Should Christians Participate in Halloween?

I have very fond memories of Halloween as a kid. We always made our own costumes which meant learning how to build and sew, usually with the help of a parent or grandparent.

I love the Halloween scene from E. T. the Extra-Terrestrial where the streets are filled with kids and families roaming the neighborhood. Halloween was a night when the entire neighborhood came outside to play. Adults would talk and mingle while kids ran from house to house. As an adult, even though it takes more effort, I am always glad when I dress-up. It's the one day of the year when it's OK to dress goofy or as your favorite hero and act like a kid with my children. There are a lot of families in our neighborhood out walking around and it's a great time to meet and say hi to people I don't always get to talk with.

I don't approve of the grotesque and violent or sexually explicit costumes that seem to be more and more prevalent and I'm not naive enough to think that there aren't sinister things afoot on Halloween, but I'm not sure that by sequestering our kids to "Fall Festivals" at churches we are being light to our world.

Lenny Esposito from Come Let Us Reason Together does a great job of looking at Halloween, it's history and meaning.

A Christian Perspective of Halloween (Part 1) 14:30
A Christian Perspective of Halloween (Part 2) 14:30
A Christian Perspective of Halloween (Part 3) 14:30
A Christian Perspective of Halloween (Part 4) 14:30

How should we as Responsive Christians engage others with regard to Halloween?

Should Christians Participate in Halloween?

"Ida" Not Such An Ideal Fit

It wasn't long ago that evolutionists were touting "Ida" (Darwinius masillae) as the fossil that “changes everything”. They claimed that Ida was perhaps the most ancient of "missing links"; yet another critical piece of evidence in the human evolutionary lineage. I purposely refrained from making a statement about Ida here at PleaseConvinceMe.com because I suspected that Ida would eventually fall into the category of most such pieces of "evidence". I suspected that Ida would eventually be exposed as media-driven dribble. Well, this week, I saw this become the case. Nature published an article that announced:

“(a) 37-million-year-old fossil primate from Egypt, described today in Nature, moves a controversial German fossil known as Ida out of the human lineage.”

In addition, Wired also published a story that notes:

"(f)ar from spawning the ancestors of humans, the 47 million-year-old Darwinius seems merely to have gone extinct, leaving no descendants...”

According to this second article, a paleontologist called Ida “a third cousin twice removed … only very distantly related to living and fossil anthropoids.” Once again we see that our culture is quick to embrace the work of scientists who seem far more committed to a philosophically natural worldview than to the evidence at hand. Within just a few months, Ida fell from evidence for human evolution to just another monkey fossil.

"Ida" Not Such An Ideal Fit

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 123

How Does the Gospel Change Our World?

In this podcast, Jim continues answering listener email and addresses the nature of the Gospel Message. Is the purpose of the Gospel to transform and restore the planet, or is the purpose of the Gospel to rescues fallen individuals? Are these two goals and consequences of the Gospel Message mutually exclusive? Jim also discusses the importance of rationality in the Christian life, the monetization of apologetics efforts, moral grounding and ethics training, and the distinct and unique nature of the Christian Worldview.

Listen to the podcast and then leave your comments and interact with other listeners here.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 123

Santa Claus & Mormonism

It's October, so the Christmas movies are starting up on TV. I sat through part of one the other day-- just long enough to have an interesting thought.

As a (Mormon) youngster, I was taught, like many of you, that Santa had his eye on me all year. How? Elves. Elves were little, inconspicuous things, hiding behind trees, sneaking around the attic, spying on me in order to keep track of all my goodness and badness. If I was good, Santa would bring me presents at the end of each year. If I was bad, it would be so sad for me, come Christmas Day.

Although I was a pretty good kid, I knew for sure that I wasn't always good. I said 'repentance' prayers when I felt guilty (many times), and tried my best to stop doing the bad things I was prone to do (stealing penny candy from the local drug store, for instance). I don't how you handled the Santa issue, but I remember deliberating on the questions: did Santa's helpers see EVERY time I was naughty? Were there some wrong things I did that weren't that bad? And did the elves 'forgive and forget' when I 'repented'?

