Was there really a flood? And was it just a "local" flood?

The really short: yes to the first and no to the second.

A world-wide flood really happened according to the Bible.

Some say that just a local flood occurred, but then the promise that God wouldn't do the same again (hence the covenant reminder of a rainbow) wouldn't be true because there have been many localised floods causing widespread death since then.

Rather than try to twist the interpretation (or worse the scripture) in a complicated manner to match a localised flooding for Noah, why not just take the plain understanding of a worldwide flood?

"12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.” " - Genesis 9:12-16 NIV

Objections to the Bible as an Authoritative Source of Information

I didn't have the opportunity to speak to a group this week but the presentation audio was still recorded for those interested.  Download here (right click to save).  The specific objections addressed were:

• Why would God use the Bible to communicate to us instead of speaking directly?
• How can we trust the Bible if it was written so long ago?
• How can we trust the Bible if it has come to us through so many translations?
• What about all the different versions of the Bible?
• And then a brief look at how we got the Bible that we have today.

What is Good Evidence for Believing that the Bible is True

This is the third session in the series. I could've added the subtitle: "Testing any Religion or Writing Claimed to be Holy". Download the talk here (right-click to save). There is one pause in proceedings where I duck away to check that a fight isn't happening - lots of ruckus outside the classroom at that moment. There wasn't a fight but it was a day of many distractions and interruptions which always seems to happen when something eternally significant is about to occur... A rough outline is below:

_________________________________________

Introduction

• Where we’ve come from (Session 1 - truth, Session 2 - evidence for the existence of God - OKLAHOMA related to natural disasters and a result of the fall - from last weeks discussion)
• This week (Session 3 - why believe the bible or any religious text?) and how it follows on from previous (taking you through the classic apologetic process for defending the Christian faith, i.e. how to have the discussion, does God exist? Is the bible true? - the way I’m presenting it will hopefully give you tools to critique all religions and truth claims.
• Any religion that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny isn’t worth following, including Christianity, but you can’t judge a faith group by the hypocrites who don’t follow the teachings - you have to look at the teachings to see if they are good or not.
• Will be focusing on the bible, and the teachings from the bible, since that’s my area of expertise - I’ve explored the reasons people don’t believe the bible and have decided that they aren’t good reasons

Main - ways of critiquing any text to see if it’s true

• Internal consistency
• 1st, what is the bible?
• 66 books
• 40 authors
• 1500 years
• Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic
• We have vast quantities of manuscripts in the original languages
• Despite the diversity of author, the consistent message comes through from them all to build a cohesive whole. Cohesive = consistent
• OBJECTION: Isn’t the bible full of contradictions?
• Usually people who say this can’t name one
• When we identify actual contradictions, they are usually resolved easily through a proper understanding of the context. Some are a little harder to resolve but can reasonably be cleared 
• I’ve looked at over 100 supposed contradictions because I wanted to see what those on the other side said... Visit www.carm.org and search for 'bible difficulties'
• OBJECTION: Doesn’t God change though? From commanding war and genocide in the Old Testament to becoming focused on love in the New Testament. And what about all the laws?
• Context is important.
• God’s plan for history has different stages and purposes for His people in those stages
• OT deals mainly with Israel and preparing the world for the coming Saviour who was from Israel - NT is the fulfilment of those preparations
• Progressive revelation of certain mysteries, e.g. salvation by grace through faith (and not through keeping the law), Gentiles can be saved too (not just Jews) - these things were not as clear in the OT as in the NT
• Rules separated Israel from pagan nations
• GENOCIDE - God also destroyed the entire world with a flood. Is it wrong for the Creator to do what he wants with His creation? The rules which apply to us don’t necessarily apply to God. The main rule is that God is the ultimate Judge and he has the power of life and death which we don’t.
• Does the Bible truly describe reality? (External Consistency)
• The wisdom in the Bible is extraordinary
• Proverbs and other scriptures detailing timeless truths of cause and effect dealing with complex human nature
• Wise vs foolish people
• the rewards of diligence
• that even good people can suffer
• that even bad people can see undeserved reward (rains on the just and the unjust alike)
• that the way to overcome evil is through love, e.g. bless your enemies so they are shamed into being good.
• Human nature and motivations accurately described? 
• Capacity for great works of good and astounding deeds of evil
• Even our good is tainted (nobody is perfect also means that nothing we do is perfectly good)
• What about miracles? (have to admit the possibility if God exists so shouldn’t be a problem)
• What about science? (Creation vs Evolution)
• “weight” of evidence when there are arguments in favour of each side - leans which way
• Assumptions and presuppositions
• Biases
• Archaeological Evidence
• Even secular archaeologists use the bible to help them discover new digs of the ancient world
• Prophecy - predictions of future events
• Psalm 22 describes the crucifiction of Christ 1000 years before Jesus was crucified
• OBJECTION - could these prophecies been written after the events?
• No - Hebrew OT translated into Greek during 2nd Century before Jesus
• People watching the events didn’t even realise that prophecy was being fulfilled until later.
• The founders of a religion can give us a lot of insight into the validity
• compare Jesus with Muhammad and the origin of the Koran
• Compare Jesus with Joseph Smith and the origin of the book of mormon
• Compare Jesus with Buddah, Krishna, and whoever else you want and I think you will find someone quite different in their teaching and their life.

