# articles

title: Judging Boy Scouts
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/07/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/judging-boy-scouts
content:
            <div> 
		<p><b><i>The California Judges Association is guilty of the same thing they accuse the Boy Scouts of--discrimination.</i></b></p>

			<p>Do you know that the California Judges Association wants to remove a judge or any judge from the bench for participating in--guess what? The Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts!</p>

			<p>An article in the <i>L.A. Times </i>on the eighth of February is entitled "Boy Scout Issue Splits States Judges." For goodness sakes, what could be so controversial about a judge being involved in the Boy Scouts? Well, if you think for a moment you will realize that there was a controversial issue with the Boy Scouts a couple of years ago. Let me read the opening of the article to you.</p>

			<p>"When Judge John Ferrel's two sons wanted to join the Boy Scouts he told them to go right ahead, and when Ferrel became personally involved with the troop, car-pooling kids on outings, volunteering to chaperone a hike, he was told by other judges that he was being unethical. When he persisted his critics suggested that, for the sake of appearance, it might be best that he quit the bench. After all, they noted, the Boy Scouts has a discriminatory policy. It bars gays."</p>

			<p>Apparently there is an organization called the California Judges Association that is responsible for the code of judicial conduct relating to its judges, such that if they violate this ethical conduct they can be forced to step down from the bench. Part of the ethical concern has to do with prejudicial behavior or being involved with organizations that support prejudicial behavior, and as a result there has been a new rule of judicial ethics that would ban judges from involvement in any group that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.</p>

			<p>A majority of the state's 1500 judges sided with Ferrel at the recent vote on the same issue a couple of years ago. It was roundly defeated, but the numbers seem to be changing because the political climate is changing and the pressure from those in the politically correct movement is melting.</p>

			<p>I want to repeat some comments today that I made a couple of years back during the banks vs. the Boy Scouts uproar. But I'd like to encourage you to look at this issue from a different direction, because a subtle but significant element in this discussion is the implication here that the California Judges Association, in their strong stand against discrimination, is taking the high moral ground on the issue. And that's what I want to address.</p>

			<p>The issue is not whether homosexuality is right or wrong--whether it's moral or immoral--it has to do with this issue of alleged discrimination, and who, in fact, has the high moral ground. My point is this: This is not about discrimination. That is not what this is really about. It's about moral clarity, and the reason I say that is the fact that both sides in this dispute--the Boy Scouts and the California Judges Association--are discriminating. Both are forced into making a choice that is dictated by personal conviction. Both choices make a moral statement, and I simply want to make clear what that moral statement is, just in case you miss it in all of the rhetoric that surrounds these kinds of discussions. Both groups are guilty of discrimination.</p>

			<p>How can I say that? It's easy.</p>

			<p>I can substantiate it by answering the simple question: What is discrimination? So I cracked open my trusty Webster's New World Dictionary and I find the definition for discrimination as "the ability to make or perceive distinctions, perceptions or discernment; showing of partiality or prejudice in treatments specifically action or policies directed against the welfare of minority groups." That's what the word means.</p>

			<p>Now, arguing from the basic meaning of words upon which all coherent communication depends, it is true that the Boy Scouts are discriminating. They are perceiving distinctions. They are exercising discernment. They are showing partiality in treatment. It's a type of prejudice--a pre-judging. That's what prejudice is, against a group that is actually not a true minority group, but a group that is--by head count at least--in the minority, homosexuals.</p>

			<p>What is the basis of this pre-judgment or discrimination? That is a very important question, and so is the observation that the Boy Scouts are not the only ones discriminating here. So is the California Judges Association.</p>

			<p>What is the basis of the Boy Scout's prejudgment or their discrimination? Is it skin color? No. Is it religious belief? No, of course not. Is it gender or ethnicity? No, not that. The Boy Scouts have simply pre-judged sexual conduct. In other words, they hold that sexual behavior has moral ramifications. Fancy that. What a bizarre thought. They believe that the practice of homosexuality is outside the pale of accepted morality. Now further, this issue is inconsistent with the specific ideals that the Boy Scouts have championed for 89 years. To them homosexual conduct is a moral affront to a sexual perversion, and a scout master practicing homosexuality would be a blight on this organization that promotes virtue and character. I think that's some pretty solid reasons that are, especially in the context of the organization, at least reasonable.</p>

			<p>Yes, the Boy Scouts are discriminatory and they are prejudiced.</p>

			<p>But I need to add this. In this sense, every single moral distinction that you make is a type of prejudice. It's prejudicial to say that adultery is immoral, or that lying is immoral, or that ballot stuffing, or assault is immoral. In other words, it's a prejudgment, it's a prejudice that you bring to the moral discussion. And if someone is guilty of ballot stuffing or assault or lying or adultery or something, I have already pre-judged that person as being immoral. That's what morality is about.</p>

			<p>Saying that I think a lot of people are going to feel uncomfortable because they've been taught to believe that prejudice, all prejudice, all pre-judgment, all discrimination is inherently bad. I don't believe that. Let me say that again. Prejudice is not inherently bad. Discrimination is not inherently bad. I think there is an appropriate place for certain kinds of discrimination and an appropriate place for certain types of pre-judging, moral pre-judging. They are pre-judgments because one imports a moral standard that one may have for other reasons and those reasons may be valid.</p>

			<p>This brings me naturally to my next point.</p>

			<p>Disqualifying judges? Guess what? That's an act of discrimination. How could it be otherwise? Just as the Boy Scouts have said that in good conscience they could not support a certain point of view--homosexuality--the California Judges Association wants to say that in good conscience they cannot allow judges on the bench who in any way participate in a group which has such a view. That's discrimination. More than that, that is a prejudice. I call what the California Judges Association is doing discrimination because that's what it is. They are perceiving distinctions (back to our definition here). They are exercising discernment. They are showing partiality in treatment against a group that is not a true minority group--the Boy Scouts--but a group that is by head count in the minority. They are doing precisely and exactly and completely what the Scouts have done with regards with homosexuality.</p>

			<p>It needs to be pointed out that there is not one single discriminating party here. There are two discriminating parties, and I, for one, refuse to let them slip away under the illusion that they've taken the moral high ground, because they haven't. Their action is just as discriminatory as the Boy Scouts--no more, no less, so let's not cloud the issue with self-righteous accusations.</p>

			<p>Someone might say technically they are discriminating, but this is different. I'm glad if you say that. I'm very glad because then you are at least willing to admit that there is discrimination, and then there is discrimination. Not all discrimination is bad. Some of it is appropriate and necessary, and you might be of the belief that this kind of discrimination by the California Association of Judges is fine, it's good, it's healthy for us. But what they Boy Scouts is doing is not healthy.</p>

			<p>Well, at least now you are starting to move in my league of thinking here, and we are getting away from this kind of cloudy, obfuscated language like we never allow any kind of discrimination, because we always discriminate. It used to be a virtue to be a discriminating person--to be able to make the right kind of distinctions--and now our conversation has shifted away from discrimination per se, as if it's something evil and only bad people do it and not others--like the Judges Association doesn't do that. Which kinds of discriminations are morally appropriate and which kinds aren't? Who is really the bad guy here?</p>

			<p>Let me please try my best to bring what is really being said here clearly into focus. I am not arguing about whether homosexuality is moral or immoral. Please note that. I am merely clarifying the nature of the decision that the California Judges Association is attempting to make. What are they really saying? They are saying this that when push comes to shove and they have to make a choice, as in this case, to give their support--morally speaking--to homosexuality rather than to Boy Scouts.</p>

			<p>Now that strikes me as a very strange decision. One might argue that homosexuals have the right to pursue the lifestyle of their choice, but why would one choose--if the choice is forced, as it is in this case--to stand with homosexuals rather than with Boy Scouts? You don't need to say that homosexuality is immoral to say that the values of Boy Scouts as a group are more lofty than the values of homosexuals as a group. It seems to me that if one has to choose up sides and he's got to throw in his lot with one group that he ought to do it with the group that has the highest ideals and the finest goals and objectives.</p>

			<p>So let me ask you a question. What kind of group is the Boy Scouts? These are people who pledge with an oath to help other people at all times, to keep themselves physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight--which, by the way, is the problematic clause for homosexuals. These are guiding laws to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, and obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. Their daily goal is to do a good turn to another person, and as a group they have a long history of building strong and capable leaders with personal integrity and moral strength.</p>

			<p>What do we know about homosexuals as a group? Well, in their sexual lives homosexuals abhor restraint. As a group they are promiscuous. Sadomasochism is a way of life for many. When they enter politics they are aggressive, often offensive, frequently abusive, and sometimes violent. They are unique as a social group for how thoroughly and rapidly they spread disease. They champion a life-style that a significant proportion of the psychological community views as maladaptive and destructive. Yes, that's the case.</p>

			<p>Please observe that I am trying to keep moral judgment out of this. These are objective observations that can be supported by statistics. Sure there have been great men that have been homosexuals just like Boy Scouts, but which of those great men who had been homosexuals would attribute their greatness to homosexuality? Yet thousands of great men have looked back at their experience with the Scouts and have credited scouting with their success.</p>

			<p>Given that, you tell me which group it make more sense to promote if you must choose between the two? Homosexuality or Scouting? To put it simply, would you rather have your child in a bath-house or a scout tent? I think the answer is kind of obvious.</p>

			<p>It's about time to dispense with the self-righteous, time-minded language about discrimination because both sides are discriminating here. In this case the California Judges Association is attempting discrimination against judges connected with that insidious organization--the Boy Scouts, and rather linking ideological arms with homosexuals, and in so doing they are saying that the ideals of homosexuality are more worthy of their support than the ideals of the Boy Scouts. That's crazy.</p>

			<p>The distinctions here are so astronomical that it makes the California Judges Association position morally absurd. Now that's their discriminating choice. It's up to them. But watch this. To further complicate the issue they are not just expressing their opinion, they're enforcing it. In responding to what they perceive as the judge's subtle complicity in discrimination against a practice that is deeply morally offensive to the majority, the California Judges Association wants the liberty to discriminate against the Judge. But how are they discriminating against him? By taking his job away.</p>

			<p>In other words, you can't be a judge if you even tolerate the idea that homosexuality is aberrant. That's what they are saying so they respond to discrimination with discrimination.</p>

			<p>The Judges Association is not taking the high moral ground here. It's about as morally confused and befuddled as one can get, which is a pretty good description of the moral clarity in this country, especially the judiciary. There is precious little clarity.</p>

			<p>By the way, did you ever think of this? What are you going to do with judges that belong to churches that believe that homosexuality is immoral? What is happening here is that they are reducing morality to legality. If it's legal then you have no right to be morally affronted by it. That's what this is. If it's legal you can't say it's immoral because if you say it's immoral then you are biasing your legal opinion and you compromise the "perception of fairness."</p>

			<p>Notice also that the issue here isn't that the judge himself discriminates. That isn't even the question, or that the judge even believes that such a moral discrimination is appropriate. He could even disagree with the Boy Scouts' position. The issue here is mere participation in any group that believes these things. That's enough to cost him his job.</p>

			<p>It's just another one of those things where the culture has been taken captive by utter moral confusion, and because of an agenda they are not capable of seeing what seems to be plain before their own faces. That's very tragic.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjudging-boy-scouts" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjudging-boy-scouts" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjudging-boy-scouts" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Should Women Teach in Church?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/12/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/should-women-teach-in-church-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>What does I Tim. 2:11-15 say about the male-female “pecking order”&nbsp;in the church? Greg examines one of the key passes.</em></p>

<p>Churches who take what might be considered a more traditional or conservative view on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 don’t allow women in leadership because of how they interpret this passage.</p>

<p>There is a variation on that, and that is that they will allow women in leadership if there is a man over them. For instance, we have a male pastor and a male council in our church. No women are allowed on the council, but we do have female pastors because they are under the leadership of the male head pastor and a male council. That is because the word in verse 12 which talks about a woman teaching and exercising authority over a man has the sense of usurping authority. The idea there is that if she is not usurping authority, then it is legitimate for her to teach—like teaching the youth, or even teaching from the pulpit, or running a ministry—as long as there is a man over her; but there ought not be a woman that is the head of the church, or women on the council, because then they would be in a position of ultimate authority, which this supposedly restricts.</p>

<p>My problem with either of those two views is that they simply do not accord with the text itself if we are to take the text strictly at face value.</p>

<p>Now, what this says is not only that a woman should not be in authority over a man such that he does the teaching, but that in the pecking order of the church, every adult male has authority over every adult female. It’s like the military where every officer is in authority over even the highest enlisted man. In the case of this passage, the lowest man in the pecking order of the church is above the highest woman, such that there are no women that are in any position of authority over any man.</p>

<p>I don’t know of any church that takes it that way, but that is just what the words say on the traditional interpretation.</p>

<p>They try to get around it when they say that it says not to usurp authority. It says, “I do not allow a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man.”&nbsp;If you put a man in authority over her so she is not usurping the man’s authority and then allow her to teach other men, you are still violating this verse. It doesn’t say, I don’t allow a woman to teach unless she has a man over her. As long as she has a man over her she can teach other men, which is the way they take it. It says, “I don’t allow her to teach or usurp authority.”&nbsp;Period.</p>

<p>So, neither view takes the text seriously. The text goes too far, it seems to me, than anyone is willing to take it. If a person is going to take the passage in this fashion and translate men as men and women as women, then they have to go much further than they already do if they want to be biblical.</p>

<p>I personally think the word “men”&nbsp;and “women”&nbsp;are mistranslated here. Here’s why I think so.</p>

<p>First, all the men would be over all the women, and in other scriptures that we read we have occasions where women are in authority over men. Even in the Old Testament where you have a highly patriarchal society, you have women judging men. Deborah was a judge, for example. If you are identifying God’s priorities, there may be a distinction between that and the church, but at least we see some pattern in the Hebrew Bible where this happened.</p>

<p>Sometimes you hear the explanation that there wasn’t a man, so God had to raise up a woman. What a bunch of malarkey! If God does the raising up and His pattern is men over women, then He will raise up a man. That is just a weak response.</p>

<p>When I did my own word study on the words man and woman, I found out that the word man is aner and the word woman is gune. In the case of the word aner, which occurs something like 150 times in the New Testament, fully 40 times that it occurs, it is translated “husband.”&nbsp;In other words, “husband”&nbsp;is a legitimate translation of the word depending on the context. When you look at the context, virtually every single time that it wasn’t absolutely clear that the woman with the man in the context was his wife, it is almost always translated “husband”&nbsp;and “wife.”&nbsp;So this really is an unusual translation, given the pattern in the rest of the New Testament.</p>

<p>So, I asked myself why would they break with the pattern in this passage? I think they were influenced by tradition, that’s why they translated this passage man and woman and not husband and wife.</p>

<p>What happens if we translate it husband and wife? That strikes me as a legitimate translation. It seems that when you translate it husband and wife, everything falls into place. Let me read it in that way: “Let a wife quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness; but I don’t allow a wife to teach or usurp the authority of her husband, but to remain quiet.”</p>

<p>Is that strained? Not at all. Is that difficult? Not at all. The “quiet”&nbsp;there is in the context of receiving instruction. I think the point is not that she never speaks, but that she is the one who is in the position of being taught as opposed to being in the position of the teacher. The word “teach”&nbsp;here is not in the aorist tense. In other words, an aorist tense means a single point in time action rather than a continuous action. So, it isn’t saying that a woman cannot have a moment where she can tell something to her husband, it’s that the woman should not be the teacher over her husband, but that the woman is actually under the teaching authority of her husband. He is the head of the household, spiritually speaking. That’s really what it amounts to.</p>

<p>Verses 1-8 is in one grouping, verses 9-15 is another. Verse 11 and following is directed at women in the context of their relationship with a man to whom they are supposed to be entirely submissive. That is a marriage relationship.</p>

<p>Finally, no other place in Scripture teaches that all women should be under the authority of all men in the church. If this passage is to be interpreted the traditional way, this makes a new and unusual pattern of submission. However, the New Testament consistently teaches that a wife should be under the authority of her husband. That fits the larger context of the New Testament much better.</p>

<p>There may be some problems with my understanding here, I am willing to acknowledge that. But I think that it is less problematic than the other view. Frankly, there are not too many other places in the scripture except for 1 Corinthians 7 where you have a similar kind of situation and the traditional translation there also breaks the pattern. So, I think this is as good a way as interpreting the passage as the other.</p>

<p>1 Timothy 2 talks about the relationship between husband and wife; it’s chapter 3 that talks about church leadership. And it’s there that Paul is clear that men are to be in the roles of authority in the church as elders, overseers, and deacons.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshould-women-teach-in-church-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshould-women-teach-in-church-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshould-women-teach-in-church-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What Was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/08/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-was-the-sin-of-sodom-and-gomorrah-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Was the most extensive judgment found anywhere in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation actually for the sin of inhospitality, not homosexuality?</em></p>

<p>People find what they want in the Bible. If one looks hard enough, he can find “biblical”&nbsp;support for reincarnation, Eastern religions, Jesus as a guru, divorce for any reason, and flying saucers. Every cult of Christianity uses the Bible to validate its claims and so does some of the occult.</p>

<p>It’s not surprising, then, that a recent trend in biblical scholarship holds that a careful reading of Genesis in its historical context offers no solid basis to conclude that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had anything to do with homosexuality.</p>

<p>This view may seem far-fetched to biblical conservatives, but it is taken very seriously in academic circles. It represents a significant challenge to the rank-and-file Christian who finds in the Genesis account a straight-forward condemnation of homosexual behavior.</p>

<p>My goal is to answer that challenge. I have no interest to malign, name-call, offend, attack, bash, belittle, or in any way demean a group of people. I want to determine one thing only: Why did God destroy these two cities? Did it have anything to do with homosexuality itself? In short, what was the sin—or sins—of Sodom and Gomorrah?</p>

<h2>Genesis 18:16-19:29</h2>

<p>Though the context of the account in question begins in Genesis 18:16 during God’s conversation with Abraham by the Oaks of Mamre, the details of the encounter at Sodom itself are found in Genesis 19:4-13:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.”&nbsp;But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.”&nbsp;But they said, “Stand aside.”&nbsp;Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.”&nbsp;So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway.</p>

<p>Then the two men said to Lot, “Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Why did God destroy the two cities? The traditional view is that homosexuality was the principle offense (“Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly”).</p>

<p>Yale historian John Boswell offers four possible reasons for the destruction of Sodom:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>(1) The Sodomites were destroyed for the general wickedness which had prompted the Lord to send angels to the city to investigate in the first place; (2) the city was destroyed because the people of Sodom had tried to rape the angels; (3) the city was destroyed because the men of Sodom had tried to engage in homosexual intercourse with the angels...; (4) the city was destroyed for inhospitable treatment of visitors sent from the Lord.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>John Boswell thinks that explanation (2) “is the most obvious of the four,”&nbsp;though it’s been “largely ignored by biblical scholars.”<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> Boswell expands on explanation (4), the one he seems to favor as most consistent with “modern scholarship”&nbsp;since 1955:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Lot was violating the custom of Sodom...by entertaining unknown guests within the city walls at night without obtaining the permission of the elders of the city. When the men of Sodom gathered around to demand that the strangers be brought out to them, “that they might know them,”&nbsp;they meant no more than to “know”&nbsp;who they were, and the city was consequently destroyed not for sexual immorality, but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Englishman D. Sherwin Bailey also argues this way in <em>Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition</em> (1955). The men of Sodom wanted to interrogate Lot’s guests to see if they were spies. The sin of gang rape was also in view, not homosexuality. In a broader sense, the men of Sodom were inhospitable to Lot’s guests.</p>

<p>Apparently, it did not occur to Boswell that possibilities (2) and (4) seem to be at odds. If “to know”&nbsp;the angels means merely to interrogate them, then there is no attempted rape, only an attempted interrogation. If, on the other hand, the men meant to have sexual relations with the visitors (the traditional view) and are guilty of attempted rape, then the interrogation explanation must be abandoned (rendering Boswell’s above summary of the views of modern scholarship somewhat incoherent).</p>

<p>Some of these explanations, however, are not mutually exclusive and may have been factors in their own way. For example, the general wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah (1) could have included rape (2) and/or inhospitality (4).</p>

<p>My principle concern here is to determine if the biblical record indicates that (4) homosexuality factored in at all.</p>

<h2>Clues from the Text</h2>

<p>Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? We can find clues not just from the Genesis account, but also from the Prophets and the New Testament books 2 Peter and Jude. These give a sense of how ancient Jewish thinkers steeped in Jewish culture understood these texts.</p>

<p>First, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged because of grave sin. Genesis 18:20 says, “And the Lord said, ’The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.’”&nbsp;Indeed, not even ten righteous people could be found in the city.</p>

<p>Second, it seems the judgment of these cities was to serve as a lesson to Abraham and to others that wickedness would be punished. In 2 Peter 2:6 we learn that God condemned and destroyed the cities as “an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter.”</p>

<p>Third, peculiar qualities of the sin are described by Jude and Peter. Jude 7 depicts the activity as “gross immorality”&nbsp;and going after “strange flesh.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> Peter wrote that Lot was “oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men,”&nbsp;and “by what he saw and heard...felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds.”&nbsp;These people were “those who indulged the flesh in its corrupt desires and despised authority”&nbsp;(2 Peter 2:7-10).</p>

<p>Fourth, there are 27 references outside of Genesis where Sodom is mentioned. It is emblematic of gross immorality, deepest depravity, and ultimate judgment.</p>

<p>Piecing together the biblical evidence gives us a picture of Sodom’s offense. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was some kind of activity—a grave, ongoing, lawless, sensuous activity—that Lot saw and heard and that tormented him as he witnessed it day after day. It was an activity in which the inhabitants indulged the flesh in corrupt desires by going after strange flesh, ultimately bringing upon them the most extensive judgment anywhere in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation.</p>

<p>What do we know about the conduct of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah that fits this description?</p>

<h2>Just a Couple of Questions</h2>

<p>Was the city destroyed because the men of Sodom tried to rape the angels (option (2) above)? The answer is obviously no. God’s judgment could not have been for the rapacious attempt itself because His decision to destroy the cities was made days <em>before</em> the encounter (see Genesis 18:20). Further, Peter makes it clear that the wicked activity was ongoing (“day after day”), not a one-time incident. The outcry had already been going up to God for some time.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>Was this a mere interrogation? Though the Hebrew word <em>yada</em> (“to know”)<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> has a variety of nuances, it is properly translated in the NASB as “have [sexual] relations with.”<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> Though the word does not always have sexual connotations, it frequently does, and this translation is most consistent with the context of Genesis 9:5. There is no evidence that what the townsmen had in mind was a harmless interview. Lot’s response—“Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly”—makes it clear they had other intentions.</p>

<p>In addition, the same verb is used in the immediate context to describe the daughters who had not “known”&nbsp;a man and who were offered to the mob instead. Are we to understand Lot to be saying, “Please don’t question my guests. Here, talk to my daughters, instead. They’ve never been interviewed”?</p>

<p>Did God judge Sodom and Gomorrah for inhospitality? Is it true that God’s judgment was not for homosexuality per se, but because the people of the town were discourteous to the visitors, violating sacred sanctuary customs by attempting to rape them? A couple of observations raise serious doubt.</p>

<p>First, the suggestion itself is an odd one. To say that the men of Sodom were inhospitable because of the attempted rape is much like saying a husband who’s just beaten his wife is an insensitive spouse. It may be true, but it’s hardly a meaningful observation given the greater crime.</p>

<p>Second—and more to the textual evidence—it doesn’t fit the collective biblical description of the conduct that earned God’s wrath: a corrupt, lawless, sensuous activity that Lot saw and heard day after day, in which the men went after strange flesh.</p>

<p>Third, are we to believe that God annihilated two whole cities because they had bad manners, even granting that such manners were much more important then than now? There’s no textual evidence that inhospitality was a capital crime. However, homosexuality was punishable by death in Israel (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). Does God ignore the capital crime, yet level two entire cities for a wrong that is not listed anywhere as a serious offense?</p>

<h2>The Only One That Fits</h2>

<p>The prevailing modern view of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the attempted rape of Lot’s visitors violated the Mid-East’s high code of hospitality (19:9). This inhospitality, however, is an inference, not a specific point made in the text itself.</p>

<p>Further, the inhospitality charge is dependent upon—and eclipsed by—the greater crime of rape, yet neither could be the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah because God planned to judge the cities long before either had been committed. What possibility is left? Only one.</p>

<p>We know the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexual, “both young and old, all the people from every quarter”&nbsp;(19:4), to the point of disregarding available women (19:5-8). After they were struck sightless they still persisted (19:11). These men were totally given over to an overwhelming passion that did not abate even when they were supernaturally blinded by angels.</p>

<p>Homosexuality fits the biblical details. It was the sin that epitomized the gross wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah—the “grave,”&nbsp;“ungodly,”&nbsp;“lawless,”&nbsp;“sensual conduct of unprincipled men”&nbsp;that tormented Lot as he “saw and heard”&nbsp;it “day after day,”&nbsp;the “corrupt desire”&nbsp;of those that went after “strange flesh.”</p>

<p>In their defense, some will cite Ezekiel 16:49-50: “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> Therefore I removed them when I saw it.”&nbsp;No mention of homosexuality here.</p>

<p>Clearly, the general wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was great. That’s not in question. Our concern here is whether homosexuality was part of that wickedness. Our analysis of Genesis shows that homosexuality was the principle behavior at issue in that passage. Ezekiel simply enumerates additional sins. The prophet doesn’t contradict Moses, but rather gives more detail.</p>

<p>Stinginess and arrogance alone did not draw God’s wrath. Ezekiel anchored the list of crimes with the word “abominations.”&nbsp;This word takes us right back to homosexuality. The conduct Moses refers to in Genesis 18 he later describes in Leviticus as an “abomination”&nbsp;in God’s eyes.</p>

<h2>Leviticus</h2>

<p>The Mosaic Law has two explicit citations on homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> It is an abomination [<em>toebah</em>]<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup>.”&nbsp;Leviticus 20:13 says, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act [<em>toebah</em>]. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.”</p>

<p>John Boswell offers the standard rebuttal to what appears to be an obvious biblical prohibition of homosexuality:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The Hebrew word “toebah,”&nbsp;here translated “abomination,”&nbsp;does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft..., but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters.<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Leviticus, the suggestion goes, is not where we generally go for moral instruction. The sections quoted deal with the cult of worship: sacrifice, priesthood, ritual bathing, etc. These directives have to do with ritual purity, not moral purity. An observant Jew could not worship after ritual contamination until he had been ritually cleansed.</p>

<p>Others have added that many details of the Mosaic Law are archaic. Who concerns themselves with mixing wool and linen together (Deuteronomy 22:11)? The death penalty itself doesn’t mark homosexuality as particularly heinous. Disobedience to parents was also a capital crime, as was picking up sticks on the Sabbath, yet no one suggests these should be punishable offenses today.<sup id="fnref:12"><a href="#fn:12">12</a></sup></p>

<p>This rejoinder is filled with inconsistencies. First, even if this prohibition was restricted only to ritual purity and the cult of worship, then minimally it applies to Jewish clerics. Yet many who use this approach see no problem with homosexual rabbis and instead champion such “diversity”&nbsp;as a religious virtue. On the other hand, if the Torah’s proscriptions no longer apply at all, then any distinction between the cultic and moral aspects of the Mosaic Law is moot; none of it pertains anyway.</p>

<p>Second, it’s a serious error in thinking to conclude that if some of the Torah no longer applies, then none of it applies. Jewish thinker Dennis Prager observed, “It is one thing not to put a Torah <em>punishment</em> into practice and quite another to declare that a Torah <em>sin</em> is no longer a sin”<sup id="fnref:13"><a href="#fn:13">13</a></sup> [emphasis in the original].</p>

<p>Third, it’s true that much of the Law seems to deal with religious activity rather than universal morality. That observation in itself, however, is not enough to summarily dismiss the Torah as a source of binding moral instruction. Ritual purity and moral purity are not always distinct.</p>

<p>Context is king here. Note the positioning of the verses. The <em>toebah</em>of homosexuality is sandwiched between adultery (18:20), child sacrifice (18:21) and bestiality (18:23). Was Moses saying merely that if a priest committed adultery, had sex with an animal, or burned his child on Molech’s altar he should be sure to wash up before he came to temple?</p>

<p>More to the point, these sections were not addressed to the priests, but to all the “sons of Israel”&nbsp;(18:2, 20:2). In addition to the prohibitions on adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality just mentioned, Moses also prohibits spiritism (20:6) and incest (20:12).</p>

<p>The conclusion of Leviticus 18 contains these words:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But as for you [the “sons of Israel”&nbsp;(v. 2)], you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled&nbsp;(18:26-27).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Moses spoke as clearly here as he did in Genesis. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many things, but foremost among them was the sin of homosexuality. In this section of Leviticus, God gives directives not just for ritual purity, but commands to be observed by every Jew, <em>and even by every visitor</em>.</p>

<div>
<p>Homosexuality was wrong for the Jews. It was wrong for gentiles who visited the Jews (“aliens”). It was even an abomination that defiled the land when practiced by pagans who inhabited Canaan long before the Jews came.</p>

<p>Homosexuality is a defiling sin, regardless who practices it. It has no place before God among any people, in any age, then or now.</p>
</div>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">John Boswell, <em>Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality</em> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 93.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Ibid.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Ibid.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Some have suggested the sin was seeking sexual union with angels (“strange flesh”). Though this is a possible interpretation, there’s no indication the men knew Lot’s visitors were angels. Jude’s point is that the Sodomites, like the angels, “did not keep to their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode”&nbsp;(v. 6). “Strange flesh”—the improper domain—wasn't angelic flesh, but homosexual flesh.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">The rejoinder that homosexual rape could still qualify as the ongoing activity fails to convince. Who would be the ongoing victims? Not the townspeople. Because of their sexual proclivity they would not likely resist homosexual advances. Visitors would have to be the target. But if newcomers were molested “day after day,”&nbsp;I’m sure this would put a crimp in the tourist trade. The steady supply of sexual candidates would dwindle rapidly once word got around, with most making a wide berth around the area.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Strong’s #3045.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">“Know a person carnally, of sexual intercourse...man subj. and obj. (of sodomy) Gn 19:5).”&nbsp;Brown, Driver and Briggs, <em>The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon</em> (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody ME: 1996), 394. See also Judges 19:22 ff.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">Curiously, this last sentence was overlooked in Boswell’s citation of the text.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">“Lie”&nbsp;is the Hebrew word <em>shakab</em> meaning “lie down”&nbsp;(Strong’s #7901). In this case, it refers to having sexual relations as in Genesis 19:32: “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father”&nbsp;(Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 1012).<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">Strong’s #8441.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Boswell, 100.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:12">It’s curious that some choose to conclude homosexuality was a minor crime because it was no more offensive to God than picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Both were capital offenses. If you want to know how God really felt, look at the punishment He requires.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:12">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:13">Dennis Prager, “Homosexuality, Judaism and Gay Rabbis,”&nbsp;<em>The Prager Perspective</em>, 3/1/97.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:13">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-was-the-sin-of-sodom-and-gomorrah-1" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-was-the-sin-of-sodom-and-gomorrah-1" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-was-the-sin-of-sodom-and-gomorrah-1" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Reasons for Capital Punishment
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/09/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/reasons-for-capital-punishment
content:
            <div> 
		<p><strong>There's a reason both the Old and the New Testaments promote capital punishment. That reason was applicable then and still applies today.</strong></p>

<p>Apparently, Jesse Jackson made some comments on "Meet the Press" this morning referring to the possibility of capital punishment for Timothy McVeigh. He said, allegedly, that executing McVeigh would just be a trophy that the people of Oklahoma City would like to get in their trophy case to make them feel better.</p>

