How Will Same Sex Marriage Hurt You?

,

If you think that push for same sex marriage and so-called “non-discrimination” laws are all about love and tolerance, you couldn’t be more wrong.  A decision out of the New Mexico Supreme Court this week couldn’t be more intolerant and un-American.  According to the court, a Christian photographer violated a New Mexico non-discrimination law by politely declining to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.  She now must pay nearly $7,000 in court costs to the Lesbian couple who brought the complaint.

Attorney Jordan Lorence of the Alliance Defending Freedom, who argued the case for Elane Photography, will be on our radio program next week to explain why this decision violates First Amendment rights, and what it means for the future of religious freedom in the United States.  In the meantime, you can see his interview with Shannon Breem here:

 

Let me make four quick points here before I discuss it on radio today and next week with Jordan:

1) Refusing to photograph a same sex wedding is not the same as refusing to service on account of race.  Race has no bearing on one’s behavior, but homosexuality does have implications on behavior.  Race can’t hurt anyone– it has no moral dimension.  But sexual behaviors can and do hurt people, and that’s why morality is intrinsic to them.

2) Elane Photography was not refusing service because the clients identified as lesbians.  She was not refusing service on account of attractions (sexual orientation).  She declined service because she did not want to use her artistic talents to advocate homosexual actions that went against her moral and religious beliefs.  Elane Photography was happy to work with lesbian clients on other projects that did not involve advocating homosexual behavior.

3) The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was put in place to prevent exactly what the New Mexico Supreme Court has done:  forcing citizens to advocate (not just tolerate) ideas and behaviors that contradict their deepest religious beliefs.  If you don’t like Elane Photography’s religious or moral position, be careful:  imagine a homosexual photographer being forced to video a speech that a conservative makes against homosexual behavior and same sex marriage.  Should that homosexual photographer be forced to do so?  Of course not!  Then why Elane Photography?

4) This is just another in a long line of examples where people of faith and conscience are being discriminated against in the name of “tolerance” and “non-discrimination.”  This is not tolerance or non-discrimination.  It is exactly the opposite.  It is totalitarianism– see it our way, or else!  And unless the church and other people who love freedom begin to speak up and get involved in politics, education, the media, and the law, we will lose the very freedoms that allow us to live our lives as Christians.  Soon you will not be able to even preach the Gospel without paying a very heavy price.

 

 

 

 

 

/by

An Atheist Asks About Morality, Cosmology and Hell

,

At the University of Dallas last month, a polite atheist (Carter) had four major questions/objections to my “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” presentation.  Our nine minute exchange covered the following questions/objections:

    1. Your moral law argument is offensive because by it you are asserting that atheists can’t be moral.
    2. Why are you assuming that God is the cause of the universe?  Couldn’t something in another dimension cause the universe?
    3. Why do we have to worship the cause of the universe?
    4. If we don’t worship the cause of the universe, God will send us to Hell.  So we really don’t have a choice.

Read more

/by
You Can't Preach the Gospel without Freedom

You Can’t Preach the Gospel without Freedom

,

When I hear Christians saying we ought not get involved in politics but just “preach the Gospel,” I show them this satellite picture of the Korean peninsula.  Here we see a homogenous population of mostly Koreans separated by a well-fortified border.  South Korea is full of freedom, food and productivity—it’s one of the most Christianized countries in the world.  North Korea is a concentration camp.   They have no freedom, no food, and very little Christianity.

What’s the primary reason for the stark difference between these two countries? Politics. The South politically allows freedom, while the North does not.

Ironically, Christians who shun politics to supposedly advance the Gospel are actually allowing others to stop the Gospel.  How so?  Because politics and law affects one’s ability to preach the Gospel!  If you think otherwise, visit some of the countries I have visited—Iran, Saudi Arabia and China.  You cannot legally “preach the Gospel” in those countries—or practice other aspects of your religion freely—because politically they’ve ruled it out as they have in North Korea.

In fact, politics affects virtually every area of your life through the laws made by government.  So if you care about your family, business, church, school, children, money, property, home, security, healthcare, safety, freedom, and your ability to “preach the Gospel,” then you should care about politics.

