Indifference towards God

I write a lot about evidence and proof for God and Christianity specifically.  It's meant to engage other people and get them to think about the world around them.  It's also meant to help other Christians in defending their faith and answering challenges.  But there's a third group that many people fall into and I think it's probably the biggest group of people who don't make a definite decision about Jesus one way or the other.  It's those people that are indifferent.  I'm not talking about agnostics I'm talking about people who are lukewarm.  They might believe in the existence of God but don't want to challenge themselves or others.  This is a group who might believe many roads lead to God we just have to believe.  They might believe that no one can really know so why choose one religion over another.  They might believe that they'll just have a good time while they're alive and sort it out when they die and meet God.  They might believe that it just doesn't matter because God will let everyone in.  However, Jesus made bold claims about being the only way to heaven.  He didn't allow for indifference.

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. John 14:6 (NLT)

That doesn't say being a good person and anything you believe will get you to God.  It doesn't say as you long you believe there is a God (Father) you'll get there.  He says you must go through him.  You don't get to decide after the fact you must decide about Jesus before you die and meet God.  In fact Jesus says this about people who are indifferent:

I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish that you were one or the other! But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth! Revelation 3:15-16 (NLT)

Literally in the Greek "spit you out" means vomit.  He says it would be better to be against him (cold) than to be indifferent or neutral (lukewarm).  Jesus is not indifferent about people who are indifferent.

Blaise Pascal was a 17th century French mathematician, physicist, inventor, scientist, and apologist.  He had an argument that is referred to as Pascal's Wager.  In summary it says that we all have to make a wager about God either for or against.  So we're better off to make the wager on the for side because in making on a wager on the against side you have nothing to gain but everything to lose.  Is that a reason in and of itself to believe in God?  I don't think so but I think the point is still valid.  It should be enough of a reason to examine the Christian position and come to a reasonable conclusion.  You should have better evidence against Jesus than there is for Jesus in order to make a decision against him because the consequences are much more severe if you're wrong.

We have already begun the journey of life and we are headed towards death.  There is no option to pause and put our death on hold while we decide whether Jesus is the only way to God or not.  Death is coming and if you don't make a decision for God it's as good as a decision against God and in fact the scripture quoted above Jesus says it's worse.

If you are still skeptical about there being any evidence have you looked yet?  If you are part of another religion apart from Biblical Christianity including religions that use altered versions of the Bible or use other books claimed to be scriptural have you looked at the evidence and criticisms of those texts?  If you think that all roads lead to God and you just have to believe have you looked at the differences in believe systems?  Are they really all the same?  Because it's not the similiarities that matter it's the differences.

We should all be looking at the most important questions in life such as:

• How did we get here?
• Is there a God?
• Which god is he?
• Why am I here?

The answers to these questions will ultimately lead to the meaning of life and what our own purpose is.  I look at Pascal's Wager as a call to move away from indifference and engage in the questions of life and our own significance.  If we're just DNA what's the point to life?  Significance cannot be found apart from God.

Tebow has it right

I just recently moved from Denver after having lived there 16 years and I'm a Broncos fan.  I'm a Seattle Seahawks fan too and have been since I was a kid but the Broncos became my home town team.  I was a season ticket holder for 7 or 8 of those years and during that time they won 2 Superbowls and moved into a new stadium.  I was at the game when Jason Elam kicked a 63 yard field goal to tie Tom Dempsey and I was at the game when Terrell Davis broke 2,000 yards (against my beloved Seahawks no less).  I watched John Elway throw numerous TDs and I watched the famous playoff collapse against Jacksonville that very likely could have been the first of 3 Superbowl's in a row instead of 2.

So you would think given all that and being a Christian I would have been excited when the Broncos drafted Tim Tebow in the first round.  It was great on the one hand to have a person with such great character on the team who shares my own worldview but on the other hand I felt like they drafted him way too high.  By this time if you don't know who Tim Tebow is well I'm not sure what rock you might have been living under.  You can easily Google him and look at his great college career.

Tebow might just be the most well known player in the NFL or at least one of the most well known.  People either love him or hate him.  The hate part I don't get and probably never will.  He doesn't get into trouble and never seems to put himself first.  I think that might be why people some people don't like him.  He's got it all, money, fame, and could have most anything, but yet he doesn't take credit for any of it, ever.

I watched the interview with him last night after the game and the commentators wanted to bring him down in a way I don't think I've ever seen with other players.  He just lead the Broncos to another come from behind win in the last few minutes that was amazing to watch.  He hadn't had a great game but just like the previous games he kicked it into another gear near the end and put the team on his shoulders and scored the winning TD with less than a minute remaining.  But the interviewers were asking him questions like "When you miss your receivers and they are are wide open what do they say to you when you come back to the huddle?"  That's a paraphrase but those were the tone of the questions.  It was like "Yeah, you won but you weren't perfect, why are you so bad?"  When it's clear that Tebow's teammates respect him and they follow him.

The entire time these insulting and ridiculous questions were being thrown at him, he of course pointed to Jesus at the start of the interview, but he just kept heaping praise on his teammates and coaches giving them credit.  It doesn't come across in an insincere or cliche way either, it's not false humility like so many athletes spew out.  Here he was engineering one of the greatest, most exciting wins in Broncos history and they ask how excited he was about it.  He says he was way more excited about announcing earlier in the day that he was partnering with another group to build a children's hospital in the Philippines.  The thing is you believe him when he says that.

He also said he's been given a platform to influence others and have an impact on other people's lives and football is just the vehicle to accomplish that.  There's a human being who has it right.  Win or lose I have little doubt that his focus will still be the same.  I'm a Tebow fan no matter what he does because he's doing life the right way.  I'm not putting him on a pedestal, because he's not perfect.  But his approach is right and his heart is in the right spot.  As Christians we should do everything that God has given us to influence and impact those around us in a positive way to glorify God just like Tebow.  I'm going to look to Tebow's example and do a better job in those areas in my own life to help those around me and not only point them to truth but to just care about them.  Tebow being drafted 25th overall in the first round seems like a steal now.  Not for the wins and losses but on his character alone.  Tebow has put himself second I want to do the same.

I'm A Good Person

I used to think that getting into heaven required something on my part namely being a good person.  My rationale was that I'm not perfect but I'm also not as bad as Hitler or others who may have committed some pretty heinous crimes and compared to them I look pretty good.  So therefore I'm a good person and God will let me into heaven.  In fact most world religions say that you have to do something to get right with God so he'll open the door to heaven for you.  This is called works and Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and pretty much every other world religion outside of Christianity says you have to work your way to heaven or the nirvana or zen state.  Even some Christian denominations such as Catholicism say you have to accept Jesus but you also have to get baptized or do some other type of works to get entry into God's kingdom.

