Al Serrato Archives - Page 3 of 7

Tag Archive for: Al Serrato

A Reflection on Giving Thanks

By Al Serrato

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

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

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

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

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

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

Escaping to Pandora

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

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

Is a Perfect Being Possible?

1. Does Truth Exist?, 2. Does God Exist?, Atheism

By Al Serrato

Many atheists claim that the God described in the Bible is not possible. They raise philosophical challenges meant to show that inherent in the very nature of God are contradictions which make belief in him foolish. One such challenge I encountered went like this:

“If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete–it needs nothing else. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. Therefore, a perfect being that creates is impossible.”

Challenges like these can be daunting, especially for someone not interested in philosophy. On its face, the challenge appears to have validity, reasoning to a conclusion about God. But in fact what is at play here is the “straw man” fallacy. The challenger sets up a God whose attributes are not those of the true God, as described in the Bible, and then argues from this mistaken depiction that the God we worship could not exist.

Notice what is implicit in the challenge: the skeptic seems to be acknowledging God as an eternal being, but his questions assume that God has no power to control time. Time becomes a force over God, and not one that God created and controls. Consider: the challenger asks “what compelled God to create?” as if God is sitting around for eons wondering what to do. He uses words like “bored,” “lonely,” “needs,” and “desires.” Each of these concepts is temporally based: “boredom” means an awareness that one’s present circumstances lack sufficient stimulation and an anticipation of changing this condition by engaging in some future activity; “lonely” means an awareness of the lack of others to help bring meaning, activity or joy into one’s life; “desires” means an awareness of something lacking and the formation of a plan to acquire that thing in the future. Each of these concepts necessarily implies a limited being, a being who lacks something necessary for fulfillment and who is seeking to remedy this lack.

With each question, the skeptic betrays that he has not grasped the attributes of the God we worship. The God of the Bible describes himself as the “I am.” In the beginning, he created “the heavens and the Earth.” Interestingly, modern science has confirmed that in the distant past there was a singularity, a point at which both matter and, more importantly for this discussion, time came into existence from absolute nothingness. Though we cannot, in our limited present circumstances, ever fully grasp all this entails, it is apparent that God, as an eternal being who created time as we experience it, is not himself limited by time. All times, as we perceive them, are in an eternal “present” to him. He was never “alone.” Composed of three persons in one being, God is in an eternal loving relationship and has no needs, fulfills all desires and lacks no stimulation. In fact, these concepts are nonsensical to such a being, examples of a category error, because each of these concepts makes sense only if viewed from the perspective of a being that is limited or controlled or defined by time.

So, to specifically answer the questions: Nothing “disturbed” the eternal equilibrium. Time was not flowing “against” God and no force can disturb him. Nothing “compelled” him to create, because a compulsion would require a source greater than God and there is no such force. God created the universe and this timeline because he chose to for reasons of love. The love he exercised was in the agape sense, love for the sake of love and with the goal of seeking the good of the one loved. He was not seeking gain, nor was he motivated by desiring something in return. God was not bored or lonely and is and always was complete. There was no disequilibrium. How that plays out in God’s perception is something, again, we could not expect to fully grasp, just as the whale, if conscious, could not know what living on land would be like, even if he understood that it involved breathing air, living in houses, and walking. In other words, our lack of detailed and specific knowledge does not prevent us from drawing conclusions from what we do know.

The challenger might respond by saying that God somehow added to his distinctiveness when he created us. He went from a “before” to an “after.” In so doing, he “changed,” and because he changed, he cannot be “perfect.” But this challenge again fails to recognize that God is not trapped by time, but instead was the creator of time. There was no “before” and “after,” as those concepts apply only to temporal beings living within the flow of time. To an eternal being, all is eternally in the present. While we, as mortal and limited beings, cannot truly understand what an eternal present would be like, we can conclude that a being not bound by the movement of time would experience all events without having to resort to memory or wait for the future to arrive. Moreover, the challenge fails to fully consider what “infinity” involves. As an infinite being, God added nothing to himself by creating, for it is not possible to “add” to infinity. This concept was fleshed out by a mathematician named David Hilbert, who asked the reader to imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, all of which are filled. An infinite number of new guests arrive seeking lodging. What does the innkeeper do? Is he not “full up?” No, actually, at least not when infinity is involved. The innkeeper simply moves everyone from the room he or she is in to the room whose number is two times the original room number. By so doing, the innkeeper opens up an infinite number of new rooms – all odd numbered – for his new guests. The point is that when you are dealing with infinity, limitations simply do not exist.

In the end, though, I would submit that the challenger’s most glaring error is the claim “A God who is perfect does nothing except exist.” This would seem to reduce God to nothing more than a jellyfish – alive, perhaps, but showing few signs of it and simply existing. This seeks to reduce God’s infinite perfection to a limitation, when it is quite literally the opposite of any limitation. This attribute of infinite perfection does not constrain God, and to suggest that it leaves him essentially powerless – he simply “exists” – is, in my view, to get things precisely backwards.

I have seen this challenge in various permutations, but they almost always stem from a misunderstanding – intentional or otherwise – of the actual attributes of the God worshipped by Christians. Next time you confront something similar, it’s worth taking a moment to tease out the unspoken assumptions that are leading the skeptic astray.

“Ser bueno” no es suficiente para la salvación

Español

Por Al Serrato

El objetivo de la apologética cristiana es “defender” la fe, y el objetivo de la fe es proclamar las buenas nuevas de la salvación al mundo. Salvación, naturalmente, significa salvar, y una persona solo necesita ser salvada cuando está en peligro.

