Quite possibly the worst atheist argument out there

One of the silliest excuses for an argument raised by historically inept atheists is to question the actual existance of Jesus of Nazereth as an actual, historical figure. I've encountered this complete nonsense line of questioning before and I personally find it to be staggeringly dishonest. If youre going to deny the existance of Jesus Christ, then you might as well through out all of recorded history if that is your standard.

Proving the old adage that even a stuck clock is right twice a day, I actually find myself in complete agreement with a piece that appeared in The Huffington Post yesterday. Craig S. Keener does a masterful job of carving up this canard and I love how he does it...

"Contrary to some circles on the Internet, very few scholars doubt that Jesus existed, preached and led a movement. Scholars' confidence has nothing to do with theology but much to do with historiographic common sense. What movement would make up a recent leader, executed by a Roman governor for treason, and then declare, "We're his followers"? If they wanted to commit suicide, there were simpler ways to do it.

One popular objection is that only Christians wrote anything about Jesus. This objection is neither entirely true nor does it reckon with the nature of ancient sources. It usually comes from people who have not worked much with ancient history. Only a small proportion of information from antiquity survives, yet it is often sufficient...

Josephus, the only extant first-century historian focused on Judea, mentions both Jesus and John the Baptist as major prophetic figures, as well as subsequently noting Jesus' brother, James. Later scribes added to the Jesus passage, but the majority of specialists agree on the basic substance of the original, a substance now confirmed by a manuscript that apparently reflects the pre-tampering reading. Josephus describes Jesus as a sage and worker of wonders, and notes that the Roman governor Pilate had him crucified. On the cause of crucifixion Josephus remains discreet, but mass leaders were often executed for sedition -- especially for being potential kings. Perhaps not coincidentally, Jesus' followers also insisted, even after his death, that he was a king. Josephus was not a Christian and does not elaborate, but his summary matches other sources.

Writing even earlier than Josephus, Syrian philosopher Mara bar Sarapion claimed that Jesus was a wise Jewish king. Tacitus later reports on events from 31-34 years after Jesus' ministry, associating Roman Christians with him and noting that he was executed under Pontius Pilate. These and other sources provide only snippets, but they address what these sources cared about. By comparison, Tacitus mentions only in passing a Jewish king on whom Josephus focused (Agrippa I); nor was Tacitus interested even in Judea's Roman governors. Tacitus's mention of Pilate in connection with Jesus' crucifixion is Roman literature's only mention of Pilate (though Pilate appears in Josephus and an inscription)."

I believe that when Keener writes (re: Josephus) that "Later scribes added to the Jesus passage", he is referring to Josephus definatively mentioning Jesus as 'the Christ' in his writings.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." Josephus, Antiqities, 18.3.3

If I'm not mistaken, there are absolutely no copies of Antiquities that that do not contain this specific reference to Jesus as the Christ. None at all going back to the very earliest manuscript copies that we have and thus there are no contradictory writings that exist concerning this passage, it is merely theorized that the relevant passage up above was interpolated later. (Although I think it's a reasonable theory).

Check out Keener's entire article if you get the chance, it's quite good if you have an interest in this sort of thing. Also, if anyone would like to discuss these particular writings of Josephus, I think this entry by Tektonics would be a good place to start.

McCracken: Gays won't save the UMC

Kudos to Sky McCracken over at The United Methodist Reporter for bringing some clarity to the issue of Christians considering the compromise of God's word in the name of feel-goody emotionalism. You can check out the entire article at your leisure, I'll just highlight the first point he wished to make for our purposes here...

"1. Changing the stance on homosexuality in the United Methodist Church will not stop the loss of membership in the denomination.

It’s at best a red herring and at worst a lie to espouse otherwise. The Southern Baptist Church continues to lose membership; they are in their fifth year of decline, and they have a very decisive, very clear statement on their opposition to homosexuality.

On the other side of the issue, the Episcopal Church also has a very decisive and clear statement on homosexuality, where they bless and celebrate same-sex unions as they do male-female marriages, even though doing so separated them from the Anglican Communion. Did it help them gain members? Their membership is now lower than it was in 1939.

The loss of membership in both denominations, as well as in the UMC, can reasonably point to one reason: failure to make disciples. We can blame society, we can blame the president and Congress, we can even blame MTV. But we can’t blame our stances on homosexuality.

The fact that I hold an orthodox view on this issue and agree with my denomination’s stance doesn’t let me off the hook for anything – that has nothing to do with a failure to make disciples in the name of Jesus Christ. As Dallas Willard reminds us, we are more often guilty of the Great Omission: once we baptize folks, and/or they have been converted to follow Christ, we seem to forget the rest: “teaching them to do everything that [Jesus] commanded you.” That’s discipleship. We have failed at discipleship, and have for several generations."

Perhaps McCracken is right and the chickens are indeed coming home to roost concerning this particular matter via failure of imparting discipleship. Already, several prominent ministers in Minnesota are letting it be known that they will not be helping out in the campaign against legalizing homogamy in that state. Perhaps the Church is undergoing a down-sizing at this moment in which there will hopefully be a meaner, leaner version of adherents in the years to come.

A day with Dr Peter Hammond

Sunday School was especially fascinating this past weekend as I had the privilege of sitting in on a presentation by Dr Peter Hammond (bio here), one of the leading advocates against radical Jihadism in the world today and who is perfoming missionary work in some of the most dangerous places on the face of the planet. Especially harrowing was Dr Hammonds accounts of ministering to black Christians in the south of Sudan in the area of the Nuba mountains.

Dr Hammond related an instance from when he was preaching in the area of Equatoria in South Sudan that aircraft from the Khartoum government in the north, obstensibly representing the Religion of Peace ®, began bombing the area where their church service was being held. Although eight bombs were dropped in an area not much larger than a football field, no one perished in the incident, however Dr Hammond experienced several cracked ribs having been struck by flying debris from the explosion.

In another incident reported by Dr Hammond, he described being bitten by one of the nastiest species of scopions around while out ministering to the Nabu people and he could actually feel the poison coursing through his body, heading straight for his heart. Hammond added that they were miles from any medical facility and the only thing that he could rely on was the promise given by Jesus in Luke 10:19 and after praying with others, he literally could feel the poison leaving his body.