What I didn't understand (and neither do these worldviews) is the standard for good.  When I compare myself to Hitler I'm using a relative (subjective) standard.  What if you compare Hitler to the Chinese dictator Mao though?  Mao was responsible for the murder of at least 25 million people so does that mean Hitler is a good person compared to Mao?  What if you compare Jeffery Dahmer to Hitler?  He 'only' murdered 17 people so is he a good person compared to Hitler and the millions he was responsible for the murder of?  What if I compare myself to Mother Teresa?  She spent her entire life serving the poor and had a big impact on the world and those around her.  Am I still good if I compare myself to Mother Teresa?  What if the good standard is Mother Teresa and I don't meet it?  What if it's better than Mother Teresa and I don't meet it, what happens when I meet God?  The problem with this type of good standard is it's ever changing and I don't really know if I'm good enough to get to heaven before I die.  How fair or just is a god that doesn't tell us what the standard is and we just have to hope for the best when we get there?

So what does Biblical Christianity say about the standard for getting into heaven?  The Bible says that the standard for gaining entrance into heaven is perfection.  Never breaking one of God's laws ever gets you into heaven.  Never lying, never stealing, never lusting.  Never putting money, ourselves, or even others ahead of God.  Honoring our parents always.  If we do any of these things even once we've broken God's law and deserve to be disciplined.

The reaction sometimes is "You've got to be kidding!  One lie and someone will go to hell!"  Has there ever been someone who has only lied once or only broke one of God's laws?  Pretty doubtful.  But to say that is really not to understand the nature of God.  Suppose you had a family member that was brutally assaulted and left disabled for the rest of their life.  The person is caught and goes to trial and is found guilty.  He is brought before the judge and the criminal says "Yes, your honor I did what I'm accused of.  However, on the way to the court room today I was driving behind a school bus and the school bus was hit by a semi and burst into flames.  I stopped and pulled 10 school children from the burning bus saving their lives.  I've got several witnesses here who will say I did this.  Saving 10 lives outweighs permanently disabling one person so I should be let go."  If the judge let the person go we'd be furious and feel that justice was not served for our family member. We'd think that judge was a horrible judge and we'd be right.

The fact is that assault still requires punishment no matter how many good things have been done.  But this is exactly what worldviews that promote works say: Yeah, you've done wrong but if you do enough good things you'll erase the bad things you've done.  We wouldn't accept that for criminals but we want to accept that for ourselves.  So why is it we'd find it unbelievable that God would require punishment for breaking his laws no matter how many good things we've done?  We want justice but when it's us facing that justice it's a different story.  God is holy and not punishing law breakers would not be holy.

So given that we're all guilty and we're facing judgement where does that leave us?  It leaves us facing punishment no matter how good we think we are.  It's not a very good picture.  However, there is good news:  God has provided a solution.  Most of us have probably heard that Jesus died for our sins.  But what does that actually mean?  Jesus was sent to live a perfect life and broke none of God's laws.  He was the only one who could face God and be allowed entry into heaven on his own record.  Because he was blameless he is the only one who could take our punishment for us.  He gave up his right to have no punishment to take yours and mine so we didn't have to.

To illustrate this substitution imagine if someone who had lied stepped up and said they would take your punishment for lying.  They would already be facing punishment for their own lies so it wouldn't mean much.  That is why Jesus dying for us is such a big deal.  He is the only who didn't deserve it but yet he took the punishment.  This satisfies the requirement for our law breaking to be punished but it also gives us the opportunity to be right with God.  All we have to do is admit we've broken God's laws and accept Jesus' sacrifice for us on the cross.  That's it.  No good works just faith in Jesus.  But it's still our choice.  We can take our own punishment and spend eternity separated from God in hell or we can spend eternity with our creator in heaven.

Works do have a place in Christianity but it has nothing to do with whether we go to heaven or not.  We do good works because God loves everyone (whether they love him or not) and we love God.  How much better are good works if we do them out of love for God than if we do them out of love for ourselves?  It makes works a completely selfless act as opposed to doing something to save ourselves.

Some might say (I did): How do you know Christianity is right and any of the other worldviews aren't?  Well, quite simply it's the evidence.  If haven't examined the evidence look at some of the resources mentioned in other blog posts or some of the listed books as a start.  If you haven't examined the evidence for your own worldview you owe it to yourself to look at it.  Don't leave your eternal destination up to chance and hope.  Examine the evidence objectively and follow where it leads.

Things that look designed are designed

We take for granted that material things we see everyday have a mind behind them.  If we see a billboard we don't wonder how the ad got there.  We don't assume that it posted itself or it just appeared out of nothing with no purpose.  We know that there was thought behind it and someone designed it for a purpose.

I like to hunt and fish.  A lot of times I can be out in the middle of what seems like nowhere.  I'm not on a trail and it seems remote like maybe I'm the only one to have ever been there and I'll look down and see a pop can or a burnt out campfire.  My first thought is usually, "I wonder who left this here?".  I never even question though that there was someone behind it.  I don't think "I wonder if this pop can just sprang out of the ground or appeared from nothing".  That sounds crazy but that's exactly what some people do when it comes to explaining how nature came to be. 

In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins argues that the universe looks complex and appears to be designed but really isn't.  He goes on to say that the temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to a designer.  When I first read this I had to scratch my head.  What complex system have we ever observed as being designed that wasn't?  We attribute designers to design because designed things don't just appear on their own.  Impersonal forces (i.e. non-designers) can't choose to create (i.e. design).

In fact there is an argument called the Teleological Argument (telos means design in Greek) and it goes like this:

1. Every design has a designer
2. The universe has highly complex design
3. The universe has a designer

If the first two premises are correct then the conclusion follows that the universe has a designer.  It's argument based on the fine tuning of the universe.  I wrote a blog on this fining tuning before and that can be found here.  So why do some very smart people believe that the most complex thing known to us, the universe, does not have a designer behind it?  Mostly because of an a priori commitment to naturalism.  That just means they have a prior commitment that nature is all there is so every explanation for the world around us has to come out of nature including nature itself.  They say that everything has a natural cause (including nature itself) and we'll eventually find the answer through science.  Eventhough we've never observed (science is about observation of effects) something coming from nothing we'll eventually figure it out.  However this will never be proveable because they will never be able to create something from nothing because anything they do create will have a designer behind it, namely the scientist.

The naturalist competing theory is the Multi-Verse.  This says that there are infinite multiple universes and given enough time and chance a universe like ours would be created and we just happen to be in the right one.  There are several problems with this.  One, there is absolutely no proof for this.  For people who claim science and nature is all there it's odd they'd appeal to something that is completely devoid of evidence.  Two, this could never be observed.  They are taking it on faith that there are other universes.  Third, it's actually impossible to have an infinite number of material things.  To illustrate this imagine a runner running an infinite race.  As the runner settles in the starting blocks they get moved back because the starting line is infinite.  Each time he settles into the starting blocks the line is moved back so he'll never actually start the race.  The same thing can be said for an infinite number of days.  If time were infinite the "beginning" point would constantly be moved back so today would never be reached.  Numbers are infinite but numbers aren't material things.  And lastly multi-verses just moves the starting point for a designer back and multiples the need for a designer.  What is the agent pumping out all these universes?  Same goes for Stephen Hawkings theory of energy in a vacuum creating the universe.  Where did the energy come from?  Energy isn't nothing it's something.

