You'll never convince me!

The final paragraph of Aaron's response to the "You Can't Hide Your Hate" blogger reminded me of a recent exchange I had with a friend of mine. At the end of our discussion about abortion, I heard him say the words, "I don't think we're going to convince each other." But why? Why would someone refuse to accept a position no matter how much evidence or logic supported it? Hidden in this statement is an honest admission of their uncertainty about the topic at hand. What's worse, they even try to drag you into it. This is partially what makes political debates on cable news shows so frustrating. Too many people, both conservative and liberal, Christian or otherwise place more importance on winning the argument than finding truth. As long as we continue this insane nonsense of refusing to examine opposing points of view, we're not going to make any progress in our culture. We could be right in our established position, but since we're all human, we also must humbly admit we could be wrong. If we don't want to know the truth, let's at least be honest about it. So why do people ignore the other side's arguments? There are three reasons.

#1 - The Relative Truth

Before anyone can even have a debate at all, we need to agree that the truth exists. As crazy as this sounds, more people than you think deny this simple fact without even knowing it. The topic of truth requires much more attention than I can give here, but making this distinction is a critical first step in determining why people are becoming so quick to dismiss legitimate ideas from the start. [For further explaination, go to Aaron's January 9th post about truth or read the book by Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith entitled Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid Air.] What I mean by truth is our ability to know the way things really are. Knowing moral truth simply means that we can know what actions are good and which are bad. If you've never heard of relativism before, this may sound strange to you. While most people don't have any disagreement about observable facts such as the sky being blue or simple math like 2 + 2 = 4, in moral matters people often hesitate to claim that one answer is more accurate or better than another. What is right and what is wrong becomes more like an opinion that can't be judged better or worse than any other. It's no longer about what is real or true, but rather what is preferred or appeasing. A relativist might say "I like to get wasted on Saturdays so that's okay for me, but you're a Christian so that's bad for you." The relativist focuses on who's doing the drinking to determine morality whereas the realist focuses on the act of drunkeness itself. The moral realist might respond, "Getting wasted is wrong no matter who's doing it." We can debate on whether drunkeness is immoral, but the point is to illustrate how relativism and realism are vastly different. People who follow moral relativism tend to avoid making statements about bad behavior out of a fear of being intolerant. However, even relativists know there are some actions that qualify as objectively bad behavior and should not be tolerated (harassment, gaybashing, judgementalism, etc). Ironically, since the relativist thinks all ideas are equally valid, they are in no position to make such distinctions. So the relativist paints himself into a corner. As long as we can't call any behavior bad, we can't point out the truth. Therefore, anyone who attempts to deny that objective "right and wrongs" exist will continue to have this problem. We can't point to any immoral act and say "That's wrong!" when it's all about personal preference. Rather, we can only say that "I don't like that." As more people begin to reject moral truth, fewer conversations will be about getting at the truth and more about defending unshakable ideologies. After all, if there's no truth and everyone's opinion is of equal value, none of us can be right or wrong anyway.


#2 - The Painful Truth


While listing to Dennis Praeger's radio show the other day, I heard him artfully define political correctness as "the denial of uncomfortable realities." Political correctness is another barrier to truth. Sometimes, as the saying goes, the truth hurts. Typically, no one likes to hurt other people's feelings, but can be necessary to get at the reality of the situation. For instance, if you are prone to a deadly illness and your doctor fails to tell you how to increase your chances of avoiding it for fear of upsetting you, you would be wise to get a new doctor (and maybe a good malpractice attorney!). On a cultural level, we have become increasingly intolerant of unpleasant truth. Now compare the previous example of the doctor to a real life scenario. Over the past few years, we have seen AIDS infection, drug use, infidelity, domestic violence, and depression rates increase disporportionately higher among those engaged in homosexual lifestyles than for heterosexual ones. While true, these facts hurt. No one should desire any group of people to suffer like this. Similarly, no one should want to hide the facts from those who may be disuaded from this hazardous lifestyle if given the truth. Yet the denial of truth continues and we encourage everyone to just "be yourself" for the sake of political correctness. Christians are not immune from this denial of truth either. The divorce rate among church-going couples is much higher than it should be, yet this is another fact commonly ignored. Some pastors refuse to preach on the divorce problem for fear of offending divorced members of the congregation. But the only way to heal the problem is to admit that it's real in the first place.


#3 - The Biased Truth

Finally, there are some people who are only concerned with advancing their position regardless of what the truth of the matter is. They may have justified a certain idea to themselves or are otherwise emotionally invested in it. The question that usually flushes this out is this: what kind of evidence would it take to change your mind? If you've already asked them what convinced them in the first place, compare that burden of proof with what they require to change the position. If the amount of evidence they need to change positions is higher than what led them to their view in the first place, you should point this out to them. A tell tale sign of someone pushing an agenda or demonstrating ignorance is when they can't even cite opposing arguments or name experts who can. The best thinkers know both the strongest and weakest arguments on each side of the issue. The other indicator is the inability to engage in a civilized conversation. If the response to a simple question like the one above sets them off angrily, you can bet the frustration comes from a lack of will or desire to provide reasons for their belief. If you've ever heard criticism of something you hold dear, you know it's hard to hear, but we need to occasionally step beyond our comfort zone for the sake of learning and growth. I don't like when someone criticizes the church or the behavior of individual Christians, but sometimes they have valid points which deserve to be addressed. Likewise, pro-choice or pro-gay marriage supporters need to check within themselves to see if there is any evidence that would convince them of the other side. If they refuse, as in the case of Rafael, then perhaps they are no longer concerned about the truth but only about pushing an agenda.