Politics affects everything, which is why leaders throughout the Bible—including Joseph, Moses, Daniel, Nehemiah, Mordecai, Esther, John the Baptist, and Paul— “went political” to influence civil governments to govern morally.  Even Jesus himself got involved in politics when he publically chastised the Pharisees—the religious and political leaders of Israel—for neglecting “the more important matters of the law.”

Unfortunately, our lawmakers today are doing the same thing.   They use the force of law tell us what light bulbs to use and what the school lunch menu should be, but neglect to put any restrictions on the taking of human life by abortion!  What could be more important than life? The right to life is the right to all other rights.  If you don’t have life, you don’t have anything.

But what can Christians do?  After all, we can’t legislate morality, can we?  News flash: All laws legislate morality!  Morality is about right and wrong and all laws declare one behavior right and the opposite behavior wrong. So the question is not whether we can legislate morality, but “Whose morality will we legislate?”

The answer our Founding Fathers gave was the “self-evident” morality given to us by our Creator—the same Moral Law that the apostle Paul said that all people have “written on their hearts.” In other words, not my morality or your morality, but the morality—the one we inherited not the one we invented.  (This doesn’t mean that every moral or political issue has clear right and wrong answers.  It only means that “the more important matters of the law” – life, marriage and religious freedom for example—do have clear answers that we should heed.)

Notice our Founders did not have to establish a particular denomination or force religious practice in order to legislate a moral code.  Our country justifies moral rights with theism, but does not require its citizens to acknowledge or practice theism. That’s why Chris Matthews and other liberals are wrong when they charge that Christians are trying to impose a “theocracy” or violate the “separation of Church and State.”  They fail to distinguish between religion and morality.

Broadly defined, religion involves our duty to God while morality involves our duty to one another. Our lawmakers are not telling people how, when, or if to go to church—that would be legislating religion. But lawmakers cannot avoid telling people how they should treat one another— that is legislating morality, and that is what all laws do.

Opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage, for example, does not entail the establishment of a “theocracy.” Churches and the Bible also teach that murder, theft, and child abuse are wrong, but no one says laws prohibiting such acts establish a theocracy or are a violation of the “separation of church and state.” In fact, if the government could not pass laws consistent with church or biblical teachings, then all criminal laws would have to be overturned because they are all in some way consistent with at least one of the Ten Commandments.

Second, there are churches on both sides of these issues. In other words, some liberal churches, contrary to scripture, actually support abortion and same-sex marriage. So if church-supported positions could not be put into law, then we could not have laws either way on abortion or same-sex marriage.  Absurd.

Finally, most proponents of same-sex marriage argue as if they have some kind of moral right to having their relationships endorsed by the state. They claim that they don’t have “equal rights” or that they are being “discriminated” against.  Likewise, abortion advocates claim they have a moral “right” to choose an abortion.  None of these claims are true, as I have explained elsewhere.  Nevertheless, their arguments, while flawed, expose the fact that independent of religion they seek to legislate their morality rather than the morality.

If you have a problem with the morality, don’t blame me. I didn’t make it up. I didn’t make up the fact that abortion is wrong, that men are not designed for other men, or that natural marriage is the foundation of a civilized society. Those unchangeable objective truths about reality are examples of the “Laws of Nature” from “Nature’s God,” as the Declaration of Independence puts it, and we only hurt others and ourselves by suppressing those truths and legislating immoral laws.

When we fail to legislate morally, others impose immorality.  For example, totalitarian political correctness is already imposed in states such as Massachusetts where the implications of same-sex marriage override the religious liberties of businesses, charities and even parents.  As documented here and illustrated here, same sex marriage prevents you from running your business, educating your children, or practicing your religion in accord with your Conscience.  And soon, as is the case in Canada, you may not be able to merely speak Biblically about homosexual behavior. That is because those who say they are fighting for “tolerance” are often the most intolerant.

Unless Christians begin to influence politics and the culture more significantly, we will continue to lose the very freedoms that enable us to live according to our beliefs and spread the Gospel all over the world.  That’s why you should not vote for candidates because of their race or religion, but because they will govern morally on the more important matters of the law—life, marriage and religious freedom. (To see where all the major candidates stand visit the non-partisan website http://www.ontheissues.org.)

