Tag Archive for: Christianity

Moms Kids Secular

For All the Moms Overwhelmed by Raising Christian Kids in a Secular World

By

I don’t normally write just to moms—my readers are both moms and dads—but in honor of Mother’s Day this one is specifically for all the moms out there.

For the past few days, I’ve been sick with some kind of flu/cold combination.

Yesterday, I pulled myself out of bed while feeling like I had a thousand pounds on top of me. As every mom knows, being sick doesn’t exempt you from getting the kids to school. So, I plodded down the stairs in my signature “I’m sick” robe and went to work making lunches.

After I finished making a hot dog and beans concoction, my daughter informed me she left her lunchbox at school…which had her thermos in it. The thermos was the only container that would have worked for what I had just made. I had to start all over and quickly get a sandwich together instead.

In stomped my younger daughter, who was devastated that she went to bed the night before with three braids in her hair, yet didn’t have the waves she hoped for in the morning. She blamed me for not braiding correctly and, in a huff, accidentally knocked a full glass of water all over the floor.

Not to be outdone, my son yelled from upstairs that he didn’t have a clean uniform to wear.

It was like the opening scene of a bad 1980s sitcom about wacky family life.

Rather than laugh, however, I lost it. I wasn’t sure if I felt more like yelling or crying, so it all just came out at once. But in the midst of the pandemonium, I suddenly had this thought:

This is the kind of day that makes moms think the stuff I write about is impossible to do.

Teach my kids how we know the Gospels are based on eye-witness testimony? I can’t even get lunch right.

Engage in nuanced conversations about evolution? My son doesn’t even have a clean shirt.

Discuss the evidence for God’s existence? My daughter just wants wavy hair.

Whether we’re sick or just getting through a normal day, it takes a lot to keep the family ship moving. When you’re already overwhelmed by daily life, reading my blog and/or book may seem like a giant “piling on” of what else should be happening.

If that’s how you feel, this post is for you. Here are the four things I think overwhelmed moms most need to hear.

1. We don’t have to be perfect parents before we’re ready to seriously disciple our kids.

Logically, you know this. You know that no human is perfect, and therefore you’re not perfect. But sometimes we subconsciously think that we need to achieve some critical mass of parental goodness (like not flipping out every time our kids leave socks all over the house) before we can begin to approach the “next level” of parenting—serious discipleship. Deep conversations about faith, not just mealtime prayers.

The thing is, that kind of discipleship is not the next level. We often inadvertently see it that way because it’s not necessary in order to keep kids physically alive, but that’s dangerous thinking. We need to adjust our mentality to accept that serious discipleship keeps our kids spiritually alive and is foundational level parenting.

Take this to heart: You are enough. In all your imperfections, God still calls you to be the most important spiritual influence in your kids’ lives.

2. The challenges of a secular world are not a giant, undefinable snowball—they are predictable, making your job manageable.

When you’re scrolling through social media, reading articles, listening to the television, and so on, it can seem like you’re on the receiving end of a secular avalanche. You may see the latest crazy news and feel like it’s an impossible task to prepare your kids spiritually for all they’ll encounter. Where do you even begin?

But hear me out: Virtually all of those challenges in some way roll back to questions about the core case for Christianity:

  • The evidence for God’s existence.
  • The exclusive nature of religious truth claims.
  • The evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.
  • The evidence for the reliability of the Bible.

You don’t need to feel like you have to be an expert on every single challenge you encounter. If 500 people challenge you on 500 different claims that oppose what the Bible says, that’s primarily just one subject area you need to grasp: What is the evidence for the reliability of the Bible?

If you’re new to these subjects, grab a copy of my first book, Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side. It’s an easy-to-understand introduction with mercifully short chapters for parents. For other resources,  check out all the reading plans I have here.

Preparing your kids for a secular world is manageable when you make use of resources to help you get focused on key areas. You just need to make the time.

3. You have the needed time. Really. You do.

When I speak to parents at churches and conferences, I often start by showing a picture of my family from five years ago. My twins were three and my youngest was one. I say, “When this picture was taken, I didn’t know anything about anything I’m talking about today.” I want parents to know anyone can equip themselves with this understanding when they put their mind to it.

But it comes down to this: I made time to learn once I experienced first-hand how important this knowledge would be for my kids. (If you’re newer to my blog, you can read my story here.)

I read some 200 books during that time, with three kids under five. When did I do it? Times like these:

  • The first 15 minutes after I woke up in the morning.
  • While drying my hair (if you read books electronically, this is easy to do).
  • While waiting in lines (do you know how much time you spend in lines at places like the grocery store?).
  • While waiting for my kids to be done with extracurricular activities (e.g., gymnastics).
  • While waiting for dinner to cook.
  • In the last 15-30 minutes before I went to sleep at night.

When something is important, you make time. You just do. And I’m not even suggesting you read 200 books. Read these 5 to start and see where that takes you.

4. Your kids’ failure to show interest in deep conversations is not your failure.

Let’s say you’ve taken all this to heart, gotten up to speed on a variety of important subjects, and are ready to give your kids a big shot of knowledge for their secular immune system. You pick a night to start a discussion…and your kids couldn’t be less interested. They’re inattentively rolling around on the floor, hitting each other, insulting each other, rolling their eyes, or flat-out asking, “Why do we have to do this?”

It can feel like the ultimate failure.

But it’s totally normal.

I’ve had lots of nights like this, and they make you want to stab your eyes out. I know. It doesn’t mean you’re doing something wrong. It means your kids are…kids.

Don’t get discouraged and turn it into an excuse to go back to basic survival mode. Expect it. And press on (just maybe not that night). It’s the consistency of conversations over time that will make the greatest impact on your kids’ faith.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2qJdy68

/by
Minimal Facts Divine

Does The Minimal Facts Approach Dishonor God’s Word?

By Evan Minton

The Minimal Facts Approach is an approach to establishing the truth of Jesus’ resurrection using two criteria; (1) they must be facts that have a lot of evidence in their favor, and (2) these facts must be universally or nearly universally agreed upon by scholars and historians who study the subject, even the skeptical ones. Then, once the facts are established as facts, we then examine which explanation best explains them, and it turns out that only the He-Is-Risen hypothesis best explains all of them. These facts are (1) Jesus’ death by crucifixion, (2) Jesus’ empty tomb, (3) Jesus’ post-mortem appearances to His disciples, (4) Jesus’ post-mortem appearance to Paul, and (5) Jesus’ post-mortem appearance to James.

We establish these 5 facts by looking at secular historical documents as well as applying the standard historical “criteria of authenticity” to The New Testament documents. In doing so, we can establish the truth of Jesus’ resurrection in an evidential and non-question-begging way. I make the case for the resurrection in “The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection PART 1” and “The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection PART 2”, but if you think those are too lengthy, I have an abridged version of that first article titled “A Quick Case For Jesus’ Resurrection”. So, check those out if you want to go into the arguments and evidence. I also argue for the resurrection in chapter 8 of my book “Inference To The One True God”. 

One objection to this method of establishing Christianity’s central doctrine that I have encountered a few times is this: it dishonors God’s holy inspired word. Some Christians don’t like the minimal facts approach because it treats The New Testament documents as if they were ordinary documents written by ordinary people rather than inspired scripture. We don’t argue that Jesus’ tomb was empty “because The Bible says so” but rather, for example, “The tomb was likely empty because all 4 gospels mention women as the chief witnesses. They wouldn’t have done this if they were making it up because it was commonly thought that women were untrustworthy witnesses, to such an extent that they weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law. If they were making up this narrative, they would have had males the first one on the scene. Therefore, by the principle of embarrassment, we can conclude the tomb was empty.” As you can see, these two approaches are very different. The former takes the words of the New Testament at face value and concludes they’re true because The New Testament was inspired by God, whereas the latter approach has to apply some historical method to determine whether or not it’s true. This makes some Christians uncomfortable because it seems to suggest that God’s Word cannot be trusted to give us truthful information. It seems to treat the holy scriptures as just common literature which may or may not be true, or which may be true in some places but false in others.

The conclusion reached is that we, therefore, shouldn’t try to prove the resurrection (fideism), or if we do try to prove it, to prove it some other way that doesn’t demean The Bible (presuppositionalism). How might evidentialist Christian Apologists respond to this objection? Do we really demean God’s holy word when we argue for Jesus’ resurrection this way?

The Minimal Facts Approach Meets The Unbelievers Where They Are 

 It is very important that we reach unbelievers in a way that will be most effective to them. The Minimal Facts Approach reaches unbelievers where they are epistemologically. The non-Christian does not accept The Bible as God’s holy and inspired word and because of this, he, therefore, does not consider it authoritative, infallible, or inerrant. Therefore, it’s useless to just quote a passage from it and expect him to say “Well if it’s in The Bible, it must be true!” He doesn’t accept The Bible as authoritative, so he isn’t going be persuaded by this.

