What is "this rock" that Jesus will build His Church on?
One of the main Mormon claims to divine authority is in interpreting Matthew 16:13-18 to refer to their concept of "continuing revelation." By basing the organization of the LDS church on "continuing revelation," as "the rock" on which Jesus builds His church, the LDS church claims legitimacy for its founder Joseph Smith and the entire line of its prophets "continuing" through today. It is widely known that Mormon leaders routinely misread, mangle, and misapply the Bible in order to fabricate legitimacy for Mormonism, so how has this been done to Matt. 16:13-18?
"13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."
According to Mormon teaching, "the rock", or foundation, of Jesus' Church is the act of God revealing new information or new revelation to Peter. It infers, therefore, that it is the act of new revelation or continuing revelation that is to be the basis on which Jesus builds His Church. The Mormon Church, as Joseph Smith claimed, is that church that receives God's continuing revelation through the Mormon prophets.
Even if true, this is a curious position for the LDS church to adopt. The concept of "continuing revelation" is believed on the basis of necessary change. The idea that God can give "new" revelation has weak limitations in Mormonism, forcing most Mormons to contradict either themselves or the doctrine itself whenever called on to explain it. On the one hand, the LDS church's main proposition is that it is a 'restoration' of the lost faith in God, yet on the other hand, it accepts that beliefs can and do change based on the next revelation from God. If the former is true, then "continuing revelation" is a danger to the very nature of Mormonism, for it would suppose that the restoration is complete and there would be no need for "continuing revelations." If the latter is true, then Mormonism should not need any validation from the Bible; it does not need to 'restore' anything but only live out what is "new," which is a door flung open to any and all possibilities, even ones that contradict former revelations and all in the name of necessity (God does, because God must). This has forced Mormons to place weak limitations on just how far a theoretical new revelation can lead them, but of course, there is no such limitation within Mormon doctrines or the Four Standard Works themselves. The late Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson himself headed off this question of consistency by discouraging Mormons from comparing the words of previous prophets to any current one. “Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets," he said. Indeed, Mormon Prophet Harold B. Lee said, "Sometimes we get the notion that if it is written in a book, it makes it more true than if it is spoken in the last General Conference. Just because it is written in a book does not make it more of an authority to guide us. President Taylor goes on with this same idea and explains why the scriptures of the past are not sufficient for us today." [emphasis mine]
But I digress. Back to the topic, which is the Bible passage from which the LDS church draws its legitimacy and divine authority, unnecessary as that is by its own standards. Does it exegete the passage correctly?
The "rock" which Jesus calls Peter is masculine (petros), but the "rock" that Jesus says He will build His church on is feminine (petra). Looking at the syntax, "revealed" is a verb and cannot be 'petra', so neither can be the concept of "continuing revelation" which is further removed from the context of the passage. The one question that is almost never asked of this passage is "What is the subject matter?" 'Petra' can only point to the next closest idea, the subject, which in this case is Peter's confession that "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus' Church, therefore, is built on the divine identity of Jesus Christ, which leads necessarily to the believer's confession of His divinity. What Jesus is + our confession of Him = the foundation of the Church, which will continue to build and defeat evil to the point that not even the gates of Hell will be able to hold the Church back.
If the identity and confession of Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God is the foundation of His Church, then no religious body, sect, or denomination can claim to be the "One True Church" anywhere on earth. Jesus did not build and is not building His Church on the outer trappings of religious practices or principles, of names or lineages. The Church is built on Himself and is made of the people (the 'petros'-es) who believe on Him. As it is, all institutions with bylaws, constitutions, hierarchies, and religious rituals are NOT the Church, even as those who are in them ARE the Church. Those who believe and follow Jesus are not simply 'in the Church,' they are the Church as temples of the Holy Spirit.
The confession of Peter can only be made in earnest at God the Father's revelation into the heart of the individual, as Jesus said. For Mormons, this confession is not the foundation to faith and church, as the Mormon prophets have so clearly declared. I should hope that every Mormon who places that high value in sincerety looks at Peter's confession and the confession of all Christians throughout the history of the Church wonders why the Mormon prophets substitute themselves over "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" for the foundation of Jesus' Church.
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
9-11, Jihad, and The Christian
Both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have declared that America is not at war with Islam. I agree to the extent that America did not seek a war with a religion; the wars that the U.S. is engaged in are considered wars to dismantle terrorist control over countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. However, those Muslims the American military is fighting have declared war against the U.S. and also against the religion that broadly characterizes this country, Christianity. Islam is openly hostile toward the fundamental doctrine of the Christian God, namely that Jesus Christ is God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity. The Qu’ran states that Christians (and Jews and Pagans) are targets of war and subjugation until only Islam is observed*. Islam makes violent jihad an option for Muslims, either to destroy or convert their enemies to Islam under duress.
9-11 reminds us that as believers, apologetics matters. The tyranny of a religion that teaches a false god and a false worldview, which is enforced by directives to violence begs for Christians to combat its inhumanity in both word and deed. Christians must take a special interest in the teachings of Islam and how they readily promote bloodshed and hostility instead of God’s grace and freedom. Of course, most of the world’s Muslims do not live out those Qu’ranic directives to wage violent jihad, but it is not Muslims with whom we should dispute. It is the existence of the teachings that violent jihad is permissible and virtuous in Islam that I find so contrary to the Bible’s witness to objective moral values.
The solution to Islamic jihad against Christianity is for Christians to wage a holy war of our own, one that is also proscribed by the words of Jesus Christ. In opposition to the jihad we see today, Christ told His worshippers to spread the Gospel, the “Good News,” as messengers of the cross and the Resurrection. “Go, therefore” in Matthew 28 is more properly viewed “As you go, therefore,” signifying that the Gospel is spread not only through words but a life lived reflecting the goodness of God. Christ said to “…love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:43-45). As Christians, our greatest apologetic for the truth of the Gospel is showing the intrinsic value in which Christ has placed on every human being, and that part of being human is respecting the role God has to play in another’s decisions, either to believe or to deny Jesus Christ. Holy war for us is fought on our knees in prayer and by proclaiming without shame the objective truth of God’s victory over sin and death in Jesus.
It is possible that God has ordained for every generation a stark reminder of the presence of evil in this world swimming in sin. The “day that will live in infamy,” for the WWII generation was December 7, 1941. For us today, that day is September 11, 2001. May the remembrance of the infamy of 9-11 drive us to “Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand” (Ephesians 6:11-13).
*Source: Qu’ran, Suras 8:39, 8:60, 9:5, 9:29, 9:73, 9:123, 48:29, 66:9
Monday, August 29, 2011
The Future of Debating for William Lane Craig
Like a rock band touring the UK, Dr. William Lane Craig is trying to fill his calendar with concerts of head-pounding apologetics to audiences in London, Birmingham, Oxford, Cambridge, and Manchester. According to the official Reasonable Faith press release, the trouble is, he is having difficulty finding fresh new atheists to challenge his belief in theism and Christianity. Given Richard Dawkins' and A.C. Grayling's continual refusal to debate, the president of the British Humanist Society, Polly Toynbee, at first volunteered to meet Craig in a head-to-head, but then withdrew herself from the debate, citing something about a debate with Craig not being her cup of tea*. Craig is still debating two other atheists, however, Drs. Peter Atkins and Peter McMillan.
However, lest some of my colleauges gasp "may it never be!" this is not necessarily a bad thing (nor a fargone conclusion). If I were to guess at what may lie beyond posters of "Craig vs. ___," the future might be quite positive for Christian apologetics.
