Tag Archive for: apologetics

Argument for the soul

The Identity Argument for the Soul

,

By Evan Minton

C.S Lewis once wrote “You don’t have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body“.[1] Most Christians believe that we are not merely physical bodies, but that we are immaterial entities that live inside our bodies. We are embodied spirits. This view is known as Substance Dualism. The Bible very clearly teaches substance dualism (see, for example, 1 Samuel 28, 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, Philippians 1:20-22, 2 Corinthians 12:2-4), so if you believe the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant, then you ought to be a substance dualist. However, how would you demonstrate the reality of the soul to someone who doesn’t believe The Bible is divinely inspired? Quoting passages to prove that souls exist would do little good when talking to an atheist or an agnostic.

Fortunately, there are philosophical arguments we can draw on for the existence of the soul. One such argument is The FreeThinking Argument which I briefly surveyed in my blog post “5 Arguments For The Existence Of Free Will”. However, another argument reasons to the soul’s existence from the law of identity. This logical principle states that if you’re considering two objects, and every single property both objects have are in common, and there is literally nothing to distinguish the two, the most logical inference is that they are one in the same. That is to say, the two things really aren’t two things after all, but one thing. On the other hand, if the two things do have at least one property that distinguishes them, then the two things are totally separate entities.

In syllogistic form, the argument goes like this:

1: If the mind is identical to the brain, then whatever is true of the brain is true of the mind and vice versa.
2: There are things true of the mind that are not true of the brain.
3: Therefore, the mind and brain are not identical. 

This is a logically valid argument. The conclusion follows from the premises by the rule of modus ponens. In order for the conclusion to be justifiably reached, we must affirm that both premises are true. What reasons can be given in defense of these premises?

Premise 1: If The Mind Is Identical To The Brain, Then Whatever Is True Of The Mind Is True Of The Brain and Vice Versa.

The premise rests on the law of identity. The physicalist (i.e the person who believes that people don’t have souls) must prove that when one is talking about the “brain” and when one is talking about the “mind”, they are talking about the same object. In order for them to really be one in the same, any property that the brain has, the mind must have. Any property the mind has, the brain must have. If physicalism is true, the brain must have properties A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and the mind must have properties A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Moreover, there must be no property or properties, H, I, and/or J which exists in one but not in the other. For if properties H or I can be found in one but not in the other, then this shows that they are different entities.

Imagine an alien were to visit from a faraway galaxy and he asked an Earthling who the current president of the united states is. The Earthling tells the alien that the current president is the former host of the TV show The Apprentice. Furthermore, this Earthling later learns from another person that The Apprentice only had one host prior to Arnold Schwarzenegger, Donald Trump. So, if the current president is the former host of The Apprentice, and the former host of The Apprentice is Donald Trump, then the alien would rightly conclude that the name of the current President is Donald Trump. He also learns that Trump is a Caucasian man and that it was a Caucasian man who previously hosted the television show.

Now suppose that this alien knows nothing of how the U.S government works and doesn’t know that a President can only serve a maximum of 8 years. He comes back 20 years later and asks someone who the current U.S President is and the Earthling tells this alien that the president is an Asian Woman whose previous trade was a movie actress, like Reagan. The alien takes into account the facts learned before, namely “The current president is the former host of The Apprentice“, “The current president is a man”, “the previous host of The Apprentice is a man”, and contrasts them with the new information that the current president is an Asian Woman. This is a distinguishing property. The alien concludes from this that Donald Trump must no longer be the current president and that the current president is an entirely different individual, an individual who did not host The Apprentice.

In the above illustration, the alien never actually saw pictures or videos of both of these U.S Presidents. He simply logically inferred based on the law of identity that Donald Trump was the president during his first visit, but that someone else became president before his second visit.

Donald Trump had properties (A) Prior host of The Apprentice, (B) Is U.S President, (C) is Caucasian, (D) is a man.

Years later, the alien found a person who (E) is U.S President, (F) an Asian woman, (G) was a Hollywood actress, (G) never hosted The Apprentice.

E, F, and G, are incompatible with  A, C, and D. On this basis, the alien concludes they aren’t the same person. They do not have 100% of their properties in common.

Or another illustration: suppose your wife called you on the phone and said that she bought a bag of red fruit and set them on the counter. You come home to find red apples sitting on the table. You infer that the apples were the fruit your wife was referring to because (A) apple is a fruit, and (B) the apples are red. Your wife’s description and your observation connect to tell you that what your wife was talking about on the phone and what you’re now seeing with your own eyes are one in the same thing. Now, if you came home and found Granny Smith apples, you would think something is up. Although apples are a type of fruit, there’s a property that distinguishes them from the fruit your wife described on the phone, namely the color. You would infer that either your wife was lying, she’s color blind, or she bought two kinds of fruit and the fruit you’re looking at isn’t the kind she was talking about on the phone. But you would never say that the fruit you’re looking at and the fruit your wife talked about on the phone are the same type of fruit because they do not share 100% of the same properties in common. There is at least one property to distinguish them.

It can be stated simply: If X is identical to Y, then whatever is true of X is true of Y and vice versa. But if something is true of Y that is not true of X, then X is not identical to Y.

