"there is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, that is something you take on blind faith"

I was in the gym today, and I started talking with a guy I know from local atheist circles.  When we were talking he said "Robin you seem like such a reasonable guy, but you are always talking about the resurrection of Jesus.  And we know that there is no evidence for it and you just believe it on blind faith"

Now I am just going to address the idea of minimal evidence.  As many people know I came to faith in Jesus based on the evidence of resurrection.  I would love to do a longer blog about the entire cumulative case and I will soon.  But for now I will stick to what I talked about today at the gym.

I said to him that the consensus of critical scholarship agrees with 3 historical facts.

1.  The tomb of Jesus was discovered empty by a group of his women followers on the Sunday following his crucifixion

2. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with someone whom they believed to be the risen Christ Jesus

3. As a result of these experiences the disciples who held the resurrection (that they saw him touched him, spoke with him) at the centre of their belief formed the early church in the very city that these events happened in Jerusalem and then grew from there.


What will shock many atheists about these 3 facts is that these are not questionable facts.  From atheist to christian scholar they agree.  they are not questionable facts.  If you want to check it out for yourself go online or even ask local history professors.  Ive done it, when I was 16 I didn't have google and a computer so I went to UBC and asked.  I asked my high school teachers, I asked my friends high school teachers.  I went to Langara and asked.  So just ask.

The question is, what do we do with these facts?  First we have to decide on the data to be considered, and it is these 3 facts.  Next we have to decide what is the most likely explanation of these facts?  First I can tell you there is no conceivable naturalistic explanation to these facts.  You will hear many explanations but none will hold up.  So why don't people accept that it is possible that Jesus rose from the dead?  Even people like Bart Ehrman (who is a very liberal atheist scholar) agree with the 3 facts.  It is because they are philosophical naturalists.  They have a antisupernatural bias going into the question.  So a resurrection is not a possible explanation. 

So I leave it to you.  What do you do to explain these 3 facts?  It is a huge question and anyone who says it is meaningless is plain wrong.  If a carpenter was walking around saying he was God, was crucified for saying that and then rose from the dead that changes everything.  EVERYTHING.  When I was first interested in Christianity I said to myself, what if this is true?  It would mean that there is a creator and author of the universe and my life, how do I relate with him?  It would mean that I have incredible value, and worth that no one could ever take away from me.  So it was worth looking into. 

Let me also say that as a Christian the primary way that I know the resurrection is true is because I feel the presence of God and the Holy Spirit witnesses to me that it is true.  This is how most people know the resurrection to be true around the world.  But I was led there by the evidence, and anyone who says that there is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is plain wrong and literally the weight of the worlds historians is against them.  When they say this they are showing their own bias.

Robin

"God doesnt exist and we can prove it because of unanswered prayer"

I was in a class today and on the lunch break me and a fellow student started talking about God and he said that he knows God doesn't exist because of unanswered prayer.  I said that this is a problem to be taken seriously and if he was interested in talking about it.  So we spent a half hour talking about it over lunch.

First let me say that this was an objection that really caught me when I started learning apologetics.  I was chatting with this one very active atheist here in Vancouver and he said he asked me if I thought God answered prayers, I said I definitely believe he does He has many times in my life.  Then he replied with "I guess he never answers amputees then"  I was caught off guard and did not have an answer. 

So how can we address the problem of unanswered prayer?

First I think its important to recognise that most people will only accept an answer of YES.  But God does not always answer yes.  He can answer three ways.  Yes, No and not yet.

I know that God has said no to me many times, and now I can say I am happy he did.  God has an eternal perspective.  He knows what is really important.  He knows when I ask for things that will actually end up hurting me, or that will cause me to drift away from him or may go against His plan.

But what about prayers for healing?  What about the amputee?  I would say that with prayers like these God answers "not yet"  it is the Christian worldview that life does not end at the grave.  We believe that we will be resurrected and receive new resurrection bodies.  We look forward to this day.  Also we know that Gods ways are actually higher than our ways so we cant always understand why God says yes, no or not yet.  But it makes sense considering both the Christian and the Atheist know we are only here for a blink of an eye as far as the universe is concerned. 

Think about what God's goals are for us.  His goals are not to create a perfect life for us.  We are not God's pets.  His goal is for the most amount of people to come into a loving relationship with him freely.

So we have to take the humble position of saying that indeed all prayers are answered, but we don't know why prayers receive other answers than yes.

