Saturday, February 28, 2015

Movie Trailer: Mining for God




Film Description:

America has long been called a Christian nation. In fact, over 70% of adults in America identify themselves as Christian. Yet when filmmaker Brandon McGuire heads to the streets to ask a few clarifying questions about how Christianity is defined within our culture, he is shocked by the answers he finds.

This provocative documentary takes us deep within the American mind and brings to the surface the big ideas that have influenced the way we think about ourselves and about God.

Mining For God features interviews with some of America's most prominent Christian thinkers, including Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, John Stonestreet, J Warner Wallace, David Geisler, Alan Shlemon, Mary Jo Sharp, Donald Williams, Mark Mittelberg, Nabel Qureshi, Craig Hazen, Michael Sherrard and others.

Whether you would consider yourself a Christian or not - there is something of value for everyone in this film.

You can get it here.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

HT: Apologetics315 via twitter

Friday, February 27, 2015

Article: “My Genes Made Me Do It”: Is Ethics Based on Biological Evolution? by Paul Copan

In this featured article, philosopher Paul Copan takes on the challenge that "ethics is nothing more than the result of biological processes and social forces."

You can checkout Copan's response here.

For more from Paul Copan, see here.

Courage and Godspeed,

Chad

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Chapter One Review: The Resurrection of Jesus- A New Historiographical Approach by Mike Licona

It is with great enthusiasm that I begin this chapter-by-chapter review of Mike Licona's latest book. This volume has already earning marked praise from numerous scholars and apologists such as Craig S. Keener of Palmer Theological Seminary who writes:

"This book is the most thorough treatment on the resurrection and historiography to date."

Introduction

Licona begins by conceding that when scholars have researched the historical account of the resurrection in the past, they have often come to very different conclusions on a number of issues. However, unlike many skeptics and critics, Licona is careful not to jump to the conclusion that no accurate portrait of the historical Christ can be uncovered.

On the contrary, the fact that numerous portraits of the historical Jesus exist only serves to drive Licona to ask more questions.

He writes:

"What approach should be taken for an investigation involving the historicity of the resurrection? When writing on the resurrection of Jesus, biblical scholars are engaged in historical research. Are they doing so without adequate or appropriate training? How many have completed so much as a single undergraduate course pertaining to how to investigate the past? Are biblical scholars conducting their historical investigations differently than professional historians? If professional historians who work outside of the community of biblical scholars were to embark on an investigation of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, what would such an investigation look like?" [p. 19]

And as a result, Licona has written a book on the topic of the resurrection that is fresh and ground-breaking.

Licona writes:

"So how does my research differ from previous treatments? In the pages that follow I will investigate the question of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection while providing unprecedented interaction with the literature of professional historians outside of the community of biblical scholars on both hermeneutical and methodological considerations." [p. 20]

The Introduction concludes with Licona's summarizing the content of each chapter.

Chapter 1- Important Considerations on Historical Inquiry Pertaining to the Truth in Ancient Texts

This chapter begins by the author clarifying some key terms that will be used throughout the remainder of the book.

Most importantly:
  • History- past events that are the object of study [p. 30]
  • Historiography- matters in the philosophy of history and historical method [p. 31]
This reader was very impressed with the scope of topics that Licona was able to address in this first chapter. Anyone who has discussed the resurrection with a skeptic will surely appreciate Licona's points addressing questions such as:
  • Is History Knowable?
  • Isn't History Always Written by Winners?
Further, whenever discussing the problem of the historical resurrection, the topic of pre-suppositions [or "horizons," as Licona calls them] inevitable comes up. Licona's contribution to horizons and how the historian can successfully "transcend" them is invaluable material that this reader will continually reference in the future. In my opinion, this section of the book alone is worth it's price!

With candid transparency, the author acknowledges that the historian is challenged by their horizon. However, Licona proposes "six tools that, when combined, can be effective guides that bring us closer to objectivity."

These tools are:
  • Method
  • The historian's horizon and method should be public.
  • Peer pressure
  • Submitting ideas to unsympathetic experts
  • Account for the relevant historical bedrock
  • Detachment from bias
With these tools in the historian's tool belt, Licona contends that:

"Historians should search for evidence inconsistent with the preferred hypothesis before being willing to assert its truth. They should force themselves to confront data and arguments that are problematic to their preferred hypotheses. Historians must allow themselves to understand and empathize fully with the horizon of the author/agent and, furthermore, allow themselves to be challenged fully by that horizon to the point of conversion. They must achieve full understanding of and empathy for the opposing view. When this is maintained during an investigation, the historian is close to transcending her horizon. While full detachment may be unattainable, temporary detachment is attainable to some degree and provides value." [p. 60-61]

The author is not naive about the impact one's horizons can have on their historical inquiry, but argues persuasively that the historian can transcend their horizons for the sake of an accurate conclusion.

