As I have said, if the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are historically reliable, than it would make sense to consider him God. Only God could do what he did. So, then my task is not to decide whether he is worthy to be followed, my task is to decide whether I want what he wants or what I want. If I choose to follow my own path, then I become my own god. Do I trust myself to live a healthy life? Do I trust myself to live for the sake of others, a key sign of human maturity?

An interesting observation is every great sign of human maturity for the sake of the other has been led by people who claim Jesus as their Savior. The list is long. Ending slavery. Establishing child labor laws. Womens rights. Civil rights. Hospitals.Not that non-Christians of goodwill were not involved in these movements, as well, only that they were spearheaded in the name of Jesus.

When children are murdered, as they were by the militant Islamists in Beslan, Russia, the question of suffering and the existence of God comes up once again. How can there be a God who allowed such an evil event to happen? This dilemma is sometimes called, “The Problem of Evil.”

Here are some basic observations.

By God’s design, in order for him to be in personal relationship with humans, we have to be able to sin. We have to be able to say, No,” to God. If we are forced to love and forced to do good then we are robots. So, because humans have the freedom to reject God, they have the freedom to choose evil.



Now, if the evidence of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is historically reliable, then the question of “how can there be a God” isn’t meaningful. If the evidence is reliable, Jesus is God. “What kind of God would allow this innocent suffering” is a better question. Then we can examine what Jesus actually said about life and suffering, what Jesus did, and what Jesus does.

Is the Bible without error? Why are you asking this question? Do you think that the Bible has to be without error in order for you to trust in Jesus? I don’t. For me, one thing has to be historically accurate in order for me to trust in Jesus. The physical death and resurrection of Jesus. In other words, Jesus died and rose from the dead physically, never to die again.



Now, I do trust in the accuracy of the Bible. I’m just saying that if you were to discover errors in some of the Bible’s writings, it would not cancel out the death and resurrection. As Greg Koukl says, ‘It’s not the inerrancy of Scripture that is essential, it is the inerrancy of the death and resurrection of Jesus.’ So, though I do trust in the accuracy of the Bible, the historical evidence of the death and resurrection of Jesus is where I stake my claim that Jesus is who he says he is.



After rising from the dead, never to die again, everything else is no big deal. If he has the power to raise from the dead and never die again, then he must have some powerful “kung fu.” (Sorry, too many martial arts movies lately) Seriously, if the historical evidence supports his resurrection, then it would be reasonable to accept the accuracy of what he says about himself and it would be reasonable to follow his teachings.

September 11 is a memorable day in my life. It will give a sense of history for the rest of my life. I was a young boy when Kennedy was killed. I remember. I was in junior high when Martin Luther King Jr, and Bobby Kennedy were killed. I remember. I was in high school when the Palestinian terrorists killed the Israeli athletes at the Olympics in Munich. I remember. Then, 3 years ago, today. I remember.

I was at the health club riding an exercise bike watching the news when the second jet hit the next tower. I thought that was a replay of the first. No replay.

So, what have I learned? Everyone has a point of view. Everyone has guiding principles to their lives. When people act on those principles, it may be for good or for evil. Some of these principles may be sourced in sacred books. Some may be fostered by an examination of the natural world. Some may be based on how someone feels at a given moment. None of this is neutral. None of this can be ignored. What we are left with is to try to figure out which principles have the best view of reality. Which principles are based on the strongest evidence. Then one needs to decide if one wishes to follow these or that which is less clear.

Ad homonim attacks are standard today. This occurs when you don’t want to support your position or you can’t logically support your position. Then you call the other person names and question their character or their intelligence. Loaded words are usually good to try to stop debate before it even starts.

You are a: bigot, Nazi, Ku Klux Klan, Hitler, fascist, racist, sexist, fundamentalist, leftist

You are being: intolerant, close-minded, bigoted, simplistic, extremist

In almost all cases, when ad homonim attack is used the person has surrendered their logic. Almost always this name calling is a substitute for a weak position that is difficult to support using logic and clear thought.

If someone uses an ad homonim attack on you for simply stating a point of view, then you are probably striking a nerve in the other person. They probably think your viewpoint is too persuasive to carefully explore together. Better to lash out quickly and get it over with.

The old saying goes, “You get the most flack when you are right over the target.”

Yesterday, I spoke of being “saved.” To live with Jesus now and for eternity. Why do I need Jesus? For the forgiveness of my sin. So, if I do not trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of my sin, I don’t receive the benefit of his forgiveness. It’s not that he doesn’t want me to receive his forgiveness; he just won’t force me to accept it. The forgiveness made possible through Jesus is the greatest sign of his love. However, he will not force his love on me. I do not worship an abusive “lover.”

So, there are three types of people in the world today. Those who trust in Jesus and receive his forgiveness. Those who know about Jesus but don’t trust in him and therefore don’t choose his forgiveness. Those who don’t know anything about Jesus.

So what about being saved? I think the overall message of the Bible goes like this. Group one is saved. Group two chooses not to be saved. Jesus could give them his love even they don’t want it, but, I would argue, the Bible is clear he is not one to force his affections. Group three is a mystery to me, and mercy for them may be based on something else (see Romans 2:14-16). In any case, he will decide.

The local Episcopal bishop here in LA thinks that you can be saved in ways other than through Jesus. Many people who identify as, “Christian,” think the same way. How can that be? How can you be a Christian and a “pluralist,” which is a another way of saying, “a person who believes many paths lead to salvation?”

If you don’t need Jesus then you either can save yourself or you are saved by another. If you can save yourself, than why do you need Jesus? Why don’t you just save yourself? If you say you can’t then how can anyone else because they are a sinful human being just like you?

If you are saved by another, then Jesus is not the Savior. If he isn’t the Savior why are you saying he is? If you say he is just the Savior for you then here we go again…

It goes something like this.

I believe Jesus is the Savior. You believe all religions lead to God. I believe it is only through Jesus that you can be saved. You say I am being a “bigot.” Does this mean, you are telling me I am wrong, among other things? Why am I wrong? For saying you are wrong? So, does this mean you are the only person who is allowed to call the other one wrong? Isn’t that being bigoted? Let’s see.

The meaning of “bigot,” comes from the Middle French word meaning, “hypocrite.” I am not calling you a “bigot” because I believe you are wrong. I am just calling you wrong. You are calling me a “bigot” because you disagree with me, but there is no hypocrisy in my opposition to your logic. I come by my opposition honestly; not as a hypocrite. I think you are wrong.

When talking about the lack of extremism in the name of Jesus, I am sometimes asked, “What about murdering abortion clinic doctors? That’s pretty extreme.”

There is no authority for a Christian to “take the law into your own hands.” Romans 13, again. There is no biblical support for vigilantism. Christians are invited to participate in law enforcement, the military, or the legal system, however there is no authority given by Jesus to set up “Christian” law enforcement or a “Christian” court system or a “Christian” army.” “Onward Christian Soldiers” is a metaphor.

This explains why a Christian is not following Christ or the guidelines of the Bible to murder an “abortion” provider, even if they believe abortion is murder. 99.999999% of those who call themselves Christians already understand this. The number of murders (FBI statistics) of “abortion” doctors or related staff in the United States since 1973 (Roe vs. Wade), is seven. Now I don’t know the background of all the perpetrators or those awful crimes, but if they all identified themselves as “Christian”, this is as “extreme” as those who call themselves Christian get, and they weren’t following Christ in the first place.