Homosexuality: Know the Truth, Speak it with Compassion Part 1 of 3

A special thanks to Sean McDowell and Barb Sherrill of Harvest House Publishers for allowing us to re-post this series on Apologetic Junkie.

(Conversantlife.com) Sean McDowell

The following article is written by Alan Shlemon and is from Apologetics for a New Generation, edited by Sean McDowell (Harvest House, 2009), used with permission.


It’s not surprising people think Christians hate homosexuals. They see how we often treat them.

Kyle’s sad story was one I’d heard before. After 25 years of deep immersion in the gay lifestyle, he wanted out. His choice to follow Jesus meant a day-to-day struggle to stay celibate because simply becoming a Christian didn’t change his same-sex desires. With God’s help though, he was winning the battle.

Kyle thought his church would be a safe harbor during the storm. When he “came out” to his pastor and a counselor, though, both told him to never speak of his plight again. His church forced him back into the closet.

Fifteen years of celibacy later, Kyle came out a second time. Surely things have changed, he thought. It must be safe now. After all, everyone has struggles and temptations. This time he hoped his new church would come alongside and pray for him. But he was mistaken. They turned a blind eye to his struggle, discouraged him from serving, and relegated him to attending and tithing.


Back into the Closet

Our formula for gays[i] is predictable: Condemn and convert. Rebuke their behavior, blast them with the Bible, and then try to win them over with a cliché.

“Sodomy is sin,” we proclaim. Then we quote our “clobber passage,” a verse that condemns homosexuals or even commands their execution.[ii] “But there’s hope,” we reassure them. “God hates the sin, but He loves the sinner.” That’s not what they hear, though. They hear, “God hates the sin and He hates the sinner.”

Armed with Bible verses for bullets, we’re locked and loaded, ready to fire at the first sign of a homosexual. But there’s no grace in a gunshot. Instead of offering hope and healing, we inflict more injury.

We shouldn’t be surprised when gays go back into the closet after they try to come out in the church. Worse, many go back into the lifestyle, sometimes through a “gay church” that shows them the love, grace, and respect they had hoped to get from us.[iii]

Predictably, younger people often perceive Christianity negatively. The Barna Group, a research organization that focuses on religious cultural trends, found that young people think Christians aren’t merely opposed to homosexuality, but show “excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians.” Ninety-one percent of young non-Christians and 80% of young church-goers perceive Christianity as “anti-homosexual.”[iv]

More tragically, Barna found that younger Christians complained their church failed to help them apply biblical principles to their friendships with gays. Young people lack arguments and tactics needed to maneuver in conversation and navigate moral dilemmas in a thoughtful, but loving way. Consequently, young people think they must choose between their faith and their friends who are gay. If their friendships mean more to them than their theology, they will choose their friends over their faith every time.

Something is wrong here. Clearly, we need a new approach. Our young people think they’re faced with a difficult moral dilemma. But they don’t have to abandon their gay friends just because homosexuality is wrong. There is a third option, but it’s something that’s rarely taught or modeled in church.


Know the Truth

Our new approach incorporates two key elements: truth and compassion. Truth speaks to the content of our message. Compassion addresses the manner in which it’s conveyed. It’s a winning combination based on principles found in 1 Peter 3:15 – defend the truth, yet with gentleness and respect.

Truth starts with a biblical understanding of homosexuality. Although there are six main passages on the subject,[v] for strategic reasons I recommend using Romans 1:26-27 as your primary text. Since it’s in the New Testament, you sidestep the challenge that the Old Testament verses don’t apply to us today.[vi] Romans also addresses both male and female homosexuality and outlines the real problem: rebellion against God and rejection of His created order. This makes it difficult to argue that the behavior condemned in the passage is something other than homosexuality.[vii]

Knowing the biblical truth about homosexuality is important because many people deny that God condemns homosexual behavior. Indeed, they go to great lengths to reinterpret those six passages.[viii]

Although they’re not successful, their claims sound appealing to people who don’t carefully interpret the Bible. If we learn and understand these verses, it’s easy to clear up this distortion.

Religious arguments, however, are often immediately dismissed by non-Christians. So knowing the truth doesn’t mean we learn only biblical arguments. An effective strategy also incorporates secular arguments. This includes appeals to natural law, the common good, and public health.[ix]

If you can base your views on evidence that make sense even to non-religious people, you’ll be able to speak with anyone. Getting them to consider your ideas can be difficult, though. That’s why it’s critical to present our views in a conversational manner. We’re not typically trained to do that. Too often we try to persuade by making statements instead of asking questions. This immediately raises defenses. Suppose you’re discussing whether homosexuality is genetic and say, “Even if being gay is genetic, it doesn’t mean that it’s right.” Your friend replies with, “Sure it does! I can’t deny how I’ve been created.” Now what? Another statement? Their defenses are up, and the conversation grinds to a halt.

Questions, on the other hand, are friendly and more engaging. They invite discussion. Rephrase your statement with a question: “I’m curious to know your thoughts on this. Can you tell me why you think if something is genetic, then it must be right?” This is disarming. It doesn’t provoke the same knee-jerk reaction. Instead, there’s a give and take. People naturally respond to questions and the discussion moves along. Or, you can gently challenge their belief with a question like: “Do you think any behavior is morally appropriate simply because it has a genetic link?” Notice that even though you’re asking a question, you’re still making your point. Just because a behavior has a genetic component, that doesn’t make it right. Making your point with a question sounds friendlier.

Another way to incorporate questions into your conversation is to use the “burden of proof” rule. Applying this rule makes discussions about homosexuality less difficult and more engaging. The burden of proof is simply the responsibility to give proof – credible reasons – in favor of a point of view. The rule is simple: The person who offers an opinion bears the burden to give reasons for it. If they make a claim, it is their job to defend it, not yours to refute it. Too often Christians ignore this rule. Someone says something like, “Christianity is a homophobic religion,” and off we go defending ourselves. This is unnecessary. Why should we do all the work when they made the statement? Since they made the claim, it’s their job to defend it.

Simply ask, “How did you come to that conclusion?” or “What reasons do you have for thinking that’s true?” Then sit back and quietly listen. The question gently shifts the burden back where it belongs – on the person who made the claim. It asks them to give reasons for their view, which is a legitimate request. It also makes our job easier by taking the pressure off us to respond.

Questions allow us to make our points and advance the discussion in disarming ways. When we incorporate questions, our discussions about homosexuality become less intimidating. We can make our points without sounding like we are simply pushing our views on others. And we spend less time in the “hot seat” responding to claims we have no obligation to address.

___________________________________________________

[i] Although I use the terms “homosexual” and “gay” interchangeably in this chapter, I believe they have different meanings. “Homosexual” describes a person with predominately same-sex attractions. “Gay” is a social term to describe a homosexual who affirms the homosexual orientation as their identity. While all gays are homosexual, not all homosexuals are gay. Some homosexuals, although they have same-sex attractions, reject the gay identity.

[ii] Leviticus 20:13.

[iii] By love and grace, I don’t mean agreement with the gay lifestyle. Many people like Kyle don’t even get basic respect.

[iv] “A New Generation Expresses its Skepticism and Frustration with Christianity,” The Barna Update, The Barna Group, September 24, 2007.

[v] Genesis 19:4-8, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11.

[vi] Some pro-gay theology advocates suggest that the Old Testament passages that condemn homosexual behavior do not apply to New Testament Christians. Regardless of the whether this argument is valid, the Romans passage sidesteps this objection.

[vii] The 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy passages merely name homosexuality as sin. Moreover, the Greek word translated homosexuality is a word coined by Paul and, according to pro-gay theology advocates, does not necessarily mean homosexuality (I disagree with this conclusion, however). Consequently, these New Testament passages are more prone to being reinterpreted as referring to some other sin. That’s why it may save you unnecessary debate by focusing on the Romans passage.

[viii] For a refutation of pro-gay theology, see The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible by Joe Dallas. Dallas is not only a former gay man, but was also involved in the pro-gay theology movement. His treatment is truthful and compassionate.

