Tag Archive for: atheism

God Reveal Himself

Should God Reveal Himself More Clearly?

,

By Al Serrato

God gave us free will so that we can freely choose Him, for freedom of choice is essential to love. But, the skeptic counters, many people do not believe God is real. Why doesn’t God reveal himself more clearly? This question has considerable surface appeal, as it plays on our intuitive sense of fairness. Despite the vast number of people who believe that the evidence for God’s existence, and for Christ’s deity, is more than sufficient to ground a solid faith, there are always others who say they might believe “if only….” And if God really does want all to be saved, why doesn’t He provide them with that extra level of proof?

Before attempting an answer, it’s worth taking a closer look at what the skeptic is really saying: “I’m not interested in what your evidence shows. It’s not enough to satisfy me. I want my personal standard to be met. Satan knew of God’s existence and still rejected Him. Why can’t I get that level of proof?”

This is an odd challenge, because it ignores the objective nature of “evidence” and instead focuses on the subjective nature of a person’s response to it. It moves from considering what conclusions the evidence might support to considering what more could be added to make the conclusion even stronger. In the criminal courts, it is not uncommon to present a compelling case which, after days of deliberations, results in a “hang” and the need for a retrial. Eleven jurors might be completely convinced as to the truth of the charge, but one juror can insist that he needs more evidence. Now, perhaps that one has found something that no one else could see, despite days of discussion; more likely, the lone juror is unwilling to convict – to follow where the truth leads – for other reasons. If he follows the skeptics’ lead here, that juror might say: “I’ve heard of cases in which there is a confession to the crime and still the jury did not convict, so I am justified in voting not guilty here until I get the kind of evidence that I want.”

Like the skeptic in the present challenge, this juror is making a statement, and not an argument. The fact that greater evidence could be produced in support of a claim is a given; it is true for all possible claims at all possible times, because perfect proof is not possible. But this assertion is not an argument that the evidence that was produced is insufficient. In fact, it does not address the weight and convincing force of the evidence at all.

Returning to the original challenge, what is it that would convince the skeptic? The answer: total knowledge of God, the same kind of knowledge Satan may have had. That means the skeptic wants full knowledge of that Being which embodies the ultimate perfections, that Being from whom derives all things good and worthy of praise and apart from whom there is only deprivation and evil for time without end. Full knowledge of that Being would also entail full knowledge of the consequences of accepting or rejecting His offer of life with Him. Satan was some type of spiritual creature; we know little about him, other than that he used his will to oppose God. But we are all human beings, and as such, we have intimate knowledge of man and his nature. Could we really face that level of knowledge? Would it not be apparent to all that the choice to accept God would be coerced and no longer free? Free will would become a mere fiction.

God set the level of evidence of Him in a way that is fitting to our nature. He does not reveal more because what He has revealed is sufficient, which explains perhaps why the vast majority of all who have ever lived have sought in some way for the God they know is there. We are without excuse, the Bible says, for the knowledge of God is written on our very hearts. We may blur that knowledge with the frantic pace of our lives, or silence it with our insistence on having things our way. But what we have been given is enough to ground our faith, if we only use our minds and our ability to reason to assess what has been revealed to us. But for those who choose not to believe, there is freedom to pursue that course, a course marked by self-will and the quest for control.

Yes, the evidence could always be better. But imperfect human beings rely on imperfect knowledge all the time. The evidence we do have is worth considering, and it may well change the course of your life… if only you give it the chance.

 

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

/by
Purpose God

Can You Have Purpose Without God?

By Luke Nix

Introduction
One of the more convincing reasons to believe that atheism is false comes from man’s desire for life to have purpose. If there is no designer behind the universe, life in general, and our individual lives in particular, have no ultimate purpose, no goal to guide our decisions, no finish line to motivate us to keep running when things get tough. The way that pastor Rick Warren put it in his book “The Purpose-Driven Life” makes it quite clear:

“Without a purpose, life is motion without meaning, activity without direction, and events without reason. Without a purpose, life is trivial, petty, and pointless.”

If life is truly pointless, then why should anyone want to endure the suffering and pain that life brings? If life is pointless, as atheism necessarily implies, then there is no reason to want to continue to live. This is, quite literally, an unlivable philosophy for life, and if atheism necessarily implies this philosophy, then atheism is not just unlivable, but completely incompatible with living. And if a worldview is incompatible with living, it cannot be true. However, people do continue to live because they believe that their lives do have a purpose, so it follows that atheism is false. The power of this argument against their worldview is recognized by many atheists (they would agree with Warren in his assessment of the need for purpose), and they believe that they have found a way to undermine the soundness of the defeater of their worldview.

Atheistic Purposes?

