AnsweringCommonObjectionsto

ChristianityfromSkeptics

bySteveHays

TableofContents

1.WhyDoestheBibleCondoneGenocide?

2.DoestheOldTestamentEndorseSlavery?

3. If God truly loves people why has he slaughtered so many of themthroughoutthehistoryoftheworld?

4.NoOneReligioncanKnowtheFullnessofSpiritualTruth,ThereforeallReligionsareValid.ItisArroganttoSayOtherwise.

5.ChristiansOnlyWantPowerOverOthers-ToEstablishaTheocracybyTakingOvertheStateMechanism

6.Godisjustamanmadefairytale.ThereisNOgodperiod.Thereneverwas, and thereneverwill be. If you take some time to do some criticalthinkingyouwillreachthesameconclusion.

7. If God really cares about people and is all-powerful, why doesn't hecreatefoodforallthestarvingpeopleintheworld?Whydoesn'thestoptheearthquakesandtsunamis?

8. If God really cares for all people equally, how can he have a special"chosen"people?

9. If God created everything, why did he create AIDS, the ebola virus,etc.?

10.Howcanitbejusttoconsignpeopletoeternaltormentinhellforsinscommittedinarelativelybrieftimeonearth?

11.HowcanitbejusttosendpeopletohellwhentheyhaveneverhadtheopportunitytobelieveinJesus?

12.IfGodtrulywantspeople tobelieve inhim,whydoeshenotsimplyshowhimselftothemlikehedidtoPaul?

13.IftheChristianfaithisfalseorbasedonfabricatedsourcedocuments,howwouldyoubeabletodetecttheerrorgivenyourbeliefthatthebibleistheonlyadmissible,authoritativeevidence?

14.WhydoChristiansrefusetoaccept thescientificevidence foranoldearth,evolution,etc.,whentheyhavenoproblemenjoyingthousandsofmodernconvenienceswhicharetheresultofthissamescience?

15.WhydoChristians refuse toaccept thehistoricalandarchaeologicalevidencethatmuchofthebiblewasplagiarizedfromancientneareasternsources?

16. If the bible has all the answers,why are there literally hundreds ofChristian denominations that all think they alone are right and all theotherChristiansarewrong?

17.Why are Christians always the first to support the rights of greedycorporations,unrestrictedgunownership, invasionof foreigncountries,thedeathpenalty,etc.,butthefirsttoopposehelpingtheneedythroughwelfare, foodstamps, and so on? Doesn't the bible teach mercy, the"GoldenRule,"peaceandnon-violence?

18 .If God loves men and women both equally, why does the largestChristian Church (andmany other denominations) refuse to allow anywomen,howevergifted,tohaveanyplaceofauthorityinthechurch?

19.IfGodlovesallpeople,whydoeshecondemngaysjustbecausetheywerebornwithadifferentsexualorientationthanheterosexuals?

20.IfJesusdiedonthecrossforthesinsofthewholeworld,thenhowcan God send people to hell to pay for their sins again? Was Jesus'

paymentnotgoodenoughforhim?

21.HowcanyoutrustGod'splantobringyoutoaperfectheavenwhenhehasatrackrecordoffailures?Hecreatedangelsinaperfectplace,butthey rejected him and are nowdoomed to suffer forever; he putAdamandEve inaperfectplaceand they lost it;hehad todestroy thewholeworld in Noah's day; he had to confuse the languages at the Tower ofBabel; he started the Church, and it ended up with Crusades, bigotry,division, etc. If he has failed to accomplish his plan of giving people aperfectplacetolivesomanytimes,whatmakesyouthinkhewillactuallygetitrightthistime?

22. If Christians are really supposed to love others, how can they behappy for all eternity knowing that the majority of humans, and evensomeoftheirownfriendsandfamily,areinconscious,endlesstorment?

22. If Christianity is the only true religion, how come so many otherreligionsarejustassuccessfulatmakingpeoplegood,ethical,andmoral,andmakingthemfeelfulfilledandhappy?

....

1.WhyDoestheBibleCondoneGenocide?

That’saquestionwithafalsepremise:

i)TherewasnoOTcommandtoeradicateCanaanitesintoto.

ii) Rather, there was a command to evict Canaanites living within theborders of Israel (Num 33:52.). Canaanites were permitted to live inborderingstates.Soit’snotabouteradicatingaparticularpeople-group,but aboutdispossessing theCanaanites tomake room for the Israelites(Num33:53).TheIsraelitescouldn’toccupythepromisedlanduntiltheheatheninhabitantswereexpelled.

iii)MassexecutionwasacontingencyplanincasetheCanaaniteschosetostayandfight(Deut20).

iv)PeacefulcoexistencebetweentheIsraelitesandtheCanaaniteswasn’tpossible(Num33:55).

v)Foreignerswerealwaysatlibertytoconverttothetruefaith.

RelatedQ&A

2.DoestheOldTestamentEndorseSlavery?

i)TheOTdoesn’tendorse“slavery.”Lawmakersdon’tendorseeverythingtheyregulate.Rather,thelawsetsboundaries.Thelawdoesn’tprescribeanideal.1

ii) “Slavery” is ambiguous. This can stand for very differentarrangements.IntheOTyouhave:

a)Indenturedserviceforinsolvencyorpropertycrimes.Thisisaformoffinancialrestitution.

b) Enslavement for POWs or war captives. This is more humane thanexecutingPOWs.Repatriatingenemysoldiers isn’t feasible inasmuchastheywillsimplyregroupandresumehostilities.

c) Acquisition of foreigners. This is unenviable. However, livingconditionsintheANEwereharsh.Povertyandfaminewerewidespread.Better to be a slave in Israel, with the legal protections and provisionsaffordedyou,thantostarvetodeath.Theselawsdon’texistinavacuum.Theyneedtobeunderstood inrelationto thesocioeconomicchallengesofsurvivalintheANE.

G.Wenham,StoryasTorah(Baker2000),chap.5.

RelatedQ&A

3.IfGodtrulylovespeoplewhyhasheslaughteredsomanyofthemthroughoutthehistoryoftheworld?

From a Biblical standpoint, the question is not whether God loveseveryone,butwhetherajustandholyGodcanloveanyonegiventhefactthatwearesinful,evilcreatures.

RelatedQ&A

4..NoOneReligioncanKnowtheFullnessofSpiritualTruth,Therefore all Religions are Valid. It is Arrogant to SayOtherwise.

Thatobjectionisself-refuting.Inordertoknowthatnoonereligioncanknow the full truth, you yourself would have to know the full truth toknowwhereanyparticularreligion fallsshortofknowingthe full truth.You’reinnopositiontosayagivenreligionispartiallytrueandpartiallyfalseunlessyouhaveaccesstothewholetruth,whichformsthebasisofyourcomparison.

RelatedQ&A

5. Christians OnlyWant Power Over Others - To Establish aTheocracybyTakingOvertheStateMechanism

i)Evenassuming(arguendo)thatthisistrue,if,inademocraticrepublic,Christians are in the majority, then they aren’t “taking over” the statemechanism.Rather,majority rule is built into our form of governance.Popularsovereignty.

ii) Christians have wide-ranging views on statecraft, viz., Amish,Lutherans (two-swords), Anglicans (Erastianism), theocrats, royalists,libertarians, social conservatives, disestablishmentarians, You can’t

generalizeaboutChristianpolitics.

iii)Inmyobservation,mostChristiansaren’tpoliticalactivistsbynature.Theydon’tfindpoliticsinteresting.That’snotwhatgivesmostChristiansasenseofpurpose.Whatmakestheirlifemeaningfulorsatisfyingcomesdowntothingslikechurch,family,friends,andsports.Theprivatesphereratherthanthepublicsphere.

Christians generally get involved in politics to push back theencroachmentsofliberalsocialengineers.

RelatedQ&A

6.God is justamanmade fairy tale.There isNOgodperiod.Thereneverwas,andthereneverwillbe.Ifyoutakesometimetodosomecriticalthinkingyouwillreachthesameconclusion.

That’sjustanorphanedassertioninsearchofanargument.

Relateddebate

7. If God really cares about people and is all-powerful, whydoesn'thecreatefoodforallthestarvingpeopleintheworld?Whydoesn'thestoptheearthquakesandtsunamis?

i)Becausewearesinners,weareliabletonaturaldisasters.

ii) Yes, God could prevent natural disasters, but there are tradeoffs.Considerthosesciencefictionscenarios inwhichtheprotagonist travelsback into the past to change the future. To preempt some tragedy orcatastrophe.

Only he discovers that by making one thing better, he makes anotherthingworse.Everyimprovementisoffsetbylosingsomethinggood.Foreveryaction,there’sareaction.

Supposeyousaveachildfromstarvation.Supposethechildgrowsuptobeamurderousmilitarydictator.

8.IfGodreallycaresforallpeopleequally,howcanhehaveaspecial“chosen”people?

i)Ifthat’sanallusiontotheJewsastheChosenPeople,thenGodchosetheJewsasameansofblessingallpeople-groups.

ii)If that’sanallusiontotheelect, thenthequestionisbasedonafalsepremise.Goddoesn’tcareforallsinnersequally.Whyshouldhe?

9.IfGodcreatedeverything,whydidhecreateAIDS,theebolavirus,etc.?

i)SinceGen1doesn’tsayanythingabouttheoriginofvariousdiseases,that’saquestionwhichinvitesconjecture.Wecanonlyspeculate.

ii) Apropos (i), keep in mind that diseases aren’t gratuitous evils.Diseases serveanatural purpose.Theyhelp tomaintain the balance ofnature.

iii) Diseases can also be punitive. A divine sanction for sin. However,that’snotastrictcorrelation.

iv)Intheory,Godmayhavecreateddiseasesdirectly,attheoutset.Underthatscenario,diseasesmighthave existed in theanimalkingdomwhilemanwasnaturally immune todisease.Butoneresultof theFallwas tomakemanliabletodisease.

v)Butsomediseasesalsodevelopinthecourseoftime.Onethingleadstoanother.

10.Howcanitbe justtoconsignpeopletoeternaltormentinhellforsinscommittedinarelativelybrieftimeonearth?

i)It’snotasifsinnersaremerelypunishedfordiscretesins.Asinnerdoeswhat a sinner is. Sins are just the expressionof the sinner’sunderlyingcharacter.

ii) Passage of time doesn’t make the guilty guiltless. Once you dosomething wrong, it will always be the case that you did somethingwrong.Yourculpabilitydoesn’thaveanautomaticexpirationdate.You’rejustasguiltyayear laterasyouwereamoment later.Onlyredemptioncanatoneforsin.

iii)Sinnersdon’tceasetobesinnerswhentheygotohell.Tothecontrary,theybecomeevenmoresinfulinhell,sincetheyloseallself-restraintinhell.

iv)Forthatmatter,considerallthethingswewouldhavedonewrongifwethoughtwecouldgetawaywithit.That’sculpable,too.

v) Although damnation is never-ending, the damned only experiencetheirpunishmentinfiniteincrements.Adayatatime.

vi)Afinitedeedcaninflictpermanentlossorharmtothevictim.

11. How can it be just to send people to hell when they haveneverhadtheopportunitytobelieveinJesus?

Noonegoestohell fordisbelievinginJesus.Disbelief isanaggravatingfactor.Butthehellboundarealreadylost.Refusingthegospelisn’twhatrendersthemdamnable.

InChristiantheology,nobodycanbesavedunlessheknowsandacceptsthe gospel. This doesn’tmeannobody canbe damnedunless he knowsand rejects the gospel. Rather, to be lost is the default condition ofsinners.Tobelostisnotaresultofspurningthegospel.Tothecontrary,it’sbecausesinnersarelostinthefirstplacethattheydesperatelyneedto

besaved.

12.IfGodtrulywantspeopletobelieveinhim,whydoeshenotsimplyshowhimselftothemlikehedidtoPaul?

i)Goddoesn’tintendtosaveeveryone.

ii)HardenedunbelieverslikeRichardDawkinsandChristopherHitchenssay they findGodmorally repugnant. So, for them, it’s not amatter ofevidence.

13.IftheChristianfaithisfalseorbasedonfabricatedsourcedocuments, howwould you be able to detect the error givenyourbelief that thebible is theonlyadmissible,authoritativeevidence?

i) You could raise the same hypothetical objection to any ostensiblestandardofcomparison.Butthatonlypushestheobjectionbackastep.How could you detect error in Scripture, or show that Scripture wasfabricated, unless you took something else as your standard ofcomparison?Butinthatevent,thesameobjectionrecurs:howwouldyoubeabletofalsifythestandardofcomparisonyouusetofalsifytheBible?

ii) A better question is whether Christians can know that Scripture iswhat Scripture claims to be. If so, then the hypothetical quandary isunrealistic.

