Saturday, July 19, 2008
I also want to point out that Dinesh D'Souza will be debating Richard Dawkins on July 21, 2008 and you can watch it for free online.
Alister McGrath vs. Christopher Hitchens:
Alister McGrath vs. Richard Dawkins
Alister McGrath vs. Peter Adkins
Dinesh D'Souza vs. Christopher Hitchens
Dinesh D'Souza vs. Michael Shermer
If you want to read some of the arguments from a Christian perspective in this debate, I encourage you to read D'Souza's, "What's So Great About Christianity?," also David Aikman's, "The Delusion of Disbelief," Ravi Zacharias "End of Reason," plus Alister McGrath's "The Dawkins Delusion?," and others. But this should get you started.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
I just really want to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for all of this. I just want to glorify him.”
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Take the issue of homosexuality for example. When the AIDS crisis first emerged, many were quick to blame it on the rise of homosexuality where it's members have multiple partners. HIV and AIDS spreads quickest through homosexual intercourse. Our culture, and liberals in general, were quick to condemn such heresy. It is wrong to blame a group in society marginalized by religious bigots for the spread of AIDS. The very thought that a sexual lifestyle could kill others is preposterous to them, and therefore must be wrong.
Take abortion and other right-for-life issues for another example. What is the number one reason people give as a defense for death? Compassion and mercy. A mother who murders who own child is doing so because she doesn't want her child to struggle with a handicap all their life. A husband that blocks the giving of a feeding tube to his wife does so because he doesn't want to see her suffer. These decisions are viewed, not as they are, that is, murder, but rather as actions taken from the pure desires of the heart. No one wants a child to suffer from a birth defect do they? No one wants to see grandma continue to suffer from cancer do they? Those who find themselves at abortion clinics or signing the papers to refuse treatment are not viewed as murderers, but as loving family members who only want the best.
Notice again, the root behind the worldview: the nature of man. Surely no one would want to kill their own child or loved ones for selfish reasons. And persons who do murder for selfish reasons must be sick.
And that brings us to a similar issue in the area of morality: psychology and therapy. Our society radically changed whenever we treated criminals as persons who were sick rather than persons to be punished. This is born from a defective view of human nature. If man is good, then how can one be so evil? He must, the reasoning goes, be sick.
In America, and throughout the West, we have a condition for everything. This leads to a failure in dealing with crime in this country. We institutionalize criminals rather than punish them. We try to understand them rather than seek justice. These may sound like harsh words, but it is the truth. And if these are harsh words, then perhaps you are proving my point.
To many, it is inconceivable to think about punishing someone. How can we punish someone who murdered others because they were abused as a child? How could we be so misunderstanding about a person who raped a woman because his father molested him? How could we be so judgmental to say that a person who steals should pay for his crime whenever society and capitalism has let him down, making him poor with nowhere else to turn but to crime. We, therefore, sympathize with the worse of society because they have a "condition" rather than seek punishment for their actions.
See the mindset? They are not guilty of sin against humanity or society, rather, society and humanity is guilty of crimes against them. It is not their fault. No one would ever rob a gas station out of boredom. Rather, it must have a reason like poverty and desperation. Again, whenever we skew our understanding of man, society falls apart.
Crime continues to grow in our culture and therapy, too, continues to increase. And it is clear that it isn't working. We live on appeals, not justice. We thrive on understanding, not defending the harmed. And it all rises from a faulty view of man.
Conservatives on the other hand see man as evil and it is this basic understanding of man that shapes their view on morality and ethics. By affirming the depravity of man, conservatives and Christians do not see the world through Utopian eyes, but through reality as it is. Things are getting worse, not better, despite our advance in knowledge, technology, enlightened philosophy, political power and influence, etc. For every disease cured, thousands are added. For every peace treaty signed, many wars begin. If the history of the world has taught us one thing, it has taught us that the liberal dream of Utopian will never happen because man cares only for himself.
Recent history and other Western cultures have proven one thing, those who stand in the way of pushing homosexuality and other sexual lifestyles forward will be met with legal resistance. I could dedicate an entire website to the persecution of persons who oppose homosexuality and are being charged for hate crimes, hate speech, and even hate thought crimes.
There is one thing one must realize about liberal activists: they don't want anyone to stand in their way. And those who do stand in their way are accused of being hateful and criminals.
