Josiah Concept Ministries

Defending the Faith Against Its Detractors

Archive for the ‘Pro-Life Issues’ Category

« Previous Entries

Dr. George Tiller

Posted by Cory Tucholski on June 3, 2009

Why on earth would an individual who is a committed pro-lifer think that it is okay to slay another person in cold blood? Inherent in the pro-life position is respect for the sanctity of all human life, as we are all bearers of God’s image. That includes people who are living in unrepentant sin.

What is repugnant to me are Christians who are actually enjoying this fiasco, saying that Tiller got what he deserved. The most common expression of this sort I hear is “What goes around comes around.” VJack of Atheist Revolution linked to this article listing tweets about Dr. Tiller. At the time of writing, 12% of respondents to a WorldNetDaily poll said they cheer the fact that Dr. Tiller is dead. Even two bloggers that I respect and like have applauded the fact that Dr. Tiller is dead, see here and here.

The fact of the matter is that God made all human beings in his image, male and female (Gen 1:27), saint and sinner. God prohibits murder (Ex 20:13). The apostle Paul said not to repay evil for evil (Rom 12:17; 1 The 5:15; see also 1 Pet 3:9), to let God administer justice in his own way in his own time (Rom 12:19; see also Prv 20:22). Therefore, we must conclude that vigilante justice of this sort is wrong.

What about people like Dr. Tiller, who live in abject and unrepentant sin? Did God not order the Israelites to commit mass genocide on the Canaanites, the Midianites, and the Amaelkites, all of whom lived in that same abject and unrepentant sin? That was Old Testament times, when the Israelites held the power to enforce God’s law. We hold no such power under the New Covenant of grace. Like Romans 12:19 teaches, leave it to God’s justice.

What further amazes me is that people are also rejoycing that Dr. Tiller is in hell. This is an affront to me for two reasons. First, we don’t know the condition of his soul; that is between him and God. We can’t know the state of someone else’s election. Second, as I’ve stated before, we should never rejoice in a soul going to hell. Hell isn’t a place we should wish on people; instead, we ought to focus on making our own calling and election sure (2 Pet 1:10).

If a Christian is haughty about the fact that he is going to heaven, while a baby-killer like Tiller is rotting in hell, this “Christian” ought to wonder if he is actually going to heaven. True devotion to God brings humility, not pride. No one is going to heaven on his or her own merit, but by imputed righteousness through faith in Christ. Think about that for just one moment. The Christian isn’t in heaven because he followed the right path; he’s in heaven because God had mercy on him! This ought to be humbling, for as Paul repeatedly has stated, boasting is excluded.

How much more to God’s glory would it have been to see Dr. Tiller repent of his sins and stop performing abortions? Alas, he was in a church that appears to tolerate his sins enough to let him serve. All too often, the American church tolerates sin and doesn’t challenge people to repent. This creates a false assurance of salvation for many people. That false assurance creates the haughtiness that we just talked about.

A real assurance of salvation, as the apostle Peter wrote, produces faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, steadfastness, godliness, brotherly affection, and love. Lacking these qualities, people forget that God cleansed them of their former sins (2 Pet 1:5-9).

So, Christians, look at your reaction to the Dr. Tiller killing. Are you pleased that a baby-killer’s life was ended, and he is now in hell for his unrepentant sin? If so, you might have to do some growing as a Christian. If you believe that this sort of thing undermines the pro-life position, and you mourn that Dr. Tiller may have yet had a chance to repent, then you’re probably on the right track.

Posted in Pro-Life Issues | 13 Comments »

But Did He Do Anything Wrong?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on March 22, 2009

Daniel Florien from Unreasonable Faith caught Pastor Chris Fox from Kendalls Baptist Church impersonating atheists on Unreasonable Faith. I think Pastor Chris’s point was to show that atheists have no foundation for morality, however there are better ways to go about doing so.

One of the comments that Pastor Chris posted was as follows:

What’s wrong with killing babies? I see no problem with it. I have enough mouths to feed. I don’t get the argument and I am an atheist. Since I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in anything characterized as good, bad / right, wrong. So, what’s the big deal?

