I believed the Gospel (the good news about Jesus Christ), became a Christian, was forgiven, became a citizen of heaven, and became an alien in this world on September 15, 1982. To say the least, this exciting event is a special memory to this day. On the following day, I spotted a neighborhood friend playing on the sidewalk outside of my home. While he was enjoying his own personal reenactment of World War II with some little green men on one side of the pavement and some little grey men on the other, I was skipping toward him with gleeful news. After a few polite comments about how cool he had set his army men up, the time had come for the big revelation.
“Guess what?” was the first question asked, to which he simply replied, “what?” The conversation quickly proceeded from there to the telling of my conversion experience in detail, including the nervousness felt, the walk down the aisle, and the words used to pray and ask the Lord Jesus for salvation. After the testimony was complete, I was stunned to hear my little friend speaking scornfully by saying, “that’s so silly. You don’t really believe in God or heaven do you? Don’t you know that our astronauts have been way up in space and they haven’t seen anything at all? I know it’s true because my daddy said so.”
From the perspective of a nine-year-old, he had presented a troublesome point. How does a Christian explain away the fact that God Himself is not presently visible to the human eye? This question, however, is not merely child’s play. Great thinkers and writers in modern times are wrestling with such thoughts. Many wonderful Christian writers were once of the same opinion as this writer’s nine-year-old friend. Popular Christian authors such as Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and Patrick Glynn all currently write in the field of Christian apologetics, yet at one time, they did not believe in God at all. So, what changed their minds? Reality changed their minds. They began to study diligently, with an open-mind, the teaching of the Christian faith. The more they scrutinized Scriptures, the more they came to believe in them.
Don't give up on the most important book in history and the most important person in history. It is illogical, ignorant, and arrogant to ignore Jesus and the Bible. Check it out thoroughly for yourself...then decide. You'll be glad you did!
16 comments:
Good day Ryan,
You cite McDowell, Strobel and Glynn as authors who didn't believe (I'll take your word on that) analyzed Christianity and decided it was true. Listed in isolation these would be mere anecdotes. Wouldn't it me be more telling to say: 'out of 100 non-believers that carefully analyzed the Christian narrative and history, nn people (something statistically significant over 50) decided that Christianity was true'.
...because I would like to know THAT number.
...after all, I could cite three authors that switch to Islam or Scientology.
toward your first comment:
I'd like to know that number too...but still I think we'd still have many unanswered questions.
The facts are that even Jesus was unable to convince some in His time of the reality of who He was and why He came...how could this be? I mean, if He were God, couldn't He have given them what they needed to believe? Yet, many saw Him perform miracles and heard Him teach and still did not believe. In Matthew's gospel in chpt 15 Jesus argues with the Pharisees concerning their disbelief, then in chpt 16 the Pharisees demand another sign to prove His claims, and Jesus retorts that they are a wicked generation and the only sign He will give them will be the "sign of Jonah"...which is prophetic of his death, burial, and resurrection to come in the near future.
Also, in Acts 19:10 there is indication of mission work in Asia that went on for two years so that "everyone in the province of Asia heard the Word of the Lord." So, did that mean everyone believed...hmmm...no they didn't.
It's all very mysterious when you think about it. I mean, if it is the truth...the absolute truth, then everyone should believe it...right?
Well, you know as good as I do that it isn't as easy as that...and from the Christian perspective, there is another rule at play in this world that affects one's belief...it is the work of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:10; John 16:13). The Bible teaches it is the Spirit of God who draws men to repentance and followship of Jesus as Lord and Savior. So, essentially from the biblical perspective, all the logic and reasoning in the world is not enough to convince a non-believer in the Gospel as truth...it takes more...the convicting work of the Spirit of God.
So, McDowell, Strobel, and others who have converted will agree that their search for truth led them pretty far down the road to faith, however, if you talked to them (and I have talked to McDowell and his son), they would tell you it took something else as well. They were drawn to faith by the convicting work of the Holy Spirit of God.
Their works however still are relevant to our conversations...have you heard of McDowell's work..."Evidence that Demands a Verdict"? This was his doctoral dissertation turned into a book...he set out in his dissertation to disprove Christianity with truth...something changed him part way through...and it was more than just the evidence...peace
You said: "...but still I think we'd still have many unanswered questions."
