Personal

I'm personally against global warming, but if someone else wants to make excessive amounts of CO2, that's their prerogative. I'm personally in favor of personal property, but if someone wants to embezzle millions, who am I to judge? I'm personally against slavery, but if someone wants to own another person it is their choice. I'm personally against rape, but if someone feels the need I can't impose my morality on them. I'm personally against murder, but if another person thinks it's ok, we need to realize we are not a nation of Christians only.

All of those statements are absurd, right? I hope you agree with that. The reason is that, regardless of our "personal" views, we see that there are victims. The victim may be future generations (in the case of global warming) or the poor, or lower castes, or women, or anybody, but there is a victim. The law isn't about imposing your opinion on someone but on protecting a vulnerable victim.

Yet too often we hear "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but..." with one of those excuses used above. Making abortion illegal isn't about imposing an opinion or a culture or even a Judaeo-Christian morality upon another person, it's about protecting a vulnerable person.

Many people will accept that it's not OK to have an abortion in the third trimester, because either they see the baby as "human" by that point or because the baby is "viable" at that point. Let's look at that more closely...

Viability

 Some people think that before the baby is "viable" it's OK to have an abortion because before that point it is the mother's responsibility to keep the baby alive, and a mother should not be required to do that. Reread that last part again. Would you accept the mother of a newborn, or a one year old letting her baby die because she didn't want to take care of it? The only way to justify a viability test for abortion is if we don't consider the unborn child a human being. For, as John Calvin wrote:

For the fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, and it is a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man's house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.

 If the fetus is not a human being then of course the argument is null and void. And so we come to reason number two...

Humanity

It is easy to look as a blastocyst and say "that's not a human being" because a blastocyst isn't shaped like a human being. Even the name doesn't sound like a human being.  However, we shouldn't judge by appearance. What do science and logic tell us?

Science tells us that the blastocyst is a separate independent organism, not part of the mother's body. It tells us it is alive. It tells us it is human, with its own unique human DNA. Sounds like a human being to me.

Logic tells us that humans beget humans, not non-humans. It tells us that, if a human being has rights, those right depend on it being a human being, not on it's abilities or dependencies. If it is OK to kill a human being because it is not currently conscious, it is also OK to kill a human being who is asleep. If it is OK to kill a healthy human being because it allegedly doesn't feel pain it is OK to kill a healthy human being to whom we administer anesthetic.

In short, although you may like to pretend that humanity depends on having such and such a level of development, there is no logical or scientific justification for it.

Meditation

Jesus says "whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me... whatever you did not do for the least of these you did not do to me." (Matthew 25). He calls us to give food and drink to those in need, to clothe the naked, welcome the stranger and visit the sick and imprisoned.

Who is the least among us more than the unborn? Is not abortion the refusal to give food and drink? Isn't abortion a refusal to welcome the stranger, to clothe the naked, to visit the one "imprisoned" in the womb?

As Christians, our mission should be to make abortion illegal, not because we like to impose our point of view on others, but because it is our duty to protect the vulnerable among us.

Read More

Christians must oppose Trump

I see this all over the place, articles like The Moral Confusion of Trump Christians. The gist is that Christians who support President Trump are hypocrites, morally confused, immoral, anti-biblical, you-name-it. There are so many ways to refute this, frankly, I am confused (about which way to show that this is ridiculous).

First off, let's look at the claims.

• Trump is an immoral man, who has had affairs, divorces, etc.
• Trump is a boorish person.
• Trump is racist
• Trump is divisive
• Trump is anti-Christian values

Therefore anyone who votes for him or thinks he is doing a good job is not a "real" Christian, but is betraying Christ.

Is Trump what they claim he is?

First off, does he even exhibit these attributes for which Christians should allegedly avoid him?