<p>Jackson should have been ashamed of his comment. To refer the punishment of a man who is a convicted killer of 168 citizens of Oklahoma City by those who are deeply interested in justice as simply a quest for trophies is an insult to every person who lost a loved one in that explosion. It's an absolute insult, and it should be an insult to every clear-thinking American.</p>

<p>Capital punishment is not about getting trophies in any trophy case, any more than life imprisonment is about putting man in a cage as a trophy in a human zoo. It's about justice. What the people in Oklahoma City want—and all Americans who are in favor of capital punishment for a man who violently snuffed out the lives of 168 people—is not a trophy. They want justice.</p>

<p>I'm actually stunned, to be honest with you, that there are so many Christians who oppose capital punishment on biblical grounds. It ought to be clear to anyone familiar with the biblical record that God is not against capital punishment. It was His idea. He started it.</p>

<p>Go back to Genesis 9:6 and you'll find this: "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man."</p>

<p>You see, the crime of murder is not principally based on the idea that you robbed a person of his life. That confuses the Fifth Commandment with the Seventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal." It's wrong to take someone else's possessions, including his life.</p>

<p>No, murder is not a crime of theft, but of destruction. We have destroyed the life of one <em>made in the image of God </em>. God says such a crime deserves the most extreme punishment. You take a life, you surrender your own life.</p>

<p>By the way, read through the Old Testament and you'll find 21 different offenses that called for the death penalty. Only three include an actual or potential capital offense by our current definition. Six are for religious offenses, ten are for various moral issues, and two relate to ceremonial issues.</p>

<p>So if you're going to call anybody frivolous about using capital punishment, you can start with God. God instituted it for a wide range of offenses, not just murder. But it included murder, and would certainly be justified, in God's eyes, for someone who murdered 168 people.</p>

<p>I'm not suggesting we reinstate capital punishment for the offenses of the Old Testament or even that capital punishment is obligatory. I am saying that it's a moral alternative that is, at least in principle, totally approved by God.</p>

<p>Some feel that even though capital punishment was approved in the Old Testament, the New Testament has changed all of that. I will tell you why that is not a good way to argue. They say Jesus, or some teaching in the New Testament, has somehow changed that. My response is, "Where?"</p>

<p>Actually, capital punishment is strongly assumed in the New Testament. In Romans 13, Paul argues that governing authorities are set there by God. He says, "If you do what is evil, be afraid, for the government does not bear the sword for nothing, for it is minister of God and avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." God ordains the governing authorities, and those governing authorities have a God-ordained responsibility to execute justice with the sword.</p>

<p>Peter says in 1 Peter 2:13-14 that these authorities were sent by God for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do right.</p>

<p>People say, "Well capital punishment is just <em>revenge</em>." My response is they're right in a sense. It is revenge. In fact, it's <em>just</em> revenge. It's God's vengeance based on justice, executed through the machinery of government that God ordained.</p>

<p>Paul uses the word "sword" here. I don't think he had in mind paddling people with the broad side of the sword. No, capital punishment is in view here as a proper tool government would use to express the vengeance of God in a just fashion against gratuitous evil. That's the biblical teaching.</p>

<p>What about Jesus? Some say Jesus' ethic of love and forgiveness requires us to end the death penalty. This was the appeal Mother Theresa made when Robert Alton Harris was facing the gas chamber here in California. She appealed to the governor saying Jesus would forgive.</p>

<p>With no disrespect towards Mother Theresa, I think her comments were mistaken because her view simply proves too much. What should be done instead with capital criminals? Should we put them in prison for the rest of their lives? But Jesus would forgive. Should we put them in prison for ten years? But Jesus would forgive. Should we put a murderer in prison for one day? But Jesus would forgive.</p>

<p>You see, if this argument works it becomes justification for the abolishment of any kind of punishment whatsoever. This argument proves too much.</p>

<p>Further, that <em>Jesus</em> would forgive is a different issue from whether the <em>government</em> should forgive. God can forgive evil. That doesn't mean the government should forgive it in terms of its exercise of justice.</p>

<p>In fact, Jesus never challenged the validity of the death penalty when He had perfect opportunity to do so. Even in John 8, with the woman caught in adultery, he never challenged the death penalty itself. He didn't enforce it under what seemed to be an unjust situation because all the witnesses fled. Remember, Jesus said, "Is there no one here to condemn you? Then neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." The Law required witnesses to convict someone.</p>

<p>Jesus did not speak against the death penalty here. It was required by law. Jesus upheld the law. He just realized there was a nasty situation of injustice that was going on and so He found some other way to get around it.</p>

<p>And when Jesus was on the cross He asked <em>God</em> to forgive, not <em>Caesar</em>. He never suggested that capital punishment was inappropriate.</p>

<p>I think that we have to argue for the coherence and consistency of both Testaments on this issue. The question is not, "Was Jesus right or was Moses right?" The question is trying to find a way to bring them all together. Clearly, there was no abrogation of capital punishment in the New Testament.</p>

<p>In fact, if you recall Paul in the book of Acts (25:11) made this appeal for his life: "If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar." Paul didn't take exception with capital punishment, even for himself. His point was that he wasn't guilty, not that capital punishment was wrong.</p>

<p>Which, by the way, brings us to another point that Mr. Jackson raised this morning on TV. He said Jesus was crucified. Jesus died at capital punishment. To which I respond, "So? What follows from that is...what? The significance of that is...what?" The answer is: nothing. The issue regarding Jesus was not capital punishment, but his innocence. In Acts 2, Peter condemns the act of handing over the innocent Jesus to godless executioners.</p>

<p>Now, God's mercy is always available in God's court. But man's court is another matter, ladies and gentlemen. It is governed by different biblical responsibilities. So one can't say that capital punishment is patently immoral on biblical grounds. It just isn't. There's a good reason why. It has to do with something I explained very carefully to the man who interviewed me for <em>US News and World Report </em>on this very issue.</p>

<p>Capital punishment is important. The Bible—Old <em>and </em>New Testament—is for it, not against it. There is nothing in the New Testament that would give us any reason to think otherwise. In fact, it presumes capital punishment in many places.</p>

<p>I was listening a couple of years ago to KABC and talk show host Michael Jackson. He was making the point that capital punishment never works. And of course, he's thinking of it as a deterrent.</p>

<p>My response is, capital punishment works every time. Every time it's used, the prisoner dies.</p>

<p>You see, the reason for capital punishment is obviously not to rehabilitate somebody. The deterrent may be a secondary factor. But that isn't why we use capital punishment. We use capital punishment to <em>punish</em> someone (pardon me for stating the obvious).</p>

<p>You see, all of this relates to your view of what human beings are. If human beings are machines determined either by genetics or by environment, then what do you do when a machine goes bad? You fix it. And if you can't fix it, you throw it away. That's the basis behind the rehabilitation idea. And of course, the throwaway mentality we see in a lot of other ethical areas.</p>

<p>However, if you think that human beings are personal creatures capable of choosing and, therefore, have moral responsibilities—when they do good we praise them, (which everybody wants), and when they do bad we punish them—then punishment makes sense. Punishment of all kinds. Even capital punishment.</p>

<p>Human beings are moral creatures who either deserve praise or blame depending on the circumstances—when they choose well, we praise them and when they violate a serious moral mandate, we punish them. (When we praise and blame, by the way, in both cases we're expressing respect for the dignity of man in virtue of the fact that human beings are made in the image of God and have the capability of choosing.)</p>

<p>Punishment may range from a parking ticket to death. What determines which punishment? An ancient principle called <em>lex taliones </em>, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"—the point being that the punishment must fit the crime. If somebody steals a loaf of bread, we don't whack their arm off.</p>

<p>By the same token, if somebody kills 168 people, we don't just put him in a cage for the rest of his life. He took 168 human lives! He should be punished in a way that fits his crime. He should sacrifice his own life.</p>

<p>That's the basic question: What is a human being? I think he's a free moral agent. If he is, then we should praise him when he does well. But if he doesn't, then he deserves to be punished, and the punishment should fit the crime.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Freasons-for-capital-punishment" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Freasons-for-capital-punishment" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Freasons-for-capital-punishment" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Miracles and Unbelief
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/miracles-and-unbelief
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>An atheist’s request for a miracle to prove God’s existence requires a careful answer. Brett offers that response.</em></p>

<p>“Why won’t God heal amputees?”&nbsp;The question caught me by surprise.</p>

<p>I had just finished my “Why I Am a Christian”&nbsp;talk at Calvary Chapel Chino Valley’s youth conference in April. After talking with a few students and leaders, a young man approached. He challenged me with this question, explaining his atheist friend had asked it earlier in the week. And he had no answer for his friend.</p>

<p>Apparently, it’s a question atheists make a big deal about. There is even an entire website dedicated to it (www.whywontgodhealamputees.com). The website claims “this is one of the most important questions we can ask about God.”&nbsp;Sometime, somewhere I had heard the objection but had never given it much attention. Now it was staring me right in the face. Immediate attention was required.</p>

<p>I proceeded in usual fashion—by asking clarifying questions. “What conclusion does your atheist friend draw from this question?”&nbsp;I inquired. He responded, “Well, if God doesn’t heal amputees when we pray for them, then He doesn’t exist.”&nbsp;I followed with a few more questions, gathering the gist of the atheist’s argument.</p>

<p>The atheist claims that alleged healings, like the disappearance of a cancerous tumor or diagnosed disease, seem to be ambiguous. Did God supernaturally heal the person or is modern medicine responsible? Both causes could be offered and both could be disputed. But according to the atheist, if an amputee grew back a missing limb after intercessory prayer was offered on his behalf, this would be a clear case of the miraculous and thus proof for God’s existence. On the other hand, no new limb means no God. A fail-proof test, right? Wrong.</p>

<p>First, I pointed out this atheist’s argument is guilty of a logical fallacy called a non sequitur. The fallacy is committed when a conclusion or statement does not logically follow from a previous argument or statement. If amputees do not grow back limbs when we pray for them, does it follow God does not exist? Of course not. His existence is independent of what actions He would or would not take.</p>

<p>But why limit myself to amputee miracles? Any miracle will do. A million dollars in my bank account today. World peace starting tomorrow. And if these miracles don’t occur, then God doesn’t exist. Well, I think you can see the irrationality of such claims. God’s failure to perform a miracle at my request says nothing about His existence. In fact, even if we granted the atheist his assumption that amputees are not healed, at the very most we could only conclude God does not heal amputees. Not a profound conclusion.</p>

<p>Second, I pointed out his atheist friend simply assumed no amputees have been healed. But just because an atheist says there’s never been an amputee healing in thousands of years of human history doesn’t mean it’s true. Now, I’ve never researched this question but I wanted this young Christian to catch a healthy bit of skepticism, particularly when it comes to anti-Christian claims. Research is now in order but my point was you cannot simply assume what needs to be proven.</p>

<p>But we also have to test the intellectual honesty of the atheist asking this question. If we can produce a credible report of an amputee’s missing limb being healed and replaced, is the atheist willing to accept that evidence? There are credible reports of miraculous healings in our own time and in the Bible, but he dismisses these wanting further evidence of a particular kind of miracle. So is this an honest question or an insincere request for evidence when no evidence will suffice?</p>

<p>Third, even personally witnessing a miracle is no guarantee that someone will believe. This was the case with the Pharisees of Jesus’&nbsp;time. They witnessed His miracles, but their response was to conspire to crucify Him. Greg Koukl calls this “unbelievable unbelief.”&nbsp;Jesus told them, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead”&nbsp;(Luke 16:31).</p>

<p>You see, our essential problem is moral, rebellion against God. Asking for evidence is legitimate, but evidence doesn’t guarantee belief because sinners don’t want to bend their knee to the Lord. So the question actually arises from a wrong understanding of the atheist’s fundamental problem. It’s not lack of evidence, it’s sin and rebellion to the Truth.</p>

<p>Fourth, even if God never performs a miracle it doesn’t negate all of the positive evidence we already have that He exists. This challenge—even if you can’t answer it satisfactorally—doesn’t sweep away the rational basis we already have for believing in God, the Bible, and that Christianity is true.</p>

<p>Fifth, I reminded this young Christian that God does not promise He will answer every request with a “yes.”&nbsp;Many times he says “no”&nbsp;or “later.”&nbsp;And it could be there are some requests He says “no”&nbsp;to all the time. Might God have a morally sufficient reason for doing so? Absolutely, even if He never reveals those reasons to us in this lifetime. As a dad, there are things I do for the good of my kids—taking them to the doctor for shots, punishing them for wrong behavior, or forcing them to eat their vegetables—which they don’t understand right now. The same is true between God and us.</p>

<p>And this last response requires a bit of maturity to understand. Frankly, many atheistic arguments are childish. “If God doesn’t do what I ask right now, I don’t have to believe in him.”&nbsp;Well, I don’t think God is really interested in becoming a magic genie. He’s interested in something much deeper and more profound. He’s interested in the kind of human being you become. Indeed, Jesus suggests voluntary “amputeeism”&nbsp;for the sake of character development: “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell”&nbsp;(Matthew 5:30). Better to lose a hand than have your moral choices drag you away from God, forever.</p>

<p>After our conversation, the young man thanked me and walked away with a look of relief. An atheist’s challenge was turned into a teachable moment. And a teachable moment strengthened this student’s trust in God’s existence and character.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmiracles-and-unbelief" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmiracles-and-unbelief" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmiracles-and-unbelief" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: No More Free Rides
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/no-more-free-rides
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Everyone likes a free ride. It might even feel right to give one. There’s one free ride, however, we need to stop giving.</p>

<p>Here’s the scenario. You’re having a conversation with a friend, and he offers a critique or objection to your faith. But instead of <em>him</em> backing up his critique with evidence or reasons, you begin a defensive discourse explaining why his objection is not accurate. And now you’ve done it—you’ve just given someone a free ride.</p>

<p>The problem of free rides can be resolved with a simple, yet powerful concept known as the burden of proof rule. The burden of proof is the responsibility a person has to defend his or her belief, opinion, or view. The rule goes like this: The person that makes the claim bears the burden. In other words, if someone offers a critique, it’s <em>his</em> job to defend his view, not your job to defend against it.</p>

<p>Too often I see Christians bear the burden of proof when they’re not supposed to. This keeps the Christian in the hot seat as she hopelessly tries to respond to every crazy objection and story someone can spin. She neglects holding the other person responsible to defend <em>his</em> view. It’s time to stop giving free rides and begin enforcing the burden of proof rule.</p>

<p>For example, a friend might tell you he thinks all religions are the same. He’s made the claim, so it’s his job to back it up. Ask, “How did you come to that conclusion?”&nbsp;or something akin to that. Then sit back and listen to him defend his view. It’s his job. This is not only a good tactic, it’s also the next proper step in the conversation.</p>

<p>Notice the many benefits of enforcing the burden of proof. First, it puts the burden of proof back where it belongs—on the person making the claim. Second, it makes your job much easier; it keeps you out of the hot seat so you can relax. Third, it shows interest in the other person’s view, which is what a good ambassador should do. Fourth, it gives you valuable insight into his rationale so you know how to respond to his reasons. Fifth, it keeps you in control of the conversation, not in a manipulative way, but in a way that helps productively advance the conversation towards discovering the truth.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fno-more-free-rides" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fno-more-free-rides" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fno-more-free-rides" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What Was the Faith of Our Founding Fathers?
topic: History
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-was-the-faith-of-our-founding-fathers-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. It refers to a very specific group of people, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Yes, there were other important players, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shape of our nation and who were not in attendance, but the 55 Fathers make up the core.</p>

<p>The denominational affiliation of these men is a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson and Franklin, this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.(John Eidsmoe, <em>Christianity and the Constitution</em>, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), p. 43.)</p>

<p>This is a very revealing tally. It means that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55--a full 93%. Indeed, most were Calvinists (the Presbyterians and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-was-the-faith-of-our-founding-fathers-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-was-the-faith-of-our-founding-fathers-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-was-the-faith-of-our-founding-fathers-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Embracing the Absurd
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/embracing-the-absurd
content:
            <div> 
		<p>About a year ago, the Journal of Medical Ethics published an <a href="http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full" target="_blank">article</a> arguing that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”</p>

<p>Instead of reasoning, “A) It’s wrong to kill a newborn, B) there are no significant differences between a newborn and a preborn, C) therefore it’s wrong to kill a preborn,” they followed the logic in the opposite direction: “A) It isn’t wrong to kill a preborn, B) there are no significant differences between a newborn and a preborn, C) therefore it isn’t wrong to kill a newborn.”</p>

<p>When their view that it’s okay to kill a preborn child forced them into the absurd (the nicest word I can put to it) conclusion that it’s okay to kill a newborn, instead of recognizing the mistake that led them there, they merely embraced the absurdity in order to consistently maintain their first premise.</p>

<p>Now I’m seeing this kind of opposite-direction logic play out in the area of same-sex marriage. I’ve often used the fact that our society has separate bathrooms for men and women to illustrate the idea that it’s appropriate to discriminate on the basis of sex when sex is relevant to the situation.</p>

<p>But now it <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/world/british-council-rules-toilets-genderneutral-20130218-2emhn.html" target="_blank">seems</a> that may not be a useful illustration for long:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>British Council Rules Toilets Gender Neutral</p>

<p><strong>LONDON: </strong>The council in Brighton, England, is scrapping male and female public toilets in favour of "gender neutral" facilities so as not to "alienate the transgender community".</p>

<p>Facilities are to be built that are designed to be shared by adults and children and that do not feature the words "Men" or "Ladies" but instead will show symbols indicating they can be used by people of any sex or age….</p>

<p>Brighton and Hove city council disclosed in emails that it wished to promote the term "gender neutral" and build facilities that were open to all, regardless of sex. It believes such facilities will be more accessible for those who do not identify with the "male-female binary".</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And there are other recent stories of gender-neutral bathrooms from the <a href="http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/UCF-adds-gender-neutral-restrooms/E64Z-VepaU63S5ru7PmHPA.cspx" target="_blank">University of Central Florida</a>, from <a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/03/01/massachusetts-eliminates-gender-distinctions-in-public-schools/" target="_blank">Massachusetts</a>, and from <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/world/a-little-girl-in-a-boys-body-how-sixyearold-coy-became-an-unlikely-poster-child-20130301-2fap6.html" target="_blank">Colorado</a>where the parents of a six-year-old boy (who feels he is a girl) are suing the school for discrimination because he’s being denied the use of the girls’ bathroom:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>"For many transgender people, discrimination is a daily part of life. Unfortunately for Coy, it has started very early," lawyer Michael Silverman said.</p>

<p>"The world is going to be looking at the school [to] send a message to the world and teach tolerance, fair play and equal rights."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In other words, in order to be non-discriminatory, we should no longer separate people into bathrooms according to sex. Instead, our choice of bathroom ought to depend on what we feel—or better yet, we should move to gender-neutral bathrooms altogether.</p>

<p>As in the case of “after-birth abortions,” people are following the logic of the arguments in the wrong direction. Instead of saying, “A) It’s okay to discriminate on the basis of sex when sex is relevant to the situation (as is the case with bathrooms), no matter what a person feels, B) sex is relevant to marriage, C) therefore it’s okay to discriminate on the basis of sex when it comes to marriage,” they follow the logic this way: “A) It’s wrong to discriminate on the basis of sex, including in the case of marriage B) sex-specific bathrooms discriminate against people—excluding and including them—on the basis of sex, C) therefore it’s wrong to have sex-specific bathrooms.</p>

<p>Both lines of reasoning follow logical paths to internally consistent positions. Unfortunately, a growing number of people can no longer recognize which of these paths leads to an absurd conclusion.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fembracing-the-absurd" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fembracing-the-absurd" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fembracing-the-absurd" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Opiate of the Morally Corrupt
topic: Philosophy
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/opiate-of-the-morally-corrupt
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Bertrand Russell, the most prominent atheist of the 20th century, was asked what he would say if upon death he discovered God really did exist. Russell said, “I will tell Him He just did not give me enough evidence.”</p>

<p>Is lack of evidence the real problem for atheists? Not according to Scripture. Romans 1:18-20 tells us the problem with unbelief is not the absence of evidence but the suppression of it. Furthermore, Paul argues that suppression of the truth is done “in unrighteousness”&nbsp;and in verses 24 through 32, he lists the ensuing unrighteous deeds.</p>

<p>Lest one be tempted to think this a convenient way to dismiss atheists, we turn to their own thoughts on the matter. In a candid moment, atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel admits, “I want atheism to be true...It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God...I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”</p>

<p>Nagel doesn’t want the universe to be like what? Noted atheist Aldous Huxley explains: “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning...the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation...liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”&nbsp;Russell concurs, declaring, “The worst feature of the Christian religion is its attitude toward sex.”</p>

<p>My interaction with atheists in Berkeley has only confirmed these admissions. In March, I took 26 juniors and seniors from Capistrano Valley Christian School on my second of three Berkeley mission trips this spring. I asked one of our atheist speakers, a former Christian, to address morality in an atheist’s worldview for these students.</p>

<p>During the Q &amp; A, one perceptive student asked if this atheist’s personal moral standards have changed since his conversion to atheism. His confession was startling. “Absolutely,”&nbsp;he replied. “When I was a Christian, it was wrong to have sex with two girls at the same time. But as an atheist, I have no problem with it. In fact, it’s kind of the point.”</p>

<p>And there you have it. Atheism provides an intellectual shelter for sin. If there’s no God, there’s no objective moral law or Lawgiver. If there’s no moral law, the self becomes the final arbiter of “right and wrong.”&nbsp;I do what is right in my own eyes.</p>

<p>Of course, Christians can’t lead with a psychological assessment of atheists before refuting their arguments. As C.S. Lewis has said, “You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong.”&nbsp;However, once we have dismantled atheist’s arguments, examining motivations for unbelief is completely legitimate. And the Psalmist’s conclusion rings true: “The fool says in his heart, ’There is no God.’&nbsp;They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good”&nbsp;(Psalm 14:1).</p>

<p>Before I allow students to dialogue with atheists, I discuss the various sources of unbelief. When an atheist claims he merely follows the evidence, I encourage students to take it with a grain of salt. More importantly, I have students reflect on their own motives and current struggles with sin, knowing we’re all candidates for self-deception.</p>

<p>That’s why apologetics properly done, engages head and heart, recognizing that at the end of the day, intellectual assent alone is not enough. In addition, “every knee [must] bow...and every tongue [must] confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”&nbsp;(Phil. 2:10-11).</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fopiate-of-the-morally-corrupt" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fopiate-of-the-morally-corrupt" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fopiate-of-the-morally-corrupt" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Killing Abortionists
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/07/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/killing-abortionists
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Some ask “if you consider abortion murder, doesn’t that incite the killing of abortionists?”</em></p>

<p>Now yesterday I had the opportunity of catching a new show here in the Los Angeles area for the first time. At 11 o’clock on Fox 11 Dennis Prager, a local talk show host and a fine thinker and a friend and a person who has helped me tremendously in the last number of years that I’ve been acquainted with him both professionally and personally, is the host of that show. It’s a half hour format. He starts out with some opening comments like I do here, and, like he does on his own radio show, then he has a guest for about 15 or 20 minutes. Then they have a couple of comments from the audience. It’s different from most talk shows in that it’s very intelligent. It’s fair-minded, in my view. I know that not from watching it a lot because I saw it only once, but from knowing the host himself.</p>

<p>Yesterday, Dennis asked a question that he’s asked many times before. The question was, “How is it possible that pro-lifers can call abortion a holocaust and, at the same time, can object to the killing of the executioner of little children?”&nbsp;To follow the reasoning, this is what they say. The abortionist is executing the little children so how can one object to such a thing? In order to respond to that he had a guest on from Operation Rescue. It wasn’t Randall Terry, it was someone else. At first I thought, we’re going to have a sound and sensible conversation about this issue, and I hope that this gentleman is prepared to give an even-handed defense for his view because he certainly has a clear-headed and willing listener in the host that day. Dennis is not somebody who is there looking to shoot you down, but to find out what is right so it doesn’t need to be a harsh and strident environment. Dennis wants to just talk out the issues clearly and come to some conclusions. Of course I’ve thought about this issue quite a bit myself and so I was looking forward to hearing a well-reasoned response and one that I might gain from. Maybe there’s some new elements here that I haven’t considered and that I could be helped by.</p>

<p>I was deeply disappointed in the response, though. I think the guest was unpleasant. I think he was unfair. I think he was unnecessarily strident. Especially considering the graciousness and even-tempered manner of the host. He brought in religious issues and religious challenges that were totally unrelated to the issue. For example, when his logic was challenged, which is the issue here, the question is a fair one. The guest simply said that Mr. Prager would never understand because he has rejected Jesus as the Messiah and, since he has nothing to do with Jesus, he will never understand this line of reasoning.</p>

<p>Well, I haven’t rejected Jesus as Messiah and I didn’t understand this gentleman’s reasoning either. It was almost like a religious <em>ad hominem</em>. When the logic of the point of view is challenged, it’s like saying, Well, what do you know? You’re a heathen, so you’ll never understand my answer anyway.”&nbsp;It was very poorly done and I think everyone in the audience understood that, and I don’t think any points at all were made—either on the thinking side for the cause of Jesus Christ, whose name was mentioned many times in this discussion, or for the cause of pro-life. But not only that, I think there was some ground lost because of the attitude which was demonstrated here.</p>

<p>In one sense, I acknowledge that this issue is a difficult one because we automatically are repulsed by the idea of the cold-blooded killing of a David Gunn by a Michael Griffith, for example. Or the more recent killing in Pensacola, Florida, or any killing on those grounds. We are repulsed by it. Yet at the same time, it seems a fair question to be raised against us, given our position on the nature of the unborn child. How is it that we are repulsed, and how is it that we can call such an act immoral? This is the question that is raised, and this will come up more and more. I hope this is the last killing, but I doubt that it will be. And if there is another one, then Christians who are pro-life will object to the killing and will again be asked the same question. I have dealt with this issue in more detail at other times, giving a lot more reasons and some more background.</p>

<p>Now I will give you what I consider the most encapsulated, or abbreviated, or to the point argument on this issue. I want you to be able to understand this because you are going to need to be able to make the response; and if you can’t make a response to this question then it’s not going to be possible for you to make your claim to the full humanity and personhood of the unborn child and the wrongness of the killings, of late in Pensacola. It’s going to be almost impossible for you to make those stands coherent. Maybe you don’t even know why they’re coherent. You hold to both: that it’s wrong to kill the children and it’s wrong to kill the doctor, but you’re not sure why they’re both wrong and how they both make sense. I will give you a way in which to explain that, and it’s quite simple, actually.</p>

<p>Here’s the objection. Pro-lifers say that abortion is murder and that the 1.5 million children who lose their lives every year in this country constitute an American holocaust. Yet these same people condemn the murder of abortionists.</p>

<p>Assuming you’re not a strict pacifist in which there would be no contradiction because no violence could be recommended in any situation, how does it make sense to assert that abortion is the wanton snuffing out of a helpless child’s life and then condemn those who would protect these children by killing their would-be executioners? In the Nazi holocaust you would have morally accepted the assassination of Nazi executioners and this seems to be a parallel situation by your reckoning, pro-lifer. But you condemn the killing of abortionists and not the killing of Nazis. This is a contradiction, therefore your view is false.</p>

<p>That’s the argument as I understand it. Now, my first observation is that if this objection is valid—and I’m going to argue in a moment that it isn’t—but if it is valid, then all one has established is that the pro-lifer is inconsistent which proves nothing about the rightness of abortion or the wrongness of shooting doctors who perform abortions. But the argument is really asserting more than just that pro-lifers are inconsistent. The inconsistency here is taken as a <em>prima facie</em> indication, like an obvious indication, that we don’t really believe what we say about the unborn child, that it is fully human and that it deserves the same protection of the law that all human beings deserve. When we say that and then in the next breath condemn the killer of abortion doctors, it invites the fair rejoinder that we’re saying two things that are contradictory. They can’t both be true at the same time. One has got to go and I suspect that you really believe the latter, not the former. In other words, the reason you’re convinced it’s wrong to kill the abortionist is that you know deep down inside that abortion isn’t really murder, therefore you should abandon your inappropriate and ultimately dangerous rhetoric about holocausts.</p>

<p>This question needs to be answered clearly and directly and here is the answer. It simply does not follow that if one believes that abortion is murder then he would advocate killing individual abortionists. What follows is this: He would work to end the wholesale killing as expediently as possible. It doesn’t follow he would kill abortionists. It follows that he would do whatever he can to stop the killing as quickly as possible. Now, that may or may not entail the shooting of individual abortionists. The answer to that question would depend on other considerations.</p>

<p>How can that be? Well, anyone familiar with military tactics knows how such a thing can be the case. Life is lost on its largest scale during warfare and the objective in war is to accomplish the goals of the war as expediently as possible to end the large scale loss of life, right? Now, if the military objective is to end the war by—watch this—taking out the machinery of destruction, as a saboteur would do, and killing any individual soldier would put the larger plan in jeopardy, then the individual killer is bypassed rather than run the risk of sabotaging the entire mission.</p>

<p>Imagine for just a minute commandos in the Second World War impersonating Nazi officers, dropped behind Nazi lines to infiltrate concentration camps. Their mission? Destroy the gas chambers. Now mingling incognito with the rest of the camp cadre, they have many opportunities to kill other soldiers, even officers. Even the Commandant. But do you kill the individual executioner or do you go after the gas chamber? In this case, it seems that killing the individual would be wrong even though he was truly murderous, because it would keep the commandos from fulfilling their larger mission. And their failure would mean more lives lost in the long run. The short term gain would be no victory because the machinery of destruction would still be in place. Do you see that?</p>

<p>What this illustration shows is that there is no necessary contradiction in the view that abortion is a holocaust, yet the killing of individual abortionists is properly condemned. In fact, it is precisely because we hold to the innocent humanity of the unborn that we insist on an approach to this solution that is directed at the machinery of the killing—the laws, the economics and the deep human need that makes the alternative appealing. That’s our focus.</p>

<p>Now, there are other considerations to this question, other things that I could say to show that these killings ought not continue. The response I just gave you answers the particular objection in view here very directly, and the answer is that the logical construction is faulty. But you know that is not the real issue.</p>

<p>In one sense, the question that is raised approaches the problem in reverse. The real issue is this: What is the ontological nature of the unborn child (forgive the fancy word)? This is the most important question in the entire debate and, until it’s answered, no moral recommendation whatsoever can be made, either about the morality of abortion or the moral consequences of any protest against it. In other words, you must answer the question: What is the unborn child? Before you can answer any other questions you must deal with that one. You can’t even answer the question, how should we treat the fetus? You can’t answer the questions whether abortion is murder or what we ought to do to abortionists who murder other human beings if, in fact, that’s what they’re doing, unless you answer this first question. What is the unborn child?</p>

<p>Now, listen, folks, if it is possible to determine that an unborn child is fully human and as fully a person in it essential nature as you and I, then it deserves the same legal protections and legal sanctions against its abuse as you and I do. Now that’s logical. That is not a <em>non sequitur</em>. Human beings ought to be protected equally. In fact, it’s in the Constitution; it’s called the Fourteenth Amendment. So, our question is, is the essential nature of an unborn child the same as the essential nature that you and I both share? That’s the question and the hard truth is, if it is then it ought to be treated equally with us. That’s the hard truth and that’s why the hard thinking ought to be addressed to this question. Unfortunately, it’s almost never discussed.</p>

<p>But not only is it the most important question, it’s also the one most easily answered, and that is why it’s never discussed. Every argument against the full humanity and the full personhood of the unborn child at any stage of its development has failed miserably and that’s why it’s never brought up.</p>