The chapter continues with Licona explaining the role of consensus in historical inquiry. Here, this reviewer appreciated how the author explained when a consensus is valuable, when it is not and the various limits a consensus can have on establishing a respected position.

Postmodern history, and it's main proponents, are then taken to task with professional courtesy. Licona examines "the reasoning and conclusions of the three foremost postmodern historians: Hayden White, Frank Ankersmit and Keith Jenkins." [p. 71] Then continues by revealing the numerous problems with Postmodernist History.

As he writes:

"As postmodern historians have referred to "the death of history," realist historians, which are by far the majority, feel justified in proceeding, though with caution. If history is truly dead, there are no means by which historians can distinguish fact from fiction and no way of weighing the plausibility of numerous hypothesis. Indeed, there are other consequences that are difficult for postmodernists to live with if their view of knowing the past is correct, such as a collapse of the legal system. Moreover, the arguments of postmodern historians are often self-refuting since they involve reasons for why we can know that we cannot know." [p. 126]

Next up is the consideration of "What is Truth?" The author explains that because of the challenges presented by postmodernists, realist historians (the majority) would do well to revisit the foundation of their views which includes the nature of truth itself. Two views of truth are considered here: a) correspondence theory of truth- for our descriptions of the world around us to be true, they must correspond to its conditions b) coherence theory- a proposition is true when all of its components cohere with other propositions believed to be true.

As the chapter progresses, Licona then examines the question, "What is a Historical Fact?" I appreciated the author giving attention to this oft overlooked question and found his definition of a historical fact satisfactory and fair:

"Richard Evans defines a historical fact as something that happened and that historians attempt to "discover" through verification procedures." This is the definition I hold and will use throughout this volume." [p. 93]

As the chapter continues, Licona takes an in-depth look at historians and what they actually do. The author tackles the tough questions of history head-on such as:
  • Who Shoulders the Burden of Proof in Historical Inquiry?
  • Is History a Science?
  • What do Historians Do?
I must admit that this first chapter is simply a delight to read. One gets that the feeling that they are participating in an Ancient History 101 class with a very thorough instructor.

As the chapter nears closing, the author examines to methods historians use in their inquiries: 1) Arguments to the Best Explanation 2) Arguments from Statistical Inference. Here, the author maps out both approaches, explaining both their strengths and weaknesses, then explains for the question of Jesus and His Resurrection from the dead, he will argument to the best explanation.

The chapter ends with an excellent summary and conclusions.

I believe the closing of this first chapter demonstrates another reason why Mike Licona's investigation into the resurrection is unique among his other works on the topic. The author explains that he has done his best to "transcend" his horizons and look at the question of the resurrection as objectively as possible. Further, he admits to going through periods of serious doubt and struggle throughout his investigation. He even goes as far as to admit that for him to conclude that the resurrection did not happen would in fact be "embarrassing."

However, he is determined not to allow these facts to hinder his inquiry:

"Because of the position I have taken in previous work, I would experience a bit of personal embarrassment if I were to arrive at the more modest conclusion of a historical question mark. I would also most likely disappoint two scholars who have not only been very influential in my life but have also become close friends: Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig. Even given all this, I am convinced that my interest in truth supersedes my fear of embarrassment and disappointment. If the resurrection of Jesus could not be confirmed historically, my specifically Christian faith could still survive. But a disconfirmation of the resurrection would lead me to abandon it...all historians of Jesus have something on the line in this discussion. Now that I have reported my experiences and laid bare my hopes, readers may assess the following discussion in terms of my approach and whether it was created, consciously or unconsciously, to achieve the results I desire rather than being a genuine attempt to conduct an objective historical investigation." [p. 132]

Conclusion

The first chapter of Mike Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach is mind food, plain and simple. This reviewer found Licona's approach transparent, thorough and concise. I can say with confidence that I now better understand just what history can and can not tell us, the job of the historian and what methods are best for historical inquiry.

