# articles

title: Don’t Ignore Paul’s Warnings about Suffering
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/24/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/don-t-ignore-paul-s-warnings-about-suffering
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians, he says he constantly thanks God for their acceptance of the gospel, noting that it led to their suffering:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, <strong>for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen</strong>, even as they did from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. (1 Thess. 2:14–15)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This story of suffering amongst one’s own people has been, and will continue to be, a common one for those who follow Christ. “Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim. 3:12). The question is, then, how do we prepare for it? The first step Paul took to prepare the Thessalonians was one I fear <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/christians-you-will-suffer#.XbCijedKjdc">most churches neglect</a>: He informed them repeatedly, ahead of time, what to expect in the future.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Therefore when we could endure it no longer, we thought it best to be left behind at Athens alone, and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s fellow worker in the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you as to your faith, so that no one would be disturbed by these afflictions; <strong>for you yourselves know that we have been destined for this</strong>. For indeed when we were with you, <strong>we kept telling you in advance that we were going to suffer affliction</strong>; and so it came to pass, as you know. For this reason, when I could endure it no longer, I also sent to find out about your faith, for fear that the tempter might have tempted you, and our labor would be in vain. (1 Thess. 3:1–5)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Paul “kept telling them in advance” they would suffer affliction because he knew that the kind of suffering that results from following Christ brings with it the temptation to walk away from Christ. Paul was concerned enough for the Thessalonians to send Timothy to make sure they were remaining faithful despite the persecution.</p>

<p>We’ve been extremely fortunate in the Western world for quite a while now, enjoying a kind of unnatural reprieve from persecution by God’s grace. We have openly worshiped Him, unhindered, for centuries. But things now seem to be returning to the normal that Paul (not to mention Jesus) promised, and we aren’t ready for it. Christianity has been respectable and even admired for so long that we’ve gotten soft. We’ve forgotten Paul’s warnings. We’ve forgotten the normal course of the world. We saw what happened to Christians in other parts of the world, yes, but we considered <em>that</em> the aberration rather than our situation.</p>

<p>Now that we take that freedom and respect for granted (and have for far too long), the thought of it being taken away—even a little—has the potential to unsettle unprepared Christians to the point of their walking away, for anyone who expects God to protect him from unpleasantness (something He never promised) will feel betrayed at best, or suspect God doesn’t really exist at worst, when “sufferings at the hands of [our] own countrymen” inevitably comes.</p>

<p>So the first thing we need to do is to acknowledge and make peace with the fact that “through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22). Secondly, we need to remind ourselves that persecution is not an indication that we are in error (as we might be tempted to believe when many are against us), but rather, Jesus says, persecution is expected for those who are rightly following God:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. (John 15:18–19)</p>

<p>Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matt 5:11–12)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Finally, take note of how Paul strengthens the beleaguered Thessalonians. He encourages them to “stand firm in the Lord,” with trust in God, love towards others, and faithful holiness in their behavior. But mixed in with these exhortations is the constantly repeated, motivating refrain of Christ’s return and our resurrection. It’s because we will not face God’s wrath, it’s because we are confident that the truth and beauty of Christ will be vindicated, it’s because we know that this sorrowful world contains only a fraction of our <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph+2%3A4%E2%80%939&amp;version=NASB">overwhelmingly glorious future with Him</a> that we can continue to suffer for doing what is right without giving up:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Since we are of the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet, the hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him. Therefore encourage one another and build up one another, just as you also are doing. (1 Thess. 5:8–11)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The devil <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+4%3A5-8&amp;version=NASB">tempted Jesus</a> with a quick path to the glory of the world through unfaithfulness. But Jesus knew that the way to any glory worth having was through His faithful suffering. It is the same for us.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, <strong>who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame</strong>, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.</p>

<p>For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. (Heb. 12:1–3)</p>
</blockquote>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdon-t-ignore-paul-s-warnings-about-suffering" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdon-t-ignore-paul-s-warnings-about-suffering" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdon-t-ignore-paul-s-warnings-about-suffering" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Spiritual Warfare Is Real
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 11/19/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/spiritual-warfare-is-real
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Angels and demons exist. I’ll admit that even though I believe that, I tend to downplay their reality. Daniel 10, however, offers us a glimpse of spiritual warfare that helps us glean some insights into their activity and their real-life impact.</p>

<p>Daniel experiences a vision and then prays and fasts, asking God to help him understand it. Three weeks later, an angel appears to him and says:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>O Daniel, man of high esteem, understand the words that I am about to tell you and stand upright, for I have now been sent to you.... Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart on understanding this and on humbling yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to your words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia. Now I have come to give you an understanding of what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision pertains to the days yet future. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+10%3A11-14&amp;version=NASB" id="" rel="" target="" title="">Dan. 10:11–14</a>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The angel explains to Daniel that God heard his prayer, sent a heavenly spirit (the angel who’s talking to him now) in response to Daniel’s prayer, but the angel was held up because of “the prince of the kingdom of Persia.” The angel couldn’t get to Daniel because a spiritual being who opposes God’s kingdom (presumably a demon) fought this angel and prevented him from getting to Daniel earlier. He explains that he was able to come only because another angel, Michael, was able to help him fend off the demon. This angel was answering Daniel on God’s behalf and was now headed back to fight the demons.</p>

<p>Wow! This is scary stuff. Spiritual warfare is real. There seems to be at least four upshots to this passage.</p>

<ul>
	<li>Prayers are heard, effective, and answered. Daniel prayed, God heard him, and an angel was deployed to address Daniel’s request. Our prayers aren’t just hitting the ceiling.</li>
	<li>Demonic forces exist and can have real-world impact in our lives.</li>
	<li>Some evil spirits are assigned to certain territories. The prince of the kingdom of Persia was presumably responsible for darkening the minds of that region.</li>
	<li>Answered prayer isn’t necessarily going to be on our timeline. Spiritual forces and/or warfare can impede the response.</li>
</ul>

<p>I’m not necessarily saying we should look for a demon behind every incident that doesn’t go our way, but perhaps we’re underestimating the influence of the kingdom of darkness. In my recent <a href="/w/interview-tim-muehlhoff-spiritual-warfare-in-apologetics" rel="noopener" target="_blank">interview</a> of <a href="https://www.timmuehlhoff.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Tim Muehlhoff</a> about his <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Defending-Your-Marriage-Reality-Spiritual/dp/083084550X" rel="noopener" target="_blank">book</a> on spiritual warfare, we explored some of the practical implications of spiritual warfare and its impact in our lives, especially as they pertain to apologetics. I, for one, want to be more vigilant about considering the impact of spiritual warfare in my life.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fspiritual-warfare-is-real" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fspiritual-warfare-is-real" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fspiritual-warfare-is-real" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How Relativism Leads to Intolerance and Rage
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 10/31/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-relativism-leads-to-intolerance-and-rage
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Writing about LGBT activists’ recent campaign against a church, Nathanael Blake <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/23/lgbt-activists-get-church-banned-from-local-arts-scene-for-believing-the-bible/">comments</a> on why we’ve been seeing a decrease in tolerance and an increase in rage. The culprit, he says, is the subjective nature of gender identity claims coupled with our culture’s relativism—a relativism that makes it impossible to adjudicate rationally between two competing claims.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[M]oral disagreements over claims of transgender identity appear intractable, which is why, upon learning of a sermon with which they disagreed, local LGBT activists and their allies responded by trying to coerce and shame the pastor and his church, rather than by attempting to demonstrate why he was wrong. These activists sought not to persuade but to purge.</p>

<p>This is in large part because our culture lacks a common philosophy or theology that these activists can appeal to in making their case, and many would explicitly disavow the possibility of any such standard of truth or goodness. <em>But this acceptance of moral relativism does not make our sense of moral imperatives disappear or seen less urgent. Rather, it has made moral arguments more emotive and irreconcilable.</em></p>

<p>Differing moral viewpoints seem as arbitrary and irreconcilable as sports fandoms, where we support teams based on locality, ancestral loyalties, or personal whimsy. <em>Thus, when emotional appeals or demonstrations fail, pressure replaces persuasion, and shunning takes the place of reasoning</em>. [Emphasis added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Without a shared objective standard (or even belief that one exists), there is nothing to appeal to and therefore no way to rationally persuade someone who disagrees with you:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Without a common ground of reason or revelation, moral discourse becomes a matter of emotive performance and intimidation. This is why, in practice, the sort of ironic liberal relativism promoted by Richard Rorty and similar philosophers has produced people who deny the possibility of real moral truth but nonetheless indulge in, and even seek out, perpetual moral outrage.</p>

<p>Intellectually denying the existence of moral truth outside of human creation does not eliminate our moral sensibilities. We will still feel angry at perceived injustice, but <em>relativism reduces the attempt to demonstrate the wrongness of injustice to an expression of subjective sentiment</em>….</p>

<p>This dismaying situation is the source of much of our cultural crisis. Not only do we disagree about what is good, true, and beautiful, we disagree about how we might come to agreement, with many insisting that nothing is really good, true, or beautiful—our views on goodness, truth, and beauty being only the products of cultural conditioning and personal idiosyncrasies. Conflicting claims of morality and identity therefore appear irreconcilable. [Emphasis added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Read the rest <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/23/lgbt-activists-get-church-banned-from-local-arts-scene-for-believing-the-bible/">here</a> (especially his thoughts on why Christianity is the antidote to this). Blake is exactly right, and I predicted this over a decade ago when I said postmodernism would lead to violence (see “<a href="/w/when-you-denigrate-objective-truth-this-is-what-you-get">When You Denigrate Objective Truth, This Is What You Get</a>”). Relativism was embraced by our culture as a way to put an end to conflicts, but its result has been the exact opposite.</p>

<p>It’s an old saying but a true one: Ideas have consequences.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-relativism-leads-to-intolerance-and-rage" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-relativism-leads-to-intolerance-and-rage" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-relativism-leads-to-intolerance-and-rage" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Are We All Atheists?
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/11/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-we-all-atheists-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Here’s a simple and clear response from William Lane Craig to the increasingly common charge from atheists, “We’re both atheists about most gods. I just believe in one fewer God than you do.”</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="03pyLpdbALQ" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/03pyLpdbALQ?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-we-all-atheists-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-we-all-atheists-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-we-all-atheists-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Worldview of Philip Pullman’s “His Dark Materials”
topic: Arts and Culture
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 11/06/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-worldview-of-philip-pullman-s-his-dark-materials-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A new <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APduGe1eLVI">series</a> based on Philip Pullman’s <em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Dark_Materials">His Dark Materials</a></em> trilogy had a <a href="https://deadline.com/2019/11/his-dark-materials-bbc-hbo-drama-makes-magic-start-with-7-2m-viewers-1202776781/">very successful premiere</a> on British television and HBO this week. Since this story is back in the public eye, I think it’s worth revisiting a <a href="/w/the-one-argument-in-the-golden-compass">post about the trilogy</a> I wrote when the film version of <em>The Golden Compass</em> (the first book in the series) was released. Here’s an excerpt:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In short, the plot of the trilogy can be summed up as Genesis 3 from Satan’s perspective: God is a fraud and a liar who wants to prevent us from gaining true knowledge and wisdom so that He can maintain tyrannical control over our lives. The task of the protagonists, therefore, is to free all the multiple universes by rebelling against God (the “Authority”) and ultimately destroying him….</p>

<p>In this story, the important categories the characters fall into are not the morally good versus the bad, but rather, those who are seeking knowledge and rebelling against authority versus those who are preventing people from doing so….</p>

<p>And so we come to the one, core argument about the real world made by Pullman through these novels: <em>The God of the Bible is not good</em>. (<a href="http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/philip-pullman-extended-e-mail.html">Specifically</a>, He’s a “complex villain” who is “savage, petty, boastful and jealous, and yet capable of moments of tenderness and extremes of arbitrary affection” and who inspires others to do evil.) In the midst of all the sensational plot details that could easily sidetrack our objections, this is the point we need to respond to as Christians.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I encourage you to read <a href="/w/the-one-argument-in-the-golden-compass">the whole post</a> to get a better idea of the world Pullman created and how you can respond to its ideas (namely, by using this opportunity to talk to people about the goodness of God).</p>

<p>Despite my dislike for the <em>His Dark Materials</em> trilogy (which, even beyond being false, I think is incredibly ugly—as rebellion against God usually is), the good news is that, because of this series, people who have never given much thought to God could start thinking about some very serious spiritual questions: Who is God? <em>Is</em> He a tyrant? Is rebellion against Him good? Be ready to join their conversation!</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-worldview-of-philip-pullman-s-his-dark-materials-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-worldview-of-philip-pullman-s-his-dark-materials-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-worldview-of-philip-pullman-s-his-dark-materials-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How Porn Kills Healthy Sexual Relationships
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 10/29/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-porn-kills-healthy-sexual-relationships
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Neuroscience is clear: <a href="/w/how-porn-affects-your-brain">porn affects your brain</a>. But it does more than that. It also affects <em>your heart</em>. That is, it changes how we relate to other people.</p>

<p>Being human is about being in relationship. We were made to be in relationship with each other and our Maker. Sadly, pornography affects the ways we think and act towards others.</p>

<p>There are many ways pornography hurts our relationships. For our purposes, I want to look at how porn destroys healthy sexual relationships. For instance, husbands who regularly use pornography have trouble connecting sexually with their wife. Some are even unable to become sexually aroused by their spouse.</p>

<p>I think the work of a Nobel Prize-winning biologist Nikolaas Tinbergen can help explain why. Tinbergen discovered that male butterflies are attracted to the color, pattern, and shape of the female butterfly’s wings. As a result, he made cardboard butterflies that were bigger and brighter than the real butterflies. He referred to the cardboard cutouts as a “supernormal stimuli.”</p>

<p>After introducing the fake butterflies into the butterfly’s habitat, he made a fascinating discovery. He discovered that the male butterflies were attracted to—and tried to mate with—the cardboard butterflies. Moreover, the male butterflies showed <em>no interest</em> in the real female butterflies—the normal stimuli.</p>

<p>Tinbergen thinks human beings are a lot like butterflies in this regard. With regular exposure to a supernormal stimulus, we can be trained to <em>prefer</em> the unrealistic, exaggerated version over the real thing.</p>

<p>How is pornography a supernormal stimulus? In short, it <em>exaggerates</em> sex. It presents unrealistic scenarios and images. It makes us attracted to a counterfeit—an exaggerated cardboard cutout of the real thing.</p>

<p>In “<a href="https://www.gottman.com/blog/an-open-letter-on-porn/">An Open Letter on Porn</a>,” world-renowned researchers and clinical psychologists, Drs. John and Julie Gottman write,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Pornography may be just such a supernormal stimulus. With pornography use, much more of a normal stimulus may eventually be needed to achieve the response a supernormal stimulus evokes. In contrast, ordinary levels of the stimulus are no longer interesting. This may be how normal sex becomes much less interesting for porn users. The data supports this conclusion. In fact, use of pornography by one partner leads the couple to have far less sex and ultimately reduces relationship satisfaction.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Some people have tried to use pornography to “spice up” their sexual relationship. The sad irony is, <em>pornography ruins sex.</em> It leads to a lack of desire for sex <em>with your partner</em>.</p>

<p>Pornography trains men to view women as objects for their own personal pleasure. It lies to us. It teaches the lie that all women want sex all the time. It teaches the lie that women like all sex acts. It teaches the lie that women who don’t want sex can be persuaded by force. Sadly, young boys and girls are buying into these lies.</p>

<p>Relationships are hard work. They involve caring for the other person, serving the other person, getting to know the other person. There is a give-and-take interaction.</p>

<p>Pornography, on the other hand, is about convenience. It involves caring about your own needs. It’s one-sided. The other person exists for your satisfaction. Pornography is not about <em>intimate connection</em>; it’s about <em>immediate gratification</em>. It’s about me. It’s narcissistic.</p>

<p>Gail Dines, author of <em>Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality</em>, says, “When they put ‘porn’ into Google, they get catapulted into a world of sexual violence, degradation, and dehumanization. I think it has a terrible impact on the way they think about sexuality, intimacy, and connection.”</p>

<p>Pornography destroys relationships. Drs. John and Julie Gottman <a href="https://www.gottman.com/blog/an-open-letter-on-porn/">write</a>, “In summary, we are led to unconditionally conclude that for many reasons, pornography poses a serious threat to couple intimacy and relationship harmony.”</p>

<p>Sex is a part of <a href="/w/is-god-a-sex-killjoy-">God’s design</a>. He made it. He designed it to function in long-term, monogamous, marriage relationships. Pornography rips sex out of its God-given, relational context. It uses sex in a way that it was never meant to be used.</p>

<p>It’s not surprising that pornography causes so much harm—harm to ourselves and to others. But there is hope in restoring broken relationships. Here’s how.</p>

<p><em>First, tell someone.</em> It’s been said, “Pornography addiction thrives in the darkness of secrecy; it cannot survive in the light of accountability.” Be sure to acknowledge the wrong. Don’t shift the blame. Own your actions. We need to start talking about this, so tell someone.</p>

<p><em>Second, ask for forgiveness.</em> Husband, you have wronged your wife. Wife, you have wronged your husband. Furthermore, you have sinned against God. Therefore, go to both your spouse and God and ask for forgiveness <em>so that healing can begin.</em></p>

<p><em>Third, be accountable.</em> You need help. You can’t do this on your own. So find close faithful friends you can talk to.</p>

<p><em>Fourth, identify your triggers</em>. Is it sexualized music, or magazines, or movies? Is it depression or being alone at night? Try to identify what triggers you, and do your best to avoid those triggers.</p>

<p><em>Fifth, ask for help</em>. Talk to a counselor. That goes for your spouse, too. Some wives even suffer symptoms similar to PTSD when they find out about a husband’s porn use. They feel betrayed. They feel like trust has been broken. There is no shame is talking with a professional.</p>

<p>God forgives and heals those affected by pornography. Pornography is <em>not</em> the worst sin. In fact, it’s not even the worst sexual sin. <em>But it is a sin.</em></p>

<p>The apostle James says, “Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death” (James 1:15). Pornography leads to death. This includes death to your identity, death to your relationship, death to your marriage, and death to your relationship with God.</p>

<p>The culture may condone pornography as <em>normal</em>, and the church may condemn pornography as <em>shameful</em>. But Christ enters in to cleanse, heal, restore, and give you life <em>eternal</em>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-porn-kills-healthy-sexual-relationships" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-porn-kills-healthy-sexual-relationships" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-porn-kills-healthy-sexual-relationships" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Pro-Life View Is the Tolerant View
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 10/08/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-pro-life-view-is-the-tolerant-view
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Who wouldn’t want to get behind a view that’s inclusive, tolerant, and non-discriminatory? Guess what? The pro-life view is just that.</p>

<p>It’s inclusive. It includes all members of the human community, whether they are born, unborn, disabled, or near death.</p>

<p>It’s tolerant. It places value and respect on every person, even those who champion opposing views.</p>

<p>It’s non-discriminatory. It doesn’t disqualify some human beings from being valuable because of their race, gender, size, location, degree of dependency, level of development, or any other characteristic.</p>

<p>But I can hear the pushback already. “Wait a minute,” abortion-choice advocates will complain. “The pro-life view is hardly tolerant towards women. It wants to take away their right to an abortion!” That’s absolutely true! <a href="/w/do-pro-lifers-want-the-government-to-regulate-a-woman-s-body-" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Yes, the goal is to take away that right</a>. I fully acknowledge that. Think about what that means, though. Taking a woman’s right away entails the following non-controversial points:</p>

<p>These three points are not contested by those who understand the law, medical practice, and biology.</p>

<ol>
	<li>What right are pro-lifers demanding to take away from a woman? The right to an abortion.</li>
	<li>What is an abortion? It’s the intentional killing of the unborn.</li>
	<li>What is the unborn? The unborn is an innocent human being.</li>
</ol>

<p>So, do pro-lifers want to take away a woman’s right to do something? Yes, they want to take away a woman’s right to intentionally kill an innocent human being. That, however, <em>is no different than taking away any person’s right to kill any innocent human being.</em> What pro-lifers are demanding is consistency. It��s already illegal to kill innocent human beings (<a href="/w/inconsistent-law-on-the-unborn" rel="noopener" target="_blank">it’s even illegal to kill the unborn in 38 states that have fetal homicide laws</a>). Let’s make that law apply equally to protect all human beings, whether wanted by their mothers or not. That’s the tolerant thing to do.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-pro-life-view-is-the-tolerant-view" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-pro-life-view-is-the-tolerant-view" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-pro-life-view-is-the-tolerant-view" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why You Need to Fight Your Attraction to Pornography
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/18/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-you-need-to-fight-your-attraction-to-pornography
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Matthew Anderson’s deeply thoughtful article “<a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/pornography-human-humane/">How Pornography Makes Us Less Human and Less Humane</a>” (a chapter from <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Pornography-Life/dp/1433690454/?tag=thegospcoal-20" id="" rel="" target="" title=""><em>The Gospel and Pornography</em></a>) is worth your time. Though I want to direct you to the article, I hesitate to post an excerpt here simply because to focus on merely one aspect of his article would be to miss much of his overall case against pornography. The problem isn’t merely <em>that</em> pornography is wrong (something he compares to both murder and adultery) but also <em>why</em> it is wrong and how it violates both love and our humanity. Any such discussion also requires an understanding of the beauty of love and sex the way both were intended to be experienced between valuable human beings made in the image of God. And a condemnation of pornography is needed, yes, but a gospel response is also necessary.</p>

<p>Anderson includes all of these things, so I am left with the task of picking out one tidbit with which to tempt you to read the whole in all of its raw beauty and horror. I decided to go with words of hope and a way forward since hopelessness might be causing you to avoid the topic altogether.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Pornography deceives. Its sexualized depiction of human persons promises the viewer what it cannot deliver. But <em>how</em> pornography lies is difficult to see, if only because our eyes have gone blind from our frequent exposure to the medium. Pervasive consumption of pornography dulls the mind: if we delightedly give ourselves over to falsehoods, we lose our ability to sort truth from fiction. Sin has a compounding effect. The twin wraiths of confusion and ignorance preserve the charm of its false pleasures. It is easier for those drowning in a whirlpool of deceits to embrace their situation as “normal” than it is to escape.</p>

<p>The inescapable availability of pornography, and the corrosive “pornification” of all other forms of media, means that the most pressing challenge for Christians is rediscovering what purity <em>feels</em> like. C. S. Lewis famously proposed that spiritual mediocrity is the equivalent of playing with mud pies instead of taking the seaside holiday God offers us. Our situation is more dire, though: we are in danger of forgetting what the sea even offers. The warmth of sunshine that lifts our eyes and our hearts to heaven has been hidden by the stale pollution of our passions. Pornography is the only atmosphere we know: it has clotted our lungs, and we cannot get enough of it.</p>

<p>We have been told by our society to accept porn as the “new normal”—which is an extremely pernicious and effective lie….</p>

<p>Imagining a world that has not so cheapened human sexuality, then, is the first act of resistance to the many lies pornography tells. A porn-saturated world or life is not <em>inevitable</em>: there is nothing in the cosmos that says it must be a permanent feature of our experience. To confess this, and to acknowledge our own responsibility in making the world we have, is to take the first steps toward freedom. By the grace of God, we can live in a world other than that which we now know. That such a thought is so foreign to most of our society betrays how <em>weak</em> the pornography regime is: the moment we begin contemplating the prospect of living otherwise, the whole shoddy artifice that makes it seem attractive collapses into rubble. Finding a “more excellent way” begins with remembering that another way is possible—a thought that the pornography industry does not want anyone to truly believe.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Please read the rest of Anderson’s article <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/pornography-human-humane/">here</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-you-need-to-fight-your-attraction-to-pornography" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-you-need-to-fight-your-attraction-to-pornography" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-you-need-to-fight-your-attraction-to-pornography" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Try This Powerful Question to Throw Light on Enigmas like the Problem of Evil
topic: Philosophy
author: Greg Koukl
date: 10/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/try-this-powerful-question-to-throw-light-on-enigmas-like-the-problem-of-evil
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Here is a question I want to encourage you to start asking: What’s the alternative? In the right circumstances, it can be a powerful query. Let me tell you why.</p>

<p>Christianity is not entirely tidy. We know this. There will always be questions we won’t be able to answer, enigmas we probably will never completely unravel. When I encounter our own imponderables, though, I ask myself the question: What’s the alternative? One current example is enough to show you how this works.</p>

<p>Since April 20, 1999, when the lives of fourteen teenagers were snuffed out at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, there has been a frightening surge of such massacres—gunman mowing down innocents in public places. One incident—the killings at the Borderline Bar—happened just two miles from my home in Thousand Oaks, CA.</p>

<p>One thought crossed the minds of many—maybe even you—that never crossed mine. I never asked, “Where was God?” I never wondered how anyone could believe in God in the face of heart-rending, mind-numbing tragedy. It never occurred to me that egregious evil inveighed seriously against my own Christian convictions.</p>

<p>I understand the impulse behind the question, of course. Bertrand Russell, the great 20th century British philosopher and atheist, asked, “How can you talk about God when you’re kneeling at the bed of a dying child?” The number is legion of those who have abandoned their faith in the face of such tragedies. I get it.</p>

<p>Yet I want you to think about something that may not have occurred to you regarding the spate of mass killings that have been rocking our communities in recent years: <em>What’s the alternative?</em></p>

<p>For many, the answer is atheism, but that alternative comes at a price, lucidly described by atheism’s most colorful and prolific apologist, Richard Dawkins:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice…no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Let those words sink in. In a world bereft of God, there are many ways to characterize hurricanes, tsunamis, terrorist attacks, or a gunman’s malicious bloodletting: unpleasant, sad, painful, even ghastly. Yet if God doesn’t exist, the one thing we can never do is call such human destruction “evil” or such wanton murder “wicked.”</p>

<p>Yes, for atheists God is gone, but the problem of evil remains—and atheism gives no traction for us to make sense of our moral outrage. Judgments like these require some transcendent reference point, some way of keeping score. Words like “evil” or “tragic” are parasitic on a standard of moral perfection. In atheism, no such standard exists.</p>

<p>As Christian philosopher William Lane Craig once asked, “What is the atheist Bertrand Russell going to say while <em>he’s</em> kneeling at the bed of that dying child? Too bad? Tough luck? That’s the way it goes?”</p>

<p>Atheists are struck dumb in the face of calamity and catastrophe. No happy ending, no silver lining, nothing but devastating, senseless non-evil. They cannot speak of the patience and mercy of God. They cannot mention the future perfection that awaits all who trust in Christ. They cannot be comforted that a redemptive God is working to cause all things to work together for good to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. They have no “good news” of hope for a broken world. Their worldview denies them anything but tormented silence.</p>

<p>Theism’s alternative, atheism, robs us of our commonsense moral judgments regarding appalling evils. Atheists are left with what Bertrand Russell, in a candid and lucid moment, called “the firm foundation of unyielding despair.” That’s the alternative.</p>

<p>This is why my own reaction to the bloodshed was different. Yes, my heart agonized, but my core convictions were actually strengthened. It’s not that I’m impervious to doubt or that my own faith is so strong it’s unassailable. Neither is true. Rather, the alternative is out of the question.</p>

<p>I have often said that Christianity is the best explanation for the way things are. Even with its “loose ends,” it still covers the troublesome bases so much better than any other option. Christianity doesn’t have to explain wanton evil; it <em>predicts</em> it. Catastrophes like these are exactly what we should expect if the Christian take on reality is actually true. Egregious evil is part of our story. And our story isn’t over yet.</p>

<p>So if anyone asks you (or if you ask yourself), “Where was God?” when faced with heart-rending challenges, here is the question I want you to consider: What’s the alternative? The gospel continues to be the only real hope for a broken world. It’s the best explanation for the way things are.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftry-this-powerful-question-to-throw-light-on-enigmas-like-the-problem-of-evil" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftry-this-powerful-question-to-throw-light-on-enigmas-like-the-problem-of-evil" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftry-this-powerful-question-to-throw-light-on-enigmas-like-the-problem-of-evil" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Faithfulness Is Not Theologically Complicated
topic: Theology
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/faithfulness-is-not-theologically-complicated-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Lately I have been mystified by—and distressed with—a trend I’ve seen with many who identify as Christians yet seem to effortlessly embrace secular ideas completely at odds with a biblical understanding of reality.</p>

<p>These more “progressive” Christians tend to be pluralistic regarding salvation,<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> sexually active as single persons, gay friendly (and here I do not mean appropriately friendly with gays, but rather supportive of “alternative sexualities”), comfortable with “gender fluidity,” in favor of same-sex marriage, and pro-choice.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<p>I’m distressed because they have fallen into a trap Paul warned about: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men…rather than according to Christ” (Col. 2:8).</p>

<p>I’m mystified because there’s no good reason for faltering in the face of these particular trends because Scripture speaks with clarity against them. Since there is no biblical ambiguity on any of these issues, there is no real cause for a Christian’s confusion.</p>

<p>Simply put, on a host of culturally charged moral and spiritual issues, <em>faithfulness is not theologically complicated</em>. Why, then, are many who claim to be Christians foundering on fundamentals with such regularity? I think there are two reasons.</p>

<p>First, it’s clear that many Christians are untutored in the basics. To them, Christianity is simply about believing in Jesus in some vague sense and loving people in a can’t-we-all-just-get-along kind of way. That’s where their theology begins, and that’s where it ends.</p>

<p>Second, many Christians—especially among the younger generation, sadly—seem to care more about what their friends think about them than what Jesus thinks about them. Each of these failings is dangerous on its own; in combination, they are spiritually deadly.</p>

<p>I will not, here, parse out clever ways to persuade outsiders of God’s point of view on these issues. Rather, I want Christians to see the simple biblical facts for themselves. Maybe clarity will lessen the confusion and breed the courage needed to face the cultural pressures.</p>

<h2>Salvation</h2>

<p>First things first. That trust in Jesus of Nazareth is necessary to escape eternal punishment for sin is arguably the most offensive detail of classical Christian theology. Peter called it “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense” (1 Pet. 2:8). Yet it is also gospel bedrock.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>To stand with Jesus on this issue invites a tsunami of scorn and abuse in our culture. It is the first claim jettisoned when Christians itch to become more “tolerant” and substitute a Christianity of worldly love, acceptance, and inclusion for the gospel of rescue from wrath. To side with the crowd on this, though, is spiritual treason.</p>

<p>The disciples did not choose the name “Christians” for themselves. Others did. Followers of Jesus described themselves simply as “the Way” (Acts 9:2). The reason was clear. That was how Jesus described Himself: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6). Lest anyone be tempted to read ambiguity into that statement at the end of Jesus’ ministry, take counsel from this one at the very beginning:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matt. 7:13–14)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Controversial? Yes. Confusing? No. The claim is clear. New Testament writers repeated it constantly in a variety of ways, offering nine lines of argument to solidify their point.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>

<ol>
	<li><strong>Jesus is the world’s only source of salvation:</strong> “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).</li>
	<li><strong>Jesus is the Father’s choice:</strong> “Jesus…said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent’” (John 6:29).</li>
	<li><strong>Thus, rejection of Jesus is rejection of the Father Himself:</strong> “He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him” (John 5:23b).</li>
	<li><strong>Rejecting Jesus brings wrath; believing in Jesus rescues from wrath:</strong> “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36).</li>
	<li><strong>Jesus alone provides forgiveness of sin:</strong> “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins”(John 8:24).</li>
	<li><strong>Many impostors will claim to provide other ways of salvation:</strong> “See to it that no one misleads you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many” (Matt. 24:4–5).</li>
	<li><strong>But there are no alternatives:</strong> “There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).</li>
	<li><strong>Jesus will be man’s final judge:</strong> “Christ Jesus…is to judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).</li>
	<li><strong>Therefore, all nations are to be given this gospel:</strong> “Repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations” (Luke 24:47).</li>
</ol>

<p>There is only one answer to the Philippian jailer’s question, “What must I do to be saved?” Paul gave it: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:30–31). Simple and straightforward, uncomplicated and unambiguous. Do not be confused.</p>

<h2>Abortion</h2>

<p>I realize, of course, that Scripture does not address abortion directly. Rather, the issue is subsumed under a broader biblical injunction. The sixth commandment says simply, “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13). It mirrors a directive going back almost to the beginning that is itself grounded in a truth in the very first chapter of the Bible.</p>

<p>After the flood, God told Noah, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Gen. 9:6). Twice in Genesis 1, God declares that humans bear His image. Because human beings bear God’s image, any destruction of a human being deserves the severest penalty.</p>