• Has he had affairs, divorces, etc.? Yes (well, the "proof" of affairs is circumstantial).
• Is he boorish? Yes.
• Is he racist? No. When asked to back claims of this people point to his immigration policy (enforce existing law) which is not racist, or that his economic policies favor one group over another (a dubious claim, given how minorities are thriving under his economic policies) or that he supports white supremacists (a lie).
• Is he divisive? In the sense that liberals have distanced themselves from the rest of the country because they don't like him. But in terms of fostering division between people, no.
• Is he anti-Christian values? Emphatically no. He has reinstated the Mexico City policy, reversed religious discriminatory practices and championed the pro-life cause.

Is he worse than the alternatives, in immorality?

Secondly, if we are to avoid supporting Trump, who should Christians support instead? Certainly there are third party alternatives, and I have posted quite a bit about them in the past. But the majority of people in the US fall into the "I must vote for a party that has a chance to win' camp. And that means if you don't vote Republican, you vote Democrat.

Who are the Democratic candidates who will be running against Trump, and do they align more with Christian values? Let's look at a few.

• Kamala Harris claimed that Catholics should not be allowed to serve in government due to their bigotry. She believes in abortion up to birth, and with Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Kolbuchar voted for legalized infanticide.
• Elizabeth Warren, aside from her vote above, lied about being a Native American.
• Bernie Sanders, aside from his vote above, argues for socialism, directly against Christian teaching.
• Cory Booker, aside from his vote above, defends his groping of a woman in college against her will.
• Joe Biden, aside from his notable use of the F-word, is now the subject of multiple, well documented accounts of sexual harassment.

100% of these people are pro-abortion and in favor of Obamacare, with its restrictions on religious freedom (remember the Little Sister of the Poor). They may or may not have as much of a "shady past" as Trump but consider that, unlike Trump, their anti-Christian views are current, not in the past, and they defend those views as "right thinking" whereas Trump has never defending sleeping with a porn star (for instance) as the "right" thing to do.

Does it Matter?

What all these claimants seem to miss is that, unless Jesus (or Mary) is on the ballot, everyone we vote for will be a sinner. But we are not voting to say we approve of every aspect of their lives, we are voting to hire them for a job. When you hire a roofer, or a landscaper you don't choose them by whether they sinned in the past, but by whether or not they will do a good job for you. To the extent that you consider their moral character at all you might look at their current beliefs. We have a religion based on repentance and forgiveness. The criteria for a Christian to support a candidate is not "is the person saintly" but "will their actions in office advance or detract from Christian morality."

In that sense we can see Trump has clearly been on the plus side, especially as compared to any of the above candidates. As noted above, he restored the Mexico City policy, has rerouted money from Planned Parenthood to actual women's healthcare groups, has reversed or eliminated may religious discrimination policies, such as Obama's "weaponization" of the IRS against religious conservatives, the HHS mandate and others. He has welcomed Christians into the White House for prayer and council. He has spoken at and supported two Marches for Life. He prays publicly.

As Christians, we can disagree on Trump's immigration or economic policies (although I really don't see how, but that's another topic), but in general, even taking that into account, there is much more good there, from a Christian perspective, than not.

Conclusion

Christians should not oppose Trump. In fact, Christians should support President Trump. God help us if any of his opponents are elected in 2020. People claiming Christians who support Trump are morally confused are, well, morally confused themselves.

P.S.

To those Christians who oppose him on the grounds of wanting abortion to be legal, as a Christian I must warn you to consider your opinion on the matter. The Bible clearly forbids murder, and abortion, whether you like it or not, falls into that category, from a Christian perspective. If you think this is some new thing Catholics invented, consider the Didache, which was written by first century Christians (possible predating some of the New Testament) [emphasis mine].

2:2 Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not corrupt youth; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use soothsaying; thou shalt not practise sorcery; thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born; thou shalt not covet the goods of thy neighbour;

For those who want to fall back on "science", claiming that the ancients believed a fetus was a child but we know better, you need to rethink your source of scientific knowledge. If anything, we know now unequivocally that from the moment of conception (fertilization) the child is human (DNA tests prove this) is alive (exhibits all the activities necessary for life) and is an independent organism.

