Change to Comment Policy

Few people read the static pages on this blog, so I want to call out an important addition to the comment policy:

I read all comments that are posted, however, at this time I am unable to respond to each one. I’m not intentionally ignoring comments. The recent expansion into other media (video, podcasting, e-books, group blogging) has cut my time very short. I will try to respond to as many comments as I can, but I can’t make a promise that I will respond to each and every comment.

Comments will automatically close on posts that are older than 30 days.

I am expanding into other media: production of YouTube videos, podcasting, writing (and selling?) e-books, and I contribute to a new group blog. All of these must be updated regularly or else I stand the chance to lose potential audience. Therefore, while I promise to read all of the comments, I can’t promise to answer all of them. I will do my best to answer comments that pique my interest and I believe will create a worthy discussion.

Please don’t stop commenting! But don’t be discouraged if I don’t always reply.

Answers to Tough Questions #1-3

In my recent podcast, I told a lie.

I said that the first three videos in the series answering Shawn, aka “azsuperman01” were up. That’s because when I recorded the introduction, the videos were written but not recorded or produced. I had planned to record and produce those videos prior to the podcast “airing.” Well, that didn’t happen.

So, finally, I have gotten around to producing the videos. Here they are:

Question #1: When Can God Forgive?

Question #2: Crimes of Mankind

Question #3: Free Will

Reply to NonStampCollector’s Game Show

Atheist YouTuber NonStampCollector has proven himself a simplistic thinker, forcing false dichotomies and disallowing any middle ground as a plausible explanation to his badly drawn video animations. In a recent video, he depicts a game show in which the host asks a question about God or Christianity, and each contestant answers differently. The host tells them that they are both correct, and the “contradictory” verses showing that both contestants are correct appear in subtitles.

I wasn’t about to touch it. NSC is one of several atheists that I have vowed to ignore. P.Z. Myers and the production team behind Mr. Deity are other examples. J.P. Holding of Tekton Apologetics Ministry, however, started a YouTube channel recently and he has taken the video on, giving a pretty good answer (although, as per Holding, he pokes fun at NSC himself as well as the argument).

That video only scratches the surface of NSC’s claims. The rest Holding details in this article.

It’s worth looking at as a primer on how atheists view Bible contradictions, and a good defense of why the Bible is inerrant in a sense not typically espoused by atheists.

Show #3: Tough Questions for Christians I, Part B

Yesterday, I posted part A of my new podcast.

Without any further gilding the lily and with no more ado, I present to you the one, the only, Paaaaaart B!

I know you were losing sleep waiting for this. Enjoy!

Show #3: Tough Questions for Christians I

Well, after over two years of radio silence, I decided to throw my hat into the podcasting ring once again. Rather than start over again, I’ll start from where I left off, which makes this show #3. In keeping with the theme of my YouTube videos, I’ll be fielding tough questions for Christians from various atheists.

The show schedule I’ve cooked up is to post a show on the 15th and the 30th of each month. I plan to continue that at least to the end of the year. Then I’ll make the decision to continue podcasating in 2011. Unfortunately, I’m posting the first show (intended for Sept. 30) late. Hopefully, I can get my act together and post the next ones on time.

First on the block is an answer to Douglas Crews, who wrote nine questions many, many years ago. His website is some kind of prehistoric blog, back in the days before the term was coined or the software existed.

You can download part one of the program here. It ran long, so I’ll be posting part 2 tomorrow.

I gave some URLs on the program for reference. Here they are, nice and clickable, to make things easier on the person who wants to research further into what I’m covering on the show:

My podcasting plan is to do two shows per month, on the 15th and the 30th. The next show will be October 15th and will cover some more tough questions for Christians that were posted on ex-christian.net back in 2003. Nothing like staying current, right?

Looking for Reasons NOT to Believe

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Image via Wikipedia

It’s my firm belief that atheists aren’t really questioning seekers of truth. The Bible backs me up, as I’ve discussed in my posts on total depravity. Instead, I think that atheists actively look for reasons to not believe. Right now, I’m working on a series of YouTube videos answering 36 questions for Christians from a user named “azsuperman01” and I’m about to re-enter the podcasting arena with three shows detailing other “honest” questions for believers.

