14 so-called myths about christianity

Don’s blog Karen’s Response

OPENING STATEMENTS

14 MYTHS

PEOPLE BELIEVE ABOUT CHRISTIANITY

AND WHY CHRISTIANITY IS THE LOGICAL FAITH

# MYTH

1 JESUS CHRIST WAS ONLY A GREAT MORAL TEACHER

2 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT JESUS ROSE FROM THE

DEAD

3 SCIENCE IS IN CONFLICT WITH CHRISTIAN FAITH

4 IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE, ALL RELIGIONS

ARE BASICALLY THE SAME

5 CHRISTIANITY IS JUST A CRUTCH FOR THE WEAK

6 PEOPLE BECOME CHRISTIANS THROUGH SOCIAL

CONDITIONING

7 CHRISTIANITY STIFLES PERSONAL FREEDOM

8 CHRISTIANITY IS OTHER-WORLDLY AND IRRELEVANT TO

MODERN LIFE

9 THE BIBLE IS UNRELIABLE AND CAN NOT BE TRUSTED

10 ALL THE EVIL AND SUFFERING IN THE WORLD PROVE

THERE IS NO GOD

11 THERE ARE SO MANY HYPOCRITES IN THE CHURCH I

COULD NEVER BELIEVE IN CHRIST

12 ONE'S RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE IS A PRIVATE MATTER

AND SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED

13 WHATEVER MAKES YOU FEEL CLOSE TO GOD IS OK AS

LONG AS YOU ARE SINCERE

14 ALL THE GOOD THINGS I'VE DONE WILL OUTWEIGH THE

BAD

Given your intent to win converts and your certainty that you have

chosen the only correct and logical faith, I will abandon my

preference toward dialogue-for-understanding. This is a debate,

and I will tell you directly and specifically where I believe you are

wrong, and where I have found that Christianity fails.

This will, undoubtedly, seem harsh at times. Yet, you have already

discounted my experience (on that Facebook thread which led to

this exchange) by presuming to judge that my spiritual journey

must not have been a genuine search for God, and that you think

you can help me (but not vice versa). In this context, directing my

comments specifically at your writings here, I will not apologize for

being blunt.

I am speaking for myself alone, explaining what I have found to be

true after decades of searching. I am not claiming absolute

knowledge. While I will not type “in my view” or “according to my

experience” or “I could be wrong but” every few paragraphs, any

statements I make should be taken in this spirit.

Also – while you wrote and updated your essay across the course of

20 years, I am pretty much just pounding this out on a full sprint. I

will, undoubtedly, misspeak on occasion, so would welcome the

opportunity to clarify if you would point out errors or problems.

Your list reads a bit like something made up by Christians who

don’t really know what non-Christians think about their religion.

Not that it’s totally wrong, but more like you’ve read some of what

we believe, but only for the purpose of refuting it, not to

understand it.

I hope to show that my objections to Christianity are not only

because I do not believe its fundamental doctrines (i.e., many of the

so-called myths you hope to refute actually are true), but also

because I find both the doctrines and the god* of Christianity to be

morally regressive.

* Lower case intentional. I will capitalize most of the time, but that

will depend on whether I am using it as a proper name, like “I gave it

to Mom” vs. “I gave it to the boy’s mom”, or “Zeus” vs. “a Greek god.”

Pronouns will not be capitalized.

God has given enough evidence of His working in history to provide

us strong convictions for a faith that's based on overwhelming

probability, although not so certain as to force one to believe

against his or her own will. If God wanted to force us to follow Him

it would be easy for the Creator to align the stars, or the clouds to

You confuse knowledge with force. Aligning the stars, or whatever

sign God might choose in order to make his existence and identity

plain for all, does not mean we are forced to follow him.

The bible claims that Satan believes God exists, and doesn’t follow

him.


OPENING STATEMENTS

write a message in the sky, or use some other compelling means.

However, Scripture teaches that God wants us to follow His will for

our lives from a motive of love, and not out of fear. Many years ago

the famous French math genius and Christian philosopher, Blaise

Pascal explained it this way:

"God so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given

signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him and not to those

who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only want

to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary

disposition."

Some of the most common fallacies that have circulated in our

Western culture and media─mainly by those who have never made

an in-depth investigation of the Christian faith─are addressed in

this brief manuscript. The books referenced throughout will answer

the questions behind each of these myths in detail.

However, we always bear in mind that no amount of proof will

substitute for a personal spiritual encounter with Christ by the

Holy Spirit, as the Scripture states: "...no one can say that Jesus

Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3), and John

6:44 says, "No man can come to Me (Christ), except the Father

who sent Me draw him..." Nevertheless, dispelling a myth is

sometimes the key that unlocks the door of the heart so the Light

of faith can shine through.

For many years I searched for a concise summary describing the

primary reasons why millions of Christians chose to put their faith in

Christ. There are now several excellent books that cover this topic

(see Footnotes), but none that address the numerous myths head-

on. I discovered a unique essay on the subject interspersed among

the pages of The Word In Life Study Bible,1 and found it to be the

ideal short description I have been looking for.

That essay, entitled The Ten Favorite Myths People Believe About

Christianity,1 has herein been reproduced, updated, edited, and

expanded to include more current research in the field of Christian

apologetics (theological explanations). I hope the reader will find

this an intellectually challenging, honest exposé of the popular

fiction obscuring many of the historical facts the Christian faith is

based on.

If I were to know God exists, I might choose to follow him. If,

however, he revealed himself to be the god of the Christian bible, I

would not follow him.

Knowledge simply does not negate free will.

In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve surely knew God, and their

free will was not impinged. After they gained even more knowledge

(by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), their free

will yet remained intact.

Jonah surely believed in God, and demonstrated his free will by

disobeying. It was not knowledge of God’s existence that brought

him around to obedience (of a sort), but physical interference and

coercion.

In fact, I would say that whenever free will is messed with in the

bible, it is not because God shared too much knowledge of himself

thereby stunting peoples’ ability to act freely, but rather, that God

chooses to interfere and limit free will in order to make a point, like

he did when he hardened Pharaoh’s heart.

Look at Job. God certainly interfered with the chain of events that

would have occurred had they been allowed to play out by the rules

of free will. But he had to win a bet with Satan.

The newly-freed, manna-fed Israelites had direct experience that

not only did God exist, but he was on their side. And they made

that golden calf.

It’s not just Old Testament people. Judas. He believed and still

betrayed. Still others witnessed the miracles and did not convert.

Knowledge does not remove free will. I think you know this is

correct, because you say “no amount of proof will substitute …” – so

you know that even overwhelming evidence simply does not

override free will. Period.

This gives the lie to your interpretation of Pascal’s attempt to

explain away why God doesn’t just show himself.

The reason Pascal gives for this game of hide-and-seek is not quite

the way you have presented it. He says, “because, as so many make

themselves unworthy of His mercy, He has willed to leave them in

the loss of the good which they do not want.” You’re unworthy, so

instead of helping you, I’ll leave you in the dark. It’s sort of

backwards, isn’t it? I mean – it’s almost a Catch-22 kind of thing.

According to Pascal, God says if you don’t show me first that you

want to follow me (based on some small amount of light that is

maybe not very obvious), then I won’t show you any further light so

you will really have no reason to want to follow me and you’re shit

out of luck.

(By the way, when you change a quote, even slightly, from the

original, that change needs to be indicated. Your Pascal quote

should be rendered thusly: “[God] so regulates the knowledge of

Himself…”.)


OPENING STATEMENTS

INTRODUCTION

Truth and error have battled since the first days of the Christian faith.

Paul urged Timothy to counter those who taught strange doctrines at

Ephesus (Eph. 1:3-4). Today, Christianity has become a major world

religion with a well established set of beliefs. Nevertheless, believers

still must contend with doctrinal error and misconceptions about the

faith.

Unfortunately, many people have accepted a number of myths

about Christianity, with the result that they never respond to Jesus

Christ as He really is. They reject the good news Christ proclaimed

on the basis of half-truths and lies rather than a clear

understanding of Christ's message or its consequences. Ahead is a

list of fourteen myths about Christianity that are common in our

culture.1

Please bear in mind: The writers and editor of this essay do not

wish our declarations, however logical or confident, to come across

as close-minded or conceited. A brief look at the sayings of Christ

will show that attitude is the opposite of what Christ intended, and

certainly not what we intend. We have come to believe numerous

doctrines with certainty, and we strongly protest many anti-

Christian sayings that have been passed along, but we do not claim

to have all the answers.

Some questions are impossible to answer satisfactorily, such as how

God allows us a completely free will, and yet remains the sovereign

Ruler Who controls the universe. Theologians have debated that

one for centuries, and we will never understand it fully. As Paul

wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:9 & 13, "For we know in part and we

prophesy in part... Now we see but a poor reflection as in a

mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I

shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

Some of the following answers fall short as will all human

explanations. The point of this publication is not just to win

arguments of logic. Logic is indispensable, but intellectual

knowledge alone will not carry the weight that faith does when one

experiences, for example, the loss of a loved one, or the many other

burdens we mortals must bear.

A confident, heart-felt faith in Christ is the deepest of all

knowledge, because it's the knowledge of the mind and the heart.

It's a knowledge that is unshakable in spite of persecution, or even

the imminent threat of a martyr's death (as modern history

continues to record). This kind of faith is based on reasonable

information as we have included here, but it goes far beyond just

learning a lot of Biblical data. Real faith is developed through

knowledge of Scriptures, answered prayer, and time spent

communing with the Spirit of Christ. It's our prayer these answers to

the 14 Myths will help introduce you to the One Answer to all of

life.

─ Don Leander, CFP, RFC, CSA

(Originally authored September 30, 1994 and periodically updated -

posted 11-24-2014)

While you may not wish your declarations to come across as close-

minded, there is no getting around the fact that you set out from

the very start of this essay to convince the reader that you are right

and that they ought to convert. While you may grant some leeway

on some of the finer points, or do a small dance around the idea

that you don’t know it all, you most definitely do not appear to be

open-minded. This becomes more apparent as I read through the

entire article. Time after time, I find places where the arguments you

make could be used to just as effectively on behalf of other

religions. To me, this indicates an unwillingness, or an inability, to

be truly open and attempt to see where other people are really

coming from.


OPENING STATEMENTS

Abandon the myths, and go for the truth about God. There are

many things in the world that point to the truth about God, that is,

the kind of God that the Bible talks about, the God who made us,

loves us, and communicates Himself to us.

Go for the truth about Jesus. Jesus claimed to be the Truth (John

14:6). Everything in His life, teaching, death, and resurrection

validates that astounding claim. So feel free to take a good, long

look at Jesus. He won't disappoint you!

Go for the truth about yourself. Each of us is something of an

enigma. At times we can be kind and thoughtful, generous and

unselfish. Yet, we can also be self-centered and vindictive, lustful

and treacherous. What a contradiction! As the Roman poet Ovid put

it, "I see the better way and I approve it, but I follow the worse." Or,

as Paul wrote, "The good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I

will not to do, that I practice" (Rom. 7:19).

No wonder some people see only the good in human nature and

dream of utopia, while others see little but moral squalor and

political chaos and fear global destruction ahead. Christianity sees a

bit of both: we are like semi-ruined temples that still bear the marks

of their original splendor. Only the Architect who designed us can

fully repair and restore us to our original purpose and beauty.

Go for the truth about spiritual growth. If we're going to be restored

to God, change will be required. The first step is to turn our lives

over to Him. Then He begins a process of growth that affects every

aspect of life. The process takes time─a lifetime, in fact. Indeed, the

process won't end until we meet Him after death.

For now, God helps Christians cultivate a close relationship with

Himself. He develops our character so that we gradually become

more like Christ. And, He especially affects our relationships with

other people so that we treat them as Jesus would.

14 MYTHS

In my experience, examples of things that Christians use to “point

to the truth about God” can just as easily point to the “truth” about

other gods, or no god. So let me ask you, are you willing to

abandon your own myths and go for the truth? Have you ever given

serious consideration to converting to a different faith? Then you

have not done what you are asking me to do.

My goal is truth – whether it’s the truth I want or not. I wanted the

truth to be that God had a plan for my life, and that my personal

relationship with Jesus was real. I sought the truth about God and

Jesus for decades. I still seek the truth about myself and my place in

the universe.

I take issue with your statement that “He especially affects our

relationships with other people so that we treat them as Jesus

would,” as though this is an exclusively Christian trait. If you are

willing to step outside your preconceived conclusions, you will see

that Christianity does not have a monopoly on the Golden Rule, nor

on impacting people’s lives for positive results.

RETURN TO TOP


MYTH #1 – JESUS CHRIST WAS ONLY A GREAT MORAL TEACHER

MYTH #1 ─ JESUS CHRIST WAS ONLY A GREAT MORAL

TEACHER

SUMMARY: The rules of logic rule out any other explanation for

the life of Jesus Christ, except the one He taught, that He was the

Son of God come to Earth as a man. The only logical options are:

1) He was either a madman, or 2), a colossal liar, and therefore,

an evil false prophet, or 3), the Lord he claimed to be. As

famous author C.S. Lewis put it, "...let us not come with any

patronizing nonsense about Him being a great human teacher.

He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

This Liar-Lunatic-Lord argument is so old and tired, it has already

been torn to tattered little shreds. And it only takes one small

additional logical step to do so.

What the trilemma leaves out, importantly, is that Jesus could also

have been misquoted.

Given that fourth option, it is (logically) possible that Jesus was only

a teacher after all, and that the claims of divinity were exaggerated

or tweaked over time, either intentionally or inadvertently.

That option may be difficult for you to accept because you believe



People marveled at the teaching of Jesus. Whether He spoke in

interesting parables (Matt. 13:34-35) or gave more straightforward,

extended discourses (Matthew chapters 5-7), people followed Him

everywhere, hanging on His every word (Matt. 7:28). "No man ever

spoke like this Man!" His listeners remarked (John 7:76). And they

were right. Jesus was a master teacher and communicator.

Moreover, beyond simply teaching the highest moral and spiritual

principles ever known, Jesus actually lived them. He told people to

love their enemies; He forgave those who crucified Him. He told

people to lay down their lives for others; He laid down His own life

for the world. He told people not to worry about material

possessions; He owned no more than the clothes on His back.

Jesus' example makes Him the most remarkable of all teachers. And

yet that legacy almost makes it too easy for people to dismiss Him,

ignoring both His message and His Person: "Jesus? Yes, He was a

great moral teacher." What they really mean is that, for them, Jesus

was only a teacher─a great teacher, perhaps the greatest the world

has ever seen, but a teacher and nothing more.

Neither He nor His followers would allow for that. Jesus was either

very much more than a great teacher or else very much less than

one for in addition to His great moral precepts, He made

astonishing claims that no other sane person has ever made, and

behaved in ways that no other decent human has. For instance:

the bible to be all true, all the time. In order to proceed logically, as

you want to do, you must consider all possible options, not simply

the ones that arise from within the limited bounds of a book that

may or may not be completely accurate.

Given that Jesus may have been misquoted, it is possible that Jesus

was simply a teacher. It is both a logical possibility and a reasonable

option given the nature of how stories of that era were passed

around and not written down until decades after the fact. There is

also the possibility that the Jesus we meet in the bible is an

amalgamation of several different individuals.

So, it’s not Liar-Lunatic-or-Lord, it’s Liar-Lunatic-Lord-or-Legend.

As for people’s reactions to Jesus – people throughout the ages

have marveled at charismatic leaders, with little correlation between

their appeal and the veracity of their teachings. Perhaps you think

people marveled more at Jesus, but as you have put little effort into

finding stories that contradict your notion, you might find you are

mistaken. Regardless, a fervent fan base is no indicator of truth.

You say Jesus not only taught, but actually lived the highest moral

and spiritual principles ever known. This is incorrect. His moral

teachings were not the highest ever known. He also did immoral

things at times. For example, he accepted the institution of slavery

without opposition. He directed people to not only abandon their

families, but to hate them. He told his disciples to steal a horse. He

tells us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies while

promising his own enemies an eternity of suffering. He was petty

(killed a fig tree because it didn’t have a fig off-season, resorted to

rude name-calling). For the sake of moving forward with this

debate, I’ll stop there. But if you want to defend these actions of

Jesus for their superior morality, I’m game to go down that road.

One could say Gautama Buddha and Confucius were at least as

moral, if not more so. The Golden Rule is not unique to Christianity,

nor did it originate from the Judeo-Christian faith. Your hyperbolic

statements notwithstanding, Jesus’ morals and teachings just

weren’t that special.

> He claimed to forgive people's sins (Matt. 9:2; Luke 7:47-48).

What’s interesting here is how this story contradicts the Christian

doctrine of the cross. Why didn’t the paralyzed man have to ask in

order for his sins to be forgiven? Why was no sacrifice required

before the sins were forgiven? Apparently, Jesus had the authority

(and ability, we presume) to forgive at will and he didn’t require us

to seek him. It’s not clear that the paralyzed man even asked for

healing, let alone forgiveness. Other people brought the guy to

Jesus.

But to your point, yes, this is an element of the bible narrative that

indicates Jesus claimed divine power.

> He accepted people's worship (Matt. 8:2-3; 9:18-19; 14:33). The people in Matthew 8 and 9 knelt before Jesus to beg favors,

not to worship. Matthew 14 doesn’t record Jesus’ response when

the people in the boat worshipped him, so we are not told



specifically whether he accepted it.

In fact, as I read ahead to your next claim, I accidentally looked at

the verse after the first one you list. (I know, in these discussions I’ve

learned that I’m only supposed to look at the specific verse cited.

My bad.) Anyway, in John 5:41, Jesus says “I do not accept glory

from human beings.” That’s a pretty clear statement against your

claim that he accepts our worship.

> He said that He alone was the way to God, the truth of God,

and the life of God (John 5:40; 6:44; 7:16-17; 14:6).

Here, Jesus makes a case that he has a special relationship with

God. The Lordship is not explicitly apparent in these verses, but it

wouldn’t be a contradictory claim.

Some of the translations are not as cut and dried as you might

believe, however. Way back when I was studying New Testament

Greek, we spent an inordinate amount of time on the preposition

that is often translated as “through” in John 14:6. It is a multi-

purpose preposition that makes it possible to have translated the

phrase “except as me,” implying one might approach God in the

same way Jesus approached God, not necessarily using Jesus as a

conduit but rather as an example. “Through” might be the better

translation, but it might not.

While the bible has Jesus claiming his divinity at times, there are

other times (e.g., Mark 10:18) when he distances himself from those

claims. So even the biblical record on Jesus’ claims about himself is

squishy. This further complicates your simplistic liar-lunatic-lord

premise and bolsters the legend option.

> He said that He had come to seek and to save the lost (Luke

19:10).

Not sure why it matters so much that he claims he has come to

seek and save the lost. Isn’t that what you are doing as well?

Nothing very special about that.

> He promised that He would rise from the dead (Matt. 20:19;

27:63).

It’s easy to be quoted as having predicted something when the

story is written down decades after the fact. Yes, I know, you believe

it is accurate. But using the book itself to try to prove the book itself

is just circular reasoning.

Even if Jesus did say that he would be raised from the dead, that is

not a claim of divinity, unless we are to also claim that Lazarus is

divine as well.

> He claimed that humanity would ultimately be accountable

to Him (Matt. 7:21-23; 25:31-46).