Premise 2: There Are Things True Of The Mind That Are Not True Of The Brain.

Now we come to the most crucial premise. Is the mind like the green apples and an Asian woman in the above illustrations? Do they have distinguishing properties that would lead us to conclude that are two distinct entities? I believe they do.

The mind has mental properties, such as the property of feeling sad, happy, angry. The mind thinks “about” things. For example, when I go for walks with my dog, I think “about” God, Jesus, philosophy, science, apologetics, or how lovely the trees in my yard looks. Sometimes I think “about” my childhood. The mind has the property of “aboutness” to it. The mind also has the property of first-person perspective. I know myself more intimately than anyone else in the world. I know first-hand what it’s like to feel my own happiness, my own sadness, my own anger, my own anxiety. I know what it’s like to be me. Moreover, the mind contains these things called beliefs, and beliefs can be either true or false.

What about the brain, that physical organ that sits inside our skulls? Does the brain have these properties? No. The brain is never “about” anything. A neuroscientist could hook me up to a machine that could show in exact detail every physiological phenomenon that are going on inside my brain, and never once will he see any of my thoughts. I could be thinking about Pokemon Battle Strategies, and the neuroscientist wouldn’t be able to point to a group of neurons and tell his colleagues “You see that? Those neurons are about Pokemon Battle Strategies”. He would never be able to locate my knowledge of The Bible or of Natural Theology argument. The neuroscientist couldn’t put his finger on the screen of the machine and say “Here’s The Kalam Cosmological Argument!” Even if they cut open my brain and put every molecule under a microscope, they wouldn’t find any property of “aboutness” anywhere. But if the mind is the brain, and mind is undergoing various thoughts, one ought to be able to locate and discern those thoughts if they can simply know what physical processes are going on in my brain, right?
It is also impossible for someone studying a person’s brain to have that first-person perspective. He could have Bob hooked up to a machine to show all of the physical processes currently going on in his brain. The doctor could then hit Bob’s toe with a hammer. The machine would register a pain signal going from Bob’s foot to his brain, indicating that he is experiencing pain, and the doctor would rightly conclude that Bob is in pain. Nevertheless, the doctor would not know what it is like for Bob to experience that pain. He doesn’t have the first-person perspective of the hammer pain. Now, one may object “But Bob could retaliate and hit the doctor on the foot”. True, but that would only result in the doctor having the first-person experience of his own pain. He still wouldn’t have first-person knowledge of Bob’s pain. The doctor might infer that this is what it was like when he struck Bob. In fact, this seems obvious. We all seem to be able to empathize with someone who is going through physical pain. We say “I’ve been there” or “I know what that’s like”. But this is merely a logical inference linking two independent experiences. We don’t really know what it’s like for that person from their first-person POV. We can only infer what it’s like for them on the basis of what it was like for us.
I can infer what it’s like for Bob to have a toothache on the basis of my own experience of tooth-aches, but I do not and cannot partake in Bob’s firsthand experience of tooth pain. The most advanced technology in the world could only tell you the physiological processes occurring when Bob experiences things, but it would never let you step into Bob’s shoes and have that experience yourself.
Now let’s consider beliefs. Beliefs can be true or false, but brain states cannot be true or false. A brain state is just a brain state. It simply is what it is. A neuroscientist can’t hook me up to an EEG and tell me “You know what you’re doing right now? You’re having a false brain state. Cut it out.” This shows that beliefs and brain states are not identical. The thought I’m having can be true or false, but the electrochemical process that occurs when I’m having the thought cannot be true or false.
So, to sum up:
The Mind’s properties — (1) Aboutness, (2) first-person POV, (3) has beliefs that are true or false.
The Brain — (1*) Lacks aboutness, (2*) can only have physiological processes associated with the 1st person POV observed, (3*) has physical states that cannot be either true or false (they are what they are).
Whatever properties they might have in common, it is indisputable that one has properties the other doesn’t have, thus the second premise is true.
Conclusion: Therefore, The Mind Is Not Identical To The Brain.
Since both premises are true, the conclusion follows by the law of modus ponens.
Objection 1: Whenever Something Occurs In The Mental Life, There Are Neurological Processes Occurring In The Brain That Go Along With It. This Shows That The Mind Is Really Just The Brain.
The primary argument for physicalism is that whenever mental events occur in the mind, there are physical events happening in the brain that occur simultaneously. Take the phenomenon of fear. When you have fear, undoubtedly there is brain activity that is correlated with the experience of fear. Physicalists will also point out that certain mental diseases, like Alzheimer’s, affect the brain, but as a result of affecting the brain, the mind is also affected. People with this dreadful disease lose more and more of their ability to think clearly and remember. Eventually, they even forget who their relatives are. Doesn’t this loss of brain/loss of mind correlation show that the mind is the brain?
I don’t think so. For one thing, it’s important that you don’t miss that my arguments given for premise 2 presuppose that there’s a correlation of events between the brain and the mind. If you re-read those paragraphs again, you’ll see that.
Secondly, this objection doesn’t even address my points that the mind has the property of aboutness and the brain does not (no neuron, cell, or electrical impulse is “about” any of your thoughts), nor it does address my point that even an exhaustive knowledge of the physical process of the brain wouldn’t show you that person’s first-person point of view. This objection refutes neither premise of the argument.
