Christian apologists Wintery Knight and Desert Rose return to the program to continue their conversation on ‘How to Love Your Neighbor Through Politics.’ On the last episode, Knight and Rose discussed socialism, abortion, and the past voting record of Kamala Harris. Today, they cover in rapid-fire-succession where the Democratic platform stands on other “important matters of the law” (Mt. 23:23) that will affect the lives of people and the wellbeing of our country.
What is the Equality Act and what will be its negative implications on Christians and religious freedom? Why won’t price controls work? Where does the Harris administration stand when it comes to law enforcement and public safety? Is being compassionate the purpose of government? What does the current data say about immigration, sex trafficking, and open borders? What policies led to a 98.2% increase in the cost of electricity in California? And more.
Stay tuned for a future episode that covers the pros and cons of the Republican platform, and be sure to check out VoteYourFaith.net for more great resources on how to make a biblically informed decision when you’re standing in the voting booth this November.
Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/sep17-2400.jpg12562400CrossExaminedhttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/logo_off.pngCrossExamined2024-09-17 17:53:242024-09-17 17:53:24Where Do Democrats Stand on Major Issues? | with Wintery Knight and Desert Rose
What’s the best way to love your neighbor? Christians have a biblical responsibility to love their neighbors by being politically engaged, which is why we’re kicking off a series of very important podcast episodes this fall with the #1 goal of educating you on where each party stands on important cultural, moral, and economical issues.
On today’s episode, Frank is joined by special two guests, Wintery Knight and Desert Rose, who have experienced firsthand the negative implications of what happens when a country loses sight of biblical values and goes totally off the rails. How can we prevent the same mistakes from happening here in America? They’ll answer questions like:
What is socialism and was Jesus a socialist?
Is a forced redistribution of wealth the answer to America’s problems?
Does the Book of Acts prescribe some sort of communism or socialism?
How different (or similar) are the parties when it comes to pushing for socialism?
What are the problems we see in other countries with socialism and universal health care?
Based on her previous track record, where does Kamala Harris stand on the abortion issue?
When you hear about some of the things that are already happening in our country, it may seem like all hope is lost. But it’s not too late to turn the tide which is why this election cycle is so critically important! As Christians, our eternal hope will always be in the saving grace of Jesus Christ, but that doesn’t mean we should sit out the 2024 presidential election just because we don’t like either candidate. Be sure to share this episode with a friend and stay tuned for a future episode with Knight and Rose, along with the rest of our political series and the livestream with Frank and Pastor Jack Hibbs on THURS. 9/12 at 9:00 PM ET – How to Love Your Neighbor Through Politics: A Bold & Biblical Approach.
Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/sep6-2400.jpg12562400CrossExaminedhttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/logo_off.pngCrossExamined2024-09-06 15:48:022024-09-06 15:48:02How to Love Your Neighbor Through Politics | with Wintery Knight & Desert Rose
En mi último trabajo, tuve dos encuentros interesantes, el primero con un hombre judío de izquierda y el segundo con una mujer cristiana feminista del evangelio de la prosperidad de la Nueva Era.
Hablemos de las dos personas.
El hombre que piensa que los cristianos conservadores son estúpidos
El primer tipo de persona que trató de avergonzarme por ser cristiano es la persona que piensa que el cristianismo es estúpido. Este tipo de personas recurre a las cosas que él escucha en la cultura pop secular de izquierda como si fuera de conocimiento común que el teísmo en general, y el cristianismo en particular, es falso. Ha visto un documental en Discovery Channel que decía que la cosmología de la oscilación eterna era cierta. O tal vez vio un documental en History Channel que decía que Jesús nunca se presentó a sí mismo como Dios al entrar en la historia. Él presenta estas cosas que lee en el New York Times, ve en la MSNBC, o escucha en la NPR con el tono de autoridad que Ben Carson podría tener cuando explica medicina moderna a un curandero.
Así es como suelen ir las cosas con él:
> Yo: aquí hay dos argumentos en contra de la evolución naturalista, el origen de la vida y la explosión Cámbrica.
> Él: pero tú no crees en una Tierra Joven, ¿verdad? Es decir, crees en la evolución, ¿no?
> Yo: hablemos de cómo las proteínas y el ADN son secuenciadas, y el origen repentino de los planos corporales Cámbricos
> Él: (gritando) ¿Crees en la evolución? ¿Crees en la evolución?
Y esto:
> Yo: no ha habido calentamiento global desde hace 18 años, y las temperaturas eran más cálidas en el Período Cálido Medieval
> Él: pero no niegas el cambio climático ¿verdad? Todos en la NPR están de acuerdo
que el cambio climático es real
> Yo: hablemos de los últimos 18 años sin calentamiento, y las temperaturas durante
el Período Cálido Medieval
> Él: (gritando) ¿Crees en el cambio climático? ¿Crees en el cambio climático?
Él hace estas preguntas para etiquetarme de loco o para que concuerde con él, sin tener que sopesar la evidencia que le estoy presentando.. Se trata de ignorar la evidencia, de modo que él pueda regresar a su ocupada, muy ocupada vida práctica, y volver a sentirse engreído por ser más inteligente que los demás. Creo que muchos hombres son así, ellos no quieren desperdiciar su valioso tiempo estudiando, solo quieren saltar a la conclusión correcta y luego volver a hacer lo que sea que quieran, como correr maratones, o llevar a sus hijos a su práctica de hockey, etc.
