God Among Men

            One argument used against Christians that absolutely drives me nuts is misogyny in the Bible. The Bible supposedly demeans wives. Critics point to Ephesians 5:22:

            “Wives submit yourselves to your husbands as you do to the Lord” (NIV).

            This riles the feminists up. Submission? What? This is the 21st century, Christians. Wake up! Why do the women have to submit? Men have it so easy.

            I find it amusing because feminists never get to verse 25. Let’s see why:

            “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (NIV).

            They don’t ever rail against Christians using this verse, do they? Because while wives have to submit to their husbands, husbands have to be prepared to die for their wives.

            Christ is the example for husbands. Jesus was tortured and died a horrible death. In fact, dying on a cross was so painful that the culture of the day had to create a new word to describe it: excruciating. “Ex” means “out of” and “crux” means “cross” (out of the cross).

            Husbands have to be prepared to be tortured. Then die an excruciating death. For their wives.

           I think it’s safe to say both sides have it tough. Women have to submit to faulty men who make a lot of boneheaded decisions. That’s rough, I’m not going to lie. But men have to live up to and submit to Jesus Christ Himself, the ultimate Mr. Perfect. That’s harder.

*If you want stomach-wrenching descriptions of what Jesus went through, go here and here.

On Guard

            This one really gets me in a humorous way. I’m actually smiling as I think about it. I often hear believers say, “Christians shouldn’t argue.”

            And that’s just funny.

            I don’t know about you, but Jesus argued a lot with people, including the authorities of His day. He argued with Peter. Paul argued a lot with the Greeks, and he later had to split with a dear friend because of “irreconcilable differences” (don’t you hate that term?). The early church argued all the time to iron out conduct and doctrine.

            It’s safe to say that arguing is just fine. It can actually be quite enjoyable if at least one person (hopefully you) does it right.

Now, Having Said That

            Okay, so I need to be honest. Before you go jumping into disagreements, don’t be a jerk. Please, arguing just to argue is really worthless unless both parties are extremely bored and there is nothing else to do.

            Evaluate the debaters, including yourself. Are both sides concerned with the truth, or are they just concerned with their own opinions? If both sides want to learn the truth, then go for it. That’s the mark of a productive debate. The goal is not to win necessarily, but to come to the truth of the matter. And if you win in the process? Hey, that's not bad.

            Paul warns Titus of unproductive arguments: “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless” (Titus 3:9, NIV).

            This one hits me hard. I’ve participated in enough useless debates to last a lifetime. I didn’t care about the truth. The other person didn’t care about the truth. We just held our positions and went at it!

            This is especially true among Christians. Really evaluate your heart before you argue with another believer. There is no need to create bad blood over non-salvation-related theological differences.

            Free will or predestination (or a combo)? Biblical creationism or old-earth creationism? Pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, or post-tribulation? Did Jesus go down to Hell after He died? Annihilation or eternity?

            All these debates can be immensely fruitful. We need to converse on these issues and try to come to the most biblically sound position. But if things get heated, just understand that it’s not worth it. Agree to disagree and change the subject.

So How Do You “Do It Right”?

            So how can arguing be enjoyable? This is a question many non-confrontational people ask. They would rather be silent than engage in combat.

            You can argue correctly if you do these things: 1) CONCEDE good points. “Hey, that is true. I never thought of that before” or “you got me there” or something like that. If your friend traps you, acknowledge it so you don’t dig yourself into a bigger hole!

            2) Listen. I’m horrible at this one. Let your opponent speak. I’ve been a jerk about this. Now, your friend is being rude if he drones on and on for minutes without asking for your permission. But let him finish his sentences. Did I say I was bad at this?

            3) Try to joke occasionally to let your “opponent” know that you are light-hearted and not too serious. This is your friend, remember? Have fun. Be witty. Make fun of yourself whenever. You want this argument to be a thought-provoking AND humorous memory.

            4) After the argument, check to see if your friend is alright. This is ESPECIALLY true of females. Guys generally get over things quickly, but girls take arguments personally. Just ask, “Are we all good?” or “You alright?” Make sure things are cool, because your friend could be simmering under the surface. Diffuse whenever you can.

            So enjoy your arguments. They sharpen your mind and you can have quite a bit of fun with them. Just keep them light-hearted if possible. Very few things are worth losing a friendship over.

Shove It

            “Just !@#$ it.”

            I don’t know how many times I've heard this recently. Such is the attitude of this generation. We don’t care. And we care to tell you we don’t care. But really, we don’t care if you care.We tell you to “(beep) off” and we do so proudly.

How We Got Here

            Up until between 1600-1800s, Christianity was the standard. It was the worldview that allowed for absolutes in morality, logic, math, and science among other things. People could be sure of life, because their foundation (Christianity) allowed for surety.

            But then this thing called humanism appeared on the scene. It told us not to look to God for the absolutes He’s given us. But no, look within. Using reason and observation (science), we could come up with absolutes in life ourself without God’s help. Man is the center of the universe. God was dethroned.

