Podcasts about christian god

It's Witness Wednesday! Todd Friel meets Phillip and Scott at Georgia Tech and explores topics around purgatory, capitalism, sin, and God's laws. Todd challenges Philip, who maintains dual French-American citizenship, on his beliefs about capitalism versus socialism and his reluctant acceptance of God, while addressing Scott's skepticism on God's justice and the nature of sin. These candid discussions reveal important insights into morality, belief, and human nature. Segment 1: • Philip admits he believes the Christian God makes the most sense but rejects Him to keep living how he wants. • Todd shows Philip that rejecting Jesus for “fun now” is choosing sin over eternal life, urging him to see Jesus as better than temporary pleasures. • Philip acknowledges he's choosing sin knowingly and is willing to face the consequences, even hell, to keep his current lifestyle. Segment 2: • Todd clarifies that Jesus' offer isn't just about avoiding hell but receiving kindness and mercy despite rebellion. • Philip admits he knows Jesus offers life but still rejects Him, saying he's fine with his choices for now. • Todd warns Philip he will face greater judgment for rejecting truth he fully knows, urging him to consider Jesus' kindness before it's too late. Segment 3: • Scott claims God is unjust for punishing humans He created, arguing people are like programmed robots with no choice. • Todd explains the standard of justice is based on the One sinned against (God), making every sin infinitely serious. • Scott insists the God of the Bible is evil, while Todd shows God's justice and kindness in sending Jesus to satisfy wrath and offer mercy. Segment 4: • Todd shares the “tribal king” analogy to explain how God satisfies justice while showing mercy by taking punishment Himself. • Scott insists God should simply forgive without punishment, rejecting the concept of divine justice requiring payment for sin. • Conversation ends with Todd urging Scott to see humanity's sinfulness and God's kindness, parting respectfully but with Scott unconvinced. ___ Thanks for listening! Wretched Radio would not be possible without the financial support of our Gospel Partners. If you would like to support Wretched Radio we would be extremely grateful. VISIT https://fortisinstitute.org/donate/ If you are already a Gospel Partner we couldn't be more thankful for you if we tried!

Greg answers questions about how to determine which religion is true, why God wouldn't just write his own book, how we know the Christian God is the real God, and whether there's an objective moral system or we're simply acting to avoid pain.   Topics: How would you determine which religion is true and which is not? What's more likely: that God doesn't exist and men invented religion to control people, or that God depended on men to write a book with ridiculous laws? (02:00) How should I answer my friend who is asking, “How do I know the Christian God is the real God who created everything?” (25:00) There is no such thing as an objective moral system. We're simply acting to avoid pain, and God isn't necessary for that. Also, Christianity is immoral. (43:00) Mentioned on the Show:  Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air by Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith

Matt, hey, my friends, welcome to the off the wire podcast. My name is Matt Wireman, and with over 25 years of coaching experience, I bring to you a an integrated approach to coaching where we look at mind, body and soul. So this being my little corner of the universe, welcome we cover everything from spiritual formation or the interior life all the way to goal setting and how to make your life better with life hacks, and I cover everything in between. So whatever it fits my fancy, I'm going to share with you, and I'm so thankful for your time, and I hope this episode helps you. All right. Well, hey, welcome, welcome to another episode of Off The Wire. This is Matt, still I haven't changed, but I do have with me, my friend. Really proud to call him a friend. And from seminary days, Dr Josh chatro, who is the Billy Graham chair for evangelism and cultural engagement at Beeson. That's a mouthful. Josh, well done. And then he is also, they just launched a concentration in apologetics at Beeson, which is really exciting. They got a conference coming up this summer. Is that also an apologetics Josh,its own preaching and apologetics? Okay? Awesome.And, and largely, you're also, you're also part of the Tim Keller Center for Cultural apologetics, and then also a, they call them fellows at the Center for Pastor theologians as well. That's right, yeah. And you in, you have been at Beeson for a couple years, because prior to that, you were at a you were heading up. And what was it largely an apologetics group, or was it, was it more broad than that in Raleigh?Yeah, it was. It was much more expansive than that. Evangelism and apologetics is part of what we were doing, but it was the Center for Public Christianity, okay? It was also very much in the work and faith movement. And I was also resident theologian at Holy Trinity Anglican in Raleigh. We were there for five years,excellent and and you don't know this because you don't keep tabs on who bought your book, but I've got every one of your books brother, so every every book you put out, and I'm like, I love this guy, and I'm gonna support him and buy his book. So it started all the way back, if you remember, with truth matters, yeah. And I use that book for one of the classes that I built here where I teach. And then then I want to go through the Litany here and embarrass you a little bit. And then it goes to apologetics, at the Cross Cultural Engagement, telling a better story, surprised by doubt. And then one that you just released called the Augustine way, retrieving a vision for the church's apologetic witness. So do you write much on apologetics? Is that kind of your thing?Yeah, I've written a few books on that.So why? Like, what is it about apologetics that has really captured your heart, in your mind and like, as opposed to just teaching theology, yeah, it's a certain it's a certain stream. If folks are first of all, folks are curious, like, What in the world is apologetics? Are you apologizing to folks? Like, are you saying I'm sorry?Well, I do have to do that. I'm sorry a lot. That's a good practice. That's not quite what apologetics is. Okay. Okay, so we, one of the things I would say is, and when I meet, when I meet up with old friends like you, sometimes they say, What have you been doing? Because we didn't see this coming. And when we were in seminary together, it wasn't as if I was, you know, reading a lot of apologetic works. And so one of the things is,and you weren't picking fights on campus too much. You were always a really kind person. And most, most time, people think of like apologists as, like, real feisty. And you're not a feisty friend. I'm not. I actually, unless you start talking about, like, soccer and stuff like that, right? Yeah,yeah, I'm not. Yeah, I don't. I don't love, I don't love, actually, arguments I'd much rather have, which is an odd thing, and so I need to tell how did I get into this thing? I'd much rather have conversations and dialog and kind of a back and forth that keeps open communication and and because, I actually think this ties into apologetics, most people don't make decisions or don't come to they don't come to any kind of belief simply because they were backed into an intellectual corner. And but now maybe I'll come back to that in a second. But I got into this because I was doing my PhD work while I was pastoring. And when you do yourpH was that in in Raleigh, because you did your PhD work at Southeastern, right?That's right, that's right. But I was actually, we were in southern, uh. In Virginia for the first half, we were in a small town called Surrey. It was, if you know anything about Tim Keller, it was he served in Hopewell, Virginia for seven or nine years before he went to Westminster and then to New York. And we were about 45 minutes from that small town. So if you've read Colin Hansen's book, he kind of gives you some background on what is this, these little communities, and it does, does kind of match up the little community I was serving for two years before moving to another little community in South Georgia to finish while I was writing. And so I pastored in both locations. So these aren't particularly urban areas, and yet, people in my church, especially the young people, were asking questions about textual criticism, reliability of the Bible.Those are any topics forfolks like, yeah, something happened called the Internet, yes. All of a sudden now, things that you would, you would get to, maybe in your, you know, thm, your your master's level courses, or even doctoral level courses. Now 1819, year old, 20 year olds or 50 year olds had questions about them because they were reading about some of this stuff on the internet. And because I was working on a PhD, I was actually working on a PhD in biblical theology and their New Testament scholar, people would come to me as if I'm supposed to know everything, or you know. And of course, of course, when you're studying a PhD, you're you're in a pretty narrow kind of world and very narrow kind of lane. And of course, I didn't know a lot of things, but I was, I kind of threw myself into, how do I help people with these common questions. So it wasn't as if, it wasn't as if I was saying, oh, I want to study apologetics. I kind of accidentally got there, just because of really practical things going on in my church context. And and then as I was reading and I started writing in response to Bart Ehrman, who is a is a agnostic Bible scholar. Wrote four or five New York Times bestsellers, uh, critical of the New Testament, critical of the Bible, critical of conservative Christianity. I started writing those first two books. I wrote with some senior scholars. I wrote in response. And then people said, so your apologist? And I said, Well, I guess I am. And so that, yeah, so I'm coming at this I'm coming at this area, not because I just love arguments, but really to help the church really with really practical questions. And then as I began to teach it, I realized, oh, I have some different assumptions coming at this as a pastor, also as a theologian, and trained in biblical theology. So I came with a, maybe a different set of lenses. It's not the only set of lens. It's not the it's not the only compare of lenses that that one might take in this discipline, but that's some of my vocational background and some of my kind of journey that brought me into apologetics, and in some ways, has given me a little bit different perspective than some of the dominant approaches or dominant kind of leaders in the area.That's great. Well, let's go. Let's get after it. Then I'm gonna just throw you some doozies and see how we can rapid fire just prove all of the things that that are in doubt. So here we go. Okay, you ready? How do we know that God exists?Yeah, so that word no can have different connotations. So maybe it would be better to ask the question, why do we believe God exists? Oh,don't you do that? You're you can't, you can't just change my question. I was kidding. Well, I think, I think you bring up a great point, is that one of the key tasks in apologetics is defining of terms and understanding like, Okay, you asked that question. But I think there's a question behind the question that actually is an assumption that we have to tease out and make explicit, right? Because, I mean, that's, that's part of you. So I think sometimes people get into this back and forth with folks, and you're like, Well, you have assumptions in your question. So go ahead, you, you, you go ahead and change my question. So how do we knowthe issue is, is there is that when we say something like, you know, we people begin to imagine that the way Christianity works is that we need to prove Christianity in the way we might prove as Augustine said this in confessions, four plus six equals 10. And Augustine, early church father, and he's writing, and he's writing about his own journey. He said I really had to get to the point where I realized this is not how this works. Yeah, we're not talking about, we do not one plus one, our way to God.Yeah. And when is Augustine writing about When? When? So people are, yeah, 397,at. This point. So he's writing right at the, you know, right right before the fifth century, okay? And, and, of course, Augustine famously said, we have to believe to understand, for most believers, God is intuitive, or what? Blaise Pascal, the 17th century Christian philosopher He called this the logic of the heart. Or I can just cite a more contemporary figure, Alvin planeta, calls this basic belief that. He says that belief in God is a basic belief, and and for So, for for many believers, they would say something like this. And I think there's validity in this so is that God just makes sense, even if, even if they haven't really worked out arguments that they they say, Well, yeah, this God makes sense to me. Now I can kind of begin to explore that. I will in just a second, but I just want to say there's, for most of your listeners, it's something like, I heard the gospel and this and the stories of Jesus, and I knew they were true, right? And as kind of insiders here, we would say that's the Spirit's work. The Holy Spirit is working, and God speaks through creation and his word, and people believe. And so that's that's why we believe now, of course, once we say that people have these kinds of intuitions, or as theologians would put it, this sense of God kind of built into them, I would want to say, as an apologist, or even as a pastor, just a minister, you don't have to be apologist to say this is that we can appeal to those intuitions and make arguments in many different types of ways. Well,hold on one second. Isn't that a little too simplistic, though? Because, I mean, you have the Greeks who believed in all the different gods, and the Romans who adopted those gods and changed their names and like, how do we assimilate that? You know, where, you know Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins famously say, Well, I don't, I don't believe in Zeus. So does that make me an atheist? It would have made me an atheist back in, you know, you know Roman and Latin and Greek times. So, so there's an intuition, but, but how do we delineate that? Well, that's not the right object of that intuition.Like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So we have this intuition, you know, we could say Romans, Romans, one is pointing us to, this is what I would argue, this sense of God, and yet we're, we're fallen, according to the Christian story. And so even though we have this sense of God, we suppress that, and we worship false gods, or we worship the created, rather than the Creator. So the Christian story as a as a Christian, helps make sense of both the kind of why? Well, although we have this sense this, there's this common sense of God, it goes in many different directions and and I would argue that even if you deny kind of transcendence altogether, you're still going to have you're going to still make something kind of a god. You're going to you're going to want to worship something. And I think that's that's part of the point of Romans, one, you end up going to worship the created rather than the Creator. So does that get out what you're asking Matt or Yeah,I think so. I think sometimes the arguments that are real popular, even now is like, well, I just don't, I just don't, I just don't believe that God exists, just like I don't believe that Zeus exists, like, what's, what's the big deal? Why? Why are you so adamant that I believe in that God exists? Like to because I don't, I don't know that God exists because I don't see him. So how would you respond to somebody who says, Well, this Intuit intuition that that you say we all have, and that Romans one says we have, I just don't buy it, you know, because, I mean, I'm, I wouldn't believe that Zeus exists, because there's no empirical evidence to show me otherwise. So how would you respond to somebody that's equivocating or saying that, you know, Yahweh of the Old Testament, the God of the, you know, the God of the Bible is, this is just a tribal deity, just like Zeus is. So, how should we? Iwould, I would say so. So I think we can make kind of arguments for some kind of for transcendence. So there's ways to make arguments against naturalism. That's that's what's being promoted. And there's various different kinds of, you know. So sometimes these kinds of arguments that are in the Christian tradition are used to say, hey, we're going to prove God's existence using these arguments. I think I'm not. Are typically comfortable with the language of prove and how it's used in our context today, again, we get into the math, kind of two plus two equals four. Kind of thinking, yep. But I think a lot of those arguments are appealing to both intuitions and they they work much more effectively as anti naturalistic arguments. Not so much saying, Okay, we know a particular God through, say, the moral argument, okay, that we're but, but it's arguing against simply a naturalistic, materialistic. You know, even Evans, who's a longtime professor at Baylor, makes this argument that those, those types of arguments are really good against pushing back against naturalism. So plan again, has a famous argument that says, if naturalism and evolutionary theory are both true because of how evolution theory works, it's not about right thinking, but right action that you perform certain things to survive. Then, if both of those are true, you have no reason to trust your kind of cognitive faculties.Can you tease that one out a little bit? I kind of lost on that one. He said,What planet is arguing? Is he saying? Look, if, if all of our kind of cognitive faculties are just a product of evolution, okay? And by the way, not only does it's not just a plan. Ago makes this argument, it's actually kind of interesting figures who were like Nietzsche and others made this argument that basically, if, if evolution and naturalism is true that all we are is energy and manner and this product of evolutionary process, then we would have no reason to actually trust kind of our rationality, and that's what rationality is actually mapping onto reality. All of our our brains and our minds are really just producing certain conclusions to help us survive. So it would undercut the very foundations of that position. Now again, yeah, being able to observe, yeah, yeah. So, so with that, again, I think that's an example of an argument that doesn't so much. You know, say this is the Christian God. This supports the belief in Christian God. But what it does is it from within their own thinking. It challenges that. It undercuts their own way of thinking, which is what you're assuming and what you're kind of pushing back on, is a kind of naturalistic world. And I think we can step within that try to understand it and then challenge it on its own terms. And I think that's the real strength of planning this argument. What he's doing now, go ahead.Well, that's it, yeah, in his, in his, like, the the Opus is, uh, warranted. Christian belief is that what you're referencing the the big burgundy book.I can't remember where he makes this argument? Yeah, I can'tremember exactly. But like, if all your cognitive faculties are working, somebody who believes that God exists does not mean that they does not negate all of the other cognitive faculties that they're like if they're in their rational mind, that they have warrants for their belief. But, but that's what I what I think, where I'm tracking with you, and I love this is that even like, it still holds true, right? Like there's not one silver bullet argument to say now we know, like, that's what you were challenging even in the question is, how do you know that you know that you know that God exists? Well, you have to layer these arguments. And so this is one layer of that argument that even the Greeks and the Romans had a sense of transcendence that they were after, and they identified them as gods. But there's this other worldliness that they're trying to attribute to the natural world that they observe, that they can't have answers for, and that we can't observe every occurrence of reality, that there has to be something outside of our box, so to speak, out of our naturalistic tendencies. And so even that can be helpful to say, well, that kind of proves my point that even the Greeks and the Romans and other tribal deities, they're after something outside of our own experience that we can experience in this box. Yeah, that'sright. And there's a, I mean again, this, this argument, isn't intellectually coercive, and I don't think any of these are intellectually coercive. What I mean by that is you can find ways out. And so the approach I would take is actually called an abductive approach, which says, Okay, let's put everything on the table, and what best makes sense, what best makes sense, or what you know, what story best explains all of this? And so that way, there's a lot of different angles you can take depending on who you're talking to, yep, and and so what one of the, one of the ways to look at this and contemporary anthropology? Psycho psychologists have done work on this, to say, the kind of standard, what we might call natural position in all of human history, is that there's there's transcendence. That's, it's just the assumption that there's transcendence. Even today, studies have been shown even people who grow kids, who grew up in a secular society will kind of have these intuitions, like, there is some kind of God, there is some kind of creator, designer. And the argument is that you actually have to have a certain kinds of culture, a particular culture that kind of habituate certain thinking, what, what CS Lewis would call, a certain kind of worldly spell to to so that those intuitions are saying, Oh no, there's not a god. You know, there's not transcendence. And so the kind of common position in all of human history across various different cultures is there is some kind of transcendence. It takes a very particular, what I would say, parochial, kind of culture to say, oh, there's probably no there. There's not. There's, of course, there's not. In fact, Charles Taylor, this is the story he wants to tell of how did we get here, at least in some secular quarters of the West, where it was just assumed, of course, there's, of course, there's a God to 500 years of to now, and at least some quarters of the West, certain, certain elite orsecular? Yeah? Yeah, people. And even then, that's a minority, right? This is not a wholesale thing, yeah.It seems to be. There's something, well, even Jonathan height, uh, he's an atheist, says, has acknowledged that there seems to be something in humans. That's something like what Pascal called a God shaped hole in our heart, and so there's this kind of, there's this deep intuition. And what I'm wanting to do is, I'm wanting in my arguments to kind of say, okay, given this as a Christian, that I believe we have this sense of God and this intuition of God, these intuitions, I want to appeal to those intuitions. And so there's a moral order to the universe that people just sense that there is a right and wrong. There's certain things that are right and certain things are wrong, even if a culture says it is, it is, it is fine to kill this group of people, that there's something above culture, that even there's something above someone's personal preference, that is their moral order to the universe. Now, given that deep seated intuition, what you might call a first principle, what makes best sense of that, or a deep desire, that that, that nothing in the universe seems to satisfy that we have. This is CS Lewis's famous argument. We have these desires, these natural desires for we get thirsty and there's there's water, we get hungry and there's food, and yet there's this basically universal or worldwide phenomenon where people desire something more, that they try to look for satisfaction in this world and they can't find it. Now, what best explains that? And notice what I'm doing there, I'm asking that the question, what best explains it? Doesn't mean there's, there's not multiple explanations for this, but we're saying, What's the best explanation, or profound sense that something doesn't come from nothing, that intelligence doesn't come from non intelligence, that being doesn't come from non being. Yeah, a deep sense that there's meaning and significance in life, that our experience with beauty is not just a leftover from an earlier primitive stage of of evolution. And so we have these deep experiences and intuitions and ideas about the world, and what I'm saying is particularly the Christian story. So I'm not, I'm not at the end, arguing for just transcendence or or kind of a generic theism, but I'm saying particularly the Christian story, best, best answers. Now, I'm not saying that other stories can't incorporate and say something and offer explanations, but it's a, it's a really a matter of, you know, you might say out narrating or or telling the Gospel story that maps on to the ways we're already intuiting about the world, or experiencing or observing the world.Yeah, so, so going along with that, so we don't have, like, a clear cut case, so to speak. We have layers of argument, and we appeal to what people kind of, in their heart of hearts, know, they don't have to like, they have to be taught otherwise. Almost like, if you talk to a child, they can't, they kind of intuit that, oh, there's something outside, like, Who created us? Like, who's our mom? You know, like, going back into the infinite regress. It's like, okay, some something came from nothing. How does that even how is that even possible? So there has to be something outside of our. Experience that caused that to happen. So, so say you, you go there, and then you help people. Say, help people understand. Like, I can't prove God's existence, but I can argue that there are ways of explaining the world that are better than other ways. So then, how do you avoid the charge that, well, you basically are a really proud person that you think your religion is better than other religions. How, how could you dare say that when you can't even prove that you're you know? So how? How would you respond to somebody who would say, like, how do you believe? Why do you believe that Christianity is a one true religion? Yeah, um,well, I would say a couple of things. One is that, in some sense, everyone is staking out some kind of claim. So even if you say you can't say that one religion is true or one one religion is the one true religion, that is a truth claim that you're staking out. And I think it's fine that this for someone to say that they just need to realize. I mean, I think they're wrong, but I think they're they're making a truth claim. I'm making a truth claim. Christians are making truth so we're, we all think we're right, and that's fine. That's fine, but, but then we but then once you realize that, then you're not saying, Well, you think you're right, but I just, I'm not sure, or it's arrogant to say you're right. I think, of course, with some some things, we have more levels of confidence than other things. And I think that's the other thing we can say with Christian with as Christians, it's saying, Hey, I believe, I believe in the resurrection. I believe in the core doctrines of Christianity. It doesn't mean that everything I might believe about everything is right. It doesn't even mean all my arguments are are even 100% always the best arguments, or I could be wrong about a particular argument and and I'm also not saying that you're wrong about everything you're saying. Okay, so, but what we are saying is that, hey, I I believe Jesus is who he said he was, and you're saying he's not okay. Let's have a conversation. But it's not, rather, it's not a matter of somebody being air. You know, you can hold those positions in an arrogant way. But simply saying, I believe this isn't in itself arrogance, at least, I think how arrogance is classically defined, yeah. And what is this saying? I believe this, and I believe, I believe what Jesus said about himself. And I can't go around and start kind of toying with with, if I believe he's Lord, then it's really not up to me to say, okay, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna, kind of take some of what he said, but not all of what he said. If you actually believe he rose from the dead and he is Lord and He is God, then then you take him at his word.What is it, as you think about cultural engagement, cultural apologetics that you've written on like, what is it in our cultural moment right now where people you say that thing, like Jesus said, You know, he, he, he said, I'm God, you know, not those explicit words, right? That's some of the argument. Like, no, but you look at the narrative he did, and that's why he was going to be stoned for blasphemy. That's why all these things. But that's, that's another conversation for another day. But, and then you talk to someone, you're like, Well, I don't believe he was God. I don't believe His claims were. Like, why then do you do we oftentimes find ourselves at a standstill, and people just throw up their hands like, well, that's your truth, and my truth is, I just don't, like, just don't push it on me. Like, why do we find ourselves in this? And it's not new. I mean, this is something that goes back to, you know, hundreds of years ago, where people are making arguments and they're like, Well, I just don't know. So I'm gonna be a transcendentalist, or I'm gonna be a deist, or I'm gonna whatever. So how do we kind of push back on that a little bit to say, No, it's not what we're talking about. Is not just a matter of preference, and it's not just a matter of, hey, my truth for me and your truth for you. But we're actually making it a claim that is true for all people. Like, how do we kind of encourage people to push into that tendency that people have to just throw up their hands and say, whatever? Pass the piece, you know? Well,okay, so I think let me answer that in two ways. One's philosophically, and then two are practically. One philosophically. I do think it's, you know, CS Lewis was on to this, as he often was way ahead of the curve on certain things, but on an abolition of man. When he talked, he's talking about the fact value distinction and how we've separated. You know, you have your facts, and then everything you know, where, classically, you would kind of recognize that courage, you know, is a virtue, and that's, it's a, it's a, it's also a fact that we should pursue courage and rather than just my preference of kind of and so there's actually. Be this, but now we have, well, that's a value, kind of courage, and say you should do something, but it's, it's, that's your value and and so we have this distinction between facts, which is, follow the science, and then values over here. And as that has opened up. You have both a kind of, on one hand, a very, very much, a people saying in a very kind of hard, rationalistic way, you know, science has said, which, that would be another podcast to kind of dive into that more science is good and, yeah, and, but science doesn't say anything. So I'm a fan of science, but it doesn't say anything. We interpret certain things, but, but so you can kind of have a hard rationalism, but you also combine with a kind of relativism, or at least a soft relativism that says, Well, this is my truth, because values become subjective. So that's the philosophical take. But the kind of practical thing, I would say, is they need people. One of the reasons people do that is because, it's because they've seen kind of these to reference what you're talking about earlier this hey, this person's coming in wanting to talk about my worldview, and it just becomes this fierce, awkward encounter, and I don't want anything to do with that type of thing, like I don't, I don't want to go down the dark corners of of the Internet to have these, to have these intellectual just like Charles Taylor says, a lot of the kind of arguments are, I have three reasons why your position is untenable. He says something like untenable, wrong and totally immoral. Now, let's have a conversation. It just and so it's kind of like, no thanks. I don't think I want to have that conversation. You do you. And so there's, there is a part that, culturally, something is going on which needs to be confronted. And Lewis was doing that work, and a lot of philosophers have followed him in that but there's also a side of of maybe where our own worst enemies here, and the way that we try to engage people, and where we start with people, and we think, Okay, let's start in this kind of, you know, apologetic wrestling match with people. And a lot of times, people are just looking to cope. People are just looking to survive. They have mental health issues going on, and they don't want another one to pop up because of the apologist. And so they're just looking to try to skirt that conversation and get to feeding their kids or dealing with their angry neighbor. And so we've got to kind of take stock on kind of where people are at, and then how to engage them with where they're at. Now I'm going to apologize. I think all of those arguments are helpful in a certain context, but a lot of times, we've been our own worst enemy, and how we try to try to engage so what I what I encourage students and ministers to do is is start talking about people's stories, and you know how life is going and where what's hard, and asking really good questions, and kind of having a holy curiosity and and often, I was in an encounter with a guy who came up to me after a kind of a university missions thing, and he was an atheist, and he wanted to talk about the moral argument. And I was happy to do that for a few minutes, but then I just asked him. I said, what you know, what do you love to do? Tell me about yourself, and where do you really find joy in life? And he looked at me, and he started to tear up, and he said, You know, I'm really lonely right now, you know, go figure this moment in our world, the kind of fragmented world we live in. And he said, what's really meaningful to me is my is my pet, because he provides solace. And there's this moment where, of course, I mean, here's an atheist wanting to show up at a Christian event, right? And because Christians were nice to him, and he's deeply lonely, and we got to have a pretty meaningful conversation about, you know, the benefits of following Christ in the community, communion with not only God, but with others, yeah, but if I would have just left it at, let's go to the more we would have never got there. But it took me kind of asking the question, which is, in essence, what I was trying to ask is what, I didn't put it like this, but what are you seeking? What are you really after here? And where are you really getting joy in life, and what's going on? And I if we can learn to go there, I think we'll have much more productive conversations. And then just kind of, I heard chatro talk about the, you know, ontological argument. Now let me throw that out there at somebody. I think that's why apologists and apologetics have sometimes been given a bad name. But if you. Actually look at the tradition, the the larger tradition. There's so many resources, and there's so many people, apologists, doing lots of different things, that I think gives us kind of way to actually engage people where they're at.Yeah, yeah. No, that's great. Well, I It reminds me, I believe it was Schaefer who talked about the the greatest apologetic, at least his