Giving the Truth:

While the truth must be told, we need willing ears to hear it. And that means having a compassion for those who may not be ready for it. Consider examining other viewpoints and communicating your own with truth in love (Eph 4:15). This means to begin by challenging your own thoughts to verify the information is reliable. Then share the news tactfully, with a sincere heart, and in a loving manner. If we speak the truth, but no one is willing to listen, our words are wasted. Let's be understanding of how difficult it may be for someone to accept what you have to say if this person may have regretable actions in their past relating to the topic at hand (abortions, sexual infidelity, drug abuse, hurtful behavior, divorce, etc). We need to appreciate the emotional barriers to the truth and earn the right to be heard. Be patient. Build relationships. Show genuine concern. Share the hope (1 Pet 3:15).

You Can't Hide Your Hate...Or Can You?? Part 2

Earlier this month I responded to a blog site which was posted after the passing of Proposition 8 in the state of California. The blog is entitled "You Can't Hide Your Hate" and lists the names of those who contributed financially to the "Yes on 8" campaign. If you have not read my response you can do so by clicking here and scrolling down. After posting my arguments I contacted the author of the "You Can't Hide Your Hate" site and let him know where he could read them. Raphael, the site's contributor, responded as follows:

"Thanks for sharing, Aaron.I don't really think your arguments make any sense, but I'll let our readers decide for themselves. I'm not going to get into a point-by-point discussion about it, because we have a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes "hate". In my view, support for Prop 8 is an act of hatred--and you clearly disagree. I don't think we'll be persuading each other on this issue."

Needless to say, I was very disappointed with this response. Attempting to dialogue on the issue of same-sex marriage can often end in frustration, perhaps because this is such an emotional issue and many individuals on both sides of the debate have not reflected long enough on the issues and arguments. However, I would contend that the most common arguments put forth in the public square to support same-sex marriage are intellectually unsound. Despite Raphael's comments above, I would like to respond to what he said:

"Thanks for sharing, Aaron. I don't really think your arguments make any sense, but I'll let our readers decide for themselves."

Raphael, I have had quite a few people read my previous post and so far you seem to be the only one who has thought my arguments do not make sense. I am assuming you read my entire post, so to simply say that my arguments don't "make any sense" does not make sense to me! I think it is important to read material that argues against our personal point of view, wouldn't you agree? Just to recap, the points I made in my previous post were as follows:

1. My first point showed that your assertion "Proposition 8 eliminates marriage rights" is false. Proposition 8 does no such thing. It upholds the natural definition of marriage which homosexuals are completely free to participate in if they so choose.
2. My second and third points showed that same-sex couples in California already have equal rights, especially under California Family Code 297.5. It's just not called "marriage." Even without the family code there is no unequal protection under the law. These two points alone completely undermine your entire position, so your lack of response here is glaring.
3. My fourth point showed that the government has no vested interest or good reason to elevate same-sex marriage to the level of natural marriage because the two relationships will never be equal: same-sex couples cannot procreate.
4. My fifth point specifically addressed your website and the fact that you are engaging in an ad hominem fallacy by assuming supporters of Proposition 8 are "hateful." Absent from your site is any argumentation, logic, or reasoning to support your position.
5. My sixth point brought out your assumption of the natural moral law when you say that "hate" is wrong. I would like to know where you derive your sense of right and wrong and why you are not applying the natural moral law to homosexual behavior.
6. My seventh point demonstrated the inconsistency on your site regarding boycotts. You say you do not advocate boycotts but then you encourage your readers to tell you if they were able to start a boycott. This seems blatantly contradictory.
7. My eighth point questioned whether your motivation was really to start a dialogue. And to be honest Raphael, from your response it seems my initial assumption was correct. You are not really interested in starting a dialogue because that is what I am attempting to do here and in my previous response to your site.
8. Finally, I pointed out the irony of your site in your attempts to label those who oppose you as intolerant and hateful. This is not very tolerant and loving of you.

I certainly hope we can all take the time to read these posts and make our decisions based on truth and reason, setting emotion and rhetoric aside.

"I'm not going to get into a point-by-point discussion about it..."

This is disappointing to say the least. Especially after you say on your sight that we need to work on beginning a dialogue. How are you going to accomplish that if you are not willing to engage the ideas?? If you have truth on your side Raphael you should be more than willing to engage those who oppose you. If you expect to be persuasive you are going to have to do more than play the hate card. You are going to have to argue, debate, and reason.

"...because we have a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes 'hate.'"

How about we just look up "hate" in the dictionary? Webster's defines it as "to have strong dislike or ill will for; loathe; despise." Can we agree on this?

"In my view, support for Prop 8 is an act of hatred--and you clearly disagree."

Yes, we clearly disagree. But rather than stating the obvious, why don't you give me some good reasons as to exactly why support for Prop 8 should be considered an "act of hatred." Once again, it seems to me you are simply engaging in name-calling rather than addressing the arguments. I don't hate homosexuals. I do not dislike, loathe, or despise them. But it does seem that you "loathe; despise" those who supported the "Yes on 8" campaign. Hence your blog site.

Also, if support for Prop 8, or not supporting same-sex marriage, is considered "hate" on your view, what do you do with liberal democrats and homosexuals themselves who do not support same-sex marriage? Let me give you just one example: Elton John. Elton John came out publicly and said he supported Proposition 8, which you can read about here. So, on your view Raphael, does Elton John "hate" himself because he does not support same-sex marriage??

"I don't think we'll be persuading each other on this issue."