In order to undermine the defeater, the atheist recognizes that there must be some way to give people’s lives purpose. Since they do not have a Creator to provide such a purpose, they must look elsewhere. The common appeal for the atheist is to look to the individual for their purpose for living. Whatever the individual wants or desires becomes their purpose for living. From what I can tell, there are at least three problems with this approach.

Humanist vs. Narcissist

First, unless the person is a complete narcissist, they will attempt to take others’ lives and feelings into account (a humanist position) as they attempt to create the purposes for their lives. In order to keep from becoming overwhelmed with the shear number of people to consider, the individual must limit the scope of who all they will consider. This can only be done by considering the other people’s value. In an atheistic worldview, humans do not have intrinsic or equal value (grounded in the Image of God in Christianity), so their value must be determined by their purpose. But if that individual must determine their own purpose, then that must be taken into account when the humanist is attempting to create their purpose. This, of course, becomes extremely difficult if the purposes of the others are not necessarily known and even more difficult if the other people considered decided to change their purposes at any given time. And let us also not overlook the infinite regress of interdependencies of purposes upon one another, which may actually render such a pursuit of purpose for the humanist practically (if not necessarily) impossible.

Challenged by Others

Second, let us assume that the atheist is able to face and overcome the obstacles described above (or is a narcissist) and chooses their own purposes. Others, no doubt, will question the individual’s chosen purpose. The humanist will question the narcissist, and the narcissist will question the humanist (let’s also not forget that existentialists, hedonists, and numerous others who also will give their input). This results in the individual doubting their choice of purpose, which will throw them right back into the struggle described in the first issue. Unless the atheist is or becomes a narcissist, these two issues will never result in satisfaction with the purpose set by the individual. If satisfaction does not exist, the process continues ad infitum.

It Keeps Going and Going and Going and Going…

Third, if the atheist gets to the point of settling upon a purpose (through accepting narcissism or whatever), once the goal is achieved, new purposes must be created quickly; otherwise, hopelessness will set in when living becomes painful. Even the narcissist will become tired of repeating the same process over and over with no ultimate satisfaction that an ultimate goal has been achieved. The only way to avoid despair for the atheist is to borrow from theism and believe (incorrectly and blindly) that their repeated struggle does have ultimate purpose.

Tiny Little Purposes

The atheistic life is ultimately unlivable without believing the “useful fiction” of ultimate purpose (theism). Without an ultimate purpose to deal with the struggle, pain, and suffering involved in trying to create our own individual purposes numerous times throughout our lives, doing this time and time again becomes tedious, and when we realize that we become more willing to question such a delusion. As we personally experience the futility of trying to create our own purposes, something about this never-ending process becomes painfully apparent. In his talk “Has Christianity Failed You?” philosopher Ravi Zacharias stated it succinctly:

“If you don’t have ultimate purpose, all these tiny little purposes are nothing else but ways to tranquilize your boredom.”

Tranquilizing our boredom becomes the atheist’s ultimate purpose, but who or what established that that is, in fact, their ultimate purpose? The atheist tries to undermine God’s existence (which necessarily implies ultimate purpose; again, who or what assigned that as the ultimate purpose?) by demonstrating subjective purposes can exist. However, this side-steps the issue; it does not actually address the issue. The atheist believes that since they have offered subjective purposes that ultimate purpose is no longer necessary. But subjective purposes and ultimate purpose are not mutually exclusive. Just because subjective purposes exist does not mean that ultimate purpose does not, as has been demonstrated in the three issues with trying to substitute subjective purposes for ultimate purpose. Again, Ravi Zacharias:

“God’s made you for a purpose. All the tiny little purposes become purposeful because your life itself has purpose.”

Conclusion
While the atheist believes that they can overcome the challenge of a lack of ultimate purpose in their lives, we have been hardwired to need ultimate purpose in order to continue to want to live. Atheism is logically incompatible with such an idea. Atheism has no choice but to borrow from Christianity to make itself a livable worldview. To the atheist, ultimate purpose is nothing more than a “useful fiction” and since such a belief in a purpose-giver is necessary to live out atheism, why would the atheist establish his purpose as to undermine the existence of the Purpose-Giver? How can a worldview be true if it promotes the belief of a useful fiction in order to make it livable? Simply put, it can’t. Atheism is not true, and our need for purpose demonstrates it. Atheism tips its hat to Christianity in its reliance upon an ultimate purpose. That is no coincidence, it must be so because Christianity is true.

