Search — Theology Explorer

problem of evil problem of evil trilemma

Braxton responds: even if Drew's point succeeded, it wouldn't lead to atheism — at most it would adjust your concept of God. The video's title ("make you an atheist") overstates the stakes. Drew's argument mirrors Epicurus' logical argument from evil, which is too ambitious.

Response to Q1 — Drew's argument doesn't lead to atheism

1 Corinthians 12:12 1 Corinthians 12:27 Mark 12:30-31 hermeneutics hermeneutics divine communication

Fourth option: written literature is the BEST medium for communicating detailed, specific information that can be preserved, studied in community, and shared worldwide. Other communication methods (prophets, dreams, miracles) are either also subject to interpretation, subjective, or lack specificity.

Response to Q1 — written text as optimal communication

textual criticism textual criticism Watchtower

The JW blood transfusion example actually comes from Watchtower proclamations, not biblical interpretation. John notes the Bible's manuscript tradition makes it more reliable than modern media like video. Even supernatural direct knowledge could still be questioned by skeptics.

Additional response to Q1 — JW example and textual reliability

Pascals wager decision theory Michael Rota

Mike responds with three problems: (1) Drew misrepresents Pascal's wager as "believe whatever promises the most" — Pascal actually included evidential evaluation; (2) modern proponents like Michael Rota and Liz Jackson pair evidence with the wager; (3) Pascal's wager is decision theory, not blind gambling.

Response to Q2 — Pascal's wager is misrepresented

evidence for God evidence for God Pascals wager

Drew's arbitrary cruel God is defeated by evidence: Christianity has historical verification, prophecy, testimony, and wasn't made up on the spot. A maximally cruel God would send everyone to hell with no heaven, giving no reason to worship. This is the "Pascal's mugger" objection, already addressed in literature.

Response to Q2 — arbitrary claims vs evidenced claims

Cameron Bertuzzi Michael Rota Taking Pascals Wager

Cameron adds: Michael Rota's avarice objection response — the wager need not be self-interested; one might commit to God out of desire to avoid disappointing God, to grow morally, or out of moral duty. Rota's drowning child analogy: even at 50/50, the stakes justify commitment.

Additional response to Q2 — avarice objection and drowning child analogy

John McCrae John McCrae anthropomorphism animal suffering

Drew's Question 3: Why did God create animals with pain receptors? John McCrae responds: (1) animals don't experience pain "exactly the same" as humans — they lack equivalent emotional/psychological pain; (2) pain is necessary for survival; (3) "psychological trauma" in animals is overstated (sloth bear eating its own cubs, chimps killing young).

Response to Q3 — animal pain

free will problem of evil problem of evil

Drew's Question 4: If God knows who will choose him, why not only create those people and skip earthly suffering? If free will is the answer, that implies heaven lacks free will (since there's no suffering there), making earth better than heaven.

Presenting Drew's argument — why create the non-elect?

theodicy theodicy soul-building theodicy

Good #3: Soul-building theodicy — suffering provides opportunities to develop character virtues (sacrifice, courage, compassion, forgiveness). Good #4: Robin Collins' connection-building theodicy — virtuous responses to evil create valuable relationships that grow infinitely over time.

Response to Q4 — soul-building and connection-building

Bernard Nathanson NARAL when life begins

Scientific consensus: 95% of 5,502 biologists from 1,050 institutions affirm human life begins at fertilization, including pro-choice and atheist biologists. Bernard Nathanson (co-founder of NARAL) confirmed the early embryo is indisputably a human being.

When does human life begin — scientific consensus

dehumanization pro-choice propaganda euphemisms

Pro-choice language like "clump of cells," "remove the pregnancy," and "evacuate the uterus" are propagandistic euphemisms designed to avoid acknowledging that a living human being is being killed.

Dehumanizing language in the abortion debate

pro-choice propaganda Joseph Goebbels

Fourth artwork shows Valentine candy hearts with pro-choice slogans: "abortion is freedom," "abortion is normal," "shout your abortion." The strategy: repeat loudly and often enough until people believe it.

Propaganda through repetition

abortion human rights human rights

Every argument for abortion in the womb can equally justify killing a baby five minutes after birth — the baby is just as dependent, just as unaware, just as small. The moral distinction collapses.