If you are a pastor who is worried about your tax-exempt status: 1) you have more freedom than you think to speak on political and moral issues from the pulpit; 2) if you do not speak up for truth now, you will soon lose your freedom to speak for anything, including the Gospel; and 3) you are called to be salt and light, not tax-exempt.

/by

The Moral Argument for the Existence of God

,

The moral argument for the existence of God refers to the claim that God is needed to provide a coherent ontological foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties. The argument can be summarised in the following syllogism:

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Since this is a logically valid syllogism, the atheist, in order to maintain his non-belief in God, must reject at least one of the two Premises. By “objective” morality we mean a system of ethics which universally pertains irrespective of the opinions or tastes of human persons: for example, the Holocaust was morally wrong irrespective of what Hitler and the Nazis believed about it, and it would have remained morally wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and compelled everyone into compliance with their values. This view, known in philosophy as “moral realism,” contrasts with “moral relativism” which maintains that no-one is objectively correct or incorrect with respect to their moral values and judgments.

Most people want to uphold premise 2 of the moral argument. After all, if there are no objective ethics, then who is to say that Hitler was objectively morally wrong? Humans have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. The moral argument requires only that at least some actions are objectively right or wrong (e.g. torturing children for pleasure is objectively morally wrong). Premise 1 relates to the perfect standard against which everything else is measured. God, being the only morally perfect being, is the standard against which all other things are judged. Moreover, in the absence of theism, nobody has been able to conceive of a defensible grounding for moral values.

Moral Argument – An Important Distinction

It is important to bear in mind that the moral argument pertains to the ultimate source of objective moral values and duties (moral ontology) and not how we know what is moral or immoral (moral epistemology) and not ‘what we mean’ by good/bad or right/wrong (moral semantics). The theistic ethicist maintains that moral values are grounded in the character and nature of God.

Those who are divine command theorists maintain that moral duties are based on what God commands. Philosopher William Lane Craig puts it this way:

    “Duty arises in response to an imperative from a competent authority. For example, if some random person were to tell me to pull my car over, I would have absolutely no legal obligation to do so. But if a policeman were to issue such a command, I’d have a legal obligation to obey. The difference in the two cases lies in the persons who issued the commands: one is qualified to do so, while the other is not.”

Moral Argument – Euthyphro’s Dilemma

Plato, in his dialogue Euthyphro, presents a fictional dialogue between his philosophical mentor, Socrates, and a character by the name of Euthyphro. Euthyphro explains to Socrates that he has come to lay manslaughter charges against his father, because of his involvement in the death of a worker. This worker himself had killed a slave who had belonged to the family estate. This worker was found dead, gagged, and bound in a ditch. This gives rise to a lengthy dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates, which eventually leads to the famous “Euthyphro’s Dilemma.” Socrates says, “But I will amend the definition so far as to say that what all the gods hate is impious, and what they love pious or holy, and what some of them love and others hate is both or neither. Shall this be our definition of piety and impiety?” Euthyphro goes on to say “Yes, I should say that what all the gods love is pious and holy, and the opposite which they all hate, impious.” Socrates subsequently inquires of him, “The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.”

The question is posed this way: Is x the right thing to do because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already the right thing to do? I take the former option. Normally, the problem with accepting the horn is that there is a presumption that the commands in question from God are arbitrary (i.e. God could have commanded that we ought to lie). But that’s just false. The theist wants to say that God is essentially loving, honest etc., and therefore, in all worlds at which God exists, his commands are going to be consistent with his nature. And therefore, in all worlds, he will disapprove of lying.

Moral Argument – The Shortcomings of Utilitarianism

There are various nontheistic systems of ethics, none of which succeed in providing a robust ontological foundation or objective moral values and duties. One of these systems, popularised recently by Sam Harris in his book The Moral Landscape, is called utilitarianism, and (in its most common formulation) refers to the view that ethics are determined by what constitutes the greatest happiness for the greatest number. One difficulty lies in the fact that it attempts to balance two different scales employed to assess the moral virtue of an action (i.e. the amount of utility produced and the number of people affected). This can often lead to conflicting answers—in some cases an activity might be considered better for a greater number of individuals whereas a different activity might create a greater overall utility. Utilitarians try to maximize with their actions the utility of the long-term consequences of those actions. However, short of possession of omniscience, it is impossible to evaluate the respective long-term results of different activities. Utilitarianism also does not take into account the individual’s intent—Activity X could be done sincerely by an individual who believes that what he is doing will create the maximum utility. But if activity X turns out in the long-term not to produce the desired utility, then his action, under the philosophy of utilitarianism, would be considered less moral than an activity that created more utility.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the moral argument is a robust argument for the existence of God. It is important to distinguish between moral ontology and epistemology when engaging in this debate since these categories are frequently conflated by atheist critics. Humans, being shaped in the image of God, have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. It is not at all clear how the atheist, except at the expense of moral realism, can maintain an objective standard of ethics without such a being as God as his ontological foundation.