If you have been struggling intellectually and emotionally with your purpose in life, I invite you to not only consider the argument presented in this post, but also those on the many other posts on this blog. You will continue to struggle with your purpose until you accept that Jesus is your Creator and Savior, and He is the Purposer of your life. Investigate the evidence, then come to Christ on His terms and see that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

 

Notes

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2nv6VTz

/by
God Darwin Evolution

If Evolution is True, Atheism is False

,

By Tim Stratton

Atheists often appeal to evolution in an attempt to explain the primate complexity we observe today without a need for an Intelligent Designer — God! Indeed, many say the reason they affirm atheism is because they believe evolution is true. Since their hypothesis does not include God as a designer, atheists feel justified in affirming that God does not exist and that Christianity is false. With that said, however, if evolution is true, it does nothing to prove that God does not exist or do anything to disprove the historical resurrection of Jesus (the two essential ingredients of “mere Christianity”). Moreover, what atheists fail to comprehend is that by appealing to evolution in an attempt to “prove” atheism, they ultimately prove too much!

Evolution simply means change over time. Most evolutionists and young earth creationists will agree that some things do genuinely change over time (even if they disagree on how much some things change over time). What is important to note is that Darwinian evolution requires a genuine change over dynamic time — at least if one is hoping to explain primate complexity. With that in mind, I contend that if evolution is true, then atheism is false!

Consider this: I believe that some things do genuinely evolve and change over time. In fact, we currently exist in a world in which things are constantly changing right in front of our eyes! That is to say, we exist in an evolving state of affairs (change happens)!

The problem, however, is this: it is logically impossible for a changing state of affairs to be extrapolated into past infinity! In “English” that means that if we currently exist in a changing state of affairs and things are really happening one event after another, then it is impossible for things to happen chronologically in this manner without a first change. If we exist — right now — in a changing state of affairs, then it is impossible to go on and on forever in the past. Logically, there must have been a beginning or a first change.

If there never was a first change, then the present moment — “right now” — would not exist. To help illustrate why the concept of past infinity is incoherent, consider two thought experiments.

Infinite Jumpers & Steppers

First, is it possible for someone, say a superhero with infinite jumping powers, to jump out of an infinitely tall bottomless-pit? Of course not. There is no launching pad or foundation from which to jump. When it comes to things changing over time (evolution), if the hole at ground level represents the present moment and the idea of past infinity means there is no foundation to jump from (a first change over time), then the present moment of change could never be reached. The jumper could never get out of the hole because there is no starting point for him to progress upward. Because the present moment does exist and things do change over time (evolution) it logically follows that a foundation exists for the first change to occur leading to the evolution (change over time) we notice today.

Second, suppose a man walks up the steps to your front porch and rings the doorbell. You answer the door and ask if you can help him. He states, “I have just walked an infinite number of steps and finally completed them right here on your front porch.” Of course, you do not believe him, yet he insists that he has accomplished this feat. You ask for proof and he invites you to join him on a journey to retrace his infinite number of steps. He tells you that once the two of you reach this infinite point, you will then follow those same footsteps all the way back to your front door. You adamantly reject his offer because you realize that if you were to retrace an infinite amount of steps you will never get back home! In fact, you will never turn around to begin your journey home!

Consider the steps involved . . . you would take one step, then a second step, then a third step. Eventually, you would take a millionth step, and eventually a billionth step, and then a trillionth step. Whatever step you were currently taking you could always take one more and count it — never reaching actual infinity. Whenever you decide to turn around to come back home you will be on a countable step. So, if you do ever make it back home, your steps would not be infinite.

Just as it would be logically impossible for you to retrace all the steps this pedestrian claims to have made, it is just as impossible for this pedestrian to traverse an actual infinite amount of steps ending on your front porch. A rational person will know that one who makes such a claim is either delusional or deceptive. The “stepper” must have taken a first step.

Change over time (evolution) has the same problem. If a first change occurred, then it logically follows that a first change resulted from an unchanging, eternal, and beginningless state of affairs. Think of this as a frozen/static state where nothing happens and nothing has ever happened logically prior to the first change (I know this is hard to imagine). This might not seem like a “big deal” but the implications are enormous! This is the case because if things are not changing in a frozen/static state, then nothing would ever happen. This is because if things are not evolving, emerging, decaying, growing, or becoming unstable (which are words implying change over time), then these things would never be able to cause the first change. Change over time cannot account for things starting to change over time. That is to say, if nothing is happening, then nothing can describe or account for the first change that resulted from a static, frozen, and unchanging state! UNLESS…

… a volitional agent existed in this static state who had the power to act.

Other than a volitional agent, what else could cause a change from an unchanging state of affairs? At the least, a volitional agent with the power to act could exist in a static state and then cause something to happen. That is to say, if nothing is happening, but a volitional agent with free will exists in this static state, then this volitional agent can freely choose to act and cause the first change. This is what Aristotle meant by the “Unmoved Mover.”

