Tag Archive for: apologetics

14 Ways I Teach Apologetics to My 5-Year-Olds

14 Ways I Teach Apologetics to My 5-Year-Olds

By Natasha Crain

Recently, several people have asked me, “How do you actually do this apologetics stuff at home? How do you talk to your kids about these topics?”

When I get the question, the person asking usually looks a bit baffled, as if they are asking how I build rockets.

The word apologetics sounds serious, I guess. A lot of people assume teaching their kids apologetics would involve some kind of formal event: Dad comes home from work with his suit and briefcase, loosens the tie (only slightly), then sternly gathers the children and announces, “Kids, it’s time to talk about…apologetics.”

All kidding aside, it doesn’t have to be like that at all! Ideally, we should incorporate apologetics into the way we teach our kids about Christianity. Today I want to give you 14 examples of how I do that with my 5-year-old twins. Obviously, the details of how I communicate with them are age-specific, but I hope this will give you an idea of how the foundation of apologetics fits right into our regular Bible study time.

There are three things to note about these examples:

  • We do our best to have a nightly Bible time with the kids. That’s when these discussions take place. If you don’t yet have a “God time” set aside for your family, consider how you might do that.
  • The starting point for doing any of this is having a knowledge of apologetics yourself. When you become familiar with the common challenges to Christianity, you’ll naturally start tailoring many of your discussions with your kids to address certain points. The first step in teaching your kids is simply teaching yourself.
  • No 5-year-old will be prepared to make a case for and defend their faith based on the examples you’ll see below. That’s not the point. Just as you have to learn basic addition before you someday learn calculus, these concepts are foundational.

Here are 14 examples of teaching young kids apologetics:

  1. We frequently remind the kids that God has revealed Himself to people in TWO ways: through the Bible and through the world around us. It’s easy to slip this into everyday conversation when you make observations about the world around you!

Apologetics foundation: Makes kids aware that “natural theology” (what we can learn about God from nature) is an important part of God’s revelation. Since key arguments for God’s existence take place at this level (e.g., cosmological, design and moral arguments), thinking this way is good preparation.

  1. We often say that “without God, there would be nothing” to emphasize that God is the ultimate cause of everything. My daughter asked this week why we say this if we can get things like pumpkins at the grocery store. I asked her where the grocery store came from. She said people built it. I asked where they got the building materials. She saw where that was going and said, “Eventually, you keep going backward until things can’t just create themselves.” Exactly.

Apologetics foundation: This is one step toward the cosmological argument (God is the first cause of everything).

  1. We sometimes use our Bible time to study age-appropriate space books. This helps emphasize the idea that we can learn about God from the world around us (point 1). We discuss how huge the universe is and ask what we could know about the creator of it all even if we didn’t have a Bible (the cause of the universe must be outside of space and time, enormously powerful and able to choose to create).

Apologetics foundation: This is also a step toward the cosmological argument – God is the first cause, and we can know things about Him based on what He has made. Studying space books as part of Bible time also teaches kids that God and science are NOT at odds, as the world around them will claim.

  1. We talk about how amazing our Earth is for life and compare it to the other planets they are learning about in our solar system. For example, they understand that planets closer to the sun would be too hot for life and planets farther away would be too cold. We explain that God created Earth perfectly for life. We’ve introduced the idea that some people think it happened by “chance,” and how Christians instead believe it’s God’s design.

Apologetics foundation: This is a basic background for the fine-tuning argument.

  1. We’ve discussed how parents don’t have to teach their kids every single rule about doing the right thing. We throw out all kinds of scenarios and ask them what the right thing to do is. They get it right, and we ask how they knew that if we never told them what to do. Then we talk about how other people know the same right thing to do without being told. How does everyone know what’s good and bad? Because God has put those rules in our heart.

Apologetics foundation: This is a basic background for the moral argument.

  1. When we talk about people who don’t believe in God, we emphasize that they too can behave nicely – sometimes even more nicely than Christians! We explain that God placed his guide for what’s good and bad in every heart, whether a person believes in Him or not.

Apologetics foundation: This is a clarification to the moral argument (one a lot of adults still need to understand!).

  1. We’ve read through the World Vision Children’s Bible, which has a (true) story about world suffering after every few pages. Through this, our kids have encountered the reality of natural evil (hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc.) and moral evil (the suffering inflicted by wars, corruption, and greed). This led to weeks of conversations about the difference between natural and moral evil, and the fact that the problem of evil is one of the most difficult questions for humans to deal with.

Apologetics foundation: The problem of evil and suffering is one of the most significant challenges to Christianity. Rather than hiding it from our kids, we want them to grow up facing it directly and thinking through the difficulties. We talked at length about each story of suffering and why God may have allowed it to be part of our world.

