Month: March 2021

Men And Women Are Different

Is it hateful to think men and women are different? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have said before that I am a gameshow junkie. As I sit here, I have my smart TV in my room playing Buzzr, which plays old classic gameshows. The one on in the morning for me normally is Supermarket Sweep, the original one from the 90’s. This one involves answering questions about various products found in a grocery store.

The final round that determines the winner is based on a race through the store. Up until that point, the questions have been based on earning time for the run. Then, each pair of contestants selects one of them who will run through the store and try to get as much in their cart as possible with some stipulations (No more than five of one item) and rack up the highest total. The winner goes on to have a chance at the prize of $5,000.

All things being equal though, if all players had the same amount of time, I’d generally give earning the most through shopping to the men. There are exceptions, but I generally expect that men will be more capable in this area. Why? Because men are usually the ones who by nature are stronger and faster.

Now in all fairness, I generally think that if it comes to strategy, many a woman might shop smarter. Many women know how to budget very well and how to do smart shopping and generally tend to enjoy shopping more. However, having a good plan doesn’t matter as much if you don’t have the same speed and strength to pull it off.

Unfortunately, in our day and age, it’s automatically assumed that what I have said must be sexist. Consider it like the professor several years ago who said women don’t do as well as men at certain mathematical skills. The outcry was tremendous and while I was not involved in apologetics yet, I remember having one question.

Is he right?

If that is what the evidence shows, then that is what the evidence shows and complaining about it won’t change it. You might say you want to live in a world where that is the case, but if that is not so then that is not so. Now if a woman can improve her skills in this area, that’s wonderful and she can do so if she desires.

Keep in mind also that all that I have said is generalities. There are many women I know personally who are brilliant in mathematics. When I was in high school, I nicknamed our calculus teacher the goddess of mathematics. On the other hand, I know that there are many women who are stronger than I am physically.

And if we’re talking about traits considered masculine and feminine, there are differences. Many men in the gaming sphere like I am in are usually very surprised to encounter a female who has a great interest in video games. Meanwhile, when I was learning to drive, my Dad and I always had communication problems as he would tell me to park next to the Subaru or pull out after the Nissan went by. I would say “What?” and then he would clarify with “The blue car” or something similar. To this day, I couldn’t recognize any of those cars.

The problem too often is that if I say men and women are different, somehow we get an idea in our head that that means one is better than the other and one is superior. There is definitely one area of superiority. Men are superior at being men and women are superior at being women. Unfortunately, in our day and age, we are getting close to the point where men are superior at being women as well.

Men are usually superior when it comes to physical prowess. Again, this is a generality and as has been said about stereotypes, they are always wrong and generally helpful. Women, however, tend to be superior at empathy and gentleness and are superior in beauty. This isn’t just me saying that as a man. Even women are more impressed with their own beauty than that of the male.

Many of us remember when growing up what parent we went to for what. If we fell and skinned our knee and needed someone for that, we went to Mom. Mom was gentle normally and would bandage it and hug us and tell us it would be alright. If we wanted to do something risky, we went to Dad who was more likely to agree to something like that.

We’re now in an age though that is starting to think that someone can change their gender just by changing their physical body, which is also a process of mutilation. Then, men who transition into women can engage in sports that are meant for women to participate in and lo and behold, somehow they seem to win. If this keeps up, we will see the end of women’s sports. Keep in mind I don’t say this as someone who cares for sports at all.

That’s because we now live in a world that wants to blur all the distinctions away. However, even if one does that, someone will always be superior in someway to another and inferior in someway to another. Even identical twins have their differences like this. True equality in that everyone is 100% alike is impossible, and thank God it is. I wouldn’t want to live in a world where everyone was 100% like me. That would be boring.

We are also sadly being moved into a position where the transgender movement cannot be questioned. This is odd since so many skeptics of Christianity think that many Christians grow up in a faith that they are not allowed to question. Sadly, in a large number of cases I am sure this is true. We should always welcome and allow questions.

Suppose we look at a scientific question like evolution. Many scientists will say that the question on evolution is settled. They could be right. However, I would hope that they would not say that the theory cannot be questioned. Where are we if any scientific idea cannot be questioned? The questions could be answered wrongly, but they will likely lead us to other areas of knowledge.

If transgenderism cannot be questioned, then we are in an area of a dogma, a more secular dogma. The left then has their own inquisition. If you dare question the dogma, then you are the heretic (Bigot or whatever other name you want) and have to be shut down. Your ideas are not allowed.