The most we can say from the Matthew 7 passage is that Jesus can

vouch for us – not that people will be accountable to him.

The Matthew 25 passage is a better one for making your point.

Interestingly, this passage goes on to show that God won’t judge us

on whether we believe in him or not. The only thing we will be

judged on, according to this passage, is how we treated the hungry,

the strangers, and the imprisoned.



> He claimed to be God and allowed others to call Him God

(Matt. 16:15-16; 26:63-64; John 8:58).

Certainly, in these verses, Jesus claimed he was God. And yet, there

are passages like Luke 13:33 where he calls himself a prophet

instead, or Matthew 19:17 where he draws a distinction between

himself and God.

These claims are either true, or they are ridiculous. Any teacher who

would make them had better be telling the truth, or else he would

be the worst of all liars, and would be neither great nor moral. The

evidence suggests that Jesus was telling the truth. For in addition to

His explicit claims are the implicit claims of fulfilled Old Testament

prophecies and the performance of supernatural miracles. And

there is also a fact that countless others who have examined His

words and actions have come away convinced that He was not

merely a great moral teacher, but the very Son of God. Among

them have been determined and supposedly unshakable skeptics

like Thomas, and formerly adamant opponents like the brilliant Saul

of Tarsus who ended up becoming His most ardent follower.

To believe that Jesus was simply a great moral teacher is untenable.

As C. S. Lewis put it, "A man who was merely a man and said

the sort of things that Jesus said would not be a great moral

teacher. He would either be a lunatic─on a level with a man

who says he is a poached egg─or else He would be the devil of

Hell. You must make a choice. Either this man was, and is, the

Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can

shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him as a demon; or you

can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not

come with any patronizing nonsense about Him being a great

human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not

intend to." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 56)

The problem with the way you present this is that it isn’t either 100

PERCENT TOTALLY TRUE or WORST OF ALL LIES! There are other

options. The claims may be partially true and partially exaggerated.

They may not have been made at all.

Your proof relies on stories written down decades after the fact by

people who didn’t witness any of the events or meet Jesus himself.

In terms of logic and proof, it matters not one whit whether skeptics

have been converted. Skeptics have been converted to other

religions as well. Does that provide evidence of their truth as well?

No? Same goes here.

To claim that it’s the biggest lie ever told is to show your ignorance

of history. Many have made the equal claim to be God/messiah in

various times and places throughout history. Jesus’ statements, if

accurately recorded, are no more astonishing than some of those

other self-proclaimed deity-wanna-bes. Some of them even gained

significant followings. That this particular story persisted is not

evidence of its truth, otherwise the success of the spread of Islam or

Buddhism or that Elvis is still alive would be evidence of their truth.

C.S. Lewis’ black-and-white thinking in this area is simply flawed.

Myth # 1 Conclusion

It is, as I have shown, possible that Jesus was just a teacher. The

only thing this requires from you is the realization of the possibility

that the bible is not a fully accurate history. I don’t ask you to

believe it, just to acknowledge that it would be possible.

RETURN TO TOP


MYTH #2 – THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD

MYTH #2 ─ THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT JESUS ROSE FROM

THE DEAD

SUMMARY: The weight of historical evidence points to the literal,

bodily resurrection of Jesus. If one looks at all the evidence as it

would be presented in a court of law, considering any information

that is beyond a "reasonable doubt," then several major facts line

up in favor of the resurrection. Where would the body of Jesus be if

the tomb was empty as both friend and foe declared? Those who

The bulk of your proof in this section is from the bible. If you really

are trying to convince us non-Christians, you absolutely must begin

to understand that we do not have reason to believe that the bible

is historically accurate and completely factual.

Yes, I know that your Myth #9 will attempt to put this to rest, but in

the meantime, come with me for just one moment. Imagine I am a

Scientologist. I want to convince you that your soul is a thetan

which reincarnated in you after living previous lives on other



hated Christ would be the least likely to steal the body. They had

posted a Roman guard to prevent such an occurrence. Even if they

had taken the body, they would have made a grand exhibition of

it later to contradict the disciples' claim that Jesus was had

risen from the dead. Furthermore, it's highly questionable that the

disciples themselves could have done it, since by all accounts they

were hiding from the Jewish rulers, and were naturally very

discouraged after seeing their Messiah die. Obviously, if they

knew the resurrection story was a lie, they never would have

suffered persecution and death for a fake Messiah! The fact that

virtually all the original witnesses of the resurrection were martyred

is a convincing confirmation of the Bible's account. Famous speaker

and author, Josh McDowell, sums up the logic by asking: "Who

would die for a lie?"2

All four Gospels give an account of Jesus' resurrection (Matt. 28:1-

10; Mark 16:1-18; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-29). Moreover, the rest of

the New Testament speaks with a tremendous sense of confidence

about an empty tomb and the triumph of Christ over death.

planets. As part of my proof, I point to L. Ron Hubbard’s writings on

Dianetics. Would you accept that as valid? Or perhaps I would like

to convince you that Loki is, in fact, the son of Fárbauti and Laufey. I

have many ancient texts which attest to this truth. These ancient

texts have many verifiable historical references, so we can certainly

trust them to be accurate in their depictions of Loki as well. Do you

believe me?

This is, unfortunately, the road you are on when you use the bible

as proof of whatever point you are trying to make.

If we already accept the bible as true, we will not be very likely to

make the claim you list here as your Myth #2. If we are skeptical

about the veracity of the biblical narrative, using that narrative is

unlikely to convince us that it is true. The internal confidence of the

narrative has absolutely nothing to do with the external

trustworthiness of the document.

And no wonder. If true, the resurrection is the most amazing news

the world has ever heard. It means there is a God after all. It means

that Jesus really is God's Son. It means that Christ is alive today and

we can know him and be touched by His life and power. It means

that we can know God personally through Christ, and therefore,

need not fear death the way we once did. Becoming a believer in

Christ means we are not destined to oblivion, but instead will spend

eternity with God.

The question of whether Jesus actually rose from the dead is

crucial. Since Christ predicted this event His credibility and the

central teachings of the faith He originated hang in the

balance. At least four lines of evidence indicate that He did, in fact,

return from the grave:

You could say that if the claims of other religions were true, they

would be the most amazing news in the world. Reincarnation would

be quite amazing news. Christianity says God became a man, but

even more amazing is the Mormon claim that man can become a

god! And if Scientology were true, now THAT would be AMAZING!

Christianity is downright ho-hum compared to that.

You feel that a relationship with God through Jesus is the best

possible news. You believe having the opportunity to spend eternity

with God is the best possible news. I disagree.

If you are correct – while you are in heaven, some people you love

deeply will be spending eternity in hell. They will receive an infinite

punishment for a finite crime. How are you going to handle that?

Do you forget them? Or are you aware, while you’re up there with

your harp and wings, that those people are experiencing

unbearable pain? What could possibly make that feel OK? Will you

just say, “well, too bad they chose wrong, hey, is that Gabriel?” That

is absolutely HORRIBLE news, not the most amazing news the world

has ever heard.

I don’t fear death, by the way.

I will take this opportunity to mention, however, that I could be

wrong. If I am, and if I find myself in front of St Peter or whoever is

manning the pearly gates, I am content that my search has been

honest and if God knows my heart, I can only trust that he will

judge me accordingly. If he is the type of god who would choose to

send me to hell even knowing my journey, that is a god I cannot

worship.

(1) Jesus really was dead. Every source we have indicates that

Jesus was publicly executed before large crowds. He was certified as

dead by both a centurion in charge of the execution ─ a

professional whose job it was to determine that death had taken

In all my years of conversations with believers and non-believers, I

don’t recall “he was only mostly dead” as being a serious point of

contention. Your supposition that it is an important point

demonstrates that you’ve spent more time imagining what skeptics



place ─ and by the regional governor, Pilate, who sent to have the

matter checked.

This is an important point because some skeptics say Jesus was not

really dead, that He was only near death and revived in the cool of

the tomb. That's just as preposterous as it sounds. The Romans

were experts at crucifixion. And, even ancient, secular writers made

reference to the death of Jesus (Thallus, AD 52-130, and Phlegon,

around AD 140). Josephus also referenced Christ's death. He was a

non-Christian, Jewish writer employed by the Roman emperor,

Vespasian, as a government historian. He finished The Antiquities Of

The Jews in AD 93. The Bible, as the primary record of the event, has

always proven accurate and reliable as a historical reference

(discussed further in Myth 9).

might say than in actually engaging and understanding them.

Like the books of the New Testament, because Josephus wrote

many years after the events of Jesus’ life were supposed to have

taken place, we still have the problem of stories being embellished

through oral tradition before being recorded. Additionally, in spite

of there being contradictions between the gospels and Josephus,

Josephus apparently poached portions of his history from early

Christian writings, so we’re back to the bible proving the bible thing

– it’s not exactly an ironclad verification.

(2) The tomb was found empty. Jesus was buried in a new tomb,

one that had never been used (John 19:41). That means that it was

in perfect condition and would have been easy to locate. But when

Jesus' friends arrived on the second morning after His death, His

body was gone. All the accounts agree on this.

The empty tomb was no less astonishing to Jesus' enemies than it

was to His friends. His enemies had been working for years to see

Him dead and buried. Having accomplished their goal, they took

pains to post a guard and seal the tomb with an enormous boulder.

Nevertheless, on Easter morning the tomb was found empty.

Who emptied it? Either men or God. If men, which ones? Jesus'

enemies would have been the least likely to have stolen the body.

Even if they had, they would certainly have produced it later to

refute the claims of the disciples that Jesus was alive.

What about Jesus' friends? Unlikely, since the accounts show them

to have been thoroughly demoralized after the crucifixion. Nor

would they have willingly suffered persecution and death for what

they knew to be a lie! The fact that almost all who were

eyewitnesses of the resurrection died a martyr's death is strong

testimony to the accuracy of the facts as we have them. As well-

known author, and speaker at hundreds of universities, Josh

McDowell, states in many of his publications: "Who would die for a

lie?"2

Again, your claim is according to the maybe-true-maybe-not bible. I

hate to keep harping on that, but you keep presenting the bible as

evidence that the bible is true. Can I quote Nephi to show that Jesus

really visited the Americas? Didn’t think so.

The tomb being empty is circumstantial at best, and only if one

takes the bible as a relatively accurate recording of events. If one is

skeptical of the biblical narrative, this is not serious evidence.

As for the Josh McDowell quote – first, who cares whether he is an

author and a well-known speaker? Are you trying to blind us with

sparkly popularity? These are not credentials to be taken seriously.

Second, in answer to his question, I’ll tell you who would die for a

lie: people who are mistaken, misguided, delusional, afraid to admit

they are wrong, wanting to be a martyr, or even those who are

trying to protect others. I’m not saying whether any of these apply

to the New Testament martyrs. But the way you just take the bait of

these simplistic, pithy quotes when they support your version of the

truth is quite disheartening. Please don’t just swallow it because it

sounds good for the point you want to make.

(3) Jesus appeared after His death to many witnesses. In a

garden, on a road, in an upstairs room, by a lake─each Gospel

recounts Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to His fearful,

doubting followers over a period of forty days. Were these

hallucinations? That seems implausible, since they happened to too

many people, among them hardheaded fishermen, steadfast

women, civil servants, and the ultimate skeptic, Thomas.

Yes, the bible tells us he appeared to many witnesses. And so many

witnesses can’t be wrong. Except they can. Eyewitness testimony

turns out to be notoriously unreliable. Even groups of witnesses

have been proven wrong. This is not to say they always are, but that

they can be.

What do you make of Herodotus’ account of the Temple of Delphi?

About 50 years after the Persian wars (a similar time span to that

between the life of Jesus and the time the gospels were written)

Herodotus interviewed eyewitnesses about this event in an effort to

construct an accurate historical record of the Persian wars. He writes

that the Temple of Delphi defended itself by throwing armor

around, and using lightening to split crags off the mountain to



crush vast numbers of the enemies. He also reports that an olive

tree which had been burnt to death grew back in a single day.

Would you seriously consider this to be true? If you answer no,

maybe you can begin to understand how it is that I can be skeptical

of the historical accuracy of the books of the bible.

(4) Countless people have encountered the living Jesus and

been changed by Him. The resurrection is not simply a matter of

intellectual curiosity or theological argument, but of personal

experience. From the first century to today there have been

innumerable people who have turned from being totally opposed

or indifferent to Christianity to being utterly convinced that it is

true. What changed them? They met the living Jesus. He has invited

them to respond to Him in faith and challenged them to live

according to His way. Jesus is as alive now as He was that first

Easter morning, and He still invites people to know Him today.

It really is remarkable how you are so determined to show how

everything points to what you already believe that you completely

miss some very simple problems with your arguments. Case in point

is your use of personal experience as proof of the resurrection.

I could point to countless people who have had incredible,

transformational experiences that just as surely would “prove” the

truth and everlasting value of Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism,

Paganism, Rastafarianism, and any number of other -isms.

You are choosing to believe that the individuals who proclaim a life-

changing experience with Christ are telling the truth, while the

others are lying or misguided. You do not get to decide whose

personal experiences are valid and whose are not.

Let me make this perfectly clear: You can surely choose which

personal experiences you believe. But you cannot, while invoking

logic, simply choose to present only some as evidence and

disregard the rest.

Clearly, the heart of the Christian faith is the resurrection. Without it

the Church would die. As Paul wrote in First Corinthians 15:14-20,

"...if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so

is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false

witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that He

raised Christ from the dead... And, if Christ has not been raised,

your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also

who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we

have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But,

Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of

those who have fallen asleep."

Certainly, the resurrection is fundamental to the Christian religion. If

we look at Jesus, rather than Paul, I’m not certain it would be the

central theme.

And I have to ask, why is it necessarily the case that we would still

be “in our sins” if Jesus hadn’t been resurrected? Jesus forgave the

paralytic just because he chose to. God could choose to forgo the

blood lust and just forgive all our sins.

Even the skeptics agree this letter to the Christians in Corinth was

written by Paul the Apostle before 60 AD, of which early Second

Century copies are still in existence. Their accuracy is fundamentally

certain (see Myth 9). The Bible's detailed account of the resurrection

is some of the vital knowledge that "...God so regulates..." (as Pascal

wrote) that we might have a firm foundation for our faith.

Whether the letter to the Corinthians was really written by Paul

decades after Jesus’ life and death, and whether we have reasonably

accurate copies from maybe a hundred years later mean little about

whether Paul’s claims are valid or his beliefs are true. We have

excellent early copies of Islamic and Mormon scriptures. Does that

mean that God has protected them and so they must also be true?

Myth # 2 Conclusion

Evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is weak at best. You claim

your lines of evidence would be enough in a court of law to



convince beyond reasonable doubt. And yet, to be considered in a

court of law, it would require more than just referencing that the

bible records these events. Even the best case one can make for the

gospels is that they were written “only” a few decades after the life

of Jesus, and some of them may have been written by people who

knew other people who knew Jesus. The bible would, at best, be

considered hearsay evidence. And subjective personal experience

(your point #4) does not bolster your case.

RETURN TO TOP


MYTH #3 – SCIENCE IS IN CONFLICT WITH CHRISTIAN FAITH

MYTH #3 ─ SCIENCE IS IN CONFLICT WITH CHRISTIAN FAITH

SUMMARY: Science cannot prove, or disprove beyond all doubt a

basis for faith in Jesus Christ. Much misunderstanding has arisen

from the materialistic philosophy behind Darwin's theory of

evolution. Darwin's theory has only been observed in the micro-

evolution of plant and animal variations within a species. Macro-

evolution, or the idea that man evolved from a single-celled

organism, is not a scientific fact, and through the recent

measurement of the age of the Universe, it has become a flawed

hypothesis lacking the necessary time for evolution to work. Darwin

hoped to prove his macro-evolution theory by someday finding the

missing links in fossils, but this has never happened.

Research into the "Big Bang" theory has also reinforced the Genesis

account of creation, because the length of each "day" of creation

could have been longer than 24 hours. In the Old Testament's

original language of Hebrew the word for "day" also means an age,

or a very long time span.

However God created the Universe, He is Lord of His space-time

creation, so as we learn more and more about the hundreds of just-

right, fine-tuned factors that must exist here for life and have kept

life on Earth thriving for all these years, our finite understanding of

how God made everything becomes more mind-boggling every

day.

For example, if Einstein's theory of 'folded space-time' occurs inside

worm holes in space, it's not too hard to imagine that God could

have folded time (billions of years) to "fit" into the six days of

Creation. There are various interpretations of how the world was

made, but the need for an Intelligent Designer constantly increases

as science discovers more amazing details about Creation, from the

mystery of how DNA replicates inside our cells to the strange laws

of gravity in outer space.

The people of Jesus' day demanded miraculous signs as a condition

for belief (John 4:48). Yet even though Jesus performed astonishing

miracles, the Jewish ruler and religious leaders by and large rejected

Him as their Messiah (John 1:11). Their fear of losing control over

their lives, especially their positions of authority, blinded them to

the truth, and they sought other explanations for Christ's miracles.

I would restate this as “Christian Faith is in Conflict with Science.”

Not all the time. But people of faith too often fill in the gaps in our

knowledge with “it must be magic” when “I don’t know” or “let’s

find out” would be more appropriate.

If you are willing to accept the non-literal day and believe creation

was a miracle whether it took 6 days or billions of years, why is

there a problem with accepting the facts of evolution?

Regarding Darwin (and his scientific progeny), you are

demonstrably wrong: Macro-evolution is a real thing. 14 billion

years is enough time. So-called missing links have been found over

and over again, narrowing the gaps in our knowledge, and each

time a new link is found people like you shout “but wait! now there

are two gaps!”

For the sake of getting through the next 11 myths before all of my

hair is gray, I will table the specific discussion on evolution for now

and go on with the general idea of faith vs. science.

Faith starts with the conclusion which in turn informs what is

accepted as truth. Faith must (depending on the faith tradition) be

held higher than anything else. Any science must fit within the

boundaries of that faith.

Science starts with observations and guesses works through trial

and error and testing to eventually get to the conclusion, which

only holds up if new evidence doesn’t call it into question. All pre-

conceived notions are fair game for questioning. Scientists as

individuals may have difficulty letting go of pet ideas, but as a

discipline across the scientific community, the process works.

Oh, hey – about those miraculous signs Jesus performed. Are you

saying that in the face of incontrovertible evidence, people retained

their free will to not follow him? What would Pascal think!?



They misunderstood His mission.

Today many people reject Christianity for similar reasons. We live in

a natural world, they say, a world that can be explained by science.

Since Christianity relies on faith, it no longer applies in our modern,

scientific world. They think Christianity and science are in conflict.

It's very interesting that while many top scientists do not make this

claim, many untrained people do. They have bought into a number

of myths, including:

Science can be proved; Christianity cannot. The truth is that both

science and Christianity deal with evidence. Science examines

evidence about our world from things that we can see, touch,

measure, and calculate. Christianity is based on evidence about our

world from the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Both

deal with matters that are very much open to examination.

As you rightly note, both science and faith make claims about the

universe and our place in it. Some claims are testable, others are

not.

