Josh McDowell's Blog, page 32

Postmodernism: Faulty Truth, False Reality

Postmodernism robs society of objective truth and reason. Are we doomed?

One of the most popular phrases today around the globe is “You have your truth, I have my truth, and nobody knows the truth.” If one looks at that statement objectively, however, it is immediately obvious that as a guiding philosophy it’s a major fail. This supposedly inclusive view can only work in La-La Land, not in real society.

What, you ask, is Postmodernism? I’d love to hand you a simple definition, but I can’t. Because no one actually can agree on its tenets; it’s so subjective and slippery. But, at its bare bones, postmodernism is a way of analyzing life. It rejects logic, fact, objective truth, and objective moral values. Perhaps you’ll find this short overview video of postmodernism helpful.

Postmodernism says that truth is inaccessible, and that everything is interpretation. That no interpretation is final. That language only has the meaning we give it. That there is no absolute truth outside our own unique perspective. That there is no single origin of morality. That reality cannot be known nor described objectively.

Though society has been influenced by the sloppy reasoning and false narratives of postmodernism for more than 50 years, making inroads even in the Church, it is our young people who have fully embraced postmodernism as the correct lens through which to view life. Gone is black and white, replaced by an endless selection of grays.

A question posed online by a non-binary teen whose biology is female: “Why,” she asked, “does having a vagina or penis make me have to pick?” She added, “It doesn’t.” Like this teen, millions are self-selecting their identities and realities on the basis of “gender,” which grants complete subjective and fluidity. They are what they choose to be, they assert, and no one has the right to say otherwise.

~ You Don’t Get to Judge My Reality ~

In a 2000 article by Christianity Today, Postmodernism was defined as “anything, everything, and nothing.” Today, people are demanding societal respect for their desire to live in the “safe bubble” of their personally crafted identity. The list of subjective identities continues to mushroom, as society spirals deeper into individual focus and narcissism.

As Lonny S. Jarrett writes in his article Narcissism: A Postmodern Epidemic, “Einstein’s theory of relativity, that all perception is relative to the perceiver, has become distorted into the perspective that each individual is living in his own universe, a universe that is a projection of his own mind with no external reality having its own independent existence, validity, or truth.” He adds, “Narcissism is present when one’s attention is focused relatively more on the voice in his own head than he is on the words coming out of the mouth of the person he is listening to.”

Having been brought up to expect acceptance of their personal lifestyle choices, many college students believe it perfectly acceptable to verbally or physically attack anyone they feel is disrespecting or judging their subjective truth. It’s their rage (easily triggered by self-perceived “micro-aggressions“), rather than the soundness of their arguments, that has gained them ground. The media, heady on the sensationalism of these “Social Justice Warriors,” has happily amplified their antics.

Per the Urban Dictionary, a Social Justice Warrior is someone “who uses the fight for civil rights as an excuse to be rude, condescending, and sometimes violent for the purpose of relieving their frustrations or validating their sense of unwarranted moral superiority.”

In a YouTube video I recently viewed, an angry young woman asserted that she considers it “an act of violence against her” if another person refuses to use the pronoun “They” when referencing her. Though her genetics identify her as female, she is offended by the label “She.” Not only did my jaw drop at her take-no-prisoners attitude, but at the logical implication of her statement. An act of violence — which typically leads to legal consequence — for not using the “right” pronoun?

“No one should be made to feel threatened or harassed simply because of who they are or what they believe,” stated Paul Alivisatos, UC Berkeley’s executive vice chancellor, in defending the school’s decision to beef up security and offer counseling to students “offended” by the visit of guest speaker Ben Shapiro, a conservative political commentator and author of Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth. Yet, clearly, it didn’t matter to them if Shapiro likewise felt harassed or offended.

Many SJWs believe a societal utopia can be achieved, but only through the removal of all judgements potentially lurking in objective truth and morality. “Subjectivity is comforting,” says Shapiro, “because you can never be wrong.” He adds that society — college campuses included — signal to all of us that there is virtue in being offended. That my being offended is enough for me to outright dismiss your view — and attack you for having it.

In raising our kids with the message “Feel free to be you!”, we’ve paved the highway of endless subjectivity. And having bought into this view, many of us are subtly and overtly pressuring others to vigilantly monitor that their views don’t offend another. Free speech is labeled “hate speech” when it does offend someone.

In another YouTube video I viewed, a young woman taunted an invited speaker. It was clear that she thought herself incredibly clever. Perhaps in her mind her scathing words and condescending tone imbued her with power. But in actuality, she came across as a bully. Her heightened sense of self-importance only served to amplify the obvious: she seethed with intolerance for any contrary view. In another video, in which Shapiro addressed a crowd of college students, a small group of students continued to interrupt him by chanting when he tried to speak. I had to agree, wholeheartedly, when he quipped, “You’re so boring.”

Shapiro was asked, “Why does your right to free speech trump my right to be offended?” His response, “Because if it doesn’t, there is no right to free speech.”

~ Postmodernism: Provocative Idea, Useless Model ~

Two mandates of Postmodernism are “openness” — which rejects reason — and “tolerance” — which rejects moral absolutes. It’s a reinterpretation of what is knowledge, and what should be viewed as knowl­edge. The standards of right/wrong and good/bad are just “social constructs” to be challenged or simply ignored.

Friedrich Nietzsche, the noted German atheist and philosopher, asserted that truth is just illusion. Ironically, Nietzsche, who was declared clinically insane the last decade of his life, had a huge impact on Western thinking and Postmodernist philosophers. It’s hard to understand why, when even his claim, “There are no facts, only interpretations,” gets instantly nullified because he states it as fact.

I am endlessly amused by philosophers, especially when they ignore the obvious and/or concoct theories that require a total rejection of logic. But I’m not convinced that living in a world fueled by subjective truth and subjective reality isn’t going to be really frustrating. Real truth matters.

 

This blog post highlights Josh and Sean McDowell’s recently revised apologetics classic, Evidence That Demands a Verdict. We are certain this fully updated and expanded resource will be an effective evangelism tool for you, and strengthen your faith by answering the toughest questions tossed to you by skeptics. Know what you know, because it’s true. But share this truth with LOVE!

If you’d like to start from the first blog post in this series, click here: Apologetics: Apologizing for Believing in God?.

 

The post Postmodernism: Faulty Truth, False Reality appeared first on Josh.org.

