Dan Barker @ OU

Dan Barker spoke tonight at OU in Dale Hall. He was brought in by CFI. His lecture was titled “How to be good without God.” Here are some of the highlights and my brief responses:

-> “What we need and what we want is the basis of morality.”

This makes ethics arbitrary: our wants and needs can change. Also, he applied morality to animals and plants… how can this be done if it is defined by human wants and human needs? This seems arbitrary as well.

-> Good is the reduction of harm.

Why? Where does this definition come from? Also, defining harm seems to presuppose a definition of goodness. I don’t see how this isn’t viciously circular.

-> Sticking a needle in a baby is generally bad… unless we are doing so to give the baby a necessary or beneficial shot.

Basically, this is a greater good argument. Sticking a baby with a needle is bad unless it is done for the purpose of accomplishing a greater (or perhaps sufficient) good. If a person has a sufficiently good purpose that can be accomplished by something normally considered evil then it is justified… What then about the problem of evil? Can God have a sufficient reason for allowing/purposing evil to exist? When asked about this, Dan did not deny this possibility. I wonder how he can then continually bring up/mention/argue the problem of evil while admitting that a good, all-powerful God can create a world that will contain evil.

There were plenty more absurdities espoused by him tonight and certainly many more within all of his lectures and debates; however, these are the ones that most stuck out to me. I might post more later.

Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

These are a few examples of evolutionary arguments against naturalism (EAAN). The basic idea is that if evolutionary naturalism is true, we couldn’t know it and have no basis on which to argue it.

Something often capitalized on in this discussion is a section of a letter Charles Darwin wrote to William Graham. This section is affectionately referred to as Darwin’s Doubt. While the thinking in this letter does seem to have led to the idea of the EAAN, I think it important to note that that was not Darwin’s intent. The conviction Darwin was doubting was not natural selection, but the idea that the universe is not the result of chance.

Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?¹

Although the minds of many people seem to jump straight to Alvin Plantinga when the EAAN is mentioned, C.S. Lewis had a similar argument long before Plantinga’s:

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts - i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.²

In the essay Meditation in a Toolshed, Lewis put forth some ideas that could be used as a naturalistic argument against naturalism:

A young man meets a girl. The whole world looks different when he sees her. Her voice reminds him of something he has been trying to remember all his life, and ten minutes casual chat with her is more precious than all the favours that all the other women in the world could grant. He is, as they say, ‘in love’. Now comes a scientist and describes this young man’s experience from the outside. For him it is all an affair of the young man’s genes and a recognized biological stimulus. That is the difference between looking along the sexual impulse and looking at it.

[...]

As soon as you have grasped this simple distinction, it raises a question. You get one experience of a thing when you look along it and another when you look at it. Which is the ‘true’ or ‘valid’ experience? Which tells you most about the thing? And you can hardly ask that question without noticing that for the last fifty years or so everyone has been taking the answer for granted. It has been assumed without discussion that if you want the true account of religion you must go, not to religious people, but to anthropologists; that if you want the true account of sexual love you must go, not to lovers, but to psychologists; that if you want to understand some ‘ideology’ (such as medieval chivalry or the nineteenth-century idea of a ‘gentleman’), you must listen not to those who lived inside it, but to sociologists.

[...]

A physiologist, for example, can study pain and find out that it ‘is’ (whatever is means) such and such neural events. But the word pain would have no meaning for him unless he had ‘been inside’ by actually suffering. If he had never looked along pain he simply wouldn’t know what he was looking at. The very subject for his inquiries from outside exists for him only because he has, at least once, been inside.

[...]

…you can step outside one experience only by stepping inside another. Therefore, if all inside experiences are misleading, we are always mislead. The cerebral physiologist may say, if he chooses, that the mathematician’s thought is ‘only’ tiny physical movements of the grey matter. But then what about the cerebral physiologist’s own thought at that very moment? A second physiologist, looking at it, could pronounce it also to be only tiny physical movements in the first physiologist’s skull. Where is the rot to end?³

Lewis also has a case against naturalism via evolution, in his book, Miracles: 

An act of knowing must be determined, in a sense, solely by what is known; we must know it to be thus solely because it is thus. [...] Any thing which professes to explain our reasoning fully without introducing an act of knowing thus solely determined by what is known, is really a theory that there is no reasoning. [...] But this, as it seems to me, is what Naturalism is bound to do.