First, I would love to see Dr. Craig invest his time and experience to train and coach future Christian debaters--lots of them--to carry on the tradition and keep issues surrounding theism in the forefront. Atheists presently hiding from him may be willing to engage other Christians who don't have Dr. Craig's name recognition. The icing on the cake would be the opportunity forme his students to see and learn the wealth of debate materials he typically keeps on the table in those tantalizing manila folders.
With 25 years of experience, he has pretty much debated every atheist in academia that cares to make an issue out of theism and Christianity. The last two recent debates this year put to shame two of atheism's top celebrities, Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris, each giving Craig a win by disengaging from the debates' topic and failing to rebut during the time for rebuttals. I doubt either would like to try again. Atkins will be debating for the second time, just as several others have in the past. It is looking more and more like Dr. Craig is recycling opponents. At this point in William Lane Craig's debating career, I'm starting to wonder if he is at the top of the mountain, where it is a lonely place indeed. With more atheists refusing to engage, and fewer willing to speak his name out of spite, perhaps Craig's career in debates is over.
However, lest some of my colleauges gasp "may it never be!" this is not necessarily a bad thing (nor a fargone conclusion). If I were to guess at what may lie beyond posters of "Craig vs. ___," the future might be quite positive for Christian apologetics.
First, I would love to see Dr. Craig invest his time and experience to train and coach future Christian debaters--lots of them--to carry on the tradition and keep issues surrounding theism in the forefront. Atheists presently hiding from him may be willing to engage other Christians who don't have Dr. Craig's name recognition. The icing on the cake would be the opportunity for
Also, Dr. Craig may become an even bigger phenomenon. Up until now, his name recognition was by and large limited to the circles of philosophy and Christian apologetics. Last week, a major news source, Fox News, picked up on the issue of Dawkins' (and now Toynbee's), refusal to debate. The avenue of being a more public figure is possibly opening up for him, and media attention could drive more public speaking engagements, sans debating (although attention could bring a few more debates to fruition). In light of The Four Horsemen's strategy of appealing to popular audiences with their message, I say that a balance of viewpoints needs to be achieved. What if all these years of experience could be put into a weekly or monthly column in a more popular outlet offering his arguments for theism and Christianity? What could that kind of exposure do for Reasonable Faith? One has to admit there is potential here.
It is my confident prayer that, unlike a real rock band where one must have (ideally) a natural talent for music, the fun doesn't end when the tour ends. May Dr. Craig's efforts, even if he turns this page in his career, fuel the continued proliferation of apologetics and apologists through education and training. Debates will not cease, that's for sure, but even if atheism lacks for guts, let us not find ourselves similarly, ahem, understaffed for the challenge.
*UPDATE: Atheist Dr. Stephen Law of the University of London (Heythrop College) has accepted the opportunity to debate Dr. Craig.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
"Imagine..."
An article titled “Jesus, Reagan, and John Lennon” came out on FoxNews.com recently that was as stunning as it was hopeful (if you’re a Christian apologist). According to the article’s author, John Lennon’s life near the end was one keenly interested in Christianity. In the book, The Gospel According to the Beatles, rock biographer Steve Turner claims that in his later years, Lennon at one point professed to be a born-again Christian. The point of the Fox News article, however, was to highlight that Lennon’s wife, Yoko Ono, might just have kept all this a secret after his death.
Although this article was news to me, the information gathered for it came from an excerpt from Turner’s book, which was published in Christianitytoday.com in 2007. According to Turner, John Lennon’s interest in Christianity was both significant…and brief.
The Gospel cannot be fully expressed without acknowledgment of Jesus’ divinity. It behooves us to know and be ready to affirm Jesus’ identity as Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer of the universe, not just for devotional significance, but as an objective truth we publicly proclaim and defend. Sometimes the window to faith in others opens for us to recognize a divine appointment for the Gospel. Can a little apologetics make a difference? I believe it can.
(Look for this article on the International Society of Women in Apologetics website, August newsletter.)
Although this article was news to me, the information gathered for it came from an excerpt from Turner’s book, which was published in Christianitytoday.com in 2007. According to Turner, John Lennon’s interest in Christianity was both significant…and brief.
“Over the following months he baffled those close to him by constantly praising "the Lord," writing Christian songs with titles like "Talking with Jesus" and "Amen" (the Lord's Prayer set to music), and trying to convert nonbelievers. He also called the prayer line of The 700 Club, Pat Robertson's program. The change in his life perturbed Yoko, who tried to talk him out of it. She reminded him of what he'd said about his vulnerability to strong religious leaders because of his emotionally deprived background. She knew that if the press found out about it they would have a field day with another John and Jesus story. John became antagonistic toward her, blaming her for practicing the dark arts and telling her that she couldn't see the truth because her eyes had been blinded by Satan.”Lennon’s story takes a turn, however.
"Those close to the couple sensed that the real reason she was concerned was that it threatened her control over John's life. If he became a follower of Jesus he would no longer depend on her and the occultists. During long, passionate arguments she attacked the key points of his fledgling faith. They met with a couple of Norwegian missionaries whom Yoko questioned fiercely about the divinity of Christ, knowing that this was the teaching that John had always found the most difficult to accept. Their answers didn't satisfy her, and John began to waver in his commitment."As an apologist, this part of the story intrigues me the most. The author does not supply us with details about their interview with the Christian missionaries, but I am tempted to speculate that as eager as Lennon seemed to embrace Christianity, that the missionaries could not adequately explain to him, despite Ono’s skepticism, the most fundamental truth of the Bible was a great apologetics blunder. In my opinion, of all the essential Christian doctrines, the divinity of Jesus is the one that demands our greatest commitment to its defense by all believers. How might things have turned out differently for John Lennon if the missionaries could quote historians that affirmed that Christ was revered by His followers as Deity? What kind of impact could they have had if they couched Jesus in the Jewish monotheistic culture of that day, who put Himself in the very place of God to make the legal and moral pronouncements which the Jews recognized that only God had the right to make? How might Lennon’s perception of Christianity have been different if they could show that Jesus’ own identity claims were understood as claims to be the Creator God of Israel and Judge of the living and the dead? How might evidence for Jesus’ resurrection have kept his mind open to faith in Christ? As influential and introspective as John Lennon was, I can “Imagine” what a few good answers might have done for him.
The Gospel cannot be fully expressed without acknowledgment of Jesus’ divinity. It behooves us to know and be ready to affirm Jesus’ identity as Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer of the universe, not just for devotional significance, but as an objective truth we publicly proclaim and defend. Sometimes the window to faith in others opens for us to recognize a divine appointment for the Gospel. Can a little apologetics make a difference? I believe it can.
(Look for this article on the International Society of Women in Apologetics website, August newsletter.)
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Welcome, The Valley Girl Apologist
My friend and fellow apologist Sarah Ankenman has started her apologetics blog. Welcome to the blogosphere, Sarah!
Check it out:
The Valley Girl Apologist
Check it out:
The Valley Girl Apologist
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Are There Unicorns in the Bible?
Yes, there are, but it's not what you think! :)
Please watch:
Another lesson about why we don't read backwards in the Bible.
Please watch:
Another lesson about why we don't read backwards in the Bible.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Smart Faith Conference
Conference dates: June 10-11, 2011
Speakers include:
Mary Jo Sharp (Confident Christianity)
Brett Kunkle (Stand to Reason)
Neil Mammen (No Blind Faith)
Shawn White (Living Dead Man)
and yours truly, Letitia Wong
If you know a teenager or college student searching for ultimate answers regarding faith, science, and spirituality, consider signing them up. Registration is ONLY $30 per student. Early-bird registration is an insane $20 from now until May 13th, so do not delay if you want to attend!
