Is God a Hypocrite?

My last post dealt with the varying translations of the 6^th Commandment. Does it prohibit “murder” as the newer texts indicate, or more generally “killing” as is listed in the King James version? I concluded that “murder” is what is meant and that Christians are not hypocrites when they accept some killing as justified, such as in the cases of self-defense, some forms of capital punishment and just war.

The skeptic may then shift his challenge. Whether it prohibits killing or murder, how does the God of the Bible, the God of the Old Testament, justify the destruction of human life, either directly by his own hand or by ordering the ancient Israelites to wipe out certain enemies? Doesn’t that make God a hypocrite, or worse?

No, it doesn’t. There is no hypocrisy or contradiction in this setting because the rule-giver is not subject to the rules he creates. There is an unspoken premise in the challenge. We are all used to the notion that “no one is above the law.” The skeptic assumes that God occupies a position like that of a legislator. The legislator cannot commit crimes and then claim to be above the law because he wrote the law. This is so because the legislator is part of the class to whom the law is addressed and is controlling.

But God occupies a different position, because he stands above his creation. He is not one of many, who just happened to be entrusted with the power to write law. He created the power to make law, at least as far as we are concerned. As the creator of life, he has absolute authority over his creation. Common analogies to help make this point range from the classic pot maker that Paul the Apostle referred to (in Romans 9:21) to the more modern example from the world of robotics.

Imagine that I am able to master the field of artificial intelligence and place it in a series of robots. Like the character Data on Star Trek, or the Cylons of Battlestar Galactica, these creations appear human, have an active intellect and the capacity to learn and adapt. What would prevent me from assigning them to “work the mines” or clean toilets? If I can turn them on – give them power and “life” – by what rationale would I be prohibited from using them as I see fit, or for that matter, turning them off?

They, by contrast, would have no claim on me that I am being "hypocritical" if I order them not to turn off their fellow machines, or if I refuse to do the work I created them to do. Simply put: they are not my equal; they are instead subject to me and my creative power. Because of that power, I retain the authority, and the right, to exercise my will as it concerns them. Consequently, I can also delegate that authority by, for example, ordering Robot 1 to turn off Robots 2 through 10. Nor would this order constitute a contradiction, for the underlying rule is not "no one, including the creator, should ever turn off a robot." The underlying rule is that "no robot shall ever turn off another robot." When the creator orders that robots be turned off, he is not contradicting himself.

The skeptic is refusing to acknowledge the actual position of the creator, and instead assuming that the creator is subject to the rules he sets for his creation.

But the skeptic refuses to answer the most basic question: just why should that be so?

Is God a Hypocrite?

The Gospels, Hearsay Evidence, Corroboration and Reliability

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 228

Are the Gospels reliable enough to be considered as evidence? If they would not be admitted into court (under objections that they are “Hearsay” documents), do they really have any evidential value? In this episode, Jim examines the qualifications of the gospels, the nature of courtroom evidence, the requirements of history and the reliability of the New Testament eyewitnesses.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

The Gospels, Hearsay Evidence, Corroboration and Reliability

Does the 6th Commandment Prohibit All Killing

The 6^th Commandment has been translated as both “thou shall not kill” (King James Version) and “thou shall not murder, in newer versions, such as the New American Standard. Skeptics delight in such apparent contradictions, contending that Christians are either hypocritical, for not following the command to not “kill,” or are engaging in “special pleading,” if they insist that “murder” is the correct interpretation. Either way, the skeptic is likely to cry foul.

But is the skeptic’s view correct? Are we forced to concede that the Bible’s command is nonsensical, if it prohibits all killing, or that we are forcing our interpretation on it?

According to scholars, the Hebrew term that was originally used - ratsach - can be translated to include a broad range of killing or slaying, encompassing intentional murder, such as predatory “lying in wait” as well as less culpable forms of killing. Looking only at the phrase or sentence which contained the term, one would be left with an undecipherable message as to what the author meant.