The theist doesn't reject science at all in fact the theist embraces it.  Science tells us about the world around us but when our observations point to causes outside of nature we can take that to where it leads and that's to a designer.  The attributes of the designer of our universe fit those that theists for thousands of years have attributed to God.  Theists are justified to believe in the existence of God based on the evidence.  It's a position that can be defended intellectually with sound reason and confidence and in fact is the most reasonable explanation of our universe.  It's not unreasonable to attribute design to a designer.  You can take confidence that theism answers the questions better than any other belief system.  And as the other evidence (Jesus, the Bible, the resurrection) is examined Biblical Christianity is the most reasonable against other worldviews.

A Big Bang Needs a Big Banger

It's accepted by most scientists that the universe is not eternal and had a beginning.  There are other theories but those are largely unsupported by the science and evidence available.  The beginning of the universe is referred to as the Big Bang.  All of nature didn't exist prior to the Big Bang.  There was no time, no space, no matter.  Some people have argued that the Big Bang is proof that God didn't create the universe and therefore does not exist.  However, the Big Bang actually strengths the argument for a Big Banger.  I wish I could take credit for the title of the post but I borrowed it from Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason.

The argument for a Big Banger is commonly called the Cosmological Argument and goes like this:

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause
2. The universe had a beginning
3. Therefore the universe had a cause

The conclusion is valid if the first two premises are true.  Looking at the first premise is it true that everything that has a beginning has a cause?  What things that have begun to exist didn't have a cause?  Let's suppose you are walking along and see a watch laying on the sidewalk.  Is your first thought that it appeared out of nowhere without a cause or without being dropped by someone?  No, in fact we know that the probable cause is someone left it there either by accident or on purpose but we know it didn't pop out of nothing.  Nothing comes to be with a cause.  This is the law causality and to deny that law causality is to deny science.  Science is the study of effects and to determine their causes.

The objection that follows this is "Who created God?".  The premise is that everything that began to exist had a cause not that everything has a cause.  God is eternal and doesn't need a cause because he's always existed.  But then the person might say "Well if God doesn't need a cause neither does the universe."  While it might be logically possible that the universe is eternal, based on the science it doesn't seem that it's actually possible.  To say the universe is eternal is to deny Einstein's theory of relativity, the second law of thermodynamics, an expanding universe, cosmic background radiation, and many other pieces of evidence.

That leads into the second premise that the universe had a beginning.  It's unanimously accepted that the universe had a beginning.  The universe is expanding from a single point in the far distance past.  The Big Bang happened and the universe came into existence.  In the moment right before the Big Bang nothing in the universe existed, no time, no nature.  Things don't create themselves and nature is no exception.  Things also don't come from nothing.  The universe had a cause and that's referred to as the First Cause. 

What sort of characteristics would the First Cause have?

• It would have to be outside time (timeless), space (non spacial) , and matter (immaterial) because it caused time, space, and matter.
• It would have to be unimaginably powerful to create the universe.
• It would have to be extremely intelligent to create all the laws of physics, the universe, and the conditions for complex life.
• It would have to be personal to make a choice to create.  Impersonal forces (i.e. nature) can't make choices.

These are all the attributes theists ascribe to God.  The Cosmological Argument is just one of several powerful arguments for the existence of God.  It shows that it's not only reasonable to believe in a creator but given the evidence I believe it's the most reasonable explanation for the beginning of the universe.

Resources
William Lane Craig has developed the Cosmological Argument in depth and does a great job of defending it.  He's debated several times on the subject and always does more than hold his own.  Below are some resources that develop and explain the argument well.

Books


Website: Stand To Reason

Remembering Aunt Georgia and Steve Jobs

A couple weeks ago my aunt Georgia passed away.  She was 90 years old and lived in Wyoming on several acres still living life to the fullest.  My uncle passed away 27 years ago so she had been a widow since then.  She was my dad's sister and the oldest of 9 kids with her being the only girl.  She lived a life that if you told most people they wouldn't believe it. 

She was raised in the depression era in a large family.  My grandparents had nearly nothing and raised their kids in a small cabin my grandpa built on land they squated on.  No indoor plumbing, no electricity, none of the comforts we all enjoy today.  Even hearing the stories of growing up my dad and uncles tell and seeing pictures it's still hard for me to imagine growing up like that.  That was just the generation before me and it's hard to believe how much things have changed since that time.  Not just for me but for all of my uncles and my aunt.

As I sat there and listened to the pastor tell the story of my aunt's life I certainly felt a sense of loss and sadness for the family she left behind.  But what I felt more was a measure of joy that she'd lived a great life and impacted those people around her in a positve way.  I can't picture her any other way than with a smile on her face.  The other thing I remember about her was selflessness.  She had 6 kids, 5 boys and 1 girl.  Her daughter was born with a severe handicap and up until about a year ago my aunt took care of her by herself.  I've heard my dad and several of my uncles say she was like a mother to them.  Why?  Because she took care of them.  She impacted those around her in a very relational and meaningful way.

A few days after returning from Wyoming I was sitting in a restaurant with my family and saw the news on the wall mounted TV that Steve Jobs had died.  I felt sadness for his family and for their loss.  He also impacted people but in a different way.  He did it through the products Apple developed.  I've seen all sorts of tributes but these were not people he impacted in a personal and relational way.  I felt a sadness for his family and those close to him.  I felt no sense of joy though.  My thoughts immediately went to the billions he'd amassed and now for him it was just gone.  As they say you can't take it [wealth] with you.

As I thought about both deaths the contrast between their lives was obvious.  I knew immediately why I had a sense of joy when thinking about my aunt and a sense of sorrow when thinking about Jobs.  I had  joy when thinking about my aunt because I can feel confident in her eternity.  The pastor said at the age of 13 she accepted Jesus as her savior.  I don't know how or who she was with but there it was plain and clear.  Jesus promises we'll know God and see heaven through him and only him and she's there now waiting for those of us that are Jesus followers.  My joy is knowing I'll see her again when I join her in heaven.

The lack of joy and my sorrow for Steve Jobs and his family is because of the uncertainity of where his eternal resting place is.  From everything I've ever read about Jobs he was zen Buddhist which is an atheistic believe system.  Now I'm not going to say where Jobs is at right now because God is the judge of our hearts.  He may very well have accepted Jesus at some point before he died and I may get to met him in heaven.

My point isn't 'Jobs is in hell', so don't let that be the take away.  I liked the guy too and own an Apple product or two myself.  My point is I don't know and it makes me sad.  However, I have good certainty where my aunt is and in that case I feel joy.  My family knows I'm a Jesus follower and when I die they can have certainty of where I'm at and how they can join me when they die.  I'm glad my family and friends can have that same sense of joy that I have for my aunt Georgia and those she left behind.   I'm even more thankful they won't have any sense of doubt about what's happened to me like I have about Jobs.  I'm not sure if you'll get to meet Steve Jobs if you follow Jesus but I know you'll get to meet my aunt Georgia.  Meeting my aunt Georgia is a good thing.

