Don’t believe in miracles – depend on them.
— Laurence J. Peter
Category Archives: Apologetics
Meeting the Contrarian’s Third Challenge to Believers
I’ve talked about the Contrarian (part 1 | part 2), and his strawman representation of the Christian gospel. As it happens, this guy is a gold mine of article ideas for an apologetics blogger. Sort of a one-stop shopping center for a writer who needs ideas.
Therefore, I couldn’t resist his first challenge to believers. I have no idea why I answered it. Along with the second and third challenges, he proves he is only interested in grandstanding for an atheist audience.
So far, #3 is the final challenge and I hope it mercifully stays that way, even though it is the only one remotely interesting: “unobfuscate the Trinity”:
Lucifer: The trinity has caused divisions amongst various christian denominations for centuries. There are those christians who bellieve that Jesus was god in the flesh and those who say he is the sun of god and an entity distinct from god almighty.
Contrarian: Jesus BLATANTLY said things on numerous occasions that points to the fact that he is a being distinct from god, and not god in human form. Before and after being crucified, Jesus prays to god to let this cup pass from his lips, and to forgive his persecutors because they know not what they do.
Furthermore, Jesus also said that neither the angels in heaven nor he (referring to himself) knows the day of his second coming. But he clearly states that God does and speaks of him as a separate entity.
There are various other cases where Jesus makes it plain as daylight that he is NOT GOD incarnate, such as when he claims to have observed the creation of the world, but was not the one doing the creating.
The Contrarian is actually on to something. His problem is one of equivocation, though I don’t think he realizes that he is the one committing the error.
Let’s see if I can set this straight.
First, in general the doctrine of the Trinity (at it’s most basic) says that the Father, Son, and Spirit share an essence but remain distinct persons. Something like I am simultaneously a husband to Jody, father to Ashleigh, Gabe, and Kayti, and a manager to my staff at work.
Each role is different.
This isn’t a perfect analogy — but it’s a step in the right direction. JP Holding, infamous Internet apologist, explains the Father-Son-Spirit relationship better in this video.
Second, we need to get some definitions straight. “God” sometimes refers to the ontological category of what Jesus and the Father are — in other words, their shared essence. Other times, “God” refers to the Father, the First Person of the Trinity. For our purposes in this post, God always means the essence of deity and Father refers to the person.
With this in mind, let’s see how equivocation derails the Contrarian’s line of thought.
Jesus BLATANTLY said things on numerous occasions that points to the fact that he is a being distinct from god, and not god in human form. Before and after being crucified, Jesus prays to god to let this cup pass from his lips, and to forgive his persecutors because they know not what they do.
Wrong.
Jesus is God, distinct from the Father. He is God in the flesh — not the Father in the flesh. Jesus is praying not to his essence, but his Father.
Furthermore, Jesus also said that neither the angels in heaven nor he (referring to himself) knows the day of his second coming. But he clearly states that God does and speaks of him as a separate entity.
Again, he’s speaking of the Father, not of God in an ontological sense.
There are various other cases where Jesus makes it plain as daylight that he is NOT GOD incarnate, such as when he claims to have observed the creation of the world, but was not the one doing the creating.
Again, he’s observing the Father creating.
Critical reading and a little bit of thought should unobfuscate the Trinity. I hope that I’ve helped.
Meeting the Contrarian’s Second Challenge to Believers
I’ve talked about the Contrarian (part 1 | part 2), and his strawman representation of the Christian gospel. As it happens, this guy is a gold mine of article ideas for an apologetics blogger. Sort of a one-stop shopping center for a writer who needs ideas.
Therefore, I couldn’t resist his first challenge to believers. I have no idea why I answered it. Along with the second and third challenges, he proves he is only interested in grandstanding for an atheist audience.
