2 Corinthians 6:14-18 Illustrated

15 08 2010

A new believer named Ronni needed some relationship advice, so she did the only logical thing and turned to Pat Robertson.

Robertson is giving a biblical answer for a change. He’s referring to 2 Corinthians 6:14-18:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?  What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,

“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”

It’s not a blanket prohibition on “hanging out” with unbelievers. How are we supposed to evangelize if we’re not permitted to hang out with unbelievers? The idea of a “yoke” is a rabbinical term referring to various interpretations of the Hebrew bible. A rabbi was said to teach and follow a specific “yoke.” It’s similar in terms to a Christian denomination of today, but not exactly. For example, a rabbi who came up with a new yoke (rather than teaching an existing one) had to have his new yoke blessed by the laying on of hands by two other rabbis.

What “unevenly yoked” means is that a person shouldn’t have a very different set of beliefs than their spouse.

My wife is an Arminian, and I’m a Calvinist. I’ve heard that that doesn’t work very well. But that hasn’t been my experience so far. Calvinists and Arminians agree on the basic premise that faith in Christ alone is what is necessary for salvation, and that is exactly what my wife and I plan on teaching our kids. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is in how the person arrives at saving faith–through God’s action alone (Calvinism) or by God’s response to a free will decision (Armininism).

The real problem for Ronni in the video is that her fiancee is an atheist. It probably isn’t impossible for such a marriage to work, but my concern would be for any future children that the couple would have. How does one decide what religion the children will be raised to believe?

Ronni’s fiancee, as an atheist, probably believes that the Bible is a collection of myths rather than historical facts. He also likely denies the Resurrection (perhaps even the historical person of Jesus). Ronni, as a Christian, is going to want to teach her children about the existence of God and Jesus, that the Bible is a reliable history book, and that Jesus died on the cross and rose again on the third day to defeat sin and death.

I don’t know many atheists who would want their children to be taught such “nonsense.” In that scenario, mom teaches one thing, then dad undermines it behind mom’s back. The kids are going to be confused.

An additional problem presents itself. The church, as a whole, fails in apologetic instruction. I doubt much that Ronni has any way to counter the arguments that her fiancee will expose the kids to: contradictions in the Bible, Jesus never existed, there is no evidence for God, evolution removes the need for God, and other atheist talking points. The kids, in this scenario, are far more likely to be atheists since the atheist is able to present and defend his reasons for being so, while the Christian is left with “You just have to have faith.”

Unless the fiancee is going to agree to not interfere with the religious upbringing of the children, and if he is going to agree to be supportive of Ronni’s Christian faith, then this might be fine. But I don’t know many atheists who are willing to do such a thing. At least, the impression I get from the commenters on this site.

So, what say you, atheists? Am I wrong? Could you be supportive of your spouse if your spouse was religious and wanted to bring the kids up in that religion?


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Atheism, God, Marriage

Why Christians Can’t Have a Meaningful Debate About Homosexuality

2 07 2010

Many conservative Christians do not adhere to these verses [Lev 19:18 and Mt 22:39]. If they did then gays would have the same rights as heterosexuals to lawfully join in union. It is because of American Christians hatred of homosexuality that gays cannot legally bond in most states. Some Christian parents have been known to disown their children who happen to be homosexual. (source)

Mark (proprietor of Proud Atheists) has demonstrated the reason that Christians can’t have a meaningful debate with social liberals over homosexuality. We consider, with good reason, homosexuality to be a grave sin. However, calling it that causes the other side to immediately label us “homophobes,” “bigots,” or other nice names.

It is because we love our neighbors that we try to communicate that homosexuality is a sin. If we didn’t care about our neighbor’s eternal fate, then we’d just shut up and allow homosexual marriage to take place.

Mark is doing serious violence to the definition of love by making his initial claim. He’s saying that if we loved our neighbors, then we’d leave them be to express their individuality. But that’s absolutely absurd.

If my neighbor asserted his individuality by playing with matches and lighter fluid and I didn’t stop him, one could hardly make a case for me being “loving.” If another neighbor asserted his individuality by keeping 14 year old girls for sex slaves before killing them, I would hardly be called “loving” if I allowed him to continue unabated. If another neighbor decided that gambling and drinking were more important than his wife and kids, I would not be considered “loving” if I didn’t try to reason with him and show him that he’s losing his family and ruining his future.