Head vs Will

Lee Strobel was an atheist who became a believer after he investigated the evidence for Jesus and the Bible.  As a result of that investigation he wrote the book, The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus.  It's the book that got me introduced to the evidence for God, Jesus, and the Bible as a very new believer and started my study and defense of the evidence for Christianity.  I've read dozens of books by different authors since then on various different topics and this book still stands out as one of the very best.  It walks you through Lee's path as an atheist in his examination of the evidence.  It's written in a way that makes sense to the everyday person.  I remember reading it for the first time and being a little bit angry that I'd never been told some of these things before because if they had I'd have been a believer much sooner than I was.

As I reflect on the impact that apologetics has had on my life and faith I can't help but think about those who see the evidence and still don't believe that Jesus was the son of God.  There are also those that have heard there is evidence but don't bother to give it a look and complain about God in some way.  I think it really comes down to a matter of will.  For me a big part of the reason I didn't want to commit to Christianity was that I didn't want to give up my lifestyle.  I gave lots of other external reasons including: hypocritical Christians, how can you really know which religion is right, I'm a good person because I'm not as bad as Ted Bundy or whoever.  But internally what it really came down to is that I still wanted to swear, I wanted to have pre-marital sex, I wanted to drink excessively, I didn't want to be a Bible thumper,  I didn't want to be one of those weird religious people, and the list went on.  It's not that I don't struggle with some of those things from time to time now because I do.  Some of those things I don't do at all anymore while others are certainly much, much less frequent than they used to be and I'm still working on others.  The important thing is that immortality no longer controls me like it did before my belief in Jesus.

When I was living apart from God (which is what I was doing by not committing to Jesus) sin controlled me and now I am free of the hold it had on me.  That's not to say I don't still sin, because we all do, it's just that my bondage to it has been broken and the penalty has been paid for me.  I think differently about my sin now than I did before.  I'm remorseful and I turn from it even if I have to do it over and over again.  The other thing I've noticed is that I see others sin differently too.  I see it in light of the struggles I have had in the past and the struggles I still have.  It helps me to have compassion for others when they stumble.
What I've learned is that evidence is very helpful but for most people becoming a believer is not a matter of the head but a matter of the will.  Several years ago I exchanged private messages with an atheist who I had met in an atheist online forum.  I asked what it would take for him to believe in God.  His answer was that even if God appeared before him and he knew it was God appearing before him he would never worship Him.  Which stunned me a little bit quite honestly.  I asked him why and he said because he couldn't worship anyone who was as cruel as God was (see Paul Copan's book below for answers to this objection).  It really illustrated the point to me about believing (or not believing) being a matter of will for many people and not just a matter of reason and evidence. 

Is this you or someone you know?  That no matter what evidence you are presented you won't believe?  Can you look at the evidence objectively or is your will so hardened that you can't even give the evidence a fair look?  Do you think it's intellectually dishonest to believe in God?  Do you think there is no evidence and no matter what someone presents to you it won't even qualify as evidence?  If it is then no amount of evidence will probably convince you.  But if it's not and you have some questions you want answers to like: Why does God allow so much suffering and evil in the world?  How can there only be one God?  I've done some really bad things and hurt others, how can God forgive me or love me?  Or maybe it's something completely different.  If that's the case seek out the answers.  Read a book, ask someone else who may be able to help, look at a resource from this or another apologetics blog, or pick up the Bible and start with John's gospel.  Jesus said:

For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. Matthew 7:8

It's promised to us that if we seek answers about God we will find them.  So I encourage you to objectively seek answers and based on what Jesus taught you will find them.

Books


Video
Lee Strobel's story

Blogs
Apologetics 315
Answers For Atheists
Reasons To Believe

Do all religions lead to God?

Here's a quick video (< 2 minutes) on an interview with Norm Geisler done by the One Minute Apologist.  He answers the question: Do all religions lead to God?

Christians Are Intolerant of Other Viewpoints

Christians are often accused of being intolerant.  The view comes from an incorrect view of what it means to be tolerant.  The view is that tolerance means accepting all other views as true. 

Tolerance

tol-er-ance

a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.,  dictionary.com

We practice tolerance for that which we don't agree with or that which we believe is false.  Tolerance doesn't accept all views as true it involves practicing restraint towards views that are different.  If people accepted all views to be true there would be no need for tolerance.  Tolerance only needs to be practiced when people disagree.  Think about it, do you tolerate things you like? 

Being Accused of Intolerance
If you're accused of being intolerant the response might go something like this:

Bob: Christians are intolerant of other religions.  You all think you're right and they're wrong. John: Why are you being intolerant of my views? Bob: I'm not being intolerant you're the one that says other religions are wrong. John: But you're not being accepting of my views.  You think I'm wrong.  You are being intolerant.

The problem with this view of tolerance is that it says it accepts all views as being valid except for the view that all views aren't valid.  The statement doesn't even meet it's own view of tolerance.  It's very misunderstood view of what tolerance really is.

Tolerance is about respecting the other person you disagree with because they are made in the image of God the same as you are.  However, it doesn't require you to respect their held views. 

Intolerance of Tolerance
One of the books I've recommended in the past is I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.  One of the authors, Frank Turek, is right now experiencing the secular intolerance of tolerance.  Dr. Turek was just fired by Cisco Systems for his political and religious views even though his views were never expressed in the course of his work at Cisco.  The story is here.

Resources
True For You, But Not For Me by Paul Copan, Chapter 5
The Intolerance of Tolerance article by Gregory Koukl
Why Are Christians So Intolerant? article on PleaseConvinceMe.com
Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Tolerance blog post on Apologetics 315

Who Are You to Judge Others?

One of the complaints I had about Christians before I became one was that they were judgemental.  Then when I did become a Christian it was something I was accused of!  It's an accusation that is sometimes accurate though.  But judging and being judgmental are two different things. 

Judging vs Judgementalism
We all make judgements every day.  Being discerning and making decisions are something we all have to do and it's unavoidable and appropriate.  Judgementalism is a critical, smug, attitude of moral superiority.  Making right judgements is a virtue while being smug is not.  Judge but don't be judgemental.

Judging Judgementalism
The statement "Who are you to judge?" is again a self defeating statement.  The person is making a judgement that you are being judgemental.  They are doing the very thing they are accusing you of.  The conversation might go something this:

Bob: Who are you to judge others? John: Why are you judging me? Bob: What? John: Why are you judging me if it's wrong to judge others? Bob: I'm just saying that Christians aren't supposed to judge others. John: Hang on a second.  You just said it's wrong to judge.  Now you're judging me.  So why are you doing the very thing you say is wrong when I do it? Bob: I'm not judging you I'm just saying it's wrong to to judge. John: OK, then I'm not judging either I'm just simply saying you're wrong.

This may take a little bit to sink in but you can see the double standard here.  The statement about judging just doesn't hold up to it's own standard.  What most people actually mean when they accuse you of judging is that you're not allowed to tell other people they're wrong.  But here we go again, they are telling you it's wrong to tell someone else they're wrong!  The relativist is now being an absolutist which is the very thing he's accusing you of.

Why is this important?  Because Christian's get attacked all the time for taking an absolute stand on issues and are trivialized for their views of exclusivity.  They are accused of being intolerant, judgemental, close-minded, and the list goes on.  Why?  Because they hold views in opposition to those making the accusations.  Most people making these statements practice the very thing they condemn.  So don't be afraid to stand up for yourself but do it with gentleness and respect for the other person even if they don't do the same for you.