[...]

The type of mental behavior we now call rational thinking or inference must therefore have been ‘evolved’ by natural selection, by the gradual weeding out of types less fitted to survive. [...] Now natural selection could operate only by eliminating responses that were biologically hurtful and multiplying those which tended to survival. But it is not conceivable that any improvement of responses could ever turn them into acts of insight, or even remotely tend to do so. The relationship between response and stimulus is utterly different from that between knowledge and the truth known.⁴

And, finally, there is Plantinga’s argument. Here is my summary/outline of it:

1) If we have evolved via natural selection, genetic drift, genetic mutation, or similar mechanisms, then our cognitive faculties have also arisen via these mechanisms.

2) If our cognitive faculties arose from naturalistic evolution, are they reliable?

3) Natural selection is concerned with survival, rather than true beliefs or true information from the external world.⁵ “Natural selection doesn’t care what you believe; it is interested only in how you behave.”⁶

4) The ability of our cognitive faculties to understand truth, given naturalistic evolution, is then dependent upon the connection of belief and behavior.

5) There is not a necessary connection between belief and survival behavior; many false beliefs can lead to survival behavior.

6) Evolutionary naturalism is self-defeating. Given evolutionary naturalism, beliefs produced by our cognitive faculties cannot rationally be believed to be reliable. This not only includes the belief in naturalism, but belief in the previous sentence.

Now, I should point out that this is just a simplified summary that I have produced; Plantinga’s full argument is far more technical than what I have presented.

Now, if you would like a less technical argument than Platinga’s, then you might like the argument given by Rhology:

Atoms coalesced into molecules, into larger clumps of matter. Rocks became amino acids became proteins became unicellular organisms became bananas, platypuses, humans. Bananas don’t think. Neither do cans of Dr Pepper. Why assume that another lump of matter (arbitrarily and customarily called a “brain”) can “think”? A can of Dr Pepper, when shaken, produces fizz. The liver secretes bile when called upon to do so. The brain secretes brain fizz when called upon to do so. And the brain is somehow special?

The main idea behind all of these is that the idea naturalism is self-defeating, due to the inability of naturalism to produce brains that can produce thoughts that are true or reliable. Granted, most of the above arguments involve evolution (more specifically, natural selection). If someone were to produce a naturalistic theory contrary to the evolutionary synthesis, then, perhaps, that person may be able to argue against Lewis or Plantinga (though, I currently doubt this). However, it seems that, for the materialist, evolution is the only game in town.

1. Charles Darwin to William Graham, 3 July 1881 [↩]
2. C.S. Lewis, A Mind Awake: An Anthology of C.S. Lewis, ed. by Clyde Kilby (Harvest Books, 2003), p. 228. [↩]
3. C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. by Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), pp. 212-15. [↩]
4. C.S. Lewis, Miracles ( HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), pp. 26-28 [↩]
5. Of course, it can be concerned with with accurate information from the external world, but only if false information leads to behavior inappropriate for survival. [↩]
6. Alvin Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function, “Naturalism Defeated” (Ithica, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1993)  [↩]

The GOD Delusion (Part 1 of 11)

This is my examination and thoughts of Richard Dawkins’ book: The GOD Delusion.¹ 

Chapter 1 - A Deeply Religious Non-Believer

This chapter is split up into two parts: Deserved Respect and Undeserved Respect. The first section describes the ‘metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists’, and the second describes a supernatural god.

Deserved Respect

Dawkins begins by relating the experiences of two boys gazing at the magnificence of the world in wonder: one himself, the other an Anglican priest. He then wonders why such an experience would lead one child to the priesthood and the other to atheism, saying it ‘is not an easy question to answer’. Yet despite this uncertainty, he concludes that had the priest read the closing paragraph to The Origin of Species in his childhood, he certainly would have chosen atheism as well. Dawkins includes this paragraph from Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant’? Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.

