Tag Archive for: Christianity

Is There Meaning To Life

Is There Meaning To Life?

,

By Luke Nix 

Introduction 

An interesting TED Talk came across my Facebook feed a few weeks ago. The talk focused on finding meaning in life. More and more people are discovering that pursuing happiness is leading them nowhere. They discover that every time they think that something obtainable or achievable will make them happy, once that has been obtained or achieved, that happiness lasts only for a short time. Then a discovery is made of something else that is greater than what they originally thought would make them happy, and they pursue that. This process repeats numerous times until they reach the top, then they realize that there is nothing left, yet they still feel unfulfilled. This TED Talk attempts to address that problem by positing that instead of pursuing happiness, people should pursue meaning. Here is a link to the talk, and I highly recommend that you watch it in full before continuing with this post: There’s more to life than being happy- Emily Esfahani Smith.

On The Surface

The speaker recognizes the problems that the pursuit of happiness brings: unhappiness, unfulfillment, depression, and suicidal tendencies. The offered solution gives hope to those who are depressed and tired of the pursuit of happiness. From a pragmatic perspective of survival, this talk was quite encouraging and invigorating. However, regardless of the survival advantage that it provides if one believes the claims, if the claims in the talk do not reflect reality (are not true), then the person who believes them has traded the truth for a lie in the name of mere survival- a delusion that is evolutionarily necessary to believe if we wish to win the survival game. If the speaker is presenting a delusion, then, for those who value truth and knowledge as well as survival, the talk is truly as useless as the solution it wishes to supplant. So, for the sake of truth, the claims need to be investigated and analyzed at a deeper level.

I would be curious to know the speaker’s philosophical foundations. Her worldview must be able to support her claims. Here are some questions that I’d like to ask of the speaker in the deeper analysis of the solution she offers:

  1. Do your foundations support your initial conclusion that meaning is better happiness? What objective standard does your worldview feature that would allow such a value judgment?
  2. How do you conclude that “better” should be a person’s pursuit? Again, what is the objective standard?
  3. Can your foundations support meaning that is more than mere Nietzschean game invention? What is the objective standard by which to judge whether an invented meaning is either objectively good or objectively evil?
  4. Do you have a standard to judge what constitutes a better self?
  5. Ultimately, is there an objective goal or purpose by which to judge progress or regress, better or worse, good or evil?

Meaning: Delusion or Game?

Notice the common term in all the questions is “objective.” People can create standards, but those would be “subjective.” If she does not have objective foundations (such as if she holds to naturalism or some form of atheism), then not only can what she presented not even get off the ground (insinuated in my first question), but what she has presented is nothing more than useful fictions or invented games with the existential survival advantage of the person not committing suicide for one more day. Such an “advantage” is not true meaning but rather an evolutionary delusion or Nietzschean game that keeps the person perpetually hanging on to life by a brittle thread (click or tap the links for more on those two options). If meaning is merely a delusion (regardless of its source, really) or a game, it should be rejected.

We all long for meaning, but if our worldview cannot ground or fulfill that desire, then either our worldview must be rejected, or our desire must be rejected.

This means that either we must reject the idea that our lives can have true meaning, or reject the worldviews that necessarily imply that our lives do not have true meaning. Yet, we know that our lives have true meaning, so that leaves us to reject all worldviews that are incompatible with our lives possessing true meaning. These worldviews should be rejected in favor of a worldview that does provide philosophical foundations for meaning, morality, and purpose. Interestingly enough, the speaker almost assumes that her audience agrees with her that their lives can have true meaning, so that would logically lead to necessarily rejecting naturalism and atheism (which she may very well reject but just never mentioned).

Meaning Puts Worldviews to the Test

Now, if we refuse to give up our desire for meaning, what worldview are we to believe that does provide such philosophical foundations and objective standards? Since both naturalism and atheism must be rejected, that leaves some form of theism. But not just any form of theism will do. The only ones available must also have foundations to support the intrinsic value and meaning of the individual and their life (some forms of theism actually do deny the intrinsic value of humans, so they must be discarded, as well). The Judeo-Christian doctrine of the Image of God provides the foundation for humans possessing intrinsic value in these theistic systems. But which one is to be accepted: Judaism or Christianity?

If we go back to the pursuit of happiness and look at all the dark roads that numerous people have gone down throughout history, including ourselves at different times in our lives, we realize the pain and suffering that we have caused others in our selfish pursuits of happiness. We realize that we have violated others’ intrinsic worth to placate our desires, and we know deep down, especially the older we get and the harder we try, that no amount of good that we do in this world will be able to repay the evil we are guilty of committing for our own selfish, hedonistic gains. In seeking to repay the moral debt, we seek justice for those we have wronged. In seeking justice, we are seeking forgiveness and even redemption. But with the realization that we cannot repay the moral debt, we see that finding justice and obtaining forgiveness and redemption are not possible. In this, we have unmet desires for happiness, meaning, and purpose. Forgiveness, justice, and redemption are not just inseparable from each other, they are inseparable from the pursuits of happiness, meaning, and purpose. If it is not possible to right our wrongs (achieve justice), then attaining forgiveness is equally impossible. Thus it is impossible to fulfill our desires for justice, forgiveness, and ultimately, meaning.

What, Then? Conclusion

It is only at the Cross of Jesus Christ that justice, forgiveness, and redemption converge and, for everyone who accepts the gift, is provided. Jesus said, “Come to me all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.” That last part is an invitation to those who have searched for justice, forgiveness, redemption, happiness, purpose, and meaning yet have discovered and accepted the futility of their endeavor. But how do we know that Jesus wasn’t just blowing smoke on that invitation? How can we know that He can fulfill those desires? We can know this because He conquered death and injustice by coming back to life after being unjustly executed on a Roman cross. And we do not have to believe this blindly; all the historical evidence points squarely to the reality of this supernatural event in history. To those in search of meaning: You have been given the subjective evidence of your own desires for meaning, justice, and forgiveness and the objective evidence of the Resurrection. Jesus Christ is alive, and He is calling you to live a meaningful and fulfilling life in Him. In your search of meaning, you can either believe an evolutionary delusion, invent a Nietzschean game, or follow the evidence where it leads. Which option will you choose?