What about Atrocities Committed In the Name of Christ? Quick VIDEO

Original post by Sean McDowell . Used with permission.

Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, best-selling author, popular speaker, part-time high school teacher, and the Resident Scholar for Summit Ministries, California. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.

The post appeared first on Josh.org.

Can We Know God Really Exists?

Is it possible to know if God really exists, or do we each get to decide His existence for ourselves?

When it comes to God’s existence, some contemporary philosophers deny that we can know for sure. No one, they say, can really know, because His existence isn’t provable. God, they say, is the stuff of legends, tall tales, and delusional thinking — because, to them, He hasn’t offered the right proof that He’s real.

But here’s the thing: there is a truth and reality about God’s existence, even if we choose to disregard it.

I like what the great philosopher Mortimer Adler once said; that “there is a reality that is independent of the human mind, to which the mind can either conform or fail to conform. In other words, what we think does not create or in any way affect what we are thinking about. It is what it is, whether we think about it or not and regardless of what we think about it.”

~ Beyond a Reasonable Doubt ~
Can we say with 100 percent certainty that God really exists? No. But the key is not a perfect or absolute certainty, as skeptics assert, but a standard of proof that answers the question beyond a reasonable doubt. For skeptics to claim, “God can’t be proved,” doesn’t then make their assertion that “God isn’t real!” true.

“When a judge charges a jury,” says Josh McDowell, “he or she tells them to decide based on probability, not certainty; based on the evidence presented, not the certainty of having viewed the crime. If jury decisions were delayed until 100 percent certainty existed, no verdict would ever be rendered. Skeptics demand absolute certainty in religious matters, yet they don’t apply the standard of absolute certainty to anything else of major importance.”

Atheists, he adds, can’t even be 100 percent certain of their own belief that God doesn’t exist. And to deny the existence of God necessitates admitting the possibility that He does exist. The real struggle for most skeptics isn’t that they can’t believe, it’s that they’ve decided to refuse to believe. And many skeptics, if you ask them what definitive proof they need to believe, can’t tell you. They would rather cling to their assertion that God is a “delusional crutch” for otherwise possibly intelligent people. That dig is so silly it doesn’t even hurt.

The Old Testament Is Embarrassing

 

Original post by Sean McDowell here. Used with permission.

 

This summer, I have been studying the book of Exodus. As I have been paying attention to the story of Moses and details of the Mosaic Law, it has become clear to me that the Old Testament is embarrassing. It is chalk full of embarrassing material.

Let me explain.

One of the criterion New Testament scholars use to weigh the reliability of an ancient saying or event is known as the principle of embarrassment.

As my father and I explain in Evidence that Demands a Verdict, the principle of embarrassment is a criterion that looks at ancient writings to see if there are hard, embarrassing, or unfavorable details about the author(s) or with the story’s purpose.

If such details exist, positive conclusions can be made about the integrity of the author(s).

Using this criterion, even many critical scholars conclude that a number of events in the New Testament are likely true, such as the disciples not understanding the teachings of Jesus (Mark 4:1-12), the three disciples falling asleep at Gethsemane (Matt 26:36-46), the crucifixion of Jesus as a criminal (Mark 15:21-41), and women discovering the empty tomb (John 20).

The fact that these hard, embarrassing, and unattractive stories exist in the New Testament indicates that the authors were more interested in accuracy than reputability.

The criterion can also help establish the reliability of the Old Testament, which is filled with embarrassing material.[1]

Consider three brief examples:

 

1. The Hebrew people came out of slavery

(Exodus 12-14). Why invent such a lowly origin story if it were not true? This is unique to the Jewish people. Of course, people could argue that the entire story was fabricated. But this fails to address the issue: Why even fabricate it in the first place?

 

2. The daughter of Pharaoh is the one who saves the life of Moses.

In a twist of irony, Pharaoh’s daughter rescues Moses from certain death (Exodus 2:1-10). Why invent a story about the daughter of Pharaoh—who enslaved and tried to kill the Hebrew people—heroically rescuing the savior of Israel? This is similar to the New Testament story of Joseph of Arimathea. Many scholars trust the account of the burial of Jesus because it seems unlikely the Gospel authors would invent an honorable burial for Jesus from a member of the Sanhedrin who condemned him to death.

 

3. David, the man after God’s own heart, is deeply flawed.

Along with Abraham and Moses, David is one of the most important figures in the Old Testament. The Messiah was to be from the lineage of David. And he was considered “a man after God’s own heart.” Yet he is a profoundly flawed character who commits both adultery and murder. Why invent such a defective character as David? Why not make him more honorable and faithful? Why not try to cover up his flaws, as the LDS Church as done with Joseph Smith?

These examples are only the “tip of the iceberg.” From the Torah to the Prophets, the Old Testament is filled with embarrassing material. And that’s one reason I trust it.

 

 

Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, the National Spokesman for Summit Ministries, a best-selling author, popular speaker, and part-time high school teacher. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.

 

[1] These examples came to my mind as I was reading The Rational Bible by Dennis Prager.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

The post The Old Testament Is Embarrassing appeared first on Josh.org.

Relativism: Does It Contain Any Truth?

Does our personal version of “truth” (relativism) trump God’s objective truth?

In our current “Truth is what I say it is” culture, we have to ask if the issue of truth really matters. I mean, we all seem to be doing okay in life with our own version of truth, right?

Actually, no. When a society embraces a slippery slope of “truth,” its foundation turns from firm to shaky. A culture’s attack on truth ultimately affects the culture itself. People may hate the supposed strictness of God’s objective truth, but we have only to look around to see that societal morals that were once black and white have muddied to endless shades of gray. To ignore the negative side effects of this is to certainly put one’s head in the sand.

Like Neo in the Sci-Fi thriller The Matrix, our human nature prompts us to choose the pill that gains us a truthful reality. We’re hard-wired to seek out truth. And we instinctively know when we’re deviating from God’s objective truth, even if we ignore it or try to erase it as the standard to which we should be living.

Let’s look at three truths about truth, and why the assertion that “truth is relative” is completely wrong. Real, objective truth matters. In every area of our lives. 

~ The Truths About Truth ~
Truth Is Logical

Logic presupposes that truth is real, and that “first principles” are truths that cannot be denied, because they are self-evident. Logic applied to reality is a key example of a first principle. All logic can be reduced to a single axiom: the law of noncontradiction. This law says that no two opposite statements can both be true at the same time in the same sense. Logic must apply to reality. And because of that, we can use logic to test truth claims about reality.

