Category: homosexuality

Knights of Contention: Challenges Apologetics Can’t Answer

Tonight, Feb 22nd, at 9:30 p.m. CST we will host our next semi-regular “Knights of Contention” online discussion using voice, video, and chat.

The topic: The 5 Challenges Apologetics Can’t Answer.

Due to the wide scope, this conversation can go anywhere. I have summarized the 5 challenges below with links to each of the 3 parts in which I have detailed them.

To learn more about the “Knights of Contention” click here.

Direct link to the discussion: http://connectpro58388802.na5.acrobat.com/knightcon/

5 Challenges, with summaries

What they all have in common: the belief, or acting as though one believes, that Christianity isn’t actually real. It’s just one’s private faith. No correspondence to reality exists, or is expected. ‘Apologetics’ can’t answer them because they have more to do with attitude or obedience than facts and evidence.

Share

5 Challenges to Christianity Apologetics Can’t Answer Part 3

If you were looking for a thread that ties all five of these challenges together, it is this: the general view, even among Christians, that there is no objective reality to the areas under dispute. That is, we are all arguing about our own opinions, nothing more. It’s like sitting around having an argument about one’s favorite flavor of ice cream. As such an argument is roundly seen as absurd (and I would agree). Thus- even within the Church- the highest transgression is presenting your favorite ice cream flavor as the absolute best. Now this, paradoxically, I have said is something that apologetics can treat (after saying in 3 parts that it can’t. 😉 ), but read carefully on how precisely.

This is attitude that everything is just subjective is manifested most clearly and dramatically in regards to the marriage and the family. To help understand why, let me provide some anecdotal illustrations.

For example, no doubt many of my readers will be aware of the argument against those who oppose gay marriage that if these people really cherished marriage, they wouldn’t themselves support divorce or have the same level of divorces as those outside that community. I am not here highlighting the apparent hypocrisy involved. I’m talking about something else. Another illustration will perhaps help: “Why won’t God heal Amputees?” You see the argument now: if there is a God, surely he would want to heal people, including amputees. The same reasoning undergirds the absurd but common perception among atheists that a praying people will be healthier, or that in an experiment where one group is prayed for but the other group that isn’t, the group prayed for should show better health. (C. S. Lewis exposed this type of experiment as deeply flawed- who in good conscience, if they cared for the sick people would abstain from praying for one group just to prove a point?!?!?)

Share

I’ve changed my mind on gay marriage

I saw a couple of hits on a blog entry I wrote in March of 2010.  The gist of it is that I mocked the notion that the state has no business deciding who should marry.  I just looked at the entry again and have found my facetious arguments compelling. * A little toaster love […]

Share

Apologetics is the Answer to Abortion and Euthanasia and other Life Issues

Apologetics ministries tend to focus on issues such as God’s existence or the fact of the resurrection or the Bible’s reliability. These are all very important. Indeed, they bear directly on the issues at hand- for if there is no God, it obviously follows that we cannot be made by him in his image. Further, Jesus suffering, death, and resurrection on behalf of a fallen human race is an emphatic testament to how much God himself values each human life. Dispense with these, and there are ripples down the line.

There, however, is where I wish to make the point: there are ripples down the line.

Somewhere I read once that in the 1700s they went after God. In the 1800s, they went after Jesus. In the 1900s, they went after Man. The sequence is logical, rational, and predictable. One would like to think that they can dispense with God without there being practical effect, but the 1900s have shown otherwise.

Share

Three words Christians abuse: church, worship, love

The title of this post does not do the matter justice.  The word ‘abuse’ is too mild, and it might be even more accurate to say that in actual fact the sweeping trend within Christendom is that there is outright plain ignorance on what these terms mean.  The charge only matters at all to those […]

Share

I am my child’s advocate; you aren’t.

I am my child’s advocate.

He cannot speak for himself. She cannot understand the issues. Yet the choices we make today will impact them forever. I know my children. I know the issues. You are not my child’s advocate. I am.

You are quite certain my child should be socialized according to your dictates.

For thousands of years civilization got along just great without your professional opinion.

If I choose to make use of your services, it is as my instrument exerting my authority as my child’s advocate. My family is not the arbitrary tool of the state to achieve the state’s ends. My family uses the state- or doesn’t- as its tool. I dispense with it as I determine.

Turn your own family into a machination of the state. Leave mine alone.

I am my child’s advocate.

Share

The Health Care Slippery Slope and Saul Alinsky

As presented, it would include as many of the liberal and socialistic dream policies as they think they might reasonably be able to get passed, but as passed, a large number of these would be dispensed; but many would be retained.

This may strike the average, patriotic American, as fair. Compromise is one of those things that we think fair play requires. There is only one big problem: liberals who are operating on the activist play book (Read: Obama standing on Alinksy’s shoulders), have an entirely different notion of ‘compromise’ then the average fair minded American. Consider this long quote from Alinksy’s book Rules for Radicals:

…to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making the deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise to 30 per cent, you’re 30 percent ahead. (pg 59 emphasis mine)

Share

A Christian checks out Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals

Having only read excerpts of Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals, I was pleased to have the opportunity to sit down and read it for myself in its entirety. Knowing how influential Alinksy was for the young Obama (and many others who now occupy seats of power) I am more worried than I was before now that I’ve actually read this book. Go to the library and pick up the book. You need to read it.

