Luke Nix Archives - Page 3 of 6

Tag Archive for: Luke Nix

Why Do Christians Tend to Align With “Conservative” Economics?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Introduction

A while back, I saw an intriguing question on social media from a person who is in the middle of a worldview transition. This person is concerned about why so many Christians follow conservative economic theories and not more liberal ones. As I have thought about the question more and more, I have noticed not just a viable answer but also an apologetic opportunity in addressing this concern. Here is the question in the questioner’s own words and how I would respond:

The Question:

“I am going through a transition… From an atheist to someone who may not be Christian but does believe in a higher power.

My background is economics, and I am struggling with the fact that Christianity has aligned its self so heavily with the conservative party. I totally understand your aversion to abortion, but not the economic theory behind their chosen party.

Are there people here that don’t agree with the conservative economic theory, or is the abortion issue the main reason why you align with them?”

My Response:

Limited Government

I believe that the reason that most Christians align with conservative parties is because conservative parties tend to believe in a government that has limited power to legislate. All laws (including regulations that guide economics of a country) legislate morality. The more a government legislates morality, the further from a pluralistic society it promotes and starts to infringe upon differing moral views. Conservatives generally (*generally*) believe that the government should only legislate the basic morality that is “written on the hearts of all men” and should stay out of other matters. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek go into the details of this position in their book “Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible.”

Intrinsic Human Value and Economics

When a government is limited in this manner, it has less control (some is definitely necessary) over

economics and leaves that control with the people.

Today’s popular view of economics for liberals is based on the intrinsic value of humans (see my post “Do Humans Have Intrinsic Value?“) and pushes for all to have a comfortable and healthy life. Neither of those desires are wrong or evil. In fact, both are very good. The goodness of the foundation and intentions of the liberals’ view should not be overlooked, nor should they be ignored. They need to be honored for the objective value that they ascribe to humanity and the objective good that they wish to achieve.

However, no one should forcibly take something from one person to give to another. Forcibly removing funds (such as for economic redistribution or universal anything) would violate not taking what is not yours (stealing). So, that method to achieve the goals cannot be used.

No view of economics should achieve its moral goal through immoral means; this includes both liberal and conservative economic views.

Free Will and Economics

The conservatives hold that people should freely give to those in need (which many do either directly or through charities). I know a lot of liberals see that many also do not, and they believe that this is not right (especially when we see the suffering in the world), but one person (or group of people) simply cannot do something evil to force another person or group of people to do what is right. It is neither logical nor moral to attempt to achieve a good end by intentionally doing evil acts.

Both sides have the free choice of their behavior and actions, and they also have to live with the consequences of their chosen behavior and actions. Those who do evil, both conservative and liberal, will be judged by the ultimate Judge. There will be justice ultimately- whether one side or both; both are held responsible. Most conservatives and Christians believe it is best that only those who refuse to be generous (and refuse to care for widows and orphans- James 1:27) be the ones suffering consequences, not those people and the ones who forcibly take (steals) what is not theirs (the funds of the selfish people) to “right the wrong.” We cannot repay evil with evil. We can encourage them to choose good behavior and actions instead of evil ones, but we cannot force their actions. It is their free choice and their consequences to be reaped.

Sin In Conservative Economics

Having said that, I must also point out that the failures of conservative economic policies (such as capitalism) are primarily due to the fact that people have chosen to practice those policies outside the correct moral framework. The Christian worldview provides a powerful explanation for this common behavior and skewed moral framework: sin. Such an exercise has resulted in much evil, but the answer is not another economic system (such as socialism) that will be practiced outside the correct moral framework too. The economic system (capitalism) is not necessarily the problem; the problem is the moral framework. That is what needs to be different.

And that leads me to my main point: we cannot merely set idly by in judgment of another’s evil decisions in the capitalist society, rather our recognition of the suffering of others due to evil choices not of their own is a call to self-assessment, self-judgment, and change. The Christian does not just watch the poor suffer at the hands of evil people because logic and morality forbid them to interfere in the affairs of the evil people. Instead, we must assess our own situation to make changes so that we can be the solution, so that “what (one) meant for evil, God meant for good” (Genesis 50:20).

“Give Like No One Else”

This does not require a change from capitalism and does not require us to use evil means to “right the wrong.” The foundational philosophy that drives the business of financial guru Dave Ramsey is this: “Live like no one else, so you can live and give like no one else.” The poor do not have to suffer because “in a moral capitalist society logic and morality do not permit us to force the rich to share their money”, rather the poor do not have to suffer because we have the free will to make the decision to make financial changes and sacrifices in our own lives so that we have excess to give to others.

Ramsey, though, explains in his book “Total Money Makeover” an important aspect of this kind of a change:

“To properly view behavior and to understand how to change behavior intelligently, we must consider several things. Behavior intelligently viewed takes into account the emotional, the relational, the family history, the socioeconomic impacts, and the spiritual. To ignore any of these while discussing behavior change about money is incomplete and a very naive.” (emphasis added)

I emphasized “spiritual” and the naivety of ignoring it because Ramsey goes on to say that the person must have a “heart-level makeover”. Without a change in our heart and worldview to accepting Jesus Christ’s sacrifice for our sins, we cannot have a heart-level makeover, and we are likely to fall into the same sin trap of the evil people who refuse to give to the poor. It is only through Christ that we can overcome this sin that we despise so much in others (Matt 7:1-5).

How This Discussion Leads to Christ

Earlier in the post, I pointed out that the intrinsic human value that grounds our moral outrage can only be found in the Christian worldview (via the doctrine of the Image of God). I also explained that only Christianity (through the recognition of man’s natural sinful state) can explain the evil behavior and actions (and will cause them to continue regardless of the economic system). Those who find the alignment of Christians with the conservative economic system of capitalism concerning must borrow from the Christian worldview in at least two areas to justify their concern (a third borrowing is also necessary for objective morality, which I didn’t expand on). Now, we see that the only logical and moral solution is through the affirmation of the truth of the Christian worldview (acceptance of Christ so that we can be the solution- the Body of Christ- again James 1:27). In the discussion of economics and the evil that has been seen, the skeptic of Christianity (who brings up these concerns) has four reasons on his or her economic concerns alone to accept the truth of the Christian worldview.

Conclusion

If our concern for the poor is authentic, and we truly want to see this issue solved, Christianity is the only option. Without Christ, there are only two equally despicable alternatives:

We either must resort to illogical and immoral means and “repay evil with evil.”

Or we must abandon our concern for the poor and just let them suffer at the hands of evil.

For the questioner who is in transition in their worldview, if this discussion is not enough to at least get them considering the truth of Christianity (perhaps they are tempted to accept one of the alternatives above), then I implore them to consider the evidence for the single historical claim that if it happened, Christianity is true and they have your answer to their economic concern, but if it did not happen, Christianity is false, and they are free to pick from the two options above. For the objective, historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I recommend these posts and books:

Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead?

Book Review: Has Christianity Failed You?