The radio station K-Love once ran a spot where several criminals who had committed crimes of increasing severity appeared before a judge. Each time, the judge said to the offender that he was forgiven, and he could go free to sin no more–never once punishing him. The end of the spot asked, “Do you consider this judge loving?”

Of course not. We might describe that judge as apathetic, but not loving. Same as my behavior in the three hypothetical examples above.

Returning to the homosexuality example, since we consider it to be a grave sin, we would be apathetic if we allowed people to walk in it unabated. It would be no different than if we failed to denounce murder. Where we are failing to communicate is that society doesn’t think that there is anything wrong with homosexuality.

Rather than listen to what we’re trying to communicate about homosexuality, however, we are simply labeled bigots or homophobes. Emotionally loaded terms. There is no meaningful debate after that.

UPDATE:

Daniel just did the exact same thing over at Unreasonable Faith: he’s not considering that homosexuality is a sin, or that Christians should speak against it like any other sin. He’s just calling the pastor a bigot. No argument. Just name calling.


Comments : 10 Comments »

Categories : LGBT Issues, Marriage

This is just . . . WOW! (part II)

23 05 2010

In a previous post, I criticized Mark of Proud Atheists for this post. Mark listed 14 things that he simply does not adhere to, given his naturalistic worldview. In all cases, I’ve been finding that Mark misunderstands or mischaracterizes Christianity. Today, we continue exposing his errors on points eight through 14, and offer some concluding thoughts. Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 6 Comments »

Categories : Apologetics, Atheism, Father, God, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Marriage, Morality, Prayers, Religion, Sin, Theology

This is Just . . . WOW! (part I)

22 05 2010

Mark from Proud Atheists does it again! He manages to prove his general and willful ignorance of religion even while attempting to mock it. His latest diatribe is a thoughtful post titled “Dear Christians, ‘I Simply Do Not . . . .‘” It’s a fascinating line of crap from start to finish. Let’s see what we can make of it: Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 3 Comments »

Categories : Apologetics, Atheism, Evangelism, Father, God, Holy Spirit, Jesus, LGBT Issues, Marriage, Morality, Religion, Sin, Theology

CedarCreek Talks About Sex

23 04 2010

Shocking. CedarCreek, a Toledo-area megachurch, is trying to be relevant. They are planning two meetings about sex from God’s point of view, the first titled “Sex: It’s Bigger Than You Think” on April 25 and “From Messing Up to Making Up” on May 2. As per CedarCreek’s usual M.O., there is an aggressive advertising campaign and a website.

While I think that it is refreshing that many churches are starting to eliminate the taboos once placed on talking about sex, not everyone seems to agree:

But the Rev. Andrew Edwards, pastor of Northwest Baptist Church in Toledo, said church is not the place to talk about sex. He voiced strong opposition to CedarCreek’s campaign, saying that discussing sex with teens would make them more likely to engage in it because it would “stir up their emotions.”

The pastor criticized CedarCreek for “letting the world dictate what they do instead of the Bible.”

“What they’re using is the sensual, not the spiritual,” Mr. Edwards said. “I oppose what they do. I don’t think what they’re doing is going to help. They’re just using it to market to teenagers.” (source)

Often, the world charges that the church simply isn’t relevant on sex anymore. To the world, monogamy is cruel, premarital sex is a “right,” and those who would preach abstinence prior to marriage are evil. Adultery is just another fact of life, and the sooner that the church accepts that, the better.

We’re evil for expecting people to exercise a little self-control? It can’t be about that, can it? God shouldn’t actually expect us to keep it in our pants unless we’re in a committed, loving, relationship sealed with the sacrament of marriage, should he? I mean, that’s just cruel. And then, once married, he actually expects us to honor those marriage vows?

No wonder Richard Dawkins described God famously in The God Delusion with all of those lovely adjectives strung together on page 31. It’s just plain evil to give us a beautiful gift and then expect us to actually obey rules with it. We should be able to have sex wherever, whenever, and with whomever we please, regardless if we’re married, single, divorced, underage, or related to the person after whom we lust.

Self-control is for the birds. After all, we’re just animals that have evolved higher intelligence. Animals don’t have all those restrictions; they have sex with any partner that will have them! We’re no different than any animal, so why should we obey all of these rules when it comes to sex, the most fun that anyone can have, ever?

Sorry, Mr. Edwards, but obviously I disagree. It is precisely because the world has the view of sex that I just satirized is why the church should educate people about it. People should understand that sex is a beautiful thing, when exercised properly. But few people are willing to practice the appropriate self-control, and even fewer understand the proper use of sex.