It’snotenoughtoraiseahypotheticaldilemmaforChristians.Christianscan just as easily raise hypothetical conundra for unbelievers of everystripe.

A critic needs to present some hard evidence that the hypotheticalquandary ismore than just a hypothetical defeater. Do you have goodreasontothinkChristiansarethuslydeluded?

Putanotherway:ifyouhaveevidence,youdon’tneedthehypothetical;ifyouneedthehypothetical;youdon’thaveevidence.

14.WhydoChristians refuse toaccept the scientific evidencefor an old earth, evolution, etc., when they have no problemenjoying thousands of modern conveniences which are theresultofthissamescience?

i) Many conservative Christians are old-earth creationists. So thequestioncontainsafalsepremise.

ii)Anumberofyoung-earthcreationistsarehighly-trainedscientists(e.g.JohnByl,JonathanSarfati,MarcusRoss,KurtWise).

iii)ManyChristiansrejectevolutioninpartbecauseevolutionisatoddswithscientificevidence.Cf.

D.Berlinski,TheDeniableDarwin(DiscoveryInstitutePress2009).

_____,TheDevil’sDelusion(CrownForum2008).

C.J.Collins,DidAdamandEveReallyExist?(Crossway2011).

W.Dembski&J.Wells,TheDesignofLife(FoundationforThoughtandEthics2008).

S.Meyer,SignatureintheCell(HarperOne2009).

J.Richards,ed.GodandEvolution(DiscoveryInstitutePress,2010).

J.Sarfati,TheGreatestHoaxonEarth?(CreationBookPublishers2010).

iv) It’s a fallacy to infer that science must be true as long it producesresults.Foronething,obsoletescientifictheorieslikeNewtonianphysicswerehighlysuccessful.

For a scientific theory to be successful, you only need a generalcorrelationbetweenapparentcausesandapparenteffects.Butultimately,ascientistcanonlygobyappearances.Howheperceives theworld.Hecanneverfindoutwhattheworldisreallylikeapartfromwhatthesensesperceive.

v)Dating the age of the world involves themeasurement of time. Themeasurementof time involvesa temporalmetric.Unlessyouknowthattimehasanintrinsicmetric,youcan’tmeasuretheobjectivedurationofsuccessiveintervals:

Yes,wemeasuretimethroughchangesinphysicalthingswhichwetakeas our standard.Notice the ultimate arbitrariness of such a procedure,however:forunlessweassumethattimeitselfhasanintrinsicmeasure,wehavenogroundsfortakingsomechangestoproceed“atsteadyrates.”Wecanjudgethatanatomicclockhasacertainconstantnumberofbeatspersecondonlyiftimehasanintrinsicmetricthatallowsonetocomparenon-overlapping intervals of timewith respect to their length, so as todifferentiateone-secondintervals.Thatdoesn’tmeanthattimeisactuallycomposedofseconds;ratherwhatismeantisthatifwetakeanintervalwhichwecalla second, thenanyothernon-overlapping intervalwillbeeitherlongerthan,shorterthan,orequaltooursecond.Inthatcase,itisa meaningful question to ask whether an atomic clock has a constantnumberofbeatspersecondandsoisagoodmeasureoftime.

By contrast, if time has no intrinsic metric, as metric conventionalistshold,thentherejustisnofactofthematterwhetheranynon-overlappingtemporal interval is either longer than, shorter than, or equal to oursecond. In that case, there isnoanswer to thequestionofwhetherouratomicclockreallyhasasteadyrateofchangeandsoisagoodmeasureoftime. It is justahumanconvention thatcertainprocessesproceedatsteadyrates.2

vi)IfGodmadetheworldbyexnihilofiat,thenhecouldinstantiatetheworld at any point in an ongoing process. So you can’t simply run theclockbackwardstothepointoforigin.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?

page=NewsArticle&id=9069; cf. Bas Van Fraassen, ScientificRepresentation (Oxford 2008), 130-32; cf. R. Le Poidevin, Travels inFourDimensions(Oxford2003),chaps1-2.

15. Why do Christians refuse to accept the historical andarchaeologicalevidencethatmuchofthebiblewasplagiarizedfromancientneareasternsources?

i)That’savague,sweepingallegation.Whythinkit’strue?

ii)Theobjectiontendstobeduplicitous.Ontheonehand,whenwedon’thave corroborative evidence for reported events in Scripture, theunbelieversaysthis justgoestoshowthatBiblewritersmadethingsupwholecloth.

Onthe other hand,whenwe can correlate reported events in Scripturewith extrascriptural literary or archeological evidence, then theunbeliever says this just goes to show that Bible writers plagiarizedextrabiblicalsources.Whetherthecoin-flipcomesoutheadsortails,theChristianalwaysloses.

IfOTbooksaccuratelydescribeeventsthattookplace intheANE,thenwe’d expect them to reflect an ANE background, viz. period customs,literaryconventions,socioeconomicconditions.

iii)TheinspirationofScripturedoesn’tmeaneverythinginScripturewasdirectly revealed to the writer. Sometimes the inspiredwriter relies onpersonal observation and memory. Likewise, historians routinely usesources.

iv)FormoreonthehistoricityoftheOT,cf.

D.Baker,ed.BiblicalFaithandOtherReligions(Kregel2004)

G.Beale,TheErosionofBiblicalInerrancyinEvangelicalism(CrosswayBooks2008)

D.Block,ed.Israel:AncientKingdomorLateInvention?(B&H2008)

J.Currid,AncientEgyptandtheOldTestament(Baker2001)

J.Hoffmeier,TheArchaeologyoftheBible(LionHudson2008)

K.Kitchen,OntheReliabilityoftheOldTestament(Eerdmans2003).

J.Oswalt,TheBibleAmongtheMyths(Zondervan2009)

3.http://bylogos.blogspot.com/2011/07/on-mature-creation.html

16. If the bible has all the answers, why are there literallyhundredsofChristiandenominationsthatallthinktheyalonearerightandalltheotherChristiansarewrong?

i)TheBibledoesn’tclaimtohave“alltheanswers.”

ii)Mostdenominationsdon’tthinktheyarerightabouteverythingwhiletheotherdenominationsarewrongabouteverything.

iii)Differentdenominationsoftenresultfromhistoricalfactorsthatdon’thave anything to do with doctrine. They reflect different regional ornationalpointsoforigin.Differentculturalorethnictraditions.

BecausetheChristianfaithisaglobalfaith,itisculturallycontextualizedfromone time and place to another. It’s not a franchisewith the samemenueverywhere.

17.WhyareChristiansalwaysthefirsttosupporttherightsofgreedy corporations,unrestricted gunownership, invasionofforeign countries, the death penalty, etc., but the first toopposehelpingtheneedythroughwelfare,foodstamps,andsoon?

i)That’saloadedquestion.Tobeginwith,Christiansdon’thaveuniformpositionsontheseissues.

ii) We need to distinguish between principles and the prudentialapplication of principles. As a matter of principle, most Christianssupportnationaldefenseasa logical extensionof self-defense.Buthowthatprincipleappliesinanyparticularsituationisaprudentialquestion.It depends on the individual circumstances. On the specific riskassessment.

That’s something we can only evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Byweighingprobabilities.

iii)ManyChristiansopposethewelfarestateinpartbecauseitharmsthepoorratherthanhelpingthepoor.4

iv) In addition,many Christians oppose the welfare state because theyopposetotalitariangovernment.

4.Cf.R.Nash,PovertyandWealth(CrosswayBooks1986).

18. If God lovesmen andwomen both equally, why does thelargest Christian Church (and many other denominations)refuse toallowanywomen,howevergifted, tohaveanyplaceofauthorityinthechurch?

i)Pastoralministryisaprivilege,notaright.

ii)There’sadistinctionbetweenteachingandauthority.

19. . If God loves all people, why does he condemn gays justbecause they were born with a different sexual orientationthanheterosexuals?

i)Tomyknowledge,there’snocompellingevidencethathomosexualsare

born with a homosexual orientation. That disregards the influence ofsocialization.

ii) There’s such a thing as impulse control. Even if we have certainimpulses,wedon’t have to act on all our impulses, and inmany cases,self-restraintisavirtue.

iii)Godhasmademanycreatures.Godmaderattlesnakes.Theyserveanaturalpurpose.Thatdoesn’tmeanthey’resafetobearound.

RelatedAnswer

20..IfJesusdiedonthecrossforthesinsofthewholeworld,then how can God send people to hell to pay for their sinsagain?WasJesus'paymentnotgoodenoughforhim?

i)Thatquestiontakesuniversalatonementforgranted.However, intheusageofNTwriterslikePaulandJohn,the“world”isnotasynonymfor“everyone.”Rather, the “world”connotes thekindofpeopleChristdiedfor.Asonecommentatorexplains:

Somearguethattheterm‘world’heresimplyhasneutralconnotations—the created human world. But the characteristic use of ‘the world’ (hokosmos)elsewhereinthenarrativeiswithnegativeovertones—theworldin its alienation from and hostility to its creator’s purposes. It makesbettersenseinasoteriologicalcontexttoseethelatternotionasinview.Godlovesthatwhichhasbecomehostile toGod.Theforce isnot, then,thattheworldissovastthatittakesagreatdealoflovetoembraceit,butratherthattheworldhasbecomesoalienatedfromGodthatittakesanexceedinglygreatkindoflovetoloveitatall.5.

ii)InReformedtheology,Christredeemstheelect,notthereprobate.

5. Cf. http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/50/50-4/JETS_50-4_761-771_Hoehner.pdf

6.A.Lincoln,TheGospelAccordingtoSt.John(Henrickson2005),154;

cf.BDAG5:62b;EDNT2:312.

21. How can you trust God's plan to bring you to a perfectheaven when he has a track record of failures? He createdangels in a perfect place, but they rejected him and are nowdoomed to suffer forever; he put Adam and Eve in a perfectplace and they lost it; he had to destroy the whole world inNoah's day; he had to confuse the languages at the Tower ofBabel;he started theChurch,and it endedupwithCrusades,bigotry,division,etc.Ifhehasfailedtoaccomplishhisplanofgivingpeopleaperfectplacetolivesomanytimes,whatmakesyouthinkhewillactuallygetitrightthistime?

The question assumes the existence of evil is evidence that God’s planfailed.Butthat’safalsepremise.EvilispartofGod’splan.EvilservesapurposeintheplanofGod(e.g.Gen50:20;Jn9:3;11:4;Rom9:17,22-23;11:32).

22. If Christians are really supposed to love others, how canthey be happy for all eternity knowing that the majority ofhumans,andevensomeoftheirownfriendsandfamily,areinconscious,endlesstorment?

i) There’s a philosophical distinction between dispositional belief andoccurrent belief, aswell as a philosophical distinction between implicitbeliefandexplicitbelief.

And I think that philosophical distinction dovetails with certaintheological distinctions as well. In Calvinism, regeneration is causallyprior to faith.(7) It causes a predisposition to exercise saving faith.Conversely,sin,intheelectorregenerate,canalsoresultinfalsebeliefsorimpedetheformationoftruebeliefs.

Likewise,I thinkmanytruebeliefs involvetacitknowledge. Thatvaries

withage,education,andintellectualaptitude.

Idon’tassumethataChristian’slovedoneisdamnedifshehappenedtodiebeforeexercisingexplicitoroccurrentfaithinChrist.Regenerationisthe seed of faith. Regeneration is the seedwhile faith is the flower. Inprinciple, there can be a gestation period. Regeneration creates apredispositiontoexercisefaithinChrist,butotherconditionsmustalsobemet.Theseareordinarilycoordinated,buttherecanbeexceptions.Inprinciple the regenerate might die before hearing the gospel. Or theregeneratemightdiebeforearrivingattheageofdiscretion.

PerhapsGodalreadyplantedtheseed,but ithadn’thadenoughtimetoblossomhere-and-now.Whatweprayforinthislifemayblossominthenext.

ii)Thenthere’sTennyson’scelebratedprinciplethatit’sbettertoloveandlosethanneverloveatall.

iii) It’s also a commonplace of human experience that we candramatically change how we feel about people. You have couples whocan’timaginehowtheycouldpossiblylivewithouteachother,yet5yearslatertheycan’tstandeachother.

iv)Ifourlovedoneswindupinhell,theywon’tbelovableanymore.Theywillbeutterlyrepellent.Alltraceofcommongracelonggone.

v) Finally, a Christian can reason back from Rev 20:4. If we can’t behappyinheavenknowingalovedoneislost,thenGodwillsavethelovedone.

That’saconditionalargument. Itdoesn’tpredictwhatmustbe thecasefor Rev 21:4 to bemet. That’s something Christians will find out. Notsomethingweknowinadvance.Butthepromisecoverswhateverittakestofulfillthetermsofthepromise.