Why not? I am always open to being persuaded because I am open-minded. To say you are not open to being persuaded is a close-minded position. But we should be interested in truth. So if you are right and you can support your beliefs with good reasons and argumentation I am more than willing to listen. But maybe this comment is more about you than me. Maybe you are the one who is not open to being persuaded. And if that is the case, I have to ask "why not?" Are you afraid of what it might mean? Are you interested in truth? Or are you merely interested in confirming your own bias and ignoring any legitimate opposition?

Looking forward to your response Raphael.

The God Question

Philosopher and Theologian J.P. Moreland has recently come out with a new book entitled The God Question: An Invitation to a Life of Meaning.

For those of you familiar with the writings and lectures of Moreland, this book hardly needs endorsement. J.P. has done wonderful work over the last few decades in the areas of Christian philosophy, apologetics, and spiritual formation. This book carries on that tradition. It is particularly good to give away to non-Christian friends or skeptics who are genuinely interested in examining the truth claims of the Christian faith and discovering true meaning and purpose in life. I gave out several just this Christmas.

You can read Moreland's own summary of his book here.

The Missing "Peace" to Chalie Brown's Christmas Special

As a kid, "A Charlie Brown Christmas" was one of my favorites I looked forward to re-watching every year. Now as a grown-up (almost), it's gained my attention again but for a different reason. It's one of the few Christmas specials that takes time to remind its audience of what Christmas is all about. The best specials typically offer is to promote secular ideas such as festive decorating, charitable giving, or spending time with family. Schultz goes further. The true meaning of Christmas is addressed head on in response to Charlie Brown's frustrated question "doesn't anyone know what Christmas is really about?" To answer this question, Schultz has Linus walk out on to center stage (literally) to rehearse, by memory, the scripture passage of Luke 2:8-14. I still get chills when I see this monologue considering how this presentation is a striking contrast to what we usually see. Our pastor even began by showing this scene on the screens before giving his Christmas sermon.

Linus cited directly from the King James Version which ends unlike most other translations. If you listen to Linus as you read along, you'll notice most translations continue verse 14 something like this, "...Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace among men upon whom His favor rests (ESV)." Actually, recent scholarship and manuscript evidence has led most translations since the KJV to include the added words. In fact, after reading 12 randomly chosen translations of Luke 2:14, only Young's Literal Translation and the King James versions exclude the final qualifying words. Listen for it when people quote this verse in the media and you might notice that the ending often gets swallowed up. Possibly as a consequence to this censored reading, the kind of "peace among men" that the heavenly hosts were speaking about has been misrepresented in two important ways.

First, eliminating the qualifying phrase "upon whom His favor rests" leaves open the universalist claim that all are saved. Certain biblical and logical problems arise from the universalist approach which won't be addressed here. Suffice it to say that nonbelievers are not granted the same peace as believers are. It may sound mean, but it seems to be the case.

The second, but related, problem was most recently expressed during my agency's last firearms qualification. A fellow agent and self-defined secular Jew explained that the prophets predicted the messiah would bring "peace on earth" (Isa 9:6-7 and Hag 2:9). But when peace didn't come to first century Israelites under Roman oppression, they determined Jesus wasn't the expected Messiah.

However, if we consider how this word "peace" (from the original Greek word eirēnē) as Luke and his contemporaries intended it to mean, we find that the word may not have related to the state of political affairs but rather to the ultimate state of eternal peace through salvation. We also need to shed our modern notion of the word "peace" which most people immediately associate with the absence of war. While there are other definitions, the most accurate textual interpretation relies on our ability to assign the most accurate word meaning. When we consider the common use of eirēnē elsewhere in scripture and add that this passage includes only those who Christ chooses to bless, we can be assured that this "peace among men" is refering only to the elect.

If you recall, the consistent teaching of Christ throughout the gospels is that the "Kingdom is at hand." Clearly, he didn't mean that he was currently a human ruler in a political sense or that he came to liberate Israel from foriegn occupation. Sure, God will reconcile the physical earth in the end, but Christ's immediate concern was not with the Romans.

Certainly the celebration of Christmas is about peace. Christ brings a sort of invisible tranquility, a very unique peace that true believers can relate to only partially while on earth. Even in times of tragedy or despair, God's promise to his followers provides comforting reassurance, or eirēnē. In grieving the death of a loved one, for instance, there is the promise of salvation and eternal fellowship with believers that gives a special eirēnē to Christ followers. There will still be sadness and a tremendous sense of loss, but unlike the unbeliever who has no hope, there is a certain confidence that only the Christian has. This is the peace that most commonly is referred to in the gospels and which seems the most reasonable sense for this Luke 2 passage as well.

Merry Christmas!

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.

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

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. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.

Isaiah 7:14, 9:6, 53:4-6

Raelians and the Significance of 1948

I just heard about a religious group in Israel who was planning a gay, straight, and bisexual orgy to promote world peace by encouraging uninterrupted pleasure through uninhibited sex acts. The group called the "Raelian movement," claims hundreds of members in Israel and 70,000 worldwide. They don't believe in the supernatural or in a Creator but that the Earth was implanted with life by aliens.