This is true, of course, of any use of language. Words have multiple meanings and nuances that allow us to reduce our thoughts to a medium that allows for expression and, more importantly, communication. Unfortunately, it also allows for confusion. The only solution to this confusion is context. A word that does not fit into the broader meaning of the passage is probably poorly chosen. A word that contradicts large portions of the surrounding text is probably mistakenly translated. This is not an example of special pleading, but of sound interpretation.

Special pleading, by contrast, is the logical fallacy that occurs when a person seeks to apply an exception to a general rule without justifying the exception. For example, let's suppose I claim that the deliberate taking of innocent human life is always wrong. However, I wish to make an exception for abortion, but I don't attempt to justify why such an exception would apply. I don't bother showing that the fetus is not human, or that it is not innocent. I would be guilty of fallacious reasoning. (This, of course, is what makes debating "pro choice" defenders difficult, as they are refusing to follow principled thinking. But, I digress.)

Now, let's consider the difference in the verbs "to kill" and "to murder." "To kill" is a broad term which could encompass the taking of any life form; it has no connotation with regard to the mental state of the killer, what type of life was taken, the reason for the action, or the ability to justify the act. "To murder," by contrast, is a specific term which conveys the killer's mental state - historically called "malice," the taking of human as opposed to other life, the baseness of the reason and the lack of justification.

Applying these concepts to the Bible, it would be nonsensical to conclude that the 5^th Commandment prohibits "killing" of all kinds. After all, the people of that day killed much of what they used for food. The Author of the Old Testament commanded them to take life in certain settings, including the imposition of capital punishment in a variety of situations. Moreover, using the term to mean "to kill" would render sinful even the accidental taking of life or the taking of life in self-defense, a situation in which the defender is himself the victim of wrongful conduct. This would essentially eliminate any notion of moral behavior, as a wrongdoer bent on killing multitudes could not justifiably be stopped, and would be no more immoral than a person who accidentally killed someone in a moment of inattention.

Understanding "ratsach" in this context to mean murder makes sense of the passage and allows it to be harmonized into the whole. It still prohibits a great deal of conduct, but the prohibition applies to the wrongfulness of the conduct. Thus, a person who accidentally takes the life of a friend through an accident no fault of his own is not considered on the same par morally with the person who lays in wait to murder his rival.

This form of reasoning cannot properly be considered fallacious. It is not as if "ratsach" only meant "to kill without malice, including accidentally" and when we do not like the meaning, we invoke an unjustified exception. Instead, we are using the meaning that best comports with the overall meaning of the Bible. By contrast, the person insisting that the term be taken to mean "to kill" - ostensibly to avoid a fallacy - is committing the greater fallacy of forcing an irrational interpretation of the passage.

Does the 6th Commandment Prohibit All Killing

Why Do They Hate Tim Tebow?

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 227

In this episode of the PCM Podcast, Jim looks at the birth narrative of Jesus and examines the historical objections that are leveled by skeptics. Jim also takes a look at some of the articles that have been written recently about Tim Tebow and examines why Christians are so interested in the quarterback of the Denver Broncos.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Why Do They Hate Tim Tebow?

Is Atheism a Cult?

Cults have been much in the news of late. Christian pastors square off with defenders of particular sects, whose adherents resent the implications of that word. All the while, atheists look on with bemused satisfaction, thinking themselves above the fray, shaking their heads in condescension at all the bigoted people with their small-minded views about right thinking who don't realize just how irrational they really appear.

But is atheism itself a cult? A small misguided offshoot of the main group we could loosely characterize as "rational thinkers?"

A lot depends on what definition of "cult" is used? It's meaning varies: it can refer to a group bound together by the veneration of a person, ideal or thing; a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols; a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents.