            Once humanism took over, everything had to have a makeover. Science, morality, logic, everything. Why? Because a lot of the knowledge gathered up until humanism was discovered using the Bible as the starting point, and therefore the God of Christianity was heavily involved.

             That was unacceptable! Everything had to be start over. Science went from young earth creationism to atheistic or theistic evolution. Logic went from absolutes to relativism. Morality followed logic.

            But there was one problem.

Man’s Downfall

            The problem with man is that he doesn’t know everything. In fact, he knows very little. He also doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.

            So when we tried to find truth from within us (as opposed to relying on the foundations set by an omniscient God), we couldn't be sure of anything we found. Why? We didn’t know if there was anything else out there that would contradict what we just “discovered”. We couldn’t be sure of any knowledge.

            This leads to depression, because how does it feel to not know anything? It hurts, and that’s the result of humanism. When you start with man instead of God, you end up with hopelessness. You can’t be confident in anything.

            So when people were faced with either returning to the absolutes and security found in Christianity or continuing in the bleakness that is humanism, they jumped back to Christianity. They returned to absolutes, and life was great once again.

            Just kidding. The monster that is relativism was created.

What’s True for You…

            Because humanism led to the result that we can’t be sure of anything, that means there is no right or wrong. We wouldn’t be able to know which was which!

            Oh, did the younger generation love that.

            With relativism, mankind finally had the excuse to live how it wanted to. Believe me when I say that there have always been sinful people living sin-filled lives, but these people had to keep things secret because there were others that could legitimately judge them using Christianity. They knew what they did was wrong (because things could be wrong in those days), so they tried to hide it.

            But with relativism, there was no need to cover anything because everything was allowed. With no absolutes, you were fine as long as you were more powerful than the people who disagreed with you! Man finally had the justification he craved to live how he wanted.

Full Circle

            So what does that have to do with my introduction? Everything. With relativism there is no point to life. No purpose. No hope. Don’t tell me what to do because there is no reason for me to listen to you. I don’t care because there is no reason to care. There is no right or wrong.

            I am the center of the universe. I start and end with me. I am the humanistic dream.

To Save a Life (Post 2)

            In my last post, I went over the groundwork for the Christian’s view of human life and abortion (make sure to read that post before this one!). Now what do you say to a non-Christian who doesn’t care for the Bible? This is apologetics, ladies and gentlemen.

            There are four main differences between a human life that is inside the womb and one that is outside of the womb. Let’s go through them.

1. Size
2. Level of dependency
3. Environment (inside womb vs. outside of womb)
4. Level of development

            The argument goes like this: because the life inside the womb is smaller, dependent on the mother, inside the womb, and less developed, it is not a human life. It is a lesser form of life.

            I apologize, but this simply doesn’t compute. Let’s go through each factor individually:

            1) Size. So someone who is smaller isn’t as alive as someone who is bigger? Gimli would object to that.

            2) Level of dependency. This one, at first, seems like the strongest objection. But it melts away when examined. The logic goes “because the life inside the womb can’t survive on its own, it’s not a human life.”

            Okay.

            We are all dependent on something other than ourselves. Oxygen, water, food, etc. Does that make us less human? What about the people who need feeding tubes to survive? Is that any different than the life inside the womb using the umbilical chord? What about the people that rely on pace-makers, insulin, and kidney machines to survive? Are they less human?

            Of course not. Let’s lay this argument to rest.

            3) Environment. The argument goes “due to the life in the womb’s location,  it is less human”. So where I am determines if I’m a human life or not? Are people in China as human as those in America? The answers are self-evident.

            4) Level of development. The argument goes “because the life in the womb is less developed, it is not human.” What about the humans who are born deformed? What about those who are born without limbs? Are they less human than us “normal” folks?

            Also, development continues outside the womb. Is a toddler less human than an adult? Obviously not.

            I just ran through the differences between life in the womb and life outside it. The differences do not make one human and the other not. But some might object by saying that maybe all four factors COMBINED make womb life less human. This also does not work, and I’ll dispatch it with an example.

            Is a child who is dependent on a feeding tube and a pace-maker and lives in Indonesia and was born without an arm less human than me?

            No.

            And that is all, ladies and gentlemen. Abortion apologetics. Now I’ll go on to some objections.

When Does Life Begin?

            The conventional view is life began the moment of conception. Another view is that human life begins at implantation (six days after fertilization/conception) when the zygote attaches to the uterine wall. Another view is life begins when the brain or heart starts to form. Another view is that human life begins once the umbilical chord is cut.

            And so on and so forth.

            Which is correct? As I explained in the last post, the Bible clearly teaches that life in the womb is human, and it doesn’t differentiate over development (which is silly anyways, that was dealt with above) .

            The simple answer to this question is: what is your worldview? That will determine when you think human life begins. If your view is atheistic, you will view things more narcissistically. What benefits you the most? What is the most convenient for you? Obviously, abortion is the most convenient option.

