Lets Get You S a v e d . com

Thanks for visiting.
Here is all you need to do to become saved.
Believe In Jesus Christ As Your Savior.
He has already done the work to earn your entry into heaven.

What if I Have Doubts? (continued)

The “What Abouts”

Short Answer Version

The "What Abouts" are the questions some people struggling with doubt would like answered before they make a decision to believe in Jesus.

When you don't know Jesus, many things about life just don't make sense. Sometimes people just feel like screaming "Why doesn't God do something about it?"

Symbolically speaking, when we take our dark glasses of unbelief off, we can start to see that God has already done more than we can imagine about it. Often, it is not an unanswerable question that we face, but an unhealed hurt or sense of anger that is our true hurdle.

It takes a while to catch up with the ramifications of all this. But each person needs to seek the answers most fit to their emotions and sensibilities. These are the source of their struggles.

Long Answer Version

We would all like to know why God allows evil, injustice, pain, injury, early death, and the sea of human suffering. I do not say any of these things lightly.

God made provision to take all the hard questions away. When we are riddled with riddles when looking at all the things that don't make sense, Jesus made a way. He provided tools for us to use, both before and after we believe in Jesus for salvation.

Not all the questions magically disappear when a person receives Jesus into their heart as Lord and Savior. However, those who previously mistrusted Jesus, start trusting Him as they open up to Him. The answers start with understanding the personal aspects of Jesus. They can see His love and faithfulness to them, that they can see unfolding in their lives.

Jesus heals them, comforts them, delivers them, provides for them, and rescues them. Do you want all your "What Abouts" gone? Then, decide now to follow Jesus. Watch how things get better. See God do many expressions of love to and through you. It will show how involved He is in making things better for you and the world.

Why do you think I can say these things? Because God has come through for me thousands of times to fix the things that were my "What About" issues. He fixed my emotional pain by His healing and transformation emotionally, spiritually, and personally.

He fixed my money problems by providing for me and my family every day of my life. He healed us physically on numerous occasions. We never ran out of abundance. However, we did spend too many years worrying about it. "As if" God would forget to supply our true needs and wants.

I could write about His answering the "What Abouts" in my life and those of my loved ones with story after story of personal blessings, all true.

Rarely was my life "perfect", but since I met Jesus, it has come very close on more occasions than I could have ever hoped for before I knew Him. I can look at the "large bank account" of memories in which God proved to me repeatedly that He was working on my behalf. When I do, my perspective is very bright about what He will continue to do.

None of the blessings have to do with the fact that I am me. It is all because He is He. Believe and hang on. It will all fall into place.

Questions like "Why does God allow" (fill in the blank) have bounced around in the minds of people since civilization began. "What About" questions are even asked in the Bible. Some of the writers ask things like "Why does the way of the wicked prosper?" and "Why does God remain silent when the wicked man devours one more righteous than he?"

So far, nobody has come up with answers that fully satisfy the general populace. Why do bad things happen to good people? Why is there pain and suffering? Why is "man's inhumanity to man" so common?

One Sunday my wife and I along with a few others had lunch once with a famous radio personality who addressed this topic to us in a light-hearted way. I found it both profound and amusing. He said, “When I get to Heaven, I’m going to ask God the hard questions that begin with ‘Why’. I don’t know what His answer will be. But I know what my response to His answer will be. It will be ‘Oohh!’.”

What About All the Injustice in the World?

Regarding justice and injustice, let’s remember that it was God’s intention from the beginning that people would let Him be the highest judge. He knows how to undo injustice better than anyone. Because of that, we cannot look at even the most horrific injustice that happens on earth, and assume God is not doing something about it.

God created justice. If we can’t see what He is doing, it doesn’t mean He is doing nothing. Appearances can be misinterpreted.

When God said, “vengeance is mine, I will repay”, I think He meant “I, the Lord, will avenge injustice. It is not your job, and it is not your right to criticize how I do it or when I do it.” Like many things that God wants to do on earth, He can use people to carry out justice. If you are for justice and against injustice, then play your part by letting Him use you to do it.

Don’t think that God has refused to thoroughly obliterate injustice. He is doing it His way and His timing, which is much better than ours.

Jesus explained privately to his inner circle the parable of the wheat and tares (weeds) we read in Matthew 13:36-42. While telling them why the wicked go to Hell, He led with this. He said the angels gather “all things that offend” (sometimes translated “all stumbling blocks”), and cast them into the fire.

In my mind, one of the "things" that offend would include injustice itself. The injustice in the world both offends and is a stumbling block to those wanting to believe in Jesus.

Blaming God for injustice is sometimes a smokescreen. Most likely the injustices were caused by selfish humans disobeying God's repeated injuctions to practice justice.

It may seem like a handy come-back to blame God for allowing injustice, as if we humans have superior ethics and logic to stand in judgment over God.

In the end, God does not allow injustice at all. Humans are short-sighted, thinking about today and tomorrow. They often think that if they see bad things happen, that means God allowed it.

God has perfect vision. He operates in the big, long picture. When God said, "You shall not steal", it meant he was not allowing stealing. People still steal. But God is not allowing it.

Ironically, those who reject Jesus based on allowing injustice are doing injustice to themselves and to God. They are doing what God does not allow. They are also fabricating a lie about what it means for God to allow something.

I don't know why people think He is obligated to prevent injustice at every turn, rather than do so in His appointed time.

Some people have not yet heard that Isaiah attributed this statement to God: "For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done"

What About All the People Who Died Without Having the Chance to Hear the Good News about Believing in Jesus?

This question has come up dozens of times for me in conversations by people hesitant to believe in Jesus for their own salvation because they are not sure what happens to those who die without hearing the message of Jesus first.

In my opinion, it does not make sense for you to hesitate at the offer of salvation because some people might not have a chance to hear about it. You are having the chance right now!

This question about what happens to people who never hear the good news, is one that people ask as a rhetorical question, as if not knowing or understanding the answer proves there is no answer. That kind of logic fallacy and a similar one, called "begging the question" are well known for having no power to convince.

People think asking a question that is not easy to answer assumes that the inability of a person to rise to the challenge proves the question can't be answered. This method can be used as an underhanded tool to back the listener into a corner and make them feel as if they had lost, or at least to instill doubt in them. But it is only a question and can imply nothing. Such a question has no strength of argument, and no power to justify rejecting the love of Jesus and salvation. Many of the questions people ask thinking it justifies their right to reject Jesus are of this type.

Referring to Jesus, the Bible says things like “there is no other name given under heaven by which people must be saved.”

The word “name” in this passage should not be interpreted as meaning merely a specific word, spelling, pronunciation, or identification. This is because in the tradition of the Jewish culture, the word “name” stated in this way connoted the very essence of the person to which it referred.

The statement is about the person that we speak of in English as “Jesus”, the person Jesus, not just His word name. It is illogical that it would be a literal word name because there are so many spellings and pronunciations of Jesus around the world - the original probably being pronounced Yeshua in the time of Jesus.

Similarly, another passage commonly quoted was spoken by Jesus about Himself. “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no person comes to the Father but by me.” Both these verses speak of the exclusivity of Jesus as our Savior, not the exclusivity of certain people to be saved.

Jesus is the most inclusive person ever to exist. He loves and includes sinners in His ultimate solution to their sin, offered freely to them if they only believe.

The above passages are conveying that there is no other Savior. These passages neither say nor imply anything about people who did not hear the good news before they died.

People erroneously assume the passages imply something that they do not. There are other verses that might explain God’s intention for people who did not get a chance to hear about Jesus.

One passage indicates God designed the earth so the people could find Him who are outside the time frame or geography where they could hear the message. He created nature to be beautiful and fascinating so it would point people toward Him, prompting them to “feel after Him and find Him” as it is translated in Acts 17 of the New American Standard Version.

Who is the “Him” that they would find? The “Him” is Jesus. When anyone on earth “finds” Jesus, they find the Savior.

My point is not that the Bible says it is OK to avoid calling Him Jesus, but instead feel after Him and find Him on our own. Read the whole chapter of Acts 17 and this will be clear.

None of us fully knows the dynamics involved in identifying one person as saved and another as not saved. Only God knows, even among those who look, act, and talk like they are saved.

The same is true about people we assume are not saved. There is balance in the Bible saying "by their fruits you shall know them" and it also saying "judge not that you be not judged."

A person who behaves like a Christian, but does no good to others, shows no good fruit. You can notice that, but not judge their salvation by it.

I’d like to reiterate my point in a different way, ONLY GOD KNOWS WHO GETS INTO HEAVEN AND WHO DOESN’T.

We were told by Jesus not to judge each other. Because of that, what point is there to presuming who is saved and who isn’t? That is God's job.

Our job is to spread the good message, lead people to Jesus, and help them grow in their faith. If we do that, we can’t go wrong

There is a lot we don’t know. But there is one thing we should all know. That is how to give God “the benefit of the doubt”. This phrase means to trust that He has a good explanation for everything. It means that when we read scripture, we should be assuming God is to be praised, not criticized even when we see something we don’t understand or seems to rub us the wrong way. There is probably a good explanation in God’s mind. We should all know that God is just, right, true, and loving. We know He wills that no one would perish. We also know that people have the power not to follow God’s will, therefore some might not come to salvation. God, and only God, knows the final state of those who did not hear the good news before they died.

It would be unwise to presume we can usurp from Him the right to make determinations in that regard. This is particularly true if we appeal to our own lack of clarity as an excuse to reject the free gift of salvation. Give God the benefit of the doubt, and fully receive Jesus into your life as your personal Lord and Savior. You’ll be eternally grateful for your choice. In due time He will give you the clarity you now lack. Everyone can relate to feeling a strong pull within when we encounter something we can’t explain.

The strong desire to have our questions answered, should really be relinquished into God’s hands. When we do that, it actually frees us to grow in His image and become capable of understanding more. He answers our questions a bit at a time, as we are becoming mature enough to see the answers through His wisdom. A desire to have our questions answered should not become our reason for putting off believing in Jesus. It should be a positive force to get to know Him better.

What About the Issue of Pain?

C.S. Lewis did a good job of examining this issue in his book, "The Problem of Pain". He capsulized the skeptic's argument by saying, "If God were good, He would make His creatures perfectly happy, and if He were almighty He would be able to do what he wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore, God lacks either goodness, or power, or both."

Lewis cites the following Bible verse as the center of his answer: "the sufferings of this present time are not to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us" (Rom. 8:18). Of course, that only applies to believers. As I like to say, "This lifetime, with all its potential pain, is only a split second compared to the rest of eternity". The answer to the problem of pain from a human perspective is therefore to believe in Jesus as your Savior. From that perspective we can reason that God is shortening the time of pain. Certain kinds of suffering can be seen as vital to His loving desire to prepare us to spend eternity with Him. Many scriptures attest to the value of suffering to mature and perfect us as God forms us into His likeness. At the same time, we can all see unexplainable pain that seems to have no relationship to our development into spiritual maturity. But we can't see behind the curtain where God is "working all things together for good" for us individually. It was by suffering that Jesus substituted Himself for us to earn our entry to Heaven, so we would never have to suffer again after this short lifetime. His pain and death on the cross were indeed the solution to suffering. Above, we talked about issues pertaining to Hell. I pointed out that God desires that no one should go there, a place that appears to be full of pain. I believe it was in the heart of Jesus to solve the problem of pain by dying to save people from that avoidable pain. Pain was created by God primarily for the purpose of keeping organisms, like you, me, and our animals, alive and healthy longer. Pain tells us to stop doing something that would cause even more pain or irreparable damage. We appreciate pain in the world when it takes the form of training for the Olympics, sports, body building, athletics, and boxing. We put ourselves through pain when we exercise, knowing that the soreness the next day is a good kind of pain. We all have an appreciation for pain in ourselves and others within certain boundaries.

