Tag Archive for: apologetics

Is Naturalism a Good Reason to Rally_

Is Naturalism a Good Reason to Rally?

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

Today, I’m featuring a special guest post from one of my former mentors, R. Scott Smith, Associate Professor of Ethics and Christian Apologetics at Biola University. Dr. Smith was my adviser while I was doing my graduate studies in the Christian Apologetics Program at Biola University. I studied under him in the areas of ethics, philosophy and historical theology.

His guest post might sound a bit technical if you’re totally new to philosophy, but thinking hard about this stuff might help you understand naturalism more–maybe a bit more than your atheist friends. His latest work is aimed at the upper division undergraduate audience, or those with some philosophy training: Naturalism and Our Knowledge of Reality.

Guest Post by R. Scott Smith

A Good Reason to Rally?

At the “Reason Rally” in Washington, secular, atheistic people gathered in support of “reason” over [mere] “faith” of religious people. Not so hidden in the background was the widely-held cultural mindset that science uses reason and uniquely gives us knowledge of truth (the facts). But religion gives us just personal opinions and preferences, not knowledge. This bifurcation often is called the “fact-value split.”

Naturalism: “There Is No God”

This science is naturalistic; only what is scientifically knowable (i.e., by the five senses) is real. In principle, such things as God, souls, and mental states (i.e., non-physical things like thoughts, beliefs, and experiences) cannot be known to be real. Or, simplifying, they don’t exist. Yet, we can test natural, physical stuff scientifically, so that is what is believed to be real. That view of reality is the philosophy undergirding atheistic evolution by natural selection (NS) – naturalism. There’s only the physical universe, without anything non-physical.

Until Darwin, many believed there were non-physical essential natures that separated living things into kinds. Afterward, biological classification is understood as one interconnected “tree of life” – all living things share a common ancestor.

Naturalism, Truth, and Knowledge

Now, how do we know what’s true on this view? Consider Daniel Dennett, a leading philosopher, neuroscientist, and New Atheist, who takes evolution by NS very seriously. For him, NS is blind – without any goal planning, thinking about some desired outcome, believing something, or trying to make something happen. And since non-physical mental states aren’t real, the qualities they would have, e.g., their representing something (their being of or about something) also would not be real. There are only brain states, physical patterns, and behavior we take (interpret) to be about something.

Dennett realizes that if there were real, intrinsic (something that’s so due to what kind of thing it is), essential natures, there could be a “deeper” fact (beyond just behavior) of what our thoughts (or beliefs, experiences) are really about. Just due to what those mental states would be essential, they really could be of their objects, and not something else.

But, since evolution by NS denies any such essences, Dennett says we only interpret the behavior of people (and sophisticated computers and robots) as being “about” their objects. But that’s all we have to go on – just our interpretations, which we attribute to a person. Based on someone’s behaviors, we interpret them to mean the person is thinking “about” something (e.g., an errand to Lowe’s), but that’s just how we talk. In reality, there isn’t any real “aboutness” to us.

But, there could be other interpretations too. Maybe the thought is “of” something else (e.g., a movie on HBO). But, there’s no fact of the matter we can appeal to, to settle the issue. Dennett admits for that to be so, there would have to be an essence to the thought’s being of something so that it really is about the errand, not the movie.

But without essences, we’re left only with interpretations; but, of what? Apparently, another interpretation; but if we keep pressing that question, we’re left just with interpretations of interpretations, etc., without any way to get started and experience something as it is, simply because no mental state is really about anything.

Bu the same problem applies to our own mental life. Any mental state doesn’t have an essence to be about anything in particular. If they cannot really be about something, then how would we ever know how things really are?

Our Experience Tells a Different Story

Fortunately, that’s not how we experience life. Our mental states seem to have three essential features:

  1. They’re “particularized.” My thought about tonight’s dinner, or my experience of drinking a Starbuck’s chocolate smoothie, is not generic or unspecified. Each is about something particular.
  2. These mental states must be about something. It doesn’t seem we could have one that lacks this quality. (Try having a thought that isn’t about anything!)
  3. That “ofness” seems to be intrinsic, or essential, to each mental state. My thought about last night’s dinner could not be about anything else and still be the thought it is. I could observe the price of gas at the Exxon station, but that experience couldn’t have been of my dinner.

God: The Best Explanation

How do we best explain these three apparently essential features of mental states? Dennett realizes that if mental states had essential natures, they really could be of their intended objects, so we could know them.

If atheistic evolution by NS were true, we’d be in a beginningless series of interpretations, without any knowledge. Yet, we know many things. So, naturalism & NS are false – non-physical essences exist. But, what’s their explanation? Being non-physical, it can’t be evolution. So, maybe we have souls that use them. It seems likely their best explanation is there’s a Creator after all.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2B8gmT1

/by
Are Nature and Scripture Compatible_

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible?

,

By Luke Nix

The debate about the proper interaction of science and theology is raging as much as it has ever been. Hot tempers fly that result in ice-cold relationships. For as much discussion and debate that takes place, it seems that nothing is being accomplished. For those caught in the middle, questions still remain unanswered:

  • What do we do when science contradicts our theology, or our theology contradicts science?
  • Are they allowed to contradict?
  • If not, which should I choose?
  • Can’t they just agree to disagree?

These are all questions that shaped my spiritual struggle several years ago. I was constantly told that I could not trust science because it contradicted my theology, and at the same time I was told that I could not trust theology because it denied science. I felt like I had a choice: live a double life allowing one source of truth (religion) in one area of reality, but not allowing it relevance in the other areas. Or I could completely deny one of them as a valid source of truth, giving up my theology completely, or giving up science completely.

How could I live what I do not believe, and how could I deny what I know to be true? These further haunting questions demanded answers yet seemed unanswerable. Neither hypocrisy nor denial are very appealing traits. Unfortunately, these are often presented as the only options available in our search for the true worldview. In this post, my goal is to present a compelling alternative that grants that science and theology are valid sources of truth that often overlap in the aspects of reality that they claim to explain. I will also put forth a method for dealing with conflicts in the overlapping areas and explain the liabilities of not dealing with such conflicts.

The Overlap

I believe that science and theology are fully compatible with one another. Both often speak about the same features of reality, but because we are not omniscient, we often find that our science and our theology contradict one another. If we wish for our theology to inform our understandings of creation (scientific models) and behavior towards each other and the rest of creation (ethics- 2 Timothy 3:16), overlap is necessary. Likewise, if we wish for our science to inform our theology (Romans 1:20), overlap is necessary. If we are to believe that overlap is necessary, then contradictions cannot exist between science and theology. This will be the starting point for this alternative view. The next step is to make an important distinction.