Resources
"True For You, But Not For Me" by Paul Copan, Chapter 4
"Tactics" by Gregory Koukl

That's True For You But Not For Me

I've read a book by Paul Copan titled True for You, But Not for Me.  It looks at some of the common objections to Christianity and how to answer them.  I thought I'd start blogging on some of these objections raised in the book.  These objections are covered in many other great books, blogs, podcasts, and articles too so much of what I'll write will be based on this book as well as other great resources I've come across.

What is Truth?
The idea that we each define our own truth is prevalent in our society.  We all have our own opinions but opinions are not necessarily the same as the truth.  Truth is an idea or description that matches with how things really are.  Truth exists whether our opinion matches it or not.  Truth is something that we discover not something we create for ourselves.   For instance at one time it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth and it was later discovered that wasn’t true.  No matter what was thought about the sun and earth’s orbit it was never true that that sun revolved around the earth.

Truth is Not Ice Cream
My favorite ice cream flavor is vanilla (yeah, I know pretty plain, but I love it).  Is it true that vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream over all other flavors?  You may agree with me but we all know people who have a different favorite flavor or even, gasp, don’t like ice cream at all!  So is it true or false that vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream?  It’s an odd question because this is truly subjective (relative) to the person answering the question.  In fact you might say it’s my opinion that vanilla is the best ice cream flavor but it’s not yours.  It’s a subjective claim because it’s dependent on the subject (me in this case).  Subjective claims are not true or false.

Taking another look at ice cream though what if I were to say, “Vanilla ice cream cures cancer.”  You probably wouldn’t agree with my statement and even if you did that wouldn’t make it true. Imagine if someone responded to me by saying, “Well, it might be true for you that vanilla ice cream cures cancer but it’s not true for me.”  You'd think both participants in the conversation were probably just a little off center.  Why?  Because we know objectively that vanilla ice cream does not cure cancer no matter what I might think.  Objective claims are either true or false.

Contradicting Statements
Suppose someone from New York said, “New Yorkers are all liars and you can’t trust them.”  The person claiming to tell the truth about New Yorkers is contradicting themselves.  They are saying what I say is true, I’m a liar.  Kind of like saying “Don’t believe a word I say.”  In the same way the relativist’s statement “That’s true for you but not for me” contradicts itself.  They are making an absolute truth statement that applies to everyone that no truth applies to everyone.   This statement self destructs under its own weight, which makes it a useless statement.  If claims are only true for each person then why should I accept the relativists view and not my own?  The question to ask then is, “Is that true?” or “Are you asking me to accept that statement as true for everyone or is that just your own view?”

Truth is important and truth can be objectively known.  Believing something that is not true can have small consequences like believing the sun revolves around the earth.  You might get embarrassed and be seen as a dope if you say that but you probably won’t die from believing this.  But believing that fire won’t burn you could have very real and devastating consequences including death.  So when someone says, “Christianity is true for you but not for me” it’s not a subjective (relative) claim that Christianity makes, it’s an objective (absolute) claim.  Objective claims can and should be backed up by evidence and reason.  Either Christianity is true or false but it’s not both because Biblical Christianity is not ice cream.

Other Resources
The "truth is not ice cream" is something developed by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason.  He gives a good talk on it titled “Truth is Not Cream, Faith is not Wishing” available on STRs website on CD, MP3, or PDF.

Relativism

People say That's true for you but not for me or some form of it all the time and it's called relativism.  Most people believe truth is based on the situation or circumstances.  A Barna survey showed that 64% of American adults said truth is "relative to the person and their situation" where 83% of teenagers said "moral truth depends on the circumstances".  6% of those surveyed said moral truth is absolute.  This survey is from 2002 but it probably hasn't changed all that much, if anything the percent believing in relativism has probably increased.

Some examples of statements that reflect relativism are:

"Christianity and the Bible may be true for you but it's not for me." "That's just your interpretation." "Who are you to judge?" "There are lots of paths to God." "Belief in Jesus as the only way to God is intolerant."

Most everyone has heard at least a couple of these.  Is relativism true?  Does relativism even stand up to it's own claim that truth is in the eye of the beholder?  One question can start to point out the problem with relativism and the rejection of absolute truth.

Bob: "Everyone's beliefs are true or false only relative to himself." John: "Is that absolutely true?"

Do you see the problem here? The statement Bob is making is an absolute statement about truth.  If truth is relative to the person why should I even care about Bob's statement because it's not true for me?  Bob is saying that truth is not absolute but yet he's making an absolute statement about it.  It's because in practice relativism doesn't match with reality.  Truth is a belief that matches the way things really are.

Regardless of our own view something can be true even if...

• ...we don't agree with it
• ...we don't practice it
• ...we don't follow it

Moral relativism says that right and wrong are dependent on individual or culture.  The question to ask the moral relativist is: Were Hitler and the Nazis wrong?  There is no basis within relativism to say that it is wrong.  If according to relativism each culture gets to decide their own right and wrong how could Hitler have been wrong?  The culture of Nazism said it was right to murder, rape, torture, and scientifically experiment on Jews.  If the relativist answer is that the rest of world said it was wrong and they stopped it, it's then just a case of might makes right.  The biggest and strongest get to decide what's right and wrong.  So if the Nazis would have prevailed in WWII it would have been ok because they were stronger?  Or would murdering innocent Jews be ok because the Nazis won?  When taken to it's logical conclusion it's clear to see that moral relativism is really just a justification for not following an objective moral standard.

Truth can be known and truth is real.  We don't get to make up our truth because truth is objective and is true no matter if we agree with it or not.  Truth claims should be examined and tested.  Test people's truth claims with gentleness and respect.  Our culture is ripe with relativism and they didn't come to their ideas overnight and won't change their minds with just one conversation.

Resources

True for You, But Not for Me: Overcoming Objections to Christian Faith by Paul Copan

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Gregory Koukl
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by William Lane Craig

These are just some of the really great books that discuss the problems with relativism.  All the above selections are also available on Kindle.

Free will

Below is an article on a recent book by Vincent Bugliosi titled The Divinity of Doubt. Bugliosi prosecuted Charles Manson and is an atheist.

PleaseConvinceMe Blog: Should God Have Given Us Free Will?

What is the gospel message?

If someone asked you what the gospel message is how would you answer?  Gospel means good news, but what good news is it and why would anyone need to know about it?  How would you explain the gospel message to someone else?  To explain it helps to work through why people to need hear the good news.

What happens when we die?
Almost everyone has thought about the answer to this question.  Some of the more common things people say:

• I'm going to heaven because I've been a good person.
• I don't know.
• I'm going to hell.
• We all go to heaven.
• I'm going to heaven because I believe Jesus died for my sins and was resurrected.
• Nothing.  I don't think anything happens.

If the response is nothing then the question is what happened to Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Saddam?  Did God just let them go unpunished for murdering millions of people?  If the response is that nothing happened to them then there is evidence that can be presented for the existence of God and there are resources listed at the end of the post.  For the other responses that leads to another question.