Though he claims he is “actually here hoping that someone will prove me wrong and enhance my understanding of reality,” he goes on:
I give the faithful a snowball’s chance in hell that they will actually do so—if past success can help us predict future success—but I must remain true to my scientific convictions. At any moment, anyone could come forward with proof that would require me to abandon my current perceptions; this is why I dedicate this article to asking questions that I would like answers to. (source)
Yeah, that’s the kind of statement we expect from someone who has already decided the outcome before running the experiment.
Now, on to the second challenge for believers. As it is written in a make-believe dialogue with Lucifer, I’m not sure why the Contrarian expects anyone to actually take it seriously.
Yet, I’m lending it credibility by answering it.
Go figure.
Anyway, he’s asking for a YouTube video from a believer demonstrating any of the following three things:
- Levitation
- Walking on low-viscosity fluids
- Raising someone from the dead
Why? Matthew 17:20, of course:
Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.
Now, of course, no believer has ever taken this as meaning that we’d actually command a mountain to jump to a new location. We’ve always understood Christ to be using a rhetorical device common among Semitic people even today — hyperbole.
Why can’t this be a rhetorical device?
The Contrarian doesn’t say.
Of course, the best answer to his drivel is found in the comments section, from Saffa in Asia:
After months of watching this religion bashing and the pointless back and forth arguing, I have come to the conclusion the only way to end this stupidity is for theists to totally ignore the rants and raves of atheists.
If you don’t react, they will become bored and move on to something else where they can get a reaction, for it is the reaction that feeds them.
Ever tried to fight with someone who doesn’t fight back? Rather frustrating. So, don’t feed the trolls. Theists and atheists have made their relevant points over and over again and we are still at square number one.
I know for sure I will get lots of thumbs down and lots of snide comments about being a coward, deluded, stupid, ignorant etc, etc but who cares? Not me.
So I bid you adieu and I trust others will follow suit.
I thought I’d make good use of WordPress’s Reblog feature and share this post by Stephen Bedard on how to be an atheist apologist.
I think Stephen has covered the basics very well. Budding New Atheists should take notes.
Meeting the Contrarian’s First Challenge to Believers
I’ve talked about the Contrarian (part 1 | part 2), and his strawman representation of the Christian gospel. As it happens, this guy is a gold mine of article ideas for an apologetics blogger. Sort of a one-stop shopping center for a writer who needs ideas.
Therefore, I couldn’t resist his first challenge to believers. I have no idea why I’m answering it. This, along with second and third challenges, are just plain idiotic — proving he is only interested in grandstanding for an atheist audience.
Though he claims he is “actually here hoping that someone will prove me wrong and enhance my understanding of reality,” he goes on:
I give the faithful a snowball’s chance in hell that they will actually do so—if past success can help us predict future success—but I must remain true to my scientific convictions. At any moment, anyone could come forward with proof that would require me to abandon my current perceptions; this is why I dedicate this article to asking questions that I would like answers to.
Yeah, that’s the kind of statement we expect from someone who has already decided the outcome before running the experiment. Read the rest of this entry
Answering the Contrarian, part 2: How not to Evangleize
In this article, a netizen going by “the Contrarian” presents a seriously distorted view of the gospel. After that, he helpfully tells us Christians how not to evangelize him:
Don’t come to me telling me that you are different from ‘other’ christians, and that you represent a god of love, and that you are peaceful, intelligent and worthy of having your beliefs propagated into the legal and education system of the land. You are the very definition of a fundamentalist, and like the proverbial village idiot; you cannot see what is wrong with you, or why others think you’re nuts. !
First, I’d proudly say I’m different from other Christians. For example:
- I never say “Oh my God!” as an expletive. One of the Christians I work with at a youth ministry co-op, however, uses it liberally.
- My pastor has, in three different sermons, condemned the TV show The Big Bang Theory as something no Christian should watch. I, however, watch it almost every night.
- I’ve condemned gay marriage on this blog numerous times in the past. However, I know of committed Christians who are openly homosexual.
