Why Billy Died Even Though He “Trusted” God! (Why Truth Ain’t Enough to Protect you from Error, Here’s What Else is Needed.)

Flash floods. Bad storm. The dam overflows…then brakes. Billy hears the rush of water hit his house as he awakes. Floods rise as he climbs on his table, but the water is getting higher. Standing upon a chair on the table he grabs the beam, he swings, smashing the window that leads out to the roof. All the way he prays for his life. Faith wells up in him. He knows God will spare his life. Climbing up to the peak, sitting on the gable, he awaits for the salvation of God -- for a miracle. The water continues to rise, creeping up the roof nearing his feet, his faith wavers.

How To Spot Deception and Prevent Yourself From Being Swayed by Illicit Arguments (Post 2)

The Maxim I Like

Most catch phrases concern me, especially when one uses them at whim without reflection and deep background knowledge of the meaning and potential pitfalls. However, there is one I kind of like. Penned by nineteenth century Alexander Campbell, this maxim address Christian religious authority: "Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent." In other words, when the Bible teaches a concept, we follow it. When it is silent on a topic, there is freedom for personal decision.

The One View Some Christians and Some Atheists Agree On - And Why It is Wrong!

Interestingly, prominent agnostics, atheists [1] and Christians of various persuasions agree on at least one thing, philosophy is of little worth. Other Christians are afraid of the enterprise. Our Western culture downplays classical education – such as philosophy. Even so, philosophy is pivotal, yes pivotal. Especially for our days.

We all have a philosophy and use it, the question is do we do it well? Simply, philosophy is the love of wisdom, it stretches back millennia, notably from the Greeks. However, one can't ignore the elegance and power of Scriptures support for knowledge and wisdom from Proverbs 4:5-11

Why Critical Thinking Skills are Essential, But Not Sufficient

For one like me, whose mind never seems to rest, there is a burden that I call “the thinker's bane.” You see, as thoughts increasingly swirl around in my mind my brain at times aches some. It's genetic. Writing helps releases those thoughts. But there is a concern when one thinks, one needs true knowledge and proper thinking skills so errors are avoided. Proper thinking skills are called logic or reason - these aid with truth. However, one needs more than just proper thinking, ones needs something to think about. Whether you are a deep or shallow thinker, you still need the two: knowledge and logic.

Martin Cothran, a classical education proponent, once told a story of a debate he took part in. A college biology professor and the chairman of the Kentucky State House Education Committee took the position that, instead of memorization, students should be learning "critical thinking skills" [1]. While Martin was not against "critical thinking", he said there needed to be more memorization in education as well.

He notes what he told his opponents, "I said that I doubted whether they even knew what 'critical thinking skills' were. And as it turned out, they couldn't give a definition." He went on to say "[w]hen the moderator of the debate asked me what my definition of critical thinking skills was, I answered: 'Logic.'"

Logic is given a bad rap by many post modern Christians, but this is confusing to me. Feel free to check out the first chapter of the biblical book of John, Jesus is called the "Logos!" The word logic is derived from logos and they have similar meanings. Think about this, as far as I know Jesus never made a logical error! Ah, now it makes sense.

In Martin's same piece, he made an interesting statement, "We can’t teach children thinking skills if we don’t know what they are—and we can’t teach them how to think if they don’t have anything to think about." Interestingly, this seems to be very similar to the teachings from the book of Proverbs, from the first chapter. Knowledge and wisdom are greatly praised.


[1] The Critical Thinking Skills Hoax
[2] The proper use of knowledge, in which logic is its main tool.
Image source: Flicker/Sodanie Chea

Gangster Grandma

Grandma

Someone's grandma is shuffling down the street about to cross that busy road. Being the generous self that you are, you slowly walk next to her, making sure she arrives safe on the other side.

She thanks you and starts into a sob story of her life and her poverty. You are moved with compassion, and that's when she asks for charity. Reaching down to you wallet, you pull out a five and hand it to her. She says she could use more, so you hand her another five and head off.

You barely take a step down the side walk when she says "I want all you money, please." You hesitate. Spontaneously she says "hurry, or I'll shoot you." Flabbergasted you laugh, not sure if poverty stricken sweet grandma has lost her mind. You smile and say "have a good day" and start moving, as you turn to go, you see her hand slip into her purse and out slides out a cute looking Remington derringer. You don't think twice, with one smooth move, your hand slips into your pocket pulling out your wallet, emptying the contents into grandmas purse as the business end of the weapon is pointed at you. You say "good day" to sweet old grandma and you vamoose.