<p>That most critical question is answerable and once it’s answered, all these other questions answer themselves.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fkilling-abortionists" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fkilling-abortionists" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fkilling-abortionists" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Fetal Personhood: It’s Simple
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/07/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/fetal-personhood-it-s-simple
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>What makes a person a person? Does a fetus qualify?</em></p>

<p>I’m asking for people just to work hard to get some clarity on this issue. It’s not that hard. If I’ve heard this once, I’ve heard it a dozen times: “This is a difficult issue. It’s a confusing issue. It’s hard to come to a real, proper understanding.”&nbsp;The abortion issue is not a difficult issue. It is not a confusing issue. It is a very simple issue when it comes to the facts themselves. And I’m trying to urge people to have some clarity based on what is true here and what is moral and right; not based on what we want for ourselves. That’s what makes these kind of issues complicated. The truth is self-evident but we don’t like what is true because it makes a moral demand upon us, and that moral demand frequently is uncomfortable and inconveniencing. When we face discomfort and inconvenience, then we want to change the rules; and we try to change the rules by using contorted, disfigured arguments and we claim that it’s a difficult issue. It’s not difficult at all.</p>

<p>I talked with a young lady last night who made the point that she thinks that. She used the illustration of snapshots. If you took a photo of the developing fetus at every stage of development you would see something different; therefore the fetus is a different thing at each different stage of development. Well, that’s an idea, I guess. That’s a way of looking at it but it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. It doesn’t mean because you can take a picture of me at six, and ten, and twelve, and twenty-four, and forty-four that I am somehow a different being. I’m the same being talking on this show right now that graduated from Simon Greenleaf University two weeks ago, and graduated from York High School in 1968, even though I don’t look the same as I did back then. I still have my girlish figure, but I look different.</p>

<p>Does that mean I’m a different person? I’m a different being? All these gradualism arguments fail because they don’t have a clear fix on what it means for a thing to be a thing. It sounds like double talk, but it’s not double talk at all. It’s very simple. A thing is itself and not something else, and it remains itself as long as it exists.</p>

<p>I am Greg Koukl. I was Greg Koukl when I was born, and I’ll be Greg Koukl when I die. I am Greg Koukl from beginning to end. I am Greg Koukl the whole time through even though my body changes form. Beings don’t transform into different beings. They are what they are.</p>

<p>When does an acorn become an oak? Well, no one knows for sure. Of course we do! An acorn never <em>becomes</em> an oak. An acorn <em>is</em> an oak. Period. That’s what an acorn is. It’s an oak in immature form. It can become a mature oak tree. But young or old, it’s an oak. This is not a matter of opinion, folks. When we get down to it, acorn doesn’t describe what a thing is, in a sense; it describes the stage of development of that particular thing. It’s kind of like asking what is a teenager? Well, a teenager isn’t a particular thing, like there is a being called teenager. What a teenager is a description of the stage of development of the human being. It is a human at a certain age. An acorn is an oak at a certain age. And a fetus is a human being at a certain age.</p>

<p>Now some people try to get around this by saying, “Okay, I’ll give in. An unborn child is a human being, but it’s not a person.”&nbsp;And I have a very simple Columbo for you in that situation. It’s very, very easy to use. When someone lays this on you, ask them a very fair question: What’s the difference? They will say absolutely nothing. There will be a long, embarrassing silence and don’t you dare open your mouth because what this person has just said is that they are willing to sacrifice the life of a human child because it’s not a person, yet they are not in any position whatsoever to tell you the difference between the two.</p>

<p>It’s kind of like saying why are you killing those children? “Well, it’s because they don’t have a high enough I.Q.”&nbsp;Well, how high of an I.Q. do you have to have to live? “Frankly, I don’t have the faintest idea, but I know these kids are pretty dumb.”&nbsp;What is that? That is exactly what this response implies. Nonpersons shouldn’t be allowed to live. What’s a nonperson? “I don’t know, but they’re not one of them.”&nbsp;If a person is willing to sacrifice the life of a child based on its nonpersonhood, it seems to me they ought to have a fairly clear idea of what personhood actually is. But of course nobody does in a clear fashion. It becomes arbitrary at that point.</p>

<p>The fact is that human beings are persons. They are personal kinds of beings whether they are in an early stage of development or a later stage of development. That’s what a human is and it remains itself from the beginning to end. It’s very simple. It’s not hard. It’s not complex. We’ve known it for ages. This personhood argument is only 10-20 years old, since <em>Roe vs. Wade</em>, Frank Beckwith says. Before then there was never a personhood argument. It was introduced after <em>Roe v. Wade</em> to make the decision to have an abortion a little more palatable. The same thing happened with Dred Scott. He’s not a person, he’s black. He’s not a person, though he’s a human technically; but that’s just a little detail. It’s not significant.</p>

<p>It’s simple, folks.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffetal-personhood-it-s-simple" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffetal-personhood-it-s-simple" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffetal-personhood-it-s-simple" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How to Know Immaterial Things Exist
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-know-immaterial-things-exist
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Can you prove religious, ethical, or moral kinds of things? Learn how to avoid a materialistic view of the universe.</em></p>

<p>If you’re Christian and you say, Yes, I believe there’s a Heaven and God, and there are souls and spirits, and right and wrong, but I don’t know it. I just have faith and hope that I'm right. Or if you hear others say something like, You can’t prove religious, ethical, moral kinds of things, these statements buy into a materialist view of the universe.</p>

<p>I had a conversation with a Christian couple who were getting challenges of these kinds from their non-Christian relatives who were saying, “We know things in science, but when it comes to everything else, it’s all fantasy.”</p>

<p>To help answer such objections, I walked them through a reflective exercise that I gleaned from the influence of J.P. Moreland. I had a pen, I placed it on the table, and asked them, “Is there a pen on this table?”</p>

<p>And they said, “Yes, there is.”</p>

<p>I said, “Are you reasonably confident that statement is true?”</p>

<p>“Yes.”</p>

<p>“How do you know that?”</p>

<p>“I know it because I can see it there.”</p>

<p>In other words, you are trusting in the deliverances of your senses. You have no good reason to believe that your senses are misleading you, and so you are concluding that there is this object that we’re referring to that is sitting on this other object that we’re referring to—a pen on the table</p>

<p>There’s nothing mysterious about that, and I’m not skeptical about it. “I accept it,”&nbsp;is what I told them. I said, “Now I have another question. Do you know what you’re thinking about now?”</p>

<p>They said, “Yes.”</p>

<p>I said, “How do you know what it is you’re thinking?”</p>

<p>We were role-playing a little bit and he took the side of his brother-in-law, the secularist who had given him this challenge. He started describing brain chemistry as an explanation for how he knew his own thoughts.</p>

<p>I said, “Wait, wait, wait. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m not talking about your brain chemistry; I’m talking about your thoughts.”</p>

<p>“Well, the thoughts are these electrical impulses that are going through my neurological...”</p>

<p>“Wait a minute,”&nbsp;I said. “I want you to think about what you’ve just said. You told me you knew what you’re thinking.”</p>

<p>“Yes.”</p>

<p>“When you gaze, as it were, on the content of your mind so that you know what it is you are thinking, is the thing that you’re aware of neurons, brain tissue, and electrical impulses? No. The things you’re aware of are your own thoughts. Maybe there are electrical impulses that are happening when you’re thinking, and it may be that they’re always accompanied with the thoughts, but that isn’t how you know your own thoughts. You can just tell by reflecting, if you will, upon your thoughts themselves that you are not gazing upon something that has chemical properties. Thoughts have propositional qualities. They are not governed by the laws of physics, yet your brain chemistry is. They must be something different.”</p>

<p>Actually, I’m not trying to argue at this point for mind/body dualism, that your brain is different than your mind, though that seems to me obvious, just in this little analysis. I’m just simply asking about how we know something about our own thoughts. How does he know his own thoughts?</p>

<p>People have known the contents of their own minds from time immemorial without knowing anything about brains. The way we know the contents of our own thoughts is not by somebody else telling us, by some scientist taking a measurement, by using any of our five senses to apprehend it; rather, we have direct, unimpeded access to our own thoughts. We are directly aware. We simply introspect, and we know.</p>

<p>There is a faculty that we are using to know something important—that is, the contents of our own minds—and I’m not saying that we are always aware of everything that’s in our minds. We’re not.</p>

<p>I had a dream last night. I was watching the dream happen. I was the viewer, but who is it that scripted the dream? I scripted it, but I don’t know how I did it. From my conscious awareness, I was the viewer.</p>

<p>There are lots of things in our minds that we don’t know about. Still, at the same time, when we are beholding a particular thing in our mind we know it directly, and we know it incorrigibly. That means we know it without the possibility of being mistaken.</p>

<p>I continued the discussion with a series of questions. “Now, do you think you could be mistaken about the thoughts that you think you’re having right now?”</p>

<p>And both the husband and wife who were talking to me reflected, and then said no. They’re right. They can’t be mistaken. Could they be mistaken, though, about the pen on the table, which was the earlier discussion? And the answer they gave was yes, they could. In other words, it’s not likely that they are. There’s no good reason to be skeptical, but it is possible that they’re mistaken about that. However, it is not possible—and this seems obvious just on reflection—for us to be mistaken about the content of our own minds.</p>

<p>Here is the way this cashes out. I have really asked questions about two categories of things—material and immaterial things. We concluded that we knew things about both areas: the physical that we knew based on our senses (and this would be the way science tells us things) and immaterial things that we knew based on reflection.</p>

<p>We also realize that it’s possible to be mistaken about one, but it’s not possible to be mistaken about the other. Clearly we could be mistaken about virtually anything that we discover with our senses, even though we may not have good reason to believe so. So I’m not a skeptic in that regard. But it is not possible to be mistaken about the contents of our own mind and other kinds of immaterial, abstract objects that we’re aware of, like the laws of logic and reasoning and math, and a host of other things.</p>

<p>If that’s the case, then why are we saying things like, We can know things that science tells us, but we can’t really know about things that aren’t part of the physical world. It turns out that our confidence is just the opposite.</p>

<p>If you allow that to sink into your thinking, then it becomes a fruitful line of reasoning or questioning to ask what other things we might know with such confidence. Can we employ some of those same ways of knowing that we know immaterial things to other issues, like the existence of God or souls or morality? I think the answer to that is yes. There is no good reason to believe that we cannot have confident knowledge about facts of the immaterial world.</p>

<p>If we simply, by default, assert that we can’t know those things, then what Christians are doing is asserting a materialist worldview that is not only inconsistent with Christianity, but I think inconsistent with our basic perception of reality.</p>

<p>There are all kinds of things that we know that have little to do with the physical world, but we still know them. Friendship. Love. Loyalty. Goodness. Any moral virtue, any moral vice. None of these things are identical with behaviors or brain chemistry. The behaviors may signal that the virtue or the vice is present. You see behaviors from people around you that allow you to conclude that they are your friends, but the friendship is an immaterial thing. There are many things like this.</p>

<p>I’m trying to rock your world just a little bit epistemologically, in terms of the things that you know, to help you to see that the rejection of the idea of certitude about spiritual things is not well grounded.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-know-immaterial-things-exist" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-know-immaterial-things-exist" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-know-immaterial-things-exist" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Did God Condone Slavery?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/did-god-condone-slavery-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Since God regulated slavery in the Old Testament, does this automatically mean that He approves of slavery? Just as some today answer “yes,”&nbsp;the Pharisees in Matthew 19 also wrongly assume that regulation equals approval when they ask Jesus this question:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”&nbsp;And [Jesus] answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ’For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?...What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”</p>

<p>They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?”&nbsp;He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Notice what happens here. The Pharisees come with a legal question about which regulations ought to govern divorce, and Jesus responds in a very unexpected way, saying there shouldn’t be <em>any</em> divorce. The Pharisees are immediately confused. “But how could it be that there shouldn’t be any divorce if God regulated it? Doesn’t that mean He thinks it’s hunky-dory as long as it’s done right?”</p>

<p>Jesus makes it clear that this is not the case.</p>

<p>The Pharisees had missed something very important about law: there’s a difference between what’s legal and what’s moral—between the practical need to deal with reality and the existence of an ideal. The Law was not meant to be a list of everything moral and immoral. It functioned as every national set of laws functions—as reasonably enforceable rules to govern their society. And the Pharisees had made the mistake of focusing on merely staying within the regulations instead of going beyond them to seek the goodness of God’s ideal.</p>

<p>As with divorce, the same was true for slavery. The rules regulating slavery were added “because the hardness of the hearts”&nbsp;of humanity had created a situation where slavery existed and served certain functions in their societies, “but it was not that way from the beginning.”&nbsp;In the beginning, there was human dignity and equal value resulting from the fact that every single individual—young or old, rich or poor, royal or commoner—was made in the image of God. But after the Fall, the ideal society was out the window, and God had to deal with what was actually there.</p>

<p>Deeply ingrained cultural patterns don’t change overnight, but must be redeemed over time. Slavery was intricately woven into the cultures of the day, so, as with divorce (neither being the situation God desired), God made rules to keep the evil of the practice to a minimum. For example, if you <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ex%2021:16;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">kidnapped</a> someone and made him a slave, you were put to death. If a slave escaped from his master for whatever reason, you were not allowed to <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deut%2023:15-16;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">return</a> him. If you harmed so much as a <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:26-27;&amp;version=49;" target="_blank">tooth</a> of your slave, you had to let him go free—in other words, no person was allowed to keep a slave if he mistreated him or her. Slavery in Western countries would never even have gotten off the ground had these rules been followed; the first rule alone would have prevented it.</p>

<p>God regulated divorce, and yet He explicitly said <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi+2%3A16&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">He hates it</a>, so the regulation of the practice did <em>not</em> mean He condoned it. Therefore, one cannot assume that God’s regulation of slavery meant God condoned slavery.</p>

<p>All that said (and much more <em>could</em> be said), it also needs to be stated that since the Fall, suffering has served an important purpose in this world. God’s highest goal for us is not our comfort, but our more intimate knowledge of, appreciation for, and love for Him. The existence of suffering around us has long been used by God to remind us of the ugliness of sin—a physical illustration of the fact that our hearts are far from God’s perfection, and a reminder of our desperate need for Him and His mercy.</p>

<p>Slavery has served this same purpose. Freedom is God’s ideal—the kind of freedom found in the Garden at the beginning before the Fall (that is, the freedom to follow God openly and completely, without hindrance). And God’s rescue of the Israelites from slavery served for them (and for all generations) as a physical illustration of a <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206;&amp;version=31;" target="_blank">spiritual truth</a>. Because they understood the meaning of <em>physical</em> slavery, the invisible truth of their <em>spiritual</em> slavery to sin and their need for redemption could be made visible for all to see and understand. And because they knew God orchestrated their release from slavery, they knew not only that slavery—physical or spiritual—was not the ideal, but that He cared about their condition and desired to release them from it.</p>

<p>The existence of slavery taught God’s people both the condition of their own hearts and a crucial truth about their great, good God. This is why it was <em>Christians</em> in the 18th and 19th century who not only worked to see that others were freed from their spiritual slavery, but who also led the way in following God’s desire to free others from physical slavery.</p>

<p>Could God have prevented slavery from ever existing? Yes, I think He could have, just as He could have prevented all other episodes of suffering yet did not. But just as Joseph said of his own suffering as a slave, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good,”&nbsp;slavery did not pass through this world without accomplishing a purpose even greater than the suffering.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdid-god-condone-slavery-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdid-god-condone-slavery-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdid-god-condone-slavery-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Is Mystery Mysterious?
topic: Theology
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-mystery-mysterious-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I hear a lot of talk about mystery in the Church but I don’t hear it carefully defined. When most Christians talk about mystery in relation to God they mean something like “that which ultimately cannot be known about God.”&nbsp;As a result, a dichotomy is set up between the mysterious experience of God and what can actually be known about God. Thus knowing God has little to do with doctrinal knowledge about Him and almost everything to do with one’s experience of Him. Unfortunately, such a view of mystery is unbiblical and ultimately, harmful to one’s faith.</p>

<p>Now, I’m no Greek scholar so I looked up the word in my Bible dictionary. I discovered that in classical Greek, the term mysterion means “anything hidden or secret.”&nbsp;In classical Greek, and it seems in common contemporary usage, mystery means a secret for which no answer can be found. However, this is not the meaning of the biblical usage of mysterion. In the New Testament, “mystery”&nbsp;is identified with a secret which is being, or has been, revealed by God through his Spirit. Biblically speaking, mysterion is a temporary secret which is revealed so that it can be known and understood. Notice how the Apostle Paul connects mystery and knowledge:</p>

<ul>
	<li>“Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations...”&nbsp;(Romans 16:25-26).</li>
	<li>“He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth...”&nbsp;(Ephesians 1:9-10).</li>
	<li>“...and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places”&nbsp;(Ephesians 3:9-10).</li>
	<li>“...that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory”&nbsp;(Colossians 1:26-27).</li>
	<li>“...that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”&nbsp;(Colossians 2:2-3).</li>
</ul>

<p>Here’s the main point: biblical mystery is not something divorced from knowledge. Rather, God reveals His mysteries to us so that we can know them and understand them. Thus knowledge, theology, and doctrine are inextricably bound up with mystery. My concern is with those who talk about the mystery of God in such a way as to undercut its biblical connection to knowledge.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-mystery-mysterious-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-mystery-mysterious-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-mystery-mysterious-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Impossible Gospel of Mormonism
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-impossible-gospel-of-mormonism
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Mormonism demands perfection. Okay, maybe your Mormon friend won’t say that, but according to the Mormon scriptures (LDS have four scriptures: the King James Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price), it’s required. The ultimate goal of every Mormon is exaltation, to become a god just like their Heavenly Father. But at minimum, exaltation is only available to those who have repented:</p>

<ul>
	<li>“Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence...”&nbsp;(Moses 6:57).</li>
</ul>

<p>But what is repentance according to the LDS Scriptures?</p>

<ul>
	<li>“By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and <em><strong>forsake them</strong></em>”&nbsp;(Doctrine &amp; Covenants 58:43).</li>
	<li>“...go your ways and <em><strong>sin no more</strong></em>; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God”&nbsp;(Doctrine &amp; Covenants 82:7).</li>
</ul>

<p>According to LDS Scripture, true repentance is confessing sin <em>and</em> forsaking it or never returning to it again. As former LDS prophet Spencer Kimball has said, “The forsaking of sin must be a permanent one. True repentance does not permit making the same mistake again.”&nbsp;If you repeat a sin, all of your “former sins return.”&nbsp;Therefore, on the LDS view it is not enough to try your best. Rather, you must stop sinning. Period.</p>

<p>Given the clear teaching of the LDS scriptures, it’s very interesting to talk to Mormons who appeal to God’s grace in addition to their own works. And certainly we see this in their own Scriptures too:</p>

<ul>
	<li>“...for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do”&nbsp;(2 Nephi 25:23).</li>
</ul>

<p>But what does “after all we can do”&nbsp;mean?</p>

<ul>
	<li>“Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God”&nbsp;(Moroni 10:32).</li>
</ul>

<p>So when does God’s grace kick in? Notice the “if/then”&nbsp;phrase. Grace comes only if you “deny yourselves of all ungodliness.”&nbsp;In other words, the LDS gospel is a gospel of perfection. But what are to make of grace on an LDS view? Either grace is redefined and looks nothing like the biblical view of grace exemplified in Ephesians 2:8-9 or the LDS scriptures are contradictory in their view of salvation. Either way, this is a very troublesome problem for LDS.</p>

<p>Thankfully, God does offer true grace:</p>

<ul>
	<li>“But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life”&nbsp;(Titus 3:5-7).</li>
	<li>“What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? ’Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”&nbsp;Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: ’Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him’”&nbsp;(Romans 4:1-8).</li>
</ul>

<p>And this is the message of hope we have to offer our LDS friends and family.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-impossible-gospel-of-mormonism" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-impossible-gospel-of-mormonism" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-impossible-gospel-of-mormonism" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: For Baby or For Me?
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/for-baby-or-for-me-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><strong><em>Euphemisms and verbal tricks aside, a woman's question, "Do I choose for a baby or for me?" boils down to choosing between the child she already has and the life she wants to have instead. Is the quality of a woman's life more important than the baby's life?</em></strong></p>

			<p>A recent article in the newspaper had this headline: "Do I Choose for a Baby or for Me?" Three things stood out for me in this article that are worthy of note.</p>

			<p>First, the article starts with the statement, "Abortion is not a frivolous choice." This is a new tactic being used vigorously by the pro-abortion side lately. Much is made of the fact that women who choose abortion have labored over their choice. They've struggled with it. It was a choice that wasn't made easily. Later the article reads, "Life calls for all sorts of difficult choices and 43% of American women have made an abortion one of theirs. 'It was a hard choice,' Julie said, 'and we are at peace with it.'"</p>

			<p>This approach is quite different from the way pro-abortionists argued early on, soon after Roe v. Wade. Their attitude then was, "We have the liberty to choose whatever we want, and we're going to get an abortion and celebrate that liberty." Now the emphasis is not on the expression of personal liberty, but on the difficulty of the choice.</p>

			<p>The implication is that if one labors over the decision, that somehow renders the decision morally acceptable. However, the amount one emotionally struggles over a decision has nothing to do with whether the decision is moral or not. Killing a child is either moral or immoral. Whether you struggle over it or not may say something about the sensitivity of your conscience, but it doesn't say anything about the morality of the choice itself.</p>

			<p>I'd say that someone who struggles over killing her unborn child probably has more moral common sense than someone who does it frivolously. But it doesn't make the choice for abortion the right choice simply because it was labored over.</p>

			<p>The second thing that stood out was in the next sentence: "No woman sets out to create potential life and then destroy it." Of course, this is a clever rhetorical trick--introduced early in the article--to refer to an unborn child as a "potential life." I call it a trick because there is no such thing as creating a "potential life."</p>

			<p>Think about it. First, you could potentially create life, that is, create a potential <em>for</em>&nbsp;life. When a man and a woman get married and have sex there's potential in their conduct for life to be created. Second, you could create a life <em>with</em>&nbsp;potential, one that has the possibility of developing into something good or noble. But that's the end of your options. You either potentially create a life or you create a life with potential. You never create a potential life.</p>

			<p>It's like saying, "I just had a potential thought." What could that possibly mean, you just had a potential thought? You either had a thought or you didn't. And your thought has some potential for the future or it doesn't. But you never have a potential thought.</p>

			<p>In the same way, pregnancy doesn't create a potential life. If so, then the problem of that potential life could be solved simply by having a potential abortion. Since a real abortion is needed to end pregnancy and not a potential one, I real life must be involved, not a potential one.</p>

			<p>Same way here. There's no such thing as creating a potential life. Indeed, when the article goes on to describe the life in question, it's clear it's not talking about creating a potential life. How do I know that? Because the title of the article is, "Do I Choose for a <em>Baby</em>, or for Me?" They didn't say, "Do I Choose for a <em>Potential</em>&nbsp;Baby or for Me?" The "baby" is in existence in the same way "me" is in existence. They're both there, so to speak. You either act to benefit the one or you act to benefit the other. It is not a potential life. It is a life itself.</p>

			<p>The third thing that struck me was the unmistakable ethic being embraced here: A mother has the moral liberty to choose for <em>the life</em>&nbsp;of the child she already has--the baby inside her--or to choose for the <em>quality of life</em>&nbsp;she wants to have for herself. In this case, the woman essentially says, "I chose for the life I want to have in the future, so I killed my baby today."</p>

			<p>Pretty tragic, huh? Tell me what's different between this attitude and Susan Smith? Susan Smith already had two children. She saw a future life she wanted to have that did not include those two children. So she strapped their seat belts around them and pushed the car into the river. "I choose for me and not my children" is Susan Smith morality.</p>

			<p>One last reference here, supporting the comment I just made: "Ending her pregnancy provided a sense of relief because her life plans could proceed." By the way, notice how the author used the phrase "ending her pregnancy," euphemistic for having an abortion? The word "abortion" isn't used much anymore. Have you noticed that? It's avoided.</p>

			<p>This woman wasn't just "ending her pregnancy." She was killing a baby. And killing the baby provided a sense of relief because now her life could proceed according to plan. How nice.</p>

			<p>That should be on the epitaph of Susan Smith's tombstone, whenever it's erected: "For Baby or for Me? I chose for me. It was a hard choice, but I'm at peace with it."</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffor-baby-or-for-me-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffor-baby-or-for-me-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffor-baby-or-for-me-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Sticks and Stones
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/sticks-and-stones
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Ever get called names when you get into conversations about Christianity? Alan shows how to deal with that situation.</em></p>

<p>“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.”&nbsp;Though I haven’t said that childhood phrase in a long time, it’s as true today as it was years ago on the playground. It still teaches us a valuable lesson: Don’t let name-calling get to you. One might think adults don’t call people names. Sure they do. They just disguise it by using more “sophisticated”&nbsp;terms.</p>

<p>Kids who would have called me “jerk,”&nbsp;“dim-wit,”&nbsp;and “dork”&nbsp;25 years ago now call me “homophobic,” “narrow-minded,”&nbsp;and “judgmental.”&nbsp;They’re nastier names, but they’re equally as innocuous and silly. Little, it seems, has changed.</p>

<p>People resort to name-calling when they lack a substantive argument against your view. They hope you feel bad about your new label. But don’t take the bait. Instead, take a cue from the Stand to Reason tactic called “Sticks and Stones.”&nbsp;I use it all the time when faced with a name-caller.</p>

<p>When I’m called a name, I simply ask them to define it: “What do you mean by [fill in the name]?”&nbsp;and then I listen carefully to their definition. This easy question is meant to move past the irrelevant name-calling and get to the argument. It also neutralizes their attack by demonstrating at least one of three things:</p>

<p>1. The definition doesn’t apply to me.</p>

<p>2. The definition also applies to the other person.</p>

<p>3. It doesn’t matter that the definition applies to me.</p>

<p>Sometimes the definition doesn’t even apply to me. One time, a non-Christian challenged my evidence that homosexual behavior was immoral. He called me “homophobic”&nbsp;and so I asked him, “What do you mean by ’homophobic’?”&nbsp;He paused and said that it was an irrational fear of gay people. “Well, I’m not afraid of gay people,”&nbsp;I told him. He looked puzzled, but it was clear his definition was irrelevant to me. I suggested he come up with an argument instead of calling me a name.</p>

<p>Even if the definition does apply to me, it probably also applies to the name-caller. A friend of mine once told me I was judgmental for saying that her friend was wrong to lie on her tax return. I asked her politely, “What do you mean by judgmental?”&nbsp;She said, “Being judgmental is saying that somebody else is wrong.”&nbsp;I thought about her definition and then asked her, “So, would that make you judgmental too? After all, you’re saying I’m wrong to judge your friend.”&nbsp;She had to agree. Her definition of judgmental also applied to her.</p>

<p>And then there are times when it doesn’t matter that you’re called a nasty name. In May of 2006, I made a scientific argument that the unborn is a human being to a pro-choice student at the University of California in Santa Barbara. As part of her response, the student called me, “Anti-women.”&nbsp;Instead of defending myself, I accepted her label just for the sake of argument. I said, “Okay, maybe I am ’anti-women.’&nbsp;How does that affect the scientific argument I just made that the unborn is a human being?”&nbsp;It doesn’t. I could be (though I’m not) anti-women, homophobic, and a bigot, but that wouldn’t change the validity of my argument.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsticks-and-stones" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsticks-and-stones" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsticks-and-stones" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: God Is a Person, We Are Persons
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/god-is-a-person-we-are-persons
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In a Q&amp;A newsletter from John Shelby Spong (an Episcopal Bishop who rejects most doctrines of Christianity), Spong voiced an objection to our ability to know God—an objection I have heard many times before:</p>

<blockquote>I am not sure that the problem is that people throw around words [about God] so carelessly, but that the only words we humans have to use are human words, bound by time, space and human experience. Whatever God is, God is surely beyond the boundaries of human life. So the more specific we are about God, the less accurate we probably are. Let me repeat my favorite analogy. Horses cannot escape the boundaries of what it means to be a horse, nor can a horse view life from any other lens or perspective save that of a horse. Therefore a horse could never describe what it means to be human. In a similar manner, a human being cannot escape the boundaries or perspective of what it means to be human and therefore can never define or describe what it means to be God.</blockquote>

<p>Is it really correct to say that just as a horse cannot describe us, so we cannot describe God? Are the two situations analogous? Francis Schaeffer has a great insight in <i>The God Who Is There</i> that helps to answer this question.</p>

<p>He points out that God is both <i>personal</i> and <i>infinite</i>. When you consider man and the animals in terms of our creatureliness—our limited nature and dependence on God, we are of course closer to horses than we are to God, and there is a great chasm between us:</p>

<center>Infinite God
<p>---------------------------------- CHASM</p>

<p>Limited Man</p>

<p>Limited Animals</p>
</center>

<p>In this sense, there is no connection between God and man—He is completely “other”&nbsp;when it comes to His infinite, uncreated nature. But in terms of our personhood (the category that matters when we’re discussing comprehension and relationship), we are closer to God than we are to animals:</p>

<center>Personal God
<p>Personal Man</p>

<p>---------------------------------- CHASM</p>

<p>Animals</p>
</center>

<p>We are made in the image of God, and so we share many things with God, though we are finite. And it’s because we share this image that we’re able to understand what it means to say God is loving, and just, and merciful, and good. Because we can relate to God as personal being to personal being, “man can know God truly, though he cannot know God exhaustively.”</p>

<p>A horse, on the other hand, is forever on the other side of the line in the category that matters.</p>

<p>Schaeffer’s story sums up the answer to this objection:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>A man from Israel who was an atheist wrote and asked me, “What sense does it make for a man to give his son to the ants, to be killed by ants, in order to save the ants?”&nbsp;I replied that it makes no sense at all for a man to give his son to the ants, to be killed by the ants, in order to save the ants, because man <i>as a personality</i> is totally separated from the ants. Man’s only relation to the ants is in the areas of Being and creaturehood. However, in the area of personality man’s relationship is upward to God, and therefore the incarnation and death of the Son of God for the sake of man’s salvation are sensible.</p>

<p>The reasonableness...of communication between God and man turn[s] on this point—that man, as man, is created in the image of God.</p>
</blockquote>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-is-a-person-we-are-persons" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-is-a-person-we-are-persons" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-is-a-person-we-are-persons" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Having Trouble Praying?
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/having-trouble-praying-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Do you feel unmotivated or hopeless when it comes to prayer? Do you feel spiritually dead? God is the God who gives life where it doesn’t now exist.</em></p>

<p>I have no doubt that some of you are right now sheepishly reflecting on the fact that you’re not very big on prayer. Perhaps you’re even defiantly resisting prayer, or maybe you’re merely depressed and unable to motivate yourself to plead with God when you’ve faced so many disappointments and feel so far away from Him. Or maybe you’re like me, and you’ve been in each of these places at one time or another.</p>

<p>I want to say a word of encouragement to those who are having trouble praying. First, the greatest killer of prayer is a loss of hope. A turning point for me when I was feeling most hopeless happened when I was reading <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%204:13-25&amp;version=ESV" target="_blank">Romans 4</a>. In this chapter, Paul is explaining that if we share in the faith of Abraham, we’re the descendants of Abraham and heirs of the promises made to him. Then Paul hits us with a description of God that changes everything: “Him whom [Abraham] believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.”</p>

<p>Meditate on that for a moment. God “gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.”&nbsp;God has the power to give your spirit the life and hope that is now lacking in you—He calls it into being out of nothing. Do you feel dead? God is the God who gives life where it does not now exist. This is who God is. This is what He does. But He doesn’t always do this immediately. Do you have the faith to trust in Him while waiting as Abraham waited?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Without becoming weak in faith [Abraham] contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb; yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform (Romans 4:18-21).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s likely that an end to your hopelessness, leading to an ability to pray again, seems impossible to you—just as impossible as the birth of Isaac seemed to Abraham. So, like Abraham, don’t try to focus all your faith on this happening. Instead, focus your faith on God, trustworthy and powerful, who gives life to the dead. Meditate on who He is. Don’t worry if you don’t believe you’ll ever have hope again. Just start by believing the truth about God. Like Abraham, “in hope against hope”&nbsp;put your faith in <em>Him who is able to call into being that which does not exist</em>.</p>