So my question is this. If the reestablishment of Israel was a divinely initiated event, and Romans 11:25-32 includes physical Israel, did God's promise to Abraham include the Israeli Raelians? I'm thinking less and less that it does. I've heard many people talk about the reestablishment of the nation of Israel in 1948 as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy, but does that mean all modern Israeli's are God's chosen people? And if not, then why suggest 1948 had any significance? I'm just as excited to look for possible signs of the end times as the next guy, but I think we need to avoid letting that enthusiasm compromise sound interpretation of scripture and systematic theology. The context of Rom 11 and its reference to Isaiah and Jeremiah give no indication that Paul is talking about physical people but more likely that Jeremiah's "new covenant" replaces the Abrahamic covenant by grafting in Christians and excluding those who reject it - Jews included. Paul seems pretty clear in his rebuke of Jews who think they have an automatic place in the kingdom by their lineage alone. No, it seems to me if we read the text for what it really is, there's no room to assume every citizen of Israel gets a free pass unless they accept the terms of the new covenant (with faith like that which saved Abraham himself - see Heb 11). I hope that Paul is telling us that all of Israel will convert to a true belief in Christ when he says "all of Israel will be saved," but it would contradict God's nature for him to force unrepentant, unbelieving, pagans kicking and screaming into his presence to worship him and reign with him forever. I'm still uncommitted in my eschatology, but I do think this provides a strong case for Amillennialism.

Perhaps the most troubling part about this story is that the Raelian mega-orgy made the headlines, not because it was planned in the first place, but because it was cancelled. The shock reported by the papers was not over the sexual perversity but that organizers caved in to "public pressure." What does this say about our modern world? Instead of anticipating end times, maybe we should ask if we're already there.

It's All Greek to Me!

Biola Rocks!

Newsweek's Religious Case for Gay-Marriage

Newsweek magazine's cover story on December 15, 2008, read "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage." It featured an article by religion editor Lisa Miller entitled, "Our Mutual Joy," in which she attempted to argue a biblical case for gay marriage.

There have been several prominent scholars and theologians who have responded to this piece in length. Kevin Lewis, Christian apologetics professor at Biola University, has written an article which you can read here. Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has responded here. The Family Research Council has also posted a point-by-point rebuttal on their blog which you can read here.

As these articles show, liberals must constantly take passages out of context, undercut Scripture, and resort to fallacious reasoning in endeavoring to make their point. If proponents of same-sex marriage want to defend their case, fine. Muster your best arguments and present them in public debate. But let us not resort to intellectual dishonesty, bad logic, and poor hermeneutics in an effort to distort the clear teaching of Scripture.

Apologetics 315

Have an mp3 player? Do you brag to your friends that its full of debates and lectures, and not one song? Why waste your time listening to music when you could listen to a rousing discussion on the most important issues in life?? After all, life is short!

If this describes you, you need to check out Apologetics 315.

An excellent blog site full of free audio downloads. Debates, lectures, and more, covering such topics as Christian apologetics, philosophy, and theology.

Updated daily! Check it out!

Will the Real Christian Please Stand Up?

Alan Keyes vs. Barack Obama

You Can't Hide Your Hate...Or Can You??

Recently a site entitled "You Can't Hide Your Hate" was posted in response to the passing of Proposition 8 in the state of California. It contains fliers for various cities listing the names of contributors to the "Yes on 8" campaign and the amount of money they donated. The idea behind this site is to "out" those who voted "Yes" and supported the "Yes on 8" campaign through financial donations. The contributors to the site justify its existence by stating, "If Californians are proud of their elimination of marriage and attack on civil rights, than they should find no objection to their neighbors, co-workers, and friends knowing what they are hiding." This statement, and the site in general, serve as an excellent example in displaying what is wrong with the mentality of same-sex marriage proponents.

Before I look at some of the problems with this particular site, let me make just a few brief general comments about the nature of the same-sex marriage debate:

First, upholding natural marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the elimination of marriage as asserted in the statement above. Marriage is not being eliminated. It is being restricted to its natural definition. No society has defined marriage. Rather, all societies have recognized natural marriage since the beginning of human history and each is built upon this fundamental institution. Marriage and families must exist before societies can exist, hence, the definition of marriage could not have been formulated by society itself. Therefore, society has no right to redefine marriage as it sees fit. This brings us to our second point.

Second, the same-sex marriage debate has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights, especially here in California due to California Family Code 297.5. Same-sex couples are afforded the same rights, benefits, and protections under California law. It's just not called "marriage." And that brings us to what this debate is really about. This is not about civil rights. It is about a piece of paper called a "Marriage Certificate" which the gay community desperately wants in order to have their lifestyle legitimized and validated in the eyes of the government and society. It is about redefining marriage. But no one person or society has the right to redefine this institution based on their own personal desires. Same-sex relationships will never be equal to monogamous, long-term, committed, heterosexual relationships, no matter how hard one might try to make them. Simply redefining the word "marriage" to include your relationship doesn't make it a marriage. Marriage is something in particular. And it cannot be redefined to include unnatural relationships any more than one can redefine the nature of a carburetor to include a water pump and expect the two to function equally for the same task.

Third, even without this California Family Code, same-sex couples would still have equal rights. There is NO unequal protection under the law. The same definition of marriage applies to all, regardless of your sexual preference. Homosexuals CAN get married. They just can't marry someone of the same sex. And neither can a heterosexual. The same law applies to all equally. This point seems to be completely missed by same-sex marriage advocates.

Finally, I see no good reason as to why our government should place same-sex marriage on equal ground with natural marriage. The government has no vested interest in same-sex couples because same-sex couples can never procreate. This point alone shows why same-sex relationships can never be on equal footing with heterosexual relationships. It is natural marriage that produces the next generation and it is natural marriage that has been shown to be the best environment for raising children. And it is for this reason that the government supports natural marriage. No government or society can continue to function without a younger generation to take the reigns once the older generation passes on. To see the importance of this point one needs only to ponder the following questions put forth by Frank Turek: "What would be the effect on society if everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage? It would result in a dramatic reduction in crime, welfare, abortion, and child abuse. On the other hand, what would be the effects on society if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage? It would be the end of society and the human race itself. While universal homosexuality, of course, would not occur, the two questions should help us realize that the two types of relationships can never be equated because they are not equally beneficial." I highly recommend Turek's e-book which you can purchase here.