Book Review: The Historical Jesus

Book Review: The Risen Jesus and Future Hope

Book Review: Cold-Case Christianity

NOTE: Along with the books I recommended above, I would also recommend another by Norman Geisler called “Christian Ethics: Issues and Options.” It goes into more detail about Christian morality and how it applies consistently across many different moral debates.

45 Quotes About Relativism vs. Truth

1. Does Truth Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

“When it comes to truth, the outcome affects not only individuals but nations and even civilizations. What starts looking like a small abstract issue ends with titanic, public consequences for all who love freedom and justice.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“Although someone’s beliefs and assumptions may not be true and do not describe reality, they will still drive their behavior. So if someone doesn’t believe in truth, count on him to lie. If someone says there are no objective facts, expect her to be careless with facts to further her own interests. If someone explains everything by referring to evolution and the ‘selfish gene,’ be sure that at some point, he will be extremely selfish on behalf of the fitness of his own survival.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“Our challenge today is not to lament, protest, or simply talk about the crisis of truth in one of a hundred ways. Rather, it is to do something about it by becoming people of truth and learning to live free.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“Far from being a naive and reactionary notion, truth is one of the simplest, most precious gifts without which we would not be able to handle reality or negotiate life.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“When nothing can be judged except judgment itself– ‘judgmentalism’–the barriers between the unthinkable, acceptable, and doable collapse entirely. And then, since life goes on and the sky doesn’t fall, people draw the conclusion that the original concern was unfounded. Lighten up, the newly amoral say as they skip forward blithely, complicit in their own corruption.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“If truth is truth, then differences make a difference — not just between truth and lies but between intimacy and alienation in relationships, between harmony and conflict in neighborhoods, between efficiency and incompetence in business, between reliability and fraud in science and journalism, between trust and suspicion in leadership, between freedom and tyranny in government, and even between life and death.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“While we all may have a sense of what is evil and what is good under the philosophy of cultural tolerance, evil and good can only be relative ideals. Without an objective truth—a set of universal moral values—good and evil are defined by the individual, community, or society. Therefore we have no moral basis by which to judge another person, community, or nation for what they do or don’t do.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
“Right up to the end of the nineteenth century, the most important course in an American student’s college career was moral philosophy, or what we today call ethics.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“Much of today’s focus is on ‘prevention ethics’ rather than on principled ethics. It is more concerned with ‘not being caught’ (or sued or exposed in the press) than with doing right.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“What is seen as important are issues related to corporations, schools, courts, governments, and the treatment of the environment– not the individual’s virtue and responsibility that underlie these secondary issues.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“The current ethics is often taught with a shallow view of human nature and an even more superficial view of evil in human society.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“The emphasis now is on surface, not depth; on possibilities, not equalities; on glamour, not convictions; on what can be altered endlessly; not achieved for good; and on what can be bought and won, not gained by education and formation.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“The present preoccupation with ethics in elite intellectual centers has an element of absurdity because they have no moral content left to teach. The fruit of the Western universities in the last two hundred years has been to destroy the possibility of any moral knowledge on which to pursue moral formation.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“If truth is contingent upon the society in which we live…there is nothing intuitive or universally or absolutely true about freedom from torture or freedom from slavery; our society just happens to have come up with these values over time.” Stephen McAndrew, Why It Doesn’t Matter What YOU Believe If It’s Not True

“If moral truths do not exist as a foundation for law, then the law itself becomes merely a system of raw political power accountable to no one.” Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life

“Just as iron filings are drawn to the strongest magnet, so minds weakened by a loss of truth are drawn to the most powerful positions.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“What happens when we succeed in cutting away truth-claims to expose the web of power games only to find we have less power than the players we face? If truth is dead, right and wrong are neither, and all that remains is the will to power, then the conclusion is simple: Might makes right. Logic is only a power conspiracy. Victory goes to the strong, and the weak go to the wall.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“Just as the Greeks entered Troy concealed in the hollow wooden statue of a horse, so post-modernism is providing the cover for all sorts of ideas and practices to enter American life–ideas that on their own would have difficulty gaining entrance.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“Short of total isolation, the American society you live in today is going to influence how your children make moral choices in one way or another. Stop and think about it. What are the voices of society telling your children about the choices they are about to make? What is the central theme that today’s culture emphasizes over and over again? If you were to reduce it to a single sentence, it might look like this: You have the right to choose for yourself what is right for you and what is wrong for you–and no one should judge that choice.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“When nothing can be judged except judgment itself— ‘judgmentalism’—the barriers between the unthinkable, acceptable, and doable collapse entirely.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“If everything is endlessly open to question and change, then everything is permitted, nothing is forbidden, and literally nothing is unthinkable.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“Applying to the skeptics the skepticism they apply to others [pushes] them out toward the negative consequences of their own beliefs.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“While all beliefs appear consistent to those who believe them, they always have one of two problems. They are either constricting or contradictory. In the first case, the beliefs are more consistent but are incomplete in the sense that they are too small for the fullness of life…And in the second case, the beliefs are more comprehensive but are inconsistent—which in the worst cases makes them self-refuting- a problem Chesterton calls ‘the suicide of thought.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“Inevitably, moral choices based on our own moral compass will often be wrong choices. And wrong moral choices can result in consequences ranging from minor disappointments to major disasters emotionally, relationally, physically, and spiritually.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“Truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“It is that truth, like meaning as a whole, is not for to us to create but for us to discover. Each of us may be small, our lives short, and our influence puny. But if truth is there—objective, absolute, independent of minds that know it— then we may count on it.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“In order to discover truth it is necessary to coldly dissect and examine all of our prejudices and inherent biases to ensure we receive unbiased answers. This takes effort. It is always easier to simply accept the ideas presented to us than to question the status quo.” Stephen McAndrew, Why It Doesn’t Matter What YOU Believe If It’s Not True