It's a widely held misconception that the science behind the theory

of evolution can be conclusively "proven." The heart of the scientific

method is to allow the evidence to lead one where it will. But in the

case of how the world was formed, one cannot "prove" a scientific

hypothesis, but only support it with evidence. In fact, one of the

fundamental tenants of science is that is takes only one contrary

instance to bring down an entire hypothesis. For centuries Newton's

theories of gravity seemed irrefutably proven. Then along came

Einstein. Today, even some of his thinking is giving way to new

discoveries.

Science is progressive; Christianity resists progress. There is some

truth to this─but only some. At certain times Christianity─that is to

say, Christians─have been (and still are) on the vanguard of

scientific progress. Indeed, modern science is largely the product of

inquiring believers. For example: Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) coined

an often-quoted phrase which he used to describe science, as

"...thinking God's thoughts after Him." Pascal pioneered

mathematics, probability science, and invented the first barometer.

Sir Isaac Newton also viewed science as thinking God's thoughts after

Him. He wrote many volumes on theology as well as science. He

professed to believe in personal salvation through Christ's atonement,

and was well-known for his piety. He wrote in Principia: "This most

beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed

from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

He also wrote, "I have a foundational belief in the Bible as the Word of

God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."3

There are many brilliant scientists who are Christians. The following

list3 includes outstanding Bible-believing scientists

who founded these branches of science:

Antiseptic surgery ─ Joseph Lister

Bacteriology ─ Louis Pasteur

This so-called misconception is not widely held in the scientific

community. It is understood that even the most rigorous, well-

tested theories might be disproven with the introduction of

contradictory evidence. It is also well understood that some facts

about the universe may never be conclusively proven. It’s probably

more accurate to say that the scientific method works toward

discovering what is more or less plausible rather than conclusive

proof.

There is a difference between knowing the facts and having the

best explanation for the why and how of those facts. You mention

the theory of gravity. Certainly, there are still questions about what

gives objects their mass, etc. But that there is gravity is a fact. If you

disagree, please take a walk out your second story window. Our

explanations will continually be open to refinement and may even

be upended entirely. But our calculations for counteracting earth’s

gravity when we send a rocket to the moon are well established and

have proven correct. The same can be said about evolution. While

the theory explaining it is quite good and stands strongly with the

evidence, there is room for further improvement in our

understanding. But the fact of evolution (including macro-

evolution) is beyond dispute.

The misconceptions about definitions of proof, theory, hypothesis,

scientific law, etc., are all too often demonstrated by that breed of

Christians who are intent on believing the bible to be literally,

historically, and scientifically accurate. The scientific community, by

and large, does not suffer under these misconceptions.

When you say that Christians have been on the vanguard of

scientific progress, that’s only when you look at scientists from

majority-Christian cultures. There was a time period when the

Islamic world was where science was really thriving. In our current

age, while there are certainly renowned scientists of faith, the ratio

of non-believers in the scientific community is significantly higher

than it is at large.



Calculus ─ Isaac Newton

Celestial Mechanics ─ Johannes Kepler

Chemistry ─ Robert Boyle

Comparative Anatomy ─ Georges Cuvier

Computer Science ─ Charles Babbage

Dimensional Analysis ─ Lord Rayleigh

Dynamics ─ Isaac Newton

Electronics ─ John Ambrose Fleming

Electrodynamics ─ James Clerk Maxwell

Electromagnetics ─ Michael Faraday

Energetics ─ Lord Kelvin

Entomology of Living Insects ─ Henri Fabre

Field Theory ─ Michael Faraday

Fluid Mechanics ─ George Stokes

Galactic Astronomy ─ Sir William Herschel

Gas Dynamics ─ Robert Boyle

Genetics ─ Gregor Mendel

Glacial Geology ─ Louis Agassiz

Isotopic Chemistry ─ William Ramsey

Model Analysis ─ Lord Rayleigh

Natural History ─ John Ray

Non-Euclidean Geometry ─ Bernard Riemann

Oceanography ─ Matthew Maury

Optical Mineralogy ─ David Brewster

Looking at your list of scientists, some of them were Deists rather

than full on Christians. The reports of the faithfulness of others have

been greatly exaggerated. Perhaps instead of pulling a list from a

book with a decidedly one-sided agenda (your footnote 3), you

might look for scholarly biographies of these individuals instead.

Pasteur’s commitment to his Catholic faith is in dispute.

Babbage was a proponent of natural theology and

uniformitarianism. He believed in God, but stated that the value

of Christianity was in its “doctrines of kindness and

benevolence.” According to your criteria, you would have to

judge him as not a true Christian.

Rayleigh is another one you would not permit to be called

Christian because, while he apparently believed in the Judeo-

Christian God and spirituality, he only referred to Jesus as a

moral teacher.

I do not mean that there were not what you might call genuine

Christians in this group. Certainly, some did believe that God

created the universe and that he revealed himself through the bible

and Jesus. These individuals believed that God could also be

revealed through his creation, and their study was part of seeking

God.

And yet, sometimes their very faith interfered with their scientific

pursuits, or the scientific pursuits of others.

Take the case of Newton. At one point, he got stuck and

couldn’t figure out the next step in his math regarding irregular

orbits of the planets. He sort of threw up his hands and said,

essentially, well, God wants it to work that way. His faith helped

him give up and he never solved that piece.

Cuvier proposed that catastrophic geological events led to the

emergence of new species, and yet was unwilling to consider

aspects of evolution that he could not synchronize with the

bible. When faith takes precedence, science is hamstrung.

Stokes presided over the Victoria Institute which was created

for the purpose of defending Christianity against certain areas

of scientific inquiry. Science, for these people, must be

constrained and locked up inside the boundaries of their

interpretation of the bible. Fear of losing preciously held beliefs

means we must not purse truth if it might contradict that faith.

You frequently make the logical error of appealing to authority. You

say that this person or that person believes this or did that in

agreement with your point of view, and therefore your point of view

is valid. It is useful to know what people who have spent time

learning as much as they can about a subject have to say. But to

believe it just because they said it is naïve. Does the idea hold merit,

regardless of who proposed it? Can it be tested independently?

Also, being an expert in one area does not mean their thinking in

other areas is equally sound. Scientific accomplishments do not

automatically make the views of these people more valid than my

own views.



That these scientists are Christians (to greater or lesser degrees) is

not a proof that Christianity is necessarily compatible with science.

They may choose to work on scientific questions that do not

threaten to undermine the primary tenets of their faith. They may

reasonably adjust how they interpret the scriptures based on their

findings. Or they may describe the universe according to their

beliefs, and then make wild contortions to shoehorn scientific

findings into that mold.

Science is logical; Christianity involves a leap of faith. Without

question there is a logic and an order in scientific inquiry. However,

the same is true for the philosophical, historical, ethical, and

theological disciplines of Christianity. Our faith is not opposed to

reason. At points it may go beyond reason. But it is a reasonable

faith. It hangs together logically.

At the same time, science demands an element of faith. The

Christian faith is not, as one schoolboy defined it, "...believing what

you know is not true." Faith involves self-commitment on the basis

of evidence. In science, one must commit oneself to the belief that

the world we see and touch is real, that nature is uniform, and that

it operates according to the principle of cause-and-effect. Without

these prior "leaps of faith," reasonable though they are, one cannot

undertake science.

The so-called faith you say science requires is such a far cry from

the general or religious meanings of faith as to be laughable.

Your schoolboy may have missed the mark with his definition, but

not by much. You claim that faith is based on evidence. Your Jesus

says otherwise: Blessed are those who have not seen and yet

believed.

One must not, actually, commit oneself to a belief that the world we

see and touch is real, that nature is uniform, nor that it operates

according to certain principles. One can proceed as though all of

these things are up for debate and continually test these

assumptions. The scientific process simply doesn’t care what you

believe. No leap of faith required. In fact, a solipsist could still carry

out scientific experiments and engage in scientific inquiry as though

there was a material world outside her mind.

Science deals with the laws of nature; Christianity thrives on miracles.

If science involves a closed, physical universe with fixed, unalterable

laws, then the concept of miracles, which involve the local,

temporary suspension of natural laws, will prove intolerable. But

that is a nineteenth-century view of science. Few scientists of

stature today support a "closed universe" viewpoint.4

For example, research in the field of quantum (sub-atomic) physics

indicates the existence of a fifth, sixth, and even more dimensions

beyond the four (length, width, height, and time) that we now

understand. These new dimensions were needed at the "Big

Bang"─ the moment of creation. It is likely they still exert some

influence on our universe. Of course, God utilizes, and transcends all

dimensions. So, the occurrence of miracles in nature, and even

creation itself, is evidence of God working.

Moreover, the so-called "laws of nature" are not prescriptive

but descriptive. They do not determine what may happen; they

describe what normally does happen. Therefore, science can

legitimately say that miracles do not usually occur in nature. But it

would be illogical to claim that miracles are impossible. Such a

claim speaks outside the limits of science. If God has really come

into this world in Christ, is it so surprising that He would perform

miracles, as the Gospels report?

You’re in way over your head here. Hell, I’m in over my head here.

But I’ve spent enough time studying physics to recognize that you

are parroting concepts you do not remotely understand.

Your invocation of a multi-dimensional universe is an own goal.

(That’s a soccer term for when you kick the ball into the net you are

supposed to be defending, thereby scoring for your opponent.)

The more we learn about the physical universe, the more ways we

have to describe things which had previously been described as

miracles or supernatural events. If our universe does have more

dimensions, that will undoubtedly hold more natural answers for

things we might now call supernatural.

We can see how this very notion has progressed. We used to think

that solar eclipses were divine signs. Now we understand these to

be the simple and predictable results of orbits and shadows. We

used to think that mental illness was the result of demon

possession. Now we are able to diagnose and treat many such

diseases. And so it progresses. A thing is called magic (or god or

miracle or mystery) only until science comes along and displaces

magic in our understanding. The realm of the supernatural recedes

against the advancements of scientific knowledge.

Conversely, there is no question for which science once provided an

answer which we now know to be magic instead. Not one.

As for the small-scale miracles of Jesus, or personal intervention

miracles claimed by people of faith today – whether or not these



could happen in theory, there is no evidence (beyond unreliable

eyewitness or subjective interpretation of experience) that they, in

fact, have happened. People often claim as miraculous events that

are merely unlikely or unfamiliar.

One important discovery, that was recently confirmed by the

Hubble Space Telescope, is the age of the Universe. Because of the

ability to more accurately study several factors, such as

"background radiation" in space, scientists now know the Universe

is "young," and by averaging their various measurements, they have

estimated it to be around 17 billion years old. They estimate the

Earth was formed around 4 billion years ago. Probability research

tells us the chance of the spontaneous evolution of life, would take

at least 10100,000,000,000

years ─ 10 followed by 100 billion zeros! This

time span is enormous, and assumes all the matter in the Universe

was the type that would be beneficial to the formation of life, which

was not the case, so the odds are even smaller yet!

To further complicate things, the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun all

have to be "middle aged," since if they were too young or old, the

Earth's environment would not support life. This reduces the

chances even further. It's pointless to be concerned with how many

thousands of billions of years it would take, since the Universe is far

too young, by many orders of magnitude, for life to begin

spontaneously (assuming that theory is even possible).

Consequently, the young age of the Universe is significant for

Christianity. It means a Creator was absolutely necessary for life to

exist in such a relatively short time period.

Certainly, the odds of abiogenesis are long. But your 10-to-the-

ridiculous number is fantastically wrong. Probability research didn’t

give you that number; a creation scientist with an agenda did.

Because your number is so insanely far-fetched, your conclusion

that a creator was absolutely necessary has no foundation

whatsoever.

Abiogenesis is not random chance. We know things about physics

and biology and chemistry that help us understand where and how

the conditions might allow for a simple living molecule to generate

naturally.

Here’s the thing – unlikely is a far cry from impossible. Our

comprehension of this problem is warped by the fact that we are

looking at it from our very specific time and place in this story. We

are asking what the odds are that I will win the lottery, when we

should be asking what the odds that someone will win the lottery

are. Given enough people, it’s bound to happen.

It’s not actually surprising that abiogenesis happened, given the

size and conditions of the universe. There are some 40 billion

planets in habitable zones of various stars in the Milky Way alone.

Expand to the visible universe and the number of potentially life-

supporting planets increases to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (a

thousand billion billion). And that’s not even counting their moons.

For many scientists this also solves the numerous problems with

the macro-evolutionary theory, that is, the theory that man evolved

directly from animals, and animals evolved from single-celled

creatures. That theory sounds logical, but lacks crucial evidence to

become a proven fact of science. Micro-evolution of plant and

animal variations within a species is a scientific fact. Darwin hoped

to prove his macro-evolution theory by someday finding the

missing links in fossils, which has never happened.

For decades many scientists who believed in macro-evolution have

felt compelled to believe in the philosophy of Darwinism. That

philosophy substitutes the belief in any type of Creator for a kind of

'faith' in a purely materialistic world-view. The Darwinism

philosophy became so intertwined with the theory of evolution that

it created a roadblock to Christian faith for many intellectuals in the

field of science.

Some open-minded scientists postulated many years ago that God

is the Designer and Guiding Hand behind the development of all

life, without Whom no life could have ever appeared. The

statistics 4 now available to scientists on the birth of the Universe

has helped many reconsider the philosophy of Darwinism.

Also important, the Genesis account of creation agrees with the

How many scientists are, actually, reconsidering Darwin?

Which Genesis account of creation agrees with the order of

appearance of life forms? The Genesis creation accounts don’t even

agree with each other!

Your notion that the bible’s creation stories as having logical and

scientific descriptions that are vastly superior to creation stories of

other religions is, quite literally, laughable.

You cannot even get through the first chapter of Genesis before its

logic is destroyed. Day one, God creates light, and separates the

dark from the light, and calls the light day and the dark night. On

day four, God creates lights in the sky to separate day from night.

Did he forget he already did that?

In the second version of the creation story (which by the way, starts

with water coming out of pre-existing dry land – in contrast to the

first version which has water covering everything first and god later

pulled up some land) after Adam is created and hanging out in the

garden, the god decides Adam shouldn’t be alone, so god makes all

the animals and brings them to Adam who names them. Only after

that does god realize that there was no suitable helper for Adam



order of appearance of the many forms of life. This sets the Bible far

apart from all the "holy books" in other religions. Those books give

the usual "fairy tale" kind of creation stories which have virtually no

logical or scientific descriptions.

In Genesis, where the six "days" of creation is discussed, the Hebrew

word for day is often translated age, and has both meanings, so

God may have created over six ages. Of course, that does not mean

God Himself had to wait around billions of years as He acted in the

creative process. Time for God is relative. As the Bible says, to God

"...a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day."

Whether God created everything in a flash, or over the ages, we

may never understand how it happened.5 Out finite minds cannot

comprehend it.

To help get God's perspective of time imagine sitting in a hovering

helicopter. The pilot's view of an airport runway could represent

time, with the beginning of time at the start of the runway. Since

time does not constrain God, He can see the end from the

beginning, the beginning from the end, and all points in

between ─ simultaneously!

Besides the time factor, many other ingredients are necessary to

sustain life on Earth, including the precise size, chemical

composition, gravity, rotation, and distance of our moon, sun, and

other nearby planets. The signs of God's creative care are becoming

more evident to scientists every day!4

Science is not in conflict with Christianity. To be sure, some

scientists are. But other scientists are firmly committed Christians,

just like people in other walks of life. There are reasons why people

choose to be for or against Christ, but those reasons are found

elsewhere than in science.

To read further on how science and Christian faith are in agreement -

see: http://www.Reasons.org

among the animals (duh), so he decided to create Eve.

I’m not saying that the stories don’t have value, or didn’t serve a

purpose in their time. But to characterize the creation stories as

having scientific value or logic is just comedy gold.

Myth # 3 Conclusion

Christian faith constrains the free and open scientific inquiry when

the believer insists that any science must fit within the confines of

their faith. That is, when faith has supremacy in one’s life, individual

scientists can and do disregard, misinterpret, or actively suppress

scientific findings that contradict their beliefs. Christianity actively

encourages this behavior by stifling scientific curiosity (shrugging

off unknowns under the guise that God works in mysterious ways),

elevating ignorance (using scripture to promote the notion that

being considered a fool is evidence that you are on the right path),

and by proclaiming over and over that belief without evidence is a

virtue.

RETURN TO TOP


MYTH #4 – IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE, ALL RELIGIONS ARE BASICALLY THE SAME

http://www.reasons.org/



MYTH #4 ─ IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE, ALL

RELIGIONS ARE BASICALLY THE SAME

SUMMARY: All man-made religions are but a counterfeit of the

real Truth, and are pointless as a means of knowing God, or even

knowing about God, yet every religion claims to be the best belief

system. Some even claim to unify different faiths, although they

cannot harmonize contradictory claims. Tolerance is a very popular

theme today because of the many wars and conflicts between

different cultures. Wars are usually not fought over

religious doctrines per se, as much as they are fought over the value

systems and cultural traditions that originated in various religions.

All religions are basically the same only in their diminished view of

Christ. They all disclaim His divinity, which is precisely how Scripture

defines a false religion: This is how you can recognize the Spirit

of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has

come (down from Heaven) in the flesh is from God, but every

spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is

the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard is coming and

even now is already in the world (1 John 4:2-3).

Peter describes the exclusiveness of Christianity by claiming that

"there is no other name" that can save us (Acts 4:12). That doesn't

play well in our pluralistic society where tolerance is a chief virtue.

Indeed, many people feel that an exclusive commitment to any one

religions system is pointless, since they assume all religions are

basically the same.

Most of us would never apply such reasoning to any other realm of

life. Imagine a student saying, "It doesn't matter what answer I give

in algebra, Latin, history, or geography. They all come to the same

thing in the end."

So why do so many people apply the same shaky reasoning to

religion? Perhaps one motivation is the strong desire to see

everyone getting along in our global village. Christianity, Islam,

Hinduism, Buddism, and all kinds of faiths drive the peoples of the

world. If one system claims exclusivity, it's bound to create hostility

among the others. Most religions do claim exclusivity. Jesus made it

clear that He was "...the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one

comes to the Father except through Me," (John 14:6). Of course,

any faith that does not claim to be true is useless. The fact is,

religion is already one of the greatest sources there is of national

and international conflicts, which seems incredibly odd if "all

religions are basically the same." Obviously they are not.

Another reason why people accept this myth is because they think

that faith itself is what really matters. One can believe in anything,

they reason, as long as one believes in something. They

misunderstand faith. Faith is only as good as the object in which it is

placed. Like a rope, it matters enormously what the rope is attached

to. One can believe in anything, but not just anything will reward

one's commitment─only what is true.

A third reason why people adopt the all-religions-are-the-same line

of thinking is that it helps them avoid a decision. If all religions are

the same, they don't have to choose. In other words, they can avoid

religion altogether. That is certainly convenient, but they are

following a deception. Unlike someone who decides not to vote for

Indeed, many religions make contradictory claims. They cannot all

be true. The universalists, however, would agree with your

statement that most religions have some measure of truth in them.

While I could nitpick about how religions specifically create more

conflict that would otherwise be present based on other value

systems or cultural traditions, I’ll concede the general point that

wars are power plays and religion is often just one of many

elements.

Certainly, some people find the universalist approach appealing,

while others believe the exclusivity of their particular flavor of

religion. I do believe all religions share one trait: they are stories

and attempts to make sense of a complex universe and, due to the

problem of self-awareness, our place in it.