What determines where we go when we die?
If you were to die today and meet God and He asked you, "Why should I let you into heaven?"  What would you say?  Some people might say they've done more good than bad.  Others might say they've never done anything real bad like murder or rape and they are basically a good person.  But is that really how God measures our entrance into heaven?  God determines our destination based on guilt or innocence not on how good or bad we are.  But guilty or innocent of what?

God gave Moses His laws and the easiest way to show how we are judged is to look at just a few of these laws:

• Do not commit adultery - Jesus said that you've committed adultery if you've even thought about it.  God knows your heart and mind and if you've thought lustfully about someone who isn't your spouse you've committed adultery.
• Do not lie
• Do not steal
• Have no gods before me - This is putting anything on your priority list above God.  Money, sex, work, yourself are all things that people put above God.
• Honor your mother and father
• Do not use God's name in vain - Using God's name as a curse word.

If we're honest with ourselves we've all broken at least one of these and chances are (I know it's the case for me) we've broken every one of them multiple times, probably more times than we can count.  That's God's standard and if we've broken one of these laws even once we're guilty.  God is just and because He is just He can't overlook someone breaking His laws.  It would be unfair of God to forgive us for free.

To illustrate this point suppose someone murdered a member of your family.  You are watching the trial and the murder stands up and says "Yes, I did commit the murder.  However, driving on the way here to the trial a school bus ran off the road into a lake and I jumped in and saved 10 kids from drowning.  Here are signed statements from witnesses.  I've saved more lives than I've taken therefore I've done more good than bad and should be let go."  The judge pounds his gavel and says, "You're free to go."  We'd be irate if this happened and say that justice hadn't been served and the judge was terrible.  Because it doesn't matter how many lives the murder saves there is still a price to pay for the one life that he took.  However, that's exactly what we expect God to do is look the other way when we've broken His laws.

What happens next?
 So if we've broken God's laws what happens when we meet God?  The answer to that should be obvious at this point.  We're judged based on our guilt or innocence (our sin record).  How is any of this 'good news' if we're guilty?

Well, the good news is that God has provided a way for us to be innocent.  He sent is only son, Jesus, to earth who lived a perfect life.  He was tempted just like we are but he never sinned.  He was the only person who ever lived who could stand before God and be judged as innocent.  However, Jesus willing was beaten, spit on, kicked, mocked, and nailed naked to a cross to die a slow agonizing death.  All of the sins of all us were heaped on him and he took our punishment so we wouldn't have to.  Why was this necessary?  Because remember God is just and can't let law breaking go unpunished and Jesus stepped in and took our punishment for us so we wouldn't have to take it.

For us to have what Jesus did on the cross be substituted for our own guilty record and not go to hell we do 2 things: Ask for forgiveness and believe.

• Ask for forgiveness (repent) - You realize you've sinned and broken God's laws, you feel sorrowful, and you confess it to God.
• Believe - You put your trust in Jesus that his dying on the cross was payment for your sin.  His resurrection was proof that He was the Son of God and His death was sufficient to cover your sin.

That is the truly good news of the Christian gospel message.  If people don't understand how they've sinned against God they can't understand or respond to the gospel message.  Understanding why we need the gospel message is as important as understanding the message itself.

Hopefully this will help you communicate the gospel message to others.  Much of this post was based on the book, "Unsilenced: How to Voice the Gospel" by James Boccardo.  It's a quick easy read and is an excellent book on the subject.

If you're reading this and haven't accepted the sacrifice Jesus made would be interested to hear why or what your objections are.

Resources
Unsilenced: How to Voice the Gospel, by James Boccardo
On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Percision, by William Craig Lane
The Unshakeable Truth, by Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell

Forgiveness

The act of forgiving or being forgiven is central to the Christian message.  Jesus and Peter had the following exchange on forgiveness:

Then Peter came to him and asked, “Lord, how often should I forgive someone who sins against me? Seven times?”
 “No, not seven times,” Jesus replied, “but seventy times seven!"

Matthew 18:21-22 (NLT)

It was Jewish law and custom to forgive a person 3 times for an offense and after that you were allowed to write them off.  So when Peter asks if he should forgive someone 7 times he was going beyond the Jewish custom.  Jesus answer is that he should forgive them an unlimited number of times.  There is no scoreboard when it comes to forgiveness.

So from the Christian worldview what is forgiveness?  You've probably heard the saying 'forgive and forget' but is the realistic?  If someone deeply hurts you, especially someone close to you, it comes across as extremely insensitive and unreasonable for someone to say 'You need to forgive and forget'.  Forgiveness doesn't mean you automatically start to trust someone again right away either.

Forgiveness is an act of releasing anger and resentment towards someone else.  It gives us the opportunity to move forward and heal.  It allows you to let go and display the same grace you've been given through Jesus.

Links
7 Things Forgiveness IS
7 Things Forgiveness is NOT
8 Reminders for Granting True Forgiveness

The End of the World That Wasn't Reaction

Lots of mileage was given to Harold Camping and his false teaching about the end of the world this past weekend.  His teaching is not Biblical and here are various articles and comments from the Christian community.

The Real Reason Harold Camping Predicted ‘The Rapture’

Harold Camping: Unrepentant False Prophet Refuses to Stop Dragging Christ's Name Through the Mud

When False Prophets Hurt Families

Why We Weren't Worried About May 21

Narrow mindedness

Good article at Stand To Reason on narrow mindedness

Is the Evidence Really All That Convincing?

One of the questions that comes up when discussing the evidence for Christianty is:

If the evidence is so convincing for Christianity why isn't everyone a Christian?

I listened to a podcast the other day at PleaseConvinceMe.com that addressed this question pretty well.  It can also be accessed on iTunes by searching "PleaseConvinceMe Podcast".  It's worth a listen if you've ever had this question.  The discussion starts at about 10:25 and ends at about 30:00.  I'll try to summarize the podcast below.

If there is a God out there why wouldn't he just make everyone a believer?  Just force himself on us so that everyone believes?

In order for people to love God they have to have the freedom to choose to deny God.  You can't love without the ability to choose not to love.  Love is only meaningful if there is choice.  So to force people to love you really isn't love at all.

There is sufficent evidence to believe that God exists and people still deny the evidence.  There are 3 reasons why someone would deny a truth claim.

1. Rational disbelief - This is presented as an intellectual reason for not believing.  They don't believe the evidence is sufficient.
2. Emotinal disbelief - This can be tied to politics, to past painful experiences, or rejection of some person associated with Christianity.
3. Volitional disbelief - This might be largest group of unbelievers.  This is the unwillingness to change life style.  The more likely a change in worldview is to make people change their lives the more likely they won't do it.

People often reject things that are true not because of reason or logic but because of #2 and #3.  With #1 for some people (not all) it won't matter how much evidence is presented because their objection really is because of #2 or #3.  Also not all unbelief for those that fall into #1 is rational.  For instance if the evidence someone needs is to physically see God and see him perform a miracle and after seeing this they need to have a pyscological exam to prove they are of sound mind then that's evidence that I can never provide.

I found the podcast pretty good and maybe you will too.