<p>Second, your soul is real. There are spiritual realities in life just as there are physical realities. If there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that my soul can starve just as surely as my body can starve. You need to pray and read the Bible as <em>much</em> as you need to eat because there is the same reality of necessity in both cases. Do you place as much urgency on the one as on the other? Do you ever decide not to eat for a few days because you’re too busy? Is your soul suffering now the way your body would be if you stopped eating? The answer to your apathy or despair might be as simple as beginning to eat again.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhaving-trouble-praying-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhaving-trouble-praying-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhaving-trouble-praying-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Is God a Three-Headed Dragon?
topic: Theology
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-god-a-three-headed-dragon-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Does the Trinity make any sense at all? Brett explains why it makes biblical and rational sense.</em></p>

<p>“God is like a three-headed dragon,”&nbsp;offered one high school student. “I think God is like a Transformer,”&nbsp;blurted out a junior higher in the front row. I had just asked students at this Lake Arrowhead camp to give a brief definition of the Trinity. They reached for all sorts of analogies to explain God’s nature. Heresy soon followed.</p>

<p>Next, I asked for biblical justification. “What Scripture tells us that God is a trinity? Where in the Bible do we find the word?”&nbsp;Students began thumbing through their Bibles, searching for the elusive verses. A few went straight to their concordances. Several minutes passed. No verses were offered. Finally, a female underclassman ventured a guess. “There is no Bible verse that uses the word Trinity, right?”</p>

<p>After watching students struggle, their youth leaders were frustrated. But the failure of these young Christians to explain an essential belief like the Trinity was to be expected. After in-depth research, sociologist Christian Smith found “the vast majority of [American teenagers] to be incredibly inarticulate about their faith, their religious beliefs and practices, and its meaning or place in their lives.”&nbsp;When students aren’t systematically trained, heresy becomes habit. So these young believers needed some thorough theological instruction.</p>

<p>And after seeing their own inability to explain an essential of the faith, they were eager and ready.</p>

<p>I started with James White’s concise yet precise definition of the Trinity: “Within the one Being that is God, there simultaneously exists three coequal, coeternal, and distinct persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”&nbsp;There are three divine persons—Father, Son, Holy Spirit—in one being—God. Simply put, there is one “what”&nbsp;and three “who’s.”&nbsp;I explained to students how all analogies end up being heretical, even though they may be helpful at first.</p>

<p>Next I offered a biblical case. There is no single passage to cite. Instead, I showed students how to build their case for the Trinity on three foundations. First, the Scripture clearly teaches there is only one God. I took them to Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 43:10 and 44:6-8, and John 17:3. Second, I showed them how each person is divine in nature. John 1:1 says “the word [Jesus] was God.”&nbsp;In John 10:30, Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,”&nbsp;clearly a claim to deity when you examine the context. And the Apostle Paul echoes this in Philippians 2:5-8. In Acts 5:3-4, lying to the Holy Spirit is equated with lying to God. Thirdly, I showed them how the three divine persons are coequal and coeternal, citing Genesis 1:26, Matthew 28:19, and a host of other verses.</p>

<p>But I didn’t leave the Trinity in the realm of mere academic theological exercise. We discussed its implications for worship. I showed students how worshiping God is no longer the worship of a distant ambiguous being. The word “God”&nbsp;now had very specific content for them. They were worshiping the Trinitarian God of the Bible—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—who has existed from all eternity. A God unlike any other god. The one true God. And that theological truth is transformational.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-god-a-three-headed-dragon-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-god-a-three-headed-dragon-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-god-a-three-headed-dragon-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Getting in the Game
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/getting-in-the-game
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Brett gives some practical advice for evangelism.</em></p>

<p>Christians talk too much. At least, they feel the pressure to.</p>

<p>In “Why I Am a Christian,”&nbsp;I tell students the first reason I’m a Christian is because it’s true, and that I’ve got good reasons to think so. When they hear this, students sometimes feel pressure to have all the right answers for their friends. I hear the stress in their voices when they ask, “So what should I say to my non-Christian friend?”&nbsp;That’s when I give them two pieces of advice.</p>

<p>First, I tell them to start with questions. Oftentimes, Christians think evangelism means you talk and others listen. Thus, the believer must have a polished presentation and a finely-tuned response to all objections. Not only is this undignifying to the non-Christian, but it completely ignores the unique questions an individual has. And it’s why some Christians are really good at answering questions no one is asking. Francis Schaeffer’s words are instructive here: “If I have only an hour with someone, I will spend the first 55 minutes asking questions and finding out what is troubling their heart and mind, and then the last 5 minutes I will share something of the truth.”</p>

<p>I encourage students to start with STR’s first two “Columbo”&nbsp;questions: 1) What do you mean by that? and 2) How did you come to that conclusion? The first question gives you more information about what others believe and helps you to truly know them. The second question takes the pressure off you by putting the burden-of-proof on them. Everyone believes something and you’re simply asking why they believe what they believe. Notice, these two questions require no knowledge but can be employed immediately. So I’m able to encourage students to get in the game right now.</p>

<p>Second, I teach them an STR mantra: simply put a stone in their shoe. Christians feel pressure to get to the cross in every conversation. But that’s an unrealistic goal. The cross is utter foolishness to an atheist in your first conversation. Rather, a more realistic goal is to put a stone in their shoe. This is the idea that you give some bit of information that bothers them, causes them to think. And in the next conversation, they may want to know more. If you get to the cross in the first conversation, great. Go there. But usually the soil of the heart needs time to be tilled before it’s ready for the Gospel.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgetting-in-the-game" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgetting-in-the-game" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgetting-in-the-game" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Does a Fetus Have a Soul?
topic: Bioethics
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-a-fetus-have-a-soul-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>The argument that an acorn isn’t an oak but a potential oak isn’t true. How does this apply to humans?</em></p>

<p>There is no evidence scripturally for a preexistent human being apart from the body so my presumption is that when the sperm and ovum become a new independent human life the immaterial part of man is present as well. That’s somewhat of a conjecture. But my sense of things is that the most reasonable way to understand the soul in relationship to the human being is that at the time a human being is created and comes into existence, all aspects of that human come into being. There is no reason to dichotomize the human life and the soul. It strikes me as the tidiest and most reasonable thing that when a being comes into being, that being is everything that it is. Having a soul is not a property like having skin color or gender. Having a soul is something that defines what the substance of a human being is. Each human being is a certain type of being and that includes a physical and nonphysical element. When that new being comes into being it will be what it is in its entirety, even though aspects of its being develop later.</p>

<p>It is a mistake to talk about human beings as being potential persons. Personhood is part of the substance of being human, not a property a human develops later. Personhood isn’t like hair color that you can change, it’s not a property. It is part of the substance of what it is to be human. Trying to distinguish between the humanness and the personhood is looking at it in an inaccurate way. Personhood is part of the substance of being human, it doesn’t develop at some other time. It strikes me as the most reasonable way to look at it is that when a being comes into being it is everything substantively that it is. There are properties that it requires. But everything else, its humanness, is there the moment it comes into being. If it comes into being as a separate living thing at the fertilization of the egg, which is what we understand biologically is the beginning of a new life, then at that point it is reasonable to conclude that it gets its soul. It gets everything then and develops from that stage.</p>

<p>The argument that an acorn isn’t an oak but a potential oak isn’t true. An acorn is an oak just as a mature oak tree is an oak, both are oaks but they are at different stages of development. It is entirely what an oak was meant to be. No nascent form of a being is the same as the mature form. Is an infant an adult? Of course not. Is a little sprig of an oak tree coming out of the ground a mature tree? No. An infant form is not an adult form, that’s all you’re saying when you say that an acorn isn’t an oak. An acorn is an oak but it’s not the adult form. In the same way, a brand new human being formed by the fertilization of a human egg and sperm is everything that a human being is in its substance or essence. That would include being soulish.</p>

<p>Fertilization is not an arbitrary point because that’s when a new being comes into being by biological definition. This distinction between a property and a substance is very important because properties are what substances have. Properties can grow and change, but that’s different than the essence itself. Any particular thing has all those things which define it as the particular thing because if it didn’t have those things it wouldn’t be that particular thing.</p>

<p>A square always has four sides. What if it had only three sides? It wouldn’t be a square, it would be something else—a triangle. If a human didn’t have a soul it wouldn’t be a human being because that’s what human beings are. You can’t say that one being gains a property that changes it from one being to another. All beings have the same profile of what they are and they gain and lose and develop properties over time. But that doesn’t change who or what they are.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-a-fetus-have-a-soul-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-a-fetus-have-a-soul-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-a-fetus-have-a-soul-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Can a Non-Physical Being Affect the Physical World?
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/can-a-non-physical-being-affect-the-physical-world-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>To believe in miracles, we have to believe an immaterial God can move things in the world. Is that unreasonable?</em></p>

<p>To accept the existence of miracles, one would have to accept the idea that a being without material properties (i.e., God) can move about, change, and otherwise affect objects in the physical world. Is this, in itself, an absurd proposition? I don’t think so. I can’t show you <em>how</em> the affecting of the physical by the non-physical is possible—such explanations are beyond my capability, but I can certainly demonstrate that this is not only possible, but commonplace.</p>

<p>Imagine you’re sitting on a park bench and spot a good friend approaching. You raise your arm and wave.</p>

<p>Why did you wave? There was nothing in the physical world that compelled you through the laws of physics, or chemistry, or anything else to raise your arm. Your action did not begin with a physical process; your action began with your will. Your will to raise your arm was not a physical part of your body. Your thought was non-physical—it couldn’t have been measured because it had no mass and took up no space. Try describing your thoughts and your will in physical terms—what color are they? How big are they? How much do they weigh? These questions are meaningless because our wills are not in the same category as objects in the physical world, which <em>can</em> be described in such terms.</p>

<p>Our wills are non-physical, and yet somehow our non-physical wills are connected to, and have power over, a part of the material world. Somehow our non-physical thoughts and wills are able to move physical objects—our own bodies.</p>

<p>Our limited minds are only able to move our own bodies, but is it so outrageous to think that it’s possible for there to be a greater mind out there who would have access to all physical objects? It’s difficult to rule out the possibility on principle when we see the same thing taking place on a smaller scale everyday, every time we make a move.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-a-non-physical-being-affect-the-physical-world-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-a-non-physical-being-affect-the-physical-world-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcan-a-non-physical-being-affect-the-physical-world-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Do Our Prayers Make a Difference?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/do-our-prayers-make-a-difference-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>If God is sovereign over history, why should we pray?</em></p>

<p>Does it makes sense to pray for things since God has already sovereignly planned history from beginning to end?</p>

<p>This is a thoughtful question, and I think a big part of the answer is that God uses certain means to accomplish His plans in order to bring Himself the most glory. When we pray for something and God gives it, He unquestionably gets the glory. This is why “we have not because we ask not,”&nbsp;as James 4:2 puts it. Were God to always give us what we need apart from our prayers, I guarantee you we would quickly lose sight of Who was behind those gifts. We would either take in the gifts unnoticed or, worse, conclude our own great abilities were responsible for obtaining them.</p>

<p>God uses the means of prayer because He wants us to remain dependent on Him, to remind us that we’re creatures in need and that He’s the giver, and to help us recognize His work in the world (that is, we see and know He’s working when specific prayers are answered, and we know this in a much deeper way than if He were to act behind the scenes without our thinking about it). Our prayers keep us connected with all these things and cause us to rightfully worship and appreciate Him in awe and thanks.</p>

<p>When we say “But Your will be done”&nbsp;at the end of a prayer, that’s yet another way of recognizing our place as creatures beneath God, our fallibility even in praying for the right things, and our willingness to see Him glorified in the way He chooses.</p>

<p>So our prayers really do make a difference—not only because they change us and the way we view God, but because they’re the means God uses to intervene in the world. “We have not because we ask not,”&nbsp;therefore God moves when we ask. Our prayers are part of His plan. Yes, I also think the Holy Spirit moves us to ask in accordance with God’s plan, but that’s happening behind the scenes and is not something we need to figure out or try to learn to recognize. Our job is to go ahead and pray about everything, knowing that our prayers are making a difference because that’s the way God has chosen to work.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-our-prayers-make-a-difference-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-our-prayers-make-a-difference-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-our-prayers-make-a-difference-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What Is Evolution?
topic: Science
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-is-evolution-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Should a Christian freak out at the mention of evolution? Well, it depends on what someone means when they use the word.</em></p>

<p>Most Christians experience a violent reaction when they even hear the word “evolution.”&nbsp;Alarms go off. Defenses go up. “Oh no, it’s evolution! Run for your lives!”&nbsp;But do we really need to freak out at the mere mention of evolution?</p>

<p>Well, it depends on what someone means when they use the word. And this is our starting point. The first thing we must do is define evolution. It is used in three primary ways:</p>

<h2>Definition #1: Evolution is change over time.</h2>

<p>This definition is really general. As we observe our world we see things changing day by day, month by month, year by year. An oak changes as it goes from sapling to tree. A baby changes as she grows into a toddler. Your body changes. Seasons change. Clothing styles change. Everything changes. In this sense of evolution everything on earth evolves. But is this a problem for Christians? Of course not. If this is what someone means when they say “evolution,”&nbsp;no problem.</p>

<h2>Definition #2: Evolution is the process where minor changes take place in an organism to produce new characteristics.</h2>

<p>In his famous work, Origin of the Species, Darwin distinguished two kinds of evolution. This is Darwin’s special theory of evolution or what we might call microevolution. On this view, there is outside pressure, like climate change or a lack of food, which forces an organism to adapt. So, over time, the organism adapts to its environment in order to survive.</p>

<p>Maybe you’ve heard of “Darwin’s finches.”&nbsp;They’re a species of bird on the Galápagos Islands where Darwin did some of his original research. Scientists have discovered these little birds have changing beak sizes. During times of drought, only large and hard seeds are available. Finches with bigger beaks survive better because they can crack the hard seeds. Those with smaller beaks are more likely to kick the bucket. As a result, average beak size increases. However, when the drought is over and smaller seeds reappear, guess what happens? Finches with smaller beaks are able to eat and thrive and the average beak size returns to normal. This is a great example of a species, the finch, adapting to its changing environment in order to survive.</p>

<p>And this definition of evolution is not controversial either. Obviously we observe it in the natural world. Again, if this is what someone means when they say “evolution,”&nbsp;no problem.</p>

<p>Here are two quick but important observations about this definition. First, microevolution can actually point us to an intelligent Designer. He was smart enough to design life in such a way that it can adapt to changing conditions and survive. Second, microevolution does not tell us how finches got their beaks in the first place. For that explanation, a third definition of evolution is required.</p>

<h2>Definition #3: Evolution is the process where major changes take place in an organism to produce new kinds of organisms.</h2>

<p>Look at Definition #2 again. Notice the difference here. On this third definition, we’ve got “major changes”&nbsp;and “new kinds of organisms.”&nbsp;This is Darwin’s general theory of evolution or what we might call macroevolution. Macroevolution is microevolution on steroids. Just remember “micro”&nbsp;means small and “macro”&nbsp;means big, so we’re talking about big changes. And this was Darwin’s revolutionary idea. This is why Darwin gets the big party.</p>

<p>Darwin saw microevolution happening within a species, like the finches. However, he didn’t see any limits to the change. Given enough change and enough time, one species could develop new body parts and become an entirely new organism. Eventually, toads become turkeys. Over millions of years, wolves become whales. The process of macroevolution could explain all the diversity of life on earth.</p>

<p>Okay, now we’ve got a problem. When people talk about evolution in this sense, it’s time to crash the party.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-is-evolution-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-is-evolution-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-is-evolution-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Who Created God?
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/who-created-god-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Why does the argument for a first cause of the universe conveniently stop with God? Where did God come from?</em></p>

<p>I was asked once by an atheist, “Why does the argument for a first cause of the universe conveniently stop with God? Where did God come from?”</p>

<p>When thinking through this question, it’s important to note that an infinite regress of causes is <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html" target="_blank">logically impossible</a>. That is, there could not have been an <em>infinite</em> number of events happening one after another in our universe’s past because we never would have reached the events happening now. There was a beginning.</p>

<p>If time and space came into existence (as physics, philosophy, and theology all indicate*), this means, by necessity, there was a first cause beginning the existence and subsequent chain of events in this universe. Since nothing caused that <em>first</em> cause (by definition), we can know two things about it:</p>

<ol>
	<li><em>The first cause had to have begun this universe by a decision of will.</em> We know this because the <em>first</em> event was not a natural result of an earlier event (since there <em>were</em> no earlier events), and only a personal being can will to initiate something that’s not an automatic result of an earlier chain of impersonal causes.

	<p>&nbsp;</p>

	<p>To illustrate why a personal being with a will is necessary to begin a chain of events, imagine you’re watching a row of dominoes in a room where nothing else exists. Once that first domino falls, the falling of each domino can be explained by the previous domino that hit it.</p>

	<p>But if nothing besides you exists in that room, how will the first domino fall? There is no natural force compelling it to fall—no earthquakes, no falling objects, no wind to knock over another object that would then cause it to fall. Nothing. You could watch it for all of eternity, and nothing would ever happen.</p>

	<p>The only way those dominoes will begin to fall is if <em>you</em> decide on your own, expressing your own will and not physically compelled by any nonexistent prior event, to begin the chain of events by knocking over the first domino. The only way an unchanging state can change is if an <em>agent</em> with a will <em>chooses</em> to step in and begin the process.</p>
	</li>
	<li><em>The being who acted as the first cause of everything in existence must be a self-existent being that did not come into existence</em> (or else that being would <em>not</em> be the first cause). That being is God. By definition, as the first cause, He does not have a cause.</li>
</ol>

<p>If you ask, “Who created God?”&nbsp;you’re really just asking, “Who is the <em>real</em> God—the true first, self-existent, personal cause?”&nbsp;because the one true God—the initiator of everything—does not, and could not, have a cause.</p>

<p>*I make this statement based on the actual evidence we currently have available. There are some scientists who speculate about how the universe may have eternally existed, or how it might have come into existence out of nothing. Based on the positive evidence, however, these speculations are nowhere near the best explanation. Rather, they are supported primarily by the presupposition that a naturalistic explanation <em>must</em> be true. What follows for many scientists is the belief that any natural explanation, no matter how unlikely and/or counter to current scientific observations (e.g., spontaneous generation—that is, things suddenly appearing out of <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6811FN20100902" target="_blank">nothing</a>), is preferable to an explanation from outside nature.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwho-created-god-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwho-created-god-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwho-created-god-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Thinking Carefully about the Problem of Evil
topic: Philosophy
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/thinking-carefully-about-the-problem-of-evil
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Some key distinctions are critical when thinking about this problem.</em></p>

<p>When approaching the problem of evil it is important to begin by making some key distinctions. Distinctions help us to define the issues more precisely, which leads to greater clarity of the problem as well as the solution. This is just one reason philosophy is such an important tool for believers. Here are some of the key distinctions.</p>

<p>First, it is important to distinguish between the intellectual problem and the existential problem. The intellectual problem requires a tough-minded philosophical response while the existential problem requires a tender-hearted pastoral response. If you attempt to answer the existential problem merely with philosophical abstractions or Christian clichés, you may as well keep your mouth shut.</p>

<p>This distinction needs to be considered on a personal level as well. You may have answered the intellectual problem with careful philosophical analysis but another question remains: Is your soul prepared for suffering? This question haunts me a bit, particularly since my wife and I have had kids. Sometimes I think about how I would respond to God if something tragic were to happen to one of my kids and I must confess, I am a little pessimistic about my response. I think it reveals my need to put a greater amount of trust in God and not in just having good intellectual answers.</p>

<p>Second, we need to make a distinction between different kinds of evil. There is moral evil, done by human beings (think 9/11), and there is natural evil, caused by physical events (think Hurricane Katrina). This distinction is important because our response to each may be different, careful to address the relevant features of these different kinds of evil.</p>

<p>Third, we need to distinguish the logical (deductive) problem from the evidential (inductive) problem. The logical argument claims the existence of God is logically impossible given evil and therefore, belief in God is necessarily false. If the logical argument succeeds, it would spell the end of Christianity in particular and theism in general. The evidential argument attempts to show the existence of evil makes it unlikely that God exists. It claims the evidence of evil against God’s existence makes it more probable that He does not exist rather than that He does exist. Again, this distinction is vital as our response to the logical and evidential problems will be different.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthinking-carefully-about-the-problem-of-evil" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthinking-carefully-about-the-problem-of-evil" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthinking-carefully-about-the-problem-of-evil" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Is Religion Illogical?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-religion-illogical-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Learn to spot the non-sequiturs atheists sometimes use to argue against Christianity.</em></p>

<p>“Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness.”&nbsp;So says Richard Dawkins, author of the God Delusion and godfather to the New Atheists. This recent breed of atheist is no longer satisfied to pronounce religion as mistaken. “Believers aren’t merely wrong, they’re irrational. And to such a degree that they very likely suffer psychological disorders.”</p>

<p>But is it the believer who is irrational? I don’t think so.</p>

<p>Recently, I took a group of high schoolers from a local church in Southern California on their first Berkeley mission trip. For students and staff, it was a rational test of Christianity’s truth claims. It was also an occasion to humbly yet confidently demonstrate the utter irrationality of atheism.</p>

<p>The laws of logic govern human thought and communication. We haven’t created them, we’ve discovered them. Logic is part of the furniture of the universe. These laws of thought assist us in evaluating the rationality of various truth claims. And we employed them in Berkeley with atheists we met with. Here’s an example.</p>

<p>A non-sequitur is a common logical fallacy we find in atheistic arguments. When a conclusion or statement does not logically follow from a previous argument or statement, one commits this fallacy. Thus, a non-sequitur is an irrational conclusion. Here are two we encountered in Berkeley:</p>

<p>#1—“The Bible is completely unreliable, and therefore we should doubt Jesus even existed.”</p>

<p>Atheists like to point to the alleged errors in the Bible to cast doubt on Jesus’&nbsp;very existence. The atheist is mistaken in his claim the Bible is unreliable but let’s give it to him for the sake of argument. Here’s the question we taught students to ask: “So, what follows?”&nbsp;The atheist concludes Jesus does not exist. But that doesn’t follow.</p>

<p>Imagine a book recounting the life of George Washington. Upon close inspection, we discover errors and contradictions. It claims he was a general in the Civil War and was the third president of the United States. Does it follow from these errors that George Washington never existed? Of course not. In the same way, alleged Bible errors do not disprove Jesus’&nbsp;existence.</p>

<p>#2—“There can’t be a Designer when there is so much imperfect design in the natural world.”</p>

<p>Atheists point to flaws in the natural world as evidence against a Designer. Deficiencies in the human eye are a favorite example. But here’s our question: “So, what follows?”&nbsp;Does imperfect design mean a Designer doesn’t exist? Of course not. Have you ever owned a car? Talk about imperfect design. Cars break down all the time. But it doesn’t follow they weren’t designed.</p>

<p>So we employed the tools of logic to show it was actually the atheist’s arguments that were irrational.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-religion-illogical-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-religion-illogical-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-religion-illogical-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Sin of Forgiveness?
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-sin-of-forgiveness
content:
            <div> 
		<p><b><i>Is it possible to forgive a wrong done to someone else? Should only those who repent be forgiven? Is forgiveness a selfish act, a way to make ourselves feel better? Greg grapples with these issues and more after a local community forgives a high school student who slew three classmates.</i></b></p>

<p>My comments today are in response to an article entitled "The Sin of Forgiveness" written by my colleague, Dennis Prager, published in the <i>Wall Street Journal</i>. Dennis expresses his deep concern about the knee-jerk tendency of many Christians to simply forgive egregious crimes committed against someone else.</p>

<p>Dennis cites a couple of examples. In one case a Christian pastor invited Americans to forgive Timothy McVeigh, found guilty of murdering 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing. In a second case, Michael Carneil, a freshman at Heath High School in West Paducah, Kentucky, gunned down three students attending a prayer group on campus. A few days later the students erected a banner saying, "We forgive you, Michael."</p>

<p>Dennis's article makes three points. First, only the one who is wronged can forgive. These students weren't the ones wronged. The ones murdered were wronged. Therefore, the students are out of place presuming to forgive.</p>

<p>Second, Prager argues that according to Jesus' teaching, only those who repent are to be forgiven. It's wrong to automatically forgive everyone who sins against us when repentance isn't demonstrated.</p>

<p>Third, it's selfish to offer forgiveness merely because of the psychological advantages it gives to oneself. Forgiveness isn't for someone else; it's for us, some hold. It makes us feel better. Dennis argues that this turns out to be selfishness disguised as idealism.</p>

<p>What may surprise you is that I agree with most that's been said by Mr. Prager in this article, though I think some qualifications need to be made, especially to his last point about selfishness. Let's take them one by one.</p>

<p>First, only the one who is wronged can forgive. Dennis writes, "Only those they sinned against have the right to forgive, and those they murdered are dead, and therefore cannot forgive them." He adds, parenthetically, "That is why I believe that humans cannot forgive a murder." Forgiveness is obviously not available on this view because the only person who can forgive a murderer is now dead.</p>

<p>I'm not sure if this last comment means that even God can't forgive a murderer, therefore a murderer can never be forgiven. If that's what Dennis means, then I think he's mistaken for reasons I'll make clear in a moment.</p>

<p>I think Dennis is right when he says that only the one who is wronged can forgive. Such a statement seems self-evident. What does one forgive except a wrong against himself? If someone punches your neighbor in the nose, you can't forgive that crime; the offense wasn't against you. Therefore, it does seem presumptuous for these students to forgive Michael Carneil on behalf of their classmates who were killed.</p>

<p>Two caveats need to be made, though. First, all moral crimes are first of all crimes against God and only secondarily against man. If you recall Psalm 51, David—who had committed adultery and killed a man in the process of trying to cover up that adultery—says to God, "I know my transgressions and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only have I sinned."</p>

<p>Even though this was a sin of adultery against a woman and a sin of a murder against a man, David saw the sin principally as a sin against God.</p>

<p>This is especially true of the crime of murder. The central issue of murder—a violation of the sixth commandment—is not simply that someone <em>has his life taken</em> from him. That's actually a violation of the eighth commandment, "Thou shalt not steal."</p>

<p>Rather, the central crime of murder is the destruction of one who bears the image of God. As you recall in Genesis 9:6, God said to Noah in instituting capital punishment, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man."</p>

<p>This tells us something very important. It gives us the foundational principle of all human rights and all human dignity, and all other rules, commands, or laws that naturally follow, including the commandment not to murder. Humans are valuable in that they are image bearers. This distinguishes them from all other beings on the planet—or in the universe, for that matter. Human beings bear God's image.</p>

<p>Now, you might not have thought of this, but do you remember when Jesus was asked about paying taxes? He asked whose image was on the coin. What did He say then? "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Right?</p>

<p>That applies to this situation. Human beings bear God's image and therefore belong to Him. So the crime of murder is first a crime against God, and therefore the most important forgiveness must come from Him because He is the principal One wronged.</p>

<p>By the way, God is the One most worthy of obedience and He is the One whose justice and punishment is ultimate and most severe. This is why He's the principle subject for forgiveness and not just humans who were the object of the crime committed.</p>

<p>The second caveat I need to add to this concept—that only the one who is wronged can forgive—is that God and the students who were killed aren't the only ones this crime was against.</p>

<p>I think a case can be made that there's an indirect crime done to others. For example, 17-year-old Jessica James was cut down that day. Though she lost her life, her parents also lost a daughter and her classmates lost a dear friend.</p>

<p>This is why condolences go out to family and friends of the deceased. We try to comfort the others <em>in their loss.</em> This is something Dennis even suggested we do, send warm condolences. But such an act is a tacit admission of a crime committed against those other than the deceased.</p>

<p>We comfort someone in their loss because they lost something. Something that was theirs was taken from them. If this is the case, then, it seems also the case—since they've suffered a loss, too—that they in some sense are in a position to extend forgiveness. These killings were not only crimes against the murder victims, but also crimes against the family and the community. From that perspective, forgiveness on some level from members of the community seems appropriate.</p>

<p>But that needs to be qualified by the second point Mr. Prager brings up in his article, that, according to Christianity—the teaching of Jesus—only those who repent are to be forgiven. He quotes Luke 17:3–4, "Be on your guard. If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him."</p>

<p>In Matthew 18 a slave was forgiven a large debt. When someone who owed that slave a much smaller amount wanted forgiveness for himself from this slave who'd been forgiven such a great debt, the slave instead threw him into debtors prison. Of course, Jesus had very harsh words for that man. Point being, if we've been forgiven when we've asked for forgiveness, when others ask us for forgiveness we should forgive them in like manner.</p>

<p>Scripturally, this is a little bit of a mixed bag because there are other verses that don't mention the repentance issue and talk only about forgiveness. It does seem, though, that the Luke 17 passage qualifies those other verses such that repentance is an important requirement. It doesn't seem to be that God has commanded us to forgive everybody without qualification, because we see these occasions when the qualification is made. (Incidentally, even God doesn't forgive everyone without qualification.)</p>

<p>There's a third thing Dennis said that I want to respond to. He claimed that it's selfish to give forgiveness in order to gain psychological relief for oneself. He writes, "This, too, is selfishness masquerading as idealism. The argument being, though I do not deserve to be forgiven, and though you may not even be sorry, I forgive you because I want to feel better." I disagree with the letter of Dennis's statement here, though I think I agree with the spirit behind it.</p>

<p>Part of the process of healing from tragedies like this involves releasing anger, bitterness, and resentment connected with the wrong done. Often, when people forgive, that's what they're doing, letting it go.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I don't think that means acting as if no crime has been committed. I think that's Dennis's concern. Moral outrage is appropriate and should be expressed by all parties involved. However, as time goes on people need to let go of these things. Hanging on to injury over time is just another way of continuing to punish the offender—Carneil, in this case. In the long run, though, those that refuse to let crimes against them drop are the ones who are going to suffer.</p>

<p>I don't think this is selfishness masquerading as idealism, but rather a healthy step in the healing process, as long as (and here's my caveat) <em>the egregious nature of the moral crime doesn't receive the short shrift in the process.</em> This, I think, is Dennis's deepest concern, the real spirit of his objection.</p>

<p>(It may be—and I was thinking about this yesterday—that statements of personal forgiveness should be done in private so that it doesn't appear that the crime is taken lightly. Save the public statements for condolences to those who lost their children and friends.)</p>

<p>I think the biggest offense that someone like Dennis Prager feels about this is the apparent denial of the harm done and the immediate focus on forgiveness instead of on the appropriate punishment, which would be a function of justice.</p>

<p>In New York City a while back a woman almost died when she was badly beaten and raped in Central Park in an act of "wilding." The young men who had committed the crime were caught and jailed. Later they were visited by the Catholic Archbishop and told that God forgave them.</p>

<p>Now, the Archbishop should have mentioned that forgiveness is <em>available</em> from God on God's conditions. But this should have come only after another truth was made clear: As the writer of Hebrews said, "It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Hell is a real place where moral criminals are punished for their crimes against God and man.</p>

<p>That's what should be told those criminals who did that terrible crime. Only then should they be told about the mercy that God will offer, on His conditions. First the bad news, then the good news.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-sin-of-forgiveness" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-sin-of-forgiveness" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-sin-of-forgiveness" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Short Argument for Early Dating of the Gospels
topic: History
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-short-argument-for-early-dating-of-the-gospels
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Acts shows Mark can be dated in the 50s, and the undisputed early dating of other books confirms that the Jesus of the Gospels was not the result of a myth evolving over time.</em></p>