Do you know what I’ve learned addressing these so-called “honest” questions for believers? Nothing–I’ve only re-enforced my belief that atheists are actively seeking reasons to not believe in God. One way they do this is by making a great big, hairy, fat deal out of peripheral issues.

I wandered over a great example, although it’s a couple of months old. The post, “William Lane Craig, King of Fail,” discusses the issue that seems to be a hot button for non-believers: what happens if you’ve never heard of Christ? This video is evidently striking a chord with unbelievers, as it has three likes and three re-blogs to date.

William Lane Craig

Image by jacobus via Flickr

Contrarian, the blogger, quotes William Lane Craig on the issue of not having heard about Christ:

God ensures that no one who would believe the gospel if he heard it remains ultimately unreached. Once the gospel reaches a people, God providentially places there persons who He knew would respond to it if they heard it. He ensures that those who never hear it are only those who would not accept it if they did hear it. Hence, no one is lost because of a lack of information or due to historical and geographical accident. Anyone who wants or even would want to be saved will be saved. (source)

Which, Craig is quick to add, is only a possible solution. Craig is no friend of Calvinism, and therefore the whole notion of unconditional election isn’t considered in this solution. Despite that, I might point out, it’s a fair solution. As Craig says, there is some Scripture to back this notion up. Of course, as I’ve pointed out in reply to John Loftus, geographic isolation may be a manifestation of unconditional election. That, I think, may be the more biblical solution to the issue at hand.

But this issue really is peripheral to the gospel. Attachment to material goods, wealth, and (yes) people takes a backseat to holding a covenantal relationship with God by faith in Christ.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us that we are to cut off our hands or gouge out our eyes if they cause us to sin. Jesus tells us that treasures on earth are susceptible to moth and rust, therefore we must store up treasure in heaven, which is incorruptible.

Willingness to part with body parts to eliminate sin and relying solely on God for provision of needs is re-enforced by what Jesus says next: we are to hate our family in order to be his disciple. This blurb (which I call the skeptics’ favorite verse since it so often used out of context to make Jesus into an a-hole) is part of a speech on counting the cost. Jesus tells us that no ruler would build a tower without first figuring out if he had enough resources to complete it. He’d look pretty silly if he only got halfway and then ran out of money. Kind of like Rossford, OH and their amphitheater project that has been sitting half done for over a decade.

Part of the cost of being a disciple of Christ may be losing friends and family. You can extend “family” to mean “human race,” since we all share ancestry with Adam. The fact is, some will place faith in Christ, and most others will not. The peripheral issue is whether it’s fair to condemn a person just because they never heard that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. The fact is, before you can profess Christianity, you have to be willing to part with friends and family. Inevitably, some of those people you once called “friend” will become naysayers to your new found religion. You have to be willing to cut your ties if that’s what it takes to maintain a strong relationship with God in faith through Christ.

Remember that humans aren’t being sentenced to hell only because they lack faith in Christ. Humans are totally depraved–that is, predisposed to sin. We all sin and deserve condemnation for that. The moral law is written in our hearts, and we choose to disobey it, we choose to go our own way. Instead of letting God be the arbiter of good and evil through his word in the Bible, mankind has chosen to be its own arbiter with disastrous results.

We all fall under the condemnation of God, and therefore deserve hell. That happens independent of any knowledge of a Savior.

Jesus was once asked about the Tower of Siloam, which fell and killed 18 people. The seeker wanted to know why: what did those 18 do that brought the wrath of God? But Jesus redirects the question back on the seeker: are you any better off? Of course, the answer is no.

Salvation is solely by the grace of God. We did nothing to merit it. On the other hand, we’ve done plenty to earn condemnation and thus, eternal wrath.