Faith?

Faith, some say faith is blind, maybe so. But I could also say arithmetic is blind, sames goes with information, reason, logic, thinking, and may other things. The concept is unseen.

But it is really not "blind" in the sense of evidence, we know we believe things because of the evidence. That's where the allegory comes in, "you" didn't have faith in "grandma's" threat till there was evidence. In grandma's case, you physically saw the evidence, the gun. But that is that is not the only type of evidence. Now, this evidence may have been misplaced. The derringer may have been a replica or it may not have been loaded. But there was evidence, and good evidence at that.

Not Blind Faith

Faith in God is similar. God never asks us for "blind faith." Jesus and the biblical writers give much evidence for faith - in other words believing on him or putting our trust in him. Biblical examples where Jesus provided evidences include previous Scriptures, God the Father, the Spirit, John the baptist, his miracles, Jesus himself, prophesy, changed lives, personal testimony, personal experiences and primary sources.

But Thomas....

"But what about the infamous doubting Thomas"? one may ask. OK, good question. Let me give the context.

In John 20:11-26 we read the story of Mary Magdaline and the apostles. Only after Mary Magdaline went to the and tomb, met the angles and talked to Christ did she personally tell the disciples what happened. Later, all the disciples, save Thomas, were gathered together when Jesus appeared in the mist of them showing them his hands and side, and spoke to them. The disciples had first hand testimony of speaking to and seeing the resurrected Jesus. Even thought Thomas had all this evidence (besides Jesus own words before his death), Thomas said he wouldn't believe till he saw and felt the wounds. A number of days later, the disciples, including Thomas, were together. Jesus again appeared. Now picking up on verses 27-29 Jesus says “Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

Blind Faith?

This is where so many get the idea of “blind faith”. However, just a natural reading in context will reveal that Thomas had plenty of evidences - personal testimony from Mary, the apostles and Jesus' own prophesy.

But this passage goes on to say more in verse 30 and 31 “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” 

Ah, so look at the last part, in other words, he presents these evidences that we may trust that Jesus is the Messiah, God's Son – so we may have life by believing through his name!

What is faith?

So what is faith? Faith simply means a trust or have confidence in something, in other words holding a thing to be true. It is also justified belief and not just opinion. Faith doesn't mean there is lack of evidence. Maybe a more accurate word to the Biblical text would be trust.

But I heard otherwise!

However, I have noticed that most Christians believe that faith means something totally different. Unfortunately us Christians, in general, have picked this different meaning from agnostics and atheists. We are told that faith and evidence are antithesis of each other. This view is NOT biblical. For an example of a non-Christian's thoughts: "Faith is belief without evidence and reason" Now I could see many Christians agreeing. However, it goes onto say "coincidentally that's also the definition of delusion." Think about it, the second part does easily follow if the first part is true. So who stated this quote? You guessed it: Richard Dawkins.

You know as much as me this is not biblical. So why do we let atheists define faith for us rather than the Scriptures (1)? 

So why?

Here some more rhetorical questions to think about. Why do we teach "blind faith", "faith instead of fact", "simple faith" and "a leap of faith"? So why do we use slogans and rhetoric like"you should just have simple faith", or "don't use man's reasoning?"

Is Faith opposed to reason and fact?

But there's more, faith isn't opposed to "science", knowledge, reason, logic, understanding, wisdom, etc. Consider this, God is the Creator of the natural world, how could faith be incompatible with God's creation (some may say "science" or nature)? From God's nature flows knowledge, reason, logic, wisdom, truth, love, etc. - all compatible but all physically unseen - but all knowable and all have evidence for their existence.

Since from God comes reason and faith, and if faith is in opposition to that, we would have a strange conundrum, right? We are in God's image, that is why we also have these qualities and should cultivate them. There is no such thing as faith vs. fact. The opposite of faith is faithlessness or lack of trust. The opposites of fact and reason are fiction and unreasonableness!

Oh, by the way, please please be faithful and pass along these facts and reasons to all you interact with!