Así que ¿cómo respondes a un hombre que obtiene toda su cosmovisión de la cultura,
pero nunca se ocupa de la evidencia revisada por expertos y especialistas? Bueno, creo que solo derrotas sus argumentos con evidencia, luego presentas tu propia evidencia (revisada por expertos), y luego lo dejas así. Si la persona solo quiere saltar a la conclusión que todas las personas “inteligentes” sostienen, sin hacer ningún trabajo, entonces no puedes ganar. Existen ateos que creen en la oscilación eterna del universo de la que vieron hablar a Carl Sagan en su escuela primaria. Podrías tratar de argumentar por un origen del universo citando nueva evidencia como el CMB y la abundancia de elementos ligeros. Pero a veces, a ellos no les importará. Carl Sagan lo dejó muy claro hace 50 años. No importa que la nueva evidencia anule las viejas teorías, a ellos no les interesa.
¿Crees que el cristianismo hará que los no cristianos sean como tú?
Considera 2 Tim 4:1-5:
1 Te encargo solemnemente, en la presencia de Dios y de Cristo Jesús, que ha de juzgar a los vivos y a los muertos, por su manifestación y por su reino:
2 Predica la palabra; insiste a tiempo y fuera de tiempo; redarguye, reprende, exhorta
con mucha paciencia e instrucción.
3 Porque vendrá tiempo cuando no soportarán la sana doctrina, sino que teniendo comezón de oídos, acumularán para sí maestros conforme a sus propios deseos;
4 y apartarán sus oídos de la verdad, y se volverán mitos.
5 Pero tú, sé sobrio en todas las cosas, sufre penalidades, haz el trabajo de un evangelista,
cumple tu ministerio.
Y 1 Pedro 3:15-16:
15 sino santificad a Cristo como Señor en vuestros corazones, estando siempre preparados
para presentar defensa ante todo el que os demande razón de la esperanza que hay en vosotros, pero hacedlo con mansedumbre y reverencia;
16 teniendo buena conciencia, para que en aquello en que sois calumniados, sean avergonzados los que difaman vuestra buena conducta en Cristo.
Si tienes creencias teológicas ortodoxas en esta época, entonces serás
avergonzado, humillado, y vilipendiado por las personas. Y no es solo tener una visión ortodoxa de quién es Jesús lo que les molesta (por ejemplo – la deidad, la exclusividad de la salvación, moralidad, etc.). No, su desaprobación se extiende hasta en la política, especialmente el aborto y el matrimonio gay – básicamente cualquier tipo de reglas acerca de la sexualidad. Eso es lo que realmente molesta a estas personas, creo.
La mujer que piensa que el cristianismo mejora la calidad de vida
Esto es especialmente difícil cuando eres un hombre joven porque naturalmente buscamos la aprobación y respeto de las mujeres. Te encuentras sentado en la iglesia o en el grupo de jóvenes, esperando la aprobación y respeto de las mujeres cristianas por tu sólida teología y tu eficaz apologética. No sabes que muchas mujeres cristianas entienden al cristianismo como una mejora de calidad de vida, diseñado para producir sentimientos de felicidad. Dios es su mayordomo cósmico cuya principal responsabilidad es satisfacer sus necesidades y hacer que sus planes funcionen. Aunque te guste la sana teología y buenos argumentos apologéticos, ella no piensa que eso es importante.
Entonces, ¿cómo lidiar con esta necesidad insatisfecha de aprobación y respeto por parte de las mujeres en la iglesia?
En primer lugar, ten cuidado de no asistir a una iglesia en la que el pastor está predicando y escogiendo himnos que te den la idea de que Dios es tu mayordomo cósmico. En segundo lugar, lee la Biblia cuidadosamente, y entiende que respecto a los propósitos de Dios para ti en este mundo, tu felicidad es prescindible. No puedes buscar a mujeres cristianas atractivas que conozcas de casualidad en la iglesia para que te apoyen, ya que muchas de ellas hace tiempo que se han vendido a la cultura. No están interesadas en aprender apologética evidencial para defender la reputación de Dios, o defender al no nacido, o defender el matrimonio natural, o defender el sistema de libertad empresarial que apoya la autonomía de la familia frente al estado, etc. Esas cosas son difíciles e impopulares, especialmente para aquellas mujeres que fueron educadas para pensar que el cristianismo es para mejorar la calidad de vida y aprobación de sus compañeros.
Aquí está 1 Cor 4:1-5 para aclarar este punto:
1 Que todo hombre nos considere de esta manera: como servidores de Cristo y administradores de los misterios de Dios.
2 Ahora bien, además se requiere de los administradores que cada uno sea hallado fiel.
3 En cuanto a mí, es de poca importancia que yo sea juzgado por vosotros, o por cualquier tribunal humano; de hecho, ni aun yo me juzgo a mí mismo.
4 Porque no estoy consciente de nada en contra mía; mas no por eso estoy sin culpa, pues el que me juzga es el Señor.
5 Por tanto, no juzguéis antes de tiempo, sino esperad hasta que el Señor venga, el cual sacará a la luz las cosas ocultas en las tinieblas y también pondrá de manifiesto los designios de los corazones; y entonces cada uno recibirá su alabanza de parte de Dios.
Y 2 Tim 2:4:
4 Ningún soldado en servicio activo se enreda en los negocios de la vida diaria, a fin de poder agradar al que lo reclutó como soldado.
O, ya que me gusta tanto Ronald Speirs de Band of Brothers:
Esta es la situación en la que nos encontramos, así que acostúmbrate a ella. Y créeme, tengo que lidiar con esto también. Así que tengo toda la empatía del mundo por ti. Resígnate al hecho que nadie te aprobará por ser fiel al evangelio de Jesucristo; ni los hombres seculares, ni las mujeres cristianas. No hay caballería que venga a rescatarte.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Blog-ESP-1.png12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/logo_off.pngGuest2021-08-06 11:00:022024-11-11 09:08:49Dos tipos de personas que han tratado de avergonzarme para que me aleje del cristianismo
Dennis Prager features a lot of discussions about male-female relationships on his show, particularly during the male-female hour. I think this is one of the parts of his show that I really like best because he knows what he is talking about.