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Review: Shattered: Struck Down, But Not Destroyed (Frank Pastore)
Shattered: Struck Down, But Not Destroyed is an autobiographical sketch of Frank Pastore’s (Frank) spiritual journey from childhood to the present day, from atheism to faith in Jesus Christ.
Raised by an abusive and stalwartly atheist mother, Frank tells the story of her early impact on his views on faith and Christianity. From youth into adulthood as a professional baseball pitcher, he regarded faith in God as a delusion and a fantasy. He indulged in a life of materialism and through friendships with fellow teammates, who were Christians, was determined to disprove the Christian faith.
For me, what came after Frank’s conversion intrigued me the most. He tells that his resistance to Christianity was mostly intellectual, and for all the appeals to believe, his Christian teammates could not defend the faith against his arguments. That is, until Frank started reading, well, apologetics. Never shy about wanting to set his teammates straight, Frank confronted them, this time from the other side of the fence. He writes,
Shattered is a heartwarming book for any thoughtful Christian who wants to know the background of KKLA’s most cutting edge radio talk show host today. For added excitement, Frank includes the dramatic details of his cross-country adventure to marry the love of his life, his wife Gina. This book will leave you smiling as it did to me.
Raised by an abusive and stalwartly atheist mother, Frank tells the story of her early impact on his views on faith and Christianity. From youth into adulthood as a professional baseball pitcher, he regarded faith in God as a delusion and a fantasy. He indulged in a life of materialism and through friendships with fellow teammates, who were Christians, was determined to disprove the Christian faith.Through a series of personal life challenges climaxing in a career-ending injury to his pitching arm, Frank recalls a pivotal moment when the Christian players on the team met with him for what reads like an intervention. Unlike previous get-togethers, his teammates brought an evangelist who, in turn, brought books. They introduced him to Frank, and after a while, he introduced Frank to his books. After much reflection on his beliefs and reading arguments for the Christian faith by such esteemed authors such as C.S. Lewis, Frank surrendered his life to Christ.
For me, what came after Frank’s conversion intrigued me the most. He tells that his resistance to Christianity was mostly intellectual, and for all the appeals to believe, his Christian teammates could not defend the faith against his arguments. That is, until Frank started reading, well, apologetics. Never shy about wanting to set his teammates straight, Frank confronted them, this time from the other side of the fence. He writes,
“Guys!” I said. “For years you’ve been sharing with me why I needed to become a Christian. I’ve been asking you all these basic questions, like why do you believe God exists, how do you know the Bible is true, why is there evil in the world, why is Christianity the only true religion, what about the person who’s never heard of Jesus—and for more than five years you’ve given me really bad answers. I could have died and gone to hell, and my blood would have been on your hands!”This is what I believe is the true mission of Shattered. The book is an implicit plea to all well-meaning Christians that sometimes saying “just have faith” to an unbelieving friend is not the due diligence required to share the Gospel.
Shattered is a heartwarming book for any thoughtful Christian who wants to know the background of KKLA’s most cutting edge radio talk show host today. For added excitement, Frank includes the dramatic details of his cross-country adventure to marry the love of his life, his wife Gina. This book will leave you smiling as it did to me.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Theology and Apologetics Q&A (1)
These are questions asked by my fellow churchgoers. For reasons of length, they are answered here so I can elaborate if I need to.
Q1: The whole Bible is the basis of my faith and I know if one word is not inspired then the whole thing collapses. The biggest barrier I run into in my outreach is the tripwire the old chestnut of the book being written by man and therefore suspect...Bottom line, give me the elevator speech that knocks down that argument about the Bible being written by men. Thanks.
If, by "argument," you mean the view that since the Bible was written with human hands it couldn't also be inspired by God, then I would ask "why not both?" What people are really questioning is whether the Bible can be truly error-free if it were produced by human hands. If there is a God who wants to communicate with us through the Bible, then why can't the Bible be error-free? Again, if there is a God who wants to communicate with us, then why does it matter that He chooses to speak through poetry, narratives, and letters written by men vs another method?
Would it make a difference if God struck His word on tablets on a mountaintop instead? (Oh wait, He did) Would it make a difference if monkeys pounding on computer keys produced all the books of the Bible? Would that make things any more miraculous, inspired, or error-free? It wouldn't to me.
In turn, I'd like to ask if such an argument is made by people, namely men (?). Of course it is. So, if I were to adopt a similar line of reasoning, shouldn't I be able to question whether that is a good argument simply because it was made by a man? Well no, of course not. It just goes to show that this attitude dismisses the veracity of the Bible based on its origins in what's called the genetic fallacy. Other than being guilty of extreme prejudice, this argument carries little weight.
Q2: Why is God so angry in the OT, to the point of killing people on the spot? Why did he stop that behavior in the N. T. ? hum, does that mean GOD changed his tactic with us?
This is a good question that people often ask.
Your question makes it sound like God reacts out of His anger to kill people unjustly. Is this what you mean? If so, God wouldn't be loving or just if He did that. People are created beings; on top of that we are sinners. Our lives are always at His mercy, and if/when He determines that our earthly lives should end, we have no reason to accuse Him of being wrong or unfair.
God may appear to behave differently between the OT and NTs, but I think this is only due to what we perceive as more tolerance on His part. God can and has claimed life in immediate punishment for sin past the OT. Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5 are the examples that come to mind. But you could be right that God has actually changed His behavior toward those in post-NT times. If He has, I'm thankful for His great mercies.
Q3: Did Jesus give a chance to the people of the Old Testament that never heard the Word of God?
Romans 4 talks about Abraham and David believing God and God treating them as righteous long before Jesus walked the earth. Theologians have pointed out that Jesus' blood retroactively covers their sin even as it proactively covers ours today. For those people in the OT who were not a part of the Hebrews or Israel, their witness was the nation of Israel itself. There were many who became part of the Hebrew community all throughout the OT who learned of the God of Israel (i.e. Egyptians escaping w/ Hebrews in the Exodus, the Moabites).
Q4: Why are we saved by grace through faith? Why not grace through love, or forgiving others? Is it because we’d earn salvation that way, in a sense?
Think about it this way: it is not so much the "earning" aspect that plays a role in this question. Being sinful people by nature, we cannot love well enough or forgive others with pure enough hearts and minds to qualify being worthy of being in the presence of God. One guilty person loving and forgiving another guilty person doesn't erase the guilt of either party before God.
Second, the whole idea of grace negates trying to earn salvation, because grace is something God freely gives as He wills. If grace is earned, then it wouldn't be grace (Romans 11:5-7). Suppose if salvation could be earned, then some people would have a right to demand it of God based on a level of achievement. Those people would somehow have less sin or be better than the rest of humanity. But, as Scripture reveals, no one has any spiritual advantage. We are all sinners, whether we sin more or less than the next person.
I think I should point out that only Christianity contains God's grace in this way. God is an agent
independent of us who gives grace and instills faith on believers. Many religions require merit that is ultimately not for God but for collecting self-orbiting accolades meant to force God to do something for us. That is very different from the loving relationship that God wants for us that we find in the Bible.
Q5: What happens to people that don’t hear the Word of God? Are they judged based on the difficulties that God has given them, or solely on never hearing his name?
Wow, this is a question that is as old as the Bible itself! Even if I had another two-thousand years, I couldn't give you a complete answer. You won't be alone when you get to meet Jesus in person one day and ask Him directly. :)
Short answer: it depends. Without the Gospel, there is only Law (Romans 10). How an individual responds to the Law of God, which everyone knows in their heart, is how God will judge him/her (Romans 1). The only thing we know about the unknowns is that God is always just, and whatever happens to those people will be the right thing.