To help you get in their shoes: imagine if a Muslim tried to convince you of Islam by citing from the Quran. You wouldn’t be persuaded, would you? Why? Obviously, because you don’t think the Quran is inspired! You think it’s a fabrication by Muhammad. Well, atheists, agnostics, Muslims, and other non-Christians see The Bible the same way. If a Muslim were to convince me of Islam, he would have to take an approach to proving his religion that didn’t presuppose the inspiration of his holy book.

The Minimal Facts Approach does this. When we argue for the 5 minimal facts undergirding the inference to the resurrection, we don’t quote from The New Testament as inspired scripture. We do use The New Testament, but not as scripture. We use it as we would any other ancient document that claims to tell of historical events. We proceed to use the “criteria of authenticity” that historians use on many non-biblical documents, and we’ll see what we can affirm as true by that method. Principles such as multiple attestation, the principle of embarrassment, the principle of early attestation, the principle of dissimilarity, and so on. These are principles that historians use on secular documents all the time, in order to discern whether or not what they record is true.

Many non-Christians have come to faith through this approach, such as Lee Strobel, J. Warner Wallace, and Frank Morrison, just to name a few. These men went on to share this evidence they discovered with unbelievers they witnessed to.

We believe all of The Bible is inspired, but we pretend the gospels and epistles aren’t for the sake of the argument. The Christian Apologist is basically saying “Even if I conceded these weren’t inspired, I can still establish that the resurrection of Jesus is true.” All we are doing is simply meeting the unbeliever where he is.

This approach of meeting unbelievers where they are epistemologically is biblical. I noticed that Paul dealt with the unbelieving Jews in Berea and the unbelieving Pagans in Athens quite differently in Acts 17. With the Jews, he used scripture to reason with them, using arguments from fulfilled prophecy to prove to them that Jesus really is the messiah. With the Pagans, he didn’t use The Old Testament prophecies as evidence at all. Instead, he used philosophical arguments, and he appealed to their own Greek poets and pagan authors to establish his points. Click here to read the passage. 

In 1 Cortinthians 9:20-23, Paul wrote: “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”

 The Apostle Paul saw the importance of changing his tactics depending on who he was witnessing to. We should too. When I’m witnessing to atheists, agnostics, or other people who don’t believe The Bible is inspired, I employ arguments that don’t hinge on that presupposition. However, if I’m witnessing to a heretic who does believe scripture is inspired but has interpreted some passages in such ways as to come up with heretical doctrines (e.g Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons), then I will appeal to scripture to make my points. In the case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I’ll even refute their doctrines using the New World Translation (a twisted translation, but the only one they accept). I change my approach based on who I’m talking to. The Message doesn’t change, but the method of conveying the message does.

Conclusion 

 The Bible is the sword of the Spirit (Ephesians 6:17). It brings no shame to a sword just because you swing it differently in different battles. Sometimes you need to slash vertically, sometimes you need to slash horizontally, other times you need to stab. You need to wield a sword in the most effective way you can to deal with the particular fighting style of your enemy. This holds true for literal swords, one would think it would hold true of “The Sword Of The Spirit” (i.e The Bible) as well. Depending on our audience, we will either use The Bible as inspired scripture or as a collection of ancient writings which we will apply the historical method to.

When we use The Minimal Facts Approach, we are not at all suggesting that we distrust God’s word. Rather we are acknowledging that our audience distrusts God’s word, and we respect that, and we witness to them with that fact in mind.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2r3yJTa

/by
Student Apologist Listener

How to Become a True Student and a Better Apologist

By Michael C. Sherrard

This is a bit exaggerated, but I’m not sure that anybody is actually interested in learning anything anymore. We live in a political and religious playground filled with thumbs in ears and shouts of “nah nah nah nah, I can’t hear you.” Most people are guilty of this. You are likely guilty of this. Of course the extreme examples are the “safe spaces” on college campuses and the slanderous biased media reporting. But there is also the simple thing that you do everyday: you don’t listen. Nobody listens. If you heard me, you know this is true.

Rather than listen, what do you (and everyone else) do when someone else is talking? You’re thinking about what to say next. This is true of conversations of agreement and disagreement. As a pastor and a teacher, I’m routinely amazed and frustrated by the inability of one to actually hear what I’m saying, be it a friend or a foe. Stop doing this. Listen. You don’t really know as much as you think you do, and you don’t actually know the position one holds until you hear it from them. Develop the discipline to hear, really hear what someone is saying. It is respectful, and it is prudent for only in actually understanding a position can you engage it.

Understand that when you stop listening you do so because you have assumed something, and living in a land of assumptions is dangerous. You have either assumed that you perfectly understand the position being talked about or that you perfectly understand the way someone holds the position. Both are likely not to be true. And this is quite arrogant. This kind of arrogance is the luxury of the expert, not the student. And I suppose that is the problem. Everyone today thinks they are an expert. But the true expert only became such because of their ability to be a true student.

True students understand the value of listening. Arrogant, simple minded folk think they are always to be the teacher. You know, that guy you sat next to in college. The one who thought he should be teaching the class and took every chance to do so. You know, Frank, who now works at Chili’s. That’s who I’m talking about. But I digress.

“When everyone thinks they are the teacher, no-one ever learns. And if that does not describe our world today, I don’t know what does.

What is needed in this highly charged political atmosphere is a bit of humility, humility expressed in the form of listening with the goal of understanding. Persuasion is still needed, but let persuasion come after understanding. If all commit to this, we will have truly safe spaces. They won’t be safe because of the absence of opposing viewpoints, but safe because of the presence of humility and respect and true learners. A world that freely discusses important issues and listens is a world where progress is possible and freedom reigns.

Those of you who seek defend the truth of the gospel will become a much better apologist if you learn how to listen. You will continue to grow in knowledge as you will learn how and why people hold their beliefs, not just what their beliefs are. People do not hold beliefs as nice and neat as your textbook. So embrace the mindset of a student and listen as much as you speak, and you will become more effective making the case for our reasonable faith.

Read “4 Ways to Become a Better Listener and a Better Apologist.“

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2r3YZx5

/by
Phobia LGBT Jihad

Phobiaphobic

By Tim Stratton

It seems commonplace today for entire groups of people to be painted with a broad brushstroke and labeled as being afraid or fearful. The word “phobia” or “phobic” is often attached to the end of another word which is supposed to represent a group who is scared of other people.

So, what does it mean to be “phobic”? Consider Merriam Webster’s definition of phobia:

an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation

Oxford Dictionaries defines phobia as:

An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
‘she suffered from a phobia about birds’

Most have heard of certain types of fears. Here is a list of common phobias:Arachnophobia — Fear of spiders

Claustrophobia — Fear of being enclosed in a small space

Acrophobia — Fear of heights

Given these definitions, one whose fears do not follow logically or is an irrationally fearful person is “phobic.” Thus, this label can be used to communicate a psychological disorder with the person who was shot with the “label gun.”

Homophobia

We hear this quite often when Christians are typically labeled as “homophobes.” The one wielding the “label gun” is attempting to communicate to others (reading their labels), that Christians have an irrational fear of gay people. To be clear: as a Christian I am definitely not fearful or scared of homosexuals or anyone in the LGBT community. In fact, I do not know any Christians who are literally scared of gay people just because they are gay.

Christians do not hold an irrational fear of homosexuals; rather, most simply point out that the homosexual lifestyle is not intended by God — it is not the intended purpose of creation. Thus, the gay lifestyle “misses the mark,” and this is what it means to be sinful. These claims are not based in fear or hatred; they are grounded in love. Read my articles on this particular topic here, here, and here.

Logically demonstrating and pointing out that a person is living a sinful lifestyle should not be conflated with an irrational fear of the person. In fact, if anything is irrational, it is committing the logical fallacy of conflating a belief that a person is in sin, with fear of the person living in sin. This is unreasonable.

Islamaphobia

It is also quite popular today for Christians to be labeled as “Islamaphobes.” Is it irrational to fear Muslims? In one sense, perhaps, but in another sense, definitely not! The first thing we must realize is that it is vital to distinguish between irrational fears and healthy fears.

To be clear, although our world has been wrought with terror attacks from practicing Muslims since 9-11, the vast majority of Muslims are not violent extremists who wage jihad like those in ISIS. Thus, it seems irrational — in this sense — to fear all of those who are Muslim. After all, just because some Christians are mean to non-believers, it does not follow that all Christians act in a similar fashion.

There is a huge and vital difference, however, between these propositions. We are discussing ideologies. Specifically, we are discussing the teachings and commands of Mohammad and of Jesus — they differ drastically!