He did a two-part series a while back on 1) male sexuality and 2) what women should do about it within a marriage.
It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom.
First, women need to recognize how a man understands a wife’s refusal to have sex with him: A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him. This is rarely the case for women. Few women know their husband loves them because he gives her his body (the idea sounds almost funny). This is, therefore, usually a revelation to a woman. Many women think men’s natures are similar to theirs, and this is so different from a woman’s nature, that few women know this about men unless told about it.
This is a major reason many husbands clam up. A man whose wife frequently denies him sex will first be hurt, then sad, then angry, then quiet. And most men will never tell their wives why they have become quiet and distant. They are afraid to tell their wives. They are often made to feel ashamed of their male sexual nature, and they are humiliated (indeed emasculated) by feeling that they are reduced to having to beg for sex.
When first told this about men, women generally react in one or more of five ways…
He then explains the 5 ways that women respond to this.
Here’s one:
You have to be kidding. That certainly isn’t my way of knowing if he loves me. There have to be deeper ways than sex for me to show my husband that I love him.
And this is the common mistake that some feminist women make because they think that men are just hairy women with no feelings and desires of their own that are distincly theirs. In the past, all women understood how men are different than women, but today almost no younger feminist women do. In fact, many younger women today struggle with the idea that there is anything different about men that they need to learn. The only thing that they need to know is what makes women happy, and that it is everyone else’s job to make women happy so that women can then behave nicely (whatever that means). Younger feminist women today often think that they only need to be in touch with their own feelings – and that men and children simply have to get used to the idea that they have no right to make any demands on a woman – she has no moral obligations in a marriage.
Here’s another from the list:
You have it backwards. If he truly loved me, he wouldn’t expect sex when I’m not in the mood.
I think this whole problem of feminist women not understanding men, and of demeaning male feelings and values, is very serious. In my opinion, there is a whole lot of work that needs to be done by feminism-influenced women in order to fix this problem. The best place to learn about this is in Dr. Laura’s book “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands”. It’s like an application form for a serious relationship. Sex is one thing, but a serious man should insist that a woman take him seriously – and take marriage and children seriously. Pre-marital sex, having fun, getting drunk, and going out, etc. are not the right foundation for a relationship that is defined by the need for mutual self-sacrifice. There is no such thing as a “feminist” marriage – marriage is not about selfishness and playing the victim.
I actually had a conversation with a Christian woman once who said that women should not be obligated to do things that they didn’t feel like doing. I asked her if men were obligated to go to work when they didn’t feel like going. She said yes, and acted as though I were crazy for asking. I just laughed, because she didn’t even see the inconsistency. Many young feminist women today just don’t understand men, and they don’t want to understand them. They just want what they want and in the quickest way possible. Understand the needs of men and children, or how feminist-inspired laws discourage men from committing to marriage and parenting, are of no interest at all.
Here are eight reasons for a woman not to allow not being in the mood for sex to determine whether she denies her husband sex.
He then explains the eight reasons.
Here’s one of them:
Many contemporary women have an almost exclusively romantic notion of sex: It should always be mutually desired and equally satisfying or one should not engage in it. Therefore, if a couple engages in sexual relations when he wants it and she does not, the act is “dehumanizing” and “mechanical.” Now, ideally, every time a husband and wife have sex, they would equally desire it and equally enjoy it. But, given the different sexual natures of men and women, this cannot always be the case. If it is romance a woman seeks — and she has every reason to seek it — it would help her to realize how much more romantic her husband and her marriage are likely to be if he is not regularly denied sex, even of the non-romantic variety.
This makes the point that many young feminist women today do not really understand that they are, in a sense, capable of changing their husband’s conduct by the way they act themselves. I think that younger feminist women seem to think that their role in the relationship is to sort of do nothing and wait for the man to serve them. But relationships take work, and they take work from both participants.
At the end of the article, Prager makes a general point about women that I think needs to be emphasized over and over and over:
That solution is for a wife who loves her husband — if she doesn’t love him, mood is not the problem — to be guided by her mind, not her mood, in deciding whether to deny her husband sex.
I think that is an excellent question to ask a woman. What does it mean to love a man? I was forwarded one amazing response from a Calvinist woman recently in which she explained several things that she wanted to do to meet a particular man’s needs and make his life easier, and what she was prepared to do now in order to show him that she really could do handle the role. I think that she said these things out of sympathy and understanding of that man, and that was very encouraging.
But I think that kind of seriousness about taking of someone else as they really are, self-sacrificially, is rare. And it makes me wonder what people think that marriage is when they get into the church and make vows that, ostensibly, will require self-sacrifice. What do women think that marriage is? What is the goal of it? What makes a marriage successful? Why do women think that men marry? What do men get out of marriage? What are the woman’s responsibilities to the man in a marriage? I think these are questions that men should ask women. And the should not be satisfied with glib answers. Men should demand that books be read, that essays be written, that skills be developed, and that the woman’s life experiences show that she has understood what will be expected from her and why.
I think that it’s a good idea for men to try to get married, but they should be careful to make sure that the woman they choose is sensitive to their needs, just as men ought to be sensitive to the needs of women.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek:http://bit.ly/2zm2VLF
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Blog-2-cover-2.png12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/logo_off.pngGuest2021-06-28 18:30:332024-11-11 09:17:22What Does the Common Practice Of Withholding Sex Reveal About Women?
