"You're Intolerant"

If you've ever heard that criticism, or some form of it, in sharing your beliefs about the exclusivity of Christ, here's a good primer on how to respond to that:

Doubting Dawkins

Belief is a Cover-Up

Challies posted this video today; a good one if you ever hear the line, "Belief is a cover-up for insecurity":

How Do I Know God Exists?

I love this guy; I don't know of anyone who can call a system of thought idiotic and sound so nice in doing so:

More Silliness from Matt Chandler

Last week when I posted something from Matt Chandler, it provoked a more heated response than we've ever seen on this blog.

Here's something else from Chandler; it's got nothing to do with evolution this time. Rather, he is talking about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And while I'd refrain from using the words "silly" or "idiot" in talking with someone about the resurrection, I do think that what he has to say is worth considering:

Something is Wrong...You Know It

Matt Chandler:

I think I was about 11 when I figured out that there was something wrong in the world. There was a girl in my school, Judy Haskell, who was a year older than me. She was as healthy as we were, she bounded, played, had a great time. She started feeling sick, went to the doctor, had leukemia, put up a pretty good fight for awhile and then died.

Now although to this day I understand the biology involved in disease, something in me screams, "It shouldn't be happening". Like this week I'm in the ICU in Children's Hospital with a three year old little boy, we're asking God for a miracle and I understand the biology in the disease, but it doesn't stop something in me that says it shouldn't be happening.

And I'd just like to point out the silly in the secular because South Park does such a good job of pointing out the silly in Christianity. If natural evolution is really what's going on here and that's the real story, why are we trying to cure anyone of anything? Because wouldn't it be that nature has decided that it's your turn to die so we can evolve? So why are we spending trillions of dollars on trying to heal diseases when nature, for some reason, is trying to off some of us?

I mean, we're going, "We've got to cure cancer. We've got to cure AIDS." Well how do you reconcile that if there is no God, if there is no Imago Dei? If something hasn't gone wrong, why are you trying to fix it? Why are we in Darfur? Why are we digging water wells? What are we taking food over there? "Well, there's oppression."

Well wait a minute. If it's just natural selection then that belief system says in order for us to be all that God would have us to be, the weak have to die, they have to be oppressed and killed by the strong. So you know it, and I'm not just talking about Christians. Everybody knows something is wrong here.

Doubt Your Doubts

Tim Keller, in The Reason for God:

The only way to doubt Christianity rightly and fairly is to discern the alternate belief under each of your doubts and then to ask yourself what reasons you have for believing it. How do you know your belief is true? It would be inconsistent to require more justification for Christian belief than you do for your own, but that is frequently what happens. In fairness, you must doubt your doubts.

My thesis is that if you come to recognize the beliefs on which your doubts about Christianity are based, and if you seek as much proof for those beliefs as you seek from Christians for theirs -- you will discover that your doubts are not as solid as they first appeared.

For those of you who have skeptics in your life that you love, this could be a helpful thesis to explore with them. If you've interacted with people who say things like, "There can't be just one true religion," or "If a good, loving God existed, why is there so much suffering in the world," or "Science has disproved the Bible," lovingly encourage such people to doubt their doubts.

Well, at least he's honest

Richard Lewontin is a committed Darwinist, which means his basic worldview is that of materialism: matter alone constitutes ultimate reality, and everything that exists is the product of strict physical laws and blind random chance.

Not much room for God in that kind of worldview. But look at how Lewontin arrives at his worldview (and thus drives God out of the picture):

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

So basically, materialism is true because it must be true, even though it seems absurd and counter-intuitive. Because if it's not true, we might have to include God in the equation. And this guy works at Harvard.

I don't know; if this is the foundation that my worldview was built on, I'd probably look for a different worldview.

Yet God is mighty to save even Richard Lewontin. Only God's grace has made me to differ, and the same grace that redeemed me can melt even the stoniest atheists' heart.

Take a minute as you read this and pray for him.

King of the Universe, or Cosmic Idiot

It's often said in secular circles that Jesus was a fine moral teacher, but it's nonsense to try to make Him out to be the Lord of the universe. This kind of thinking just won't work if we actually listen to what Jesus Himself said (all of these quotes are from John 8):

“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

“You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world."

"I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins."

"If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here."

"Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."

“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

When the people listening to Jesus heard all this, they did not conclude that he was a good moral teacher. They picked up rocks and attempted to stone him to death.