There are answers though that always receive an answer of yes.  If we ever ask for forgiveness (1John 1:9) or salvation (Romans 10:13) God will always answer yes.  You can have total confidence that if you ask God for forgiveness and salvation he will answer yes and will make it evident to you through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit

"The Bible is full of contradictions! you cant trust it!"

Well this is something I hear all the time and I am sure you whether you are atheist or theist have heard it many times as well.  Just yesterday I was pointed towards a website by a guy I got chatting with as we were having coffee that proclaims there are over 1500 full blown contradictions.  Now first I will tell you this is a powerful claim.  Is it totally off base?

First thing I always ask people when they say this is "can you name a couple?" the answer is usually no, but not always.  The fellow I was chatting with did know two "contradictions" and they are tough ones.  First was "How did Judas die?"and second "at what time was Jesus crucified?"

So the first thing you have to do is identify exactly what we are talking about, so with Judas we are talking about the 2 descriptions of his death.  Matthew says that he hanged himself, but in the book of Acts Luke says that Judas fell down and burst open and his intestines spilled out.  So the question is how did he die, and is this a contradiction?

What is the Law of Non Contradiction? The Second Law of Logic, the Law of Non Contradiction, says that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense. So can both of these descriptions of Judas' death be true?  Neither one negates the possibility of the other so this is not a contradiction.  What happened with Judas is that he went out and hung himself, then later he fell probably due to the weight on the branch and when he hit the ground split open.  When you examine the two accounts a bit closer you see Matthew being specific in that Judas hanged himself, and in Acts you do not see how he died.

So next, what time was Jesus crucified?  Now I will tell you I struggled with this for a while.  I had it come up in conversations and did not have an answer.  But the good thing about those times is that we can get excited to learn more so that next time we will have an answer.  Also remember that it is perfectly fine to admit that you don't know.  We don't need to know everything to prove God.  Its humble and acceptable to tell the person that you don't know but that you will look into it and get back to them in a week or so.

 So in Mark 15:25 Jesus is crucified at the third hour and in John 19:14 Jesus was crucified at about the sixth hour.  Obvious contradiction right?  Well we need to look a bit deeper.  When we read any book, especially a book not from our culture and time period we have to do a little digging and understand context.  I'm sure everyone has heard "context is everything"

The difference here is in the Jewish times of the day and the Roman time of day which is the same as the one we use today.   

Third hour--6am-9am
Sixth hour--9am-12pm
Ninth hour--12pm-3pm
Twelfth hour--3pm-6pm
First Watch--6pm-9pm
Second Watch--9pm-12am
Third Watch--12am-3am
Fourth Watch--3am-6am

So as you can see Mark is just using the Jewish time system and John is using the Roman.  Hence not a contradiction.

So we spoke for another hour or so and had a good hearted argument about the Bible, and it was fun. 

"Believing in God is just as silly as believing in Santa Claus"

I encounter this objection weekly Id guess.  I was just talking about this online now, which reminded me of a few experiences Ive had.  Ive had many people believe this to be a knockdown argument and never expect a comeback or refutation.  Richard Dawkins uses this idea quite a bit.

So as people get older they lose their belief in Santa Claus but the same is not always true with God, why is that?

People will say that there is no evidence for God, and there is no evidence for Santa so its the same type of belief.  Now obviously I believe there is tremendous evidence for God but I will not explore that in this blog entry.  I will stick with the ideas of why we lose belief in Santa and not the same with God.

The reason people stop believing in Santa is not because of lack of evidence.  It is because of positive evidence against the existence of Santa.  There is no one at the north pole, no one delivering presents on Christmas etc. 

Now what about God.  Is there any positive evidence against God?  In thousands of years no one has come up with an argument that will hold up.

Ask any criminologist, you cannot prove something is untrue based on lack of evidence.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So we are left at this point with no evidence against God, so that alone will show that you cant compare God with Santa Claus.  Now of course there are many objections to the existence of God such as the existence of evil and such.   But no one considers this evidence against God.  This blog is about answering those questions and if I haven't already done so that is one of my favourite questions so I will get on it very soon

"Santa Claus is an Ido, a dangerous storyl and Christians shouldnt acknowledge him"

today at the gym I was chatting with a local Christian guy who doesn't like the Christmas season and had a lot of angry things to say about Santa.  He was saying that Santa is a dangerous story that that's emphasis off of Jesus.