The only differences between that 1 day old blastocyst and that two year old are location and dependency. And nobody can argue that a mother has no obligation to care for a child dependent on her (well, people do argue that, but it's a ridiculous argument, and doesn't change the fact of the humanity of the child).

I make these statements not to win an argument but to save your souls. You will be judged by what you did not do for the least of these, thy brethren. Consider that thoughtfully.

Read More

The Revealing Science of God

This is in response to a recent discussion on Facebook wherein an atheist claimed religion was wrong because it did not follow the scientific method. Specifically it does not admit that it might be wrong.

I wonder if this person would admit that he is wrong about religion, because he is - about Christianity, at least. Yes, there are religions that are entirely "this is the way things are because Religion™" but Christianity is not one of them. Here's what I mean:

1. Christianity is based on empirical evidence. Unlike every other religion, the basis of Christianity is a series of events that are public and were historically documented. Jesus performed miracles and taught to thousands of people. He was executed publicly and after his Resurrection continued his public ministry to thousands.

These events are documented not jus tin the Bible, but by secular historians and witnesses. We have said evidence that these events actually took place - not just by the number of people who witnessed them, but by the fact that those witness would undergo torture and death rather than rescind their testimony.

2. Christianity is based on logic. After Christ's Ascension some of the best minds over the next few hundred years teased out the logical implications of those events. The principle of "Occam's Razor" is sometimes thrown about by atheists to imply that the explanation of religion is overly complex. Yet they fail to remember that William of Ockham was a Catholic Franciscan Friar.

Attempts to dismiss Christianity based on logic arguments fall down themselves based on logical contradictions. Because it is evidence based, Christianity is the most easily falsifiable religion. And yet if you deny the basis of Christianity you come up with a problem elsewhere that requires extraordinary faith to solve.

For instance, suppose we believe the Resurrection didn't happen. Then what happened to Christ's body? Do you propose that a small group of frightened persecuted Jews were able to overcome Roman guards? All the Romans had to do to discredit the Christians was to produce the body of the man they had killed.

OK, maybe Christ didn't really die. Now you suppose that Roman executioners whose job it was to ensure the condemned were really dead, couldn't do so. And that putting a spear through someone's heart was not enough to kill him. Or, for that matter, that someone who had undergone scourging or the other tortures to which Jesus was publicly subjected to could, in three days, heal enough to walk long distance and teach people?

Every explanation leads to more difficulties than it addresses. By the application of Occam's razor Christianity is the simplest hypothesis that explains observed facts.

3. Science does not admit to "being wrong" either. The main objection by the original poster was that religion insists that everything it says is right, while Science™admits that it could be wrong about anything. However, this is not quite true. Yes, science admits that its explanation for phenomena could be incomplete, but it does not admit that basic scientific truths are "wrong" or changeable.

For instance, Newton formulated that force = mass times acceleration (F = ma).  It will never be the case that scientists say "oh by the way, force mass and acceleration? Not related, it turns out." We may refine the formula to be more precise under more conditions (think relativity) but those refinements better reduce to the underlying equation in the ideal case.

There are also things in Christianity that we just don't know, things that we have theories about, and things that are "settled science" (like the existence of God).

Read More

Poor me

So many stories of Christian Persecution in the news, like the attacks on the bakers and the Bible publisher, and even though churches may be the only "people" protected under the first amendment, they may find themselves with no insurance. I see many christians lamenting the coming (and existing) persecutions.

It's so easy to get into the "woe is me" mentality and rail against the injustice and tyranny around us. And I fully believe (unlike some) that we as Christians should protest and oppose injustice and tyranny. But let's look at the bigger picture.

We are called to pick up our cross daily and follow Christ. Remember Christ's words in John 15:18: “If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you." That's all well and good in theory, but when it's put into practice, are we up for it?