We should ask the questions. Chesterton years ago said before you take down a fence, find out why it was put up in the first place. Why do we say men and women are different? What makes them different? What would happen if we really tried to erase those differences? What would happen if we tried to treat boys like girls and vice-versa?

Men and women really are different, and that’s a good thing. Men are generally stronger in some areas and weaker in others and vice-versa. There are exceptions as there are in most any area, but those are the exceptions that prove the rule. In the past, Gamaliel warned the Jews that by persecuting the apostles, they could find themselves fighting against God. We could find ourselves fighting against reality and that will turn out just as disastrous.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
Support my Patreon here.

Book Plunge: Decoding Nicea

What do I think of Paul Pavao’s self-published book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The Council of Nicea and Constantine. These are two subjects where we have a lot of heat and very little light. Look at a work such as The Da Vinci Code and you’ll find nonsense on there such as that the deity of Christ was decided at Nicea by a very close vote. One lady online told me that she abandoned Christianity when she found out the canon was decided at the Council and proceeded to send me a link that said that that was actually a great myth about the Council.

Paul Pavao has a book to help deal with this. A good benefit of his book is at the start, he’s not just trying to tell the facts about Nicea. He wants you to know how the facts are known. As he says:

You don’t have to wonder about what is being said in this book. You can look up every reference I give. There are not any other primary sources. Everything else said about the Council of Nicea that is not from these sources is speculation or wishful thinking.

He does just this. The book is heavily filled with endnotes. He does look at the debate at Nicea and points out it could be more accurately said that it was about what the Son of God was made of, what is His substance. Much was agreed on at the Council, but what was disagreed on was sure substantial.

This book also includes looking at several references in the church fathers to see what they had to say about the deity of Christ before Nicea. It’s easy to see that there were no innovations at the meeting. The appendices are filled with several historical documents as well.

As it goes into church history, there are looks at other questions as well. One such question I liked is the one on the Sabbath, though I wish there had been more on this. The SDA church lists several claims about the RCC supposedly admitting that they changed the date of the Sabbath. Perhaps that was out of the scope of the book though.

There is rather substantial pushback to RCC claims about the Pope. It would be interesting to see some members of the RCC respond to this. I as a Protestant agree with the claims and am skeptical of many of the claims my Catholic and Orthodox friends make about church history.

I also like the response to the idea that Constantine tried to destroy all the Gnostic writings. As Pavao says:

If Constantine was unable to succeed in extinguishing the memory and writings of Arius, just one man, do we really believe that he destroyed all the gnostic writings and there’s no record of his even trying?

What about the canon? Yep. Nothing to do with Nicea. There is an appendix with the canon lists from church history in the back. I do have some pushback here as I don’t think the Muratorian Canon really dates to the time it’s said to date to and is really a forgery.

Pavao also stresses that it’s a shame that Christians got so violent over the question of Nicea. We spent years working on our doctrine, which we should, but we didn’t spend so much time looking at our practice. Sadly, today we are still in the same boat. While we weren’t killing each other, remember the problems from the Inerrancy wars in the past decade? I am not opposed to Christian debate as we should have that, but too often we are ready to shoot our own instead of going after our own common enemies.

That is another great benefit of the book. The work is not only meant to help clear up myths about Nicea, which it does a great job of, but it also is meant to tell us how we should better live as Christians. Not enough study has been done on this topic and definitely not enough practice. What does it matter if we reached the orthodox position at Nicea if we go out instead and live like heathens?

The book is long, but it is worth it. It is also readily readable for the layman. Anyone can pick up this book and understand it. I encourage Christians and skeptics to do so. There are too many myths believed about Nicea.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth.)
Support my Patreon here.

Is Mega Man A Man?

Is the Blue Bomber really a Mega Man? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This is some stepping out I would like to do combining my love of gaming with theology and philosophy. Thus, I would appreciate any feedback. Is this something you would like to see more of? Even if you’re not a gamer, do you get something out of this?

My introduction to the Mega Man series actually began when a friend of the family gave me Mega Man 2. Like many people, this one is my favorite game in the series. The metal blade is one of the best weapons in the game and it’s got enough challenge without being way too easy.

