Author: Nick Peters

Is God Relational?

Does God really care about me? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Something people ask me when they think I don’t think hearing the voice of God is normative today is if God really cares about them. Is God relational? Does He really love me?

It’s always interesting to see that we have 66 books and the coming of Jesus and yet we still ask about that. One can read the Old Testament and see praises of God even before the coming of Christ. One of our most popular hymns, Great Is Thy Faithfulness, comes from quite likely the saddest book in the Bible, Lamentations.

It’s also strange to me to say “Well, if God isn’t interacting with me the way that I think He should, does He really love me?” God loves you the way that He loves you. Who are we to say that the way He loves us is not sufficient?

That being said, let’s look at the question. For one thing, it would have to be explained what is meant by relational. If you mean God brings about a change in me and I bring about a change in God, then no, God is not relational. You cannot change God. You will not make God better if you live a perfect life. You will not make Him worse if you live a life of sin and rebellion. You cannot bring Him more joy than He has in the Trinity. Your sin cannot destroy the joy He has in the Trinity.

It is true that many times, the Scriptures describe God as emotional, but they also describe Him as physical too. Many Christians rightly see that the description of God as physical is not to be read literalistically, but suddenly switch when it comes to the descriptions of God’s emotions. I read them both as anthropomorphic language. I’m consistent.

Some will also point to Christ as being emotional, and He was and is, but He is also fully man. The Father and the Spirit are not human at all. However, Jesus’s emotional responses can still show us the kinds of things God loves and the things He hates.

However, God loves you. In fact, God cannot love you more than He does right now. That would be impossible. You will never increase His love for you and you will never decrease it either. Not only that, but God is outside of the timeline and is eternal and unchanging, so His love for you has always been and it will never cease. It is the most active love of all.

That being said, love does not mean everything will work out the way you want. We dare not set up standards to test the love of God to say “Well, if God really loved me, then He would do XYZ or He would not do XYZ.” It would be easy to say “If God really loved me, He would not let me go through divorce.” It would be easy to say, but it would also be wrong.

Could it perhaps be that our modern thinking has led us to have a sort of entitlement mentality with God Himself? “Well, I see the way God spoke to all these great saints in the Old Testament and surely God cares about me just as much to speak to me.” Evil has always been a question for Christians, but could it be worse in a time when people think they are entitled to live a good life? If God loves them, surely He would not let them suffer in such a horrible way!

You have no claims on God. The only things God owes you are things He has promised you in covenant. God does not owe you a moment of existing. God does not owe you a good life. He could have sent us all to Hell and He would have been just and right to do so. That means all He gives you is grace ultimately.

In any case, however you imagine God loves you and however I tell you that God loves you, it is still inadequate to describe it. No words can ever fully describe such because God cannot be contained even by words. The question we should ask is not if He really loves us, but if we really love Him.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Did God Reveal That To You?

Is it safe to say that God revealed X to you? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I am going through a book by an advocate of Black Hebrew Israelite teaching. I know some students here at the seminary who asked me about it and so I figured I would get a book on the topic and see what I thought seeing as I had never really looked at that area. The book is full of nonsense and most every conspiracy theory out there.

Today, I am reading and I come across this quote:

God revealed to me things that were hidden from us; the truth about our history in relation to the bible and the Ancient Hebrew Israelites.  The theories I had about black people, the Curse of Canaan and the Curse of Israelites were right all along.  God also revealed to me how Satan is covertly deceiving mankind and we have no clue as to what is going on.

Dalton Jr, Ronald. HEBREWS TO NEGROES: Wake Up Black America (p. 1002). G Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.

The problem I have with a quote like this is so many of my fellow evangelicals use the exact same language. It would be easy to say “Yeah, but what this guy is revealing is crazy. I am not saying crazy stuff.”

Maybe you’re not, but your language is the same and why should I discount what he has to say and immediately accept what you have to say? The point is I discount him already because where I have looked at what he’s talking about that I already know something about, it’s nonsense. If I can’t trust him on the areas I am sure of, why trust him in the areas I am not.

But both of you speak the exact same language and both of you attribute your thoughts to God giving them to you.

Stop back and think about what you are saying.

“Friends. I want to tell you that this bit of information I am saying, this comes from God Himself.”

If you are saying that, don’t you think you had better make sure that you are right?

On my Facebook post where I discussed this, I was pleased to see one of my friends say that at their church, if someone says “God told me” publicly and they are wrong, they have to apologize publicly. That’s a good start, but isn’t that the problem? If this friend lived in Old Testament times, they wouldn’t just apologize. They would be stoned to death.

Yeah. God took it seriously.

Are we to think that God says “In the past, I took that seriously, but today, it’s no big deal.”

We can say God seems more gracious in the New Testament, which is false, but also, God can seem much more serious about sin on the other hand. The Old Testament says very little about Hell. The New Testament says a lot about it. The first two people to publicly lie to God in the early church were struck dead immediately.

Claiming God said something when He did not say it is a serious matter and we treat it all too casually.