time, and I think it stands true even now, is welcoming people and being hospitable towards people, welcoming the questions, not looking at folks as adversaries, but fellow pilgrims. And then you welcome them into that space, into that community. And then they're they see that, quite frankly, the faith works. The Christian ethic actually works, albeit imperfect, by imperfect people in imperfect ways. But you know, as we go through pain and suffering, as we go through, you know, elation and disappointment, like there's still a lot that that we can demonstrate to the world through our testimony that it works. You know, so to speak. So I'd love to hear you kind of help walk us through how the Christian story tells a better story about pain and suffering, because that's that's a fact of every person listening is that there's some modicum of pain and suffering in their life at any moment. And then you look at the grand scale of the world and all these things, but just even we can go down to the individual level of the why is there pain and suffering in my life and in the world and, you know, in general. But I like, like for you to just kind of riff on that for a little bit for us, to helpus, yeah. And in some ways, this question, and the apologetic question is a kind of real, a snapshot into the into what we're talking about with, how do we respond to that? Not just as Okay, an intellectual question, yeah, yeah, but it's also a profoundly experiential question. And there's youmean, you mean, and how, in the moment when you're saying, in the moment when somebody asks you the question, not getting defensive, but being being willing to listen to the question, Is that what you mean by that? And yeah,well, what I mean is, that's certainly true. Matt, what I was really thinking, though, is how this is not just something kind of an abstract, intellectual question. Oh, okay, but it's a profound experiential and there's different angles that we might take into it. But I mean, as a kind of snapshot or a test case in our apologetic is, I think there's ways to answer that question that are sterile, that are overly academic, and I and that also, I would say, rushes in to give an answer. And I would want to argue that Christianity doesn't give an answer to evil and suffering, but it gives a response. And let me make, let me explain that, yeah, is, is an answer. Tries in the way I'm using it, at least tries to say, I'm going to solve this kind of intellectual problem, and the problem of evil and suffering in the world, of why a good God who's all powerful would allow the kind of evil and suffering we see in the world is, is one that we might say, Okay, now there's the problem. Now let me give the solution. And this is often done, and we've you maybe have been in this if you're listening into a certain context where a kind of famous apologist says, Here is the answer, or famous Christian celebrity says, Here is the answer to evil, and this solves all the problems, until you start thinking about it a little bit more, or you go home, or three or four years, and you grow out of that answer and and so I think we need to be real careful here when we say we have the answer, because if you keep pushing that question back in time, or you start asking questions like, well, that that bullet that hit Hitler in World War One and didn't kill him? What if the God of the Bible, who seems to control the wind and everything, would have just blown it over and killed Hitler. It seems like maybe it could have been a better possible world if Hitler, you know, didn't lead the Holocaust. Okay, so, so again, I think, I think pretty quickly you begin to say, Okay, well, maybe some of these theodicies Don't actually solve everything, although I would say that some of the theodicies that are given things like free will, theodicy or or the kind of theodicies that say God uses suffering to to grow us and develop us. And I think there's truth in all of that, and there's but what it does. What none of them do is completely solve the problem. And so I think that there's value in those theodicies in some extent.Hey, did you know that you were created to enjoy abundance? I'm not talking about getting the latest pair of Air Jordans or a jet plane or whatever that this world says that you have to have in order to be happy. Instead, I'm talking about an abundant life where you are rich in relationships, you're rich in your finances, but you are rich in life in general, that you are operating in the calling that God has for you, that He created you for amazing things. Did you know that? And so many times we get caught up in paying our mortgage and running hither and yon, that we forget that in this world of distractions that God has created you for glorious and amazing things and abundant life. If you would like to get a free workbook, I put one together for you, and it's called the my new rich life workbook. If you go to my new rich life.com my new rich life.com. I would be glad to send you that workbook with no strings attached, just my gift to you to help you. But here'sthe thing, here's what I want to go back to with a question. Is that the Odyssey as we know it, or this? And what I'm using theodicy for is this, this responsibility that that we feel like we have to justify the ways of God, is a particularly modern phenomenon. I think this is where history comes and helps us. Charles Taylor talks about this in that the kind of way we see theodicy and understand theodicy was really developed in the middle of the 1700s with figures like Leibniz, and then you have particularly the Lisbon earthquakes in the middle of the 18th century. And that was this kind of 911 for that context. And in this 911 moment, you have philosophers being saying, Okay, how do we justify the ways of God? And are trying to do it in a very kind of this philosophical way to solve the problem. But from for most of human history and history of the West, of course, evil and suffering was a problem, but it wasn't a problem so much to be solved, but it was a problem to to cope with and and and live in light of, in other words, what you don't have in the Bible is Job saying, Okay, well, maybe God doesn't exist. Or the psalmist saying, maybe God doesn't exist because I'm experiencing this. No, they're ticked off about it. They're not happy about it. They're struggling to cope with it. It is, it is a problem, but it's not, then therefore a problem. That says, well, then God doesn't exist. Yeah. And it didn't become a widespread kind of objection against God's very existence, until certain things have happened in the kind of modern psyche, the kind of modern way of imagining the world. And here is what's happened. This is what Charles Taylor says. Is that Taylor says what happened is kind of slowly through through different stages in history, but but in some sorry to be gloved here, but it's, it's a very kind of, you know, long argument. But to get to the point is, he says our view of God became small, and our view of humans became really big. And so God just came became kind of a bigger view of version of ourselves. And then we said, oh, if there is a reason for suffering and evil, we should be able to know it, because God's just a bigger kind of version of us, and he has given us rational capacities. And therefore if we can't solve this, then there must not be a god. That's kind of where the logic goes. And of course, if you step into the biblical world, or what I would say a more profoundly Christian way of looking at it is God. God isn't silent, and God has spoken, has given us ways to cope and live with suffering and ways to understand it. But what he what he doesn't give us, is that we're going to he actually promises that, that we're not going to fully understand His ways that, that we're going to have to trust Him, even though we can't fully understand why he does what he does in history all the time. And so this leads into what, what's actually called. There's, this is a, this is a weird name if you're not in this field, but it's called skeptical theism. I'm a skeptical theist. And what skeptical theists Are you is that we're not skeptical about God, but we're skeptical about being able to neatly answer or solve the problem of evil. But we actually don't think that's as big of a deal, because, simply because. I don't understand why God, God's simply because I don't understand God's reasons. Doesn't mean he doesn't have reasons. Yeah, yeah. Andso just beyond your the your finite, uh, temporo spatial understanding of things, right? Like you don't understand how this horrible situation plays out in a grander narrative,right? So it's Stephen wickstra. He had this famous argument. I'll riff off of it a little bit. I mean, just metaphor. He says, if you have a if you have a tent, and we go camping together, Matt and and I open the tent and say, there's a giant dog in there. And you look in there, there's no dog, you would say, Yeah, you're either crazy or a liar. But if I open the tent and say there's tiny bugs in there, and they're called no see ums, you wouldn't, you wouldn't know. You wouldn't be in a position to know. You wouldn't be in an epistemological position to know whether there's a bug in there or not. So you would simply have to decide whether you're going to trust me or not. And then, you know, the claim of the non Christian might be, well, yeah, why would I trust the God given the kind of crap that I see in the world? And I would say, well, a couple reasons. One is most profoundly because God has entered into this world. He has not sat on the sidelines. So even though we don't fully understand it, he has in the person of Jesus Christ, he has suffered with us and for us. So this is a God who says, I haven't given you all the answers, but I have given you myself. And that's I think both has some rational merit to it, and profoundly some intellectual merit to that. I'd also say that the Christian story actually gets at some deep intuitions, kind of underneath this challenge or this problem. It was CS Lewis, who was an atheist in World War One, and and he was very angry at God because of the evil and violence and his his mom dying at an early age, and was an atheist. But then he realized that in his anger against God, that he was assuming a certain standard, a certain kind of moral standard, about how the world should be, that there is evil in the world and that it shouldn't be so, and this deep intuition that it shouldn't be so that certain things aren't right. Actually, you don't have if you do away with God's existence, you just you have your preferences. But in a world of just energy and matter, why would the world not be absurd? Why would you expect things not to be like this. Why would you demand them not to be like this?So a deeply embedded sense of morality that can't be explained by naturalism is what you're getting, yeah?That that we have a certain problem here, or certain challenge with not fully being able to answer the question, yeah, but they have, I would say, a deeper challenge, that they don't have even the kind of categories to make sense of the question. So that's those are some of the directions I would go, and it's first stepping inside and kind of challenging against some of the assumptions. But then I'm as you, as you can tell, then I'm going to say how the Christian story does make sense of these deep intuitions, our moral intuitions, that are underneath the problem, or the challenge of evil and suffering. And then also going to Jesus in the Gospel. And the Gospel story,one of the questions I had on our on the list of questions was, how do we know the Bible is true? But I want to delve into more of this understanding of doubt and how that plays, because you've written a lot on this. But I'd like, could you just direct us to some resources, or some folks, if folks are interested in, how do we know the Bible is true? I'm thinking real popular apologist right now is Wesley. Huff is a great place to go. But are there other like, hey, how do I know that the Bible is true? Because you keep appealing to Christianity, which is in for is the foundation of that is the Bible. So could you give us a few resources so people could chase those down.Peter Williams has written a couple little good books on the Gospels. AndPeter Williams Williams, he's in Cambridge, right, orTyndale house, over there and over the pond. And he's written a book on the Gospels. And I can't think of the name, but if you put it on the internet, it'll show up. And the genius of Jesus as well. Okay, little books, and I think both of those are helpful as far as the Gospels go. Richard, Richard balcom is really good on this, Jesus and the eyewitnesses. As well as a little book that most people haven't heard of. It's a, it's an introduction to the Gospels in that off in an Oxford series, which is, you know, kind of a brief introduction to the Gospels. And he, especially at the very beginning, he gives us John Dixon, who's at Wheaton now, has written a lot of good books on on on this. And it's got this series called skeptics guide to and it does both Old Testament and New Testament kind of stuff. So that little series is, is really helpful. So those are some places I would start. And in my books, I typically have, you know, chapters on this, but I haven't, haven't written, you know, just one book, just on this. The early books, truth matters and truth in a culture of doubt, were, were engaging Bart airman. But really, Bart airman not to pick on on Airmen, but just because he was such a representative of a lot of the the views that that we were hearing, he ended up being a good kind of interlocutor. In those I would just say, I know you didn't. You just asked for books. And let me just say one thing about this is I, I think if you are trying to engage, I think if you take the approach of, let me prove the Bible, let me take everything and just, yeah, I don't think that's the best way. I think you often have to give people some you know, whether it's, you know, the beginning of Luke's Gospel, where he's saying, This is how I went about this. And I actually did my homework to kind of say, this is at least the claim of the gospel writers say, and then, but the real way that you you come to see and know, is you have to step into it and read it. And I think one of the apologetic practices I would want to encourage, or just evangelistic practices, is is offering to read the gospels with people and and working through it. And then certain things come up as you read them, apologetically that you'll, you'll want to chase down and use some of those resources for but I think often it's, it's saying, hey, the claims are, at least that, you know, these guys have done their homework and and some of the work Richard welcome is doing is saying, you know, the Gospel traditions were, were were pinned within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and this. And so that's some of the work that that balcom has helpfully done that kind of help us get off the ground in some of these conversations.Would that be your go to gospel Luke or, like, if you're walking with players, or a go to like,some people say more because of the shortness or John, I I'm happy with them. Allfour should be in the canon. Yeah, no, that's great. And I think a couple other books I'm thinking of Paul Wagner's from text from text to translation, particularly deals with Old Testament translation issues, but then text critical pieces, but then also FF. Bruce's canon of Scripture is a real, solid place to go, if people are interested in those big pieces, but those, I mean, yeah, Richard Bauckham work was really helpful for me when I was like, How do I even know, you know the starting place is a good starting place. So, yeah, thank you for that. Sowhat the challenge is, people have got to make up their mind on Jesus. Yeah. I mean, I think that's where I want to kind of triage conversations and say, Hey, I know the Bible is a big book and there's a lot going on. First things you gotta make a call on. So that's where I'm going to focus on, the Gospels. That'sgreat. No, that's great. Well, you know, a lot of times you, and you've mentioned this earlier, that sometimes in our attempts to give reasons for our faith, we can come to simplistic answers like, Okay, this is, here you go. Here's the manuscript evidence, for example. Or, hey, here's the evidence for the resurrection. Oh, here. You know, this is pain and suffering, Romans, 828, you know, having these quick answers. And I think it stems from a desire to want to have a foundation for what we stand on. But a lot of times, and I think what we're seeing in our culture, and this is not anything new, this topic of deconstruction is not really a new topic is, you know, it's what's been called in the past, apostasy, or just not believing anymore. But now it's gotten a more, you know, kind of sharper edges to it. And and I would love for you to you know how you would respond to someone who is deconstructing from their faith because it didn't allow for doubt or because they were raised in perhaps a really strict Christian home. So how would you respond to somebody who says, I don't I don't like the. Had answers anymore, and I don't, you know, it's just too simplistic, and it doesn't, it's not satisfying. So how would you, because I encounter a lot of folks that are in that vein, the ones who are deconstructing, it's, it's not, you know, there's definitely intellectual arguments, but there's something else in back of that too, I think. So I'd love to hear you just kind of, how would you respond to someone who is deconstructing or has deconstructed in their faith?Yeah, yeah. And of course not. In that situation, my first response it's going to be, tell me more. Let's, let's talk more. I want to hear, I want to hear your story. I want to hear your deconversion story, or where you're at and and to have some real curiosity. Rather than here, let me tell you what your problem is. And let me tellyou, yeah, you just don't want to believe because you got some secret sin or something. Yeah? Oh, goodnessno. I mean, it's right faith, unbelief and doubt is complex, and there's lots of forms of doubt. And we use that word I mean, it has quite the semantic range, and we use in lots of different ways. And of course, the Bible, by no means, is celebrating doubt. The Bible, it's, you know, that we is saying we should have faith. It calls us to faith, not to doubt, but doubt seems to be a couple things to say. We talk about, we talk about ourselves as Christians, as new creations in Christ, but we also recognize that we still sin, we still we still have sinful habits. We're still sinful, and in the same way we we we believe, but we can struggle with doubt, and that's a reality. And it seems to me that that doesn't mean, though, that then we celebrate doubt, as if doubts this great thing, no, but at the same time, we need to be realistic and honest that we do. And there's certain things culturally that have happened, because we now live in a pluralistic world where people seem very sane and rational and and lovely, and they believe radically different things than we do. And just that proximity, Peter Berger, the late sociologist, did a lot of work on this area. This is just it. It creates these kinds of this kind of contestability, because, well, we could imagine even possibly not believing, or kids not believing, in a way that, again, 500 years ago, you know you Luther was wrestling with whether the Roman Catholic Church had everything right, but he wasn't wrestling and doubting the whole the whole thing, yeah, God. So that creates certain pressures that I think we need to be honest about, and but, but with, and part of that honesty, I think, in that kind of conversation to say, Hey, you're not alone and you're not just simply crazy because you're you're raising some of these things because, I mean, that's in many ways, understandable. Yeah, okay, yeah. I'm not saying it's good, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's understandable. And I hear what you're saying, and I'm, let's talk about it now. The the kind of metaphor that that I use is to think about Christianity as a house. Of course, that's not my metaphor. I'm I'm borrowing from CS Lewis, who talked about Christianity as a house and in Mere Christianity, Lewis said he wanted to get people through non Christians into the hallway, and so he wanted to get them into the door so that they would and then they could pick up a particular tradition, they could enter a room. But his approach in Mere Christianity was to represent kind of the whole house. And what I think is happening in many cases is that people, now, I'm riffing off of his metaphor, people in the church. People have raised in the church, so they've grew up their whole life in the house, but it's actually in the what I would call the attic. And the attic as as I talk about it is, is in the house. It's, it's a Christian community, but it was, it was many times they're built out of a kind of reactionary posture against culture, without a deep connection to the rest of the house. It's kind of like, Hey, we're scared, and understandably so, the kind of decadent morality, certain shifts happening in the west with Can you giveus a couple examples of what you're thinking like? What would a person living in the attic like? What would their tradition kind of. Look like,yeah. So a couple of things. One in response to, in some cases, in response to the kind of intellectual movements, the kind of sex, secular and, you know, thinking they would say, you know, intellectualism is bad, that would be one response from the attic, like, don't worry about, you know, thinking. Just believe your problem is you're just thinking too much. So that would be one response, a kind of anti intellectualism. The other response is what I would call a kind of, depending on what kind of mood I'm in, I would call it a kind of quasi intellectual that, and that sounds harsh that I say what kind of mood I'm in, but a kind of quasi intellectual response, which is like, Oh, you want arguments. You want evidence. We'll give you two plus two equals equals God, and we'll kind of match, you know, fire with fire, and we can prove God's existence. And oftentimes, those kinds of apologetic reactions, I would call them, sometimes they're kind of quasi intellectual, because I don't think that's how the kind of bit we come to the big decisions. I don't think it's rational enough about a rationality about kind of what type of humans we are, and how we come to the big decisions and the big truths and and so I think that's one response, and that's why you have a kind of industry of apologetics sometimes. And the way they do it, I'm not saying in some ways it can be helpful, but in other ways, it can cause problems down down the road, and we've seen that at least, like, for instance, with the evil and suffering kind of conversation we were having before. If people say, actually, those arguments actually don't make, don't fully do what they were. We you claim too much for your arguments. Let's just say, like that. Okay, so that's one kind of, so there's a there's a kinds of, well, Christianity, in that side can kind of become this kind of intellectual, sterile work where you're just kind of trying to prove God, rather than this, than this way of life, where does worship come in? Where does devotion come in? What is And so very quickly it becomes, you know, this intellectual game, rather than communion with the living God. And so the emphasis understandably goes a certain way, but I would say understandably wrong goes a certain way, and that argument should be part of this deeper life of faith that we live and so we again, I'm wanting to say the motives aren't necessarily, aren't wrong, but where we get off because we're too reactionary, can go off. Let me give you one other ones. And I would say, like the purity culture would be another kind of side of this where we see a morally decadent culture of sexuality, and we want to respond to that we we don't want our kids to grow up believing those lies. Yeah, as as a friend of mine says, you know that the sexual revolution was actually and is actually bad for women, and we need to say that. We need to say that to people in the church, absolutely. But in response to that, then we create what, what has been called a purity culture, which, which has, has kind of poured a lot of guilt and have made have over promised again, if you just do this, you'll have a wonderful life and a wonderful marriage if you just do this, and then if you mess up, oh, you've, you've committed this unpardonable sin, almost. And so there's a lot of pressure being put on, particularly young women and then, and then over promising and so all of this,can people see that the House of Cards is coming down because they're like, Yeah, my marriage is horrible.It creates this pressure, right where you have to. You have to think a certain way. You have to behave this very kind of way. It's reaction to want to protect them. So again, I'm saying, Yes, I understand the reactions, yeah, and, but, but, and this is, I think, a key part of this, because it's not connected well to the rest of the house. It often reacts, rather than reflected deeply on the tradition and helps fit your way, the centrality of the Gospel, the centrality of what's always been, Christian teaching and coming back to the main things, rather than kind of reacting to culture because we're nervous, and doing it in such a way that, you know, well, people will begin to say, That's what Christianity is about. Christianity is really about, you know, your politics, because that's all my pastor is talking about, interesting, you know, and this is all they're talking about. So that becomes the center,even though the ethic is is, is, becomes the. Center, as opposed to the the philosophy and theology guiding the ethic, is that, would that be another way to put it, like how you live, become, becomes preeminent to, you know, wrestling with doubt and and trying to bring God into the space of your doubt and that kind of stuff is, that, is that?Yeah, I mean, so that, I think one of the things that the the early creeds help us to do is it helps us to keep the main thing. The main thing, it helps us to keep, rather than saying, well, because culture is talking about this, we're going to, you know, kind of in our churches, this becomes the main thing, is reacting or responding, maybe, whether it's with the culture and certain movements or against the culture, yeah. But if you're anchored to the kind of the ancient wisdom of the past you're you do have, you are at times, of course, going to respond to what's going on culturally, yeah, but it's always grounded to the center, and what's always been the center, yeah? And I think so when you're in a community like this, like this, the pressure of, I've gotta think rightly. I've gotta check every box here, yes, and oh, and I've, I've been told that there is proofs, and I just need to think harder. I just, you know, even believe more, even Yeah, if I just, if I just think harder, then I'll eliminate my doubt, but my doubts not being eliminated. So either I'm stupid or maybe there's a problem with the evidence, because it's not eliminating all my doubt, but this creates this kind of melting pot of anxiety for a lot of people as their own Reddit threads and their Oh, and then this, trying to figure all this out, and they're Googling all these answers, and then the slow drip, oh, well, to be honest, sometimes the massive outpouring of church scandal is poured into this, yeah. And it just creates a lot of anxiety amongst young people, and eventually they say, I'm just going to jump out of the attic, you know, because it looks pretty freeing and it looks like a pretty good way of life out there. And what, what I say to people is two things. Number one, rather than simply jumping out, first look what you're about to jump into, because you have to live somewhere, and outside the attic, you're not just jumping into kind of neutrality, you're jumping into cultural spaces and assumptions and belief. And so let's, let's just be just as critical as, yeah, the attic or house as you are will be mean, be just as critical with those spaces as you have been with the attic. So you need to explore those. But also, I'm wanting to give them a framework to understand that actually a lot of the ways that you've kind of grown up is actually been in this attic. Why don't you come downstairs, and if you're going to leave the house, explore the main floor first.And what would be the main floor? What would you say? The main floor?Yeah. I would say themain orthodox historic Christianity, like, yeah. Orthodox historic Christianity, Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, just kind of go into the Yeah. And whatI would say is, for instance, the apostle creed gives us kind of what I would call load bearing walls in the house. So it gives us the places where you don't mess like load bearing walls. You don't you don't knock those down if you're going to do a remodel, and, and, and. So you would recognize the difference between load bearing walls, walls that are central versus actual different rooms in the house, and how? Well, these aren't load bearing walls, but they're, they're, they're, they're how certain people in Christian communities, churches at particular times, have articulated it and and some of these, you could deny certain things, but you could, but those are more denominational battle lines, rather than the kind of load bearing things that you if you pull out the resurrection of Jesus, if you pull out the the deity of Christ and the full humanity of Christ, If you pull out the Trinity. So let's go back to the core. And if you're going to reject, if you're going to leave, leave on the basis of those core things, not okay. I've had these bad experiences in the church now, yeah, what I think this to kind of wrap this up on this is what often happens, or what can happen if someone says, Well, yeah, I've done that, and I still don't, I don't believe Okay, yep, that's going to happen. Yep. But one of the things I suggest, in at least some cases, is that the addict has screwed people up more than they realize, and that the way that they approach. Approach the foundation and the the main floor, it's still in attic categories, as in, to go back to our first question, well, I can't prove this, yeah. And I was always told that I should be able to prove it. Well, that's not how this works, yeah. And so they they reject Christianity on certain enlightenment terms, but they don't reject Christianity as Christianity really is. So people are going to interact with Christianity, I would say sometimes your people are investigating, say the resurrection, and reflecting more on on these central claims, but they're still doing it as if, if it doesn't reach kind of 100% certainty that I can't believe. And that's just not how this works.Yeah, that's, that's food for thought, because there, there's so many people that I interact with that I try to encourage. Like, yeah, your experience was really bad, like I'm affirming that, and that was messed up. That's not That's not Christianity, that is a branch on this massive tree trunk that stinks and that needs to be lamented and grieved and also called out as wrong. So I'm using another metaphor of a tree instead. But I love the because the house metaphor is something that you use in the telling a better story. Isn't that surprised bydoubt? Surprised by doubt? Yes, that's that's what we use, and we march through things, and we use that as, really our guiding metaphor through all the chapters. And that's what I would encourage if you're if you have somebody who's struggling with this, or you're struggling with this yourself, that's That's why a friend of mine, Jack Carson, that's why we wrote the book together, because obviously this is a we had a lot of friends and acquaintances and people who were coming to us and we weren't fully satisfied with all of the kind of works, yeah, that were responding and so this, this was our attempt to try to helppeople. Well, the book right after that was, is telling a better story. And one of the things I've really appreciated in your emphasis over the last few years has been, I would call a more humane apology, apologetic in that, you know, not giving into, okay, we're gonna give you want evidence. We're gonna give you evidence, as opposed to like, okay, let's just talk about being a huma