No principled distinction between pre- and post-birth

Isaiah 5:20 Isaiah 5:20 Isaiah 5:20 pro-choice propaganda Isaiah 5:20

The pro-choice movement needs a victim (the pregnant woman) to distract from the real victim (the baby). This is a propaganda tactic seen in every historical atrocity — the oppressors create an alternative victim narrative.

Propaganda tactic: creating a counter-victim

abortion inverted morality

Both pro-life and pro-choice movements believe they hold the moral high ground. The pro-choice movement has inverted morality — helping a woman kill her offspring is seen as a moral good. The conversation breaks down because they're talking past each other.

Inverted morality — both sides think they're right

Even if you're unsure about early-term abortion, the "maybe" should compel you to oppose it — you wouldn't demolish a building that "maybe" has people in it. And if you draw the line anywhere, you should be fighting for that line instead of voting for unrestricted abortion.

The building demolition analogy and fighting for your convictions

abortion Born-Alive Act

abortion pro-life single-issue voting

Q&A: Single-issue (pro-life) voting is legitimate because abortion is a deal-breaker moral issue. Mike would vote for a pro-life candidate with bad economic policies because saving lives outweighs financial pain.

Q&A — single-issue voting on abortion

1 Peter (wives and husbands) 1 Corinthians (church discipline) family vs fellowship 1 Peter (wives and husbands) 1 Corinthians (church discipline)

Q&A: Family members with distorted gospels — separate fellowship/church from family. 1 Peter teaches a wife should stay committed to an unbelieving husband. Family is not the same as church partnership; maintain relationship while not partnering in false ministry.

Q&A — family with distorted beliefs

abortion life of the mother exception

Q&A: When the mother's life is in danger and both will die, abortion to save the mother is the one exception most pro-lifers accept. Analogous to separating conjoined twins when one is dying — saving one life rather than losing both.

Q&A — life of the mother exception

ultrasound pro-choice to pro-life conversion

Reason 1 (Sherry): Her 8-week ultrasound. She didn't see a clump of cells — she saw her child. "My choice was to keep her alive or kill her." Ultrasound compilation shows parents instinctively calling the image "he" or "she," never "the fetus."

Reason 1 — ultrasound revelation

imago Dei when life begins scientific consensus on life

Reason 2 (Teaser Money): Learning that scientific consensus (95% of biologists) affirms human life begins at conception. Since he already believed humans are made in God's image, the biological confirmation made the moral conclusion obvious.

Reason 2 — scientific consensus + imago Dei

Genesis 9:5-6 imago Dei abortion human rights

Reason 3 (Josh): He naturally leaned pro-choice but realized there's no good reason for it from a Christian moral standpoint if human life is sacred. Genesis 9:5-6 establishes that murder requires a reckoning because humans are made in God's image — a universal command to all mankind, not just Israel.

Reason 3 — human life is sacred (Genesis 9:5-6)

Genesis 9:5-6 abortion when life begins Genesis 9:5-6

Objection: Genesis 9 mentions "blood" — does that mean life only begins when blood forms? No — blood represents life (used in Levitical sacrifices, "cleansed by the blood of Christ"). But even if you took it literally, blood forms at day 21, making virtually all known-pregnancy abortions murder.

Objection — blood and the beginning of life

dehumanization abortion pro-choice propaganda

Reason 4 (Sirius Supernova): Realizing "all the choice is decided by one person when in reality there are two people involved." Pro-choice propaganda systematically hides the second individual through euphemisms: "terminate" instead of "kill," "remove a pregnancy" instead of acknowledging a living child.

Reason 4 — two people, not one

Anthony Levatino Live Action D&E procedure

Reason 5 (Dominic Kalana): Reading a description of partial-birth abortion. Mike shows three Live Action videos from Dr. Anthony Levatino (who performed 1,200+ abortions before becoming pro-life) describing third-trimester, second-trimester (D&E), and first-trimester medical abortion procedures in clinical detail.

