A “blogment” with an atheist

I’m being lazy and using a comment thread as a blog post to address some common objections of atheists.  There were a lot of similar comments at this thread but I thought this captured some key themes.

Science is the best way to understand the reality of the world around us, to avoid fooling ourselves with imperfect reason, imperfect senses, and personal biases.

Science is great for material things, but by definition it doesn’t deal with immaterial things. And you can’t use science to prove that you should only trust science (circular reference).

And Darwinian evolution selects for survivability, not truth, so, ironically, you have no rational basis to trust your rationality.

The rational part allows us to both accurately weigh evidence and fill in the blanks in our knowledge. The alternative is to defer to tradition or authority.

You beg the question and assume we don’t have evidence for God, the Bible, the resurrection, etc. We have loads — teleological, cosmological, historical, archeological, etc. It is what helped convert me from atheism.

Your assertion about ‘god is supreme law-giver’ is a case in point. The ONLY thing you can say is ‘god says so’. If it causes poverty (abortion), suicide (gay hatred), societal degredation (slavery), dead children (faith healing), war (the middle ages), cronyism, graft, rape, etc (clergy of many vestments), then it simply doesn’t matter. Any believer A who can convince believer B that ‘god said so’ is home free to do anything.

Not at all. That would be the logical conclusion of the false teachers who are totally sure that you can’t be totally sure what the Bible says. I know abortion, suicide, bullying, rape, etc. are all wrong. The fakes will tell you we just can’t be sure because then we’d be putting ourselves in the place of God. (P.S. I won’t tell Max you are one of those nasty absolutists.)

You drank the kool-aid on gay hatred. 1. In your worldview, Darwinian evo caused gay hatred, Christianity, etc. Stop hating on your own worldview! 2. Gays have lots of other issues that lead to suicide. 3. Lots of atheists hate gays (or try to convince me that Matthew Shepherd’s killers — who may not have killed him just for being gay — just came from a Focus on the Family “Love Won Out” conference). 4. Tons of people hate me just for being a Christian, being pro-life and pro-real marriage and I’m not the least bit suicidal, so the hate ==> suicide is a canard. I’m probably way nicer to gays than the average atheist, and not just because I’ll tell them the truth if they ask.

Side note: That is so sad that you consider abortion to be a poverty-preventer. Using that logic, why not kill the kids outside the womb? They consume way more resources than the unborn or newborns. Or let the kid be born then kill the most expensive kid. Wouldn’t that be the most logical way to proceed once your scientifically based morality has deemed it acceptable to kill an innocent human being? (P.S. Note to self: Don’t let Jason travel to 3rd world countries. He thinks nearly all those people should be dead, because the poor in the U.S. live like kings and queens compared to them. I know a lot of very joyful people whose deaths in the womb would have been applauded as pragmatic here in the U.S.)

When the ultimate focus is on what is best for humanity, then ‘let’s kill the infidels’ has to pass a higher test.

What higher test? In your worldview the answer will always be, “Whoever is in power.” That isn’t a higher test, just a flavor change.

“It’s not ‘god said so’ it’s is that a humane and caring thing to do? It is possible to reason to a conclusion about what actions will improve our lot in life and our relationship to other people, and those conclusions will become progressively better over time with a scientific and rational approach.

Yeah, the Enlightenment crowd was really confident of that until that pesky 20th century came along and ruined it.

ps. Sam Harris – The Moral Landscape is a good read for this relationship between science and ethics. He doesn’t make as much of a distinction between science-based reason and scientific experiments, but it does explain the position in more detail.

Would that be the Sam Harris who thought that rape had some evolutionary benefits but now does not? I’ll pass. Again, rationalize all you like, but no amount of chemical reactions can’t make morality. Any “morality” discussed by atheists is by definition moral relativism.

Cheers.

Integrated apologetics

I’m a big fan of apologetics (the defense of the Christian faith), but I don’t think we should always treat it as a separate enterprise.  It is good to have whole sessions on apologetics, especially because it is so often ignored in churches, and I’m a huge fan of sites like Apologetics315 and people like the Wintery Knight.  But I prefer to integrate it into most of my lessons so people can grasp the basics and see that it is part of the fabric of our message.

We may not all have the job of evangelist, but as 1 Peter 3:15-16 notes, all Christians are to be apologists.

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, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

But that doesn’t mean apologetics can’t be a regular part of our lessons and sermons.  For example, when teaching anything in church, or even in general conversations as appropriate, I aim to reflexively weave in basic apologetic themes.

• The minimal facts: “Virtually all historians agree on key facts about Jesus and his followers, such as Jesus death on a Roman cross, his followers’ belief that He rose from the dead, and Paul’s conversion and his authorship of key books attributed to him such as Romans.  We have good reasons to infer that Jesus rising from the dead is the best explanation for these facts.”
• Distinctions about biblical faith: We don’t have blind faith; we have a faith grounded in evidence.  See how the Gospel was shared in the book of Acts.  Over and over it was based on references to Jesus’ resurrection, not appeals to believe without evidence or reason.”
• The robust transmission process of the texts: “Even atheist textual critics will concede that we know what the original writings of the Bible said to 99%+ accuracy, and 100% on major doctrines.”
• Our simple claim: “The original writings of the Bible turned out exactly the way God and the writers wanted them to.  Yes, men can make mistakes, but they don’t always make mistakes.  Our biblical claim is that God directed the process.”  You can go on at length about the Bible being inerrant, infallible and inspired — and I agree with all of those — but I’ve found that the simple summation gets people to realize that if God can do anything He can surely communicate his original texts to us the way He wanted to.

Note how simple and brief those are.  They can lead to deeper conversations, but those alone can help change people from the errant “blind faith” mindset and get them to think more carefully about apologetics.

I do the same thing with the basic Gospel message.  No matter what I’m teaching, I try to note how we are saved by grace, through faith, and not by works.  This needs to be a constant reminder.

I urge you to weave these simple apologetic and Gospel concepts into your lessons and conversations.  Even if it doesn’t lead the hearers to deeper apologetics studies, at least they will have clear reminders of the basics and will hopefully keep them from saying incorrect things.

What simple themes do you seek to work into lessons and conversations?

False teacher follow up

As I noted in The Westar Wolves broke my irony meter, false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie used the Huffington Post to market the false teachers at the Jesus Seminar in The Bible Seminar: Rescuing the Text.  I made a comment that actually got through the far-Left leaning editors there.  I was merely pointing out that Chuck’s group believes the opposite of what authentic Christians do:

Just check out what Wikipedia says about these “Christian­” Jesus Seminar scholars: They deny the resurrecti­on, the deity of Christ, the exclusivit­y of Christ for salvation (even though the Bible teaches over 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation)­, the inspiratio­n of the Bible (they claim it is just written by men, though it claims to speak for God over 3,000 times), and more.

