Dedicated to giving reasons for what we believe, and why, in the interface between science and the Christian faith. Giving thoughts, criticisms, and informed satirical commentary on Contemporary Culture, Religion, Politics, and Traditional Values.
Apologetics 101
We should want to believe truth and not falsehoods, so when we are learning to defend our faith (Apologetics), it makes sense that we should first determine if what we believe is true.
It is okay to steal if you really need it. (S)
A man named Jesus lived in Judea about 2000 years ago, and was crucified by the Romans. (O)
My wife is the best wife in the whole world! (S)
The nature of human procreation is the combination of the sex gametes of a male and a female. (O)
Modern art is inspiring. (S)
Physics is the best and highest scientific discipline. (S)
No physical object can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. (O)
Gender is closely related to biology, so it is unfair for trans-athletes to compete in sports against people of the opposite biological sex. (S)
Sex/gender are determined by biology, and not by a doctor's opinion or a person's feelings. (O)
It is wrong to torture babies just for the fun of it. (O)
Eyewitness testimony (both friendly and hostile) of conversations, events, experiences, and actions are valuable.
The truth-seeker considers historical records, financial documents, email/text trails, business associates' testimony, and contemporaneous recorded or documented conversations.
Statements from experts or officials with firsthand information should be given more weight than uninformed opinions of commentators.
Public statements, whether inconsistent, deliberate, or incidental, are all part of the puzzle to give serious consideration.
Consideration of motives and biases of the participants is often used during investigations.
Is there evidence of a cover up or conspiracy? Are the participants holding together, or is it falling apart with defectors or leaks?
Allegations and opinions can be considered, but need to be given appropriate weight compared to the evidence. These are either consistent with the evidence, or they may not be consistent.
Perhaps surprising to some is that this is a partial verse from the Bible, but it is really taken out of context. The quotation from Jesus is,
31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” 33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?” 34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. (John 8:31-34)
9 Instruct the wise and they will be wiser still;
teach the righteous and they will add to their learning.
10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,
and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. (Proverbs 9:9-11)
and
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (John 16:13)
Truth corresponding to reality exists, and it is discoverable and knowable.
Objective truth is superior to subjective/relativistic truth.
Christians are called to know the truth, not just acknowledge it. Then we are set free.
All Truth is God's Truth
It is not currently popular to stand for the truth. Relativism reigns and new destructive philosophies such as CRT, DEI, and radical social justice vie for dominance against traditional values. Words are redefined to win arguments and influence morality without firing a shot. Feelings and desires are now said to define reality, and rights are granted and revoked as the powerful find useful. "My truth" and "my lived experience" carry far more weight than inconvenient objective truths.
All is not lost, but it all starts with YOU. Don't give in to redefinitions of truth and what is good/evil. Question their assumptions and ask them how they justify their claims, or how they came to their conclusions. Refuse to use their language and the Orwellian Newspeak they use.
I would encourage everyone to not just embrace real truth for a limited time, but rather to incorporate it into your core values and promote it daily.
A common misconception among non-Christians, and even many church goers, is that we are commanded to never judge others. Aren't we all just supposed to love and accept everyone as they are? Well, that is not really what Jesus taught at all.
Here is what he actually said,
1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Matt. 7:1-5)
In context, it sure sounds like he actually expected us to make judgements, but called his followers to not be hypocritical about it. Scripture is filled with examples and admonitions to make spiritual judgements about many things. The actions and beliefs of others are fair game. Of course, this is not a license to seek and destroy people's lives by pointing out every flaw one can find, regardless of how that will affect them. The Bible is also very clear that we need to correct, rebuke, and teach others in such a way as to build them up or to restore them to fellowship. It is never to be done to intentionally harm someone or to just win an argument.
Work is good! While sometimes people experience hard times and need help, they should not be provided a comfortable hammock. The assistance they get should not incentivize them to stop looking for work and to be comfortable enough to coast through life on handouts. In fact, that is actually very harmful in the long run. A permanent welfare state actually does not help them up and out of their situations.
Charity without expectations often begins a descending life spiral. It has been said that "A hand up beats a handout." While there are real exceptions where someone is no longer able to work, or when working would be a detriment to themselves or their families, the general rule should be that work is good and is expected. This has been known for a long time, as the generous early church shows
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. 2 Thes. 3:10-12
Now obviously that is not meant to be mean or unfair, but rather acknowledges that work is actually for the good of all. So why is it hard for our progressive society to have the same expectation? Surely it is not that some people find it politically advantageous to perpetuate the welfare state?! Or is it in service to a radical view of equity and social justice? So far, it seems like it is currently a growth industry.
Without proper justification, it is clearly wrong to take the life of innocent human beings. Our moral intuitions should universally agree on that. Yes, this post specifically is going to address abortion, aka "women's reproductive rights". I doubt there are many who would be bold enough to argue that the baby in the womb is not innocent, so the real question we should ask ourselves is whether there are actually sufficient justifications for taking the life of the unborn?
One way to evaluate this is to use the SLED test.
Size - Does size make a difference in the value of a human being? Are short people of less value than tall ones (as the 70's Randy Newman song suggests)? Children are smaller than adults, but clearly we don't treat them as having less value. So how is size a justification for declaring the unborn to be less valuable?
Level of Development - Compare the following: children, teens, mature adults, and the elderly. Are any of these more valuable humans than others? On this basis, who has less justification to live? There is a continuous process of development of a fertilized egg up through birth and beyond. At exactly what point then does the developing human become endowed with value that it didn't have moments before?
