Chapter 3: Challenges to the Christian Faith

First Things First

Those who choose to not receive the Truth are not prepared to receive our fervent counsel.  So what did Jesus mean when He said to “not throw your pearls before swine" (Matthew 7:6)?  Or in Matthew 7:6 (written 40-45A.D.)?  “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

Answer:  "Do not cast your pearls before swine" is a portion of the Sermon on the Mount, and to understand its meaning, we have to understand its context and placement within the sermon.  Christ had just finished instructing the crowd on judgment and reproof: “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.  2 For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.”  (Matthew 7:1-2 (written 40-45 A.D.)), and “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”  (Matthew 7:5 (written 40-45 A.D.)).  Then in verse 6 (see above), Christ tempers these admonitions and shows us the difference between “judgment” and “discernment.”

The analogy of the dogs actually comes from Proverbs: “Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who repeats his folly” (Proverbs 26:11(Written 950-700 B.C.)).  Swine are also described in this way, as illustrated by Peter: “Of them [false prophets and teachers] the proverbs are true: It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit” and “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire” (2 Peter 2:22 (written 64-68A.D.)).  The dogs and swine here are representative of those who would ridicule, reject, and blaspheme the Gospel once it has been given to them.  We are not to put forth the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the direction of someone who has no other purpose than to trample it and return to their own evil ways.  We identify such people through discernment, which is given in some measure to all Christians (1 Corinthians 2:15-16 (written 55 A.D.)  “But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.  16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him?  But we have the mind of Christ."

This does not mean we refrain from preaching the Gospel.  Jesus Himself ate with and taught sinners and tax collectors (Matthew 9:10 (written 40-45A.D.))  “Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples.”  In essence, the instruction in Matthew 7:6 (see above) is the same that Jesus gave to His apostles when He said in Matthew 10:14 (written 40-45 A.D.)  “Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.”  We are not to judge others, when we are guilty of the same things they are.  Reserving judgment, however, does not prevent us from discerning those who would accept, or at least respect, the Gospel from those who would ridicule, mock, and trample it; and then turn on us and abuse us.  Balancing judgment with discernment is the wisdom of serpents Jesus refers to in Matthew 10:16 (written 40-45 A.D.)  “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves” and Proverbs 19:3 (Written 950-700 B.C.) reminds us “a false witness will not go unpunished, and he who tells lies will not escape.”

C. S. Lewis revealed the absurdity of expecting virtue from people who are taught that no virtue exists: “In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function.  We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise.  We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.  We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

Absolute Truth and the Law of Noncontradiction

The Law of Noncontradiction is a self-evident first principle of thought that says contradictory claims cannot both be true at the same time in the same sense.  In short, it says that the opposite of true is false.  We all know this law intuitively, and use it every day.

Intelligent with Non-Intelligent Processes

(Geisler & Turek, 2004)

Intelligent with non-intelligent processes is a common mistake of Darwinists.  This was the case when Norman Geisler debated humanist Paul Kurtz in 1986 on the topic of evolution.  The debate, moderated by TV apologist John Ankerberg, produced this exchange regarding macroevolution:

Geisler: [Chandra] Wickramasinghe [who is an atheist] said, “believing that life came by chance is like believing that a Boeing 747 resulted from a tornado going through a junk yard!”  You have to have a lot of faith to believe that!  Kurtz: Well, the Boeing 747 evolved.  We can go back to the Wright brothers and see that first kind of airplane they created . . . Geisler: Created?  Kurtz: Yes, but …Ankerberg: By intelligence or by chance?  [Laughter] Kurtz: There was a period of time in which these forms changed . . . Ankerberg: But didn’t they create those airplanes using intelligence?  Kurtz: I was using the analogy that Dr. Geisler was using.  Geisler: Well, you’re helping my argument!  [Laughter] You ought to drop that one and find another one!  Kurtz: No, no, I think the point I make is a good one because there have been changes from the simplest to the more complex airplanes.  Geisler: Yes, but those changes were by intelligent intervention!

God’s Love and Justice

We know that whatever God does, it is based on His perfect love and justice.

John 3:16-17 (written 58-65 A.D.)  "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.  (17) For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him."

1 John 4:8 (written 85-95A.D.)  “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”

Deuteronomy 32:3 (written 1405 B.C.)  “I will proclaim the name of the LORD.  Oh, praise the greatness of our God!  (4) He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just.  A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is He.”

Evil

All things were Created by God

Colossians 1:16 (written 60-62A.D.) “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.”

All that God Created was Very Good

Genesis 1:31 (written 1440-1400 B.C.)  “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.  And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.”

Based on the above two verses (and many others) the Bible confirms that ALL He created was good.

Here’s an age-old question: “Whence Cometh Evil?”

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

-Epicurus, ancient Greek philosopher, 341 B.C.E – 270 B.C.E

What is “evil?”

Evil exists only as a privation (lack, absence) of that which is good.  One way to look at it is to compare it to cold.  “Cold” isn't a thing.  It's a way of describing the reduction of molecular activity resulting in the sensation of heat; it is not being “created”.  Cold is the absence of heat.  When you remove heat, the temperature goes down; we call that condition "cold", but there is no cold “stuff” that causes that condition.  Basically, the idea that the world contains evil can be reconciled with the idea of a God who would not create evil; therefore, evil is merely an absence of good.  We turn from God and then wonder where He is?  Where's the logic in that?  How can we run God out of our schools and then get angry when there is evil in our schools?

What is “good?”

The word “good’ is defined as “to be desired or approved of”.  When making a comparison, the word “good” means that something is “preferable/desired to other options.”  The Christian worldview is that God is good.  Good and evil are measured against God’s nature.  Theologian and Philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig defines good as “The way things ought to be.”  Certainly it is rational to think that the way things ought to be should be according to God’s nature.  God reveals His desires to us in the Bible.

Logical Problem of Evil (POE)

Premise 1: “If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.  (Faulty)

Premise 2: There is evil in the world.  (Faulty)

Conclusion: Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.”  (Of course the skeptic ends up with a faulty conclusion, as they began with two faulty premises!)

First, let me say that most of the arguments we typically hear regarding God’s existence require that the Christian/Theist’s take on the burden to prove that God exists.  The POE argument is used to prove the non-existence of God; so now the burden is on the shoulders of the atheists, because as Christians see it, there is no problem with evil existing in the world; this is compatible with the Christian worldview.

We begin by looking at Premise 2 because skeptics actually have to believe in the existence of objective moral values (OMV) or they cannot support this premise!  They cannot believe that morals are subjective (opinion) and illusory (based on illusion, not real).  However, if they deny that OMVs exist, then they should skip this argument and use the Evidential Problem of Suffering, where atheists and Christians agree that there is suffering, and that it is real.  So, they have to question: “Can the skeptic really ground objective moral values on atheism?”

At this point, we have to clarify which god we are talking about because there is actually an ‘evil’ god that Zoroastrians believe in, and we are not supporting that god.  We are talking about the classical definition of God who is omnipotent (having unlimited power), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all good) from the Bible.  So, let’s look at premise 1.  “Omnipotence” and “omnibenevolence” are taken from Christian doctrines, so it is only fair that we can use the Bible to justify our claims.  Premise 1 is a bare assertion (that means that there is no justification provided for it).  The skeptic must prove using Christian assumptions that an all good God and evil are an incoherent concept.  The Logical POE is used to try to show a contradiction and an internal critique within the Christian worldview must be used to show that God and evil are an incoherent concept.  They can’t do it, so they must resort to the Problem of Suffering.

Probabilistic Version of Evil

This is used in our defense to show that the probability of God and evil co-existing is high on theism.  There are four doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and evil:

The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God.

Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose.

God's purpose is not restricted to this life but spills over beyond the grave into eternal life.

The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good (not able to be judged by the same standard as anything else).

Why Does God Allow Evil?

(Warren, 2014)

Rick Warren is the founding pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., one of America's largest and most influential churches.  Rick is author of the New York Times Best Seller: The Purpose Driven Life.  His book, The Purpose Driven Church, was named one of the 100 Christian books that changed the 20th century.  He is also founder of Pastors.com, a global Internet community for pastors.

John 3:19 (written 58-65 A.D.)  “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.”

The horrific mass murder of innocent Americans on 9/11 left all rational people shocked, angry, grief-stricken and numb.  Our tears flowed freely and our hearts carried a deep ache.

With pain that is so heartfelt and so personal, it’s only natural to ask, “why does God allow such evil to happen?”  “If God is so great and so good, why does he allow human beings to hurt each other?”

The answer lies in what is both our greatest blessing and our worst curse: our capacity to make choices.  God has given us a free will.  Made in God's image, he has given us the freedom to decide how we will act and the ability to make moral choices.  This is one asset that sets us apart from animals, but it also is the source of so much pain in our world.  Every one of us is capable of making selfish, self-centered or even evil choices.  Whenever that happens, people get hurt.

Sin ultimately is selfishness.  I want to do what I want, not what God tells me to do.  Unfortunately, sin always hurts others, not just ourselves.

God could have eliminated all evil from our world by simply removing our ability to choose.  He could have made us puppets -- marionettes on strings that he pulls.  By taking away our ability to choose, evil would vanish.

But God doesn't want us to be puppets.  He wants to be loved and obeyed by creatures who freely, voluntarily choose to love him and each other.  Love is not genuine if there is no other option.

Yes, God could have kept the terrorists from completing their suicidal missions.  He could have short-circuited their ability to choose their own will instead of his.  But, to be fair, God also would have to do that to all of us.  While you and I aren't terrorists, we do hurt others with our own selfish decisions and actions.

In a world of free choices, God's will is rarely done!  Doing our own will is much more common -- much easier.  Don't blame God for the tragedy of 9/11.  Blame people who ignored what God says to do: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

In Heaven, God's will is done perfectly.  That's why there is no sorrow, pain or evil there.  But this is earth, a fallen, imperfect place.  We must choose to do God's will every day.  It isn't automatic.  That is why Jesus told us to pray, "Thy will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven."

The Bible explains the root of evil: This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. (John 3:19 (written 58-65A.D.), Message).  We're far more interested in pleasing ourselves than we are in pleasing the one who made us.

Many other questions race through our minds during dark days, but the answers will not come from pollsters, pundits or politicians.  We must look to God and his Word for comfort and direction, for answers to our questions.  We must humble ourselves and admit that each of us often chooses to ignore what God wants us to do.

I suspect houses of worship across America have been packed this weekend, as they were the weekend after 9/11.  In times of crisis we cry out to connect with our Creator.  The urge is deep-seated and universal.  The first words uttered by millions on Sept. 11, 2001, were, "Oh, God!"

We were made for a relationship with God, but he waits for us to choose him.  He is ready to comfort, guide and direct us through our grief.  But the choice is ours.

