14 So-Called Myths About Christianity

Dons blog
Karens Response
OPENING STATEMENTS
14 MYTHS
PEOPLE BELIEVE ABOUT CHRISTIANITY
AND WHY CHRISTIANITY IS THE LOGICAL FAITH
MYTH
JESUS CHRIST WAS ONLY A GREAT MORAL TEACHER
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT JESUS ROSE FROM THE

DEAD
SCIENCE IS IN CONFLICT WITH CHRISTIAN FAITH
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE, ALL RELIGIONS

ARE BASICALLY THE SAME
CHRISTIANITY IS JUST A CRUTCH FOR THE WEAK
PEOPLE BECOME CHRISTIANS THROUGH SOCIAL

CONDITIONING
CHRISTIANITY STIFLES PERSONAL FREEDOM
CHRISTIANITY IS OTHER-WORLDLY AND IRRELEVANT TO

MODERN LIFE
THE BIBLE IS UNRELIABLE AND CAN NOT BE TRUSTED
10
ALL THE EVIL AND SUFFERING IN THE WORLD PROVE

THERE IS NO GOD
11
THERE ARE SO MANY HYPOCRITES IN THE CHURCH I

COULD NEVER BELIEVE IN CHRIST
12
ONE'S RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE IS A PRIVATE MATTER

AND SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED
13
WHATEVER MAKES YOU FEEL CLOSE TO GOD IS OK AS

LONG AS YOU ARE SINCERE
14
ALL THE GOOD THINGS I'VE DONE WILL OUTWEIGH THE

BAD
God has given enough evidence of His working in history to provide

us strong convictions for a faith that's based on overwhelming
probability, although not so certain as to force one to believe
against his or her own will. If God wanted to force us to follow Him
it would be easy for the Creator to align the stars, or the clouds to
Given your intent to win converts and your certainty that you have
chosen the only correct and logical faith, I will abandon my
preference toward dialogue-for-understanding. This is a debate,
and I will tell you directly and specifically where I believe you are
wrong, and where I have found that Christianity fails.
This will, undoubtedly, seem harsh at times. Yet, you have already
discounted my experience (on that Facebook thread which led to
this exchange) by presuming to judge that my spiritual journey
must not have been a genuine search for God, and that you think
you can help me (but not vice versa). In this context, directing my
comments specifically at your writings here, I will not apologize for
being blunt.
I am speaking for myself alone, explaining what I have found to be
true after decades of searching. I am not claiming absolute
knowledge. While I will not type in my view or according to my
experience or I could be wrong but every few paragraphs, any
statements I make should be taken in this spirit.
Also while you wrote and updated your essay across the course of
20 years, I am pretty much just pounding this out on a full sprint. I
will, undoubtedly, misspeak on occasion, so would welcome the
opportunity to clarify if you would point out errors or problems.
Your list reads a bit like something made up by Christians who
dont really know what non-Christians think about their religion.
Not that its totally wrong, but more like youve read some of what
we believe, but only for the purpose of refuting it, not to
understand it.
I hope to show that my objections to Christianity are not only
because I do not believe its fundamental doctrines (i.e., many of the
so-called myths you hope to refute actually are true), but also
because I find both the doctrines and the god* of Christianity to be
morally regressive.
* Lower case intentional. I will capitalize most of the time, but that
will depend on whether I am using it as a proper name, like I gave it
to Mom vs. I gave it to the boys mom, or Zeus vs. a Greek god.
Pronouns will not be capitalized.
You confuse knowledge with force. Aligning the stars, or whatever

sign God might choose in order to make his existence and identity
plain for all, does not mean we are forced to follow him.
The bible claims that Satan believes God exists, and doesnt follow
him.
Dons blog
Karens Response
OPENING STATEMENTS
write a message in the sky, or use some other compelling means.
However, Scripture teaches that God wants us to follow His will for
our lives from a motive of love, and not out of fear. Many years ago
the famous French math genius and Christian philosopher, Blaise
Pascal explained it this way:
"God so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given
signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him and not to those
who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only want
to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary
disposition."
Some of the most common fallacies that have circulated in our
Western culture and mediamainly by those who have never made
an in-depth investigation of the Christian faithare addressed in
this brief manuscript. The books referenced throughout will answer
the questions behind each of these myths in detail.
However, we always bear in mind that no amount of proof will
substitute for a personal spiritual encounter with Christ by the
Holy Spirit, as the Scripture states: "...no one can say that Jesus
Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3), and John
6:44 says, "No man can come to Me (Christ), except the Father
who sent Me draw him..." Nevertheless, dispelling a myth is
sometimes the key that unlocks the door of the heart so the Light
of faith can shine through.
For many years I searched for a concise summary describing the
primary reasons why millions of Christians chose to put their faith in
Christ. There are now several excellent books that cover this topic
(see Footnotes), but none that address the numerous myths headon. I discovered a unique essay on the subject interspersed among
1
the pages of The Word In Life Study Bible, and found it to be the
ideal short description I have been looking for.
That essay, entitled The Ten Favorite Myths People Believe About
1
Christianity, has herein been reproduced, updated, edited, and
expanded to include more current research in the field of Christian
apologetics (theological explanations). I hope the reader will find
this an intellectually challenging, honest expos of the popular
fiction obscuring many of the historical facts the Christian faith is
based on.
If I were to know God exists, I might choose to follow him. If,

however, he revealed himself to be the god of the Christian bible, I
would not follow him.
Knowledge simply does not negate free will.
In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve surely knew God, and their
free will was not impinged. After they gained even more knowledge
(by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), their free
will yet remained intact.
Jonah surely believed in God, and demonstrated his free will by
disobeying. It was not knowledge of Gods existence that brought
him around to obedience (of a sort), but physical interference and
coercion.
In fact, I would say that whenever free will is messed with in the
bible, it is not because God shared too much knowledge of himself
thereby stunting peoples ability to act freely, but rather, that God
chooses to interfere and limit free will in order to make a point, like
he did when he hardened Pharaohs heart.
Look at Job. God certainly interfered with the chain of events that
would have occurred had they been allowed to play out by the rules
of free will. But he had to win a bet with Satan.
The newly-freed, manna-fed Israelites had direct experience that
not only did God exist, but he was on their side. And they made
that golden calf.
Its not just Old Testament people. Judas. He believed and still
betrayed. Still others witnessed the miracles and did not convert.
Knowledge does not remove free will. I think you know this is
correct, because you say no amount of proof will substitute so
you know that even overwhelming evidence simply does not
override free will. Period.
This gives the lie to your interpretation of Pascals attempt to
explain away why God doesnt just show himself.
The reason Pascal gives for this game of hide-and-seek is not quite
the way you have presented it. He says, because, as so many make
themselves unworthy of His mercy, He has willed to leave them in
the loss of the good which they do not want. Youre unworthy, so
instead of helping you, Ill leave you in the dark. Its sort of
backwards, isnt it? I mean its almost a Catch-22 kind of thing.
According to Pascal, God says if you dont show me first that you
want to follow me (based on some small amount of light that is
maybe not very obvious), then I wont show you any further light so
you will really have no reason to want to follow me and youre shit
out of luck.
(By the way, when you change a quote, even slightly, from the
original, that change needs to be indicated. Your Pascal quote
should be rendered thusly: [God] so regulates the knowledge of
Himself.)
Dons blog
Karens Response
OPENING STATEMENTS
INTRODUCTION
Truth and error have battled since the first days of the Christian faith.
Paul urged Timothy to counter those who taught strange doctrines at
Ephesus (Eph. 1:3-4). Today, Christianity has become a major world
religion with a well established set of beliefs. Nevertheless, believers
still must contend with doctrinal error and misconceptions about the
faith.
Unfortunately, many people have accepted a number of myths
about Christianity, with the result that they never respond to Jesus
Christ as He really is. They reject the good news Christ proclaimed
on the basis of half-truths and lies rather than a clear
understanding of Christ's message or its consequences. Ahead is a
list of fourteen myths about Christianity that are common in our
1
culture.
Please bear in mind: The writers and editor of this essay do not
wish our declarations, however logical or confident, to come across
as close-minded or conceited. A brief look at the sayings of Christ
will show that attitude is the opposite of what Christ intended, and
certainly not what we intend. We have come to believe numerous
doctrines with certainty, and we strongly protest many antiChristian sayings that have been passed along, but we do not claim
to have all the answers.
Some questions are impossible to answer satisfactorily, such as how
God allows us a completely free will, and yet remains the sovereign
Ruler Who controls the universe. Theologians have debated that
one for centuries, and we will never understand it fully. As Paul
wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:9 & 13, "For we know in part and we
prophesy in part... Now we see but a poor reflection as in a
mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I
shall know fully, even as I am fully known."
Some of the following answers fall short as will all human
explanations. The point of this publication is not just to win
arguments of logic. Logic is indispensable, but intellectual
knowledge alone will not carry the weight that faith does when one
experiences, for example, the loss of a loved one, or the many other
burdens we mortals must bear.
A confident, heart-felt faith in Christ is the deepest of all
knowledge, because it's the knowledge of the mind and the heart.
It's a knowledge that is unshakable in spite of persecution, or even
the imminent threat of a martyr's death (as modern history
continues to record). This kind of faith is based on reasonable
information as we have included here, but it goes far beyond just
learning a lot of Biblical data. Real faith is developed through
knowledge of Scriptures, answered prayer, and time spent
communing with the Spirit of Christ. It's our prayer these answers to
the 14 Myths will help introduce you to the One Answer to all of
life.
Don Leander, CFP, RFC, CSA
(Originally authored September 30, 1994 and periodically updated posted 11-24-2014)
While you may not wish your declarations to come across as closeminded, there is no getting around the fact that you set out from
the very start of this essay to convince the reader that you are right
and that they ought to convert. While you may grant some leeway
on some of the finer points, or do a small dance around the idea
that you dont know it all, you most definitely do not appear to be
open-minded. This becomes more apparent as I read through the
entire article. Time after time, I find places where the arguments you
make could be used to just as effectively on behalf of other
religions. To me, this indicates an unwillingness, or an inability, to
be truly open and attempt to see where other people are really
coming from.
Dons blog
Karens Response
OPENING STATEMENTS
Abandon the myths, and go for the truth about God. There are
many things in the world that point to the truth about God, that is,
the kind of God that the Bible talks about, the God who made us,
loves us, and communicates Himself to us.
Go for the truth about Jesus. Jesus claimed to be the Truth (John
14:6). Everything in His life, teaching, death, and resurrection
validates that astounding claim. So feel free to take a good, long
look at Jesus. He won't disappoint you!
Go for the truth about yourself. Each of us is something of an
enigma. At times we can be kind and thoughtful, generous and
unselfish. Yet, we can also be self-centered and vindictive, lustful
and treacherous. What a contradiction! As the Roman poet Ovid put
it, "I see the better way and I approve it, but I follow the worse." Or,
as Paul wrote, "The good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I
will not to do, that I practice" (Rom. 7:19).
No wonder some people see only the good in human nature and
dream of utopia, while others see little but moral squalor and
political chaos and fear global destruction ahead. Christianity sees a
bit of both: we are like semi-ruined temples that still bear the marks
of their original splendor. Only the Architect who designed us can
fully repair and restore us to our original purpose and beauty.
In my experience, examples of things that Christians use to point

to the truth about God can just as easily point to the truth about
other gods, or no god. So let me ask you, are you willing to
abandon your own myths and go for the truth? Have you ever given
serious consideration to converting to a different faith? Then you
have not done what you are asking me to do.
My goal is truth whether its the truth I want or not. I wanted the
truth to be that God had a plan for my life, and that my personal
relationship with Jesus was real. I sought the truth about God and
Jesus for decades. I still seek the truth about myself and my place in
the universe.
I take issue with your statement that He especially affects our
relationships with other people so that we treat them as Jesus
would, as though this is an exclusively Christian trait. If you are
willing to step outside your preconceived conclusions, you will see
that Christianity does not have a monopoly on the Golden Rule, nor
on impacting peoples lives for positive results.
Go for the truth about spiritual growth. If we're going to be restored

to God, change will be required. The first step is to turn our lives
over to Him. Then He begins a process of growth that affects every
aspect of life. The process takes timea lifetime, in fact. Indeed, the
process won't end until we meet Him after death.
For now, God helps Christians cultivate a close relationship with
Himself. He develops our character so that we gradually become
more like Christ. And, He especially affects our relationships with
other people so that we treat them as Jesus would.
14 MYTHS
RETURN TO TOP
Dons blog
Karens Response
MYTH #1 JESUS CHRIST WAS ONLY A GREAT MORAL TEACHER

MYTH #1 JESUS CHRIST WAS ONLY A GREAT MORAL
TEACHER
SUMMARY: The rules of logic rule out any other explanation for
the life of Jesus Christ, except the one He taught, that He was the
Son of God come to Earth as a man. The only logical options are:
1) He was either a madman, or 2), a colossal liar, and therefore,
an evil false prophet, or 3), the Lord he claimed to be. As
famous author C.S. Lewis put it, "...let us not come with any
patronizing nonsense about Him being a great human teacher.
He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
This Liar-Lunatic-Lord argument is so old and tired, it has already

been torn to tattered little shreds. And it only takes one small
additional logical step to do so.
What the trilemma leaves out, importantly, is that Jesus could also
have been misquoted.
Given that fourth option, it is (logically) possible that Jesus was only
a teacher after all, and that the claims of divinity were exaggerated
or tweaked over time, either intentionally or inadvertently.
That option may be difficult for you to accept because you believe
Dons blog
Karens Response

People marveled at the teaching of Jesus. Whether He spoke in
interesting parables (Matt. 13:34-35) or gave more straightforward,
extended discourses (Matthew chapters 5-7), people followed Him
everywhere, hanging on His every word (Matt. 7:28). "No man ever
spoke like this Man!" His listeners remarked (John 7:76). And they
were right. Jesus was a master teacher and communicator.
Moreover, beyond simply teaching the highest moral and spiritual
principles ever known, Jesus actually lived them. He told people to
love their enemies; He forgave those who crucified Him. He told
people to lay down their lives for others; He laid down His own life
for the world. He told people not to worry about material
possessions; He owned no more than the clothes on His back.
Jesus' example makes Him the most remarkable of all teachers. And
yet that legacy almost makes it too easy for people to dismiss Him,
ignoring both His message and His Person: "Jesus? Yes, He was a
great moral teacher." What they really mean is that, for them, Jesus
was only a teachera great teacher, perhaps the greatest the world
has ever seen, but a teacher and nothing more.
Neither He nor His followers would allow for that. Jesus was either
very much more than a great teacher or else very much less than
one for in addition to His great moral precepts, He made
astonishing claims that no other sane person has ever made, and
behaved in ways that no other decent human has. For instance:
the bible to be all true, all the time. In order to proceed logically, as
you want to do, you must consider all possible options, not simply
the ones that arise from within the limited bounds of a book that
may or may not be completely accurate.
Given that Jesus may have been misquoted, it is possible that Jesus
was simply a teacher. It is both a logical possibility and a reasonable
option given the nature of how stories of that era were passed
around and not written down until decades after the fact. There is
also the possibility that the Jesus we meet in the bible is an
amalgamation of several different individuals.
So, its not Liar-Lunatic-or-Lord, its Liar-Lunatic-Lord-or-Legend.
As for peoples reactions to Jesus people throughout the ages
have marveled at charismatic leaders, with little correlation between
their appeal and the veracity of their teachings. Perhaps you think
people marveled more at Jesus, but as you have put little effort into
finding stories that contradict your notion, you might find you are
mistaken. Regardless, a fervent fan base is no indicator of truth.
You say Jesus not only taught, but actually lived the highest moral
and spiritual principles ever known. This is incorrect. His moral
teachings were not the highest ever known. He also did immoral
things at times. For example, he accepted the institution of slavery
without opposition. He directed people to not only abandon their
families, but to hate them. He told his disciples to steal a horse. He
tells us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies while
promising his own enemies an eternity of suffering. He was petty
(killed a fig tree because it didnt have a fig off-season, resorted to
rude name-calling). For the sake of moving forward with this
debate, Ill stop there. But if you want to defend these actions of
Jesus for their superior morality, Im game to go down that road.
One could say Gautama Buddha and Confucius were at least as
moral, if not more so. The Golden Rule is not unique to Christianity,
nor did it originate from the Judeo-Christian faith. Your hyperbolic
statements notwithstanding, Jesus morals and teachings just
werent that special.
> He claimed to forgive people's sins (Matt. 9:2; Luke 7:47-48).
Whats interesting here is how this story contradicts the Christian

doctrine of the cross. Why didnt the paralyzed man have to ask in
order for his sins to be forgiven? Why was no sacrifice required
before the sins were forgiven? Apparently, Jesus had the authority
(and ability, we presume) to forgive at will and he didnt require us
to seek him. Its not clear that the paralyzed man even asked for
healing, let alone forgiveness. Other people brought the guy to
Jesus.
But to your point, yes, this is an element of the bible narrative that
indicates Jesus claimed divine power.
> He accepted people's worship (Matt. 8:2-3; 9:18-19; 14:33).
The people in Matthew 8 and 9 knelt before Jesus to beg favors,

not to worship. Matthew 14 doesnt record Jesus response when
the people in the boat worshipped him, so we are not told
Dons blog
Karens Response

specifically whether he accepted it.
In fact, as I read ahead to your next claim, I accidentally looked at
the verse after the first one you list. (I know, in these discussions Ive
learned that Im only supposed to look at the specific verse cited.
My bad.) Anyway, in John 5:41, Jesus says I do not accept glory
from human beings. Thats a pretty clear statement against your
claim that he accepts our worship.
> He said that He alone was the way to God, the truth of God,
and the life of God (John 5:40; 6:44; 7:16-17; 14:6).
Here, Jesus makes a case that he has a special relationship with

God. The Lordship is not explicitly apparent in these verses, but it
wouldnt be a contradictory claim.
Some of the translations are not as cut and dried as you might
believe, however. Way back when I was studying New Testament
Greek, we spent an inordinate amount of time on the preposition
that is often translated as through in John 14:6. It is a multipurpose preposition that makes it possible to have translated the
phrase except as me, implying one might approach God in the
same way Jesus approached God, not necessarily using Jesus as a
conduit but rather as an example. Through might be the better
translation, but it might not.
While the bible has Jesus claiming his divinity at times, there are
other times (e.g., Mark 10:18) when he distances himself from those
claims. So even the biblical record on Jesus claims about himself is
squishy. This further complicates your simplistic liar-lunatic-lord
premise and bolsters the legend option.
> He said that He had come to seek and to save the lost (Luke
19:10).
Not sure why it matters so much that he claims he has come to

seek and save the lost. Isnt that what you are doing as well?
Nothing very special about that.
> He promised that He would rise from the dead (Matt. 20:19;
27:63).
Its easy to be quoted as having predicted something when the

story is written down decades after the fact. Yes, I know, you believe
it is accurate. But using the book itself to try to prove the book itself
is just circular reasoning.
Even if Jesus did say that he would be raised from the dead, that is
not a claim of divinity, unless we are to also claim that Lazarus is
divine as well.
> He claimed that humanity would ultimately be accountable

to Him (Matt. 7:21-23; 25:31-46).
The most we can say from the Matthew 7 passage is that Jesus can
vouch for us not that people will be accountable to him.
The Matthew 25 passage is a better one for making your point.
Interestingly, this passage goes on to show that God wont judge us
on whether we believe in him or not. The only thing we will be
judged on, according to this passage, is how we treated the hungry,
the strangers, and the imprisoned.
Dons blog
Karens Response
> He claimed to be God and allowed others to call Him God

(Matt. 16:15-16; 26:63-64; John 8:58).
Certainly, in these verses, Jesus claimed he was God. And yet, there
are passages like Luke 13:33 where he calls himself a prophet
instead, or Matthew 19:17 where he draws a distinction between
himself and God.
These claims are either true, or they are ridiculous. Any teacher who
would make them had better be telling the truth, or else he would
be the worst of all liars, and would be neither great nor moral. The
evidence suggests that Jesus was telling the truth. For in addition to
His explicit claims are the implicit claims of fulfilled Old Testament
prophecies and the performance of supernatural miracles. And
there is also a fact that countless others who have examined His
words and actions have come away convinced that He was not
merely a great moral teacher, but the very Son of God. Among
them have been determined and supposedly unshakable skeptics
like Thomas, and formerly adamant opponents like the brilliant Saul
of Tarsus who ended up becoming His most ardent follower.
The problem with the way you present this is that it isnt either 100
PERCENT TOTALLY TRUE or WORST OF ALL LIES! There are other
options. The claims may be partially true and partially exaggerated.
They may not have been made at all.
To believe that Jesus was simply a great moral teacher is untenable.