[ix] For an introduction in these arguments, I’d recommend Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Santinover, Homosexuality and American Public Life by Christopher Wolfe, Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-sex Marriage and Parenting by Glenn T. Stanton and Bill Maier, and articles on Stand to Reason’s website www.str.org.

John Calvin On Total Depravity

The five points of Calvinism represent the major tenets of Calvinistic thinking. They can be easily remembered by memorizing the acrostic TULIP: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints.

Total Depravity: This doctrine teaches there is no part of our human nature which has not been affected by the taint of sin. Our intellect, emotions, will, and even physical bodies, have been corrupted by the Fall.

As a point of clarification, total depravity does not mean that humanity is as bad as possible or that no good in any sense can be done by unbelievers (though ultimately any good that does come about should be attributed to God's grace). Rather, it means that in the natural fallen state we are born into we are unable to do any spiritual good that will please God and we cannot come to God by our own strength. This is why some theologians refer to this point, perhaps more accurately, as total inability.

Scripture teaches that in our fallen state we are dead in our trespasses (Eph. 2:1-2) and slaves to sin (John 8:34). Unbelievers are said to be "darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart" (Eph. 4:18). Paul says that "those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8) and Isaiah states that "all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment" (Isa. 64:6). This is why Jesus said, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44). (1)

All quotes are from the Battles translation, edited by John T. McNeill. Enjoy!

John Calvin on Spiritual Warfare

JOHN CALVIN ON TOTAL DEPRAVITY

2.1.2 - Man by nature inclines to deluded self-admiration

Here, then, is what God's truth requires us to seek in examining ourselves: it requires the kind of knowledge that will strip us of all confidence in our own ability, deprive us of all occasion for boasting, and lead us to submission...There is, indeed, nothing that man's nature seeks more eagerly than to be flattered...For, since blind self-love is innate in all mortals, they are most freely persuaded that nothing inheres in themselves that deserves to be considered hateful.

Nothing pleases man more than the sort of alluring talk that tickles the pride that itches in his very marrow...But however great such commendation of human excellence is that teaches man to be satisfied with himself, it does nothing but delight in its own sweetness; indeed, it so deceives as to drive those who assent to it into utter ruin...Yet for those confident they can do anything by their own power, things cannot happen otherwise. Whoever, then, heeds such teachers as hold us back with thought only of our good traits will not advance in self-knowledge, but will be plunged into the worst ignorance.

2.1.3 - The two chief problems with self-knowledge

According to carnal judgment, man seems to know himself very well, when, confident in his understanding and uprightness, he becomes bold and urges himself to the duties of virtue, and, declaring war on vices, endeavors to exert himself with all his ardor toward the excellent and the honorable. But he who scrutinizes and examines himself according to the standard of divine judgment finds nothing to lift his heart to self-confidence. And the more deeply he examines himself, the more dejected he becomes, until, utterly deprived of all such assurance, he leaves nothing to himself with which to direct his life aright.

Yet God would not have us forget our original nobility, which he had bestowed upon our father Adam, and which ought truly to arouse in us a zeal for righteousness and goodness...so that sick of our miserable lot we groan, and in groaning we sigh for that lost worthiness. But when we say that man ought to see nothing in himself to cause elation, we mean that he has nothing to rely on to make him proud.

2.1.9 - Sin overturns the whole man

For this reason, I have said that all parts of the soul were possessed by sin after Adam deserted the fountain of righteousness. For not only did a lower appetite seduce him, but unspeakable impiety occupied the very citadel of his mind, and pride penetrated to the depths of his heart...Paul removes all doubt when he teaches that corruption subsists not in one part only, but that none of the soul remains pure or untouched by that mortal disease. For in his discussion of a corrupt nature Paul not only condemns the inordinate impulses of the appetites that are seen, but especially contends the mind is given over to blindness and the heart to depravity.

2.2.10 - The doctrine of free will is always in danger of robbing God of his honor

Nevertheless, what I mentioned at the beginning of this chapter I am compelled here to repeat once more: that whoever is utterly cast down and overwhelmed by the awareness of his calamity, poverty, nakedness, and disgrace has thus advanced farthest in knowledge of himself. For there is no danger of man's depriving himself of too much so long as he learns that in God must be recouped what he himself lacks...If it is the devil's word that exalts man in himself, let us give no place to it unless we want to take advice from our enemy...no one is permitted to receive God's blessings unless he is consumed with the awareness of his own poverty.

2.2.18 - The limits of our understanding

Human reason, therefore, neither approaches, nor strives toward, nor even takes a straight aim at, this truth: to understand who the true God is or what sort of God he wishes to be toward us.

2.2.19 - Man's spiritual blindness shown from John 1:4-5

But we are drunk with the false opinion of our own insight and are thus extremely reluctant to admit that it is utterly blind and stupid in divine matters...Because man's keenness of mind is mere blindness as far as the knowledge of God is concerned...Flesh is not capable of such lofty wisdom as to conceive God and what is God's, unless it be illumined by the Spirit of God.

2.2.20 - Man's knowledge of God is God's own work

This doubtless means man's mind can become spiritually wise only in so far as God illumines it.

Christ also confirmed this most clearly in his own words when he said: "No one can come to me unless it be granted by my Father" [John 6:44 p.]...But nothing is accomplished by preaching him if the Spirit, as our inner teacher, does not show our minds the way. Only those men, therefore, who have heard and have been taught by the Father come to him.

It therefore remains for us to understand that the way to the Kingdom of God is open only to him whose mind has been made new by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Paul, however, having expressly entered this discussion, speaks more clearly than all [I Cor. 1:18 ff.]. After condemning the stupidity and vanity of all human wisdom and utterly reducing it to nothing [cf. I Cor. 1:13 ff.], he concludes: "The natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" [I Cor. 2:14]. Whom does he call "natural"? The man who depends upon the light of nature. He, I say, comprehends nothing of God's spiritual mysteries. Why is this? Is it because he neglects them out of laziness? No, even though he try, he can do nothing, for "they are spiritually discerned." What does this mean? Because these mysteries are deeply hidden from human insight, they are disclosed solely by the revelation of the Spirit. Hence, where the Spirit of God does not illumine them, they are considered folly.

2.2.21 - Without the light of the Spirit, all is darkness

If we confess that we lack what we seek of God, and he by promising it proves our lack of it, no one should now hesitate to confess that he is able to understand God's mysteries only in so far as he is illumined by God's grace. He who attributes any more understanding to himself is all the more blind because he does not recognize his own blindness.

2.2.26 - The natural instinct that treats the "good" and the "acceptable" alike has nothing to do with freedom

To sum up, much as a man desires to follow what is good, still he does not follow it. There is no man to whom eternal blessedness is not pleasing, yet no man aspires to it except by the impulsion of the Holy Spirit.

2.2.27 - Our will cannot long for the good without the Holy Spirit

We are all sinners by nature; therefore we are held under the yoke of sin.

Confess that you have all these things from God: whatever good you have is from him; whatever evil, from yourself...Nothing is ours but sin.

2.3.2 - Romans, ch. 3, as witness for man's corruption

Now his intention in this passage is not simply to rebuke men that they may repent, but rather to teach them that they have all been overwhelmed by an unavoidable calamity from which only God's mercy can deliver them.

Let this then be agreed: that men are as they are here described not merely by the defect of depraved custom, but also by depravity of nature. The reasoning of the apostle cannot otherwise stand: Except out of the Lord's mercy there is no salvation for man, for in himself he is lost and forsaken [Rom. 3:23 ff.]...it is futile to seek anything good in our nature.

2.3.5 - Man sins of necessity, but without compulsion

Because of the bondage of sin by which the will is held bound, it cannot move toward good, much less apply itself thereto; for a movement of this sort is the beginning of conversion to God, which in Scripture is ascribed entirely to God's grace...Therefore simply to will is of man; to will ill, of a corrupt nature; to will well, of grace.