This is a point I would like to focus on because it is a critical difference between our two positions.
Unanswered questions are a very, very good thing...and it is infinitely better to NOT know something than to THINK you know something and be wrong. As Samuel Clemens said: "It's ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
The unknown is the most intellectually stimulating thing going (IMHO). The unknown motivates some to search for answers to gain genuine knowledge. And the best tool we have to accumulate that knowledge is the use of the scientific method. To claim knowledge (i.e. the age of the universe) in the absence of evidence squashes inquiry. After all, if one says that they know the earth is 6,000 years old, then why look for any other answer?
BTW: Please don't cite scripture to non-believers...it is actually counter productive in these discussions. Imagine if I were citing verse from Dianetics to try to convince you of something? Would you not consider me desperate and without an argument of my own?
Not being familiar with McDowell's work, I will have to look it up. I have had to stop purchasing apologetic writings because I have yet to find any that aren't utter c**p...and I can't spend money on that kind of stuff. If I can find it through my library, I will look at it.
"...and it was more than just the evidence". So he had a 'feeling'?!?! You will find that feelings are a dime a dozen if you study brain science. The non-believer has [what you might call] spiritual experiences too. It is the believer that unjustifiably attributes them to actual spirits.
BTW: I did find McDowell's "New Evidence" in my local library and may pick it up today.
I also searched and found lots of the usual stuff refuting his work...I am not hopeful, but hope to get through a couple chapters. If there are specific chapters/citations you would like for me to go to immediately, let me know.
I'll find my copy and get back to you on some of the better chpts...
also, you argue that I shouldn't quote Scripture because this is ineffective/counterproductive in discussions with non-believers...
I have dozens of problems with this statement...I'll name a few:
1. Source of Truth...since you must know that I see the Bible as a source of truth, it is disingenuous to argue "you should not use your primary text when speaking with unbelievers"
2. Hypocritical and nonsensical...so which sources are applicable to a conversation between believers and non-believers.
3. You freely quote from the Bible to criticize it yet you think I should not quote from it.
4. I have found the Bible to be a very effective tool in converting non-believers...why would I put it down now?
5. I believe it is a powerful and inspired document...Hebrews 4:12; 2 Timothy 3:15-17.
I have no problem with you quoting from Dianetics, Darwin, etc... if you feel the source has merit. Obviously if I quote from the bible I feel it has merit.
still enjoying the journey...peace
Maybe I should have stated it differently....
You may, of course, quote from anything that you like. My point was merely that quoting from a text that is considered to be a work of mortal man [and no more] by non-believers cannot possibly affect a convincing argument. If I should say "X, Y, and Z is so because Zenu the galactic overlord said so"...could I possibly think you will ruminate on the validity of my argument?
I know full well that many Christians consider the bible the ultimate source of knowledge. Knowing your audience [me]; you would first have to establish for them that the bible is, indeed, the divine word of God.
I merely meant to convey that quoting scripture to an audience that clearly discounts the veracity of the bible cannot be effective and needlessly consumes paragraphs.
You will find that I don't typically quote opinion (though I will cull cogent lines by others that well state my own opinion...I don't like taking credit where I deserve none). I will quote the bible to highlight inconsistencies and nasty stuff as a challenge to the believer. I will also quote scientific research providing evidence that conflicts with biblical/religious truth claims.
BTW: The library was closed for the holiday weekend, so I could not pick it up. Hopefully Tuesday.
FYI: I sat at the library today and read a couple of sections of McDowell's "New Evidence That Demands A Verdict". I was perplexed by some of what he wrote. In one section he offered 'as evidence' that the mere popularity of the printed book was somehow a validation of the truth of Christianity. I don't have the words to describe how that is soooo not evidence.
In another section he goes on about the meaning of the word 'inspired' (as in the 'inspired word of God') in regards to both the bible and common usage. I think he even quoted some scripture that harkened back to the pitiable/laughable argument of 'The bible is the word of God because it says so in the bible'.
The McDowell's work is a weighty tome but, based on my sampling, the best he can come up with are fragile anecdotes. You will understand if I didn't bother checking it out to read further.
FIRST:
I think I can understand where you are coming from here but again, I respectfully disagree.