They are welcome to their views, of course. I respect religious freedom and wouldn’t want anyone to stifle that. But I find it completely dishonest for Chuck and the Jesus Seminar to claim to be Christian when they disagree with so many essentials of the faith.

And then there is the hypocrisy: Their politics-d­isguised-a­s-religion is the same thing they claim to oppose. They twist the Bible to say that Jesus is fine with abortion, same-sex marriage, having the government take from neighbor A by force to “give” to neighbor B and calling it charity on your part, etc.

Usually Chuck knows enough to ignore me, because he can never back up his points and can only resort to personal attacks.  But he slipped and actually responded to me.

Note how he completely ignored my assertions and just resorted to personal attacks.  (BTW, I know that he probably thinks I attack him, but if you read carefully you’ll see that I always point to his content and errors and I back up my claims.  I don’t just say, “Chuck is ignorant.”  If I say he lied, I show where and how he lied.  If I say he got a Bible verse wrong again, I show what he got wrong.)

Perhaps the biggest symbol of ignorance is using Wikipedia as a source of informatio­n on theology. There is a reason middle school and high school teachers won’t let students use it as a source for papers.

But I’m not surprised this reference showed up here. It happens all the time. We need more than a third grade theologica­l education to debate these important issues and that is what is clearly missing in theologica­l debates over the meaning of the Bible.

You’ve illustrate­d the point that Biblical literacy is important.

- Rev. Chuck Currie

That was sweet of him.  Note how he implied that Wikipedia was wrong and used the entire comment to just attack me.  Here’s my response:

Chuck,

I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I’m puzzled by the content.  I’m familiar with the limitations of Wikipedia, as most people are (including the fact that it leans Left), but I wouldn’t personally attack someone who referred to it as being the “biggest symbol of ignorance” and implying that he is biblically illiterate.  I would tend to dig deeper before making such claims.

Since you are an Associate Director at Westar, I figured you would be interested in what Wikipedia said about your organization and would want it to be accurate.

I think most readers will see that you implied that the Wikipedia information was incorrect.  Therefore, perhaps you can clarify a few things for us:

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the physical resurrecti­on of Jesus?

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the deity of Christ?

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the exclusivit­y of Christ for salvation?   (Note: It is public record that Chuck directly denies it.  He did a whole sermon on why Jesus is not the only way to salvation, even though the Bible teaches over 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation­.  I’m sure he’d be glad to link to the sermon here.)

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the divine inspiratio­n of the original texts of the Bible, just as the writers claim?

If you can confirm that the Jesus Seminar affirms all those things and point to documentation of it, I will gladly retract my reference to Wikipedia.

This is a great opportunity for you to clear up some confusion.  After all, if all the Wikipedia claims are in error, as you implied, and if Westar is all about increasing biblical literacy, wouldn’t you relish the opportunity to set the record straight about Jesus being divine, the only way to salvation, etc.?  I know the Bible teaches those things to be true.  I’m encouraged that your response implies that you do as well.

After a day he hadn’t responded, even though he was very active on an Oregon Live thread (so I know he was at his PC).  So I left this comment:

Chuck, are you going to respond? As a Westar Associate Director on a mission to “rescue the text” of the Bible I figured you’d welcome the opportunity to clear things up.

To recap, you implied that Wikipedia was incorrect about the Jesus Seminar beliefs. Wouldn’t this be a great place to clarify those?

You ignored my comment and insisted that I was ignorant for daring to refer to Wikipedia. Of course, I just used that reference out of convenience, because it mirrored everything I have ever heard from the Jesus Seminar.

So I ask again:

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the physical resurrecti­­on of Jesus?

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the deity of Christ?

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the exclusivit­­y of Christ for salvation, even though you preach the opposite?

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the divine inspiratio­­n of the original texts of the Bible, just as the Bible writers claimed?

If you can confirm that the Jesus Seminar affirms all those things and point to documentat­ion of it, I will gladly retract my reference to Wikipedia. You’ll want to set them straight as well. That’s how Wikipedia works.

Three days and still no reply from Chuck.

Kudos to HuffPo for not censoring my comments.  Yet.

Mmmmm . . . Oreos . . . and Intelligent Design?

As usual, philosophy has some fancy terms to describe simple concepts.  Things are caused by agents or events.  The 10th domino falls because of the event preceding it (the 9th domino falling), but the first domino fell because an agent pushed it over.

Ignoring agent causation is a problem for Darwinists.  We use the inference of agent causation — or design – all day, every day.  The classic “watch on the beach” illustration is just one of countless examples one could use.  If you find a watch on a beach you infer that someone dropped it, not that it came into being by an infinitely long series of random events.  Crime investigations assume agent causation.  And on and on.

Greg Koukl makes this distinction in his essay on Oreos & Origins:

Now to give you an illustration about how the game is fixed by the courts and by the educational system and by the scientific community, I have suggested what I have called the Oreo Experiment. You go to your chemistry teacher and ask if he is able to look at a solution and describe, based on his scientific testing, what is in the solution and how the solution, the precipitate, came to be. The precipitate is the heavy stuff that falls out, precipitates in the solution. In a beaker, for example. It seems that someone who is well-versed in the area of chemistry and well-versed in the area of physics can look and measure and test and describe what happened in a simple kind of thing.

Your chemist teacher takes the challenge and you say, “Okay, I’m going to put out a beaker full of stuff. There you see it, and now I’m covering it. Tomorrow we’ll uncover it and you’ll see something that has precipitated. Then it is your job to figure out how that happened.” Sure. Fair enough. I know science. I know the laws of chemistry. We’ll do it.

However, just before the chemist comes into the room the next morning to begin his experiments to look and observe the precipitate and begin to measure it to solve the problem, you lift the cover on the beaker and drop in an Oreo cookie. He walks in, you remove the cover to the beaker, and there is this discolored solution, but clearly visible is this rapidly decaying Oreo cookie. Very obvious. You can still see the word “Oreo” on it. And you say, “Okay, now using the laws of physics and chemistry, explain to me how that Oreo cookie got there.” And he says, “Wait a minute, it’s obvious that someone put it there because Oreo cookies don’t just manufacture themselves out of nowhere in the middle of a beaker. You are playing a trick on me. Someone dropped it in there.” And then you say, “Foul. You’ve broken the rules. You’ve inferred an outside agent here. You’re not being scientific. It’s your job to be a scientist. This is a chemistry lab. Let’s stick with science. You are obliged to come up with some kind of explanation limited to the laws of chemistry and physics and time plus chance to explain how that Oreo cookie got there in the last twelve hours.” Now, he would be hard pressed to do so. Why? Because it was put there. You know it was. The evidence indicates it was. There was an agent that caused that, but the rules have restricted him from concluding what it obvious in the circumstances.

