apologetics Archives - Page 73 of 138

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Whose Morality Should We Legislate? 44 Quotes from Frank Turek and Norman Geisler

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

“We’re living in a society in which people feel no obligation to control their own actions. Instead, we rationalize and justify every aberrant behavior under the umbrella of freedom granted by the First Amendment, never admitting that freedom without reasonable and responsible limits destroys individual lives and ultimately destroys the fabric of a civilized society.”

“It is critical to recognize that the founders [of America] were pledging their lives to restore not someone’s revealed religion, but everyone’s self-evident morality.”

“It is important to note that even though the Founders believed the Rights of the people came from God, they did not insist that every citizen believe in God; they simply saw no way to justify those natural moral Rights unless there was a God.”

“The Moral Law actually is clear to everyone. It is evident by a person’s reactions rather than by his or her actions.“

“The Moral Law is not always the standard by which we treat others, but it is nearly always the standard by which we expect others to treat us.”

“The moral rightness or wrongness of a law is not determined by whether its enforcement is successful or unsuccessful…We’ve always found it difficult to enforce a number of our laws, including laws against murder, spouse and child abuse, rape, and theft, yet no sane person would ever suggest that these laws should be repealed because they’re difficult to enforce.”

“[Rights] should not be based on what people do, but on what is right as defined by the Moral Law. In other words, by definition, laws are prescriptive—they prescribe what ought to be done, while behaviors are descriptive—they describe what is being done. If everyone were to commit murder that wouldn’t make murder right. And it certainly wouldn’t be wise to discard all laws against murder because enforcement is difficult.”

“Most people are law-abiding citizens who don’t require someone constantly looking over their shoulder to keep them in line. In other words, the law, aside from law enforcement, has a certain restraining effect in itself. So when immoral behavior is legalized (the restraining effect of the law is removed), that behavior eventually loses its stigma of immorality. This is because many believe that whatever is legal is moral. That’s why legalization only result in more immoral behavior.”

“The history of abortion, like that of slavery and Prohibition, shows that laws can change hearts and attitudes when given enough time.”

“Even though many laws are difficult to enforce, most people obey them without the continuous presence of law enforcement. But since many believe that whatever is legal is moral, legalization of immorality will only result in more immoral behavior.”

“When libertarians or liberals seek to give people more freedom (i.e., by passing a law that legalizes a formerly illegal activity), they do exactly what they condemn conservatives for doing. They impose their morals (and thereby the associated effects) on people who do not agree with those morals.”

“A common mistake of relativists is to confuse behavior and value, what is and what ought to be. What people do is subject to change, but what they ought to do is not. This is the difference between sociology and morality. The former is descriptive, the latter is prescriptive.

“The Moral Law tells [atheists] intuitively that genocide is wrong. But they can’t appeal to the Moral Law to justify their belief because acknowledging the Moral Law would logically mean acknowledging the existence of the Moral Law-giver.”

“If man is the ultimate authority, then human beings are perfectly justified in defining morals and ethics that fit their own desires, even if those ethics are the ones espoused by Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and the Chinese government–murder, torture, and abuse.”

“Large-scale evolution is not only a theory that affects how one looks at things in the biology lab; it has a dramatic impact on government, philosophy, law, and ethics, as well.”

“The [First] Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion or denomination, but…it logically cannot prohibit Congress from establishing a national morality.”

“Allowing the [Supreme] Court to read their own meaning into the Constitution defeats the whole purpose of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

“If an unelected tribunal of judges can pour any interpretation they desire into a law, then the intentions of the people expressed in that law can be frustrated and usurped. The law ultimately means nothing if its original intent is not honored. Stop signs are useless if drivers are free to interpret them as ‘Go!'”

“While the Bible does not call for its political imposition on civil governments, it does call for those who believe in the Bible to be politically active.”

“The Bible does not command Christians to set up a Christian America; it simply commands them to help create a moral America.”

“What the Left really means when it asserts relativism is that all traditional absolutes are relative—their new absolutes are the only true absolutes. Reasonable people know better.”

“If we continue to let the Supreme Court and the Left suppress the Moral Law morality from our public life, our country is not likely to survive the evil that will continue to grow within it.”

“Like the physical universe, the moral universe is governed by unforgiving laws that we do not have the power to alter.”

“The truth of the objective Moral Law is most clearly seen by analyzing the tangled rhetoric of those who ignore it.”

“A Moral Law government avoids the intolerance of a purely religious government and the moral relativism of a purely secular government.”

“As history has proven, again and again, human beings have an unfailing propensity to suppress the Moral Law when that law gets in the way of their desire for pleasure, power, or property.”

