GoodSearch

Social justice is a topic I've been pondering a lot recently. So often we hear the gospel getting confused with giving your money to the poor or feeding the hungry. My first reaction to people who mention the poor and such has been rather judgmental in that I instantly accuse them in my mind of compromising the gospel, which most certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with your quality of life right now, and everything to do with being reconciled to God through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ (Rom 5:9).

However, don't we also see that true religion is to visit orphans and widows (James 1:27) and that we should remember those who are in prison as though ourselves in prison (Heb 13:3)? The gospel is not supposed to save us and then disappear. It saves us and sanctifies us! This is manifested in concrete and purposeful acts of goodness and kindness toward other people, whether they are Christian or non-Christian.

What I am about to offer is just a small step in accomplishing this task. I wanted to let my readership know about a new search engine that I've been using for a little while now called GoodSearch. Every time you do an internet search with it, about 1 cent goes to the charity of your choice. I have chosen Prison Fellowship (as they were the ones to let me know about this in the first place) and thus far we have raised $600 for it since the start of 2007. Prison Fellowship is a prison reform ministry dedicated to giving the gospel to inmates and redeeming lost lives. They are also quite successful at reducing the recidivism rate of prisoners who graduate their program.

You may choose any charity on the list of which there are currently 34,000 and 100 joining daily. This site is powered by Yahoo! so the search result quality is not going to be diminished or anything like that.

The Word is clear that we are to help those in need. This is a great way to do that, while also supporting the spread of the gospel message (should you choose a ministry that does this). The spread of the gospel message should always be our #1 priority, because Christ commanded we do it, and because Hell is not made more pleasant by a full stomach and stable income. If anyone can come up with a good reason NOT to use this search engine, do let me know, because I certainly can't find any.

Happy searching.

Absurdity 1: Miracles

It seems to me that the primary objection of people who deny the authority of scripture is the fact that it records miracles or otherwise seemingly impossible events.

Mr. Darrow in particular cites the creation of woman, the tower of Babel, Balaam's talking donkey, the wise men's star, the resurrection of the dead, and many others. I'll go through a few of these to point out the logical flaws in his reasoning.

First, the resurrection of the dead: Paul makes it clear in 1 Cor 15 that if Christ has not been raised from the dead, we are still in our sins, unforgiven; therefore, I think that it would be reasonable to say that this is something Christians should take quite seriously! It is the cornerstone of our faith, and without it we are to be pitied above all other men (15:19). Additionally, it was a central theme of the preaching of the apostles during the earlier years of the church. It is THE primary reason the apostles gave to unbelievers so that they would believe in Jesus Christ and receive forgiveness of sins (read Acts).

So what reason does Mr. Darrow give for denying this real, literal, physical, historical, space-time event? He says it's impossible to believe that dead men can be raised to life if we use our senses. Presumably here is he employing the inductive method of obtaining knowledge. He views an event over and over again (death) with his senses and it always turns out the same way (they don't come back to life), so he concludes that it will always turn out the same way (no one can ever come back to life). But I have a question for Mr. Darrow, to see if it is really impossible to determine with our senses whether someone has risen (and therefore CAN rise!) from the dead.

If you watched your buddy get flogged, beaten, crucified (suffocated), and stabbed through the heart with a spear, is it possible to determine for certain from this sensory experience that he did in fact die? I would say yes it is! It doesn't take a genius to know when someone is dead. Especially after that kind of treatment. Is it possible then also to find his tomb empty some short time thereafter? I'd say yes as well! Why should that be impossible? Are humans inherently incapable of determining whether or not a body is present in a burial room? I think not. Third question, would it be possible to touch someone alive who you determined was this dead, and see their scars? I'd say that is also not logically impossible with respect to sensory perception. Let's say Jesus did rise from the dead; does this mean that it's impossible to determine that he is alive with your senses? This seems foolish to me. The disciples were invited to touch him, watch him eat, listen to him teach them. If you did this, could you not reasonably conclude that this man was indeed alive? I think you could, and there is no good reason to believe otherwise.

So why would anyone ever say that it's impossible to believe that someone rose from the dead if we use our senses?

He mentions Balaam's talking donkey, and takes for granted that this will seem absurd to his reader. Now I'm going to confess something to everyone. Talking animals are really weird. I don't think anybody would dispute this. I would also like to say that only two instances of this are recorded in God's Word. Two times! It's weird! But absurd? I am not convinced that this can be determined from a strictly agnostic worldview. What would he have to be assuming to say that miracles are absurd? He would have to assume naturalism - that is, that supernaturalism is false. God does not exist and is not available for performing miracles. Now, what does this sound like?

