Thoughts of a Living Christian

Musings of an amateur theologian and hopeful writer

Archive for the category “Apologetics”

Positive Positivism?

What is Positivism?

It’s not a way of life that insists you remain happy all the time. It’s got nothing to do with magnets and electricity. And it doesn’t have anything to do with chemistry or physics, per se.

Positivism is a philosophy that insists that the only true statement is a statement that can be proved through empirical evidence. You’re probably aware of this way of thinking, even if you didn’t know what it was called – or that it even had a name. The insistence upon measurable evidence based proof comes from a Positivistic methodology.

This way of thinking is extremely pervasive in the world today, even in an increasingly postmodern world…whatever that may mean.

There are many good things about this philosophy, things I think make an extremely large amount of rational sense. However, there are aspects of this philosophy that I think are irrational and perhaps harmful.

If the only things that can be considered true are those things that can be measured, our science is restricted. We are limited by what we already know, or are at least restricted to a short field of view. What I mean by this is that we are restricted by rules that we have constructed based on recurring patterns that we have observed in the observable, material universe.

However, I have two concerns with this:

  1. In the world we live in, occasionally things happen that defy these rules. Events occur that are un-explainable because they are outside the rules we have created.
  2. Science is continually updating with new evidence, and old rules become obsolete. If we restrict ourselves to the rules we have already created, we deny ourselves further scientific development. Any development is restricted to a very limited field of view before us, constrained by observable and measurable rules.

Let’s take Jesus’ resurrection for example. Our experience of this material universe tells us that dead people do not come back to life. The 19th century philosopher and theologian David Strauss argued that because we don’t experience resurrections today we cannot say there ever has been any. This is a very Positivistic way of thinking.

But just because resurrections don’t regularly occur doesn’t mean we should insist they don’t happen at all.

Just because something lies beyond the rules we have constructed doesn’t mean we should believe them to be false. If we were to insist on this, we would never make any scientific progress at all. There will always be things lying outside of our observable rules; we will always revise old rules and expand our present knowledge. But to do so requires that we do not immediately reject those things that defy our present rules.

Hence I believe we should construct a revised Positivism.

I do not wish to reject Positivism outright, for I believe there must be precedence given to recurring patterns. Earth gravity will always cause things to fall down, not up, and will always stop me from floating into space. One plus one will always equal two. Applying enough heat to plain water will always cause it to heat up enough to make my coffee. Drinking too much of my 15 year old Glenfiddich in one night is never a good idea.

There must always be space for measurable rules.

But there must always be space in our understanding for those things that defy our present understanding. We must always leave space for those things that are un-explainable, confusing, bewildering and surprising. We must always leave space for mystery.

Yes, apply a reasonable amount of critical skepticism to these things that lie beyond our rules, but do not immediately reject them.

A revised Positivism encourages measurable evidence without immediately rejecting the immeasurable. It encourages skepticism but leaves space for the mysterious.

A revised Positivism allows reason and faith in God to coexist in harmony. It allows a belief in Jesus’ resurrection, as well as our own future resurrection. It allows scientific progress to stand side by side with a belief in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.

Let us not deny what God has done, but let us not deny God all together.

Poverty and God?

Observe the following:

Here are my thoughts:

The reason for poverty is not caused by God. Extreme poverty was caused by humans. Humans are the ones who pillage and exploit; greed is what causes this extreme unbalance. Why does God allow it? Well I think he asks that exact question of us: why do we allow it? We have enough food in first-world countries to feed to the rest of the world and live happy and healthy lives, but instead we have obesity problems. What we throw away is more than what most people in the world could dream of. The problem is not why does God allow it, but why do WE allow it?!
But God helps solve the problems we create for ourselves. A Christian missionary named Robert Pierce from America experienced this poverty first hand, in 1947 when he travelled to China and Korea. He came back with a great desire to fix this, and he began World Vision. This one Christian man began a company which would become a company that pours billions of dollars into poverty-stricken communities and countries. Just one man. Imagine if the entire world decided to fix the problem!
Christian beliefs cannot be the cause of these issues, for Jesus himself said, “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” (Matt 25:40). Jesus commands us to be the solution to the problems humans have created. He tells us to feed the poor, help those who have suffered from wars and terrorism, bring justice to those who have suffered from injustice, because doing so is like looking after Jesus himself. And he tells us he is with us as we spread these Christian values (Matt 28:18-20). He helps us fix these problems, just as he helped Robert Pierce – one man who established a multi-billion dollar charity organization.
We ask, “God, why do you allow this suffering?” Jesus aks, “Humans, why do you allow this suffering? I gave you everything you need to fix the problem and I’m offering to help…and you sit there and let people starve. You let me starve.” There have been many things comitted in the name of the Christian God which have been horrific, but that is not Christian. Jesus commands us to love one another as he has loved us, to love our neighbour more than ourselves, to spread love and grace, to forgive, to carry forward and to love justice and to hate injustice. Anything contrary to this is disobedience, and is thus, not Christianity.