So we spoke for quite a while about Christmas in general but mainly about Santa.  Santa Claus is actually the Anglicized form of the Dutch name Sinter Klass which is a reference to Saint Nicholas.  Saint Nicholas was a Christian bishop who gave gifts to children in need.  Also Saint Nicholas was at the council of Nicea in 325 AD.

the council of Nicea constructed the Nicene creed which supported the doctrine of the Trinity.  So personally my favourite thing about talking about Santa Claus is that he leads into a discussion about the Trinity.  I will expand about the Trinity in a future blog as I do have many conversations about this doctrine. 

As we get closer to Christmas  we can look to Saint Nicholas as a strong Christian leader and one who gave gifts to children and the poor.  We should follow his example.

"Isn't Christmas just an old Pagan festival?"

While I was on the bus today, I asked a guy if he was looking forward to Christmas.  He said Christmas was such a joke and that people don't seem to realize that Christmas is just an old Pagan festival.   I noticed that all the ears on the bus then turned to us as they usually do on the bus.  People intently listen but don't want to get caught eavesdropping so they don't make eye contact. :)

So first I said that I wanted to acknowledge that this is actually close to the truth.  Back in the day the Romans did celebrate the winter solstice on Dec 25 (incorrectly because the solstice is on the 21st) and had the Pagan feast of the Unconquerable Sun.   He seemed to be very pleased, because he said he knew it was Pagan just didn't know the name of the festival.

Second I explained that Christmas did not evolve out of this festival but was set up in rivalry to it.  Christmas(Christ's Festival) was set up to celebrate and announce Christ's superiority over all other superstitions and gods such as the sun god.

Today those Roman Gods and superstitions are forgotten, but we still celebrate that God Himself entered into history and saved us.  The evidence of his life abounds, both in history and in the changed lives of Christians today who have had a personal encounter with him.

I gave him my email and I hope we can talk again soon

"I don't like you Christians, because you get to repent last minute on your deathbeds and be saved!"

Recently I was in a pub with a friend.  Me and my friend were having a
beer at the bar while a guy next to me was listening to what we were talking about
We were talking about Christian summer camp, church, Jesus and such.  So the
Guy turned to me and said "If you don't mind, can I tell you what I don't like about
Christians?"  I say "of course, Id love to hear it."  He said "you Christians get to
repent on your deathbed.  You can live your life however you want and then
at the last minute bam! there you go right into heaven.  As a Jew I find this offensive
because people like that don't deserve to be forgiven and let into heaven. 
This would mean that even Hitler could have repented last minute in his bunker!!!"

I said to him, "I find this very surprising to hear from a Jewish person." which made his face
light up in surprise.  "Israel's story is a story of grace. Why did God save his people out of Egypt in the Exodus?"  He said "what do you mean?" "I meand id he save them because they deserved it? Because of their good works?  Because of their long term commitment?  "He then said "Uh, I don't like where this is going"(I wont forget that one) I said God saved his people because they cried out to Him, and he saved them
because of His grace.  (Exodus 3)

We had a good laugh and we spoke a bit more over a beer and have spoken a couple times since.  What I think is important here is the idea that people say the New Testament is about Grace and the Old Testament about works and the law.  This is not true, the Bible is one story.  God's story.  I also often hear that people like the NT God  rather than the OT God.  He is the same, yesterday today and tomorrow.  The OT is a story of grace, the NT is a story about grace.  God's grace abounds and is amazing.




People are uncomfortable about the idea of terrible people becoming Christians at the last minute.  Why? because they don't deserve to be saved?  What if a murderer or a rapist got saved last minute? or a regular person who lived in rebellion to God? or a person who never even cared? or you or me?  Whether we are following God for 50 years or 5 minutes, God has grace for all.  It is Amazing Grace.  We love that song, but do we remember who wrote it? John Newton, former Slave Trader! Yes I just said Slave Trader.  No way he deserved it.  Why was he saved?  Because he cried out to God in the same way God's people called out to him in Egypt.

No one deserves it, no one.  I often ask Christians if they know if they are saved and if so how?  A
common response is "yes I am saved and I am trying my best to live a good life".
While this is good, salvation is because of Gods grace alone.  We cannot live
a good enough life to deserve it.

So that a short entry from a story from a little while ago, I thought I should do a quick blog about it.

"Well, if God created everything then who created God?"

   So I head this the other day as I was of course in a coffee shop in my neighborhood.  My favorite thing about reading my Bible or Christian themed books in the coffee shop is that in this city (which is world famous for being one of the most Atheistic cities in north America) is that you don't have to bring study questions, because the people in the coffee shop will ask you hard questions every time.

