Good back-and-forth at the end. Video Description:
Christian apologist Frank Turek (author of I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist) debates atheist spokesman David Silverman (president of the American Atheists) on the topic: Which offers a better explanation for reality–Theism or Atheism? This debate was held on April 18, 2013 at Broadmoor Baptist Church in Shreveport, LA.
Silverman couldn’t quite keep up to Turek’s fast-talking and fast-thinking ways, except by trolling and constantly (and annoyingly) interrupting and filibustering Turek.
Turek, on the other hand, was quite patient with Silverman.
Seems CNN’s Piers Morgan is not much interested in the story of “Matt Salmon, the gay son of a Republican congressman” because the young man “refused to criticize his father, who is not a supporter of same-sex marriage.” As Paul Mirengoff writes at Powerline:
The rejection of guests because they won’t serve as props to further the host’s simplistic narrative isn’t confined to CNN and MSNBC. I experienced it with a well-known Fox News talk-show host.
But using a son as a prop to bash his father seems to carry the joke too far. Moreover, O’Donnell and Morgan are missing the real story of the Salmons and the Portmans — the loyalty that stems from family love. Matt Salmon is loyal to his father; Rob Portman is loyal to his son.
Wonder who is going to examine the prejudices of Mr. Morgan (and Lawrence O’Donnell at MSNBC). He seems to be assuming that because a man doesn’t support gay marriage, his son must need [to] criticize him.
Maybe we’re not as polarized on gay marriage as the sensationalist coverage of the issue makes it appear….
According to BuzzFeed, the gay son of a Republican congressman claims both CNN and MSNBC canceled interviews with him after he refused to criticize his father, who opposes same-sex marriage, on the air. He said CNN producers were “gung ho” about an interview before they changed their mind.
CNN’s Piers Morgan Live and MSNBC’s The Last Word were the two shows that reportedly canceled on Matt R. Salmon, son of Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.). Sources from both networks responded to BuzzFeed, denying that they dropped him because of his refusal to criticize his father.
“They seemed very gung ho about it,” Salmon said of Piers Morgan Live on local news channel KPNX. “And then when I was talking about how supportive I was of my father, and how I was unwilling to be negative, they seemed to lose interest. And all of a sudden their show got jammed, and they couldn’t fit me in.”
Dennis Prager devotes an hour (without adds, an half-an-hour) to the great issues each week. (Posted by: https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/) This hour dealt with children coming out and telling parents they are gay, and all the ramifications that come with that: love, fear, misunderstandings, keeping one’s convictions on ideals, and the like. Parents call in and share their experiences… one caller hashes out the issue of loss of faith in her son based on this topic and probably realigns (matures) in her thinking on the issue a bit. While I do not fully agree with how Dennis views the issue, I am close on it, and so, recommend Dennis’ input on it. The previous weeks dealing with this can be found here: http://youtu.be/kDh4gZ2yaMg
a friends mom’s on Facebook posted this “meme/quote” and tagged me in it. So, I responded to it with what lies below. I wish to note a few things about the “interaction” that followed. Firstly, this action taken by D.N. (friend’s mom) proves yet again that conservatives are much more tolerant than liberals. A study shows that “liberals more likely to block social-media friends over political differences,” here is DAILY CALLER’S take:
According to a new poll from the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, self-described liberals are twice as likely than self-described conservatives to block material on social networking websites that they find politically disagreeable.
Thirty-six percent of social media users said they have blocked, “unfriended” or hidden someone because of politics, but left-leaning participants were far more likely to have taken that action to express disagreement about a friend’s political views.
“Liberals are the most likely to have taken … steps to block, unfriend, or hide” disagreeable political messages, Pew concluded. “In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS [social networking sites] because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.”
Sixteen percent of liberal users said they blocked someone who posted something specific that they disagreed with, compared to eight percent of conservative users.
Liberals are also far more likely than conservatives — 11 percent compared with 4 percent — to completely delete friends from social networking sites because they disagree with their politics.
There has been no word — nor will there likely be any — about whether liberals will enjoy reading this story. Many, if the Pew study is to be believed, will just block it from their news feeds.
Which happened, I was “unfriended.” But here is the kicker, the week prior D.N. got onto my FaceBook and essentially called me a small minded racist bigot! And I quote our conversation:
(She said) “Black people and white people weren’t allowed get married years ago either… if small minded, bigoted people had their way it would still be that way. Gay marriage Is NO different…. religious folks who believe and support same sex marriage ?? They must not be real religious people.”
(I Responded) In other words, a discussion to you is calling me and other readers here “bigots,” and impugning the character of religious gays by creating straw-man arguments of what I (we) say/mean? And when I politely point this out by not pointing out how you name call and use “cards” (sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted ~ S.I.X.H.I.R.B.)….
An interesting thought just came to mind as well. In our previous conversation she mentioned that there are religiously left-leaning people, and that I shouldn’t hold back or discount their thinking, but take into account their thinking BECAUSE they are religious. This was not clearly stated by her, but it was implied. Yet, she apparently does not see the self-refuting aspect of the graphic she posted on her own FaceBook and her previous statement to me. How convenient that she doesn’t practice what she expects others to hold to. If you are conservative and religious, you have no right to force your feelings on people. If you are liberal and religious, game-on!