But the values of Christianity are absolutely stooped in love and it would be impossible to argue Christianity is bad for the world.

Lennox and Dawkins – Has Science Disproven God?

 

One of the most incredible things I find about Lennox is how gracious he constantly is. This debate would have been a very difficult one to keep composure in, and yet he keeps it! I saw him speak recently, and he said tone and posture is vital, remembering that your opponent is the image and likeness of God. However, he also admitted to nearly snapping a few times, one such time is in this debate. Keeping your composure against such a frustrating argument presented by Dawkins would have been very difficult!

Another note I wanted to make on this debate is in reference to a particular observation I have made of the New Atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens. A major tactic employed is intimidation and discreditation. People such as Dawkins dance around and side step the real questions, while arguing ferociously against small points. This happens a few times in this debate, and is very often marked by comments such as “I don’t know of the historians you have been talking to,” etc. They attempt to discredit Christians, backing them into corners in which it is difficult to get out of and to intimidate them, hoping for another small, unrelated comment on which they can pounce on and again belittle the Christian. Lennox, however, is remarkably capable of avoiding being backed into corners, and – despite Dawkins creating what to seems to be a grand campaign, arguing Lennox is a ‘Liar for Jesus’ – remains, at least seemingly, unintimidated.

Hope you enjoy!

Epistle to Diognetus 5.1-6.10

We read this at college the other day, in a unit on the church. I found it particularly interesting, so I hope you enjoy it too! The author and recipient (or, at least, intended recipient) are unknown and was written 2nd century. It is considered one of the first apologetical texts of the church. Enjoy!

 

5.1. For Christians have been distinguished from other persons neither by country nor by language nor by customs. 2. For nowhere do they dwell in cities of their own, nor do they use any strange dialect, nor do they strive for a peculiar lifestyle. 3. This teaching of theirs has not been discovered by some intellect and thought of the curious, nor are they proponents of human dogma as some are. 4. Rather, while dwelling in both Greek and barbarian cities, according to the lot which has fallen to each, and following local customs as regards clothing and food and the rest of life, they display the marvelous and admittedly strange character of their own citizenship. 5. They live in their own countries, but as aliens. They participate in everything as citizens, but they endure everything as strangers. Every foreign country is their fatherland, and every fatherland a foreign country. 6. They marry just like all persons do and they beget children, but they do not discard unwanted children. 7. They set a common table, but they are not promiscuous. 8. They live out of their lot “in the flesh,” but they do not live “according to the flesh.” 9. They spend their time on earth, but they have their citizenship in heaven. 10. They obey the established laws, but they surpass the laws in their own lives. 11. They love all persons, and yet they are persecuted by all. 12. They are unknown, and yet they are condemned; they are put to death, and yet they come back to life. 13. They are poor, and yet they enrich many; they lack everything, and yet they have plenty of everything. 14. They are dishonored, and yet they are praised in the dishonors. They are blasphemed, and yet they are justified. 15. They are reviled, and yet they are blessed; they are insulted, and yet they honor others. 16. Though they do good, they are punished as evildoers; though they are punished, they rejoice as those who come back to life. 17. They are fought by Jews as foreigners and persecuted by Greeks; and those who hate them cannot give the reason for their enmity.