  1. Our conversations from the World Vision Bible (see prior point) led us to the topic of free will, and how our free will can result in moral evil. My husband and I pretended to be robots that the kids created and said over and over (robotically), “I love you.” This (admittedly cheesy) act demonstrated that free will is necessary for us to genuinely love God. God didn’t just want robots. But that free will can be used to also make bad choices, which leads to much suffering.

Apologetics foundation: This helps explain the concept of free will, which is an important part of the response to the problem of evil.

  1. When our kids ask questions that no Christian has a definitive answer for, I make it a point to acknowledge that 1) the Bible doesn’t tell us everything we wish we knew, 2) I would like to know the answer myself, and 3) some people don’t believe in God because of that question (if applicable). For example, my son has asked quite a bit why God doesn’t show Himself more. I’ve told him this is my number one question about God! I go on to point out that some people say, “God seems to be way too hidden, so He must not exist.”

Apologetics foundation: When we acknowledge these points, we help set our kids’ expectations about faith – for example, there are some answers we will never have. It additionally helps them to understand why others believe the way they do.

  1. We have a night per week where there is no Bible story or lesson planned, and we just discuss whatever questions they have. If you do nothing else listed here, DO THIS. Start right where your kids already have questions.

Apologetics foundation: Setting aside time for questions each week teaches kids that their questions are important and that mom and dad value the opportunity to answer those questions.

  1. We’ve asked the kids, “Why should we believe what the Bible says? These stories about Jesus are from 2,000 years ago! How do you know the writers didn’t make up stories – like a Curious George book – and we believe it for no reason?” While a detailed discussion of the reliability of New Testament manuscripts is beyond them at this point, we’ve talked about the difference between authors intending to write fiction vs. non-fiction, how the New Testament writers wanted to carefully describe Jesus’ life, and how most of the disciples ended up being willing to die for what they said was true (we explained how they wouldn’t be willing to die for what they knew was a lie).

Apologetics foundation: This gets kids thinking about how we can know the Bible is trustworthy and lets them know there are good reasons to rely on God’s Word.

  1. I throw out statements that I hear atheists make to introduce them to other people’s thinking and respond accordingly. For example, when talking about the resurrection, I’ve roleplayed a non-believer and said, “I don’t believe the resurrection happened because I know dead people don’t come back to life!” (an “argument” I hear frequently). Then we talk about how no one naturally comes back to life. We explain that Christians believe Jesus was only able to come back to life because God exists and can work outside of how things normally function.

Apologetics foundation: This clarifies the nature and uniqueness of Jesus’ resurrection.

  1. When talking about Jesus’ miracles, we are sure to emphasize that they gave evidence that Jesus was who he said he was – God’s son. We point out that Jesus didn’t just tell people to believe what he was saying was true. He showed them by doing things regular people can’t do. We let them know that God values giving us enough evidence for us to decide to give our lives to Him.

Apologetics foundation: This emphasizes that we don’t need blind faith – God gives us reasons to believe!

  1. We regularly remind them that truth is not what you like the best, what makes the most sense to you, or what makes you the happiest. For example, we point out that we can’t make it rain just because we would like it to. In the same way, we shouldn’t decide what’s true about God based on what we would like to be true. We have to look at all the information He has given us – in the world around us and in the Bible – and discover what is true.

Apologetics foundation: This gets kids thinking about the nature of truth.

 

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2XgJJIU

/by
Messianic Prophecy and the Resurrection

Messianic Prophecy and the Resurrection

,

By Brian Chilton

My class and I recently completed a wonderful Ph.D. seminar entitled Issues on Messianic Prophecy with Dr. Randall Price and Dr. Ed Hindson at Liberty University. Unfortunately, messianic prophecy has received less attention than in times past. Even in evangelical circles, hyper-critical views are being taken on the Old Testament which seemingly lessens any apologetic power when considering a future eschatological messiah (Note: I use the capitalized “Messiah” when referring to Jesus and the lower case when referencing the position). However, when keeping the prophecy in context, especially the context of the entire book, it is surprisingly clear that the prophet was speaking about a future blessed Redeemer who would bring forth a new covenant.

At Christmastime, we often ponder the prophecies of Isaiah when contemplating the Messiah’s miraculous birth and the prophecy of Micah when considering his birthplace. But as we approach Easter, did you realize there are prophecies pertaining to Easter? This article will examine a few of those prophecies.

Genesis 3:15

“I will put hostility between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel” (Gen. 3:15, CSB).