 

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

/by
Securing a Seat in a Secular Society

Securing a Seat in a Secular Society

By Brian Chilton

On this episode of the Bellator Christi Podcast, Brian Chilton discusses what needs to be in a person’s message as one shares the gospel to those who know very little about God, Jesus, or the Bible. Join us today as we delve into Paul’s message to the Athenians delivered at the Areopagus in Athens, Greece from Acts 17:22-34.

Securing a Seat in a Secular Society

Acts 17:22-34

  1. Paul’s secured message included a discussion of their CONNECTION (17:22-23).
  2. Paul’s secured message included a discussion of the CREATOR (17:24-29).
    1. The Creator’s ATTRIBUTES (17:24-26, 28).
    2. The Creator’s ACCEPTANCE (17:27, 29).
  3. Paul’s secured message included a discussion of the CONDITIONS (17:30).
    1. Condition of SIN.
    2. Condition of SALVATION.
  4. Paul’s secured message included a discussion of COGNITION (17:31-34).

Hear:

 

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

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Od72jj

/by
Does The Bible Need Defending_

Does The Bible Need Defending?

By Evan Minton 

Sometimes when someone witnesses to an unbeliever by appealing to arguments and evidence that point to the truth of Christianity, some believers will tell the Christian that The Bible does not need them to defend it. “The Truth does not need to be defended. It is like a lion. All you need to do is let it out of its cage” they will say. A Lion can defend itself. It is ferocious; it has sharp, powerful jaws and razor-sharp claws. Its roar strikes fear into its prey. Its roar carries authority. Why would you need to defend such an animal? You don’t. So these Christians will say that The Bible is the same way. This is supposed to be an argument that Christian Apologetics is a pointless exercise.

There are several problems with this argument.

Regardless of whether scripture actually needs defending, scripture commands us to defend it nevertheless.

The Bible commands us to do apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15 says “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks for the reason for the hope that you have, yet do this with gentleness and respect”. This verse of The Bible is clear and unequivocal. Always be prepared to defend your faith whenever anyone asks you to give the reasons for why you have placed your hope in Jesus Christ. So even if we concede the premise that the Christian faith doesn’t need to be defended, we are still commanded to defend it. Ignoring this command would, therefore, be sinful.

The Apostle Paul said in his second letter to the church in Corinth “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). This is what apologetics is all about. We need to “demolish arguments” like the problem of evil & suffering, the hiddenness of God, supposed contradictions people think they have found in scripture, or simply the claim “There is no evidence for God’s existence.” These are arguments that set “itself up against the knowledge of God” that we need to “demolish.” If we do, then we might be able to “take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ.”

In Philippians 1:7 Paul speaks of his mission as “defending and confirming the gospel.” Then he says in Philippians 1:16, “I am put here for the defense of the gospel.” This implies that God placed Paul on this planet to be a defender of the Christian faith, which he was. When you read Acts 17, you see that when Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue (Acts 17:1), and then it says that as was his custom, he “reasoned with them from the Scriptures …” (verse 2), “explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead.” (verse 3) and then after he explained and proved to the Jews that the Messiah had to suffer and rise, “Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.” This is important because often you will hear some Christians say that no one comes to faith through arguments. But we have an example of some of the people coming to faith after hearing Paul’s arguments. Acts 17:4 refutes that notion.

Then several verses later, Paul was in Athens witnessing to the Athenians. And Acts 17:17 says “he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.” Other translations say he “disputed” with them, or he “debated” them. Now, he was able to reason from the scriptures with the Jews, but he couldn’t do that with the Athenians. Why? Because the Athenians didn’t accept the Jewish scriptures as divinely inspired. So he appealed to natural revelation instead (see Acts 17:22-31).

Jude 3 says, “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” The people Jude addressed had been assaulted by false teachers, and he needed to encourage them to protect (literally agonize for) the faith as it had been revealed through Christ. Jude makes a significant statement about our attitude in verse 22, which we “have mercy on some, who are doubting.”

So, does The Bible need defending? I think the answer to the question is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether God, or The Bible, or Christianity needs defending. The Bible commands us to defend it.

Rational People Naturally Desire Reasons Before They Believe Something.

God created humans to reason as part of his image (Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 9:6). It is by reasoning that humans are distinguished from “brute beasts” (Jude 10). God calls upon his people to use reason (see Isaiah 1:18) to discern truth from error (1 John 4:6) and right from wrong (Hebrews 5:14). The primary standard of rationality is that it should cough up an epistemological warrant for belief.

As Norman Geisler put it in his article “The Need For Apologetics.”

“People rightly refuse to believe without evidence. Since God created humans as rational beings, he expects them to live rationally, to look before they leap. This does not mean there is no room for faith. But God wants us to take a step of faith in the light of the evidence, rather than to leap in the dark. Evidence of truth should precede faith. No rational person steps into an elevator without some reason to believe it will hold him up. No reasonable person gets on an airplane that is missing part of one wing and smells of smoke in the cabin. People deal in two dimensions of belief: belief that and belief in. Belief that gives the evidence and rational basis for confidence needed to establish belief in. Once belief that is established, one can place faith in it. Thus, the rational person wants evidence that God exists before he places his faith in God. Rational unbelievers want evidence that Jesus is the Son of God before they place their trust in him.” – Norman Geisler (emphasis in original)

So, I don’t think it’s sufficient to just give an unbeliever a Bible and walk away and “let the truth defend itself.” For one reason, there are many holy books out there claiming to be “the truth.” The rational unbeliever is going to want you to give some reasons for him to think that The Bible should be believed instead of, say, The Koran, or the Hindu scriptures, or the Buddhist scriptures. He may ask you why you disbelieve in all of the other gods of all of the other religions but not the God of The Bible. That’s not too much to ask. And fortunately, we Christians can meet that challenge if we do our homework. If you simply quote The Bible, you’ll rightly be accused of circular reasoning.