Interpretation and Raw Data

The next step to this view is the distinction between raw data and the interpretation of the raw data. When we are attempting to reconcile science and theology, we are attempting to reconcile the raw data that each one interprets. For science that raw data is nature, and for theology that raw data is the scriptures (original language, where possible). Every piece of raw data must be interpreted. By interpretation, I mean that we examine the raw data and explain it in light of the other raw data that we have. It is common, and incorrect, for someone to confuse nature (the raw data) with science (the interpretation) and/or scripture (the raw data) with theology (the interpretation). The raw data is what is necessarily infallible (to use the religious term), while our interpretation (in virtue of our lack of omniscience) is necessarily fallible, but not necessarily false. The processes described below will help our interpretation of nature (science), and our interpretation of scripture (theology) reflect the full, true understanding of each.

Nature and Science

Science is very dependent upon the assumption that the universe is consistent. No two features of reality will contradict one another, and under the same circumstances, observations will be repeatable. If experiments or studies are conducted in the same way, but they yield data that can only be interpreted to conflict with current science (interpretation of other data), the scientists will repeat again to find data that can be interpreted as consistent with current science and look for the unique factor in each instance of the experiment that yielded the data with the conflicting interpretation. All data that is found is interpreted in light of the rest of the data already yielded. If an experiment or observation (after repeated and thoroughly investigated multiple times) still yields data that demands an interpretation contrary to science, a reinterpretation of past data is necessary (a change in the science results). The process repeats for any and all new data that comes. Here is a flowchart to give a visual of this process:

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible? 1

Even though it is common for data to come that is compatible with current science, there is rarely a single interpretation that is compatible. Multiple compatible interpretations leads to the creation of multiple models of a phenomenon. Each one takes interpretations that are still “on the table” (since they have not been eliminated by other data yet), and use possibilities to make predictions about future data. As more data become available, models that predicted conflicting results are adjusted (interpretations are changed) to accommodate the only possible interpretations of the new data (if multiple interpretations exist, this can spawn variations of the model) or are abandoned completely because the conflict cannot be reconciled with the possible interpretations of the other data that are compatible with the model. While models are weeded out as accurately explaining reality, more detailed models are proposed, and the process starts all over again. Put plainly, nature interprets nature to eliminate incorrect scientific view and highlight possibly correct ones.

Scripture and Theology

Dealing with scripture (the Bible) is very similar to the process of dealing with nature described above. Many theologians begin by accepting that scripture is the inerrant word of God, who cannot lie. This means that the same consistency that allows for testing of scientific models exists to test theological views. No two scriptures contradict one another, so no correct interpretations of two scriptures can contradict one another. If it is found that a theological view holds an interpretation of a scripture that contradicts an interpretation of another, the interpretation of one of them (if not both) is incorrect, and reinterpretation is required. In the development of a correct theological interpretation of scripture, this process continues. Here is the flow chart (notice how similar it is to the one above):

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible? 2

Just like with science, multiple interpretations of scripture do abound, and even after going through this process to make certain that all scripture is taken into consideration and no contradictions exist in the view, several possible interpretations of scripture may still be valid. These are all considered compatible with scripture. Since there are multiple views compatible with the raw data of scripture, many different theological views exist within Christianity. As more archaeological artifacts are recovered and analyzed and more historical and linguistic studies are conducted regarding the original content of scripture, possible interpretations of scriptures can be ruled out or ruled in. This allows for adjustment or abandonment of theological views (if possible interpretations are ruled out), and allows for the recognition of compatibility of other theological views (if possible interpretations are ruled in). As more theological systems are weeded out as accurately reflecting scripture, more detailed interpretations are offered and tested against still more scholarship. Simply put, scripture interprets scripture to eliminate incorrect theological views and highlight possibly correct ones.

Worldviews and Reality

Both systems depend upon ontological consistency (nature does not contradict nature and scripture does not contradict scripture) that demands epistemology consistency (interpretations of nature cannot contradict other interpretations of nature and interpretations of scriptures cannot contradict interpretations of other scriptures). However, neither of these systems are complete.

While science may point to metaphysical reality, it cannot directly observe it. While theology may speak broadly about nature, it lacks much minute details. Both science and theology on their own have many views that are evidentially, equally valid. As a Christian, I believe that God created the universe and inspired scripture. I believe that God is not deceptive; thus his works (nature) do not contradict (the ontological foundation for science’s presupposition that nature is consistent) and his words (scripture) do not contradict one another (the ontological foundation for Biblical inerrancy). Here’s the simple flow chart:

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible? 3

Since both nature and scripture come from God, the two of them do not contradict. If we come to an interpretation of nature that contradicts an interpretation of scripture, one of the interpretations (if not both) is incorrect. We must reevaluate our interpretation of both in light of the other raw data to find the proper interpretation of reality. If all the data in science can be interpreted consistently in, say, ten different ways, but seven are incompatible with any compatible interpretation of scripture, the Christian must throw away those seven interpretations of nature. Likewise, if we have eight consistent interpretations of scripture, yet only three of those interpretations are compatible with nature, we must remove the other five (otherwise biblically compatible) interpretations from the table of accurately explaining reality. That would leave us with three possible interpretations of reality between nature and scripture. Now we have four points of interpretive interaction with nature and scripture:

  • Nature interprets nature
  • Scripture interprets scripture
  • Scripture interprets nature
  • Nature interprets scripture

Ultimately, this results in “reality interprets reality” to yield a correct worldview. Here is the completed flowchart that visually details the process:

Are Nature and Scripture Compatible? 4

This is certainly a rigorous and challenging but rewarding process. As scholarship in the sciences and humanities are constantly making new discoveries that provide more insight into the proper interpretation of both nature and scripture, the Christian is provided with more information; some of which fits easily into the Christians interpretations of nature and scripture. However, it is common that data will arise that challenges interpretations of nature and interpretations of scripture. The Christian must not ignore the data by refusing to reinterpret their views of nature or scripture.

The Dangers of Denial

When we hold an interpretation of nature (science) that does not reflect reality, we will be challenged by the raw data of scripture. When we hold an interpretation of scripture (theology) that does not reflect reality, we will be challenged by the raw data of nature. An unwillingness to reinterpret raw data of either nature or scripture, in light of no compatible interpretation from the other betrays our commitment, not to truth, but to tradition. Tradition is based on interpretation, which is necessarily fallible because we are not omniscient. This is dangerous to both evangelism and discipleship.

Dangers to Evangelism

When skeptics see that we hold fast to tradition (even though they may be doing the same thing) between nature and scripture (while we also claim that both come from the same honest God), it is no surprise that they are skeptical of our views. Reality has no contradiction in it, and they know that. If a worldview has even one internal contradiction, it cannot be the correct view of reality.