Truth Is Objective

Though we can make subjective claims based on personal preferences — for example, “Chocolate ice cream is the best flavor in the world!” — this makes the claims only “true” for us and anyone who agrees with us. The statement is only true because we believe it to be true. These statements of “truth” can easily change, based on our current preferences.

But objective truths are true no matter what we believe about them. They do not change because of our thoughts of whims. They are mind-independent and depend on the object itself. 

“Objective truths, as opposed to subjective preferences, are based on the external world,” states apologist Sean McDowell. “They are related to the world independently of how we think or feel. For example, the sentences ‘1+2=3’ and ‘George Washington was the first president of the United States,’ and ‘Sacramento is the capital of California’ are all objective truths, that is, they are accurate statements even if we don’t believe them.”

Truth Is NOT Relative

We are free to have all the subjective preferences we want — from religion to politics to morality — but objective truth is not swayed by our personal views or even the collective view of society. So those who argue that all truth is subjective are espousing a form of relativism.

Relativism creeps into our vocabulary in statements like, “Well, that’s true for you, but not for me.” Unfortunately for those who champion relativism, the concept fails for two main reasons, which I outline below.

~ The Failure of Relativism ~

The first failure of relativism is that it is self-defeating. The second is that relativism leads to absurd logical outcomes.

To be consistent, the relativist must say, “Nothing is objectively true — including my own position. So you’re free to accept my view or reject it.” But here’s the reality: when a relativist asserts, “Everything is relative,” he expects his listeners to embrace HIS view of reality. And he expects his statement to pertain to all statements EXCEPT his own.

Norman Geisler puts it this way: “The only way the relativist can avoid the painful dilemma of relativism is to admit that there are at least some absolute truths. As noted, most relativists believe that relativism is absolutely true and that everyone should be a relativist. Therein lies the self-destructive nature of relativism. The relativist stands on the pinnacle of an absolute truth and wants to relativize everything else.”

The point not to miss: One can’t hold to relativism and insist that others do so as well. It’s a contradiction.

Relativism is a popular idea because, on the surface, it sounds accepting, inclusive, and easy-going. But it is only when we think through its implications, and apply them rigorously to life, do we see the pitfalls of being so accommodating.

As philosopher Paul Copan notes:

“Truth’s elusiveness in some areas of life is a major reason people believe something can be ‘true for you, but not for me.’ Looking around, the relativist comes to one firm conclusion: Too many people genuinely disagree about too many things for use to know truth. Significant — almost irreconcilable — differences in vital dimensions like religion, morality, politics, and philosophy can make it seem rash or even arrogant to say one perspective is true or mostly true and others are totally or partially wrong. Supposedly, then, the sensible conclusion to draw is that relativism must be true.”

In actuality, however, the only part of relativism that is true is that our perspectives do change the way we view events.

So while social and personal relationships do tend to define what people take to be true and false, these influences do NOT determine what is true or false with respect to objective reality. We may not see the truth correctly, but this does not diminish that the actual reality of truth exists.

Skeptics can cry, “God doesn’t exist!”, and personally believe it to be true. But God’s existence, in no way, is determined by our view of it.

~ Conclusion ~

As philosopher and author Steward E. Kelly says, an attempt to deny that truth exists is hopeless. “If there were, hypothetically speaking,” he adds, “no such thing as truth, then would it be true that there is no truth?” Apologist Ravi Zacharias puts a finer point on this when he says, “Truth by definition is exclusive.”

If truth were all-inclusive, he adds, “nothing would be false. And if nothing were false, what would be the meaning of true? Moreover, if nothing were false, would it be true to say that everything is false? It quickly becomes evident that the denial of truth as an absolute either ends up denying itself or else in effect not making any truthful assertion about truth.”

When we choose to view “truth” as subjective, we make it impossible to argue for any sort of binding morality or ethics. Bottom line: when real, objective truth dies, ethics die, too. Relativism undermines even the value of humanity. 

Apologist Gregory Koukl puts it this way:

“If truth can’t be known, then the concept of moral truth becomes incoherent. Ethics become relative, right and wrong matters of individual opinion. This may seem a moral liberty, but it ultimately rings hollow. “The death of truth in our society has created a moral decay in which ‘every debate ends with a barroom question, ‘Says, who?’ When we abandon the idea that one set of laws applies to every human being, all that remains is subjective, personal opinion.”

But the Bible draws a clear contrast between truth and error; the Bible does not present truth as a cultural creation. When Jesus drove a stake into the ground by claiming, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” He did so to give us a clear standard of truth to follow. 

Imagine if God continually changed His mind, and kept us guessing as to His nature and what he wants/expects from us. Sounds like the petulant Greek gods, if you ask me. Fortunately, God is NOT like that. His loving character never changes. And neither do the truths He has chosen to share with us via His Word.

From what influence are you determining “truth”? From the world, or from God’s Word? Because only the latter offers the real thing.

 

This blog post highlights Josh and Sean McDowell’s recently revised apologetics classic, Evidence That Demands a Verdict. We are certain this fully updated and expanded resource will be an effective evangelism tool for you, and strengthen your faith by answering the toughest questions tossed to you by skeptics. Know what you know, because it’s true. But share this truth with LOVE!

If you’d like to start from the first blog post in this series, click here: Apologetics: Apologizing for Believing in God?.

 

The post Relativism: Does It Contain Any Truth? appeared first on Josh.org.

What are the Best Questions for Spiritual Conversation? Quick VIDEO

Original post by Sean McDowell here. Used with permission.

Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, best-selling author, popular speaker, part-time high school teacher, and the Resident Scholar for Summit Ministries, California. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.

The post What are the Best Questions for Spiritual Conversation? Quick VIDEO appeared first on Josh.org.

Book Review: The End of Faith

 

 

A few years ago, I worked through The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, a popular atheist thinker who argued against a theistic worldview. I chose to read the book because I believe that it is important for Christians (and anyone, for that matter) to engage with viewpoints other than our own. Although I did not find the main thrust of his arguments very convincing, I still wrote about the experience because I found it to be quite formative to my understanding of atheism.

