I believe that we need to have intelligent and thoughtful discussions on Christianity. We need reasons to a world full of questions. We need answers for both the skeptic and the doubter. With this site, I want to make the complex issues of our time simple. Come with me and let's look and science, technology, design and philosophy to see how these all affirm our Christian faith.

With truth, knowledge, wisdom and deep thinking I hope I can impact others so we all can impact the world. If I have inspired you to share in this vision, please take the material presented on this site and help change the world around you. You will want to be kept updated with the latest resources. Click here so you can get the latest posts straight to your inbox. Again, I would love to have you share my vision so please click here.


  1. Christianity is based on a lie. The Gospels were written at least 40 years after the events described, of which there has not been found any historical evidence. In fact, the story of Jesus is almost identical to various other cults which were popular at the time, for example, that of Mithras and Osiris. Therefore, any discussions 'from a Christian perspective' are invalid. especially when it comes to science and technology.

    1. Hekate Hades, thanks for stopping by and putting in your thoughts. I did have some responses that may help answer some of your concerns. However, it seems to me that one who is making such bold statements would supply valid sources. Every claim was an assertion with no justification or evidence. I'm sure you could do better than that and do invite you to do just that, supply evidence for your claims.

      However, here are some of my thoughts on your concerns:

      “Christianity is based on a lie.”
      What lie?Like said above, I see no evidence for this. It's just an assertion. Please give me more information on this. In addition, I do assume you are an atheists by the way you argue. If so, why is lying wrong? We both know it is, but why is it objectively wrong? What grounds it as a moral failure in atheism?

    2. “The Gospels were written at least 40 years after the events described, of which there has not been found any historical evidence.”
      I would also be careful of using an universal negative. Again, these are outrageous claims without evidence. In fact it is illogical. The Gospels themselves are primary source documents, thus historical evidence for the events. Autobiographies and biographies are still reliable even 40 years after the event. In fact, you can talk to many about wars they were in 50 years ago, they can give great specifics. In fact many write the stories down, that's how we communicate history with a high rate of clarity. In fact it is widely know that the story of Christ was early. I'll quote from Gary Habermas:

      "Reports from such an early date would actually predate the written Gospels. A famous example is the list of Jesus’ resurrection appearances supplied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Most critical scholars think that Paul’s reception of at least the material on which this early creedal statement is based is dated to the 30s AD. Other examples are supplied by the brief creedal statements that many scholars find embedded within the Book of Acts, which Gerald O’Collins dates to the 30s AD. From the so-called “Q” material in the first and third Gospels, another instance is the statement of high Christology found in Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22. Further, Paul’s earliest epistles date from the 50s AD."

      "(2) Whenever these early sources are also derived from eyewitnesses who actually participated in some of the events, this provides one of the strongest evidences possible. Historian David Hackett Fischer dubs this “the rule of immediacy” and terms it “the best relevant evidence.” When scholars have ancient sources that are both very early and based on eyewitness testimony, they have a combination that is very difficult to dismiss."

      "In our previous example, one reason critical scholars take Paul’s testimony so seriously is that his writings provide both a very early date as well as eyewitness testimony to what Paul believed was a resurrection appearance of Jesus. This is even conceded by atheist scholar Michael Martin. Other crucial instances would concern any eyewitness testimony that can be located in the Gospel accounts."

      "(3) Independent attestation of a report by more than one source is another chief indication that that a particular claim may be factual. Ancient historian Paul Maier asserts that: “Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable.” The Jesus Seminar emphasizes items “attested in two or more independent sources.”"

    3. “In fact, the story of Jesus is almost identical to various other cults which were popular at the time, for example, that of Mithras and Osiris.”
      First these stories are not almost identical to Jesus (see link below). Second, even if they were similar, it would not mean Christ and the story of his life was not real. An account is true or false on its own merits and the evidence that supports it. Consider this story:
      “Did you know there’s a book that was written around the turn-of-the-last-century about a ship that was an unsinkable ship, which hit an iceberg on its maiden voyage and sank? The name of the ship was the Titan. This is remarkable because some 15 years later the Titanic sunk on its maiden voyage after hitting an iceberg. Now what if you had read the novel and then later heard that a ship called the Titanic had actually sunk? I’m sure you can see that rejecting the story of the Titanic on its face would be foolish only because you’d read a novel similar to the actual event. Whether or not the Titanic sank is determined by the evidence for its sinking, unrelated to any other fictional stories that were like it.” (Source:

      Feel free to check out these two links for more information:

      “Therefore, any discussions 'from a Christian perspective' are invalid.”
      Again, you have not made your case, you have not given valid sources. So I have no reason to trust your assertions.

      “especially when it comes to science and technology.”
      Same as the above. However, if God (Jesus) was the creator of the universe, world and life, then I see no reason not to come from the Christian perspective when discussing science. Technology? I guess I don't see a connection for your claim. Feel free to connect it for me.

      Feel free to respond and provide me some links.


Join others & receive
my free blog posts &
resources. Get it now.