Christian Logical Fallacies

Fallacy of the Complex Question. This fallacy puts people "in a bind" so that whether they answer "yes" or "no" to this question--and indeed these two answers are the only ones available--they indict themselves as guilty perpetrators.

Prime examples:

1. Have you stopped beating your wife?
2. Have you stopped cheating on your tests?
3. Have you stopped being overly analytical and critical of others?

I ran across this one recently:

"If you were standing before God, could you describe your relationship to Him by saying, "I love You with all my heart, and all my soul and all my mind and all my strength"?

Now, I've been informed that this question is really meant to serve as an encouragement for Christians to love God with their whole being, as indeed should be the case. Nevertheless, this question commits the fallacy of the complex question because if one answers with a "Yes," then the guilt of pride lies close at hand. How would God respond to an affirmative answer to this question? Would the Lord reveal a particular sin, or sinful habit we have not noticed that sneaks around in our lives?

On the other hand, if someone says, "No, I don't love God with my whole being," then the indictment is one of unbelief. We wonder, "Why? Why don't you love God with your whole being? What's wrong with you?"

The proper response would be "Yes, in my spirit, which is renewed by Christ, I love God with my whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, but I still struggle with indwelling sin and this indwelling sin is at war with the Holy Spirit within me, causing me to fail daily in my love for Him, and yet, by the grace of God, I'm growing in my love for Him." Paul says this clearly in Galatians 5 about life in the Spirit.

The proper way to form the question would be: In what ways do you strive to keep the greatest commandment, to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength? This leaves the question open-ended. We may detect the fallacy of the complex question by its very nature, which is close-ended, and requires either a "yes" or "no" answer.

Big Bang Cosmology and "God is love"

The Big Bang, in modern cosmological theory, asserts that at one, particular "zero point," there was no space, nor was there any time, calling this the "singularity." In other words, there was a time when time was not (this statement is an anomaly appropriate for a different discussion, as describing the singularity must make use of reference to time in order to describe it).

But what can we learn about the nature of God and the universe from the Big Bang, and what does "God is love," one of the most oft-quoted Scriptures have to do with modern cosmological theory? Stephen Meyer (PhD, Cambridge), researcher at the Discovery Institute in Seattle Washington explains in True U, a curriculum for university students and produced by Focus on the Family, that Big Bang cosmology, with its affirmation of the singularity, rules out naturalism and pantheism as viable worldviews, leaving deism (impersonal, uninvolved deity) and theism (personal, involved deity) as the only viable options.

Naturalism--the idea that nature is all that exists--is not a viable option, according to Meyer, due to the evidence of the singularity, because it provides no causal agent for what brought the universe into being. Recall that the "singularity" is a "zero point" where both matter and time were not in existence (I am aware that some cosmologists and physicists et al want to assert a "quantum vacuum" and other "cosmological constants" in order to avoid the inevitable conclusion that the universe is a created thing). Similarly, pantheism--the idea that God and matter are intertwined, mixed and one in essence, is also an impossibility from what we have learned about Big Bang theory. This is because in pantheism, matter and spirit are one in essence. But this cannot be, since matter (and time) did not exist at one time. For pantheism to be true, matter would have to exist from all eternity, but we know that the material universe is not infinite, but finite. Therefore, if a spirit did create the universe, it would have had to exist prior to it. This leaves pantheism (God is all) out as an unscientific religion.

Readers of the Bible know that Big Bang cosmology fits very well with what we read in the very first verse: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The Old and New Testament Scriptures therefore, are in complete line with what we read in our telescopes and on our mathematical charts: the universe came into being from an outside agent.

What this has to do with "God is love" (1 John 4:8) can be seen in the incorrect way this verse if often interpreted. Many times, "process" theologians, who believe God is evolving, progressing, and "in process" along with humans, read this verse in the reverse: "Love is God." (Maybe "Love is god" is more appropriate). Here is the SBL Greek text...

⁸ ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν οὐκ ἔγνω τὸν θεόν, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν.