Q6: In the end, it says that “every knee shall bow” (Philipians 2:10) and every tongue confess (Philipians 2:12) that Jesus Christ is Lord. Also, it says “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.” So, it turns back to belief again with the heart, but what about salvation through confession? If everyone confesses, are they all saved? That is a nice thought, but I think I’ve misunderstood something here.
Yes, there are two senses of the word "confess" here. One can "confess" as in pure acknowledgement of the identity of Jesus Christ; another "confess" is what a believer does to identify his belief and faith in Jesus Christ.
Notice that the first sense in Philippians 2:11 is what everyone will do when Jesus comes again and the world must acknowledge Him for who He is. The second sense in Romans 10:8-10 is communication to God from someone with a believing heart. Per your question, the confession of the believer doesn't grant salvation, but it witnesses to the believer's salvation.
Q1: The whole Bible is the basis of my faith and I know if one word is not inspired then the whole thing collapses. The biggest barrier I run into in my outreach is the tripwire the old chestnut of the book being written by man and therefore suspect...Bottom line, give me the elevator speech that knocks down that argument about the Bible being written by men. Thanks.
If, by "argument," you mean the view that since the Bible was written with human hands it couldn't also be inspired by God, then I would ask "why not both?" What people are really questioning is whether the Bible can be truly error-free if it were produced by human hands. If there is a God who wants to communicate with us through the Bible, then why can't the Bible be error-free? Again, if there is a God who wants to communicate with us, then why does it matter that He chooses to speak through poetry, narratives, and letters written by men vs another method?
Would it make a difference if God struck His word on tablets on a mountaintop instead? (Oh wait, He did) Would it make a difference if monkeys pounding on computer keys produced all the books of the Bible? Would that make things any more miraculous, inspired, or error-free? It wouldn't to me.
In turn, I'd like to ask if such an argument is made by people, namely men (?). Of course it is. So, if I were to adopt a similar line of reasoning, shouldn't I be able to question whether that is a good argument simply because it was made by a man? Well no, of course not. It just goes to show that this attitude dismisses the veracity of the Bible based on its origins in what's called the genetic fallacy. Other than being guilty of extreme prejudice, this argument carries little weight.
Q2: Why is God so angry in the OT, to the point of killing people on the spot? Why did he stop that behavior in the N. T. ? hum, does that mean GOD changed his tactic with us?
This is a good question that people often ask.
Your question makes it sound like God reacts out of His anger to kill people unjustly. Is this what you mean? If so, God wouldn't be loving or just if He did that. People are created beings; on top of that we are sinners. Our lives are always at His mercy, and if/when He determines that our earthly lives should end, we have no reason to accuse Him of being wrong or unfair.
God may appear to behave differently between the OT and NTs, but I think this is only due to what we perceive as more tolerance on His part. God can and has claimed life in immediate punishment for sin past the OT. Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5 are the examples that come to mind. But you could be right that God has actually changed His behavior toward those in post-NT times. If He has, I'm thankful for His great mercies.
Q3: Did Jesus give a chance to the people of the Old Testament that never heard the Word of God?
Romans 4 talks about Abraham and David believing God and God treating them as righteous long before Jesus walked the earth. Theologians have pointed out that Jesus' blood retroactively covers their sin even as it proactively covers ours today. For those people in the OT who were not a part of the Hebrews or Israel, their witness was the nation of Israel itself. There were many who became part of the Hebrew community all throughout the OT who learned of the God of Israel (i.e. Egyptians escaping w/ Hebrews in the Exodus, the Moabites).
Q4: Why are we saved by grace through faith? Why not grace through love, or forgiving others? Is it because we’d earn salvation that way, in a sense?
Think about it this way: it is not so much the "earning" aspect that plays a role in this question. Being sinful people by nature, we cannot love well enough or forgive others with pure enough hearts and minds to qualify being worthy of being in the presence of God. One guilty person loving and forgiving another guilty person doesn't erase the guilt of either party before God.
Second, the whole idea of grace negates trying to earn salvation, because grace is something God freely gives as He wills. If grace is earned, then it wouldn't be grace (Romans 11:5-7). Suppose if salvation could be earned, then some people would have a right to demand it of God based on a level of achievement. Those people would somehow have less sin or be better than the rest of humanity. But, as Scripture reveals, no one has any spiritual advantage. We are all sinners, whether we sin more or less than the next person.
I think I should point out that only Christianity contains God's grace in this way. God is an agent
independent of us who gives grace and instills faith on believers. Many religions require merit that is ultimately not for God but for collecting self-orbiting accolades meant to force God to do something for us. That is very different from the loving relationship that God wants for us that we find in the Bible.
Q5: What happens to people that don’t hear the Word of God? Are they judged based on the difficulties that God has given them, or solely on never hearing his name?
Wow, this is a question that is as old as the Bible itself! Even if I had another two-thousand years, I couldn't give you a complete answer. You won't be alone when you get to meet Jesus in person one day and ask Him directly. :)
Short answer: it depends. Without the Gospel, there is only Law (Romans 10). How an individual responds to the Law of God, which everyone knows in their heart, is how God will judge him/her (Romans 1). The only thing we know about the unknowns is that God is always just, and whatever happens to those people will be the right thing.
Q6: In the end, it says that “every knee shall bow” (Philipians 2:10) and every tongue confess (Philipians 2:12) that Jesus Christ is Lord. Also, it says “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.” So, it turns back to belief again with the heart, but what about salvation through confession? If everyone confesses, are they all saved? That is a nice thought, but I think I’ve misunderstood something here.
Yes, there are two senses of the word "confess" here. One can "confess" as in pure acknowledgement of the identity of Jesus Christ; another "confess" is what a believer does to identify his belief and faith in Jesus Christ.
Notice that the first sense in Philippians 2:11 is what everyone will do when Jesus comes again and the world must acknowledge Him for who He is. The second sense in Romans 10:8-10 is communication to God from someone with a believing heart. Per your question, the confession of the believer doesn't grant salvation, but it witnesses to the believer's salvation.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
International Society for Women in Apologetics
A new organization; a new website:
It's like...the most perfect pair of shoes in the world. I am so happy!
UPDATE: It's official! I am a member, and I'm listed!
Friday, November 27, 2009
I Heart Irenaeus
Irenaeus explaining the teaching of the Gnostic Valentinus:
"He maintained that there is a certain Dyad (two-fold being), who is inexpressible by any name, of whom one part should be called Arrhetus (unspeakable), and the other Sige (silence). But of this Dyad a second was produced one part of whom he names Pater, and the other Aletheia. From this Tretrad, again, arose Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia. These constitute the primary Ogdoad .... There is another, who is a renowned teacher among them, and who, struggling to reach something more sublime, and to attain to a kind of higher knowledge, has explained the primary Tetrad as follows: There is [he says] a certain Proarche who existed before all things, surpassing all thought, speech, and nomenclature, whom I call Monotes (unity). Together with this Monotes, being one, produced, yet not so much as to bring forth ... the beginning of all things, an intelligent, unbegotten, and invisible being, which beginning language terms "Monad." With this Monad there co-exists a power of the same essence, which again I term Hen (one). These powers then--Monotes, and Henotes, and Monas, and Hen--produced the remaining company of Aeon."