As C. S. Lewis put it, "A man who was merely a man and said
the sort of things that Jesus said would not be a great moral
teacher. He would either be a lunaticon a level with a man
who says he is a poached eggor else He would be the devil of
Hell. You must make a choice. Either this man was, and is, the
Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can
shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him as a demon; or you
can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not
come with any patronizing nonsense about Him being a great
human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not
intend to." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 56)
Your proof relies on stories written down decades after the fact by
people who didnt witness any of the events or meet Jesus himself.
In terms of logic and proof, it matters not one whit whether skeptics
have been converted. Skeptics have been converted to other
religions as well. Does that provide evidence of their truth as well?
No? Same goes here.
To claim that its the biggest lie ever told is to show your ignorance
of history. Many have made the equal claim to be God/messiah in
various times and places throughout history. Jesus statements, if
accurately recorded, are no more astonishing than some of those
other self-proclaimed deity-wanna-bes. Some of them even gained
significant followings. That this particular story persisted is not
evidence of its truth, otherwise the success of the spread of Islam or
Buddhism or that Elvis is still alive would be evidence of their truth.
C.S. Lewis black-and-white thinking in this area is simply flawed.
Myth # 1 Conclusion
It is, as I have shown, possible that Jesus was just a teacher. The
only thing this requires from you is the realization of the possibility
that the bible is not a fully accurate history. I dont ask you to
believe it, just to acknowledge that it would be possible.
RETURN TO TOP
Dons blog
Karens Response
MYTH #2 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD

MYTH #2 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT JESUS ROSE FROM
THE DEAD
SUMMARY: The weight of historical evidence points to the literal,
bodily resurrection of Jesus. If one looks at all the evidence as it
would be presented in a court of law, considering any information
that is beyond a "reasonable doubt," then several major facts line
up in favor of the resurrection. Where would the body of Jesus be if
the tomb was empty as both friend and foe declared? Those who
The bulk of your proof in this section is from the bible. If you really
are trying to convince us non-Christians, you absolutely must begin
to understand that we do not have reason to believe that the bible
is historically accurate and completely factual.
Yes, I know that your Myth #9 will attempt to put this to rest, but in
the meantime, come with me for just one moment. Imagine I am a
Scientologist. I want to convince you that your soul is a thetan
which reincarnated in you after living previous lives on other
Dons blog
Karens Response

hated Christ would be the least likely to steal the body. They had
posted a Roman guard to prevent such an occurrence. Even if they
had taken the body, they would have made a grand exhibition of
it later to contradict the disciples' claim that Jesus was had
risen from the dead. Furthermore, it's highly questionable that the
disciples themselves could have done it, since by all accounts they
were hiding from the Jewish rulers, and were naturally very
discouraged after seeing their Messiah die. Obviously, if they
knew the resurrection story was a lie, they never would have
suffered persecution and death for a fake Messiah! The fact that
virtually all the original witnesses of the resurrection were martyred
is a convincing confirmation of the Bible's account. Famous speaker
and author, Josh McDowell, sums up the logic by asking: "Who
2
would die for a lie?"
All four Gospels give an account of Jesus' resurrection (Matt. 28:110; Mark 16:1-18; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-29). Moreover, the rest of
the New Testament speaks with a tremendous sense of confidence
about an empty tomb and the triumph of Christ over death.
And no wonder. If true, the resurrection is the most amazing news

the world has ever heard. It means there is a God after all. It means
that Jesus really is God's Son. It means that Christ is alive today and
we can know him and be touched by His life and power. It means
that we can know God personally through Christ, and therefore,
need not fear death the way we once did. Becoming a believer in
Christ means we are not destined to oblivion, but instead will spend
eternity with God.
The question of whether Jesus actually rose from the dead is
crucial. Since Christ predicted this event His credibility and the
central teachings of the faith He originated hang in the
balance. At least four lines of evidence indicate that He did, in fact,
return from the grave:
planets. As part of my proof, I point to L. Ron Hubbards writings on

Dianetics. Would you accept that as valid? Or perhaps I would like
to convince you that Loki is, in fact, the son of Frbauti and Laufey. I
have many ancient texts which attest to this truth. These ancient
texts have many verifiable historical references, so we can certainly
trust them to be accurate in their depictions of Loki as well. Do you
believe me?
This is, unfortunately, the road you are on when you use the bible
as proof of whatever point you are trying to make.
If we already accept the bible as true, we will not be very likely to
make the claim you list here as your Myth #2. If we are skeptical
about the veracity of the biblical narrative, using that narrative is
unlikely to convince us that it is true. The internal confidence of the
narrative has absolutely nothing to do with the external
trustworthiness of the document.
You could say that if the claims of other religions were true, they
would be the most amazing news in the world. Reincarnation would
be quite amazing news. Christianity says God became a man, but
even more amazing is the Mormon claim that man can become a
god! And if Scientology were true, now THAT would be AMAZING!
Christianity is downright ho-hum compared to that.
You feel that a relationship with God through Jesus is the best
possible news. You believe having the opportunity to spend eternity
with God is the best possible news. I disagree.
If you are correct while you are in heaven, some people you love
deeply will be spending eternity in hell. They will receive an infinite
punishment for a finite crime. How are you going to handle that?
Do you forget them? Or are you aware, while youre up there with
your harp and wings, that those people are experiencing
unbearable pain? What could possibly make that feel OK? Will you
just say, well, too bad they chose wrong, hey, is that Gabriel? That
is absolutely HORRIBLE news, not the most amazing news the world
has ever heard.
I dont fear death, by the way.
I will take this opportunity to mention, however, that I could be
wrong. If I am, and if I find myself in front of St Peter or whoever is
manning the pearly gates, I am content that my search has been
honest and if God knows my heart, I can only trust that he will
judge me accordingly. If he is the type of god who would choose to
send me to hell even knowing my journey, that is a god I cannot
worship.
(1) Jesus really was dead. Every source we have indicates that
Jesus was publicly executed before large crowds. He was certified as
dead by both a centurion in charge of the execution a
professional whose job it was to determine that death had taken
In all my years of conversations with believers and non-believers, I

dont recall he was only mostly dead as being a serious point of
contention. Your supposition that it is an important point
demonstrates that youve spent more time imagining what skeptics
Dons blog
Karens Response

place and by the regional governor, Pilate, who sent to have the
matter checked.
This is an important point because some skeptics say Jesus was not
really dead, that He was only near death and revived in the cool of
the tomb. That's just as preposterous as it sounds. The Romans
were experts at crucifixion. And, even ancient, secular writers made
reference to the death of Jesus (Thallus, AD 52-130, and Phlegon,
around AD 140). Josephus also referenced Christ's death. He was a
non-Christian, Jewish writer employed by the Roman emperor,
Vespasian, as a government historian. He finished The Antiquities Of
The Jews in AD 93. The Bible, as the primary record of the event, has
always proven accurate and reliable as a historical reference
(discussed further in Myth 9).
(2) The tomb was found empty. Jesus was buried in a new tomb,
one that had never been used (John 19:41). That means that it was
in perfect condition and would have been easy to locate. But when
Jesus' friends arrived on the second morning after His death, His
body was gone. All the accounts agree on this.
The empty tomb was no less astonishing to Jesus' enemies than it
was to His friends. His enemies had been working for years to see
Him dead and buried. Having accomplished their goal, they took
pains to post a guard and seal the tomb with an enormous boulder.
Nevertheless, on Easter morning the tomb was found empty.
Who emptied it? Either men or God. If men, which ones? Jesus'
enemies would have been the least likely to have stolen the body.
Even if they had, they would certainly have produced it later to
refute the claims of the disciples that Jesus was alive.
What about Jesus' friends? Unlikely, since the accounts show them
to have been thoroughly demoralized after the crucifixion. Nor
would they have willingly suffered persecution and death for what
they knew to be a lie! The fact that almost all who were
eyewitnesses of the resurrection died a martyr's death is strong
testimony to the accuracy of the facts as we have them. As wellknown author, and speaker at hundreds of universities, Josh
McDowell, states in many of his publications: "Who would die for a
2
lie?"
(3) Jesus appeared after His death to many witnesses. In a

garden, on a road, in an upstairs room, by a lakeeach Gospel
recounts Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to His fearful,
doubting followers over a period of forty days. Were these
hallucinations? That seems implausible, since they happened to too
many people, among them hardheaded fishermen, steadfast
women, civil servants, and the ultimate skeptic, Thomas.
might say than in actually engaging and understanding them.

Like the books of the New Testament, because Josephus wrote
many years after the events of Jesus life were supposed to have
taken place, we still have the problem of stories being embellished
through oral tradition before being recorded. Additionally, in spite
of there being contradictions between the gospels and Josephus,
Josephus apparently poached portions of his history from early
Christian writings, so were back to the bible proving the bible thing
its not exactly an ironclad verification.
Again, your claim is according to the maybe-true-maybe-not bible. I

hate to keep harping on that, but you keep presenting the bible as
evidence that the bible is true. Can I quote Nephi to show that Jesus
really visited the Americas? Didnt think so.
The tomb being empty is circumstantial at best, and only if one
takes the bible as a relatively accurate recording of events. If one is
skeptical of the biblical narrative, this is not serious evidence.
As for the Josh McDowell quote first, who cares whether he is an
author and a well-known speaker? Are you trying to blind us with
sparkly popularity? These are not credentials to be taken seriously.
Second, in answer to his question, Ill tell you who would die for a
lie: people who are mistaken, misguided, delusional, afraid to admit
they are wrong, wanting to be a martyr, or even those who are
trying to protect others. Im not saying whether any of these apply
to the New Testament martyrs. But the way you just take the bait of
these simplistic, pithy quotes when they support your version of the
truth is quite disheartening. Please dont just swallow it because it
sounds good for the point you want to make.
Yes, the bible tells us he appeared to many witnesses. And so many

witnesses cant be wrong. Except they can. Eyewitness testimony
turns out to be notoriously unreliable. Even groups of witnesses
have been proven wrong. This is not to say they always are, but that
they can be.
What do you make of Herodotus account of the Temple of Delphi?
About 50 years after the Persian wars (a similar time span to that
between the life of Jesus and the time the gospels were written)
Herodotus interviewed eyewitnesses about this event in an effort to
construct an accurate historical record of the Persian wars. He writes
that the Temple of Delphi defended itself by throwing armor
around, and using lightening to split crags off the mountain to
Dons blog
Karens Response

crush vast numbers of the enemies. He also reports that an olive
tree which had been burnt to death grew back in a single day.
Would you seriously consider this to be true? If you answer no,
maybe you can begin to understand how it is that I can be skeptical
of the historical accuracy of the books of the bible.
(4) Countless people have encountered the living Jesus and

been changed by Him. The resurrection is not simply a matter of
intellectual curiosity or theological argument, but of personal
experience. From the first century to today there have been
innumerable people who have turned from being totally opposed
or indifferent to Christianity to being utterly convinced that it is
true. What changed them? They met the living Jesus. He has invited
them to respond to Him in faith and challenged them to live
according to His way. Jesus is as alive now as He was that first
Easter morning, and He still invites people to know Him today.
It really is remarkable how you are so determined to show how

everything points to what you already believe that you completely
miss some very simple problems with your arguments. Case in point
is your use of personal experience as proof of the resurrection.
I could point to countless people who have had incredible,
transformational experiences that just as surely would prove the
truth and everlasting value of Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism,
Paganism, Rastafarianism, and any number of other -isms.
You are choosing to believe that the individuals who proclaim a lifechanging experience with Christ are telling the truth, while the
others are lying or misguided. You do not get to decide whose
personal experiences are valid and whose are not.
Let me make this perfectly clear: You can surely choose which
personal experiences you believe. But you cannot, while invoking
logic, simply choose to present only some as evidence and
disregard the rest.
Clearly, the heart of the Christian faith is the resurrection. Without it

the Church would die. As Paul wrote in First Corinthians 15:14-20,
"...if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so
is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false
witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that He
raised Christ from the dead... And, if Christ has not been raised,
your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also
who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we
have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But,
Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of
those who have fallen asleep."
Certainly, the resurrection is fundamental to the Christian religion. If

we look at Jesus, rather than Paul, Im not certain it would be the
central theme.
Even the skeptics agree this letter to the Christians in Corinth was
written by Paul the Apostle before 60 AD, of which early Second
Century copies are still in existence. Their accuracy is fundamentally
certain (see Myth 9). The Bible's detailed account of the resurrection
is some of the vital knowledge that "...God so regulates..." (as Pascal
wrote) that we might have a firm foundation for our faith.
Whether the letter to the Corinthians was really written by Paul

decades after Jesus life and death, and whether we have reasonably
accurate copies from maybe a hundred years later mean little about
whether Pauls claims are valid or his beliefs are true. We have
excellent early copies of Islamic and Mormon scriptures. Does that
mean that God has protected them and so they must also be true?
And I have to ask, why is it necessarily the case that we would still
be in our sins if Jesus hadnt been resurrected? Jesus forgave the
paralytic just because he chose to. God could choose to forgo the
blood lust and just forgive all our sins.
Myth # 2 Conclusion
Evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is weak at best. You claim
your lines of evidence would be enough in a court of law to
Dons blog
Karens Response

convince beyond reasonable doubt. And yet, to be considered in a
court of law, it would require more than just referencing that the
bible records these events. Even the best case one can make for the
gospels is that they were written only a few decades after the life
of Jesus, and some of them may have been written by people who
knew other people who knew Jesus. The bible would, at best, be
considered hearsay evidence. And subjective personal experience
(your point #4) does not bolster your case.
RETURN TO TOP
Dons blog
Karens Response
MYTH #3 SCIENCE IS IN CONFLICT WITH CHRISTIAN FAITH

SUMMARY: Science cannot prove, or disprove beyond all doubt a
basis for faith in Jesus Christ. Much misunderstanding has arisen
from the materialistic philosophy behind Darwin's theory of
evolution. Darwin's theory has only been observed in the microevolution of plant and animal variations within a species. Macroevolution, or the idea that man evolved from a single-celled
organism, is not a scientific fact, and through the recent
measurement of the age of the Universe, it has become a flawed
hypothesis lacking the necessary time for evolution to work. Darwin
hoped to prove his macro-evolution theory by someday finding the
missing links in fossils, but this has never happened.
Research into the "Big Bang" theory has also reinforced the Genesis
account of creation, because the length of each "day" of creation
could have been longer than 24 hours. In the Old Testament's
original language of Hebrew the word for "day" also means an age,
or a very long time span.
However God created the Universe, He is Lord of His space-time
creation, so as we learn more and more about the hundreds of justright, fine-tuned factors that must exist here for life and have kept
life on Earth thriving for all these years, our finite understanding of
how God made everything becomes more mind-boggling every
day.
For example, if Einstein's theory of 'folded space-time' occurs inside
worm holes in space, it's not too hard to imagine that God could
have folded time (billions of years) to "fit" into the six days of
Creation. There are various interpretations of how the world was
made, but the need for an Intelligent Designer constantly increases
as science discovers more amazing details about Creation, from the
mystery of how DNA replicates inside our cells to the strange laws
of gravity in outer space.
The people of Jesus' day demanded miraculous signs as a condition
for belief (John 4:48). Yet even though Jesus performed astonishing
miracles, the Jewish ruler and religious leaders by and large rejected
Him as their Messiah (John 1:11). Their fear of losing control over
their lives, especially their positions of authority, blinded them to
the truth, and they sought other explanations for Christ's miracles.
I would restate this as Christian Faith is in Conflict with Science.

Not all the time. But people of faith too often fill in the gaps in our
knowledge with it must be magic when I dont know or lets
find out would be more appropriate.
If you are willing to accept the non-literal day and believe creation
was a miracle whether it took 6 days or billions of years, why is
there a problem with accepting the facts of evolution?
Regarding Darwin (and his scientific progeny), you are
demonstrably wrong: Macro-evolution is a real thing. 14 billion
years is enough time. So-called missing links have been found over
and over again, narrowing the gaps in our knowledge, and each
time a new link is found people like you shout but wait! now there
are two gaps!
For the sake of getting through the next 11 myths before all of my
hair is gray, I will table the specific discussion on evolution for now
and go on with the general idea of faith vs. science.
Faith starts with the conclusion which in turn informs what is
accepted as truth. Faith must (depending on the faith tradition) be
held higher than anything else. Any science must fit within the
boundaries of that faith.
Science starts with observations and guesses works through trial
and error and testing to eventually get to the conclusion, which
only holds up if new evidence doesnt call it into question. All preconceived notions are fair game for questioning. Scientists as
individuals may have difficulty letting go of pet ideas, but as a
discipline across the scientific community, the process works.
Oh, hey about those miraculous signs Jesus performed. Are you
saying that in the face of incontrovertible evidence, people retained
their free will to not follow him? What would Pascal think!?
Dons blog
Karens Response

They misunderstood His mission.
Today many people reject Christianity for similar reasons. We live in

a natural world, they say, a world that can be explained by science.
Since Christianity relies on faith, it no longer applies in our modern,
scientific world. They think Christianity and science are in conflict.
As you rightly note, both science and faith make claims about the
universe and our place in it. Some claims are testable, others are
not.
It's very interesting that while many top scientists do not make this
claim, many untrained people do. They have bought into a number
of myths, including:
Science can be proved; Christianity cannot. The truth is that both
science and Christianity deal with evidence. Science examines
evidence about our world from things that we can see, touch,
measure, and calculate. Christianity is based on evidence about our
world from the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Both
deal with matters that are very much open to examination.
It's a widely held misconception that the science behind the theory
of evolution can be conclusively "proven." The heart of the scientific
method is to allow the evidence to lead one where it will. But in the
case of how the world was formed, one cannot "prove" a scientific
hypothesis, but only support it with evidence. In fact, one of the
fundamental tenants of science is that is takes only one contrary
instance to bring down an entire hypothesis. For centuries Newton's
theories of gravity seemed irrefutably proven. Then along came
Einstein. Today, even some of his thinking is giving way to new
discoveries.
Science is progressive; Christianity resists progress. There is some
truth to thisbut only some. At certain times Christianitythat is to
say, Christianshave been (and still are) on the vanguard of
scientific progress. Indeed, modern science is largely the product of
inquiring believers. For example: Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) coined
an often-quoted phrase which he used to describe science, as
"...thinking God's thoughts after Him." Pascal pioneered
mathematics, probability science, and invented the first barometer.
Sir Isaac Newton also viewed science as thinking God's thoughts after
Him. He wrote many volumes on theology as well as science. He
professed to believe in personal salvation through Christ's atonement,
and was well-known for his piety. He wrote in Principia: "This most
beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed
from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
He also wrote, "I have a foundational belief in the Bible as the Word of
3
God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."
There are many brilliant scientists who are Christians. The following
3
list includes outstanding Bible-believing scientists
who founded these branches of science:
Antiseptic surgery Joseph Lister
Bacteriology Louis Pasteur
This so-called misconception is not widely held in the scientific

community. It is understood that even the most rigorous, welltested theories might be disproven with the introduction of
contradictory evidence. It is also well understood that some facts
about the universe may never be conclusively proven. Its probably
more accurate to say that the scientific method works toward
discovering what is more or less plausible rather than conclusive
proof.
There is a difference between knowing the facts and having the
best explanation for the why and how of those facts. You mention
the theory of gravity. Certainly, there are still questions about what
gives objects their mass, etc. But that there is gravity is a fact. If you
disagree, please take a walk out your second story window. Our
explanations will continually be open to refinement and may even
be upended entirely. But our calculations for counteracting earths
gravity when we send a rocket to the moon are well established and
have proven correct. The same can be said about evolution. While
the theory explaining it is quite good and stands strongly with the
evidence, there is room for further improvement in our
understanding. But the fact of evolution (including macroevolution) is beyond dispute.
The misconceptions about definitions of proof, theory, hypothesis,
scientific law, etc., are all too often demonstrated by that breed of
Christians who are intent on believing the bible to be literally,
historically, and scientifically accurate. The scientific community, by
and large, does not suffer under these misconceptions.
When you say that Christians have been on the vanguard of
scientific progress, thats only when you look at scientists from
majority-Christian cultures. There was a time period when the
Islamic world was where science was really thriving. In our current
age, while there are certainly renowned scientists of faith, the ratio
of non-believers in the scientific community is significantly higher
than it is at large.
Dons blog
Karens Response