I didn’t unfriend her? She got onto my FaceBook and called me a racist bigot. Yet, I pointed out the flaws in Judge Judy’s quote and for this, I was ex-communicated. Why? Because leftism is the dominant religion of her being. Here is what I wrote, and what I was doing is making two points that the Judge characterized wrongly the debate with:
that this is a solely religious argument, and;
she herself is pushing her morality on others.
Here we go:
This isn’t a religious argument? For instance, here is an atheist gay man explaining why he is against same-sex marriage:
One of the most respected Canadian sociologist/scholar/homosexual, Paul Nathanson, writes that there are at least five functions that marriage serves–things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:
✫ Foster the bonding between men and women ✫ Foster the birth and rearing of children ✫Foster the bonding between men and children ✫Foster some form of healthy masculine identity ✫ Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults
Note that Nathanson considers these points critical to the continued survival of any culture. He continues “Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, … every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.”
Going further he stated that “same sex marriage is a bad idea” …[he] only opposed “gay marriage, not gay relationships.”
And then I posted this short video of another gay man explaining the importance of marriage and how same-sex marriage will undefine it:
Then I zeroed in on the statement that religious people are “forcing their morality on other.” I quoted the following mock-conversation to make the point clear via an old philosophy paper of mine:
You Shouldn’t Force Your Morality On Me![1]
First Person: “You shouldn’t force your morality on me.”
Second Person: “Why not?”
First Person: “Because I don’t believe in forcing morality.”
Second Person: “If you don’t believe in it, then by all means, don’t do it. Especially don’t force that moral view of yours on me.”
First Person: “You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”
Second Person: “I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that statement. Do you mean I have no right to an opinion?”
First Person: “You have a right to you’re opinion, but you have no right to force it on anyone.”
Second Person: “Is that your opinion?”
First Person: “Yes.”
Second Person: “Then why are you forcing it on me?”
First Person: “But your saying your view is right.”
Second Person: “Am I wrong?”
First Person: “Yes.”
Second Person: “Then your saying only your view is right, which is the very thing you objected to me saying.”
First Person: “You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”
Second Person: “Correct me if I’m misunderstanding you here, but it sounds to me like your telling me I’m wrong.”
First Person: “You are.”
Second Person: “Well, you seem to be saying my personal moral view shouldn’t apply to other people, but that sounds suspiciously like you are applying your moral view to me. Why are you forcing your morality on me?”
SELF-DEFEATING
“Most of the problems with our culture can be summed up in one phrase: ‘Who are you to say?’” – Dennis Prager. So lets unpack this phrase and see how it is self-refuting, or as Tom Morris[2] put it, self-deleting.
When someone says, “Who are you to say?” answer with, “Who are you to say ‘Who are you to say’?”[3]
This person is challenging your right to correct another, yet she is correcting you. Your response to her amounts to “Who are you to correct my correction, if correcting in itself is wrong?” or “If I don’t have the right to challenge your view, then why do you have the right to challenge mine?” Her objection is self-refuting; you’re just pointing it out.
The “Who are you to say?” challenge fails on another account. Taken at face value, the question challenges one’s authority to judge another’s conduct. It says, in effect, “What authorizes you to make a rule for others? Are you in charge?” This challenge miscasts my position. I don’t expect others to obey me simply because I say so. I’m appealing to reason, not asserting my authority. It’s one thing to force beliefs; it’s quite another to state those beliefs and make an appeal for them.
The “Who are you to say?” complaint is a cheap shot. At best it’s self-defeating. It’s an attempt to challenge the legitimacy of your moral judgments, but the statement itself implies a moral judgment. At worst, it legitimizes anarchy!
[1]Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air (Baker Books; 1998), p. 144-146.
[2]Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies (IDG Books; 1999), p. 46
[3]Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air (Baker Books; 1998), p. 144-146.”
I ended with the “you aren’t doing this debate/discussion/national dialogue and good by posting un-truths like the above Judge Judy quote” type finisher. As she unfriended me she said I was saying wacko things? Personally, the above is astute, full of knowledge and close to the heart information by gay men.
In a final word to me, D.N. mentioned that one of her sons said this would happen.
I asked “what would happen?”
Did her son say that I WOULD NOT unfriended her for calling me a small minded racist bigot on my own FaceBook?
Did he say to her that SHE WOULD unfriend me after I pointed to gay men themselves speaking the truth about the immutability of the heterosexual union?
Her son said that would happen?
I don’t think so.
And she is one who would say that the right is creating an air of divisiveness. What a crazy, unthinking, low-voter information world we live in.
One last point not included in the original conversation, but that I believe to be salient to the tactic used by Judge Judy and the myriad of other who think such statements make sense.
Use Judge Judy’s own words against them in regards to these other examples where Christianity led the way,
“They have no right to impose their feelings on the rest of us.”
…Such “exclude religion” arguments are wrong because marriage is not a religion! When voters define marriage, they are not establishing a religion. In the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the word “religion” refers to the church that people attend and support. “Religion” means being a Baptist or Catholic or Presbyterian or Jew. It does not mean being married. These arguments try to make the word “religion” in the Constitution mean something different from what it has always meant.
