We’re Moving to the STR Blog!

Hello, readers! Starting this week, all our new posts will be found on the Stand to Reason Blog. Please join us over there to continue to hear from me, Brett, and Alan, and to take part in our challenges (view the Challenge Q&A category here). You’ll have the added bonus of all the regular STR posts, as well. It’s a win-win!

We’ll be closing the comments here in a couple days, so finish up your conversations, and then meet us over at STR. See you there!

Where’s the Challenge?

Big news: We’re moving our challenges over to the Stand to Reason Blog, so follow us over there to see today’s challenge. And don’t forget to bookmark the STR Blog’s Challenge Q&A category to see all future Tuesday challenges!

Challenge: The Best Possible World Wouldn’t Have Non-God Objects

A tweet from the skeptics at the Reasonable Doubts podcast inspired today’s challenge:

What do you say? How do you answer this challenge? Leave your ideas in the comments below, and we’ll hear Brett’s answer later this week.

Challenge Response: Is Heaven a Selfish Desire?

Since Brett and Alan are both out this week, we chose a challenge that Brett answered earlier this year for the STR Blog. Here’s his answer to this week’s challenge question:

Challenge: Is Heaven a Selfish Desire?

Ready for this week’s challenge? Here’s a question we received:

Is Heaven a selfish desire? Christians are told throughout their teachings that they are to be selfless. Does this mean that to desire Heaven is selfish (and therefore wrong) since it’s a reward at the end of life?

Give us your answers for this one, and we’ll post a video from Brett on Thursday.

Challenge: Abortion Wins Souls for Christ

Here’s an objection I’ve heard surprisingly often:

If you do believe that children are innocent in the eyes of God, wouldn’t it be reasonable to suggest that abortion doctors are winning more souls for Christ than Christian missionaries? Why not bomb a pre-school? That would surely win a lot of souls for Christ.

So what do you think? Is it reasonable to suggest that we should kill people into the Kingdom? I’ve heard people (utterly despicably) use this question to try to lessen opposition to abortion among Christians, saying that killing unborn babies is in the babies’ best interest. But I think this particular formulation of the question is being used as a “taking the roof off” tactic—that is, it’s trying to show that the Christian worldview is absurd and that we’re not living consistently within it. In this formulation, the asker is assuming we’d be opposed to missionary killing, but he’s challenging us to explain how we reconcile our actions and our beliefs.

To answer this challenge, you’ll need to think through some theology—what we know to be true about God, man, and the role God has given us. We’ll hear Alan’s answer on Thursday.

Challenge: Only Tyrants Demand Worship

I found this challenge in “Top 50 Questions Christians Can’t Answer.” Can you answer it?

God wants everyone to worship and follow him and, if they don’t, they burn in hell for all eternity. What does this type of attitude say about his character? By definition, he would be described as a tyrant.

Is God a tyrant? What do you think? How would you respond? Leave your ideas in the comments below, and we’ll hear from Brett on Thursday.

Challenge: The Life Is in the Blood

The challenge this week was suggested by one of our readers:

I have heard pro-choicers argue that we shouldn’t believe life begins at conception because Leviticus 17:11 says the life is in the blood. I know they have missed some things because the context is about sacrifices, but what is a good response to this?

What do you think? How would you answer this challenge? Give it your best shot, and then we’ll hear from Alan on Thursday.

Challenge: Why Don’t Christians Follow the Law?

Today’s challenge comes from a list of “Ten Questions to Ask Your Pastor, Reverend, Minister, or Priest”:

Matthew 5:17-18 says quite clearly that Jesus demands Christians follow Old Testament law completely, to the smallest possible point. Why don’t they?

Can you respond to this theological challenge? Here’s a hint: The first step with any challenge like this one is to read the passage carefully in context. Take a shot, and we’ll hear Brett’s response on Thursday.

Challenge: The Trinity Is Unscriptural and Unreasonable

In the video below, Muslim apologist Shabir Ally explains the two main reasons why he doesn’t accept the doctrine of the Trinity:

1. It’s unscriptural. We’re told to worship one God in the Bible. Jesus starts off as “very human” in Mark, then his status is raised bit by bit in the other Gospels, then the idea develops “over the ages” until He is declared to be God by the Council of Nicaea.
2. It’s unreasonable. If you say that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, then you are describing three gods. Christians try to say there are three persons in one God, but to every reasonable mind “that adds up to three gods.” Therefore, to say you believe in one God and three persons who are God is a contradiction.

How do you respond to this challenge? Tell us how you would answer Shabir Ally, and we’ll hear Brett’s answer on Thursday.