Those who read this blog often know that I interact with many internal discussions to Christianity because I believe it is important that we are defending a correct worldview, not just generally, but specifically. If people are looking for a reason to reject a general worldview, they will look at the details of certain views within that worldview to find contradictions with reality. When those contradictions are discovered, they become a stumbling block to the skeptic. And the Christian who promotes such contradictions (despite their noble intentions) become a liability to completion of the Great Commission. A willingness to reinterpret raw data of nature and scripture allows skeptics to understand that we are committed to discovering the truth and that if a challenge is valid, it will be addressed in a way that contradiction is removed from our worldview. When contradiction with reality does not exist in our presented worldview, there is no logical reason to deny its truth. Rather the truth must be suppressed.

Dangers to Discipleship

Of course, the dangers do not only end with evangelism. Our own relationship with God is limited when we refuse to acknowledge contradiction in our worldview. I want to be clear: I am NOT saying that a Christian without a perfect worldview cannot know God correctly, we can. However, every detail that we have wrong about God and what He has done places a limit on our ability to worship Him in spirit and in truth. Our willingness to recognize and abandon incorrect views within our worldview will be rewarded with a deeper understanding of more of God’s attributes and His works. This results in a more profound and rewarding worship of our Creator. A worship of our Creator that is based on a false idea of who He is or what He has not done, is not true worship.

These Dangers Plague Us All (Conclusion)

Since no person is omniscient, I am speaking to all of us (including myself). If we refuse to reinterpret when all attempts to find logical consistency fail, our dedication to a false view of reality will limit our effectiveness for the Kingdom and will limit our relationship with our Creator. God has given us multiple sources of revelation (nature and scripture) and has endowed us with minds capable of using logic to bring both revelations together to discover the truth of reality. God is brought glory when we commit to discovering truth — when we refuse to allow dearly held traditions to stand between our knowing who God truly is and our accurate representation of Him to the world.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OAjkS9

/by
Q&A_ Answering Questions Of An Agnostic Brother

Q&A: Answering Questions Of An Agnostic Brother

, ,

By Evan Minton

Hi Evan,

I really like your work, really helped me.

But I have a brother, he is agnostic, and he has a few objections I can’t answer (it’s so uncomfortable), so I decided to ask you.

The first is on skepticism in general. Shouldn’t we be skeptical about anything? Since everything is subjectively perceived? Especially moral values? Also, in a pragmatic sense, shouldn’t we agree we can’t know and just follow Aristotle’s “man is a political animal”?
And then on the fine-tuning argument, well he has a weird objection, but I found it difficult (not very well read in this topic, only read on guard and Strobel), couldn’t a different type of life emerge in different universes with different constants?

I thought it was arguing from ignorance, but another thing he said fine tuning only works from the perspective that we are the final product (carbon-based life).

So, I hope you understood these questions, have any recommended resources that wouldn’t be to difficult for a 14-year-old?

Thanks, Evan.

Hugs

Thanks for your question. I’m glad you’ve found my work helpful in your walk with Christ.
On Skepticism

First, you ask “Shouldn’t we be skeptical about anything? Since everything is subjectively perceived? Especially moral values? Also, in a pragmatic sense, shouldn’t we agree we can’t know and just follow Aristotle’s ‘man is a political animal’?

Based on how you worded this section, it sounds to me like your brother has been reading Immanuel Kant. He seemed to make a similar argument that Kant made regarding the knowability of the world. In his weighty Critique of Pure Reason (1781) and his Religion Within the Limits of Mere Reason (1793) he argued that God is unknowable, and Kant also insisted that our mind and senses are so structured that we cannot know reality in itself (the noumenal realm) but only what appears to us (the phenomena). Thus, as Frank Turek humorously puts it: “According to Kant, you Kant know what the world is really like.”

The major problem with Kant’s argument is that it is self-refuting. That is to say, Kant, in claiming that the external world is unknowable is claiming to know something about the external world! Namely, that it’s unknowable! But how would Kant know that we cannot know reality in itself unless he knew at least one thing about reality? Thus, Kant’s view saws off the branch it’s sitting on. To affirm it, one needs access to the very thing the view says we can’t access.

So should we be skeptical about anything? Not if the basis of that skepticism is that all perception is subjective, for that relies on a self-refuting philosophy.

As far as the affirmation of moral values, I have always defended the objectivity of moral values and duties in the same way that Craig has. William Lane Craig states that the evidence for the existence of objective morality is on par with the evidence for the existence of the external physical world. We recognize that both are real because we can sense that they’re there. He states “In moral experience, we apprehend a realm of moral values and duties that impose themselves upon us. There’s no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world.”

Craig argues that our moral experience is on par with our physical experience. Our five senses tell us that the physical world is real, that you are really sitting there reading this blog post. In a similar way, your moral senses tell you what is good and what is evil. Now, we can’t get outside of our moral senses to test whether they’re giving us reliable information, but neither can we get outside of our physical senses to test whether they’re giving us reliable information. Should we, therefore, conclude that we can’t know what the physical world is like? Of course not. But then, why should we deny the existence of objective morality because we can’t get outside of our moral perceptions to test their reliability? I’ve noticed that most skeptics, in trying to knock down the epistemological justification of the second premise of the moral argument, they tend to make arguments that would undermine our 5 senses if the same logic was applied to them. For example, some will point out that different people have disagreements on whether a certain action is morally right or wrong (e.g. abortion, the eating of animals). Based on this, they’ll say that we, therefore, can’t trust our moral intuitions. But what if this line of reasoning was applied to our sense of sight? No one could forget that a whole internet sensation was based on a debate as to whether a dress was black/blue or white/gold. People disagreed on what color “The Dress” was. I remember back in the day disputing with my friends on the playground whether James of Team Rocket from the Pokemon anime had blue hair or purple hair. However, would anyone argue that such disagreements on color render color a non-objective feature of reality?

I think the person is within his rational rights in affirming the objectivity of morality on the basis of his moral compass unless he is presented with a powerful argument that his moral compass has a spring loose, so to speak. However, I’ve never encountered such a refutation.

An Objection To The Fine-Tuning Argument

Your brother objects to the fine-tuning argument with “Couldn’t a different type of life emerge in different universes with different constants?” This is an objection to The Fine-Tuning argument that I get all the time in my conversations with non-theists.

Often these people make use of an illustration by Douglas Adams, the well-known author of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (although this quote is not from that book):

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’”

Richard Dawkins applied this to the fine-tuning at Adams’ eulogy. Now, these atheists argue that just as that man is a fool, so we would be fools to believe the universe was designed so that we could exist.