The subtitle of the book is “A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.” It is not an inappropriate subtitle. Alinsky is all about pragmatism and realism. Alinsky is dismissive of ethical questions related to the question “Does the end justify the means?” He says:

The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe’s “conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action”; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of “personal salvation”; he doesn’t care enough for people to be “corrupted” for them. (pg 25, chapter titled: Of Means and Ends)

Share

Why Proportion and Perspective is Needed Regarding the Tiller Murder

Having issued a series of posts trying to establish some sense of proportion and perspective about the Tiller murder, the question has been raised as to why the emphasis.

I have my reasons.

We can go back to a post that I made not too long ago that suggested that a ‘right-wing extremist’ attack was not merely inevitable, but something that the current administration actually wants to happen.

Here is a little quote:

Here is what I think. I think that the recently admitted NSA over-collection of American domestic communications revealed that people- even decent people- are really, really, really, really, really, POed about the way things are and the way they are going. I think that material helped drive the DHS report, but I think the DHS was just looking for an excuse.

This report is likely to produce the very thing it is warning about. With this report, every conservative American became subject to the Thought Police and a target of scrutiny by the Federal government. I believe it will put some people over the edge. I believe the intent was to put them over the edge.

Share

Separation of Church And State, Hitler Style

In 1954 the US passed tax exemption legislation that prohibited tax exempt entities to engage in certain kinds of political activities.

————————————

From a speech by Adolf Hitler, 1935. National-Socialist Party Conference:

But under no condition whatsoever will the National Socialist State permit religious denominations to engage in political activities, whether these activities be a continuance of the old tradition or something started afresh.

Share

Missing Link, Scopes Monkey Trial, Science, Secularism, and Education

For you see, there was a day when the implications of evolutionary theory were more obvious and more openly admitted. Margaret Sanger, the founder of the aforementioned Planned Parenthood, openly urged abortion as a method of eugenics. And of course, since this was all science, and science is ‘neutral’, it should follow naturally that religious people can raise no objections.

Today of course eugenics has a bad rap. We can thank Hitler for that. But that doesn’t mean the implications have changed or that there aren’t ‘neutral’ scientists and secularists who advocate for eugenics today. People aren’t as dumb as secularists would like them to be. When you promote ‘survival of the fittest’ as the guiding biological principle the inevitable conclusion is that we have the moral obligation to utilize that principle according to our own terms. You just aren’t supposed to say it out loud…

Share

Should it be legal to ‘Sext’? Vermont to legalize Sexting

I will agree that the language of ‘right and wrong’ won’t work with many kids today, but that is because hitting them with that language when they are 15 is 15 years too late. Of course it won’t work then. If kids are instilled with an understanding of ‘right and wrong’ from early on they will already be able to see through ‘cool’ things. The language of ‘right and wrong’ does not preclude the ‘dangers of sexting’ nor the dangers of any other destructive behaviors.

As it happens, behaviors traditionally believed to be ‘wrong’ also correlate with nasty consequences. It is ‘wrong’ to steal a car, even if its cool. Also, if you don’t steal a car- surprise!- you won’t be thrown in jail. Guess what? If you don’t have sex before your wedding and your spouse does likewise you won’t have to worry about an STD. See how this works? Funny how the ‘traditional morals’ that society has seen fit to dispense with tend to coincide nicely with creating the results we basically want. Funny how dispensing with those morals tends to create all sorts of nasty consequences we don’t want.

The great modern aim is to dispense with the traditional morality and still avoid the nasty consequences that tend to follow after they’ve been thrown out.

Good luck with that!

Share

Catholic Hospitals SHOULD close if FOCA is passed

Closing the hospitals would show that the RCC has some real backbone. It would be great if other Christian hospitals followed suit, though this is clearly less likely.

This may seem harsh but I think it would simply be strong medicine. Once swallowed, the medicine would do its work and FOCA would come under pressure. Additionally, Catholics in America would get the idea that their higher ups mean business. What with all the challenges the RCC has had in America (the priest scandal, the requirement in some states that the RCC adopt children to homosexual couples, the communing of American politicians who probably aren’t Christian at all, let alone Catholic (Kerry, Pelosi, etc), etc), that is a message that needs to be communicated. That is the opinion of someone who is not a Catholic so take it with a grain of salt, I guess.

Any way, the Obama administration is hell bent on promoting the most radical of pro-choice positions, and this is no time for any of us- Roman Catholics included and especially- to be considering compromise and half-measures… because that is precisely what Obama is counting on.

Share

A Conversation on Final Regress and First Causes

I recently had a conversation with some gents that I thought I would paraphrase for my blog. I think I’ve had the same kind of conversation a dozen times in the last three months. I have combined all the conversations into one paraphrase. Enjoy.

Them: We believe science is the only way to learn about the world and religion is just faith-mongering superstition. There is no scientific basis for believing in the existence of God. Belief is just irrationalism. I know what you’re going to say. That there had to be something that has always existed. Why not the universe?

Me: Well, science says that the universe had a beginning. So I guess the universe can’t be the thing that has always existed. Surely that means we can explore other options.

Share
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next