Where we read "God is love," God (theos, θεὸς) has the article "the" (ho, ὁ) and love (agape, ἀγάπη) has no article. Grammatically, "God is love" means that "love" is predicated on God. But notice that it is not the other way around. If the anarthrous noun (lacks the article) had been "God," we might have a notion of pantheism in John. But as a Hebrew, John would never affirm a pantheistic notion such as "Love is god." That would make love an abstraction, and a very Greek idea, and not a Hebraic one, where God is seen as a personal, infinite Being. Rather, the biblical idea is that love is an attribute of God, and an essential part of his nature. Greek scholar Dan Wallace writes, "The meaning is certainly not convertible: "love is God." The idea of a qualitative ἀγάπη (agape) is that God's essence or nature is love, or that he has the quality of love. Thus love is an attribute, not an identification of God" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 264, 1996 edition). This is further evidenced by the context of the passage where John tells us that the one who loves is of God (same verse). Thus love is an action, and John is saying that when God acts, he acts in love. Moreover, John tells us that God is light (1:5), and that he is Spirit (John 4:24). The reverse of these ideas are not true, where the former would be pantheism, and the latter would be both pantheism, and cosmic dualism. Rather, John's point in 1 John 4:8 "God is love" is that when God acts, he acts in love. Yes, that includes his judgment, justice, and wrath. A good God judges evil!

John's statement "God is love" is about God's character and nature and is, according to commentator Stephen Smalley, an anti-gnostic notion, as Gnostics, who believed that matter was evil and only spirit was good, would easily accept that Jesus of Nazareth was divine "light" and "truth," as John says, but they would have a hard time believing that God's love was manifest in Jesus, because Jesus "came in the flesh" i.e. in a material body, and was crucified for our sins. "God is love" therefore, is a very concrete, real affirmation of God's activity, ultimately shown for us in the death of his Son, who was fully God and fully man in one person. John's context of "God is love" in verse 8 is continued in the same, concurrent thought in verse 10 and 11: "In this is love, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation [sacrifice that bears God's wrath and brings favor] for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought to love one another."

Both science and proper exegesis of Scripture show us that God is infinite and personal, and not one in essence with matter. Nor are abstract ideas available to humans for ethics apart from the nature and character of God. Love, goodness, justice, truth--these all have their origin, meaning and apprehension for living within the character of God and are essential attributes of God. So, give pantheism and naturalism the boot! And bow to Jesus (we'll talk about deism later).

Christian Decision Making and "God Told Me"

Many Christians think that major decisions, such as adopting a child from a foreign country as opposed to their own, or choosing a spouse, or what kind of mercy ministry to pursue, are rooted in reasons stated in the following ways: "God told me to do such and such," or "God has laid it on my heart to marry so and so," and so on. For example, in reading a recent article on the difficulty of adopting children from foreign countries due to bureaucratic hoopla in The Christian Post, I read one comment chiding folks for dismissing children right here in the U.S. in favor of children in foreign countries (Ethiopia being the most popular country at this point). "Why adopt or take care of children in Ethiopia while there are millions of children here in the U.S. who need parents?" Now, this is actually a very good question, but most people who make this comment are unaware of the objective facts that children in Ethiopia suffer in ways beyond compare to children here in the U.S. It's important to tackle this question, not with subjectivity ("God laid it on my heart to help children in [a foreign country]), but rather with objectivity.

A subjective reason comes from the inner coils of the human mind (or 'heart'--the terms are used synonymously in the New Testament). Subjective reasons don't deal with facts, but with feelings. Subjective reasons are lazy, actually, and they are unfair. Now, don't get upset with me, because there most certainly is a place for subjectivity in the Christian way of life in terms of conviction of sin in the conscience, inner peace in decision-making (provided it is in accord with the objective will of God revealed in His Word), and inner peace in the devotional life through prayer and meditation and knowing God as Father at a very personal, real, and intimate level. But when someone says, in response to the objection against helping orphans in the 3rd world, Christians should never say the following: "God has laid it on my heart to help children in Guatemala." Why should Christians not speak this way, and why is it lazy and unfair? For the following reasons....