Genesis 3:15 is the earliest messianic prophecy in the Bible. In this prophecy, God speaks to the serpent and notes that there would be hostility between him and the offspring of the woman. She would have an offspring that would crush the serpent’s head and the serpent would strike the offspring’s heel. While this prophecy may not explicitly reference the resurrection, it does so implicitly. The writer of Hebrews notes that through the death of Jesus the power of the devil was destroyed. John also denotes the same in 1 John 3:8. But the ultimate victory over death came by the resurrection of Jesus on the first resurrection morning. For victory to occur, death must be defeated. Jesus did just that.

Psalm 2:7-8

“I will declare the LORD’s decree. He said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father.’ Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance and the ends of the earth your possession” (Ps. 2:7-8, CSB).

This prophecy may require a bit of explaining. In Psalm 2, the Messiah is coronated as the ruler of the earth. In verse 2, the psalmist shows that the rulers of the world conspire against Messiah. They conspire to destroy the Holy One of God. However, the Lord laughs from heaven. Verses 7-8 describe a time when the Anointed One’s identity is displayed before all. Paul, in an early sermon summary recorded in Acts, views this as being fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus. After thoroughly reading Psalm 2, I would wholeheartedly concur.

Psalm 16:10-11

“For you will not abandon me to Sheol; you will not allow your faithful one to see decay. You reveal the path of life to me; in your presence is an abundant joy; at your right hand are eternal pleasures” (Ps. 16:10-11, CSB).

Psalm 16 is a psalm of David. In this psalm, David asks for God’s protection using the term shamar which means to keep watch over a person like a shepherd. At the end of the psalm, David notes his confidence in that God would not leave him in the grave. God’s holy one would not see decay. This not only points to David’s confidence in the resurrection but is ultimately fulfilled in the Messiah as is noted by Peter in an early sermon summary in Acts 2:25.

Job 19:25-27

“But I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the end, he will stand on the dust. Even after my skin has been destroyed, yet I will see God in my flesh. I will see him myself; my eyes will look at him, and not as a stranger. My heart longs within me” (Job 19:25-27, CSB).

Job had been met with a horrible fate. He had lost his family, his home, his farm, his family, and his health. Yet despite his suffering, Job was able to proclaim his confidence in the Lord knowing that his Redeemer lives. He placed confidence that he would be resurrected after his inevitable demise. The passage is prophetic in that he realizes that his Redeemer will stand on the dust at the end and would testify on his behalf. This points to a resurrected Redeemer who is Jesus the Messiah.

Isaiah 53:9-12

“He was assigned a grave with the wicked, but he was with a rich man at his death, because he had done no violence and had not spoken deceitfully. Yet the LORD was pleased to crush him severely. When you see him make a guilt offering, he will see his seed, he will prolong his days, and by his hand, the LORD’s pleasure will be accomplished. After his anguish, he will see light and be satisfied. By his knowledge, my righteous servant will justify many, and he will carry their iniquities. Therefore I will give him the many as a portion, and he will receive the mighty as spoil, because he willingly submitted to death, and was counted among the rebels; yet he bore the sin of many and interceded for the rebels” (Isa. 53:9-12, CSB).

Isaiah 53 provides a portrait of the Messiah’s life. It was not until recently that I came to realize that the latter portion of Isaiah 53 prophesies the resurrection of the Anointed One. Notice that the prophet depicts the Suffering Servant sharing a grave with the wicked and buried with a rich man at his death (Is. 53:9). The Servant was crushed which also points to his death. Yet, despite the death suffered by the Servant, he would have his days prolonged. How does one prolong the days of one who has died unless the person is brought back to life? How could the Servant see light and be satisfied without a resurrection? How could he possess a portion among the many and the spoil of the mighty if he is dead in the grave? All of these vividly points to the Messiah’s resurrection.

Some of the prophecies listed are more explicit in referencing the resurrection of the Messiah than others. Nevertheless, all of them point to a Redeemer who would overthrow the powers of Satan and defeat the doom of death. The resurrection of Jesus is not only historically verifiable, but it was also prophetically predicted to happen. Our Savior is one who gives life to all who ask. For, those who call upon the name of the Lord will most assuredly be saved (Ac. 2:21 and Rom. 10:13).

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2UGh8A4

/by

Why Oppose Evil? It’s a Sign of the End Times!

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

What do you say to a fellow Christian when they say things like “why do you fight the progression of evil in our society if it’s, is just a sign of the end times”? During this episode of the Cross Examined Official Podcast, Frank gives a biblical answer to this type of attitude as he continues to answer your questions. 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 Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

/by
Why was the Head Cloth of Jesus Wrapped to the Side

Why was the Head Cloth of Jesus Wrapped to the Side?