Irenaeus--why I love him:
"Iu, Iu! Pheu, Pheu!--for well may we utter these tragic exclamations at such a pitch of audacity in the coining of names as he has diplayed without a blush, in devising a nomenclature for his own system of falsehood. For when he declares: There is a certain Proarche before all things, surpassing all thought, whom I call Monotes; and again, with this Monotes there co-exists a power which I also call Henotes,--it is most manifest that he confesses the things which have been said to be his own invention, and that he himself has given names to this scheme of things, which had never been previously suggested by any other. It is manifest also, that he himself is the one who has had sufficient audacity to coin these names; so that, unless he had appeared in the world, the truth would still have been destitute of a name. But in that case, nothing hinders any other, in dealing with the same subject, to affix names after such a fashion as the following: There is a certain Proarche, royal, surpassing all though, a power existing before every other substance, and extended into space in every direction. But along with it there exists a power which I term a Gourd; and along with this Gourd there exists a power which again I term Utter-Emptiness. This Gourd and Emptiness, since they are one, produced (and yet did not simply produce, so as to be apart of themselves) a fruit, everywhere visible, eatable, and delicious, which fruit-language calls a Cucumber. Along with this Cucumber exists a power of the same essence, which again I call a Melon. These Powers, the Gourd, Utter-Emptiness, the Cucumber, and the Melon, brought forth the remaining multitude of the delirious melons of Valentinus .... If any one may assign names at his pleasure, who shall prevent us from adopting these names, as being much more credible [than the others], as well as in general use, and understood by all?"
--Against All Heresies 1.11
It's the "Iu, Iu! Pheu, Pheu!" that did it for me. Booyah.
"He maintained that there is a certain Dyad (two-fold being), who is inexpressible by any name, of whom one part should be called Arrhetus (unspeakable), and the other Sige (silence). But of this Dyad a second was produced one part of whom he names Pater, and the other Aletheia. From this Tretrad, again, arose Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia. These constitute the primary Ogdoad .... There is another, who is a renowned teacher among them, and who, struggling to reach something more sublime, and to attain to a kind of higher knowledge, has explained the primary Tetrad as follows: There is [he says] a certain Proarche who existed before all things, surpassing all thought, speech, and nomenclature, whom I call Monotes (unity). Together with this Monotes, being one, produced, yet not so much as to bring forth ... the beginning of all things, an intelligent, unbegotten, and invisible being, which beginning language terms "Monad." With this Monad there co-exists a power of the same essence, which again I term Hen (one). These powers then--Monotes, and Henotes, and Monas, and Hen--produced the remaining company of Aeon."
Irenaeus--why I love him:
"Iu, Iu! Pheu, Pheu!--for well may we utter these tragic exclamations at such a pitch of audacity in the coining of names as he has diplayed without a blush, in devising a nomenclature for his own system of falsehood. For when he declares: There is a certain Proarche before all things, surpassing all thought, whom I call Monotes; and again, with this Monotes there co-exists a power which I also call Henotes,--it is most manifest that he confesses the things which have been said to be his own invention, and that he himself has given names to this scheme of things, which had never been previously suggested by any other. It is manifest also, that he himself is the one who has had sufficient audacity to coin these names; so that, unless he had appeared in the world, the truth would still have been destitute of a name. But in that case, nothing hinders any other, in dealing with the same subject, to affix names after such a fashion as the following: There is a certain Proarche, royal, surpassing all though, a power existing before every other substance, and extended into space in every direction. But along with it there exists a power which I term a Gourd; and along with this Gourd there exists a power which again I term Utter-Emptiness. This Gourd and Emptiness, since they are one, produced (and yet did not simply produce, so as to be apart of themselves) a fruit, everywhere visible, eatable, and delicious, which fruit-language calls a Cucumber. Along with this Cucumber exists a power of the same essence, which again I call a Melon. These Powers, the Gourd, Utter-Emptiness, the Cucumber, and the Melon, brought forth the remaining multitude of the delirious melons of Valentinus .... If any one may assign names at his pleasure, who shall prevent us from adopting these names, as being much more credible [than the others], as well as in general use, and understood by all?"
--Against All Heresies 1.11
It's the "Iu, Iu! Pheu, Pheu!" that did it for me. Booyah.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
WDTD (Who Made God)? A Response to a Response to a Response to a...
...Response to Theism and the Causal Principle.
For whatever reason, the following YouTube video caught myattention annoyance. Perhaps it is because this person is speaking so close to his webcam that his face nearly fills out the entire screen forcing the viewer to constantly gaze upon his John Travoltesque chin and/or that being so close to the camera gives the feeling that he is literally in-your-face to go along with his rant that is most certainly in-your-face. Triviality--let's deal with the subject at hand.
This video, made by James (a.k.a. DasAmericanAtheist), is a response to William Lane Craig's response to Richard Dawkins' response to the philosophy of the Causal Principle as used by many Christian theists to argue for the existence of God. Dawkins asks 'Well, if the universe was designed, then who designed the designer?' which is the same as asking "Then who made God?" Watch the video below:
(relevant portion begins at :53)
James leads with Dr. Craig's statement, "In order to recognize an explanation as the best, you don't need to have an explanation of the explanation," to which he flashes the question "Why not?" At this point, asking 'why not?' betrays a key misunderstanding of what Dr. Craig is saying. By asking 'why not?' I think James is suggesting that Dr. Craig is saying 'The Christian theist is not obligated to his audience to give a defense of the explanation that God is the designer of the universe.' In other words, "don't need to" is equated with "not obligated to his audience." This is not Dr. Craig's position.
Dr. Craig is stating a rule in the philosophy of science; the statement above is about in part the procedural requirements for identifying a cause. Now read this slowly: what he is saying is that an explanation of an explanation of a cause is itself not part of the explanation of the cause. That is why it is 'not needed' in the philosophical treatment of the issue at hand and is not necessary to conclude that a certain explanation of a cause is the best explanation. What this means for Richard Dawkins is that his question "Then who designed the designer?" is completely beside the point.
This is evident, as Dr. Craig elaborates in the following example (paraphrased): "If archaeologists were digging in the earth and came across objects shaped like arrowheads, pottery shards, and tomahawks, can you imagine one of them saying "Look how the processes of metamorphosis and sedimentation have formed these uncanny objects!" Of course not. They would recognize that these were products of intelligent design by some unknown people group in the past. Now, in order to recognize that this explanation is the best explanation for these artifacts, the archaeologists don't need to explain the origins or details of the people group in question."
So, specifically to Dawkins' question, the theist does not need to answer 'then who designed the designer?' or, in other words explain the origin of God, in order to legitimize the statement that God is the best explanation for the cause of the universe's design.
James says that he doesn't recognize an argument here, which is exactly my point. Dr. Craig has simply stated the parameters of the philosophy of science on the question of the causal principle in order to refute Dawkins' mistaken notion about causes and origins (an irrelevant question that demonstratively leads to a [potentially] infinite regression of irrelevant questions of causes and origins). This is why Dr. Craig says that such a mode of inquiry is the end of science.
James asks: "How is it, that from among competing hypotheses, you can establish that a given explanation is the best explanation?" [Let me interject a minor aside here by suggesting that perhaps he doesn't like the word "best," as it might erroneously connote that some explanation is "best" as in "best by subjective determination." Perhaps, then, we should use the term "most plausible" rather than "best," if that makes the atheist more comfortable. I have no problem with that.] Back to his question: This sounds like a misdirection, given the context in which he is asking. Going back to Dr. Craig's example of the archaeologists, how applicable would James' question be toward identifying a cause of the artifacts in the ground? What kind of competing hypotheses should we consider to the idea that the artifacts are products of intelligent design? While one could invent a variety of hypotheses, we would easily establish that most, if not all, other hypotheses would lack adequate explanatory power and explanatory scope compared to the explanatory power and scope of intelligent design as the most plausible explanation. But we don't even need to ask such a question in the first place, because it is evident that it doesn't apply to our example. Likewise, neither does it apply to identifying God as the designer of the universe. Now, I do not mean to say that James' question is wrong in and of itself. It is a perfectly fine question to ask in general when beginning a deductive inquiry to establish one's parameters (hey look, we just reaffirmed the scientific method). In the issue at hand, however, the deduction that God is the most plausible explanation of the design of the universe is the conclusion drawn at the end of the Design Argument.