Thirdly, mental diseases like Alzheimer’s affecting one’s mental life doesn’t necessarily point to the conclusion that they are one in the same. At most, this just shows that the brain and mind can affect or influence one another. In a lecture at the Truth For A New Generation conference in 2012 titled “The Argument For The Soul”, J.P Moreland gave the following illustration. Suppose you’re in a car that has defected doors that won’t open, and the seatbelt can’t be released either. Wouldn’t it be the case that your mobility would be limited by where you can drive the car? Yes. You could go anywhere you wanted to except for places where the car couldn’t fit. Suppose something happened to the steering wheel that caused it to be stuck turned left. In this case, you’d be stuck driving around in circles.
Now suppose that you wreck the car, and you do so in such a way that the seatbelt snaps, the windshield shatters, and you get hurled out of the vehicle. No problems that existed with the vehicle would matter anymore because you’re not inside of it anymore.
In a similar way, while we’re stuck in these earthen vessels, we are mentally limited by our brains and bodies. If the brain is malfunctioning, that’s going to cause our minds to malfunction as well even though our minds are distinct. Now, when the mind (soul) leaves the body, it’s no longer constrained by the physical defects of the brain it depended on. Just as the physical defects of the car didn’t matter once our driver was able to get out.
Philosopher William Lane Craig answered it this way: “Noble Prize winning neurologist Sir John Eccles lecture on the relationship between the mind and the brain. He said that the mind and the brain are like a pianist and his piano. In order to produce music the pianist must have a finely tuned piano, and then he can produce the music. But if the piano is out of tune, even though the musician knows how to play the piece correctly, the music will be discordant, and he will not be able to produce the beautiful music. Similarly, Eccles said, the mind and the brain work together to produce thought. If the brain is malfunctioning or injured or impaired then thought will be impaired; the soul will not be able to think properly. Its instrument will be impaired and so it cannot think correctly.” [2]
So, to conclude: brain-state correlation with mental events doesn’t prove the mind is the brain. It could just mean there’s a two-way relationship of cause and effect between them. There’s a reason my blog’s slogan is “Using the brains that God gave us”. That reason is that I believe we do indeed use our physical brains to think, just a pianist uses a piano to make music.
Objection 2: The Mind-Body Interaction Problem
Some physicalists try to argue that substance dualism is false because of what is known as “The Mind-Body Interaction Problem”. This dilemma stated is that there is no way to explain how an immaterial thing like the soul can cause effects in the brain and body and vice versa. How exactly does this mysterious substance called “The soul” cause effects in my physical brain? What mechanism is there for the soul to cause the brain to cause my fingers to type this sentence? No one can give an answer. I certainly can’t at least.
Now, one could perhaps simply appeal to mystery. As long as we have good grounds for affirming that the soul and brain do indeed interact, we can simply shrug our shoulders at the how.
On the other hand, some actually make a more potent argument than simply saying “You can’t explain how the soul and body interact, so substance dualism must be false.” Some frame the counterargument to substance dualism this way:
(A1) A soul can interact with a body only if the interaction is in virtue of the transference of motion from the soul to the body.
(A2) Transference of motion from a soul to a body is impossible (because a soul does not have motion).
(A3) Therefore, a soul cannot interact with a body.
Dr. Jacobus Erasmus explains that first step asserts that for A to causally interact with B, a transference of motion from A to B has got to happen, such as through a collision or some other kind of impact. Now, many philosophers, (e.g Jonathan Barnes, Joshua Hoffman, and Gary Rosenkrantz), have noted that (A1) presupposes the following erroneous principle:
(A4) For any two objects A and B and some property F, if A causes B to be F, then A is F.
Dr. Jacobus Arasmas explains that “According to (A4), if a soul causes a body to be in motion, then the soul must be in motion. It is, thus, easy to see why (A1) presupposes (A4). Unfortunately, (A4) is demonstrably false. A lump of clay, for example, can be caused to be square by a non-square object, such as a hand or a rolling pin. Or consider the Law of Gravity, according to which two pieces of matter can accelerate toward each other (or gain motion) without motion being transferred from one to the other. Hence, since (A4) is false, (A1) is false.” [3] As any philosopher will tell you, it only takes the falsification of one premise to make an argument worthless. So even if A2 stands, A3 doesn’t follow because A1 is fallacious.
So, although we still don’t know how the mind/soul causes effects in the brain/body, we certainly don’t have any positive reason (as the above syllogism attempts to show) that such an interaction is impossible. As long as the arguments for substance dualism are sound, we can simply leave this issue an open question. Just as if Kirk MacGregor’s argument for middle knowledge is sound, we can leave the issue of how God knows CCFs an open question.
Conclusion
Other objections to the argument could be addressed, but for the sake of keeping this article a reasonable length, I only opted to respond to the two primary objections most frequently brought up by physicalists. Any other objections can be saved for future articles. It seems that the identity argument for the soul is sound, which gives us good extra-biblical grounds for being substance dualists.
Notes
1: C.S Lewis, ChristianQuotes.com, Retrieved December 20th 2017, https://www.christianquotes.info/images/c-s-lewis-quote-soul/#axzz51p9eNMVl
3: Dr. Jacobus Arasmus, “Objections To The Existence Of The Soul”, November 20th 2017, http://freethinkingministries.com/objections-to-the-existence-of-the-soul/