Finishing

• We’ve looked at some evidences that the Bible is trustworthy (restate several)
• I believe that other religious texts don’t hold up to the same level of scrutiny, but you’re welcome to test that for yourselves.
• I especially want to challenge you to look in the bible for yourselves, if you are truly concerned for discovering the truth (or not) of the best-selling book of all time.

What We Can Learn About God Without Religious Texts Like The Bible

This was the second session in the series. Download the talk here (right-click to save). After the main presentation there may be quiet patches when questions or extended comments are asked. I tried to restate what they said. Below is the outline.

________________________________________

Introduction

Last session - Truth, Meaning, and the Existence of God

This session - What can we know about God without the Bible? (Evidence/arguments for His existence and what His nature is)

Method to the madness - this session, and future sessions, build upon the first session

First, Some Definitions and Concepts

• Revelation
• General Revelation
• Special Revelation... scriptures are usually called “holy”
• Holy means...
• The difference between “perfect” evidence (there is none) and the “weight” of evidence/argument

Second, Arguments for the existence of God using General Revelation

• Cosmological Argument - the first cause, the uncaused cause, the ultimate cause (The Banger of the big bang)
• God is creative - evidence: diversity of life and non-life
• God is powerful - something from nothing (true nothing, not just empty space)
• God is a god of order - patterns are evident in nature
• God is good - the default positive position in humanity is basically the same across all cultures
• God is personal - He created personal beings with the ability to have relationships and to know Him
• Simplicity also suggests one god rather than many
• Teleological Argument - argument from design that we see in the universe
• we’re good at spotting human design, e.g. buildings are clearly buildings
• the same spotting technique can be used to spot supernatural design, DNA etc seems designed - more complex and purposeful than anything we’ve made - hard to think of as an accident of chance
• odds - rubiks cube: 1 combo per second and longer than the universe to do all combos, yet “nature” has far more complexity
• fine-tuning argument (odds are far against accident)
• The second law of thermodynamics
• Objection: If God made/designed everything, why did he make it “broken” (disease, disasters, etc)?
• He didn’t make it broken, humanity broke it in the fall
• God made it good (not complete until woman)
• By disobeying God, man introduced sin and corruption (sin is disobedience toward God)
• Since we’re a part of this broken creation, we are also broken, which is the source of our ongoing sin.
• The gospel and the central message of Christianity is God fixing what Adam and Eve broke (and what we continue to break every time we do wrong), and he fixes those who follow his Son in the process. Born again = being remade unbroken (but this work isn’t finished until Jesus returns)
• Did the fall “surprise” God? 
• No - part of his plan to show his power, but that’s another story
• Argument from the existence of morality
• morality appears to be innate (sense of right and wrong, or at least justice/injustice (C.S. Lewis), from birth) [not specific rights and wrongs but the existence of the notion of right and wrong]
• there appear to be moral absolutes (and where do these come from?)

Truth, Meaning, and the Existence of God

Yesterday at lunch time, I hosted a short presentation and discussion about truth and meaning.  You can download the talk here.  The target group were teenagers ranging from 13 up to 18 years old.  A rough outline of the presentation is below.  There will be several of these presentations to come in a series.

_________________________________

Introduction

Do we need purpose/meaning in life, or is it enough to jet get out of bed and do the next thing which occurs to you? How do we deal with big issues such as death, suffering, and disease.

Some "Tools" For The Discussion

• Epistemology
• The Law of Non-contradiction
• What is a Worldview?