            If you are a Christian, you’ll agree with the Bible when David said that he was “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). God is involved in the entire process and He doesn’t want His creation to die.

What About Rape?

            What about when a man rapes a woman and she becomes pregnant? She never wanted the baby. Is abortion okay then? While extremely tragic, something has to be noted objectively. This is very, very, very rare. It does not happen often.

            Also, which is worse? Murder, or rape? For if the life in the womb is human, then ending its life is murder. Must the child pay for the father’s crime?

Summary

            The bottom line is this: if life in the womb is not human, then killing it is not murder. Just like killing a plant is not murder. But if womb life is human, then killing it is murder and is wrong.
            I went over how the differences between life inside the womb and outside of it do not amount to anything drastic enough as to label womb life non-human. Therefore womb life is human, and therefore abortion is murder.
            I'm being blunt, but at the end of the day, my goal in life is not to be liked. It's to be like Jesus, and He stood for the truth in love. I have to do the same.

To Save a Life (Post 1)

            One of the hot button topics of today’s age is abortion. Is the life in a woman’s womb human, or something less than? Does a woman’s right to choose trump that life’s right to live? Is abortion justified in the face of rape?

            How is the Christian to answer?

            Unfortunately, there is a lot of emotion in this debate. And unfortunately, the church doesn’t really teach apologetics in this area. Or any area for that matter. So Christians resort to cries of “murder” and other emotionally charged sallies that don’t get any positive results.

            That’s unfortunate.

            There really are two types of answers to these questions, depending on who is doing the questioning. The first type of answer is relatively short and sweet, and it is directed to Christians who ask about abortion. Christians shouldn’t have any problems with the answer because it is right out of the Bible.

            The second type of answer is for the non-Christian. The answer is different because the non-Christian doesn’t accept the Word of God as his or her authority in life. It’s longer and messier, but still necessary.

For the Christian

            The occasional Christian will lean towards pro-choice, so it is important to have Bible verses ready to lovingly direct them back to God’s opinion in the matter. His opinion is kind of important. Let’s get started:

Jeremiah 1:4-5, Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Isaiah 49:1.  Listen to me, O coastlands,  and give attention, you peoples  from afar. The LORD called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name…

Psalms 22:9-10, Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.  On you was I cast from my birth, and from  my mother’s womb you have been my God.

Genesis 25:22-23, The children struggled together within her, and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?”  So she went to inquire of the LORD.  And the LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.”

Galatians 1:15, But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace.

Luke 1:40-41, where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

            There are many others, but this should be good enough. If the Christian doubts how God views life in the womb after this, you really have to question how much this person values the Bible.

For the Non-Christian

            Because I don’t want this post to be the equivalent of three or four pages, I’ll save the Christian’s answer for the non-Christian for my next post. But I’ll lay the groundwork here.

            Amongst Christians, whoever has the most Biblical support should be the one swaying the other. Why? Follow the logic: if the Bible is the Word of God, then His words are always true. Therefore whatever position in a debate lines up with the Bible is true and correct. Therefore Christians should try to hold the most Biblically sound positions in a debate. Obviously “pro-life” is more Biblical in this case, so that should end the argument amongst Christians.

            But you can’t do that with a non-Christian, because they reject the premise that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If you threw a verse at him, he would respond, “Okay, so what?” I would do the same if someone came at me with the Book of Mormon or Quran. I simply do not accept those books as the Word of God.

            So after establishing what the Bible says on abortion, and why you accept the Bible as true, you have to go a different route. I’ll explore this route in my next post.

            But before I do that, I also have to put 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 out there:

            “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

            And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

            If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.”

            I am as guilty as anyone else. Truth is a knife without love. It damages, razes, burns, pillages. But with love, it builds, encourages, convicts, and strengthens. Many people are suffering through the guilt of an abortion. Many people know people who are suffering through the guilt of having an abortion.

            We are to step alongside them and try to UNDERSTAND them. Help them. Be there for them. Love them. Our wrongs are no better than theirs. We are all in the same boat; we are all sinners in need of a Savior.

Summer School Grammar Lesson

(Warning: this is going to put you to sleep unless you are into in-depth apologetics. I should have another post by this Sunday or Monday)

            It’s been awhile since I’ve written explicitly about Genesis, so I’m going to write about it right… now. Dr. DeYoung, in his book “Thousands… Not Billions”, wrote a layman’s level interpretation of an eight-year long project called RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth). This research project was conducted by scientists and challenged the assumptions of today’s dating methods. It also explored dating evidence for a young earth.

            But I’m not writing about science today. At the end of the book, Dr. Steven Boyd (Biblical scholar) wrote a gem of a chapter on the Hebrew behind Genesis. As the Bible has been reinterpreted to accommodate naturalist theories (Evolution, uniformitarianism, Big Bang, etc.), Christians who have compromised based on secular pressure have spread the belief that the Creation account is allegorical. If so, then we can interpret it very broadly. Sort of like how one can interpret a poem broadly because the author gives him license to do so.

