Search Results

In 1990, Hunter Madsen and Kirk Marshall wrote a book called, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's. The goal of the book was to change's society's views of the LGBT community and to do so by portraying sexual conservatives as deranged, evil monsters, with the LGBT community as their victims. This strategy was then implemented in movies, TV shows, books, and all sorts of mass media. It has proven to be very successful and has had the positive effect of changing people's feelings toward the LGBT community so that they are no longer treated so badly. Of course, over the decades, things have gone much further than might be expected; the LGBT community is not simply tolerated and respected, but also celebrated and glorified. There is a flip side to all this though that many people don't appreciate. You can only keep portraying sexual conservatives as deranged, evil monsters for so long, before society starts to hate and revile them. This is now what is happening. The strategy that sought to simply end the suffering of the LGBT community, is now producing suffering amongst sexual conservatives. The strategy which Madsen and Marshall implemented has become a juggernaut that just keeps rolling no matter what the actual situation is. And most sexual conservatives are quite naive about what is going on. The vast majority feel a tremendous sense of guilt about all that has happened in the past. Of course, to some degree, this is good because there have been horrible things done. Just read the first hand accounts of people like David Bennett, Christopher Yuan and Brady Cone, to see that the pain was/is real. But now things are turning and the identity of the oppressed & oppressors is switching. Unfortunately, the original narrative that Marshall and Kirk presented has become so strongly embedded that people don't realize (or, are not willing to realize) what is happening. If you're watching mainstream news, especially in a country like Canada, you will never hear about how sexual conservatives are now being treated badly. Many in this community live with a certain degree of fear that their views will be discovered and exposed. This fear is similar to the way homosexuals and transsexuals were fearful in the 20th century. I personally know of a young Canadian man who was not allowed to finish high school simply because he refused to agree with transgendered ideology. He didn't hate anyone, he just refused to deny certain biological facts. And in Finland, a Christian minister named Juhana Pohjola, has been put on trial because he published material expressing what Christians have believed about sex for thousands of years. There was no hatred in this material; in fact, it talked about the need for love and respect. But the police didn't care and he is now facing trial. Those are only two accounts of many others. Here is another account from Dr. Corey Miller and his experiences while teaching philosophy at Indiana University. Even though I typically stacked the deck with textbooks unfavorable to my position, one semester brought a new challenge. I was charged with bias and creating a suicidal environment in the classroom. How so? When the text dealt with homosexuality, it grossly misrepresented views that opposed homosexuality like the Bible or the natural law approach. In an effort to educate rather than merely indoctrinate, I offered another, more robust, perspective than the text in class that better represented the other side. But I apparently touched a sacred cow. A gay student in my class who was a former pastor reported me to the administration. He claimed that the suicide rate in the LGBT community was already high enough. He said I created an environment where he was fearing for his life. He didn’t want to become another victim. Before long I was facing a virtual administrative tribunal. This was in 2013. I brought in Alliance Defending Freedom to take my case pro bono. Ironically, I was aided by two atheist students unfriendly to my view but friendly to free thinking and free speech. These students forced the administration to listen to my lectures they’d recorded. They threatened the university that if I were unjustly punished, they’d transfer to another university that demonstrated free thought. ADF letters helped. In the end, I was exonerated. Sexual conservatives need to wake up and realize what is going on. The solution here is not to try and return to an era where the LGBT community was hated and despised. That's clearly wrong. But it is important to encourage tolerance and respect toward the many sexual conservatives who hold their views with love and kindness. They need to speak up on social media, in university classrooms, in movies, magazines, etc. about what is happening. They need to "come out of the closet" and be willing to identify as a sexual conservative. They need to speak up about the need for tolerance and respect of all people. Sexual conservatives do not consist of just evangelical Christians or conservative Catholics. This group consists of anyone who believes that sex should be enjoyed exclusively by one man and one woman in the context of marriage. This community includes Orthodox Jews, Sikhs, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, agnostics, the non-religious and many others. There certainly are some people in these groups that are hateful and vile. Those people need to be exposed, criticized and condemned. But for the many others who are peaceful, kind and tolerant; they need to ask for the same kind of tolerance and respect that the LGBT community sought in the 1990s and beyond. We need a world in which both the LGBT community, and the community of sexual conservatives, are treated with love, respect and fairness. But it will take a lot of brave people who are willing to stick their necks out, before this really happens. Sources Book by Hunter Madsen and Kirk Marshall. After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's Shorter article by Madsen and Marshall expressing their ideas in summary form. Note that Hunter Madsen wrote under the pseudonym of "Erastes Pill." THE OVERHAULING OF STRAIGHT AMERICA Finish Pastor, Juhana Pohjola, who was arrested by the police. In Case With Global Implications, Finland Puts Christians On Trial For Their Faith Dr. Corey Miller's experiences. I was forced out of my PhD program because of my open faith in Jesus Christ. Here’s my story. David Bennett A War of Loves: The Unexpected Story of a Gay Activist Discovering Jesus Christopher Yuan Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son's Journey to God. A Broken Mother's Search for Hope. Brady Cone The Gay Agenda & the Wrong Side of Hate

It is not uncommon for people to pit faith against science; as if the two are on opposite ends of a spectrum. Faith is put on the irrational side and science is put on the rational side. But that doesn’t match the way science actually functions. The fact is, science also requires a certain element of faith. But it's not an irrational faith, it's a reasonable faith. For example, scientists have faith in the assumption that nature is ordered in a certain rational, mathematical and intelligible manner. Dr. Paul Davies is a theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and professor at Arizona State University. He has noted the following. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn't be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified. Just as science functions on a rational faith, religion can too. For more on this, check out the many blogs and articles on worldviewsummit.org. Learn More Short Blog: Constants in Laws of Physics Point to God Reference Davies, Paul. “Opinion | Taking Science on Faith.” The New York Times, November 24, 2007, sec. Opinion. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html.