Although I spent many childhood years trying harder to be good as the Christmas season approached, I eventually figured out that even if I wasn't, I would still get presents. This was reasonable to me, and I figured the explanation went something like this:
1) there weren't that many available elves and/or they were too busy making presents or doing more important things (polishing reindeer, maybe?) to spy,
2) the elves saw all my sins, but in the end, Santa was too nice to have any kid feel bad, or
3) the whole 'be good/get presents' thing was just to encourage kids to be as good as possible, while not really demanding that we be completely guiltless. After all, no kid has ever been perfect, right? No kid has even said 'please forgive me' enough to make up for ALL their mistakes, right?

So here's my thought.

The god of Mormonism is a lot like Santa Claus.

The god of Mormonism is a glorified man in a resurrected body; he's NOT omnipresent. In order to see every bad thing we do, there must be angels lurking in our closets. (I remember learning in seminary that I shouldn't worry about angels spying on me in the shower, because they have more decency than that.) Of course, there may be some other spying system in place, like a universal video-taping system, so that god has the incriminating film on us, to play back in front of everyone at our judgment (yeah, I was taught that too).

Or, the god of Mormonism is perhaps 'just kidding'. I was baptized clean of all my previous sins at age 8; but, I knew that from then on, every sin had to be repented from. I started out praying for forgiveness several times a day. As it was tedious, and appeared to be overkill, my repenting quickly became a once-daily, more generalized prayer like 'please forgive me of anything bad I may have done today'. Pretty soon I only remembered once in a while, and just asked to have my slate wiped clean, as I couldn't remember it all anyway.
That was kid-stuff, though, especially when compared to temple covenants (and I'm not going to reveal them here). Anyone who has listened carefully in the endowment ceremony knows that what you promise to do in there is beyond do-ability. But like in Sacrament Meeting, where you take the sacrament because if you didn't, you'd stand out, all the other temple patrons are making the covenants, so you do too, and you then look for the rationale. Maybe god is just 'threatening' me so that I will try my hardest to do 'the best I can do'. Surely he must know (like we do) that no one can perfectly keep the covenants we make in the temple!

Or, lastly, maybe god's list of requirements IS that extreme, but when we die and go to be judged, he will be sympathetic. He won't want to send us someplace awful, so he'll just assign those of us who aren't so great to a lesser heaven. After all, even the worst heaven of Mormonism is so terrific that we'd kill ourselves to get there, as I, and maybe you, were taught. So though I'm not perfect, I will end up somewhere good, because God is so nice.

Do you think I have a valid comparison here?

I'm not Mormon anymore; I'm a born-again believer in Jesus Christ, and in God's truth as found in the Holy Bible.

So I'm going to do a little comparison 'on the other hand':

The God of the Bible doesn't employ angel spies. He is omni-present, that is, He is everywhere and He can see you at all times. What's more, He is omniscient; meaning that He knows EVERYTHING (including everything about you, your thoughts, your motivations and reasons, etc). And on top of that, Jesus taught that God doesn't judge you by what you do, but by who you are in your heart. There's just no way to 'sneak one by' Him!

Additionally, the God of the Bible is perfectly just. He is not going to 'let some (sins) slide' on account of some nice things you did, or because your sins weren't 'that bad'. However, as His attributes include Perfect Grace and Love, He surely provided the One Way, the 'strait gate' for you. He nailed your sins to the cross, so that, if you truly believe on Jesus the Messiah, you are totally forgiven, though you fell far short of the mark of His perfect righteous standard.

The God of the Bible also doesn't make covenants with us that we can't keep. He prefers to be the covenant-keeper, because only He is able to perfectly keep a covenant, as He certainly well knows.

Is the Bible God like Santa Claus?

Well, He does know that you've been naughty -- the breadth, depth and height of it. And He does have abundant blessings with which to shower you - blessings that you don't deserve.

But that, I think, is where that similarity ends.

Santa Claus & Mormonism

New Blogger

Please join me in welcoming our newest blogger to the PleaseConvinceMe blog. Staci Lee is a mother and former Mormon. I look forward to reading Staci's unique perspective and am excited about adding new voices to the PleaseConvinceMe blog.