I am amazed at how quickly the Bible is brushed aside by skeptics when it is the most popular book in human history...and it appears that will not change anytime soon.
Your argument is that this is sooooooo not evidence. Then I ask, what is it? Circumstance? Chance? It should be terribly difficult to brush aside such an influential text, yet so many moronic atheists brush it aside without even reading it. Can you agree at least to that?
The whole reason we are having this discussion is because modern scientists have followed in the footsteps of a good scientist named Darwin. His work became popular and has forced us, yes even Christians, to grapple with the evidence therein. So we do.
That seems fair...yet, the Bible is so much more popular than Darwinian expositions...so my point is in agreement in force with McDowell's propositions, that the popularity of the text must be considered. Of course, in and of itself, it is not a final proof of truth...but it must be considered.
SECOND:
your problem with Josh's use of the term "inspired" seems petty as well to me.
Of course believers, by faith, believe in the inspiration of the Bible...and yes, the Bible itself, and Jesus himself, ratifies that notion.
Hebrews 1:1-2 says it better than I ever could (don't be offended that I use the Bible...I'm simply quoting a source that I trust...you have some of those too I suppose) "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe..."
This concept of divine revelation is what McDowell means by "inspiration." It doesn't mean perfect (nothing humans are involved in will ever be perfect this side of heaven), it just means we believe God sufficiently revealed Himself enough that we could write a little about Him.
LASTLY:
One of the reasons I have chosen to be outspoken about the evidence for God and design and to question those who oppose such ideas is because of the lies from the scientific community I was force fed in grade school. There were so many, but I'll retell one quickly.
Do you remember the 1974 cover of Time magazine that depicted the progression of human evolution from monkey to human? I should not because I was born in 1973, but I do because the same picture was in my 9th grade biology textbook with all the bogus and speculative and shoddy science that backed it up.
As a ninth grader I was smart enough to look into their claims and realize that they were destroying worldviews at that time with the strength of evidence that would, at that time, all fit into a shoe box.
Now, times have changed, and new evidences are finding there ways into textbooks...but what about all the "CRAP" science that is out there (pardon my language)?
It is easy to criticize the biblical text...there are so many angles to take. But it is still here...it is standing the test of time...does that mean anything? Apparently not...yet, many scientific theories are falling aside as we speak and many are still held up with shoddy evidence. From my perspective, this faith business is looking better and better every day.
I'm glad (and a bit sad) you have been convinced through "evidence" of the truthfulness of the atheist position. I remain thoroughly convinced that Jesus is who He said He was, and I trust the Bible as reliable. I'm open to its criticism, but I've yet to hear any good reason why I should abandon the Bible as a source of truth.
btw...in McDowell's book, the best chpts come towards the end for me: chpt 7, 9, 10 and 12 were strong for me. You may be interested in a guy named Robert M. Price...he has written some "scathing" responses to these chapters that I find interested, yet deficient of biblical scholarship. Every now and then I read a critical review that makes you think, however most of the time these guys have little to no grasp of history or little to no experience with the biblical texts.
But I guess they are the experts huh?
Still enjoying the journey...peace
Thanks for jumping back in. I don't, at the moment, have time to respond to all your recent comments (here and other posts), but will get to them at my earliest convenience.
Before I go, though, I want to toss out for you a 'word problem'. I do this because I want to come back to the concept that it references.
We have the classic game of three cups inverted on a table. There is a ball or 'prize' under one of them. I ask you to pick one cup and you pick in the hopes of winning the prize. Before you lift the cup, though, I lift one of the other cups and show you that it does NOT have the prize. I then offer you the opportunity change your selection. (i.e. you pick 'a', I show you 'b', and you have the opportunity to stay with 'a' or switch to 'c')
The question: Should you 1) stay with your original selection for the best odds of winning, 2) change your selection for the best odds of winning, or 3) it does not matter which cup you choose (on the assumption that they both have the same odds of winning)
I look forward to hearing your choice.
I enjoy puzzles and games so I will play along:
I would choose #2 (changing my selection for the best odds of winning)
I assume my first choice is wrong because of the 1/3 odds in the beginning...I also assume the right choice is in the 2/3 of cups remaining, because of the odds. So when you eliminate one of those I would then switch my choice to jump into the 2/3 odds camp.