“Today, our moral positions are more often fueled by feelings and emotions than by careful thought.”

“As a society, we rightfully discriminate against all kinds of harmful behaviors (e.g., drunk driving, theft, rape, etc.) regardless of the fact that some people may have been ‘born’ with a propensity to commit those crimes.”

“Even if we are ‘born’ heterosexual or homosexual, we are not required to engage in any particular form of sexual conduct. While we may have strong desires, our conduct is not mandatory. A choice must still be made.

“The fundamental problem in our world is that people willingly choose to do things that deep down they know they shouldn’t do. The fact that we’re all flawed to some extent—is precisely the reason we need a system of laws in our society.”

“We are not saying that all women who have abortions are murderers but victims themselves, deceived by the euphemisms of the abortion propaganda machine.”

“If the ‘pro-choicers’ were truly ‘pro-choice’, they would invite pro-life advocates to their meetings and into their clinics. After all, life is the only other choice a woman can make. Instead, pro-abortion advocates greet pro-lifers with court orders to keep as far away as possible. The pro-abortionists have only one choice in mind. The other choice isn’t good for business.”

“No one has the moral right to choose anything that directly ends the life of another innocent human being. The right to life is the right to all other rights. Without life, we’d all have no rights whatsoever.”

“Because of the legality of abortion, family and friends often feel free to pressure women into killing their babies when they wouldn’t otherwise do so.”

“When the [Supreme] Court ignores the intent of a particular law, it is ignoring the will of the people. Instead of the people governing themselves, they are governed by the imposed will of unelected judges. That’s not representative democracy, that’s closer to tyranny.”

“[Some men with whom women are sexually active] favor abortion because it frees them of what would normally be a long-range responsibility. In effect, abortion makes women more susceptible to predatory males who want to use women for sex but aren’t really interested in making long-term commitments to them.”

“All moral positions impose values. Even the moral position that you should not impose values on others does just that: it imposes values on others. For if we are not to restrain people legally from doing wrong, then we impose on others the effects of the wrongdoing.”

“It is precisely because humans are not animals that we do not kill them in difficult situations. That is, since we believe human life has a higher value than that of animals, we do not treat humans like laboratory rats. Moreover, human beings don’t lose their value when they lose their health. People are valuable because of their humanity, not because they lack an infirmity.”

“Laws favoring abortion impose values on the life of the unborn; pro-life laws impose values on the liberty of the mother. In other words, the pro-life side wants to impose continued pregnancy on the mother, while the pro-abortion side wants to impose death on the baby.”

“If money made people happy, the United States would be the happiest place on earth. Instead, we lead the world in indicators of unhappiness such as suicide, drug use, and divorce.”

“Money without morality leads to the kind of materialistic madness we’ve been experiencing. We have everything to live with and nothing to live by.”

“How can those responsible for legislating morality do so when they have trouble discerning right from wrong? Are such people really qualified to make decisions of the highest moral consequences?”

“Why won’t those who use immoral means to get what they want in their private lives use immoral means to get what they want in their public lives? Those who refuse to restrain their appetites in private are unlikely to resist the enormous temptation to abuse their political power to get what they want (and to use that power to cover up their ‘private’ indiscretions).”

“When the ideal is not realizable, then we should legislate the optimum achievable within the existing conditions. That is when the maximum is not possible, we should not settle for the minimum but should legislate the optimum.”

All these quotes came from Drs. Frank Turek’s and Norman Geisler’s book Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible. Check out the full chapter-by-chapter review of the book and other featured posts:

The Best Kind of Love

Culture CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Tim Stratton

Question:

Dear Dr. Stratton,

In your interview with Jorge Gil on Cross Examined’s Hope One, you attempted to answer “all the problems of evil” by appealing to love. In fact, you said that “the best kind of love requires libertarian free will.” Surely this is false, for I can think of a counter-example that clearly shows this to be false.

After all, the members of the Trinity are the epitome of perfect love and they do not have libertarian free will. They cannot do otherwise. They must love by necessity. So how can “the best kind of love” require libertarian free will?

– Phillip

Tim’s Response

I am thankful for your question, Phillip! When I read it I could have kicked myself for not providing this vital clarification in my interview with Jorge Gil. Your question provides this opportunity.

Contrary to your assertion, the members of the Trinity (God) do possess libertarian freedom. This is easy to demonstrate when considering creation. The vast majority of theologians agree that God possessed the ability — the power — to create the universe or to refrain from creation. This is the epitome of libertarian freedom. Moreover, if nothing other than God causally determined Him to create the universe, then God possesses libertarian freedom. In fact, this conclusion can be reached by merely thinking about the rational implications of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The cause and creator of the universe must possess libertarian freedom.