I suppose the word doesn't really apply. Atheists aren't sufficiently united to be considered a cohesive group, although their numbers do seem to be growing. And no self-respecting atheist would consider their views to be even "quasi" religious, as they generally have nothing but disdain for people who "need" to invoke deities to make sense of what science, they are convinced, can explain. But the growing voice and influence of atheists is having an impact, and certain "sacred ideals and doctrines" have coalesced. Darwinism and the "separation of church and state" are two of the most prominent emerging belief-systems of this group.

As their zealousness increases, their voice amplified through the influence they exert in academia, this new breed of atheists does what it can to marginalize and belittle traditional believers. Not quite a religious "inquisition," but similar enough in its efforts to suppress contrary views that others should take notice. In most scientific fields, and certainly in the field of biology, a scientist allowing his religious views to cause him to question the "doctrine" of Darwinism will soon find himself out of work, or otherwise marginalized. Similarly, any effort to bring to the public square a framework for morality based on transcendent principles rooted in the Bible will result in a outcry that the "wall" of separation of church and state has been breached.

Indeed, many atheists are on a "crusade" of sorts, trying through the courts and elsewhere to wipe clear the public square of any reflection of organized religious views. Crosses and commandments can be privately worshiped, but what were the Founders thinking when they didn't write into the Constitution a prohibition of public displays? No matter that the First Amendment actually protects religious expression, this new breed of atheists will not stop until their vision of cross-less and commandment-less public areas is a reality.

In these respects, the hard-core atheists are coming to resemble the cults they disdain. Their views are peculiar and have been rejected by the vast majority of all who have ever lived, who recognize some very basic notions: that created things need creators; that sources of information such as is found in DNA require an intelligent source; that rules of morality that we all intuitively have access to require a rule-giver that is transcendent; that life cannot magically arise from non life without some transcendent source preceding that move.

Of course, name calling doesn't really advance an argument, so I'll refrain from actually calling atheism a cult. But as I reflect on how the members of this group have closed their minds to these common-sense notions as they have increased the pitch and volume of their demands, I certainly have to wonder....

Is Atheism a Cult?

Have Important Books Been Removed from the New Testament?

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 226

Have important ancient letters been removed from the New Testament Canon? If our current Bible is “smaller” than the Bible of the Church Fathers, how can we trust that we know the truth? Also, Jim addresses email related to Mormonism and his comments last week regarding to the use of the word, “cult”.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Have Important Books Been Removed from the New Testament?

God Does Not Torture Souls in Hell

For many skeptics, the idea that God could punish his "children" with eternal "torture" is just to much for them to accept. A non-believer with whom I once corresponded put it like this:

"The notion that hell is a place of "just" punishment is meaningless. Parents punish their children so that they will learn not to repeat undesirable behavior. The jail system isn't even really interested in that. It is vengeance, pure and simple. And that is the problem with "hell" as most christians portray it. The only way it could be reasonable is if it were to improve people's behavior on release. But if there is no release, it is not even punishment. It is torture. And I submit that a being who would create an eternal torture chamber does not come remotely close to embodying perfection. In fact, I would say he compares unfavorably even to Hitler who, for all his evil, could only condemn his victims to finite torment.”

Analogizing from the temporal to the eternal is difficult, if not impossible, since we have no frame of reference other than the one we occupy. How, then, do we make sense of a place in which there is no way to improve a person's behavior on release? In which the torment that is felt is unending because there is no release?

Let's consider for moment the analogy that is being used, that of the modern prison system. In dealing with the worst offenders, prison is meant to separate them from society, but it is also meant to punish. Both purposes are legitimate. But the punishment we speak of is, in essence, the incarceration, the very same act that accomplishes the separation. We do not first separate inmates from society and then inflict additional punishment; there are no medieval tortures that await them, no mistreatment that is deliberately inflicted to further the pain these inmates feel, no chain gangs to make their daily lives unbearable. In a very real sense, the punishment is the product of the incarceration, not an additional purpose.