“While we all may have a sense of what is evil and what is good under the philosophy of cultural tolerance, evil and good can only be relative ideals. Without an objective truth—a set of universal moral values—good and evil are defined by the individual, community, or society. Therefore we have no moral basis by which to judge another person, community, or nation for what they do or don’t do.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
“We are all entitled to our own beliefs, but this doesn’t mean each of us has our own truths. Our beliefs describe the way we think the world is. Truth describes the objective state of the world, regardless of how we take it to be. Beliefs can be relative, but truth cannot. So when we consider the nature of truth—that it is an objective description of reality—it makes no sense to say that something is true for you and not for me.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“Without truth, a belief may be only speculation plus sincerity.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“While we all may have a sense of what is evil and what is good under the philosophy of cultural tolerance, evil and good can only be relative ideals. Without an objective truth—a set of universal moral values—good and evil are defined by the individual, community, or society. Therefore we have no moral basis by which to judge another person, community, or nation for what they do or don’t do.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“It is often said that to have a fulfilling life, three essentials are required: a clear sense of personal identity, a deep sense of faith and meaning, and a strong sense of purpose and mission.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“For those who find themselves without faith in God and who conclude that the world they desire does not fit with the world they discover, life is fundamentally deaf to their aspirations.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“For all the fragile precariousness of our human existence on our tiny earth in the vastness of space, we may throw the whole weight of our existence on God, including our truth-seeking desires, because he is wholly true.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“Those who put their faith in God do so for all sorts of good reasons, but the very best reason is that they are finally, utterly, and incontrovertibly convinced that the faith which they put their confidence in is true.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“All truth is God’s truth and is true everywhere, for everyone, under all conditions. Truth is true in the sense that it is objective and independent of the mind of any human knower. Being true, it cannot contradict itself.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“The beauty of intolerance is its opposition to wrong and evil in the world—in alignment with God’s righteous and perfect standard of justice, equality, human rights, and caring for others. Intolerance of evil is not mean-spirited and condemnatory; it is actually the only way to be loving and caring.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“What is more beautiful than God’s intolerance expressed in his moral outrage toward the tragedies of poverty, racism, sexual abuse, slavery, AIDS, bigotry, and other such evils?” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“Human beings are truth-seekers by nature, and truth persuades by the forces of its own reality.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“It is impossible to experience love without being truthful, and it is impossible to discover truth without loving it.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“Truth is our best friend, and it is an inseparable part of what real love is. While cultural tolerance may disguise itself as caring, understanding, and loving, it lacks the moral authority of an authentic love that looks out for the best interest of others. That is another quality of authentic, real love—it is always other-focused.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“As human beings, we are by nature truth-seekers; as fallen human beings, we are also by nature truth-twisters. And a proper account of truth in the human project must do justice to both.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“Conforming our desires to the truth is harder in the short term but easier in the long. We give up our need for control and submit to truth outside us, which, if we were wrong about truth before, requires repentance rather than rationalization. We have to face up to reality rather than trying to fit reality into our schemes. But the long-term outcome is freedom because…truth is freedom and we are engaging with reality at it truly is.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“What distinguishes God’s unconditional acceptance from that of our culture is authentic love. His love is intended to make the security, happiness, and welfare of another as important as his own. It is other-focused, not performance-focused. God knows the real truth about us—that we were created in his image—and that truth allows him to separate the person from performance. God unconditionally values us for who we are without always approving of what we do because he separates the value of the person from the acts of the person.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“The Christian faith is not true because it works; it works because it is true. It is not true because we experience it; we experience it—deeply and gloriously—because it is true. It is not simply ‘true for us’; it is true for any who seek in order to find.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

Book Review: Time for Truth: Living Free in A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

1. Does Truth Exist?, Atheism, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

“Time for Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin” by Os Guinness has been on my reading list for several years now. It is a relatively short book, so I popped it in my bag to read during downtime on a trip to see family. By the time I had made it through the first chapter, I wished that I had made time to read it sooner!

In today’s cultural and political climate that seems to twist and spin reality to fit certain narratives, it is vital that people be able to distinguish between truth from falsehood. The history of the East demonstrates the implications of denying truth as an accurate reflection of reality. In “Time for Truth,” sociologist Os Guinness takes the reader through the philosophies and events that led to the fall of the East and compares them to current philosophies and events in the West. He warns that if the West continues on its current trajectory, it is headed for a similar collapse.

As usual, this review will take the form of a chapter-by-chapter summary and conclude with my thoughts and recommendation.

Book Introduction: But Not Through Me

Guinness opens his book by recalling the revolutionary event of the fall of communism in eastern Europe and Russia in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The significance of this at the time was that under communist rule, propaganda was taught instead of truth so much so that the populace believed what was false to be true. But it was only when some members of the populace pointed out that what was being taught by their government were lies told in order to maintain power and control. The taste of and for truth grew and grew until finally, the purveyors of false narratives were overthrown, and the truth set these nations free from the lies and tyranny.
Ironically, at the same time, this revolution of truth took place in the East, the West was busy relativizing truth the way the communists already did in the East. Guinness sets up the rest of his book by pointing out that such a postmodern view of truth violates reality and morality (why it was overthrown in the East), and the West is on the road to accepting the same view of truth. However, if the West does not recognize the mistakes of the past (in the East), then it will suffer a similar fate. But it is not enough to merely make observations about the past; the people of the West must take action now and become “people of truth” to prevent a repeat of history.

Chapter 1: Back to The Moral Stone Age

In order to show that the West is, in fact, on this same path, Guinness takes a look at the change in students’ reactions to the morally repugnant practice described in the story “The Lottery.” The 70s, 80s, and 90s saw a dramatic shift in the schools regarding moral judgments. The 70s and 80s saw students gradually shift their focus from outrage over the most heinous human behaviors (human sacrifice, in the case of “The Lottery”) to focusing on the more trivial aspects of the same tale. Fewer moral judgment were made, and more stylistic critiques became the main focus. In the 90s, this shift seemed almost complete, to where students were allergic to giving moral judgments about another’s cultural practices, no matter how heinous the action.

Guinness observes too that ethical training in today’s higher academy has also shifted from making any moral judgments to merely providing information about cultures and how to avoid punishments if one does not agree and wishes to participate in prohibited practices. On this new view, no one is truly deviating from any objective standard; they just act differently from others. Guinness ties this to the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. These writings take the idea that “God is dead” and vehemently attacked the very concepts of knowledge and morality- stating that nothing can be known or trusted, and nothing is as it seems. Nietzsche supports a radical skepticism and distrust about everything and everyone, and thus, a meaningless and purposeless existence is all that any individual has.

Chapter 2: We’re All Spinmeisters Now

With Nietzsche’s idea that with God’s death comes the death of all knowledge and truth about anything, people are free to tell whatever stories they wish that will accomplish their personal goals (or a “greater truth”)- whether the stories are true or not. As multiple people tell their own contradicting stories and these lies are discovered, others’ trust in these people and those who support them dwindles. This causes a vicious cycle of skepticism that self-perpetuates. The singular truth stands alone in a multitude of lies promoted by their own multitude of untrustworthy sources. In this sea of “spin,” the truth ultimately becomes unidentifiable by the individual and even outside their grasp. The individual has nothing solid to grab onto to ground themselves in reality, so they are forced to make up stories of their own and live their own lie of a life.

Guinness illustrates this in practice with the very public figures of Mark Twain and Rigoberta Menchu. The stories that were told by both (Samuel Clemens, in the case of “Mark Twain”) were false, but they each acted as if they were true, and the culture responded accordingly. Clemens’ false story had more pop-cultural effects, while Menchu’s lies had political and educational ramifications. Even after the lies were discovered, both held firm saying that these were “their truths.” Guinness makes the point that when knowledge is not attainable, lies can perpetuate like this easily in a culture, and the culture is eager to accept them even if the stories are discovered to be false. On this postmodern view of truth, everyone is free to make up their own truth from moment to moment, all depending on their feelings at the moment or whatever they feel will accomplish their goal at that moment.