 

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine”. He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

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

/by
real messiah

Is Jesus the Real Messiah? with Dr. Michael L. Brown

Podcast: Play in new window

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

Dr. Michael Brown and Frank answer the following Jewish Objections to Jesus:

• Isn’t the Messiah supposed to build the third temple? Jesus didn’t do that.
• The Messiah is supposed to gather all the Jews back to the land of Israel and usher in peace. Jesus didn’t do that.
• Doesn’t the NT take OT prophecies out of context, like Isaiah 7:14?
• What do Jews say about a child being born whom will be Mighty God (Isa. 9:6)?
• Isn’t the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 Israel?

http://realmessiah.com/

 

/by
Zombie Science

Zombie Science with Dr. Jonathan Wells

Podcast: Play in new window

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

In 2000, biologist Jonathan Wells took the science world by storm with Icons of Evolution, a book showing how biology textbooks routinely promote Darwinism using bogus evidence— in Zombie Science, Wells asks a simple question: If the icons of evolution were just innocent textbook errors, why do so many of them still persist? Science has enriched our lives and led to countless discoveries. But now, Wells argues, it’s being corrupted. Empirical science is devolving into zombie science, shuffling along unfazed by opposing evidence. Don’t miss this fantastic interview with Dr. Wells about his new book, Zombie Science!

Zombie Science (Book) http://amzn.to/2DoHDy8

Zombie Science

/by
Christians Logic

Why Should Christians Care About Logic?

By Andrew Cabrera

I was at a Christmas party a few years ago and someone walked up to me and began talking to me about my views on God. At one point in the conversation he asked the age-old question, “Can God make a rock so heavy that he himself can’t lift it?” Among other things, I mentioned that omnipotence does not mean that God can do what is logically impossible. Then the conversation abruptly ended as he said, “You can’t use logic to talk about God. God is not bound by the logic of Man!” Then he nodded his head and tipped his chicken wing at me as if to say “Gotcha!” and walked away triumphantly before I had a chance to say a word. Was he right? Is God bound by logic? Can God do the logically impossible?

What are the Laws of Logic?

The laws of logic are not invented; they are discovered truths about the nature of reality itself. It is commonly accepted that there are three fundamental laws of logic and that all other logical principles are derived from these three laws; these foundational laws are: the principle of identity, the law of the excluded middle, and the law of non-contradiction. Each of these is similar, but subtly distinct from the others. The principle of identity can be symbolized as ∀(p): (p=p), which is a fancy way of saying that “p” is what it is. The law of the excluded middle can be symbolized as (p v ~p), and means that it will always be the case that either “p” or “not p” is true (there is no third option). And finally, the law of non-contradiction can be symbolized as ~(p * ~p), and means that both “p” and “not p” cannot be true in the same way at the same time. This may seem a bit abstract, but I just wanted to make sure we began on equal footing about what the laws of logic were before trying to apply them.

Is God bound by logic?

There first needs to be a distinction made between what IS logically coherent, and what SEEMS logically coherent. Our rational intuition can fail us at times. We can think of our rational intuition as failing in terms of what statisticians call Type I errors and Type II errors. A Type I error is also known as a “false positive,” this occurs when your rational intuition says that something is logical when it is really not. Conversely when your rational intuition says that something is illogical when it is actually logically coherent, this is a Type II error or a “false negative.” God is inherently rational and cannot be in opposition to his nature, but he is not limited to our “logic” when we make such errors. What SEEMS logical to us at the moment, may not always BE logical upon further inspection. God is not subject to the laws of logic, as if they are exterior forces acting upon him; but in the same way that Christians see goodness itself as being metaphysically tied to the benevolence of God, we can also see rationality and logic as ontologically anchored in the nature of God himself. God doesn’t submit to external logic, nor does he arbitrarily dictate logic, but he is rational by virtue of his essential nature.

Why should I care about logic as a Christian? 

We are made in the image of God as both moral and rational beings. In the same way that we should strive to emulate God’s goodness, we should also strive to emulate his rationality. Logic not only helps us to attain a more robust understanding of the nature of God, but it is essential for fulfilling our commands to share the gospel and have a ready defense of the hope within us. Far from being an opposing force, logic is at the core of the Christian faith. Throughout the Old and New Testament, the authors (and even Jesus himself) make claims of exclusivity, identity and ontological reality; all of which are meaningless without first granting the fundamental laws of logic. Proper exegesis, historical data, every classical argument for the existence of God, every theological position you take, and even the Gospel message itself are all -in one way or another- dependent on these fundamental laws being true. Even the very nature and existence of God must be described in terms of these fundamental laws. If you take away the principle of identity, the identity and deity of Christ follows suit. If the law of non-contradiction is lost, so is the exclusivity of truth itself, and any meaningful notions of the existence of God go with it.