The problem with this argument is that it radically misunderstands the consequences of what would happen if the physical constants and quantities were off.  Take the expansion rate of the universe for example. If the universe expanded too rapidly, then gravity would not have had the opportunity to collect gas and dust and condense it into galaxies, stars, and planets. The universe would forever
exist as nothing but isolated pieces of matter, gas, and dust. Because if the universe expanded too quickly, then all of the stuff of the universe would fly apart too quickly for gravity to take them and to condense them into galaxies, stars, and planets.  If the ratio of the number of electrons to protons were off by a little bit, electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet
formation. Again, the universe would be completely devoid of galaxies, stars, and planets. If you don’t have galaxies, if you don’t have stars, and if you don’t have planets, you can’t have any life. One reason is that without a planet, there’s no hope for life to evolve and live on. A second thing is that, regardless of whether life must be carbon based, you need stars to “cook” the elements needed for life. No stars, no elements. No elements, no life. Even if one thinks silicon-based life forms are possible, stars are needed to make the silicon.

If the Strong Nuclear Force were slightly weaker, it would be too weak to bind together protons and neutrons inside the nucleus of the atom. Therefore, no atoms could exist in the universe except the hydrogen atom; the simplest atom there is, consisting of a single proton and a single electron. In the case of The Strong Nuclear Force being weaker, the only existing element would be hydrogen. You couldn’t possibly get to any higher levels of complexity in such a scenario.

So, it is my judgment that comparing the fine-tuning to a man waking up in a puddle is an analogy that…. doesn’t hold water.

Recommended Resources

“Have any recommended resources that wouldn’t be to difficult for a 14-year-old?”

Sure! First and foremost, I’d suggest my own Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods, a book that I’m currently working on upgrading in Google Docs. In the book, I talk about The Kalam, Fine-Tuning, Moral, and Ontological Arguments, as well as the historical evidence that Jesus died and was resurrected. According to one reviewer on Amazon, “His easy conversational style throughout the text reminds one of Max Lucado, and he presents material of great import in a comfortable manner that is a joy to read. This book is an excellent introduction to the most significant and well-founded Christian apologetics in the modern era and is well-suited to high school and college students, as well as adults interested in Christian apologetics and philosophy. I highly recommend this book.” another Amazon reviewer wrote “Mr. Minton helpfully surveys some of the best arguments for God’s existence, appealing to the most robust scholars and answering the most difficult challenges to the arguments. While some of the scholars who have written about philosophy of religion might be too academic and difficult to read, this author’s writing style makes the most complicated arguments (even the ontological argument) relatable. Recommended for those who are new to apologetics or those who want to brush up.” 

Another book I’d recommend is J. Warner Wallace’s God’s Crime Scene. Among books on Natural Theology, this one is really unique. Like his previous book Cold Case Christianity, it reads like a combination of a detective novel and apologetic book. He lays out the evidence for a Creator on the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of the moral law, the complexity of the cell, and even argues for the existence of the soul based on the phenomenon of consciousness, and he does it all from the perspective of a detective, in a very easy-to-read manner.

But I think the most accessible book on these topics would be Leslie Wickman’s God Of The Big Bang: How Modern Science Affirms The Creator. Wickman is an internationally respected research scientist, engineering consultant, author and inspirational speaker.and is also executive director of the American Scientific Affiliation (a non-profit organization promoting the dialog between science and faith), and as a Professor of Aerospace-Industrial-Mechanical Engineering at California Baptist University. Her book God Of The Big Bang should certainly be not “be too difficult for a 14-year-old.”

So,
1: “Inference To The One True God” by yours truly.

2: “God’s Crime Scene” by J. Warner Wallace

3: “God Of The Big Bang” by Leslie Wickman

are what I recommend.

God bless you.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/Dsiuae

/by
The MAVEN Experience

The MAVEN Experience

By Tim Stratton

The primary goal of FreeThinking Ministries is to equip the church to engage the culture. In my opinion, no one is doing that better than Brett Kunkle. Kunkle became well-known in the apologetics community through his time at Greg Koukl’s organization, Stand To Reason. Recently, however, Kunkle has branched out and started MAVEN, an organization focused on helping the next generation know the truth, pursue goodness, and create beauty.

What exactly is a “maven?” Wikipedia defines maven as “a trusted expert in a particular field, who seeks to pass timely and relevant knowledge on to others in that field.” Kunkle’s particular “field” is worldview, apologetics, and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Since our goals overlap (and we are both former youth pastors), Kunkle invited FreeThinking Ministries to partner with MAVEN to pass this “timely and relevant knowledge” of God along to teens.

This is primarily accomplished through MAVEN’s Apologetics Immersive Experience. I joined Kunkle and his crew this summer to witness the “experience” first hand on the campus of Cal-Berkeley in northern California. Three youth groups—from New York, Colorado, and Utah—joined forces under Kunkle’s lead. What I witnessed was amazing!

Teenagers from around the country put many “stones in the shoes” of people in the Bay Area. They engaged in respectful and intelligent dialogue with atheist speakers, talked to skeptical U.C. Berkeley students and professors, visited Alcatraz, the Golden Gate Bridge, and even went surfing. As a former youth pastor, I can attest that this was the best “evangelism training” I have ever witnessed. These teens are inoculated by the MAVEN team “injecting” them with the best arguments atheists, and those of other religions will offer against Christianity. That might sound risky, but then Kunkle and his team show the students all the logical flaws with these arguments raised against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5). After training, teenagers are sent to the mission field, in this case, UC Berkeley, to put their new-found apologetic skill set to the test.

The Berkeley Survey & Dialogues with Atheists

This is primarily accomplished through a survey MAVEN has developed. Teens spread out across the campus in groups of two or three and ask students and professors if they would be interested in taking a quick survey on worldview. Unless one is late to class, most are happy to engage in this discussion.

Many of these campus surveys at Berkeley would turn into 45-minute conversations about worldview, God, and Jesus Christ. I lost track of how many times an ardent “anti-Christian” would take a step back and say “you’ve really given me something to think about.” Or, “I guess I’ve never thought about it that way before.”

After conducting campus surveys, the students and MAVEN leaders reconvene. One evening I had the opportunity to teach students about how we have epistemic access to the supernatural. That is a fancy way to say, “how we can know the supernatural exists.” I explained that although we cannot directly sense the supernatural with our five senses, logic provides epistemic access to the supernatural. I offered the Kalam Cosmological Argument as one example.

To be fair, however, MAVEN allows teens to be exposed to ideas from atheists as well. A prominent atheist in the San Francisco area was invited to give the students his best shot. Kunkle invites certain atheists to come to speak to kids and lets them explain why they believe atheism is true and Christian theism is false. There is one catch: they must engage in a dialogue with the teenagers. Shortly after my discussion (about how we have epistemic access to the supernatural through logic) came to close, one particular atheist entered the classroom and proclaimed: “Even if the supernatural does exist, we would have no way of knowing it!”