Calculus Isaac Newton
Celestial Mechanics Johannes Kepler
Chemistry Robert Boyle
Looking at your list of scientists, some of them were Deists rather

than full on Christians. The reports of the faithfulness of others have
been greatly exaggerated. Perhaps instead of pulling a list from a
book with a decidedly one-sided agenda (your footnote 3), you
might look for scholarly biographies of these individuals instead.
Comparative Anatomy Georges Cuvier
Pasteurs commitment to his Catholic faith is in dispute.
Computer Science Charles Babbage
Babbage was a proponent of natural theology and

uniformitarianism. He believed in God, but stated that the value
of Christianity was in its doctrines of kindness and
benevolence. According to your criteria, you would have to
judge him as not a true Christian.
Dimensional Analysis Lord Rayleigh

Dynamics Isaac Newton
Electronics John Ambrose Fleming
Rayleigh is another one you would not permit to be called

Christian because, while he apparently believed in the JudeoChristian God and spirituality, he only referred to Jesus as a
moral teacher.
Electrodynamics James Clerk Maxwell

Electromagnetics Michael Faraday
Energetics Lord Kelvin
Entomology of Living Insects Henri Fabre
Field Theory Michael Faraday
Fluid Mechanics George Stokes
Galactic Astronomy Sir William Herschel
Gas Dynamics Robert Boyle
I do not mean that there were not what you might call genuine
Christians in this group. Certainly, some did believe that God
created the universe and that he revealed himself through the bible
and Jesus. These individuals believed that God could also be
revealed through his creation, and their study was part of seeking
God.
And yet, sometimes their very faith interfered with their scientific
pursuits, or the scientific pursuits of others.
Take the case of Newton. At one point, he got stuck and
couldnt figure out the next step in his math regarding irregular
orbits of the planets. He sort of threw up his hands and said,
essentially, well, God wants it to work that way. His faith helped
him give up and he never solved that piece.
Genetics Gregor Mendel

Glacial Geology Louis Agassiz
Isotopic Chemistry William Ramsey
Cuvier proposed that catastrophic geological events led to the

emergence of new species, and yet was unwilling to consider
aspects of evolution that he could not synchronize with the
bible. When faith takes precedence, science is hamstrung.
Model Analysis Lord Rayleigh

Natural History John Ray
Non-Euclidean Geometry Bernard Riemann
Oceanography Matthew Maury
Optical Mineralogy David Brewster
Stokes presided over the Victoria Institute which was created

for the purpose of defending Christianity against certain areas
of scientific inquiry. Science, for these people, must be
constrained and locked up inside the boundaries of their
interpretation of the bible. Fear of losing preciously held beliefs
means we must not purse truth if it might contradict that faith.
You frequently make the logical error of appealing to authority. You

say that this person or that person believes this or did that in
agreement with your point of view, and therefore your point of view
is valid. It is useful to know what people who have spent time
learning as much as they can about a subject have to say. But to
believe it just because they said it is nave. Does the idea hold merit,
regardless of who proposed it? Can it be tested independently?
Also, being an expert in one area does not mean their thinking in
other areas is equally sound. Scientific accomplishments do not
automatically make the views of these people more valid than my
own views.
Dons blog
Karens Response

That these scientists are Christians (to greater or lesser degrees) is
not a proof that Christianity is necessarily compatible with science.
They may choose to work on scientific questions that do not
threaten to undermine the primary tenets of their faith. They may
reasonably adjust how they interpret the scriptures based on their
findings. Or they may describe the universe according to their
beliefs, and then make wild contortions to shoehorn scientific
findings into that mold.
Science is logical; Christianity involves a leap of faith. Without

question there is a logic and an order in scientific inquiry. However,
the same is true for the philosophical, historical, ethical, and
theological disciplines of Christianity. Our faith is not opposed to
reason. At points it may go beyond reason. But it is a reasonable
faith. It hangs together logically.
At the same time, science demands an element of faith. The
Christian faith is not, as one schoolboy defined it, "...believing what
you know is not true." Faith involves self-commitment on the basis
of evidence. In science, one must commit oneself to the belief that
the world we see and touch is real, that nature is uniform, and that
it operates according to the principle of cause-and-effect. Without
these prior "leaps of faith," reasonable though they are, one cannot
undertake science.
Science deals with the laws of nature; Christianity thrives on miracles.

If science involves a closed, physical universe with fixed, unalterable
laws, then the concept of miracles, which involve the local,
temporary suspension of natural laws, will prove intolerable. But
that is a nineteenth-century view of science. Few scientists of
4
stature today support a "closed universe" viewpoint.
For example, research in the field of quantum (sub-atomic) physics
indicates the existence of a fifth, sixth, and even more dimensions
beyond the four (length, width, height, and time) that we now
understand. These new dimensions were needed at the "Big
Bang" the moment of creation. It is likely they still exert some
influence on our universe. Of course, God utilizes, and transcends all
dimensions. So, the occurrence of miracles in nature, and even
creation itself, is evidence of God working.
Moreover, the so-called "laws of nature" are not prescriptive
but descriptive. They do not determine what may happen; they
describe what normally does happen. Therefore, science can
legitimately say that miracles do not usually occur in nature. But it
would be illogical to claim that miracles are impossible. Such a
claim speaks outside the limits of science. If God has really come
into this world in Christ, is it so surprising that He would perform
miracles, as the Gospels report?
The so-called faith you say science requires is such a far cry from
the general or religious meanings of faith as to be laughable.
Your schoolboy may have missed the mark with his definition, but
not by much. You claim that faith is based on evidence. Your Jesus
says otherwise: Blessed are those who have not seen and yet
believed.
One must not, actually, commit oneself to a belief that the world we
see and touch is real, that nature is uniform, nor that it operates
according to certain principles. One can proceed as though all of
these things are up for debate and continually test these
assumptions. The scientific process simply doesnt care what you
believe. No leap of faith required. In fact, a solipsist could still carry
out scientific experiments and engage in scientific inquiry as though
there was a material world outside her mind.
Youre in way over your head here. Hell, Im in over my head here.
But Ive spent enough time studying physics to recognize that you
are parroting concepts you do not remotely understand.
Your invocation of a multi-dimensional universe is an own goal.
(Thats a soccer term for when you kick the ball into the net you are
supposed to be defending, thereby scoring for your opponent.)
The more we learn about the physical universe, the more ways we
have to describe things which had previously been described as
miracles or supernatural events. If our universe does have more
dimensions, that will undoubtedly hold more natural answers for
things we might now call supernatural.
We can see how this very notion has progressed. We used to think
that solar eclipses were divine signs. Now we understand these to
be the simple and predictable results of orbits and shadows. We
used to think that mental illness was the result of demon
possession. Now we are able to diagnose and treat many such
diseases. And so it progresses. A thing is called magic (or god or
miracle or mystery) only until science comes along and displaces
magic in our understanding. The realm of the supernatural recedes
against the advancements of scientific knowledge.
Conversely, there is no question for which science once provided an
answer which we now know to be magic instead. Not one.
As for the small-scale miracles of Jesus, or personal intervention
miracles claimed by people of faith today whether or not these
Dons blog
Karens Response

could happen in theory, there is no evidence (beyond unreliable
eyewitness or subjective interpretation of experience) that they, in
fact, have happened. People often claim as miraculous events that
are merely unlikely or unfamiliar.
One important discovery, that was recently confirmed by the

Hubble Space Telescope, is the age of the Universe. Because of the
ability to more accurately study several factors, such as
"background radiation" in space, scientists now know the Universe
is "young," and by averaging their various measurements, they have
estimated it to be around 17 billion years old. They estimate the
Earth was formed around 4 billion years ago. Probability research
tells us the chance of the spontaneous evolution of life, would take
100,000,000,000
at least 10
years 10 followed by 100 billion zeros! This
time span is enormous, and assumes all the matter in the Universe
was the type that would be beneficial to the formation of life, which
was not the case, so the odds are even smaller yet!
To further complicate things, the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun all
have to be "middle aged," since if they were too young or old, the
Earth's environment would not support life. This reduces the
chances even further. It's pointless to be concerned with how many
thousands of billions of years it would take, since the Universe is far
too young, by many orders of magnitude, for life to begin
spontaneously (assuming that theory is even possible).
Consequently, the young age of the Universe is significant for
Christianity. It means a Creator was absolutely necessary for life to
exist in such a relatively short time period.
For many scientists this also solves the numerous problems with
the macro-evolutionary theory, that is, the theory that man evolved
directly from animals, and animals evolved from single-celled
creatures. That theory sounds logical, but lacks crucial evidence to
become a proven fact of science. Micro-evolution of plant and
animal variations within a species is a scientific fact. Darwin hoped
to prove his macro-evolution theory by someday finding the
missing links in fossils, which has never happened.
For decades many scientists who believed in macro-evolution have
felt compelled to believe in the philosophy of Darwinism. That
philosophy substitutes the belief in any type of Creator for a kind of
'faith' in a purely materialistic world-view. The Darwinism
philosophy became so intertwined with the theory of evolution that
it created a roadblock to Christian faith for many intellectuals in the
field of science.
Some open-minded scientists postulated many years ago that God
is the Designer and Guiding Hand behind the development of all
life, without Whom no life could have ever appeared. The
4
statistics now available to scientists on the birth of the Universe
has helped many reconsider the philosophy of Darwinism.
Also important, the Genesis account of creation agrees with the
Certainly, the odds of abiogenesis are long. But your 10-to-theridiculous number is fantastically wrong. Probability research didnt
give you that number; a creation scientist with an agenda did.
Because your number is so insanely far-fetched, your conclusion
that a creator was absolutely necessary has no foundation
whatsoever.
Abiogenesis is not random chance. We know things about physics
and biology and chemistry that help us understand where and how
the conditions might allow for a simple living molecule to generate
naturally.
Heres the thing unlikely is a far cry from impossible. Our
comprehension of this problem is warped by the fact that we are
looking at it from our very specific time and place in this story. We
are asking what the odds are that I will win the lottery, when we
should be asking what the odds that someone will win the lottery
are. Given enough people, its bound to happen.
Its not actually surprising that abiogenesis happened, given the
size and conditions of the universe. There are some 40 billion
planets in habitable zones of various stars in the Milky Way alone.
Expand to the visible universe and the number of potentially lifesupporting planets increases to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (a
thousand billion billion). And thats not even counting their moons.
How many scientists are, actually, reconsidering Darwin?

Which Genesis account of creation agrees with the order of
appearance of life forms? The Genesis creation accounts dont even
agree with each other!
Your notion that the bibles creation stories as having logical and
scientific descriptions that are vastly superior to creation stories of
other religions is, quite literally, laughable.
You cannot even get through the first chapter of Genesis before its
logic is destroyed. Day one, God creates light, and separates the
dark from the light, and calls the light day and the dark night. On
day four, God creates lights in the sky to separate day from night.
Did he forget he already did that?
In the second version of the creation story (which by the way, starts
with water coming out of pre-existing dry land in contrast to the
first version which has water covering everything first and god later
pulled up some land) after Adam is created and hanging out in the
garden, the god decides Adam shouldnt be alone, so god makes all
the animals and brings them to Adam who names them. Only after
that does god realize that there was no suitable helper for Adam
Dons blog
Karens Response

order of appearance of the many forms of life. This sets the Bible far
apart from all the "holy books" in other religions. Those books give
the usual "fairy tale" kind of creation stories which have virtually no
logical or scientific descriptions.
among the animals (duh), so he decided to create Eve.

Im not saying that the stories dont have value, or didnt serve a
purpose in their time. But to characterize the creation stories as
having scientific value or logic is just comedy gold.
In Genesis, where the six "days" of creation is discussed, the Hebrew

word for day is often translated age, and has both meanings, so
God may have created over six ages. Of course, that does not mean
God Himself had to wait around billions of years as He acted in the
creative process. Time for God is relative. As the Bible says, to God
"...a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day."
Whether God created everything in a flash, or over the ages, we
5
may never understand how it happened. Out finite minds cannot
comprehend it.
To help get God's perspective of time imagine sitting in a hovering
helicopter. The pilot's view of an airport runway could represent
time, with the beginning of time at the start of the runway. Since
time does not constrain God, He can see the end from the
beginning, the beginning from the end, and all points in
between simultaneously!
Besides the time factor, many other ingredients are necessary to
sustain life on Earth, including the precise size, chemical
composition, gravity, rotation, and distance of our moon, sun, and
other nearby planets. The signs of God's creative care are becoming
4
more evident to scientists every day!
Science is not in conflict with Christianity. To be sure, some
scientists are. But other scientists are firmly committed Christians,
just like people in other walks of life. There are reasons why people
choose to be for or against Christ, but those reasons are found
elsewhere than in science.
To read further on how science and Christian faith are in agreement see: http://www.Reasons.org
Myth # 3 Conclusion
Christian faith constrains the free and open scientific inquiry when
the believer insists that any science must fit within the confines of
their faith. That is, when faith has supremacy in ones life, individual
scientists can and do disregard, misinterpret, or actively suppress
scientific findings that contradict their beliefs. Christianity actively
encourages this behavior by stifling scientific curiosity (shrugging
off unknowns under the guise that God works in mysterious ways),
elevating ignorance (using scripture to promote the notion that
being considered a fool is evidence that you are on the right path),
and by proclaiming over and over that belief without evidence is a
virtue.
RETURN TO TOP
Dons blog
Karens Response
MYTH #4 IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE, ALL RELIGIONS ARE BASICALLY THE SAME
Dons blog
Karens Response
MYTH #4 IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE, ALL
RELIGIONS ARE BASICALLY THE SAME
SUMMARY: All man-made religions are but a counterfeit of the
real Truth, and are pointless as a means of knowing God, or even
knowing about God, yet every religion claims to be the best belief
system. Some even claim to unify different faiths, although they
cannot harmonize contradictory claims. Tolerance is a very popular
theme today because of the many wars and conflicts between
different cultures. Wars are usually not fought over
religious doctrines per se, as much as they are fought over the value
systems and cultural traditions that originated in various religions.
All religions are basically the same only in their diminished view of
Christ. They all disclaim His divinity, which is precisely how Scripture
defines a false religion: This is how you can recognize the Spirit
of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has
come (down from Heaven) in the flesh is from God, but every
spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is
the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard is coming and
even now is already in the world (1 John 4:2-3).
Peter describes the exclusiveness of Christianity by claiming that
"there is no other name" that can save us (Acts 4:12). That doesn't
play well in our pluralistic society where tolerance is a chief virtue.
Indeed, many people feel that an exclusive commitment to any one
religions system is pointless, since they assume all religions are
basically the same.
Most of us would never apply such reasoning to any other realm of
life. Imagine a student saying, "It doesn't matter what answer I give
in algebra, Latin, history, or geography. They all come to the same
thing in the end."
So why do so many people apply the same shaky reasoning to
religion? Perhaps one motivation is the strong desire to see
everyone getting along in our global village. Christianity, Islam,
Hinduism, Buddism, and all kinds of faiths drive the peoples of the
world. If one system claims exclusivity, it's bound to create hostility
among the others. Most religions do claim exclusivity. Jesus made it
clear that He was "...the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one
comes to the Father except through Me," (John 14:6). Of course,
any faith that does not claim to be true is useless. The fact is,
religion is already one of the greatest sources there is of national
and international conflicts, which seems incredibly odd if "all
religions are basically the same." Obviously they are not.
Another reason why people accept this myth is because they think
that faith itself is what really matters. One can believe in anything,
they reason, as long as one believes in something. They
misunderstand faith. Faith is only as good as the object in which it is
placed. Like a rope, it matters enormously what the rope is attached
to. One can believe in anything, but not just anything will reward
one's commitmentonly what is true.
A third reason why people adopt the all-religions-are-the-same line
of thinking is that it helps them avoid a decision. If all religions are
the same, they don't have to choose. In other words, they can avoid
religion altogether. That is certainly convenient, but they are
following a deception. Unlike someone who decides not to vote for
Indeed, many religions make contradictory claims. They cannot all

be true. The universalists, however, would agree with your
statement that most religions have some measure of truth in them.
While I could nitpick about how religions specifically create more
conflict that would otherwise be present based on other value
systems or cultural traditions, Ill concede the general point that
wars are power plays and religion is often just one of many
elements.
Certainly, some people find the universalist approach appealing,
while others believe the exclusivity of their particular flavor of
religion. I do believe all religions share one trait: they are stories
and attempts to make sense of a complex universe and, due to the
problem of self-awareness, our place in it.
In this attempt at leading your reader down a path toward
Christianity as the logical choice, it is important to realize that,
logically speaking, Christianity is just one of many religions which
may have some truth but not the whole truth. And it is not
compelling to rely on the bible as your evidence for the correctness
of Christianity over all other religions.
You claim that Christianity is fundamentally different because of
Christ. The implication is that this difference makes it the only
religion that is true. That is quite a leap to make.
In Christianity, you say God has made himself known through Jesus,
and that this is what sets Christianity apart.
I dont accept your premise that this difference is an indication of
truth.
I could just as easily use this difference to describe why Christianity
cannot be true: If God truly wishes to make himself known, the
Jesus story is one of the worst possible ways I can imagine to
facilitate that relationship, unless hes being deliberately obtuse.
Why choose to reveal yourself in this small region of the world,
leaving the vast majority of the worlds population with no access to
that relationship with God until centuries go by while the story
spreads? Thats not the behavior of a god who truly wishes all his
children to find him.
To your point that in other faiths, people seek access to God, you
also acknowledge that in Christianity, we have to seek access to
God. You say he provided the door, but we still have to seek it.
Other religions also provide doors and paths to their gods. I dont
see a fundamental difference there.
I agree with you that one can believe anything, but that doesnt
make it true. Remember that.
Dons blog
Karens Response
any candidate during an election, not to choose one's faith is
actually making a choice. Science cannot tell us what lies beyond,
but if there is a Heaven and the God of the Bible is real, then it
matters to God what beliefs we follow, and not choosing is rejecting
His plan of salvation.
The false assumption that we are all looking for God and will find
Him in the end is erroneous both to the nature of people and to the
nature of God. In the first place, we are not all looking for God.
Many people today have absolutely no interest in god or religion.
They are not atheists, just committed secularists. Moreover, there
are far more motives behind the practice of religion than a search
or desire for God. Political power, tradition, standing in the
community, a desire for increased wealth and even fertility are
among the forces driving countless people back to their center of
worship. Looking for God? Hardly.
Nor is there any guarantee that people will find Him in the end.
Obviously, God lives in realms beyond us. Otherwise all of us would
already know Him from birth. The religions of the world, including
today's New Age systems, recognize that people do not naturally
and instinctively know God, which is why they promise their
followers access to Him. The problem is, they offer competing
versions of who God is and how we can know Him.
Christianity is uniqueit claims that instead of people gaining
access to God, God has made Himself known to people. His
ultimate self-disclosure was in Jesus Christ. No longer is He the
unknown God. Although "no one has seen God at any time," Jesus
"has declared Him" (John 1:18).
So, does Christianity claim that all other religions are totally wrong?
No, since most have some measure of truth in them. Judaism in
particular has the Old Testament truths in its teachings.
Some religions are like candles that bring a bit of light into a very
dark world. Nevertheless, all religions pale into insignificance at the
dawn of truth that has come through Christ. He fulfills the hopes,
the aspirations, the virtues, and the insights of whatever is true and
good in all faiths.
I have to call out this statement in particular.