, ,

By Brian Chilton

A friend asked me about a supposed Jewish tradition concerning the head wrapping of Jesus in the tomb. The Gospel of John notes that Peter and John (if the beloved disciple is the writer of the Fourth Gospel which this writer accepts) run to the tomb of Jesus. They investigate the tomb and saw the “napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself” (Jn. 20:7, KJV).

According to a story circulating online which has been passed along in many churches, an ancient Jewish tradition held that when a person had finished their meal, the person would toss their napkin aside if he or she was finished. However, if the person had to leave and was not finished, the person would neatly fold their napkin and place it to the side of their plate indicating that he or she would return. Advocates of this story contend that the folding of the napkin in John 20:7 was Jesus’s way of saying that he was going to leave but would soon return. While the story is heartwarming, one must ask if there any merit to the claim. After investigating the story, unfortunately, I must report that there seems to be no evidence that the story is true. But there is a more remarkable twist that is greater than the supposed tradition. First, here are the reasons why the story seems to be nothing more than an urban legend.

  1. The headcloth was not a napkin. With all due respect to the King James Version, “napkin” may not be the best translation of the term Sudarion indicates a small piece of cloth which could be a towel, a napkin, handkerchief, or a face cloth. Given the context, no one was eating a meal inside the tomb which would exclude the term “napkin.” Sudarion best fits with the idea of a cloth that covered the head of the corpse. The Christian Standard Bible provides a better translation as it says, “the wrapping that had been on his head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself” (Jn. 20:7, CSB).
  2. The headcloth was rolled and not folded. While the CSB uses the term “folded,” the term entulissō seems to fit better with the notion of being rolled. According to Louw and Nida, entulissō indicates the action “to cause something to be in the shape of a roll.”[1] The term is also used in Revelation 6:14 where the sky is entulissō (i.e., rolled up) like a scroll. The neat folding of the headcloth as implied by the mealtime tradition does not seem to fit the tomb scene even if the tradition did exist as it seems more likely that the head cloth was rolled up like a scroll.
  3. There is no evidence of the Jewish mealtime tradition. The death knell to the mealtime legend (no pun intended) is that there seems to be no evidence that such a Jewish mealtime tradition exists. Granted, there are numerous Jewish traditions in both the written and oral law and it is possible that one could have been overlooked. Nonetheless, this writer could not find anything pertaining to a tradition surrounding a folded napkin.

This so-called Jewish mealtime tradition is one that I have heard but have never investigated until now. The story has no root in any apparent oral or written tradition (at least as far as I could find) and possesses all the earmarks of being nothing more than an urban legend. While this news may be disappointing for some, the genuine story of the rolled head cloth provides greater and deeper meaning to the resurrection of Jesus. Consider the following three truths.

  1. The body was clearly resurrected and not merely resuscitated. Something amazing must have taken place for the rolled head cloth to have been placed in a separate location than the other linens. For Jesus to have been able to escape the grave cloths without disturbing their form while at the same time rolling the cloth that had wrapped his head illustrates that Jesus experienced a greater and far different return to life than what Lazarus or anyone else ever had. Lazarus had to be unbound from the cloths that enclosed his body (Jn. 11:43-44). Jesus was able to return to life and leave behind the cloths without any assistance. Remarkable!
  2. The body would have had to come through the cloths with the head wrapping. The other cloths were lying in the same place and the same form they had when they wrapped the body of Jesus. Yet, here was this head cloth rolled up to the side away from the other cloths. This seems to suggest that the body of Jesus came through the cloths with the head cloth attached. Thus, if a person were to witness the resurrection, it is likely that the eyewitness would see the body arising out from the cloths. Or, it could be that a person would see the body vanish with the cloths sinking in where the body had been with the visible Jesus standing beside them with headcloth in hand. After the resurrection, Jesus rolled up the cloth like a scroll and laid it to the side before exiting the tomb. The resurrection of Jesus was an otherworldly event, unlike anything anyone had before perceived. When Jesus resurrected from the dead, God used a new system of physics for this event—one that linked the spiritual and physical in an amazing new union.
  3. The body of Jesus was wrapped in more than one cloth. While the Shroud of Turin’s authenticity is not necessary to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, some have used the cloths mentioned in John’s Gospel to refute the Shroud. This is not a good practice primarily because John notes the existence of more than one kind of cloth. Since the women were not able to fully embalm the body of Jesus, it is possible that a Shroud covered the body of Jesus along with other wrappings in the tomb. The head cloth and the other linens indicate the plurality of cloths used to bury Jesus’s body. The absence of evidence pertaining to the Shroud is not evidence of absence.