I have provided a permanent link to Dr Hammond's website reformationSA.org on the right margin in case anyone is interested in finding out more about this wonderful organization.

TRIVIA: Dr Hammond has the distinction of having the first (non-pornografic) book lobbied for to be banned in the new South Africa. Who can name that book?

Weigel: The story of how China was almost a Christian‏ nation

I truly enjoy George Weigel's columns. He is a highly intelligent and insightful writer. Maintaining his reputation of being one of the leading Catholic writers of our time, his latest article concerning the story of how China was almost a Christian nation doesn't disappoint...

""... a combination of Spanish conquistadors and missionaries, led by a remarkable character named Lopez de Legazpi, proposed to use the new Spanish colony of the Philippines as the launch-pad for a Spanish and Christian takeover of China—an ambition they styled la empresa de China, “the China project.” The “project” fired the imaginations of Legazpi’s successors, who pressed the Spanish monarch, Philip II, for permission to bring China under Spanish control. Philip, whom Hugh Thomas styles “the Great Procrastinator,” dithered, being preoccupied with rebellion in the Spanish Netherlands, and eventually cooled to the idea.

True to the original Ignatian charism, the fires of evangelical (and political) ambition were rekindled by a Jesuit, Alonso Sanchez, who went to China in 1582 and returned to the Philippines determined to revive la empresa de China. It would not be a walkover, Father Sanchez conceded; but he thought 8,000 men and 12 galleons could do the job.

And what a job it would be. For Sanchez and his supporters imagined a China filled with Christian universities and monasteries as well as Spanish forts, a China in which the Spaniards would intermarry with Chinese women (“serious, honest, retiring … and usually of great grace, beauty and discretion”) to form a new mestizo race that would be thoroughly Catholic, and from whose numbers the Gospel would then come (along with Spanish hegemony, of course) to India, Southeast Asia, Borneo, the Moluccas and Sumatra.

Yet the Great Procrastinator in the Escorial continued to, well, procrastinate, and the defeat of the Invincible Armada by Howard and Drake in 1588 gave Philip II even more reason to dither about schemes of conquest and conversion in the Far East. Eventually, as Lord Thomas concludes, “nothing was done.” The plan was never explicitly rejected. Philip II simply let it die of inattention, as consummate bureaucrats know how to do."



Check out the entire article if you get a chance. I fashion myself to be a history buff and I almost majored in it, but I was previously unaware of this chapter of history.

On the H.M.S. Titanic and Salvation

Yesterday, April 15th, marked the 100th anniversery of the sinking of the Titanic. Since then there have been numerous articles out commemorating this event, two of which I'd like to mention here. The first deals with preacher John Harper whose soul was claimed that day by a watery grave...

"When pastor and preacher John Harper and six year old daughter boarded the Titanic it was for the privilege of preaching at one of the greatest churches in America, Moody Church in Chicago, named for its famous founder Dwight L. Moody. The church was anxiously awaiting his arrival not only because of the pending services, but to meet their next pastor, as Harper planned to accept their invitation. Harper was known as an engaging preacher and had pastored two churches in Glasgow and London. His preaching style was suited for an evangelist as testified by the words of another local pastor. "He was a great open-air preacher and could always command large and appreciative audiences. ... He could deal with all kinds of interrupters, his great and intelligent grasp of Bible truths enabling him to successfully combat all assailants."

When the Titanic hit the iceberg, Harper successfully led his daughter to a lifeboat. Being a widower he may have been allowed to join her but instead forsook his own rescue, choosing to provide the masses with one more chance to know Christ. Harper ran person to person, passionately telling others about Christ. As the water began to submerge the "unsinkable" ship, Harper was heard shouting, "women, children, and the unsaved into the lifeboats." Rebuffed by a certain man at the offer of salvation Harper gave him his own life vest, saying, "you need this more than I do." Up until the last moment on the ship Harper pleaded with people to give their lives to Jesus.

The ship disappeared beneath the deep frigid waters leaving hundreds floundering in its wake with no realistic chance for rescue. Harper struggled through hyperthermia to swim to as many people as he could, still sharing the Gospel. Harper evidentially would lose his battle with hypothermia but not before giving many people one last glorious Gospel witness."

The entire article is a great read and I encourage you to click on the above link if you have the time.

The second article I'd like to link to here is by Dr Jerry Newcombe and it asks the question, Do you know who christened the Titanic? Dr Newcombe provides the answer and it also is a great read.

Should anyone reading this who is putting their faith in something temporal for their eteranl destiny and would like to consider an alternative, simply click here.

Cass: Why You Can Absolutely Trust the Bible‏

I'm quite impressed with the latest effort from Dr Gary Cass in defense of the authenticity of the Holy Bible. As we prepare our hearts for Holy Week, won't you take time to click the embedded link to renew your faith? I especially invite the atheists/skeptics that stop by here from time to time to leave any thoughts they might have in the comment box regarding the cited article. The entire entry is a great read, and I'll quote just one part of it here where Dr Cass resonds to the so-called 'circular reasoning' argument sometimes raised by skeptics...

"Man’s observations are at best limited and very often wrong. Man’s science is constantly changing and correcting itself. “Experts” can usually be found on opposite sides of any issue.

Some might say arguing from the Bible to prove the Bible is illegitimate circular reasoning. But this is what every other competing worldview does. Man must begin his reasoning from some place. Logic demands that this ultimate authority must be a self-authenticating source. Christians start with Almighty God and His self-authenticating Word. Everyone else starts with fallible, finite man and his reasoning. So the question remains, “Are you justified in your starting place?”

Only God is justified in his own truthfulness. Even on the basis of observation only God has observed all things because he is eternal and has created and caused all things.

The Apostle Paul systematically lays out the case that all men are guilty before God because all men have sinned. They have violated God’s law revealed in nature, in their conscience and written by Moses. But, sinful man objects. Man presumptuously puts himself in the place of the judge and puts God on trial. How did Paul respond to the unbelievers’ objection against God? What does Paul say when man turns to put God on trial? “Let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You [God] may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged." (Romans 3:4)

Not even “good men” or even your favorite TV minister is to be the basis of your confidence in God’s Word. Nor should we believe the Bible is true based on the testimony of any church or any church council. That would make the church lord over God and His Word. But God’s self-authenticating Word is the measure of the all things, including the church and its ministers. God will judge the church and all people according to his unchanging moral standard revealed in the Bible."