            However, what is the correct thing to do? At its most general level, there are two methods of interpreting scripture: exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis is using the Bible to interpret itself. When an interpretation is produced, does it stay faithful to what the text itself says?

            Then there is eisegesis. This method of interpreting scripture involves taking something external to the Bible as true, and interpreting the Bible off it. The Bible is true as long as it accommodates this external truth.

            Theistic evolution (TE) and progressive creation (PC) take external theories (naturalism, Evolution, Big Bang, Uniformitarianism) as truth... and the Bible has to be interpreted to accommodate these truths. This is eisegesis because there is precious little Biblical support for these two positions. How can you tell? If someone wants to learn about TE and PC, the Bible is the last place they go.

            Biblical Creation (BC) takes the beginning of Genesis as literal history. This is exegesis because the authority of scripture is absolute, and used to interpret itself. How can you tell? When someone wants to learn about BC, the Bible is the first place they go.

Steven Boyd

            

            So what Dr. Boyd did was look at the Hebrew itself to see if it supports the notion that Genesis is poetical. Now, all it should take is directing someone to Proverbs and Psalms (biblical poetry), then directing them to Genesis (biblical history). The following comparison should dismiss that idea pretty instantly. Proverbs and Psalms are nothing like Genesis*.

            But because many Christians are heaven-bent on reinterpreting Genesis, it’s not that easy. But let’s get to the actual study. Before I do that, I have to define finite Hebrew verbs (the focus of the study). Finite verbs are those that have different forms based on person (I, you, he, they), gender (masculine, feminine), and number (singular, plural). There are four types of finite verbs:

1. Preterite - history - “She swam”
2. Imperfect - present/future/general - “She is swimming/will swim/swims”
3. Perfect - single historical action - “She swam”
4. Waw-perfect - habitual or repeated historical action - “She would/used to swim

            He then took a statistical analysis of clear historical and clear poetical passages of scripture to see if he could find patterns in the verb forms. These patterns might be able to indicate whether or not the beginning of Genesis was meant to be read literally or poetically.

            Also, there are helpful passages called “paired texts” that made the study a little easier. “Paired texts” means that there is both a literal and poetic passage to a single event. Examples are Exodus 14 (history) and Exodus 15:1-19 (Song of Moses, poetry), and Judges 4 (history) and Judges 5 (songs of Deborah and Barak, poetry).

            What did he find? He found that historical passages used preterite verbs an average of 52% of the time (compared to other finite verbs). Poetical passages used preterite verbs an average of 4% of the time. HUGE difference between history and poetry, obviously.

            Before I get to Genesis, I’ll mention specific examples. Judges 3 (history) used preterite verbs 81% of the time. Deuteronomy 32 (poetry) used preterite verbs 17% of the time. So Judges 3 is clearly history, Deuteronomy 32 is clearly poetry.

            It really is that simple.

            Now let’s look at the first two chapters of Genesis. *Drumroll* The beginning of Genesis uses preterite verbs… around 65% of the time! CLEARLY historical. Now, if you did the whole “read biblical poetry, then read biblical history, then compare” test at the beginning of the section, you would’ve come to the same conclusion.

            So grammatically, the Creation account is clearly historical, and should be read as such. Where does this leave TEs and PCs? They have three options: 1) admit their position is unbiblical and switch, 2) interpret ALL other historical passages poetically (to be consistent), 3) keep on keepin’ on. My guess is they’ll go with #3 because they didn’t use the Bible to come to their interpretation of Genesis anyway.

*A mark of poetry is that you can make music to it or you can sing to it. Sing Genesis 6:14-16 with me! Or, if you aren't the best of singers, grab a guitar and play a tune. The passage goes like this:

            "So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out.

            This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.

            Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks." (NIV)

            Oh, that does't make for good music or lyrics, does it? I wonder why… hmm… I got it! Maybe that's because it's supposed to be history! So just like you wouldn't go around singing paragraphs from your history textbook, you wouldn't go around singing historical Bible passages! It makes sense… unless you eisegete and are reinterpreting the Bible to fit unbiblical ideas. You would probably sing obituaries at this point ;)

Defeating Doubt and Changing America (At the Same Time!… ok, not really)

            A long time ago, I decided to take on the world. I wanted to storm the Internet and defend the Bible, especially against atheists. I went on their blogs and responded to their attacks on my faith. But I stopped dead in my tracks.

            They had some pretty good arguments. Oh, I thought I was just going to encounter a bunch of dim-witted haters that spewed vitriol everywhere. But I found many former Christians. I found many conscientious, careful writers who were searching for truth also.

            And did I say they had good arguments? They did. In fact, their arguments were so good that I took a look at the foundations of my faith.

The Mistake We Made

            Apologetics is my hobby. I enjoy any book that has a detailed defense of Christian theology and history. I know it’s essential, not only to defend my faith against outsiders, but to defend my faith against my doubts.