Tim's own stream shows Judaic (and thus Islamic) "monotheism" isn't good enough. Send Superchats at any time here: https://streamlabs.com/jaydyer/tip Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnt7Iy8GlmdPwy_Tzyx93bA/join PRE-Order New Book Available in JULY here: https://jaysanalysis.com/product/esoteric-hollywood-3-sex-cults-apocalypse-in-films/ Get started with Bitcoin here: https://www.swanbitcoin.com/jaydyer/ The New Philosophy Course is here: https://marketplace.autonomyagora.com/philosophy101 Set up recurring Choq subscription with the discount code JAY44LIFE for 44% off now https://choq.com Lore coffee is here: https://www.patristicfaith.com/coffee/ Orders for the Red Book are here: https://jaysanalysis.com/product/the-red-book-essays-on-theology-philosophy-new-jay-dyer-book/ Subscribe to my site here: https://jaysanalysis.com/membership-account/membership-levels/ Follow me on R0kfin here: https://rokfin.com/jaydyer Music by Amid the Ruins 14531Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/jay-sanalysis--1423846/support.

Tim's own stream shows Judaic (and thus Islamic) "monotheism" isn't good enough. Send Superchats at any time here: https://streamlabs.com/jaydyer/tip Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnt7Iy8GlmdPwy_Tzyx93bA/join PRE-Order New Book Available in JULY here: https://jaysanalysis.com/product/esoteric-hollywood-3-sex-cults-apocalypse-in-films/ Get started with Bitcoin here: https://www.swanbitcoin.com/jaydyer/ The New Philosophy Course is here: https://marketplace.autonomyagora.com/philosophy101 Set up recurring Choq subscription with the discount code JAY44LIFE for 44% off now https://choq.com Lore coffee is here: https://www.patristicfaith.com/coffee/ Orders for the Red Book are here: https://jaysanalysis.com/product/the-red-book-essays-on-theology-philosophy-new-jay-dyer-book/ Subscribe to my site here: https://jaysanalysis.com/membership-account/membership-levels/ Follow me on R0kfin here: https://rokfin.com/jaydyer Music by Amid the Ruins 1453Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/jay-sanalysis--1423846/support.

Tim's own stream shows Judaic (and thus Islamic) "monotheism" isn't good enough. Send Superchats at any time here: https://streamlabs.com/jaydyer/tip Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnt7Iy8GlmdPwy_Tzyx93bA/join PRE-Order New Book Available in JULY here: https://jaysanalysis.com/product/esoteric-hollywood-3-sex-cults-apocalypse-in-films/ Get started with Bitcoin here: https://www.swanbitcoin.com/jaydyer/ The New Philosophy Course is here: https://marketplace.autonomyagora.com/philosophy101 Set up recurring Choq subscription with the discount code JAY44LIFE for 44% off now https://choq.com Lore coffee is here: https://www.patristicfaith.com/coffee/ Orders for the Red Book are here: https://jaysanalysis.com/product/the-red-book-essays-on-theology-philosophy-new-jay-dyer-book/ Subscribe to my site here: https://jaysanalysis.com/membership-account/membership-levels/ Follow me on R0kfin here: https://rokfin.com/jaydyer Music by Amid the Ruins 1453Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/jay-sanalysis--1423846/support.

“But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses... More...

The God of the Bible  is the Most Relational Being in the Universe.   Bishop Robert Barron, once talked about the uniqueness of the Christian God. God is Love. And then he paraphrased St. Augustine's Treatise on the Holy Trinity. The Father is the Lover. The Son is the Beloved. And the Holy Spirit is the bond of Love between them.   The Father is the Lover. The Son is the Beloved. And the Holy Spirit is the bond of Love between them.   And Jesus says this in this Gospel. Everything I have is from the Father. The Father gives it to me. And the Holy Spirit is going to give it to you.   And St. Athanasius said that out of this relationship between the members of the Godhead, there is creativity. It is like a nuclear reaction. The interaction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is by nature a creative force. ----- You can get the Belonging House Friday Email at https://mailchi.mp/44964233320d/friday-email-signup Christ John Otto writes at https://christjohnotto.substack.com You can support us at https://www.zeffy.com/donation-form/raise-up-an-army-of-artists https://buymeacoffee.com/christjohnotto You can view Belonging House Books here: https://bookshop.org/shop/belonginghouse

In this, the first of two episodes, Matt discusses the first part of Of Ghostes and Spirites, Walking by Night, a book in which a 16th-century theologian tried to explain why, in a world that he believed to be ruled by a Christian God, people saw ghosts. This book provides fascinating insights into Renaissance folklore, beliefs about the afterlife, and theology. And there's a lot of smack talk. Ghosthropology is a part of the KMMA Media Podcasting Network. For sources, transcripts, and a full back catalog of episodes, visit https://kmmamedia.com/podcasts/ghosthropology-podcast/ Connect with the show! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ghosthropology Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ghosthropod YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ghosthropology Email: ghosthropology@gmail.com Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/ghosthropology

Has modern evangelicalism forgotten about key aspects of who God is? In this episode of The Missions Podcast, Alex and Scott welcome Dr. Peter Sammons, Associate Director of Academic Development at Founders Seminary, to discuss the "forgotten attributes" of God—those less-discussed incommunicable aspects of God's nature. Sammons argues that modern Christians tend to focus on God's relational and communicable attributes (like love and kindness) because they are easier to grasp and more emotionally resonant. Sammons stresses that a proper understanding of God's essence and metaphysical attributes is crucial for true worship and doctrinal precision. The discussion also explores why understanding God's immutable nature is essential, especially in missions. Many pagan and world religions depict gods as moody and human-like, but the Christian God stands apart as wholly other, unaffected by human emotion or manipulation. This, Sammons emphasizes, highlights the necessity of theological depth for missionaries. Without it, missionaries risk portraying God as just another tribal deity. Key Points Forgotten Attributes: Focus on God's immutability, impassibility, and aseity, which are often overshadowed by more "relatable" attributes. Essence of God: Importance of understanding God's essence versus merely his relational attributes. Modern Challenges: Cultural and intellectual laziness has led to theological illiteracy and avoidance of difficult doctrines. Missional Importance: Proper theological understanding is critical for distinguishing the Christian God from false deities in missions work. Training Solutions: Founders Seminary offers a Master of Arts in Cultural Apologetics and Missions to deepen theological literacy for missionaries, even remotely. Do you love The Missions Podcast? Have you been blessed by the show? Then become a Premium Subscriber! Premium Subscribers get access to: Exclusive bonus content A community Signal thread with other listeners and the hosts Invite-only webinars A free gift! Support The Missions Podcast and sign up to be a Premium Subscriber at missionspodcast.com/premium The Missions Podcast is powered by ABWE. Learn more and take your next step in the Great Commission at abwe.org. Want to ask a question or suggest a topic? Email alex@missionspodcast.com.