6.1. To say it simply, what a soul is in a body, that is what Christians are in the world. 2. The soul is spread through all the members of the body, and Christians throughout all the cities of the world. 3. A soul dwells in the body, but is not “of the body”; and Christians dwell in the world, but they are not “of the world.” 4. The soul, though invisible, is guarded in the visible world, but their devotion remains invisible. 5. The flesh hates the soul and wages war against it, but it does it no harm, because it is hindered for indulging in its pleasures; and the world hates Christians, but it can do them no harm, because they resist its pleasures. 6. The soul loves the flesh, which hates it, and also the limbs; and Christians love those who hate them. 7. The soul has been confined to the body, but it itself sustains the body; and Christians are confined in the world as in a prison, but they themselves sustain the world. 8. The sould dwells immortal in a mortal tent; and Christians dwell in corruptable things awaiting incorruption in heaven. 9. When badly treated as to food and drink, the soul does better; and when buffeted day by day, Christians increase still more. 10. God has appointed them for such a commission which it is not right for them to refuse.

The Illogic of Protestantism

Kids say the darndest things, don’t they?

My girlfriend has told me so many stories of the funny things her kids say, like “Miss Harris, you look like a hippy soccer player” or “if you have kids, could I please be your child?” When I was a kid, I said some strange things…surprise surprise. I had about a dozen older brothers and sisters. My ‘favourite’ brother and sister lived in their separate houses down the road. My year one teacher even asked my mum if this was true.

Catholics say the darndest things, don’t they?

Like purgatory (that place most Christians go to work off their debt and be purified before entering heaven), indulgences (what you can buy for yourself or for others to reduce time, say 50 years, in purgatory) and papal infallibility (whatever your priest says is true and authoritative, as though it were Christ saying it Himself, full stop).

What has this got to do with the illogic of Protestantism?

Well, in my readings I have heard so many Catholics proclaim that very statement. Some ex-Protestants are now Catholics because of the ‘lack’ of logical theology in Protestantism.

…interesting.

I am a proud Baptist, lover and follower of Christ, part of the universal (Catholic) church, and worshipper of the One True, Triune God. However, despite Catholicism having not nearly as many denominations as Protestantism, being the major influence in doctrines such as the Trinity, and pretty awesome cathedrals, relics and flower arrangements, I am by no means – at all – a supporter of Roman Catholicism.

Despite all this, Protestantism is still far more illogical.

I know…I know. Let’s all calm down. Let me explain.

Catholicism has many sacraments that are essential to your salvation. You are judged by what you have done in this life. If you reach the mark of a “good” Christian you can skip purgatory. If you are above the line, the Pope can sell your Christianly awesomeness to others who don’t reach the line. If you are extremely Christianly awesome, and if your mortal hands have caused a few miracles, people can pray to you. However, if you don’t quite reach the line – but you have partaken in the sacraments all your life – you go to purgatory where you are painfully purified before entering heaven.

Sounds a bit like capitalism, currency, or basic economics, right? You get what you payed, or didn’t pay, for.

From the outside, from a human perspective, this makes at least some sense. In a world where you receive goods or payment depending on how much you have payed or worked, a works based religion makes a lot more sense than God dying for God’s enemies. This Catholic, works-based faith is a lot easier to accept for someone who has grown up in a capitalist society. However, this approach nearly obliterates most of what is at the heart of the Good News.

That is the whole point of the Gospel – that it is a faith-based faith, not a works-based faith. Paul says it in Romans – “But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Ro. 3.21-24).

Also in Galatians – “we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.” (Ga. 2.16). Paul is so adamant about his rejection of a works-based salvation he even says that “if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.” (Ga. 2.21). I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to paraphrase this to say: “if justification comes through the sacraments, then Christ died for nothing”.

Notice how there is no mention of an on-going need for continuous redemption?

Notice how there is no mention of the need for a mediator between us and Christ?

We don’t need to continuously go back and re-do the whole salvation process through the sacraments, or eat and drink the literal body and blood of Christ (through the process of transubstantiation) to make sure we are still Christian. We don’t need to pray to a saint or pope – a human person, just as sinful and deserving of death as us…..no offence. We can just pray directly to God the Father, through Jesus Christ, by the Holy Spirit, who dwells in every Christian. That is scripturally acurate, and if ‘tradition’ says otherwise, how could such a contradiction be tolerated? If tradition is just as divinely inspired and infallible as scripture, why would they be contradictory?

That was a wee bit of a digression.

My point is that Protestantism places far more emphasis on grace and faith alone for salvation (“Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand; and we boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God” Ro. 5.1,2).