  So I am there reading away, and this fellow stands over my table as he is passing by and says you don't really believe that stuff do you?  I love this question by the way, I understand it offends many Christians.  But I love that people take a stance one way or another.  The hardest thing that I encounter is people who could care less about issues such as the Bible or God.  So I say, "Yes I do, I'm surprised that you don't, why don't you sit down and tell me why you don't believe the Bible?  So he gladly sat down and said to me, "The Bible says that God created everything, but that's a circular argument because who created God?!" he giggled and waited for my answer.  I had seen this many times before, many people expect that this is the first time we have heard this question and that it is a knock down argument and there is no answer to it.  Well actually I have been hearing this question since long before I was a Christian, in fact I remember hearing it on the playground of my elementary school.  I don't mean to be dismissive but really its a playground type question. 

  So, first off Christians dont believe in a "created God" and the question assumes that God is created and created Gods dont exist.  It is impossible for a timeless and spaceless being to come into existence, no thesit believes in a "created" God.  I showed him from John chapter 1 that people who believe the Bible believe in an uncreated God. Then I went ahead and asked the man "if we were to find machinery on the dark side of the moon, would we be reasonable to assume that it came from intelligence? or would we have to first assume that that said machinery formed itself by natural causes?"  He said that It would obviously be from an alien race. I then asked if we would first need to know who that alien race was and know about them before we would pause at the answer that that machinery was produced by them?"  He said no.  "So why then do we need to know who made God before we can pause at the answer that God created the universe?" "In order to recognize that an explanation is best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation."  Also now because of the Big Bang, we can understand that the universe, all matter, energy time and space came into existence.  Something must have caused this because everything that comes into being has a cause.  This cause must be timeless, space less, and supernatural, since acted outside of time space and nature.  That sounds like what we usually call God.  We chatted for another 20 minutes and exchanged numbers.  I'm expecting to meet up next week.

I will expand further in another blog but for now, the main ideas are, that for in order to recognize that an explanation is best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation.  You can used examples like machinery on the moon or finding artifacts here through archaeology. Also talk about what could have caused the universe to come into existence at the big bang.

 Karl Sagan is famous for saying "In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?" [Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 257]

  In our age of astrophysical cosmology we just cant stop at the idea that the universe has always existed.  Because of the Big Bang we understand that the universe came into being, so that points to a transcendent cause of the universe.  I still meet people who believe that the universe is eternal, but really they just haven't caught up with contemporary cosmology.

Its my goal to keep these blogs short and just talk about my experiences, so I know there is tons of more information but Ill share it in another entry.

Paul at the end of his life (2Timothy)

I just thought I would check in with a quick blog.  I was reading 2Timothy today and listening to the corrosponding lecture from my class at Regent College New Testament Foundations.  The setting is that Paul is in Jail at the end of his life.  He is in a terrible place, the roman prison.  He knows that anyday now the guards will come and take him away to be exectued.  It is in this place that Im sure Paul would ask himself the most important questions of all.  Will Paul one day be resurrected just like Jesus?  Did he make the right choice to follow Jesus?  Is all of this that he has come to believe true?  The answer is yes.  I find the book of 2 Timothy amazing against this backdrop.

The instructor at Regent (Rikk Watts) said "2000 years later people are naming their dogs Nero, and their daughters Pauline, and their sons Paul.  The only kingdom on which the sin never sets, with Rome in ruins is the Christian Church"

So did Paul make the right decision?  Yes.  Paul met Jesus, and he helpped change the world.  As I share the gospel with people I often think of Paul.  I can picture my Christian family tree all the way back to him maybe.  He shared the gospel with people who shared it with others and onto other and others down through the centuries and then with me.  When I share the good news I try to keep in mind how real it was to Paul.  How important it was to Paul.  I wonder if he could have pictured just how far God would take what Paul did in faith.

"who needs apologetics? you cant argue anyone into the kingdom"

I am amazed to hear this objection from Christians all the time.  I have been told apologetics has no value because you cant argue anyone into the kingdom of God.  First I am amazed that people don't seem to thing God can or does use evidence and argument to reach people.  God uses many things to reach people.  Also I know quite a few people who throw themselves into theology without any reasons to believe in God except faith and a feeling.  I can understand that, I think that is the way 90% of people become Christians.  I myself believe the truth of the gospel because of the witness of the Holy Spirit.  That is how I know my faith to be true.  But how do I show it? How am I encouraged when feeling low? Evidence and argument.  No matter what my feelings are, facts are facts.  In Vancouver today it is harder and harder to share the gospel with people without being told that Christianity is a fairy tale, or that believing in God is silliness.  The very reason for this blog is that I run into objections very often!