This lecture discusses key ideas from the 20th century German philosopher, sociologist of knowledge, and phenomenologist, Max Scheler's work Ressentiment, which provides an interpretation of Friedrich Nietzsche's concept of that same name. It focuses on his discussion in the third part of the work "Christian Morality and Ressentment" of the Christian conception of God by contrast to earlier conceptions of God, specifically as infinite love. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Max Scheler's Ressentiment - amzn.to/4f3mv18

 The Non-violence or Ahimsa was first introduced from the Hindu-Religion.Ahimsa or non-violence was created for the Braman (Priest) and Sannyasins (Monks) to live a peaceful life in a remote resort. That makes sense.Afterward, Buddhism, Jainism, and Christians had the fatal idea to integrate Ahimsa for everybody in their Religion… And this was one of the biggest mistakes that Religions have ever done!! If we look at the history of India and Tibet:In the 3rd Century B. C “Ashoka The Great” made Buddhism the state Religion of India. In the sixth century A. C., the Huns invaded India and destroyed  Buddhist monasteries. Afterward, the Muslims in the 12th century overtook India… The very downfall for India was Buddhism.What happens to Tibet? The same, conquered and destroyed from China… Do we need more evidence?If somebody or a country stick to Ahimsa, they rather more invite offenders or an invasion… The other Buddhist countries didn't practice Ahimsa and could defend themselves.Even so, the Buddhists are not vegetarian, and that is a contradiction to Ahimsa. The Christian countries made and make wars after wars and killed so many people even in the name of their Christian God that it is hard to believe in their scriptures (Bible). I can't believe in any scriptures when the rules are broken from the Religions Leaders!The worst was the witch-hunt that torched millions of innocent women in the name of the Christian God! If we compare both Religions with the Hindu scripture, we must admit that the Hindu Religion is well designed.Killing or harming of people are not allowed for the Priests (Brahman) and Monks (Sannyasin). Threatening without fighting is allowed to defend themselves. The Warriors (Kashitras) should be the ruler, Civil servants, and soldiers of the country.For the Hindus, it is impossible that a Brahman should rule the country. Because a Brahman has to be peacefully when their country is attacked. For Instance, the Dalai Lama or any Bishop would be inadequate to rule a country… Because their Darma is to be peacefully in any situation and this will never work out for any country. We can also learn from the Hindu scripture that punishment is necessary as it is to live a high morality as the leader. When the leader is immoral the subordinates will become unethical over time.We need punishment to teach people to become better… The Hindu system recommends the punishment should go in steps harder when the delinquent doesn't obey…For instance, your kid is beating up your other siblings.1.) In a friendly voice, you explain that this is not good and that he should not attack other kids.2.) In an unfriendly voice, you remind him what you have said before.3.) In an angry voice, you repeat what you said.4.) You threaten your kid that he will not get any pocket money if he continues.5.) You threaten your kid to hit him when he is doing it one time again.6.) You hit your nasty child…Non-violence (ahimsa) would not work out to educate a nasty child/delinquent…   My Video: Why does non-violence not work? https://youtu.be/lZbCiKk17iYMy Audio: https://divinesuccess.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/Podcast.B/Why-does-non-violence-not-work.mp3

In 1952, at the age of seventy-six, Carl Jung wrote Answer to Job in a single burst of energy and with strong emotion. He completed it while ill, following a high fever, and upon finishing, he felt well again. The book explores the nature of God, particularly what Jung perceived as God's dark side, a theme that preoccupied him throughout his life. In it, the theology first explored in the Red Book—the progressive incarnation of God, and the replacement of the one-sided Christian God with one that encompasses evil within it—found its clearest expression. This makes Answer to Job one of Jung's most controversial works. Jung wrote in a letter that the book, “released an avalanche of prejudice, misunderstanding, and above all, atrocious stupidity.”The fundamental idea in Answer to Job is that the pair of opposites is united in the image of Yahweh. God is not divided but is an antinomy—a totality of inner opposites. This paradox is the essential condition for His omniscience and omnipotence. Love and Fear, though seemingly irreconcilable, coexist at the heart of the divine.The story of Job follows a righteous man whose faith is tested by Satan with God's permission. Job loses his wealth, children, health, and the support of his friends, who insist he must be guilty. His cries for justice go unheard, so that Satan's cruel wager can proceed undisturbed. God allows the innocent to suffer. Still, Job is certain that somewhere within God, justice must exist. This paradox leads him to expect, within God, a helper or an “advocate” against God.Jung flips the traditional understanding of Christ's work of redemption: it is not an atonement for humanity's sin against God, but a reparation for a wrong done by God to man.“God has a terrible double aspect: a sea of grace is met by a seething lake of fire, and the light of love glows with a fierce dark heat of which it is said, “ardet non lucet”—it burns but gives no light. That is the eternal, as distinct from the temporal, gospel: one can love God but must fear him.”When Jung was once asked how he could live with the knowledge he had recorded in Answer to Job, he replied, “I live in my deepest hell, and from there I cannot fall any further.”

Patrick answers challenging questions about faith, shares tips for talking to young adults about belief in God, and recommends useful books on Catholic apologetics. He also explores the curious practice of proxy baptisms in the Mormon church, especially regarding well-known Catholic figures like popes. Patrick addresses listener questions about confession, cremation, and ways to support friends interested in joining the Catholic Church. For insightful advice and real-life wisdom on living your faith, Patrick delivers content you won’t want to miss. Ellie (email) - I need to be first proven that the Christian God exists to believe in Heaven and then be comforted, but I’m unsure about his existence and therefore I’m unsure about any afterlife. (00:51) Craig - What do you do if your friend is dating someone who says that Jesus failed because he didn't get married? (13:22) Lee - How can I help someone else convert? (15:18) Audio: Will Mormons baptize the Pope after his death? (18:21) Was Jesus really nailed to the Cross? (37:27) Mary Joe - Thank you for explaining something I learned in my Theology class when I was young. You explained Causality perfectly! (39:14) Ellen (email) – Can cremation ashes be held in reserve? (41:57) Joan (email) – Patrick said you can’t commit a mortal son unless you know it’s a mortal sin when you commit it, which I assume goes for venial sin as well. Why then, at their first confession, do RCIA candidates confess their sins from the past if they weren’t aware that they were sins until going through RCIA? (47:12)

This sort of thing is a slap in the face to all who are not Christians.

At the time of Diocletian's persecutions, he was a very old man, having served as a reader for sixteen years, then a deacon for twenty-eight years, and finally as a priest for thirty years, for a total of seventy-four years. The pagan judge put him in the Temple of Aesculapius, where large snakes were kept and worshiped as gods. Though the judge meant for Artemon to be attacked by the snakes, the holy priest immobilized them with the sign of the Cross, brought them out of the temple and, in front of the pagan priests, breathed on the snakes, which died instantly. The chief priest, Vitalis, fell to his knees and cried 'Great is the Christian God!' Artemon baptised him along with several of his friends.   The unrepentant judge then condemned Artemon to be thrown into burning pitch, but the judge himself was thrown off his horse into the pitch and died. After this, Artemon went free for a time and spent his time teaching the Faith to his people ("accompanied always by two tame deer," says St Nikolia Velimirovic!). But he was arrested again and beheaded in the year 303.

Scripture: Romans 8:31-39. Christian, God is for us!

Segment 1: • French student supports capitalism but rejects God's authority—freedom is fine, submission isn't. • Believes in the Christian God intellectually… but prefers sin over surrender. • Honestly admits: “Jesus isn't more enjoyable than my current life.” Segment 2: • Todd walks Philip through God's law—liar, thief, blasphemer, adulterer at heart. • Philip acknowledges guilt and judgment… yet shrugs off hell as a risk he's willing to take. • The tragedy? He knows the truth—and still chooses sin. Segment 3: • Todd pleads: See Jesus not just as safer, but as better than sin. • Offers the gospel as a kindness, not just a way out of hell. • Philip admits: “I'm aware of the offer. I'm just choosing something else.” Segment 4: • Smart, kind, but deeply resistant—Scott believes God is evil, not just nonexistent. • Todd uses courtroom analogies to expose justice, sin, and grace… but Scott won't yield. • Scott calls God a moral monster. Todd offers the gospel anyway. ___ Preorder the new book, Lies My Therapist Told Me, by Fortis Institute Fellow Dr. Greg Gifford now! https://www.harpercollins.com/pages/liesmytherapisttoldme ___ Thanks for listening! Wretched Radio would not be possible without the financial support of our Gospel Partners. If you would like to support Wretched Radio we would be extremely grateful. VISIT https://fortisinstitute.org/donate/ If you are already a Gospel Partner we couldn't be more thankful for you if we tried! .

Dan Wells Ph.D. is a scholar of American religious history, consulting faculty at Duke Divinity School, Methodist pastor, and hunter outdoorsman in Muskingum County, Ohio.  On this episode focused on the Christian God & wild snake handling churches of Appalachia, we begin with a haunting story about Dan's ancestors' old home-place. Back-&-forth we share experiences about our Christian upbringings, early skepticisms on the likes of hypocrisy and the problem of evil, followed by Dan's religious calling as an intellectual pursuit. From there we're into the serpents with Dan describing his first-hand experiences at a Kentucky snake church, diving into the history, beliefs, deaths and legal restrictions of these serpent handling practitioners opening conversations about martyrdom & sainthood, the Hopi snake dance, Biblical snake symbolism, and rattlesnake catch-&-release hunting. From there we bring together Christianity and reverence for nature through the teachings of the early desert fathers and mystics. We end on dreams and an allegorical hunting story about God's fatherly protection over his spiritual children.Reading from Foxfire 7: "The People Who Take Up Serpents" by Elliot WiggintonLearn more about Dan at DrDanWells.comSupport Our Numinous Nature on Patreon.Follow Our Numinous Nature & my naturalist illustrations on InstagramCheck out my shop of shirts, prints, and books featuring my artContact: herbaceoushuman@gmail.com

It's Friday, January 24th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus 5 Pakistani Muslims abducted 14-year-old Christian girl On January 9th, five Muslims abducted a 14-year-old Christian girl from outside her home in Pakistan, reports Morning Star News. Sharif Masih, of the Punjab Province, said he fears the kidnappers may try to forcibly convert his daughter, Saneha, to Islam and force her to marry one of the Muslim suspects. He said, “Saneha was lured out of the house by a Muslim girl whose family had recently moved to our neighborhood.” Please pray that God would protect Saneha from harm and return her to her family. According to Open Doors, Pakistan is the eighth most dangerous country worldwide for Christians. Congress: Deport criminal illegals On January 22nd, in a vote of 263-156, Congress passed The Laken Riley Act which will be the first bill President Trump signs into law. The act was named after the Georgia nursing student who was brutally raped and murdered by an illegal alien with a long criminal record. This legislation requires criminal illegal aliens to be held for deportation. Gary Bauer, Director of American Values,  wrote, “This is not a controversial idea. In fact, a recent New York Times poll found solid majorities in favor of mass deportations. There was overwhelming support (87%) for deporting criminal illegal aliens.” Bauer concluded, “Kicking out criminals is just common sense. But 73% of House Democrats and 74% of Senate Democrats voted against the Laken Riley Act. The rot in the Democrat Party is deep.” Trump pardoned 23 pro-lifers On Thursday afternoon, President Trump pardoned the 23 pro-lifers imprisoned during Joe Biden's presidency for their attempts to save unborn babies, reports LifeSiteNews.com. Jeremiah 1:5 says, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you were born, I set you apart." TRUMP AIDE: “Next, we have a set of pardons for peaceful pro-life protesters who were prosecuted by the Biden administration for exercising their First Amendment right.” TRUMP: “Do you know how many?” TRUMP AIDE: “I believe it's 23, sir.” TRUMP: “Twenty-three people were prosecuted. They should not have been prosecuted. Many of them are elderly people. They should not have been prosecuted. This is a great honor to sign this. (he signs the order) They'll be very happy. So, they're all in prison now?” TRUMP AIDE: “Some are. Some are out of custody.” TRUMP: “It's ridiculous!” The now-pardoned pro-lifers include Joan Bell, Coleman Boyd, Joel Curry, Jonathan Darnel, Eva Edl, Chester Gallagher, Rosemary “Herb” Geraghty, William Goodman, Dennis Green, Lauren Handy, Paulette Harlow, John Hinshaw, Heather Idoni, Jean Marshall, Fr. Fidelis Moscinski, Justin Phillips, Paul Place, Bevelyn Beatty Williams, and Calvin, Eva, and James Zastrow. I urge you to take a listen to the powerful testimonies of 11 of these brave pro-lifers, who urged abortion-minded pregnant women to choose life in March 2021 at a pro-life rescue at a Mt. Juliet, Tennessee abortion mill, through a series of conversations at StifledCry.com. That's StifledCry.com. Trump signs Executive Order releasing final JFK assassination files In addition, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 23, releasing additional government files associated with the assassinations of former President John F. Kennedy, former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., reports The Epoch Times. TRUMP AIDE: “Lastly sir, we have an Executive Order ordering the declassification of files relating to the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” TRUMP: “That's a big one. A lot of people have been waiting for this for years, for decades. And everything will be revealed.” The order calls for the National Intelligence Director and the Attorney General to present a plan to the president within 15 days for the “full and complete release” of the remaining JFK assassination records and 45 days for the RFK and King records. Trump and former President Joe Biden previously released thousands of documents related to JFK's killing. Roughly 99 percent of the assassination files have been released as of 2023, according to the National Archives. Episcopal Bishop confronted Trump on homosexuals and illegal aliens And finally, on Tuesday, a female Episcopal Church bishop directly confronted President Donald Trump at a worship service held at the Washington National Cathedral, where she pleaded with him to “have mercy” on homosexuals, transgenders, and illegal immigrants, reports The Christian Post. Bishop Mariann Budde of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington delivered the sermon at the Service of Prayer for the Nation at the cathedral. Near the end of her sermon, Budde directly addressed Trump, who was seated in the front row alongside his wife, First Lady Melania Trump, and Vice President J.D. Vance and his wife, Second Lady Usha Vance. BUDDE: “Let me make one final plea. Mr. President, millions have put their trust in you, and as you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving God. “In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. There are gay, lesbian and transgender children in Democratic, Republican, and independent families, some who fear for their lives. “The people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meat-packing plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants, and work the night shifts in hospitals. They, they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches and mosques, synagogues, Gurdwara, and temples. “I ask you to have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away.” Fox News commentator Greg Gutfeld brought clarity to the conversation. GUTFELD: “She's talking about behaviors. And she's cloaking these behaviors under the false guise of compassion. I mean, she's lecturing a guy who got shot about being in danger. Who is she implying that is putting these people in danger? Are there guys in MAGA hats that are mutilating healthy children and removing their genitals. No, that's her team!” And Liz Storer, Sky News Host in Australia, was equally horrified with the Episcopalian Bishop. STORER: “For shame! So, there you are. I don't know much about the Episcopalian Church, but there's your bishop in Washington, pleading with the new President of the United States to, I don't know, do what? -- for what the Scriptures very clearly call a lifestyle of abomination. “So, I don't know where this woman is coming from. This ‘our God' that she's referring to certainly is not the Christian God!” Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” And regarding her reference to illegal immigrants, President Trump spoke out on Truth Social. He wrote, “The so-called Bishop who spoke at the National Prayer Service on Tuesday morning was a Radical Left hard-line Trump hater. She brought her church into the world of politics in a very ungracious way. … “She failed to mention the large number of illegal migrants that came into our country and killed people. Many were deposited from jails and mental institutions. It is a giant crime wave that is taking place in the USA. … She and her church owe the public an apology!” Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, January 24th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Subscribe by Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

The Only God, The Christian God by David Antwi

Rev. Brian Pughsley will be preaching on the topic of: "Submit But Don't Forget" from 1 Peter 2 on this first Sunday of 2025. Listen for pointers on how you can be submissive and still be the strong Christian God desires you to be. Be ready to be encouraged and inspired this week. Time To Shine In 2025 Sundays @ 7:30 PM CST on All Social Media Platforms, Including The Website: www.safehavenpodcast.org Tuesday Inspiration On The 2nd & 4th Tuesdays @ 12:00PM CST On Facebook, Safe Haven Podcast & TikTok Donations Accepted via CashApp: $BrianPughsley Subscribe, Share & Listen

In this encore presentation, Pastor Chris outlines in a powerful way what it means to be an End Times Christian. 

