Bringing Back the Tao

My 9/11 Memorial: Christianity Offers Authentic Hope In The Face Of Suffering

2011-09-10T17:53:00.000-07:00

Terror's Aftermath
Today, we will be remembering one of the great tragedies in the history of our nation. Ten years ago, a senseless act of violence turned tools of travel into tools of terror. Many people died. Some instantly, some slowly and in much pain.

Like many, I remember exactly where I was when I heard about the first plane crashing into the WTC. Even more vividly, I can recall watching the second jet aim at the second tower. I had hoped, watching the 2D television screen, the plane would pass behind the building, that it would miss. Instead, pieces of ceramic, metal, and plastic shot out of the other side of the building intertwined in flames. When I remembered to breathe, I realized I had not felt so much pain in my relatively young, sheltered life. I was across the continent, but I mourned with all who experienced this act of terror.

Over the next few weeks, I tried to make sense of what I had witnessed. The world hadn't really changed much. There were always people who wanted to hurt others, but the reality of evil was much more tangible, more pungent even. Before, I had been able to ignore evil when it occurred to others, but this had hit home. This showed me the reality of pain and suffering all over the world.

I was struck by how futile our efforts at comfort can be. When tragedy strikes, people often ask bigger questions than they have before. But who, if anyone, has the answers to give authentic hope?

Failed Answers

Mary Baker Eddy believed
evil was an illusion.

Every worldview must have an answer to pain and suffering. Any worldview that ignores the true human need to make sense of the world of evil we live in rings hollow and disingenuous. Unfortunately, some worldviews seem to pretend there is no such evil, but only how we react to situations (Atheism). Other worldviews may say that evil is just as powerful as good, or even, just another side of the same coin (Pantheism). In the specific instance of 9/11, many followers (though not all) of Islam would contend the falling of the towers was actually a good, and not in fact an evil act.

William Provine believes there
is no God, and thus, no ethics
(or ways to measure good and evil).

All of these answers are found lacking in the face of the horrors of suffering. As people jumped from the burning buildings, falling to their death, not a bone in my body did not react in shock at the evil of it all. Later as the buildings collapsed, trapping thousands in a dusty, fiery grave, it was clear evil was and is real.

A Better Answer
Christianity's answer to suffering and evil does not insult our intelligence or emotions. It does not pretend we are too dumb to understand the reality of evil, nor does it pretend evil does not exist and sweep it under the rug. Christianity knows that evil is a very real problem. Though evil and suffering are real, Christianity contends justice and good will triumph in the end. Christians have an authentic hope in seeing the end of evil and suffering.

The hope one has is only as good as the object in which the hope is placed. Psalm 146:5-6 sums up the source of hope for the Christian. Our hope is in the God of the universe, the Creator. We believe God will keep his promises regarding the future.

But what has God actually promised to do about evil and suffering? Although there are many passages which may give a Christian hope, two passages stand out to me. The first passage is Revelation 21:3-5. This passage promises that God will make his living place with man. As he dwells with his people, he will "wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." God is making things new again, and he promises "these words are trustworthy and true." This passage resonates with anyone who longs for the end of unnecessary pain. We know there is something wrong with this world. All is not as it should be. But the Christian is waiting, yearning, longing for the day in which all things will again be new, and the glory of God will be revealed in its fullest nature.

Similarly, Romans 8:18-25, is another passage a Christian looks to for hope.. This passage is one of the most memorable of all of Paul's writings. He contends that present suffering is not even worth comparing to the future glory of God's people. In fact, all of creation is waiting for the unveiling of his children in their final form. God has promised that we will see justice, glory, and goodness. This outcome is so assured, so great, it isn't worth even considering the sufferings of this present age against it. This is a grand promise to give a great hope.

Reasons for Hope
I know many who read this will not be satisfied with the explanation of hope for the Christian. They may say, "If Christianity was true, these passages would give me hope, but I am not sure Christianity is true." The Christian should not be found speechless in cases like this. 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to be ready to give reasons for our hope to anyone who asks. As such, here are some reasons why I believe in God. And here is a post on the reality of the Resurrection of Christ, showing the truth of Christianity in particular. Many other people have even better posts about the reality of Christianity.

However, the most compelling reason for me personally has been my transformation through Christ. I grew up in a Christian home, and accepted the Messiah at an early age. He is my Lord and Savior, and He has consistently worked upon my heart a desire to serve Him better and more fully. While many have not tried or explored Christianity openly and decide it is false, I have tried it, and found it true.

So, I will yearn for Jesus to make all things new, I will groan for the future glory. I know my redeemer lives, and hope for the day when there will be no more pain, suffering, tears or 9/11s. I will remember 9/11/01, and all other pain and suffering, with a longing for the promises beyond.

_________________________________________________________________________________
This post is part of a coordinated effort on the part of Christian apologist bloggers. I hope my post has been helpful, but for more perspectives, check out the following:

A Letter to the Editor

2011-08-04T09:40:00.000-07:00

This week I wrote a letter to the editor of the USA Today opinion section in response to an article by Dr. Jerry A. Coyne of the University of Chicago. I do not know if it will be published, but I had a great time writing it.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Jerry A. Coyne

I found Dr. Coyne’s article, As Atheists Know, You Can Be Good Without God, to be a fascinating and engaging read. His story about instinctively helping the Federal Express delivery man was instructive as well as heartwarming. The article was articulate and I found much of it impressive.

However, I do not think Dr. Coyne has adequately critiqued the theist’s view of morality. While much of what he writes is emotive and seems to be true at first glance, he has either chosen to ignore, or has not fully understood the theist’s true position. Either way, the position he has so thoroughly knocked down has turned out to be a straw-man, while the true nature of the theist’s argument is alive and well.

A Misunderstanding of the Theist’s View

Coyne begins by explaining that many theists point to instinctual morality as evidence for God’s existence. He then argues the theist says evolution could not give instinctual morality, “for if we were merely evolved beasts, we would act like beasts.” He explains how many theists believe immorality is “laid at the door of Charles Darwin.”

While Coyne is right in his assertion that theists believe morality comes from God, I think he has attacked a straw man in saying theists believe immorality is the fault of Darwin, and that beasts would act like beasts. Some theists may believe that people would behave as beasts without God, and that may be true, but Coyne has taken on a very weak position here.

Thinking theists do not argue that atheists, like Charles Darwin, are immoral, but instead that if they are right that there is no God, that everyone, atheist and theist alike, is ammoral. See, our view is that there is no such thing as morality if there is no transcendent grounding for these things we call morals. It is not that all atheists are bad, or that we would behave immorally if we evolved from beasts, but instead that none of us would have a standard to argue about what is right and wrong and wouldn’t know the difference between behaving “red in tooth and claw” and not, because there would not be any standard to differentiate between the behaviors without God.

A False Dichotomy

Dr. Coyne uses a familiar example in his attempt to show God is not necessary for the existence of morality. Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma, as it is often called, tries to show a problem in God’s commanding of morality. One side of the dilemma is that if God arbitrarily picks how we should behave, then he can change this anytime, meaning the good behavior was never truly good to begin with. On the other hand, if the morals we should follow are truly good and even God himself is subject to them, then they are to be followed, not God. According to Coyne, this dilemma shows that God cannot be the ground of morality. At first glance, his idea seems to be hard for the theist to overcome.

However, Plato’s dilemma is a false dichotomy. There are more than just the two options Plato has given us. A third option is that God has given these moral commands, not arbitrarily, and not because he is subject to them, but instead because morality is completely wrapped up in his character and personality. In other words, morality is the way it is, because God is essentially the way he is. Morals cannot change because they are an essential part of his nature, nor are these morals more important or essential than he, because they are wrapped up in his existence.

Dr. Coyne also accuses the Christian and Jewish God of sanctioning, even ordering, “immoral acts in the Old Testament.” He furnishes numerous examples of God’s immorality. Lack of space and time prevent a thorough defense of all of these examples, but it is not true that “Christians and Jews pass over” these passages with “judicious silence.” There have been numerous Christians who have endevoured to answer these types of objections. Not the least of which is the recent work by Paul Copan in Is God a MoralMonster: Making Sense of the Old Testament God. I refer Dr. Coyne to this work for many of these answers.

In response to Dr. Coyne’s idea that “religiously based ethics have changed profoundly over time,” I fail to see this as evidence for his point. The followers of God can be wrong about ethics just as much as anyone else, thus when someone misinterprets the Bible to defend immorality, it is not the ethics that have changed, but instead our understanding. Thus, when God’s people truly follow God’s moral system, many of them fought to see justice (i.e. William Wilberforce and others in regards to slavery). Coyne then makes the assertion that “secular improvements” forced religion to “clean up its act.” What were these improvements? It is easy to assert this, but he does not provide any evidence of such occurances.

A Rocky Conclusion

In conclusion, Coyne explains that evolution and secular reasoning aresupposedly enough to account for the morals we exhibit and follow. He explains our “big-brained” animals have reasons to behave nicely towards other like minded, bodied, and specied individuals. He explains that we need to throw out trivial ideas about what we “eat, read or wear,… or whom we have sex with” for more important “matters of genuine moral concern, like rape and child abuse.” After all, “isn’t it better to be moral because you’ve worked it out for yourself—in conjunction with your group—the right thing to do?”

Unfortunately, Coyne has fallen into a very common problem here. He has confused epistemology and ontology/metaphysics. He has explained very well that we can know what needs to be done, and that there are certain things that are really wrong (rape and child abuse), but he has not given a satisfactory reason for why this is the case.

I agree, rape and child abuse are wrong. However, Coyne has said we get it by evolutionary genetics, and maybe by figuring it out in conjunction with our group. While these explainations might be adequate in explaining how we know what is right and wrong, they are woefully inadequate in explaining why these actions are actually right and wrong. In other words, while he has shown reasons we might recognize rape and child abuse as wrong, he has not given us a reason that this recognition is the truth.

The examples of evolution and secular reasoning are not capable of grounding true morality. For example, if my group comes to the conclusion through secular reasoning that rape is wrong, but another group decides it is not only ok, but a preferred action to propagate their lineage, how can I argue against their idea? I might just be able to say “my group does not prefer rape,” but can I actually argue that it is wrong according to evolution or group consensus?

On the other hand, if rape is wrong because it contrary to the way God created the world, in accordance with his nature, then we have a universal grounding as the source for the knowledge that rape is actually wrong. The idea that we can figure this out apart from some such source is wrong.

Because God is needed as the ultimate ground for morality, if he does not exist it is not clear that anyone, atheist or theist, can be good without God.

The Resurrection-- Quick Defense

2011-04-22T08:13:00.000-07:00

As a High School teacher, I spend a lot of time around students who have a lot of questions. In my 10th grade Bible class, we recently spent almost two weeks learning about the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and why other theories do not fit the evidence we have.

While in the middle of teaching this to them, I started to think about very quick ways to defend the reality of the Resurrection, in case one does not have the time to explain to someone all of the nuances of the arguments of Gary Habermas, or Mike Licona (Mike Licona has recently written a book on the resurrection that is 718 pages.) So, if a friend does not want all of the evidence, or like me, you might just have an audience that wants things short and to the point, then here is my attempt at a very quick defense of the Resurrection. Hopefully this can be like hitting the easy button for the resurrection.

Prophecy-Circumstantial (Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Dan 2:44, Mt 12:40, Jn 10:18, Mk 8:31, etc)
There are many different forms of evidence. The OT prophecies concerning Jesus' death and resurrection, as well as Jesus' own prophecies that he would die and raise again are all forms of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that is suggestive of a specific thing, but it is not proof of the event itself.

These prophecies suggest that Jesus would die on a cross and live again later. Again, this does not prove it happened, but it is a building block for the case.

We Know Jesus Died (Mk 15:16-41, Jn 19:1-37, etc)
Because the Bible is historically reliable, we know that Jesus actually died on the Cross. He suffered through 39 lashes from a Roman whip, was beaten, forced to carry his cross beam, hung on the cross, stabbed with a spear into the heart. The Romans were excellent killing machines, they knew when people died and there is no reason to believe Jesus did not die.

Jesus' Tomb was Known (Jn 19:38-42, etc)
Jesus was buried in a place where everyone knew. He was buried in a rich man's family tomb, sealed in it, and a guard was placed outside. This is a very important fact, because it means the if Jesus' body was still in the tomb, everyone would know where it was and be able to show it to the people, when the disciples claimed he had risen again.

People Saw Jesus Alive Again After He Died (Jn 20:11-18, Lk 24:34, Jn 21, Mt 28:16-20, 1 Cor 15:3-7, etc.)
The most important thing to remember here, is that the people who claimed to have seen Jesus alive again, were not in the frame of mind to make a story like this up. The disciples had just seen their Lord executed, and had then hidden for fear of persecution. These men are not likely to make the story up (because then people just show the body is in the tomb), steal the body (they were afraid already), or hallucinate (hallucinations are not group events). Instead they experienced something that made them tell everyone that the man who was dead was alive again.

Not only the disciples, but two enemies of the gospel claimed to see Christ as well. Saul (a persecutor of Christians) claimed to see Christ a couple years later, and James (the unbelieving brother of Christ) claimed to have seen him as well. The hardest people to convince of any event are the enemies. To convince Saul and James is very telling evidence.