Man's observations are indeed wrong at times and its safe to say that at least some pet theories of today will one day be discarded for a newer scientific fad when the time comes along. If you are a doubte who is reading this, my hope is that you would analyze God's written word using the same standards you use when forming your opinions on other matters.

Happy Maundy Thursday to all the Presbyterians out there!

The Miracle in North Africa Continues‏

A few years ago I heard a brief report on Christian radio that significant numbers of Muslims on the continent of Africa are converting to Christianity, but not through evangelistic efforts, but through experiencing dreams and visions that cause them to change religions. The radio report mentioned the phenomenon of Muslims simply showing up at Christian churches explaining that they had experienced a dream or vison and how they now wished to follow Jesus Christ, asking for a Bible and for instructions as to how to effectively follow Jesus of Nazereth.

A recent article in Christianity Today highlights the efforts of former church-planter Jerry Trousdale in the region and he reports the following occurances...

• Multiple cases of entire mosques coming to faith





• Thousands of ordinary men and women being used by God to achieve seemingly impossible outcomes





• Tens of thousands of Muslim background Christians becoming dedicated intercessors who fast and pray for the gospel to penetrate the next community





• Muslim people groups that never had even one church among them now have more than fifty church planted, and in some cases more than one hundred churches – within two years of engagement





• Former sheikhs, imams and militant Islamists making up 20 percent or more of the new Christian leaders in Muslim regions

I tend to believe these reports from Trousdale being that about a year or so ago, I had the privilege of attending a Bible study that for one Sunday, was taken over by a guest speaker of an organization looking to spur economic development in the region of North Africa along with sharing the Christian faith.

I asked the man speaking that morning if, given his experience in that part of the world, he had ever heard of such conversions via dreams and visions and he responded 'yes'. He then went on to relate the account of a convert who had told him that while in Jordan, he had a dream instructing him to go to a specific part of a town nearby and enter the local bookstore and ask the proprietor for a book that was not on display. The next day the man did so and when he spoke to the man in the bookstore, the man then produced a Bible in Arabic for him and the man added that he himself had had a dream that the man was coming to see him.

"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions" Joel 2:28 AKJV

Above image: King Hassane II Mosque, Casablanca, Morocco

The Faulty Comparison Between Mormonism and Orthodox, Mainstream Christianity

In an online debate not long ago, I was basically asked if I believe in the basic tenets of Christianity, then why not Mormonism. I basically followed up that question with the fact that none of the eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection and post-mortem appearances ever recanted or changed their testimony and the same cannot be said for the earliest followers of Joseph Smith/Mormonism. If I had thought about it a little more, I would have added that there has been exactly ZERO evidence ever unearthed by archaeologists that supports the Book of Mormon's 'Ancient America' account.

Columnist Mark Shea however, over at the National Catholic Register does a masterful job of delineating where one can have a reasonable faith when it comes to Christianity and the claims made by Mormonism.

"As to the comparison with Mormonism, there are three problems:

First, Joseph Smith is the sole witness to the claims he makes. Everybody else is a true believer, but does not themselves claim to have seen Moroni or the rest of it. In the case of Christ, there are over five hundred eyewitnesses. That’s a lot of opportunity for somebody to crack under threat of torture or murder and spill the beans on how the whole thing was (as it had to be if false) a lie and a fraud. Nobody ever did.

Second, where is the St. Paul of Mormonism? He’s a very anomalous figure and hard to explain apart from an encounter with the Risen Christ.

Finally, the apostles didn’t just die martyr’s deaths, they lived martyr’s lives. Joseph Smith, in comparison, grew in wealth and power (not to mention that manly dream of multiple wives) right up until he went down (guns blazing) in a gunfight with the mob that came to get him. One looks in vain for the traces of the apostolic martyrs hacking away at their persecutors with swords. Indeed, the gospels actually record (again and again) the embarrassing vignette of Peter whacking off Malchus’ ear in order to make clear that this sort of thing was Conduct Unbecoming an Apostle.

It’s one thing to die as a sucker for a lie told by Joseph Smith (as some Mormons did). It’s quite another thing to die for a lie told by oneself (as the apostles did if the Resurrection is false). Joseph Smith, blasting away at his enemies, shows us how liars die. The apostles, going with dignity to a variety of awful deaths, show us how honest men die."

Check out his entire article if you have the time to do so, especially if you have an interest in apologetics. It's so wonderfully written and I didn't even get to quote the parts in it in which he demolishes many of the common arguments raised by the so-called 'New Atheists'.

(Above image: Deseret blue flag)

Is London tilting more Christian?

At least in this more secular part of Europe, there seems to be a trend to move back towards the Church...

"..slowly but surely, the St Mary’s congregation seems to be swelling. Over the last 12 months, attendance at the main Sunday service at the church (where my wife Martine is curate) has risen by nearly 20 per cent, from around 95 to 115. Though much of this is down to Harvey’s hard work and charisma, the growing popularity of St Mary’s is part of a much wider and very striking phenomenon.

Church attendances, in freefall for so long, have started to rise again, particularly in Britain’s capital city. Numbers on the electoral rolls are increasing by well over two per cent every year, while some churches have seen truly dramatic rises in numbers.

Change is afoot. For many years it was accepted that Christianity was all but dead, an anachronistic relic of the past whose foundations had been destroyed by modern science and rationalism, before being left behind by the cultural and sexual revolution of the Sixties. The figures seem to bear this out."

And thank goodness for that. Its sad that one of the premier nations in all of Christendom had to abandon the faith that sustained her for all those years only to begin realizing that secularism is so cold and empty and at least the Church offers hope.

Anglican Fever! Catch it!

This article caught me by suprise and if its accurate, then perhaps we will be witnessing a growing phenomenon within the Christian church...

"For decades young people have flocked to seeker-friendly churches that feature culturally relevant services and a casual environment.

Now, a new denomination that emphasizes tradition and centuries-old sacraments and practices is drawing them in.

The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) officially began in 2009 with hundreds of congregations that severed ties with the Episcopal Church...