(1) Here are some sources that will give you what faith really means: Act 1:3, John 20:30-31, John 21:24, John 10:24-26, 37-38, John 8 17-18, Exodus 4-12 (God proves who he is through Moses).

The Brainwashing

Are you being brainwashed? In a post by Stella Morabito (see source below, it is worth the read), she tells the story of Patricia Hearst, who within two months was brainwashed into a totally different person. There were a number of things that she went through but here are some of the techniques her kidnappers ("Symbionese Liberation Army") used:

Image source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patty_Hearst.

• Formed a cycle of "...isolation, threats, and humiliation, punctuated by a little peace (reward) for compliance [this] broke down Hearst’s sense of self." She lost freewill.
• "stimulated in her an overwhelming sense of dependency"

Marabito goes on and notes what Singer, a psychiatrists who eventually became involved with Patricia's recovery, says on how people are brainwashed:

• "Keep the person unaware that there is an agenda to control or change the person and their thoughts"
• "Control time and physical environment"
• "Create a sense of powerlessness, fear, and dependency"
• "Suppress old behavior and attitudes"
• "Instill new behavior and attitudes"
• "Put forth a closed system of logic"

The following are things that people use to brainwash groups of people. These are used by governments, social group leaders, some religious leaders and many charismatic leaders. Sadly these work, usually for devious outcomes.

• "The atmosphere of coercion is reinforced by peer-modeled behavior." This is the good old peer pressure technique. Go into any group gathering or school and you will see this in practice.
• "...you are exposed to a slogan often enough, you will repeat it, even if you don’t understand what it means." I'm convinced that this point alone is very dangerous. There are many slogans that may have some good and some truth, however, many that are used are used for devious purposes and used to shut people up and stop questions from being asked.
• "...a climate in which the agenda is seen as an elitist movement for those who are enlightened. Those who oppose the agenda are labeled as lesser beings." Usually this is not stated outright, but a culture of ignoring one or placing one at a lower level with a derogatory label is often used.
• “collective belief formation –describing how implausible opinions can be manufactured through a system of social/reputational punishments and rewards." Even illogical conclusions are twisted to sound logical. If one dissents, one is punished.

So what are the best ways to protect yourself? Again, Marabito gives some tips to prepare yourself and help guard against mass brainwashing:

• "techniques 'should be studied and revealed so that citizens can be taught countermeasures in order to avoid being exploited by such groups.'" In other words, know the techniques.
• "Education, information and vigilance are constantly needed if we are to keep us, and our minds, free.” The more you know the truth, stronger you will be.
• Expand your "one-on-one personal relationships and conversations. This is where our power lies..." Form connections. You will find you are not alone in your defence. 
• "...remaining silent about our beliefs when we are being abused is that we actually dig our own hole deeper. Every dissenter feels alone, perhaps even in a roomful of dissenters. Every fence sitter resigns himself to signing on with the perceived 'majority.'" In other words, speak!
• "When unanimity is punctured, the group’s power is greatly reduced." The power here lies in the fact that when there is an outcry, the brainwasher's loses some of the control.

In your life watch out for others pressuring you to keep quiet, telling you not talk to others about topics, discouraging you from asking questions, the use catch phrases used without definitions given and "norms" that you are expected to hold to even if they make no sense. Be concerned if your pursuit of knowledge and information is discouraged against. Use the tools given here to prepare yourself for the war on your mind. Know the truth, gain knowledge, ask questions, talk to others and understand the techniques people use to brainwash others. Last but not least, pray for wisdom and discernment!



All quotes came from the following source: http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/15/cults-in-our-midst-patty-hearst-and-the-brainwashing-of-america/

Don't Trust, Written by Man

A friend tells you, "you shouldn't take the Bible too seriously since it was only written by men, and men make mistakes.” What do you say? Many things could be said, the more you know, the more prepared you will be for this type of encounter. Believe me this is a real argument that people use against the Bible. However, even if you are uncomfortable with why one should trust the Bible, even though there are good reasons, you can be still quite effective.

The power of questions

You already learned about questions (here and here) so let's use questions in this real life example. All you have to do is think about the statement. Are their pit falls in his or her thinking? Why yes. Lets try to point them out in a kind way - with questions.