As Koukl points out, Intelligent Design isn’t a “God of the gaps” argument where we fill in the unknown with God.  Many times agent causation is the most likely and obvious answer, but scientists use a “science of the gaps” fallacy.  Their blind faith in science leads them to assume that “science” will explain it later.

But in this case, agent causation is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the “gap” of how the Oreo got there.  The materialists — who ignore agent causation when it is convenient — have a gap, but we don’t.  In the same way, when you examine the complexity and fine-tuning of the universe, DNA, etc., along with the simple logic of the “first cause” argument, it is perfectly reasonable to infer a designer.

I saw this with a conservation I observed years ago.  One friend was making a case for Intelligent Design and the flaws of Darwinism to another friend, who is an atheist.  The atheist couldn’t refute a single point, but merely reiterated his faith that science would figure it out later.

Why do so many children leave church when they go to college?

There was a very interesting finding in Survey: High School Seniors ‘Graduating from God’, Christian News.  More critical thinking leads to better transitions.

Whether it was with the youth group overall or with a specific adult leader, students who had the opportunity to struggle with tough questions and pain during high school seemed to have a healthier transition into college life,” stated the study by Powell and Krista Kubiak, youth worker and graduate of the Marriage and Family program at Fuller.

And youth workers play a significant part in such conversations involving struggles and tough questions. But in the big picture, youth groups are leaving out any preparations to help students make a successful transition.

Now that doesn’t surprise me.  I’ve always felt that youth groups that focus on entertainment, “walk the talk” and similar themes aren’t preparing youth to go to college where their faith will be challenged from all angles.

I’m glad to see the surveys show that the atheists have it all wrong.  No amount of “brain-washing” works if people think critically.  The faiths that last are much more likely to have been thought through carefully.  The ones that crumble didn’t know what faith really was.

Oh, and you can’t just throw stones at the youth groups.  It is the parents job first.  The biggest fault of the churches is not holding the parents primarily accountable.

Ephesians 6:4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

So, how are you doing with that?

Should we ban all religions? Gee, can’t think of any downsides to that plan.

See 2 ad agencies compete to make a better ad for the end of all religion.

What a broad collection of poor-thinking people.  It was a logical fallacy-fest, mostly serial question begging.

They didn’t bother to explain how they would enforce a ban on religion.  I’ll fill in the blanks.  Their premise is simple, inevitable and stupid: “All violence is caused by religion, so let’s use violence to ban religion.”  How else will they ban it?  Just ask politely?  Just research Communist countries to see how it is done.

They ignored the benefits of Christianity.  I see very few hospitals and charities founded by atheists and lots done by Bible-believing Christians.

People rationalize all sorts of evil with religion, but Bible-believing Christians stopped the slave trade.  Yes, people misused the Bible to rationalize slavery, but you don’t judge an ideology by those who violate its tenets.

They are ignorant of the claims of Christianity.  We have a lot of evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

And they ignore a foundational error of their atheistic thinking: While mocking religion for being fairy tales, they assume without evidence that the universe came into being from nothing and that life came from non-life.   They have zero evidence for that.  And even if Darwinian evolution was true, it would be 100.00% responsible for all religious beliefs.  So why are they so mad about religion?  And don’t get me started about their multiverse fairy tale.

They blame religion for everything, as if religion was the cause of abortions, all wars, the Holocaust, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, thefts, child abuse, rape, drug abuse, traffic accidents, adultery, corporate fraud, cancer, hangnails and every other evil known to humanity.

If you follow the biblical guidelines for sex and marriage your odds of getting STDs or out-of-wedlock pregnancies are almost zero.  Your odds of being poor go down dramatically.

It is chilling to see such otherwise average people so excited about crushing religious freedom and free speech.

Atheists run from William Lane Craig, but why won’t Craig debate James White?

As much fun as it would be to see William Lane Craig expose the horribly flawed atheistic philosophy of Richard Dawkins, I’d prefer to see Craig debate James White.  It would be a much more balanced debate between two very well prepared, extremely articulate and intelligent Christians.

I’d also like to see Norman Geisler debate White.  I’m part way through The Potter’s Freedom by White, where he defends Reformed theology and critiques Geisler’s Chosen But Free.  I’ve always found White to be exceptionally well researched, and so far his rebuttal of Geisler (whom I have a lot of respect for) is very convincing.

See Atheists on the Run from William Lane Craig.

There are many atheists who refuse to debate William Lane Craig. He is definitely skilled at self-control, remaining on-target, etc. But, I wonder if those who are so excited about Craig’s prowess realize that he has been challenged to debate a number of issues by men with just as much experience as he has in debate, but he has declined?

I have often commented on how useful a debate between myself and Dr. Craig would be on many issues. I have often played portions of Craig’s studies, talks, and debates, and have challenged his statements. I have challenged his evidentialism, and a debate on whether we are called to proclaim the “greater probability of the existence of a god” or to proclaim the certainty of the existence of the God that men know exists would be very useful to our generation. I have challenged his Molinism, even lecturing on the topic at a Reformed Baptist Church right next to the Talbot/Biola campus in Southern California. I do not believe Molinism is at all consistent with biblical truth, and would love to challenge him to demonstrate that the God of the Bible is the same God he describes as having “actuated” this world on the basis of middle knowledge, etc. And, of course, in light of his response to Christopher Hitchens, wherein the only “false” Christian faith he could come up with was not Romanism or any of the fundamentally sub- and anti-Christian movements of our day, but Calvinism, would not the students at Biola/Talbot find a full-orbed series of debates, right there on campus, on the doctrines of grace, to be an exceptionally useful addition to their education?

Dr. Craig is well aware of our desire to engage these subjects. Though we have never met, we know many of the same people, and I have been told, “through channels,” that “Dr. Craig does not debate Christians.” This is the same response you will get from Norman Geisler as well, when the topic comes up as to why he has declined a dozen such challenges over the past decade. I have never been given an explanation of why this is. We are both debaters. We have both debated many of the same people. We have just done so in very different ways, and it would be greatly edifying for the Christian community as a whole to understand the why’s and wherefore’s of those differences. We have both shown that we can debate fairly, fully, and respectfully. So I see absolutely no reason why Dr. Craig will not accept our challenge to engage these topics. We certainly stand ready, and given that the atheists are running for the hills with their hair on fire, it seems Dr. Craig would have plenty of extra time to join us in exploring, via debate, these important apologetic issues.

