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