            That’s precisely what happened when I explored atheist blogs. In particular, I was overwhelmed by their arguments against the existence of God. But God was using this time to wake me up.

            If I, an apologetics kinda guy, was caught off-guard with atheist arguments, what must it be like for other Christians who have never been taught to defend their faith?

            They go to sunday school and learn the Gospel. The whole “Jesus came down and died for the sins of the world” story. Then they go to school and hear that Jesus’ very existence is doubted. They hear that Evolution is everything that is needed; God is unnecessary. They hear that the Bible is unreliable.

            They come home “a little shook-up”, and ask their parents and pastors about it. They don’t really have answers because no one taught them, either. The kid is left thinking that the non-Christians have the answer to life’s questions, and so leaves the church when he is able. College is often the final nail in his faith's coffin.

            The mistake the church has made has been to let apologetics (defending the faith) and polemics (challenging other faiths) slide. As the American church has fallen towards emotionalism (feeding the heart), it has neglected rationalism (building the mind). It also doesn’t help that the rationalist Christians are often the wacko fundamentalists (I can say "wacko fundamentalist" because I’m on the “fundamentalist” side of things usually).

The Short Term Answer

            How do we fix this lack of rationalism in the church? On the church’s end, it is simple:

1. Spend money to get apologetical and polemical resources
2. Have classes using those resources, and involve EVERYONE (teens especially)
3. Attend conferences and host speakers (Q&A sessions are absolutely amazing ways of getting conversations going)

            On the individual’s end, it’s the same, except with one more point: 4) Start conversations with friends, coworkers, and other students. What’s the use of knowing how to defend the faith and challenge other faiths if you never get the chance to do so?

The Long Term Answer

            While the above is a good start, it can’t compete against the school systems. We go to church once a week and school five days a week. We can’t compete against an atheistic school system for long.

            We have to aim for the university.

            Whereas the church used to be the institution that shaped current thought, now it is the university. And it doesn’t look good, because there are three times more atheist professors to everyone else in colleges in proportion to the population.

            To take back the universities we have to flood graduate schools and get doctorates in history, philosophy, etc. Then, when today’s professors die off, Christians are hired to replace them. The cycle repeats after tomorrow’s professors pass away, and so on and so forth.

            When we take back the universities, we’ll change modern thought because the highest academic circles decide how everyone else thinks. For good, or for worse.

Summary

            Looking over this post, I realize I’m all over the place. That’s alright because everything I cover is somewhat related, but let me tie everything together:

            We have to be able to defend our faith and challenge other faiths. The way to do that is to become rational by studying these topics. But that will only affect those already in the church. To reach those outside of the church, we have to gain back the institution that determines current thought: the university.

Abandon Christianity? Reason 20: It Is Unoriginal

The Final Challenge

            We’ve reached the end at last. The final reason to abandon Christianity is because it is just a “copycat” religion. There is little to nothing original to it, therefore it’s not worth entering. Worship of Adonis, Attis, Osiris, Mithras, etc. all influenced Christianity to the point it just isn’t legitimate.
            Bogus.
            This “problem” with Christianity was popular from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. Then Bible scholars demolished all the arguments, and the issue died. Then, in the late 1900s and early 2000s, some people decided to raise the issue again. This time they had the internet to help. Now Christians have to deal with this issue again. Oh well, this is how it will be until Jesus comes back.
            Before we get to it, let’s look at what is essential for a religion to have had before  it could’ve influenced Christianity: 1) it had to have been older than Christianity, 2) it had to have a god dying and raising from the dead, 3) it has to be literal history.
            If the religion doesn’t predate Christianity, the whole discussion is pointless. You can’t influence something if you don’t exist yet.
            Also, if it predates Christianity but doesn’t have its god dying and rising from the dead, it’s nothing like Christianity anyway. 
            Finally, if the cult isn’t claiming to be based off real history, then it isn’t like Christianity at all. Jesus didn't die to explain why nature is the way it is, but for people. I’ll start with this point first.

Cyclical religions

            Christianity is rooted in real, physical history. As in, dates and chronology. You know, with eyewitnesses and such (see 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
            Most of these “mystery religions” are based on the cycles of vegetation. For instance, when the fall/winter rolls around, the deity “dies”. Then, in the spring/summer, the deity “resurrects”.
            This is completely opposite Christianity. Jesus died once for sins (1 Peter 3:18), and rose once. He didn’t die to explain the weather and seasons. No, Christianity makes its stake in history, not the vegetation cycle.
            This eliminates the cults of Baal and Adonis among many others.

Does It Have a God Dying and Resurrecting?