Charles Colson has recently discussed this topic at his Breakpoint website. In an article titled, "The Coming Persecution: How Same-Sex 'Marriage' Will Harm Christians," Colson traces the persecution of several persons and groups who are being silenced because they oppose gay marriage.
Some of the examples he gives are:
For instance, a Methodist retreat center recently refused to allow two lesbian couples to use a campground pavilion for a civil union ceremony. The state of New Jersey punished the Methodists by revoking the center’s tax-exempt status—a vindictive attack on the Methodists’ religious liberty.
In Massachusetts, where judges imposed gay marriage a few years ago, Catholic Charities was ordered to accept homosexual couples as candidates for adoption. Rather than comply with an order that would be harmful to children, Catholic Charities closed down its adoption program.
California public schools have been told they must be “gay friendly,” as Roback Morse notes. But it will not stop with public schools. Just north of the border in Quebec, the government told a Mennonite school that it must conform to provincial law regarding curriculum—a curriculum that teaches children that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle. How long will it be before the U.S. government goes after private schools?
Even speaking out against homosexuality can get you fired. Crystal Dixon, an associate vice president at the University of Toledo, was fired after writing an opinion piece in the Toledo Free Press in support of traditional marriage . . . Fired—for exercising her First Amendment rights!
First, let us discuss the name calling. Opponents to homosexuality, transgenderism, and whatever else depraved man can come up with are accused of bigotry, intolerance, and being close-minded. In a postmodern society, such name tags couldn't be a worse indictment. And since opponents are considered bigots and homophobes, they are, therefore, inciting hate.
The problem with this argument should be obvious: to call someone a bigot is bigoted and to call someone intolerant is itself intolerant. This should be obvious from the get-go, but the walking contradiction of the name-calling phenomenon goes unnoticed.
This is an important aspect of the debate. The culture is viewed as being the ones that possess the only form of ethics allowed. If the culture disallows dissenting worldviews access to the public square and debate, that is not intolerant bigotry, that is a breaking from our discriminatory past and a movement to a better society.
This is why homosexuals aim to make homosexuality not a choice, but rather the opposite. This is why millions is spent on research looking for the "gay gene." For if the argument can be made that homosexuality is determined by birth and by our genes, then homosexuality isn't a choice. And if we are born gay, then the fight for homosexual rights can be equaled to that of the fight for racial equality.
In fact, the case has already been made and has so far failed. But don't fret. Scientist are doing all that they can to prove that homosexuality is something we're born with rather than a lifestyle we choose.
And if the culture is convinced that homosexuality is something one is born with, and therefore the homosexual can't help but be gay, then such name calling is appropriate. Like those against equal rights for blacks are referred to as racist, those who are against equal rights for homosexuals are referred to as bigoted homophobes. But until then, words like bigot and intolerant only apply to those who stand against the social evolution of the relativity of truth and ethics.
...we decided to test the consistency of the administration's policy. e founded the Dartmouth Bestiality Society. We appointed a president, a vice president, a treasurer, and a zookeeper. we wrote up an application an developed a budget. Then we went before the college committee on funding and made our case.
The administrators were appalled, of course. "There is no interest in, ahem, bestiality at Dartmouth," one said. To which the president of the Bestiality Society gamely replied, "That may be true, Dean Hanson, but it is because of centuries of discrimination! Those of us who are included toward animals have been systematically excluded and ostracized. Our organization will provide a supportive atmosphere in which people of our particular sexual orientation are treated with respect. At Dartmouth, if not in society, let us put an end to beastphobia."
No, we didn't get recognition or funding. But we did make our point... -pages 28-29
Over the past few decades, the laws governing marriage and family have shifted. In the 1960s and 1970s, a series of landmark reforms made marriage a radically different institution: women were granted equal rights within marriage, "illegitimate" children were granted legal rights, and no-fault divorce made dissolving a marriage much easier. More recently, a number of states have created civil unions and domestic partnerships.
In the view of some analysts, though, the reforms haven't gone far enough - the law now needs to catch up to the society it helped to shape, in which many more people live outside marriage. The reforms made marriage fairer and less compulsory, and they have even begun to recognize committed romantic relationships between members of the same sex. But for the most part, the law hasn't acknowledged the other types of important relationships that people can form.
"If the law decides to support some relationships, why not others that similarly involve care and support?" asks Washington University's Rosenbury. "What is it about marriage or marriage-like relationships - that is, relationships that are assumed to have sex in them?"