Time and time again, Don, you start with your faith as the
conclusion, and marshal your arguments to reach that end, closing
your eyes to anything that doesnt fit what you have decided to be
true.
Jesus, even if the bible is true, most certainly does not fulfill
whatever is true and good in all faiths.
When Christian children are born, they are taught that they are
sinners in need of redemption and not worthy to enter the presence
of God without the blood of Jesus. That is a horrible thing to teach
a child.
Sikhism teaches that God is within us all, teaches equality for all
regardless of sex or race, and does not condemn anyone to hell. Ill
take that story over the blood sacrifice and original sin story any
day of the week.
Dons blog
Karens Response
Myth # 4 Conclusion
Every claim that Christianity is unique or special can be used to
support other religions as well.
RETURN TO TOP
Dons blog
Karens Response
MYTH #5 CHRISTIANITY IS JUST A CRUTCH FOR THE WEAK

SUMMARY: The Psalmist wrote thousands of years ago, "...the
fool says in his heart, 'There is no God,'" (Psalms 14:1). Since it is
impossible to prove or disprove God's existence, it is unwise to
ridicule His intervention in our lives. In one sense, Christianity is a
crutch for those who are "weak" enough to call on God for help. But
to reject Christ for that reason is often a way to hide our own flaws
and imperfections. We should be grateful that God is
compassionate, and restores the lives of hurting people,
remembering that we ourselves are only human.
The believers at Corinth tended to think more highly of themselves
than they ought to have. The result was conflict and division in the
church. So Paul pointed out that most of them had little of which to
boast (1 Cor. 1:26; also 6:9-11). On the whole they were weak, sinful
people saved by the unmerited kindness (the "grace") of God.
Today, the grace of God still reaches out to the weak, the downcast,
the broken and the oppressed. Perhaps for that reason, people who
pride themselves on their strength and self-sufficiency have little
use for the gospel. Indeed, some despise a faith that resists the
proud but promises hope to the humble.
The Bible speaks of this uncommon attribute of Christianity in the
following excerpt from First Corinthians, chapter one: "Brothers,
think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you
were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not
many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of
the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the
world to shame the strong."
"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the
philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom
of this world? Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look
for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to
Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has
called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the
wisdom of God."
Is Christianity just another crutch for people who can't make it on
their own? In one sense, yes. "Those who are well have no need of a
physician," Jesus said, "but those who are sick. I have not come to
call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance" (Luke 5:31-32). Jesus
bypasses those who think they have it all together. Instead, He
reaches out to those who know that something is wrong, that their
lives are "sick" with "illnesses" such as greed, cruelty, hate,
This is not a claim made simply of Christianity, but of religion in

general. I would state the basic idea differently that Christianity
makes people believe they are weak, and that the cultural, historic,
evolutionary forces that have helped perpetuate religious
ideologies are complex and difficult to shake.
Your statement that we ought not to ridicule Gods intervention in
lives because we cant prove/disprove his existence is nonsensical.
Otherwise, I should proclaim that because you cant disprove the
invisible pink unicorn, you cant mock its intervention in my life.
The gist of your argument on this issue seems to be that, indeed,
we are weak and we do need Christ. You say no one is righteous
enough to be in Gods presence. We are foolish. We are sick. We
are sinners. We dont deserve it but we are saved by Gods grace
anyway.
Look, no one is perfect. But its healthy not arrogant to
recognize that people in general are, basically, decent on the whole.
This Christian obsession with people being born undeserving is
seriously damaging.
Dons blog
Karens Response

depression, lust, or selfishness.
Jesus knows that no one is spiritually healthy. No one is righteous
enough to stand before a holy God. That's why He came into this
world, to restore people to God. The good news is that Christ gives
us the power to overcome sin and the ways it pulls us down time
after time.
What happens to the "weak" who avail themselves of this "crutch"?

Consider Mother Teresa, who emerged from an insignificant
convent to love the helpless and homeless of Calcutta, India, and
became a worldwide symbol of compassion. Or, consider the Nobel
prize-winning author, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a forgotten political
prisoner rotting away in the gulag system of Stalinist Russia.
Surrendering himself to Jesus, he gained renewed strength to
challenge a totalitarian regime on behalf of human dignity and
freedom.
These are but two examples from the millions who have thrown
away the self-styled crutches on which they used to limp along the
road of life, opting instead for the seasoned wood of the cross of
Christ which has transformed their weakness into strength.
In one sense, Christianity is a crutch for the weak. But if we dismiss
it for that reason it's usually because we want to deny our own
inadequacies an excuse to evade the claims that God, as the
Creator, has on our lives. Fortunately, God is a merciful God, and
takes wounded, fractured people and makes them whole.
Please, I beg you; please stop picking only Christians who

demonstrate your point. Please, open your eyes. Every other
religion has people with stories just as inspiring, just as astounding,
just as demonstrative of the power of their particular flavor of faith.
I cant believe that in the 20 years that you have been working on
this essay that you havent stumbled across one or two of them.
Aung San Suu Kyi. Malala. Tawakkol Karman. Winona LaDuke.
Gandhi. Bayan Mahmoud Al-Zahran. And millions of anonymous
people around the globe of all faiths and no faith who have
positions of weakness and yet transform that weakness into justice,
mercy, compassion and strength day in and day out. And they dont
need your Jesus to do it.
Your supposed coup de grce is that eternal life depends on
knowing Christ (the unspoken corollary being that the alternative is
hell). These carrots-and-sticks of the afterlife are tools for
controlling those who live in fear a fear perpetuated by your
religion, by the way.
Jesus told an esteemed, successful Jewish teacher, Nicodemus, who

met with Him one evening, that everyone must be "born again"
before they can fully understand the things of God. That was a kind
rebuke for this wealthy expert of the Hebrew Scriptures. The "new
birth" is a spiritual phenomenon, that happens when the Holy Spirit
comes into someone's life as they accept Christ as their Savior.
Jesus told Nicodemus the well-known verse, John 3:16 "For God
so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever
believes on Him should not perish, but will have eternal life."
Nicodemus was highly respected, and Jesus knew his pride could be
a hard obstacle to overcome, so He specifically addressed the
problem for Nicodemus: it's not how much you know, or how good
or successful your life has been, eternal life depends on Who you
know. Knowing God through Christ is the answer. It's still the same
today.
Myth # 5 Conclusion
Religion, including Christianity, isnt a crutch so much as it is hard to
shake. Religion is not necessary for any of the things normally
attributed to the positive effects of religion.
RETURN TO TOP
Dons blog
Karens Response
MYTH #6 PEOPLE BECOME CHRISTIANS THROUGH SOCIAL CONDITIONING

MYTH #6 PEOPLE BECOME CHRISTIANS THROUGH SOCIAL
CONDITIONING
SUMMARY: Many Christians are not raised in the faith. They come
to Christ in thousands of different circumstances. When drunks
become sober, crooks become honest, when self-centered people
become generous, and unbelievers become giants of faith, all this is
no delusion. Down the centuries the millions of transformed lives
are very convincing evidence of Christ's reality.
These statements can be made with equal force about Islam,

Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc. It really is remarkable how you are
so determined that only Jesus can do these things that you havent
even considered asking whether people have life-changing
experiences outside of your faith.
That horse may be dead, but as long as you continue to make
arguments that can be used equally well for other religions, I will
keep beating that poor horse.
Paul's statement that he persecuted the Church prior to his

conversion (1 Cor. 15:9-10) is a strong piece of evidence against the
commonly held notion that religious preference is mainly a result of
upbringing.
You say you accept, without question, that cultural circumstances

influence our religious beliefs. And yet you claim it is a myth that
people become Christians due to social conditioning. You seriously
cannot have it both ways.
Without question, cultural circumstances play a part in people's

religious beliefs. A Hindu background would tend to predispose a
person towards Hinduism, a Christian background toward
Christianity, and so forth. But can social conditioning alone explain
why people believe and behave as they do? After all, learning about
Christianity (i.e., going to church, or Sunday school) as one grows
up is no guarantee that a person won't someday abandon the faith.
On the other hand, countless people who have had no exposure to
Christianity in their youth nevertheless convert as adults.
Quoting Paul is the weakest possible evidence against this claim of

social conditioning. First of all, in Pauls lifetime, there was not yet a
majority Christian culture for people to have been born into, so all
the early believers were converts. Big deal.
Pauls experience notwithstanding, it is a fact that the single biggest
predictor of ones religion in Pauls age as in our own is what
religion they were raised around. By far. I mean by leaps and
bounds.
Conversions from outside the faith may happen in dribs and drabs
or in big groups or may trend up or down in various times and
places. But conversions pale in comparison to culture when it
comes to determining ones religion.
The fact is, Christian conversion is much misunderstood. It is often

regarded as sudden, irrational, emotional, or spontaneous.
Sometimes there is an emotional response, but otherwise becoming
"born again" as Jesus described it to Nicodemus (John 3:1-21) is not
what many people think it is.
What are the essential elements? Saint Paul's experience is
instructive. While certain aspects of his conversion unique, four
elements stand out that are present in every authentic conversion:
(1) His conversion touched his conscience. He recognized that he had
been fighting God and that his vicious treatment of Christians was
wrong (Acts 26:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:13).
(2) His conversion touched his understanding. He discovered that the
Jesus he was persecuting was no less than the risen Messiah, the
Son of God (Acts 9:22). He recognized that Christ died on the cross
as the Lamb of God. This was important to Paul's Jewish heritage,
since as a Jew he would have sacrificed many lambs in the Temple
to atone for his sins. Paul realized the Jewish faith had been like a
prototype a way to prepare the world for the day of Christ's
coming.
(3) His conversion touched his will. When Paul understood that God
had sent Christ to be the Sacrifice for mankind, he quickly accepted
Him. He surrendered his life to Jesus and began following Him from
then on (Acts 26:19-20).
It looks like the rest of your discussion centers on what conversion

is, and completely sidesteps the claim that people become
Christians through social conditioning. Even though its off topic, Ill
tackle it.
A conversion is such a subjective experience that your attempts to
define it and constrain it are almost comical.
I wont argue with your description of Pauls conversion, in general.
I do take exception, however, with your claim about the kind of
change it made in his life. He was a fanatic and a know-it-all before
his conversion, and his character and ambitions were the same after
conversion still a fanatic know-it-all. The external target of his zeal
changed, but not his fundamental character.
Dons blog
Karens Response

(4) His conversion produced a distinct change in his life. His
ambitions, his character, his relationships, his outlook everything
changed as a result of his encounter with Christ (Phil. 3:7-11).
But suppose, as some have, that it all amounts to nothing but an

illusion? Three tests can be applied to determine whether religious
experience in general and Christianity in particular is illusory. First,
there is the test of history. Christianity makes historical claims. Are
those claims valid? Does history bear them out? Yes it does. There is
nothing illusory about Jesus, or his impact on the world. Nor are His
claims illusory (see Myth 1: "Jesus Christ Was Only a Great Moral
Teacher"). Likewise, His death and resurrection are well attested (see
"Myth 2: There Is No Evidence That Jesus Rose From The Dead").
Nor is there any doubt about the reality of the church. In short,
Christian faith is rooted in historical fact.
This test has nothing to do with the conversion experience itself, so

I assume you have this one there to try to explain why a Christian
conversion is unique. Having already called into question your
claims about Myth # 1 and Myth #2, you should know where I stand
regarding the historical roots of Christianity. They are not certain,
nor are they unique. (I assume you are not referring to the history
of Christianity, but rather the historicity of Jesus and the gospel
narrative.)
A second test is the test of character. When drug addicts go

straight, gang members leave their gangs and go to college, when
animists give up their mysticism and people enslaved by black
magic are set free, when angry people forgive their enemies, and
atheists become pastors, it's not reasonable to try to explain this
transformation as only the influence of society. Changed lived are
not the only evidence of Christianity's authenticity, but they are
certainly an impressive one.
Do you seriously not know that people turn over new leaves
without Christianity all the time? Is your faith so fragile that if you
take your blinders off and stand outside your faith for just 5
minutes and take a look around, it will crumble?
Drug addicts go straight every day for many reasons personal
relationships, finances, health. The most common reasons for
stopping are social pressures, not a religious conversion.
Gang members leave their gangs when they are given a safe path
out and compelling alternative. This is a demonstration of the
influence of society and personal circumstances. Sometimes this
happens simultaneously with a conversion experience, but that
conversion is as likely to be a conversion to Islam as to Christianity.
Does this attest to the authenticity of Islam?
Personal transformation is no proof of the authenticity of
Christianity. Angry people forgive their enemies when they set out
to live by Buddhist or Sikh precepts, so those faiths must also be
authentic, right?
Also, look into the phenomenon of pastors who have become
atheists. Thats a two-way street.
Finally, there is the test of power. Delusions and neuroses tend to

destroy people's character. They produce unbalanced behavior and
goals. Christianity has precisely the opposite effect. It makes people
whole. It even enables people to face death a time when
delusions are usually stripped away with confidence and courage.
Christians, as well as people of other faiths and no faith, sometimes

suffer the ill effects of neuroses and delusions. Meanwhile
People of other faiths and no faith also lead mentally, socially, and
spiritually healthy lives.
People of other faiths and no faith also embody balanced behavior
and goals.
People of other faiths and no faith also face death with confidence
and courage daily.
Why do you insist that Christianity is unique in these ways?
Dons blog
Karens Response

What makes you say delusions are usually stripped away when
people face death?
Why is fear such a motivator for you?
History, character, power: these cannot be attributed to social

conditioning. Rather they strongly suggest that something far
deeper lies behind Christianity, something good, powerful, and
alive.
If your claims about the power of Christian conversion were borne

out even a fraction of the time, we should certainly be able to
recognize some difference between Christians and the rest of us. I
dont mean little anecdotal stories. I mean a real, palpable,
recognizable difference. And it simply is not there.
That is not to say that Christians are no longer allowed to be fallible
humans. But if being born again has any meaning at all, if the Holy
Spirit can do any small bit of work, shouldnt there be some sign,
something that sets them apart? Allowing for individual failings and
fakers, Christians - as a group still ought to be just a smidge
better than the rest of us. Im not asking for a watermelon, but
shouldnt the fruits of the spirit be discernable, even if they are just
a little raisin?
Christians, on the whole, are not more loving, joyful, peaceful,
patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, or restrained than any other
group, on the whole.
If I were you, I might try to argue thats because not all Christians
are *real* Christians. My response to that would be if you break
up the world into their faith traditions, and every other group is
100% non-Christian, and the Christian group is even only 10%
Christian, that would mean the Christian group should as a group
still be the one group that would be just a little better, on
average, than the rest of us. It would be the one group where we
would know we can find people who really have their act together,
and we would stop looking at the other groups. After all, weve had
2,000 years for this evidence to accumulate. But this just is not the
case. Either because there is no difference between Christianity and
other faiths, or because the fruits of the spirit are a lie and your
proofs of the character and power results of conversion are false.
Myth # 6 Conclusion
Most people do, in fact, become Christians through social
conditioning. Your tests for authentic conversion (history, character,
and power) can be attributed to social conditioning and/or other
religions. The most accurate predictor for your religion is and
always has been what religion you grew up with.
RETURN TO TOP
Dons blog
Karens Response
MYTH #7 CHRISTIANITY STIFLES PERSONAL FREEDOM

Its almost impossible to respond to this because you present the

issue from so deep inside the hole of your world view that theres
Dons blog
Karens Response

SUMMARY: Man-made religions use fear and intimidation, and
long lists of rules to keep their followers. That is not the basis for
the forgiveness and grace (unearned mercy) Christ proclaimed. True
Christian freedom is Christ-like freedom. There is no hint of legalism
about it. That kind of freedom accepts moral standards that are well
known and well proven in society, and takes its inspiration from the
most liberated human being who ever lived, Jesus of Nazareth.
Freedom is the prevailing cry of the world today, the overwhelming
preoccupation of individuals and nations. Yet even though Scripture
speaks of a liberty that Christ offers (Gal. 5:1-12), some people resist
Christianity as itself an obstacle to freedom. It this view of the faith
justified?
On the face of it, it seems strange to identify Christianity as an
enemy of freedom. After all, Christians have historically stood up for
the poor, the oppressed, the captive, and the underprivileged.
Likewise, liberation from ignorance, disease, and political
oppression have invariably resulted wherever Christian faith and
principles have been adopted. Why then, would some view the faith
as repressive?
Perhaps part of the answer lies in the problem of legalism.
Whenever Christianity is made into a list of dos and don'ts, it
becomes intolerant and restrictive. Instead of enjoying an close
relationship with a loving God, the legalist is obsessed with rules
and regulation, as if God were a celestial Policeman just waiting to
catch us out of line.
To be sure, Christ does make demands on us that sometimes limit
our autonomy. But true Christianity sees that as part of a
relationship based on love and grace, not unlike a healthy marriage
in which both partners sometimes sacrifice their own desires in
order to serve the other.
But even if there were no legalists, many people would still resist
Christianity because they resist any standards that would place
absolute claims on them. To them, freedom means pure
autonomy the right to do whatever they want, with no
accountability to anyone else.
Surely that kind of lifestyle leads to irresponsibility and license
rather than freedom. Nor do people really live that way. Sooner or
later they choose one course of action over another, based on some
set of values. In other words, they surrender their will to standards,
whether good or bad, and act accordingly. So it is not just the
values of Christianity that "stifle" personal freedom, but values in
general.
One of the most frustrating problems in our Western society is the
loss of a common moral standard to follow. With white collar crime
and political corruption rampant, one can only wonder what can be
done. If the lawmakers cannot be trusted, who can? The simple
problem: society and government have abandoned the Ten
Commandants, and the Golden Rule as the standard for human
behavior. If "...every man does what is right in his own eyes..." as
happened in ancient Israel with the inevitable downfall of that
civilization and others throughout history, why should it turn out
differently today?
hardly a rope long enough to lower down. Youre in an Orwellian

world of doublespeak.
You say: Man-made religions use fear and intimidation, but not
Christianity.
I say: Hell.
You say Christians have stood up for the poor et al. That liberation
from ignorance and disease and oppression invariably follow
Christianity.
Really? Invariably?
Certainly, there are Christians who have stood up for the poor and
the oppressed. But to claim liberation invariably results when
Christianity spreads is to be supremely and willfully ignorant.
I am quite happy to continue to debate real ideas. But I am utterly
exhausted from the need to illuminate things that ought to be
obvious to anyone who puts in even the smallest effort to
understand a point of view different from their own. Im not saying
you need to be open to changing your mind just that you ought
to be able to at least try to see where others are coming from.
In my experience, the issue of personal freedom is not a major
objection to Christianity in any case. When I was a believer, I did not
adhere to a stifling, legalistic dogma. Any rules of behavior I felt
constrained to live by are not substantially different than what I
now live by. I defy you to seek out atheists and engage them in
dialog. Find one just one who left Christianity because they
wanted to do anything they desired without accountability.
Your ignorance of perspectives outside your own is demonstrated
once again when you quote Will Durant as though this is a
representative point of view of atheists, secularists, or humanists.
There is no crisis of finding a moral code among atheists, secularists
or humanists.
You state that the lack of a common moral standard is a problem.
Christians lack a common moral standard, so you are in no position
to bitch about this. Yes, even born-again-honest-to-God Christians
do not have a common moral standard.
Christian morals are predicted more by their social/cultural
environment than by their faith. If you dont believe me, please
describe your morals regarding these issues: Debtors prisons.
Slavery. Women speaking in church. Burning people alive at the
st
stake. Torture of non-believers. I will bet that you and I, as 21
century Americans, have a morality more in common with each
other on these issues than you do with Christians of prior ages and
other regions.
(Quick question when you talk about the Ten Commandments, do
you mean the version that instructs against boiling a kid in goat
milk? Or the other version?)
Dons blog
Karens Response