1. Do you have any books at home? 
2. Did humans write them? 
3. Is truth found in any of them? 
4. Do you have any reason you think the Bible is less truthful or reliable than other books you own? 
5. Are there always mistakes in what people write? 
6. Don't you think God would be able to use humans to write down exactly what he wants? 
7. If not, why not?

These seven questions, or questions like them, will help you as you interact with others. If nothing else these will help you get the other thinking by "putting a stone in their shoe."

Why Respect?

I already talked about one very important question "what do you mean by that?" This question is powerful because it can clear up misunderstandings fast, decreasing conflict.

Danger

Many don't know what they mean when they make claims, they just repeat the talking points. This means that this question, along with others, are powerful but also can be dangerous. One looks like a fool when one doesn't even know what one means, this can cause great hurt. Consider a knife, it can do great good, such as a surgeon's scalpel. Much damage also can be accomplished with this tool, such as murder. With a good question comes responsibility.

That responsibility is respect. We need to ask questions, but they need to be respectfully. If not asked respectfully, another can be made to look stupid, which is not what we want to accomplish. We need mercy. Respect is hard to give some times when outlandish reasonless assertions are made. Even so, respect is needed.

The next two questions can be even more effective, but also just as dangerous. In other words, mercy is needed along with these questions.

The second main question 

This next question should be used when another makes a claim. It's not my job to prove a radical assertion wrong, the one who makes the claim rightfully needs to supply the evidence for the truth of the claim. When this happens, I ask something like this "How did you come to that conclusion?" A gentler way to say this is "Why do you feel that way?" Again it clarifies the reasons for a person's ideas. Please watch out, again most can't provide evidence, they just make empty claims. You can make one look like a fool unintentionally.

The last big question

The last question is used to exploit a flaw when you are in communication. This question is great when reasons don't support the claims or the claim is weak. The question is "Can you clear this up for me?" Now of all the questions, this is the most assertive and direct, so it needs to be used with mercy and grace. When one's reasoning is fallacious, it can be quite embarrassing.

Conclusion

As a recap: use mercy and respect with the following types of questions 1)"What do you mean by that?" 2) "How did you come to that conclusion?" 3) "Can you clear this up for me?" Put these type of questions into your communication tool box. These will help you learn, stay in control and gently help the others think about what they are saying.

What do you mean by that?

In a previous post, I talked about fifteen things that I am trying to focus on more. The last five were under the title of "culture of inquiry". I am trying to ask more questions for a number of reasons. Also, I talked about questions in my post on how to talk to those who are unbelievers or nominal Christians. One of the most important questions you can ask is "What do you mean by that?"

Questions

Just because I ask a question does not mean I don't know the answer, nor does it mean that I am unsure on my reasoning. Asking questions have other ramifications besides just pure learning, it may be that I just want to hear other peoples views on the topic. Many times I use them in controversial settings, or maybe to get the other person thinking about something. Once an evolutionary materialist said that observable evidences is all it takes for science. So I asked him "are you saying that observable evidences is all you need?" He said yes. I then asked him some other questions to help guide him that this was not true.

Equivocation

Questions also helps prevent equivocation. Examples could be like one saying "this is doctrinal", "evolution is true", "that is heresy" or "that is sin", I do't quite know how to take those comments. I would want to know what they mean by "doctrinal", "evolution", "heresy" or "sin" before stating my opinion. Each of these words can mean different things to different people.

Merciful

We need to get in the habit to ask clarification questions before giving a comment, agreeing, or making a rebuttal to another's views.

The first question that should come to mind is:

"What do you mean by that?"

Or any variation of that question will work.

Why?

You should try to help the other person define his or her terms by a question like this. This question alone may clear up an issue and help you understand the other better and prevent disagreement. In other words, if you and the other person have different meanings for a word, your conversation will consist of the same word being used but in very different meanings.

Confidence In Conversation

Should I talk to Non Believers?

Are you afraid to talk to atheists, agnostics, people from other religions and nominal Christians? If there is a God and the Bible is true, then its message compels us to talk to others while living a godly life. We can avoid pitfalls in interaction through learning. This is one aspect of being a disciple of Christ's, learning how to interact. One bad experience can cause some to give up. This is wrong, we can and should be talking and living as Christ commanded. With proper knowledge and wisdom, we can overcome four types of pitfalls.

Losing focus.