Next, let's look at some of the problems with this site in particular:

First, given the title of this site, I hardly need to mention the inherent assumption that voters in support of Proposition 8 are hateful. This is a classic example of an ad hominem fallacy. You know it's an interesting thing, those ad hominems. You can always tell how intellectually sound and well grounded your opponent is in their position by how quickly they resort to ad hominem fallacies. Someone who feels the necessity to resort to name calling right away probably doesn't have a lot of good arguments to support their position. And given the very name of this site and how quickly they play the hate card, I wouldn't hold your breath in anticipation of hearing sound logic or reasoning. In fact, conspicuously absent from this site is any argumentation, logic, or reasoning as to why our society should accept the legitimacy of same-sex marriage in the first place. Lest you be taken in by the standard assertions put forth by same-sex marriage propenents, read this. My vote was not made out of hate for homosexuals. Rather it was made out of respect for the sacred institution of marriage.

Second, by accusing their opponents of hate, gay activists are presupposing an objective moral law. In other words, proponents of same-sex marriage think it is wrong to hate. But where do they get their standard of right and wrong? Why is it that they appeal to the natural moral law in order to say that hate is wrong and yet they reject this same natural moral law when it says that homosexual behavior is wrong? It is easy invoke morality when it conveniently defends our position. But it is intellectually dishonest and inconsistent to selectively pick and choose which aspects of the moral law we want to believe and apply to our lives.

Third, on the very first page of the site, at the very top, it states, "We do NOT advocate blacklisting or boycotts, only informed decision making and awareness." However, as you scroll down to the right, you read this: "Share your story! Did this blog help you learn about your neighbors? Open a dialogue? Start a boycott? Tell us!" The obvious inconsistency in these two statements makes me wonder how the writer authored such blatantly contradictory comments. He says the site does not advocate boycotts and yet he wants you to share your story publicly if this site helped you start a boycott. Unfortunately, as in the point above, this type of inconsistency is common place among proponents of same-sex marriage and goes to show the true motivation behind a site of this type.

Fourth, another statement on the site says, "These lists provide us with a starting point so that [sic] know who is against us and we can begin the dialogue." Begin a dialogue? Is that what this is really about? I admit I have to adopt a hermeneutic of suspicion on this one. It is hard to get a dialogue going when your opponent begins with the assumption that your motivation is one of hate. Furthermore, in order to have any type of meaningful dialogue it is important both parties understand the issue at hand. And as long as same-sex marriage proponents continue to assert that this debate has anything to do with equal rights, meaningful dialogue will allude them. This is about redefining marriage. Nothing more.

Finally, and very ironically, this site does the very thing it claims it is attempting to uncover. It seems the contributors of this site are hiding their own hate and intolerance through a "You Can't Hide Your Hate" campaign. Rather than start a blog site which encourages intellectually honest debate, the contributors attempt to demonize their opponents by labeling them as hateful, preventing meaningful discourse from ever taking place. Recent news coverage of protests by gay activists in California has shown just how vehement and hateful some "No on 8" supporters really are. One Christian group in San Francisco was assaulted and needed to be escorted to safety by police, which you can read about here. Much of the hate from the "No on 8" campaign stems from a misunderstanding of the issues and a faulty view of tolerance. I highly recommend Greg Koukl's material on this subject which you can read here and purchase here.

In closing, I think Christians need to remember at least two points:

First, we should not be surprised by the hate that has been directed towards Christians after the passing of Proposition 8. Jesus said, "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you" (John 15:18-19). The Apostle Paul said, "Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (1 Timothy 3:12). While hate and persecution may come, we have a moral obligation and Christian duty to stand up for the truth of God's Word. But we need to so out of love. This brings us to our second point.

Second, we are called to love all people with the love of Christ, including those who may hate and persecute us. Jesus said, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44). Individuals struggling with same-sex attractions are valuable human beings created in the image of God. But it does not follow from this that homosexual behavior is right or good. We need to love and pray for those within the gay community, continually calling them to repentance and offering healing in hopes that they may place their trust in Christ and receive the gift of eternal life.

For Further Study:
Legislating Morality, by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Marriage On Trial, by Glenn Stanton and Bill Maier
Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, by Francis Beckwith and Greg Koukl
The Truth about Tolerance, by Brad Stetson and Joseph Conti
Visit the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality at www.narth.com

Pro-Life AND Pro-Capital Punishment???

That's awfully inconsistent, isn't it? How could anyone possibly be pro-life when it comes to the abortion issue and yet at the same time support capital punishment? After all, the "death penalty" certainly doesn't sound pro-life!

Pro-abortion choice advocates (and even some pro-lifers) will occasionally make the claim that being pro-life and in favor of capital punishment is inconsistent. The objection here seems to be that these pro-lifers oppose killing in the case of abortion and yet support killing in the case of capital punishment. It is then concluded by some that the pro-life position on abortion is incorrect. Just recently I heard one pro-lifer said, "If only we didn't support capital punishment," as if to insinuate that this was hurting the pro-life cause. This objection and line of reasoning is flawed in several respects.

First, this objection commits a red herring fallacy. The topic under debate is abortion and our concern is whether or not abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. What exactly does capital punishment have to do with that? Capital punishment is brought up as a distraction to divert attention off of the main issue: abortion. The fact that a pro-lifer may be inconsistent in their views has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not abortion kills a valuable human person. An inconsistent individual can still draw a good conclusion. But this alleged inconsistency does nothing to support either the pro-life or pro-choice position. Furthermore, wouldn't this argument also make those who are pro-abortion choice and against capital punishment equally inconsistent?