You Can Make The Same Argument About Preaching The Gospel

If The Bible can defend itself, why can’t it preach itself? Why can’t we just leave it up to the non-Christian to go to their local bookstore or library, purchase a Bible, read it, and just hope for the best? Why can’t we do that? Well, because, like defending the gospel, scripture calls us to “Make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). We’re called to preach the gospel to a dark and dying world. We’re called to spread the good news. Does God need us to preach the gospel for Him? No. Probably not. But we’re called to do it anyway. And we’re called to do Christian Apologetics also (see 1 Peter 3:15).

In Conclusion

The Bible, God, Christianity may not need defending. But that’s irrelevant because God commands us to “Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that you have,” (1 Peter 3:15). We are called to defend our faith against the attacks of unbelievers. When someone asks us why we believe what we believe, scripture commands us to give them reasons. Moreover, people need evidence to determine whether The Bible even is the word of God. How do we know the Bible is God’s revelation to us, as opposed to the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon? One must appeal to evidence to determine this. No Christian would accept a Muslim’s statement that, “the Qur’an is alive and powerful and sharper than a two-edged sword.” We would demand evidence that the Qu’ran is God’s Word. As Norman Geisler put it in his article “Why We Need Apologetics”; the analogy of a lion is misleading. The only reason a lion’s roar has authority is that we have good evidence of what a lion can do. But if you were just born yesterday or came from another planet, would you be fearful of this big lion? Probably not. You might try to go pet it and have your alien arm ripped off.

In addition to all of this, you could make a parallel argument about evangelism in general. Why did Billy Graham hold all of those crusades? Why did he travel all around the world preaching to people? Why didn’t he just leave it up to the non-believer to go to their local bookstores, buy a Bible, read it, and hope for the best? If The Bible can defend itself, why can’t the gospel preach itself?

I’ll end this blog post with a quote from John Calvin. As a Molinist, I feel weird quoting him to make my point, but he’s dead on accurate here. He said “Even a dog barks when its master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.”

Like Calvin, I cannot help but bark when I see skeptics attack Christianity.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2mGGk6e

/by
The Number One Sign Your Kids Are Just Borrowing Your Faith (and Not Developing Their Own)

The Number One Sign Your Kids Are Just Borrowing Your Faith (and Not Developing Their Own)

By Natasha Crain 

The other day something reminded me of the popular 1993 book, “The Celestine Prophecy” (anyone remembers that?). “The Celestine Prophecy” is a fiction book that discusses ideas rooted in New Age spirituality. The book sold 20 million copies and practically spawned its own cult-like religion, with groups popping up all over the country to study the insights and apply them to life.

I discovered this book when I was fresh out of high school and was enamored by it. The insights were exciting (“there’s a reason for every apparent coincidence!”) and it proposed interesting ideas about spirituality that seemed totally plausible to my young mind. I couldn’t stop talking about it. I told all my friends about it. I started paying attention to how the nine insights in the book applied to my life. I suddenly felt life was more meaningful.

The problem? I was a “Christian” but it never even occurred to me that these New Age ideas should have been immediately rendered false by the beliefs I claimed to have. My faith was so shallow that the first exciting philosophy I encountered after high school swept me off my feet – without so much as an inkling that it was in conflict with everything I had been taught.

When I randomly remembered this book last week, I marveled at how I had developed such a shallow faith, despite the fact I had gone to church for 18 years and grew up surrounded by family members who deeply loved the Lord.

A Borrowed Faith

In my family, faith looked like spiritual “parallel play.” Parallel play is the stage young toddlers go through where they enjoy being near other kids, but don’t actually interact with each other yet. They’ll play blocks side by side, but they won’t find ways to play blocks together.

My family members would individually read their Bibles, go to church every week, participate in prayer chains, and humbly remind each other that plans would only happen “Lord willing.”  Those were the spiritual blocks they played with next to me.

Meanwhile, I went to church, was at least mildly interested in what I heard, felt confident that if I died I would be saved, prayed occasionally on my own, went to church camps, attended youth nights, and freely told anyone who asked that I was a Christian. Those were the spiritual blocks I played with next to them.

But we never spiritually played together. Without that deeper engagement, my faith simply remained shallow and was based on living out a copy of what those around me were doing.

I left home with a completely borrowed faith.

I had never made it my own, but not because I rejected it in any way.

Many parents are brokenhearted when their kids reject Christianity in the teen years. I would suggest that many other parents are lulled into a false sense of security when their kids appear to toe the line of faith until they leave home. That faith often amounts to little more than borrowed beliefs which will soon be shattered.

Make no mistake: a borrowed faith leaving home can be just as dangerous as a broken faith. The result is often the same, just delayed.

When I originally started this post, I planned to call it, “10 Signs Your Kids are Just Borrowing Your Faith.” As I thought through the signs I can see in retrospect from my own experience, however, I found they all really pointed back to just one sign. So here it is:

The number one sign your kids are just borrowing your faith is that they rarely, if ever, ask questions.

Why Aren’t They Asking Questions?

  • They may be just uninterested enough to not ask questions, but not so uninterested as to reject Christianity altogether. They’ll just borrow your faith for a while because that’s what’s in front of them on the buffet.
  • They may not yet see the importance of Christian belief in their lives. It’s perceived as just another subject they’re learning about, like math. They’ll just borrow your faith for a while because they don’t think it’s important enough to think more deeply about.
  • They may not have been exposed to enough non-Christian ideas yet. Their faith isn’t being challenged in preparation for the adult world. Challenge them. If you don’t, non-believers soon will. They’ll just borrow your faith for a while because they see no need not to.
  • They may be scared or uncertain of your reaction. They’ll just borrow your faith for a while because that’s what they think is expected of them.
  • They may be getting answers elsewhere – usually not the answers you’d like them to have. They’ll just borrow your faith for a while because they don’t want to rock the boat at home.