Many people feel that prisons, for this very reason, do not provide adequate punishment for wrongdoers. Many feel that justice would be better served if more punishment were inflicted. But this criticism does not – indeed, cannot – apply to the eternal. Why? Because forcible separation from God is the worst thing that can befall any soul. There is nothing more to be done, nothing that could increase the pain that such a soul would experience. By the same token, there is nothing to be done that would lessen the pain; no way to make separation from the source of all that is good more bearable.

Consider for a moment of what the pain of separation consists. In a prison setting, being prevented from exercising any real control over the activities of one’s day, and one’s movement, would be bad enough. But being unable to spend time with others, being forcibly torn from one’s family and one’s closest friends - this indeed is torment. Imagine for instance a newlywed knowing that his lovely bride will be 80 before he is released. Or a new mother knowing that her vulnerable child we have to grow up without knowing her. This is anguish, pure and simple. .

Move now to a still deeper level. Even for the most hardened of criminals, there are people to whom they are attached, with whom they wish to spend time, even if they are simply fellow inmates. These others have some quality, some attribute, which makes them attractive, makes them desired. That is why solitary confinement is such an extreme form of punishment.

Now, consider the soul facing eternal separation and eternal alone-ness, isolated and embittered, aware of but forcibly separated from the God against whom their rebellion rages? What a human being feels on a limited and temporal basis, such a soul feels magnified a million, a billion …. an infinity of times. And he is not contemplating separation from a limited and flawed human being, but from the source of all life, all goodness, all joy. Can we even find words to describe what infinite emptiness feels like?

No, God does not actively torture people in hell. But he does not change His nature to suit those who shake their fist at Him. The separation that He imposes, just though it is, is a horrible thing indeed. But it is not torture; it is the nature of things.

God Does Not Torture Souls in Hell

How We Can Know If Man Is By Nature "Good"

I once had a friend who liked to play an interesting game of “what super power would you prefer?” He would ask, for instance, whether it would be better to have the ability to fly or the ability to, say, read people’s minds. Whichever one you picked, he would quickly point out the negatives that might come with that choice, and often the two possibilities he selected were, to say the least, bizarre.

I thought about that game a while ago while watching an episode of the TV show “Fringe.” Unfolding a story of parallel universes in conflict, the show plays out a variety of unusual events. The episode I was watching involved a person who had been experimented upon as a child, and as a result had developed the capacity to read people’s minds. What may have started off as a super power, however, quickly turned into a liability. Since other people’s thoughts would flood into his mind from a distance of 50 or so feet, he had been forced to become essentially a hermit, living in isolation as far away from society as he possibly could. The power had become a curse.

Most people would agree that the ability to read minds would be terrifying. Of course, there are legitimate reasons for this: the white lie we tell when we really don’t think someone looks nice would be unnecessarily hurtful. Things like bargaining for the best deal or playing poker would be impossible. But the real reason is that each of us knows the inner turmoil that lies within us - the conflicting, and often quite base, emotions warring within our minds for dominance, and worse yet, for expression. Jealousy, hatred, greed, envy, the desire for power and dominance – this ugly aspect of our basic nature must be daily suppressed, or channeled into some more appropriate expression. Drugs, alcohol and fatigue become the enemy, as each alone, and worse in combination, can lower the walls of self-restraint that, for most of us most of the time, imprison these demons in the recesses of our minds.

In my last post, I asked the question if man is basically “good,” as secular humanism holds, or basically fallen and broken, as Christianity teaches. This is an important question, because a worldview out of sync with the true nature of things is likely to lead its adherents very far astray. And secular humanism, with its utopian promises, is doing just that, as it leads people away from the true source of life. Seeing clearly man's inner corruption can help shake off the creeping influence of this godless worldview.