            If a religion’s god doesn’t die and rise again, it is not like Christianity. It’s as simple as that. Let’s go through some religions that do not have gods that have done that.
            Attis: though this myth is older than Christianity, the first story we have of Attis rising from the dead comes after the first century. No, Attis couldn’t have influenced Christianity.
            Tammuz: there is uncertainty as to whether this god even died. No dispute with Jesus, we can say.
            Osiris: oh, Osiris sure died. In fact, he was chopped up. Oh, and he “rose” again in the underworld. But he never came back to the world like Jesus. So no, this wasn’t a resurrection because he stayed in the underworld after he died. “Zombification”, you could say*.
            Mithras: Mithras didn’t die. But he killed a bull. (How that could’ve influenced Christianity is beyond me)
            So you see, this also eliminates a lot of these mystery religions.

Does It Predate Christianity?

            Yes, some of the afore-mentioned religions do predate Christianity. Notably Tammuz and Baal. However, their gods didn’t die and rise again. If they did, it was to explain the seasons, not to make a claim in physical history.
            For an example of a religion that came after Christianity, I’ll use Mithraism. This religion is often used against Christianity because of some of the parallels in the birthdate (December 25th), secret meal (communion), and promise of immortal life (salvation).
            There is a small problem, however. Mithraism as a religion has no attestation before AD90. So… yeah, that doesn’t work.

Conclusion

            As anyone can guess, I am not an expert on this subject**. However, all one generally needs to know is the basics. To be like or to influence Christianity, a religion has to be older than Christianity, it has to make a claim on physical history (dates and chronologies, not the vegetation cycle), and it has to have a god that dies and resurrects. As I’ve shown, these three criteria together eliminate most “mystery religions”, including the main one used against Christianity (Mithraism).

*I borrowed this term and most of the information in this post from the fourth chapter (or Challenge Number 4, as it is called in the book) of Lee Strobel’s The Case for the Real Jesus. An amazing book, I recommend it.
**I barely scratch the surface of what I do talk about in this post.

Abandon Christianity? Reason 19: The Bible is Full of Contradictions

(Warning: REALLY long post)

Part I

            Number 19 on freethoughpedia.com’s list? The Bible, Christianity’s basic text, is riddled with contradictions.
            I will freely admit that there are numerous instances where, on the surface, critics have a plausible case. These situations can make readers do a double-take. As usual, however, there are explanations. When it comes to doctrine, factors such as context, subject, and audience are key. When it comes to numbers (such as in the books of Samuel and Kings), the answer often lies in chronology (hypothetical example: one number was recorded early in a king’s reign, and the contradictory number was recorded later in the same king’s reign. The simple answer to the “contradiction” is that the number, whatever it represents, changed as the years went by).
            This issue is different than other “problems” with Christianity in that Christians have to explain every little potential contradiction instead of having a blanket answer for an issue. This can get tedious, for there are few jack-of-all-situations answers that you can apply across the board. Christians have to cover each contradiction individually and conclude, “See, no contradictions after all.” This can be a pain, but 1 Peter 3:15 states:
            “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (NKJV).
            I’ll quickly go through the words I italicized. Always means that Christians have to defend the Bible no matter the time or how unattractive the subject is. Defense doesn’t mean “plug your ears and tell the person to shut up”, but to logically give an answer to arguments (to the best of your ability). Everyone includes smart-alecks who really don’t care for an answer. Reason means arguments, and the more well-thought out the better. Meekness and fear excludes Bible-bashing, an unfortunate but favorite tactic used by prideful Christians (which means me sometimes).
            Now let’s get to the specific contradictions given in the article.

Part II: Contradiction I

            James 1:13 states, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (KJV).
            Okay, so what do we know? Based on context (surrounding verses), James is talking about trials and tribulations. When someone is enduring trials and is tempted to sin, she shouldn’t blame God for being enticed to sin in her situation. God isn’t dangling sin in front of her and saying, “Give in.” No, that’s the flesh (our nature that desires to sin). Don’t blame God for the flesh working inside of you. Now for the alleged contradiction:
            Genesis 22:1 states: “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him…” (KJV). The story goes on to tell of how God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham goes to obey God, and God makes it all work out in the end by saving Isaac and providing Abraham a ram to sacrifice instead.
            How can the contradiction be explained? One way is to simply point out that the word “tempt” means two different meanings here. When I tempt someone (James 1:13), I want them to fail. But tempt can also mean “test” (Genesis 22:1). God was tempting/testing Abraham’s obedience, not enticing him to sin.
            Put simply, God cannot tempt you to sin. He will never hold sin in front of your face, daring you to mess up. However, that doesn’t mean He won’t tempt your faith and obedience. The only way to see if something is real is to put it through tests. This can also be called “tempting”, but sin/failure is not the goal, but growth. God can tempt, but only the flesh tempts you to sin. God encourages obedience.
            Put even more simply, there is sinful tempting (where the goal is to get the victim to sin), and non-sinful tempting (where the goal is to get the “victim” to grow).