And that is where the church comes in.

Ignoring this problem will not make it go away.


Comments : 2 Comments »

Categories : Atheism, Heresy, Marriage, Morality

Atheists Redefining Morality

20 03 2010

I’ve often said that atheists have a penchant for redefining terms. The most frequent use of this tactic is seen by redefining “faith” to mean “belief without supporting evidence.” Faith is trust, no more and no less. It’s repugnant to see former believers continuing that redefinition, even though they know better.

But atheists, by their own reckoning, are also free to not only redefine established terms but also free to redefine morality. This is because they are no longer “shackled to a Bronze Age mythological belief system.” The comments to this post from Daniel Florien serve to show just how far this can be stretched. Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 2 Comments »

Categories : Apologetics, Atheism, Heresy, Marriage, Morality, Sin, Theology

Is Masturbation a Sin? A Disagreement with Steve Hays

19 03 2010

Steve Hays of Triablogue defends masturbation as a good thing here. Matthew Bellisario responds to that here. I weigh in, siding (for once) with Bellisario here. Hays responds to all three of us in one fell swoop here. I’ll let Dave Armstrong and Matthew Bellisario deal with his retorts to them on their own. I’ll consider Hay’s response to me.

[A] guy named Cory also raised some objections. Unfortunately, he doesn’t offer any arguments to respond to. Just assertions.

So, Hays isn’t going to respond to me at all. Darn.

I already dealt with the “lust” objection, both practically and exegetically. Of course, I could always be wrong, but no counterargument is forthcoming from his end.

Oh, whoops! He is responding to me. I’d better start paying attention. Let’s see. He’s already dealt with the lust objection. Unless I’m missing something, he did not deal with the issue at length. This is what he said:

Traditionally, the church has frowned upon masturbation. One reason is the relation between masturbation and lust. This cannot be denied. On the other hand, lust is also aggravated by the absence of a sexual outlet. That is, indeed, in the nature of sexual tension, of a tension between sexual desire and sexual release. Unrelieved sexual tension only builds.

Interesting. So masturbation is fine as an outlet for sexual tensions because otherwise the tensions would simply build and build. This is interesting because the atheist tends to justify things like pre-marital sex, pornography, and other things I would hope that Hays categorizes as sinful by appealing to the same sort of logic. It relies on the false assumption that you can’t deny yourself sexual pleasure. Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 1 Comment »

Categories : Apologetics, God, Heresy, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Marriage, Morality, Roman Catholicism, Sin, Theology

Calling for the Resignation of V. Gene Robinson

8 06 2008

This is a call for V. Gene Robinson, bishop of New Hampshire, to resign is episcopate because of his unrepentant sin of homosexuality.

The apostle Paul said:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 9-10, emphasis added)

And:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. (1 Tim 1:8-11, emphasis added)

Based on the Law’s prohibition on homosexuality (Lev 18:22) and the apostle Paul’s clear echo of it, I would say that homosexuality is wrong.  Let’s look at the qualifications for a bishop (overseer):

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Tim 3:2-7, emphasis added)

I am not considering Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson’s qualifications outside of the boldfaced terms.  I hope he has been an good bishop in every other area and served his people well.  However, he does not fit the qualifications of a bishop and should therefore resign his office.

Bishop Robinson is gay, and has joined in “marriage” to his long time partner.  This is unacceptable.  Homosexuality is a sin, and people who live in unrepentant sin should not serve in any capacity in ministry.  This man is supposed to be the spiritual leader of his diocese, and he is “glorying in his shame” (Phil 3:19).  This isn’t fair to the people of New Hampshire.  Their spiritual leader can’t control his own sin, how is he supposed to counsel others to control their sins?

Until he repents of homosexuality, Bishop Robinson should not be permitted to continue in ministry.


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Apologetics, Bible Thoughts, Heresy, LGBT Issues, Marriage, Sin

Monica and Chandler aren’t Married!

26 09 2007

This is the strangest TV wedding I have ever watched. I’ve seen it so many times, but it still makes me laugh every time. Joey really bungles the entire ceremony. But that’s just his character.

I posted this video because of a recent news item I read on people I call “Internet ministers.” I don’t know if that is the official name for these guys, but I’ll define the term now so that there is no confusion.  There are many organizations that offer ordination to anyone who applies for it.  No seminary education is necessary.  No training is necessary.  In fact, in many cases, you need not affirm even the basic doctrinal statements of the church (assuming that they even have one).  Like me, I figure that some people would see the sideline plot in season 7 of Friends where Joey is ordained online and then is able to perform Monica and Chandler’s wedding (and later, Phoebe and Mike’s wedding) and assume that it was only for TV.  Not the case at all.