He gave away the farm in the first sentence. I’m assuming that he’s talking about abortion. It’s obvious that this was posted by a pro-lifer because no pro-choice individual would ever refer to abortion as “killing babies.” They would refer to it under the equally appaling tag “exercising reproductive rights.”

If you’re going to impersonate atheists, at least get the lingo right.

Which brings up the next question: Did Pastor Chris actually do anything wrong? Well, I think that he did and I’m happy to see that he apologized for it. What he did was create a false identity and attempted to make fun of the atheistic worldview. I’m not sure I see the hypocrisy in this, but what I do see is the same sort of mentality that led atheists to create Landover Baptist Church. We, as salt and light for the world, should avoid the same sort of dirty tactics that the world uses against us. Pastor Chris fell into temptation–he did to them what they did to us, an action specifically condemned by Paul in Romans 12:17.

What he should have done was to engage the issue intellectually. He should have logically demonstrated what we theists have always known: atheists have no foundation for morals, so they borrow morals from the Judeo-Christian worldview and declare that those are the morals that society has “evolved” with. Without God, life has no transcendent value and therefore things like “good” and “evil,” “right” and “wrong” have only what value we humans assign to them. Wrong and right become a matter of opinion in the atheistic worldview.

So, what do the atheists do? Well, they create the New Ten Commandments, of Which There are now 15 (listed on p. 263-264 of The God Delusion). But, the good folks from Atheism is Dead examined those 15 commandments and discovered that most were, in fact, biblically based. The atheist has no escape: his morals are derived from a Judeo-Christian sense of right and wrong, and that sense comes from the Bible and ultimately God himself.

This is how Daniel Florien and his readers knew what Pastor Chris did was wrong. They knew it was wrong because the Bible said that it was wrong, and that means that they get their morals from the same place as Christians.

Posted in Atheism, Morality, Pro-Life Issues | 22 Comments »

This is . . . I don’t know!

Posted by Cory Tucholski on March 13, 2009

I have no words to describe this:

A leading embryonic stem cell expert in Britain has called for organs from aborted babies to be used in transplants to increase the supply of organs available for donation, drawing criticism from pro-life and Christian groups who called the proposal “absolutely horrifying.”

I think that I side with James White in saying: This isn’t going to bring the wrath of God. This is the wrath of God. How much lower can society sink?

Posted in Pro-Life Issues | 1 Comment »

Stumping Pro-Lifers

Posted by Cory Tucholski on January 22, 2009

Daniel Florien from Unreasonable Faith has a question that stumps pro-life demonstrators:

If abortion is illegal, what should the punishment be for women who have illegal abortions?

Florien thinks that this question will win any debate with pro-life people:

Now watch their faces as the cognitive dissonance sets in. They believe abortion to be murder. Murder deserves severe punishment. Thus, women who have illegal abortions should receive severe punishment — like life in prison or the death penalty. That’s the logical conclusion.

But they can’t accept this conclusion. They know it’s absurd and unfair — which means they know abortion is not really murder. (source)

Florien mistakenly believes that all pro-lifers are as inconsistent and uninformed in their views as the ones on the YouTube video that he accents this post with.

Why the inconsistency? Why are pro-lifers afraid to say that life in prison would be a reasonable punishment for a woman who has an illegal abortion? I’m not afraid to reveal that that is my position, after much soul-searching and prayer. Abortion is murder, and it should be punished as such.

However, to prove the copus delicti in these cases would entail proving both that the woman was pregnant, and she had an abortion. A careful woman would be able to conceal the fact that she was pregnant from everyone if she planned to have an abortion. There may be little evidence to prove that she was ever pregnant in the first place, and a back alley abortion clinic would have every reason to avoid admitting that they knew she was pregnant to protect themselves.

The mens rea would be a difficult process, too. You’d have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she intended to take her baby’s life, which means proving that, at the time the crime was committed, she understood that the baby was alive inside of her. Here it may be easy to feign ignorance or to muddy the waters by introducing medical data proving that the baby was already in danger of dying.