Conclusion
So, what we know is this. At point "A" Jesus was alive. At point "B" Jesus is dead and buried in a known tomb. At point "C" he is seen alive again, and no one produced his body afterward.

The Resurrection is the only explanation that fits these known events. The other theories somehow miss on at least one of these points.

Praise the Lord, He is Risen, He is Risen Indeed.

A Great Opportunity-- What is Truth?

2011-04-15T09:08:00.000-07:00

But doesn’t everyone have different truths? What if I think one thing is true and you think another thing is true? Can’t we just believe what we want?

Actually there are two different kinds of truth. There is subjective truth and objective truth. Subjective truth is truth inside of me. It is about preferences. I prefer chocolate, you prefer strawberry ice cream.

Objective truth is truth outside of ourselves. It is about the way the world is. It isn’t about preference, it doesn’t change no matter what anybody thinks about it. The earth is round even if I pretend or don’t believe it isn’t.

Claims of religions are claims about objective reality. These claims may be true or false, but they are claims about the real world. For example, Christianity claims Jesus Christ is God. Well, he may or may not be God, but this fact doesn’t change based on my like or dislike of him. Or, Mormonism claims there are many gods, and this does not change based on my preferences either.

Since religions make objective claims about the world, evaluating the evidence for and against each religion becomes very important. If there is a God who loves you and me and he asks us to live in a certain way, there may not be a more important journey for anyone’s life. To understand and know the truth is the most important thing in the world.

A Great Opportunity-- Does God Exist?

2011-04-04T22:04:00.000-07:00

As I wrote earlier, I was given the opportunity to write three short blurbs for the Smart Faith Apologetics conference. I had an amazing time writing these, and have said I would post them here. The second one is on the question Does God Exist? Here is my response to that question:

Does God Exist?

I can fully understand why it is hard to know if God exists. We can’t see, smell, touch, or hear God. This makes it hard for us to be as certain about God’s existence as we are about the existence of our family, friends, or other people. It may seem that it would take a lot more evidence to believe in the existence of God.

Can I prove God exists? I don’t think I can prove it with 100% certainty, but I do think I can show it is completely reasonable to believe in God. In fact, I think I can show it is more reasonable to believe in the existence of God rather than not believe in Him.

Imagine a huge, very complicated Lego castle. If you were to come across this castle and wanted to know where it came from, what question would you ask? You would probably ask, “Who built this?” Castles don’t build themselves. They are the sort of things that need creators or designers. In fact, if we destroyed the castle, and put all the pieces in a box, do you think a castle would ever be created without outside influence? Even if we shook the box, I don’t think a Lego castle will ever be made without a mind/personality creating it on purpose.

The universe is much more complicated than a Lego castle. If something as comparatively simple as a Lego castle requires a designer, how much more would something as complicated as the universe need a designer? The universe is designed in just the right way. All of the laws of physics are arranged perfectly in order to promote the existence of life and the universe. These laws were designed by something more powerful and bigger than the universe itself. In other words, God!

Similarly, life is so complicated only God could have created it. This is because even the most basic forms of life contain a lot (and I mean A LOT) of information. Even the simplest cell is many times more complicated than our Lego castle.

The existence of morals also suggests the existence of God. There are certain things that are just wrong. Murder, rape, and torturing babies are examples of things that are just wrong. Anyone who commits these acts has broken a moral law. But laws need lawgivers. Just as we saw earlier the existence of the laws of physics is best explained by a designer, so also the existence of the laws of morals is best explained by the existence of a lawgiver. This lawgiver is God. Only God has the power and knowledge to create these kinds of laws.

These are only three of the many different arguments for the existence of God. All of these arguments can give us a confidence that it is completely reasonable to believe in the existence of God.

A Great Opportunity-- Are All Religions the Same

2011-03-15T09:16:00.000-07:00

As I wrote earlier, I was given the opportunity to write three short blurbs for the Smart Faith Apologetics conference. I had an amazing time writing these, and have said I would post them here. The first one is on the question Are All Religions the Same? Here is my response to that question:

Are All Religions the Same?

Are all religions the same? The short answer is no. Don’t get me wrong, there are some obvious similarities between many religions such as loving one another, and belief in some kind of god, but religions often differ in their most important aspects. Even in religions which seem to be very similar at first glance, there are big differences that are very important. It really is the differences that define the religion.

Let me explain. Most people assume all religions believe in God. However, the existence of God is where a lot of differences occur. For example, there are three major monotheistic (one God) religions in the world: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Although all three agree about the existence of only one God, who they say God is differs. Christians say Jesus is God, Jews and Muslims say he isn’t. Either Jesus is God and Christianity is right, or Jesus isn’t God and the other religions are right. There is no way all three of these religions are correct about who and what Jesus is, and they certainly are not the same.

In the same way there are major differences among other religions as well. Whereas Christianity believes in one God, Hinduism and Mormonism believe in many gods, and traditional Buddhism is atheistic (no God). So, there are religions that believe in only one God, some that believe in many gods, and some that don’t believe a God exists. How can they be the same? These types of differences distinguish each religion as unique, and this uniqueness cannot be denied.

Although there are some similarities between the religions, it is really where they are different that is the most important. It is the differences that count.

A Great Opportunity

2011-03-11T12:01:00.000-08:00

I recently had an amazing opportunity to write three short articles for the website of an upcoming apologetics conference. This conference will run from June 9-10 in Phoenix, Arizona. It is a conference aimed at answering many of the questions that youth today have regarding faith. There will be some amazing speakers there (Brett Kunkle, Mary Jo Sharp, Neil Mammen, and others) speaking on a wide range of topics.

For my part, I was asked to answer three questions in a short conversational way. These answers would be used on the website to kind of whet the appetite for the sort of answers Christianity has for some of life's greatest questions. Over the next couple days I will post these answers here, but if you can't wait, head on over to SmartFaithApologetics.org and follow the links to see the answers.

I would recommend any student entertain the idea of attending this conference. It will not disappoint.

Christ is better than...! So, why go back???

2011-03-01T14:00:00.000-08:00

My church and I have been reading through the Bible this year. In this endeavor we have read Genesis, Mark, Exodus, Leviticus, Acts, and parts of Proverbs and Psalms. This has been extremely rewarding, and although it is time consuming, I have found ways to read/listen to everyday's reading. Today, we will begin a four day journey through the book of Hebrews. I can't wait.

Hebrews is a fascinating book. It may be the very best example of eloquent Christian writing. It exhibits a profundity I find to be in a class of its own.

In order to recall much of the information about Hebrews, I thought I would write about some of the finer points of this enthralling work. Much of this information is gleaned from a work by Norman Geisler.

Author
No one is quite sure who wrote the book of Hebrews. Many people have been proposed as the author, but no proposal fits the book perfectly. There are always some minor inconsistencies to the contents/style of the book with the proposed author. Most often, scholars propose Pauline authorship, while there can be a very good case made for Apollos being the author.

In any case, we can know some pretty important things about the author of Hebrews. This author is extremely educated. They exhibit a phenomenal command of the Greek language, while still being knowledgeable about the Old Testament Jewish system. This combination gives the book its amazing eloquence and style.

Purpose
Hebrews was written because Jewish Christians were considering going back to the Jewish way of life. They had experienced the beginnings of persecution because of their new faith, and this made them long for "the good ol' days" of the old Jewish system.

In tandem with the persecutions, many Christians began to wonder if Christ was sufficient. They doubted the saving power of Christ alone. When doubt crept in, they searched for new ways to ensure to themselves they would be saved. They wanted to substitute their own power for God's power, works for Grace, religion for relationship.

Main Theme
In my view, the theme of Hebrews can be summed up in one main theme: Christ is Better Than...! There are many different important things in the book, but it seems to me that all of these points surround one major interweaving theme. The author is using a sophisticated argument to show not only the sufficiency of Christ, but also the superiority of Christ. When he concludes the book there is no doubt that Christ is better than the old way of living, better than religion, works, and our own power.

Christ fulfills God's Requirements!
The first part of Hebrews focuses on the fact that Jesus fulfills what God required for the people and his servants. In this way Christ is able to be the best indicator of how to follow the one true God.

Christ is better than the Prophets! (1:1-4, Key Verse: 1:2)
This is the first thing Christ is better than. The prophets were the OT way of God's revealing plans to the Israelites. Without them the nation of Israel would not have known the requirements for holiness, repentance, or service to their Lord. There are not many things the Jews would hold higher than the prophets.

So, it could come as a shock to the readers of this letter that the author is so matter of fact about the superiority of Christ over the prophets. In the first four verses of Hebrews, the author makes it clear that the prophets can't hold a candle to Christ. The prophets could not fully communicate what God wanted to communicate to the people. But in Christ, we have the full explanation of the Father (John 1:18). No one has seen the Father, except through the Son. We have been given the full message of God the Father when Christ was incarnated.

No matter how effective the old way of revelation was, we now have the climax. Christ is the heir, the helper of creation. He is the living revelation!

Christ is better than angels! (1:4-2:18, Key Verse: 1:6)
The Jews knew angels were able to point out great ways of worshiping God. They were so beautiful, often people would be known to worship the angels instead of God.

The problem is that angels are only created beings. They are messengers sent by God, ministers of God. They are given their power by someone more powerful, more beautiful. The author of Hebrews asks why we should worship created beings when we can worship Christ?!?! Even the angels worship Christ! They know their betters. He is God!

Not only is this so, but Christ humbled himself to become lower than the angels in his incarnation. Ironically, this makes him even more worthy of our worship. He is the true Servant-Leader.

Christ is better than Moses! (3, Key Verses: 3:3-6)
Moses brought a type of salvation to Israel. He led them out of Egypt! Unfortunately, Moses was not powerful enough to save fully and the people were unable to persevere in this salvation. Moses led the people out of Egypt, the Red Sea, brought the ten plagues on Egypt... and on and on!!! But this power wasn't actually the power of Moses. This salvation wasn't the salvation of Moses. These were to show the Israelites who had the true power, and who would bring the true salvation.

Why settle for Moses, and his lack of salvific power, when you can have true salvation from Christ? Christ's power saves to the end. It will not be found wanting.

Christ is better than Joshua and the Sabbath! (4:1-13, Key Verses: 4:9-10)
After Moses was unable to bring about full salvation, the Israelites were promised true rest could be found after their forty years of wandering in the desert. Once they were sanctified, Joshua would bring them into the promised land, the resting place, the place God had always set aside for them. They would find Sabbath rest.

Unfortunately, Joshua was not capable of bringing the full Sabbath rest. Again the Jews disobeyed, they did not persevere. But Christ brings the full Sabbath rest. From Christ we receive the full inheritance. Why stick with Joshua (the one who saves) when we can be with Christ (the True Savior).

Christ fulfills what we need!
The second part of the book of Hebrews focuses on the fact of Christ being a better fulfillment of what humanity needs. In this way he was able to bridge the gap between God and man.

Christ is better than the Priesthood (4:14-7:28, Key Verses: 7:23-28)
In the Old Testament, the Priesthood functioned as a mediator for the people to God. These priests were human to represent humanity, and they made sacrifices on behalf of humanity to ask God for favor. Lamentably, the priests were not fully able to fulfill this function. The problem is two-fold. First, the priests die and therefore are unable to continue their work forever. Second, the priests are also sinners and therefore their representation is not enough.

But Christ lives forever and is perfect. Why do we settle for anything less? Christ is the perfect mediator.

Christ is better than the Tabernacle! (8:1-5, Key Verse: 8:2)
When God is instructing the Jews on the building of the Tabernacle the instructions are very detailed and very tedious looking. However, God is being so specific, because the Tabernacle is being made to be a direct reflection of the beauty of God. The tabernacle is the house of God, and it should be made in such a way so we can show God his true worth. Anything less than perfection and beauty would be an insult to him.

The problem is that the tabernacle is only a copy of the true beauty of God. It is built by man and it is destroyed by man. But Christ's tabernacle is perfect. It is built by God, not man, so it cannot be destroyed.

Christ is better than the Old Covenant! (8:6-9:22, Key Verse: 9:15)
One of the key themes of the Old Testament is that God has promised the Jews would bless the other nations of the world. In this, the Old Covenant, they would be a blessing to all other nations. The problem is the Israelites could not fully bless the other nations because they were fallen, and constantly disobeyed their God. The work they were able to accomplish was merely symbolic of the coming blessing.

Thankfully, Christ not only fulfills the Old Covenant, but he also surpasses it. When he died upon the cross, a New Covenant was given, sealed by his blood. He died to pay the price, which gives us the opportunity to receive; for all nations to gain the blessing. The inheritance of the children of God is available to us.

Christ is better than the Sacrifices! (9:23-10:39, Key Verse: 10:12, 14)
As a result of man's sinfulness, he is utterly disgusting before God. Sin taints everything it emanates from. Therefore, it is necessary for man to be purified. In order to do this, God implemented the sacrificial system. The sacrifices were a way for man to become clean before God. Unfortunately, these sacrifices made them cleaner, but not clean. The purification did not last long, they were made in a corrupted sanctuary, and they were only representations of the true sacrifice.