We were having a discussion about whether the Bible teaches that sex before marriage is morally wrong, and someone said “impure thoughts counts as adultery… there isn’t a virgin among us.”
Regarding her point that lust is equal to adultery, and so no one is really a virgin, here’s Ligonier Ministries:
In demonstrating that the seventh commandment was given also to prohibit lust, Jesus is not somehow saying that an unconsummated lustful intent is sinful to the same degree as an actual extramarital affair (though both sins merit punishment). The latter is a more blatant violation of the statute against adultery, and it has greater consequences in the form of divorce and the loss of one’s reputation as a trustworthy person.
Any serious student of the Bible is aware of Jesus’ tendency to exaggerate/use hyperbole.
Also, 1 Corinthians 7 says that wives are not supposed to make a habit of denying their husbands sex. Sex withholding is more of an epidemic today than pornography, and it should also be on the adultery spectrum. It isn’t as bad as adultery, but it definitely breaks the marital covenant.
So why would someone say that lust is the same as adultery and that there is no such thing as a virgin?
First, to say all sins are the same is to confuse the effect of sin with the heinousness of sin. While all sins are equal in their effect (they separate us from God), they are not all equally heinous.
Second, the Bible differentiates between sins. Some sins are more severe in terms of impact (1 Cor 6:18), in terms of culpability (Rom 1:21-32), and in terms of the judgment warranted (2 Pet 2:17; Mark 9:42; James 3:1).
Krueger explains the motivation behind the slogans:
[S]ome Christians… use this phrase as way to “flatten out” all sins so that they are not distinguishable from each other. Or, to put it another way, this phrase is used to portray all human beings as precisely the same. If all sins are equal, and all people sin, then no one is more holy than anyone else.
In a world fascinated with “equality,” this usage of the phrase is particularly attractive to folks. It allows everyone to be lumped together into a single undifferentiated mass.
Such a move is also useful as a way to prevent particular behaviors from being condemned. If all sins are equal, and everyone is a sinner, then you are not allowed to highlight any particular sin (or sinner).
Needless to say, this usage of the phrase has featured largely in the recent cultural debates over issues like homosexuality. Yes, homosexuality is a sin, some Christians reluctantly concede. But, they argue, all sins are equal in God’s sight and therefore it is no different than anything else. Therefore, Christians ought to stop talking about homosexuality unless they are also willing to talk about impatience, anger, gluttony, and so on.
Krueger also posted this fascinating follow-up post, where he looks at how the phrase is being used by people on Twitter.
Look at these tweets:
All sins are equal. People tend to forget that. There is no bigger or smaller sin. Being gay and lying, very equal.
all sins are equal in God’s eyes. whatever you’re doing, is no better than what someone else is doing.
If you have sex before marriage please don’t come on social media preaching about the wrongs of homosexuality. All sins are equal
Need people to realize that all sins are equal… don’t try to look down on me or question my faith just cuz you sin differently than I do.
Don’t understand why you’re so quick to judge me, when all sins are equal. So much for family..
if you think being gay is a sin, let me ask you something, have you not done anything wrong in your life? all sins are equal. we’re sinners
Nope no difference at all. All sins are equal no matter what you’re running for. The bible says do not judge lest ye be judged
A huge problem I have with religion is the notion that all sins are equal. Like pre-marital sex and murder are the same amount t of bad.
people do bad things because they believe that all sins are equal and ~god~ loves y’all equally so he’s going to forgive you naman ha ha ha
It a sin to condemn another sinner and their actions. All sins are equal. So what makes you better than the person you’re condemning?
I think so b/c having sex before marriage doesn’t make you less of a women then if you waited until marriage.. all sins are equal soo
a friendly reminder, all sins are equal in god’s eyes so you’re not better than I am in any way. please worry about your own sins before mine.
People don’t like when I suggest abortion as an option. This is a free country and all sins are equal so mind your business!!!
What I do is no worse than what you do… all sins are equal no matter what it is… a sin is a sin
to god all sins are equal so you have no right to compare your sins to someone else’s bc in the end it doesn’t matter
The first thing that I noticed is that premarital sex and homosexuality are the most popular sins. I would think that divorce and abortion would be up there in the rankings, as well.
People want to be free to follow their hearts when seeking pleasure, then quote the Bible (badly) afterward, to attack anyone who says that anything they’ve done is morally wrong. They would rather escape the judgment of their peers than admit fault and try to fix the mistake and do better next time. And they would rather tell people who are hurting themselves by breaking the rules that there are no rules. It makes them feel good to “not judge” – they feel as if they are being kind. Their compassion looks good to non-Christians. And they’re promoting moral relativism which, when it becomes widespread, prevents anyone from judging them.
It’s so bad now, that the people who have morals and who make moral judgments are seen as the real bad people. The immoral people are on the offense, and even trying to ban people from being able to disagree with them.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (DVD/ Mp3/ Mp4)
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Blog-3-cover.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/logo_off.pngGuest2021-06-09 12:00:462024-11-11 09:24:35Why Do Some Christians Say “All Sins Are Equally Bad” And “Everyone Is Equally Guilty”?
I think it’s important for American Christians to learn lessons about what happens to religious liberty by looking at what happens to Christians in other times and places when Democrats (secular leftists) take power. This time, let’s look at a story from the UK, which has been on a 30-year-run into far-left socialism. They’ve embraced atheism, feminism, and socialism. Here’s the result.
A Christian pastor who was arrested after he preached from the Bible said yesterday he had been treated ‘shamefully’.
John Sherwood, 71, was led away in handcuffs, questioned in a police station and held overnight after being accused of making homophobic comments outside Uxbridge Station in west London.
