This post is much longer than I had anticipated. Some may think it tedious. But I felt compelled to fully express my thoughts as I sought to answer a particular comment. I sincerely hope that there is someone who reads and appreciates what I say here. This is primarily written as a response to a comment by Jeffrey Liakos to my post of May 23, 2012, The Heart Has Its Reasons.
I recently received several comments to a variety of my older posts from him. My reaction to these comments was a mild annoyance because I felt that in general they reflected a kind of quarrelsome one-upmanship – a tossing of the hat into the ring. It seems to me that’s typical of what commenting has come to. And that may be why so many people prefer social media to commenting on my kind of blog. Most people seem less inclined to articulate the pros and cons of an issue than simply state what side of the issue they are on, repeating the same, tired talking points. I do not find such “discussion” to be constructive.
The highest and best use of argument or debate is to arrive at a more informed or thoughtful place than where we started. Yet, when was the last time that happened? So, I decided to stop trying to swat away each comment as I might if they were irksome insects, and rather engage at some length with one single, representative comment. Hopefully, the quality of discussion will improve.
By the way, six years ago I wrote an article, Your Comments which will help the reader understand what I am looking for in comments.
There is a twofold motivation for this post. First, I have grown weary of answering his many comments, because no matter how hard I try, he simply doesn’t seem to get where I am coming from, despite saying he agrees with me on most things, which leads to the second and most important issue: Every point I attempt to express in this blog is based on my Biblical Christian world view that all meaning, value and authority come from God, and that this truth is absolute, not relative. That is what I will be emphasizing here.
The problem with much of the discussion of social and cultural issues today is that popularly held positions usually proceed from post-modern world views which are littered with humanist, relativist and self-centered presumptions. Like the argument between pro-abortionists and anti-abortionists, there can be no meeting of the minds until they can agree on their basic assumptions. And there can be no agreement on basic assumptions until there is unanimity in our world views.
So, before I present Jeffrey’s comment and my response to it, I feel it necessary to lay out my world view as it relates to the posts I write. If you can understand and appreciate my overall world view, then it doesn’t really matter if you don’t agree with me on specific particulars. It’s OK to disagree, but it’s not OK to quarrel about our disagreements (see Romans 14).
First, I believe in God, the infinitely perfect, loving, holy, just and merciful God of the Bible. And I believe the Bible to be the authoritative word of God. I believe God created everything in the universe (For the philosophically challenged, that doesn’t mean he created evil. Evil is the absence of God, just as darkness is the absence of light.). I believe God has absolute authority over human beings and that we all are personally and directly accountable to him. I believe all of humanity is subject to God’s judgment.
I also believe that humans changed their very nature by sinning (disobeying, rebelling) against God, and that our sinful nature separates us from God. Humans tried to bridge the gap of our separation and get back to God through religion, but history has shown that we are incapable of reconnecting to God by our own efforts. Sin totally separates us from God.
But in his mercy, God provided a way for both punishment and debt to be cancelled, and joyful fellowship with him to be restored for eternity. That provision is Jesus, God the Son, who came to earth as a man, lived a sinless life, yet freely offered himself as the only possible sacrifice (ransom) sufficient to pay for our sin. The way each person can appropriate God’s provision of forgiveness and eternal life is to humbly receive Jesus Christ, accepting his sacrifice for our sin, and then turning our very lives over to him. This “faith” is not simply a matter of mentally agreeing to do so. Faith means actually doing it.
Jesus said if we want to follow him we must “deny” ourselves, yet we live in a day and age when everyone does what is right in their own eyes, justifying what they do by seeing themselves as their own authority, either because they don’t believe in God or don’t believe he has authority over them as revealed in Scripture.
In C.S. Lewis’ book, The Problem Of Pain, the author mused, “The moralities accepted among men may differ – though not, at bottom, so widely as is often claimed – but they all agree in prescribing a behaviour which their adherents fail to practise. All men alike stand condemned not by alien codes of ethics, but by their own, therefore are conscious of guilt.” (page 11)
In other words, a moral person tries to do the right thing, and yet fails. As an example, Paul said, “I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate” – Romans 7:15. Contrast this with the immoral person who no longer even tries to do right. They no longer feel guilt because their consciences have become “seared as with a hot iron” (See 1 Timothy 4:1-2).