William Lane Craig scaring off debate opponents

Via Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig Is Ready To Debate, But Finds Few Challengers:

American Evangelical theologian William Lane Craig is ready to debate the rationality of faith during his U.K tour this fall, but it appears that some atheist philosophers are running shy of the challenge.

This month president of the British Humanist Association, Polly Toynbee, pulled out of an agreed debate at London’s Westminster Central Hall in October, saying she “hadn’t realized the nature of Mr. Lane Craig’s debating style.”

By “debating style” I think she meant “annihilates bad atheistic philosophy.”  Seriously, did she not realize who he was and how he debated before accepting the original terms?  Could she be more specific about her objections?  Does he yell, swear, make personal attacks, etc.?

Lane Craig, who is a professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif., and author of 30 books and hundreds of scholarly articles, is no stranger to the art of debate and has taken on some of the great orators, such as famous atheists Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Harris once described Craig as “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists”.

Responding to Toynbee’s cancellation, Lane Craig commented: “These folks (atheists) can be very brave when they are alone at the podium and there’s no one there to challenge them. But one of the great things about these debates is that, it allows both sides to be heard on a level playing field, and for the students in the audience to make up their own minds about where they think the truth lies.”

They prefer classroom, media and government monopolies where others can’t have the microphone and/or are afraid to lose grades, funding or careers.

But David Silverman, president of the American Atheists, believes the reason behind the cancellation is much simpler.

“The fact is some people get tired of debating Christians because of the same arguments over and over again. And sometimes it’s a lot like arguing with a wall,” he said.

Hmmmm . . . isn’t that an argument that Craig could have made if he chickened out of a debate?  Would atheists have accepted that excuse?  And that wasn’t Toynbee’s published excuse, so why is he making up one for her?

Others have refused to challenge Lane Craig, too, including Richard Dawkins, one of the Four Horseman of the new Atheist movement, which include Hitchens, Harris and Daniel Dennett.

Dawkins, who has labeled the Roman Catholic Church “evil” and once called the Pope “a leering old villain in a frock,” refused four separate invitations, extended through religious and humanist organizations, to take part in debates with Lane Craig during his fall tour.

The controversy wafted into the British press after fellow atheist and philosophy lecturer, Daniel Came, accused Dawkins of simply being afraid, saying, “The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.”

Dawkins responded by saying, “I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion.”

Ouch — even atheists are calling Dawkins a coward!  And again, isn’t Dawkins’ excuse a one-size-fits-all that either side could use?  What is his evidence that Craig’s debates are about selfish promotion and Dawkins’ books and interviews are all about helping mankind?  Dawkins is a professional atheist and a debate with Craig would be exactly what you’d expect someone like him to participate in.

Dawkins’ problem is that he can’t go three sentences without contradicting his worldview, and people like Craig are really good at pointing that out.  Example: Dawkins acts like the (falsely claimed) self-promotion angle would be a bad thing.  But in a Darwinian world, what would be more logical than a drive for self-promotion?  Shouldn’t Dawkins use that as evidence for his position?

Leopard Theology

Image via Wikipedia

Many Christians teach Leopard Theology, because they believe that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots.   They don’t call it that, but that is exactly what their theology is founded upon.  And, like the leopard, they camouflage themselves.  They take on church leadership roles even though they teach the opposite of the Bible.

Saying the Bible isn’t fully inspired by God may seem like a humble premise, but it actually makes several strong and unfounded claims.

It implies that God couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver His word to us in a reliable way, and that despite God’s alleged failings flawed humans are able to discern which parts were inspired and which parts were not.  Are we to believe that humans are to correct for God’s errors?

Why is this a serious problem?  It is hard enough to follow the teachings of the Bible without having “Christians” choose what “really” came from God.  Worse yet, they ignore some parts of scripture so they can teach that the opposite is not only acceptable but desirable.  Some may do it accidentally or out of laziness but others are just blatant false teachers.  They have made up their own god and their own religion.

If someone claims the Bible is only partly inspired, ask a few questions:

• How did they come to this conclusion?
• Do they think their favorite verses are inspired?  If so,  how do they know?  How about John 3:16?  How about “love your neighbor?”  Whenever “Judge not, lest ye be judged” is quoted, I never hear the liberal theologians question whether Jesus really said that.
• If the Bible is only partly inspired, how can they be sure that their preferred verses aren’t the ones that are uninspired and the ones they don’t like are the “real” verses?
• Why is it that God couldn’t inspire the original writings of forty writers, but He can inspire billions of people to properly determine which parts are right and which aren’t?
• If He couldn’t get Paul, Luke, Matthew, John, etc.  to record his word accurately, how can He get you to do it?
• Why should I trust your “inspiration” over those who penned the Bible, or over my “inspiration?”

Then there is Advanced Leopard Theology.  It is just like basic Leopard Theology, except God is also changing spots and adding or removing spots, and, oddly enough, He is only telling theological liberals and progressives.   They use phrases such as “God is still speaking,” but they don’t mean He still speaks through his Word (that would be a true statement).  They think He is still revealing new truths to the church and changing doctrines taught in the Bible.  They may also say things like, “The Holy Spirit is moving in a new direction.”  Indeed.

Here’s an example: A Methodist pastor named Laurie Hays Coffman did a pro-gay theology piece that made the argument that she wants to “unfurl our corporate sails to catch today’s winds as the Spirit blows afresh.”  She said she was challenged by the vision God gave to Peter in Acts 10-11 where God makes it clear that the Gospel is for the Gentiles, too, and that the Israelites’ ceremonial dietary laws are no longer in force.  Her reasoning is that in the same way that God overturned those laws that He is now overturning the prohibitions against homosexual behavior.  If that looks like a non sequitur to you then you are correct.  The problem is her poor Biblical analysis.  There are at least nine things wrong with this view:

1. The person with the revelation was Peter, one of Jesus’ inner circle and a key leader in the early church.  It wasn’t made to you, me or someone like Ms. Coffman.  That doesn’t mean God couldn’t reveal something important like this to us, just that it is highly unlikely.
2. The visions were clear and emphatic.  Peter was given the vision three times and the incident is mentioned twice.
3. Peter was inclined to reject the meaning of the vision, whereas these Advanced Leopard Theologians have views on human sexuality that are virtually indistinguishable from the prevailing culture and they are glad to accept this allegedly new revelation.
4. There was external validation for Peter from the Roman centurion, which also included a supernatural intervention.
5. This lesson showed up in the Bible, not outside it.  I’m not saying miracles don’t happen outside the Bible.  It is just that things appear in the Bible for a reason.  God communicating that the ceremonial laws had been fulfilled was one of those “big deals.”
6. This vision overturned a ceremonial law, not a moral law.  There are zero examples in the Bible of God reversing his moral laws.  In fact, the more Jesus talked the stricter the laws seemed to get, because He emphasized the spirit of the law and not just the letter (i.e., lust was akin to committing adultery, anger was akin to murder, etc.).  The dietary laws never applied to Gentiles.
7. The “God has changed his mind view” is primarily being “revealed” to theologically liberal Christians in the U.S. . . . the very ones who often deny the authority of his Word to begin with!  So we can’t trust the accurate transmission of the original writings but we can trust their new revelations?  I’m skeptical.
8. If God is revealing a change, why is it necessarily more liberal?  Why couldn’t God make his laws more stringent?
9. The Bible gives strong warnings not to add or take away from its teachings.

But the orthodox can fall prey to this in a more subtle way by claiming full inspiration but conveniently ignoring passages we don’t like.  Consider this passage on church leadership, where some exaggerate ”not given to drunkenness” to mean no alcohol whatsoever but ignore the “must manage his own family well . . .” part.

1 Timothy 3:2-4 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect.

Another example is correctly teaching about the sin of homosexual behavior while neglecting to give proper emphasis to Biblical admonitions against divorce, adultery and fornication.  We need to teach all of scripture with balance.  Grandstanding on sins that aren’t temptations to us and soft-pedaling those that are is not an attractive or Christian thing to do.

There are plenty of reasons and resources to defend the accuracy and integrity of all of the original scriptures.  We don’t need to get sloppy and just follow the parts we like.  And we truly miss out when we cast doubts on every passage and question if it is really the word of God.

Here’s some friendly advice: Don’t mess with God’s Word.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.

Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

Revelation 22:18-19 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Finally, what does Jesus say about those who don’t believe the Bible is inspired?

He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’  Luke 16:31

Also see Men wrote the Bible so it must have mistakes and How many translations did your Bible go through?

Favorite dish of liberal theologians & skeptics: Shellfish

This is one of my all-time favorites bits, originally posted in 2007.  It got a bunch of traffic recently when linked to by another site, so I thought I’d re-post it.

—– 

As always, this is about careful thinking and proper analysis of the Bible and not about picking on homosexuals.  We are all sinners in need of a Savior.

—

Many liberal theologians, skeptics and pro-gay lobbyists use the “shellfish” argument to undermine and/or dismiss parts of the Bible they disagree with, often mocking about how they love shrimp and such.  They use the same reasoning with other Old Testament restrictions such as not eating pork or mixing fibers in garments.  This video by Jack Black is a recent example.

Their argument goes like this:

• Yes, Leviticus 18:22 says Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
• But Leviticus 11:10 says, And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination unto you
• Therefore, the Bible cannot be the word of God and homosexual behavior must be moral because the Bible is an undependable, contradictory book that equates shrimp eating with sexual immorality.  And people who teach that homosexual behavior is a sin are bigoted hypocrites who only follow the parts of the Bible they like.

Here’s a sample of how they present their conclusions.  Search for Leviticus shellfish or see sites like God Hates Shrimp for more examples.

The above exercise proves that anti-gay fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible. They enthusiastically and openly embrace those parts of the Bible which affirm and justify their own personal, pre-existing prejudice against gay people, while declining to become as enthusiastic about verses like the ones listed above.

After all, how many times have you heard a fundamentalist say that eating shellfish was an abomination? But they sure don’t hesitate to say it about gay people, do they? What does that tell you?

Actually, I find those questions to be ironic, because I think the facts will show which side is most likely to pre-judge, selectively quote the Bible and take it too literally.  I hope they take this analysis seriously and reconsider whether their premises and conclusions were sound.

On the one hand, their argument is effective because it is catchy and very few people know how to respond to it.  Many people can’t even articulate the simple Gospel.  When was the last time anyone read Leviticus?

On the other hand, their argument is ineffective because the facts do not support it.  Also, it deliberately and unnecessarily undermines confidence in the word of God.  I expect that from skeptics and non-believers, but I am always disappointed that those claiming to be Christians use it to attack the word of God.

The argument appeals to those who take passages literally when it suits them.  Both passages say abomination (or detestable, depending on what translation you read), don’t they?  And if eating shellfish is obviously a morally neutral act then homosexual behavior must be as well, right?

However, if you follow the basic principle of reading things in context and you attempt to understand the original languages better on difficult or controversial passages, then you’ll realize that the shellfish argument is not supported by the facts.

The short version: There were different Hebrew words translated as abomination.  They were used differently in the individual verses and were used very differently in broader contexts.  The associated sins had radically different consequences and had 100% different treatments in the New Testament.  

The longer version

1. The words translated abomination in the original Hebrew are different.  In Lev. 11:10, it means detestable thing or idol, an unclean thing, an abomination, detestation.  This word is typically used in the Bible to describe unclean animals.

In Lev. 18:22 the Hebrew term תּוֹעֵבָה (to’evah, rendered “detestable act”) refers to the repugnant practices of foreigners.  As noted below, the word is also used to describe bestiality, child sacrifice and incest.

Therefore, the whole “same word!” argument self-destructs immediately.

2. Even a plain reading of the passages shows that the homosexual behavior is considered detestable to God, whereas the shellfish are to be detestable to the Israelites because it made them ceremonially unclean.  Those are key differences.  Being detestable to God is quite a bit different than being detestable to a person.

3. The broader contexts show completely different types of regulations.  Read Leviticus 11 and Leviticus 18 yourself and note the contexts.  I’ll wait here.

The beginning and end of chapter 11 make it clear that this passage is about dietary rules just for the Israelites:

Leviticus 11:1-2 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat:

Leviticus 11:46-47 These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves in the water and every creature that moves about on the ground. You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.

Now consider the beginning and end of chapter 18, where the Israelites are told not to be like the pagan Canaanites.  God expected the Canaanites to follow these moral laws and was about to vomit them out of the land for failing to do so.  Therefore, they obviously weren’t Jewish ceremonial laws.

Leviticus 18:1-3 The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.

Leviticus 18:30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.”