But from a human perspective, this makes no sense!!!

1 Co. 1.21-23 – “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.”

It makes no sense that God would come in the form of a human being, the creator in the form of the creation, and be humbled to the very bottom rung, a servant (considered less than nothing, pets were treated better than servants), and die the worst possible way – crucified (that’s where we get the word excruciating, because crucifiction tickled…immensley), rejected by friends and family (Phillipians 2), and forsaken by God (Mark 15). Horrible.

The very idea that God would – or even could – die was an idea absolutely foreign to the people of the time. It’s the equivalent to believing that gravity makes things fall upward, that blood gets pushed around our bodies by little men, and that Kobe is innocent. Believing such things is ridiculous.

That’s exactly what the Gospel is.

Ridiculous.

And it is that ridiculousness that makes Protestantism shine.

The Gospel according to the Reformers is a glorious, wonderful Gospel. Any Gospel that has anything remotely human takes away from it’s glory. “If anyone adds to [the words of this book], God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this  prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city” (Re. 22.18, 19).

Thoughts on the Resurrection

I tend to spend a lot of time contemplating Christian apologetics I have realized. We live in a pretty turbulent period of history, so I guess it is quite relevant. Arguably, I should also spend time contemplating the Reformation or Romans, in order to pass this semester, but I’m sure I will do fine…I just find apologetics fascinating.

Recently I have been preparing for a paper on the Resurrection of Christ, particularly focusing on the circumstantial evidence for it. Circumstantial evidence simply refers to what happened as a result of the Resurrection. Hence, I narrowed my thoughts to three main arguments:

1. There would not have been such a response within the lives of the disciples and other apostles if the Resurrection had not happened;

2. The Christian church would not have grown, had the resurrection never occurred; and

3. The tomb would not have been empty if Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

Before unpacking those a bit more, I want you to understand several absolute facts. The following facts have been attested by ancient and contemporary, Christian and atheist historians:

  • Jesus lived.
  • Jesus was crucified.
  • Jesus was buried in a tomb, dead.
  • The tomb was empty.
  • The disciples’ attitudes changed completely, and believed Jesus to have risen.
  • The church grew out of the belief in the resurrection.

Firstly, the bible tells us that after Jesus died, his disciples became filled with despair. They felt lost and absolutely hopeless. They locked themselves away from the Jews, some even fled. However, a few days later their attitudes had completely changed, no longer depressed, but filled with joy, proclaiming Jesus had come back from the dead.

Something happened to change their attitude.

It was very unlikely that a few sympathy cards and boxes of chocolates caused such a radical change in behavior. In fact, they believed so desperately that Jesus had come back from the dead, that they were willing to become martyrs. There is no way that they would declare Christ’s resurrection to their death if it was a story, a lie. They believed it 100%. We have ancient historical records from historians such as Josephus, claiming not once did the disciples renounce their faith.

More than this, Paul claims to have experienced the physical Jesus Christ, on the road to Damascus. Paul (or Saul) was a leading persecutor of Christianity and highly ranked and respected Jewish leader. He went out of his way to kill people who claimed to be Christian. He was the least likely person to help the Christian cause. However, all of a sudden he started preaching the news of Christ’s resurrection after claiming to have experienced the physical Jesus.

Secondly, after thousands of years of tradition, the Jewish religion was the least likely religion for another religion to grow out of, especially when this new religion was considered heretical to the older one. The Jews, whilst being a tolerant race (except, of  course, when it came to those darn Samaritans), were incredibly patriotic and resistant to accepting any other religion. For thousands of years, the Torah was the only thing they followed, letting no person or idea replace their Patriarchal Fathers talked of in the Hebrew Scriptures. A new, inclusive religion would not sprout from this exclusive religion.

Furthermore, without the resurrection, there would be no Christian faith. The resurrection is the pivotal point in the Gospels. Jesus did not come to die; he came to defeated death. If he had not resurrected, he would have merely been another prophet. Judaism would have continued, waiting for the messiah to come to rid them of their Roman adversaries. Jesus proved Himself to be the divine Christ when he defeated sin and death, resurrecting in physical form.

Thus, it was only because of the resurrection that the Christian church grew. It was the resurrection that convinced the disciples Jesus was the messiah. There is no way the church had not grown, if the early Christians were not adamant Jesus rose from the dead.