The idea of a literal, eternal hell is not something that modern people regard with respect. In fact, the very notion that hell could exist is usually regarded with derision and scorn. And those who believe it is real are often regarded as religious zealots who accept superstitious nonsense. Jesus’ View on Hell But I believe hell is real. I’m convinced it is real because Jesus believed hell was real and I trust Jesus more than anyone else. Jesus divided humanity into two groups and he declared that one group would face “eternal life” while the other would face “eternal punishment” (Matt 25:46). Jesus repeatedly warned people of hell’s reality and he told them that they needed to do everything they could to avoid going there. In Luke 16: 19-31 Jesus gave an account about a poor man named Lazarus and an unnamed rich man. After both men died, Lazarus was in a place of “comfort” but the rich man was in “agony.” The rich man longed for even a “drop of water” to cool his tongue. In other parts of the Gospels, Jesus reiterated how horrible this place of suffering would be. He warned people that it would be better to cut off one of their hands or feet rather than to be thrown into hell (Mark 9:43-48). He also said that it would be a place of eternal fire (Matt 18:8), where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 8:12). Jesus’ descriptions are very graphic and his warnings are severe. Justice of Eternal Hell So why are so many people, including professed followers of Jesus, so scornful of hell? Much of it has to do with the apparent injustice of the idea. For how can anyone do anything to deserve such serious punishment for all of eternity? Surely a million years, or even a trillion years, would pay for any and every sin? How can God be loving and yet subject people to such cruelty? An eternity in hell just seems so horrific; it makes God seem like a moral monster. I understand this objection and am sympathetic to it. I certainly don’t like the idea of hell and I wish no one would go there. But what I like and wish for does not determine reality. Not only that but an eternal hell is actually justified when we take into account all of the relevant moral factors. I explain this in another article you can read here. The moral justification for an eternal hell is important, but there is another issue that is also worth examining. That is, even though hell should be eternal, does it have to be that way? Are there any other possibilities? Traditional Annihilationism is Wrong Some Christians believe hell will not be eternal. In fact, they don’t think anyone will go to hell because all the damned will actually have their souls annihilated. In other words, those condemned to hell will simply cease to exist. But this view, known as annihilationism, has certain Bible verses which stand against it. For example, in Matthew 25:46 Jesus says that those who lived in disobedience “will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (NIV) There is a parallel here between what the righteous and the unrighteous experience in eternity. So it’s unwarranted to conclude that one group will experience eternal conscious bliss while the other group will no longer even exist. Furthermore, the text says that the wicked will experience “eternal punishment,” but how can they be punished if they do not even exist? Another relevant passage is found in Revelation 20:10 where it says, “And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” To be sure, this verse is not about the fate of the majority of ordinary human beings; it’s about what will happen to the devil, the “false prophet,” and the “beast.” (The false prophet and beast are described in other parts of the book of Revelation.) However, this passage clearly shows that at least some finite beings (e.g. the devil) will suffer for all of eternity. Furthermore, other passages in scripture draw a connection between the fate of wicked humans and the fate of the devil in this “lake” of great suffering (Matt 25:41, Rev. 14:11, 19:20, 20:15). Given these connections, it’s safe to infer that the Bible teaches the eternal punishment of both the devil and ordinary human beings. Another Possibility - Mercy So although the Bible does not support annihilationism, there is still another factor to consider. There is the possibility that when the final judgment occurs, all those who will inherit eternal life may decide to intercede on behalf of the damned (i.e. those destined for eternal hell) and plead for God’s mercy on them. Of course, there is nothing in scripture that says God will be merciful. But there is also nothing in scripture that says God will not be merciful. There are also