 

Andrew Cabrera is an undergraduate student currently working towards his B.A. in Philosophy (with plans of pursuing graduate work in philosophy thereafter). He was born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, and still lives there with his wife and son. His academic interests include: Metaphysics, Formal Logic, Political Philosophy and Philosophy of Religion.

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

 

/by
Debate Atheism Arrival Evil

Why Evil Disproves Atheism

,

How can a good God exist when there is so much evil in the world?

Many people doubt the existence of God because of the existence of evil.  But evil doesn’t disprove God—evil disproves atheism!

How so?

Evil can’t exist on its own, it only exists as a parasite in good.  Evil is like rust in a car; if you take all the rust out of a car you have a better car; if you take all of the car out of the rust you have nothing.  Evil is like cancer—it can’t exist alone, only in a good body.  Therefore, there can be no objective evil unless there is objective good, and there can be no objective good unless God’s objectively Good nature exists. If evil is real—and we all know it is—then God exists.

We could put it this way: The shadows prove the sunshine. There can be sunshine without shadows, but there can’t be shadows without sunshine. In other words, there can be good without evil, but there can’t be evil without good; and there can’t be objective good without God. So evil may show there’s a devil out there, but it can’t disprove God. Evil actually boomerangs back to show that God exists.

While evil can’t disprove God, one can legitimately ask the question why does God allow evil to continue?  That’s one of the topics I cover in the book, and the new Stealing From God online course I’m hosting that beings January 15 (you can start the self-paced version any time after that too).  The course includes ten hours of video, and several live video conferences where I’ll be answering questions.   Since we limit the size of the live classes to ensure every student has an opportunity to ask questions, you’ll want to sign up soon if you want to be a part of this.

In addition to the details on that link, I’ll be discussing some of the course content right here on this page in the few weeks leading up to the course.  So keep checking back here for more.

 

/by
Soul

What Happens to Our Souls When We Die?

,

There are many good reasons to believe we, as humans, are more than simply physical bodies. Humans are “soulish” creatures; we are living souls united to physical bodies. Even without the guidance of Scripture, there are good reasons to believe our lives will not end at the point of our physical death. The existence of an afterlife is reasonable, particularly given our dual nature as immaterial souls possessing physical bodies. But what precisely happens to each of us, as living souls, when our physical bodies cease to exist? What will we experience the moment we close our eyes for the last time in this temporal life? The Christian worldview offers an answer to this question, and it can be found by surveying the teaching of the New Testament:

Those Who Accept God’s Offer of Salvation Will Be United with Him Immediately
There is good reason to believe our afterlife experience begins the minute we close our eyes for the last time here on earth. For those of us who are believers, the instant our earthly bodies die our souls will be united with Jesus in the afterlife:

2 Corinthians 5:6-8
Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. We live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

Luke 23:39-43
One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Those who have accepted God’s offer of Salvation will be with Jesus in what we commonly refer to as “Heaven”. But our experience in Heaven prior to the earthly return of Jesus (and the resurrection of our bodies), while much better than our life here on earth, will not be complete. It will only be part of the experience we will one day have when Jesus returns to earth and resurrects the bodies of those who are already with Him in spirit. While He’s at it, He’ll bring those of us who are still alive home as well:

1 Thessalonians 4:15-18
According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

Only then, after the resurrection, will our joy and satisfaction be made complete; only then will we be able to experience the full physical, the spiritual and emotional joy we were originally designed for.

Those Who Reject God’s Offer of Salvation Will Be Separated from Him
Unfortunately, our experience of the afterlife is instantaneous upon death even for those of us who have rejected God. While believers will be united with God, unbelievers will not. The New Testament describes two different places where the unrighteous go after death. One such place is called “Hades”. This is described as the place where the unrighteous go immediately upon death to await their final destination. Take a look at this story Jesus told in the Gospel of Luke:

Luke 16:19-24
“Now there was a certain rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, gaily living in splendor every day. And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. Now it came about that the poor man died and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom.”

While Lazarus, a God fearing and righteous man died and immediately went to be with God, the unbelieving and unrighteous rich man went immediately to Hades. But the Bible also mentions another place for those who have rejected God; it is called “Gehenna”. This was actually a real location (just south of Jerusalem) where, at one low point in the history of the Jews, disobedient Israelites offered their children as human sacrifices to the pagan God, Molech. Later, this infamous valley became a place where waste from the city was dumped and burned in fires stoked day and night. Jesus chose this place as a metaphor to describe another real place, the eternal resting place of those in Hades who finally receive their resurrection bodies and are judged forever. While believers receive their resurrection bodies and stay in heaven with God, unbelievers receive their resurrection bodies and are moved from Hades to Gehenna.

Matthew 5:29
“And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish than for your whole body to be thrown into hell (the word used for ‘hell’ here is ‘Gehenna’).”

Gehenna is the final resting place of all those who have rejected God in this life and in their unrighteousness have been judged at the return of Jesus.

I’ve written a lot about the reality of Hell and the nature of Heaven here at ColdCaseChristianity.com, and while that’s not the purpose of this particular post, this is a good pace to trace the path each of us will take after we die:

At the Point of Death
Each of us will leave our earthly bodies in the grave and our disembodied souls will go immediately into the presence of God or into Hades. Our destination is determined purely by our acceptance or rejection of God through our faith in Jesus Christ.