Pero pregúntale a mucha gente hoy en día en qué peligro se encuentra: puede que te digan que están preocupados por el estado de la economía o la inflación, o por el aumento de los índices de criminalidad en todo el país, o por las dificultades que puedan tener en casa. Es poco probable que agreguen que también están preocupados por el destino final de su alma, o que desearían poder estar seguros de que pasarán la eternidad en presencia de Dios en compañía de los que han amado aquí.

¿Por qué? ¿Por qué hay tanta gente hoy en día tan confiada en que su alma no necesita salvación? Aunque cada vez hay más ateos, la mayoría de la gente sigue reconociendo que hay un Dios que los creó a ellos y a todo lo que nos rodea. Sin embargo, aunque se hayan alejado de la fe que una vez conocieron, no parecen preocupados por cómo les juzgará Dios algún día. La mayoría de las veces, si se les presiona, el secularista moderno dará una variación de: “Mira, soy una buena persona, después de todo, y Dios me juzgará en consecuencia. No hay nada que me preocupe”.

Hay docenas de definiciones de “bueno”, pero para nuestros propósitos, vamos a suponer que la mayoría de la gente entiende “bueno” como algo parecido a “moralmente excelente, virtuoso o justo”. Es de suponer que Dios contará todas las acciones moralmente excelentes, virtuosas o justas que hayan hecho en su vida, y esto inclinará la “balanza de la justicia” para permitirnos la entrada al cielo.

Pero esta analogía, al reflexionar sobre ella, no ofrece mucha seguridad. Al fin y al cabo, una balanza solo se utiliza si hay algo que colocar en el otro lado, algo que haga contrapeso o mida uno de los lados. Si una acción “buena” inclina la balanza en una dirección, entonces no realizarla, o peor aún, actuar de forma decididamente no buena, mueve la aguja en la otra dirección. La mayoría de la gente estaría de acuerdo en que actuar de forma “egoísta”, es decir, tomar decisiones que sólo lo benefician a uno mismo y no a los demás en su vida, no es una forma “buena” de actuar. Pero el egoísmo forma parte de la condición humana. Los padres lo ven en sus hijos pequeños, y la mayoría de los padres intentan alejar a los niños del egoísmo para que tengan un comportamiento más altruista. A esto hay que añadir las veces que no nos limitamos a no hacer el bien, sino que hacemos el mal intencionadamente, sin importarnos el daño que nuestras acciones puedan causar a los demás. Visto desde esta perspectiva, tenemos un verdadero problema, porque Dios lo ve todo y lo sabe todo. Él vive eternamente y ve todo lo que hemos pensado o hecho; las cosas que podemos ver como en nuestro pasado lejano permanecen en su presente eterno. Para cualquiera que haga una evaluación clara y racional de la situación, hay motivos reales para preocuparse de que la balanza con la que se nos mide se incline rápidamente en nuestra contra.

Abordemos esto con un ejemplo moderno. Repetidos estudios nos dicen que un porcentaje cada vez mayor de la población estadounidense tiene sobrepeso u obesidad. Los expertos en salud advierten constantemente de las numerosas consecuencias negativas que puede acarrear el exceso de peso, que van desde un mayor riesgo de sufrir graves consecuencias para la salud a causa del Covid hasta diversos tipos de enfermedades y cánceres. Aunque algunos factores involuntarios pueden contribuir a la obesidad, este estilo de vida poco saludable aún tiene que ver con la elección repetida de comer en exceso. Sospecho que nadie empieza su vida queriendo inclinar la balanza en su contra eligiendo la gula como estilo de vida. Lo más probable es que el resultado final sea el producto de muchas pequeñas decisiones, tomadas repetidamente a lo largo del tiempo. De hecho, es difícil luchar contra la capacidad humana de autoengaño. Ignoramos la evidencia frente a nuestros ojos, y de la balanza, mientras seguimos sintiéndonos “bastante bien” con nosotros mismos y con las decisiones que tomamos. Nos aplaudimos a nosotros mismos por saltarnos el postre o empezar una dieta, mientras ignoramos la voluminosa cintura que muestra la dirección en la que se inclina la balanza.

Lo mismo ocurre, al parecer, con las cosas eternas. Nos aplaudimos a nosotros mismos por donar a la caridad, o por ser voluntarios en el comedor social. Nos damos una palmadita en la espalda cada vez que controlamos nuestro temperamento. Nos alabamos por nuestro sentido de la tolerancia y nuestro pensamiento iluminado y nos rodeamos de gente que siente y piensa igual. Al hacer esto, nos centramos solo en un lado de la balanza, olvidando recordar las muchas veces que nos quedamos cortos… o peor aún, que nos comportamos mal intencionadamente.

Confiar en nuestra capacidad para mantener la balanza inclinada a nuestro favor -en el lado de que lo “bueno” supere a lo malo- simplemente no tiene en cuenta cómo un Dios perfecto ve nuestro comportamiento. Al igual que la lucha contra la obesidad a través de la dieta y el ejercicio, la lucha es gradual. De hecho, podemos hacer muchas cosas buenas y dignas de alabanza. Pero al igual que el acusado en un tribunal terrenal, la fechoría que le ha llevado ante el tribunal no se pasa por alto solo porque el acusado pretende impresionar al juez con las muchas buenas acciones que ha realizado en su vida. El objetivo de la sentencia, al declararse culpable, es atribuir la consecuencia adecuada al mal comportamiento en cuestión. De nada servirá presentarse ante un Dios perfecto y pedirle que olvide nuestras fechorías porque también hemos hecho algo bueno en nuestra vida. ¿Cómo se puede impresionar a un juez que ha establecido la norma de la perfección y que Él mismo es perfecto en todos los aspectos imaginables?