The youngest student in the room (still in middle school) raised his hand and with what he had learned an hour earlier politely asked: “Have you heard of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?” The atheist said that he was aware of the Kalam, but was no expert. The young student (while regularly looking back at me to make sure he was explaining it correctly) began to debate the atheist. His classmates joined him and were able to explain how we do have the ability to know the supernatural exists and how we can know specific things about supernatural entities.

The takeaway is this: the atheist left his encounter with the teens with his “faith” shaken. The Christian teens left with their faith strengthened with logic and reason.

Movie Night

The MAVEN experience also includes times of Bible study and prayer, time enjoying God’s creation, and time learning how to see everything through the lens of a Christian worldview — a worldview that happens to be true! This even includes a lesson on how to watch a movie.

One evening we all gathered to do just that — watch a movie. Before it began, Kunkle prepared the students to keep several things in mind when watching any movie and to always look for certain ideas, assumptions, moral values, and how characters are developed throughout the story. We then watched Les Miserables starring Liam Neeson and Uma Thurman.

After the movie, Kunkle led a fantastic conversation by asking some key questions regarding the overarching theme, who are the “good guys” and who are the “bad guys.” (What makes them “good” and “bad”?) What values are promoted and what is the “good life” according to the movie? These questions led to a fantastic and deep conversation with the teens.

Conclusion

By the end of the week, teens in these three youth groups were equipped to engage the culture! They all know exactly what they believe and exactly why they believe it. They know the Gospel and are prepared to share it and also to answer questions and objections raised against the Gospel message (which is a rarity)! These students also learned how to worship God while enjoying His beautiful creation — and simultaneously learning how to surf. The kids had tons of fun and were transformed by the renewing of their minds (Romans 12:2). They also changed a few lives for eternity.

If you are a youth pastor, Sunday school teacher, parent, or grandparent, you must do whatever it takes to get your kids on one of these trips before they graduate! To get a glimpse of the MAVEN experience click here for a Berkley trip and here for a Salt Lake City trip (they also offer a “Worldview Roadtrip”)! To learn more about these experiences email Glenn Pinson here: glenn@maventruth.com.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18)

 

Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North-West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2LYzO9U

/by

A Practical Guide to Culture: Helping the Next Generation Navigate Today’s World

Podcast: Play in new window

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

Do you feel like you are fighting a losing battle for the hearts and minds of your kids?

Something has changed. We all sense it. The cultural pressure is increasing, especially on our kids. But even in a world of ever-present screens, gender-identity questions, and addictions, kids can have clarity and confidence. We must help them and there’s nobody better in this important subject than Brett Kunkle founder of MAVEN. In this interview Frank and Brett talk about his latest book A Practical Guide to Culture: Helping the Next Generation Navigate Today’s World. Where he explores questions such as:

– What unseen undercurrents are shaping twenty-first-century youth culture?

– Why do so many kids struggle with identity?

– How do we talk to kids about LGBT issues?

– How can we steer kids away from substance abuse and other addictions?

– How can we ground students in the biblical story and empower them to change the world?

and more! Don’t miss it!

 

 

/by
Would A World Without Satan Lack Evil_

Would A World Without Satan Lack Evil?

By Rajkumar Richard

The question, “Would there be less evil in a world without Satan?” could be relevant, for if the answer to this question is a yes, then we could plausibly ask, “Why did God create angels, i.e., Satan if evil in this world would be lesser without Satan?”

Within this context, if God had not created Satan, evil would have been less, and our world would have been a good world. However, since God created Satan, could we then infer that God erred in HIS decision to create Satan?

The entailment to this thought process could potentially debunk Historic Christianity. God (as a maximally great being) cannot err. If God erred in creating Satan, HE cannot be God. Hence God’s existence could be disputed. The infallibility of the Bible that reveals God to mankind could also be thus disputed. We could go on and on.

Let us discuss this theme by considering the following aspects albeit from a biblical standpoint.

The Source of Sin

Sin is an evil action or motive that opposes and assaults God. Sin replaces God with something or someone in God’s rightful place of supremacy. Sin entails evil.

Understanding the source of sin is vital to understanding the theme we are discussing now. If Satan is the source of sin and evil, one could argue that God should not have created Satan to keep the world free of sin and evil.

The “Animal Nature” of man is the source of sin, claimed British Philosopher and Theologian Frederick R. Tennant. Under this notion, humans possess natural animalistic impulses as a means to human survival that have intensified through natural selection based on their evolution from less highly developed forms. Other theologians have posited other sources of sin. However, each of these views has been found to be largely inadequate.[1]

The Bible teaches differently. Sin is not caused by God (James 1:13), but man is responsible for his sins (James 1: 14-15).

Man possesses certain innate desires. He could either satisfy those desires in moderation or sin by abusing those desires to either hurt himself or the others.

His ‘desire to enjoy’ could result in an enjoyment of eating in moderation or a sin by being a glutton, whereby he injures himself.  His ‘desire to obtain’ could be satisfied either by legitimately acquiring material possessions or he could sin by exploiting and stealing from others. His ‘desire to achieve’ could be satisfied either through legitimate achievement or he could sin and achieve at the expense of others.

Man could satisfy these desires in a godly manner by dwelling within the divinely imposed constraints. But man sins when he fails to accept the divine limits to these desires and makes these desires as ends in themselves, which are the cravings of a sinful man (1 John 2: 16).

While desires are natural, there could be external inducements (Satanic or human) that motivate a man to sin. Whatever be the case, man is wholly responsible for his sins. Sin is the choice of the person who commits it.

Function of Satan in Sin

Satan is a demon (cf. Luke 10: 17-20). He is the tempter and deceiver. Satan opposes God and the work of Christ by tempting and deceiving humans. Satan tempted Adam & Eve, Jesus, Judas, etc. (cf. Acts 5:3, 1 Corinthians 7:5, 2 Corinthians 2: 11, Ephesians 6: 11, 2 Timothy 2: 26).

Sometimes we state that Satan is the source of sins. While making such statements, we use the word “source” informally. In this informal usage, “source” refers to an ‘originator’ or an ‘instigatory cause.’

If we claim that Satan is the source of all sins, i.e., if we use the word ‘source’ to mean, in an Aristotelian sense, the material cause (‘that out of which’) or the efficient cause (‘the primary source of…’), then we posit dualism. Dualism contradicts the Bible, for there are no two equally ultimate powers, one good, and the other evil.

