Answering the 10 Questions Every Christian Must Answer: Conclusion

It's time to wrap up this series. This will be my last post on this video.

After having asked all 10 questions, the video spends a few more minutes exploring how these questions might be answered if God were truly imaginary. It is at this point the video really looses any credibility it might have had remaining. It begins it's closing monologue with perhaps the most egregious example of a No True Scotsman argument that I believe I have ever seen. Here is the text from the video (italicized and blue):

“We have looked at 10 fascinating questions.” How self congratulatory.

“In order to believe in God, you have had to create all sorts of strange rationalizations and excuses. If you are an intelligent, college-educated person, all of these excuses and rationalizations probably make you feel uncomfortable. If you think about it honestly, using the critical thinking skills that you learned in college, you have to admit that your answers to these questions make no sense at all.” Note the not-so-subtle implication that “If you are an intelligent [person],” you will see that believing in God makes no sense at all. Like I said; it's a textbook No True Scotsman.

“Now let me show you something remarkable. What if you instead assume that God is imaginary? A funny thing happens... The answers to every one of these questions make complete sense. Just look at all ten questions as an intelligent person...” My goodness! How more blatant can it be? The video is literally saying, “Stop thinking like a Christian and look at the questions like an intelligent person.” Give me a break! I might have mistook this for parody but I'm sure it's meant to be serious.

After spending so much time positioning the No True Scotsman argument, the video digresses into a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is where someone presents two alternatives as though they are the only options when in reality other options exist. In this case, the false dichotomy is between an irrational belief that God is real and the rational belief that God is imaginary. Another option exists – namely a rational belief that God is real. In fact, for many of the questions, the idea that God is imaginary is possibly the weaker and more irrational option. Let's look at a few:

#1) God doesn't heal amputees because He is imaginary. Is that really the better alternative? Here an analogy: Doctors supposedly heal sick people yet there are still sick people. What if I said, “there are sick people in the world because doctors are imaginary?” Does that make any sense? There are a lot of reasons why there are still sick people. Some may have not gone to the doctor. Some might have been to the doctor and are just not better yet. Some might have a disorder that doctors can't heal. There are a lot of reasons why there are still sick people. If doctors were imaginary it would explain why there are sick people but it is the least attractive explanation. Likewise, saying that God is imaginary might explain why He doesn't heal amputees but that doesn't it make it the best alternative.

#2) There are starving kids in the world because God is imaginary. Like I said in my response to this question, this would be like me saying, “There are starving kids in the US because the President is imaginary.”

To question #3), “Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people?" the video's (supposedly) intelligent response is, “Because God is imaginary, and the Bible was written by ridiculous, ruthless men rather than any sort of a loving being.” When it comes to questions of right and wrong, I don't think the makers of this video realize the extreme consequence of believing God is imaginary. If there is no God, then who decides what is right or wrong? Does society decide? If so, then on what grounds do they call these ancient men “ridiculous [and] ruthless”? What makes us right and them wrong? If there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, then all morality is subjective. Neither would there be anything wrong with owning slaves (question #5) except that we don't do it now. We can't say we are right and they were wrong because, without God, there are no moral absolutes.

Another puzzle is this: if men wrote the Bible, why would they create a moral code that no one is able to keep? I mean, if I were to set myself up as the head of a new religious movement, I wouldn't invent a set of religious instruction that even I couldn't keep. In my opinion, that doesn't make any sense.

#4) The Bible contains so much anti-scientific nonsense because God is imaginary. I believe it makes far more sense to believe that the universe had a Creator rather than to claim there is no Creator. In order to believe God is imaginary, a person must believe that matter has either existed eternally (a divine-like attribute) or that it was created. If it was created, then did it create itself? If not itself, then what created it? Where did that creator come from? Still another creator? You can see the dilemma here. Ultimately, there must have been a first creator. But in any event, matter can be neither eternally old (a violation of the second law of thermodynamics) nor can it be naturally created (a violation of the first law of thermodynamics). To believe there was a Creator makes far more sense, scientifically, than to believe there is no creator.

I could go on but you get the idea. Claiming that God is imaginary isn't the missing piece of some cosmic puzzle that suddenly explains everything.

After going through the 10 questions from the “God is imaginary perspective”, the video once again makes a No True Scotsman claim:

“Our world only makes sense when we imagine that God is imaginary. This is how intelligent, rational people know that God is imaginary. When you use your brain, and when you think logically about your religious faith, you can reach only one possible conclusion... The “god” that you heard about since you were an infant is completely imaginary.”