Also, if you say that God told you something, unless it is something that is indisputable that could not be know any other way, I will not take it seriously. If anything, it makes your position look incredibly weak. It’s as if you’re saying, “I have no reason for you to really believe this, so I’ll just tell you that God told it to me.”

“But the prophets of the Old Testament spoke that way.”

Yes, and you are not them. Also, once again, if they were wrong, they paid for it with their lives. Are you willing to do the same?

If you say no, then don’t claim God revealed it to you or told it to you.

Sadly, I am convinced that many who speak this way do not really take the fullness of God seriously. I am convinced we have more of a concept of Buddy Jesus. God is not our king, but He is more of our friend instead. As a result, we treat Him in a way that is far too casual.

Again, I am NOT saying that God cannot do X. I am saying I do not expect it to be normative. I also hope that even if you disagree with me on that, you will still agree that we need to take such claims extremely seriously. God expects to be honored and spoken truly of in everything.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

What Do We Learn From Games?

What life lessons are learned? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I recently did a research paper on the allegedly link between video games and school shootings. My conclusion is it does not exist. That being said, I was thinking about this recently some more. Right now, I am going through Persona 5 Royal and I am left thinking about relationships a lot. In Persona 5, my character gets special abilities the more he builds relationships with people.

I got the bad ending the first time I went through the game because I had built up level, personas, weapons, etc., but I had not built up relationships like that. Now I know I need to do differently. I find that by choosing what I want to say back and see the reaction I get, I am learning more as a man on the spectrum about what other people would think if I said XYZ. I am also looking more at my relationships and thinking about the benefit of building my relationships that exist in the real world.

I have the view that many times, games of all sorts build us up in ways outside of the games. My parents never had to sit down with me and teach me the value of money, but I think in playing games involving money, I learned what it meant to work hard, save up, and buy something I wanted. I knew what it meant to go and find a deal and I knew what it meant to conserve what I had.

While I have said this is largely the case with video games, we know that this happens in other games as well. How many times do we hear something about sports and hear about life lessons learned for on and off the field? As I pondered that, I considered how differently we treat such ideas. The idea given is that video games will teach you how to shoot people easily. Sports will help you build character. Strangely, no one seems to get the idea that football will teach you to tackle someone if they have something you want, even though that is an integral part of the game.

It’s as if sports are to be celebrated because they teach good things while video games are condemned because they teach wicked things.

In reality, it all depends on the person. By and large, school shootings I find do not come from games instilling a love of violence, but because students are angry and no one is helping them when it comes to bullying at schools. A suicide and a school shooting in response to bullying are highly similar events. The suicide is the student taking the anger and pushing it inward on himself. The school shooting is him pushing it outward on the world.

Yet how many athletes do we see that are actually horrible role models for young people? How many times do we see a city when a major sports title and the people go out and loot and ransack the town? Do I blame sports for these? No. I blame human stupidity. These are problems that need to be dealt with, but banning sports is not the answer.

What is best is to realize that there are good and bad things that can be learned in most any situation. In a perfect world, everything would only teach good, but we do not live in that world. The best solution is to have parents start teaching virtue at home. Also, get rid of the idea of self-esteem. It turns us more into narcissists than anything else. More often than not, good families will produce good kids. There are bad kids that come from good families and good kids that come from bad families, but this is a generality.

When that is there, good lessons can be found anywhere. They can be found in a student learning lessons kicking a ball across a field. They can be found in someone like me exploring mental worlds in Persona 5.

And those lessons work on and off the field and on and off the console.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

The Importance of Wonder

Do we live in a society that values wonder today? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Several years ago, Josef Pieper argued that leisure was the basis for culture. He meant by this more than that we should go and have fun. He meant that we should be free to contemplate and appreciate reality and celebrate. In the later chapters, he especially emphasizes wonder.

Wonder is something our society has lost. We are told we need to live in the real world. We are told that some beliefs are often childish. Some people say “In a scientific age, how can anyone believe XYZ?”

He explains that science can in a sense explain everything about the material world. Philosophy, meanwhile, will never exhaust a single fly. It will always be asking questions, and this is not a downside. If anything, it puts science in a worse position because if you can explain everything about the universe, and if matter is all that there is, you hypothetically can, then what else is there.

Consider the question that came up in the Supreme Court nominee hearings a few years ago. What is a woman? Part of us laugh because the answer is so basic, and from a scientific perspective, it is. However, from a philosophical perspective, that is a deep question. One of the most profound questions you can ask about anything is what it is.

Wonder is the state when we are held in amazement by something. We realize that there is something greater than just the material composition of the thing in question. A young man can easily describe the body of his female lover, but he knows there is something greater before him than just her body.

In our age, it has become common to think that if you explain something scientifically, then that means there can be no otherworldly elements to it. However, Socrates, in a Peter Kreeft book where Socrates shows up at a modern college, is told the sun is not a god because we know it is a big ball of gas and fire. Socrates asks “How do we know that that is not what the god’s body is?” It could be that both are true. They’re not, but this is a hypothetical.