So, while the story of an ancient Jewish tradition linking the folded head cloth with Jesus’s return is most likely an urban legend, the actual story of the wrapped head cloth tells a greater story. Jesus’s resurrection was a spectacular and ethereal event. The power exhibited by the resurrection is greater than any power known to humankind. Paul notes that just as Jesus has risen from the dead, so shall all of those who have trusted Christ (1 Co. 15:23). This indicates that this kind of resurrection will one day be coming to a tomb near you.

Note

[1] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 704.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Ixzqw3

/by
16 Bad Atheist Arguments and How to Respond to Them

16 Bad Atheist Arguments and How to Respond to Them

,

By Jeremy Linn

With the NCAA Final Four coming to the Twin Cities this weekend, it seems appropriate to have our own little March Madness Tournament. Instead of college teams, we built a bracket with some of the “top” bad Atheist arguments.

Below we list 16 of these bad arguments and list at least one problem with the argument for each. Much more could be said for each of these arguments, so we present this post with the risk of coming across shallow.  The point of the post, however, is not to give you a thorough response to each argument – It’s to give you ideas for an initial response to them.

For each of the arguments, we give an example question you can ask to better understand where the person who gave the argument is coming from. The goal is to listen and understand, rather than to dominate and tear down.

Now that we have those precursors set, here are the 16 bad Atheist arguments and how to respond to them.

Argument #1: Who created God?

This question is asked under the assumption that God needs a creator. This assumption misrepresents the Christian understanding of God, where God is the necessary cause of all creation.

Question: Why do you think a Christian would say that no one created God?

Argument #2: Jesus never existed

This objection flies against the conclusions of almost all scholars invested into Biblical and Roman history, along with evidence from both the New Testament books and extrabiblical sources.

Question: How did you come to the conclusion that Jesus never existed?

Argument #3: Atheists believe in just one less god than Christians

Some Atheists try to use this argument to show that there is not much of a difference between them and Christians. After all, Christians are “Atheists” for thousands of gods from other religions since they lack belief in those gods!

The problem is, there is a huge difference between a Theist (such as a Christian) and an Atheist. Theists believe in a supreme, personal creator of the Universe. Atheists don’t. This difference has huge implications for how each carries out their lives.

Question: Do you think there are any major differences between Christians and Atheists?

Argument #4: Believing in God is like believing in Santa or leprechauns.

This statement calls God “made up,” equal on the level of something like Santa Claus. But the Christian claims to have evidence for God, and hardly anyone claims to have evidence for a real Santa. The alleged evidence for God cannot be simply dismissed with this silly statement.

Question: Do you think there is any evidence for the existence of God?

Argument #5: The gospels are full of myths

This objection completely ignores the definition of a myth in ancient literature. A myth looks back at the past to understand how something in the present came to be. The gospels were written as a historical narrative, discussing things that were happening at the time.

Question: What do you mean when you use the word “myth”?

Argument #6: Faith is belief without evidence 

This definition of faith is a clear strawman of the Christian position. Most Christians view faith as involving some sort of personal trust. The trust aspect of faith is simply ignored by the “no evidence” definition.

Question: How do you think Christians would typically define “faith”?

Argument #7: There’s no evidence for God

Christians claim to have philosophical arguments for God’s existence. It seems like those arguments could provide at least a tiny bit of evidence for God, even if an Atheist doesn’t consider the evidence close to satisfactory. Atheists who use this phrase are overstating their case.

Question: What type of evidence would you need to see in order to be convinced that there is at least some evidence for God?

Argument #8: God is a maniac slavedriver

The idea here is that God is some sort of dictator who tells us what to do and believe and threatens to send us to hell if we don’t listen. But this characterization of God contrasts from the understanding that God offers a choice for us to escape the “slavery” of sin and to experience life as it was meant to be lived.

Question: Do you think God gives us a choice in how to live our lives?

Argument #9: Science disproves God

This is one of the most broad arguments in the list. There are many fields in science, and some concepts about God are completely unrelated to those fields. What exactly is being said here? There needs to be more detail given before any substantial discussion can take place.

Question: What is one way in which science disproves God?

Argument #10: Stories of Jesus changed like the game of telephone

The story goes… You know the game of telephone? You start with a sentence and then it gets changed after being passed down from person to person? Well, that’s what happened when stories of Jesus were passed from person to person.

This objection does not take into account the communal aspect of oral tradition – people could check their stories against one another. The objection also causes the reliability of all ancient history to be called into question.

Question: How might the way stories were spread in ancient history be different than the game of telephone?