- I believe God is absolutely sovereign, and has planned and purposed reality to a certain end. However, open theists (like John Sanders) believe that God has done no such thing; and in fact cannot predict the actions of humans by virtue of our free agency.
I’d never say that I represent a God of love. The God I represent is love.
I’m peaceful. Prove otherwise.
I’m intelligent. People who know me know that I’m the kind of person who knows a little bit about almost everything.
As for having my beliefs propagated into the legal system, I’m afraid that many of them already are:
- Social programs (especially Medicare and Medicaid, as well as Social Security) take care of “Honor your father and mother” (Ex 20:12) and they also pay homage to Deuteronomy 15:7-9.
- Murder (Ex 20:13) is a capital crime in most states.
- Theft of any sort is illegal (Ex 20:15).
- Perjury, obstruction of justice, and other sorts of misdirection while investigating or prosecuting a criminal case are all illegal (Ex 20:16).
Other examples could be found, but I think I’ve made my point.
Now to be charitable to the Contrarian, he’s likely referring to proposed laws to eliminate gay marriage, or laws that interfere with him buying liquor on Sundays. He thinks that such laws are religious nonsense and have no place in a secular society. Worse, he thinks these laws are self-evident religious nonsense; that everyone should take his word for it because “it’s obvious.”
To wit, I’d like for him to find “No alcohol sales on Sunday” in the Bible. It isn’t there. The only so-called blue laws still on the books are sales of alcoholic beverages, probably retained out of tradition and convenience.
You can’t legislate morality, and the Bible isn’t written with the assumption that you can. In fact, most of the New Testament assumes the law of the land will be hostile to Christian practice — a tide that is headed this way in the United States, especially where our practice forbids gay marriage.
I agree with anyone who says gay marriage is a non-issue. It shouldn’t be an issue at all, because it is not marriage. Marriage is always between a man and a woman. Variations exist (one man, many women; one woman, many men; varying numbers of men and women), but both genders always participate.
As to my beliefs being placed in the education system of the land, why not? The atheist beliefs already are, and with quite a lot of force. Why can mine not be shown as an alternative? We can give fair time to other religions as well — I’m okay with that because I believe that truth always wins out.
What is the atheist scared of? If what he offers is truth, will that not win out? Or does the atheist think when offered a choice between religious myth and scientific truth, that religious myth always wins and society will remain unenlightened?
If so, maybe religious “myth” is true, because it is winning out!
Moving on, the Contrarian writes:
Don’t come here claiming that you are a ‘good’ or a ‘real’ christian. The better and more real a christian you are, the more inhuman, amoral, sick and twisted you are. You are a bloodthirsty beast with an inflated ego because you think your skydaddy is real and will vindicate you shortly. Dream on! If that is what sustains you, if that is what gives you purpose, then nothing in this physical world is violent, torturous, absolute, sick and offensive enough to satiate your wicked mind and your black heart!
I’m not good. None of us are. That’s the reason we need a Savior. I’m not even a good Christian! I fail all the time.
The Contrarian is going to have to expound on why a “better and more real” Christian is “inhuman, amoral, sick, and twisted.” I don’t see it that way. The marks of the Christian, according to the apostle Paul, are:
Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight.Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom 12:10-21)
That’s “inhuman, amoral, sick, and twisted”? If the Contrarian’s ideal person behaves the opposite of that, then I don’t want to live in his world.
Of course, all the best bloodthirsty beasts with inflated egos try to outdo everyone showing honor, bless people who persecute them, overcome evil with good, and live peaceable with everyone as much as it depends on them. That is why people call them “bloodthirsty beasts” — because they are so peaceable with others and easy to get along with.
The Contrarian says, “I’ll take the exploding dot and the swamp water into humans story any day!” Why? Simple: it makes him the star. In this story, there is no good or evil. He is a slave to his nature, as he would be in Christianity, but that nature is neither good nor evil because it cannot be (by definition). Therefore, he doesn’t have to face judgment for being who he is.