Reason 5 — learning what abortion actually is

abortion Planned Parenthood Live Action

Reason 6 (The Seeker): Discovering there's a market for dead fetuses — people make millions from abortions. Live Action video debunks Planned Parenthood's "3% of services" claim: 1 in 8 patients gets an abortion, PP does 30.6% of the nation's abortions but only 1.8% of breast exams.

Reason 6 — the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood

abortion double homicide maternal instinct

Reason 7 (The Real Hope): Becoming pregnant and experiencing the maternal drive to keep the baby alive — it was intuitive, not theological. Mike shares a story of standing outside an abortion clinic when a car accident happened nearby involving a pregnant woman, and the irony of everyone caring about that baby while babies were being killed across the street.

Reason 7 — maternal instinct and the car accident irony

abortion human rights human rights

Reason 8 (Logos Apologetics): Realizing all pro-choice arguments apply equally to a one-year-old. The SLED test: Size, Level of development, Environment, Degree of dependency — none of these justify killing a baby in the womb without also justifying killing a one-year-old.

Reason 8 — SLED test destroys pro-choice arguments

sexual purity sexual purity

Q&A: Losing virginity doesn't eliminate the point of sexual purity going forward. The principle of "I already blew it so why bother" would justify stealing cars forever after the first theft. Sexual faithfulness continues to matter after sexual failure.

Q&A — sexual purity after failure

abortion pro-life life of the mother exception

Q&A: Pro-lifers don't need to provide free healthcare to oppose murder. You don't need to build houses for Jews to say stop the Holocaust. The life-of-the-mother exception: if both will die, save whoever you can — this is triage, not elective abortion. Some doctors say this scenario essentially never happens in practice.

Q&A — healthcare burden and life of the mother

Luke 14:33 Luke 12:33 Luke 14:33 Luke 12:33 Lydia (seller of purple)

Q&A: Luke 14:33 ("renounce all you have") and Luke 12:33 ("sell your possessions") are hyperbolic expressions of total dedication to Jesus, not literal commands for universal poverty. Lydia continued her business after conversion and used profits to support missionaries.

Q&A — sell everything and follow Jesus

Genesis interpretation Genesis interpretation Noahs flood scope of the flood

Q: Was the flood global or local? Mike is on the fence. The Hebrew word "earth" often means dry ground/land, not planet — even in Genesis where "everyone throughout the earth" comes to Egypt during the famine, it clearly doesn't mean globally. The theology (God judging sin, picture of Christ) is unaffected by scope.

Q&A — scope of Noah's flood

Romans 1:20 general revelation total depravity general revelation

Q: Does Romans 1:20 refute total depravity? Not directly. Romans 1:20 says everyone has received sufficient revelation of God's existence through creation, making them without excuse. Mike disagrees with Calvinist "total inability" (inability to respond even with Holy Spirit's calling) but doesn't think this verse addresses it.

Q&A — Romans 1:20 and total depravity

John 14:15 loving God John 14:15

Q: How do you love God more? (1) Obey his commands — Jesus said "if you love me, obey my commands"; (2) prioritize him above everything; (3) delight in his Word. Obedience IS love. Priority means choosing Christ in any conflict of allegiance. "Hate father and mother" is a selection term, not literal hatred.

Q&A — loving God more

Galatians (walk in Spirit) spiritual warfare spiritual warfare prayer and fasting

Q: Feeling attacked by the enemy. Read Galatians on victory over the flesh (crucified with Christ, walk in Spirit vs flesh). Prayer and fasting (Jesus said "this kind only comes out by prayer and fasting"). Deal with obvious sin areas. Trust God even in situations beyond your capacity.

Q&A — spiritual warfare

Hebrews 9:27 Hebrews 9:27 forgiveness after death

Q: Why can't we be forgiven after death? God's mercy is forever, but the question is whether you've received it through Christ. Hebrews: "it is appointed for man to die once, then judgment" — implies permanence of decisions upon death. No biblical reason to think post-mortem opportunities exist.

Q&A — forgiveness after death

eternal security eternal security apostasy

Q: Can you lose your salvation? Mike is genuinely unsettled on this. The question is about apostasy (rejecting Christ), not just sinning. He doesn't have a public teaching on it because he hasn't fully worked through the relevant Scriptures to his own satisfaction.