We all understand the good reason for pain because it has helped us many times in our lives. What we find difficult to understand is when pain appears to go haywire from its primary intended purpose. It is that kind of pain we call an affliction. Many people consider an affliction a form of evil. Sometimes it is just that, and when it is, we need to ascertain who did the afflicting before we go blaming God. Sometimes people bring afflictions on themselves by their wrong decisions, their unhealthy lifestyles, or their daredevil behaviors. I used the word "daredevil" purposefully because it shows the underlying belief in our society that the devil wants to afflict people. Sometimes we dare him to do that, and he does. Sometimes he does it without being dared. He is an afflicter. He loves to see us in pain. I am saying this to whittle away the blame people place on God for afflicting pain. If we cannot trace the cause of someone's pain to an identifiable responsible party, we sometimes irrationally point to God as the afflicter. It is wiser to point our fingers at God's enemy, rather than God Himself. The Bible indicates satan to be the one who initiated much of the potential for human suffering in the world. It was contrary to God's will and nature. But because of the entry of sin into the world, a fall of humanity and a cursed world resulted, according to the book of Genesis. People might think I am pointing fingers away from God when "the buck stops" at Him. Let's keep unraveling the truly serious issue of why God allows painful affliction and we will find where the "buck" truly stops. A book in the Bible called the book of Job, presents a long story about a prominent man named Job who loved and served God. God was pleased with how upright he was, so He blessed him with success and a large loving family. Then satan bragged to God that he could get Job to renounce God. God gave him temporary permission yet required that Job must not die. From that point, Job endured the most horrendous suffering imaginable and never renounced God. Job never asked, "Why would a good God allow this pain?" Even though his "friends", who were really his accusers, kept taunting him, putting the blame on him, and trying to make him quit believing, he stood his ground. Job did not curse God as his accusers recommended. Instead he blessed God and kept an attitude of worship and praise to God. Readers of Job often miss this as the main point - Blessing, Worshipping, and Praising God. Eventually God spoke powerfully to Job. God's main point was that because He was more wise and powerful than any other being, He has the right to allow suffering or to remove it. God restored Job to health, happiness, and wealth - all far beyond any he had ever known. What did God do for Job's accusers? He did nothing. This story has a moral. Do you think that moral is that we should refuse to believe because we can't fathom the answer to why He allows pain? Obviously not; it is the opposite. We should choose to believe even in the direst of circumstances, in the most extreme pain, in the deepest loss. In fact, we should bless, praise, and worship God for who He is. The New Testament says we should thank God for all things and in all things. Of course, this is humanly impossible in the old nature. But with the new nature that God builds within us, we are more than conquerors. The Bible says, "weeping may endure for the night, but joy comes in the morning." The right attitude toward pain is not a "stiff upper lip", even though many consider it a good attitude toward the problem of pain. The right attitude is trust in God through the good times and bad, through pleasure and pain. Be with your pain when it is there. Weep over it or mourn the loss of a pain free body. Joy is coming. Nonbelievers also have role models for explaining how to overcome the problem of pain. A soldier who puts himself on the battlefield to serve and protect his country, endures pain for the sake of his mission. His attitude is stellar when wounded, and he puts the safety of others ahead of his own. A president who gets shot and survives to fulfill the rest of his term, or one who serves three terms, most of which from a wheelchair - these attitudes are addressing the problem of pain by the presidents to their countries. People are inspired to be heroic in their own lives. They do much good for the world with that attitude toward pain. In a movie preview, I saw a character telling another who was in pain, "Pain is your rocket fuel." I might not endorse the movie, but you can be a believer or a nonbeliever and face the problem of pain with an answer of attitude.

Even with the best attitude toward personal physical pain, it is a very good thing to devote action toward recovering from it. I recently sprained my ankle less than a week into a 15 day vacation. My wife and I were taking a road trip through beautiful Croatia. Even though I "soldiered through" the rest of the trip, with all its walking and climbing, I still babied the ankle when I walked using a walking stick. I put ice on my ankle to reduce the swelling. Now that I am home, I am staying off my ankle, alternating heat and ice, and performing my due dilligence to foster healing. I asked a friend known to be gifted in praying for miraculous healing, who kindly prayed for my ankle. I pray myself for healing each day as well. I give the credit to God for healing me. I am becoming pain free. I am trying to be an answer to my pain, with God's strength and power.

Be the answer to the problem of pain to those around you, and your attitude will convey God's compassion toward the pain of this world. You don't need any special training or credentials to do so. Just love, listen, pray for, help, and serve those in pain.

If you are an emergency room surgeon, realize that you are doing something to stop the pain in the world. You are either knowingly or unknowingly an instrument in God's hands to fulfill that very purpose. If you are a humanitarian worker, consider that you might be God's answer to the problem of pain.

If you simply feed the poor or help those in need, you are being God's answer to the problem of pain. Even when you comfort your child who hurt themselves, you are God's answer.

I applaud the many people used by God in this way, like scientists who developed safe pain relievers, physical therapists, psychological therapists, doctors, nurses, and veterinarians. I would be remiss if I didn't mention believers who pray for those sick or in pain and sometimes see God heal them.

In my opinion everyone still bears in their identity the fact that mankind was created in the image of God. When we love from the heart, we are expressing that image. When we believe for better things, we are mirroring God's image. On the other hand, if someone just wants to criticize God for doing things on His own terms and not theirs, they are likely part of the problem of pain, not its answer.

I read in a Psychology Today article that physical pain gets much worse when our minds create stress and worry about it. This school of thought is on the leading edge of tackling the problem of pain. I found the article at this link. The article is titled "Embracing Pain" and is worth reading when you get a chance. This kind of work is another example of God using people to fight the problem of pain in the world. People who were once heartless and are now in tune with the presence of Jesus find their hearts growing large and compassionate toward the plight of pain and suffering. That is why most non-governmental aid programs were begun by believers. Most hospitals were started by believers. My hat goes off to you, as well as to the red cross, the peace corps, habitat for humanity, and many other organizations not necessarily Christ-focused. I applaud governments who effectively send aid to hurting people all over the world. Whether they know it or not, they are doing the work of Jesus to be His solution to the problem of pain. Wouldn't it be ironic if someone refused to accept Jesus as Savior because of their indignances toward the problem of pain, when His entire mission was to solve it, and He did? I have heard it said, "Jesus loves you so much that if you were the only person on earth who needed a Savior, He would have died just for you." Jesus didn't die so we could have lives of suffering. He took our suffering on Himself, so we could have eternal life. After we part this life, and enter heaven, He will wipe away every tear from our eyes, according to the Bible. It will be a life of joy inexpressible and full of glory.

After all the wisdom and profoundness written about the problem of pain, we must all admit pain can be unbearable. When it is happening, it cannot be soothed by the most eloquent words. If you are a person suffering great pain, such as I have been at various times of my life, know that pain is not a shameful thing. If you have received prayer for healing and it has not worked, it is not a reason to doubt God. The Bible does not promise that we will all be miraculously healed in this life. If we feel outraged about pain, that is not necessarily a sin. Pain and weeping may endure for the night. When joy comes in the morning, it can become easier to understand that the pain was never a valid reason to doubt God's goodness. When our minds turn to dark places, such as erroneously blaming God or even ourselves for the pain, that never helps solve the problem. It only exacerbates it, causing our own emotional pain. We need to remind ourselves that God is omniscient. He can see and feel all the pain happening throughout the world every second. Jesus felt the ultimate pain on the cross to set us free. God bears no resemblance to the character that bitter people envision He is. God is love. Let us "love not in word, but in deed and in truth", as the apostle John says. That is key to addressing the problem of pain.

What About the ''Contradictions'' in the Bible?

This excuse seems to be a perennial favorite: ''How can I believe the Bible, when there are so many contradictions?''

I have personally spent too much time trying to explain one-by-one why most of the scriptures people cite are not contradictions if they really understand the points being made in context to the rest of the Bible.

Throughout the Bible, we are told that God blesses people who love Him and live righteous lives. Since the Bible says that same thing hundreds of times in various ways, what scripture invalidates or contradicts that message? Even if you could find one, I would still choose to interpret the prevailing message as a teaching to follow God and pursue righteousness.

The same goes for the central issues about Jesus. He brought good news of eternal life to those who believe in Him. Show me a scripture in the New Testament that would contradict that fact. Where does it say He did not die for our sins or He did not resurrect?

We should focus on the main points. When we do, the arguments about scriptural contradictions looses their power.

But why do so many say there are a lot of contradictions? There is a story about the great comic actor of the 1900s W.C. Fields. When he was near death in the hospital, a younger friend visited Fields’ hospital room and was surprised to find him thumbing through a Bible. When he asked what he was doing with a Bible, Fields replied, ''I’m looking for loopholes, my boy, loopholes.''

People who do not want to face change or give up their favorite sins might look for any loopholes or excuses to dismiss the central messages of scripture. These messages lead a person away from sin and death and toward righteousness and life in Jesus.

I have not been immune to pondering the passages that appear to many unbelievers to be contradictions in the Bible. Once a person is saved, and learns the good things about the Bible, and sees their immense value, that person can recognize and appreciate the pervasive divine truth in the Bible.

Things appearing to be contradictions are of minor significance in the whole picture.

In addition, many of these apparent contradictions have potentially reasonable explanations. They can be considered resolvable paradoxes, rather than mistakes.

I have probably said elsewhere in this site that we should focus on the central issues, not the peripheral issues. The issues less crucial to salvation, to the good news and God's greatness are peripheral. These minor issues cause the major divisions, arguments, and distractions away from the central truths.

In this section on Doubts, we will see many false conceptions offered by detractors of the Bible. One is that if they can prove that a contradiction in scripture exists, it breaks the ''rule'' that the Bible is infallible, and therefore all its concepts should crumble into invalidity. The Bible never actually calls itself infallible. Many centuries after it was written, Bible teachers determined to use the word in a list of descriptive qualities about the Bible. They did not realize that the word would be subject to other definitions and interpretations than theirs. They used other words, like ''inerrant'', which held similar dangers. But these words are not rules. They are descriptions. The popularity of ''infallible'' and ''inerrant'' became strong around the beginning of the 20th century. Descriptions made centuries after the Bible was written can themselves be open to fallibility and errancy.'

My opinion is that the Bible contains its own credentials, perceivable in its power to change hearts and lives for the better, bring miracles, and feed us spiritually. It does not need fallible labels or ''rules'' by humans. It always supercedes them. The Bible always points to God, who is to be worshipped. He alone is infallible. The Bible is to be appreciated, not worshipped. God is expressed in and through the Bible. Any infallibility shining through the Bible is simply the infallibility of God. It is not merely the literary coherence of its pages. At the same time, an insightful knowledge of the Bible indicates it has greater thematic unity, coherence, and value than any other book in history.

What About the Issue of Hell?

One thing is sure, God does not SEND people to Hell. He sends people to Heaven. He rescues people from the paths to Hell, and grants them entrance to Heaven.