For those who don’t know, the series Mega Man is set in the distant future where robots are common. Mega Man, the Blue Bomber as his nickname goes, is created by Dr. Light to counter the evil plans of Dr. Wily. Wily will regularly produce a number of robots, typically eight, who specialize in one area with one weapon and Mega Man has to beat them, claim their weapon, and then use that weapon against the others. After beating all of the robots, he goes after Wily himself.

Now with a title like Mega Man, you would think that man is what he is, and mega is what describes him, but is that really so? Is Mega Man a man or not? If he isn’t, what is he? If he is, then is he really the same as us? (Note I am using man in the generic to refer to all of humanity.)

Mega Man is described as a robot throughout the series, but when we think of robots in our world, they’re not really like Mega Man is. After all, Mega Man is deciding which robot he wants to fight when and choosing how to fight all the enemies throughout a level and having to make typical athletic feats like strong Mario style jumps. He can apparently experience what looks to be some degree of pain when he gets hit by an enemy in some way and is knocked back slightly.

The free will issue is a major one. Mega Man behaves like he makes his own decisions. Now we could be pedantic and say he doesn’t make his own decisions but simply does what the player tells him to do, but by this standard every character in a game that is the main character is a robot. That would be another blog in itself.

Mega Man is also shown to often have emotion, such as at the end of one of the games where he is stopped before he almost finishes off Dr. Wily himself in anger. In most every case, Mega Man beats Dr. Wily’s final robot whatever it may be and Wily begs for mercy and Mega Man takes him to prison. This time, Mega Man nearly went against that.

The end of Mega Man 2 is a curiosity to me as you see Mega Man walking away and going through each of the seasons. When the scene ends, you see Mega Man’s helmet just lying on the ground. I always wondered if he somehow became a human or what. It’s never specified.

In the end, I do have to conclude that as much as he is like a human, Mega Man himself is still not really a man. Mega Man is still a robot who changes based on what tools he wishes to use and he lives in a world of robots. When he needs some work done, he still has to go to Dr. Light regularly. In Mega Man 11, he also gets the Double Gear system which changes his data to give enhanced abilities for a limited time to him. Also, whenever he dies, he pretty much explodes with parts of him flying everywhere.

A man is not programmed or mechanical inherently in anyway. I realize we can get parts put in us that are mechanical and I do know that there is talk of transhumanism coming in the future, but even then, we can question if we will cease to be men. We can’t beat our enemies and add parts of them to us really and when we have a problem to be fixed, it’s not inner gear or machinery normally, but rather physiology.

Now some of you might be wondering why as a Christian I am not mentioning the image of God in all of this. It is because I am seeking to go by general revelation alone at this point. You can know what a man is to a good extent without the use of Scripture. You can know that a robot is not a man and vice-versa.

Man also I hold has a soul, an immaterial aspect to him that gives him life. I think there are many good arguments for some kind of dualism and that NDEs have provided excellent evidence that there is some existence outside of the body. I do not see that being the case with Mega Man as he is simply apparently rebuilt and updated with machinery every time.

So Mega Man is someone who we can say is mega, but I don’t think we can call him a man technically. He’s still one of the best heroes that there is in gaming, but he is not a man. He is a robot.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
Support my Patreon here.

Skepticism and Gullibility

Which side has them? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Recently on the Unbelievable Facebook group, there has been a discussion about skepticism and gullibility. The idea is some people are rational and thus skeptical of the fantastic stories in the Bible and God decides to give them Hell for this whereas as the gullible Christians believe everything they read and get rewarded. Some of you are already seeing problems with this.

At the start, it assumes that if someone believes the Bible they must be gullible. Now we could say if someone was skeptical of the Bible, they are a skeptic, but there is a rational skepticism and an irrational skepticism. It is also possible to be a Christian and also have a skeptical mindset. I would describe myself as one such person.

For an irrational skepticism, I was in a discussion not too long ago with someone on Facebook who was making statements about the invalidity of prayer, so I pointed him to Candy Gunther-Brown’s work. He insisted I didn’t know what peer-review was to which I gave a definition. He then wanted to know this work was peer-reviewed. I pointed out it was published by Harvard University Press which does peer-review and that wasn’t enough.

I then emailed the author who told me it went through a rigorous peer-review process since that is what Harvard has. I then had to take a screenshot of the email to show that it was real and that this had been done. Then the skeptic kept insisting I give parts of the book to them so they could see the claims. I was already getting tired of that and decided to move on. I consider this definitely an irrational skepticism.

