STYLISTIC CHANGE: Divine Pronouns
Out of respect for God, I have capitalized all pronouns that refer to him, to Jesus, and to the Holy Spirit. However, after some careful consideration, I’ve decided that it will make life a lot easier, and essays much easier to proofread, if I cease this practice.
From now on, all divine pronouns will be lowercase. This is consistent with most translations of the Bible, and many devotionals and other books that I’ve read. This will affect all sites that I webmaster–this one, God is NOT Imaginary, God and Amputees, and Fast Food Management Secrets (though I doubt that this decision will affect the fast food site much!).
Objective Morality
This post from Odder Stories defines “religious morality” this way:
- That morality is divinely inspired or divinely ‘given’ to us by God. Occasionally this is implied to be directly instilled in every human via the conscience, but more often it involves morality being codified in something like the Bible.
- That their particular brand of morality is absolute, objectively true and applies everywhere, in every circumstance.
- That morality exists independently of human thought or action.
- That morality is not bound in any way to utility. In other words, it’s enough that God or the Bible says that something is wrong; there doesn’t have to be any clear reason as to why.
This is almost accurate. Consider the first point. The Bible doesn’t codify morality for us that, as in the second point, “applies everywhere, in every circumstance.” Paul Copan, in “Is Yahweh a Moral Monster,” from the latest volume of Philosophia Christi (vol. 10, #1), argues that the morality codified for us in the Bible only applies to the ancient Israelites. The Mosaic law points to a higher standard of morality, but is not that standard.
Jesus was the end of the Law (Rom 10:4). That which was written the Law is for instruction (Rom 15:4; cf. 1 Cor 10:11 and Gal 3:23-24). By the prophet Jeremiah, God predicted a better day, which has now come:
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Jer 31:33)
So the Bible isn’t our source of morality–God has written it on our hearts. That is not to say that we are done with the Mosaic law altogether, for it still exists for instruction. This way, we have an objective, absolutely true sourcebook for when our feelings fail us.
It follows naturally that the morality exists independently of human thought and action.
Finally, the way that Vitaminbook phrases the fourth point makes us sound like cultists. In fact, it isn’t as bad as that, provided that one accepts two points. First, that God is Creator and therefore Lawgiver. Second, that as Creator, he would know better than us what is and is not harmful to us.
I’m sure that VB is primarily referring to something that is near and dear to his own heart, Leviticus 18:22. The reasoning behind that goes back to Genesis 2:18-24, an account which is confirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:1-12. Marriage is between one man and one woman, according to Genesis and Christ. Therefore, it is an abomination to the Lord for two men or two women to lie together.
That rule doesn’t seem arbitrary to me; it seems as though there is a clear reason why this rule is in place. The only problem is whether someone accepts the authority of God or not.
Antipelagian vs. Vitaminbook
For those of you following the exchange between Antipelagian and Vitaminbook in the comments section of this post, Antipelagian has taken the battle to his own home front here. AP pulls no punches when it comes to atheist morality, so be warned. Vitaminbook has a response of sorts, pondering atheist morality here. I’ll dissect that post later, when I have some more time.
Meanwhile, I encourage readers to follow up on that debate. It is very interesting to say the least.
Charge Against Neumanns Survives Motion to Dismiss
The charge against Madeline Neumann’s parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, survived a motion to dismiss on Tuesday. A judge has ordered that they will stand trial, ruling that sufficient evidence exists for the charges to stick and for the couple to mount a defense.
Dale and Leilani Neumann have been charged with second-degree reckless homicide in the death of their 11-year old daughter Madeline (Kara). Kara’s condition, a treatable form of diabetes, deteriorated over the course of a month until she was unable to speak or eat within the last 48 hours of her life. Her parents stayed by and prayed instead of seeking medical attention.
Prayer has worked miracles, to be sure, but usually in conjunction with medical attention. It is my sincere prayer that this tragedy is used by God to bring some good into the lives of everyone touched by it.
Brian Sapient Punched Out
There are several rumors circulating that Brian Sapient, co-founder of the Rational Response Squad, has been brutally attacked at the American Humanist Association’s conference by Greydon Square, another member of the RRS. Apparently, the two had a disagreement over the way Sapient was handling Square’s CD sales, and Square beat Sapient. An ambulance had to be called.
There is no official word, as yet, from the RRS. Hambydammit, a core member, would neither confirm nor deny it to an interested party on the RRS forums, instead Hamby repeatedly told the inquirer to mind his own business.
Whatever my personal differences with Brian Sapient, he didn’t deserve to be attacked by Greydon Square. Square has legal methods to work out business disputes if he was unhappy with Sapient handling his affairs. Square acted like a spoiled little child. He needs to do some serious growing up.
Meanwhile, my prayers are with Sapient and Kelly this evening. Hopefully Brian has a speedy recovery. Pray also that the Lord has bigger plans for Brian Sapient than atheist activist.
UPDATE: This attack has been confirmed by Brian Sapient here in this thread at the RRS discussion board.
UPDATE: Fixed the broken link in this tread.
Calling for the Resignation of V. Gene Robinson
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.
Great News
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!
PZ Myers and Hubris
Atheist PZ Myers, who has an extremely popular blog, a fact which continually surprises me, has made a comment in this blog entry that shows he is the modern embodiment of Satan’s war on God.