CS Lewis was right; enough of this nonsense about Jesus being a good moral teacher. Either He is the Lord and King of the universe, or He's a complete idiot. There simply isn't a middle road. He's not left that option open to us.

What God-rejectors fail to realize

A wise insight from Randy Alcorn:

God-rejectors can maintain the illusion life is good without him only because in his kindness he’s not withdrawn all his good gifts.

What looney Christians & Hallmark cards have in common

The next time someone tells you they can't possibly believe in the Bible because so many people throughout history -- in the name of the Bible -- have done awful and wicked things, here's a "tweetable" comeback:

"Being ashamed of the Bible because there are looney Christians is like being ashamed of Milton because of Hallmark cards."

Is Christianity a Crutch?

I’ve sometimes heard people call Christianity a crutch. It is a term used in derision, to say that it is just a way for emotionally weak people to cope with life. When I’ve heard that attack, I’ve felt compelled to defend why Christianity is not a crutch. But I wonder if that's really the right response.

I think the question to ask in response to that accusation is: Why is calling Christianity a crutch a valid criticism of Christianity? That is not the way people normally respond to crutches. When you see a guy with a broken leg walking around on crutches, you do not mock him and speak of his weakness for using a crutch. The crutch is good. So if Christianity is a crutch, why is that such a bad thing?

The assumption of those who criticize Christianity on that ground is that if Christianity is a crutch, then it is only good for cripples. And they are exactly right. Their problem, and it is a deadly problem, is that they do not see themselves as weak enough to need a crutch in this life. It is offensive to the modern mindset, that we are broken and needy and sick, and dependent on Another for everything. So people criticize it and mock it.

The only people who will give heed to Jesus’ call are sick people, broken people, spiritually and morally crippled people. If we could all see ourselves properly, we would see ourselves this way. The problem with us is that we think we’re well. We have been told in a thousand ways that the way to happiness is in the pursuit of self-reliance, self-confidence, self-determination, self-exaltation and self-esteem. Jesus loves us too much to let us persist down this dead-end road. So at the beginning of His most famous sermon (see Matthew 5-7), He tells us the pathway to true happiness: it begins with seeing yourself as a helpless cripple:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Is Christianity a crutch? Yes, I suppose in a way it is. May God give all of us eyes to see that we're desperately crippled.

The hypocrisy of Coexisting

On my run this morning, I passed by a car with this bumper sticker. While I affirm that we should treat people who do not share our religious views with respect and civility, my guess is that the bumper sticker is intended to mean more than simply living respectfully with those of differing views.

It's probably intended to make a statement: Whether you get excited about the Cross, the star of David or the crescent moon, it's all basically the same anyway, so don't act like your particular view of the truth is THE right view. That would be narrow-minded and intolerant, and contrary to the call to "coexist."

Of course there is a built-in contradiction in such a view, isn't there? Because the statement that all religious views are basically the same, and that God doesn't really care about which way we worship, is a particular view of who God is. And by putting the bumper sticker on their car, aren't they suugesting that their view of God is the right view, and that other people should abandon their view and adopt that one?

So even those who call for coexisting argue for a certain view of religious truth. They have a hard time coexisting with people who don't support their plea for coexisting. And so, the call for "tolerance" (if tolerance means not saying that your view is superior to another) is inherently intolerant.

How did we get our Bible, and has it been changed?

Justin Taylor:

If you're looking for a good introductory answer to this question (in 12 pages), here's a helpful presentation by Matt Harmon, delivered at the No Doubt Apologetics Conference in Indianapolis.

I haven't read this yet, but with the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible constantly under attack, it looks like this is a valuable resource for Christians to familiarize themselves with.

Good Message...Poor Delivery

I created a YouTube account today just to leave a comment on this guy's video:



Here's what I wrote to him:

I wholeheartedly agree with your message, but it's lacking one thing:

Tears.

Jesus is an egomaniac

In Piper's first talk at Worship God 09 last week, he mentioned these words from Jesus in Matthew 10:

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

As I listened to Piper, I was overwhelmed by this thought: Could anyone else on the planet get away with saying something like this, and actually be admired and adored by millions of people?

Imagine Oprah Winfrey saying on her show: If you love your son or daughter more than me, you are not worthy of me. Or Barack Obama, or Michael Jordan, or Madonna, or anyone. They would be laughed at. And if they persisted to the point that people actually thought they were serious, they'd be hated, mocked and ridiculed.

Yet Jesus said just this: If you don't love me more than everything and everyone, you are an evil person who is unworthy of being in my presence. Yet here we are, a couple of thousand years after anyone has seen Him on earth, and millions of people around the world adore Him and sing of how great and beautiful and loving He is every day.