I enjoyed this first chapter so much that I simply can't wait to being chapter 2 that deals with History and Miracles.

Many thanks to Intervarsity Press for the review copy.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Forthcoming: A review of Chapter 2- History and Miracles.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Article: Stephen Fry and God by Ian Paul

In this featured article, theologian, writer and speaker Ian Paul responds to Stephen Fry's recent comments to Gay Byrne about the god he doesn't believe in.  Byrne asked Fry what he would say to God if he was wrong.  Fry responded:

"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say.

Now, if I died and it was Pluto, Hades, and if it was the 12 Greek gods then I would have more truck with it, because the Greeks didn't pretend to not be human in their appetites, in their capriciousness, and in their unreasonableness … they didn't present themselves as being all-seeing, all-wise, all-kind, all-beneficent, because the god that created this universe, if it was created by god, is quite clearly a maniac … utter maniac, totally selfish.

We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him? What kind of god would do that?"

You can watch Fry's response here.

Ian Paul's response is here and well worth your time!  Further, here are some notes on the problem of evil that may prove helpful.

How would you respond to Stephen Fry?  Feel free to share in the comments below!
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Monday, February 23, 2015

Dave Sterrett on the Bible's Unified Presentation of Jesus

The Bible was written by at least forty authors, who wrote the books over a span of sixteen hundred years. God chose these authors from every walk of life:  they were kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, poets, scholars, and statesmen. Nevertheless, together these writers presented a unified portrait of Jesus Christ:
  • He was born in humble circumstances in the land of Israel.
  • He was a real man who had typical daily responsibilities as a carpenter.
  • He was God in the flesh, the perfect demonstration of God to mankind.
  • He was sinless and served as the perfect sacrifice for man's sinful condition.
  • He suffered a horrible death on the cross but rose again, conquering death and making the way for eternal life to all who will believe in Him.1
Stand firm in Christ,
Chase

Footnotes:
1. Sterrett, Dave. Why Trust Jesus? Page 110.

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Saturday, February 21, 2015

The Youth Exodus Problem

Our youth are leaving the church in record numbers.  Here, J. Warner Wallace reports on some of the research being done on the exodus of young people from the church and the reasons they give for walking away.  Then in this post he explains what we can do about it.  I highly recommend we take him seriously.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Friday, February 20, 2015

Video: Islam and Christianity- Is It the Same God?



Learn more about the "Short Answers to Big Questions" series here.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Quote: Nancy Pearcy on the Role of Pastors and Youth Leaders

"To be effective in equipping young people and professionals to face the challenges of a highly educated secular society, the church needs to redefine the mission of pastors and youth leaders to include training in apologetics and worldview.…Pastors must once again provide intellectual leadership for their congregations, teaching apologetics from the pulpit. Every time a minister introduces a biblical teaching, he should also instruct the congregation in ways to defend it against the major objections they are likely to encounter. A religion that avoids the intellectual task and retreats to the therapeutic realm of personal relationships and feelings will not survive in today’s spiritual battlefield."



Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

HT: The Poached Egg

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Deener Family Adoption Video


As argued here last week, adoption—both in the physical sense and in the spiritual sense- is near and dear to the heart of God.  Truthbomb team member Chase Deener and his wife Brittany have decided to pursue a domestic infant adoption.  They write:

"We would love to share with you God's heart for adoption and what He's doing in our hearts. It is our mission to help save lives, reduce the number of orphans, love with His love, teach of what Christ has done and that we've all been adopted. Join with us in adopting a child!"

I ask that you watch the video above and prayerfully consider supporting them!

You can learn more here.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Helpful Resources from Truthbomb Apologetics

For those who may be new to Truthbomb Apologetics, we wanted to highlight some of our features that could prove helpful to you.

1. For those just getting started in apologetics, you may want to check out our Apologist's Quiver.
You may also enjoy our Apologetics Sermons found here.

2. For those who enjoy reading, you should visit our Free Apologetics E-book Library that features a large variety of free texts on topics such as theology, philosophy and more.

3. If you are looking for information on a certain worldview, religion or cult, checkout our Apologetics Arsenal.

4. You may find an answer to a question by checking out our growing collection of answers to Common Objections.

5. Finally, if you are looking for answers to questions raised about the Christian faith by well known skeptics, atheists and unbelievers, you should visit our Responses to Notable Skeptics.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Monday, February 16, 2015

An Amiable Disagreement on Young Earth Creationism

In the subject podcast, Dr. John Mark Reynolds and Dr. Bruce Gordon provide an excellent example of how a discussion on young earth creationism should be conducted amongst Christians.