If your kids aren’t asking questions, start asking THEM questions. Open the door for the conversation yourself and get them thinking in ways that will ultimately allow them to own their faith.

Need some ideas for meaty topics? Use my post, 65 Questions Every Christian Parent Needs to Learn to Answer, as a thought starter or order my new book, Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith (in my book, you’ll learn easy-to-understand answers to 40 important faith questions that you can discuss with your kids).

Did YOU leave home with a borrowed faith? Why or why not? I’d love to hear your experiences.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2JD8msg

/by
The Gay Agenda & the Wrong Side of Hate

The Gay Agenda & the Wrong Side of Hate

,

By Brady Cone

Protestors. Death threats. Misleading newspaper articles. In the days leading up to a talk I was doing on campus at North Carolina State University last year, the environment consistently became increasingly hostile. I was simply speaking about my story of struggling with sexuality issues, and how God’s overwhelming grace had rescued my soul. Why the hostility from the LGBT community on campus? It was because my very existence is a threat to the foundation on which they have built their lives, their identities, and ultimately their value and hope. Which is why they feel so threatened by anyone who dares to say they could live any other way.

Being raised on a farm in Nebraska, I grew up experiencing nothing but same-sex attraction. By the time I was in my teens I identified as gay. As with anyone else who is gay, I felt like “I was just born this way.” I grew up during a time when our culture was undergoing a major shift, and LGBT people were becoming more and more accepted. As I was confused and trying to figure out what to do with the feelings I was having; the culture was screaming at us, “if you have same-sex attraction, you were born with it, and you need to be gay to be happy and healthy.” That’s the narrative which was fed to me. I would go on to accept that dogma because I thought I had no other choice.

But then I came to know Jesus and my whole world changed! I later walked away from my homosexual life. I knew that if I was going to live out a faith based on God’s Word, I had to surrender to ALL of God’s Word, not just the parts that were easy, convenient, or made sense. Walking away from my LGBT life didn’t always make sense, because it felt to the depth of my soul that “this is just the way I am!” But, over the years God chipped away at my gay identity and started to untwist what my heart had twisted.

I still struggle occasionally. Once in a while, I catch a glimpse of a guy who I find attractive, and I have to repent. With that said, however, my life, and my attractions are so different now than they were a decade ago. God shined His light in my heart to show me places where I was looking to men to find value and wholeness. He showed me the idolatry in my heart. Now, I have instead been able to find wholeness in Christ. The further I have been away from that community/lifestyle/identity, the less normal/natural it seems. I am now in a healthy relationship with a woman which is leading towards marriage. And it’s all from God’s grace! That’s what sanctification does.

It is a fact that even if we were born with same-sex desires, we still have a choice in how we live our lives — we have free will! Through the power of the Holy Spirit, we can wake up every morning and choose to live a life that is pure, holy, and pleasing to God — no matter what attractions, temptations, and desires we have — or not! So in that sense, it does not matter if one is born gay or not.

What am I Free to Choose?

I am always discerning in how I use the word choice, and so should all Christians. I didn’t choose to have same-sex attraction. Nor could I just choose to turn it off. It is only after I chose to stop resisting the Holy Spirit and chose to surrender my life to Christ that I gained God’s power to make hard choices — free choices — to deny my flesh and take the way of escape God promises to provide when we face temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13).

Romans 8:26-27 states, “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.” The current belief of the LGBT community and secular society at large is that “gay people are born gay.” That is used as justification of their lifestyle, and justification of not only acceptance but forced celebration.

After living in the gay community, leaving it, and now being in a ministry where I have helped hundreds of people work through their own wrestling of same-sex attraction and faith, I adamantly do not believe that we are “born gay.” That debate, however, is for another day. The scope of this article is to show that even if I am wrong about being “born that way,” it simply does not matter and is irrelevant.

What does matter is that I once was, and no longer am gay? Not only I but thousands like me! It does not mean that a switch is flipped, and all the same-sex attraction goes away. It does not even mean that you can “pray away the gay.” It means that over the course of our lifetime, God sanctifies us, shows us the idols we are serving, and through ongoing sanctification, He untwists what our sinful hearts have twisted. Which means we can find our wholeness through Him, instead of acquiring it through the idolatry of another person. I’ve seen the idolatry in my own heart, and the hundreds of others who I have ministered to. But, there is true freedom is choosing to submit to Christ, instead of the things of the world!

There are no studies proving that people are born gay. Some people have bought into the rhetoric and claim that there are studies that “prove” it, however, every time I ask to see these supposed “proofs” these same people have never provided anything but assertions. And even if we were born gay, it is still irrelevant. After all, the Bible makes it clear that we are all born into sin. We are all born with sinful inclinations and a deceitful heart. So why is there such strong rhetoric, claiming that people who feel gay have no choice but to act gay? It is because the entire narrative pushing the gay agenda in our culture relies on it.

Brady Cone Exists! 

The LGBT community tries to claim that people like me don’t exist — but we do! Thousands of us. They try to claim we don’t exist because our mere existence completely derails their entire narrative. Their narrative and agenda rely on convincing people that some have no choice but to be or act gay, just like white people are born white and black people are born black. But, the fact that people like me change shows that they are wrong and illustrates that sexuality is fluid, controllable, and cannot be put on the same level as other aspects of our personhood such as race.

The push of not only equality—but forced acceptance, relies on them making their sexuality a part of who they are—a piece of them which is central to their humanity. Which is why they feel so threatened by someone like me. My very existence—proving that people with same-sex attraction don’t have to live as gay—pulls the rug out from under every piece of justification they have in their push for equality, acceptance, and forced celebration.