So, if one believes that Christianity it true, and they are not living consistently with the teachings of Jesus Christ (what Christianity is based on), if they come to think they should start living consistently with what they believe, then they will start loving all people from their neighbors to their enemies. The obedient Christ follower will make a daily attempt to not be mean and to love and respect all people as Jesus commanded. So, unless one fears being treated with love and respect, it would be nonsensical to fear a person who believes that Jesus’ commands correspond to reality and that our actions ought to correspond to reality too.

However, if one believes that Islam is true, then even if they were not living consistently with the teachings of Mohammad — and were not violent terrorists trying to kill all the infidels (they are peaceful) — it is still quite rational to have a healthy fear of this Muslim. Why is this? Because if he or she believes Islam is true and then starts to understand all that Mohammad actually commanded, and then decides to start living consistently with what they believe, then it follows that there is a good chance that they will harm you, or anyone else who is not a Muslim.

The Conflation of Ideas & Race

I will get back to that topic shortly. Before I expand on this, however, it is important to point out that many today seem to imply that if one is fearful of what Islam teaches, then you must be a racist (another label)! Those who assert this are once again guilty of the logical fallacy of conflation. Namely, conflating the beliefs of an individual with their DNA. These are two completely different issues that should not be conflated.

Allow me to make my point: regarding Islam — I am “Islamaphobic” (in a sense)! This is because I have an educated understanding of what Mohammad actually taught and commanded. Thus, all “good” Muslims (the ones who strive to live according to Muhammad’s teachings) should be feared because they want to convert or kill everyone who is not a Muslim.

Now, this has nothing to do with race (and to conflate this with race as mentioned above is a logical fallacy)! After all, if a white guy became a Muslim who believed he should “kill the infidel” as Mohammad commanded, then I would be just as “Islamaphobic” of that white guy because he wants to kill me. It is healthy and rational to fear those who want to kill you! This is about ideas — not race!

Thank God most Muslims are “bad Muslims” and do not follow all the teachings of Mohammad. However, as David Wood has shown, it does not take much to get an inconsistent Muslim (one who is peaceful) to become a consistent and “good muslim” (one who wants to kill you)! That is what scares me — but that is a healthy fear based on what Mohammad actually commanded.

The Jihadi Triangle

Consider the “Three Stages of Jihad” from David Wood:

As stated above, most Muslims are peaceful (thank God), but this is because they lack one of three essential ingredients that a seemingly “good” Muslim ought to possess:

1- Belief
2- Knowledge
3- Obedience

The foundation of the Triangle of Jihad is a simple belief that Islam is true. This belief does not have to be justified as one can hold this belief merely because their father told them that “there is no God but Allah.” This foundation is not sufficient for Jihad and terror, but it is a necessary condition.

The second part of this triangle is knowledge. That is, the individual believes that Islam is true and now they study the Qu’ran and the Hadith to understand exactly what Mohammad taught and commanded. Basically, this is an educated Islamic believer.

The final part of the triangle of jihad is obedience. An educated Islamic believer who has reached the decision that he ought to be obedient to Allah’s prophet is one who everyone should fear! This individual believes that Islam is true, understands that Mohammad commanded Muslims to kill everyone who is not a Muslim, and they believe they should obey Mohammad’s teachings, and thus, they want to kill you!

Conclusion

It is vital to note that Jihad all starts with one simply believing that Islam is true. So, even though it seems safe to say that Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Cat Stevens, Dave Chappelle, or Lindsay Lohan (the latest convert?) probably will not attempt murder, they do possess the first necessary condition that logically leads to the other two lines of the jihad triangle. Let’s hope these Muslims never gain an understanding of what consistent Islam entails.

Bottom line: it is not a phobia if a fear of something or someone is justified and thus, a rational fear. In fact, it seems irrational to not possess a healthy fear of a person whose worldview entails your demise.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Tim Stratton

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

/by
Hitler Christianity History

So What If Hitler Was A Christian? (Would Hitler’s Christianity Hurt Historic Christianity?)

By

The holocaust, masterminded by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime, devoured 11 million lives, among them were 6 million Jews, and the other 5 million comprising of people with mental and physical disabilities, communists, resistance fighters, Slavic people, homosexuals, priests, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and anarchists etc.

The antagonists of Historic Christianity argue that Adolf Hitler was a Christian, thereby accusing Historic Christianity as the primary cause for the holocaust. The defenders of Historic Christianity counter-argue to deny Hitler’s Christianity; instead suggesting that he may have been an atheist and that his non-Christian worldview was the primary cause of the holocaust.

If Hitler was a Christian, would Hitler’s Christianity hurt Historic Christianity? In order to think through this theme, let us consider the case for Hitler’s Christianity, the case for Hitler’s non-Christianity, and the interpretation of Hitler’s apparent Christianity.

Hitler Was A Christian

Richard Dawkins argues that Hitler was not an atheist but a Catholic Christian. Dawkins quoted Hitler’s 1922 speech wherein he referred to Jesus as “my Lord and Savior.”1

Popular atheist author Michael A. Sherlock in his article, “The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy – Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot” argues for Hitler’s Christianity, “…Hitler was a Christian.  This undeniable fact couldn’t be made any clearer than by his own confessions…

To begin, here are just a few of Hitler’s Christian confessions:

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.  It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth!  was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.  In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.  How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.  To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.  As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.” [3]

“The greatness of Christianity did not arise from attempts to make compromises with those philosophical opinions of the ancient world which had some resemblance to its own doctrine, but in the unrelenting and fanatical proclamation and defense of its own teaching.” [4]

“His [the Jew’s] life is of this world only and his mentality is as foreign to the true spirit of Christianity as is character was foreign to the great Founder of this new creed two thousand years ago. And the Founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of His estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews…” [5]

Over and above these solid testimonies, there are other equally strong pieces of evidence that indicate that Hitler was a Christian, like the fact that his soldiers all wore the slogan, ‘Gott Mit Uns’ (God with us) on their belts, that his birthday was “celebrated from the pulpits until his death,” as Hitchens so eloquently put it, and that the Nazis published their own slightly revised Christian bible. [6]…”2

Hitler Was Not A Christian

As much as the atheist argues for Hitler’s Christianity, there is enough evidence to argue that Hitler was not a Christian.

Hitler and his Nazi regime were much influenced by the ideology of German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Hitler was consumed by the idea of “Superman” (who has a great “will to power” and would reign over other humans) that was taken from Nietzsche’s work “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.”

Nietzsche’s sister, Elizabeth Förster-Nietzsche was married to Bernhard Förster, a prominent leader of the German anti-Semitic movement. Elizabeth was a friend of Hitler. Elizabeth influenced the Nazi regime to an extent that Hitler was influenced by the Nietzschean ideology.

Hitler was so fascinated by the Nietzschean ideology that he had copies of “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” given to all his soldiers between 1933 and 1945. Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar at the invite of Elizabeth and proudly posed for photographs of him staring at the bust of Nietzsche.

When Hitler began his career, Germany was mostly a Christian nation. So Hitler often referred to himself as a follower of Christ. However, Hitler either imprisoned or executed more than 6000 clergymen on the charge of treasonable activity.

Significantly, after establishing the “National Reich Church” that projected Hitler as superman / god, Hitler banned the Bible and the cross. Bibles were replaced with copies of Mein Kampf and the cross was replaced with swastika.

Hitler also printed his version of the Bible, wherein words such as Messiah and Hallelujah were altered. Ten Commandments were revised to 12 Commandments. Hitler demanded worship; the Lord’s Prayer was revised, “Adolf Hitler, you are our great Fuhrer. Thy name makes the enemy tremble. Thy Third Reich comes; thy will alone is law upon the earth. Let us hear daily thy voice, and order us by thy leadership, for we will obey to the end, even with our lives We praise thee; hail Hitler Fuhrer my Fuhrer, given me by God. Protect and preserve my life for long. You saved Germany in time of need; I thank you for my daily bread; be with me for a long time, do not leave me, Fuhrer my Fuhrer, my faith, my light – hail, my Fuhrer.”3 This was recited by the Hitler Youth.

Hitler systematically gained control over the Protestant churches in Germany to make them an instrument of the Nazi regime. In response, the “Confessing Church” movement gained momentum within the German Protestant Churches to resist Hitler’s attempt.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German theologian, pastor and a founding member of the “Confessing Church.” Bonhoeffer and other leaders of the Confessing Church opposed the Nazi regime and sought to establish the true identity of the Church. Ultimately, Bonhoeffer was executed by hanging.