several passages in the Bible which show that God is merciful when people ask him for mercy. One good example of this is found in Exodus 32. This passage occurs after the Israelites have left Egypt and arrived at Mt. Sinai. They have been given God’s laws telling them not to worship idols, and the elders of Israel have agreed to follow those laws. But not long after this covenant is established, the Israelites disobey God and worship a golden calf. When God sees their disobedience, he declares that he will destroy the people and create a new nation through Moses. In the NIV translation it records him speaking to Moses and saying, “Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation” (verse 10). Notice that God did not allow for any exception to what he proclaimed was about to happen. There is no record of God telling Moses that he would be willing to show mercy if asked. God simply tells Moses to “leave [him] alone” and declares the future - that he will destroy the Israelites. So what does Moses do in response? Ironically, he does not follow God’s instructions; he does not “leave [God] alone.” Instead he decides to intercede on behalf of the condemned people and plead for mercy. Then, instead of rebuking Moses for his disobedience, God actually answers his prayer. The Bible records that, “the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.” This passage of scripture is quite intriguing because other parts of the Bible declare that God is “not human, that he should lie… [or] change his mind.” (Num 23:19). And it is clear from reading the Bible as a whole that God does not change his mind whenever it involves blessing us and being gracious to us. His promises to us are secure. Yet God is willing to change his mind when it comes to punishment. He is willing to change his mind when it is a matter of mercy. Another example of this is found in the book of Jonah. Through the prophet Jonah, God tells the people of Nineveh that he will destroy them in 40 days. But then the people repent and God changes his mind; he does not bring about the punishment that he said he would bring about. A third example is found in Isaiah 38 when God tells King Hezekiah that he will soon die of an illness. But when Hezekiah prays for mercy, God changes his mind and allows him to live longer. Of course, all of God’s “changing his mind” is from a human perspective; from God’s perspective there is no real change of mind. God knows exactly when we will ask him for mercy and how he will respond. However, we do not know when this will happen; we only find out about it after the fact. So from our perspective, God changes his mind. Judgment Day Given the precedents found in scripture, it seems entirely possible that something similar could happen at the final judgment. Of course, there is no indication in scripture that this will actually happen. As noted at the beginning, Jesus said that hell is real and that those who do not believe in him will end up there. Revelation 20:15 says that, “Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.” But despite what these passages say, it’s still possible that God could change his mind. He could change his mind at the final judgment just as he changed his mind at Mt. Sinai and in other parts of the Bible. Given this, no one can know for certain what will happen. But given the prior precedents, it seems entirely possible that God might display mercy. It’s possible that the righteous will intercede on behalf of the damned and that God would change his mind. Exactly how God displays his mercy is unclear. He might annihilate the damned after some time in hell. Perhaps the damned will suffer in hell for a million years, or a trillion years, and then they will be annihilated. Or perhaps they will be instantly annihilated immediately after judgment. Or perhaps there will be no mercy whatsoever and the damned will suffer for all eternity, just as the Bible says. God does not have to show mercy and maybe the nature of the final judgment might not allow for it. No one can say for certain because only God knows when and how he will act. But the mere possibility of this is something that we can hope for. Conclusion Hell is not a popular idea. It is often ignored, or simply treated with derision and scorn. But it is something that Jesus took very seriously. He warned people against the horror of hell and invited them to escape hell by following him. Although some people think the Bible supports annihilationism, there are biblical passages that count against it. However, it is still possible that God might show mercy on the day of judgment. We cannot know that this will happen, but we can hope that it might.