This article was originally published on AllAboutPhilosophy.org.

/by

Why I Will Not Support Same Sex Marriage

,

Same sex marriage has been a very topical subject in Scotland over recent weeks, with the launch of a consultation by the Scottish National Party (SNP) — which closes this Friday — on whether marriage in Scotland should be redefined to effectively legalise gay marriage and religious ceremonies for civil partnerships.

The Scottish government has stated that it was its original position that marriage should be redefined, though Nicola Sturgeon — the Health Secretary — has said that religious organisations should not be forced to perform same-sex weddings should they not want to. We’ll see how long that lasts. After all, SNP MSP John Mason — a Christian — sparked a row earlier this year following his support for a parliamentary motion that no religious group should be compelled to approve of or facilitate same-sex unions. According to Nicola Sturgeon, a survey of Scottish Social Attitudes has revealed that over 60% of Scots endorse the proposed change, with 19% dissenting.

The curious thing about this whole controversy is that same sex couples can already enter into a ‘civil partnership’ which effectively offers them all the same legal recognition and rights that marriage does. The only real difference is that the ceremonies are not able to be performed in religious premises. It is also curious that most homosexuals with whom I have spoken concerning this issue have no desire for a religious marriage ceremony. For those reasons, I am inclined to be skeptical that this controversy was ever really about marriage — it’s about legitimisation. It’s about making a declaration — a statement — that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are equally valid.

For the record, it is my position that there is no Biblical warrant or support for homosexual relationships. And while I think that generally Scripture ought not be the dictator of public policy, this case strikes me as different because they are seeking to involve Christian — or otherwise religious — institutions. Christian organisations ought to base their activity on Christian principles. It is thus very relevant what the Christian worldview entails on the matter.

Now, there are various  reasons why a revision of the current (traditional) view of marriage, in my opinion, would be overall non-conducive to society’s best interests. For one thing, if the definition of marriage is fundamentally malleable, then are we to expect to hear next from those seeking “equal rights” for polygamous marriage (as is already seen in Canada)? How can you grant legitimacy to one and not the other? After all, they use essentially the same arguments. Indeed, The Guardian recently published an interesting article entitled “Polygamy in Canada: A Case of Double Standards”, observing,

“What the polygamists argued is that this new definition discriminates against them because it continues to insist on monogamy in the same way that the previous definition insisted on both monogamy and heterosexuality. It was a logical argument that was rejected by Bauman who in his judgment gave a spirited defence of the virtues of monogamy as being a fundamental principle of western civilisation.

Bauman said that the preservation of monogamous marriage “represents a pressing and substantial objective for all of the reasons that have seen the ascendance of monogamous marriage as a norm in the west,” and that “the law seeks to advance the institution of monogamous marriage, a fundamental value in western society from the earliest of times.” He also launched an all-out attack on the concept of polygamy, which he said “has been condemned throughout history because of the harms consistently associated with its practice”. “There is no such thing as so-called ‘good polygamy’,” he added.

Now, I agree with Bauman in his defence of the importance of monogamous marriage to society. But I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm in the west when the laws of Canada have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability. Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?” [emphasis mine]

Furthermore, schools will be expected to promote and endorse same sex marriage as just as legitimate as heterosexual marriage. As Frank Turek has pointed out, in his book Correct, not Politically Correct: How Same Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone, “The law is a great teacher — many people think that whatever is legal is moral and, therefore, should be accepted. We only need to look at two of the most divisive issues in the history of our country — slavery and abortion — to see the power of the law to influence attitudes and behavior.” As Frank Turek discusses here, there is a correlation between legalisation of same-sex-marriage and the number of children born outside of wedlock. He writes,

“We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage.

Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.””

Already, Stonewall’s “Education for All” education pack for teachers promotes the reading of pro-homosexual story books in class and acting out as plays, and even contains explicit recommendations that students should be taught to be resilient to the views and values of their parents.

Men and women are not interchangeable. I believe that each plays an important role in the upbringing and raising of a child. In his book, Frank Turek quotes David Blankenhorn’s The Future of Marriage, in which he writes, “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.” Another important point is that same-sex parents are liable to confuse their child’s sexual/gender identity. As Dr. Michael Brown notes here, it is already official school policy in San Francisco that a boy who identifies as transgender can turn up to school wearing a girl’s dress and utilise the girls’ bathroom and locker room.

Religious liberty is also, it would seem, a target. Take, for example, the relatively recent case of Mr & Mrs Bull. They were fined £3,600 for declining to rent a double room to a gay couple, despite the fact that it had been against their long-term policy statement to allow unmarried couples to share a room.

An organisation called “Scotland for Marriage” recently emerged in an effort to combat the proposed redefinition of marriage in Scotland. You can visit their website to sign the petition or participate in the Scottish consultation (Scots only in both cases). There is also a petition that has been set up on ipetitions, which you can access here (again, Scots only).

Recommended further reading

Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples (Dr. Timothy J. Dailey) – Looks at various relevant studies and concludes that (a) heterosexual marriages last longer as compared to homosexual ones; (b) partners involved in heterosexual relationships are more likely to remain faithful than partners involved in homosexual ones; (c) where gay marriage or civil partnership is legal, the overwhelming majority of homosexuals do not register their union; (d) individuals involved homosexual relationships are at a much higher risk of contracting disease or other health problems than are heterosexual relationships; (e) Intimate partner violence is more frequent in homosexual relationships than in heterosexual ones.

Correct Not Politically Correct: How Same Sex Hurts Everyone (Dr. Frank Turek) — Persuasively argues that same-sex-marriage is not conducive to the best interests of society. This is also the book which recently cost Dr. Frank Turek his employment with Cisco and Bank of America!

Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting (Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier) — Convincingly defends the traditional view of marriage and parenting.

What is Marriage? (Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George & Ryan T. Anderson) — A paper in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (43 pages in length) which builds a powerful secular case against same-sex-marriage based not on religious tradition or ‘holy writ’, but on publically accessible argumentation.

Christianity Today: Same Sex Marriage: A compilation of lots of interesting articles on this subject.

/by

Kortney Blythe Gordon: Short Life, Timeless Impact

,

 

The measure of a life is not its length but its impact.  Kortney Blythe Gordon made a timeless impact in her 28 years here on earth.  In fact, she did more in 28 years than most people even think about in 80.  Kortney was a fearless Christian and abortion abolitionist who saved souls and thousands of babies from abortion and their mothers from regret.  She and her unborn child, Sophy, died when their car was struck by another car on October 8.

The outpouring of support from the Christian and pro-life communities has been overwhelming.  God’s grace is evident in the lives of those who loved her.  That’s why, despite their grief, her father Larry (a close friend and member of the CrossExamined team), husband Ben, and Uncle Don sat down with me only four days after the tragedy to tell story after story of how Kortney impacted everyone with her unique ability to blend uncompromising truth with inviting grace.  (She was so good at what she did that she even became a mentor to her Uncle who originally got her into pro-life ministry!)  You can listen to their inspiring reflections about Kortney, and what she would want us to do now, on the October 15 CrossExamined radio program podcasted here.

Here is Kortney in 2009 speaking truth to power (Michelle Obama attended this event).

One question that we are all thinking: Why would God allow something like this to happen to someone sold out for Him?

Here are few thoughts.

1.  We know that we live in a fallen world where evil exists and no one is guaranteed 80 healthy years (in fact, contrary to what you hear on most “Christian” TV, Christians are called to suffer like our Savior).

2.  We know that God rights all things in the end, and that this is made possible by His own perfect sacrifice on the cross.

3.  While we don’t know the specific reason why this event occurred, we know why we don’t know– we are are finite and God is infinite. We see a small part of the picture from our limited time-bound perspective, but God sees it all. God knows how this tragedy will be used to bring about good at some point in time and certainly in eternity.  In fact, how you and I respond to this tragedy may be some of the good He will accomplish.