In fact, this is a real thing that some people do.  Churches that exist only online offer ordination to anyone who applies (some ordinations are guaranteed,  while others stipulate some minimal and simple prerequisites).

Now, however, some of the weddings that have been performed by the so-called Internet ministers are being ruled as invalid by judges.  The officiator, according to the court, was not legally accredited as a person who solemnizes marriages.  That means the marriage isn’t valid, and thus the couple needs to go no further with divorce proceedings.  They aren’t married.

Had the show Friends continued, it would now be in its 13th season.  Monica and Chandler would be celebrating their sixth anniversary.  Almost time for that seven-year itch to kick in.  Maybe they introduce a love interest at Chandler’s office.  Then, Monica and Chandler find out that Joey’s ordination wasn’t legal, and thus, their marriage is not valid.

Time for the new love interest to swoop in.  Does she get Chandler?  Or does Monica win (again)?

What problems could this cause for Phoebe and Mike?  Remember that Mike never wanted to get married in the first place.  Maybe he’s unhappy and can walk away.  Time for David the scientist guy to reappear!

What if Joey had married Ross and Rachel?  I don’t think it would shake those two up a bit.  They’ve already been through enough together.  They would just get remarried after taking the news in stride.

It looks like we’ll never know the answers to these questions.  There isn’t a virtual seasons project for Friends on the web.

These are the kind of posts that happen when bloggers stay up late and get slap happy!  Don’t let this happen to you.  Go to bed at a reasonable hour.


Comments : 3 Comments »

Categories : Humor, Marriage

I’m So Excited for DefCon!

12 07 2007

The folks over at DefCon, who came to my attention as they fought viciously against the Creation Museum, have a new regular blogger. Although Eliza has posted with some regularity before, it looks like they have granted her full-time status as of today.

I mention this because her post today illustrates how atheists misunderstand our view of sin, and moreover sin itself. She is posting her thoughts on the latest political scandal to hit Louisiana: Senator David Vitter, who admitted involvement in a prostitution ring on Monday.

According to the Associated Press, Vitter rallied against the abysmal display of indifference toward corruption in political office. Ironically, this same indifference will be the key to his reelection. According to the article’s Man-on-the-Street interviews:

“He doesn’t know what’s going on in my bedroom, and I don’t care what’s going on in his,” said Robyn Beaugez, a 34-year-old insurance agent and registered Republican. “As long as he’s not taking money from taxpayers.”

Robin continues:

“Jefferson got elected and we knew what he did,” she said, referring to Rep. William Jefferson, a New Orleans Democrat recently indicted on corruption charges. Jefferson was re-elected in December by a wide margin despite allegations he took $100,000 in bribes, $90,000 of which was found in his freezer. He has denied any wrongdoing.

Ed Buchanan, a mortgage recorder, favorably compared Vitter to former President Clinton. “I’m glad he went to a professional instead of an intern,” Buchanan said.

To me, the most disturbing quote is this:

“The only way it could become an issue is if his opponent was a Pentecostal preacher. I say that tongue in cheek,” said Joe McKeever, director of missions for the Baptist Association of Greater New Orleans.

“Do you remember that quote about (former Louisiana Gov.) Edwin Edwards: ‘The only way I’d lose is if they catch me in bed with a live boy or a dead girl,’” McKeever asked. “Our expectations are abysmally low.”

The minister should be speaking against this sin! Instead, he’s just shrugging it off. Eliza thinks that this is the same attitude of Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council blog, who defends Vitter to the AP and in his blog.

Eliza, however, links to this article where Perkins spoke out against Mitt Romney for not doing enough to stop the flow of porn into hotel rooms. Then Eliza sarcastically remarks, “So, just to recap: it’s ok to sleep with a prostitute if you say you are sorry, but it is definitely not ok to offer pornography in hotel rooms. Good to know.”

Eliza wants readers to think that Perkins’s position is inconsistent with Christianity’s own stance on sin. While it is doubtful that Eliza does, in fact, understand Christianity’s view on sin, I have no way to know that for certain. Instead, I will demonstrate why Eliza’s own view is inconsistent. I believe that it is inconsistent on purpose to feed anti-religious right sentiment, which is exactly DefCon’s purpose for existence.