Excuse me while I have a chuckle. It's like watching a 10-year-old explain the meaning of life. It's nothing but child-like arguments about serious issues. Yet the logical fallacies and sophomoric arguments were merely a crescendo leading to this amazing climax:

“Now let me ask you one last question... Why should you care? What difference does it make if people want to believe in a “god”, even if he is imaginary? It matters because people who believe in imaginary beings are delusional. It matters because people who talk to imaginary beings are delusional. It matters because people who believe in imaginary superstitions like prayer are delusional. It's that simple, and that obvious. Your religious beliefs hurt you personally and hurt us as a species because they are delusional. The belief in any “god” is complete nonsense.”

There you have it folks. Christians are delusional! This is another appeal to emotion only now it's appealing to our fears. To say that someone is delusional suggests they are dangerous. Why, we could snap at any moment!! And the video makes the outrageous claim that our religious beliefs actually “hurt us as a species”! What can I say? Newton, Pasteur, Mendel, da Vinci, Kepler, and scores of others were overtly Christian; Exactly how did they hurt us as a species? How about Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Lincoln? It seems to me they've made a few contributions to humanity. Of course, there are all those Christian organizations like the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the Young Men Christian Association, and others; have they also hurt us as a species? But if we're going to play this game, what can be said about the tyrannical regimes of 20^th century atheists: Marx, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Zedong? I would say that believing there is no God has done far more harm than good.

I know I've used a few pejoratives while discussing this video. I've called it a rant, sophomoric, and worse. But hopefully I've been able to show why all of these descriptions are accurate. After having thought about the questions and more carefully considering the comments made in the video, I might have to lower my grade for the video from a C- to a full blown D.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Answering the 10 Questions Every Christian Must Answer: Part 7

#9) Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

Here we have a blatant appeal to emotion or what might be called an argument of outrage. Note carefully the language the video uses: “It sounds totally grotesque, doesn't it? Why would an all-powerful God want you to do something that, in any other context, sounds like a disgusting, cannibalistic, satanic ritual?” There is absolutely no substance in the question. It's merely an attempt to cast the Lord's Supper in a bad light through the use of loaded words.

Of all the questions asked in the video, this is perhaps the weakest. Actually, I might have said that already about the some other question because several are very weak but this one really is THE weakest. The makers of the video are either completely ignorant of the use of metaphor or they are intentionally invoking the argument of outrage in hopes that the viewer is ignorant of the symbolic nature of the Lord's Supper.

Isn't metaphor taught in middle-school English? When you compare two, unlike objects with the word, “is”, then you have a metaphor: “This car is my baby”; “My kids are my life”; “Love is a rose.” These are all metaphors. The Bible certainly uses metaphor: “I am the vine” (John 15:1); “I am the shepherd (John 10:11); “I am the door” (John 10:7). Likewise, Jesus said (paraphrasing) “This wine is my blood. This bread is my body” (Luke 22:19-20).

In the Bible, having a meal be representative of a historic event is not unique to the Lord's Supper. The Jews at the Passover eat the bitter herbs and the unleavened bread in remembrance of God delivering them from Egypt. Of course, it's hard to make that sound grotesque through loaded words. The Lord's Supper is very much the same thing: when we eat the bread and drink the wine, we do so to remember our Savior's death and look forward to His return (1 Corinthians 11:24-26). The bread and wine are merely symbols.

Metaphor is a common, literary device. It isn't hard to spot. Like I said, most middle-school kids can identify it. Why is it that seemingly bright and otherwise intelligent people suddenly can't read when it comes to the Bible?

#10) Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?

The video isn't quite accurate on this fact. The truth is that Christians get divorced at nearly the same rate as the general population. Of course, the general population is overwhelming made up of self-identified Christians (75-80%) so it's no wonder the rates are about the same. In reality, though, many people who identify themselves as Christians are only nominal Christians. Anecdotally speaking, I've been to many weddings where the ceremony itself was the only time I'd ever seen either of the partners in church. Perhaps you've seen that as well. If you break the statistics down by faith groups, the divorce rate among evangelical Christians is noticeably lower than atheists or agnostics. Remember too that the rate of marriage among Christians is far higher than among atheists – the latter being more likely to cohabitate. When unmarried couples break-up, it doesn't count as a divorce thus skewing the statistics against Christians.

Having said all that, I concede that the divorce rate among Christians is too high. It's alarming and sad that God's people do not take marriage more seriously – especially given that marriage is an earthly reflection of Christ's relationship with His church (Ephesians 5:22-28). However, a high divorce rate among Christians is not evidence that God is imaginary. Instead, it attests to the fact that we are sinners. Jesus Himself said that God did not intend there to be divorce but only allowed it because of the hardness of our hearts (Matthew 19:8). To imagine that there should be no divorce among Christians because God has joined them together would be like saying that there should be no murders because God has forbid murder. God does not want us to sin but He doesn't stop us.