La buena noticia, por supuesto, es que Aquel que hizo la balanza, y que hará el juicio, nos ha dado los medios para volver a equilibrar la balanza. Esto requiere primero que nos veamos a nosotros mismos con la suficiente claridad como para aceptar que no podemos alcanzar el estándar de perfección de Dios por nosotros mismos. Cuando Jesús cargó con nuestros pecados en la cruz hace dos mil años, nos proporcionó los medios para reconciliarnos con Dios, para ser “perfeccionados”, de modo que podamos estar preparados y ser dignos de estar en presencia de un ser perfecto. Es Jesús quien hace la obra de la salvación, no nosotros y nuestros escasos esfuerzos por ser “buenos”.

Intentar hacer el bien es un objetivo loable. Lamentablemente, hoy en día, con demasiada frecuencia, escasea. Pero hacer el “bien” no va a ser suficiente cuando llegue ese día, como llegará para cada uno de nosotros, en que nos encontremos con nuestro Hacedor.

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato obtuvo su título de abogado en la Universidad de California en Berkeley en 1985. Comenzó su carrera como agente especial del FBI antes de convertirse en fiscal en California, donde sigue trabajando. Una introducción a las obras de C. S. Lewis despertó su interés por la Apologética, que ha seguido durante las últimas tres décadas. Comenzó a escribir Apologética con J. Warner Wallace y Pleaseconvinceme.com.

Traducido por Jennifer Chavez

Editado por Monica Pirateque

September 15, 2022/by Guest

Why The Bible Depicts God As Jealous

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

In my last post, I tried to make the case that God neither “needs” nor “demands” our praise. I acknowledged that he does, however, expect it, because praise naturally flows to a perfect being. But, the skeptic may counter, doesn’t the Bible describe God as “jealous?” Don’t the Ten Commandments include prohibitions on having “other gods” as well as threats of punishment for those guilty of “iniquity?” Does this not, in fact, amount to God instructing us to worship him, and explaining how angry he will become if we don’t?

We come back to the question – why would a perfect being demand worship?”

These are good questions, and they deserve an answer. But as we embark upon an answer, it’s worth noting that the questions themselves reveal some presuppositions commonly held by nonbelievers. These preconceived notions must first be teased out and assessed, because they explain, in the final analysis, why such a person cannot make sense of the Biblical model for right relationship with God.

We need to fight the temptation to treat God as if he is our equal. He is not. As the creator of this universe and everything in it, including us, he has the absolute right to do what he wants with his creation. We have no more basis to complain than would a computer animation to the computer programmer, or to use a more ancient example, the pot to the potter. This may be an unpleasant thought, especially for Americans steeped in the traditions of liberty and equality. But equality refers to the relationship between people, not the relationship between God and his creation. A child does not dictate to his parent what fairness is. Nor does the robot tell its human supervisor to take his place on the assembly line. The skeptic’s persistence in thinking that a being capable of thinking this universe into existence somehow must provide a satisfactory answer to him, or justify the way he “did” creation, is leading him to erroneous conclusions.

We also need to bear in mind that God does not experience emotions like humans do. While he is “personal,” and while he inspired the Biblical writers who used emotional imagery, he is not a histrionic drama queen ready to throw tantrums. Selectively quoting Scripture to paint such a picture distorts what the Bible teaches about God’s true nature. Negative emotion, after all, is a characteristic of a limited being that has fears, wants and desires. It is a failing. More precisely, negative emotions like jealousy, lust and greed are perversions of the good. Like evil generally, base emotions are a departure from the standard of goodness that God embodies. A limitless, timeless God doesn’t “hope” for a good outcome, or “fear” that he will not “get the girl” or seethe with “envy” against a rival. He has no needs, lacks nothing, and has no rivals. He is all good. So, why then did God inspire the Biblical authors to make use of emotional language? Probably for the same reason that I would speak one way to adults in a courtroom setting and quite another way if I’m talking to children at a daycare center. The style and content of the conversation is tailored to the needs and capabilities of the audience. Using emotional language to human beings motivated by emotion conveys God’s message much more vibrantly than simply setting forth instructions.

Because God is not emotional in the way that human beings are, the Biblical references to jealousy, like all Biblical texts, must be taken in context. The usual connotation of “jealousy” is quite negative. It conjures up images of a jilted boyfriend stalking his girlfriend as he suspects her of infidelity. But the actual definition is more varied; under the subheading “biblical” the definition includes: “intolerant of unfaithfulness or rivalry.” As I argued in the previous post, God’s self-assessment is accurate. He has every right to expect worship from his creation, because praise and worship are what perfection merit. Equally, he knows the harm it does us when we worship a lie as opposed to the truth. It is, then, an expression of love for him to desire that we return to right relationship with him.

Consider an analogy. A town doctor spends years earning the trust of his patients. One day he learns that an untrained quack has begun tending to his patients, pretending to be him, and doing much harm with his medications and treatments. The doctor loves his patients and wants what is best for them. How, then, should the doctor react? I submit that anger and jealousy – an intolerance of the harmful “rivalry” – would be an appropriate response. So too with God. He loves us enough to warn us against the danger we face when we persist in our rebellion against him. He loves us enough to express anger when we turn away.