• A. It is a conversation stopper. Offering the subjective "God laid it on my heart" answer is arrogant because it basically is saying "You can't argue with me on this one, because God Almighty disagrees with you!" Think about it: this kind of answer is actually telling someone to basically take a hike and not to argue (or even speak another word!) with you because you have the rebuttal rooted in the authority of the Almighty Counsel of God. That's arrogance, folks, and it's unfair to the person making the objection. We're supposed to speak the truth in love, not manipulate people. Now, I understand it's upsetting when people say things like, "You shouldn't be concerned about children in Ethiopia, you should be concerned about children in your own nation." I've been to Ethiopia twice--albeit for only 3 weeks total--but I've been there, and I've seen poverty like never before, HIV/AIDS ridden families, 3-year-old girls living in a trap of sexual abuse, lepers, prostitutes, people eating from a garbage dump. So I understand the arrogance of the other side who eschew adopting and caring for orphans in foreign countries in favor of children here in the U.S., but subjective responses rooted in emotionalism are completely relative. There's a second reason why we shouldn't respond with the "God told me" response.

• B. How do you know if God told you? What standard do you have with which to discern between God's voice in your own? The truth is, you don't have such a standard. All you have in subjectivity is your emotions and nothing else. Subjective reasons such as "God laid it on my heart to do such and such" ignore objective facts, and they don't provide honest dialogue with people. Again, how do you know God told you? How do you know it's not just your own mind or emotions leading you? "But my emotions come from God" you say. Really? They do? All of them, all the time? You don't have your own will, your own emotions, your own conscience?

• C. The person objecting to your helping children in foreign lands could just as easily respond with their own, subjective response. They could say back to you, "Well, actually, I have some news for you: God has laid it on my heart to tell you to stop helping children overseas and start in your own backyard in our own city." Tit for tat, they say, and it's true! I've heard Christians say to me: "People can't argue with me when I tell them, 'Well, God has laid it on my heart to help children in Ethiopia.'" Oh, yes they can. They can indeed argue with you. They can say that God laid in on their heart to tell you to stop. And how will you argue with God?
  

The Best Way to Answer

The best way to answer the objection to helping orphans in Ethiopia, for example, is to give the facts.

• Fact: children in Ethiopia suffer sexual and physical abuse unparalleled compared to what happens in the U.S. (Yes, I am aware of child sexual abuse here in the U.S., but in Ethiopia, it's rampant).

• Fact: children in Ethiopia eat garbage out of a dump. The place is called Korah (Kore) and it's in the capital city of Addis Ababa.

• Fact: children in Ethiopia suffer from HIV/AIDS in alarming numbers.

• Fact: children in Ethiopia have one or zero parents due to HIV/AIDS, other diseases, or abandonment

• Fact: girls who live on or of the streets of Addis Ababa suffer sexual abuse too terrible to describe, and it happens to 1 of every 5 girls, ages 5-25. Teenage prostitution is a plague in the city.

• Fact: orphans in Ethiopia live in conditions unlike in the U.S. There is no comparison. The homes I've been in are made of sticks and mud, are 8x8 square, and have nothing but a thin piece of wire with a lone, electric bulb. No kitchen, no plumbing, no food.

• Fact: women and children in Ethiopia suffer persecution when they convert to Christianity.

Are those enough facts for you? And isn't it better to give the facts than just "God laid it on my heart"? How about just giving the facts? I forgot to mention that in America, children have free education, foster care, food stamps, WIC, welfare, scholarships, and a government that gives dollars to moms for every child they give birth to. Ethiopia? No.

• Final Fact: if we don't step it up and sponsor or adopt Ethiopian children, they will die.

What I'm Not Saying

I'm not saying God doesn't lead people, give them dreams, or speak to them. God most certainly leads us, but it isn't as simple as "God laid it on my heart to marry Jane." How do you know this? God leads us by His Holy Spirit through our subjective experiences via the aforementioned ways: conviction of sin in the heart, mind, will and conscience, as a leading guide through various circumstances, through reminding us of the Scripture throughout the day. He may even teach us things through dreams, and He may even speak to you. But to say that God told you to do something is to tread on very sacred ground. Remember Deuteronomy 18:20-22, where the Lord offers these instructions concerning a word from God:

• But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’—²² when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

Pay attention to the phrase in the bold type above: if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken. I have had a dear, kind, sister in Christ tell me that God told her that she would bring her adopted children home from Ethiopia in July of 2011. It did not happen. Friends, saying that God told you something is a BIG DEAL. God prizes his Word above all else!

• I bow down toward your holy temple and give thanks to your name for your steadfast love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your name and your word, (Psalm 138:2).