    I was motivated to write this today because I was sitting in a coffee shop with a friend of mine who has no interest in apologetics but loves God and loves scripture.  We were having a great chat, then someone overheard our talk and joined in.  He said "you two are just Christians because your parents are Christians." Well neither of our parents are Christians.  He then said you are just Christian because you need faith in an afterlife because you are afraid of death"  (Ill address this objection in a future blog) we both said that was not the case.  He then said "there are no actual reasons for believing in God, all you have is faith in your holy book"

My friend must have thought I paid this fellow to bring up these objections :)  He talked a bit about faith and how God has shown up in his life.  I think this is very powerful evidence!  Most Christians don't understand that their testimony is evidence and apologetics.  But he then had a few more objections so I talked with him about the origin of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, the information and intelligence in DNA,and the existence of absolute morals.  It was a lot to talk about but he was very interested and a confrontational conversation ended with us exchanging numbers so we could meet again for coffee after he had examined these issues.


I believe all of us Christians in the western world are so blessed that we have the resources to research evidence for God.  We have the time, the money, and the availability of resources.  I would like to encourage all Christians to always have an answer for the hope they have and to be able to give this answer with gentleness and respect.(1Peter 3:15)  If you are looking for a place to start I would suggest starting with how to prove the Bible is reliable and unique.  I promise in as little as two hours you can be incredibly equipped and it will motivate you to take your education further.

Personally I have to say again, one benefit of apologetics is that it clears the roadblocks that people put up before hearing the gospel.  But another benefit is when Christians are in dark or dry places.  No matter what is happening in my life, Jesus still rose from the dead.  No matter how I am feeling, the Bible is proven to be reliable and unique.  Even if I am feeling lost and alone and don't understand God's plan, God has moved in history and we can know it!

"What does it matter that the disciples died for their faith? Lots of different people die for their faiths"

I was proposed this at summer camp this past summer.  Especially in the last 10 years it has become well known that people are willing to die for what they believe in.  On average 171,000 Christians are martyred every year, but we also see people from the Muslim world willing to die for their faith.  So how can we Christians claim the validity of Christianity based on the martyrdom of Christians?

We have to look to the disciples themselves who all except John were executed for their faith.  The disciples did not willingly go to their deaths because of what they had come to believe in.  They went to their executions without recanting because of their confidence in what they saw with their own eyes and touched with their own hands.  This is the difference, people today die for what they believe in, the disciples died for what they knew to be true through evidence.

It is possible that a group of people would be willing to die for a lie, a lie that they thought was true.  We can see this through history, cult groups for example.  But how improbable would it be for a group of people to die for a lie that they KNEW was a lie?  They were all given the opportunity to recant, none of them received power or riches from this.  Also they were proclaiming what they saw in the very city that Jesus was killed and resurrected.   As they got ready to drive 6 inch long spikes through Peter's wrists and feet to hang him on an upside down cross I would think that would be the time to say "hey guys, actually its all a lie" or when they picked up stones to stone James, he could of said "OK everyone you win, we made it all up"  but they didn't, they had confidence in the next life because they saw Jesus in his resurrection body therefore they knew they also would be raised from the dead in glory.

Also it amazes me to hear people propose that the disciples somehow cooked up the story.  First, I would suggest to actually read the New Testament.  If men from the 1st century were writing a story, this would not be it at all! Second what sense would it make to cook up a story that would result in them all being thrown into prison, tortured and eventually killed?  No profits, no power, no sex, nothing along the lines of what people make up stories for.  We have nothing in the history or nature of man to compare this to.

I suggest that the best explanation of these events is that they actually did see what they said they did and what they were martyred for

Particles come into existence out of nothing in the universe, so that explains why we dont need God to have created the universe.

Today on the bus I overheard a guy talking about the beginning of the universe.  I asked if I could join in because it is easily one of my favoirte topics to chat about.  He is an atheist and he was talking about the quantum vaccum.  In the quantum vaccum particles can come into esistence and then dissapear, so from that many atheists believe that is how the universe came into existence at the big bang. 

But, many people have not really looked into what the quantum vaccum really is.  Is it "nothing?" is it really non being?  No, it is a rich sea of energy, and when these particles come into being it is just the universe changing its form of energy.  This is not what the big bang explains.  Before the big bang there was nothing...No energy, no matter nothing.  In the quantum vaccum, you still have the universe.  Before the big bang there was no universe.