Think about this; had Hitler been a genuine Christian what was the necessity for a Christian rebellion against Hitler? Christians subscribing to Historic Christianity fervently opposed Hitler to an extent that they risked their own lives. They were either imprisoned or executed for their anti-Hitler rebellion.

Would Hitler’s Christianity Hurt Historic Christianity?

When our atheist friend argues that Hitler was a self proclaimed Christian, should the defenders of Historic Christianity negate that argument to begin a street fight with the atheist? Debunking Hitler’s Christianity need not be the one and the only option for us.

The other option is to ask a question, “If Hitler was a Christian, was he a genuine Christian?” The atheist primarily posits Hitler’s self proclamation as evidence to his Christianity. Self proclamation is inadequate to one’s identity as a Christian. A genuine Christian not only proclaims himself to be a Christian, but also obeys Christ through his deeds.

Genuine Christians do not kill as Hitler did. The very extermination of the 11 million people screams against Hitler’s so-called Christianity. Hitler’s execution of the leadership of the confessing church that included Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who actually sought to establish the true identity of the church, is most surely not a genuine Christian’s deed.

Friedrich Nietzsche was not a Christian; he constantly attacked the Christian ideals. A genuine Christian would not follow the Nietzschean ideology.

Significantly, a genuine Christian would not elevate himself into a position of “Superman” demanding worship of any form whatsoever. On the other hand, Hitler, so fascinated by Friedrich Nietzsche, and so desperate to be a superman, demanded that people revere him.

Therefore, however which way we may want to think, Hitler, even though he may have been a self-proclaimed Christian, was not a genuine Christian. So Hitler’s Christianity does not harm Historic Christianity, and any claim to Hitler’s Christianity can and should be ignored completely.

Endnotes:

Websites cited were last accessed on September 8, 2016.

1https://whydoyoubelieve.org/2016/09/01/hitlers-religion-christian-apologetics-faces-the-hitler-question/

2https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/the-atheist-atrocities-fallacy-hitler-stalin-pol-pot-in-memory-of-christopher-hitchens/

3http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/churchhistory/godandhitler/

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2q8wBYJ

/by
Worldview Assertions Philosophy

The Difference Between What A View Asserts And Implies

By Luke Nix 

Introduction

In any discussion in which we are defending a particular view, we must present both a positive case and the negative case. The positive case shows the evidence for the view we are defending, while the negative case shows the problems with the alternative being presented. Both are necessary in the overall case. The negative case is necessary because the adherent of the other view needs a logical reason to abandon their view for an alternative. The positive case is necessary because if an adherent is provided a logical reason to abandon their view, the other view being presented may not be the only option. The way that a view is shown to be incorrect is that its claims are put to the test against reality and reason. If the claims are found to not reflect reality or they are not logical, then the view is false. However, the claims of a view can be of (at least) two different types that require a different approach. Today I want to discuss the differences in the assertions and the implications of a view or model. Understanding the differences will help us be more aware of how to properly address them in other views, and the understanding will also assist us in our formation and critique of our own views. This applies to worldviews, scientific models, philosophical theories, and really anything view that makes claims about reality, regardless of which area of reality it is.

Assertions are propositions that a view or model explicitly claims to be true. When we are talking about worldviews, a worldview’s assertions are the collection of propositions that it claims are true about reality. This collection is explicitly stated and defended by the adherents to the particular worldview that makes those claims.

When critiquing a worldview, it is important that we properly understand the assertions of that worldview. If we fail to understand the assertions correctly, then we run the risk of arguing against a misunderstanding of the worldview- a strawman. If we argue against a strawman, then we have not shown the worldview we are attempting to critique as having any issues. Thus our critique has not provided the adherent of that worldview a valid reason to reject it in favor of an alternative. Our critique simply does not apply to the debate at hand, and we sound like some crazy person who has decided to just start telling a story that has no applicability to the discussion at hand. Unless we are willing to take the time to properly understand what a worldview asserts, there is really no point in attempting to argue against it.

Some assertions are essential to the worldview, so if they are shown to be false, the entire worldview falls apart. While other assertions are not so essential to the worldview, and if they are shown to be false, they can either be adjusted or removed altogether. What gets really interesting and often causes great disagreements among adherent to the same worldview is that they do not always agree upon what is essential to the worldview and what is non-essential. For details on this, see my post “Zombies of Christianity.”

Testing the assertions of a worldview or model is a direct way to test for its ability to accurately describe reality (truthfulness). If one of the essential propositions is found to be false, then the whole worldview or model may be rejected and an alternative needs to be found. If an assertion that is non-essential is found to be false, the worldview or model simply needs to be adjusted to accommodate the new data; however, that adjustment must not violate (it must be logically consistent) with the rest of the worldview or model. Sometimes what seems to be a minor adjustment affects the whole worldview or model, but not necessarily to the point of changing the essentials. As long as the essential assertions are not compromised, the main worldview or model remains intact, just with some different details. For those who are committed to a basic worldview (such as mere Christianity), the discovery that they need to adjust the details of their theology, science, or another part of the worldview does not undermine the historic event of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, so there is no need to be afraid or even resistant to change the detailed assertions of our worldview when the evidence demonstrates a non-essential detail to be incorrect.

What Are Implications?

While attacking the assertions of a worldview or model is a more direct challenge, one can use a more indirect method that is just as powerful. Many critiques of worldviews or models come in the form of critiquing, not the assertions of the view but, the implications. Implications are the collection of propositions that the assertions of a view necessarily leads to when the logic is carried to its end (or just a few steps from the assertion). Implications are not explicitly claimed by the worldview or its adherents, and in some cases, certain implications are not even held by the adherents because the adherents have not worked the logic through to discover them.

Necessary implications can be discovered using the assertions of the view and deductive reasoning. Any sound conclusion that results yet is not explicitly claimed, is an implication of the view. Since implications are necessarily dependent upon the assertions, it is, once again, extremely important to ensure that we properly understand the assertions of a worldview before attempting to deduce its implications.

As I mentioned earlier, implications can be used to critique a worldview indirectly but just as conclusively as testing assertions. If a validly concluded implication is false, then that indicates that one of the premises in the deductive argument is false. If that premise is an assertion of a worldview, then that worldview has been demonstrated logically to be false (as it is currently held- both essentials and non-essentials included). If an adherent wishes to maintain that worldview consistently, the false assertion would either need to be adjusted, so as to not lead to the false implication, or it would need to be removed from the worldview altogether. Of course, this flexibility would only apply to assertions that are not essential. If the false premise is an essential assertion, then the worldview has been completely falsified, and even the basic worldview cannot be believed reasonably, only emotionally- against reason, logic, and evidence.

Now, as I mentioned, not all implications are held by adherents to different worldviews or models. So it is extremely important to understand what an adherent believes. They may very well agree that a particular implication is false, but they may insist that they are being consistent. This is usually an opportunity to get them to go into further details of their worldview or model. If they are correct that they are being consistent with rejecting the implication, then it is likely that there is another assertion (or collection of assertions) that place a nuance on the “false” premise that adjusts it to avoid the implication (see my post “Providing Alternative Explanations“). The newly discovered nuances of the view may also make the implication not one that is necessary but one that is optional, which, of course, the adherent would simply avoid. Now, clarification does not always undermine a false implication; the adherent may simply not understand the deductive argument, or they are more committed to the false assertion than they are committed against the implication- they may be actually willing to accept the implication as true, which would demonstrate that they are actually more committed to a view than committed to truth.

Conclusion

The differences in assertions and implications are important to analyzing and addressing both properly. In our own views, the understanding will help us identify where a view can be flexible to follow the evidence where it leads. This allows us to adjust our own views as necessary and allows us to be more reserved and pointed, where applicable, in our claims of showing an opposing view to be inaccurate (which helps keep discussions cordial and respectful). In my discussions with people about different views, I try to identify if what I’m arguing against is an assertion or an implication; simply saying something like “I know you may not hold to this particular claim, but if you allow me to show you how your view logically leads to it by necessity, you may be able to more clearly see why I reject that view and why I think you should also, based upon your rejection of it.” In the effort to be more careful thinkers, recognition of the distinction between assertions and implications will also help in our effort to be more persuasive presenters and defenders.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2r59CLN

——————————

/by
Resurrection Jesus Easter

A Quick Case For Jesus’ Resurrection

By Evan Minton

I’ve always struggled with brevity some of my apologetic presentations. The trick is to keep it a decent length while simultaneously not skimming on important facts. A handful of my blog posts are kind of long due to my struggle, but fortunately, the vast majority of them are at a length you would want a blog post to be. Given that it’s Easter weekend, I thought I would rewrite one of my articles on the resurrection specifically for the person who wants to get his information quickly. That said, I’ll still leave the longer ones up for those interested in a more in-depth study.