Dan Barker describes having his Christian brother drive with him and try to explain the wonder of the mountains. In response, Barker gives a scientific explanation of how mountains come to be. His brother says that he just has to ruin everything, but what kind of response is that? Could it be that yes, this is how mountains come to be, but yet there is still something wondrous about them?

I find one of the tragedies of Richard Dawkins is that he is truly a brilliant scientific writer. There is no sarcasm in that. When I have read some of his writings and he talks about science, it is a marvel. I find myself getting excited about the world of animals especially that he is describing. The problem is that he then wants to dispense of all these silly theistic ideas and then kills the very wonder that he has just described. As is said in An Atheist Defends Religion:

For religionists, therefore, the scientific worldview desacralizes nature, leaving it like a machine to be observed and manipulated, rather than an object of reverence as a creation of God. For this reason, the scientific response disappoints religious believers. Looking up to the night sky and feeling the immensity of existence is only the beginning of the religious quest for transcendence. For believers, wonder has to be met with oneness, a sense that the universe embraces them. But science does not provide a satisfactory way for believers to feel at home in the universe. That is why so many people turn to religion.

Sheiman, Bruce. An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Humanity Is Better Off with Religion than without It (p. 159). DK. Kindle Edition.

Now is this to say we need to dispense with the scientific enterprise? God forbid! It has done a marvelous benefit to mankind and MUST be kept up. The problem is if you make it ultimate, you will kill the wonder. We are meant to study and learn about the material universe, but the material universe is not the end. It is a pointer to something greater than itself. A finger is good for pointing to the moon, but woe to the man who mistakes a finger for the moon.

We should indeed scientifically study the fly, but let us never stop philosophizing about it either.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

NOBTS Class of 2024

What happened this weekend? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

After my divorce, I found myself living with my parents again and wondering what to do with myself. A friend of mine suggested I go back to school and get my Master’s. My pastor suggested I go to a Southern Baptist seminary where I would get a discount on tuition. I asked him for a list and saw on there New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. I had been there to speak years before so I knew several people there already and had loved the campus so my choice was easy to make.

I moved down here in August of 2022 and quickly got a job at the seminary Post Office. I got my tuition covered through the Caskey Scholarship. I was a hard worker in my classes and often got the syllabi for my classes before the semester started so I could be doing the reading in advance. Generally, I have several books with me and I read a chapter of each a day and no, they’re not all schoolwork. I do a lot of reading independent of my schooling.

This past Friday, my hard work paid off. It can now be officially said that I have a Master’s of Arts in philosophy.

My parents flew down for the event and it was the first time my mother had ever flown on a plane. She was terrified and now she thinks it’s a wonderful experience. My pastor and his wife took us out to lunch and I was spoken of at the end of the service and asked to do the benediction.

My parents got to meet my seminary president and several of my professors and all of them spoke highly. They found firsthand that I have a community where I am admired and welcomed. I consider that a relief that they know they don’t really have to worry about me as much here.

I have already been accepted for the PhD program and yes, I already have the syllabi for my first two classes and yes, I have already ordered the books and started doing the reading. My planned dissertation this time is to study video games and Christianity and the idea that mankind comes with a built-in need for a story, a quest, and a purpose. I got the idea in my first semester in systematic theology when the professor mentioned someone else who did their PhD in this sort of field as well. I also had thought that there are several topics everyone else has studied, but what can I do that fits into my niche?

This doesn’t mean my interest in apologetics has died off. Far from it. It does mean it is becoming more specialized as I am hoping to use this to equip the next generation for the cause of ministry in serving Christ. I still thoroughly enjoy a good debate. My gaming time comes at the end of the day after I have done my reading.

That being said, I have applied for financial aid for the PhD path. I hope to get it, but there are no guarantees. If you would like to become a partner on this journey, which will also help me as I work on a YouTube ministry in my area, you can find on my blog the Patreon to help out, but here is a direct link. Please consider becoming a partner with me. Even a small amount to you will help a large amount to me.

On to the PhD!

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

A Response To Kilted Cajun On Censorship

Can the religious right speak on issues of culture? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I watch a lot of gaming videos on YouTube being the Gaming Theologian on there. (Looking for a video editor by the way, if you’re interested.) One of the channels I watch is the Kilted Cajun as I love it when the DEI nonsense is exposed. However, recently I watched a video I agreed with on some levels, but my disagreements were quite serious, so I left him a reply and told him I would be writing this.

So at the start, KC (As I will call him for short) says that he one hundred percent opposes censorship. For the most part, I agree. I say that as someone who also detests the porn industry. I want to see them defeated because people have their hearts changed. (And not Phantom Thief style per Persona, but because they come to their own conclusions about pornography)

He then talks about a game where a lady’s posterior is clearly shown. Now it was nothing that really got me riled up as I agree with KC that I could also see that across most any beach in America from a woman in a tight bikini. At the same time, I know many of my readers might object to seeing such, so I won’t show any pictures, but know that this is what has started this whole discussion.

