Why Christianity?

I don't normally play the game of an apologist, but just this once I will give a source of grounds for why I believe in the Christian Faith.I will admit that I believed in Christianity as a young child, and none of the things I'm writing now were in my contemplation at that age, as such I come to this discussion as one who believes the truth of Christianity is self-evident, it is a basic belief for me that I do not think needs any proving, but for your sake I will post this, in the hope that you will be strengthened in your faith, or come to the saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.


My "Proof" begins with a video by Alvin Plantinga, perhaps the most important and influential Religious philosopher of the 20th century. He is a Christian, but his work has had drastic affects on modern philosophy and moved the field of study which was primarily atheistic towards a more theistic understanding in academia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw, This link shows Plantinga's Evolutionary argument against Naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that all things are material and that everything has came about by natural processes. This is the philosophical foundation for naturalistic evolution. His point is that if Naturalism and Evolution is true then we have no grounds to believe we can know truth. So this is not an argument for or against evolution, but that for us to know any truth some non-naturalistic force must be involved in the process which would make naturalism false.


Starting with this idea I move onto my argument for Christianity, because Plantinga's argument alone does not lead to Christianity, it does not even lead to the existence of a God, so I start where he has left off. (I will be using some philosophical terms, if you are confused as to their meaning you can message me to clarify or use a dictionary.)

1. There is Objective truth
2. I can know Objective truth (if 1. and 2. are true then the idea we cannot know truth is false.)
3. I can know I can know objective truth.
4. If 3. is true then Naturalistic Evolution is false.
(this is another short summary of the implication of Plantinga's argument
5. if 4. then immaterial things & forces exist (those things that are not material, or not natural.)
6. the Universe includes all physical things & forces
7. the Universe had a beginning (The Big bang theory, which still has not been dis-proven)
8. if 6&7 then all physical things and forces have a beginning
9. if 7. then all physical things and forces were caused.
10. if 9. then 6. was caused by immaterial things and/or forces
11. at least some immaterial things & forces exist by the necessity of their nature. (the principle of sufficient reason, a.k.a. the principle of causality: Basically something either exists because it was caused, or because it must exist- numbers are an example of this: they are uncaused but they do exist).
12. at least some immaterial things & forces caused the universe.
13. if 12.then the immaterial things or forces(ITF's) that caused the universe must be powerful enough to do so.
14. if 13 then ITF's must be personal (as in not just a force but  able to make choices) to explain the when of the universes beginning, other wise why was the universe created 15.6 bil. years ago or whenever rather than at a different time?
15. if 12. and 14. then the ITF's mustbe intelligent enough to do 12.
16. 10-15 can be explained by one immaterial, personal, powerful and intelligent thing. (this removes the need for a polytheistic understanding of reality. So good bye to Mormonism, Hinduism, Shintoism, etc.
17. if 14 & 16 are true this things is a person or being; a conscious entity.
18. This person created the universe as it is, and is powerful enough to, and does sustain the universe.
19. if2,3,12, 18 are true then this being or god created me in such a way that 2,3 are true.
20. if 10 then god cares about me knowing truth (other wise why would he make me able to?)
21. if 20 then this god cares about me knowing about it.
22. if 18. then this god created a world where i could live and thrive.
23. the only religions that account for this are monotheistic, and are specifically met by Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
24. if Judaism follows its scriptures rather than its traditions then Judaism leads to Christianity.
25. Islam is internally inconsistent
26. only Christianity accounts for all the parts of our reality that have been earlier states
27. thus I am convinced of Christianity over any other world view.


The explanation and the process can probably be greatly extended, and debated, but I wanted to show the most basic way I knew to lead to the conclusion of the truth of Christianity. There are many questions that I know aren't answered in this argument about Christianity, but I believe that within these grounds many of the answer's can be derived, such as if 19-21 are true then the authenticity of the bible need not be questions for me, because God does care enough to preserve his word and grant it to his people so they can know him, and the fact the bible is the only book that accounts for everything above stated it gives self evident grounds to be the word of God. I know that many will not be convinced by this, but I hope and pray nonetheless that you come to saving faith in my Lord Jesus Christ, and I hope this has been an aid in bringing about that end. Thank you for your time.

Heretics?

So today, I'm going to ask some question's I've been struggling with in regards to Heretics- yes I realize that is a cruel word, and I don't have the place to decide who is a heretic and all the other jazz that might be thrown at me for using such a strong word. If I am immoral or in sin for using such strong language than so be it, for my conciseness is unconstrained by scripture or reason in regards to the reality that some are Heretics.

A heretic most simply is one who causes a divide in the church, but that in itself is not a concise enough definition or else all Christians everywhere would be considered heretics. I do believe that the cause of a divide is a necessary condition for being a heretic, but more specifically a heretic is one who's beliefs, actions, or words undermine the core of Christianity. So I would not call someone a heretic simply because they are outside of my particular denomination. This might be to nice of a definition for some of you, and it it is not a true one that correct me friends.

finally to the point.


Where do you stand on worshiping with Heretics? Should they be allowed to sing with us, to take part in our bible studies, and church services? Should we allow them to pray with us? To what degree do we fellowship with them? Do we argue with them or cut ties all together? Is it better to try to persuade them or abandon them? I really don't have a good answer for this, and I'm hoping that you all do.

Culture of Death

So lately our goverment has tried to push the Catholic church to take part in Abortion, and our president has openly admitted that Homosexual marriage should be legal. Our medical systems continual to consider euthanasia, and our sciences use the embryonic stem cells to study the affects of new taste buds.(if you doubt any of this a quick search on Google with confirm it).

I call attention to these things because they all revolve around one thing: death. Abortion prevents life from even starting, Homosexual marriage does not add to the population, but is a stagnant use of the reproductive organs. Euthanasia seeks to put to end the lives of individuals rather than leaving them in the hand of God, and then our sciences capitalize on the aforementioned death of infants for commercial gain. Sadly, it appears our culture is becoming one that enslaves itself to its desires at the expense of others, on the grounds of the individual. It's depressing. Please pray that God returns a love for life to the American People.

The Common Nature of Sin

This is an excerpt from a much larger project that I am working on. I hope you all enjoy it.

            My whole life, I was brought up believing that pride was the first of all sins. Pride was thought to be the source of all other sins, but upon further reflection I really can’t hold to this position. Pride is related to most sins, but pride is not the mycelium of the fungus bodies popping out of the ground. Rather, pride is a mushroom all to itself. It appears more often than its siblings of decomposition, and it shares several characteristics with other sins, but it is not their mother. Pride may very well have been the first manifestation of sin, but the fruit of an organism is not the same thing as the organism. More accurately, the common nature of sin is unbelief.

            For the sake of explanation, think of the common tradition of the fall of Satan. It is thought that the old serpent became prideful: desiring to remove God from His throne. Then God cast Satan and a third of the angels out of heaven. This is why many come to the conclusion that pride is the beginning of sin, but that cannot be correct. The very nature of Pride- viewing ones self as more than one ought to- requires that unbelief come before it, for if Satan had believed God pride could not have existed. The very nature of God proclaims that only he is worth of praise (Rev 4:11), but Satan, in his unbelief, revolts against God. Therefore, only in connection to the mycelium of unbelief can pride exist.