In this blog post, I plan on giving an overview of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Contrary to popular opinion, belief in Jesus’ resurrection isn’t something one has to believe on blind faith alone, one can confirm the resurrection on the basis of powerful historical evidence. The resurrection is important because if Jesus has risen from the dead, then God has put His stamp of approval on everything Jesus said and did. God agrees with Jesus’ ministry. This means that we can put great stock into anything Jesus taught about, such as His claim to be God, the existence of angels and demons, the existence of Heaven and Hell, and that He Himself is the only way to get to Heaven. It gives good reason to believe The Bible is divinely inspired, for Jesus Himself quoted from the Old Testament and taught that it is the word of God, and He commissioned apostles who would go on to write The New Testament. After all, who would be in a better position to know whether or not the Old Testament is divinely inspired than God Himself, and since God chose Matthew, Paul, Peter, etc. it makes sense to think that God put His stamp of approval on their teachings as well. So, if Jesus rose from the dead, that gives good grounds for believing in the inspiration of The Bible and for accepting whatever The Bible teaches.

Historical Method, Not “Using The Bible To Prove The Bible”
I want to make it clear that while I’ll be appealing to The New Testament at certain points in this article, I won’t be “quoting from The Bible to prove The Bible”. No, instead I’ll be applying the historical method to the New Testament documents to determine certain aspects as fact just as I would any other ancient document. Historians apply what is known as “the criterion of authenticity” to secular documents all the time in order to determine whether something is historical or not. That’s what I and many other Christian Apologists do with The New Testament. We apply historical principles like multiple attestation, the principle of embarrassment, the principle of enemy attestation, etc. to the gospels to argue that X, Y, and Z are more likely to be historical than not. And by the way, even non-Christian historians, like Bart Ehrman and Gerd Ludemann, take this approach with The New Testament when trying to gather information about the historical Jesus, and have come to many of the same conclusions that Christian historians have via the same arguments. They are certainly not presupposing The Bible’s divine authority when they argue, for example, that Jesus’ tomb was most likely empty because it would have been embarrassing for the gospel authors to have women as witnesses to the empty tomb.

When I argue for Jesus’ empty tomb, or for the postmortem appearances, I do not quote the New Testament as scripture and declare that since it’s in The Bible, it must be true. Rather, I presuppose that The New Testament documents are purely human documents for the sake of the argument, I apply the same principles or criteria of authenticity to the text, and when one does that one comes up with certain pieces of data which I think can only make sense in light of the hypothesis: God raised Jesus from the dead.

Two Step Process To The Resurrection Inference 
In the case for the resurrection, there are two steps.

1: What Are The Facts To Be Explained?
2: What Is The Best Explanation Of The Facts?

Fact 1: Jesus Died By Crucifixion

*Jesus’ death by Roman crucifixion is multiply attested in 7 independent documents. 4 of those sources are secular, 3 of them are from The New Testament.
Secular Sources — Josephus, Tacitus, Mara-Bar Sarapian, Lucian Of Samosata.
NT Sources — The Synoptic Gospels, The Gospel Of John, Paul’s Epistles.

This makes it overwhelmingly more probable that Jesus’ crucifixion is an event of history. It is statistically impossible for 7 independent sources to all make up the same story. Denial of crucifixion’s historicity entails that 7 sources fabricated the same lie independent of each other.

*Jesus’ crucifixion is attested to by sources hostile to Christianity (i.e Tacitus and Lucian). 
These sources would have nothing to gain by saying Jesus’ crucifixion really happened if it didn’t.  In fact, they are ridiculing Christianity in the very same context of their passages referring to the crucifixion of Jesus.

*Historical Fit makes it plausible that Jesus died by crucifixion.
Secular History attests to the fact that Romans crucified people in the first century. That Jesus was crucified fits well with what we know of first century crucifixions.

Fact 2: The Empty Tomb

*The Jerusalem Factor
If Jesus’ body was not absent from the tomb, the enemies of Christianity could have easily stomped out the movement by removing Jesus’ body from the tomb and showing it to everyone. If they did that, Christianity would have died before it even began. It did not die back then. We can infer from this fact that they did not take Jesus’ body out of the tomb in order to parade it down the street to prove to everyone that the resurrection claims of the disciples were false. Why didn’t they do this? Most likely because Jesus’ body was not even in the tomb to be taken out.

*All four gospels feature women as witnesses to the empty tomb.
Women were considered second class citizens back then and their testimony was considered worthless. The empty tomb narrative is most likely historical because it would have been awkward for the early church to have women as the chief witnesses when their testimony wasn’t considered valid back then. They would have made males the first ones on the scene if they were just conjuring up this narrative. So, by the principle of embarrassment, we know that the tomb of Jesus was empty.

*The enemies of Christianity claimed that the disciples stole the body. This presupposes the empty tomb.
Even though our knowledge of this claim comes from Matthew 28, we can still count this as enemy attestation. Matthew said they were spreading the story “to this day”, which means if Matthew said the pharisees were saying this when they really weren’t, he would be easily found out by those alive “to this day”. Matthew wouldn’t open himself up to such easy falsification. Secondly, people don’t usually respond to accusations unless someone actually made that accusation of them. For example, you wouldn’t deny stealing your friend’s car unless he accused you of stealing it.

Fact 3: Jesus’ Post-Mortem Appearances To The Disciples 

*Paul’s List Of Appearances In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Gives Us Powerful Reason To Believe These Appearances Occurred. 
Paul’s citing an early creed that he himself received. We know this is a creed because he says “For what I received, I passed onto you as of first importance” This is ancient rabbinic language employed whenever oral tradition was being passed on. Plus, Paul’s word usage in verses 3-8 is foreign to Paul in the rest of his epistles. On top of that, Paralellism (long sentence followed by a short sentence followed by a long sentence again) implies that this is a creed since this structure was common to oral tradition to contribute to easy memorization.

Paul most likely got the creed from Peter and James during his fact-finding mission that he recounts in Galatians 1:18-19, which would mean this creed goes back to eyewitnesses of the resurrection. That this is when Paul received this creed is plausible from the fact that Peter and James are two individuals explicitly named, plus Paul’s use of “historieasi” which indicates they were talking about recent events.

Therefore, the creed goes back to within only a few years of Jesus’ crucifixion. This list of appearances is so early that anyone skeptical about them could question the witnesses to see if the creed were accurate. If these people did not see Jesus as the creed claims, then the cat would be out of the bag and Christianity would be discredited. Many scholars have noted that Paul’s mentioning of many of the witnesses still being alive is most likely a challenge from Paul to question these witnesses, as if Paul were essentially saying “Don’t believe me? Go talk to them yourselves! Go ask them yourselves!”

*The Appearance Narratives In The Gospels Provide Multiple, Independent Attestation Of The Appearances. 
The appearances to the disciples are mentioned in 3 independent sources.

1: 1 Corinthians 15
2: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
3: The Gospel Of John.

It is highly unlikely that three independent sources would all fabricate the same lie. Given that we have at least three sources for the post-mortem appearances to the disciples, we have good grounds for confirming that the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus.

Fact 4: The Post-Mortem Appearance To Paul

*Saul Of Tarsus was hired by the Jewish Sanhedrin to persecute Christians by beating them, throwing them into prison, stoning them to death, etc. 
The Principle of Embarrassment makes it highly likely that he was indeed a persecutor. People don’t make up horrible things about themselves, and usually, don’t admit them even if they’re true. Yet in 3 different epistles, Paul says that he was a harsh persecutor of Christians before his conversion (see 1 Corinthians 15:9, Galatians 1:13, 1 Timothy 1:13).

Multiple Attestation — Both Paul’s epistles and the book of Acts say that Paul was a persecutor of the church.

*Saul Converted To Christianity all of a sudden and became an active evangelist who suffered for his faith. 
Multiple Attestation — Paul attests to his own suffering for the sake of the gospel in his epistles. The book of Acts also records Paul’s suffering.

The early church fathers, Polycarp, Tertullian, Clement of Rome, and several others record the account of Paul’s martyrdom under the emperor Nero.

*Saul — who later became known as Paul — claimed that he went from being a Christian destroyer to being a Christian maker because the risen Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus. This is the most reasonable explanation for why he went from being someone who killed Christians to being a Christian himself virtually overnight. 

Fact 5: Jesus’ Post Mortem Appearance To James

*Jesus had a brother named James who did not believe He was God incarnate or the messiah during Jesus’ lifetime. 
Multiple Attestation — The Gospel Of John (chapter 7) and The Gospel Of Mark (chapter 3) both attest to Jame’s skepticism. Very unlikely that they both fabricated the same lie independent of each other.