<p>The so-called “search for the historic Jesus”&nbsp;is over one hundred years old. Virtually nothing discovered during that time undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no “new evidence”&nbsp;supporting the idea that the miracle-working Son of God was the result of an evolution of myth over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibility to the content of the Gospels themselves.</p>

<p>For example, we know the Apostle Paul died during the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. Paul was still alive at the close of Acts, so that writing came some time before A.D. 64. Acts was a continuation of Luke’s Gospel, which must have been written earlier still. The book of Mark predates Luke, even by the Jesus Seminar’s reckoning. This pushes Mark’s Gospel into the 50s, just over twenty years after the crucifixion.</p>

<p>It is undisputed that Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s, yet he proclaims Jesus as the resurrected Son of God in the opening lines of that epistle. Galatians, another uncontested Pauline epistle of the mid-50s, records Paul’s interaction with the principle disciples (Peter and James) at least 14 years earlier (Gal 1:18, cf. 2:1).</p>

<p>The Jesus Seminar claims that the humble sage of Nazareth was transformed into a wonder-working Son of God in the late first and early second century. The epistles, though, record a high Christology within 10 to 20 years of the crucifixion. That simply is not enough time for myth and legend to take hold, especially when so many were still alive to contradict the alleged errors of the events they personally witnessed.</p>

<p>There is no good reason to assume the Gospels were fabricated or seriously distorted in the retelling. Time and again the New Testament writers claim to be eyewitnesses to the facts. And their accounts were written early on while they’re memories were clear and other witnesses could vouch for their accounts. The Gospels are early accounts of Jesus’&nbsp;life and deeds.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-short-argument-for-early-dating-of-the-gospels" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-short-argument-for-early-dating-of-the-gospels" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-short-argument-for-early-dating-of-the-gospels" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Are Homosexuals Born that Way?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-homosexuals-born-that-way-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Is there a “gay gene,”&nbsp;and should it change our view of homosexual behavior if there is?</em></p>

<p>To many people, saying that homosexuals are born that way is as axiomatic as saying the earth revolves around the sun. No rational reason exists to reject this claim. The only hold-outs, it is said, are those who are either ignorant of scientific facts, homophobic, or bigots (read: Christians). But this claim is beset with problems. Before we consider them, let me make a tactical suggestion.</p>

<p>Many Christians get defensive when someone says that homosexuality is inborn. They try to respond with reasons why the claim is false. But that’s a mistake. There’s no need to answer the challenge since the claim is just that—a claim. And a claim without evidence is just an opinion. There’s no reason to think it’s true.</p>

<p>Instead of defending <em>your</em> convictions, make them defend <em>their</em> claim. Since they’re the ones trying to make a point, it’s their job to prove it. Ask, “What evidence do you have that homosexuals are born that way?”&nbsp;Many times they won’t have an answer. They’re repeating what they’ve heard others say, but don’t have evidence to back it up.</p>

<p>Instead, they sometimes punt to experience. They’ll say that homosexuals often report feeling different from their peers at a very early age, suggesting they were born that way. But personal experience is rarely an indicator of scientific truth and can’t count as evidence that homosexuality is biologically determined. So before you discuss the merits of the claim, remember that <em>they</em> shoulder the responsibility of providing evidence for their view.</p>

<p>With that tactic in mind, let’s look at three problems to this claim. The first is the most egregious. A simple scientific fact-check demonstrates that no study has proven that homosexuality is biologically determined.</p>

<p>Decades of research to discover a “gay gene”&nbsp;have come up empty. In fact, it’s uncommon for researchers to think that a gene can determine any behavior. And research that <em>correlates</em> brain anatomy and physiology with homosexual behavior doesn’t prove <em>causation</em>. In other words, even if part of the brain in homosexuals is different from that of heterosexuals, that might suggest that their behavior changes their brain, not necessarily the other way around. This is possible due to neuroplasticity- the lifelong ability of the brain to change in response to the environment, brain injury, behavior, or simply acquiring knowledge. The blind, for example, use their fingers to read braille and consequently have different brain morphology simply because their behavior differs from sighted people.</p>

<p>What’s surprising is that this is acknowledged by pro-gay researchers and organizations. The American Psychological Association (APA), for example, once held the position in 1998 that, “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”&nbsp;However, a decade of scientific research debunked this idea and caused the APA to revise their position in 2009: “Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, <em>no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor</em> or factors”&nbsp;[emphasis mine]. A pro-gay group like the APA would revise their statement only if there was overwhelming evidence that necessitated a position change.</p>

<p>A second problem with the claim that homosexuality is biologically determined is that even if true, it wouldn’t prove that the behavior is moral. Consider that researchers have discovered genes they believe contribute to alcoholism, unfaithfulness, and violence. Are we to believe that because there is a genetic contribution to these behaviors (or even if they are genetically <em>determined</em>) that they should be regarded as morally appropriate? Of course not. So, proving homosexual behavior is appropriate by appealing to a genetic determinant is equally spurious.</p>

<p>Indeed, finding a genetic cause to homosexuality worries many gay rights advocates. Why? Because not all genetically induced characteristics are normal or healthy. Abnormalities in an individual’s DNA, whether by mutation or the addition/subtraction of a chromosome, lead to genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome, or cancer. If a genetic origin to homosexuality is discovered, the next obvious question that arises is whether it is abnormal, a mutation, or represents a disease process.</p>

<p>Moreover, if a cause can be identified, then it can also be targeted by genetic therapy or other methods that “cure”&nbsp;the condition. And testing that can detect homosexuality <em>in utero</em> could lead to abortion of “gay fetuses.”&nbsp;As a result, many pro-gay researchers have toned down their attempts to discover a biological cause.</p>

<p>A third problem stems from the mere existence of an “ex-gay”&nbsp;community. If homosexuality is, as many pro-gay advocates state, as inescapable as eye color, then how do they explain former homosexuals? Eye color is genetic, something that one is born with and can’t change. But sexual orientation is fluid, as evidenced by the changed lives of thousands of men and women.</p>

<p>There are women who spend years in long-term, sexually committed relationships with other women and then change and become attracted to males. There are also men who have been sexually attracted to other men since puberty, spend a decade in gay relationships, and then develop attractions to the opposite sex. Many of these people have gone through some form of therapy or counseling, but some spontaneously change without any professional intervention.</p>

<p>The fact that even one person has changed is evidence that homosexuality is not hard-wired. But that there are thousands of individuals who have changed is significant counter-evidence against the born-that-way theory. I know many of them. They can’t all be lying.</p>

<p>It seems the Christian hold-outs were right. Homosexuals are not born that way. But now that we hold this truth with greater conviction, we need to—more than ever—reach out with compassion to the people who were not born that way.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-homosexuals-born-that-way-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-homosexuals-born-that-way-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-homosexuals-born-that-way-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Jesus Is the Only Cure
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/jesus-is-the-only-cure
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>People will go to hell not because they merely had a theological point wrong, but because they had a real disease (sin) and never got the only effective cure.</em></p>

<p>Christians often say that anyone can get forgiven if they believe in Jesus, but if they don’t believe in Jesus they’re not forgiven at all. When this issue comes up, the question of forgiveness isn’t discussed too much. The notion of forgiveness is collapsed into another kind of statement that I think Christians are guilty of saying by itself, and it creates confusion as a result.</p>

<p>The more bleak way of saying it is, if a Hitler believes in Jesus, then he goes to heaven, and if a Mother Teresa doesn’t believe in Jesus, then she goes to hell. (Apparently she does and apparently he didn’t, so this is hypothetical. But according to Christian theology, that’s the way it would be.) It just seems absurd that someone like Hitler, as evil as he was, could be admitted into God’s holy heaven, and unconscionable that someone like Mother Teresa could be condemned to hell.</p>

<p>The reason people raise this question is because Christians have not been careful in how they’ve explained their faith. They’ve not been careful to communicate what’s going on here and why belief in Jesus is the pivotal factor. It’s because belief in Jesus solved a problem. The problem itself is what condemns people to hell, and if He doesn’t solve the problem then the problem doesn’t get solved. He’s the only one capable of dealing with it.</p>

<p>Think of it like sickness. People with cancer die unless they get a doctor. And if they get the right doctor, with the right medicine, they can be rescued. But only if they get the right medicine. So, it’s not just an incidental detail of theology: Well, if you just happen to believe in Jesus, you go to heaven. Lucky you. But if you just happen to think He’s not worth believing in for whatever reason-maybe you don’t like Him, maybe you like another religion better-you just happen to reject Him. In other words, you get one wrinkle of theology mistaken and God gets so mad at you that He sends you to hell forever. Put in those terms, it sounds rather ridiculous because Christians haven’t been careful to explain what exactly is going on here.</p>

<p>Here’s the way it works: Jesus is not a wrinkle in theology. Jesus is an antidote to a deadly disease. Some people have the symptoms of the disease more obviously or in a greater manner than others. But everybody is sick. The sickness, the Bible says, is sin. The manifestation (or the symptom) of the disease is evil behavior.</p>

<p>The offer of forgiveness goes out to everyone. The antidote to the deadly disease is available to each and every person. It’s up to us to accept it or not. If we don’t, we perish, not because of God but because of us. If we do accept it, we don’t perish, we live forever, not because of us but because of God and His mercy.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjesus-is-the-only-cure" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjesus-is-the-only-cure" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjesus-is-the-only-cure" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Is Jesus a Legend?
topic: History
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-jesus-a-legned-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Jesus’&nbsp;“powerful and appealing”&nbsp;life, ethics, and personality were not likely invented by a few simple men.</em></p>

<p>Arguing that Jesus did not exist, or even changing him into some kind of peaceful guru, makes it hard to imagine how such a Jesus could transform the world. Will Durant is the author of The Story of Civilization. In part three, “Caesar and Christ: A History of the Roman Civilization and of Christianity from Beginnings to A.D. 325,”&nbsp;Durant argues against any such views of Jesus.</p>

<p>Now, this guy is a world class historian. And he’s not a Christian. He thinks there seem to be contradictions between one Gospel and another. He thinks there are dubious statements of history and a suspicious resemblance to legends of old pagan gods in the New Testament. All this granted, he says:</p>

<p>“In the enthusiasm of its discoveries, the higher criticism has applied to the New Testament text tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, Hammurabi, David, Socrates, would fade into legend. 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.”</p>

<p>Here is a man of world class status who says the higher critics are out in left field. If we follow their methodology, nothing would be considered reliable history. In other words, if you throw out Jesus, you have to throw out all of ancient history.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-jesus-a-legned-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-jesus-a-legned-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-jesus-a-legned-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Jesus Didn’t Say Anything about Homosexuality
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/jesus-didn-t-say-anything-about-homosexuality
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality. Does that mean it’s okay?</em></p>

<p>If you’ve ever claimed that Scripture says homosexual behavior is a sin, there’s a good chance someone tried to correct you with, “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.”&nbsp;It doesn’t matter what Bible verse bolsters your claim, Jesus’&nbsp;silence on the matter allegedly trumps all other considerations. Here are seven reasons why this objection doesn’t work.</p>

<p>First of all, Jesus didn’t need to say anything about homosexuality. No first century Jew questioned whether homosexual sex was morally permissible. That’s because every Old Testament reference, poem, or metaphor that addresses sex and marriage in a positive way presumes heterosexual relations. Furthermore, every reference to homosexuality in the Old Testament is negative. There was no debate as to what the biblical witness was on that behavior. God-fearing Jews already believed homosexual sex was prohibited.</p>

<p>Second, it’s not certain that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. It’s possible He did address it but His statement wasn’t recorded. The Gospel writers didn’t document everything Jesus said and did - only what they thought was important to their audience. Indeed, most of what Jesus said (and did) was never written down. John 21:25 says, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.”&nbsp;It’s possible Jesus did talk about homosexuality but the Gospel writers didn’t feel it was necessary to include it in their accounts.</p>

<p>Third, even if it turns out Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so what? What follows from that? Jesus’&nbsp;silence on the matter wouldn’t mean He approves of homosexual sex. That would be an argument from silence, a type of faulty reasoning. Besides, Jesus didn’t speak about <em>every</em> immoral behavior. Should we infer that drunkenness, child sacrifice, and neglecting the elderly are morally appropriate since Jesus never said anything about them either? That would be absurd. Jesus addressed moral issues of His day as they arose in conversation.</p>

<p>Fourth, we know what Jesus <em>would have said</em> about homosexuality if asked. Jesus was an observant Jew living during the Mosaic Law. He had not yet instituted the New Covenant. That’s why He often referenced the Law. For example, Jesus cited the two greatest commandments of the Law (Matthew 22:37, 39) and told the rich young ruler to uphold the commandments of the Law (Mark 10:17-22). Therefore, if asked what He thought about homosexuality, Jesus would have cited the Mosaic Law again (Leviticus 18:20, 20:13), which unequivocally states that homosexual behavior is a sin.</p>

<p>Fifth, Jesus <em>did</em> voice His opinion on matters of sex and marriage. When asked about divorce, Jesus cited the Genesis creation account: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ’For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate”&nbsp;(Matthew 19:3-6). Jesus believed that God’s design in Genesis, making male and female join together to become one flesh, was the intended blueprint for sexuality even for His day. His view about sex and marriage is one man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime. Indeed, Jesus emphasized that the one-flesh union described in Genesis is a God-ordained institution (“What therefore <em>God has joined together</em>, let no man separate”). A male-female union has the Father’s stamp of approval. If that was Jesus’&nbsp;view on sex and marriage, then every other type of sexual act, including homosexual behavior, is disqualified.</p>

<p>Sixth, Jesus <em>does</em> basically say homosexual behavior is a sin. In Mark 7:21-23, Jesus says, “For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come - sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery...all these evils come from inside and defile a person.”&nbsp;The Greek word translated “sexual immorality”&nbsp;is <em>porneiai</em>, which is a term that includes many sexual sins, including homosexuality. First century Jews who heard that word would think of the sexual sins listed in the Mosaic Law, which includes homosexual sex.</p>

<p>Seventh, saying “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality”&nbsp;mistakenly presumes that the words of Jesus are more authoritative than the rest of Scripture. But it is the Holy Spirit - God Himself - who inspired <em>all</em> of the words of Scripture, not just the red letters. That means Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:9-11, where homosexual behavior is specifically condemned, are also inspired by the Holy Spirit and are the authoritative word of God. Since Jesus and the Holy Spirit co-exist in the Godhead and are in perfect communion through all eternity, we can be confident that Jesus agrees with the Holy Spirit about what He’s inspired to be written in Scripture.</p>

<p>Any one of these seven responses alone is sufficient to respond to this challenge. When you combine them together, though, it leaves no room to doubt that this challenge can’t be sustained.</p>

<p><em>[This article was updated and expanded on 2/25/16.]</em></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjesus-didn-t-say-anything-about-homosexuality" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjesus-didn-t-say-anything-about-homosexuality" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fjesus-didn-t-say-anything-about-homosexuality" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Did Jesus Really Exist?
topic: History
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/did-jesus-really-exist-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Because of the historical evidence of Jesus’&nbsp;existence available to us today (biblical <em>and</em> non-biblical), there are very few scholars who attempt to argue that Jesus never lived.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> How do we know that Jesus was not simply a legendary character created decades later? Consider these bits of evidence:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Cornelius Tacitus, the well-known and respected ancient Roman historian who lived in AD 55-120, records in his great work, the <em>Annals</em>, the fact that Emperor Nero blamed Christians for the great fire that occurred in Rome around AD 60. Tacitus goes on to explain who Jesus was and how and where Jesus was executed.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup> This is an extraordinary piece of information. Though Christianity began in Jerusalem (an amazing fact in itself, since those who lived in Jerusalem were in a position to know for a fact whether or not Jesus had really existed), a mere three decades after Jesus, there was such a large number of his followers that they had spread as far as Rome, and there were enough of them to get even the emperor’s attention! To understand how unlikely it is that such a thing could happen if Jesus had never actually lived, imagine the following scenario: Suppose you decide you would like to start your own religion, so you invent the story of an amazing man named Hobart. You head off for Los Angeles and start proclaiming that a few years earlier, Hobart had, in that very city, done countless miracles and caused such an uproar that, eventually, the city officials got involved and held a public execution, but then Hobart—amazing as he was—rose from the dead. How many followers would you get? You would be lucky if you got <em>one</em>! Everyone in Los Angeles would remember perfectly well that no such man had existed. You would never gain enough followers to get any sort of movement started. Such a plan is obviously ridiculous and doomed to failure. And yet, to claim that Jesus never existed, one would have to assume this very scenario occurred successfully in first century Jerusalem—a city with significantly fewer people than Los Angeles!</li>
	<li>Tacitus was not the only ancient historian to discuss the existence of the man, Jesus. Josephus, the Jewish historian, wrote about Jesus around AD 90-95.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup> In addition, Roman historian Suetonius (c. AD 120)<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> and the Talmud (Jewish oral tradition and commentaries compiled AD 70 to 200)<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> both refer to Jesus as a real, historical person. Just as one wouldn’t question the ability of a historian living today to know about the existence of President Roosevelt, so it is more probable than not that all these ancient historians, writing just as near to the time of Jesus, were correct in their assessment that Jesus did, in fact, exist.</li>
	<li>Even more impressive than the evidence of the ancient historians is the pre-biblical creed recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. This creed states that Jesus was crucified to pay for our sins, He died and was buried, and then He rose from the dead on the third day and was seen by eyewitnesses. It is clear from the style and wording of the creed that it did not originate with Paul, the author of 1 Corinthians. In fact, it is generally accepted—even among skeptical, non-Christian scholars—that Paul received this creed from someone else in Jerusalem <em>between only two to eight years after Jesus’&nbsp;death!</em><sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> Since the creed was already established when Paul received it, we know it was formulated even earlier, and the beliefs would, of course, pre-date even the creed, bringing us back to the time of the crucifixion itself. Regardless of whether or not the claims about Jesus in this creed are true, it is unreasonable to believe that such a creed would be created and accepted in Jerusalem right at the time of Jesus if He never even existed.</li>
</ul>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Gary R. Habermas, <em>The Historical Jesus</em> (Joplin: College Press Publishing Company, 1996), 27. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Ibid., 187-189. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3"><em>Antiquities</em> 20:9 and 18:3 (quoted in Habermas, <em>The Historical Jesus</em>, 192-194). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4"><em>Claudius</em>, 25 (quoted in Habermas, <em>The Historical Jesus</em>, 190-191). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5"><em>The Babylonian Talmud</em>, vol. III, <em>Sanhedrin</em> 43a (quoted in Habermas, <em>The Historical Jesus</em>, 202-203). <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">See Gary R. Habermas, <em>The Risen Jesus &amp; Future Hope</em> (New York: Rowman &amp; Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2003), 17-19 for details on how this creed was dated. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdid-jesus-really-exist-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdid-jesus-really-exist-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdid-jesus-really-exist-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Dead or Alive?
topic: History
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/dead-or-alive-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Does it matter if Jesus really rose from the dead? Can we determine whether or not it happened in history?</em></p>

<p>If the bones of Jesus were found tomorrow, would you walk away from Christianity? You should. Why? Because faith in a dead Jesus is worthless. Even the Apostle Paul says so. In I Corinthians 15:14, he writes, “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”&nbsp;Did you catch that? The bones of Jesus would make our faith <em>useless</em>.</p>

<p>C’mon Paul, isn’t that kind of harsh? No and here’s why. Imagine a group of people who have dedicated their lives to Peter Pan. They construct a beautiful building to gather in celebration of Pan’s life. They sing songs to him and tell stories about his wonderful deeds. What would you think about such a group? What a waste of life. Peter Pan is a fairy tale. We should feel sorry for such people.</p>

<p>Well, <em>if</em> Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave, then Christianity is a fairy tale. Just like Peter Pan, it’s make believe and Christians are wasting their lives. And what should people think about us? Paul concludes that if Christ hasn’t been raised, “we are to be pitied more than all men”&nbsp;(verse 19).</p>

<p>So, when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, what’s at stake for Christians? Everything.</p>

<h2>History 101</h2>

<p>How in the world do we show that a 2,000-year-old event actually happened? Mary Magdalene didn’t whip out her flip camera and record footage of the resurrected Jesus. The disciples didn’t snap post-resurrection photos on their iPhones and then upload them to Facebook for all their friends to see. So what’s a historian to do? Two things in particular:</p>

<p><em>#1—Find the facts.</em></p>

<p>Historians rely on historical data like archeology, ancient documents and recorded eyewitness testimony to reconstruct the past. In addition, certain principles guide them in determining which historical accounts are reliable and which are not. For example, if there are several independent sources reporting the same event, that’s pretty reliable history. If those sources are actual eyewitnesses and not secondhand reports, that’s pretty reliable history. If those eyewitness accounts are closer in time to the actual event, that’s pretty reliable history. Given this process of investigation, historians can discover historical facts.</p>

<p><em>#2—Find the best explanation.</em></p>

<p>Once the historian has gathered her facts, she looks for an explanation that fits the facts. She has to determine if the facts support an alleged historical event. Sometimes she concludes “yes,”&nbsp;and sometimes “no.”&nbsp;There are plenty of times when there just aren’t enough facts, so the historian simply says, “We don’t know what really happened.”&nbsp;Since there is no video footage for most of human history, the honest historian does her best to the follow the facts to the best possible explanation.</p>

<h2>Cold Hard Facts</h2>

<p>Do we have any facts that support the historical resurrection of Jesus? Absolutely. And we won’t just use arguments from guys on our side. To make the strongest possible case, we’ll rely on those facts that virtually all scholars who study this subject agree upon, including critics of Christianity. Resurrection scholars Gary Habermas and Michael Licona call this the “minimal facts”&nbsp;approach.*</p>

<p>Notice this approach does not require us to defend an error-free Bible. It does not require us to show the Bible is the inspired word of God. Although they’re important issues, inerrancy and inspiration are not essential to our case for the resurrection. Instead, the minimal facts approach lets us build common ground with the critic. Basically, we’re saying to the skeptic, “You show me <em>your</em> historical facts and I’ll show you how they are evidence for the historical resurrection of Jesus.”</p>

<p>So, what are the minimal facts? Habermas and Licona list five:</p>

<p><em>Fact #1: Jesus died by Roman crucifixion</em>.</p>

<p>Not only is Jesus’&nbsp;crucifixion recorded in all four gospels, but non-Christian sources report the event too. Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus are just a couple of those sources.</p>

<p>And remember, virtually all scholars accept this fact.</p>

<p><em>Fact #2: The disciples believed they had seen the risen Jesus.</em></p>

<p>Scholars recognize two important pieces of evidence for this fact. First, the disciples claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. Paul lists the eyewitnesses in I Corinthians 15:3-8:</p>

<p>For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.</p>

<p>By the way, it’s legit to cite the Bible here. Even critical scholars believe I Corinthians is an authentic letter written by Paul. At this point, we’re simply using it as a source of ancient history, not as an inspired book of the Bible. Thus, we have a reliable list of people who believed they saw resurrection appearances of Jesus.</p>

<p>Second, the disciples really believed they had seen Jesus such that it totally transformed them. Jesus, their leader, had been brutally killed before their eyes. Understandably, they split. Peter even denies Jesus three times. But something happened, transforming them from cowards who abandoned Jesus to courageous men who risked life and limb for His message. They didn’t just claim Jesus rose, they really, <em>really</em> believed it.</p>

<p>And remember, virtually all scholars accept this fact.</p>

<p><em>Fact #3: Saul of Tarsus (Paul), an enemy of the church, converted because he believed he had seen the risen Jesus.</em></p>

<p>Before his Road-to-Damascus experience, Paul tried to destroy the Christian church. He beat Christians, imprisoned them, and killed them. But suddenly, he converts to Christianity. Why? Paul and Luke both report it was because he believed the resurrected Jesus had appeared to him.</p>

<p>And remember, virtually all scholars accept this fact.</p>

<p><em>Fact #4: James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic, converted because he believed he had seen the risen Jesus.</em></p>

<p>The Gospels tell us James was skeptical of Jesus’&nbsp;ministry (Mark 3:21; John 7:5). He was unconvinced. However, James eventually converts and is even martyred for his faith in Jesus. What transformed this skeptic into a believer? He believed he saw the risen Jesus. Remember the eyewitness list in I Corinthians 15? Verse 7 tells us “[Jesus] appeared to James.”</p>

<p>And remember, virtually all scholars accept this fact.</p>

<p><em>Fact #5: The tomb of Jesus was empty.</em></p>

<p>Where was Jesus publicly executed? In Jerusalem. Where did the disciples start proclaiming Jesus’&nbsp;resurrection? In Jerusalem. Think about those two facts together. How does Christianity get started if Jesus’&nbsp;corpse is still in the tomb? It doesn’t. Jewish and Roman leaders simply pull out the dead body and game over. But that doesn’t happen. Instead, the disciples preach the resurrection in the very city Jesus is crucified. That’s only possible if the tomb is empty.</p>

<p>This is the one fact not accepted by “virtually all scholars.”&nbsp;However, Gary Habermas found that about 75% of scholars buy this one and that’s still a large majority.</p>

<p>There you have it—five historical facts that need an explanation.</p>

<h2>Colossal Conclusion</h2>

<p>What do these facts point to? That Jesus Christ is no longer dead. His resurrection explains all five facts very well. The minimal facts give us solid evidence He has risen indeed. However, that won’t stop the skeptic from offering other explanations. When you encounter one, remember this: just because an alternative explanation is <em>possible</em>, it does not make it <em>probable</em>. Anyone can give a different explanation, but we want one that best fits the facts.</p>

<p>For example, some scholars suggest the disciples stole Jesus’&nbsp;body. Does that fit the facts? No way. It doesn’t explain the resurrection appearances of Jesus. It doesn’t explain Paul or James’&nbsp;conversions. Indeed, if the disciples stole Jesus’&nbsp;body, then they knew his resurrection was a hoax. But why would they die for something they knew was false? They wouldn’t, and thus, we can discard this possible explanation.</p>

<p>Facts are stubborn things. And after looking at the cold hard facts surrounding the end of his life, the best explanation is that Jesus rose bodily from the grave almost 2,000 years ago.</p>

<p>So the resurrection happened...but does it matter? Find out in Part 3.</p>

<h2>The Resurrection Changes Everything</h2>

<p>Jesus changes everything. Not just any Jesus, but a resurrected Jesus.</p>

<p>First, a resurrected Jesus confirms the truth of Christianity. Our faith is not founded on a fairy tale. It’s founded on fact. Jesus declared Himself to be God, to be equal with the Father, to forgive sins, to be the only way to God, and a host of other radical claims. His resurrection is confirmation of the truth of those claims. Thus, we can have total confidence Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).</p>

<p>Second, a resurrected Jesus makes transformation possible. Sin no longer has to dominate our lives. There’s a new way to be human. Paul, an eyewitness to the risen Jesus, explains: “But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you”&nbsp;(Romans 8:10-11). If the power of God’s Spirit raised Jesus from the dead, cannot that same power transform you and me? Absolutely.</p>

<p>*<em>The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus</em> (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004).</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdead-or-alive-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdead-or-alive-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdead-or-alive-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: According to Stephen Hawking, He’s Irrational
topic: Science
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/according-to-stephen-hawking-he-s-irrational
content:
            <div> 
		<p>“It is not necessary to invoke God to...set the Universe going,”&nbsp;concludes Stephen Hawking in his book, <em>The Grand Design</em>. Denying God is old hat, but this comes from a world-class theoretical physicist. That’s why Christians are unnerved by his bold claim. A statement from a scientist of his caliber commands attention. But it turns out there is no reason for concern. Everything Hawking has written in his book can be dismissed as irrational. Everything. Let me tell you why.</p>

<p>Hawking advances a view known as scientific determinism. This is the idea that everything in the universe—including human beings—is entirely physical. Human behavior and decisions are governed by the mechanical forces of physics and chemistry. In other words, human beings have no free will. Hawking writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Hawking concludes that “human behavior is indeed determined by the laws of nature”&nbsp;and our actions are “as determined as the orbits of the planets.”&nbsp;That’s why our decisions are not rational, he explains.</p>

<p>If our actions are determined by physical laws, then Hawking’s actions are determined too. Deterministic forces act on all physical objects, even those as small as the neurons in Hawking’s brain. Every one of his thoughts, therefore, results from the collision of billions of atoms governed by mechanical forces. And though the interactions might be inconceivably complex, they are nonetheless determined and irrational by his own admission. Hawking is a biological machine—a deterministic box—without free will and reason to guide his decisions and ideas.</p>

<p>What’s written in his book, then, was also determined by the complex interaction of physical laws and atoms in his brain. Rational thought didn’t produce his ideas and arguments; deterministic laws did. And since the determined actions of physical objects can’t, even in principle, produce rational ideas, his book must be irrational.</p>

<p>But just remind Hawking not to shoot the messenger. Because it turns out <em>I’m</em> not the one who declares his book irrational. It is Hawking himself who does. His own view on determinism is a devastating blow to the rationality of his writing. His book is self-defeating.</p>

<p>True beliefs aren’t produced by the brute force of physical laws. They’re arrived at when people evaluate their merits using reason and sound judgment. But without free will, those intellectual faculties are a farce. That’s why the Christian worldview best explains how one can arrive at true beliefs. Our minds can reason independent of and unencumbered by the physical laws of nature.</p>

<p>The ideas in Hawking’s book are no more rational than those produced by a hailstorm hammering out keystrokes on a computer. Unfortunately, millions of people who read his book won’t know that. They’ll swallow it hook, line, and sinker. And then, ironically, tell you that <em>your</em> beliefs are irrational.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Faccording-to-stephen-hawking-he-s-irrational" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Faccording-to-stephen-hawking-he-s-irrational" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Faccording-to-stephen-hawking-he-s-irrational" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: When Arguments Aren’t Arguments
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/when-arguments-aren-t-arguments
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Learning to tell the difference between an argument and a non-argument will make it easier for you to defend your faith.</em></p>

<p>Almost every day I come across people who challenge my views. “God does not exist.”&nbsp;“Your Christian views are homophobic.”&nbsp;“You can only know what is proven by science.”&nbsp;“You shouldn’t judge other people.”&nbsp;What do all these challenges have in common? Not a single one is an argument.</p>

<p>An argument is a particular kind of thing. It contains two parts: a claim and reasons for it. One must offer both parts for it to qualify as a bona fide argument.</p>

<p>You can think of an argument as a house, which has a roof supported by walls. The roof is the claim and the walls are the reasons. Without the walls, you don’t have a house—you just have a roof on the ground.</p>

<p>Not realizing this, many people attempt to “argue”&nbsp;against the Christian faith without ever offering an argument. And many Christians don’t realize there’s no argument to defend against.</p>

<h2>Opinions</h2>

<p>For example, “God does not exist”&nbsp;is not an argument. It’s a claim without reasons, making it nothing more than an opinion. It’s a complete argument as much as a roof is a complete house. Consequently, there’s no need to respond defensively to such a statement. If you hear this claim, don’t expend your energy defending against it. Just ask for a reason why it’s true (the “Columbo”&nbsp;tactic) and listen.</p>

<p>In fact, the majority of challenges that fail to qualify as an argument fall under this category. “Joseph Smith is a prophet of God,”&nbsp;“Evolution created all of life,”&nbsp;“The Bible is full of fables and myths,”&nbsp;and “The Qur’an is the uncorrupted word of God”&nbsp;are all examples of opinions—not arguments.</p>