Where Does Meaning Come From?

• Where do we commonly find meaning?
• Is there a fixed/stable/permanent source of meaning?
• Brief argument for why God could be that source of fixed meaning.

Conclusion

Summing up the entire presentation.

But what about aliens? Did God make aliens?

So you think that the massive size of the universe, combined with the multitude of stars which presents a high likelihood of many, many habitable planets for humans, means that there must be life "out there"? Over 100 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy and over 100 billion galaxies in the Universe seems like good odds for aliens existing!

I think it is unlikely that there are aliens, or if there are it is no concern of ours.

Here are a few points to consider:

1. The Bible is silent on this issue - beings from other parts of the universe are not mentioned (though beings from outside the universe - angels - are!). This means that they might exist, but it means that they might not. You can't make a call either way from the bible.
2. If they don't exist, how do we reconcile the massive "waste" of space that the universe and all that is in it appears to be? The Bible says that "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19) so perhaps He intends to show something of His nature and power through such a display of almost endless creation. The incredible order and beauty tell us that there is an intelligent and artistic mind behind all of existence, and the sheer energy required to form all of the mass in the universe (consider E=mc^2) speaks of a vast and powerful God. I think that a lifeless universe (Earth excepted) has more than enough purpose to satisfy.
3. But the Bible is still silent on this issue! Yes, but that indicates that, even if aliens exist, we are unlikely to ever encounter them. The lack of instructions in how to deal with them (if they did arrive) means that God doesn't expect us to meet them. And if you know anything about the extraordinary vastness of space, you know that it would take many, many lifetimes to ever get anywhere for any being that could travel across those vast and empty chasms between worlds. The speed of light is a fundamental limit, and there is no known way to break that, though I guess it might be possible in the future which leaves a tiny glimmer of hope for alien enthusiasts. However...
4. Most alien enthusiasts are actually alien crazies (no offence intended, but that's how the type of person I'm about to describe comes across). So focused on the "certainty" of the existence of aliens because it gives them a sort of hope and meaning. Something is bigger in the world than their mundane problems and daily struggles. Those who have had "visitations" are usually those who have experimented with the occult (knowingly or unknowingly), and are likely to have experienced some sort of demonic (dark angelic) encounter and have mistaken it for an alien abduction or similar. Demons aim to deceive in any case, so don't feel too bad if this is you... 
5. If aliens did exist, they would be fallen sinful beings, as a part of a fallen creation, who are subject to God's laws. If God has revealed Himself to them with special revelation (like the Bible) it will show that He has the same character and focus for those who he created. His merciful nature, but also his desire for justice, will be wherever He is. And God is everywhere in His vast Creation. If aliens exist, they will have to face God at The Judgement to give account for their life's deeds. And if they don't have a saviour to take the punishment for their sins, as we have in Jesus Christ, then they will take their punishment for eternity in Hell too.

So, if you are a Christian, I'm sorry but I think you shouldn't spend much time pondering aliens as an exciting possibility. You should consider carefully whether aliens are an idol which distract you from God's glory.

If you are not a Christian, you can go on believing in aliens if you so desire. However, now you know that there is an answer to this issue from the Bible, i.e. God doesn't want us worrying about the possible existence of aliens because even if they exist it probably doesn't matter.

Is it enough to just listen to the bible?

Yes and no. I love to frustrate people with such an answer!

Yes, if you take it very slowly and discuss the details with a group over an extended period of time. Even better is if you listen to an expert (preacher/teacher) explaining the sense of the text you have just listened to. This is how it was done in the book of Nehemiah

"...the Levites, helped the people to understand the Law, while the people remained in their places. 8 They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading." - Nehemiah 8:7-8

And no, because there is too much detail in most of the bible for you to pick up through listening, even just careful listening.

But again, yes, because you can get the main ideas pretty easily from listening, especially if you have the Spirit helping you to understand.

Whatever you do, listen or read, don't take your daily bread lightly.  Consider how you do everything and do it deliberately, with care, with love, and with the most glory to God in mind.

What's your take on Church and State separation?

One should be kept separate from the other for sure, but not in the way you might think.

This discussion often centers around how the church should keep out of state (government) decisions because not everyone is Christian so we shouldn't make Christian laws/decisions.  And usually, those calling for separation want an all-or-nothing approach, i.e. no church involvement in state business at all.