I have lived through such a unique time in our culture. Growing up wrestling with gay feelings and attractions, I felt extremely rejected by those around me. But a mere 15 to 20 years later, the rejection comes from our culture for merely choosing to not live as a gay man. Our culture claims that how I live is dangerous. They claim it is irresponsible, dangerous, and outright cruel to expect people to deny themselves from the feelings of what comes natural to them. However, it is only cruel if sex and romantic relationships are central to our humanity. But they are not. So what is more dangerous? A culture which claims “sex and romantic relationships with whoever you please is central to your humanity, and without it you are not complete” or a faith in which our savior Jesus comes along and says, “I have set you free because everything you need for your humanity and your eternity is freely given by me.”

Back to North Carolina

Throughout sharing my story of wrestling with sexuality—and how God’s love and grace are sufficient for every one of us—the back of the room was filled with hundreds of protestors holding up signs. Throughout the question and answer session, LGBT members of the audience and the protestors tried to cause disturbances and ridicule me. One person went as far as saying they wished I had pulled the trigger on the gun back when I had almost committed suicide as a hurting 13-year-old boy.

But there was one student that night, whose heart was open to the message of God’s love and grace. His name was Levi, and he was one of the protestors in the back of the room. As he stood there holding his sign with his fellow LGBT comrades, something was stirring in his heart. He stood there, watching his community respond to me with such vicious hatred—all while I responded to them with tenderness and grace.

As he stood there, a thought was racing through his head. He kept thinking, “I’m standing on the wrong side of hate.”

Levi slipped out as soon as the event was over and went back to his dorm room. That same week he reached out to his old youth pastor from high school and a couple of Christian friends. When I first heard from him months later, he had left the gay community, and said goodbye to his gay identity. He was thriving in his relationship with the Lord. At that moment, in that room, God had shined the light of His truth in Levi’s heart, as He had done in mine over a decade ago. Levi discovered that his sexuality was not central to his humanity, nor could it provide him with any type of wholeness. Only Christ could do that.

Today, Levi is walking in freedom, which was bought for him on the cross. He has found peace and joy, and the freedom to deny himself and chooses to live a life that is pure, holy, and in line with God’s Word. Levi and I are the people Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 6:11, while speaking of homosexuals he states “that is what some of you were,” (emphasis added) “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

 

Brady Cone was a college student at Chadron State and living a homosexual lifestyle. He had struggled with these issues since a young age and thought he was trapped in that lifestyle. Coming to know Christ changed everything for Brady! Jesus gave him another choice: a life of holiness through Christ. Brady says that leaving behind a world of homosexuality was the most difficult thing that he has have ever done, but through it, God has given him new life and freedom in ways he never dreamed. Brady’s goal is to share his testimony and discuss the power of the Gospel in his life. In turn, he hopes to provide discipleship, insight, and written material to equip the church in discussing these matters.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2O4tv20

/by
I am Special-

I am Special?

By Michael Sherrard

There isn’t any reason to think that I am special, but I do. And we all do. That is of course unless life has beaten us up and cruel people have convinced us otherwise. But I am special. I know this. I’ve known this for quite some time.

It this a dream? Am I delusional or just simply arrogant? Perhaps, but don’t you think the same about yourself? Haven’t you thought for quite some time that your life is important? That there is a purpose. That you matter. That your story is a great story worth telling and more yet to be written. Well, I agree. Your life is a beautiful story. You matter. You have a purpose. You are a masterpiece.

But why do we think this? Why are all humans captured by the idea that ours is a meaningful and beautiful life?

This is the issue of our time. So much of the fighting today centers around what does it mean to be human. Are we valuable? Why are we valuable? What makes life worth living?

There used to be agreement on this issue. The United States was built on the shared understanding that mankind was made by the Creator and instilled with rights that cannot be taken away because of our inherent and equal worth. But as the western world has more and more embraced naturalistic explanations for life, the rug has been pulled out human value. No longer is human life inherently valuable because we are uniquely made in God’s image. No, humans are now viewed by many as the end result of a long line of unguided genetic mutations. We came to be by accident. And accidents don’t have inherent value. They have accidental value, a value that comes from some found usefulness.

And there is a difference. Christianity has long taught that humans are valuable because of what they are, human. Secularism teaches that you are valuable because of what you can do and become. This is no small difference.

Hear:

 

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, the director of Ratio Christi College Prep, and the author of Relational Apologetics. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2mvLxO3

/by
You Gotta Be More Specific

You Gotta Be More Specific

,

By Brent Hardaway

A blogger named MarkCC demonstrates a few common misunderstandings regarding Intelligent Design (ID).

First, we need to clarify some terms, as there is some jargon given in the post that the reader may not be familiar with.

Specified Event – The phrase “Go Take Out the Trash” is a specified arrangement of letters. The jumbled letter sequence “smets qwoand nduams iba” is not specified, as it is not a pattern that is recognizable. How this relates to the ID is that if you come to the dining room table and see some Alpha-Bits arranged in the first sequence (even if not perfectly straight), you’d assume that your housemate purposely arranged them as communication to someone else, quite possibly you. That would be a specified event. But if you saw the second sequence not perfectly straight, you would be pretty likely to assume that your housemate carelessly spilled some out of the box and didn’t bother to clean it up. That would be non-specified. And applying this to the origin of life, there are many features of life (like DNA and proteins), that exhibit sequences of code that are specific. For example, the work of MIT molecular biologist Robert Sauer came to the conclusion that for a protein chain that was 92 amino acids long, only 1 in 10^63 could perform some function in cellular life.[1] So language and proteins are pretty similar in that letters/amino acids form chains of readable sentences/working proteins.