The notion of hell is not a popular idea. Those who regard themselves as scientifically informed and morally enlightened, usually regard hell as something that belongs to the superstitious and religious past. For these atheists, agnostics, and “progressive Christians” it might be understandable how people in the Medieval Era could succumb to such nonsense, but why anyone would take hell seriously today, is simply baffling. Moral Objection Sometimes this attitude is simply absorbed from society in a passive way. Many people do not take hell seriously because they just don’t know anyone else who takes it seriously. Why get worked up about something when no one else finds it credible? But for those who do stop to think about hell, they often object to it based on it’s perceived lack of moral credibility. How is it, they reason, that God could punish someone for all eternity when no one has done anything worthy of such punishment? A generally accepted moral principle is that the punishment should fit the crime. Yet what could anyone do that was so heinous as to deserve an eternity in hell? Certainly some evils are worse than other evils and they could therefore deserve a greater punishment. But what could anyone do that was infinitely evil and therefore worthy of an infinite punishment? Perhaps a sadistic mass murderer might deserve to be in hell for a very, very long time. Maybe the devil, as the epitome of all evil, deserves to be there for even longer; perhaps trillions upon trillions of years. But even this pales in comparison to all of eternity. Given that the Bible describes the devil as a finite being of limited power, how could he possibly commit an infinite wrong worthy of infinite punishment? There hasn’t even been an infinite amount of time in which he could do an infinite number of wrongs. Not even the devil seems worthy of infinite punishment. Another Moral Principle Given this very reasonable objection, what should be made of the Bible’s teaching that the suffering in hell will be eternal? For example, in Matthew 25:46 Jesus says that those who lived in disobedience to him “will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (NIV) How can this be inspired by a God who is perfectly just, all knowing, and entirely good? What people fail to take into account is that God’s perfect goodness includes not just love but also justice. God is perfectly just and therefore his justice takes into account all of the relevant moral factors. We are imperfect, limited in knowledge, and do not appreciate how limited we are. Unsurprisingly, there is another important factor that most people miss when they make their moral evaluation of hell. The severity of a wrong is determined by, not just the type of wrong done, but also by who (or what) the wrong is done against. To understand this point further consider the following. The vast majority of people regard murder as a great evil. But if someone kills a mosquito or a bacterium, almost everyone recognizes that that is not evil. In fact, many people would even consider it to be good. On the other hand, people recognize that killing a dog or a horse is quite different. Depending on who you ask, the moral status of this act will vary. Some people think it is always wrong while others regard it as morally neutral given the right circumstances. But despite this variation, virtually everyone can recognize that it is more serious to kill dogs and horses in comparison to killing mosquitoes and bacteria. Lastly, compare these acts to the murder of an innocent human being. There is certainly a vast difference between killing bacteria and murdering humans. What is this difference based in? The act is the same - killing. The moral difference lies in who the act is done against. The more valuable the being, the greater the moral severity in killing. It is this moral principle that people forget when considering hell. In order to appreciate what punishment people deserve, we need to keep in mind that anyone condemned to hell is sent there because of his or her sin against a being of far greater value than any bacteria, mosquito, dog, horse or human. Every created being, including humans, are of finite value. But God is a unique being of infinite value and infinite worth. Therefore when we sin against him we are committing an infinite wrong. And an infinite wrong deserves an infinite punishment. Hence hell’s eternal duration is entirely appropriate. Denying this fact means that we are denying the infinite worth of God. Failure to Worship There is another objection that often arises once people realize this other moral principle. This other objection is more of a question. It asks, how have we done anything against God? As an all-powerful and all-knowing spiritual being, we can’t kill God, or rape him, or steal his money, or physically abuse him. Since he is perfect, we can't harm him in any way. And given that we can’t harm him, how can we possibly sin against him so that we are worthy of any sort of punishment? It’s true that we can’t hurt God in the same way we can hurt other human beings, but we can harm God in another way. The God of the Bible is passionate for his glory. And since he is passionate for glory, he cares about whether people worship him as he deserves. Worship has many facets to it but it includes giving the appropriate praise, honour and thanks. When we fail to praise, honour and thank God, we are wronging him. This might seem strange but it is not that different from us. We also care whether we receive the appropriate amount of praise, honour and thanks. For example, if a woman sings beautifully before a packed audience, and people refuse to applaud her as she deserves, she is wronged. Whatever the audience's motivation - be it racism, or sexism, or some other reason - the woman deserves the appropriate amount of praise that matches the quality of her performance. If she does not receive it, she is wronged. The same thing is true for someone who should be thanked. If someone buys you a coffee, or gives you a car, or saves your life, he deserves an appropriate amount of thanks in return. If he doesn’t receive it, he’s wronged. Lastly, people in authority over us - teachers, professors, bosses, parents, kings and queens - all deserve the appropriate amount of honour and respect. When they don’t receive what they deserve, they are also wronged. People deserve the appropriate amount of praise, honour and thanks. When we