If God possesses the libertarian freedom, for example, to create the universe or not to create the universe, then this is an “ability to do otherwise” kind of freedom. With that said, however, we are not discussing the creation of the universe, but something different. We are discussing the “best kind of love,” or the “kind of love worth wanting.” You aptly pointed out that God does not possess the “ability to do otherwise” when it comes to love — namely the love between the Trinity which you noted is the epitome of the “best kind of love.”

I agree that each member of the Trinity does not possess the ability to NOT love the other members. For example, it is impossible for the Holy Spirit not to love the Son, and it is impossible for the Son, not to love the Father. Does this not “destroy” my claim — that the best kind of love requires libertarian freedom?

Not at all!

Just because God might not have the ability to do otherwise when it comes to love, it does not follow that God does not possess the libertarian freedom to love. This is the case because NOTHING other than God causally determines God to love. Moreover, nothing other than the Father causally determines His love for the Son and the Spirit.

It is vital to remember that there are basically two definitions of libertarian freedom:
1- The PAP/”ability to do otherwise” version.

2- The source-hood version (which simply means that a person is not causally determined by something other than the person).

When it comes to love, God possesses the source-hood version of libertarian freedom. God is not causally determined by something other than Him to love. As 1 John 4:8 makes clear: “God IS love.”

So, with all the data in mind, the best kind of love still requires libertarian freedom to be possessed by each person in the relationship. The best kind of love is when persons are not causally determined to love the other. In fact, it is simply oxymoronic to refer to a relationship where at least one person in the union was causally determined to enter the relationship as a “love relationship.” It is not love at all, rather, it is simply an incoherent combination of words.

Since it would be impossible for God to create a contingent being whose nature is necessarily loving (like God is), without causally determining the nature of the creature, God creates humans with an “ability to do otherwise” kind of libertarian freedom so that a true love relationship with humanity can be attained. Humans, then, unlike God, possess both the source-hood version and the PAP version of the libertarian freedom to love. God only has the source-hood version.

Robots have neither!

Bottom line: The best kind of love, or the kind of love worth wanting, requires libertarian freedom.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Tim Stratton

What I Learned from My Father’s Death

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

In this very personal podcast, Frank reveals the lessons he’s learned from his Father’s recent death. He also reflects on C.S. Lewis’s argument from desire, and how Christianity makes the best sense of our intuitions.

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

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

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

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

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

July 3, 2020/by Frank Turek

Without Training, The Church Will Create More Jon Steingards

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Recently Jon Steingard made headlines after he announced over Instagram that he had lost his faith. Steingard was the lead vocalist of the Christian music group Hawk Nelson, which became popular in the early 2000s. Since they had so many fans, this obviously sent shockwaves over social media.

In the post, Steingard gives several reasons why he no longer believes. He does ask some challenging questions when he writes, “If God is all-loving and all-powerful, why is there evil in the world? Can he not do anything about it? Does he choose not to? Is the evil in the world a result of his desire to give us free will? OK then, what about famine and disease and floods and all the suffering that isn’t caused by humans and our free will?”

Philosophers call this the problem of natural evil, and I think it’s one of the bigger challenges out there. That said, I think it’s been addressed successfully. But I do get that not everyone is going to be convinced by every theodicy given for natural evil.

But what I want to address is another objection Jon brought up, because it raised a red flag. He wrote:

“Why does God seem so p***sed off in most of the Old Testament, and then all of a sudden he’s a loving father in the New Testament? Why does he say not to kill, but then instructs Israel to turn around and kill men, women, and children to take the promised land? Why does God lead Job to suffer horrible things just to win a bet with Satan?! Why does he tell Abraham to kill his son (more killing again), and then basically says, “Just kidding, that was a test”?”

Why Is God Nice In The Old Testament, But Always Angry In The New Testament?

So there’s inconsistency with the mean God of the OT and the nice, friendly Jesus of the New. Or is there? Let me run a similar argument to Steingard’s:

“Why is God always ticked in the New Testament, but a loving husband in the Old? Why does Jesus say not to kill, but then he turns around and says “I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.”

And why does God kill Ananias and Sapphira, even though they gave away half of their property to the church?! Why does he allow Paul to turn a man over to Satan for “the destruction of his flesh” just because a man was in a relationship outside of marriage? (Is this some kind of sick bet?) And why does God allow the Corinthians to become sick and die young, (more killing again) because they took communion wrong?

Or why does Jesus call a Syrophoenician woman a dog? Or why does he curse an innocent fig tree? Or why does Jesus say he hasn’t come to bring peace, but a sword?