<p>Here is the question: Are unborn human beings image-bearers in the same sense God is referring to in Genesis? Are they protected under the sixth commandment, thus making abortion an act of de facto homicide? Are the preborn the same kind of living beings as those who have already been born? Put another way, <em>in God’s eyes</em>, are humans <em>before</em> birth the <em>very same valuable individuals</em> they are <em>after</em> they are born?</p>

<p>It does no good, by the way, to dismiss the value of preborn humans by labeling them “fetuses,” or “zygotes,” or “blobs of cells.” First, you and I are also “blobs of cells” after a fashion. Second, like the word “adolescent,” the other terms are purely human inventions marking stages of biological development. Embryology—and common sense—tells us that the very same individual is present at each stage, regardless of the arbitrary terms we use to distinguish the stages.</p>

<p>Some will be surprised to know that Scripture itself gives a definitive answer to our question above in a passage that is clear, unambiguous, and decisive. Luke 1 records a remarkable exchange between Mary and her cousin Elizabeth, John the Baptist’s mother, almost immediately after Mary conceives Jesus by the Holy Spirit.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, <em>the baby</em> leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is <em>the fruit of your womb</em>! And how has it happened to me, that <em>the mother of my Lord</em> would come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, <em>the baby</em> leaped in my womb for joy.” (Luke 1:41–44)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Note, this meeting took place when Elizabeth was in her late second trimester with John, and Mary was in her early first trimester with Jesus. Recall also that earlier in the chapter we learned that John <em>himself</em> would be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15), and this passage marks the prophecy’s fulfillment. Clearly, John the “fetus”—filled with the Holy Spirit—leaped with joy in the presence of the “zygote,” Jesus the Lord.</p>

<p>So here is our question again, now applied specifically to the prophet and the Savior: Were John the Baptist and Jesus their same selves <em>before</em> they were born as they were <em>after</em> they were born? Clearly the biblical answer is, “Yes.” Had Mary or Elizabeth chosen abortion, then, they would have killed Jesus and John—not a <em>potential</em> or <em>possible</em> or <em>future</em> Jesus and John, but Jesus and John <em>themselves</em>.</p>

<p>The sixth commandment forbids murder. Murder is the willful killing of an innocent human being, an individual made in the image of God. Does abortion do this? According to what we learn in the Bible, yes, it does. Abortion, then—in God’s eyes—is murder. No Christian should condone it. No Christian should participate in it. Every Christian should condemn it.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup></p>

<p>Having a baby under any circumstances is a challenge, but especially so when the pregnancy is unplanned or the result of a traumatic experience. Even so, these complications do not change the basic biblical calculus. Abortion violates the sixth commandment.</p>

<p>Do not be confused. This is <em>not</em> a complex issue, theologically.</p>

<h2>Gender</h2>

<p>There is one thing everyone knows about the world. They know something is wrong, that things are not the way they are supposed to be. The world is broken, and multitudes suffer as a result.</p>

<p>There was a time, though, when this was not so. Genesis tells us about that time. It is the book of beginnings, the introduction to the story of reality. It tells us the way the world was when God first made it, when “all that He had made…was very good” (1:31). It tells us the way the world is supposed to be, the way it was before the evil.</p>

<p>Here is what the book of beginnings tells us about the beginning of human beings:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it…” (Gen. 1:27–28)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I have already mentioned the importance of the image of God in man. It’s the source of our innate and intrinsic value, the source of our inherent dignity and nobility. I want you to notice something else about the good, dignified, noble way God made humans.</p>

<p>From the very beginning, human beings have been either male or female, one or the other. In God’s world, sex is binary. There are rare physical exceptions,<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup> but that is not the way things are supposed to be. The exceptions are part of the brokenness.</p>

<p>Notice also that in God’s order there is no hint of distinction between the sex a person is on the <em>outside</em> and the sex a person <em>thinks</em> he is on the <em>inside</em>. Humans were created to be unified, whole persons—the mind matching the body.</p>

<p>At the moment, though, this point is controversial. Some think there is no vital connection between the sex a person is <em>physically</em> and their <em>mental perception</em> of their sex (often referred to as “gender”). And, indeed, there is a miniscule percent of people who are genuinely conflicted, thinking their own gender is different from their sex.<sup id="fnref:7"><a href="#fn:7">7</a></sup> But that is also part of the brokenness. It clearly is not God’s good plan.</p>

<p>There is a reason God made two physical sexes with their matching genders. In God’s plan, men and women were made both physically and emotionally different from each other in order to<em> fit</em> together in a complementary way. As counterparts sexually and soulishly, they were created so the woman could be what God called a “suitable helpmate” to man (Gen. 2:18–25). Even after the evil came and the world was broken, this plan did not change. Indeed, without this physical and emotional fit, it would not be possible for men and women to fulfill God’s command to multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it together.</p>

<p>Scripture is not ambiguous or unclear on this issue, which is why no one, Christian or otherwise, has been confused on it for thousands of years—until recently. Gender is not “fluid” in the way some have made it out to be. That is not how God made human beings.</p>

<p>Binary sexuality is also key to understanding God’s purpose for something else the culture has been confused about.</p>

<h2>Marriage</h2>

<p>When Jesus was asked about the legitimacy of divorce, He answered by going back to the beginning.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? (Matt. 19:4–5)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>According to Jesus, then, marriage is not a cultural convention based on current custom and sexual whim. Instead, marriage is tied to God’s creation order. Here is His formula for marriage: <em>one man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime</em>.</p>

<p>Notice Jesus' implicit support of binary gender in His reference to Genesis 2:24: a <em>man</em> leaves his <em>father</em> and <em>mother</em> and cleaves to his <em>wife</em>. The kind of marriage God had in mind from the beginning is rooted in gender. Men marry women. Women marry men. And being a man or a woman is determined by one’s physical body.</p>

<p>The reason, of course, is obvious. As a group, as a rule, by nature and by design, long-term, monogamous, heterosexual marriages produce the next generation. Successful reproduction requires stable families; stable families are fundamental to civilization; marriages begin families, and a man and a woman make a marriage.</p>

<p>According to Jesus’ thinking, then, same-sex marriage (or any other creative variation) is not only wrong for the same reason divorce is wrong—it corrupts God’s good design—it’s also a contradiction in terms. The word “marriage” has no meaning when used of same-sex couples since heterosexual union is inherent to God’s definition of marriage.</p>

<p>There is nothing ambiguous about Jesus’ view.<sup id="fnref:8"><a href="#fn:8">8</a></sup> Yes, the culture is confused, but there is no reason for you to be confused.</p>

<p>There is something else we learn from Jesus’ formula and from the passage in Genesis He derives it from.</p>

<h2>Sex</h2>

<p>According to Jesus, in marriage a man cleaves to—and becomes one flesh with—a woman, his wife. Their physical bodies are joined together in a deep, profound sexual union of body and soul, and the two become one. That is the good plan of God.</p>

<p>The passage Jesus cites in Genesis 2 as the Father’s perfect plan covers all of the “alternative sexualities.” Indeed, every single sexual act the Bible explicitly condemns—adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and bestiality—is excluded by Jesus’ simple formula.<sup id="fnref:9"><a href="#fn:9">9</a></sup> The only kind of sexual behavior honorable to God is intimacy between a man and a woman in a lifelong committed relationship—marriage, in other words.</p>

<p>Consider homosexuality, for example. I understand that every depiction of it in popular culture is overwhelmingly positive, and those who differ are characterized as hateful bigots. This is not God’s perspective, though. I want you to pay close attention to the details of a point Paul makes about homosexuality in Romans 1:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>God gave them over to degrading passions; for…the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts…&nbsp;(Rom. 1:26–27)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The word translated “function” here, the Greek word <em>kreesis</em>, is specifically referring to the <em>fit</em> I mentioned earlier. God designed men and women to <em>function</em> sexually together—their bodies fit together in a precise way to make sexual union possible. Since natural desires go with natural functions, the sexual passion that exchanges the natural function of sex for an unnatural function (homosexuality) is what Paul calls a “degrading passion.”</p>

<p>Notice in particular how Paul explains the nature of this offense before God. He says, “The men abandoned the natural function<em> of the woman</em>,” that is, they rejected the appropriate counterpart God had provided—a woman who was built by Him to be man’s sexual complement. That’s why Scripture has nothing positive to say about homosexuality. Whenever it is mentioned in the Bible, it is condemned.<sup id="fnref:10"><a href="#fn:10">10</a></sup></p>

<p>God also has nothing positive to say about any other sexual behavior outside of marriage—like adultery or fornication—for the same reason: It also corrupts God’s good purpose. Christians who lean progressive do not condone adultery, as far as I know. Nowadays, though, fornication hardly raises an eyebrow—especially among the younger crowd—yet it’s just as much a violation of God’s good plan as homosexuality.</p>

<p>Paul provides another angle you may not have considered. Since our bodies are members of Christ, “one flesh” sexual unions outside of marriage spiritually join Christ (who is in us) to an unholy coupling, sullying the temple of God, our own bodies. That’s why instead of embracing these relationships, Paul says we should flee them (1 Cor. 6:15–20).</p>

<p>Here is Paul’s sobering summary on the status of those who engage in persistent, habitual sexual sin:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators…nor adulterers…nor homosexuals…will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9–10)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>God’s solution for satisfying our sexual appetites is marriage: “Because of [sexual] immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2).<sup id="fnref:11"><a href="#fn:11">11</a></sup> Confusion on this issue, as Paul points out, is deadly deception. Do not be taken in. Scripture is not unclear or ambiguous.</p>

<p>There is a telling passage in the passion narrative where Pilate is confronted by the mob and must decide where his loyalties lie. Mark records his decision: “<em>Wishing to satisfy the crowd</em>, Pilate released Barabbas for them, and after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified” (Mark 15:15).</p>

<p>Many in Christendom today are taking their cues from Pilate. They are more concerned with satisfying the crowd than being faithful to Jesus. They champion the criminal and turn their back on the Savior.</p>

<p>Culture may be confused on salvation, abortion, gender, marriage, and sex. Don’t you be. On these issues, God has spoken clearly. Faithfulness to our Lord is not theologically complicated.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Pluralism in this sense is the view that other religions provide equally valid routes to salvation. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Though they may be personally against abortion, they still think it ought to be a legitimate option for others. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">I’ve developed this point in detail in the two-part article “<a href="/w/one-way-or-any-way-part-i" rel="" target="" title="">One Way or Any Way?</a>” at str.org. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Find a thorough development of these points with additional supporting text references in the STR booklet <a href="https://store.str.org/product-p/bk109.htm" id="" rel="" target="" title=""><em>Jesus, the Only Way—100 Verses</em></a>, available at str.org. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">In this piece I’m dealing only with the ethical status of abortion itself, not the more complex policy concern of how we prosecute abortion within our legal system. That is a different question I’ll leave to others more skilled in those matters. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Those who, through a rare congenital defect, are born intersex. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:7">This internal conflict is known as “gender dysphoria.” <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:7">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:8">In light of Matthew 19, the claim that “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality” is groundless. Though Jesus didn’t use the word “homosexuality” here, clearly His teaching on sex and marriage apply to it. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:8">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:9">Notice these all involve sex with someone other than a person’s opposite-sex spouse. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:9">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:10">For a detailed treatment of attempts by some within the church to biblically sanitize homosexuality, see “<a href="/w/the-reformation-the-church-doesn-t-need" rel="" target="" title="">A Reformation the Church Doesn’t Need</a>” at str.org. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:10">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:11">Notice, again, the implicit reference to binary sexuality and the presumption of heterosexual marriage. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:11">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffaithfulness-is-not-theologically-complicated-1" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffaithfulness-is-not-theologically-complicated-1" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffaithfulness-is-not-theologically-complicated-1" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Focus Your Conversations with Muslims on What Matters
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 09/24/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/focus-your-conversations-with-muslims-on-what-matters
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I always give Christians two pieces of (related) advice if they want to talk to Muslims. First, focus your message on what really matters: the gospel. After all, as ambassadors for Christ, we’re commanded to tell people about the message of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18–20). Muslims believe <a href="/w/the-cost-muslims-pay-for-missing-jesus" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Jesus</a> was a prophet and was given the gospel as a revelation. So, they’ll be open to talking about Jesus and <a href="/w/do-muslims-love-jesus-" rel="noopener" target="_blank">His message</a>.</p>

<p>Second, avoid conversations that distract from the gospel and/or create a defensive posture. For example, bringing up <a href="/w/jihad-and-war-in-islam-and-christianity" rel="noopener" target="_blank">jihad</a>, making denigrating comments about Mohammed, or debating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict typically raise defenses and distract from the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk2OIt80tis" rel="noopener" target="_blank">main message</a> that God wants them to hear: His offer to them to be reconciled to Him. I’ve found it much harder to get back to the gospel once the <a href="/w/make-jesus-central-to-your-conversations-with-muslims" rel="noopener" target="_blank">conversation</a> has moved to topics that put the Muslim on the defensive.</p>

<p>As my friend and colleague (and boss!) Greg Koukl has said, “The gospel is offensive enough. Don’t add any more offense to it.”</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffocus-your-conversations-with-muslims-on-what-matters" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffocus-your-conversations-with-muslims-on-what-matters" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ffocus-your-conversations-with-muslims-on-what-matters" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Should We Downplay the “Clobber Passages” on Homosexuality?
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 10/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/should-we-downplay-the-clobber-passages-on-homosexuality-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>You’ve probably heard it said by a progressive Christian or someone else who advances pro-gay theology. I’ve heard it many times. It goes something like this: “I want to talk about what the Bible says about LGBTQ+ people. But I’m not going to focus on the clobber passages that conservative, right-wing Christians love to judge gays and lesbians with. The Bible says so much more than that.”</p>

<p>The so-called clobber passages are six passages in Scripture that directly address the subject of homosexuality.</p>

<ol>
	<li><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen+19%3A4-25&amp;version=NASB" id="" rel="" target="" title="">Genesis 19:4–25</a> (the story of Sodom and Gomorrah)</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lev+18%3A22&amp;version=NASB" id="" rel="" target="" title="">Leviticus 18:22</a> (“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female.”)</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lev+20%3A13&amp;version=NASB" id="" rel="" target="" title="">Leviticus 20:13</a> (“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act.”)</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+1%3A26-27&amp;version=NASB" id="" rel="" target="" title="">Romans 1:26–27</a> (“The men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts.”)</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+cor+6%3A9-11&amp;version=NASB" id="" rel="" target="" title="">1 Corinthians 6:9–11</a> (“Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”)</li>
	<li><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+tim+1%3A9-10&amp;version=NASB" id="" rel="" target="" title="">1 Timothy 1:9–10</a> (“Law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.”)</li>
</ol>

<p>According to advocates of pro-gay theology, focusing only on these six passages limits your perspective about what Scripture says about sex and, specifically, homosexuality. If you look beyond these verses (they say), you’ll find that God has much more to say about sexuality and is affirming towards gays and lesbians. You simply need to look past the “clobber passages.”</p>

<p>First, let me agree. Yes, there have been Christians who have ungraciously, hypocritically, or condescendingly used those six verses against people who identify as gay or lesbian. <em>Any</em> verse, however, can be used in an uncharitable manner. That would be sin no matter which verse is used and who abuses the text.</p>

<p>But referring to them as “clobber passages” is wrong. These verses are still the words of the living God, the Creator of the universe and the Author of life. They are no less true than any verse in the Bible. Though a person may use them to clobber, the verses themselves are inerrant holy writ, God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16–17). Therefore, they can’t be simply dismissed by name-calling them.</p>

<p>Allow me to agree on another point. Yes, Scripture <em>does</em> have more to say about sex, gender, marriage, and sexuality than in just those six passages. In fact, it says a lot more. There are 31,102 verses in the Bible, and only six of them are about homosexuality (that’s only 0.019%). God’s word—from Genesis to Revelation—is full of verses that give more detail and nuance to our sexual ethics. What you’ll discover, though, is that the additional verses only serve to strengthen the view that sexual activity ought to occur only within man-woman marriage, thereby ruling out homosexual sex by definition.</p>

<p>For example, Genesis 1:27–28 and 2:24 describe how God creates man and woman (a sexual binary) and ordains them to leave their parents and cleave to one another to become a one-flesh union. Indeed, a man and a woman are the only people in Scripture that are capable of creating a one-flesh union. No other person, pair, or group of people can achieve that oneness. Furthermore, Jesus quotes these two verses in Matthew 19:4–6 because He believes they are still binding during the New Testament era.</p>

<p>As you can see, the more you dig into the details of what the Bible says about sexuality, the more you discover that homosexuality is indirectly ruled out. That doesn’t mean we ignore the six passages that address the topic of homosexuality directly. After all, they <em>do</em> speak negatively about homosexual sex. Those verses are still relevant. You can’t give a complete picture of what Scripture says about homosexuality without factoring these verses into your assessment.</p>

<p>Furthermore, everyone should extend kindness and grace when navigating this subject—or any sensitive subject—lest we be guilty of using Bible verses to “clobber” people. We want to reflect the truth and grace that was evident in the ministry of Jesus.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshould-we-downplay-the-clobber-passages-on-homosexuality-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshould-we-downplay-the-clobber-passages-on-homosexuality-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshould-we-downplay-the-clobber-passages-on-homosexuality-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Eight Lessons on Being an A-Paul-ogist
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 09/04/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/eight-lessons-on-being-an-a-paul-ogist
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Every follower of Christ is <em>commanded</em> to be an apologist. Many verses could be cited, but the most well known comes from the apostle Peter. Writing to Christians in Asia Minor who are facing intense persecution, Peter encourages them <em>to be ready to engage those who oppose the gospel. </em>He writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[I]n your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect. (1 Peter 3:15)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Greek word translated “defense” is <em>apologia</em>. It’s used eight times in the New Testament and always denotes a formal defense (or reasoned argument) for one’s position.</p>

<p>So, the Bible <em>tells</em> <em>us</em> to be apologists. But does the Bible <em>show us</em> how to be apologists?</p>

<p>I think Acts 17 definitely answers this question. If we want to be effective apologists, we should imitate <em>how</em> Paul engages his audience—that is, we should be apologists <em>like Paul</em>. <em>We should be a-Paul-ogists.</em> (Okay, that’s a really a bad pun. Forgive me.)</p>

<p>As we read through Acts 17:16–34, we discover <em>eight lessons</em> on how to be an apologist. Each lesson corresponds to a specific passage. And each passage raises important questions.</p>

<p>Here’s a short exercise I’ve created for you. This could be done during your devotional time. Read the relevant verses that correspond to each lesson, and then answer the questions that follow. My hope is that this exercise will help you better internalize each of these essential attributes.</p>

<h2>Lesson #1: Listen Apologetically (Acts 17:16)</h2>

<p><em>An apologist is always on the lookout for </em><em>opportunities that might lead to fruitful apologetic conversations.</em></p>

<ol>
	<li>
	<p>Why do you think we sometimes miss apologetic opportunities?</p>
	</li>
	<li>
	<p>How can we be better <em>apologetic listeners?</em></p>
	</li>
	<li>
	<p>What is the advantage of listening <em>before</em> speaking?</p>
	</li>
</ol>

<h2>Lesson #2: Think Contextually. (Acts 17:17–21)</h2>

<p><em>An apologist tailors his approach to his context.</em></p>

<ol>
	<li>How did Paul change his approach to fit his religious context?</li>
	<li>Why is it important to find <em>common ground</em> with the person you’re talking to?</li>
	<li>Is our current cultural context more like <em>marketplace-Athenians</em> or <em>synagogue-Jews?</em></li>
</ol>

<h2>Lesson #3: Respond Graciously (Acts 17:22–23)</h2>

<p><em>An apologist </em><em>needs to remember that his manner is as important as his message.</em></p>

<ol>
	<li>Why does Paul start with <em>admiration</em> rather than <em>condemnation</em>?</li>
	<li>How can we respond graciously to those we disagree with?</li>
</ol>

<h2>Lesson #4: Know Deeply (Acts 17:24–27a)</h2>

<p><em>An apologist</em><em> ­­must have an ever-deepening understanding of the Christian worldview.</em></p>

<ol>
	<li>Why was the <em>religiosity</em> of the Athenians not enough?</li>
	<li>What knowledge did Paul share about God?</li>
	<li>Why is it important for an apologist to deeply <em>know truth </em>before he boldly <em>speaks truth</em>?</li>
</ol>

<h2>Lesson #5: Read Widely (Acts 17:27b–28)</h2>

<p><em>An apologist</em><em> ­­must challenge himself to read, watch, and listen to things he doesn’t agree with so that he can understand and respond to the culture.</em></p>

<ol>
	<li>Why doesn’t Paul just quote the Bible to those at the Aeropagus?</li>
	<li>Why does Paul quote from the poet Epimenides and the philosopher Aratus?</li>
	<li>How well do you know what the culture believes, and can you quote <em>their</em> authorities?</li>
</ol>

<h2>Lesson #6: Reason Wisely (Acts 17:29)</h2>

<p><em>An apologist</em><em> uses the power of reason to persuade his audience.</em></p>

<ol>
	<li>What is Paul’s rational argument against idolatry?</li>
	<li>Why doesn’t Paul merely quote an Old Testament Scripture against idolatry?</li>
</ol>

<h2>Lesson #7: Speak Boldly (Acts 17:30–31)</h2>

<p><em>An apologist</em><em> never backs down from speaking the truth.</em></p>

<ol>
	<li>Why does Paul end with speaking about <em>repentance</em> and <em>judgment</em>?</li>
	<li>Where does Paul’s confidence come from?</li>
</ol>

<h2><strong>Lesson #8: </strong>Trust <strong>Faithfully</strong> (Acts 17:32–34)</h2>

<p><em>An apologist</em><em> doesn’t measure his success in terms of immediate results.</em></p>

<ol>
	<li>What are the <em>three</em> different responses to Paul’s message?</li>
	<li>Why do you think Luke records the <em>negative reactions</em> (in addition to the positive responses)?</li>
	<li>Why should modern-day apologists be encouraged by this passage?</li>
</ol>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Feight-lessons-on-being-an-a-paul-ogist" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Feight-lessons-on-being-an-a-paul-ogist" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Feight-lessons-on-being-an-a-paul-ogist" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Pornography Is Affecting This Generation More Than Any Other
topic: Christian Living
author: Tim Barnett
date: 10/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-pornography-is-affecting-this-generation-more-than-any-other
content:
            <div> 
		<p>This generation has been <em>more affected</em> by pornography than any other generation in history. I believe there are four major reasons for this. They are <em>acceptability</em>, <em>accessibility</em>, <em>affordability, </em>and <em>anonymity</em>.</p>

<ol>
	<li><strong>Pornography is more <em>acceptable</em> than ever before.</strong> In a study published in 2008 titled <em>Generation XXX: Pornography Acceptance and Use Among Emerging Adults</em>, researchers found that “roughly <em>two thirds</em> (67%) of young men and <em>one half</em> (49%) of young women agree <em>that viewing pornography is acceptable<strong>,</strong></em> whereas nearly 9 out of 10 (87%) young men and nearly one third (31%) of young women reported using pornography.”</li>
	<li value="2"><strong>Pornography is more <em>accessible</em> than ever before.</strong> It used to be that if a person wanted to look at pornography, they would have to go to an adult video show to rent it, or they would have to go buy a magazine, or they would have to go to a strip club. Today, anyone with a smartphone is just “one click away” or “one Google search away” from pornography. <em>We carry access to porn in our pockets.</em></li>
	<li value="3"><strong>Pornography is more <em>affordable</em> than ever before.</strong> In fact, porn is <em>free</em>. For the last six years, <em>Pornhub—</em>the largest free pornography website<em>—</em>has done an annual Year in Review. They report having 33.5 billion visits over the course of 2018. That equates to a <i>daily average</i> of 92 million visitors. To put that into perspective, that’s as if the combined populations of Canada, Poland, and Australia all visited one pornographic website <i>every day</i>! Something is searched on <i>Pornhub</i> <i>962 times per second</i>. In 2018 alone, they uploaded 4.79 million new videos, creating <i>over one million hours of new content</i>. That’s 115 years worth of video in just 2018. And every <em>minute</em>, 63,992 new visitors arrive at <em>Pornhub</em>, 207,405 videos are watched, and 57,750 searches are performed. Every minute!</li>
	<li value="4"><strong>Pornography is more <em>anonymous</em> than ever before.</strong> There is anonymity in watching pornography. No one has to know that you are <em>watching it</em> or that you have <em>watched it</em>. We have the ability to watch porn in the comfort of our homes, and then we can “clear history” when we’re done.</li>
</ol>

<p>Each of these four A-words has helped pornography thrive in this generation.</p>

<p>Before we can understand <em>how</em> to respond to pornography, we need to understand <em>why</em> it affects this generation.</p>

<p>I recently spoke on this important issue. My hope is that this talk will help protect you and your family in a pornified world.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="T9Dp4YMt7c8" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/T9Dp4YMt7c8?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-pornography-is-affecting-this-generation-more-than-any-other" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-pornography-is-affecting-this-generation-more-than-any-other" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-pornography-is-affecting-this-generation-more-than-any-other" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: If You Want Your Kids to Own Their Faith, Teach Them to Think Critically about Their Faith
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 09/17/2019
source:
https://www.str.org/w/if-you-want-your-kids-to-own-their-faith-teach-them-to-think-critically-about-their-faith

content:
            <div> 
		<p>I take my job as a parent very seriously.</p>

<p>It’s my responsibility to teach my kids <em>how to act</em>. This starts early with a lot of “do’s and don’ts.” <em>Don’t</em> talk with your mouth full. <em>Don’t</em> talk back to your mother. <em>Don’t</em> hit your sisters. <em>Do</em> be kind. <em>Do</em> say please. <em>Do</em> share.</p>

<p>But right behavior is not my only goal. I’m also deeply committed to teaching <em>right thinking</em>. In other words, it’s not only my responsibility to teach my kids <em>how to act</em>; it’s also my responsibility to teach them <em>how to think</em>.</p>

<h2>What to Believe Versus How to Think</h2>

<p>Now, I’m not merely talking about teaching them <em>what to believe</em>. That’s an important part of parenting. But teaching your kids what to believe is not the same thing as training them how to think.</p>

<p>A great way to teach your kids right beliefs is to get them to memorize a catechism. A <em>catechism</em> is a summary of core Christian beliefs in the form of questions and answers.</p>

<p>Catechism is important. It helps our students know important theological truths. But it’s not enough. One of the ways I illustrate this is by asking students the question “What is a unicorn?”</p>

<p>The responses are usually all the same. A unicorn is a horse-like creature with a large horn on its forehead. So far, so good.</p>

<p>Next, I asked them Question 2 of the <a href="http://newcitycatechism.com/">New City Catechism</a>—“What is God?”</p>

<p>This is a more difficult question to answer. However, those who have memorized the catechism will answer, “God is the Creator and Sustainer of everyone and everything. He is eternal, infinite, and unchangeable in His goodness and glory, His power and perfection, His wisdom, justice, and truth. Nothing happens except through Him and by His will.”</p>

<p>At this point, we have described two different entities: a unicorn and God. Just as the students are able to describe what a unicorn is like, they are also able to describe what God is like.</p>

<p>Here’s where things get interesting. After getting each description, I ask, “How do you know that God is real? After all, how do you know that God isn’t like the unicorn—not real?”</p>

<p>When I ask this question to a room full of Christian kids, there are usually many puzzled faces. Many kids who have grown up in Christian homes have never entertained the idea that God is not real. They’ve never had to give a reason for why they think God exists. They’ve never had their beliefs challenged.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, we are so focused on teaching our kids <em>what</em> to believe that we can forget to train them <em>why</em> to believe. Teaching the <em>what</em> without the <em>why</em> is like building a house without a foundation. It may stand for a season. But when the storms come, the house comes crashing down. Likewise, a faith that doesn’t understand why it’s true will not be able to withstand the challenges and doubts of life.</p>

<h2>Getting Your Kids to Own Their Beliefs</h2>

<p>I think this is one of the reasons why many Christian kids grow up and abandon “their” beliefs. For many of them, those beliefs were never theirs in the first place. They were their parent’s beliefs that the kids were taught to memorize and regurgitate, beliefs the kids were never challenged to think through <em>for themselves</em>.</p>

<p>So, how do we do that? How do we get our kids to think for themselves about Christian truths? Well, it’s not complicated. We need to stop only asking the “what” questions and start asking the “why” questions.</p>

<p>Here’s how this practically works itself out in three simple steps. First, be on the lookout for when your kid makes a claim or states a belief. I’ve trained myself to be extra watchful when we’re sitting around the dinner table or when we’re on the drive to school. These are the times my girls love to talk about spiritual things. It may be different in your house.</p>

<p>Second, if you think that they can reasonably articulate the belief, then they are ready for a “why” question. Here are some examples that have come up in my own house.</p>

<ul>
	<li>If your son says, “God is a Trinity,” you respond with “Why do you believe that?”</li>
	<li>If your daughter says, “The Bible is God’s Word,” you ask, “How do you know that?”</li>
	<li>If your grandchild says, “Jesus is God,” you reply, “How did you come to that conclusion?”</li>
</ul>

<p>These starter questions will lead to fruitful conversations. I promise.</p>

<p>Third, if your child doesn’t know the answer to your question (or is really struggling to give an answer), model for them how to think through the answer. Don’t just tell them the answer. If you do, then you’re right back to teaching them what to believe. Remember we want to train up critical thinkers.</p>

<p>To recap: Watch for belief-statements, ask why-questions, and model right-thinking.</p>

<p>It’s good to teach your child what to believe. But that’s not enough. We also need to teach them how to think. Simply put, if we want our kids to own their faith, we need to train them to think critically about their faith.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-you-want-your-kids-to-own-their-faith-teach-them-to-think-critically-about-their-faith" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-you-want-your-kids-to-own-their-faith-teach-them-to-think-critically-about-their-faith" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-you-want-your-kids-to-own-their-faith-teach-them-to-think-critically-about-their-faith" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: On Sexual Purity and Advancing a Biblical Sexual Ethic
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/22/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/on-sexual-purity-and-advancing-a-biblical-sexual-ethic
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Since Joshua Harris (author of <em>I Kissed Dating Goodbye</em>) announced he <a href="https://relevantmagazine.com/god/i-kissed-dating-goodbye-author-josh-harris-i-am-not-a-christian/">walked away from Christianity</a>, there has been a lot of criticism of the “purity culture” of the 1990s. To address this, BreakPoint asked several Christian thinkers, “Are criticisms of ‘purity culture’ legitimate, and in what ways should Christians change how we advance a biblical sexual ethic in this cultural moment?”</p>

<p>You can see the full online symposium <a href="https://www.breakpoint.org/purity-culture-and-the-christian-faith-a-breakpoint-symposium/">on BreakPoint’s website</a>, but I wanted to highlight a couple of the responses here. The first is from Brett Kunkle:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>To advance God���s vision of sexuality, the church must first equip its own people, emphasizing two things: flourishing according to God’s design and redemption/restoration according to God’s grace. God’s intention is sexual purity: “It is God’s will…that you should avoid sexual immorality…For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life” (I Thess. 4:3&amp;7). Without guaranteeing outcomes, we confidently teach the biblical connection between obedience and flourishing. However, a sexually broken culture also needs the restorative power of the gospel. When I met my wife in college, she was a single mom. Obviously, she had lived outside of God’s intent for her sexuality. But any PC message that stops there is entirely deficient. When she tells the rest of her story, an amazing picture of God’s redemption emerges.</p>

<p>The beauty of flourishing <em>and</em> forgiveness, borne out in real lives. Our culture needs to see both in full display.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I love Brett’s answer. Our sexuality can glorify God by demonstrating the beauty of both flourishing and forgiveness. And the good news about this is that every single Christian can express the truth of <em>at least</em> one of those options. If you did not follow God’s plan for flourishing, you haven’t blown your chance to honor and glorify God with your body. Acknowledging where you rejected His wisdom, accepting His forgiveness, and living in the joy of that peace also points others to the glory of God.</p>

<p>I also found Frederica Mathewes-Green’s response insightful:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In my hippie college days I claimed to celebrate all religions, but I deeply resented Christianity. We mocked Christians and argued with them, trying to undermine their faith....</p>

<p>Why did we want to bully Christians, and delight to sadden them? I used to say, “There’s something wrong with those Christians. They’re <em>too clean</em>.”</p>

<p>I think it was their purity that annoyed me. We felt somehow judged by them, though they never said judgmental things. Sexual purity somehow challenges people, even when it’s just minding its own business.</p>