7.Foranexegeticaldefense,cf.M.Barrett,“DoesRegenerationPrecedeFaith in 1 John?”; http://blogmatics.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/does-regeneration-precede-faith-in-1-john-by-matthew-barrett-ets-paper-nov-

2010.pdf

23.IfChristianityistheonlytruereligion,howcomesomanyother religions are just as successful atmaking people good,ethical,andmoral,andmakingthemfeelfulfilledandhappy?

i)That questionbuilds some faulty assumptions into the question.Youcan’t just stipulate that other religions make people good, ethical, andmoral.

ii)God,incommongrace,preservesasenseofcommondecencyamongmany unbelievers. That’s necessary to preserve the human race. That’snecessarytomaketheworldtolerableforChristians.

iii)There’snoessentialconnectionbetweenvirtueandhappiness.

---------------------------------------------

WhyDoestheBibleCondoneGenocide?

byJohnHendryx

Question fromVisitor:Whydoes theBible condone genocide?WasthatjusttheOldTestament"god"whodemandedthat?ItisclearthatinthebookofJoshua,GodcommandedtheJewstoutterlywipeoutpeoplegroups that inhabitedCanaan. If this is so,whydidn't Jesusdenouncehim?

Response:Beforewecanevenaddressthisquestion,wemustmakeonething absolutely clear: God is God and we are not. He alone is theCreator,theGiverofLife–andsohe,too,istheTakerofLife.Hetakeslife fromwhomeverhewill,wheneverhewill, andhoweverhewants (1Samuel2:6;Job1:21;Deut9:4-6, 10:14; Isaiah45:5-7).Even ifwe takenothingelse intoconsideration, thatalone ismorethansufficientcausefor us to "lay our hands upon ourmouths" (see Job 38-42, esp. 40:4).Doesn'tthepotterhavearighttomakeonevesselforhonorableuse,andanothervessel fordishonorableuse, fromthesamelumpofclay(Isaiah45:9-10; Rom. 9:19-24)?Well then, so does God, who created humansfromthedust,havetherighttodowithallofthemhoweverheseesfit.Woetoanyonewhodarestoarguewithhimoraccusehimofwrongdoinginanythinghedoesinhisworldandwithhiscreatures.

Beforeweget toCanaan,consider this furtherpoint:notonlymayGodtakelifeasheseesfit–hedoestakethelifeofeverylasthumanonearth(seeHeb.9:27).Weshouldnotlosetheshockofthisfearfultruth:deathisnotnatural, it isnotanormalprocessof timeandchance, it isnotanecessary mechanism of evolution. Humans were created to liveeternally,andthefactthattheydonotbespeaksahorribletruth–weareallbornunderdivinewrathandjudgment.Death,astheBiblereveals,isthejustpenaltyexactedforAdam'sdisobedienceinthegarden(Genesis

2:16-17; Rom. 5:12-14). Not only did God take the lives of all theCanaanites–he takes the lifeofeveryone.ThepeoplesofCanaanweredealt out this death penalty earlier than they expected; but in essence,theirlotwasnodifferentthanours.Weareallsubjecttodeath.

Now,letusconsiderthecaseoftheCanaaniteswiththesethingsinmind:asGodrevealedthroughMoses,hehadaspecialpurposeforgivingthemtheir just punishment of death a little earlier than they expected.Specifically,Godwasjudgingthematthattimeforburningtheirchildrenin the fire as sacrifices, for their gross idolatry, divination, witchcraft,sorcery,andformediums–i.e. thosewhocallupthedead(Deut.18:9-13).

InDeuteronomy9:4-6GodhimselfgivesthereasonforhiscommandtoslaughtertheCanaanites;butitisofgreatimportancethatwealsonoticethefollowingpassage,whereGoddeclaresthattheIsraeliteswerenolesswickedthantheCanaanites,anddeservedthesamefate:

4 "Do not say in your heart, after the LORD your God has thrustthem out before you, 'It is because of my righteousness that theLORDhasbroughtmeintopossessthisland,'whereasitisbecauseofthewickednessofthesenationsthattheLORDisdrivingthemoutbeforeyou.5Notbecauseofyourrighteousnessortheuprightnessofyourheartareyougoingintopossesstheirland,butbecauseofthewickednessofthesenationstheLORDyourGodisdrivingthemoutfrombeforeyou,andthathemayconfirmthewordthat theLORDswore toyour fathers, toAbraham, to Isaac, and toJacob6"Know,therefore,thattheLORDyourGodisnotgivingyouthisgoodlandtopossessbecauseofyourrighteousness,foryouareastubbornpeople.

Deut7:8

7"TheLORDdidnotsetHisloveonyounorchooseyoubecauseyouwere more in number than any of the peoples, for you were thefewestofallpeoples,8butbecausetheLORDlovedyouandkepttheoathwhichHesworetoyourforefathers,theLORDbroughtyououtbyamightyhandandredeemedyoufromthehouseofslavery,fromthehandofPharaohkingofEgypt."

This latter passage directly relates Israel's mandate to destroy theCanaanites and possess their land to what God had done for Israel inEgypt;therefore,itisvitaltounderstandhowGodhadjustredeemedthenationofIsrael.TheclimacticeventmarkingIsrael'sexodusfromslaverywasthePassover;andinthePassover,thepeopleallhadtopaintalamb'sblood on their doors so the angel of deathwouldpass over their home(Exodus11-15).Iftheydidnotapplythebloodofthelamb,theirfirstbornwouldhavebeentakenjustliketherestoftheEgyptians–theydeservedthesamejudgmentandonlyescapeditbythebloodofthelamb.

Inasimilarvein,GodwarnedtheIsraelitesthattheywerenotessentiallyimmunefromtheCanaanites' judgmentofslaughter:"But ifyoudonotdrive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain willbecomebarbs inyoureyesand thorns inyour sides.Theywill giveyoutroubleinthelandwhereyouwill live.AndthenIwilldotoyouwhatIplan to do to them.' "(Numbers 33:55-56). The Israelites deservedjudgmentjustliketheothers,whetherEgyptianofCanaanite.Thisshouldservetoremindusthatwemaynotassumethatthosewhosufferuniqueor catastrophic calamities in this life or any worse than we ourselves,sinceitisonlythegraceofGodinJesusChristwhichmakesustodifferfromanyone(seeLuke13:1-5;1Cor.4:7).

A couple more points may be helpful to keep the slaughter of theCanaanitesinperspective:first,atthattimeintheOT,Godhadgiventhenation of Israel clear civil authority and responsibilities; and as alawfully-ordained civil government, functioning directly under hiscontrol,HecommandedthemtocarryoutHisjustjudgmentagainsttheidolaters ofCanaan.Althoughhe gave Israel the commandment, "Thoushalt not kill" (better, "murder"), it is clear that this is a prohibitionagainstunlawfulkillingofanykind,ortakingvengeanceintoone'sownhands. In the samedocument inwhichwe find this commandment,wemayalso findmanyplaceswhereGodcommanded the Israelites toputtheirownpeopletodeathforcertaintypesofdisobedience(likeidolatry).Whenitisajudicialactofaproperlyinstitutedcivilgovernment,takingalife may sometimes be warranted. Apparently, the slaughter of theCanaaniteswas one such judicial act, carried out by themagistrates ofIsrael.

Wemustbeveryclearhere,however,thatasChristianslivingundertheNew Covenant, our instructions to advance the gospel and "makedisciples"neverinvolvestakinguptheswordtodoso.Genocideisneverpartof our specificmission, and the times inChurchhistorywhen thishasbeenforgottenaretragicandwrong.Butbecertain,justgenocidewillindeed occur again on the Last Day, when all those who do not knowChrist and who disobey the glorious gospel will be punished witheverlastingdestruction(2Thessalonians1:8-9).

Asecondpointtoconsider:itshouldnotsurpriseusthatGodsometimesusespeople to carry outHis judgment.Heused Israel to punishEdom(Ezek. 25:14). But he also used the nations of Babylon and Assyria topunish Israel for her own sins and disobedience. Then, when he hadfinishedusingthosenations,hepunishedthemaswell(seeIsaiah10:5-27).Throughoutthescriptures,Godusespeople(evenwickedpeople)tojudgeotherpeople,andexerciseshissovereigntyoverwarandtheresultsofwar(seetheBookofHabakkuk).ButwemustneverforgetthatthereisnocommandforChristianstokillunbelievers.

In sum,wheneverGod takes a life, hedoes sonot only becausehehasthatrightasCreator,butalsoastheperfectlyjustJudge.Godisinfinitelywise and infinitely powerful, so you can be certain that if He doessomething He always has a good reason for it. In the passage wementioned inDeuteronomy, God even gives us a reason for taking thelivesoftheCanaanites,althoughhewasundernoobligationtodoso.Inhisall-seeingeyeofpurejustice,thesepeoplewerewickedandthetimeofhisforbearancewasover.Likewise,Godhadagoodreasontofloodtheentire earthand tokill thewholeworld,Noahandhis family excepted.Again,GodhadaperfectlygoodreasontodestroySodomandGomorrahwith fire (Gen6-9; ; 15:16;Deut9:4-6;Deut10:14;Deut12:31,32;Deut18:9-14;Isa2:6;2Chron28:3).AndGodhasagoodreasontoreturninhisowntimeandagaindestroytheworldwithfire(2Pet.3:1-13).

God'srighttotakelifeshoulddeeplyhumbleustorepentance,sincewealljustlydeservetobekilled(Luke13:3-5).YetGodhimselftookpityonrebelliousmankindbyenduringthefullwrathwedeserveuponhimself.Let this drive us to the cross of Christ, where all the wrath of God isabsorbedinChrist,thesacrificialLambofGod,onbehalfofallbelieving

sinners.Thelessonwecanlearnfromallthisisthat,inthislife,somegetjusticewhileothersgetmercy–buteitherway,Godgets theglory.TheCanaanites, whom God commanded the Israelites to slaughter, justlydeserveddeath,asdowe;butGodhashadmercyonus,sinceChristhassufferedthepenaltyofdeathandthewrathofGodinourplace.Whenwetruly understand our just reward, and the immense depths to whichChriststoopedtodeliverusfromthatterriblecondemnation,wewillbequick to abandon the presupposition which so often undergirds suchquestionsasthese,thatwehavetherightasautonomousbeingstoliveasweplease,anddemandanexplanationfromGodforhisactions.

"Manisnotnaturallymortal;deathisnotthedebtofnaturebutthewagesofsin."-JohnMurray

DoestheGodoftheOldTestamentEndorseSlavery?

WhyDoestheBibleNeverCondemnSlavery?

JohnHendryx

Thisisactuallyamisconception.IfantebellumSouthernershadfollowedIsrael's law, slavery not onlywould not have existed but would havebeentreatedasacapitaloffence.

Regarding kidnapping and slavery please view the following texts fromtheTorah,

Exodus21:16:

"Hewhokidnapsaman,whetherhesellshimorhe is foundinhispossession,shallsurelybeputtodeath.

Deuteronomy24:7:

"IfamaniscaughtkidnappinganyofhiscountrymenofthesonsofIsrael, andhedealswithhimviolently or sellshim, then that thiefshalldie;soyoushallpurgetheevilfromamongyou."

Thisdemonstrates that slaverywasnot the sameas thekindwesaw inthe19thcenturyantebellumsouth.Atthattime,trademenwenttoAfrica,kidnapped people and brought them home to sell them to the highestbidder. Again, according to these passages, such a practice would be acapital crime in the Old Testament. Instead, persons who were slaveswereusuallyindenturedservantspayingoffadebt;aresidentemployeewhotemporarilywas living in theemployees'household toworkoffhis

debt tohim.Sometimes itwas forotherreasonssuchaswhen financialdisasterhitaparticularhousehold,thefamilywouldoftensellthemselvesintoservicetohelppaythebills.Thisclearlyisnotthetypeofslaveryweusuallythinkoftoday.The‘slavery’mentionedintheOldTestamentwasreally indentured servant hood and was a very different kind ofinstitutionthantheNewWorldslaverythatdevelopedinmoderntimes.

ConsiderthefollowingobservationsmadebyPaulCopan:

HebrewServanthoodasIndenturedServitude

We should compare Hebrew debt-servanthood (many translationsrenderthis“slavery”)morefairlytoapprentice-likepositionstopayoff debts -- much like the indentured servitude during America’sfoundingwhenpeopleworked for approximately 7 years to pay offthedebtfortheirpassagetotheNewWorld.Thentheybecamefree.

In most cases, servanthood was more like a live-in employee,temporarilyembeddedwithintheemployer’shousehold.Eventoday,teamstrade sportsplayers toanother team thathasanowner, andthese players belong to a franchise. This language hardly suggestsslavery,but rather a formal contractual agreement tobe fulfilled --likeintheOldTestament.