Chapter 3: The West Versus Itself

Quite often, this battle for the concept of truth has been seen as an “East vs. West” battle. Where the eastern philosophies held to relative and subjective views of truth and western philosophies held to the objective view of truth. Guinness observes that Geoge Washington and the other Founding Fathers saw their newly formed country as an experiment with “ordered liberty”- freedom exercised within the confines of objective truth. But postmodern views of truth have sneaked their way into western culture, not unlike a Trojan horse. This attack has been so successful since the formation of America that even the President of the United States in the 1990s saw and exercised the liberty to attempt to adjust truth to fit his own desires.
Guinness takes the time to demonstrate how seven unique characteristics of a postmodern mind were exhibited in President Bill Clinton during his sex scandal. Because of Clinton’s public face and the respect of Americans for the office of the President of the United States, his postmodern actions shifted western thinking more permanently toward postmodern views of truth. This view of truth has become so ingrained in western thought now that the battle is now the older western though versus, the newer western thought. The west is engaged in a war against itself for itself.

Chapter 4: Differences Make A Difference

Unfortunately, many people do not see why it makes a difference in what view of truth one holds. Guinness explains that the way one views truth can have great implications. He takes the atheist survivor of Auschwitz, Primo Levi, and the theist Russian revolutionary, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, to compare and contrast the views’ implications. Levi held that no God exists to ground truth. He tasked himself with ensuring that Auschwitz was never forgotten or repeated, but the weight of such a task, without any ultimate purpose or truth to ground his claims in, ultimately led to his suicide. On the other hand, Solzhenitsyn merely publically promoted his view of truth to release Russia from the shackles of the communist regime, that made a habit of presenting falsehood to its people as truth in order to subjugate them. Solzhenitsyn had an ultimate purpose and objective truth behind his actions that made them meaningful. Levi had no purpose and only relative truth behind his actions that made them meaningless.

These differences are not trivial; rather, they are impactful. Guinness offers that the West has become so hypnotized by the supposed “freedom” that having no objective truth brings, that it has not been able to experience true freedom. True freedom requires identity and limits. But if there is neither (what relative views of truth assert), then the individual must endlessly wrestle with their identity and what limits exist before they can even begin to experience true freedom. Because there is no objective truth about identity or limits, there is no end to their wrestling; thus they never will experience true freedom, and their pursuit becomes a prison. It is only when one recognizes that objective truth exists and the Foundation of Truth (God) that objective identity and objective limits can be discovered and freedom is even possible to experience.

Chapter 5: Turning The Tables

So far, Guinness has argued against relativistic views of truth by demonstrating the implications of such a view. But that is not always the most effective way to argue. It tends to be more effective if one argues on the skeptic’s own grounds. Guinness proposes two strategies for argumentation: one negative and one positive. The negative approach takes the relativist’s own relativism and follows it to its logical implications until it violates something of great value to the relativist. This usually doesn’t take long since the relativist values their own objectivity. While they desire that everyone else be a relativist, they do not apply such a requirement and fate to themselves. Seeing that their own views may be thought but not lived may be enough to jerk their thinking about truth back to reality.

Guinness argues that it is often not until a person is brought face-to-face with the dire implications and emptiness of their view of truth that they are willing to entertain an alternative. Ironically, when an individual or even a nation is at its philosophical and ethical breaking point, is when the opportunity to argue for the alternative is most effective. This opens the door to the positive approach. It also appeals to what the relativist values. With the inability for relativism to produce what the relativist values now in place, the positive approach shows how the objective view of truth genuinely provides what the relativist values. Guinness encourages the reader to consider that while it may seem that darkness has overtaken the individual relativist or a relativistic culture, that darkness may actually be an indicator that a new day is coming.

Chapter 6: On Record Against Ourselves

In Guinness’ final chapter, he encourages the reader to be a seeker of truth. As one is seeking objective truth, though, it is important to realize that there are subjective perspectives that do cause people to come to different conclusions about reality. While this is no excuse for seeing things inaccurately, it is an explanation for such and a beginning point to recognize in our own search for truth to guard against. One more thing can keep people from seeing reality as it is.
The biblical worldview holds that by nature, we are not just truth-seekers; we are truth-twisters. It is a sin in our lives that pushes us towards false narratives and rationalizations. Interestingly enough, it is the dual nature of man that explains both the successes and failures of modern and post-modern views of truth. Guinness explains that is it only the biblical worldview that can provide a foundation for not just the pursuit of truth but also how and why such a pursuit can go wrong. He encourages the reader to accept, because of its explanatory power, the biblical worldview of our sinfulness and our need for the Savior, Jesus Christ. Christ is the truth; thus it is in accepting Him that will allow us to truly be “people of truth,” and it is only as true “people of truth” that we can experience real freedom.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

“Time for Truth” was a fascinating read. I have to admit that I had picked up the book a couple of times in the past and (re)started before I was able to make it through this time. The introduction was a little slow, but once I passed that, it picked right up, and I was hooked! I really enjoyed how Guinness took the reader through several events in recent history that have led to the crisis of truth in American culture. I found myself stopping many times to reflect on events in my own lifetime that Guinness described and older events’ effects on what I experience today. The way that Guinness connects modern events with the crisis of truth that he speaks against is what will draw the reader in. This is not merely a theoretical treatise on truth; it is an analysis of events in our lifetimes and a warning of what will come if the West follows in the footsteps of the East regarding the ideas of truth.

Post-modernism has saturated our culture, and its effects are being played out before our eyes and in ways that are so subtle that we may not even recognize it. For anyone who is concerned about modern western culture’s treatment of truth, this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is fed up with the claims of “fake news,” this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is tired of seeing politicians change the truth for their own agendas, this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is concerned with history, this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is concerned with their children’s future, this book is highly recommended. Needless to say, this book is highly recommended for all serious readers and those who are fascinated by politics and modern culture. It will enhance your perspective on what is taking place today and give you not only an explanation for what is taking place but also provide a solution. Go get this book!

Do Humans Have Intrinsic Value?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Whether humans possess intrinsic value or instrumental value is a debate that often runs parallel to discussions about the true worldview. This debate also often fuels the passion behind worldview discussions because it has implications for ethics and morality, which are directly tied to how people ought to live and how people ought to hold each other responsible to those expectations. Such accountability can take a range of forms from personal and private conversations to legal and very public repercussions. And because one’s politics are an extension of their ethics, the passion associated with politics is also added to the mix.

Because all the emotions that accompany ethical and political discussions can easily cloud the issue, it is important that it is approached more objectively and philosophically, if we are to have a calm and reasonable discussion. Today, I want to take a few minutes to examine the philosophical implications and examine some scientific evidence for one side to assist with bringing calm to this important debate.

Intrinsic Value

If humans are intrinsically valuable, then there are a set of objective (and even absolute) duties that cannot be violated. This view holds that humans possess objective value regardless of their situation, condition, social or economic status, skin color, sex, location, beliefs, or any host of other characteristics that people try to judge others’ value. This allows for objective condemnation and consequences of particular choices and behaviors, which many people do not appreciate, especially if they are accused of committing the atrocities. This view also makes even government and governmental officials responsible to the greater reality of this moral law, which justifies political reform- something that certain rulers and politicians do not appreciate.

