Theists argue that God is the best explanation for objective moral truths. Atheists typically appeal to the Euthyphro Dilemma (ED) to show that God cannot be the foundation for morality. The ED asks whether something is good only because God wills it as such, or if God wills something because it is good. If something is good only because God considers it good, then goodness seems arbitrary and relative to God’s desires. If He had so chosen, murder could have been right and truth-telling could have been wrong. On the other hand, if God wills the good because it is inherently good, then goodness would be a standard that exists outside of God. He is subject to the moral law just as we are.
So either goodness is arbitrary or it is independent of God. Either God arbitrarily declares what is good or He recognizes what is good based on some standard outside of Himself. If the good is an arbitrary expression of God’s will, then the good is subjective rather than objective. While God may serve as the foundation for His subjective morality, He cannot serve as the foundation for objective moral truths. On the other hand, if God wills something because He recognizes it is objectively good, then something other than God is the standard of objective moral truths. He may inform us of those moral truths, but they do not depend on God for their existence.
When something bad happens, it’s common for people to offer the encouragement that “everything happens for a reason.” Is it really true, however, that everything that happens, happens for a reason? To answer that question we need to explore what we mean by “everything,” “for” and “reason.”
The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead was the central message of the early church and the basis of Christian hope. But why should we believe that a man was raised from the dead 2000 years ago when we were not there to witness it, and when our uniform experience says that dead people always stay dead? While many people think the resurrection of Jesus is something you either choose to believe or choose to reject based on your personal religious tastes, the fact of the matter is that there are good, objective, historical reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
Another clay seal (bulla) bearing the name of a Biblical person has been unearthed in the City of David. The tiny clay seal was found in the remains of a large housing structure that had been destroyed by fire in the sixth century B.C. The seal reads, “[belonging to] Nathan-Melech, Servant of the King.” Nathan-Melech appears once in the Bible, in 2 Kings 23:11, and is said to be an official in the court of King Josiah. 
While there is much discussion regarding the fidelity of the transmission of the NT text, very little attention is given to the OT. I’ve long been looking for a good book dedicated to OT textual criticism, written from the perspective of a conservative text critic, so I was happy to come across John F. Brug’s 
I recently finished Everett Ferguson’s 
In the parting words of Paul’s first letter to the church at Thessalonica, he admonished them with several imperatives, including “pray without ceasing” (1 Thes 5:17).
Probably the most-cited argument against the existence of a theistic God is the logical form of the problem of evil, which argues that the existence of an all-good and all-powerful God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil because an all-good God would want to prevent evil and an all-powerful God could prevent evil, and yet evil exists. From this, it follows that God is not all-powerful, not all-good, or more likely does not exist at all. There could be a world in which God exists, or there could be a world in which evil exists, but there can be no world in which both God and evil exist. Since it’s empirically evident that evil exists, God does not.
A few weeks ago, a 
Jesus said, “It’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God” (Mt 19:24; Mk 10:25; Lk 18:25). Jesus said this after the young rich ruler refused Jesus’ call to discipleship because he was unwilling to give away all of his riches. Jesus’ point seems to be that people with wealth tend to trust in their wealth, making it difficult for them to place their trust in Christ.
A 69 year old Dutch man, Emile Ratelband, is 
We often speak of the need to “forgive yourself.” While I understand what is meant by this phrase, it is unintelligible on the Christian worldview. People speak of the need to forgive themselves in the context of feeling guilt for something they did (or failed to do). They recognize the need to eliminate this guilt and get on with their life – to stop beating themselves up for their failure.
In the 
Have you ever tried striking up a conversation with someone about the existence of God only to find that they have no interest in the question? Trying to continue the conversation is like trying to talk to a two year old about quantum mechanics. Strategically, you must find a way to get the unbeliever to see that the question of God’s existence is relevant to his/her life. I think the most effective approach is to appeal to common existential questions that every human wonders about. This could include:
Skeptics of Christianity often try to undermine the truth of Christianity by pointing to supposed errors or contradictions in the Bible. As a result, some Christians have abandoned the faith, while others remain shaken in their faith. This is unfortunate because the skeptics’ approach is fundamentally flawed.
If God knows every choice we’ll make from eternity past, doesn’t that mean our choices are not free – that God has caused us to do what we do? No. Knowledge is not a cause. Knowing what someone will choose to do in advance of their actually doing it does not cause them to do it. While it’s true that if God knows X will happen, X will most certainly happen, but it’s not God’s knowledge of X that makes X happen. It’s our choice to do X. God merely knows what we will freely choose in advance. While God’s knowledge is chronologically prior to our acts, our acts are logically prior to God’s knowledge. If we would have chosen A rather than B on October 12, 2006, God would have known A rather than B. The reason He knew B would happen from eternity past is because He knew we would freely choose B from eternity past. God’s foreknowledge does not determine our choices, but is informed by our choices. In other words, God’s foreknowledge is not the cause of our actions; our actions are the cause of God’s foreknowledge.
Thinking to Believe 