Through failed crops or other disasters, debt tended to come tofamilies, not just individuals. One could voluntarily enter into acontractual agreement (“sell” himself) towork in the household ofanother: “oneof your countrymenbecomespoorandsellshimself”(Leviticus25:47).Awifeorchildrencouldbe“sold” tohelpsustainthe family througheconomicallyunbearable times --unlesskinfolk“redeemed” them (payed their debt). They would be debt-servantsfor6years.AfamilymightneedtomortgagetheirlanduntiltheyearofJubileeevery50years.

Note:IntheOldTestament,outsidersdidnotimposeservanthood--asintheantebellumSouth.Masterscouldhireservants“fromyearto

year” and were not to “rule over … [them] ruthlessly” (Leviticus25:46,53). Rather than being excluded from Israelite society,servantswerethoroughlyembeddedwithinIsraelitehomes.

The Old Testament prohibited unavoidable lifelong servanthood --unless someone loved his master and wanted to attach himself tohim(Exodus21:5).Mastersweretogranttheirservantsreleaseeveryseventhyearwithalldebts forgiven (Leviticus25:35--43).A slave’slegalstatuswasuniqueintheancientNearEast(ANE)--adramaticimprovement over ANE law codes: “Hebrew has no vocabulary ofslavery,onlyofservanthood.”

AnIsraeliteservant’sguaranteedeventualreleasewithin7yearswasacontrolorregulationtopreventtheabuseandinstitutionalizingofsuch positions. The release-year reminded the Israelites thatpoverty-induced servanthoodwas not an ideal social arrangement.Ontheotherhand,servanthoodexisted in Israelpreciselybecausepovertyexisted:nopoverty,no servants in Israel.And if servantslivedinIsrael,thiswasvoluntary(typicallypoverty-induced)--notforced.

TheDignityofServantsinIsrael

Israel’sservantlawswereconcernedaboutcontrollingorregulating--not idealizing--an inferiorworkarrangement.Israelitesenteredintoservitudevoluntarily--thoughnotoptimal.TheintentofIsrael’slaws was to combat potential abuses, not to institutionalizeservitude. The Old Testament punished forced slavery by death.Once a master freed a person from his servant obligations, theformer servant had the “status of full and unencumberedcitizenship.”

Old Testament legislation sought to prevent voluntary debt-servitude. God gave Mosaic legislation to prevent the poor fromentering, even temporarily, into voluntary indentured service. Thepoor couldglean theedges of fields or pick lingering fruit on treesafter their fellow Israelites’ harvest (Leviticus 19:9,10; 23:22;

Deuteronomy 24:20,21; cp. Exodus 23:10). Also, God commandedfellow-Israelitestolendfreelytothepoor(Deuteronomy15:7,8),andtonotchargetheminterest(Exodus22:25;Leviticus25:36,37).Andwhen the poor could not afford sacrificial animals, they couldsacrificesmaller,less-expensiveones(Leviticus5:7,11).Also,peoplewere to automatically cancel debts every 7 years. And when amasterreleasedhisdebt-servants,hewastogenerouslyprovideforthem -- without a “grudging heart” (Deuteronomy 15:10). Thebottom line: God did not want there to be any poverty (orservanthood)inIsrael(Deuteronomy15:4).So,servantlawsexistedtohelpthepoor,notharmthemorkeepthemdown.

Ratherthanrelegatingtreatmentofservants(“slaves”)totheendofthelawcode(commonlydoneinotherANElawcodes),thematterisfront-and-center inExodus21.Forthefirst timeintheANE,God’slegislation required treating servants (“slaves”) as persons, notproperty.Genesis1:26,27affirmsthatallhumansareGod’s image-bearers. Job states that master and slave alike come from themother’s womb and are ultimately equals (Job 31:13-15). As onescholar writes: “We have in the Bible the first appeals in worldliteraturetotreatslavesashumanbeingsfortheirownsakeandnotjustintheinterestsoftheirmasters.”

ThreeRemarkableProvisionsinIsrael

AsimplecomparisonofIsrael’slawcodewiththoseoftherestoftheANE reveal three remarkable differences. If Bible-believingSouthernershadfollowedthesethreeprovisions,antebellumslaverywouldnothaveexistedorbeenmuchofanissue.

1. Anti-Harm Laws: One marked improvement of Israel’s lawsoverotherANElawcodesisthereleaseofinjuredservants(Exodus21:26,27).Whenanemployer(“master”)accidentallygougedouttheeyeorknockedoutthetoothofhismaleorfemaleservant/employee,he/shewastogofree.Goddidnotallowphysicalabuseofservants.Ifanemployer’sdisciplininghisservantresultedinimmediatedeath,thatemployer(“master”)wastobeputtodeathformurder(Exodus

21:20)--unlikeotherANEcodes.10Infact,Babylon’sHammurabi’sCode permitted the master to cut off his disobedient slave’s ear(¶282).TypicallyinANElawcodes,masters--notslaves--weremerely financially compensated. The Mosaic Law, however, heldmasterstolegalaccountfortheirtreatmentof theirownservants--notsimplyanotherperson’sservants.

2.Anti-KidnappingLaws:AnotheruniquefeatureoftheMosaicLawisitscondemnationofkidnappingapersontosellasaslave--an act punishable by death (Exodus 21:16;cp.Deuteronomy 24:7).Kidnapping,ofcourse,ishowslaveryintheantebellumSouthcouldgetofftheground.

3.Anti-ReturnLaws:UnliketheantebellumSouth,Israelwastooffersafeharbortoforeignrunawayslaves(Deuteronomy23:15,16)— a marked contrast to the Southern states’ Fugitive Slave Law.Hammurabi’s Code demanded the death penalty for those helpingrunawayslaves(¶16).Inotherless-severecases—intheLipit-Ishtar(¶12),Eshunna(¶49-50),andHittitelaws(¶24)—fineswereexactedforshelteringfugitiveslaves.Someclaimthatthisisanimprovement.Well,sortof.Inthese“improved”scenarios,theslavewasstilljustproperty;theANEextraditionarrangementsstillrequiredthattheslavebereturnedhismaster.Andnotonlythis,theslavewasgoingback to theharshconditions thatpromptedhimtorunawayinthefirstplace.11EvenupgradedlawsinfirstmillenniumBC Babylon included compensation to the owner (or perhapssomething more severe) for harboring a runaway slave. Yet thereturned slaves themselves were disfigured, including slitting earsandbranding.12Thisisn’tthekindofimprovementtopublicizetoowidely.

Old Testament scholar Christopher Wright observes: “No otherancient near Eastern law has been found that holds a master toaccountforthetreatmentofhisownslaves (asdistinct from injurydonetotheslaveofanothermaster),andtheotherwiseuniversallawregarding runaway slaves was that they must be sent back, withseverepenaltiesforthosewhofailedtocomply.”

If the South had followed these three clear laws from Exodus andDeuteronomy, slavery would have been a nonissue. What’s more,Israel’streatmentofservants(“slaves”)wasunparalleledintheANE.

Solet'sbecarefulandhistoricallyaccuratewhenattemptingtoequatetheAfrican slave trade to the forms of slavery and servant hood you hearabout in theBible.We still have slavery today and it takesplace in theprisons.Peoplepayadebttheyowesocietythere.

Lastly, it isgoodtorememberthattheIsraelitesthemselveswereslavesof the Egyptians for 400 years and God delivered them, bringingjudgment on all ofEgypt for this oppression.Godhates it, and soGoddeliveringHispeoplefromthebondsofslaveryisoneofthekeythemesof Scripture, and the Exodus points us to Christwho sets us free frombondage.

IfGodtrulylovespeoplewhyhasheslaughtered

somanyofthemthroughoutthehistoryoftheworld?

JohnHendryx

Thisquestionhasbeenasked inmanydifferentwaysbymanyhonestlyhurtingandstrugglingpeoplethroughouthistory;and,likeanyquestionasdeepandubiquitousasthis,therearenopatanswersthatadequatelyaddressalltherealissuesbehindtheaskingofit.However,Ithinkthereareafewunexpressedassumptionsunderlyingthequestionwhich,whenexposedandanswered,helpmakesenseof theproblemof inexplicable,widespreadsufferinganddeath.Todealwiththeseassumptions,I'dliketoconsiderwhatthequestionpresupposeslogically;whatitpresupposesaboutGod;what it presupposesabout people andwhat it presupposesaboutmoralknowledge.

Logically,thequestionmaybeturnedintoapropositionwiththesebasicelements–majorpremise:asovereign,people-lovingGodwouldalwaysbe able and willing to do things in the best interest of people;minorpremise a: slaughtering people is never in their best interest; minorpremise b: God has slaughteredmillions of people throughout history;conclusion:Godisnotasovereign,people-lovingGod.

Onthefaceofit,thisseemslikewatertightlogic;butthepremisesassumetoomuch. Consider the first premise:would a sovereign, people-lovingGodreallyalwaysdowhatwasinthebestinterestofallpeople?Onlyifyou further assume two things: that the best interest of people mustalways be his highest, ultimate end; and that doingwhat is in the bestinterest of one person is never contraindicated by the best interests ofanother person. However, both of these implicit assumptions are

fallacious. The bible showsmany ends towards which God works; andalthoughdoingthatwhichisbestforthepeoplehelovesisanimmenselyhigh and oft-emphasized end, it is not the only one. And some of theotherendstowardswhichGodworks–displayingjustwrathagainstsins,for instance – simply do not allow for such a glib and all-inclusiveexpressionofGod'sloveas,“Ofcoursehecouldneverdestroyanybodyifhe'sloving!”.Heisloving,yes.Buthe'salsorighteous,holy,angryatsin,etc.

Considerthenextimplicitassumption:thatifGodweretodowhatwasinthe best interest of one person, itwould never involve the slaughter ofanother person. But what if a person's family member or friend washorriblywrongedbyanother–rapedormurdered,say–andthatpersonwent to the judge for justice. Would the judge be acting in the bestinterestsofthiswrongedpersonifhesaid,“I'mtoolovingtopunishthiswickedman”?Ofcoursenot–whatisinthebestinterestsofthewrongedperson –what would be the loving thing to do for him, in the highestsense of the word – would be to give him the justice that he rightlydesiresagainsthisadversary.Nottomention,itwouldbemorelovingtoall the other potential innocent victims to keep this guy locked up.Although Christianity is rightly known for non-resistance and beingwilling to return good for evil, it is not as widely understood that thisChristian willingness to forego vengeance is tied up with the certainknowledge that one day,God himselfwill fully avenge them (seeRom.12:19;Rev.6:9-11).Sothen,Godmaybeloving,buthemaystilldestroybecauseheisalsoholyandjust.Similarly,hemaybeloving,buthemaystill destroy because it is in the best interest of one beloved party todestroyanotheroffendingparty.

Alsopleasenotethatthequestionerhasapresuppositionthatmoralevilactuallyexists.Howdoesheknowthat?Andbywhatauthoritydotheydeclare that theirmorality it as valid for all people? If it were amerepreferencethentheycouldkeepthevirtuetothemselves,butwhentheyimpose it on others they must believe that their morality is alwaysuniversally valid. However, if there is no self-revealingGod then suchideasarenonsenseorsocialconstructsandultimatelymeaningless.Ifwearemerelychemicalsandnothingmorethenreally,theJewsgenocideof

the Canaanites is no different than a day with the kids at Disneyland.Matterandchemicalsdonotcare.

The question gets a little more complicated when pressed to the nextlevel: “All right then,perhaps I canseewhy itwouldnotbeoutof stepwithlovetodestroyaHitleroraJeffreyDahmer,butwhataboutwhenitis good, innocent peoplewho are destroyed?”This question gets to theheart of the Christian religion, and only finds its perfect answer in thecrowningeventoftheChristianfaith,thecrucifixionandresurrectionofChrist;andtoplumbthedepthsoftheanswerwouldtakemanylifetimesofmanyscholars.Butlet itserveasasortof firstanswer,orat leastaninducement to study out themulti-facetedChristian explanation of theproblemofthesufferingoftherighteous,toconsiderthatthosewhohavebeenthemostdeeplyacquaintedwiththeChristianfaith,andwhohaveundergone the greatest sufferings for no wrong of their own, havesurprisingly been the most joyful and ready to endure those unjustsufferings.Now,thisofcourseisnotananswerinitself;butit indicatesthat millions of people, and by all accounts sane, happy, and well-adjustedpeople,haveactuallyfoundgreatpurposeandpeaceinsufferingunjustly at the hands of others. The answer they have found could notjustbe somesortof academic, logical answer, therefore, but somethingrealenoughreallytomatterinthereallybadthingsoflife.