Instrumental Value

On the other hand, if humans are merely instrumentally valuable, then treatment of them (regardless of the particular treatment- including murder, rape, torture, or any host of traditionally unthinkable treatments) can only be judged based on their utility towards a particular goal. This view permits the affirmation of the “goodness” of even the most egregious behaviors if a “greater” goal is in view. This view allows for anyone to be able to justify any behavior if they can make their goal sound good or acceptable. There is no objective standard by which to judge the morality of a behavior, only to judge its utility. There is also no objective standard by which to judge a particular goal. Since the goal is subjective, so is the behavior, and no moral judgment is actually permitted. This ultimately reduces to “might makes right:” whoever holds the power to punish holds the power to dictate what is “right” and what is “wrong.” Political reform has no justification other than a differing opinion of someone who may be able to challenge the power of those currently in power. If one holds to this view, they often confuse legality with morality.

The Christian worldview traditionally has held that humans possess intrinsic value in virtue of being created in the Image of God. If this is true, then the first set of implications described above are features of reality that all humans are subject to. Any worldview that cannot justify intrinsic human value is left with the second set of implications described. And, by necessary logical implication, if one wishes to appeal to intrinsic human value, they must justify that appeal by grounding intrinsic human value outside the human race.

Origins of The Image of God

If humans have intrinsic value, it had to come from somewhere (or Someone) outside of the human race. Otherwise, the value that is ascribed to humans is merely subjective and instrumental. As I have described in a previous post (Why Is The Image of God So Important), this discussion is tied to one’s view of human origins. If someone wishes to appeal to intrinsic human value, they must accept some type of connection between humans and an eternally existing, absolute reality that is outside of (and is not) this universe. The only thing that fits this description is the Creator God of the Bible.

In order to argue for the intrinsic value of humans, Dr. Fazale Rana offers several lines of evidence for the sudden appearance of the Image of God in life’s history (which happens to coincide with the sudden appearance of humans on the scene). He calls this sudden appearance a “cultural big bang”:

These pieces of evidence include:

Advanced cognitive ability

The capacity for symbolic thought

A powerful imagination

Superior craftsmanship

Inventiveness and superior adaptability

A driving desire for artistic and musical expression

He goes into great detail about the anthropological discoveries of scientists over the years in his book “Who Was Adam.” In the third section of the book, he addresses modern challenges to his conclusions and brings in the latest discoveries over the past decade. The cumulative, scientific case presented in the book for the Image of God coinciding with the appearance of the human race, by extension, is a powerful evidential case for humans possessing intrinsic value.

Conclusion

It is vital to a proper theory of ethics (and even politics) that we know whether humans possess intrinsic value or not. Ultimately, if humans are created in the Image of God, as argued by Dr. Rana, then the idea that humans possess intrinsic value accurately describes the reality of our species. If humans are intrinsically valuable, that serves as the foundation for how we ought to treat one another (ethics) and that further guides how we should govern one another. If humans are not created in the Image of God (do not possess intrinsic value), then all sorts of heinous treatment of them are permissible even by those who wield the most power (governments and politicians).

Is It Biblical to Have an Evidential Faith?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Is biblical faith blind or reasonable? This is one of the most hotly debated questions between believers and unbelievers. While most who say that faith is blind are unbelievers, I have also heard many Christians claim this as well. The claim is that faith and reason are at odds with one another and that the more evidence or reason that you have to believe something, the less faith that you need.

Is Faith Blind or Evidential?

In his book “Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes The Case For A More Reasonable Evidential Faith,” J. Warner Wallace emphasizes the evidential nature of Jesus’ ministry on earth. Jesus never asked people to believe His claims without a good reason to: the miracles that He performed. He performed miracles to demonstrate that His claims to be God (such as is found in His claim to be able to forgive sins in Matthew 9). Based on His followers’ witnessing His miracles (eyewitness evidence), He asked them to have faith in Him. This was not a request for blind faith, but an evidentially-based faith.

In the book, Wallace not only appeals to the entire ministry of Christ on earth but also to specific passages of Scripture where Jesus explicitly identifies this specific purpose for His miracles and where other New Testament authors also encouraged their readers to test claims:

John 10:25- “‘I did tell you, and you don’t believe,’ Jesus answered them. ‘The works that I do in My Father’s name testify about Me.'”

John 10:37-38- “If I am not doing My Father’s works, don’t believe Me. But if I am doing them and you don’t believe Me, believe the works.”

Acts 1:3- “After He had suffered, He also prested Himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during 40 days and speaking about the kingdom of God.”

1 Thessalonians 5:19-21- “Don’t stifle the Spirit. Don’t despise prophecies, but test all things. Hold on to what is good.”

1 John 4:1- “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

These passages do not ask for someone to believe just anything based simply on the word of the person making the claim (“…because I said!”- a blind faith) but based on the actions of the person making the claim. Notice, too, that in the 1 Thessalonians and 1 John passages, the authors are so confident that the claims will pass evidential tests that they openly invite testing! None of these passages ask for blind faith; in fact, they encourage the exact opposite: a faith that is not blind rather a faith that is grounded in evidence and reason.

A Biblical Faith and The Resurrection

Biblical faith, correctly understood from Scripture, is not blind; it is tested and firmly grounded. In fact, today, we can test the central claim of Christianity: that Jesus rose bodily from the dead (1 Corinthians 15). As we investigate the evidence, based on tried and true investigative methods (as outlined in J. Warner Wallace‘s book “Cold-Case Christianity“) and historiographical methods (as outlined in Gary Habermas‘ books “The Historical Jesus” and “The Risen Jesus and Future Hope“), we discover that the only explanation that consistently explains all the evidence is that Jesus rose from the grave, as is claimed in the gospels.

Conclusion

Because this central claim passes the evidential test, faith in Christ is not blind or because “the Bible tells me so;” it is firmly grounded in proven methods used for discovering the truth of claimed events of the past. There simply is no reasonable reason to reject the Resurrection. While we certainly are free to reject the conclusion of the evidence and arguments, we should not fool ourselves into believing that the rejection is anything more than an emotional leap of blind faith despite evidence to the contrary.

Should Christians Abandon Social Media?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

With all of the recent news of various social media platforms purposefully hiding and censoring Christian and politically conservative content in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance,” many people have abandoned Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and other popular social media outlets in protest. While I have been tempted to do the same, because of their relative popularity (compared to more traditional communication media), I do believe that if we abandon these platforms, we will not only limit our audience but encourage the behavior of limiting reasonable content to and stifling intellectual discussion among the users of these platforms. The new generation of consumers prefers social media for their news, media consumption and discussion of various issues, so it cannot be abandoned by those who hold and can defend the truth with gentleness and respect.