These arguments also make the logical mistake of failing to distinguish the reasons for a law from the content of the law. There were religious reasons behind many of our laws, but these laws do not “establish” a religion. All major religions have teachings against stealing, but laws against stealing do not “establish a religion.” All religions have laws against murder, but laws against murder do not “establish a religion.” The campaign to abolish slavery in the United States and England was led by many Christians, based on their religious convictions, but laws abolishing slavery do not “establish a religion.” The campaign to end racial discrimination and segregation was led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist pastor, who preached against racial injustice from the Bible. But laws against discrimination and segregation do not “establish a religion.”
If these “exclude religion” arguments succeed in court, they could soon be applied against evangelicals and Catholics who make “religious” arguments against abortion. Majority votes to protect unborn children could then be invalidated by saying these voters are “establishing a religion.” And, by such reasoning, all the votes of religious citizens for almost any issue could be found invalid by court decree! This would be the direct opposite of the kind of country the Founding Fathers established, and the direct opposite of what they meant by “free exercise” of religion in the First Amendment.
[….]
Historian Alvin Schmidt points out how the spread of Christianity and Christian influence on government was primarily responsible for outlawing infanticide, child abandonment, and abortion in the Roman Empire (in AD 374); outlawing the brutal battles-to-the-death in which thousands of gladiators had died (in 404); outlawing the cruel punishment of branding the faces of criminals (in 315); instituting prison reforms such as the segregating of male and female prisoners (by 361); stopping the practice of human sacrifice among the Irish, the Prussians, and the Lithuanians as well as among other nations; outlawing pedophilia; granting of property rights and other protections to women; banning polygamy (which is still practiced in some Muslim nations today); prohibiting the burning alive of widows in India (in 1829); outlawing the painful and crippling practice of binding young women’s feet in China (in 1912); persuading government officials to begin a system of public schools in Germany (in the sixteenth century); and advancing the idea of compulsory education of all children in a number of European countries.
During the history of the church, Christians have had a decisive influence in opposing and often abolishing slavery in the Roman Empire, in Ireland, and in most of Europe (though Schmidt frankly notes that a minority of “erring” Christian teachers have supported slavery in various centuries). In England, William Wilberforce, a devout Christian, led the successful effort to abolish the slave trade and then slavery itself throughout the British Empire by 1840.
In the United States, though there were vocal defenders of slavery among Christians in the South, they were vastly outnumbered by the many Christians who were ardent abolitionists, speaking, writing, and agitating constantly for the abolition of slavery in the United States. Schmidt notes that two-thirds of the American abolitionists in the mid-1830s were Christian clergymen, and he gives numerous examples of the strong Christian commitment of several of the most influential of the antislavery crusaders, including Elijah Lovejoy (the first abolitionist martyr), Lyman Beecher, Edward Beecher, Harriet Beecher Stowe (author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin), Charles Finney, Charles T. Torrey, Theodore Weld, William Lloyd Garrison, “and others too numerous to mention.” The American civil rights movement that resulted in the outlawing of racial segregation and discrimination was led by Martin Luther King Jr., a Christian pastor, and supported by many Christian churches and groups.
There was also strong influence from Christian ideas and influential Christians in the formulation of the Magna Carta in England (1215) and of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787) in the United States. These are three of the most significant documents in the history of governments on the earth, and all three show the marks of significant Christian influence in the foundational ideas of how governments should function.
Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010], 31, 49-50.
BONUS
This WALL STREET JOURNAL article is a related (to the video/audio) herein. This audio was uploaded March 28, 2013:
NELSON LUND: A SOCIAL EXPERIMENT WITHOUT SCIENCE BEHIND IT
Advocates of same-sex marriages can’t back up claims about positive long-term effects.
By Nelson Lund (March 26, 2013)
The Supreme Court is hearing two cases this week that represent a challenge to one of the oldest and most fundamental institutions of our civilization. In Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor, the court is being asked to rule that constitutional equal protection requires the government to open marriage to same-sex couples.
The claimed right to same-sex marriage is not in the Constitution or in the court’s precedents, so the court must decide whether to impose a new law making marriage into a new and different institution. The justices are unlikely to take so momentous a step unless they are persuaded that granting this new right to same-sex couples will not harm children or ultimately undermine the health of our society.
A significant number of organizations representing social and behavioral scientists have filed briefs promising the court that there is nothing to worry about. These assurances have no scientific foundation. Same-sex marriage is brand new, and child rearing by same-sex couples remains rare. Even if both phenomena were far more common, large amounts of data collected over decades would be required before any responsible researcher could make meaningful scientific estimates of the long-term effects of redefining marriage.
The conclusions in the research literature typically amount at best to claims that a particular study found “no evidence” of bad effects from child rearing by same-sex couples. One could just as easily say that there is no reliable evidence that such child-rearing practices are beneficial or harmless. And that is the conclusion that should be relevant to the court.
Social-science advocacy organizations, however, have promoted the myth that a lack of evidence, so far, of bad effects implies the nonexistence of such effects. This myth is based on conjecture or faith, not science.
Nor is the leap of faith from “no evidence” to “don’t worry” an accident. The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, himself a distinguished social scientist at Harvard, once observed: “Social science is rarely dispassionate, and social scientists are frequently caught up in the politics which their work necessarily involves . . . [T]he pronounced ‘liberal’ orientation of sociology, psychology, political science, and similar fields is well established.”