2.3.6 - Men's inability to do good manifests itself above all in the work of redemption, which God does quite alone

God begins his good work in us, therefore, by arousing love and desire and zeal for righteousness in our hearts; or, to speak more correctly, by bending, forming, and directing, our hearts to righteousness. He completes his work, moreover, by confirming us to perseverance.

I also say that it is created anew; not meaning that the will now begins to exist, but that it is changed from an evil to a good will...everything good in the will is the work of grace alone.

2.3.8 - Scripture imputes to God all that is for our benefit

Surely there is ready and sufficient reason to believe that good takes its origin from God alone. And only in the elect does one find a will inclined to good.

But since the whole of Scripture proclaims that faith is a free gift of God, it follows that when we, who are by nature inclined to evil with our whole heart, begin to will good, we do so out of mere grace...For it always follows that nothing good can arise out of our will until it has been reformed; and after its reformation, in so far as it is good, it is so from God, not from ourselves.

2.3.10 - God's activity does not produce a possibility that we can exhaust, but an actuality to which we cannot aid

Men indeed ought to be taught that God's loving-kindness is set forth to all who seek it, without exception. But since it is those on whom heavenly grace has breathed who at length begin to seek after it, they should not claim for themselves the slightest part of his praise. It is obviously the privilege of the elect that, regenerated through the Spirit of God, they are moved and governed by his leading.

I have come, you say, of my own free choice; I have come of my own will. Why are you so puffed up? Do you wish to know that this also has been given you? Hear Him calling, "No one comes to me unless the Father draws him." [John 6:44 p.].
____________________________________________

(1) See Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, pgs. 497-498

Government-Managed Capitalism: A Love Story

(Acton.org) Jonathan Witt

Memo to documentary filmmaker Michael Moore: Free markets didn’t cause the financial crisis. The biggest culprits were government planners meddling with the market. That’s the message of Acton’s newest video short.



So why on earth is Michael Moore (Capitalism: A Love Story, Sicko) so eager to route even more power and money through Washington? Centralized planning is economic poison. Doubling down isn’t the cure.

(Also, Acton’s resource page on the economic crisis is here.)

____________________________________________________


Personal Reflection: I think Glenn Beck's comment on Michael Moore's new movie is completely appropriate, not to mention revealing: "I really love it when people who despise capitalism try to convince you to spend money on their products. (Imagine if Stalin pimped his line of t-shirts on Facebook?) For instance, Michael Moore recently said that 'capitalism is evil,' but I bet he sure wouldn’t mind if you spent some cash to go see his new propaganda piece, 'Capitalism: A Love Story.'"

In other words, Moore's position is completely inconsistent. He proudly proclaims the "evils" of capitalism and yet at the same time uses the economic freedom capitalism provides in order to promote his new movie! How ironic!

Why Christians Should Value Philosophy Part 3 of 3

(Reasons.org) Kenneth Samples

What is the number one reason that people give for not believing in God?

All of the sources that I have ever read over the last thirty years indicate that the answer is "the problem of evil, pain, and suffering."

In parts one and two of this series I presented two reasons why Christians should value philosophy. First, philosophy is the best discipline in terms of preparing a person to think critically. Second, many of Christianity's most important doctrines clearly have philosophical implications. In this final article, I offer one more reason.

The Importance of Philosophy for Christians

1. Philosophy Promotes Critical Thinking
2. Christian Doctrine Contains Philosophical Implications
3. People Reject Christianity on Philosophical Grounds

If Christians hope to engage in evangelism and apologetics, then they will inevitably encounter people's objections to the faith. Many, if not most, of those objections involve direct philosophical connotations.

When it comes to philosophy of religion, questions about God's existence, his attributes, and the relationship between faith and reason immediately come to the fore. This area of study also focuses upon the issue of theodicy (the justification of God's goodness in light of evil in the world). Some of the very best Christian responses to the challenge that evil poses to the truth of the faith have come from philosophers (see the writings of such contemporary Christian thinkers as Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga listed below).

The philosophy of science is another area where Christians can benefit from possessing an understanding of philosophy. When my scientific colleagues Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana present RTB's creation model to secular scientists on college campuses they often receive an interesting response. According to Hugh, most of the objections are not scientific–but philosophical! For example, skeptics assert that religion and science are two separate spheres of inquiry that cannot be integrated. Or they claim that science by definition can only entertain purely naturalistic causes and explanations. Both of these issues are discussed specifically through the philosophy of science.

As the great medieval Christian philosophers recognized, good philosophy seeks to critically analyze life's most important questions. It can also serve as a useful handmaid to the study of theology and in the apologetics enterprise as well.

Recommended resources:

Philosophy and its benefits to the Christian: A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.

God and the problem of evil: God, Freedom, and Evil by Alvin Plantinga and Is There A God? by Richard Swinburne.

Philosophy of religion: God and Reason by Ed L. Miller.

Philosophy of science: Science & Its Limits by Del Ratzsch.

Was the Early Church Communist?

In the book of Acts we are told the following about the early church in Jerusalem:

Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common....There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35)

So is communism the Christian ideal? Individuals who accept Marxist ideology or liberation theology may certainly argue this way, and use this passage as a proof text. But is the Bible really teaching communism as a normative and ideal way of life for Christians?

Jay Richards addresses this question in his book Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem.(1) He points out four important things to remember when examining this passage:

• First, this passage mentions nothing of class warfare or the idea that private property is immoral, as does modern communism. Rather, Christians were sharing freely and spontaneously.

• Second, neither does this passage mention anything about the state. The state is nowhere to be found. It is not the government that is confiscating property and collectivizing industry.

• Third, later in Acts 5 when Peter condemns Ananias and Sapphira, he does not condemn them for keeping part of the proceeds but rather for lying about the amount they received. In fact, in verse 4 Peter explicitly states the property was rightfully theirs even after they sold it: "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal?"

• Fourth, the Bible never makes the communal life of the early church in Jerusalem prescriptive for Christians. Furthermore, it doesn't even seem to be the norm for the Jerusalem church but was rather short lived.

On this last point, Walt Russell in his book Playing with Fire gives us two important criteria for determining whether or not a particular behavior of Christians in the book of Acts should be considered normative and prescriptive for us today (2):

• First, is the behavior repeatedly emphasized or is it a recurring theme within the broader narrative of Acts?

• Second, is this recurring pattern of behavior closely aligned with Luke's main emphasis on a universal, Law-free identity for God's people?

Examining the communal lifestyle of the early church in Jerusalem by these two criteria shows that it fails on both accounts. This behavior is nowhere mentioned again in the book of Acts or even in the entire rest of the New Testament. It also does not fit with Luke's main purpose for writing the book of Acts.

Therefore, given the context and indicators within the passage itself and the fact that this behavior is not to be considered normative or prescriptive, it certainly cannot be argued that communism is in anyway the Christian ideal or was even practiced by the early church. Marxists and liberation theologians will have to find their proof texts elsewhere.
______________________________________________

(1) See Money, Greed, and God, pgs. 22-24.

(2) See Playing with Fire, pgs. 218-223.

The Zoolander Objection, Part 2 of 2

The Zoolander Objection Part 1 of 2

Extended Cosmological Argument

The interesting continuation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God moves from the establishment of an eternal first cause merely existing, to demonstrating how it must be a person, good, and extremely powerful.


1. PERSONHOOD

We know that inanimate objects cannot voluntarily move. They have to be caused by something else to do anything at all. So the eternal first cause established by the cosmological argument cannot be an inanimate thing. The only things that are not inanimate are things with minds.

Furthermore, this holds up under either position in the free will/determinism debate. Regardless of whether or not the created things with minds that proceeded from the eternal first cause have free will or not, it itself could not have been caused or determined by something else. It is all that existed prior to what it brought into existence. So if there’s nothing to cause it to move or act, then the eternal first cause itself must exercise volition in order to act and create. It makes itself act. Exercising volition is to unaffectedly choose to create, to think, and be innovative. This is indicative of nothing other than a mind.