Argument #11: If you grew up somewhere else you would believe something else

This is one of the most common objections to Christianity – if you grew up in a middle eastern country, you would be a Muslim, not a Christian! While this concept does have some truth in it, it packs a load of unsupported assumptions. It also has little effect on the question of if God actually exists or not.

Question: How do you know I believe what I do because where I grew up?

Argument #12: Atheists can be good without believing in God

This statement is true in the sense that people who do not believe in God can make choices that are moral choices. But the statement ignores the grounding of the good – the question of what caused the existence of objective moral duties.

Question: I agree that Atheists can do good things without believing in God. But what caused “good” and “bad” to exist in the first place?

Argument #13: Religion is toxic

The idea here is that religious thought always motivates actions that are bad. One problem with this idea is that “religion” is a broad term. It puts people who follow all kinds of religions under one umbrella, even if the differences between those religions are stark. It also downplays any potentially “good” actions taken under religious motivations.

Question: Are you referring to one specific religion, or are you saying all religions are toxic?

Argument #14: Jesus is just a copy of pagan gods

This argument seems powerful on the surface as Atheists stack up to similar traits between Jesus and pagan gods – “born of a virgin,” “resurrected,” “born on December 25”, etc. But when you dig deeper into the primary sources for the pagan gods, you will find that the traits don’t align with the actual stories of those gods.

Question: Which god is Jesus a copy of, and how do you know that?

Argument #15: The Flying Spaghetti Monster

New Atheists intended to make a point by bringing up this fictional creature – that you could assign the attributes of God to any random thing. But many Atheists who mention the creature now seem to do so in order to mock religious ideas rather than make a substantial point about them. Overall an Atheist who brings the creature up today ends up looking more ridiculous than thoughtful.

Question: What relevance does the Flying Spaghetti Monster have to what you are saying about God?

Argument #16: Christians never agree

The argument goes like this: Since Christians always seem to disagree about everything, it’s clear that God isn’t involved in the whole process. This argument is incredibly broad and immeasurable – it is uncertain how much agreement there would need to be before the objector no longer sees a problem. It also ignores that “mere Christianity” – the divinity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ – is almost entirely agreed on amongst Christians.

Question: How much agreement would you need to see between Christians in order to no longer consider this objection a problem?

Hopefully, this list gives you a better idea of how to respond to these bad arguments when they come up. We’re hoping that the Final Four also comes to the Twin Cities next year so we can do something like this again. At the very least, this was fun.

 

Jeremy is the co-founder of the ministry Twin Cities Apologetics and is an accountant for a law firm in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He’s also going to Bethel Seminary for a graduate degree in a program called Christian Thought (basically Apologetics!). Outside of Apologetics, Jeremy enjoys sports, playing guitar, and making videos.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2DaNPe5

/by
My Discussion with Dr. Michael Shermer on God and Evil

J. Brian Huffling Discussion with Dr. Michael Shermer on God and Evil

, ,

By J. Brian Huffling

Having seen Dr. Michael Shermer debate many times, I was excited to be able to get a chance to have a discussion with him. Shermer, the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, accepted Southern Evangelical Seminary‘s invitation to have an informal, but moderated, discussion with me on the topic, “Is the Reality of Evil Good Evidence against the Christian God?” This discussion was the culmination of a mini-conference on the problem of evil at SES. He was a delight to have, and the event was a blast.

My Discussion with Dr. Michael Shermer on God and Evil

I am not going to recount the whole debate. I am simply going to discuss some of the most important points and issues. (For those interested, Michael has a podcast of the debate/issue.)

What is ‘Evil’?

Michael was asked by the moderator, Adam Tucker (his thoughts on the discussion are here), to define what he meant by ‘evil.’ He said that evil is the intentional harm of a sentient being. There is no such thing, he said, of an entity that is evil, such as evil spirits, or anything that is pure evil.

I largely agree. Following Augustine, I hold that evil is simply the privation of good. In other words, evil is the corruption of a good thing. The classic example is blindness in the eye. The eye should have a certain power (sight) that it does not. It is lacking and is corrupted. Thus, it is physically evil. Then there is a moral evil. This happens when a person lacks virtues. Overall, though, Michael and I basically agree on what evil is and that there is no existing thing that is pure evil. For Christians, to exist is to somehow be like God, which is good. Further, following Aquinas, good seeks its perfection. Thus, there is a contradiction with an existing evil. Evil really has no goal or purpose in itself. Thus, an existing thing that is somehow good since it has being (in a sense like God) and that seeks its perfection cannot be pure evil.

At this point, we discussed the problem of evil and what it is exactly.

