Some advice for new Christians

I wanted to do a quick post on some general tips for those who have been recently saved. Please note these are not hard, set in stone rules (accept maybe number four), just suggestions that if followed can be helpful, at least in my opinion. If anyone has some more suggestions please post in comment section.

 

ONE: Turn off the tube

This is probably my biggest, number one advice for the new Christian. I’m not talking about cooking shows. Most if not all of what is broadcasted on “Christian” television is entirely heretical. Any new Christian who makes a habit of watching stuff like “TBN” is going to be led down the wrong doctrinal path very quickly. That is not to say that every single program or teacher from TBN is heretical, but by and large most of what they broadcast are word faith teachers, Trinity deniers (I’m looking at YOU T.D Jakes), or people literally selling healing. Also, Christian broadcasting has added to the “American evangelical” picture of overly-emotional Christians who use the “evolution is simply theory” argument. In other words, they represent Christians pretty badly.

TWO: Learn some basic denominations and their teachings

This will help greatly when selecting a church. What do methodists teach and how are they different from baptists? What’s pentecostal? What’s the difference between Reformed and non reformed?

I am NOT suggesting getting into denominationalism. I myself am non-denominational, but will obviously still have fellowship with those in denominations within Biblical orthodoxy. Just knowing what these denominations teach will be of help though. I would recommend staying away from pentecostalism however, as they have some sects that teach some serious heresy (modalism for example, or baptismal regeneration, or tongues as a token of salvation) Again, use your better judgment.

 

THREE: Save the opposition for later.

Christianity is a 2,000 plus year old religion. That means for the past 2,000 years enemies of the faith have been thinking up challenges and attempted refutations to our faith.

For right now, don’t worry about these guys just yet. I say this because getting into apologetics (which I believe all Christians should do) can be challenging business for those new in the faith. Hearing arguments against Christianity while not even having a firm grasp in the basics of the doctrine will not be good for your spiritual life. There ARE exceptions to this those. Lee Strobel was an atheist who bought into such arguments until becoming a Christian. A person like him should indeed get into the doctrinal basics first, but him hearing arguments against the faith as a new Christian probably did not have much affect. However, for the average new Christian, focus on your new faith and learn everything about Scripture and from Scripture. Only when a firm grasp on the doctrines are in place, and there is a certain level of maturity, then feel free to start up in apologetic pursuits.

 

FOUR Remember the foundation

This next point goes back to my first post, the post was aimed at unbelievers, but Christians can benefit from this too. If you’re a new Christian, you’re going to be around other Christians obviously. Here’s something to keep in mind:

Christians are people, and people make mistakes. There are many people who become offended because such and such brother did this or said that. They then begin to question Christianity as a whole. While I don’t believe those genuinely saved will lose their salvation, or that we shouldn’t be careful around new believers, and believers in general, as a  Christian you are not always going to have a pleasant experience in church buildings.

My point is, however, is that the behavior of Christians living in the 21st century has absolutely no bearing on that fact that the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead in the 1st century. Read and grasp 1st Corinthians 15, where Paul lays out the gospel, and lays out the resurrection for being the sole basis of and for our faith. We are Christians because Jesus rose from the dead, not because we all have perfect manners and built a religion that rises or falls on the behavior of the members.

 

FIVE: OBVIOUS PURCHASES

 

Buy a Bible of course. I recommend the Authorized Version without a doubt. Also, please stay away from liberal paraphrases like the Message or the Voice translations. Those will not build you up doctrinally because they aren’t intended to. Don’t worry about not understanding the Scriptures. The Holy Ghost gives us understanding so I was never really worried about that. Just pray whenever you’re on something you cannot seem to understand. Also there are resources available for answering those questions, again, use discernment

 

Six: OBVIOUS NON PURCHASES

I would definitely stay away from the majority of Christian books for now. There are many, many Christian authors who will lead the new believers astray. Have a firm grasp first.