The Liberal View of “Tolerance” and “Diversity”

I recently heard Candace Owens interview Lauren Chen about the modern liberal view of “tolerance” and “diversity.” They discuss the deliberate attempt to remove even the slightest (appearance of) disagreement from the public square. This attempted removal is targeting the internet and specifically, social media. If you are considering leaving popular social media platforms (or already have), I encourage you to listen to this discussion in full and consider that removing your voice of reason from today’s public squares may do more harm than good:

Christians Should Master The Media

The new culture primarily consumes image-driven messages, and social media is the primary avenue to get images before this audience. In his book “Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates The Claims of the Gospels,” J. Warner Wallace encourages Christians to not just embrace new media but to master them. Christians must master the content itself, the presentation of the content, and the delivery mechanisms for the content.

Quote from J. Warner Wallace from the book "Cold Case Christianity": "In a culture where image is more important than information, style more important than substance it is not enough to possess the truth. [Christian] case makers must also master the media."

Conclusion

Rather than abandoning popular social media channels, we should embrace them and utilize them to their fullest potential! If a challenge arises that limits our reach, it is not to be met with surrender, but with enthusiasm to reach the goal despite the challenges. I have written several posts and reviewed several books on the importance of discussing political and moral issues in a compassionate yet intellectual manner. I encourage you to read the posts and purchase the recommended books to equip you to “always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that you have…with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15):

Posts:

Quotes:

Books:

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2GsTqy5

July 30, 2019/by Guest

7 Independent Lines of Evidence for God’s Existence

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction- Why Is God’s Existence So Important?

One of the most heated debates in any setting is the existence of God. If God exists, then He is the foundation for objective morality. One’s view of morality governs their thinking in everything from politics to workplace interactions, from scientific research to everyday behavior. If God exists, then there are objective behavioral boundaries which should never be crossed. If God does not exist, then no such objective boundaries exist, and anyone may behave however they wish in any situation without concern for the violation of some objective standard (that is not to say that relative/cultural/legal standards cannot be violated- but that is a topic for another time). If we do not examine this question carefully, we risk believing what is false about reality and morality, and such false beliefs will necessarily lead to behaviors that are not in keeping with reality and morality. This means that many of the political and ethic debates opposing people have come down to whether or not God exists.

Presenting A Cumulative Case for God’s Existence

Numerous lines of evidence and philosophical arguments have been presented over the centuries for God’s existence. All of them come together to create a powerful cumulative case. Much like a detective’s case for the guilt of an accused murderer, multiple independent lines of evidence are presented that all point to the guilt of the accused. If such a method is valid for discovering the truth behind the claim that a murder took place and for the specific identity of the murdered, then the same method is also valid in determining the truth behind the claim that God exists and the identity of this God.

God’s Crime Scene

One of my favorite books that takes some of these arguments and presents the cumulative case comes from cold-case homicide detective J. Warner Wallace. In his book “God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines The Evidence For A Divinely Created Universe.” Wallace presents seven independent lines of evidence that all point to God’s existence in the same way that he would present multiple lines of evidence to a jury for the guilt of an accused murderer. The lines of evidence he presents are summarized in these quotes from the book:

The Beginning– “The Standard Cosmological Model, accepted by physicists today is grounded on the foundational premise that the universe came into being from something beyond the space, time, matter, and energy of our universe.”
Signs of Design– “The totality and interconnected nature of our galaxy’s unique backstory, along with its rare circumstances and unlikely conditions, overwhelmingly indicate design.”
Consciousness– “In order to think rationally about our thoughts, we must have the freedom to do so, but this freedom is unavailable if the laws of physics and chemistry are controlling our thoughts.”
Law and Order (Morality)– “Naturalism cannot adequately explain the existence of objective moral truths or objective, transcendent personal obligations.”
The Origin of Life– “With each passing year, the level of complexity and interaction at the cellular level has become more apparent and more difficult to explain.”
Free Will– “Choice is a feature of design and a reflection of intelligent agency. Designers make conscious choices between options. Their designs often reflect these decisions, especially when other options are available.”
Evidence of Evil– “True evil requires a source of transcendent righteousness, a source for goodness that transcends the universe and everything in it.”

Wallace concludes by stating that as a detective, who must follow the evidence where it leads, “I believe God exists because the evidence leaves me no reasonable alternative.” If the objective standard of morality exists (God), then that standard is what must be used to judge ethical and political positions.

Conclusion- Prepare for Your Ethical Discussions With Objective Evidence For God’s Existence

If you find yourself involved in discussions of an ethical or political nature or just want to be able to more critically evaluate the political and ethical claims of others, I highly recommend that you pick up a copy of Wallace’s book to help establish a foundational point on which to begin evaluation and discussion. While not comprehensive on the case for God’s existence, it is one of the most accessible and engaging books on this topic, and it should not be passed up by anyone serious about investigating the truth of reality and morality.
For more great books on God’s existence, check out the many books that I have reviewed on this blog, and for the topic of ethics and politics, specifically, please check out my Top 5 Recommended Books for diving into those details.

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Xz6qvS

June 30, 2019/by Guest

How Naturalism Defeats Science As A Knowledge Discipline

Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

One of the core necessities of science is the constancy of the laws that govern this universe. The fact that the laws of physics have the same since the beginning of the universe and will continue until the universe is destroyed allows scientists to not only observe and know what is happening in the moment of their observation, but it allows them to discover what has happened in the past and even make accurate predictions of the behavior of objects and conditions in the future. Some scientists even use the understanding that the laws of physics are constant to make predictions of what we will observe in the past (by observing distant celestial objects), then conduct multiple observations to test their theory. But where do they come up with the idea that the laws of physics are constant in the first place?

The Constancy of the Laws of Physics

We certainly cannot look inside this universe to establish it, for that would be to beg the question (assume what we are trying to conclude). Without something outside the universe that established the constancy of the laws of physics, such an assumption has no justification. So, on this view, since our first assumption has no justification, neither do any of the conclusions that follow it. At best, the constancy or variability of the laws of physics is unknowable. Since scientists foundationally base their claims about the past and the future upon something that is unknowable, then their claims about the past and the future can only reach the same level of knowledge: unknowable.

At this point, many scientists would object based upon observation of distant celestial objects. My response is to point out that a subtle fallacy is in place. While we think that we can observe the past by looking at distant celestial objects to observe how the laws of physics behaved back then, we are still stuck with merely a suspicion (thus the whole scientific enterprise that is dependent upon constancy is suspect). I ask that the objector recalls that in order to correlate the observation to any point in time, the speed of light (governed by the laws of physics) must be finite and constant– light does take time to travel, so we are seeing light as it was when it left the object not as it is now. To say that observing distant objects establishes the constancy of the laws of physics is to commit the fallacy of begging the question. The objector has sneaked his conclusion into his argument. This invalidates his conclusion that our observations establish the constancy of the laws of physics. But all is not lost, they do still have a suspicion that the laws have been constant into the past.

Naturalism Defeats Science As A Knowledge Discipline

If this universe is all that there is, then there really is no possible way to justify the belief in the foundational idea that the laws of physics are constant. All further conclusions will remain as merely suspicions and will remain unknowable. However, if something exists outside the universe that does provide a foundation for the laws of physics, then we at least have something to reason toward constant laws of physics without begging the question. If God exists and created this universe, then He certainly would be the source for the laws of physics, but this alone does not tell us if they are constant or variable over time.