Standing tall next to Richard Dawkins in the world of  “New Atheism” is another man by the name of Sam Harris. I had the chance to read his popular title The End of Faith, where he argues that religion, particularly Western religion, is foolish to believe, harmful to society, and needs to end. My purpose in writing a review of this book is not to bash Harris or pretend like I know everything. But I hope to offer some constructive dialogue in contribution to the very important subject of religion in our world. I’m using the print edition from 2005.

 

Blind Faith
One thing I noticed right away with Harris’s evaluation of faith is that it is blind, without reason, and fundamentally opposed to rationality.

This is a common objection to theism which atheists often point out, but I was a little surprised to find Harris talking as though the vast majority of all Western religious people believe this way. “On this subject,” writes Harris, “liberals and conservatives have reached a rare consensus: religious beliefs are simply beyond the scope of rational discourse.” (Page 13). And further, “How is it that, in this one area of our lives, we have convinced ourselves that our beliefs about the world can float entirely free of reason and evidence?” (Page 17).

Clearly, Harris has a problem with blind faith.

So do I.

And so does almost any thoughtful Christian who recognizes the use/endorsement of persuasive rationality by Paul (Acts 18:28), Peter (1 Peter 3:15), John (1 John 1:1-3), and Jesus (Matthew 22:23-32).

To be fair, Harris does recognize that some religious people might try to use rationality to come to conclusions about the existence of God. He says “This is probably a conclusion that many religious believers will want to resist” (Page 63).

I can’t help but sense that Harris is also resisting this conclusion. As an atheist, he doesn’t seek to address it, at least not so much in this one book I read. In doing so he misses a great number of us. I recognize that rational faith is not his focus (see Page 65), but if he’s going to address mainstream Christianity, I think it ought to be.

 

Trivial Squabble

Another common thread in Harris’s thinking is that religious people debate about things which seem so trivial to him.

In order to make his point, he asks us to imagine if humanity lost all of its knowledge and begun the work to reclaim it all over again. Then on page 23, he asks “When in this process of reclaiming our humanity will it be important to know that Jesus was born a virgin? Or that he resurrected?” What about the knowledge that Jesus’ miraculous birth shows that he is God? What about the knowledge that the resurrection of Jesus was a victory over death itself rendering salvation to everyone who believes in his name?

Instead, Harris thinks that our message is as trivial as “rival interpretations of Star Was or Windows 98” (Page 36).

The difference is that no interpretation of Han Solo claims that he died for your sins! If the message of Jesus is true, wouldn’t it be important information worth caring about?

 

The Seeds of Chaos

A large portion of The End of Faith is dedicated to showing that religion, particularly Christianity and Islam, has created great evil.

One prime example he gives for Christianity is that they are to blame for the Jews who were killed at the holocaust. He doesn’t claim that Hitler was a devout Christian who was simply living from his religious convictions (Harris doesn’t go there, although some have tried). Rather, he argues that it was the Christian hatred toward Jews which influenced the German culture at large, setting the stage for Hitler’s hate speech to gain momentum (See page 100-101).

This is not a fair assessment. Many influences poured into the making of Hitler’s tyranny, influences which Harris has chosen to ignore. Listen to the words of Ravi Zacharias in response to this argument:

Has Harris read about Hitler’s own spiritual journey? Has he read anything about Hitler’s dabbling in the occult? Is he aware that Hitler personally presented the writing of Nietzsche to Stalin and Mussolini?

Is he ignoring the fact that others who were not Jewish were also slaughtered by Hitler?…  Does he recall Hitler’s words inscribed over one of the gas ovens in Auschwitz – “I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of a conscience, imperious, relentless and cruel”?

Does he know that Hitler’s point was that the destruction of the weak is a good thing for the survival of the strong and that “nature intended it that way,” as is taught by atheistic evolution’s tenet of natural selection?… None of these signs of the Holocaust point back to Christianity… (Zacharias, The End of Reason, 51-52.)

From reading The End of Faith, you get the sense that the deck has been stacked against religion. When something is unthinkably evil, only faith could have done it. (see Page 31).

The non-religious evils like the reign of Stalin is “little more than a political religion” (Page 79). Even religious “moderates” are dangerous to society for their inability to address extremism (See Pages 14-15, 20). And although Harris agrees that “there are millions of people whose faith moves them to perform extraordinary acts of self-sacrifice for the benefit if others,” he quickly reminds us that “there are far better reasons for self-sacrifice than those that religion provides… By contrast, the most monstrous crimes against humanity have invariably been inspired by unjustified belief.” (Pages 78-79).

Why aren’t these swords of criticism wielded against Harris’s own beliefs? “How conveniently the atheist plays word games,” writes Zacharias, “When it is Stalin or Pol Pot who does the slaughtering, it is because they are deranged or irrational ideologues; their atheism has nothing to do with their actions. But when a Holocaust is engendered by an ideologue, it is the culmination of four hundred years of Christian intolerance for the Jew.” (Zacharias, 52.)

I don’t wish to defend actions done by religious people which actually were evil. There are plenty of examples, and it is horrendous and embarrassing.

But for Christianity, the murder of Muslims in the crusades or the burning of witches and heretics in the medieval times (See chapter 3) are in violation of what it means to be a follower of Christ!

They go directly against the sacredness of human life and the mission of Jesus that all may be led to repentance for the forgiveness of their sins!

Evil may attach itself to Christianity, and even find cover under the disguise of “religious piety,” but it will never belong there. You cannot blame a system of belief based off its malpractice.

 

The Science of Good and Evil

Throughout the entire book, Harris evaluates the history of religion as he makes moral judgments. This is thin ice for an atheist because a worldview without God does not offer a foundation for making universal claims to good and evil.

For a Christian, evil is a violation of the sacred purpose for which God intended in something, and it goes against the very nature of who God is. But if everything is merely atoms and chemicals, and if life is only a product of evolutionary processes, what makes something good or evil? Why is killing worse than giving? Why is love better than hatred?

If Harris is to stand on his argument, he absolutely needs to provide a basis by which he can make judgments on the actions of other people. How does he do it?

The question is addressed in chapter 6, The Science of Good and Evil. The proposed solution is offered right at the beginning of the chapter: “A rational approach to ethics becomes possible once we realize that questions of right and wrong are really questions about the happiness and suffering of sentient creatures. If we are in a position to affect the happiness or suffering of others, we have ethical responsibilities toward them” (Pages 171-172).