I fear the coming persecution because (1) I don't want to give up the comforts I have and (2) I'm afraid if I'm put to the test I'll be found lacking in faith. I think most (if not all) Christians have these two issues to some degree. The very fact that I fear these is evidence of my imperfect Christianity.

I should fear the coming persecution because of those innocents who will be hurt by it and because of the non-Christians and CINOs (Christians in name only) who will ultimately be harmed by their sin. Because if the Bible teaches us anything, sin is it's own punishment, as St. Paul says in his (now controversial) first letter to the Romans:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles 

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

I should fear what's coming because in the ensuing backlash others will suffer, perhaps more than the Christians they persecute. If history tells us anything it's that a persecuted group is all too likely to persecute the next group.

I should fear what's coming because in this way satan is having a field day and the salvation of souls is at stake.

But I should not fear what's coming because it will affect me personally or because I want to be comfortable.

And so I offer this prayer:

Lord Jesus Christ, I offer you my fear, my worries, my shame and my suffering in atonement for my sins and the sins of the whole world. Bring all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of your mercy. Jesus I trust in you, help increase my trust in you.

Amen.

Read More

How to persuade a Christian to become an atheist

It is with both sadness and amusement that I came across this piece, on "how to persuade a Christian to become an atheist." Sadness to see people spreading yet more misinformation on the internet (surprise, surprise) and amusement to see how they have simply taken the pages from "how to persuade an atheist to become a Christian" and turned some things around. The graphics are kind of creepy and the logic is, well, absent, but the methodology is generic "how to persuade person X of argument Y."

One has to wonder why an atheist would want to convert a Christian to atheism, other than for the sake of meanness. A Christian is charged with spreading the Gospel - not so the atheist, who has no gospel. A Christian is charged to help his fellow man by educating him and correcting him when he is in trouble - not so the atheist who has no duty to his fellow man. The Christian can argue that more Christians in the world makes the world a better place in terms of peace and taking care of the poor. The atheist make desire company, but historically atheists have not known to be the most charitable peaceful people. So any reason the atheist has for evangelization would be personal preference based on an unconscious "Christian" desire to "help" others based on cultural surroundings or upbringing, rather than a tenet of his "faith."

I thought it would be interesting to see two people who have read these respective instructions go "head to head." So it occurred to me it might be fun to take this to the next level. "How to persuade an atheist who is trying to persuade a Christian to become an atheist to become a Christian." With that in mind, here are my responses to the responses to the questions in the Christian -> Atheist article. I've copied some of the text, and edited or paraphrased it for brevity. The question part (in bold) is what is asked by the Christian. The normal text is the suggested response, and my rebuttal is in bold italics).

• What existed before the big bang?
  • We don't know yet.
  • Another theory is that our Universe exists as part of a much larger multiverse.
  The question and answer both beg the issue. We can't properly speak of "before" without time, which as far as we know requires the big bang to have occurred. However, we can ask the metaphysical question, "is time required for causality?" Clearly it is not, since the big bang happened. So the question is not what existed before the big bang, but what caused the big bang? And if you say "the laws of physics" what caused them? And if there's a multiverse, what caused that?

• Order can't come from chaos, entropy wouldn't allow that.
  • Chaos and entropy describe different things. Entropy can be locally reversed.
  But entropy can't be globally reversed. If you're going to claim it can you have to show me which the laws of physics you wish to suspend for your argument, which undermines your scientific claims. The example used of order coming from chaos is not in fact, order from chaos, but an experiment designed to locally produce order. If the intent of the atheist was to show that an intelligence can design a system which produces order, then yes, I agree, an intelligence can design a system which produces order.

• Life couldn't come into existence by mere coincidence.
  • It didn't.
  So the atheist concedes the argument, and adds words which make him think he has "won." So be it.