The grandfather claimed he was left bruised after police pulled him from a mini-stepladder he was using and cuffed his hands behind his back.
Police said they had received complaints the man had been making ‘allegedly homophobic comments’ and arrested him under the Public Order Act, which can be used under the vague proviso that someone is using ‘abusive or insulting words’ that cause ‘harm’ to someone else.
[…]Mr Sherwood, a pastor for 35 years, said: ‘I wasn’t making any homophobic comments, I was just defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. I was only saying what the Bible says – I wasn’t wanting to hurt anyone or cause offence.
‘I was doing what my job description says, which is to preach the gospel in open air as well as in a church building.
‘When the police approached me, I explained that I was exercising my religious liberty and my conscience. I was forcibly pulled down from the steps and suffered some injury to my wrist and to my elbow. I do believe I was treated shamefully. It should never have happened.’
Mr Sherwood, who preaches at an independent evangelical church in north London, was arrested under the Public Order Act for allegedly causing alarm or distress.
Before we go too far, let’s just settle the question of what Bible-believing Christians should believe about the definition of marriage.
1 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.
2 And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”
4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
To be a Christian, minimally, is to be a follower of Jesus Christ. That means that we accept what Jesus teaches, on whatever he teaches about. We don’t overturn the teachings of Jesus in order to make people who are rebelling against God feel better about their rebellion. It is central to the Christian worldview that Christians care more about what God thinks of them than what non-Christians think of them. In fact, Christians are supposed to be willing to endure suffering rather than side with non-Christians against God’s authority.
As Christians, our goal is not to avoid being like the big bad “other Christians,” but to strive to be like Christ Himself. This is one of the advantages to having an Incarnate God. He went around acting and speaking and teaching and generally functioning in our realm, thereby giving us a model to follow. This is the model of a loving and merciful man, and also a man of perfect virtue who fought against the forces of evil, condemned sin, defended his Father in Heaven with sometimes violent force, spoke truth, and eventually laid down His life for those He loved (which would be all of us).
[…]This is what it means to believe in Christ. Not just to believe that He existed, but to believe that Christ is Truth itself, and that everything He said and did was totally and absolutely and irreversibly true forever and always. Many Christians today — not only the ones in the video, but millions alongside them — seem to think we can rightly claim to have “faith” in Jesus or a “relationship” with Him while still categorically denying much of His Word. This is a ridiculous proposition. We can’t declare, in one breath, that Christ is Lord, and in the next suggest that maybe God got it wrong on this or that point. Well, we can make that declaration, but we expose our belief as fraudulent and self-serving. We worship a God we either invented in our heads, which is a false idol, or a God who is fallible, which is a false idol.
If you really accept Jesus as God, then you can’t think he is wrong when he explains what marriage is. Period. End of issue. And yet today, so many church-attending Christians are anxious to change the definition of marriage so that non-Christians will like them.
Why are some church-attending Christians so progressive?
So, I have quite a few evangelical Christian acquaintances who think they are Christians because they got married, had kids, and attend church. You know. They’re “Christians” culturally. But instead of thinking about what policies are supported by the Bible, all their policy-deciding is done for them by NPR, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, etc. That’s because they want to appear “smart” to non-Christians. And having to read books on your own by people like Thomas Sowell (economics), Heather Mac Donald (crime), Douglas Murray (immigration), John Lott (self-defense), Christopher Kaczor (abortion), Ryan T. Anderson (marriage), etc. is just TOO MUCH WORK. Reading is hard. It makes churchy Christians feel bad. Much better to watch Star Wars / Ellen and read fantasy/romance novels and buy video games/handbags.
The point of having political views, they say, is to look smart and good to others. Not to promote policies that are consistent with the Bible, or that allow Christians to act consistently with the Bible. So you get church-attending Christians voting against the small government, free speech, religious liberty, the rule of law, private property, school choice, etc. because forming beliefs by consuming secular left radio and TV is easier than reading.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Blog-2-cover.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/logo_off.pngGuest2021-05-17 18:30:342024-11-11 09:31:00UK Police Arrest 71-Year-Old Pastor For Defining Marriage The Way Jesus Defined Marriage
In my last job, I had two interesting encounters, first with a secular Jewish leftist man and second with a New Age prosperity gospel feminist Christian woman.
So let’s talk about the two people.
The man who thinks that conservative Christians are stupid
The first kind of person who tried to shame me for being a Christian is the person who thinks that Christianity is stupid. This kind of person invokes things that he hears in secular leftist pop culture as if it is common knowledge that theism generally, and Christianity in particular, is false. He’s watched a documentary on the Discovery channel which said that the eternally oscillating cosmology was true. Or maybe he watched a documentary on the History Channel that said that Jesus never presented himself as God stepping into history. He presents these things that he reads in the New York Times, or sees on MSNBC, or hears on NPR with the authority tone that Ben Carson might take when explaining modern medicine to a witch doctor.
Here is how things usually go with him:
Me: here are two arguments against naturalistic evolution, the origin of life and the Cambrian explosion.
Him: but you don’t believe in a young-Earth do you? I mean, you believe in evolution, don’t you?
Me: let’s talk about how proteins and DNA is sequenced, and the sudden origin of Cambrian body plans
Him: (shouting) Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe in evolution?
And this:
Me: there hasn’t been any global warming for 18 years, and temperatures were warmer in the Medieval Warming Period
Him: but you don’t deny climate change, do you? everyone on NPR agrees that climate change is real
Me: let’s talk about the last 18 years of no warming, and the temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period
Him: (shouting) Do you believe in climate change? Do you believe in climate change?