Conclusion: abortion is murder. Murder merits severe punishment. The punishment should be life in prison, as for any murder. But making a prosecutable case would be extremely difficult. But the possibility of such a sentence would still give anyone pause before committing the crime, and would make any law-abiding citizen consider an option better for the baby, like adoption.

Posted in Pro-Life Issues | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »

What America Needs to Know About Rick Warren

Posted by Cory Tucholski on January 15, 2009

Vjack from Atheist Revolution has published a list of things that everyone needs to know about Rick Warren. He treats these things as if they are bad things, as if it is scandalous to believe any of them. I thought I’d take a look at his list and see just how scandalous it is.

  1. Warren’s much praised work on AIDS in Africa has been revealed as undermining scientifically-sound efforts to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS in favor of thoroughly discredited religiously-based methods. He opposes contraception, even when it comes to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS. This takes anti-intellectualism and religious delusion to astounding levels.

  2. Warren opposes reproductive rights for women and stem cell research. He has criticized Obama’s position on these issues and vowed to pressure him into changing his mind. This should be worrisome for anyone who values separation of church and state.
  3. He was a strong supporter of Proposition 8, the measure which rolled back civil rights for many Californians by denying marriage to GLBT couples. This is bigotry.
  4. Warren has equated gay marriage to incest and pedophilia. This is bigotry.
  5. Warren has publicly stated that he would not vote for an atheist, regardless of qualifications. He thinks that no atheist could possibly be worthy of holding office. This is bigotry.
  6. He is a creationist. Lest we dismiss this as mere stupidity, please remember that many of us are still having to fight to keep this nonsense out of our schools. (source)

All right, let’s break this down:

  1. In other words, if people aren’t allowed to have sex wherever and whenever and with whomever they want–which is what “scientifically-sound” methods do–then the approach is no good. It is no good to teach people to keep their pants up, no, we must give them condoms and allow them to have sex all willy-nilly. The only 100% effective method of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS is abstinence. The problem isn’t the method, as Vjack implies, the problem is the committment level of the people in question. I’ve covered this topic before.
  2. “Reproductive rights” is a very nice way to say “abortion.” Vjack is trying to use less emotionally-charged words in order to downplay a serious ideological argument. What Warren is opposing is the murder of the unborn children. Vjack himself admits to holding a similar position in this post.
  3. Proposition 8 was nothing less than an attempt to legislate morality, and therefore should not have been passed. My views on gay marriage are rather complex and best discussed in a separate post. For now, let’s say that I disagree with Proposition 8 but I think that it is harsh to call its supporters bigots. There are sound intellectual reasons to oppose gay marriage, but they are all grounded in the Bible and therefore have no place in the law books.
  4. Warren has never equated gay marriage with incest or pedophilia. What he has done is question where the state will draw the line as far as what immoral marriages it will allow. To that end, he cited incest and pedophilia as two examples of what may be allowed next. History offers no examples since gay marriage has been as universally forbidden as incest and pedophilia among the many cultures that have existed. Warren was speculating, not equating.
  5. I’m not going to disagree with this point. This is bigotry.
  6. There are many intellectual and philosophical reasons that lead someone to be  a creationist. Just as there are many philosophical and intellectual reasons that lead someone to be a naturalist. I don’t call naturalism “nonsense,” even if I think that a person who holds the position is being intellectually dishonest. Neither view is nonsense; but one must be incorrect. I’ve made my stance known. Now, what about teaching creationism in school? It toes the line, but I don’t think that it should be illegal.

Vjack reveals himself as very close-minded to other points of view. He is so certain that atheistic naturalism is correct, that he won’t even consider the position of the other side. Perhaps Vjack is guilty of the same bigotry that he accuses others of.

Posted in Atheism, Creationism, LGBT Issues, Morality, Pro-Life Issues | 6 Comments »

Hit From Both Sides

Posted by Cory Tucholski on December 21, 2008

Normally, I don’t discuss politics on this blog. But I can’t resist mentioning the controversy that has surrounded President-elect Barack Obama’s decision to include Dr. Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life and The Purpose of Christmas, in the inaugural ceremonies this January 20th. Obama is rapidly losing support of the atheist community for including Warren, as Warren stands against abortion (innocently called “reproductive rights” by those who don’t see it as murder) and gay marriage.