2. GOODNESS

The world we find ourselves in, that has come from the eternal first cause, exists with such things as moral rightness and wrongness. There are disagreements on just what exactly is right or wrong on various issues, but that is not relevant here. The point is that we all recognize it is possible to deviate from what is right, whatever that may be. This is what we call doing something morally wrong. Being able to deviate from what is right indicates that there is a morally right way things should be for us to deviate from. A moral law, if you will. Because we recognize that it’s wrong to deviate, and right to not deviate, means that the moral law we deviate from is right and good.

Since this moral law is inherent in all that exists, we know that it was created by the personal eternal first cause. The moral law giver, if you will again. Now, we know that the eternal first cause chose to create what it wanted to. It chose to do this by its own reasoning, unaffected by anything else. So since the moral law is perfectly good, then the moral law giver, who voluntarily made this moral law to be inherent in all it created, has to be morally capable to do so. Therefore, it must be perfectly good itself.


3. POWER

Finally, this perfectly good person who is the first cause, has to have enough power to be capable of bringing into existence all that exists. This pretty much means it’s the most powerful thing imaginable.

Debunking Conspiracy Theories

During this time of the year I am always saddened in remembering the lives lost on September 11, 2001, and in hearing the stories of those who lost loved ones on that fateful day.

At the same time, I am always surprised to see the resurgence of conspiracy theories which say that 9/11 was the work of the government, the collapse of the twin towers was the result of a controlled demolition, and Elvis is alive and well in Tennessee.

My brother-in-law recently wrote me an e-mail asking me what I thought about some of these internet movies that thrive on the conspiracy theory motif. One of the best known is probably Zeitgeist, though there are others out there which focus more on 9/11.

As a side note, last week on the blog I re-posted an article by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason entitled "Jesus, the Recycled Redeemer" in three parts, which you can read here if you are so inclined: part 1, part 2, part 3. The reason I mention this is because the first part of Zeitgeist makes the claim that Jesus was simply a mythical figure like other pagan gods with nothing unique about Him or His story.

However, the film also goes on to briefly cover the 9/11 attacks. It claims the government was involved and that the collapse of the twin towers was the result of a controlled demolition as opposed to the the airplanes crashing into them. Essentially, Bush lied and people died.

As I told my brother-in-law, I am skeptical about conspiracy theories for at least two reasons. Here's why.

I'M SKEPTICAL, HOW BOUT YOU?

Reason #1: The first reason to be skeptical about conspiracy theories is that they almost always turn out to be non-falsifiable. In other words, you can never prove them wrong! This does not necessarily mean that they are wrong simply because they are non-falsifiable, but it raises suspicion as to how much credence we should give them given the fact there is no way to know if they are mistaken.

This became abundantly clear to me in a conversation I had with a fellow co-worker who, incidentally, turned out to be a conspiracy theorist. After providing my friend with objections, arguments, and counter-evidence which devastated his theory, he simply replied, "Ah yes...but you see...that is what they want you to believe!"

Herein lies the rub: anytime someone proposes a conspiracy theory and you are able to provide evidence and arguments which shows they are actually wrong, the hard-core conspiracy theorist will always reply, "Ah yes...but you see...that is what they want you to believe!"

So in effect, the conspiracy theorist takes whatever evidence and arguments you provide and somehow twists them into evidence and arguments for his own position! It doesn't matter what you say because the facts will always somehow be worked into their conspiracy in order to fit their preconceived belief. Quite clever...and yet at the same time intellectually dishonest. This in turn makes it impossible to ever prove them wrong, making their theory non-falsifiable.

Reason #2: The second reason to be skeptical about conspiracy theories is that they just don't seem to work. Think about the Watergate cover-up during the Nixon Presidency. Here we had the most powerful men in the world and they could not keep a conspiracy together for more than two weeks after Nixon was informed by John Dean about what was really going on. Of course, if you mention this to a conspiracy theorist he will say that Watergate was supposed to be discovered because this was all part of the grander conspiracy. A little too convenient if you ask me.

Despite the example of Watergate, conspiracy theorists would have us believe that there are national and global conspiracies going on right under our noses. All the while nobody is talking and no information from reliable sources is made known publicly on a grand scale. Call me crazy, but I don't buy it. People like to believe conspiracy theories because they are fun to think about and the like, but at least for me personally I am going to need a bit more than that.

WAS SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, A GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY??

So what about 9/11? Was the collapse of the twin towers a result of the plane crashes or the work of a government controlled demolition?

First, just stop and think for a moment what would have to be true if the conspiracy theorists are right. What the conspiracy theorist must say is that thousands of pounds of explosives were somehow marched into the twin towers prior to 9/11 and put precisely in place for a controlled demolition. Of course, not a single eyewitness ever reported men in black suits carrying thousands of pounds of C-4 and attaching it to the structures. Do you know how long that would have taken? Do you know the amount of time it takes demolition crews to set up an intended demolition of a building and the amount of precision it takes? Yet apparently, according to conspiracy theorists, all of this took place without a single eyewitness reporting these strange events. This seems hard to believe considering the twin towers were already under close scrutiny because of prior attacks.

Again, we are to believe a giant conspiracy must have taken place right under everyone's noses with no eyewitnesses. These theories, sooner or later, become absurd. The burden of proof is clearly on the those making the claim to produce some evidence for their position.

Second, Larry Schweikart, author of the book 48 Liberal Lies About American History, has this to say regarding the collapse of the towers:

The editors of the blue-collar magazine Popular Mechanics joined the fray by reviewing some of the conspiracy books before publishing Debunking 9/11 Myths in 2006. The airplanes carried some ten thousand gallons of jet fuel each. Jet fuel burns at 1,100 to 1,200 degrees Celsius, and steel doesn't melt until it reaches 1,510 degrees. But it loses strength at 400 degrees Celsius, and at 980 degrees, it possesses less than 10 percent of its strength. Load-bearing columns and beams did not need to melt: they only had to be weakened and bent sufficiently. The National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) conducted a study of the buildings' collapse and found that the impact had stripped "fireproofing insulation from the trusses that supported 80,000 square feet of floor space." As floors began to sag, they put additional stress on the 90 percent weakened steel columns, pulling them inward and adding to the stress on surviving columns. None of this even begins to take into consideration the phenomenal impact stresses of a jetliner striking the buildings at over 150 miles per hour, or the "hollowing out" of the load-bearing elevator shafts by the fuel and fire that shot down them.(1)

Again, Larry Schweikart sums it up nicely:

The fact that some conspiracists actually hold respectable jobs or appear normal under other circumstances should not conceal the fact that they are on one side, and the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Fire Protection Association, Underwriters Laboratories, several prominent universities, the 9/11 Commission, plus virtually every agency within the government that has in any way examined the evidence, are on the other side.(2)

CONCLUSION

When dealing with conspiracy theories it is important to keep several things in mind:

First, check your information sources. Are they reliable? What are their credentials? Do they have authority to speak on the matter?

Second, look at both sides of the issue. Examine the arguments and weigh the evidence. Try to be as objective as possible.

Third, ask good questions. When conversing with a conspiracy theorist look for problems in the theory and ask questions that may expose these flaws.

Fourth, keep an open mind. You never know...I may just be part of the conspiracy.

MUAHAHAHAHA!
___________________________________________________

(1) Larry Schweikart, 48 Liberal Lies About American History, 58.

(2) Ibid., 60.

I Believe - A 9/11 Tribute

A tribute to all those who lost their lives and loved ones on September 11, 2001.

It is hard to believe it has already been 8 years since this tragedy.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away...and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.
(Rev. 21:1-4)

How Can Truth Be An Abomination?

(Upfc.org) Matt Vidovich

If you are not familiar to the many cracks that lay on the basic foundation of Mormonism, then this may come as a surprise to you. For the past two years, my research on Mormonism has left me only more confused about basic understanding on LDS doctrine. As the list of questions get longer, the list of answers fade away. Through my numerous conversations with LDS believers, missionaries, bishops, and even stake presidents, one claim rang loud in my ears that could not be ignored. “Many Churches and other religions have Truth, but our Church contains the fullness. ALL truth.” Mormons everywhere love to boast that the LDS Church does not criticize others, this includes any type of religion, or view of God. Even Mormon Publication contain ridiculous euphemisms that soften even their own doctrine.