Theism isn’t the crutch. Atheism is — atheism is comfortable because there is no ultimate accountability. Which brings us back to my (apparently sick, in the Contrarian’s eyes) belief that God is real and will vindicate me shortly.
Vindicate me for what, exactly?
The world has wronged God, not me. He will vindicate himself and take his wrath on the wicked — those who persist in their unbelief in his Son. I deserve every bit of that wrath as well, but I have been protected by the blood of my Savior. It’s nothing I did to get to heaven. And I will not rejoice over the lost.
If this is the Contrarian’s understanding of the gospel, then no wonder he’s an atheist. That’s as distorted as it gets. He needs to buckle back down and read that Book he despises so much. Only this time, maybe he should take the time to understand it.
Answering the Contrarian, part 1: Distorted Gospel
A guy who goes by the Contrarian has posted a very interesting diatribe on Christianity here. I’m not even going to try to answer it all, but I wanted to hit a few high points.
First, it’s ironic that the Contrarian consistently calls Christians ignorant of basic science. He’s proven himself ignorant of basic theology. Let’s look at what he thinks the Good News is:
. . . you start peddling your nonsense first by insulting me and telling me that I’m flawed and evil (the essence of being sinful).
You are. We all are. I am, or at least, I was. Unfortunately, I still have the desires of the flesh which, I’m sorry to admit, win out more often than the desires of the spirit.
He acts as if when I tell him this, it’s as if I’m pointing out that he has a big nose or that he whistles whenever he says the letter “S.” That’s drastically underestimating sin.
Sin isn’t a character flaw the same way arrogance or easy excitability is. Sin is our nature, and it leads to death. That’s much more serious than eating your salad with the wrong fork.
Then, before my shock at this verbal assault fades, you threaten me: explaining that I will suffer endless and unimaginable torture, BUT that the one who would force this horrific fate upon me actually doesn’t want to do so, but MUST because of his propensity to fundamentally fark up everything he creates.
Well, that’s all wrong. Read the rest of this entry
Randomness from Yahoo! Answers, part 2
To show people that I’m still here and blogging, I have decided to examine the top three results from the search phrase, “Does God exist?” on Yahoo! Answers. The second question, from user Justin James, asks “Is it safe to make the assumption that God does not exist?”
Science does not prove that God exist, nor do they disprove existence of God either. However what science does is show that God is unnecessary for these processes to occur within our world seeing that the Universe is governed by Natural laws. Science does not have a “thing” against God, but rather Science acknowledges compelling evidence for the non-existence of God. Thus is it safe to make a conclusion that since God is unnecessary for the universe as we know it to exist, we can assume that God does not exist at all?
Let’s break this down:
- Science does not prove God exists
- Science does not disprove God exists
- Science shows God is unnecessary for natural processes because the universe is governed by natural laws
You are correct until #3.
The laws act within the universe, so long as there is a universe for them to act on from the inside. However, the universe — if it began to exist, and we believe that it did — would have an external cause. That external cause cannot simply be those natural laws for those only act on things already inside the universe. The universe would have to be eternal for this to work.
So it is not safe to assume that there is no God. The universe still had to come from somewhere, and could not simply have been ordered by the forces that exist within it any more than a piece of music wrote itself by putting the notes in the right place using the rules of time, rhythm, melody/harmony, and selecting its own major key. Those rules, rather, were used by a composer to arrange the music in a fashion that would be pleasing to the ear.
It is not the scope of this post to answer the question of Who Designed the Universe?; rather, the purpose is to point out that natural laws and such forces are inadequate for they only explain how the components of the universe interact when they already exist.
It merely defers or delays the question of Who. It does not answer it.
Randomness from Yahoo! Answers, part 1
I haven’t blogged in a while. A long while.