To learn more about Kortney and her organization go to http://www.studentsforlife.org/.

/by

180: The Best Pro-Life Question Ever

,

Ray Comfort has done a masterful job with this video. With one question, he will help change minds and save the lives of many. Yes, I know it is 33 minutes long, but it is well worth your time.

/by

Could God’s Moral Commands Be Improved?

,

When we don’t study the historical and literary context of a passage, we often draw the wrong conclusions.  Such is the case with some atheists who complain about the apparent immorality of God’s commands in the Old Testament.  Dr. William Lane Craig answers several questions about this (and his debate with atheist Sam Harris) on his website (ReasonableFaith.org).  His succinct response is worth repeating here:

Question:

I recently watched your debate with Sam Harris, and had a few questions for you.

First, If morals are determined by God’s edict, then it seems to suggest that they are non negotiable. I say this because a being who is defined as all good would not give us a faulty moral stance and expect us to follow it. So, how do we improve our morals if it is an obvious improvement to not follow the bible? I make claim to the old testament where frivolous crimes carry the punishment of death by stoning. Wouldn’t it be more moral to not stone homosexuals to death, and instead allow them to contribute to society?

Second, In the question and answer section, you make the claim that the bible is a good moral foundation because you can think of no alternative from an atheistic perspective. Is that not a fallacy of an appeal to ignorance?

Lastly, tying the two together, Would you not agree that it is morally reprehensible to refuse to adopt a more moral world view? It seems that the biblical Christian moral foundation can be improved by ignoring bible passages (such as stoning to death for homosexuality), and atheists are just as capable of obtaining such a moral foundation (which incidentally is an improvement on the bible).

William
United States

Dr. Craig responds: I think there are some fundamental misunderstandings lying behind your questions, William, which vitiate their force. Nevertheless, I believe that questions of this sort perplex many. So let’s take them in order.

1. On a Divine Command theory of ethics such as I defended in the debate, God’s commands to us are non-negotiable in the sense that we have a moral obligation to obey God’s commands. To disobey His commands is to fail to discharge our moral duties.

It does not follow from this that moral improvement is impossible. For God’s commands can be contingent upon the realities of the human condition relative to the times and places of the recipients of those commands. Real people in the circumstances in which they exist may not be capable of receiving or carrying out God’s moral ideal for them and so are given commands which may be much less than ideal but nonetheless suited for the reality of their situation.

This is not just a hypothetical possibility. This is what the Bible teaches about God’s commands. One of the clearest examples of this is Jesus’ teaching concerning the Mosaic law on divorce. “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been that way ” (Matt. 19.8) Here Jesus says that the law of Moses did not represent God’s ideal for marriage established at creation but was historically conditioned due to the moral callousness of the persons to whom it was given.

One of the positive features of Paul Copan’s book Is God a Moral Monster?, to which I referred in the debate, is his emphasis that Old Testament laws were historically conditioned to a particular people at a particular time and a particular place and were never intended to be timeless ethical principles that would govern all peoples at all times under all circumstances. God gave ancient Israel laws that were suited to their historical circumstances, even if they didn’t express His moral ideal.

Moreover, another important factor you overlook, William, is the distinction between moral law and civil law. Ancient Israel under Moses was a theocracy: God was the head of the government. We don’t live in a theocracy, so many acts which are deeply immoral (like adultery) are not illegal. No such distinction existed in ancient Israel. So adultery was a capital crime. (You’re mistaken, by the way, in thinking that homosexuality as such was a capital crime; what was criminal was sexual activity outside of marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual.) In our sexually promiscuous society such an assessment of adultery’s immorality seems just inconceivable. But I take that to be a measure of how far short we fall of God’s moral ideal for marriage and how seriously He takes chastity and marital fidelity. Even though adultery is not illegal in a non-theocratic society, it remains a sin that that is deeply immoral in God’s sight. Since we live in a non-theocratic society, we should not try to make everything that is immoral also illegal.