You can listen to the podcast here.

Stand firm in Christ,
Chase

Sunday, February 15, 2015

Saturday, February 14, 2015

Ravi Zacharias on Love

“Love is a commitment that will be tested in the most vulnerable areas of spirituality, a commitment that will force you to make some very difficult choices. It is a commitment that demands that you deal with your lust, your greed, your pride, your power, your desire to control, your temper, your patience, and every area of temptation that the Bible clearly talks about. It demands the quality of commitment that Jesus demonstrates in His relationship to us.”  [1]

Courage and Godspeed,

Chad



Footnote:

1. Ravi Zacharias, I, Issac, Take Thee, Rebekah.

Friday, February 13, 2015

Answering Common Objections to Hell

I finished Frank Turek's new book Stealing from God and plan on reviewing it next week.  I have been busy this week preparing for a sermon I'm preaching this coming Sunday.  I highly recommend Turek's book.  It is the best apologetics book I've read since J. Warner Wallace's Cold Case Christianity!

In the closing chapter of his book, Turek offers some concise answers to common objections about the doctrine of hell that I found helpful:

  • God tortures people in hell.- No, the Bible never describes hell as "torture."  Hell is described as a place of "torment," which is the anguish one experiences being separated from God.  And those in hell have made their choice and do not ask to get out.
  • Will God send me to hell just because I don't believe in Jesus?- This is best answered with a question: Do people die just because they don't go to the doctor?  No, they die because they have a disease.  Likewise, you don't go to hell merely because you don't trust in Jesus; you go to hell because you've sinned.  Since God is perfectly just, He cannot allow sin to go unpunished.  Jesus paid for everyone's sins, but not everyone wants to be forgiven.  Hence, hell is necessary.  But it's not necessary for you.  Just like you may be able to prevent physical death by going to a human physician, you can certainly prevent eternal death by going to the Great Physician- Jesus.  This offer of forgiveness is open to everyone, which means God "sends" you where you've chosen to go.
  • Eternal punishment is too severe for temporal sins.- The severity of the crime dictates the length of the punishment, not the time it took to commit the crime.  A murder might take three seconds to commit, but the punishment should be certainly longer than three seconds!  Crimes against the infinite, eternal Being are the most severe and may demand eternal punishment.  Moreover, since people continue to sin and rebel in hell, the punishment continues.
  • God should annihilate people rather than punish them.- Should you kill your children if they decide that they never want to see you again?  That's what the annihilationist is saying God should do.  God will not annihilate people made in His image.  That would be an attack on Himself.  Instead, He allows people to continue in their rebellion, just quarantined in hell so as not to hurt others.
  • God is unjust for punishing everyone the same in hell.- God doesn't do that.  The punishment is not the same for everyone in hell, just as the reward is not the same for everyone in heaven.  Jesus talked about greater commandments, greater judgments, and the fact that to whom much is given, much will be required.  The opposite is true as well.  Those who have less light will not be judged as severely as those who have more light. [1]
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Foonote:
1. Frank Turek, Stealing from God, p. 225-226.

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Article: Why Christians Should Embrace Adoption by gotQuestions.org

Text taken from here:

Giving children up for adoption can be a loving alternative for parents who may, for various reasons, be unable to care for their own children. It can also be an answer to prayer for many couples who have not been able to have children of their own. Adoption is, for some, a calling to multiply their impact as parents by expanding their family with children who are not their own, biologically. Adoption is spoken of favorably throughout Scripture.


The book of Exodus tells the story of a Hebrew woman named Jochebed who bore a son during a time when Pharaoh had ordered all Hebrew male infants to be put to death (Exodus 1:15-22). Jochebed took a basket, waterproofed it, and sent the baby down the river in the basket. One of Pharaoh’s daughters spotted the basket and retrieved the child. She eventually adopted him into the royal family and gave him the name Moses. He went on to become a faithful and blessed servant of God (Exodus 2:1-10).

In the book of Esther, a beautiful girl named Esther, who was adopted by her cousin after her parents' death, became a queen, and God used her to bring deliverance to the Jewish people. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ was conceived through the Holy Spirit instead of through the seed of a man (Matthew 1:18). He was “adopted” and raised by His mother's husband, Joseph, who took Jesus as his own child.