 

SEVEN: Pastors are people

Obviously one should not think their new pastor is the final authority and is right 100 percent of the time. Unless Paul or Peter is your pastor (I’d very much like to go to your church) just remember Scripture is the final authority. However, one should respect their pastor as a teacher and accept guidance in line with Scripture.

 

That sums up my personal recommendations.

 

Some thoughts on Deism

 

Crab_Nebula

I’ve been interested in Deism ever since I came across my first deism website some years back. I was surprised how much disdain they held not only for organized religion, but Christianity in specific.

With works like “Age of reason” by Thomas Paine still popular today, and Deism still around, I thought I’d take a brief look at this topic today.

Deism, as I understand it, is the belief in a creator, and more specifically, a creator who does not intervene in the created world. In other words, the creator, whoever that may be, does not get involved in his creation, and does not act supernaturally in history, either through miracles or through communication.

Which means, yes there’s a creator, but all religions claiming to know the creator are “untrue” in essence, because the creator never spoke to us or revealed anything in a religion.

I saw one quote which said “God has no religion.” And another one “God gave us reason, not religion.”

 

Interestingly enough, I will attempt to show in this article, deism is not a worldview that is epistemically sound.

Deists make a lot of claims about their god. He didn’t inspire any religious text. He never acted in history, he isn’t the Christian God, (or the Jewish or Muslim one) He never spoke to man, and He gave us reason and logic by which we can know the created world.

My question is simple:

How can you know anything about a god who never revealed anything to you?

Deists like to make moral claims against religions stating they are responsible for the ills of the world. And that religious texts such as the Bible are “fable”. They appeal to the natural world as their basis for knowledge.

 

Well, here’s a couple of problems with that:

  1. If the creator deism posits never revealed anything about himself, how do you know anything you say is “immoral” is contrary to his nature?

For all the deist knows, their god is completely OK with immoral acts such as the torture of infants or murdering the innocent. By what basis do you claim this is not the case? God never revealed any religion (and therefore any of it’s moral standards) to us according to the deistic worldview. What are you basing morality in if not the nature of God? And if you do base morality in the nature of deism’s god, how do you know what that nature is?

 

2. How do you know the created world accurately reflects anything?

For all the deist knows, their creator could have created us in a dream world. Everything around us might not even be real, and therefore any claim to knowledge is not knowledge at all. If one appeals to the natural world as our basis for knowing the nature of the creator, how do we know the natural world truly reflects his nature? The natural world could be an illusion and have no true meaning, or deism’s god could have created something completely unrelated to his nature.

 

3. If religious texts such as the Bible are fable, on what basis do you claim anything is true?

This leads back to number 2. The creator of deism could have created our senses to deceive us and would have no problem lying to us (Unlike the Christian God who cannot lie) If the world around us is potentially a lie, how can you have any standard by which to judge truth? And how then can the deist judge my religion as untrue?

The Christian doesn’t face this problem because the God we believe in has indeed revealed to us things about Himself, and the only possibility of knowledge would be by accepting these revelations as axiomatic. The problem for deism is there are no revelations.

LET’S PLAY: ASK A CHRISTIAN

th

 

Hello and welcome back. I wanted to do something different today. I am a firm believer in the Proverb “Iron sharpens iron” (Proverbs 27:17) so I wanted to do something fun.

I am inviting atheists, skeptics, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, and every other non-Christian worldview to ask me a question. In other words, if you’re not a Christian, but want to ask one something, now is your chance.

So if you’re a deist, Hindu, Buddhist, what have you,  and have a question, ask away.

THE RULES:

I must lay down some rules though. Firstly, I am doing this not only for your benefit but for mine. Obviously I don’t have the answer to every question, so this is going to cause me to have to do research. Which will eventually increase both my learning and your learning. Learning is good. Second, the format we will be using to post questions is the comment section. Simple enough?

Thirdly, please keep in mind I have a 9-5 job and am without computer access aside from the library, so if I take a while to answer, please understand. However if you have a good question I will try my hardest to give you an answer.

NOW FOR THE RULES:

  1. Intelligent questions only

I will not respond to insults and insulting questions. For example:

“How can you believe a book of bronze age myths!!?”