Now here's the counter to that.  Isn't the government and the state supposed to represent all of the people as best they can?  If so, doesn't that include the wishes of everyone, regardless of religion?  So isn't it true that people, who have values influenced by their religion, have just as much say as people who have values stemming from other sources?

So we can see that it is quite silly to keep religious influence out at this level.

But what about making laws which are entirely church doctrine?  Well, that would be taking things too far the other way so that people with no religious leanings are not being considered fairly.  So you see, there must be a balance which includes all people, but just as it is wrong to have a church state (unless the vast majority of the population is of the same religion and denomination) it is wrong to have an atheistic state.  A purely secular (supposedly neutral) state is not possible either - not in the sense most would imagine.

And here's another important point.  Should the state have a say over how you worship God?  Isn't every man responsible before God for his own actions?  Remember that people have to individually give an account to God for their actions when they see Him on Judgement Day.  This means that the state would be telling you to do things for which you (not the state) are responsible for dealing with the consequences.  Religious freedom should actually be protected by a responsible state.  

The main point is that the separation shouldn't be the church keeping out of state business, it should be the other way around.  The state needs to keep out of church business because a man's faith is his alone before God.  If you look into the history of this you will uncover the truth that this is often what they were talking about in various constitutions and writings when they spoke of church/state separation.

Christians are hypocrites!

That depends on what you mean by hypocrite.

Some say that a Christian is a hypocrite if they don't live up to the perfect standard that they tell others to strive for.  This isn't hypocrisy though.

If the Christian said that they were perfect and then you saw them stealing raisins from the bulk food at the supermarket, then they would be a hypocrite.  If the Christian struggles with stealing, lying, lust, etc. and is open about that struggle, but while encouraging others to join the struggle, then there is no way that you can consider them a hypocrite.

And if you expect them to keep quiet until they have fixed their problems, until they are perfect them self, then you are creating an unreasonable expectation.  After all, we don't expect perpetually recovering alcoholics to keep quiet when they see someone abusing alcohol as they once did.  And an alcoholic will never admit to having completely conquered the craving, which is why they are perpetually recovering.

Christianity doesn't expect true perfection in this life, but it does expect a turning from evil and a striving for perfection.  The hope for attaining that perfection lies in the promised return of Christ who will complete the striving, making all those who have trusted in him perfect at his second coming.

Even so, if you still don't buy it, don't want to receive it, from a fallen human being (who might struggle not to be a hypocrite); at least take it from the perfect Son of God himself.  Jesus calls people to be perfect as God in heaven is perfect.  But knowing we can't make it, he graciously offers forgiveness anyway.

Why would anyone follow a God who can't make up his mind?

When God set out to destroy Israel, after they turned to idolatry and worshipped a golden calf, His mind was apparently changed by Moses.  You can read about this in Genesis chapter 32.

Some say that a God who changes his mind is ridiculous so that either the bible is wrong or the God of the bible is not worth following.  Some even think that this means you can make God do what you want (like giving you material things if you just have enough faith).

Here's a scripture to put this into perspective:

"Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors,  (9)  remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,  (10)  declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,'  (11)  calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.

- Isaiah 46:8-11  

If God knows the end from the beginning, and he will accomplish his purpose, do you really think he didn't know what he would choose to do in the end?  Since he clearly knew, do you think he really changed his mind?  Isn't it more likely that this exchange is either recorded from Moses' perspective, or that we need to read a bit closer to see what's being said?

If you read Genesis 32 carefully, you can see that there was no change of mind in any case.  God merely relented from pouring out his wrath on Israel.  If that's too weak for you, at least know that God had already made up his mind because his purpose will be accomplished no matter what we want.

Won't heaven be boring?

Only if you're a person who delights in wickedness.

Anyone who thinks that God is pretty awesome will never get bored.

On the flip side, hell is not a place of eternal excitement for those who might get bored in heaven (though I guess that depends on what you mean by excitement).  Hell is described by fire and eternal torment which is highly unpleasant for everyone who is there.  You might be in constant awareness of this suffering for eternity...

But isn't the devil in charge of hell?  Satan is my friend, he'll look after me.

Sorry, but Satan is being punished in hell along with you.  Hell was originally made for the devil and the fallen angels.

It might be a good time to humble yourself, admit your weakness, and repent - trusting in Jesus to take your punishment on the cross rather than taking it yourself in hell.

Are you saying that Christianity is better than my faith?