God is the only ultimate power and God is good. God is not the source or the originator of sin or evil. Moreover, Satan was originally created good; hence Satan is not the source of sin and evil.

Potency of Freewill to Sin without Satan

If asked differently, the title question would be, “Would Adam & Eve have sinned without Satan?” Since man is responsible for his sins, the answer should be yes.

The premise on which this argument is also predicated on is the freewill-based rebellion of angels in the heavenly realm. (This premise presupposes the metaphysical similarity of the free will of angels and humans.)

The angels that rebelled against God did not have an external inducement (as Adam & Eve had Satan as an external inducer). There were only two entities during the angelic fall – God and Angels. (Even if mankind was created before the fall of Satan, man was totally incapable of influencing Satan’s fall.)

Since God can neither tempt nor cause evil, the angelic rebellion was an entailment of their free will. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to conclude that Adam & Eve had the potential to sin or would have sinned irrespective of the presence of Satan.

Satan merely accelerated the sin of Adam and Eve. Had Satan not existed, Adam and Eve would have sinned (or eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) sooner or later.

Conclusion

Satan is not the source of sin. Man’s free will is the source of sin. Man would have inevitably sinned regardless of Satan’s existence.

Would the quantum and the extent of sins be minimized if Satan was not created? Not necessarily so, for if Satan is to be considered as an accelerant of sin, then there is a possibility that the quantum and the extent of sins would be actualized at a later time. So the quantum and the extent of sins would have been the same with or without Satan, for the potency of man’s free will to sin is independent of Satan.

The other possibility is that the quantum and the extent of sins would be lesser without Satan. In which case, the question, “If evil in this world would be lesser without Satan, then why did God create Satan?” gains legitimacy.

If Satan is the sole cause of evil, then evil would have been absolutely eliminated, had Satan not been created. However, since Satan exists and that Satan is not the sole cause of evil, only God, in HIS omniscient wisdom would be able to determine the extent to which evil would be reduced had angels not been created.

But on the other hand, if the good that is to be actualized from the good angels in ministering to people is commensurately immeasurable, then God would be justified to create Satan even with the potential of evil.

Finally, natural evil, which is devoid of human willing and acting, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. and suffering caused by a host of diseases such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, etc. exist independent of Satan and adds substantial numbers to the victims of evil. The pain and suffering caused by natural evil and diseases are innate in the creational design of this world and the human body.

The fact of the matter is that evil would not cease to exist if Satan were to be non-existent. Hence, numbers need not matter. When evil exists, the terms ‘lesser’ and ‘greater’ do not gain greater significance, for the world we live in would be evil even if only 1% of the total population (1 out of 10 people) are adversely affected by evil. Moreover, if only 1% of the total population is affected by evil, then there is a certain possibility for evil to increase.

Therefore, the question, “Would there be less evil in a world without Satan?” would neither debunk nor harm Historic Christianity.

Notes:

[1] Other theologians have posited various sources for sin. The “Anxiety of Finiteness” was proposed by Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971). The idea of “Existential Estrangement” was proposed by Paul Tillich (1886-1965), the “Economic Struggle” proposed by the Liberation Theology, and “Individualism and Competitiveness” as argued by Harrison Sacket Elliott (1882-1951).

 

Rajkumar Richard is passionate to strengthen the faith of fellow Christians, especially the young Christians. He has a Masters in Religion (Southern Evangelical Seminary, NC, USA) and Masters in Biology (School of Biological Sciences, Madurai Kamaraj University, India). He is a Christian blogger, itinerant speaker, social evangelist, and a mentor to young Christians.

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

/by
A Call To An Intellectual Faith

A Call To An Intellectual Faith

By J. Brian Huffling

I would venture that if you asked people what is meant by ‘faith,’ they would likely say “believing something in spite of the evidence or in the absence of evidence.” However, such has not historically been the view of faith.

Faith has traditionally been understood as trusting a reliable source. For example, while it is possible to prove through historical means that Jesus died, it is not possible to prove through merely historical means that his death atoned for our sins. The former is demonstrable through reason, the latter by faith. This is not meant to say that faith is irrational. On the contrary, when a source is demonstrated to be reliable, we can trust that source even when we cannot prove something through empirical investigation. Jesus and his apostles have been verified to be reliable sources. Their message has been confirmed with miracles, and Jesus’ claims to deity were likewise confirmed via miracles. Given such reliability, we can trust, i.e., have faith in, what they say.

This is in stark contrast to the blind faith that so many in our culture accuse Christians of having. I have been asked on more than one occasion how I can be a philosopher and also a Christian. The answer is simple: Christianity is philosophically rational.

The Problem

However, sometimes Christians don’t help matters. Sometimes people assert that faith is all it takes to be a Christian. In a sense there is a ring of truth to this; however, that is probably misleading. We have to have faith in the right object. Discerning what object should warrant our faith and belief requires reason. Faith alone is not enough, for one can have (blind) faith in anything. To have faith in the traditional sense requires one to have reasons, and thus to have a reasoned faith.

It is sad that some Christians actually believe (blindly) that we should not base our faith on reason, for such supposedly subordinates God’s Word to human reason. However, understanding (let alone believing) the Bible requires one to rationally understand what it says. We cannot even know what the Bible says without using reason.

Some Causes of the Problem

With such notions in mind, our culture has ridiculed Christians for being irrational. Historically this is false, for many of the best minds have been Christians. But there is a very real sense of anti-intellectualism in the church nowadays. This is particularly noticeable to new seminary graduates who are eager to take various positions in church ministry or academia. I cannot begin to count the number of graduates that I know who have been disillusioned by the church’s disinterest in being intellectually fit.

Another problem is pastors. I wish I had a dollar for every time some pastor called for the congregation not to clutter their Christian faith with reason. Sometimes this call is subtle and sometimes it is overt. Many churches I have visited, even lately, have an anti-intellectual air about them, stemming from the person behind the pulpit. Such leads to disastrous consequences.

This can be seen in the gross ignorance of average Christians who don’t know hardly anything about their faith. I have had countless people talk to me about their Christian “faith” who do not even know whether or not they are Protestant, even though they have identified with Christianity for years. The average churchgoer cannot even articulate, let alone defend, such primary doctrines as the Trinity or the Incarnation. Many who have grown up for decades in the Church know next to nothing about the Bible, where certain books are, or have any idea whatsoever about how to interpret or study it. Most Christians cannot have an intelligent conversation about God’s nature regarding whether they think he is temporal, changeable, etc., or that these issues are even debated. Rather than have solid studies on the Bible or theology, most are more interested in 12 step programs, like how to better their lives. Several years ago I made a list of the top 10 books in Christian bookstores. There was maybe one book on theology, several on health and prosperity, and others on fiction. Why is this?