In this intense apologetics discussion, an atheist and a Christian debate the nature of knowledge and the validity of their worldviews. The atheist describes his belief in the reliability of methods that produce consistent truth claims, while the Christian defends the necessity of the Christian God for the foundation of knowledge. The conversation goes deep into epistemology, metaphysics, and the basis for trust in one's cognitive faculties. Men, get real accountability and knowledge to help you become the worldview leader your family and church need. Try out the Hammer & Anvil Society FREE for 90 days. Learn more ➡️ https://hammerandanvil.circle.so/c/join/join-the-hammer-anvil-society ---- Check out our FREE CLASS on 3 Steps for Unleashing the POWER of Presuppositional Apologetics

S. A. Swaffington's Exploration of the Supernatural in the Anglo-Saxon World S. A. Swaffington, an acclaimed scholar of medieval cultures, delves deeply into the mysterious and spiritually rich world of the Anglo-Saxons in her recent work, The Supernatural World of the Anglo-Saxons. Swaffington's research illuminates how the early medieval English perceived the unseen forces that shaped their lives—a world populated by gods, spirits, and enigmatic beings. The Anglo-Saxon supernatural world was rooted in a blend of indigenous pagan beliefs and emerging Christian theology. Swaffington uncovers the layered tapestry of these beliefs, where elves, wights (nature spirits), and revenants (restless dead) were as significant to daily life as the omnipotent Christian God. She examines how these beings were not merely mythical but integral to the understanding of health, fortune, and the natural world. Through an analysis of archaeological finds, ancient texts like Beowulf, and charms such as the “Nine Herbs Charm,” Swaffington reconstructs the spiritual mindset of the Anglo-Saxon people. She also highlights the cultural tension and eventual synthesis as Christian monks documented and reinterpreted these supernatural traditions in their manuscripts. Swaffington's work is both academic and accessible, inviting modern readers to step into a shadowy world where the boundaries between the natural and supernatural were blurred, offering a fascinating lens into the fears, hopes, and spiritual resilience of the early medieval mind.

Atheist Armin Navabi concludes his book by addressing the extreme skeptic who says, "We cannot prove that anything exists." He writes, "The reason that some claim that true knowledge is impossible is because we are limited by our senses and experiences, which are ultimately subjective. We perceive reality through our senses and think about it with our brains, and it's impossible to know for sure whether these senses are actually trustworthy." I've heard this objection many times from atheists, especially when it comes to morality. Does the fact that knowledge is limited by our senses mean that everything is subjective? Maybe the hard sciences can give us knowledge, but what else? Join the show as we discuss how the Christian belief about God can be justified. As always, I will be taking your questions! So come join the show, post your questions in the live chat, and call in to discuss what's on your mind! Help us expand our reach and continue fostering conversations that matter! Generous donors have come together and pledged $14,000 to help meet our budget and fund this important work in 2025! Any gift of $35 or more will receive a free copy of "Stewarding AI: Faithfully Using Creation Resources" once it is published in January. Click here for more info! https://think-well.org/donate/ Content Discussed 0:00 Intro 2:17 Join me for a book study next year! 3:21 Year-End Challenge 4:55 The objection of the extreme skeptic 12:47 How can we know anything? Answering hypothetical realities 20:10 What is the best explanation based on the available evidence? 20:30 What is knowledge? 29:23 Scientism: What it is, why it matters, and why it's wrong 44:45 Beliefs can be justified 46:00 Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? 49:53 If God has a mind, then wasn't he created by another mind? 53:52 Are you treating natural and supernatural explanations as equally valid? 56:25 1st Caller: Further discussion on intelligent and natural explanations 59:55 1st Caller: Witness testimony and extraordinary claims 1:04:00 1st Caller: Should we demand proof and evidence for God? 1:07:14 2nd Caller: Do the arguments for God apply to only the Christian God or any God? 1:22:22 Do you have actual evidence for God? 1:35:00 Closing: Look to next week, other content, and year-end challenge

Hello Interactors,Language shapes power, but it can also obscure and manipulate. Words like woke and decolonize, rooted in justice, are now tools for distortion by figures like Trump and Modi. In this essay, we'll explore how these terms connect to economic and political geography, tracing their co-opting, parallels to colonialism, and the need to reclaim their transformative potential. Let's dig in — and stay woke.STAY WOKE, START TALKINGAre you woke? It's a provocative question these days. Especially since this term was co-opted by the right as a pejorative since the Black Lives Matter uprising of 2020. Even last June Trump said regarding so-called woke military generals, “I would fire them. You can't have woke military.”And then there's Elon Musk. He's been increasingly waging a war on what he calls the ‘woke mind virus'. It seems he started abusing the term in 2021, along with other political rhetoric he's been ramping up in recently. The Economist reports a “leap in 2023 and 2024 in talk of immigration, border control, the integrity of elections and the ‘woke mind virus'.”Folks more on the left are also starting to distance themselves from the term or use it as a pejorative. Including some of my friends. Even self-described leftist and socialist, Susan Neiman criticized "wokeness," in her 2023 book Left Is Not Woke. She argues, as do many, that it has become antithetical to traditional leftist values — especially as it becomes a weapon by the right.According to the definition in the Cambridge dictionary, I am decidedly woke. That means I'm “aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality.” It worries me that people are eagerly running from this word. I'd rather they interrogate it. Understand it. Find it's meanings and question the intent behind its use. We should be discussing these nuances, not shushing them.Using the word in a sentence (in an approving manner), Cambridge offers hints at one of the original meanings: “She urged young black people to stay woke.” In 1938 the great blues legend Lead Belly also urged “everybody, be a little careful when they go along through there (Scottsboro, Alabama) – best stay woke, keep their eyes open." Those are spoken words in his song "Scottsboro Boys", about nine young Black men falsely accused of raping two white women in Alabama seven years earlier in 1931.Not a decade before, the Jamaican philosopher and social activist Marcus Garvey wrote in 1923, "Wake up Ethiopia! Wake up Africa!" Fifty years later that inspired playwright and novelist Barry Beckham to write “Garvey Lives!”, a 1972 play that included this line, “I been sleeping all my life. And now that Mr. Garvey done woke me up, I'm gon stay woke.” #StayWoke was trending on Twitter the summer of 2020.In 1962, ten years before Beckham's play, novelist William Melvin Kelley wrote this headline for a piece in the New York Times Magazine: “If You're Woke You Dig It; No mickey mouse can be expected to follow today's Negro idiom without a hip assist. If You're Woke You Dig It.” The article, which is an uneasy glimpse of how mainstream media regarded Black people in 1962, is about how white people co-opt terms from the Black community. His target was white woke Beatniks of the 1960s.Awakening others to injustice in the United States may have originated with white folks inspired by Abraham Lincoln. In the lead up to the his 1860 election, the, then woke, Republican Party helped organize a paramilitary youth movement in the Northern states called the ‘Wide Awakes'. These activists, which included some Black people, were inspired by Lincoln's fight to abolish slavery and promote workers' rights.They took up arms to defend Republican politicians who brazenly awakened others to injustices in America in their campaign speeches. This armed aggression — especially armed Black men — in part is what woke the South to the dawning wokeness across the North. Frightened as they were, they organize their own paramilitary and soon a civil war broke out.RECLAIM, RESIST, REVIVEWords can have unusual lifecycles. The term "queer" evolved from a pejorative label for homosexuals to a term of empowerment. Particularly after the activism of the 1960s and 1970s, including the Stonewall Riots. Its reclamation was reinforced by academic queer theory, which critiques societal norms around sexuality and gender. Today, "queer" is widely embraced as a self-identifier that reflects pride and resistance against stigma.Christopher Hobson, of the Substack Imperfect Notes, suggested in a post about the word polycrisis, this progression of terminology:Proposed — A new word or meaning is introduced through individuals, cultural interactions, academia, or mass media.Adopted — A word or meaning is embraced by a community, shaped by social relevance and media influence.Spread — Diffusion occurs through social networks and media exposure, leading to wider acceptance.Critiqued — As words gain popularity, they face scrutiny from linguistic purists and cultural commentators. The appropriateness of a term can be questioned, highlighting the intent behind its dissemination.Institutionalized — Widely used words become institutionalized, appearing in dictionaries and everyday language as standards.Hobson adds one other stage that is particularly relevant today, ‘pipiked.' It's a term he ‘adopted' as ‘proposed' and I'm now ‘spreading'. It comes from Naomi Klein's book, Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror World. Hobson writes:"A useful concept she introduces is ‘pipikism', which she takes from Philip Roth's, Operation Shylock, one of the texts about doppelgangers that Klein engages with. She quote's Roth's description of ‘pipikism' as ‘the antitragic force that inconsequencializes everything—farcicalizes everything, trivializes everything, superficializes everything.' This captures the way in which the concepts and frames we use to help understand our world are rendered useless by bad actors and bad faith, caught in ‘a knot of seriousness and ridiculousness that would never be untangled.'" (3)This lifecycle certainly applies to the word woke, but let's turn to a term more closely related to economic geography that's also in the cross-hairs of being ‘pipiked' — decolonize.Like woke, the term decolonize began as a call to dismantle injustice, exposing the deep roots of exploitation in European colonial systems. It symbolized hope for liberation and justice for the oppressed. Over time, like many critical terms, its meaning shifted. Once radical, decolonize risks becoming performative as its potency weakens through co-optation, especially by bad faith actors.Narendra Modi exemplifies this, using decolonization rhetoric to promote Hindutva, a Hindu nationalist agenda. His government renames cities, revises textbooks to erase Muslim rulers like the Mughals, and marginalizes minorities, particularly Muslims, under the guise of rejecting British colonial legacies. This parallels America's own rewriting of history to reinforce a white Christian narrative. Protestant colonizers replaced Indigenous names and erased Native perspectives, reframing days like Thanksgiving, a time of mourning for many, into celebratory myths.DOCTRINES, DISSENT, AND DOMINIONEarly colonial educational curricula framed colonization as a divine mission to civilize the so-called savages. Native Americans were often depicted as obstacles to progress rather than as sovereign peoples with rich cultures and governance systems. Systems, like the Iroquois League, impressed and inspired the early framers of American government, like Benjamin Franklin.But it was Christian dogma like the Doctrine of Discovery, a theological justification for seizing Indigenous land, that was integrated into educational and legal frameworks. Slavery was sanitized in textbooks to diminish its horrors, portraying it as a benign or even benevolent system. Early 20th-century textbooks referred to enslaved people as “workers” and omitted the violence of chattel slavery.Early colonizers established theological institutions like Harvard University, originally intended to train ministers and propagate Christian doctrine. My own family lineage is culpable. I've already written about Jonas Weed (circa 1610–1676), a Puritan minister who helped colonize Weathersfield, Connecticut. But there's also the brother of my ninth Mother, Jonathan Mitchell (1624–1668). He was a Harvard graduate and Puritan minister who played a pivotal role in shaping the Protestant-oriented writing of American history.He promoted a Christian God-given view of history, framing events as manifestations of God's will. He emphasized covenant theology that cast Puritans as a chosen people. As a fellow at Harvard, he shaped the intellectual environment that influenced figures like Cotton Mather, who's Magnalia Christi Americana (1702) depicted New England as a "city upon a hill" destined to fulfill a divine mission. JFK ripped this quote from history, as did Reagan and Obama to further their campaigns but also to ingrain messages that started with people like Mitchell and Mather.Institutions like the church and universities advanced Christian-nationalist ideologies that justified colonial rule, marginalizing Indigenous, African, and non-European cultures by framing European Christian values as superior. European imperial powers reshaped local economies for their gain, turning colonies into sources of raw materials and markets for goods. Monocultures like sugar and cotton left regions vulnerable, while urban centers prioritized resource export over local needs, fostering uneven development.By the mid-20th century, America had risen to global dominance, cementing its power through institutions like the IMF and World Bank, which reinforced economic dependencies. Decolonization movements emerged in response, with nations in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean seeking justice and sovereignty. Yet many former colonies remain trapped in systemic inequalities shaped by imperial and American influence. While initiatives like the G-77 — a UN coalition of developing nations promoting collective economic interests and South-South cooperation — aim to reshape global systems, progress remains slow and resistance strong.Today, Project 2025 seeks to revive Christian-nationalist doctrines, echoing colonial practices. Signs of rising authoritarianism, white Christian nationalism, and silencing dissent are evident. The Levant, too, reflects another iteration of the colonial Doctrine of Discovery — seizing land and subjugating oppressed populations under theological justifications.Even in the early days of American colonization, there were woke voices. One of them happened to be another ancestor of mine. My tenth grandfather, Stephen Bachiler (circa 1561–1656) was an English clergyman and an early advocate for the separation of church and state. His life exemplified the struggles for religious autonomy in early American history, but also the importance of sustained critique of power and injustice.Educated at St. John's College, Oxford, he became the vicar of Wherwell but was ousted in 1605 for his Puritan beliefs. At nearly 70, he left to New England in 1632 to establish the First Church of Lynn near Boston. It was there it is assumed he cast the sole vote against the expulsion of Roger Williams — a proponent of equitable treatment of Native Americans and a fellow Separatist.Both men showed a commitment to religious freedom, tolerance, and fair dealings. While they were clearly colonizers and missionaries, each with their own religion, they were also relatively woke. They showed the importance of a sustained quest for liberty and justice amid prevailing authoritarian orthodoxies.Trump wields language as a tool to cement his prevailing authoritarian orthodoxies. He surrounds himself with figures who reduce substantive critical discourse to noise. His media allies, from Fox News to populist voices like Joe Rogan, amplify his rhetoric, diverting attention from systemic injustices. These platforms trivialize urgent issues, overshadowing genuine grievances with performative derision and bad faith gestures.When language meant to confront injustice is co-opted, maligned, or muted, its power is diminished. Performative actions can “pipikize” critical terms, rendering them absurd or hollow while leaving entrenched problems untouched — many rooted in centuries of European colonization. Yet Trump's alignment with a new breed of colonization deepens these issues.Figures like Elon Musk and JD Vance, champions of libertarian techno-optimism, feed into Trump's agenda. Musk dreams of private cities and space colonies free from governmental oversight, while Vance benefits from Silicon Valley backers like Peter Thiel, who pour millions into advancing deregulation and creating self-governing enclaves.These visions are the new face of colonialism — enclaves of privilege where exploitation thrives, disconnected from democratic accountability. They mirror the hierarchies and exclusions of the past, dressed as innovation but steeped in familiar patterns of dominance.In this age of populism — another word twisted and worn thin — vigilance is essential. Language must be scrutinized not just for its use but for its intent. Without this, we risk falling into complacency, lulled by superficial gestures and farcical displays. Stay awake. Words can preserve the power to transform — but only when their intent remains grounded in uprooting injustice and inhumanity.References:* Cambridge Dictionary. Definition of woke. * Economist. (2024). Immigration, border control, and the ‘woke mind virus': Tracking political rhetoric. * Hobson, Christopher. (Sep 13, 2024). Imperfect Notes: In conversation with Pete Chambers. * Klein, Naomi. (2023). Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror World. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.* Macmillan Publishers. (2023). Crack-Up Capitalism: Market Radicals and the Dream of a World Without Democracy. * Neiman, Susan. (2023). Left Is Not Woke. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.* New York Times Magazine. (1962). Kelley, William Melvin. If You're Woke You Dig It; No Mickey Mouse Can Be Expected to Follow Today's Negro Idiom Without a Hip Assist.* Press, Eyal. (2012). Beautiful Souls: Saying No, Breaking Ranks, and Heeding the Voice of Conscience in Dark Times. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.* Roth, Philip. (1993). Operation Shylock: A Confession. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.* Time Magazine. (2023). India's textbook revisions spark controversy over history and ideology. * Walker, Corinne A. (2024). Aeon. What is behind the explosion in talk about decolonisation. * Dull, Jonathan. (2021). Post-Colonialism: Understanding the Past to Change the Future. World History Connected, 18(1), 125–142. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