The third chapter of The Problem Of Pain is titled, “Divine Goodness” in which Lewis differentiates God’s goodness from human goodness and God’s love from human love. There is a popular saying these days that “love is love”. But Lewis points out that while human love can be both egoistic and altruistic, God’s love transcends those parameters.
The love relationship Christians enjoy with their heavenly Father is a direct result of our submission to Jesus Christ as our Lord. Jesus said, “If you love me you will keep my commandments” – John 14:15.
C.S. Lewis echoes this sentiment: “To experience the love of God in a true, and not an illusory form, is therefore to experience it as our surrender to His demand, our conformity to His desire.” (page 44)
He goes on to say, “Those Divine demands which sound to our natural ears most like those of a despot and least like those of a lover, in fact marshal us where we should want to go if we knew what we wanted.” (page 46) And, “…whether we like it or not, God intends to give us what we need, not what we now think we want.” (page 47)
This Biblical Christian world view makes no sense to those whose pride prevents them from humbling themselves before God. “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing” – 1 Corinthians 1:18. And in our society today there is such a particularly high regard for self-esteem and the rights of each individual to fulfill whatever desire they may have, that any thought of being answerable to the absolute authority of God threatens their self-centered outlook, which devolves from their relativist world view. That is one reason there is such intense hatred of Christians when they reflect to those who identify as LGBTQ that God has given us clear moral instructions for how we are to express our sexuality, and how we are not.
It is not that I as an individual am judging or condemning others, or that I am telling others what to do. What I say here and what I have said in the past is a response to what I see as people who are slaves to sin insisting that all of society approve of their sinful behavior and pass laws that enable them to continue to freely sin and draw others into sin along with them.
Ezekiel 33:6 says, “But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.”
Christians are called to be witnesses to God’s truth. If we see evil and yet remain silent, we become responsible for the consequences that might have been different had we warned others, giving them the chance to repent. And so it is the duty of those who know the truth to warn those in jeopardy of God’s judgement.
Now that I have explained my reasons for writing what I write, here is the comment made by Jeffrey Liakos to my post of May 23, 2012, The Heart Has Its Reasons. Following it, I will respond to each of his points.
That may be true, however, like Qur’an, the Bible has stories that depict violence. Also, the book of Revelation depicts stories of the apocalypse. Do you honestly think gay people choose to be gay or that they are born that way? If they choose to be gay, than they are engaging in what the Bible calls sinful behavior. Assuming that they are born that way, the implication of sinful behavior is not credible. Back to my earlier comment where I said that the United States was not a nation based on religious supremacy but religious freedom, you did not actually deny that insofar as I know. If you are married, how exactly is your marriage threatened by same sex couples wanting the same basic rights? Please, don’t give me the they can marry a person of the opposite sex line. That is something I came across in another forum that talked about the issue of same sex marriage. People who talk about freedom in some cases mean that freedom means freedom for everybody. Other people view freedom as their right to impose their will upon others. Also, what about people who preach about the importance of marriage to society? Newt Gingrich championed DOMA, the Defense of marriage Act, however, he has been married 3 times. Anybody who champions a defense of marriage and has been through multiple marriages is by definition a hypocrite. The only downside to same sex parenting is being faced with “Go ask your Mother” for lesbian couples or “Go ask your Father” for gay couples that have children. In a straight household context, you can hear the “Go ask your Mother, or “Go ask your Father” line. So, in a straight household context, you can get the normal suggestion of your Mother or your Father. Also, government should have no place in marriage debate. Leave it to the Churches or have a civil union, the latter which should be acknowledged by the government. In some other forums that I have participated in, the subject of same sex marriage has been a topic that is discussed. Even though my views differ from yours, your views seem to be more well thought out than other people’s in my opinion.
Here is my point-by-point breakdown:
Let me begin by explaining what “That may be true” relates to. In one of Mr. Liakos’ previous comments he had said, “Quoting Scripture can lead to misinterpretations of it by some people.” Using that same “reasoning” one could shift the blame of disinformation from those who distort the truth to those who report the truth. Mr. Liakos is apparently unaware of the non sequitur here. I responded, “It isn’t the quoting of Scripture that leads to misinterpretations. It’s ignorance and hearts that are open to spiritual deception.” This is what he referred to when he said, “That may be true”. Leaving that thought, he continued with…
however, like Qur’an, the Bible has stories that depict violence. Also, the book of Revelation depicts stories of the apocalypse.