Evidential Problem of Pointless Suffering

This is also known as ‘gratuitous or evil’.  The following is the argument skeptics use:

If God exists, gratuitous evil does not exist.

Gratuitous evil exists.

Therefore, God does not exist.

While Christians agree that suffering can sometimes appear to be unnecessary suffering, the burden of proof lies on the skeptic to defend the claim that gratuitous evil exists using Christian assumptions.  He can’t do it.

Also, remember: none have ever suffered as much as Christ.

Why Does God Allow War?

(Lucado, 2012)

Some of you love to work with jigsaw puzzles.  You take a jumble of disconnected pieces and arrange them in the right order.  Certain folks are so proud of their work they glaze and frame the finished product.  Easy to understand why.  The tedious task of interlocking the curves and the humps at just the right place can result in a satisfying and beautiful picture.

Don’t we love to see the pieces fit together?  Wouldn’t we love to see the same in life?  But try as we might, the pieces seldom fit as neatly as a finished puzzle.  Irregular parts inevitably linger.  Gaping holes sometimes result.  You’ve encountered these pieces.  You know their names: unexpected death, cheating spouse, cancer-ridden kids.  Some pieces just don’t fit into our puzzle.

And, these days, our country is facing yet another one clumsy piece of the human puzzle: war.  At this writing, war has just begun.  What are we supposed to do with war?  A quarter of a million American troops are marching in the sand of foreign soil.  Even as I write, bombs seek targets, bullets rob youth, and soldiers interrogate prisoners.  With only one step into the new millennium we face an ancient question: Why does God allow war?

The question is not a new one.  According to the Canadian Army Journal, war has dominated documented history.  Since 3600 B.C., the world has known only 292 years of peace.  During this period there have been 14,531 wars.  An estimated 3,640,000,000 lives have been lost in them.  The value of them would pay for a golden belt around the world, 97 miles wide and 33 feet deep. 

War, so costly.  War, so awful.  The dying, the maiming.  Those who aren’t scarred physically are likely to be scarred emotionally.  War bookmarks history and lives.  We divide history into pre- and post-war eras.  People are remembered as ones who fought in such-and-such war.  The smoke of battle lingers long after the bodies are buried and the armistice is signed.

Then why does God allow it?  The answer begins by looking at the puzzle from his perspective.  My limited experience with jigsaw puzzles has taught me the importance of the picture on the outside of the box.  If you don’t see the picture from the angle of the maker, the challenge is just too great.  If we don’t see war and human conflict from God’s perspective, our discussion will be futile.  Any discussion of war must revolve around the character of God.

First, remember that we have a loving God.  Scripture overflows with this essential truth.

“He loves whatever is just and good, and his unfailing love fills the earth.”  (Psalm 33:5 (written 1440-586 B.C.))

“The Lord has appeared of old to me, saying: ‘Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore, with lovingkindness I have drawn you.’”  (Jeremiah 31:3 (written 627-585 B.C.))

“Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God!”  (1 John 3:1 (written 85-95A.D.))

“I will make you my wife forever, showing you righteousness and justice, unfailing love and compassion.”  (Hosea 2:19 (written 710 B.C.))

If we are going to consider God and war, we must begin with God and love.  Every heavenly action is born out of passion for his children.  God only does what is good.  Just as important, God only does what is just.

 We have a just God.

When WWI broke out, the war ministry of London dispatched a coded message to one of the British outposts in the inaccessible areas of Africa.  The message read: “War is declared.  Arrest all enemy aliens in your district.”  The war Ministry received this reply: “Have arrested four Germans, six Belgians, four Frenchmen, two Italians, three Austrians and an American.  Please advise immediately who we are at war with.” 

The Bible’s answer to that question may surprise you.  Man’s enemy is sin.  Self-centeredness ravages our hearts.  From the very beginning the wages of self-centeredness has been death.  “A man reaps what he sows.”  (Galatians 6:7) If you sow seeds of peace, you reap the fruits of peace.  But sow seeds of destruction and the result is destruction.  “…those who plant trouble and cultivate evil will harvest the same.”  (Job 4:8)

War is a fruit of sin.

The Bible does not isolate war, as if it were something unique and quite apart from other human struggles.  International combat resides in the same neighborhood with rape, murder, wife-beating, husband-berating, loneliness, arrogance: these are the fruits of sin.

War is one of them.  On a larger scale, no doubt.  In a more terrible form, certainly.  But war with Iraq is born in the same hospital as a quarrel with your neighbor.  The hospital of sin. Before we blame international conflict on finances or boundaries or religion, we must lay the blame where God does: our sinful nature.  “Where do wars and fights come from among you?  Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members?”  (James 4:1 (written 50-60A.D.))

It’s not so much that war is sin, but that war is a consequence of sin, a result of the lust and desires that wage war within us.  James goes on to say: “You lust and do not have.  You murder and covet and cannot obtain.  You fight and war.  Yet you do not have because you do not ask.”  (James 4:2 (written 50-60A.D.))

A boy once asked, “Daddy, how do wars begin?” “Well, take the first world war.  It began when Germany invaded Belgium.”  Immediately his wife interrupted him, “Tell the boy the truth.  It began because somebody was murdered.”  The husband yanked his head toward her, “Are you answering this question or am I?”  She walked out of the room in a huff- the dad sat and scowled.  The boy interrupted the silence, “Daddy, you don’t have to tell me how wars begin.  I think I know how.”

Whether it’s two toddlers fighting in a playroom or two super-powers directing nuclear missiles at each other; the cause of conflict is the same.  Selfishness.  One side cannot get what they want so they demand their way.  They fight.  War is the fruit of sin. To ask God to prohibit war, then, is to ask him to prohibit the consequence of human behavior.  Something he has never been wont to do.  As long as there is sin there will be war.

 War is a tool of God.

There are many unacceptable reasons for war.  Imperialism.  Financial gain.  Religion.  Family feuds.  Racial arrogance.  There are many unacceptable motives for war.  But there is one time when war is condoned and used by God: wickedness.  When calling the Israelites into battle.  Moses carefully instructed them:

“After the Lord your God has done this for you, don’t say to yourselves, ‘The Lord has given us this land because we are so righteous!’  No, it is because of the wickedness of the other nations that he is doing it.”  (Deuteronomy 9:4 (written 1405 B.C.))

Can people grow so wicked, so pagan, so vile that God justifiably destroys them?  Can leaders be so evil and cruel that God, knowing the hardness of their hearts, righteously removes them from the earth?  Apparently so.  He did so with Sodom and Gomorrah.  He did so with the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites.

“As for the towns of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as a special possession, destroy every living thing in them.  You must completely destroy the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, just as the Lord your God has commanded you.  This will keep the people of the land from teaching you their detestable customs in the worship of their gods, which would cause you to sin deeply against the Lord your God.”  (Deuteronomy 20:16-18 (written 1405 B.C.))

God has used warfare as a form of judgment against the enemies of God.  In fact, He uses warfare as judgment against his own people when they become enemies of God. “O Israel, I will bring a distant nation against you,” says the Lord.  “It is a mighty nation, an ancient nation, a people whose language you do not know, whose speech you cannot understand.  Their weapons are deadly; their warriors are mighty.  They will eat your harvests and your children’s bread, your flocks of sheep and your herds of cattle.  Yes, they will eat your grapes and figs.  And they will destroy your fortified cities, which you think are so safe” (Jeremiah 5:15-17 (written 627-585 B.C.)).

God’s priority is the salvation of souls.  When a people-group blockades his plan, does he not have the right to remove them?  He is the God who knows “the end from the beginning” (Isaiah 46:10 (written 740-680 B.C.)).  He knows the hearts of men and protects his people by punishing the evil of their wicked neighbors.  Is it not God’s right to punish evil?  Is it not appropriate for the one who tells us to hate that which is evil to punish that which is evil?  Of course it is. And—this is crucial—He uses governments to do so.

“Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there.  All governments have been placed in power by God……The authorities are sent by God to help you.  But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for you will be punished.  The authorities are established by God for that very purpose, to punish those who do wrong.”  (Romans 13:1, 4 (written 56-58A.D.))

Scripture elevates the role of government to a high place.  Their position is a God-given assignment.  Paul echoes this truth three times:

All governments have been placed in power by God.

The authorities are sent by God.

The authorities are established by God.

The noun Paul employs for “authorities” is diakonoi– the same word from which we translate deacon.  Those in authority, the President, the soldiers, Secretary of Defense and so forth, are God’s deacons and deaconesses—as ordained for their task as is any preacher or evangelist.

Their role is clear: protect and punish.  Protect the innocent and punish evil.  When the government perceives that her people are under threat, when negotiations have proven fruitless and olive branches have gone unacknowledged, when the leaders of a country are convinced that an attack against evil will preserve that which is good and protect those who are innocent—then, and only then, war is justifiable.

War is divinely delegated to government.

Somebody once asked Jean-Paul Sartre, the French philosopher, “Where was God when the Nazis were about to overrun Europe?”  Sartre replied, “Where was man?”  He seems to have been asking, ‘Why did we delay?’  What if we had acted sooner?  And, once we did react, was the attack not justified?  Was it not right to overthrow Hitler’s attempt at genocide?  Was justice not served in the liberation of the American slaves?  Would we be better off if we had ignored the tactics of Mussolini or dismissed the attack of Japan in 1941?

Unpunished evil is itself, evil.

But what of the teachings of Jesus?  What about a passage like Luke 6:27-31 (written 58-65A.D.)? “But if you are willing to listen, I say, love your enemies.  Do good to those who hate you.  Pray for the happiness of those who curse you.  Pray for those who hurt you.  If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other cheek.  If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also.  Give what you have to anyone who asks you for it; and when things are taken away from you, don’t try to get them back.  Do for others as you would like them to do for you” (Luke 6:27-31 (written 58-65A.D.)).

Have we stumbled upon an inconsistency?  Do we find God calling for war one time and “cheek-turning” another?  Is this a double standard?  I don’t think so. The government is called to turn the other cheek.  We call this diplomacy, negotiation, and compromise.  If such efforts prove fruitless, and if the leaders feel their constituency is under threat, they can then take steps to protect the innocent.

Consider this truth from a personal standpoint.  If someone criticizes me, I am called to “turn the other cheek.”  I forgive.  But what if they criticize my wife and daughters?  What if they threaten them?  What if a perpetrator tells me he is coming after my family?  What do I do? Simple, I protect the innocent.  I take steps to insure their safety.

But aren’t you called to love your enemies?  Absolutely.  And I will love him in jail. Why?  Because, to leave my family unprotected would be to abdicate my responsibility as family leader.  It is a higher evil to let evil go unpunished than to punish those who would harm innocents.