“What about hypothetical people on remote islands that will never hear about Jesus?” It’s not an honest question. It’s a taunt. The question about the Tower of Siloam, likewise, was also a taunt. We should respond as the Lord did, by turning the question back around:

Atheist, forget about those hypothetical people on remote islands that will never hear about Christ. You have heard about Christ. You know the consequences of not responding in faith. What are you going to do?

Prayer: Provision of Wants Versus Needs

Jennifer Fulwiler

Jennifer Fulwiler has a great post on prayer on her blog, Conversion Diary. It’s nice to see someone reflect on what prayer should actually entail. Too often God is considered to be some kind of magic genie that grants our every wish.

Jennifer, on the other hand, has it right. In a theology of prayer, a balance has to be struck between specificity and generality. What do I mean?

Right now, I’m unemployed. It’s a long story. My wife’s income isn’t enough to sustain us, so something has to happen and quickly. If I pray, “God, please grant me a new job tomorrow morning,” what do you think is going to happen when I open my e-mail?

That’s right. No job offers. I doubt my cell phone is going to ring anytime soon either.

Am I missing something?

Yes, I am. Where in the Bible does God ever promise to give me everything I have ever wanted? Last I checked, Jesus called us to deny ourselves–our physical desires and perceived needs–and take up our crosses, and follow him. The Christian life isn’t one of ease, wealth, and good health-o’plenty (despite what Joel Osteen might tell you). A Christian life is one of sacrifice and (dare I say it?) persecution.

That message doesn’t sell well, especially in the United States. So hacks like Osteen spread their false prosperity gospel quite easily, even though there isn’t a shred of Scriptural evidence for what they’re saying. People buy it, hook, line, and sinker (see 2 Tim 4:3).

Why should the followers have it easy, living in the lap of luxury, when the master lived a pauper’s life and died a torturous, shameful death? The servant, Jesus wisely quips, isn’t greater than his master (Jn 15:20).

Jennifer suggests “zooming out” a bit. In other words, instead of thinking only of your health, wealth, prosperity–your perceived needs–try to think in terms of what you actually need.

So, I’m not going to get that magical job offer in my inbox tomorrow. Do I need a job? It could be argued that I do. But I think what I really need is a way to provide food for my children. We have food stamps forthcoming. And we already receive WIC benefits. God, perhaps, is working through these programs for the time being in order to provide for us.

None of us are starving. None of us will, it seems. Ah, God has promised that in his word, for we are more important to him than lesser animals, yet those do not starve.

And I have enough marketable skills that I won’t be without a job for too long. So God has provided a short term solution for us in the welfare benefits, but has also provided a long term solution in the form of the marketable skills I have gained over the years I have been employed. It’s not a clear, concise, detailed answer that magically dropped out of heaven, but it is an answer to prayer!

Next time, instead of focusing on minutely detailed answers magically provided as if from nowhere, “zoom out” a bit, as Jennifer put it. Look for the more underlying need and pray for its provision. And, as in everything, look for God’s will. Because, really, this life isn’t about you.

Missing the Point

When a person hates something so deeply, like religion and everything that it stands for, then said person can see something that paints the object of his hatred in a positive light and completely, totally, utterly miss it. Especially when this “something” seems to paint the object of hatred negatively at first.

This clip from the TV series Firefly seems to be painting religion (specifically, the Bible) in a very negative light:

River, always logical to a fault, is trying to “fix” the broken parts of the Bible. At least what she perceives to be broken. Shepherd Book, on the other hand, tries to explain something that uber-logical River probably isn’t equipped to understand: what it means to actually have faith in something intangible yet bigger than yourself.

I like what Book tells her: “You don’t fix faith. Faith fixes you.”

Book points to a deeper truth about faith: that it is meant to fix our broken human condition. We who have faith acknowledge that our condition is flawed and that it requires fixing. We also realize that we aren’t capable of doing that on our own: God is required to heal our souls. That’s where faith–that is, trust–comes in. We have to trust that God is capable of doing that, that God is willing to do that, and that God will do that (see Rom 8:29-30).