Second, some pro-life advocates do not believe capital punishment is morally justifiable. Certainly these pro-lifers cannot be accused of inconsistency. If a perceived inconsistency is the problem, why not take this position which retains the merits of the pro-life position rather than presumptively conclude the pro-life position is incorrect?

Third, it can be rationally and persuasively argued that the pro-life position on abortion is consistent with capital punishment. The reason pro-life advocates are opposed to abortion is because abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. But not so with capital punishment. Capital punishment is reserved for those guilty parties who have received due process and have been convicted of committing a capital offense, such as murder. Notice that in both cases, abortion and capital punishment, a life is taken. The difference is that one is an innocent life and the other is not. To say that the pro-life position on abortion is inconsistent with capital punishment is to say that there is no difference between taking the life of an innocent human being and taking the life of a guilty one. There is nothing inconsistent about being pro-life and pro-capital punishment since pro-lifers are against killing an innocent human person and capital punishment does not kill an innocent human person.

Finally, this objection is a great example of an ad hominem fallacy. Instead of dealing with the arguments offered by the pro-life position against abortion, the pro-abortion choice advocate attacks the character of the pro-lifer by claiming intellectual inconsistency.

The major points and commentary presented here were taken from two sources:
Defending Life by Francis Beckwith, pg. 126-127, and also this article by the same author.

Thirty-Five Years Since Roe v. Wade

January 22, 2008, marks the 35th anniversary since the landmark case decision Roe v. Wade. A recent article in the OC Register entitled "Who gets an abortion and why?" discusses some of the reasons women are choosing to abort their unborn and provides some very interesting statistics and quotes. While 2005 saw the lowest number of abortions in the United States (1.2 million) since 1976, the total number of abortions for the past 35 years is estimated at close to 50 million. More than one-third of adult women are estimated to have had at least one abortion.

So why are women having abortions? According to the Guttmacher Institute, an organization which supports abortion rights, the majority of abortions, well over 90 percent, are performed for what would be considered social/economic reasons. In other words, the unborn are being aborted simply because they are not wanted or due to the economic strain they might incur.

The following quotes in italics are from the above mentioned article. These quotes provide excellent examples of the rhetoric and fallacious reasoning which often accompanies the assertions of pro-abortion choice advocates.

"But often the women getting the abortions say they act in the interests of children they already have. 'It wasn't a hard decision for me to make, because I knew where I wanted to go in my life – I've never regretted it...It wasn't hard to realize I didn't want another child at that time...I was trying to take care of the one I had, and going to college and working at the same time.' She was able to graduate, now has an insurance job, and – still a single mother – has a 3-year-old son as well as her first-born, now 11."

• Notice the assumption that the unborn is not a human being. The article states that women who have abortions "act in the interests of children they already have." This assumes the unborn is not a child they already have! This is begging the question plain and simple. The question is, What is the unborn? If the unborn is a human being, it certainly is not acting in the interest of the unborn to have an abortion.
• Furthermore, the mother says, "It wasn't hard to realize I didn't want another child at that time." Again, this assumes the unborn is not a child and begs the question.
• The mother goes on to say, "I was trying to take care of the one I had." Think about that line of reasoning for a moment. In order to better take care of the child which was already born, she decided to kill the unborn one. This also, once again, begs the question since she assumes the unborn child is not a child she already has. Furthermore, why didn't she consider killing the child which was already born so she would be able to take care of her unborn? That would be wrong of course since she would be killing a human being. Ah, so the question is, What is the unborn? You cannot justify killing the unborn to take care of the born anymore than you can justify killing the born to take care of the unborn, if in fact the unborn is a human being.
• Finally, notice the writer puts this abortion in a positive light by saying, "She was able to graduate, now has an insurance job, and – still a single mother – has a 3-year-old son as well as her first-born, now 11." Notice the rhetoric. A happy ending to this story. No good arguments or reasons are given which justify the taking of an innocent human life for economic reasons. But a nice persuasive story is told which leaves everyone feeling like the mother made the right decision. Pro-abortion choice advocates dare to suggest that women should kill their unborn children in order to make life better for everyone else.

"Martha Girard, on the other hand, says she's appalled by the notion that women should lose the right to choose...'I knew that this pregnancy would end up badly – I could feel it – and we've already got enough problems with the mentally ill son...I was very sad and depressed the first week...But because it's hard on you emotionally and some women regret it, that doesn't mean it's wrong, that you shouldn't have done it, that someone else should decide for you."

• Abortion here is referred to as the "right to choose." Choose what? This is an incomplete sentence. Choice is a relationship between an individual making the choice and a particular thing which is chosen. "The right to choose" is nothing more than a euphemism which distracts people from the real issue: whether or not abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. You first have to establish what exactly is being chosen before you can assert that you have a right to choose it.
• Notice that she doesn't consider killing her already born mentally ill son. After all, that would be wrong. Instead, she kills her unborn child. Like the other comments, this begs the question and assumes her unborn is not a human being.
• Finally, she admits this was a very emotional experience, as I am sure it is. There is no doubt that abortion can be a very psychologically complex decision. But notice that she has to rationalize her decision. She admits she was sad and depressed but ends by saying "that doesn't means it's wrong." Here's something to consider. Maybe the reason you feel sad and depressed is because it is wrong. Is that at least a possibility? Maybe the reason we feel guilty is because we are guilty. In addition, just because something may be psychologically complex does not mean it is morally complex. It's wrong to take an innocent human life simply because they are in the way and can't defend themselves, regardless of how psychologically complex that decision may be.