4. The punishments for eating shellfish and homosexual behavior were radically different.  There were about 15 things in the Israelite theocracy that could result in capital punishment, and homosexual behavior was one of them (And no, I’m not suggesting that should be the punishment today.  The punishments were for the Israelite theocracy, which is clear when you read the context of those passages.)  But eating shellfish just made one ceremonially unclean for a period of time.

Again, note how the moral laws with their steep punishments are tied to offenses God held the pagans responsible for, yet the unclean animal passages were for the Israelites only and were brief (It could have been for health reasons and/or symbolic reasons.  Animals on the ground were like the serpent and thus symbolized sin and pagan religions often sacrificed pigs).

 Leviticus 20:13 “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Leviticus 20:22-26 Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. But I said to you, “You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the Lord your God, who has set you apart from the nations.

‘You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those which I have set apart as unclean for you. You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

5. The ceremonial dietary laws were clearly and emphatically overturned in the New Testament, whereas the commands against homosexual behavior (and other sexual sins) were not.   Also see Acts 15:28-29 (It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.)

—

And if someone tries to play the “Leviticus is outdated” card, remind them of this verse and ask if it still counts: Leviticus 19:18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.”

Remember, anyone calling themselves a Christian should be seeking to hold the same views as Jesus.  And Jesus fully supported the Old Testament law — every last letter and mark.

—

Here’s another answer from Tektonics, a terrific apologetics website:

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Aren’t there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

The point of this question – aside from the matter of not knowing what ritual purity is all about – is lost; if there is a sincere interest in knowing if there are “degrees” of abomination, just ask this simple question: Are there degrees to which things may be found “abominable”? Are the works of a robber baron not less abominable than those of a murderous dictator? In any event, if shellfish is a matter of ritual purity only, and homosexuality is a matter of higher morals as argued, then indeed, eating shellfish would have been a lesser abomination. (Indeed, the fact that the words used for “abomination” in both passages are different suggests that by itself. The word used for the shellfish is used only a few times in the OT, always of unclean animals, whereas the word used for homosexuality is used for things like bestiality, incest, and child sacrifice!)

—

So if anyone uses the shellfish argument with you, ask a few questions to see if they have really thought it through.  Everyone I have ever seen use it was either unaware of these responses or deliberately ignoring them. 

Also see Problems with Pro-Gay Theology and Responding to Pro-Gay Theology.

Superstition and religion

A common dig used by New Atheists against religious people (mainly Christians, of course) is that we are superstitious and naive.  But here’s an interesting finding: As traditional religion declines, superstition rises?

“That’s roughly a four-fold increase in belief in ghosts and astrology, and a doubling of belief in tarot. Interesting, given that Richard Dawkins and other atheists think they are driving superstition away along with religious belief (they see the two as the same category, of course, which they are not).”

. . .

The US data in particular disconfirm skeptic^TM Michael Shermer’s claims altogether.

Many sources would point out that superstitions are often survivals of inchoate early religions, thus not likely to be welcomed by an ethical monotheist one.

But then new atheists may be more likely than other people to believe in space aliens.

But how can that be, when the “brights” have had a monopoly on education, politics and media for a century or so?

As a Christian, I scoff at superstitions.  I leave those to non-believers.

Evidence for the Resurrection PowerPoint slides

The physical resurrection of Jesus is foundational to Christianity:

1 Corinthians 15 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

All Christians should know this basic truth and strive to be able to defend it when asked.

1 Peter 3 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.

Mary Jo Sharp is a Christian apologist who created a good overview of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus that you can share with Sunday School classes and others.  See MJ’s Evidence for the Resurrection.  Go read them now.  I’ll wait here.  (Click the “Actions” menu at the bottom to download them.)

Bonus: Here’s an interview with an atheist who converted to Christianity based on the evidence for the resurrection.

Is God a Moral Monster?

Short answer: No.

Medium answer: Listen to the last hour of the February 14, 2011 Stand to Reason Podcast

Long answer: Read Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God by Paul Copan

Much is made by the “New Atheists” such as Richard Dawkins (see one of his notorious quotes below) about the God of the Bible being immoral.  Aside from the complete lack of grounding for someone like Dawkins to make any complaints about morality, his sound bites fail when examined carefully.  As the saying goes, if you want to ask tough questions, that’s great, but you need to pay attention to the answers and not just plug your ears.

Sadly, you get a lot of wimpy or fake Christians who would rather apologize for God or deny his word rather than doing the tough work of thoroughly understanding the passages.  Christianity may not be their forte’.  Even those who buy the myth about the mean Old Testament God versus the nice New Testament God should note that Jesus had zero issues with anything in the Old Testament.  He was glad to quote the most controversial parts: Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah, Sodom & Gomorrah) and never hinted that He disagreed with any of it.

Here’s a review from Amazon by George P. Wood:

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins writes:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

In short, God is a “moral monster.”

Paul Copan begs to differ with Dawkins’ evaluation of the Old Testament God, not to mention the similar critiques of other New Atheists–e.g., Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. In Is God a Moral Monster? he uses these critiques as “a springboard to clarify and iron out misunderstandings and misrepresentations.” More than that, he essays to defend the justice of God, properly understood and correctly presented.

Copan divides his work into four sections. Part 1 identifies the New Atheists and outlines their critique of God. Part 2 responds to critiques of God’s character that revolve around his desire for the praise of his people, his “jealousy” for their fidelity, and his command to Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. Part 3 tackles what Dawkins calls the Bible’s “ubiquitous weirdness” and those passages he sees as morally monstrous. This section, the book’s longest, deals with kosher laws, criminal punishments, relationships between the sexes, slavery, the killing of the Canaanites particularly, and the so-called “religious roots” of violence generally. Part 4 concludes the book by questioning whether atheism can provide a foundation for morality and by pointing to Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Copan’s response to the New Atheists utilizes the following types of arguments:

First, he situates the Old Testament narratives and laws within the “redemptive movement of Scripture.” As a Christian, Copan reads the Bible as a story with a beginning, middle, and end. The beginning is an unsullied creation, and the end is Jesus Christ. The historical and legal elements of the Old Testament take place in the middle, falling short of God’s creational ideals and in need of Jesus Christ’s redemptive work. Far from being “God’s timeless wisdom,” Copan argues, much of the Old Testament is “inferior and provisional,” offering “incremental steps toward the ideal.”

Second, Copan situates the Old Testament within its historical context, pointing out how its legal codes are often a measurable improvement on the contemporaneous legal codes of other ancient near eastern societies. Criminal punishments are less severe, relationships between the sexes are fairer to women, slavery is more strictly regulated, and warfare is less savage.