Of course I am.  And you are a hypocrite if you tell me off for this and have a faith that you defend in return!

If I didn't believe that Christianity wasn't a wise path to follow, I wouldn't follow it.  So I make no apologies about saying that my faith is better than yours.

Perhaps you don't have the confidence in your god that I have in mine!

Do I need to be baptised to be saved?

Baptism is important, and if you are a Christian you should be baptised, though if you press me I'll say, "No, definitely not".

Baptism is a bit like repentance - it is something that people do once they become a Christian (have faith) but by itself it doesn't save.  Some understand baptism slightly different from this but without saying that baptism saves.  So why get baptised?  Because Jesus commanded us to perform this ritual as an outward sign of inward change.

This isn't something to be taken lightly.

Scripture speaks very strongly about the importance of being obedient and being baptised.  Because the bible is so strong on this holy ritual, many have mistakenly said that baptism itself is necessary for salvation.  The problem with taking it this far is that you introduce a deed or action that must be performed in addition to having faith.

Precision of language is important so that you don't mislead anyone: If someone asks if baptism itself saves, you can say that salvation is a work of the Spirit, changing a person on the inside. These changes will bring about obedience (in your actions) to the commands of God.  Baptism is a matter of obedience.  Those who are saved will want to obey because they love God.

Putting it another way, baptism is an effect that is produced by salvation, not a cause of salvation.

Further reading on the heresy of baptismal regeneration
A sermon by Charles Spurgeon on baptismal regeneration
The Christian Apologetics Research Ministry comprehensive article on baptism

What is repentance and why do I have to do it to be saved?

The very short answer:

• Repentance is stopping the bad things and doing more good
• You have to do it because otherwise you are not admitting that God is good and you are not good

A little longer:

Before becoming a Christian, everyone does what they want to do.  For many that is even trying to be good according to what they, themselves, think is good.  We are influenced in our understanding of "good" by many different things and people.  At the end of the day, if we aren't looking to God to guide our actions, we are not good.

Repentance means deciding that God is much smarter and wiser than yourself, then finding out what He has to say about life, and acting and believing in your life the way God says you should.  Where there is desire to be godly, God will give the ability to change, and during your life you will overcome your old ways and gradually be transformed into something new!

If you've properly understood what repentance is then it easily follows that you have to do it to be saved.  If you didn't change your ways you would be admitting (by your actions) that you don't really believe God is worth listening to.  You would be putting your own view of "good" above God's view.

Something to notice is that while repentance leads to doing good things, it is primarily a change of attitude.  Just deciding to be good, and then doing good things (often called "good works") will not save you.  You have to believe that God is the measure of what is good - this is a part of the essential saving faith.

More on repentance

Why can't I just believe what makes me happy?

Because if the things that make you happy are wrong and there really is a hell, you will spend more time unhappy on the eternal scale of "time".

Because what makes you happy might make others unhappy. What do you do then? Who's happiness is more important? Your happiness shouldn't trump the happiness of the most important person (Jesus). Everything you do should be to make God happy. If you become happy though this, that is a nice bonus. In fact, God's happiness will lead to the most joy in His followers, which means the most joy out of everyone (believer or not).

Psalm 4:7 You have put more joy in my heart than they have when their grain and wine abound.

Psalm 16:11 You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

Psalm 30:4-5 Sing praises to the LORD, O you his saints, and give thanks to his holy name. (5) For his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime. Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning.

There seems to be a paradox: sacrifice happiness to receive more happiness? But if you notice from the last Psalm referenced, perfect joy is not guaranteed here and now. Psalm 16 shows that we receive our "fullness" of joy in the presence of God. Eternity. Heaven. Fullness of joy.

Vague Christianity

Here's something to be careful of.

Have you ever come out of church and then had an argument with someone else over what the sermon was about?  The preacher said X, you interpreted it as Y, and your friend thought he was talking about Z.

If you went to the preacher, he might have said, "Everyone gets something different out of a sermon," and if pressed on which was the appropriate interpretation he may have said, "It doesn't matter what I meant, it's more important what you got out of it personally, and that a conversation was started."

There are a number of troubling things about this:

1. This is not biblical preaching where the teacher should be accountable for what he says - in the vague view it is up to the interpreter to get the message out of it that they supposedly need.
2. To get something out of a sermon that the preacher didn't intend, that you had to work out for yourself, means that you did all the work.  The preacher is unnecessary.  All that is required is a focal point to start your own thinking and reflection.
3. What do you do if you are not particularly gifted with teaching?  How do you get anything out of the sermon that will grow you?
4. This raises the value of personal interaction and engagement with issues over the value of the issues and content.  Truth is relegated to the background, if it is even included.  