"The Journal of Family Issues published a report earlier this month asserting that women often choose abortion because of their wish to be good parents...'The women believed that it was more responsible to terminate a pregnancy than to have a child whose health and welfare could be in question.'"

• Once again, think about what this is saying. Women choose abortion because they want to be good parents? Does that seem wrong to anyone else? Why on earth would anyone think that having an abortion makes them a good parent? Unless of course they are assuming the unborn is not a human being. Our society is so morally confused it sees nothing wrong with suggesting that parents kill their unborn in order to be considered "good."
• Also, notice the euphemism "terminate a pregnancy." Another great example of rhetoric. You're not "ending a life" or "killing your unborn." You're simply terminating a pregnancy...a simple standard procedure to remove a piece of non-viable tissue mass, no different than an appendectomy. How tragic and degrading for our unborn.

Interestingly enough, why isn't adoption every mentioned? Isn't that an option anymore in our society? In fact, there are currently close to 2 million families in this country waiting to adopt. 35 years after Roe v. Wade and unfortunately our culture seems just as morally confused over the issue of abortion as the Supreme Court Justices were on this fateful day in 1973. One pro-life advocate in the article stated, "We've begun to depend on abortions...We feel we have to choose between our unborn child and our born children. We shouldn't have to choose." She's right. Some choices are wrong. We can do better than abortion.

Upcoming Apologetics Events!

The Christian Apologetics program at Biola University will be hosting three weekend seminars with world-class Christian scholars. These lectures are open to the public and an excellent opportunity to hear from some of the greatest Christian minds of our time. The seminars take place on a Thursday night, Friday night, and all day Saturday, making them accessible to those who work full time.

Topics include:
February 7-9: "Cultural Apologetics: Goodness, Truth, and Beauty from Dante to Harry Potter" with John Mark Reynolds
March 6-8: "Evidence for the Reliability of the New Testament" with Craig Blomberg
April 24-26: "Key Philosophical Issues in Apologetics" with William Lane Craig

For more information and prices, check out the Biola Apologetics Events page.

"No One Has THE Truth...So Be Tolerant!"

Relativists often make the claim that no one has the truth and that we should therefore be open-minded and "tolerant." Francis Beckwith presents us with an excellent dialogue (based loosely on a real-life exchange) which demonstrates why the relativist position is itself, ironically, close-minded and intolerant. This particular exchange takes place between a student and teacher but can easily be adapted to other real-life situations you may find yourself in.

Teacher: "Welcome, students. This is the first day of class, and so I want to lay down some ground rules. First, because no one has the truth about morality, you should be open-minded to the opinions of your fellow students."

Student: "If nobody has the truth, isn't that a good reason for me not to listen to my fellow students? After all, if nobody has the truth, why should I waste my time listening to other people and their opinions? What's the point? Only if somebody has the truth does it make sense to be open-minded. Don't you agree?"

Teacher: "No, I don't. Are you claiming to know the truth? Isn't that a bit arrogant and dogmatic?"

Student: "Not at all. Rather I think it's dogmatic, as well as arrogant, to assert that no single person on earth knows the truth. After all, have you met every person in the world and quizzed these people exhaustively? If not, how can you make such a claim? Also, I believe it is actually the opposite of arrogance to say that I will alter my opinions to fit the truth whenever and wherever I find it. And if I happen to think that I have good reason to believe I do know the truth and would like to share it with you, why wouldn't you listen to me? Why would you automatically discredit my opinion before it is even uttered? I thought we were supposed to listen to everyone's opinion."

Teacher: "This should prove to be an interesting semester."

At this point, another student blurts out, "Ain't that the truth," provoking the class to laughter.

Recommended Reading:
This dialogue can be found in at least two books by Beckwith: Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (p. 13), and Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (p. 74, co-authored by Greg Koukl).

A Prayer for the New Year

As we begin the New Year, my hope for you and I as ambassadors for Jesus Christ is that we seek to live out to the fullest the exhortations of the Apostle Paul and follow his example found in Colossians 1:9-12:

For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.

My prayer is that we will:
1) Be constantly in prayer
2) Be filled with knowledge of His will
3) Walk in a manner worthy of the Lord
4) Bear fruit in every good work
5) Increase in the knowledge of God
6) Be strengthened with all power
7) Joyously give thanks

Happy New Year and may God bless us as we seek His face and proclaim His Kingdom!

A Christmas Reflection

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

(Philippians 2:5-11)

Can God Make a Rock So Big He Cannot Lift It?

This is one of my favorite questions that comes up from time to time. Indeed, many atheists and skeptics have posed this question in an attempt to stump Christians and somehow disprove the omnipotence (and existence) of God. Maybe you've been there. What is so ironic about a question of this type is that rather than prove any sort of deficiency in the character or nature of God, this question actually shows a lack of clear thinking and logic on the part of the skeptic! In other words, the question itself is flawed and fallacious in several ways and, unfortunately, the person raising the question has not taken the time to truly think this problem through.

Problem #1: this question commits the fallacy known as a loaded question. Imagine if I were to ask you, "Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?" If you answer yes, that means you were beating your spouse but you have since stopped. And if you answer no, that means you're still beating them! Either way you answer the question, you automatically concede that you beat your spouse! This is a no win situation because the question itself starts with a false assumption and is therefore a "loaded" question. Likewise, the question "Can God make a rock so big He cannot lift it?" also starts with a false assumption, i.e., that God is not omnipotent. If you answer "Yes" to the question, that means that God is not omnipotent since He can make the rock but isn't powerful enough to lift it. But if you answer "No," that also means that God is not omnipotent since He couldn't make a rock so big He cannot lift it! In other words, the question itself is dishonest, a pseudo-question, since it begs the question by assuming God is not omnipotent.

