexo es una realidad biológica. Ahora, los activistas afirman que la identidad de género es el destino, mientras que el sexo biológico es la construcción social.

Adkins no dice si aplicaría esta regla a todas las especies de mamíferos. Pero, ¿por qué el sexo debería determinarse de manera diferente en los seres humanos que en otros mamíferos? Y si la ciencia médica sostiene que la identidad de género determina el sexo en los seres humanos, ¿qué significa esto para el uso de agentes medicinales que tienen diferentes efectos en hombres y mujeres? ¿La dosis adecuada de la medicina depende del sexo del paciente o de su identidad de género?

Pero, ¿qué es exactamente esta “identidad de género” que se supone que es el verdadero determinante médico del sexo? Adkins lo define como “el sentido interno de una persona de pertenecer a un género en particular, tal como el hombre o la mujer”. Tenga en cuenta que la pequeña frase “tal como”, lo que implica que las opciones no se limitan necesariamente a hombre o mujer. Otros activistas son más próximos en admitir que la identidad de género no tiene por qué limitarse a la elección binaria de hombre o mujer, pero puede incluir ambos o ninguno. La Asociación Americana de Psicología, por ejemplo, define la “identidad de género” como “el sentido interno de una persona de ser hombre, mujer u otra cosa”.

Adkins afirma que ser transgénero no es un trastorno mental, sino simplemente “una variación normal del desarrollo”. Y afirma, además, que los profesionales médicos y de salud mental que se especializan en el tratamiento de la disforia de género están de acuerdo con este punto de vista.

Catecismo Transgénero

Estas nociones sobre el sexo y el género se están enseñando ahora a los niños pequeños. Los activistas han creado gráficos amigables para los niños para este propósito, como la “Persona de galleta de género”. La persona de galleta de género enseña que cuando se trata de sexualidad y género, las personas tienen cinco características diferentes, cada una de ellas cayendo a lo largo de un espectro.

Hay “identidad de género”, que es “cómo, en tu cabeza, defines tu género, basado en cómo te alinees (o no te alinees) con lo que entiendes que son las opciones de género”. El gráfico enumera “4 (de infinito)” posibilidades para la identidad de género: “mujer”, “hombre”, “dos espíritus” o “género queer”.

La segunda característica es la “expresión de género”, que es “la forma en que presentas el género, a través de tus acciones, vestido y comportamiento”. Además de “femenino” o “masculino”, las opciones son “macho”, “femme”, “andrógino” o “género neutral”.

El tercero es el “sexo biológico”, definido como “las características sexuales físicas con las que naces y desarrollas, incluyendo genitales, forma corporal, tono de voz, vello corporal; hormonas, cromosomas, etc.”

Las dos últimas características se refieren a la orientación sexual: “sexualmente atraído por” y “románticamente atraído por”. Las opciones incluyen “Mujeres/Hembra/Feminidad” y “Hombres/Macho/Masculinidad”. Lo cual parece bastante binario.

La persona de galleta de género trata de localizar estas cinco características en el cuerpo: identidad de género en el cerebro, atracción sexual y romántica en el corazón, sexo biológico en la pelvis y expresión de género en todas partes.

La persona de galleta de género presentada aquí es la versión 3.3, incorporando ajustes realizados en respuesta a las críticas de versiones anteriores. Pero incluso éste viola el dogma actual. Algunos activistas se han quejado de que la persona de pan de género se ve demasiado masculina.

Una falta más grave a los ojos de muchos activistas es el uso del término “sexo biológico”. La revista Time hizo una crítica por la misma transgresión en 2014 después de publicar un perfil de Laverne Cox, la “primera persona trans” que aparece en la portada. Al menos la gente de Time obtuvo crédito por tratar de ser “buenos aliados, explicando lo que muchos ven como un tema complicado”, escribió Mey Rude en un artículo titulado “Es hora de que la gente deje de usar la construcción social del ‘sexo biológico’ para defender su transmisoginía”. (Es difícil mantenerse al día con el momento transgénero). Pero Time fue juzgado culpable de usar “una comprensión simplista y anticuada de la biología para perpetuar algunas ideas muy peligrosas sobre las mujeres trans”, y no reconocer que el sexo biológico “no es algo con lo que realmente nacimos, es algo que los médicos o nuestros padres nos asignan al nacer”.