So while James can ask his question at the beginning of the Design Argument (which is then answered in the argument), he cannot ask the conclusion to the argument why it is considered the "best"/most plausible explanation as if it is part of the argument itself. That would be the beginning of a separate inquiry.
James reiterates: "Wouldn't supporting a given hypothesis with evidence or argument be explaining an explanation?" Well, so far James has been using the terms "hypothesis/es"and "explanation" somewhat interchangeably, and it hasn't been a problem until this latest equivocation. A hypothesis is NOT an explanation, even though in the previous context the terms were related enough to let it go. Here in the next question, a hypothesis is a proposition to which the evidence or arguments must either support or disprove. An explanation is a conclusion arrived at through an argument. If we apply this question to the core topic here, then he would be demanding in effect, 'Give an argument for the argument that concludes that God is the designer of the universe.' Well, the Design Argument is the argument that leads to the conclusion 'God is the designer of the universe' as the most plausible explanation of the facts. So, the answer is "no," because his question doesn't make sense.
The last few statements invoking gremlins, I think, is gratuitous...and ad hoc. The possibility of gremlins isn't even worth discussing, except for this: if James is willing to define 'gremlin' as a timeless, immaterial, powerful, and transcendent personal being who created the universe from nothing, then perhaps there could be a future dialogue somewhere in that.
I'll conclude this post with another clip that shows Dr. Craig's explanation of why philosophically we don't need an explanation to explain who designed the designer (well looky there, we found what Dawkins asked for afterall!). And, James, if you're reading this, I hope this straightens things out for you on this point. And, please stop eating your webcam.
For whatever reason, the following YouTube video caught my
This video, made by James (a.k.a. DasAmericanAtheist), is a response to William Lane Craig's response to Richard Dawkins' response to the philosophy of the Causal Principle as used by many Christian theists to argue for the existence of God. Dawkins asks 'Well, if the universe was designed, then who designed the designer?' which is the same as asking "Then who made God?" Watch the video below:
(relevant portion begins at :53)
James leads with Dr. Craig's statement, "In order to recognize an explanation as the best, you don't need to have an explanation of the explanation," to which he flashes the question "Why not?" At this point, asking 'why not?' betrays a key misunderstanding of what Dr. Craig is saying. By asking 'why not?' I think James is suggesting that Dr. Craig is saying 'The Christian theist is not obligated to his audience to give a defense of the explanation that God is the designer of the universe.' In other words, "don't need to" is equated with "not obligated to his audience." This is not Dr. Craig's position.
Dr. Craig is stating a rule in the philosophy of science; the statement above is about in part the procedural requirements for identifying a cause. Now read this slowly: what he is saying is that an explanation of an explanation of a cause is itself not part of the explanation of the cause. That is why it is 'not needed' in the philosophical treatment of the issue at hand and is not necessary to conclude that a certain explanation of a cause is the best explanation. What this means for Richard Dawkins is that his question "Then who designed the designer?" is completely beside the point.
This is evident, as Dr. Craig elaborates in the following example (paraphrased): "If archaeologists were digging in the earth and came across objects shaped like arrowheads, pottery shards, and tomahawks, can you imagine one of them saying "Look how the processes of metamorphosis and sedimentation have formed these uncanny objects!" Of course not. They would recognize that these were products of intelligent design by some unknown people group in the past. Now, in order to recognize that this explanation is the best explanation for these artifacts, the archaeologists don't need to explain the origins or details of the people group in question."
So, specifically to Dawkins' question, the theist does not need to answer 'then who designed the designer?' or, in other words explain the origin of God, in order to legitimize the statement that God is the best explanation for the cause of the universe's design.
James says that he doesn't recognize an argument here, which is exactly my point. Dr. Craig has simply stated the parameters of the philosophy of science on the question of the causal principle in order to refute Dawkins' mistaken notion about causes and origins (an irrelevant question that demonstratively leads to a [potentially] infinite regression of irrelevant questions of causes and origins). This is why Dr. Craig says that such a mode of inquiry is the end of science.
James asks: "How is it, that from among competing hypotheses, you can establish that a given explanation is the best explanation?" [Let me interject a minor aside here by suggesting that perhaps he doesn't like the word "best," as it might erroneously connote that some explanation is "best" as in "best by subjective determination." Perhaps, then, we should use the term "most plausible" rather than "best," if that makes the atheist more comfortable. I have no problem with that.] Back to his question: This sounds like a misdirection, given the context in which he is asking. Going back to Dr. Craig's example of the archaeologists, how applicable would James' question be toward identifying a cause of the artifacts in the ground? What kind of competing hypotheses should we consider to the idea that the artifacts are products of intelligent design? While one could invent a variety of hypotheses, we would easily establish that most, if not all, other hypotheses would lack adequate explanatory power and explanatory scope compared to the explanatory power and scope of intelligent design as the most plausible explanation. But we don't even need to ask such a question in the first place, because it is evident that it doesn't apply to our example. Likewise, neither does it apply to identifying God as the designer of the universe. Now, I do not mean to say that James' question is wrong in and of itself. It is a perfectly fine question to ask in general when beginning a deductive inquiry to establish one's parameters (hey look, we just reaffirmed the scientific method). In the issue at hand, however, the deduction that God is the most plausible explanation of the design of the universe is the conclusion drawn at the end of the Design Argument.
So while James can ask his question at the beginning of the Design Argument (which is then answered in the argument), he cannot ask the conclusion to the argument why it is considered the "best"/most plausible explanation as if it is part of the argument itself. That would be the beginning of a separate inquiry.
James reiterates: "Wouldn't supporting a given hypothesis with evidence or argument be explaining an explanation?" Well, so far James has been using the terms "hypothesis/es"and "explanation" somewhat interchangeably, and it hasn't been a problem until this latest equivocation. A hypothesis is NOT an explanation, even though in the previous context the terms were related enough to let it go. Here in the next question, a hypothesis is a proposition to which the evidence or arguments must either support or disprove. An explanation is a conclusion arrived at through an argument. If we apply this question to the core topic here, then he would be demanding in effect, 'Give an argument for the argument that concludes that God is the designer of the universe.' Well, the Design Argument is the argument that leads to the conclusion 'God is the designer of the universe' as the most plausible explanation of the facts. So, the answer is "no," because his question doesn't make sense.
The last few statements invoking gremlins, I think, is gratuitous...and ad hoc. The possibility of gremlins isn't even worth discussing, except for this: if James is willing to define 'gremlin' as a timeless, immaterial, powerful, and transcendent personal being who created the universe from nothing, then perhaps there could be a future dialogue somewhere in that.
I'll conclude this post with another clip that shows Dr. Craig's explanation of why philosophically we don't need an explanation to explain who designed the designer (well looky there, we found what Dawkins asked for afterall!). And, James, if you're reading this, I hope this straightens things out for you on this point. And, please stop eating your webcam.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Problem of Evil/Suffering
The following is a quasi-dialogue I cut and pasted from Yahoo! Answers.