New Blogger

Sometimes, Even Non-Believers See the Truth

Today's article in the Washington Times may provide some hope for those of you who are concerned that the trend toward secularism in America might reflect a similar trend globally. Julia Dunn interviewed atheist Adrian Wooldridge who recently researched and co-authored "God is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith is Changing the World". Wooldridge observed that "that religious observance is increasing worldwide and that irreligious Europe, not America, is the exception":

"Religion now goes hand in hand with modernity," he said. "Something happened from the 1970s onward that put that [into action] and now the world is going in the American direction."

Wooldridge also noted that the global rise of Pentecostalism may be the driving force in this revival of faith:

"The sort of religion that is on the rise is the emotive, assertive charismatic religion... It's compelling Catholicism in Latin America to change. There's a physical surprise when you go to Guatemala and see how vibrant the charismatic and Pentecostal movements are. Same thing for Lagos and Nairobi. I went into that book underestimating the power and vitality of religion."

More interesting for me was the impact that the research for this book had on Wooldridge, who is an atheist:

"I must say I have more respect, I felt more warmth for religion after doing research for the book," he said, "partly because of the people I came across, such as the Pentecostal pastor in Philadelphia who has done the most amazing work dealing with crack cocaine. It did strike me that religious people have done amazing work to help the poor. But where are the atheists doing exactly same thing?"

Sometimes even atheists can appreciate the impact that God has on his children...

Sometimes, Even Non-Believers See the Truth

Collision: Is Religion Good For The World?

Check out the trailer for the new documentary Collision which is released in limited theatres and on DVD next week:


From the Huffington Post,

Last fall, we went on tour debating the topic "Is Religion Good For The World?" Our arguments were captured on film for a new documentary, Collision. Are our morals dictated to us by a supreme entity or do discoveries made by science and reason, make Atheism a natural conclusion? You decide.

In the same article, both Hitchens and Wilson respond to the question, "Is Religion Good For The World?"

Wilson writes,

...The atheistic worldview is nothing if not inherently reductionistic, whether this is admitted or not. Everything that happens is a chance-driven rattle-jattle jumble in the great concourse of atoms that we call time. Time and chance acting on matter have brought about, in equally aimless fashion, the 1927 New York Yankees, yesterday's foam on a New Jersey beach, Princess Di, the arrangement of pebbles on the back side of the moon, the music of John Cage, the Fourth Crusade, and the current gaggle representing us all in Congress.

...So if the universe is what the atheist maintains it is, then this determines what sort of account we must give for the nature of everything -- and this includes the atheist's thought processes, ethical convictions, and aesthetic appreciations. If you were to shake up two bottles of pop and place them on a table to fizz over, you could not fill up an auditorium with people who came to watch them debate. This is because they are not debating; they are just fizzing. If you were to shake up one bottle of pop, and show it film footage of some genocidal atrocity, the reaction you would get is not moral outrage, but rather more fizzing. And if you were to shake it really hard by means of art school, and place it in front of Michelangelo's David, or the Rose Window of Chartres Cathedral, the results would not really be aesthetic appreciation, but more fizzing still.

If the atheist is right, then I am not a Christian because I have mistaken beliefs, but am rather a Christian because that is what these chemicals would always do in this arrangement and at this temperature. The problem is that this atheistic assumption does the very same thing to the atheist's case for atheism. The atheist gives us an account of all things which makes it impossible for us to believe that any account of all things could possibly be true. But no account of things can be tenable unless it provides us with the preconditions that make it possible for our "accounting" to represent genuine insight. Atheism fails to do this, and the failure is a spectacular one. Nor does atheism allow us to have any fixed ethical standard, or the possibility of beauty.

It does no good to appeal to the discoveries made by science and reason, for one of the things that reason has apparently brought us is atheism. Right? And not content to let sleeping dogs lie, reason also brings us the inexorable consequences of atheism, which includes the unpalatable but necessary conclusion that random neuron firings do not amount to any "truth" that corresponds to anything outside our heads. This, ironically enough, includes atheism, and so we find ourselves falling out of the tree, saw in one hand and branch in the other.