I agree with the view of C.S. Lewis:

Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him?  No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment—even to death.  If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged.  It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy.  I always have thought so, ever since I became a Christian, and long before the war, and I still think so now that we are at peace.  It is no good quoting ‘Thou shalt not kill.’  There are two Greek words: the ordinary word to kill and the word to murder.  And when Christ quotes that commandment he uses the murder one in all three accounts, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  And I am told there is the same distinction in Hebrew.  All killing is not murder any more than all sexual intercourse is adultery.  When soldiers came to St. John the Baptist asking what to do, he never remotely suggested that they ought to leave the army: nor did Christ when he met a Roman sergeant-major—what they called a centurion.  The idea of the knight—the Christian in arms for the defense of a good cause—is one of the great Christian ideas.  War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken.” 

Again, the purpose of war is to punish the wicked and protect the innocent.  Where does that leave us?  That leaves us on our knees. “I urge you, first of all, to pray for all people.  As you make your requests, plead for God’s mercy upon them, and give thanks.  Pray this way for kings and all others who are in authority, so that we can live in peace and quietness, in godliness and dignity.  …So wherever you assemble, I want men to pray with holy hands lifted up to God, free from anger and controversy.”  (1 Timothy 2:1-2, 8 (written 62-66A.D.))

If ever we need to trust the promise of Romans 8:28 (written 56-58A.D.), it is times like these:

“And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them.”  (Romans 8:28 (written 56-58A.D.))

Remember these key thoughts:

1. War is always dreadful—while never God’s ideal, war has been God’s idea.

2. War is justifiable only when other alternatives to protect the innocent have been exhausted.  War is God’s righteous last resort.

3. War is divinely delegated to the government, God’s ministers who are called to protect the innocent and punish the evil.

4. A moral war is limited, not universal; national, not personal; defensive, not aggressive.

The role of a Christian, in such a time, is prayer:

“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12 (written 60-62A.D.)).

Let us pray for our President and those in authority.  Let us pray for a President who begins his day on his knees with an open Bible in his lap.  And, let us pray for a speedy end to any conflicts (Lucado, 2012).

Positive Skeptical Theism Defense

Some Christians think that ALL possible suffering is necessary for a higher good.  However, God does not cause suffering, we have brought this upon ourselves and our offspring.  Ever since the Fall of Man, we have been corrupting our purpose and have been wrought with the results.  Although God does not cause suffering, He will indeed use it for His divine purposes.  We cannot know God's ultimate purpose in all this suffering except that it must be ultimately for good in some way currently unknowable to us.

Isaiah 55:8-9 (written 740-680 B.C.)  “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord.  9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.”

Romans 8:28 (written 56-58A.D.)  “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”

Psalms 126:5-6 (written 1440-586 B.C.)  “Those who sow in tears shall reap with joyful shouting.  6 He who goes to and fro weeping, carrying his bag of seed, shall indeed come again with a shout of joy, bringing his sheaves with him.”

                If we cannot know all of God’s purposes, how can the skeptic either?  The skeptic can then say that we have a problem because God’s purposes may be evil.  We have to justify our claim that God is good, and we do this by saying that we believe the Bible to be reliable based on the archaeological and historical evidence, and the Bible reveals that goodness is part of God's nature.  We can put that in this form: 1. Everything the Bible says is true, 2. The Bible says God is good, 3. Therefore, God is good.  Again, the burden of proof is on the skeptic to show that God is evil using our Christian assumptions.  However…

Existence of God

 1)  If God exists, gratuitous evil does not exist (gratuitous: uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted)

2)  God exists

3)  Therefore gratuitous evil does not exist (the appearance of gratuitous evil is not really gratuitous) 

We can show God’s existence through the Arguments for the existence of God.

Everyone must understand that there is: God’s will, Satan’s will, and our own free will. 

It is not God’s will that we should suffer from an evil act.  Evil acts are committed by those who are following the will of Satan or his or her own will.  God will not cause bad things to happen to us, but He will certainly use those events for His good purposes.

1. It is a sociological fact that many people come to faith through suffering.

2. God is NOT simply a negligent neighbor because of his scope of knowledge.

3. The mere question may be too complicated and our minds too limited to understand.

4. He has given us enough proof and blessings to trust Him.

5. As soon as he communicates the providential plan…it changes the plan (any sci-fi fan understands this).

Free Will

This precious gift is given us for a very specific purpose.  Is being forced to love or being scared into love really love?  Think of your own children.  Would you not rather your children love you for reasons other than fear or the fear of the unknown?  As we learn of His love and His divine plan for us, we grow to understand that all we do not yet know is for a purpose.  Although I too have had questions not yet answered, Scripture assures me that His thoughts are not my thoughts and His ways are not my ways (Isaiah 55:8 (written 740-680 B.C.)).  Indeed, there are many things we do not yet understand simply because we cannot conceive of them. 

How can He Love us, is it Really Unconditional?

First of all, we are sinners every day, all day long…even after we have come to know Jesus we wrestle with sins of the flesh.  Remember Romans 8:23 (written 56-58A.D.)?  And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.  For if we were now cleansed and sin no more, what has the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior served?  Would we have a need to follow Him? 

Second, are you under the assumption that ‘He is not “there” until I decide I am His’?  He has always, is always, and will always be there.  Just because you don’t acknowledge Him does not mean that He doesn’t care for you and know your heart. 

Third, He LOVES you…He offers you the choice to know Him and love Him.  (Which is why some are atheists, some are believers, and some are followers of Christ (the latter being Christians).  You see, He not only desires a relationship with us, but He wants us to love Him.  He not only wants us to love Him, but He wants us to choose to love Him (not by force).  He doesn’t just appear (and stop the argument about His existence); wouldn’t that scare us into loving Him?  He wants us to love Him as we would want our children to love us…with a real, pure love.  If He cares so much about us loving Him with a real, pure love, why would He cause bad things to happen to us and risk the beautiful work He’s done in showing us what real love is?

One more Point about Strength

  

When Paul was referring to the trial he was facing at the time (being imprisoned), he reminded us:

Philippians 4:10-14 (written 61-62 A.D.)  “But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at last you have revived your concern for me; indeed, you were concerned before, but you lacked opportunity.  11 Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am.  12 I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need.  13 I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.  14 Nevertheless, you have done well to share with me in my affliction.”

Hmmmm…  “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.”  Why is that phrase so overused and stamped, stenciled, written, scribbled, and murmured in every occasion we can possibly apply it?  Paul was clearly referring to a trial he was facing.  Does that mean we can do “all things” as long as we believe (and follow) Him?  Clearly, we can endure any hardship (which is what Paul was stating here) through Him who strengthens us.  But there are a multitude of variables involved in determining how to apply Scriptures such as this one (Philippians 4:13 (written 61-62A.D.)  “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.”)  These include, but are not limited to:  God’s will, His plan for each of us and our purpose here on earth, miracles, our motivation and the reason for asking Him, etc.

Remember James 4:3 (written 50-60A.D.)?  “You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.”

So let me speak plainly: I am 5’5”, I vary between 165 and 180lbs; in September of 2015, I turned 46 years old and in the last three years, I have seriously injured my right ankle twice!  CLEARLY, I am never going to be a ballerina.  I was not designed to be a ballerina, I never had a desire to be a ballerina and I have never trained to be a ballerina.  If I decided tomorrow that I wanted to try out [cold] for the Russian Imperial Ballet, do you think I could do it?  Only if it was in His divine plan for my life!  Not “all things” are in His plan and if it would indeed further His kingdom, then YES! I could do it through Christ, who strengthens me!

I believe that God’s plan for me is closer to scholarly pursuits, rather than the vanity I might allow to accompany my new found fame and fortune.  You see, I am weak enough to allow the approval of man to rule my way of life.  Not all have that problem, but I know I do.

Want to know what else I believe about His plan for us?  If we are adhering to the conviction of the Holy Spirit and remain in His will, He tends to make our pursuits prosper.  (We’re not talking money, here!)  He continues to provide avenues that I might yet fulfill His purpose for me.  How do I hear His voice?  His will is quite clear: If for one moment, I desire ANYthing other than bringing Truth and exalting Him in all ways, everything seems to be disjointed.  My days are filled with frustration, I can’t get my act together, I am forgetful, and I inevitably can feel that “something’s just not right.”  We must examine the “fruit” of our endeavors.  If we are not producing fruit, we are probably not in His will.

I don’t ever want to be out of His will, but it can sometimes be hard to determine.  That is when I must wait on Him, in His timing.

Encountering Relativism

One of our culture’s main challenges to Christianity is relativism.  Relativism is the idea that all truth claims are just opinions.  Relativism is the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.

·         Relativism is the belief that objective truth does not exist.  (objective: not influenced by opinion)

·         Relativism slogans turn out to be self-refuting.

A Conversational Tactic for us to Follow:

·         Begin by asking questions.  (“what” and then “why”)

·         Three goals of asking a question:

1.       To gain information (“what” and “why” they believe)

2.       To reverse the burden of proof (Ask: “what is the basis for that/ your source?”)

3.       To expose a weakness in a view or position

Three kinds of questions:

a.        Get more info: “What do you mean by that?”

1.       This is a great question to ask after someone makes a claim.

2.       It gives the other person the chance to explain their view.

3.       It gives you more information and helps you clarify their position.

4.       Example claim: “I don’t believe in God.”

5.       Example response: “What do you mean by God?”  (Ask: “Have you ever believed?”)

b.       Ask for proof: “How did you come to that conclusion?”

1.       Assume they’ve thought through the issue to arrive at their conclusions

2.       They probably have not thought much about it.

3.       Example claim: “Something just randomly from nothing.”

4.       Example response: “What makes you say that?” or “What’s your reasoning on that?”

5.       It’s not your job to show the idea’s wrong.

6.       If they make the claim, they’ve got the burden of proof.

c.        Expose the flaw: “Have you ever considered the idea that…”

1.       Do their conclusions follow from evidence they presented?

2.       Where’s the flaw in this idea?

3.       How can this be exposed by a question rather than a statement?

4.       Example claim: “How could God exist when there is evil in the world?”  (“How do you know what “evil” is if there is no God?  If we are “just animals”, who determines what is good?”)

5.       Example response: (“Have you ever considered the idea that the existence of evil is evidence FOR the existence of God and not against it?”)

Responding to Relativistic Slogans

1. Slogan: “You shouldn’t try to convert people to your views.”  (According to whom?)

a. “What do you mean by ‘convert’?”  (This is a loaded term)

b. “Is it ever OK to try to persuade someone of your viewpoint?”  (No?)

c. “Then why are you trying to persuade me to accept your viewpoint?”  or “It sounded like you were saying there is no truth, but it sounds like you think your view is true and mine is false.”

d. “If you don’t think I’m wrong, why are you trying to correct me?”