(1) “Because the Church was no longer led by priesthood authority and revelation, error crept into Church teachings. Good people and much truth remained, but the gospel as established by Jesus Christ was lost, resulting in a period called the Great Apostasy.” http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/the-restoration-of-truth/the-great-apostasy

"Much truth remained." Not a small amount of truth but "much truth."

(2) “We have come not to take away from you the truth and virtue you possess. We have come not to find fault with you nor to criticize you. We have not come here to berate you. … Keep all the good that you have, and let us bring to you more good.” President George Albert Smith, quoted in Sharing the Gospel with Others, comp. Preston Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1948), 12-13; italics added.

Virtue you posses? Where does the Bible affirm that we posses virtue? Keep all the good that you have? What good are we without Christ? “Keep all the good that you have, and let us bring you more good.” This sounds like the motto of Masonry, “Making good men better.” Do you begin to see how the LDS church covers it’s embarrassing doctrine to fit the politically correct world around it?

They also project this pattern that “Good People” have some truth, and some is better then none. This idea “you’re not wrong, you’re just not right.” is pushed by the church, and is completely contrary to their own doctrine. A prime example of this is found in the Book of Mormon:

“And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth” (1 Nephi 14:10).

This verse in 1 Nephi gives readers a clear cut, black and white illustration of who is and who isn’t true followers of Christ according to LDS doctrine. In v.17 it tells us that if we are not a part of the true church, then our “Foundation is the devil.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a politically correct, postmodern way of presenting itself. It sidesteps the core of the issue and avoids any deep theological discussion, so as not to offend anyone.

Same statements have been made by the Church’s founding fathers. Brigham Young, John Taylor, James Talmage, Bruce McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, and of course Joseph Smith Jr. Smith once said, “My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt . . .” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 5-6).

By cushioning the blow, the LDS church fails to be honest about their own doctrine. In closing I ask, how can any truth be an Abomination?

Marxism's Last (and First) Stronghold

(Acton.org) Samuel Gregg

Marxism, we’re often told, is dead. While Communism as a system of authoritarian power still exists in countries like China, Marxism’s contemporary hold over people’s minds, many claim, is nothing compared to its glory days between the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia in October 1917 and the Berlin Wall’s fall twenty years ago.

In many respects, such observations are true. But in other senses, they are not. We need only look at Western Europe—the place where Marxist thought first emerged and took root. One trivial, albeit disturbing sign is many young West Europeans’ willingness to wear t-shirts emblazoned with the Communist hammer and sickle or Che Guevara images. If you want confirmation of this, just take a stroll through downtown Amsterdam, Stockholm, or Rome.

No doubt, in many cases the t-shirt images are simply reflections of youthful rebelliousness. But it’s difficult to refrain from asking wearers of such clothing whether they also possess a t-shirt inscribed with the Nazi swastika. They would surely be deeply offended at such a suggestion. But their willingness to parade the hammer and sickle reflects either historical ignorance or a failure to accept that it is as much a symbol of terroristic criminal regimes as the swastika: just ask any survivors of Stalin’s Gulag, Vietnam’s “re-education” camps, or the Khmer Rouge’s killing fields.

Then there is the persistent grip of Marxist-inspired mythology on Western Europe’s historical imagination. A good example is Karl Marx’s presentation of nineteenth-century capitalism as a period in which a small group became wealthy and millions were impoverished. This remains an article of faith for the European left and some on the European right.

No doubt, there was considerable upheaval as entire societies transformed from agricultural arrangements to heavy industry. But as the Oxford economic historian Max Hartwell proved conclusively in his famous debates with the Marxist scholar Eric Hobsbawm, on every measurable variable of the standard of living, the quality of life for the overwhelming majority of people improved dramatically because of industrial capitalism.

So why are Marxist myths and symbols implicitly accepted so casually by many West Europeans who would never consider themselves Communists? One obvious reason is that Western European nations were never subject to Communist regimes. Hence it was easier to retain romantic notions about Marxism and ignore or rationalize the brutal reality on the other side of the Iron Curtain.

Then there is the fact that the continental European left was far more influenced by Marxism than, for example, Anglo-American center-left movements. Germany’s Social Democrat party, for example, only formally renounced Marxism as a source of ideas in 1959.

But perhaps the most significant reason for Marxism’s lingering background influence on much West European opinion is an Italian philosopher who died 72 years ago. If you ever doubt the power of intellectuals, the case of Antonio Gramsci is a useful corrective.

A rather unconventional Marxist by 1930s Stalinist standards, Gramsci argued that the key to power lay less in controlling the economic means of production than in capturing the engines of “cultural hegemony” – the universities, the media, the arts, and religious institutions. Gramsci recognized that the Russian Bolsheviks’ violent seizure of power in 1918 had been the exception to the rule. This tactic had failed everywhere else. A protracted ‘war of position’ for control of the culture was, Gramsci believed, the most effective way of establishing a leftist stranglehold over society.

After Communist parties’ failure to establish political dominance in Western Europe after World War II, Gramsci’s path of “cultural Bolshevikism” became attractive to many West European leftists. It gathered apace after the 1968 student rebellions. Reflecting on this period as one who lived through it, then-Professor Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) spoke of the violence and intellectual intimidation used by left-wing students against anyone disagreeing with them. Marxist ideology, he wrote, shook his university “to its very foundations.”

After 1968, many of Western Europe’s universities underwent a dramatic change for the worse. The professoriate became so monolithically leftist that it makes America’s reliably left-leaning Ivy League universities look like models of diversity. If you walk into most West European academic bookshops, you will find a preponderance of left-inclined work and struggle to find material presenting alternative views. This state of affairs has influenced thousands of West European students passing through these institutions.

None of this is to suggest that Western Europe is the victim of a mass decades-old conspiracy. But perhaps as the world prepares to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of Communism’s defeat in Central-East Europe, West Europeans might like to ask themselves why so many of them are so blasé about the influence of a philosophy that lead to the imprisonment, torture, enslavement and death of millions.

And they might get rid of those t-shirts.

John Calvin on Spiritual Warfare

This semester I am taking a class on the theology of John Calvin. A major portion of the course is reading Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion in its entirety. At 1500 pages, the Institutes stands as a monumental and historic work in Protestant theology. In other words, a classic. Love him or hate him, Calvin was, and continues to be, one of the finest thinkers and most articulate defenders of the Protestant Christian faith.

Throughout the semester, as time allows, I will be posting quotes from Calvin on various topics. All quotes are from the Battles translation, edited by John T. McNeill. Enjoy!

JOHN CALVIN ON SPIRITUAL WARFARE:

1.14.13 - Scripture forearms us against the adversary

All that Scripture teaches concerning devils aims at arousing us to take precaution against their stratagems and contrivances, and also to make us equip ourselves with those weapons which are strong and powerful enough to vanquish these most powerful foes.

We have been forewarned that an enemy relentlessly threatens us, an enemy who is the very embodiment of rash boldness, of military prowess, of crafty wiles, of untiring zeal and haste, of every every conceivable weapon and of skill in the science of warfare. We must, then, bend our every effort to this goal: that we should not let ourselves be overwhelmed by carelessness or faintheartedness, but on the contrary, with courage rekindled stand our ground in combat. Since this military service ends only at death, let us urge ourselves to perseverance. Indeed, conscious of our weakness and ignorance, let us especially call upon God's help, relying upon him alone in whatever we attempt, since it is he alone who can supply us with counsel and strength, courage and armor.

1.14.14 - The realm of wickedness

Morever, in order that we may be aroused and exhorted all the more to carry this out, Scripture makes known that there are not one, not two, nor a few foes, but great armies which wage war against us.

We are therefore taught by these examples that we have to wage war against an infinite number of enemies, lest, despising their fewness, we should be too remiss to give battle, or, thinking that we are sometimes afforded some respite, we should yield to idleness.