Problem #2: this question commits a categorical fallacy. The question itself is incoherent and meaningless. Suppose I were to ask you, "What does the color blue smell like?" or "How much does the number seven weigh?" These are category mistakes because colors don't smell and numbers don't weigh anything. They are logical impossibilities. In the same manner, asking the question "Can God make a rock so big He cannot lift it?" is essentially to ask "Can God's power defeat His own power?" This is nonsensical and a category error since the question is being incorrectly applied. Greg Koukl has stated, "The question is nonsense because it treats God as if He were two instead of one. The phrase 'stronger than' can only be used when two subjects are in view...Since God is only one...it makes no sense to ask if He is stronger than Himself."

Problem #3: this question commits a straw man fallacy. The goal of the skeptic who asks this question is to somehow undermine the Christian concept of an omnipotent God. It is thought that if it can be shown there are some things God cannot do, this would prove that God could not be omnipotent and thus could not exist as Christians have traditionally portrayed Him. However, this line of reasoning is attacking a distorted concept of Biblical omnipotence and is therefore guilty of the straw man fallacy.

So what does it mean then that God is omnipotent? Omnipotence doesn't mean that God can do anything. There are actually quite a few things that God cannot do. He cannot make squared circles. He cannot make a one-ended stick. He cannot sin. He cannot improve His morality. So God is "limited" in a sense. But not one of these "limitations" has to do with power, rather, they are logical contradictions. Also, notice that His "limitations" are not due to any defects in His character or power but rather they are the result of His perfection and rational nature! As Norman Geisler has stated, "He is only 'limited' by His unlimited perfection." To say that God is omnipotent then is to say that God can do anything so long as it is logically possible and consistent with His nature. God's omnipotence does not mean that He can do what is impossible but only that He can do whatever is actually possible.

C.S. Lewis stated:

I know very well that if it is self-contradictory it is absolutely impossible...His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense...It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities...nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God (Problem of Pain, 18).

"But Jesus Never Said..."

"But Jesus never said ________" (you fill in the blank). Far too often, an appeal of this type is made in conversations in order to help support one's point of view. I have heard this line of reasoning most commonly invoked in regards to the debate over homosexuality. For instance, a homosexual advocate might say "Well you know, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality." And since Jesus never said anything about it, it is therefore concluded that there is nothing really wrong with the behavior. After all, if it was really bad, Jesus would have said something, wouldn't He? If only it were that easy.

First, it must be pointed out that this type of reasoning is fallacious. In logic this is referred to as an argument from silence. For example, suppose I were to say "Well, John never said he wasn't a psychopathic homicidal maniac...that must mean he really is one!" Notice that my "proof" that John is a serial killer comes from a total lack of support either way. I am attempting to make an argument from a lack of evidence. In the same manner, Jesus' lack of commentary on homosexuality proves nothing, which brings us to our second point.

Second, Jesus didn't say a lot of things. He never said spousal abuse was wrong or that torturing toddlers is immoral. He never said it was wrong to intentionally trip a blind person or make fun of the hearing impaired. Are we to conclude from this that there is nothing wrong with these acts simply because "Jesus never said?" If the "Jesus never said" argument proves anything, it proves too much!

Finally, in regards to the homosexual debate, Jesus actually did say something! He just didn't say it in the Gospels. Jesus claimed to be the "I AM" of the Old Testament (John 8:58). And in the Old Testament, YHWH clearly makes His view of homosexuality known (Lev. 18:22). Furthermore, according to 2 Timothy 3:16, all Scripture is inspired by God. Meaning that it is not just what Jesus said in the Gospels that we need to take heed to. And, by the way, if all Scripture is God-breathed, and Jesus is God, that means all of the words contained in the Bible are the words of Jesus (not just the words in red!) So, even the New Testament prohibitions against homosexual behavior (Romans 1) can be attributed to Christ.

So the next time someone responds to you by saying "But Jesus never said..." you might want to follow the example of Francis Beckwith when he quipped, "Jesus never said that you should only believe the things that Jesus said."

Are Evangelicals Over-Committed to the Bible?

J.P. Moreland, distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Biola University, has been a mentor of mine for quite some time. Though I have not yet had the privilege of taking his metaphysics class, I think I probably own just about every lecture of his that has ever been recorded, along with all his books! Moreland recently delivered a paper at the Evangelical Theological Society entitled "How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done about It." Needless to say, the title alone has stirred up controversy among Evangelical Christians and has resulted in several heated debates.

Now before you jump to conclusions, I encourage you to read the paper here in context. Most of the controversy surrounding the paper seems to be Moreland's use of the word "over-committed," though he clearly defines what he means by this in the paper itself. What is discouraging to see is the number of Christians who have attacked Moreland in an uncharitable manner. Unfortunately, rather than addressing Moreland's arguments, many have engaged in a number of philosophical fallacies and double-talk. Brett Kunkle, part of the Stand to Reason organization, gives an articulate and well-reasoned response which I highly encourage you to read here. You can also read what Dr. Moreland himself has said in response to his critics here.

I heartily agree with Brett Kunkle in that we should continue to "pray for Biola and godly professors like J.P. Moreland who have the courage to call out Evangelical abuses, yet with the gentleness and reverence others in our community so sorely lack."