There are some people who are complaining and objecting about this. Okay. I get it. At the same time, I also want to hear it. Why? Because that’s how we as a society work. We all come together and express our viewpoints. I want to see the Woke and DEI crowd lose tremendously, but I also want them to say what they really think and do so freely. The left has gotten people to be scared to say what they think lest they be called a name like a racist, bigot, sexist, or any term ending in -phobe.

Generally, my thinking is if my opponent is saying something really stupid, I want to get out of the way. Let him speak. Let him say it. If the woke really think conservatives have all those negative traits, let them speak so it can be apparent to all. Strangely, it doesn’t work that way.

Yet this is the way freedom really works. Freedom means you have the freedom to hold different opinions. I remember a debate on TheologyWeb years ago where someone claimed bigotry is not a right and the response was “Yes it is.” Yes. You are free to be a bigot if you want to. You are free to hold any negative opinion you want to. If you think people like myself are idiot Christians who should have no place in society, then you are absolutely 100% free to have that opinion.

I have had times where my Dad has called me before. I am a man in my 40’s, but I still keep in close contact with my parents. (They’re here this week for me getting my Master’s.) My Dad has called to talk about things like a satanic statue being built or a service from them or a church building from them.

My response is “Okay. And?”

Our Constitution in America guarantees freedom of religion in America and not just freedom of the religion I hold. If I say “Christians are free to build churches, but Muslims are not free to build mosques, then I do not really hold to freedom of religion. I only hold to it if it benefits me. If I accept freedom, I have to accept people will use it in ways that I do not like.

As we go along in the video though he asks why decency is being brought up about a woman’s butt being shown and says “are you judging people’s morals based on your own personal morals” about the person complaining about it.

The answer to that one is “yes”, but that’s because who else’s morals are you going to judge them based on? We all do this every day. We agree with behavior X because of our moral beliefs and we disagree with Y because of our moral beliefs. KC opposes censorship, which I also happen to oppose, but that is a moral belief. To say “censorship is wrong” is a moral belief. That doesn’t mean it’s false, nor does it mean it’s true. We can only know if a belief is true if it corresponds with reality, if there are really objective moral principles out there that we all are to follow. If there is no objective morality, then it’s just personal tastes. If there is, then one of us is right and one of us is wrong.

Note in saying this I am not saying KC is a moral relativist. I have no reason to think he is and all the reason to think he is not. I am saying his viewpoint relies on moral objectivity.

This would apply in other areas as well. In science, did man evolve from lesser animals or not? He either did or he didn’t. It’s not both. Having a belief on one side or the other doesn’t make it right or wrong. It is whether or not that belief matches with reality.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? I say yes. An atheist says no. Both of us can freely have our belief. What matters is reality and that is where we must look. We can’t just say “That’s our belief.”

So when it comes to moral judgments, that is what we judge behaviors on. We judge them by our own personal beliefs and those could be right or wrong. Let’s suppose I was sent an advance demo copy of the game in question. To be fair, I decided to play through it and let’s suppose I really liked it and I enjoyed a story with it. Here is something I would say and I say this as someone who I think is viewed as a Christian leader.

“Game X is a really fun game with a great story that really draws you in. (Describe some bits of the story without spoiling it.) I do want parents to know though that it does have XYZ in it. (Statements about the butt in question) Then add “Make your own decisions when it comes to you and your children.” Some people might say “I am not bothered by that, and I really want to experience the story so I will buy that.” I also know that since I think I have a position of trust with parents, I don’t want to violate that. I don’t want to have a parent come to me and say “I bought this for my 11 year-old child and I had no idea this was in it! Why didn’t you tell me?”

I really don’t think KC would have a problem with that. That would be me just saying let the buyer beware in a sense. If you don’t like this in your games, don’t buy it. If you live with children and you don’t want them to see this or see you playing it, then don’t buy it. All of this is assuming the game is good. If it’s awful, I will tell you that it’s awful outright, but if you want to subject yourself to it, be warned also about XYZ.

I might make statements on more extreme cases. If I saw something in a game that I considered blasphemous towards Jesus, I could say “I really encourage you to not buy this game.” I know that I can’t make that decision for you. You decide for yourself.

KC then goes on to say that the reviewer, Dread Roberts, is pushing his views on others. We don’t want the left doing that and we don’t want the right doing it either. The problem is that first off, Dread Roberts is not doing that. He is stating his belief.

The second problem though is that KC in saying this is doing what he condemns. He is saying “It is my moral belief that you shouldn’t push your moral beliefs on other people.” He can hold that, but as soon as he says that DR is wrong for pushing his views on others, then KC is implicitly pushing a view that you shouldn’t push views.

I propose a better way to look at it. I think KC would be better saying “Thank you for your opinion on what should be allowed and not allowed. I 100% disagree and here is why.” The thing with freedom of speech is it applies to everyone and that includes hearing moral opinions I do not like. At the same time, when they are shared, I want them expressed in the best way possible. I don’t want to tell my opponent not to share them. I want false beliefs shared so I can publicly show them to be wrong.