“How can you believe a religion that causes people to become bigots!!?”

 

2. Nothing overly specific.

Example:

“How can you prove Moses did AB and C?”

“How can you prove Jesus actually wore a seamless garment!!?”

“How can you prove David played the harp!?”

 

General questions are welcome, but please try not to be vague either.

 

3. No “Bible contradictions”

There are plethora of encyclopedia answering alleged contradictions of Scripture, and I know certain people will use this as an opportunity to make themselves look good by overwhelming the comment section with such “contradictions”. I simply don’t have time for such.

 

4. Questions not demands.

The format is question asking, not demands. In other words no

“Prove to me” type “questions”

Questions asking for evidence for something are welcome, however if the question is merely a challenge and not an inquiry I will not answer. Also, please try not to be vague with the evidence questions either.

 

5. ONE QUESTION per person… AT MOST, TWO.

In other words, don’t go copy “78 questions for Christians” from your favorite atheism website and post that in the comment section. Instead, choose one or two from the list.

 

6. I’m not a biologist.

Although I am a creationist, I do not hold any credentials in biology or archeology. I am not qualified to speak authoritatively on overtly scientific topics and also because science is not an interest of mine. So please keep things within the scope of religion as I tend to avoid getting into the creation/evolution debate. However  if you feel you have a good question on the debate in general, I’ll approve your question.

 

7. Stay within topic.

Firstly, the questions are about Christianity, Jesus, the Bible, society, etc. So please stay on those topics. Second, if you’re an atheist for example, no “Well how do you know Islam isn’t true?” Since neither of us are Muslim in this instance, the question is irrelevant.

 

Also, I’m not Catholic so asking me questions about the pope or things related to Catholicism will probably not be helpful.

 

As I said this is a fun experiment not a challenge. I am not even close to having the answer to the vast majority of questions I will potentially be asked, however, I am of the belief that Christians need to start inviting dialogue with other worldviews.

The church in America is suffering because we spend too much time and resources on entertainment and making church a pleasant experience, not engaging the culture like Paul and the apostles did in Acts.

Also, one more rule:

 

8. Keep things friendly

I’m you’re wordpress neighbor, not the guy you’re trying to defeat in a debate. The goal is learning not winning.

So I invite everyone to ask me a question today. Be it a philosophical question, a historical question, a doctrinal question, etc.

I will answer the question in the comment section. However if I feel I have several really good questions I will do a post answering them.

 

Have fun and share with a friend.

A brief defense of the Trinity (Part 1)

Welcome back to my blog. Today I am writing on a topic of Christianity that is so often misunderstood, yet so central to the faith. Today’s paper is a brief outline of the basic support from Scripture that the doctrine of the Trinity has in favor of it. This post is by no means exhaustive, however I do seek to lay down a solid basis for believing this doctrine to be unequivocally true.

First, we need to lay some groundwork. Before getting into the Biblical evidence, we need to understand not only the nature of that evidence, but also what the Trinity is not. In other words, I seek to dispel myths and misrepresentations of this most precious doctrine.

It is the contention of many that the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, but coined by early church apologist Tertullian of Carthage in the second century. While Tertullian may have very well come up with the word, the etymology is not in question, but whether the doctrine is taught in Scripture. With that, I would also argue the word Bible is not in the Bible.

Second, we need to understand the nature of evidence for the Trinity. Aside from the so called “Johannine comma” (which I firmly believe belongs in the Bible) there are not verses explicitly stating something like:

“I am God, I am a Trinity”

The evidence for the Trinity is a conclusion based upon facts which we must accept. And these facts, two of which I seek to establish in these posts, we will look at.

Also, we must understand what the Trinity is not.

The Trinity is not:

Three gods

Jesus, the Father, and Mary (as the Quran teaches)

A triad

One God revealing Himself in three different “modes” (The Sebellian heresy, in other words, the Father “became” the Son, who “became” the Holy Spirit.)