2. I’m confident that I made no such claim as you ascribe to me. In the first place, the claim seems to blur the distinction I was underlining all night of the difference between moral epistemology and moral ontology. The question of the foundation of moral values and duties is a question of moral ontology. So the Bible is just irrelevant to that question. The Bible would become relevant only if we were asking the epistemological question as to the content of our moral duties. On that question I do think that the Bible is a useful guide, so long as one uses it correctly (for example, not taking commands issued under a theocratic state out of their historical context and interpreting them as timeless ethical principles). Second, I most certainly do not adopt the Bible as a guide to moral behavior just because I can think of no alternative from an atheistic perspective. I have given evidence for thinking that Jesus of Nazareth is God’s Son and the personal revelation of God, so that one ought to believe what he taught, including his ethical teachings. Finally, third, I can think of lots of atheistic alternatives (like Sam Harris’s view); I just don’t think they’re tenable.

3. I’d agree that if a person is informed about the moral adequacy of competing views and chooses a less moral view over the view he knows to be superior, then that person has acted immorally. But the proper comparison here will not be between Christianity and atheism. For as I argued in the debate, the atheistic alternative is incapable of furnishing a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. That’s why, in response to Sam Harris’ remark, “if there is a less moral framework than the one Dr. Craig is proposing, I haven’t heard of it,” I exclaimed, “The less moral framework is atheism! Atheism has no grounds for objective moral values or duties.” Until you answer the Value Problem, the “is/ought” problem, and the “is implies can” problem, William, you have no grounds for thinking atheism to be capable of securing such a foundation. Now that puts you in a difficult moral situation. For in the absence of answers to those objections, you are by your own lights rejecting a more moral worldview and therefore acting in a morally reprehensible way.

So if there is a comparison to be drawn here, it will be between competing forms of theism. Is Christianity, for example, a moral improvement over Mosaic Judaism? Yes; I have already affirmed that the moral system in ancient Israel was inferior to the revelation of God’s more perfect moral will by Jesus.

/by

The Atheist Inquisition

,

Two High Court judges in the UK have ruled that a Christian couple can no longer provide a home to foster kids under the age of ten.  Why?  Because the couple does not agree with homosexual practice!

The judges declared that they were “secular.”  This ruling is a kind of atheist inquisition.  Contrary to popular opinion, all laws legislate morality, and there is no neutrality on moral issues, nor is there a neutral worldview.   This ruling legislates the view that any view that contradicts homosexual practice will not be tolerated– conservative religious and moral beliefs must give way to homosexuality.  Keep in mind that the Christian couple– Eunice and Owen Johns– were not even addressing homosexuality with their young foster kids.  According to the court, simply holding natural law, traditional religious views disqualifies them from being foster parents.  That’s not “tolerance,” that’s totalitarianism.

In fact, during the case, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, an official watchdog, suggested that the couple could attend a ‘re-education’ programme, according to Mrs. Johns. ‘Why do we need to be re-educated? Because we believe that homosexuality is not right?’ she said.

The people who say they are fighting for “tolerance” have proven once again that they are the most intolerant people out there.  Unless Christians and others start standing up, the atheist inquisition will continue.

Melanie Phillips does a good job highlighting the numerous problems with this absurd ruling here.  Worth the read.

/by

Slavery and Abortion: The Justifications are the Same

Today is the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, one the most famous cases in Supreme Court history.   As we reflect on 52 million dead since the decision– and are reminded of the horrific reality of abortion by the discovery of the abortuary in Philadelphia (click here if you can stomach reading the grand jury report)–  note that Roe has a number of parallels with another famous case, Dred Scott v. Sandford.  

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

7 to 2

Slavery is legal

Blacks are not persons

Blacks are the property of their owners (masters)

Abolitionists should not impose morality on the slave owner

Roe v. Wade (1973)

7 to 2

Abortion is legal

Unborn are not persons

Unborn are the property of their owners (mothers)

Pro-lifers should not impose morality on the mother

The truth of the abortion matter is that everyone is seeking to impose morality. While pro-life lifers want to impose continued pregnancy on the mother, pro-abortion people are imposing death on the baby whenever an abortion is chosen. Yes, a woman has a right to control her own body, but not if she kills an innocent human being unnecessarily in the process. And we know scientifically that there is a 100% genetic human being in a woman’s womb.

Unlike slavery, which took a war to end, it’s time we peacefully ended this abortion tragedy in America.  The right to life is the right to all other rights– if you don’t have life you don’t have anything.

/by