One other sign of this is that it asks for unreasonable amounts of evidence. If you insist the only way you will believe in Jesus is if you have a personal experience, then there is really no point in debating. After all, you have already decided the evidence will be insufficient.

However, while it is the case that too many Christians can be gullible, atheists can also be gullible. How many buy into the idea that Jesus never even existed as if this is a hot debate in the field of scholarship? What is amusing is how many of these people go after young-Earth creationists.

I realize some of my readers are YECs and I think they would certainly admit that yes, their ideas on the history of Earth are not accepted within the academic community. So are they not outliers like mythicists are? Yes, but there are more PhDs in a relevant field who are YECs than there are in corresponding fields who are mythicists. Not only that, at least YECs can say that they base their arguments on the authority of God, which I can understand even if I disagree. Mythicists don’t have that.

There are other myths that are believed. What about accounts such as millions being killed in the Inquisition? What about the idea that the Middle Ages were a dark period where all science was banned? What about the idea that if you found one contradiction in Scripture that all of theism and Christianity would be disproved?

And where are many of these claims found? On the internet. Ideas that were tossed aside decades ago are given new life on the internet and treated like a big secret that is being covered up. These are conspiracy theories for atheists.

Someone could be a skeptic, read both sides, and decide Christianity has the better arguments. Remember, skepticism is for a purpose. It is to help keep you from believing false beliefs, but it is not to keep you from believing anything and too many Christians and atheists both are very prone to believing something that already agrees with them. (This also happens in politics.)

As for if God will reward someone for being gullible, such a person just goes in the right direction and God doesn’t cast them out because they have bad epistemology. A non-Christian will not be punished because they were skeptics per se. It will be for the sins that they committed. Christianity is a faith that tells us to examine all things and hold to what is true. We should still do that.

I encourage skepticism, especially in the age of the internet. Go out and read the best books as the best material will not be found on the internet, and I say that as one who regularly puts material on the internet. If you are skeptical, be an informed skeptic and not an irrational one.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
Support my Patreon here.

Does Acts 2 Teach Communism?

Was the early church a Communist movement? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In Acts 2, we read about the early church.

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

There are a number of people that look at this and think that this sounds like something Communistic. Don’t they have everything in common? Don’t they sell all their possessions?

However, there are differences.

For one, if a group of people decide to come together and do this on their own without any force, that is not Communism. Communism is done with the government leading the way. Here, there is no central government that is leading the way for the people.

Second, they sold property and gave to those who had need. Not everyone was equal financially because some people had need and some didn’t. The text also says that they met in their homes. That means that some people had homes to meet in. We can also be sure that some things were not in common and understood not to be, such as they weren’t into wife sharing or something similar.

Third, as a Preterist, I contend there’s a reason these people were selling property in Jerusalem. They were sure Jesus was coming some time as He promised to judge the place and bring about destruction. Land values won’t really matter at that point.

Fourth, later on in the text, we see other people selling their land and giving it to the cause. As we see in Acts 4:

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Here, we see the same thing going on. People still have land and people are still selling it and goods are being distributed to people who have need. This is also something the people are entering into willingly.

In Acts 5, we have the chilling case of Ananias and Sapphira.

Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Now this seems like a harsh punishment? Lying about money? What’s the big deal. This was a fledgling church movement and nothing was really done privately. People would find out what happened and if these two got away with it, everyone else could as well. Greed quickly comes into a church and tears it down. Not only that, these people were grabbing honor as if they had given everything when they had not.

Yet note that this is said to be their property. They could do with it what they wanted. They weren’t forced. When they sold it, the money was theirs. If they wanted to, they could have kept some of the money for themselves and just been honest with the apostles about it. Sure, it would have likely been seen as shameful behavior, but it would have been honest.

Next, in Acts 6, Greek widows say they are being overlooked when it comes to the distribution of food as Hebrew widows are getting more. Again, you have people in need and who are they really? They are the people in that society most likely to be unable to provide for themselves. Again, this is not exactly a commune.

Finally, this is the only place we see this happening in the New Testament. It doesn’t show up in any of the churches outside of here. As I contend, there’s a reason that it only happens in Jerusalem.

Now I don’t think Communism is an effective way to care for the poor and capitalism is far better, but that is another post. I could be hypothetically wrong on that and still right on the point about the early church. For now, those wanting to say Communism works better are not going to be benefitted by looking at the early church.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
Support my Patreon here.