Original question posted on Yahoo! Answers:
I'm coming up with a huge final project for my speech class on why God doesn't exist, and there has to be 3 main points. I'm really SERIOUS about this, and I REALLY want to get everybody thinking.So far my first point is the PROBLEM OF EVIL, my second point is the PROBLEM OF CONTRADICTION, and I need one more. What's another REALLY good point that can get these fable believing kids to re-think their patterns?
My reply:
D, I’d like to know why you think the problem of evil and suffering is such a problem for theism. In the absence of God and knowledge of good, how would you know what is evil in the first place? Right now, you assume that evil takes place and object to it (i.e. slavery is evil). You wouldn’t know that unless you have an objective standard of moral conduct by which you think all human beings should live, and that can only be the case if God exists. If God does not exist, there is no way to judge anything to be really evil. If God does not exist, evil is a point of view, and suffering is just happenstance. If the problem of evil is a problem for theism, then it is more of a problem for atheism.
Second, I’d like to know more about this “contradiction” you talk about.
Rebuttal from another person answering the question (abbreviated for length):
Evil - Research shows that the reason humans struggle with emotion to find equitable solutions is pinpointed the region of the brain called the insular cortex, or insula, which is also the seat of emotional reactions.The fact that the brain has such a robust response to unfairness shows that sensing unfairness is a basic evolved capacity. The emotional response to unfairness pushes people from extreme inequity and drives them to be fair. This observation shows our basic impulse to be fair isn't a complicated thing that we learn.It therefore fully illustrates that all humans have morals controlled by the brain and that Christians are entirely wrong to try and claim morals as their own!!!!
But Christians found a way round it!! Government statistics show that christians are vastly over represented in prisons for sexual, violent and fraudulent crime!!The Catholic church is paying millions in compensation for the sex/pedophile crimes of their priests alone!! Christians are vastly over represented in the divorce courts!!
Atheists have the intellect to see through the conditioning and escape into the real world!!Agnostics have the intellect to see through the conditioning but lack the courage to throw of the conditioning entirely.
Unfortunately, Yahoo! Answers only allows one-time replies, so here is my reply to the above commenter's statements:
The conclusions drawn here don’t follow from anything stated as premises at all. Your arguments don’t SHOW anything except that you have made an ad hoc conclusion to the fact that human beings do believe in objective morality. The atheist still cannot explain how he knows some things are objectively evil (i.e. slavery), only that he feels that it is somehow.
Reducing the problem of evil/suffering to a problem of unfairness doesn’t help the atheist argument, because basing a sense of morality on emotions and feelings in no way makes anything objectively evil. In fact, thinking like that only argues for the opposite, that morals are relative, and then the atheist has the problem of explaining why he thinks that slavery is really wrong and therefore God doesn’t exist.
Fraud, sex crimes, pedophilia –the only way you could say that these things are evil is if you know that they are evil (even divorce?), not say that you have some evolved capacity to feel that such actions are “inequitable.” Be that as it may, some people feel differently and think it is perfectly fine to commit pedophilia (NAMBLA, anyone?). I see that you think there is some kind of evil perpetuated on the gay community by Christians. If you really think that this is unjust (not simply “inequitable”), then you are appealing to some objective standard that exists apart from anyone’s feelings in the brain. On what basis would you judge those who oppose your particular sense of morality?
Atheists have the intellect to see through the conditioning and escape into the real world!!
How can this be if everything about an atheist is evolved only to survive and perpetuate genes? As it is, there is no advantage in survivability to believing that God does not exist, so how could anyone evolve out of religious belief? How could anyone evolve into it? Ultimately, if naturalistic evolution is the game of life, there is no “real world” that anyone needs to concern himself with, only survivability.
The problem still remains for the atheist who wishes to appeal to the problem of evil/suffering as an argument against the existence of God. In identifying moral injustices in the world to which he accuses God of not being there to rectify, he places himself in the position of actually making an objective moral judgment, something he cannot do without the the objective standard that only God can give. Therefore, God must exist in order for an atheist to make this kind of judgment! As C.S. Lewis says,
Original question posted on Yahoo! Answers:
I'm coming up with a huge final project for my speech class on why God doesn't exist, and there has to be 3 main points. I'm really SERIOUS about this, and I REALLY want to get everybody thinking.So far my first point is the PROBLEM OF EVIL, my second point is the PROBLEM OF CONTRADICTION, and I need one more. What's another REALLY good point that can get these fable believing kids to re-think their patterns?
My reply:
D, I’d like to know why you think the problem of evil and suffering is such a problem for theism. In the absence of God and knowledge of good, how would you know what is evil in the first place? Right now, you assume that evil takes place and object to it (i.e. slavery is evil). You wouldn’t know that unless you have an objective standard of moral conduct by which you think all human beings should live, and that can only be the case if God exists. If God does not exist, there is no way to judge anything to be really evil. If God does not exist, evil is a point of view, and suffering is just happenstance. If the problem of evil is a problem for theism, then it is more of a problem for atheism.
Second, I’d like to know more about this “contradiction” you talk about.
Rebuttal from another person answering the question (abbreviated for length):
Evil - Research shows that the reason humans struggle with emotion to find equitable solutions is pinpointed the region of the brain called the insular cortex, or insula, which is also the seat of emotional reactions.The fact that the brain has such a robust response to unfairness shows that sensing unfairness is a basic evolved capacity. The emotional response to unfairness pushes people from extreme inequity and drives them to be fair. This observation shows our basic impulse to be fair isn't a complicated thing that we learn.It therefore fully illustrates that all humans have morals controlled by the brain and that Christians are entirely wrong to try and claim morals as their own!!!!
But Christians found a way round it!! Government statistics show that christians are vastly over represented in prisons for sexual, violent and fraudulent crime!!The Catholic church is paying millions in compensation for the sex/pedophile crimes of their priests alone!! Christians are vastly over represented in the divorce courts!!
Atheists have the intellect to see through the conditioning and escape into the real world!!Agnostics have the intellect to see through the conditioning but lack the courage to throw of the conditioning entirely.
Unfortunately, Yahoo! Answers only allows one-time replies, so here is my reply to the above commenter's statements:
The conclusions drawn here don’t follow from anything stated as premises at all. Your arguments don’t SHOW anything except that you have made an ad hoc conclusion to the fact that human beings do believe in objective morality. The atheist still cannot explain how he knows some things are objectively evil (i.e. slavery), only that he feels that it is somehow.
Reducing the problem of evil/suffering to a problem of unfairness doesn’t help the atheist argument, because basing a sense of morality on emotions and feelings in no way makes anything objectively evil. In fact, thinking like that only argues for the opposite, that morals are relative, and then the atheist has the problem of explaining why he thinks that slavery is really wrong and therefore God doesn’t exist.
Fraud, sex crimes, pedophilia –the only way you could say that these things are evil is if you know that they are evil (even divorce?), not say that you have some evolved capacity to feel that such actions are “inequitable.” Be that as it may, some people feel differently and think it is perfectly fine to commit pedophilia (NAMBLA, anyone?). I see that you think there is some kind of evil perpetuated on the gay community by Christians. If you really think that this is unjust (not simply “inequitable”), then you are appealing to some objective standard that exists apart from anyone’s feelings in the brain. On what basis would you judge those who oppose your particular sense of morality?
Atheists have the intellect to see through the conditioning and escape into the real world!!