Q&A — losing salvation

Romans 5 (peace with God) faith alone works as evidence faith alone

Q: Does "saved by faith alone" mean you can sin and still be saved? In one sense yes — salvation is grounded on grace, not works (Romans 5: "having been justified by grace, we have peace with God"). But genuine salvation produces the Holy Spirit, which works out into good works. Works are evidence of salvation, not the means of maintaining it. A person living in reckless sin may never have been saved.

Q&A — faith alone and ongoing sin

virgin birth inspiration of Scripture virgin birth

Q: Evidence for the virgin birth? Not as strong as resurrection evidence, but that's okay — not every doctrine needs the same burden of proof. Mike believes it because Scripture teaches it. The argument chain: resurrection → inspiration of Scripture → virgin birth. The central claim (resurrection) carries the secondary claims.

Q&A — evidence for the virgin birth

1 Timothy 4:1 demon possession 1 Timothy 4:1 demonic powers

Q: What powers do demons have? From Scripture: possession (even multiple demons), controlling actions, causing insanity (Mark 5), influencing thoughts (Satan put it in Judas's heart to betray Jesus — before possession), inspiring false doctrines ("doctrines of demons"), receiving worship through false religions and idol worship.

Q&A — demonic powers and abilities

divine command death penalty Canaanite conquest

Q: Would God ever order a killing (like the Canaanites)? Yes. God has the moral right to give and take life as Creator. The death penalty in the OT shows justified killing. When God commands killing, it's on his authority — normally it would be murder, but divine command transforms the moral status. The burden is on those who claim God could never do this under any circumstances.

Q&A — God commanding killing in the OT

1 Corinthians 14 1 Corinthians 14 1 Corinthians 14 speaking in tongues 1 Corinthians 14

Q: Is speaking in tongues real today? Yes, probably, but it's easily faked. Churches practicing it should follow 1 Corinthians 14's restrictions. Three categories: (1) biblical understanding of tongues, (2) personal experience, (3) discerning others' practice — #3 isn't really your job unless it violates 1 Cor 14.

Q&A — speaking in tongues today

Lee Strobel William Lane Craig William Lane Craig

Q: Good apologetics books? On Guard by William Lane Craig (accessible) or Reasonable Faith (scholarly). The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel for overall Christianity evidence — the first apologetics book Mike ever read.

Q&A — apologetics book recommendations

hermeneutics hermeneutics biblical cosmology

Mike introduces a study on flat earth Bible verses. His goal is not to argue about the shape of the earth but to show that the Bible does NOT teach flat earth. Ground rules: not about conspiracies, geocentrism, or the firmament — only about whether specific verses teach a flat earth.

Introduction — flat earth Bible study

Job 38:14 flat earth Job 38:14 cylinder seal

Refuting Dean Odel's claim that Job 38:14 describes a flat earth stamped like clay under a signet ring. Problems: (1) the seal is a cylinder seal rolled over clay, not a ring pressed flat; (2) the missing word "changed" shows this is about daily sunrise revealing contours, not cosmological design; (3) the context is about wicked hiding at night and being exposed at dawn.

Job 38:14 — cylinder seal, not flat stamp

Isaiah 66:1 Isaiah 40:12 flat earth Isaiah 66:1 footstool of God

The "footstool" verses (Isaiah 66:1) are metaphorical — God is sovereign. If "earth is my footstool" is literal, then "heaven is my throne" must be literal too (but no flat-earther takes it that way). Isaiah 40:12 says God measured waters in "the hollow of his hand" — also obviously metaphorical. 1 Kings 8:27: even the highest heavens cannot contain God.

Footstool verses — metaphor for sovereignty

1 Samuel 2:8 1 Samuel 2:8 pillars of the earth poetic language in scripture

Pillar verses (1 Samuel 2:8, Job 26:10, Psalm 75:3) are all in poetic contexts. In 1 Samuel 2:8, "pillars of the earth" are leaders whom God exalts — the context is about God raising the poor to sit with princes. In Psalm 75:3, pillars are leaders God supports during upheaval. "Pillars of heaven" (Job 26) may just refer to mountains poetically.

Pillars of the earth — leaders, not literal supports