• Life is too complicated to happen through mere coincidence and random events.
  • Evolution provides a mechanism that is anything but random or coincidental.
  Another concession. And I guess evolutionists who talk about random mutation are wrong as well. Thank you for agreeing.
   
  
• If people don't believe in God, where do they get their morality from?
  • It should scare you to think that the fear of Hell is the only thing stopping the Christian from committing atrocities.
  It would if that were true. However, this shows a lack of understanding of Christianity, since Christians do not claim fear of hell as the source of morality (or even the source of moral behavior). It also ignores the question (irrelevance fallacy). Where do atheists get their morality from?
   
  
• If God doesn't exist why does most of the world believe? (Argumentum ad populum}
  • Just because a majority of people in a group or the entire world believe something does not make it automatically true.
  Correct. The Christian has asked an irrelevant question. However, this says nothing about the truth or falsehood of the claim "there is a God."
  
  
• Something can't come from nothing. (Cosmological Argument)
  • If it is possible for a god to be uncaused then it is possible for the universe to be uncaused.
  Correct. However, Occam's razor demands we choose the simpler proposition. Which is simpler? That one exception exists, or that everything is an exception to the rule?
  
  
• The Bible proves God exists. Why would so many people write about God if it wasn't true? (Argumentum ad Verecundiam, Circular reasoning, Tautology)
  • Any critical examination of the Bible will clearly show it to be full of inaccuracies and contradictions.
  They're both wrong. The Bible doesn't prove God exists, it asserts it. Even if the Bible were perfect in every other way it still wouldn't be a proof. On the other side, where are the inaccuracies and contradictions? Because I have yet to see one which wasn't easily refuted if one looks at the actual text and context, rather than reading isolated misleading claims.
   
  
• The universe and life show clear signs of design.
  • Life reproduces and mutates by itself. The same cannot be said of an inanimate object.
  False. Life does not reproduce and mutate by itself. It needs material and energy outside of itself to do so. The atheist is using the same argument to show lack of design by claiming (without proof) that the universe is not designed. The atheist cannot show evidence of something complex created without intent (or design, but I think intent is a better word to use here), but makes the claim that "everything" is anyway. Intention is not something which can be measured scientifically.

Read More

Freedom of worship

Some people have been upset by our president's redefinition of the First Amendment as meaning "freedom of worship." Why does it matter? Because "freedom of worship" means as long as I let you pray in your own home or church, or temple or synagogue, I can do anything to you. Freedom of worship means I can trample over your beliefs in the public square, and even in your private life, as long as I let you go to church.

An example of where this takes us is seen in this story about German home schoolers. Most people are painting this story as the US government saying parents don't have a right to educate their children as they see fit. But that's not the real story.

"The question is not whether Germany's policy violates the American Constitution, whether it violates the parameters of an international treaty or whether Germany's law is a good idea. It is whether the Romeikes have established the prerequisites of an asylum claim — a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground," the court wrote. In this case, that protected ground is religious freedom.

But the court found that the German government treats all truants the same, regardless of their reasons for not attending school.

This decision shows either a lack of understanding of the first amendment, or a redefinition of it as "freedom of worship." You see, the case is being decided on whether or not they were being punished differently from others who don't want their kids in school for other reasons. But it doesn't matter that they are not being treated differently from others, because the way they are being treated violates their religion.

As Christians we are obliged to pass the faith on to our children. These people's children are being forcibly indoctrinated with anti-Christian teaching. That's the reason they don't want them in school, not because of some personal preference. The German school system is violating their religious freedom by what it is teaching. It doesn't matter that they get the same punishment as someone who keeps their kids out of school for a different reason. Let them opt out of anti-Christian teachings, and then force them to go send their kids to school, then we can talk about parental rights in education. but we're not even at that point yet.