6
Interestingly, even the Humanist Magazine (known for its atheist

following) published an article, written by historian and humanist
Will Durant, on the crisis of finding a moral code without religious
conviction. It said: "Moreover, we shall find it no easy task to mold a
natural ethic strong enough to maintain moral restraint and social
order without the support of supernatural consolation, hope and
fears... There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a
society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of
religion."
The real question, of course, is what kind of people are Christians?
What is their character? Christians try to mold their character after
the pattern of Jesus. He was the most liberated man who ever lived.
His ultimate standard of behavior was, what does My Father want
Me to do (John 8:29)? Did that code stifle His freedom? Hardly: He
was utterly free of covetousness, hypocrisy, fear of others, and every
other vice. At the same time He was free to be Himself, free to tell
the truth, free to love people with warmth and purity, and free to
surrender His life for others.
True Christian freedom is Christ-like freedom. There is nothing
legalistic about it. That kind of freedom embraces the moral
precepts taught by Christ, inspired by the most liberated human
being who ever lived, Jesus of Nazareth.
Myth # 7 Conclusion
While it is absolutely true that certain denominations of the
Christian faith are quite stifling, the real myth here is the one you
believe: that non-Christians think they are free to behave any which
way they want and have no foundation for morality. This is patently
and demonstrably false.
RETURN TO TOP
Dons blog
Karens Response
MYTH #8 CHRISTIANITY IS OTHER-WORLDLY AND IRRELEVANT TO MODERN LIFE

MYTH #8 CHRISTIANITY IS OTHER-WORLDLY AND
IRRELEVANT TO MODERN LIFE
SUMMARY: Some Christians are, as is said, "so heavenly minded
that they are no earthly good." Christians who are serious about
becoming more like Christ will become involved with the world
around them. (See Myth 12 for a list of social improvements
brought about by Christians.) Just as Christ came into the world to
do the will of His Father, so His servants go into the world to
accomplish the Father's work.
The writer of Hebrews encourages us to live with an eye toward the
"cloud of witnesses" who watch us from Heaven (Heb. 12:1), and to
look to Jesus who sits at God's right hand (Heb. 12:2). Perhaps it is
images such as these that cause some people to see Christianity as
detached from the world. They prefer a worldview that seems more
This is another so-called myth that is not really specific to

Christianity. People in every religious tradition debate and balance
separation from society with integration.
I agree that our beliefs should and do inform our actions, regardless
of what those beliefs are.
Christianity does all too often stifle action for social progress by
allowing, no, encouraging oppressed populations to hope and pray
rather than act to throw off their oppression by teaching that their
suffering is adding jewels to their heavenly crowns.
In spite of agreeing with your basic premise that our faith should
lead to action, I will have to help you with your historical facts.
Dons blog
Karens Response

relevant to everyday life.
But the Christian worldview is very relevant. To be sure, Christians
look to realities that lie beyond our natural universe. But they do so
in order to gain perspective on life, to find a star by which to steer.
Belief in the living God changes our outlook dramatically. We can
see His hand in history. We can gain insight into His purposes for
the world. As a result, we can find tremendous meaning and
motivation for our lives and our day-to-day work.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of being absorbed with the person of
Christ is that we no longer insulate ourselves from people for whom
He cares. Human beings really matter. Dedicated believers take
people seriously. As a result, they get involved with them for their
welfare.
That means that we have a definite mandate for Christian social

involvement. Wherever the tide of faith sweeps in, it brings a
corresponding rise in social concern and service to the community.
Because of the Great Awakening revivals in England during the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a dedicated Christian named
William Willberforce led a lifelong struggle to abolish slavery, a
fight he eventually won. Nearly all of the social reforms of that era
were brought about, not by the agnostics, but by people who
responded to the great Christian revivals of the day.
The Great Awakening and the abolitionist movements in England

and the Americas continually influenced each other. The antislavery efforts began decades before the first round of Great
Awakening movements, probably with the Germantown Quakers.
Wilberforce was not involved until a century later. I know your point
is that Christians were a force for social good. But credit where
credit is due Quakers had this issue dialed in well before the
evangelicals.
Also, during that period in Britain was the Mines Act, forbidding the
forced labor of women and children in the mines, and the Factories
Act, limiting hours of work, masterminded by a Christian, the Earl of
Shaftesbury. A believer named Dr. Barnardo founded homes for
orphans. A Christian woman named Elisabeth Fry brought about
prison reform. Another believer, Josephine Butler, lobbied
Parliament to protect women and outlaw child prostitution.
That social reforms in a majority Christian country would be

instigated by Christians is hardly a surprise. Worth noting, however,
is that Christians did not then and do not now hold some kind of
monopoly on acting for social benefit.
Eventually, in America, there were comparable laws by the great

statesmen, all self-proclaimed Christians, that history has highly
regarded: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and most of the
Founding Fathers. At least 50 of the 56 signers of the American
3
Constitution were Bible-believing Christians. Their ideas expressed
in the Constitution (i.e., "...all men are endowed by their Creator
with certain inalienable rights") came from the Bible, as did the
basis for virtually all of the laws written in the Bill of Rights,
although it took several decades, and the Civil War to fully
implement.
The inalienable rights line is from the Declaration, not the

Constitution. This is not a small point. The Declaration was a rallying
cry, an appeal to emotions, a list of grievances, a call to arms. The
Constitution was the more sober, deliberated, debated, and vetted
governing document. The Constitution does not invoke God, the
creator, or Jesus unless you count the purely conventional date
notation in the signatory section. Religion doesnt show up until the
addition of the Bill of Rights, and that was to restrict governments
involvement for the purpose of ensuring freedom of and from
religion for all citizens. The framers fully debated the possible
ramifications both of specifically including language in support of
Christianity and of leaving out religion altogether. They are on
record acknowledging that religious freedom would be not just for
various Christian denominations, but also specifically for Hindus,
Muslims and others.
There may be some Christians who are, as is said, "so heavenly

minded that they are no earthly good." But believers who cultivate
a Christlike mind and heart cannot help but get involved with the
poor and needy, and the hurting souls around them.
You know who else fought and died for workers protections,
abolishing child labor, protecting women textile workers, etc.?
Communists. Marxists. Unions. Wobblies. Often, they had to fight
against Christians to get their reforms passed.
Dons blog
Karens Response

At any rate, the source of the inalienable rights idea is most
definitely not the bible. Inalienable, aka natural or freeborn, rights
were promoted by pre-Christian Stoics, among others. Where in the
bible do you find this idea? Nor is the bible is the source of the
ideas in the Constitution. The most immediate source of inspiration
for the structure and content came by way of Enlightenment
philosophers.
Myth #8 Conclusion
No argument that belief out to inform action. Definite
disagreement that Christianity uniquely motivates people to action
for social benefit.
RETURN TO TOP
Dons blog
Karens Response
MYTH #9 THE BIBLE IS UNRELIABLE AND NOT TO BE TRUSTED

MYTH #9 THE BIBLE IS UNRELIABLE AND NOT TO BE
TRUSTED
SUMMARY: There is no other ancient book as well-attested to as
the Bible for historical accuracy. Archeological and historical experts
are virtually unanimous on this. Even the most skeptical group of
theologians, regarded as mostly non-believers by any traditional
definition of the Christian faith, still acknowledge many of Paul's
writings as authentic with copies dating into the early Second
Century. This brief time gap is unique to Scripture, as the tiny
number of existing copies of all other ancient writings have on
average about 1,000 years separating them from the original. By
contrast, there are many thousands of existing copies of
Scripture, separated by as little as 25 years from the oldest original
New Testament parchments! God has uniquely protected this
special vehicle of His truth.
I spent about a half a minute googling for extant copies of other

ancient historical texts. The first solid lead that came up turns out to
meets your same so-called remarkable standard, and in two ways, it
beats the criteria that you claim as proof that your letters are
uniquely protected by God. First, in the example I found, they are
originals not copies. Second, they are even older than your copies.
These are the writings of Philodemus, the epicurean poet and
philosopher. He lived during the century preceding Christ. And an
enormous number of his own writings were found in Herculaneum
in the 1800s. That means that these are original writings, from
before the birth of Christ. I wont spend more time on that, except
to say that if I was able to find one example so quickly, its
reasonable to assume there are others. Which makes your
documents not unique. Rare, perhaps. Not unique.
The quantity and age of your manuscripts do not solve the
problems related to the historical accuracy of their stories.
Even if we had the original letters written in Pauls hand, or Marks
own personal copy of his gospel at most very little, and possibly
none, of the books about Jesus were written by people who actually
knew him or witnessed his ministry.
The letters and books that were copied the most were ones that
reinforced the narrative that would become the foundation for the
Christian religion. We know there were other writings that were just
as historically valid which the early church declined to include in
their collection. Power and politics were at stake, so perhaps some
of the books left out were actually more historically accurate. You
may choose to believe that God directed that decision, but that
doesnt make it necessarily true.
Dons blog
Karens Response

Is the Bible a trustworthy document? Are the Scriptures true as
written? Or, are they full of myths that may have symbolic value, but
little if any basis in fact? People have been questioning the biblical
record almost from its beginnings. Peter, for instance, encountered
skepticism as he presented the gospel in the first century. His claims
about Jesus were nothing but cleverly devised fables, some saida
charge he vehemently denied (2 Pet. 1:16)!
Today the Bible's credibility and authority are still attacked. Yet how
many of its critics have carefully studied its teaching? How many
have even looked at the story of how it came to be written?
This question about how many critics have carefully studied the
bible is actually quite ridiculous. You must assume that anyone who
does so would agree with you. That is patently false. I carefully
studied the bible and its teaching and I wasnt even a critic at the
time I was a believer.
Remember your Pascal quote back in the introduction? I did seek. I
believed and desired to know God. And I was rewarded with
obscurity, not light.
As certain as you are that if we would only read your book and look
for your god we would agree with you you are flat out wrong. I
am not the only one who has read and searched and honestly
desired to find truth and found it wanting.
Make no mistake, I am not imitating your error by claiming that
because some Christians have de-converted, that means Christianity
is not true. You, however, seem to think that finding an atheist who
has converted after reading the bible is proof that your book is true.
It doesnt work that way.
The Old Testament, which exists today in 39 books, was written

mostly in Hebrew over a thousand-year period, hundreds of years
before Christ. It contains dozens of specific prophecies of Christ's
first and second coming. Each prophecy about Christ's birth, life,
death, and resurrection was literally fulfilled. The odds of any other
man simply by chance fulfilling all the particulars about His birth
(location, time, etc.), and the other details predicted for of His life,
are astronomical! For any one man to fulfill only 8 of the 333
specific prophecies about the Messiah, the odds have been
17
calculated to exceed 1 in 10 power!
17
I suppose your 10 calculation is supposed to awe me into

submission. It doesnt matter what the odds are when the people
writing the story already know what criteria to make sure they
cover. These prophecies were not unknown to the New Testament
authors, nor to the committee who chose which books and letters
to include in the canon. Even if it wasnt for the purpose of being
deliberately deceptive, confirmation bias leads people to make
connections where there are none, or discount one version of a
story when another is more in line with their beliefs. Its only
natural.
Funny thing is, even with these little adjustments, Jesus doesnt,
actually, fulfill all the prophecies, even according to the people on
your side. I tried to find your list of the 333 specific prophecies, and
came up with several different lists with different numbers of
prophecies. The best I can find is that only some of the prophecies
have been fulfilled, and more will be fulfilled later at the second
coming. Thats a pretty tricky way to claim all the prophecies have
been fulfilled.
The 27 books of the New Testament were written in Greek during

the first century AD. It contains the four Gospels, and several letters
written by the Apostles, including 13 letters from Paul to the
churches he started on his missionary travels. As the various
writings were copied and used along with the Old Testament over
the first three hundred years after Christ, Early Christians
corporately recognized them as being the Word of God.
The Bible is not so much a single book as a library of sixty-six
books. It contains a variety of literary types: history, poetry,
narrative, exposition, parable, and "apocalyptic" (see Revelation
10:1-10). Its many authors wrote during a period of some two
thousand years in three languages. Probably all but two were Jews.
Im not exactly sure why it would be considered remarkable that a

collection of different stories would have a kind of overarching
story line or theme when the whole point of gathering these
together in the collection was specifically for the purpose of
reinforcing that story line. They even had big meetings to decide
which books to keep in the collections and which to drop.
Whats remarkable, really, is how many obvious contradictions there
are in these stories, given that they were supposed to be divinely
inspired if not actually written by God and that the collection of
books was actively curated, and not just a random assortment.
The contradictions and conflicting theologies laid out in its pages
are a primary reason I believe that, even if the books are authentic
Dons blog
Karens Response

Remarkably, the writers tell one unified story:
n They offer the same understanding of human nature. People are
made in God's image and are capable of great good. Yet they are
also sinful and capable of great wickedness. The great need of
humanity is to be reconciled to God and to each other.
copies and even if the authors believed what they wrote, we cannot
seriously consider this book accurate or true in any meaningful
sense.
n They offer a common understanding of Jesus Christ. He is both

God and man. He became a real human being in order to show the
world the God it could not otherwise perceive. Something deeply
significant happened as a result of His death on the cross, making it
possible for God and humanity to be reconciled.
n They offer the same hope: God will ultimately accomplish His
glorious purposes for His Creation.
None of the typical folklore-type stories appear in Scripture. For

example, ancient writings never mentioned the hero's character
flaws, unlike Scripture does about Abraham, Moses, David, Paul,
Peter, John or the other disciples. Aside from the internal evidence
that Scripture is what is claims to be, the words of God written
through a diverse group of men, there is a growing body of external
evidence that supports its reliability as a document.
The bible doesnt have folklore-type stories? Have you actually

READ the bible?
Scholars have found many contemporary sources that parallel the

Scriptural record. For example, Jesus is mentioned by two Roman
writers in the First Century, Tacitus (Annals 15.44) and Pliny the
Younger (Letters 19.96), as well as by some Jewish writing of that
period, including Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.3) and the Mishnah, a
collection of traditions under compilation in Jesus' time.
Your definition of many is unusual. There are, in fact, very few

non-biblical references to Jesus, and it turns out the source for
most of those references is (ta da!) the bible. That doesnt make the
bible true or false; its just not great evidence.
One astounding fact is the number of existing, ancient copies of the

Old and New Testament. Compared to the number of old copies of
literally all other ancient writings: the New Testament has 5,366 full
or partial copies available to us, compared to a dozen or so for
virtually all other ancient documents. No other ancient document
even comes close to the Bible in this regard.
More and older copies just means more and older copies, not that
the originals are true. As long as the originals are still just accounts
written decades after the fact by people who were not there, they
remain simply hearsay. Direct eyewitness reports would be better,
but still not proof of their truth (as shown by the Delphi story I told
earlier).
The time span separating the oldest existing copy and the original
writing is also far smaller than any other ancient document. This is
the most significant factor pertaining to the accuracy of the copies!
For example, Plato's Tetralogies was written around 347 BC, but the
oldest copy (of the seven that have survived) is dated 900 AD,
leaving a 1,200 year time gap. The oldest existing New Testament
copy dates all the way back to the beginning of the second century
ADwhich allows a mere 25 year time gap. With thousands of
copies available for comparison, all historical measures indicate the
Bible has the highest reliability of any ancient document. This is
another "sign" Pascal mentioned that God has given us.
Your declaration that other ancient writings never mention the

heros flaws shows that not only are you ignorant of your own holy
literature, but that you swallow whole what someone else told you
about other literature without bothering to look for yourself.
Dons blog
Karens Response

Another body of research that proves invaluable for biblical studies
is archaeology. Countless discoveries have helped to verify the text
of Scripture, most notably the Dead Sea Scrolls (ancient Israeli
copies of Old Testament books). Likewise, digs throughout the
Mediterranean have supported biblical references to various places
and people and the events of which they were a part thousands of
2
years ago.
Even the questioning of liberal "theologians" (often called heretics)
merely reveals their unfounded doubts about the authorship of
some of the New Testament, but even they leave intact the books
of Romans, Galatians, Corinthians, Philippians, and others Paul
wrote. Therefore, every essential Christian belief remains
undamaged by the best educated doubters-of-Christianity in
8
history! Their begrudging acceptance of Paul's authorship and the
accuracy of the existing copies of his letters is one more unusual
"proof" that God has allowed for a sign to the honest seeker of
truth.
The more one examines the evidence, the more one becomes
convinced that the Bible is more then a cleverly devised tale. It has
the ring of authenticity. But in that case, the reader ought to pay
attention to its message. That is the ultimate issue. As Mark Twain
aptly put it, it is not the things in the Bible that people can't
understand that prove troublesome, but the things they can
understand. Even if people are convinced the Bible is true from
cover to cover, will they heed its message?
To expect archeology to turn up no evidence that some of the

places of the bible were real places would border on the absurd.
But to claim that because the bible references some real locations is
proof of the truth of its stories is hardly different from saying
Spiderman must be true because New York is a real place.
Certainly, some of the books of the bible are copies of letters
written by the earliest followers of what would become Christianity.
Whether the versions that eventually were canonized are faithful
copies of the original letters does not, actually, matter (underlines,
italics and exclamation points notwithstanding) when it comes to
determining the central question that is, the veracity of the
accounts of the life of Jesus.
The oldest extant copies of the Quran date from a few decades
after the original. The Quran references locations we know to be
real. By your criteria, these facts mean that the Quran is to be
trusted as a reliable source of truth.
You are not examining evidence in any real way. You may be
spending time reading and studying, but only for the purpose of
reinforcing not examining.
As for the ring of authenticity, I could make a good argument the
This is Spinal Tap has the ring of authenticity. Doesnt make it true.
(But oh how I wish it were!)
Myth # 9 Conclusion
The bible is, in fact, not to be taken literally as an accurate historical
record.
RETURN TO TOP
Dons blog
Karens Response
MYTH #10 ALL THE EVIL AND SUFFERING IN THE WORLD PROVES THERE IS NO GOD
MYTH #10 ALL THE EVIL AND SUFFERING IN THE WORLD
PROVES THERE IS NO GOD
SUMMARY: If God is omnipotent, why does evil remain in the
world? Does He care? Yes, God cares, and He has acted, and will
continue to. He loves us so much that He allows us a free will to
accept, or even reject His care. He came into this world through
Christ, with all its sorrow and pain. Jesus knew poverty, hunger,
injustice, heartbreak, and betrayal. God conquered evil through
Christ's death, and one day He will restore His creation and His
creatures to their original purpose, and to the original relationship
they enjoyed with Him.
The phrasing of this Myth comes across as something youve read

that atheists say, but not that youve actually discussed with any
number of us. Among the non-believers I know, not one would say
that evil and suffering prove there is no god (not least because
most of us understand it is not logically possible to prove a
negative). It may help me lean toward the conclusion that there is
no god. But the thing it proves is that if there is a god, hes a dick.
Its not just that evil exists and he doesnt stop it. Sure thats part of
it. But even worse is that God himself behaves in immoral ways and
Christians justify and explain and make themselves believe this evil
is love.
Dons blog
Karens Response
Few stories offer a more dramatic or thrilling climax than the
closing chapter of Revelation. The scene of God finally and
ultimately destroying Satan and his hosts (Rev. 20:1-10) brings a
bright, joyful conclusion not only to the Revelation of John, but to
the entire Bible. Once and for all evil will be banished, never again
to trouble God's creation.
This is a sick, twisted, and disgusting statement. A bright, joyful

conclusion? Out of sight, out of mind, I guess. Evil is banished along
with billions of Gods precious children. Lets par-tay!
Yet while Christians look forward to that day with hope, many other
people reject God and the gospel precisely because of evil in the
world. Their reasoning goes something like this:
God did not create evil? I call bullshit. He created everything, and
while he may not have carried out the first evil acts himself, he is
omniscient, omnipotent, and outside of time. This means he knew
what he was creating, and knew that it included not only the
possibility but the certainty of evil. He most certainly could have
established an alternative. Maybe you cant imagine how he could
get around the problem of free will existing without the possibility
of evil. But he is GOD. His imagination should be a little better than
yours and mine and he damn well could have come up with
something. Maybe he should have just stayed home that day
because he and he alone bears responsibility for the existence of
evil.
C)
A God who is good and loving would not allow evil and
suffering in His world.
2) Yet evil exists in the world.