He doesn't will that anyone would go to Hell, and He does more than anyone else to warn people and teach them to avoid Hell.

Here is a little story regarding Hell: I used to have a phone number that was one digit off from a number that was called by many people each day. I kept getting calls from people who misdialed that number.

I came up with the idea to record an outgoing message on my answering machine that presented the good message of Jesus to all the people who misdialed. In that message I stated that receiving Jesus as their Savior would mean they could go to Heaven and not Hell.

One time I was listening to the incoming messages, and I heard someone say to another person in the room as he was about to end the call, “Hey. This guy on the answering machine is telling me I’m going to Hell”. It totally shocked me that he took it that way. My entire motivation was to help him go to Heaven and avoid Hell.

We have faith in Jesus to receive all the good things that God offers. Faith in Jesus does not need to flow out of the desire to avoid Hell. Instead, focus on the kingdom of God and your bright future.

It is not a requirement for salvation that you believe Hell exists. However, if you want your "what about" questions concerning Hell answered, it would be good for you to know about the issue before taking a stance.

I can recite many doctrines, scriptures, and theological premises for why people end up in Hell - - But let’s face it. If there is a Hell, it is someplace you don’t want to go.

Think about this: How sad would it be for a person to reject the offer to go to heaven because he thinks it is unfair that there is a Hell, and by so doing sends himself there?

People end up in Hell for reasons you and I probably don’t yet perfectly understand, but we can try to understand more.

The concept that we think about as Hell started out meaning something totally different in the Old Testament.

When fire was mentioned as associated with Sheol, it was not what Jesus described as Hell. For example, Deuteronomy 32:22, referred to the place called "Sheol". The fire was God's anger against living people who forsook Him, neglected Him, were unfaithful to Him, and sacrificed to demons and strange gods.

Sheol is the word for the place where souls reside after death. It is used in varying ways. Many uses of Sheol were to describe how God rescued people from a cruel death.

When the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the word "Sheol" was replaced by "Hades", which is why the New Testament uses that word and differentiates it from eternal punishment.

For example, neither Sheol nor Hades could possibly be the lake of fire in the book of Revelation. This is because they are differentiated from the lake of fire when it says death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire - Revelation 20:14.

It appears likely that the Lake of Fire is one of the New Testament's word pictures for what we currently think of as Hell.

Daniel 12:1-3 includes the phrase: "And multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt." Daniel likened Sheol to people sleeping in the dust of the earth, but later becoming conscious and facing their place in eternity.

When thinking of Hell on a timeline, the above passages seem to put the role of Hell for containing people far into the future. The Bible doesn't specifically say Hell is where people go right when they die. It is where they go "after" they die physically. How long after, we do not know.

The word that eventually surfaced as “Hell” started around 1380 A.D. It first appeared as Helle in the Wycliffe translation. Search engines will tell you the word appeared around 300 years later than history records the Wycliffe Bible. Either way, Hell was not used as a word to mean Gehenna until 1380 to 1700 A.D.

It was certainly not used to describe the biblical word "Gehenna" prior to that as far as we know.

Words pronounced "hell" were first used in Norse mythology. The female named Hel presided over a realm of the underworld also named Hel. She was apparently mentioned in poems from the 800s and 1,000s A.D. Mythologically she was a daughter of Loki.

"Hel" as a place was similar to the Hebrew Sheol. The word Hel made its way into old languages of Norway, Germany, Holland, and England. One verb meaning was "to cover or hide".

The word Jesus used was was much different than Sheol or the Norse hel. “Gehenna” was a literal place well known in Israel at the time of Jesus where trash was burned, and the flames apparently stayed lit for that purpose.

Gehenna was associated with great disgust and shame by the Jewish people of the time. It means the valley of Hinnom. In this valley more than 1,300 years before the time of Jesus, Canaanites sacrificed their children in the fire to the god Moloch.

When I was in Israel last year my daughter picked my wife and me up from the airport in Tel Aviv and drove to her home in Jerusalem. On the way, she calmly pointed out the window toward what looked to me as a suburb, and calmly told me, “That area is the valley of Hinnom.”

In His preaching Jesus was using this infamous fiery place as a word picture. We all know the literal valley of Hinnom is not Hell. Jesus was trying to express something else, something equally real.

In other passages He used different word pictures, some including the concept of fire, others not.

Jesus spoke figuratively to help people get the idea of something real and truly abhorrent. But it was indescribable humanly speaking by anything but figures of speech.

The Bible has many figurative statements to describe real things that the human mind is too limited to grasp, by translating them into familiar word pictures.

The clear intention behind scriptures about Hell is that it is the place Jesus does not want us to end up in.

According to the clear teaching of the Bible, it is not God’s will that anybody goes to Hell. Therefore, if people go to Hell, it is against His will.

Jesus was more than forthright about Hell. But He didn’t say the things that many people think He said. And He didn’t mention Hell as many times as people might imagine.

Below is one of only four statements Jesus gave about Hell in scripture using the word “Gehenna”. When you look closely at each one, you will see they are all saying basically the same thing in the end.

There is a Bible passage in which Jesus says in a nutshell, don’t fear those who can kill your body. Instead fear Him who has power to cast into Hell (Luke 12:4-5). The intent is to give God awesome respect and understand His great power, justice, and wisdom.

It is logical to fear that He is capable of doing what an almighty and righteous God could obviously do. Hell is real, according to Jesus, the final authority on the subject.

Jesus does not wish for anyone to go to Hell and He wants us to know it in serious terms to protect and rescue us. Out of love, Jesus wants people to avoid Hell at all costs.

The second use of the word “Hell” by Jesus was in saying that it was better to cut off parts of the body that cause a person to sin than to be cast into Hell with the parts intact. Jesus sometimes liked to say things in shocking or absurdly metaphorical ways to stress His points. That was His style of speaking.

We all know that body parts do not cause us to sin. Our minds make that decision (our body parts might persuade our brains at times, but that is a different story).

What was Jesus’ intent? I think it was to get listeners to stop allowing thoughts that could influence people to sin their way into Hell.

Again, the motivation is that Jesus does not want anyone to go to Hell, so we should do whatever it takes to avoid it.

The third thing Jesus said specifically using the word “Gehenna”, was when He told specific Pharisees that they go to great lengths to convert people, but then make them twice the sons of Hell as themselves.

That was strong language, but the intent was that He did not want either those Pharisees or their converts to go to Hell.

The fourth statement Jesus made in scripture was the question He asked of certain Scribes and Pharisees: How can they who have murder in their hearts escape Hell?

As history implies, those Pharisees were the ones Jesus referred to as having murder in their hearts. Note that Jesus put this in the form of a probing question, not a doctrine.

A similar statement to this is when Jesus said that it is better for a person to have a millstone hung around their neck and be cast into the sea than to cause one person to stumble. Both these statements are to motivate listeners to go to heaven, and not to do things that would lead others away from it and toward Hell.

Jesus was emotionally charged to warn people He saw were on the path that led to Hell. He used intense language to shock them into repenting so they would not end up in Hell.

Jesus particularly pointed to arrogance, pride, judgmental attitudes, and ethnic or class discrimination as traps to avoid. He was telling the clueless people that there was danger in the path they were on.

Some people today misinterpret the many indictments Jesus proclaimed toward a group of people from the sect of the Pharisees. His heart toward those specific Pharisees was to prevent them from seeing Hell. He did not hold a grudge against them. He was not competing with them.

When He told them they were “sons of Hell” He was not retaliating for their unkindness to Him. He was trying to save their lives and the lives of those they influenced. It was out of love.

He knew something they didn’t know. They were sending themselves to Hell by their decisions to justify their own sin.

Something most people don’t “get”, is that Jesus and his whole family were most likely from the sect of the Pharisees. He was not criticizing the beliefs or teachings. He was criticizing the things He saw in the hearts of specific people - things that would be very dangerous to them and others.

On the cross, Jesus asked the Father to forgive the people who were among those responsible for His execution and not hold it to their account. It shows that, even then, His love was strong for the people who hurt and harassed Him during His ministry years.

He did not want to see them, or anyone else, punished. If you are wondering why I would say Jesus was probably raised a Pharisee it is this. It is likely that only three sects of Judaism existed at the time of Christ: The Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. The Sadduccees did not believe in life after death. Jesus and his relatives did, according to the New Testament. So he was not a Sadducee. The Essenes lived communally mostly in and around the Dead Sea in New Testament times.

Jesus was well known in the synagogue at Nazareth, which was unlikely made up of Essenes. So he was not an Essene.

The Pharisees taught that people will keep living after physical death. His hearers were already familiar with the concept of Sheol because the Pharisees taught about it. John the Baptist used language similar to Jesus for Hell, in Matthew Chapter 3.

There are many other passages in the New Testament that people interpret as referring to Hell. For example, perhaps the most famous verse of the Bible, John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only born son that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Words, like “perish”, and “condemnation” are often associated with Hell by readers of the New Testament. But for John 3:16, people rarely notice that the statement goes on to explain that God sent His son, not to condemn, but to save.

John wrote that a state of condemnation was already present among people, and not by God's doing. Jesus came to deliver them from it. Obviously, that does not mean He takes any pleasure from it.

The point of the passage is “Then, the righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” If we can get our minds onto that message, and picture ourselves in Heaven shining forth, we can avoid getting hung up on the statements about Hell.

Jesus is the Savior who saves people from going to Hell, not the instigator of sending them to Hell. Believers shall NOT perish but shall experience everlasting life.

One term people associate with Hell in scripture is the “lake of fire”. The Bible says it was prepared for the devil and his fallen angels.

Is it possible that those evil characters, rather than God, are responsible for deceiving and sending people to Hell?

If you have an adamant desire to reject salvation based on the issue of Hell, is it possible that you are one of those people being deceived?

Ezekiel wrote, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live.

What about the wicked, will Jesus ever send them to Hell? I would say “Yes by a technicality”. The reason is that they already lived a life devoid of Jesus by their decisions.

One scripture passage says all judgment has been put in the hands of Jesus. Another tells us in a parable that He will send out His angels to gather the wicked and cast them into the furnace of fire.

Because of these statements, we must conclude that Jesus follows through in sending the wicked to their doom.

The point of the latter passage is “Then, the righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” If we can get our minds onto that message, and picture ourselves in Heaven shining forth, we can avoid getting hung up on the statements about Hell.

The separation of the wicked from the righteous is a two-sided coin. The wicked will be removed and the righteous will shine in Heaven.

You might ask, “Will I be among the wicked or the righteous? The answer is that if you have faith in Jesus as your Savior, that faith makes you righteous in God’s eyes.

When Jesus substituted Himself for you on the cross, He not only took on your unrighteousness, but also substituted His righteousness onto you, so you would be counted among the righteous people who will shine like the sun on the day depicted in Jesus’ parable.

It is clear that the wicked go into the “fiery furnace”, which is a word picture, not a literal furnace. Hitler goes into the fire. Jozef Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin Dada, Leopold II, Mao Dze Dong and others responsible for mass genocide go into the furnace.

Most people would probably not fault God for putting into Hell these people obviously deserving it. Many other wicked people will be thrown in, which is not hard to understand.

Sometimes the real objection people hold about Hell is “how can God do something that I don’t like and that I can’t figure out?” That question itself displays an attitude that Jesus was particularly concerned could send people to Hell.

