Tag: nihilism

Apologia I (Why Origen?)

One of the fastest-growing threats to Christian faith today is deconstructionism. It’s not a tightly organized movement, which makes it hard to confront directly. It’s multifaceted, and some of the questions it raises are valid. I believe our enemy, the devil, has taken advantage of real, unresolved questions within modern Christianity and used them—combined with some Christians’ dismissive or defensive posture— to undermine the faith of millions.

Gary Pollard

Now that we’re several sections into Origen’s On first principles, I want to explain why I’m taking on this project. Why Origen? Why devote time to a writer who isn’t considered “inspired”? Aren’t there enough lost and dying souls as it is? Why focus on something like this? Shouldn’t I be spending my energy elsewhere? And if Origen sometimes says things that seem strange or uncomfortable to modern Christian ears, why publish them at all?

One of the fastest-growing threats to Christian faith today is deconstructionism. It’s not a tightly organized movement, which makes it hard to confront directly. It’s multifaceted, and some of the questions it raises are valid. I believe our enemy, the devil, has taken advantage of real, unresolved questions within modern Christianity and used them—combined with some Christians’ dismissive or defensive posture— to undermine the faith of millions. I won’t go into specific details here, but this movement deserves serious attention.

We’ve inherited a bit of theological and traditional baggage over the centuries—not enough to undermine the legitimacy of our faith, but enough to create some distance between us and the beliefs of first-century Christians. Much of this divergence can be traced to the fourth-century ecumenical councils. These councils took unsettled questions—once considered open for discussion and not barriers to fellowship—and hardened them into dogma. Today there are over 45,000 Christian denominations worldwide. Deconstruction is one of Satan’s most effective weapons in this decade.

I’ve spent the past couple of years “behind the lines” of this movement—reading their writings, listening to their podcasts, joining their forums and servers. Here’s what I’ve noticed:

  • A widespread rejection of materialism and the wealth-driven mindset of previous generations. While not universal, this pattern appears frequently.
  • A growing disdain for shallow, mindless entertainment. Most are searching for deeper meaning, esoteric knowledge, and truth. They seek intellectual stimulation, not dilute copium. Jordan Peterson may have played a key role— his unabridged deep dives into philosophy, psychology, and biblical themes deepen hunger for significance and intellectual engagement. Not a bad thing! But as we’ll see, many (especially our own) are looking for depth, meaning, and truth elsewhere. 
  • This hunger often leads to other similar podcasts, YouTube channels, and alternative history theories. Again, not bad things. These sources rarely align with the mainstream historical or scientific views, but they seem to resonate with reality far better. The problem is that this skepticism extends to religion. Many consider themselves spiritual, so they reject Christianity for universalism, neo-paganism, or other alternatives. The consistent thread is that they don’t trust religious leaders to be honest or unbiased. Many cited the church’s inability—or unwillingness—to address difficult questions as being what drove them away.

The outcome is usually one or more of the following: pantheism, paganism, gnosticism, universalism, agnosticism, Epicureanism, occultism, even nihilism. I know this reads like something from an 80s church pamphlet warning about Led Zeppelin and pinball machines— but this is actually real, and it’s happening by the millions. You can see its symptoms for yourself: search YouTube for “Gnosticism,” “esotericism,” or “alternative history.” Most of the top videos have millions of views. Even obscure channels discussing niche topics may have hundreds of thousands of views. Do some research on the growth of all of the groups listed above. 

So, why am I dragging both of my readers through Origen’s writings? Because millions of people (again, many of our own) are searching for truth—and they don’t trust the modern Christian’s interpretation of ancient texts. Origen was probably the first Christian to organize the church’s teachings into a coherent theological system. He did this before the government-sponsored councils of the fourth century began enforcing orthodoxy. His work offers powerful responses to many of the questions fueling deconstructionism. It also gives us a glimpse of what Christians believed before AD 325—and that’s exactly what many of these seekers are hungry for. 

My goal is simple: to make On first principles accessible to the average truth-seeker or questioner. Origen provides the most complete early summary of Christian theology. He’s not considered canonical by any denomination, and his work may irritate some Christians. That’s why I think these seekers and questioning believers will be willing to read it. If it also encourages the faithful, even better. But I’m doing this primarily for the seekers and questioners, not the saved.