3) If God is all-powerful, He could remove evil if He wanted to.
4) Yet evil remains. In fact, at times it seems to grow worse.
5) Therefore, a good and powerful God must not exist.
This is a powerful argument, and there can be no question that evil
and pain are a massive problem to both belief and behavior.
Christianity offers no simple, instant solution, but the Bible does
give us ground to stand on as we try to live in a world where
suffering is real.
(C) The Bible teaches that God did not create evil. The world
He made was utterly good (Gen. 1:31). Where, then, did
evil come from? The record finds people themselves
turning against God, using His gift of free will to rebel
against Him. With that moral rebellion, the perfection of
Gods world came tumbling down and people began to
suffer. We know God foresaw this problem, but He still
created man out of His incomprehensible love. As the
Apostle John wrote in the book of Revelation, Christ was
...the Lamb slain (for our sin) from the foundation of the
world (Rev. 13:8). God knew our moral rebellion would
necessitate the death of Jesus even then!
Let me just back up a step here to make one thing perfectly clear I
am not angry at God for the problem of evil any more than I am
angry at the little green men on the moon for stinky cheese. I do,
however, get angry that otherwise decent people waste their lives
justifying the idea that their god, who by knowingly creating the
conditions for evil is responsible for evil, is a loving god.
The claim that our moral rebellion would necessitate the blood
sacrifice of Jesus is another piece of crap. The god that came up
with the star-nosed mole couldn't come up with an alternative to
the crucifixion? I mean, human sacrifice is so Iron Age.
The Bible also claims that behind human wickedness lies a great
outside influence, Satan. This fallen angel hates God and everything
to do with Him. He is out to destroy both humanity and the
environment, and does everything He can to attack God and His
purposes. To that end he promotes much of the evil and suffering
that we see (note Matt. 8:28-34).
(B) The Bible teaches that even though God did not create evil, nor
does He will it, He nevertheless uses it to accomplish His purposes.
For instance, God sometimes uses emotional pain in a profound
way to draw people to Himself, especially when they otherwise
would not respond to Him. Likewise, the struggle against evil has
led many to strive for good. Like an irritating grain of sand in an
oyster, it has produced pearls of character in countless
The struggle against evil has led many to strive for good? This
sound like the same kind of reasoning people use when they say
God had a reason for letting something bad happen to them. It
goes something like this: I am grateful I got cancer. Now I feel
Gods purpose for me is to tap into my experience in order to
provide comfort to others with cancer. Just one question why did
those other people get cancer? Its ridiculous.
Dons blog
Karens Response
peoplecourage, endurance, self-sacrifice, compassion.
Why then, if God is all-powerful, does He not remove evil from
the world? The question assumes, of course, that He has done
nothing. But in fact, He has, is, and will. First, God Himself came into
this world in the Person of His Son, with all its pain and wickedness,
and lived as a man. Jesus was well acquainted with suffering. He
knew poverty, injustice, physical abuse, heartbreak, and betrayal. He
ended His life in excruciating pain. So, God fully understands our
condition. He has personally experienced it.
These kinds of convoluted justifications only happen when you start

with the false notion that everything happens for a reason, that a
loving God or the Universe or whatever has a holy purpose for you
and is an active participant in your life.
In the process, God dealt with the problem of evil at its root. On the
cross, Jesus took on Himself the wickedness of every man and
woman who has ever lived in order to do away with it. We may
never fully understand what happened in that incredible act of selfsacrifice. But we know that Christ broke the grip of evil that holds
the world captive. Already we can see among Gods people a
glimpse of the new life that He has brought about (Rom. 8:4, 11).
(D) That brings us to God's final solution to evil, which John

describes in Revelation chapter 20. In the end, God will triumph by
doing away with evil itself and those who promote it. At the Second
Coming of Christ God will renew the world and all His creatures to
their original purity and purpose. Satan and evil will be banished
immediately. Death and suffering will be but a memory. Goodness,
justice, and peace will characterize the moral climate of God's new
Heaven and Earth.
Wait a minute suffering wont be but a memory it will be

ongoing! Unless youre saying there is no hell, but then whats the
point of all this soul-filtering you insist on?
I have to go a bit beyond the general theological and philosophical

problem of the existence of evil and get to some of the actual evil
perpetuated directly by God and promoted by the bible.
It is immoral and unhealthy to teach children that they are born
damaged and unworthy.
It is downright evil to call righteous the man who offered his virgin
daughters up to be gang-raped.
It is unacceptable that Jesus spoke about slavery without speaking
against it.
These are just the tip of the iceberg. If you want to hear more, I can
show you that my morals are better than Gods, and Id be willing to
bet yours are as well.
Myth #10 Conclusion

Evil does not disprove God, but neither is it a point in his favor. The
problem of evil as well as the evil actions of God himself are
reasons why, even if I did believe God existed, I would not find him
worthy of worship.
RETURN TO TOP
Dons blog
Karens Response
MYTH #11 THERE ARE SO MANY HYPOCRITES IN THE CHURCH I COULD NEVER BELIEVE IN CHRIST
MYTH #11 THERE ARE SO MANY HYPOCRITES IN THE
CHURCH I COULD NEVER BELIEVE IN CHRIST
SUMMARY: Jesus said, "...Only the sick need a physician..." (as in
Myth 5). We humans have many shortcomings, including hypocrisy.
Of course, it's not limited to irresponsible Christians, but is often
seen in corporate politics, and government leaders. Humans can be
very deceitful, self-centered, and dishonest whenever the stakes are
high enough. Christians are given supernatural power to overcome
these tendencies if they ask God for His help, nevertheless some
Christians refuse to grow up. Sometimes those claiming to be
Christians really aren't at all. The "hate group" known as the KKK
claims to be a Christian organization, yet their actions clearly
contradict the heart of Christ's teachings. A true Christian has been
"born again" by the Holy Spirit (John 3:5-8). Only then is it possible
to live a truly selfless life. Only by the Spirit of Christ indwelling us
can we find the strength to overcome temptation.
This isnt a myth about Christianity. It is a matter of fact that there

are hypocrites in the church. And it is reasonable to accept that
people may judge the institution by the character of its members.
You may be able to explain why you do not believe the church
should be judged by its membership, but that does not make this a
myth.
I understand the not-perfect-just-forgiven concept. But based on
your arguments throughout this essay, shouldnt there be some
noticeable difference, even if its quite small, between the people
who make up the church, as a whole, and the rest of the population
at large? Shouldnt the Christians be recognizable, at a very minimal
level, by the fruits of the spirit? Not that each individual in the
church is a real Christian according to your specific criteria, but
that, overall, there must be enough real Christians in the church to
make it shine a little brighter.
Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. This modern saying has a lot
of truth to it. No one can be perfect. Everyone has bad days. The
Holy Spirit does work in the lives of believers to help them become
more like Christ. At the same time God never forces anyone to obey
Him, even Christians. It's possible to take God's gift of salvation,
becoming a new-born Christian, and never "grow up" or become
Christ-like.
Fortunately, many Christians have allowed the Holy Spirit to guide

their lives, and have had a positive and constructive impact on
society. Take for example the premise of Dr. James Kennedy's
book, What If Christ Had Never Been Born?, and examine some of
the list of social improvements he recounts, all uniquely originated
3
or developed by Christians throughout history :
You look for a list of good things done by Christians, you find good
things done by Christians, you stop there. By now, you should know
where Im about to go with your list, right? That I will show, quite
easily, that these are most definitely not uniquely Christian efforts,
nor that the Christian influence in these areas was always, on
balance, good.
1. Hospitals, which essentially began during the Middle Ages.
Hospitals did not begin with Christians in the Middle Ages. A

Sanskrit encyclopedia of medicine describes the building of a
hospital at around the time of Christ. A Chinese Buddhist monk
travelling in India about 400 years after Christ (long before the
Middle Ages) describes a widespread practice in the cities of having
houses where the public (including the poor and destitute) could go
for medical examinations and cures and where they could stay until
they had recovered. Ancient Greece, centuries before Christ, had
temples dedicated to their god of healing which functioned less as
religious houses of worship and more as places for medical advice,
diagnosis and treatment. Sri Lanka has possibly the earliest record
of institutions specifically created in order to care for the sick (aka
hospitals), dating to ca. 400 BC.
2. Universities, which also began during the Middle Ages. In

addition, most of the world's greatest universities were started by
Christians for Christian purposes.
3. Literacy and education for the masses.
4. Representative government.
5. Civil liberties.
6. The abolition of slavery, both in antiquity and in modern times.
7. Modern science (see the list under Myth 3).
10. Higher standards of ethics and justice.
While it may be true that churches built quite a number of hospitals

and universities in medieval times and later, your contention is that
those Christian efforts in that era were the beginning point for
these institutions. It takes but seconds to prove your contention
false.
11. The condemnation of adultery, and sexual perversion, which has

helped to preserve the family unit, and the human race from moral
Case in point: The first link I open on a google search for earliest
universities takes me to a University of Texas page listing examples
8. The elevation of women.

9. Benevolence and charity; the good Samaritan ethic.
Dons blog
Karens Response
collapse, and multitudes from many sexually transmitted diseases.
in India and China dating back as far as two millennia before Christ.
12. The high regard for human life.
In some times and places, Christians promoted literacy for the

masses. In other times and places, churches deliberately and
systematically opposed such efforts, usually horrifyingly
targeted to keep specific population groups oppressed, such as
slaves or women. Do you know why stained glass windows in
churches traditionally depict bible stories? Because the church
wanted to control what the masses believed and intentionally kept
them illiterate, so the pictures were ways to remind them of the
stories without letting them read the stories for themselves.
13. The civilizing of many barbarian and primitive cultures.

14. The codifying and setting to writing of many of the world's
languages.
15. The greater development of art and music, and the inspiration
of the greatest classical works of art.
16. Countless changed lives transformed from liabilities into assets
to society because of the gospel.
Your claim is quite strong that Christians uniquely originated or

developed the things on your list. Ive already shown you are wrong
with the first few items. Lets continue.
Representative government was most certainly not uniquely
th
originated nor uniquely developed by Christians. Athens, 6 century
th
BC. The Roman Republic, 5 century BC. The Iroquois
Confederation, pre-Columbian America.
Civil liberties. The Magna Carta is widely regarded as the first major
step in this arena. It was created in a majority Christian culture, and
Christians get both credit and blame here because they both
created and fought against it. At any rate, the motivating force
behind its creation was, of course, political, not religious. The same
can be said about the development of civil liberties in our own
country.
Abolition of slavery. Oh man. Giving Christians credit for this is rich,
indeed. Christians, even Jesus hizzownself, accepted slavery as a
legitimate institution. Dont get me wrong, I am personally proud of
the part my own ancestors directly played in finally outlawing
slavery in the US. I come from a long line of Quakers who were just
about the only Christians initially opposed to slavery. I understand
fully the role that certain Christians played here. But that is a very
recent change. Christians, faithful true blue Christians, throughout
the ages, supported slavery and availed themselves of its benefits.
They did not have to twist scripture in order to do so, as the bible
both New and Old Testaments plainly allows and regulates it.
Science well, you already know what I think about that one.
The elevation of women? I dont even know what you mean. In what
way have Christians uniquely originated or developed the elevation
of women? Do you mean in that creepy-promise-keeper kind of
way? Where women are put up on a pedestal and protected by
their men-folk? Where the daughters are raised as one-dimensional
icons of purity with virginity as the most important trait and that
makes them feel responsible for keeping men from raping them?
Do you mean elevated right into the balcony in the back of the
church where we can just shut our pie holes? Again, as a Quaker, I
am proud that my Christian heritage was one where women were
accepted in the pulpit. But that is not a common Christian
experience, even in modern times. Christians in America are the
biggest impediment to, not proponents of, womens rights. Who
most vehemently opposed universal suffrage? Christians. Girls grow
up in even the most enlightened churches learning that we are all
born unworthy and dirty because of Eve. Sure, Jesus allowed a few
Dons blog
Karens Response
women in his inner circle, but even so they werent his disciples.
Certainly, sexual oppression is not unique to Christianity. But most
certainly, it is not a claim you ought to be making with a straight
face that Christianity has a good track record in this regard.
Benevolence and charity are not in any way shape or form uniquely
Christian concepts, either in their origination or their development.
Ive already cited charitable hospitals in India that pre-date Christ
by several centuries. But lets go farther back in time a couple
thousand years. Ancient Babylonians promoted generosity as a
marker of civilization. Ancient Egyptians believed that a lifetime of
benevolence and charity toward the poor were required in order to
be granted passage to the afterlife. In fact, the very concept of
philanthropy dates back 2500 years before Christ in Greek
mythology. Under the general category of Altruism/Golden
Rule/Good Samaritan ethic, we find proponents from Confucius to
Mohammed to Buddha. We also find examples of altruism in the
animal kingdom. A group of sperm whales adopting a deformed
dolphin. A starving lioness risking her own well-being to care for a
baby antelope. While you may discount these as instinctual
somehow, and not allow an explanation that includes conscious
intent, we do not know the intent of the Good Samaritan, either. We
judge him on his actions, not his intentions.
In what way are Christian standards of ethics and justice higher than
non-Christian standards? In what way did Christianity uniquely
originate or develop these standards? Buddhist ethical standards
that pre-date Christ include no killing, no stealing, no lying, no
sexual misconduct, and no intoxicants. Buddhism also promotes
non-violent behavior, provides directions for ethical and just
treatment of workers, encourages forgiveness, and believes there
will be consequences (karmic justice) for unethical behavior. Ancient
Egyptians not only promoted benevolent behavior in order to reach
the afterlife, they also required respect for ones mother and father,
no stealing, no murder, no exploitation of the weak, no blasphemy,
no lying, no adultery, no eavesdropping, no speaking without
thinking.
On your list of good things that Christianity supposedly uniquely
originated or developed, you list the condemnation of adultery, and
sexual perversion. You go on to say this has helped to preserve the
family unit, and the human race from moral collapse, and
multitudes from many sexually transmitted diseases. Of course, Ive
already noted where other ancient cultures condemned adultery
and so-called sexual perversion. So Christianity has no special claim
there. As for the effects of these prohibitions I would dearly love
to debate this side of things but I really need to get through these
14 Myths first. I will, however, provide one little teaser of something
I would expect to prove in such a debate: Christian teachings have
actually caused sexually transmitted diseases to spread more
quickly than they otherwise would have done.
What would lead you to say that Christians uniquely originated or
developed a high regard for human life? Is there a serious religion
or philosophy which does not highly regard human life?
Another claim you make as a proof of the positive benefits of
Christianity is the civilizing of many barbarian and primitive
th
cultures. Did you cut-and-paste this from some 19 century text? If
Dons blog
Karens Response
by civilizing you mean performing genocide upon, well, OK. This
is just one reason your previous point (high regard for human life) is
a joke. Even if we skip over the Christianizing of the Americas and
the resulting horrors visited upon our indigenous peoples, and
jump ahead to smaller scale missionary efforts around the globe
the case for Christianity being a positive influence on primitive
cultures is decidedly mixed.
I wanted to be a bible translator and I do like to think that assisting
in recording and creating written forms for languages, on balance, a
good thing. But taken in its larger context that it all too often
went hand in hand with wiping out entire cultures Im not
convinced that the benefits outweigh the tragedies, in spite of the
fact that I wish it were so.
Then there is your absolutely blinkered ethnocentric view that the
greatest works of art and music are Christian. Incredible works of
art, music and poetry have come out of cultures worldwide for
millennia. To be honest, music probably kept me in the church
longer than I would have stayed without it. God, I love a good Bach
Toccata on a pipe organ! But you clearly have not experienced a
traditional African drum circle if you think Christianity has a lock on
complex and transcendental music. If you think great art was
uniquely originated or developed by Christians, you have not sat in
front of a 2,000 year old Chinese ink painting. And dont get me
started on poetry Christian efforts in this area are an
embarrassment when compared to poets throughout the ages from
other religions and cultures.
Finally, the end of your list of things Christians uniquely developed
or originated transformed lives. Hogwash. Other religions can and
do make the same claim with just as much proof as you can.
Unfortunately, human beings have sinful tendencies, and hypocrisy

is one of them. We can be very deceptive, greedy, and
unscrupulous if something important to us is threatened. One
needs only look at corruption in some government officials, or in
big corporations to find plenty of hypocrisy. Christians are given
supernatural power to overcome these tendencies if they ask God
for His help, nevertheless some Christians refuse to grow up.
The grace (unmerited kindness) that God has towards mankind,
including hypocrites and everyone else, is phenomenal! Because of
Christ, God freely gives the "key" to Heaven's gate to whomever will
accept His indescribable Gift, presuming a real commitment to
Christ. It would sound too good to be true if Christianity did not
have such an glorious record of changed lives and service to
mankind.
Many unsung heros of the faith exist, who work hard serving the
poor, and proclaiming God's love in the Third World, and inner city
ghettos. If their lives were as well known as the hypocrites, the
transforming power of the gospel would be better understood.
Another common misunderstanding: Some people mistake nonbelievers who claim to be Christians for the real thing. Many who
use the name "Christian" have committed unethical, or criminal acts.
If you get credit for the good works of Christians (both the churches
and their believers), you must take blame for the bad. Especially
when you are working under the guise that your point of view is
logical. You do not get to attribute only the good effects and
discount the bad by claiming they werent really Christian.
You also do not get to ignore the lives of millions of non-Christians.
Many unsung heroes of all faiths and no faith work hard, serving
the poor, and being living examples of love and grace throughout
the developing world and inner cities. To what (or to whom) do you
attribute this fact? What can we understand by recognizing that
Christians do not have anything close to a monopoly on your socalled fruits of the spirit?
Let me state this quite clearly: In a logical inquiry, which you
propose you are making, you do not get to determine that, if an
effect is what I am looking for, it supports my hypothesis, but if an
effect is not what I am looking for, it must be a result of some other
influence and does not disprove my hypothesis. A corollary to this is
that you also do not get to ignore other sources of the effect you
are looking for.
If that was difficult for you to understand, let me try again. You
must begin to understand that you do not get to judge who has a
Dons blog
Karens Response
For example, the hate-group known as the Klu Klux Klan claim to be
"Christian," but in reality, have more in common with the
openly anti-Christian Nazi party of Hitler's day. This
misunderstanding is similar to the "sins of Christendom" as Dr.
Kennedy described the Crusades, done by those who claimed to be
Christian, but who were in name only, and had no personal, spiritual
relationship with Christ.
Christ who lived His life as God's Servant, and gave His life as a
ransom for us, is rightly called the Prince of Peace, and not of war.
Likewise, His true followers are to be peacemakers. As Christ taught,
"...you shall know them (true disciples) by their fruit (good
deeds)" (Matt. 7:16), And, He also said, "By this all men will know
that you are my disciples, if you love one another," (John 13:35).
personal relationship with Jesus and who doesnt. You start with
your conclusion (Jesus influences his followers for good) and go
backwards to find only the people who meet this criteria (good
Christians). Then you use that subset of people to prove your
conclusion (that Jesus influences his followers for good). This is
simply nonsense in a true logical inquiry. Stop it.
The Ku Klux Klan (not Klu) has just as much claim to being truly
Christian as do you. They can provide both scriptural and
experiential proof of the authenticity of their faith. Hitler seems
easier to discount, but the millions of people who carried out his
horrors cannot be so easily written off.
This is a Nazi belt buckle. God With Us. The rank