It is arrogance and self-exaltation. God does not report to, or answer to, any of us. We all ultimately answer to Him. None of us has the credentials, intelligence, or track record to judge Him.

We all need a wake-up call from time to time. We all need to be told the truth in love. Some of us have lost dear ones who, to our knowledge, did not believe in Jesus as their Savior. That is not a good reason to reject the idea of Hell. My own father died without any outward indication He believed in Jesus. It pains me to think of Him going to Hell. But it does not hinder me from following Jesus on my way to Heaven.

We, in our individualism, will not be able to stop God from doing what He, in His infinite wisdom, feels is best. And there is no reason to assume a wrongful intent on His part, ever.

God made right and wrong, good and bad. God does not owe us an explanation that will fit in our human brains. But that doesn’t bother me because Jesus is my salvation. That does fit in my brain.

After all the statements Jesus made indicating He does not want people to go to Hell, there is one question some skeptics still ask. That is, “If Jesus doesn’t want people to go to Hell, then why does He allow them to do so?”

That question is asked out of a wrong assumption. They assume that since God is all powerful and does not want anyone to go to Hell, He is obligated to send everyone to Heaven and keep them all out of Hell. That has some sense of human logic to it. But my answer is that because He IS all powerful, He can do whatever He determines is best for His eternal kingdom, including to deny certain people the right to enter it.

Few of us would reject our society as being real or loving because they don’t let all the hardened criminals out of prison. It is illogical to criticize God for similar sound judgment.

Peter emphasized God’s patient love and His desire that no one would perish but that all would come to repentance. Search the scriptures yourself. Read all about it. Then make your own decision. Those writers were far more authoritative than me on the subject. They were the messengers.

True love hopes the best for others. It wishes that people would listen, believe, and make it to Heaven. When a believer tells a nonbeliever about Jesus, it is an act of love, not a statement that the nonbeliever is going to Hell.

The heart of the message is like "a hurricane is coming, so here is how to avoid disaster". It is not "you're going to be destroyed by a hurricane." When people react negatively to the good news of how to rescued by Jesus, the phrase "don't shoot the messenger" applies.

What About Hypocrisy and Evil Deeds Among Christians?

Let's talk about hypocrisy first. I say this kindly: hypocrisy has always been a rampant non-virtue in many parts of the earth. Those who accuse Christians of hypocrisy need to be aware that the only person in history immune from all kinds of hypocrisy was Jesus.

Why is our culture so quick to use the word "hypocrit" as a flaming accusation against those practicing it, but only when they are Christians? I suspect it is because Jesus was so outspoken and prolific in accusing certain groups of religious people of hypocrisy.

Jesus was so vehement, it would sound to our generation, as if He thought hypocrisy was an uncommon thing. But, His reason ran very deep in the culture's history. Countless times the same attitudes brought Israel into ruin.

Jesus could see it all coming. He prophesied as much, predicting that the Jerusalem temple would be so ravaged that one stone would not lay upon another. Thirty-six years later, in 70 AD, the Romans attacked the land and destroyed the temple.

When Jesus accused the leaders of hypocrisy, He was speaking the words of Almighty God, who had spent 4,000 years bearing with the sin and hypocrisy among generations of people. He had called them to be a holy and chosen people who follow truth.

It is logical to understand why Jesus was so adamant, when you understand His primary mission and heart was toward the people of Israel. The hypocritical religious leaders and their adherents had turned away from their purpose. It was to lead people into loving prudent relationships with God and others. Jesus was trying to turn people back to God by calling out their hypocrisy, and showing their spiritual blindness. We would have no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy in this manner, when we are actually practicing hypocrisy.

When it comes to all the perceived sin in Christians, and especially among their fallen leaders. Nobody could argue that the sin does not exist in people. However, this is no reason to oppose the offer of salvation. To do so is a case of this old saying: "throwing out the baby with the bath water". Yes, there is dirt in the bathtub of Christianity. But the purpose of the bath is to clean the dirt away. God is busy doing that all over the world, every day. That is why Jesus died on the cross - not only to forgive sins, but to provide power to combat sin miraculously and supernaturally in the lives of those who turn from it and turn to Him.

We should not expect Christians to have no sin in their lives. That doesn't mean we condone sin, especially in ourselves. If a non-Christian is livid about all the sin in Christians, they should turn their focus on all the sin in themselves that needs to be cleansed and removed. As Jesus said, "He that is without sin, cast the first stone".

What is the right attitude to take toward all the child molesting priests, the TV evangelists trying to get rich, those who blatantly practice infidelity, the church leaders who mismanage money, the murderers who kill in the name of Christ, and the committers of all the other sins perpetrated in Jesus' name? Is it to turn the other cheek? Maybe. Jesus did not appear to be turning the other cheek when He blasted the leaders of His culture. But we must see the bigger picture. Jesus did not sin in the process. He took vocal action. It was not out of His own anger, but out of compassion for the people in Israel who had been led away from the truth. To people who get angrily easily, that looks like Jesus getting angry and wanting to pick a fight. But nothing could be further from the truth. If any person ever had the right to point out the hypcrisy and sin of the corrupt leaders, it was the Jesus, the second person of the Trinity. He had stood on a mountain overlooking Jerusalem and wept for them because He knew what was coming.

Jesus did turn the other cheek when later the same leaders beat, whipped, and crucified Him. He even had compassion on them when He spoke during His torturous punishment, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

The hypocrits in the church today "know not what they do". Neither do the vocal detractors who turn people away from Jesus on the basis of sin among His followers. Those who condemn Christianity for it's members' hypocrisy are blind to their own sin in doing so.

Jesus taught humility in love. That should be our right attitude. It is the correct answer to the heartbreaking sins we see in too many Christians. It is also the right answer to the sins we see in ourselves when our blindness is removed.

Next Page

The following links continue the topic we are in. They address more information to help dispel doubts about Jesus. Placing them in menu form helps you navigate faster from one section to another, and go back and forth easier.

Links to Additional Sections Within "What If I Have Doubts":

Common Objections The What Abouts

Intellectual Arguments Back to the Beginning

___________

Main Menu

What Does it Mean to Get Saved?

What Does it Mean to Believe?

Who is Jesus Christ?

What Does Savior Mean?

Who is Jesus?

What Earned My Entry to Heaven?

Why Should I Believe in Jesus?

What is the Meaning of Life?

Home - Text Version

Home - Regular Graphics Version

Here is another menu with lots of great information that might help you decide to become a follower of Jesus.

What Does it Mean to Follow Jesus?

What is the Gospel?

More About the Great "I AM"

Will it Help if I try to Turn Away from Sin?

Do I Need to Do Something Extra to be Saved?

More Evidence - Prophecies of Jesus

What if I Have Doubts?

What Do I Do After Deciding to Believe in Jesus?

End of Page

What if I Have Doubts? (continued) Intellectual Pursuits Against Following Jesus

Short Answer Version

God gave us each an intellect. He wants us to use and develop it. It is unhealthy to exalt human intellect over God's intellect. Doing so leads to error and delusions of grandeur.

To use intellectual pursuits for the purpose of driving people away from God is a profound blunder. He also gave us the ability to reason.

The prophet Isaiah wrote, “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool. "

God gave us the ability to reason, so we could reason together with Him and become saved. We can grow into better people, enjoying eternal life.

Long Answer Version

As I mentioned some people have developed well-thought-out responses opposing those who believe in Jesus. We will examine some of them, hopefully with a positive, friendly approach.

Please also allow me to offer a suggestion to consider about the concept of proving something to be true or a fact. When someone says a fact has been proven, it usually means the person has merely been convinced by means acceptable to that person.

Being convinced does not necessarily indicate truth, fact, or knowing. My objective is to sharpen the ability of readers to know, prove, and discover pure fact.

We hear expressions like “hard proof”. What is “hard proof”? Who determines it? Is it possible that the listener determines whether to consider it hard proof based on his or her own criteria? Yes. In light of this, people attempting to persuade us will come as close to “hard proof” as they can.

If you have ever been in love with someone, you know that no hard proof is necessary. In fact, it would be fruitlessly unromantic to reduce it to an intellectual issue. I look at Salvation and the existence of Creator God in much the same way. Those who fall in love with God need no hard intellectual proof. Conversely, nobody can prove it to them that God does not exist.

One day at the end of a church service I met a man who introduced his early-teenage son to me and told me about his keen interest in science. After chatting with the young man for a while about the subject, I gave him a challenge.

I pointed to my wrist watch and showed him that as long as we had been talking, I had been wearing it inside out. I asked him to try and figure out scientifically why. He tried for several minutes with one theory after another, and after a while I had to let him off the hook. I told him that a few minutes before we had started talking, my three-year-old daughter had run up to me. With a grin she turned my watch band inside out, giggled, and left.

I asked him why he thought I would have left it that way. He couldn’t figure that out either. I answered that some things cannot be determined scientifically. This was a matter of the heart.

I had left the watchband inside out because of the love I felt for my sweet little girl. As I recall, I left it inside out the rest of the day.

Science

I am pro-science. However, I am anti-misuse of science. Misuse of science, as it relates to this writing, pertains to going beyond the boundaries of science to make points that the actual science does not make, except perhaps theoretically.

Proper use of science publicly can result in many good societal results, like curing cancer, eradicating smallpox, or launching satellites. Even when it makes corporations a lot of honest money, it could be good science.

The mistake our generation often makes is to take science, which developed as an adjunct to viewing reality, and turn it into the exclusive center of determining reality. I consider this a form of science misuse.

I am anti-abuse of science. Misuse and abuse are different things. There are many kinds of science abuses. Some are for dishonest personal gain, others for undeserved notoriety and prestige. Usually abuse of science takes place by non-scientists trying to capitalize on sincere science.

Science is a discipline that is technically supposed to confine itself to the natural, physical order of things.

There are many scientists who respect the boundaries, even scientists who follow Jesus and maintain the intelligently erected wall between science and spirituality.

If God is not directly physically observable or empirically testable in the natural order to which science is confined, how can disputing His existence or attributes be a proper use of science?

God is not physically observable or empirically testable in the naturalistic order to which science is confined. Therefore, how can disputing His existence or attributes be a proper use of science? At the very least, a scientific research report that cross into issues of divinity should acknowledge and identify the author's bias. This is not to say only athiest scientists should disclose bias. God-believing scientists should do so as well.

The mistake our generation often makes is to take science, which developed as an adjunct to viewing reality, and turn it into the exclusive center of determining reality. Science is a discipline that is technically supposed to confine itself to the natural, physical order of things.

God is not directly observable or empirically testable in the naturalistic order to which science is currently confined. Therefore, how can disputing His existence or attributes be a proper use of science? At the very least, scientific research that crosses into issues of divinity should acknowledge and identify the author's biases, which are non-scientific. This is not to say only athiest scientists should do this. God-believing scientists should do so as well.

Scientists try using scientific means to arrive at conclusions such as "God does not exist". In fact they have developed a huge and impressive arsenal of theories and arguments they can rattle off. Most explanations of this type would ordinarily take a deep understanding of physics, cosmology, statistics and other disciplines to follow. The end result of each attempt is that they cannot truthfully say they know in the scientifically natural sense that God exists or does not exist. Because they do not know, they cannot validate their opinions or conclusions about it to a listener.

Many scientists who are not followers of God, as He appears in the Bible, read the Old Testament and fail to notice it is primarily about the spiritual history of humanity. It is about people following God spiritually. In contrast, it is also about previously spiritual followers, who start to think they know more than God, and go their own way, rather than following Him.