KC then points out that DR says that this is not where the future of gaming should be heading. KC says that it’s not up for DR to decide but for the market to decide. The problem is both of those statements could be true. Hypothetically, let’s suppose DR is right. He has full freedom to express that opinion, but at the same time, he’s not saying to hijack the market, which is impossible anyway, and make it be that no one can buy the game. I don’t think DR is being asked to be a gaming csar to get to decide what is and isn’t released. He is simply saying what he wants to see. He doesn’t want to see games with this material in it and thinks it would be bad for gaming. Fine. That’s his view. He is not calling for it to be a federal crime or something of that sort. I do agree. It’s up to the market to decide. It’s like an election. I never liked it when Obama won, but it was up to the electorate to decide. I didn’t want anyone to vote for him, but I would completely defend their freedom to vote for him.

DR then says that he thinks people who say they want to save gaming really don’t. With this, I disagree with DR. I want to give the benefit of the doubt. I agree 100% with KC that wokeness and DEI is bad for games. At the same time, I want producers of games to have the freedom to put as much wokeness and DEI in a game as possible. Let it fail at the marketplace. While saying that, it doesn’t mean everything is beneficial for gaming. Companies can be free to put into their games things that I thoroughly disagree with that I too think can be bad for gaming, but again, that is what freedom means.

KC goes on to say that players should have the choice to buy what they want and play what they want and see what they want. I agree. If anything, I think something like DR’s post could lead to the Barbara Streisand Effect. I would have recommended had he wanted to post on this to say “Yeah. This is just something in the game and I want you to make a fully-informed decision, especially if you’re a parent, and let’s move on.” After all, it was when people started talking about “Hot Coffee” in a Grand Theft Auto game that sales started to soar and the scene wasn’t even easy to find in regular gameplay and I think you needed a special code for it. KC even says that you have to go out of your way to make this option available for this female character and if that’s true, and I have no reason to think otherwise, then yes, DR is promoting the Barbara Streisand effect and will likely see more sales of the game.

Now let’s briefly say something about female characters in video games. They are usually made to be beautiful and at times, this can mean what seem to be exaggerated proportions, especially in the butts and the breasts of these characters. Think of the original Lara Croft and the original Tifa Lockhart. I never played the Tomb Raider games, but I did play Final Fantasy VII that had Tifa in it. When I heard the remake was coming out, I was thankful that Tifa was not flattened in it. Because I am a perv? No. Because that is the way the original character looked and I did not want to see game producers bend a knee to this ideology that says women cannot be beautiful lest the male gaze come along. Women are made to be beautiful.

That being said, it is up to the man watching Tifa what he does with her. If you are someone who struggles with that kind of thing and says “I just don’t want to play that because my mind will go places I don’t want it to go”, then you do you. I don’t have a problem with that. That is you properly using self-control. We do no service to women if we make them purposely unattractive to men. Women are meant to be beautiful and that is part of their glory.

I also agree with KC 100% when he says that mostly, all we want is fun games. Yes. Of course, in my fun games, I like a lot more as well which I think is well in line with what KC is saying. I am thoroughly enjoying Persona 5 Royal because of the story and the mix of the real world with the metaverse. As someone on the spectrum also, I am watching what I say to other characters and getting to see when I gave what the game says is an appropriate answer, showing empathy. It has me looking at my relationships outside of the game and thinking “What bonds am I building with my fellow man?” I am actually going through a second time because I got a bad ending the first time because I did not build bonds properly thinking that the best route to go was power up my character as much as possible. I really learned something from that.

KC says he has no problem with what DR believes, but with him pushing it on other people who don’t want to hear it. The problem is, if sharing a belief is the same as pushing it, then KC is pushing his belief that you shouldn’t push a belief. Maybe some people don’t want to hear what KC says. Okay. He has a right to say it. It’s the same with scrolling through Facebook or X. I see people saying stupid things on there. Okay. They say them. I disagree, but I want them to be free to say them. That’s why it’s called the marketplace of ideas. We all share our ideas and debate which ideas are right and which are wrong.

He then refers to Melanie Mac who shows up in the comments. I really like Melanie and why wouldn’t I? A Christian girl who loves to play video games? Awesome. Anyway, she says she wouldn’t want to play such a game with nudity thrust in her face. KC says then don’t buy it. That’s fine. Vote with your wallet like everyone else does. I agree with KC here. MM has her opinion and she’s free to share it and she’s free to vote with her wallet. The marketplace of ideas and freedom allows for everything.

MM goes on to say that she would feel like a loser playing a character like that. KC goes on to say that that’s a sort of passive-aggressive slap to everyone who wants to play a character like that, but is it? MM is saying “She would feel like a loser.” Okay. That’s her opinion. We couldn’t say she was wrong. That would be like me saying “I feel sad” and you say “You don’t feel sad! You feel great!” You could think I shouldn’t feel sad and think of a thousand reasons why I should feel great, but you could not deny that I feel sad.