Angels and Death

What happens when someone dies? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In Final Fantasy X, when a person dies and doesn’t want to go to the realm of the dead, they interact with beings called pyreflies and become fiends. This is a common motif in many Japanese stories involving those who don’t want to go on and become a whole new creature. Many Christians might look at that and think that that is a creative story, but too many will believe something similar.

I say this because recently, my mother’s brother passed away. Today, there is to be a graveside service and many times, I can anticipate really bad thinking going on among people at Christian services about what happens when people die. One of the common beliefs is that people become angels.

This is not to say that the dead don’t remain in service to God in some way. There are many people who have NDEs who claim that they have encountered loved ones on the other side who have kept them from passing a boundary that would put them in eternity forever and saying it is not their time. I have no problem with such a thing happening.

However, when people die, they still remain being people. Humans are a species of a type that are meant to be embodied, although I think Scripture and NDEs both show that there is reality outside of the body. We are creatures that are naturally at home within the body.

Angels are beings that were created most likely at the start of creation and they are not meant to be embodied beings. They can assume a body if need be, though there is no evidence of demons doing so, but that is not how they naturally exist. Angels are by nature immaterial.

When a person dies, they do not become anything else. They remain fully human. It’s worth noting this is what happens with Jesus as well. Jesus to this day remains fully human as well as fully God.

Whenever we are in eternity, there will always be a distinction between humans and angels. Meanwhile with unbelievers, unbelievers do not become demons when they die. There will always be a distinction between unbelievers and demons.

Also, let’s dispense with ideas that are damaging to those left behind. Sometimes people say God needed another angel, which is especially damaging to children who lose a parent. After all, “Why did God have to take my Mommy like that?”

In the same way, people do not die because God needs them in His service in eternity. Why people die is part of the problem of evil and another question altogether that won’t be addressed here, but for now, I am focused on something else. While the question needs a good answer, let’s make sure at least we don’t give it a bad answer.

People have enough to grieve with when a loved one dies. We might want to say something comforting to those left behind, but let’s not say something that’s false and in the long run, won’t comfort, especially as I said, when children are concerned. Also, for those in apologetics, this is also not a time to discuss the problem of evil. Save it for when someone is not in the midst of the pain.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
Support my Patreon here.

You Don’t Have To Know It All

Is it necessary to answer everything? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yesterday, I saw a discussion going on based on a video from Cosmic Skeptic where he thinks the hardest question Christians have to answer is about animal suffering. We can debate that point if we want, but it’s secondary. I really don’t think it’s a defeater question, but that’s neither here nor there.

When I jumped in the thread some, I stated that my arguments for God are convincing enough for me as are my reasons for believing in the resurrection of Jesus. A worst-case scenario for me on this question would be “I don’t know.” That is not the case as I do have my own reasons, but the point to establish is that not knowing one answer doesn’t overrule knowing what you do know.

One mistake you can make if you get started in apologetics is to think that you have to know everything. You don’t. You can learn some about anything you want to, but don’t expect to be an expert on all issues. Why is that?

Let’s consider each topic you could want to go through. You could want to go the route of science. Which science? Are you specializing in evolutionary science or astronomical science or perhaps medical science dealing with sexual ethics questions?

Maybe you want to specialize in the Bible. Okay. Which testament? Which part of that testament? Do you want to specialize in a specific doctrine? Do you want to specialize in the history of the Bible or the textual criticism of the Bible?

Maybe you want to study other religions. Which one? Maybe a cult like Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormonism. Do you want to study Islam and if so, all of Islam or a specific sect? Hinduism? Buddhism? Scientology?

Maybe you want to deal with philosophical issues. Which ones? The existence of God? Do you want to answer questions about epistemology? Do you want to answer about the relationship between science and theism? How about ethics?

If ethics, what kind? Do you want to go with sexual ethics? If so, abortion or the redefinition of marriage or transgender issues? Do you want to look at court cases in America’s history to see about right and wrong there? Do you want to go Divine Command or some other mode of ethics?

Keep in mind, all of this is off the top of my head. There is absolutely no way any one person can have an answer for everything out there. If you think that you will, you are just fooling yourself. In my own experience, I have no problem tagging someone else on Facebook who knows the subject better than I do or including someone in email better than I do.