Volitional agents are personal types of “things” or rather, “beings.” If a being is personal in nature, then this being is the kind of “thing” in which you can have a personal relationship — that is, at least if you are a person! Thus, if you are a person, then it is at least possible that you can have a personal relationship with this unmoved mover!

An Argument from Change Over Time

We can summarize this entire argument in a step-by-step syllogism:

1- Things change over time (evolution).

2- A changing state of affairs cannot be past infinite.

3- Therefore, a first change resulted from an unchanging state of affairs.

4- Only a volitional agent can cause a change from an unchanging state of affairs.

5- Volitional agents are personal.

6- Therefore, this personal agent existed in an unchanging state of affairs.

7- Anything existing in an unchanging state of affairs never began to exist and is eternal with no beginning.

8- Therefore, the cause of the first change (and ultimately the change of affairs in which we find ourselves) is a personal agent who is eternal with no beginning and was in a changeless state of affairs logically prior to causing the first change.

This final deductive conclusion should be eye-opening! Why should this get one’s attention? Because this personal agent who caused things to start evolving and changing over time is God! The Bible does not just note the possibility of having a personal relationship with the Unmoved Mover — God — it explains exactly how you and I can know God personally through Jesus Christ!

Bottom line: If you believe that things actually do evolve and change over time, then you should reject atheism!

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Tim Stratton

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2j7eSMT

 

/by
Christians Bias Believe

Do Christians Have a Bias to Believe?

By Al Serrato

To the skeptic, most Christians – certainly most who appear willing to “defend” their faith – may seem a bit one-dimensional, perhaps in some cases fanatical. They seem so convinced of their views, regardless of how bizarre some of these views seem to the unbeliever. Many conclude, then, that the believer is simply biased in favor of what he wants to believe. He has accepted a “bill of goods” without having struggled over where best to place his trust.

But this is not an accurate description of the faith journey of many believers. Indeed, most go through a period of doubt in which they struggle with what they were taught in childhood. That was certainly my experience. Having been raised in the Catholic Church, I was taught doctrines and rituals which were both mysterious and comforting. Until I began law school, though, these beliefs went largely unchallenged, leaving me unprepared to defend what I thought was “the truth.” Encountering highly intelligent people who were not afraid to point out why they viewed my faith as foolish, I began to believe that all religions were pretty much the same – they could provide comfort, but they weren’t really true. Truth, after all, was a relative concept, dependent on one’s point of view and cultural narrative. And science had pretty much shown that there isn’t a need for God. While faith might make a good crutch when bad things happen, it probably did more harm than good in the long run, because it was at odds with reason. These conclusions just happened to coincide with an increasing desire to put the restrictions of Christianity behind me and to put aside whatever feelings of guilt would arise from time to time.

As I look back on it now, I realize that despite my upbringing, I did not actually have a bias to believe in Christianity. My bias, as I was discovering, was to take the path of least resistance. As a practicing Christian, I needed to conform my behavior to something outside myself, depriving me of a certain amount of freedom. Removing the restrictions of religion would allow me to remain “moral” but would also allow me to define morality any way I chose. After all, with no law-giver, there was no reason to comply with rules that I did not make for myself.

Since I knew many believers, I would raise these issues with them, hoping that they could respond to my challenges. Most, unfortunately, would talk about faith as a feeling or remind me that the Church’s teachings were infallible. They would suggest that my skepticism was not pleasing to God and raise the specter of eternal punishment. In short, they were telling me that I was wrong, but not why I was wrong. I would just have to take it “on faith.” They were wrong: I wasn’t persuaded by discussions of how faith would make me “feel” (I already felt good in church) or with threats of hell for failing to follow someone else’s rituals. I also wasn’t satisfied with “infallible teachings.” If in fact the world was broken down into “faith” and “reason” – as my law school friends maintained – then I knew I would side with reason.

I thought this conclusion would satisfy me, but in the end, it did not. Two things continued to nag at me. The first was this concept of truth. As a criminal investigator and then a prosecutor, I had chosen a field in which truth actually mattered. After all, it just wasn’t okay to get a conviction if I had the wrong guy. I became increasingly fascinated with and drawn to the concept of objective truth. From my legal training, I also had developed a strong interest in reason. Concepts such as “the reasonable person” standard and proof beyond a “reasonable doubt” showed that the thinkers who laid the foundation for the orderly society we developed put a great amount of stock in the mind’s ability to reason to a just result. I didn’t know how this applied to religion, and I still suspected that no one religion had the corner on truth, but I made a commitment to myself that I would follow truth where it led. In other words, I realized that I had some strong motivations to ignore the truth, especially when it seemed inconvenient, and I made a promise to myself that I would seek the truth and submit to it, to the best of my ability.