Universal Probability Bound – What if we could spill some Alpha-Bits every second? Wouldn’t we eventually get the phrase regarding the trash? Well, if we were able to spill exactly the same amount, and the odds of a space appearing as often as a letter was equal, it would happen about once every 1.14 Octillion years.[2] So even if I live to be 100, it’s absurd to think I would ever achieve that sequence by randomly spilling Alpha-Bits. I’d have an astronomically far greater chance of winning the lottery. There are only so many “rolls of the dice,” in such cases. So, in other words, beyond a certain point, we have to rule out blind luck as an explanation and attribute an improbable event to design guided by some intelligence. That would be the “Universal Probability Bound.” Dembski suggests that this should be any odds around 1 in 10^150. This is what he calls the number of “probabilistic resources.” This is based on the number of possible events in the universe. And when he says “events,” he’s using the most minimal definition possible. It is the maximum number of times that all the elementary particles in the universe could have reacted with energy!

Now on to the post –

“Here’s the fundamental dishonesty: None of those numbers have *anything* to do with what he’s supposedly trying to prove. He’s trying to create a formal-sounding version of the big-number problem by throwing together a bunch of fancy-sounding numbers, multiplying them together, and claiming that they somehow suddenly have meaning. But they don’t. It’s actually remarkably easy to show what utter nonsense this is. I’ll do a fancy one first, and a trivial one second.”

Rather, MarkCC has not understood Dembski’s argument. As the second example is easier to understand, we’ll start with that one.

“Grab two decks of distinguishable cards. Shuffle them together, and lay them out for a game of spider solitaire. What’s the probability of that particular lay of cards? 104! , or, very roughly, something larger than 1×10166. Is god personally arranging my cards every time I play spider? Anyone who’s ever taken any class on probability *knows* this stuff.”

The blogger has missed Dembski’s point. Yes, the odds of ANY one sequence with two decks of cards is 1 in 10^166, but what Dembski is looking for is a SPECIFIC sequence. To put it another way, what MarkCC must do to falsify Dembski’s point is either to 1) Predict a specific sequence of 104 cards or 2) Shuffle the cards randomly twice, and get them in the same sequence each time. The odds of that happening are indeed 1 in 10^166, but the percent chance of getting another result is 99.9999999999%, carried out to 164 decimal places. In other words, a non-specific sequence is virtually certain, and a specific one is virtually impossible.

One commenter named Corkscrew notes this, but then goes on to say,

“Of course, this presents two further problems. Firstly, as you’ve mentioned before, the whole concept of specification is complete bollocks. AFAICT it basically boils down to how cool something looks – if it makes Dembski go “whoa…” it’s specified.”

This is actually kind of humorous, as this very statement is itself an example of a specification. I don’t say that because it made me go “Whoa,” but because it’s recognizable as an English sentence. What would Corkscrew think if I said “I can’t tell if a person actually wrote this. Perhaps they’re just random letters generated by a computer”? And as we noted before, written sentences are a valid analogy to the coding required in DNA and proteins.

“Secondly, the whole concept of probabilistic resources is completely borked. It assumes a discrete universe. We do not live in a discrete universe. It assumes that every configuration has effectively the same chance of appearing. This is blatant bull.”

This is true enough – but that is only relevant if the bases that make DNA and the amino acids that makeup proteins are significantly (to an astronomical degree) more likely to group together in ways that make them actually function than not. Corkscrew does not provide any evidence that this is the case. And as we shall see that, in fact, Dembski’s estimation of probabilistic resources available to get life from non-life is far too generous.

Now, let’s move onto his “fancy” example –

“Let’s create an incredibly simplified model of a region of space. Let’s say we have a cube of space, 1 kilometer on a side. Further, let’s suppose that this space contains 1000 particles, and they are all electrons. And further, let’s suppose that each 1mm cube in this cubic kilometer can only have one electron in it.”

He goes on to calculate the number of possible configurations of these particles as 10^5232, way more than Dembski’s probability bound. He asks,

“So what Dembski is saying is that *every* possible configuration of matter in space in the entire universe is impossible without intelligent intervention.”

That isn’t at all what Dembski is saying. In fact, this moves us on to the next point of the ID argument. The number of possible combinations greatly outweigh the possible number of trials. As it relates to life forms, the late astronomer Fred Hoyle calculated that there are 10^40,000 amino acid combinations for the complete set of 2,000 actual known enzyme proteins that exist [3]– and this is just one of many features of life that need to appear. It isn’t that God is necessary to arrange any possible sequence of these amino acids. The problem is there are only 10^150 possible events. If each event was a complete trial arranging different combinations of amino acids, we still wouldn’t come close to finding the very few specific sequences that can form life.

But it’s actually much worse than that for three reasons –

1) Each event is only what one elementary particle does with energy. When molecules form, quite a few particles are involved – and each one would consume at least one event, reducing the number of available trials to form life.

2) In reality, no one believes that a cell or group of proteins came together all at once, but that these things formed via a step-by-step process. But a step-by-step process would take many events. This would also reduce the number of trials.

3) There are plenty of environments, such as the air that you are breathing, or the sun, that are not at all conducive to forming any of the building blocks of life. This reduces the number of trials even further.

Once these misunderstandings have been cleared up, Dembski’s argument stands.

Notes

[1] Meyer, Steven. Darwin’s Doubt, p. 180

[2] The calculation is 27 ^21 = 1.14 * 10^30.

[3] “Hoyle on Evolution” Nature, Nov. 12, 1981 p.105

 

Brent Hardaway is a Financial Analyst living in the Tampa, FL area. Originally from Northern CA, he has a B.S. in Accounting from San Diego State University and a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He is an avid baseball and football fan, and enjoys reading and playing golf in his spare time.

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

/by
Why the Right to Privacy Argument for Abortion Fails

Why the Right to Privacy Argument for Abortion Fails

,

By J. Brian Huffling

A common argument used by abortion advocates is: “A woman can do what she wants with her body! Since it is her body that is going through the pregnancy, then she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.” However, this “argument” fails for a number of reasons.