Oddly, Obama is in support of both gay marriage and abortion rights, two planks that won him little support among conservative Christians. This leads to the other side of this controversy: now conservative Christians are bashing Rick Warren for participating in the inaugural ceremonies! It seems that no one can win for losing in this debacle.

Personally, I think that this is a situation where people should put their politics aside. Rick Warren appearing at the Inauguration is not an endorsement of Obama’s position on abortion. Nor is Obama’s decision to include Warren meant to be a  slap in the fact to the gay community. Why can’t we put aside these issues that divide us for a day and pray together for the new President as he embarks on a difficult new journey?

Posted in Prayers, Pro-Life Issues | 1 Comment »

What’s the REAL Message Here?

Posted by Cory Tucholski on December 8, 2008

Vjack from Atheist Revolution reveals  his position as a pro-life atheist. While I commend his pro-life stance, I don’t admire his reasoning. It goes like this:

Personally, I favor reducing the number of abortions performed through reality-based sex education and widespread availability of affordable and effective contraception. By reducing the number of unwanted pregnancy, we can reduce the number of abortions without having to infringe upon anyone’s reproductive rights. (source)

First of all, every “fetus” or “embryo” is a potential human life and should be afforded the same care as any child. You wouldn’t kill a child just because he or she became inconvenient. So it bothers me that Vjack refers to abortion as a “reproductive right.”

That point aside, what is Vjack really saying here? He favors “widespread availability of affordable and effective contraception.” What that means, translated, is that he is all for having sex with whomever whenever desired.

Abstinence is all about self-control. This is yet another example of the atheist community not being big on practicing self-control. But can we expect them to? After all, self-control is a fruit of the Spirit, and the atheist is not indwelled by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we should not expect that an atheist would have any appreciation of the fine art of self-control. Atheism is nothing less than creating an intellectual excuse to disobey God.

Now let me add a caveat. I’m not for abstinence-only sex education. I think that it is important to teach the benefits and drawbacks of all of the contraceptives, as well as allowing kids to weigh the pros and cons of abstinence. Let each decide what is right for him or her.

For the Christian, the only correct choice is abstinence. That is the only choice pleasing to God. But this choice is more open to Christians than to atheists because a Christian indwelled by the Holy Spirit and charged with a desire to please God will be able to muster the self-control to remain chaste until marriage.

I should add that the task isn’t impossible for the atheist. My wife knows non-Christians that have remained chaste until marrige. A feat of self-control like this, however, is far more likely to be found in someone with a desire to please God.

Unfortunately, many Christians do not choose abstinence. All that proves is that Christians aren’t perfect, it doesn’t mean that abstinence is not a valid choice.

Posted in Atheism, Holy Spirit, Morality, Pro-Life Issues | 1 Comment »

Great News

Posted by Cory Tucholski on June 7, 2008

Amid heartbreaking news that always seems to clog my RSS feeds, every once in a while a good one shines through. Finley Crampton was born to Jodie Percival and Billy Crampton weighing in at 6 pounds 3 ounces three weeks premature. An everyday occurrence, right? Not this baby: The couple had tried to abort him 8 weeks into the pregnancy. He survived the abortion and is expected to live a normal life.

Welcome to the world, little man!

Posted in Pro-Life Issues | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Interesting Thought…

Posted by Cory Tucholski on April 26, 2008

I wish I could take credit for this thought, but I can’t.  It originated with John Crane from The Daily Detour.  It is a deep thought, and one worthy of consideration by everyone on each side of the abortion debate.

Why is it that when an outside party causes the death of unborn children, it is considered murder whereas if the mother causes the death of the unborn child it is considered a choice?

Here’s the situation: a pregnant teller was shot during a bank robbery.  She was pregnant with twins and she lost both babies.  The shooter is no longer considered a bank robber–he is now a murderer.  He rightfully should be!  He caused the death of two innocent children.