A response like this doesn’t get at the problem. Why should we equate morality with happiness? Why are we responsible to affect the happiness and suffering of someone else? What if a rapist experiences more happiness raping someone than the sadness in the one being raped?

Harris never really addresses these deeper issues. Instead, he goes on to talk about how we don’t need religion as motivation for doing good… but how did we get on the topic of moral “motivation?” The problem with atheism is not that they have no motivation to do good. The problem is that goodness is objectively real only in a theistic worldview, and they are trying to wield it as against a theistic worldview.

Science cannot answer questions of morality. It will never get us any closer. That’s not what science does for us.

We might learn how to measure chemicals of happiness and sadness in the brain, but science will never tell us why one chemical in the brain matters more than another chemical.

If atheists are to defend themselves against this moral dilemma presented by theists like myself, they must not get sidetracked with conversations of moral motivation or unsubstantiated ethical theories.

 

Final Thoughts

For a time, I was somewhat of an “athiest-phobe,” thinking that all atheists were just angry, disturbed souls with the power of Hell to drag people under.

This is far from the truth.

Just like me, Sam Harris is concerned about people and he wants what’s best for them.

He writes out of great concern for the harm that religion has done in our history, and with the conviction that society would be far better off without it. I wholeheartedly believe that his concerns are misplaced, but that doesn’t make him any more distant from God’s love for every lost soul.

No doubt, Harris has been beaten over the head by many Christians who forgot that our battle is not against flesh and blood (See Eph. 6:12).

But if we live with with the love of tangible Christ and the knowledge of the truthfulness of God’s Word, books like these would be much harder to write and much harder to sell.

If you are reading this post, please pray for Sam Harris and all those who have never tasted the beauty and truth of God’s amazing love.

 

 

The post Book Review: The End of Faith appeared first on Josh.org.

Do Alleged Contradictions Skew Bible Truth?

Bible scholars have a proven track record of resolving contradictions to harmonize the Bible.

In this blog post we explore the claim by skeptics that the Bible contradicts itself.

Are there differences among parts of the Bible? Yes. But are they contradictions? No. And we assert this because of two reasons: 1) The Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and 2) Alleged contradictions have, too many times, been proven to not be contradictions as new, relevant discoveries come to light.

The Bible, as inspired by God and recorded by men, is a book of truth. Sometimes we just can’t see the truth because our view is too narrow. It’s like our looking at a scene through the viewfinder of our camera. We can only capture what is within the borders of the shot frame. Just because the camera doesn’t capture the rest of the scene, doesn’t mean it’s not there. Too, we must remember that each writer of Scripture brought his own personal/cultural perspective.

The Bible is composed of 66 smaller books written by a variety of authors, at different times, with different styles, and in different genres. The poetry of Psalms, for instance, should be read differently than the historical narrative of Joshua, the laws in Leviticus, individual Proverbs, or the Gospels. We recognize that God has chosen to reveal Himself through a rich diversity of genres. Each writer communicated what God led him to write, but did so in his own way. That’s not a surprise to God!

Yet one way that Satan leads people away from God is by championing the notion that the Bible can’t be trusted — and, thus, neither can God. This sounds logical, IF the first assumption is correct. But it’s not. Skeptics are free to make whatever claims they like, just as we are free to disregard them. Not because we’re sticking our heads in the sand, but because of God’s track record of being faithful.

Let’s define the term “contradiction,” and look at just five mistakes critics commonly make when they deem the Bible to contain contradictions.

~ What is a Contradiction? ~

A contradiction occurs when two or more statements pull in opposite directions. For example, these two statements contradict each other: “The Bible contains contradictions” … “The Bible does not contain contradictions.” They are logically contradictory because one affirms and one denies. But both statements cannot be true.

When studying the Bible, a key question is not necessarily what it says, but what it means.

Some passages appear contradictory, but there are compelling, independent reasons to believe that when all the information is available, the Bible proves itself to be completely without error.  Walter Kaiser, author of Hard Sayings of the Bible, in asking the question, “Why are there so many discrepancies and difficulties in the Bible?”, makes this reply:

“There are a great number of sources to which we can trace them: errors of copyists in the manuscripts that have been handed down to us; the practice of using multiple names for the same person or place; the practice of using different methods for calculating official years, lengths of regencies and events; the special scope and purpose of individual authors, which sometimes led them to arrange their material topically rather than chronologically; and differences in the position from which an event or object was described and employed by the various writers.”

All of these factors, and more, he concludes, have had a profound influence on the material. Of course, to those who participated in the events, those factors were less of a barrier than they are to us. Our distance from the time and culture amplifies our difficulty. But that’s true with any historical event. Consider the wealth of personal experience that will be lost to our country upon the deaths of the last of our World War II veterans and remaining Holocaust survivors.

 

~ Common Mistakes Critics Commit When Alleging Contradictions ~

In their book Big Book of Bible Difficulties, scholars Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe identify 17 prevalent mistakes Bible critics commit when alleging biblical contradictions. These apply to both the Old and New Testaments. We list just five of the mistakes below:

Presuming the Bible Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Many critics assume the Bible is wrong until something proves it right. But the Bible should be considered truth until proven that it’s not. This is not asking anything special for the Bible; it is the way we approach all human communication. If we, for example, assume road signs and traffic signals couldn’t be trusted, we’d likely lie in a traffic accident before we could prove they were telling the truth. Likewise, if we assume food labels are wrong until proven right, we would have to open every can and package before buying it to ensure it’s what we want to buy. The Bible should be presumed to be telling us what the authors said and heard.

Says Geisler: “The Bible cannot err, since it is God’s Word, and God cannot err. This does not mean there are no difficulties in the Bible. But the difficulties are not due to God’s perfect revelation, but to our imperfect understanding of it.”

Failing to Understand the Context of the Passage

Taking scripture out of context is perhaps the most common mistakes made by critics. One can prove anything from the Bible by taking a passage out of context. A perfect example: The Bible says “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1). But the full scripture is “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.'”

Assuming That Divergent Accounts Are False

Just because two or more accounts of the same event differ, it does not mean they are mutually exclusive. For example, Matthew 28:5 says that there was one angel at the tomb after the resurrection, whereas John tells us there were two (John 20:12). These are no contradictory reports. In fact, there is am infallible mathematical rule that easily explains this problem: whenever there are two, there is always one. Matthew did not say there was only one angel. One has to add the word “only” to Matthew’s account to make it contradict John’s.