The Problem of Evil Briefly Stated

There are basically 2 forms of the problem of evil: the deductive form and the inductive form. The deductive form is also called the logical argument from evil and argues that the co-existence of the classical view of God and evil are logically impossible. This is the argument Michael used (from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):

  1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
  2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
  3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
  4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
  5. Evil exists.
  6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
  7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

This argument makes several assumptions. The most problematic in my view is that God is morally perfect. Many, if not most, Christian theologians take it for granted that God is morally perfect. However, I would argue that God is not the kind of being to be moral. That is not to say he is not good; he is just not morally good. I have written that God is not a moral being. I have also written that God’s goodness does not depend on what he does, but what he is. How does this relate to the problem of evil? If it is indeed the case that God is not a moral being with obligations to man, it makes all the difference in the world. I will not rewrite the articles above on God, morality, and goodness. I will summarize those positions here as they relate to the problem of evil.

As I said in the debate, J. L. Mackie, a notorious atheist of the twentieth century, said that if one gives up a premise in the problem of evil as just laid out, then the problem doesn’t arise (see The Problem of Evil edited by Adams and Adams, page 1). This is exactly what I said we need to do. There are certain assertions/assumptions that have to be made in order for this argument (the problem of evil) to work. I argue that the assertion that God is a morally perfect being is false. If we take that out of the problem, the problem falls.

I am not suggesting this simply to get out of this argument. There are really good reasons for not thinking that God is a moral being, at least in the sense we normally mean when referring to humans being moral. When we say a person is moral, we mean that he behaves well and as he should. In other words, there is a prescribed way in which men are supposed to behave. If they do, they are moral. If they don’t, they are immoral.

I am arguing that God has no prescribed way in which he should behave. There are no obligations imposing on God. God transcends the category of morality like he transcends time and space. Morality is a created category wrapped up in what it means to be a human. Without created beings to live up to some objective standard that God has created him to live up to, there is no moral law.

If this is correct, then God is not a moral being and thus cannot be a morally perfect being. But this is the linchpin of the logical problem of evil as Michael has argued. Once this assertion is removed, as Mackie says, there simply is no logical problem of evil. There is no contradiction with an omnipotent, omniscient being existing alongside of evil. Thus, the problem of evil does not even arise.

All of this is to say that God has no obligation to how he orchestrates the universe. To say that God is morally obligated means that he has to treat his creation in a certain way. This is the basic thrust of the problem of evil. To put it another way, as Michael did at one point, the problem of evil boils down to this: “If God really does exist I would expect the universe to be different/better.” The assumption here is that God should operate the way we think he should. He doesn’t. The inference is that he doesn’t exist.

Again, if we take away the assumption/assertion that God is morally perfect then the problem of evil not only fails, it never gets off the ground. (Please remember we are talking about the academic/philosophical issue of evil and not the emotional/pastoral concern.)

This is not to say God is not good; he is just not morally good. He is metaphysically good and perfect. Given our definition of evil, this just means God lacks nothing. His existence is perfect and cannot be corrupted.

The story of Job illustrates my point that God is not obligated to treat his creatures in any certain way. In the opening chapters of Job God basically dares Satan to attack Job. God maintains to Satan that Job will not curse him (God). Satan agrees. The only caveat is that Satan cannot touch Job. Job’s family (except his wife) is killed, and he loses all of his many possessions. Yet he does not curse God. God gives Satan another chance, but this time Satan can inflict Job with disease; although he cannot kill him. Job is inflicted with sores and physical issues. Still, he does not curse God.

Job’s friends show up and stay with Job, silent, for a week. For many chapters after this Job’s friends argue about what Job did to bring this judgment upon him. They maintain that God would not do this without some (just) cause. Job maintained his innocence and wanted to take God to court and try him for being unjust.

At the end of the book, God shows up. Does he try to explain to Job why he did what he did? Does he offer a theodicy or defense for his actions? No. He basically asks Job where he was when God made all of the wonders of the world. Job cannot answer and repents. In short, God does not try to get off the hook, as it were. Rather he says, “I’m God, and you are not.”

I think this illustrates my point that God does not have to act in any certain way with his people. He is not unjust in dealing with Job the way he did. However, let’s put a human in the place of God and Satan in this story. If a human did to Job what God and Satan did, we would almost certainly say the human would be unjust. However, we would not, presumably, say that God is unjust. Why? Because he’s God. There is no standard by which to judge him. God transcends morality and yet is still perfectly good.

Philosophy vs. Science

This above point is one that I could not get Michael to acknowledge. He did not want to stray from his scientific position. (By ‘scientific’ I mean the modern sense of the word to refer to the natural sciences like biology and chemistry. This should be contrasted with the historical sense of a discipline’s conclusions being demonstrated via first principles and logic. In this latter sense, philosophy and theology were considered sciences.) This is unfortunate because the issues of God and evil are inherently philosophical. As I have written, natural science alone cannot demonstrate God’s existence. Thus, to adequately deal with the issues of the discussion we have to delve into philosophy. Michael would have none of it.