This orientation has been on rich display in the research on same-sex parenting, which is scientific primarily in the sense that it is typically conducted by people with postgraduate degrees. There are no scientifically reliable studies at all, nor could there be, given the available data. Yet the Supreme Court has been solemnly assured by many scientific organizations, such as the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, that the overwhelming weight of evidence indicates that same-sex couples are every bit the equal of opposite-sex parents in every relevant respect. The number of studies may be overwhelming but the evidence assuredly is not.
The prominent National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, for instance, relied on a sample recruited entirely at lesbian events, in women’s bookstores and through lesbian newspapers. Other studies relied on samples as small as 18 or 33 or 44 cases. The effect of parenting by male homosexual couples remains in the realm of anecdotes. Most research has relied on reports by parents about their children’s well-being while the children were still under the care of those parents. Even a social scientist should be able to recognize that parents’ evaluations of their own success as parents might be a little skewed.
In 2012, sociologist Loren Marks conducted a detailed re-analysis of 59 studies of parenting by gays and lesbians that were cited by the American Psychological Association in a 2005 publication. Mr. Marks, who teaches at Louisiana State University, concluded that the association drew inferences that were not empirically warranted.
There has been only one study using a large randomized sample, objective measures of well-being, and reports of grown children rather than their parents. This research, by Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas Austin, found that children raised in a household where a parent was involved in a same-sex romantic relationship were at a significant disadvantage with respect to a number of indicators of well being—such as depression, educational attainment and criminal behavior—compared with children of intact biological families.
One might expect this work at least to raise a caution flag, but it has been vociferously attacked on methodological grounds by the same organizations that tout the value of politically congenial research that suffers from more severe methodological shortcomings. This is what one expects from activists, not scientists.
As everyone knows, some states have begun to experiment with legalizing same-sex marriage, and public opinion seems to be shifting in favor of the change. Perhaps this will work out well, and the overwhelming majority of states that have been more cautious will eventually catch up. But experiments are never guaranteed to succeed, and one advantage of democracy is that it allows failed experiments to be abandoned. If the Supreme Court constitutionalizes a right to same-sex marriage, however, there will be no going back. The court cannot possibly know that it is safe to take this irrevocable step.
Mr. Lund is a professor at George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, Va. This article is based on an amicus curiae brief in support of the petitioners in Hollingsworth v. Perry, filed on behalf of Leon R. Kass (University of Chicago), Harvey C. Mansfield (Harvard University), and the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.
1. Argument from Design (0:40) 2. Argument from First Cause (8:04) 3. Argument from Conscience (18:20) 4. Argument from Desire (28:47) 5. Pascal’s Wager (34:05)
It is funny. In this conversation (which is part two, part one can be found here) I have noticed a theme… which is, the detractors in question will bring up topics of a religious bent, even going as far as quoting Scripture; then, when corrected on the theological or historical/cultural aspects they themselves brought up — they mention why talk religion? They continue that faith is a personal thing that no one will ever agree on.
You see, they expect others to see their viewpoint on the Bible, but then when simple in text explanations (exegesis) are explained — clearly — all of a sudden you are accused of “nitpicking and going through contortions” (that is a quote). So, this second part unlike the first that dealt more with Natural Law and biology deals more with Biblical texts and proofs brought up in conversation. These skeptical positions enumerated herein are held typically by liberal progressive skeptics… which many in the conversation reject politically (that is, liberalism and progressivism). I was disappointing that many of my fellow brethren could make cogent, stat/fact filled arguments incorporating history and reason to refute liberal/progressive positions. But as soon as religion is mentioned, the previously held conservative linear thought is jettisoned for a more emotion-based, feelings styled approach that uses unfounded and unreasonable positions.
Which is why this was written with the idea that it should not be taken as a personal attack as much as a mild correction and clarion call to conservative thought even in looking at religious positions. It is a funny thing that they understand this in conversation between liberals and conservatives, but not between liberal believers and conservative believers.
I will explain with an example recently posted on this same FaceBook group regarding Ronald Reagan’s birthday. In it Chris corrects another for his egregious take on history.
Now, anyone in an emotional conversation knows that typically when people write lists of reasons why they do not believe in a particular ideology — in this case, conservative/Republican fiscal ideals and philosophy — these people will merely produce a new list when the previous one is dealt with point-by-point incorporating history, facts, and reason. You see, said-person being responded to really doesn’t want to change, or listen to reason. They JUST WANT to feel like they have reasons to reject a position. And even thought this rejection is psychologically based, a feeling that one has to have reasons in their rejection runs deep. I give an analogy in my first chapterfrom my book:
…I say “honestly asked” because often times people just ask questions to purposefully deflect their own understanding of the topic. Once you give a reasonably well thought out answer, the dishonest interviewer typically will not inculcate this response and consider changing his or her mind based on the new evidence you just gave them, they typically respond with another question. The problem is not with the topic or evidence that is being discussed, the problem might well be that the person in question just doesn’t want to re-think their position, no matter how much evidence he or she finds or is presented with. Let me explain with an example from the book, Classical Apologetics:
Psychological Prejudice
But even a sound epistemic system,[1] flawless deductive reasoning, and impeccable inductive procedure does not guarantee a proper conclusion. Emotional bias or antipathy might block the way to the necessary conclusion of the research. That thinkers may obstinately resist a logical verdict is humorously illustrated by John Warwick Montgomery’s modern parable:
Once upon a time (note the mystical cast) there was a man who thought he was dead. His concerned wife and friends sent him to the friendly neighborhood psychiatrist determined to cure him by convincing him of one fact that contradicted his beliefs that he was dead. The fact that the psychiatrist decided to use was the simple truth that dead men do not bleed. He put his patient to work reading medical texts, observing autopsies, etc. After weeks of effort the patient finally said, “All right, all right! You’ve convinced me. Dead men do not bleed.” Whereupon the psychiatrist stuck him in the arm with a needle, and the blood flowed. The man looked down with a contorted, ashen face and cried, “Good Lord! Dead men bleed after all!”