Thankfully, Christ is the perfect sacrifice, and his sacrifice is forever. His blood is the perfect purification, instead of "cleaner" man can now be "clean."

Why Go Back?
Christ is the perfect fulfillment of the whole Jewish system. This foundation was continually pointing to him. Is there anything better than Christ? Why go back to the old ways? Why live as though we don't have him?
We shouldn't drift (2:1-4), doubt (3:7-19), become dull (5:11-14), depart (6:1-20), despise (10:26-39), or deny (12:18-29) the superiority of Christ!

But what should be our response??? In the closing chapters of Hebrews, the author explains that because Christ is superior we should go all out for him. We should give our all to him. We should go all out in Faith (11), in Hope (12), and in love (13:1-17)

Why go back? Instead go all out!

Parent-Teacher Conference Nightmare

2010-11-05T06:21:00.000-07:00

I created a short movie on xtranormal.com about some of the struggles a teacher can feel during conferences with parents.

Well, it was a hit with my students, so I thought I would post it here. Disclaimer: it is satire, no one should take this too personally.

The Symptoms of "Secular Seep"

2010-10-18T18:13:00.000-07:00

What is "Secular Seep"
I could be wrong, but I think I have coined a term. "Secular Seep" is a phrase I use to describe the little things in a Christian's life that are out of place according to the all-encompassing nature of our faith. Christianity is a religion which proposes to be a way of looking at all of life (in fact, it proposes to be the way of looking at all of life). This being the case, there isn't a part of a Christian's life that Christ should not be the center. When we let in an aspect of the world into our lives, we open the door to not only let that aspect in, but, just a little, the door is open to push Christ out.

"Secular Seep" is not an easy disease to diagnose. It is a slight, subtle, subversive, parasitic infection often undetected for years. The key element is a general trend toward compromise, so slow the sick do not understand their sickness.

However, it is highly contagious (virulent). It does not spread by touch, or cough, or even blood transfer. No, as of now, it is the only disease I know that transfers at the rate and speed of thought and communication. A friend pressures a Christian into compromise, and "secular seep" has started in the Christian's life. Whole local Churches can be infected in a very quick amount of time.

It is also, highly resilient (resistant). Once secular seep has infected a subject, or a body of subjects, it is extremely painful to extract or cure. It fights to continue its parasitic life off the life of the host.

What are the Symptoms of SS? Do I have SS?
SS is almost impossible to spot for those who have it. It often takes a trained, outside observer to correctly diagnose SS. However, it is possible to recognize some of the symptoms of SS before it is too late.

Watch What You Watch
If you find yourself watching TV shows that glorify sex, money, or fame and justifying it as "not that bad" you may have symptoms of SS. One good rule of thumb is, if your TV shows imply sin in their titles, you could have SS (Gossip Girl, Sex in the City). Remember, not all of these titles are inherently sinful, but instead there is sin implied by their titles. Sinful talking about someone (gossip), and having intimate relationships God does not want you to have (I mean what else was Sex in the City all about???) are clearly implied in these titles to anyone who has watched even 5 minutes of these shows.

Even one of the best reality shows on television (American Idol) implies a sinful relationship before God. How is it there wasn't an outcry by Christians about the title of this show? For the most part, American Idol is only a show about some people trying to make it big. However, many of these people strive for fame at the expense of others and better lives for themselves. Also, some people who follow the show are so obsessed with it, it truly has become an idol to them.

It is possible to watch TV or movies like this, and be able to keep SS at bay, but it is extremely difficult. One must be constantly on guard against attacks against their soul, evaluating the content of what they watch against the word of God. For some (maybe even most), it is better to be safe by not watching, than sorry for watching.

This is an area I find to be one of the least consistent for Christians. I know of many people who will avoid the Harry Potter movies because they contain spells (forgetting about the overall message of Good and Evil being different things and battling for the hearts and minds of people), but they are far too eager to watch Glee (forgetting that the message is about how some evil things, sex outside of marriage for example, are actually good and should be pursued at all costs).

Take Stock of Your Friends
Do your friends want you to succeed in your spiritual life? Or are they constantly asking you to compromise? If they are putting you in situations against God's word, then you might have already contracted SS. True friends urge you to glorify God. True friends do not ask you to live against his standards for your life.

This does not mean we should not have friends who are not Christian. It does mean, however, that non-Christian friends (or Christian friends that are not constantly following Christ) should not have influence in our lives. These unChristian friends cannot be motivating to us. We cannot spend so much time with them that we adopt their thinking without knowing we are doing so. Jesus was stronger than we are, thus he could spend more time the the "tax collectors."

What Do You Listen To?
In a similar way to the movies or TV you watch, the things we listen to can tell us a lot about our health and ability to fight off SS. Does your music better you as a person, or does it make comments that are not consistent with a godly view of the world? SS is so subversive, in part, because it is hard to tell where the problem has come from, and there may be nowhere harder to see this than the music we listen to. Our music can give us thoughts we didn't know we even had. Christians are children of God, why live or settle for so much less?

The music you listen to can subtly change your worldview to the point where you wouldn't recognize yourself if you are not careful. We say we "only listen to the beat," and to be sure, Satan loves that we think this is the case.

Where Does Your Money Go?
When was the last time you asked God about a decision regarding how you spend your money? Remember, Christianity claims to be a way of looking at all of life, and this includes your money. However, as Americans, we often think we are entitled to use our money the way we want to, we think it is ours because "we earned it".

Instead, Christ should be the center of all our transactions. There is no purchase too small, to ask God if there is something else he would rather us do with this money. For many of us, we have never even asked God about what he thinks about our purchasing a car, let alone a candy bar, but if Christianity is truly the center of one's life, then even buying a candy bar is a spiritual act.

There May Be Other Symptoms
There are many other things which can be associated with SS. Many of them are not inherently wrong. However, the key question to ask yourself is, what does Jesus have to do with the way I live my life? Satan loves when people do not understand they are in a war for their hearts and minds. If he can keep us from believing there is a war, then we will die comfortably, but die nonetheless.

How to Treat SS
If you think you, or someone you know, may have contracted SS, do not panic, but know it takes a lot of work to eradicate the disease. Surround the subject with people who truly love them, who want to see them succeed in the life of Christ. Get into a mentor relationship with someone who will challenge you on the areas you struggle with. Delve into God's word in a deep way. Read more, listen to Christian radio.

In some extremes, it may be necessary to rid oneself of TV or popular music, or even the internet. However, remember this is a small price to pay to follow the creator of all the universe, who knows how you were made and can give the abundant life.

The truth is, this transformation comes from God himself, and we need to surrender to his leadership in our life. We can truly live for him, only through his power. It is not our salvation, but His salvation to us, His life to us.

Why I Teach!, or My Desire to See the End of High School Education

2010-09-22T23:12:00.000-07:00

My "Job"

I am a High School teacher. I teach History and Bible at a small Christian school in southern California. I absolutely love it. As far as I know, there is no better job in the world. I am able to be an integral part in so many minds, at such a formative age. To see these minds grow and learn to glorify the Creator is a true joy in life.

The job is not without its issues however. Many students do not care as I care. They do not find interest in Thoreau or Chaucer, revolution after revolution: French, Glorious or Industrial, mitochondria or rough ER, physics: theoretical or applied. Many do not see the joy of debating the ideas of existentialism versus nihilism, and they thus do not see the connection between the two. Even when it comes to knowing the God of the universe, they do not share my enthusiasm for delving deep into the great mystery, to know Him better, and thus to understand ourselves in deeper and truer ways, to find true beauty before all other beauty, and to learn to love the good and the true.

The Problem

Sometimes the students only sleep through class, if not literally, then at least mindlessly. These students hurt my heart, because they are missing out.
Those students, however, do not nearly make me as sad as the student who finds their only motivation to learn is to "get an 'A.'" This student does well in class, maybe too well. When they have graduated, they will have earned all the awards, but not learned who they are. They might be looking toward getting that "good job," but they have no love of learning. They might find a way to make a lot of money, but the pursuit will not make them satisfied.

I hate grades! I hate to give them, I hate to get them. But I'm told I have to give them. They do not make sense to me. Isn't the education I give supposed to help a student discover themselves, and find true joy (or at least the classical idea of happiness)? How do these grades motivate the student to delve into their own psyche, or even soul, and investigate what makes them tick? How do grades help them communicate with God?

Grades give an artificial barometer of a student's progress. They give us something to reach, something which will not satisfy. When you get the 'A' there is always someone smarter than you. Or even if not someone smarter than you, another school has someone else smarter than you. Or even if you are the smartest, there will always be another 'A' to reach. When will this satisfy?

A Broken System
Our whole system of education seems broken. From the very beginning, we tell students they need to go to school to get into a "good" college. They may ask, "Why?" To which we respond, to get a "good" job. "Why?" To support your family. "Why?" So, they can get a "good" education. Uh, oh, the cycle begins again.

I think our students are asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking "why," they should be asking "what." What do the teachers mean when they say "'good' education?" Or job? Does making money seem all that good? Is making money enough to satisfy? I know too many people with money or "good" jobs to know these are not sufficient roads to happiness, as well-traveled as they may be.

When did a liberal arts education become about making money? I seem to remember Universities developing to try to make sense of the world. They were looking to find the Unity in the Diversity. This means a liberal arts education was not a means to an end, but instead an end in itself. It was about finding one's place in the world, and living a full, well-rounded human life. This full life would lead to happiness, because we would be living in harmony with our purpose.

Why I Seek to End High School Education
High school education today is involuntary, and, it seems to me, it gives promises it cannot keep. Now, realize, I do not actually want all HSE to end. I just would love to see us stop lying to ourselves about it. HSE makes promises it cannot keep, we tell you an "A" will make you happy, or the right college will make your life right, but they will not.

Instead, I would love to foster a love for learning, in all its glory. This would mean a student who does not enjoy history, would not have to take my class. I am now walking on thin ice, because most students do not enjoy history. This could mean my job would no longer be needed, because no students signed up for my class. I feel it would be worth the risk. Let me give you one example why:

I had a student who typifies my struggle with our educational system. He was extremely bright, exceedingly polite, exorbitantly astute, and enormously motivated. However, if I engaged him in a conversation of any real depth, he was candid about his motives and perceptions. "I just need the 'A'" or "Why does this matter to me?" are typical of the statements and questions he made. He was pressured by the system (and his parents) to learn things in which he saw no value. Unfortunately, this means he memorized trivia, and never learned any lessons and therefore never grew. (Coincidently, his parents seemed to act this same way, and although fairly wealthy, they were no closer to living happy or satisfied lives. Interestingly, they were the ones always pushing for extra credit.)

This is akin to the student who asks the calculus teacher, "I'm not gonna be a rocket scientist, when will this show up in my life?" This is a student working for a paycheck, before a paycheck is even reachable.

What makes us think the student will suddenly find satisfaction when they reach the workplace? Many are the drones who work to find a paycheck, but never find happiness. These drones do not work for honey, but instead the weekend.

My Solution (A Work in Progress)
I propose we seek to help students find out who they are, not memorize trivia. This requires several things:
1. It requires teachers who love what they do. They are not in the career for the paycheck, but instead to mold minds into harmony with their purpose.
2. It requires less emphasis on grades, especially from parents. Grades are wonderful for measuring your memorization, yet horrible for measuring a life well-lived.
3. It requires a knowledge of the one true God. All knowledge finds its home in the Creator, thus any system of education which does not find its center in God will not fill any heart.
4. It requires us to let students have more responsibility at an earlier age. Students whose lives are forced upon them by parents and teachers do not have time to think deeply about who they are. To truly learn one's desires and inner workings requires the ability to make mistakes and learn from them. I know of way too many students who are allowed to stay a Toys 'R' Us kid well into their 20s and sometimes even 30s. How do we expect them to grow up if we don't baby them?
5. It requires lots and lots of time. The education I propose is based around relationships. Unfortunately, this is much more time consuming than trivia and thus most people would rather be lazy.
6. It requires lots and lots of prayer.

P.S.-- A Side Benefit, Avoiding Alex Trebek Syndrome
My dad loves Jeopardy. I have to admit, I enjoy the show as well. However, I have real problems with Alex Trebek and others like him. I call these people 'smug memorizers.' Alex is always so condescending to people who get wrong answers, because Jeopardy is a results driven show. In a Jeopardy world, there is no room for growth, because we are only as good as our last correct answer. Thus, those who do not have the answers are looked down upon.

But a world in which we spend our time in relationship, and thus we find our worth in our growth and treatment of others as an act of worship to our Father, avoids the 'smug memorizers' which keep people trapped into boxes in which they do not fit.

Here is a link to a person who thinks somewhat similarly to me: http://examinedlife.wheatstoneacademy.com/2010/09/school-should-make-us-happier/

Quick Post: Jesus as Savior for All in the Birth Narratives

2010-09-06T12:03:00.000-07:00

Evidence of the Birth of Christ as Precursor to Saving the World

It is impossible to read through the narrative of the birth of Christ without seeing it was intended for Jesus to be the savior of the whole world, not only the Jews. It is clear throughout the narrative that Jesus was going to be the Messiah, although many times it seems that he is only the savior for the Jews. Verses such as Luke 1:32-33, 46-55, 68-69, 71, 74, 77, 2:38, and Matthew 1:21-23, and 2:6 all point to a savior of the Jews coming to earth, and that Jesus was this savior.