I am curious what these same skeptics would say if God did indeed keep married couples together against their wills. No doubt they would consider God cruel for forcing couples to stay together in an unhappy marriage. This may not be the weakest question, but it's another obvious fail.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 8

Answering the 10 Questions Every Christian Must Answer: Part 6

The next two questions aren't directly related to each other as some of the previous questions but both require relatively short answers so I am including them both in a single post.

#7) Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence?

I'm not sure of what to think of this question. The video doesn't explain what type of evidence it would expect nor did it even explain the point of asking this question. It merely asks the ambiguous question and follows it with a few loaded words: “It's very strange isn't it? You've created an excuse to rationalize it.” I've never attempted to “rationalize” it because I've never given it a second thought.

A few of the more notable miracles in the Bible are Jesus turning water into wine, the multiplication of the loaves and fish, His walking on water, calming the storm, various acts of healing, raising Lazarus and a few others from the dead, and finally His own resurrection. Of these many miracles what kind of evidence would anyone expect to find? The fish, the loaves, the wine, even the people are all gone now.

Is this truly a serious question? I could ask why George Washington's crossing of the Delaware left no evidence. What evidence would there be of such an event? All the participants are now gone. All we have left is the written record that it happened. Similarly, we have the written record of Jesus' miracles contained in the gospels. John and Matthew were first hand witnesses to many of the events they recorded. Why don't these critics consider the Bible to be evidence of the miracles? Why do they hold the record of events in Jesus' life up to a different standard than the events of Washington's life? I think we all know why.

Indirectly, we do have the testimony of an empty tomb. After His resurrection, the popularity of Christianity exploded. In a few short decades, Christians even caught the notice of the emperor, Nero. The Roman or Jewish authorities could have quickly quashed any false rumors of His resurrection by merely producing His body. Why didn't they? It's because the physical evidence was consistent with the Resurrection: the tomb was empty.

This question is a total fail. For many historical events, the only evidence we have is what has been written down. The miracles of Jesus are just as historical and we have the written evidence that they occurred.

#8) How do you explain the fact that Jesus hasn't appeared to you personally?

While promoting his movie, Religious, irreverent comedian Bill Mahr asked a similar question: “Why doesn't God just show Himself and tell us which is the true religion?” Questions like this have a sort of doubting-Thomas feel to them. Thomas, you will recall, refused to believe in the resurrection of Jesus until he saw the risen Savior for himself. He was fortunate because Jesus did appear to Thomas prompting him to exclaim, “My Lord and my God.” It seems natural to think that if God appeared to anyone then that person would believe. Thomas saw and believed but Jesus said that those who believe without seeing would be even more blessed. I certainly look forward to seeing Jesus but so much evidence exists for His life and resurrection that I don't need to wait until I see Him to believe.

First off, I'm puzzled by the premise of this question. What obligation is there for God (in the Person of the Son) to appear to us? God has already given us His revelation in the form of the Bible. There is nothing else we need in order to know how to be saved. If someone wishes to ignore the written word of God and insist that God appear to him personally, then that is his loss (and a very great loss it is).

However, even though God has no obligation to appear to us, He already has! John 1:14 says, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” While on earth, Jesus gave us many signs and miracles as evidence of who He was, He told us He was the only way to the Father, He promised eternal life to everyone who believed in Him, and we have the written record of His words and miracles. What more exactly do these people want? Do they expect Jesus to appear every couple of years just to remind everyone that He is real and meant what He said?

Even if Jesus appeared on earth right now, I don't believe that would be enough to convince the skeptic anyway. At His first appearance, many of the people who heard His words and saw His miracles still not believe (John 12:37). I suspect the same would be true today. Additionally, we know that His one death on the cross was sufficient to atone for every sin (Romans 6:10, Romans 7:27). Therefore, there will be no more incarnations of the same kind as the last one. Someday, though, there will be a glorious appearance of Jesus. At that time, every knee will bow to Him and every tongue shall confess to God (Romans 14:11). Unfortunately, it will be too late then for the non-believers. How sad.

So how do I explain the fact that Jesus hasn't appeared to me personally? I wasn't alive during His ministry on earth. It's just that simple. You might as well ask why neither Augusta Caesar nor George Washington has appeared to me. What would be the point? Are Caesar and Washington imaginary? I only know these people existed because of the written evidence we have of them. Again, how can this video justify holding Jesus to a different standard than any other person of antiquity? Am I to believe that these critics do not believe in any person they have not seen personally? Yet incredibly, they claim it makes more sense to believe that Jesus doesn't appear to us because He is imaginary! No wonder they are having trouble with the other questions.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 7

Part 8

Answering the 10 Questions Every Christian Must Answer: Part 5

#4) Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?