In the Old Testament God’s a loving husband, who even stays with Israel even though she’s accurately depicted as a faithless prostitute in Hosea. He says he’d tattoo her on the palms of his hands, and sing over her with joy. He even just forgives the Ninevites even though they had done terrible things in the book of Jonah. In the Old Testament, he’s a good shepherd who will follow Israel with goodness and mercy all the days of their life.“

How Could Steingard Not Know?

So you see, we can easily run this argument of Steingard’s in reverse and twist the texts. What is confusing to me because his father and father-in-law are both pastors. Steingard was a Christian his entire life. How can he not be aware of these verses?

I bring this up to say there’s no disconnect between Yahweh of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New. The reason why God seems harsh under both covenants is that he doesn’t change, he always hates sin. But he still delights in showing mercy. He’s patient and kind in both testaments, not willing that any should perish. (2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 18:41) As Paul writes in Romans 11:22, “Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you too will be cut off.”

A Cultural Recipe For Apostasy

I can’t say for sure, but judging from his statements, it’s as if Steingard previously only considered one side of God’s character. When you look at a lot of the seeker-friendly movement that is so prevalent in today’s western church, all you hear is the side of love. So perhaps reading these passages in the Old Testament came as a shock, but shouldn’t when you read the entire New Testament.

It also seems that in our Western-democratic culture, our belief and confidence in the powers of our intellect has increased to the point where we think we can play armchair God and assume we know and would do better. As the philosopher Charles Taylor has observed, it’s only in our modern era that we get “the certainty that we have all the elements we need to carry out a trial of God.”

Steingard Is Sawing Off The Branch He’s Sitting On

But we can’t just assume that a God beyond our understanding can’t exist without begging the question. By abandoning faith in God, he’s put his faith instead in his ability to reason and judge God. But this isn’t a better foundation.

As Douglas Wilson has written, “If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine corresponds to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true, but rather because of a series of chemical reactions. Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn, created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.”

In other words, Steingard has tragically sawn off the branch he was sitting on. According to many atheistic philosophers, naturalism spells trouble for reason, free will, and the morality that Steingard is judging God with. If atheism is true, we’re all dancing to the music of our DNA, as Richard Dawkins says.

That means all our beliefs are the product of non-rational, deterministic physical forces beyond our control, whether we’re theists or naturalists. In fact, if Steingard’s conclusions are right, it’s only by accident, not because he’s now more intellectually better than the believer. That is to say; the atheist would have a true accidental belief (which isn’t the same thing as knowledge) rather than warranted true belief (which is knowledge). I hope he scrutinizes his newfound unbelief at least as much as he scrutinized his faith.

The Church Needs To Do Better

As Christians, we can do better in several areas: We need to poke holes in atheism and show where the greater absurdities lie. Hint: Not with Christianity. Naturalism removes the foundation for reason and morality that secularists so greatly cherish. A book I’d highly recommend for this topic is Mitch Stokes’ How to Be An Atheist.

We also need to defend the character of God and not hide from difficult passages in both the Old and New Testament. While it’s good and right to study arguments for the existence of God and especially for the resurrection, we need to go a step further and be able to deal with difficult passages in both the OT and NT. On this topic, I highly recommend Paul Copan’s book Is God a Moral Monster?

It’s also notable that Steingard said nothing about the evidence for the resurrection. It doesn’t matter if we always like what we find in the Bible if Jesus rose from the dead. We have to teach on these bedrock truths of our faith.

And finally, pastors can no longer only preach 20-minute sermons on the love of God in hopes of attracting crowds. Don’t get me wrong. I think we should absolutely major on the love of God. After all, God is love. But even love gets angry at sin, and we need to stop minimizing God’s wrath. Otherwise, I’m afraid we’re going to create many more Jon Steingards.

A Conversation About Racism Between Black and White Christians

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Detective J. Warner Wallace hosts a former gang member, now Christian apologist, Vada Hedgeman, to discuss racism. What experiences with cops did Vada have growing up? What is systematic racism? Are there more prominent causes than racism for inequalities between blacks and whites? Does grouping people by race or ethnicity actually feed racism? Where do we go from here? This is just the start of a long but important conversation.

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

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

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

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

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

June 26, 2020/by Frank Turek

3 Unhelpful Things in the Race Conversation That Need to Stop NOW

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Timothy Fox

Race and injustice are difficult topics to discuss. And while the church must talk about it, I’ve seen a lot of harmful missteps along the way. Here are three unhelpful things that people are doing in the race conversation that needs to stop. Now.

Warning: This might be too spicy for some people. Read with caution.

