Faithful Thinkers

Essay on Apologetics 315

As mentioned before, I wrote an essay a while back to be published on Apologetics 315 as part of a series of short essays about the truth of Christianity. Brian Auten has been publishing essays since the beginning of the month, and all of them have been fantastic. I have found many bloggers that I was not aware of. The cumulative resources among all of them is astounding. Definitely check out the series.

Today, its my turn. My essay "Making Sense of the Resurrection" was published. Enjoy and God Bless!

What's Wrong With Universalism- Part 2

Last week I looked at one of the arguments for universalism. The argument was that since all the religions teach pretty much the same moral code, the religions must lead to the same place. Since the original writing of that post, I have been provided with a more nuanced argument that eliminates that the idea that all religions are the same. They maintain that the religions can be different and still lead to the same destination. Since the argument is more nuanced now, so will my answer.

Universalism posits that all religions lead to the same destination as long as the adherent is sincerely following whatever religion. Universalists like to point to the fact that people all have different "starting points" in life . The two primary examples given is geographical location and culture- both can be barriers to receiving information about the "correct" worldview. They believe that this is not fair, and since they project their idea of "fairness" onto any deity that might exist (see my previous series "God: Your Way, Right Away"), they conclude that exclusivistic religions are not correct. They also say that since there are many ways that one can go to reach a physical destination, this must be the same with regards to the religions.

A couple months ago Brian Auten of the Apologetics315 blog invited Christian apologetics bloggers to contribute to a new project. His goal was to compile essays that clearly communicated some of the reasons that apologists believe that Christianity stands true while other worldviews fall. His goal was to mainly have essays that provided positive cases for the truth of Christianity.

23 bloggers, including myself, accepted the invite. On Thursday, Brian introduced the series. Here is the link:

Essay Series: Is Christianity True?

We all have a limited knowledge and understanding of pretty much everything out there, but we do know things that each other do not, and we all have careers and specialized training that bring unique perspectives to the defense of the Christian Faith. I highly encourage all my readers to read these essays and engage the authors, not only on the Apologetics315 posts, but also on the authors' own blogs. We are eager to engage questions and challenges that, not only help guide you closer to the Truth, but also train us for carrying out The Great Commission.

What's Wrong With Universalism- Part 1

Over the past few years a few people have told me that all religions are the same when they are boiled down, and there is no reason to promote my particular worldview over another. The implication of this belief is that all religions are true and lead to the same destination (universalism). For now, let's look past the fact that they just contradicted themselves (see post "The Intolerance of Tolerance") and engage one of their arguments.

Last week I discussed the danger of assumed definitions in debates and discussions. This week I want to focus on the personal danger in holding a definition that is not correct.

I have heard several atheists and agnostics say that they are looking for God but haven't found him. I have had quite a difficult time in the past understanding this claim. But then I realized (based on their objections) that they were searching for a god based on what they wanted God to be (their own definition of "God").

Everyone who's read this blog for a while or have talked with me extensively on worldview issues, knows that I am really big on defining terms. Anytime that I'm on the sidelines of a heated discussion and notice that the conversation can be cooled a bit by the participants understanding the other's terms, I point it out- it normally works to help understanding, but not necessarily agreement.

This is another short series on the power (constructive and destructive) that definitions possess.

Something that has really been getting me lately is how people are defining "God," then say that "God" does not exist. Many of the objections by atheists to God's existence come in this form. The problem with this is that if someone where to say, "there is obviously evil in this world. God would not allow evil to exist. Therefore, God does not exist," they are making this exact mistake.

It is really quite amazing how much I hear about being "tolerant." In today's "politically correct"/"don't offend anyone" culture, it really is not surprising.

Someone told me the other day that I was being intolerant by voicing a certain opinion. I had to do the equivalent of a "double-take" with what I had just heard.

I asked her if she really valued "tolerance." Of course, she said yes. My next question was not met pleasantly. I asked, "Do you realize that you are being intolerant of my view by telling me that?"

It then occurred to me that "tolerance" can only be performed, but never voiced. When "tolerance" is articulated, it is hypocritical. The "tolerant" person is being intolerant of the person he is claiming is "intolerant". It can be easily demonstrated by showing that the intolerance is actually implicit in the accusation. The "tolerant" person may defend his statement by claiming that it is an observation- making it okay. At that point, I would agree that an observation by itself does not completely destroy his tolerance. However, if he mentions it, he is demonstrating that he is being intolerant of the other person's intolerance. The articulation of "tolerance" defeats its own definition.