In this attempt at leading your reader down a path toward

Christianity as the logical choice, it is important to realize that,

logically speaking, Christianity is just one of many religions which

may have some truth but not the whole truth. And it is not

compelling to rely on the bible as your evidence for the correctness

of Christianity over all other religions.

You claim that Christianity is fundamentally different because of

Christ. The implication is that this difference makes it the only

religion that is true. That is quite a leap to make.

In Christianity, you say God has made himself known through Jesus,

and that this is what sets Christianity apart.

I don’t accept your premise that this difference is an indication of

truth.

I could just as easily use this difference to describe why Christianity

cannot be true: If God truly wishes to make himself known, the

Jesus story is one of the worst possible ways I can imagine to

facilitate that relationship, unless he’s being deliberately obtuse.

Why choose to reveal yourself in this small region of the world,

leaving the vast majority of the world’s population with no access to

that relationship with God until centuries go by while the story

spreads? That’s not the behavior of a god who truly wishes all his

children to find him.

To your point that in other faiths, people seek access to God, you

also acknowledge that in Christianity, we have to seek access to

God. You say he provided the door, but we still have to seek it.

Other religions also provide doors and paths to their gods. I don’t

see a fundamental difference there.

I agree with you that one can believe anything, but that doesn’t

make it true. Remember that.



any candidate during an election, not to choose one's faith is

actually making a choice. Science cannot tell us what lies beyond,

but if there is a Heaven and the God of the Bible is real, then it

matters to God what beliefs we follow, and not choosing is rejecting

His plan of salvation.

The false assumption that we are all looking for God and will find

Him in the end is erroneous both to the nature of people and to the

nature of God. In the first place, we are not all looking for God.

Many people today have absolutely no interest in god or religion.

They are not atheists, just committed secularists. Moreover, there

are far more motives behind the practice of religion than a search

or desire for God. Political power, tradition, standing in the

community, a desire for increased wealth and even fertility are

among the forces driving countless people back to their center of

worship. Looking for God? Hardly.

Nor is there any guarantee that people will find Him in the end.

Obviously, God lives in realms beyond us. Otherwise all of us would

already know Him from birth. The religions of the world, including

today's New Age systems, recognize that people do not naturally

and instinctively know God, which is why they promise their

followers access to Him. The problem is, they offer competing

versions of who God is and how we can know Him.

Christianity is unique─it claims that instead of people gaining

access to God, God has made Himself known to people. His

ultimate self-disclosure was in Jesus Christ. No longer is He the

unknown God. Although "no one has seen God at any time," Jesus

"has declared Him" (John 1:18).

So, does Christianity claim that all other religions are totally wrong?

No, since most have some measure of truth in them. Judaism in

particular has the Old Testament truths in its teachings.

Some religions are like candles that bring a bit of light into a very

dark world. Nevertheless, all religions pale into insignificance at the

dawn of truth that has come through Christ. He fulfills the hopes,

the aspirations, the virtues, and the insights of whatever is true and

good in all faiths.

I have to call out this statement in particular.

Time and time again, Don, you start with your faith as the

conclusion, and marshal your arguments to reach that end, closing

your eyes to anything that doesn’t fit what you have decided to be

true.

Jesus, even if the bible is true, most certainly does not fulfill

whatever is true and good in all faiths.

When Christian children are born, they are taught that they are

sinners in need of redemption and not worthy to enter the presence

of God without the blood of Jesus. That is a horrible thing to teach

a child.

Sikhism teaches that God is within us all, teaches equality for all

regardless of sex or race, and does not condemn anyone to hell. I’ll

take that story over the blood sacrifice and original sin story any

day of the week.



Myth # 4 Conclusion

Every claim that Christianity is unique or special can be used to

support other religions as well.

RETURN TO TOP


MYTH #5 – CHRISTIANITY IS JUST A CRUTCH FOR THE WEAK

MYTH #5 ─ CHRISTIANITY IS JUST A CRUTCH FOR THE WEAK

SUMMARY: The Psalmist wrote thousands of years ago, "...the

fool says in his heart, 'There is no God,'" (Psalms 14:1). Since it is

impossible to prove or disprove God's existence, it is unwise to

ridicule His intervention in our lives. In one sense, Christianity is a

crutch for those who are "weak" enough to call on God for help. But

to reject Christ for that reason is often a way to hide our own flaws

and imperfections. We should be grateful that God is

compassionate, and restores the lives of hurting people,

remembering that we ourselves are only human.

The believers at Corinth tended to think more highly of themselves

than they ought to have. The result was conflict and division in the

church. So Paul pointed out that most of them had little of which to

boast (1 Cor. 1:26; also 6:9-11). On the whole they were weak, sinful

people saved by the unmerited kindness (the "grace") of God.

Today, the grace of God still reaches out to the weak, the downcast,

the broken and the oppressed. Perhaps for that reason, people who

pride themselves on their strength and self-sufficiency have little

use for the gospel. Indeed, some despise a faith that resists the

proud but promises hope to the humble.

The Bible speaks of this uncommon attribute of Christianity in the

following excerpt from First Corinthians, chapter one: "Brothers,

think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you

were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not

many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of

the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the

world to shame the strong."

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the

philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom

of this world? Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look

for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to

Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has

called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the

wisdom of God."

Is Christianity just another crutch for people who can't make it on

their own? In one sense, yes. "Those who are well have no need of a

physician," Jesus said, "but those who are sick. I have not come to

call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance" (Luke 5:31-32). Jesus

bypasses those who think they have it all together. Instead, He

reaches out to those who know that something is wrong, that their

lives are "sick" with "illnesses" such as greed, cruelty, hate,

This is not a claim made simply of Christianity, but of religion in

general. I would state the basic idea differently – that Christianity

makes people believe they are weak, and that the cultural, historic,

evolutionary forces that have helped perpetuate religious

ideologies are complex and difficult to shake.

Your statement that we ought not to ridicule God’s intervention in

lives because we can’t prove/disprove his existence is nonsensical.

Otherwise, I should proclaim that because you can’t disprove the

invisible pink unicorn, you can’t mock its intervention in my life.

The gist of your argument on this issue seems to be that, indeed,

we are weak and we do need Christ. You say no one is righteous

enough to be in God’s presence. We are foolish. We are sick. We

are sinners. We don’t deserve it but we are saved by God’s grace

anyway.

Look, no one is perfect. But it’s healthy – not arrogant – to

recognize that people in general are, basically, decent on the whole.

This Christian obsession with people being born undeserving is

seriously damaging.


MYTH #5 – CHRISTIANITY IS JUST A CRUTCH FOR THE WEAK

depression, lust, or selfishness.

Jesus knows that no one is spiritually healthy. No one is righteous

enough to stand before a holy God. That's why He came into this

world, to restore people to God. The good news is that Christ gives

us the power to overcome sin and the ways it pulls us down time

after time.

What happens to the "weak" who avail themselves of this "crutch"?

Consider Mother Teresa, who emerged from an insignificant

convent to love the helpless and homeless of Calcutta, India, and

became a worldwide symbol of compassion. Or, consider the Nobel

prize-winning author, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a forgotten political

prisoner rotting away in the gulag system of Stalinist Russia.

Surrendering himself to Jesus, he gained renewed strength to

challenge a totalitarian regime on behalf of human dignity and

freedom.

These are but two examples from the millions who have thrown

away the self-styled crutches on which they used to limp along the

road of life, opting instead for the seasoned wood of the cross of

Christ which has transformed their weakness into strength.

In one sense, Christianity is a crutch for the weak. But if we dismiss

it for that reason it's usually because we want to deny our own

inadequacies ─ an excuse to evade the claims that God, as the

Creator, has on our lives. Fortunately, God is a merciful God, and

takes wounded, fractured people and makes them whole.

Jesus told an esteemed, successful Jewish teacher, Nicodemus, who

met with Him one evening, that everyone must be "born again"

before they can fully understand the things of God. That was a kind

rebuke for this wealthy expert of the Hebrew Scriptures. The "new

birth" is a spiritual phenomenon, that happens when the Holy Spirit

comes into someone's life as they accept Christ as their Savior.

Jesus told Nicodemus the well-known verse, John 3:16 ─ "For God

so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever

believes on Him should not perish, but will have eternal life."

Nicodemus was highly respected, and Jesus knew his pride could be

a hard obstacle to overcome, so He specifically addressed the

problem for Nicodemus: it's not how much you know, or how good

or successful your life has been, eternal life depends on Who you

know. Knowing God through Christ is the answer. It's still the same

today.

Please, I beg you; please stop picking only Christians who

demonstrate your point. Please, open your eyes. Every other

religion has people with stories just as inspiring, just as astounding,

just as demonstrative of the power of their particular flavor of faith.

I can’t believe that in the 20 years that you have been working on

this essay that you haven’t stumbled across one or two of them.

Aung San Suu Kyi. Malala. Tawakkol Karman. Winona LaDuke.

Gandhi. Bayan Mahmoud Al-Zahran. And millions of anonymous

people around the globe of all faiths and no faith who have

positions of weakness and yet transform that weakness into justice,

mercy, compassion and strength day in and day out. And they don’t

need your Jesus to do it.

Your supposed coup de grâce is that eternal life depends on

knowing Christ (the unspoken corollary being that the alternative is

hell). These carrots-and-sticks of the afterlife are tools for

controlling those who live in fear – a fear perpetuated by your

religion, by the way.

Myth # 5 Conclusion

Religion, including Christianity, isn’t a crutch so much as it is hard to

shake. Religion is not necessary for any of the things normally

attributed to the positive effects of religion.

RETURN TO TOP


MYTH #6 – PEOPLE BECOME CHRISTIANS THROUGH SOCIAL CONDITIONING

MYTH #6 ─ PEOPLE BECOME CHRISTIANS THROUGH SOCIAL

CONDITIONING

SUMMARY: Many Christians are not raised in the faith. They come

to Christ in thousands of different circumstances. When drunks

become sober, crooks become honest, when self-centered people

become generous, and unbelievers become giants of faith, all this is

no delusion. Down the centuries the millions of transformed lives

are very convincing evidence of Christ's reality.

Paul's statement that he persecuted the Church prior to his

conversion (1 Cor. 15:9-10) is a strong piece of evidence against the

commonly held notion that religious preference is mainly a result of

upbringing.

Without question, cultural circumstances play a part in people's

religious beliefs. A Hindu background would tend to predispose a

person towards Hinduism, a Christian background toward

Christianity, and so forth. But can social conditioning alone explain

why people believe and behave as they do? After all, learning about

Christianity (i.e., going to church, or Sunday school) as one grows

up is no guarantee that a person won't someday abandon the faith.

On the other hand, countless people who have had no exposure to

Christianity in their youth nevertheless convert as adults.

These statements can be made with equal force about Islam,

Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc. It really is remarkable how you are

so determined that only Jesus can do these things that you haven’t

even considered asking whether people have life-changing

experiences outside of your faith.

That horse may be dead, but as long as you continue to make

arguments that can be used equally well for other religions, I will

keep beating that poor horse.

You say you accept, without question, that cultural circumstances

influence our religious beliefs. And yet you claim it is a myth that

people become Christians due to social conditioning. You seriously

cannot have it both ways.

Quoting Paul is the weakest possible evidence against this claim of

social conditioning. First of all, in Paul’s lifetime, there was not yet a

majority Christian culture for people to have been born into, so all

the early believers were converts. Big deal.

Paul’s experience notwithstanding, it is a fact that the single biggest

predictor of one’s religion – in Paul’s age as in our own – is what

religion they were raised around. By far. I mean by leaps and

bounds.

Conversions from outside the faith may happen in dribs and drabs

or in big groups or may trend up or down in various times and

places. But conversions pale in comparison to culture when it

comes to determining one’s religion.

The fact is, Christian conversion is much misunderstood. It is often

regarded as sudden, irrational, emotional, or spontaneous.

Sometimes there is an emotional response, but otherwise becoming

"born again" as Jesus described it to Nicodemus (John 3:1-21) is not

what many people think it is.

What are the essential elements? Saint Paul's experience is

instructive. While certain aspects of his conversion unique, four

elements stand out that are present in every authentic conversion:

(1) His conversion touched his conscience. He recognized that he had

been fighting God and that his vicious treatment of Christians was

wrong (Acts 26:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:13).

(2) His conversion touched his understanding. He discovered that the

Jesus he was persecuting was no less than the risen Messiah, the

Son of God (Acts 9:22). He recognized that Christ died on the cross

as the Lamb of God. This was important to Paul's Jewish heritage,

since as a Jew he would have sacrificed many lambs in the Temple

to atone for his sins. Paul realized the Jewish faith had been like a

prototype ─ a way to prepare the world for the day of Christ's

coming.

(3) His conversion touched his will. When Paul understood that God

had sent Christ to be the Sacrifice for mankind, he quickly accepted

Him. He surrendered his life to Jesus and began following Him from

then on (Acts 26:19-20).

It looks like the rest of your discussion centers on what conversion

is, and completely sidesteps the claim that people become

Christians through social conditioning. Even though it’s off topic, I’ll

tackle it.

A conversion is such a subjective experience that your attempts to

define it and constrain it are almost comical.

I won’t argue with your description of Paul’s conversion, in general.

I do take exception, however, with your claim about the kind of

change it made in his life. He was a fanatic and a know-it-all before

his conversion, and his character and ambitions were the same after

conversion – still a fanatic know-it-all. The external target of his zeal

changed, but not his fundamental character.



(4) His conversion produced a distinct change in his life. His

ambitions, his character, his relationships, his outlook ─ everything

changed as a result of his encounter with Christ (Phil. 3:7-11).

But suppose, as some have, that it all amounts to nothing but an

illusion? Three tests can be applied to determine whether religious

experience in general and Christianity in particular is illusory. First,

there is the test of history. Christianity makes historical claims. Are

those claims valid? Does history bear them out? Yes it does. There is

nothing illusory about Jesus, or his impact on the world. Nor are His

claims illusory (see Myth 1: "Jesus Christ Was Only a Great Moral

Teacher"). Likewise, His death and resurrection are well attested (see

"Myth 2: There Is No Evidence That Jesus Rose From The Dead").

Nor is there any doubt about the reality of the church. In short,

Christian faith is rooted in historical fact.

This test has nothing to do with the conversion experience itself, so

I assume you have this one there to try to explain why a Christian

conversion is unique. Having already called into question your

claims about Myth # 1 and Myth #2, you should know where I stand

regarding the historical roots of Christianity. They are not certain,

nor are they unique. (I assume you are not referring to the history

of Christianity, but rather the historicity of Jesus and the gospel

narrative.)

A second test is the test of character. When drug addicts go

straight, gang members leave their gangs and go to college, when

animists give up their mysticism and people enslaved by black

magic are set free, when angry people forgive their enemies, and

atheists become pastors, it's not reasonable to try to explain this

transformation as only the influence of society. Changed lived are

not the only evidence of Christianity's authenticity, but they are

certainly an impressive one.

Do you seriously not know that people turn over new leaves

without Christianity all the time? Is your faith so fragile that if you

take your blinders off and stand outside your faith for just 5

minutes and take a look around, it will crumble?

Drug addicts go straight every day for many reasons – personal

relationships, finances, health. The most common reasons for

stopping are social pressures, not a religious conversion.

Gang members leave their gangs when they are given a safe path

out and compelling alternative. This is a demonstration of the

influence of society and personal circumstances. Sometimes this

happens simultaneously with a conversion experience, but that

conversion is as likely to be a conversion to Islam as to Christianity.

Does this attest to the authenticity of Islam?

Personal transformation is no proof of the authenticity of

Christianity. Angry people forgive their enemies when they set out

to live by Buddhist or Sikh precepts, so those faiths must also be

authentic, right?

Also, look into the phenomenon of pastors who have become

atheists. That’s a two-way street.

Finally, there is the test of power. Delusions and neuroses tend to

destroy people's character. They produce unbalanced behavior and

goals. Christianity has precisely the opposite effect. It makes people

whole. It even enables people to face death ─ a time when

delusions are usually stripped away ─ with confidence and courage.

Christians, as well as people of other faiths and no faith, sometimes

suffer the ill effects of neuroses and delusions. Meanwhile …

People of other faiths and no faith also lead mentally, socially, and

spiritually healthy lives.

People of other faiths and no faith also embody balanced behavior

and goals.

People of other faiths and no faith also face death with confidence

and courage daily.

Why do you insist that Christianity is unique in these ways?



What makes you say delusions are usually stripped away when

people face death?

Why is fear such a motivator for you?

History, character, power: these cannot be attributed to social

conditioning. Rather they strongly suggest that something far

deeper lies behind Christianity, something good, powerful, and

alive.

If your claims about the power of Christian conversion were borne

out even a fraction of the time, we should certainly be able to

recognize some difference between Christians and the rest of us. I

don’t mean little anecdotal stories. I mean a real, palpable,

recognizable difference. And it simply is not there.

That is not to say that Christians are no longer allowed to be fallible

humans. But if being born again has any meaning at all, if the Holy

Spirit can do any small bit of work, shouldn’t there be some sign,

something that sets them apart? Allowing for individual failings and

fakers, Christians - as a group – still ought to be just a smidge

better than the rest of us. I’m not asking for a watermelon, but

shouldn’t the fruits of the spirit be discernable, even if they are just

a little raisin?

Christians, on the whole, are not more loving, joyful, peaceful,

patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, or restrained than any other

group, on the whole.

If I were you, I might try to argue that’s because not all Christians

are *real* Christians. My response to that would be – if you break

up the world into their faith traditions, and every other group is

100% non-Christian, and the Christian group is even only 10%

Christian, that would mean the Christian group should – as a group

– still be the one group that would be just a little better, on

average, than the rest of us. It would be the one group where we

would know we can find people who really have their act together,

and we would stop looking at the other groups. After all, we’ve had

2,000 years for this evidence to accumulate. But this just is not the

case. Either because there is no difference between Christianity and

other faiths, or because the fruits of the spirit are a lie and your

proofs of the character and power results of conversion are false.

Myth # 6 Conclusion

Most people do, in fact, become Christians through social

conditioning. Your tests for authentic conversion (history, character,

and power) can be attributed to social conditioning and/or other

religions. The most accurate predictor for your religion is and

always has been what religion you grew up with.

RETURN TO TOP


MYTH #7 – CHRISTIANITY STIFLES PERSONAL FREEDOM

MYTH #7 ─ CHRISTIANITY STIFLES PERSONAL FREEDOM It’s almost impossible to respond to this because you present the

issue from so deep inside the hole of your world view that there’s



SUMMARY: Man-made religions use fear and intimidation, and

long lists of rules to keep their followers. That is not the basis for

the forgiveness and grace (unearned mercy) Christ proclaimed. True

Christian freedom is Christ-like freedom. There is no hint of legalism

about it. That kind of freedom accepts moral standards that are well

known and well proven in society, and takes its inspiration from the

most liberated human being who ever lived, Jesus of Nazareth.

Freedom is the prevailing cry of the world today, the overwhelming

preoccupation of individuals and nations. Yet even though Scripture

speaks of a liberty that Christ offers (Gal. 5:1-12), some people resist

Christianity as itself an obstacle to freedom. It this view of the faith

justified?

On the face of it, it seems strange to identify Christianity as an

enemy of freedom. After all, Christians have historically stood up for

the poor, the oppressed, the captive, and the underprivileged.