Prior to Jesus’ Return, the Resurrection and the Judgment
We will remain in Heaven or Hades until Jesus returns to earth and gives us all our resurrection Bodies. While our experience after death will be tangible, it will not be complete. A complete afterlife can only be experienced with both our body and our soul.

After Jesus’ Return, the Resurrection and the Judgment
If we are saved believers, we will experience the fullness of the afterlife in our resurrected bodies. If we have rejected Jesus, we will move from Hades to Gehenna and experience the fullness of judgment.

The afterlife is the focus of much popular media. Books and movies describing Heaven or Hell are plentiful, but few of them are consistent with the teaching of the Bible. As Christians, it’s important for us to understand and defend the nature of the afterlife so people will understand the importance of the Gospel message. If we can articulate the existence and character of the afterlife accurately, God’s offer of Salvation will be all the more relevant and meaningful.

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

 

/by
Women Apologetics

Yes, Women Need Apologetics, But More Importantly, Apologetics Needs Women

By Hillary Morgan Ferrer

1 Peter 3:15 says that we are to give a ready defense for anyone who asks for the hope that is within. 2 Corinthians 10:5 says that we are to “demolish arguments that set themselves up against the knowledge of God.” Now with words like “defense” and “demolish,” it is not surprising that the field of apologetics has been dominated by men in recent years.

Apologetics is important for all Christians, including women, but that’s actually not what we’re here to talk about today. Whenever you hear people talk about “women in apologetics,” they are usually focusing on why we need to reach women with apologetics. And it’s true, we do! The mandate to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, souls, MINDS and strengths is a universal command. So yes, I get it. Apologetics for women is vital. However, there is a lesser talked about issue, and that is the one we will discuss today: why apologetics needs women!

For the record, whenever we include gender in a conversation, there are people who are ready to stand up and declare their non-conformity to gender norms. When I talk about the different qualities between men and women, I am of course speaking in generalities. I acknowledge that there are men and women who defy their gender stereotype. I’m actually one of those women. Let’s all embark on this conversation acknowledging that generalities are not absolutes. We are looking at trends, and every trend has an outlier. That’s my official disclaimer before we dive into why apologetics needs women.

  • Men pioneer, but women civilize.

It has long been recognized that women have a… shall we say, civilizing influence on men. Jokes are made at bachelor parties about the “end of wild times,” and the bachelor-pad transforms from a purely functional assortment of free and hand-me-down furniture to a home, full of lovely smells, pictures on the wall, and too many pillows for a man to understand.

Men have traditionally been the trail-blazers. They are the pioneers, and the ones who take pleasure in conquering uncharted territory. Apologetics is no exception. But what happens when a field remains predominantly male for too long? You get something that looks similar to the Wild West. . . or Lord of the Flies. Take your pick.

            I have noticed many online conversations between skeptic and believer that have been less than civil. While truth itself must be fortified without compromise, the manner in which we express these truths requires sensitivity to the individual with whom we are speaking. For some of our amazing, warrior, pioneering men, this quickly becomes a bull in a china shop scenario. Difficult truths must be applied gently, with compassion, and with mercy—all qualities for which women are better known.

  • Women often have a higher EQ

Speaking of gentleness and compassion. . . There is a reason why females dominate the caretaking industry. Our ability to recognize facial expressions and social cues is much higher than men’s.[1],[2] A phenomena that I have seen emerge within the last 10 years (and especially the last 5 years) is the number of people who are in a perpetual state of fight-or-flight. We may balk at the idea of “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces,” but put the pieces together friends. There has been a fundamental change in our society’s ability to handle conflict and we can’t ignore it or wish it away. We are not out to win arguments; we are out to win people. When a person enters fight-or-flight, you have already lost ground.

You cannot reason with a person in fight-or-flight. This physiological response is accompanied by an activation of the amygdala (the emotional center) and literally competes (and often turns off) the pre-frontal cortex, the part of our brain that thinks logically.[3] A woman’s ability to sense distress and diffuse it during an apologetics conversation is a powerful weapon in a world going mad. Do not underestimate it.

  • Women can help make apologetics more practical

A common complaint I’ve heard from churches is that apologetics isn’t practical. When they say “practical,” what they usually mean is “I don’t see how this will promote new converts to Christianity or put more people in the pews.” Personally, I think the practicality issue could be addressed by adding more female voices to the mix. Women may not necessarily have something new or different to say about apologetics. However, they often approach it differently.

There is truth in the phrase “Men are waffles, women are spaghetti.” Waffles are made of a bunch of little compartments that don’t touch. With spaghetti, you cannot pull one noodle, without affecting allllllll the other noodles around it. Men have an amazing ability to compartmentalize, which is helpful in many ways. However, when it comes to presenting apologetics in a practical manner and showing how it affects everyday life, I think that women’s inability to compartmentalize actually becomes their strength.