For example, I don’t argue science as science. If someone asks me about evolution, I say that I don’t know and I don’t care. I have chosen to not specialize in that area. It’s fun to discuss and think about, but I am not going to treat myself or present myself as an authority.

To be fair, this also means our intellectual opponents don’t have to know everything, which is true. A Muslim, Mormon, atheist, etc. don’t have to know everything about their worldview and can’t. However, the moment they show up actually arguing for a position or presenting it as an argument in some way, they should certainly know something about the topic and be willing to engage on it.

Which means in that case, you’d better seriously study it. Just raising an objection isn’t enough. You need to know your objection and how to answer responses to it. This is true regardless of your worldview.

If anyone is a violator of that last one, it is Jesus mythicists. The overwhelming majority you encounter read no historical scholarship and hold to conspiracy theories about Jesus that the overwhelming majority of non-Christian New Testament scholars would look at with derision.

If you’re studying apologetics though, please rest assured that you don’t have to know it all. You should seek to know what you can, but the whole enterprise does not depend on you. This body has many parts. Learn what you can and leave the rest to others. They can handle it for you.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
Support my Patreon here.

You Have Not Blasphemed The Holy Spirit

Are you doomed? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

There are some passages of Scripture that scare Christians. One such passage is in Matthew 12. Personally, I think some passages should scare such as passages on judgment that will make us take sin seriously, but sometimes, there is an unnecessary fear. Consider again, Matthew 12.

30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

This is one of the most common questions I get from Christians where they are convinced they have committed this sin. I can speak as one who has been there before as well. If you think you’ve committed this sin, then it’s like a death sentence where you can live your life, but you’re hellbound forever after that.

As I said, I get this question several times and every single time, I am convinced that the person has not done this. The moment they tell me they are sure they have committed this, I am usually sure of the exact opposite. Why would I say that?

Because if you care about a sin you have committed, that is the work of the Holy Spirit in you. It is the people who are doing wrong and thinking that they are fine that concern me. It is the person who is convinced that they do not have a problem that I usually think does really have a problem, especially if so many around them are telling them they are doing something seriously wrong.

So let’s look at some scenarios here.

If someone is in a sin and they are actively resisting the Holy Spirit, does that mean they have committed this? No. If it did, most all of us would be guilty because we have all done actions that we know that we shouldn’t.

So what if you one day say something in anger against the Holy Spirit? No. That wouldn’t do it either. Keep in mind that when the words are said by Jesus, Jesus has the Pharisees telling the people that Jesus who is healing by the Holy Spirit is doing so by the devil.

And yet even then He does not say that they have committed this sin.

So what is going on with this sin? The reason it is unforgivable is that it is not a one-time action. It is a lifetime action. If you are going to be forgiven, you have to believe. You have to be willing to repent to God and confess that He is Lord and you are not.

If you cannot do this, then you cannot be forgiven, because you will not agree that you are doing wrong and you do not turn to the one person who can forgive you. It is something eternal. How else can we be sure of this?

Because otherwise, you are also saying you have a sin that you could confess to God and He says “I would rather punish than forgive you.” That’s not the way God is at all. If you confess, you are forgiven.

Christians should definitely be concerned about sins in their lives, but they shouldn’t be concerned about sins they haven’t been committed. If you contact me about this sin, expect a similar reply. I generally have no reason to think you have done this. It’s those who are sure they are fine despite evidence to the contrary that concern me.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
Support my Patreon here.

Don’t Stop With A Question

Do some skeptics really want answers? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Have you ever seen a meme like this?

Now I fully agree that reality is interesting and we should not be content with ignorance. Unfortunately, the idea is that religions treat questions as something hideous to encounter and science loves the questions. Also, if you are someone who is scientific, you will want to go and find out the answers.

Now never mind that something like this never defines science or religion, but I can’t expect a meme to do something like that. I do have something to say on the idea I see that leads me to think that many skeptics do not truly have a scientific mindset. Anyone can raise a question, but how many questions are raised that one goes out and seeks the answers?

For instance, let’s consider a question in science. Many readers of my blog know I take no stance on evolution. I do not argue for it and I do not argue against it. My interpretation of Scripture doesn’t change depending on the question or does any doctrine of Christianity I hold to.

Yet if I had one question, it would be this. In reproduction, the whole of the male and female systems are essential and have to work together in order to produce a new life. I really don’t know how it is that these could develop independently. I can understand how some body systems could perhaps be formed by gradual steps. This one I don’t see.