But what if the mother had decided to terminate the pregnancy?  Well, that wouldn’t be murder for some reason in the eyes of the law.  It would be considered a choice.

The children have the same rights as a full-blown human in the first scenario.  They have no rights–they are simply fetuses in the second scenario.

Why?

Posted in Pro-Life Issues | Leave a Comment »

Consistency in Positions

Posted by Cory Tucholski on September 5, 2007

I have noticed that the Christian position tends to be the most consistent position in any argument between theists and atheists. Here is yet another shining example of the inconsistency of the atheist position:

Christian extremists have long sought to replace science education with religious indoctrination. If science contradicts biblical teaching (and it most certainly does), then science must go. When it became clear that this was not going to happen, they tried to insure that creationism would at least be included in the educational curriculum, going so far as to claim that it should be taught as an alternative to evolution. (source)

He expresses joy over this news but then adds:

Sadly, we can’t celebrate the defeat of creationism just yet. Even though it is nice to see Texas board members understanding that creationism (in its various forms) is not science, this is merely one battle in a much larger war. . . . Before we praise these school board members for making the right decision, we must realize that they may also be determined to amplify controversy where little exists.

He refers to the fact that the article states that the school board wants textbooks that more throughly examine the weaknesses in the theory of evolution. He laments, “Clearly, more work is needed to make sure our nation’s children receive the science education they need.”

So, what’s the matter? Chicken? If your theory is so solid, then surely it will stand up to close scrutiny, right? Why the objection to looking at the theory more closely? Because the goal of the atheist is the same as what he accuses the Christian of: indoctrination. He wants no controversy to appear to exist with the theory of evolution, so that children don’t even think that holes exist, that they simply believe, de fide, that evolution is the explanation for everything. That is indoctrination, pure and simple.

It reminds me of this:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Rom 1:18-21, emphasis added)

And:

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 The 2:9-12, emphasis added)

Next, we have a clear case of an atheist proving the wrong point, but not realizing it.  John Ray, a professed atheist, makes the following point:

One small point that I would make about the article I have referenced concerns the idea that atheists characteristically subscribe to moral relativism. I think that is broadly true and it does make nonsense of the condemnations uttered by such atheists. How can they say religion is wrong while at the same time saying that there is no such thing as right and wrong? (source, emphasis added)

Which pretty much sums up what the majority of Christians believe about the mindset that atheism leads to.  Note that we don’t say that atheists themselves are amoral, only that they way that they think leads to this type of inconsistency.  Jeff Haws from The Atheocracy, answers thus:

Is this guy really an Atheist? First of all, I’ve very rarely (OK, never, actually) heard an Atheist say religion is “wrong” from a moral perspective. They’ve said religion is wrong, as in “incorrect,” and they might say it’s mostly harmful to society, but I don’t think they’d say you’re morally wrong for being religious. (source)

Christopher Hitchens, in his book God is not Great, has a chapter entitled “Religion as Original Sin” and another called “Is Religion Child Abuse?”  Therefore, I would have to disagree with Jeff’s analysis that atheists never proclaim that religion is wrong from a moral perspective.

Jeff concludes:

Secondly, no Atheist that I know of says “there’s no such thing as right and wrong.” What they say is there’s no central authority to determine what’s morally right and wrong for everyone. . . .  Each individual has to be responsible to him or herself. If you choose to do stupid, morally bankrupt things, there will be consequences for that in this life. Once you die, you’re off the hook, but that’s a bold loophole to take advantage of. There is “right and wrong;” there’s just not a book to scare you into behaving in order to avoid a fiery future.  (emphasis added)

Done.  Jeff has proven that moral relativism rules in atheism, and that there is no objective right and wrong.  Yet atheists continue to appeal to objective right and wrong, even looking for a source for it in evolution. It looks like John Ray is more astute than Jeff Haws thinks he is!

Posted in Atheism, Creationism, Pro-Life Issues, Science | 3 Comments »

« Previous Entries