First, Tony Perkins is consistent with Christian values for defending Vitter but attacking Romney. Perkins is a personal friend of Vitter, according to the AP, a fact that Eliza fails to mention. As a friend, a Christian friend, Perkins should forgive Vitter (see Mat 18:21-22 and my commentary here).

One other thing that Eliza misses–on purpose, I’m sure–is what Perkins is defending. Perkins is not defending Vitter’s behavior, but is supporting his friend in his time of need. Perkin’s blog and press statement reflect this fact.

On his blog, Perkins said:

The statement by my friend and former colleague, Louisiana Senator David Vitter, was very disappointing. He admitted to a “serious sin” in a statement he released to the press on Monday, prior to news reports revealing that his phone number appeared on a long list of client’s numbers of the now infamous DC Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey. [emphasis added]

And went on:

While I commend him on assuming personal responsibility and working to make things whole in his life, I cannot defend David’s behavior. Adultery is a serious matter that affects not only the individuals involved but families and the well being of the entire community. Voters have the right to consider issues like this when they assess the character of an elected official. [emphasis added]

I didn’t expect Eliza to point any of that out. Her position is very unbalanced, written specifically to incite readers’ emotions. She makes it sound as if Perkins considers Vitter’s actions as justified because they worked together on some issues. She fails to point out statements that I have quoted above, statements that flesh out Perkins’s relationship with Vitter and give a better insight to Perkins’s true position on this issue.

As Christians, we must forgive our brother not seven times, but seventy times seven times, which is a first-century Jewish idiom for infinity. Seven isn’t a cap or a limit, but the number of wholeness and completion. The Bible’s use of the number seven implies similar usage as we would use the English words or phrases “always” and “for all time.” In that light, we can better understand Perkins’s use of Proverbs 24:16.

Perkins told the press:

“There’s room to make a mistake and come back,” said Tony Perkins, an evangelical former state representative and head of the Family Research Council in Washington. Perkins, who calls Vitter a personal friend, said he would vote for the senator if he proves he has “moved on.” [emphasis added]

The key to understanding this in a way that Eliza does not is the words “moved on.” Christianity isn’t a calling to simply say “I’m sorry,” the way Eliza paints in her short post. It is a call to repent–that is, to change. After all, what did John the Baptist say? It wasn’t “Say you’re sorry and move on.” It was “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!” (Mat 3:2, emphasis added) Change is implicit within the call to repent.
Perkins wants evidence that Vitter has moved on, has conquered this sin, before voting for his friend. And why not? The apostle Paul said:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? [Rom 6:1-2]

Why would a person, saved by the grace of God, continue in a life that only leads to death? It doesn’t make sense. Repentance is a call for us to change our lives and live lives that are pleasing to God. As Paul states:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. [Rom 12:1-2]

Perkins is calling for that repentance–that change. If no call to repent was found anywhere within Perkins’s defense of Vitter, then Perkins would be inconsistent. However, the call for change is found both on his blog and in in his statement to the AP.

Eliza thinks that Christians are OK with sleeping with prostitutes if the john says he’s sorry, but we’re never OK with pornography in hotel rooms. Well, I think I have effectively answered the first half of that: we are never OK with sin, but we are called to forgive our own, always. I have shown that saying “sorry” is not enough, the person must repent. Now, I will show why Perkins’s position on Mitt Romney is still perfectly consistent.

This article has all of the answers. Romney has spoken out against the availability of pornography many times, and rallied to have it regulated. However, when he was a member of the the board of the Marriot hotel chain, he did nothing to stem the flow of it into the rooms. Romney didn’t even bring the issue up at a board meeting. He claimed to be unaware of how much revenue came from it. In this case, Romney is the one who is being inconsistent, not Perkins! Perkins was right to point that out. Again, silence on that issue from Eliza.

So let’s everyone welcome Eliza to the DefCon blog. Her inconsistent position, filled with cherry-picked details that fail to paint the whole picture of what is going on, along with her misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches will be just what DefCon needs to win more support from people who will read the short posts and not investigate the details. They will continue to see what DefCon wants them to see. They will continue to be incensed about Christianity’s seemingly inconsistent positions without investigating why we seem to have them–and in the process discover not only that they are consistent but also discover the Savior who first taught us.

That will continue to fuel more misunderstanding about the nature of sin and how it separates us from a God they refuse to acknowledge.


Comments : 1 Comment »

Categories : Apologetics, Atheism, Bible Thoughts, Marriage, Sin, Theology

« Previous Entries