First, it is not an argument. It is an assertion. An argument is a series of at least two propositions that logically lead to a conclusion. That doesn’t happen here.

Second, there are a myriad of things that a person can’t do in the name of privacy or by appealing to “this is my body.” A person cannot do drugs (excluding marijuana in some places) and simply get away with it, even though it is his body that is affected by the drugs. A person, in most places, cannot prostitute herself, even though it is her body. (Some have actually argued that prostitution should be legal because it empowers women and it is their body.) Examples could be multiplied, but hopefully, the point is clear.

Third, and most importantly, it isn’t her body!!! When deciding to murder a baby in the womb, arguing “It’s my body, so I can do it” is simply asinine (that means incredibly stupid)! If a woman was going to abort herself, that would be suicide. Abortion takes the life of the baby, not the mother. The baby is a separate being with its own DNA, blood type, and gender. The baby is not identical with the mother. So, even if she could do what she wanted with her body, the baby is a different story.

Some will retort that at the moment of abortion (presumably in the first trimester), the fetus is not a human yet. However, this is ludicrous. The only reason to claim this is to justify abortion. What else would it be? The baby is a product of sexual reproduction, which can only reproduce another member of the parents’ species. Two humans cannot sexually reproduce another species. At conception, the baby has all of its needed chromosomes (the same number of fully developed adults). The fetus simply needs time to develop. Two humans can only reproduce humans. The fact that the baby isn’t fully developed doesn’t make it a non-human. Our bodies don’t stop developing until the early twenties as the frontal lobe of the brain is still forming (this is what connects reason and emotion, which explains why teenagers can be very irrational).

One cannot help but wonder why liberals are so concerned with women’s rights while simultaneously willing and even advocating for the outright murder of so many women (female babies). Such advocates are not advocates of love and compassion, but of hatred and murder.

Forgiveness

If you are reading this and have had an abortion, or know someone who has, it is important to know there is forgiveness in Christ. Yes, abortion is wrong. You probably already know that. But it doesn’t mean that you are outside of grace and forgiveness. God’s grace covers even abortion. Know that. Hear the words of John: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all [all!] unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

As Christians, we should condemn abortion for what it is while also remembering and communicating the grace of Jesus Christ.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2N4yP3W

/by
Apologetics Is About Love (1)

Apologetics Is About Love

By Ryan Leasure

Apologetics is about love. Wait, what? Apologetics? About love? You mean to tell me that apologetics — making a defense for the Christian faith — isn’t about academic scruples that few people care about? Don’t apologists thrive off arguments and heated discussions? How could it be about love?

While I can’t speak for my fellow Christian apologists, love motivates me to study apologetics. Jesus tells us the greatest commandments are to love God and our neighbor as ourselves. I believe one way we can obey these commands is to grow in our understanding of apologetics. Make no mistake about it; apologetics can be intellectually fulfilling. Love, however, must be the primary motivation. The goal needs to be winning people’s hearts, not winning arguments. And it’s my love for the following people that compels me to do apologetics.

LOVE FOR NON-CHRISTIANS

Like everyone else, I have friends who aren’t Christians. Some of these friends belong to other faiths while others are atheists. I love these friends and want them to receive salvation. Yet they, like me, are deeply entrenched in their worldviews. Quoting Bible verses to them often doesn’t persuade them because they don’t believe the Bible. They don’t care that Genesis says God created the world. For them, the Bible is a mixture of bad history and old wives’ tales.

I could respond to these friends in one of two ways. I could throw my arms up in the air and say what’s the use? They’re on their own. Or, I could try to learn about their worldview and do my best to show them why it doesn’t square with reality. Furthermore, I could also try to answer any objections they have to my worldview. I chose the latter.

Because I believe Jesus is the Son of God who died and rose again for our sins, I desperately want my non-Christian friends to trust in him. I want them to receive forgiveness of sins. I want them to have eternal life and experience true and lasting joy that only Jesus can give. And because I love these friends deeply, I’m committed to studying apologetics with the hopes that God might use it to draw them to himself.

LOVE FOR MY CHURCH

The reason I emphasize apologetics in my local church is because I love my fellow church members. We live our lives to the fullest when we pursue a dynamic relationship with Jesus. And in my experience, apologetics has bolstered my relationship with him.

Not only do I possess greater assurance for my faith — it’s reasonable to believe what I believe — I am also prepared to share my faith with more boldness. Trepidation doesn’t overwhelm me anymore. I’m prepared to answer most questions and objections people have about my faith. In a very real way, apologetics has increased my ability to fulfill the Great Commission (Mt 28:19-20).

Whether people realize it or not, apologetics is the evangelism of today and of the future. While we should never avoid sharing the simple Gospel message — that Jesus died and rose for our sins — we must be able to provide good reasons for believing that Gospel message to be true. After all, we live in a post-Christian, pluralistic, skeptical culture that distrusts any form of religion. They don’t take the Bible at face value. They think religion is a personal matter — your truth is good for you, but not for my kind of mentality.

Most Christians struggle navigating these kinds of conversations. As a result, they feel defeated because they didn’t know how to respond to the skeptic’s objections. Or even worse, they begin to lose their faith. For these reasons, I make it my aim to emphasize apologetics in my local church. This emphasis equips my church to more faithfully live out their life on mission for Jesus.

LOVE FOR OUR YOUTH

Multiple studies report that a majority of students leave the church when they head off to college. In fact, one Southern Baptist study reports that 88% of children born in evangelical homes leave the church at age eighteen.1 According to most of these studies, the main reason students leave the faith is because of intellectual doubt.

It’s no secret that professors at secular universities are more disposed toward atheism and skepticism than the general public.2  In fact, many of these same faculty have a general dislike for evangelical Christianity. How then do we prepare our students in the youth group for the onslaught? With more games? By focusing more on inviting friends than personal discipleship? With short lessons on moral purity?