In this question, I see the video committing at least three logical fallacies. First, it makes a series of bald assertions. A bald assertion isn't an argument; it's merely a statement presented as fact without any attempt made to support it. A bald assertion isn't automatically wrong but it doesn't go very far to persuade. They also can be rebutted with another assertion:

“God did not make the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago like the Bible says.” Yes He did.

“There was never a worldwide flood that covered Mt. Everest like the Bible says.” Yes there was although Mt. Everest was not at its present height at the time.

“Jonah did not live inside a fish's stomach for three days like the Bible says.” Yes he did.

“God did not create Adam from a handful of dust like the Bible says.” Yes He did.

That was easy. You see, since bald assertions have nothing backing them up, there's nothing to debate. To say Jonah did not live inside a fish is not a scientific statement. What kind of animal was it? How large was it? What experiments have been done to demonstrate how a person might live inside such a creature? The video doesn't address any of these questions – it merely says it didn't happen which leads us to our second logical fallacy: the argument of incredulity.

The argument of incredulity basically asserts that something isn't true on no other grounds but that the person doesn't believe it's true. If I read that 1,000,000 earths could fit inside the sun, I might say, “That's impossible. Nothing is that big.” Now, I've not said anything that disproves what I've read; I've merely said I don't believe because it seems impossible. The video does exactly the same thing. As we've seen, the video provides no details about how the account of Jonah could not be true. It merely asserts it's not true for no other apparent reason than it doesn't believe it.

Finally, the video commits the fallacy of argumentum verbosium (proof by verbosity). Did you notice how the video introduced this question by saying, “You know how science works. You happily use the products of science every day: Your car. Your cell phone. Your microwave oven. Your TV. Your computer. There are all products of the scientific process. You know that science is incredibly important to our economy and to our lives.” Wow! That's a lot of words to say how important science is. So what's the conclusion? “God did not make the world in 6 days...” ??? The details given do nothing to support the points. They are merely words to bulk up the argument. Cell phones, microwaves, and computers do not disprove the Bible. Neither is there anything in the Bible that contradicts the scientific process. Indeed, many scientists are Christians and many scientific disciplines were pioneered by Christians. By the way, did you know that Dr. Raymond Vahan Damadian is the inventor of the MRI and also a young earth creationist?!

Interestingly, much of science contains anti-scientific nonsense. Try reading a science book from 200, 100, or even 50 years or so ago and see what once passed for science. Things many scientists were once certain of are constantly being discarded in light of new findings. Scientists say that is a good thing. Perhaps it is but how can anyone claim the standard of science disproves the Bible when we really can have no confidence in the standard?

If the video had contained anything specific, I would be happy to address it. I've discussed the evolution v. creation issue at length on my blog. I've also addressed such arguments as “The Bible says bats are birds.” To ask, “Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?” is an empty question. Since there are no other specifics, all I can say in answer is – IT DOESN'T!

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Answering the 10 Questions Every Christian Must Answer: Part 4

#3) Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?

#5) Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?

Here again we have two questions that seem to make duplicate points. Therefore, as in my last post, I will respond to both in a single post. In a nutshell, the video is attempting to make the point that many Old Testament laws do not reflect how we think a just and loving God should act. The video cites Exodus 35:2, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Leviticus 20:13, and Deuteronomy 22:13-21 as examples of God condemning people to death for “trivial” crimes. Concerning slavery, the video cites Exodus 21:20-21, Colossians 3:22-24, Ephesians 6:5, and 1 Peter 2:18 (interestingly, the latter 3 are from the New Testament).

I'd like to clarify one very fundamental point that the video seems to not be aware of: there is exactly one penalty for sin – death (Romans 6:23). No matter what the crime, ultimately, the punishment is the same. The video seems to want to make hay that the OT condemns to death people who work on the sabbath. However, people who lie are also condemned to death as are people who lust, covet, gossip, and hate. The Bible makes it clear that all men are appointed to die and then they are judged (Hebrews 9:27). Some people die very old and some die very young. Some die peacefully and some die violently. When and how they die might vary but just as all have sinned, so all die (Romans 5:12). The mortality rate among humans is 100%. When you think about it, it's sort of silly to say that there's anyone who doesn't deserve to die. If everyone dies, then how can we say that a rebellious son or an adulterer isn't worthy of death?

I really shouldn't need to give much ink to proving that everyone dies. It's rather obvious. With that understood, one might ask why some OT laws called for immediate death in certain circumstances. A thorough treatment of this is beyond the scope of this post but let me give a thumbnail version. The various laws can be divided into a few categories: there are laws concerning worship, morality, civility, and health. The law governs our relationship with God and our relationship with others. In many cases, our relationship with God is reflected in our relationship with others. Marriage, for example, is a picture of Christ's relationship with His church (believers are collectively known as the “bride” of Christ). Sexual sins, therefore, are especially egregious on the same level as idolatry. Our relationship with our parents is a model of our relationship with God. A rebellious child, then, is akin to apostasy.