fail to give that to them, we are wronging them. This moral principle also applies to God. As the most fantastic being in all of existence, he deserves much more than a round of applause for singing well. He deserves our highest and greatest praise. As the source of every good thing we experience, he deserves our highest and greatest thanks. And as the being with the greatest authority, he deserves the highest honour and respect. God deserves the highest praise, greatest thanks and the most honour. In other words, God deserves our worship. When we fail to give that to him - as we all have - we wrong him. How serious is this wrong? How serious is it when we fail to worship God as he deserves? This failure might not seem like a big deal. When we fail to praise, thank or honour someone, it does not seem very serious. And if someone wanted to punish us eternally as a result, we would regard them as moral monsters. The punishment would be completely disproportionate to the wrong committed. However, we need to keep in mind our previously established moral principle. The severity of a wrong is determined, not just by the act committed, but also by who the wrong is done against; the more valuable the being, the more serious the wrong. And since God is infinitely valuable, a wrong against him is an infinite wrong. So our failure to worship God is not some mere minor infraction. It is the worst possible thing we could do. It is worse than torturing and murdering hundreds of people. It is worse than committing a genocide or a holocaust. It is more evil than we can imagine. And therefore we deserve to be punished in hell for all eternity. Hell is not an excessive punishment. It is entirely appropriate. We have a hard time accepting this because we don’t appreciate just how great God is. He is more glorious, more wonderful, than we can possibly imagine. He is infinitely valuable. To deny the justice of hell, is to deny the infinite value and glory of God. There is more to our sin against God than what we have examined here. But our sin does include our failure to give God our greatest praise, thanks and honour. The Bible explains that all of us are guilty before God. All of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). So how can we possibly be made right before God? How can we possibly escape the fires of hell? Given that we have all sinned against God and have therefore all committed this infinite evil, what hope is there? We cannot make up for our infinite evil by doing a finite amount of good. We can never do enough nice things to enough human beings in order to make things right. Finite goods, done a finite number of times, can never equal an infinite wrong. Our only hope is for an infinite good that can make up for our infinite wrong. That is essentially what Jesus has done for us in his death on the cross. Conclusion Modern people don’t like the idea of hell. It strikes them as barbaric and morally repugnant. What could anyone possibly do so as to deserve eternal hell? Not even the devil seems to deserve that much punishment. But hell does make sense when we remember that the severity of a moral wrong is determined not just by the act done but also by who the wrong is done against. God is a being of infinite value and therefore a wrong against him is an infinite wrong. All of us have wronged God because we have failed to worship him as he deserves. So all of us deserve to go to hell for all of eternity. That is the bad news; the good news is that God has made it possible for us to be forgiven and restored to him. All we need to do is accept God’s gift of salvation and repent of our sins against him.

Are Christians guilty of colonialism and imperialism? There definitely were many grievous times in history when representatives of the Christian religion did great harm to societies. And while this needs to be acknowledged, there are also a few other important points to keep in mind. First, just because some people claimed to be Christians does not mean they actually were. Many people claim to follow a particular religion simply because their parents were adherents, and not because they have decided for themselves. Jesus made it clear that following him requires genuine repentance and a commitment to make him the Lord of one’s life (Luke 9:23, 14:33). And even if someone has made this commitment, that does not mean he is acting in full accord with Jesus' teaching. Jesus emphasized compassion and love for the vulnerable, poor, and those who were condemned by "respectable" society. Second, it’s worth noting that there has also been a lot of harm done by non-Christian societies as well. For example, Muslim colonists, Mongol colonists, Japanese colonists and Chinese colonists (to name just a few) have done extraordinary damage to the cultures they have conquered. This includes not just "cultural genocide" but even mass slaughter of the people they conquered. This does not justify what Christians have done but it is worth noting because it helps correct the perception that “Christian societies” have been particularly vile relative to other societies. Third, in the past few hundred years, many Protestant-Christian missionaries did a lot of work to protect the cultures, property and lives of the people they encountered. They also left long-lasting positive impacts on the societies they encountered. This is a fact that is often ignored by mainstream academia and the mainstream media. But it is backed by the pioneering work of Dr. Robert Woodberry, who has had his work accepted by secular peers despite a great deal of skepticism. For example, Robin Grier, Professor of Economics and International & Area Studies at the University of Oklahoma, commented on Dr. Woodberry’s findings. I'm not religious. I never felt really comfortable with the idea of [mission work]; it seemed cringe-worthy. Then I read Bob's work. I thought, Wow, that's amazing. They left a long legacy. It changed my views and caused me to rethink. Learn More Short Blog: Pastor Comments on Christians in Politics External Article: 5 Groups of Outcasts That Jesus Loved External Video (below): Robert Woodberry | The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy Reference Andrea Palpant Dilley, “The Surprising Discovery About Those Colonialist, Proselytizing Missionaries,” ChristianityToday.com, January 8, 2014, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/january-february/world-missionaries-made.html.