1.14.15 - An irreconcilable struggle

The fact that the devil is everywhere called God's adversary and ours also ought to fire us to an unceasing struggle against him. For if we have God's glory at heart, as we should have, we ought with all our strength to contend against him who is trying to extinguish it. If we are minded to affirm Christ's Kingdom as we ought, we must wage irreconcilable war with him who is plotting its ruin. Again, if we care about our salvation at all, we ought to have neither peace nor truce with him who continually lays traps to destroy it.

In sum, we experience in all of Satan's deeds what Christ testifies concerning him, that "from the beginning he was a murderer...and a liar" [John 8:44]. For he opposes the truth of God with falsehoods, he obscures the light with darkness, he entangles men's minds in errors, he stirs up hatred, he kindles contentions and combats, everything to the end that he may overturn God's Kingdom and plunge men with himself into eternal death. From this is appears that he is in nature depraved, evil, and malicious. For there must be consummate depravity in that disposition which devotes itself to assailing God's glory and man's salvation.

1.14.18 - Assurance of victory!

Now, because God bends the unclean spirits hither and thither at will, he so governs their activity that they exercise believers in combat, ambush them, invade their peace, beset them in combat, and also often weary them, rout them, terrify them, and sometimes wound them; yet they never vanquish or crush them. But the wicked they subdue and drag away; they exercise power over their minds and bodies, and misuse them as if they were slaves for every shameful act.

But because that promise to crush Satan's head [Gen. 3:15] pertains to Christ and all his members in common, I deny that believers can ever be conquered or overwhelmed by him. Often, indeed, are they distressed, but not so deprived of life as not to recover; they fall under violent blows, but afterward they are raised up; they are wounded, but not fatally; in short, they so toil throughout life that at the last they obtain the victory.

For, such is our weakness and such is the power of his fury, how could we stand even in the slightest against his manifold and continuous attacks, unless we relied upon the victory of our leader? Therefore God does not allow Satan to rule over the souls of believers, but gives over only the impious and unbelievers, whom he deigns not to regard as members of his own flock, to be governed by him.

Jesus, the Recycled Redeemer Part 3 of 3

(Stand to Reason) Greg Koukl

Jesus, the Recycled Redeemer, Part 1 of 3
Jesus, the Recycled Redeemer, Part 2 of 3

A TITANIC COINCIDENCE

In 1898, Morgan Robertson published a novel entitled Futility. The story was a fictional account of a transatlantic voyage of the cruise ship Titan traveling between England and New York. The largest vessel afloat displacing 45,000 tons, the Titan was considered virtually unsinkable. Yet in the middle of the night in April, with three massive propellers driving the ship forward at the excessive speed of 25 knots, it collided with an iceberg and sunk. Since the number of lifeboats was the minimum the law required (though twice that was needed for its 3,000 capacity), more than half of its passengers perished.

Fourteen years later in April, the world’s largest luxury liner with a displacement of 45,000 tons – the indestructible Titanic – departed from England on a transatlantic voyage to New York. In the middle of the night, the Titanic’s triple screws drove the ship at the excessive speed of nearly 25 knots into an iceberg and sunk. Since the Titanic was fitted with less than half the number of lifeboats needed for its 3,000 capacity (the minimum the law required), more than half of its passengers were lost.

This real-life coincidence makes a crucial point. Regardless of the similarity between two accounts of different events, the second cannot be summarily dismissed as an invention simply because the first turns out to be fiction. Whether or not the details of the Titanic’s disaster are accurate is determined by its own body of evidence, unrelated to the fictional story of the ill-fated Titan that came before.

This is a critical procedural point, one best described by C.S. Lewis:

Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is “wishful thinking.”…Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself.... If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain…how I came to be so bad at arithmetic...but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely mathematical grounds....In other words, you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong.

Lewis’s insight applies to our challenge. Remember the claim in question: Ancient myths explain the origin of the Jesus myth. The second false account was inspired by the first ones. Do you see the misstep? The New Testament account is presumed false; then the ancient accounts are invoked to explain the fiction. The argument of Zeitgeist turns out to be circular, assuming what it intends to prove.

Imagine introducing yourself to a stranger and sharing bits of autobiography only to be labeled a liar and an imposter. His evidence? In the past three months, 12 other phonies tried to pawn off the same story on him. When you offer identification, he ignores it. He’s already assumed you’re a fraud like the rest, no matter what bona fides you produce.

In addition to being offended, you’d probably be mystified. Clearly, he can’t prove you are lying about your identity by citing others who lied about theirs. No imposter of the past could logically foreclose on the possibility that you might be the genuine article. That must be decided on separate grounds. To paraphrase Lewis, one has to show that a person is lying before it makes any sense to speculate on where the lie came from.

In the same way, one first has to show that Jesus is a fiction before he starts explaining how the fiction came to be. Even if someone produced a thousand parallels with Jesus from the writings of antiquity, that alone would not prove He was just another phony. If the similarities were remarkable, it might raise eyebrows (“Not another one”) and invite a closer look. But it would do nothing on its own to disqualify Christ. Only shortcomings with the specific historical evidence for Jesus can do that.

The Zeitgeist approach is an evasion, not an argument. It is not good enough to assume Jesus is a myth and then speculate on the genesis of the error. The primary source historical documents about Him – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – must be dealt with first, not dismissed with misleading talk about alleged literary relationships with ancient dying and resurrecting gods.

JESUS, MAN OF HISTORY

Professional historians do not believe the New Testament account is merely a retelling of an ancient myth. Though not endorsing every detail of the Gospel records (most academics reject the supernatural elements for philosophic reasons), scholars, both liberal and conservative, overwhelmingly agree that Jesus of Nazareth was a man of history.

Will Durant, the Pulitzer Prize winning historian, coauthored with his wife the most successful work of history in history, the 11 volume The Story of Civilization. In “Caesar and Christ,” in spite of the “many suspicious resemblances to the legends of pagan gods,” Durant concludes:

Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that many inventors would have concealed. No one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of higher criticism, the outlines of the life, character and teachings of Christ remain reasonably clear and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.

The challenge in Zeitgeist is why we should consider the stories of Mithras, Horus, Attis, and the other pagan mystery saviors as fables, yet treat as factual a similar story told of a Jewish carpenter.

The answer is simple: There is no good evidence for the authenticity of any ancient mythological characters and their deeds, but there is an abundance of such evidence for Jesus. And if the historical documentation for the man from Nazareth is compelling, then it doesn’t matter how many ancient myths share similarities.

The Apostle Paul readily acknowledged that if Jesus’ resurrection was a myth and the witnesses were trading in lies, then Christians were a pitiful lot (1 Corinthians 15:19). And fools too, I might add, because it cost many of them their lives.

Nothing in the Zeitgeist recycled redeemer theory, however, suggests Christians have misplaced their confidence. The skeptics’ facts are unreliable and their thinking is unsound, so their challenge is doubly dead.

According to their own testimony, the New Testament writers were not following “cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16). They were testifying not to myths, but to “sober truth” about events that had “not been done in a corner” (Acts 26:25-26):

What we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life – and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us – what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also (1 John 1:-3).

Jesus, the Recycled Redeemer Part 2 of 3

(Stand to Reason) Greg Koukl

Jesus, the Recycled Redeemer Part 1 of 3

"FAILED FACTS"

First, the fact is that the “facts” listed above are almost all false, nearly to the point of embarrassment. Here are a few examples:

There is no record Osiris rose bodily from the dead. Instead, he became a god of the netherworld. As one put it, Osiris is not a dying god, but a dead god, always depicted as a deceased, mummified king. He may be “alive” in the spirit realm, but this would be true of anyone passing into the next life who’s physical body lies decaying in a tomb. Indeed, Egyptian religion had no concept of resurrection, only of immortality beyond the grave. These are two entirely different concepts.

Horus was not born of a virgin, but was the son of Osiris and Isis (not Mary). Horus never dies, so he could have no resurrection, though in his union with Rah, the sun God, one could say he “dies” every night and is “resurrected” every morning. Clearly, though, this is no help to the copycat messiah crowd.