This cycle repeats itself countless times throughout the Old Testament history. In that context, to follow God always produces spiritual blessing. Straying from God tends to produce strife and ends in societal destruction, if history is any indication.

Scientists who are not familiar with this spiritual history go into the study of biblical narratives with a heavy blindfold on, a serious limp, and foggy thinking. They can also exude bad attitudes toward spiritual things that they are as yet incapable of understanding. This can result in vindictiveness toward followers of Almighty God, and their perspectives.

As a side note, I noticed that a particularly common method that experts use to convince people of things, is what I call "blinding them with brilliance".

Some of the scientists and other intelligent people trying to convince others may employ a technique of quickly going from one brilliant flash of knowledge to another so many times that it leaves their hearers' heads spinning.

Of course they do it in a logical flow of thoughts, one intelligently leading into another. They can keep this up for so long during a presentation, that I find myself completely impressed by them as smart people. This leads the audience to want to be impressed by the points they are trying to make - whether they understand them or not and whether they are valid or not.

I have seen this approach applied by outspoken atheist scientists. On the road to capture all the possible ramifications are many fascinating bits of information.

However, they ultimately prove nothing more than the premise that God is not the best scientific theory. Of course it is no surprise to hear that they can't disprove our supernatural God's existence with natural science, even though when they are finished, they sometimes apparently think they have just finished doing so.

In the blaze of brilliant arguments against the existence of God from modern experts, I have seen many logic fallacies emerge. One is that they focus on disproving what they consider commonly-thought attributes of God. These attributes are often from non-Christian sources, such as Aristotle or other ancient philosophers, who had an inadequate knowledge of divinity.

To disprove an erroneously conceived attribute of God, should not be taken as a valid argument against the existence of the one true God of the Bible.

Personally, I consider the tactic of blinding with brilliance to be a logic fallacy, or very close to one. It is similar to a ''Fallacy of Many Questions''.

Our salvation decision does not depend on provable facts about God's existence. For proof of God, it is only relevant that we know God. To someone who knows God in their inner being, which is the only place knowledge of God can be experientially assessed, God proves Himself to exist.

Jesus is the gateway to knowing God. In the Gospel of Matthew 11:27, Jesus says "Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Jesus also famously said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -John 14:6

Most people who appeal to science to defend their unbelief don’t realize that modern science stems from the groundbreaking work of people who strongly followed Jesus as Lord of their lives. This century’s science is based on ideas from spiritual thinkers of the past like Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon. (The two Bacons lived in different centuries and were not known to be related to one another).

Roger Bacon was a monk who introduced what we now call “empirical” thinking. It was an early basis for what we know as the Scientific Method. Francis Bacon, was instrumental in formulating and refining the Scientific Method. Many of Francis Bacon's philosophical ideas were focused on addressing social issues in order to change antiquated systems. His objective was to improve humankind intelligently using a humanitarian focus, as Jesus influenced people to do. These groundbreaking scientists, who were believers in Jesus loved science, but never considered it applicable to whether a person could be saved by having faith in Jesus. They did, however, consider belief in our Creator a natural course of reasoning, that could not be ruled out by science.

Thinkers from the 1600s to the 1800s laid the foundations for science we use today. Many of them were believers in Jesus. The following list of groundbreaking scientists who were Christians is almost identical to the scientists my generation learned about in high school and college: Sir Isaac Newton invented calculus, laws of motion, and universal gravitation. By inventing the first reflecting telescope, he discovered that sunlight was made of all the colors of the rainbow. René Descarte had a series of dreams that led to new ideas about the Scientific Method, and Analytical Geometry, which was his invention. He attributed these ideas to a spirit sent by God in dreams. Analytical Geometry revealed how to solve previously unsolvable geometry problems, by using corresponding algebra. It is now indespensible in today's science and mathematics. Robert Boyle defined the the word 'element', as we now use it in science. He theorized the existence of compounds and the physics of gases.

Blaise Pascal was the grandfather of computing. In the mid 1600s, he invented the first mechanical calculator, the hydraulic press, and co-founded probability theory. Antoine Lavoisier discovered that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. He was a founder of modern chemistry. Michael Faraday discovered magnetic induction, which was the scientific basis for motors and generators we use today. He discovered how to liquify gas to room temperature, and is famous for his invention, the Faraday cage. Allessandro Volta invented the electric battery. The word 'Volt' was named after him. Carl Friedrich Gauss developed Gauss's Laws of physical science, still the standard.

In the 1800s George Washington Carver improved the economy greatly by discovering that peanut farming replenished the soil, while cotton crops depleted it. Florence Nightingale was a scientist who is credited with adding 20 years to then-current life expectancies. Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) codified the the first two laws of thermodynamics, and discovered absolute zero temperature. Samuel Morse was an inventor of the single-wire telegraph and he patented it. He developed the Morse code.

In the 1900s and 2000s, famous scientists following Jesus or at least believing in God have been many. Georges Lemaître discovered that the universe is expanding. He discovered Hubble's Law, and developed what we call the 'Big Bang Theory'. Perhaps the most famous is Albert Einstein. Francis Collins invented positional cloning, and was Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute during the Genome Project. Ernest Walton proved Einstein's theory that energy equals the product of mass times the velocity of light squared (E=mc^2). Christian Anfinsen, Manfred Eigen, and D.H.R Barton are (or were) three unique Nobel Prize winners for Chemistry. Werner Archer, Nobel Prize Winner for Physiology/Medicine. Sir John Eccles: Nobel Prize winner for Neurochemistry, Ulrich Becker: professor at MIT, Steven Bernasek, Conyers Herring, and John Fornaess: all professors at Princeton University.

Primary source: https://www.famousscientists.org/great-scientists-christians/

Science-minded people should be interested in truth as a guiding value of science. Those who propogate that good scientists cannot believe in Creator God, either ignore or dance around the facts presented above. These facts comprise clear evidence that many prominent and acclaimed scientists, both now and throughout history, have believed in God the Creator. Their belief did not weaken their scientific accomplishments or acclaim.

Enlightenment Glowed Then Dimmed

John Locke was one of the earliest and foremost proponents of 'Enlightenment' thinking as he defined it. He was a philosopher born in 1632, who was a Christian with an intense interest in faith and knowing God. Philosophers like Locke led society into a time historically called the enlightenment period. 'Enlightenment' thinking included a belief that reason is the primary source of authority and legitimacy that people should use. This was intended to counter many kinds of dangerous superstitions and ignorance prevalent at the time. John Locke never intended to promote a kind of reason that would pit human reason against divine reason. He was touting reason because it was created by God. He was strongly against atheism. Enlightenment thinking evolved toward a less friendly view of God than Locke or Francis Bacon intended. In a sense, the later philosophers hijacked the term "enlightenment" and redefined it into what I call spiritual "endarkenment". It exalts human intelligence over everything else. It was an assault against God's light in the world.

Christians knew 'enlightenment' to be based on the light which emanates from Jesus, the light of the world. Jesus taught us to use reason fostered by this kind of light. He was a master at reasoning, both logically and spiritually, with great wisdom. The original call to reason of the early enlightenment thinkers was meant to overcome the darkness of misfortune that plagued society. Reason was proposed out of love and concern for people from a godly perspective. Somehow, the idea of reason warped into a call toward poorly applied, slanted reasoning and short-sighted group-think. The proponents overly-venerated science non-Christian philosophy in an attempt to edge God out of the picture. As a believer, I do not think it is out-of-the-question that forces of spiritual darkness were behind this.

In a future section on Philosophy, we will explore a view termed "naturalism". It was an offspring of enlightenment thinking. It attempted to move society and science even farther from God. Unhealthy biases wound their way further into the scientific realm we see today.

Science has a phrase, "quod erat demonstrandum" or Q.E.D. It is a means to indicate when a theory's premise has been demonstrated as having validity.

Q.E.D. is based on the desire to identify that the proof or the argument is complete. It requires evidence within a controlled environment leading to an outcome that would be expected to provide a sound validation of the theory.

The presence of Q.E.D. includes a way to help determine if unbiased science is being applied. Stated another way, the absence of Q.E.D. is a good way to help uncover science misuse when the issue of creation or God's existence is involved.

If there was no Q.E.D. behind a seemingly authoritative scientific statement, it deserves further investigation in the future. Therefore, we should reserve judgement in the present.

Q.E.D. is helpful to determine validation only when tested within a controlled, unbiased, rigorous test environment. Once Q.E.D. has been demonstrated, it fulfills academic rules on which people should mentally base scientific judgment. It does not determine ultimate truth or reality. When science is not involved, Q.E.D. is a poor measuring stick of truth.

When no Q.E.D. is present, but a large group of people, even "experts" adopt a common, but premature scientific conclusion involving groupthink, that conclusion should invite scrutiny, in my opinion.

It is dangerous when faulty science results in a theory becoming accepted mainly on "groupthink", which is a psychological term.

Groupthink happens when a group of people reach a consensus without proper reasoning or rigor. Often it arises out of a common desire not to upset the balance of a group of people.

Consensus reached with proper reasoning and rigor is not groupthink. However, when it comes to science, ideologies, political positions, religious beliefs, or philosophies: consensus can still have some of the characteristics of groupthink. I feel safe in recommending that it is OK to hold the same opinions as someone else. Humorously and spiritually, I can add "especially if that person is God". Anyone of lesser veracity might prove to one degree or another questionable.

Therefore, a person without a relationship with God has no sure anchor for absolute truth, in my experience. God does not always let us in on the absolute truth about things, but at least He can be trusted when He does.

Despite all the good things about science, many of the statements scientists accept as facts are not proven. If experts proclaim an assertion as an established fact, keep an open mind to the possibility it is not true at all, however "established" or pervasive the opinions might be.

The word "fact" has many possible meanings. A primary meaning in some dictionaries for "fact", is "something you know to be true".

When you know something to be true it does not make it a fact in the mind of someone who knows a conflicting thing to be true.

Other meanings of the word "fact" include a thing that a group of people consider to be true, a statement, a piece of information, something in a book, or in computer science a datum is a fact. The plural of datum is data. Therefore, "data" is defined as facts.

Let's say you asked me for directions to a nearby post office, and you followed my directions finding them to lead you very quickly to a post office. That experience would validate that I told you a set of facts, in the most actual definition.

You can know that it is a fact because you mailed your letter. Still, you decided correctly to know. Because the letter is gone, you can say you know on grounds that are irrefutable in your opinion.

Here is my point. A correct decision to know, apart from proof, can lead to irrefutible evidence to your mind. Many times, I have shown people how to believe in Jesus for salvation, and they responded, "I can't because I don't first know that it is true." It is as if there is an unwritten law that says, "don't do anything unless you first know it is true."

Ironically, when it comes to having fun, the same people can be energized by trying new things because they hope for a thrill doing what they don't yet know to be true.

Why be rigid in the matter of salvation in Jesus, when it comes to believing without first knowing? Do you see the folly of thinking you must first know before you can believe and be saved?

Knowing is a decision. It is what a person considers. People might consider many things as known facts, that are later proven to be false. They might have seemed irrefutable at the time, but someone did find a way to refute them.

Science Can Replace Itself

Long ago it was considered a solid fact that a grain of sand was the smallest item known to man. Afterward, for centuries all the world’s greatest minds taught as fact that the atom was the smallest particle on earth.