In sum, the skeptic wants to claim equality with God and expect God to view things the same way. He does not want to give God the love and respect to which he is entitled, by virtue of having created us and giving us the opportunity to live eternally with him. And he wants God to accept this disrespect as appropriate. But God, by his nature, will also demand the response to which he is entitled. Think of it this way. Why does a judge in an earthly courtroom demand respect? Why does he have a bailiff ready to establish order if a heckler decides to interfere? If a human judge can demand that to which the law entitles him, how much more can the ultimate judge, the creator of all that there is, demand respect from his creation? After all, just as we find on Earth, we are indeed subject to the law of the “governing authority” – the creator of all things – whether we like it or not. And what does proper respect look like? Well, for the judge it means being addressed with a proper tone of voice, proper language and proper behavior. But what about for the ultimate judge? What does a perfect being deserve? Simply this: to be recognized accurately for what he is. And when we do that, we see that worship and praise are the appropriate way of responding to Him.

The point of this excursion has been to show that there is a rational way to reconcile God’s goodness and perfection, on the one hand, with the Biblical references to God’s “jealousy,” anger and expectation of worship, on the other. While on the surface these things may seem inconsistent, on deeper reflection a fuller picture of God begins to emerge. For this, we are indebted not just to the Biblical writers but to the pillars of Christian philosophy, giants such as Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas.

Somehow, though, I doubt the skeptic will accept their views, or these. Until the skeptic begins to alter his assessment of the way things really are, he is likely to go on believing in nothing.

Why God Does Not Need Praise

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Christians claim that God is a perfect Being. By perfect, of course, we mean that God has every possible attribute in an infinite and complete way. In other words, God possesses everything, lacks nothing and needs…nothing. Why then, the skeptic will often counter, does this Being that needs nothing need praise? Doesn’t God demand that we praise and worship Him? A perfect being shouldn’t want for anything, including the worship of its creation. Right?

The question can be restated in the form of an argument denying that the God of the Bible is perfect. It would go like this:

• A perfect being has no needs and no wants.
• The God of the Bible needs and wants praise and worship.
• Therefore, the God of the Bible is not perfect.

Of course, a non-perfect “God” is a contradiction. This would lead to one of two conclusions: either God does not actually exist or the real God is not the God of the Bible. Either way, the Christian loses.

The value in restating the question lies in the clarification it brings to the skeptic’s assumptions. The syllogism set forth is logical. If in fact the God of the Bible needs and wants praise and worship, he could not rightly be viewed as perfect. The problem with the challenge is not the implied logic; no, the problem is that the assumption about God – that he both needs and desires praise – is false. The God of the Bible has no such desire. Instead, because he is the perfect Being, God rightly expects praise and worship from us lesser, imperfect beings, his creation.

To see why, one must first spend a moment considering what “praise” and “worship” entail. To “praise” is to express approval or admiration. It derives from the verb “to prize,” or in other words, to highly value something. To “worship” derives from “worth” and means to revere or to adore. To “revere” means to regard with awe, an overwhelming feeling of fear or admiration produced by that which is grand, sublime or extremely powerful. These concepts all boil down to the same basic thought: praise and worship are a recognition and expression of awe in the presence of something great.

In considering praise and worship, two things become apparent:

1) To be meaningful, praise and worship must be freely given. They are the human mind’s natural response to witnessing or experiencing something marvelous or amazing. You simply cannot force someone to experience such feelings. As is true of love, such feelings cannot be the result of coercion, for to coerce someone by threat, or by promise of reward, to give praise or to worship would deprive those things of any value or of meaning. One cannot be forced to admire or to feel awe.

2) Praise flows naturally from a recognition of greatness. Millions of people tune into the Olympics to marvel at the great skill and ability on display by the athletes in the arena. While the viewers may not recognize it, while they watch they no doubt feel a sense of awe at what they are witnessing. We have a term for this natural human response: it’s call hero-worship and just about everyone experiences it. From early childhood, most people will gravitate to someone who embodies for them qualities, capacities, or abilities that they admire and esteem. This human response occurs even if the viewer refuses to convey praise to the person they are watching, or where they actually dislike what is on display. For example, a viewer may dislike the Blue Angels for being militaristic, but contemplating the great skill required to control high performance aircraft travelling inches apart at near supersonic speeds would still result in a feeling of awe; the performance of the pilots is no small feat. The mastery of self and jet and the ability to perform generate awe. Similarly, some fans may dislike overpaid baseball players yet still admire the ability required to hit a curving ball travelling toward the batter at 90 miles per hour. In both cases, the viewer can refuse to give praise but the recognition of “greatness” in the performance will evoke a feeling of admiration.

Recognizing what praise and worship involve, it is apparent that no person – certainly not a perfect one – would demand it. It simply does not work this way. Review the pages of the Bible, and you will see that God does not demand praise and worship to fulfill some need of His. Where those concepts are discussed, they are the words and exhortations of other people talking about God. But God does expect our worship and praise. Of course He does, for that is indeed what we should feel when we contemplate Him.