Likewise, liberation from ignorance, disease, and political

oppression have invariably resulted wherever Christian faith and

principles have been adopted. Why then, would some view the faith

as repressive?

Perhaps part of the answer lies in the problem of legalism.

Whenever Christianity is made into a list of dos and don'ts, it

becomes intolerant and restrictive. Instead of enjoying an close

relationship with a loving God, the legalist is obsessed with rules

and regulation, as if God were a celestial Policeman just waiting to

catch us out of line.

To be sure, Christ does make demands on us that sometimes limit

our autonomy. But true Christianity sees that as part of a

relationship based on love and grace, not unlike a healthy marriage

in which both partners sometimes sacrifice their own desires in

order to serve the other.

But even if there were no legalists, many people would still resist

Christianity because they resist any standards that would place

absolute claims on them. To them, freedom means pure

autonomy ─ the right to do whatever they want, with no

accountability to anyone else.

Surely that kind of lifestyle leads to irresponsibility and license

rather than freedom. Nor do people really live that way. Sooner or

later they choose one course of action over another, based on some

set of values. In other words, they surrender their will to standards,

whether good or bad, and act accordingly. So it is not just the

values of Christianity that "stifle" personal freedom, but values in

general.

One of the most frustrating problems in our Western society is the

loss of a common moral standard to follow. With white collar crime

and political corruption rampant, one can only wonder what can be

done. If the lawmakers cannot be trusted, who can? The simple

problem: society and government have abandoned the Ten

Commandants, and the Golden Rule as the standard for human

behavior. If "...every man does what is right in his own eyes..." as

happened in ancient Israel with the inevitable downfall of that

civilization and others throughout history, why should it turn out

differently today?

hardly a rope long enough to lower down. You’re in an Orwellian

world of doublespeak.

You say: Man-made religions use fear and intimidation, but not

Christianity.

I say: Hell.

You say Christians have stood up for the poor et al. That liberation

from ignorance and disease and oppression invariably follow

Christianity.

Really? Invariably?

Certainly, there are Christians who have stood up for the poor and

the oppressed. But to claim liberation invariably results when

Christianity spreads is to be supremely and willfully ignorant.

I am quite happy to continue to debate real ideas. But I am utterly

exhausted from the need to illuminate things that ought to be

obvious to anyone who puts in even the smallest effort to

understand a point of view different from their own. I’m not saying

you need to be open to changing your mind – just that you ought

to be able to at least try to see where others are coming from.

In my experience, the issue of personal freedom is not a major

objection to Christianity in any case. When I was a believer, I did not

adhere to a stifling, legalistic dogma. Any rules of behavior I felt

constrained to live by are not substantially different than what I

now live by. I defy you to seek out atheists and engage them in

dialog. Find one – just one – who left Christianity because they

wanted to do anything they desired without accountability.

Your ignorance of perspectives outside your own is demonstrated

once again when you quote Will Durant as though this is a

representative point of view of atheists, secularists, or humanists.

There is no crisis of finding a moral code among atheists, secularists

or humanists.

You state that the lack of a common moral standard is a problem.

Christians lack a common moral standard, so you are in no position

to bitch about this. Yes, even born-again-honest-to-God Christians

do not have a common moral standard.

Christian morals are predicted more by their social/cultural

environment than by their faith. If you don’t believe me, please

describe your morals regarding these issues: Debtor’s prisons.

Slavery. Women speaking in church. Burning people alive at the

stake. Torture of non-believers. I will bet that you and I, as 21st

century Americans, have a morality more in common with each

other on these issues than you do with Christians of prior ages and

other regions.

(Quick question – when you talk about the Ten Commandments, do

you mean the version that instructs against boiling a kid in goat

milk? Or the other version?)



Interestingly, even the Humanist Magazine6 (known for its atheist

following) published an article, written by historian and humanist

Will Durant, on the crisis of finding a moral code without religious

conviction. It said: "Moreover, we shall find it no easy task to mold a

natural ethic strong enough to maintain moral restraint and social

order without the support of supernatural consolation, hope and

fears... There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a

society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of

religion."

The real question, of course, is what kind of people are Christians?

What is their character? Christians try to mold their character after

the pattern of Jesus. He was the most liberated man who ever lived.

His ultimate standard of behavior was, what does My Father want

Me to do (John 8:29)? Did that code stifle His freedom? Hardly: He

was utterly free of covetousness, hypocrisy, fear of others, and every

other vice. At the same time He was free to be Himself, free to tell

the truth, free to love people with warmth and purity, and free to

surrender His life for others.

True Christian freedom is Christ-like freedom. There is nothing

legalistic about it. That kind of freedom embraces the moral

precepts taught by Christ, inspired by the most liberated human

being who ever lived, Jesus of Nazareth.

Myth # 7 Conclusion

While it is absolutely true that certain denominations of the

Christian faith are quite stifling, the real myth here is the one you

believe: that non-Christians think they are free to behave any which

way they want and have no foundation for morality. This is patently

and demonstrably false.

RETURN TO TOP


MYTH #8 – CHRISTIANITY IS OTHER-WORLDLY AND IRRELEVANT TO MODERN LIFE

MYTH #8 ─ CHRISTIANITY IS OTHER-WORLDLY AND

IRRELEVANT TO MODERN LIFE

SUMMARY: Some Christians are, as is said, "so heavenly minded

that they are no earthly good." Christians who are serious about

becoming more like Christ will become involved with the world

around them. (See Myth 12 for a list of social improvements

brought about by Christians.) Just as Christ came into the world to

do the will of His Father, so His servants go into the world to

accomplish the Father's work.

The writer of Hebrews encourages us to live with an eye toward the

"cloud of witnesses" who watch us from Heaven (Heb. 12:1), and to

look to Jesus who sits at God's right hand (Heb. 12:2). Perhaps it is

images such as these that cause some people to see Christianity as

detached from the world. They prefer a worldview that seems more

This is another so-called myth that is not really specific to

Christianity. People in every religious tradition debate and balance

separation from society with integration.

I agree that our beliefs should and do inform our actions, regardless

of what those beliefs are.

Christianity does all too often stifle action for social progress by

allowing, no, encouraging oppressed populations to hope and pray

rather than act to throw off their oppression by teaching that their

suffering is adding jewels to their heavenly crowns.

In spite of agreeing with your basic premise that our faith should

lead to action, I will have to help you with your historical facts.



relevant to everyday life.

But the Christian worldview is very relevant. To be sure, Christians

look to realities that lie beyond our natural universe. But they do so

in order to gain perspective on life, to find a star by which to steer.

Belief in the living God changes our outlook dramatically. We can

see His hand in history. We can gain insight into His purposes for

the world. As a result, we can find tremendous meaning and

motivation for our lives and our day-to-day work.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of being absorbed with the person of

Christ is that we no longer insulate ourselves from people for whom

He cares. Human beings really matter. Dedicated believers take

people seriously. As a result, they get involved with them for their

welfare.

That means that we have a definite mandate for Christian social

involvement. Wherever the tide of faith sweeps in, it brings a

corresponding rise in social concern and service to the community.

Because of the Great Awakening revivals in England during the

eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a dedicated Christian named

William Willberforce led a lifelong struggle to abolish slavery, a

fight he eventually won. Nearly all of the social reforms of that era

were brought about, not by the agnostics, but by people who

responded to the great Christian revivals of the day.

The Great Awakening and the abolitionist movements in England

and the Americas continually influenced each other. The anti-

slavery efforts began decades before the first round of Great

Awakening movements, probably with the Germantown Quakers.

Wilberforce was not involved until a century later. I know your point

is that Christians were a force for social good. But credit where

credit is due – Quakers had this issue dialed in well before the

evangelicals.

Also, during that period in Britain was the Mines Act, forbidding the

forced labor of women and children in the mines, and the Factories

Act, limiting hours of work, masterminded by a Christian, the Earl of

Shaftesbury. A believer named Dr. Barnardo founded homes for

orphans. A Christian woman named Elisabeth Fry brought about

prison reform. Another believer, Josephine Butler, lobbied

Parliament to protect women and outlaw child prostitution.

That social reforms in a majority Christian country would be

instigated by Christians is hardly a surprise. Worth noting, however,

is that Christians did not then and do not now hold some kind of

monopoly on acting for social benefit.

You know who else fought and died for workers protections,

abolishing child labor, protecting women textile workers, etc.?

Communists. Marxists. Unions. Wobblies. Often, they had to fight

against Christians to get their reforms passed.

Eventually, in America, there were comparable laws by the great

statesmen, all self-proclaimed Christians, that history has highly

regarded: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and most of the

Founding Fathers. At least 50 of the 56 signers of the American

Constitution were Bible-believing Christians.3 Their ideas expressed

in the Constitution (i.e., "...all men are endowed by their Creator

with certain inalienable rights") came from the Bible, as did the

basis for virtually all of the laws written in the Bill of Rights,

although it took several decades, and the Civil War to fully

implement.

There may be some Christians who are, as is said, "so heavenly

minded that they are no earthly good." But believers who cultivate

a Christlike mind and heart cannot help but get involved with the

poor and needy, and the hurting souls around them.

The “inalienable rights” line is from the Declaration, not the

Constitution. This is not a small point. The Declaration was a rallying

cry, an appeal to emotions, a list of grievances, a call to arms. The

Constitution was the more sober, deliberated, debated, and vetted

governing document. The Constitution does not invoke God, the

creator, or Jesus – unless you count the purely conventional date

notation in the signatory section. Religion doesn’t show up until the

addition of the Bill of Rights, and that was to restrict government’s

involvement for the purpose of ensuring freedom of – and from –

religion for all citizens. The framers fully debated the possible

ramifications both of specifically including language in support of

Christianity and of leaving out religion altogether. They are on

record acknowledging that religious freedom would be not just for

various Christian denominations, but also specifically for Hindus,

Muslims and others.



At any rate, the source of the inalienable rights idea is most

definitely not the bible. Inalienable, aka natural or freeborn, rights

were promoted by pre-Christian Stoics, among others. Where in the

bible do you find this idea? Nor is the bible is the source of the

ideas in the Constitution. The most immediate source of inspiration

for the structure and content came by way of Enlightenment

philosophers.

Myth #8 Conclusion

No argument that belief out to inform action. Definite

disagreement that Christianity uniquely motivates people to action

for social benefit.

RETURN TO TOP


MYTH #9 – THE BIBLE IS UNRELIABLE AND NOT TO BE TRUSTED

MYTH #9 ─ THE BIBLE IS UNRELIABLE AND NOT TO BE

TRUSTED

SUMMARY: There is no other ancient book as well-attested to as

the Bible for historical accuracy. Archeological and historical experts

are virtually unanimous on this. Even the most skeptical group of

theologians, regarded as mostly non-believers by any traditional

definition of the Christian faith, still acknowledge many of Paul's

writings as authentic with copies dating into the early Second

Century. This brief time gap is unique to Scripture, as the tiny

number of existing copies of all other ancient writings have on

average about 1,000 years separating them from the original. By

contrast, there are many thousands of existing copies of

Scripture, separated by as little as 25 years from the oldest original

New Testament parchments! God has uniquely protected this

special vehicle of His truth.

I spent about a half a minute googling for extant copies of other

ancient historical texts. The first solid lead that came up turns out to

meets your same so-called remarkable standard, and in two ways, it

beats the criteria that you claim as proof that your letters are

uniquely protected by God. First, in the example I found, they are

originals – not copies. Second, they are even older than your copies.

These are the writings of Philodemus, the epicurean poet and

philosopher. He lived during the century preceding Christ. And an

enormous number of his own writings were found in Herculaneum

in the 1800s. That means that these are original writings, from

before the birth of Christ. I won’t spend more time on that, except

to say that if I was able to find one example so quickly, it’s

reasonable to assume there are others. Which makes your

documents not unique. Rare, perhaps. Not unique.

The quantity and age of your manuscripts do not solve the

problems related to the historical accuracy of their stories.

Even if we had the original letters written in Paul’s hand, or Mark’s

own personal copy of his gospel – at most very little, and possibly

none, of the books about Jesus were written by people who actually

knew him or witnessed his ministry.

The letters and books that were copied the most were ones that

reinforced the narrative that would become the foundation for the

Christian religion. We know there were other writings that were just

as historically valid which the early church declined to include in

their collection. Power and politics were at stake, so perhaps some

of the books left out were actually more historically accurate. You

may choose to believe that God directed that decision, but that

doesn’t make it necessarily true.



Is the Bible a trustworthy document? Are the Scriptures true as

written? Or, are they full of myths that may have symbolic value, but

little if any basis in fact? People have been questioning the biblical

record almost from its beginnings. Peter, for instance, encountered

skepticism as he presented the gospel in the first century. His claims

about Jesus were nothing but cleverly devised fables, some said─a

charge he vehemently denied (2 Pet. 1:16)!

Today the Bible's credibility and authority are still attacked. Yet how

many of its critics have carefully studied its teaching? How many

have even looked at the story of how it came to be written?

This question about how many critics have carefully studied the

bible is actually quite ridiculous. You must assume that anyone who

does so would agree with you. That is patently false. I carefully

studied the bible and it’s teaching – and I wasn’t even a critic at the

time – I was a believer.

Remember your Pascal quote back in the introduction? I did seek. I

believed and desired to know God. And I was rewarded with

obscurity, not light.

As certain as you are that if we would only read your book and look

for your god we would agree with you – you are flat out wrong. I

am not the only one who has read and searched and honestly

desired to find truth and found it wanting.

Make no mistake, I am not imitating your error by claiming that

because some Christians have de-converted, that means Christianity

is not true. You, however, seem to think that finding an atheist who

has converted after reading the bible is proof that your book is true.

It doesn’t work that way.

The Old Testament, which exists today in 39 books, was written

mostly in Hebrew over a thousand-year period, hundreds of years

before Christ. It contains dozens of specific prophecies of Christ's

first and second coming. Each prophecy about Christ's birth, life,

death, and resurrection was literally fulfilled. The odds of any other

man simply by chance fulfilling all the particulars about His birth

(location, time, etc.), and the other details predicted for of His life,

are astronomical! For any one man to fulfill only 8 of the 333

specific prophecies about the Messiah, the odds have been

calculated to exceed 1 in 1017

power!

I suppose your 1017

calculation is supposed to awe me into

submission. It doesn’t matter what the odds are when the people

writing the story already know what criteria to make sure they

cover. These prophecies were not unknown to the New Testament

authors, nor to the committee who chose which books and letters

to include in the canon. Even if it wasn’t for the purpose of being

deliberately deceptive, confirmation bias leads people to make

connections where there are none, or discount one version of a

story when another is more in line with their beliefs. It’s only

natural.

Funny thing is, even with these little adjustments, Jesus doesn’t,

actually, fulfill all the prophecies, even according to the people on

your side. I tried to find your list of the 333 specific prophecies, and

came up with several different lists with different numbers of

prophecies. The best I can find is that only some of the prophecies

have been fulfilled, and more will be fulfilled later at the second

coming. That’s a pretty tricky way to claim all the prophecies have

been fulfilled.

The 27 books of the New Testament were written in Greek during

the first century AD. It contains the four Gospels, and several letters

written by the Apostles, including 13 letters from Paul to the

churches he started on his missionary travels. As the various

writings were copied and used along with the Old Testament over

the first three hundred years after Christ, Early Christians

corporately recognized them as being the Word of God.

The Bible is not so much a single book as a library of sixty-six

books. It contains a variety of literary types: history, poetry,

narrative, exposition, parable, and "apocalyptic" (see Revelation

10:1-10). Its many authors wrote during a period of some two

thousand years in three languages. Probably all but two were Jews.

I’m not exactly sure why it would be considered remarkable that a

collection of different stories would have a kind of overarching

story line or theme – when the whole point of gathering these

together in the collection was specifically for the purpose of

reinforcing that story line. They even had big meetings to decide

which books to keep in the collections and which to drop.

What’s remarkable, really, is how many obvious contradictions there

are in these stories, given that they were supposed to be divinely

inspired if not actually written by God and that the collection of

books was actively curated, and not just a random assortment.

The contradictions and conflicting theologies laid out in its pages

are a primary reason I believe that, even if the books are authentic



Remarkably, the writers tell one unified story:

n They offer the same understanding of human nature. People are

made in God's image and are capable of great good. Yet they are

also sinful and capable of great wickedness. The great need of

humanity is to be reconciled to God and to each other.

n They offer a common understanding of Jesus Christ. He is both

God and man. He became a real human being in order to show the

world the God it could not otherwise perceive. Something deeply

significant happened as a result of His death on the cross, making it

possible for God and humanity to be reconciled.

n They offer the same hope: God will ultimately accomplish His

glorious purposes for His Creation.

copies and even if the authors believed what they wrote, we cannot

seriously consider this book accurate or true in any meaningful

sense.

None of the typical folklore-type stories appear in Scripture. For

example, ancient writings never mentioned the hero's character

flaws, unlike Scripture does about Abraham, Moses, David, Paul,

Peter, John or the other disciples. Aside from the internal evidence

that Scripture is what is claims to be, the words of God written

through a diverse group of men, there is a growing body of external

evidence that supports its reliability as a document.

The bible doesn’t have folklore-type stories? Have you actually

READ the bible?

Your declaration that other ancient writings never mention the

hero’s flaws shows that not only are you ignorant of your own holy

literature, but that you swallow whole what someone else told you

about other literature without bothering to look for yourself.

Scholars have found many contemporary sources that parallel the

Scriptural record. For example, Jesus is mentioned by two Roman

writers in the First Century, Tacitus (Annals 15.44) and Pliny the

Younger (Letters 19.96), as well as by some Jewish writing of that

period, including Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.3) and the Mishnah, a

collection of traditions under compilation in Jesus' time.

Your definition of “many” is unusual. There are, in fact, very few

non-biblical references to Jesus, and it turns out the source for

most of those references is (ta da!) the bible. That doesn’t make the

bible true or false; it’s just not great evidence.

One astounding fact is the number of existing, ancient copies of the

Old and New Testament. Compared to the number of old copies of

literally all other ancient writings: the New Testament has 5,366 full

or partial copies available to us, compared to a dozen or so for

virtually all other ancient documents. No other ancient document

even comes close to the Bible in this regard.

The time span separating the oldest existing copy and the original

writing is also far smaller than any other ancient document. This is

the most significant factor pertaining to the accuracy of the copies!

For example, Plato's Tetralogies was written around 347 BC, but the

oldest copy (of the seven that have survived) is dated 900 AD,

leaving a 1,200 year time gap. The oldest existing New Testament

copy dates all the way back to the beginning of the second century

AD─which allows a mere 25 year time gap. With thousands of

copies available for comparison, all historical measures indicate the

Bible has the highest reliability of any ancient document. This is

another "sign" Pascal mentioned that God has given us.

More and older copies just means more and older copies, not that

the originals are true. As long as the originals are still just accounts

written decades after the fact by people who were not there, they

remain simply hearsay. Direct eyewitness reports would be better,

but still not proof of their truth (as shown by the Delphi story I told

earlier).