So, starting by talking about the problem of misinterpreting Scripture caused by quoting it, now he adds that both the Quran and the Bible depict violence. I suppose he expects me to read between the lines because he doesn’t actually say it, but what I think he means is that the Bible is no better a source of truth than the Quran, and that for every Biblical quote that I might use to support a point, an Islamic scholar might use a quote from the Quran in opposition.
If that is the case, then should no one in any debate ever quote sources that support their position? He seems to imply that conclusion because there are major differences between the Bible and the Quran. So, is he suggesting that we should throw out all source material as authoritative and just go by our gut feelings?
Aside from the problems that arise from the abandonment of basic logic and critical reasoning skills, the idea of not quoting Scripture for fear it may lead to misinterpretation overlooks the possibility that the Bible may very well be the best evidence available to teach us the truth about God. Unless a person is open to that possibility and willing to examine it, there is no likelihood that he will ever discover the truth. Scripture is evidence. Evidence is supposed to be examined.
In particular, before anyone makes the decision to treat the Bible and the Quran with equal regard or to discard the Bible altogether out of reverence for the so-called “perfect and eternal” words of the Quran, I suggest they read, No God But One, by Nabeel Qureshi. He is a Christian apologist who converted from Islam after four years of arguing for Islam with his Christian friend, former atheist, David Wood. In the end he discovered answers for all of his objections and questions, and saw from scholarly research that the best evidence by far was that the Bible teaches truth while Islam is a false religion.
His book covers in detail the incontrovertible evidence. The only real question is, “So what?” How much does the truth really matter to those whose world view questions the very existence of absolute truth? In the conclusion of No God But One, Nabeel Qureshi writes, “But if there was one thing Islam had taught me, it was that I must submit to God and not to man. That meant following the truth, no matter where it led…The evidence in favor of Christianity was far, far stronger than the evidence for Islam.” (page 290)
I submit that a thorough and objective examination of the Bible in comparison to the so-called holy books of other religions will produce convincing evidence of the truth. That’s why I will always quote Scripture to support my position.
Continuing on, Mr. Liakos asks,
Do you honestly think gay people choose to be gay or that they are born that way? If they choose to be gay, than they are engaging in what the Bible calls sinful behavior. Assuming that they are born that way, the implication of sinful behavior is not credible.
The Bible teaches that everyone is born into sin. We are all sinful by nature. Does that alter the fact that we are responsible for our sin? No. God holds us accountable because he creates us with free will. We have the capacity to choose to repent from sin and turn to God. And yet, we are incapable of saving ourselves from the wages of sin, which is death.
Even when we choose not to sin, none of us are perfect. 1 John 1:8 says, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” The solution to this dilemma isn’t to accept our sinfulness and continue in our sin. The solution is to confess our sin, ask God’s forgiveness and then go and sin no more. 1 John 1:9 says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
Every sincere Christian struggles with sin. When we fall, we pick ourselves up, ask the Lord’s forgiveness, and then try once more to walk in his light, that is, live our lives in close fellowship with him, denying our fleshly desires to sin. This is called living in grace. Over time, we learn to be more holy, as he is holy. And this process is called our sanctification. The question of whether or not homosexuals are “born that way” is spiritually irrelevant.
Next, Mr. Liakos wrote,
Back to my earlier comment where I said that the United States was not a nation based on religious supremacy but religious freedom, you did not actually deny that insofar as I know.
No, I didn’t. I have no idea what he meant by “religious supremacy” because he didn’t explain it. Back in 1787 when the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, the word “religion” was primarily used to refer to the various Christian denominations, and Judaism – the “other Biblical religion”. “Pagan” religions were specifically considered “false” religions whose adherents were targeted by missionaries to be saved from perdition by teaching them the gospel. There were very few adherents of Eastern religions in early America. They were largely understood as belonging to the Orient and therefore foreign to America and American thought.