The Principle Of Embarrassment — Casts Jesus in a bad light given the stigma back then of any Rabbi whose family opposed his teaching. Casts James in a bad light, particularly in John 7 because in John 7, James and Jesus’ other brothers are trying to goad Him into a death trap by showing himself publicly at a feast when they were well aware that the Jewish authorities were seeking to kill Him. Why would John paint James and Jesus’ other brothers in such a bad light if this is not what actually happened?

*A short time after Jesus’ death, James came to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead
Multiple Attestation — The book of Acts as well as Paul’s letter to the Galatians (Galatians 2:9) reveals that James had become a leader of the church in Jerusalem.

*James was Martyred for his Christian faith
Multiple Attestation — Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement Of Alexandria all record that James were murdered by the Jewish Sanhedrin for his belief in Jesus as the risen Messiah.

*The Most Likely Explanation for why James went from being a skeptic to being a believer virtually overnight is because the risen Jesus appeared to him as 1 Corinthians 15:7 says. 

Conclusion
This is the historical evidence for the 5 facts undergirding the inference to the resurrection. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these 5 facts. It meets all 6 of the standard criteria for confirming a historical theory.

1: It has great explanatory power.
2: It has great explanatory scope.
3: It is plausible.
4: Not ad-hoc.
5: It is in accord with accepted beliefs.
6: It outstrips rival theories in criteria 1-5. None of the naturalistic theories raised over the last 2,000 years to explain these 5 facts are tenable. They all fail.

For a more in-depth treatment, check out chapter 8 of my book “Inference To The One True God”, and the longer article this one is based on, “The Miminal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection PART 1”. 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2q4d761

/by
Facebook Christian Parent

How Facebook Can Make You a Better Christian Parent

,

By

I’ve finally wrapped up my next book, taken a couple of weeks to recover, and am ready to get back to blogging! I have a lot to tell you about my new book, but it doesn’t come out until October, so I’ll wait a bit to share more about it.

As I worked against my writing deadline in the last few weeks, I spent a lot less time on Facebook. I just had too much to do to check in and engage as regularly as usual. But being away from it has been a good thing because it made me realize something a bit surprising:

Being on Facebook can make you a better Christian parent.

I know that’s not the conclusion of most who take social media breaks. Usually people step back for a while and then conclude their life is better without Facebook or Twitter distractions. And, to be sure, there are aspects of social media that can be tiring and soul-draining. If you’re at the point where you can’t possibly scroll past one more person talking about how blessed they are without wanting to punch your screen, you probably do need a break.

But for Christian parents who want to raise faithful kids in a secular world, Facebook can be an invaluable tool for gaining some much-needed perspective for the job.

The Generational Disconnect

In the last year, I’ve had the opportunity to speak at churches and conferences across the country about the importance of parents teaching kids apologetics, the biggest faith challenges parents should address with their kids (I walk through 5 of the 40 in Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side), practical ideas for teaching apologetics at home, and how to teach kids good critical thinking skills.

In my talks, I use quotes from atheist authors/bloggers, memes and snippets of online conversations with skeptics as examples of claims kids will encounter today. I regularly find that parents are surprised by what I present.

I often ask how many have heard the claim I’m addressing—for example, that the Bible is unreliable because it’s been copied so many times—and only a few hands go up.

Or I ask how many have heard of influential atheists/agnostics like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Bart Ehrman—and even fewer hands go up (if any).

Then, when I talk to parents after an event, a common thread of conversation is that the presentation was eye-opening because they haven’t had their own faith challenged in such ways.

Meanwhile, at least 60 percent of kids raised in Christian homes are walking away from Christianity by their early 20s, due in large part to the intellectual challenges to faith they encountered.

I think’s fair to say there’s an enormous disconnect between what kids and parents are exposed to today.

Being on Facebook is one way that Christian parents can gain better perspective. I say that for three key reasons.

1. Being on Facebook can expose you to views and conversations you may not hear elsewhere.

Last month, I shared an article on my personal Facebook page and simply said, “Here are some interesting statistics.” One Facebook friend—an acquaintance from high school—was so appalled that I held a different view on a hot issue that she commented, “You aren’t worthy of being in my Facebook news feed. Consider yourself unfriended. Goodbye.”

Within seconds, she was no longer in my friend list.

Just because we have different views.

Honestly, there are certain people I’m connected to on Facebook who post things that make me want to scream. But—and I mean this in all seriousness—for the sake of my kids, I don’t unfriend them. These Facebook friends and I couldn’t be more opposite in our worldviews, and that’s a good thing for me to experience.

I need to understand what they’re saying and why they believe what they do.

I need to see the arguments and articles they find compelling.

I need to read how they interact with others.

I need to know what they’re teaching their kids about the world, because those kids are going to be the adult peers of my kids someday.

Those whose online comments bother you most are those you can learn the most from. Don’t be tempted to unfriend them. Chances are, you’re not being challenged in the same ways by people you interact with in person.

And if you don’t have Facebook friends who post things you disagree with, that’s a sure sign you’ve built yourself a worldview silo. It’s time to expand your Facebook connections and start following pages that post things you disagree with.

2. Being on Facebook can give you a better understanding of “street-level” logic.

Parents are often intimidated by the idea of learning about and teaching their kids apologetics (how to make a case for and defend their faith). They think it involves reading a towering pile of academic books that would put a “normal” person into a coma of boredom. But it doesn’t need to be that way.

For intimidated parents, I often share the results of the Fixed Point Foundation’s study of college students who are members of Secular Student Alliances or Freethought Societies. These college groups are the atheist equivalents to Campus Crusade for Christ. They meet to fellowship, encourage each other, and even proselytize. In a nationwide study, researchers found that most of these students had had not chosen their beliefs from neutral positions, but rather in reaction to Christianity. When students were asked to cite key influences in their conversion to atheism—people, books, seminars, etc.—the responses overwhelmingly indicated their loss of faith was due to what they had read in website forums or videos they had watched on YouTube.

Just everyday stuff kids see online.

The kinds of stuff parents can easily see too—then proactively take the time to discuss with their kids—if they’re on social media and are using it effectively.

There’s certainly a time for book learning, but there’s no substitute for seeing the worldview battle firsthand.

3. Being on Facebook can give you a sense of Christian parenting urgency.

The change I noticed most in myself after being away from Facebook for a few weeks was the emotional complacency that started to set in. Of course, I was still intellectually aware of all the faith challenges in the world—after all, I wasn’t on Facebook because I was writing a book about those challenges! But I didn’t feel the everyday sense of urgency that I normally feel when I’m regularly exposed to all that’s out there.

That’s not a good thing.

The more you’re exposed to, the more you realize how important your job is as a Christian parent…and how much you need to do to raise your kids with a deeply rooted faith today.

There are many ways parents can be educated about faith challenges without being on social media, so none of this is to say everyone needs to use it. But I do think Facebook in particular makes it easy to gain some of the perspective that many Christian parents lack. If you’re on Facebook and not seeing a good mix of worldviews in your news feed, try following some of these pages:

And balance it out by following some great Christian apologetics pages that post a wide variety of articles:

———————–

/by
Image God Christianity

Why Is The Image of God So Important?

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Those who follow this blog are aware that I not only defend “mere” Christianity, but I also defend specifics in the Christian worldview. As I have written before, I believe that if a Christian is defending an incorrect detail of their worldview to a skeptic, that skeptic can easily use that incorrect detail as an excuse to reject the entire worldview (even though this is not logically reasonable). Over the last few years of interacting with fellow Christians regarding the details of our worldview, one of the doctrines that are not discussed explicitly very often, but other debates directly affect, is the doctrine of the Image of God. I have noticed that some positions in the other debates imply different views of the Image of God, and these different views of the Image of God can be used to test the positions in the other debates. But before I get into those debates, we need to know why this Judeo-Christian doctrine is so important in the first place.

What Is At Stake?

The Image of God provides the grounding for several essential characteristics of humans that set us apart from the animal kingdom. Without appropriate grounding for these characteristics, a worldview cannot explain these characteristics, thus it is forced to deny that they even exist…with dire consequences, as we shall see. What are these characteristics, though? While the Image of God grounds several characteristics, I want to examine four of them today:

  • Intrinsic Value
  • Free Will
  • Moral Responsibility
  • The Ability to Reason
 Intrinsic Value

It is common today to think that a person’s value is based upon their race, sex, age, religion, intelligence, economic status, physical ability, entertainment ability, or a whole host of other “useful” things to a society. All of these, though, are relative and fleeting. Anytime that one of those are different (between persons or even in the same person at different times in their lives) their value goes up, down, or disappears. Intrinsic value is value that is not based on any of those accidental characteristics. Intrinsic value is value that is objective, found outside the societies, groups, or other individuals who are judging a person’s worth. This is an objective value that people possess simply in virtue of being human.