He asks these questions so he can either label me as a nut, without having to weigh the evidence I’m presenting, or have me agree with him, without having to weigh the evidence I’m presenting. It’s all about ignoring the evidence, so he can get back to his busy, busy practical life – and get back to feeling smug about being smarter than others. I think a lot of men are like this – they don’t want to waste their valuable time studying, they just want to jump to the right conclusion, then get back to doing whatever they want – like running marathons, or driving their kids to hockey practice, etc.
So how do you respond to a man who gets his entire worldview from the culture, but never deals with peer-reviewed evidence? Well, I think you just defeat his arguments with evidence and then present your own (peer-reviewed) evidence, and then leave it at that. If the person just wants to jump to the conclusion that all the “smart” people hold to, without doing any of the work, then you can’t win. There are atheists out there who believe in the eternal oscillating universe they saw Carl Sagan talking about in their elementary school. You might try to argue for an origin of the universe by citing new evidence like the CMB and light element abundances. But sometimes, they won’t care. Carl Sagan said it 50 years ago, and that settles it. It doesn’t matter that the new evidence overturns the old theories, they don’t care.
Do you think that Christianity will make non-Christians like you?
1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:
2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.
3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,
4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
5 As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,
16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
If you have orthodox theological beliefs in this day and age then you are going to be shamed, humiliated, and reviled by people. And it’s not just having an orthodox view of who Jesus is that annoys them (e.g. – deity, the exclusivity of salvation, morality, etc.). No, their disapproval spreads on into politics, especially abortion, and gay marriage – basically any kind of rules around sexuality. That’s what’s really bugging these people, I think.
The woman who thinks Christianity is life-enhancement
This one is especially difficult when you are a young man because we naturally look to women for approval and respect. You find yourself sitting in church or youth group, hoping for the approval and respect from the Christian women for your sound theology and effective apologetics. Little do you know that many Christian women understand Christianity as life-enhancement, designed to produce happy feelings. God is their cosmic butler whose main responsibility is to meet their needs and make their plans work out. Although you might be keen on sound theology and good apologetics arguments, she doesn’t think that’s important.
So how to deal with this unmet need for approval and respect from women in the church?
First thing, be careful that you don’t attend a church where the pastor is preaching and picking hymns that give you the idea that God is your cosmic butler. Second, read the Bible very carefully, and understand that with respect to God’s purposes for you in this world, your happiness is expendable. You cannot be looking to attractive Christian women that you happen to meet in church to support you, as many of them have long-since sold out to the culture. They are not interested in learning evidential apologetics to defend God’s reputation, or in defending the unborn, or in defending natural marriage, or in defending the free enterprise system that supports family autonomy from the state, etc. Those things are hard and unpopular, especially for those women who were raised to think that Christianity is about life enhancement and peer-approval.
1 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful.
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself.
4 For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.
5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.
4 No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him.
Or, since I like Ronald Speirs from Band of Brothers so much:
This is the situation in which we find ourselves, so get used to it. And believe me, I have to deal with this, too. So I have all the sympathy in the world for you. Resign yourself to the fact that no one is going to approve of you for being faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ; not secular men, not Christian women. There is no cavalry coming to rescue you.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl(Book)
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Blog-3-cover-2.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/logo_off.pngGuest2021-03-24 12:00:502024-11-11 09:54:16Two Kinds Of People Who Have Tried To Shame Me Away From Christianity
So, everyone from left to right accepts the early creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 being dated to 1-3 years after the death of Jesus, even atheists like Crossley, Ludemann, and Crossan. The thing is, some people are not sure that the appearances of Jesus to individuals, groups, and skeptics really were physical appearances. They say, “well, Paul’s appearance was non-physical, so the other ones must have been, too.”
Let’s take a look.
Here’s a paragraph from my friend Eric Chabot, from his blog Think Apologetics. He explains why Paul’s use of the word “resurrection” to describe what the other witnesses saw means bodily resurrection.
He writes:
If Paul did have a vision, then the term “vision” is vague and must be defined. As Licona points out, visions are either objective (i.e., something that is seen without the use of our natural senses) or subjective (i.e., a product of our minds). The real problem is with the vision hypothesis is that it doesn’t explain Paul’s use of resurrection to explain what had happened to Jesus. The two words are used for resurrection in the New Testament “anastasis” (rising up) and “egersis” (waking up), both imply a physical body. Furthermore, the use of the word “opethe” (the Greek word for appeared) shows the Gospel writers did believe that Jesus appeared physically. “There you will see (opethe) him” (Matt. 28:7); “The Lord has risen and has appeared (opethe) to Simon” (Luke 24:24). When they used “opethe” here, it means that He appeared physically to them.
So when Paul gives his list of appearances in 1 Cor. 15, the issues become whether the appearance to him is the same as it was to the disciples. There is no doubt the post-resurrection body of Jesus (after the ascension) had to be somewhat different than the body the disciples saw. Also, whenever the New Testament mentions the word body, in the context of referring to an individual human being, the Greek word “soma” always refers to a literal, physical body. Greek specialist Robert Gundry says “the consistent and exclusive use of soma for the physical body in anthropological contexts resists dematerialization of the resurrection, whether by idealism or by existentialism.” [9] Furthermore, in N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God shows that the Greek word for the resurrection which is “anastasis” was used by ancient Jews, pagans, and Christians as bodily in nature.
Now, I think my view on this, and I’m not sure if Eric would correct me, is that Paul got an objective but the non-physical vision of Jesus. There was something there that everyone else could see and hear, in my view. But in my view, Paul’s “veridical” vision was post-ascension and so non-physical. Paul uses the word resurrection to describe what the other eyewitnesses saw (and he met them at least twice, according to Gal 1 and Gal 2), and that means physical resurrected body.