Hoy en día, los “aliados” transgénero en buen estado no utilizan a la Persona de Galleta de Género en sus aulas, pero optan por el “Unicornio de Género”, que fue creado por Trans Students Educational Resources (TSER). Tiene una forma corporal que no aparece ni masculina ni femenina, y en lugar de un “sexo biológico” tiene un “sexo asignado al nacer”. Esos son los cambios significativos en la Persona de Galleta de Género, y se hicieron para que el nuevo gráfico “retratara con mayor precisión la distinción entre género, sexo asignado al nacer y sexualidad”.

Según TSER, “el sexo biológico es una palabra ambigua que no tiene escala ni significado además de que está relacionada con algunas características sexuales. También es perjudicial para las personas trans. En su lugar, preferimos el ‘sexo asignado al nacer’ que proporciona una descripción más precisa de qué sexo biológico puede estar tratando de comunicarse”. El Unicornio de Género es el gráfico que los niños probablemente encontrarán en la escuela. Estos son los dogmas que probablemente sean catecismos a profesar.

Si bien los activistas afirman que las posibilidades de identidad de género son bastante amplias —hombre, mujer, ambos, ninguno— también insisten en que la identidad de género es innata, o establecida a una edad muy temprana, y a partir de entonces inmutable. El Dr. George Brown, profesor de psiquiatría y miembro de la junta por tres veces de la Asociación Profesional Mundial para la Salud Transgénero (WPATH en inglés), declaró en su declaración ante la corte federal de Carolina del Norte que la identidad de género “se establece generalmente en una etapa temprana de la vida, a la edad de dos a tres años de edad”. Dirigiéndose al mismo tribunal, la Dra. Adkins afirmó que “la evidencia sugiere fuertemente que la identidad de género es innata o fija a una edad temprana y que la identidad de género tiene una base biológica sólida”. (En ningún momento de su declaración de expertos citó ninguna fuente para ninguna de sus afirmaciones.)

Contradicciones Transgénero

Si las afirmaciones presentadas en este ensayo te parecen confusas, no estás solo. El pensamiento de los activistas transgénero es inherentemente confuso y lleno de contradicciones internas. Los activistas nunca reconocen esas contradicciones. En su lugar, de manera oportunista se basan en cualquier afirmación que sea útil en un momento dado.

Aquí hablo de activistas transgénero. La mayoría de las personas que sufren de disforia de género no son activistas, y muchos de ellos rechazan las afirmaciones de los activistas. Muchos de ellos pueden ser considerados como víctimas de los activistas, como lo muestro en mi libro. Muchos de los que sienten angustia por su sexo corporal saben que en realidad no son el sexo opuesto, y no desean “transición”. Desean recibir ayuda para poder identificarse y aceptar su ser corporal. No creen que sus sentimientos de disforia de género definan la realidad.

Pero los activistas transgéneros sí. Independientemente de si se identifican como “cisgénero” o “transgénero”, los activistas promueven una cosmovisión altamente subjetiva e incoherente.

Por un lado, afirman que el verdadero yo es algo más que el cuerpo físico, en una nueva forma de dualismo gnóstico, pero al mismo tiempo adoptan una filosofía materialista en la que sólo existe el mundo material. Dicen que el género es puramente una construcción social, mientras que afirman que una persona puede estar “atrapada” en el género equivocado. Dicen que no hay diferencias significativas entre el hombre y la mujer, sin embargo, se basan en estereotipos sexuales rígidos para argumentar que la “identidad de género” es real, mientras que la encarnación humana no lo es. Afirman que la verdad es lo que una persona dice que es, sin embargo, creen que hay un verdadero yo que descubrir dentro de esa persona. Promueven un individualismo expresivo radical en el que las personas son libres de hacer lo que quieran y definen la verdad como deseen, sin embargo, tratan despiadadamente de hacer cumplir la aceptación de la ideología transgénero.