<h2>Name-Calling</h2>

<p>Another kind of challenge that fails to qualify as an argument is name-calling. For example, “You shouldn’t be so judgmental”&nbsp;is not an argument. It’s meant to make you feel bad for being labeled, “judgmental.”&nbsp;But don’t take the bait. You have no obligation to respond with an explanation for your view. Instead, ask them to define the “bad”&nbsp;word they called you and listen to their response. The same is true for other names like homophobic, intolerant, narrow-minded, bigot, and anti-science.</p>

<h2>Phantom Arguments</h2>

<p>Sometimes a person tries to show your view is mistaken, but can’t offer reasons at the moment. I call this a phantom argument. A Muslim once responded to a critique of the Qur’an with “There’s a website that has answered your objection.”&nbsp;That’s not an argument. The website might actually have reasons to reject my view, but unless they’re offered during the conversation, there’s no value to them.</p>

<p>Other phantom arguments include, “I have these books that can refute you,”&nbsp;“Christopher Hitchens, the famous atheist, has answered that claim,”&nbsp;or “One day science will be able to explain that too.”&nbsp;Remember, these aren’t arguments so don’t feel compelled to answer them. Respond to a phantom argument with another phantom argument. For example, when someone tells you he has books that can refute you, respond with, “I have other books that can refute <em>your</em> books.”&nbsp;The point is to show that phantom arguments are vacuous.</p>

<h2>Self-Refuting Statements</h2>

<p>The challenge that qualifies the least as a valid argument is a self-refuting statement. Not only does this challenge fail to refute <em>your</em> view, but it actually destroys <em>their</em> view. That’s because the claim refutes itself. For example, “You shouldn’t judge other people,”&nbsp;is self-refuting. People who make this claim are saying that it is wrong for <em>you</em> to judge other people. But by telling you that you’re wrong <em>they</em> are judging you. In other words, they are guilty of doing the very thing they are saying is wrong.</p>

<p>Surprisingly, many challenges leveled at Christians turn out to be self-refuting. “There is no truth,”&nbsp;“You shouldn’t force your morality on others,”&nbsp;“You can only know what is proven by science,”&nbsp;and “It’s wrong to change other people’s religious beliefs”&nbsp;are all examples of self-refuting statements. These attempts at arguments are not weak, they’re hopelessly false.</p>

<p>As an ambassador for Jesus Christ, you’ll benefit from recognizing these false-start challenges. It will make your task of engaging non-believers easier. Instead of expending your energy with a lengthy response, you can make your mission more manageable by asking some of the simple one-line questions I suggested for each kind of non-argument.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-arguments-aren-t-arguments" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-arguments-aren-t-arguments" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-arguments-aren-t-arguments" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Is Sincerity Enough?
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-sincerity-enough-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>One of Christianity’s most important claims is also one of its most controversial: Jesus is the only way to God (Acts 4:11-12, John 8:24). A common objection follows: “It does not matter if you believe in Jesus, Buddha, or Mohammed, as long as your belief is sincere. What more could God want than a sincere heart?”&nbsp;Indeed, the annoyed objector may even point to the fact that adherents of other religions are oftentimes more sincere than the very Christians who criticize their sincerity.</p>

<p>Of course, Christians ought not needlessly offend people, but we do need to ask if sincerity should be our most important concern when it comes to religious belief, as this objection assumes. Two responses will help bring clarity to the issue.</p>

<p>First, notice that no one accepts sincerity alone in any other area of life besides religion. Why? Because sincerity may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. For example, if you decide to go skydiving, are you more concerned about having sincere beliefs or true beliefs? When you are coasting in a plane at 10,000 feet in the air, preparing to jump into the wild blue yonder and then plummet towards the earth at mind-numbing speeds, do you merely want a sincere belief there is actually a working parachute in your backpack? Of course not. You want a true belief that your parachute is in full working order. If you sincerely believe that your parachute works but you are sincerely wrong, you’ll look quite different once you land.</p>

<p>We do not choose our doctors, our babysitters, or our accountants on the basis of their sincerity because we know that sincerity is not enough. In the same way, sincerity is not sufficient for salvation. All religions make general claims about reality and particular claims about salvation. Our primary concern should be the truth or falsity of those claims. God either exists or he doesn’t, we are either reincarnated or we are not, but the sincerity of our beliefs does nothing to change the fact of the matter. If we come to discover that our religious beliefs are false, then we ought to let go of those beliefs.</p>

<p>Secondly, if sincerity is the deciding factor for salvation then man’s efforts become meritorious. God’s gracious gift of salvation is moved under the shadow of man’s sincerity. However, our sincerity can never remove our sin just as it cannot remove a disease from our physical bodies. In the case of disease, we need a physician who knows the truth about our illness and its cure and is capable of bringing healing to our body. Likewise, humankind is infected by sin and we need the true Physician to bring healing to our souls. The free gift of salvation God offers through Christ alone is both necessary and sufficient to save us from that sin. Indeed, it is the only medicine that will heal.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-sincerity-enough-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-sincerity-enough-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-sincerity-enough-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Is Jesus the Only Way?
topic: Theology
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/is-jesus-the-only-way-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>“Jesus is the only way to God”&nbsp;may be the most controversial claim of Christianity, so we had better have good reason for it. And I think we do.</em></p>

<p>“Jesus is the only way to God”&nbsp;may be the most controversial claim of Christianity, so we had better have good reason for it. And I think we do.</p>

<p><em>What does Jesus say?</em> Let’s start with Jesus. We certainly don’t want to claim something for him that he wouldn’t claim for himself. If the Gospels are historically reliable (and we have overwhelming evidence they are), then we have Jesus’&nbsp;own words and we discover <em>he</em> claims to be the only way to God. In John 14:6, Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”&nbsp;Jesus doesn’t leave much room for debate. Indeed, Jesus says whoever rejects him “rejects the One who sent [him]”&nbsp;(Luke 10:16). So according to Jesus, there’s no other path to God. If you think highly of Jesus, eventually you have to grapple with his claims about himself.</p>

<p><em>Is Jesus special?</em> Those who claim all religions are basically the same simply haven’t studied them closely. Religions make contradictory claims. Hinduism says God is an impersonal force while Christianity teaches God is a personal being. Both cannot be right. Also, Jesus is completely unique among the religions of the world. Jesus’&nbsp;disciples taught that Jesus is God (John 1:1, Philippians 2:5-7) because Jesus claimed that himself (Mark 14:61-64, John 10:30-34). No other founder of a major world religion claimed to be God. Now, Jesus was either right or wrong and he provided a standard to verify his claims. Jesus said His resurrection from the dead would be confirmation (Matthew 12:38-42, Mark 14:28). Siddhartha, the founder of Buddhism, is still in his grave. Muhammad, the founder of Islam, is still in his grave. But not Jesus. He is risen, providing the ultimate <a href="http://www.str.org/w/dead-or-alive-" target="_blank">evidence</a> for the truth of his unique claims.</p>

<p><em>Why is Jesus the only way?</em> We are conditioned by our culture to think of religion as a personal preference. We are told, “You’ve got yours, I’ve got mine and there’s no right one.”&nbsp;So, to claim Jesus is the only way to God is like claiming chocolate ice cream is the one true flavor. It sounds absurd. However, preference is the wrong category for religious truth, ice cream the wrong analogy.</p>

<p>Instead, we ought to think of religion the way we think of medicine. Each religion recognizes the world is sick and offers its own diagnosis, just as a doctor would. In addition, each religion offers a potential cure. And we don’t choose medicine like we choose dessert. It would be absurd to say, “Doctor, I prefer aspirin over chemotherapy.”&nbsp;Instead, we want to know <em>what’s true</em>. Which cure actually works. When you examine the diagnosis and cures offered by other religions, you discover they differ radically from Christianity.</p>

<p>In John 8:24, Jesus says “if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”&nbsp;Here Jesus offers both diagnosis <em>and</em> cure. Sin is the disease we’re all infected with and Jesus is the cure. So, why is Jesus the only way? Because Jesus is the only medicine that can cure the spiritual disease—sin—that is killing us.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-jesus-the-only-way-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-jesus-the-only-way-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fis-jesus-the-only-way-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Would God Want Us to Praise Him?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-would-god-want-us-to-praise-him-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Why would God want us to praise and worship Him? This is a question I hear every so often since we immediately assume that a person who demands praise is a pompous big-head. I think there are many Christians out there who secretly wonder about this—afraid to ask the question (lest they be thought unspiritual), but bothered all the same.</p>

<p>God is completely self-sufficient and doesn’t need our praise and worship. However, He does deserve it. Would you agree that it is right and good to praise someone who is worthy of praise? We instinctively know this and praise people for all sorts of achievements. We praise the people we love and admire, and it’s not right or good for us to withhold praise from them.</p>

<p>We all understand the concept of praise being due certain people. Imagine that you crafted an incredibly beautiful sculpture and won a prestigious award for your creation; but when the time came for the award ceremony, they gave the prize for your sculpture to the wrong artist! That would not be just, right, or good. In the same way, God—as the only being perfect in goodness, justice, love, etc.—is worthy of our praise. We do, in fact, owe Him that praise. He wants us to praise Him because it is right and good for us to do so. Since God wants us to do right and good things, of course he wants us to praise and worship Him.</p>

<p>Beyond the praise being right and good (and <em>because</em> of its being right and good), worshiping God also brings us joy and enhances our relationship with Him. We see this in human relationships as well—think of a man with his wife. Doesn’t it bring him great joy to praise her?</p>

<p>Here’s how C.S. Lewis puts it in <em>Reflections on the Psalms</em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>I had never noticed that all enjoyment spontaneously overflows into praise...The world rings with praise—lovers praising their mistresses, readers their favourite poet, walkers praising the countryside, players praising their favourite game...I had not noticed either that just as men spontaneously praise whatever they value, so they spontaneously urge us to join them in praising it: ’Isn’t she lovely? Wasn’t it glorious? Don’t you think that magnificent?’&nbsp;The Psalmists in telling everyone to praise God are doing what all men do when they speak of what they care about. My whole, more general, difficulty about the praise of God depended on my absurdly denying to us, as regards the supremely Valuable, what we delight to do, what indeed we can’t help doing, about everything else we value. I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is its appointed consummation. It is not out of compliment that lovers keep on telling one another how beautiful they are; the delight is incomplete till it is expressed.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Finally, God created us for His pleasure (just as we create delightful things for our pleasure). Praising God—acknowledging His goodness, love, perfection, and all the incredible things He has done for us—brings Him pleasure. If you have children, you know what a beautiful thing it is to have them praise you. You also know the pain of having them selfishly take you for granted and ignore you. When that happens, neither you nor your children are enriched, and your relationship is strained. In the same way, the right response from us toward God is praise because He deserves it. When we act out our love and acknowledgment of Him in this way, we fulfill our purpose; and when we are rightly fulfilling our purpose, we have the best possible joy—God is pleased, our relationship with Him is enhanced, and He has rightly received what He deserves. Luckily, this is not a difficult command to follow, for when we truly love Him, our praise will flow naturally from that love.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-would-god-want-us-to-praise-him-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-would-god-want-us-to-praise-him-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-would-god-want-us-to-praise-him-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Problem of Evil Is Everyone’s Problem
topic: Philosophy
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-problem-of-evil-is-everyone-s-problem
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>No matter someone’s belief or lack of belief in God, everyone has to answer for the existence of evil in the world.</em></p>

<p>In our discussion of evil it is important to realize every worldview, not just Christianity, must explain evil. Christians are often on the defense with regards to this objection, yet the tables can be turned on the atheist, with his naturalistic worldview in tow. Given naturalism, what is evil and how does the atheist account for it?</p>

<p>British philosopher and atheist Bertrand Russell once commented, “No one can believe in a good God if they’ve sat at the bedside of a dying child.”&nbsp;Now, I agree that sitting beside a dying child is a heart-wrenching situation not to be treated simplistically or in a cavalier manner. Providing pat answers and quoting Romans 8:28 over and over will not suffice. But what of Russell’s response? What can the atheist say to the dying child?</p>

<ul>
	<li>“In the grand scheme of the universe your suffering is utterly meaningless—life and all that comes with it has no transcendent meaning or value.”</li>
	<li>“Your suffering is completely pointless since there is no purpose to any of this anyway.”</li>
	<li>“Fortunately, you will soon die and return to dust.”</li>
	<li>“Take heart, you will soon pop out of existence forever and your suffering will be over.”</li>
	<li>“Stuff happens.”</li>
	<li>“Bummer.”</li>
</ul>

<p>Or let’s try the actual words of Russell:</p>

<ul>
	<li>“Brief and powerless is Man’s life; on him and all his race the slow, sure dooms falls pitiless and dark.”</li>
	<li>“Blind to good and evil...omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way.”</li>
	<li>“...no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave...”</li>
	<li>“...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system...”</li>
	<li>“Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins...”</li>
	<li>Hmmm...comforting. Russell certainly makes clear for us the absurdity of life without God.</li>
</ul>

<p>Make no mistake, the problem of evil is not just a problem for Christians—it is a problem for all because evil is fundamental to our human experience. If any worldview is to be considered plausible it must provide us with the intellectual and existential resources to deal with this issue.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-problem-of-evil-is-everyone-s-problem" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-problem-of-evil-is-everyone-s-problem" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-problem-of-evil-is-everyone-s-problem" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Did the Disciples Believe Jesus’ Body Was Resurrected?
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/did-the-disciples-believe-jesus-body-was-resurrected-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There are some who claim that the early Christians believed Jesus was resurrected spiritually after His death, not physically. But two passages in Acts speak strongly against this idea. (These are by no means the only reasons to think Jesus’&nbsp;resurrection was physical, but I rarely hear these passages pointed out in connection with this subject, and they’re worth noting.)</p>

<p>The first is from Peter’s evangelistic sermon in Acts 2:22-36:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[Y]ou nailed [Jesus] to the cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. For David says of Him, “...You will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In case they missed the fact that Jesus’&nbsp;body did not decay, Peter continues:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet..., he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In other words, Peter argues that David couldn’t have been speaking of himself when he wrote those words of Scripture because David’s body decayed in a tomb. He then contrasts David’s death with Jesus’&nbsp;death and physical resurrection to show that the words of the Psalm are describing Jesus, and therefore Jesus is the Messiah they’ve been waiting for.</p>

<p>Acts 13:34-37, the words of Paul according to Luke, is also explicit:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>As for the fact that [God] raised [Jesus] up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: “I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.”&nbsp;Therefore He also says in another Psalm, “You will not allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.”&nbsp;For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers and underwent decay; but He whom God raised did not undergo decay.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There’s no mistaking that Paul is contrasting a body decaying in a tomb after death with a body that, because it was raised to life after death, experienced no decay. These are very physical arguments that Paul is using to prove his claim that the blessings God promised are given through Christ.</p>

<p>The charge is sometimes made that Paul knew nothing of a physical resurrection, but instead, the idea that Jesus was physically resurrected was invented later by non-eyewitness Gospel writers. This objection is intended to show that the earliest Christian tradition was of a spiritual resurrection of Jesus.</p>

<p>However, Acts was written by Luke, and this has two implications:</p>

<p>First, in Luke 1:1-4, Luke informs his readers that he expects his words to be interpreted as history. That is, his intention was to record the words and actions actually said and done by the disciples:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>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...so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(To answer the question of whether or not such an investigation would have been possible for Luke, see this brief <a href="/w/a-short-argument-for-early-dating-of-the-gospels" target="_blank">argument</a> for the early dating of Luke/Acts.)</p>

<p>Second, Luke worked closely with Paul, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2016:9-13&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">joining</a> him in his missionary <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20tim%204:9-12&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">journeys</a>, and quite possibly became a Christian as a result of Paul’s ministry. Because of this, it’s highly likely that their views on this topic would have agreed.</p>

<p>So keeping in mind that Luke placed the words of the disciples quoted in Acts in the genre of history (claiming he was attempting to accurately write what the disciples preached), and that he was closely connected to Paul (and so probably had the same view of the resurrection), and that Paul and the leaders in Jerusalem shared the <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202:1-10&amp;version=NASB" target="_blank">same gospel</a> (indicating the physical view was shared by them, as well), these two passages point strongly to the disciples’&nbsp;early belief in a physical resurrection.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdid-the-disciples-believe-jesus-body-was-resurrected-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdid-the-disciples-believe-jesus-body-was-resurrected-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdid-the-disciples-believe-jesus-body-was-resurrected-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: We Live at the Mercy of Our Ideas
topic: Philosophy
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/06/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/we-live-at-the-mercy-of-our-ideas
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Brett explains why what we believe is critical for the way we live. The truth—or what’s false—affects us deeply.</em></p>

<p>I’m bothered. Recently I spoke with a youth worker who told me he was <em>not</em> teaching theology and apologetics to the students in his youth group because he was focusing on “practical Christian living.”&nbsp;He’s well-intentioned but with this approach, I have no confidence much practical Christian living is going to happen in the lives of those students. This dichotomy between beliefs and behavior represents a profound misunderstanding amongst Christians and it harms our young people. Here’s why.</p>

<p>We are what we think. Recent discoveries in neuroscience make this clear. Change your thoughts and you can change your brain chemistry. In turn, these brain alterations affect how we deal with things like anger and anxiety. False ways of thinking lead to destructive patterns of living. When young people have false ideas about God, His requirements, the authority of Scripture or the meaning of life, certain behaviors follow. We live at the mercy of our ideas.</p>

<p>Of course, before neuroscience came along God had been telling humanity this from the beginning. His Word is filled with instruction about the relationship between thought and action:</p>

<ul>
	<li><strong>Hosea 4:5 &amp; 6</strong>—You stumble day and night, and the prophets stumble with you...my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.</li>
	<li><strong>Romans 1:28 &amp; 29</strong>—Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness...</li>
	<li><strong>Romans 12:2</strong>—Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.</li>
	<li><strong>Philippians 4:8</strong>—Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.</li>
	<li><strong>Colossians 1:9 &amp; 10</strong>—For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding. And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God...</li>
	<li><strong>2 Timothy 2:25</strong>—Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.</li>
</ul>

<p>We always live up—or down—to our ideas. If we simply target our teaching at young people’s behavior, little transformation will follow. The root cause—false thinking—still remains, and thus, bad behavior will continue.</p>

<p>As we study theology, we change our patterns of thinking. They discover the truth about God. They discover the truth about themselves. They discover why those things are true. And the truth transforms.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwe-live-at-the-mercy-of-our-ideas" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwe-live-at-the-mercy-of-our-ideas" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwe-live-at-the-mercy-of-our-ideas" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Salvation: Truth, Not Just Sincerity
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/salvation-truth-not-just-sincerity
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em><strong>If you do not put your faith in Jesus but are sincere in what you believe, is it that enough for salvation?&nbsp;Read more for Greg's answer to religious inclusivism.</strong></em></p>

<p>There are some issues of Christianity that are intra-Nicene, intramural discussions between believers, in which I think a charitable person can easily see how another Christian can hold a different view because there are things that are difficult to understand in Scripture. For instance, though I’m Reformed in my soteriology, my understanding of salvation--I’m a Calvinist--I am sympathetic to an Arminian perspective because I can see how they, in lines of reasoning from the New Testament and verses themselves from the New Testament, can come to their view. So, though I would disagree, and I think they’re mistaken, I understand how they can see it.But there are other positions that I cannot understand because there is no New Testament evidence in favor of it, and, to the contrary, almost to a word, as the New Testament touches the issue, it says quite the opposite.<br>
<br>
Earlier this week, I was honored, flattered, and, frankly, humbled to have a very unique opportunity on Monday to address an audience of about 150 Jewish people that were in the midst of Jewish High Holy Day services--morning services, evening services--at kind of a pause time in the afternoon, in which my host and I and another guest had a discussion about Jews and Christians. The three of us were on the panel:&nbsp; my host, Dennis Prager, a man I have a tremendous admiration and affection for, and Greg Coiro, a Roman Catholic priest and a professional friend. I’ve known both of these men over 20 years and have been in many discussions, both in private and public on the air with Dennis and Greg Coiro.</p>

<p>It was in this opportunity that, in a sense, the ancient quarrel of sorts, theologically, was revisited, that I’ve had in the past many years ago when we were talking about this in interfaith dialogues. This difference of opinion is a historically new development in Roman Catholicism that stunned me when I first encountered it in the early days of being on Religion on the Line in the late eighties, a radio panel Dennis Prager hosted for many years. The priests on the panel uniformly held the conviction, informed by Vatican II, that Jews don’t have to believe in Jesus in order to receive the benefits of Jesus’ salvation. This is a view called “inclusivism.” It’s not the same as pluralism, but in my view, it seems to have the same impact: “Yes, Jesus is necessary for salvation, but you don’t have to believe in Jesus to benefit from Jesus.”</p>

<p>Now, at this afternoon panel recently, the very first question that came up was whether trust in Jesus is necessary for salvation. “Greg, do you believe that? Do Protestants believe that?” I answered, “Yes, I believe that. And no, not all Protestants believe that. But let me try to explain it to you in a way that doesn’t sound so stark. Let me try to give it some perspective.” I explained that it wasn’t as if God was up there looking down at a bunch of religious clubs and prefers some over others. He used to prefer the Jewish club and now He prefers the Christian club. It may sound that way to many when this doctrine of Christianity is put forward: Jesus is the only way of salvation; you must believe in Jesus in order to benefit from what Jesus did.</p>

<p>I told them, The fact is, God looks at a human race that is in desperate need of forgiveness, so He instituted a rescue plan. That rescue plan was through the nation of Israel, actually through a man named Abraham whom God sovereignly chose to raise up a nation through his loins, and that nation would then communicate God’s purposes to the world that desperately needed Him. And through that nation He would also provide a blessing that ultimately would bless all nations. In this rescue plan that God initiated, though, the world was the ultimate end; God wanted to bless all the nations through the nation of Israel. He wants the nation of Israel to benefit from that same blessing, too, so the blessing and mercy available to the world would go to them first. The bulk of the Hebrew scriptures was a playing-out of this rescue plan over time, with the initiation of a sacrificial system in which blood flowed profusely from the veins of animals that were sacrificed, indeed slaughtered in great number, as a means of grace to cover the sins of Israel. Yet, this was merely a foreshadowing of a perfect sacrifice to come, where God would become a man in the person of Jesus, the Messiah, who would be the perfect sacrifice. This perfect sacrifice, that could do what the blood of bulls and goats could not do, would bring a complete and final forgiveness. The book of Hebrews is meant to signal that the old system was no longer effective because now the perfect had come. Jesus was the blessing to the nations that God prophesied and promised to Abraham. He is the blessing to the nations and also first the blessing to the Jews. He is God’s source of mercy. And since He is God’s only source of mercy, and we are all in desperate need, regardless of what our religious convictions happen to be, we must receive the mercy that God offers, the clemency that comes through His Messiah. If we don’t, then we simply stand alone before Him with our sins unatoned for, and must pay for them ourselves.</p>

<p>So it’s not a matter of which religious club you belong to, or being exclusive, or being arrogant enough to think we’re right. It’s a matter of whether or not you’re a lawbreaker, and we all are, and the offer of God’s mercy, which we can accept or reject.</p>

<p>I spent a little time that afternoon trying to make sense of this message so that I wasn’t just foisting upon this listening audience a religious slogan that they’ve heard many times before, but probably never had an explanation adequate enough so that they could understand the point. So here I was, laboring to do that, and I think I was reasonably successful.</p>

<p>I said that this message of pardon through Jesus was not only what Jesus taught, but was the exact same message that was taught by everyone that Jesus taught to teach others. Those people Jesus trained to follow after Him had the same message that Jesus did, and this is it.</p>

<p>Members of the STR staff who were sitting in the audience told me afterward that everyone was listening carefully. There was, I think, an opportunity to consider this claim of Christianity for all people.</p>

<p>Then I passed the microphone to my colleague and super-nice guy, Father Greg Coiro, who then gave the Roman Catholic view. And the Roman Catholic view, certainly since Vatican II, is that Jesus is the only way of salvation and the only way of salvation is mediated through the Roman Catholic Church. But, the position is that there are more people who are members of the Roman Catholic Church, in fact, than at first glance, because you could be an unconscious Christian, of sorts. That wasn’t the phrase he used, but it was like, “You can be a Catholic without realizing it.” God wants everyone to be saved. Salvation is only through Christ and through the Roman Church, but if you are a member of another religion, as these people were, if you are doing the best you can, as might be argued for these very people who were there in observance of the Jewish High Holy Days, then that act of sincerity is adequate to qualify them for the salvation that comes only through Christ and the Church. If you are sincere, then that’s enough for salvation.</p>

<p>To put it simply, the core point that I had offered in my explanation, that they needed to believe in Jesus, which I gravely and carefully articulated, was completely obviated by Father Coiro’s statement of the Roman Catholic position.</p>

<p>And I’ll tell you what the STR staff who were there told me: The whole room visibly relaxed at his comment. Indeed, one of my staff heard the comment from a man behind her speaking to his family, “Well, then it’s a freebie.” In other words, after hearing the Roman Catholic view, he said, Well, there’s nothing to worry about if we’re wrong. There’s nothing to lose. We’re off the hook.</p>

<p>Next, I had an opportunity to ask Father Greg Coiro a question, “Greg, can you give us some New Testament references that could confirm that this is the New Testament teaching?”</p>

<p>Now, I know the New Testament well enough to know that it doesn’t teach this. I was surprised when Greg came up with a verse, and the verse was from Mark 9, which he repeated from memory as saying, “For he who is not against me is for me.” The implication was those people in the room are not against Jesus, they just don’t believe in Him. They are following their own revelation as best they know how, and therefore they are included in the family.</p>

<p>I didn’t pursue it any more because an aggressive approach was not appropriate in that setting, but I want to respond now to this proof text, because it struck me as an odd application of that verse in light of the multitude of clear verses that teach the contrary. Mark 9 could mean a couple of things. Indeed, on another occasion in a different context Jesus said the exact opposite in Matthew 12:30, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.”</p>

<p>At first blush, this may seem like a contradiction. Of course, you know our rule, right? Never read a Bible verse. If you want to know what a Bible verse means, you’ve got to read more than the verse. You’ve got to read the paragraph, at least. And when you read the passage, it’s clear that Jesus was not being contradictory. He was speaking in entirely different sets of circumstances, and so consequently we have to understand His meaning in that restricted context.</p>

<p>The verse that Father Coiro cited in support of the view came out of Mark 9:38-41, and there you have John saying to Jesus that he saw some people casting out demons in Jesus’ name. “We tried to prevent him, because he wasn’t following us.” John was making the point, “They were doing the same thing we’re doing, but they’re not part of our group. And Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in my name--”--note the words--“there is no one who will perform a miracle in my name and be able soon afterward to speak evil of me, for he who is not against us is for us.” So the citation was actually misquoted, understandably because he did it from memory. But it’s a difference that matters. Jesus was saying, Just because he’s not with our group specifically, that doesn’t mean he’s not with our cause. And, in fact, if he’s working miracles in my name, then that’s a pretty good indicator he’s on our side. Jesus continued, “For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name, as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward.”</p>

<p>Does this verse teach what Father Coiro indicated it taught? Does it fit the topic of salvation we’re discussing? No, it’s a very different kind of lesson Jesus is giving.</p>

<p>The other verse where Jesus says the opposite is Matthew 12:22-30. A demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought before Jesus, and He healed him so that the mute man spoke and saw. The crowds were amazed, and they were saying, “This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?” And the point there is, “This is the Messiah, isn’t it?” But the Pharisees, the religious leadership, said, “No, this man casts out demons only by Beelzebub, the ruler of demons.” This is when Jesus answered them, “A nation divided against itself cannot stand.” Notice that now Jesus is dealing with those who deny His Messianic authority. And He said in response to that group, “If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then you will plunder his house?” He’s saying to these people who deny His Messiahship that, “I’m giving you evidence of it,” and then says this: “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.”</p>

<p>The question I have to ask is, “Which of these two groups was more like the audience we were speaking to that day?” Sweet people. Genuine people. But theologically, which group in these two passages do they match? Those who were denying Jesus’ Messiahship. So the single proof text that my friend Father Coiro offered in defense of his inclusivism coming from the Roman Catholic Church that gave this group hope turned out not to even be a verse that would apply to them, but its opposite would.</p>

<p>When you reflect for a moment on the times in the New Testament where it’s the same kind of situation that we were in speaking to non-believers, this is the kind of thing they were told. Jesus, before a group of Jewish leaders in John 8: “Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”</p>

<p>Peter, before the Jewish Sanhedrin who had executed Jesus for saying what He said about being the Messiah and the Son of God, Acts 4:12: “There is salvation in none other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. And you, Jewish leadership, have to decide whether it’s right for us to obey men like you, telling us not to preach the Gospel, or God, who says to preach this Gospel, but we cannot stop speaking that which we’ve seen and heard.”</p>

<p>And Paul in Romans 10: “I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God, for Christ is the end of the law for all who believe.” What is he saying there? That the Jewish people are safe because they’re doing the best they know how? No, that regardless of their zeal, they’re missing God’s provision in the Messiah. And this broke Paul’s heart, just like it broke Jesus’ heart.</p>

<p>Remember when He looked upon Jerusalem just before His death? He came in on that Palm Sunday, and He said, How often I have reached out to you to gather you to me, but you were not willing. He wept because they rejected Him.</p>

<p>I realize that this doctrine raises other questions. Theological questions. What about the people in the Old Testament that didn’t know Jesus but the Bible says were saved? It’s irrelevant because whatever happened in the Old Testament isn’t relevant anymore; we’re all under the New Testament standard, and it’s clear: faith in Jesus. And the New Testament speaks of no one who rejected Jesus who was still saved by Jesus.</p>

<p>There are no verses that suggest any old god will do, in God’s mind. But this is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. I have it in the catechism if you want to check it out. Under Baptism, in Part 2, paragraph 1260, “He who seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with His understanding of it can be saved.” Paragraph 839-845: The Jews who “await the coming of a Messiah.” Await? The Messiah already came, and rejection of that Messiah is the same thing as rejection of the future Messiah because they’re one and the same. But the catechism says that if the Jews are awaiting the coming of a Messiah to the end of time, they’re still saved by Jesus. Muslims, too, by the way. The following paragraph is in the catechism: “These profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” So the plan of salvation also includes them.</p>

<p>I’ve written three-part&nbsp;<em>Solid Ground</em>&nbsp;about this that I want to commend to you called "No Other Name." &nbsp;(You can find them by putting the title in the search box.) Check especially the second part. The first one deals with pluralism proper. The second part deals with this issue of inclusivism.</p>

<p>There are so many verses that make it clear that this is a false doctrine that it just cannot be mistaken. It’s not vague; it’s utterly clear in the New Testament. Matthew 7:13: “Enter by the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it.” That’s Jesus.</p>

<p>The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church gives false hope and that’s what’s tragic because people who need God’s forgiveness are left with the false idea that they’re safe from God’s judgment of sin. This is not what Jesus taught. It is not what He trained His disciples, who followed after Him, to teach. It isn’t what they said. I have a&nbsp;<a href="http://store.str.org/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=BK109" target="_blank">booklet</a>&nbsp;where I list 100 verses that speak contrary to the inclusivism taught by Roman Catholicism. If the message I heard on Monday to Jews was the same message that Jesus, and Peter, and John, and Paul, and James, and the rest of them taught to Jews, then why did Jews beat them, punish them, imprison them, and execute them?</p>

<p>This new view--rather than being a narrow gate that few find, as Jesus said, that leads to salvation, and a broad gate that many find, as Jesus said, that leads to condemnation, destruction--it is just the opposite. I’d have to read Jesus this way: Enter by the broad gate, for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to life, and many are those who find it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to destruction. Very few find that, so don’t worry about it. And as far as that great commission thing is concerned, not a big deal. All those other folks, well, they’re pretty much following the light that’s been shown them. No pressure. It’s a freebie.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsalvation-truth-not-just-sincerity" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsalvation-truth-not-just-sincerity" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fsalvation-truth-not-just-sincerity" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why I Am Pro-life
topic: Bioethics
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-i-am-pro-life
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I am a pro-lifer for very particular reasons. I am not pro-life because “the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.”&nbsp;I am not pro-life because I want to fit in with Christians at my church. I am not pro-life because I hate women who have abortions. I am not pro-life because it fits with a particular political party’s platform. I am not pro-life because you have to be if you’re a real Christian.</p>