While the congregants are casually dressed, the service has a more formal, liturgical feel and the students that CBN News spoke with say that's exactly what they like.

"I love the emphasis on Scripture. I love that we read four long passages every Sunday so you really ingest a lot of scripture each Sunday," said Andie Roeder, who studies at Moody Bible Institute.

"And I love the way it's interactive so there's a call and a response and you get to pray back and forth," she said...

Archbishop Robert Duncan dubbed the movement "Anglican fever" in an address to the Lausanne Congress last year.

CBN News spoke with Anglican leaders who are witnessing college communities springing up, from Florida to Massachusetts and beyond.

A possible reason for the growth is the authenticity. Many congregations in the new denomination gave up buildings and property in order to break from the Episcopal Church and its increasingly liberal theology.

One of the worst cases happened in Binghamton, N.Y., where the Episcopal Church evicted the Good Shepherd congregation and then sold its property to a mosque.

Rector Matt Kennedy found out about the new owner while he was driving by the old property and saw a crane taking down the steeple.

"It was very sad," he said. "Because it is a place where generation after generation the gospel had been preached."

"People have come to know Jesus Christ, people have been brought from darkness into light and now it has been sold to a group that promotes the darkness," Kennedy added."

I have often thought that such qualities as a definative direction, a rich tradition and strong sense of liturgy are what young people are craving in their spiritual lives. It's easy to offer up a type of folksy worship in which there is great emphasis on accessibility of the pastor and a down to earth image is contrived. However, I am of the opinion that people, and especially young people desire structure in their worship and they like knowing that there is a sense of permanency in their style of worship that goes back with a wonderful tradition stretching back for centuries in their praise of God and fellowship with other Christians.

Could Christopher Hitchins be in Heaven?

Could arch-atheist Christopher Hitchens be in Heaven? His Anglican brother, Peter Hitchens recently wrote that "he no longer held hope to convert his brother, whom he described as having "bricked himself up high in his atheist tower, with slits instead of windows from which to shoot arrows at the faithful.""

Russell D. Moore raises an interesting point in today's edition of Baptist Press concerning the potential for where the deraly departed Mr. Hitchens is possibly spending eternity...

"..I'm not sure Christopher Hitchens is in hell right now. It's not because I believe there's a "second chance" after death for salvation (I don't). It's not because I don't believe in hell or in God's judgment (I do). It's because of a sermon I heard years ago that haunts me to this day, reminding me of the sometimes surprising persistence of the Gospel.

Fifteen or so years ago, I heard an old Welsh pastor preach on Jesus' encounter with the thieves on the cross. The preacher paused to speculate about whether the penitent thief might have had any God-fearing friends or family members. If so, he said, they probably would never have known about the terrorist's final act, his appeal to Jesus, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom" (Luke 23:42). They never would have heard Jesus pronounce, "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43).

These believing family members and friends would have assumed, all their lives, that this robber was in hell, especially dying as he did under the visible judgment of God (Deuteronomy 21:22-23). They would have been shocked to meet this man in the Kingdom of God. "We thought you were in hell," they might have said, as they danced around him in the heavenly places.

That sermon changed everything for me about the way I preach funerals for unbelievers. Now, death bed conversions are very rare. Typically, a conscience is so seared by then, so given over to the darkening of the mind, that the Gospel rarely is heard. We shouldn't count on last-second repentance.

But, however rarely, it does happen, and who knows? Perhaps you have relatives who, in the last seconds of breath, breathed out a silent prayer of repentance and faith. You might be as surprised as the thief's believing cohort."

Christopher Hitchens certainly was an interesting fellow. I'm sure that the former adjunct professor had some time to contemplate his fate in his final days. I hope for his sake all of the bombastic diatribes he launched against Christianity were mere bluster to sell books and that he examined his heart with a clear mind during his final days. Either way, he now knows the truth and may God rest his soul.

The Next Tim Tebow?

While Tim Tebow Mania currently grips both the sports world and pop culture, it is duely noted that Tebow is the son of Baptist missionaries who wears his faith on his sleeve. Less talked about in the past week is that this year's suprise winner of the Heisman Trophy, Robert Griffin III, hailed from a historically Baptist university (Baylor). Jim Denison informs us on the background of this up and coming, superstar Christian athlete...

"This year Griffin led Baylor to upset TCU, Oklahoma, and Texas on the way to a 9-3 record, their best in a quarter-century. He has set 46 records during his college career. He recently won the Davey O'Brien Award, given to the nation's top quarterback, and now he is the first Baylor player to win the Heisman.

Griffin earned his bachelor's degree in three years, finishing with a 3.67 GPA in political science. He will finish a master's degree in communications next spring, and plans to attend law school. He is also expected to be a top-10 pick in next year's NFL draft.

Robert Griffin is known on the Baylor campus for his faith as well as his football skills. He attends University Baptist Church, where my oldest son attended worship while a student at Baylor and Truett Seminary. God has entrusted him with a unique combination of outstanding intellect, NFL-quality ability, and world-class speed. And he has been an excellent steward of his gifts."

Hopefully this is a trend in sports where faith and character are upheld as virtues to be admired by fans young and old alike rather than the tired, old bad-boy image so often times offered up in it's place. Getting back to Tebow, one media personality had this to say recently about Tebow's affect on the opposing teams he faces...

"..a little while after the Denver Broncos beat the Miami Dolphins in Miami. One of the linebackers for the Dolphins is a guy named Karlos Dansby, who used to play for the Arizona Cardinals, and according to Karlos Dansby, what happened when the Broncos played the Dolphins in week seven was this. Dansby said that the Dolphins saw God working through Tebow and, in the process, Dansby became closer to God himself.