Atheists, such as the late Christopher Hitchens, have argued that “religion poisons everything.” Religion, he claimed, made the world worse, not better. If only people would abandon religion and champion science, so the thinking went, humanity could flourish to a much greater extent. This attitude, which is common amongst atheists and skeptics of religions, fails to appreciate that the real problem is not religion but rather our corrupt human nature. If religion was eradicated, people would still express the sin in their hearts through other means. Science, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad. It is simply a tool by which people can learn about the world around us. However, given the evil desires of the human heart, it can (and has) been used to cause harm. This provides evidence that the real problem is not "religion" but rather the human heart. One example of this is how science was used, by those who rejected religion, to promote racism. The intellectual historian, John Gray, describes one such example in the German biologist Ernst Haeckel and how he promoted scientific racism in his book The Riddle of the Universe. This book, and the ideas they promoted, helped provide the environment which later allowed Nazi ideology to flourish. In 1929, the Thinker’s Library, a series established by the Rationalist Press Association to advance secular thinking and counter the influence of religion in Britain, published an English translation of the German biologist Ernst Haeckel’s 1899 book The Riddle of the Universe. Celebrated as “the German Darwin”, Haeckel was one of the most influential public intellectuals of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; The Riddle of the Universe sold half a million copies in Germany alone, and was translated into dozens of other languages. Hostile to Jewish and Christian traditions, Haeckel devised his own “religion of science” called Monism, which incorporated an anthropology that divided the human species into a hierarchy of racial groups. Though he died in 1919, before the Nazi Party had been founded, his ideas, and widespread influence in Germany, unquestionably helped to create an intellectual climate in which policies of racial slavery and genocide were able to claim a basis in science. Learn More Short Blog: Should Science Exclude the Supernatural? Reference John Gray, “What Scares the New Atheists,” The Guardian, March 3, 2015, sec. World News, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/what-scares-the-new-atheists.

Many people object to the truth of Christianity by pointing out that one’s religious beliefs largely depend on the family and society that one is raised in. For example, Dr. Philip Kitcher highlights this issue. How can a devout person, deeply convinced of some specific, substantive doctrine – the claim that the world is the creation of single, personal deity, say – come to terms with this predicament? [i.e. the influence of the surrounding society upon him] To face it clearly is to recognize that if, by some accident of early childhood, he had been transported to some distinct culture, brought up among aboriginal Australians, for example, he would now affirm a radically different set of doctrines… The implication of this reality, at least according to atheists like Kitcher, is that all religions are false. However, does this necessarily follow? The respected Christian philosopher, Dr. Alvin Plantinga, points out that the same societal influences used to dismiss religion can also be used to dismiss atheism. Is atheism false simply because atheists are affected by their society? True, if I had been brought up as an Australian aboriginal, I would probably not hold the religious beliefs I do hold; no doubt I would not so much as have heard of those beliefs. But, once more, isn't the same true for Kitcher? If he had been brought up as an Australian aborigine, he would not have held the philosophical and religious beliefs he does hold -- including his skeptical beliefs about religion. Although people are influenced by their family and society, this does not determine that any religion is false. Christianity can still be true despite Kitcher’s observation. Learn More Short Blog: Tertullian Prided Himself in Believing Because it Was "Absurd"? References Philip Kitcher, Life after Faith: The Case for Secular Humanism, The Terry Lectures (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 8. Alvin Plantinga, Review of Review of Life After Faith: The Case for Secular Humanism, by Philip Kitcher, January 1, 2015, https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/life-after-faith-the-case-for-secular-humanism/.