The US government says that as long as they are treated "equally", anything goes. Think about that. Suppose we outlaw circumcision. You could say that doesn't violate the rights of Jews because we are outlawing it for everyone - they are not being treated specially. Or suppose we legislate that everyone has to eat pork. No, those Muslims are not being treated special, and heck, they can still go to Mosque so no harm no foul. Or suppose we legislate that Christians have to buy contraceptives and abortifacients. I'm just waiting for that decision to happen.

Read More

Ball and Chain

Yesterday I was working on a scout project with several other men. During the course of the day several of them got calls or texts from their wives. One, in particular, when his phone chimed, exclaimed in a mocking voice "when are you going to be home? Why do you spend all day out at that project? Nag nag nag." Now, men, a word to the wise. You may be the greatest husband in all other areas, but when you do this, you are acting like a heel and a jerk.

Wives, I'm sorry to say this is not all that uncommon in husbands these days. In just about every group of 5 or more married men I seem to find one who complains (often without being solicited) about the degree to which his wife hinders his freedom. Often it's done in a way which is intended to be humorous, but if these men stopped to listen they might notice nobody is laughing with them. Most of us are just silent or change the subject.

On the other end of the spectrum, I have a good friend who, when he notices it's his wife on the line, answers the phone with a greeting like "I really love you." This is something I admire greatly about him, and try (though not always successfully) to emulate.

The thing is, I love my wife. I may not always show her enough (indeed I'm not sure I could show her enough), but at my worst I would never belittle her, especially not in front of others. And even if I did not love her as much as I did, this is the woman to whom I have freely offered myself in a marriage covenant.

As St. Paul writes in Ephesians 5:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So [also] husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 

In these days, as marriage is being attacked and destroyed from all sides, I think it is important that we take a look at how we live our marriage vows, and if we think marriage is important enough to vote about, or fight about, or change our facebook profile photos about, then I think we have an obligation to reflect that in our behavior.

Read More

Chick-philia

I responded to a post on Google+ today about the article 5 Reasons why the Church failed yesterday. I decided to turn it into a blog post. Enjoy.

I think the whole thing is a misunderstanding. Chick-fil-A appreciation day was not a “Church” event, it was a “State” event, protesting the government stepping on the Constitutional rights of American citizens.

Of the 3 people in line I spoke to enough to know their positions, one was an atheist, one a “nothing” and one a Christian. In fact, two of the three were pro gay marriage - they were there to defend the rights of someone to hold an opinion different from their own. Of course, that's anecdotal evidence, but I believe the makeup of the crowd probably mirrored the makeup of the community in which it formed. Certainly in some communities that would be mostly Christian, but this was not organized or promoted by any church I know of.

So it's hard to respond to an article when the basic premise it argues form is flawed, but I'll try to address the points.

1) “This is not love.” It certainly was a bunch of people who love freedom and America. The crowd I was in was hugging, singing, and chatting. People were making new friends. Everyone was polite, upbeat, and respectful. If this isn't love I don't know what is.

2) “People felt hate and we ignored it.” Not at all. In fact it was responding to the hatred poured out upon Mr. Cathy. The whole thing was about opposing hate, and no hate was offered. I'd wager the people who "felt hate" are the ones who "felt hate" at hearing about Mr. Cathy's views. Should he and others who think like him be silenced because someone "feels hate".

3) “Christians put issues above people.” Again, aside from the fact that it was not “Christians”, this is also backward. It is the government that put the issue of gay marriage above the person of Mr. Cathy. This was supporting a person over an issue. And even if the protest had been against gay marriage, I don't see how that is against what Jesus taught. In fact Jesus states in Matthew 19 that God cerated them male and female for marriage. We can’t embrace love, mercy, hope, and peace when we ignore our brother who is oppressed.

4) “The mass actions of Christians built a wall of mistrust.” Again, ignoring the fact that this was not a Christian thing, what wall was built that was not there? It was the government and the LGBTQ community that started the conflict. This was as respectful and peaceful a response as I could imagine. Nobody was put down, nobody was attacked. Is merely holding an opinion now so offensive that it “builds a wall”? If so, that wall already exists.