Be careful, Christian, on speaking for God, or appealing to His Authority. False prophets were under the pain of death for saying something would come to pass when it didn't!

The Better Path

Christians should not make decisions based upon a voice in their head or upon their feelings. Instead, they should go to the Word of God, counsel from godly brothers and sisters in Christ, pastors, elders and deacons in their church, and prayer. They should ask themselves: is this a good thing I'm doing? Is God providing the means by which I can do this good thing? Then go and do good, and don't bother with those who object to your good work in Christ. But subjective reasoning is rooted in emotionalism, is unfair to those with whom you might have a real, good conversation about the indubitable facts of a given situation, and it presumes on the authority of God Almighty, when you don't have a standard within you to judge whether it truly is God's voice or not. Instead, take your emotions before the Lord in prayer and seek godly counsel from godly people and the godly Scriptures, allowing your circumstances to be led by the Holy Spirit and allowing the objective facts to speak for themselves.

Would you like to sponsor a child in Korah, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia? Go to Transformation Love. It's a great ministry with which I have been honored to serve, giving hope to widows and orphans by giving them food, clothing, medicine, education, jobs, and hope in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Why We Cry When Beauty Dies: On the Death of Whitney Houston

Some might argue that we mourn over the death of beautiful people more so than ordinary folk because we are shallow and we put too much value on physical beauty and personal achievement and talent. While it's true that we do, in fact, put too much value on these things in American society, I think there is another reason why we cry when beauty dies. It is because beauty is a sign to us that there is something beyond our present circumstances of life, and that we are made for a place where beauty is forever. Beauty has a transcendent quality that leaves us yearning for something more. Beauty makes us long. Beauty makes us feel comfortable. And beauty makes us feel empty, too. That's the longing part. We long, and we are not fulfilled. We think that if only we can be beautiful, or have something beautiful, then we will be happy. But the longing we feel is not satisfied by the apprehension of beauty, either in terms of self, sex, art, environment or career. We tell ourselves these things will make us happy, but they don't. They leave us still with this longing.

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most
probable explanation is that I was made for another world."

~C.S. Lewis.

Why do we stop and stare (at least mentally) when we see a beautiful, attractive person?

I was about 13 when Whitney hit the scene in '85 or '86. I remember thinking how beautiful she was. She was so beautiful! I've spoken to friends, none of whom, myself included, listened to Whitney's music. And yet, we are all saddened with tears over her death. I've been terribly sad, actually, and it has made me ask the question to others: why does it mean or take to be a happy person?

But here's a different question: When was the first time you experienced the destruction or loss of beauty? Perhaps it was when your first pet died. Or worse, when a friend, parent or grandparent died. Maybe it was less traumatic but still very real, such as when someone stole something that belonged to you--something you cherished. Whitney Houston has died, leaving us empty, sad and angry. At first, when I heard the news of Whitney's death, I thought, "Well, another Hollywood, pop-icon has gone by the wayside yet again due to destructive lifestyle choices," or something to that effect. But then I reflected upon her some more, and looked at the pictures of her early career, read her life story, and I was hit with a deep sadness. Have you experienced a lull, and stopped to ponder this week over Whitney's death? Have you ever stopped to think why we humans destroy ourselves with such readiness? Are we lonely?

“If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him."
~Jesus of Nazareth, John 14:23

My first experience with willful destruction, to the best of my memory, was when I was a little boy. I woke up one day and looking for my dad and brother, asked my mom where they were? It was a bright, sunny, summer day in the 70's, and a great day for Grampa's farm out in Coopersville, Mi. Ah, to run in the fields amidst the hay and wheat and soak up the dust and the sun, explore the trails and the barn and climb the equipment and eat the sandwiches made of that prepackaged, thinly sliced deli meat, followed with Kool Aid. Grampa's farm, ah! "They left," says Mom. "You slept in, so they left." Anger. I immediately went to my room and saw what was most precious, grabbed it and stomped to the front door. Smash! Little pieces fell in chunks, after making the initial sound "clunk." A ceramic piggy bank in the shape of a little, white puppy dog with blue polka dots lay in large shards like an open wound on the concrete porch step.