Contradiction II

            Jeremiah 3:12 states: “…for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.”
            For the sake of understanding the contradiction forthcoming, I will include verse 13: “Only acknowledge thine iniquity (sin), that thou hast transgressed (disobeyed) against the LORD thy God…” (KJV).
            The context is God talking to Israel (earlier in verse 12). By this time Israel and Judah were two separate nations, and they both rebelled against God. God, being merciful and just, was angry with Israel, but told them His anger would subside if they acknowledged their sin. Remember two things: 1) God is talking to Israel. 2) There was a condition that Israel had to meet before His anger would subside. Now for the contradiction.
            Jeremiah 17:4 states: “…for ye have kindled a fire in my anger, which shall burn forever.”
            The context is God talking to Judah (17:1). Also, if you read the context, there is a finality to His words. There is no condition of forgiveness in this section of scripture. Judah is cooked; God’s punishment will stand forever. Judah is at the point of no return, at least at the moment Jeremiah is speaking.
            The two examples, on the surface, are contradictions. But they aren’t because of two reasons: 1) the audience changes from Israel to Judah, 2) in one instance, there is hope for Israel if they repent. In the other, there is no hope for Judah, and God lets that be known.
            Before I move on to the next “contradiction”, let me say something on God’s judgement. Jeremiah 17:4 is completely accurate for those who don’t repent. God’s anger will burn forever, and there is an eternal punishment. But if we repent as God asks in Jeremiah 3:13, His anger won’t burn forever. There will be mercy.

Contradiction III

            (I like this one in a twisted sort of way. Very clever) In John 5:31, Jesus says, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.”
            In context, Jesus was talking about obeying the Father and not Himself (5:30). Also, He is basically saying that it isn’t His job to say, “Look everyone, I am here!” That was the job of John the Baptist and Jesus’ disciples (5:33). Basically, Jesus wasn’t here to toot His own horn, but to obey His Father. Now for the contradiction.
            In John 8:18, Jesus says, “I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.”
            In context, Jesus wasn’t talking about obedience (obeying the Father), nor fame, but truth. In every respectable culture, when someone makes a claim, there has to be witnesses. Jesus witnesses Himself, but that isn’t enough. He is saying that the Father also is bearing witness to His life and ministry.
            The difference is that Jesus is talking about importance and fame in John 5:31. He is of secondary importance to the Father. Also, His disciples, not Himself, are spreading His name. John 8:18 is talking about truth, and how God the Father is witnessing everything that Jesus is doing on earth.
            In John 5:31, “bearing witness” is talking about importance. 1) The Father, 2) the Son. Jesus was letting everyone else know that. In John 8:18, “bearing witness” is purely legal. Jesus isn’t closing Himself in and seen by no one. His Father is with Him every step of the way.

Contradiction IV

            I won’t bother with the verses in this one. Some say that God has never been seen. Others say God has been seen (as in Jesus and instances in Old Testament). This is a contradiction, right? Right?
            There are varying opinions on this matter. I hold that the Father has never been seen by His creation directly and in full glory. We wouldn’t be able to take it. However, the Son has been seen (Jesus, duh).
            I believe that the Father, if He has been seen, has held back His full form. He’s never been seen as He is. However, the Son can and has been seen.
            Some say that the Father has never been seen. Every time God has been seen, it’s been Jesus, not the Father. The Father, if He chooses to, speaks thru things. Such as burning bushes and angels and whatnot. But in His actual form, He’s never been seen.
            God’s been seen, but at the same time He (the Father) hasn’t been. Pretty nifty and completely true. The glory of the Father would kill us, which is why He doesn’t show us all of it.

Part III

            (Summary) The Bible has a lot to it, and some of its teachings seem to contradict each other. However, it is usually superficial due to word choice. As we’ve showed, “bearing witness” can mean several things, and so can “tempt”. The audience and context can determine these things and must be taken into account. Whenever a “contradiction” comes up, take a little time to study it. Problems will fall away.

Abandon Christianity? One, Two, Skip a Few… (18)

           I’m skipping to the end of freethoughpedia.com’s list of reasons to abandon Christianity. Why? Well, it’s simply because most of the reasons don’t have to deal with the doctrine of Christianity, but the conduct of individual Christians. Yes, some Christian/Catholic nations have messed up. Yes, Christian individuals and groups have messed up. But that has nothing to do with whether or not Christianity itself is true.

           The 18th reason (out of 20) states, “The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ’s teachings.”

           There we go! Finally we have a real, bona-fide reason that, if true, would mean Christianity is wrong. Christians hold the Bible to be a few things, namely the history (and future) of God’s plan to save mankind and the authoritative manual on how to live.

           Now, if the Bible isn’t reliable when it talks about Jesus… we basically can chuck the whole thing. Jesus is our rock, but if we don’t know what exactly He said and did, we don’t know how to think and act. We are called to live like Jesus, but that’s impossible if the Gospels (biographies on Jesus) are unreliable.