Emotional prejudice is not limited to dull-witted, the illiterate, and poorly educated. Philosophers and theologians are not exempt from the vested interests and psychological prejudice that distort logical thinking. The question of the existence of God evokes deep emotional and psychological prejudice. People understand that the question of the existence of God is not one that is of neutral consequence. We understand intuitively, if not in terms of its full rational implication, that the existence of an eternal Creator before whom we are ultimately accountable and responsible is a matter that touches the very core of life.[2]
You see, the Christian-theistic worldview does not just offer answers in religious areas and is silent in the political arena, rather, it forces one to confront popular culture, which often times demands political or cultural change. This can cause religious and non-religious persons alike to become very intolerant, especially when the topic combines a person’s religious views and that of currant affairs…
[1]Epistemology – “the branch of philosophy concerned with questions about knowledge and belief and related issues such as justification and truth.” C. Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2002), 39.
[2] R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 69-70.
One comment on the above post by ChrisH was this one by CF:
C.F.’s comment needs to be kept in mind as we look at the skeptical responses to the idea that homosexual behavior is of equal cultural levels as keeping kosher. A “good understanding” of the culture, text, language, and the like, is lacking. These detractors take SUCH STRONG, ABSOLUTE positions on the Biblical texts based on no cultural understanding… and then in the same breath accuse me (or whomever) that we are being waaayyy too legalistic and literal. Their uninformed, prejudicial position strays far away from proper hermeneutics that any ancient text (not just the Bible) deserves. To be clear, this rejection is more in line with liberalism and progressive thinking rather than the deep thinking of conservative ideals that many in this group profess. I would counsel these believers to be CONSISTENT in how they deal with tough subjects. Religious or political.
I will start the conversation with Dennis Prager correcting Obama on his (really, the liberal position) Biblical knowledge. He deals with the same topic that was presented to me by two people, fortuitously AFTER my conversation about the same topic: ShellFish! Now to the conversation.
G.C. starts out the second round of conversation by saying:
I do not get offended by Sean’s words – neither do I take them as Gospel. He is no closer to knowing God’s heart than Satan himself. And I don’t mean that as an insult, but as a simple fact applicable to ALL of us. I will tell you that the Archbishop of Miami, several Monsignors, dozens of priests, including my pastor, are very loving of my partner and I. The Church’s ‘official’ teachings are known by all, but as long as I don’t attempt to ‘marry’ my partner, my sin is no worse than the divorcee who lives with the new lover and doesn’t remarry. In my heart, I KNOW God blesses my union – damn official teachings and damn Sean Giordano (not really, but his argument here – lol). But I do accept that marriage is one man/one woman, NO divorce – what God has joined together let no man tear apart. But I’ll let God judge – I won’t. My own sister is divorced, although she’s never remarried. Again, I don’t get upset because Sean Giordano has a theological viewpoint and verbalizes it without hatred. A lib will insist that HAVING that opinion is in itself hateful and homophobic. And I’m starting to see a lot of conservative gayswithnthesame attitude on sites like GOProud. Pisses me off.
I respond:
No offense taken. Your point on how a liberal versus how conservatives react is well stated. And I am proud to be in the same camp as you my friend.
There are sins that are worse than others. We will be rewarded for the varying good works we do, and be judged for our sins. God sets up ideals very clearly in His Scripture, not SeanG’s book. And God spoke through His prophets, through the apostles, and through Himself (YHWH, Jesus). Obviously the only sin that counts is denying Christ’s nature and confessing with our mouths our need for salvation through Him.
Again, you mentioned me and the church. Neither of these “institutions” dictate what Scripture has clearly stated. ANd God wants an ideal, and the Christian especially should say:
♛ Divorce is not normative or God’s will;
♛ AND, homosexual relations are not normative or God’s will.
In other words, God hates divorce, and God hates the homosexual act. In other words, the Church (via the Bible) should discourage and not encourage divorce. Likewise, the Church (via the Bible) should discourage and not encourage homosexual behavior.
This does not mean he has withheld grace and forgiveness to the repentant believer. But the repentant believer would not continuously marry, and divorce, and piously say God blesses or condones that action. This has nothing to do with your salvation, nor, does it say that God blesses divorce or same-sex relationships. Take note as well that the original languages help you dissect the truth of Scripture (Matthew 5:32):
The Greek words for “commit” and “commits” come from the root words MOICHEUO and MOIXAO. The first word is in the aorist passive tense meaning that the act of committing adultery is completed and done against the woman. This would suggest that he subsequently has sexual relations with some other woman. This is the message of Matt 19:9; Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18. The second word is in the present middle tense meaning that the woman commits adultery herself by marrying another man. Such divorces are unbiblical divorces.
[….]