Christianity Provides The Foundation For Science As A Knowledge Discipline

Interestingly enough, though, God has revealed to us which option He selected, and it matches the observations that cause us to suspect one or the other. Let us examine Jeremiah 33:25-26:

In this passage, God compares His constancy to the laws that govern His creation. If these laws are not truly constant, then the comparison means, at best, nothing, and at worst, the exact opposite (that the laws are variable).

If scientists wish to claim that their conclusions are more than mere unknowable suspicions, then they have no choice but to be dependent upon God’s existing. And we’re not talking about some deistic god, for a deistic god does not reveal Himself to His creation (God is revealing His constancy, among other characteristics, in the passage above), nor are we talking about some generic theistic god. We are talking about the God of the Bible.

This God not only told us the truth of something that we only became suspicious may be true in recent centuries (the constancy of the laws of physics), but He came to earth, died, and resurrected from the dead (see this historical evidence in the post: “Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead?“). In that resurrection, He confirmed His claims to be God, the Creator of the universe: the Source of the laws of physics.

Conclusion

Naturalism simply cannot justify the conclusion that the laws of physics are constant, and unless scientists are willing to ground this foundationally necessary concept in the God of the Bible outside the universe, none of their conclusions can be more than suspicions, and suspicions hardly counts as knowledge. In order for any conclusions that count as knowledge to come out of the scientific enterprise, God must exist to be the source of the constancy of the laws of physics. If naturalism is true, then science necessarily is not a knowledge discipline.

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

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

May 26, 2019/by Guest

25 Quotes On Tolerance

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

“Most of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all but actually intellectual cowardice. Those who hide behind that word are often afraid of intelligent engagement and don’t engage or even consider contrary opinions. It’s easier to hurl an insult than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it.” Greg Koukl, Relativism

“Proponents of [this] cultural tolerance will point out that when you fail to endorse a person’s beliefs and behavior, you are, in effect, rejecting the person. [For example], many claim that homosexuality is not merely a sexual act or a natural orientation; it is a state of being—an identity. Many assert that people are born gay, and when you condemn homosexuality, it’s an affront to their personhood and a direct condemnation and discrimination against them as human beings.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“[Ironically], Some of the most vocal advocates for tolerance are completely intolerant of those who express their belief in a biblical morality, especially if they do so in the public arena.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“Cultural tolerance does not simply require that we give others the freedom to believe or live differently than we do. It has evolved into a demand that we accept, respect, and affirm the rightness of others’ views and behavior–or be labeled intolerant, bigoted, and even hateful.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“While we all may have a sense of what is evil and what is good under the philosophy of cultural tolerance, evil and good can only be relative ideals. Without an objective truth—a set of universal moral values—good and evil are defined by the individual, community, or society. Therefore, we have no moral basis by which to judge another person, community, or nation for what they do or don’t do.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“We are asked to be tolerant of what everyone else believes, so why aren’t we tolerant of terrorists?…Unless there are objective universal moral values, like those that reside in the character of God, no one really has the right to judge even the worst atrocities of terrorists.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“If man is the ultimate authority, then human beings are perfectly justified in defining morals and ethics that fit their own desires, even if those ethics are the ones espoused by Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and the Chinese government—murder, torture, and abuse.” Frank Turek and Norm Geisler, Legislating Morality

“To say we’re intolerant of the person because we disagree with her idea is confused. On this view of tolerance, no idea or behavior can be opposed, regardless of how graciously, without inviting the charge of incivility.” Greg Koukl, Relativism

“Having been influenced to believe it’s up to the individual to create his or her own truth, our young people are naturally uncomfortable with any suggestion that one particular viewpoint is true for everyone.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“The height of intolerance is not disagreement, but rather removing from the public square an opportunity for people to disagree.” Jonathan Morrow, Questioning The Bible

“Traditional tolerance values, respects, and accepts the individual without necessarily approving of or participating in that person’ beliefs or behavior.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“Like the physical universe, the moral universe is governed by unforgiving laws that we do not have the power to alter.” Frank Turek and Norm Geisler, Legislating Morality

“When we contrast the cultural narrative of truth with the biblical narrative of truth, we can see that cultural tolerance does not actually show respect for others or even demonstrate care for them—it does the opposite.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“Truth and traditional tolerance are the necessary balancing ingredients to genuinely love and accept others unconditionally.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“By understanding how truth and traditional tolerance work together, we unlock the key to making our children feel loved even when we can’t approve of what they choose and what they do.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful standard of tolerance.” Greg Koukl, Relativism

“True tolerance involves loving people and suffering while they do something we think is absolutely wrong, which is exactly what Christ does for us.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“What distinguishes God’s unconditional acceptance from that of our culture is authentic love. His love is intended to make the security, happiness, and welfare of another as important as his own. It is other-focused, not performance-focused. God knows the real truth about us—that we were created in his image—and that truth allows him to separate the person from performance. God unconditionally values us for who we are without always approving of what we do because he separates the value of the person from the acts of the person.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“Real love isn’t an unlimited endorsement of just any behavior a person chooses to engage in. Many of those behaviors are inherently and inevitably harmful, and to endorse, approve, and encourage them is not loving; it is cold and uncaring. If we care about another person, we won’t approve behavior that is damaging and destructive to that person’s life.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“Truth is our best friend, and it is an inseparable part of what real love is. While cultural tolerance may disguise itself as caring, understanding, and loving, it lacks the moral authority of an authentic love that looks out for the best interest of others. That is another quality of authentic, real love—it is always other-focused.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“Our young people need to understand that the reason we have this concept that some things are morally right and others are wrong is not because a church propagates it or even that it is written in a book called the Bible. The moral authority of the Bible isn’t found in its commands and rules. The authority of scripture is derived directly from and founded in the very character and nature of God and represented in the flesh through Jesus Christ. All moral truth resides in and comes from God.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“It is important to note that even though the Founders believed the Rights of the people came from God, they did not insist that every citizen believes in God; they simply saw no way to justify those natural moral Rights unless there was a God.” Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, Legislating Morality
“All moral positions impose values. Even the moral position that you should not impose values on others does just that: it imposes values on others. For if we are not to restrain people legally from doing wrong, then we impose on others the effects of the wrongdoing.” Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, Legislating Morality
“We’re living in a society in which people feel no obligation to control their own actions. Instead, we rationalize and justify every aberrant behavior under the umbrella of freedom granted by the First Amendment, never admitting that freedom without reasonable and responsible limits destroys individual lives and ultimately destroys the fabric of a civilized society.” Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, Legislating Morality
“If you find yourself being defensive when we criticize ideas, maybe you’ve bought into the cultural view of tolerance more than you realize…The highest degree of respect you can show somebody is to take their ideas seriously and graciously critique them.” Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

All these quotes can be found in the following books by the cited authors:

The Beauty of Intolerance: Setting A Generation Free to Know Truth and Love– Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell
Relativism: Feet Planted In Mid-Air– Greg Koukl and Frank Beckwith
Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible– Norm Geisler and Frank Turek
Questioning the Bible: 11 Major Challenges To The Bible’s Authority– Jonathan Morrow

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2vmjRQ5

April 28, 2019/by Guest

Did The Historical Jesus Rise from The Dead?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction – Why Is Jesus’ Resurrection So Important?

