Christopher Hitchens Debates William Lane Craig at Biola U Does God Exist

Christopher Hitchens Debates William Lane Craig at Biola U: Does God Exist?

, ,

By Wintery Knight

Here is the video of the debate:

TOPIC: DOES GOD EXIST?

MY NOTES ON THE DEBATE: (WC = William Lane Craig, CH = Christopher Hitchens)

WC opening speech:

Introduction:

WC makes two contentions:

– there are no good arguments for atheism

– there are good arguments for theism

These topics are IRRELEVANT tonight:

– the social impact of Christianity

– the morality of Old Testament passages

– biblical inerrancy

– the debate is whether God (a creator and designer of the universe) exists

  1. cosmological argument

– an actually infinite number of past events is impossible

– number of past events must be finite

– therefore the universe has a beginning

– the beginning of the universe is confirmed by science – the universe began to exist from nothing

– space, time, matter, energy began at the big bang

– the creation of the universe requires a cause

– the cause is uncaused, timeless, spaceless, powerful

– the cause must be beyond space and time because it created space and time

– the cause is not physical because it created all matter and energy

– but there are only two kinds of non-physical cause: abstract objects or minds

– abstract objects don’t cause effects

– therefore must be mind

  1. teleological argument

– fine-tuned constants and ratios

– constants not determined by laws of nature

– also, there are arbitrary quantities

– constants and quantities are in a narrow range of life-permitting values

– an example: if the weak force were different by 1 in 10 to the 100, then no life

– there are 3 explanations: physical law or chance or design

– not due to law: because constants and quantities are independent of the laws

– not due to chance: the odds are too high for chance

– therefore, due to design

– the atheist response is the world ensemble (multiverse)

– but world ensemble has unobservable universes, no evidence that they exist

– and world ensemble contradicts scientific observations we have today

  1. moral argument

– objective moral values are values that exist regardless of what human’s think

– objective values are not personal preferences

– objective values are not evolved standards that cultures have depending on time and place

– objective moral values and duties exist

– objective moral values and duties require a moral lawgiver

  1. argument from resurrection miracle

– resurrection implies miracle

– miracle implies God

– 3 minimal facts pass the historical tests (early attestation, eyewitness testimony, multiple attestation, etc.)

– minimal fact 1: empty tomb

– minimal fact 2: appearances

– minimal fact 3: early belief in the resurrection

– Jewish theology prohibits a dying Messiah – Messiah is not supposed to die

– Jewish theology has a general resurrection of everybody, there is not supposed to be a resurrection of one person

– Jewish theology certainly does not predict a single resurrection of the Messiah after he dies

– therefore, the belief in the resurrection is unlikely to have been invented

– disciples were willing to die for that belief in the resurrection

– naturalistic explanations don’t work for the 3 minimal facts

  1. properly basic belief in God

– religious experience is properly basic

– it’s just like the belief in the external world, grounded in experience

– in the absence of defeaters, those experiences are valid

Conclusion: What CH must do:

– destroy all 5 of WC’s arguments

– erect his own case in its place

CH opening speech:

  1. evolution disproves biological design argument

– evolution disproves Paley’s argument for a watchmaker

  1. God wouldn’t have done it that way

– God wouldn’t have waited that long before the incarnation

– mass extinction and death before Jesus

– God wouldn’t have allowed humans to have almost gone extinct a while back in Africa

– why insist that this wasteful and incompetent history of life is for us, that’s a bad design

– the universe is so vast, why would God need so much space, that’s a bad design

– there is too much destruction in the universe, like exploding stars – that’s a bad design
– the heat death of the universe is a bad design

– too many of the other planets don’t support life, that’s a bad design

– the sun is going to become a red giant and incinerate us, that’s a bad design

  1. Hitchens’ burden of proof

– there is no good reason that supports the existence of God

– all arguments for God can be explained without God

– atheists can’t prove there is no God

– but they can prove there is no good argument for God

  1. Craig’s scientific arguments don’t go far enough, they only prove deism, not theism

– the scientific arguments don’t prove prayer works

– the scientific arguments don’t prove specific moral teachings of Christianity

  1. if the laws of physics are so great then miracles shouldn’t be allowed

– good laws and miracles seem to be in contradiction

  1. extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence

– none of Craig’s evidence was extraordinary

  1. science can change, so Craig can’t use the progress of science

– it’s too early for Craig to use the big bang and fine-tuning

– the big bang and fine-tuning evidences are too new

– they could be overturned by the progress of science

  1. Craig wrote in his book that the internal conviction of God’s existence should trump contradicting evidence

– but then he isn’t forming his view based on evidence

– he refuses to let evidence disprove his view

– but then how can atheists be to blame if they don’t believe

– so evidence is not really relevant to accepting theism

  1. the progress of science has disproved religion

– Christianity taught that earth was center of the universe

– but then cosmology disproved that

Response to the big bang and fine-tuning arguments:

– was there pre-existing material?

– who designed the designer?

WC first rebuttal:

Reiterates his 2 basic contentions

CH agrees that there is no good argument for atheism

– then all you’ve got is agnosticism

– because CH did not claim to know there is no God

– and he gave no arguments that there is no God

CH’s evolution argument

– irrelevant to Christianity

– Genesis 1 allows for evolution to have occurred

– Christianity is not committed to young earth creationism

– the origin of biological diversity is not central to Christianity

– St. Augustine in 300 AD said days can be long, special potencies unfold over time

– also, there are scientific reasons to doubt evolution

– cites barrow and Tipler, and they say:

– each of 10 steps in evolution is very improbable

– chances are so low; it would be a miracle if evolution occurred

CH’s argument that God is wasteful

– efficiency is only important to people with limited time or limited resources

– therefore God doesn’t need to be efficient

CH’s argument that God waits too long to send Jesus

– population was not that high before Jesus

– Jesus appears just before the exponential explosion of population

– conditions were stable – roman empire, peace, literacy, law, etc.

CH’s argument that Craig’s scientific arguments only prove deism, not theism

– deism a type of theism, so those scientific arguments work

– all that deism denies is a miraculous intervention

CH’s argument that Craig has a burden of proof

– theism doesn’t need to be proven with certainty

– must only prove a best explanation of the evidence

CH’s citation of Craig’s book saying that evidence should not overrule experience

– there is a difference between knowing and showing Christianity is true

– knowing is by religious experience which is a properly basic belief

– showing is done through evidence, and there the evidence does matter

CH’s rebuttal to the big bang

– there was no pre-existent material

– space and time and matter came into being at the big bang

– the cause must be non-physical and eternal

– cause of the universe outside of time means = cause of the universe did not begin to exist

– this is the state of science today

CH’s rebuttal to the fine-tuning

– CH says scientists are uncertain about the fine-tuning

– Craig cites Martin Rees, an atheist, astronomer royal, to substantiate the fine-tuning
– the fine-tuning is necessary for  minimal requirements for life of any kind

– the progress of science is not going to dethrone the fine-tuning

CH’s argument about heat death of the universe

– duration of design is irrelevant to whether something was designed

– cars are designed, yet they break down

– design need not be optimal to be designed

– CH is saying why create if we all eventually go extinct

– but life doesn’t end in the grave on Christianity

CH’s rebuttal to the moral argument

– CH says no objective moral values

– but CH uses them to argue against God and Christians

– but CH has no foundation for a standard that applies to God and Christians

CH’s rebuttal to the resurrection argument

– empty tomb and appearances are virtually certain

– these are minimal facts, well evidenced using standard historical criteria

– best explanation of these minimal facts is the resurrection

CH’s rebuttal to a religious experience

– prop basic belief is rational in the absence of defeaters

– so long as Craig has no psychological deficiency, experience is admissible

CH first rebuttal:

it’s not agnosticism

– if there are no good arguments for theism

– then there is no reason for belief in God

– that is atheism

– everything can be explained without God

God wouldn’t have done it that way

– homo sapiens is 100K years old

– for 98K years, they had no communication from God

– lots of people died in childbirth

– disease and volcanos are a mystery to them

– life expectancy is very low

– they die terrible deaths

– their teeth are badly designed

– their genitalia are badly designed

– why solve the problem of sin by allowing a man to be tortured to death

– that’s a stupid, cruel, bumbling plan

lots of people haven’t even heard of Jesus

– many of them die without knowing about him

– they cannot be held responsible if they do not know about Jesus

the early success of Christianity doesn’t prove Christianity is true

– because then it applies to Mormonism and Islam, they’re growing fast

objective morality

– belief in a supreme dictator doesn’t improve moral behavior

– I can do moral actions that you can do

– I can repeat moral positions that you can say

religious people are immoral

– genital mutilation

– suicide bombing

moral behavior doesn’t need God

– we need to act moral for social cohesion

– it evolved for our survival

– that’s why people act morally

– it’s degrading to humans, and servile, to require God for morality

free will

– I believe in free will

– I don’t know why, because I can’t ground free will on atheism

– a bossy God seems to reduce free will because then we are accountable to God

WC cross-examination of CH:

WC why call yourself an atheist when you have no reasons?

CH because absence of belief is atheism

WC but agnosticism, atheism, verificationism all don’t hold that belief, which one are you?

CH I think God does not exist

WC ok give me an argument for the claim you just made to know God does not exist

CH I have no argument, but I don’t believe in God because it depresses me to think he might be real

WC would you agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

CH no I don’t agree

WC moral argument: it’s not epistemology it’s the ontology – have you got a foundation for moral values and duties?

CH I do not, it’s just evolution, an evolved standard based on social cohesion

CH cross-examination of WC:

CH you said that the historical reports of Jesus doing exorcisms are generally accepted – do you believe in devils?

WC I commit to nothing, what I am saying their historical consensus on the reports that Jesus did exorcisms

CH what about the devils going into the pigs, do you believe that?

WC yes I do, but the main point I’m making is that the historical reports show that Jesus acted with divine authority

CH do you believe in the virgin birth?

WC yes, but that’s not historically provable using the minimal facts methods, and I did not use the virgin birth in my arguments tonight, because it doesn’t pass the historical tests to be a minimal fact

CH do you believe that all the graves opened and dead people all came out?

WC not sure if the author intended that part as apocalyptic imagery or as literal, I have no opinion on it, have not studied it

CH do exorcisms prove son of God?

WC no, I am only saying that the historical reports show that Jesus exercised authority and put himself in the place of God

CH are any religions false? name one that’s false

WC Islam

CH so some religions are wicked right?

WC yes

CH if a baby were born in Saudi Arabia would it be better if it were an atheist or a Muslim?

WC I have no opinion on that

CH are any Christian denominations wrong?

WC Calvinism is wrong about some things, but they are still Christians, I could be wrong about some things, I do the best I can, studying theology, so I’m not wrong

WC second rebuttal

Response to CH arguments:

no reasons for atheism

– no reasons to believe that God does not exist

– CH withholds belief in God

why wait so long before contacting humans with Jesus

– population matters, not time – Jesus waited until there was about to be a population explosion

– there is a natural revelation (Romans 1) for those who lived before Christ

what about those who never heard

– (Acts 17:22-31) God chooses the time and place of each person who is born to optimize their opportunity to know him based on how they will respond to evidence (this is called middle knowledge)

– those who haven’t heard will be judged based on general revelation

WC re-assess the state of his five arguments:

cosmological argument

– heat death of the universe won’t happen on Christianity

moral argument

– if no objective moral standard, can’t judge other cultures as wrong

– no transcendent objective standard to be able to judge slavery as wrong

name an action argument

– e.g. – tithing

– the greatest command – love the Lord your God your God with everything you’ve got

– atheists can’t do that, and that is the biggest commandment to follow

moral obligations

– there are no objective moral obligations for anyone on atheism

– on atheism, you feel obligated because of genetics and social pressure

– on atheism, we’re animals, and animals don’t have moral obligations

resurrection
– the belief in the resurrection of 1 man, the Messiah is totally unexpected on Judaism

– they would not have made this up, it was unexpected

religious experience

– experience is valid in the absence of defeaters

CH second rebuttal:

faith and reason

– Tertullian says faith is better when it’s against reason

it’s easy to start a rumor with faith-based people

– Mother Teresa: to be canonized she needs to have done a miracle

– so there was a faked miracle report

– but everybody believes the fake miracle report!

– this proves that religious rumors are easy to start

– the resurrection could have started as a similar rumor by people wanting to believe it

name an action

– tithing is a religious action, I don’t have to do that

moral argument

– I can be as moral as you can without God

– I can say that other cultures are wrong, there I just said it

– without God, people would still be good, so God isn’t needed

religious people did bad things in history

– this church did a bad thing here

– that church did a bad thing there

– therefore God doesn’t exist

religion is the outcome of man’s struggle with a natural phenomenon

– that is why there are so many religions

WC concluding speech

no arguments for atheism presented

What CH has said during the debate:

– God bad, Mother Teresa bad, religion bad

atheism is a worldview

– it claims to know the truth

– therefore it is exclusive of other views

what does theism explain

– theism explains a broad range of experiences

– origin of the universe, CH has dropped the point

– fine-tuning, CH has dropped the point

– moral, CH says that humans are no different from animals – but an evolved standard is illusory, there are no actual moral values and standards, it’s just a genetic predisposition to act in a certain way – that’s not prescriptive morality

– resurrection, CH has dropped the point

– experience, Craig tells his testimony and urges the audience to give it a shot

CH concluding speech

HITCHENS YIELDS HIS ENTIRE CONCLUDING SPEECH!

A question & answer Period followed the end of the formal debate

Further study

Check out my analysis of the 11 arguments Hitchens made in his opening speech in his debate with Frank Turek.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2NGJ7Jn

/by
Lógica 09 cuantificación universal y existencial

Lógica 09: cuantificación universal y existencial

In the previous post we saw about predicate logic and its formal language. Now we will talk about quantifiers.

UNIVERSAL QUANTIFICATION

Universally quantified propositions are those that speak of a group or set of all or none:

Universal affirmative : All humans are mortal.

Universal negative : No human is mortal .

These propositions have the form of the “if…then” type. So, for example, when we say that “All humans are mortal” we are logically saying, “If something is a human, then it is mortal.” Recalling our previous post on the formalization of subject-predicate propositions, we can now symbolize our universal affirmative in the following way:

∀ x (H x → M x )

Which reads “For all x , if x is a human, then x is mortal.” In the same way, we symbolize our universal negative:

∀x (Hx → ¬Mx)

Which reads “For all x , if x is a human, then x is not mortal.”

EXISTENTIAL QUANTIFICATION

Existentially quantified propositions are those that speak only of some while of a group or set:

Existential affirmative : Some humans are mortal.

Existential Negative : Some humans are not mortal.

These propositions tell us that there is at least one thing that has or lacks the property in question, and they take the form of conjunctions. For example, the proposition “Some dogs are German Shepherds” is not reporting that there is at least one object in the world that is both a dog and black. We can now symbolize our existential affirmation:

∃x (Hx ^ Mx)

Which can be read as “There exists at least one x such that x is a human and x is a mortal.” We now symbolize our existential refusal:

 ∃x (Hx ^ ¬Mx)

Which reads “There exists at least one x such that x is a human and x is not mortal.”

Finally, using the Greek letters 𝛗 and 𝛙 to represent any property symbol, we can represent our general propositions with the following square diagram:

logic 09

When analyzing this table we can observe two things:

  • The propositions [∀x (𝛗x → 𝛙x)] and ∃x [(𝛗x ^ ¬𝛙x)] are contradictory . Thus, from the universal affirmative “For any x , if x is a dog, then x has fleas” and the existential negative “There exists at least one x , such that x is a dog and does not have fleas”, only one of them can be true.
  • The propositions [∃x (𝛗x ^ 𝛙x)] and [∀x (𝛗x → ¬𝛙x)] are also contradictory . In other words, of the existential affirmative “There exists at least one x such that x is a dog and x has fleas” and of the universal negative “For any x , if x is a dog, then x does not have fleas” only one can be true, but not both.

Now, what about the contraries relations in our square diagram from our previous post? Shouldn’t the propositions [∀x (𝛗x → 𝛙x)] and [∀x (𝛗x → ¬𝛙x)] be equally contraries where both cannot be true, but both can be false? Not really, and the reason is this: since universally quantified propositions are in the form of conditional statements and if it is the case that the antecedent is false, then no matter the truth value of the consequent, the proposition will be true. Let’s look at an example with both propositions:

  1. For any x , if x is a square planet, then x has an orbit.
  2. For any x , if x is a square planet, then x does not have an orbit.

Suppose that the antecedent for both propositions is false; while the consequent of (1) is true but false for (2). Then, according to the truth tables for conditional statements [1] , both propositions are true, so the necessary condition for them to be contrary propositions no longer holds (i.e., they cannot both be true).

In the case of propositions [∃x (𝛗x ^ 𝛙x)] and ∃x [(𝛗x ^ ¬𝛙x)] they cannot be subcontraries either (both can be true but not false), since if “? x” is a propositional function with no true substitution instance, then no matter what “? x ” means, both propositions will be false, and the reason is because existentially quantified propositions have the form of conjunctions , and the truth table for this type of propositions tells us that if the first conjunct is false, then the conjunction in its entirety is false [2] , so the necessary condition to be subcontrary is not met. Let’s see an example with affirmative and negative existential propositions respectively:

  1. There exists at least one x such that x is a dragon and x is green.
  2. There exists at least one x such that x is a dragon and x is not green.

Assuming that the first conjunct is false (x is a dragon) for both propositions, false for the second conjunct of (3), and true for (4), then in both cases the propositions are false.

Finally, the implication relation between the subalterns of the diagram from the previous post also does not hold, since we have seen that the propositions [∀x (𝛗x → 𝛙x)] and [∀x (𝛗x → ¬𝛙x)] can be true while the propositions [∃x (𝛗x ^ 𝛙x)] and [∃x [(𝛗x ^ ¬𝛙x)] can be false, so the truth of a universally quantified proposition does not imply the truth of an existentially quantified proposition.

Grades

[1] Truth table for conditionals:

𝛗 𝛙 𝛗 → 𝛙
V V V
V F F
F V V
F F V

 

 

As you can see, if the substitution instances for ? are false, the entire conditional will be true.

[2] Truth table for conjunctions:

𝛗 𝛙 𝛗 ^ 𝛙
V V V
V F F
F V F
F F F

 

Jairo Izquierdo is Director of Social Media and author for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He studies philosophy and theology, with his current focus being classical logic, epistemology, Christian doctrines and linguistics. He is co-founder of Filósofo Cristiano . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance and a minister of worship at the Christian Baptist church Cristo es la Respuesta in Puebla, Mexico.

/by

Why Would God Make Me a Lesbian?

,

Could there be any more sensitive and provocative question in our culture today?  (Since we posted this video on YouTube two days ago it has averaged nearly 2,000 views per hour.)  A student posed the question at Towson State University.  Here is our four-minute discussion:

The video ends abruptly because the young lady went on to ask another question (you can see the entire presentation and all of the Q&A here).

The bottom line is that we all have an orientation to sinful behavior.  We all have attractions we ought not act on, and we all have to restrain ourselves on numerous fronts each day.  The only one who did that perfectly and completely was Jesus of Nazareth.  That’s why only he can be our sacrifice.  He didn’t die for his own sins, but for ours.

Of course, much more could be said on the issues of love, sex, natural law, homosexuality and same-sex marriage than one can say in a four-minute video.  I may touch on this a bit in the podcast later this week.  But if you want to go into even more depth, I have done so in this recently updated little book.

/by

Hate Crimes, Transgenderism, and other big questions

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

Some very interesting things have happened in the last few days, including Jussie Smollet “hate crime” hoax and a panel hosted by the Heritage Foundation where four feminist activists argued that sex IS fundamentally BIOLOGICAL, and not socially constructed. That’s an interesting development coming from the same LGBTQ community. Frank doesn’t waste any time and comments on these issues during this podcast. He also answers a couple of questions from you our audience via Hello@CrossExamined.org. Don’t miss this very interesting episode of the Cross Examined Official Podcast.

Keep us busy by sending your questions to Hello@CrossExamined.org and don’t miss this episode!

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

/by
Fighting Human Trafficking in the Digital Age

Fighting Human Trafficking in the Digital Age

By Mikel Del Rosario

Technology for Good

Using Artificial Intelligence for the Common Good

When I began teaching in Northern California, I met a remarkable young woman named Emily Kennedy. Today, she is the President and Founder of Marinus Analytics. I recently invited Emily to join me on the Table Podcast for National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention month. We talked about how she and her team uses artificial intelligence to help law enforcement rescue people from sex trafficking. See how our Christian convictions on the value of human life fuels Emily’s fight against human trafficking and how her company uses technology for social good.

Access the full transcript here.

Fighting Human Trafficking in the Digital Age

 

Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2GW4mFx

/by
Do I Have to Be Absolutely Certain Before I Can Say Christianity Is True

Do I Have to Be Absolutely Certain Before I Can Say Christianity Is True?

By Robby Hall

Recently here in my state, a man was acquitted of manslaughter in the death of his girlfriend.  In response to the loss, the District Attorney who prosecuted the case stated:

“…Of course, we’re gutted, However, what people will not understand is this: The number one reason we lost is the burden of proof in a circumstantial case is not just beyond a reasonable doubt but it’s far higher.”

Is this true?  Do I need to be absolutely certain before I can say this man is guilty or innocent?  What about the case for Christianity?  Do I need to be certain of every detail before I can accept the evidence as pointing to it being true?

The truth is, you don’t.  In fact, most of the time, we know things are true or false without having all of our questions answered.  But this brings up a question:  How does one weigh evidence?

According to J. Warner Wallace, semi-retired Cold Case Detective and Christian author and speaker, understanding evidence first begins with understanding the difference between direct and indirect evidence[1]

Direct evidence is eyewitness testimony.  A person witnesses a robbery and testifies in court.  That is a direct evidence case.  Indirect evidence is everything else.  Indirect evidence is also known as circumstantial evidence.  Even DNA and fingerprint evidence is not direct.  It’s only a fact.  In a circumstantial case, you draw inferences from the facts [evidence] you are presented.  People can draw different inferences from the same facts.  A lot of this can be based on your personal bent.  So what you must do is set aside your presuppositions and determine to follow the evidence wherever it leads – even if it’s to a place you do not like.

Circumstantial evidence can make the strongest case for Christianity by building a cumulative case.  A cumulative case can be compared to a puzzle.  Once the pieces begin to be put together, they start to form a picture.  At some point, if there are enough pieces, you can see what the picture is even if you don’t have all of the pieces.

Rational Inference is a basic law of logic and all of the facts are not required to make such an inference.  There is a huge, circumstantial, cumulative case for Christianity.  And when you weigh all of the evidence together, you begin to see the picture of Christ form.  There will still be unanswered questions.  I have them and you will too.  But we don’t make decisions based on being absolutely certain.

Back to the criminal case.  I was not there to see the evidence; I’ll leave it up to the jury.  But if the DA thinks that a circumstantial case requires a higher burden of proof, he may have sunk his own case or had a bad one.

If you think you can’t be a Christian because you cannot answer every question, apply that same burden of proof to everything else you think is true and see if those things hold up under the same scrutiny.  You may find your case for those things wanting.

Note ​

[1] http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/why-its-important-for-christians-to-understand-the-difference-between-possible-and-reasonable-doubt-video/coldcasechristianity.com/2018/why-its-important-for-christians-to-understand-the-difference-between-possible-and-reasonable-doubt-video/

 

Robby Hall is in the Secure Access industry for Information Technology. He has been married for 3 years and has just welcomed his first child, Bridget. He is graduate of the Cross Examined Instructor’s Academy and leads apologetics small groups at his local church.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2tyl71K

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

/by
Civilization & Its Malcontents

Civilization & Its Malcontents

,

By Terrell Clemmons

How Soviet Disinformation Infected the West & What the West Can Do About It

On Tuesday, July 25, 1978, Romanian-born Ion Mihai Pacepa (‘e-YOHN MEE-hai pa-CHEP-a’) crossed the small outer lobby of the United States Embassy in Bonn, West Germany, and made his way toward the Marine officer standing guard, arms across his chest, at the door to the entrance. The son of a devout Christian mother, the intelligence veteran had sworn to himself upon being drafted into the Securitate (Romanian secret police) that he would never take part in a political killing. For 27 years he had lived with the running nightmare that, at some point, assassination orders would land on his plate. The previous Saturday, the dreaded moment had arrived.

Now was the time to break with the evil system that had controlled his entire adult life. In spite of his resolve, though, the physical steps were proving harder than the mental ones. Keeping his voice as low as possible, he spoke directly to the Marine. “I am a Soviet bloc two-star intelligence general, and I want to defect to the United States.”

Three days later, in the pre-dawn darkness of Friday, July 28, General Pacepa boarded a military plane at U.S. Rhein-Main Air Base, bound for Washington, D.C. Aside from the clothes he was wearing, his worldly possessions consisted of the paperwork confirming President Jimmy Carter’s approval of his request for political asylum, his passport, some personal notes, and a camera containing a few snapshots of his daughter. That night, after a very long first day in his newly adopted homeland, he fell to his knees and prayed aloud for the first time in more than 25 years. Exactly three months shy of his fiftieth birthday, he was a free man.

Disinformation: Deception as Strategic Policy

And an exceedingly grateful one. Coming to America to stay had been a lifelong dream of his. His hands may have been empty, but his head was crammed full of information of monumental importance to the West, and he was eager to share it. Hanging in his abandoned office back in Bucharest, there was a banner proclaiming, “CAPITALIST ESPIONAGE REPORTS HISTORY. WE MAKE IT.” To understand what the Soviets meant by that little epigram, one must understand the Russian “science” of dezinformatsiya, or disinformation—a foreign concept to well-meaning, free-world Westerners.

Lest we think that global warfare ended with World War II or that Western political liberty prevailed for good with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, General Pacepa would advise us to think again. The Soviet cancer of disinformation has metastasized across the globe, and recognizing and countering it is literally a matter of life and death, as the octogenarian—now an American citizen—shows in his latest book, Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism (WND Books, 2013), co-authored with law professor Ronald J. Rychlak.

Disinformation is not synonymous with misinformation. If Russian sources had fabricated a story and published it through their own outlets, that would be misinformation, and Westerners would rightly have read it through a skeptical filter. If, however, the same information appeared in Western media and was attributed to Western sources, that would be disinformation. In both cases, it reduces to flat-out lying, but in the latter case, the credibility of the lie—and therefore its power—is substantially greater.

Codified in highly classified training manuals, disinformation was, for the Soviet-bloc countries, a carefully planned and strategically executed “science.” By 1950, Joseph Stalin, Supreme Dictator of the USSR and de facto head of roughly a third of the world’s population, faced a strong post-war alliance between the U.S. and Western Europe. He knew he didn’t have the military or economic strength to break that bond, but he was also a bad loser, unable to coexist contentedly with the free West. So he reverted to the older, low-tech weaponry of lies and emotional manipulation.

He appointed Andrey Vishinsky as Minister of Foreign Affairs and charged him with turning European sentiments against America. (Vishinsky would accomplish this by accusing America of harboring Zionism—more on that in a moment.) Then he dispatched Aleksandr Panyushkin to Washington, D.C., as Soviet Ambassador to the U.S. Panyushkin’s main task was to foster the creation of peace movements in America (because, if you can seduce your enemy into laying down his arms, he and everything behind him will all be yours). The goals were to divide the West and to vilify and weaken America, the strongest of the Western nations.

This was the strategy with which the Cold War was prosecuted from Moscow. Stalin called it World War III. It was a war of ideas—an intelligence war in which more people worked in disinformation than in the Soviet army and defense industry combined.

But unlike Western intelligence services, Soviet-bloc espionage was not designed to obtain factual information or analyze the enemy. The purpose of foreign intelligence for the Soviets was to spread information—false information, usually aimed at accomplishing one of three objectives: (1) to polish a Communist leader’s image, (2) to hide Communist crimes, or (3) to frame and slander an enemy—usually America, the Church, or later, Israel. Very often, disinformation involved rewriting history, retrofitting what has beento make it accord with whatever best furthered the objectives of the current regime. Thus, there were “few things more difficult for Russian and Western historians,” Pacepa and Rychlak note wryly, “than to predict Russia’s past.”

Only in a world of deceit is the past unpredictable. But this is what was meant by the pithy assertion, WE MAKE HISTORY.

Truth as Counter-Strategy

Disinformation amounted to deception as national policy. Of course, this was never publicly announced by the Kremlin, and by and large, Western leaders were oblivious to the sheer cunning of it. President Truman did know, however, that Stalin intended to expand territorial control. Truman also believed that the “force of imperialistic communism” could only be stopped “through a concerted religious effort,” one that would place the superiority and strength of “truth and freedom” before the peoples of the world. In this way, Truman reasoned, Soviet falsehoods would be overcome by the “plain, simple, unvarnished truth.”

And so he launched his “Campaign of Truth” in 1950, which he rightly saw as “a struggle, above all else, for the minds of men.” He asked Pope Pius XII, who had proven himself a strong moral ally in the face of Nazism, for help, and a cooperative, free-world counteroffensive began, which gave birth to the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberation (later, Radio Liberty). The Vatican acquired a large tract of land north of Rome for a new broadcasting center, and in 1957 it went into operation. Soon after that, Vatican Radio, which had helped the resistance oppose the Nazis during World War II, became another high-powered voice of truth, countering the lies of Communism in 47 languages.

“Blow Up That Whole W-w-wasps N-n-nest”

Quantifying the full return on this kind of a political-global investment is humanly impossible, but the ramifications with respect to Pacepa alone would prove profound, as the broadcasting center would play a role in his defection. The target of the long-dreaded assassination order that prompted him to defect in 1978 was Noel Bernard, the director of Radio Free Europe’s Romanian program. “I w-w-want Noel k-k-killed,” Romanian “President” Nicolae Ceausescu had whispered in his ear on July 22, 1978. “And a few days later,” he had continued, “blow up that whole w-w-wasps n-n-nest.” The “wasp’s nest” was the Munich headquarters of Radio Free Europe, from which Bernard had been blackening Ceausescu’s carefully crafted image. So Bernard had to go, “Death to truth-tellers” being the primal instinct of a dictator.

But out of conscience, as we have seen, Pacepa sought asylum in the U.S. rather than complying with the order. Indeed, far wider consequences were yet to unfold. In 1987, with the encouragement of his American patriot wife Mary Lou, and after overcoming obstacles to publication erected by the Carter administration, Pacepa published his first book, Red Horizons: The True Story of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu’s Crimes, Lifestyle and Corruption. (At the time, America and the West were fawning over Ceausescu—the strategic result of a successful disinformation campaign out of Moscow.) In 1988, Red Horizonswas serialized over Radio Free Europe, and the following year, both Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were executed by the Romanian people after a trial in which the charges had come nearly word-for-word out of Red Horizons.

At the risk of sounding like an infomercial, (But wait!) there’s more. During this time also, two congressmen handed a copy of Red Horizons to President Reagan, to whom it became “my bible for dealing with dictators.” By 1990, the Berlin Wall had come down, and the entire Soviet edifice would soon follow.

The Empire Strikes Back

Of course, this was a cataclysmic collapse with far-reaching implications, prompting justifiable celebrations worldwide. But the evil designs on the West had gone to seed, and whole KGB-launched or KGB-commandeered organizations based on falsehood had put down roots and taken on pernicious lives of their own.

The most virulent strain to emerge thus far has come out of the Middle East. On April 16, 2004, Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris appeared on Palestinian TV and, pounding his fist in the air, cried out, “It is World Zionism that manipulates U.S. decision-making by remote control.” How did he know this? This “World Zionism” had been exposed, he said, by Roger Garoudy, a former French Communist convert to Islam, who had learned of it from reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

This, too, is the fruit of a disinformation campaign—Operation “SIG,” which involved disseminating into the Islamic world hundreds of thousands of Arabic translations of the Protocols—a known Russian forgery saying that the Jews planned to take over the world. (Protocols had also, incidentally, been the basis for much of Hitler’s Mein Kampf.) Pacepa was personally involved in distributing it, along with “documentary” material “proving” the U.S. to be the Jews’ Zionist accomplice. Lest this sound too far-fetched to be believed by peaceable Westerners, Pacepa scrupulously details the machinations and chain reactions from Moscow to a plethora of leftist peace movements, liberation ideologues, and Islamic jihadists.

Plain Truth: Still the Best Defense

Disinformation can be tough reading. The darkness of the evil it exposes assaults the psyche, but the onslaught is mitigated by the unfolding revelation of how plain, unvarnished truth did illuminate the darkness and out-endure the lies. Pacepa’s own story of redemption, the collapse of the USSR, and the enduring light of the Catholic Church—these all bear witness that truth and virtue ultimately prevail and that the campaign of truth is still the best hope in the face of evil empires and their lies.

 

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2T1ClTz

/by
¿Qué es la filosofía y por qué no puedes evitarla_

¿Qué es la filosofía y por qué no puedes evitarla?

By J. Brian Huffling

Many Christians believe that philosophy is a pagan discipline practiced either by ivory tower professors or Starbucks hippies. This belief has led some to object to the importance of philosophy, believing that only a relatively small group can do it, or that it deals with problems so mysterious or abstract that it would be a waste of time. Many Christian theologians object that philosophy is rooted in paganism and therefore has no place in Christian theology. After explaining what philosophy is about, it should be abundantly clear that these objections are not only incorrect, but that philosophy is inevitable.

‘Philosophy’ literally means “love (philo) of wisdom (sofia).” It is the search for knowledge, truth, and how to live the good (moral) life. There are several general branches of philosophy. Among them, one and the most fundamental, is metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of being, or what it means to be true. While biologists study life as things happen, mathematicians study beings according to their number, and physicists study beings according to their physical parts or motion, the metaphysician studies what it means to be in general. They ask questions like, “What is the difference between Snoopy and the bloodhound you might go for a walk with?” Another branch of philosophy is epistemology, which is the study of knowledge. Epistemologists ask the questions, “How can knowledge be obtained?” “What is knowledge?” and “Is there a difference between knowledge and belief?” Moral philosophy seeks to know what it means to be good in the moral sense. Where does goodness come from, and what makes something good? Logic studies correct reasoning and the mistakes (fallacies) that are often made when making a rational argument. Aesthetics studies the nature of beauty, asking questions like, “What does it mean to be beautiful? Is beauty objective?” And so on.

A large number of philosophical fields emerge from these categories. The philosophy of mathematics deals with the nature of numbers, and asks whether numbers are real (for example, does the number 4 really exist?). In other words, it deals with the nature of mathematics. The philosophy of science deals with the nature of science. The philosophy of history deals with the nature of history and historical knowledge. My area is the philosophy of religion, which deals with issues such as the existence of God and His nature, how we talk about Him, the problem of evil, and the nature of miracles.

When you say something that purports to be true, you are talking about reality and claiming to know something about it. You are also making a logical claim. In addition, you are assuming (explicitly or implicitly) a certain perspective on how language works (philosophy of language). Even when you are talking about the tree in your front yard, you are saying something about the existence of the tree and of nature. I am not saying that everyone is a “philosopher” in the strict academic sense. What I am saying is that it is not possible to make claims about the world, God, or the Bible without taking philosophical positions, regardless of whether you know them or not.

The same is true of theology and the study/interpretation of the Bible. We cannot make theological claims without using philosophy. For example, when we talk about Jesus taking on a human nature, we must understand what a “nature” is. This is a philosophical category. When a scholar says that biblical interpreters cannot be objective because of their biases, this is a philosophical claim about the nature of objectivity, bias, the knower, and the process of knowing.

Far from being a pagan practice, this is how God made us. He made us rational beings. This is what sets us apart from other animals. Philosophy is useful and inevitable. Instead of trying to avoid it, we should try to become better philosophers, and worship God with our minds.

 

J. Brian Huffling, Ph.D., holds a B.A. in History from Lee University, M.A. (3 M.A.s.) in Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Doctoral Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He previously taught at the Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marine Corps, Navy, and is currently an Air Force Reserve Chaplain at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2EiStYA

Translated by Natalia Armando

Edited by Malachi Toro Vielma

/by
What Is The Intellectual Cost of The Pro-Choice Position

What Is The Intellectual Cost of The Pro-Choice Position?

,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

In recent months a major political and moral shift has been underway across America. The legality and morality of both infanticide and murder are actually being debated. But not under those terms. No, euphemisms are being used to obfuscate what is truly at stake- the lives of millions of people- your children’s lives, your grandchildren’s lives, for generations to come.

If we continue to ignore this debate and do nothing, we do so at a severe intellectual, moral, and personal cost. This post will help you see through the intentional obfuscation of those who are actively attempting to deceive you into supporting these atrocities.

The Terms Used

The debate over infanticide and murder are logical extensions of the debate over abortion. On one side, people argue that terminating a pregnancy (up to and including while the mother is in labor) can be justified (the “pro-choice” position), while the other side argues that there exists no such justification (the “pro-life” position). The pro-choice advocate gets emotionally heated because they believe that a mother has the right to exercise autonomy over the life of her unborn child.

The pro-life advocate gets emotionally heated because they believe that no human, including the mother, has the right to exercise autonomy over the life of any unborn child.

In the midst of the emotional exchanges, some advocates on both sides attempt to take a more objective approach and provide evidence for their position in an effort to bring a logical resolution the debate. If one side is successful in this goal, then their emotional responses may be justified by the evidence, but if that position is not justified by the evidence, then the emotional responses (and the position itself) is not justified and logically must be abandoned. The abandonment would include all laws and legal decisions that support the position as well. Today, I want to take some time to examine the available options and see how they square with reality and experience.

Is Abortion a Matter of Opinion?

I take the position of being pro-life. I do not hold this position to be merely my opinion that is only “true for me;” I hold this position to be objectively true, whether anyone believes it or not, and that it applies to all people in all cultures at all times. Not only is this a matter of fact position; I have the evidence to establish that this position accurately reflects reality and should be held by others as well.

In my discussions with pro-choice advocates, they will present any and every way they think may get them past the pro-life conclusion. Many of them believe that they can choose (true to their label) any number of ways to escape the pro-life position. Do they succeed? I believe they do, but it comes at a steep price. Today I want to present four options that the pro-choice advocate has to choose from in their effort to maintain their position in opposition to mine (the pro-life position), but I wish to also show that the cost is too high for any of the options to be reasonable or desirable.

Faithful Thinkers

Examining the Pro-Life Argument

To see what these options are, let us examine the pro-life argument:
If the unborn are human and if it is immoral to take the life of an innocent human, then it is immoral to take the life of the unborn (abortion).
There are three components to this argument that may be attacked by the pro-choice advocate. If one or more of those components are successfully defeated, then the conclusion fails. These three components are addressed throughout the book “The Case for Life” by Scott Klusendorf, but here is a video that gives an overview:

Simply stated, the unborn are human (component #1 is established by science), and it is immoral to take the life of an innocent human (most people agree with component #2 and evidence it in numerous ways), thus it is immoral to take the life of the unborn (the conclusion). This is a valid, logical argument (component #3- modus ponens).

The Options

If the pro-choice advocate wishes to deny its conclusion (“it is immoral to take the life of the unborn”), then he/she must deny that the unborn are human (which would be anti-science), deny that murder is immoral (which would be anti-human), or deny the validity of the argument (which would be illogical). The pro-choice advocate, indeed, has multiple options to choose from in their support of abortion:
A. Be immoral (accept the conclusion)

  1. Be anti-science (deny unborn are human)
  2. Be anti-human (deny immorality of murder)
  3. Be illogical (deny logic and reason)

Every one of those options denies some feature of the world we live in; they violate the reality we all experience. The first violates what we know to be objectively good. The second violates nature. The third violates humanity. And the fourth violates logic.

Of course, none of those options is mutually exclusive (more than one can be chosen), but is any combination of those options really desirable?
I mean, who wants to be immoral? Who wants to be anti-science? Who wants to be anti-human? Who wants to be illogical? And who wants to be more than one of those, much less all four? The reality is that no one really wants to be any of those.

Avoiding The Options?

In an effort to ignore this argument and avoid those options, many abortion advocates will raise emotionally charged issues like financial hardships, career and life ambitions, future potential suffering of the child, the mother’s bodily autonomy, rape, incest, and many others. However, unless what they appeal to can successfully undermine the humanity of the unborn, the immorality of murder, or the validity of logic, the conclusion stands, and the abortion advocate is still stuck with at least one of the undesirable options. Some pro-choice advocates even appeal to the health of the mother to avoid these options; however, when further investigated we find that the conditions they say necessarily “medically indicate” abortion have alternatives (see this thorough analysis of this challenge by Clinton Wilcox of the Life Training Institute: “Are Late-Term Abortions Ever Medically Indicated?“)

For The Love of Truth, Is there Another Option?!

The emotional, financial, and physical difficulties, pain and other challenges are enormous, yet as we contemplate the intellectual and moral sacrifices that must be made, a struggle ensues between the head and the heart. This struggle is not to minimize, invalidate, or deny the difficulties, pain, challenges of these issues; rather it is to recognize the reality of those and the denials of reality that they push us towards. Perhaps abortion is not the only solution and remedy to the difficulties, pain and challenges. As we engage in this struggle, another option that can reconcile the head and the heart, reality and our challenges, does seem to emerge:

  1. None of the above (Be Pro-Life)

True to Reality

Being pro-life is the only moral, pro-science, pro-human, and logical option available. Further, the pro-life position, contrary to the pro-choice position, is the only option that preserves the right of the little woman in the womb to make her own choices and exercise her own bodily autonomy in her life. This is precisely what the pro-choice position aims to do but ironically fails to accomplish every time an abortion is executed. The pro-choice position cannot avoid violating the right to choose of the women in the womb.

Many pro-choice advocates will accuse pro-life advocates at this point of being “anti-woman.” However, I must ask this question: if limiting the liberty of a woman is “anti-woman,” then what is killing a woman before she even has a chance to taste liberty?

The pro-choice position is self-defeating and self-destructs no matter which direction its advocates attempt to argue and no matter which of the previous options is chosen.

True to the Real Challenges

No one has ever claimed that choosing life is easy. In fact, it can be down-right difficult emotionally, financially, and physically. Being on the side of truth is rarely easy. False views must be easier, relatively speaking, than the true view; otherwise, they have no appeal. Those who value truth over increased difficulty and are willing to deal with increased difficulty for the sake of truth have a daunting task on their hands when the difficult situations arise regarding pregnancy and an uncertain future for both parents and child.

For those who are pregnant and are willing to accept difficulty for the sake of truth, numerous options exist to help with the various difficulties that will arise. I go through just a few of them in my post “Providing The Case Against and Solutions for Abortion.” I encourage you to investigate the options and choose which ones best fit your needs and goals. Talk with friends and family, who also value truth, so that they can help share the burdens and carry you through.
For those who have had an abortion and feel the weight of what has happened (whether chosen or coerced), there is healing, there is forgiveness, and there is redemption. I highlighted the “Silent No More Awareness Campaign” in a recent post because of their ministry to post-abortive mothers and families.

They, themselves, have been wounded by abortion and have become “wounded healers” for you. As emphasized by this ministry, the only hope offered through healing, forgiveness, and redemption for the post-abortive mother is obtainable because of the most important event in the history of the world: the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. From the words of the Apostle Paul:

Faithful Thinkers 1

If Christ has not been raised from the dead, there is no forgiveness for any sin, including abortion, and there is no healing from it. The Apostle Paul had committed murder before he met the risen Jesus, yet Paul was granted forgiveness for his sin by Christ. Jesus’ resurrection, as with the pro-life position discussed throughout this post, is not a matter of opinion; this historical event has been established as a real event through the evidence (see “The Risen Jesus and Future Hope” by Gary Habermas). Because of the evidence, you can be confident that Jesus’ Resurrection, and the promises of forgiveness, redemption, and healing are not mere platitudes to give false hope but that they are real and are offered to you by the Creator of life, Himself.

Conclusion- Pro-Life Eternally

No matter where you are, if you were once pro-choice but have now chosen to take the pro-life position, it not only leads to truth and life for the unborn, it leads you to the Giver of Life and eternal Life through Jesus Christ. It is pro-Life to the fullest extent.

 

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2V51JoT

/by
Abortion and the Theology of a Purposeless Life

Abortion and the Theology of a Purposeless Life

,

By Brian Chilton

While I am intentionally not one of the political voices of the day, I do find that many times politics crosses over into theology and vice versa. One of the more troubling news I have read is that states like New York and Virginia have either passed or considered passing legislation to permit a baby to be aborted even if it is the day of the child’s birth. I have always been a pro-life advocate. Proponents for abortion have noted that the practice should be allowed in cases where the mother’s life is in danger or the child is a product of rape. However, it is extremely difficult to imagine how even the best of Planned Parenthood’s apologists could defend the blatant murder of a child on the day of its birth.

The core root behind this issue is a theological one. Where does a person find purpose in life? The reality is that without God there is no purpose. If God does not exist, then everything is nothing more than a cosmic accident. This extreme version of abortion shows deep-rooted purposelessness in those who advocate such practices and the ones who participate in such murder in three ways.

  1. Purposelessness in the Theology of Life. If there is no God, then life has no purpose. For one to uphold extreme partial-birth abortion, one must think that the child’s life has no value. Some will claim that the child is nothing more than a clump of cells. This is far more difficult to defend when a child has reached the point of birth. However, for the one who accepts a fair rendering of the atheistic worldview, no life ultimately finds any meaning. Your life doesn’t matter. My life doesn’t matter. No life matters. Atheism leads to bad ends when it comes to upholding the value of life. However, if God does exist, then every life matters, including the child in the womb.
  2. Purposelessness in the Theology of Ethics. I am not a professional political analyst… and I don’t even play one on television. However, it doesn’t take a professional political analyst to know that something is driving this push for abortion. If I were to take a guess, I would say that money is the driving force behind the legislation. How ethical is it to kill an innocent child for the sake of financial security? How ethical is it to sacrifice children for the sake of research? The answer depends on your theological underpinning. If God exists, then everything has a purpose. If God doesn’t exist, then nothing does. Thus, everything is left as a free for all in a godless universe. Even legislature itself loses meaning. Why obey the law of the land if nothing matters? Yet, if God does exist, our lives not only hold great purpose but how we treat one another has immense value especially if God is a loving Being as noted by the apostle John (1 Jn. 4:16).
  3. Purposelessness in the Theology of God. This final point may seem a bit redundant especially since purpose and value demand God’s existence. The point here is that devaluing life’s value comes from a rebellion against God. Atheists like Richard Dawkins claim that they do not have a problem with intelligent design, just the concept of God (see the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed). Why is that? Most likely, the problem is with the thought that we are not the owners of our own domain. We desire freedom to the point that we do not want anyone or anything overseeing us. Human beings do not like the idea that there might be Someone greater than ourselves who will ultimately hold us accountable even if that Someone is a loving Being. Arguments such as, “My body, my decision,” illustrates an inherent desire to be the sole master and commander of one’s body. Yet, if there is a God, then each of us will be held accountable for what we do (Rm. 14:12) which is unsettling for some.

My life, my ministry, and my writings are devoted to providing a defense for the existence of God and for the authenticity of the Christian faith. If I am wrong, then it doesn’t really matter because nothing matters. If I am wrong, then abortion isn’t wrong because nothing is wrong or right. But if I and my Christian apologist colleagues are right, then God does exist, Christ is the Savior, life has value, and abortion is the unjustified murder of innocent children. Not only does each person’s life matter in a world governed by God, but the lives of each child in his or her mother’s womb also holds substantial value as well. The abortion problem is not a political issue, it is a deeply rooted theological one.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2TR0wBk

/by