Neither the Bible nor Christianity claim Jesus was born on December 25th, so any parallels with ancient myths are completely inconsequential. The date was chosen by emperor Aurelian in the third century.

• Mithras was not born of a virgin, but emerged from a rock, and there is no textual evidence of his death, so there could be no resurrection. Mithras was a god, not a teacher, so he had no disciples.
  

• There is no evidence of an account of a bodily resurrection of Attis, the Phrygian god of vegetation.

• There is no evidence for a virgin birth of Dionysus.

• Krishna was his mother’s eighth son, so his virgin birth is unlikely.

The dating of many of the dying-and-resurrecting-god myths is the second obstacle. Here’s the problem. It is axiomatic that the recycled version must appear in history after the one it allegedly came from, not before. However, many mythical accounts of dying and rising gods actually postdate the time of Christ:

• There is no evidence of the influence of Mithraism in the Roman Empire until the end of the first century A.D.7
  

• The sacrifice of a bull by some Mithraists allegedly mimicking the substitutionary atonement of Christ first shows up in the second century A.D.

• The four texts that cite the resurrection of Adonis date from the second to fourth centuries A.D.

• The account of the miraculous birth of Zoroaster dates to the ninth century A.D.10

The most academically exhaustive work, a ponderous study entitled The Riddle of Resurrection by Tryggve Mettinger, concludes that even though some myths of dying and rising gods may predate the Christian era, the claims made regarding Jesus of Nazareth are distinct from them in three critical ways.

First, Jesus was a flesh-and-blood human whose resurrection happened in history at a precise topographical location on earth. Second, the mythical “resurrected” deities were invariably tied to the seasons of the agricultural cycle, “dying” and “rising” repeatedly every calendar year, while Jesus’ resurrection was a one-time event unrelated to seasonal changes. Third, Jesus died as a vicarious sacrifice for sins. There is no evidence of such an atonement in any other accounts.

Mettinger sums up the evidence this way:

There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world. While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions.

A SKUNK IN THE WOODPILE

In his work, The Gospel and the Greeks, Ronald Nash offers a handful of suggestions to protect the novice from being misled by dubious factual claims.

Check the evidence in the primary sources. Don’t settle for a website citing a website that cites a website. Web postings often run in a circle, with each site quoting others without ever citing a primary source document (an original rendering of the ancient myth itself ). Try to get as close to the original source as you can to reduce the chance that “facts” got distorted in the retelling. Make sure your evidence comes from an established authority in the field who has access to the original material.

Check the dates. Be sure the original records (not the original myth) predate the accounts that allegedly borrowed from them. Even ancient tales get amended over time.

Determine if the parallels are really parallel and significant. Similarities are frequently overstated or oversimplified. Many are inconsequential, like the claim ancient gods were born on December 25th. Some accounts trade on the kinship of phrases like “birth of the sun” vs. “birth of the son.” This word play only works, though, when rendered in English, a language that developed millennia after these events.

Beware of Christian language and terms being read back into the ancient account. Some refer to the death of Osiris as his “passion,” employing Christian terminology to imply a similarity that doesn’t exist. Any death can be called a passion, even when the passions themselves are wildly dissimilar. Also, no one should be impressed when Egyptian sun gods are called “The Light.”

As it turns out regarding the factual claims, once the primary sources of the ancient myths are consulted, a host of alleged similarities turn out to be fictions. The parallels remaining are usually far too general to be significant. Further, the dating of many of the ancient records completely undermines the argument because the stories appear too late in history to have any influence on the Gospels.

But that’s not the worst of it. Even if the characterizations of the myths were accurate – that Mithras was born of a virgin, and Osiris was resurrected from the dead, and Horus had a dozen disciples, and Dionysus turned water into wine, and Attis was crucified—there is something else fundamentally wrong with the Zeitgeist challenge. Even if the facts were accurate, it proves nothing. Here’s why.

Jesus, the Recycled Redeemer Part 1 of 3

(Stand to Reason) Greg Koukl

There is a reason the ancient historical accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth do not start with the phrase, “Once upon a time….” On the face of it, the authors did not appear to be writing fairytales for future generations, but rather detailed accounts of the extraordinary events in the life of a particular Jewish carpenter who actually changed the course of history.

The opening words of Luke’s account of Jesus’ life are especially clear on this point:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

In the days of Herod, king of Judea….

In John’s account we find two striking claims that bookend his record, the first found in Chapter 1 and the last in Chapter 20:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Many other [miraculous] signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book, but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Each of these ancient “biographies” of Jesus – along with the only other accounts that give any breadth of detail about the Nazarene (Matthew and Mark) – proceed in the same fashion.

First, the authors are clearly aware they are relating a remarkable story about a remarkable man who did remarkable things. Second, it is just as clear they were convinced the events in their accounts really happened. These were not sacred stories of netherworld gods and ethereal, supernatural heroes, but reports of actual historical events involving flesh and blood people with their feet firmly planted on terra firma.

The Gospel writers intended to report history, not mythology. Their accounts include the vivid detail of an observer who had witnessed the events personally, or a chronicler who had obtained the information from people who were actually there. Yet they are not merely reports, but arguments meant to persuade, citing evidence to prove their claims.

These facts on their own don’t make the accounts true, of course. But they do seem to place these writings in a class of ancient literature that doesn’t allow them to be dismissed for frivolous reasons. Yet this is exactly what has been happening.

"ONCE UPON A TIME..."

The internet is littered with allegations that the historical records of the life of Jesus of Nazareth are examples of a kind of religious plagiarism, a mere rehashing of dying-and-rising-god fictions of ancient mythology, a recycling of common details found in dozens of mystery religions in the ancient world around the time of Christ.

Simply Google Mithras, Dionysus, Osiris, Adonis, or Isis and you will be buried in an avalanche of “evidence” linking the divine teacher from Galilee with a host of characters allegedly manufactured from the same mythic material. The most well-known attempt is a flashy “documentary” called Zeitgeist – The Greatest Story Ever Told that has gone viral on the web.

According to Zeitgeist, ancient hieroglyphics tell us this about the anthropomorphized Egyptian sun God, Horus:

Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis, Mary. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east which, in turn, three kings followed to locate and adore the new-born savior. At the age of 12 he was a prodigal child teacher. At the age of 30 was baptized by a figure known as Adep, and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples who he traveled about with performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. Horus was known by many gestural names such as “The Truth,” “The Light,” “God’s Anointed Son,” “The Good Shepherd,” “The Lamb of God,” and many others. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for three days, and thus resurrected.

“Many other gods,” Zeitgeist claims, “are found to have the same mythological structure”:

• Attis (1200 B.C.) – Born of a virgin on December 25th, was crucified, was dead for three days and resurrected

• Krishna (900 B.C.) – Born of a virgin with a star in the east to signal his birth, performed miracles, died, and was resurrected

• Dionysus (500 B.C.) – Born of a virgin on December 25, performed miracles like turning water into wine, was referred to as “the King of Kings” and “God’s only begotten son,” died, and was resurrected
  

• Mithras (1200 B.C.) – Born of a virgin on December 25, had 12 disciples, performed miracles, was dead for three days and resurrected, was known as “the Truth” and “The Life,” and was worshipped on Sunday
  

Osiris, the husband of Isis in the Egyptian pantheon, is another popular contender for a dying and resurrected god. The broad claim, simply put in the words of Sir Leigh Teabing in Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, is, “Nothing in Christianity is original.”

This is a taxing topic because of the sheer volume of alleged comparisons advanced by skeptics. The process is complicated by the many variations of these ancients myths generated in
their retelling.

Books like Ronald Nash’s scholarly The Gospel and the Greeks or Lee Strobel’s popular work The Case for the Real Jesus spend time answering the particulars. In the interest of space, I want to advance a general response to this broad challenge to the reliability of the canonical accounts of Jesus’ life.