However, it is also clear this salvation was not only for the Jews. In Luke 2:8-20, the angels announce the birth of Jesus, commenting in verses 10 and 11 that Jesus was/is a source of “great joy which shall be for all the people” for he was born “a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” The angels then sing in verse 14, “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.” Coupled with the above verse we can see that Jesus would be peace for all who were saved. It is also telling, that peace with our fellow man follows after God is pleased and glorified.

Later, a man named Simeon tells of the salvation of the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, in Luke 2:29-32. This shows the salvation was not reserved for the Jews, but instead for all that would please God, which we find out later in the Gospels happens by trusting in Jesus as savior.

In the Fullness of Time-- Christ's Impeccable Timing

2010-09-01T22:17:00.000-07:00

One of the themes of the NT narrative is the idea that Christ arrived on the scene just at the right time. He wasn't too early, he wasn't late. Instead, he came when the world was ready, even ripe, for the truth he brought. This idea can be found in the NT in passages such as Mark 1:15, Gal 4:4, Eph 1:10, 1 Tim 2:6, and Titus 1:3.

When one studies the historical context surrounding the entrance of Christ, we find indeed, the best possible time for the entrance of the incarnated Son of God was around AD 3-4.

There are 3 main reasons for this.

The World was Prepared Politically
Since the "known world" was conquered by the Romans, the world was politically stable enough to receive Christ. The Romans had enforced a peace enabling Jesus to carry out his ministry, and subsequently the peace also enabled the spread of the Gospel.

Many people had immigrated to the cities, where ideas were being exchanged freely in the melting pot of the cultures. This meant Jesus would be heard in the cities as another voice. Thus many nations would quickly hear about the teachings of Christ.

Not to be overlooked, the Romans also established an extensive system of roads. These roads made it possible for easier travel between cities. It also helped the authorities enforce laws and thus reduce thievery of travelers.

All in all Rome created a safe haven for the spread of the Gospel.

The World was Prepared Intellectually
When Alexander the Great had conquered the "world" he did something very beneficial to the ministry of Christ. Having died in 323 B.C. Alexander left the world more "greek" than it was before he had conquered it. One of his goals was to make the world "greek," and as such, he had soldiers marry native women, and teach all of the people the Greek language. Also, the Old Testament was translated into the Greek by 280 B.C. As such, when Jesus arrived the people had a common language to communicate their ideas. Jesus probably spoke Aramaic most often, but a common language meant his life and ideas could be communicated easily.

Philosophically, the world was also ready for the person of Christ. Greek philosophy had taught a few positive things which helped whet the people's appetite for Jesus of Nazareth. Socrates taught about morality, Plato taught about a soul and an immaterial realm, and Aristotle argued for the existence of a "prime mover" or God. All of these things impacted the world positively for Christ.

On the other hand, philosophy had not met the needs the people had. Regular Joes did not find fulfillment in philosophy, it was a system for the elite, strong, and affluent. It did not make any promises to people who understood their sin, and were looking for love and redemption.

Lastly, the Greeks had also shown the world that not every religion would cut it. The religion of the Greeks and Romans had failed the people in so many ways. They offered a polytheism with vengeful, spiteful, egotistical gods that seemed to rather hurt people than help them. If one of these gods said they loved you, you would cower or run for fear of rape (Zeus was especially known for his lust for mortal women)! These gods did not meet man's needs. Instead this type of religion made the masses hunger for something much more satisfying to their needs and intellectual capacities.

The World was Prepared Religiously
The Jews had sufficiently kept the ideas of Judaism in a way as to be able to share them with the world. They had preserved monotheism. They had given the world the Old Testament in the common language of the time, and had developed an extensive system of worship throughout the known world. This led to many gentiles embracing Judaism in the synagogues. The influence of these synagogues was important in preparing the world for Christ.

Christ's Impeccable Timing
Jesus came to this earth when just the right circumstances came together to maximize his impact on this world, thus changing the face of Western Civilization, and consequently the whole world. His life ignited a world-wide movement, spreading like wild-fire. We need to continue preaching the Gospel, waiting for his perfect timing when he comes again.

Two Posts to Read on the Trinity??? How fun!

2010-08-23T18:31:00.000-07:00

Today I came across two separate posts on the Trinity. Brett Kunkle posted a video on the definition and rationality of the Trinity, and Fred Sanders posted about his new book on the Trinity, with an excerpt from his first chapter.

I found both posts enjoyable and informative, although they took entirely different approaches. Kunkle aims to help educate students in the definition of the Trinity, while Sanders seems to most tackle the methodology of our learning of the Trinity in his post.

Either way, both posts are attempting to clarify a deep theological truth of the Christian faith. Christianity rests upon the idea of the Trinity and we need more people to help explain what it is, and how it affects every day life.

It is reasonable to believe in God. Conclusion

2010-08-20T18:04:00.000-07:00

The End of a Long Road
Alright, it took me a little longer than I had projected to finish my short discussion on the reasonableness of belief in the existence of God. Somehow, though its finished. One last thing, lets wrap it up.

We began the series with my assertion that a very good case for the existence of God can be made cumulatively. That is, these arguments strengthen each other, but all of them do not fall if one of them falls.

Next, I issued the evidence put forth by the Kalam Cosmological argument, with some of the Scientific evidence supporting its claims.

In review, the basic argument goes like this:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The Universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause

Now, this did not prove the existence of God necessarily, but it did have some startling implications. This cause is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and personal.

After the Kalam argument, my next two posts were Teleological arguments, or arguments from purpose or design.

The first post draws evidence from the complexity of the universe, and it is inconceivable to believe it happened to be this way out of luck. It would take a designer for all of the intricacies to be just right.

But, if that were not enough, the next post explains we find life is also too intricate to arise without a purpose. Life is irreducibly complex, and could not just happen randomly, or in small steps.

I then moved to show evidence from the existence of an objective moral law. Our legislation requires a law giver, why would a moral law be any different.

Lastly, I threw in a few more short arguments I think fun and helpful for belief in God.

Individually, the arguments are suggestive. Together, as a cumulative case, they make belief in God a completely reasonable stance.

The question becomes, "Which God?"

I suggest starting that search with Christianity.

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? 15 Passages

2010-08-19T07:24:00.000-07:00

Is Baptism a necessary condition for one to be saved? Scripture declares, no! Here are 15 clear passages showing this:

Romans 10:9 (Confess with your mouth, and believe in your heart Jesus is Lord, you will be saved)
1 Cor 1:13-17 (Paul says God did not send him to baptize, but preach the Gospel. This shows the Gospel and Baptism are two different things.)
Eph. 2:8-9; Philipians 3:9; Gal 2:16; Rom 3 (We are saved by faith, as a gift from God, not works)
1 Cor 15:1-4 (A summary of the Gospel, with no attachment to baptism)
Acts 15; Rom 4 (No outward act is necessary for salvation)
Acts 3:12-26 (Peter doesn't mention baptism as a part of his gospel message)
Luke 7:37-50; Matthew 9:2; Luke 18:13-14; Luke 23:43 (People saved apart from baptism)
Acts 10:44-48 (Many people are saved before being baptized)

Baptism is the normal obedience of one who has trusted in Christ. Because Scripture asks us to be baptized, anyone who is a Christ follower will react to their salvation by obeying Scripture's request for a baptism. This outward sign does not create inner transformation, instead it shows inner transformation.

For more on this check here, here, here and if you still want more here. These sites have some good reasons why verses commonly used for Baptismal Regeneration (baptism is necessary for salvation) are not saying baptism is required for salvation.

Defending Pro-Life

2010-06-07T09:15:00.000-07:00

I feel one of the most important "causes" for Christians today is to stand against abortion. As such, it is particularly helpful to have really good resources for training. Here are some pages and audio clips to help:

Three Audio Lectures
A ton of resources from Life Training Institute
An article by Greg Koukl
Alan Shlemon Debate about abortion

Considering the fact that over 150 babies were killed during the 3-4 minutes I wrote this post (120,000 babies a day), I think the legalization of abortion is one of the worlds greatest evils today. It does not take long to train yourself to be able to make a difference. One human life is worth more than all the atoms in the universe, and we need to treat them as such.

"I'm Still Young"... And Other Bad Justifications

2010-04-29T21:53:00.000-07:00

They are used often, both by the perpetrator and the defender. I hear them said in a lot of different ways. They seem to be something to even desire. These statements are the way people hide behind their youth. Some wear them as a badge of honor, while others just use them to excuse their behavior.

"Boys will be boys;" "I want to experience life while I can;" "They're just kids;" "I will always have time to learn about that later, but I want to have fun now;" "I want to live it up while I can!" These, and others like them, are the "I'm Still Young" class of justifications. It is a common idea to believe we will always be able to change later. This is often why youth act like they don't care, they think they will always be able to fix it later.

However, contrary to this idea, there are many problems with this type of justification. The first problem is easy to see. Being young does not change the morality of an issue. Lying, Murder, Hate, etc. are all wrong no matter your age. This idea is undertaken in Ecclesiastes 11:7-10. The author does say to live well while still young, enjoy your youth, but remember we will be held accountable. Clearly, to be young is not to absolve from responsibility. And I think most people realize this very quickly.

I am not sure we are as ready and eager to recognize the second (and I think deeper) problem behind the "I want to experience life while I can" set of justifications. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with what we think experiencing life is in reality.

Far too often I will hear, and even think myself, that life is better while you are young. This seems to be an underlying assumption in our culture today. "Those were (are) the best days of your life" or other like statements adequately describe our attitude toward life. We as a culture honestly think life is at its best in High School and College. This is something that has been documented by Diana West in her book The Death of The Grown Up. Also, for a couple shorter treatments of this idea, check out these articles by John Stonestreet.

For some reason we have bought the idea that life is all downhill after 30. This scares me as I turned 30 this year. But it also scares me, because it means that, if this theory is true, I am now heading into the boring part of life! Is life really best in the 20s???

I would venture that it shouldn't be true. And it is a very, very sad thing for people who find it to be true for them. It is painful to be around people who are in the middle of life, still wishing to be in high school. Don't believe me??? To show you life should get better with age, like fine wine or cheese, I submit Uncle Rico.

Do you know Uncle Rico? In the movie Napoleon Dynamite, a set of loser characters combine to make a memorable movie (though maybe memorable for all the wrong reasons.) In this movie of loser characters, I think we all know the worst one is Uncle Rico.

Rico is a 30s relative of the main character Napoleon. He is often referring to his high school football days, "I bet I could still throw a football over those mountains." He wishes he could relive his glory days! Unfortunately, those are his glory days. He now lives in a van, and tries to come up with get-rich-quick schemes. It is hard not to understand the pathetic nature of a grown man wishing to be in high school again.

Even so, we, as a culture, try to hold on to our teen years for as long as possible. This is true enough that it is not actually hard to find an "Uncle Rico" in real life. We can all probably think of someone like this, or we will find one soon.

I think this goes against the idea Christ had in mind when he spoke of having the full life in John 10:7-10. It seems to be counter-intuitive to urge people to reach for a "full" life, but it doesn't keep getting better as people grow. A full life should only get better. In this case, getting older would be welcome.

Most cultures have understood the value of growing old. They recognized, that while losing some physical ability, growing old brings an experience and wisdom that is surpassing in its meaning and beauty. This is one reason why many cultures have a more healthy respect for their elders.

As a culture, we need to recognize the full life begins in Christ, and only gets better as we grow in him. This will help our students to mature earlier, because they will not be afraid of the life still to come.

It is reasonable to believe in God. Pt 6

2010-04-23T12:40:00.000-07:00

I have been arguing belief in God is reasonable by putting forth a short, cumulative case for the existence of God. In my last post, I argued the existence of universal morals is best explained by the existence of an ultimate creator. Today, I want to focus on some lesser known arguments for the existence of God.

Quick Extras (Maybe One Not So Quick)
There are many, many arguments for the existence of God. Some have been researched more than others. In this space, I will treat some of my favorites in a very short way.

The Argument From Desire
One of my favorite arguments for the existence of God is called the argument from desire. Many people have used this argument. It appeals to the desire in all of us for meaning, love, glory, and other desires. Some have put the argument this way: "There is a God-shaped hole in each of us." C.S. Lewis was very good at using this argument.

The way I put this argument is: For most of the things I want, I find there is a suitable, even perfect, satisfier for this desire. When I am hungry (the desire for food) I can find food. When I am thirsty (the desire for drink) I can have water. I cannot think of one physical desire for which there is not a perfect satisfying element in this universe. You could suggest the world was made in such a way as to be able to work towards satisfying needs/wants of its inhabitants. (By the way this is another form of the argument from Teleology.)

It is almost as perfect with my non-physical (spiritual) desires. My desire to have loving companionship is fulfilled by my wife. The desire I have to care for, and nurture the creation is fulfilled by my care for my home and dogs. I desire to leave a legacy for new generations, and hopefully someday I will have children of my own to do this with. But unlike my physical desires, these "spiritual" desires are not perfectly fulfilled all the time.