No human is intrinsically more or less valuable than another. This concept provides the ground for the idea of “equal rights” regardless of sex, race, age, ability, or status. If you are a human, you are intrinsically valuable, period. Since animals do not possess the Image of God, they do not possess such intrinsic value; they are valuable based upon whatever someone else needs them to accomplish. Animal value is relative and subjective, but human value is objective. If someone violates (harms) an intrinsically valuable thing, it is a moral evil. Specifically, an attack on a possessor of the Image of God is a direct attack on God Himself. If humans do not possess the Image of God, no act against us for any reason is evil. In fact, if humans do not possess the Image of God, it is permissible (if not obligatory) that humans be treated no different than any other animal (and vice versa). Just as a house fly may be killed because it is irritating us, so may a human be killed because he or she is irritating us, and if a human’s life is to be protected by the law, then so should the life of every animal be protected by the law also.

Free Will

When I say “free will” I am talking about the ability to choose to do something other than what we actually do, given the same circumstances (called “libertarian” free will). For instance, you have a choice to continue reading this post or not. Sure, some things will influence that choice, but ultimately you are choosing whether to accept those influences and act upon them or not; the circumstances (or your desires) do not determine your choice, though they do influence your choice. What allows us to do this is the fact that we are “agents” or “souls.” These (and we) are beings that exist independent of physical reality, thus we are not 100% governed by its laws (though our bodies are, which many of our decisions require us to take into account). Because an agent is not physical, it must have a non-physical source- the Image of God provides that source for humans. If humans do not possess the Image of God, then we do not possess free will and all our “choices” are determined by something else, not us.

The animals do not possess the Image of God, thus they do not possess free will. They are beholden to their environment for their behavior. Their surroundings are what determine how they act. The fact that humans have free will means that humans are capable of choosing how to act towards one another, nothing or no one else makes the choice for us, we are responsible.

Moral Responsibility

Taking the two previous characteristics provided by the Image of God, we discover that humans have moral responsibility. If humans are not intrinsically valuable, then no act committed against them is evil. If humans do not have the ability to choose to do otherwise, then they cannot be held responsible for such an evil act. Thus both intrinsic value AND free will are necessary for moral responsibility. This makes us moral beings. Something that animals are not. If an animal kills another animal, we do not call it “murder” because “murder” is “killing” plus a moral element. Animals do not possess intrinsic value (so the killing is not a violation of God’s Image) and animals are not morally responsible beings. On the other hand, man is both intrinsically valuable AND a moral being, so if a human kills another human it is a moral act based on the Image of God in both the victim and the killer. And the morality of that act must be justified by the Moral Law that God has written on the hearts of every human (via His Image) and in His further revelation of Scripture.

This means that if humans wish to hold other humans morally responsible for their actions, the Image of God is necessary on two accounts. Without the Image of God, there is no ground for moral responsibility, no ground for reward or punishment. In fact, if either intrinsic value or free will are missing from the equation, moral responsibility (and reward and punishment) cannot do not make sense; they are meaningless.

The Ability to Reason

Often times it is difficult to distinguish between what is true and what is practical because the two do not always seem to align. What is practical is derived from what allows us to survive and thrive in any given environment. We act and react, according to what stimulates our senses, with those two purposes as the end goal. This is the mode of operation of a creature that not only does not possess free will but also one that does not possess reliable reasoning faculties. If our ability to reason is grounded in a process or object that is focused on survival, then that is exactly what it will do, and the misalignments between what is practical and what is true will never be detected. We are forced to conflate truth with practicality, on this view, because as the environment changes, what is necessary for survival also changes (think of living in Saudi Arabia vs. living in the United States).

On the other hand, if our reasoning faculties are grounded in something that is essentially concerned with what is true, then that faculty can be trusted to be able to detect the difference between a belief that is merely practical for an environment and one that is true (independent of the environment). The Image of God provides this grounding in the Creator, who IS omniscient and desires that humans come to know what is true and not just what is practical for their given environment. In being made in the Image of God, humans not only possess the ability to freely choose among options, we have a reliable tool to identify which option is the correct option. Thus this makes our moral responsibility even more binding.*

The Origin and Current Status of the Image of God

Because all four of those characteristics are tied to the Image of God, it is important that in our defense of the Christian worldview, and specifics within the worldview, that we consistently hold and defend a specific view regarding its origin and status.

Testing Origins Views Via The Image of God

Regarding its origin, some people believe that the Image of God came about by natural processes- it is a functional distinction between us and the animals based upon our evolution from the lower species. This view is most commonly found in the origin position called “theistic evolution” or “evolutionary creationism” (but not all of them hold this view of the Image of God; I’ll address that important distinction in a minute). This cannot be the way the Image of God appeared because it is merely a difference in degree of development between animal and human rather than a difference in ontological essence (“kind”). A difference in degree is not an ontological difference, but the Image of God, in order to be an ontological ground for the four characteristics I described above (and the many others I didn’t), must be an ontological difference. If one holds that the Image of God is not a difference in kind, then all the implications of the above-described characteristics’ absences are actually the reality- human intrinsic value does not exist, free will does not exist, moral responsibility does not exist, and the ability to reason does not exist.

While I do not defend common descent of humans with any animal (I’m not an evolutionary creationist), I must understand that not every evolutionary creationist holds to this view of the Image of God because of its dire philosophical and theological (biblical) implications. These theistic evolutionists hold, just as much as any creationist (young-earth or old-earth), that the Image of God appeared suddenly in history (as a special creative work of God) and that sudden appearance is evident in the fossil and archaeological record.

Where things get difficult, though, is that many naturalists insist that all features of humans appear gradually in the fossil and archaeological records. If that is true, then even the Image of God appears gradually. That would imply that the Image of God is merely a difference in degree and not in kind. So, if a Christian theistic evolutionist wishes to maintain common descent of humans with prior animals (and they wish to avoid the implications of merely a functional Image of God), then they must reject the interpretation of the historical records that naturalists offer regarding the Image’s features appearing gradually (descending from “lower” species).

What is really interesting is that the more that the data is reinterpreted to be consistent with an ontological Image of God (a sudden appearance), the more the line is blurred for the theistic evolutionist between the sudden appearance of the Image of God and the sudden appearance of humans. Perhaps a persuasive case for the rejection of common descent between humans and animals (and the acceptance of humans as a special creation of God independent of His other creations) is found in our defense of the proper view of the Image of God and its endowments (e.g. intrinsic value, free will, moral responsibility, and the ability to reason) upon humans. Our maintaining the proper view of the Image of God helps us to test and guide our view of human origins. If this has intrigued you, I highly recommend reading the book “Who Was Adam” by biochemist Dr. Fazale Rana to see the scientific evidence for the sudden appearance of the Image of God (and humans) in the scientific record.

One More Thing- Abortion and Active Euthanasia
Before I leave the origins debate, though, I do want to bring up one more implication for holding that the Image of God is merely a difference in the degree of development. If you are familiar with some of the more common defenses for abortion, you will know that one of the reasons offered to deny the unborn intrinsic value (and the intrinsic right to life) is the degree of their development. (Now, I have to be extremely careful not to equivocate on the term “degree of development,” because if the terms do mean the same thing in both the common descent view and the abortion view, then we have a serious problem.) Simply put, the argument for abortion from the degree of development points to the lack of certain features in the unborn that a fully developed human being possesses. The pro-abortion advocate uses this lack of development to conclude that the unborn are not really human, thus do not possess intrinsic value (which means that killing the unborn is perfectly acceptable).

In the book “The Case For Life,” pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf points out that the “degree of development” argument, applied consistently, also removes intrinsic value (thus justifies intentionally killing) from those living with health issues, including physical handicaps, degenerative diseases, mental disorders and others. If the Image of God is merely a matter of degree of development, then any human who manifests cognitive, creative, or physical limitations akin to those of our pre-human ancestors (on the theistic evolutionary view), they too necessarily lack the Image of God. This would include the unborn (abortion would be morally permissible) and the born (active euthanasia would be morally permissible).

This is one more way that we can use the proper view of the Image of God to test our view of human origins. Unfortunately, it can also be used in the opposite direction to justify abortion and active euthanasia- which is one more reason why maintaining the proper view of the Image of God is so important. We must hold to the proper view of the Image of God to guard against such logically fallacious and morally reprehensible (sinful) views from entering our worldview (even if we insist on maintaining the belief in the common descent of the physical human body).

Testing The Current Status of the Image of God

In the on-going debate about how God’s sovereignty and man’s free will work together, some Christians have opted to deny that man has free will at all by positing that the Image of God was destroyed at the Fall of Adam and Eve. However, when the implications I described above are explained, the Christian usually quickly changes their position, but in many cases the change holds that the Image of God was damaged specifically in a way to destroy human free will but maintain the other traits. While this may seem like an acceptable position, it poses a severe problem.