Conclusion: Divorce was not in God’s original plan. God only allows it because of the hardness of hearts. The effect of this sin is just like any other sin; there are always consequences that are unavoidable. But do not forget that God forgives this sin. He forgave King David who killed and committed adultery. There is no sin God does not forgive. (Source)
Here are the very next words/list out of G.C.’s mouth [keyboard]:
Again, I respond:
Lets stick with your example of shellfish G.C., as E.M. also brought it up. I want to deal with this in a couple of ways. Firstly, the entirety of Leviticus was not written for everyone. There are parts that speak to the Jewish nation of the day (the Hebraic peoples), and other commands that included more than just the Jewish nation. We know this because God says, “Speak to the sons of Israel saying…” He gives instructions to the Israelites, not to the rest of the nations.
✂ *SNIP* ✂
Here is a list of instances when the occurrence of the phrase “Speak to the Sons of Israel saying…” is found in Leviticus, the book under consideration.
Lev. 4:2, atonement for unintentional sins Lev. 7:23, don’t eat fat from ox, sheep, or goat Lev. 7:29, procedures for peace offering to the Lord Lev. 11:2, list of animals the Israelites may eat Lev. 12:2, uncleanness after giving birth Lev. 23:24, rest on 1st day of 7th month Lev. 23:34, Feast of Booths on 15th day of 7th month Lev. 24:15, the one cursing God will bear his sin
So, we can see a host of things that dealt only with Israel.
However, there are abominations that did not apply only to Israel, but to everyone else also. Again, let’s look at Leviticus.
✞Lev. 18:22-30, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. 23 Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion. 24 Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; FOR BY ALL THESE THE NATIONS WHICH I AM CASTING OUT BEFORE YOU HAVE BECOME DEFILED 25 ‘For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. 26 But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and SHALL NOT DO ANY OF THESE ABOMINATIONS, NEITHER THE NATIVE, NOR THE ALIEN WHO SOJOURNS AMONG YOU 27 (FOR THE MEN OF THE LAND WHO HAVE BEEN BEFORE YOU HAVE DONE ALL THESE ABOMINATIONS, and the land has become defiled); 28 so that the land may not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has SPEWED OUT THE NATION WHICH HAS BEEN BEFORE YOU. 29 ‘For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. 30 ‘Thus YOU ARE TO KEEP MY CHARGE, THAT YOU DO NOT PRACTICE ANY OF THE ABOMINABLE CUSTOMS WHICH HAVE BEEN PRACTICED BEFORE YOU, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the Lord your God.’”
What abominations is Lev. 18:22-30 speaking of? Contextually, chapter 17 is about blood atonement procedures, so that is for Israel, not for everyone. In Chapter 18 God says to Israel, “You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you,” (Lev. 18:3). So, now instead of it applying only to Israel, God mentions things that are done by Egypt and the land of Canaan. What were the things those nations did? The chapter contains the following.
Lev. 18:6-18, don’t uncover the nakedness of various relatives. Lev. 18:19, don’t have sexual relations with woman on her period Lev. 18:20, don’t have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife Lev. 18:21, don’t offer children to Molech Lev. 18:22, don’t lie with a male as with a female Lev. 18:23 don’t have intercourse with animals.
The next day, as they were traveling and nearing the city, Peter went up to pray on the housetop about noon. Then he became hungry and wanted to eat, but while they were preparing something, he went into a visionary state. He saw heaven opened and an object that resembled a large sheet coming down, being lowered by its four corners to the earth. In it were all the four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth, and the birds of the sky. Then a voice said to him, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat!” “No, Lord!” Peter said. “For I have never eaten anything common and ritually unclean!” Again, a second time, a voice said to him, “What God has made clean, you must not call common.” This happened three times, and then the object was taken up into heaven.
Peter Visits Cornelius
While Peter was deeply perplexed about what the vision he had seen might mean, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions to Simon’s house, stood at the gate. They called out, asking if Simon, who was also named Peter, was lodging there. While Peter was thinking about the vision, the Spirit told him, “Three men are here looking for you. Get up, go downstairs, and accompany them with no doubts at all, because I have sent them.” Then Peter went down to the men and said, “Here I am, the one you’re looking for. What is the reason you’re here?” They said, “Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who has a good reputation with the whole Jewish nation, was divinely directed by a holy angel to call you to his house and to hear a message from you.” Peter then invited them in and gave them lodging. The next day he got up and set out with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa went with him.
The edict against the ethnic/religious Jew (“the sons of Israel”) was lifted in this verse. So contrary to the horrible arguments often made by Skeptics of the Christian faith, You, G.C., should not use the same horrible exegesis that non-believers use. The same can be said regarding arguments for same-sex marriage needing to be made well. (Per Mr. Blatt, whom I agree with on this point — that is, a coherent reasonable case needs to be made for same-sex marriage. A case that isn’t arbitrary, like liberals tend towards.) So to do hermeneutics need to be used well in the Christians life. No matter where it leads you (often times it leads ALL OF US to face our sins and sinful nature, right?).
Here are the very next words/list out of G.C.’s mouth [keyboard]:
You see, G.C. (as well as E.M.) do not want to accept what the Bible says at face value.
They have no need for ways to approach ancient texts to allow personal opinion and deconstructionism (progressive values) to be set aside and create a model for all people to equally and fairly come to these texts to get the most truth from them.
I explain this well in another post where the Bible is attacked and the people doing so are the literalists/legalists, similar to G.C. and Others.