It sounds like atheism to me, not agnosticism! So here we have an agnostic who says the Bible is absurd, which he ultimately backs up with atheistic philosophy. This is very subtle, and the person participating in this juggle of worldviews may not even realize he is doing it. It needs to be pointed out graciously. I suppose my main point for this article would be: A person with no worldview of his own (agnosticism) has no rational grounds on which to say someone else's is absurd. Furthermore, a person WITH a worldview can at best say, "From the perspective of my own worldview, Christianity looks foolish." With this, I wholeheartedly agree.

Next: Addressing the (Alleged) Lack of Evidence

Absurdities of the Bible

A Response to Clarence Darrow’s Article Absurdities of the Bible
by Evan Winslow

I am writing this because I found a link from the Stand to Reason website (Christian apologist Greg Koukl's ministry), which encouraged me to visit some sites with arguments opposing Christianity, so I could get used to hearing arguments from opponents of Christianity. I have done this several times before, but this is my attempt to calmly and logically address some issues without getting noticeably frustrated. The Bible is clear that we need to “let [our] speech always be gracious” as we “answer each person” (Col 4:6). I was confronted with the fact that I fall seriously short in this area just recently, and this is my active attempt to correct that.

Clarence Darrow is an agnostic. As an agnostic, he has found it worthwhile and necessary to explain why he is convinced that Christianity is not a tenable option as a worldview. My “refutation” of his complaints will basically be an attempt not so much to prove him wrong about absurdities in the Bible, but to show that he is not actually an agnostic. Mr. Darrow smuggles in a naturalistic worldview, which is necessarily atheistic. Atheism is not agnosticism. He also smuggles in a theistic worldview. Theism is not agnosticism. How’s that for confusing? Yes you read that right. Mr. Darrow is not agnostic. He is atheistic when it suits him, and agnostic when it suits him, and theistic when it suits him. That’s a bold claim, but one that I think I can substantiate, if you’ll allow me time. I also think that if you pay attention, you’ll be surprised at how many people do this who hold to non-theistic worldviews (I hesitate to say non-Christian because it’s I’m not convinced it’s impossible for other monotheistic religions to be consistent in these areas). For the purposes of my article, atheism will be defined as the positive belief that there is no personal God (as opposed to the lack of belief in a God, which is an admittedly frustrating distinction that it seems more and more atheists are making these days).

Mr. Darrow’s main arguments about the Bible are very common objections to Christianity in general, so I think this will be a good exercise for anyone who might come up against them in a witnessing situation, or if someone just has genuine questions about the Bible. Rather than going through his article line by line, which would not be helpful for learning answers to certain objections, I decided to outline the main objections that he gives. I found seven basic objections in Mr. Darrow’s article, and they are as follows.

The Bible is absurd because…

1) The Bible records impossible events
2) There is no evidence for certain Biblical events
3) There are non-biblical accounts of miracles similar to the Bible’s
4) The people in those days knew next to nothing about science
5) Even some Christians don’t believe the stories are literally true
6) The God of the Bible does immoral things
7) Christians hate knowledge/rationality

I will address these issues one by one in subsequent blogs.

JW 4: Practical Tips

Here is a link to a great article I found with a very humble, gentle, and practical way to witness to a Jehovah's Witness. I remember stressing this idea at the beginning of my JW series: They are not nuisances, they are chances for you to evangelize that God has placed quite literally at your doorstep.

Happy fishing.

JW 3: Discerning Truth from Error

Time flies way too fast! If you people actually want information from me on a more regular basis, someone will have to jump on my back about it. …Ok well let’s not resort to physical violence, but I think you get my meaning. I figure I might as well address a few more issues I have with the Watchtower organization, so that we can be done with that segment of my blog. Bear in mind, however, that these issues are not the fault solely of JW’s. Some “mainline Christians” may be guilty of the same things. Do let me know if I am guilty of these things. First off I’d like to mention a couple things I’m happy about in JW theology.

They said some hard things

"God is not obligated to show favor or mercy to anyone" (30).

Some people think that God owes them happiness, or a good life, or a ticket to heaven. Otherwise they claim He’s unloving or unforgiving. The definition of grace implies that He is not obligated to give it. Yet He still chose to give it! That is so mind boggling to me. Anyways, on this point the JW’s are solid.

"The Bible condemns premarital intercourse and homosexuality" (122).

I think that’s pretty clear! Refreshing to know how clear the Bible is on the topic especially in this day an age when it seems like everyone and their brother is jumping on the pro-gay bandwagon and sex is treated like an everyday biological function – no more than scratching an itch or feeding a hungry stomach. They even used the word condemn. Those judgmental JW’s… someone needs to sue them for hate crime… (/sarcasm).