Questions Covered: 01:50 – Mr. Akin ….I had my future told to me after I had a staring contest with a guy who had the ability to view my future life like watching a video in fast forward….pausing when he saw things he thought important….this is how he explained it to me…He was able to see all the way to my last day….something he said he hadn’t been able to do with others…. not only could he see my life through my eyes …but could also see what was going on all around me….. I met him at work …. Mr. Akin have you ever heard of this type of ability before…..can you help me understand what happened and why please…. 12:47 – What if the priest doing Mass is really old and suddenly dies during the service? How's that handled? 15:50 – Which Church Sui Iuris would extraterrestrial join if they accepted the Faith? 16:56 – Has Protestant exorcism ever been validated??? Is Protestant exorcism only the goofy stuff like Bob Larsen and Benny Hinn yelling and throwing invisible spiritual inner chi fireballs at their subjects? Or does it have any credulity like the most severe case I've seen with the Warren family helping MAURICE “Frenchy” THERIAULT on camera footage? 21:58 – Did Jesus have a body before he was born as a man? 24:54 – How does Odo not turn into a pile of goo when he uses a transporter? 32:52 – Most people get half of their DNA from their mother and half from their father. I assume Jesus got at least half of his DNA from Mary, but what about the other half? Was he 100% Mary? Did God just “invent” 50%? Do you think God made him resemble St. Joseph? 35:24 – Could someone be a Catholic atheist? 39:36 – If we discovered the Creature from the Black Lagoon, would it be permissible to eat it on Lent? 45:07 – If a ship of volunteers is collected to go to Mars, should the Church insist on sending a Bishop? 50:05 – I work with a non-Christian lady who used to be a Hindu and claims to believe in the Christian God. She was not a very nice person from what I saw how she treated other people. One day, she told me a story that when she went to a Church to pray because she was having a problem at that time, she saw blood on her palm. The light in the Catholic church was dim so she looked at the palm intensely and didn’t know what it was. After few seconds the blood disappeared. She got spooked and thought that was a spooky Church so she went to the Anglican Church nearby. Before she told me the story, I was listening to the life of St Padre Pio who had stigmata. My question is does stigmata happen to anybody? …

This podcast brought to you in part by Better Help. Save 10% hereSave on Dwell herePurchase the Adventure Bible here Click here to get a 25% discount on the Dwell Bible App. During today's conversation on Back Porch Theology we're diving into a rich, nuanced and deeply encouraging theme that Dr. Howard recently preached on at his church, Dillon Community in CO, called, The Joy of Being Human. The fact that Ally and I are getting to dialogue with Doc H about the joy of being human here at DCC, which is located high in the Rocky Mountains seems especially fitting because there's just something about looking at the grandeur of that mountain range, the peaks of which are already flocked with early season snow, heralded by a brilliant blue sky and groves of Aspen trees waving their golden leaves like pom poms that amplifies the joy of belonging to a God who created this kind of exquisite beauty. Speaking of beauty, today's conversation is going to take us on a super scenic tour comparing how the beginning of this divine love story we call the Bible – the genesis, if you will, of our relationship with God - unfolds much like a wedding: we find a metaphorical betrothal in Exodus, when the only true God - who breathed this glorious universe into existence – effectively gets down on one knee and asks us to spend the rest of our lives with Him. Then if you really lean in and listen, you'll hear the echoes of wedding vows in Leviticus – I promise that book isn't just about Mosaic law and communicable diseases, y'all! And when we get to the redemptive history recorded in the book of Numbers, we discover the relational rubber hits the road hard because the Israelites have moved past their honeymoon stage with God and are learning how to live day-after-day with Him in a desert where they're often disappointed and uncomfortably dependent upon their heavenly husband for provision and protection. The Bible isn't a rule book, or a textbook, or a collection of benign morality tales. It is the true story of what it means to be human – created by a perfectly loving God, in the very image of His trinitarian personhood. Genesis 1:26-27 clarifies that He created us in the image of the divine US - of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. Saint Augustine expounded on that mysterious truism when he declared that, “Only the Christian God exists in perfect community among Himself,” which also means that to be created in God's image is to be hardwired for real relationship. The trinitarian God of the Bible is self-sustaining. He didn't create us because He needed a bunch of mindless minions to do His bidding or who were somehow obligated to Him in blind allegiance. God created us on purpose for a purpose, as Jeremiah exults, His plans for us include a hope and a future and Paul adds that His plans for us will ultimately lead to our good and His glory. Our Creator is not some uni-browed bully, waiting to smack us over the head with a big Bible if we step out of line, y'all. He is instead a compassionate Redeemer, who loves us more than we can possibly ask or imagine. The joy of being human must be inextricably married to the experiential truth that God lovingly planned us into existence or it's simply theoretical...

Let's talk about some of the ways your thinking will change as you get exposed to ideas that may be foreign to you but start to make a lot more sense when you experience the miracle of recovery.You thought you could do this alone and discover that your own puny willpower is of no use whatsoever in fighting this disease. In fact, alcoholics and addicts are some of the most wilful people who have ever walked the earth, but then they discover that addiction will simply not yield to willpower. No matter how hard or how many times they have tried.Addiction will yield, however to a power greater than yourself – any power that's not just you.  You can call your group a higher power, or you can go with the Spirit of the Universe, or with any number of conceptions such as a Christian God, Buddha's teachings or what is found in the Holy Koran.   It says in the Big Book of AA :”The purpose of this book is to help you find a power greater than yourself which will solve your problem”. You get to define your own higher power. How brilliant is that?It never occurred to me that I would find liberation in discipline. That feels like a contradiction in terms, but it really isn't. Allow me to explain. When I was drinking and using, I followed every desire and whim chasing a high, chasing sex, or excitement or whatever my ego demanded I must have now. I was equally the victim of my own fears – fear of looking bad in your eyes, fear of financial disaster, afraid of losing my job or my lover. I had no rudder to guide my thinking or actions.It wasn't until I began to live by a set of principles as taught by AA that I was freed from my compulsions to drink, abuse drugs, or chase pleasures wantonly. I finally had some rules to live by: honesty, kindness, and altruism as opposed to selfishness all the way, all the time.I also learned that there was victory in surrender, another apparent contradiction. It wasn't until I admitted I was powerless over alcohol and that my life had become unmanageable that I regained the power of choice – the choice not to drink, one day at a time. I went on to embrace the idea that a power greater than myself could restore me to sanity. And it all started with surrender – the admission of powerlessness paved the way for real power, real victory over King Alcohol.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveThe Declaration of Independence affirms that all human beings are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Yet the Declaration is silent about who this Creator is. Is it the Jewish deity or the Christian God? Or is it the god of the philosophers — the blind watchmaker of the Enlightenment? The Constitution, on the other hand, doesn't mention the divine at all, except for the phrase, “Year of Our Lord.”Mainstream liberals and conservatives, whatever they may think of the silence regarding God in our founding documents, believe in the American experiment. But as Jerome E. Copulsky writes in his new book, American Heretics: Religious Adversaries of Liberal Order, throughout American history there have been those who do not, radical groups who opposed the American project, root and branch, for being liberal, as opposed to Christian. In his book, Copulsky, professor at Georgetown's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs, writes about the Loyalist churchmen who opposed the American revolution, the proslavery theologians of the 19th century, the “Theonomist” theocrats of the 20th century, and the “Integralists” of our own time.Jerome joins Shadi Hamid and Damir Marusic to discuss his book, but as often happens in Wisdom of Crowds, the conversation takes an unexpected turn. Early on, Shadi presses Jerome to specify exactly what a secular liberal Founding really means for religious practice in the public sphere. Then Shadi submits his own interpretation of the modern state as an inherently secularizing force.Damir brings the question of the secularity of the American project to bear upon current events. To what extent was the American liberal state ever “neutral”? Or is technocratic liberalism the default, unspoken “religion” of the American state? Or was it, until Donald Trump came along? And is Trump, by filling his cabinet with representatives from various American ideologies, violating liberal neutrality, or simply exposing it for the fiction that it always was?In our bonus content for paid subscribers, Jerome discusses the National Conservative movement, as exemplified by intellectuals like Patrick Deneen and Adrian Vermeule, and its influence on Vice President-elect J.D. Vance. In the second Trump term this movement will have unprecedented access to power and, Jerome argues, pose a serious challenge to — and even a “betrayal” of — the American system.Required Reading* American Heretics: Religious Adversaries of Liberal Order by Jerome E. Copulsky (Amazon)* The Declaration of Independence (National Archives). * The Constitution of the United States (National Archives).* Everson v. Board of Education (FindLaw).* George Washington's Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island (National Archives). * We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition by John Courtney Murray, S.J. (Amazon).* Common Good Constitutionalism by Adrian Vermeule (Amazon).* Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future by Patrick Deneen (Amazon). This post is part of our collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Governance and Markets.Wisdom of Crowds is a platform challenging premises and understanding first principles on politics and culture. Join us!

In pp. 77–79 of The Defense of the Faith (first edition), Cornelius Van Til addresses the fundamental differences between Christian and non-Christian perspectives on ethics, particularly focusing on the role of the will of God as foundational to ethical systems. Van Til begins by asserting that God's will is absolute and self-determinative. God is eternally good, not becoming good through a process, but being so by his very nature. Unlike humans, God does not have to achieve goodness; it is intrinsic to his eternal character. Therefore, God is both absolutely necessary and absolutely free. Van Til introduces a key distinction between Christian and non-Christian viewpoints. Christians uphold the concept of an absolutely self-determinative God, who is the necessary presupposition for all human activity. Non-Christian ethics, however, assume that if the Christian God were real, he would stifle ethical activity. This is because non-theistic views perceive God and man as having wills conditioned by an environment, implying that God must also achieve goodness through a process. Van Til critiques Platonic philosophy, noting that Plato's conception of “the Good” was ultimate, but his god was not. For Plato, “the Good” was abstract and separated from a fully personal God, leaving the ultimate reality as dependent on the element of Chance. Thus, even if Plato spoke of the Good, it was not self-determined or sovereign in the Christian sense. Modern idealist philosophers tried to build on Platonic thought by proposing an “absolutely self-determinative Experience,” but ultimately failed, according to Van Til, because they made God dependent on the space-time universe, blending time and eternity. As a result, God became dependent on external processes rather than being sovereign over them. The core ethical difference between Christianity and non-Christian systems is the acceptance or rejection of an ultimately self-determinative God. Van Til argues that without the presupposition of God as absolute, there can be no coherent or purposeful human experience, including ethics. The absolute sovereignty of God is not a hindrance to human responsibility but rather its foundation. Van Til makes a point to distinguish Christian doctrine from philosophical determinism. While both affirm necessity, philosophical determinism is impersonal, suggesting that everything is determined by blind, impersonal forces. Christianity, in contrast, asserts that the ultimate reality is personal; God's sovereign will underlies the possibility of genuine human freedom and responsibility. Chapters 00:00:07 Introduction 00:05:31 Ethics and the Christian Philosophy of Reality 00:11:45 The Christian Conception of God 00:18:02 The Absolute Contrast between Christian and Non-Christian Ethics 00:29:48 Contrasts with Platonism 00:47:18 Contrast with Idealism 00:52:10 The Central Ethical Distinction 00:55:22 Contrast with Philosophical Determinism 01:05:11 Conclusion

It's Witness Wednesday! Segment 1 Summary: • Philip's Struggle with Faith and Commitment: A young man raised in a secular French culture navigates his belief in a Christian God but hesitates to fully commit. • Capitalism vs. Socialism: A candid comparison of the U.S. and France's contrasting systems and their influence on quality of life and values. • Morality and Lifestyle Choices: Philip's internal conflict about sin, freedom, and responsibility in light of his current lifestyle. Segment 2 Summary: • Facing the Reality of Hell: Todd discusses the consequences of sin and the differing levels of suffering in hell based on one's actions. • Jesus' Sacrifice and Its Relevance: Philip grapples with the weight of choosing Jesus over sinful indulgences, sparking a reflection on consequences and redemption. Segment 3 Summary: • Non-Conformity and Personal Expression: A discussion with a student about the motivations behind self-expression and its deeper implications on identity and faith. • Divine Justice vs. Human Justice: Todd contrasts societal norms with biblical principles, unpacking the concept of sin and God's ultimate judgment. Segment 4 Summary: • Questioning Divine Mercy: A debate on why a benevolent God would allow sinful people to live, featuring Scott's skepticism influenced by cultural thought leaders. • Life Through God's Mercy: Todd asserts that despite humanity's guilt, life is a gift of grace, offering a counter to Scott's doubts. ___ Thanks for listening! Wretched Radio would not be possible without the financial support of our Gospel Partners. If you would like to support Wretched Radio we would be extremely grateful. VISIT https://fortisinstitute.org/donate/ If you are already a Gospel Partner we couldn't be more thankful for you if we tried!

Exodus 3:13-15; John 14:8-11; Acts 2:1-4 - The Nicene Creed begins with an affirmation that there is "one God," though it makes clear as it goes on that it is not only the Father, but also the Son and the Spirit who are also to be worshipped as God. With this statement, we are plunged into the heart of the mysterious, beautiful doctrine of who the Christian God is: the doctrine of the Trinity and the love of God. A sermon by Cameron Heger. [Part 2 of our series "The Nicene Creed: The Ancient Theology of the Triune God"] Questions for reflection: 1) Why is it important that we spend the effort necessary to think rightly about God? Do you find it naturally exciting or difficult? 2) How is the Trinity different from polytheism (multiple gods), modalism (God shows up in different modes), and subordinationism (Jesus is a lesser god/entity)? 3) Why do you think the Trinity became such an important concept for Christians despite the word not appearing in the Bible? 4) Cameron (following Fred Sanders) argued that we might get our best glimpse at the Trinity in the major moments of salvation history--through the missions of the Father (at the Exodus), the Son (at the incarnation/crucifixion), and the Spirit (at Pentecost). As God acted to save His people, we learned more about who He is. What do you think of this? 5) In John 17:24, Jesus shared about the love He experienced from the Father before creation. What light does this shed on the idea that "God is love"?