The broken ceramic gift: because of the pain of feeling abandoned and rejected or simply passed over, I reacted in anger and decided to destroy a gift from the ones from whom I desired love and attention. And I destroyed the tangible object and reflection of that love. "Only a puppy dog piggy bank," you say. No, not really. Not just a puppy dog piggy bank. Not at all. A very unhealthy way of handling frustration, that's what. Destruction of something beautiful, and in certain terms, a mode of self destruction. It's not just a ceramic holding pot for coins from the mint.

Why did Whitney choose to follow destructive patterns? Do we blame Bobby Brown? That's what one friend said. My friend told me he was angry with Bobby Brown for leading Whitney in a life of dissolution, confusion, delusion. Of course, we are responsible, ultimately, for the choices we make. But still...."damn it all," we're tempted to say.

Elvis Presley is purported to have said that the reason why he infused his body with the toxins he chose was to eliminate the pain of what it might feel like to no longer be popular. I've heard Ravi Zacharias speak about this, as he interviewed one of Elvis' friends. Is that why we destroy ourselves? Is it some twisted form of self-love? We don't feel loved so we do things that will make the pain go away. Or, we give ourselves pain, because that's the only thing we can control. Being unloved makes us feel empty, and feeling empty is combated against via inordinate measures which include a pursuit of pleasure, numbing down, or violence. Something has to fill the void.

"Our desires have become attached to things that are little more than shadows, when they are meant to be attached to something which cannot decay or disappoint."
~Alister McGrath

What did Whitney experience in the deep well of her inner self, what brokenness, what pain? And why are we so shocked when someone who has it all experiences depression, or gives in to vices to dull the pain? We say to ourselves, "But she had it all," not believing that the power of celebrity doesn't make pain or yearning and longing go away, as neither can anything in this world including money, sex, career and calling, or what-have-you.

Human longing is seen in human desire, and human desire for beauty is a sign of the transcendent hope that lies within us. It's a sign of another world where beauty fills all. Did Whitney hope for anything, or did she lose hope? If she did have hope, what did she hope for? Peace?

Christian hope is found in God, who is beauty, and who promises us the hope of the resurrection of the dead to a glorious new heavens and new earth where beauty never fades, and in fact where it is continually growing and increasing, flowing from the infinite being of God, the perfect object and subject of beauty. We cry when beauty dies because we know that beauty is ultimate reality found in another world--the real world--for which we're made, and that beauty is just not supposed to die, and when beauty dies, hope dies with it. Hope and beauty sail the seas on a ship heading into the western edge, far away from this land, and it's upon this ship that we must board.

"At bottom, everything depends upon the presence or absence of one single element in the soul--hope. All the activity of man, all his efforts and all his enterprises, presuppose a hope in him of attaining and end. Once kill this hope and his movements become senseless, spasmodic and convulsive, like those of someone falling from a height."

~Henri Frederic Amiel, Amiel's Journal.

South American Prison Speaks to Atheist Professor

The captive prisoner smiles as he notes he has been awaiting trial for two years now. The crime? Stealing a pack of gum. "I'm so very happy you've come to see me," he says to his American visitor. In the upper portion of this South American prison, where beatings and filth co-join as malevolent twins in a quagmire of bureaucratic arrest, the professor of criminology stares in awe at the man's happy demeanor. He notices the prisoner's Bible on the shelf of his cell, along with a picture of Jesus in a state of downcast agony, a head full of thorns with blood dripping down like sweat, and the deep lines of a worn, weary man etched into his face. "Not the handsome, happy, American Jesus," the professor tells the audience.

Dr. Mike Adams (Sociology/Psychology, Mississippi State), teaches at UNC-Wilmington with a passionate penchant for free speech. Sponsored by the student apologetics alliance Ratio Christi, Dr. Adams spoke to a crowd of some 250 people at Lenoir-Rhyne University in Hickory NC on Thursday night, January 19 at the Belk Centrum, on "Political Correctness, Postmodernism, and Christianity." His speech, which may be summed up as a charge to college students to reclaim the freedom of thought and expression on the college campus in eschewing popular "speech codes," wove a personal story of witnessing evil first-hand so many miles from home. Culture shock strikes a deafening blow at cultural relativism, in the face of injustice, resulting in a revolution of worldview. What did he see?

Read the rest of this article here.