I have rarely heard a woman speak on apologetics topics without including how the topic has affected her personal relationship with God, or how she uses it to relate to others around her. Most people don’t instinctively know how to incorporate apologetics into their everyday lives. They go to conferences, and are filled with knowledge, and go home and have no idea how to implement what they have learned. I’m not saying that women alone hold the key to application. However, I will make the case that it often comes more naturally for us. Thus, we could play a vital role in making apologetics more accessible to the common lay-person, and more attractive to the average pastor.

  • Apologetics already has a bad reputation, and a feminine face could help

I cannot count the number of times my husband and I have told someone that we did apologetics, and the person reacted with warnings of, “You can’t argue people into the kingdom of heaven!” Friends, if I could reach out through your screen and shake you right now, I would. Listen up. This is important. If this many people think that apologetics is only about arguing, then we have not been doing it correctly.

I understand why men have retreated to apologetics. In many ways, the church has become very feminine, forcing men to hold hands and sing under candlelight.[4]  I can fully understand why they would be drawn to apologetics. Rebekah and I joke about how some guys see it as a Christian Fight Club of sorts. #KiddingNotKidding

I get it. Men need a place in the church where they can be men. And contrary to what some guys might think, my push for women in apologetics is not about finding the last bastion of men, and invading it, too. However, we cannot ignore the missing gender dynamic that is at play.  There is another phenomenon that I have observed, both in the workplace, and as a teacher. When it comes to leadership, men and women can do and say the exact same thing; the man will be seen as a strong leader, and the woman will be viewed as a [word I don’t say in polite company.] However, this exact same phenomenon is true on the flip side; there are a lot of harsh truths that people will more readily hear from a woman than they will a man. Why is that? Is it because we are less intimidating? Is it because we intuitively know how to soften the blow? Is it because I’m 5’2” and it’s hard for someone to really take me seriously? Who knows. All I know is that if a man and a woman both say something harsh with love, the love is often more readily perceived coming from a woman than it is from a man.

Our society is a mess right now and there are a lot of harsh truths that need to be said. A feminine spin on a harsh truth can sometimes break down walls that might otherwise have been impenetrable if approached in a masculine manner.

  • Women are more relational in their ministry

Apologist MaryJo Sharp has pointed out an interesting observation from talking with people at apologetics conferences. Men and women often have different reasons for getting into apologetics. While men are usually trying to answer their own questions, women are often trying to answer the questions of someone they love – a child, spouse, or friend. When it comes to the ministry aspect of apologetics, women seem to be more missional, but they do it in a relational way.

  • Positive versions of femininity must be displayed if for no other reason than negative versions of femininity must be refuted.

Calling our society “gender confused” right now is a massive understatement. Men don’t know how to be men, and thus women don’t know how to be women. It has a cyclical effect. Some women read the verse about having a “gentle, quiet spirit” and think that it means that they have to be a doormat, never speaking up, or never voicing their disagreements. If that’s how God viewed authority, then He would not want our prayers. He would tell us to just shut up and do what we’re told. But that is not how Scripture portrays God. Yes, we submit to His will, but we don’t remove ourselves from the conversation.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have the proponents of modern feminism who think that they can elevate the status of women by attacking the value of men. (Like a fish needs a bicycle, right? Ugh.) They react against the doormat stereotype of women, and fight back by emasculating every man in their lives in the name of gender equality. To use the cruder slang, we’ve got the ball-buster women. Let me be clear: “strength” gained by tearing someone else down is not strength. True femininity is neither extreme; it is a fierce strength wrapped in gentleness. As I mentioned in my blog on Wonder Woman, I believe that when women know how to be women, the men become better versions of men. Everybody wins. It is not a zero-sum game. As we women step into apologetics, we have the opportunity to model what truth wrapped in love looks like to a world that has forgotten what Biblical femininity should look like.

In conclusion, yes women need apologetics. Moms, studies show that you get more questions every day than doctors, nurses, or the British Prime Minister during an interview![5] So who do you think is getting the spiritual questions? You are! Apologetics is not a hobby; it is a need. However, this need is not a one-way street. Apologetics needs women just as badly!

My husband likes to talk about an episode of the 90’s TV show about Guiness Book World Records. In this particular episode, they highlighted the strongest teacup ever designed. This teacup was not just strong; it was ornate, beautiful, and extremely delicate. The host showed how with a flick of his finger, the tea-cup would chip. It was that delicate. However, to demonstrate the cup’s strength, they placed four of the teacups on the floor, put a wood palette on top, and then lowered a dump trunk onto it. The teacups remained intact. Ladies, our delicacy does not negate our strength. Our delicacy brings a beauty to our strength that brute masculinity will never have. Embrace who the Lord has created you to be. He did it on purpose. It is in the combination of our beauty and strength of spirit, that we can take the truth of Christ, and the aroma of his love, to transform a dying and decaying culture.

Notes

[1] Babchuk, W. A., Hames, R. B., & Thompson, R. A. (1985). Sex differences in the recognition of infant facial expressions of emotion: The primary caretaker hypothesis. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 89–101.

[2] Hampson, E., van Anders, S. M., & Mullin, L. I. (2006). A female advantage in the recognition of emotional facial expressions: Test of an evolutionary hypothesis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 401-416.