The Trinity is:

One single Being called God eternally existing and revealed as Three distinct Persons that are in complete unity with One Another.

In light of the plethora of verses saying God is one, we must understand that one can just as easily refer to one entity that is a plurality. In other words when Jesus prayed that the disciples would “be one” (John 17:22) He was not saying they would all somehow physically amalgamate. The church is one yet the church is a plurality. “One” never rules out a plurality.

With this in mind, I shall establish two facts, both of which are denied by unitarians the world over. First, we must, as stated before, realize the Trinity is the conclusion if these facts are true.

  1. There is one God.

This is not disputed by unitarians.

2. The Holy Ghost is God.

3. Jesus is God.

 

These two facts are disputed by unitarian groups, and I will look into fact number two in the first segment of this post. If these two facts can be established, in light of fact number one, the only logical inference is that God must be One yet Three.

Moving on, in establishing the Deity of the Holy Ghost (Spirit) we will look at what ancient Hebrews believed a spirit to be. Unitarian groups call into question the consciousness and sentience of the Spirit. In other words, they believe in an “active force” theology, that rules out the possibility of the Spirit, in their teachings, to be alive and sentient.

Nobody would deny, that the Holy Spirit is indeed a Spirit, the question is, in Hebrew thought what exactly is a spirit? More specifically, are spirits sentient?

 

Let us take a look at some verses that refer to spirits in general, and we can take away from this what the Hebrews knew a spirit to be.

1 Kings 22:21-22

And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
This verse is an actual conversation between God and a spirit of some sort. We see here that a spirit is capable of communication, and therefore sentient. A theme throughout Scripture whenever spirits are mentioned.
Job 4:15-17
Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up:
16 It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice, saying,
17 Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?
Again, a spirit here as early as Job is seen communicating.
Acts 23:9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.
Spirits were believed to be able to speak to men.
Luke 11:24  When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.
A spirit is capable of pondering, planning for the future, and traveling. What then of the Holy Spirit of God?
Ezekiel 11:5 And the Spirit of the LORD fell upon me, and said unto me, Speak; Thus saith the LORD; Thus have ye said, O house of Israel: for I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them.
The Holy Spirit (Spirit of the LORD) is seen speaking and says He has knowledge of the minds of the house of Israel. Only a Sentient Being could have this knowledge. If the Holy Ghost is alive and sentient (which He is) then we must note that the Holy Spirit is also distinct from the Father, yet one with Him because He is His Spirit. The two are inseparable yet distinct. As we see in the Baptism of Christ.
Acts 28:25-26
And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,

26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
Paul here actually attributes a verse from Isaiah where Jehovah is speaking, to the Holy Ghost Himself as saying these things. The truth is that unitarian groups believe all the spirits recorded in Scripture are sentient yet when they look at the Spirit of Life Himself they somehow argue against His Sentience. This line of argumentation is a “special pleading fallacy” and not a real argument against the Trinity. Spirits of all sorts were seen as capable of doing the things human beings can. Spirits are indeed alive, and ESPECIALLY the Spirit of God Himself, who is the source of all life. Indeed, as Elihu said, “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.” (Job 33:4)
That’s all I will cover in this part. We must also note that the Spirit of God is said to be capable of being grieved, offended, as well as sending, striving, convicting, teaching, comforting, and being blasphemed. Only God can truly be blasphemed. Indeed, God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and God is Holy (Isaiah 57:15) Therefore the Living God is a Holy Spirit. In the next segment I will cover the Deity of Christ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brief responses to Christianity’s most common objections

Today’s post is by no means in depth. Due to the format which I’m using to post articles the nature of my writing for now is brief and to the point. This article is designed to make you research the topics more in depth, again these are gong to be hit and run responses. For further questions please comment.

  1. ” Christians are hypocrites “

A vague sweeping generalization like this is hardly a sound argument let alone a challenge against the faith. I would force whoever said this to me to define Christians. All Christians? The ones in America? The ones in your state? The ones online? What exactly is meant here? Nobody has interacted with every Christian and therefore the challenge doesn’t work.