Now, I said before in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul could have chosen to only use the word pneuma. He doesn’t. He does say “spiritual,” but he’s got an adjective there. He also says, soma, “body.” What did Paul mean?
Philippians Chapter 3. It’s a short chapter. There are 21 verses, but Paul says three things in one chapter that indicate he’s talking about a physical resurrection. In the opening verses he says, “I was a Hebrew of the Hebrews” and “as touching the law,” he says, “I was a Pharisee.” Now, it’s very well known that the Pharisee believed in a bodily resurrection. In fact, according to Acts 23, as Paul was being taken captive by the Romans to prevent his being killed, he shouted out to the group of people and said, “Why are you taking me? Because I believe in the resurrection of the dead?” He meant a literal resurrection.
When the Pharisees heard that, they said there’s nothing wrong with this guy. But the Sadducees [who didn’t believe in the Resurrection] didn’t like it. So as a Pharisee, he’s agreeing with the Pharisees.
So, the first evidence is from Philippians 3. As a Pharisee, Paul believes in a physical resurrection.
Secondly, in verse 11 he says, “That I may attain the resurrection of the dead.” Now, the normal Greek word for resurrection is anastasis, but in this passage, Philippians 3:11, he puts a prefix on there, ek anastasis. Ekanastasis, according to all Greek scholars that I know of, is translated in this passage: “The out resurrection from among the dead.” Paul said, “I want to attain the out resurrection.”
Now, to a Jew, “out resurrection” means “what goes down is what comes up.” You come out from death. And then just a few verses later, Philippians 3:20,21, he said, “From Heaven, we look for Jesus who will change our vile soma (body) to be like unto His glorious soma (or body),” when he should have said pneuma, according to this other view.
So he’s a Pharisee who believes in a physical resurrection. Ek anastasis—“resurrection from out among the dead ones.”
Thirdly, Paul says, “He Jesus will change my body to be like His body.”
So right there in Philippians 3 alone, I think the picture of Jesus being some wispy spirit that appeared to him on the road to Damascus doesn’t fit Paul’s own data.
Yes, that’s why Philippians is my favorite book. You can get so much useful theology out of it. Something about the resurrection in Phil 3, something about Jesus’ divinity in Phil 2, and loads of practical advice on stewardship, charity, fellowship, endurance and practical love for others throughout. Some of it takes a little digging, but that’s what commentaries are for, am I right? But I digress.
If you want to read something a little more challenging, I found a paper from the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) from their journal, where it talks more about soma and anastasis. If you want a bit of a challenge, download the PDF and read it. It’s by Kirk R. MacGregor, and the title is “1 Corinthians 15:3B–6A, 7 And The Bodily Resurrection Of Jesus.”
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)
The Footsteps of the Apostle Paul (mp4 Download), (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek
Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Blog-3-cover-2-1030x539-1.jpg5391030Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/logo_off.pngGuest2021-01-27 17:29:252024-11-11 10:21:00BIBLE STUDY: WAS THE RESURRECTION BODY OF JESUS SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL?
So let me pick the ones I liked most for this post.
Here’s a good one:
Jerusalem and The Pool of Bethesda
John 5:1-15 describes a pool in Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate, called Bethesda, surrounded by five covered colonnades. Until the 19th century, there was no evidence outside of John for the existence of this pool, and John’s unusual description “caused bible scholars to doubt the reliability of John’s account, but the pool was duly uncovered in the 1930s – with four colonnades around its edges and one across its middle.”[38] Ian Wilson reports: “Exhaustive excavations by Israeli archaeologist Professor Joachim Jeremias have brought to light precisely such a building, still including two huge, deep-cut cisterns, in the environs of Jerusalem’s Crusader Church of St Anne.”[39]
And this one:
Jerusalem and The Pool of Siloam
In the 400s AD, a church was built above a pool attached to Hezekiah’s water tunnel to commemorate the healing of a blind man reported in John 9:1-7. Until recently, this was considered to be the Pool of Siloam from the time of Christ. However, during sewerage works in June 2004 engineers stumbled upon a 1stcentury ritual pool when they uncovered some ancient steps during pipe maintenance near the mouth of Hezekiah’s tunnel. By the summer of 2005, archaeologists had revealed what was “without doubt the missing pool of Siloam.”[40] Mark D. Roberts reports that: “In the plaster of this pool were found coins that establish the date of the pool to the years before and after Jesus. There is little question that this is in fact the pool of Siloam, to which Jesus sent the blind man in John 9.”[41]
I just read this one because I am working my way through John. In case you haven’t read John, you really should it’s my favorite gospel.
Here’s another one:
Herod the Great
We have a bronze coin minted by Herod the Great. On the obverse side (i.e. the bottom) is a tripod and ceremonial bowl with the inscription ‘Herod king’ and the year the coin was struck, ‘year 3’ (of Herod’s reign), or 37 BC.
In 1996 Israeli Professor of Archaeology Ehud Netzer discovered in Masada a piece of broken pottery with an inscription, called an ostracon. This piece had Herod’s name on it and was part of an amphora used for transportation (probably wine), dated to c. 19 BC. The inscription is in Latin and reads, “Herod the Great King of the Jews (or Judea)”, the first such that mentions the full title of King Herod.
Herodium is a man-made mountain in the Judean wilderness rising over 2,475 feet above sea level. In 23 BC Herod the Great built a palace-fortress here on top of a natural hill. Seven stories of living rooms, storage areas, cisterns, a bathhouse, and a courtyard filled with bushes and flowering plants were constructed. The whole complex was surrounded and partly buried by a sloping fill of earth and gravel. Herod’s tomb and sarcophagus were discovered at the base of Herodium by archaeologist Ehud Netzer in 2007.