[3]  Hamilton, Diane Musho. “Calming Your Brain During Conflict.” Harvard Business Review. February 16, 2016. Accessed January 01, 2018. https://hbr.org/2015/12/calming-your-brain-during-conflict.

[4] Read the book Why Men Hate Going to Church by David Murrow. It is a real eye-opener, and he has nailed his assessment (in my opinion.)

[5] Agencies, Telegraph Staff and. “Mothers asked nearly 300 questions a day, study finds.” The Telegraph. March 28, 2013. Accessed January 01, 2018. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9959026/Mothers-asked-nearly-300-questions-a-day-study-finds.html.

2018 Women in Apologetics Conference:

 

Hillary Morgan Ferrer is the founder of Mama Bear Apologetics, and Vice-President of Women in Apologetics. Mama Bear Apologetics is a ministry aimed at providing busy moms with easy to access blogs and podcasts to help them raise children who understand why they believe in Christianity. Want to know how to get more involved in Apologetics? Mama Bear Apologetics is partnering with Women in Apologetics at their inaugural conference on January 19-20, 2018 at Biola University. To learn more about the conference, check out the video below, and visit the conference page at WomenInApologetics.com for more details!

/by
blomberg podcast

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels with Dr. Craig Blomberg

Podcast: Play in new window

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

The reliability of the Gospels is under attack. Skeptics seek to undermine the story of Jesus Christ by saying we cannot really trust the Gospel. “They were not written by eye-witnesses,” “They contradict each other,” “They have historical errors.” Those who have not studied this subject may be caught off-guard and begin to lose the footing of their faith. Frank interviews one of the leading scholars in the subject the Distinguished Professor of New Testament from Denver Seminary, Dr. Craig Blomberg! He shares some great insights on the topic during this podcast and tells us how to learn more about it directly from him on his new Online Course.

Learn more about his online course here. 

blomberg podcast

/by

Christianity Is Based in Truth, Not Superstition

By Al Serrato

My last post dealt with the belief, common among skeptics, that Christianity is simply a form of superstition. Modern “science-minded” people reject superstitions, and so religious belief holds no interest for them. Historic Christian doctrine is in fact much different, however; while some who claim to be Christian may indeed be superstitious, the faith itself is built not upon fanciful thinking but upon a bedrock of truth.

This distinction, and the importance of pursuing truth can be seen in the following analogy: imagine a person who is suffering from a medical disorder. One day he is fine and the next the disease begins the process of eventually killing him. Initially, he does not know he is afflicted.He “feels” fine. He continues to go about his business, concerned with the problems of everyday life and not suspecting that anything may be different, let alone dreadfully wrong. Eventually, symptoms begin to appear, but they are not particularly troubling to him. After friends insist that he have them checked out, he agrees to see a doctor.This is a big step for him, for he does not “believe” in doctors.He thinks that doctors are often wrong and that they rely too much on pills and not enough on just “living right.” He knows that others really believe in doctors, but he is “sincere” in his belief that doctors do more harm than good, especially when one doesn’t “feel” that anything is wrong. After running a battery of tests, however, the doctor identifies the illness and tells the patient what is wrong.

In addition to understanding the affliction, the doctor also has the means to provide the solution. The patient resists, however, insisting that he feels fine and that he doesn’t need any help. He views the surgery and medicines the doctor offers as “butchery” and “potions.” He sincerely believes that the doctor is practicing voodoo.Ultimately, the patient dies, blissfully unaware of his true condition, content in his belief that he was fine and proud of his refusal to resort to talismanic remedies to fix something he did not believe was wrong.

As this analogy demonstrates, how the patient feels about his situation is not particularly relevant. Nor is the sincerity of his belief. He may feel fine, physically and emotionally, but the issue would be his actual condition, i.e. the truth about his disease. Christianity needs to be assessed on these terms. Either the Biblical claims are true – we are in a world of trouble and only Jesus can save us – or they’re not. If they are true, how we feel about them is of little consequence. And ignoring and rejecting them will, in the end, not succeed.

Now some may object that doctors practice science, and so the analogy is misplaced. The patient was wrong not to rely on science. But science is simply one way of testing and developing knowledge.It is not the only way. Science cannot tell us whether we possess souls and whether these souls are in need of salvation.And science cannot tell us whether improbable past events actually occurred.The only way we can make that assessment is by considering the evidence upon which Christianity is based and becoming familiar with the philosophy that supports its claims.

But we must do so with an open and inquiring mind… for the consequences of ignoring our spiritual illness can be as devastating as the disease was for the unsuspecting patient.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2A72p1U

/by
Five Proofs

Five Proofs of the Existence of God with Dr. Ed Feser

A fantastic interview with prolific writer and professor of philosophy, Dr. Edward Feser. Called by National Review “one of the best contemporary writers on philosophy.” Feser gives a brief exposition and defense in this podcast of five of the historically most important (but in recent years largely neglected) philosophical proofs of God’s existence: the Aristotelian, the Neo-Platonic, the Augustinian, the Thomistic, and the Rationalist. This is one of the best podcasts of the year, don’t miss it!

Learn More: http://bit.ly/5Proofs_Book

/by