Assuming That a Partial Report Is a False Report

Critics often jump to the conclusion that a partial report is false. But this is no so. If it were, most of what has ever been said would be false, since seldom does time or space permit an absolutely complete report. Occasionally the Bible expresses the same thing in different ways, or at least from different viewpoints, at different times. So inspiration does not exclude a diversity of expression. The four Gospels relate the same story in different ways to different groups of people, and sometimes even quote the same saying with different words.

Forgetting That Later Revelation Supersedes Previous Revelation

Sometimes critics of Scripture forget the principle of progressive revelation. God does not reveal everything at once, nor does He always lay down the same conditions for every period of time. Therefore, some of His later revelations will supersede His former statements. Bible critics sometimes confuse a change of revelation with a mistake. But the mistake is on the part of the critic. For example, when God created the human race, He commanded that they eat only fruits and vegetables (Genesis 1:29). But later, in Genesis 9:3 He commands that they also eat meat. This is a progressive revelation, not a contradiction.

 

~ Reading the Bible is Key ~

Human knowledge is limited and history is messy, so we should expect to face puzzling issues in the Bible, since we don’t have God’s all-knowing gaze. There is good reason to believe the Bible is true, and so we give it every benefit of the doubt.

Some critics, however, refuse to believe that God is good and trustworthy, typically for personal reasons. Some are mad at God. Others claim they adhere to strict logic. Others believe science to be the only trustworthy source of information. Others believe the Bible to be detrimental to society, saying its “harmful teachings has had a disastrous effect on society.”

We’ll agree that humans, throughout history, have had a tendency to cherry pick from the Bible to champion or defend their actions. But we can’t agree that God’s Word is full of “harmful teachings.” Anyone who has read the teachings of Christ would have to admit that Christ calls us to sacrificial love.

It is disturbing, however, that too few Christians actually know what the Bible says. Because they’re not taking the time to read it. In just one 2013 poll, for example, 57 percent of the American Christians canvassed admitted they read their Bibles maybe four times a year. Only one in five read the Bible on any regular basis! #saywhat? How can the Body of Christ expect to have any influence, if Christians aren’t getting serious about knowing what their Lord says???

 

 

It’s fine for critics to have their viewpoint, but it’s not fine for Christians to naively assume their anti-God views are correct. As critics themselves prove, it’s quite easy to twist Scripture to fit a particular view. Case in point: a friend recently shared that he abandoned his Catholic faith — after reading The DaVinci Code — which he took as truth and fact. The book showed him, he said, that the Bible contradicts itself too much for Him to believe in God anymore. The tragedy here: the novel is pure fiction!

 

 

Though critics commonly assert that the Bible contains authentic contradictions, many Bible scholars have provided plausible harmonizations over the centuries. Alleged contradictions often arise from mistakes in interpretation, ignoring genre or literary devices, or other faulty assumptions. But given the track record of Bible scholars in resolving alleged contradictions, we can have confidence that if all the facts were known, all “contradictions” would disappear.

 

This blog post highlights Josh and Sean McDowell’s recently revised apologetics classic, Evidence That Demands a Verdict. We are certain this fully updated and expanded resource will be an effective evangelism tool for you, and strengthen your faith by answering the toughest questions tossed to you by skeptics. Know what you know, because it’s true. But share this truth with LOVE!

If you’d like to start from the first blog post in this series, click here: Apologetics: Apologizing for Believing in God?.

 

The post Do Alleged Contradictions Skew Bible Truth? appeared first on Josh.org.

Interview: How Should Christians Think about Social Justice?

Original post by Sean McDowell here. Used with permission.

 

How Should Christians Think about Social Justice?

SeanMcDowell.org

This is one of the most important interviews I have posted in awhile. And I can think of no one more qualified than my friend and colleague Thaddeus Williams. He is the author of Reflect: Becoming Yourself by Mirroring the Greatest Person In History. Please wrestle with his insights and then consider sharing this blog with a friend.

 

SEAN MCDOWELL: There has been significant focus on “social justice” within the Christian world over the past few years. What is the biblical call to justice?

THADDEUS WILLIAMS: If we take the Bible seriously then justice should be a big deal for us. God does not suggest, He commands that we “Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed” (Jer. 22:3). Jesus declared his mission to “proclaim good news to the poor… liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18, quoting Isa. 61:1, 2). “Seek justice” (Isa. 1:17) is a clarion call of Scripture, and those who box their ears to that call are simply not living by the Book.

 

MCDOWELL: When have you seen that lived out well in church history?

WILLIAMS: There is a long, beautiful history of Christians who lived out the biblical call to justice. The early church proclaimed the Gospel in a way that subverted the mutual racism between 1st century Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles. They brought reconciliation and real community where there had been hostility and division for centuries.

When Romans tossed their so called “blemished” babies away like garbage—often simply because they were female—our ancient brothers and sisters went to those human dumps, rescued, and raised society’s unwanted as their own cherished sons and daughters.

They knew God had rescued and adopted them, so they did the same until the human dumps were no more.

When a plague ravaged the Roman Empire, most people ran for the hills away from the sick and dying. It was countercultural Christians who ran to the bedsides of the plagued (most of them non-Christians who didn’t abide by Christian ethics, sexual or otherwise) to treat them with dignity, getting sick and dying right along with them. (Contrast that with the church’s response to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s!) Then there was Wilberforce, John Newton and the Clapham sect in the UK, along with Fredrick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, and others is the US. Their own experiences of redemption from sin inspired them to abolish the dehumanizing slave-trade. Christians like Charles Octavius Boothe and Dietrich Bonhoeffer used good theology to combat white supremacy.

You might not know it from today’s headlines, but this long and biblically propelled justice tradition continues today all over the world.

 

MCDOWELL: If we want to carry forward that biblical justice tradition, should we jump aboard the current “social justice” movement?

WILLIAMS: That’s a massively important question. Of course, it all comes down to what we mean by “social justice.” We should all seek a world forever purged of racism, where justice prevails and greed and tyranny are permanently replaced with compassion and love. But we have to be discerning. Not every movement waving the social justice banner promotes the kind of justice and shalom the Bible calls us to seek.

The problem is not with the quest for justice. The problem is what happens when that quest is undertaken from a framework that is not compatible with the Bible. And this is a very real problem, because the extent to which we unwittingly allow unbiblical worldview assumptions to shape our approach to justice is the extent to which we are inadvertently hurting the very people we seek to help.