They are the absolutists.
Conservative Christian and Jews are not the Biblical literalists as these skeptics define it (wrongly, creating a straw-man)… even though we are painted as such.
In other words, they incorporate what they deny, while applying straw-man positions to our side, its very convoluted on their part and why progressives typically think these attacks are acceptable.
A final word from Dr. Copan, that also touches a bit on the salvonic history involved in this discussion, that is often overlooked by the skeptics. He makes a point also about the wooden interpretation of the pharisees and has to point out that these topics (divorce, slavery, and the like) are not ideals from God but Him dealing with man’s “hardness of heart.”
… Jesus’s approach reminds us that there’s a multilevel ethic that cautions against a monolithic, single-level ethic that simply “parks” at Deuteronomy 24 and doesn’t consider the redemptive component of this legislation. The certificate of divorce was to protect the wife, who would, by necessity, have to remarry to come under the shelter of a husband to escape poverty and shame. This law took into consideration the well-being of the wife. So when Jesus spoke to the Pharisees, their wooden interpretation made it difficult to see that Moses’s words didn’t represent an absolute ethic. (Keep in mind that God’s commands involving divorce—and even slavery—are given not as ideals, but because of the hardness of human hearts [Matt. 19:81.) These Pharisees approached Scripture in a way that made it virtually impossible for them to see any further, as Jesus pointed out—to see that there was an even greater good of sacrificially serving in the kingdom by forgoing the joys and benefits of marriage (Matt. 19:10-12).
[….]
So as we look at many of these Levitical laws, we must appreciate them in their historical context, as God’s temporary provision, but also look at the underlying spirit and movement across the sweep of salvation history. As we do so, we see that the movement of Scripture consistently prohibits homosexual activity (for example), on the one hand. However, the movement of Scripture consistently affirms the full humanity of slaves (e.g., Job 31:13-15), eventually encouraging slaves to pursue their freedom (1 Cor. 7:21). As we noted earlier, slavery wasn’t commanded but permitted (as was divorce) because of the hardness of human hearts. Homosexuality is a different matter. New Testament scholar R. T. France writes that direct references to homosexual activity in Scripture are “uniformly hostile”; homosexual behavior—so common in surrounding cultures (ancient Near Eastern/Greco-Roman)—was “simply alien to the Jewish and Christian ethos.” Note too that acts—rather than mere inclinations/tendencies (whether homosexual or heterosexual)—are judged to be immoral and worthy of censure in Scripture.
So it’s wrongheaded to claim that homosexual acts were “just cultural” or simply “on the same level” as the kosher or clothing laws that God gave to help set Israel apart from its pagan neighbors. Levitical law also prohibits adultery, bestiality, murder, and theft, and surely these go far beyond the temporary prohibitions of eating shrimp or pork!
One last small dialogue from the larger strain. E.M. mentioned the following:
“Jesus never mentions homosexuality in the bible.”
To which I quoted Scripture (not to mention Jesus was heavily involved in writing Leviticus! Just Sayin’). I respond:
You are wrong E.M., Jesus specifically mentions the ideal (Matthew 19:4-6) I have continuously spoken to above.
He answered, “Haven’t you read in your Bible that the Creator originally made man and woman for each other, male and female? And because of this, a man leaves father and mother and is firmly bonded to his wife, becoming one flesh—no longer two bodies but one. Because God created this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate his art by cutting them apart.” (The Message Bible ~ Red is Jesus)
This organic union is what I speak to in part one.
You can read more about how to approach text in ways any deep-thinking literary critic is trained to as well as the person seeking truth. Obviously G.C.rejects portions of Scripture to embolden his view how he views man’s nature and his own standing before God. He fashions God and His Holy Spirit to fit his conception. Not based on deep study, but of psychological wants and needs. You can click through to my other post. I caution you however, this is a step those interested in truth should take. Those not interested in literary criticism, history, hermeneutics, and the like, shouldn’t take.
These are three books I recommend to the serious student:
A Critique of God-Talk in “Anarchast Ep. 55 with Kelly Diamond” I do some of the critique in the video itself. As well as below. When a pastoral minded/professor friend submits his short critique I will post it along with the below on my blog and edit in the link here. Now to some commentary:
The prostitute mentioned in the video that Jesus hung out with changed, Jesus didn’t judge her because in His presence she felt the grace and justice (Law and Gospel) of God and knew she was loved first and repented, changed. Jesus didn’t “hang” with non-repentant people. He spoke often about them (the Pharisees for instance). The thief on the Cross, likewise, repented. Jesus conversed with him, and not the other unrepentent criminal. (CS Lewis says hell is locked from the inside — freedom of choice played out in the macro at Calvary.) Jesus spoke A LOT about hell (or, judgment). He also created the structure and model of discipleship, or, organized religion if you will. Not saying that religion…
▲ RELIGION: used as the Founders defined “religion” for some history 101, they meant Christian denominations (see rough drafts of the 1st Amendment: http://tinyurl.com/b5yos42)
…is not corruptible, of course it is. That is the Gospel message, man is corrupt (Romans 3:10), but this is also weighed against the Holy Spirit’s continual influence bringing to fruit the prophecy that the powers of hell will not conquer the Church (Matthew 16:18).
However, this is a big leap of logic to say anarchy will assist in this venture of incorruptibility. In the church or in man. If one reads Sowell’s “Conflict of Visions,” it is almost a primer in Calvinism.