ThelogicalexplanationtothisconundrumofChristianshappilysufferingin unjust affliction requires the unearthing of another implicitassumption:thatbeingslaughtered,orwrongedunjustly,couldneverbeinthebest interestof thewrongedperson.Now,atone level,ofcourse,it'snotinanyone'sbestinteresttosufferunjustly.Ifso,causingthissortofsufferingwouldnotreallybewrongatall–itwouldbe likewhattheproducersofahorrormoviearedoingwhentheymakeascaryfilmjustbecausetherearepersonsouttherewhoareperfectlywillingtowatchitsincetheyenjoythefrighteningthrillsitgivesthem.IfChristiansenjoyedbeingwrongedinthisway,itwoulddrasticallyminimizetherealityofthewrongbeingdonetothem.Butthefactis, it isnotamasochisticsortofjoythattheyhaveinthemidstofsuffering–theyreallysuffer,theyreallyhurt, theyshed real tears of sorrowwhenbereaved of their loved ones,theyknowtheterrorandpiercingpainthatanynormalpersonmustfeel

wheninthemidstoftormentandtorture.Yes,thedestructionisreal,andyes,itisveryhatefulandundesirable.

However,what is overlooked is that something trulybad couldbeusedforanevengreatergood.Supposeapersonwerediagnosedwithcancerand had to go through surgery to remove the tumor: it would be anunpleasant ordeal; there would be real pain; the surgeon would reallyhave to cut through living fleshwith a cruel scalpel; and yet,when thedesiredendiskeptinmind,thecruelmeansseemsmercifulandloving.Even if the cancer patient is too young to understand why such cruelthingsarebeingdonetoher,thosewhocanseemorethanshedoeswillrightly know that the process is loving; and someday, she too willunderstand and be glad that she was forced to go through theunpleasantries,evenwhenshewouldnothaveconsentedtoitatthetime,because therewasagoodpurpose to the inflictedsorrow.Christiansdonotrejoiceinpainlikemasochists;theyrejoicelikecancerpatientswhosediseasewasdiscoveredearlyenoughtoensureacompleterecoveryafterthefleetingpainofsurgery.Theyrejoicebecausetheyknowthatsorrowisanecessarypathwaytoagreaterandmorelastinggood(see2Cor.4:16-18;Mat.5:4;John16:33).EvenJesus,whosepersonandworkistheonegreatthemeofthebible,enduredthemostunjusttormentinthehistoryoftheworldwithjoy–butwhy?Becauseheknew,bytheeternalplanofthe Almighty Father, that it was designed for a greater glory and joy,whichwould be his for all eternity (Heb. 12:1-2).Hewas willing to gothroughunjustpainoutofloveforthosewhoactuallydeservedthepain;and this was for the dual end of spreading free love and goodness toothers(becauseGod really is love!); and likewiseofwinning somethinghe himself would enjoy – infinite glory and the eternal love andfriendship and adoration of millions of grateful people in a new,redeemedworld.Inthesameway,Christianswhosufferunjustlyarefullof joythattheycan follow in the footstepsofChrist,bothbecausetheirsufferingsmaybethemeansusedtopointotherstosalvation,andthusspread the love of Christ that they themselves have known; and alsobecause theyknow that their own reward inheaven for enduringthosesufferingswillbeunspeakablygreat(Mat.5:11-12).

Ifwhatisimpliedbythequestionathandweretrue;if,thatis,evenone

trulyinnocentpersonwereforcedtosufferwrongfornopurpose,withoutbeingcompensatedmorethanadequatelyforit,thenIwouldbethefirsttojointheranksofthemwhocondemnChristianityasagreatfarceandfraud.Aswewill see in aminute, there really are no innocent personsbeforeGod;butIdonotsaythattominimizetheunspeakablewrongofunjust suffering. I don't have all the answers, and I don't know why ahelplesschildmaysuffersohorriblyassomehelplesschildrendosuffer,but I know that God will not allow any senseless suffering to gounavenged,foronething;andhewillnotallowanypersontosuffermorethanhedeserves,withoutcausingthatsufferingtospringupathousand-fold in the fruitsof agreaterandmoreeternal joy thatwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutthesuffering.

This brings us to the second set of underlying presuppositions wementioned at the beginning: those about God. The first implicitassumptionisthis:ifGodistrulyloving,hewillneverdoanythingthatisnot for the ultimate good of anyone. But aswe alreadymentioned, thefactis,althoughGodisindeedloving,hehasotherattributesaswell,thatexistinperfectandharmoniousunionwithhislove.Forinstance,GodisalsoaGodofholywrathandrighteousvengeance;andbecauseofthat,hewill destroy those who hurt his beloved children. He hates hands thatshedinnocentbloodandlipsthatsowdiscordamongbrothers(seeProv.6:16-19); he abhors the bloodthirstyman and is angrywith thewickedeveryday (Psalm5:4-6).Becausehe loveshischildren,heabhorsthosewhosenselesslydestroythem,andhewillbringfiercewrathagainstthemsomeday. And because he justly loves his own glorious Name, he willbring fiercewrath against thosewho fling opprobriumupon it by theirwordsanddeeds.Sothen,farfromhisjusticebeingatoddswithhislove,theyactuallyworkintandem–hiswrathagainstsinbothavengesthosewhomheloveswhentheywronglysufferandalsoensuresthatthegloryoftheGodwhoistheirportionwillshineallthebrighter,fortheirjoyfuladoration,throughouteternity.Thus,hisverywrathlovinglyavengesandvindicatesthem,andlovinglyprovidesaneternalrewardforthem.

TheultimateexpressionofthisharmonymaybeseeninthelifeofGod'sown beloved Son. Since God loves his eternal Son perfectly, he willdestroy with perfect hatred those who finally and irrevocably set

themselves against both him and those who belong to him. Anyformulationoftheproblemthatdoesnottake intoaccountthefact thatGod's love for his Son and his people involves the destruction of theirenemies,fortheglorificationofhisownNameandPower,inordertowinagreaterlovefromalltheredeemedwhomhelovedfromthebeginning,ignores very widespread biblical themes and misses a necessarycomponent for answering our question (seeEx. 3:16-22; 6:2-8, for oneexample).

The final presupposition that we will consider is what the questionassumes about people; and that is, that at least some people get badthings theydon'tdeservewithout everbeing satisfactorily compensatedfortheirsuffering;butthatisapremisewhichispatentlyfalse.Thecleartestimonyof thebibleandunavoidable conclusionof experience is thatallpeoplearetaintedandbrokeninmanydeepways.Tounderscorethispoint,justreconsidertheoriginalquestion–whyhasGodslaughteredsomanypersons?Butthefactis,notonlyhasGodslaughtered"many,"hehastakenthelifeofeverylastpersononearth.EverypersonissubjecttodeathanditisultimatelyGodwhohastakenthelifeofeachone.Whichgoestoshowthatthehumanconditionreallyisworsethanmanypeoplewishtoimagine.True,somepeopleexpresstheirsinfulnaturesfarmorewickedlyanddrasticallythanothers,andassureasGodisjust,anAdolfHitlerwill receive a commensuratelyworse punishment than the hard-workingfarmerwhoneveratewhathedidn'tworkforandfreelygavetoall who were in need. Is this farmer still broken in many ways and asinner?Yes, inways thatwearenotcapableofunderstanding,allofushavespurnedanddespisedGod'spersonandlaws,evenfromthewomb,andthis is abiggerdeal thanwe canpossibly imagine (seePsalm51:5;Rom. 3:9-20; 5:12-21). But he is not aHitler and hewill not receive aHitler'spunishment.When he does stand before the righteousGod, hewillhavenoroomtocomplainthathispunishmentistoogreat.

But what is so amazing is that God's love and mercy goes infinitelybeyondjustice inbringinggoodtothosewhomhehaschosentogivetohisSon,asaneternalrewardforHisownunjustsufferingatthehandsofthe wicked. From a field of sinners deserving only judgment, God hascalled out innumerablemultitudes to give to themnothing but a grace

andmercy so vast that every difficult thing that enters their lives willwithoutfailbeputtosomeuseofgreaterandeternaljoyforthem(Rom.8:28-39).EventheworstsinnerwhofacesGod'srighteousjudgmentwillnot be able to question God's love – his grace and long forbearance,which he had constantly rejected until it was too late, will be starklyevident.Howmuchmorewillthesinnerwhowasfreelyforgivenbeableto testify of God's love? And included among those giving the mostpowerfulvoicetodivinelovewillbethosewhointheirlivessufferedthedeepestfortheleastcause.

Insum,thisage-oldquestionarises fromrealitiesthatarenuancedanddifficult,butpervasiveandpoignantly real.People reallydogo throughdeep hurts that really are unjust and inexplicable; and it really isintenselypainfultogothroughthosethings,anddifficulttounderstandwhy. The pat answers we've all heard cannot satisfy a person in thatsituation.Itwillnothelp tohear, “Well,God justdidn'twant toviolatethefreewillofthepersonwhorapedyou”.Itwillnothelptohear,“Whynotjustfocusonallthepositivethingsinyourlife?”.Itwon'tultimatelyhelp to hear, “Well at least you're not getting everything you deserve”(although that answerhaspart of the truth in it, at least, andwill helpthosewhoalreadyknowtherestof the truth insomemeasure).But it'sstilltruethatsomepeoplearemorewickedthanothers,andthosemorewickedpeopletakeadvantageofandhurttherelativelymorerighteous.Justasit'struethat“natural”(i.e.divinelyordained)disasterskilltenderinfants and inveterate sinners alike. We may not understand why somanyof thesebad thingshappenallaroundus;but ifwearewilling togive an honest look at the God who revealed himself perfectly tohumanityontheCrossofCalvary,wewillhavesopowerfulatestimonytoGod'sgreatlove,thatwewillbeabletotrusthiminanycircumstance.Itwas because of love alone that the Father put the innocent Son totormentsforthejustpaymentofthepenaltyofthesinsofthosewhohadhatedhim.Itwasbyfreegraceandlovealonethathefreelyforgavethem,madethemholy,andcontinuestodoeverythingnecessarytogivethemeternaljoyinhispresence.Itisonlywhenwelookathowthatrighteousandwrathful andmerciful and lovingGod, evenwhen he was lovinglysaving a sinful people, was also destroying their ultimate enemy, thedevil,andgivingasoberingtestimonyto theeternal tormentof allwho

continue to refuse his proffered mercy – it is only then that we canactuallyfindanswersthataddresseverypartofthepainfulrealitywithoutdenyingormakinglightofanyofit.

Because the question really is so difficult, not just in the way of aninterestinglogicalriddle,butinawaythatbleedswithrealhumanheartsandhurts,findingananswerthatactuallymakessenseofeverythingisastunningly hopeful thing. Maybe it still won't make perfect sense, butenough sense that it is sensible to trust the one who has provided theanswer,justlikewecantrustaprovendoctortoperformasurgerywhenwedon'tknowallitsinsandouts.Andnootherreligioncanfindanyrealanswerthat'snotjustadenialofreality,oraminimizationofjusticeandvengeance,orastiflingofmercyandlove.OnlytheChristwhocameoncetosufferforthesinsofhispeoplethathemightredeemthem,andwhoiscoming a second time todeal out eternal tribulation to thosewho hatehimandthem,butrestandeternal joy toallwho trust inhim(2Thes.1:5-12),canbringallthepainfulrealitiesofafallenandbrokenworldtoathoroughly satisfying conclusion. Even if we do not understand whyeverythinghappens,wecanlooktosuchaOneandtrustthatheknowsallandwillbringitalltorights.

ReligiousandPhilosophicalPluralism:

byTimKeller&CharlesGarland

Abouteveryotherweek,IconfrontpopularpluralistnotionsthathavebecomealargepartofthewayAmericansthink.Forexample,pluralistscontendthatnoonereligioncanknowthefullnessofspiritualtruth,thereforeallreligionsarevalid.Butwhileitisgoodtoacknowledgeourlimitations,thisstatementisitselfastrongassertionaboutthenatureofspiritualtruth.AcommonanalogyisoftencitedtogetthepointacrosswhichIamsureyouhaveheard—severalblindmentryingtodescribeanelephant.Onefeelsthetailandreportsthatanelephantisthinlikeasnake.Anotherfeelsalegandclaimsitisthicklikeatree.Anothertouchesitssideandreportstheelephantisawall.ThisissupposedtorepresenthowthevariousreligionsonlyunderstandpartofGod,whilenoonecantrulyseethewholepicture.ToclaimfullknowledgeofGod,pluralistscontend,isarrogance.WhenIoccasionallydescribethisparable,andIcanalmostseethepeoplenoddingtheirheadsinagreement.