<p>That’s because there is spiritual <em>power</em> in purity. This is a deep and ancient spiritual battle we’ve stumbled into, with a scope much broader than sex. Purity addresses all Creation, putting everything in tune so it can function and flourish according to its design. That’s what people mean when they call for purity in the environment, and human sexual behavior is really just a part of that environment.</p>

<p>So instead of apologizing for purity, let’s get better at <em>living</em> it. All of us, not just singles; we can all get better at governing the thoughts and images we allow in our heads, as St. Paul said, preferring “Whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable” (Phil 4:8). Let’s honor purity, even if that makes us more annoyingly “clean.” Coming up with new phrasing wouldn’t help; it’s purity itself that they are rejecting. Perhaps they sense its power better than we do.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>She’s right when she says that “sexual purity somehow challenges people, even when it’s just minding its own business.” More than once in my life I’ve been surprised to learn after the fact that the way I was quietly living my life was causing more consternation among the unbelievers around me than any of my arguments for Christianity—such that the topic was still coming up years later!</p>

<p>We (rightly) work hard to learn apologetics and conversational tactics, but we forget that the New Testament often speaks of our <em>behavior</em> as being something that’s part of our calling to “proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9). When we act as He would have us act, we show people who He is: “Like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy’,” and, “Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that…they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Pet. 1:15–16 and 2:12).</p>

<p>Sometimes remaining faithful to what God has called you to do (or not do) is difficult, but remember that you have <em>no idea</em> the ways God is using your faithfulness to glorify Himself and call others to believe in Christ. God’s ways are beautiful, and they will attract those who are looking for beauty. <a href="/w/to-the-christian-who-is-being-tempted-by-a-relationship">Be faithful</a>. No matter how much you’re tempted to think you’re “missing out,” disobedience is never fulfillment, and obedience—living the way God has called you to live in your particular circumstance—is never second best.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fon-sexual-purity-and-advancing-a-biblical-sexual-ethic" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fon-sexual-purity-and-advancing-a-biblical-sexual-ethic" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fon-sexual-purity-and-advancing-a-biblical-sexual-ethic" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Thoughts from Greg and Amy on Having Meaningful Spiritual Conversations
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/12/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/thoughts-from-greg-and-amy-on-having-meaningful-spiritual-conversations
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Mikel Del Rosario of <a href="https://apologeticsguy.com/2019/08/tactics-defending-the-faith/">ApologeticsGuy.com</a> invited Greg and me onto Dallas Theological Seminary’s video <a href="https://voice.dts.edu/tablepodcast/spiritual-conversations/" id="" rel="" target="" title="">podcast</a> (below) to talk with him about how to have meaningful spiritual conversations. Here’s a list (from their <a href="https://voice.dts.edu/tablepodcast/spiritual-conversations/" id="" rel="" target="" title="">website</a>) of the topics we cover in the video:</p>

<p>00:15 – The ministry of Stand to Reason<br>
06:29 – Applying ambassador model to spiritual conversations<br>
14:43 – Christlike character in spiritual conversations<br>
21:07 – The importance of using questions<br>
25:05 – The first question in the Columbo tactic<br>
31:04 – The personal nature of the Columbo tactic<br>
34:22 – Using the first question in conversation<br>
38:18 – Using the first question on social media<br>
40:51 – The second question in the Columbo tactic<br>
44:04 – The third question in the Columbo tactic<br>
47:57 – Encouraging believers to have spiritual conversations</p>

<p>If you’re not familiar with Greg’s tactics material, you can learn more by watching a series of short videos from our Quick-Reference App <a href="https://subsplash.com/strquickreference/media/ms/+a6fe807">here</a>, or pick up a copy of <em><a href="https://store.str.org/product-p/bk316.htm">Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions</a></em>.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="clcX6ZecPuM" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/clcX6ZecPuM?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthoughts-from-greg-and-amy-on-having-meaningful-spiritual-conversations" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthoughts-from-greg-and-amy-on-having-meaningful-spiritual-conversations" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthoughts-from-greg-and-amy-on-having-meaningful-spiritual-conversations" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Response to Atheistic Moral Platonism
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/19/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-response-to-atheistic-moral-platonism
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The moral argument for the existence of God goes like this (from William Lane Craig’s <em><a href="https://store.str.org/product-p/bk352.htm">On Guard</a></em>):</p>

<blockquote>
<ol>
	<li>If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.</li>
	<li>Objective moral values and duties do exist.</li>
	<li>Therefore, God exists.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>

<p>In order to avoid the conclusion that God exists, atheists who accept the second premise of the argument have to argue against the first premise by explaining how objective moral values and duties could exist apart from God. To this end, some atheists argue for moral Platonism—i.e., the idea that moral values simply exist as brute facts of the universe, abstract objects without explanation or foundation. Here’s how William Lane Craig responds to atheistic moral Platonism in <em>On Guard</em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><strong>First, atheistic moral platonism seems unintelligible.</strong> What does it mean to say, for example, that the moral value justice just exists? It’s hard to make sense of this. It’s easy to understand what it means to say that some person is just, but it’s bewildering when someone says that in the absence of any people justice itself exists. Moral values seem to be properties of persons, and it’s hard to understand how justice can exist as an abstraction.</p>

<p><strong>Second, this view provides no basis for moral duties.</strong> Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that moral values like justice, loyalty, mercy, forbearance, and the like just exist. How does that result in any moral obligations for me? Why would I have a moral duty to be, say, merciful? Who or what lays such an obligation on me? Notice that on this view moral vices like greed, hatred, lethargy, and selfishness also presumably exist on their own as abstractions. So why are we obligated to align our lives with one set of these abstractly existing objects rather than any other? Atheistic moral platonism, lacking a moral lawgiver, has no grounds for moral obligation.</p>

<p><strong>Third, it’s fantastically improbable that the blind evolutionary process should spit forth precisely that sort of creatures who correspond to the abstractly existing realm of moral values.</strong> This seems to be an utterly incredible coincidence when you think about it. It’s almost as if the moral realm <em>knew</em> that we were coming. It’s far more plausible, as Sorley contended, to think that both the natural realm and the moral realm are under the authority of a God who gave us both the laws of nature and the moral law than to think that these two independent realms just happened to mesh. [Emphasis added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p><em><a href="https://store.str.org/product-p/bk352.htm">On Guard</a></em> is really good at clarifying arguments and counterarguments for and against Christianity, and its readable style and clearly-stated step-by-step arguments make it incredibly useful for learning how to engage these topics yourself. You can see all the argument maps from the book posted by the publisher <a href="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1247/3227/files/OnGuard_ArgumentMaps_Images.pdf?15127346856374502336">here</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-response-to-atheistic-moral-platonism" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-response-to-atheistic-moral-platonism" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-response-to-atheistic-moral-platonism" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Would Proving Christianity False Be a Good or Bad Thing?
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/25/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/would-proving-christianity-false-be-a-good-or-bad-thing-
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>I was asked the question “If Christianity were to be conclusively and definitely proven false, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?” This was my response.</em></p>

<p>My short answer to your question is that it would be an objectively good thing for us to know Christianity was false 1) if it were actually false, and 2) a personal, omnibenevolent, Creator God exists (i.e., if the details of Christianity were wrong, but it’s still the case that a perfectly moral God created us). The explanation for my second condition can be made clear by focusing in on the question of atheism vs. Christianity rather than Christianity vs. another theistic option.</p>

<p>In terms of atheism vs. Christianity, the answer to your question depends on the sense in which you mean “a good thing or a bad thing.” Do you mean “good” objectively or subjectively? I think it’s an objectively good thing to know the truth, so I think a definitive proof relating to the existence of God would be objectively good. This is because I think knowing truth is intrinsically good. But I think knowing truth is objectively good only because I also think God exists. Knowing the truth is only an intrinsic good <em>if God exists</em>. If God does not exist, and we’re all random material products of the universe, then there is no intrinsic “goodness” to knowing the truth about reality. In fact, whatever is “helpful” to society (or to me personally) is my own <em>subjective</em> “good,” regardless of whether or not it’s true. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what we believe. There’s no moral value attached to seeking truth because there’s no objective moral value to anything at all.</p>

<p>So if atheism is true, there’s no ultimate sense in which proving Christianity to be false would be “good.” And there’s really no subjective sense in which it would be “good,” either (if by “good” you mean helpful to you or to society), since the belief in meaning, purpose, human value, natural rights, moral obligations, etc. built by Christianity has been highly advantageous for the world (see <a href="/w/the-true-story-of-christian-missionaries">here</a>, for example).</p>

<p>To clarify further, I think it will be helpful to break down your question into four parts since, in fact, the question you’re asking could actually be four different questions depending on the assumptions behind the question. Here are the four possible questions that come from your question:</p>

<p><strong>1. If atheism is true and Christianity is proved false, is that good?</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li>In this case, there’s no objective good or bad and no intrinsic value to knowing truth (in fact, we don’t even have a way to know whether or not our faculties have evolved to truly know truth—we only know they help us survive), and in terms of subjective “good,” the damage that would be done to society because of, for example, the loss of the illusion of morality and obligation <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/15/morality-evolution-philosophy">would not be “good,” either</a>.</li>
	<li>Objectively good: No</li>
	<li>Subjectively good: No</li>
</ul>

<p><br>
<strong>2. If atheism is true and Christianity is inaccurately “proved” true, is that good?</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li>This would only be “good” in a subjective sense because the illusion of objective morality and obligation would remain, as would the comforts of religious community; but objectively, there is no real “good,” and it doesn’t matter what we believe. Whatever “works” for us is our subjective “good.”</li>
	<li>Objectively good: No</li>
	<li>Subjectively good: Yes</li>
</ul>

<p><br>
<strong>3. If Christianity is true and it’s proved true, is that good?</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li>Since a God who cares about truth exists, knowing truth is intrinsically good, and there is true goodness in knowing that the true God exists. Subjectively, if the true God exists, then knowing Him would also be experienced as a good for us and for our society.</li>
	<li>Objectively good: Yes</li>
	<li>Subjectively good: Yes</li>
</ul>

<p><br>
<strong>4. If Christianity is true and it’s inaccurately “proved” false, is that good?</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li>This is the worst of all possible results, because now there is intrinsic value in knowing truth, but we <em>don’t</em> know the truth, and in addition to this, there are negative effects on ourselves and our society because we’re not living according to the truth of meaning, purpose, value, etc.</li>
	<li>Objectively good: No</li>
	<li>Subjectively good: No</li>
</ul>

<p>So looking at the breakdown above, the only situation in which knowing the truth is both objectively and subjectively good is if Christianity is true. So the answer to your question in terms of atheism vs. Christianity is that it would be neither good nor bad <em>objectively</em> to know that atheism was true (if it were true) since there’s no objective value to knowing truth in a materialistic universe. There is only <em>subjective</em> good and bad in atheism, and even in that case, there would be harm to society if everyone thought atheism was true, so it would not be “good” in that sense, either. I might still personally prefer to know what’s true in a materialistic universe, but that would only be my private preference. It wouldn’t truly be “good” in any objective sense. Thus, the second condition in my short answer: God must still exist in order for one to say it would be a good thing for Christianity to be proven false.</p>

<p>Which brings us back to your original question. Let’s look at the objective/subjective breakdown in terms of Christianity vs. another theistic option (wherein God’s omnibenevolent character grounds objective goodness—I’m excluding the <a href="/w/craig-law-and-the-evil-god">illogical idea of an immoral God</a>):</p>

<p><strong>5. If God exists as the ultimate standard of perfect morality, but Christianity is false and is proved false, is that good?</strong></p>

<ul>
	<li>In this case, objective goodness exists, and knowing the truth is still objectively good, so knowing that Christianity was false (if it were false) would be good in the sense that knowing truth is good. But subjectively, I would not prefer a worldview in which the gospel was not true or where God was not triune. There are too many implications <a href="/w/how-can-god-forgive-me-">for our salvation</a> and even <a href="/w/why-does-it-matter-if-god-is-a-trinity-">for God’s character</a> (e.g., God would not be just if He forgave us without satisfying His perfect justice, and one can’t love unless there’s another person to love, so a unitarian God would need to create someone else in order to <em>begin</em> to love). It seems to me that a triune God, in which one of the Persons takes on human nature and humbles Himself to the point of death for the sake of those who don’t deserve it “because of His great love with which He loved us” (Eph. 2:4–9), is objectively better than a unitarian God who does not save people in that way. I firmly believe the Christian God is <em>objectively</em> more beautiful than any other possible option, such that if God is the greatest possible being, then God must be the Christian God. But if Christianity were false, then that would turn out to be only my mistaken, subjective preference.</li>
	<li>Objectively good: Yes</li>
	<li>Subjectively good: No</li>
</ul>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwould-proving-christianity-false-be-a-good-or-bad-thing-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwould-proving-christianity-false-be-a-good-or-bad-thing-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwould-proving-christianity-false-be-a-good-or-bad-thing-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Study Latin?
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 09/10/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-study-latin-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Latin, we’re told, is a dead language. No one speaks it. Why bother learning it?</p>

<p>Dead, huh? Ironically, the word for “dead” in Latin is <em>mors</em>, <em>mortis, </em>which is where we get the English words mortal, morbid, immortal, mortician, mortuary, post-mortem, rigor mortis, and mortgage (yes, mortgages can be killers). For such a “dead” language, it sure seems to be alive in the words we use today.</p>

<p>Recently, my wife gave a presentation to a classical homeschool community group on the importance of studying Latin—basically an apologetic for the Latin language and why teaching it to our students is valuable. I loved it so much that I snagged her notes (shhh…don’t tell) and have provided a snippet of it below.</p>

<h2>Five Benefits of Studying Latin</h2>

<p><strong>#1: Latin is foundational.</strong></p>

<p>Latin is one of the most influential languages in human history. Until the 1920s, Latin was required in schools. For 1,000 years, Latin was <em>the</em> language of educated people. Even the ancient Greek and Hebrew ideas were translated into Latin and handed down to us. Because of this, we find Latin words or derivatives in so many areas of study. In the sciences, we can understand the reason why more than one fungus is called fungi and more than one bacterium is called bacteria. Even some modern words in the field of science come from Latin, like “computer,” which comes from <em>computo</em>, which means to count or sum up.</p>

<p>With the knowledge of Latin, we can understand words commonly used in law like subpoena (under penalty) and habeas corpus (you shall have the body in court) or in government like veto (I forbid). In logic, we can understand logic terms like <em>a priori</em> (from what is before) or <em>non-sequitur</em> (it does not follow). Latin illuminates theology when we understand the <a href="https://www.str.org/article/imago-dei-man" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em>Imago Dei</em></a> and that the world was created <a href="https://www.str.org/videos/challenge-response-you-think-something-came-from-nothing" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em>ex nihilo</em></a>. Latin is also the root of all the Romance languages, which are German, French, Italian, Romanian, Portuguese, and Spanish. With a command of Latin, these languages become easy to pick up.</p>

<p><strong>#2: Latin grammar is straightforward.</strong></p>

<p>Compared to other languages, Latin has a small number of grammar rules that explain the entire language’s usage. Other languages have countless irregularities, which make them difficult to master. It is doable to study Latin well because Latin is systematic, organized, and follows the rules.</p>

<p><strong>#3: Latin helps us understand English and its correct usage.</strong></p>

<p>English is a mix of English and Latin. So, 50% of our one-syllable English words are from Latin, and 90% of our two-to-five syllable words are from Latin. As I mentioned earlier, the Latin word for “death” is <em>mors</em> and <em>mortis</em>. From this one word comes rigor mortis, mortal, morbid, mortuary, post-mortem, mortify, and mortgage. A Latin-proficient reader who has never seen these English words would be able to discern the meaning from the Latin. Reading comprehension expands exponentially. In fact, SAT scores for those who study Latin are consistently higher in reading, writing, and overall scores when compared to those who study German, French, or Spanish.</p>

<p>Before studying Latin with my son, Nathan, I felt blocked in my understanding of the subjunctive mood. It was beyond my reach. Understanding the subjunctive mood in Latin helped me wrap my mind around it in English. I haven’t arrived, yet, but there’s hope. Latin clarifies our English grammar. English is so familiar to us, and the grammar rules are broken in common usage. In the recent movie <em>The Greatest Showman</em>, when we hear the song “This Is Me,” most people don’t even notice anything awry. That’s because English is an uninflected language. However, in studying an inflected language, like Latin, proper grammar is the only way it works. The hidden grammar rules that aren’t consistently followed in English come to full light in the study of Latin. The correct grammar would be “This Is I” instead of “This is me” since we must choose the nominative case in the predicate after a linking verb. Latin is consistent and can show us our errors in English. Just like Spider-Man has “spidey sense,” Latin can give us “language sense.”</p>

<p><strong>#4: Latin frees us to discover the roots of our Western civilization in the original documents.</strong></p>

<p>In our classical homeschool community, students read the Latin original writings of Caesar and Cicero. Even though not all their ideas are correct, they are the ideas that shaped our Western civilization. Reading in the original is the only way to fully appreciate the rhetorical skill of Cicero and understand Stoic ideals in the way the Romans understood them. In reading Caesar, we can appreciate the discipline and foresight of the Romans. Our students also read selections from the Aeneid, the Magna Carta, Newton’s laws, and Scripture. With the grammar and vocabulary memorized, translating these documents is possible.</p>

<p><strong>#5: Latin benefits our souls by training our minds and bringing us joy.</strong></p>

<p>We live in a world that is over-concerned with utility and efficiency. Even though I’ve shown Latin is both useful and efficient to learn, those two qualities won’t be enough to propel us to persevere. If we believe education is for life and not merely for a job, if we have a zeal for truth and not merely for checking boxes, and if we have a desire for excellence and not merely for squeaking by, then we won’t neglect our study of Latin. Learning Latin requires the skills of patience, precision, accuracy, and attention to detail. These habits of the mind are formational. If you’ve put in the hard work of translating a sentence that takes you on a journey of 14 different mental turns and finally come to the right answer, you can’t help but feel joyful! It’s akin to the feeling you get when you solve a difficult math problem. These soul benefits make Latin an essential element of an ideal curriculum.</p>

<p>Sources:</p>

<ul>
	<li><em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Climbing-Parnassus-Apologia-Greek-Latin/dp/1933859504/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Climbing+Parnassus%3A+A+New+Apologia+for+Greek+and+Lati&amp;qid=1568070489&amp;s=gateway&amp;sr=8-1-spell">Climbing Parnassus: A New Apologia for Greek and Latin</a> </em>by Tracy Lee Simmons</li>
	<li>“<a href="https://www.memoriapress.com/articles/top-10-reasons-studying-latin/">Top 10 Reasons for Studying Latin</a>,” by Cheryl Lowe, Memoria Press</li>
</ul>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-study-latin-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-study-latin-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-study-latin-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: When a Mentor Walks Away from Christianity
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 09/11/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/when-a-mentor-walks-away-from-christianity
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When a mentor you have looked up to walks away from Christianity—especially when sin is involved—the result can be grief, confusion, doubt, and even fear that it could happen to you. After all, it’s hard not to think, “If <em>that person</em> who seemed to have it all together walked away from Christ, what hope do <em>I </em>have?”</p>

<p>Based on questions I’ve been receiving, I can see that many people have been unsettled by Joshua Harris’s <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B0ZBrNLH2sl/">announcement</a> that he is no longer a Christian. How should we think about his leaving Christianity? How could this happen? Could it happen to me?</p>

<p>The person whose life moved me to want to become a Christian left the faith several years ago, so I understand how disorienting this can be. The truth is that we can’t know what’s in a person’s heart—what he believes and why. It’s easy to assume that everyone at your church is a Christian, but there are those who are part of Christian congregations—and sometimes even leaders—who are there for other reasons. Maybe that’s all they’ve known, and it’s just what they’ve learned to do. Maybe it’s a cultural lifestyle for them. Maybe they want to fit in, please their parents, or feel good about themselves. As Hebrews 3–6 points out, even those who were in the Exodus, who saw God’s dramatic miracles, died in the wilderness without entering the Promised Land because they didn’t unite what they saw of God with trust (i.e., faith) in Him.</p>

<p>In the same way today, there are <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13%3A24-30&amp;version=NASB">tares growing among the wheat</a> even in the church—people who aren’t really trusting in God, even if they know all the right things to say. But eventually, any person who doesn’t have true faith will fall away. No one can keep up a Christian lifestyle who isn’t fully loving God and trusting in His work of grace for us. Pressure to be holy and the weight of guilt will become too much if one doesn’t fully believe the gospel of grace. And pressure from the culture will become too much if one doesn’t love God enough to withstand the culture’s constant demands that we conform to its values.</p>

<p>I’ve found that when a person goes through intense suffering (whether from tragedy, guilt, or cultural pressure), the suffering will push him decisively to one corner or the other—either away from God or towards Him. (My friend left shortly after the death of a child. I’ve seen divorce accomplish the same.) I wrote a little about this idea of suffering bringing out the true condition of our hearts <a href="/w/christians-don-t-view-jesus-as-a-means-to-an-end">here</a>. At the point of intense suffering, we either discover that we really do believe what God says and trust Him (even when we don’t understand why He didn’t prevent the suffering), or we decide He isn’t really there (or doesn’t care about us) and walk away.</p>

<p>I truly believe <a href="/w/losing-your-salvation-in-ephesians-1-14-3">no one loses his salvation</a>. This is why 1 John 2:19 says, “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; <em>for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us</em>; but they went out so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.” Personal guilt, pressure from the culture, and suffering will not <em>cause</em> a person to lose his salvation; they will merely bring out the truth about his heart. Time will tell if faith and salvation are genuine.</p>

<p>We see both aspects of this—that we will not lose our salvation, and that suffering reveals the truth of our salvation—in 1 Peter 1:3–9. First, because of “His great mercy,”</p>

<blockquote>
<p><em>[God] has caused us to be born again</em> to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, <em>reserved in heaven for you</em>, who are <em>protected by the power of God </em>through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In other words, salvation has been <em>reserved</em> for those who are born again. This is because not only has <em>God</em> caused us to be born again, but He is also protecting that salvation by His power—the kind of power that raises people from the dead. God’s power is at the root of our salvation and rebirth, and His power ensures our perseverance. Thank God (and I mean that literally) our salvation doesn’t depend on us, weak as we are!</p>

<p>Second, continuing in 1 Peter 1, we see that suffering reveals the value and imperishable nature of our salvation:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In this [i.e., Peter’s words about the salvation reserved for us] you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We persevere because of our love for Christ, and we have love for Christ because of the power of God. The perseverance of our love shows the world that His value far exceeds any suffering we’re going through, and it proves we love and trust Him above all else. This brings God glory.</p>

<p>Now, God <em>calls us </em>to persevere as well as tells that we will. This is because He uses means to keep us in Him. It’s good to think through <a href="/w/what-you-need-to-know-about-evil-and-suffering">your understanding of suffering</a> <em>before</em> you go through suffering. It’s good to spend time communing with God and learning about who He is through prayer and reading His words. It’s good to resist temptations, confess sins, and embrace God’s gracious forgiveness. It’s good to work at increasing and exercising your trust in God. It’s good to confront your doubts and look for answers to your questions. And it’s good to spend time in worship and fellowship with other believers. These are the things God has called us to, the means He uses to mature us, strengthen us, and enable our perseverance. But in all these things, we rest in God’s grace and power, knowing that “no one will snatch [us] out of [His] hand” (John 10:28).</p>

<p>As for what we learned from our mentors before they left Christ, even an unsaved person can tell others true things, including wisdom from the Bible and even the gospel (see <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil+1%3A15-18&amp;version=NASB">Philippians 1:15–18</a>, for example). The fact that a respected mentor has walked away from Christianity shouldn’t automatically cause us to reject the things he taught. We should consider whether or not his teachings were <em>true, </em>and this we do by measuring the teachings themselves rather than the person who taught them to us. Don’t let this discourage you. It’s a testimony to God’s power, and it’s to His glory, that He uses all sorts of people in our lives for His purposes, regardless of their motivations.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-a-mentor-walks-away-from-christianity" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-a-mentor-walks-away-from-christianity" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhen-a-mentor-walks-away-from-christianity" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What Does It Mean to “Believe” in “God?”
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 08/27/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-does-it-mean-to-believe-in-god-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I recently came across a video clip of Jordan Peterson addressing a question he’s often asked: Do you believe in God? He said he doesn’t like that question because he doesn’t know what the questioner means by “believe” or “God.”</p>

<p>We live in a funny world. One would think that such a simple question could be answered with a simple answer: yes or no. But words like “believe” and “God” are not understood by everyone in the same way. I’ve found that questions like the one asked of Peterson (and countless others) still require clarification. The best way to get clarity, in my opinion, is to use the <a href="https://www.str.org/articles/the-columbo-tactic" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Columbo Tactic</a> and ask, “What do you mean by that?” Whether I believe in God or not depends entirely on what they mean by “believe” and what they mean by “God.”</p>

<p>By “believe,” they could mean:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Blind faith</li>
	<li>Wishful thinking</li>
	<li>Accepting something that’s contrary to logic or reason</li>
	<li>Hope</li>
	<li>Mustering up sheer will</li>
</ul>

<p>If one of those definitions is what they mean, then, no, I don't <em>believe</em> in God. If, however, “believe” is taken to mean an act of the will where you accept a claim based on good reason (which is similar to the biblical definition), then I do <em>believe</em>.</p>

<p>But their definition of God is also critical. Their understanding of God could be:</p>

<ul>
	<li>An old man in the sky</li>
	<li>A mythological being similar to Zeus or Thor</li>
	<li>An angry being that throws lightning bolts at bad people</li>
	<li>An anti-gay, anti-science, misogynistic bully in Heaven</li>
	<li>Richard Dawkins’s definition of God</li>
</ul>

<p>If their definition of God is any one of those definitions (and quite possibly many more), then I don’t believe in <em>that </em>God, either. If they’re talking about the biblical God (of course, no one has a perfect understanding of God, but I’m talking in general about the God referenced in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures), then that’s the God I <em>do </em>believe in.</p>

<p>Remember, asking a clarifying Columbo question is good for many reasons. As I’ve mentioned, it will clarify definitions, which is critical. You both need to be sure you’re talking about the same thing. You don’t want to inadvertently concede you blindly believe in a bolt-throwing, angry being in the sky. Second, it’s interactive and engaging. People prefer to go back and forth in a discussion and don’t necessarily want to hear a monologue. They’ll be more engaged when they can participate in a constructive discussion. Third, it builds relationships. Sharing your view, receiving and offering feedback, and engaging people in ultimate questions demonstrates vulnerability and opens your soul up to another person. That’s part of the stuff that friendships are made of, and building them is a beautiful thing.</p>

<p>Words and their meanings are important. Clarifying definitions brings clarity to confusion and brings harmony to the conversation.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-does-it-mean-to-believe-in-god-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-does-it-mean-to-believe-in-god-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-does-it-mean-to-believe-in-god-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: You Won’t Know You’re Faithful until You’re Tested
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/15/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/you-won-t-know-you-re-faithful-until-you-re-tested
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In “<a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/another-pop-culture-christian-loses-his-faith/?utm_source=Sailthru&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202019-08-13&amp;utm_term=NRDaily-Smart">Another Pop-Culture Christian Loses His Faith</a>,” David French reminds us that none of us will know we have the courage to remain faithful until we’re tested:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In my travels around the country, one thing has become crystal clear to me. Christians are not prepared for the social consequences of the profound cultural shifts—especially in more secular parts of the nation. They’re afraid to say what they believe, not because they face the kind of persecution that Christians face overseas but because they’re simply not prepared for any meaningful adverse consequences in their careers or with their peers.</p>

<p>C. S. Lewis famously said that courage is the “form of every virtue at its testing point.” In practical application, this means that no person truly knows if he possesses any virtue until it’s tested. Do you think you’re loving? You’ll know you truly love another person only when loving that person is hard. Do you think you’re truthful? You’ll know only when telling the truth hurts. Soldiers are familiar with this phenomenon—most men who travel to the battlefield believe themselves to be brave, but they <em>know</em> they’re brave only if they do their duty when their life is on the line.</p>

<p>Earlier this summer, I spoke at an event in Georgia and discussed what I called the “courage cure to political correctness.” Are you afraid? Speak anyway, with humility, grace, and conviction. The law protects, but the culture resists you….</p>

<p>Are you faithful? I’d submit that you don’t know until that faith is truly tested—either in dramatic moments of crisis or in the slow, steady buildup of worldly pressure and secular scorn.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A slow buildup of scorn, day in and day out, can be harder to withstand than a dramatic incident of persecution. How does one gain the courage we’re all going to need? First, pray for true courage. Second, start exercising the courage you have now to increase its strength. Third, and most importantly, increase your confidence in and love for God. This we do mainly by reading about who God is and what He’s done in the words He inspired in order to reveal Himself to us. No person will continue to stand with someone he doesn’t love when to do so starts to cost him something. And no person can love someone he doesn’t know.</p>

<p>Do you want courage to stand with God? Know Him. Know who He is, know what He’s done, and know the reasons we have to think He is real and Christianity is true. And do this in community with other Christians who are seeking to do the same. The courage will come.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-won-t-know-you-re-faithful-until-you-re-tested" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-won-t-know-you-re-faithful-until-you-re-tested" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyou-won-t-know-you-re-faithful-until-you-re-tested" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How to Kill Your Anger so You Can Represent Christ to the World
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/28/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-to-kill-your-anger-so-you-can-represent-christ-to-the-world
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Our culture is angry. You only have to be on social media for five minutes to see this is true. And the amount of anger we’re seeing will only increase as the various sides of our culture move farther and farther apart from each other. The first response to disagreement, particularly online, is often anger, and herein lies a danger for all of us who are engaging people with apologetics: It’s easy to fall right into that cultural pattern in our <em>own</em> responses to people. This is something we need to fight.</p>

<p>Lest anyone think all anger must be expressed in order for one to be “healthy,” it’s important to note that ignoring your anger is not the same thing as fighting and killing it, though both are attempts to avoid expressing that anger against others. The first will only cause the anger to build up until you can’t ignore it anymore. The second dispenses with it in a way that glorifies God and respects the people around you.</p>

<p>We’re called to respond to people as Christ did, who “while being reviled…did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats” (1 Pet. 2:23). We’re to “malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men.” Why? Because</p>

<blockquote>
<p>we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy…so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=tit+3%3A1-7&amp;version=NASB">Titus 3:2–7</a>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In other words, we’re to do this “since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps” (1 Pet. 2:21). We’re to do this so that we represent Christ well to the world—our very behavior when we respond with grace is an apologetic.</p>

<p>So how do we fight and kill the anger we feel when frustrated by rudeness, mockery, and other annoyances in our apologetics interactions? I came across “<a href="https://theblazingcenter.com/2019/08/how-can-i-overcome-anger.html?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=how-can-i-overcome-anger">6 Powerful Keys to Overcoming Anger</a>” by Mark Altrogge, and I think it’s very insightful. Every one of you should read through it. Here are some highlights:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Remember that anger is a sin (and thus, you need to fight it).</li>
	<li>Ask yourself, “What is it that I want right now that I’m not getting?” (Answer: “I want all things in this world to serve me.”)</li>
	<li>Take the log out of your own eye. (Which of us hasn’t failed the way others fail us?)</li>
	<li>Forgive others. (As Altrogge says, “If anyone had the right to not forgive others, it was Jesus.”)</li>
	<li>Pray for those who sin against you. (“We can’t hold on to anger when we are asking God to bless someone who has offended us.”)</li>
</ul>

<p>His summary is right on the money:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>God is transforming us each day to become more and more like Jesus. When we forgive others, when we put our anger to death, when we love and bless and do good to others we bring glory to God. And that’s what it’s all about. It’s not about our vindication or getting what we want or having others treat us the way we think we deserve, but it is about bringing glory to God.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Honestly, the above highlights don’t do the article justice. You should definitely read the <a href="https://theblazingcenter.com/2019/08/how-can-i-overcome-anger.html?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=how-can-i-overcome-anger">whole thing</a>. I’ve bookmarked it and intend to read it regularly.</p>

<p>There’s one more thing I’d like to add to Altrogge’s points. Sometimes I receive this response from people who hear us advocating a <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=tit+3%3A1-7&amp;version=NASB">Titus 3</a> approach to engaging people in our culture: If we don’t fight anger with anger, we’ll lose! We can’t drop all the weapons people will turn around and use against us!</p>

<p>But that’s exactly what we <em>must</em> do, because that’s what Jesus did. Continuing in 1 Peter 2:23, we see that “while suffering, He uttered no threats, <em>but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously</em>.” Will people wrongly malign you and use their anger to turn others against you? Yes. Undoubtedly. But by not retaliating, we are entrusting ourselves to the righteous Judge of the universe. Let Him take care of justice in these situations. We, on the other hand, do as Christ did because that’s what <em>we’re</em> called to do. Jesus didn’t “lose,” and neither will imitating Him be a loss, regardless of how others treat us or how it turns out for us. As Peter also says, “If when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God” (1 Pet. 2:20).</p>