In general, the dispute entails a factual claim – certain mythical accounts that predate the Gospels contain elements matching the details of Jesus’ life – and a logical/literary claim – the existence of the older accounts proves that the account of Jesus is myth as well, being cobbled together with bits and pieces of these old stories.

There are at least three significant problems with this argument that should be enough to silence it forever. The first two speak to the factual claims. The last – and most decisive – addresses the logical assertion.

The Zoolander Objection Part 1 of 2

“But who created God?”, is what I call the Zoolander Objection to the cosmological argument for the existence of God. I argue here that this common response to the cosmological argument, whether given sarcastically or seriously, can only come from someone who does not fully grasp the argument. Furthermore, it is very similar to a memorable scene in the film Zoolander. But in order to make the Zoolander connection, I must first layout the argument. The goal of this argument is to show that an eternal first cause of everything, exists.[1]

Below are some key features of this argument, followed by an explanation for the naming of the Zoolander Objection.

I. Actual infinites cannot exist.

A. “Infinite/eternal” distinction.
How can the premise "Actual infinites cannot exist" be used in an argument for the existence of God? Isn’t God infinite? What needs to be clarified here is what is meant by ‘infinite’. The term ‘infinite’ means an infinite set of finite things. This is not synonymous with the term ‘eternal’. An infinite is a quantity, while eternity is a duration. (One could say that an eternity is a quantity of time, but this slightly misunderstands the concept behind the word 'eternity'. The concept of eternity refers to the passing of time. That is, it refers to how long the time goes for; the duration of it.) An infinite is eternal, but an eternal thing is not necessarily an infinite. (Much like all apples are fruit, but not all fruits are apples.) An infinite would be eternal because it would be a quantity that goes on forever if it were to be counted. So since eternity has to do with duration rather than quantity, an eternal thing can only be one of two things: An infinite set, or a single thing that simply always exists.

B. “Potential/Actual Infinite” distinction.
Mentioned above is how an infinite set would be eternal because it would be a quantity that goes on forever if it were to be counted. In this sense, it is potentially infinite. If it were actualized, then it would be infinite. It would therefore be eternal by going on forever if it actualized its potential.

C. ‘Cannot exist’
Although the concept of a potential infinite set can be utilized in mathematics, an actual infinite set cannot really happen. The non-crossing-over feature of actual infinites leads to the conclusion that they cannot actually exist. The occurrence of a particular thing in the set would always be waiting for its turn to occur. Because there is an infinite amount of things before it, the sequence would never ‘cross over’ to the time it takes place. It would never happen. This is the case for every part in the infinite series and makes an infinite series impossible in actuality.

For example, imagine going to dinner at a local restaurant. You show up and the hostess tells you there are two people in front of you and you’ll be seated after them. You wait a few minutes, and then you’re seated. You come back the next night and are told ten people are to be seated before you. You wait longer than the night before because there are more people in front of you. You come back a third night and there are 30 people to be seated before you. This time, you wait even longer. But just like the nights before, you actually do get seated. You get the picture: the more people before you, the longer you wait. Now imagine that there is an infinite amount of people to be seated before you do. How long would you wait? The answer is forever. You’ll always be waiting, and will never actually be seated. Because there is an infinite amount of people to be seated before you, there will never be a crossing over in the seating sequence to your actual turn.[2]

II. Our world cannot be part of an infinite series.

If the world we live in were part of an infinite series of events, then the past would never cross over to now. If the past events were infinite, we’d always be waiting for now to happen. In fact, now wouldn’t happen at all and we wouldn’t be here. Therefore, because we’re here, we know the past could not have been an infinite series of events.

III. Conclusion

If we were to trace the sequence of events from now backwards into history, we realize that there are a few different options to explain how this sequence of events came about. There are three options: 1) the events are an infinite set, 2) a single eternal thing started them, or 3) they started from nothing.

Option 3 is obviously impossible, so we can discard it. It cannot be the case that nothing existed and then something did. How can nothing cause something to happen? There’s nothing to do the causing. Therefore, since something exists, and something cannot come from nothing, something must have always existed.

This brings us to options 1 and 2. The sequence of events that we trace from now back into the past either 1) has no beginning and is an infinite set of events, or 2) began from a single eternal thing. These two options both have eternal histories to meet the criteria of always existing. Furthermore, they are the only two logical possibilities to explain how something could have always existed (i.e. they are the only two ways something can be eternal): either the sequence of events from now, back throughout all of history, rewinds into the past forever with no beginning, or rewinds into the past and terminates in a single eternal uncaused thing.

This is where the impossibility of actual infinites is crucial to this line of reasoning. Since it is impossible that the sequence of events that go from now back into history be infinite, then they had to originate from a single uncaused eternal thing. This is not merely a postulated conclusion being suggested because the other two options are impossible. This argument demonstrates that things could not be any other way than what the argument concludes in addition to the other two options being impossible. Again, there had to be a beginning to the sequence of events that make up all of history. They couldn’t have come from nothing, so they had to come from something that has always existed, but not as an infinite set. Therefore, an eternal first cause of everything is the answer. This is demonstrated by the key features of the argument: Something exists, actual infinites cannot exist, but something has to have always existed. It has to be this way. In poor grammar, an eternal first cause of everything cannot-not exist.

The Zoolander Objection

Now, after going through all this, to hear the question on what created this single eternal first cause of everything, is to assume the questioner either wasn’t listening or doesn’t understand the argument. To ask this question, is to ask what caused this uncaused thing to exist.

Sometimes, this statement is raised in a sarcastic fashion attempting to point out that the cosmological argument is either incomplete or leads to an infinite regress of causes. This sarcastic presentation of the “Who created God then?” question still very much qualifies as a Zoolander Objection. This is because the person raising the objection can only do so if they do not fully grasp the argument. There is still a failure to see that a single uncaused eternal thing exists.

Here now, finally, is why I label this objection the Zoolander Objection. In the film Zoolander, J.P. Prewitt (David Ducovany) provides Derek Zoolander (Ben Stiller) with an exhaustive explanation of how and why male models have been used as assassins. He gives examples of incidents when they were used and gives all the reasons why. He says it is because male models are in excellent physical shape, can gain access into the most secure facilities, and because they will do anything they’re told. So after hearing this complete explanation of exactly why male models have been used as assassins, Derek, in his innocent and comical, but slow witted way, asks, “But why male models?”. Prewitt, surprised at the statement, replies, “Are you serious? … I just explained that.”

So when the cosmological argument demonstrates that a single eternal first cause has to exist and cannot be caused by something else, is followed by the objection, “But what caused it?”, I am immediately reminded of Derek Zoolander. And since this objection is so unfortunately common, I think giving it a name is warranted.

____________________________________________________

Footnotes:

[1] For thoroughness, the formal argument skeleton has been included in the appendix. For space and time constraints, this blog post will just be going through the argument in a quicker way by explaining its key features.

[2] Chad V. Meister, Building Belief (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI.), 99.

APPENDIX:

Formal Argument Skeleton

The argument presented here is my version of Samuel Clarke’s cosmological argument for the existence of God. He calls it the argument from contingency.[3]

1. If the universe exists, then it either came from nothing or from something that exists eternally.
2. The universe exists.
3. The universe either came from nothing or from something that exists eternally.
4. Something cannot come from nothing.
5. The universe came from something that exists eternally.
6. If the cause of the universe is eternal, then it is either an infinite series of events, or a single uncaused eternal thing.
7. The cause of the universe is either an infinite series of events, or a single uncaused eternal thing.
8. Actual infinites cannot exist.
9. The cause of the universe is a single uncaused eternal thing.
10. If the cause of the universe is a single uncaused eternal thing, then a single uncaused eternal thing exists.
11. A single uncaused eternal thing exists.

1. P ) Q v R
2. P
3. Q v R
4. ~Q
5. R
6. R ) S v T
7. S v T
8. ~S
9. T
10. T ) U
11. U

[3] Samuel Clarke, “The Argument from Contingency,” in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, ed. Louis P. Pojman, 4th ed. (Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson, 2003), 5-6.