The second problem nagging at me was with the notion that only simpletons adhered to religion. As I learned more about history, I realized that some of the greatest and most powerful thinkers in history grappled with the same questions that troubled me and that they concluded that there is, in fact, a God and that he is the God described in the Bible. These included not just philosophers, but also the scientists who essentially developed what we recognize today as Western science. The more I learned, the more I realized that treating religious belief as an “opiate for the masses” just wouldn’t fly. There was something there, and I wanted to find out what it was.

In sum, then, my journey began with faith and that faith ran into a brick wall that I thought was “reason.” It ended with the realization that the dichotomy between faith and reason was in fact false. The two are in fact compatible. Christianity was never based on wishful thinking, nor is it dependent solely on “faith.” Instead, it was based on specific truth claims about events which occurred in history, and which were verifiable. This evidence supports a conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead, providing a rational basis to place one’s faith in his message of salvation.

Sadly, the nonbeliever accuses those who have taken this journey of having a closed mind. Quite the contrary is true: while my mind is open – to receiving and evaluating new evidence – given what I have seen so far, I am not ambivalent. Can the skeptic say the same?

It is also worth noting that remaining perpetually “on the fence” – unwilling to reach a firm conclusion – brings with it risks as well. In my next post, I will attempt to lay out just what those are.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Av6bXX

/by

Exposing More Contradictions

Podcast: Play in new window

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

In this brief podcast, Frank tackles some of the inconsistencies of adhering to a worldview that claims we can choose our own gender. He also educates those who claim that one can be “racist” against Islam (Muslims).

Listen also to Exposing Atheists Contradictions (Part 1)

Contradictions

/by
Being Good Apologist

Being A Good Apologist Is More Than Knowing The Right Answers

By Evan Minton

1 Peter 3:15 says to “Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have, yet do so with gentleness and respect” and 2 Corinthians 10:5 says “We demolish argument and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ.” These two verses are the primary verses that make Christian Apologetics a precedent for the follower of Christ. We are to give the unbelievers reasons to believe Christianity is true and we are to demolish every argument that tries to show it isn’t. However, being a good apologist is more than just knowing the right answers to peoples’ objections and questions, and knowing how to make a case for Christianity. To be a good apologist, you must know more than “If this person says X, then I’ll respond with Y”. Giving a defense to anyone who asks is not like giving the answer to a mathematical equation.

Being a good apologist means being a good communicator, and that involves utilizing certain skills. Not everyone has these skills, but thankfully, if you know what skills you need, you can train yourself in these areas. Now, what are these skills you need?

The Accordion Tactic
You can learn the evidence for The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection, or the evidence behind the premises of The Kalam Cosmological Argument, and you may even be able to do a good talk on this at your church. But can you relay these arguments in 5 minutes or less? In evangelism encounters, sometimes that’s all the time we have to talk with this person. Or even we do have more time to talk to them, not everyone wants to listen to your monologue for 45 minutes. If you want it to be a dialogue, you need to be able to compress your presentation of the arguments for God’s existence and the resurrection to 5 minutes or less. This skill comes in handy not just in one on one evangelism, but even in internet conversations. With some people, if a comment becomes way too lengthy, they’ll lose interest and comment ‘TL;DR” which means “Too long, didn’t read”.

This isn’t easy. I’ve struggled with brevity my entire apologetics career, but this is a practice that I keep practicing and practicing on. I do believe I’m getting better. With regards to my 6 favorite arguments, I can expand them like an accordion to do a 45-minute talk, or I can compress them to explain an argument to a friend in the time it takes to listen to a song. Compare my treatment of The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Fine-Tuning Argument, Local Fine-Tuning Argument, etc. in my book Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods with my treatment of them in part 6 and part 7of my blog series on the problem of evil. The former is when my apologetic accordion is expanded. The latter is when my apologetic accordion is contracted. Learn this skill of playing the apologetic accordion and you’ll be able to defend the faith no matter how much or how little time you’re allotted. Oh, and, having a monkey wearing a fez isn’t required. Don’t worry about that.

Learn To Listen
At the National Conference On Christian Apologetics, Dr. Ray Civero gave a talk called “Turning Skeptics Into Seekers”. In this talk, one of his points is that we need to listen to what the other person is saying, and we need to listen not merely to respond to the argument, but to understand the argument. Listen to understand, don’t listen to respond. If you’re not paying attention to what the non-Christian is saying regarding his objections to Christianity, you will most likely (1) Attack a straw man in your response, (2) give the unbeliever the impression that you don’t care what he has to say, (3) Give the unbeliever that you just like to listen to yourself talk, and (4) turn him off to anything you have to say. (5) You will be like two ships passing in the night. In other words, you’ll be talking past each other.

Be like Ray Civero’s character Ike The Investigator. Ike doesn’t listen to anticipate. Ike listens to understand. Ike doesn’t listen to his opponent’s position trying to find some way to tear it apart. Ike listens to understand where the other person is coming from, to understand what the other person is actually saying.

Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Luke 6:31). I can’t tell you how often I’ve been frustrated with a non-Christian when I’ve explained something over and over, as clearly and concisely as I possibly could, mustering all of my effort to get them to understand what it was that I was actually saying, just to have them attack a straw man for the umpteenth time in their response to me. For example, there have been conversations where I bent over backwards trying to get the non-Christian to realize that The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection isn’t question-begging, it doesn’t “cite The Bible to prove The Bible”, but instead treats The New Testament documents like a historian would treat any document claiming to be telling history (e.g A letter written by George Washington, a biography of Abraham Lincoln, Josephus’ writings). Christian and Non-Christian historians alike arrive at the minimal facts by applying the standard historical methodology to the text (e.g the principle of multiple attestation, the principle of embarrassment). It isn’t a circular argument.

Yet, no matter how I strain to get the other person to see the point, they still just don’t get it. If he wants to disagree with my arguments, that’s fine. If he wants to say he doesn’t think the resurrection is the best inference to the minimal facts, that’s fine. I don’t loathe debate, I loathe having to repeat myself and draw a hundred maps with the result of the other person still not understanding the argument. Why don’t they understand the argument? I can only guess that they’re simply skimming my comments. They’re too eager to respond to my comment so they don’t stop and actually try to understand what it is that I’m actually saying.

I think we’ve all been guilty of this at least a few times, Christian and non-Christian alike. However, we need to guard against it. James 1:19 says “Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry.” If we’re to obey the golden rule and James 1:19, and if we’re to have a fruitful dialogue, then we need to be good listeners.

Have The Patience Of A Saint
There are jobs where having a short fuse is a handicap inherent to the job itself: being a cop, being a lawyer, working in retail, and being a Christian Apologist. Because in all of these, you’re going to come against people who will really try your patience. You need to have a pretty long fuse or else you’ll fail the task you’re trying to do.

If you’re going to be a Christian Apologist, you need to have thick skin, because there will be people who ridicule you, demean you, insult you, and slander you. It can be tempting to respond in kind, but The Bible tells us “Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have, yet do so with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15, emphasis mine). I know of some apologists (won’t name names) who obey the first half of this verse, but not the second. They give a defense for the hope they have alright, but they make total donkeys out of themselves while doing it. If you don’t give a defense with gentleness and respect, you have failed to fully obey 1 Peter 3:15.

2 Timothy 2:24-26 says “The Lord’s servant must not quarrel, but be gentle towards all, able to teach, patient, in gentleness correcting those who oppose him: perhaps God may give them repentance leading to a full knowledge of the truth, and they may recover themselves out of the devil’s snare, having been taken captive by him to his will.”

Conclusion 
These are a few of the most important skills you need to master to be a good Christian Apologist. Simply having the answers is not enough. That would be like saying you can be a police officer if you have a uniform, a badge, and a gun. While those definitely are necessary conditions to being a cop, they are not sufficient conditions. Likewise, being well read in the apologetic literature is a necessary condition to being an apologist, but not a sufficient condition. You need people skills!

Suggested reading:
“The Open Minded Christian: How To Deal Charitably With Fellow Sinners” – by Richard Bushey
“Tactics: A Game Plan For Defending Your Christian Convictions” by Greg Koukl
“Arguing With Friends: Keeping Your Friends And Your Convictions” by Paul Buller

 

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/2AsAA82

/by
God Balance Mercy Justice

Can God Balance Mercy and Justice?

By Al Serrato

In a recent post, I addressed the issue of whether Christ’s death constituted a sacrifice. For many skeptics, Christ’s death, resurrection, and atonement for our sins constitute a major stumbling block. In response to that post, one challenger commented that he could not understand

“why the death of Jesus was that big a deal. He had 6 hours of agony. A terrible way to go, but how many people have similar experiences? And the atheist supposedly bound for hell will experience this kind of agony continually.”

To understand why this challenge lacks substance, one must take a moment to unpack the assumptions embedded within it. The challenger assumes that the process of physical death – more specifically, the manner, length and painfulness of that process – is what “caused” salvation. Noting, correctly, that many human beings have experienced far greater suffering, the skeptic concludes that this sacrifice is not, as he put it, a “big deal.” His conclusion flows from his premise, lending the challenge an appearance of legitimacy, but his premise is in need of more careful examination. Perhaps he has not taken the time to consider actual Christian beliefs, or perhaps he is simply engaging in the straw man fallacy, in which a person intentionally misstates his opponent’s position in order to more easily “defeat” it. Either way, to a careful thinker, the challenge falls flat.