Stay focused. 1) Some focus on wining the discussion. Maybe because of pride, lack of understanding or lack of training. Rather, present the truth for the other's benefit, giving them something to think about with love and gentleness. 2) Getting side tracked on "rabbit trails" should be avoided. Keep returning to the central simple issue at hand. 3) Some seem to focus on peripheral Christian topics. Rather, build the foundation first and keep the "in house" topics of Christianity "in house". Focus on the foundation such as the fundamentals of biblical teaching and core world view issues.

Not knowing what you believe and why.

Know what you believe and why. Being well read gives you the knowledge and helps you learn from other's mistakes and knowledge. When one has the truth, one need not be ashamed. This knowledge gives you confidence and it helps you spot error. Knowing what you believe and why may take some work. This may be necessary before getting to the central issues. Having a grasp of what "non-believers" believe helps you with confidence as well.

Not knowing how to interact.

Baseless ascertains, wrong tactics and catch phrases are all dangerous. Sarcastic and antagonistic attitudes  aimed to those on the other side never helps, respect does wonders. Shun Christian lingo, people need clarity, not "foreign language." Never get angry, you are not here to win, you are here to help show the way - eventually to Christ and his kingdom. Follow the example of Christ, Paul and Apollos. Your character and behavior matters from both God's and other's perspective!

Not understanding

You will never know everything so ask questions to learn. Ask clarification questions so you don't misrepresent another. When another makes a claim, allow the other to provide evidence for that claim by asking for it. Only after that should you give your commentary. A Knowledgeable person can many times spot weakness in reasoning when one holds to a world view other then biblical. Allow questions to point out these weakness if possible. Jesus did this. Questions are powerful.

I have noticed that some are used to making unsubstantiated assertions. When asked clarification questions or for evidence, these people may not like it because they are taken off guard. This makes them think, which is good. Also, it means that questions are a powerful tools, so be careful, they can be dangerous if not done with grace, mercy and love.

Post Reverberations From Ham vs. Nye

I once talked to one who had a graduate degree in geology. He told me that one can't be a scientist without believing in evolution. While I already posted some of my thoughts concerning Ham's and Nye's debate, I want to take up this specific issue. After listening to Nye and many others in the social media world, I have been hearing the above concept go something like this: "you can't be a good scientist unless you believe in molecules-to-man evolution." I have two concerns one is this assertion does not follow, second I think the debate topic about if creation is good science is wrongly put, it should have been, can materialistic molecules-to-man evolution be good science.

Why does this specific issue not make sense? Let's look at a real world example. One can cook well at the same time believing in flying cookie monsters, leprechauns and mermaids. However, one does not have to believe in those to also cook well. The same goes for science, there are grounding precepts that have built the science concept over the years. These are in place no matter what a scientist believes. These included, uniformity, logic, math, repetition, drawing the best conclusions, information and peer review just to name a few things. All scientists need to believe in are things like these to do good science.

However, because science and reason have foundations upon the Christianity, one has to wounder how the belief that "you can't believe in creation and be a scientist" even makes sense. In fact, the field of science is based off the Christian world view, things are knowable, repeatable, logical, uniformity and there are ethics (right and wrong) that guides us while living life (1). God is the grounding for science. Without God, the Christian God, science probably would never taken off as an enterprise. It only took off once in history that we know of, that was in Europe. The early European scholars and scientists thought they could know why things work because they had a belief that the Christian God was rational, dependable, the creator and was lawful (1).

Even Tertullian knew that since God is a rational God, we can understand things and reason. He says the following:

Reason, in fact, is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason - nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason (2). 

That is why I am concerned when Christians put an artificial wall between reason and faith. This "wall" is based upon the the atheist world view. It is so prevalent in Christendom because of post-modernity and also atheist assertions. In fact it does not make sense. It is not "reason vs faith" or "science vs God." These are complimentary with each other.

I feel that a better debate question that would have put us on the offensive instead on the definitive should have gone something like this: "can materialistic molecules-to-man evolution be considered science?"


(1) Stark, Rodney (2003) "For the Glory of God", Chapter 2. Princeton University Press. page 147.
(2) Tertullian, On Repentance Chapter 1

Ham vs. Nye

Overall, I think Ham had strong foundational points, especially philosophically. Nye seemed to be stronger on the natural sciences but weak philosophically with no grounding for his would view.