 

2. “Christians have done horrible things in the past.”

Again, vague generalizations. Every group and cause on the planet has not been perfect and the same could be said for every person on the planet. The truth is that Christianity cannot be dismissed based upon the behavior of it’s adherents. See my first post.

 

3. “There’s no evidence Jesus existed.”

Outright false. Nobody but people with a vested interest will reject the historical evidence for Christ. And they do so based upon arguments from silence and special pleading. The life and trial of Jesus under Pontius Pilate is historically attested to by extra biblical authors such as Josephus, Tacitus, and Lucian of Samosata. That’s a topic for which volumes could be written so again this is meant to encourage research not be a final say.

4. ” How could a loving God allow evil. ”

While there are literally countless books written on this topic, the Book of Job being one of them, I’m not going to go into philosophical pontifications about the nature of the topic. I would simply ask, depending on who said this to me, how “evil” can truly exist without an unchanging standard of good to compare it to. My contention is God is that standard of good. Again massive topic.

5.” Christianity is the closest religion to Islam, both share the same ideologies. ”

This is actually an argument I have seen repeated by people. My response is simply for the person to do their research. The two are night and day and one would wonder if the statement were true why there exists such tension between the religions.

6 “Jesus never claimed to be God.”

This one liner is so often repeated I think Christians are starting to buy this.

Fact: Jesus claimed the divine name in John 8:58 and the title Son of man which is a heavenly Being in the Book of Daniel that is worshipped. He also said He’s Lord of the sabbath as early as Mark’s gospel. The Jews understood what He was saying which is why they wanted to stone Him. Much more could be said.

7. ” The Bible was written by men. ”

Indeed so, my response is so what? Something being written by men doesn’t make that writing automatically false. I however am of the belief that the Bible wasn’t written BY men but THROUGH men. There’s a difference.

That’s all for now

 

 

 

 

 

A brief explanation of why Christians don’t have premarital sex

A charge against Christianity is that we often repress human sexuality. The truth is that historically there may have been instances of this, with the Puritans for example. I’m no historian on Puritan teachings but apparently they were, err, Puritanical on sex even between married couples. I saw a documentary on the Amish where husbands and wives had to sit separately at the breakfast table so as not to be tempted. Again, I’m not Amish so please correct me on anything not 100 percent if you know something I don’t

Putting that aside, at core, I seek to offer an explanation on what we believe about sex, and why.

One might wonder why the Christian faith makes sex such a taboo. The truth is that Christianity has roots in Judaism, and Judaism is a religion of covenants.

God is a God of covenants. That’s how He deals with His creatures. He entered into a covenant with individuals and with a nation. He offers us all to enter a covenant with Him through His Son as the mediator of those He previously didn’t have as a people.

God created a covenant for humans too. That covenant is marriage and was one of the first covenants He created.

One might wonder why we believe pre-marital sex is forbidden. What’s the difference?  A ceremony and ring? How does that suddenly make sex acceptable?

However, those things are symbols of the covenant, not the covenant itself.

So what is the covenant?

The covenant is that one man and one woman will become one flesh and never  be separated.  The key is never be separated. What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. That is, once joined in a covenant, the man and woman will remain one until death.

Having sex outside of this covenant is re-inventing the covenant to say a man and woman will become one flesh but will not remain so, and will do this repeatedly with other humans becoming one flesh but never remaining so. That is not at all what God intended and therefore that is sin.

That’s why sex is so important, because it’s a covenant act. We didn’t create sex and therefore have no say as to what to circumstances sex is acceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Myths about Christianity: Answered

1.  We have a grudge against Judaism.

Not true at all. While some so called “Christian” groups promote anti-semitic teachings, such as the KKK, these group’s claims to anything remotely Christian cannot be taken seriously.  They aren’t, never were, and never will be. While Martin Luther unfortunately wrote against the Jewish people, Martin Luther doesn’t and never has represented the opinions of Christians as a whole. The majority of the New Testament was written by a Jewish man (Paul) about a Jewish Man (Jesus), the Bible as a whole is a Jewish Book and always will be.