I think at least one problem is pastors. They are not the only problem, but they are our leaders of spirituality, and they definitely share at least some of the blame. (I realize this is a generalization, but I have seen and heard more pastors show off their ignorance as well as a desire for others to do the same than I would like.) In my experience and in talking to others, it appears that one reason that pastors want to downplay reason and intellectual faith is because it is difficult. It actually requires a lot of studying and learning. It is much easier to attack reason as an instrument of paganism or the devil than it is to devote one’s life to the intellectual pursuit. However, pastors have a responsibility to lead their flock in worship and devotion to Christ. A consequence of pastors downplaying reason is apathy and ignorance on the part of the parishioners. The Bible tells us explicitly (and many times implicitly) to worship God with our minds (Matt 22:37).

It is worth noting that when reason is downplayed false teaching is much more likely to abound. Both Mormons and teachers of the Word-Faith Movement downplay the use of reason. What is left is an attempt to judge what is true based on feelings.

Of course, pastors are not the only problem. Each person is responsible for his own mind and faith. It is also true that a church can have a marvelous pastor with uninterested followers. Church and Christianity have been so divorced from intellectualism in many circles lately that people either don’t care to learn or don’t know how. So what is the solution?

Part of the Solution

The anti-intellectualism issue has many causes and requires various solutions. One solution is for parishioners and pastors to realize there is a great need for pastors and church leaders to be educated. Some pastors realize the need, but either can’t afford to do anything about it or do not have the support of the church. We must support our pastors in this area. We should not settle for anything less. Most people would not get their hair done by someone who didn’t have a license and training to do it, so why wouldn’t we want the leaders of our churches who are supposed to lead our families and us in our faith to have an education?

In turn, churches should have programs in place to teach their parishioners the basics of the faith. The average Christian isn’t expected to be a theologian, but he ought to at least understand the basics of the faith. A good way to do this is to have studies on the churches doctrinal statement (if they have one!).

Another part of the solution is to be educated ourselves. This does not necessitate formal training, but it we should take an interest in what we claim to be the most important area of our lives: our faith. This means going to church and Bible studies (taught by trained teachers), reading books, and making it a point to learn what our faith is all about. (See my Recommended Booklist.)

Having a rational faith also allows us to apply it to every area of our lives, such as politics, ethics, and entertainment. This is how we love and worship God with our minds. The difference between humans and other animals is the human mind and the ability to reason. This is how God made us different and more like him. We should, in fact, seek to worship and know him through this important aspect of our nature.

 

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/2LT9c9y

/by
Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too!

Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too!

,

By Ryan Leasure

We’ve all felt it. The sense of guilt overwhelmed us. The pastor brings his sermon to a close, but before he concludes, he gives the congregation one final exhortation. Go tell others about Jesus. He says if Jesus was willing to lay down his life for you, the least you can do is proclaim that message to others. Gulp. As you slouch farther down into your seat and wipe the sweat off your forehead, you wonder if you’re a pathetic Christian because you struggle to share your faith.

It’s not that you don’t want to either — you really do. But you’re scared. You’re scared of people will think you’re that weird Jesus person who’s out of touch with reality. You’re afraid the friendship will end or that you’ll make everything awkward. Have you ever felt this way? Have you ever started a conversation with good intentions to talk about Jesus only to back out later? If so, you’re not alone.

Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too

I say you’re not alone because I’ve done the same. I’m a pastor. I have a seminary degree. I’ve studied the Bible a lot. Yet, at the same time, I get scared too. Do all my neighbors know about my Christian faith? Not even close. I’ve had intentions to share my faith, but my intentions often times fail to deliver the goods.

When I was younger, I owned a t-shirt and a hat that said “No Fear.” I wore them together so if anyone ever doubted my bravery after looking at my shirt, they could lift their eyes to my hat and have any lingering doubt removed. Wearing that slogan, however, only demonstrated my fear. It’s a lot like the kid who’s the first to say “Ewwww” when someone asks if they pick their boogers. The emphatic rejection often times reveals the opposite.

I’m fearful of how people will perceive me. And in my experience, just about everyone else is in the same boat. The Bible has a phrase for this — the fear of man.

Advice On Sharing Your Faith

While I struggle with the fear of man, God’s been kind to grow me in this area. I’m far from perfect, don’t get me wrong. Yet, sharing Jesus with non-Christians isn’t as daunting as it once was. And it doesn’t have to be a daunting task for you either if you abide by these principles.

Pray

Pray for your lost friends and neighbors consistently. Remember, God is the one who ultimately transforms people’s hearts and lives. Also, pray that God will give you a greater love for them because love compels us to share the Gospel more than anything else. And pray for boldness to share the Gospel despite the fear of rejection.

Personally, I find that when I pray for people to receive Christ, God gives me opportunities to share the Gospel with them in a natural way. Jesus says in Matthew 7 that when we ask God for good things — and evangelism opportunities are good — He will be faithful to give them to us.

Avoid Jesus-Juking

A Jesus-juke is when you try to smuggle Jesus into the conversation at any cost. For example, your non-Christian friend might say, “I’ve had a rough day.” To which you reply, “you know who had a rough day? Jesus, when he died on the cross for your sins.” If you want to make things awkward with your friend, Jesus-juking is the way to go.

As I think about evangelism, I think a lot of us feel as if we need to take this kind of approach. Sure, we won’t be as blatantly awkward, but we feel as if we need to look for any crack in the door in order to slip a Jesus foot through it. In my experience, forcing Jesus unnaturally never works.

Build Relationships

The days of door-to-door evangelism are long gone. Most people won’t even answer their door anymore, let alone talk with you for fifteen minutes on their front porch. We need a new strategy — one that will be effective. That strategy is cultivating relationships with non-Christians. Invite them into your home. Have dinner together. Have your kids play together at the park. Build a relationship with that person so that they know you care. And as you converse, ease into faith conversations.

As opposed to Jesus-juking, talk about Jesus at natural times. Perhaps they will bring up a difficult situation in their life. Express genuine compassion for them, and then ask them if they’ve ever wondered why this world is so broken? This could potentially lead to a conversation about Jesus dealing with our brokenness. You get the idea, but don’t feel as if you have to force Jesus into every conversation.

Be Ready To Give An Answer

One of the greatest fears we have when it comes to sharing our faith is that we’re afraid we’ll be asked hard questions we don’t know how to answer. For some, this might cause more fear than making things awkward. How do we fix this?

I would encourage you to know what you believe and why you believe it. This, of course, requires a bit of perspiration on your part because no one learns everything they need to know overnight. Read the Scriptures. Go through theology books. Think about the objections others have toward Christianity, and do your best to find the answers. You won’t ever know it all, but you can do your best. Peter says, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pet. 3:15).