Are demons real? The Bible presents Jesus as casting out evil spirits and quite often these passages are regarded with great skepticism. Science, we are told, disproves such fantastic stories. But not all “men of science” are skeptical of such accounts. Richard Gallagher is a board-certified psychiatrist and a professor of clinical psychiatry at New York Medical College. His experiences with demonically afflicted individuals have convinced him that they really do exist. In The Washington Post, he described his experiences and explained his conclusions. I’m a man of science and a lover of history; after studying the classics at Princeton, I trained in psychiatry at Yale and in psychoanalysis at Columbia... Is it possible to be a sophisticated psychiatrist and believe that evil spirits are, however seldom, assailing humans? Most of my scientific colleagues and friends say no, because of their frequent contact with patients who are deluded about demons, their general skepticism of the supernatural, and their commitment to employ only standard, peer-reviewed treatments that do not potentially mislead (a definite risk) or harm vulnerable patients. But careful observation of the evidence presented to me in my career has led me to believe that certain extremely uncommon cases can be explained no other way. What is that led Gallagher to conclude that "demonic possession" really does occur? …I believe I’ve seen the real thing. Assaults upon individuals are classified either as “demonic possessions” or as the slightly more common but less intense attacks usually called “oppressions.” A possessed individual may suddenly, in a type of trance, voice statements of astonishing venom and contempt for religion, while understanding and speaking various foreign languages previously unknown to them. The subject might also exhibit enormous strength or even the extraordinarily rare phenomenon of levitation. (I have not witnessed a levitation myself, but half a dozen people I work with vow that they’ve seen it in the course of their exorcisms.) He or she might demonstrate “hidden knowledge” of all sorts of things — like how a stranger’s loved ones died, what secret sins she has committed, even where people are at a given moment. These are skills that cannot be explained except by special psychic or preternatural ability. Gallagher is clear that there are plenty of fake and false accounts of demonic activity. However, he argues that it is irrational to accept the many credible accounts of individuals who attest to their reality. …As a psychoanalyst, a blanket rejection of the possibility of demonic attacks seems less logical, and often wishful in nature, than a careful appraisal of the facts. As I see it, the evidence for possession is like the evidence for George Washington’s crossing of the Delaware. In both cases, written historical accounts with numerous sound witnesses testify to their accuracy. Learn More Short Blog: Intelligent People take Demonic Possession Seriously? Reference Richard Gallagher, “As a Psychiatrist, I Diagnose Mental Illness. Also, I Help Spot Demonic Possession.,” Washington Post, July 1, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/01/as-a-psychiatrist-i-diagnose-mental-illness-and-sometimes-demonic-possession/.

Michael Brown was a “good Jewish boy” who grew up in New York City. But by the time he was a teenager, he had ambitions to be a rock star and was doing hard drugs. One night he took enough mescaline for thirty people. His friends thought it was a big joke and sent him home on a bus, but on the way, he became delirious and got off too soon. Finding himself in a state of intense mental torment, he decided to throw himself in front of the next car that came by. What happened next almost ended his life. Within minutes, a car came racing around the corner. I jumped into the road directly in front of the car and threw my hands in the air. The car came to a screeching halt just inches from my body. It was my parents!... They came looking for me. They were ready to stop at that very corner. If it had been any other car I would have been killed. Around the same time as this brush with death, Michael’s drug-friends had started going to a nearby church because they were interested in certain girls there. He didn’t like what they were up to and so he decided to visit it in order to draw them away. However, he hadn’t counted on the great love he would experience from the people and found that he couldn’t pull them (or himself!) away easily. One night the pastor invited anyone who was interested, to commit their life to following Jesus Christ. To his surprise, Michael found himself accepting the invitation! This brought about a complete change in his life; he stopped using drugs and was consumed with a passion to follow his new Saviour. The only problem was that Jews were not supposed to be Christians! A number of rabbis soon challenged his newfound faith and Michael found himself wanting to study the Bible in the original languages in order to defend himself better. After completing a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages from New York University, he went on to teach at several universities, engage in public debates with many prominent rabbis, author a five-volume series called Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, and become one of the premier defenders of Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah for the Jewish people. Learn More Short Blog: Atheists Who Claimed to Have Religion External Video (below): Best of Broadcast: My Story from LSD to PHD

“Why do you believe that Christianity is true?” That was the question that Abdu Murray would ask Christians as he grew up in the USA. Starting in middle school, Abdu was passionate about Islam and sought to convert those around him to his religion. About ninety percent of the time, the response he received was something like, “Well, I guess it's because I was raised Christian.” He would then respond by asking, “Do you really think that’s a good reason to base your eternal destiny on?” Many times that, and subsequent questions, would put enough doubts into people’s hearts that a vacuum would be created; and into that vacuum, Abdu would insert Islam. One day Abdu met two “annoying” Christians who didn’t respond like everyone else. These Christians – Dave and Peter – were annoying because they actually had responses to his challenges. Time after time, they would return to talk with him and when they didn’t know how to respond, they would seek out the answers. Eventually, in his determination to silence them, Abdu got a Bible and started reading