Wilson then contrasts atheism with the Christian gospel, which whether you believe it or not, grounds reason, morality and beauty in something that is objective and transcendent.

Hitchens contribution to the article answers the question "Can we be good without God?" and again fails to address the question that every Theist has asked of him including Douglas Wilson in the trailer clip for Collision, "What is the evidence for the objective moral standard by which you condemn religion? What is morality grounded in?"

Collision: Is Religion Good For The World?

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 122

What’s So Unique About Christianity?

In this podcast, Jim begins by talking about the unique nature of Christianity then continues responding to listener email by addressing several topics, including: a brief response and observation related to the Baha’i faith, a discussion of the importance of keeping the Sabbath, a review of the relationship between the documents of the early church fathers and the nature of the church, and the value of understanding the nature of Christian Dualism.


Listen to the podcast and then leave your comments and interact with other listeners here.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 122

We Only Have the Freedom to Agree

CNS News published an article describing the continuing bias that exists in the scientific community. The American Freedom Alliance (AFA) recently contracted the Smithsonian-affiliated California Science Center to premiere a new documentary entitled "Darwin’s Dilemma". The feature length film describes the challenge that neo-Darwinism faces in explaining the sudden appearance of life in what is known as the "Cambrian Explosion".

"There are two ways that modern evolutionists approach the Cambrian explosion, or what has been called “Darwin’s dilemma”: A. Some freely acknowledge that the Cambrian fossil evidence essentially shows the opposite of what was expected under neo-Darwinian evolution. B. Others deal with the Cambrian explosion by sweeping its problems under the rug and trying to change the subject."

The films posits that creative intelligent agency is the best explanation for the Cambrian Explosion and makes a case for Intelligent Design. The California Science Center apparently bowed to the pressure of the naturalistic scientific community and cancelled the viewing of the film just two weeks prior to opening night. Once again, it appears that the scientific community is unwilling to allow opposing views enter into the discussion:

"Darwin’s dilemma isn’t just about a lack of transitional fossils in ancient rocks. It’s about how the guards of evolutionary orthodoxy will treat contrary scientific viewpoints. Will they silence minority views, or will they grant dissenting scientists freedom of speech and scientific inquiry to make their case?"

While Christians are often said to be biased in their view of the sciences and that world around them, we simply cannot ignore the fact that those who hold a philosophical naturalist view of the world are not willing to allow those of us who disagree to have the freedom to disagree!

We Only Have the Freedom to Agree

More Evidence That the Israelites Were in Egypt

I often receive emails from skeptics who claim there is no evidence to support the Biblical claim that the Israelites were in Egypt, that they served as slaves or ever left the nation in the Exodus. While it is true that the Egyptians made little effort to document or chronicle the lives (or even the existence) of their slaves, archaeologists have been slowly uncovering the evidence. The Jerusalem Post reported on an archaeological finding last month that uncovered ancient Egyptian coins that bear the identity and image of Joseph (from the Genesis account):

"A thorough examination revealed that the coins bore the year in which they were minted and their value, or effigies of the pharaohs [who ruled] at the time of their minting. Some of the coins are from the time when Joseph lived in Egypt, and bear his name and portrait," said the report.

Archeology has always been a friend of Christianity and the number of archaeological findings that support the Biblical narrative is simply astonishing. We've written about this on the website:

The Old Testament Has Been Archaeologically Verified
The New Testament is Archaeologically Verifiable

More Evidence That the Israelites Were in Egypt

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 121

How Were People Saved Before Jesus?

In this podcast, Jim begins to respond to listener email by addressing two difficult issues. How were people saved prior to the life of Jesus? If faith alone in Christ alone is required to be saved, how were Old Testament saints saved prior to the arrival of Christ? Jim also addresses the ‘hot topic’ issue of abortionist murders. Does the Old Testament require us to stop the murdering of the unborn by murdering the doctors who are performing abortions? Are abortionist murders permissible in light of the Old Testament Law? How are we to reconcile the tension between what we believe and what the law of the land permits?