and file were, by and large, people of faith.
On the whole, we ought to be able to distinguish the characteristics
of the people of faith from those outside the church, even granting
a certain percentage of hypocrites.
You propose you are undertaking a logical inquiry, and that you can
prove your faith is the most logical choice. So lets see if I can draw
a picture to show how your argument plays out logically.
Heres a church. 25 of its members are true believers, 25 are
hypocrites. Heres a convention of atheists. 50 people, and not a
true believer in the crowd. Those 25 true believers should, on
balance, be identifiable by their fruits. Not that the hypocrites and
atheists night not be generally well-behaved. But your contention is
that a relationship with Christ is noticeably transformative. The total
population of these two groups is 100 souls. An outsider
determining which group to join ought to have no problem
identifying, on the whole, which group is better. Even recognizing
the hypocrites in the crowd, the half of the church that is true blue
would have to nudge the scale in favor of the church.
When we step away from this simplistic picture and back into
reality, however, we find that the people of the Christian faith are
virtually indistinguishable from the people of other faiths or no
faith. That you choose not to look for good examples among the
non-believers is utterly beside the point.
Finally, in many countries hypocrites are virtually nonexistent, as

becoming a Christian is against the law, and therefore, requires
risking your life! Christians martyrs die frequently in China, Africa,
some Asian countries, and in many Muslim nations. If the power of
God's Spirit was not real and tangible to these believers they would
renounce Christ, and save their lives. But, like millions before them,
the reality of the gospel is undeniable.
This is one of the most ridiculous claims you have yet made. As I
pointed out earlier, Ill tell you who would die for a lie: people who
are mistaken, misguided, delusional, afraid to admit they are wrong,
wanting to be a martyr, or even those who are trying to protect
others.
Additionally, people readily die for other faiths as well. So that
must, by your logic, be undeniable proof that their faith is real. After
all, who would die for a lie?
Dons blog
Karens Response
Myth #11 Conclusion
There are, in fact, as you point out, hypocrites in the church. So that
much is not a myth. People not only can but ought to observe
characteristics of the members of a group in order to evaluate the
efficacy of becoming a member of that group themselves. This is a
prerogative, not a myth. That the people of Christ are not
demonstrably better on the whole than the rest of us is telling.
RETURN TO TOP
Dons blog
Karens Response
MYTH #12 ONES RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE IS A PRIVATE MATTER AND SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED
MYTH #12 ONE'S RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE IS A PRIVATE
MATTER AND SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED
SUMMARY: Spiritual questions should not be kept so personal that
the subject never comes up until the person is in the hospital, or
has some "life and death" experience. Tomorrow is not guaranteed
to anyone, so we should not take it for granted. At any time we
could enter the Hereafter. Scripture teaches that it's too late to
prepare for Eternity then.
"Never discuss politics or religion." Is this old saying just a way to
be polite, or is it the customary excuse to avoid emotional issues
like dying, or what to expect in the afterlife. If Christ thought it
important to openly teach about God, have friendly discussions
with those whom He encountered, and sometimes confront
hypocrites, we should do no less. The student is not above his
Master.
Christ commanded us to "Go into all the world and make disciples
of all nations..." (Matt. 28:19), and to "...preach the Gospel to all the
world..." (Mark 16:15). Scripture is clear on this subject. Christians
should seek respectful, and courteous ways to obey God's
command to communicate the gospel message.
There is no doubt that some issues involving one's faith are best
kept private, but many topics can be discussed when appropriate.
We must consider that if Christ is who He said He was (see Myth
2), then His words are the words of God. Therefore, His view of how
personal one's faith, or lack of faith should be, is what really
matters. Spiritual questions should not be kept so personal that the
subject never comes up until the person is in the hospital, or has
some "life and death" experience. Tomorrow is not guaranteed to
anyone, so we should not take it for granted. As Scripture says,
"Today is the day of salvation..." (2 Cor. 6:2).
Sometimes the problem is poor communication skills and
personality differences. Psychologists have suggested that there are
three communication styles: "sharks" who are aggressive and
confrontational, and "carps" who stay out of the way and seldom
speak about their faith. Then, there are "dolphins" gentle
and likable, always speaking in a gracious manner. If all Christians were
"dolphins" there would likely be no privacy concerns.
This isnt a myth, and its not particularly directed at Christianity. Its
simply an opinion about appropriate behavior in order to avoid
discomfort and awkwardness in social situations.
I accept that if you truly believe I will go to hell, you would desire to
try to convince me of the rightness of your brand of faith. I dont
mind you wanting to share that belief with me. But only if you
accept that I have the right to just as vociferously promote my
thoughts and beliefs openly and publicly and have the same
expectation you have of being received with an open mind. I do not
experience that to be the case.
Dons blog
Karens Response
MYTH #12 ONES RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE IS A PRIVATE MATTER AND SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED
Paul wrote that through the "foolishness of preaching," the gospel,
or the good news of Christ will be spread throughout the Earth (1
Cor. 1:21). God could have used some other means, but He chose to
use us to communicate His love to other people, as insensitive as
we sometimes are. Later, Paul wrote in Titus 1:2-3 "...(our) faith
and knowledge rests on the hope of eternal life, which God, who
does not lie, promised before the beginning of time, and at His
appointed season He brought His word to light through the
preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior."
Although God could use angels, or even writing in the sky, this
verse and other passages in the New Testament make it clear: God
has designated His good news to be conveyed through the spoken
word. It behooves us, then, to listen with an open mind.
A deep faith in God is the strongest, and deepest motivations of all.
Why go through life missing out on it only for the sake privacy? We
are all, to some extent, "our brother's keeper," as in the often
quoted verse. No man is an island. We can all learn from one
another's experiences, especially concerning the most important
decision we will make during this life: Who or what will be our God?
Will it be "self" our ever-changing desires, which the Scripture
calls idolatry? Or, will we follow God's will for our lives, which not
only affects our future on Earth, but most importantly, our eternal
destination.
Myth #12 Conclusion

This is not a myth about Christianity its an opinion about sociopolitical behavior and an argument for your obligation and your
right to proselytize. Thats alright as long as that right is also
extended to others with whom you disagree.
RETURN TO TOP
Dons blog
Karens Response
MYTH #13 WHATEVER MAKES YOU FEEL CLOSE TO GOD IS OK

MYTH #13 WHATEVER MAKES YOU FEEL CLOSE TO GOD IS
OK AS LONG AS YOU ARE SINCERE
SUMMARY: Our feelings are influenced by many of our life's
experiences. Just following our feelings is not enough. Spiritual
counterfeits are real. Not everything spiritual is good. God's enemy
has real power. Trying out "New Age" practices, or the occult can be
hazardous. And, just being sincere does not guarantee access to
God's truth. It's possible to be sincerely and still be mistaken! The
Bible says that Satan even masquerades as an "angel of light" (2
Cor. 11:14) to deceive people.
How does one know if some assortment of religious beliefs is really
THE truth? Can someone pick and choose different religious
teachings? Can one's religion be custom-tailored, sort of a
"smorgasbord religion"? No, Jesus was clear concerning the
authenticity of His claims, leaving no room for counterfeit "truths."
This is pretty much just an extension of the ideas laid out in Myth
#4. And your proof that Christianity is special is just as weak here
as it was there.
Subjective experience. Transformational conversions. Scriptures. All
of your arguments and proofs you use to show the validity of the
Christian faith can be and have been used with equal validity for
other faiths.
Yes, it can seem at first glance that the bit about receiving Christ is
what sets your faith apart. But this is just a difference of the
mechanism by which we draw near to God. Many religions,
including New Age-type practices, also promote the similar BIG
IDEAS that we can commune with the creator of the universe, that
we can receive some kind of power from that creator that will help
us be better people, that those who enter into whatever form this
relationship takes in that particular religion will be rewarded in
Dons blog
Karens Response

It's the nature of truth to be absolute, and mutually exclusive with
any other belief. The Apostle Paul thought it was vital to guard
against heresy. The gospel he proclaimed centered on the
resurrection of Jesus, and how that validated Christ's teachings on
forgiveness of sin, and other matters.
Paul knew that no cleverly devised story would produce lasting
change in one's life. He wrote to the First Century Christians in
Galatia, "Even if we, or even an angel preaches any other gospel
to you than the one you first received, then let him be
accursed..." (Gal. 1:8-9). Paul went on to say, "For I do not seek to
please men, for if I sought to please men I should not be the
servant of Christ. But I certify to you, brethren, that the gospel
which was preached by me is not from man. For I neither
received it from man, neither was I taught it, but I received it
through a revelation from Jesus Christ..." (Gal. 1:10-12).
Paul knew the truth of the gospel was life-changing. He spent most
of his earlier life attempting to find inner peace through the
observance of the Jewish religion's laws to no avail. Before his
conversion he was the number one enemy of the Early Church, as
he obtained permission to put Christians in jail, and even to death.
But all that changed one day on the road to Damascus when a
blinding Light shone on him. God's power knocked him to the
ground, and Christ appeared to him with a stern warning: "Saul,
why are you persecuting Me? Then Paul replied, "Who are You,
Lord..." I am Jesus whom you are persecuting... You will find it
hard to kick against the thorns!" (Acts 9:4-5).
The encounter transformed his life, and he changed his name from
Saul to Paul. Years later he would be marytered rather than
renounce his Lord. He defended the primary facts of the gospel
with great care and zeal. Paul knew the importance of
an accurate faith, and he devoted much of his writing and teaching
to clearly explain the essentials of Christianity. By God's providence
Paul's detailed letters to young churches form the heart of New
Testament doctrine, and hence, the basic theology for the Christian
faith. Fortunately for us, the fact that Paul was imprisoned for his
faith probably caused him to write so many letters, which reflects
what he wrote to the church in Rome (Romans 8:28), "...God causes
all things to work together for good for those who love God..."
What about feelings? Aren't deeply held beliefs that move us
emotionally the test of truth? Not always. Feelings are never a good
indicator in spiritual matters. Scripture teaches that man is an triune
being, made in the Triune God's image, with three interdependent
parts: the physical body, the "soul" (the mind, will, and emotions),
and the human spirit. The spirit is our deepest self, and is the part
of us that lives on forever. The spirit of man can feel, but not in the
emotional sense. Our soul is where feelings come from, and it
doesn't always reflect the truth about a situation.
Our feelings are colored by a combination of many prior
experiences. Following our feelings might get us lost in a maze of
past emotional impressions. Putting our trust in Christ involves
understanding the gospel message, but primarily requires us to use
our will, choosing to believe the facts God has provided us to build
some glorious afterlife. While the mechanism of blood sacrifice has

fallen out of favor, the BIG IDEAS are the same for many religions.
A note about comparing the faith required to believe in God being
similar to the type of faith required to use an elevator what a load
of hooey. This is where you people always go off the rails in trying
to claim it takes just as much faith to believe in science as it does to
believe in a god. Look at how your bible describes faith: Being sure
of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. We live by
faith, not by sight. You can move mountains if you just have faith.
These statements are quite ridiculous when applied to any question
of science. The first people to ride elevators surely did not step onto
them without much thought the way we do today.
And it isnt a lack of humility that keeps some of us from
converting. In fact, it may be just the opposite. We believe we are
one tiny creature on a little fragment out here in our corner of the
universe. We feel pretty lucky to get to experience this one short life
and intend to make the most of it, learning, loving, living, laughing.
But it might be supremely arrogant to think that a creator of the
universe would be bothered to have a personal relationship with us.
And its weird that he would set up this amazing and vast universe
simply to have a soul-filtering mechanism to sort out which of us
get to go stroke his ego for all eternity.
Most of the things that I would say for the rest of this section have
been referenced in one way or another in earlier sections. If you
want to revisit any of these ideas specifically, we can do that as a
follow up.
Dons blog
our faith upon.
Fortunately, God made His plan of salvation accessible to all people on
an equal basis. Unlike man-made religions based on acquiring special,
secret knowledge, or some trance-like experience, God brought His
salvation down to us! He did this by giving it to us by faith.
Having faith is something we all do every day naturally. We have
faith when we use an elevator, stop a car, etc. It does not require an
emotional experience, a great intellect, or any physical
characteristics. It only requires a decision of the will.
This decision to accept God's gift of salvation may require some
degree of humility, particularly for those individuals who have lived
an honorable, and distinguished life. They may feel justifiably proud
of their accomplishments, but God requires absolute purity from
sin, and no one's life other than Christ can measure up to that
standard.
For many, receiving Christ will come as a great relief. Emotions may
or may not be present, but a marked change in motivation,
attitudes, and a profound love for Christ usually follows the "new
birth" experience.
Another significant caution: not everything that is spiritual is from
God. The enemy of God has real power. Any experimentation with
Eastern religions, "New Age" systems, or the occult is very
dangerous. It may start out as harmless curiosity, but dark forces
watch for those dabbling in the occult. That is their domain, and
they know how to add a supernatural attraction that is hard to
resist. The occult is a slippery slope, and can quickly go from a
curiosity with horoscopes and Ouija boards, to divination and even
communicating with evil spirits (masquerading as "spirit guides").
Some New Age teachings sound, at first, to be harmless, but have
9
led many into spiritual bondage. Escaping the occult is virtually
impossible without God's help, and can be harrowing even for
someone who becomes a Christian.
God alone is worthy of worship, and He rightly warns us against a
prideful, self-sufficient attitude, and especially exploring the
spiritual realm without His protection. He knows that we tend to
become like whatever we "worship" (admire greatly, or be obsessed
with). Worshiping "self" makes us more self-centered. Worshiping
something or someone else only satisfies for a time. Yielding our
lives to God alone is the answer.
Former occultists who have escaped their spiritual "addiction" know
well the power of the cross of Christ. By holding fast to the
Christian's delegated authority as children of God, using the name
of Jesus to rebuke the evil spirits that harass them (Luke 10:19), they
have found liberation.
It's also important to note that sincerity alone does not guarantee
access to Gods' truth. Many people are sincerely WRONG! Evil
spirits often masquerade as "angels of light" (see 2 Cor. 11:14) in
order to mislead people. Obeying the teachings in God's Word (as
the Bible is often referred to) does insure we will know the REAL
truth. Jesus said in John 7:17, that "...if anyone chooses to obey
God's will (yielding to Christ), he will find out if the teaching comes
from God..." If we decide to follow Christ we will be led by the Holy
Karens Response
Dons blog
Karens Response

Spirit into a progressively deeper understanding of God's will for
our lives. If we truly make Christ the Lord of our lives, nothing can
lead us astray.
Finally, if the only way to Heaven is through faith in Jesus Christ,
some will ask, "what about those who never hear of Christ?"
Although in Revelation 5:9 the Bible states, "...You (Christ) are
worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were
slain, and with your blood you purchased men (and women) for
God from every tribe and language and people and nation," the
Bible also explains that, "Salvation is found in no one else, for
there is no other name (Jesus Christ) under heaven given to
men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12).
Nevertheless, again in Revelation 7:9 it states, "After this I looked
and there before me was a great multitude that no one could
count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing
before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing
white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands."
These scriptures give us a reason to believe that God, Who
transcends time and space, and knows the nature, intents, and heart
of every person ever born, has found some from every nation, tribe,
people, and language group whom He can impute the forgiveness
of sin through Christ, and remain just.
Of course, "every tribe, people, and language group..." would
logically include some people born after Christ came who never
heard of Jesus or the gospel message (see Acts 17:30, and Romans
3:25-26). It could be that God knows who would have accepted
Christ if they had the chance. It has not been revealed to
us how God can do this, since it is not our job to judge mankind. As
we discussed in Myth 12, the believer's task is to faithfully proclaim
the good news of forgiveness through faith in Christ.
Dr. Rene Pache, a highly respected Swiss theologian, made the

same observation: "...God, Who is omniscient, knows perfectly
whether a sincere yet ignorant man, given a chance to accept
salvation, would take it or not. Christ died for the sins of the whole
world, those committed before His coming as well as in times and
places not reached with the gospel (Romans 3:25). The Lord, then,
will know how to treat every sinner according to His love and
7
righteousness."
It's comforting to realize the many innocent children who die at a
young age will be in Heaven, as is apparent from a quote King
David makes in 2 Samuel 12:23. However, we are clearly told in
the New Testament that anyone beyond the "age of
accountability" who ignores or rejects God's plan of salvation
has no hope of spending eternity in Heaven!
Therefore, if someone has never been "born again" as Jesus
described the salvation experience to Nicodemus (see Myth
5), understanding the information contained in these pages makes
the question of "those who have never heard" irrelevant for that
person! So, we must carefully consider the evidence God has
provided that we might trust in Christ, and begin a relationship with
It doesnt matter who Dr. Pache is, or whether he is highly

respected. What matters is that he makes Romans 3:25 say things
that simply are not in the text. We presume he does these
contortions because he needs something to counteract the morally
repugnant possibility that no one who does not follow Jesus will go
to heaven, whether they have heard of him or not.
Why dont you provide the scripture reference for the clear
indication in the New Testament that children who die before this
unknown age of accountability wont go to hell? Could it be that
there actually is no such clear statement?
Dons blog
Karens Response