Furthermore, the Law was given specifically to govern God's people. They were a unique nation in history in that they had no earthly ruler. God was their King and He appointed judges who would interpret the Law whenever a situation arose. Sexual immorality, rebellion, idolatry, and other sins which the video might label as “trivial” were a poison to society. In that place at that time, God did not allow certain sins to continue for His people. We live in a different time now. God's people foolishly demanded a king who could rule over them like other nations and God gave them Saul. Ultimately, God still holds us accountable for our sins but He allows our earthly punishment to be doled out by our earthly rulers.

Which brings us to another point. Many of the laws were not given to reflect God's perfect will but rather to tolerate our own sinful nature. Jesus made this very point to the Pharisees when they asked about divorce (Matthew 19:7-9), “They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Divorce, then, wasn't intended as God's perfect will but rather God made provisions that accommodated divorce in a fallen world. Such were the laws concerning slavery. This was not the kind of slavery that existed once in the US, by the way, but God gave laws that covered indentured servants or prisoners of war. This was not because God intended slavery but rather made provisions for it in a fallen world.

No sin is “trivial.” The video might dismiss blasphemy, sexual immorality, and rebellion as harmless but any transgression of the law earns God's judgment and the wages of our sin is death. Nobody is stoned anymore but we all have the same destiny - a grave. We all also have the same opportunity - salvation through His Son. When we stand before God in judgment (and we all will), I'm going to receive mercy because I have believed in His Son. Others are welcome to tell God He's being unfair.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Answering the 10 Questions Every Christian Must Answer: Part 3

#2) Why are there so many starving people in the world?

#6) Why do bad things happen to good people?

These questions seem to be making duplicate points so my answer to both would be essentially the same. Therefore, I'm including both questions in a single post. If the video sees a difference between the two, the narrator has failed to explain how they are significantly different. Incidentally, we could possibly include question #1 in here as well. Why there is suffering is directly related to why there are also amputees.

By asking these questions, the video is demonstrating either a gross ignorance of Christianity or is intentionally ignoring the obvious answer that has been given so often already. Given that the video uses so many fallacious arguments (as detailed in my first post in this series), I suspect the ignorance is intentional. A baseless or oft refuted claim is called a canard – especially one used deliberately.

Perhaps I'm being a bit too rough. Even some Christians have wondered about the so called, “problem of evil.” The supposed dilemma is this: if God is good and if God created everything, then why does evil exist? The study of this “problem” is called “theodicy.” It has been my experience that most Christians who stumble over this are typically those who compromise on the creation account given in Genesis. If one believes that God used the cruel process of evolution to create, then that would mean that death, disease, and suffering are intentional and they are part of God's creative process. However, if one reads Genesis 1-3 with the understanding that the events are factual, questions like this practically answer themselves.

For anyone not inclined or not able to read the Bible, I'll briefly recap the creation account: God created the entire universe in six days. On the 6^th day, God created Adam and Eve. God looked at everything He had made and saw that is was all “very good” (Genesis 1:31). The world was a paradise and Adam and Eve could have lived forever, free of worry, if they had only obeyed God. Unfortunately, we all know what happened. Adam disobeyed God and received God's judgment. Death entered into the world at that time (Romans 5:12). God's judgment, however, was not only on Adam but also on the entire creation. The Bible says that God cursed the ground for Adam's sake (Genesis 3:17). It further says the entire creation groans and travails in pain (Romans 8:22). The Curse continues even today. Death, disease, pain, suffering, famine, natural disasters, etc., are all products of the Curse and the result of our own sin and rebellion. Additionally, men continue to disobey God and inflict man-made evil upon their fellow man. This is why bad things happen.

Immediately, the critic might suggest that it is unfair to curse all of the creation for the sin of one man. It is not unusual for the condemned to feel his sentence is too great but it is reasonable to expect the curse on Adam extended to Adam's domain. Consider this: something cannot be perfect if it contains even one small blemish so Adam's one sin literally spoiled the entire, perfect creation. In Jeremiah we read the analogy of the potter and the clay (Jeremiah 18:4). If the potter's work is marred by an imperfection, it is the right of the potter to cast it aside and remake another as he sees fit. As the Creator of the universe, God would have been perfectly just to destroy the entire creation after Adam sinned. Similarly, God would be perfectly just to destroy any one of us at the moment we sin. The fact that He doesn't is demonstrative of His mercy.