This conclusion should not really come as a surprise. Countless intellectuals have considered the claims of Christianity and have embraced them as true. Many, such as the writer CS Lewis, became believers after many years of committed atheism. That none of these thinkers would find merit in this rather obvious challenge speaks to the fact that he is simply missing the point. None of these believers – nor for that matter the very first followers of Christ – concluded that Jesus won some kind of perverted contest for the “greatest suffering before being murdered,” somehow entitling him to the prize of being “the Savior.”

No, something much different is at play, something that challenges the limits of our philosophy, and of our intellects, to fully grasp. Jesus took the form of man and, during his life on Earth, he emptied himself of key aspects of his divinity. In that form, he experienced temptation – the kind of temptation that demonstrates the existence of free will; the kind of free will that makes expressions of love real and not the product of coercion or control. He did not need to suffer death at all, certainly not death on a cross. He had the means to escape the trap that was being laid for him. But, as he said, no one took his life; he lay it down for his people. By so doing, he stood before the Father to accept that wrath that justice demanded, for the intentional rebellion in which man was engaged. He had no price to pay for himself; his slate was clean before the Father. And because he too was God, he could absorb that wrath not just for one other man, or for a group of men, but for all who ever lived, or would live – infinite power absorbing for all time the infinite wrath of a perfect being.

The challenger to my post concluded:

“No—I disagree that God has balanced perfect justice and perfect mercy. Justice is getting what you deserve. Mercy is getting LESS than what you deserve. Take your pick. And you imagine that God has an infinite wrath? Wow—the dude needs some therapy!”

But this actually proves my point. The challenger is correct: in human terms, it appears contradictory for one to be perfectly just while being perfectly merciful; indeed, how can God give those in rebellion what they deserve while also giving them what they don’t deserve? (Ironically, this challenge actually speaks to the divine origin of these early Christian beliefs: who could have – who would have – come up with a system like this if it weren’t true when adhering to it only promised persecution?) To answer this challenge, one must move from abstract considerations to more specific, factual ones.

  • What do humans “deserve?” They deserve punishment for their rebellion;
  • What is a just punishment for rebellion? Separation from God;
  • How long should that separation endure? For the life of the beings in question (i.e. an eternity in that place of separation, i.e. hell);
  • How can humans beings be given something less than they deserve? By having someone else pay the price for their rebellion;
  • Who can pay that price? Only a man who himself does not owe the same price.

Yes, Christ pays the price. We don’t deserve what he does for us; it is an act of mercy. Justice is satisfied because punishment has been meted out – directly to those who refuse Christ’s gift and remain in their rebellion; indirectly – through Jesus – for those who accept his gift. Jesus has the power and the willingness to absorb God’s just wrath, and having lived as a man, he also has the standing before God to enter the transaction. We need only accept his gift, at which point he will begin the process of refining us – perfecting us – so that we can rejoin with Him and with the Father.

This solution to man’s predicament, available freely for all, elegantly gives us the means to attain what we do not deserve – mercy – while not sacrificing God’s perfect justice.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2BC2Pzj

/by

Exposing Atheist Contradictions

Podcast: Play in new window

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

Frank exposes several contradictions that are unavoidable if one holds to a materialistic, atheistic worldview. There seems to be a mismatch between their beliefs and reality, and we should point this out.

Learn more about this by reading “Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case” http://bit.ly/SFG-Book

/by
Christianity Science

Is Christianity at War with Science?

The claim that Christianity is at war with science is one of the most common claims I hear from young people today. In fact, the belief that Christianity is opposed to modern science is one of the top reasons young people cite for leaving the church.[1] That’s why in the updated Evidence that Demands a Verdict, my father and I respond to this charge before advancing the historical evidence for Christianity.

But where did this idea come from? Is it accurate? In 1896 Cornell University president Andrew Dickson White released a book entitled A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. White is largely credited with inventing and propagating the idea that science and Christianity are adversaries in the search for truth. White cast Christians as fanatics who clung to scriptural claims that the earth was flat. But is this account true? Sociologist Rodney Stark responds,

White’s book remains influential despite the fact that modern historians of science dismiss it as nothing but a polemic—White himself admitted that he wrote the book to get even with Christian critics of his plans for Cornell . . . many of White’s other accounts are as bogus as his report of the flat earth and Columbus.[2]

The Warfare Myth

Why has this warfare myth been so influential? The truth is that the supposed warfare between religion and science is a polemical device used in the secular attack on faith. In reality, theology was essential for the rise of modern science.

How so? In their book The Soul of Science, Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton demonstrate that Christian assumptions, such as the conviction that nature is lawful (since it was the creation of a rational God) and that science is meant to alleviate toil and suffering, provided the backdrop for the emergence of the scientific revolution in Europe.