How can this be if everything about an atheist is evolved only to survive and perpetuate genes? As it is, there is no advantage in survivability to believing that God does not exist, so how could anyone evolve out of religious belief? How could anyone evolve into it? Ultimately, if naturalistic evolution is the game of life, there is no “real world” that anyone needs to concern himself with, only survivability.
The problem still remains for the atheist who wishes to appeal to the problem of evil/suffering as an argument against the existence of God. In identifying moral injustices in the world to which he accuses God of not being there to rectify, he places himself in the position of actually making an objective moral judgment, something he cannot do without the the objective standard that only God can give. Therefore, God must exist in order for an atheist to make this kind of judgment! As C.S. Lewis says,
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? - Mere Christianity
Friday, July 31, 2009
New! Updated Antichrist List!
They said it about:
Adolph Hitler
Vladimir Lenin
Mikhail Gorbechev (by the Americans)
Ronald Reagan (by the Russians)
Ayatollah Khomeini
Slobodan Milosevic
Saddam Hussein
Osama bin Laden
The Pope (pick any pope)
and even
George W. Bush!
Well, someone has just added another famous name to this list. Congratulations, Pres. Barack Obama, you just made ANTICHRIST! Just consult this incredibly boring, but popular vid:
I guess it's not too surprising. He's been everything else: Messiah, The One, whatever...
But seriously, who makes up this horse manure? Any such tortured reading of the Bible will make my neighbor the Antichrist, for crying out loud. The doctrine of the Antichrist, I've found, is really quite accomodating to anyone of notoriety. Why hasn't the community of prophecy enthusiasts applied Antichrist criteria to the great deceivers within Christendom? Benny Hinn is a wonderful example. I estimate that Hinn might be closer to being the Antichrist than even Hitler. Until those in the Name-That-Antichrist crowd first denounce the deceivers and the heretics among Christian airwaves and popular gatherings meant to bilk the unsuspecting masses, any finger-pointing will have to be ridiculed and proponents stripped of their credibility (if ever they had any).
Prophecy nutcases and faith-healing heretics--two freakshow camps under the label of Christianity that haven't received enough due criticism from within. I think it's about time that changed.
Adolph Hitler
Vladimir Lenin
Mikhail Gorbechev (by the Americans)
Ronald Reagan (by the Russians)
Ayatollah Khomeini
Slobodan Milosevic
Saddam Hussein
Osama bin Laden
The Pope (pick any pope)
and even
George W. Bush!
Well, someone has just added another famous name to this list. Congratulations, Pres. Barack Obama, you just made ANTICHRIST! Just consult this incredibly boring, but popular vid:
I guess it's not too surprising. He's been everything else: Messiah, The One, whatever...
But seriously, who makes up this horse manure? Any such tortured reading of the Bible will make my neighbor the Antichrist, for crying out loud. The doctrine of the Antichrist, I've found, is really quite accomodating to anyone of notoriety. Why hasn't the community of prophecy enthusiasts applied Antichrist criteria to the great deceivers within Christendom? Benny Hinn is a wonderful example. I estimate that Hinn might be closer to being the Antichrist than even Hitler. Until those in the Name-That-Antichrist crowd first denounce the deceivers and the heretics among Christian airwaves and popular gatherings meant to bilk the unsuspecting masses, any finger-pointing will have to be ridiculed and proponents stripped of their credibility (if ever they had any).
Prophecy nutcases and faith-healing heretics--two freakshow camps under the label of Christianity that haven't received enough due criticism from within. I think it's about time that changed.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Brainiacs' Fight Club
Friday, July 10, 2009
Spotlight on Acts 17
Acts 17 is my favorite passage in Scripture (if it’s okay to have a favorite!) and has been for many years. Imagine my delight when someone turned it into the name of an apologetics ministry. Founded by apologists David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi, Acts 17 has a special focus on Islam. From their Mission statement:
The website shows a full calendar of debates and events that put them on the front lines of dialogue with Muslims and atheists. They also have a blog, Answering Muslims, on which they post their latest ministry updates.
Acts 17 is certainly in the vein of a new generation of Christian apologetics ministries. I look forward to learning more about the work God has given to them in the upcoming months and years.
ADDENDUM: After writing this initally, I perused through Answering Muslims and decided to post their video encounter with Muslims titled “Sharia Comes to Dearborn, Michigan”. Powerful and disturbing, please give thought and prayers for the Acts 17 crew for their ongoing ministry. View it below.
The mission of Acts 17 Apologetics Ministries is to glorify God by defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ from the ground up. We present evidence for the existence and attributes of God, the inspiration and historical reliability of the Scriptures, and the death, resurrection, and deity of Jesus Christ. We also refute the arguments of those who oppose the True Gospel, most commonly the arguments of Muslims and atheists.
The website shows a full calendar of debates and events that put them on the front lines of dialogue with Muslims and atheists. They also have a blog, Answering Muslims, on which they post their latest ministry updates.
Acts 17 is certainly in the vein of a new generation of Christian apologetics ministries. I look forward to learning more about the work God has given to them in the upcoming months and years.
ADDENDUM: After writing this initally, I perused through Answering Muslims and decided to post their video encounter with Muslims titled “Sharia Comes to Dearborn, Michigan”. Powerful and disturbing, please give thought and prayers for the Acts 17 crew for their ongoing ministry. View it below.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
"Woe to You, Hypocrites!"
An excerpt from the book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Geisler/Turek) that I found very...interesting:
The United States Congress was in a rare joint session. All 435 representatives and 100 senators were in attendance, and the C-SPAN-TV cameras were rolling. The members were gathered together to hear a speech by a descendant of George Washington. But what they thought would be a polite speech of patriotic historical reflections quickly turned into a televised tongue-lashing. With a wagging finger and stern looks, Washington's seventh-generation grandson declared,
The United States Congress was in a rare joint session. All 435 representatives and 100 senators were in attendance, and the C-SPAN-TV cameras were rolling. The members were gathered together to hear a speech by a descendant of George Washington. But what they thought would be a polite speech of patriotic historical reflections quickly turned into a televised tongue-lashing. With a wagging finger and stern looks, Washington's seventh-generation grandson declared,
"Woe to you, egotistical hypocrites! You are full of greed and self-indulgence. Everything you do is done for appearances: You make pompous speeches and grandstand before these TV cameras. You demand the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats wherever you go. You love to be greeted in your districts and have everyone call you "Senator" or "Congressman." On the outside, you appear to people as righteous, but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness! You say you want to clean up Washington, but as soon as you get here you become twice as much a son of hell as the one you replaced!Of course such an address never really took place (if it had, you certainly would have heard about it!). Who would be so blunt and rude to address the nation's leaders that way? Certainly no one claiming to be a Christian! Are you sure?
"Woe to you, makers of the law, you hypocrites! You do not practice what you preach. You put heavy burdens on the citizens, but then opt out of your own laws!
"Woe to you, federal fools! You take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, but then you nullify the Constitution by allowing judges to make up their own laws.
"Woe to you, blind hypocrites! You say that if you had lived in the days of the Founding Fathers, you never would have taken part with them in slavery. You say you never would have agreed that slaves were the property of their masters but would have insisted that they were human beings with unalienable rights. But you testify against yourselves because today you say that unborn children are the property of their mothers and have no rights at all! Upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed in this country. You snakes! You brood of vipers! You have left this great chamber desolate! How will you escape being condemned to hell!"
Friday, March 13, 2009
Confident Christianity--Dot Com!
The Confident Christianity apologetics blog has now launched its apologetics website, confidentchristianity.com. Yay for birth! Congratulations to Mary Jo Sharp. I pray and hope that her site is blessed with much traffic and changed hearts and minds.Booyah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
