New Stem Cell Discovery Not Pro-Abortion Enough

When President Bush announced in the State of the Union address his support for research on embryonic stem cells that are created without destroying life (by means of a new discovery), Republicans leapt to their feet and applauded.  Most Democrats sat with their hands folded.  Why?

Democrats have been criticizing President Bush for not using federal funds on stem cell research.  So why weren’t they applauding?  Is it because any admission that an embryo is alive hurts their case for abortion?  Back on November 30th, I agreed with others who predicted this would happen.  Click here:  Suppressing the Truth on Stem Cells.

I hate to put it this way, but it think it’s true:  the Democrat party seems more concerned with continuing to allow babies to be killed rather than finding new medical advances to help everyone live.

/by

An Apologetic against Christian Apologetics?

,

Last week I was taking questions during an “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” seminar on the campus of Olivet Nazarene University.  One question challenged the legitimacy of Christian Apologetics.  It was half question, half critique and it went something like, “Why are you trying to prove Christianity?  We just need to love one another!”   It sounds like something from the “emergent church” people.  Here is my response:

  1. It’s a false choice– we can and should do both.  We ought to show people why Christianity is true and love them as well.   The two are not mutually exclusive but complementary.  In fact, the Bible tells us to do both, which is my second point . . .
  2. Christian apologetics is commanded.  The greatest commandment contains both:  “Love the Lord with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.  And love your neighbor as yourself” (Mt. 22:37).  1 Pet. 3:15 tells us to “always be ready to give an answer but to do this with gentleness and respect.”  Apologetics is not an option for Christians, and we don’t get brownie points for being stupid.  We are commanded to know what we believe and why we believe it.   We are commanded to “demolish arguments” and “take every thought captive to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).
  3. Atheists have their own apologetics.  We’re losing 75% of our young adults from the church partially because they are the victims of atheistic apologetics in college.  Christian apologetics needs to exist if for no other reason than to counter the false arguments that atheists and apologists from other worldviews are making– and they are making those claims aggressively.  CrossExamined.org exists to counter those false claims with the truth.
  4. It works. While some people believe without knowing why, others need evidence before they can believe.  I know several people, myself included, who came to faith through apologetics.
  5. There’s a difference between belief that and belief in.  I am not suggesting that apologetics alone gets someone saved.  But it does provide evidence that Christianity is true so people can put their trust in Christ.  Knowing that Christ is savior is not the same as trusting in him.  Even the demons know that Christ is savior but they don’t put their trust in him (James 2:19).   Yet, both belief that and belief in are necessary.
  6. It equips you to be better ambassador.  Even if you don’t sense a need for apologetics for your own edification, you may need it to edify others.  We are called to be God’s ambassadors to minister to others.  In fact, God makes his appeal through us (2 Cor. 5:20).  We can’t answer the questions of others without apologetics.  That’s why Paul tells us to study to show ourselves approved (2 Tim 2:15).
  7. It’s self-defeating to give an apologetic against apologetics.   Why do people give me reasons to stop using reasons?
/by

Temple seal found in Jerusalem

Here is another achaeological discovery just made in Jerusalem that affirms the reliability of the Bible.  Here is a quote from the archaeologist: “The seal of the Temech family gives us a direct connection between archeology and the biblical sources and serves as actual evidence of a family mentioned in the Bible,” she said. “One cannot help being astonished by the credibility of the biblical source as seen by the archaeological find.”

/by

Free Speech or Hate-Crime Laws: Can’t Have Both

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council points out in his January 9 email that so-called “hate-crime” laws are having a chilling effect on free speech in Canada (BTW, aren’t all crimes “hate” crimes?).  Mark Steyn is under attack for writing some unflattering things about Islam.  Notice, the issue isn’t whether Mark’s factually correct about what he wrote, but whether he hurt feelings!

The American and Canadian governments have several things in common, including, it appears, the pursuit of radical hate speech laws. As the U.S. braces for another round of hate crimes legislation this spring, our northern neighbors are already engaged in an all-out battle over free speech. The latest victim is popular author and columnist Mark Steyn, who wrote the best-seller America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It. Although the book was published by an American company, excerpts that later appeared in the Canadian press have become the subject of investigation by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). The book, which contrasts Islamic values with those of the West, was considered “a misrepresentation” of the Muslim religion by the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC). As a result of CIC’s complaint, Steyn finds himself at the center of a controversial debate over the limits of public expression. Using charges of “discrimination” as a means of silencing opposition, the CHRC’s investigation jeopardizes freedom in all of North America. During an interview with The Washington Times, Steyn said, “Offense is in the eye of the beholder. The commissions aren’t weighing facts but hurt feelings.” Ironically, when Christians or conservatives object to similar treatment, they usually find themselves on the losing side of the argument, or worse, completely overlooked. Unfortunately, this is just a preview of things to come if the U.S. House is successful when the battle over new federal hate crimes resumes. As Mark Steyn can attest, nothing less than our first freedoms are at stake.

America needs to understand something before we adopt hate crime laws here– we can either have the right to free speech or the right not to be offended, but we cannot have both.

/by

Abortion, the Primaries, and the One Issue Voter

As the presidential campaign heats up (Obama? Clinton? Guiliani? Edwards? McCain? Romney? Huckabee? Thompson?), the media is likely to show disdain for what they call “one-issue voters.”  The disdain will be for those who are pro-life and will not settle for a candidate who is anything but (of course, if your one issue is to keep abortion legal, the media is just fine with that).

Allow me to offer a clarification.  I don’t think being pro-life automatically qualifies you to be president.  You can be pro-life but be otherwise a disastrous President (for me, Jimmy Carter was that guy).  I just think being pro-abortion disqualifies you to be president.  In other words, being pro-life is a necessary quality for a candidate but it is not a sufficient quality for a candidate.

Are there other necessary qualities or policy positions for a president?  Of course.  For me, character, national security, and defending traditional marriage are also critical.  But why is life one of those necessary policy positions?  Because the right to life is the right to all other rights.  If you don’t have life you don’t have anything.  If a presidental candidate refuses to recognize that helpless unborn children are human beings worthy of protection– a truth that in vitro technology has made undeniable– then that candidate lacks either the judgment, compassion or honesty to hold the highest office in the land.

By this criteria, there are leaders in both parties who disqualify themselves because of their pro-abortion stance.  They include Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and Guiliani.   In fact, all four of these candidates have either voted for, or stated their support for, even partial-birth abortion–  that’s when a full-term baby is delivered nearly completely from the womb, a hole is drilled in the back of her skull, and her brains are sucked out with a vacuum cleaner.

Appalled?  Why would you vote for someone who isn’t?

/by