Listen to the podcast and then leave your comments and interact with other listeners here.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 121

A Sign of Things to Come?

The Canadian National Post posted an article on Saturday that described the shrinking denominational Church in Canada. It's clear that the worldview of Canada is less and less Christian as attendance in mainline denominational churches continues to decline. Canada is typically slightly ahead of the United States in cultural trends, just behind Europe in shifting away from traditional mainline denominations. The article cites a British study predicting that 18,000 mainline denominational churches will close in England by 2040. Canadian research predicts that Quebec will lose half of its 2,000 denominational churches by 2016.

SO where are the Christians going? Well, some are simply moving from denominational churches to non-denominational churches, but the larger number seem to be leaving the organized, denominational religion:

The numbers show that Canadians have been fleeing the church for decades. In the mid-1940s, about 67% of adult Canadians attended church weekly. By 1985, the number had plunged to 30%. In 2005, the number hit 20%. In 2006, a Canwest News Service poll found that 17% of Canadians attend church at least once a week, even though about half of those surveyed said they believe in God. More worrying for churches is the number of young Canadians who are turning their back. In a sweeping study last year by renowned Canadian sociologist Reg Bibby, 47% of the teenagers surveyed said they never go to church. Another 20% said they "hardly ever go," while 21% said they go weekly.

At the same time, many of those surveyed say that they still believe in God, even though they are leaving the church. So, is this a trend that will be repeated here in the United States? If so, what does it tell us about our culture and what opportunity does this provide us for the future?

A Sign of Things to Come?

Was God a Sinner?

According to Mormonism, the answer is "Maybe". Joseph Smith declares that God the Father once had a mortal existence like ours; that he lived as we do and that someday we can each be a God like the Father as well. The problem is that if we are to follow in God's footsteps; if we are here in this life to learn how to be Gods, we are already off to a bad start because we are sinners and God is not. This problem has encouraged many LDS to adopt the idea that God could have been a sinner.

Brian Mackert, in his autobiographical book, Illegitimate: How a Loving God Rescued a Son of Polygamy writes,

...You and I who ARE SINNERS are, according to Mormonism, supposed to be able to become Gods just like God the Father did, but God the Father wasn’t a sinner? See the contradiction? God the Father wasn’t a sinner, didn’t need a Savior, didn’t need atonement for sin, didn’t need to be redeemed, never fell into sin, it is impossible for us to become a God like He did!!!

The whole of Mormon Theology begins to unravel. If God was a sinless Savior like Jesus, then how was He tested by the flesh so that He could earn His own godhood and be exalted? Was he special somehow? And if we are to become gods just like he did then why aren’t we all sinless Saviors too?

What about the Holy Ghost? How did He become a God without a physical body and being tried by it? What’s up with that? Is He special too?

What about Jesus? How come it’s possible for him to become a God without ever having fallen into sin like us and needing to be redeemed?

It seems to me that if being a sinner or being sinless is optional then there is no need for this probationary period and the trials of the flesh. Why should we have to endure the trials of the flesh in order to become a God if this is optional. It seems to me that if we were to become Gods as they became Gods, then we wouldn’t have had the fall in the Garden of Eden. We would have all remained sinless and become sinless Gods as God the Father did and as Jesus did.

Another problem for LDS is that they claim that the Father and the Son have been eternally Gods. If LDS are to be Gods one day, are they now, in present time eternally Gods as well? How can Mormons have any assurance of becoming a God when all the examples they have of Godhood are unattainable. LDS would have to be sinless and eternally God right now by all known examples. Blaspheming God's holiness only solves part of the problem for Mormons.

And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. Revelation 4:8

God has always been holy, he was never a sinner.

I would love to hear from a Mormon perspective on this as well.

HT: Mormon Coffee

Was God a Sinner?

Will Relativism Be Our Demise?