KC then asks how MM could do such a thing and she should keep her religious views out of it. The problem is this is actually censorship of a kind. I don’t care if someone expresses an opinion if their views come from religion or not. Suppose someone says “I think murder is wrong because the Ten Commandments forbid it.” That’s a religious view, but it is also one I think is right. I could give you plenty of reasons outside of the Bible that I think marriage should be between one man and one woman, but what matters is if that belief is true. The fact that it is also a view backed by religion doesn’t matter. If that was the case, then we should eliminate laws against murder because religions also view murder as wrong. KC is implicitly saying “Religious views should be kept to yourself, but secular views can be shared everywhere.” That’s not what freedom is. Let all views be expressed and let the best case win.

KC then refers to Bible Thumpers. It is not clear what this means. Would I be a Bible thumper even though I am entirely open to evolution, don’t believe in Young-Earth creationism, am not a dispensationalism at all, etc.? I fully hold to many of the orthodox creeds and can easily sign an orthodox statement of faith.

He goes on to say that the right were the ones that raised the outcry about games like Dungeons and Dragons and the satanic panic. Yep. The satanic panic went way too far and many criticisms of D&D and video games and anime and many other things do not really understand them. I have done a lot of reading on the satanic panic and I consider it ridiculous. While I do think real Satanism exists, I also am quite hesitant to call something satanic. Make it too all encompassing and you then include things like Tolkien and Lewis.

I also do think that you can enjoy a series even if you disagree with the moral viewpoints. Star Trek is highly secularist. Star Wars was made with New Age and Buddhist thinking in mind. I have several friends who are devout Christians who enjoy both. I personally don’t, but not for those reasons. I just never got into them. I can freely enjoy a James Bond movie even though I think Bond is doing something wrong in the way he casually sleeps with other women. You take the good and you spit out the bad.

So in the end, I fully agree with KC that I do not want to see censorship. That being said, I think his way of approaching MM and DR is itself leaning into censorship. Let us come together and say “I think this is good for gaming and here’s why” or “I think this is bad for gaming and here’s why.” Let the cases present themselves and let the marketplace of ideas decide when they go to the marketplace of gaming.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Does The Gospel Have A Point?

Why should you bother being saved? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yesterday, I wrote about how if learning is to be effective, students need to see the point of what they are learning. Somehow, the material must engage them. When that happens, I contend not only will they learn, but they will decide to strive to learn on their own.

Now let’s transition that to the gospel. Our goal with the gospel is to make disciples, but often we make converts instead. Unfortunately, the way that people do gospel presentations is often terrible.

Imagine a 25 year-old guy in apparently good health walking down the street and a Christian comes up to him to engage him. What is the question that is going to be asked that’s supposed to really make them think? It’s the same every time.

“If you were to die today, do you know if you would go to Heaven?”

Of course, to be fair, at least the evangelists are following this from the example in the book of Acts when the apostles went out and asked this question to….

Hang on.

No one in Scripture ever asked this question.

Not only that, but this was a culture that didn’t have health-care and scientific advancements in the field like we do. They were more familiar with death. They saw death on a regular basis.

And yet, this question never seemed to come up.

Now let’s go back to this 25 year-old guy who I am going to assume is not a Christian. He can be polite and listen, but this question will not engage him. Why? Because he’s thinking “I’m in good health. I work out. I eat right. I have no serious conditions. I’m likely to live a good and long life and will probably die in my 80’s or 90’s.

So you’re pretty much asking him about something that is likely to happen about sixty years from now.

It would be like asking him “Do you have enough money to retire right now?”

Well, quite likely no, but he’s working towards that and he’s confident that when he gets to that age he will be ready.

What else is going on in this man’s life?

Odds are, he’s thinking about his job, drinking with friends, having sex with his girlfriend or wanting to have a girlfriend to have sex with, watching some pornography, watching a football game with the guys on the weekend, etc.

What’s our evangelism strategy implicitly?

“Hi. I’d like you to consider devoting your life on this one brief conversation to something that is going to take away all the things in your life that you enjoy right now, but it will really pay off when you die about sixty years down the road.”

I can’t imagine why young people don’t jump on this message.

“But, Nick! The message is important! People have to do this! People have to know Jesus! People have to get saved!”

Agree entirely. The problem is, the person you’re talking to does not. You’re acting like he already embraces your position. If he agreed that it was as important as you think it is, he would already do it.

If we all did the matters that were important, our nation would be a lot healthier, most of us would listen to our parents a lot more, etc. No. We need something that gets us engaged in the matter.

I go walking every day now and I even walk around the Post Office on the days that I work. Why? Because I have an app where I earn points for walking and when I earn enough points, I cash them in and I get credit for the Nintendo Eshop so I can get some games that I really enjoy. Did I know I need to walk regularly and exercise before then? Yes. I do it now because there is a present incentive. I usually get in 10,000 steps a day at least. Generally, with other bonuses in the app, i get $10 every month to use.

Think about what you will do if you’re trying to impress a member of the opposite sex. You can do things you would not have done before just because there is an incentive. If a man becomes a father, he is more likely to have a better work ethic because there is an incentive. Consequently, a marriage dies down when it seems like there is less incentive to be devoted to the union.