This point bears emphasis. God knows the way things really are. His self-assessment of his infinite perfection is accurate. Such perfection is worthy of praise and awe and reverence from those lesser, limited being which he created. For God to think otherwise would not be humility, but error. Having no limitations, God rightly expects that we view him in the correct way, the only way that conforms to reality. Consequently, whatever attributes a person finds worthy of praise, God possesses these in infinite measure. Getting one’s mind around the immensity of a perfect God – of the utter overwhelming greatness that he possesses – one would necessarily be overcome with awe, fear and reverence. Whether we “like” Him or rebel against Him, our urge to praise and worship Him flow naturally from a recognition of His infinite greatness. If we could see God clearly, without our innate urge to selfishness and rebellion, we would naturally feel infinite “hero worship” for the greatest of all possible beings.

Now add to this the fact that God created us from nothing. He offers us the opportunity for union with Him, the chance to partake in His eternal loving relationship. When we begin to think deeply about the notion of what living eternally in the presence of perfection will be like, we will naturally, as a recognition of the proper order of things, gush praise and worship, and love. This is what the Bible is capturing when it speaks of the need – our need – to give praise and worship to God.

For those looking in from the outside, this will make little sense. They will mock our rituals of prayer, worship and adoration as primitive things, forced upon us by a jealous and angry god. For they do not yet understand. They have closed their minds to Godly things. Think of it this way: a person encounters a scuba diver for the first time. Watching him ascend a set number of feet and then stop for a period may seem quaint. The observer might imagine that the diver is saying prayers to the gods or partaking in some other primitive ritual. But the diver knows better. Understanding the workings of nature – that rising too quickly will result in that dangerous condition known as the bends – he periodically stops his ascent to comply with the natural order of things. It may seem like silly ritual to the uninformed, but to one with actual knowledge of the way things really are, it is indispensable. It is something he must do to remain in sync with the natural order of things.

So too with eternal matters. While our prayers and beliefs and rituals may seem foolish to the secular world, they are in fact a proper recognition of the “worth”ship of God. We bend our knees voluntarily to His sublime excellence, for it too is the natural order of things.

Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator

Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Christians believe that God is an infinite being who has always existed. But what “evidence” can the theist put forth in support of this claim? This is a common challenge raised by the skeptic.

When a person asks for “evidence,” the usual response is to look for things like witness statements, or documents or fingerprints left at a scene. Since no one has “evidence” relating to things outside our universe, or to a being who preceded the Big Bang, it’s a safe bet, they think, that the Christian apologist can’t come up with any “evidence.” Or is it?

Teasing out the unspoken premise in the question highlights what is at play: the challenger assumes that it is only through physical or testimonial “evidence” that we can know things. But this is simply not true. While evidence and inferences from evidence are valid ways of determining what is true, they are not the exclusive ways. For example, when I know that no circle is also a square, where is the evidence for that? Or that A = C, when told that A = B and B = C? Or that rape is always wrong. These types of knowledge – based on logic and reason or on a basic moral sense – are part of the normal functioning of every human mind. Like a computer running software, our minds come equipped with certain basic programs, such as the ability to acquire and use language. Similarly, we are born with an appreciation of game-playing and fairness. Watch a child develop and you will see these subprograms at work. You may teach them how to play the game and what’s considered fair or foul, but they already intuitively understand the importance of the game and the rules.

The mind has an additional “pre-loaded” capability that helps us better understand where we came from and who created us: the ability to conceptualize, to make sense of patterns by grouping things into categories. For example, we don’t need an exhaustive list of possible ”chairs” or ”tables” to know whether a particular item can serve in that capacity. To know if something new qualifies as ”food,” we needn’t refer to a list but can instead ask questions, such as whether the item is edible and able to provide nourishment. An exotic fruit will pass that test but an ashtray will not. When we reflect on these conceptions, we can derive actual knowledge, even in the absence of traditional “evidence.” By realizing what a square is, we “know” that a circle can never be one. By knowing that people have a right to the integrity of their bodies, we know that rape – which violates that right – is always wrong. By employing logic, we know that A = C when A and C are both equal to B.

What does this have to do with God’s origins? Just this: it is by conceptualizing what is meant by God that we can determine – that we can know – certain important things about him. When we think of God, what exactly are we thinking about? We may of course disagree on specifics, but to qualify as ”God,” we must be referring to that ultimate omnipotent being that possesses and embodies infinite perfection. Well, the skeptic protests, why does that require existence? I can imagine a unicorn but that doesn’t mean I could ever find one.

This objection helps focus the inquiry, because it requires us to think more deeply. When we think of a unicorn, we are thinking of a white horse-like animal with a horn protruding from its forehead. Such a being may once have existed or may exist sometime in the future or may never exist at all. There is nothing about the conception of a “unicorn” that requires it to actually exist; the only requirement is that if such an animal did exist, it would have the noted attributes.

But when we get back to the conception of God, what is it that we have in mind? How do we best put words to the concept of the ultimate being, a being so great that it is simply not possible to conceive of anything greater? God embodies infinite perfections. Such a being, to qualify as ”God” within our minds, must necessarily exist. If you are contemplating two beings with similar attributes and one possesses the attribute of necessary existence and the other does not, it is readily apparent that the former is the greater being. Unless we’re conceiving within our minds this image of God, we have not yet actually begun to think about God but are instead thinking of something lesser.

Anselm of Canterbury is credited with first developing this argument, the ontological argument, ten centuries ago. When you follow where reason leads in conceptualizing what God entails, you realize that he must be an infinite being who necessarily exists. He was not created. He never came into being, and will never cease existing. All that there is, or was, or ever will be is contingent him upon him for existence, while he is complete in and of himself, contingent upon nothing. This is the only rational conclusion that can be drawn from the creation of something from nothing; it is where the “evidence” leads.