Logic and science show us that from nothing, nothing comes. To believe that the universe sprang into existence from non being is to go against science and logic.  There must be a cause to the universe, a cause that is beyond time, beyond matter, beyond energy, beyond space and that leads to what we know as God as the cause of the universe.

"God didnt create the universe, it has always been here"

I am amazed to say I actually hear this objection all the time.  Most people know what the big bang is, and the big bang shows that the universe did have an absolute beginning.  A beginning where all time and space and energy came into existence.  Also everyone seems to know that something does not come from nothing.  Nothing existed before the big bang.  Nothing.  No matter, no energy, no time.  I was chatting with someone today about this and I said to him if we heard a huge "BANG!" behind us and he asked me "what was that?" and I replied with "nothing" he would not believe me, no one would.  Something does not come from nothing, also life does not come from non life.  Science and logic supports this.  So anyone holding onto the idea of an eternal universe would have to deny either science or logic. 

Christians can get a bad reputation in this town, in my timme out at UBC especially I was called many names, specifically "creationist" with the idea behind it that Christians are people who deny science and follow blind faith.  I have never been this way and I dont know of many Christians that are this way.  It is usually people attacking straw men, because I see Christians being called names like this all the time rather than people trying to get to know them.  I understand that each individual atheist or agnostic is different and I cant judge their beliefs before I know them.  In our multicultural city most people understand this, so I would love to see it pass on to conversations between people on faith.

  I was amazed at the simplicity of William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Arguement. Which is :

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

It is simple and memorizable and everyone has an opinion on it.  Making it a great talking point with people.  When I talk about it with atheists they usually will say things along the line of "most of that is true but not for the universe" when I ask why they usually dont know.  I dont think everyone needs to have an answer on the spot.  I myself will often say to people "I dont know the answer to that can I look into it and we can have a coffee in a week?"  but I do offer for people to take time and look into this arguement but rarely hear anything back.

Also I think a great talking point is if you sit down and find a cup of coffee on the table and it is still warm, you know one thing...that that coffee hasn't been there forever.  According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics we understand that the universe is winding down. Entropy increases.  So from the fact that we have a very young sun, and all the energy in the universe is not already used up, we can know that it has not always been here. 

I just want to add, that on this issue especially both Christians and Atheists can get very upset.  I think all of us humans can get upset or defensive when we get put on the spot and dont know the answer.  But lets always work together and reason together, these conversations should be engaging and even fun.

are all Christians supposed to be apologists?

I can say that my life was revitalized because of apologetics.  I became a Christian when I was 16 and studied the evidence for the resurrection and was very convinced by the weight of the evidence.  But I did hit a time in my life where I stopped going to church and wasn't very involved in the Christian community.  Then one day an atheist friend of mine invited me to watch a debate on the existence of God between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox.  As John Lennox built a case for the existence or God and handled Richard Dawkins objections I was encouraged and excited.  I had to hear more of this.  I must have watch that debate like 10 times.  Next I discovered William Lane Craig when I was searching youtube for God debates.  I was amazed seeing these debates at the top universities with top scholars.  I became so hungry for more information.  I downloaded hundreds of podcasts, and discovered iTunes U.  I went out to Regent College on a pretty regular basis to buy audio recordings of the classes because I cant afford to take the classes there.  I got deeply involved in a local church and the Christian community.  I read the Bible like never before.  I truly was revitalized.

The more I learned the more I found myself in conversations with Atheists, Agnostics and other Christians.  I still have not had a bad experience talking with Atheists and Agnostics because I always think of 1Peter 3:15 " But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect"  we should never quarrel or fight with others over this issue, so even when I have been attacked verbally I remember "gentleness and respect"

But I have had a few interesting experiences with Christians.  I have met a few Christians who cant communicate what they believe and why they believe.  So I have tried to encourage them to start to study apologetics so they can give an answer for the reason they believe.  I hear quite regularly that they are not interested in apologetics or that they are not interested in apologetics.  I understand we are not all the same, and I am glad everyone is not just like me, one of me is quite enough haha.  But Christians need to take Peter's words seriously.  We all must be able to give a reason for the hope we have.  We don't need to all go out and become the next William Lane Craig, but we do all need to be able to answer a few questions.  What do you believe and why do you believe it?