Another body of research that proves invaluable for biblical studies

is archaeology. Countless discoveries have helped to verify the text

of Scripture, most notably the Dead Sea Scrolls (ancient Israeli

copies of Old Testament books). Likewise, digs throughout the

Mediterranean have supported biblical references to various places

and people and the events of which they were a part thousands of

years ago.2

Even the questioning of liberal "theologians" (often called heretics)

merely reveals their unfounded doubts about the authorship of

some of the New Testament, but even they leave intact the books

of Romans, Galatians, Corinthians, Philippians, and others Paul

wrote. Therefore, every essential Christian belief remains

undamaged by the best educated doubters-of-Christianity in

history!8 Their begrudging acceptance of Paul's authorship and the

accuracy of the existing copies of his letters is one more unusual

"proof" that God has allowed for a sign to the honest seeker of

truth.

To expect archeology to turn up no evidence that some of the

places of the bible were real places would border on the absurd.

But to claim that because the bible references some real locations is

proof of the truth of its stories is hardly different from saying

Spiderman must be true because New York is a real place.

Certainly, some of the books of the bible are copies of letters

written by the earliest followers of what would become Christianity.

Whether the versions that eventually were canonized are faithful

copies of the original letters does not, actually, matter (underlines,

italics and exclamation points notwithstanding) when it comes to

determining the central question – that is, the veracity of the

accounts of the life of Jesus.

The oldest extant copies of the Quran date from a few decades

after the original. The Quran references locations we know to be

real. By your criteria, these facts mean that the Quran is to be

trusted as a reliable source of truth.

The more one examines the evidence, the more one becomes

convinced that the Bible is more then a cleverly devised tale. It has

the ring of authenticity. But in that case, the reader ought to pay

attention to its message. That is the ultimate issue. As Mark Twain

aptly put it, it is not the things in the Bible that people can't

understand that prove troublesome, but the things they can

understand. Even if people are convinced the Bible is true from

cover to cover, will they heed its message?

You are not examining evidence in any real way. You may be

spending time reading and studying, but only for the purpose of

reinforcing – not examining.

As for the “ring of authenticity,” I could make a good argument the

This is Spinal Tap has the ring of authenticity. Doesn’t make it true.

(But oh how I wish it were!)

Myth # 9 Conclusion

The bible is, in fact, not to be taken literally as an accurate historical

record.

RETURN TO TOP


MYTH #10 – ALL THE EVIL AND SUFFERING IN THE WORLD PROVES THERE IS NO GOD

MYTH #10 ─ ALL THE EVIL AND SUFFERING IN THE WORLD

PROVES THERE IS NO GOD

SUMMARY: If God is omnipotent, why does evil remain in the

world? Does He care? Yes, God cares, and He has acted, and will

continue to. He loves us so much that He allows us a free will to

accept, or even reject His care. He came into this world through

Christ, with all its sorrow and pain. Jesus knew poverty, hunger,

injustice, heartbreak, and betrayal. God conquered evil through

Christ's death, and one day He will restore His creation and His

creatures to their original purpose, and to the original relationship

they enjoyed with Him.

The phrasing of this Myth comes across as something you’ve read

that atheists say, but not that you’ve actually discussed with any

number of us. Among the non-believers I know, not one would say

that evil and suffering prove there is no god (not least because

most of us understand it is not logically possible to prove a

negative). It may help me lean toward the conclusion that there is

no god. But the thing it proves is that if there is a god, he’s a dick.

It’s not just that evil exists and he doesn’t stop it. Sure that’s part of

it. But even worse is that God himself behaves in immoral ways and

Christians justify and explain and make themselves believe this evil

is love.



Few stories offer a more dramatic or thrilling climax than the

closing chapter of Revelation. The scene of God finally and

ultimately destroying Satan and his hosts (Rev. 20:1-10) brings a

bright, joyful conclusion not only to the Revelation of John, but to

the entire Bible. Once and for all evil will be banished, never again

to trouble God's creation.

This is a sick, twisted, and disgusting statement. A bright, joyful

conclusion? Out of sight, out of mind, I guess. Evil is banished along

with billions of God’s precious children. Let’s par-tay!

Yet while Christians look forward to that day with hope, many other

people reject God and the gospel precisely because of evil in the

world. Their reasoning goes something like this:

C) A God who is good and loving would not allow evil and

suffering in His world.

2) Yet evil exists in the world.

3) If God is all-powerful, He could remove evil if He wanted to.

4) Yet evil remains. In fact, at times it seems to grow worse.

5) Therefore, a good and powerful God must not exist.

This is a powerful argument, and there can be no question that evil

and pain are a massive problem to both belief and behavior.

Christianity offers no simple, instant solution, but the Bible does

give us ground to stand on as we try to live in a world where

suffering is real.

(C) The Bible teaches that God did not create evil. The world

He made was utterly good (Gen. 1:31). Where, then, did

evil come from? The record finds people themselves

turning against God, using His gift of free will to rebel

against Him. With that moral rebellion, the perfection of

God’s world came tumbling down and people began to

suffer. We know God foresaw this problem, but He still

created man out of His incomprehensible love. As the

Apostle John wrote in the book of Revelation, Christ was

“...the Lamb slain (for our sin) from the foundation of the

world” (Rev. 13:8). God knew our moral rebellion would

necessitate the death of Jesus even then!

The Bible also claims that behind human wickedness lies a great

outside influence, Satan. This fallen angel hates God and everything

to do with Him. He is out to destroy both humanity and the

environment, and does everything He can to attack God and His

purposes. To that end he promotes much of the evil and suffering

that we see (note Matt. 8:28-34).

God did not create evil? I call bullshit. He created everything, and

while he may not have carried out the first evil acts himself, he is

omniscient, omnipotent, and outside of time. This means he knew

what he was creating, and knew that it included not only the

possibility but the certainty of evil. He most certainly could have

established an alternative. Maybe you can’t imagine how he could

get around the problem of free will existing without the possibility

of evil. But he is GOD. His imagination should be a little better than

yours and mine and he damn well could have come up with

something. Maybe he should have just stayed home that day

because he and he alone bears responsibility for the existence of

evil.

Let me just back up a step here to make one thing perfectly clear – I

am not angry at God for the problem of evil any more than I am

angry at the little green men on the moon for stinky cheese. I do,

however, get angry that otherwise decent people waste their lives

justifying the idea that their god, who by knowingly creating the

conditions for evil is responsible for evil, is a loving god.

The claim that our moral rebellion would necessitate the blood

sacrifice of Jesus is another piece of crap. The god that came up

with the star-nosed mole couldn't come up with an alternative to

the crucifixion? I mean, human sacrifice is so Iron Age.

(B) The Bible teaches that even though God did not create evil, nor

does He will it, He nevertheless uses it to accomplish His purposes.

For instance, God sometimes uses emotional pain in a profound

way to draw people to Himself, especially when they otherwise

would not respond to Him. Likewise, the struggle against evil has

led many to strive for good. Like an irritating grain of sand in an

oyster, it has produced pearls of character in countless

The struggle against evil has led many to strive for good? This

sound like the same kind of reasoning people use when they say

God had a reason for letting something bad happen to them. It

goes something like this: “I am grateful I got cancer. Now I feel

God’s purpose for me is to tap into my experience in order to

provide comfort to others with cancer.” Just one question – why did

those other people get cancer? It’s ridiculous.



people─courage, endurance, self-sacrifice, compassion.

© Why then, if God is all-powerful, does He not remove evil from

the world? The question assumes, of course, that He has done

nothing. But in fact, He has, is, and will. First, God Himself came into

this world in the Person of His Son, with all its pain and wickedness,

and lived as a man. Jesus was well acquainted with suffering. He

knew poverty, injustice, physical abuse, heartbreak, and betrayal. He

ended His life in excruciating pain. So, God fully understands our

condition. He has personally experienced it.

In the process, God dealt with the problem of evil at its root. On the

cross, Jesus took on Himself the wickedness of every man and

woman who has ever lived in order to do away with it. We may

never fully understand what happened in that incredible act of self-

sacrifice. But we know that Christ broke the grip of evil that holds

the world captive. Already we can see among God’s people a

glimpse of the new life that He has brought about (Rom. 8:4, 11).

These kinds of convoluted justifications only happen when you start

with the false notion that everything happens for a reason, that a

loving God or the Universe or whatever has a holy purpose for you

and is an active participant in your life.

(D) That brings us to God's final solution to evil, which John

describes in Revelation chapter 20. In the end, God will triumph by

doing away with evil itself and those who promote it. At the Second

Coming of Christ God will renew the world and all His creatures to

their original purity and purpose. Satan and evil will be banished

immediately. Death and suffering will be but a memory. Goodness,

justice, and peace will characterize the moral climate of God's new

Heaven and Earth.

Wait a minute – suffering won’t be “but a memory” – it will be

ongoing! Unless you’re saying there is no hell, but then what’s the

point of all this soul-filtering you insist on?

I have to go a bit beyond the general theological and philosophical

problem of the existence of evil and get to some of the actual evil

perpetuated directly by God and promoted by the bible.

It is immoral and unhealthy to teach children that they are born

damaged and unworthy.

It is downright evil to call righteous the man who offered his virgin

daughters up to be gang-raped.

It is unacceptable that Jesus spoke about slavery without speaking

against it.

These are just the tip of the iceberg. If you want to hear more, I can

show you that my morals are better than God’s, and I’d be willing to

bet yours are as well.

Myth #10 Conclusion

Evil does not disprove God, but neither is it a point in his favor. The

problem of evil as well as the evil actions of God himself are

reasons why, even if I did believe God existed, I would not find him

worthy of worship.

RETURN TO TOP


MYTH #11 – THERE ARE SO MANY HYPOCRITES IN THE CHURCH I COULD NEVER BELIEVE IN CHRIST

MYTH #11 ─ THERE ARE SO MANY HYPOCRITES IN THE

CHURCH I COULD NEVER BELIEVE IN CHRIST

SUMMARY: Jesus said, "...Only the sick need a physician..." (as in

Myth 5). We humans have many shortcomings, including hypocrisy.

Of course, it's not limited to irresponsible Christians, but is often

seen in corporate politics, and government leaders. Humans can be

very deceitful, self-centered, and dishonest whenever the stakes are

high enough. Christians are given supernatural power to overcome

these tendencies if they ask God for His help, nevertheless some

Christians refuse to grow up. Sometimes those claiming to be

Christians really aren't at all. The "hate group" known as the KKK

claims to be a Christian organization, yet their actions clearly

contradict the heart of Christ's teachings. A true Christian has been

"born again" by the Holy Spirit (John 3:5-8). Only then is it possible

to live a truly selfless life. Only by the Spirit of Christ indwelling us

can we find the strength to overcome temptation.

Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. This modern saying has a lot

of truth to it. No one can be perfect. Everyone has bad days. The

Holy Spirit does work in the lives of believers to help them become

more like Christ. At the same time God never forces anyone to obey

Him, even Christians. It's possible to take God's gift of salvation,

becoming a new-born Christian, and never "grow up" or become

Christ-like.

This isn’t a myth about Christianity. It is a matter of fact that there

are hypocrites in the church. And it is reasonable to accept that

people may judge the institution by the character of its members.

You may be able to explain why you do not believe the church

should be judged by its membership, but that does not make this a

myth.

I understand the not-perfect-just-forgiven concept. But based on

your arguments throughout this essay, shouldn’t there be some

noticeable difference, even if it’s quite small, between the people

who make up the church, as a whole, and the rest of the population

at large? Shouldn’t the Christians be recognizable, at a very minimal

level, by the fruits of the spirit? Not that each individual in the

church is a “real” Christian according to your specific criteria, but

that, overall, there must be enough “real” Christians in the church to

make it shine a little brighter.

Fortunately, many Christians have allowed the Holy Spirit to guide

their lives, and have had a positive and constructive impact on

society. Take for example the premise of Dr. James Kennedy's

book, What If Christ Had Never Been Born?, and examine some of

the list of social improvements he recounts, all uniquely originated

or developed by Christians throughout history3:

1. Hospitals, which essentially began during the Middle Ages.

2. Universities, which also began during the Middle Ages. In

addition, most of the world's greatest universities were started by

Christians for Christian purposes.

3. Literacy and education for the masses.

4. Representative government.

5. Civil liberties.

6. The abolition of slavery, both in antiquity and in modern times.

7. Modern science (see the list under Myth 3).

8. The elevation of women.

9. Benevolence and charity; the good Samaritan ethic.

10. Higher standards of ethics and justice.

11. The condemnation of adultery, and sexual perversion, which has

helped to preserve the family unit, and the human race from moral

You look for a list of good things done by Christians, you find good

things done by Christians, you stop there. By now, you should know

where I’m about to go with your list, right? That I will show, quite

easily, that these are most definitely not uniquely Christian efforts,

nor that the Christian influence in these areas was always, on

balance, good.

Hospitals did not begin with Christians in the Middle Ages. A

Sanskrit encyclopedia of medicine describes the building of a

hospital at around the time of Christ. A Chinese Buddhist monk

travelling in India about 400 years after Christ (long before the

Middle Ages) describes a widespread practice in the cities of having

houses where the public (including the poor and destitute) could go

for medical examinations and cures and where they could stay until

they had recovered. Ancient Greece, centuries before Christ, had

temples dedicated to their god of healing which functioned less as

religious houses of worship and more as places for medical advice,

diagnosis and treatment. Sri Lanka has possibly the earliest record

of institutions specifically created in order to care for the sick (aka

“hospitals”), dating to ca. 400 BC.

While it may be true that churches built quite a number of hospitals

and universities in medieval times and later, your contention is that

those Christian efforts in that era were the beginning point for

these institutions. It takes but seconds to prove your contention

false.

Case in point: The first link I open on a google search for earliest

universities takes me to a University of Texas page listing examples



collapse, and multitudes from many sexually transmitted diseases.

12. The high regard for human life.

13. The civilizing of many barbarian and primitive cultures.

14. The codifying and setting to writing of many of the world's

languages.

15. The greater development of art and music, and the inspiration

of the greatest classical works of art.

16. Countless changed lives transformed from liabilities into assets

to society because of the gospel.

in India and China dating back as far as two millennia before Christ.

In some times and places, Christians promoted literacy for the

masses. In other times and places, churches deliberately and

systematically opposed such efforts, usually – horrifyingly –

targeted to keep specific population groups oppressed, such as

slaves or women. Do you know why stained glass windows in

churches traditionally depict bible stories? Because the church

wanted to control what the masses believed and intentionally kept

them illiterate, so the pictures were ways to remind them of the

stories without letting them read the stories for themselves.

Your claim is quite strong that Christians uniquely originated or

developed the things on your list. I’ve already shown you are wrong

with the first few items. Let’s continue.

Representative government was most certainly not uniquely

originated nor uniquely developed by Christians. Athens, 6th

century

BC. The Roman Republic, 5th

century BC. The Iroquois

Confederation, pre-Columbian America.

Civil liberties. The Magna Carta is widely regarded as the first major

step in this arena. It was created in a majority Christian culture, and

Christians get both credit and blame here – because they both

created and fought against it. At any rate, the motivating force

behind its creation was, of course, political, not religious. The same

can be said about the development of civil liberties in our own

country.

Abolition of slavery. Oh man. Giving Christians credit for this is rich,

indeed. Christians, even Jesus hizzownself, accepted slavery as a

legitimate institution. Don’t get me wrong, I am personally proud of

the part my own ancestors directly played in finally outlawing

slavery in the US. I come from a long line of Quakers who were just

about the only Christians initially opposed to slavery. I understand

fully the role that certain Christians played here. But that is a very

recent change. Christians, faithful true blue Christians, throughout

the ages, supported slavery and availed themselves of its benefits.

They did not have to twist scripture in order to do so, as the bible –

both New and Old Testaments – plainly allows and regulates it.

Science – well, you already know what I think about that one.

The elevation of women? I don’t even know what you mean. In what

way have Christians uniquely originated or developed the elevation

of women? Do you mean in that creepy-promise-keeper kind of

way? Where women are put up on a pedestal and “protected” by

their men-folk? Where the daughters are raised as one-dimensional

icons of purity with virginity as the most important trait and that

makes them feel responsible for keeping men from raping them?

Do you mean elevated right into the balcony in the back of the

church where we can just shut our pie holes? Again, as a Quaker, I

am proud that my Christian heritage was one where women were

accepted in the pulpit. But that is not a common Christian

experience, even in modern times. Christians in America are the

biggest impediment to, not proponents of, women’s rights. Who

most vehemently opposed universal suffrage? Christians. Girls grow

up in even the most enlightened churches learning that we are all

born unworthy and dirty because of Eve. Sure, Jesus allowed a few



women in his inner circle, but even so – they weren’t his disciples.

Certainly, sexual oppression is not unique to Christianity. But most

certainly, it is not a claim you ought to be making with a straight

face that Christianity has a good track record in this regard.

Benevolence and charity are not in any way shape or form uniquely

Christian concepts, either in their origination or their development.

I’ve already cited charitable hospitals in India that pre-date Christ

by several centuries. But let’s go farther back in time a couple

thousand years. Ancient Babylonians promoted generosity as a

marker of civilization. Ancient Egyptians believed that a lifetime of

benevolence and charity toward the poor were required in order to

be granted passage to the afterlife. In fact, the very concept of

philanthropy dates back 2500 years before Christ in Greek

mythology. Under the general category of Altruism/Golden

Rule/Good Samaritan ethic, we find proponents from Confucius to

Mohammed to Buddha. We also find examples of altruism in the

animal kingdom. A group of sperm whales adopting a deformed

dolphin. A starving lioness risking her own well-being to care for a

baby antelope. While you may discount these as instinctual

somehow, and not allow an explanation that includes conscious

intent, we do not know the intent of the Good Samaritan, either. We

judge him on his actions, not his intentions.

In what way are Christian standards of ethics and justice higher than

non-Christian standards? In what way did Christianity uniquely

originate or develop these standards? Buddhist ethical standards

that pre-date Christ include no killing, no stealing, no lying, no

sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Buddhism also promotes

non-violent behavior, provides directions for ethical and just

treatment of workers, encourages forgiveness, and believes there

will be consequences (karmic justice) for unethical behavior. Ancient

Egyptians not only promoted benevolent behavior in order to reach

the afterlife, they also required respect for one’s mother and father,

no stealing, no murder, no exploitation of the weak, no blasphemy,

no lying, no adultery, no eavesdropping, no speaking without

thinking.

On your list of good things that Christianity supposedly uniquely

originated or developed, you list the condemnation of adultery, and

sexual perversion. You go on to say this “has helped to preserve the

family unit, and the human race from moral collapse, and

multitudes from many sexually transmitted diseases.” Of course, I’ve

already noted where other ancient cultures condemned adultery

and so-called sexual perversion. So Christianity has no special claim

there. As for the effects of these prohibitions – I would dearly love

to debate this side of things but I really need to get through these

14 Myths first. I will, however, provide one little teaser of something

I would expect to prove in such a debate: Christian teachings have

actually caused sexually transmitted diseases to spread more

quickly than they otherwise would have done.

What would lead you to say that Christians uniquely originated or

developed a high regard for human life? Is there a serious religion

or philosophy which does not highly regard human life?

Another claim you make as a proof of the positive benefits of

Christianity is the “civilizing of many barbarian and primitive

cultures.” Did you cut-and-paste this from some 19th

century text? If



by “civilizing” you mean “performing genocide upon,” well, OK. This

is just one reason your previous point (high regard for human life) is

a joke. Even if we skip over the Christianizing of the Americas and

the resulting horrors visited upon our indigenous peoples, and

jump ahead to smaller scale missionary efforts around the globe –

the case for Christianity being a positive influence on “primitive

cultures” is decidedly mixed.