However, I can see glimpses of how these might be fulfilled perfectly. It leads me to believe, that if all of my physical desires can be met perfectly, might there be a place where my spiritual desires can be perfectly met? After observing how many desires are satisfied, CS Lewis put it this way: "If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."

I find this most compelling for the Christian God when one considers our desire to be a part of something bigger than ourselves, and yet we do not want to lose ourselves. In other words, we all want to live a meaningful life, but be able to be who we are. All other worldviews do not answer this adequately. Atheism tells us to only care for ourselves, while Pantheism tells us to lose ourselves in the cosmic goo.

Only Christianity gives an adequate explanation for this desire. The Christian God is the perfect example of this in the Triune nature. God is a unified being in three persons. All members of the Trinity are fully God (unity), but are fully distinct persons (individuals). No other worldview answers this question in a satisfactory manner.

The Argument From Beauty
I think I like the way Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli put this. It goes something like this: There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. Therefore, there is a God. Seriously, check it out in this book.

Beauty, like the beauty represented by this picture from space needs an explanation. The best explanation is it was created by a designer.

I know there is a lot more to explain in this argument, but these are supposed to be quick extras and I already really screwed that up.

The Argument From Consciousness
The fact that there is something unphysical about us points to an unphysical cause. Our mind needs an adequate explanation for existence. The existence of mind (not our brains) cannot be explained by physical means. The best explanation is another mind.

There are a lot more of these arguments. I find some of them more compelling than others, but in a cumulative case all contribute to the case for the existence of God.

Next: Conclusion

Biblical Interpretation in a Nutshell

2010-04-21T18:00:00.000-07:00

Over at Parchment and Pen, Michael Patton has posted a concise summary of correct Biblical Interpretation. I have been working on several posts about Biblical Interpretation, where I have claimed there are 5 steps to correct Biblical Interpretation.

Patton has suggested there are really only 3 steps to correct interpretation: Exegetical Statement (What It Meant To Them), Theological Statement (What It Means To Everyone) and Homiletical Statement (How This Applies To Me). These actually are basically the same steps I advocate said in a different way. However, Patton has been working at this longer than I, and therefore has much insight and experience I cannot give.

It seems to me, that many (not all) of the problems we have when reading the Bible would be solved, if we just read it more carefully.

I highly recommend giving this post a read through.

The Power of a Cumulative Case

2010-04-21T12:20:00.000-07:00

As I am building a Cumulative Case argument for God's existence, I find Luke Nix has an article on the power of the cumulative case approach to worldviews.

He does a very good job of explaining the reasons for preferring the cumulative case to other arguments. Anyone wondering about the pros and cons of the cumulative case approach should read this article.

When Things Take the Place of People, Or How to Suppress the Truth In Unrighteousness pt. 2

2010-04-19T18:54:00.000-07:00

A little while ago, I commented on an article by Al Mohler about the gender-neutral leanings of many universities in the United States today. I suggested this was a clear case of exchanging the truth of God for a lie as we are told happens in Romans 1:18-32. When people stop recognizing God's created order, even though it is plain to see we can tell they are suppressing the truth in their unrighteousness.

Well, add another example to the list! Today, Robin Phillips of Signs of the Times, has found another way our society has decided to believe a lie.

The debate about global warming has been pretty heated for quite a while now. Often I have wondered if proponents of the climate change phenomenon care more about the environment than people. Well, it seems as though we have confirmation of this. At least one global warming/enviro friendly person does care about trees and Mother Nature more than he does about his fellow man.

It seems as though Bill Gates has decided we need to decrease the human population, in order to ensure the survival of the planet. In fact, he is advocating the use of vaccines to help achieve this goal!

I want to be clear, I recycle (sometimes because my wife makes me), I do care about the world we live in. It seems clear to me we are supposed to be stewards of our environment. This world is not ours to destroy, it is God's and he has asked us to rule over it (Genesis 1:28).

However, it is also clear humans are the epitome of the created order. God has given us creation to rule over, which logically means we are greater. A lesser cannot rule a greater! It has been said, that one human being is worth more than all the molecules in all the universe. This being so, we cannot stand by and watch as people suggest we are worth less than what God has said. He created us in His image, and we must stand for the truth.

A Holocaust Denier-- Now???

2010-04-16T17:49:00.000-07:00

A Catholic Bishop has been convicted of denying the Holocaust. In Germany this is a crime.

From Beliefnet.com:

BERLIN - A German court convicted ultraconservative British Bishop Richard Williamson on Friday for denying the Holocaust in a television interview.

A court in the Bavarian city of Regensburg found Williamson guilty of incitement for saying in a 2008 interview with Swedish television that he did not believe Jews were killed in gas chambers during World War II.

The court ordered Williamson to pay a fine of (EURO)10,000 ($13,544).

The Roman Catholic bishop was barred by his order from attending Friday's proceedings or making statements to the media.

His lawyer, Matthias Lossmann, told The Associated Press after the court ruling that Williamson has yet to decide if would appeal it.

Denying the Holocaust is a criminal offense in Germany.

The court last year ordered a fine of (EURO)12,000 for Williamson, without a trial. But the Bishop appealed that ruling, forcing his case to be tried publicly. [Italics Mine]

What really caught my attention about this article was this last line. What person in their right mind would want to have a trial regarding their denial of the historicity of the Holocaust while people who actually lived through the Holocaust are still alive??? The one time where historical revisionism is virtually impossible is while eyewitnesses are still alive.

This is the exact reason why 1 Cor. 15:3-8 is so important to our belief in the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Scholars have dated this passage very early after the time of the crucifixion and resurrection (within 5 years by many estimates). So, it would be very hard for historical revisionism to creep into the account by this time.

Moreover, Paul issues a challenge in this passage. He names a bunch of eyewitnesses! He is basically saying, "Jesus lives. If you don't believe me, go ask all the other people who saw Him! They will verify my story."

Eyewitnesses make it extremely difficult to deny a historical event. Praise the Lord for showing himself to many after the resurrection!

Some Thoughts on the Brown - Ehrman Debate

2010-04-16T10:24:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, at Ohio State University, Dr. Michael Brown debated Dr. Bart Ehrman on the premise Does the Bible Provide an Adequate Explanation to the Problem of Suffering. Overall this was one of the best debates I have seen on this topic. Both sides were passionate, and came armed with Biblical text to support their position. Overall, I enjoyed this debate very much, and it is hard to declare either presenter the clear winner.

As I was watching this debate a couple things struck me about all debates on the problem of suffering or evil.

First, one should not use the problem of evil/suffering as a primary reason for or against the belief in a supreme deity. There are multiple reasons why this is a poor justification for or against the existence of God. There is a lot of evidence for the existence of God which come from other lines of inquiry, and just because we don't like the theistic answers to the problem of pain, does not negate any of these other lines of evidence. Just because you might not like the answers to the problem of pain, does not negate the evidence for God from cosmology, philosophy, science, and experience. In the same way, because you might want there to be a God who will bring justice, does not actually entail other evidence against his existence wrong. Here is a hypothetical about how this might go:

Atheist: God does not have an adequate answer to the problem of evil. So he doesn't exist!

Theist: God does exist, so he has an adequate answer to the problem of evil.

Atheist: But there can be no adequate answer for suffering, so there is no God.

Theist: Heaven is an adequate answer for suffering.

Atheist: No, its not!

Theist: Yes it is!

Very quickly, this digresses into a subjective preference about whether the answers given are adequate or not. The logical problem of evil has fallen out of favor for this exact reason. There could be a logical reason why God could allow pain, but whether or not we accept it comes down to whether or not we believe there is a God and if he is good. There are better lines of evidence for/against God, and we might want to ask about the problem of evil after we have decided about whether or not God actually exists.

The second observation I had from the debate was how often people mistake the ontological/metaphysical for the epistemological. At one point Dr. Brown made a remark about the meaning of life if God did not exist. The comment was made to point out, that if God does not exist, then there is no ultimate meaning to suffering or kindness or life in general. To this point, Dr. Ehrman said Dr. Brown's assertion was "obscene" and offensive. He commented that he, himself, had much meaning in his life even though he did not believe in God. Ehrman's answer shows he was confused about Dr. Brown's point.

I am not sure theists have done a good job explaining ontological issues like these yet. And when we try to use them, we often let the non-theist get away with changing from the ontological to the epistemological in their answer.

Let me explain what I mean. The ontological is the way reality really is, while the epistemological is our knowledge of things. When Brown argued there would be no meaning without God, he was making an ontological claim He was saying ultimate meaning cannot exist if there is no God, because everything will end in the end, and we will cease to exist. Anything we do in this life will be ultimately worthless, because we do not have a standard of worth to measure by, and in the end, everything will be destroyed.

Ehrman answered with an epistemological claim, specifically saying he knew his life had meaning. But this does not answer Brown's assertion that there is no meaning without God. Instead, this is actually an implicit admission as to Ehrman's intuitive knowledge of God, because he knows his actions have true value.

Theists need to learn how to explain this better. We need to learn to include ourselves in the argument. We are not saying atheists have no value because they don't believe in God. We are saying, that neither the atheist, nor the theist, has any ultimate value if there is no transcendent grounds to give us worth. An atheist or a theist who does work for the poor, ultimately does nothing, without a God in existence in reality, because it will all be for naught when it is all destroyed. We are not saying your belief in atheism means you do not have worth, we are saying neither you nor I have any worth if we are all products of natural processes. Mother Nature does not care about you or I, because Mother Nature is really mother nature!!!

But if there is a God, then both the theist and the atheist have value, because of the transcendent nature of the Creator. Inventors create with a purpose, and the Creator is no different. He has a purpose for both the atheist and the theist.

Overall, I the debate was enjoyable and thought provoking. In the end, is there much more you can ask for in a debate?

If you are interested in listening to the debate, apologetics315.blogspot.com has already linked to an MP3 of the event.

The Great Trinity Debate

2010-04-15T09:08:00.000-07:00

Over at Reclaiming the Mind's blog, Parchment and Pen, they have begun an exercise I think will be awesome. The Great Trinity Debate features a Trinitarian, Rob Bowman, and a Unitarian, David Burke, debating the biblical merits of the doctrine of the Trinity.

From the Introduction to the Debate

Here is the format for our debate:
Week #1 (begins April 11): Dave and I have separate posts introducing the subject, explaining our views of Scripture, interpretation, doctrine, and of the nature of God (i.e., his attributes).
Week #2 (begins April 18): Dave and I will have separate posts on our views about Jesus Christ.
Week #3 (begins April 25): Dave and I will have separate posts where we may continue to present arguments supporting our views about Jesus Christ.
Week #4 (begins May 2): Dave and I will have separate posts on the Holy Spirit.
Week #5 (begins May 9): Dave and I will have separate posts presenting our case for our differing theologies of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (mine in support of the Trinity, Dave’s in support of Biblical Unitarianism) and critiquing each other’s theologies.
Week #6 (begins May 16): Dave and I will have separate posts offering closing statements, with comments open to the general public.

I will eagerly be awaiting each and every post. If the first two posts are any indication this will be a fulfilling and rewarding exercise. I will continue to link each new post as they arrive.

Introduction to the Great Trinity Debate
Week 1-Rob Bowman
Week 1-David Burke

Free Webcast of Debate on the Problem of Suffering

2010-04-14T14:55:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow at 7:00pm Et/4:00pm PT a debate will be held at Ohio State University on whether the Bible adequately answers the problem of suffering. The debate will feature Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Bart Ehrman. It will be webcast for free. Register Here

If you would like to prepare a little on the problem of suffering before seeing this debate check out these links:

Bethinking

STR

There are many more resources at those sites as well.

On Reading the Bible (Well) pt 2

2010-04-13T05:57:00.000-07:00

A few days ago I wrote about reading the Bible well. I have noticed people have not been taught how to read the Bible for everything it gives. Instead we are stuck in a world of privatization, where the only application from scripture is for the individual. The problem with this is God revealed the Bible for everyone. Scripture has an original meaning, and we need to understand what God's intention for the message was. Without this we can fall into the trap of internal faith without any real base to stand on.

With this in mind we looked at Revelation 3:14-22. We discovered many people misinterpret this passage, and it can be disastrous for some believers. I have actually heard pastors say God would rather us be completely against Him if we are not going to be "on fire" or "sold out" for Him.

We examined the passage and found, within the context of the time, this is probably not what God was saying at all! Instead, God wants us to stay close to Him the source of being cool and refreshing, or hot and therapeutic. Jesus was using a cultural aspect to show the citizens of Laodicea that they were not close to Him anymore. No, they were far from Him, like lukewarm water, they tasted nasty to Jesus.

How can we avoid this problem? How should we read the Bible?

I have found there are 5 basic, and easy, steps to be able to read the Bible well.

1. Read the passage!

Read the whole passage. Don't just read a verse. Verses are meant to be seen in the larger context of a message.

2. Understand to whom it is being written.

If the passage is directed to exiled Israelites, it might have different cultural considerations then if it was written to brand new Christians in the 1st century.