I would say it really doesn't take too long to learn a couple answers to the most frequently asked questions.  Such as, "is the Bible reliable?" or "did Jesus really leave an empty tomb behind?" so I would like to encourage you to learn just a couple of these issues.  So I would suggest starting with the reliability of the Bible or the resurrection or maybe even the fine tuning of the universe.  I guarantee an exciting journey, and it will further equip you to share the gospel with a world in need of Jesus.

Where did Cain's wife come from?

I havent heard this objection in a while but heard it today in a coffee shop.  A friend and myself were chatting about God and this guy who had overheard us talking asked us this question.  My friend said that its an easy question and the answer is that God just created a wife for Cain.  Is this the answer?

First I have to say that of all the things in the bible that people honestly object to or have a hard time understanding I dont run into this very often.  But it is a question and it deserves and answer

I can understand why my friend would think that God just created a wife for Cain, but that is reading meaning into the text, rather than reading the meaning of the text.  We read in Acts 17:26 that "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live."  so we can see that God did not supernaturally create other people.  Also in Genesis 1:28 we read that God said to Adam and Eve "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

So from these texts we can see that from one man all of mankind was born and that Adam and Eve were fruitful and multiplied.  So it makes sense that Cain would have married either his niece or sister.

Now that is very hard for us to understand today.  I could never participate in this, but this is how the human population started, and it makes sense.  Also God did prohibit incest in to law in Leviticus 18:9

Its not an easy answer, its not a comfortable answer but it is the truth.  When we can answer these questions rather than deflecting them we can move onto other questions and take down roadblocks to the Gospel

Also I have to say on the lighter side, when I was searching for an image to use for this blog Pictures of John McCains wife kept coming up, so that made me laugh :)

"you are atheist towards Santa Claus, Zeus, Posidon etc...I just go one God futher"

I hear this line repeated all the time.  Is almost like a mantra for some atheists.  Hearing it many times does not make it a logical arguement.  Also this statement doesnt address the real issue at all. Atheists will say that that we stop believing in these Gods and characters like Santa and the Easter bunny because of lack of evidence.  So why not go one God further?

The reason we do not belive in Santa is not because of lack of evidence, but because there good evidence that no such person exists!  There is no one who has a toy shop at the north pole and flying around on a sleigh on christmas eve.  The same goes for the easter bunny, Zeus etc.  There is good evidence that these Gods and characters do not exist.

In contrast to the Christian God, not only is there good evidence that God exists, but atheists cannot produce good evident that God does not exist.  Im sure you will hear "you cannot prove a universal negative", or "you cannot prove the non existence of a thing"

You can prove the non existence of a thing such as Santa, the tea pot orbiting the earth, the flying spagetti moster and Zeus.

So when it comes to the claim "God does not exist" this holds a burden of proof that no atheist can bear.  They should make more humble claims like that they are not convinced by the evidence or that they dont know if God exists.

"Can we be good without God?" "I dont need the Bible to tell me whats moral or not"

I think this is one area of arguement that anyone can have an opinion on.  I hear it a lot recently.  Christians will bring up the idea that morals are grounded in the nature of God and that He has written them on our hearts. Atheists often confuse this arguement with that they cannot be moral people.  In fact as Christians we believe you dont need the bible to know whats moral but that God himself has written the moral code on all of humankind's hearts.

The arguemnet lies in what is the basis for morals and do absolute morals exists?

I was recently in a conversation with friends, where they were talking about the horrors commited in the name of God and religion.  The crusades, religious intollerance etc.  I think that most people will affirm that absolute morals do indeed exist.  While I was in school we were always taught that "everything is relative" but I rarely see that being believed and put into peoples lives.  As my friends and I were discussing this topic, we did agree on the idea that somethings are really right, and somethings really wrong. 

As they said that God does not exists because of all the evil that religion causes, I said that it is true that a lot of evil is done in the name of religion, but in the case of Christianity it is the people acting outside of the Christian worldview who are commiting these evil acts.  Jesus never acted in these ways or condones this behavior.  Also this behavior is actually anti biblical.  It goes against what the Bible teaches.  Remember how when they came to arrest Jesus, and Peter pulled his sword and cut off the guards ear.  Jesus told Peter to put his sword away and healed the guards ear. 

Next I asked why they believed theseacts to be evil.  I then heard arguements such as "its wrong to hurt others, its wrong to take away someones freedom, its wrong to kill, its wrog to torture, its wrong to take away peoples possesions" etc etc.