In the end, this clip gives an excellent definition of what it means to have faith in something larger than ourselves–faith in the divine. At first blush, this scene seems to be making a negative comment about the Bible itself, and religion in general. In reality, it is driving home what Christianity has always taught: that we are broken and in need of a Savior who accomplishes our salvation through faith. The faith we have fixes our broken human condition.

The real point of this clip is utterly lost on the atheists. If you don’t believe me, read the comments below the clip:

“faith fixes you” my a**. faith breaks you down and then makes you into an unthinking zombie, at least our current faiths act as such.

the only way to “fix” the bible is to burn it and p*** on the ashes. (edited for content, by “theeyeisblind” with four “thumbs up” from other users as of this writing)

Great Quote

Cover of

Cover via Amazon

“I suspect that most of the individuals who have religious faith are content with blind faith. They feel no obligation to understand what they believe. They may even wish not to have their beliefs disturbed by thought. But if God in whom they believe created them with intellectual and rational powers, that imposes upon them the duty to try to understand the creed of their religion. Not to do so is to verge on superstition.”

– Mortimer J. Adler

Mortimer J. Adler, “A Philosopher’s Religious Faith,” in Kelly James-Clark (ed.), Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of Eleven Leading Thinkers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), p. 207.

H/T to Apologetics 315.

The Pragmatic Gospel

On a recent Dividing Line podcast, James White reviewed a Christian’s reply to an atheist from the Unbelievable radio program. The Christian told the atheist to earnestly pray to Jesus something to the effect of, “Jesus, I don’t believe in you, but I know that you’ll do something to change my mind.” He then told the atheist that Jesus would provide all the evidence needed to believe.

That may be the crappiest presentation of the gospel ever heard.

James White was, of course, outraged. But should he really be surprised that someone would speak this way of the gospel?

Commitment to Christ in the New Testament is repeatedly likened to marriage. Marriage isn’t viewed the same way now as it once was. The colloquialism “starter marriage,” a marriage that ends within five years before the couple has children, is now common parlance thanks to a book of the same name.

Given that marriage is a lifelong commitment, it should be entered with that in mind. It should entail a total change–or at least the willingness to change–in personality, behavior, and attitudes. It should be a willingness for both parties to leave themselves behind for the betterment of both. In other words, the two should become one flesh. But that isn’t how people enter marriage. They get married for a variety of weak reasons. They get married because it’s the socially acceptable thing to do. They get married because they want an extra income to move out of mom and dad’s house. They get married because they’ve been dating so long that it’s easier than breaking up.

Many atheists argue that marriage should only be viewed as a contract, demeaning its origin as a divine covenant. And why shouldn’t they feel that way? Look at all the celebrity divorces and cheating scandals. Adultery used to be viewed a serious issue, maybe even a crime in some jurisdictions; now it’s regarded a mere trivia. It’s socially acceptable to be divorced, and adultery isn’t a crime anymore.

Cover of

Cover via Amazon

The book I referenced earlier, The Starter Marriage and the Future of Matrimony, concluded that the divorce of a starter marriage is actually a good thing. Which leads back to the question I just asked: Why shouldn’t a secularist argue that marriage has only the level and enforcability of a man-made contract?

Now let’s connect this discussion to the issue raised at the beginning of this post. Since marriage is marginalized, and marriage is the metaphor for embracing Jesus, why is that pragmatic approach to the gospel a surprise to James White? White, after all, has been blogging about attacks on traditional marriage for as long as I’ve been reading his blog. Culture has adopted a pragmatic approach to marriage, so why wouldn’t the gospel be next?

The issue is, as White correctly states on The Dividing Line, is that becoming a Christian requires a complete and utter surrender of self to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The apostle John wrote, “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 Jn 4:20). If we can’t submit ourselves to a person that we can see and touch, there is no hope for us to submit to someone that we can’t see or touch.

Back Rome Again

News and Views of Catholic Revert and Domincan Hopeful

Skip to content ↓

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started