After describing the book of Genesis as a “little scrap of piss-poor poetry that half this country wants to make the backbone of our science curriculum,” Myers links to this YouTube video and continues:
somebody has tried putting the actual creation story as revealed by modern physics into the same kind of portentous, simple language that even a Mesopotamian goat-herder could understand, the point being that if a god had chosen to tell primitive people how the universe came to be, he/she/it could have done so in just as awe-inspiring a way as the false myths we’ve got.
Before we get to the comment that inspired my post, let me dissect this statement. First, he assumes that his god, science, has everything right. For Myers, epistemology begins and ends with science, that is all there is and all there ever will be. Then, he makes the assumption that ancient people are stupid with insulting comments like “even a Mesopotamian goat-herder could understand” and calling Genesis “false myths.” It is unthinkable for Myers that the Bible may actually be right. So much so that at the beginning of the presentation he is blogging about, he literally tore the Creation Story right out of Genesis.
As if I haven’t already demonstrated the hubris of PZ Myers, the final comment on this entry takes the cake: “It’s rather neat that modern scientists know more than God.” What unbridled pride! And I think we all know what happens to the proud (Prv 16:5, 18).
Homosexual Agenda?
I picked on him yesterday, too. Now I’m picking on him again. Odder Stories has this post, which I partially agree with:
Anyone who is gay, knows gay people or has an ounce of common sense should realize that the Gay Agenda myth is ridiculous. . . . But those who preach the idea of a Gay Agenda are almost never talking about a single group or person – rather, they want you to believe that the majority of homosexuals, because they are homosexual, subscribe to this subversive ‘agenda’. I have to wonder if these people imagine new ‘recruits’ being inducted into some globe-spanning, conspirational corporation. (Of course, the ‘recruits’ will be teenage boys, roped into the gay lifestyle against their will).
I don’t agree with the idea of a sweeping “Gay Agenda” embraced by all homosexuals everywhere. But I do believe that there are many who would like the voices of we, the religious, silenced forever. Our dissent from homosexual marriage and the lifestyle itself is the one voice that they cannot and will not hear.
My theory is that, in their own hearts, they know that what they do is abominable in the sight of their Creator. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18), they hate the light and prefer to remain in darkness since the light will expose their sin (Jn 3:19).
Is there some agenda out there? I happen to think that there is. I think it tries to silence the voice of morality on the issue precisely because we pang their consciences. And I can back myself up with two news items that happened to cross my desk today.
A Belgian Bishop was acquitted of inciting homophobia. A gay rights activist group complained when, during an interview, the Bishop remarked, “Homosexuals have encountered a blockage in normal psychological development, rendering them abnormal. I know very well that in a few years, I could be imprisoned for holding this position, but this could mean a bit of a vacation for me.”
They are trying to silence the voices that say what they do is wrong.
In a more dramatic example, a Canadian priest is being investigated for a hate crime when he engaged in a debate where he quoted extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the letters of Pope John Paul II to prove that homosexuality is wrong according to Catholic teaching.
I’m sure that I could find more examples, but these two suffice, I think, to uphold my position: There may not be a sweeping agenda agreed on by all homosexuals everywhere, but one does exist. It seeks to silence Christians and the day will come when merely posting this on the Internet could land me in jail.
“Odder Stories” Accuses Me of Racism
How, as a Christian apologist, do I gauge how well I’m doing? By this verse:
If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. (Jn 15:19, emphasis added)
I figure if the secular world hates what I have to say, then I must be doing a pretty darn good job. Conversely, if the Christian world loves me, then I must also be doing a pretty good job. From the comments that I receive, I see compliments from Christians (HT: Murphy Klasing and Wickle), and denigration from the world.
The most recent worldly accusation against me is to accuse me of 18th century racism for an old post on homosexuality. Unlike most Christians, I am allowing for the possibility that homosexuality may not be a choice. But along the same regard, neither is alcoholism or rage. Those things are genetic, too. Does anyone believe that they are good things, or are they things that we may struggle with but ultimately should eliminate for the good of all? Odder Stories says:
If you see echoes of 18th century racism, you’re not alone. In what sense is homosexuality like an addiction or anger issues? Why is it a ‘corrupting influence’? For one reason only: the Bible tells us that it is. It’s against ‘God’s plan’. We must ’surrender to God through Jesus Christ’, in the process attempting to deaden a major part of ourselves. As any honest advocate of this process will admit, this does not get rid of homosexuality, it merely teaches you to live with it by giving yourself over to what, at times, is indistinguishable from a cult.
He is absolutely correct in everything that he states. Christianity asks us to die to our former selves, of which homosexuality may be a part for some people. Like me having to die to my anger issues and other more serious addictions, the homosexual in service to the Lord must die to his homosexuality.
I freely admit that the only reason to argue against homosexuality is that the Bible says that it is a sin. There are no secular grounds whatsoever for arguing against it.
I feel that I’m an honest advocate of that position since I admit that the feelings never go away. There is not a day where I don’t struggle with my more serious addiction. Not a single day. But I’m struggling with it because I know God does not permit it, and I know that He will give me the strength to endure to the end. The homosexual can find that strength, too, if he or she looks to Jesus Christ.
Back Rome Again 