If intrinsic value does exist, but free will does not, then punishment is a moral evil because it is a violation of (attack against) the intrinsically valuable human, created in the Image of God, who did not have a choice to not commit the crime against another intrinsically valuable human, created in the Image of God. This means that if free will does not exist, God’s punishment of those who commit sin is His attacking Himself- a moral evil. However, we know from the Bible that God cannot sin, that He cannot deny Himself, that a house brought against itself cannot stand, and that God does punish the wicked. If a Christian is to maintain the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment (or even the heterodox view of annihilationism), yet deny free will, then they are saying that God is sinning in virtue of His immoral attack against a creature created in His Image.

Some have attempted to say that God can do whatever He wants. However, this then enters into the debate about God and morality. A common objection to God’s existence comes in the form of the Euthyphro dilemma. This poses the question, “Is God good because He says what is good, or because He is subject to good.” The dilemma is that if the first option is selected then morality is subjective and arbitrary (not objective) because God could simply change His mind about what is good, while if the second option is selected then God is not the highest being, thus He cannot be God. If it is not obvious, the attempted escape from the implication of denying free will but affirming intrinsic value fails because it is the first option of the dilemma- morality is then arbitrary and subjective, thus there is no objective standard by which God can judge, which adds another level of problems because without objective morality, nothing is evil, even an act that attacks a bearer of the Image of God (so, murder, abortion, rape, and every other “sin” is not objectively evil- it is merely God’s opinion at the moment that they are or are not)- moral responsibility essentially was destroyed if free will was also.

The only way to avoid this implication is to affirm that man’s free will is still intact regardless of how we view the effects of the Fall of Adam and Eve. Because of that, we can use the proper view of the current status of the Image of God (intact) to test our views regarding the coexistence of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will.

Conclusion

The Image of God is an important doctrine of Christianity. It provides the ontological grounding for intrinsic value, free will, moral responsibility, and the ability to reason. Without these characteristics in place in humans, Christianity is, at worst, false, and at best unknowable and indefensible. So, it is important that as we defend the truth of the Christian worldview that we do not also defend a scientific or theological position that either asserts or implies that the Image of God is not ontological or was damaged in a way to destroy free will. If we do, then we are defending contradictory claims, and the unbeliever can use that as a reason (because they are made in the Image of God) to freely choose to reject the truth of the Christian worldview.

Recommended Books for More on this Topic

*Of course, mere observation of reality and reason do not always lead to the correct conclusion. The Image of God also provides the Moral Law that is written on all humans’ hearts (since all humans are made in the Image of God). Further, God has given us His special revelation that gives us explicit moral codes. But He did not just give us a book without establishing that it was divinely inspired by the Source of the Image of God. The Bible contains numerous claims about reality, and especially history when no human was present to observe the events (thus eliminating any reasonable natural explanation [e.g. that the author saw it or guessed it). Dr. Hugh Ross explains these in his numerous books on the scientific evidence for the inspiration and authority of the Bible. So, there are two additional tools that solidify man’s moral responsibility and the fact that all men “are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2q1OxlG

/by
Personhood Human Abortion

When Does Personhood Begin? Part II

By 

Previously we looked at some of the arguments and assumptions made to assert that the unborn either are not humans or are not “persons”.

But now we’ll look at another kind of objection. Some pro-choice advocates know that the unborn are biologically human from fertilization. However, they’ll argue that while the unborn are humans biologically, they are not full-fledged humans in a “morally relevant” sense. While they may be a member of the species Homo Sapiens, they should not be considered a member of the human community until they fulfill certain criteria, or reach a certain stage of development.

In my previous entry, I looked at why we can’t use the immediately exercisable capacity for consciousness or the ability to feel pain as criteria for acceptance into the human community.

Remember that the right to life is a categorical property; you either have it or you don’t. As such, it can’t be tied to a property that comes in degrees (such as consciousness).

A natural right, like the right to live or to defend yourself, should not be confused with legal rights, such as the right to vote or drive. A natural right is a right that every human has by virtue of our common human nature, whereas a legal right is a right that the government grants based on our common status as citizens. These rights are gained through maturity or ability. When we say that an embryo is no morally different than you or me, we recognize that they have obvious differences. An embryo can no more drive a car than a toddler should be trusted to vote for president. However, the right to life is an intrinsic right shared by all humans, regardless of their maturity level or instrumental value to society.

So if not at fertilization, when should our natural rights be attributed to us? There are several stages along human development that are offered, but none of those stages succeed as an appropriate line to draw between a state of having no natural rights and a state of acquiring natural human rights. Let’s look at those.

1) Implantation/Quickening.

Once the mother’s egg is fertilized by the father’s sperm, both egg and sperm cease to exist and conception has occurred, bringing into existence a new, unique human individual. It takes about a week for the zygote to be propelled down the fallopian tube (via hair-like structures called cilia) and implant in the uterus.

The important thing to take note of is the fact that the entity that implants is the same entity that was conceived just a week ago. There is no grounds for considering the implanted embryo as a member of the human community, but not that same entity before it implanted itself there. Embryologists consistently agree that the embryo from fertilization is a living, human organism.

Doctor Bernard Nathanson [1] argues that at the moment of implantation, the unborn “establishes its presence to the rest of us by transmitting its own signals — by producing hormones — approximately one week after fertilization and as soon as it burrows into the alien uterine wall.” For Nathanson implantation is significant because prior to this time the unborn “has the genetic structure but is incomplete, lacking the essential element that produces life: an interface with the human community and communication of the fact that it is there.” [2]

Francis Beckwith notes that there are two flaws with this argument. First, you are who you are regardless of whether anyone notices you’re there. Being noticed does not change one’s nature. One interacts with a human being, one does not make a being human by interaction.  Second, this does not explain humans conceived through IVF in a petri dish. Just as there is no difference between a Bill Clinton in a possible world who pumps gas in Little Rock, and the Bill Clinton in the actual world who is the former president of the United States, there is no essential difference between an embryo in a petri dish and an embryo implanted in the womb.

Quickening is the point in pregnancy at which the fetus’ movements can first be felt by the pregnant woman. I have grouped it here because the objection to this criterion is essentially similar to the objection for implantation. Aside from showing that the entity is the same living human organism before it quickened, one’s nature does not change once they have been noticed.

Additionally, if movement is necessary for full-fledged humanity, then this argument proves too much. This would disqualify the paralyzed from full-fledged humanity.

2) Viability.

Viability is the point in a pregnancy after which the unborn fetus can realistically survive outside the womb. Currently, viability is considered to be at about 24 weeks’ gestation, although some babies have been born at 21 weeks and survived.

A major flaw with this argument is that it’s arbitrary. Fifty years ago, viability was considered to be at 28 or 29 weeks’ gestation. So one would have to argue that an unborn child is a full-fledged human at 24 weeks now, but fifty years ago that same child would not have been a full-fledged human. Viability is a moving target that changes as technology improves.

Also, Siamese twins depend on each other for their survival but both are considered to be persons. People on life support are also completely dependent on the machine for their survival, but if viability were necessary then we could kill them for any reason even if they have a good chance of recovery. It simply makes no sense to use viability as your criterion for establishing basic human rights.

3) Birth.

There is nothing “mystical” about birth that suddenly bestows upon an entity “humanity” or “personhood.” As I mentioned in my previous article, an eight-inch journey down the birth canal does not change the nature or value of the entity.

Many pro-choice people believe abortion should remain legal because of bodily rights arguments, and if they are right, then birth would be the sensible place to draw the line. After birth we would be obligated to keep you alive, but not before. This argument will be addressed in my next article.

4) After birth.

Some pro-choice philosophers (e.g. Michael Tooley and Peter Singer) support infanticide because there is no morally relevant difference between a child inside the womb and a child outside the womb. They are correct, even if their conclusion is repugnant to our moral intuitions. They are simply being consistent and allowing the pro-choice position to lead to its natural conclusion. I’ll plan on writing more on “after-birth abortion” in the future, but essentially the entity outside the womb is the same one inside the womb.

There simply isn’t any reason for these criteria to suddenly establish value or change the nature of the unborn. We know that the unborn are human from fertilization. As there is no morally relevant difference between a zygote, embryo, fetus, or toddler (or later stages of development), then all humans should be protected, even very young ones.

[1] Doctor Nathanson is a former abortionist and founder of NARAL, who later converted to the pro-life position.
[2] Dr. Bernard Nathanson (with Richard Ostling), Aborting America, (New York: Doubleday, 1979), p. 216, as quoted in Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p. 73.

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

/by