At the same time, I know I am not studied in the sciences and so I don’t use that as a reason to disavow evolution entirely and say it’s nonsense. Some I have interacted with who do hold to evolution have presented real research done on this question which I appreciate. I honestly haven’t had the chance to do any of that yet since not too much hangs on this question to me. Before I said yes or no entirely to evolution, I would need to spend a lot of time in study and really, I have other things I want to study more.

Yet it would be a problem if I raised the question and said, “I see no answer to this question and I am not bothering to do the research and I will decide without doing that.” However, I think too many people do this with religion, and not just Christianity, but any religion. Of course, my main emphasis is on Christianity, but if you are fair to any worldview, the same applies.

Every worldview is complex. You are talking about how all of reality works. There will be hard questions and no, not every answer can fit into the Twitter character limit. Some questions require longer and more in-depth answers.

This is not just the way it is for religious worldviews. Theists have a lot of hard questions for atheists and atheists being honest will admit that these are real questions that need real answers if their worldviews are going to hold. The same applies for Christianity and any theistic worldview.

Anyone can raise a question, but if someone raises a question and says that question is keeping them from that position and is not seeking an answer to that question, I have to wonder if it is really an honest question. One such example against Christianity is the problem of evil. I really consider this a more simplistic way to try to eliminate Christianity. However, it does appeal to emotions which can easily override reason.

For one thing, everyone has to answer this question. This is our world together and we all have to deal with it. A skeptic could say that’s just the byproduct of a world of chaos, but at that point, someone like G.K. Chesterton would ask how the problem of pleasure is dealt with. Why is there so much that is good in this world? For some reason, this is not usually considered a problem, but it is.

Not only do we have to deal with evil, somehow we have to ask if there is any hope. Now a skeptic could freely agree and say “I agree that Christianity can provide hope for those suffering in an afterdeath, but there’s no way to prove that.” Sure. There isn’t, but this is about consistency. Is the Christian answer coherent and can it provide hope? Yes. That doesn’t mean it’s true, but it does mean it is consistent. (And no, just because an answer involves God does not mean that it is incoherent)

Anyone can raise the objection, but go and read the best defenses of the problem of evil, people like Alvin Plantinga and Clay Jones. See what they have to say. Maybe you won’t be convinced, but you can at least know what they think.

In the same way, whatever your question is, try to read the best that you can of what you’re questioning. Contrary to what you may think, Christians at least have been asking questions of themselves. If you go and read some of the early church fathers or later thinkers like Aquinas and Augustine, you would be tempted to think they were answering questions we are asking today. You could even say we were sometimes answering questions that weren’t even being asked. I seriously doubt in Aquinas’s day some people were questioning if God even existed, but lo and behold, his five ways are still used today.

Again, anyone can ask a question. Going and getting an answer is something different. It may require work and time, but if you care about a truth like that enough to a central question, it should be worth it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
Support my Patreon here.

Book Plunge: The Politics of Envy

What do I think of Anne Hendershott’s book published by Crisis Publications?

Envy is said to be the one sin that we don’t enjoy while we’re doing it. A guy can enjoy lust while he’s sitting at his computer watching pornography. We can rejoice in the adulation we get when undergoing pride. Having a lot of wealth and greed can be a good feeling and many a glutton still loves the taste of food.

Envy doesn’t do any of that. Unless acted on also, it will not hurt the one we are envious of a bit. They get along with their lives just fine. However, despite all of that, we still struggle with envy. It does us no good and it leads to great damage.

It’s almost as if man is fallen.

This book is written from a perspective that is religious and I think likely Catholic, but being religious does not mean that the secularist has nothing to get out of the book. Religion is presented in a gentle way. This isn’t in your face Christianity and the skeptic of Christianity could still easily agree with the damage that envy does.

One of the places the book starts off with is sex and marriage. Here, we encounter a confusion between jealousy and envy. If a husband has a wife who is being adulterous, he will have jealousy, and that is in this case something noble to have. The husband expects an inclusive intimate relationship with his wife and that is not being given.

Most all societies view marriage this way. Really? What about the Inuit people who are supposed to have free love going on? Not so fast.