But, some will object, man is capable of great acts of goodness. Does this not show that man is at his core good? Yes, it is true that many people do “good” in the world. But what is really in their heart? How many times are those acts motivated by some other, baser desire? How many times is the act of good an offering of penance, whether knowingly or not, for the guilt that is bubbling constantly to the surface of our thoughts? Why is it that despite advances in psychology that seek to eliminate these pervasive feelings of guilt, guilt remains a universal feature of the human condition? Is it, perhaps, that each of us knows something is expected of us that we refuse to deliver, and how often we fall short of the mark? Is it that we know that despite all our “good” works, there is something else within us that we cannot quite control?

If someone could read minds, he would not find peace and contentment as the general rule, and the occasional person struggling to force some evil thought to the surface. Quite the contrary: he would find the vast majority of people pursuing their selfish agenda, sometimes doing good but always measuring what they are getting against what they are giving. Even the philanthropist is in part motivated by the pleasure he derives from public praise. The mind-reader would find people quick to take offense and slow to forgive, nursing wounds real and imaginary, though some are more adept at hiding this than others. That's what makes a saint so unusual, and so worthy of emulation. Yes, selfish concern is the norm, and the process of civilizing a person involves teaching him to think about others first. That process is so difficult because it is so against the grain.

As the old radio drama put it, who knows what evil lurks within the heart of men? And lurk it does, ready to take advantage of any chink in the armor of self control that most of us need to assemble as we take on the challenges of life. The answer is simple: God, of course, knows. Omniscient by nature, he knows our every thought. Our constant acts of rebellion we cannot hide, nor disguise. He sees our corruption with stark clarity, and though we can lie to ourselves, we cannot deceive Him. And nonetheless, He finds a way to continue to love us and to reach out to us. But he does so on His terms. We cannot approach Him and ask Him to embrace the evil that we do. Instead, with humble hearts, we need to acknowledge that justice would require that He depart from us. As a perfectly holy being, it would make perfect sense for Him to do so.

That is the danger of the humanistic worldview. When one mistakenly believes that he is basically good, he doesn’t need a Savior. What point is there in prostrating oneself at the foot of the Cross, when standing eye-to-eye with God feels so much better? The Christian worldview, by contrast, makes better sense of what we actually see. Man needs a savior, because at his core is a corruption that he cannot himself remedy. Though we may try to hide it from others, we can't help knowing this, if we’re ever honest enough for a no-punches-pulled self-assessment.

How We Can Know If Man Is By Nature "Good"

Should We Use the Word “Cult” to Describe Mormonism?

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 225

In this episode, Jim examines the recent comments of Pastor Robert Jeffress who recently described Mormonism as a “cult”. Has this word lost its meaning in our culture? Is there some other way to effectively share our concerns about the distinctions between Christianity and Mormonism? Also, Jim looks at the claim that Hitler was a Christian. Can this be supported by history? What implications does Hitler’s view of Jesus have on our examination of those who claim to be Christians?

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Should We Use the Word “Cult” to Describe Mormonism?

What Children Show Us About Our Nature

Most non-believers will tell you that man is basically “good.” When he acts against that basic goodness, it’s the result of disease - such as alcoholism, drug addiction or some form of mental illness. These, in turn, stem from a failure of society to reach out and provide the right kind of assistance and services. If only we as a society could do more, spend more, provide more, we could eventually create the kind of utopia that “good” people populate.

Christianity, by contrast, teaches a much different worldview. Long ago, the first man and woman exercised their free will to rebel against God, and in so doing created a rift between man and God that continues to this day. Though man has a certain inherent goodness, because he bears the image of God, he is at present broken, corrupted, fallen - and he manifests that fallen nature in a way that we see quite starkly. Christians have a name of this manifestation – sin. It afflicts, and motivates, all of us, and no one can escape its pull. Not without divine help, anyway.

These contrasting worldviews cannot both be correct. And depending on which view you accept, your response to the good news of the Gospel will be different. “Good” people who simply need more education and more refinement don’t need a Savior; they can do just fine on their own – and with a little help from society. But fallen and corrupted people – even well-intentioned ones – are not going to be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Their nature, constantly at war with the good that is within them, needs to be recast – remade in the image of the God who made them and left them here.