3. Determine what God was saying to the people He was speaking to.

With the context and culture in mind we can probably understand more about what God was telling them.

4. Seek out and extract the transcendent (timeless) principles.

As mentioned earlier, God's word is written for everyone. It is sufficient for a knowledge of saving grace. If we can see both the cultural and scriptural context then we can see what is the principle God is communicating to everyone.

5. Apply this transcendent principle to the culture and life you live.

We can take what God has told everyone, and apply it to the ways we live. This will ensure we are at least trying to connect with the body of believers.

Christianity is not a private religion. It does have private aspects, but always within the context of the community/church (the body of believers). In order for this to work, we need to see what God wants everyone to know.

Stand to Reason has a great way of explaining this same general information. Check it out Here and Here

In part 3: The 5 Steps applied.

"It's Just Not My Thing"... And Other Bad Justifications

2010-04-11T11:03:00.000-07:00

"It's just not my thing!" I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard this. I hear it when students do not turn in their homework, or when they don't want to read their book. I hear it when we study art, or when they have done badly on a biology test. We all think this way sometimes. We are lazy and self-centered.

I have one student in particular, who seems to use this phrase as primary communication with authority. It gets used as a trump card, a "get out of jail free" card.

It can be used for everything! "It's just not my thing!" means we don't need to worry about school, how we treat another student, or why we don't go to church. Somehow, because its just not our thing, it means others should have sympathy on them, or even drop the subject completely. Students should know by now I don't drop these things.

Unfortunately, "It's just not my thing!" doesn't absolve students from studying, people from kindness, or Christians from church. This excuse usually is nothing more than a lie, nothing more than a falsity.

Matthew 22:37 makes it clear, by nature of being a student, studying is our thing! Matthew 22:39 is also clear, by nature of treating others as you would like to be treated, kindness is our thing! And, Hebrews 10:24-26 shows, by nature of being a Christian, church is our thing!

In other words, "It's just not my thing!" is usually a lie we tell ourselves and others to make ourselves feel better for not doing what we should. We are lazy and self-centered, but this does not mean we can do whatever we want. We are to live as God has called us to live. We are called to love God with our mind (studying), love others as ourselves (kindness), and meet with other believers (go to church)!

Instead of lying about what is and isn't our thing, we need to seek the things God wants of us, and realize He created us with a purpose, and this purpose really is our thing.

A Post on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

2010-04-11T09:25:00.000-07:00

I am in the middle of a series on the cumulative case for the existence of God. You can find the first post in this series here. So far I have 5 different posts in the series, with I think 2 more to go.

For those who might want supplementary explanation on the Kalam Cosmological Argument (Part 2), Wintery Knight has posted an excellent article detailing the way science has strengthened the Kalam.

Wintery Knight is an excellent apologist, I hope you take the time to review his argument.

It is reasonable to believe in God. Pt 5

2010-04-08T08:51:00.000-07:00

I have been arguing for the viability of belief in God. I have argued a cumulative approach to the issue is more beneficial than using any singular argument for the existence of God alone. Instead, as a rope is stronger than the individual strands, the arguments, when used together are strong enough to hold up a large claim, such as God's existence. My last post focused on the complexity of life and its suggestions for an Intelligent Designer. I now turn to the Moral Argument.

Objective Morality, It’s the Law!

Every law we encounter was underwritten by an intelligent lawgiver. When we choose to break the speed limit, we are choosing to ignore the laws placed in effect by our legislation. In the same way, if we break the moral law, we are choosing to ignore the law in effect by a moral legislature.

The existence of objective morality implies the existence of a creator. If there are universal moral laws, they must have been given by a moral lawgiver. The moral argument for the existence of God can be stated as:

Every law has a law giver

There is a Moral Law

Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver

If the two premises of this argument are true than the conclusion necessarily is true as well. However, can we show premise one and two are true?

The first premise is clear. Every law needs a lawgiver. You cannot have legislation without a legislature. Obligations only come from being obliged to someone. I am not obliged to things, only when persons are involved can obligation become real.

We recognize laws in everyday life. Suppose you played a board game with some very quirky rules. You ask a friend, “Who came up with these rules?” To which your friend replied, “No one, they just happened.” Would you accept that as an explanation? No, you would know someone came up with the rules of the game. In the same way, the rules we find in life have been legislated by an intelligence.

But, is there a moral law? To answer premise two we need only search within ourselves to see what is true about morality. Is it really wrong to murder, rape, or lie? Clearly most people in most cultures at most times would agree murder is wrong. There are certain acts we instinctively recognize as wrong (torturing or murdering the innocent or committing rape). Our natural reactions to actions such as rape, incest, murder, or torture indicate they are objectively wrong. Obviously, some things are objectively, morally wrong.

However, we live in a culture trying to deny the existence of universal morals. Often people will claim morality is subjective or relative. However, if you disagree with them they will vehemently oppose your denial of their argument. This is where they make their mistake. When one denies an absolute, they have affirmed another absolute. A denial of the existence of objective morality assumes their opinion is correct. They also assume this opinion has objective value. Where does this value of their opinion come from? Why should we listen to a moral relativist? They are assuming their opinion has value, which only makes sense if a lawgiver has said human beings have value.

Still, some will argue, that we do not have universal morals, because there are differences in morals around the world. I do not agree with this assessment. Sure, it might seem as though some people think abortion (for example) is morally right, and some think it morally wrong, but this does not mean their morality is different. Neither the pro-abortion, nor the pro-life advocate thinks murder is right. Instead they disagree about whether or not there is a human being in the womb. Both sides think it is wrong to murder human beings, but do not agree on what constitutes a human being. If it can be shown the fetus is a human being, then we would have complete agreement. Its not the morals of the situation we disagree about, its the nuances.

Since, there are universal objective moral laws, then there must a moral law giver.

Next: Quick Extras

A Different Kind of Missions Trip

2010-04-06T12:37:00.000-07:00

I have written about the recent missions trip to Berkeley, where 21 of my students and some leaders spent 4 days in Berkeley, California, defending the faith and learning about Atheism. The trip was amazing and I would recommend anyone to try to find something like it.

My friend, Sean McDowell, has recently come home from taking some of his students to Utah for a very similar trip. Here are his reflections on that trip.

Brett Kunkle of Stand To Reason plans and organizes these trips. Brett is amazing and has recently started a new website for students.

I have worked with youth for a while, and these are the most important, short-term, ways to impact students I have found. If coupled with the long-term investment of discipleship/mentorship, any student will be adequately prepared to live a life glorifying to God.

Kittens to Cats! Bacteria to Cats? Or a Great Example of Sleight of Hand

2010-04-05T10:29:00.000-07:00

Denyse O'Leary at Uncommon Descent has written a fantastic article on one of my pet peeves when talking to Macro Evolutionists.

This pet peeve of mine is when Darwinists use obvious examples of micro evolution or even simple change as evidence for macro evolution, when a species evolves into a wholly new species. This tactic has been employed by Darwinists ever since Darwin used the micro evolution of changing finch beak size to explain the alleged macro evolution of the species. This is not a new idea, but it is used often. While on my recent trip to Berkeley with Stand to Reason I encountered a student who defined becoming a new species as "when one group can no longer breed with another group." Unfortunately, there are all sorts of reasons groups may no longer be able to interbreed. This does not mean a fruit fly is no longer a fruit fly.

Anyway, O'Leary has written about this far better than I ever could. He explains the criteria one scientist uses as evidence for macro evolution also occur in the changes in a kitten becoming a grown cat. But a Kitten is a young cat! This is no species change. It is common change within a species. If a kitten can undergo these same changes as a simple bacteria, but still remain a feline, why would we assume the bacteria is now a new species? Clearly this criteria is not adequate to explain a change from species to species.

What bothers me the most about this is the dishonesty regarding this issue. Macro-evolutionists either know this type of argument does not constitute species change, and thus willfully attempt to deceive the public, or they do not know about this problem, and thus are not doing their due diligence because they are deceived themselves. Either way this is more an example of verbal sleight of hand than any true evidence.

If you would like a little more in depth analysis of this issue, check out this podcast, or read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, chapters 3 and 4. There are many more resources on this, but these are a good start.

Resources on the Crucifixion and Resurrection

2010-04-02T12:38:00.000-07:00

As Good Friday has now arrived I thought I might share some online resources that have been posted recently about the events which happened 2,000 years ago.

At STR, Melinda has written a great post on our need for the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

Al Mohler has posted a great article on the centrality of the Easter events to the Christian faith.

Different ways of explaining the evidence for the Resurrection can be found here, here, here and here.

For a free Ebook on the evidences check this out.

Stand4Truth.net has a great article on how Resurrection is not resuscitation or reincarnation

C. Michael Patton has a great PDF with study questions on how the disciple's reaction to the events of Easter are evidence for the event.

A three part examination into the Resurrection has been written by Brett Kunkle.

A great summary on why the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the best explanation for the historical events surrounding easter has been written by Jim Wallace.

And finally, John Mark Reynolds has written against the supposed pagan origins of Easter.

If you would like even further in depth analysis of these events check out the articles by William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, or Mike Licona.

Have a Happy Easter!

"It's Fun"... And Other Bad Justifications

2010-04-01T22:13:00.000-07:00

As a high school teacher I hear many justifications (excuses) for the reasons my students choose to do the things they do. Some of the time they give justification which is sound, but most of the time, it seems as though their reasoning is flawed.

I plan on blogging about the excuses... eh reasons... students give to me, and then show how these reasons cannot be a primary motivation for doing anything. (By the way, the idea for this series comes from one of my favorite bloggers C. Michael Patton's series called . . . and other stupid statements.) So, my first post in this series: "It's Fun."

Two years ago a couple students roamed the halls of our school carrying a Rubik's Cube. They were never far from this toy of the spawn of Satan (My words: I hate these things). They would spend any free time in class messing around with the cubes, and actually they got quite good at lining the colors up correctly.

One day I ventured a question, "Why do you carry around a Rubik's Cube?"

One of the students offered, "It's fun" as his primary justification.

Now, I must be clear about one or two (maybe three) things before we proceed. First, I don't have anything against fun (Contrary to what many of my students my think). Second, I actually don't mind people playing with Rubik's Cubes (I don't really think they are the literal spawn of Satan). Lastly, remember, one of my primary jobs as a Christian educator is to help my students to think more critically about their everyday lives.

So, as the student said, "It's fun" as his justification, my teacher instinct kicked into high gear. I began to wonder if I could exploit this as an opportunity to help my class learn how to think a little more clearly.

"If we passed a young man stealing a purse from an older woman, and we stopped to ask 'why are you doing this?' What if the young man replied, 'It's fun.'" I wondered, "would that be a worthy justification?"

See, its clear in the case of the young man stealing that "It's fun" just does not justify his actions.

This is where it turned ugly. My students were disgusted that I would compare their play with a toy to the obviously immoral actions of a thief.

However, I did not compare their play with the toy to the actions of the thief, I compared their justifications. If a wrong action cannot be justified by one excuse, then neither can a right action be justified by that same excuse. I explained all sorts of things might be fun, but this does not tell us whether or not we should or should not commit the action.

There may or may not be actions which are morally neutral, but before we start doing things just because they are "fun" we might want to ask questions like "Is it right, good, or glorifying to God?" Once we have determined the prescription for any action, then we can determine whether or not its fun enough for us to spend time on.

Is Christianity True? A Month of Evidence

2010-04-01T09:11:00.000-07:00

Apologetics 315 is releasing a series of web essays on reasons to believe Christianity is true. I am so excited for this, as the presenters are many bloggers whom I admire very much.

The introduction to these essays makes it clear they are not trying to give 100% certainty to the Christian Worldview, but instead show it is a reasonable and viable option. In fact, it is the woldview which best fits the facts we know of the world.

The presenters are a diverse lot, which makes the idea of this project even more compelling. I am especially looking forward to the essays by Jim Wallace, Brian Auten, James Patrick Holding, and my personal favorite Amy Hall.

I am sure these essays will be eye opening for anyone who is searching to see if faith can be reasonable.

It is reasonable to believe in God. Pt 4

2010-03-30T09:49:00.000-07:00

In a previous post I argued for the existence of God based on the Teleological Argument. Specifically, I used the argument for the Fine-Tuning (and therefore purpose or design) of the Universe. But we may also use the Teleological argument in another way.

Life is Good, But It is Complicated

Similarly, to the Fine-Tuning Argument, one can also determine life could only arise because of the intelligence of some designer. Not only can we determine the universe would be inhospitable to life without the intervention of intelligence, but life itself is so complicated as to need an intelligence creating it as well. This is because even the most basic forms of life contain a lot of information.

If you went hiking on a mountain one day, and came across a pattern of rocks arranged in such a way as to spell, “welcome to the mountains,” what would you conclude? There are only two options to explain this phenomenon, impersonal causation and personal causation. In other words, either something natural caused the rocks to be arranged this way, or a person caused the rocks to be arranged this way. Clearly, this is a product of intelligence. Messages are a sign of intelligence. Messages assume there is a a sender! Even if no one receives the message an intelligence must send and compile the information. Information cannot be the product of natural processes.
Life contains similar information. The genetic code of DNA is like a novel. “DNA has specified complexity in its message.” “Significantly, the nucleotide sequences in the coding regions of DNA have, by all accounts, a high information content--that is, they are both highly specified and complex, just like meaningful English sentences or functional lines of code in computer software (http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_dnaotherdesigns.htm).” The code of DNA is very complicated, is arranged in a very specific way.