2. We think all things sexual are sin.

Not true either. God created sex, but only as a covenant act (within marriage), not a commodity and most certainly not between people of the same gender. So while we believe MANY things sexual WITHIN the culture are sinful, (porn, prostitution, etcetera)

Sex in and of itself is a creation of God, and we like it.

 

3. We all want a theocracy.

I don’t. Christianity was not ever a political movement. I DO want the gospel spread to each nation, but that’s on an individual level, not a governmental level. I AM waiting for Christ’s kingdom to be established in person (I’m premillennial) with Christ ruling from the throne of David, until that happens though, I don’t want a church state combination simply because that’s not the goal. The goal is to tell souls about the work of Christ, not take over countries.

4. TV pastors are representatives of us.

Take a megachurch televangelist and a seasoned Christian apologist and sit them down and ask them the same set of questions, and be prepared to think two different religions were being interviewed. TV has been taken over by the word faith movement which teaches God exists to make us happy. PLEASE don’t listen to those guys.

5. We only use the O.T. when convenient.

I have repeatedly heard Christians must keep Jewish dietary laws and the sabbath if they are to say homosexuality is sinful. The argument goes that Christians ignore the laws of Moses they don’t want to follow and use the ones they want.

Not the case. While Christ fulfilled the law and we don’t follow those laws anymore, there are stills laws pre-dating the law of Moses that are written on our hearts. For example, murder is still wrong in both testaments, same with other such sins.

 

That’s all for now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The apostle Paul was a phony ” and other anti Christian slogans

A few days ago I was on the web reading some book reviews. I came across a skeptic who claimed he had a refutation of Christianity who was unanswered. The “refutation” was extremely long and had several parts most of which will be dealt with in future parts LORD willing. The foundation of the argument was that Paul’s  conversion was merely an act, and the proof of this was a “confession” which Paul revealed in 1 Corinthians 9:20-23

These are the verses wherein Paul says he became all things to all men. To the Jews as a Jew, to them that are under the law as under the law. So on.

The argument here was that Paul became as under the law and therefore that proves Paul simply blended in to whoever he was with. Among Christians as one who believes the Resurrection. As among Jews a lawkeeper.

That these verses somehow disprove the Christian faith is yet to be truly demonstrated.

One would ask first of all WHY Paul purposely made people think these things, and second of all why he would take an “act” so far as to actually be martyred.

Although not many atheists that I  know of make Paul the subject of their writings, I have seen much anti Paul sentiment from critics of Christianity from everyone from Muslims to liberals.

So what of these verses? Did Paul actually confess that the whole experience of his conversion was simply a “front”?

No.

These verses are not that at all.

When Paul said he became all things to all men, he was simply being sensitive to cultures for the sake of the gospel.

Suppose I was trying to spread atheism to the Buddhists of Japan.

Would I walk in their house with my shoes on, kick over their statute and refuse to bow to them?

Of course not. I would become ” as Japanese” for the sake of developing a rapport

This is not becoming something I’m not, no less an “act”

Now let’s think of a first century Jew. Who would believe news about a Jewish Messiah from a man eating a B.L.T while doing yard work on the sabbath?

Nobody.

Paul became as under the law to be sensitive to those he was trying to win. Not that he held on to Judaism because he didn’t believe the Resurrection.

A good analogy to this is the writing of Lucian. He told a story of a man named Peregrinus who did just that, pretend to be a Christian for the sake of showing how easy Christians can be deceived. Now can we imagine such a man actually being killed for his faith?

So no, Paul’s conversion WAS genuine and these verses say nothing against the testimony of Paul.

I think we can lay this slogan to rest as well.

  • One sorry apologist

“Jesus never said anything about homosexuality” And other anti Christian slogans.

Welcome back. Please excuse the format of my blog as this site is under construction and will be so for a while.

Id like to start a series concerning popular anti Christian slogans that are oft repeated without actually having a basis in fact.

While these slogans are not really true arguments against the faith, they can serve as a stumbling block to those new to the faith and don’t have an answer.