So in talking to the guy again, we need to show him why he should become a Christian not just for the future, but for now. How does it benefit him?

“But Jesus never talked that way!”

He didn’t? Go look here. These are all times in the Gospels when Jesus spoke of a reward for those who are obedient to the Gospel. If you are talking about Heaven anyway, you are already using rewards to appeal to someone.

So one of my first starts would be to point to the reality of the gospel, meaning we have to talk about sin. People need to know that they’re truly lost. They need to know that they really need forgiveness.

Then we need to show them the reality of the resurrection. We need to show them that new life begins now. The gospel should never be seen as the antithesis of joy. We should be people of joy.

That would also include pointing out the meaninglessness of what people are engaging in. They’re only getting something temporary that won’t fill them overall. You can have sex with a different girl every week, but you’re just being an addict and women are your drug. You don’t really love them and they don’t really love you.

By contrast, Christians serve the God of sex and marriage and we should be in the forefront in those areas. Christians should have the best marriages of all and they should have the most passionate sex lives of all in those marriages. We should give the world something that they will be jealous of. After all, Paul wanted the Jews to be jealous of the Gentiles.

Sadly, we Christians are more known by what we denounce than by what we celebrate. We are described as puritan, which is false since the puritans were never the stick-in-the-mud types that we have in mind. They really were a joyous people and they wanted to make sure their marriages were fulfilling.

We should not be anti-intellectual at all. Lewis was the one who asked what it would be like if whenever anyone wanted to learn something in the academic world, the best mind in that area was a Christian. What if scientists were known as the best Christians? What if the best actors were Christians? What if the best athletes were Christians? What if Christians did the most popular songs, the best movies were written and performed by Christians, the best TV shows were produced by and starred Christians, and Christians produced the best video games?

As I type that I even wonder, “Why aren’t they already?”

This also does not deny Christianity is a hard path to follow, but it is also still a joyous one. We need to show that. If all we offer people is something that is likely to happen decades down the road, we are not going to get serious lifetime commitment from them. If forgiveness is not serious to them, salvation won’t be either.

We can do better.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Thoughts on Modern Education

How do students best learn? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

It was in my Greek class a few semesters ago, which I did just fine in, that i started thinking about the education system. I remembered that before a test, I had been looking at the paradigms. I could recognize them, but when it came to writing them down, my mind went to a blank.

I have a good relationship with my professor so I saw him in his office after and showed him Parson’s Greek Tutor on my laptop. I went to the section that mirrored what we just studied and showed him how effortlessly I was able to recognize the paradigms. He understood and upped my grade some. I likened it to that if I am playing a game on my Switch or Playstation and you join in and ask me what button I push to do an action, I have to look and see what button I am pushing, even though I push it regularly on instinct.

This got me pondering about why it is that this was not working for me in Greek. If anything, Parson’s Tutor was an excellent program for me. I am currently trying to talk to some Greek experts to see if they would be willing to have some students make a Greek indie game so that students could better learn Greek.

Quick. Write down what slope-intercept form is.

When did the Battle of the Bulge take place?

What exactly is mitosis?

What is included in the definition of velocity?

Who crossed the Alps with elephants to attack Rome?

What is a gerund?

What is included in the 7th amendment?

Some of you may know some of these things. A lot of you are probably going to Google right now and looking them up. My point in asking these questions is that at some point, you likely did know what these are and you forgot them. Why? You learned them for a test in school to pass a subject. After that, you never used them again and they bore no relevance, so you forgot them.

Now think about these other kinds of questions.

What is the Konami code?

What are the stats on your favorite sports team?

When was your favorite TV show on the air?

How many songs can you sing by your favorite artist by heart?

Give me twenty people at Hogwart’s from the Harry Potter franchise.

Tell me ten planets in the Star Wars universe.

If I ask you about these kinds of things and they are things you care about, you know them like that. I could easily tell you the Konami code, a lot of students and faculty at Hogwart’s, and I can tell you most anything you want to know about Smallville. The last one I knew so well I could have easily fact-checked the magazine I used to read.

Notice this also. Many of these things you know, you learned without having to intentionally study for them or take tests on them. It was never the case that you said “I’d better bone up on my favorite football team statistics because my friends are going to quiz me when we get together.” You likely never stayed up all night memorizing all the lyrics to every Weird Al Yankovic song you could. (Not that that would be a waste of time if you did.) You learned these because they were presented in a way that engaged you and were relevant to you.

When students in school ask “What’s the point?” or “When am I ever going to use this?”, if we can’t answer those questions, they won’t likely take the material being learned seriously.

To compare when I was in this class, I had Nintendo Switch online and went through the original Legend of Zelda, both quests, and A Link to the Past. I never did formal study on these games and even though it had been years since my last playthrough, I could still go and find everything in them and finish them. You can say it’s useless knowledge, but the point is I learned it and I learned it because for me, it was relevant to me. Being good at games mattered to me. It still does.