There is no such thing as simple life. Even the simplest form of life contains a lot of information. Even the amoeba has as much information in its DNA as 1,000 sets of the Encyclopedia! If a simple message such as “welcome to the mountains” needs intelligence behind it, why would we not conclude that the equivalent of 1,000 encyclopedias of information needs intelligence? “Mind or intelligent design is a necessary cause of an informative system, one can detect the past action of an intelligent cause from the presence of an information-intensive effect, even if the cause itself cannot be directly observed.” All other forms of information are recognized as the product of intelligence, the information of life is no different. The complexity of life can only be explained as the product of an intelligence, and this intelligence is much like God.

Again, this is not conclusive evidence for the existence of God, but is instead another link in our chain, making the belief in God a viable option.

Next, The Moral Argument for the Existence of God

Warning: Where Are You Sending Your Children To College? Is It Gender Neutral? Or How to Suppress the Truth in Unrighteousness

2010-03-26T12:03:00.000-07:00

Al Mohler has highlighted a growing problem in the United States (and the West in general) today. We are losing our sense of morality, as evidenced by our confusion about gender.

Mohler, keying off an article in the LA Times, explains how many universities are now offering "gender neutral" housing. The universities defend this position by exclaiming the students are adults who have the right to choose their comfortable zone. While the students defend by saying, "a roommate is a roommate."

This is a problem I have wondered about a lot recently. I do approve of some of the changes of our views of the roles of Men and Women as they have blurred the lines of artificial shackles. However, how are we as a society going to survive (let alone thrive) if we cannot recognize the most basic of realities of God's world, such as the physical and emotional differences of men and women. If God has created some differences in our nature, these differences are not artificial, but instead normal, natural, and freeing. They help us understand how to fulfill our purpose.

Our society's need to erase and preempt the way God has created seems to be a clear case of a fulfillment of "exchanging the truth of God for a lie" in Romans 1:18-32 . We love our "freedom" so much we believe lies to enable our immorality. Christians need to stand against this confusion of roles and stand for the truth.

Great Post on Obamacare

2010-03-25T11:53:00.000-07:00

Frank Turk has written a great post which reflects my thoughts on Obamacare perfectly. I had been having trouble to truly put my thoughts into words, but now that is ok, because he has done so.

Correct Interpretation

2010-03-24T09:55:00.000-07:00

Aaron at Apologetics Junkie has posted a great article on why a correct process of Biblical interpretation is essential when studying a text. I thought it would be good to link to it in light of my On Reading the Bible (Well) series.

The article explains why Christians in America should not believe 2 Chronicles 7:14 promise of a healing on the land apply to America. This verse is often taken out of context and Christian's misinterpret the verse in a How Does This Apply to Me Hermeneutic. Instead, we should use a What Does This Teach Me About God Hermeneutic. If we realize the Bible is about God, then we will often avoid the trap of mistaken interpretation.

A correct interpretation of this verse and it's larger context does not mean God cannot heal America's land, but rather that God has not promised this to America there. He certainly can heal our land, but a correct interpretation of the passage would caution anyone to be certain of this.

Is Jesus the Only Way?

2010-03-24T08:50:00.000-07:00

Here is a short video by Greg Koukl on Why Jesus is the Only Way.

It is reasonable to believe in God. Pt 3

2010-03-22T10:33:00.000-07:00

I have been arguing for the viability of belief in God. My previous post on the Kalam Cosmological Argument argued the beginning of the universe is best believed to be caused by something outside the universe. But how do we know the universe was caused by a designer? Part of the answer to this question comes from another type of argument for God's existence: The Teleological Argument, or Argument from Design. There are at least two forms of this argument, in this post I will focus on the argument from the design of the universe.

Designer Jeans and Designer Worlds

Sometimes people will comment how much better clothing looks on the models that wear it than it does on themselves. There is a good reason for this. The designer has made the jeans to fit people who look just the models who wear it. Unfortunately, not many people actually look like models. In fact, it is much more probable that clothing should be made different from how it often is, because most people do not look like models.

In the same way, the universe could be much different from how we observe it to be. The universe could be hostile to life in so many ways. Most of the possible configurations for the world are hostile to life. However, this is not what we find. Instead, we find the universe is strangely configured for the flourishing of life. It is as though the universe , like designer jeans, was made for those who live in it. This argument is often called the Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Life.

What evidence is there that the universe was fine-tuned for life? Many aspects of our universe must be very specific for the habitability of complex life. There are at least 154 different environmental requirements that must fall “within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any kind to exist.” These environmental requirements are often called Anthropic Principles. These principles must be very narrowly defined or life would be impossible. Some examples of these principles are the force of gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the type of galaxy we live in and where we live in it, and even the size of Jupiter and our own moon. All of these things must be exactly what we find them to be, or life would be impossible.

For example, if the force of gravity were changed even a little, the implications on life would be catastrophic. If it “were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent our sun would not exist, and, therefore, neither would we.” Similarly, if gravity were too strong the universe would have collapsed on itself during the Big Bang, but if gravity were too weak, planets, galaxies, and stars could not have formed as we know them. We need gravity to act exactly as it does for life to be possible.

In the same way, even the size Jupiter creates an environment for life to be possible on earth. If it the distance was greater too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth. If the distance was less: Earth’s orbit would become unstable.

With at least 154 of these types of parameters, obviously the chance the universe could have just happened this way would be very low. It has been calculated that the chance life would arise without an intelligent designer is less than 1 chance in 10²⁸²(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion). In other words, this is the chance that the universe could be the way that it is without a God creating the universe for a reason. This is astounding considering there are only 10⁷⁰atoms in the entire universe. In other words, the chance the universe just happened to be this way is effectively zero. It would take an intelligence to create the universe in such a meticulous fashion. God being omnipotent is able to produce a world orderly in these respects. And he has good reason to choose to do so: a world containing human persons is a good thing. The universe was intelligently designed for life.

Does this prove there is a God? Not 100%, but these arguments show it is reasonable. Next, the Teleological Argument pt. 2

On Reading the Bible (Well) pt 1

2010-03-18T13:04:00.000-07:00

Too many of my students have no idea how to read the Bible (well). Unfortunately, this is not limited to younger students, but most people don't read the Bible for all it is worth.

We have privatized our religion so much we do not understand the principles in the Bible are meant for everyone, not just a subjective interpretation. We explain what the Bible means in light of what we already believe, or in light of a wrong interpretation because of our cultural influences, not the intended culture.

There are so many examples of this it is hard to pick just one, but if I must, I must.

Today's culture loves to say we "want to be on fire for God." I have no problem with people wanting to be on fire for God. In fact, in light of what that means in today's society, I think being on fire for Him would be a very good thing.

Unfortunately, we should not let this kind of cultural context skew the principles set forth in the Bible.

In Revelation 3:14-22, John writes the words of Jesus to the church in Laodicea. Christians commonly misinterpret this passage and come to what can be a disastrous conclusion based on this misinterpretation. The main verses in question are 15 and 16:

"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot! So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth!"

The common interpretation of this passage is that God wants us to be "on fire" for Him, or not for Him at all. Can you see where our cultural influence comes in? Do you think all cultures have used "on fire" to mean spiritual fervor for God? Is God really saying He would rather have people against Him completely, then to mess up and only try to follow Him sometimes?

Horribly, believers have bought into this interpretation of the passage, but this is probably not what it means!

Laodicea was a landlocked city. They had no water source of their own. Because of this they needed to pipe in their water from two nearby towns, Colossae and Hierapolis. The water in Hieropolis was warm and used as medicine. It came from a natural hot spring. The water in Colossae was cool and refreshing. You might think of a cool mountain spring.

Laodicea did not have either warm or cool water. Instead, by the time the water reached Laodicea, it would be lukewarm and nasty. This is the kind of water people might actually spit out.

With this in mind it makes much more sense to see the passage as meaning we should stay close to our source (God) and do the job he has given us. We can be people who are refreshing, or people who heal, but if we stray from our source (again God) we will become lukewarm and nasty. Does God want us to be "on fire" for Him? Of course, but He also doesn't say he would rather us be against him if we are not "on fire."

The study of this passage has made it obvious we need to be more careful to interpret passages correctly, in the context they were intended.

In part two we will learn the easy steps to remember what to do in studying a passage.

Have No Fear Theists, the Big Bang Model is Here

2010-03-16T16:21:00.000-07:00

In his article, A Beginner's-and Expert's-Guide to the Big Bang: Sifting Facts from Fictions, Hugh Ross explains why theists should not fear the implications of the Big Bang model for the origination of the universe.

Indeed, instead of fearing the Big Bang model, theists should embrace it. The Big Bang model implies an "immensely powerful yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space, and time within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws which govern their behavior and interactions." This kind of control and power implies a supernatural creator.

In fact, non-theists often try to disrepute the Big Bang model exactly because it has such theistic implications.

Christians would do well to not worry where there is no reason to worry.

Plato and Aristotle on Virtue and Happiness (or Human Flourishing)

2010-03-13T12:33:00.000-08:00

Two of the blogs I frequent have recently made different posts about Aristotle. Over on Signs of the Times there is a repost of an article called The Pursuit of Something Other than Happiness. The article points out that although Aristotle's idea of virtue leading to true happiness seems appealing to our western, modern mind, it is instead Plato who seems closer to the Biblical idea of acting "good" for God, and thus finding human flourishing. Very interesting.

My friend Stephen Notman also has a similar post at Psalm Trees. His post, called Where Athens Meets Jerusalem, takes a little different look at the issue. He contends the virtues should show us how to act more like Christ. It is telling how both biblical and Greek ethicists believed all men have a moral knowledge telling them how to act virtuously.

What to do when God seems far away

2010-03-12T21:47:00.000-08:00

C. Michael Patton has posted a very good blog about how to respond to the times when it seems like God is far away. God Has Gone AWOL in My Life or “When Life is No Longer a Cakewalk”

The key is to have your faith/trust be grounded in truth, rather than your circumstances. Check it out.

The Scandal of Gendercide — War on Baby Girls - AlbertMohler.com

2010-03-11T14:43:00.000-08:00

An Eye Opening Article: The Scandal of Gendercide — War on Baby Girls - AlbertMohler.com

It is reasonable to believe in God. Pt 2

2010-03-11T11:42:00.000-08:00

In one of my previous posts, I argued belief in God is rational, not provable. In fact, I believe that belief in God is more reasonable than disbelief given the evidence. This evidence is a cumulative case for the existence of God, not just one silver bullet argument. Instead, the arguments for the existence of God are more like a chain-link fence, stronger together than the parts are apart.

So is belief in God actually rational? The first link to build our fence is the Kalam Cosmological argument. This argument has been popularized recently by William Lane Craig. In logical form the argument goes like this:

1. 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

2. 2. The universe began to exist

3. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

The conclusion clearly follows from the premises. Therefore, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is sound.

But are the premises true?

Does Everything that Begins to Exist Have a Cause?

There are only two options for premise 1. First, everything that begins to exist has a cause, or there are some things that begin to exist which do not have a cause. But what would an uncaused beginning look like? Can you think of anything that has begun which did not have a cause? I can’t. In fact, it seems as though it is a brute fact, that things which begin to exist are caused.

There is only one major objection to this premise. Often, atheists will point to quantum physics as examples of things coming into existence uncaused or without reason.

I will admit quantum mechanics are very weird, but there is no evidence to suggest there is absolutely no cause for the things we observe in the quantum world. Energy fluctuations and other reasons for the causes of the quantum physical world are not only possible, but considering our limited knowledge of the quantum they are probable. In addition, quantum mechanics is still an unreliable source of any kind of information. It seems to be clutching at straws to appeal to this “science.”

So, the first premise seems to be true. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

What about premise two?

How do we know if the universe began to exist?

There are two lines of evidence showing a beginning of the universe, Scientific and Philosophical. We will focus on the Scientific.

The Big Bang Theory. Virtually all astronomers and physicists now agree with the Big Bang Theory. Scientists have observed many lines of evidence for a Big Bang. Among these are the fact that the universe is expanding (which means it will get smaller if we went back in time), and the correct amount of background radiation consistent with what might have happened in an explosion at the beginning of the universe.

Also, the 2^nd law of thermodynamics suggest the universe began to exist at some point. This law states any closed system will use up energy and eventually die a “heat death.” At this point in time we have not yet run out of energy, meaning there is still energy to use. This shows us the universe cannot be eternal. If it was eternal, the universe would have gone through an infinite amount of time to reach the current point in time. This means the universe would have run out of energy. However, because we haven’t run out of energy, this means there has not yet been enough time to use it all up, suggesting a starting point.