2. Slogan: “Christians are intolerant of other viewpoints.”

a. “What do you mean by ‘intolerant’?”  (This is a loaded term)

b. “How exactly are Christians intolerant?”

c. “If it’s ‘intolerant’ not to accept other people’s views, why don’t you accept my view?”

d. “Have you ever considered the idea that tolerance actually means being respectful of people with whom you disagree?  Isn’t disagreement actually required for tolerance?”

3. Slogan: “That’s true for you but not for me.”

a. “What do you mean by that?”  No one belief is true for everyone

b. “What’s your reasoning for that?” or “Is that your belief?”  (Yes)

c. “You say no one’s belief is true for everyone, but it seems like you want me to believe what you just said.  Am I hearing you right?”

d. “If my belief is only true for me, why isn’t your belief only true for you?”  (Fallacies: self-excepting and relativist)

Pointing People to Christ-Valuable Questions to ask Skeptics

·         How trustworthy is the source or basis of your belief?

·         How does the source of your belief compare to the Bible?

·         Would it matter to you if you knew that your belief comes into conflict with what Christ says is the truth about God and life?

·         Do you consider Christ good?  Maybe even the best human example in all of human history?  Can you think of anyone better than Christ?

·         If He is truly good, this means He would not lie.  Are you aware of His claims to be the Creator, as well as the way, the truth, the life, the light of the world, and the only Savior of mankind?

·         Perhaps you have not thought about it, but your belief in essence says that He is at best untrustworthy, and at worst a willful deceiver.

·         Do you think that is likely, based on all we know about Him?

·         Then is it likely that your view is incorrect?

Arguments and Questions

Perhaps these arguments or questions have been thrust upon you while you unsuspectingly plead your case or perhaps these statements have troubled your heart from time to time.  Here, I give you some key points and responses to ponder as you sort through Scripture and pray for understanding.

Logical Fallacies: Strawman and Composition

·         “You’re not a Christian!  You’re still sinning!”  (I fall down, but I sincerely ask His help and He helps me up!  He saved our souls, but our bodies are still in sin.)

Romans 8:23 (written 56-58A.D.)  … we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

From the fall of man, sin and corruption have plagued our lives.  We are indeed forgiven, but we will face consequences for our choices.  As we are reminded in 1 John 2:6 (written 85-95 A.D.) “the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.” (Also refer to 1 Corinthians chapters 3-5 (written 55 A.D.) for instructions on our behavior and in reference to how faithful we are with our time, talents, and treasures.)

Logical Fallacies: Strawman and Personal Attack

·         I believe there are many ways to God.  Christians are arrogant to think their way is the only way.  (This is the same argument that Oprah gave, on the day she saw her Christian viewers flee from her presence.)  But we know that “Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6 (written 58-65A.D.)).  So if we truly love others, how could we let them perish without letting them know the Truth?  Also, if you were watching someone stand in the street and knew that a truck was coming, would you not tell them because you were “minding your own business?”  Consider the following:

How Can You Say Jesus Christ is the Only Way to God?

                Jesus made some incredible claims about Himself.  One of the most noteworthy was when He said: “No one can come to God unless they come through me first.”  (John 14:6 (written 58-65A.D.))  And so, Christians believe and teach that Jesus Christ is the only way to find God.  How can Christians say this?  The short answer is that the Bible teaches it, so we believe it.  The longer answer is that it makes a lot of sense.

Your Friend Turns Out to be God:  Imagine that your best friend comes up to you one day and confidently declares that he is God.  Your first reaction is probably to wonder what medicine he’s taking.  But how do you know?  Maybe his is God!  How can you tell if he is or isn’t?  You decide to look at it from a common sense point of view.  There are only two options: (1) He’s telling the truth.  (2) He’s not telling the truth.  If he’s not telling the truth, then there are another two options: (1) He knows he’s not telling the truth.  (2) He doesn’t know he’s not telling the truth.

So ultimately, there are three, and only three, positions for your friend: (1) He’s not telling the truth and he knows full well that he’s not.  This makes him a liar.  (2) He’s not telling the truth, but he honestly believes he is telling  the truth.  This puts him on the same level as a lunatic.  (3) He is telling the truth.  This makes him God. No doubt, you would soon discover for yourself that your friend was not, after all, God.

But what about Jesus?  We can apply exactly the same reasoning to Jesus.  In other words, we can say for sure that Jesus was either…LIAR (He knew He was deceiving everyone), LUNATIC (He had no idea He was completely mistaken), or LORD (He was who He said He was).  There are no in-between options here!

Jesus cannot merely be a “good moral teacher”.  A good moral teacher would not make false claims about Himself, nor completely deceive a group of His closest friends.

In the same way, Jesus was most definitely not a lunatic.  Lunatics have unbalanced minds, and live erratic lifestyles.  Inconsistencies are a hallmark, and they can be mental and emotional wrecks.  Jesus was a man who displayed calm under pressure, a sound mind, and a balanced and consistent lifestyle.

We are left with only one option: that Jesus is who He said He was:  God.  Christians teach that Jesus is the only way to find God, because Jesus taught that He is the only way to find God.  His life and His claims go hand in hand.

·         I’ve prayed to God, He didn’t answer my prayers.  God always answers prayers.  Sometimes, His answer is “no” because He will always give us what we need now…so that later, He can give us whatever we want, forever!  Sometimes, His answer is “yes” and sometimes His answer is “yes” but you may not think so because it’s not on your timeline.  If your request is according to His will, then look for the path His “yes” is taking!

Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Popularity; Bandwagon

·         How can the majority be wrong?  (Indeed!  Was the world truly flat?)  “Groupthink” is a dangerous thing.  Groupthink occurs when the participants become so concerned with being in agreement with one another, they fail to consider their own opinions or other options (Hart, 2010).  Illusions of invulnerability lead members of the group to be overly optimistic and engage in risk-taking.  Unquestioned beliefs lead members to ignore possible moral problems and ignore consequences of individual and group actions.  Rationalizing prevents members from reconsidering their beliefs and causes them to ignore warning signs.  Stereotyping leads members of the in-group to ignore or even demonize out-group members who may oppose or challenge the groups ideas.  Self-censorship causes people who might have doubts to hide their fears or misgivings.  "Mindguards" act as self-appointed censors to hide problematic information from the group.  Illusions of unanimity lead members to believe that everyone is in agreement and feels the same way.  Direct pressure to conform is often placed on members who pose questions, and those who question the group are often seen as disloyal or traitorous.

Logical Fallacy: Composition

·         Christians are intolerant, judgmental, homophobic haters.  (All of them?  I believe that’s called stereotyping.)  Those who would call themselves Christians and then “hate” anyone contradict the One in whose name they come, thus meaning they are not Christians, but seek to exalt themselves, rather than Him.  We must be careful to always remain meek (Titus 3:2 (written 66A.D.)) and come to others with Agape love-as Christ commands us, which is the highest form of love, especially brotherly love, charity; the love of God for man and of man for God. 

Logical Fallacies:  Confusing Cause and Effect; Anecdotal

·         Something terrible happened to me or one of my loved ones, so what good is God?  (In reference to death, remember: death is not a cessation of consciousness, rather the physicality of this dimension.  AND!  We are not physical beings merely having a spiritual experience, but indeed we are spiritual beings having an experience here on Earth.  Have you determined that death is a bad thing, simply because it remains an unknown?  Without faith, we may decide that death is finality.  Of course we will always mourn our loved ones, even Jesus mourned (and wept!)  But coming into a full relationship with Him truly means that death (our own) has lost its sting.

·         I used to be a Christian.  Why didn’t He take away my pain and suffering as soon as I began to follow Him?  Why is there still pain?  Have you ever read Malachi 3:3 (written 450-600 B.C.)?  Let’s start there!  Malachi 3:3 (written 450-600 B.C.) “He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the Lord offerings in righteousness.”  What does that mean?  Well, according to any silversmith, to smelt and purify silver, he must hold it in the hottest part of the fire until all the impurities rise to the surface and then fall away.  He can’t take his eyes off it for even a moment, lest it burn up in the fire.  How does he know when it’s “done”?  When he can see himself in it…We do not want Him to take away all the pain and suffering…Wouldn’t that mean He sees no more potential in us?  Do a quick search for the various problems that can occur if you cool metal too fast-(fissures; the metal can become brittle and crack; etc.)

·         What about those who have never heard about Christ?  (God is an awesome God, and nothing will stop him from getting the good news "to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8 (written approximately 64 A.D.)).  And as if to prove it, God even gave John a glimpse of Heaven, where he saw people "from every tribe and language and people from every nation" (Revelation 5:9 (written 95-96A.D.)).

·         Why is there no physical evidence or personal writings to verify Jesus’ historicity?

The Bible has been accused on several occasions of committing historical errors but has later been proven accurate through archaeological finds.  For instance, the Old Testament mentions a tribe of people known as the Hittites.  Skeptics pointed out there was no such civilization in history yet in the 19th century records of the Hittites were discovered within Assyrian ruins.  Today we know a lot about the Hittites such as their language, craftsmanship, geography, and empire chronology.  The New Testament mentions the pool of Bethesda as a place where Jesus healed a paralytic.  No such location was known to exist until it was discovered in Jerusalem as a place where the sick would gather to seek healing.  Just because an artifact has not yet been recovered does not mean none exist.  Lastly, though the discovery of an artifact may be interesting, it would never be enough for the devout skeptic.  Even a non-biased archaeologist would have a hard time proving a relic's authenticity.
In regards to personal writings, Socrates, for example, exists only in the writings of his students.  There is not a single document still in existence that contains his original works.  If we apply the same logic with Socrates skeptics use to determine Jesus' historicity, we must assume Socrates was a figment of the imagination of his students.  But if we are to accept Socrates as a historical figure based on four secondary accounts, we must also accept Jesus as a historical figure whose life was documented by His disciples, historians, and those who rejected His divine claims.  When skeptics claim there is a difference between a man such as Socrates and Jesus, they would be absolutely correct- Jesus had more accounts written about Him.

·         I would never go to your church…my church is more holy.  We have rituals that I’m used to.  When Peter says, "To you who believe He is precious," he is showing what distinguishes believers from unbelievers.  He is not saying that there are a few really spiritual believers who desire Christ and feel his preciousness.  He is saying that if you are a believer, if you are saved, for you, Christ is precious.  If you do not feel His preciousness, if you do not desire Him like baby desires milk, examine the roots of your faith and see if they are sucking up life from the precious blood of Christ and the promises of God, or if they are simply curled around the dry rocks of habit, tradition, custom, form, peer pressure.  Is Christ an allurement to your affections, or just duty to be performed?  Are you moved by desire for Him, or by the expectations of family and church?  "To you who believe, He is precious" (Piper, 1982).