1) Speaking to or for an entire group of people

Indeed, each group of people across all shape, color, and size have unique experiences and perspectives. There may be certain types of injustices that face specific people. But attempting to speak to or for an entire group of people is unhelpful. I’ve seen so many White Jesuses on social media trying to bear every sin white people have ever committed. Stop it. Get over yourself. Quit pandering. Read Matthew 6:1-4.

If you are personally guilty of discrimination or racial injustice, then seek forgiveness for your sins. The Bible does teach us to confess our sins to one another for accountability and the health of our Christian community (James 5:16). No one but Christ, however, can grant forgiveness to entire groups of people, who died for the sins of every person across all time.

2) Responding to “Black lives matter” with “All lives matter.”

Anytime someone says, “Black lives matter,” it’s inevitable that someone will snap back “ALL lives matter.” I understand where this is coming from, but it’s actually unhelpful. The whole purpose of the phrase “Black lives matter” is that some black people feel their lives don’t matter, that they are valued less than people with light skin. When you clap back, “ALL lives matter,” you’re confirming what they may already believe, that you don’t care about the specific injustices facing their community.

If you must respond when someone says, “Black lives matter,” you can simply say, “Yes.” Or, “I agree with you.” “I’m so sorry you feel like black lives don’t matter.” And how about, “What can I do to help?”

Just remember that the reason why any lives matter at all is because we are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27, Gal. 3:28, Col. 3:11). Red and yellow, black and white, we are precious in His sight. Every human has the same intrinsic worth, which does not vary by the amount of melanin in one’s skin. And if God doesn’t exist, then no lives matter.

I’m not arguing never to say, “All lives matter.” It’s a true statement. I’m simply saying that responding with that phrase to someone who says “Black lives matter” misses the whole point of the slogan.

This leads into…

3) Minimizing true victimhood

Whenever people discuss victimhood, someone inevitably mentions how Jesus was the ultimate victim, as if that fixes everything and will make everyone feel better. Yes, Jesus was the only perfectly innocent person ever, and his death was the greatest injustice that ever occurred. And, yes, Jesus can relate to our pain and suffering (Heb. 4:15). But PLEASE don’t use this to minimize someone’s unique suffering. Might someone be whining over nothing? Of course. But that certainly is not true of every situation. We need to help correct injustice, not just paint over it.

Let people speak. Listen with the intent to understand, not just to respond with pious platitudes. Only then can we properly address someone’s unique circumstances and encourage true racial healing.

Is Homosexual Behavior Consistent With The Bible’s Teachings?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

Here’s a post from Christian writer Terrell Clemmons about efforts by gay activists to redefine Christianity so that it is consistent with homosexual behavior. This particular post is focused on Matthew Vines.

She writes:

In March 2012, two years after having set out to confront homophobia in the church, Matthew presented the results of his “thousands of hours of research” in an hour-long talk titled “The Gay Debate.” The upshot of it was this: “The Bible does not condemn loving gay relationships. It never addresses the issues of same-sex orientation or loving same-sex relationships, and the few verses that some cite to support homophobia have nothing to do with LGBT people.” The video went viral (more than three quarter million views to date) and Matthew has been disseminating the content of it ever since.

In 2013, he launched “The Reformation Project,” “a Bible-based, non-profit organization … to train, connect, and empower gay Christians and their allies to reform church teaching on homosexuality from the ground up.” At the inaugural conference, paid for by a $104,000 crowd-funding campaign, fifty LGBT advocates, all professing Christians, gathered for four days in suburban Kansas City for teaching and training, At twenty-three years of age, Matthew Vines was already becoming a formidable cause célèbre.

Terrell summarizes the case he makes, and here is the part I am interested in:

Reason #1: Non-affirming views inflict pain on LGBT people. This argument is undoubtedly the most persuasive emotionally, but Matthew has produced a Scriptural case for it. Jesus, in his well-known Sermon on the Mount, warned his listeners against false prophets, likening them to wolves in sheep’s clothing. Then switching metaphors, he asked, “Do people pick grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?” The obvious answer is no, and Jesus’s point was, you can recognize a good or bad tree – and a true or false prophet – by its good or bad fruit. From this, Matthew concludes that, since non-affirming beliefs on the part of some Christians cause the bad fruit of emotional pain for other Christians, the non-affirming stance must not be good.

Terrell’s response to this is spot on, and I recommend you read her post to get the full response.