Third, regarding difficult Old Testament narratives, Copan points out that narration does not imply endorsement. Jacob married two women and used their maidservants as concubines, but this does not imply divine endorsement. Jephthah sacrificed his daughter because of a rash vow, but his action did not merit divine approval. Many New Atheist critiques of Old Testament narratives commit what Copan calls “the `is-ought’ fallacy.”

Fourth, regarding difficult Old Testament laws, Copan focuses on their context and their limited application. Take Deuteronomy 20:16-18, for example–where God commanded the Israelites to “utterly destroy…the Hittite, the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite.” Copan points out several things worth keeping in mind.

* In issuing this commandment, God uses Israel as an agent of judgment against the Canaanites, whom God is judging for their wickedness.
* In addition to a concern for justice, God’s concern is religious: Unless the Canaanites are destroyed, they will corrupt the monotheistic faith and practice of Israel.
* This commandment, and others like it, has limited application to the initial entry of Israel into the Promised Land. It is not used as justification for Israel’s wars once they are established in the land.
* The commandment is not racially or ethnically motivated, since other passages of Scripture promise a similar judgment to Israel if she is disobedient to God and since Israel itself was a multi-ethnic host.
* The narratives describing the fulfillment of this commandment use “ancient near eastern exaggeration rhetoric,” meaning that the descriptions of total killing are not literally true and would not have been understood to be literally true by Israel or her contemporaries.
* The targeted cities are best understood as military outposts rather than non-combatant urban areas.
* Canaanites could escape divine judgment by joining Israel (as did Rahab and her household).
* Although some verses in Joshua describe the total destruction of the Canaanites after Israel’s entry into the Promised Land, other verses describe their continued presence. So, the Bible’s narrative portrayal of Israel’s “conquest” is itself ambivalent.

I doubt that New Atheists will think of much of this type of argument–focusing on context and limiting application. My guess is that they will still consider the commandment problematic, even contextualized and limited. Fine. But Copan’s point is that they should correctly describe what the narrative describes and understood the limitations of the commandments before they simply condemn them. One of the most irritating aspects of New Atheist critiques is their fundamentalist-like citation of Scripture without bothering to understand its contextual meaning. Copan’s argument helps expose the hermeneutical weaknesses of such New Atheist critiques.

In general, I found Copan’s argument to be persuasive, even probative at points. I think he successfully highlights numerous weaknesses in the New Atheist critique of the Old Testament God. Results may vary for different readers. Nonetheless, I think this is a valuable book for both atheists and Christians alike. It is valuable for atheists because it offers them a nuanced interpretation of difficult Old Testament passages. Rather than constructing straw-man arguments against the Old Testament God based on facile citation of passages plucked out of context, atheists need to argue with the passages as they are interpreted by believers who stand in the mainstream Christian tradition. The book is valuable for Christian readers because it helps them read their Bibles in a Christ-centered way, recognizing the less-than-ideal character of many Old Testament figures and the inferior-and-provisional character of many Old Testament laws.

Hey, I got linked by Apologetics 3:15!

See Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (05/13- 05/20) – Apologetics 315.  They are a terrific apologetics site (whether they link to me or not).  They linked to my post on witnessing tips for Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Copycats

I came across Isn’t the Jesus story just a retelling or ‘copycat’ of earlier godmen stories? at John’s blog and wanted to update this post with it.  It is a very thorough listing of alleged similarities between Jesus and false gods.

—–

Many skeptics like to use the “copycat” argument to assert that Christianity borrowed its tenets from other religions.  It was a major theme of the Zeitgeist movie (which influenced the worldview of the Arizona shooter, btw) and used by Bill Maher in his movie Religulous to discredit Christianity.  In their view, this proves that Christianity must be false.  There are a few major problems with this line of thinking.

1. They weren’t borrowed as most suggest. The Mithra borrowing was a myth, for example.  For example, Mithra was born out of a rock, not a virgin as is often claimed.

2. The Old Testament was written 500-2000 years before Jesus’ birth and has countless prophecies of him.  These pre-date nearly all the alleged borrowings.  If the premise is that earlier writings “prove” that later writings must have been borrowed, then the accusation self-destructs.  It would mean that Mithra et al must have borrowed from the Old Testament.

3. If everyone descended as described in the Bible, then it is to be expected that false religions would have some similar beliefs. They would have known the truth at some point and just perverted it.

There are over 30 cultures with flood accounts.  Does that mean the account of Noah must be false?  Of course not.  The fact that so many cultures have accounts of a major flood gives more reasons to believe there was a big flood.  If you quiz victims of the recent New Orleans flood you’ll get differing accounts, but that doesn’t mean the flood didn’t happen.

4. Even if  there were similarities it doesn’t mean Christianity isn’t true.  If people claim your identify falsely it doesn’t mean you don’t exist.  Regardless of how many similarities you find with other accounts (and they are really not that similar), it doesn’t prove that Jesus didn’t die on a Roman cross and rise from the dead.

As Lee Strobel emphasized in the fourth section of The Case for the Real Jesus, regardless of [alleged] similarities between Christianity and other religions, the evidence still points to Jesus rising from the dead.

5. Note how uncharitably these skeptics view the Bible and how uncritically they view these other ancient texts.  The evidence for the accurate transmission of the Bible dwarfs that of other ancient texts, yet the skeptics never appear to question the veracity of anything remotely critical of the Bible.  Where is the consistency?

6. You can find similarities for all sorts of people to “prove” that the must be the same person, such as the “evidence” for why JFK and Lincoln must have been the same person.

See lots more here and here, and here’s a really thorough listing of rebuttals to alleged borrowings.

Advice for real skeptics and authentic seekers

Everyone should consider matters of eternity very carefully, because eternity matters.

I used to be a skeptic.  I’ve gone to church most of my life, but let’s just say I wasn’t paying very close attention for the first 28 years or so.  At all.  I couldn’t have told you anything about the Bible. Even then the church I attended was a lousy Joel Osteen-wannabe type church — nothing but messages about “God’s unconditional love,” with no scriptural analysis.  I learned nearly everything of importance about the faith outside of church.  My hope is that the rest of you are in churches where you can learn and grow.

My path to Christianity wasn’t linear, but there were many things along the way that I recommend to real skeptics and authentic seekers (hereafter referred to simply as skeptics and seekers).  I hope you will consider using some of these on your search.

(I wrote real skeptics because many self-proclaimed skeptics across aren’t skeptical at all.  They have a position and work aggressively to advance it.  I respect their freedom to do that but it would be an abuse of the word to say they are skeptical.  And I mean authentic seekers in the sense that they are seeking God on his terms and not in some immature fantasy world where they think they get to invent their own god or just pick the religion they like best — and that the real God will consider that to be acceptable.)