1 Peter 2:1-3 (written 64A.D.)  “Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, 2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, 3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.”

·         I believe as long as a person is sincere, that’s all that really matters.  (Hmmm…suicide bombers sincerely believe in their “cause”, as did Hitler.  Have you stopped to consider what “sincerity is?)  Knowledge without holiness ALWAYS brings destruction.)

·         Why is there no physical description or depiction of Jesus anywhere in antiquity?  Critics cite the lack of a physical description of Jesus as evidence that He never existed.  In fact, the only reference to His human appearance is a prophecy found in Isaiah!  Yet, the fact there is no known physical depiction of Jesus doesn't mean He never existed.  Even if a painting or sculpture did exist its authenticity would certainly be disputed.  Furthermore, many other figures of antiquity have no contemporary image depicting their appearance yet we can believe they existed.

Even if there were entire manuscripts dedicated to detailing Jesus' appearance or museums filled with first century artwork depicting Jesus, it still would not prove He existed.  There are paintings and sculptures of mythological Greek and Egyptian deities, fairy tale creatures, and fictional characters of literature.  Aphrodite, Paul Bunyan, Dorian Gray, Isis, and Peter Pan all have artwork depicting their appearances yet they are imaginary figures.  A physical depiction or lack of one neither proves nor disproves one's existence.

A very good reason there may be no images of Jesus is to prevent the sin of idolatry.  Original images of Jesus would certainly be considered holy relics by some people.  Many believers would turn their attention away from Jesus as the Son of God to the man-made images of an earthly Jesus.

·         Jesus exorcised demons into a flock of pigs?  Christ commanded and still commands the forces of darkness.  He had/has a radical sense of divine authority.  Indeed there were Jewish exorcists.

Gospel of Mathew: there were appearances of Old Testament saints raised from the dead.  This could be taken literally OR an apocalyptic imagery.

·         I think as long as you love, that’s all that’s needed; I don’t sin nearly as much as my neighbor.  (Two very similar statements, but God does not grade on a curve, He grades on the Cross.)

·         I am a good person and I think that’s all that matters.  (Jesus did not tell us to admire Him, but instructed us in Matthew 4:19 (written 40-45A.D.)  “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.”  By this, He is instructing us to adhere to His teachings.  Does this indicate to you that “being a good person” is all that matters?  Contemplate all that He is, all that He taught us as He led us to victory, and all that He meant by His words of Truth.)

·         Why doesn’t God just appear to all mankind?  Overwhelming evidence would negate the gift of Free Will.  (Imagine scaring your own children into loving you…is that real love?)  When we choose Him and choose to allow Him to be the Lord over our lives, we come into a full relationship with Him that shows us the many ways in which we can delight in His will and walk in His ways.  If He scared us into loving Him, wouldn’t it feel more like we are His slaves?

·         So I suppose you don’t eat pork and you follow all of the other rules set forth in books like Leviticus?  God began writing the Bible and separating His people (the Israelites) from the rest.  His people were instructed to eat, drink, and marry, but stay separate, collecting and preserving His Word.  The Old Covenant was between God and the Israelites in order to set them apart.  Many of the prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled by the Messiah (Messianic Prophecy) and many are being fulfilled today.

·         Jesus was a great teacher and maybe one of the many spiritually-developed people.  Several historians have set out to disprove Jesus, His crucifixion, His death, His resurrection, even His mere existence!  Those who have attempted it not only have failed, but have become some of the most outspoken Christians yet!  (Still not convinced?  Once you reach Chapter 5, you will believe Him to be much more.) 

·         Why Does the Bible Mention Unicorns?  If you look up the word “unicorn” in the Webster’s New World Dictionary, it says: Unicorn – A mythical horse-like animal with a single horn growing from its forehead.  This is what most of us think of when we hear the word “unicorn.”  We think of a horse with a horn growing from its head.  This is how unicorns are depicted in movies, cartoons, paintings, etc.  If you pick up an old 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary, which is the very first edition dictionary that Webster came out with about 200 years ago, and look up the word “unicorn” it says: Unicorn – An animal with one horn; the monoceros.  This name is often applied to the rhinoceros. 

·         “Can you prove that God exists?”  Proof is “The cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.”  The word compels also means to coerce or persuade.  What they are actually asking is “Can you persuade me to believe in God?”  We don’t know if we can because proofs are person-dependent which means that it is up to the person if he or she is willing to be persuaded, but we certainly try.  I would say that it is hard to prove anything with 100% certainty.  Since we can’t prove mostly anything with 100% certainty, then we shouldn’t say that we can prove God with 100% certainty.  We should say that we have evidence of God.

·         There are too many holes in the Bible!  Where are the dinosaurs?  The Bible Describes Dinosaurs in Job 40:15-24 “Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox.  16 “Behold now, his strength in his loins and his power in the muscles of his belly.  17 “He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together.  18 “His bones are tubes of bronze; His limbs are like bars of iron.  19 “He is the first of the ways of God; Let his maker bring near his sword.  20 “Surely the mountains bring him food, And all the beasts of the field play there.  21 “Under the lotus plants he lies down, In the covert of the reeds and the marsh.  22 “The lotus plants cover him with shade; The willows of the brook surround him.  23 “If a river rages, he is not alarmed; He is confident, though the Jordan rushes to his mouth.  24 “Can anyone capture him when he is on watch, with barbs can anyone pierce his nose?”  Large reptiles lived with Adam and Eve-perhaps called dragons, but were referred to as “land animals”.  In 1842, Sir Richard Owen coined the word dinosaur, meaning "terrible lizard," after discovering large reptilian-like fossils.  However, in the Book of Job, written 4,000 years earlier, God describes the behemoth as: the largest of all land creatures, plant eating (herbivore), with great strength in its hips and legs, powerful stomach muscles, a tail like a cedar tree, and bones like bars of iron.  This is an accurate description of sauropods - the largest known dinosaur family.

·         Cain Had no one to Marry - Therefore the Bible must be False The Bible plainly states that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters.  Genesis 5:4 (written 1440-1400 B.C.)  “Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.”  Marrying one’s relative was acceptable and Cain married his sister.  It was not yet prohibited to marry a relative, until the incest laws were established in Leviticus 18:6 (written 1405 B.C.)  ‘None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the Lord.  To marry near of kin in the ancient world was common.  Yet, beginning about 1500 B.C., God forbid this practice.  The reason is simple - the genetic mutations (resulting from the curse) had a cumulative effect.  Though Cain could safely marry his sister because the genetic pool was still relatively pure at that time, by Moses' day the genetic errors had swelled.  Today, geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene.  If they procreate, their offspring are more apt to have this defect expressed. 

·         Aren’t the writings that refer to Jesus just hearsay accounts?  Critics claim because some accounts were recorded after Jesus' life they cannot be considered historically reliable.  But this skepticism comes from a misunderstanding of antiquity.  We need to place ourselves in a time where 95% of the population was illiterate.  If I really wanted to get this research across to the typical English speaking American, I would not post this website in Latin!  Likewise, documenting the Gospels preserved the accounts for future generations but oral evangelism was the practical method in making the Gospel available to the current population.  Whether the accounts were written the day after Jesus' ascension or 30 years later, the fact is they were still penned by either the original witnesses or during the lives of the original witnesses who could confront heretical accounts.
Jesus also concentrated His ministry in various provinces of Judea- not secular hubs of the ancient world like Rome or Alexandria.  Christianity spread into the surrounding areas after the life of Jesus.  I would be far more suspicious of a Roman historian writing an excerpt about Jesus in 30 A.D. rather approximately 95 A.D. when Christianity had reached Rome.  When critics argue the only first hand accounts of Jesus' life are found in the Bible, it makes me wonder where else they think should be.  Jesus' ministry only lasted three years and was limited to Judea (considered the ghetto of the Roman Empire).  There would have been no reason given the short time frame and limited area of Jesus' ministry to have been exhaustively recorded in Roman literature without the accusation of forgery.

·         Jonah: Do you honestly believe that some guy survived in the “belly of a whale”?  Noah: Do you honestly believe that some man put two of every animal on a big boat?  YES!  You see, I believe in the Bible, the written and preserved Word of God.  If one does not believe in the Word of God, they wouldn’t believe in miracles, would they?  Also, what is a miracle?  In a different era, would it still be a miracle?  There are those in other countries who have never seen electricity and would never believe you can flip a switch and make light like the glorious sun.  Is that a miracle?

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule; Personal Attack; Tu Quoque

·         “I am stronger than that; I don’t have to lean on “sky-daddy” when the going gets tough.”  At first, I was offended at the thought of my being considered “weak” but as the years have passed, I have come to realize that indeed I am weak.  We are but humans created by His hand, intricately woven into the wombs of our mothers.  Indeed He knew us beforehand.  How could I perceive myself to be His equal?  Think back to the very first lie ever told…Genesis 3:4-5 (written 1440-1400 B.C.)  “You will not certainly die,” ... 5“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

·         Why don’t any authors specifically attest to Jesus’ historicity?  Other than Justin Martyr's mention above when he refers his readers to the tax registers that document Jesus' birth, there really was no need to have done so in their opinion.  If I was to write a biography of a historical figure, Adolph Hitler for example, I would find it unnecessary to dedicate an entire chapter to quotes, photographs, and sources which confirm his existence.  To us, he is known to be a historical figure.  I would have to anticipate 2,000 years from now there would be those who would doubt he ever existed.  We know that only 65 years after the Holocaust there are people who deny its scope (even when faced with mounds of evidence that verify the tragedy)!  The authors of antiquity were discussing a figure known to exist.  The burden of proof revolved around Jesus' divinity- not existence- as we can see in the above testimony.  The authors had no reason to even suspect His actual existence would one day be in question.

I would also like to mention there is no text from this period of antiquity that argues Jesus did not exist.  The easiest way to silence the early Christians would be to prove the focal point of their beliefs was a lie- but this never happened!  Even the secular authors listed on this page do not argue Jesus' existence.

·         Did you say Jesus is God?  What is the ‘triune’?  Scripture tells us Jesus is the only Lord and Savior-He is Lord, God, and Savior.  Indeed other religions do not all believe that He is God.  Jehovah Witnesses do not believe that He is God-perhaps a good teacher.  They believe He is Michael, the archangel.  (And yes!  I believe it is important to know what other religions believe so that we can hone in on the Truth and deliver it them so that they can understand it.) 

·         What about the lack of evidence pertaining to events which occurred during His life?  Critics mention two important events that appear not to be recorded in secular history: the darkness that occurred after Jesus' crucifixion and the slaughter of the innocents by Herod the Great.  As stated previously in this discussion, the midday darkness which occurred after Jesus' death is mentioned by the secular historian Thallus and Phlegon (though they try to dismiss the event as a solar eclipse).  The event is also mentioned by Christian apologists Origen and Philopon but I only focused on the secular accounts due to their critical origins.