Karlos Dansby, linebacker for the Miami Dolphins, said, "Us losing to Tim Tebow the way we did, we seen it first hand. Young man is blessed. Young man has a special anointing on him. And for God to show himself in that game the way He did, through the guy He did it through, it opened a lot of guys' eyes on our team. And it brought a lot of guys closer to God, so like I said, everything happens for a reason. ... My hat goes off to Tim. And God working through him like that, it opened up a lot of eyes. He’s a blessed young man and I wish him much success the rest of his career." Karlos Dansby. He said that on the Jim Rome Show." Rush Limbaugh, 12/12/11

The so-called 'Hiddenness of God': Dispatches from a clueless skeptic

Justin Vacula recently posited yet another, unique nail in the coffin pearl of wisdom to bolster his atheistic worldview, an argument concerning the so-called 'Hiddennes of God". Such arguments are nothing new and basically boil down to, 'if God exists, then why can't He manifest Himself in a manner that I can see him?'. Theists can argue that if one studies the fine-tuning of the universe to allow for life on this planet or if one were to examine the probability of specifically-coded DNA sequences arising by random chance, that the fingerprints of a Creator God are all over His creation. And yet, if I open my window in the morning and look outside, I don't actually see God Himself. In fact, there are no widespread claims that anybody is seeing God.



One big reason put forward by philosophers for God not manifesting Himself (assuming for a moment that He exists) is that God unmistakeably and clearly showing Himself to all would then diminish the overall amount of free choice we have when deciding what we would like to do. That is to say, that such a powerful manifestation would amount to coercion on God's behalf and God would rather that we behave and make our choices absent any sort of psychological pressure on people that such an appearance would entail.



One thing Mr. Vacula cannot deny is that people behave differently when they perceive they are being watched. That's not just me saying that as a general obeservation but, a cursory search would indicate, it's also what Newcastle University, UCLA and sciencemag.org are saying. I doubt that Mr. Vacula can deny that.



While involved in an online discussion recently, a certain clueless skeptic (MS) offered up the following 'questions' on this subject that I will attempt to answer....


1)Does not the bible 'record' such instances of God as visible, audible, etc? eg. Moses, the early Israelites? Were the Israelites coerced into accepting the covenant? Perhaps, and under yo...ur view, definitely.

The Isrealites were freed from captivity by the Egyptians and God made a covenant with them. God did lay down ground rules (laws). However, this is not like the topic of Justin's entry in that Justin is wondering why "-- since it is the case that theists profess God wants everyone to believe he exists – God simply doesn't unequivocally reveal himself so that persons can 'enter into a relationship' with God, no longer doubt, stop fighting one another because of religious differences, and go to Heaven."

However in looking at your question, it seems to me that the only alternatives would be that God's laws are revealed by someone other than God or that they are not revealed at all. That's a case you would have to make to convince me that either is preferable and the reasons you would think that is so.

As to when God actually WAS audible to the Israelites, exactly how did that work out?



2) Does not the threat of eternal hellfire amount to a coercion of worst order?

I find it only fair that we are forewarned of the consequences of our actions. It is explicitly stated that there are consequences for not obeying God's laws. A truly evil god would never reveal that there were consequences for certain actions until we stand in judgement and by then, it's too late. I doubt that you would argue that not knowing would be the better option here. There are two points I would like to bring up at this moment.

1) The temporal eminence of the threat. I think we could both agree that if we were to be held up at gunpoint by a robber and our wallets demanded of us, we would perceive such a threat as quite eminent and thus we would be coerced do something against our will like give our money to a stranger. However, if the robber said something to the effect like, "I have a blowdart in my hand and if you are shot with it, there is no antidote and you will die in 50 years", then we would assess things differently than if the threat were much more immediate as in the first example in which a firearm is used.

But, let's say that I concede that the threat of Hell alone, in and of itself, would still take away any free will in this matter, we would still have to examine another factor concerning the threat.

2) The epistemic eminence of the threat. What I mean by that is people do things everyday that can get them killed, but yet they do them anyway. For this reason, we see advertising campaigns urging people to "Buckle Up!" their seatbelts when getting in to automobiles and to quit smoking. It's not that people who smoke or don't use their seatbelts don't believe that they can die because these things, it's that somehow, if these things are shouted out from the radio/movie screen/computer screen/tv screen loud enough and especially, often enough, they can send a powerful enough message that can potentially alter behavior.

I would assert that if God were to "unequivocally reveal himself", make Himself known and constantly repeat the eminence of a threat, then THAT would be 'coercion of worst order'. Either you are Justin are free to tell me why this would not be the case.


3) Am I coerced into being in a relationship with other persons just because they are visible, audible, and present to my senses?

No. I assume that you are in relationships with people (assuming that you are), because you want to be.

This is ludicrous. If God expects a relationship, it is only natural that he would disclose his existence in an unmistakable way


I think you are either ignorant of, or forgetting the fact that such a revelation as described by Justin is not the only way we receive revelation from God. If either of you are willing to accept that personal revelation is a possible option, it would go a long way towards actually having a meaningful discussion here.



4)What's wrong with some general sense of 'psychological pressure' -- i.e. the pressure brought about by being compelled to acknowledge the existence of something

I think you were quoting me here. What I actually asked Justin was 'So you would argue that if a huge, gigantic, and beautiful sky-god was absolutely visible, audible and communication with people here on earth, that it would in no way cause "psychological pressure" to "do some act against his or her will "[?] which is a textbook definition of the word 'coercion'.

Rather than actually answering this question directly, Justin (I'm sure you were just going to mention MS) simply changed the subject, a point we will examine in our next blog post.

The Curtis/Vacula Debate, Does the Christian God Exist?: 2nd Rebuttals

Upon reading Mr. Vacula's first rebuttal, my thoughts on it are as follows... (His rebuttal can be seen at his website JustinVacula.com

he (JD) states “However, all I've done so far is raise two arguments in favor of a generic god.” I disagree. All that JD has done is mention some statistics about the supposed 'finetuning' of the universe and the 'improbability' of abiogenesis...and it simply doesn't follow from 'the universe is fine-tuned' that 'a creator god exists.' This argument appears to boil down to what is called 'an argument from ignorance' : I can't explain phenomena x, therefore god. Why should we be justified in positing a creator god as an explanation just because we can't explain a phenomena?

I would state that it's reasonable to believe in God's existance and the arguments in favor of it are better than the arguments against.

That's it. Reasonable to believe. William Lane Craig has credentials from "Wheaton College (B.A. 1971), graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984)" and yet with all of his training and education, Dr. Craig's arguments basically boil down to that there are better arguments in support of God's existance than against it, and audiences tend to overwhelmingly agree if exit polls from debates are to be believed. I'm not a theologian with my little Bachelors degree in Political Science and I cannot have Mr. Vacula prove the non-existance of God any more than I can snap my fingers and summon Him up for analysis and observation. I contend that the arguments favor the existance of God. A skeptic can always find something to be skeptical about. Justin then goes on to criticize my argument by positing....