And one more:
The ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus’ Ossuary
James, the brother of Jesus, was martyred in AD 62. A mid-1st century AD chalk ossuary discovered in 2002 bears the inscription “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” ( ‘Ya’akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua’). Historian Paul L. Maier states that“there is strong (though not absolutely conclusive) evidence that, yes, the ossuary and its inscription are not only authentic but that the inscribed names are the New Testament personalities.“[68] New Testament scholar Ben Witherington states that: “If, as seems probable, the ossuary found in the vicinity of Jerusalem and dated to about AD 63 is indeed the burial box of James, the brother of Jesus, this inscription is the most important extra-biblical evidence of its kind.”[69] According to Hershel Shanks, editor in chief of the Biblical Archaeological Review: “This box is [more] likely the ossuary of James, the brother of Jesus of Nazareth, than not. In my opinion … it is likely that this inscription does mention James and Joseph and Jesus of the New Testament.”
And finally one short one:
Tiberius Caesar
The Denarius coin, 14-37 AD, is commonly referred to as the ‘Tribute Penny’ from the Bible. The coin shows a portrait of Tiberius Caesar. Craig L. Blomberg comments: “Jesus’ famous saying about giving to Caesar what was his and to God what his (Mark 12:17 and parallels) makes even more sense when one discovers that most of the Roman coins in use at the time had images of Caesar on them.”[48]
This is a good article to bookmark in case you are ever looking for a quick, searchable reference on archaeology and the Bible. There are many more examples in that post.
Now some people might be wondering why archaeology doesn’t confirm every detail in the New Testament. And here’s what J. Warner Wallace has to say about that:
But what are we to say to those who argue the Biblical archeological record is incomplete? The answer is best delivered by another expert witness in the field, Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, historian, and Professor Emeritus at Miami University. Yamauchi wrote a book entitled, The Stones and the Scripture, where he rightly noted that archaeological evidence is a matter of “fractions”:
Only a fraction of the world’s archaeological evidence still survives in the ground.
Only a fraction of the possible archaeological sites have been discovered.
Only a fraction have been excavated, and those only partially.
Only a fraction of those partial excavations have been thoroughly examined and published.
Only a fraction of what has been examined and published has anything to do with the claims of the Bible!
See the problem? In spite of these limits, we still have a robust collection of archaeological evidences confirming the narratives of the New Testament (both in the gospel accounts and in the Book of Acts). We shouldn’t hesitate to use what we do know archaeologically in combination with other lines of evidence. Archaeology may not be able to tell us everything, but it can help us fill in the circumstantial case as we corroborate the gospel record.
I think you can form an opinion about the whole New Testament based on the record of confirmations. The verdict is in: the New Testament should be presumed trustworthy.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace (Book)
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (MP3) and (DVD)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)
The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Blog-1-cover-3-1030x539-1.jpg5391030Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/logo_off.pngGuest2020-10-31 18:30:002024-11-11 11:07:25Does Archaeological Evidence Confirm Names, Dates, And Places In The Bible?
Little Zhuangzhuang, a newborn elephant at a wildlife refuge in China, was inconsolable after his mother rejected him and then tried to stomp him to death.
Tears streamed down his gray trunk for five hours as zookeepers struggled to comfort the baby elephant.
They initially thought it was an accident when the mom stepped on him after giving birth, according to the Central European News agency.
Employees removed him, cleaned him up and treated his injuries, then reunited the baby with his momma.
But she was having none of it, and began stomping him again.
So the game keepers stepped in once more and permanently separated the two.
“We don’t know why the mother turned on her calf but we couldn’t take a chance,” an employee told CEN.
“The calf was very upset and he was crying for five hours before he could be consoled,” he said.
“He couldn’t bear to be parted from his mother and it was his mother who was trying to kill him.”
The petite pachyderm, born in August, is now doing well. The zookeeper who rescued him from his violent mother adopted him and helped him thrive at the Shendiaoshan wild animal reserve in Rong-cheng, China.
I found another photo of the baby elephant here:
A baby elephant’s birthday is supposed to be happy
So, in this post, I wanted to take about the duty that parents have to their children.
I guess a lot of my views on ethics are rooted in the obvious needs that children have. When I look at an unborn baby, I can tell what it needs. So, I am careful not to cause a pregnancy before I can supply its needs. The needs of the little unborn creature are driving these moral boundaries on me. And the same with born children. I oppose gay marriage because when I look at little children, I want them to have a stable environment to grow up in with a mother and father who are biologically related to them (in the best case). I permit lots of arrangements, but I promote one arrangement over the others because that’s what’s best for children. Anyone can look at unborn and born children and see that just like anyone can look at a crying baby elephant and understand – “I have to govern my behavior so that I don’t hurt you”. If that means cutting off the premarital sex and making decisions that are likely to produce a stable marriage, then that’s what we should do.
Children cry too, you know. They cry when we hurt them. They cry when we make bad decisions and when we don’t provide them with what they need. Children need mothers and fathers who care about them. Making a safe environment for a child isn’t an accident. It isn’t random and unpredictable. We have to control our desires before we have children so that we provide children with what they need. It would be nice if men and women were more thoughtful and unselfish about children and marriage before they started in with sex.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Blog-3-cover-2-1030x539-1.jpg5391030Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/logo_off.pngGuest2020-10-07 12:00:002024-11-11 11:14:56Baby Elephant In China Cries For 5 Hours After Being Stomped By His Mom