The God Debate II

Here is a link to the debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig.  Harris is an atheist and best selling author and Craig is a Christian apologist and best selling author.  The debate was held at Notre Dame University.  

Why Would I Do This?

Why would I write a blog on the Christian worldview?  Because I've become a weird religious convert and I want everyone else to do the same?  Maybe because I think I'm right and hold all the answers?  Maybe I've just plain gone off the deep end.  Well, some or all of those may be true but it's not why I do it.

The consequences are very real on how you view God, Jesus, and eternity.  If the claims of Jesus are true then you really have to make a decision on whether to follow him or not.  I think far too many people don't think critically about things they hear or read.  This is especially true of religion and spirituality.  You should believe something because it's true not because it makes you feel good.  Believing something doesn't make it true either. I can sincerely believe that something is true but be sincerely wrong.  Something is true because the evidence and reason for the belief stands up to scrutiny and can be proven to be true.

Many people believe it's intolerant to claim there is only one way to heaven.  But the irony of that is that people who believe that one way is intolerant or arrogant think the exact thing: That their belief of many ways to heaven is the only correct view.  No major religion even teaches that all other religions are true. They all claim their way is THE way.  By saying that Jesus is just one of many ways to heaven you are really saying Jesus was a liar because Jesus never said that.  Jesus told Thomas:

I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me.
John 14:6

Jesus was pretty clear about who he thought he was.  He wasn't a way to the Father he was the only way.

So why would I write about Christianity?  I believe it's true and stands up to scrutiny.  My hope is that other Christians would examine the evidence and have confidence that their beliefs stand up to challenges. To have confidence that what we believe is actually true not just something that makes us feel good.  To have absolute confidence that being a Jesus follower is reasonable and defendable.  When the evidence is examined objectively Christianity stands up to scrutiny better than other belief systems such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, and Atheism just to name a few.

 My hope is also for those out there that  haven't accepted Jesus yet they would take an objective look at the evidence and make a decision about the claims of Jesus.  Your place in eternity could be at stake so why not at least take a look and see for yourself if Jesus really was the Son of God.  Read some of the resources I've given in previous posts.  Read the Gospel of John in the New Testament.  Then make a decision.

If you have questions or a differing opinion I'm always glad to discuss.

Resources
Articles
Is Jesus the only way to Heaven?, gotquestions.org
Why is Jesus the only way to heaven/God?, carm.org
Jesus The Only Way To Heaven, by John MacArthur

Other Religions
Other religious possibilities and extensive articles on Mormonism, pleaseconvinceme.com

Videos

Eric Frame

I have no video.  All I have is my story.

At 18 years old while I was still in high school I got my girlfriend pregnant and ended up getting married just 3 months shy of graduating.  My family didn't go to church but she was Catholic.  We went to her church to ask the priest to marry us.  He said he wouldn't do it because we were just going to get divorced anyway.  I was furious.  God was supposed to be love and forgiveness and I felt like this priest was withholding that from us.

A few years later I heard that priest got cancer and died and I remember taking a measure of satisfaction in that.  He would get to meet God and have to face him for what he did to me and no doubt others.  As the years went by we'd go to Catholic mass occasionally on holidays but never on a regular basis.  I didn't understand why sprinkling water on my head would send me to heaven.  I didn't understand how confessing my sins to another imperfect priest would matter about how God felt about me.  I didn't understand how I could not know for sure before I died if I was going to heaven or not.  I distrusted priests and pastors as people who were pious, self righteous, and judging me. 

Then at 28 I got divorced.  We'd had 2 kids and things were pretty good for me or so I thought.  My wife was having an affair and then I discovered she'd had multiple affairs over the previous 10 years.  I was no saint either.  I was a binge drinker since age 14.  I had physically been rough with her a couple times during heated arguments.  Even so, I was absolutely devastated.  I was afraid for my relationship with my kids.  I felt like a complete failure.

At that point I felt like I wanted to find a church and raise my kids up with better values when really it was me who needed better values.  I would go into church with my kids and I would cry.  I felt alone and lost.  Here I am a big 6' 2" 230lbs grown man and I'm crying.  I felt the weight of the things on my shoulders like I'd never felt  before.

I then met my second wife and she attended church on a regular basis but I think even she would admit at that time she was an immature Christian.  We moved into together because I felt like I didn't want to get married again until I was completely sure I wouldn't go through another divorce.  We decided to get married and we were starting to attend a church regularly.  Sunday's were tough for me.  I really liked going but when the pastor would ask people if they wanted to give their life to Jesus it would just overwhelm me.  I fought it hard because I didn't want to give up my lifestyle.  I didn't want to stop living together, I didn't want to stop binge drinking, I didn't want to forgive other people who had wronged me, I didn't want to lose my friends.  I didn't want to be weak and weird.

On Father's Day at the age of 30 I could no longer ignore God.  When the pastor gave the invitation to accept Jesus, with everyone's head bowed, I raised my hand.  It was like the weight of all my problems had been lifted and when we got into the car I sobbed.  God had met me right there in the middle of my sin and accepted me.  He didn't wait for me to clean myself up or become 'good'.  He did it because he loved me for me.  He wiped my slate clean because his son, Jesus, had already paid the penalty for me breaking his laws.  All I had to do was accept the sacrifice made for me on the cross.  My bitterness was gone, my heart had changed.  No sprinkling of water on my head, no asking a priest to hear my confession.  Just going straight to Jesus.

Fast forward a couple years down the road.  I started my own business and had success professionally.  I had clients and contracts across the country and I'd realized my childhood dream of owning my own business and making good money.  But I'd put God on the backburner because look at how good I was.  My wife was pregnant and I was expecting my first child with her and my third child between two marriages.  I was at a client in Connecticut which was just 35 miles from downtown Manhatten on September 11th.  Everyone was sent home after the Twin Towers were hit.  I sat there in my hotel room looking out at the smoke of the Twin Towers and I felt empty.  I had achieved the success I wanted but it hadn't fulfilled me. I'd put myself first above God and above my marriage.  I realized that what I really needed was to get my priorities straight and put God first and all other things would come after that.  I had created a lot of pain with my selfishness and it took a couple of years to set things right with my wife and my family.  But I turned it all over to Jesus and he did his work in me.  My marriage was made whole and I was made whole.  I could not have done that without Jesus, he was there for me and he helped me through one of the most painful times in my life.  He never turned his back on me like I turned my back on him.  Even now when I mess up and put myself first he's right there to pick me back and love me.

It's not about being good enough to please God.  God judges based on whether we're guilty or innocent. The good we've done doesn't out weigh the bad. But yet that's exactly how many of us think.  That would be like someone committing cold blooded murder but saving three drowning people and getting off because they saved more lives than they took.  When we think of ourselves breaking God's laws that's how we think, our good will out weigh our bad but that's not how justice works.  We have all broken God's laws and we all deserve to pay the price for breaking those laws.  God's price for us rebelling against him is hell.