Later scientists discovered the proton, neutron, and electron, which were each a fraction of the atom’s size. Since then, they have discovered the smaller atomic particles “gluons” and even-smaller “quarks”, which are held together by the gluons, named after the word “glue”.

Quantum physics theorizes smaller particles still. However, the prevailing view first theorized in 1964 is that quarks are the smallest. Scientists often call quarks "the building blocks of the universe". I find the phrase a bit comforting when spoken by any scientist who might envision a Builder.

Next Page

The following links continue the topic we are in. They address more information to help dispel doubts about Jesus. Placing them in menu form helps you navigate faster from one section to another, and go back and forth easier.

Links to Additional Sections Within "What If I Have Doubts":

Common Objections The What Abouts

Intellectual Arguments Back to the Beginning

___________

Main Menu

What Does it Mean to Get Saved?

What Does it Mean to Believe?

Who is Jesus Christ?

What Does Savior Mean?

Who is Jesus?

What Earned My Entry to Heaven?

Why Should I Believe in Jesus?

What is the Meaning of Life?

Home - Text Version

Home - Regular Graphics Version

Here is another menu with lots of great information that might help you decide to become a follower of Jesus.

What Does it Mean to Follow Jesus?

What is the Gospel?

More About the Great "I AM"

Will it Help if I try to Turn Away from Sin?

Do I Need to Do Something Extra to be Saved?

More Evidence - Prophecies of Jesus

What if I Have Doubts?

What Do I Do After Deciding to Believe in Jesus?

End of Page

What if I have Doubts?

(continued) - Intellectual, Philosophical, and Cultural Issues

Short Answer Version

Some people think that a philosophy like existentialism, humanism, naturalism, or post-modernism somehow trumps believing in Jesus. Others claim devotion to another set of spiritual principles that they might not call a religion.

A large number of people consider themselves set in beliefs of their family or country. These are all complex pursuits requiring insight to examine.

The shortest, truest, and best answer when considering all the philosophical and cultural issues is "Jesus is better".

Long Answer Version

No human has the ability to prove conclusively the premises of a philosophy or religion.

No philosophy represents a good argument against believing in Jesus to be saved. However, many seem to offer precepts that make the philosophy seem on the surface to be a good replacement for believing in Jesus. But nothing can compete or compare with faith in Jesus as Savior.

One or more religion teaches that if you become a believer in Jesus, you will be excluded from salvation. If you consider yourself part of such a group, please dismiss that part of your teaching as untrue. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No person comes to the Father except through Me."

The tenets of any philosophy require faith to accept. Philosophies vary greatly in their views. If a philosophy tries to exert influence on its readers to disbelieve in Jesus as Savior or to choose either atheism or agnosticism, that philosophy should be considered at best untenable and dangerous.

Many philosophies make their end-goal the achievement of an individual’s personal happiness here on earth. Some do this in a way conducive to self-gratification on a short-term basis. Others are more altruistic and look beyond the individual to the corporate happiness of a culture or the entire human race.

Philosophies can be multi-faceted and exploratory. They can be profound, helpful, hurtful, creative, well-structured, disarrayed, self-refuting, illogical, or confusing. Both noble and ignoble motivations are represented in the vast number of philosophies.

Naturalism

One currently ubiquitous branch of philosophy is called naturalism. It has been around for centuries. It currently asserts that the scientific method relates to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are based on natural causes. This even includes social occurences, learned morality, and intelligence.

A specialized form of naturalism became a school of thought in the legal profession in the 1700s. It was based on a moral code superceding rules and positions of human authority. The moral code seen in nature was considered to transcend observable nature. Therefore, the concept of ''the laws of nature'' began as being or coming from a higher power than nature.

Naturalism in art began in the early 1800s. It was a move toward focusing art solely on the physically observable.

In Philosophy

Naturalism as a philosophy began in the mid 1800s. It did not at first deny the existence of God. The atheist movement had been growing and undoubtedly influenced naturalism. Without allowing for God to exist in the naturalistic ideology, the laws of nature were recognized, yet defied explanation.

Nature can be explained to the extent it can be observed, but the complex functions that keep it operating, balancing, and changing can only be theorized. Therefore, the thing that replaces God in naturalism is ''chance''. This is merely a word for likelihood or probability.

These laws of nature seem to take on many of the functions believers ascribe to God.

Statistical probabilities were at the center of the equation, as if the laws of probability wrote themselves. A naturalist also considers the laws of mathematics, physics, and nature to be devoid of the genius of design and creation.

To me, the idea that it all exists and is maintained in momentum and equilibrium by chance is unfathomable. I'm not saying that God constantly focuses on holding every little thing in balance. It is more plausible to my mind that He created self-perpetuating systems that do it by His design. They demonstrate and fulfill the laws of nature God created. However, some scriptures can be easily interpreted that God is the one controlling it all. Those who favor that perspective have a perfect right to do so.

In Science

Some people attribute naturalism as a mixture of philosophy and science to Robert Boyle, who lived in the 1600s. He never used the word ''naturalism'', but he did invent the word ''chemistry'', and is known as the father of chemistry. Many naturalists like to think of him as the father of naturalism as well. He was a strong believer in Jesus and the Bible his entire life.

The various schools of thought that arose later calling themselves ''naturalism'', were largely based on his work. They eventually veered from His spirituality. There is a very good You-Tube video entitled ''Robert Boyle - Man of Science, Man of Faith''

Naturalism entered the realm of modern science in the 1800s. Scientific Naturalism was popular among academics around 1830.

In 1837 Charles Darwin made it a pursuit to examine scientific naturalism carefully, and did so for several years. During much of that time he considered himself a naturalist, as was the trend. But then he found it lacking. The areas that Darwin felt were inconceivable became some of the the kindling for writing his famous book and publishing it in 1859.

Starting in the introduction, and repeatedly throughout the book, he differentiated his views from those of the scientific naturalists. Scientific naturalists believed in the opposite of evolution when they said all domesticated animals would fully revert back to aboriginal animals in the wild. Darwin countered with his knowledge that many domesticated animals would not survive in those environments.

Naturalists believed that each species descended from other species through genetics. The existence of genes and chromosomes was newly being theorized in the same historical period. The first gene was not discovered until about seven years after Darwin's book was published.

Over the course of many years, most scientific naturalists gradually went along with Darwin's theories and deserted the original premises of scientific naturalism. Their main thrust remained atheistic, not allowing for divine creation.

In Literature

This worldview was adopted as an approach to literature. First postulated by Hippolyte Adolphe Taine of France, who between 1858 and 1864 wrote a four volume History of English Literature, and a book of essays on literary critique and history.

Taine's critical theory was first adopted by French novelists such as Emile Zola. Zola, wrote dozens of fictional works that incorporated naturalism, thereby veering from the norm and proving successful. Zola later organized his thoughts and constituency to enter the arena of philosophy. He is now called the founder of naturalism as a philosophy.

Although, the philosophy emerged sometime in the late 1800s, it became so popular among literary scholars that it spread quickly, even into an unlikely place: literary analysis of the Bible.

This is ironic because the Bible is filled with the supernatural. How can a naturalistic approach extract any intended meaning conveyed by a book that is primarily about God and the supernatural?

Such strength did the power of suggestion possess, that an invasion of naturalism swept through western culture. It created waves of peer pressure, crowd psychology, mass suggestion, and anti God bias.

When naturalism spread, it infected the colleges and universities of the early 20th century, even the Christian ones. Today sadly, many of the most prestigious theological seminaries base their studies of the Bible on naturalism, through literary criticism.

Naturalism claims to be based on the scientific method. In fact, it is counter to scientific procedures because it makes a statement about the existence or non existence of God.

Naturalism is a philosophy of prejudicial bias. It is based on applying presuppositions that are largely indefensible. In so doing, it is failing to address quite a few red flags.

In my opinion, it is a relatively weak philosophy, but still has a sway on the public largely due to the desire not to ''swim against the current''. Even today, many have assimilated the precepts of naturalism without even knowing where they originated.

An ancient Chinese school of thought, contained a word many translate as ''naturalism''. It bore little resemblance to later naturalism. It did, however, bear some resemblances to the ancient greek philosophies. Zou Yan was the founder, and his teachings were part of the Yin-yang school of thought. It had a strongly spiritual component.

Positive Versus Negative Philosophies

I prefer philosophies with goodness at the center, goodness of life, of future hope, of morals, of ethics, of loving others. Human goodness and happiness are nice things, and they are good endeavors to pursue. Although they are good, they are not the best, which is relationship with God. But put the two together, and you have a winning pair.

I disfavor philosophies that lead people to hopelessness, emptiness, anarchy, depression, or anxiety. Most of them, tend to exclude Jesus if that tells you anything. Here are some examples:

The philosophy nihilism can be capsulized as ''life is meaningless, so reject all moral principles, including most religion''. Existentialism holds that humans are without purpose in a world that makes no sense; therefure, they must fill in their need for purpose as best they can. But they know in the end it will all be meaningless.

Postmodernism believes human consciousness cannot identify reality with objectivity; truth does not exist; science, technology, and logic cannot be trusted, being instruments of established power; neither reasoning nor human nature are consistent among humans; people can't know anything for certain; no theory of the natural world can be valid.

Some of thes philophies gained rather large followings when were introduced. Today, not so much. Postmodernism is the newest, and it has lost much of its thrust since it was introduced in the late 1900s. Relatively speaking, a tiny percentage of the populace holds to them today.

I hope you don't mind that I mentioned these negative, intellectual philosophies. Even though most well adjusted people currently reject them due to the sheer hopelessness factor, I can see an element of truth in them for some people.

However, it does not apply to those who believe in Jesus: The apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in Ephesus that prior to believing in Jesus, they were without Christ, ''having no hope and without God in the world''. Shortly before telling them this, he prayed that the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of God would enlighten the eyes of their understanding, that they may know what is the hope of God's calling and what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints. The message of Jesus instills hope.

No philosophy is better than Jesus. None can replace in your life what Jesus can provide. He alone is the way to heaven.

The Best Alternative To Any Philosophy

Believing in Jesus is not a philosophy. It is not a religion. It is not a set of principles. It is a relationship with God, and the way to eternal life. No other manner of living can touch that.

The wisdom Jesus portrayed in His teachings far exceeds that of any philosopher. Relationship with Him allows us to tap into His wisdom.

He understood that a person’s eternal well being could be jeopardized by the philosophical pursuit of temporary happiness.

Even if you strongly hold to a religion like Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, or Buddhism, you can have faith in Jesus to save you and it will happen. If you do make a decision contrary to the teachings of another religion, you might face opposition from its people. But I guarantee you will not face opposition from the Creator of the universe either now, or when you see Him face to face in Heaven.

We should treat people of all religions with honor. Being a follower of Jesus is a much higher honor than any religion. It is a deep friendship with the most brilliant, loving, and wise person of all time.

People who try to make this personal relationship into a religion rob themselves and others of the true value that can only be found in friendship with God.

If someone from a different religion or philosophy tries to dissuade you from following Jesus or to persuade you to adopt their preferred religion and add a flavor of Jesus mentality on as an extra, don’t go there. Jesus is not a religion or a mentality. He is not a belief. He is a person. It is about relationship, not religion, not a set of teachings.

I have studied major world religions and found they probably have more in common with each other than people would like to admit. Each believes in God. Each has a set of virtues for people to grow in.