<p>I am a pro-lifer because of the answer to one simple question: What is the unborn? Let me illustrate. If my teenage daughter asks me, “Dad, can I kill this?”&nbsp;what question must I answer first before I can answer that?</p>

<p>“What is it?”</p>

<p>If I turn around and she’s holding a spider she found in the house, no problem. If she’s holding the neighbor’s cat, I’ll look to see if my wife’s within earshot and then tell her, “Sure, I can’t stand that cat”&nbsp;(I’m sorry, I’m sorry—I’m not a cat-lover). But if she’s holding her kid brother who’s been pestering her, I’d have to tell her, “Lexi, put your brother down and slowly walk away.”&nbsp;You see, I must first answer, “What is it?”&nbsp;before I can answer, “Can I kill this?”</p>

<p>If the unborn is not a human being, no justification for abortion is necessary. But if the unborn is a human being, no justification for elective abortion is adequate.</p>

<p>So, is the unborn a human being? Yes and here’s why:</p>

<p>(1) If the unborn is growing, it must be alive. And if it has human parents, it must be human. Living human beings, like you and me, have a fundamental right to life, don’t they?</p>

<p>(2) There is no proper justification for parents to kill their newborn children. How about poverty? Single parenthood? Rough circumstances? Of course not. Parents of newborn children cannot kill their children for any of these or other reasons. And there is no morally significant difference between the unborn and the newborn. This can be demonstrated through the S.L.E.D. test. Therefore, the unborn child’s life should be protected just like the newborn’s.</p>

<p>Of course, there will be objections. But carefully examine each. Most will beg the question and simply assume the unborn is not human. We’ve dealt with most of them:</p>

<ul>
	<li>“I don’t think that anybody has the right to object to abortions unless they’re willing to take care of all of the unwanted children brought into the world if abortion was made illegal.”</li>
	<li>“What about unwanted children?”</li>
	<li>“Women will be forced into back alleys and illegal abortions.”</li>
	<li>“What about rape?”</li>
</ul>

<p>There are other important questions to answer but this is the first and most important. Before we discuss how to help women or what the legal ramifications might be, we must first get clear on the logic of the pro-life position.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-i-am-pro-life" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-i-am-pro-life" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-i-am-pro-life" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Believe Anything at All?
topic: Philosophy
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-believe-anything-at-all-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Why do you believe what you believe? Seriously, pause for a moment and think hard about that question. What are the reasons behind the beliefs or views you hold? Everyone has beliefs, whether conscious of them or not. Some beliefs are mundane like “I had a cup of coffee with breakfast.”&nbsp;Others seem to be a little more significant like “My wife and children love me.”&nbsp;In either case, it seems we ought to have <em>good</em> reasons for our beliefs.</p>

<p>Imagine you ask me why I believe my wife loves me and I respond, “Well, she spends most of her time with other men. She never tells me she cares for me and is actually quite rude. And I’ve caught her lying on a number of occasions and therefore, it is hard to trust her.”&nbsp;You would be confused. You may think those are certainly reasons but they are not <em>good</em> reasons to believe my wife loves me. Indeed, they are good reasons to believe she does <em>not</em> love me. So it is fairly obvious the reasons for our beliefs should be good ones. But what makes for a good reason?</p>

<p>Some people will argue it does not matter what you believe or why you believe, as along as you believe sincerely. But is sincerity a sufficiently good reason to believe something? Think about it. If you decide to go skydiving, are you primarily concerned that your beliefs are sincere? When you are coasting in a plane at 10,000 feet in the air, preparing to jump into the wild blue yonder, and then plummet towards the earth at mind-numbing speeds, do you merely want a sincere belief there is actually a working parachute in your backpack? Absolutely not. You want a true belief that your parachute is in full working order. If you sincerely believe that your parachute works but you are <em>sincerely wrong</em>, you’ll look quite different when you land. That sincere, but false, belief will kill you.</p>

<p>Others will point to family, culture or a religious tradition as a sufficient explanation for belief. But again we must ask if this alone is a good reason to believe something. What if I was raised in a family, culture or religion that taught modern day medicine is bad? Instead, when someone is ill, I was raised to believe evil spirits inhabit their blood and therefore, they must be cut so they will bleed and release the spirits. Is it enough for me to believe such things on the basis of a cultural or religious tradition? Of course not. Such reasons are not enough to justify these kinds of beliefs. Rather, in this example we want beliefs that are supported by the medical facts. Once again, we seem to be driven toward a different kind of reason: truth.</p>

<p>Now let us apply this same thinking to our varying religious beliefs. In my view, religious beliefs are some of the most significant beliefs to think about. In religion we consider life’s most important issues like origin, meaning, and destiny. So, why do you hold your particular religious views? If you answer with reasons like sincerity or tradition, this is not sufficient. When it comes to our religious beliefs we do not want to focus on the sincerity of those beliefs. We do not want to believe them simply because someone told us to. Rather, we want to know first and foremost whether those beliefs are true or false. If we come to discover that our religious beliefs are false, then we ought to let go of those beliefs no matter how dear they are or how sincerely we have held them in the past.</p>

<p>Consider your own beliefs. Do you have good reason to think your most deeply held and deeply cherished beliefs are actually so? If not, maybe you will be open-minded enough to join us in a careful exploration of life’s most significant questions.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-believe-anything-at-all-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-believe-anything-at-all-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-believe-anything-at-all-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Bosnia, Rape and the Problem of Evil
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/bosnia-rape-and-the-problem-of-evil
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Greg responds to a letter to the editor in which the writer’s pain causes him to ask the age-old question of why God allows evil to exist.</em></p>

<p>I was reading the&nbsp;L.A. Times&nbsp;today in the letters to the editor section and there was a letter written by a gentleman in Newport Beach that was a response to a tragic story that the&nbsp;Times&nbsp;had carried a few days ago. Maybe some of you had seen that story or have read about it in the local papers about not just the rank and file tragedy in Bosnia-Hertzegovena, not about the general tragedy of war. The article was about the problems of the refugees and also a women being victimized by soldiers.</p>

<p>This respondent writes, “Glancing at your April 10 paper my eyes fell upon the tragic story ’Ordeals Put Off Bosnia Rape Victim’s Healing.’&nbsp;My heart ached for Amira, the 35 year old Muslim woman, mother of two children, suffering the loss of her husband, wandering about the countryside begging to survive. Placed in a detention camp, raped repeatedly by Serb soldiers acting as animal pigs rather than humans, the woman became another tragic victim of human wickedness. Where is mankind headed? My thoughts turn to God and ask, ’Why, God? Why did you create such monsters? God, are you for real?’&nbsp;If this is God’s way of teaching or testing my faith,” he continues, “then my beliefs and faith are being shattered with contempt instead. Having just lost my wife to cancer, maybe my feelings are more prone and fragile to be torn apart and my feelings turn more intensely to those who are suffering also.”&nbsp;It’s signed Victor Jashinski in Newport Beach.</p>

<p>There’s probably hardly a person listening to this account that does not feel the same emotion with him. First of all, we feel the sense of horror as we read about the kinds of things that other people do to each other. Just a couple of days ago was the last of a five part series of “The Holocaust”&nbsp;that was on the Family Channel which was re-aired for the first time in fifteen years. But in any event, seeing again in vivid portrayal what man is capable of doing, our hearts and our minds are taken with this situation. Not only that, but we are also touched by evil in the world ourselves as we look at circumstances and we’re horrified. We also look at pains in our own life as this man has reflected and we say, “Why, God? Why me? Why this pain? Why this difficulty?”&nbsp;And this is really one of the most thorny problems and one of the most complex problems that anyone, regardless of their philosophical avocations or persuasions, has to address.</p>

<p>There is no way that I’m going to resolve this in ten minutes because this problem in its fullness, in its entirety resists a thorough resolution. I think there’s some good responses, but for the most part it is something that we kind of have to live with . But I would like to give some thoughts that may provide a few guidelines for you in dealing with this yourself and people like this gentleman as they face these circumstances both outside of their life and inside of their life.</p>

<p>My policy in dealing with a difficult, tricky problem that defies a thorough-going solution is to work from the known to the unknown. There are some things I think we can know about this issue. We can draw some conclusions that will at least clear the deck a bit and help us to focus on those things that are less clear and less resolvable, and maybe demystify the question for us, and maybe make our hearts feel a little better about the issue.</p>

<p>One of the things I need to say at the outset, by the way, is that&nbsp;it’s very important to distinguish between the issue of evil and suffering as a philosophic problem and the problem of evil from a pastoral perspective. Actually, both were raised in this letter. Why does God allow evil in the world such that a female Bosnian refugee might be subjected to repeated rape by Serbian soldiers? Why does the problem happen out there (which is the philosophic question) but why does evil hurt me? That’s a different kind of question because that’s an emotional response. Even people who have resolved the issue of evil philosophically still shudder under its impact when it hits them. Even though their mind may have answers their heart still asks “Why?”&nbsp;when they become victimized by evil in the world. So we see both kinds here.</p>

<p>I’m going to start out by trying to deal with the philosophic problem and then make a comment about the pastoral problem. They are distinct questions.</p>

<p>By the way, when someone comes to you with the pastoral issue, you can’t resolve that by giving them a philosophic answer. It just doesn’t work . That’s not their need. Their need isn’t their mind at that point or their intellect; their need is their heart, the grief they are going through. There’s a different kind of approach there. I’m actually better at the first than the second. I’m better at the intellectual part than the pastoral part. That’s why I’m a radio talk show host and not a church shepherd as many pastors are. My gifts are different. In any event, let me try to deal with the philosophic problem first and then briefly address the pastoral issue.</p>

<p>One thing to note, by the way, is that this man presumes that God made man this way (“Why, God, why did you create such monsters?”). Now if you are thinking from a Biblical perspective, you know that that is not the case. The Bible does not teach that God created monsters. It teaches that He created human beings that were not monsters at all but were good. They didn’t have this propensity and proclivity for evil. He didn’t make man with that. But He did make man with the possibility of going wrong and the writer’s response here is really a response questioning the character of God. “How could You do this? What kind of God are you? Are you for real?”&nbsp;are other questions which are the approach that most people usually take when struggling with evil. In other words, when they see this kind of thing they don’t question the character of man, which in my point of view would be a sensible response. (You’ll understand why I say that in just a moment.) Instead they attack the existence of God. In other words, they say since there is evil in the world then God can’t exist. This is not a reasonable response. It is not a rational response. It is not a fruitful answer to the philosophic problem of evil and I’m going to tell you why that just can’t work.</p>

<p>What doesn’t make sense is to look at the existence of evil and question the&nbsp;<em>existence&nbsp;</em>of God. The reason is that atheism turns out being a self-defeating philosophic solution to this problem of evil. Think of what evil is for a minute when we make this kind of objection. Evil is a value judgment that must be measured against a morally perfect standard in order to be meaningful. In other words, something is evil in that it departs from a perfect standard of good. C.S. Lewis made the point, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call something crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”[<a href="https://archive.str.org/articles/bosnia-rape-and-the-problem-of-evil#fn1">1</a>] He also goes on to point out that a portrait is a good or a bad likeness depending on how it compares with the “perfect”&nbsp;original. So to talk about evil, which is a departure from good, actually presumes something that exists that is absolutely good. If there is no God there’s no perfect standard, no absolute right or wrong, and therefore no departure from that standard. So if there is no God, there can’t be any evil, only personal likes and dislikes--what I prefer morally and what I don’t prefer morally.</p>

<p>This is the big problem with moral relativism as a moral point of view when talking about the problem of evil. If morality is ultimately a matter of personal taste--that’s what most people hold nowadays--then it’s just your opinion what’s good or bad, but it might not be my opinion. Everybody has their own view of morality and if it’s just a matter of personal taste--like preferring steak over broccoli or Brussels sprouts--the objection against the existence of God based on evil actually vanishes because the objection depends on the fact that some things are intrinsically evil--that evil isn’t just a matter of my personal taste, my personal definition. But that evil has absolute existence and the problem for most people today is that there is no thing that is absolutely wrong. Premarital sex? If it’s right for you. Abortion? It’s an individual choice. Killing? It depends on the circumstances. Stealing? Not if it’s from a corporation.</p>

<p>The fact is that most people are drowning in a sea of moral relativism. If everything is allowed then nothing is disallowed. Then nothing is wrong. Then nothing is ultimately evil. What I’m saying is that if moral relativism is true, which it seems like most people seem to believe--even those that object against evil in the world, then the talk of objective evil as a philosophical problem is nonsense. To put it another way, if there is no God, then morals are all relative. And if moral relativism is true, then something like true moral evil can’t exist because evil becomes a relative thing.</p>

<p>An excellent illustration of this point comes from the movie&nbsp;<em>The Quarrel&nbsp;</em>. In this movie, a rabbi and a Jewish secularist meet again after the Second World War after they had been separated. They had gotten into a quarrel as young men, separated on bad terms, and then had their village and their family and everything destroyed through the Second World War, both thinking the other was dead. They meet serendipitously in Toronto, Canada in a park and renew their friendship and renew their old quarrel.</p>

<p>Rabbi Hersch says to the secularist Jew Chiam, “If a person does not have the Almighty to turn to, if there’s nothing in the universe that’s higher than human beings, then what’s morality? Well, it’s a matter of opinion. I like milk; you like meat. Hitler likes to kill people; I like to save them. Who’s to say which is better? Do you begin to see the horror of this? If there is no Master of the universe then who’s to say that Hitler did anything wrong? If there is no God then the people that murdered your wife and kids did nothing wrong.”</p>

<p>That is a very, very compelling point coming from the rabbi. In other words, to argue against the existence of God based on the existence of evil forces us into saying something like this: Evil exists, therefore there is no God. If there is no God then good and evil are relative and not absolute, so true evil doesn’t exist, contradicting the first point. Simply put, there cannot be a world in which it makes any sense to say that evil is real and at the same time say that God doesn’t exist. If there is no God then nothing is ultimately bad, deplorable, tragic or worthy of blame. The converse, by the way, is also true. This is the other hard part about this, it cuts both ways. Nothing is ultimately good, honorable, noble or worthy of praise. Everything is ultimately lost in a twilight zone of moral nothingness. To paraphrase the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer, the person who argues against the existence of God based on the existence of evil in the world has both feet firmly planted in mid-air.</p>

<p>No, the existence of the problem forces us into some kind of theistic solution. This is a good thing, which brings me to my third point. If atheism is a self-defeating philosophic solution to the problem, and some kind of theism is necessary, then it seems to me that theism is one of the only satisfying pastoral solutions to the problem.</p>

<p>Let’s say for example that you are suffering with some kind of pain and evil in your life and you come to the conclusion that there is no God. What is the solution to the problem of your personal pain? The only solution I can think of is that your personal pain and suffering are meaningless. They are useless. They are helpless. And, in fact, it reminds me of Os Guiness in his fine book&nbsp;<em>The Dust of Death&nbsp;</em>, which has just been re-released, where he makes the point in regards to eastern religion that many eastern religions hold that the world is just an illusion--Hinduism characteristically. He quotes from a poet of the Eastern tradition who had just experienced tremendous tragedy in his life. He went to his avatar to get some comfort from his religious leader after his wife and children had been killed. His religious leader simply said to him in the face of this terrible anguish, “The world is dew.”&nbsp;His point was that it’s all an illusion anyway. The poet went back and he wrote this poem, a simple poem, only four lines : “The world is dew. The world is dew. And yet....And yet....”&nbsp;In other words the religious answer his religious leader was that the evil simply didn’t exist. But he knew personally that it wasn’t dew, that it wasn’t an illusion. It was there. It was real and it was impacting his life. But what comfort was there in that--nothing whatsoever.</p>

<p>If there is no God then there is no answer to the pastoral question of personal suffering and evil . It’s not there--your suffering is meaningless. But if there is a God, and if that God is the God of the Bible, then at least we have the potential of an answer. There’s some kind of comfort there. God is ultimately good and just, and one day the accounts will be perfectly balanced. We can place ourselves in the hands of a powerful Creator who, by all other evidence, loves us, cares for us and comforts the afflicted. One Who will not break off a bent reed and Who will not put out a smoldering wick. One Who will hold us close to Himself. There is at least the possibility that this suffering and pain can make sense because God can use it for good in our lives.</p>

<p>We might ask ourselves the question, Why does God put up with this kind of evil in the world? The rapes, the war in Bosnia-Hertzegovena, for example? My response is that God puts up with that kind of evil for the same reason he puts up with your evil and with my evil for the time being. I’m not going to try to explain what that reason is now. The point I’m making is that this justice issue cuts both ways.</p>

<p>If God wiped out all the evil in the world tonight at midnight, where would you and I be at 12:01? See, the fact is that God’s going to do a complete job when he finally deals with evil. C.S. Lewis makes the point when he says, “I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and directly in our world quite realize what it will be like when He does....When the author walks on the stage the play is over.”[<a href="https://archive.str.org/articles/bosnia-rape-and-the-problem-of-evil#fn2">2</a>] Evil deeds can never be isolated from the evil doer. Our prints, yours and mine, are on the smoking gun.</p>

<p>What’s curious to me in dealing with this issue is that no one raises the issue of whether one ought to continue to believe in the goodness of man after these kinds of tragedies. We see things like the Holocaust, the crime level, the innocent suffering at the hands of other human beings more often than not, and instead of shaking our fists at humankind who perpetrate the action we shake our fists at God. I don’t get it.</p>

<p>Dennis Prager says, “Whenever I meet someone who claims to find faith in God impossible, but who persists in believing in the essential goodness of humanity, I know that I have met a person for whom evidence is irrelevant.”&nbsp;(<em>Ultimate Issues&nbsp;</em>, July- September, 1989) I like that. I think that hits the nail on the head.</p>

<p>The last thought I will offer is just another curious one from my perspective as I hear these kinds of responses. We live our lives in rebellion to God, constantly disobeying Him, constantly disregarding him, refusing to live according to His precepts and according to His rules, and then we wonder where He is when things go wrong.</p>

<p>Let that one sink in a little bit.</p>

<p><sup>1&nbsp;</sup><em>Lewis, Clive Staples, Mere Christianity.&nbsp;</em><br>
<sup>2&nbsp;</sup><em>ibid.</em></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbosnia-rape-and-the-problem-of-evil" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbosnia-rape-and-the-problem-of-evil" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbosnia-rape-and-the-problem-of-evil" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What We Read Is What God Said
topic: History
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-we-read-is-what-god-said
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>The fulfilled prophecies, unity, and impact of the Bible all point to a divine Author.</em></p>

<p>Fingerprints are one of the best forms of evidence. If a detective finds fingerprints at a crime scene, he has a vital clue to help identify the perpetrator. When it comes to the Bible, we also have a mystery to solve: Who is the author? I’m not talking about the human authors. We want to know if there’s an Author behind those authors, if the Bible is indeed the “Word of God”&nbsp;as Christians claim. And when we look carefully, we discover <em>divine</em> fingerprints all over this unique book.</p>

<p>First, the Bible contains fulfilled prophecies. Specific events are foretold with great detail many years, sometimes centuries, before they occur. There are approximately 2,500 prophecies in the Bible, about 2,000 that have been fulfilled. For example, in Micah 5:2, the prophet identifies the city of Bethlehem as the Messiah’s birthplace approximately 700 years before the event. The prophet Zechariah predicted Jesus would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12-13). What is the best explanation for such supernatural predictions? A supernatural “Predictor.”</p>

<p>A second divine fingerprint is the Bible’s unity despite its radically diverse origins. There were 40 diverse authors with diverse backgrounds. There were diverse writing conditions, from palaces to the wilderness. There were diverse genres of writing, from poetry to history. There were diverse topics, often controversial topics. And it’s all written over 1,500 years. However, there is profound unity, as God’s story unfolds from Genesis to Revelation. There is unbelievable factual and theological agreement throughout the Bible. Again, what best explains this? A single Divine Author, working through human authors.</p>

<p>Third, the Bible has had a supernatural impact on individual lives, as well as on the world. There have been countless individuals transformed by the Bible and that impact transcends all economic, ethnic and geographical boundaries. Furthermore, the Bible’s impact on Western culture is immeasurable. Its influence can be seen throughout the ages in the arts, in literature, in education, in law, in science, in medicine, and on and on. Only a supernatural book with a supernatural author could bring about such supernatural impact on individuals and the world.</p>

<p>Indeed, the Bible is no ordinary book. It contains the very words of God. And now that you’ve seen evidence of its divine origins, you’re confronted with another question: What are you going to do with this book?</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-we-read-is-what-god-said" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-we-read-is-what-god-said" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-we-read-is-what-god-said" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The “Suicide” Tactic
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-suicide-tactic
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Learn to spot an argument that destroys itself.</em></p>

<p>In a culture with relativistic views of truth, it is essential that you recognize claims and arguments that commit “suicide.”&nbsp;Suicidal arguments self-destruct by expressing some contradiction. Suicidal statements cannot live up to their own standards and thus, the minute you utter them they are false. Philosophers refer to such arguments as self-refuting or self-referentially incoherent.</p>

<p>Let me introduce you to the “Suicide”&nbsp;tactic with some simple examples:</p>

<ul>
	<li>I cannot speak a word of English.</li>
	<li>No sentences are longer than six words.</li>
	<li>All bachelors love their wives.</li>
	<li>My brother is an only child.</li>
	<li>That place is so crowded, no one goes there anymore.</li>
	<li>I’ve had amnesia for as long as I can remember.</li>
	<li>Always go to other people’s funerals, otherwise they won’t go to yours.</li>
	<li>You’re in rare form, as usual.</li>
</ul>

<p>Once you get a handle on the concept of suicidal statements, you’re ready to examine more sophisticated arguments. Here are some common claims of our culture:</p>

<ul>
	<li>There is no truth. (Is that a true statement?)</li>
	<li>We can’t know truth. (Is that a truth you know?)</li>
	<li>All truth is relative. (Is that truth claim also relative?)</li>
	<li>All truth claims are merely attempts to oppress others. (Is that a truth claim you’re using to oppress me?)</li>
	<li>There are no absolutes. (Are you absolutely sure?)</li>
	<li>No one can know any truth about religion. (How did you come to know that truth about religion?)</li>
	<li>There are no meta-narratives. (Is this account a meta-narrative?)</li>
	<li>You can’t know anything for sure. (Is this something you know, for sure?)</li>
	<li>You shouldn’t tell people they are wrong. (Like you’re doing to me right now?)</li>
	<li>Talking about God is meaningless. (Is that statement meaningless then?) I don’t think we should push anyone’s values. (Is that one of your values? Are you pushing it on me?)</li>
	<li>I don’t believe anything unless it can be proven scientifically. (What scientific experiment taught you that truth?)</li>
</ul>

<p>By learning the Suicide Tactic you will begin inoculating yourself from some of the false ideas in our culture and moving toward clear thinking Christianity.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-suicide-tactic" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-suicide-tactic" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-suicide-tactic" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What Is Truth?
topic: Philosophy
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-is-truth-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The “Real World”&nbsp;view of truth is, well...true. An explanation of this view should help demonstrate that it is the accurate description of truth.</p>

<p>Simply put, the Real World view says that my thoughts, ideas, or statements are true if they correspond to reality—the real world. Put another way, a statement is true when it matches up with the way the world really is. The ancient philosopher Aristotle captured the idea of correspondence this way: “If you say that it is and it is, or you say that it isn’t and it isn’t, that’s true. If you say that it isn’t and it is, or you say that it is and it isn’t, that’s false.”&nbsp;Let me illustrate.</p>

<p>If I said to you, “There is a cup of Starbucks coffee on your desk,”&nbsp;that statement would be true if it was actually the case that a cup of Starbucks coffee was sitting on your desk. Or, if you had a belief the grass outside is green and you walk outside and notice the grass is not red but indeed green, your belief is true.</p>

<p>Now, you’re probably saying, “Duh,”&nbsp;and thinking to yourself that these are really unexceptional illustrations. Well, in one sense yes, because the Real World view is the common sense view of truth. In fact, I know I am not saying anything that you don’t already know. Indeed, this is your view of truth. How do I know? For the simple fact that you live life in accordance with this very description of truth every day.</p>

<p>Why do you look both ways before you cross the road? Because you hold to a Real World view of truth. We know that reality dictates the truth of the matter in such circumstances. If you cross the street <em>without</em> looking both ways and <em>in reality</em> a Mack truck is barreling down the road and runs over you, your physical appearance is going to change quite a bit. Reality will hurt. Reality is what you bump up against when your beliefs are false. In the case of the Mack truck, reality is what runs you over, chews you up, and spits you out when your beliefs are false.</p>

<p>Now, reflect for a moment. On this view, is reality a matter of your subjective opinion? In other words, does reality depend on what you believe? Absolutely not. Reality is what we call an objective fact. It exists independent of what <em>anyone</em> believes or thinks. It is not relative to our beliefs but <em>indifferent</em> to our beliefs. And since truth is grounded in reality, truth itself is objective. The truth of reality does not change based upon your beliefs or mine. Therefore, you want to be careful that your beliefs match up with reality.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-is-truth-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-is-truth-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-is-truth-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Not Quick on Your Feet?
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/not-quick-on-your-feet-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>If you don’t know the answer to a challenge, asking fact-finding questions can enable good conversation, take the pressure off, and help you learn how to respond in the future.</em></p>

<p>Maybe you don’t consider yourself fast enough on your feet to keep up with someone who’s quicker than you in an intense discussion. No problem. Don’t feel under pressure to immediately answer every question asked or every point made.</p>

<p>For tactical reasons you may want to adopt the posture of a neutral observer. Shift from argument mode to fact-finding mode.</p>

<p>Try this. Say something like, “Interesting point. I’d like to hear more. Let me ask some questions about your view and your reasons for it so I understand it. Then let me think about it. We can talk more later.”&nbsp;This shows you take the other person’s view seriously and also gives you time to think carefully about the issues.</p>

<p>Ask probing questions (Columbo tactic), but don’t try to make your case just then. Take notes if you need to. Make sure you understand the challenge or the objection clearly. Then do some work on your own when the pressure is off, on your own time—maybe even asking others for some help in the process. Then come back prepared.</p>

<p>If your discussion was just part of a chance meeting, you may not be able to revisit the topic with the same person, but you’ll be prepared next time the issue comes up.</p>

<p>This is a great way to completely take the pressure off you. It’s not a retreat, just a different type of engagement. It greatly reduces your anxiety level, strengthens your own confidence, and prepares you to be more effective next time around.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnot-quick-on-your-feet-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnot-quick-on-your-feet-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fnot-quick-on-your-feet-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What We Have Is What Was Written
topic: History
author: Brett Kunkle
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-we-have-is-what-was-written
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Remember the “Telephone”&nbsp;game? One child would start by whispering a message in another’s ear, she would then whisper to the next child, and so on. Finally, the last person in the telephone line would reveal a message so distorted from the original, the children would break out in laughter. Skeptics use this child’s game as a parallel to how the Bible has come down to us. Just like the final message of the telephone game, the New Testament is equally unreliable. Right? Wrong.</p>

<p>At first glance, the objection is compelling. But most people raising it simply don’t know the facts. And the facts are on the Bible’s side. Clearly, the telephone game does not accurately capture the manner in which the New Testament was passed down.</p>

<p>First, the New Testament message was not transmitted orally, a mode of communication that is easier to distort. Instead, it was handed down in writing. Second, there was not a singular line of transmission—that is, it was not the case that a single individual passed the message to another individual who passed the message to a different individual and so on. Rather, there were many lines as one letter was copied multiple times and copies were copied multiple times, eventually resulting in a host of manuscript copies. Third, historians do not rely on the last person in line but look for earlier sources much closer to the original. Finally, original letters could be consulted, even after several generations of copies.</p>

<p>A quick look at the transmission of not only the New Testament but of all ancient documents reveals the misconceptions in the telephone game analogy. A more accurate picture of the transmission of the New Testament documents is captured by the <a href="http://www.str.org/articles/is-the-new-testament-text-reliable#.W6bdMRNKjdc" target="_blank">Aunt Sally’s Secret Sauce illustration</a> where there are multiple lines of transmission, including multiple copies in each line. As ancient documents are passed along in this manner, historians ask two primary questions to determine a text’s reliability:</p>

<ol>
	<li>How many manuscript copies do we have?</li>
	<li>How close in time are the manuscript copies to the original?</li>
</ol>

<p>Answering these two questions for the New Testament demonstrates it is the most reliable ancient document, hands down. Let’s do a very brief survey of the evidence.</p>

<p>The number of manuscript copies of the New Testament is mind-boggling. In Greek alone, we have more than 5,800 copies, consisting of 2.5 million pages of text. In addition, we have more than 10,000 Latin manuscript copies. If that’s not enough, there are more than 5,000 manuscripts in other languages, such as Coptic, Syriac, Georgian, Gothic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. In total, there are more than 20,000 handwritten manuscripts of the New Testament in various languages.</p>

<p>To top it off, even if all manuscript evidence for the New Testament disappeared, we could still reconstruct almost the entire 27 New Testament books from more than one million quotations of the early church fathers. Clearly, we have all the manuscript copies we need to ensure what we have is what was written.</p>

<p>But the question of the distance of time from original to copy remains. Again, the facts are on the Bible’s side. We have a dozen manuscripts from the second century, 64 manuscripts from the third century and 48 from the fourth century. That’s 124 total manuscripts within 300 years of the composition of the New Testament. There is not a single Greek or Latin manuscript from the ancient world that comes close to the early dating of these New Testament manuscripts. Again, the wealth of early manuscripts ensures what we have is what was written. That’s why the majority of biblical scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, conclude that the original words of the New Testament can be known by us with more certainty than those of any other text from all of antiquity.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-we-have-is-what-was-written" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-we-have-is-what-was-written" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-we-have-is-what-was-written" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Facts and Ideology
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/04/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/facts-and-ideology
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Greg utilizes the Los Angeles riot to discuss getting accurate views of social problems.</em></p>

<p>I want to share some comments at the opening today that are somewhat mitigating comments, in other words, comments that will help to put my reflections of the last couple of weekends into a little bit more perspective.</p>

<p>I talked yesterday about how I had been vilified on another major radio station by a major talk show host who happens to be a psychologist. It strikes me that it’s a little unusual for a psychologist to chop to pieces someone on the air; they’re supposed to be the kind, loving, accepting types, it seems to me. But I was called some nasty names, two of which didn’t apply, it seemed to me, when given the dictionary definitions. And the third one was a judgment call so I have to grant him his right to his own opinion.</p>

<p>I realize that some of you may have pegged me as you listened to me the last couple of weeks. I have had people call me racist and assume that I’m prejudiced—I have my head in the sand; I don’t know the facts; I live in a dream world. These are all different things that were offered to me.</p>

<p>I think there’s been a underlying assumption that because I don’t agree with someone else’s solution, I must not agree that there is a problem. Well, let me go on record to say that yes, I think there are problems. I think there are serious problems. As I’ve been wont to call it the last couple of weekends, the conflagration of two weeks ago, the consuming fire, both literally and figuratively. What’s happening in the inner-city is proof positive that we do have serious problems.</p>

<p>My concern is how we understand those problems and how we resolve them. This is why I, for one, offer you a public forum here every Saturday and Sunday from 3-6 to talk with me about these issues so we can get some facts on the table, we can explore some ideology and we can come up with some answers.</p>