Now, on to the many things to be wary of.

Happiness as a reason to accept the(ir) gospel

1. "Calling on Jehovah...can lead you to endless happiness" (27).

This stuff really gets under my skin. Let me make clear that I do not think God is a cosmic kill joy. In fact, He is the only true source of joy (Gal 5:22; Ps 16:11)! I just never see anyone in scripture giving that as a reason to call on Him and be saved. If you do, let me know. Indeed, God did make things for us to enjoy (1 Tim 6:17). However, that is not why we submit to His Lordship and turn from our sin. Not only does an unregenerate person not have a desire for the things of God (Rom 3:11; so they are guaranteed not to be made happy with the “eternal pleasures at [His] right hand” - Ps 16:11), but this simply centers the gospel on man and thereby minimizes the gospel. I’ll say it loud and clear: Jesus did not die on the cross to make you happy! He died to satisfy the wrath of God. Go to the cross because you’re so thankful that He would do such a thing for you. Repent of your sin and trust in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to pay the due penalty for your active rebellion against God.

The appeal to the reader in order to determine spiritual truths

"Is this not the kind of God that you want to worship?" (15).

Rom 3:11 – “There is none who seeks after God.” Also see 1 Cor 2:14. But they will seek after they’re own gods. This is a huge red flag, tipping you off to the fact that the JW god is not the God of the Bible, but a God of man’s own making. Watch out for people everywhere with this mindset. Mankind has not gotten tired of making a god to suit himself. If I have done this, let me know. Now… the following section contains some frankly odd phrases that I found in the book. You just need to take a look at them for yourself. Perhaps you can help me out with them.

Weird Stuff

"The work of witnessing to Jesus" (49).

Witnessing to Jesus? I checked the context. I have no idea what this means. Ideas?

"...sin was deeply engraved into the genes of our first parents" (58).

Sin is a physical problem?

"...only 144,000...will God take to heaven...(Rev 7:4; 14:1)" (88).

The funniest thing about this is that in verse 9 of chapter 7 there is a numberless quantity of saints standing before the throne of God in heaven… Why they interpreted the 144,000 sealed of Israel to be the only ones who go to heaven, I have no idea.

Legalism

"We must make sure that we avoid religious holidays and other customs that violate God's principles (1 Thess 5:21)" (49).

Since they’re quoting the “test all things” verse (I don’t know how it supports their position), I’ll be doing just that… oh look. Here’s an interesting verse… "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath." – Col 2:16

Maybe they just missed it…but I doubt it. Also check out Rom 14.

Annihilationism

"Martha expressed no thought about an immortal soul living on elsewhere after death"

"...the Bible never uses the expression 'immortal soul'" (84).

A lesson in logic: this is what we like to call the Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Not having a record of Martha expressing belief in immortal souls is quite a weak reason to make a blanket statement that they definitely don’t exist. First of all, Martha could simply be ignorant. There’s no reason to believe that she had all her theology right. Second of all, the objection that the Bible never says “immortal soul” is like objecting that the Bible never uses the term “monotheistic” to describe “Fundamental Evangelical Christianity” (another term that isn’t used in the Bible). We use words to embody concepts that we deduce the people of scripture believe after taking in the whole of scripture.

"Nobody would need to be resurrected, or brought back to life, if an immortal soul survived death" (84).

This is an excellent example of “human reasoning.” Whether or not they understand the purpose of resurrecting a body and rejoining the soul with it, the Bible says we have souls, and that they can be separated from the physical body (by death) , and that they can be rejoined with the body (by resurrection). (Phil 1:23-24; 2 Cor 5:8; Rev 6:9).

Misused Scripture

"You will be with me in Paradise."-Luke 23:42,43

They subtly leave out “today,” a word that absolutely destroys annihilationism. They take from the word of God where it suits them so that they can hold on to their theology. Rest assured, believer. When you die, you will be with the Lord immediately.

Misunderstanding of Jesus' Mission on Earth

"A stable world government...was the theme of Jesus' preaching. He called it 'the kingdom of God'" (90).

A stable world government? The kingdom of God is “a stable world government?” I wonder why I never interpreted it that way. Oh yea, it’s because Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). Jesus did not come to set up a world government! Nor did He come so that we would strive to set up a world government! Anyways… I’m done with my rant.

Perhaps you can sense a little anger in my tone. It’s there. It’s because these people have distorted the truth of God’s word to suit themselves (2 Pet 3:16). They do this to their own destruction, and to the destruction of those who follow them. This simultaneously breaks my heart and provokes it. I hope it is with a righteous anger. As I have said before, if it is not, let me know.