The set of virtues is very similar among the world religions. They all have their versions of Heaven, and most also have a version of Hell. They all try and help you avoid evil, and live good lives. At their core, each attempts to work toward the betterment of mankind and the followers of the religion. They work against evil and in favor of God. Most present wisdom and insight in their writings.

You will see that following Jesus is so much better than any religion on earth, and He puts His virtues into us by His Holy Spirit. He gives us power to resist temptation and live clean, happy lives. This power is far more practical and effective than will power.

There is no reason to hold animosity toward any of the major religions. The right thing to do, as I have stated repeatedly, is to move your focus to believing in Jesus as Savior.

If someone says to believe in Jesus but to call Him a name specific to a foreign religion, such as Allah, Vishnu, Krishna, Buddha, Baha, or Maitreya, do not listen to them. It is an attempt to pull you away from Jesus. The same is true in reverse. Don’t call any of those ''deities'' Jesus or YHWH.

Believing in Jesus may clash with other religions, but it should not be out of animosity by the believer. In certain places people know that if they believe in Jesus, it will mean someone will be hired to kill them. Others know their family will cut them off. These are admittedly very strong inducements not to follow Jesus.

Persecution in anti Christian, atheistic countries today is prevalent. We all need to the count the cost to our mortal selves when we believe in Jesus. We should also see that the eternal future of each believer weighs more.

The first followers of Jesus lived in peril and persecution. Many were martyred. Many were rejected by friends and family. But each had experienced an encounter with Jesus that made it seem like they would be denying reality itself if they were to disavow belief in Jesus. The truth is they would have been denying the eternal reality, and therefore persecution was a small price to pay.

Jesus IS God and salvation IS by grace through faith in Jesus. Believers who encourage others to meet Jesus need to make sure the listener understands who the other person in the relationship truly is. New believers would be wise not to allow themselves to be influenced away from true beliefs by people teaching beliefs contrary to salvation in Jesus.

Spiritual enemies of Jesus want nothing more than to keep people from getting saved and becoming effective followers. They use all kinds of strategies including influencing ideologies negative to Jesus as Savior. These enemies are not people.

If we encourage relationship with Jesus, we need to make sure the listener understands who the other person in the relationship truly is. New believers would be wise not to allow themselves to be influenced away from true beliefs by people teaching beliefs contrary to salvation in Jesus.

Spiritual enemies of Jesus want nothing more than to keep people from getting saved and becoming effective followers. They use all kinds of strategies including influencing ideologies negative to Jesus as Savior. These enemies are not people.

The Bible tells us not to consider people our enemies. The real enemies are the spirits influencing the thoughts and feelings that steer people away from finding Heaven.

We live in a world where there are deterrents all around us to believing. The more poignant issues involve the state of the world today, the increasing presence of ungodly values disguised as good, and the subtle pressure by peers, media, family, and others to avoid choosing Jesus as our personal Savior.

These forces war against the plans of God to bring us out of the negativity around us and into the light, the kingdom in our midst, the kingdom yet to come, and freedom from all the negativities of our world.

If we have are eyes opened to these threats to our eternal happiness, we won't be fooled by them so easily.

Here are a few of the threats: Otherwise noble movements that exclude Jesus, popular notions that lead people away from Jesus, escapism, relativism, vengefulness, zealotry, paranoia, greed, distrust, disinterest, and fatalism.

A strong deterrent is to make idolatries out of obsessions with success, wealth, partying, and the objects associated with them. None of these things are automatically wrong by themselves. The obsession is wrong because neither you nor God are in control of your actions when you worship as idols non Jesus things.

A major deterrent is definition creep. Important concepts that lead us to Jesus are being redefined, diluted, made fun of, or considered obsolete. A few examples are the words, ''sin'', ''righteousness'', ''holy'', ''the fear of God'', and ''the universe.'' Somehow the universe God created is being turned into a replacement for God when people are ashamed of using the words ''God'' or ''Jesus'' in a sentence.

Of course it has for many decades been the practice of unbelievers to turn profound Biblical truths into swear words. Even the word for making love, which God created to be a wonderful thing, is now the ''grand daddy of all cuss words.'' People don't know they are defaming God by using the word. Bringing light to this issue is not meant to embarrass anyone, but to get to the root of one of the biggest deterrents against believing in Jesus as Savior today.

Too many people refuse to become saved for reasons pertaining to pleasures that are only sinful when employed outside of their prescribed context.

The answer to this and all the deterrents that exist, is to understand that God has a way of helping us deal with these things by virtue of His presence in our hearts when we believe in Jesus. A tool He has given us is repentance, and is most powerful when light shines on the roots of our sins.

Jesus is our Savior, and can save us from being susceptible to all the deterrents. One reason is that most or all of the deterrents had their origin in and are perpetuated by the war strategy of satan.

When Jesus comes into our lives He gives us ''authority over all the power of the enemy.'' By our prayers, He will break the power of the enemy and his clever deterrents in our lives over and over.

My main point about all the philosophies, religions, and paradigms of this age or any other, is that none of them are as good as relationship with Almighty God through Jesus Christ our Savior. None present wisdom as pure as that of Jesus. None have the signs and wonders, miracles and healings such as those that accompany faith in Jesus. None present salvation by grace (God’s undeserved favor and unmerited, unconditional love), through faith alone, faith itself being the gift of God and no human could boast about achieving it. Like night and day, the difference is great between knowing Jesus and practicing all the world’s religions and philosophies. Jesus is better.

Every people group on earth has a wide variety of personalities. This includes every religion group. Some are good, some are bad. It is wrong to stereotype a whole people group around the bad people in that group. But that is the reason there is so much conflict between religions. People are doing wrong by blaming or accusing a whole group.

This might surprise you. Jesus is in every major world religion somewhere. The Koran gave more praise to Jesus than to Mohammed. He is their awaited messiah. The Jewish scriptures testify over and over of a deliverer, prophesying in precise detail about Jesus. Some day they will recognize Him as their messiah according to the Bible. Even Hinduism and Buddhism have a place for Jesus, although it is not the place He deserves.

Perhaps we should start praying that these lines will become more blurred in the hearts of the true God lovers in other religions, so the light of heaven breaks through the fading blur and they recognize Jesus as their true King and Savior. In other words, let us pray that God will soften their hearts to the real Jesus.

Next Page

The following links continue the topic we are in. They address more information to help dispel doubts about Jesus. Placing them in menu form helps you navigate faster from one section to another, and go back and forth easier.

Links to Additional Sections Within "What If I Have Doubts":

Common Objections The What Abouts

Intellectual Arguments Back to the Beginning

___________

Main Menu

What Does it Mean to Get Saved?

What Does it Mean to Believe?

Who is Jesus Christ?

What Does Savior Mean?

Who is Jesus?

What Earned My Entry to Heaven?

Why Should I Believe in Jesus?

What is the Meaning of Life?

Home - Text Version

Home - Regular Graphics Version

Here is another menu with lots of great information that might help you decide to become a follower of Jesus.

What Does it Mean to Follow Jesus?

What is the Gospel?

More About the Great "I AM"

Will it Help if I try to Turn Away from Sin?

Do I Need to Do Something Extra to be Saved?

More Evidence - Prophecies of Jesus

What if I Have Doubts?

What Do I Do After Deciding to Believe in Jesus?

End of Page

Lets Get You S a v e d . com

Thanks for visiting.
Here is all you need to do to become saved.
Believe In Jesus Christ As Your Savior.
He has already done the work to earn your entry into heaven.

What if I Have Doubts? (continued) Intellectual, Skeptical, and Antagonistic Arguments

Short Answer Version

Skepticism, distrust, apprehension, and reluctance toward believing in Jesus are understandable human responses. We can understand them, but they are not warranted. In fact, they are dangerous long-term to the person entertaining the thoughts.

Many people have adopted these hard-hearted characteristics and have chosen to close their minds and hearts to God's love. Some are energized by a motivation to dissuade people from believing in God and trusting in Jesus. At this point they become dangerous to others long-term because their misconceptions poison others into closing themselves off from a better life.

Long Answer Version

People who hold contempt for even the idea of God can be very strong in their convictions. We need to be aware of their devices and motives. We don't want the doubts of other people to prevent us from believing in Jesus, who is the always the best option.

Many people take on the common skepticism of their culture about many things. Ironically, these people are the most likely kind of skeptics to listen to reason about Jesus. After all, there is much in this world that warrants skepticism, and Jesus offers real help, wisdom, and guidance. God helps us avoid unwarranted negativity that can hold people back from experiencing the good things of God.

Those who build intellectual cases, arguments, and teachings for this purpose tend to have chinks in their armor. They are on the wrong side of the debate, and will ultimately be proven incorrect in their convictions.

In the meantime, we need to be aware of their devices and motives. It will help us not to succumb to their influence. We don't want the doubts of other people to prevent us from believing in Jesus, who is the always the best option.

Some people take on the common skepticism of their culture about many things. These people are the most likely kind of skeptics to listen to reason.

When properly applying reason to the negativity that holds people back, they can move forward in considering Jesus.

Then there are those with a strong stance against God and the Bible out of bias, prejudice, or misguidance. They often want to discredit Jesus as the one true Savior. The most common of these are atheists or those entrenched in anti-christian belief systems.

Their statements sometimes prompt me to think, "What is driving these hard-hearted people so strongly?" This is particularly true knowing that believers in Jesus produce so much good to benefit humankind.

Somewhere inside nearly every skeptic is a seeker. The things I say are based on a desire to show them and other seekers the recognizable errors of most vocal detractors opposing salvation in Jesus.

I learned long ago that such people are unlikely to heed even the most salient points about God, during a discussion. They might, however, walk away with a few new ideas that could lead to heart-searching and grow with time into something beautiful, maybe even heaven.

My audience is people who have hearts of openness to spiritual truth, or at least those who might consider it. The statements I make below could help you filter out the empty arguments of the "talking heads" who would like to prevent you from meeting Jesus.

We will be examining some atheistic arguments. I will be referring to logic fallacies to identify how easy it is to see through false reasoning. Later, the final web page in this section on Doubt is devoted to bringing the reader up to speed on the tools of recognizing logic fallacies.

If you are not familiar with this discipline, the subject of logic fallacies can be very eye-opening to help you come out ahead in various life experiences you might encounter.

My hope is that you would see the love in what I am about to say. I am not trying to discredit people, only the faulty arguments and wrong behaviors that tend to prevent others from being saved. I do this out of love for seekers like you.

Some Christians feel the Bible says they should have a ready argument against any objectors to their beliefs. I'm not sure this is what Peter meant when he rightly said, "Always be ready to give an answer to every man who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, with gentleness and fear."

In my opinion, Peter was referring to people who inquired about Jesus, and at some level sincerely wanted to find a reason to believe.

In all my life, I have never successfully argued anyone into the arms of Jesus. I have, however loved people into those arms.

Many scholarly unbelieving experts have contrived complex logic models to indicate reasons for their lack of belief. Perhaps the most renown is Bertrand Russell who, in 1927, presented the five reasons he was not a Christian in front of the National Secular Society.

We will spend time below debunking Russell's points because most of today's anti-Jesus biases grew out of Russell's foundational teachings.

I have read the full transcript of "Five Reasons I am Not a Christian" presented at the Battersea Town Hall on Sunday March 6, 1927. I also listened to Russell's original presentation recited by a British actor who made me feel like I was right there in the room during the presentation.