After reading this I had three basic thoughts. One, perhaps Christians have failed to communicate how big our God is! Or worse, perhaps Christians don’t recognize themselves how big God is! I find the latter far more likely. Second, is the universe bigger than described in the Bible? I think not! Genesis 22:15-17 suggests that the number of stars and the number of grains of sand on the shore to be similar. Job 22:12 describes the stars as ‘distant’ and ‘high’ (NASB). But more than just describing a number or distance, the Bible gives poetic, elegant, magnificent descriptions of things in nature. Which brings me to my third thought, that though things in nature may be found to be magnificent, we are to look on the glory of God with far more awe! If the creation is so inspiring, how much more the creator!

Psalm 19:1-6 (ESV)

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.t
Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat.

Deuteronomy 4:19 (NASB)

And beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.

The main point of this section seems to be explaining the Naturalistic use of the word ‘God’, making distinctions between theism, deism, and pantheism, and explaining Einstein’s view of ‘God’ and responses to it. I think there is a couple of sentences in this section that should certainly be noted. Dawkins writes that a philosophical naturalist believes there are “no miracles - except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don’t yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.”²

I think this is important to notice that the naturalist sees ‘miracles’ only as natural phenomena not yet explained. I have found that many atheists demand ‘evidence’ for God: specifically, empirical evidence. The naturalist has already dismissed the ‘evidence’ he demands. Perhaps those atheists apt to reference Anthony Flew ought to consider whether their position is falsifiable!³ It is just as Abraham said, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.” (NASB; see Luke 16:19-31)

Undeserved Respect

This section starts with Dawkins telling us that he will be referring to supernatural gods in general when using the word ‘God’. Most of this section is spent bemoaning the respect religions have in society.

In one paragraph, Dawkins declares that the First Amendment does not protect ‘hate speech’. This is an interesting topic; how is ‘hate speech’ to be defined? Should the U.S. to hold us accountable for hatred? This seems to be a very vague suggestion at best. This paragraph also suggests that the freedom of religion is used as a trump card. I wonder what his solution to this problem would be? Surely we would not let the British define the limits of our faith and practice…

Conclusion

This chapter is mainly there to distinguish between the naturalistic and deist ‘god’ and the supernatural ‘god’ and to set the stage for the rest of the book.

1. Richard Dawkins, The GOD Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006). [↩]
2. Ibid., at 14. [↩]
3. Anthony Flew wrote a paper, Theology and Falsification, in which he argues that if there are no criteria for denying an assertion, it isn’t asserting anything. [↩]

Merry Christmas

Christmas is a time of family, gifts, egg nog, and good cheer. And while most of us shop and open gifts, we should also remember why we celebrate Christmas - the birth of Jesus Christ. But why is the birth of Christ so important? Well, let’s turn to the Bible to find out.

When we look back to the first chapters in Genesis, we see the creation of the world, and the Fall of Man. Man is now depraved and subject to original sin and the curse God has placed on Man. But God also gives Man hope:

The LORD God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go,
And dust you will eat
All the days of your life;
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.”
Genesis 3:14-15, NASB

He will be a descendent of David:

Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse,
And a branch from his roots will bear fruit.

The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him,
The spirit of wisdom and understanding,
The spirit of counsel and strength,
The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.

And He will delight in the fear of the LORD,
And He will not judge by what His eyes see,
Nor make a decision by what His ears hear;

But with righteousness He will judge the poor,
And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth;
And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth,
And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked.

Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins,
And faithfulness the belt about His waist.
Isaiah 11:1-5, NASB

Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city.

Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child.
Luke 2:1-5, NASB

He will be born in Bethlehem:

“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel
His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity.”
Therefore He will give them up until the time
When she who is in labor has borne a child
Then the remainder of His brethren
Will return to the sons of Israel.
And He will arise and shepherd His flock
In the strength of the LORD,
In the majesty of the name of the LORD His God
And they will remain,
Because at that time He will be great
To the ends of the earth.
Micah 5:2-4, NASB

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.”

When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet:

‘AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH,
ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE LEADERS OF JUDAH;
FOR OUT OF YOU SHALL COME FORTH A RULER
WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL.’”