Take Marxism for example.

It claimed to be about justice and compassion. Where a biblical worldview built orphanages and hospitals to help the marginalized and broken, Marxism gave us the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge. Where the Gospel led to the abolishing of the human dumps of the Roman Empire and brought society’s unwanted into loving community, Marxism endorsed the systematic termination of society’s unwanted. Where biblical Christianity set slaves free, Marxism sent millions to the gulags. Where Christianity inspired the Oxfords and Cambridges into existence to pursue knowledge to the glory of God, Marxism inspired thought-policing. Where Jesus transformed deep racial tensions into a new, beautiful, reconciled community, Marxism helped spawn identity politics and all the divisiveness, suspicion, and racial stereotyping that go with it.

So we should not assume that a movement is about justice simply because it claims to be about justice.

Throughout church history, many with great intentions embraced ideologies that claimed to advance Christian justice, but masked deep incompatibilities with scripture and hurt millions.

 

MCDOWELL: In what ways do you think some of today’s social justice movements are coming from “a framework that is not compatible with the Bible” to use your words?

WILLIAMS: Good question. There are a bunch of ideologies inspiring much of what is called “social justice” today—Neo-Marxism, Critical Race Theory, Postmodern Deconstructionism, Queer Critical Theory, and Gender Theory, to name a few. Let me offer three ways to discern between these ideological versions of justice and biblical justice:

1. If a view of justice blames all evil on external systems of oppression while ignoring Solomon’s pride-deflating insight that our own hearts are full of evil and moral insanity (Ecclesiastes 9:3) then it is not biblical justice.

A biblical worldview sees evil not only in “systems,” where we ought to seek justice, but also within the twisted hearts of those who make those systems unjust. Because evil resides in every human heart, all the external activism in the world won’t bring about any lasting justice if we downplay our need for the regenerating, love-infusing work of God through the Gospel.

2. If a view of justice deconstructs relationships in terms of “power-differentials” and argues that all such hierarchies are evil and must be abolished in the name of “equality” then it is not biblical justice.

A biblical worldview totally opposes the sinful abuse of power, but sees many hierarchies, like the parent-child, rabbi-disciple, elders-congregation, teacher-student relationships, as part of God’s good design for human flourishing.

3. If a view of justice interprets all truth, reason, and logic as mere constructs of the oppressive class, if it encourages us to dismiss someone’s viewpoint on the basis of their skin tone or gender, then it is not biblical justice.

The Greatest Commandment calls people from every ethnicity and gender to love God with our whole minds, which includes the truth-seeking, reasonable, and logical parts of our God-given minds. A mind that loves the Father assesses ideas based on their biblical fidelity, truth-value, and evidence, not the group identity of those articulating it.

 

MCDOWELL: What about discipleship? Do you see differences in the ways the Bible and contemporary movements in social justice seek to form our characters?

WILLIAMS: Definitely. There are a lot of differences. Here are three:

1. If a view of justice encourage indignation toward people-groups as a motivator for social activism then it is not biblical justice.

A biblical worldview calls us to overcome evil with good, love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us.

2. If a view of justice breaks people into group identities, generating a spirit of mutual suspicion, hostility, fear, labeling, offended-ness, and preoccupation with one’s subjective feelings then it is not biblical justice. 

A biblical worldview champions a unifying kind of love that “is not easily offended,” and offers us the fruit of the Spirit like joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control.

3. If a view of justice seeks behavior modification, often through intimidation, speech codes, and ideological re-education, then it is not biblical justice. 

A biblical worldview seeks character transformation not through political coercion but through the in-working power of the Holy Spirit, the discipleship of the family, and the local church.

 

MCDOWELL: Any closing thoughts on the differences between current trends and and biblical justice and why it matters?

WILLIAMS: Sure. There are a lot of other differences we could talk about, things like whether the family is a system of oppression to be abolished or a beautiful signpost of Jesus and his relationship to the Church, whether our bodies and biology have intrinsic meaning and worth, how we should defend the rights of the vulnerable unborn and the women exploited by the abortion industry, whether what we call sexual freedom is actually a form of bondage, and more. But let me leave your readers with one or two more important differences to ponder:

1. If a view of justice teaches that the human telos (i.e., our ultimate purpose and meaning) is defined by the creature, and that anyone who challenges our self-defined telos is an oppressor, then it is not biblical justice.

A biblical worldview teaches that our telos is defined by the Creator and the sinful refusal to live within that God-defined telos brings oppression to ourselves and those around us.  Real authenticity and freedom don’t come from defining yourself and “following your heart,” but from letting God define you and following His heart.

2. If a view of justice sees one culture borrowing from one another as the oppressive act of “cultural appropriation” then it is not biblical justice.

A biblical worldview calls us to be cross-cultural ambassadors for Christ, imitating Paul who appropriated Greco-Roman culture on Mar’s Hill, and became “all things to all men” for the sake of the Gospel. Paul spurred a lot of reconciliation between opposing groups because he preached the good news in which our new identity “in Christ” is our deepest identity.

A “culture war” model has taken over our culture. I see far more hope in the biblical insight that Jesus destroyed the wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile to make for Himself “one man,” uniting people from every tongue tribe, and nation and making them ambassadors of reconciliation.

Family and reconciliation, not inter-group warfare, is the Bible’s model for justice.

The church needs to step up and live that out in an obvious and compelling way, to show the watching world the beautiful alternative to mutual destruction.

If we really care about justice—which should be all of us who take the Bible seriously—then, no, we shouldn’t go along with ideologies that promise liberation and peace and only bring more bondage and strife.

Instead we should love the oppressed (and love the God who loves the oppressed!) by carrying on the beautiful, biblical justice tradition of the Wilberforces and Tubmans and Boothes of history.

 

 

Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, best-selling author, popular speaker, part-time high school teacher, and the Resident Scholar for Summit Ministries, California. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.

Thaddeus Williams, Ph.D. is a professor of Theology at Biola University. He is the author of REFLECT: Becoming Yourself by Mirroring the Greatest Person in History (Weaver, 2017) “A New Theocracy,” and “Beyond Capes and Cowbells.” He blogs regularly at www.thegoodbookblog.com. Follow him on Twitter: @thaddeuswill.

 

 

The post Interview: How Should Christians Think about Social Justice? appeared first on Josh.org.