Es difícil ver cómo se pueden combinar estas posiciones contradictorias. Si tiras demasiado fuerte en cualquier hilo de ideología transgénero, todo el tapiz se deshila. Pero aquí hay algunas preguntas que podemos plantear:

Si el género es una construcción social, ¿cómo puede la identidad de género ser innata e inmutable? ¿Cómo puede la identidad de uno, con respecto a la construcción social, ser determinada por la biología en el útero? ¿Cómo puede la identidad de uno, ser inalterable (inmutable) con respecto a una construcción social en constante cambio? Y si la identidad de género es innata, ¿cómo puede ser “fluida”? El desafío para los activistas es ofrecer una definición plausible de género e identidad de género que sea independiente del sexo corporal.

¿Hay un género binario o no? De alguna manera, no existe y sí existe, según los activistas transgénero. Si las categorías de “hombre” y “mujer” son lo suficientemente objetivas como para que las personas puedan identificarse como, y ser, hombres y mujeres, ¿cómo puede el género también ser un espectro, donde las personas pueden identificarse como, y ser, ambos, o ninguno, o en algún lugar intermedio?

¿Qué significa tener un sentido interno de género? ¿Cómo se siente el género? ¿Qué significado podemos dar al concepto de sexo o género (y por lo tanto qué “sentido” interno podemos tener de género) aparte de tener un cuerpo de un sexo en particular? Aparte de tener un cuerpo masculino, ¿cómo se “siente” ser un hombre? Aparte de tener un cuerpo femenino, ¿cómo se “siente” ser una mujer? ¿Qué se siente ser a la vez un hombre y una mujer, o no ser ninguno de los dos? El desafío para el activista transgénero es explicar cómo son estos sentimientos, y cómo alguien podría saber si él o ella “se siente” como el sexo opuesto, o ninguno, o ambos.

Incluso si los activistas trans pudieran responder a estas preguntas sobre los sentimientos, eso todavía no abordaría el asunto de la realidad. ¿Por qué sentirse como un hombre (sea lo que sea que eso signifique) hace a alguien un hombre? ¿Por qué nuestros sentimientos determinan la realidad sobre la cuestión del sexo, pero muy poco en otras cosas? Nuestros sentimientos no determinan nuestra edad ni nuestra estatura. Además, pocas compran la pretensión de Rachel Dolezal de identificarse como una mujer negra, ya que claramente no lo es. Si los que se identifican como transgénero son el sexo con el que se identifican, ¿por qué eso no se aplica a otros atributos o categorías del ser? ¿Qué pasa con las personas que se identifican como animales o personas con cuerpos capaces que se identifican como discapacitadas? ¿Determinan la realidad todas estas identidades autoproclamadas? Si no, ¿por qué no? ¿Y deberían estas personas recibir tratamiento médico para transformar sus cuerpos de acuerdo con sus mentes? ¿Por qué aceptar la “realidad” transgénero, pero no la realidad transrracial, transespecie y transcapaz? El desafío para los activistas es explicar por qué el sexo “real” de una persona está determinado por una “identidad de género” interior, pero la edad y la altura y la raza y las especies no están determinadas por un sentido interno de identidad.

Por supuesto, un activista transgénero podría responder que una “identidad” es, por definición, sólo un sentido interno de sí mismo. Pero si ese es el caso, la identidad de género es simplemente una revelación de cómo uno se siente. Decir que alguien es transgénero, entonces, sólo dice que la persona tiene sentimientos de que es el sexo opuesto. La identidad de género, así entendida, no tiene nada que ver con el significado de “sexo” o cualquier otra cosa. Pero los activistas transgéneros afirman que la autoproclamada “identidad de género” de una persona es el “sexo” de esa persona. El desafío para los activistas es explicar por qué la mera sensación de ser hombre o mujer (o ambos o ninguno) hace a alguien hombre o mujer (o ambos o ninguno).