Michael’s main point here is that if God is not measurable, then we can’t know he exists. As I pointed out this is a category mistake as God is not a material being. Thus, even if he did exist, we could not measure him–which Michael acknowledged.

Throughout the debate, Michael approached the issue from the point of view of natural science. I approached it from philosophy. In short, the questions of God’s existence and evil cannot be decided by natural science since they are not physical things in the natural world to be studied: God is not a being in nature and evil is a description of the nature of being (a philosophical concept).

Michael offered a lot of red herrings. I will not deal with those here as they are, well, red herrings.

Conclusion

The problem of evil is not a problem concerning God’s existence if God is not a moral being. Further, questions of God’s existence and evil are inherently philosophical. If you are interested in this topic, I recommend Brian Davies’ The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil.

 

J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. have a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2v4rTNa

/by

Unplanned and the Abortion Debate with Dr. Mike S. Adams

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

In this episode, Frank talks about the movie Unplanned, based on the dramatic true story of a former Planned Parenthood leader who, after participating in an actual abortion procedure for the first time, walked down the street to join the Coalition for Life. He also interviews the great Dr. Mike S. Adams about his debate with Dr. Willie Parker, an abortion doctor who has performed thousands of abortions and claims to be a Christian. We don’t shy away from the truth, you shouldn’t either, listen to this important episode of the Cross Examined Official Podcast.

Keep us busy by sending your questions to Hello@CrossExamined.org and don’t miss this episode!

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

/by
Twitter suspends account of pro-life movie “Unplanned”, deletes 99% of their followers

Twitter suspends account of pro-life movie “Unplanned”, deletes 99% of their followers

,

By Wintery Knight

Wow, big social media companies like Facebook, Google, Youtube, and Twitter are really ratcheting up their suppression of any accounts that challenge their allies in the Democrat Party. For example, on the weekend Twitter decided to suspend the account of the new pro-life movie “Unplanned.” And then they deleted 99,000 of their followers.

PJ Media reports:

The pro-life movie Unplanned surprised at the box office its opening weekend, taking 5th place with $6.1 million. That didn’t stop Twitter from attacking the film twice in one weekend, however.

The movie’s Twitter account was briefly suspended on Saturday, mere hours after its release on Friday. On Sunday, the account seems to have mysteriously lost 99,000 of its 100,000 followers.

There was a backlash against the suspension of the account. Twitter didn’t provide any rule that was violated, but they reinstated the account – with zero followers. People trying to re-follow the account were prevented from doing so, including the author of the PJ Media article:

I attempted to follow the page, but the same thing happened to me.

However, the movie performed so well at the box office that they are expanding the number of theaters next week to 1,700:

Despite the Twitter suspension and sudden mysterious loss of followers, Unplanned racked up more than $6.1 million at the box office, despite being predicted to take in only $2-3 million. Even more impressive, the film only played on 1,060 screens, earning an average of $5,770 per screen.

On Sunday, the film announced that its distributor, Pure Flix, will add an additional 600 screens for a count of 1,700 screens next week.

The movie also earned an A+ rating from CinemaScore, and it has a 93 percent positive rating on RottenTomatoes.

I’d make sure that you go see it as soon as possible. Remember what happend to the Gosnell movie, last time? The theaters pulled it very early, even though it was doing very well.

This isn’t the first time that Twitter has censored voices critical of their allies in the Democrat Party. Remember when they refused to allow a pro-life election ad from (now Senator) Marsha Blackburn? Or when they censored pro-life ads from the well-known pro-life Susan B. Anthony List group? Or when they said that death threats against conservative Dana Loesch were permissible? They also allowed threats of violence to be made against the pro-life Covington students. They also blocked pro-life ads from Live Action. Basically, they censor anything that makes their pro-abortion allies in the Democrat Party look bad.

I understand that companies make mistakes, but why are all the mistakes made by these big social media companies in favor of their allies in the Democrat Party? Is it because they don’t want their allies in the Democrat Party to lose elections?

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2IbAy8l

/by

Collusion against the Truth

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

If the evidence is so good for Christianity, why don’t more people follow Christ? There are three possible factors for it and Frank discuss each one of them in this episode of the Cross Examined Official Podcast. We’ll see what motivates people to come to conclusions that are completely opposite to the facts.

Keep us busy by sending your questions to Hello@CrossExamined.org and don’t miss this episode!

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

/by