<p>We do all this so that our behavior will represent Christ, who “bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed” (1 Pet. 2:24). Our hope is that as we represent Christ by responding with grace, by <em>our</em> wounds others will see <em>Christ’s</em> and be healed.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-kill-your-anger-so-you-can-represent-christ-to-the-world" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-kill-your-anger-so-you-can-represent-christ-to-the-world" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-to-kill-your-anger-so-you-can-represent-christ-to-the-world" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Miracles of Materialism
topic: Philosophy
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 09/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-miracles-of-materialism
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Atheists have long derided Christians for believing in miracles. They’re impossible, they say. Jesus can’t turn water into wine, and Moses can’t part the Red Sea. The Bible makes ridiculous claims about impossible events. They <em>can’t</em> be true.</p>

<p>But atheists need to look no further than their own worldview, materialism, to find miracle claims. Their view entails that matter is all there is. There are no souls, angels, or God. There is no cosmic intelligence. Nothing immaterial exists. If something does exist, it’s physical and made up of matter. Once this position is understood, it becomes evident that the atheist’s materialistic worldview makes several miracle claims to explain reality. Here are just three of them.</p>

<p><strong>#1: It would be a miracle for the universe to come from nothing.</strong> As the law of conservation of mass states, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Despite this well-known law, atheists believe that all of space, time, and matter came into existence from nothing and by no one. How can this be possible? If you have nothing to begin with, then you’ll have nothing in the process and nothing in the end. From nothing, nothing comes. Despite this commonsensical idea, notable MIT physicist Lawrence Krauss titled his book<em> A Universe from Nothing.</em> That’s bold. How could you get even one atom, let alone a planet or the entire universe, from nothing? There’s no material to begin with, there’s no time to do any work, and there’s no one to do the working. Nothing would yield an eternity of nothing. According to the atheist worldview of materialism, however, miracles are apparently possible. The absence of something created the presence of everything. Not only did matter appear out of nowhere, but it managed to fabricate a universe that creates and sustains human life without the help of anyone. That means nothing made something and no one made someone. It’s the ultimate free lunch. But creating the universe is only the first problem.</p>

<p><strong>#2: It would be a miracle for the information in DNA to arise without an intelligence.</strong> Every time you come across information, you reasonably conclude it came from someone. Books are written by authors, and paintings are painted by painters. If it contains information, it never arises on its own. Our universal experience is that information comes from intelligent agents.</p>

<p>DNA is an information storage medium in your cells that contains the design blueprints for every part of your body. Its data is passed on to miniature factories that create your cells, tissues, and organs. The capacity of DNA to store information rivals any man-made medium. According to biologist Michael Denton, “The information necessary to specify the design of all the species of organisms which have ever existed on the planet…could be held in a teaspoon and there would still be room left for all the information in every book ever written.” That blows away the capacity of a hard drive.</p>

<p>Bill Gates, co-founder of the software giant Microsoft, once wrote, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” Gates’s analogy is telling. Software programs are written by intelligent agents known as programmers. No program—not even the smallest smartphone app—ever programmed itself. Every software application requires a mind to write its code.</p>

<p>Yet, according to the worldview of materialism, there is no God and, therefore, no intelligence or mind. All the information and design code found in DNA came from no person, God, or intelligence. It arose from an entirely mindless and chance process. This is truly miraculous.</p>

<p><strong>#3: It would be a miracle for humans to develop free will. </strong>Remember that the atheist worldview of materialism says that matter is all there is. Humans don’t have a soul, an immaterial part of who we are. We’re composed merely of physical tissue. But if that atheist description is correct, then it would be impossible for humans to have free will. That’s because physical objects, no matter how complex they are, don’t have the capacity for free will. A billiard ball, for example, can’t change direction on its own. It doesn’t have free will. Its movement is dependent on the forces of physics. Something more physically complex, like a stapler, has the same limitation. The same would also be true of a car, which is far more complex. Increasing the complexity of a physical object doesn’t increase the capacity for free will. That’s why a human, who is magnitudes more complex, can’t have free will, either, because he is also just a physical object.</p>

<p>Free will, however, is a quality that everyone experiences. There would have to be an immaterial “part” of humans—a center of consciousness—for there to be a “place” where free will can exist. Since materialism asserts there is nothing immaterial, human beings can’t—even in principle—have free will. That’s why it would be a miracle for humans to develop it if the materialistic worldview of atheism is true.</p>

<p>These miracles of materialism are more miraculous than any biblical story. That’s because atheism demands they be possible despite the materialistic worldview being impotent to do any such thing. If the biblical worldview is true, however, then there is a God who created the universe and its laws. Miracles would be possible because He could bend or suspend those laws. Heal a leper? Piece of cake. Turn water into wine? No problem. Part the Red Sea? Child’s play. All things are possible with God.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-miracles-of-materialism" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-miracles-of-materialism" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-miracles-of-materialism" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Greg’s Message to His School Board Regarding Proposed Sex Ed Curriculum
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 09/05/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/greg-s-message-to-his-school-board-regarding-proposed-sex-ed-curriculum
content:
            <div> 
		<p><em>[On <a href="https://www.str.org/podcasts/school-boards-shouldnt-force-their-parochial-values-everyone#.XXAuipNKjdc">yesterday’s podcast</a>, Greg talked about a statement he wrote to be read at a local school board meeting at which a proposed sex ed curriculum was to be discussed. He encouraged Christians to speak up at events like these and offered some advice on what to say and how to say it (in particular, that we ought to use their own rationale and values—such as diversity and multiculturalism—to make our appeal). Below is Greg’s statement.]</em></p>

<p>We are a diverse community, and the school board values diversity. That means there are diverse understandings about controversial issues like human sexuality.</p>

<p>Traditionally, parents have been the ones to carefully inform their children about these issues at a time and in a way appropriate for their age, and within the protected environment of the family. The government—represented here by the school board—has not traditionally been allowed to interfere with educating issues so critical to family and so appropriate to private parental nurturing of their children. To do so would be to have individual family beliefs and values overridden by whatever group happened to be in power at the time.</p>

<p>No one set of personal values should be allowed to dictate the beliefs of our children in a public education system that includes such diverse groups as Muslims, and Christians, and Orthodox Jews, and Buddhists, and humanists, and atheists, and so many others.</p>

<p>Public values shared by all, on the other hand—values like honesty, kindness, truth seeking, integrity, respect, etc.—should be encouraged by all, including the schools, since they are agreed upon by all and are not controversial.</p>

<p>However, contentious and divisive personal views should not be forced upon our children. This is indoctrination and replaces the parent’s rightful role.</p>

<p>When government takes over the responsibility of informing our children’s private and personal moral values instead of the parents and individual families doing so, it is a step towards oppression and a significant and serious violation of the diversity and multicultural respect the school board stands for.</p>

<p>If any group in power gets to force <em>their</em> personal values on <em>our</em> kids, then when a different group gets power, they will be able to force <em>their</em> personal values on <em>that group’s</em> kids. Neither is consistent with diversity, tolerance, or appropriate American liberty.</p>

<p>Please, I respectfully implore you: Leave that job to the parents of the children that belong to them…and not to the state.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p><em>[You can hear the rest of Greg’s advice for speaking up at your own public school board meetings <a href="https://www.str.org/podcasts/school-boards-shouldnt-force-their-parochial-values-everyone#.XXAuipNKjdc">here</a>.]</em></p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgreg-s-message-to-his-school-board-regarding-proposed-sex-ed-curriculum" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgreg-s-message-to-his-school-board-regarding-proposed-sex-ed-curriculum" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgreg-s-message-to-his-school-board-regarding-proposed-sex-ed-curriculum" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Myth That Same-Sex Parenting Makes No Difference
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 08/14/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-myth-that-same-sex-parenting-makes-no-difference
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It’s often claimed there’s no difference in the lives of children raised by same-sex couples when compared to the lives of children raised by heterosexual couples. Recent <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30888553" rel="noopener" target="_blank">research</a> published in the <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, drawing on the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, suggests there is a difference. The children raised by lesbian couples were compared with a sample of children from the 2013–2015 National Survey of Family Growth, which is a nationally representative database of families.</p>

<p>It turns out—not surprisingly in my opinion—that same-sex parenting <em>does</em> affect children. Of adult female children <em>not </em>raised by lesbian couples, 87.8% identified as “heterosexual or straight” while only 70.3% of children raised by lesbian couples identified as “heterosexual or straight.” Of adult male children <em>not </em>raised by lesbian couples, 97.6% identified as “heterosexual or straight” while only 89.7% of children raised by lesbian couples identified as “heterosexual or straight.” The researchers concluded that “25-year-old offspring of lesbian parents were significantly more likely to report same-sex attraction, sexual minority identity, and same-sex sexual experiences.”</p>

<p>It’s probably no longer a major concern in people’s minds whether same-sex parenting has any effect (whatever that effect might be) on children. The “no difference” myth was believed long enough. Same-sex marriage is now legal and, consequently, so is same-sex parenting. Since demonstrating that same-sex parenting affects children won’t likely jeopardize same-sex marriage laws or policy very much, it won’t surprise me if additional research continues to dispel the “no difference” myth. It does make me wonder, however, what other “conventional wisdom” our culture believes about homosexuality, same-sex marriage, same-sex parenting, and fluidity in sexual attractions will go out the door if it’s fairly researched.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-myth-that-same-sex-parenting-makes-no-difference" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-myth-that-same-sex-parenting-makes-no-difference" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-myth-that-same-sex-parenting-makes-no-difference" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Tribute to One of the Greatest Christian Apologists
topic: Announcements
author: Tim Barnett
date: 07/04/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/tribute-one-greatest-christian-apologists
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Dr. Norm Geisler’s <a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2019/july/died-apologist-norman-geisler-apologist-seminary-ses-theolo.html" rel="" target="" title="">death</a> has me reflecting on his life. I had the privilege of taking three courses with Geisler at Southern Evangelical Seminary. In fact, he was the main reason I chose to study there. The man was brilliant, articulate, and funny—an incredible combination. He was a professor who had the ability to communicate to the man in the pew. And he was one of my heroes.</p>

<p>After working five years in full-time apologetics ministry, I’ve come to realize what I appreciate most about Geisler’s life: <em>his sacrifice.</em></p>

<p>I remember dreaming about being a professional apologist. Traveling the world. Speaking to audiences. Building the Kingdom. It all sounds so glamorous. It’s not.</p>

<p>Ministry is hard. There is a great cost to doing this kind of work. True, there is much to be gained. We see believers grow in their faith. We see unbelievers come to Christ. However, there is a deep personal cost to all of this. Missed birthdays. Missed “firsts” from your children. Missed family functions. Missed weekly church attendance.</p>

<p>This is the side of Geisler’s ministry that is invisible to most of us.</p>

<p>Now, when I think about Geisler’s life—decades of service defending the gospel—I don’t think about the books, events, and accolades. I think about his sacrifice.</p>

<p>On more than one occasion, I heard Geisler say that Philippians 1:21 was his life verse. In fact, he said this verse would be engraved on his tombstone. Paul writes, “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”</p>

<p>Paul goes on to say,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. (Phil. 1:22–24)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This verse fits Geisler’s life perfectly. Every day—right up until Christ called him home—Geisler fruitfully labored. And we are far better for it.</p>

<p>Many people think about retirement at 65 (or earlier, if possible). But not men like Geisler. Men like Geisler don’t retire—not willingly, anyway. Instead, they keep laboring until their promotion.</p>

<p>Congratulations on the promotion, Dr. Geisler. Now it’s time for you to rest and be with Christ. Your students will take it from here.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftribute-one-greatest-christian-apologists" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftribute-one-greatest-christian-apologists" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftribute-one-greatest-christian-apologists" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Stop What You’re Doing and Watch Science Uprising
topic: Science
author: Tim Barnett
date: 07/09/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/stop-what-youre-doing-and-watch-science-uprising
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The <em>naturalistic worldview</em> flourishes on YouTube. In fact, many notable naturalists—those who believe nothing exists beyond the natural world—have YouTube channels with huge followings. This enables them to promote naturalism to a broad audience.</p>

<p>Of course, naturalism has serious problems. Whole books have been written to show the weaknesses in this worldview. The problem is, many people aren’t reading these books. Instead, they are watching YouTube.</p>

<p>This is why I’m so excited about a video project called <a href="https://scienceuprising.com/">Science Uprising</a> put out by the <a href="https://www.discovery.org/">Discovery Institute</a>. This provocative YouTube series challenges naturalism head on in an educational and engaging way.</p>

<p>Each episode is about 6–8 minutes long and focuses on an area of reality that naturalism <em>cannot</em> reasonably explain. The <a href="https://scienceuprising.com/about/">topics</a> include the existence of free will, the existence of the immaterial <a href="https://scienceuprising.com/mind/">mind</a>, the <a href="https://scienceuprising.com/origin-of-life/">origin of life</a>, the <a href="https://scienceuprising.com/fine-tuning/">fine-tuning</a> of the universe for life, the destructive power of mutations, and human evolution.</p>

<p>Taken individually, naturalism is left clinging to the ropes. But, taken collectively, <a href="https://scienceuprising.com/">Science Uprising</a> delivers a knockout blow to this failed philosophy.</p>

<p>You can watch each episode directly at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-">YouTube</a> or at <a href="http://www.scienceuprising.com/" id="" rel="" target="" title="">ScienceUprising.com</a>.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="uscf7__OyoU" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uscf7__OyoU?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstop-what-youre-doing-and-watch-science-uprising" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstop-what-youre-doing-and-watch-science-uprising" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fstop-what-youre-doing-and-watch-science-uprising" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Adam Harwood’s Argument against Original Guilt
topic: Theology
author: Tim Barnett
date: 08/08/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/adam-harwood-s-argument-against-original-guilt
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It’s good to read books you might not agree with. Sometimes they help strengthen your current view. Other times they change your view altogether. In either case, they give you something to think about—they put a stone in your shoe.</p>

<p>I recently read through <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Condition-Infants-Biblical-Historical-Systematic/dp/1608998444">The Spiritual Condition of Infants: A Biblical-Historical Survey and Systematic Proposal</a></em> by Adam Harwood. And it’s got me thinking.</p>

<p>The thesis of Harwood’s book directly relates to an important question: <em>What happens to infants when they die?</em> Describing his project, he says, “For those readers who have been reading through this book waiting for a declarative statement on the spiritual condition of infants, here it is: Infants are sin-stained, not guilty. Infants are not sinless because they inherit a sinful nature. But infants are not guilty because God judges our thoughts, attitudes, and actions, not our nature.”</p>

<p>So, Harwood’s book challenges the notion that infants are guilty before God.</p>

<h2>Infants and Guilt</h2>

<p>Harwood makes a distinction between <em>inheriting a sinful nature</em> from Adam and <em>inheriting guilt</em> from Adam. He believes only the former is taught in Scripture.</p>

<p>Harwood agrees that everyone has a sinful nature—including infants (Ps. 51:5). This is different from Pelagianism, which holds that people are born <em>without</em> sin. Pelagius argued that people were not born with an inherited sin nature, and, therefore, could avoid committing sin. Harwood contends that inherited sin makes it impossible not to sin.</p>

<p>Those who believe in inherited <em>guilt</em> usually cite Romans 5 as a key text. Harwood devotes a chapter to how he understands Romans 5:12–21.</p>

<p>For the purpose of this synopsis, let’s look briefly at Romans 5:18–19. Paul writes, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18–19).</p>

<p>Many take this passage to mean that Adam’s guilt is <em>immediately</em> inherited to all men—including infants. However, others disagree. For instance, in <em>How Shall They Be Saved? </em>systematic theologian Millard Erickson says, “Until the first conscious or responsible moral action or decision by a person, there is no imputation of the Adamic sin, just as there is no imputation of Christ’s righteousness until there is a conscious acceptance of that work.”</p>

<p>In both cases, Erickson argues, human <em>ratification</em> is necessary. Indeed, this is part of the parallel between the work of Adam and the work of Christ. Harwood states, “Just as it is necessary for humans to <em>ratify</em> the work of Christ by <em>appropriating</em> the salvation offered by Christ, it is likewise necessary to ratify the sin of Adam in order to fall under condemnation and guilt.”</p>

<h2>Infants and Death</h2>

<p>If Harwood is correct, and there is no inherited guilt, <em>then why do infants die?</em> It’s a great question. For Harwood, infant death is not a <em>judgment</em> for an infant’s guilt; rather, it’s a <em>consequence</em> of Adam’s sin.</p>

<p>There seems to be a biblical principle that people are not held <em>guilty</em> for the sin of another person—even though they may suffer certain consequences from another person’s actions.</p>

<p>Speaking through the prophet Ezekiel, God says, “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezek. 18:20). God is communicating how justice is supposed to work.</p>

<p>Working from this justice principle, Harwood says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>So a person is not held responsible for the sins of <em>another</em> person, but only for <em>his own</em> transgressions. That means that a person would not be held guilty for the sin of Adam in the same way that he is not held guilty for the sin of his parents or grandparents. Are there consequences of the sins of others that can affect us? Yes. But that is not the same thing as being counted guilty of sin solely because of the actions of another person.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Furthermore, Harwood makes a distinction between those who are able to make moral judgments and those who cannot. He cites Deuteronomy 1:39–40, which states,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, <em>who today have no knowledge of good or evil,</em> they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it. But as for you, turn, and journey into the wilderness in the direction of the Red Sea.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Harwood says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Although not held guilty for the sins of their fathers, the younger generation nevertheless experienced some of the negative consequences or wages of sin. They wandered in the desert, unable to inherit the Promised Land until the last person of the older generation died. In a similar way, infants today are not held responsible for the actions of previous generations, up to and including Adam.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>According to Harwood, one of those negative consequences—or wages—of Adam’s sin is death.</p>

<h2>Infants and Judgment</h2>

<p>What makes an infant guilty before God? The Bible describes our guilt before God in terms of sinful actions, attitudes, and thoughts. Paul says, “He will render to each one according to his works” (Rom. 2:6) and that “each of us will give an account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12). Therefore, people are accountable to God for their deeds. The book of Revelation says that each will be judged “according to what they had done” (Rev. 20:13).</p>

<p>Salvation is based on God’s grace. Judgment is based on our works. But what works does an infant commit that render him guilty before God?</p>

<p>This seems like a silly question. After all, an infant hasn’t done any sinful actions. As a result, some believe infants are judged <em>according to their sinful nature.</em></p>

<p>According to Harwood, the Bible never says human beings are judged according to their sinful nature<em>.</em> A sinful nature is not the same as a sinful thought, or sinful actions, or a sinful attitude. The nature <em>leads to</em> actions, thoughts, and attitudes, but it is not identical to them.</p>

<p>Harwood contends that only sinful actions, thoughts, and attitudes make someone guilty. For example, the propensity to murder is not the same as the desire to murder or the act of murder.</p>

<h2>Infants and Inclusivism</h2>

<p>Most pastors and theologians believe that some infants—possibly all infants—go to Heaven. As justification for this view, some have cited <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+sam+12%3A23&amp;version=ESV">2 Samuel 12:23</a>, which seems to indicate that David would go to be with his son (presumably in Heaven).</p>

<p>The question is, how do these infants get to Heaven given that they are not capable of putting their faith in Christ?</p>

<p>There seems to be two options. <em>Either</em> faith in Christ is not necessary for infants because they can be saved without explicit faith in Christ, <em>or </em>faith is not necessary for infants because they are not guilty.</p>

<p>The first option entails some variation of <em>inclusivism</em>. Inclusivism is the belief that Christ’s death is necessary for salvation, but explicit faith in Christ is not necessary. However, the Bible clearly teaches faith in Christ is a necessary condition for salvation. The apostle Paul states, “[I]f you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). John says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (Jn. 3:16)</p>

<p>So, salvation requires faith. But biblical faith <em>is</em> trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sins, which requires certain cognitive and moral faculties. Since one-week-old babies lack all the faculties necessary to put their trust&nbsp;in Christ, one must adopt inclusivism (or accept the view that all guilty infants go to Hell).</p>

<p>If you reject inclusivism (as unbiblical), Harwood’s thesis provides another option. He writes,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The argument of this book allows you to maintain both an exclusivist view and a consistent doctrine of salvation. God forgives guilty sinners who explicitly call upon him for salvation. God’s condemnation does not come only to people for hearing of and rejecting Christ. Rather, people are condemned when they act out of their inherited, sinful nature <em>after </em>they become responsible moral agents. The result is that an infant who dies apart from hearing the gospel is safe because he was never under God’s condemnation. However the man who has never heard the gospel remains lost because he met the two conditions above for condemnation.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If you’re interested in the question of infant salvation, you will want to read Harwood’s book. You may not agree with it, but it is guaranteed to put a stone in your shoe.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fadam-harwood-s-argument-against-original-guilt" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fadam-harwood-s-argument-against-original-guilt" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fadam-harwood-s-argument-against-original-guilt" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why the “Sinner’s Prayer” Has Me Concerned...and a Biblical Alternative
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 08/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-the-sinner-s-prayer-has-me-concerned-and-a-biblical-alternative
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Over the years, I’ve become increasingly concerned with one practice of well-meaning Christians: using the “sinner’s prayer” to lead someone to Christ.</p>

<p>The prayer goes something like this: “Lord Jesus, I’m a sinner. I believe You died for my sins so I could be forgiven. I receive You as my Lord and Savior. Thank You for coming into my life. Amen.” The prayer itself is fine. I prayed a version of it myself to start my own walk with Christ, and I’ve used it since to help others trust in Jesus.</p>

<p>It has a liability, though. For example, when I ask a parent if her kids know the Lord, I often hear, “Well, they prayed the prayer.” The kids might be living godless lives, yet the parent’s attitude seems to be, <em>No worries. They said the magic words. They’re in.</em> But maybe they got an inoculation to Christianity and are now immune to the real thing.</p>

<p>Here’s the antidote: Don’t press someone to <em>pray a prayer</em>. Instead, encourage them to <em>follow Jesus</em>. When we emphasize <em>deciding</em> for Christ instead of <em>living</em> for Him, we often get spiritual miscarriages instead of spiritual births.</p>

<p>How, then, do we know if any person truly belongs to Christ? Our confidence comes from three sources.</p>

<p>The first is entirely subjective. The Holy Spirit gives us an ineffable awareness that we belong to God: “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:16). John echoes the same thought: “By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit” (1 Jn. 4:13).</p>

<p>Some put the greatest emphasis on this subjective element, but Scripture emphasizes it the least. The reason why is that it’s the most unreliable. Folks from LDS to New Agers claim this confidence. It’s possible to have tremendous inner tranquility even when in extreme spiritual danger. Conversely, even the sturdiest spiritual warriors have periods of dryness and doubt (e.g., John the Baptist, Matt. 11:2–3). Something more is necessary.</p>

<p>The second source of confidence in salvation is the promise of Scripture based on the merits of Jesus. The New Testament repeats this promise many times, e.g., John 3:16 famously and 1 John 5:13: “These things I have written to you <em>who believe in the name of the Son of God</em>, in order that you may <em>know</em> that you have eternal life.”</p>

<p>The third—and most telling—evidence of salvation is our dogged perseverance in faith and godliness. Paul warns, “If we endure, we will also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He also will deny us” (2 Tim. 2:12). John writes bluntly, “The one who says, ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar” (1 Jn. 2:4). Peter tells us to “be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble” (2 Pet. 1:10).</p>

<p>Faith and holiness are not opposed, but rather go hand in hand. Paul’s insistence on justification by faith alone is so radical it can be mistaken for license, a charge he defends against (Rom. 6:1–2). There’s another side to the coin, though. To paraphrase James 2:26, the human body without breath is nothing but a corpse. The same is true for anyone who <em>says</em> he has faith but doesn’t back it up with a changed life.</p>

<p>Our deepest confidence that we belong to Christ is based on faith in God’s promise, evidenced by our perseverance. It is the engine that pulls the train. Our feelings are the caboose. The caboose is dispensable; the engine is not.</p>

<p>What makes a person sure his salvation is in force? If all he can say is, “I prayed the prayer,” he may be in trouble. If he’s not actively following Jesus, we can give little assurance. The most loving thing we can do for him is give him a sober warning.</p>

<p>The next time you speak to someone about Christ, consider bypassing the sinner’s prayer. There’s no precedence for it in the Bible anyway. In the New Testament, baptism served the function of heralding one’s entry into the body of Christ.</p>

<p>Rather, enjoin the one who is spiritually hungry to satisfy his appetite day by day by trusting and following the Savior. Don’t let him forget that being born again is the beginning, not the end.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-the-sinner-s-prayer-has-me-concerned-and-a-biblical-alternative" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-the-sinner-s-prayer-has-me-concerned-and-a-biblical-alternative" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-the-sinner-s-prayer-has-me-concerned-and-a-biblical-alternative" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Do Christians Hate People Who Identify as Gay or Lesbian?
topic: Sexuality and Gender
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/18/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/do-christians-hate-people-who-identify-gay-or-lesbian
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Is it the case that Christians hate homosexuals? Many people in our culture think the answer is obvious: yes. Since it’s believed that Christians hate them, many people who identify as gay or lesbian reason that God must hate them too. Though there are many mistakes believers have made that have contributed to that impression, I don’t believe that most believers I speak to hold hatred in their hearts. Here’s a short video that <a href="https://www.summit.org/">Summit Ministries</a> released where I discuss that concern.</p>

<p>(For more on this topic, see “<a href="/w/homosexuality-know-the-truth-and-speak-it-with-compassion" rel="" target="" title="">Homosexuality: Know the Truth and Speak It with Compassion</a>” and “<a href="/w/is-the-biblical-stance-against-homosexuality-necessarily-unloving-" rel="" target="" title="">Is the Biblical Stance against Homosexuality Necessarily Unloving?</a>”)</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="G4yd5f-rNV8" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/G4yd5f-rNV8?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-christians-hate-people-who-identify-gay-or-lesbian" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-christians-hate-people-who-identify-gay-or-lesbian" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdo-christians-hate-people-who-identify-gay-or-lesbian" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Intelligent Design Theory Is the Result of Reason, Not Dogma
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/07/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/intelligent-design-theory-is-the-result-of-reason-not-dogma
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There’s an assumption out there among many that a belief in design, as opposed to chance, as an explanation for everything we see around us is a religious claim that begins with the Bible.</p>

<p>But the truth is, people have been reasoning to the conclusion of intelligent design for millennia. One example of this is <a href="https://www.iep.utm.edu/cicero/">Cicero</a> (106–43 BC), a Roman philosopher who wrote this in his <em><a href="https://archive.org/stream/denaturadeorumac00ciceuoft/denaturadeorumac00ciceuoft_djvu.txt">On the Nature of the Gods</a></em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Who would not deny the name of human being to a man who, on seeing the regular motions of the heaven and the fixed order of the stars and the accurate interconnection and interrelation of all things, can deny that these things possess any rational design, and can maintain that phenomena, the wisdom of whose ordering transcends the capacity of our wisdom to understand it, take place by chance? When we see something moved by machinery, like an orrery or clock or many other such things, we do not doubt that these contrivances are the work of reason; when therefore we behold the whole compass of the heaven moving with revolutions of marvelous velocity and executing with perfect regularity the annual changes of the seasons with absolute safety and security for all things, how can we doubt that all this is effected not merely by reason, but by a reason that is transcendent and divine? …</p>

<p>Can any sane person believe that all this array of stars and this vast celestial adornment could have been created out of atoms rushing to and fro fortuitously and at random? or could any other being devoid of intelligence and reason have created them? Not merely did their creation postulate intelligence, but it is impossible to understand their nature without intelligence of a high order.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Not only did Cicero think belief in design was reasonable, but he clearly thought that <em>not</em> believing in design was <em>unreasonable</em>—indeed, not even sane. This was clear to him just through observation, before the development of science revealed the incredible <a href="/w/random-mutation-natural-selection-and-information">intricacies</a> of the <a href="/w/we-live-in-a-very-fortunate-universe">mechanics</a> of nature that go far beyond anything Cicero could have imagined.</p>

<p>As human beings, we’re all capable of recognizing design, even without knowledge of all the scientific details (see Douglas Axe’s <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Biology-Confirms-Intuition-Designed/dp/0062349597/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=undeniable&amp;qid=1560909067&amp;s=gateway&amp;sr=8-3">Undeniable</a></em>, which not only argues for our ability to intuit design but also backs up this intuition with the science and math that demonstrate it), and this is—dare I say—by design. As it says in Romans 1:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[T]hat which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.</p>
</blockquote>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fintelligent-design-theory-is-the-result-of-reason-not-dogma" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fintelligent-design-theory-is-the-result-of-reason-not-dogma" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fintelligent-design-theory-is-the-result-of-reason-not-dogma" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Listen Carefully to the Cost of Conversion
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/30/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/listen-carefully-cost-conversion-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Here’s a great question to ask a Muslim: “What would happen if you became a Christian today?” This was a question the late <a href="http://www.nabeelqureshi.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Nabeel Qureshi</a> encouraged me to ask my Muslim friends. I had the privilege of teaching with him at various events around the country. One day, while we were chatting, he offered this piece of wisdom.</p>

<p>If you ask a Muslim this question, there are many possible answers:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Kicked out of their family</li>
	<li>Lose their job</li>
	<li>Have to move homes</li>
	<li>Marriage would end</li>
	<li>Lose their children</li>
	<li>Persecution</li>
	<li>Driven out of their country or killed</li>
</ul>

<p>Nabeel then said, “Listen carefully to what they say. Don’t forget their answer. What they tell you is what’s holding them back from <a href="/w/make-jesus-central-to-your-conversations-with-muslims" rel="noopener" target="_blank">putting their faith in Jesus</a>.” Then, he said, find out ways to solve their problem. If they’re going to get kicked out of their family, find a way to provide them with a new home.</p>

<p><a href="/w/why-it-s-hard-for-muslims-to-convert" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Leaving Islam for another religion is a big deal</a>. The social or personal cost is often greater for Muslims than for people who leave other religious systems. Knowing this can drive us to have compassion for our Muslim friends and allow us to consider what we can do to help remove their obstacles to the gospel.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Flisten-carefully-cost-conversion-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Flisten-carefully-cost-conversion-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Flisten-carefully-cost-conversion-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: What Muslims Say vs. What Islam Teaches
topic: Other Worldviews
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/16/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/what-muslims-say-vs-what-islam-teaches
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Last Friday, <a href="/w/why-take-christians-to-mosques-" rel="noopener" target="_blank">I took 65 Christian high school students to the largest mosque</a> in Georgia. We were able to observe their service, watch their prayer ritual, and then head upstairs where we interacted with one of the Islamic leaders.</p>

<p>During the question and answer time, one of the Christians asked the Muslim leader about the significance of Jesus being sinless while Mohammed was <em>not</em>sinless—something I had taught the students earlier in the day. The Muslim leader, however, corrected him and said, “Actually, all of the prophets—Jesus, Mohammed, and the others—are sinless.” I noticed several of the students looked at me and thought, <em>I remember you saying that Islam teaches that only Jesus is sinless. </em>The tendency is to believe the Muslim since it’s assumed he’s the authority about his own religion.</p>

<p>This demonstrates an important lesson. There is a distinction between <a href="/w/what-muslims-say-vs-what-islam-teaches" rel="noopener" target="_blank"><em>what Muslims say</em> and <em>what Islam teaches</em></a>. Muslims say all kinds of things about Jesus, Mohammed, the Bible, and a host of other topics. Not everything they say, however, is consistent with authoritative sources in Islam.</p>

<p>After we left the mosque, I was able to debrief with the students and clarify this distinction. There are three key sources in Islam: the Quran (what Muslims believe are the literal words of Allah), the hadith (<a href="/w/is-oral-tradition-in-islam-reliable-" rel="noopener" target="_blank">written traditions of what Mohammed said</a>), and the sunnah (the life example of Mohammed). If a doctrine is found in these three sources, then it’s Islamic. If it’s contradicted by these sources, then it’s not Islamic. It doesn’t matter who is making the claim—an Islamic scholar or a Muslim queen—what they say must conform to these authoritative sources for their claim to accurately represent Islam.</p>

<p>Muslims, however, sometimes say things that are not consistent with those three sources. That’s what happened in our case. The Muslim leader claimed that Mohammed was sinless.</p>

<p>But the Quran—the highest authority in Islam—teaches the opposite. Surah 40:55, for example, says, “So be patient, [O Muhammad]. Indeed, the promise of Allah is truth. And ask forgiveness for your sin and exalt [ Allah ] with praise of your Lord in the evening and the morning.” Notice, Mohammed is commanded to ask for forgiveness for his sin. Allah asks the same thing of Mohammed in Surah 47:19: “So know, [O Muhammad], that there is no deity except Allah and ask forgiveness for your sin and for the believing men and believing women. And Allah knows of your movement and your resting place.”</p>

<p>Why, then, did the mosque leader say Mohammed was not sinless? There could be many reasons: different sects in Islam hold different theologies, cultural traditions, political correctness, or other factors. It doesn’t ultimately matter, though. If what they’re saying doesn’t correspond with what the Quran, hadith, and sunnah teach, then it doesn’t accurately reflect orthodox Islam.</p>

<p>Now that the students are aware of this distinction, they’re ready for further conversations they’ll likely have in the future.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-muslims-say-vs-what-islam-teaches" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-muslims-say-vs-what-islam-teaches" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhat-muslims-say-vs-what-islam-teaches" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Are Pro-Lifers Who Are Pro-Capital Punishment Being Inconsistent?
topic: Bioethics
author: Aaron Brake
date: 07/10/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-pro-lifers-who-are-pro-capital-punishment-being-inconsistent
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There is an alleged inconsistency that is sometimes raised between being pro-life and also pro-capital punishment. Here’s the question: “Is it inconsistent to be pro-life when it comes to the issue of abortion and yet also support capital punishment in certain situations?”</p>

<p>In his book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Defending-Life-Against-Abortion-Choice/dp/0521691354/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1T5BTEBXBVIE1&amp;keywords=defending+life+francis+beckwith&amp;qid=1560547619&amp;s=gateway&amp;sprefix=defending+life%2Caps%2C188&amp;sr=8-1">Defending Life</a></em> (see pp. 126–127), Philosopher Francis Beckwith tackles this question and presents several important rejoinders.</p>

<p>First, the alleged inconsistency of pro-life apologists who support capital punishment is often introduced as a red herring to distract from the main issue that must be addressed. Even <em>if</em> pro-lifers were inconsistent on this point, that’s all it would prove: an inconsistency. And what follows from that? Not much. It has nothing to do with the one question that must be answered in the abortion debate: “What is the unborn?” As Beckwith notes, “inconsistent people can draw good conclusions.”</p>

<p>Second, remember the pro-life syllogism:</p>

<ol>
	<li>
	<p>It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.</p>
	</li>
	<li>
	<p>Elective abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.</p>
	</li>
	<li>
	<p>Therefore, elective abortion is wrong.</p>
	</li>
</ol>

<p>How is supporting capital punishment inconsistent with this syllogism? It isn’t. Capital punishment kills a guilty human being found guilty of a capital crime, not an innocent, vulnerable, and defenseless human life inside the womb. This is a critical difference, and there is no reasonable analogy or moral equivalence between the two. The objection also misunderstands the pro-life position. As Beckwith states, “Pro-life advocates, for the most part, do <em>not</em> argue that killing is <em>never</em> justified, for there are instances in which killing is justified, such as in the cases of self-defense and capital punishment, both of which do <em>not</em> entail the killing of an <em>innocent</em> human life.”</p>

<p>Third, if being pro-life and pro-capital punishment is inconsistent, does that mean being pro-choice and <em>against</em> capital punishment is likewise inconsistent? After all, a pro-life advocate could argue it is inconsistent to value human life in the case of capital punishment and then support killing human beings in the womb. Even worse, this position supports saving <em>guilty</em>human beings while advocating the destruction of <em>innocent</em> human life without due process. Instead of attacking someone’s intellectual consistency, why not just focus on the arguments for each position and let the best arguments win?</p>

<p>Finally, there are, in fact, some pro-life advocates who are against capital punishment, and therefore the claim of inconsistency vanishes with regard to these individuals. If the abortion-choice advocate is so concerned with consistency, as Beckwith says, “Why does he not then give up his abortion-choice position and embrace <em>this</em> pro-life position, as it should seem to him even more consistent than the anti-capital punishment abortion-choice position?”</p>

<p>In short, pro-life advocates who support capital punishment are pro-<em>innocent</em>life, and therefore there is no inconsistency between protecting innocent, vulnerable, and defenseless human life in the womb and at the same time supporting the taking of guilty human life in certain situations.</p>

<p>Even in Scripture there seem to be clear instances where a passage demonstrates God’s view of the sanctity of human life <em>and</em> the endorsement of capital punishment. For example, Genesis 9:6 states, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” Valuable human beings, made in God’s image, and yet still liable to capital punishment when guilty of murder. There is no inherent inconsistency.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-pro-lifers-who-are-pro-capital-punishment-being-inconsistent" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-pro-lifers-who-are-pro-capital-punishment-being-inconsistent" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-pro-lifers-who-are-pro-capital-punishment-being-inconsistent" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why You Should Resist Conspiracy Theories
topic: Christian Living
author: Aaron Brake
date: 08/13/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-you-should-resist-conspiracy-theories
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The oldest and earliest documented naturalistic explanation for the empty tomb and resurrection of Jesus was a conspiracy theory: The disciples did it. The disciples stole the body. This account, given by the Jewish religious leaders of the day, is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[S]ome of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’” … And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day. (Matt. 28:11–15)<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Conspiracy theories are nothing new; in fact, they seem to abound nowadays. From the Islamic terrorist attack on 9/11, to the Flat Earth Society (with members around the globe), the Apollo 11 moon landing, and more recently, the supposed use of crisis actors during staged mass shootings, there is no shortage of speculations, conjectures, and often outright false narratives going viral on the internet.</p>

<h2>Five Criteria for Successful Conspiracies</h2>

<p>In his book <em>Cold-Case Christianity</em>, seasoned cold-case homicide detective J. Warner Wallace points out that while conspiracy theories are often the popular subject in much of our entertainment, successful conspiracy theories <em>in reality</em> are very difficult to execute and maintain. Wallace lists five criteria that any particular conspiracy must possess in order to achieve success:<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>

<ol>
	<li>A small number of conspirators. The more people involved in a conspiracy, the harder it will be for the group as a whole to maintain the lie.</li>
	<li value="2">Thorough and immediate communication. When communication breaks down, conspiracies break down. Without adequate communication, co-conspirators are unable to know what information has been divulged.</li>
	<li value="3">A short time span. The shorter amount of time the conspiracy has to be maintained, the better. Longer periods invoke more probability conspirators will confess.</li>
	<li value="4">Significant relational connections. In other words, strangers make poor collaborators. The stronger the bond between accomplices (such as a familial bond), the less likely individuals will betray one another.</li>
	<li value="5">Little or no pressure. Pressure can come in the form of threats, persecution, incarceration, and more. The more pressure, the more likely conspirators will fold and the conspiracy collapse.</li>
</ol>

<p>Without all five of these criteria in place, conspiracy theories are far less likely to succeed. Wallace goes on to argue that with regard to the resurrection, the disciples didn’t have one thing going for them: They were large in number (not small), they had inadequate communication over time, they maintained their stories to their deaths, most of them were strangers before becoming followers of Jesus, and pressure led to their persecution, beating, and for many, martyrdom.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>J. Warner Wallace isn’t the only one to reach this conclusion. Chuck Colson, former special counsel to President Nixon, recognized this fact firsthand during his involvement with the Watergate scandal. Colson later became a Christian, and it was his reflection on the nature of conspiracies that convinced him the resurrection couldn’t be explained away so easily:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>As I have written elsewhere, it was, ironically, the Watergate cover-up that left me convinced that the biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus Christ are historically reliable.</p>

<p>In my Watergate experience I saw the inability of men—powerful, highly motivated professionals—to hold together a conspiracy based on a lie. It was less than three weeks from the time that Mr. Nixon knew all the facts to the time that John Dean went to prosecutors. Once that happened Mr. Nixon’s presidency was doomed. The actual cover-up lasted less than a month. Yet Christ’s powerless followers maintained to their grim deaths by execution that they had in fact seen Jesus Christ raised from the dead. There was no conspiracy, no Passover plot. Men and women do not give up their comfort—and certainly not their lives—for what they know to be a lie.<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Of course, this doesn’t mean that conspiracy theories are <em>never</em> true. But looking at the criteria above, it is easy to recognize why so many of the grand, large-scale conspiracies touted today are so far-fetched and implausible. Take, for example, the Flat Earth Theory. Either the conspiracy to hide a flat earth (a conspiracy which would literally have to involve thousands upon thousands of individuals who are “in on it”) is one of the greatest conspiracies ever perpetuated by man (and for what purpose exactly?), <em>or</em> perhaps critical thinking skills have been dulled by too many unqualified YouTube sources. Worldwide conspiracies require far too much faith in the ability of man.</p>

<h2><strong>Conspiracy </strong>Theories <strong>Undermine Rational Thought</strong></h2>

<p>Not only are conspiracies notoriously difficult to execute and maintain over time, but they also often turn out to be non-falsifiable.</p>

<p>I once spoke with a sincere Christian friend who was convinced the coordinated terrorist attack on 9/11 was a U.S. government-controlled operation. But when I began raising questions, problems, or pointing out what I believed were inconsistencies, he would easily reply, “<em>But that’s what they</em> <em>want</em> <em>you to believe</em>.” In other words, any skepticism or evidence I raised against the conspiracy theory turned out to be <em>part</em> of the conspiracy theory itself. In a sort of diabolical, twisted use of logic, evidence <em>against</em> the conspiracy turned out to be evidence <em>for</em> the conspiracy. In this way, conspiracy theories are often presented by adherents as non-falsifiable. You can’t prove them wrong. But if you can’t prove them <em>wrong</em>, how do you prove them <em>right</em>? It seems you either buy into the theory wholesale or you don’t. In questioning the theory, it only shows you have been blinded, hornswoggled, and taken in by the media and government propaganda.</p>

<p>This kind of reasoning undermines rational thought, our intellectual obligation to weigh evidence, and, in the end, our ability to think critically. As a Christian, if you sincerely believe in these outlandish conspiracies, you are undermining your witness for Christ, undercutting your own case for the resurrection and giving people a reason not to listen.</p>

<h2>Evaluating Conspiracy Theories</h2>

<p>In closing, here are four quick tips to remember when evaluating conspiracy theories.</p>

<p>First, be skeptical. Given all we have discussed above, you have reason to be.</p>

<p>Second, evaluate each conspiracy based on criteria such as that presented by J. Warner Wallace. Does it meet the criteria? Is the conspiracy composed of a small number of closely-related people who have adequate communication, little to no pressure, and don’t have to maintain the lie for long? If not, see the first point.</p>

<p>Third, check and evaluate your sources. Where is the evidence or theory coming from? Is there multiple attestation or a number of documented sources? Are the individuals cited considered experts in their field? What is the motive for the conspiracy? Is the motive plausible?</p>

<p>Finally, examine the counter-evidence. What are the best arguments and evidence against the conspiracy theory? Ask yourself, “Am I looking at this objectively?” Also ask, “What would it take, in reality, to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude, and why is it even reasonable to believe such a thing is possible?” Sometimes answering this last question by itself is enough to put many internet conspiracies to rest.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">See my article <a href="https://crossexamined.org/the-minimal-facts-of-the-resurrection/"><em>The Minimal Facts of the Resurrection</em></a> for a defense of the resurrection and response to various alternative theories. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">J. Warner Wallace, <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/ref=sr_1_2?crid=26GRYTQYIK9JT&amp;keywords=cold-case+christianity&amp;qid=1564108731&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=cold-case+%2Caps%2C178&amp;sr=1-2" rel="" target="" title="">Cold-Case Christianity</a>: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels</em> (Colorado Springs: David C Cook, 2013), 110–112. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Ibid., 114–118. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Chuck Colson, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/God-Government-Charles-W-Colson/dp/0310277647/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=god+and+government&amp;qid=1564108703&amp;s=gateway&amp;sr=8-2" id="" rel="" target="" title=""><em>God and Government</em></a> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 78. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-you-should-resist-conspiracy-theories" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-you-should-resist-conspiracy-theories" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-you-should-resist-conspiracy-theories" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Don’t Let Popular Culture Shape Your View of Reality
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/17/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/dont-let-popular-culture-shape-your-view-reality
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In an essay titled “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Reflections-C-S-Lewis/dp/0802871844/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=christian+reflections+cs+lewis&amp;qid=1561435100&amp;s=gateway&amp;sr=8-3">De Futilitate</a>,” where C. S. Lewis was making a point about the distinction our culture makes between the ability of science vs. other kinds of thought to give us knowledge about reality, I noticed something interesting. Here’s the quote:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>It is widely believed that scientific thought does put us in touch with reality, whereas moral or metaphysical thought does not. On this view, when we say that the universe is a space-time continuum we are saying something about reality, whereas if we say that the universe is futile, or that men ought to have a living wage, we are only describing our own subjective feelings. That is why in modern stories of what the Americans call ‘scientifictional’ type—stories about unknown species who inhabit other planets or the depth of the sea—these creatures are usually pictured as being wholly devoid of our moral standards but as accepting our scientific standards. The implication is, of course, that scientific thought, being objective, will be the same for all creatures that can reason at all, whereas moral thought, being merely a subjective thing like one’s taste in food, might be expected to vary from species to species.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It struck me, when I read that, how easily popular culture can shape our view of reality without our even realizing it. The truth is, whenever we watch TV, play a video game, or read a book, we immerse ourselves in a world that <em>is not real</em>. It’s the creation of particular human beings, and it reflects <em>their</em> beliefs about reality, not necessarily reality itself.</p>

<p>The example Lewis noted above is a subtle expression of a worldview, but that kind of thing can affect the way we see the world nonetheless, particularly when it’s in the background and not overtly part of the story (i.e., when we’re not consciously aware of our need to analyze what we’re seeing), and especially over time. Spend enough time in artificial worlds that are grounded in false assumptions, and you’ll be changed in ways you didn’t count on.</p>

<p>This is a good reminder to constantly be thinking about the stories we’re taking in (both their overt messages and their subtle assumptions), to compare their worldviews to what we know to be true, and to remind ourselves that what we’re seeing is the result of someone’s imagination, not reality.</p>

<p>And even more importantly, it’s a reminder to constantly saturate ourselves with the Bible—the one true story we can give ourselves to completely, the story we <em>want</em> to <a href="/w/the-bible-different-from-all-the-rest">shape our heart, our wisdom, and our worldview</a>.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdont-let-popular-culture-shape-your-view-reality" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdont-let-popular-culture-shape-your-view-reality" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdont-let-popular-culture-shape-your-view-reality" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Study False Ideas?
topic: Christian Living
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 08/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-study-false-ideas-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Maybe we shouldn’t study false ideas. Maybe we should just read the Bible. That’s a suggestion that’s become more popular these days. It’s usually accompanied by the tale about how federal agents learn to spot counterfeit money not by studying counterfeits, but by studying genuine bills. Likewise, it’s argued, we should stop teaching Christians about false ideas like relativism, homosexuality, and Islam. Instead, just teach the Bible.</p>

<p>While it’s true that Christians should prioritize their understanding of Scripture and Christian theology, that doesn’t diminish the importance of also studying false ideas, other religions, or threats to the gospel. We can and should do both. In fact, there are four reasons why Christians should add the study of false ideas to their to-do list.</p>

<p><strong>#1: It’s an essential skill of being an ambassador for Christ.</strong> If you claim to be a follower of Jesus, then you are His ambassador (2 Cor. 5:20). You represent Him 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. <em>Effective</em> ambassadors are skilled in three areas: knowledge, wisdom, and character. The first skill, knowledge, necessitates that you know not only the truth but also the error. When a U.S. political ambassador travels to Iran for diplomatic work, he must have knowledge not only of U.S. foreign policy but also Iranian foreign policy. Being ignorant of Iran’s ideas, interests, and goals while negotiating with them would be dangerous. In the same way, ambassadors for Christ need to be aware not only of God’s plan and message but also the false ideas of the world that are raised up against them.</p>

<p><strong>#2: It helps prevent people from rejecting the gospel.</strong> Presbyterian scholar J. Gresham Machen wrote,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which…prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Machen’s sobering warning is clear: Don’t let the culture adopt false ideas or else those ideas will prevent people from accepting the gospel because they’ll think Christianity is a delusion. If we care about furthering the gospel, we need to understand false ideas and reduce the rate at which they are accepted by our culture.</p>

<p><strong>#3: The Bible commands us to study false ideas.</strong> The reasons are twofold. First, we need to be aware of false ideas so we don’t fall prey to them. Paul warns the Colossian believers to “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). If we can’t recognize a false idea or philosophy, we’re at greater risk of being captivated by it. The solution is to inoculate believers against false ideas so they become more resistant to them.</p>

<p>The second reason the Bible commands us to study false ideas is so we can destroy them. Though the language of destruction sounds politically incorrect, that’s what Scripture says. Paul recognizes that our battle is not fought with the weapons of the world like guns, missiles, and tanks. Rather, he says, we fight to “demolish strongholds.” What strongholds is he referring to? He explains: “We demolish <em>arguments</em> and every <em>pretension</em> that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:3–5). Part of our mission is to destroy “arguments” and “pretensions” that are raised up against God’s truth. We can’t know what false ideas to destroy if we can’t recognize and understand them.</p>

<p><strong>#4: Paul modeled studying false ideas.</strong> We can tell from Paul’s engagements with non-believers that he studied and had knowledge of the false ideas and religious beliefs of others. When he spoke to the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers at the meeting of the Areopagus, for example, he explained to them who the “unknown god” was that they were referring to on their altar. In his description of the true God, Paul quoted their own Cretan philosopher, Epimenides: “For in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Then he quotes the Stoic philosopher, Aratus: “As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are His offspring’” (Acts 17:28). Notice that Paul studied these philosophers and their ideas enough to quote them from memory. He knew the Athenians trusted these authors, so he leveraged their commitment to these writings to his advantage—to explain who the true God is that was unknown to them. By studying the false ideas of his audience, he was able to craft a more effective and persuasive message.</p>

<p>Having laid out the reasons for studying false ideas, I don’t mean to suggest that we should teach five-year-olds relativism, homosexuality, or Islam. The priority would be to immerse them in God’s word, theology, and the Christian worldview <em>first</em>. After all, the same being that spoke the universe into existence and wrote the language of DNA into our cells is the one who authored the words of Scripture. Then, in an age-appropriate way, begin incorporating false ideas into their curriculum so they understand the error that sets itself up against the knowledge of God. The same approach would be beneficial with new believers. First, teach the truth. Then, focus on the error.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-study-false-ideas-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-study-false-ideas-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-study-false-ideas-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Caution about Using Secular Movies to Illustrate “Redemptive Themes”
topic: Arts and Culture
author: J.T. Wynn
date: 07/31/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/caution-about-using-secular-movies-illustrate-redemptive-themes
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Summer’s here, and with it comes the annual summer blockbuster movie season. It’s become popular of late to look for “redemptive themes” in secular films or to find “gospel themes” in bestselling novels. This or that TV show has a “Christ figure.” There are small-group study guides based on popular movies, and there are even pastors preaching topical sermon series based on current box office hits.</p>

<p>Proponents of this trend usually express sentiments such as:</p>

<p>“<em>Harry Potter</em> does reflect important Christian truths...”<br>
“We can love Jesus more through <em>The Hunger Games</em>...”<br>
“We can see redemptive themes in <em>Star Wars</em>...”<br>
“Marvel’s <em>Avengers</em> can help us enjoy God’s truths...”<br>
“There are gospel elements on display in Stephen King’s novel XYZ…”</p>

<p>This movement is motivated by good intentions to “engage culture.” Now that’s fine and laudable. I love movies, novels, and stories in general, and much of my writing is about film analysis and the story’s relationship to worldview, religion, and Christianity. So I’m not saying we couldn’t or shouldn’t use movies to illustrate theological truths. We could and should.</p>

<p>However, we need to be very careful about how far to take this for at least two reasons. First, considering an apologetics context, there’s nothing especially insightful about the ability to see Christian truths in secular films. And second, we need to make sure that cultural engagement means we influence the culture with the gospel, not influence the meaning of the gospel with pop culture.</p>

<h2>1) Unsurprising</h2>

<p>There’s nothing impressively creative about being able to see parallels to the Bible in popular culture. Coming from an apologetics background, in one sense, the observation that we can see Christian truths, redemptive themes, and gospel elements in secular stories is unsurprising, unremarkable, and underwhelming. Why? Because, as we apologists have been saying since Romans 1, secularists have to <em>borrow</em> from the Christian worldview for their stories to even make sense.</p>

<p>And not only is it unsurprising, but it is actually predicted! This is because if God exists, then, necessarily, secular writers are made in the image of this very God. Apropos to this discussion, Paul even quotes a secular poet to illustrate Christian anthropology when they get it right. It’s because they “live and move and have [their] being,” their imaginations, in God’s universe—with all its attendant God-designed realities like courage, heroism, sacrifice, and yes...redemption—that we see it on full display in their films.</p>

<p>Not only can one find “redemptive themes” in secular movies, but one cannot <em>not</em> find redemptive themes in secular stories precisely because God’s moral-infused reality is inescapable.</p>

<p>In an atheistic worldview, why is it praiseworthy for the main characters to sacrifice themselves for their friends? Why is it bad when the villain snaps his fingers and murders innocent people? In a godless, Darwinian worldview, self-sacrifice is not conducive to passing on one’s genes, and killing the innocent wouldn’t be objectively wrong if it helped one to survive to mate and reproduce more offspring.</p>

<p>But in a Christian worldview, it makes sense. Pontius Pilate crucified an innocent man. And that man taught that “greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” Then He demonstrated exactly that by laying down His life and rising again in three days.</p>

<p>Atheists want to admire the act while ignoring the Actor. They must borrow, borrow, borrow from God’s moral-infused reality, and this manifests in all stories, movies, and novels.</p>

<h2>2) Right vs. Almost Right</h2>

<p>C.H. Spurgeon, the influential English preacher, <a href="https://apologetics315.com/2013/02/charles-spurgeon-on-discernment/">famously said</a>, “Discernment is not knowing the difference between right and wrong. It is knowing the difference between right and almost right.”</p>

<p>We should remember Spurgeon’s admonition whenever we think we see Christian themes in secular movies. If the secular storyteller happens on true Christian doctrine, then it’s fine to point it out. But we shouldn’t try to force it, to Christianize ideas that aren’t there, or worse, to “gospelize” ideas that are counter to what Scripture teaches.</p>

<p>For example, a Christian film professor from a major Christian university <a href="https://oldarchive.godspy.com/culture/Why-Do-Heathens-Make-the-Best-Christian-Films-by-Thom-Parham.cfm.htm">praised the film</a> <em>Places in the Heart</em> (1984) by director Robert Benton, saying:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Writer/director Robert Benton is not an evangelical Christian. Yet, his film incorporates “Christian themes” with more subtlety, artistry, and depth than the majority of films being made by professed Christians.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The film is about a widowed cotton farmer (Sally Field) struggling to survive during the 1930s with the help of a black farmhand, Moze (Danny Glover), while fending off attacks from racist Klansmen. The final scene takes place at church, where, after a devastating tornado, the surviving town members partake in communion. The well-meaning Christian film professor describes the scene:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The camera pans across various congregants.… Then, oddly, the camera continues to pan, revealing a couple who died trying to escape from a tornado, some of the Klansmen, and Moze. Panning past Mr. Will, Possum, Frank, and Edna, the camera finally rests on Edna’s late husband, Royce (Ray Baker), and Wylie (DeVoreaux White), the black youth who accidentally shot him and was in turn lynched.</p>

<p>At this point, we realize there’s much more going on in <em>Places in the Heart&nbsp;</em>than what’s on the surface. The film is a metaphor for the kingdom of God, and the final scene tells us that God’s grace is available to all who accept it—white or black, young or old, good or evil, living or dead.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>While it’s true that the kingdom of God is available to all in this life, Scripture does not teach that the unrepentant (the film did not depict all the characters in the final scene as having repented) will partake in God’s grace. To the contrary, recall Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where the rich man received torment in Hades, not communion.</p>

<p>We shouldn’t be so eager to see gospel themes in secular films that we sacrifice the clear teaching of Scripture just so that we can justify enjoying skillfully made art. We can acknowledge that <em>Places in the Heart</em> was a well-written, well-directed and well-acted film. We can also acknowledge that it teaches a different gospel, which is really not another.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcaution-about-using-secular-movies-illustrate-redemptive-themes" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcaution-about-using-secular-movies-illustrate-redemptive-themes" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fcaution-about-using-secular-movies-illustrate-redemptive-themes" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Believer’s Delight in God
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/11/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/believers-delight-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>In his classic <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Morning-Evening-Classic-Daily-Devotional/dp/1683227247/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1560562730&amp;sr=1-2">Morning and Evening</a></em> devotional, Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892) describes the believer’s delight in God—an idea that can sound curiously strange to non-believers. Here’s an <a href="https://www.truthforlife.org/resources/daily-devotionals/6/14/1/">updated version</a> of Spurgeon’s June 14<sup>th</sup> morning entry, edited by Alistair Begg (you can read the original <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/devotionals/morning-and-evening/2016/06/14">here</a>):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The life of the believer is described as a <em>delight</em> in God, and we are reminded of the great fact that genuine faith overflows with happiness and joy.</p>

<p>Ungodly persons and mere professors never look upon religion as a joyful thing; to them it is service, duty, or necessity, but never pleasure or delight. If they attend to religion at all, it is either because of what they might get or because they are afraid of the consequences of neglect. The thought of <em>delight</em> in religious exercise is so strange to most men that no two words in their language stand further apart than <em>holiness</em> and <em>delight</em>.</p>

<p>But believers who know Christ understand that delight and faith are so wonderfully united that the gates of hell cannot manage to separate them. Those who love God with all their hearts find that His ways are ways of pleasantness, and all His paths are peace. The saints discover in Christ such joy, such overflowing delight, such blessedness that far from serving Him from custom, they would follow Him even though the whole world rejected Him. We do not fear God because of any compulsion; our faith is no shackle, our profession is no bondage, we are not dragged to holiness, nor driven to duty. No, our piety is our pleasure, our hope is our happiness, our duty is our delight.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is not to say our fickle feelings of happiness will never waver as Christians (see <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/desire-me-what-i-cannot-desire#.XQgUgtNKhQI">here</a>), nor that we’ll never experience suffering (see <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/christians-you-will-suffer#.XQgXbdNKhQI">here</a>), but merely to describe our understanding of who He is—our apprehension of Him as someone to be desired, the epitome of goodness, truth, and beauty—even when our subjective experience of desire fluctuates. We see Him as the place where joy is found, and we know Him as the source of joy. We have known His comfort in times of intense grief. We’ve experienced the trustworthiness of His wisdom and love His ways, even when following Him brings difficulties.</p>

<p>But as Spurgeon notes above, those who have not known God don’t see Him this way. I’ve <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/it-was-the-best-of-actions-it-was-the-worst-of-actions#.XQRHZdNKijS">written before</a> that “[t]he biggest gulf between Christians and atheists…is not the question of God’s existence, but the apprehension of His beauty and goodness” (see also <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/christianity-vile-atheists#.XQRHmdNKijR">here</a> and <a href="https://www.str.org/blog/christians-dont-live-fear#.XQQ8edNKijQ">here</a>). And whichever side of that divide you’re on, the other side likely seems incomprehensible to you.</p>

<p>Christian ambassadors, please keep this in mind. Cultivate your love for God, describe Him as He is to others, and pray that the Holy Spirit will “[shine] in [their] hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6).</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbelievers-delight-god" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbelievers-delight-god" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbelievers-delight-god" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Before Your Kids Have Access to the Internet, Read This
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Tim Barnett
date: 07/23/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/your-kids-have-access-internet-read
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Around our house, we do our best to keep poisonous substances <em>out of reach </em>from our kids. We do this because we don’t want them to get hurt or worse. But as they grow, it becomes harder to keep these substances out of reach. As a result, we have taken time to teach our kids about the dangers of poisonous substances (e.g. household cleaners) as well as how to recognize and respond to them.</p>

<p>Pornography is a poison. It is picture poison. And it has the potential to do great harm to our kids. Yet, many parents don’t talk to their kids about pornography. We don’t warn them of its dangers. We don’t train them how to recognize it or how to respond to it.</p>

<p>I think this is because we <em>assume</em> it’s out of reach for them. The problem is, this isn’t true. A lot of research has been done on <em>when</em> kids are first exposed to pornography. For example, in 2016, the Australian Institute of Family Studies <a href="https://aifs.gov.au/publications/effects-pornography-children-and-young-people-snapshot">found</a>, “Nearly half of children between the ages of 9–16 experience regular exposure to sexual images.”</p>

<p>Many kids are addicted to pornography before they hit their teens. This should be a wake-up call to parents.</p>

<p>That’s why I’m so excited to tell you about <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Good-Pictures-Bad-Jr-Protect/dp/0997318724">Good Pictures Bad Pictures Jr.</a></em> by Kristen Jenson. This book’s <em>purpose</em> is to provide a simple plan to protect young minds.</p>

<p>Written for children between the ages of three and six, this book is beautifully illustrated and beneficially interactive. It even has a fun game where your child has to find nineteen cameras throughout its pages.</p>

<p>So, why is this book so important?</p>

<p>First, this book is going to help your child <em>recognize</em> pornography—what the book creatively calls “bad pictures.” Bad pictures are pictures of “private parts.” The author states, “When people show pictures of private parts, they aren’t private anymore. It’s important to keep private parts private.”</p>

<p>Second, this book is going to help your child <em>realize</em> the dangers of pornography. The author does a nice job relating bad pictures to other things that are not safe, like poisonous chemicals.</p>

<p>Third, this book is going to help your child <em>respond</em> to pornography. The last few pages of the book describe a <em>three-step</em> response. The author states, “If you ever see a bad picture, video or cartoon of people with no clothes on, here’s what to do to stay safe: turn, run, tell.”</p>

<p>The goal is to train your child to “turn” away from the picture or video, “run” to an adult they trust, and “tell” them what they saw.</p>

<p>Fourth, this book is going to help you <em>reply</em> to your child if they have seen pornography. At the end of the book, there is a short, two-page “Note to Parents and Caregivers.” This includes a section with questions to ask your kids about what they have seen and how it made them feel. It also contains helpful advice on how to help a child forget bad pictures.</p>

<p>The best time to read this book with your child is <em>before</em> they ever get access to the internet. Unfortunately, for many parents, we missed that opportunity. Our kids <em>already</em> have been on the internet through Daddy’s iPhone or Grandma’s iPad.</p>

<p>Fear not. It’s not too late. The <em>second</em> best time to read this book with your child is today!</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyour-kids-have-access-internet-read" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyour-kids-have-access-internet-read" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fyour-kids-have-access-internet-read" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Tips to Remember When Responding to the Problem of Evil
topic: Philosophy
author: Aaron Brake
date: 07/24/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/tips-remember-when-responding-problem-evil
content:
            <div> 
		<link href="https://unpkg.com/littlefoot/dist/littlefoot.css" rel="stylesheet">
<style type="text/css">p {
word-wrap: break-word;
	overflow-wrap: break-word;
}
</style>
<p>By far the most common objection raised against Christian theism is the so-called “problem of evil.” If God is all-good, and God is all-powerful, why do suffering and evil exist? Every Christian apologist should be prepared to answer this inevitable question. <em>How</em> you answer this question will depend on a variety of factors, including your apologetic methodology and theological/philosophical commitments. In formulating your response, here are three tips to remember for consistency and effectiveness.</p>

<h2>Tip #1: Remember there are various problems of evil and respective solutions.</h2>

<p>John Feinberg begins his book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Many-Faces-Evil-Revised-Expanded/dp/1581345674/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+many+faces+of+evil&amp;qid=1560555342&amp;s=gateway&amp;sr=8-1">The Many Faces of Evil</a></em> by laying out two very helpful and essential ground rules that must be understood by anyone attempting to discuss God and the problem of evil. The first is that there is no such thing as <em>the</em> problem of evil.<a href="#fn:1" rel="footnote">1</a></p>

<p>In fact, there are <em>several</em> problems of evil, not just one. What Feinberg means is that the phrase “problem of evil” can be used to refer to a host of different dilemmas arising over the issue of God and evil. For example, this phrase may be referring to the religious/emotional problem of evil, the logical problem of evil, or the evidential problem of evil. A person might be questioning moral evil or natural evil. That there is not just one “problem of evil” means that any discussion about God and evil must first begin by clarifying what problem is under discussion. Each problem is separate and therefore may require its own solution. In addition, the skeptic cannot reject a defense for a particular problem of evil by arguing that it does not solve <em>every</em> problem of evil. No <em>one</em>defense addresses every problem of evil, nor was it intended to do so.</p>