Thirdly, if there was no resurrection, why was there no body in the tomb? There was a Roman guard (trained to be killers…and the Romans were serious about their killing) outside the tomb, which had a Roman seal. The tomb belonged to the Jewish leader Joseph, who was known by all. The bible accounts clearly state that the women who found the empty tomb knew the exact place Jesus was buried. Therefore – because of these issues – the women did not get the wrong tomb.

Also, no one would possibly have been able to steal the body. This is because (a) the disciples would not have been able to get passed the Roman guard, and were most probably terrified of breaking the seal (which would have been considered equivalent of attacking Caesar himself, who was considered a deity by the Roman population); and (b) neither the Romans, nor the Jews, were able to produce the body. Producing the body of Jesus would have undoubtedly squelched any new Christian movement – but there was no body. No one – disciple or not – were in a position to steal the body. Nobody move Jesus, but he was not in the tomb.

Further, the primary witnesses of the empty tomb were women. Now I personally have nothing against women, but in those days a woman’s testimony was on the same level as a thief or a slave. No one would ever consider a woman’s testimony reliable. If the empty tomb was merely a story, why would the author have chosen women to be witnesses, rather than men?

Without the resurrection, there would be no Christianity, in my opinion. I hope I have been able to shed some light on the topic, and if you have any comments, opinions or criticisms – Christian or not – please tell me – I would love to hear your thoughts!

Apologizing for Christianity…?

I have only just started bible college for this semester, and one of my units is Christian Apologetics. After telling someone the name of this unit, they asked, “why do you need to know how to apologize for Christianity?” I guess in this person’s mind this way of thinking is redundant and completely nonsensical. After all, aren’t Christians meant to have faith; why would they need to say sorry for this?

It should be noted at this point that the word apologetics has it origins in the Greek word apologia, meaning a defensive statement. Christian Apologetics, therefore, refers to the defense of Christianity. 1 Peter 3:15 implores of us to “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have,” in other words, we should we always be ready to give a reason as to why we are Christians.

Christians live in quite a turbulent period of history, as the rise of intellectual atheism threatens to bully anyone who has not thought seriously about a divine being into blindly accepting atheism out of fear of seeming stupid. Many evangelical Atheists will say this is exactly what Christians have done in the past – bully anyone and everyone into blindly accepting Christianity out of fear of hell. There is a subtle shift of thinking occurring. Where there was once a lean toward naive Christianity, slowly the lean is becoming more toward naive Atheism.

People such as Christopher Hitchens who argues that religion is poisonous and child abusive, and Richard Dawkins who states that any intellectual Christian mind – and presumably any Christian mind – is a disgrace to humanity, have carefully and persuasively formed arguments that seem so attractive and believable that many naive people think they are right, thus closing their mind to any supernatural reality. I have looked into arguments such as these out of interest in the past, and most of them essentially come down to three major misconceptions about Christianity: (1) God is a benevolent, cruel deity who deals out punishment left, right and centre for seemingly ridiculous and arbitrary rules; (2) the fact that Jesus needs to die on a cross for our salvation, when – these are not my personal views, I’ll just make that clear – surely such a loving, holy and all powerful God could simply blink away sin and death; and (3) evolution is a FACT – excuse me madam, you have a long lost cousin in the tree – thus religion and the ideal of a divine presence comes from humanity.

Firstly, these people often see God as a being on a power trip. They see God’s rules as irrelevant, merely arbitrary commandments put in place for the sake of being rules. These rules are simply a test of faith, to see who could follow such ridiculous laws in a bid to appease God. To respond to this, it should be understand that God’s rules aren’t rules for the sake of being rules. I’ll use the metaphor of an iron to make my point. The producer of the iron makes the iron, knowing full well how it should be used, and in order to help the person who buys the iron to use it to it’s full potential, the producer includes an instruction manual. The instruction manual includes rules for operation, and no one would argue that any of these rules are arbitrary.

What happens when these rules are not adhered to? Something bad will happen. For example, a man wishes to take a bath. The bath is cold. He sees the iron. Irons are hot.

Cold water. Hot iron.

Need I say more?

Furthermore, things are built to suit a particular environment. The iron is best suited for a well ventilated room, on an ironing board in front of a TV. The iron is not suited for a bath. A boat, to further my example, is best suited for water. When it is used on a road, firstly the boat will not move, and secondly, chances are the boat will be wrecked.