ButthenIremindthehearersthattheonlywaythisparablemakesanysense,however,isifthepersontellingthestoryhasseenthewholeelephant.Therefore,theminuteonesays,'Allreligionsonlyseepartofthetruth,'youareclaimingtheveryknowledgeyousaynooneelsehas.AndtheyaredemonstratingthesamespiritualarrogancetheysooftenaccuseChristiansof.Inotherwords,tosayallisrelative,isitselfatruthstatementbutdangerousbecauseitusessmokeandmirrorstomakeitselfsoundmoretolerantthantherest.Mostfolkswhoholdthisviewthinktheyaremoreenlightenedthanthosewhoholdtoabsoluteswheninfacttheyarereallyjustasstrongintheirbeliefsystemaseveryoneelse.Idonotthinkmostofthesefolksarepurposefullyusingtrickeryorbadmotives.Thisisbecausetheyseemtohaveevenconvincedthemselvesofthe"truth"oftheirposition,eventhoughtheyclaim"truth"

doesnotexistoratleastcan'tbeknown.Ironicisn'tit?Thepositionisintellectuallyinconsistent.(TimKeller)

InitspureformPluralismisafact.It'snotanopinionorabelieforareligion.Inotherwords,noteveryonebelievesthesamethings.Weliveinasocietythat'sverydiverse,notjustethnically,butalsoreligiously.Butwhenpluralismstartstobecomeaphilosophy,whenitstartstobecomeareligiousdogma,thenitbecomesadifferentanimal.Andthat'swhatIwanttocallrelativism--orreligiousrelativism,philosophicalpluralism.Itgoesbydifferentnamesbutthatisthedogmaticreligiousassertionthatallreligionsarebasicallythesame,thatnooneknowsthetruthaboutGod.AndnoonecanknowtheultimatetruthaboutGodinawaythatinvalidatesotherpeoples'religiousopinionsandthebeliefthatit'sarroganttosaythatyouhavethetruthreligiouslyanditisarroganttotrytopersuadeotherpeopletobelievewhatyoubelievereligiously.That'srelativism,philosophicalpluralism.AndIwouldsaythat'sthedefaultbeliefofmostpeopleyourunintoinourcity.--whetherthey'rereligiousornot,mostpeoplethinkaboutreligionthatway.

HereiswhatIwanttourgeonyouandtrytounpackinseveralways.Andthatisthatrelativismisitselfareligiousbelief.Itisadogma.Relativismis.Ithasaffirmationsanddenialsandamissionaryforce.OneoftheaffirmationsofrelativismisthatGodisultimatelyunknowable.NoonecanknowthetruthaboutGod.Buthowdooneknowthattobetrue?Thisassumesanultimateunderstandingofspiritualreality.Allreligionsareultimatelythesame.AllreligionsarefollowingapathtoGod.Itdoesn'tmatterhowyoubelieve,itmattershowyoulive.Doyouseethis?Thosearereligiousstatements.Thosearemattersofreligiousbeliefs,dogma.Doctrines!Ifpeoplesay,"No,I'mnotreligious.I'msayingyoucan'tknow.I'msaying,NobodycanknowthetruthaboutGod.I’mnotclaimingthatI'vegotacorneronit."Butifyoulookatitclosely,thestatementsofreligiousrelativismareeverybitasdogmaticasthestatementsoftheKoranortheBible.It'sareligiousdogma.

Ithasdenials.ReligiousrelativismdenieswithcertaintythatthereisoneGodwhoisholyandjust,whohastakenonhumanfleshinthepersonofJesusChrist,whoisourcreatorandjudge.WhocanonlybeappeasedandknownthroughthesacrificeofJesusChristandfaithinhim.

Relativismsaysthatisfalse.Itmakesareligiousassertion:wedenythis,creedally,thatthatisnottrue.It'sadogmaticassertionthatrelativismmakes.And--relativismseekstopersuadethosewhodonotbelieveittobelieveit.

Somehow,therelativisthascometounderstandthathealoneseesthefullreality.Healoneisintheairplane.Healoneisthekingwhoisnotblindtellingtheparableoftheelephant.Onlyrelativismistimelesslyandobjectivelytrue.RelativisticbeliefisacceptedsoitcanbetaughtaspublicfactinAmericatodayeventhoughwehaveseperationofchurchandstate.Ihearnonsensicalstatementslikeitisbecauseofreligionthatallwarstarts-ofcourseitisbecauseofreligion,butreligionisaninescapablepartofthehumancondition.Relativismalsozealouslyfightstomakesurenoonebelievesinanyabsoluteswhiletheymustusetheirownabsolutetoestablishthisidea.

NowChristianshavebeenknowntobeproud....plentyofus.TherearelotsofarrogantChristians.ButifyoureadtheBible,youseethatChristiansoughtnottobearrogant.ArrogantChristiansarebetrayingChristianity.Andwhenwe'rearrogant,we'renotbelievingthegospel.We'renotbeingBiblical.But,ultimately,toholdarelativisticpointofview,youhavetoturnthequestionbackonyourselfanddoubtyourowndoubtsandsay,"Whyaren'ttherelativists'religiousbeliefsarrogant?Whyisn'titarroganttosaythatyou'retheoneintheairplane?Whyisn'titarroganttosayyou'rethekingwho'snotblindandcanseethewholeelephant?"Ultimately,ifyoujudgeyourdoubtsthesamewayyoujudgeotherpeoples'religion,thenyoufindyourselfhoistedonyourownpetard.Right?Yes.It'sjustasarroganttoclaimrelativism,asitistoclaimreligioustruth.

TheChristianisnotbetterinanywaythanapagan.ThereareprobablymanypaganswhohavelivedmoremorallivesthantheChristian.InfacttheChristianbelievesHimselfnotmorallyfitforGod-apersonwho'ssodesperatelybrokenthatunlessJesusChristdiesunderthewrathofGodinmyplace,IcanneverbereconciledtoGodandhavefellowshipwithHim."Therearelotsofpeoplewiserthanus,lotsofpeoplewhoaremoremoralthanweare,peoplewhoaremoredevotedtotheirreligionthanweare.Ifapersonclaimsanythingdifferent,heismissingthegospel.It's

whyweoughttobeteachable.Whenwetalktofriendswhodon'tknowChrist,weoughttobelearning,insteadofjusttalking.

But,someonewillsay,youonlybelievethisbecauseyouwereraisedwhereyouwereraised,right?Yousayyouknowthetruthbutreallyitsjustprovincialism.You'reaproductofyourculture.So,howcanyousayit'stheonlytruth?"Butifyou'reraisedhere,you'reraisedinarelativisticculture.Right?Andsoyoubelieve--thatallreligionsareone.You'rearelativist.That'sjustbecauseofyourmomanddad--andbecauseyougrewupinLAorthelike.IfyouwereborninIndonesia,youwouldnotbearelativist.So,therefore,relativismcouldn'tbetrue.It'sjustaculturalconstruct.Right?Youonlybelieveitbecauseofwhereyouwereraisedsodon'tmakeanydogmaticassertionsaboutallreligionsbeingequal.That'sjustwhatyourlittleculturebelieves.Onceyougetoutandaboutintheworldandarealittlemorecosmopolitan,you'llrealizethatthat'sjustoneviewamongmany.Thecriticismhastoapplytorelativismifithastoapplytootherreligions,doesn'tit?

So--ifrelativismisyourdefaultmode,ifthat'swhatyou'vebootedupwith,becauseofwhereyouwereraised,letmeappealtoyouthisway.Atleastlookatit,doubtit,thewayyoudoubtreligion.Lookatyourownbeliefswiththesamecriticalapparatusyouusetolookatotherpeople'sbeliefs.Seethatit'sareligiousdogmalikeothersandseeifitholdswaterasareligiousdogma.Isittrue?Isrelativismtrue?Askyourselfthisimportantquestion.

ChristianityOnlyWantsPowertoTakeOvertheStateMechanism

JohnHendryx

Visitor:Iwanttopreventorganizedreligiousinstitutionsfrominvading and taking over the state mechanism. No Catholicchurch telling the kingswhat todo.NoSaudimullahs tellingthepeoplewhatisandisnotmoral-legal.Notheocraticstateala Iran or the Taliban. I dislike the capture of the statemechanismby a competing organization based on appeals toreligiousauthority.Separateauthorities forseparatespheres.RenderuntoCaesarwhat isCaesar's.Religionshouldbekeptoutofthepublicsquare.Onlythosewithsecularideasshouldestablishpolicy.

Response: If inademocracyunder ruleof law,Christianswere in themajority, then theywouldn't be “taking over” the statemechanism anymorethanifsecularistswereinthemajority.Instead,themajorityhasastronginfluenceonlawandpublicpolicy.Butchecksandbalanceswouldstill have to be in place. I couldn't agree with you more that no ONEreligious group should completely take over the state mechanism. Thedepthofourdepravityashumanbeingsshouldprecludethepossibilityofgiving thismuchpower toanyonemanorgroup.However, Inoticedaglaring absence fromyour list. It appears that youhave overlooked theinclusion of your own religious/philosophical view: postmodernsecularism. Convince me that you do not intend to suppressotherpeople's viewsbyalso including secularismon this list.By not including it, you exempt yourself from the limitations of theseparationofchurchandstateandtherebygiveyourselfandproponentsof your view free reign to exert power, while everyone else remainslimited. Awfully convenient for you to claim this exemption, don't youthink?Atrulyliberalsociety,Iwouldargue,isonethatallowsallviewstoparticipate.Yousee,byexcludingyourselffromthislist,youappear,from

my perspective, to have become the very thing that you wish to avoid.Please explain to me how you're your viewpoint is any lesssusceptibletosettingupatyrannythananyotherreligion.

Don'tyouseetheironyhere?Iamallforlimitingthepowerofanygroup,includingmyown, since Iamwellawarenotonlyofmyowndepravitybutalso the samepropensity in others. "Secular" and "Secularism"aredifferent animals.One is a fact, the other a philosophy. The country ofFrance now is in themidst of instituting just such an anti-God policy.They have merely replaced "religion" with secularism. What is thedifference? How is the divine right of kings in ancient Europe anydifferent than states that have established secular monopolies?WorldwideCommunism andNational Socialismwere both founded onsecularist principles. In other words, totalitarianism looks thesamewhether it is in thenameofreligionor irreligion.WhenAmerica set out to establish a secular country this did not mean theyenvisionedthatonlysecularistsshouldbeallowedtomakepublicpolicy.Byimaginingthatyourviewsareneutral,youadvanceaformoftyrannyby default. For you yourself are appealing to your own interpretivecommunitywhenappealingtovalues,moralsandthelike.FromthepointofviewofthecivilmagistrateyourviewshouldbenomoreauthoritativethanaGod-believing"religious"view.Really,ourlawsshouldbededucedfrom which ideas are most persuasive and intelligible. Let us decidethroughopendebateratherthancensoranygroupasyoupropose.

But letsbeclear:TrueTheocracywillonlytakeplacewhenJesusChristHimselfreturnsasKingofkingsandjudgestheworld.Itisreallynotourshorttermgoaltoestablishatheocracysononeedtofrettoomuchaboutit. We do not obsess over issue this as secularists sometimes like toimagine.Webelievegainingpoliticalpowerneversavedanyone. In factthegreatestmodern-dayrevivalofChristianityhastakenplaceinChina,aplacenotknownforbeingparticularlyfriendlytoChristians.Whilewewant to proclaim God's word widely and make it universally known,Christianity does not grow by instituting civil laws and promotingbehaviormodification. Itmeansvery little toChristians if the society isonly outwardly moral but knows not the Savior. God alone causes thegrowth of His kingdom in men's hearts through persuasion. While

promotingGod's law is indeed a goal of ours ... yet itmust voluntarilyadoptedforittobeultimatelymeaningful.Notbyforce.Theideaofaruleoflawandseparationofpowerswasawiseonebecauseitunderstoodthelimitationsofhumannature - that thepowerof individualsandgroupsmustbelimited,duetocorruption.Thislimitingroleofhumanpowerisessentially a Christian idea which comes out of Presbyterian polity. Sotyranny is not innate to Christianity - and while we acknowledge thattherehasbeentyrannyinthenameofChristianityhistorically,thisisnotbecausepeopletooktheBibletooseriously,butbecausetheydidnottakeitseriousenough.Secularprogressivesdonotbelievethathumannatureis flawed so it is unlikely such an idea would have naturally becomecentral to our political process without a that element of Christianinfluence.S

Remember, Christianity is primarily a religion grace, not law. Badbehavior is really only a symptom of a much greater concern. Thatmankind's condition under sin's wagesmeans death is certain. Amereoutward change of societies behavior will simply not do. Consider thisanalogy:

"Amanhasbeenfoundguilty,shallwesay,ofaheinouscrimeandhasbeensentencedtodeath.Heisnowinprison,awaitingthedayofhis execution.A friend comes to visit him.This friend calls out: "Ihavegoodnewsforyou!"Eagerlythecondemnedmanasks:"Whatisit?" The answer comes: "Be good." In thatmessage there is not somuchasashredofgoodnews.Itismostcruelmockery..."