Once we give our hearts to Christ, believing and trusting in Him alone for salvation, God says we become part of His family—not through the natural process of human conception, but through adoption. “For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship [adoption]. And by him we cry, ‘Abba, Father’” (Romans 8:15). Similarly, bringing a person into a family by means of adoption is done by choice and out of love. “His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into His own family by bringing us to Himself through Jesus Christ. And this gave Him great pleasure” (Ephesians 1:5). As God adopts those who receive Christ as Savior into His spiritual family, so should we all prayerfully consider adopting children into our own physical families.

Clearly adoption—both in the physical sense and in the spiritual sense—is shown in a favorable light in Scripture. Both those who adopt and those who are adopted are receiving a tremendous blessing, a privilege exemplified by our adoption into God’s family.


Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Monday, February 09, 2015

The Incarnation and the Sacredness of Human Life

If you contemplate the Incarnation in light of the sacredness of human life, it is revolutionary. The Savior of the world was conceived. We often say that Jesus came to earth as a baby. We tend to picture Jesus as a small baby, just born, lying in a manger. But even more startling is that He came as a zygote, grew into an embryo, then a fetus, then a full-sized baby.

I can think of no better reason to equate the value of life in the womb the same as life outside. God Himself came to earth, and He came as a zygote.1

Stand firm in Christ,
Chase

Footnote:
1. Fisher, Brian. Deliver Us from Abortion:  Awakening the Church to End the Killing of America's Children. Page 86.

Sunday, February 08, 2015

Saturday, February 07, 2015

Philosophical Evidence for Premise 2 of the Cosmological Argument

A popular version of the cosmological argument goes like this:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. [1]

Now, as we have previously written, premise (1) enjoys at least 3 lines of reasoning that support it:
  • Something cannot come into being from nothing.
  • If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything and everything doesn't come into being from nothing.
  • Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1.
And while there are excellent scientific reasons to accept premise (2), there is also compelling philosophical evidence that suggests the universe had a beginning.  Philosopher J.P. Moreland explains:

"One philosophical argument for premise 1 involves the impossibility of creating an actual infinite number of events.  For example, if you start counting 1,2,3,...., then you could count forever and never reach a time when an actual infinite amount of numbers had been counted.  Your counting could continue forever but would always be finite; that is, it would have some point of ending.  If the universe had no beginning, then the number of events crossed to reach the present moment would be actually infinite because the universe would be infinite.  If would be like counting to zero from negative infinity.  Since one cannot have an actual infinite, then the present moment could never have arrived if the universe had no beginning.  Since the present is real, it had to have been preceded by a finite past; therefore, there was a beginning or first event!" [2]

So it seems that we have excellent scientific evidence and philosophical evidence to affirm that the universe did indeed have a beginning.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Footnotes:
1. For those interested in learning more about what makes a good argument, see here.
2. J. P. Moreland, "Does the Cosmological Argument Show There is God?," The Apologetics Study Bible, p. 806.



Friday, February 06, 2015

Article: Partial-Birth Abortion- Objections and Misunderstandings by Greg Koukl



Here you will find an important article by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason ministries regarding Partial-Birth Abortion.



Koukl writes:

"Objections to a ban on partial-birth abortion fall into three categories: the silly, the false, and the inconsequential. Here are the facts on each one."

You can checkout the article here.


Stand up for life!

Courage and  Godspeed,
Chad

Thursday, February 05, 2015

Is William Lane Craig Afraid to Debate John Loftus?

Let us consider the following:

William Lane Craig (WLC) has debated Sam Harris.
WLC has debated Christopher Hitchens.
WLC has debated Stephen Law.
WLC has debated Quentin Smith.
WLC has debated Hector Avalos.
WLC has debated Robert Price.
WLC has debated Gerd Ludemann.
WLC has debated John Shelby Spong.
WLC has debated John Dominic Crossan.
WLC has debated Paul Kurtz.
WLC has debated Ray Bradley.
WLC has debated Kai Nielson.
WLC has debated Victor Stenger.
WLC has debated Austin Dacey.
WLC has debated Antony Flew.
WLC has debated Eddie Tabash.
WLC has debated Paul Draper.
WLC has debated Peter Atkins.
WLC has debated Frank Zindler.
WLC has debated Bart Ehrman.
WLC has debated AC Grayling.
WLC has debated Lawrence Krauss.
WLC has debated Francisco J. Ayala.
WLC has debated Marcus Borg.
WLC has debated Lewis Wolpert.
WLC has debated Shelly Kagan.
WLC has debated Richard Carrier.
WLC has debated Joel Rosenberg.
WLC has debated Sean Carroll.