Student Blogs on “Hide ‘n’ Seek”

Mrs. Clark’s 7th Grade Bible Class Discusses:

 

Hide ‘n’ Seek: The Stolen Body Myth

 

When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 

telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 

If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.”

So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed.

And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

Matthew 28:12-15

 

 

Study Sessions

Read 1 Corinthians 15:1-8.

What four things does Paul say are “of first importance?”

How many people (at least) does Paul mention who actually saw the risen Christ?

Why did Paul mention that most of the five hundred brothers (in verse 6) are still alive?

 

 

 

This Myth is about how Jesus “disappeared” from the tomb.

The Roman guard was paid to not tell anyone what actually happened. They were to say that the disciples came and stole the body at night (Matthew 28:12-15).

If they were to say that then, whoever they were telling that person should ask, “ Why were the guards not awake?”

If I was there when Jesus body apparently “disappeared,” then I would have asked the Roman soldiers, “didn’t you seal the tomb?” Also, I would ask “didn’t the stone weigh 2 tons?”

Another thing that the book points out is that the Roman soldiers would have heard the movement of the huge stone. The book also points out that the Roman guards were well trained and also heavily armed and had good armor, so I don’t know how a force that was trained and armed couldn’t win verses people who were not trained and just wanted to see that Jesus would raise from the dead.

The myth also says that the Roman guards who were awake would have been overpowered by the disciples. Sure one of them could; but can’t people hear when others fight?

In the book, Simon Greenleaf, said that “It is impossible for that to happen.”

In the end, Jesus body wasn’t taken–He rose from the dead, and we give thanks on Easter.
Josh, age 13

 

 

 The “Stolen Body Myth” is a myth, that says the disciples on the eve of Easter went and stole the body of Jesus and hid it–Hide ‘N’ Seek.

This myth can be debunked by many Scriptures. 1 Corinthians 15 :1-8 says, that He appeared before Cephas and then to the twelve and then to 500 brothers. It also tells how He rose on the third day and that before that He was buried.

Also the disciples were locked in a room because they were so scared of the Pharisees.

They all, except John, died a martyr’s death. Why would a person die for something that is not real?  I wouldn’t die for a fake religion and I don’t even think I could die for a real religion, much less a fake one.

The “Stolen Body Myth” can be debunked by the fact that they would never die for a lie or a myth.

 

Jonathan, age 12

 

 

The tomb of Jesus was protected by at least 4 guards of the emperor, in front of a two ton circular stone, but the body of Jesus still got stolen… this is truly a one-of-a-kind resurrection myth.

Even if the guards were asleep, it would be impossible to move or lift a 2 ton stone without the guards waking up.

The guards were equipped with a 6 feet Roman pike on their right hand, a shield on their left hand, and a dagger on their left side. The disciples would not try to steal the body of Jesus while fearing being slain by one of these Roman guards.

Even if they stole the body of Jesus, they would never preach across the world knowing everything they are teaching is a lie, and would not die for this lie they made up.

If they knew it was a lie, 11 of the 12 disciples wouldn’t have died for a lie they made.

Paul, age 12

 

 

 The stolen body myth says that Christ was taken from the tomb by the disciples so that they could say he had risen. This is not possible and is a myth.

It would have been impossible for the disciples to move the stone without the guards hearing. The stone was tall and weighed about two tons.

If the guards would have seen them they would have easily killed the disciples. The guards wore iron helmets and were armed with a Roman pike, a sharp iron head fixed in a shaft. They also held a shield and a sword.

It takes more faith to say that the disciples were able to steal Jesus’ body than it does to say that Jesus rose from the dead.

There is no other logical explanation to Jesus’ missing body.

Rial, age 13

 

 

 

 

Just as mentioned in the 17th chapter, the “stolen body myth” was established in the Bible itself. The Bible says a soldier was sent by a chief priest to spread word the disciples had stolen the lifeless body from the tomb.

Even the most illogical human could identify this statement as highly flawed.

The two ton vast stone that sealed the tomb, is where I’m focusing in on. Factually, the average trained male can lift about 155 lbs. That is for a modernly trained middle aged male. The disciples, for one, where ranged in many different ages, and were also not modern age trained lifters. Two tons is about 4000 pounds.

Even if all the 12 disciples could have even made it past the HEAVILY armed soldiers guarding the tomb, 12 trained men from the 21st century could barely lift 1,800 pounds, so it’s COMPLETELY illogical for the disciples to be capable of lifting 4,000 pounds on their own.

As well, some argue that the disciples could have done it because they had God on their side and God could do anything, but if God could do anything than why can’t he raise Jesus from the dead?

It’s also quite difficult, at least I believe, to get past 16 highly trained, armed, and tough soldiers. I’d say, nearly impossible. These men carried 6 foot long javelins, a sword, and a dagger. Along with these items were also shields, supported by a strap around the shoulder. I’m pretty sure these soldiers had to be extremely strong to be able to fight, or battle with pounds of metal weighing them down, so they were most likely lively and brutal men.

On top of it all, if these soldiers were to fail at guarding the tomb they would be put to death, all of them. I know that’s NOT a risk I’d be even remotely willing to take, if I were a soldier.

So, in conclusion, I couldn’t imagine anyone’s logic and persuasion behind the “stolen body myth” because it is just so ridiculously obvious what the true story was using just common logic.

Tessa, age 12

 

“Today the sincere seeker of truth can have complete confidence, as did the first Christians, that the Christian faith is based not on myth or legend but on the solid historical fact of the empty tomb and the risen Christ.”

(Don’t Check Your Brains at the Door, p. 78)

Know what you believe…and why you believe it.
Don’t Check Your Brains at the Door gives teens answers that make sense, even for the toughest of questions: 

Does it really matter what you believe, as long as you have faith?
Are there errors in the Bible?
Was Jesus just a good teacher?
Can anyone prove His resurrection?
What does that have to do with me?

Using clarity and humor Josh McDowell and co-author Bob Hostetler expose common myths about God, the Bible, religion, and life to show how Christianity stands up to the test of fact and reason.
With these solid evidences teens will be better understand the faith they live and know what they believe and why.
 VIEW DON’T CHECK YOUR BRAINS AT THE DOOR IN OUR ONLINE STORE.

 

The post Student Blogs on “Hide ‘n’ Seek” appeared first on Josh.org.