Itisnotaboutnicenessormorality...itisaboutourcondition.Ifeveryonebecame moral tomorrow it would have no consequence on ourenslavement.Whatweneedisthenewbirth,aresurrectionofoursoul,arestorationtoGod'soriginalintentforhumankind.Whatweneedisthegospel.

JustifyingNon-ChristianObjections

byDouglasWilson&FarrellTill

Whenever we object to something, we always assume somestandard or rule that the thing violates. Similarly, when non-ChristiansobjecttotheChristianfaith,theyassumesomestandardthat Christianity violates. But can non-Christians justify thesestandards that they so readily use? In the following interchange,the editor of Credenda/Agenda, Douglas Wilson and Farrell Till,editorofTheSkepticalReview ,discussthetopicof justifyingnon-Christianstandardsofethicsandreason.

Forthepastthirtyyears,FarrellTillhasbeenanEnglishinstructorat SpoonRiverCollege inCanton, Illinois. Prior to this, hewas apreacher and foreign missionary for the Church of Christ. HeattendedtwoBiblecollegesandreceivedhisbachelor'sandmaster'sdegrees from Harding University. His preaching career spannedtwelve years, five of which were spent in missionary work inFrance. After becoming an agnostic, he quit theministry in 1963andbeganateachingcareer.Forthepastfiveyears,hehaseditedThe Skeptical Review , a quarterly journal that focuses on thedoctrineofbiblicalinerrancy.Hehasregularlydebatedinerrancy-related issues in various public forums, including radio andtelevision. Having begun this work as an agnostic, he nowconsidershimselfanatheist.

DW:ManyunbelieverscommonlyobjecttotheGodoftheBibleonthebasisof ethical "problems"with thecharacterofGodas revealedintheScriptures.Whethertheyusepsalmsofimprecation,theslaughteroftheCanaanites,theeternalwrathofGodontheimpenitent,etc.,thecentralthemeisusuallythesame"WhowouldwanttoworshipaGodlikethat!"Butdespitethesurfaceplausibilityoftheobjection,acarefulexaminationof it shows their Achilles attacking our Hector with his bare heel. Farfrom being the unbeliever's strongest case against the true God, this

objection actually reveals the radical futility of unbelief; without Godtherearenoethicalobjectionstoanything.

FT:Althoughyoudidn'texpresslystatethe"objective-morality"positionof evangelical apologists, you certainly implied it when you said that"withoutGodtherearenoethicalobjectionstoanything."Thefallacyofthis position is its failure to recognize that morality is an intellectualabstraction. As such, it is no different from abstractions of tragedy,sorrow, or any of many other abstractions the human mind hasformulated from its broad range of experience. Arguing that humanintelligencecannotdetermineifactsareimmoralwithoutagodtotellustheyare isas illogicalasarguingthatwecannot tell if eventsare tragicwithoutagodoftragedytotellustheyare.

DW:Fine,I'llbite.IfthereisnoGod,thenallthethingsyoumentionarein the same meaningless category. Morality, tragedy, and sorrow areequallyevanescent.Theyareallemptysensationscreatedbythechemicalreactionsofthebrain,inturncreatedbytoomuchpizzathenightbefore.IfthereisnoGod,thenallabstractionsarechemicalepiphenomena,likeswamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason forassigningtruthandfalsitytothechemicalfizzwecallreasoningorrightandwrongtotheirrationalreactionwecallmorality.IfnoGod,mankindisasetofbi-pedalcarbonunitsofmostlywater.Andnothingelse.

FT:Youbit toohard. Inequatingall humanabstractionswith "swampgasoverfetidwater,"youoverlookverifiablefacts.Thehumanmindcanthink;swampgascan't.Human intelligencecanevaluate situationsandformulate abstractions of beauty, happiness, sorrow, fairness andmorality; swamp gas can't. Are these abstractions valid?Well, what IQlevelisneededtoconceptualizeabstractionslikebeautiful,sad,fair,rightorwrong?CanonewithanIQof100doit,ormusthisIQbeinfinite?Theexistenceofmoral concepts is verifiable; the existence of godswhoputsuch concepts into human minds is unverifiable. Please address thisproblem.

DW:Youmissedmychallenge.Youacknowledgethedistinctionbetweenhumanintelligenceandswampgas,butyouhavenowaytoaccountforit.

IfthereisnoGod,thenwhyisthereadistinctionbetweenthechemicalreactionsinyourheadandelsewhere?Supposeweagreedthatthewallsof a house are straight. I say theremust be a foundation under it -- aprecondition for straight walls. Your hypothesis is the house has nofoundation at all and doesn't need one. "See, the walls are straightwithout a foundation." But given yourworldview's assumptions,why ?Canyouexplainhowtimeandchanceactingonmattercanproducethestraightwallsofreasonandmorality?

FT:No,youmissedmychallenge.Youaretheasserter,soyoumustbearthe burden of proving your assertion. You have asserted that "withoutGodtherearenoethicalobjectionstoanything,"soIinsistthatyouprovethat. You have admitted that human intelligence can formulateabstractions, but you say that " all abstractions are chemicalepiphenomena,likeswampgasoverfetidwater."Provethatplease.Canthebrain'ssolutionofalgebraproblemsberight?Ifso,does"God"havetoputtherightsolutionsintothebrain?Ifnot,canabrainthatcorrectlysolvesalgebraproblemscorrectlysolvemoralproblems?Ifnot,whynot?Wheredidyourgodgethisintelligence?

DW:Sinceyouinsist,I'mgladtorepeatmyargument.IfthereisnoGod, thenall that exists is timeandchanceactingonmatter. If this is truethen the difference between your thoughts andmine correspond to thedifferencebetweenshakingupabottleofMountainDewandabottleofDr.Pepper.YousimplyfizzatheisticallyandIfizztheistically.Thismeansthatyoudonotholdtoatheismbecauseitistrue,butratherbecauseofaseriesofchemicalreactions.Thus,youratheismdestroysrationalityandmorality.Intellectualandmoralrelativismhavelongchallengedatheisticworldviews.Noatheisthassuccessfullyaddressedthisproblem,althoughyouareinvitedtotry.

FT:If I fizzed "flat-earthly," andyou fizzed "round-earthly,"wouldyouarguethatyoudon'tholdyourviewbecauseit'struebut"ratherbecauseof a series of chemical reactions"? Would your "round-earthism" thendestroy rationality and science? There is a truth in the theism-atheismcontroversy.The fact thatnoone can establish that truth to everyone'ssatisfaction doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist. So I'll repeat my

challenge. What IQ level is necessary to abstract moral concepts? Todiscovermoraltruths?Let'staketheAmalekitemassacre(1Sam.15:2-3).Howmuch intelligence is needed to determine that nomorally perfectentitycouldhaveorderedtheslaughterofchildrenandbabies?

DW:"Thereistruthinthetheism-atheismcontroversy."Amen.Youareabletosaysobecauseyouassumethattruthisobjective.Again,youbet.Butobjectivetruthcannotbevalidlyderivedfromthepremisesofyourworldview.YouareborrowingobjectiverationalityandmoralityfromtheChristianworldviewinordertoattacktherationalityandmoralityoftheChristianworldview.TherewasamoralproblemintheAmalekiteattack--Saulwasdisobedientanddidn'tkilleverythingasGodinstructed.Youshould have no objection. Given your worldview, there is no moraldifference between the Amalekitemassacre and a day at the beach. Inbothcases,allyouhaveisatomsbangingaround.

FT:IftheAmalekitechildrenwhowerekilledwithIsraelitespearscouldspeak,wouldtheysaytherewasanydifferenceinwhathappenedtothemandadayatthebeach?Youknowtheywould.WhatIQlevelwouldtheyneed to distinguish the difference? You have evaded the issue longenough, so why don't you tell us how much intelligence is needed toformulateabstractionsofbeauty, loyalty, justice,etc.?Without a godofbeauty, can one validly determine that a sunset is beautiful? If so,whycan't one determine that acts are immoral without a god of morality?Truth is objective because of reality, not because some deity arbitrarilydecideswhattruthis.

DW:Well of course, you and theAmalekite childrenmayassert someobjectivemoral distinction between good and evil. But given the basicassumptions of your worldview, neither of you can justify thatdistinction.Onyourassumptions ,thechancecollectionofatomscalledJewsobjectedtotheHolocaust;therandomatomscalledNazisdidnot.Andsowhat?Givenatheism,whatisthedifference?Dothegoodatomswear white hats? Your persevering but irrelevant inquiries aboutintelligence reveal that you do not yet understand the nature of theproblem. Objective and universal standards of reason, morality, andbeauty simply cannot exist in your purely material world. You are

fightingChristianitywithborrowedChristianweapons.

FT:WhenhaveIsaidthat"objectivemorality"exists?Itdoesn't.Tosaythatobjectivemoralitydoesn'texist,however,isnottosaythatmoralitydoesn't exist. Rational processes can validly distinguish "good" from"evil" just as they can validly distinguish happiness from sorrow, but Ican'texplainin115wordshowthiscanbedone.Ifyoucaretodebatethisinalessconfiningforumthanyour"Disputatio" format, thenlet'sdo it.Meanwhile,why don't you explain where your objectivemorality camefrom?Ifyousay,"FromGod,"thenpleaseexplainwherehecamefrom.No theisthassuccessfullyaddressed this problem, but you're invited totry.Trytorememberthatyou'retheasserter.

DW:Ifmorality isnotobjective, thenit issubjective. If it issubjective,then it is as diverse as five billion subjective states of mind. Suchfragmentedsubjectivityprovidesnoauthoritativeethicalvoice,andhenceno morality deserving of the name. Related to this, you must nowdisclaim"objectiverationality"aswellas"objectivemorality,"forthetwoarebuiltonthesamefoundation--orrather,inyourworldview,notbuilton the samenon-foundation. But if objective rationality does not exist,thenyourworldviewdoesnotpermityoutoreasonforthreewords inarow,muchless115.ThelawsoflogicareasnonmaterialastheGodyousodiligentlyoppose.

FT:Are you arguing that subjectivism cannot determine truth? If so,reality will not support your claim. You keep harping about myworldview, so please address the many problems in your "worldview."Wheredid"objective"realitycomefrom?FromGod?Well,wheredidhecomefrom?Howcanonedeterminewhat"objective"morality is?Fromthe Bible? If so, a lot of subjectivism will be involved in reading andinterpretingit.Lookingfor"objective"moralityintheBiblewillproduceamorality"asdiverseas5billionsubjectivestatesofmind."Ifnot,whynot?"Suchfragmentedsubjectivity"willprovide"noauthoritativeethicalvoice" and so "nomorality deserving of the name." Please address thisissue.

DW:Reality doesn't supportmy claim?Would this be your reality or

mine?Wouldthisbesubjectiveorobjectivereality?Ifsubjective, thenIdon'tthinkicecreamhasboneseither.Ifobjective,thenyouwouldhavetoidentify(anddefend)theauthoritativevoicethroughwhichthisrealityspeaks. Of course, I am arguing (and have shown) that subjectivismdestroys truth. The fact that you have in effect embraced subjectivismmeansthatthedebateovertheexistenceofGodisover,andwearenowdiscussing certain problems that arise from an affirmation of Hisexistence.Havingshownthatatheismisinescapablyfalse,Iamhappytoturntotheproblemsyouraise.Nextround.

FT: You've been a master of evasion. You assert the existence of"objective"morality,butyouhaveevadedall challenges toprove that itexists.Nothingexists--notevenyourgod--simplybecauseitwouldbenice if it did exist. In your final installment, please address this issue.How do you know that "objective" morality exists? Where did itoriginate?IfyousayfromGod,pleaseprovethatGodexists.If"objective"moralityisrevealedintheBible,itbecomessomethinginseparablefromsubjective interpretation, so just what is the great advantage that your"worldview"hasovermine?Ifyouignorethisissueagain,I'mafraidyourevasionwillbeobvioustoall.

DW:The proof you seek has been pervasive throughout the debate. Ihavebeenpointing to the impossibilityofyouralternative.ThedebateoverGod'sexistencedoesnotfitinthesamecategoryasadebateovertheexistence of peach jam. The jam may or may not exist, leaving ourthought processes unaffected eitherway. IfGod does not exist (as thisalleged"masterofevasion"haspointedoutrepeatedlyabove), thenourthoughtprocesses(yoursandmine)areonething.IfHedoesexist,thenthey are something else entirely. The content of your affirmations hasbeen atheistic, your unacknowledged presuppositions theistic. Thismeansthat,onafundamentallevel,youandIagreethatHeis.