The critic might next ask, “Why doesn't God do something about it?” Well, God has done something about it – He sent His Son to die as an atonement for our sins. Furthermore, God also intends to restore the creation. We are told in Revelation 21:1 there will be a new heaven and new earth because this sin stained world will be passed away. In that place, there will be no more curse (Revelation 22:3). Revelation 21:4 gives us this wonderful promise, “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” Amen!!

I know the critics won't be satisfied with my answers and will continue to call God cruel. I would ask them then, “What should be the alternative?” Given that God is not only perfectly loving but also perfectly just, how should He handle a rebellious people? Should there be no judgment? Do they want God to make this world a paradise? This is why we don't let the guilty set their own sentences. I can just imagine a criminal asking the judge if he can spend his sentence on a beach. The critics, of course, will say that the judgment should only be on “bad people.” The problem arises though that there are none who are good. We tend to excuse our own failings by comparing our sins to other people's. The critic might excuse his own lies, greed, blasphemies, and lusts but arguing that at least he's never murdered anyone. By that reasoning, though, Jack the Ripper could excuse his own crimes by saying he wasn't as bad at Hitler. What's more, if the doubters had their way and God only punished those who fit the critics' definition of “bad,” then the dilemma still exists: in their utopia, where only the “really bad” people are punished, who would a guilty person commit his crimes upon? Even if they had their own way, they still would not be able to say that bad things no longer happen to good people! To accomplish what they want, God would literally have to restrain them; He would have to force them to obey His laws. Somehow I don't think skeptics would think that was fair either.

Finally, what sound, logical argument exists that would conclude that since bad things happen, God is imaginary? It's totally non sequitur. It would be like saying that since there are poor families in America then the President is imaginary. It's not even close to convincing. One could try to make the argument that God is cruel and not worthy of worship but to say bad things prove He is imaginary is an absurd premise. I know that logical fallacies abound in this video but this is just intellectual laziness.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Answering the Ten Questions Every Christian Must Answer. Part 2: Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

We see in the Bible, especially in the gospels, that Jesus and His disciples healed crowds of people. Certainly God is able to heal anyone of anything – even to the point of raising someone from the dead. The Bible doesn't mention any particular account of an amputee being healed* but it does say that Jesus healed every manner of disease and sickness (Matthew 4:23, et al). It's very likely that amputees would have been included among those people healed by Jesus and His disciples. So we can answer that Bible affirms that God can and most likely did heal amputees.

Note also the use of the word, “won't.” It implies that God has specifically excluded amputees from receiving His healing. Who's to say that God “won't” heal someone when He has already demonstrated His ability and willingness to heal thousands? And again, though we don't know of a particular instance where an amputee was healed, how can anyone say absolutely that no amputees were among the crowds Jesus did heal? To even ask then why God won't heal amputees is a misnomer. It's a false premise that has already been proven wrong. God certainly could, would, and most likely did heal amputees.

Rather than asking why “won't” God heal amputees, perhaps the video meant to ask why “doesn't” God heal amputees. However, that's still not a fair question to ask since we've already seen that He most likely has. The question might now be, “Why doesn't God heal amputees anymore?” To answer that, I would ask a much broader question: does God heal anyone anymore? I might be at odd with many other Christians but I believe the miraculous healings recorded in the gospels were given only as signs to evidence the authority of Jesus, His apostles, and the early church.

I've written about this before (here and here). I don't want to rehash everything I've already said about this point so I suggest you read my previous posts about this. Let me just say that, before we had the canon of Scripture, God would give His prophets the ability to perform miracles. This was proof that the person was speaking with the authority of God. Jesus Himself said this overtly when He healed a man “sick of the palsy” (Mark 2:4-12). To demonstrate that He had the power to forgive sins, Jesus healed the crippled man. Today, we have the full canon of Scripture. God's revelation is complete. There are no more prophets or apostles and the need for miraculous signs has ended. The Bible is our record of the miracles and the Resurrection is the only evidence we need to know that Jesus has the power to keep His promise of eternal life to us.

O.k., o.k.! I know what some people are thinking: “What about all those faith healers we see on TV?” Actually, I think this would be a good question for them. The people I've seen supposedly healed all had “invisible” ailments. How do I know if some guy really had a bad back or weak heart? I would like to see just one person in these crusades regrow a limb. I'll come out and say it – I think the faith healers are fakes!! I also think all of these prosperity preachers are false prophets. They are charlatans. I should really spend some time on this in the future but let me say just a few things about the matter now. God did not promise us a life of health, wealth, and prosperity. In fact, Jesus told us the opposite. He said, for example, “In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).