The shocking nature of the slaughter of the innocents would make one think all historians would have recorded such an event.  Even Josephus records atrocities committed by Herod against those he believed had ambitions of attaining his throne.  Herod even murdered his two sons of Maccabean heritage for fear they would overthrow him.  History shows Herod was a very paranoid ruler who was willing to do what was needed to maintain his position.  If he had ordered the slaughter of all males less than two years of age, it would have been well within his character.  We must also realize that Bethlehem was a small village- not a raging metropolis.  If the village only had a few hundred residents, as is ascertained, statistically this would make the number of males under the age of two around twenty in number.

But Herod's character and the amount of victims is not proof of this event.  Where is the actual evidence that this event occurred?  If we can consider the eye witness account of Matthew reliable, we can accept his version of the events.  But if we are looking for extra-Biblical sources, we can consider the following passage:

"When Augustus heard that Herod king of the Jews had ordered all the boys in Syria under the age of two years to be put to death and that the king's son was among those killed, he said, 'I'd rather be Herod's pig than Herod’s son.'“  Macrobius

Unlike the account mentioned in the book of Matthew, Macrobius mentions the massacre taking place in Syria and combines the event with the murder of Herod's sons.  Because Palestine was considered a Syrian province at the time, Macrobius could be referring to the vicinity of Bethlehem.  Due to the difference between Macrobius' and Matthew's account and knowing Macrobius was a pagan, we can assume Macrobius used an independent source for his writings.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia (paraphrased): "Herod's ruling passions were jealousy and ambition, which urged him to sacrifice even those that were nearest and dearest to him: murder was an equally good means to an end.  The slaughter of the Innocents squares perfectly with what history relates of him, and Matthew's statement is not contradicted by the silence of Josephus- for he follows Nicholas of Damascus who was a courtier to Herod.  Macrobius states that Augustus, having heard about the children Herod had ordered slain in Syria was the king's own son, remarked 'It is better to be Herod's swine than his son.’  Cruel as the slaughter may appear to us, it disappears among the cruelties of Herod.  It cannot surprise us that history does not speak of it.  The author shows, as others have done, that the number of children slain may not have been very great."

·         So, if I pray enough, give enough, and have enough faith, I’m going to be rich like other Christians?  (Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, TD Jakes, etc.)  I hope not!  Look, why is there even a question in your mind?  Let’s say you arrive at one of the 7 wonders of the world, but it’s foggy and you can’t see it.  Would you decide it’s not there?  We already know He’s there, so why let pride, greed, arrogance, pretention, etc. block your view of the ONE wonder that nothing can take away from us?  I pray that you are not rich.  In fact, I pray “Disturb us, O Lord, when we are too well pleased with ourselves!  Bring us back to You, into a fullness of Your love and peace.” 

·         What about the authors who do not mention Jesus?  This argument leads to the false assumption that any author who was a contemporary of Jesus would find it necessary to write about Him.  We could dissect every single author of Jesus' lifetime, but because others have already done so, I will simply give a brief synopsis.  The three authors commonly mentioned are Pliny the Elder, Seneca, and Philo Judeaus:

Pliny the Elder's area of expertise was natural phenomena.  He dedicated his writings to the historical sciences such as botany, geography, and zoology.  In essence, he wrote scientific almanacs- not religious history.

Philo Judeaus was a Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher- not a historian like many critics claim.  He was also an Egyptian-born Jew who served as an ambassador to Caligula for Jewish rights in Alexandria- not Judea.

Seneca was a Roman philosopher and rhetorician who concerned himself with philosophies, tragedies, and meteorologies.  His works were more literary than historical.

The miscellaneous others who are randomly mentioned may be dismissed for a variety of reasons including geographical locations and areas of interest.  In my opinion, the amount of evidence we do have regarding Jesus is incredible considering there was no organized media at the time.  Though given little attention at its onset, secular authors had no choice but to take notice once Christianity began to spread like wildfire.  This is when we begin to see an explosion in written evidence concerning Jesus.

·         Do I have to go to church to be a Christian?  First let’s ask the Father.  The book of Hebrews (written 64-68A.D.) gives clear instructions on this matter: (Hebrews 10:19-25(written 64-68A.D.))  “19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.  23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.”  Many have left the church after witnessing corrupt practices, “hypocritical behavior,” arrogance and self-importance, overwhelming judgement, grumbling, back-biting, and those who would exalt themselves rather than Christ.  The bottom line here is He has invited us to His house for a beautiful feast.  He has written us a love letter and a manual for living life.  Each time we attend a service where we can be fed, we receive the message that He has for us, specifically and personally.  Consider these statements:

·                     I’m never going to eat again because I’ve seen people get fat.

·                     I’m never going to the gym again because it didn’t work for someone I know.

The church is not a museum of perfect people.  If we were perfect, WHY would we need Christ?  Much like the hospital is a place for the sick, the church is a place for the sinners.  The people contained therein are going to be wrongdoers, liars, and sinners of every kind.  We are instructed to edify one another, as iron sharpens iron.  (Proverbs 27:17 (Written 950-700 B.C.)  “Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”

The False Equation of Atheism and Intellectual Sophistication:

Beyond the Argument that Faith in God is Irrational—and Therefore Illegitimate

Atheism is intellectually fashionable.  In the past month [mid Feb-mid March], The New York Times has run several stories about lack of faith in its series on religion.  The New Yorker ran an article on the history of non-belief in reaction to two new books on the subject that were released within a week of each other in February.  The veteran writer, Adam Gopnik, concludes this:

What the noes, whatever their numbers, really have now … is a monopoly on legitimate forms of knowledge about the natural world.  They have this monopoly for the same reason that computer manufacturers have an edge over crystal-ball makers: The advantages of having an actual explanation of things and processes are self-evident.

This is a perfect summary of the intellectual claim of those who set out to prove that God is dead and religion is false: Atheists have legitimate knowledge, and those who believe do not.  This is the epistemological assumption looming in the so-called “culture war” between the caricatures of godless liberals and Bible-thumping conservatives in America: One group wields rational argumentation and intellectual history as an indictment of God, while the other looks to tradition and text as defenses against modernity’s encroachment on religious life.

The problem is the “culture war” is a false construct created by politicians and public intellectuals, left and right.  The state of faith in the world is much grayer, much humbler, and much less divided than atheist academics and preaching politicians claim.  Especially in the U.S., social conservatives are often called out in the media for reifying and inflaming this cultural divide: The rhetoric of once and future White House hopefuls like Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, and Bobby Jindal reinforces an “us” and “them” distinction between those with faith and those without.  Knowing God helps them live and legislate in the “right” way, they say.

But vocal atheists reinforce this binary of Godly vs. godless, too—the argument is just not as obvious.  Theirs is a subtle assertion: Believers aren’t educated or thoughtful enough to debunk God, and if they only knew more, rational evidence would surely offset faith.

What about Those Who Have Never Heard the Gospel?

1.       God’s Love and Justice

We know that whatever God does, it is based on His perfect love and justice.

John 3:16-17 (written 58-65A.D.)  “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.  17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.”

1 John 4:8 (written 85-95A.D.)  “The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.”

Deuteronomy 32:3-4 (written 1405 B.C.)  “For I proclaim the name of the Lord; Ascribe greatness to our God!  4 “The Rock!  His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He.”

2.       God’s Foreknowledge

God already knows who can be brought to repentance and faith.

Romans 8:29 (written 56-58A.D.)  “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;”

1 Peter 1:1-2 (written 64A.D.)  “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.”

3.       God’s Desire

God wants none to perish, but all to be brought to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 (written 62-66A.D.)  “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

2 Peter 3:9 (written 64-68A.D.)  “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”

4.       Human Knowledge of God

Every human has knowledge of God.  The question is what we do with that knowledge.  Do we seek Him or turn away from Him?

Romans 1:18-23 (written 56-58A.D.)  Unbelief and Its Consequence

“For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.  20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”

Romans 1:28 (written 56-58A.D.)  “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,”

Psalms 19:1-4 (written 1440-586 B.C.)  “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.  2 Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.  3 There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard.  4 Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their utterances to the end of the world.  In them He has placed a tent for the sun,”

Acts 17:26-27 (written approximately 64 A.D.) “and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;”

5.       When a Human Heart is Open

When an individual’s heart is open to God and truth, God sends the Gospel to them.

Cornelius/ Acts 10:1-2 (written approximately 64 A.D.)  “Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.”

(Read verses 3-48 for the rest of this Truth)

Macedonian Call/ Acts 16:6-10 (written approximately 64 A.D.) “They passed through the Phrygian and Galatian region, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia; 7 and after they came to Mysia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them; 8 and passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas. 9 A vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing and appealing to him, and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10 When he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.”

Lydia and her household/ Acts 16:11-13 (written approximately 64 A.D.) “So putting out to sea from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace, and on the day following to Neapolis; 12 and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia, a Roman colony; and we were staying in this city for some days. 13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled.”

First Convert in Europe /Acts 16:14-15 (written approximately 64 A.D.)  “A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.”

Many people not yet reached/ Acts 18:9-11 (written approximately 64 A.D.) “And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; 10 for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city.” 11 And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.”

6.       Missionary Testimonies

Villagers Pray to “the God Who Hung on the Cross”

In her book The God Who Hung on the Cross, journalist Ellen Vaughn retells a gripping story of how the Gospel came to a small village in Cambodia.  In September 1999 Pastor Tuy Seng (not his real name) traveled to Kampong Thom Province in northern Cambodia.  Throughout that isolated area, most villagers had cast their lot with Buddhism or Spiritism.  Christianity was virtually unheard of.

But much to Seng’s surprise, when he arrived in one small, rural village the people warmly embraced him and his message about Jesus.  When he asked the villagers about their openness to the gospel, an old woman shuffled forward, bowed, and grasped Seng’s hands as she said, “We have been waiting for you for twenty years.”  And then she told him the story of the mysterious God who had hung on the cross.

In the 1970s the Khmer Rouge, the brutal, Communist-led regime, took over Cambodia, destroying everything in its path.  When the soldiers finally descended on this rural, northern village in 1979, they immediately rounded up the villagers and forced them to start digging their own graves.  After the villagers had finished digging, they prepared themselves to die.  Some screamed to Buddha, others screamed to demon spirits or to their ancestors. 

One of the women started to cry for help based on a childhood memory-a story her mother told her about a God who hung on a cross.  The woman prayed to that unknown God on a cross.  Surely, if this God had known suffering, he would have compassion on their plight.