Most scientific pioneers were theists as well, including prominent figures such as Copernicus (1473–1543), Boyle (1627–1691), Newton (1642–1727), Pascal (1623–1662), Kepler (1571–1630), Pasteur (1822–1895), Bacon (1561–1626), and Max Planck (1858–1947). Many of these pioneers intently pursued science because of their belief in the Christian God.

The Real Conflict

While the theistic worldview fosters the development of science, ironically, naturalistic evolution undermines it. Since according to naturalism we humans are the product of a blind, purposeless, and unguided evolutionary process, how can we trust our rational faculties to produce true beliefs?

In his book Where the Conflict Really Lies, Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga explains that what naturalistic evolution guarantees is

…(at most) that we behave in certain ways—in such ways as to promote survival or more exactly reproductive success. The principal function or purpose, then, of our cognitive faculties is not that of producing true or verisimilitudinous (nearly true) beliefs, but instead that of contributing to survival by getting the body parts in the right place. What evolution underwrites is only (at most) that our behavior is reasonably adaptive to the circumstances in which our ancestors found themselves; hence it does not guarantee mostly true or verisimilitudinous beliefs. Our beliefs might be mostly true or verisimilitudinous; but there is no particular reason to think they would be: natural selection is interested, not in truth, but in appropriate behavior. (314–315)

Certainly, some Christians resist science. This is undeniable. And, as Plantinga observes, there are some beliefs individual Christians hold that are in tension with modern science. But this is only shallow conflict. No real conflict between theism and science exists. The real conflict—the deep conflict—is between science and naturalism.

Notes

[1]  David Kinnaman, You Lost Me (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011), 135-136.

[2] Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God (Princeton, NJ: Princeton, 2009), 123

 

Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, best-selling author, popular speaker, part-time high school teacher, and the Resident Scholar for Summit Ministries, California. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org

 

/by
Purpose Faith

Finding Purpose in Faith

By Al Serrato

Many skeptics maintain unquestioned faith that science will solve the world’s problems. Seeing the evidence of chaos throughout the world, often the product of religiously-inspired violence, they conclude that religion is somehow the problem. Authors like Christopher Hitchens capitalize on such assumptions, writing best-selling books that explain how “God is not great” or how religion has “poisoned” everything. By contrast, science has provided “progress,” the sense that things are definitely getting better from a technological sense, as we continue to harness more and more power to make our lives increasingly prosperous and comfortable.

While this faith in science is certainly understandable, it does not survive close scrutiny. This is so because the problems that ail us, the questions we need answered, are questions that science simply cannot answer. After all, science is not philosophy. It does not provide meaning, however much it advances knowledge or power. Modern Americans, of all people, should recognize this limitation. We live in a culture that is deteriorating in many ways. Pleasure seems to be the principal pursuit of a large segment of the population, and despite intense efforts to find nirvana, and despite access to the best “toys” ever made, people seem to be increasingly stressed… and distressed. We seem to be experiencing a huge increase in depression and destructive behavior patterns; addictions to drugs and alcohol, gluttony leading to obesity, gambling, and pornography, to name a few. These pursuits may lessen the emotional pain for a while, but they leave the afflicted even more broken in their wake. What people lack, in increasing numbers, is a sense of belonging; some purpose or meaning to which they can devote their lives and that can make sense of the world.

Science cannot address what is lacking any more than a mechanic can tell me why I no longer enjoy driving my car. He can take measurements and tell me things about functionality and performance. He can modify the car with the latest gadgets to make it run faster, smoother, louder – to make it anything I want it to be. But these measurements and modifications, however important, cannot provide meaning. Because in the end, what I like, what I feel about certain things, persons, places, events – these are a reflection of me, and what is inside me, and not of the things around me.

Human life is exceedingly complex. From mitochondria powering the cells, to the mind that emerges from the gray matter in our skulls, the human body is a marvelously complex product of advanced engineering. But until we understand the purpose for which we are created, until we understand what we are meant to do with these wondrous “machines” that we inhabit, we are like cars driving straight off a cliff. Everything is functioning perfectly, but without a driver behind the wheel, it soon comes to a crashing, and painful, end.

Philosophy is needed to answer these most pressing questions. And a philosophy that has stood the test of time and that provides a robust explanation for life is a good place to start. In the pages of the Bible, the questions that matter most are addressed by the source of all that is. When its lessons are followed, life tends to flourish, not in the sense of a great wealth or fame – not in the sense of the “prosperity gospel” – but in the sense of a lasting joy. Joy in the knowledge of who you are and what you were created for; joy in the sense of homecoming when our days wind down, as they inevitably will. Joy in the prospect of reuniting with our true “soul-mate,” the one we have been seeking, the one for whom we were created and who is even now beckoning us home.

 

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

/by