OriginallyappearedinCredenda/Agenda(Vol.7;No.1)

IfGodlovesallpeople,whydoeshecondemngaysjustbecausetheywere

bornwithadifferentsexualorientationthanheterosexuals?

Gaga is right.Wewere all 'born this way'. Psalm 51:5 - 'Behold, I wasbrought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.' Allhumanbeingsarebornwithapropensitytosin.Thisideafallsrightintolinewith basic Christian doctrinewhich teaches that as a result of theman's rebellion againstGod and the fall (Genesis 2-3),we are all bornintocorruption.

No one is singling out homosexuality and frankly, contrary to popularwisdom,mostChristiansdonotobsessoverthisissue.Thegospeltellsusthat none of us can change, in our own power, and each of us is in asimilar condition to the homosexual, prior to regeneration. We are allborn into bondage, a condition that we cannot change: Its called totaldepravity. By nature we are all morally impotent to obey God'scommands letalonebelieve thegospel ...yetweall remainculpable forthese transgressions (Rom 3:19, 20). If homosexuality can be exemptbecausepeopleclaimthattheyarebornthatway,thenIguessthismakesusallexemptfromrepentingofourvarioussinsthatwecannotnaturallyescapefrom.IfIambornamanofprideandabigotandcannotchangethis,doesthisexemptmefromobediencetoGodinthisarea?ShallIgiveup trying (withGod'shelp) to changemy coveting andgreedbecause Iwas bornwith such a desire? This also includes conservatives who arebigoted against people who are homosexuals. Conservatives must alsorepent of their sin of trusting in their own righteousness because Goddidn't saveChristians because theywere pure or because of somethinggoodHesawinthembutrather,becauseofHissheergrace,plusnothing.TheconservativereligionistisasequallydeservingofGod'swrathasthehomosexual,apartfromgrace.

IthinkitisclearthatScripturedoesnotconceiveofthechurch'sprimaryrole intheworldasoneofopposingpublic immoralitythroughpoliticalmeans,butthisdoesnotmeanweshouldremainneutralaboutiteither.Wewillvoteourconsciencesaccording toGod's lawbutwillnot fretorgetviolentifwedonotgetourway.TheKingdomofGodisnottheleastbit threatenedbythe lawsandsocialengineeringofmen.Consider thatthe early first and second century Christians lived in an extremelydiverse,corruptandimmoralsocietywheretheydidnothaveanyaccessto political power or influence in public policy other than throughpersuading people to believe the gospel. These early Christians did notwaste their time picketing or protesting, as we now see some doing.Shoutingmatcheswerenot their calling.Theywitnessed to thehistoricfactof the resurrection, theyprayed,worshiped,and livedpious&holylives.Indeedthiswitness,inmanycases,influencedsociety,butinmanyothercases,societywentoninitspaganism.TheseChristiansknewthatifthereweretobeavastchangeofpublicideasofmorals,itwouldhavetocomethroughthegraceofGodbythepoweroftheHolySpirit,notbyanimperialedictorjudicialruling.Lawsdoverylittletochangepeople'sthinkingorheart'sdispositiononsuchmatters.AndthereisnoevidencethatJesuswentoutofhisway to takeonanypoliticalcauses,probablybecause,inthemselves,theydohaveanypowertochangehearts.

Ofcourse,manywantedJesustobeapoliticalorganizerbutthatwasn'tHis interest (except in an eschatological sense). But that does notautomaticallymeanHe approved of the status quo.On the contrary, itsimplymeansthatthepathofJesusChristisnotidenticalwiththepathofpoliticalactivism.I thinkJesus'viewofsocietyreally tendedtogrowoutofhisviewofourindividualandcorporatealienationfromGod.Hegave a diversity of responses to our alienation, butHe did notmistakeany symptomatic aspect of our lost condition--sexual depravity, greed,poverty, war, ignorance--from the root cause and remedy of thatalienation:thegospel.

Jesus lived His life submerged in a culture of social problems andsympatheticallytendedtothoseproblems,yetheneverheldoutanyhopefor thesubstantialeradicationof thoseproblemsapart fromthegospel.The first century Christians, as revealed in the Scriptures, exemplified

radicalkindsofloveandservice,butnoneofthesemanifesteditselfasastressonpoliticalactivism.SothereisgreathopeinthedifferenceinthewayJesusviewstheactionsofaChristianfromtheromanticpossibilitiesforapoliticalutopia,whichmayrestrainsomeevilbutitselfreallyhasnopowertotransformanyone.

Frankly,Ihavealwaysviewedmoralizingcrusadeswithgreatsuspicion.Itappearstometocommitthechurchtosuchacourseofaction,whichwasneverpart of its originalpurpose, and is an attempt to accomplishsomething that must ultimately fail. The ultimate effect of merelyattempting to focus on legal change might very well be to impede thehearingoftheGospelbythosewhoneeditmost.Toputitinotherterms,we cannot minister to people if they perceive us primarily as theirpolitical enemies. I will give to you, however, that manybiblically/theologically illiterate so-calledChristians are crasslypoliticalandhostiletoallkindsofgroups.Sosurprisingasitmaysoundtoyou,amore conservative view of theology is the answer to dealing with suchignoranceandbigotry.

Thetheologicallyconservativepositionis thatChristiansshouldtakenomoreinterestinwhatgaysdointheirprivatelivesthaninwhatanyotherfallen sinner does, and that we should not distinguish ourselves byobsessingon thevarioushomosexualagendas.Ofcoursewhenwevote,wemustdowhatwethinkisbestbyBiblicalstandards.Butitisclearthathomosexuality has by no means outpaced heterosexuality in thecommitting acts of evil. I am convinced that the response ofChristiansmustincludeagreatdealmorelovegenuineacceptanceofourgayfriendsandfamily.AChristians'principledoppositiontogaymarriageoughttobeoneformofconfessinghowunworthilyweasChristianshavetreatedmarriageitself.

I think it important topointout,however, that thegeneral thinkingamongthesecularprogressivecrowdisthatitisChristianityisperverseandimmoralforplacinghomosexualityinitscatalogofsins.ThisisahugeturnaroundfromjustacoupleofdecadesagosuchthatwheneveraChristianmentionsthathomosexualacts(amongotherimmoralities) are sin, it often sends people flying into a rage ...whichreally goes to show that thosewho support homosexual unions are not

religiouslyneutral in the least.They intend tonotonlyholdapersonalpreference on the issue but force society at large to adopt a so-called"tolerant" view on the subject through re-education and judicialdeclarations.

Iwouldchallenge(thoseofyouwhobelievethis)tolookatyourownviewas it isprofoundly influencedbyyourownreligiouspresuppositions. Infact I would argue that your view that homosexuals have the right tomarry (or that we should teach school-children that it is acceptablepractice) is nomore "value-neutral" than any other religious view. Youwould impose on the collective society a view that cannot bedemonstrated to be right, except that it is your own groups' arbitrarypreference.Thefactisthatyourownparticularbeliefsonthematterareanythingbut"secular'or"neutral"fortheyareultimatelybasedonyourown underlying base commitments that you cannot ultimately accountfor,exceptbyyourownself-declaredauthority.Asecularsocietydoesn'tmeanonly"secularists"candetermineourlawsandeducationalcontent,it means that all voices have the right to debate in the free market ofideas,andmaythebestidea(s)prevail.Thisisbecausesomeone'sconceptofjustice,moralityandgoodnesswillalwaysultimatelybeimposed.Biasis something that is impossible to avoid.We are all religious creaturesandcannotrefrainfrommakingmoraljudgmentseverydayofourlives.Our deepest social problems are thus, pre-political, embedded in ourworldviews.

SoitisnaivetothinkthattheonlythingthatmakesonereligiousisthatonegoestochurchandreadstheBible.ItisdifficulttoseehowChristiansare undermore influence from their own interpretive community thanothersarefromtheirs.Thus,itseemsobvioustomethatyouenjoybeinga postmodern secularist, and the philosophy of this group has beeninfluentialonyou,butultimatelyyoujustbelievewhatyouliketobelieve.Thispreferenceisderivedfromtheansweryoufindmostsatisfactorybutisbynomeansself-validating.Itishardformetosee,therefore,howyoucan escape a kind of communal solipsism. What therefore, gives yourgroup the right to be exempt from the limitations of the "separationofchurch and state" since you appeal to an absolute authority for yourmoralsthatyoucannotaccountfor?

Itisafactthatweliveinapluralisticsociety.Butwhenpluralismstartstobecome a philosophy, or a religious dogma then it takes on newcharacteristics and couldbe characterizedby calling it somethingmoreakin to "religious pluralism." It has affirmations and denials and amissionary force. This contemporary dogmatism itself is evidence thatpostmodernism is really just ultramodern. Religious pluralism hasbecomesoopinionatedthatittendstodriveoutempiricalpluralism;itsplea for tolerance is so imperial that it is remarkably intolerant. Truetolerance, however, simultaneously argues for truth and insists peoplehave theright todisagreewithout fearofcoercion.Togiveyouabetteridea of what I mean, you often are morally outraged that someconservatives have a gall to attempt to determine for the rest of us thestandardsoursocietywilloperateon,allthewhileyousecularistsarefreeto arbitrarily determine the standards our society should operate on(because you hide under the umbrella of so-called non-religiousrelativism). There seems to be a double standard here. By calling myposition a religion you can conveniently neutralize any attempt byChristians to be involved in public policy in a society governed byseparation of church and state. Yet your own belief system (that yousomehowbelievetobeneutralandnon-religious)canhavefreereigntoalonedeterminethedirectionofoursociety.Butthereisnowaytoverifytheauthorityofyourclaimstoknowtruth.Thusyourassumptionisthatliberalreligiouspluralismdoes,ineffect,haveamonopolyonthetruth.Italone claims the vantage point from which the true relation of thereligions can be seen. This religious pluralism is already, therefore,presupposed to be the summum bonum, the god by which all otherclaimsmustbe judged.But it isa totalitarian imposition toenforce theviewthatallviewsareequallyvalid.

Most secularistsbelieve that inalmostall casescallinghomosexuality asinstemsfromadeeplyfeltanimositytowardsthemereexistenceofgays.But Isn't it possible that Christians might be for preserving ourcivilizationandlimitingcertainbehaviorsbecausetheyactually lovethepeople who are in bondage to them? Love hates what is harmful anddestructive inothers' lives.Love isnot justsentimental.WhenI seemyfriends caught in something that is ultimately harmful I come humblywithaclearattitudeof"I loveyouandamcommittedtoyoubutIcan't

stand to see what this is doing to your life." This is both true on anindividualandasocietal level. Icomemyselfasonealsobrokenbysin,not in arrogant pride or hate, for I amno better. In calling persons toleave their idols that hold them in enslavement, you may interpret ashate,butthisisreallynotthemotiveoraffectiongoingoninourhearts.Of course, I cannot speak for everyone. But those who are trulycommittedtotheirfaithdohavesuchaffection.Unbelieversneedtorepentoftheir immorality;religiouspeopleneedtorepentoftheirmorality;bothneedthegospelofJesusChrist.

Allworldviewsdoinfactinescapablyholdtoabsolutes, includingyours.ItisunavoidablebecausethisisGod'suniverse.Everytimeyouopenyourlipsandputasentencetogetherwithlogic,youarecountingonthefactthatthereareuniversals.Youarethereby"borrowing"fromasystemthatyou repudiate in order to repudiate that system.We live in a universewherelogicandmoralsareunavoidablyabsolute.ThepointIwasmakingisthatIbelieveyoursystemisunintelligiblebecauseontheonehandyoudenyabsolutes,but in theother, youemploy themwhen it seems tobeconvenient toyou.Youclaimtobearelativistyetyour lifeandpracticebetrayyourclaimwhenyoudeclare that slavery, racismbigotryagainsthomosexualsandtorturearewrongforallpeople,forexample.Eventhevery statement you make that there are no absolutes exposes theinconsistency of your position. For youmust believe that it is absolutethat there are no absolutes. Thus you are claiming to have religiousknowledgethatothersdon'thave.Itisaclaimtounderstandthenatureofrealitythatcannotbeverified.Abird'seyeviewofrealityoftheworldthat you claim to see and others cannot. So this absolute claim torelativism is a claim to know truth just like mine, except you cannotaccountforyoursbecauseitishopelesslyself-refuting,evenundersimpleanalysis. You are invoking universals to claim there are none. Thatconfusedlogicisfataltoyoursystem.

Social constructsareultimatelymeaningless. If yourview isnot true inany ultimate sense, and does not appeal to therGrandNarrative, thenyou are simply writing your own narrative in your own little corner,tryingtosomehowsuckmeaningoutofit.

BacktoMonergism.com