           But first, let’s examine the actual reasons given before we throw the Bible away.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

           1) We don’t know who wrote the Bible. Answer: That depends on what is meant by “know”. Paul writes in his epistles the usual “Paul, called to be an apostle…” thing at the beginning of his epistles. John writes in Revelation that it is him writing. Jude does the same. In the old Testament, Isaiah writes that he had a vision. Jeremiah writes that it is indeed him writing.

           I could go and on. A lot of the books mention* their writers. So yes, we know the people who wrote a lot of the Bible.

           But what about the books that don’t mention their author? Frankly, I fail to see how that affects the reliability of the Bible, seeing as how prophecies come true and lives change. Oh, and archeology supports and third party sources agree with the Bible. Does knowing who wrote the thing change any of that? Yes, it is nice to know, but I fail to see how that affects the reliability of Christ’s teaching.

            Now, if they were complaining that the Gospels were written too far after Jesus’ death to be accurate, that would actually matter. Oh wait…

            2) The Gospels were written between 30-200 years after Jesus’ death. His teachings couldn’t possibly be accurately recorded.

            The people who raise this as a problem simply don’t understand what they are saying. Are you kidding me?!?!  30 years! That is golden in terms of textual accuracy. What scholars wouldn’t give to have copies of Plato and Homer that were 30 years older than the originals.

            Even 200 years ain’t that bad, even though it is still wrong (scholars tend to view the gap between the originals and the oldest copies to be 30-150 years old). Copies of John, the “newest” Gospel, could be put anywhere from 60-120 years after Jesus died**.

            Besides showing that they really don’t understand the gravity of what they are saying, people who raise this objection also don’t understand the culture of that day. Stories and teachings were passed down orally. Everyone knew these things, so when someone told someone else about Jesus’ teachings, he had a whole community ready to correct him if he misspoke.

            In this age of misinformation, where the media is just as eager as its audience to spread the sensational, we don’t understand this concept of internal “accuracy police”. Look at what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:4-8:

            (4) “And that he (Jesus) was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures;

            (5) “And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.

            (6) “After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren (!) at once; of whom the greater part remain unto the present, but some are fallen asleep.

            (7) “After that he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

            (8)“And last of all he was seen of me also…” (KJV).

            Now why would Paul go through all this trouble? He does this to show the Corinthians that there were eyewitnesses to Jesus who were still alive. He is saying that there are people who will back him up.

            Unlike Islam and Mormonism, the Bible was assimilated in the open. Paul didn’t go to a cave where Jesus suddenly appeared to him in secret. Paul didn’t lock his room where he met Jesus. No, what he was writing in his epistles could be backed up by Jesus’ teachings and His resurrection. Why? There were eyewitnesses.

            To summarize this point, at the time of the Gospels being written, there were eyewitnesses. These authors weren’t writing about something that had happened 150 years before, but around 20-50 years before. Due to their culture, they would have many eyewitness “spell checkers” who could correct them.

            30-200 years? Not a problem.

            3) Freethoughtpedia.com states that, according to a group of scholars known as the Jesus Seminar, only 18% of the statements and 16% of the deeds of Jesus actually have a high chance of actually happening.

            On the surface this seems tough. But let’s examine who these Jesus Seminar-ians are. Gregory Boyd, a highly respected Christian scholar, writes that the Jesus Seminar is a small group of very left wing scholars who are on the fringe of New Testament thinking. Lee Strobel*** writes that they deny the supernatural from the outset. Also, they say the Bible isn’t reliable while some in their camp champion questionable documents of suspicious origins.

            What stops me is the radical left description. Radical leftists deny the supernatural, opting for a more naturalistic approach to… just about everything short of salvation. Also, they tend to eisegete, which means they read what they want to into the text. If majority opinion says something in the Bible isn’t true, they’ll go with the opinions of the day.

            The Jesus Seminar went into the Gospels with a mindset of what could and couldn’t be legitimate, and their findings reflect this. Jesus couldn’t do miracles, therefore… He didn’t do miracles. Jesus couldn’t be God… therefore He wasn’t. Etc.

            The Jesus Seminar was composed of people who do not reflect scholarly opinion on the New Testament. They were and are extremely leftist, and y’all know what that means. They were almost a publicity stunt. They knew that what they said would be received with open arms, and they went straight to the public without first checking through academia.

            This third option fails because the Jesus Seminar, put simply, is not reliable****.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

            Free Thought believes the Bible doesn’t accurately portray Jesus’ teachings. They give three reasons. The first one doesn’t really matter. The second one is not true due to eyewitness accounts. The third one is extremely questionable due to the party making the claim.

*If people say, "Well, how do you know those documents aren't lying?", you have to question the wisdom of talking to them. They'll deny whatever you say anyway. The simple answer to that question is, "Because there is no reason to doubt them."
**I used Lee Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus here.

***Most of the information I used in this post I researched from Lee Strobel’s book The Case for Christ. He writes about the Jesus Seminar in several places, most notably in chapter 6.

****Gregory Boyd writes about the Jesus Seminar among other things in his book Cynic Sage or Son of God?