God that will last for eternity!
Myth #13 Conclusion

Given that the same proofs can be used for just about every kind
of religion, its to be expected that people will hold differing beliefs
even when they are genuinely searching for the truth. Sincerity
ought to count for something.
RETURN TO TOP
Dons blog
Karens Response
MYTH #14 ALL THE GOOD THINGS IVE DONE WILL OUTWEIGH THE BAD
MYTH #14 ALL THE GOOD THINGS I'VE DONE WILL
OUTWEIGH THE BAD
SUMMARY: Who can set the standard for the amount of "good"
one must perform to make it to Heaven? Is 51% good enough? Or
does is it take 70% to "pass?" What about the poor soul who almost
makes it, but just hits 69%? What might seem fair to you or me, will
seem too permissive for especially good people, but again, who are
we to say? And, wouldn't it seem cruel for God to have made the
"passing score" a secret? Fortunately, we don't have to guess how
good we must be to "balance the scales." The Bible does not
discuss this question, except to point out that no one is good
enough ("For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of
God," Romans 3:23). God Himself has provided our acceptance into
Heaven through Christ's death on the cross. Now, because Christ
died for us, both our good and bad deeds, in effect, make no
difference at all, with the exception of one very important good
deed: the decision to accept Jesus Christ as our Savior.
One of the most logical-sounding misunderstandings about
Christianity is the idea that somehow God grades on the curve, as
many college professors do on final exams. It seems reasonable
that a loving God would be lenientthat He would weigh our best
moments against our worst, compare our performance against the
averages, give most of us the benefit of the doubt, and welcome us
into Heaven when we die. That sounds very kind, but does not take
into consideration God's nature: He is just and holy, as well as
merciful. He cannot overlook any sin and remain absolutely just,
and He will not allow (unforgiven) sinners into Heaven.
The Bible teaches that anyone defiled by sin cannot remain in the
presence of a holy God. One selfish act is enough, and we are
marred by sin. No amount of good works can change that fact
(James 2:10). The Bible teaches we are actually born with a "sin
nature" that we inherited all the way back from the first man and
woman when they disobeyed God's command, and ate from the
"Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." (It's interesting to note,
that if God had not supplied Adam and Eve with some way for them
to rebel, in reality they would have been no more than happy,
human robots.) So, with this seemingly irreconcilable problem of a
This obsession with our unworthiness, our sin, is disturbing. It is

actually disgusting that even the smallest misstep is an act that
requires a blood sacrifice. It is disgusting that we are defined, first
and foremost, as sinners from birth, without exception.
Dont misunderstand me I agree that no one is perfectly moral.
We all screw up on that count. Why all the fuss about that?
Regardless, for me, this is not an argument I would make. I dont
believe in an afterlife and Im not worried about whether I will get
into heaven. I believe, as I have said, that if I am wrong, that the
best I can hope is God will know who I am and judge my heart. If he
has some other method of choosing who is in and who is out, well,
cest la guerre.
You think you are making points by mocking the idea of a gooddeeds-score. You say it would be cruel for God to make the passing
score a secret. Apparently, you have already forgotten that God
does make secret important things. Remember our discussion of
the Pascal quote?
Dons blog
Karens Response
holy God separated from sinful mankind, what could be done?
God's plan is remarkably simple, yet divinely powerful. The second
Person of the Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ God
Himself provided our salvation. This is the amazing grace of God.
In the New Testament's original language of Greek, the word for
grace means unmerited favor, or unearned mercy: salvation without
any help from us! That is great news to many people who know
they need forgiveness, but for some who have lived exemplary and
successful lives and who have given many good things to the world,
grace may sound a little unfair.
Jesus used a parable to explain this in Matthew 20:1-15, "For the
kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in
the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to
pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his
vineyard. "About the 9:00 in the morning he went out and saw
others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told
them, `You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you
whatever is right.' So they went. He went out again at noon,
and at 3:00, and did the same thing. About 5:00 in the
afternoon he went out and found still others standing around.
He asked them, `Why have you been standing here all day long
doing nothing?' `Because no one has hired us,' they answered.
"He said to them, `You also go and work in my vineyard.'
"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his
foreman, `Call the workers and pay them their wages,
beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'
"The workers who were hired around 5:00 came and each
received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first,
they expected to receive more. But each one of them also
received a denarius. When they received it, they began to
grumble against the landowner. `These men who were hired
last worked only one hour,' they said, `and you have made
them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and
the heat of the day.'
"But he answered one of them, `Friend, I am not being unfair to
you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay
and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I
gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own
money? Or are you envious because I am generous?' It's easy to
see the metaphor here: living a good life is admirable and
beneficial, but the "workers' pay" (entering Heaven) is not based on
the amount of good works one does, or does not do.
We must recognize our real position: God is God, we are His
creation His crowning creation, but nevertheless, He is God, and
we are not. How He chooses to rescue us is His business. We must
humble ourselves to accept His gift of eternal life on His terms, or
do without.
Eternal separation from God (Hell) is what the Apostle Paul
describes when he wrote "...the wages of sin is (spiritual) death"
(Rom. 6:23). If a person persistently lives his or her life separated
from God, and rejecting Christ, then their afterlife will continue that
separation in a dark "quarantine" outside of Heaven, and outside of
everything good that God has planned. The choice we make to
Dons blog
Karens Response
accept or reject Christ determines our eternal abode.
It does not depend on having an abundance or a shortage of good

deeds. Fundamentally, it's the sin "disease" that we inherited. We all
have a inclination to sin. That's why, except for Christ, no one is
perfect. Mankind desperately needed a Savior. Thank God, He
provided one!
How is it that Christ could become the Savior to die in our place?
Jesus had no earthly father (His Father was God) so He was born
without a sin nature. This made it possible for Him to live a sinless
life. He had no sin, so He could become our substitutesatisfying
God's divine justice by dying in our place.
Therefore, because of Christ, God can be both merciful and just. He
demonstrated boundless mercy by sending His own Son to die in
our place. His plan of salvation "justifies" (declares not guilty)
anyone who trusts in Christ's death as payment for their sin. And,
He demonstrated His perfect justice by fully paying the ultimate
penalty for sin when Christ died on the cross.
We may never comprehend the pain Christ endured when He cried

out on the cross, "My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Mark
15:34). Besides the physical pain, theologians imagine that during
the time of spiritual separation when Christ was momentarily
removed from being one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, as He
bore our sin, that this was a special kind of suffering beyond our
experience, and our four-dimensional world.
Centuries before Christ was born God gave many indications of His
coming. Paul wrote that God established Israel and the Hebrew
religion of laws and sacrifices to demonstrate how impossible it is
to live a sinless life (Rom. 7:23), and to show the necessity of a
sacrifice for sin. The prophet Isaiah, in the Old Testament
states: "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has
turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him (Christ)
the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6). As John wrote, "The Law came
through Moses, but grace (God's unmerited mercy)... came through
Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). Christ was the ultimate and final sacrifice
for sin.
As we saw in Myths 4 and 10, God's gift of free will has powerful
consequences. Just as we can come to faith in Christ on our own
accord, without coercion from God, we can also reject Him forever.
As in the Garden of Eden, our free will is truly free only if we have
the right to say "no" to God's will for our lives. We must make a
choice for or against God's plan. To abstain from choosing,
according to the Bible, is a "no" vote. Now, because Christ died for
us, both our good and bad deeds, in effect, will make no difference,
with the exception of one very important good deed: our decision
to accept Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Just look at what you are saying: Mankind desperately needed a

Savior. Thank God, He provided one! I get that God gets to make
the rules and we are supposed to humbly submit to those rules. But
to be thankful that God provided something that was required only
because he knowingly set in motion the chain of events and rules
that made it necessary in the first place, is a bit like thanking the
abuser for providing a bag of frozen peas to soothe the black eye
he gave you.
Im really not trying to be facetious. But this is truly how your
theology appears to some of us. Your god set the rules, knowing it
would mean billions of his children would end up in hell for all
eternity. And you are grateful to him because you think you have
the golden ticket, and while you may feel sorry for the people going
to hell, you blame those poor souls for choosing wrong, instead of
putting the blame where it really goes on the shoulders of the guy
who set the system up. Not to mention that its possible that they
chose wrong because of that stupid Catch-22-hide-and-seek we
talked about way at the beginning with your Pascal quote. That is
not mercy.
Why does it matter what theologians have imagined? What is your
deal with always making irrelevant appeals to authority?
If the reason for free will is because he didnt want to force anyone
to have to worship him (because that wouldnt be authentic
worship) I have to ask is his ego so fragile that he requires
constant adoration? Gods so-called gift of free will in order to
ensure authentic worshippers comes at too high a price if it means
that billions of Gods children will spend eternity in hell.
Dons blog
Karens Response
Myth #14 Conclusion
The whole sin-salvation foundation of Christianity is a mess. None
of you actually agree completely on what your god wants or how
he will make his judgments, if he even exists. Being judged on
whether we were decent people is not an unreasonable view,
especially in light of Matthew 25.
RETURN TO TOP
Dons blog
Karens Response
CLOSING STATEMENTS
CHRISTIANITY IS THE LOGICAL FAITH
Because we are living in the Information Age, much of this deluge
of information is not accurate, so it is often necessary to bridge the
gap between fact and theory, fiction and logic before someone can
have faith in Christ. By discussing these 14 Myths we hope we cast
some strong doubts over the popular fiction many believe about
Christ and Christianity, and to help inform individuals about basic
biblical facts.
We have been encouraged by numerous intellectuals, including
many scientists who formerly had "blind faith" in the philosophy of
Darwinism (in spite of the inadequacy of the fossil record), who are
becoming followers of Jesus Christ. They are finding, among other
facts, that the "young" age of the Universe and the Earth makes
Darwin's "macro-evolution" theory illogical.
By using this logical approach to faith, and taking the time to fully
examine the claims of Christ, an increasing number of intellectuals
are choosing Christianity as they learn the convincing details God
4
has given modern man to verify His plan of salvation. They find no
other religion, philosophy, or belief system has the historical
support or the centuries-long track record of changed lives that
Christianity does. As the list of famous Christians in the field of
science reflects (in Myth 3), some of these changed lives have
significantly improved society.
It does not bode well that the first sentence in your concluding
statement arguing that Christianity is the logical faith doesnt make
logical sense. It is nonsensical to state that because we are living in
the Information Age, much of the information is not accurate.
I expect my writing to have some of these same sloppy kinds of
statements because this is all basically a first draft for me. But
youve been revising your article for 20 years. No excuses for you.
And then your first argument is the fallacious appeal to authority. I
dont give a frazzled fig leaf if numerous people have come around
to your side. What I care about is the ideas themselves, not whether
they are popular or accepted by others.
Christianity is not special when compared to other religions. Every
single argument you have made in support of your religion can be
and has been used to prove other religions, including
Pastafarianism. Yes, with a P. Google it.
When one examines all the evidence up close, there is no

comparison. Trusting in Christ still requires a step of faith, but that
step is small when compared to any other religion.
We trust this short defense of Christianity will not be offensive in
any way to the reader, yet will challenge some of the long-held
fallacies that obscure the marvelous truth of the Gospel, stated in
John, chapter three, verse sixteen: "...God so loved the world, that
He sent His only Son..."
THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP

A study of the books referenced in the Footnotes, especially books
by Josh McDowell, and the excellent book by Prof. Michael Green
(Who Is This Jesus?) will show Pascal's famous quote to be accurate:
If he hides himself unless you search for him, what, exactly, is the
way of escape for those who really do not want to know him?
No such thing as real love in a force marriage? Tell that to Tevye
Dons blog
Karens Response
CLOSING STATEMENTS
God is carefully regulating the information and "proofs" about
Himself, to encourage those honestly seeking Truth to find Him,
and to allow those who really do not want to know Him a way of
escape.
and Golde. ;)
Providing human beings a totally FREE WILL is essential to our Creator.

He wants us to be able to freely seek Him and have a prayer
relationship without any coercion. He would not want to 'trick' us into
doing that. What would be the point? God would know we were not
choosing a relationship with Him freely of our own accord. After all,
there is no such thing as real love in any forced marriage.
Look, you arent about to change my mind. But thats not because I
havent given your side a fair shake. I was on that side for decades.
On the other hand, it is wildly apparent that you have never given
serious consideration to any point of view outside your own. You
have your belief, and only consider ideas that support your
conclusion. Fine.
If you are interested in discovering more about these "proofs,"

begin by studying the books listed in the Footnotes. The extensive
lists for further research found in any of Josh McDowell's books will
provide dozens of additional sources of information.
The truth is, you do already have a deep understanding of my

position regarding Christianity because you hold exactly the same
position I do regarding every other religion. You and I are both
non-believers when it comes to Ganesh, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, and
thousands of other gods. I just dont believe in your god either.
Another highly regarded author and speaker in the field of

apologetics is Ravi Zacharias - a visit to his site can be very
enlightening: http://www.rzim.org
If you are not a Christian, and have read this far, you are very close
to finding, and knowing the God who is Truth. Fortunately, it is not
necessary to understand everything to begin a eternal relationship
with Jesus Christ, so you can start right now! After becoming a
Christian, you will have the advantage of the Holy Spirit's assistance
in the process of learning more about Christ, and living life as a
Christian.
If you are not sure if you are born again if you are not sure that
you have eternal life here is a model prayer that you can pray
now and experience the spiritual re-birth promised to all who
receive Christ.
The following is a good example of what you should express to
God:
DEAR LORD, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE NOT LIVED UP TO
YOUR PERFECT STANDARD, AND I HAVE SINNED AGAINST
YOU IN MANY WAYS. LORD JESUS, I WANT TO KNOW YOU
PERSONALLY AND RECEIVE THE NEW BIRTH THAT YOU
PROMISE TO GIVE TO THOSE WHO ASK. I AM DEEPLY
GRATEFUL THAT YOU DIED ON THE CROSS FOR MY SINS. I ASK
YOU NOW TO FORGIVE MY SINS, AND COME INTO MY LIFE BY
YOUR HOLY SPIRIT. HELP ME BECOME MORE LIKE YOU EVERY
DAY. MAKE ME THE KIND OF PERSON YOU WANT ME TO BE. I
RECEIVE YOU NOW AS MY SAVIOR AND LORD. IN THE NAME
OF JESUS I PRAY. AMEN.
If you sincerely prayed that prayer you have just become a
Christian! It is very important that you tell someone about it and
find a Bible-believing church where you can learn more about
Christ, and meet other believers who can help you know more
about living the Christian life. If you would like to receive the bestselling book More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell (free of
charge) just drop me an email with your postal mailing address - to:
DonLeander@gmail.com
FOOTNOTES
God does not provide totally free will. Even you admitted there are
times he will interfere with free will.
I would just like to say to anyone else who might stumble across
this document, that its not the end of the world to lose your faith. If
you are not sure what you believe, thats alright. Dont sweat it. To
borrow the bumper sticker phrase, you can be good without god. If
you have I love Jesus bumper stickers or bible verse tattoos and
youre not sure you still believe, not to worry, just accept those as
part of the history of your journey. You would not be who you are
without that in your past. And you are worthy of love. You are
worthy of acceptance. You were not born sinful. You can choose
what your purpose is. We have but this one short life and it is
enough. Be humble, for you are made of earth. Be noble, for you
are made of stars.
Dons blog
CLOSING STATEMENTS
The following titles are excellent sources for further research.
1
The first ten myths have been quoted, and edited, from The Word
In Life Study Bible (Thomas Nelson Publishers, page 732), and was
originally adapted from the book, The Ten Favorite Myths People
Believe About Christianity, published by Lion Publishing, 1705
Hubbard Ave., Batavia, IL 60510.
2
A Ready Defense: The Best Of Josh McDowell, by Josh McDowell,

Here's Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA
3
What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?, by Dr. D. James Kennedy,

Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville.
4
Creation And Time, by Dr. Hugh Ross ( http://www.Reasons.org )
Several books clearly demonstrate the problems with the "macroevolutionary" hypothesis as an obstacle to the Christian faith. A few
of the best are: Darwin's Enigma, by Luther Sunderland; The Origin
of Species Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and of Abrupt
Appearance, by Wendell Bird; Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by
Michael Denton. Also of interest are the books by Dr. Hugh
Ross: Creation And Time, and The Creator And The Cosmos.
6
The February 1977 issue, as quoted in What If Jesus Had Never

Been Born?, by Dr. D. James Kennedy, Thomas Nelson Publishers,
Nashville, TN.
7
Rene Pache, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (Moody

Press, Chicago, 1970), p. 18, as quoted in Heaven Better By Far by
J. Oswald Sanders (Discovery House Publishers, Grand Rapids, MI,
1993), p. 111.
8
The Letters Of Paul, US News & World Report, p. 67, December 10,
1990.
9
Dark Secrets Of The New Age, by Texe Marrs, Crossway Books.
One of the most readable, and interesting books on

Christian apologetics and the claims of Christ is: Who Is This Jesus? by
Prof. Michael Green, Oliver Nelson Publishers.
The 14 Myths has been written for non-commercial /
educational use only. This essay may not be reproduced except for
private use, and may not be sold.
RETURN TO TOP
Karens Response

14 So-Called Myths About Christianity

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

14 So-Called Myths About Christianity

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Dons blog

JESUS CHRIST WAS ONLY A GREAT MORAL TEACHER

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT JESUS ROSE FROM THE

SCIENCE IS IN CONFLICT WITH CHRISTIAN FAITH

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE, ALL RELIGIONS

CHRISTIANITY IS JUST A CRUTCH FOR THE WEAK

PEOPLE BECOME CHRISTIANS THROUGH SOCIAL

CHRISTIANITY STIFLES PERSONAL FREEDOM

CHRISTIANITY IS OTHER-WORLDLY AND IRRELEVANT TO

THE BIBLE IS UNRELIABLE AND CAN NOT BE TRUSTED

ALL THE EVIL AND SUFFERING IN THE WORLD PROVE

THERE ARE SO MANY HYPOCRITES IN THE CHURCH I

ONE'S RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE IS A PRIVATE MATTER

WHATEVER MAKES YOU FEEL CLOSE TO GOD IS OK AS

ALL THE GOOD THINGS I'VE DONE WILL OUTWEIGH THE

God has given enough evidence of His working in history to provide

You confuse knowledge with force. Aligning the stars, or whatever

If I were to know God exists, I might choose to follow him. If,

In my experience, examples of things that Christians use to point

Go for the truth about spiritual growth. If we're going to be restored

MYTH #1 JESUS CHRIST WAS ONLY A GREAT MORAL TEACHER

This Liar-Lunatic-Lord argument is so old and tired, it has already

MYTH #1 JESUS CHRIST WAS ONLY A GREAT MORAL TEACHER

> He claimed to forgive people's sins (Matt. 9:2; Luke 7:47-48).

Whats interesting here is how this story contradicts the Christian

> He accepted people's worship (Matt. 8:2-3; 9:18-19; 14:33).

The people in Matthew 8 and 9 knelt before Jesus to beg favors,

MYTH #1 JESUS CHRIST WAS ONLY A GREAT MORAL TEACHER

Here, Jesus makes a case that he has a special relationship with

Not sure why it matters so much that he claims he has come to

Its easy to be quoted as having predicted something when the

> He claimed that humanity would ultimately be accountable

MYTH #1 JESUS CHRIST WAS ONLY A GREAT MORAL TEACHER

> He claimed to be God and allowed others to call Him God

To believe that Jesus was simply a great moral teacher is untenable.

MYTH #2 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD

MYTH #2 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD

And no wonder. If true, the resurrection is the most amazing news

planets. As part of my proof, I point to L. Ron Hubbards writings on

In all my years of conversations with believers and non-believers, I

MYTH #2 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD

(3) Jesus appeared after His death to many witnesses. In a

might say than in actually engaging and understanding them.

Again, your claim is according to the maybe-true-maybe-not bible. I

Yes, the bible tells us he appeared to many witnesses. And so many

MYTH #2 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD

(4) Countless people have encountered the living Jesus and

It really is remarkable how you are so determined to show how

Clearly, the heart of the Christian faith is the resurrection. Without it

Certainly, the resurrection is fundamental to the Christian religion. If

Whether the letter to the Corinthians was really written by Paul

MYTH #2 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD

MYTH #3 SCIENCE IS IN CONFLICT WITH CHRISTIAN FAITH

I would restate this as Christian Faith is in Conflict with Science.

MYTH #3 SCIENCE IS IN CONFLICT WITH CHRISTIAN FAITH

Today many people reject Christianity for similar reasons. We live in

This so-called misconception is not widely held in the scientific

MYTH #3 SCIENCE IS IN CONFLICT WITH CHRISTIAN FAITH

Looking at your list of scientists, some of them were Deists rather

Comparative Anatomy Georges Cuvier

Pasteurs commitment to his Catholic faith is in dispute.

Computer Science Charles Babbage

Babbage was a proponent of natural theology and

Dimensional Analysis Lord Rayleigh