Regardless, the fine-tuning argument fundamentally rests on a misunderstanding of probability. Instead of looking at the 'fine tuning' situation as 'the chances of this particular variable are so low,' consider auniverse that we can't even quantify the size/vastness of. Shall we say, that out of an entire universe, that life arising somewhere is improbable? I think not. Somewhere, someplace, life seems to be inevitable – consider all of the stars that 'die' that can 'create' situations conducive to life and all of the moons, suns, planets, etc. When we think of life, we think of carbon, but imagine all of the other possibilities that are not based on carbon!

And yet Justin offers up exactly zero evidence that any of these things are true and actually exist and thus he relies on mere hypotheses and theoretical scenarios. Is Justin, through the lack of any solid scientific evidences here, accepting the alleged existences/possibilities of these things by (dare I say it?) Faith?

This, again, is an argument from ignorance: 'I can't explain a phenomena, therefore God.' While abiogenesis is a difficult topic to think about, it simply does not follow that abiogenesis never occurred

I simply stated that there is no evidence that abiogenesis ever occurred. Justin says that it "simply does not follow that abiogenesis never occurred" and offers up no support of this statement.


This is similar to the universe in a way. The big bang model is an adequate model to explain the origin of the universe, but other questions remain surrounding the big bang and 'what [if anything] caused the big bang.' Although, perhaps, there is not a particular consensus about these questions (if there even is an answer), we don't doubt that the big bang happened (or that the universe exists)

I do not doubt that the Big Bang model is adequate to explain the origin of the universe and I find it can be completely compatible with a Biblical worldview.

When scientists operate, they operate under the banner of methodological naturalism: they assume that all that exists is the natural world and make claims about the natural world in order to do research and advance our understanding of the natural world. Instead of accepting supernatural explanations, as I outlined in my opening statement, we should look for naturalistic explanations instead because such explanations have great explanatory power in addition to naturalism being inductively justified

But Justin does not offer up any reasons as to why methodological naturalism is a far superior arbiter of truth by comparing it to other types of evidence that seem to be excluded here. Science is a wonderful tool for determining some truths and not nearly as effective for others and is fraught with all of the pitfalls conceivable when it is utilized by frail, politicized, agenda-driven human beings. For example..

Can scientific evidence be planted somewhere?

Can scientific evidence be manipulated to achieve a desired end?

Why are court systems always ready to admit eyewitness testimony but scientific evidence only if the judge allows? Probably because of the ever changing nature of science and models that are accepted today are frequently discarded tomorrow.

I recall one recent debate in which one party brought up the existance of opakis. They are notoriously wary of humans and science doubted their existance for many years until finally their existance was confirmed, despite multiple, reported sightings over thise years. Wouldn't science have been better served by accepting testimonial evidence from eyewitnesses in this case?

Now on to Justin's objection's concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

A lack of explanation for, say, the experience of the apostles, the rise of the early church(which seems to be an argument here although it doesn't have a heading), the empty tomb, the womenr eporting, and lack of explanation (!) of the body of Jesus does not lead us to the conclusion that the Christian god exists

Is Justin fully aware that Christ Himself repeatedly stated he was divine? If it could be shown that he did rise from the dead, wouldn't that be an argument in favor of the Christian God who, by definition, is Jesus Christ actually existing?

Can we honestly and reasonably say that because a miracle happened, we can know the source of it or even distinguish what we think is a miracle from advanced technology we are unaware of?

If the gospels are taken as a whole, Jesus predicted in advance, at least on five separate occaisions, that he would rise from the dead. Wouldn't that help narrow down what the 'source' was?

Further, why even assume a source or say a miracle happened instead of saying “I don't know how to explain this.” How can we ever be justified in bridging the epistemic gap from “I don't know” or “A specific [or any] supernatural source is responsible for this phenomena?


I am perfectly willing to consider any naturalistic explanations for Christ instananeously healing the sick, raising the dead and Himself rising from the dead. With 2000 years of hindsight, I hope Mr. Vacula can offer up at least one, possible naturalistic theory.



a major problem here with the resurrection arguments, is that JD is using historical information to arrive at a theological conclusion

Why can't JD use historical evidence to reinforce his faith and discuss it with others?

Is a miracle a probable event? I think not...and I am sure JD and my audience would agree; we simply don't see other examples of resurrections throughout history and are very, very, very, very inductively justified in assuming that persons don't come back from the dead

Thus a miracle would help explain such an event if it actually took place, right?

..how can we say a miracle is the best explanation for any given phenomena when miracles raise more questions than they answer (what was the source, how can the laws of nature be violated/suspended, how can something non-physical interact with something physical, why would this happen here and not elsewhere, etc) and go against what we know about the world (we understand that people don't come back from the dead and have no other examples of resurrection). An explanation of “god did it” doesn't add to our understanding – and thus should be rejected as an explanation

I disagree. The Septuagint Old Testament was written three centuries before Christ was born and we can chronicle that Jesus of Nazereth fulfilled the prophecies contained therein. In reference to the coming Messiah we're talking on the order of, at minimum, 300+ of them. This belief need not be dogmatic and all are invited to search if it is true and to vigorously compare such predictions and fulfillments to other religions.

If JD accepts this information for proof of Jesus' resurrection, I wonder why he does not accept similar claims made by Muslims

Because the prophet Mohammed received any 'revelation' that he had alone, in a cave, and with no other eyewitnesses.

Mormons

Because a couple of alleged 'eyewitnesses' changed their faith later in life and also changed their testimonies. Check the link I provided on this in my opening statement for more.

Heaven's Gate members

Because I view suicide as being stupid and counterproductive and scripture is against it. Do not be a fool--why die before your time?" (Ecclesiastes 7:17b)

Unless you would like to try and convince me otherwise, of course.

Scientologists

Because their methods have been debunked by science numerous times.

Sathya Sai Baba followers

I had to look that one up. Apparently he claims to be reincarnated and I personally don't accept the concept. There might be other points of disagreement as well but I haven't looked into their practices really.