This vagueness, I believe is a defense used by preachers who can't teach or who refuse the responsibility of their position.  I don't think this is necessarily clear to these preachers themselves, so be as gentle as you can.  But challenge your preachers and pastors to be clear in what they are saying.

When you think about it, ministers already have a captive audience so why not just tell some simple truths from the scriptures that will help them live better.  Isn't that what preaching is?  But there is pressure to perform, pressure to make listeners happy, pressure to be relevant, pressure to fill the tithing bucket, pressure to get more people in the door next week.

If you want examples of this vague and dangerous "Christianity" (in quotation marks because it is doubtful that they are teaching Christianity, even if their intentions are good).  Try reading something written by Rob Bell or take a look at The Shack

Christians do bad things too. Why do I have to be a Christian?

It's not a question of whether Christians are better people or not.  It's a question of forgiveness of those bad things, and the response to that forgiveness.

Someone who is not religious may do something bad, but there is only his or her conscience to catch them out.  Even then, there is no reason to obey the conscience except if another person catches them out.  The craftier a non-religious person, the more they can get away with if they choose.

Now, I'm not saying that all non-religious people will try and get away with everything they can, but there is no good reason not too in their eyes.  If you are non-religious and have a reason to do good, you have to show that there is an objective 'good' and that your reason to do good is worthwhile.

Someone who is a Christian receives forgiveness for their sin, Christ taking punishment on the cross for them.  Their response to this should be gratitude, leading to a greater reluctance to do wrong in the future.  This means that someone who is a Christian (and not a pretender - there are many) will become a better member of society over time.

Eternally speaking, the biggie is Judgement Day.  The difference between a Christian and non-Christian on this day is forgiveness and heaven (eternal life) and un-forgiveness and hell (eternal death).

Who did the children of Adam and Eve marry?

The answer to this is easy, though dealing with it as a listener is not quite so easy.

Adam and Eve's kids married each other.  They had to because there was nobody else to marry! (That's the easy part)

The natural question that then arises is, "But isn't that wrong?"
So the hard part is accepting that there was no rule (at this stage of history) that said it was wrong to marry a sibling.  Some speculate that since it was much closer to the fall, the genetics weren't quite so muddled with mutation.  This meant that harmful genetic mutation wouldn't compound the way it does with inbreeding today.  Either way, there was no rule until much later.

What is more important in this objection isn't the question and answer, it is the ability to accept an answer that is based in a very different morality than that which we are used to today.

Some more reading from www.creation.com:
http://creation.com/church-shock-can-you-marry-your-relative

What's the big deal between Catholics and Protestants?

Have you ever heard of the Protestant Reformation, sometimes just called the Reformation?  If not, then you need to know a little something about this important historical event that has shaped the western world so much.

In the 16th Century (the 1500s), various people (reformers) began to protest against the Roman Catholic Church because of the way they did things.  Martin Luther (not Martin Luther King) wrote 95 things he saw that were wrong or unjust about the Roman Catholic Church.

This protest (where the name "Protest-ant" comes from) sparked a huge split in the church with the Protestants bringing the focus back to God and His glory.

All of the Protestant denominations have come out of the Protestant side of things as each splinter group tries to reform further.  Some have had success and some have gone too far, becoming non-Christian cult groups who you can often identify by their particular attire or presumptuous and premature titles.  Find out more about some of these groups here and here.

Why does evidence matter when the Bible is only a book of faith?

Is it "only" a book of faith?  What happens when the Bible is no longer a historically reliable account (in the parts that it claims to be)?

When you reduce these parts of the Bible down to a few general metaphorical ideas, you establish a way of interpreting scripture.  If you then apply that way of interpreting scripture in essential areas (like the historical crucifixion), you end up doing away with everything that matters about Christianity.  In short, you are calling the Bible a lie.  Joel S. Baden does this, I think without realising, in this article.

Let me make this really clear.  If you cast doubt upon one historical account, e.g. the waters parting for Israel, then you also cast doubt upon another, and Jesus no longer really rose again.

The apostle Paul has this to say about this situation:

"...if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins..." 

- 1Corinthians 15:17