Parade Online Magazine conducted a poll on Spirituality earlier this year and released the findings on Sunday. Like many other recent polls, the data indicates a shift away from main-line denominational church attendance and toward a more personal form of "spirituality". Of course, this word is incredibly vague and braid and indicates the growing sense that the truth about God is purely subjective. In fact, the poll provided specific data to confirm the impact of relativism on matters of religious faith:

"As Americans’ ideas of spirituality have become more expansive, so have their attitudes toward people of different faiths. Even though the notion that one’s own religion is the sole means of “salvation” has launched a million missionaries from this country’s shores, today only a small fraction are so fervent. A scant 12% of respondents said that their own religion was the only true faith, 12% said no religion has validity, and 59% said all religions are valid."

Only 12% of those surveyed said that what they believed was exclusively true. Ideas about God are subjective to most of us and it appears that we are more and more comfortable with that notion. Our concepts related to the nature of God are no more objectively true nor significant than our personal choices related to our favorite pizza toppings. No one is 'right' or 'wrong'; we all just seem to have an opinion. There are, however, objective truths, and most of us are willing to accept this in every area of life EXCEPT for matters of spirituality. We've written about the issue of objective truth here:

There is No Absolute Truth

Will Relativism Be Our Demise?

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 120

What Is the Essential Truth About the Church?

What does the Bible teach about the nature of Church? Are there certain non-negotiable essentials that all of us, as Christians, must believe about the Church in order to call ourselves Christians? Are there any over-arching principles that God has given us to help us live as a community of God? In this final podcast in a series examining Christian “essentials”, Jim discusses the essential doctrinal truths related to the “Communion of Saints”.

Listen to the podcast and then leave your comments and interact with other listeners here.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 120

Is There Still an Opportunity with American "Nones"?

U.S News and World Report posted a recent article about the newest Trinity College survey that indicates that once again confirms the growing number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation. Folks like this are now referred to as "nones" (having no religious affiliation) and their numbers are growing from 8% of the population in 1990 to 15% today. the prediction is that one quarter of the population will be in this category within 20 years. Interestingly, those Americans who identify themselves as "nones" are not rabid atheists:

"...American religious nones tend to be religious skeptics as opposed to outright atheists. Fewer than 10 percent of those identifying with no religious tradition call themselves atheists or hold atheistic beliefs, according to the new study. 'American nones are kind of agnostic and deistic, so it's a very American kind of skepticism,' says Barry Kosmin, director of Trinity's Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture. 'It's a kind of religious indifference that's not hostile to religion the way they are in France. Franklin and Jefferson would have recognized these people.'"

I can't help but wonder if American "nones" are still somewhat receptive to theism because they haven't yet been influenced by some of the more extreme representatives of New Atheism. Are they in a period of transition with one foot in and one foot out, on their way to both feet being fully out? Is America eventually destined to be just as secular as Europe? Are we in the midst of a season in which we might still be able to impact this group?

Is There Still an Opportunity with American "Nones"?

Evaluating Worldviews on the Basis of Sexual Choice?

This recent WorldNetDaily article describes a recent claim by a homosexual advocacy group that 250 California schools have already registered to show their students a curriculum of films called "Youth in Motion: Empowering students through LGBTQ film". The curiculum is offered by FrameLine, a LGBTQ media outlet. Without even addressing the issue of homosexuality in this post, what struck me about the article was one of the stated goals of the curriculum:

The accompanying discussion guides also encourage students to evaluate their religious traditions based on whether they encourage "choice" in sexuality or "reinforce gender expectations."

Regardless of how you may feel about the issue of hoimosexuality, do we really want our children to evaluate a worldview on the basis of whether or not the view allows them sexual choice? If so, can I then evaluate and accept a worldview on the basis of other personal desires? I thought we were supposed to evaluate worldviews on the basis of whether or not the evidence indicated that the view was, in fact, accurate and true? The truth may not be convenient for me personally; it may not allow me the "freedom" to do whatever I want today; but that simply cannot be the criteria I use to determine whether or not I accept the view.

I'm a Christian not becuase it works for me; not because I always want to conform to what it teaches about the world around me; I am simply a Christian because, given the evidence, it happens to be true.

Evaluating Worldviews on the Basis of Sexual Choice?