Could this be an indication that Jesus is somebody extraordinary? Someone a little more impressive than just 'a good man'? Someone worth expending all your energies to get to know?

There is no one like Jesus!

(Clarification: I don't really believe Jesus is an egomaniac; I am simply saying that based on a lot of what He said, it seems like He was an egomaniac)

Atheists must rejoice when they pass by signs like this

A few months ago I came across this picture while surfing the web:

When Paul said that the word of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, I don't think this is what he had in mind. His intention was not to say that faith in Jesus Christ is intellectually irrational. I know this because we're told throughout Acts that Paul went into synagogues and reasoned with people that Jesus had to be the Messiah (see Acts 17:2, 17 and 18:4 for a few examples). He did the same with non-believing skeptics (Acts 24:25).

Likewise, Peter specifically urges Christians to always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in us when anyone asks (1 Peter 3:15). Our faith is rooted in the historical realities of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Certainly faith is required, but it is not blind, naive faith.

So why would a church want to promote what the atheists (wrongly) love to claim: that Christianity is only for buffoons who like to shut their brains off and not think rationally?

It seems to me that reason is not the greatest enemy of faith; that would be pride. I would suggest that it's more reasonable to believe in God than to disbelieve in Him.

Thoughts? Am I misunderstanding the point of this sign, or am I wrong in saying that the Christian faith is a reasonable one?

The world's most popular Christian apologist?

In response to a statement that Jesus was one of the world's greatest thinkers, but it is far-fetched to say He is the Son of God, guess who said the following:

No, it's not far-fetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: He was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius.

But actually Christ doesn't allow you that. He doesn't let you off that hook. Christ says, No, I'm not saying I'm a teacher; don't call me teacher. I'm not saying I'm a prophet. I'm saying: 'I'm the Messiah.' I'm saying: 'I'm God incarnate'. And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet we can take. You're a bit eccentric. We've had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don't mention the 'M' word! Because, you know, we're gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no, I know you're expecting me to come back with an army and se you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah.

At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh my God, he's gonna keep saying this. So what you're left with is either Christ was who he said he was -- the Messiah -- or a complete nutcase. I mean, we're talking a nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me that's far-fetched.

Who is this world-renowned Christian apologist?

I guess Bono's read Mere Christianity.

Atheists need to toughen up

So says Charlotte Allen in an op-ed column published last week in the L.A. Times. I found it to be an interesting read. Here's a quote:

"The problem with atheists -- and what makes them such excruciating snoozes -- is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God's existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God's omniscience with free will or God's goodness with human suffering...

What primarily seems to motivate atheists isn't rationalism but anger -- anger that the world isn't perfect, that someone forced them to go to church as children, that the Bible contains apparent contradictions, that human beings can be hypocrites and commit crimes in the name of faith...So, atheists, how about losing the tired sarcasm and boring self-pity and engaging believers seriously?"

Atheist Evangelism

I have to admit I got a chuckle out of this headline on the Fox News website:

Italian Bus Boasting Anti-God Ad Breaks Down on First Trip

The article begins:

"The first Italian bus to boast an atheist advertisement rolled out Monday and certainly did not have God on its side.

"No sooner had the bus — carrying the message, "The Good News Is There Are Millions of Atheists In Italy; The Excellent News Is They Believe In Freedom Of Expression" –- hit the streets of Genoa when it suffered battery problems and had to go straight back to the depot for repairs, UPI reported."

Fortunately, a member of the Italian Union of Atheists, Agnostics and Rationalists assures us that the 'curious problem' with the batteries happened 'by pure chance'. Well, that's a relief!

Now please understand, I don't see the breakdown of this bus as a great triumph for faith in God! But I do find it interesting that even atheists feel compelled to 'evangelize' others. One of the things that I've heard non-believers say from time to time is that the world would be a much better place if the different religious believers would just keep their faith to themselves and stop trying to bring it into the public square and convert others to their beliefs.

Yet in this case -- and what's happening in Italy is an offshoot of campaigns already launched in Washington, London and Spain -- Atheists themselves are spreading their own version of 'good news' in the public square.

Certainly people are entitled to their views, and they are entitled to put their views on buses if they want to shell out the money to do so. Such advertising does not strike me as a threat to my beliefs. But why exactly do Atheists feel compelled to share their non-belief? And how can they engage in this kind of advertising while condemning adherents of other religions for trying to convert others?