<p>My fundamental questions regarding what has happened in the last few weeks are: what is the source of the problems? And how do we solve them?</p>

<p>Now, by and large it seems to me, the issue of source is a factual one. The issue of solution is an ideological one. This is what, for example, separates Democrats from Republicans, liberals from conservatives. Ideology. They have different views about how to go about solving particular problems and, given the exact same facts, those different groups are going to have different solutions because they view the process of problem solving and the goal of problem solving differently.</p>

<p>So, part of our conflict as we are trying to resolve these issues together, friends, is getting our facts right. The other part of the concern is applying an appropriate ideology to bring the facts to bear on a system to solve problems.</p>

<p>I’ll tell you frankly, I’ve pretty much lost confidence that any of us will be able to accurately grasp the facts in their entirety on the most critical and crucial issues. The fact is that we don’t have access to all the facts. And by the time we do the in-depth work to get a handle on things, the crisis is long past us and other crises have replaced it. That’s just the problem with the nature of the beast, so to speak. It’s just the problem with the problem. And it’s a problem we all face.</p>

<p>I think for anyone to get up and speak dogmatically as if they had a very clear picture of all the issues is just simply fooling themselves. Friends, if I ever appeared to be that way on this program, you have my sincere apologies because I don’t have all the answers, I don’t have all the facts. Therefore, I can’t always make a clear judgment on everything. In addition, one must wade through the misinformation, the disinformation, the partisan interests, the rhetoric. We’ve got to deal with our own inherent biases. No one is untouched by these variables, neither you nor I. Therefore, none of us has a fully accurate view of things.</p>

<p>Whenever we go to solve the problems we have to be at least honest enough with ourselves and with our opponents, our ideological opponents, to admit that. I think in that atmosphere we can begin to sort through some things and then come to some conclusions because I don’t believe it’s a toss up. I believe it is possible to identify some things that are fruitful and worthwhile on the one hand and some things that are absolutely worthless on the other. And you don’t have to know all the facts to spot something worthless, either a worthless argument or a misapplied fact or a worthless approach to something.</p>

<p>Part of the problem we have is that the facts just don’t stand by themselves, in a sense. They are not brute facts. Facts must be interpreted. That interpretation we do of facts is always influenced by our ideology—sometimes more, sometimes less, but there’s always that element. They are interpreted based on our larger view of what the conflict or the problem represents.</p>

<p>Let me give you an example. Some will interpret facts in light of what they believe the driving force in the process is. Marxists see a class struggle relating to a redistribution of wealth. Radical feminists will see a gender struggle. And they will define the problems in terms of that particular conflict. Certain minority leaders will see a race struggle.</p>

<p>The point I’m making here is this: in these more extreme factions that is the overwhelming and overriding issue. Everything is gender to radical feminists. Everything is class to Marxists. Everything is race to certain minority leaders. By the way, I would call that racist myself by my understanding of the definition, at least the more popular current functional definition of the word racist.</p>

<p>Now there’s nothing inherently wrong with any of those particular views. That’s not my point. What I’m saying is that our ideology influences how we see the facts and we have to ask ourselves which view merits our belief?</p>

<p>I’m not a relativist. I don’t believe that every single view has equal validity. I think the Marxists could be right and they could be wrong. If they’re wrong it is not worthy to believe the Marxist/class struggle view if it doesn’t accurately and adequately define the issues and the struggle. The same is true of the racial issue and the gender issue and any number of ways that one can look at a problem.</p>

<p>We must be alert to our ideology and ask ourselves: is our ideology worthy of being believed and worthy of being used as a grid, so to speak, to define the problems, understand the facts and come up with solutions?</p>

<p>So a great deal of conflict that you see in our culture today in resolving these problems and some of the conflict that you hear about right here on the station and with me involved has to do not only with a different view of the facts—sometimes they’re different facts entirely—but a different view of what the facts represent and a different idea about how to use those facts to change society.</p>

<p>I will tell you up front the ideological grid that I interpret this conflict with. I’m going to put my cards on the table. And any of you who have listened to this program for any length of time know what that grid is, to a great degree. But I’ll just define it for you.</p>

<p>I believe that man is created in the image of God. Okay, that sounds like a religious statement. Well, it has very, very significant ramifications for our discussion.</p>

<p>Man is created in the image of God. He has transcendent value. If he is not created in the image of God He, has no transcendent value. This is why I argue for justice and human rights as opposed to animal rights. Animals don’t have transcendent value. Man does. That’s why man has transcendent rights. Animals don’t have transcendent rights. I see man as something special.</p>

<p>This is why I’m against racism of any kind from any quarter. Any racism is despicable because it dehumanizes people, whether it comes from whites or so-called people of color. (I say “so-called”&nbsp;because whites aren’t exactly colorless.)</p>

<p>I also believe man has a measure of autonomy. I don’t think he’s completely autonomous. He’s influenced by factors in his own being and in his own culture that push him in certain directions. A man can’t choose to fly for example, he’s not capable of it. I can’t choose to have a baby because I don’t have the right plumbing. But I can exercise certain choices and because I can I have some responsibility for those choices.</p>

<p>So man has transcendent value and a measure of autonomy. Yet man is also desperately fallen. He’s broken. He’s twisted. And thus, as the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer put it, man has both dignity and cruelty—dignity by virtue of being made in the image of God and we can see that in the many of the wonderful humanitarian things man produces. Yet at the same time we see his desperate cruelty. For example, even people put in the position of helping the poor and given money for same, even people of color will misuse that. That tendency crosses all racial boundaries. Because of this I don’t believe man can be trusted. I don’t think he can be trusted to solve his problems or the problems of others.</p>

<p>That’s why we must not rescue people fully from the consequences of their actions. That’s what molds behavior—consequences. And if man is twisted and broken, the only thing that will control him is consequences. If we reward unproductive or immoral behavior that’s what we’re going to encourage. If we reward productive moral behavior and allow negative consequences to accrue for the others, then we are going to get quality.</p>

<p>So I believe people are ultimately responsible for their own lives. And when I deal with problems I deal with a foregone conclusion, an a priori, a sentiment that I bring to the discussion, that man is valuable, uniquely valuable in himself, but he is cruel and broken and not to be trusted.</p>

<p>Because we live in a fallen world, I don’t think it’s sound to expect life to be fair. And I don’t think it’s sound to give restitution of some sort when life is not fair. It’s a false view of the world.</p>

<p>I personally don’t want to foment racial strife. Quite the opposite. I want to become color blind. Why? Because I believe that all men have innate dignity. I want to deal with people as people, as significant human beings made in the image of God, of infinite value regardless of whether they are black, white, red, yellow, green, handicapped, liberal, conservative, unborn, terminally ill, inconvenient, fat, ugly, smelly. People have value.</p>

<p>Though I can’t solve all the problems it doesn’t mean I can’t identify some of them and that’s what I’ve been trying to do these last few weeks. I’m interested on this show in coming to a more accurate view of the problem by getting my facts straight and by employing the most sound, the most reasonable, the most valid, the most worthy belief or ideology to begin finding some answers.</p>

<p>Now, help me out. Help me out.</p>

<p>At least that’s the way I see it.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffacts-and-ideology" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffacts-and-ideology" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffacts-and-ideology" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: No Other Man Did This
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/01/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/no-other-man-did-this
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em><strong>Jesus alone, the perfect Son of God, paid the debt so that whoever trusts in Him will not perish under God’s punishment, but have life with Him fully and forever.</strong></em></p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The story is told of a king who, having discovered a theft in the royal treasury, decrees that the criminal be publicly flogged for this affront to the crown. When soldiers haul the thief before the king as he sits in his judgment seat, there in chains stands the frail form of the king’s own mother.</p>

<p>Without flinching, he orders the old woman to be bound to the whipping post in front of him. When she is secured, he stands up, lays down his imperial scepter, sets aside his jeweled crown, removes his royal robes, and enfolds the tiny old woman with his own body.&nbsp; Baring his back to the whip, he orders that the punishment commence. Every blow meant for the criminal lands with full force upon the bare back of the king until the last lash falls.</p>

<p>In like manner, in those dark hours while Jesus hung on the cross the Father wrapped us in His Son who shields us, taking the justice we deserve. This is not an accident. It was planned. The prophet Isaiah described it 700 years earlier:&nbsp;</p>

<p>Surely our griefs He Himself bore…He was pierced through for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way. But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.</p>

<p>No other man did this. No other man could. Jesus alone, the perfect Son of God, paid the debt so that whoever trusts in Him will not perish under God’s punishment, but have life with Him fully and forever. Jesus is the Savior of the world. Without Him the world could not be saved from its overwhelming debt.&nbsp;</p>

<p>This is why Jesus is the only way for salvation He paid our debt. He solved our problem. No other man did this. Only Jesus did.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fno-other-man-did-this" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fno-other-man-did-this" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fno-other-man-did-this" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What Does Moral Disagreement Prove?
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-does-moral-disagreement-prove-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>Just because people have different views about something, that doesn’t mean there’s no correct answer.</em></p>

<p>Even if relativists are right that cultures differ radically in their basic moral values, so what? The observation in itself proves nothing, because no conclusion about morality follows. Just because cultures differ on moral viewpoints doesn’t mean that objective moral truth is a fiction. In logic this is called a non-sequitur; the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.</p>

<p>Observations about the practices of groups of people, even if accurate, don’t translate into valid conclusions about the true nature of morality per se. How does it follow that because each group thinks it’s right, therefore no group is correct? The simple fact of disagreement on morality doesn’t lead to the conclusion there is no moral truth. This confuses the epistemological question (the accurate knowledge of objective values) with the ontological question (the existence of objective values).</p>

<p>Currently there are conflicting views on many things. The fact that there is disagreement, however, doesn't mean that no view could be correct. The same is true with differences of opinion on morality.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-does-moral-disagreement-prove-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-does-moral-disagreement-prove-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-does-moral-disagreement-prove-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Jesus Seminar Under Fire
topic: History
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/28/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-jesus-seminar-under-fire
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em><strong>The "Jesus Seminar" is a group of self-described scholars who have determined Jesus probably only said 20% of the quotes attributed to him by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. Greg puts their method, which includes voting with colored beads, "under fire."</strong></em></p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Brace yourself. With Easter just around the corner, we're about to see a flood of articles in the news weeklies and local papers about a very specific kind of missionary group.</p>

<p>These preachers practice evangelism in reverse, for they don't want you to commit your life to the Christ of the Gospels; they want you to surrender that commitment. And they claim to have history, science and scholarship on their side. They're called the Jesus Seminar.</p>

<p>These are people with a mission. Robert Funk, the Seminar's founder, says, "It is time for us [scholars] to quit the library and study and speak up....The Jesus Seminar is a clarion call to enlightenment. It is for those who prefer facts to fancies, history to histrionics, science to superstition."[1]</p>

<p>This is a strong challenge to evangelicals, depicted here as preferring nice stories to accurate history. Sometimes the best defense is knowing the right questions to ask. Here are the ones you need when the Jesus Seminar hits the newsstands.</p>

<p align="center"><strong>Who Are the Scholars?</strong></p>

<p>Journalists frequently refer to the 74 "scholars" of the Jesus Seminar as representing the mainstream of biblical scholarship. Being a bona fide scholar, though, means more than just having a degree. Generally, a scholar is one who demonstrates a mastery of his discipline and who makes an academic contribution to his field.</p>

<p>By this definition, only fourteen members of the Seminar qualify, including scholars like John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg. Twenty others are recognizable names in the field. One quarter of the group, though, are complete unknowns (one is a movie producer), and half of them come from a cluster of three ultra-liberal schools: Harvard, Claremont, and Vanderbilt.</p>

<p>Clearly, the Jesus Seminar cannot be viewed as a relevant cross-section of academic opinion. This doesn't mean the their conclusions are false; it means theirs is only one voice of many, viewed even by liberal scholars as suspect and on the extreme fringe.</p>

<p align="center"><strong>What Does the Jesus Seminar Believe?</strong></p>

<p>The Jesus Seminar meets twice a year to dissect biblical passages. Their goal: separate historical fact from mythology. So far, they have rejected as myth the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the virgin birth, all Gospel miracles, and a full 82% of the teachings normally attributed to Jesus--all dismissed as legendary accretions with no historical foundation. For example, only two words of the Lord's Prayer survive as authentic: "Our Father."</p>

<p>An article in the&nbsp;<em>L.A. Times&nbsp;</em>[2] entitled, "Scholars Cite Lack of Resurrection Evidence," also carried this subtitle: "Controversial Jesus Seminar evaluates New Testament, but members affirm that event's religious significance does not hinge on the historical record."</p>

<p>According to this piece, there are two things the Jesus Seminar has to say about the resurrection of Jesus. First, it never happened. There's no historical evidence for it. Second, it doesn't matter. Christians can still celebrate Easter with its symbolic message of hope and new life.</p>

<p>Robert Funk calls Jesus a "secular sage who satirized the pious and championed the poor." He then adds, "Jesus was perhaps the first stand-up Jewish comic. Starting a new religion would have been the farthest thing from his mind."</p>

<p>Isn't that an odd thing to say about Jesus? Jesus didn't rise from the dead. He didn't work miracles. He didn't give us the greatest teaching in the world. Instead, He was a stand-up comic, according to the founder of the Jesus Seminar.</p>

<p align="center"><strong>What Are Their Assumptions?</strong></p>

<p>The most important question one can ask of any point of view (a question almost never asked by the press) is this: Why do they believe it? This allows us to determine whether the reasons lead properly to the conclusions.</p>

<p>Everyone has a starting point. The place the Seminar begins is carefully concealed from the public at large, but it's the most critical issue. Why do they claim there is no evidence for the resurrection?&nbsp;<strong>That is the key question&nbsp;</strong>.</p>

<p>Their reasoning goes something like this: It's impossible for the Gospels to be historically accurate, because they record things that simply can't happen, like dead people coming alive again and food multiplying--miracles, in other words. We live in a closed universe of natural order, with God (if there is a God) locked out of the system. If miracles can't happen, then the reports in the New Testament must be fabrications. Therefore, the Gospels are not historical.</p>

<p>Further, if miracles can't happen, then prophecy (a kind of miraculous knowledge) can't happen. The Gospels report that Jesus prophesied the fall of Jerusalem. Therefore, they could not have been written early, but after the invasion of Titus of Rome in 70 A.D. In addition, they could not have been written by eye-witnesses, as the early church Fathers claimed.</p>

<p>Notice that the Jesus Seminar doesn't start with historical evidence; it starts with presuppositions, assumptions it makes no attempt to prove. This is not history; it's philosophy, specifically, the philosophy of naturalism.</p>

<p>Robert Funk admits as much: "The Gospels are now assumed to be narratives in which the memory of Jesus is&nbsp;<em>embellished by mythic elements&nbsp;</em>that express the church's faith in him, and by&nbsp;<em>plausible fictions&nbsp;</em>that enhance the telling of the gospel&nbsp;<em>story&nbsp;</em>for first-century listeners..."[3] [emphasis added]</p>

<p>The press reports the following conclusions that the Jesus Seminar says are based on scientific, historical analysis: the resurrection didn't happen; the miracles are myths; there is no authentic prophecy in the Bible; the Gospels were written long after the events took place; they were not written by eyewitnesses; the testimony of the early church Fathers can't be trusted.</p>

<p>This is misleading, though, because the Jesus Seminar doesn't&nbsp;<strong>conclude&nbsp;</strong>the Gospels are inaccurate. That's where they&nbsp;<strong>begin&nbsp;</strong>before they've looked at one single shred of actual historical evidence. When you start with your conclusions, you're cheating. You haven't proved anything at all.</p>

<p align="center"><strong>Does Their Bias Make Them Open-minded or Closed-minded?</strong></p>

<p>Philosopher J.P. Moreland points out that Christian scholars have a point of view, like everyone else. The Christian's bias, though, doesn't inform his conclusions the same way biases inform the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar.</p>

<p>Because people like Robert Funk start with the "scientific" view that there can be no miracles, their bias arbitrarily eliminates options before the game even gets started. Funk&nbsp;<strong>must&nbsp;</strong>conclude the Gospels have been tampered with because his philosophy demands it. He can't consider any evidence for a resurrection because he's closed his mind to the possibility of miracles.</p>

<p>A Christian is not so encumbered. He believes in the laws of nature, but is also open to the possibility of God's intervention. Both are consistent with his world view. This means he can be faithful to the evidence, unhindered by a metaphysical view that automatically eliminates supernatural options before even viewing the evidence.</p>

<p><strong>The bias of the Christian broadens his categories, making him more open-minded&nbsp;</strong>. The believer has a greater chance of discovering truth, because he can follow the evidence wherever it leads. The bias of the Jesus Seminar, on the other hand, makes it close-minded and dogmatic.</p>

<p>Newspaper articles cast the issue in the opposite way, though. One mentions a dean of a prominent Baptist seminary who says the Seminar's work is driving a wedge between faith and history among Christians.</p>

<p>What is unfortunate about this representation is that it pits the "historical" and "scientific" analysis of the Jesus Seminar against those poor sods who rely only on "faith." And since the facts of history are sabotaging the faith of some, Christians are now upset. It's as if they were saying, "Please don't tell me these things and confuse me with the facts. It might weaken my faith." This casts believers as nincompoops, obscurantists who want to cling to fantasy.</p>

<p>But ladies and gentlemen, that isn't the way it is at all. The conclusions of the Jesus Seminar don't represent facts. Rather, their point of view and research methods are deeply flawed because of their prior commitment to a philosophic position that is already hostile to the events described in the text of the Gospels. It isn't an issue of historical fact versus religious faith. The facts are actually on the side of the resurrection, not on the side of the wishful thinking of the Jesus Seminar.</p>

<p align="center"><strong>Is There Any Good Evidence the Gospels are Reliable?</strong></p>

<p>The so-called "search for the historic Jesus" is over one hundred years old. Virtually nothing discovered during that time undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no "new evidence" supporting the idea that the miracle-working Son of God was the result of an evolution of myth over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibility to the content of the Gospels themselves. This is why the trend in the last 20 years has been for liberal scholars to become&nbsp;<strong>more&nbsp;</strong>conservative in their views on the reliability of the Gospels, not less.</p>

<p>Recent finds in archaeology, for example, show us that funerals were conducted differently in Galilee than in Jerusalem, consistent with the details in the Gospels. A person fabricating a story generations after the fact would not know this because of the devastation in Galilee by the Romans in 70 A.D.</p>

<p>This doesn't prove that Jesus rose from the dead, but it's one of a number of things that have been discovered over time that point to the accurate detail of the Gospel accounts. This gives substance to the claim that the writers were eye witnesses at the time of the events.</p>

<p>We know the Apostle Paul died during the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. Paul was still alive at the close of Acts, so Acts must have been written sometime before A.D. 64. Acts was a continuation of Luke's Gospel, which must have been written earlier still. The book of Mark predates Luke, even by the Jesus Seminar's reckoning. This pushes Mark's Gospel into the 50s, just over twenty years after the crucifixion.</p>

<p>It is undisputed that Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s, yet he proclaims Jesus as the resurrected Son of God in the opening lines of that epistle. Galatians, another uncontested Pauline epistle of the mid-50s, records Paul's interaction with the principle disciples (Peter and James) at least 14 years earlier (Gal 1:18, cf. 2:1).</p>

<p>The Jesus Seminar claims that the humble sage of Nazareth was transformed into a wonder-working Son of God in the late first and early second century. The epistles, though, record a high Christology within 10 to 20 years of the crucifixion. That simply is not enough time for myth and legend to take hold, especially when so many were still alive to contradict the alleged errors.</p>

<p>There is no good reason to assume the Gospels were fabricated or seriously distorted in the retelling. Time and again the New Testament writers claim to be eyewitnesses to the facts. They give abundant geographic and cultural details not available to writers of the next century. We also now know that it was the habit of Jewish disciples to memorize entire discourses of their rabbi's teaching. First century oral tradition was not as flexible or fluid as we might imagine.</p>

<p>But there's another problem.</p>

<p align="center"><strong>Who Would Follow this Man?</strong></p>

<p>Even the members of the Jesus Seminar admit that Jesus was executed on a Roman Cross. But why was He killed? Who would follow this deconstructed Jesus? Who would care if He lived or died?</p>

<p>Leading Jesus scholar John Meier notes that a Jesus who "spent his time spinning parables and Japanese koans...or a bland Jesus who simply told people to look at the lilies of the field...would threaten no one, just as the university professors who create him threaten no one."[4]</p>

<p>In&nbsp;<em>Jesus Under Fire&nbsp;</em>, J.P. Moreland sums up what the Jesus Seminar is asking us to believe based on nothing more than the strength of their philosophic assumptions: "It requires the assumption that someone, about a generation removed from the events in question, radically transformed the authentic information about Jesus that was circulating at that time, superimposed a body of material four times as large, fabricated almost entirely out of whole cloth, while the church suffered sufficient collective amnesia to accept the transformation as legitimate."[5]</p>

<p align="center"><strong>Does the Resurrection Matter?</strong></p>

<p>The Jesus Seminar wants us to believe that nothing meaningful is surrendered as a result of their analysis. Even though the resurrection is false, they say, it still has significance because of the story it tells.</p>

<p>The Apostle Paul disagreed. "If Christ has not been raised," he wrote, "your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied."[6]</p>

<p>If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, but instead was buried in a shallow grave and later dug up and eaten by dogs, as Robert Funk asserts, then Christians have nothing to celebrate. Rather, they should be pitied, according to Paul. Pretty stories not grounded in fact save no one. Only a risen Savior can defeat death.</p>

<p>I'm with Paul. I pity the Jesus Seminar who thinks we can hold on to some kind of vain, empty, religious confidence when all the facts of history go against us. If that's true, then you and I and the Jesus Seminar are all still in our sins. That's not something to celebrate on Easter.</p>

<p>As for me, I'm going to stand with Paul. I'm going to stand with Jesus. I'm going to stand with the resurrection.</p>

<p>------&nbsp;<br>
By the way, J.P. Moreland's and Mike Wilkins's book,&nbsp;<em>Jesus Under Fire&nbsp;</em>, published by Zondervan, is a powerful academic and scholarly rebuttal of the Jesus Seminar.&nbsp;<strong>You must get a copy of this book&nbsp;</strong>. The introduction alone is worth the asking price.</p>

<p>___</p>

<p>[1] Robert Funk,&nbsp;<em>The Gospel of Mark, Red Letter Edition</em>&nbsp;(Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1991), pp. xvi- xvii.</p>

<p>[2]&nbsp;<em>Los Angeles Times&nbsp;</em>, March 11, 1995.</p>

<p>[3] Robert Funk, Roy Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar,&nbsp;<em>The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say?&nbsp;</em>(New York: Macmillan, 1993), p. 5, quoted in Moreland and Wilkins,&nbsp;<em>Jesus Under Fire&nbsp;</em>(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), p. 4.</p>

<p>[4] John P. Meier,&nbsp;<em>A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus&nbsp;</em>, vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 177, quoted in Jesus Under Fire (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), p. 21.</p>

<p>[5] Moreland and Wilkins,&nbsp;<em>Jesus Under Fire&nbsp;</em>(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), p. 22.</p>

<p><span>[6]1 Cor. 15:17-19.</span></p>

<p><em><strong>&nbsp;</strong></em></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-jesus-seminar-under-fire" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-jesus-seminar-under-fire" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-jesus-seminar-under-fire" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: We’re Arguing Definitions, Not Rights
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 03/05/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/we-re-arguing-definitions-not-rights
content:
            <div> 
		<p>One common misconception in the same-sex marriage debate is the idea that the traditional legal definition of marriage is a violation of equal rights. Since this is an extremely emotionally charged accusation, it’s difficult to get past it into a real discussion of the issue.</p>

<p>Here’s the approach I usually take:</p>

<p>1. Nearly <em>everyone</em> who thinks the government ought to issue marriage licenses favors defining marriage in some way. That is, they favor excluding some <em>combinations</em> of people (polygamy, incest, etc.), not <em>individuals</em>, from the definition. Even <a href="/w/federal-judge-strikes-down-prop-8" target="_blank">judges</a>. Even you!</p>

<p>2. You can’t consistently argue that by excluding certain combinations of people, traditional marriage violates equal rights—<em>unless</em> you also argue to remove every single boundary from the definition of marriage and say anyone can marry anyone, in whatever combination of numbers they like.</p>

<p>3. If you’re not willing to argue this, then you’re <em>for</em> having a definition with boundaries, which puts you on equal footing with the traditional marriage supporters.</p>

<p>4. So the question is, which definition should we use? It’s fine for you to argue that your definition of “two people who love each other”&nbsp;is better than my definition of “one man, one woman,”&nbsp;or someone else’s definition of “one man, multiple women,”&nbsp;but we need to start off by understanding that we’re arguing <em>definitions</em>, not rights.</p>

<p>It’s not unconstitutional to adopt either my or your definition, as long as it’s applied equally to every <em>individual</em>. Remember that the Constitution doesn’t recognize rights for <em>combinations</em> of people; rights only belong to individuals. So one can’t say that a man and five women have a <em>right</em> to get married; one can only say that each individual man or woman has the right to enter into marriage (no individual is excluded). This right is then acted upon according to the boundaries set by the state’s definition of what marriage <em>is</em>—boundaries which are equally applied to every <em>individual</em>. You would like to equally apply the boundary of “two people who love each other”&nbsp;(excluding some other combinations), and I would like to apply the boundary of “one man, one woman”&nbsp;to each individual equally.</p>

<p>But I agree that the boundaries we place on marriage need to be relevant to the institution of marriage in order to be legitimate, so why don’t we sit down and talk about the reasons why we each think the country should use our definition?</p>

<p>This definition-vs.-rights issue needs to be clarified. Otherwise, if you’re arguing for the boundaries of traditional marriage, you’ll enter the argument having already been unfairly declared an unconstitutional bigot before any of your reasons are explained (despite the fact that your opponent <em>also</em> favors certain boundaries), and anyone would be unlikely to listen to the reasons <em>why</em> you’re an unconstitutional bigot. We have to get past this first barrier if we want to be given the chance to make our case.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwe-re-arguing-definitions-not-rights" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwe-re-arguing-definitions-not-rights" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwe-re-arguing-definitions-not-rights" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Tolerance Bargain
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 02/28/2013
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-tolerance-bargain
content:
            <div> 
		<p><strong>What happens when a Christian is faced with this unspoken but very real covenant in our culture? If you’re a follower of Christ, you break that covenant. But once you do, you’re going to get the heat from the culture. </strong></p>

<p>Do you realize that there are a lot of Christians in this country who, though they love Jesus, they do not see the world through God’s eyes? They should see reality as it is in itself with God as sovereign and the rest of the universe as part of His dominion. This understanding then begins to inform how one views everything in life, whether its politics, economics, law, anthropology, recreation, etc. All of these things ought to be informed by reality, i.e., the truth. Reality is accurately described in the Scriptures because God is telling us what the world is actually like. If we are careful to understand that revelation properly, then we will know what the world is actually like, we will begin to make sense out of things, and live in all areas of life informed by a Christian worldview.</p>

<p>I read an article recently by T.M. Moore titled “From Worldview Programs to Kingdom Movement.” It mentioned that leaders of a movement need to be crystal clear as to what they are trying to overthrow. They must identify their enemy.</p>

<p>Some of you might be thinking that the enemy is those people who disagree with us. You’d be wrong. You might be thinking the enemy is the devil. Well, he is an enemy. There’s no question about that. But I think the enemy, the focus of our efforts, is what the devil is trying to do to change people’s minds so that they believe a lie rather than the truth.</p>

<p>The evil that we are seeking to overturn can be summarized by the words “the lie.” Paul talks about it in Romans 1:21-25. They believed the lie rather than the truth. People suppressed the truth they should have been following and instead believed a lie. Claiming to be wise, they became fools. Following that in Romans is an explicit statement against homosexuality and lesbianism, and a whole rogue’s gallery of vice listed there at the end of Chapter 1 of Romans. All of these come from believing the lie.</p>

<p>What is the truth that the lie denies? The truth is that God is king and sovereign over all His domain, which is everything and everyone, because He created everything and everyone, and therefore, all is His.</p>

<p>The lie says that we are our own. We belong to no one. We are masters of our own fate. We are captains of our own soul. Get out of my way. Don’t cramp my style. And when this lie is believed, what follows is the denial of this central truth that God is king and sovereign.</p>

<p>T.M. Moore goes on to say that the lie itself develops into a worldview where truth is relative and pragmatic. Ethics are utilitarian. The cosmos is an accident. Life is a fleeting and meaningless journey into oblivion. The lie becomes a worldview where man is a product of evolution and the principle concern of man is man. Spiritual concerns are merely private. Christianity is a pliable, changeable thing. Christ is one option among many as a way to eternal life. You see, friends, all those things that follow from believing the lie are contrary views to Christianity.</p>

<p>King and sovereign is just another way of saying king-dom. What’s a kingdom? What does it take to have a kingdom? You need a king and a “dom” or domain. The overarching theme of Scripture is kingdom, God as king over that which is His. He is the ruler, and the foundation of rebellion is a rejection of God’s rulership.</p>

<p>The word relativism might come to mind as the ploy to justify the rebellion. This is one reason why Frank Beckwith and I wrote a book entitled Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Midair. Relativism is the single most powerful ideology against the truth, the single most powerful supporter of the lie. Del Tackett from Focus on the Family said, “Relativism is a silly mind game that we play because it allows us to get our own way.” And this leads to what Tackett calls the “unholy covenant of tolerance.” I’ve written about tolerance in the Relativism book and in articles on tolerance on our STR website, most notably one called “The Intolerance of Tolerance.” But Tackett has identified in a clever way what I spend the article demonstrating. He says, “Our unholy covenant of tolerance amounts to this. It’s an agreement we have with each other. I won’t tell you what you’re doing is wrong as long as you won’t tell me that what I’m doing is wrong. We agree, in this unholy covenant of tolerance, to let everybody do what they want to do.”</p>

<p>What happens when a Christian is faced with this unspoken but very real covenant in our culture? If you’re a follower of Christ, you break that covenant. But once you do, you’re going to get the heat from the culture.</p>

<p>Keep in mind this is a one-way covenant. It’s only honored between relativists. That is, they only tolerate other relativists. They will not tolerate anyone else, which demonstrates how shallow their commitment to tolerance genuinely is. If you don’t keep the covenant, we’re going to injure you and do everything they can to keep you from saying what they’re doing is wrong.</p>

<p>Relativism is really at the heart of postmodernism, which is an attack on truth, and any attack on truth is an attack on the character of God. So I think we, as followers of Christ have a singular task to defeat the lie. Notice I didn’t say to get people saved, because if we think we’ve helped people getting them saved, but they do not bring their lives under the rulership of God, then we are fooling ourselves at having the kind of impact that God wants us to have. We are to make disciples, not only believers. And the fact is, most Christians still believe the lie because their lives are more informed by an ethic that is contrary to Christ rather than one that is consistent with the way Christ saw the world.</p>

<p>Now my question for you is: What are you doing in your life and with your life that is combating the lie? What will you do to oppose the lie? Unless you oppose the lie that God is not king and sovereign, then you’re not making much of an impact for God’s kingdom. The way to sharpen your sword and focus your impact is to go fight the battle where the battle is being fought. And right now the culture where the lie has taken hold is where that is.</p>

<p>My commitment and pledge to you is that Stand to Reason will continue to produce materials to help you defeat the lie wherever you encounter it. And I’m asking for your partnership to do what you can do wherever God places your feet and with whomever He’s placed in front of you. Take what you’ve learned from STR and others, and graciously and incisively, as an ambassador of Christ, go after the lie. Go after anything that denies that God is sovereign over all of His domain, which is everything and everyone.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-tolerance-bargain" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-tolerance-bargain" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-tolerance-bargain" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