She writes:

Matthew Vines in particular, and LGBTs in general, appear to be drivingly fixated on changing other people’s moral outlook. But why? Why are they distressed over the shrinking subset of Christianity that holds to the traditional ethic of sex? Note that Matthew found an affirming church in his hometown, as can most any LGBT-identifying Christian. Affirming churches abound. Gaychurch.org lists forty-four affirming denominations – denominations, not just individual churches – in North America and will help you find a congregation in your area. Why, then, given all these choices for church accommodation, are Matthew and the Reformers specifically targeting churches whose teachings differ from their own?

One gets the sense that LGBTs really, really need other people to affirm their sexual behavior. Certainly it’s human to want the approval of others, but this goes beyond an emotionally healthy desire for relational comity. Recall Matthew’s plea that non-affirming views on the part of some Christians cause emotional pain for others. He, and all like-minded LGBTs, are holding other people responsible for their emotional pain. This is the very essence of codependency.

The term came out of Alcoholics Anonymous. It originally referred to spouses of alcoholics who enabled the alcoholism to continue unchallenged, but it has since been broadened to encompass several forms of dysfunctional relationships involving pathological behaviors, low self-esteem, and poor emotional boundaries. Codependents “believe their happiness depends upon another person,” says Darlene Lancer, an attorney, family therapist, and author of Codependency for Dummies. “In a codependent relationship, both individuals are codependent,” says clinical psychologist Seth Meyers. “They try to control their partner and they aren’t comfortable on their own.”

Which leads to an even more troubling aspect of this Vinesian “Reformation.” Not only are LGBT Reformers not content to find an affirming church for themselves and peacefully coexist with everyone else, everyone else must change in order to be correct in their Christian expression.

This is the classic progression of codependency, and efforts to change everyone else become increasingly coercive. We must affirm same-sex orientation, Matthew says. If we don’t, we are “tarnishing the image of God [in gay Christians]. Instead of making gay Christians more like God … embracing a non-affirming position makes them less like God.” “[W]hen we reject the desires of gay Christians to express their sexuality within a lifelong covenant, we separate them from our covenantal God.”

Do you hear what he’s saying? LGBTs’ relationships with God are dependent on Christians approving their sexual proclivities. But he’s still not finished. “In the final analysis, then, it is not gay Christians who are sinning against God by entering into monogamous, loving relationships. It is we who are sinning against them by rejecting their intimate relationships.” In other words, non-affirming beliefs stand between LGBTs and God. Thus sayeth Matthew Vines.

The rest of her article deals with Vines’ attempt to twist Scripture to validate sexual behavior that is not permissible in Christianity.

Vines seems to want a lot of people to agree that the Bible somehow doesn’t forbid this sexual behavior so that the people who are doing it won’t feel bad about doing it. If he can just silence those who disagree and get a majority of people to agree, then the people who are doing these things will feel better.

Matthew Vines is annoyed that Bible-believing Christians expect homosexuals to work through their same-sex attractions, abstain from premarital sex, and then either remain chaste like me or marry one person of the opposite sex and then confine his/her sexual behavior to his/her marriage. But how is that different than what is asked of me? I am single and have opposite sex-attractions, but I am also expected to abstain from sex outside of marriage. I have two choices: either remain chaste or marry one woman for life and confine my sexual behavior to that marriage. I’m not married, so I’ve chosen to remain chaste. If I have to exercise a little self-control to show God that what he wants from me is important to me, then I am willing to do that. I’m really at a loss to understand why so many people take sexual gratification as a given, rather than as an opportunity for self-denial and self-control. I am especially puzzled by sinful people demanding that others celebrate their sin – and using the power of the government now to compel others to celebrate their sin. Christianity is a religion where the founder prioritized self-sacrificial obedience above pleasure and fulfillment. You really have to wonder about people who miss that core element of Christianity.

My service to God is not conditional on me getting my needs met. And my needs and desires are no less strong than the needs of people who engage in sex outside the boundaries of Christian teaching. We just make different decisions about what/who comes first. For me, Jesus is first because I have sympathy with Jesus for loving me enough to die in my place for my sins. I am obligated to Jesus, and that means that my responsibility to meet expectations in our relationship comes above my desire to be happy and fulfilled. For Matthew, the sexual desires come first, and Scripture has to be reinterpreted in light of a desire to be happy. I just don’t see anything in the New Testament that leads me to believe that we should expect God to fulfill our desires. The message of Jesus is about self-denial, self-control, and putting God the Father first – even when it results in suffering. I take that seriously. That willingness to be second and let Jesus lead me is what makes me an authentic Christian.

There is a good debate featuring Robert Gagnon and a gay activist in this post, so you can hear both sides.