Ham talked about the fact that Nye, a materialist, has no grounding for things like reason, science and morality. If the universe, including ourselves, are just banging molecules that stick together at times, then why do we have laws like math or how can we all reason and have a fairly accurate way of understating each other? What about aesthetics? What about the laws of uniformity which science is built upon? Nye can't give good responses for these origins because first there is no grounding in his world view, second a materialistic world view tries to ignore non tangible things that “science” can't explain. In fact this concept is strange on its own because the concept of science is itself non-tangible.

On the other end, Ham could have built a stronger design argument. I saw a slide in passing that talk about it, but this topic needed more focus. Another powerfully area that I feel that he should have focused upon was the origin of information such as contained in DNA and RNA. It is not explained by materialists except via “just-so” stories. Lastly, he should have pounded away at the foundation of the materialistic view of first life. I have not been impressed with the different theories nor do they satisfy traditional scientific rigor.

Also, when asked if any piece of evidence could cause him to question his view, I think he missed a great opportunity to say what Paul said, in that if Christ did not die and was raised from the dead, his faith would be in vain (1 Corinthians 15:12-30). By saying this it would have given him more credibly. Second, it would have been a great opener for a quick discussion of the unsuccessful attack upon the Christian foundation since the time of Christ. He also could have given the evidence that we do have reliable evidence for Christ's death and resurrection from our four primary sources: the Gospels.

Concerning Nye's arguments I was impressed that he used observations of the natural world to draw his conclusions. While Ham did do some of this, (such as no new information needed for bacteria to digest citric acid, rather it is done by just a "flipped" switch on a gene in that species of bacteria) he did not seem to do as well as Nye.

While I had many concerns with Nye's views, one was that he took out of context a line from the constitution. The constitution says the following concerning congress: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” However, on stage he made it sound as if the writers of the constitution were referring to educating our youth, not authors and inventors.

Second, for him to use the word “science” from this document is a misrepresentation of it without proper definition in that day and time. In the old 1828 Websters dictionary, published 41 years after the constitution basically defines science in the broad sense of knowledge (this book was based upon his earlier dictionary from 1806 “A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language”). This is in opposition to some contemporary definitions which only try to limit it to understanding the natural, material world through the lens of natural causes.

I feel that his view was weak when he argued that to be a good scientist and engineer one must have a foundation in materialistic understanding of “science.” This makes no sense, many if not most of the fields of science and math were started and continue to be propagated by thinking Christians and other religious people. Second, the university system was started in the middles ages with many Christians leading the way. Many of the these early Christian scholars had a great tolerance for diversity of thought and arguments from different points of view. Third, without the grounding of the Christian world view, there would not even be science, math,  reason, etc.

If you can remember only two things here, first Nye's case is foundationless because of his materialistic world view. Second his case is groundless because this world view does not make senses logically when one looks at the origin of life issue. Both issues demonstrate lack of grounding which makes his case illogical.

Reason or Faith?

As if these are antithesis of each other, many, both christian and atheist, feel reason and faith are incompatible. I would argue that they are complementary.

Many times I hear Christians say that we should have a "simple faith," "blind faith," or just "faith to believe." It seems that this is usually referenced against us using our minds. When one uses "reason" one must not be using "faith." I not only find this saddening but also know the Bible does not teach this view, it is unbiblical.

In Isaiah 1:18 it says "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Here, God asks those people to reason. In fact, in John one we read of Jesus being the "Word." The Greek work for this one is logos, it stems back to the same word that we use in English to mean reason, the word logic. Romans 12:1 Paul says " I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." The last part, "reasonable service" can be translated "logical service". The Greek word is logikos, this is were we get the word "logical". In other words we do have logical expectations to fulfill as Christians.

In fact we did not even have to look at the biblical text, we only have to reflect upon it, and understand that if we did not use logic or reason we could not understand each other, we could not make books, talk, do science, and many other things.

We also could look at the antonyms for these words and see that the opposite of faith is faithless or lack of trust. The opposite of reason and logic is unreasonable and illogical.

In addition, Christianity stands out as a "sore thumb" in the world of religions, why? Because it can be demonstrated. The apostles note several places that it is true because of eyewitness testimony (1 Corinthians 15 and 1 John 1). It can be falsified, if Jesus did not raise from the dead, our hope is in vain (1 Corinthians 15).