The reality is , as David Buss writes from an evolutionary perspective : “ Contrary to popular myth , male sexual jealousy is the leading cause of spousal homicide among the Inuit , and these homicides occur at an alarmingly high rate . Inuit men share their wives only under highly circumscribed conditions , such as when there is a reciprocal expectation that the favor will be returned in kind . . . . All of these findings demonstrate that there is no paradise populated with sexually liberated people who share mates freely and do not get jealous . ”

Many of those who claim to be open in this way do normally have some breaking point. If they don’t, it’s easy to wonder if they really care about the relationship at all. However, that is jealousy. There is real envy going on.

This happens with a group called the InCels, which stands for involuntary celibates. These are guys who would love to have sexual relationships with women, but they don’t think they are desirable in the eyes of women. Sadly, this has arrested in a lot of violence taking place. Killing sprees were done by Alec Minassian and Elliot Rodger.

All of this happens because of the envy that these guys have. It is the kind that says they want to take their rejection by women out on the world around them. There are other places of envy to consider as well.

Do we not hear today often about taxing the rich? This will pay for all of our nice social programs from the government. Right? How much of this is envy? Historically, this tactic failed in the past, but today is different. In the past….

In Federalist No . 10 , James Madison dismissed the idea of taxing what he called the “ various descriptions of property ” because he knew it would begin to destroy the rules of justice . The Fourteenth Amendment promised equal protection of the law to all citizens , and early attempts to “ tax the rich ” met with legislative failure . In 1894 , when Congress passed an income tax that was levied on only the top 2 percent of wealth holders , the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional because it targeted only one group . Writing for the majority , Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field repudiated the congressional action and predicted that if such a tax were allowed , it would be the “ stepping stone to others , larger and more sweeping , until our political contests become a war of the poor against the rich . ”

And as Hayek warned:

According to economist Friedrich Hayek ( 1899 – 1992 ) , “ social justice rests on the hate towards those that enjoy a comfortable position , namely , upon envy . ” In The Mirage of Social Justice , Hayek suggests that social justice is a notion that lacks a rigorous meaning since no one has been able to determine , except in the marketplace , what would be the absolutely just distribution of the patrimony and income in a mass society . Suggesting that the phrase social justice had become a source of “ sloppy thinking and intellectual dishonesty , ” Hayek believed that using the phrase was “ the mark of demagogy and cheap journalism which responsible thinkers ought to be ashamed to use because , once its vacuity is recognized , its use is dishonest . ” Describing social justice as “ that incubus which today makes fine sentiments the instruments for the destruction of all values of a free civilization , ” Hayek warned that the continued unexamined pursuit of “ social justice ” will contribute to the erosion of personal liberties and encourage the advent of totalitarianism .

It should not be a shock that we have envy going on. Whenever I hear people talk about social justice, I notice it is never really defined. The reality is economics won’t change that. Some people will always have something that someone else won’t and despite what we think, the self-esteem movement has not helped a bit with this. We really need to consider if envy is driving much of what we do today and if it is, it won’t end well.

And as for why we make such a big deal about politics….

In some important ways , this has contributed to the current culture of envy because once the realm of the metaphysical is rejected , individuals become creatures not of God but of society and politics . This is why everything is now political . It is also why people become anxious and consumed with political campaigns and the outcomes of elections . Those who continue to try to depend on their traditional religious institutions have found that , in many cases , religion itself has become corrupted by politics — losing its transcendental reference points while it undermines balanced political judgment .

After all, if our hope is not to be found in God, it must be found in man, and thus if an election goes wrong, then there goes everything. This does not mean that a Christian or any religious person shouldn’t care about politics. It means politics should not be seen as everything.

No look at this would be complete without social media being discussed. In the past, those who lived glamorous lives didn’t have everything they did accessible to the public. Now, they do. Facebook and Instagram and other sites have us putting forward our best selves normally and we are competing with the best selves of others.

Sometimes, we can go to talk about problems on these sites, but it really isn’t the best place to go. This is not to say we don’t form true friendships on these sites, as I have, but that does mean that most people won’t invest in you like real friends will offline. Social media has actually led to us being depressed and being dependent on what others think of us going for that coveted “like.”

The hope for this is the recovery of the sacred. We need to know what is truly good and worth pursuing for all of us and that is available for all of us. That will also help us to look less at others and then pursue that which is worthwhile.

Again, even if you are a skeptic of religion, you will likely get something good out of this book. Envy is a topic we need to discuss more often. If we miss that so much of what we do is a result of envy, we will only keep doing the damage that envy causes without any real long-term solutions.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
Support my Patreon here.