One such slogan is that Jesus Himself never mentioned homosexuality.

The conclusion is then that Christians are rejecting such behavior based upon personal bias or selective reading of the OT.

There are many, many fallacies within this one particular line.

For starters, let’s grant the premise that Jesus truly didn’t speak on the topic (a premise I will show to be not exactly true)

This would mean nothing for or against the topic as silence works both ways. One could argue that Jesus never said anything FOR the behavior and therefore reverse the situation.

The truth is that the premise is false to begin with for several reasons.

  1. The context in which Jesus spoke.

In order for this argument to work one has to remove Jesus from the social setting in which He preached.

Jesus lived, worked, and preached among pious Jews who adhered strictly to the law of Moses.

In other words, He didn’t NEED to mention homosexuality.

Jesus going around saying the behavior was wrong would be akin to me telling a group of police officers breaking the speed limit will get people pulled over.

THEY ALREADY KNOW.

Every Jew living in first century Palestine already had the law of Moses to tell them what they needed to know about sexual sin.

Which brings me to my second point.

2. Jesus did mention the topic.

One must look at Jesus as merely a moral teacher in order for the argument to work. The truth is if that one believes in the Deity of Christ, the argument disappears.

Jesus Christ being the Second member of the Triune God was in fact present and in agreement with the giving of the law at mount Sinai. Jesus is always in agreement with the Father and Holy Ghost (who is blessed forever) because they are one.

So considering the fact that Jesus preached to people who already assumed this behavior to be wrong, and that He’s the one who gave the law (which served to point us to Himself) I think we can lay this slogan to rest.

See you next time.

  • One sorry apologist

Judging Christianity through experience?

Hello and welcome to my blog. This blog is currently under construction and posting will not be frequent as I have limited internet access and I cannot post photos.

However as my first post and introduction to the topic of Christian apologetics as done from a layman such as me, I wanted to write about a theme I see throughout the society of those who professed faith and are now “unbelievers” or who simply don’t believe to begin with.

The question is if any person is justified in judging the truth of a religion, in this case, the Christian faith, as true or untrue based on their personal experience and their agreement with our doctrines. It is common for many people (in my experience) to judge that Christianity is not the correct worldview based on their experiences with the faith OR their approval of doctrines within the religion.

EXAMPLE: “The church mistreats (insert group)”

“Christians act like (insert behavior the skeptic doesn’t like)

“The Bible teaches (insert doctrine skeptic doesn’t like)”

“When I was a Christian nobody taught me to think critically”

“When I was a Christian (insert bad experience)”

The list could go on and on. The question is not if the skeptic is justified in FEELING these, the question is if their conclusion that the Christian faith is any less true because they had certain experiences that they didn’t like or they have a hard time accepting certain doctrines. Many “de-conversion” stories are exactly these.

I however have the contention, that as Christians, we need to look at Christianity as independent from human experience. I could not classify Christian faith as a subjective experience as say, Mormonism (burning in the bosom) or something that needs our experience to validate our veracity.

THE TRUTH is that whether you had a great experience in the church or not, or whether certain doctrines appeal to you or not, these have no bearing on the truthfulness of Christianity.

WHY?

Because Christianity is a faith based solely upon the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ as a historical event, and NOT  on the behavior of the adherents.

Christianity is true because Jesus rose from the dead. Christianity is not true because we claim you will have a great experience in every church every time.

Again the faith is rooted in history, not claims of happiness or ultimate “feel goodness” despite what some people may indeed advocate.

Don’t get me wrong, I WANT everyone to have a great experience within the faith. However as a Christian even I have been to churches where I left and walked out.

I may not always have a great experience when I get into my car, or may not like certain features within any given vehicle, but cars exist nonetheless.

So I urge fellow Christian to not forget that the faith is rooted in a historical event, and not that we claim to be a solution to all human problems (ultimately, Jesus Himself is the solution to  all problems eternal, but in this life “ye shall have tribulation.”)

 

-One sorry apologist