Is there a way to “prove” which view is correct? How can we reliably determine what man is like in his natural state? First, we need to get our minds around what we mean by terms like “good” or “evil.” I would suggest a simple definition: what we recognize as “good” in other people is the product of an intentional effort at selflessness. Whether its sacrificial love, working for charity or simply a random act of kindness – what we experience as “good” is an act directed to the benefit of the other. By contrast, what we see as evil is an act directed at satisfying within oneself a base or selfish end. The quests for power, for recognition, for material wealth, for dominance – all these things drive people to ignore the harm inflicted as they climb on the backs of those who stand in their way.

Now, with this basic concept in mind, what can we see from examining man in his most primitive state? I don’t mean primitive as in caveman, but as in newborn. Spend even a little time with infants and toddlers and you’ll see some very basic features emerge. Each views himself as the center of the universe and expects his parents, and the other kids around him, to treat him accordingly. With each passing month, the willfulness of the child’s behavior becomes increasingly apparent: from every fiber of his being, he is shouting “I want things my way!” Whether it’s food or drink, when and how he wants it; his mother’s attention; or his playmates toys, a developing child’s “me-focus” is readily on display. And if his will is thwarted, there is no resort to reason - a temper tantrum is the predictable result.

Now, some might object that children are innocent and cannot be described as bad or broken, or worse yet, evil. They might point out that children are free from the biases and prejudices that sour many adult relationships. But this objection misses my point. I would not describe children as evil either, because evil implies a level of awareness of the harm one is doing, and a small child does not yet appreciate the consequences of his behavior. But the child’s behavior is reflective of the way his mind operates, and unless a parent applies discipline and training to bend the will to a proper orientation, a spoiled, self-centered adolescent will emerge.

Consider: no parents ever have to train their child to give up his positive and sunny disposition and be more critical of others; they don’t need to punish their children for sharing too much and instead teach them to rip their toys out of the hands of their playmates; they don’t need to insist that a child stop thinking so much about what he can do for his parents – “Can’t I wash the dishes or sweep the deck? I really don’t have anything else to do?” No, for every child, the process of “civilizing” is a process of moving from a me-centered selfishness to an other-centered effort to get along.

Children don’t have the insight yet to seek to change their ways, to live more cooperatively and altruistically. Their parents' job is to teach them - to help them move from their inherent fallenness to a state which is not quite natural to us, a state in which we are intentional about trying to do good. The non-believer can also do good. But by rejecting God as the source of true goodness, he remains in defiance to God. He refuses to see his need for a Savior to finish the job of making him good. He refuses to bend his will to God. It is no coincidence that the Bible speaks of becoming a “slave” to Christ. For in the end, it is only by bending to Him – by dying to ourselves as we look outward to others in order to better serve Him – that we can eventually find the solution to our problem.

Believing that we are basically good flies in the face of the reality of what we truly are. It stands in the way of our crying out for the Savior who alone as the power to restore us. Observing children in their natural condition can help give us a better picture of ours. This is one of the few lessons that we should allow our children to teach us.

What Children Show Us About Our Nature

Six Reasons Why Young People Are Leaving the Church

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 224

In this episode of the PCM Podcast, Jim comments on Sean McDowell’s recent review of David Kinnaman’s book entitled, “You Lost Me”. Kinnaman identified six reasons why young people are walking away from Christianity and these six points provide a foundation for those of us who want to reach the next generation for Christ. Jim also comments on Dennis Prager’s recent article, “Why Young Americans Can’t Think Morally,” and answers listener email related to science in the Bible.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Six Reasons Why Young People Are Leaving the Church

Can Christianity Really Be The Only Way Part 2

Many skeptics believe that all religions are basically the same. If there is an afterlife, they surmise, all that will be required for admission is that you live a "good" life and be "sincere" about your beliefs. My last post offered reasons from the observation of nature that should cause the skeptic some, well, skepticism about this view that all who are "good" and "sincere" will find a place in heaven.