For me, I want to have trust in God because it is reasonable. Without reason, I could not even read, understand and follow the Bible!

You will not want to miss the next posts. If you found this one helpful, you will want to keep an eye open for others. The best way is to click here, because you can get them straight to your inbox so you don’t miss out! (Click here.)

STOP: Drop Your Mind Off Before Entering Church

For some Christians, I think they view that a "simple faith" is a building block of Christianity. However, I am not even sure what that means by those who use it. Does it mean we should have no knowledge or reason, or in other words we should be "anti-intellectual"? It seems to me that this is just laziness garbed in spirituality.

Fortunately or unfortunately, it is not only unbiblical, but also antibiblical. We find passages contradict this sentiment, such as “Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men” (1 Corinthians 14:20). We know that knowledge is one of the spiritual gifts from God (1 Corinthians 12:8). Jesus chastised the Jewish lawyers because they took away the key of knowledge (Luke 11:52). Paul praise Timothy for his knowledge of the scriptures since a child because it made him wise unto salvation through Christ (2 Timothy 3:15). Paul, in 1 Corinthians 13:11, talks about lasting great virtues and makes this statement: “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” This does not sound as if he his against knowledge.

In fact knowledge and wisdom is applauded and foolishness and ignorance is degraded in much of Proverbs (Proverbs 1, 4, 8, 12, and 15 just to name a few passages). In fact knowledge is built upon virtue and upon knowledge is built temperance (2 Peter 1:5-6). James tells us how a wise and knowledgeable person should act; with good behavior, with meekness that is not boasting (James 3:13).

We see that if one infers “simple faith” to be anti-intellectual, than there is no scriptural bases for this, in fact it goes against scripture.

The "Man's Reasoning" Fallacy

I have heard it said by those who are trying to be Christianly pious, in the best sense of the word, that we should not be using "man's reasoning." I assume this is said to sway another from a supposed anti-biblical view. Are they against "man's reasoning"? I think not.

It seems that it is said to one who holds differing views from our pious critic, even if our critic has no scriptural justification to hold that view. Second, many times that person has no good arguments, reasons or biblical precepts to hold to that view, he or she just has assumptions and assertions. Lastly, I see those who express this when they think one is not using supposed "simple faith" (one can use reason and have "simple faith" as the link indicates).

While these types of individuals like to think of themselves as obtaining reasons verbatim from the Bible, in reality they are using "man's reasoning" or in other words, their view. This view has no biblical justification, so unless they can give something other than a string of assertions, they have no case and the argument is self refuting.

You will not want to miss the next posts. If you found this one helpful, you will want to keep an eye open for others. The best way is to click here, because you can get them straight to your inbox so you don’t miss out! (Click here.)

Santa Claus Christianity

"The most wonderful time of the year" projects many kid's imaginations into the realm of fantasy with Santa and the elves. Unfortunately, many Christian adults also have the same view of the Bible, it is fantasy. Now they would never say that, but their "reasoning" affirms this view. 

Some of my past students believe the Biblical creation account. However, in the same breath they say that the Bible and science are at odds. Not only that, but science has all the facts that point to naturalist mechanism for the origin of life. But...since they are Christian, they are going believe the Bible. 

In other words, Science has the facts (truth), the Bible is not factual (not true), but they are going to believe the Bible. In other words the Bible does not paint a picture of how the world really works, it is a fable, not reality, but they are still going to believe. 

This is not noble, rather it is unwise!

This type of thinking produces a baseless faith that leads to superstition. It is like a child believing in Santa Claus, there is no such thing, it is just in one's imagination. 

The Bible presents no such faith. The Scriptures show reality. It shows humans for what they really are. 

The middle-age philosophers were mainly Christian, which birthed science. Christianity helped birth the university system. This is not chance, Biblical understanding gave many the desire to learn more about how the world works. It is the Biblical concept of uniformity, God is the same yesterday, today and forever, that catalyzed the framework to believe that we could learn more. As Christians we know that everything has been designed at one point, which means there is purpose in structure, this drives new knowledge. 

In fact reason, logic, thought, information, math and morality, to name a few items, only make total sense when viewed through the lens of the Scripture. No, this is not a fable, we have the goods. Stand strong, learn, and understand that truly "the fear of the Lord is the begin of knowledge."