Restoration Church

06/16/2026

06/14/2026

This is the day that the Lord has made.

06/13/2026

Dumb arguments against Christianity:

The claim is this:
Christianity has caused suffering throughout history; therefore, Jesus must be deceptive, evil, or connected to something dark.

That sounds powerful at first — until you think about it for roughly seven seconds, which apparently is asking a lot.

The logical problem is simple:

The misuse of a thing does not define the thing.

People have used science to build weapons.
That does not make science evil.

People have used government to oppress.
That does not make justice evil.

People have used medicine badly.
That does not make healing evil.

People have abused marriage.
That does not make marriage evil.

So when people misuse the name of Christ to justify cruelty, greed, violence, or control, that does not condemn Christ. It condemns the people disobeying Christ.

Jesus taught:

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them...”
— Matthew 7:12, KJV

And:

“Love your enemies...”
— Matthew 5:44, KJV

So here is the problem with the argument:

If someone commits evil while violating the teachings of Jesus, that is not evidence against Jesus. That is evidence against sinful man.

But there is an even deeper issue.

Before someone says, “Christianity caused evil,” they must explain what evil is.

By what standard are they judging evil?

Is evil objectively real?
Or is it just personal dislike?
Or is it whatever society currently disapproves of?

If evil is only personal opinion, then saying “Christianity is evil” really means:

“I personally dislike Christianity.”

That is not an argument. That is a diary entry.

If evil is decided by society, then any society could approve cruelty, and the critic would have no higher moral law to appeal to.

But if evil is objectively real, then there must be a moral standard above human opinion.

That is the hidden presupposition.

The critic borrows Christian moral categories — good, evil, justice, human dignity, guilt, and truth — and then uses them to attack Christianity.

That is like stealing a man’s ladder, climbing onto his roof, and then declaring his house unsafe.

The fallacy is guilt by association:

Some people did evil in the name of Christianity.
Therefore Christ is evil.

That conclusion does not follow.

The real question is not:

“Have people misused Christianity?”

Of course they have. People can misuse anything. Humanity has turned bad decisions into an Olympic event.

The real question is:

“Did they obey Christ when they did it?”

If the answer is no, then Christ is not on trial.

Their disobedience is.

06/12/2026

Dumb arguments against Christianity:

Does Matthew 11:12 Prove Jesus’ Kingdom Is Violent or Evil?

The claim is this:
Because Matthew 11:12 says “the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force,” Jesus’ kingdom must be connected to violence, destruction, or even satanic force.

But that argument has a serious logical problem.

Before someone can accuse Jesus or His kingdom of evil, they must first explain what they mean by evil.

By what standard is violence wrong?

Is it wrong because God’s nature defines goodness?
Or is it wrong because a person simply dislikes it?
Or because society currently disapproves of it?

If morality is only personal opinion, then saying “Jesus’ kingdom is evil” really means nothing more than “I personally do not like this.”

If morality is only decided by society, then any society could declare violence good, and the critic would have no higher standard to say otherwise.

That is the hidden presupposition.

The critic is using moral categories like good, evil, justice, harm, and truth while refusing to explain where those categories come from.

Matthew 11:12 does not say Jesus is violent, evil, or satanic. It describes the conflict surrounding the arrival of God’s kingdom in a rebellious world.

The kingdom is being opposed. Truth is being resisted. Darkness does not politely applaud when light walks into the room.

The fallacy is simple:

“The verse mentions violence, therefore Jesus is evil.”

That conclusion does not follow.

A kingdom being attacked by violent men does not make the King violent.
A doctor cutting out cancer does not make him a murderer.
A judge condemning evil does not make him unjust.

The real question is not whether the Bible mentions violence. It does.

The real question is:

Can the critic justify the moral standard they are using to judge Christ?

Because if they cannot, they are borrowing God’s moral law to argue against God.

And that is not logic.
That is standing on the roof while trying to burn down the house.

06/11/2026

Dumb arguments against Christianity:
4. Luke 12:49–51 Is Being Ripped Out of Context

Actual Claim:
Jesus said He came to bring fire and division, so His mission must be destructive or evil.

They cite Jesus saying He came to bring fire and division:

“I am come to send fire on the earth...”
— Luke 12:49

“Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division.”
— Luke 12:51

Then they argue:

Fire and division sound destructive, therefore Jesus must be evil.

That is weak.

Jesus is not saying He came to cause evil chaos. He is saying His truth will divide people because some will obey God and others will reject Him.

This is moral division, not satanic destruction.

Truth divides. Courtrooms divide guilty from innocent. Doctors divide cancer from healthy tissue. A sword can murder, but a surgeon’s blade can save. Context, sir. That tiny little inconvenience that ruins bad arguments.

Fallacy: Context collapse.

They interpret “division” as evil without considering the moral purpose of the division.

06/10/2026

Dumb arguments against Christianity:
3. Jesus Is the True Light; Satan Imitates Light

Actual Claim:
Because Jesus and Satan/Lucifer are both associated with light, Jesus must be the same deceptive light-being.

The Bible does not present Jesus and Satan as the same being. It presents Satan as an imitator and deceiver.

KJV:

“And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.”
— 2 Corinthians 11:14

That verse destroys their argument.

Why?

Because Scripture says Satan can appear as light, not that he is the true Light.

Jesus says:

“I am the light of the world...”
— John 8:12

So the biblical distinction is:

Jesus is the true Light.
Satan imitates light.

Counterfeit money looks like money. That does not mean the bank and the burglar are the same institution. Apparently this needs saying.

Fallacy: Category error.

They confuse true divine light with deceptive imitation.

06/09/2026

Dumb arguments against Christianity:

2. “Morning Star” Does Not Mean Same Person

Actual Claim:
Jesus is called the Morning Star, and Lucifer is called son of the morning; therefore, they are the same being.

The argument says:

Jesus is called the Morning Star. Lucifer is called son of the morning. Therefore Jesus is Lucifer.

That is a false equivalence.

Two beings can share similar imagery without being identical.

Example:

Jesus is called a lion:

“the Lion of the tribe of Juda”
— Revelation 5:5

Satan is compared to a roaring lion:

“your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion...”
— 1 Peter 5:8

Does that mean Jesus is Satan?

Obviously not.

The same image can be used in different ways depending on context.

Formula:

Shared symbol ≠ shared identity.

In Scripture, light imagery can describe:

God’s glory
Christ’s truth
Angels
The dawn
False appearances
Human rulers
Spiritual deception

Context determines meaning.

Fallacy: Equivocation.

They treat “morning star” as if it has one fixed identity everywhere it appears. It does not.

06/08/2026

Really Dumb arguments against Christianity:

1. The Biggest Problem: “Lucifer” Is Not Automatically Satan

Actual Claim:
Because Isaiah 14:12 says “Lucifer, son of the morning,” and Jesus is called the Morning Star, Jesus must be Lucifer.

The argument assumes:

Isaiah 14:12 says “Lucifer,” therefore it must mean Satan.

But Isaiah 14 is directly addressing the king of Babylon, not Jesus.

KJV:

“Thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon...”
— Isaiah 14:4

Then later:

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”
— Isaiah 14:12

The immediate context is a taunt against a proud earthly ruler. Whether there is a secondary spiritual application is debated, but the text itself does not say:

“This is Jesus.”

It does not even directly say:

“This is Satan.”

So their argument begins by smuggling in an assumption.

Fallacy: Begging the question.

They assume “Lucifer = Satan,” then assume “morning star = Lucifer,” then conclude “Jesus = Satan.”

That is not logic. That is theological connect-the-dots with half the dots drawn in crayon.