I asked where these absolute moral standards came from.  If we are products of naturalism, where in naturalism can morals come from?  When a lion kills another animal, its kills it...it doesnt murder it.  Or when a pack of hyeanas take a fresh kill away from a leopard, they take it they dont steal it.  Because animals are not moral creatures.

If our origins are only naturalistic how could we have come up with this morality.  Philosopher Michael Ruse says “morality is a biological adaptation no less than our hands or feet or teeth.  Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.  I appreciate when someone says love thy neighbor as thyself they think they are referring above and beyond themselves never the less such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction and any deeper meaning is issusory”

 But if you do observe abolute morals, that some things are truly right and some things truly wrong, then you must agree that God exists.  Because without God as the source of the moral code, who can say what is right or wrong.  Who can say that behaviors we observe in the animal kindom are truly wrong only when they happen to us humans?  Without God as the objective standard for the moral code then we are just floating around in relativism and we have no right to say what is right or wrong, good or evil.

But we do observe moral absolutes, to not would make life unlivable.  Therefore God exists. 

"There are no writings from eyewitnesses of Jesus in the bible"

As I was riding the skytrain today I overheard people behind me laughing at christians and discussing how silly the bible is especially since there are no writings in the Bible by eyewitnesses of Jesus.  I instantly remembered watching Bill Maher's "Religulous" movie.  Where he says more than once that the writers of the New Testament were not eyewitnesses.  He actually says "gospel writers never met Jesus"  "No one who wrote about Jesus ever met him"  I was amazed that this statement actually made it into the movie.  He could have gone to any Bible college, or seminary or contacted any biblical scholar and asked this question, but he didnt.  He went to a truck stop chapel.  Im pretty sure if I was making some kind of documentary against science and went to a grade 8 classroom or interviewed first year biology students, everyone would say that I was choosing the path of least resistence.  I will review religulous some other time, but for now I would say all Christians should watch this movie, so you can learn what the objections to Christianity are.  Then learn the answers to the objections.

So there I am on the skytrain, and I had limited time to talk.  After joining in on the conversation I asked how they came to understand that there were no eyewitnesses to Jesus among the biblical writers.  One guy said "well everyone knows that"

Among the eyewitness to Jesus in the Bible are Matthew, John, Peter, James, Paul. Mark the gospel writer was a close companion of Peter and Luke was examining the evidence, and interviewed eyewitnesses.  Luke is considered to be a reliable historian.

Accoring to Sir William Ramsay who is one of the greatest archaeologists ever said that "Luke is a historian of the first rank ... this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians"

In 2 Peter 1:16 peter says: "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

So I shared what I could in the short time, and they said they would look into it further so I suggested a couple sources.

This issue opens up into a larger one such as were the witnesses credible, and are the documents in the New Testament reliable.  I will blog about those another day.  But for now, the answer to the objection is yes there are writings from eyewitnesses of Jesus in the bible.

"You are only a Christian because you were raised in a christian country"

I got this last week as I was in a coffee shop,I am surprised to hear this objection here as we live in one of the most multicultural cities in the world.  I dont believe anyone would call Vancouver a "christian city" but we do definitely benefit from christian influence.  Things such as "moral standard" and recognizing the intrinsic value of human beings.  But I would not say that people are influenced to become christian based on the culture.


First I would say that the truth of an idea has nothing to do with where it came from.  Democracy is still a great idea and holds truth even though I was raised in a democratic culture.


Second I would point to the countries in which Christianity is exploding.  It is not in the "christian cultures" like the united states but countries like China.  Ive read that there is approximatly 100 million christians in China now, this can not be because it was a christian culture.  In fact christians have been pursecuted in China heavily yet continues to grow rapidly.  The same is true for Christians in countries such as the Phillipines, North Korea, and Islamic countries.  Also christianity was born out of persecution and hardship, yet people held tight to the truth of Christianity even to their deaths.


As much as Christian influence from friends and family and culture does add to the decision making process, the finaly decision is one based on truth not culture.

First blog ever!

Well I thought it was time to give blogging a shot, so Im blogging about my experiences in talking about God's existence in Vancouver which I recently found out is known worldwide as a very atheistic city.  I usually get into a couple conversations/debates a week so I will be talking about them here.  One thing to keep in mind is
1Peter 3:15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect

The gentleness and respect part isvery important.  We should never fight or quarrel on this topic.  As long as we approach God's existence with gentleness and respect we can always foster an open and honest enviornment in which we can exchange ideas.

So cheers to a fun time blogging woooooooooooooooooooooooooo