As I said in a previous post, I certainly believe God is capable of anything. But what He can do is not necessarily what He does do. I'm the last person who would doubt the ability of God to perform miracles. God has a perfect place prepared for us. A place that is free of the Curse. This earth is not our home and God doesn't intend for us to live here forever. While we're here, there will be death, disease, and suffering – and yes, there will be amputees. But it's only while we're here. In a very literal sense, God will heal everyone who believes in Him.

So why won't God heal amputees? He can, He has, and He will!

Part 1

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

[*Added in edit: Luke 22:50-51 does specifically mention Jesus healing the ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest, after Peter had cut it off with a sword. Thus the Bible does attest to a specific incident where Jesus healed an amputee. So there!]

Answering the Ten Questions Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer. Part 1

A group of atheists have a website called, “Why won't God heal amputees?” A few years ago, they put out a widely viewed video that asks “Ten Questions Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer”. They are provocative questions aimed at making Christians doubt their faith. It's semi-clever since the questions, while not really novel or unanswerable, are still somewhat difficult for many people to answer or at least find an answer difficult to articulate. I thought it would be fun to discuss the video and post some responses. Here's the full video. It's 10 minutes long but I suggest you review because it will help you understand what I'm talking about if you've seen it for yourself.

I wasn't sure if I should try to knock all ten questions out in a single post or make it a series of posts. Ten posts would be a very long series for my blog but if I tried to fit them all into one post I may not be able to give each one the proper attention. Instead, I'll compromise and make it a miniseries which answers a couple of questions in each post. Some of the questions make duplicate points anyway so it seems natural to include those in one post. I can probably wrap up the series in five or six posts. By the way, I have a self-imposed rule that I don't publish more than one post per day and I typically don't have time to write every day so this series will be posted over at least a week or more. Be sure to check back daily.

Rather than get into the questions immediately, I'd like to take this post and comment on the video in general. While asking the ten questions, the video commits a large number of logical fallacies. As you watch the video, look out for some of the following things.

First, I have a question about these questions: why MUST we answer them? What happens if I don't answer? What if I can't answer? The video is trying to create a false sense of urgency or importance concerning the questions. It's rather ordinary for there to be questions about any subject that we can't answer. What causes gravity, for example? I don't know. Some people have theories about what causes gravity and some people don't have a clue. What does it prove? It proves nothing! If there is a question about gravity that we can't answer, it's certainly not evidence against gravity! Likewise, if there are questions about the nature of God that we can't answer, it's not evidence against God. We can continue in our belief with our faith unshaken. Just as the fact of gravity is not affected by our ignorance of it, so also is the truth of Christianity.

The video begins in a seemingly complimentary fashion where the narrator assumes the viewer is an intelligent, educated, reasonable person. As first hearing, this may sound flattering but later in the video we will see it is not sincere. This is actually a rather transparent sales tactic we usually see employed by used car salesmen. See if this sounds familiar: “I can tell that you're a shrewd buyer so I'm going to make you a deal on this car.” Have you ever heard something like that before? If I wanted to look like a shrewd buyer to the salesman, I might be afraid to say “no” to his offer. Likewise, no one wants to seem unintelligent or unreasonable so he might feel like he has to admit some things about Christianity seem unreasonable. This is just a gimmick – and an over-used one at that!

Later in the video, the narrator turns the tables a little. Where he starts by assuming the viewer is intelligent and rational, he later says that Christians have no intelligent or rational answers to the questions. Instead, he suggests that intelligent and rational people will see that God is imaginary. This is a fallacious argument known as the “No True Scotsman” argument. Basically, the video is saying that every intelligent person knows that God is imaginary and if you believe in God, then you're not intelligent.

Another tactic I noticed is the narrator's use of loaded words. This is where someone attempts to diminish his opponent's point by describing it in unflattering terms. Let me give you an example: I could say, “My opponent believes in evolution” or I could say, “My opponent believes in the crazy idea that, over billions of years, amoebas can turn into men.” Substantively, there isn't a lot of difference between the statements but there is a considerable difference in the impression it gives. We see much the same thing in this video. The narrator describes in advance any possible answer as being “irrational.”

Along with using loaded words, the video is also attempting to “poison the well.” When you try to diminish your opponent's point before he makes it, you bias other people against his point. Like my above example, what if I said something like this: “My opponent is going to tell you that mutations are a mechanism that can introduce novel traits into a population. We normally call mutations, 'birth defects.' When someone suggests they are the driving force behind evolution, it shows you how weak the theory is!” The irony is that mutation truly is the driving mechanism that supposedly introduces novel traits into a population but if my opponent mentions that, he will seem to be doing the very thing I've already biased the audience against. This video attempts to do the same thing. At certain points, the narrator will say something like, “Some Christians might suggest...” He then proceeds to describe that rebuttal using loaded words. He has poisoned the well. If any Christian did respond with an argument suggested by the narrator, his point has been made to seem predictable and weak.