it. He was absolutely certain that it was corrupt and couldn’t be trusted. But then he read Luke 3:8 where John the Baptist challenges those who were trusting in their ancestry for their salvation: “And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.” Suddenly Abdu realized that although he had asked many other people why they believed, he had never really considered it himself. He was trusting his own Islamic authorities and the traditions he had received without critically evaluating them. This cracked a door open in Abdu’s mind and he slowly started evaluating all religions, including his own, to see which one was true. As Abdu studied, learned, and thought, he started to realize that Christianity had much more going for it than he had been willing to admit. Eventually, he became intellectually convinced that the gospel was true but his heart wasn’t willing to budge. As he considered why he felt this way, he realized that he did not want to pay the price of converting. Nevertheless, God’s Spirit continued to work and today Abdu is a follower of Jesus. As a result, he has become passionate to tell others about the life, death, and resurrection of his Saviour. Learn More Short Blog: Leaving Islam to Follow Another Radical - Mosab Hassan Yousef External Video (below): Abdu Murray's 2017 Testimony

Scientists have discovered that our universe displays an incredible degree of fine-tuning. This fine-tuning, found in the laws of physics, makes it possible for life to exist. And it is so improbable that it strongly implies God designed the universe. Unsurprisingly, atheists reject this conclusion and their best alternative explanation is to claim that a multitude of other universes (i.e. a multiverse) exist. And if this multiverse exists, then the probability that the fine-tuning of our universe exists by chance alone becomes far more probable. However, the problem with this alternative is that it explains too much. It not only makes it possible to explain away the fine-tuning (i.e. design) of the laws of physics but also of all the design within the universe; including the design clearly produced by human beings. The reasoning behind this goes as follows. Given a multitude of universes, it’s possible that in some of these universes computers, cars, sculptures, books, and essays all come to exist purely by chance. And if this could happen in other universes, it could just as much happen in our own. So how could we ever know whether anything was produced by chance or by design? Dr. Hugh Ross earned his Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto. He has spent a lifetime studying the intersection of science, philosophy, and religion. In the following passage, he expresses his thoughts on this issue. But there is a fatal problem with appealing to the multiverse to explain away the need for a divine Designer; the same appeal can be invoked to explain away the need for human designers. The multiverse, in the form that nontheists propose, not only explains away God’s design, it also explains away all human designs. For example, in an infinite number of universes where all conceivable variations on the features of the universes are manifested, there could be an infinite number of planets just like Earth. And on those infinite number of Earth-like planets there could be an infinite number of trees that shed pieces of white bark indistinguishable from 8.5 x 11-inch sheets of paper. These pieces of white bark could fall upon soil containing chemicals that could imprint random ink-like markings on the pieces of bark. Inevitably there will be sets of bark pieces that possess imprinted markings identical to all the research papers published by all the nontheistic research scientists in the world. If we are to recognize that some things, such as research papers, are created and designed by humans, then there cannot be a vast number of universes out there. But if there is no great multiverse, then the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the laws of physics is that God is responsible for it. Learn More Short Blog: If Intelligent Design is not "Scientific" does that Mean it's Wrong? Reference Hugh Ross, “Does the Multiverse Explain Too Much?,” Reasons to Believe (blog), May 8, 2017, https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2017/05/09/does-the-multiverse-explain-too-much.

When Charles Darwin published his landmark book The Origin of Species, he recognized that the burden of proof was on him if he was going to explain the evident design of biological life apart from the actions of an intelligent mind. And this he sought to do by providing an explanation for how species originated through the process of natural selection. Darwin’s theory eventually gained great acceptance throughout the scientific community but there was one area that Darwin did not even attempt to provide any kind of plausible explanation for – the origin of the first replicating cell. This was, and is, a very important piece of the puzzle; for if natural selection is to act, there must first be some type of replicating organism that natural selection can act upon. And since, as Darwin recognized, the burden of proof lies on those who argue against the idea of Intelligent Design, this has prompted a significant amount of research by the scientific community. An article in Scientific American was published in 2011 and titled “Pssst! Don't Tell the Creationists, but Scientists Don't Have a Clue How Life Began”. It notes that so far, the scientific community has failed to discover any plausible explanation for life’s origin. The situation is so desperate that some scientists are arguing that life was intentionally placed here by aliens from outer space. The author notes, …some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out—literally—speculation… that aliens came to Earth in a spaceship and planted the seeds of life here billions of years ago. This notion is called directed panspermia. Although the article rejects the idea of Intelligent Design (ID) (and it certainly rejects the idea that the designer could have been God) the fact remains that the burden of proof lies on those who deny ID. And given the scientific community's failure to explain the origin of the first replicating organism, this burden has yet to be met. Learn More Short Blog: Opposition to Big Bang Theory Because of Theistic Implications Reference John Horgan, “Pssst! Don’t Tell the Creationists, but Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began,” Scientific American Blog Network (blog), February 28, 2011, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/.