I don’t want people to think that I shut the blog down. Nope. I just had a baby, and have been working long hours on top of trying to have a family life. So my blogging life has been put on hold for the last month or so.
So today, with my free time and in honor of a person who has e-mailed me several times about Yahoo! Answers, I have decided to take on the top three results for the search phrase “Does God exist?”
First question, “How, or in what way does God exist?” asked by a user named Bolo Joe two years ago:
I think the question should no longer be “Does God exist?”, but instead “How, or in what way does God exist?” In my opinion, the discrepancy surrounding God has more to do with concepts and interpretations than the actual existence of God.
This is interesting, and I think worthy of a quick comment. It has been a tactic of atheists that have engaged me in dialogue to shift the goal posts in this fashion.
When I have them at a stalemate — they can no longer contend based on my sound objections that God’s existence is impossible — they shift the question from absolute existence to one of semantics.
This essentially means they lose the debate. Their original contention is that God does not exist, but once they stop contending that and start asking why to suppose my particular God over all of the others from mythology then they have conceded there is a God and are now just asking which.
So far, I agree with Mr. Joe. The question of which God is the key, for the actual existence of God is, in my mind, a foregone conclusion in favor of yes.
For example: Referring to God as “He” is a big problem. He is gender specific and references half of a whole, with the complement of course being “She”. Male and female should be viewed as positive and negative expressions of the living being as positive and negative charges are expressions of electricity.
This is where the semantics are coming into play.
“God” can refer to one of two things:
- The shared ontology of the three persons of the Holy Trinity
- The First Person, the Creator of Genesis and the Father of Christ in the Gospels
In using God to refer to (1), I would agree that “he” or “she” are meaningless concepts. However, in English, there is no gender-neutral pronoun that can refer to a living person. “It” is insulting, especially to God.
The essence shared by the persons of the Trinity is neither male nor female, but somehow both. This is suggested in Genesis when both genders are required, but for different roles in the marriage. The male-female marriage is therefore the divine institution given to us by God, and all others (polygamy, polyamory, homosexual) are perversions of it.
I doubt this seeker would realize he just stumbled into that position or endorse such a conclusion; the New Age-y people are typically liberal and thus in favor of gay marriage.
The male pronoun is used as convenience. Up until the flood of political correctness that has gripped America, “he” was always used as a generic pronoun when the sex was unknown, meaningless, or unable to be determined. It is only in the last 20 years or so that that has become a slight to women.
In using God in (2), the male pronoun is the preferred method of address, and not just because the Bible says so. But because of the way the Bible says:
- Jesus repeatedly calls the First Person of the Trinity “Father”
- Paul repeatedly uses marriage as a metaphor for salvation, and the church repeatedly takes the role of the woman (the “Bride of Christ”)
- Church leaders and elders are supposed to be male (the husband of one wife)
- After the Fall, the man was supposed to take the lead and the woman follow, subjecting her desires to the man
Given all of that, it is clear God sees himself in the male role of a complementarian view of gender relations. He is neither male nor female, for both are made in the image of God. But his role is male and therefore the mode of address should remain male.
I say this to illustrate that God can be neither a “He” nor “She” as these two individually are incomplete. That’s the beauty of a healthy relationship between a man and a woman, in which case God is revealed. From this idea comes the concept of Twin Flame soul mates.
Again, as I stated above, this is the strongest argument for heterosexual marriage being the divine institution and homosexual marriage being nothing more than a perversion of it.
All of the physical world, as we know it, is divided into these complementary halves: Up down, back front, light dark, good bad, etc… It is through experiencing these extremes that we find the balance to perceive the whole, or the essential design and this essential design is what I believe to be the expression of G.O.D. (The Grand Organizing Design). Comments…???
Well, I don’t see God as merely a Grand Organizing Design, but a person. I’m not sure how to complete any sort of analysis of this meandering question, so let’s just move forward with the next one tomorrow…
Back Rome Again 