To see a comprehensive list, see here.

However, John Loftus would have us believe that WLC is possibly "chicken" to debate him.

So, we here at Truthbomb have a a few questions for Mr. Loftus- What is so special about you and your atheism that Dr. Craig would have no problem debating the above list of skeptics and/or atheists, but is supposedly afraid of you?  Are we really to believe that he "fears introducing you to a wider audience?" What exactly makes you so much more threatening than the impressive list of individuals above?

You could claim that because you used to be a Christian, that makes you more threatening. However, skeptics such as Bart Ehrman and Dan Barker have been riding that pony for years.

Further, you could once again claim that Dr. Craig is afraid to debate you because you are his former student; however, so what?  You were a former student.  That says nothing about your ability to defeat Craig's arguments.  Unless we are to believe that Dr. Craig takes all his students aside and says, "Okay everybody; here are all my weaknesses, but don't tell anyone..." I doubt it. Dr. Craig's work is available to anyone who can read, download a podcast or visit youtube.com.  Moreover, he regulary interacts with various responses to his arguments on his website.  Simply because you sat under his teaching does not make you an expert in debating the relevant arguments. This was evident in your debate with Dinesh D'Souza.

In regard to Dr. Craig, I personally standby what one well known atheist blogger had to say awhile back:

Craig has done 20+ years of Ph.D+ level research in the two fields he debates, has published hundreds of academic books and papers on both subjects, and has been debating since high school.

So yeah, that’s right. You are not qualified to debate William Lane Craig. Richard Carrier? Austin Dacey? Quentin Smith? Bart Ehrman? You are not qualified to debate William Lane Craig. Louise Antony? Christopher Hitchens? Eddie Tabash? You are not qualified to debate William Lane Craig. Frank Zindler? Gerd Ludermann? Hector Avalos? You are not qualified to debate William Lane Craig.

“What about some people who would like to debate Craig?”

Mark Smith? John Loftus? You are not qualified to debate William Lane Craig.

“Okay, well, is anyone qualified to debate William Lane Craig?”

Nobody comes to mind…

Surely Dr. Craig has his reasons for not debating John Loftus; however, I find it very hard to believe that being "chicken" is one of them.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Wednesday, February 04, 2015

Nobel laureate Robert Langhlin on Darwinism

"Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an anti-theory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong.  Your protein defies the laws of mass action?  Evolution did it!  Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken?  Evolution!  The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate?  Evolution is the cause!" [1]

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad


Footnote:
1. Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-169 as quoted by Frank Turek in Stealing God.

Tuesday, February 03, 2015

Video: Jesus and Pagan Mythology by Mary Jo Sharp


In this talk, apologist and author Mary Jo Sharp takes on the claim that Jesus never existed and that He is merely a pagan "copycat savior."

You can learn more about Mary Jo Sharp here.

Ladies, you can find 5 reasons God wants you to do apologetics here!

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Monday, February 02, 2015

Dangerous Thinking

Half of Americans think it's permissible to abort children with mental or physical impairments, according to a 2011 Gallup poll. Pre-born children with diseases diagnosed in the womb are aborted at a high rate. The American Spectator reports that, according to a 2012 review of seventeen international studies, "once prenatal diagnosis is made, anencephaly has an abortion rate of 83 percent and spina bifida of 63 percent." Another earlier review of twenty studies found that the abortion rate is almost 100 percent for children with spina bifida or anencephaly, 74 percent for Turner syndrome, and 92 percent for Down syndrome.

These startling numbers underscore how abortion has made America a less caring nation, one in which impaired unborn children are routinely eliminated.

"We are largely unaware that we have, as a society, already embraced the eugenic principle, 'Defectives shall not be born,' because our practices are decentralized and because they operate not by coercion but by private reproductive choice,' says ethicist Leon Kass.

The abortion culture in America is so insidious, it infects and affects our thinking about all life, including life outside the womb.1

Stand firm in Christ,
Chase

Footnotes:
1. Fisher, Brian. Deliver Us from Abortion:  Awakening the Church to End the Killing of America's Children. Pages 30-31.

Sunday, February 01, 2015