Environment - Does a person's location determine their worth? Is a baby on one side of the birth canal worth less than one on the other? Is a human less valuable if they are trapped in a cave vs. on the beach? Are the homeless less valuable than those sitting in mansions? It seems obvious that the answer should be "no".
Degree of Dependency - Should a person's dependency matter? Is a person on life support, or needing a wheelchair, less of a person than someone who can do physical labor and provide for themselves? Does needing medication for mental health issues make someone less worthy of having a place in society, even to the extent of removing them from it? What if it costs too much to care for them? Is that really a good reason for "termination"?
But perhaps carrying a baby would be an inconvenience, limit career options, or cost too much to raise. What if the baby will be unwanted, abused, or a reminder of tragic circumstances? Or it infringes on my lifestyle or sexual freedom or ….? I'd suggest taking a step back and asking yourself if those reasons would ever justify harming or killing another person. Just asking for millions of innocents.
Most religions have a focus on experiencing the divine or becoming one with God. Human beings have an inherent spirituality and we have sometimes been labeled homo religiosus. We all are drawn to questions of life’s ultimate meaning and purpose, even those professing atheism. Why are there so many different religions and spiritual practices? It may be because most religions are based on people trying to reach or appease their gods. Religions have evolved as practitioners try new and different ways to experience the divine. It is not surprising that we have floundered on our own efforts.
However, there is one major religion that makes a far different claim. Christianity claims that there is only one true God, and that this God desired a relationship with His creation. So He chose to reveal Himself to them in multiple ways, sometimes called General and Special Revelation. General Revelation is available to all men through the created world. The apostle Paul stated that this is one way that God reveals knowledge, through human experience, history, creation, and conscience. In other words, all people naturally know something about God's existence, His power, His character, and His nature. In addition, Special Revelation was given directly to men of God and through His Son, Jesus. Special Revelation communicates direct, clear information about the nature of God and His expectations on us. Jesus was the ultimate revelation, as the God who became man and lived among us. He taught us how to live, he gave his life for us, and he proved his authority by rising from the dead.
Children have fantastic imaginations. They can envision worlds where they can fly, fight dragons, or be someone else. We all need escape now and then, and usually it is healthy as long as we realize that it is actually unreal. Interacting with the real world as Superman will end badly.
We live in a physical world governed by fixed laws of nature. We have to eat, drink, have shelter, and clothing. We are social creatures and look for relational connections with others and even with nature. But the real world is potentially a dangerous place too. Disasters happen, health can fail, or we can be harmed by the actions of others. We do our best to protect ourselves, our families, and our well-being.
We ignore the reality of the rules and laws of this world at our peril. We must live in the world as it is, even if we want it to be otherwise or even if we believe it to be different from reality. We can spend like we're rich, even if we are not. We can treat others badly and expect to receive love in return. We can deny that we have a disease and refuse treatment. We can act as if we have a body biologically different from the one we were born in and even try to change it. We can believe that we can steal without consequences. We can live our lives as if there will never be an end or an ultimate accounting for our actions. There are innumerable ways we can deceive ourselves, but eventually we will suffer the consequences of ignoring reality and embracing our fantasies.
A principle in ethics is "Choose to do the greater good." Sometimes this is recast as "Choose the lesser of two evils." Regardless, our responsibility is to first identify good and evil, and then to work toward the former and against the latter.
For most people, it is obvious that some form of evil exists. But what defines evil and does it actually exist? For real evil to exist, there must be an objective standard by which to judge it. Relativism has a hard time with calling anything evil, since it is just the subjective opinion of the individual, group, or culture. An individual may even belong to different groups with different moral standards. Take this example, “Terrorists like to kill people; I like to save them." Now who’s to say which is better… and more importantly how does the relativist make a determination that is more than just their preference or opinion? Perhaps they just deny that objective standards exist by which to determine right and wrong, truth and falsehood.
In reality, we can't define good and evil on our own, but we can recognize it because we have a moral intuition that is built into our nature. We know in our core that evil is real, and that it is something to be opposed and fought. There is a way to ground morality, and that is in the morally perfect Creator who is the standard.
What does it mean to be "tolerant"? Frequently there are claims that
You are just spreading hate speech.
You are unenlightened and uninformed if you don’t agree with us about gay rights.
You are denying people their rights by restricting marriage to 1 man + 1 woman.
You are intolerant of others' beliefs if you say Jesus is the only way to heaven.
Just because you believe that abortion is wrong, is no reason to deny my rights. Why are you so intolerant?
You just want to demean people and deny them dignity. You must be a bigot if you want to oppress someone who is just born that way.
Bigots should be punished and publicly exposed.
The relativist is quick to declare the other person intolerant or bigoted. But what they actually are saying is that you must agree or you will be labeled as intolerant, hateful, and bigoted. However, true tolerance requires differences of opinion or practice to be held, while respecting the person (but not necessarily the idea). You really can't tolerate people who share your views!
Classic tolerance means that the views of others should be permitted to be expressed, and thus we can allow for different beliefs without saying that the person is bad just because they hold them. On the other hand, it is expected that views and positions can be fairly challenged. Banning speech, shouting down college speakers, or canceling people over their beliefs is not tolerance, but is rather viewpoint discrimination.
TLDR Summary
Tolerate persons in all circumstances by giving them respect and courtesy even when their ideas are false, silly, or even offensive.
Tolerate (allow) behavior that is moral and consistent with the common good.
Tolerate (embrace/believe) ideas that are sound.