Suddenly, her solitary cry became one great wail as the entire village started praying to the God who had suffered and hung on a cross.  As they continued facing their own graves, the wailing slowly turned to a quiet crying.  There was an eerie silence in the muggy jungle air.  Slowly, as they dared to turn around and face their captors, they discovered that the soldiers were gone.

As the old woman finished telling this story, she told Pastor Seng that ever since that humid day from 20 years ago the villagers had been waiting, waiting for someone to come and share the rest of the story about the God who had hung on a cross.

Why are Christians So Intolerant?  Wasn't Jesus All Accepting?

by Rich Deem

"Christians are intolerant because they try to tell other people what to do and what to believe," is a common complaint from those who have been witnessed to by a zealous Christian.  Although the actions of Christians are often interpreted as intolerance, the primary reason why Christians are seen as intolerant is because the perceived, politically-correct definition of tolerance has changed over the years.

What is intolerance?

To begin the discussion, it would be good to know what the word "intolerant" really means, in order to determine if Christians really are intolerant:

Main Entry: in·tol·er·ant

 Function: adjective

 Date: circa 1735

1: unable or unwilling to endure

2 a: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters

The really remarkable thing about the definition of “intolerant” is that those who say we Christians are intolerant and should not express our religious beliefs are the ones who actually fit the definition.  Tolerance is not about accepting everyone else's beliefs, but merely being willing to listen to those beliefs.  In contrast to many other religious beliefs, evangelical Christians rate quite high on the scale of being willing to discuss religious beliefs on a moment's notice.

Tolerance vs. Truth

Tolerance does not mean that we automatically accept everyone else's beliefs as being true.  Contrary to popular belief, religions do not teach the same things, and, so, they can't all be true.  Belief, in and of itself does not make that belief true.  Ravi Zacharias, a Christian writer, warns, "Truth cannot be sacrificed at the altar of pretended tolerance.  Real tolerance is deference to all ideas, not indifference to the truth.”  Christianity is the prime example why all religions cannot be true.  Virtually every other world religion, other than Christianity, teaches that a person can become acceptable to God on the basis of their actions in life.  In contrast, Christianity teaches that no person, no matter what they do, can become acceptable to God through their own actions (Romans 3:23 (written 56-58A.D.)).  In Christianity, acceptance by God is based upon the completed work of Jesus Christ, (Romans 5:8 (written 56-58A.D.)) through belief that His sacrifice makes us acceptable (Ephesians 2:8-9 (written 60-62A.D.)).  Therefore, Christianity and other religions cannot all be simultaneously true, since they teach opposite ideas about how one becomes acceptable to God.  A Christian cannot accept other belief systems as being true and still maintain his own belief system, since they are directly contradictory.

The Christian is most often claimed to be "intolerant" when he refuses to accept and speaks out against "alternative lifestyles," such as cohabitation or homosexual behavior.  Again, this is an improper use of the word "intolerant.”  Tolerance does not require acceptance of all ideas as being true, but merely a willingness to hear alternative beliefs.  Those who say that Christians should not express their beliefs are actually the ones who are being intolerant, since they are unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression to Christian beliefs (see definition above).

Jesus was “intolerant”

The supposed intolerance of Christians is a direct result of the teachings of its founder Jesus Christ, who, today, would be described as one of the most "intolerant" people to live.  Although Jesus was loving and associated with all kinds of people, He was not "tolerant" of their "alternative lifestyles.”  Jesus confronted immoral behavior directly, and even had the audacity to tell people to stop practicing their sinful behavior.[1] In addition, Jesus commanded his followers to "make disciples of all the nations... teaching them to observe all that I commanded you," (Matthew 28:19-20 (written 40-45A.D.)) and "preach the gospel to all creation” (Mark 16:15 (written approximately 65A.D.)).  Jesus did not say to accept other religions as being true.  In fact, He made one of the most "intolerant" statements that any religious leader has ever made:

 [1] Matthew 5:17; Matthew 6:2; Matthew 6:5; Matthew 6:16; Matthew 22:18; Matthew 23:14; Matthew 23:23; Matthew 23:27; Mark 10:19; Luke 6:46; Luke 18:20; John 5:14; John 7:24; John 8:11; John 9:41

“Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”

(John 14:6 (written 58-65A.D.))

This statement alone reveals that all other religions and religious ideas cannot be true.  No religion other than Christianity claims that Jesus is the only way to God.  Therefore, either Jesus was telling the truth and He is the only way to God or He was a liar and Christianity is false.

Evangelical Christians, in their zeal to follow the commands of their Lord, may seem to be over-enthusiastic and judgmental.  However, in believing that Jesus is the only way to God, we want everybody we meet to understand their choices, and the consequences of those choices.  Love requires that we share the message of the gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ.  The good news is that all people can enter into a personal relationship with the God and Creator of the universe through belief in Jesus Christ.

Why are Most Scientists Atheists If There is Evidence for Belief in God?

(Deem, 2011)

A larger percentage of scientists in the United Stated are atheists compared to that in the general population.  Do they disbelieve in the existence of God because of their intelligence, knowledge, and academic studies?  A new study shows that disbelief is correlated with such mundane things as marital and family status and family of origin.  -Rich Deem

In the early 20th century, studies showed that scientists were less likely than the general population to believe in the existence of God (Leuba, 1916; Leuba, 1934).  A survey conducted in 1969 showed that 35% of scientists did not believe that God existed (Trow, 1969).  In contrast, recent surveys on religious belief have shown that 90 percent of Americans believe in God and 40 percent attend a place of worship weekly (Gallup & Lindsay, 1999; Hadaway, Marler, & Chavez, 1993).  Is a lack of belief in God among scientists due to their higher intelligence and knowledge?  A recent study was designed to look at differences in belief among scientists (and other academics) and what factors influence those beliefs.

Elaine Ecklund, and Christopher Scheitle questioned 2,198 faculty members in the disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, political science, and psychology from 21 elite U.S. research universities (Ecklund & Scheitle, 2007).  Overall, 75% of professors contacted completed the survey.  Among the different disciplines, disbelief in the existence of God was not correlated with any particular area of expertise:

---

In fact, disbelief in the existence of God was nearly as high in the natural science as in the "soft" sciences.  Earlier studies had shown a similar trend, with those in the social sciences regularly attended religious services less often than those in the life sciences (Trow, 1969).  So, it doesn't seem that study in any particular field is associated with a disbelief in God's existence.  However, several factors unrelated to areas of expertise and training did correlate with belief in God.  It was found those scientists who were immigrants (where belief in God is lower) disbelieved in God to a greater degree than those who were born and raised in the U.S.  In addition, the study found that scientists come disproportionately from non-religious or religiously liberal backgrounds compared to the general population, suggesting that at least some part of the difference in religiosity between scientists and the general population probably due to religious upbringing rather than scientific training or institutional pressure to be irreligious.  Most interesting was the correlation between marital status and number of children on religiosity.  Those who were married (especially with children) attended religious services more often.  Those who were cohabiting were more likely than married scientists to believe "There is very little truth in any religion.”  This could be a reflection of wishful thinking!

Another reason why social scientists are atheists comes from the public perception of the social science profession.  Accordingly, children of liberals, atheists, secular Jews, and other secularists perceive social sciences as more important issues compared with children from religious homes.  Therefore, these professions have been abandoned by those brought up with religious backgrounds, leaving mostly secularists and atheists to fill those positions (Fosse, 2012).

Science and religion in conflict?

Contrary to the claims of the new atheists, most scientists do not necessarily see religion and science as always being in conflict.  Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund and coauthors studied the responses of scientists at 21 elite U.S. universities, finding that only 15% thought that science and religion were always in conflict.  About half expressed some form of religious affiliation. (Ecklund, Park, & Sorrell, 2011).

Conclusion

Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think by Elaine Howard EcklundIt is true that scientists believe less in the existence of God than the general population of the United States.  However, the recent study by Ecklund, and Scheitle reveals that the most important factors in belief were related to upbringing and family status, and not area of expertise.  The fact that social scientists as well as those in the natural sciences expressed nearly the same disbelief in God suggests that rejection of God's existence is not a result of knowledge in any particular area of expertise.  It is likely that those who have rejected religious morality (i.e., those who were cohabiting) wanted to justify their behavior by saying that there was very little truth in any religion.  The conclusion by the authors:

"Instead, particular demographic factors, such as age, marital status, and presence of children in the household, seem to explain some of the religious differences among academic scientists...  Most important, respondents who were raised in religious homes, especially those raised in homes where religion was important are most likely to be religious at present."

Only ONE example of the multiple studies done on the antagonism between science and religion:

Science vs. Religion

by Elaine Howard Ecklund

      That the longstanding antagonism between science and religion is irreconcilable has been taken for granted.  And in the wake of recent controversies over teaching intelligent design and the ethics of stem-cell research, the divide seems as unbridgeable as ever.

      In Science vs. Religion, Elaine Howard Ecklund investigates this unexamined assumption in the first systematic study of what scientists actually think and feel about religion.  In the course of her research, Ecklund surveyed nearly 1,700 scientists and interviewed 275 of them.  She finds that most of what we believe about the faith lives of elite scientists is wrong.  Nearly 50 percent of them are religious.  Many others are what she calls "spiritual entrepreneurs," seeking creative ways to work with the tensions between science and faith outside the constraints of traditional religion.  The book centers around vivid portraits of 10 representative men and women working in the natural and social sciences at top American research universities.  Ecklund's respondents run the gamut from Margaret, a chemist who teaches a Sunday-school class, to Arik, a physicist who chose not to believe in God well before he decided to become a scientist.  Only a small minority are actively hostile to religion.  Ecklund reveals how scientists-believers and skeptics alike-are struggling to engage the increasing number of religious students in their classrooms and argues that many scientists are searching for "boundary pioneers" to cross the picket lines separating science and religion.

     With broad implications for education, science funding, and the thorny ethical questions surrounding stem-cell research, cloning, and other cutting-edge scientific endeavors, Science vs. Religion brings a welcome dose of reality to the science and religion debates.

Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe

(Deem, 2007)

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.  The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question” (Hoyle, 1982).

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible.  Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word" (Ellis, 1993).

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming” (Davies, 1988).

Paul Davies (1984): "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design...  The universe must have a purpose."

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos.  There has to be some organizing principle.  God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing" (Willford, 1991).

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures...  If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence.  It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in” (Hereen, 1995).

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved.  Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?  Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (Greenstein, 1988).

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory" (Hereen, 1995).

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan" (Margenau, 1992).

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose.  It's not there just somehow by chance" (Penrose, 1992).

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion.  I am sure many physicists want to.  I only wish they would admit it" (Casti, 1989).

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine" (Margenau, 1992).

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.  He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries" (Jastrow, 1978).