La identidad de género puede sonar muy parecida a la identidad religiosa, que está determinada por las creencias. Pero esas creencias no determinan la realidad. Alguien que se identifica como cristiano cree que Jesús es el Cristo. Alguien que se identifica como musulmán cree que Mahoma es el Último Profeta. Pero Jesús es o no es el Cristo, y Mahoma es o no es el Último Profeta Final, independientemente de lo que alguien crea. Así, también, una persona es o no es un hombre, independientemente de lo que alguien, incluida esa persona, crea. El desafío para los activistas transgénero es presentar un argumento de por qué las creencias transgénero determinan la realidad.

Determinar la realidad es el corazón del asunto, y aquí también encontramos contradicciones. Por un lado, los activistas transgéneros quieren la autoridad de la ciencia mientras hacen afirmaciones metafísicas, diciendo que la ciencia revela que la identidad de género es innata e inmutable. Por otro lado, niegan que la biología sea el destino, insistiendo en que las personas son libres de ser quienes quieren ser. ¿Cuál es? ¿Nuestra identidad de género es biológicamente determinada e inmutable, o autocreada y cambiable? Si el primero, ¿cómo explicamos las personas cuya identidad de género cambia con el tiempo? ¿Estas personas tienen el sentido equivocado de género en algún momento u otro? Y si la identidad de género se crea a sí misma, ¿por qué otras personas deben aceptarla como realidad? Si debemos ser libres de elegir nuestra propia realidad de género, ¿por qué algunas personas pueden imponer su idea de realidad a otros sólo porque se identifican como transgénero? El desafío para el activista transgénero es articular alguna concepción de la verdad como la base de cómo entendemos el bien común y cómo se debe ordenar la sociedad.

Como documento en profundidad en Cuando Harry se convirtió en Sally, las afirmaciones de los activistas transgénero son confusas porque son filosóficamente incoherentes. Los activistas confían en reclamos contradictorios según sea necesario para avanzar en su posición, pero su ideología sigue evolucionando, para que incluso los aliados y las organizaciones LGBT puedan quedarse atrás a medida que avanza el “progreso”. En el núcleo de la ideología está la afirmación radical de que los sentimientos determinan la realidad. De esta idea vienen exigencias extremas para que la sociedad juegue con las afirmaciones subjetivas de la realidad. Los ideólogos trans ignoran las pruebas contrarias y los intereses en competencia; menosprecian las prácticas alternativas; y tienen como objetivo silenciar las voces escépticas y apagar cualquier desacuerdo. El movimiento tiene que seguir parcheando y apuntalando sus creencias, vigilando a los fieles, coaccionando a los herejes y castigando apóstatas, porque tan pronto como sus furiosos esfuerzos marcan por un momento o alguien se enfrenta con éxito a él, toda la farsa se expone. Eso es lo que sucede cuando tus dogmas son tan contrarios a verdades obvias, básicas y cotidianas. Un futuro transgénero no es el “lado correcto de la historia”, pero los activistas han convencido a los sectores más poderosos de nuestra sociedad para que atiendan sus demandas. Si bien las afirmaciones que hacen son manifiestamente falsas, se necesitará un trabajo real para evitar la propagación de estas ideas dañinas.

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek

Ryan T. Anderson es fundador y jefe de redacción de Public Discourse. También es investigador senior William E. Simon en The Heritage Foundation.

Blog Original: https://bit.ly/3gOEiuq

September 14, 2020/by Guest

Warnings To A Godless Society

What Have We Become?

The Struggle For Power

What Will We Become?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus’ Genealogies

Option 1: Joseph vs. Mary’s Genealogy

Option 2: Royal vs. Biological Genealogy

Option 3: Levirate Marriage

What’s the Best Explanation?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

After Paul’s Conversion, Did He Go Directly To Jerusalem To Confer With Those Who Were Apostles Set Before Him?

Did The Churches In Judea Know Paul?

Did Paul Go To Athens Alone?

How Many Trips Did Paul Make To Jerusalem?

Were The Congregations That Paul Established Made Up Of Both Jews And Gentiles?

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

We’re All “Religious”

The Atheist Religion

The Religion Of Scientism

Can Science Disprove God?

The Language Of Science

Faith In The Unseen And Unseeable

Blind Answers To Life’s Big Questions

Priests And Prophets

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Source

Postlude

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Catecismo Transgénero

Contradicciones Transgénero

Recursos recomendados en Español: