It’s NOT about marriage. It is about normality.

The homosexual movement wants us to believe they want to be married like heterosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact all the research of the homosexual sub-culture indicates a mere miniscule commitment by their population to “monogamous” relationships over any significant period of time. Very few in their movement will honestly say privately that they personally want life-long monogamous family commitments recognized by the world in the same way that heterosexual marriage is now in the larger society.

So what is it that they want? Why their outrage over the failures of their massive and expensive efforts to convince the public to allow them to “marry?” Put simply: their goal is a new level of acceptance that ameliorates their own deep-seated shame at their difference from the norm. Put another way, they want to be normal. They want the government, the IRS, and the rest of the world to say what they know is not really true. They want society to say to them: “You are normal and we accept you as such.”

However, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not morally, physically, sexually, socially, relationally or any other way equivalent. Simple science demonstrates that there cannot be two norms for human sexuality, because only one relationship can result in reproduction. This reality renders any other version of human sexuality abnormal, sub-normal, or at the least, deviations from the norm. That is simple science and unchangeable fact.

No amount of legislative change, judicial fiat, licensing or religious ceremony will assuage or change the underlying discontent and angst that comes from knowing that one differs from the norm. Most of us differ from the norm in some area of our physical, psychological, emotional, financial, social or spiritual makeup. Does that mean we all get to create and enforce laws to make us feel normal? Shall we seek new laws or change the Bible texts to make fat or skinny people feel better about themselves? How about sado-masochists or necrophiliacs? What about sex or drug addicts or alcoholics? There is an indisputable norm for nearly every behavior, and those who deviate always struggle with it.

If the difference from the norm is a lifestyle decision one makes, which all the evidence so far supports with respect to homosexuality and other sexual deviations from the norm, then there is only one escape from the angst. Abnormal sexual lifestyle choices apparently occur most frequently when certain socio-environmental exist in a person’s life. So in spite of what the movement says, one can change their lifestyle by making different choices. Will it be a painful struggle? It is painful for any of us when we try to change ourselves, but no one should ever expect that making new laws or shifting a society will make folks feel whole, healthy and normal. It never has worked for anyone with any of their deviation struggles, nor will it work for homosexuals with theirs.

Please note that I did not quote the Bible once.

/by

Jesus and the Case for War

(This is a column posted today on www.TownHall.com)

I like to strike up conversations with people I meet while traveling. Last Tuesday, on the way back to San Francisco airport, I asked the driver where he was from. “Jordan,” he replied.

In an effort to make a connection, I mentioned that I haven’t gotten to Jordan, but I went to Iran in 2006 and served in Saudi Arabia with the Navy twenty years ago.

“What do you do?” he asked.

“I’m a writer and a speaker. I co-authored a book defending the truth of Christianity called I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.”

“I’m a Christian too,” he said. Then, just as we were pulling into the terminal, he asked, “What do you think about the Iraq war?”

With less than 90 seconds left in the ride, I quickly said, “I think it was the least bad choice we had. Saddam used WMD, invaded Kuwait, and then violated 17 straight UN resolutions and the cease fire. What other choice did we have in a post 9-11 world?”

He didn’t answer the question. Instead, he claimed that Iraq had nothing to with 9-11, and that we just should have gone after the bad guys in Afghanistan. He then said, “Jesus told us to love our enemies.”

Leaving the issue of 9-11 aside, was his inference correct? In light of what Jesus said about loving our enemies, should Christians be pacifists?

I don’t think so. In fact, sometimes the use of force is not only justified, it can be a dereliction of duty not to use force.

First, “loving your enemies,” like “turn the other cheek,” is a command for individuals in personal relationships. It is not a command for governments or for individuals put in grave bodily harm. As individuals we should pray for our enemies and “turn the other cheek” instead of returning insult for insult. Such behavior demonstrates supernatural love aimed at securing the offender’s conversion to Christ. But those commands do not mean that we have no right to personal self defense, nor do they mean that a nation shouldn’t protect its people from other hostile nations.

With regard to self defense, not only does the Old Testament affirm the right to self defense (Ex. 22:2), Jesus himself told his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Jesus later told Peter “put your sword away” so Christ’s sacrifice would go forward and the scriptures would be fulfilled (Mt. 26:54). But the very fact that Jesus told Peter and the other disciples to buy a sword shows that its use for personal protection is appropriate. (By the way, Jesus never condoned the use of the sword as a means of religious conversion. It’s impossible anyway. Genuine conversion, by definition, is freely accepted. It cannot be coerced.)

With regard to war, the New Testament does not order newly baptized soldiers to get out of the military. Instead, John the Baptist told them not to abuse their power and to be content with their pay (Luke 3:14). Soldiers are needed because, as Paul pointed out in Romans 13, governments have a God-given responsibility to use “the sword” to protect their people from harm. In fact, Paul himself accepted military protection when he was in danger (Acts 22:25f), and Jesus affirmed the right of governments to impose capital punishment, saying that such a right was given by God (Jn. 19:11).

Second, “love your enemies” cannot mean that all use of force is prohibited because such an interpretation would contradict the passages just cited and result in absurd conclusions. It would be absurd to say that “love your enemies” means “allow them to kill your family.” How would that be loving to your family?

It would be absurd to say that “love your enemies” prohibits all wars. What about the war against Hitler? Not justified? Please. How would that be loving to the Jews or the countries overrun? (Notice that even my driver friend isn’t against all wars. He thinks that the war in Afghanistan is justified. But if “love your enemies” meant you could never use force, then how can Afghanistan be justified?)

With such an absurd interpretation, we couldn’t even have police protection, a court system, or prisons. Why believe that police can use force but not Armies? There’s not much of a difference. Police use force to protect people from enemies inside a country. Armies use force to protect people from enemies outside a country.

Without the proper use of force, we’d have anarchy, and innocent people would be hurt or killed. That’s why complete pacifism is not only unbiblical, it is a dereliction of duty. Individuals have a responsibility to protect themselves and their families from harm, and governments have a similar responsibility to protect their citizens.

Christians can and should, of course, oppose specific wars that don’t meet what theologians call “just-war theory.” As I mentioned in my last column, I believe the Iraq war is just. But I didn’t get enough time with my driver friend to hear his complete case against the Iraq war. Maybe he knows something I don’t, but it didn’t seem so.

One thing is for certain: Christians contradict scripture and common sense when they say no war or use of force can ever be justified. As terrible as it is, war is sometimes the least bad choice available. In other words, it’s not that Christians are for war; it’s that we’re against the alternative—the oppression and death of the innocent. And in a fallen world like this, sometimes the use of force is necessary to protect the innocent. Without it, we wouldn’t even be able to love our friends.

/by

The Altar of Freedom

As we remember those who have paid the ultimate price to defend our country, I think a letter from President Abraham Lincoln will help us feel the impact of what Memorial Day really means to those who have lost loved ones.  On November 21, 1864, President Lincoln wrote these words to Mrs. Lydia Bixby of Boston who had lost five sons in the Civil War:

“I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming.  But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.  I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.”

I doubt anyone ever expressed anything so tragic to a grieving parent in such an eloquent and redeeming way.   Lincoln’s message of sacrifice and redemption parallels that of Christianity—Christ himself was sacrificed on the altar of freedom.  He lived the perfect life and then took our punishment on himself at the Cross.  So as we rightly remember those who selflessly sacrificed themselves for our temporal freedom, let us not forget that Christ selflessly sacrificed Himself for our eternal freedom.

/by

Is Intelligent Design Science? If not, Neither is Darwinism

The discussion on this blog has lately turned to the question of whether or not Intelligent Design is science (see comments on recent posts).  To generate some more discussion, I offer the following post adapted from Chapter 6 of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist:

The Darwinists= claim that Intelligent Design is not science cannot be determined from science itself.  Science requires philosophical assumptions, and Darwinists philosophically rule out intelligent causes before they look at the evidence. As we have seen, science is a search for causes, and there are only two types of causes: intelligent and nonintelligent (natural). But, of course, if your definition of science rules out intelligent causes beforehand, then you=ll never consider Intelligent Design science.

The irony for the Darwinists is this: if Intelligent Design is not science, then neither is Darwinism. Why? Because both Darwinists and Intelligent Design scientists are trying to discover what happened in the past. Origin questions are forensic questions, and thus require the use of the forensic science principles we already have discussed. In fact, for Darwinists to rule out Intelligent Design from the realm of science, in addition to ruling out themselves, they would also have to rule out archaeology, cryptology, criminal and accident forensic investigations, and the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). These are all legitimate forensic sciences that look into the past for intelligent causes. Something must be wrong with the Darwinists= definition of science.

Table 6.2 shows the difference between empirical science and forensic science:

Empirical (Operation) Science             Forensic (Origin) Science

Studies present                                         Studies past

Studies regularities                                 Studies singularities

Studies repeatable                                  Studies unrepeatable

Re-creation possible                              Re-creation impossible

Studies how things work                       Studies how things began

Tested by repeatable experiment        Tested by uniformity

Asks how something operates              Asks what its origin is

 

Examples:                                                 Examples:

How does water fall?                                     What=s the origin of a hydroelectric plant?

How does rock erode?                                 What=s the origin of Mount Rushmore?

How does an engine work?                         What=s the origin of an engine?

How does ink adhere to paper?                 What=s the origin of this book?

How does life function?                               What=s the origin of life?

How does the universe operate?                 What=s the origin of the universe?

What about God of the Gaps?  Next post.

/by

Christians Beware: Intellectual Predators at College

When it comes time for college, parents often think they’re sending their children off to a religiously-neutral site to learn objective facts about the real world.  Unfortunately, they’re far more likely to drop their child into one of the most liberal, anti-Christian environments anywhere on American soil.  That’s where some college professors act as intellectual predators, purposefully seeking to undermine the faith of young Christian students.

Some professors make no effort to hide this. Professor Richard Rorty, who taught at Wellesley, Princeton, the University of Virginia and Stanford, admitted that he and many of his colleagues are actively trying to destroy the faith of Christian kids in college.  He warned parents to recognize that as professors “we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable.”  He said that we professors “arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own.”

Rorty followed that wake-up call to parents with an overt poke in the eye.  He claimed that students are fortunate to find themselves under the control “of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents.”

”Did you hear that parents?  According to Rorty and his like-minded colleagues, you and your Christian views are dangerous.  That’s why they are intent on mocking your religious beliefs to the point that your children are too embarrassed to admit them.  They want your children to abandon your “homophobic” beliefs and adopt their way of thinking.  That way, your kids will turn out more like them than like you.

Professor Steven Weinberg, of MIT, Harvard, and now the University of Texas, harbors the same anti-religious agenda expressed by Rorty.  An atheist and physicist, Weinberg said, “I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I’m all for that.” If scientists can destroy the influence of religion on young people, “then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make.”

I thought imparting truth was the most important contribution a professor could make.  Not for Weinberg—it’s his anti-religious agenda.  In fact, his anti-religious agenda is so overriding that it distorts his interpretation of the evidence.  The discoveries of modern science don’t point away from God, but directly to Him. Unfortunately, few college students know this, which allows Weinberg to spin the evidence the other way.  In doing so, he accomplishes what he believes is the most important contribution of a college professor– destroying the parent’s religion in the eyes of their children.

These two professors are not atypical.  A recent survey shows that professors are five times more likely to be atheists than the general public.  It also found that 53% of college professors view Evangelical students unfavorably.  In fact, Evangelicals are, by far, the most disliked religious group on campus (Muslims were not liked by 22% which means that in the United States of America, professors are two and half times more likely to dislike an Evangelical student than a Musllim student).