I wanted to be a bible translator and I do like to think that assisting

in recording and creating written forms for languages, on balance, a

good thing. But taken in its larger context – that it all too often

went hand in hand with wiping out entire cultures – I’m not

convinced that the benefits outweigh the tragedies, in spite of the

fact that I wish it were so.

Then there is your absolutely blinkered ethnocentric view that the

greatest works of art and music are Christian. Incredible works of

art, music and poetry have come out of cultures worldwide for

millennia. To be honest, music probably kept me in the church

longer than I would have stayed without it. God, I love a good Bach

Toccata on a pipe organ! But you clearly have not experienced a

traditional African drum circle if you think Christianity has a lock on

complex and transcendental music. If you think great art was

uniquely originated or developed by Christians, you have not sat in

front of a 2,000 year old Chinese ink painting. And don’t get me

started on poetry – Christian efforts in this area are an

embarrassment when compared to poets throughout the ages from

other religions and cultures.

Finally, the end of your list of things Christians uniquely developed

or originated – transformed lives. Hogwash. Other religions can and

do make the same claim with just as much proof as you can.

Unfortunately, human beings have sinful tendencies, and hypocrisy

is one of them. We can be very deceptive, greedy, and

unscrupulous if something important to us is threatened. One

needs only look at corruption in some government officials, or in

big corporations to find plenty of hypocrisy. Christians are given

supernatural power to overcome these tendencies if they ask God

for His help, nevertheless some Christians refuse to grow up.

The grace (unmerited kindness) that God has towards mankind,

including hypocrites and everyone else, is phenomenal! Because of

Christ, God freely gives the "key" to Heaven's gate to whomever will

accept His indescribable Gift, presuming a real commitment to

Christ. It would sound too good to be true if Christianity did not

have such an glorious record of changed lives and service to

mankind.

Many unsung heros of the faith exist, who work hard serving the

poor, and proclaiming God's love in the Third World, and inner city

ghettos. If their lives were as well known as the hypocrites, the

transforming power of the gospel would be better understood.

Another common misunderstanding: Some people mistake non-

believers who claim to be Christians for the real thing. Many who

use the name "Christian" have committed unethical, or criminal acts.

If you get credit for the good works of Christians (both the churches

and their believers), you must take blame for the bad. Especially

when you are working under the guise that your point of view is

logical. You do not get to attribute only the good effects and

discount the bad by claiming they weren’t really Christian.

You also do not get to ignore the lives of millions of non-Christians.

Many unsung heroes of all faiths and no faith work hard, serving

the poor, and being living examples of love and grace throughout

the developing world and inner cities. To what (or to whom) do you

attribute this fact? What can we understand by recognizing that

Christians do not have anything close to a monopoly on your so-

called “fruits of the spirit”?

Let me state this quite clearly: In a logical inquiry, which you

propose you are making, you do not get to determine that, if an

effect is what I am looking for, it supports my hypothesis, but if an

effect is not what I am looking for, it must be a result of some other

influence and does not disprove my hypothesis. A corollary to this is

that you also do not get to ignore other sources of the effect you

are looking for.

If that was difficult for you to understand, let me try again. You

must begin to understand that you do not get to judge who has a



For example, the hate-group known as the Klu Klux Klan claim to be

"Christian," but in reality, have more in common with the

openly anti-Christian Nazi party of Hitler's day. This

misunderstanding is similar to the "sins of Christendom" as Dr.

Kennedy described the Crusades, done by those who claimed to be

Christian, but who were in name only, and had no personal, spiritual

relationship with Christ.

Christ who lived His life as God's Servant, and gave His life as a

ransom for us, is rightly called the Prince of Peace, and not of war.

Likewise, His true followers are to be peacemakers. As Christ taught,

"...you shall know them (true disciples) by their fruit (good

deeds)" (Matt. 7:16), And, He also said, "By this all men will know

that you are my disciples, if you love one another," (John 13:35).

personal relationship with Jesus and who doesn’t. You start with

your conclusion (Jesus influences his followers for good) and go

backwards to find only the people who meet this criteria (good

Christians). Then you use that subset of people to prove your

conclusion (that Jesus influences his followers for good). This is

simply nonsense in a true logical inquiry. Stop it.

The Ku Klux Klan (not Klu…) has just as much claim to being truly

Christian as do you. They can provide both scriptural and

experiential proof of the authenticity of their faith. Hitler seems

easier to discount, but the millions of people who carried out his

horrors cannot be so easily written off.

This is a Nazi belt buckle. God With Us. The rank

and file were, by and large, people of faith.

On the whole, we ought to be able to distinguish the characteristics

of the people of faith from those outside the church, even granting

a certain percentage of hypocrites.

You propose you are undertaking a logical inquiry, and that you can

prove your faith is the most logical choice. So let’s see if I can draw

a picture to show how your argument plays out logically.

Here’s a church. 25 of its members are true believers, 25 are

hypocrites. Here’s a convention of atheists. 50 people, and not a

true believer in the crowd. Those 25 true believers should, on

balance, be identifiable by their fruits. Not that the hypocrites and

atheists night not be generally well-behaved. But your contention is

that a relationship with Christ is noticeably transformative. The total

population of these two groups is 100 souls. An outsider

determining which group to join ought to have no problem

identifying, on the whole, which group is better. Even recognizing

the hypocrites in the crowd, the half of the church that is true blue

would have to nudge the scale in favor of the church.

When we step away from this simplistic picture and back into

reality, however, we find that the people of the Christian faith are

virtually indistinguishable from the people of other faiths or no

faith. That you choose not to look for good examples among the

non-believers is utterly beside the point.

Finally, in many countries hypocrites are virtually nonexistent, as

becoming a Christian is against the law, and therefore, requires

risking your life! Christians martyrs die frequently in China, Africa,

some Asian countries, and in many Muslim nations. If the power of

God's Spirit was not real and tangible to these believers they would

renounce Christ, and save their lives. But, like millions before them,

the reality of the gospel is undeniable.

This is one of the most ridiculous claims you have yet made. As I

pointed out earlier, I’ll tell you who would die for a lie: people who

are mistaken, misguided, delusional, afraid to admit they are wrong,

wanting to be a martyr, or even those who are trying to protect

others.

Additionally, people readily die for other faiths as well. So that

must, by your logic, be undeniable proof that their faith is real. After

all, who would die for a lie?



Myth #11 Conclusion

There are, in fact, as you point out, hypocrites in the church. So that

much is not a myth. People not only can but ought to observe

characteristics of the members of a group in order to evaluate the

efficacy of becoming a member of that group themselves. This is a

prerogative, not a myth. That the people of Christ are not

demonstrably better on the whole than the rest of us is telling.

RETURN TO TOP


MYTH #12 – ONE’S RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE IS A PRIVATE MATTER AND SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED

MYTH #12 ─ ONE'S RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE IS A PRIVATE

MATTER AND SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED

SUMMARY: Spiritual questions should not be kept so personal that

the subject never comes up until the person is in the hospital, or

has some "life and death" experience. Tomorrow is not guaranteed

to anyone, so we should not take it for granted. At any time we

could enter the Hereafter. Scripture teaches that it's too late to

prepare for Eternity then.

"Never discuss politics or religion." Is this old saying just a way to

be polite, or is it the customary excuse to avoid emotional issues

like dying, or what to expect in the afterlife. If Christ thought it

important to openly teach about God, have friendly discussions

with those whom He encountered, and sometimes confront

hypocrites, we should do no less. The student is not above his

Master.

Christ commanded us to "Go into all the world and make disciples

of all nations..." (Matt. 28:19), and to "...preach the Gospel to all the

world..." (Mark 16:15). Scripture is clear on this subject. Christians

should seek respectful, and courteous ways to obey God's

command to communicate the gospel message.

There is no doubt that some issues involving one's faith are best

kept private, but many topics can be discussed when appropriate.

We must consider that if Christ is who He said He was (see Myth

2), then His words are the words of God. Therefore, His view of how

personal one's faith, or lack of faith should be, is what really

matters. Spiritual questions should not be kept so personal that the

subject never comes up until the person is in the hospital, or has

some "life and death" experience. Tomorrow is not guaranteed to

anyone, so we should not take it for granted. As Scripture says,

"Today is the day of salvation..." (2 Cor. 6:2).

Sometimes the problem is poor communication skills and

personality differences. Psychologists have suggested that there are

three communication styles: "sharks" who are aggressive and

confrontational, and "carps" who stay out of the way and seldom

speak about their faith. Then, there are "dolphins" ─ gentle

and likable, always speaking in a gracious manner. If all Christians were

"dolphins" there would likely be no privacy concerns.

This isn’t a myth, and it’s not particularly directed at Christianity. It’s

simply an opinion about appropriate behavior in order to avoid

discomfort and awkwardness in social situations.

I accept that if you truly believe I will go to hell, you would desire to

try to convince me of the rightness of your brand of faith. I don’t

mind you wanting to share that belief with me. But only if you

accept that I have the right to just as vociferously promote my

thoughts and beliefs openly and publicly and have the same

expectation you have of being received with an open mind. I do not

experience that to be the case.


MYTH #12 – ONE’S RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE IS A PRIVATE MATTER AND SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED

Paul wrote that through the "foolishness of preaching," the gospel,

or the good news of Christ will be spread throughout the Earth (1

Cor. 1:21). God could have used some other means, but He chose to

use us to communicate His love to other people, as insensitive as

we sometimes are. Later, Paul wrote in Titus 1:2-3 "...(our) faith

and knowledge rests on the hope of eternal life, which God, who

does not lie, promised before the beginning of time, and at His

appointed season He brought His word to light through the

preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior."

Although God could use angels, or even writing in the sky, this

verse and other passages in the New Testament make it clear: God

has designated His good news to be conveyed through the spoken

word. It behooves us, then, to listen with an open mind.

A deep faith in God is the strongest, and deepest motivations of all.

Why go through life missing out on it only for the sake privacy? We

are all, to some extent, "our brother's keeper," as in the often

quoted verse. No man is an island. We can all learn from one

another's experiences, especially concerning the most important

decision we will make during this life: Who or what will be our God?

Will it be "self" ─ our ever-changing desires, which the Scripture

calls idolatry? Or, will we follow God's will for our lives, which not

only affects our future on Earth, but most importantly, our eternal

destination.

Myth #12 Conclusion

This is not a myth about Christianity – it’s an opinion about socio-

political behavior and an argument for your obligation and your

right to proselytize. That’s alright as long as that right is also

extended to others with whom you disagree.

RETURN TO TOP


MYTH #13 – WHATEVER MAKES YOU FEEL CLOSE TO GOD IS OK

MYTH #13 ─ WHATEVER MAKES YOU FEEL CLOSE TO GOD IS

OK AS LONG AS YOU ARE SINCERE

SUMMARY: Our feelings are influenced by many of our life's

experiences. Just following our feelings is not enough. Spiritual

counterfeits are real. Not everything spiritual is good. God's enemy

has real power. Trying out "New Age" practices, or the occult can be

hazardous. And, just being sincere does not guarantee access to

God's truth. It's possible to be sincerely and still be mistaken! The

Bible says that Satan even masquerades as an "angel of light" (2

Cor. 11:14) to deceive people.

How does one know if some assortment of religious beliefs is really

THE truth? Can someone pick and choose different religious

teachings? Can one's religion be custom-tailored, sort of a

"smorgasbord religion"? No, Jesus was clear concerning the

authenticity of His claims, leaving no room for counterfeit "truths."

This is pretty much just an extension of the ideas laid out in Myth

#4. And your “proof” that Christianity is special is just as weak here

as it was there.

Subjective experience. Transformational conversions. Scriptures. All

of your arguments and proofs you use to show the validity of the

Christian faith can be and have been used with equal validity for

other faiths.

Yes, it can seem at first glance that the bit about receiving Christ is

what sets your faith apart. But this is just a difference of the

mechanism by which we draw near to God. Many religions,

including New Age-type practices, also promote the similar BIG

IDEAS – that we can commune with the creator of the universe, that

we can receive some kind of power from that creator that will help

us be better people, that those who enter into whatever form this

relationship takes in that particular religion will be rewarded in



It's the nature of truth to be absolute, and mutually exclusive with

any other belief. The Apostle Paul thought it was vital to guard

against heresy. The gospel he proclaimed centered on the

resurrection of Jesus, and how that validated Christ's teachings on

forgiveness of sin, and other matters.

Paul knew that no cleverly devised story would produce lasting

change in one's life. He wrote to the First Century Christians in

Galatia, "Even if we, or even an angel preaches any other gospel

to you than the one you first received, then let him be

accursed..." (Gal. 1:8-9). Paul went on to say, "For I do not seek to

please men, for if I sought to please men I should not be the

servant of Christ. But I certify to you, brethren, that the gospel

which was preached by me is not from man. For I neither

received it from man, neither was I taught it, but I received it

through a revelation from Jesus Christ..." (Gal. 1:10-12).

Paul knew the truth of the gospel was life-changing. He spent most

of his earlier life attempting to find inner peace through the

observance of the Jewish religion's laws to no avail. Before his

conversion he was the number one enemy of the Early Church, as

he obtained permission to put Christians in jail, and even to death.

But all that changed one day on the road to Damascus when a

blinding Light shone on him. God's power knocked him to the

ground, and Christ appeared to him with a stern warning: "Saul,

why are you persecuting Me? Then Paul replied, "Who are You,

Lord..." I am Jesus whom you are persecuting... You will find it

hard to kick against the thorns!" (Acts 9:4-5).

The encounter transformed his life, and he changed his name from

Saul to Paul. Years later he would be marytered rather than

renounce his Lord. He defended the primary facts of the gospel

with great care and zeal. Paul knew the importance of

an accurate faith, and he devoted much of his writing and teaching

to clearly explain the essentials of Christianity. By God's providence

Paul's detailed letters to young churches form the heart of New

Testament doctrine, and hence, the basic theology for the Christian

faith. Fortunately for us, the fact that Paul was imprisoned for his

faith probably caused him to write so many letters, which reflects

what he wrote to the church in Rome (Romans 8:28), "...God causes

all things to work together for good for those who love God..."

What about feelings? Aren't deeply held beliefs that move us

emotionally the test of truth? Not always. Feelings are never a good

indicator in spiritual matters. Scripture teaches that man is an triune

being, made in the Triune God's image, with three interdependent

parts: the physical body, the "soul" (the mind, will, and emotions),

and the human spirit. The spirit is our deepest self, and is the part

of us that lives on forever. The spirit of man can feel, but not in the

emotional sense. Our soul is where feelings come from, and it

doesn't always reflect the truth about a situation.

Our feelings are colored by a combination of many prior

experiences. Following our feelings might get us lost in a maze of

past emotional impressions. Putting our trust in Christ involves

understanding the gospel message, but primarily requires us to use

our will, choosing to believe the facts God has provided us to build

some glorious afterlife. While the mechanism of blood sacrifice has

fallen out of favor, the BIG IDEAS are the same for many religions.

A note about comparing the faith required to believe in God being

similar to the type of faith required to use an elevator – what a load

of hooey. This is where you people always go off the rails in trying

to claim it takes just as much faith to believe in science as it does to

believe in a god. Look at how your bible describes faith: Being sure

of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. We live by

faith, not by sight. You can move mountains if you just have faith.

These statements are quite ridiculous when applied to any question

of science. The first people to ride elevators surely did not step onto

them without much thought the way we do today.

And it isn’t a lack of humility that keeps some of us from

converting. In fact, it may be just the opposite. We believe we are

one tiny creature on a little fragment out here in our corner of the

universe. We feel pretty lucky to get to experience this one short life

and intend to make the most of it, learning, loving, living, laughing.

But it might be supremely arrogant to think that a creator of the

universe would be bothered to have a personal relationship with us.

And it’s weird that he would set up this amazing and vast universe

simply to have a soul-filtering mechanism to sort out which of us

get to go stroke his ego for all eternity.

Most of the things that I would say for the rest of this section have

been referenced in one way or another in earlier sections. If you

want to revisit any of these ideas specifically, we can do that as a

follow up.



our faith upon.

Fortunately, God made His plan of salvation accessible to all people on

an equal basis. Unlike man-made religions based on acquiring special,

secret knowledge, or some trance-like experience, God brought His

salvation down to us! He did this by giving it to us by faith.

Having faith is something we all do every day naturally. We have

faith when we use an elevator, stop a car, etc. It does not require an

emotional experience, a great intellect, or any physical

characteristics. It only requires a decision of the will.

This decision to accept God's gift of salvation may require some

degree of humility, particularly for those individuals who have lived

an honorable, and distinguished life. They may feel justifiably proud

of their accomplishments, but God requires absolute purity from

sin, and no one's life other than Christ can measure up to that

standard.

For many, receiving Christ will come as a great relief. Emotions may

or may not be present, but a marked change in motivation,

attitudes, and a profound love for Christ usually follows the "new

birth" experience.

Another significant caution: not everything that is spiritual is from

God. The enemy of God has real power. Any experimentation with

Eastern religions, "New Age" systems, or the occult is very

dangerous. It may start out as harmless curiosity, but dark forces

watch for those dabbling in the occult. That is their domain, and

they know how to add a supernatural attraction that is hard to

resist. The occult is a slippery slope, and can quickly go from a

curiosity with horoscopes and Ouija boards, to divination and even

communicating with evil spirits (masquerading as "spirit guides").

Some New Age teachings sound, at first, to be harmless, but have

led many into spiritual bondage.9 Escaping the occult is virtually

impossible without God's help, and can be harrowing even for

someone who becomes a Christian.

God alone is worthy of worship, and He rightly warns us against a

prideful, self-sufficient attitude, and especially exploring the

spiritual realm without His protection. He knows that we tend to

become like whatever we "worship" (admire greatly, or be obsessed

with). Worshiping "self" makes us more self-centered. Worshiping

something or someone else only satisfies for a time. Yielding our

lives to God alone is the answer.

Former occultists who have escaped their spiritual "addiction" know

well the power of the cross of Christ. By holding fast to the

Christian's delegated authority as children of God, using the name

of Jesus to rebuke the evil spirits that harass them (Luke 10:19), they

have found liberation.

It's also important to note that sincerity alone does not guarantee

access to Gods' truth. Many people are sincerely WRONG! Evil

spirits often masquerade as "angels of light" (see 2 Cor. 11:14) in

order to mislead people. Obeying the teachings in God's Word (as

the Bible is often referred to) does insure we will know the REAL

truth. Jesus said in John 7:17, that "...if anyone chooses to obey

God's will (yielding to Christ), he will find out if the teaching comes

from God..." If we decide to follow Christ we will be led by the Holy



Spirit into a progressively deeper understanding of God's will for

our lives. If we truly make Christ the Lord of our lives, nothing can

lead us astray.

Finally, if the only way to Heaven is through faith in Jesus Christ,

some will ask, "what about those who never hear of Christ?"

Although in Revelation 5:9 the Bible states, "...You (Christ) are

worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were

slain, and with your blood you purchased men (and women) for

God from every tribe and language and people and nation," the

Bible also explains that, "Salvation is found in no one else, for

there is no other name (Jesus Christ) under heaven given to

men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12).