Now, one objection to this evidence from the 2^nd law of thermodynamics is to speculate the universe might not be a closed system. If this was the case, then the universe could draw upon an outside force for more energy. However, there is no compelling reason to believe in such an outside force feeding the universe, and if it was true, this “source” would be dangerously close to the definition of God, being before time, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, etc. Also, the above evidence for the Big Bang, is suggestive to reach the simplest conclusion about energy in the universe, which is that energy is being used up.

These lines of evidence, and others, are suggestive to believing the universe did have a beginning.

But what does that prove?

The Universe Had a Cause

The above premises logically lead to the conclusion, the universe had a cause. Does this prove God? Could the cause be something other than God? It could, but one must remember this cause must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, etc. These qualities are much like the definition of God of the Bible. We do not yet know if the God of the Bible is the cause of the universe, but whatever the cause, it is consistent with this definition of God.

This argument does not prove the existence of God 100%, but it is good evidence leading to that conclusion. If we can find other, independent lines of evidence, we can make the case even stronger.

Next: The Teleological Argument Pt. 1

Reflections on Berkeley from a(n Even More) Confident Theist—

2010-03-11T08:58:00.000-08:00

As we walked onto the campus of the University of California at Berkeley, I couldn’t help but wonder, “What have I gotten these students into?!?” I was nervous and scared for them. “What if this doesn’t go as planned?” So, began one of the most rewarding experiences of the students’ lives, not to mention my own. Even with the incredible risks involved, it turned out our trust in God was not misplaced.

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect. - 1 Peter 3:15

Within the first 15 minutes of arriving on Berkeley’s campus, we had sent the students out to share their faith. Equipped with surveys asking spiritual questions, these high school juniors and seniors were conversing with college undergraduates and graduates. They asked questions about the meaning of life, whether there is a God, and what is the ontological nature of morality. God blessed these students so mightily, helping them to recall their training, and giving them understanding and compassion beyond their years.

I remember thinking I would sit back and only pray for the students, being available if any of them needed help. This is not what God had in mind. I noticed a conversation between some of my students, our fearless leader Brett, and two picketers near me. God prompted me to enter this conversation. We spoke with these Berkeley students for over an hour. They were very caring and compassionate, but had never put much thought into many of their beliefs. We spent most of the time asking them questions, which led to many inconsistencies in their ideas, but the conversation never became less than friendly. They left with many new things to think about, and we left with a renewed confidence in our Lord.

Throughout the four-day trip, this basic story replayed itself repeatedly. Any time we spent time conversing with students/people we met on the campus or Telegraph Avenue, God showed himself to be faithful and completely reasonable.

Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the LORD. - Leviticus 19:32

One highlight of the trip was the opportunity to meet in the home of Dr. Phillip Johnson, the “godfather” of the Intelligent Design movement. I cannot express the honor of being able to meet with this man in his own home. He shared with us his journey into ID, the problem of the information in DNA, the inherent philosophy of Darwinists, and how searching for answers has strengthened his faith. After conversing with us, he spent time signing books with the students and getting to know them. It was so heart-warming that this intellectual giant would spend time showing these students what a life well-lived looks like.

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ - Colossians 3:8

While on the trip, we had three prominent atheists present their views on topics such as morality, evidence against the existence of God, and faith. It was so encouraging to hear from these “learned” men and realize God’s way makes more sense.

The first atheist to present to us was Richard Carrier, a prominent atheist from Internet Infidels, who has debated William Lane Craig on the resurrection. He was personable, fun, and very intelligent. He shared with us his ideas about morality, claiming morals are real objective things of the world, but that we do not need God as their basis. Instead, he claimed morals are really an arrangement of neurons and chemicals in our brain, a reaction to things around us, and necessary for the survival of the species. Brett and some of the students realized this explanation did not provide a basis for morality (ontology), but instead is only a claim about how we know about morals (epistemology). When pressed for a real concrete explanation for the existence of objective morals in the world without God, Carrier was woefully inadequate in any explanation, even reverting to relativism at one point.

The topic of evidence against the existence of God was presented to us by Mark Thomas. As opposed to Carrier, Thomas was brash and forceful, continually interrupting others. He spent a lot of time telling us stories about the way we evolved, or came to our religious beliefs. His basic point was that man was religious because we find the idea of a God who loves us to be comforting. We pointed out that while this might be true, it does not mean there isn’t a God. In fact, maybe the reason we find this comforting is that God has instilled in us a desire to be loved by him. Thomas’ evidence did not come close to being convincing.

Lastly, we met with David Fitzgerald of the San Francisco Atheists. He was the kind of man who makes it easy to realize that a winsome, likable person can easily slip their ideas past your defenses because your guard might be down. He spent a lot of time talking about faith. His idea of faith was that it is some kind of blind leap, which cannot be falsified no matter what evidence is brought to bear. We were able to explain to him that this is not the Biblical idea of faith. Brett explained that a Biblical view of faith is trusting in what we have good evidence to believe (I Cor. 15; Heb 11:1). This was a wholly new idea for Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald also mentioned he did not believe Jesus ever really existed. This was mind-blowing. Jesus is the most well attested historical figure of ancient history. Not only does the Bible speak of him, but many extra-biblical sources mention him as well (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, etc.). It was very revealing to see how far some people will go to try and deny God.

Through all of these encounters, the reasonableness of the Christian worldview was evident. God was so good to help us understand where the ideas of these men were only “hollow and deceptive philosophy.”

Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. – Colossians 3:12

We also had the opportunity to meet with SANE (Students for A Nonreligious Ethos, the student atheist group on Berkeley’s campus). We mingled with them, conversed, and generally just talked with them. It was clear they enjoyed having us to meet and talk with. Afterward we went to Thai food with them, where the conversations were deep and meaningful. I personally was able to converse with one girl for about an hour and a half about God, evolution, morals and free will. She was very surprised by many of my answers, and at one point said, “that is by far the best answer I have ever heard” about one of my arguments. I finished the evening sharing with her the Kalam Cosmological argument for the existence of God. She decided to give me her email address without my prompting. I look forward to continued interaction with her. I know she left the conversation with a new respect for Christians, and God.

The key to that night was we didn’t come across as arrogant, and we truly wanted to know their side of the issue. My students were very good at realizing the people they were talking to should be treated with respect and kindness. We were different from any other Christians they had encountered, and we truly enjoyed meeting with them.

Know that the Lord is God – Psalm 100:3

On Sunday, we experienced God’s beautiful creation in the morning, praising God and having devotions at a park. The view was incredible, as we were able to see the entire bay area. It brought tears to my eyes at several points.

God was so faithful to us. It was a very hard trip, but it was even more rewarding. Every student who went expressed how God had impacted their lives greatly, and they now have a desire to learn even more about Him and show others His love for the rest of their lives.

Thank you for your prayers and thoughts.

Comments from some of the students:

Berkeley mission trip was amazing and I learned so much! Gotta keep practicing and learning more so that we can keep defending the faith!—Hannah

The mission trip to Berkeley was an absolutely incredible experience. I learned how to better defend my faith and was encouraged that the Truth was able to stand up to the arguments of the secular world. I now have a passion to share my faith and God’s truth with other people—Sarah

This trip showed me that Christianity CAN stand up to the modern way of thinking—Jeremy

Berkeley was one of the best trips I’ve ever been on. It was an eye-opening experience, because I was able to see how God works when we put our trust in Him. I’d definitely do this again.—Lacey

Berkeley was a fantastic experience. I am more focused on what brings my life purpose.—Aubree

I cannot express in words how amazing the Berkeley trip was. It is mind blowing how incredible every single moment of that trip was. Just over the last 4 days I have changed and grown SO much in my views of Christianity. BY FAR the best trip I have ever been on and wishes with everything to still be there!!!—Elise

The Berkeley trip was an eye-opening and life-changing experience. God worked through all of the students and exposed us to the life outside the “Christian Bubble.” It boosted my confidence and brought me closer to God. I am so happy about the trip and cannot wait for next year—Kaitlan

The Berkeley trip was sublime. It was something that has changed my life and I would never trade the experience for anything.—Josh

It is reasonable to believe in God. PT. 1

2009-08-21T11:07:00.000-07:00

Can the existence of God be proved? I don't think so. There are very few things in this world that can be proved 100%. I cannot prove to you that I am not just a brain hooked up to some weird scientific equipment. I cannot prove to you that I am not just some part of your imagination.

Nevertheless, it is completely reasonable to believe I do, in fact, exist. I live my life as though I do exist. It is not proved completely, but instead it is just reasonable to believe.

Most of our beliefs are in this area of knowledge. We do not necessarily have certainty, but it is more reasonable than not to believe the way we do.

Belief in God, I think, falls into this category. Belief in God is rational and based on evidence.

Over the next couple weeks, I will present several arguments for the existence of God. None of these, it seems, proves God's existence 100%, but they all make it reasonable. In fact, I would argue they make belief in God more reasonable than the alternative.

Now, one might argue that if none of the arguments can prove the existence of God with certainty, then there is a huge problem. They might say this means the arguments have holes and therefore they do not help each other to show the rationality of belief in God.

One popular example is called the leaky buckets objection. If you have 5 buckets with holes, no matter what you do water will leak through. These buckets cannot help each other to contain water.

However, the arguments I espouse are part of a cumulative approach. This means I think they are stronger together than they are apart.

For example, consider a chain-link fence. Apart from the whole of the fence, each individual strand of metal is not that strong. It can be bent, ignored, broken. However, when together, the cumulative strength of the metal strands adds up to something more. W. L. Craig uses the example of Chain mail armor in a similar fashion to show the cumulative strength of the arguments.

When the value of each argument is taken into account, the whole is much more powerful than only one.

Also, it is important to remember, reasonableness is in reference to the best explanation. This means it is always more reasonable to believe the explanation with the most explanatory power, than to believe other assertions.

There might be other possible explanations for these arguments, but this does not mean they are the most probable or best explanation.

When this series is over, I think it will be clear that the existence of God is the best explanation regarding the evidence put forth.

Next: The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

We are on the Moon!

2009-07-16T08:54:00.000-07:00

On July 16th, 1969, two United States astronauts began a journey to finally land on the moon. This was one of the most remarkable and important events of the 20th century.

We began to conquer space... Science was believed to be able to solve all of man's problems. If we can only understand the physical world, we can harness it and bend it to our will. Even our amusement parks resembled our optimism in the Scientific universe.

When Tomorrowland was first created, Walt Disney tried to show the possibilities of science, and Tomorrowland was made to look futuristic, and optimistic. It was a tribute to the ingenuity of man. Man would be traveling at light-speed, and never want for anything!

40 years later, much is better, but much is worse. Conquering space did not solve humanity's problems. Neither did the rest of Science. In fact, Science has actually created some more problems. For those who held to Science, many stopped being able to find meaning. An unhealthy dependence on the promises of Science actually brought a sense of anguish, because many people believed the natural world was all that exists. This meant to these people there was no heaven, no supernatural, no life after death. When we die, we die.

Science has lost credibility to the "postmodern" mind. Even the development of Disneyland shows our general lack of faith in Science now.

Go visit Disneyland today... much has changed. Tomorrowland does not seem optimistic anymore. Instead it resembles more cartoon or sci-fi worlds than anything actually attainable. This metamorphosis in Disneyland has closely paralleled the general public's trust of Science. People no longer trust Science. When Science stopped being able to give meaning, people have moved to despair.

We have "conquered" the moon, but we have lost our confidence. Today is a great opportunity for Christianity to be a beacon of renewed hope. In a world searching for meaning, because Science has taken meaning of existence and obliterated it, Christianity can give true hope. Using the Scriptural example of showing reasons for our hope (I Peter 3:15), Christians can be light in a dark world.

An Exercise in Futility: Freedom, Equality without God

2009-07-14T17:52:00.000-07:00

On this day, July 14, 1786, the frustration of the French people towards their government culminated in the storming of the Bastille. This kicked off the French Revolution.

The revolution was run under the banner of "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity." This reflected the ideals of the enlightenment to treat their fellow man as equal, and of worth because they were all human. The goal was to create a society which saw all others as equal, but without the oppressive restrictions of a Deity.

Although the French Revolution occurred quickly after the American Revolution, and it seemed to be built on similar philosophies of value, France did not have nearly the stability of government as the United States after their revolution. Quickly after the end of the revolution, the Reign of Terror began. Among other things, the Reign of Terror is noted for sending thousands of people to their death at the guillotine, which was considered humanitarian compared with other methods. Those who were taken to the guillotine were taken because they had different political ideas than the new regime.

This is wholly unlike anything which occurred after the American Revolution. How do two revolutions with such like ideals produce two completely separate results?

The answer comes from each revolutions grounding or basis for the equality they sought and fought for. In the United States, equality of persons was something "endowed by their creator," but this is not true of the ideals of the French.

The French tried to base their equality in their own humanity. They had fully bought into the enlightenment ideals of the epitome of man. Unfortunately, morals have no true basis in this worldview. Morality becomes a he said, she said proposition. This culminated in the French not actually believing in the equality they had initially fought for. Instead, there was only equality for those who held the same political views as those in power.

The French Revolution seems to be something we would all cheer for, but instead it is really about how life would truly be without God. As Fyodor Dostoyevsky declared, "Without God, everything is permissible."

Equality, and all other moral precepts, need God as a basis, or it really doesn't mean anything.