No wonder 75% of Christian kids leave the church in College.  It’s anything but a religiously-neutral environment.  Equip yourself or your child before attending.

/by

"Designer Wouldn’t Have Done it that Way" Argument Backfires

The following is an excerpt from I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist  (page 160-161):  Darwinists have long argued that if a designer existed, he would have designed his creatures better. Stephen Jay Gould pointed this out in his book The Panda=s Thumb, where he cited the apparent sub-optimal design of a bony extrusion pandas have for a thumb. The problem for the Darwinists is that this actually turns out to be an argument for a designer rather than an argument against one.

First, the fact that Gould can identify something as sub-optimal design implies that he knows what optimal design is. You can=t know something is imperfect unless you know what perfect is. So Gould=s observation of even sub-optimal design implies an admission that design is detectable in the panda=s thumb. (By the way, this is another reason the Darwinists are wrong when they assert that Intelligent Design is not science. When they claim something isn=t designed correctly, they are implying they could tell if it were designed correctly. This proves what ID scientists have been saying all alongCID is science because design is empirically detectable.)  Second, sub-optimal design ­doesn=t mean there=s no design. In other words, even if you grant that something is not designed optimally, that ­doesn=t mean it=s not designed at all. Your car isn=t designed optimally, yet it=s still designedCit certainly ­wasn=t put together by natural laws.

Third, in order to say that something is sub-optimal, you must know what the objectives or purpose of the designer are. If Gould ­doesn=t know what the designer intended, then he can=t say the design falls short of those intentions. How does Gould know the panda=s thumb isn=t exactly what the designer had in mind? Gould assumes the panda should have opposable thumbs like those of humans. But maybe the designer wanted the panda=s thumbs to be just like they are. After all, the panda=s thumb works just fine in allowing him to strip bamboo down to its edible interior. Maybe pandas don=t need opposable thumbs because they don=t need to write books like Gould; they simply need to strip bamboo. Gould can=t fault the designer of that thumb if it ­wasn=t intended to do more than strip bamboo. Finally, in a world constrained by physical reality, all design requires trade-offs. Laptop computers must strike a balance between size, weight, and performance. Larger cars may be more safe and comfortable, but they also are more difficult to maneuver and consume more fuel. High ceilings make rooms more dramatic, but they also consume more energy. Because trade-offs cannot be avoided in this world, engineers must look for a compromise position that best achieves intended objectives.

 

For example, you can=t fault the design in a compact car because it ­doesn=t carry fifteen passengers. The objective is to carry four not fifteen passengers. The carmaker traded size for fuel economy and achieved the intended objective. Likewise, it could be that the design of the panda=s thumb is a trade-off that still achieves intended objectives. The thumb is just right for stripping bamboo. Perhaps, if the thumb had been designed any other way, it would have hindered the panda in some other area. We simply don=t know without knowing the objectives of the designer. What we do know is that Gould=s criticisms cannot succeed without knowing those objectives.

/by

Expelled: The Movie

I’m hearing very good things about Expelled, the movie starring Ben Stein that demonstrates the bias and hostility in academia against intelligent design.  It opens nationwide on April 18, but special screenings are taking place now.  I’m going to one next week and I’ll post a review on this blog.  See the trailer here.

/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

Nehemiah’s Wall Found

Another in a long list of discoveries that affirm the historicity of the Bible: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8T7ORS00&show_article=1.  Archaeology so confirms the Bible, that it’s been  said that “every time a spade goes in the ground an atheist gets converted.” If atheism were just a matter of the mind and not the will, that would be true.   (BTW, Israel Finkelstein, professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, tries to discount the discovery at the end of the article. I’m not sure anything would convince Finkelstein who is a self-proclaimed skeptic.)

/by