In short, it seems to me that a study of nature actually leads to the contrary conclusion: if nature is our guide to knowledge, then the Author of nature seems to be teaching that getting it right is what matters. Sincerely believing that you can defy gravity won't count for much if you step off the side of a building, no matter how good a life you've lived up til then.

Nature provides many other examples of this lesson. Consider for a moment the way nutrition works. There are a variety of food groups that can provide nourishment, and considerable variety within each food group. Proteins, dairy products, fruits, grains, vegetables - each of these groups has something to add to a person's total nutrition. When taken in the right balance, the person will experience normal growth to adulthood, plenty of energy and overall good health. But when one or more elements is lacking, a person's health can be severely impacted. Take for instance the disease known as scurvy, brought on by the absence of citrus fruits in a person's diet. Many an ancient sailor experienced this lesson the hard way, suffering a variety of physical disabilities that led to a painful death.

Notice that nature does not seem to care how a person was raised. If they learned to eat poorly in their childhood, nature does not take that into consideration in attaching a consequence. Nor is nature concerned with how sincere a person is in believing that his diet is good for him. When medical experts of the '50's assured their patients that smoking was good for them, that did not make smoking any less harmful. Those who study nature should realize that with more education and knowledge, we move beyond what we once believed as we try to conform our beliefs, and our behavior, with the way things really are.

To the thoughtful person then, eating should not be about what dishes he grew up on or about what food makes him feel "good." Most people find chocolate to be quite tasty, and it's known to lift one's mood. But if chocolate becomes a staple item in place of, say, vegetables, then one's health will soon decline. This result will occur regardless of how many experts advise it and regardless of how sincerely the person believes that chocolate can take the place of beans or broccoli. Though considerable variation exists, we cannot eat just anything and if we're smart, we should concern ourselves with finding that right balance of items that will best sustain good health.

Finding this right balance, of course, can be difficult. There is no shortage of "experts" who will tell you that only they have the answers. Yet try we must, for our health hangs in the balance. It would make little sense for us to throw up are hands in frustration and say that these competing "experts" can't all be right, so we'll just keep eating the way we want to, or the way we were raised to, and hope for the best. No, seeking answers and moving closer to "getting it right" are what any thoughtful person should do.

How does this relate to apologetics? When dealing with a skeptic, the believer often encounters apathy. Most skeptics just don't care what Christianity has to say, because they have uncritically accepted the notion that all belief systems are equal. By analogy, they have rejected the idea that some foods are good and some are bad, and replaced it: most people eat what they grew up eating; who are you to say that chocolate isn't as good as broccoli or fish?; I don't believe in citrus fruits; you're so intolerant when you think you know what a healthy diet is? Sound familiar?

Perhaps a discussion of nature might be persuasive, because skeptics often believe that it is only through the study of nature - through science - that any real knowledge can be obtained. That study should lead to the conclusion that nature is quite a harsh professor. It doesn't grade on a curve and it doesn't give partial credit for making a good effort. There is an order to life and to nature, and one must live within that order or suffer some very real, and often very nasty, consequences.

As a Christian, I can take comfort that the Author of nature has provided a rescue plan that makes my choice easy, and my work light. Yes, nature is harsh as a result of man's rebellion, but I have a rescuer who can and will restore what has been broken. There may be a variety of denominations, and there may be differences in some doctrines, but in the end there is one path to reconnecting with God - it is by placing one's trust and faith in Jesus and his saving work. Like many who came before me, I can take great comfort in the knowledge that the heavy lifting has been done for me. But where does the naturalist find comfort when studying the workings of nature? And if nature is this harsh in the here and now, why in the world should the skeptic conclude that it will be any different in the hereafter?

No, the wise choice is to discard this foolish notion that all religions are the same and that all paths lead to God. Better answers are out there, but you'll never find them if you never start looking.

Can Christianity Really Be The Only Way Part 2