Nevertheless, again in Revelation 7:9 it states, "After this I looked

and there before me was a great multitude that no one could

count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing

before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing

white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands."

These scriptures give us a reason to believe that God, Who

transcends time and space, and knows the nature, intents, and heart

of every person ever born, has found some from every nation, tribe,

people, and language group whom He can impute the forgiveness

of sin through Christ, and remain just.

Of course, "every tribe, people, and language group..." would

logically include some people born after Christ came who never

heard of Jesus or the gospel message (see Acts 17:30, and Romans

3:25-26). It could be that God knows who would have accepted

Christ if they had the chance. It has not been revealed to

us how God can do this, since it is not our job to judge mankind. As

we discussed in Myth 12, the believer's task is to faithfully proclaim

the good news of forgiveness through faith in Christ.

Dr. Rene Pache, a highly respected Swiss theologian, made the

same observation: "...God, Who is omniscient, knows perfectly

whether a sincere yet ignorant man, given a chance to accept

salvation, would take it or not. Christ died for the sins of the whole

world, those committed before His coming as well as in times and

places not reached with the gospel (Romans 3:25). The Lord, then,

will know how to treat every sinner according to His love and

righteousness."7

It's comforting to realize the many innocent children who die at a

young age will be in Heaven, as is apparent from a quote King

David makes in 2 Samuel 12:23. However, we are clearly told in

the New Testament that anyone beyond the "age of

accountability" who ignores or rejects God's plan of salvation

has no hope of spending eternity in Heaven!

Therefore, if someone has never been "born again" as Jesus

described the salvation experience to Nicodemus (see Myth

5), understanding the information contained in these pages makes

the question of "those who have never heard" irrelevant for that

person! So, we must carefully consider the evidence God has

provided that we might trust in Christ, and begin a relationship with

It doesn’t matter who Dr. Pache is, or whether he is highly

respected. What matters is that he makes Romans 3:25 say things

that simply are not in the text. We presume he does these

contortions because he needs something to counteract the morally

repugnant possibility that no one who does not follow Jesus will go

to heaven, whether they have heard of him or not.

Why don’t you provide the scripture reference for the clear

indication in the New Testament that children who die before this

unknown “age of accountability” won’t go to hell? Could it be that

there actually is no such clear statement?



God that will last for eternity!

Myth #13 Conclusion

Given that the same “proofs” can be used for just about every kind

of religion, it’s to be expected that people will hold differing beliefs

even when they are genuinely searching for the truth. Sincerity

ought to count for something.

RETURN TO TOP


MYTH #14 – ALL THE GOOD THINGS I’VE DONE WILL OUTWEIGH THE BAD

MYTH #14 ─ ALL THE GOOD THINGS I'VE DONE WILL

OUTWEIGH THE BAD

SUMMARY: Who can set the standard for the amount of "good"

one must perform to make it to Heaven? Is 51% good enough? Or

does is it take 70% to "pass?" What about the poor soul who almost

makes it, but just hits 69%? What might seem fair to you or me, will

seem too permissive for especially good people, but again, who are

we to say? And, wouldn't it seem cruel for God to have made the

"passing score" a secret? Fortunately, we don't have to guess how

good we must be to "balance the scales." The Bible does not

discuss this question, except to point out that no one is good

enough ("For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of

God," Romans 3:23). God Himself has provided our acceptance into

Heaven through Christ's death on the cross. Now, because Christ

died for us, both our good and bad deeds, in effect, make no

difference at all, with the exception of one very important good

deed: the decision to accept Jesus Christ as our Savior.

One of the most logical-sounding misunderstandings about

Christianity is the idea that somehow God grades on the curve, as

many college professors do on final exams. It seems reasonable

that a loving God would be lenient─that He would weigh our best

moments against our worst, compare our performance against the

averages, give most of us the benefit of the doubt, and welcome us

into Heaven when we die. That sounds very kind, but does not take

into consideration God's nature: He is just and holy, as well as

merciful. He cannot overlook any sin and remain absolutely just,

and He will not allow (unforgiven) sinners into Heaven.

The Bible teaches that anyone defiled by sin cannot remain in the

presence of a holy God. One selfish act is enough, and we are

marred by sin. No amount of good works can change that fact

(James 2:10). The Bible teaches we are actually born with a "sin

nature" that we inherited all the way back from the first man and

woman when they disobeyed God's command, and ate from the

"Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." (It's interesting to note,

that if God had not supplied Adam and Eve with some way for them

to rebel, in reality they would have been no more than happy,

human robots.) So, with this seemingly irreconcilable problem of a

This obsession with our unworthiness, our sin, is disturbing. It is

actually disgusting that even the smallest misstep is an act that

requires a blood sacrifice. It is disgusting that we are defined, first

and foremost, as sinners – from birth, without exception.

Don’t misunderstand me – I agree that no one is perfectly moral.

We all screw up on that count. Why all the fuss about that?

Regardless, for me, this is not an argument I would make. I don’t

believe in an afterlife and I’m not worried about whether I will get

into heaven. I believe, as I have said, that if I am wrong, that the

best I can hope is God will know who I am and judge my heart. If he

has some other method of choosing who is in and who is out, well,

c’est la guerre.

You think you are making points by mocking the idea of a good-

deeds-score. You say it would be cruel for God to make the passing

score a secret. Apparently, you have already forgotten that God

does make secret important things. Remember our discussion of

the Pascal quote?



holy God separated from sinful mankind, what could be done?

God's plan is remarkably simple, yet divinely powerful. The second

Person of the Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ ─ God

Himself ─ provided our salvation. This is the amazing grace of God.

In the New Testament's original language of Greek, the word for

grace means unmerited favor, or unearned mercy: salvation without

any help from us! That is great news to many people who know

they need forgiveness, but for some who have lived exemplary and

successful lives and who have given many good things to the world,

grace may sound a little unfair.

Jesus used a parable to explain this in Matthew 20:1-15, "For the

kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in

the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to

pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his

vineyard. "About the 9:00 in the morning he went out and saw

others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told

them, `You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you

whatever is right.' So they went. He went out again at noon,

and at 3:00, and did the same thing. About 5:00 in the

afternoon he went out and found still others standing around.

He asked them, `Why have you been standing here all day long

doing nothing?' `Because no one has hired us,' they answered.

"He said to them, `You also go and work in my vineyard.'

"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his

foreman, `Call the workers and pay them their wages,

beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

"The workers who were hired around 5:00 came and each

received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first,

they expected to receive more. But each one of them also

received a denarius. When they received it, they began to

grumble against the landowner. `These men who were hired

last worked only one hour,' they said, `and you have made

them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and

the heat of the day.'

"But he answered one of them, `Friend, I am not being unfair to

you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay

and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I

gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own

money? Or are you envious because I am generous?' It's easy to

see the metaphor here: living a good life is admirable and

beneficial, but the "workers' pay" (entering Heaven) is not based on

the amount of good works one does, or does not do.

We must recognize our real position: God is God, we are His

creation ─ His crowning creation, but nevertheless, He is God, and

we are not. How He chooses to rescue us is His business. We must

humble ourselves to accept His gift of eternal life on His terms, or

do without.

Eternal separation from God (Hell) is what the Apostle Paul

describes when he wrote "...the wages of sin is (spiritual) death"

(Rom. 6:23). If a person persistently lives his or her life separated

from God, and rejecting Christ, then their afterlife will continue that

separation in a dark "quarantine" outside of Heaven, and outside of

everything good that God has planned. The choice we make to



accept or reject Christ determines our eternal abode.

It does not depend on having an abundance or a shortage of good

deeds. Fundamentally, it's the sin "disease" that we inherited. We all

have a inclination to sin. That's why, except for Christ, no one is

perfect. Mankind desperately needed a Savior. Thank God, He

provided one!

How is it that Christ could become the Savior ─ to die in our place?

Jesus had no earthly father (His Father was God) so He was born

without a sin nature. This made it possible for Him to live a sinless

life. He had no sin, so He could become our substitute─satisfying

God's divine justice by dying in our place.

Therefore, because of Christ, God can be both merciful and just. He

demonstrated boundless mercy by sending His own Son to die in

our place. His plan of salvation "justifies" (declares not guilty)

anyone who trusts in Christ's death as payment for their sin. And,

He demonstrated His perfect justice by fully paying the ultimate

penalty for sin when Christ died on the cross.

Just look at what you are saying: “Mankind desperately needed a

Savior. Thank God, He provided one!” I get that God gets to make

the rules and we are supposed to humbly submit to those rules. But

to be thankful that God provided something that was required only

because he knowingly set in motion the chain of events and rules

that made it necessary in the first place, is a bit like thanking the

abuser for providing a bag of frozen peas to soothe the black eye

he gave you.

I’m really not trying to be facetious. But this is truly how your

theology appears to some of us. Your god set the rules, knowing it

would mean billions of his children would end up in hell for all

eternity. And you are grateful to him because you think you have

the golden ticket, and while you may feel sorry for the people going

to hell, you blame those poor souls for choosing wrong, instead of

putting the blame where it really goes – on the shoulders of the guy

who set the system up. Not to mention that it’s possible that they

chose wrong because of that stupid Catch-22-hide-and-seek we

talked about way at the beginning with your Pascal quote. That is

not mercy.

We may never comprehend the pain Christ endured when He cried

out on the cross, "My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Mark

15:34). Besides the physical pain, theologians imagine that during

the time of spiritual separation when Christ was momentarily

removed from being one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, as He

bore our sin, that this was a special kind of suffering beyond our

experience, and our four-dimensional world.

Centuries before Christ was born God gave many indications of His

coming. Paul wrote that God established Israel and the Hebrew

religion of laws and sacrifices to demonstrate how impossible it is

to live a sinless life (Rom. 7:23), and to show the necessity of a

sacrifice for sin. The prophet Isaiah, in the Old Testament

states: "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has

turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him (Christ)

the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6). As John wrote, "The Law came

through Moses, but grace (God's unmerited mercy)... came through

Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). Christ was the ultimate and final sacrifice

for sin.

As we saw in Myths 4 and 10, God's gift of free will has powerful

consequences. Just as we can come to faith in Christ on our own

accord, without coercion from God, we can also reject Him forever.

As in the Garden of Eden, our free will is truly free only if we have

the right to say "no" to God's will for our lives. We must make a

choice for or against God's plan. To abstain from choosing,

according to the Bible, is a "no" vote. Now, because Christ died for

us, both our good and bad deeds, in effect, will make no difference,

with the exception of one very important good deed: our decision

to accept Jesus Christ as our Savior.

Why does it matter what theologians have imagined? What is your

deal with always making irrelevant appeals to authority?

If the reason for free will is because he didn’t want to force anyone

to have to worship him (because that wouldn’t be authentic

worship) – I have to ask – is his ego so fragile that he requires

constant adoration? God’s so-called gift of free will in order to

ensure authentic worshippers comes at too high a price if it means

that billions of God’s children will spend eternity in hell.



Myth #14 Conclusion

The whole sin-salvation foundation of Christianity is a mess. None

of you actually agree completely on what your god wants or how

he will make his judgments, if he even exists. Being judged on

whether we were decent people is not an unreasonable view,

especially in light of Matthew 25.

RETURN TO TOP


CLOSING STATEMENTS

CHRISTIANITY IS THE LOGICAL FAITH

Because we are living in the Information Age, much of this deluge

of information is not accurate, so it is often necessary to bridge the

gap between fact and theory, fiction and logic before someone can

have faith in Christ. By discussing these 14 Myths we hope we cast

some strong doubts over the popular fiction many believe about

Christ and Christianity, and to help inform individuals about basic

biblical facts.

We have been encouraged by numerous intellectuals, including

many scientists who formerly had "blind faith" in the philosophy of

Darwinism (in spite of the inadequacy of the fossil record), who are

becoming followers of Jesus Christ. They are finding, among other

facts, that the "young" age of the Universe and the Earth makes

Darwin's "macro-evolution" theory illogical.

By using this logical approach to faith, and taking the time to fully

examine the claims of Christ, an increasing number of intellectuals

are choosing Christianity as they learn the convincing details God

has given modern man to verify His plan of salvation.4 They find no

other religion, philosophy, or belief system has the historical

support or the centuries-long track record of changed lives that

Christianity does. As the list of famous Christians in the field of

science reflects (in Myth 3), some of these changed lives have

significantly improved society.

When one examines all the evidence up close, there is no

comparison. Trusting in Christ still requires a step of faith, but that

step is small when compared to any other religion.

We trust this short defense of Christianity will not be offensive in

any way to the reader, yet will challenge some of the long-held

fallacies that obscure the marvelous truth of the Gospel, stated in

John, chapter three, verse sixteen: "...God so loved the world, that

He sent His only Son..."

It does not bode well that the first sentence in your concluding

statement arguing that Christianity is the logical faith doesn’t make

logical sense. It is nonsensical to state that because we are living in

the Information Age, much of the information is not accurate.

I expect my writing to have some of these same sloppy kinds of

statements because this is all basically a first draft for me. But

you’ve been revising your article for 20 years. No excuses for you.

And then your first argument is the fallacious appeal to authority. I

don’t give a frazzled fig leaf if numerous people have come around

to your side. What I care about is the ideas themselves, not whether

they are popular or accepted by others.

Christianity is not special when compared to other religions. Every

single argument you have made in support of your religion can be

and has been used to “prove” other religions, including

Pastafarianism. Yes, with a P. Google it.

THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP

A study of the books referenced in the Footnotes, especially books

by Josh McDowell, and the excellent book by Prof. Michael Green

(Who Is This Jesus?) will show Pascal's famous quote to be accurate:

If he hides himself unless you search for him, what, exactly, is the

way of escape for those who really do not want to know him?

No such thing as real love in a force marriage? Tell that to Tevye


CLOSING STATEMENTS

God is carefully regulating the information and "proofs" about

Himself, to encourage those honestly seeking Truth to find Him,

and to allow those who really do not want to know Him a way of

escape.

Providing human beings a totally FREE WILL is essential to our Creator.

He wants us to be able to freely seek Him and have a prayer

relationship without any coercion. He would not want to 'trick' us into

doing that. What would be the point? God would know we were not

choosing a relationship with Him freely of our own accord. After all,

there is no such thing as real love in any forced marriage.

If you are interested in discovering more about these "proofs,"

begin by studying the books listed in the Footnotes. The extensive

lists for further research found in any of Josh McDowell's books will

provide dozens of additional sources of information.

Another highly regarded author and speaker in the field of

apologetics is Ravi Zacharias - a visit to his site can be very

enlightening: http://www.rzim.org

If you are not a Christian, and have read this far, you are very close

to finding, and knowing the God who is Truth. Fortunately, it is not

necessary to understand everything to begin a eternal relationship

with Jesus Christ, so you can start right now! After becoming a

Christian, you will have the advantage of the Holy Spirit's assistance

in the process of learning more about Christ, and living life as a

Christian.

If you are not sure if you are born again ─ if you are not sure that

you have eternal life ─ here is a model prayer that you can pray

now and experience the spiritual re-birth promised to all who

receive Christ.

The following is a good example of what you should express to

God:

DEAR LORD, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE NOT LIVED UP TO

YOUR PERFECT STANDARD, AND I HAVE SINNED AGAINST

YOU IN MANY WAYS. LORD JESUS, I WANT TO KNOW YOU

PERSONALLY AND RECEIVE THE NEW BIRTH THAT YOU

PROMISE TO GIVE TO THOSE WHO ASK. I AM DEEPLY

GRATEFUL THAT YOU DIED ON THE CROSS FOR MY SINS. I ASK

YOU NOW TO FORGIVE MY SINS, AND COME INTO MY LIFE BY

YOUR HOLY SPIRIT. HELP ME BECOME MORE LIKE YOU EVERY

DAY. MAKE ME THE KIND OF PERSON YOU WANT ME TO BE. I

RECEIVE YOU NOW AS MY SAVIOR AND LORD. IN THE NAME

OF JESUS I PRAY. AMEN.

If you sincerely prayed that prayer you have just become a

Christian! It is very important that you tell someone about it and

find a Bible-believing church where you can learn more about

Christ, and meet other believers who can help you know more

about living the Christian life. If you would like to receive the best-

selling book More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell (free of

charge) just drop me an email with your postal mailing address - to:

[email protected]

FOOTNOTES

and Golde. ;)

God does not provide totally free will. Even you admitted there are

times he will interfere with free will.

Look, you aren’t about to change my mind. But that’s not because I

haven’t given your side a fair shake. I was on that side for decades.

On the other hand, it is wildly apparent that you have never given

serious consideration to any point of view outside your own. You

have your belief, and only consider ideas that support your

conclusion. Fine.

The truth is, you do already have a deep understanding of my

position regarding Christianity because you hold exactly the same

position I do regarding every other religion. You and I are both

non-believers when it comes to Ganesh, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, and

thousands of other gods. I just don’t believe in your god either.

I would just like to say to anyone else who might stumble across

this document, that it’s not the end of the world to lose your faith. If

you are not sure what you believe, that’s alright. Don’t sweat it. To

borrow the bumper sticker phrase, you can be good without god. If

you have I love Jesus bumper stickers or bible verse tattoos and

you’re not sure you still believe, not to worry, just accept those as

part of the history of your journey. You would not be who you are

without that in your past. And you are worthy of love. You are

worthy of acceptance. You were not born sinful. You can choose

what your purpose is. We have but this one short life and it is

enough. Be humble, for you are made of earth. Be noble, for you

are made of stars.

http://www.rzim.org/


CLOSING STATEMENTS

The following titles are excellent sources for further research.

1 The first ten myths have been quoted, and edited, from The Word

In Life Study Bible (Thomas Nelson Publishers, page 732), and was

originally adapted from the book, The Ten Favorite Myths People

Believe About Christianity, published by Lion Publishing, 1705

Hubbard Ave., Batavia, IL 60510.

2 A Ready Defense: The Best Of Josh McDowell, by Josh McDowell,

Here's Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA

3 What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?, by Dr. D. James Kennedy,

Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville.

4 Creation And Time, by Dr. Hugh Ross ( http://www.Reasons.org )

5 Several books clearly demonstrate the problems with the "macro-

evolutionary" hypothesis as an obstacle to the Christian faith. A few

of the best are: Darwin's Enigma, by Luther Sunderland; The Origin

of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and of Abrupt

Appearance, by Wendell Bird; Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by

Michael Denton. Also of interest are the books by Dr. Hugh

Ross: Creation And Time, and The Creator And The Cosmos.

6 The February 1977 issue, as quoted in What If Jesus Had Never

Been Born?, by Dr. D. James Kennedy, Thomas Nelson Publishers,

Nashville, TN.

7 Rene Pache, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (Moody

Press, Chicago, 1970), p. 18, as quoted in Heaven ─ Better By Far by

J. Oswald Sanders (Discovery House Publishers, Grand Rapids, MI,

1993), p. 111.

8 The Letters Of Paul, US News & World Report, p. 67, December 10,

1990.

9 Dark Secrets Of The New Age, by Texe Marrs, Crossway Books.

One of the most readable, and interesting books on

Christian apologetics and the claims of Christ is: Who Is This Jesus? by

Prof. Michael Green, Oliver Nelson Publishers.

The 14 Myths has been written for non-commercial /

educational use only. This essay may not be reproduced except for

private use, and may not be sold.

RETURN TO TOP

http://www.reasons.org/

14 so-called myths about christianity

Documents