The fact is, Justin is making the common atheist error here of lumping all religions in together as if the were of equal weight when nothing could be further from the truth.

If atheists who gather at the 2012 Reason Rally arrive at a consensus that they believe so strongly that the natural world is all that exists that they all commit suicide at the National Mall following a speech from, say, James Randi, would this be evidence that naturalism is true? Of course not

I am unaware of any of the apostles or early church fathers calling for mass suicide to demonstrate that Christianity is true. So I do not agree that the comparison is accurate. Again, we are talking about eyewitnesses or people personally aquainted with them.

Willingness to die for a belief, or actually dying for a belief, doesn't show that the belief is true


The apostles that I mentioned actaully knew whether Christ rose from the dead or not. In this way it was more than a belief. They didn't read it from a book or come to this knowledge second hand and had to be brainwashed by it.

the women being at the empty tomb fit well into Gospel themes. For example, the marginalization of Jesus, Jesus' life being a mystery, Jesus identifying with the marginalized, and more temes seem to fit well with the women, so perhaps this is why the Gospel writers used the women in a nrrative

And I would contend that it would have been flying in the face of reason to do so being that their testimony was unacceptable at the time and would have counted agaisnt the credibility of the veracity of the event.

Also interesting is the fact that several of the Gospels have different messages regarding theempty tomb: was Mary Magdeline a witness (John 20:1)?, was it a group of women (Mark 16:1 andMatthew 28:1 have different women)?

If all four gospels lined up on every single fact, there would undoubtedly be accusations of copying from one another. In reference to the alleged discrepencies, historian Michael Grant concluded that the narratives do have differences, however.."if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty."

I believe that and if you would like to examine this topic from a reliability standpoint, I think it would be interesting.

JD also mentions the growth of the early church and seemingly argues that the growth of the church points to the fact that Jesus' resurrection is true. It simply does not follow. As I previously mentioned,there are all sorts of 'believers' around the world especially in the light of claims that we don't believeare true. Consider Islam and Hinduism, for example. JD and I don't believe Allah or several Hindu godsexist...and we also realize that many followers of these religions exist. Why, then, should the case bedifferent with Christianity?

The reason I mentioned this is because in the very early church, people in Jerusalem would have known if there was an obvious competeing claim as to what happened to the body of Jesus and they chose to join the church.

Anyway, let's assume that the empty tomb is a historical fact for sake of argument. “Jesus raised fromthe dead” simply does not follow from “Jesus' body was put in a tomb and then later the body was no longer there”

This doesn't mention multiple post-mortem appearances. It's not like they 'lost' the body or something.

Just because persons were saying things does not mean that such things were true (even if many persons believed such a claim). Once again, simply look to Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, etc. Persons believe the story of Joseph Smith and there are somany followers! Mormons will tell you that there's no explanation for the golden plates and that persons have verified the accuracy of Smith's claims just like Christians will say

And Christians overwhelmingly reject Mormonism and Islam as competeing claims. We've already gone over this. Their evidence sucks. I would like to compare the evidence for the Resurrection against the evidences for any of these other religions. We would need a whole new debate to do that though.

How Freedom and Democracy are Intertwined with Christianity

There are two great articles out today highlighting the correlation between democratic freedom and Christianity. First, Ben Kinchlow (above) writes...

"President George Washington, in his 1776 farewell speech, issued one of the gravest warnings in American history:

Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.

He continued:

Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education … reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Washington clearly understood the folly of attempting to substitute education for morality (the quality of being in accord with the standards of right and wrong).

Liberal-oriented educators and intellectuals insist that our children can make moral choices in a vacuum. Their position is that choices can be made without regard to any absolute standard of right and wrong. The argument for situational ethics (any decision depends on the situation you are in) presents our youth with a shifting morality as the basis for making decisions. The fact of the matter is, however, that the intelligentsia make these assertions without due consideration of the end results.


Absent religious principles (which, in Western civilization, are taken from the Judeo-Christian Bible), what, if any, are the standards of right and wrong? Who sets them? Has it become merely a matter of opinion? And if so, whose? What, one could reasonably ask, is the foundation upon which we base our actions and order our society?"

Kinchlow's article goes on to argue, like others before him, that the very foundation of Western civilization, and the freedoms we enjoy in it, are in fact, based on the Bible, and rightly so.

Vox Day's latest offering points out how the Left is abolutely clueless when it comes to the history of Western civilization...

"Being for the most part historically illiterate, few intellectuals are prepared to admit that modern representative democracy and the basic concept of individual rights are 18th century phenomena that were the byproducts of a Christian society. They prefer to attribute both institutions to the Enlightenment, despite the fact that it was the Enlightenment that led directly to the revolutionary horrors of the French revolution and it is the Enlightenment that presently serves as the inspiration for the anti-democratic authoritarian bureaucracy of the European Union.

It is written that a house divided against itself cannot stand. In like manner, an intellectual movement cannot reasonably be considered the cause of two diametrically opposed conceptual phenomena.

And it will become increasingly difficult for intellectuals to deny the connection between Christianity and democracy as the recognized, even celebrated, post-Christianity of Europe has been closely followed by European post-democracy. The development of European post-democracy is much less recognized, is not at all celebrated, and yet it is in some ways further along than the more widely reported continental post-Christianity."

For all of the hand-wringing about Christianity being a 'repressive' religion, one wonders what the world would look like without it's influence.

"Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention .... In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united. ”


The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other .... They brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion." Alexis de Tocqueville

Reexamining Constantine

Just prior to fighting forces loyal to Maxentius Daia in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge on Oct 28th, 312 AD, it is reported that Constantine saw in the sky the image of the labarum, (above picture). The labarum was among several images placed used by the early, persecuted Christian church to designate Christian house churches and meeting places in an esoteric manner. The labarum consists of superimposing the Greek letters Chi, which resembles an "X" and the Greek letter Rho, which resembles a "P". These letters form the first the first two letters of the word "Christ".