Read/study the Bible – This may sound obvious, but far too many people ignore it.  I come across very few people who have read the whole Bible and/or read it regularly, and that includes the countless Christians I know.  Everyone should read it carefully and often.  Jesus didn’t call it “bread” for nothing.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t miss too many meals of real food.  I eat at least 5 times per day (My motto: “Second breakfast – the third most important meal of the day!”).  I work hard to read at least some of the Bible every day.  I’m currently doing a “read the Bible in a year” plan, which is roughly three chapters a day, plus I listen to various Podcasts that go into detail on the scriptures.

Christians should read it to spend time with God, strengthen their faith and educate themselves to help others know the truth.  Skeptics should read it to have a better idea of what they are criticizing.  Some do, but I find that most critics of Christianity make no efforts to do that.   They just repeat out-of context passages (“Don’t judge!”).  Seekers should read it because Christianity is a logical starting point in the search for God.

The Bible makes many claims about itself and its power.  It quotes God directly over 3,000 times and states that He inspired all the writings it contains.  It claims that it has the power to save and transform you.  It has made an immeasurable impact on the world.  Those things aren’t what make it true, but they are good reasons for any skeptic / seeker to read it carefully.

If you want to know someone, you spend time with them.  Reading the Bible (and praying) is spending time with God.  Read it carefully and get to know Jesus.  Then decide if you think He is trustworthy and if He should be the Lord of your life.

The Bible Fast Forward is a great audio resource that ties together the major themes of the Bible.  I highly recommend it for anyone at any stage of their journey.

Pray – Tell God that if He is real that you truly want to know him on his terms.

Self reflection – In your quiet, honest moments, ask yourself if you think you need forgiveness.

Examine your motives.  There are typically three reasons at the root of unbelief.  Which are yours?  If you want to deceive others that is bad enough.  But don’t deceive yourself.

1. Rational / intellectual – Have people gathered enough information to believe?  Have they investigated the facts and logic behind the faith?  Are they using reasonable criteria (i.e., adequate evidence versus absolute proof)?

2. Emotional – People may have had bad experiences with church and/or Christians.  Some people would have very serious consequences from converting (rejection or even persecution from friends, family or society).  People may not want to give up favorite sins.  These may be difficult but are nothing that should get in the way of your eternal salvation.

3. Volitional, or that of the will – Plain old rebellion.  People have seen the facts but use items from the first two categories as excuses.  Spending eternity in Hell because of pride = really bad idea.

Podcasts / websites / Facebook groups – There are countless sites out there, but here are the ones I’ve used the most.  The links go to the main sites, but you can search for those names in iTunes to get the Podcasts.  These will address most common objections.

Stand to Reason – My all-time favorite.  An amazing mix of facts, ways to think clearly and techniques to share the truth in an effective way.

Please Convince Me – Hosted by a cold-case homicide detective who is a former atheist, he is very thorough and analytical in explaining the reasons for our faith and addressing objections.

CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry) – A great site for information on just about any Christian topic or world religion.  Very easy to navigate.

Grace to You – John MacArthur gives terrific verse-by-verse sermons.  He reads countless commentaries and the original languages to prepare each one.

Debates – some people don’t see the value in debates, because it is more like a sporting event where each side is just rooting for their team and against the opposition.  Few minds seem to be changed.  But I think debates have merit.  For a skeptic or seeker it is important to hear both sides in their own words.  I find apologetic works to be very useful because over time I have learned which apologists to trust.  If someone just sets up straw men to knock down, then that isn’t productive.  You may get a temporary boost in confidence for your views but will get creamed when you use those in the real world.

The best sources I’ve seen for debate are the Wintery Knight blog and Apologetics 3:15, where you can get countless videos and transcripts of debates.

Science

There are some things you should never forget about Darwinian evolution.  While this worldview has had a monopoly position in education, media and government for many decades, there is a reason most people still don’t believe it.  Despite what its proponents may tell you about how the theory lets you be an intellectually satisfied atheist, Darwinian evolution has many issues and major theories about it continue to change.  Their views from just a few years ago about “junk” DNA should haunt Darwinists and Theistic Evolutionists alike.

But remember that even if Darwinian evolution was completely true, it would:

• not explain the origin of the universe (they have to resort to un-scientific stories  like the “multiverse” theory to rationalize away the amazing design in the universe).
• not explain how life came from non-life.  Despite decades of efforts, they have no idea how to prove how life might have come from non-life, though in their blind faith they persist.
• be 100.00% responsible for the faith of Christians in the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus (what else could have created these beliefs?).
• be unable to ground true universal morality.   They have a thing they call morality, but they are really just running off the fumes of Christianity and the fact that God wrote his laws on our hearts.  But real, universal morality in a Darwinian worldview is merely an illusion.  If those in power decide what is right, then it isn’t transcendently right.  It is just a power play.   That doesn’t mean atheists can’t do things we consider to be moral.  Some atheists are pro-life, for example.  It just means they have no philosophical grounding for morality.

Here are a couple great books to help balance out all the Darwinian propaganda you’ve been force-fed your whole life.

Signature in the Cell – DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design – this book is a little complex for the average reader but very important for those who want to know more about what Intelligent Design is really about.

There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Antony Flew – one of the most famous philosophical atheists eventually became a theist based on the evidence for design in the universe.  Sadly, I don’t think he became a Christian before he died.

The big picture — Consider a two-step approach (though you may do this in parallel):

1. Is there a God?  Examine the information from teleology (design), cosmology, morality, etc.  And meditate closely on this passage: Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
2. Is Christianity true?  Consider the “minimal facts” approach.  Christianity is a faith based on reason and evidence, not “blind faith.”

If you are a real skeptic / authentic seeker, I highly encourage you to learn enough about Jesus to decide whether you want to put your trust in him.  Deep down you know you are a sinner and will one day die and face God to be judged based on this life.  You can stand alone and take the punishment for your sins, or you can trust in the sacrifice Jesus made.  If you trust in him, all your sins are transferred from his account and all his perfect righteousness is transferred to yours.  It is literally the ultimate deal – and it is free.  You can’t buy it or earn it.

Remember, “doubting Thomas” (who got a bad rap, by the way) was shown the evidence and he made the proper response of belief.  You may not see Jesus face to face as evidence, but there is more than enough evidence for you if you really want to know the truth.

Ultimately, you can trust in yourself or you can trust in Jesus . . . and eternity is a mighty long time to regret a prideful decision.