Therefore the idea of “religious freedom” had to do with the fact that different denominations drew different doctrines from the same Biblical text. The framers of the Constitution believed that men were free in their accountability to Scripture to worship God as they were led by their conscience, and not to be taxed in order to support any particular State religion over all others. Thus, article 1 of the Bill of Rights specifies, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
“The free exercise thereof” means that a constitutional government does not have the power to regulate religious expression unless such expression crosses the line into criminal behavior. The doctrine of separation of Church and State, which is not in the Constitution, does not prohibit citizens from bringing their religious convictions and values into the workings of government. That current misunderstanding is a perversion of the original intent of that Jeffersonian doctrine.
Next, in shotgun fashion, Mr. Liakos lists a string of objections to my post, The Heart Has Its Reasons. He begins,
If you are married, how exactly is your marriage threatened by same sex couples wanting the same basic rights? Please, don’t give me the they can marry a person of the opposite sex line. That is something I came across in another forum that talked about the issue of same sex marriage.
Well, this does pose a problem in his thinking. The truth is the truth, whether you want to hear it or not. Either the issue of same-sex couples is one of morality, which Bible-believing traditionalists argue, or it is one of legality. Legally speaking, homosexuals have always had the exact, same marriage “rights” as heterosexuals – that is, to marry someone of the opposite sex, which is what marriage is.
Homosexuals have done two things in this arena. First, they have tried to humiliate anyone who would say that homosexuality is immoral, by calling traditionalists who believe in the Bible “homophobes” and characterizing their argument as coming from fear, hate, ignorance or bigotry, rather than what it is: a moral conviction derived from sound Biblical teaching that has been historically consistent for millennia.
Second, they have changed the argument from one of morals to one of “equal rights”. Their idea of equal is if heterosexuals are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, then homosexuals should be free to marry someone of the same sex. There is a fundamental error in that rationale. The only way they can succeed in that argument is to change the legal definition of marriage. And that is what they have done.
Marriage is and always has been a formally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman. It is so singularly important to Biblical theology that the Church is spoken of as “the bride of Christ”. And the relationship between husband and wife is modeled after the relationship Christ has with the Church (Ephesians 5:22-28). In the eyes of God, two persons of the same sex can never constitute a marriage, regardless of how human laws may be changed to accommodate them. Under God’s law marriage offers no “basic rights” for homosexuals.
Using the same rationale as changing human laws to conform to their lifestyle, those who support same-sex marriage revert to changing the tenets of their religions to suit themselves or change the meaning of Scripture to suit themselves. They either deny the existence of God altogether, or pick and choose what they are going to believe in the Bible and change the meaning of any verse that offends them.
The overarching issue here is that they deny God’s authority in their lives and they deny the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. Am I saying I want everyone to belong to my religion? No. I want my society to reflect the morals of a people who acknowledge the supreme Creator and respect those who submit to his authority. That is the basis upon which our nation was founded.
The effect of legalizing same-sex marriage is one of the moral decay of society at large. It eats away at the very underpinnings of civilization. By approving of behavior that God considers an abomination, we as a people are garnering the wrath of God. As our nation thumbs its nose at God, we are daring him to stop us. And in his timing, he will bring his judgment to bear upon us.
The effect on generations yet to be born will be to lose any sense of the holy sanctity of marriage, and see it as nothing more than a legal partnership for the purpose of legal rights. Marriage as the root of the family, the cornerstone of community and the anchor of morality will disappear, only to be replaced by the sterile, empty, selfish lie that two men or two women together can please God or benefit society. That’s not my opinion. It’s truth from Scripture. Are you open to the truth?
Jeffrey’s comment continues,
People who talk about freedom in some cases mean that freedom means freedom for everybody. Other people view freedom as their right to impose their will upon others.
And the point is…? Freedom isn’t a matter of opinion. It is not a vague concept or a disembodied theory. Freedom is something very real, so real that countless people have willingly died to gain it or defend it, including especially those who fought and died in our Revolutionary War against Great Britain. If you want to know what freedom is, talk to anyone who has escaped the tyranny of a totalitarian regime. They can tell you exactly what freedom is.
Unfortunately, few Americans seem to have the slightest idea of what freedom is, because they keep bargaining away their freedoms for Nanny State entitlements. The price of freedom is responsibility and restraint. The kind of “free country” originally intended by the Declaration of Independence was one in which each person is free to pursue their own happiness. That means they, not the government, are responsible for their lives. Most people today can’t even grasp that. Freedom is seen more as getting things “for free” from the government.