And from it I link to this question to a Christian apologist (Ravi Zacharias) at Michigan University by a Muslim student. And Ravi explains how Jesus raised the stakes on the “Golden Rule.”
An example from Eastern Philosophy of the difference of the “golden rule.” In the “wu-wei” principle we find the meaning of this “golden rule” of Taoism, which is essentially to “do nothing,” or, to “cease.” While there is a “Golden Rule” of sorts (see: http://tinyurl.com/d2hxv), one of my professors points out that that the perfect individual in most Eastern philosophies are “placid, self-contented and indifferent toward all people and all things…” So while having some of the semantics that seem familiar to the Western thinker, the ideal position behind treating someone as you would wish to be treated as has a completely different meaning than Christianity gives it. And what was done in the above video was conflating two wholly separate ideas of the Golden Rule into one Western (Judeo-Christian influenced) meta-narrative. Something many anthropology professors do at our “higher” educational institutions: conflate, then add a meta-narrative — all while bemoaning the West culture while defining all others using it. Self-serving AND self-defeating.
The woman in the video, just after the non-sequitur comparison of the unrepentant homosexual to a crowd booing an idea not well defined — as, somehow a litmus test for heaven/salvation — does admit after her confused soliloquy that she “doesn’t get it.” I agree! She does not “get it.” Not to mention that she makes LARGE sweeping life decisions and conclusions based on a poultry of evidence and understanding, which does not endear me well to anarchy. Something also based on little evidence and understanding.
Now, I asked a friend to comment quickly on the above, this is his addition, and his comments brought to mind a quote from Malcome Muggeridge, which follows his comments.
If there is no transcendent code by which society orders itself, and under which it flourishes, then a non-transcendent code will be chosen which denies that our creational identity is the image of God. This is closely tied to the great question which shaped western history: “how shall evil be restrained?” History is a relentless teacher of its inattentive students–fallen man must be controlled, if not by the Bible, then it will be by the bayonet.
These comments, like I said, brought to mind those of Muggeridge:
“If God is ‘dead,’ somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Heffner.” (One Source)
I will also point out the woman being interviewed in the video, Kelly Diamond, has some very self-refuting beliefs. For instance. In Israel you have a free market, and many Palestinians, Arabs as well as Israelis participate in it as well as being elected to the Knesset. This is information often not included in pro-Palestinian, anti-Semitic views. To be clear, no such diversity of Jews is in any Palestinian or Arab governments in the Middle-East. What we have ACTUALLY seen in areas given to the Palestinians are theocratic terrorist groups come in with a religiously radical socialist form of sharia law guided political models of governing. Why am I pointing this out? Because on Kelly Diamond’s FaceBook [http://www.facebook.com/kellylsdiamond] (h/t, G_unitttt) you see many anti-Semitic groups supported and comments. She shows a dire lack of knowledge on what Zionism “IS,” and merely takes the line of thinking these many radical theocrats do.
In episode 55 of Anarchast, these are the bullet points they include:
The logical conclusion of minimal government philosophy is Anarchism
The Free State Project
Statism as a religion
The skewed message of Jesus
The hypocrisy of most Christians
“Statism as Religion.” The interviewer, Kelly, and most anarchists believe that more government is antithetical to freedom. So why would she support the most extreme forms of governance? It boggles the mind. And this confusion is rife in the anarchy movement.
Dennis Prager comments on this (right).
In one forum the question is posed, “Anarchy vs. Dictatorship? Which would you prefer IF you had to choose? Why?” Kelly responded, very firmly: “Anarchy!!!!!” Then why would she support theocratic terrorists who want to implement a dictatorship (more government, less freedom) of sorts? Her message is lost in the fray of confusion.
September 29, 2012 – Ravi Zacharias speaks on the New Atheists (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopoher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett) and their inability to use reason and logic. Instead, they use ridicule and mocking as a tactic against religion.
Lee Strobel – The Case for Christmas Audiobook ch. 1
Ex-Atheist turned Christian Lee Strobel (author of The Case for Christ, The Case for the Real Jesus, and the Case for a Creator) speaks on Christmas and defends the divinity and person of Jesus. Do we have reliable records about Jesus? Did Jesus clearly claim to be God? Did Jesus offer credible credentials to back up his claim?
Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology (2012) – ‘The Evidence of Creation & Supernatural Design in Contemporary Big Bang Cosmology & Space-Time Geometry Proofs’ by Robert Spitzer. The new popular atheism movement may lead one to suspect that faith and science are opposed to one another. Fr. Spitzer addressed (in layman’s terms) the three most significant kinds of evidence for intelligent creation from physics (space-time geometry proofs, new evidence from entropy, and fine-tuning of cosmological constants). He gave special consideration to recent theories concerning eternal inflation, the multiverse hypothesis, and a bouncing universe (in the higher-dimensional space of string theory) to show that these hypotheses also require a definitive beginning.
Prof. William Lane Craig was invited by the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) Christian Union, London to give a lecture titled “Can we be good without God?”
Dr Craig presented a 45 minute lecture followed by questions from the student audience. The lecture formed part of the Reasonable Faith Tour in October 2011. The Tour was sponsored by Damaris Trust, UCCF and Premier Christian Radio.
William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, California. For more resources visit http://www.bethinking.org