The Word Of Truth

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jason Jimenez

The Bible has been bashed, terrorized, and burned more than any other book of antiquity! It has faced enormous challenges of its literal expression as well as the debates over its validity and accuracy from God. And yet, despite the growing hostility of the Bible, it still remains the most translated, bought, and read book in all of history!

The word bible literally means book, which comes from the ancient Greek Papyrus plant, biblos. Of course, the Bible is not just any book…it is the Word of Truth! R.A. Torrey explains the Bible as “a revelation of the mind and will and character and being of an infinitely great, perfectly wise and absolutely holy God. God, Himself, is the Author of this revelation. But to whom is the revelation made? To men, to finite beings who are imperfect in intellectual development and consequently in knowledge, and who are also imperfect in character and consequently in spiritual discernment.[1]

God is able to speak truth to fallen humans because He is TRUTH (Psalm 25:5; John 3:3; 4:24; 1 John 4:6), and has given His infallible Word in written form (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20, 21). King David reflected, “The sum of your word is truth, and every sum of your righteous rules endures forever (Psalm 119:160).” Jesus prayed to His Heavenly Father, “Sanctify them in the truth, your word is truth (John 17:17).” And finally, Paul gives a charge to Timothy, “Do you best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).”

Thus, no other book in the history of mankind contains words, concepts, and stories that contain the truth of God like the Word of God! The Bible Reader’s Companion breaks it down like this: “The Bible is the world’s best–selling book. It has been translated into more languages than any other book in history. And it has been honored over the ages as a unique book—a book given by God Himself, containing a timeless message for all human beings, everywhere. Other religions have sacred books. But none compares with the Bible. It is a unique book. This collection of 66 works by many different authors, written and compiled over a span of some 1,600 years, is the only book that can support a claim to have been inspired by God Himself. It is the only book that accurately conveys the message God intends to communicate to humanity—and to you and me.”[2]

Reference

[1] R.A. Torrey, Difficulties in the Bible: Alleged Errors and Contradictions (Willow Grove: Woodlawn Electronic Publishing, 1998).

[2] Lawrence O. Richards, The Bible Readers Companion, electronic ed. (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1991), 9.

What does sex mean?

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

What does sex mean according to the Supreme Court? Frank identifies and expounds upon 5 Casualties in the Court’s LGBTQ Sex Ruling:

We the People
Women
LGBTQ People
96% of the Population
Religious Freedom

Frank reveals the sixth casualty as well, one for which the original civil rights law was made.

He then offers some solutions and traces the absurd ruling—which rationally nullifies the basis for any human rights—back to a rejection of Aristotle. Listen to find out how.

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

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

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

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

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

June 19, 2020/by Frank Turek

5 Casualties of the Court’s LGBTQ Sex Ruling

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

“Sex” in civil rights law now legally means sexual orientation or whatever gender you think you are. That’s the result of a surprising Supreme Court decision (Bostock vs. Clayton County) from Justice Neil Gorsuch. Problem? Yes, here are five casualties of this ruling:

We the People: If you think you have the ability to govern yourselves through your elected representatives, the United States Supreme Court again made a mockery of that Constitutional principle. You can work to elect the right people and pass all the laws you want, only to see a handful of unelected lawyers on the Supreme Court nullify or replace your laws with their own.

That’s what six justices did this week. They changed the 1964 civil rights law into a law that they desired, despite the fact that the very changes they made have been rejected by Congress in recent years. Now, just like that, “sex” no longer means biological sex but sexual orientation and whatever a person thinks their sex is at the time.

As Justices Alito and Thomas wrote in dissent, there’s only one word for what the Court did: “legislation.” “A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.”

Now, many actually agree with the result (it has some big negatives I’ll get to in a minute). But the means by which this result was achieved should disturb everyone because it strikes at the very heart of our Constitution and our rights as people to govern ourselves. It’s an injustice for judges to impose their legislative will on the people. If judges want to change the law, then they should do what any citizen has to do—convince fellow citizens to go through the legislative process to get the law changed. To merely impose their will on the people is tyranny.

Women: Justice Gorsuch’s opinion furthers the Leftist claim that sex is defined not by biology, but by one’s state of mind. Therefore, if a man thinks he’s a woman, then the law must treat him as a woman. Although Gorsuch tries to deny this result, what he’s done is given legal grounds for biological men to gain a legal advantage over actual women in the workplace, in the bathroom, and elsewhere.

Ladies, you want that promotion? All other things being equal, who do you think your employer is now going to promote—you or the man transitioning to a woman who now has heightened legal grounds as an even smaller minority to sue for “discrimination”?

Do you want privacy and safety in the bathroom and showering facilities? What policy is your employer or gym going to adopt—the common sense one where biological men and women are kept separate, or the one that prevents a costly discrimination suit by inviting men into women’s facilities?