You see, God is our creator, so He knows the best way for us to live. He therefore also knows how we should not live. The rules He has given us are simply for our best intentions. Like the iron was not intended for the environment a bath offers, but rather on an ironing board, the animals God has created are intended for their particular environments on this Earth. We, however, belong somewhere other than this world. God created the world and formed the animals out of that world, but created us in the image and likeness of Him and from Him. Our environment is therefore spiritual. For us to function properly, it should be evident that we should adhere to the rules God has given us, through and within Him.

However, humanity is the iron thrown into the water. Humanity has rebelled against the rules and in humanity’s wisdom decided we know better than God our creator.

I would respond to this first misconception by saying that God is not a punishing God, but rather – in Munroe’s words – a God of principles. I have just mentioned two principles, that creations should be used the way they are intended, and creations should exist within their intended environments. When these principles are disobeyed, it is not the creator coming down and punishing you for jumping into a bath with an iron – beside the fact that you’ve probably suffered enough – but rather, it is the natural result of that principle being disobeyed. When we as humans disobey God and try doing things our own way, God doesn’t punish us, rather we experience what happens when we remove ourselves from the environment we’re intended for. When we remove ourselves from the spiritual environment of being in relation with God, we essentially place ourselves in the environment of this Earth. What happens to things on this Earth? They die. They return to the ash and dust they come from. Without God, that is our destination.

Sin is going our own way. It is choosing other than the principles and rules of operation God has given us. Sin is anything other than God.

Heaven is eternal relationship with and within God. Hell is merely the opposite. Neither are physical destination as such – at least as we see it in this life – of which so many people believe. Heaven is our intended environment, and hell is the iron in the bath.

The second misconception is a relatively easier one to explain. God cannot merely wave away sin. We often say that God can do anything. God cannot do anything. God cannot be near, commit or tolerate sin. Why? Other than sin being anything other than God, it is because He is a God of principles. God is perfectly holy. As a result of that, the natural consequence is that He cannot withstand sin. Humanity’s intended environment is spiritual, in relation with God. Therefore, sin separates us from God.

Another important aspect to understand is that of the consequence of sin. As mentioned previously, sin places us away from God and into the world. Sin places us away from life and into death. The consequence of sin is death. To account for sin, something must die. God did not command us to kill an animal because He is some cruel deity with a serious case of bloodlust and a hatred for animals, but rather this commandment was an act of mercy. To account for sin, something must die – and that thing would be us. God gave us the option of killing something else as atonement for our sin.

After approximately 2000 years of this happening and humanity still not really getting the point of it all, our ever merciful God decided to give us something permanent. Nothing is more permanent than Himself. So He sent His Son, Jesus Christ to be the everlasting and eternal sacrifice that would act as the atonement for our sin. However, Jesus did something else, of awesome significance. He permanently and definitively defeated death, sin and in the process Satan for all time. No longer must we make sacrifices.

God made it easier for us to have a relationship with Him, by offering something permanent. 1 Corinthians 1:23 tells us that what we preach is a stumbling block for non-Christians. To anyone who is not a Christian, the cross and blood of Jesus Christ is nonsensical and foolishness. It is no wonder that this is still a major misconception about Christianity even to today.

The third point I will leave to science.

However, I will briefly say two things.

Firstly, is it not interesting that the piece of fossil linking humankind to any other animal has not been found?

Secondly, the idea of adaption I believe points to a far greater God. It shows a deeper side of creation. God knew that the world would change naturally, thus built into animals and humans the ability to adapt. Over thousands of years, fossils suggest, animals have changed and even humans have physically and visibly changed. BUT, they have not at any point completely changed species. Fossil ‘evidence’ that ‘proves’ humankind once stooped over and had a far more prominent jaw does not prove evolution. Just the other day I saw a man who unfortunately had a very prominent nose.

He definitely evolved to be that way.

Hopefully this blog was of some interest. I have only just begun my Christian Apologetics class, so undoubtedly I could write a better apologetic essay in a few months, but in the mean time I endeavor to do my best to convince others to expand their thinking to hopefully include something of a supernatural reality, and hopefully track that towards Jesus Christ.

Post Navigation