The phrase, “impose their will upon others” is loaded because EVERYONE knows that imposing your will on others is the opposite of freedom, the absence of restraint. When government imposes taxes on working citizens in order to provide entitlements (“for free”) for those who don’t work, that certainly isn’t freedom. When florists or bakers are forced to provide floral arrangements or cakes that celebrate same-sex marriages, in violation of their deeply held religious convictions, that’s not freedom. That’s an example of, how did you say it? “impose their will upon others”.
Freedom is only and always freedom for all. But you can’t have freedom for all by restricting the religious freedoms of those who believe that homosexuality and other sexual deviancy is sinful, disgraceful and an abomination to God. You may have noticed the name of my blog is “For Freedom – Galatians 5:1”. I am for freedom because God is for freedom. Our social freedoms all are derived from our spiritual freedom. Freedom is not man-made. It is the way God has created us to live.
God gives us all free will and doesn’t force anyone to be a moral person. Nevertheless he gives us his moral standards and expects our laws to reflect his laws. (This is called “natural law”, the philosophy of law under which this nation was founded and developed for its first century.) John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”. Thus problems arise when laws are made that do not conform to our traditional moral and religious values.
But we have abandoned God, we have abandoned God’s laws, and in our human wisdom we think we can legislate morality and create freedom outside the framework of godliness. It simply cannot work because what is substituted for the wisdom of God is the wisdom of popular opinion.
Basically, the mantra of utilitarianism is “the greater good”. And the only way the “majority” can be satisfied is to force the minority to conform to their will for the “greater good”. It’s a lie. An illusion. The only thing utilitarianism can accomplish is that one group of people is denied their true freedom in order to provide some imitation of freedom for a specially entitled group. So, no, I don’t care what some people may call freedom. I know what it is.
The comment continues:
Also, what about people who preach about the importance of marriage to society? Newt Gingrich championed DOMA, the Defense of marriage Act, however, he has been married 3 times. Anybody who champions a defense of marriage and has been through multiple marriages is by definition a hypocrite.
The validity of any argument does not rest on the virtues or faults of the person making it. There is a difference between the message and the messenger. If you’re going to fault Newt Gingrich’s support of DOMA because of the failure of his marriages, then do you also fault Martin Luther King Jr.’s support of civil rights which were based on the Christian message he preached? He too was an unfaithful hypocrite, so should we discount his message?
If you discount the truth or virtue of any principle or ideal because the person aspiring to it has personally failed, or if you refuse to listen to the ideals held by anyone who has a fault, then you will never be able to glean anything good from others.
No person who ever lived is perfect, except for Jesus Christ. Will you listen to him? The fact is that there’s a bit of hypocrite in every one of us, even you. But when it comes to working at making our society a moral one, I believe the ideal of DOMA is far more positive and constructive than the ideal of same-sex marriage.
I’ve heard critics say, “Churches are full of hypocrites”. And that is true. But it is equally true that the rest of society is also full of hypocrites. At least the ones in church are trying to come to grips with themselves, face their short-comings and try to live in a way that is more pleasing to God.
The only downside to same sex parenting is being faced with “Go ask your Mother” for lesbian couples or “Go ask your Father” for gay couples that have children. In a straight household context, you can hear the “Go ask your Mother, or “Go ask your Father” line. So, in a straight household context, you can get the normal suggestion of your Mother or your Father.
This is clumsily written (poor communication). Please take the time to learn how to put cogent thoughts into written words. Otherwise, why bother? Simple logic tells us that “same sex parenting” can only be “for gay couples that have children.” Aside from that, telling your child to ask the other parent is simply bad parenting. It may look cute or humorous on TV but in real life it is an irresponsible cop-out. The maker of such a comment is either not a parent himself, or is a poor one who has no business speculating on the effectiveness of same-sex parenting.
Hopefully, in 20 years or more we will have statistical information available on the actual results of same-sex parenting. My guess is that the politically correct crowd will continue to avoid looking at the evidence objectively and just make excuses for the sad outcomes. But that’s just my opinion, and no less valid than anyone else’s speculation.
Also, government should have no place in marriage debate. Leave it to the Churches or have a civil union, the latter which should be acknowledged by the government.
Finally, something I can agree with. Unfortunately the horses are already out of the barn. The gay agenda has slowly seduced society into going along with their godlessness. The government has stepped in and in many states same-sex marriage has been given the sanction of official law. But as I said previously, now religious rights will be taken away from anyone whose religious convictions teach them that transgenderism, like homosexuality is immoral and wrong.