That God is the source of this universe, and all that is in it, is a product of recognizing that all created things had a preceding cause, sufficient to bring them into existence. There are no known exceptions and no reason to suspect that there are any exceptions. Moving to the very beginning of the space/time continuum we occupy, there must be a source adequate to the task of creating it. Two possibilities exist: the creator of the universe was himself created, and therefore had a beginning; or he was infinite, having no beginning. If you choose the former, you haven’t gone far enough in your reasoning because the only way for a being to qualify as “God” is to possess infinite perfection. You need to keep moving back in time to frame in your mind that original being, the one who was not himself created.

The skeptic will usually persist in his challenge: why doesn’t your god need a cause? But again, to ask the question betrays the mistake in reasoning of the questioner. The error is in the premise: all things do not need a creator, only created things, or more specifically this universe and all that it encompasses. Something outside of the universe, something that is the source of all things, does not need to be created. In fact, reason leads us in the opposite direction. Since things don’t create themselves, there must be, at the very beginning, a being who always existed, who was never created and never in need of anything.

Seen in this light, the question becomes nonsensical, translating into: who created the uncreated being, or who caused the being which needed no cause? It is no different than asking what time it is on the moon. The time of day is a function of where on earth a person is; it is nonsensical when applied off planet.

Of course, none of this proves that God is the triune God of the Bible, who by the way does provide witness testimony of his eternal nature. But the skeptic will never begin to consider the truth claims of Christianity if he remains stuck doubting the existence of that God.

Is It Possible To Break Through Apathy?

Apologetics for Parents, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

The biggest obstacle to most apologetics efforts is apathy. While there are indeed some ardent atheists, usually the ones who take the time to write a response to posts like these, by and large the response of the average skeptic is to figuratively throw up their hands. They usually don’t take the time to research and consider a specific truth claim that is being made, or to counter some argument with evidence to show that an argument is false or mistaken. Nor do they try to convince you that their worldview is in fact true. Instead, most skeptics I’ve dealt with have developed a comfort level regarding the “unknowability” of ultimate things. They often argue that the fact that people disagree about such things – that a range of people have differing views on the subject- is itself evidence that no one can ever know whether there is a God, what He is about, or most importantly, what He may want of us. And so, they often don’t bother to try to investigate these things for themselves.

But if the Christian worldview is correct, such apathy is itself hazardous to one’s spiritual health. Recently, I tried to make this case in a conversation with a skeptic. It went something like this:

“Let’s say this was 70 years ago, and when I saw you, you were chain smoking cigarettes with your children always nearby. I know where medical science is headed, so I tell you that you are hurting yourself, and your kids. You respond that no one can really know such things; after all, you can point to doctors who advertise cigarettes and smoke them themselves, and you feel fine when you smoke. I point to other doctors who think that it’s really bad for you. You respond, ‘See, it’s a tie, so stop bothering me. Each person believes what they were raised to believe, or what they want to believe.”

“Do you see,” I asked, “that the conflict between the doctors should not lead you to conclude that neither is right, or that the answer is not knowable? As a friend, should I keep trying to bring you back to the truth about cigarettes, or should I let you persist in believing something that is, in the end, hurting you and your loved ones?”

My friend’s response was not unexpected. It went like this:

“Have you ever noticed how so many things are bad or wrong only at certain points in a cycle? Eat eggs, don’t eat eggs; give your kids soy, soy is bad; babies should sleep on their backs, no their stomachs, no their sides, no their backs etc., etc. When my daughter was born I would put her on her back to sleep and when I left the room my mother would put her on her side and when my mother left the room my grandmother would put her on her stomach. Over time the answer comes full circle. Why go around and around with it? What I am saying is not just throw up your hands and quit; what I am saying is that I do what feels right to me and that is the best I can do. Sometimes I listen to friends (and doctors) and sometimes I don’t. I think the ‘answer’ to many of these things is unknowable.”

Fair enough. Some things are unknowable, and for some things, it doesn’t really matter. But that of course is the point of being thoughtful: deciding which is which. So, I conceded that for some things, the right answer might be “it doesn’t matter.” For example, a child might be equally safe on her side or her back. Eggs or soy might be good for you or bad, depending on your health and how much you eat.

But for other things – like smoking – it will never “come back around.” Science will never say that smoking is good. It might say that it won’t necessarily kill you, but not that it will “balance your humours” like they said 200 years ago.”

“This analogy to smoking,” I continued, “is just one of many possible examples of the way consequences are built into the nature of reality. Take another example: if I embark upon a life of crime or drug addiction, I will eventually reap what I sow and the place I find myself might not be pleasant. We have the ability to foresee possible consequences through the use of our minds and imaginations. Is it really that much of a stretch to consider that this life will end at some point and to give some thought to what may await? Take my drugs example one step further – since you’re young and healthy, you might be able to abuse drugs for quite some time without being harmed. You might presently be indifferent to whether using drugs is a good or bad idea. But how smart a move would it be for you to say that you really don’t care what effect it will have on you in twenty years? Looking down the road to the consequence of our choices is something we all really need to do.”

“So,” I concluded, “the trick is, which is this? Are questions of eternal life like laying a child on her side, or are they more like smoking with my kids in the room or abusing drugs? I hope you see the answer matters. If you were smoking ten hours a day with your kids present, you would be harming them. Getting the right answer on that would matter. Getting the right answer on your relationship with God also matters, both to you and to the people you influence.”

I don’t think I persuaded her. As with smoking, not everyone bothers to read the warning label.