You’re Not Alone

If you struggle to share your faith, you’re not alone. You’re not a pathetic Christian either. We all struggle. Pastors struggle. We’re in this together. Yet, by God’s grace, you can grow in effectiveness, though you will need to be intentional in your efforts. No one ever becomes an effective witness by accident. Just like anything else in your life, if you wish to excel, you need to plan to excel. Think about something you are really good at. Now think about how that happened. Chances are, you put a lot of thought and energy into excelling in that area. I would urge you to do the same with evangelism.

You’ll mess up along the way. You’ll chicken out again. It’s ok. God is gracious. He’ll give you more opportunities.

 

Ryan Leasure holds an M.A. from Furman University and an M.Div. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

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

/by

Are Christians too judgmental? & Did Jesus promise us anything we ask in faith?

Podcast: Play in new window

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

At CrossExamined our goal is to try and answer your questions the best we can and this is exactly what Frank does in this podcast. He answers questions from YOU (our audience). In this episode he focuses on two very important questions:

• Are Christians too judgmental?
• Did Jesus promise us anything we ask in faith?

Don’t miss it and don’t forget to send your questions to Frank via Email!

 

 

/by
Was Jesus’ Death and Resurrection Copied from Krishna_

Was Jesus’ Death and Resurrection Copied from Krishna?

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

Copied From Krishna?

What would you say if someone told you the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection were copied from earlier pagan stories? Over 100 years ago, a guy named Kersey Graves talked about Jesus and Krishna. He said Jesus wasn’t unique among religious figures. Fans of his work were convinced the Hindu figure Krishna wasn’t just a dying and rising god but a crucified savior, too.

Maybe you haven’t heard this exact challenge about Jesus and Krishna before. But the idea that Jesus’ story was ripped off older pagan myths comes up over and over again in conversations about world religious literature.

I teach a World Religion course at William Jessup University and recently got a chance to collaborate on this topic with my friend Daniel Lee, who is currently studying Christian Apologetics under another friend from my Biola days, Dr. Sean McDowell.

In this post, we’ll show you how comparing the story of Krishna with the biblical accounts of Jesus show that Jesus’ death and resurrection wasn’t copied from Hinduism. First, we’ll compare the story of Jesus’ death to the story of Krishna’s death. Was Jesus’ death copied from Krishna? Then, we’ll compare the idea of resurrection in each of these stories. Was Krishna really a crucified Savior?

Was Jesus’ death copied from Krishna?

Let’s compare Jesus and Krishna. In The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors, Graves wrote that Krishna was crucified between two thieves (p. 140). But no Hindu text says Krishna was crucified at all! Still, some wonder if there’s a parallel between the way Jesus and Krishna died. They’ve heard that long before Jesus’ death, there was an old Indian myth about the Hindu god Krishna being pierced and resurrected. Really?

It does sound curious when you put it that way. After all, Christians link Isaiah 53:5 to Jesus’ death by crucifixion: “But he was pierced for our transgressions…with his wounds we are healed” (Compare this with 1 Peter 2:24). But here’s the thing: All things can seem similar if you ignore the differences!

Read for yourself what the Indian epic-poem called the Mahabharata (Book 16: Mausala Parva) says about Krishna. He wasn’t crucified. Instead, he got shot in a hunting accident!

“The hunter, mistaking [Krishna]…for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey. Coming up, Jara [the hunter] beheld a man dressed in yellow robes, rapt in Yoga and endued with many arms. Regarding himself an offender, and filled with fear, he touched the feet of [Krishna, who] comforted him and then ascended upwards…When he reached Heaven [he] met the deities…”

Yes, Krishna was pierced. But he was pierced by an arrow when he got shot in the foot! Krishna wasn’t crucified. And he certainly wasn’t crucified between two thieves!

So was Jesus’ death by crucifixion copied from Krishna? Nope. Turns out, there’s no crucifixion in the Krishna story at all. We just don’t see a meaningful parallel between Jesus and Krishna in this regard. What about Graves’ idea that Krishna was a resurrected savior?

Was Jesus’ resurrection copied from Krishna?

We could be wrong about this, but it’s not clear that Krishna actually died when Jara shot him in the foot. If he didn’t really die, he couldn’t have been raised from the dead. But let’s give Graves the benefit of the doubt and say Krishna died when he got shot in the foot and somehow came back to life right after getting shot.

There’s still no meaningful parallel with Jesus’ resurrection. According to the earliest Christian sources, Jesus was buried and his tomb was discovered empty by his women followers three days later. Over a period of 40 days, he convinced individuals and groups that God raised him from the dead before ascending to heaven. This is totally different from the Krishna story.

But more importantly, Christians link Jesus’ death and resurrection with the possibility of forgiveness of sin and eternal life. In contrast, no Hindu text links the Krishna scene to the possibility of human beings attaining forgiveness of sins or attaining eternal life. In what sense, then, was Krishna a savior?

So was Jesus’ resurrection copied from Krishna? No. It’s not clear that Krishna was resurrected in the myth and no Hindus link Krishna’s hunting accident with forgiveness of sins or eternal life.

Jesus and Krishna: No Meaningful Parallel

People who want to force a parallel say Jesus and Krishna were both pieced and raised from the dead. But again, almost anything can seem similar if you ignore the differences! The key point of the Gospel story is that God used Jesus’ resurrection to validate his divine claims. Further, the New Testament links Jesus’ death and resurrection to believers receiving forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Indeed, the Christian significance of this event has no meaningful parallel with the Hindu story of Krishna. As my friend Daniel concludes:

“These stories and implications are about as similar as an ant and an elephant.”

Interestingly, the earliest critics of Christianity never said Jesus’ story was ripped off from Hinduism. Right from the get-go, the Apostle Paul acknowledged that Gentiles found the idea of a crucified savior tough to accept (1 Corinthians 1:23), not like it was a common theme in pagan mythology. Even in the second century, the Greek Apologist Justin Martyr made a similar observation in Apology I: Skeptics said the idea of a crucified savior was absolutely crazy (13.4)!

Jesus’ Story Wasn’t Copied from Krishna

Bottom line: Was Krishna crucified? Nope. Not in any Hindu story anywhere. Was Krishna resurrected? Maybe. But despite what Graves insists, Krishna was not a pre-Christian example of a crucified savior. There’s no salvation, forgiveness of sins (or escape from karma for that matter) or hope of eternal life linked to it. Just comparing the stories of Jesus and Krishna shows Graves is wrong on this one. You can be confident that Jesus’ death and resurrection wasn’t copied from Krishna.

 

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

/by