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist.  If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God" (Hawking, 1988).

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist.  I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them.  I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics" (Tipler, 1994). Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it" (Gannes, 1986).

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished.  The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design.  Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one...  Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument" (Harrison, 1985).

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]" (Hereen, 1995).

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws?  There is no question but that a God will always be needed"(Hereen, 1995).

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'" (Zehavi & Dekel, 1999).

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how.  The only possible answers are religious. . . .  I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life" (Margenau, 1992).

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.’  My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan" (Sheler & Shrof, 1991).

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science" (McIver, 1986).

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique?  I walk both sides of that street.  One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least.  There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an unaccountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology.  In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique" (Mullen, 2001).

There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design" (Hazen, 2005).

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science" (Tipler, 2007).

Countering False Claims . . . Again

(Ham, 2015)

It seems like no matter how many times we set the record straight, the media is determined to misrepresent us.  Well, Paul Farrell, a columnist writing for Market Watch has recently written a diatribe against creationists (among others), and he makes several false, but common, claims that we have addressed many times.

Mindless Robots or PhD Scientists?

He begins by bringing up climate change and says that those who deny climate change are “mindless robots at odds with over 2,500 scientists who now warn, after more than two decades of research, that they are 97% ‘certain humans are causing climate change, that the damage is accelerating 10 times faster than the past 65 million years and soon we will self-destruct our civilization and disappear like dinosaurs, forever.’”  Now, we’ve said many times before that we do not deny climate change.  What we do deny are the worldview based, old-earth assumptions behind the radical claims of climate change alarmists.  Because we start with an utterly different view of Earth’s history, we come to completely different conclusions about the reasons and severity of climate change.  And many scientists, creationist or otherwise, also have problems with the popular interpretation of the limited climate change data.  What Farrell doesn’t mention are the 9,000 PhD scientists who do not think that climate change is the result of human activity or that it is a crisis.

Farrell also mentions Bill Nye “the Science Guy” as fighting for science in the face of a nation full of “science deniers.”  Now we’ve also addressed the claim that we are science deniers many times before.  Creationists do not deny science—we love science!  Many of the greatest scientists of all time, like Newton, Bacon, or Kepler, were creationists.  What we deny are man’s fallible ideas about the past.  You see, there are two different kinds of science.  Observational science deals with the present and is directly observable, repeatable, and testable.  It’s what builds our technology, makes engineering revolutions, and develops medical innovations.  The other kind of science, historical science, deals with the past—origins.  It is not directly testable, observable, or repeatable.  How you interpret the evidence of the present in relation to the past, will be determined by your starting point.  That’s why creationists and evolutionists reach such different conclusions when they examine the same evidence—we have different starting points!

Creationists Teach Children to Think Critically

He also writes, “Nye’s ‘biggest concern is about creationist kids’ whose parents are science deniers. They’re compelled to suppress their common sense, to suppress their critical-thinking skills . . . ’” I addressed this erroneous claim in a blog I wrote recently:

But, really, is teaching children only one side of the debate (as Nye wants)—silencing the opposition and not even discussing the inherent problems with evolution—really teaching kids to “question things,” “think critically,” or to use “skeptical thought”?  No, it’s not!  It’s teaching children to accept what’s popular and not even consider other options.  This is not critical thinking.  This undermines true education.  And it will ultimately undermine science education and technology in our culture.

Secularists like Nye are bemoaning the low science scores of students in America, and they try to put a lot of the blame on the teaching of creation!  But students have by and large been taught evolution as fact in our schools.  Teachers have for the most part not been allowed to teach students about creation, and most textbooks have presented evolution as fact for many, many years!  It’s not the teaching of creation that is resulting in poor science scores.

Be Bold and Stand for Truth

During his article Farrell also mocks the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter (interestingly he doesn’t even get the name of the Creation Museum right—he calls it the “Creationist Museum”) and encourages people to check out an equally mocking article about our many dinosaur exhibits.  He then makes this odd claim: “Other reviews [of the Creation Museum] point out that while carbon dating proves that dinosaurs went instinct [sic] 65 million years ago, creationists simply dismiss that bit of science.”  Well, even those who accept carbon-14 dating as reliable would not agree with this statement!  Carbon dating can only date things to a maximum age of a few tens of thousands of years—definitely not millions!  This is because the half-life of carbon-14 is very short (5730 years).

Any evolutionist who understands carbon dating will verify this.  But, here is an important point many people don’t know about carbon-14.  If certain fossils really are 65 million years old, there shouldn’t be detectable amounts of carbon-14 in them, and yet we do find carbon-14 in such supposedly millions-of-years-old fossils.  Carbon-14 dating confirms a biblical interpretation of fossils, not an evolutionary one.  Farrell obviously has no clue about carbon dating and thus makes a false statement showing his ignorance, yet thinking this puts down creationists!  This just goes to illustrate their anti-creationist/anti-Christian agenda.

Sadly, the media continues to mock us by spreading false information about creationists and the nature of the debate.  And articles like Farrell’s certainly show that secularists hate us.  But this is to be expected because this is a spiritual battle.  People like Farrell are suppressing the truth that they know because of their unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).  We need to remember to pray for those who refuse to acknowledge their Creator and we need to be bold in standing for the truth of God’s Word, from the very beginning, and sharing it with others. 

Five Modern Challenges to Christianity

(Blogspot.com, 2011)

I can understand why many secular thinkers believe traditional Christianity is going to cease to exist.  We have seen a few factors that have historically helped Christianity change in modern times:

1. The control of parents over their children.

 Public education and mass media have created a culture where parents cannot prevent their children from being exposed to ideas that they know will be attractive to their minds and destructive to their souls.  Some still try.  They home school and keep their kids away from TV and internet.  But they get things from other kids.  They don't even need to go to their house anymore.  They have cell phones that can show your kids Lady Gaga anywhere.

 So the option of protecting your kids is still needed but it isn't going to be enough.  You need to explain to your children why things are wrong and why Christianity is worth the price of saying no even when they seem so alluring.  The reality is most Christian parents have not been up to the task.  Faith and morals have not been passed effectively from one generation to the next.

2.  Technology advances in contraception.

Previous generations likely wanted to embrace contraception.  They didn't have the choice.  Sex and procreation were linked and they just had to accept it.  Now God gives us that choice but asks us to keep the two linked anyway.  That is one very dramatic way the fight against sexual temptation has become harder.  It has always been a struggle to choose sexual purity.  In every generation many souls have been lost due to sexual sin.  That is why lust is one of the seven deadly sins.  Now it is stronger than ever.  The numbers are depressing.  Contraception, premarital sex, abortion, divorce, etc.  All are common and accepted by society.  To some degree they are even accepted by Christians.

3. The advance of Islam

 Islam came on the scene in the 7th century.  Christianity was always very good at converting pagans.  It has never been good at converting Muslims.  Guess what?  Muslims are growing in numbers and growing in influence.  In many ways Islam has survived the onslaught of secularism better than Christianity.  More of them practice their faith and follow their moral code.  They have more people that are willing to be martyred for their faith.  Most importantly they have children and keep them in the faith.  They do that way better than Christians are doing that right now.

4. Disagreements between Christians

 This has been a problem since the reformation but it continues to get worse.  When discussing the truth claims of Christianity it is one of the first objections raised.  Christians don't agree on what the truth is so their claim to have the truth is not credible.  Now the answer to this was given to us by the first Vatican council.  That is the doctrine of infallibility.  But Protestants and even many Catholics reject that doctrine so they have no answer.  The traditional answer that Christians agree on all the really important stuff is less and less tenable all the time.  The nature of the disagreements has grown to include what everyone has to admit is the core of the faith.  What doctrine is safe?

5. Loss of Wonder at Creation

 Darwin is a big deal.  Not because he explains where we come from.  He does not.  But he gave people the notion that every wonder of the natural world has a scientific explanation and therefore it does not require a religious explanation.  Miracles?  They are just gaps in our scientific knowledge.  No need to wonder at them.

 This loss of wonder is not limited to creation.  Advances in genetics and our understanding of brain function have taken much of the wonder out of the human person.  It is the matter of a partial answer allowing somebody to imagine a full answer.  Then constructing a philosophy assuming the full answer is there.  We don't have a full scientific answer to the origin of the universe.  We are not really close.  But people imagine we have it.  Same with the mysteries of love and beauty.  People assume science will soon be able to explain it all.  It is a faith in science that was not possible until recently.  Not so much for the deep scientific thinkers.  They are aware of the limits of science.  It is more for the people who know a little science and think they know a lot.

Conclusion

I believe in God's promises.  The gates of hell will not prevail against the church.  Where sin abounds there grace abounds all the more.  I still wonder what that will look like.  Will we see the church unified like never before?  Will we see a new persecution?  Will some great new teachers arise?  Will there be new high profile miracles?  Something needs to happen.  If present trends continue, well, present trends never continue.  In this case we need to pray for something to turn things around.  To bring the church back when there is no logical way it should come back.  I am thinking there needs to be urgency to our prayer that isn't there yet.

Miracles

Skeptics forget that if God is God, miracles are possible.  If you do not believe that miracles are possible, then it is probably because you assume that the laws of physics rule out the possibility of miracles.  But do they?  The laws of physics only describe regular, uniform events, and a miracle is defined as “A highly improbable or extraordinary event” – not an impossible event, but a highly improbable event.  Personally, I think there may be confusion because people think that miracles are a violation of nature, but Christians believe that God can also use natural means since He is the creator of…nature!  In Exodus 14:21 we see that God used a strong wind to drive the sea back and make dry land for the Children of Israel to cross.  So, it is possible that a man surviving in the belly of a whale is a rare, natural event.  So, I wouldn’t call miracles ‘violations of the laws of nature’.  If God created the laws of nature, He can also change the laws of nature in order for a miracle to occur to instill awe and achieve His end desires, and as we see, God can also use natural means, if He wishes to, to produce a miracle.

What are some examples of miracles?  I’ve always thought of the creation of the universe and the creation of life as miracles.  Paul Davies, a former atheist turned agnostic turned theist agrees.  “[The Big Bang]…represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing.  It represents a _true_ miracle_—transcending physical principles….”  (Davies, 1981).  Why would he say that?  Because all space, time, matter, and laws of physics trace back to the initial singularity.  Since the laws of physics came into being at that time, could we really call the existence of our universe the cause of a _natural_ event?

Another thing I consider a miracle is the origin of life.  Regarding DNA replication and protein synthesis in the origin of life: “To produce this miracle of molecular construction all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order.  This is a complicated biochemical process, a molecular assembly line, using instructions in the form of a nucleic acid tape (the so-called messenger RNA).  Here we need only ask, how many possible proteins are there?  If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare of an event would that be?” (Crick, 1981).