“Being Good” Isn’t Enough For Salvation

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

The point of Christian apologetics is to “defend” the faith, and the point of the faith is to proclaim the good news of salvation to the world. Salvation, naturally enough, means saving, and a person only needs saving when he is in some peril. But ask many people today what peril they are in: they may tell you they’re worried about the state of the economy or inflation, or about the rising crime rates across the country, or about difficulties they might be having at home. It’s doubtful that they will throw in that they’re also concerned about the ultimate destiny of their soul, or that they wish they could be sure that they will spend eternity in God’s presence in the company of those they have loved here.

Why is that? Why are so many people today so confident that their soul does not need salvation? Though there are an increasing number of atheists, most people still recognize that there is a God who created them and all there is around us. Nonetheless, though fallen away from the faith they once knew, they do not seem worried about how God will one day judge them. Most often, if pressed, the modern secularist will provide a variation of: “Look, I’m a good person, after all, and God will judge me accordingly. There’s nothing for me to be worried about.”

There are dozens of definitions of “good” but for our purposes, let’s assume that most people mean “good” as something along the lines of “morally excellent, virtuous or righteous.” God presumably will tally all the morally excellent, virtuous or righteous deeds they have done in their lives, and this will tip the “scales of justice” in favor of entry into heaven.

But this analogy, upon reflection, actually provides scant reassurance. After all, a scale is only used if there is something to be placed on the other side, something against which the one side is weighed or measured. If a “good“ deed tips the balance in one direction, then failing to perform such a deed, or worse yet acting in ways that are decidedly not good, moves the needle in the other direction. Most people would agree that acting in a “selfish“ manner, i.e. making decisions that benefit only oneself and not the others in one‘s life, is not a “good“ way to act. But selfishness is part of the human condition. Parents see it in their young children, and most parents try to move children away from selfishness into more altruistic types of behavior. Add to that the times that we are not simply failing to do good but are intentionally doing wrong, without caring about the harm our actions may bring to others. Seen from this perspective, we have a real problem, for God is all-seeing and all-knowing. He lives eternally and sees all that we have ever thought or done; the things we may view as in our distant past remain in his eternal present. For anyone engaging in a clear-eyed and rational assessment of the situation, there is real cause to be concerned that the scale upon which we are being measured will quickly tip against us.

Let’s approach this with a modern example. Repeated studies tell us that an increasing percentage of the American population is overweight or obese. Health experts consistently warn of the many negative consequences that can attach to excessive weight, ranging from greater risk of serious health consequences from Covid to various types of illnesses and cancers. While some involuntary factors may contribute to obesity, this unhealthy lifestyle does still involve the repeated choice to eat to excess. I suspect no one starts out in life wanting to tip the scales against himself by choosing gluttony as a lifestyle. More likely, the end result is the product of many small decisions, played out repeatedly over the course of time. Indeed, it is difficult to fight the human capacity for self-deception. We ignore the evidence of our eyes, and of the scale, as we continue to feel “pretty good” about ourselves and the choices we make. We applaud ourselves for skipping dessert or starting a diet, all the while ignoring the bulging beltline that displays the direction in which the scale is tilting.

So too, it seems, with eternal things. We applaud ourselves for donating to charity, or volunteering at the soup kitchen. We give ourselves a pat on the back for each time we keep our temper in check. We laud ourselves for our sense of tolerance and enlightened thinking and surround ourselves with people who feel and think the same. In so doing, we focus only on the one side of the scale, neglecting to remember the many times we fell short of the mark…or worse, engaged in intentional bad behavior.

Banking on our ability to keep the scale tipped in our favor – on the side of “good” outweighing bad – simply fails to consider how a perfect God views our behavior. Like battling obesity through diet and exercise, the struggle is incremental. We may in fact do much that is good and worthy of praise. But like the defendant in an earthly court, the misdeed that has brought him before the court isn’t ignored when the defendant seeks to impress the judge with the many good deeds he has performed in his life. The point of the sentencing, on a finding of guilt, is to attach the appropriate consequence to the misbehavior in question. Standing before a perfect God and asking him to forget our misdeeds because we also happened to have done some good in our lives will be similarly unavailing. How does one go about impressing a judge who has both set the standard of perfection and is Himself perfect in every conceivable way?

The good news of course is that the One who made the scale, and who will do the judging, has given us the means to put the scale back in balance. This first requires us to see ourselves clearly enough to accept that we cannot meet God’s standard of perfection on our own. When Jesus took our sins upon himself on that cross two thousand years ago, he provided the means for us to become reconciled with God, to be “perfected” so that we can be ready and worthy to stand in the presence of a perfect being. It is Jesus who does the work of salvation, not us and our meager efforts at being “good.”

Trying to do good is a laudable goal. Sadly, too often today it is in short supply. But doing “good” isn’t going to be enough when that someday comes, as it will for each of us, that we meet our Maker.

Overcoming Apathy and the Straw Man Argument

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

As Christians, we are told to always be ready to give an answer for our faith. But for many of us, the opportunity seldom arises. In fact, by and large, it seems we are faced with apathy and indifference. Struggling to get past this with someone – to get them to actually think about the Christian message – requires the apologist to first deal with the source of the apathy.

One common source, in my experience, is what can be called the Santa Factor. This is the belief that Christians are simply deluding themselves when they believe in a God who will “deliver presents” to them when they die. Talking to skeptics about the rewards God has in store for those who place their trust in Him has little impact. It seems as real to them as the prospect of Santa leaving presents under their tree.