We throw our youth into the lion’s den with little more than a butter knife to defend themselves and wonder why they don’t make it out. We’re failing our youth if we don’t change our approach. Fortunately, excellent resources exist for equipping our youth in apologetics. Currently, our youth director is taking our students through The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

We have some great students in our church. I don’t want to see them become another statistic. I love them too much.

LOVE FOR JESUS

Jesus proclaims, “If you love me, keep my commands” (Jn. 14:15). I don’t know if most Christians recognize this, but God commands us to do apologetics. First Peter 3:15 asserts, “always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.”

Occasionally I’ll hear someone say Matthew 28:18-20 isn’t the “Great Suggestion,” it’s the “Great Commission.” In other words, Jesus was serious when he told his disciples to go spread the Gospel message. It’s not optional.

In the same sense, 1 Peter 3:15 doesn’t offer a suggestion, but a bona fide command to do apologetics. And doesn’t love for the Lord manifest itself in obedience? Christians aren’t simply hearers of the word, but doers also (Js. 1:22). I don’t always obey God’s commands as I should, but my love for Jesus compels me to do apologetics.

APOLOGETICS IS ABOUT LOVE

It’s not merely an academic exercise. It’s not about silencing your opponent. Apologetics is about persuasively sharing the Gospel to win people to Christ. It’s about fulfilling the greatest commandments to love God and our neighbor. In fact, Jesus tells us in the greatest commandment that we are to love God with all our “mind.” That is, loving God necessarily includes mental engagement. If you’re ever tempted to think that apologetics is unloving, I hope you’ll be reminded of Jesus’ words and think again.

 

Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2N8bbUr

/by
Terrell Clemmons Interviews Nancy Pearcey About The Impact Of Secularism

Terrell Clemmons Interviews Nancy Pearcey About The Impact Of Secularism

,

By Wintery Knight

Salvo magazine is my favorite magazine for the discussion of issues related to the Christian worldview. They focus on the most interesting topics; sex and feminism, intelligent design and evolution, marriage and family, abortion and euthanasia, etc. One of their writers, Terrell Clemmons, has just about the best Christian worldview I’ve ever encountered. She interviewed well-known Christian writer Nancy Pearcey in Salvo magazine.

The first part of the interview has Nancy explaining what happened to her when – as a teen – she asked her family and church and Christian leaders for reasons why she should take Christianity seriously. She ended up having to construct her entire worldview herself. She spent an entire year and a half reading nothing but Christian apologetics books. And from that, she moved on to connect Christianity to every other subject that you can possibly imagine.

The part of the interview I liked best was when Terrell asked Nancy what the consequences would be in real life to the popular secular ideas that the universe is an accident, that human beings are just robots made out of meat, that there is no free will and no way that humans ought to be objectively.

Excerpt:

What do you see as the greatest threat to the next generation?

The greatest threats are the issues covered in Love Thy Body because they involve the family—and children who grow up without a secure, loving family do not do as well in any area of life, including their spiritual and intellectual lives. Practices like contraception, abortion, and artificial reproduction are already creating an attitude that having a child is merely a lifestyle choice, an accessory to enrich adult lives and meet adult needs. The hookup culture is destroying people’s ability to form the secure, exclusive relationships they need to create stable, happy families. Porn is decimating a generation of young people who are literally being trained to objectify others for their own sexual gratification. When they marry, they are shocked—shocked—to discover that they are unable to experience a sexual response with a real live person. They are only able to respond to pornography. Homosexuality and transgenderism are both creating a gender-free society by denying the value and purpose of biological sex as the foundation for gender identity and marriage.

We are often told that these issues won’t affect anyone else, but that is not true. As the law changes, we are all affected. In a free society, certain rights are honored as pre-political rights. That means the state does not create them but only recognizes them as a pre-existing fact. For example, the right to life used to be a pre-political right—something you had just because you were human. But the only way the state could legalize abortion was by first deciding that some humans are not persons with a right to legal protection. The state now decides who qualifies for human rights, apart from biology. That is a huge power grab by the state, and it means we are all at risk. No one has a right to life now by the sheer fact of being human, but only at the dispensation of the state.

In the same way, marriage used to be a pre-political right based on the fact that humans are a sexually reproducing species. But the only way the state could legalize same-sex marriage was by denying the biological basis of marriage and redefining it as a purely emotional commitment, which is what the Supreme Court did in its Obergefell decision. The state no longer merely recognizes marriage as a pre-political right but has claimed the right to decide what marriage is, apart from biology.

Gender used to follow from your biological sex. But the only way the state can treat a trans woman (born male) the same as a biological woman is by dismissing biology as irrelevant. That’s why public schools are enforcing policies telling teachers whom they must call “he” and “she,” regardless of the student’s biological sex.

Same-sex activists say the next step is parenthood. In a same-sex couple, at least one parent is not biologically related to any children they have. So the only way the state can treat same-sex parents the same as opposite-sex parents is by dismissing biology as irrelevant and then substituting a new definition of “parent” (perhaps based on emotional bonds). You will be your child’s parent only at the permission of the state.

And what the state gives, the state can take away. Human rights are no longer “unalienable.” These issues are sold to the public as a way of expanding choice. But in reality, they hand over power to the state.

You can see examples of the state stepping in to “fix” the problems caused by the decline of lasting, stable marriages. Divorce courts control a man’s salary and his rights to communicate with and visit his children. Civil rights commissions bully anyone who doesn’t celebrate they LGBT agenda. Universities punish men for real or imagined bad treatment of women without any criminal investigation or criminal trial. And we are all on the hook for the costs of the breakdown of the family, which results in more crime (for fatherless boys), and more unwanted pregnancies (for fatherless girls). In 2008, it was $112 billion per year, no telling what it is up to now when the out-of-wedlock birth rate is now up to 42%.

Although the secular left’s new view of the body and sexuality seemed to be all goodness and happiness – at least to them –  it’s actually caused a lot of problems, and increased the intervention of the state into our affairs.

 

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

/by