Finally, in many places where the video is attempting to poison the well, we often see that it is really using a straw man argument. To the first question, for example, the narrator suggests that some Christians might say that “God has a special plan for amputees.” This is a very weak rebuttal and no serious apologist would ever say such a thing. Nevertheless, the narrator presents this as the kind of response Christians offer, thereby making it seem that Christians offer weak answers. It's a textbook example of the straw man fallacy.

If I were to rate this video objectively, I would give it a C-. As I've said, some of the questions are clever but it overplays its hand and comes across more confrontational than persuasive. The longer the video goes, the more it sounds like a rant rather than a thoughtful argument. I know these folks aren't interested in my advice but giving advice is what I do so I will offer it anyway. I believe they would have better achieved their intended objective if they limited the questions to only the first question and asked it in a sincere tone rather than a condescending one.

If you haven't watched the video yet, I again recommend that you do it now. See if you can't spot the things I've discussed. I'll begin answers the questions directly in my next post. Be sure to check back!

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Are Babies Saved? A Scriptural Analysis of the “Age of Accountability”

Having grown up in a Baptist church, I had always been told that children who die before reaching the “age of accountability” will go to heaven. Sometimes, we hear things about the Bible repeated so often that we simply assume it's really in the Bible. It's like the oft repeated claim that Adam ate an “apple.” The Bible doesn't say it was an apple but only says Adam ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. What exactly the fruit was is of little consequence really. However, a subject like the age of accountability is considerably more significant. I've heard people argue that, because of who God is, He would necessarily show mercy on infants. Certainly God is loving but we need to be careful before saying how we think God should act. His ways are not our ways. As always, we must look to Scripture to support any belief we claim is doctrine.

The Bible talks a lot about salvation but says surprisingly little about the disposition of children who die before coming to a saving faith in Jesus. I would start by noting that the idea of infants who die being with the Lord is not a new idea. When the infant son of David and Bathsheba died, David said, “While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (2 Samuel 12:22-23).

It seems that David believed the child was gone to be with the Lord and that someday he would be with him again. David, of course, being one of the authors of the Bible, had a relationship with God that very few people have had. Though David did not have the full canon of Scripture that we have, something led him to believe his child would be with the Lord. Because we know that David received revelation from the Lord, we should not quickly dismiss his confidence as though it was simply the vain imaginations of a grieving parent. David may have had a type of “inside knowledge” about the matter.

Moving forward to the New Testament, I also have noticed something very interesting about Jesus' ministry on earth. Jesus often spoke openly about the spiritual condition of the people around Him. He told the woman who touched the hem of His robe that her faith had saved her (Matthew 9:20-22). He told the Pharisees that they were the sons of their father, the Devil (John 8:44). Jesus often judged the spiritual condition of those around Him but we can see it is only among adults. Concerning children, Jesus said, “Suffer the little children to come to me and forbid them not” (Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16). Nowhere have I ever seen Jesus discern the spiritual attitude of children the same way He did among adults.

There is still another passage of Scripture that I believe bears greatly on this subject. In Numbers 14, God judges the nation of Israel and tells them that, because of their disobedience, they will not inherit the land which He promised them. Numbers 14:31, though, says, “But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised.” Admittedly, God chose the age of 20 as the dividing line but even so, we can still see that the wrath of God's judgment falls on the older generation while the younger generation is spared.

Though the Bible speaks very little about the subject directly, I believe it has much to say about it indirectly. From these passages and others, I believe we can have confidence in knowing that children who die before they are able to understand the need of a savior receive God mercy nonetheless.

Christ Bearer

It's is a remarkable coincidence that Columbus's first name means “Christ Bearer”: Christos (Χριστός) + Phero (φέρω). I've read before that it was because of his name that Columbus felt called to bring the gospel to the world. Columbus believed the return of Christ was imminent in his day and that the need to take the gospel to all the lost in the world was urgent. He wrote:

I said that some of the prophecies remained yet to be fulfilled. These are great and wonderful things for the earth, and the signs are that the Lord is hastening the end. The fact that the gospel must still be preached to so many lands in such a short time, this is what convinces me.

Upon landing in the new world, he christened the first island, San Salvador which means, “Holy Savior.” He offered a prayer which I have modified slightly so that it continues to apply today:

O Lord, Almighty and everlasting God, by Thy holy Word Thou hast created the heaven, and the earth, and the sea; blessed and glorified be Thy Name, and praise be Thy Majesty, which hath deigned to use us, Thy humble servants, that Thy holy Name may be proclaimed in [all] of the earth.

Amen!! Happy Columbus Day!