But the good news is he's done a wonderful thing for us.  He's given us a gift and all we have to do is accept that gift.  And the gift is Jesus.  Jesus is the only one that can pay our price for us because he lived a sinless life.  He lived a sinless life but took our punishment anyway by being beaten, spit on, kicked, mocked, flogged, and nailed to a tree to die a slow painful death.  He was raised from the dead 3 days later proving he was the Son of God. I'm not guilty anymore because I asked for forgiveness and accepted that gift, not because I've earned it, because I haven't.  Jesus has transformed my marriage, my parenting, my relationships, and my entire life.  I have peace and contentment in my life like I've never known before.  I can give all the evidence in the world but the best evidence I have is my transformed life.

People who know me know I've got my faults.  I'm not the model Christian by any means.  I pray about those things and ask God to help me every single day.  No one has to be perfect before or after they accept Jesus.  I'm working on those things though, not because I'm working my way to heaven (my place is already secure), but because I want to please God and be obedient to Him.  God is doing a work in me right now and I pray he does a work in you too.  I no longer want to live for myself and the things of this world.

My name is Eric Frame and I am second.

Anne Rice

Anne Rice is the author of "Interview With the Vampire".  She grew up Catholic and left the faith at the age of 18.

I thought to grow up one has to put aside God.

38 years later she accepted Jesus into her life.

To go back to God I don't have to pass an examination

From 9:00 mark to the end she gives a great summary of what it means to except Jesus.

Brian Welch

Brian Welch was a guitarist and founding member for the heavy metal band Korn.  He was the prototypical rock star: Drugs, sex, and rock and roll.  He had money, fame, women, and all things you'd expect.  He used meth and was a junkie.  His daughters mom had died from abusing meth and he was on his way to doing the same.  He quit using drugs and left Korn to follow Jesus.  The verse he mentions in the video is below.

Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.
Matthew 11:28

Chris Plekenpol

Chris was a solider in Iraq.

Sam Bradford and Colt McCoy

Sam Bradford won the Heisman Trophy at Oklahoma and was the #1 pick of the 2010 NFL draft.  Colt McCoy was the quarterback at Texas and won more games than other QB in NCAA Division I history.  They are second.

Laura Klock

Laura is a bike builder, racer, and world record holder.  If you walked by her on the street I doubt you'd guess that's what she does.  She was a heavy drinker before she gave her life to Jesus. 

I don't have to have all the strength, I can lean on God when I'm facing something that I just can't do.  I don't have to do it on my own.  I'm never alone.  I don't have to feel alone anymore.  He's always there.

Trevor Brazile

My Montana friends and family will know who Trevor Brazile is. He's an 8 time all around world champion cowboy.  I've seen him ride in person several times.  He is one of the all time great cowboys and he's not done yet.  He's a multiple world champion at the top of his profession and he's second.

Tamara Jolee

Tamara is a reporter.  She is dying of cancer.  She is at peace with her condition and she is second.

Bethany Hamilton

Bethany is the subject of the movie Soul Surfer.  She was attacked by a shark and lost her arm while surfing.  She later went on to win a surfing championship.  Bethany is second, are you?

Vitor Belfort

I'm a fan of MMA and watch the sport quite a bit.  Yes, it's violent, bloody, and people get injured.  So is football, boxing, rugby, hockey, and many other sports we watch.  I honestly don't know how God views this.

Vitor Belfort is an MMA fighter in the UFC who is a former light heavy weight champion and was the sports brightest star at19 years old.  He recently fought Anderson Silva for the UFC championship at 185 lbs and lost (who hasn't lost to Silva).  His personal story is heart wrenching with regards to what happened to his sister in Brazil.

No regrets.  You will love the ride.  It's amazing.

Giving evidence and debating about God is good but hearing someone's personal story of how Jesus met them in the middle of their darkest hour is very powerful. With this being Easter I thought I would post a few of these videos with people's personal stories of the life changing power of Jesus.

Easter and the Resurrection

The central tenant of Christianity is the resurrection.  If the resurrection didn't happen then Christianity is false and Christians believe a lie.  Because if Jesus didn't rise from the dead He was not the Son of God.  Given that all of the Christian faith hangs on Jesus rising from the dead is there any evidence to support it?  As it turns out there is and many people, including me, find it quite convincing.

There are many, many resources on the historical accuracy of the resurrection of Jesus.  Here is a summary entitled "Evidence for the Resurrection Of Christ in a Nutshell".

If Jesus died on the cross as payment for your sins and mine and He was resurrected 3 days later isn't it worth checking his claims out and what he says about how you get to heaven?  Let's all contemplate that as we celebrate Easter this year.

Former Bronco, Jason Elam, to Speak at Man 2 Man Event

Retired Broncos kicker and Superbowl champion, Jason Elam, is the speaker at the Man 2 Man event at Foothills Bible Church on Saturday April 9, from 8:00 - 10:00am.  Tickets are $10 and as implied by the event name it's an event for men.

Being the Broncos fan that I am I plan on going and if anyone else wants to ride along they are welcome to join me.

Would a Loving God Send Good People to Hell?

Is being good, good enough to get into heaven?  Can you be good enough to get into heaven on your own? What is God's standard?  Do babies go to heaven?

Here's a short video from PleaseConvinceMe.com with answers to these questions.

Video On Manuscript Evidence

Here's a video explaining how ancient manuscripts are used to put together the original documents as posted on Lee Strobel's website in an interview with Hank Hanegraaff. (Requires Windows Media plug-in)  This ties into my previous post on the subject.

Resource For Examining the Authenticity of the Bible

There are lots of great resources out there to examine the authenticity of the Bible.  PleaseConvinceMe.com is one of my favorite resources for various topics on the Christian worldview.  Jim Wallace is the man behind the website and he's a former atheist and cold case homicide detective.  He brings an evidential approach to looking at Christianity.  Here's a link to a part of their website which looks at different objections to the Bible.

Why Should I Believe the Bible Is True? (part 2)

Is the Bible true?  A blog post can't possibly cover all the evidence on this topic but hopefully I can give you some information that if you want more detail you can explore it further.  Some questions have to be answered if to determine if the Bible is true:

1. Is the testimony early?
   Most of the books were written by 70 AD with some written in the 40's and 50's.  This is only a few years after the death of Jesus.
   
2. Is the testimony from eye witnesses?
   A plain reading of the NT texts clearly shows this was written by eye witnesses.
   
3. Are the eye witnesses trustworthy?
    So many details are given that check out from other sources such leaders and locations known from other sources outside the Bible.
   
4. Does archeology corroborate eye witnesses?
   Archeology supports many of the locations mentioned in the NT such as the well of Jacob, the pools of Bethesda, and many other locations.
   
5. Is there enemy attestation?
   Non-Christian sources and even sources hostile to Christianity such as Josephus and the Jewish Talmud corroborate many details in the NT.
   
6. Are there embarrassing details included about the authors?
   Writers don't tend to include embarrassing details about themselves, they would normally try to make themselves look better than they are.  The authors come across as not very bright, cowardly, doubting, uncaring, and they are even rebuked by Jesus.

This is a very brief overview of some of the arguments for the Bible being true.  For much more in depth treatment of the topic there are lots of resources.  Here are just a few:

Book - The Case For Christ, by Lee Strobel

Book - The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell

Article - Rediscovering the Historical Jesus: The Evidence for Jesus, by William Craig Lane