<p>For example, an atheist may reject the free will defense because they don’t believe it adequately handles the problem of natural evil. But the free will defense is primarily used when addressing the problem of moral evil, not natural evil. Solving the problem of natural evil may require additional argumentation or an entirely different solution altogether. Either way, the atheist who reasons this way is simply mistaken. As Feinberg notes, “It is wrongheaded at a very fundamental level to think that because a given defense or theodicy doesn’t solve <em>every</em> problem of evil, it doesn’t solve <em>any</em>problem of evil.”<a href="#fn:2" rel="footnote">2</a></p>

<p>In summary, remember to identify which problem of evil is under discussion, and don’t expect <em>any</em> solution to answer <em>every</em> problem.</p>

<h2>Tip #2: The logical problem of evil is about internal consistency.</h2>

<p>The second ground rule laid out by Feinberg is that the problem of evil in its logical form is about the <em>internal</em> consistency of any given theological position. In other words, the skeptic is claiming there is a contradiction in the theist’s system and is therefore obligated to show a specific problem <em>within</em>the system they are attacking. Skeptics must be careful not to artificially generate an internal inconsistency within the theist’s system by attributing views of God, evil, freedom, love, omnipotence, justice, etc., to the theist which the theist himself doesn't hold.</p>

<p>For example, suppose a Christian employs the free will defense in answering the problem of moral evil. An atheist cannot object to the free will defense on grounds that God <em>could</em> create human beings with free will and yet at the same time eliminate all moral evil, assuming a view of free will known as compatibilism. If the theist incorporating the free will defense holds to libertarian free will, the atheist would be artificially (falsely) generating an internal inconsistency by importing his own definition of free will into the theist’s system. The atheist again is simply mistaken. If an internal inconsistency exists, it must be shown to exist within the <em>theist’s </em>system, not one imposed on him by the atheist. A critic may not like a particular defense or theodicy and may object to the system on <em>external</em> grounds, but this has nothing to do with whether the theist’s system suffers from an internal contradiction.</p>

<p>A similar example occurs when an atheist claims that the doctrine of divine omnipotence means that “God can do anything.” This is not what Christians mean when they speak of God’s omnipotence. Omnipotence means God can do whatever is logically possible and consistent with His nature (e.g., God cannot sin or make square circles). This means God cannot actualize a world which contains a contradictory state of affairs, and understanding this becomes important when constructing an answer to a particular problem of evil.</p>

<p>In summary, remember the importance of internal consistency and avoid foreign definitions being imported into your system.</p>

<h2>Tip #3: Your answer to the problem of evil needs to be consistent with your theology.</h2>

<p>This follows in line with Tip #2. As an apologist answering the problems of evil, whether you present the free will defense, a soul-building theodicy, or other solutions, make sure your answers are consistent with your own theology.</p>

<p>For example, if you hold to Reformed theology and compatibilist free will, you shouldn’t be employing the free will defense, as this position assumes the truth of <em>libertarian</em> free will. This would make your system internally inconsistent since this defense is based on the idea that God cannot actualize a world in which libertarian free creatures always choose the moral good. While the free will defense is extremely popular, not every theological system can employ it consistently.</p>

<p>Remember, many of the supposed contradictions between God and evil simply <em>assume</em> that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing the evil He does. But this is a claim the critic needs to justify. As long as the theist offers a <em>possible</em> explanation as to why God allows evil, the charge of contradiction becomes groundless. Of course, theists should certainly do their best to offer not just possible, but <em>plausible</em> solutions. In fact, there are already many theological systems that are able to solve their own logical problem of evil. These systems include theonomy, Leibnizian Rationalism, as well as those incorporating a free will defense and other “greater good” theodicies.<a href="#fn:3" rel="footnote">3</a></p>

<div class="”footnotes”">
<ol>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:1">
	<p>John S. Feinberg, <em>Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problems of Evil</em>, 3<sup>rd</sup> ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 21–29.<a href="#fnref:1" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:2">
	<p>Feinberg, <em>Many Faces of Evil</em>, 27.<a href="#fnref:2" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
	<li class="footnote" id="fn:3">
	<p>See ibid., 33–122.<a href="#fnref:3" title="return to article"> ↩</a></p>
	</li>
</ol>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/littlefoot/dist/littlefoot.min.js" type="application/javascript"></script><script type="application/javascript">
littlefoot.default()
</script></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftips-remember-when-responding-problem-evil" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftips-remember-when-responding-problem-evil" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Ftips-remember-when-responding-problem-evil" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: A Fresh Look at Prayer
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 08/06/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/a-fresh-look-at-prayer
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I came across an absolutely wonderful little book on prayer by Michael Reeves called <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Enjoy-Your-Prayer-Michael-Reeves/dp/1909611646/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1563424889&amp;sr=8-4">Enjoy Your Prayer Life</a></em>. It will motivate you to pray, not primarily by teaching you <em>how</em> to pray, but more by shaping your vision of what prayer <em>is</em>—that is, “the primary way true faith expresses itself.” It’s a genuine expression of love and need from children to their Father, and that relationship is key:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Jesus invites us—in fact, commands us!—to pray ‘our Father’. Jesus is telling us to remember always who God is—our Father. Moreover, to our Father, prayer is as incense; it is a pleasing smell to him. In other words, he delights to hear and help us….</p>

<p>Jesus [stresses in Luke 11:11] that the willing and attentive kindness of our God is essential to know for prayer. We instinctively think of God without Christ—merely as Lord and Judge. And then we feel he’ll not want to hear from us sinners—and we won’t want in our guilt to be in his presence. But when we remember his friendliness, his open-armed fatherliness—that he has adopted us—it makes us want to go to him….</p>

<p>To know you are a beloved child of God protects you from thinking of prayer as a ladder to God or an exercise by which you work your way into his favour. Prayer doesn’t make you more accepted. Instead, prayer is growing in the appreciation of what you <em>have been given</em>. It may be that your heart is cold, your love is weak and your prayers are shabby, but what matters is that, united to Christ and in him, you are a cherished son—and your Father delights to hear you. Of course, with any other God we’d have to come in the strength of our own fervour; with this God we come in his….</p>

<p>So, once again, prayer is exercising faith—believing God’s almost incredible promise that we can come to him, even though our coldness and guilt screams otherwise. We must believe the Most High is our loving Father.</p>

<p>And that is prayer: relating to the Father as our Father.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The book will help you see prayer in a new way, in light of the Trinitarian nature of our God: “When you default to thinking of prayer as an abstract activity, a ‘thing to do’, the tendency is to focus <em>on the prayer</em> as an activity—which makes it boring. Instead, focus <em>on the one to whom you’re praying</em>.” When we come to our Father in our weakness and sin, without guile or pretension, we’re brought into the life and love of the Trinity. And in this book, Michael Reeves does an excellent job revealing that Trinitarian God in a way that will move you to pray.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-fresh-look-at-prayer" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-fresh-look-at-prayer" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fa-fresh-look-at-prayer" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why God Doesn’t Promise Us an Easy Life
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/25/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-god-doesnt-promise-us-easy-life
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Michael Reeves packs a lot of wisdom into this quote about suffering from his book&nbsp;<em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Spurgeon-Christian-Life-Christ-Theologians/dp/1433543877/ref=sr_1_2?crid=1IDCI4XZL9ZRA&amp;keywords=spurgeon+on+the+christian+life+by+michael+reeves&amp;qid=1563420109&amp;s=gateway&amp;sprefix=spurgeon+on+the+%2Caps%2C198&amp;sr=8-2">Spurgeon on the Christian Life</a></em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The gods of other religions might give ease to the good and health to the worthy. Not so in Christianity, where “goodness” is Christ himself, and conformity to him. God will not therefore simply reward believers with ease in this life, for that would make ease, rather than Christ, the greater prize. Suffering is therefore a “covenant mark,” a proof that God is our Father and therefore cares enough about us to do everything necessary to mold and clip us into the likeness of his happily holy Son….</p>

<p>This might all seem like bad news for the believer. After all, who wants to hurt? Yet, studying the lives of eminent men, Spurgeon came to the conclusion that those who never have to push through the waves of difficulty never grow in strength and maturity like those who do. Those who live in the lap of luxury and never experience the discipline of trouble tend always to be more frail and feeble in their faith. On the whole, therefore, “it is good for a man to bear the yoke; good for a man to breast the billows; good for a man to pass through fire and through water, and so to learn sublime lessons.” Trouble can strengthen, and trouble can reveal the work that needs to be done in us. In that sense our lives, Spurgeon explained, can be likened to a pool of water. When it is allowed to stand still and at ease for a while, it can look clean and pure, for all the mud has sunk out of sight to the bottom. Only when it is stirred and disturbed is the impurity revealed. Just so, trials show up our sins in how viciously and selfishly we react to them. Through them we get to know ourselves better, recognize the evils that had previously lain hidden in our hearts, and then fight them.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Christ is the greatest prize in this life, not comfort. This is why, when God says in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+8%3A28-29&amp;version=NASB">Romans 8:28–29</a> that “all things work together for good to those who love God,” He’s referring to His good purpose of “[conforming us] to the image of His Son.”</p>

<p>Do you want to strengthen and mature in your trust in God as He proves His faithfulness? Do you want your sins to be revealed to you so you can kill them? Do you desire to know God more than you desire comfort? These are hard questions. You may not even truly know the answers to them until you’re in the middle of suffering, tempted to reject God in anger.</p>

<p>But take some time to think through those questions now. If you can’t answer yes—even a <em>small</em> yes (we <em>all</em> shy away from suffering!)—then just start there by asking God to help you see Him more clearly so you will truly believe He’s worth any cost.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-god-doesnt-promise-us-easy-life" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-god-doesnt-promise-us-easy-life" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-god-doesnt-promise-us-easy-life" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Be One of the 100
topic: Announcements
author: Stand to Reason
date: 08/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/be-one-of-the-100
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Many of you faithful readers have supported Stand to Reason financially in the past (thank you!), but you might not know about the advantages of becoming a Strategic Partner (an automatic monthly donor). More on those advantages in a minute, but first, we have a special incentive for you that we’re offering this month only: This August, when you pledge to give an automatic monthly donation, your entire first month’s gift will be used to purchase a ticket for a student (or students!) to attend our <a href="http://rethinkapologetics.com/">reTHINK Apologetics Student Conference</a>.*</p>

<p>Here’s how the amounts break down:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Pledge $40, and your first month’s gift will send 1 student</li>
	<li>Pledge $80, and your first month’s gift will send 2 students</li>
	<li>Pledge $120, and your first month’s gift will send 3 students</li>
	<li>Etc.</li>
</ul>

<p>And you won’t be left out if you give less than $40! Any monthly pledge that’s less than $40 will be added together with other less-than-$40 pledges and also used to purchase tickets.</p>

<p>Our goal this month is to get 100 new Strategic Partners in 31 days, yielding 100 scholarships so students can get equipped to defend their faith. <a href="https://www.str.org/partner">Be one of the 100!</a></p>

<p>Besides sending a student to our reTHINK Apologetics conference, and besides providing apologetics resources—articles, podcasts, videos, and more—to people around the world through your giving, becoming a Strategic Partner has even more benefits:</p>

<ul>
	<li>10% discount in the online store</li>
	<li>Free resources 2x a year</li>
	<li>Exclusive live events</li>
	<li>Access to the private Strategic Partner Facebook page</li>
	<li>Special mentoring sessions hosted by STR’s speakers</li>
	<li>Bi-monthly Strategic Partner insider updates</li>
</ul>

<p>Our Strategic Partners are the backbone of our organization. We couldn’t do what we do without them, and now we’re inviting you to join them and become part of our team.</p>

<p>See&nbsp;<a href="https://www.str.org/partner">here</a> for more info on becoming one of the 100, including contact information for Ocean, our director of donor relations, in case you have any more questions.</p>

<p>*After August 31, STR will purchase registration tickets from the host churches for $35 each plus fees. Scholarships will be split between the conferences in Orange County (September 2019) and Minneapolis (November 2019).</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbe-one-of-the-100" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbe-one-of-the-100" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fbe-one-of-the-100" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How to Deal with Some Common Responses to Your Pro-Life Argument
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 07/03/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-deal-some-common-responses-your-pro-life-argument
content:
            <div> 
		<p>There are some responses you will commonly hear, when you’re making a pro-life argument, that aren’t actually relevant to your argument. In the video below, <a href="https://prolifetraining.com/about-speaker/megan-almon/">Megan Almon</a> of Life Training Institute helps you spot when an objection misses the point and then gives some tips on how to graciously keep the discussion on track when three of the most popular responses come up.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>What’s important to remember when it comes to the pro-life view is that it is in the form of an argument. The basic pro-life syllogism says: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings; abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings (and there is a case to back that up that is grounded in science and philosophy); therefore, abortion is wrong.</p>

<p>That’s your syllogism, it is your argument, and people have to interact with that argument in order to make a case for the view they’re trying to promote. The problem is that none of those three [common responses] that I just named, and many others like them, deal with the argument.</p>
</blockquote>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="3VY_t8bg9Ms" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3VY_t8bg9Ms?rel=0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-deal-some-common-responses-your-pro-life-argument" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-deal-some-common-responses-your-pro-life-argument" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-deal-some-common-responses-your-pro-life-argument" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Most Politically Incorrect Bible Passage
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/02/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/most-politically-incorrect-bible-passage
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The Bible is not known for being the authority modern culture consults for political commentary, practical living, or ethical advice. The Apostle Paul is especially derided. Even some professing Christians regard his sexual ethics as outdated. Instead of pulling the old let’s-reinterpret-this-Bible-text-to-be-gay-affirming approach, some believers simply say he’s wrong. Let’s just focus on Jesus, they suggest, who allegedly <a href="/w/jesus-didn-t-say-anything-about-homosexuality" rel="noopener">never said anything about homosexuality</a>. That’s why it’s not surprising that one of Paul’s passages should rise to the top of “The Most Politically Incorrect Bible Passage” Hall of Fame.</p>

<p>Paul’s first epistle to the church in Corinth has many challenging admonitions. First Corinthians 6:9–11, however, seems to top them all, especially in light of our country’s ethos. Let’s look at Paul’s words.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Wow. Just wow. Shock jock radio hosts got nothing on this. Here are three reasons why Paul’s passage is the most politically incorrect passage.</p>

<ol>
	<li><strong>The passage states that homosexual sex is sin.</strong> That’s a big no-no. You can’t say that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is wrong. Calling it “sin��� just overlays a religious tone to it, which makes it doubly wrong. Plus, our country just celebrated “<a href="/w/responding-to-pride-month-with-genuine-love" rel="noopener">Pride Month</a>,” a time when companies, politicians, and others went out of their way to show their support for the LGBT community. Saying the L, G, and B are morally wrong is countercultural. To be sure, this passage also says that fornicators (those who have sex before marriage), adulterers (those who have sex outside of marriage), drunks, and many others are also equally in sin. Paul claims that anyone engaged in any sexual activity—apart from a married man and woman—is in sin. That throws a whole lot of people in our world into the “sinner” category. Indeed, everyone is guilty of some sin. That includes me. Needless to say, this first point alone qualifies Paul’s words as wildly politically incorrect.</li>
	<li><strong>The passage states that practicing homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.</strong> Did you catch that? If you’re not going to inherit the kingdom of God, then you’re going to get what you deserve: eternal judgment (AKA Hell). So, Paul just ensured his passage would remain the most politically incorrect for generations to come. Come on…you can’t tell people they’re going to Hell. That’s <em>the </em>worst thing you can say. This is clearly what Paul is saying, however, based on the context. In the previous chapter, Paul argues that a man who is having sex with his stepmother is immoral, has been judged a sinner, and should be kicked out of the local church body until he repents. To be clear, Paul argues that this is how believers should treat <em>any professing Christian</em> who engages in ongoing, unrepentant sin. He also gives no indication that such an unrepentant sinner should have confidence that they will inherit the kingdom of God.</li>
	<li><strong>The passage states that some in the church in Corinth were once homosexuals, but they have changed.</strong> Uh-oh! Did Paul just suggest that you can live a life satisfying same-sex desires and then later change? Yes, he did. That’s not even legal in some states! Paul is no longer pulling punches (he never was, actually). This is politically incorrect to the max. Our culture believes that homosexuals are born that way, that there must be a biological or genetic factor that leads a person to develop same-sex attraction. If true, that would mean “change” is as impossible or as dangerous as attempting to change one’s eye color (and I’m not talking about using contact lenses). Yet Paul says homosexuals changed as if it were no big deal—a usual occurrence. He lumps them in with other people who were satisfying other sinful desires. <em>Anyone</em> can change.</li>
</ol>

<p>Now, I’m not saying this passage is politically incorrect because I’m embarrassed by Paul’s words. After all, though He wrote these verses, it’s the Holy Spirit who inspired them. In other words, God is ultimately responsible for the content of this passage and, indeed, every word in Scripture. These are God’s ethics and, I might add, the ethics of Jesus.</p>

<p>Though Paul’s statement might be the most <em>politically incorrect</em> passage, it’s also a <em>powerfully correct </em>passage. These are the words of our Creator, the One who sustains the universe in existence and grants our every breath. Truer words cannot be spoken.</p>

<p>While this passage does not resonate with everyone in our culture, it does offer hope for anyone who acknowledges they are in trouble with God. As C.S. Lewis says, “It is after you have realized that there is a real Moral Law, and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power—it is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk.”</p>

<p>Paul’s main point is the point about changed lives. That’s why, despite the negative effects of sinful behavior, Paul interjects with, “Such were some of you…” (1 Cor. 6:11). <em>But</em> you were washed. <em>But </em>you were sanctified. <em>But </em>you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. Though none of us deserves to inherit the kingdom of God, Jesus makes a way that we can be pardoned for our crimes, no matter what they might be. That’s the gospel, and that’s powerfully correct.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmost-politically-incorrect-bible-passage" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmost-politically-incorrect-bible-passage" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fmost-politically-incorrect-bible-passage" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: God Is Good and Just When He Punishes People
topic: Theology
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 06/18/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/god-is-good-and-just-when-he-punishes-people
content:
            <div> 
		<p>When my son trespasses into his sister’s room and takes something of hers, he’s violated our daughter’s trust and broken our family rules. He knows he’s done something wrong and now he’s in trouble. That’s why we punish him with some sort of discipline.</p>

<p>If we fail to hold him accountable, my daughter is the first to protest: “That’s not fair! He stole something of mine, and that’s wrong.”&nbsp;She’d also add that we were horrible parents for letting him off the hook. She intuitively knows that it’s fair and good for parents - who are the authority in the home - to punish kids when they do wrong. The house we live in is our jurisdiction. We have the right to manage it, and it is good that we do. She also knows that <em>she’ll</em> get punished if <em>she</em> does something wrong. I suspect most people would acknowledge that disciplining your kids is fair and good.</p>

<p>That’s why I’m mystified by a common question: If God is good, how could He send someone to Hell? I often reply by asking them to consider a parallel question: If the government is good, how could it send someone to prison? In one sense, this is a no-brainer. Most people realize that if someone has committed a crime, then they deserve to get punished. A person who breaks the law in any given jurisdiction is subject to punishment by the authority in charge of that jurisdiction. That’s why it’s just and good for the government to punish criminals.</p>

<p>If someone murdered your mother, you’d demand that justice be served and the guilty party be punished. A government that lets a murderer off the hook is neither good nor just. It would rightly be called corrupt and couldn’t be trusted.</p>

<p>In the same way, we live in God’s jurisdiction. God has given us laws that govern His universe. If someone breaks one of His laws, then they deserve to be punished. That is just and good of God. Failing to punish those who violate His laws is not noble, but negligent. We couldn’t call God good if He didn’t hold people accountable for their crimes.</p>

<p>That’s why I don’t think the right question is, if God is good, why would He send people to Hell? The more puzzling question is, how can God be good and just but <em>not</em> send people to Hell? After all, God would be immoral if He ignored injustice. Since all people have committed wrong (Rom. 3:23), all people deserve to be punished.</p>

<p>Everything, so far, sounds negative. We’re all law breakers. We’re all guilty. We’re all deserving of punishment by a God who is good and just. If He were to render our judgment, we’d all be doomed. If He faltered in His responsibility to punish us - criminals - He shouldn’t be commended for it. He would be a deficient God, one who can’t be trusted to do what is right. Even though I’d be included in His judgment, I would still have to acknowledge that to punish me would be the just and good thing to do. This is <em>bad</em> news.</p>

<p>But there’s <em>good</em> news. Even though we deserve to pay for the crimes we’ve committed against God, He doesn’t want to send us to an eternal prison. Because we are His creation - special creatures made in His image - He loves us. He’s made a way for us to be pardoned from the punishment we deserve.</p>

<p>Here’s how the terms of the pardon work. God is willing to trade our guilt for Jesus’&nbsp;innocence. Jesus is both divine and flawless, making Him a suitable candidate for such a transaction. God is willing to place Jesus’&nbsp;perfect record into your “account.”&nbsp;By making this trade, though, we turn over the ownership of our life to God. We either accept the terms of that pardon and go free or we pay for our crimes ourselves.</p>

<p>Notice the significance of that deal. We, who’ve committed crimes against God our whole life, get the chance to be pardoned for what we justly deserve to pay for. If we really understood how bad we are and how good God is, we’d fall flat on our faces in awe. It’s the best deal in the universe, and it’s ours for the taking. That’s why the Bible calls this the gospel, which means “good news.”&nbsp;It really <em>is</em> good. That’s because God is good (Mk. 10:18).</p>

<p>Now that we’ve been extended this grace, God asks us to extend that same grace to others. Since we’ve been forgiven for our crimes, we’re expected to forgive those who trespass against us (Matt. 6:12-15; Eph. 4:32). And, yes, that means my kids are supposed to forgive each other too.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-is-good-and-just-when-he-punishes-people" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-is-good-and-just-when-he-punishes-people" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fgod-is-good-and-just-when-he-punishes-people" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: “A Form of Killing That We Need to Be Able to Defend”
topic: Bioethics
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/13/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/-a-form-of-killing-that-we-need-to-be-able-to-defend-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Feminist Sophie Lewis has a <a href="https://www.versobooks.com/books/2951-full-surrogacy-now">series of videos</a> promoting her new book, <em>Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family</em>, and this clip caught my eye (video below):</p>

<blockquote>
<p>We’re facing a really terrifying attack on abortion—in the U.S., where I live, in Northern Ireland, and elsewhere.</p>

<p>In the past, the strategies that our side has tended to use have included a kind of ceding of ground to our enemies. We tend to say that abortion is “indeed, very bad, but...,”&nbsp;or we say, “Luckily, it’s not killing; luckily it’s just a healthcare right.”</p>

<p>We have very little to lose at the moment when it comes to abortion, and I’m interested in winning radically. And I wonder if we could think about defending abortion as a right to stop doing gestational work.</p>

<p><strong>Abortion is, in my opinion—and I recognize how controversial this is—a form of killing. It is a form of killing that we need to be able to defend.</strong></p>

<p>I am not interested in where a human life starts to exist. I see the forms of making and unmaking each other as, sort of, continuous processes. The other end of the spectrum is the process of learning how to die well, and hold each other, and let each other go at the end of our lives as well as at the beginning.</p>

<p>But looking at the biology of this kind of hemochorial placentation helps me think about the violence that, innocently, a fetus metes out vis-à-vis a gestator. And that violence is an unacceptable violence for someone who doesn’t want to do gestational work. The violence that that gestator metes out to essentially go on strike or exit that workplace is an acceptable violence.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As pro-lifers have <a href="https://store.str.org/product-p/bk319.htm">increased the strength of their case</a> that abortion kills innocent human beings, we’ve seen pro-choicers engage in less and less hiding from this truth and more and more convoluted and desperate justifications of abortion: Okay, so it’s killing, but we need to defend this kind of killing because it’s “<a href="/w/abortion-and-slavery-the-same-old-arguments">a life worth sacrificing</a>.”&nbsp;So a human organism exists <a href="/w/abortion-advocates-fail-biology">at conception</a>; can we really say it’s alive, considering that the forms of making and unmaking each other are continuous processes (whatever that means)? Yes, abortion is violence against the innocent, but they were violent first!</p>

<p>So now, according to Lewis, an unborn child, created by his mother and father through an act that is <em>designed</em> to create new human beings, is committing violence against his mother merely by being right where he’s meant to be, growing inside of her—something he’s doing not because something went wrong, but because his parents’&nbsp;reproductive systems were working exactly the way they are supposed to work.</p>

<p>Lewis’s illustration and justification fail. “Exiting the workplace”&nbsp;is simply not a good analogy here. Firstly, because we don’t allow employees to kill their employers as a solution to undesired working conditions, and secondly, because the parent-child relationship is not analogous to an employer-employee relationship (or any other kind of relationship, really). It is unique and carries with it unique obligations. (See <a href="/w/a-new-response-to-the-violinist-argument">here</a> for an illustration to help you understand and explain this.)</p>

<p>We don’t allow parents to kill their children simply because they don’t want the work of parenthood. On the contrary, parents (not random strangers) are bound by law to protect and nurture their children. This is precisely because of the natural bond that ties them together—a bond that our law recognizes in numerous ways.</p>

<p>I still hear people <a href="/w/abortion-advocates-fail-biology">deny the unborn are human beings</a>, but not nearly as often as in the past; we’ve made our scientific case well. Our moral case continues from our scientific claim that the unborn are human beings: <a href="/w/the-equal-rights-argument">Every human being</a> is equally intrinsically valuable, <a href="/w/the-s-l-e-d-test">regardless of his or her characteristics</a> (age, race, sex, current abilities, etc.), and it’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings; therefore, since the unborn are innocent human beings, it’s wrong to intentionally kill them (as the <a href="https://www.nrlc.org/federal/unbornvictims/statehomicidelaws092302/">laws of most states</a> recognize in cases other than abortion).</p>

<p>Now that the biology is undeniable, the arguments have shifted to reasons why killing these particular human beings <em>is</em> justified, so expect to see many more arguments like Lewis’s. When you do, ask if the justification being offered would rightly apply to a parent killing her <em>born</em> child. (Can she kill her child if she’s in poverty? If the child is causing hardships? If she’d prefer a different sex? If she doesn’t want to be a parent?) If the answer is no for one human being, the answer is no for every human being.</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="jMGptJXz618" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jMGptJXz618?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F-a-form-of-killing-that-we-need-to-be-able-to-defend-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F-a-form-of-killing-that-we-need-to-be-able-to-defend-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2F-a-form-of-killing-that-we-need-to-be-able-to-defend-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Danger of Building Your Theology on Anything Other Than the Bible
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/11/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-danger-of-building-your-theology-on-anything-other-than-the-bible
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I can’t tell you how grateful I am for the Bible. Without it, we’d have only our speculations about who God might be. We’d be lost in our own fallen, limited ideas and subjective preferences. The beauty of the Bible is this: Instead of letting us flail about in the dark, never truly coming to know Him, God reached into our hopeless situation and revealed everything we need to know about Himself. He gave us an objective standard—a foundation on which we can stand with complete confidence, an unyielding rock to crush our harmful, false ideas before they can crush <em>us</em>.</p>

<p>But His revealing Himself isn’t enough to benefit our faith, practice, and fellowship with Him; we must also believe and trust that the Bible is God’s Word, and we must willingly submit to it, conforming our beliefs to its own.</p>

<p>Not everyone thinks this is the right approach. Many Christians have decided the Bible is not God’s perfect Word and/or that interpretations of it are unreliable. Wanting to know God, yet without a standard, they reason from their own experiences of life, or their understanding of love and goodness, or personal revelations to reach the conclusions on which they’ll base their life and worship.</p>

<p>These two paths lead to completely different destinations, and we all have to stake our spiritual lives on one or the other.</p>

<p>I was reminded of this yet again while reading Brian Zahnd’s <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Sinners-Hands-Loving-God-Scandalous/dp/1601429517">Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God</a></em> (see a detailed review of the book by Derek Rishmawy <a href="https://derekzrishmawy.com/2017/08/21/sinners-in-the-hands-of-a-loving-god-by-brian-zahnd-long-review/">here</a>). Throughout the book, as Zahnd made his case for rejecting the idea of God’s wrath and retribution against sin, I kept making notes of where the Bible contradicted his theological assertions and interpretations of Scripture, until it became clear that pointing out missed verses and hermeneutical missteps would make no difference. He had rejected the Bible as the “final authority,”&nbsp;saying that giving it that kind of authority would be “an act of idolatry”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If we want to make the Bible our final authority, which is an act of idolatry, we are conveniently ignoring the problem that we can make the Bible say just about whatever we want.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Clearly, Zahnd was measuring his theology by a completely different standard than I was, making it impossible for either of us to correct the other. But what standard? In the very last chapter, I got my answer:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>But it wasn’t primarily reading theologians like Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri Nouwen, and Stanley Hauerwas that led me away from an angry-God theology; <em>it was mostly mystical experiences in prayer. As I learned to directly experience the presence of God in contemplative prayer—or sitting with Jesus, as I describe it—I have come to know God as love and light.</em> I have seen the face of God in Jesus....</p>

<p>John, who lived so much longer than all the other apostles and seems to have climbed higher than them all, says, “This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all.”&nbsp;There was a time when I thought the darkness of anger, violence, and retribution cast a sinister shadow upon the face of God, <em>but having learned to sit with Jesus in contemplative prayer, I have discovered by my own experience</em> that what John said is true: God is light and in him there is no darkness at all. God is the eternal light of self-giving love. There is no darkness. No anger. No violence. No retribution. Only love.</p>

<p>One day as I was sitting silently in contemplative prayer, I whispered this to the One who was there: “Father, I don’t believe you torture people for eternity.”&nbsp;And then I began to laugh. And the One who was there laughed too. [Emphases added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, it’s much easier to make your contemplative vision say whatever you want than it is to make the <em>objective and public</em> words of the Bible say whatever you want. And this is exactly what Zahnd does. He begins not with the Bible, but with what he calls the “living Christ,”&nbsp;who is not the Jesus depicted in the Bible (for Zahnd ignores or rejects even some of Jesus’&nbsp;words in the New Testament), but rather his <em>idea</em> of Jesus, which he developed by “<em>directly experience[ing] the presence of God in contemplative prayer</em>.”</p>

<p>His “Jesus,”&nbsp;who instructs him that God does not express wrath against sin, is untethered from objective biblical revelation, and this foundational error has a snowball effect on Zahnd’s theology: If God’s justice doesn’t express wrath against sin, then the cross can’t be a payment for sin, which leads to speculation about what the cross is about,* which requires a redefinition of what it means to be saved, ending in repeated statements of legalism, with no gospel in sight—merely unyielding, condemning consequences of our sin unless we’re good enough to change the sinful power structures of our society. It is bleak.</p>

<p>And it’s the inevitable result of building one’s theology on mystical experiences (or anything else) rather than God’s objective Word.</p>

<p>Once you step off the path illuminated by the Bible in order to follow the beckoning of your own subjective vision, the disastrous consequences will only continue to multiply. Don’t ever give in to that temptation. If you love the truth, and you desire to truly know God, stay close to the standard He’s given us. Submit your theology to His.</p>

<p>___________________</p>

<p>*For example, “On Good Friday we see that our violent system of blame and ritual killing is so evil that it is capable of the murder of God. And once we see it, we can repent of it, be forgiven for it, and be freed from it. This is how the cross saves the world.”&nbsp;This, of course, turns the cross on its head, transforming it from a source of <em>grace</em> to merely a visual depiction of yet another <em>law</em>: Thou shalt not violently assert power.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-danger-of-building-your-theology-on-anything-other-than-the-bible" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-danger-of-building-your-theology-on-anything-other-than-the-bible" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-danger-of-building-your-theology-on-anything-other-than-the-bible" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: If You’re Defending a Woman’s Right to Kill an Innocent Human Being, You’re Not Pro-Life
topic: Bioethics
author: Tim Barnett
date: 05/29/2019
source:
https://www.str.org/w/if-you-re-defending-a-woman-s-right-to-kill-an-innocent-human-being-you-re-not-pro-life

content:
            <div> 
		<p>Whenever abortion is in the news, our social media feeds fill up with folks weighing in with their opinions. When this happens, we need to be tactical in how we communicate our pro-life convictions. In fact, I’ve written a <a href="/w/tips-for-discussing-abortion-online">short article</a> that I think every pro-life ambassador should read <em>before</em> discussing abortion online.</p>

<p>I recently got into a friendly discussion with someone on Facebook named John.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> During the short conversation, John said something that surprised me. He said, “<em>You can be pro-choice and pro-life. I am.”</em></p>

<p>This statement needed to be clarified, so I used the <a href="/w/the-columbo-tactic">first Columbo question</a>, <em>what do you mean by that?</em> More specifically, I asked, “What do you mean you’re pro-life with respect to the abortion issue and pro-choice with respect to the abortion issue?”</p>

<p>Here’s how he answered:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Personally, I believe life begins at the moment of conception. So for me, that’s when I’ve chosen to assign the definition of “a life,”&nbsp;purely based on my own beliefs. But not everyone shares my beliefs, nor do I expect them to: I can understand why someone who wants to look purely at the science of it can decide that an embryo is merely a clump of cells, like any other growth process in the human body. My own definition cannot reasonably and scientifically delineate when life begins...</p>

<p>We simply can and should not try to stamp our own choices on the hearts and minds of everyone else, and assume that they must all bend to my own version of the meaning of life. I’m happy to declare my own beliefs on this, but identifying that I’m applying a personal morality is where it ends: it’s prideful and shortsighted to assume/believe/insist that everyone else believes what I do. That’s how I can be pro-life and still honour a woman’s right to govern the processes she oversees in her own body.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This response has been called the <em>modified pro-choice position</em>. I think that’s accurate, but since these individuals want to wear the pro-life label, I’m going to refer to this view as the <em>personally pro-life position.</em> The person holding this view believes that women should have the right to have an abortion, even though he or she personally believes abortion is wrong because it kills a human being.</p>

<p>In a <a href="https://youtu.be/reDf0TCWbcI?t=177">discussion</a> on ABC’s <em>The View</em>, co-host Sunny Hostin described how she is personally pro-life. She said,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>There are people like me, who would agree with Meghan [who is pro-life], because I am pro-life by faith. I certainly also believe that life begins at conception. But I also believe like Ana [who is pro-choice]. I don’t want to foist my beliefs on anyone else.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There are <em>two</em> serious problems with the <em>personally pro-life position</em>.</p>

<h2>First, this view confuses <em>objective truth</em> claims with <em>subjective preference</em> claims.</h2>

<p>The question of when human life begins is a <em>scientific</em> question. And science deals with facts, not feelings. Human life <em>either</em> begins at conception <em>or</em> it doesn’t. This is <em>not</em> the kind of thing that can be true for me but not for you. It’s <em>not</em> a matter of personal preference. Rather, it is an objective feature of reality.</p>

<p>It surprises me that so many people don’t get this. It may help to use a different scientific claim to make this clear. Imagine I personally believe the earth is flat (and that there is a vast conspiracy to trick people into believing the earth is spherical). Can the claim that the earth is flat be true <em>for me</em> but not <em>for you?</em> No, the earth is <em>either</em> flat <em>or</em> it isn’t. That is to say, either the earth is flat - and that would be true <em>for everyone</em> - or the earth is not flat - and that would be true <em>for everyone</em>. The earth cannot actually be flat for some and not for others.</p>

<p>Likewise, either human life begins at conception - and that would be true for everyone - or human life does not begin at conception - and that would be true for everyone.</p>

<p>Fortunately, we’re not left guessing when life begins. The science of embryology unequivocally confirms that a living, distinct, whole human being comes into existence at the moment of fertilization.</p>

<p>For example, <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/0323313388">The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology</a></em> - a human development textbook written for medical students - states,</p>

<blockquote>
<p><em>Human development begins at fertilization</em>, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell <em>marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual</em>.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Furthermore, in the textbook titled <a href="https://www.amazon.com/reader/032331337X?_encoding=UTF8&amp;query=new%20human%20being"><em>Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects</em></a>, it says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>There are different opinions of when an embryo becomes a human being because opinions are often affected by religious and personal views. <em>The scientific answer is that the embryo is a human being from the time of fertilization because of its human chromosomal constitution. The zygote is the beginning of a developing human.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Many more science textbooks could easily be cited, but this is enough to show that the science supports the pro-life position: <em>A unique human being begins at fertilization.</em></p>

<p>Scientific claims - like the curvature of the earth and when human life begins - are objective truth claims about reality. But let’s pretend that the science of embryology was inconclusive and we didn’t know when human life begins. That is, the truth is out there, but we don’t know it. Even if this were the case, this would <em>still</em> be an argument against abortion.</p>

<p>If it’s even <em>possible</em> that abortion kills an innocent human being, then we shouldn’t be engaging in an activity that could possibly be killing another human being.</p>

<p>Imagine you’re in charge of demolishing a 10-story building. The explosive charges are laid throughout the building. But before you push the detonator, you ask your foreman, <em>is the building all clear?</em> That is, are there any human beings still inside? The foreman replies, “I don’t know. Some people personally believe there are people inside, but other people don’t.”</p>

<p>Do you push the detonator? Of course not. If you don’t know, you don’t proceed.</p>

<p>In the same way, if we don’t know when life begins, then abortion could be killing an innocent human being. Therefore, unless you know for certain that it’s <em>not</em> a human being in the womb, you don’t kill it.</p>

<p>But, again, we do know - <a href="/w/abortion-advocates-fail-biology">from science</a> - that human life begins at conception.</p>

<h2>Second, this view confuses <em>objective moral</em> claims with <em>subjective preference</em> claims.</h2>

<p>A subjective <em>preference claim</em> is a claim about your personal opinion. The truth of a preference claim <em>depends</em> on the person making the claim. So if I claim, “Brussels sprouts are horrible,”&nbsp;then that claim is true for me. Of course, different people have different preferences. Therefore, the claim that Brussels sprouts are horrible is the kind of claim that can be true for me but not for you.</p>

<p>An objective <em>moral claim - </em>on the other hand - is not a matter of opinion. It has nothing to do with one’s likes and dislikes. The truth of a moral claim is <em>independent</em> of what people believe about it. It is a claim about what one <em>ought to do</em>.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the modified pro-choice position treats the morality of abortion as if it’s just personal preference.</p>

<p>To highlight this confusion, let’s modify Sunny Hostin’s comment by making it about <em>slavery</em> instead of <em>abortion</em>. Imagine she said, “I personally believe that slavery is wrong, but I don’t think I should foist my belief onto anyone else.”</p>

<p>We could also apply John’s statement to the <em>morality of slavery</em>: “I’m happy to declare my own beliefs on this, but identifying that I’m applying a personal morality is where it ends: it’s prideful and shortsighted to assume/believe/insist that everyone else believes what I do. That’s how I can be against slavery and still honor a person’s right to own a slave.”</p>

<p>The moral claim that slavery is wrong isn’t the kind claim that can be true <em>for me</em> but not <em>for you</em>. The kidnapping and enslavement of human beings is wrong <em>for everyone</em>, at <em>all times</em>, and in <em>all places</em>. It’s not merely a personal preference that should be left up to individuals to choose for themselves. The act of slavery is an objective moral evil. That’s why we have laws forbidding the trafficking of human beings. In fact, all trafficking laws are forcing the morality that slavery is wrong. And that’s a good thing.</p>

<p>True, there are individuals around the world who <em>like</em> slavery. After all, the dark world of human trafficking has made some people very rich. But the fact that some personally prefer slavery doesn’t change the fact that slavery is wrong (because morality has nothing to do with the personal preferences of individuals).</p>

<p>We should recoil at the idea of someone being personally opposed to slavery while at the same time believing others should have the right to own slaves. Similarly, it should disturb us to the core when people say they personally oppose abortion - because it kills an innocent human being - but at the same time believe that women should be able to have an abortion - kill an innocent human being.</p>

<p>No, if slavery is objectively wrong, then <em>no one</em> should have the right to own a slave. Likewise, if abortion is objectively wrong, then no one should have the right to have an abortion.</p>

<h2>Third, there is no <em>practical </em>difference between those who profess to be personally pro-life and those who are pro-choice.</h2>

<p>Interestingly, when Sunny Hostin describes her view, co-host Joy Behar <a href="https://youtu.be/reDf0TCWbcI?t=195">interrupts</a> and says, “So you’re not pro-life; you’re pro-choice.”</p>

<p>I think, practically speaking, Joy Behar is right.</p>

<p>Again, if Sunny Hostin had been talking about slavery, co-host Joy Behar (and everyone listening) would have interrupted and said, “So you’re not pro-abolition; you’re pro-slavery.”</p>

<p>In his book <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Pro-Life-Answers-Pro-Choice-Arguments-Expanded/dp/1576737519/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3U0EPTAOCNU72&amp;keywords=pro-life+answers+to+pro-choice+arguments+expanded+%26+updated&amp;qid=1559084163&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=pro-life+answers+to+pro%2Caps%2C314&amp;sr=1-1-catcorr">Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments</a></em>, Randy Alcorn says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Some people have the illusion that being personally opposed to abortion while believing others should be free to choose it is some kind of compromise between the proabortion and prolife positions. It isn’t. Prochoice people vote the same as proabortion people. Both oppose legal protection for the innocent unborn. Both are willing for children to die by abortion and must take responsibility for the killing of those babies even if they do not participate directly. To the baby who dies it makes no difference whether those who refused to protect her were proabortion or merely prochoice.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Fundamental to the pro-life position is the belief that abortion is an unspeakable injustice. Therefore, it must be stopped.</p>

<p>We don’t approve of a woman’s right to kill an innocent human being. We don’t justify injustice. We don’t defend discrimination. We don’t endorse evil.</p>

<p>Anyone who does is not pro-life.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">This is not his real name. The name was changed to protect his identity. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Keith Moore, T. V. N. Persaud, and Mark Torchia, <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/0323313388">The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology</a></em>, 10th Edition, (Philadelphia: Saunders, 2015), 11. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Keith L. Moore, T. V. N. Persaud, and Mark Torchia, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/reader/032331337X?_encoding=UTF8&amp;query=new%20human%20being">Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology</a>, 9th Edition, (Philadelphia: Saunders, 2015), 339. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-you-re-defending-a-woman-s-right-to-kill-an-innocent-human-being-you-re-not-pro-life" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-you-re-defending-a-woman-s-right-to-kill-an-innocent-human-being-you-re-not-pro-life" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fif-you-re-defending-a-woman-s-right-to-kill-an-innocent-human-being-you-re-not-pro-life" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Intelligent Design Is An Argument from Knowledge, Not Ignorance
topic: Science
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/26/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-intelligent-design-argument-knowledge-not-ignorance
content:
            <div> 
		<p>A common misunderstanding of intelligent design theory is the idea that it’s an argument from ignorance—i.e., we don’t understand how natural forces could create something as complex as a human body, therefore “God did it.” This, they say, is a “God of the gaps” argument, where the God hypothesis is used to fill in gaps where we don’t yet have naturalistic explanations.</p>

<p>But that’s not how the intelligent design argument works.</p>

<p>Stephen Meyer <a href="http://www.discovery.org/a/7471/">explains</a> in “A Scientific History and Philosophical Defense of the Theory of Intelligent Design”:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[C]learly, the lack of an adequate materialistic cause does provide part of the grounds for inferring design from information or irreducibly complex structures in the cell. Nevertheless, this lack is only part of the basis for inferring design. Advocates of the theory of intelligent design also infer design because we <em>know </em>that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich and irreducibly complex systems. <strong>In other words, we have positive experience-based knowledge of an alternative cause that is sufficient to have produced such effects. That cause is intelligence.</strong> Thus, design theorists infer design not just because natural processes do not or cannot explain the origin of specified information or irreducible complexity in biological systems, but also because we <em>know </em>based upon our uniform experience that only intelligent agents produce these effects. In other words, <strong>biological systems manifest distinctive and positive hallmarks of intelligent design</strong>—<strong>ones that in any other realm of experience would trigger the recognition of an intelligent cause</strong>….</p>

<p>That contemporary arguments for design necessarily include critical evaluations of the causal adequacy of competing hypotheses is entirely appropriate. All historical scientists must compare causal adequacy of competing hypotheses in order to make a judgment as to which hypothesis is best. We would not say, for example, that an archeologist had committed a “scribe of the gaps” fallacy simply because—after rejecting the hypothesis that an ancient hieroglyphic inscription was caused by a sand storm—he went on to conclude that the inscription had been produced by a human scribe. Instead, we recognize that the archeologist has made an inference based upon his experience-based <em>knowledge </em>that information-rich inscriptions invariably arise from intelligent causes, not solely upon his judgment that there are no suitably efficacious natural causes that could explain the inscription. [Bold emphasis added.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s not just that non-intelligent, natural forces are incapable—not merely according to our current knowledge, but <em>in principle</em>—of producing the effects we observe; it’s also the case that we have <em>positive knowledge</em> of a cause that <em>is</em> capable of producing those effects.</p>

<p>You can read the rest of Meyer’s article <a href="http://www.discovery.org/a/7471/">here</a>. It’s a helpful summary of the history of the intelligent design movement and the basics of the theory’s arguments.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-intelligent-design-argument-knowledge-not-ignorance" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-intelligent-design-argument-knowledge-not-ignorance" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-intelligent-design-argument-knowledge-not-ignorance" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: How the Smallest Born Baby Proves Abortion Is Wrong
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 07/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/how-the-smallest-born-baby-proves-abortion-is-wrong-1
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The world’s smallest surviving baby, Baby Saybie, was born just 30 minutes from my house. She weighed 8.6 ounces or approximately the weight of a large apple. Saybie’s mother experienced severe pregnancy complications and was forced to give birth via emergency cesarean section at just 23 weeks gestation (normal pregnancy is around 40 weeks). The doctors worked heroically to provide Baby Saybie life-saving medical care. Though the uterus is—by design—a place of protection, it’s ironic that Baby Saybie’s early departure from her mother’s womb granted her immunity from a form of human evil: abortion.</p>

<p>Modern laws have made the womb one of the most dangerous places to be for a developing child. They don’t protect the child from the abortionist but rather protect the mother from her child. The womb that was once a protective sanctuary can now become a crucible of death.</p>

<p>But Baby Saybie brings attention to the reasons why abortion is wrong. When we see her human appearance, her frail frame, and her vulnerability, we intuitively know she’s a human like us who deserves protection and care. Baby Saybie’s birth and survival, however, also challenges four tenets of abortion-choice advocacy.</p>

<p><strong>#1: Her birth challenges the idea that size is relevant.</strong> At the time of her birth, Baby Saybie was the smallest surviving human. Despite her diminutive frame, doctors knew she was a valuable human being deserving of protection and care. If a child the size of a large apple is clearly a human being, then a child smaller than Baby Saybie is also a human. That’s because a difference in size is not a difference in kind, but in degree. Humans come in all sizes, but someone is not more or less valuable because of their size.</p>

<p><strong>#2: Her birth challenges the idea that the level of development of a child is relevant.</strong> Baby Saybie was taken from her mother’s womb after only 23 weeks of development. She still had 17 weeks to reach full term. Though we don’t typically consider premature birth a privilege, Baby Saybie could have been killed at any time during her remaining 17 weeks (had she remained in utero) by the same doctors who worked heroically to save her life after she was born.</p>

<p>But this doesn’t make sense. If a premature child is protected at 23 weeks gestation when she is out of the womb, why can the <em>very same child</em> be legally killed through abortion simply because she is still in the womb? Apparently, abortion-choice advocates consider the child’s location to be relevant, which brings us to our next point.</p>

<p><strong>#3: Her birth challenges the idea that a child’s environment is relevant.</strong> Your environment and location should have no effect on whether you are valuable. When an astronaut travels to outer space in a spacesuit or a scuba diver swims under water, they have changed their environment. Despite their new location (which renders them non-viable without assistive technologies), they are still valuable human beings.</p>

<p>In the same way, Baby Saybie changed location. She moved from inside her mother’s womb to outside of it. That move—according to current U.S. law—fundamentally changed her status. She went from being a vulnerable human being to a protected human being. Now, no abortionist can harm her. But if Baby Saybie had remained inside her mother’s womb, she could have been legally killed. She would have been vulnerable not just at 23 weeks of development, but even for the remaining 17 weeks gestation. If it’s wrong to kill a baby in one location, how can it be moral to kill the<em> very same baby</em>when it’s moved to a different environment?</p>

<p><strong>#4: Her birth challenges the idea that being dependent on the mother’s body is relevant.</strong> Baby Saybie was dependent on her mother’s body until 23 weeks gestation. After this point in development—commonly called viability—many children can survive outside of their mother’s body. Some abortion-choice advocates claim that abortion is justified only prior to viability because the unborn depends on its mother’s body for survival. After viability, they argue, the unborn can live on its own, and abortion would not be permitted at that point. The mother could simply deliver the child prematurely if she no longer wanted to be pregnant.</p>

<p>The moment of viability, however, is not fixed. As time progresses, technology advances and viability moves to earlier stages of development. Had Baby Saybie been conceived decades ago, she would not have been viable at 23 weeks because of the more primitive medical techniques at the time. Viability may have been at 28 weeks. That means the very same Baby Saybie at the very same stage of development could have been killed through abortion during one era (decades ago) but protected in today’s era. That is absurd.</p>

<p>Baby Saybie’s birth challenges abortion-choice advocacy in four ways that can be more easily remembered by the acronym S.L.E.D. (size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency). Though the unborn differs from a born human in these four ways, none of them justifies disqualifying the unborn because none of these factors affects its value.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-the-smallest-born-baby-proves-abortion-is-wrong-1" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-the-smallest-born-baby-proves-abortion-is-wrong-1" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fhow-the-smallest-born-baby-proves-abortion-is-wrong-1" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Desire for Me What I Cannot Desire
topic: Theology
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 05/28/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/desire-for-me-what-i-cannot-desire
content:
            <div> 
		<p>If you haven’t read C.S. Lewis’s <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Pilgrims-Regress-C-S-Lewis/dp/0802872174/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=pilgrim%27s+regress&amp;qid=1558555873&amp;s=gateway&amp;sr=8-3">The Pilgrim’s Regress</a></em>, I recommend it to you. It’s an allegory in the style of <em>The Pilgrim’s Progress</em> telling the story of a man’s philosophical journey to Christianity.</p>

<p>In one part of the book, Lewis expresses the idea that human passion—even passion for God—is always changing. We will not always desire God in the same way or with the same intensity. In fact, there will be times when we can only persevere and trust that God will again revive us.</p>

<p>When John, the protagonist of the story, becomes concerned about his waning desire, he’s given this song:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>’My heart is empty. All the fountains that should run<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; With longing, are in me<br>
Dried up. In all my countryside there is not one<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; That drips to find the sea.<br>
I have no care for anything thy love can grant<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Except the moment’s vain<br>
And hardly noticed filling of the moment’s want<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; And to be free from pain.<br>
Oh, thou that art unwearying, that dost neither sleep<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Nor slumber, who didst take<br>
All care for Lazarus in the careless tomb, oh keep<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Watch for me till I wake.<br>
If thou think for me what I cannot think, if thou<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Desire for me what I<br>
Cannot desire, my soul’s interior Form, though now<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Deep-buried, will not die,<br>
—No more than the insensible dropp’d seed which grows<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Through winter ripe for birth<br>
Because, while it forgets, the heaven remembering throws<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Sweet influence still on earth,<br>
—Because the heaven, moved moth-like by thy beauty, goes<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Still turning round the earth.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>“If thou think for me what I cannot think, if thou desire for me what I cannot desire, my soul’s interior Form, though now deep-buried, will not die.”&nbsp;The nice thing about trusting in a real God is that we don’t have to try to muster up spiritual feelings and desires on our own when our souls feel as if they’re dying. He is real, and He’s strong enough to carry us through weariness, discouragement, and even apathy when we ask for help, even if there are no emotions behind our request.</p>

<p>There truly is a God out there who “gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist”&nbsp;(Rom. 4:17), and He will do this again for your numb soul in His time, after He’s done <a href="/w/depend-on-god-who-raises-the-dead">the work He intends to do</a> in you.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdesire-for-me-what-i-cannot-desire" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdesire-for-me-what-i-cannot-desire" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdesire-for-me-what-i-cannot-desire" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: reTHINK Your False Ideas about God
topic: Announcements
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/20/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/rethink-your-false-ideas-about-god
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Here at Stand to Reason, we’re gearing up for another round of <a href="http://rethinkapologetics.com/">reTHINK Apologetics Student Conferences</a> across the country. If you’re a teacher, youth leader, or parent of middle school through college students, and you live anywhere near Southern California, Minnesota, Texas, or Alabama, then we want to see you and your students there!</p>

<p>You’ll find all the info you need <a href="http://rethinkapologetics.com/info/">on the reTHINK Apologetics website</a>. If you’d like to get a taste of the kind of teaching you��ll get at this conference, we’ve posted a few videos <a href="/w/who-is-jesus-">here</a>, and you can purchase more videos from past conferences <a href="https://store.str.org/SearchResults.asp?Search=rethink+20&amp;Submit=">here</a>.</p>

<p>Our theme this year is “reTHINK Your False Ideas about God.”&nbsp;Check out the promo video below, spread it around, and we hope to see you there!</p>

<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9" data-embed-id="-zyCMpQp0YA" data-styles="{&quot;width&quot;:&quot;100%&quot;}" style="width:100%"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" class="embed-responsive-item" frameborder="0" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-zyCMpQp0YA?rel=0" tabindex="0"></iframe></div>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Frethink-your-false-ideas-about-god" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Frethink-your-false-ideas-about-god" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Frethink-your-false-ideas-about-god" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: The Task of Cultural Apologetics
topic: Christian Living
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/06/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/the-task-of-cultural-apologetics
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As the popularity and reach of apologetics have expanded over the last few decades, I’ve loved seeing God bring people with different gifts and perspectives into the movement, rounding out the work of apologetics so it applies more fully to us as whole human beings. The Christian worldview is, after all, much more than philosophical syllogisms. Worldview apologetics address all of reality because every aspect of life is touched by the Creator and can point back to Him.</p>

<p>Over the years, the questions I’ve heard from the people around me have moved steadily in the direction of whether or not Christianity and its God are <em>desirable</em>. Are they not only true, but also good and beautiful? This current emphasis fits right in with the task of cultural apologetics. Paul Gould says in his book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310530490/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0"><em>Cultural Apologetics: Renewing the Christian Voice, Conscience, and Imagination in a Disenchanted World</em></a>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>These three universal longings, for truth, goodness, and beauty, can serve as fitting starting points for a cultural apologetic.... Humanity was made to be nourished on them. These universal human longings cannot be eradicated. Unfortunately, they can be and often are muted and repressed. It’s possible to settle for cheap counterfeits too. This is why God has provided guides within the human soul to help us on our journey. Reason guides us on the quest for truth. The conscience leads us to goodness. And the imagination transports us toward beauty. This is also why we have intellectuals, prophets, and artists. They can perform a priestly duty, leading us if we allow them toward the ultimate object of our soul’s longing: Jesus Christ, the source of all truth, goodness, and beauty.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So how does the cultural apologist work to guide people from their longings for truth, goodness, and beauty to Jesus Christ? Gould explains in <em><a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/april-web-only/what-is-cultural-apologetics-paul-gould-excerpt.html">Christianity Today</a></em>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[T]he first task of the cultural apologist [is] the task of <em>understanding</em> culture. I do a fair amount of worldview analysis in my book. Any cultural apologetic worth its salt will do likewise.</p>

<p>The cultural apologist does not stop with understanding, however. The cultural apologist works to awaken those within culture to their deep-seated longings for goodness, truth, and beauty. Part of that process involves engaging with and working within the culture-shaping institutions—the university, the arts, business, and government—to help others see the reasonableness and desirability of Christianity. Worldview analysis is necessary but not sufficient for a cultural apologetic.</p>

<p>The cultural apologist works to <em>resurrect relevance</em> by showing that Christianity offers plausible answers to universal human longings. And she works to <em>resurrect hope</em>, creating new cultural goods and rhythms and practices that reflect the truth, beauty, and goodness of Christianity. To summarize, cultural apologetics is defined as the <em>work of establishing the Christian voice, conscience, and imagination within a culture so that Christianity is seen as true and satisfying</em>, and it has both a global and local component.</p>

<p>This definition allows—even necessitates—the use of philosophy, science, and history as well as the creation of new cultural artifacts in making a case for Christianity.... Cultural apologetics must demonstrate not only the <em>truth</em> of Christianity but also its <em>desirability</em>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If you’re not familiar with this kind of apologetics, read the full <a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/april-web-only/what-is-cultural-apologetics-paul-gould-excerpt.html">article</a>, take a look at <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310530490/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0">Gould’s book</a>, or just start by listening to Brett Kunkle’s <a href="/w/interview-paul-gould-cultural-apologetics">interview with Gould</a> on our podcast.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-task-of-cultural-apologetics" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-task-of-cultural-apologetics" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthe-task-of-cultural-apologetics" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Are Anti-Abortion Laws Analogous to Sharia Law?
topic: Bioethics
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 06/05/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/are-anti-abortion-laws-analogous-to-sharia-law-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>The recent spate of anti-abortion laws (AKA “<a href="https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/heartbeat-laws-what-you-need-to-know/">Heartbeat bills</a>”) has triggered a new objection against pro-life legislation. Abortion-choice advocates are claiming that these new restrictions on abortion impose religion, thereby violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Since Christians might be biblically motivated against abortion, it’s argued that it’s wrong for believers to impose their religious beliefs on the culture. In fact, some abortion-choice advocates claim it’s hypocritical for Christians to impose their religion while they simultaneously complain that Muslims shouldn’t implement Sharia law in the United States.</p>

<p>This argument misunderstands both Islam and Christianity.</p>

<p>First, no Christian I know is trying to impose the entirety of Christian ethics into law, nor are they attempting to create a theocracy. During the last 15 years that I’ve spoken across the United States and in many countries around the world, I’ve never met a Christian, attended a church, visited a school, or heard of a seminary that is attempting to implement a theocracy or legislate every moral found in Scripture. That’s because it’s a false fear that some non-Christians hold and/or propagate. Not only is such an enterprise pragmatically unfeasible, but it’s also theologically invalid as a New Testament principle. Though a theocracy did operate during Old Testament times, there is no theological mandate to create one today or to legislate every biblical ethic. To be sure, Christians <em>do</em> want a country that upholds justice, but that is a far cry from legislating all of Christian morality. Christians <em>do</em> want a free country where people are able to live out their faith without fear of government restriction or intrusion, but that is not the same thing as a theocracy.</p>

<p>By contrast, Islam is not merely a private religious belief system; it is a total way of life that specifies duties and requirements for every aspect of the individual, community, and society. There is no separation of “church”&nbsp;and state in Islam. It is one and the same. Christians concerned with Sharia law are appropriately afraid of the camel getting his nose under the tent. Sharia courts do <em>not</em> intend to be halfway compromises between Islamic practices and Western laws. They are precursors to a grander plan to implement Islamic principles that penetrate the entire fabric of society. Islam has rules (that practicing Muslims would want to legislate) for government, health, and the economy as well as for minor things such as eating, clothing, and travel. This is no parallel whatsoever to Christian concerns with laws that permit the killing of unborn children.</p>

<p>Second, despite increasing differences between Christians and non-Christians in American culture, I suspect secular people would agree with Christians who oppose many aspects of Sharia law. They would most likely deem many civil and criminal laws that are born out of Sharia to be unethical and violate human rights. That’s because Sharia laws are drawn from hadith literature, written traditions about what Mohammed said, did, or approved of during his 22 years of preaching Islam. Mohammed’s seventh-century opinions, beliefs, and ethics are enshrined in the authoritative traditions of hadith and can be expressed in Sharia laws today. Though hadith literature is not on par with the Quran (which Muslims believe is the literal words of Allah and also constitutes a legitimate source for Sharia laws), it is nonetheless extremely authoritative. That’s because it gives practical applications to the broad principles found in the Quran. Therefore, if you want a taste of what Sharia laws might look like, you can read hadith literature.</p>

<p>As I’ve said, even non-Christians would find many Sharia laws to be inconsistent with their own values and with established American principles today. For example, hadith literature teaches that apostates - those who change their religion away from Islam - are guilty of a capital crime and deserve death: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him”&nbsp;(<a href="http://sunnah.com/bukhari/88/5">Bukhari, no. 6922</a>, <a href="http://sunnah.com/abudawud/40/2">Abud Dawud, no. 4352</a>). That’s not consistent with American law, and both Christians and non-Christians would oppose legislation that mandated such a barbaric practice. It’s also in hadith literature that we find that homosexuals should be killed: “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done”&nbsp;(<a href="http://sunnah.com/abudawud/40/112">Abu Dawud no. 4462</a>). Not only would Christians oppose implementing such a law, but I’m guessing non-Christians would as well. Hadith literature (and even the Quran) also commands thieves to have their hands cut off (<a href="https://quran.com/5/38">surah 5:38</a>, <a href="http://sunnah.com/bukhari/86/18">Bukhari, no. 6789</a>), allows for adulterers to be stoned to death (<a href="https://muflihun.com/muslim/17/4206">Muslim no. 4206</a>), and permits husbands to beat their wives in some circumstances (<a href="https://quran.com/4/34">surah 4:34</a>, <a href="https://muflihun.com/muslim/4/2127">Muslim no. 2127</a>). These are just a few examples. Most Muslims don’t implement these practices, but this is in spite of what the hadith (and Quran) teach and not because of it. This, however, is why Christians are justified in their opposition to Sharia laws and why even secular groups would likely oppose them too.</p>

<p>Third, claiming abortion is wrong is no more religious than saying killing a five-year-old is wrong. That, in effect, is what the pro-life view states - that an unborn human being is equally human and equally valuable as a five-year old. And pro-lifers don’t need to use the Bible to make the argument that the unborn are human beings. The argument can be made from the science of embryology, which states that, from the moment of conception, the unborn is a <em>living</em> being (it's alive), a <em>unique individual</em> being (not merely a part of the mother’s body), and a <em>human</em> type of being (not a potential human or some other species). Therefore, the unborn is a human being just like you and me. <a href="/w/abortion-advocates-fail-biology" target="_blank">Standard embryology textbooks even make this clear</a>. Therefore, legislating a ban on killing unborn children is no more religious than legislating a ban on killing five-year-old children. There is no shortage of moral and legal arguments against abortion that are entirely secular in nature (that’s why, for example, there is a <a href="https://www.secularprolife.org/">secular pro-life group</a>). In virtually every defense I’ve made of the pro-life view in my 15 years advocating against abortion, I’ve made my case solely on scientific and philosophical grounds. My experience, by the way, is not an anomaly.</p>

<p>Christians, then, are not trying to impose their religious views on society. These heartbeat bills are common sense laws that protect unborn human beings <em>for the same reason we have laws that protect born human beings.</em> Although we have religious beliefs that claim all human life is valuable, the case against abortion can be made entirely through scientific and philosophical reasoning. It’s not the same with Sharia laws that are - by definition - religious laws. Christians can support bans on abortion and oppose Sharia law. There’s nothing hypocritical about holding those two positions.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-anti-abortion-laws-analogous-to-sharia-law-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-anti-abortion-laws-analogous-to-sharia-law-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fare-anti-abortion-laws-analogous-to-sharia-law-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Abortion Advocates Fail Biology Again
topic: Bioethics
author: Tim Barnett
date: 06/12/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/abortion-advocates-fail-biology-again-
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Here we go again.</p>

<p>Just when I think abortion arguments couldn’t get any more anti-scientific, they do.</p>

<p>I recently wrote an <a href="/w/abortion-advocates-fail-biology">article</a> on how the science of embryology has firmly established that human life begins at conception. In the article, I don’t cite theologians or Bible verses. Instead, I cite scientists from leading human development textbooks.</p>

<p>The bottom line is, science affirms that “the embryo is a human being from the time of fertilization.”<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> Therefore, science supports the pro-life position that abortion kills a human being.</p>

<p>Abortion advocates don’t like this scientific conclusion. Rather than concede that a new, distinct, whole human being comes into existence at fertilization, some abortion advocates have doubled down on their commitment to anti-scientific foolishness.</p>

<p>For example, comedian and <em>Whose Line Is It Anyway?</em> performer Heather Anne Campbell <a href="https://twitter.com/heathercampbell/status/1126989912903839745?lang=en">tweeted</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>sperm has DNA. DNA is when life begins. every sperm is a potential human being. so, no more masturbating, gentleman, unless you want to be convicted of a felony. carrying a cellphone in your pocket damages your sperm, so no cellphones either. skirts only for men to protect sperm.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Campbell’s argument—if we can even call it that—seems to be that if killing embryos through abortion is murder (“a felony”), then so is masturbation, which kills millions of sperm.</p>