OK...well that sounds rational in my head so I'll stick with it.
peace
Very impressive Ryan! You are in a very small minority that got the right answer without looking it up (which I presume you didn't). The vast majority of people assume that it doesn't matter which they take. (there are also some that think it is best to stay with their first choice).
I will visit some of your points above shortly.
I acknowledge that the bible is popular and influential, but popular and influential does not mean ‘from God’. The Beatles, Mao Tse-tung’s Red Book and Albert Einstein were/are popular and influential. The Red Book is #2 behind the Bible…does that give credence to Mao’s communist ideologies? I am a little stymied that I would even have to make an argument against popularity equating with divine truth…it should be obvious to the casual observer that it is not. …and I have read the bible and own several versions.
Re: McDowell and inspiration…
I just found it weak that he felt the word ‘inspired’ means something different in this one context. Again it harkens back to that silly argument that ‘what they REALLY meant was …’.
Re: force fed Darwin…
Is being informed of the most supported scientific theory on life’s diversity in science class ‘force feeding’? Science class is where we discuss science. Shall we also discuss the Native American belief that man came from a stalk of corn? Shall we also discuss the stork theory of conception? Science class is where we discuss science. If you think the ID is science, then you don’t know what science is.
Re: ‘bogus and speculative and shoddy science’
You clearly demonstrate unfamiliarity with the whole body of evidence that even Darwin amassed. There are some things that are, necessarily, speculative in science. For instance, Darwin realized that for his theory to make any sense, the time frames would have to be vast. Of course, the technology to determine those time frames did not exist at the time. As far as ‘bogus’ and ‘shoddy’, you have shown your ignorance on science and I could not possibly, in this venue, educate you. I will acknowledge that the amount of information that makes it into a primary school textbook would not, typically, show a comprehensive framework. If you look at all the minutia and vast amounts of information that Darwin was able to order and make sense of, it is breathtaking. Even as an adult in the last couple of years I learned more of Darwin’s evidences (i.e. embryonic development) that I had never seen before. I was stunned and awestruck. If you think his evidence would fit in a shoebox, then you don’t know his evidence.
You also seem concerned with the destruction of worldviews. I am concerned with truth and find it more important to follow evidence to truth than to protect unsupported worldviews. I am unconcerned with the invalid argument from consequence [It can’t be true because I don’t like the idea of it being true.]
I am not familiar with the ‘crap’ science to which you refer.
Re: ‘the truthfulness of the atheist position’…
I think I have said it previously, but there is no ‘truthfulness’ in ‘our’ position because we don’t make any truth claims beyond what evidence shows us. We do not say ‘there is no god’, we merely say ‘we find no evidence for God’.
BTW: I don't use the term 'ignorant' derisively. 'Ignorant' simply means 'not having been exposed to'. We are ALL ignorant of MOST things. I am ignorant of knitting techniques. Ignorance is a state of knowledge that can be readily changed.
'Stupid', on the other hand, is derisive and you will not see me using that. The fact that you solved the Monty Hall riddle attests that you are not stupid.
In regards to evidence for evolution:
It should be noted that when we discuss 'Darwin' specifically, we are only talking about one individual and the evidence that he alone amassed and theories that he posited. Indeed he had some conceptual errors [not many], but the entire field of evolution by natural selection (ENS) has gone so far beyond what Darwin alone was able to put together. In fact, Darwin's body of work, while seminal, now represents the minority of the evidence for ENS....and it his is not even the most compelling.
An unfortunate truth is that ENS is SO recognized as fact amongst biologists, that few ever bother to actually communicate that full body of evidence. Given the 150th anniversary of Darwin's 'On The Origin Of Species' and the sorry state of scientific literacy in the US; a number of authors are publishing books just to restate the entire argument. You might consider picking up Coyne's 'Why Evolution Is True' or Dawkin's 'The Greatest Show On Earth' (I am currently reading the latter). The evidence, from multiple, disparate fields of science, is suffocating and all point to precisely the same conclusion. It would take just one single compelling, contradictory piece of evidence for the whole thing to come tumbling down...but none have been brought forth.
If you are interested, I would be willing to send you my copy of 'The Greatest Show On Earth' if you promise to read it cover to cover (about 425 pages without bibliography). I would even include a prepaid return envelope.
Post a Comment