We continue our series on Ex-Pastor’s wives and daughters with Bex. How Religion Lowers our Expectations The World I Want to Live In What Kind of Father is the Christian God? Karl Forehand is a former pastor, podcaster, and award-winning author. His books include Out into the Desert, Leaning Forward,  Apparent Faith: What Fatherhood Taught Me […]

Romans 13:1-7

Discussion Questions Sermon Overview: The Glory of God as Our Highest Aim. Because God is good, living, and promise-keeping, live for his glory.1. The central motivation of every Christian: God's glory (v. 1a)2. Three reasons to glorify him:-He's a good God (v. 1b)-He's a living God (vv. 3-8)-He's a promise-keeping God (vv. 12-15)3. Two ways to glorify him:-Trust him (vv. 9-11)-Praise him (vv. 16-18)Digging Deeper:    Read Psalm 115  1. In one word, what comes to mind when you think of glorifying God? 2. What are some of the most common things people live for? What is alluring about those things?  3. How is living for God's glory different from any other pursuit? Why is living for God and his glory better? 4. As Christians, we can often talk about “glorifying God,” sometimes without a clear picture in our minds of what exactly that means or looks like. How did this sermon on Psalm 115 help you better understand what it looks like to live for God's glory? 5. It is clear in verse 1 that the author wants all glory, all honor, and all praise to be directed not “to us,” but rather to God. That's not normal. What would cause a person to pray such a prayer? 6. Psalm 115 provides us with reasons to glorify God. The first reason is that God is a good God (v. 1b). How easy or hard is it for you to believe that God is good? How come? 7. How does the goodness of God motivate us to live for God's glory? 8. The second reason Psalm 115 provides us for living to glorify God is that he's a living God (vv. 3-8). Why should the fact that our God is a living God motivate us to live for his glory? 9. A third reason we see for living for God's glory in Psalm 115 is that our God is a promise-keeping God (vv. 12-15). How should this truth (that God keeps his promises to us) motivate us to live in such a way that he is made much of (glorified)?  10. Are there specific promises God has made in his Word that have become precious to you? Please share.  11. One of the ways we can glorify God is by trusting him (vv. 9-11).  How does trusting God glorify him?  How does a failure to trust God dishonor him?  12. We can also bring glory to God through our praise (vv. 16-18). What are ways we can praise God throughout the week?Prayer

Al Fadi and Dr jay Smith  discuss more doctrinal differences between Christianity and Islam and today they start with the trinity; they point out how the Christian God is relational both in the God head and with His creation.  They point out that we are made in God's image to be relational too.  Second they show the difference between Christians who are children of God versus Muslims who are slaves of Allah. Children can call God Daddy, and communicate with God without fear; Muslims are afraid of their God and must submit to him as master. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pastor Dru explores the contrast between the cold, transactional relationships the Romans had with their gods and the loving, sacrificial nature of the Christian God, emphasizing that God's love is unique and personal.

Jordan Hall tries to convince Jim that the reality of the Christian God is logically necessary. They discuss points of agreement & resonance between their views, relational ontology vs substance ontology, belief as mental operation vs existential commitment, a hierarchical stack of concepts, the complexity lens, the conceptual level on which relationship belongs, relata as contained within relationship, relationship as the most real, the impossibility of imagining being without relationship, oneness & multiplicity & relationality, moving from the philosophical to the theological, hypostasis, the standard model of physics, the coordination of experience with theory, dehumanizing the persons of the Trinity, alternatives to a single universe, unfolding within lawfulness, pure nominalism, the Nicene Creed, whether the Trinity adds information to complexity, whether a cosmic consciousness defies physics, the laws of causation, theology as the discipline of reality, the existential commitment that belief constitutes, fath as livingness, the meaning of a personal God, an ongoing expansion of the relationship with reality, faith vs ideology, 3 forms of belief in Plato, the meaning of pistis, John Vervaeke's religion that is not a religion, refounding life on pistis, whether one can be a Christian without thinking so, Biblical literalism, the prescriptive & annoying stuff, good fiction, great literature as a means of accessing high-dimensional reality, the mediocrity of academic Biblical criticism, and much more. Episode Transcript JRS EP8 - Jordan "Greenhall" Hall and Game B JRS EP26 - Jordan Hall on the Game B Emergence JRS EP 170 - John Vervaeke and Jordan Hall on The Religion That Is Not a Religion JRS EP 223 - Jordan Hall on Cities, Civiums, and Becoming Christian Heidegger, Neoplatonism, and the History of Being: Relation as Ontological Ground, by James Filler JRS Currents 100: Sara Walker and Lee Cronin on Time as an Object JRS EP 240 - Stuart Kauffman on a New Approach to Cosmology Jordan Hall is the Co-founder and Executive Chairman of the Neurohacker Collective. He is now in his 17th year of building disruptive technology companies. Jordan's interests in comics, science fiction, computers, and way too much TV led to a deep dive into contemporary philosophy (particularly the works of Gilles Deleuze and Manuel DeLanda), artificial intelligence and complex systems science, and then, as the Internet was exploding into the world, a few years at Harvard Law School where he spent time with Larry Lessig, Jonathan Zittrain and Cornel West examining the coevolution of human civilization and technology.

Religion really does poison everything.

Blaise Pascal was a mid-1600s mathematician and philosopher. He presented an argument for religious belief from a mathematical standpoint that has come to be called Pascal's Wager. The problem is that this argument is often misunderstood and applied in ways that Pascal never intended. In Chapter 8 of "Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God," Armin Navabi argues that Pascal's Wager "does nothing to prove the nature of God," and "falls apart completely." Is this true? Should Christians stop using Pascal's Wager in our conversations? Let's take a look and think well about Armin's objections and the intended use of Pascal's Wager. Content Discussed: 0:00 Intro 5:36 Response to Armin Navabi 7:15 Background on Pascal's Wager 13:30 Armin's 2 ways that Pascal's Wager breaks down 19:45 How world religions affect Pascal's Wager 25:48 Atheist caller 26:26 If you could prove the Christian God exists, would you become a Christian? 27:40 The Christian God isn't good because he creates people who go to hell for eternity 35:05 Is the most perfect God one who gives us voluntary existence? 43:34 Can we be free if God knows the future? 1:00:18 Is there a cost to following God?

The Christian God is the best explanation for the world we experience.

Questions Covered: 02:24 – Could life have come about naturalistically? 06:10 – My wife is agnostic. How do I reply to the questions, why should she care, and why should she believe that it’s the Christian God that exists? 16:39 – My convert friend is asking how do you know when something is dogma vs doctrine? 28:45 – Within the holy family, did Joseph have the spiritual authority of Mary and Jesus? 30:55 – What is the rule of the magisterium in regard to translation of the bible and why should we heed to those translations? 36:08 – How specific does my confession have to be for it to be valid? 41:55 – How do we know that St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letters are reliable? 45:05 – Can an unbaptized person receive the sacrament of confession? 47:35 – Has the use of extraordinary ministers of holy communion been abused? 52:20 – There are verses in the bible that say that miracles are signs, but it also says the devil will use them. How can the Church confidently say that the miracles it approved of are from God and not the devil? …

Blaise Pascal's Case for Christianity I.    The Genius of Blaise Pascal  A.    Amazing life of Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) B.    Pascal as an apologist; not a fideist (unlike Soren Kierkegaard) C.    Nature of apologetics. Defend the Christian worldview as objectively true, compellingly rational, and pertinent to all of life (1 Peter 3:15) II.    Pascal's Case for Christianity A.    His apologetic be reconstructed. Order. Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is. Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature. Attractive because it promises true good.  B.    We consider only two elements: the wager and the deposed royalty argument; there are more. See Douglas Groothuis, Beyond the Wager: the Christian Brilliance of Blaise Pascal (InterVarsity Academic, 2024).   III.    The Wager: Risks, Rewards, Options A.    We should bet on God being rule instead of betting on God's unreality in light of the possible consequences.     I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true.  B.    Theoretical reason: Is P true? How can I know this? C.    Prudential reason: What do I gain or lose by believing P? What actions should I pursue on this matter? D.    The outcomes and belief states 1.    Believer, if Christian God exists:Gain: eternal life; avoid hell. Infinite gainLoss: worldly pleasures. Finite loss 2.    Believer, if Christian God does not exist:Gain: pleasures of religion. Finite gain    Loss: worldly pleasures and truth. Finite loss 3.    Unbeliever (atheist or agnostic or member of other religion), if Christian God exists:Gain: worldly pleasures. Finite gainLoss: eternal life; gain hell, infinite loss 4.    Unbeliever, if Christian God does not exist:Gain: worldly pleasures. Finite gainLoss: nothing. E.    Given the stakes, we should investigate the claims of Christianity with an open mind and open heart and not be indifferent.  There are only three sorts of people: those who have found God and serve him; those who are busy seeking him and have not found him; those who live without either seeking or finding him. The first are reasonable and happy, the last are foolish and unhappy, those in the middle are unhappy and reasonable.   IV.    The Human Problem and Puzzle A.    What sort of freak then is man! How novel, how monstrous, how chaotic, how paradoxical, how prodigious! Judge of all things, feeble earthworm, repository of truth, sink of doubt and error, the glory and refuse of the universe! (131/434). B.    How to live with the human burden in light of reality; “deposed royalty” who can be restored through Jesus Christ C.    What are the options? We will look at two “live hypotheses” V.    A True, Rational, and Significant Explanation. A.    True explanation of the human condition: one that agrees with objective reality; factual; realism. B.    Rational explanation: one that explains who we are in accordance with the evidence and sound reasoning. C.    Significant explanation: one that gives us value, meaning, and realistic hope for being human in the world. Philosophical anthropology is a very important part of any worldview. D.    Manner of explanation: abduction (inference to best explanation)   VI.    Views of Being Human: The New Age Worldview A.    New Age or spiritual worldview: Ken Wilber, Oprah Winfrey, Deepak Chopra  1.    Background belief on humanity a.    Pantheism: everything is divine. b.    Monism: all is one (or nondualism) c.    Morality is not absolute, but good and evil dissolve into a universal and impersonal oneness. 2.    New Age view on humanity a.    Human nature is really a divine nature: we are one with an impersonal deity. b.    Human problem: we have forgotten our true identity as divine, one with all things, and unlimited. c.    Human solution: Find the divine within through meditation, yoga, self-realization seminars. 3.    Questioning New Age philosophy a.    Human beings are limited in power and goodness; this is evident and not a delusion or matter of ignorance. b.    There are moral realities that reveal a moral dualism: good and evil; right and wrong; virtue and vice. Rape is always wrong; kindness is better than wanton cruelty. VII.    Christianity: Deposed Royality A.    Background belief: personal theism—God as Creator, Lord, Judge B.    Pascal's point can be strengthened by natural theology: arguments for God's existence from nature and in accord with reason.  C.    Human nature: created in God's image and likeness (Genesis 1:27) 1.    Uniqueness of humanity: ethics, culture, language, religion  2.    Human greatness: creativity, intelligence, etc. (#113/348) Thinking reed. It is not in space that I must seek my human dignity, but in the ordering of my thought. It will do me no good to own land. Through space the universe grasps me and swallows me up like a speck; through thought I grasp it.  3.    Human dignity: image-bearers of God (Psalm 8:3-5) 4.    Disjunction from the rest of the living world; different in kind, not just degree D.    Human problem: we are fallen, warped, alienated, deposed 1.    Human evil: sexism, racism, pettiness, greed, envy, ad nauseum 2.    Our moral and spiritual corruption (Psalm 14:1-3; Mark 7:21-23) 3.    Corruptio optimi pessima: “There is nothing worse than the corruption of the best.” 4.    The essential problem: pride, self-centeredness, egotism (Romans 3:9-20) 5.    Escaping our condition through diversion Diversion. If man were happy, the less he were diverted the happier he would be, like the saints and God. Yes: but is a man not happy who can find delight in diversion?  E.    Neither angel nor beast, but human It is dangerous to explain too clearly to man how like he is to the animals without pointing out his greatness. It is also dangerous to make too much of his greatness without his vileness. It is still more dangerous to leave him in ignorance of both, but it is most valuable to represent both to him. Man must not be allowed to believe that he is equal either to animals or to angels, nor to be unaware of either, but he must know both.  F.    Humans! Wretched and great  G.    The reality of death; life kills us all; finite time to figure it all out (Hebrews 9:27). VIII.    Finding Truth, hope, and Purpose A.    The human condition requires a radical, transcendent cure B.    Jesus Christ provides this liberating cure for all people  1.    Jesus: You must repent (Matthew 4:17). 2.    Jesus provides forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration (John 3:16-18; Romans 5:6-8: Ephesians 2:1-10) 6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:6-8). 3.    The message is liberating for everyone; we are all deposed royalty (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 4:12; I Timothy 2:5-6). C.    Being human with knowledge, hope, and integrity 1.    Jesus is a God whom we can approach without pride and before whom we can humble ourselves without despair.  2.    A world view that makes sense of oneself and others 3.    The strength to love and serve through Jesus Christ, “the Mediator” (Pascal's term) The Christians' God is a God who makes the soul aware that he is its sole good: that in him alone can it find peace; that only in loving him can it find joy: and who at the same time fills it with loathing for the obstacles which hold it back and prevent it from loving God with all its might.   4.    Provides incentive to give oneself selflessly to God and God's liberating program for humanity. 5.    Know then, proud man, what a paradox you are to yourself. Be humble, impotent reason! Be silent, feeble nature! Learn that man infinitely transcends man, hear from your master your true condition, which is unknown to you. Listen to God.  Resources on Blaise Pascal and the Human Condition 1.    Douglas Groothuis, Beyond the Wager: The Christian Brilliance of Blaise Pascal (InterVarsity, 2024).2.    Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, 2nd ed. (InterVarsity Press, 2022). 3.    Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism (InterVarsity Press, 2000). Critique of postmodernist ideas in philosophy, theology, ethics, race, gender, and the arts.4.    Blaise Pascal, Pensées, ed. Alban Krailsheimer (Penguin, 1966). Standard collection with an excellent introduction by Krailsheimer.5.    Blaise Pascal, The Mind on Fire, ed. James Houston (Bethany House Publishers, 1997). Collection from Pensées and Pascal's shorter works. Excellent introduction by Os Guinness.6.    Michael Rota, Taking Pascal's Wager: Faith, Evidence, and the Abundant Life (InterVarsity, 2016).7.    James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalogue, 5th ed. (InterVarsity Press, 2009). Compares major worldviews, including each worldview's understanding of the human condition.   Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

If the Christian God and the Mormon God got into a fight, who would win? In this episode, S. Richard Bellrock shows just just how unfair the fight would be.

Questions about whether one can argue from the existence of evil straight to the Christian God or if more arguments are required to get there and whether Abraham sacrificing Isaac would be considered a good action since God commanded it. Does the existence of evil argue for the God of the Bible or only for a monotheistic God in general? If Abraham sacrificed Isaac, would the action be considered good since God commanded it?

The dominant narrative is that Western culture is headed for ever greater levels of atheism, agnosticism, or at least departure from belief in the Christian God. Andy Crouch returns from his sabbatical to question this narrative. He points out that the dominant secular worldview of the West - deterministic, rationalistic, and reductionist - is starting to run on empty. Can this lead to a greater hunger for the Christian God? Curtis and Andy examine what Christians would need to do to meet this hunger, including reexamining our own understanding of the Gospel itself.   The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World by Ian McGilchrist   At the Origins of Modern Atheism by Michael J. Buckley   The One, the Three, and the Many: God, Creation, and the Culture of Modernity by Colin Gunton  

In this compilation of calls from an atheist, Greg answers questions about the nature of objective morality, who goes to Hell, and how one can move from the cosmological argument for the existence of God to the God of the Bible.   Topics: If we can unify our understanding of morality by agreeing on a common goal, then isn't that objective morality? (02:00) Who goes to Hell? (18:00) How do we move from the need for a first cause to the existence of the God of the Bible? (42:00) Mentioned on the Show:  Conversations with an Atheist – Download the compilation of Greg's discussions with Ian (includes an additional question) Related Links: #STRask: Why conclude the beginning of the universe points to the Christian God rather than one of the other explanations people offer? A Simple Explanation of the Cosmological Argument – Short video from Reasonable Faith