<p>This scientifically illiterate tweet received nearly 170,000 “likes.”&nbsp;That is, 170,000 people read this post and thought it was a good argument. The overwhelming approval of this tweet demonstrates the desperate need for better science education.</p>

<p>Unbelievably, Campbell’s tweet isn’t anything new. This misinformed nonsense made it into the HuffPost in a piece titled “<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/my-proposal-for-a-bill-th_b_3535828">My Proposal for a Bill that Bans Male Masturbation in Texas</a>.”&nbsp;Attempting to argue against a Texas fetal pain bill in 2013, a self-described social equality advocate sarcastically stated, “The anti-choice bill in Texas currently being debated is a great start, but we need to go right to the source: <em>the horrible murder of sperm that occurs during male masturbation.”</em>&nbsp;He goes on to say, “For all we know, these are <em>living organisms</em> that endure excruciating nerve stimulation when exposed outside of the male reproductive system.”</p>

<p>Again, on this view, if abortion is murder, then so is masturbation. Notice, in both cases, there is an <em>assumed</em> biological equivalency between a human sperm cell and a human embryo.</p>

<p>As a science teacher, the lack of basic biological understanding is extremely disconcerting. As a result, I think it’s time to go back to school and correct some fundamental errors.</p>

<h2>First, this argument confuses <em>parts</em> of an organism with a <em>whole </em>organism.</h2>

<p>More specifically, these abortion advocates <em>assume</em> that a sperm cell is <em>the same kind of thing</em> as a human embryo. But they are not the same. A sperm cell is <em>not</em> an organism—an individual being. Rather, it is merely one <em>part</em> of an existing organism. A human embryo, on the other hand, is a <em>whole</em>, distinct organism.</p>

<p>This distinction should not be controversial. In fact, the distinction between <em>parts</em> and <em>wholes</em> is made all the time in biology. For example, notice how <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Cell-Biology-Bruce-Alberts/dp/0815344546/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1HZ7EIZPUNJF0&amp;keywords=cell+biology+textbook&amp;qid=1560185043&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=cell+bio%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C140&amp;sr=1-1"><em>Essential Cell Biology</em></a>—a standard cellular biology textbook—describes the nematode worm:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Another widely studied <em>organism</em> is the nematode worm <em>Caenorhabditis elegans</em>...[T]his creature develops with clockwork precision from a fertilized egg cell into an adult that has exactly 959 <em>body cells (plus a variable number of egg and sperm cells).”</em>&nbsp;[Emphasis mine.]<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Biologically speaking, there is an essential difference between the cells that make up the nematode—the <em>parts</em> of the organism—and the nematode itself—the <em>whole</em> organism.</p>

<p>Likewise, there is an essential difference between the cells that make up a human being—including the sperm and ovum cells—and the human being <em>itself</em>. A body cell or sex cell is merely <em>part of a human organism</em>, whereas a human embryo is a <em>distinct human organism</em>.</p>

<p>True, every somatic (body) cell in the human body contains a copy of the organism’s DNA (i.e., 46 chromosomes). In the case of the gamete (sex) cells, they contain half of the organism’s DNA (i.e., 23 chromosomes). But this fact does <em>not</em> mean that each cell in the human body is a living, whole, distinct organism. Simply put, DNA is a <em>necessary</em> condition for having a distinct organism, but it’s not a <em>sufficient</em> condition for having a distinct organism.</p>

<p>So, if sperm and embryo both have DNA, what’s the defining difference between them? In short, <em>whole</em> organisms function in a way that <em>parts</em> of an organism do not.</p>

<p>In his article titled “<a href="https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&amp;httpsredir=1&amp;article=1132&amp;context=jchlp">Embryonic Human Beings</a>,”&nbsp;bioethicist Patrick Lee writes, “Somatic cells are not, and embryonic human beings are, <em>distinct, self-integrating living beings actively disposed to direct their own maturation as members of the human species</em>.”<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup></p>

<p>Maureen Condic, professor of neurobiology at the University of Utah, expands on this point. She <a href="https://bdfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf">says</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>From the moment of sperm-egg fusion, a human zygote acts as a <em>complete whole with all the parts of the zygote interacting in an orchestrated fashion to generate the structures and relationships required for the zygote to continue developing towards its mature state</em>...The zygote acts immediately and decisively to initiate a program of development that will, if uninterrupted by accident, disease, or external intervention, proceed seamlessly through formation of the definitive body, birth, childhood adolescence, maturity, and aging, ending with death. <em>This coordinated behavior is the very hallmark of an organism.</em></p>

<p>Mere human cells, in contrast, are composed of human DNA and other human molecules, <em>but they show no global organization beyond that intrinsic to cells in isolation.</em> A human skin cell removed from a mature body and maintained in the laboratory will continue to live and will divide many times to produce a large mass of cells, but it will not re-establish the whole organism from which it was removed; it will not regenerate an entire human body in culture. Although embryogenesis begins with a single-cell zygote, the complex, integrated process of embryogenesis is the activity of an organism, not the activity of a cell. [Emphasis mine.]<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>From the moment of fertilization, a human embryo acts in an organized and coordinated fashion to bring the organism through the various stages of development. This separates it from every other cell in the human body.</p>

<h2>Second, this confuses a <em>potential </em>human being with an <em>actual </em>human being.</h2>

<p>Certainly, a sperm cell has the potential to create a human being under the right circumstances. In fact, given the advancement of modern technology, <em>any</em> of your cells (e.g. skin cell) has the potential to be used to create a new human being. This is how cloning works. But make no mistake; a sperm is <em>not</em> a human being. Therefore, killing a sperm is <em>not</em> killing a human being.</p>

<p>Conversely, a human embryo is <em>not</em> a “potential”&nbsp;human being. It <em>is</em> a human being. This is a scientific fact. Therefore, killing a human embryo <em>is</em> killing a human being.</p>

<p>Furthermore, when we speak of the potential of a sperm cell and the potential of a human embryo, we mean two very different things. A sperm cell has the potential to create a distinct organism—a new human being—when fused with an ovum cell. However, a human embryo <em>already is</em> a distinct organism. As such, it has the potential to direct itself through the stages of human development.</p>

<p>Therefore, it is scientifically accurate to say that the embryonic stage “marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> You and I once were an embryo. Before that point, we did not exist. Conversely, it is scientifically absurd to say you once were a sperm or you once were an ovum.</p>

<p>Princeton University legal scholar Robert George and Franciscan University of Steubenville professor of bioethics Patrick Lee <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672893/">state</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>You and I were never either a sperm cell or an ovum. Nor would a person who was brought into being by cloning have been once a somatic cell. To destroy an ovum or a skin cell, the constituents of which might have been used to generate a new and distinct human organism, <em>is not to destroy a new and distinct human organism—for no such organism exists or ever existed.</em> However, to destroy a human embryo is precisely to destroy a new, distinct and complete human organism, an embryonic human being. [Emphasis mine.]<sup id="fnref:6"><a href="#fn:6">6</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>This isn’t hard. A human embryo, even in its unicellular form, is a living, distinct, whole human organism. Therefore, it is different <em>in kind</em> to every other human cell.</p>

<p>Comparing the killing of human embryos to the killing of sperms cells is <em>ignorant</em> at best and <em>dishonest</em> at worst. Those who continue to spout this nonsense are in direct opposition to science. Fortunately, we can correct these category confusions with some basic biology.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Keith L. Moore, T. V. N. Persaud, and Mark Torchia, <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/reader/032331337X?_encoding=UTF8&amp;query=new%20human%20being">Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology</a></em>, 9th Edition, (Philadelphia: Saunders, 2015), 339.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Bruce Alberts, Dennis Bray, Karen Hopkins, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, and Peter Walter, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Cell-Biology-Bruce-Alberts/dp/0815344546/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1HZ7EIZPUNJF0&amp;keywords=cell+biology+textbook&amp;qid=1560185043&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=cell+bio%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C140&amp;sr=1-1"><em>Essential Cell Biology</em></a>, 4th Edition, (New York: Garland Science, 2013), 29.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Patrick Lee, “<a href="https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&amp;httpsredir=1&amp;article=1132&amp;context=jchlp">Embryonic Human Beings</a>,”&nbsp;22, <em>Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy</em> 424-438 (2006), 433.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">Maureen Condic, “<a href="https://bdfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf">When Does Human Life Begin?</a>”&nbsp;<em>Westchester Institute White Paper Series</em> (Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2008), 7.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">Keith Moore, T. V. N. Persaud, and Mark Torchia, <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human-Clinically-Oriented-Embryology/dp/0323313388">The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology</a></em>, 10th Edition, (Philadelphia: Saunders, 2015), 11.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:6">Robert George and Patrick Lee, “<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672893/">Embryonic human persons. Talking Point on morality and human embryo research</a>,”&nbsp;<em>EMBO Report</em>, April 2009, 10 (4): 301-306.<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:6">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fabortion-advocates-fail-biology-again-" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fabortion-advocates-fail-biology-again-" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fabortion-advocates-fail-biology-again-" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Answer Like Jesus
topic: Tactics and Tools
author: Alan Shlemon
date: 06/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/answer-like-jesus
content:
            <div> 
		<p>For someone with all the answers, Jesus didn’t always respond directly to challenging questions. Sometimes He answered a question with another question. Sometimes He answered a different question. On occasion, He didn’t give <em>any</em> answer.</p>

<p>Not much has changed since Jesus’&nbsp;day. Challenges still abound. Today, His followers face a myriad of tough questions. Our views are not popular and, in fact, are often hated. If we answer a pointed question biblically, it often makes people upset. Perhaps we can take a cue from Jesus. Given that He’s the smartest person in history, why don’t we learn to answer tough questions like He did?</p>

<p>For example, homosexuality is a controversial topic of our day. Here are three ways we can answer tough questions about that subject in the way Jesus answered tough questions in His day:</p>

<h2>#1: Ask (or answer) a more important question.</h2>

<p>Jesus realized that behind some challenges exist more important, foundational questions. That often applies to our situations, as well. Before I answer a controversial ethical question about sexuality, I want to know something about the person I’m talking to. If they believe God exists, does it matter to them that He designed us and told us how to live? This is a critical question. If they’re not going to align their ethical views with the God who made them, or at least respect someone (like you) who does, then why cause a stir by telling them about your sexual ethics? Our morality is logically downstream from our theology. In other words, ethical questions about sexuality are secondary to whether or not God exists.</p>

<p>Plus, if they’re going to thumb their nose at God even if they believe He is real, then that tells me they’re probably not a genuine truth seeker. If they would - in theory - be open to what God says about sexuality, then perhaps you should discuss God’s existence with them, not all the details about morality.</p>

<h2>#2: Ask if they’re a tolerant person</h2>

<p>I learned this approach from my friend and colleague Greg Koukl. Before I give what they’ll consider to be a politically incorrect answer to their question, I set up some protection. It functions like insurance. I ask them, “Do you consider yourself a tolerant person or an intolerant person? Do you respect diverse ideas, or do you condemn people for holding beliefs that are different from your own?”&nbsp;They can only answer in two ways. If they say they are tolerant (which is the usual answer), then it’s going to be difficult for them to judge you or call you names (e.g. bigot, homophobe) without looking guilty. They would be going back on their word. If, however, they admit they’re <em>not</em> a tolerant person, then you can tell them you don’t feel comfortable sharing your opinion with an intolerant person. In that case, they’ve disqualified themselves from a civil conversation, and you can feel free to hold off on an answer.</p>

<h2>#3: Let Jesus take the heat&nbsp;</h2>

<p>You might not think this is an approach Jesus would take because He <em>was</em> Jesus. But the principle here is one that Jesus employed: He would often place the responsibility for His words or behavior on the Father. We can do the same, only put the blame on Jesus. After all, though our culture holds a negative view of Christians and the church, they think Jesus is cool. He’s the loving and compassionate guy, they reason. Why not take advantage of their belief when you’re offering a politically incorrect answer to a question about homosexuality? Instead of sounding like it’s your view that homosexual sex is wrong, let Jesus take the heat for that ethical view.</p>

<p>For example, if someone asks you what you think about homosexuality or same-sex marriage, point them to Matthew 19:4-6. In this passage, Jesus summarizes the biblical model for sex and marriage by citing the Genesis account of creation and offering His own commentary. To put it simply, Jesus’&nbsp;view on sex and marriage is about one man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime. Then - and this is the key point - you can remind them that since you���re a follower of Jesus, you must adopt <em>His</em> view. You don’t have the freedom to make up your own mind about sexuality. Whatever ethical system Jesus holds is the one you must also hold.</p>

<p>By pointing people to Jesus for the origin of your view, you’re letting Him take the heat for an unpopular view. Instead of someone’s anger being directed at you, you’re deflecting it towards Christ. That’s okay. He can handle it.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanswer-like-jesus" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanswer-like-jesus" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fanswer-like-jesus" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: She Didn’t Know the Impact of Those 15 Minutes. I Didn’t Either…Until Later.
topic: Christian Living
author: Greg Koukl
date: 06/01/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/she-didn-t-know-the-impact-of-those-15-minutes
content:
            <div> 
		<p>I never care how small an audience may be when I speak at an event. I owe that lack of concern to a young lady I met almost half a century ago—months before I became a believer—whom I talked with for maybe 15 minutes then never saw again in my life.</p>

<p>Her name was Adrian Thatcher, and I met her on a bus while headed down Santa Monica Blvd. returning from the beach to my apartment in the summer of 1973. I was long-haired and hip, looking for love. She was reading her Bible, and her only interest in me was in telling me about Jesus.</p>

<p>I remember almost nothing of the conversation except that she went to a Bible study Wednesday evenings in Westwood Village at a place she called the Light House, or something like that. My interests with her were not spiritual, though, so I dismissed it.</p>

<p>Months later, however—as an exuberant, spiritually hungry baby Christian—I remembered Adrian’s comment. Through another odd “coincidence,”&nbsp;I stumbled upon the Jesus Christ Light and Power House—a vibrant “Jesus person”&nbsp;community and ad hoc Bible school located in a former fraternity house on the outskirts of the UCLA campus. Within four months, I’d moved in.</p>

<p>For two and a half years, I was vigorously discipled—studying the Bible under seminary-trained teachers, learning apologetics, doing street evangelism, working on summer-long outreach projects in Waikiki, and going behind the Iron Curtain for Christ.</p>

<p>My years at the Light and Power House fixed the trajectory of my Christian life forever—all because of a few short moments of faithfulness by a young Christian named Adrian Thatcher. And Adrian, wherever she is, has no idea how much she’s influenced my life—or the world I’ve had an influence on, by God’s grace, since then.</p>

<p>Here is the lesson I learned from that encounter. No matter how small my audience (Adrian had an audience of one), I never know when my own short moment of faithfulness will turn out to be the hinge pin, the turning point in someone else’s life, the small event that changes everything for them from that day forward.</p>

<p>What’s true for me as an individual is true for us as an organization and true for you as an individual ambassador for Christ. It’s hard to quantify the true extent of any person’s influence. We may prepare for each contingency in a conversation, pray through each encounter, and profess the truth with care. We may talk, engage, and cajole. We may witness with great patience, clarity, and grace, yet fail to see a measurable effect.</p>

<p>At Stand to Reason we are not especially burdened by this fact because long ago we decided to let faithfulness be our focus, not results. Yes, Adrian had an audience of just one. But the most important audience wasn’t really me. It was the audience of the One whom she served.</p>

<p>That’s our priority, too—not to hear applause from the multitudes but rather to hear a solitary voice from One saying, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”</p>

<p>The greatest human thanks we get is when you pay it forward, serving quietly, often in the dark, often not knowing the true extent of your impact—going out in obedience, doing what is right, speaking what is true, laboring faithfully before your audience of One. You take what you have—your skills, your gifts, your capabilities, your opportunities—and place it in the hands of the Savior, like these friends are doing:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><em>“STR has been a huge contributor to my growth as a believer, both spiritually and intellectually. I am tremendously better equipped to talk about issues with other Christians and with non-Christians. I’ve shared/given your materials to many others. I thank our Lord for your devotion and service to him.”</em></p>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
<p><em>“STR showed me as a youth that my Christian faith was not just because my dad was a pastor, but that there are facts that show the truth and I can understand them.”</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Your faithfulness in prayer and giving makes it all possible. For example, in the first five months of 2019 we had two fabulous reTHINKs—in Dallas and Birmingham (in the fall we continue the momentum in SoCal plus launch our Midwest regional in Minneapolis)—we hired a new speaker, made great progress on our new website, produced lots of new videos, and sent speakers to five different countries.</p>

<p>Because you have been kind to us, we’re able to be here for you—laboring on for you—so that you might be an Adrian Thatcher in someone else’s life. Your generosity—as well as that of our other faithful friends—makes it possible to equip tens of thousands with the knowledge, wisdom, and character they need to effectively share Christ’s hope.</p>

<p>We are so grateful for you! Thank you for partnering with us at STR. Together we are making an eternal difference in the lives of so many!</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshe-didn-t-know-the-impact-of-those-15-minutes" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshe-didn-t-know-the-impact-of-those-15-minutes" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fshe-didn-t-know-the-impact-of-those-15-minutes" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Does the Bible Teach That Life Begins at First Breath?
topic: Bioethics
author: Tim Barnett
date: 06/25/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/does-bible-teach-life-begins-first-breath
content:
            <div> 
		<p>Internet memes can be dangerous.</p>

<p>They almost always present an <em>idea</em> in a humorous way. Sadly, those who are unable to think critically confuse comedy with veracity.</p>

<p>To make matters worse, these memes are easily shared on social media, so the false idea spreads like a virus—infecting minds that lack the knowledge and training to defend against it.</p>

<p>For example, in the last month, I have encountered a particular pro-abortion meme on multiple occasions. Here’s what the meme says (I’ve cleaned up the spelling and grammar mistakes to make it more readable):</p>

<blockquote>
<p><strong>Forced-birth extremist:</strong> My religion says you can’t have an abortion.</p>

<p><strong>Me:</strong> Your Bible says life begins at first breath; clumps of cells don’t breathe air in the womb. Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This response is supposed to leave the “forced-birth extremist” speechless. In fact, the meme ends with a picture of a shocked Pikachu—a Pokémon character—for comedic effect. However, the only thing shocking about this response is how much it misunderstands what the Bible actually teaches.</p>

<p>Memes like this have some rhetorical force <em>at first blush</em>, but most usually lack any substance upon closer inspection.</p>

<p>Before reading any further, I want to encourage you to take out a pen and a piece of paper and think of your own response to this challenge. When you’ve finished, compare your answers with mine.</p>

<p>After a few moments of reflection, I came up with <em>five reasons why this meme fails.</em></p>

<p><strong>First,</strong> the pro-life argument isn’t that abortion is wrong “because my religion says so.” We <em>can</em> make a biblical argument. However, our primary argument isn’t biblical; it’s <a href="/w/the-s-l-e-d-test" rel="" target="" title=""><em>philosophical</em></a> and <a href="/w/abortion-advocates-fail-biology" rel="" target="" title=""><em>scientific</em></a>.</p>

<p>The pro-life argument is that it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being. Therefore, abortion is wrong.</p>

<p>Notice no Bible verses were quoted. So, this meme doesn’t even come close to addressing the pro-life case. In fact, this meme <em>ignores</em> it completely.</p>

<p><strong>Second,</strong> the Bible does not say life begins at “first breath.” Whoever created this meme needs to read their Bible <em>again</em>. It says <em>Adam</em> came to life at first breath (Gen. 2:7). Of course, this is a <em>descriptive</em> statement, not a <em>prescriptive&nbsp;</em>statement. The author of Genesis is not telling us when all human beings come to life. The Bible doesn’t teach that <em>every</em> man comes to life at first breath any more than it teaches that <em>every</em> woman comes from the rib of a man (Gen. 2:21–22).</p>

<p>If we want to know what the Bible teaches about when life begins, we are going to have to look elsewhere.</p>

<p><strong>Third,</strong> the Bible elevates the status of unborn humans to valuable persons. For example, Psalm 139:13–16, Jeremiah 1:5&gt;, Job 31:15, and Psalm 22:10–11 all imply the unborn is a valuable human being. Never is the unborn treated as a “clump of cells.” Look these verses up and see for yourself.</p>

<p>Furthermore, Luke 1:41–43 clearly teaches that unborn babies—even in the first trimester—are valuable persons. It says,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It’s hard to grasp the weight of this paragraph. The <em>third</em> trimester John (who was already “filled with the Holy Spirit” according to Luke 1:15) leaped for joy in the presence of the <em>first</em> trimester Jesus, who was even called “Lord” in His first trimester. How can a “clump of cells” be Lord?</p>

<p>The Bible clearly communicates that Jesus, John the Baptist, Jeremiah, David, and others were valuable persons—living human beings—<em>before</em> they ever took their first breath.</p>

<p><strong>Fourth,</strong> referring to pro-life advocates as “forced-birth extremists” is ridiculous rhetoric. This is where the first Columbo question would be appropriate: <em>What do you mean by that?</em></p>

<p>True, I’m a “forced-birth extremist” if you mean that I don’t believe we should be able to interrupt the natural development of an innocent human being by killing him or her. In that case, I’m <em>also</em> a “forced-breathing extremist” in that I don’t believe we should interrupt the natural development of an innocent human being by suffocating him or her.</p>

<p>This meme tries to make it sound bad to be against killing innocent human beings.</p>

<p><strong>Fifth</strong>, the Bible explicitly states, “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13). That is, we should not take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification. This command rules out abortion <em>at any stage of development&nbsp;</em>since abortion takes the life of an innocent human being without proper justification.</p>

<p>As I said before, we <em>can</em> make a biblical argument against abortion. The Bible teaches that it’s wrong to take the life of an innocent human being. Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. Therefore, the Bible teaches that abortion is wrong. But, once again, our <em>main</em> argument does not rely on quoting Bible verses to make our case.</p>

<p>So, this meme fails at every level. The next time you see it pop up, don’t let it go unchallenged. Instead, boldly proclaim truth. Our world desperately needs it.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-bible-teach-life-begins-first-breath" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-bible-teach-life-begins-first-breath" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fdoes-bible-teach-life-begins-first-breath" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: Why Men Can Speak on Abortion
topic: Bioethics
author: Aaron Brake
date: 06/19/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/why-men-can-speak-on-abortion
content:
            <div> 
		<p>It seems silly this objection is given so much attention. Unfortunately, any male pro-life advocate involved in the abortion debate will eventually, at one time or another, hear something like the following protest from an abortion-choice female:</p>

<p>You’re a man. Men can’t get pregnant. Abortion is a women’s issue. Therefore, you can’t speak on abortion.</p>

<p>Or the more popular slogan, “No uterus, no opinion.”&nbsp;Pro-life advocates have been quick to offer persuasive rejoinders.</p>

<p>First, <em>arguments</em> don’t have gender.<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1">1</a></sup> A pro-life woman could just as easily present the exact same arguments and evidence for the pro-life view. Gender is irrelevant when it comes to truth, morality, and speaking out against injustice. Furthermore, women disagree on abortion just as men do. Christopher Kaczor points out in his book <em>The Ethics of Abortion</em>,</p>

<blockquote>
<p>[T]here is simply no such thing as <em>the</em> women’s perspective on abortion or <em>the</em> experience of women with abortion. There is no female perspective on this issue any more than there is a male perspective or a brown-eyed person’s perspective.<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2">2</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Pro-life women who offer persuasive arguments for the pro-life view cannot be so easily dismissed with “no uterus, no opinion.”&nbsp;But if that’s the case, why should men who put forward the same arguments and evidence?</p>

<p>Second, if men are not allowed to address the abortion issue, it seems odd that abortion-choice advocates would consistently appeal to <em>Roe v. Wade</em> as justification for their view. After all, <em>Roe v. Wade</em> was decided by nine <em>male</em> Supreme Court Justices. “But,”&nbsp;the feminist philosopher may respond, “those male justices supported a woman’s right to choose.”&nbsp;True, but now you are engaging in special pleading. You are putting forth a general principle (“men can’t speak on abortion”) while making a special exception because it favors your position (“men can speak on abortion if they agree with me”). That won’t work.</p>

<p>These first two rebuttals are important to remember. But there is also an underlying problem assumed in the objection itself, and this relates to the area of epistemology.</p>

<p>Philosophers commonly distinguish between two types of knowledge: propositional knowledge and knowledge by acquaintance.<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3">3</a></sup><em>Propositional</em> knowledge is acquired by possessing true beliefs that are based on adequate grounds, while <em>knowledge by acquaintance</em> is being “directly aware of something.”<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4">4</a></sup> A person, for example, may understand and know the propositional content of the sentence “snow is white”&nbsp;without ever actually seeing snow. When that same person visits the mountains during winter and sees white snow, he now possesses knowledge by acquaintance. When we speak of knowledge by acquaintance, we might also include what some would call <em>experiential</em> knowledge. This is knowledge gained through personal experience, i.e., knowing <em>what it is like</em> to have a certain experience (e.g., knowing <em>what it is like</em> to drive a car or sail a boat). So, a person may possess propositional knowledge about a 1968 Chevy Camaro, but until he actually gets behind the wheel and drives, he does not know <em>what it is like</em> (experientially) to drive the car.</p>

<p>Confused yet? I hope not. These distinctions are important because the underlying problem with the abortion-choice slogan “no uterus, no opinion”&nbsp;is that it equivocates between propositional knowledge and experiential knowledge.</p>

<p>How so? When the abortion-choice advocate says something like “You’re a man”&nbsp;or “Men can’t get pregnant,”&nbsp;I understand them to be making the following claim:</p>

<p>1. Men cannot know what it is like to be pregnant.</p>

<p>Notice the type of knowledge implied is <em>experiential</em> knowledge. Men cannot know <em>what it is like</em> to be pregnant. Fair enough. That’s true. Men will never know <em>what it is like</em> (experientially) to be pregnant. But then, based on this lack of experiential knowledge, the abortion-choice advocate goes on to conclude that “abortion is a women’s issue”&nbsp;and “men can’t speak on abortion.”&nbsp;In other words, they are implying that because men cannot become pregnant, this somehow disqualifies them from making any moral judgment whatsoever on the issue of abortion. It’s not merely that men are trying to “force”&nbsp;their views onto women, but rather that men don’t possess the requisite knowledge in the first place (because they are male) and therefore are not qualified to speak. In making this second claim that “men can’t speak on abortion,”&nbsp;the underlying assumption seems to be:</p>

<p>2. Men cannot know abortion is wrong.</p>

<p>Notice however that this second claim is no longer dealing with <em>experiential</em> knowledge but rather <em>propositional</em> knowledge. The abortion-choice advocate seems to be claiming that because men cannot know (experientially) what it is like to be pregnant, they cannot know (propositionally) that abortion is immoral and therefore have no right to speak on the issue. But this conclusion doesn’t follow and fails to distinguish between the two types of knowledge, making it guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. In other words, no uterus (experientially), no opinion (propositionally).</p>

<p>By way of counterexample, imagine if a man told a woman she couldn’t speak out against the immorality of male pedophilia. After all, a woman doesn’t know what it is like to be a man, doesn’t have a penis, and therefore should not be speaking on men’s issues.<sup id="fnref:5"><a href="#fn:5">5</a></sup> No penis, no opinion. That would be ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than a woman telling a man he cannot speak out against the unjust killing of innocent human life in the womb simply because he is male.</p>

<p>The logic of the pro-life view is very simple and straightforward:</p>

<ol>
	<li>It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.</li>
	<li>Elective abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.</li>
	<li>Therefore, elective abortion is wrong.</li>
</ol>

<p>The truth of premise 1 can be known by intuition and supported by moral philosophy, while the truth of premise 2 can be known and argued through the science of embryology. There is nothing mysterious in the statements above that would prevent a man from understanding the propositional content of this valid argument. The lack of experiential knowledge of what it is like to be pregnant is irrelevant to knowing the truth of the conclusion: elective abortion is wrong.</p>

<p>The discussion above is the long way around helping us understand the following: you don’t need experiential knowledge of pregnancy or womanhood in order to possess the moral knowledge that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings. “No uterus, no opinion”&nbsp;is wrong for many reasons, one of the more foundational being in the area of epistemology. The moral of the story is that not only <em>can</em> men speak on abortion, but also they <em>should</em>. We need more pro-life men willing to speak up to protect the innocent, defend the defenseless, and be a voice for the voiceless.</p>

<aside class="footnotes">
<hr>
<ol>
	<li id="fn:1">Or as Philosopher Francis Beckwith has quipped, “Arguments don’t have penises.”&nbsp;<a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:1">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:2">Christopher Kaczor, <em>The Ethics of Abortion</em> (New York: Routledge, 2011), 9. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:2">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:3">Actually, three types: propositional knowledge, knowledge by acquaintance, and know-how. But only the first two are relevant to our discussion. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:3">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:4">J.P. Moreland, <em>Kingdom Triangle</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 120. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:4">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
	<li id="fn:5">An abortion-choice advocate may object that pedophilia victimizes an innocent human person, but that only begs the question since pro-life advocates argue that abortion not only victimizes but also kills an innocent human person. <a class="reversefootnote" href="#fnref:5">&nbsp;↩</a></li>
</ol>
</aside>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-men-can-speak-on-abortion" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-men-can-speak-on-abortion" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fwhy-men-can-speak-on-abortion" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


title: There Can Be No Moral Progress if There’s No Standard
topic: Philosophy
author: Amy K. Hall
date: 06/27/2019
source: https://www.str.org/w/there-can-be-no-moral-progress-if-theres-no-standard
content:
            <div> 
		<p>As I’ve talked to people about their beliefs over the past few years, I’ve been surprised to discover that belief in moral relativism is still alive and well. In fact, nearly every conversation I have on any spiritual topic seems to end up there eventually.</p>

<p>This is especially surprising to discover in a culture that is so adamant about fighting for social justice. C.S. Lewis explains why in his essay “<a href="https://read.amazon.com/kp/kshare?asin=B00HU5NGA4&amp;id=7yq_1HiYRF61HRC_LVSFLA&amp;reshareId=PPJ4JWC5G222KF26MW9R&amp;reshareChannel=system">The Poison of Subjectivism</a>,” written during World War II:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Everyone is indignant when he hears the Germans define justice as that which is to the interest of the Third Reich. But it is not always remembered that this indignation is perfectly groundless if we ourselves regard morality as a subjective sentiment to be altered at will. Unless there is some objective standard of good, over-arching Germans, Japanese and ourselves alike whether any of us obey it or no, then of course the Germans are as competent to create their ideology as we are to create ours. If ‘good’ and ‘better’ are terms deriving their sole meaning from the ideology of each people, then of course ideologies themselves cannot be better or worse than one another. Unless the measuring rod is independent of the things measured, we can do no measuring. For the same reason it is useless to compare the moral ideas of one age with those of another: progress and decadence are alike meaningless words….</p>

<p>[E]xcept on the supposition of a changeless standard, progress is impossible. If good is a fixed point, it is at least possible that we should get nearer and nearer to it; but if the terminus is as mobile as the train, how can the train progress towards it? Our ideas of the good may change, but they cannot change either for the better or the worse if there is no absolute and immutable good to which they can approximate or from which they can recede. We can go on getting a sum more and more nearly right only if the one perfectly right answer is ‘stagnant’.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There can be no moral progress if there’s no standard. The moral relativist who is fighting for a moral principle is living in tension with his beliefs, but he likely has never realized it. That’s where you come in. Anytime someone advocates for justice or any kind of moral progress—even if you disagree with his idea of what justice and moral progress require—that is a point of contact you have as a Christian with that person. You both agree there are objective morals worth fighting for! Starting from your point of agreement, you can help him think through the implications of the existence of objective justice, pointing Him to the one who is the living standard and source of all that is good.</p>
</div>

            <br>
            <!-- Share links -->
            <a id="facebook-share" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthere-can-be-no-moral-progress-if-theres-no-standard" aria-label="Share this page on Facebook" title="Share on Facebook">
            	<i class="fab fa-facebook-f fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="twitter-share" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthere-can-be-no-moral-progress-if-theres-no-standard" aria-label="Share this page on Twitter" title="Share on Twitter">
            	<i class="fab fa-twitter fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a id="email-share" href="mailto:?body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.str.org%2Fw%2Fthere-can-be-no-moral-progress-if-theres-no-standard" aria-label="Email this page to a friend" title="Email">
            	<i class="far fa-envelope fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            <a href="https://www.printfriendly.com" class="printfriendly" onclick="window.print();return false;" title="Printer Friendly and PDF"><i class="fa fa-print fa-lg" aria-hidden="true"></i>
            </a>
            
          