It is my personal theory that if we want students to learn material, we need to make it engaging for them. That’s one reason I love the pop culture and philosophy series. I could introduce you to philosophy with a textbook that will likely bore you to tears, or I could introduce you by having you read something like Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul. If you are a Batman fan, then you are going to see philosophy in a way relevant to one of your favorite superheroes.

It’s also worthwhile to point out that we talk about that a professor gives in a classroom as a lecture. When we go to church, we hear a sermon. On their own, neither of those are positive terms. We tell people we don’t need a lecture or a sermon and not to preach at us.

This also has relevance to how we even spread the gospel.

But that is what I plan on for tomorrow.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Hearing The Voice of God Chapter 7

Are you in the right position to hear from God? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So Newton gives a lot of the usual steps to hearing from God such as spending time in Scripture so you can better discern God’s promptings. (Geez. Maybe you could just study the Scripture so you can know what God has already said.) One step he takes is to say that if you need an immediate word, spend extra time in Scripture, prayer, and quietness. He then cites Psalm 46:10 with “be still and know that I am God.”

Which says absolutely nothing about hearing from God.

The passage is instead describing Israel being at war and when their tendency is to rush headlong, they are to wait. Be still. God is God. God will defeat their enemies.

He also says if you are unsure if God is speaking to you, ask for confirmation. Never mind you could just as well ask “How do I know the confirmation is from God?” The only person I can think of right off in Scripture that needed confirmation is Gideon and he’s not the best example. One could say Hezekiah, but that is because Hezekiah was told he will die and then told he would live. He needed to know for sure which word was going to take place.

If anything else is saddening in this, it’s that when you get to the end, you find out that Newton is a bishop. I cringe at the thought of what people in high authority are actively teaching in our churches. The idea of hearing the voice of God has become such an evangelical creed and it blows my mind as this is taught nowhere in Scripture.

Instead, what we have is a list of things you can do and not a list of how you can study the Scriptures and know them better. When this happens, people take their own impressions and ideas and dreams as if they have divine authority and wind up building a little canon in their own selves that is based on their experience. There is enough self-centeredness in our churches. We do not need any more of it.

For those who still think this is in some way even remotely biblical, I urge you to return to Scripture and do a thorough look and ask yourself some questions about what you are reading.

While God did speak to people, was it ever the majority of the people?

If not, then why do I think I am one of those exceptional people that

Why do I never see this commanded by Jesus or Paul?

Why do I not see anyone in early church history talking about this?

Why do the medieval thinkers stay silent on this?

Why did the Reformers say nothing about this?

To claim that God is speaking is a serious claim and I fear too many of us are making it far too lightly. It won’t affect our salvation from what I see, but we will be judged for it. Remember in the Old Testament that if a prophet wasn’t from God, they were to be stoned.

Should we take His word any less lightly?

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Hearing the Voice of God Chapter 6

How else does the Spirit allegedly lead? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In a recent post, I said I goofed with chapter numbering. Turns out, I didn’t. I gave the benefit of the doubt to Newton. Instead, take a look at how the book is laid out from my Kindle app on my laptop.

Yep. Newton has chapter three listed twice and no chapter 5. Yes. That also extends to the chapter headings themselves.

So there is no chapter 5 review. There is one for chapter 6.

Newton starts by taking us to Acts 16:6-10 and notes that Paul was led by a vision to go to Macedonia. Therefore, God can speak to people in a vision. With that, there will be no disagreement. However, does that mean that we should expect that?

If we go to Acts 28, Paul is bitten by a viper and the people of Malta think he is a murderer because he survived a shipwreck and yet justice came to him. However, Paul simply shakes it off into the fire. Nothing happens. The people then decide he is a god.

Since Paul suffered no ill will from a viper bite and went about his day normally, this shows that God can save us from a viper bite. Therefore, if you find yourself bitten by a viper someday, there is no need to get to a hospital. Just follow the example of Paul.

Or maybe you should realize you’re not Paul.

Newton says if we study the Bible, we will find that God led many people through visions and He still does for He is not the same. I do not rule out all dreams and visions. I certainly think they are happening in the Muslim world. I do think that these are for getting people to salvation and not personal decision making.

Also, saying God is the same doesn’t matter unless Newton is going into his backyard at night and offering animal sacrifices because God is still the same. Hebrews says that in the past God spoke in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken by His Son. Why is it that Newton is so eager to return to those past days instead of the days where the Son is how God has spoken?

Also, Newton will spend time talking about his personal experience. The problem with these people often is that they go to their personal experience and say “This experience must match what is happening in this passage.” Then they will interpret the Scripture in light of that experience and say “Therefore, this is normative today.” Instead of interpreting Scripture in light of our experience, we should interpret our experience in light of Scripture.

Newton also says some matters about prophets claiming to speak for God and there’s an easy way to avoid falling into believing a false prophecy. Unless you hear someone say something that is absolutely from God and can be shown, such as if someone called out a secret sin you weren’t telling anyone as a possibility, then don’t believe them.  Go about your day the normal way.

Next time we’ll see what Newton say about positioning yourself to hear from God.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)