I had this confirmed recently in a conversation with an unbeliever. Seeing her indifference, I told her I felt like I was trying to talk to her about what presents she was hoping for from Santa, while she was just hanging back, secretly laughing at the absurdity of the whole concept. “It’s like I’m trying to list the reasons that there is a North Pole and flying reindeer,” I said, “and you are just politely nodding and wondering why so many people believe this … nonsense.” I asked her whether that was close to what she thought, and her reply was a candid “yes.” She thought the analogy to Santa was a perfect one, she said, one that captured her feelings in a very precise way.

Once this mindset is made clear, it’s easy to understand why my arguments gain no traction. Despite the soundness of the logic used in building my case for Christianity, to the unbeliever, I might as well be trying to explain how elves could conceivably build toys or how reindeer might possess gravity-altering organs. Since there are many reasons to believe that there is no Santa, and no reasons to believe the contrary, that conversation ends before it begins.

I have, as yet, found no sure-fire way to overcome this Santa Factor. I’d be interested to hear from any apologists who have. I do believe there is a necessary first step, however, and that is to show the skeptic that the Santa Factor is actually a variant of the “straw man” fallacy. Setting up a straw man involves defining the other side’s argument in an unfair or misleading way, and then concluding that you have the better argument when you knock down this “straw man.” When skeptics think of Christianity, they often picture a combination of strange images – Father Time with his flowing white beard, angels dancing on the heads of pins, virgin births, cannibalism, and strange “miracles.” A jumble of such images leaves the skeptic feeling comfortable rejecting the whole of Christianity as based on primitive superstitions and beliefs. Like the Santa myth, these beliefs might bring some comfort, and they’re great for tradition and ritual, but they are not really true. It’s all just a myth, based largely on “faith,” which translates roughly in their view to “wishful thinking.”

So, with that in mind, let’s take a closer look at the analogy. Santa, of course, is the supposed source of the gifts found under Christmas trees every Christmas morning. This explanation works for small children – giving them a wonderful period of anticipation and their parents a lever for a bit of behavior modification as kids struggle to remain on the “nice” list – but a moment’s reflection as a child matures would reveal that no one person could possibly build and deliver an endless stream of worldwide gifts. Not to mention keeping straight who gets what.

But considering the issue more critically, discovering that there is no Santa is not cause for concluding that there are no gifts under the tree, or that they appeared on their own. No, logic dictates that someone put the gifts there, someone with knowledge of the child, access to the home, and knowledge of the child’s wish list.

We too have “presents under our tree” that cry out for explanation. After all, we live in a universe, and on a planet, that are fine-tuned to support life. Life emerged on this planet at some point in the past and some of that life became conscious and intelligent. With that consciousness and intelligence, we can perceive and appreciate beauty and can argue about right and wrong, assuming as we do that there is a thing called morality that exists and should guide us. All these things need to be explained, and blithely concluding that God can’t be that explanation is not a rational move. Instead, the skeptic should embark upon an examination of the possible alternatives available through the use of thought and reason. Which worldview has a better explanation for all of this? Atheistic naturalism may have made sense in Darwin’s day when the universe was thought to be infinite in duration and DNA was not even suspected as the reason life displays such ordered variation. But today? Is it really plausible to assume that all the magnificence we see around us just happened on its own, with no guiding hand?

Consider: astrophysicists tell us that the universe arose from nothing 14 billion years ago. This means the universe, and time itself began to exist. But since all things that come into being require an adequate source, logic supports the conclusion that an intelligent, powerful, and transcendent being set it all in motion. Biologists today seek to make sense of the tremendous body of information that is encoded in DNA. The billions of lines of what is akin to computer code direct the construction of all life on this planet and understanding how to work with it has brought remarkable benefits to humanity. But wherever we find information, we must, of course, conclude that an intelligent source is at work. There are countless other questions that need an answer: how can the atheist explain the origin of life? If even the simplest form of cellular life contains millions of lines of DNA code, believing that it magically assembled itself from inert matter is, well, just as difficult to swallow as Santa making it down the chimney. The list of questions continues: from where does human intelligence come? How is it that inert matter became conscious and self-aware? Why do we have free will? If the universe determines all outcomes, as the secularist believes, then the free will we all intuitively recognize we possess is simply an illusion.

In the end, it really does take more blind – uncritical -faith to accept the secular view. The Christian worldview, by contrast, holds that an infinite, personal, and loving God created this universe, and us, for a purpose, and then revealed Himself to us in history. He did this in a way that provided evidence, both from the study of nature and from the personal testimony of witnesses who were so sure of what they saw and experienced – the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth – that they suffered martyrdom rather than deny it. (Contrasting the two worldviews in detail is beyond the scope of this post, but the case is well made here and here.)

Will this overcome the Santa Factor? It should if the skeptic really gives it a fair hearing. But that of course depends on the skeptic and how open he is to seeing through his little game of make-believe.

Tag Archive for: Al Serrato

A Reflection on Giving Thanks

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Escaping to Pandora

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is a Perfect Being Possible?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

“Ser bueno” no es suficiente para la salvación

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Why The Bible Depicts God As Jealous

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Why God Does Not Need Praise

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is It Possible To Break Through Apathy?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

“Being Good” Isn’t Enough For Salvation

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Overcoming Apathy and the Straw Man Argument

Recommended resources related to the topic:

QUICK LINKS

FEATURED RESOURCES

SUPPORT CROSSEXAMINED