The text was shortened into a pamphlet, which presented only the more persuasive points. Recently, most of what I see on the internet are shortened, watered-down versions of the original.

It is not difficult to dismantle Russell's five reasons. They were actually rebuttals to early 20th century statements that were based on faulty premises.

Russell was addressing five points made by the Catholic church in an attempt to prove God exists. This was the first time the church officially attempted to offer such proof.

It has been suggested that religious authorities were trying to fulfill an assignment under deadline, if I understand the background correctly. The contrast between these Catholic authors and today's writers, including modern Catholic scholars, could be due to growth in the last century in knowledge, debate, and presentation skills.

Approximately a century after Russell's presentation, it is easy to recognize that the early 1900s work of the Catholic scholars was weak from our vantage point today.

This in turn serves to weaken Russell's rebuttals. In retrospect it seems that Russell’s “Five Reasons I am Not a Christian”, should more aptly have been titled, “Why I Don’t Want to Be Like the People in 1927 England Who Are the Face of Christianity to Me.”

I say this because he was framing his points around exposure to Christians who, by our standards, were not the epitome of spiritually mature believers.

Russell lived in a society and time many have considered almost devoid of faith and the power of God within the church compared to today's more life-breathing churches. His arguments are therefore not for today or for our culture.

What is more important to keep in mind is that Russell was making a case against the life of a Christian as he understood it, not against accepting Jesus Christ and knowing Him personally by faith. The difference is huge.

Throughout his presentation Russell side-stepped the issue of why he did not believe in Jesus for salvation. Instead he focused mainly on implying that his disdain for Christians was credible support for atheism.

It is similar to the logic-fallacy Guilt by Association. It is childish. It is as if Russell was saying, "If you who believe in God don't treat me nicely, then God can't be real."

In response, Christians are not Jesus. Therefore, atheism is not the logical response to distaste for Christians.

Unfortunately, we encounter the same flawed argument today when people still try to demean Jesus by discrediting those who claim to be His followers. We can currently see a pervasive media bias to that effect.

He also grossly misinterpreted passages to mean Jesus was sinning, when He clearly was not. We, however, can see through these errors, even though the implication was presented with fervor.

In short, these are the five reasons Russell gave, which I will later deal with:

1. I don't know who or what caused God, and I believe everything must have a first cause.

2. Chance is prevalent, and we can't see God in chance.

3. It is incorrect to say "Everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different we could not manage to live in it."

4. The existence of right and wrong, morality, and goodness in humans does not prove God exists.

5. The idea is wrong that the need for justice proves God's existence.

Russell also presented his believe that Creationists have no proof, and proof is what matters. Darwinist evidence therefore, constituted better proof.

Russell did not believe God existed. He then started from that line of reasoning. That is the fallacy of arguing from an unsupported presupposition.

Russell attempted to annul our human right to believe in a first cause for all created things while also believing there was no first cause for the Creator.

He assumed that everybody saw the logic in his statement his father told him, “if God made me, who made God?” In reality, Russell did nothing more than ask a question. Apparently, he thought the question proved something. Russell did not provide any credible support beyond that.

This logic-fallacy is identified as "begging the question." It also happens to be a rhetorical question without substance". It is both unsound and manipulative.

A question can never prove anything - not even one that seems impossible to answer.

Russell did not believe that what we call the laws of nature were created by God, but rather that they happen by chance and statistical probability. That was his second of five arguments as to why he was not a Christian.

He would be hard-pressed to explain why there is so much consistency in these accidental occurrences that we can trace thousands of them that happen the same throughout the earth over millennia and give a name to each type.

Russell did not live in a time of space exploration, but today we see the same overwhelming consistency identified as "laws of the universe".

His third reason, which he called, "The Argument From Design", is actually a true statement. However, it has no bearing on believing or not believing in God. He was right to disagree with the concept that he had heard believers held. Those believers held an unjustifiable concept. Most true believers in Jesus today do not agree that "if the world was ever so little different we could not manage to live in it."

This is called the fallacy of unwarranted assumptions. It is in the category of presumptive fallacies. The premise implied that if some Christians believe in the erroneous argument, then to disagree with it is to disprove design.

Russell's fourth reason is a similar fallacy type. He tried to refute Immanuel Kant's theory that the goodness in people reflects the goodness in God. To do so he went on to use convoluted logic, referring back to his first argument for support, as if it had been proven. It was a presumptive logic fallacy.

Reason number five is an unwarranted assumption fallacy as well, assuming that if a debater discounts an unproven or unsubstantiated argument, he has proven his own opposing point. But to discount an opposing point proves nothing.

Next Page

The following links continue the topic we are in. They address more information to help dispel doubts about Jesus. Placing them in menu form helps you navigate faster from one section to another, and go back and forth easier.

Links to Additional Sections Within "What If I Have Doubts":

Common Objections The What Abouts

Intellectual Arguments Back To Beginning

___________

Main Menu

What Does it Mean to Get Saved?

What Does it Mean to Believe?

Who is Jesus Christ?

What Does Savior Mean?

Who is Jesus?

What Earned My Entry to Heaven?

Why Should I Believe in Jesus?

What is the Meaning of Life?

Home - Text Version

Home - Regular Graphics Version

Here is another menu with lots of great information that might help you decide to become a follower of Jesus.

What Does it Mean to Follow Jesus?

What is the Gospel?

More About the Great "I AM"

Will it Help if I try to Turn Away from Sin?

Do I Need to Do Something Extra to be Saved?

More Evidence - Prophecies of Jesus

What if I Have Doubts?

What Do I Do After Deciding to Believe in Jesus?

End of Page

Lets Get You S a v e d . com

Thanks for visiting.
Here is all you need to do to become saved.
Believe In Jesus Christ As Your Savior.
He has already done the work to earn your entry into heaven.

What if I Have Doubts? Intellectual, Skeptical, and Antagonistic Arguments(continued)

Rather than prove anything, Russell's five reasons showed how weak he was in identifying conflicts that were apparent paradoxes in his day. He immediately wrote them off as impossibilities rather than investigate them more deeply.

People have found solutions to many supposed paradoxes. It can take a long time to discover a solution. The fact that a paradox exists and has not yet been resolved, proves nothing about the issues, and therefore rejection of it disproves nothing.

The link below should lead to a story about how to resolve a paradox that Bertrand Russell felt was unresolvable. It shared aspects of the first cause argument. Take a look at: Resolving_Paradoxes under the section "Existence Paradoxes".

Russell was a master at using many tactics that seemed like good arguments but were not. For example he would make a statement people already accepted as true (whether it was or not). Then he would follow it with a statement such as “if that is true, then you must accept that . . .” then he would state an untruth that did not flow well logically from the first statement.

He used a version of this when he said: "If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause." However, he was not trying to prove that God had a cause, as you might think if you isolated that statement. Rather his point was that there could be no such thing as an eternal, omnipotent God the way the Bible presents Him, because the concept would present an unsolved paradox to those who believed everything must have a cause.

Elsewhere, he admitted that some real things "emerge from chance", thereby contradicting himself. In saying this, he revealed that he didn't really believe every thing has a first cause. Therefore, by default it could be inferred that by Russell's inadvertant admission, God need not have a first cause.

Later as I was listening to the speech, I noticed I was hearing many rapid-fire scathing negative opinions. Russell did not give people time to separate logic from unsupported criticisms. This tactic is a form of the Fallacy of Many Questions in the field of logic. Russell included several other fallacies, such as: Abusive Fallacies, and Relevance Fallacies.

Most of the criticism was toward people, not God. Few people today would consider it above-board to create his various logic puzzles around presuppositions, false assumptions, and flimsy arguments.

Russell was an atheist. Many of my points in this section on doubt show how many people give the reason for not believing in Jesus, is due to someone other than Jesus that they don't like.

Russell's belittlement of the morality of Jesus seen in the New Testament was imperceptive, twisted, and judgmental. It indicated poor interpretive skills for biblical accounts and was caustically presumptuous.

He twisted Jesus' words, took them out of context, and had an overall poor understanding of the Bible. I felt sorry for him in his apparent vindictive bitterness toward God and Christians.

Some intellectual arguments against Jesus are predicated on assuming that the existence of God has been disproven. For example, they ask "How can there be a Son of God if there is no God?".

This kind of logic is so full of holes that the simplest of thinkers could deflate it. The answer is that the existence of God has not been disproven, nor can it ever be. Therefore, the basis of the argument is nonexistent. It is a fallacy of begging the question.

Other arguments against Jesus are based on the vast amount of time that has passed since He walked the earth. Somehow, the assumption is that with the passing of time, historical accounts become less trustworthy. This concept is not without merit when it comes to human revisionist history. But to revise history correctly, one must possess sound documentation contradicting the popular version, thereby superceding it.

No sound documentation exists negating the historicity of Jesus as the Bible depicts Him. Scholarly attempts to question the historical existence of Jesus exhibit anti-Christ bias for which no sound case can be made. The "scholars" and "experts" negate their own arguments with their skeptical biases.

There is a huge amount of archeological evidence to support the historical trustworthiness of the Bible and of Christian history.

Support has been mounting each decade with new digs and artifacts uncovered. The evidence of historical integrity for the chain of manuscripts of the New Testament is compelling as scholars trace it through the ages. The same is true of the Old Testament and the Dead Sea scrolls.

Jesus is the most prominent figure in all of history. More exploration has been done to document His historical and literary authenticity than for any other person. The argument based on assuming that length of time in the past obscures historicity could not possibly be supported when it comes to Jesus.

I think there will never be an end to people who picture themselves as clever, trying to argue against the existence of God and the deity of Christ. The best they can hope for is to present something that stumps us. To stump a person, or even a society, is not valid evidence or proof of anything.

To think you have won an argument by stumping someone is like pulling their pants down, thinking they will never be able to pull them back up.

Please also allow me to offer a suggestion to consider about the concept of proving something to be true or a fact. When someone says a fact has been proven, it usually means the person has been convinced by means acceptable to that person.

Being convinced does not necessarily indicate truth, fact, or knowing. Nevertheless, our society encourage us to hold a concept to be factual if a large number and wide variety of evidences point to it.

I am not critical of this practice, and at the same time, I want to point out it is not an absolute measuring stick. It is indeed possible to know, prove, or correctly find something factual. My objective is to sharpen, not dullen the ability of readers to know, prove, and discover fact that they can feel certain about.

Lets Get You S a v e d . com

Thanks for visiting.
Here is all you need to do to become saved.
Believe In Jesus Christ As Your Savior.
He has already done the work to earn your entry into heaven.

Links to Additional Sections Within "What If I Have Doubts":

Common Objections The What Abouts

Intellectual Arguments Back

___________

What Does it Mean to Get Saved?

What Does it Mean to Believe?

Who is Jesus Christ?

What Does Savior Mean?

Who is Jesus?

What Earned My Entry to Heaven?

Why Should I Believe in Jesus?

What is the Meaning of Life?

Home - Text Version

Home - Regular Graphics Version

Here is another menu with lots of great information that might help you decide to become a follower of Jesus.

What Does it Mean to Follow Jesus?

What is the Gospel?

More About the Great "I AM"

Will it Help if I try to Turn Away from Sin?

Do I Need to Do Something Extra to be Saved?

More Evidence - Prophecies of Jesus

What if I Have Doubts?

What Do I Do After Deciding to Believe in Jesus?

End of Page