Along with the claimed vision, reportedly Constantine heard the words (In Latin) "In hoc signo vinces" (in this sign, victory). Constantine ordered the symbol to be painted on shields, helmets and all manner of military hardware and banners and by the end of the subsequent battle, the weight of the retreating, thoroughly routed forces of Maxentius caused the pontoon bridge he had constructed over the river Tiber to collapse, killing many retreating Maxentian soldiers. Victory was decisively in favor of Constantine who, in 313 AD, would then issue the now famous Edict of Milan, effectively ending the persecution of the Christian church by Roman authorities. Although if one wished to be technical, it was actually under the emporer Theodocius that Rome officially became Christian in 380 AD.

Historians debate whether or not Constantine himself was truly a Christian, even when his acceptance of baptism on his deathbed is considered. However an article out today by Mark Tooley provides some interesting insights and hypotheses into the life of the roman emperor....

"Constantine is often derided as a brute who usurped the church to enhance his own rule over the empire. His critics note that that he governed and waged war bloodily like all such emperors, and that he purportedly executed his wife and son. The more extreme conspiracists, echoing the Da Vinci Code's fiction, accuse Constantine of imposing theological orthodoxy, even Christ's divinity, upon an obedient Council of Nicaea. Anabaptists typically fault him for turning previously pacifist Christians into willing soldiers for Rome and all subsequent empires. The neo-Anabaptists are most distressed by Christians who support today's American "empire."

In response, Presbyterian theologian Peter Leithart has penned a very important book, Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom. He not only competently restores Constantine's reputation but also thoughtfully and polemically rebuts the Anabaptists, specifically including John Howard Yoder. A senior fellow at new Saint Andrew College in wonderfully named Moscow, Idaho, Leithart argues that Constantine's conversion was sincere, that his legalization of Christianity was a tremendous relief to the persecuted church, that his Christian inspired legal reforms ameliorated some of Rome's pagan savagery, that he respected the church's autonomy, and that he desacralized the empire and began the end of all civic pagan burnt offerings once so universal. Leithart also persuasively disputes that the early church was decisively pacifist. Despite Anabaptist claims, especially by Yoder, there simply is not sufficient evidence to show the early church had ratified a teaching on military force. Leithart points to the usual New Testament examples of Jesus and His apostles not objecting to force by civil authorities. He also describes the pagan sacrifices once required within the Roman military, probably enhanced in reaction to Christianity's growth, and which prohibited service by Christians who otherwise did not object to legitimate force. Constantine's abolition of state-imposed pagan sacrifices removed this barrier for Christian military service."

I invite anyone who is an amatuer history buff like myself to examine the article in it's entirety and offer up their thoughts in the comment box.

The Problem of Evil

While I use the blog a a repository of information to access while invloved in online argumentation, I came across two stupendous articles this week. These articles pertain to the commonly raised objections by skeptics (and even some Christians) as to the existance of evil and suffering in the world.

First, Vox day weighs in with his thoughts on the matter...

"For centuries, philosophers have wrestled with the so-called problem of evil. They have attempted to define the nature and the character of evil and to provide explanations for the persistence of its existence. Many of them have been Christians and, indeed, the problem of evil is a major stumbling block to belief in the existence of God for many individuals. It is not uncommon for those struck by tragedy to question their faith, or even to lose it, since they are unable to balance the notion of personal suffering with the existence of a God who claims to love them.

The problem with this reasoning is that it is fundamentally at odds with the very heart of Christianity. Christianity does not postulate that the world is a good place. Jesus repeatedly declared that the world hated him and it would hate those who loved him. Christianity does not claim that God is presently in control of events; when Satan offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, Jesus rejected the offer but did not claim that it was spurious. And, indeed, Jesus twice spoke of "the prince of this world" as a being who was coming to kill him but would ultimately be driven out by Jesus' death.

Christianity does not have a problem of evil because it requires evil for the great historical event celebrated yesterday to have any meaning at all. Just as I wrote last week that the Crucifixion and Resurrection make no sense if man is not at risk of hell, they make no sense in a world that is not given over to evil. But if Christianity has no problem of evil, Christians most certainly have a problem with evil."

So we see, the Resurrection only makes sense if we view that event from the starting point that we live in a fallen world and man is in a fallen state. day goes on to mention.. "The great irony is that despite the world's rejection of God and its foolish embrace of evil, those who find themselves suffering the promised consequences of their actions will end up blaming God for them. Such are the perils of free will."



I would posit "the perils of free will" are part of the problem of understanding evil. Evil is typically an act that is committed. When one has free will over a wide variety of actions that one can perform, then the fallen state of man can easily be seen by some of the heinous acts that our fellow human beings commit.

Father Dwight Longenecker (who I link to on the right side of the page), had this to say recently about suffering...

"Suffering--as terrible as it is--therefore validates our existence. My suffering affirms my eternal destiny. "This is so bad that it must point me to the good. My pain screams out to me and defines the joy I am lacking." How do I know I exist? How do I know my humanity? Because of my pain. The pleasures of this life are ephemeral, and may be produced within me through all sorts of illusory and self-induced phenomena. They are therefore untrustworthy as validation of my existence. But I do not bring pain onto myself. I avoid pain. Therefore, pain is the sensation that not only makes me believe in the existence of pleasure, but it also makes me believe in the existence of me. Pain validates me. Not "I think therefore I am" but "I scream therefore I am."

The cynical nihilist may still turn around and say, "That pleasure and reasonable answer you dream of is an illusion. It is wishful thinking. There is no such thing. Pleasure, like pain, is simply an animal sensation.--a primitive instinct of survival." To which we reply, "Then why do I rage against the unreasonableness of it all? Why not simply whimper and crouch down and lick my wounds and run from the pain like a beast? Instead I rage against God for allowing this suffering and I demand an answer."

There would be no such thing as thirst unless there were such a thing as water. Man could not reason unless there was such a thing as Reason. We could not ask questions if there were no such thing as answers. This is why Christianity puts suffering right at the heart of our faith. We do not avoid it. We do not come up with philosophical or theological theories. We do not say that suffering is an illusion and that we must simply rise above it. Instead we behold the cross. We preach Christ crucified."

So maybe there is a deeper meaning to pain and suffering and we are provided with only a brief glimpse on the overall historical timeline that accentuates the negative. With Christ's victory over death at the cross, we have the example of the empty tomb that there will be comfort and greater understanding in the end for those who seek Him.