5) “It did nothing to prove that Christians don't hate gay people.” It wasn't trying to. It was trying to tell the government to leave citizens alone. But again, even if it were a Christian thing, there is no way to “prove” that Christians don't hate gay people. I think Christians' actions, on the whole, show that they love gay people as much as they do anyone else. But to those who hate Christians, that doesn't matter. What matters is that some people who call themselves Christians do hate gay people. And that is the bat that is used to bash Christians as a whole.

So what does the author suggest would be a way for Christians to “prove” they don't hate gay people? It seems the only way to do that would be to stop being Christians, which is, of course, what is being demanded.

Now, what about the people who called for others to disrupt business on Friday? What religion is that? What kind of love is that? What walls of mistrust are they breaking down?

Read More

Fracture Mechanics

While surfing around the Interwebs this morning I came across this reflection, that I wanted to share with you all. Click here for the complete post.

Fracture mechanics is the science of studying sudden-failure phenomenon. Materials have a yield strength (the stress under which they will yield) but in many cases materials fail at applied stresses below their yield strength. We Christians have also a spiritual yield strength—a spiritual potential--but in many cases fail to reach that potential because we fail at spiritual levels way below what we are capable of. The Bible is full of such examples, such as: the sin of King David with Bathsheba; King Saul; and of course Samson. 

Why do structures fail at applied stresses lower than the known yield strength of their material? That’s because...

Read More

Persecution

So, churches in Kansas can't refuse to let gays use their buildings (privately owned buildings) for any purpose, even if that purpose is against the moral teachings of the church. However, New York schools can refuse to let Christians use their buildings (paid for by taxpayers, some of whom belong to the very congregations affected) for the purpose of exercising their first amendment rights to practice their religion.

Read More

My marriage won't affect you

"My marriage doesn't affect you" is the phrase used by some proponents of redefining marriage to mean, well, whatever they want to mean today. The claim is that redefining marriage is a "private" thing, and it is not your concern. But marriage is not a private thing, and it does affect us all.

Here in New Jersey same-sex civil unions have been recognized by the state since 2006. According to the bill:

Those rights and benefits afforded to same-sex couples under the “Domestic Partnership Act” should be expanded by the legal recognition of civil unions between same-sex couples in order to provide these couples with all the rights and benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy;

And the state of NJ is now considering yet another bill (actually the same bill that failed to pass in 2010) to redefine marriage because, as I pointed out in "Same-sex marriage, why not?" and further explained in "Bigot", it doesn't matter if they have all of the rights, same sex "marriage" is about getting the state to force you to accept such relationships as being "good". If you care about this kind of bullying, call your legislators and governor Christie and ask them to oppose this bill and defend marriage and religious rights.

But back to my point. Redefining marriage will affect you. Last week a New Jersey judge declared that a United Methodist Church had to allow same-sex civil unions on its property in spite of its moral beliefs. From LifeSiteNews:

The United Methodist Church teaches, “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching,” and that “ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.”

But Judge Metzger said church doctrine was irrelevant...

“He said this isn’t a case of religious liberty, which is simply not true,” Jim Campbell, who represented the resort and serves as litigation staff counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), told LifeSiteNews.com. “What this case involves at its core is the rights of a religious group to use its property in a way that is consistent with its religious beliefs.”

Campbell said most people will find Metzger’s belief that the state can force a religious facility to violate its conscience “a very scary concept. If that is a principle of the law, then essentially the government can cast aside religion if it deems something more important.” Campbell called Metzger’s ruling “an error of Constitutional law.”

The local ruling seems to place non-discrimination above concerns of religious liberty, the mirror image of a Supreme Court ruling that took place earlier in the week. In the Hosanna-Tabor case, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled: “The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so, too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.” He concluded, “the First Amendment has struck the balance for us.”

Read More