Those who have followed this blog know that I focus a lot of my writing on defending the compatibility of science with the Christian worldview and that I spend much energy addressing philosophical and logical challenges to some of the finer details of Christian theology that skeptics offer as defeaters for the Christian worldview. However, it is important to remember that the truth of the Christian worldview rests on one, single historical event: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Christ has not been raised, then none of the other details of the Christian worldview matter. The Apostle Paul made this very clear in 1 Corinthians 15:

While finding answers to the finer points of the Christian worldview can be difficult, if Christ has been raised, then there are answers to every scientific, philosophical, and experiential challenge. Even if we may not know all those answers at any given point in time and even if the answers are different from what we envision or desire, if Christ has been raised, Christianity is true, and we can work out the finer scientific, philosophical, and experiential details later. So, it is important that all skeptics and Christians deal with and be made aware of the evidence for this essential historical event.

In today’s post my goal is not to be comprehensive with the evidence for the Resurrection but to give the skeptic some videos and other resources to begin seriously looking at this claim and to make the Christian aware of resources that they can have to “always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that they have” (1 Peter 3:15).

Is The New Testament a Reliable Source of History?

One of the first concerns of the skeptic is the source of information that we have on the historical Jesus. Some believe that the historical Jesus is different from the Jesus of Christianity. This claim is based on the acceptance of the reliability of different historical sources that make conflicting claims about the historical Jesus.
It is generally recognized that the closer a record is to an event, the more likely its author is to be in the position to know if the claim is true or not, compared to later sources. In this first video, Dr. Gary Habermas traces the creed found in 1 Corinthians 15 to within a few years of the death of Jesus:

It is quite common for people to claim that the gospels cannot be historically reliable; however, when they are put to historiographical tests, it is unreasonable to reject them as reliable. In fact, if the gospels are rejected on historiographical grounds, then all ancient historical sources (and all our knowledge of ancient history) must be rejected as well. This second video explains the historiographical tests:

Dr. Habermas systematically evaluates the different proposed sources for information on the life of the historical Jesus in his book “The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence For The Life of Christ.”

Still, some people claim that the gospels that we have today cannot be the same ones originally written; it is common to hear the transmission of the documents compared to a game of “telephone” where the message changes slightly with every step of the transmission to end up with something completely different from the original message. In this video cold-case homicide detective J. Warner Wallace demonstrates how this analogy does not apply because of the established chain of custody of the accounts:

Wallace also applies tools of a detective to authenticate the gospels as eyewitness accounts. If these tools are unreliable to determine if the gospels are eyewitness accounts, then they are unreliable to determine if any other recorded accounts of any event (including crimes) are from actual eyewitnesses of those events (which would present a huge obstacle to seeing justice served when crimes are committed). His two books that go into the details these tools and how they are applied by detectives are:

Did Jesus’ Resurrection Actually Happen?

Now, establishing the gospels as actual eyewitness accounts does not necessarily establish the truth of the accounts. The content of the accounts must be put to the test. The key claim in the accounts that is important is the claim of the Resurrection of Jesus. In this next video, the facts surrounding the claimed event are put on the table for examination:

With all the facts before us, we must now examine possible explanations for those facts. The most reasonable explanation is the one that consistently explains the largest majority of the facts; while, the least reliable explanations cannot explain any number of the facts on the table. This next video examines the proposed explanations and shows how a physical resurrection is the most reasonable explanation of the facts:

Dr. Habermas presents much more of the detail of the facts and the proposed explanations in his book “The Risen Jesus and Future Hope.”

Is The Story of Jesus Just a Copy of Pagan Myths?

Despite the historical reliability of the data presented, some people try to explain all the data by claiming that the story of Jesus was merely a ripoff of other pagan mythologies. J. Warner Wallace takes a few minutes to show how the stories are not close enough to each other in their content to be related, and he shows that even if they were close in content that the presence of a fictional story does nothing to negate the truth of a historical event, even if they have similar characteristics and even if the fictional story predates the historical event:

Who Was Jesus, Really?

The evidence demands a verdict. A verdict on the historical claim of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and who Jesus Christ is. We can either follow the evidence where it leads and make the reasonable and logical action of surrendering our lives to Him, or we can ignore the evidence and make the unreasonable and illogical decision to stick our heads in the sand and ignore reality. Ultimately, we all must face the evidence and answer Jesus’ pointed question: “Who do you say that I am?”

The Historical Jesus Did Rise from The Dead- Conclusion

The reality is that no matter what is true about the world we live in, if Jesus Christ has not been raised from the dead, Christianity is false. Since the evidence demonstrates that Jesus Christ has been raised, we can be confident that Christianity is true. Because the Christian has already followed the evidence where it leads regarding the historical claims of Jesus, the Christian is free to follow the evidence regarding any other part of reality, from the timing and mechanism of God’s creation to the interaction between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will to the role of pain, suffering, and evil in this present world.

The undeniable reality is that man is fallen and is evil by nature, and, though we all long for forgiveness and redemption so that we can live a life of objective purpose and ultimate significance, we cannot without the sacrifice of the perfect Son of God and His subsequent victory over death. Christianity is not just a story for people to accept by blind faith; it is the evidentially supported answer to all of our deepest desires and most painful sufferings. Follow the evidence where it leads; accepts the reality of Jesus’ death and Resurrection, and be changed for eternity.

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

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

April 24, 2019/by Guest

Tag Archive for: Luke Nix

Introduction

The Question:

My Response:

Limited Government

Intrinsic Human Value and Economics

Free Will and Economics

Sin In Conservative Economics

“Give Like No One Else”

How This Discussion Leads to Christ

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Book Introduction: But Not Through Me

Chapter 1: Back to The Moral Stone Age

Chapter 2: We’re All Spinmeisters Now

Chapter 3: The West Versus Itself

Chapter 4: Differences Make A Difference

Chapter 5: Turning The Tables

Chapter 6: On Record Against Ourselves

Reviewer’s Thoughts

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

Intrinsic Value

Instrumental Value

Origins of The Image of God

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

Is Faith Blind or Evidential?

A Biblical Faith and The Resurrection

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

The Constancy of the Laws of Physics

Naturalism Defeats Science As A Knowledge Discipline

Christianity Provides The Foundation For Science As A Knowledge Discipline

Conclusion

Introduction – Why Is Jesus’ Resurrection So Important?

Is The New Testament a Reliable Source of History?

Did Jesus’ Resurrection Actually Happen?

Is The Story of Jesus Just a Copy of Pagan Myths?

Who Was Jesus, Really?

The Historical Jesus Did Rise from The Dead- Conclusion