And this is only the tip of the ice burg. Not only are transgenders pressing for special restroom accommodations, but the very idea of gender itself is becoming a legal issue, framed in the concept of freedom of choice. Yet, according to the Bible, God created man in is image – male and female – genders obvious from birth. We are either born male or female, according to how God decides to make us. But contrary to the designs of God, man-made laws are being made to allow everyone to choose whatever gender they want. They can even make up a new gender if they want, because gender is no longer considered “binary”.
The problem with man-made laws is that they cannot forever stand against the will of God. The sixth chapter of Daniel records the story of the lions’ den. Three times in that chapter it is repeated that the law of the Medes and Persians cannot be revoked. So, in accordance with the law, Daniel was put into the lions’ den as punishment for praying to God instead of to the king. In his sovereignty, God nullified the law and kept Daniel safe. So, the mere fact that human laws now recognize multiple, optional genders doesn’t make those genders real in the eyes of God.
The comment closes with this statement:
In some other forums that I have participated in, the subject of same sex marriage has been a topic that is discussed. Even though my views differ from yours, your views seem to be more well thought out than other people’s in my opinion.
Considering the comment as a whole, I consider this last statement to be high praise. Thank you. I appreciate it. My response is that I wonder where a person can go these days to share well thought-out views and not get into stone throwing contests or name calling quarrels? The whole purpose of freedom of speech is to find a way of working out disagreements among civilized people by connecting them, not separating them into factions, which people now call “communities”.
Rather than choosing to build unity out of disparate elements (“E Pluribus Unum”), society seems to increasingly choose fighting and the destruction of their opponents. As a society, we seem more concerned with eliminating functional differences than working them out. We used to be a society of “Christian consensus” wherein classical Biblical ideals were generally accepted, but not forced upon everyone. Now, as a society, we are forcing those with a Biblical world view to accept the permissive license of godless relativism while being restricted in the expression of their faith.
When we speak of an “open” society, we mean open to ideas, open to discussion. That is not the same as being open to immorality and lawlessness. Real freedom means responsibility and personal restraint, not anarchy; maturity and judgment, not wild abandon. In our republican form of government, the principle of Democracy was never intended to be as immediate as mob mentality or as variable as wherever the wind is blowing.
Every decision we make as a society should proceed from composed, honest, deliberate, rational, principled, respectable and informed debate. That’s what Congress is supposed to do. That is what media is supposed to do. That is what higher education is supposed to teach us to do. Instead, we get fighting mad. We yell. We curse. We call each other names. We turn to violence and hatred. We feel the only solution is to shut up anyone who opposes us. Shut them up and beat them down. And this way of doing things is undercutting the very foundation of our civilization.
So what’s the solution? Arguing the minutiae of every controversy that divides us as a people? No. I think the human mind is incapable of solving human dilemmas. Proverbs 3:5 says, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.” At the root of all of the controversies we face in life is the problem of sin. We cannot master sin, but the LORD can and does. So the best we can do is look to him and follow him.
That is why regardless of any position we take on any social issue, we ultimately must trust in the LORD for the solution. I would suggest regular reading and studying the Bible in order to help in learning how to do this. There are also many good books written by Christian thinkers that clearly demonstrate rational explanations for the ways our Christian faith directs us to live our lives.
For skeptics of the Christian world view, I recommend reading William Lane Craig, or Nancy Pearcey, especially her books, Total Truth and Saving Leonardo. For those who like to lump all religions together, I recommend Jesus Among Other Gods by Ravi Zacharias. For a direct comparison of Christianity to Islam, I recommend Nabeel Qureshi’s book, No God But One. For examining the deity of Christ, read Lee Strobel’s The Case For Christ. Everyone has heard of C.S. Lewis. For those who are tempted to consider that the very existence of the supernatural defies rational thought, read his book, Miracles.
These authors represent a mere smattering of the written works available to anyone open to learning what intelligent, rational and scholarly people have written about the Bible, the God of the Bible and Biblical faith. In my opinion, only the most closed-minded person would refuse to rationally examine what these authors have written. Such a refusal can only mean they prefer to remain in the bliss of their own ignorance.