Then Herod secretly called the magi and determined from them the exact time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, so that I too may come and worship Him.”
Matthew 2:1-8, NASB

He will be born of a virgin:

“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.”
Isaiah 7:14, NASB

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:

“BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.”

And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Matthew 1:18-25, NASB

He came from Egypt:

When Israel was a youth I loved him,
And out of Egypt I called My son.
Hosea 11:1, NASB

Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
Matthew 2:13-15, ESV

He will be called a Nazarene:

But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, “Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead.” And he rose and took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
Matthew 2:19-23, ESV

What does Matthew mean here? You will not find a single prophecy in the Old Testament saying that the Messiah will “be called a Nazarene.” I believe that Matthew was counting on the knowledge of the reader at this point.

Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote–Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” Nathanael said to him, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.”
John 1:45-46, NASB

I think Nathanael demonstrates the basic idea; being branded a Nazarene demonstrates the Jews’ rejection of Him. Jesus is also called a Nazarene in Mark 14:67, John 18:5,7, John 19:19. If you’ll look back to what Matthew said, you’ll see he spoke of prophets - which is plural. So, it isn’t a single prophecy, but many; including these ones:

Thus says the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel and its Holy One,
To the despised One,
To the One abhorred by the nation,
To the Servant of rulers,
“Kings will see and arise,
Princes will also bow down,
Because of the LORD who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel who has chosen You.”
Isaiah 49:7, NASB

He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
Isaiah 53:3, NASB

The birth of Christ was announced by angels:

In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened.

But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.”
Luke 2:8-14, ESV

I have only listed some of the prophecies and events surrounding the Birth of Jesus. But it still doesn’t answer why it is important does it? Let’s look at a few more verses.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
John 1:1-4, 14-17, ESV

God became flesh and dwelt among us… the Creator of the World revealed himself, becoming a man, and stepped directly into our lives. And in Him there is life. This life is what I want to talk about. But before I talk about the life Christ offers, I need to talk about death.

I think one of the best definitions of sin I have heard is that of the Westminster Catechism, “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the Law of God.” All of us have sinned, in fact we are born into sin, it is our fallen nature (Rom 3:23, 1 John 1:8, Rom 5:12). And the consequence of sin is death (Rom 3:23, Rom 5:12). Despite what society may tell us, we should not trust our heart (Jeremiah 17:9). We are dead in sin and children of wrath (Eph 2:1-3).

However, Christ came to this earth and died on the cross for our sins. He took our punishment, paid our price and made us alive. He rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. It is through the cross that we can be justified, not through anything we can do. And it is only through Christ that we can be made alive. (Rom 5:8-12)

Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
So that You are justified when You speak
And blameless when You judge.
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
Psalm 51:4-5

For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
Romans 5:19

Just as we were made sinners through Adam, we can be made righteous through Christ.

For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
And like a root out of parched ground;
He has no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Him,
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.
He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
Isaiah 53:2-5, NASB

All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
Isaiah 53:6-11, ESV

Jesus bore our sins. It isn’t exactly like Larry King has paraphrased is, saying, “your record don’t count; you either believe in Christ or you don’t.” It is true, that if you become a Christian, you are forgiven all of your sins. However, your record does count, that is why Christ had to die!

What you need to do is repent; that is, turn from your sin to God. And it is by God’s grace and through your faith that you are saved (Eph 2:8-9). And it must be faith in Christ and what He has done. Salvation comes from knowing Christ (1 John 5:11-12, John 17:3, John 14:6-7).

And while we are saved by Christ alone, and by grace alone, through faith alone, our lives are not to be lived out by a “decision” alone. I would harldy call it a mere “decision” anyway. Why we are saved through faith alone and not by works, faith is not itself alone (James 2:14-26). When we are made new (John 3:1-7, 2 Corinthians 5:17), we must take up our cross and follow after Christ, dying to ourselves and living in Him (Luke 9:23, Galatians 2:20).

Now, there is much more to Christianity, but I hope I have given you an idea of what it is and a glimpse into what Christmas is about. This is the hope that Christmas brings, the hope of Christ saving us from our sins and from Hell. The hope of life. If you have any questions, comments, or criticisms, email me or put them in the comments below.