This project is my attempt to patch a breach in the dam and help pull at least some of these wandering souls back toward the light. Many of us have watched friends or loved ones fall victim to this movement. Origen’s work—especially when stripped of later editorial influence—may be one of the most effective tools we have right now. 

Morality Sans Religion

Gary Pollard

Carl sourced several of the most commonly asked questions and gave me 70 of them to write about. So I’ll try to tackle a question or three every week for a while (or until something more interesting grabs my attention). This week’s question is, “Is it possible to make moral decisions without religion?” It’s somewhat related to an article I wrote a few weeks ago, but seemed different enough to warrant its own article. 

There’s a simple answer, but with some nuance. Is it possible for a person who isn’t religious to make moral decisions? Absolutely. But is it possible for good morality to exist without God? Absolutely not. More on that in a minute. 

“Religion” is a very broad word. It involves anything a person or group of people worship — this could be an inanimate object, a set of ideas, a charismatic individual, a supernatural entity, certain forces of nature, or even cosmic features. It’s anything a person deems “higher” than self and worth giving some kind of respect and adoration to. 

Not all religions are created equal. Some call for harming others who aren’t in that same belief system. Some are in place solely to justify self-indulgent behavior. Some use religion to gain power over others and/or wealth. Some exist only to maintain cultural cohesion and national identity (a “state” religion). A person’s religion ultimately comes from one of two sources: God, or the powers that influence this world. 

Judeo-Christian teachings have benefited society in innumerable ways. They lifted much of the world out of poverty. They promoted peace among all people. Selfless love, sacrifice for the good of someone else, love for enemies, care for the vulnerable, and judicial integrity are just some of the ways Christianity has improved the inhabited world. Many will respond with, “But what about the Crusades? What about the many atrocities committed in the name of Christianity?” Those weren’t Christians. They may have claimed to be, but they absolutely were not. Claiming to be something and actually representing its teachings are two different things. 

How often have we heard a political figure or commentator say something like, “I’m conservative, but…” right before promoting something not remotely conservative? They’re not actually conservative. More appropriately, how often have we heard someone say, “I love Jesus, but I’ll (insert hateful words/actions here)”? They claim Jesus, but they aren’t Christians. Anyone can tell who a legit Christian is by how well they practice selfless love and genuine belief in God (cf. I Jn 4). 

The moralities of pagan cultures never held up to time well. The nihilistic hedonism they invariably devolved into destroyed them from the inside out. When everyone is primarily concerned with their own “happiness” and feeding their desires, someone has to pay. When a person’s happiness is the greatest societal good, it has to come at someone else’s expense. There were certainly attempts to keep this in check, especially by unifying around a pantheon or series of social norms (or both). But they, too, usually devolved into hedonism. 

Jesus’s teachings were unique in that they posited two necessities, both built on selfless love: for God, for every human. Justice was to be handled by government, even if that government was corrupt. Christians understood that nothing was more important than showing love to others, even if it cost them health, safety, or their lives. They understood that other people always come first. They understood that genuine, meaningful happiness wouldn’t be attainable in this life. Inner peace was certainly attainable with God’s help, but satiating self was never the way to do that.  

The bottom line is this: a person whose worldview is even loosely based on the ethics God gave humanity can make moral decisions without being religious. But this is only really possible in a society with a noticeable percentage of people who believe in God and try to act like it. Rarely do we see that kind of morality in a religious vacuum. Most people instinctively know that killing someone for fun is bad, but not all. But that’s literally the bare minimum of what makes a decent person (we’ll even include other big ones here like rape, kidnapping, etc.). What about making sure you don’t get rich by taking advantage of other people in some way? What about not influencing or enabling others to make decisions that would harm them in the future? What about being absolutely faithful to your spouse (unassailably the most functional domestic condition)? What about always telling the truth, even if it harms you? What about forgiving people who hurt you, and definitely not retaliating? These are not natural character traits, these are the behaviors of people who believe in God and try to love others selflessly. 

So yes, it is possible for a person to be moral without being religious…but not outside of a framework built on God’s morality. Genuine Christian morality promotes a culture where the least amount of people are harmed, allowing for the most amount of people tolive fulfilling, meaningful lives.