LGBTQ People: Gorsuch has not just made it harder for women; his reasoning contradicts the very rationale for the existence of women and the LGBTQ people he’s supposedly trying to help. For when someone identifies as a woman, man, lesbian or gay, they are presupposing there is such a thing as objective biological sex. How else can one have sex with someone of the same sex unless one can differentiate that person from the opposite sex? And how can a man transition into becoming a woman unless men and women actually exist?

The practical outcome of the Court’s opinion is that either one’s biology or psychology can determine one’s sex. But if a person’s subjective psychology usurps their objective biology, then there is no objective way of identifying anyone as a man, woman, or LGBTQ. Sex and sexual identity are just figments of the imagination (much like Gorsuch’s justification for his opinion).

That’s why some lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and feminists have been against the subjective transgender psychology standard that Gorsuch just affirmed—it defines them out of existence!

96% of the Population: Ask anyone in corporate America this question: Are you more likely to experience problems at work for supporting LGBTQ political goals or opposing them? It’s not even close, as I found out personally.

HR departments in corporate America are proponents of everything LGBTQ, and those who identify as such are actually better off than their straight counterparts. LGBTQ households, on average, earn more than traditional households, and gay men earn 10% more than straight men. While there are individual exceptions (hence the lawsuit that brought this case to the Supreme Court), there appears to be NO systemic problem of anti-LGBTQ bias in the workplace.

Yet, this Court’s decision will employ the strong arm of government to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. The decision will force companies to give employment preference to a long list of sexual orientations that, at best, 4% of people claim (a 4% that already has a financial advantage). Anyone who claims an LGBTQ identity will now have more job security than John or Jane Doe. How so? Because if a company has to downsize, who are they going choose—one of the helpless Doe’s, or the person of a new legally-preferenced minority who can bring a costly lawsuit alleging “discrimination”?

While reverse discrimination may not be the intent of this decision, it is an inevitable consequence. As soon as you give preferential treatment to one group of people, you are automatically disadvantaging anyone not part of that group.

Moreover, there isn’t any medical consensus as to what sexual orientation or transgenderism is. But the effect of this decision is that businesses are now forced to give preference to those who identify as “ambigender; bigender; blurgender; collgender; conflictgender; cosmicgender; crystagender; deliciagender; duragender; demiflux; domgender; fissgender; gemelgender; gendercluster; genderfluid; gendersea; genderfuzz; genderfractal; genderspiral; genderswirl; gendervex; gyaragender; libragender; ogligender; pangender; polygender; trigender (whatever that all means). How is it possible to even know you’re in compliance if you can’t define what compliance is? How many young workers will claim one of these nebulous labels just to get an advantage? (Their claims for special treatment can’t be objectively disproven like Elizabeth Warren’s claim to be a Native American.)

In short, this decision doesn’t fix an existing workplace problem (thankfully, LGBTQ folks are doing quite well). Instead, it creates legal and administrative chaos, and it legally justifies reverse discrimination against an already underperforming 96% of the population. That’s anything but “equality.”

Religious Freedom: If any group is being discriminated against in corporate America, it is Christians and other conservatives who are hiding under their desks for fear of being outed, excluded, and shamed by the “inclusion and diversity” police. Are their First Amendment rights now nullified? How about Christian, Muslim, and Jewish schools: are they now forced to hire teachers and administrators who contradict their natural law and scriptural views of proper sexual behavior? Will religious people now need special permission from the Supreme Court to live as if there are two genders created for one another?

Judge Gorsuch says those questions are for another case. Given his faulty reasoning skills and legislative impulses, in this case, I’m not optimistic he’ll respect reason or the Constitution the next time either.

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Whose Morality Should We Legislate? 44 Quotes from Frank Turek and Norman Geisler

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Best Kind of Love

Question:

Tim’s Response

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What I Learned from My Father’s Death

Without Training, The Church Will Create More Jon Steingards

Why Is God Nice In The Old Testament, But Always Angry In The New Testament?

How Could Steingard Not Know?

A Cultural Recipe For Apostasy

Steingard Is Sawing Off The Branch He’s Sitting On

The Church Needs To Do Better

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A Conversation About Racism Between Black and White Christians

3 Unhelpful Things in the Race Conversation That Need to Stop NOW

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is Homosexual Behavior Consistent With The Bible’s Teachings?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Word Of Truth

Reference

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What does sex mean?

5 Casualties of the Court’s LGBTQ Sex Ruling

Recommended resources related to the topic:

QUICK LINKS

FEATURED RESOURCES

SUPPORT CROSSEXAMINED