This short post appeals implicitly to the arguments of earlier posts, here and here.
Recent protests around the country reveal something interesting about homosexual values—homosexual axiology. The pronounced premise of the homosexual agenda is a desire for equality. But the concept of equality is far too vague to be valued in and of itself. No one, for instance, believes a victim of rape and a rapist should receive equal consequences for the event which defines them in this example. Such equality would be repugnant to every appreciable set of values. That kind of distinction is what makes equality of opportunity different from equality of distribution, by the way.
But for this point, the equality proposed by those pushing the homosexual agenda is supposed to be about civil rights. But such a claim can only be defended meaningfully if Read the rest of this entry »
A listener sent me the following story the day after I interacted with a caller about how abortion could be wrong even in cases of rape. There are many issues to be covered under that heading, but this letter touches on the key ones:
…
I just wanted to say that I am so pleased to read your stance on abortion in the case of rape. My mother was a 14-year-old girl who was raped, and she tried to have an abortion. The only reason I am alive today is because the doctor miscalculated her due date and thought she was too far in the pregnancy to have the abortion, when in reality he was a month off (this actually happened twice). It pains me every time I hear even die hard pro-lifers say “except in the case of rape”. I know it is traumatizing for a girl or woman that is raped to have to carry a child, but it is no more traumatizing than someone who gets shot during a violent attack and has to deal with those wounds. Counseling and therapy can help heal the trauma, but the trauma will be there whether she has the abortion or not, and the abortion could even make it worse. It has caused me so much anxiety over the years to think that many pro-lifers would have approved of my mother’s abortion. By the way, she gave me up for adoption, and my adoptive parents were never able to have children. Thank you so much for this wonderful view against abortion even in the case of rape.
…
The letter was from Christopher __________ from Vernon, who found the story and shared it with us from the website, abort73.com. Warning: It’s a pretty graphic site.
Penna Dexter interviewed Jill Stanek on Live from Criswell today. She held living little babies discarded after abortion procedures–some for more than eight hours. She said she could not bear the thought of those little babies being left alone for hours while they were dying. Unconscionably, Barak Obama’s consistent support of the pro-choice movement leads him to believe that requiring life-giving care for such infants would endanger the standing of Roe v Wade. He is right. And he is oh so contemptibly wrong.
If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain;
If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?
In the Fall 2008 CTR, Stanley Hauerwas defends his pacifism. The following is simply a section-by-section and sometimes paragraph-by-paragraph response as I read the work. His sections are on the idealism of realism, the nation (or war) as church, and pacifism as realism.
“The Idealism of Realism”
Paragraph 1: Hauerwas claims that critics of pacifism rely on realism to make their claim. But actually, what’s wrong with pacifism is not that it is not realistic, even though I agree that it is not. The fact that something doesn’t work means only that it doesn’t work, not that it is wrong. What’s wrong with Pacifism is Read the rest of this entry »
What seems like a contradiction in terms is actually a handy tool for analyzing almost everything people do, whether in isolation, in relationships, in society in general, or as a political body. The mechanism which produces the “problem with solutions” can be described behaviorally and seen in action everywhere. A quick look at ethics will produce the realization that there is a problem with such behavioral solutions. And finally, it needs to be made clear that Christian teachings oppose such behavior. The mechanism which produces the problem:
Behaviorism is hardly a Christian enterprise. The doctrine Read the rest of this entry »
A note on terms in the argument: in this post, biology serves as the representative of material reductionism or just of naturalism, since it is the closest a reductionist can come to anything complex or progressive enough to explain the features which non-reductionists claim to exist. Similarly, evolution in this post is simply the most consistent model with which to explain biological advantages. In both cases, the position given to naturalism is intended to give it the most favor available.
Humans have many behavioral and functional characteristics which are biological by nature, none of which makes us human. To be clear, they may be necessary to being human, but they are not sufficient. For example, it is necessary to eat to be human. But many non-human things eat. So what separates humans from, say, pigs? Not much, biologically. But plenty, if Aristotle has anything to say about it; reason, to be specific. So Aristotle calls man the rational animal. From his perspective the definition is sufficient because it distinguishes humanity from every other thing.
There are characteristics other than reason which could be used to pull humanity out of the category of all other animals: consciousness, spirit, aesthetics, or ethics, for instance, depending on who is doing the pulling. But the one of most interest here is ethics.
Long since Aristotle, skeptics regarding human nature have argued that there is no cut-and-dry distinction between other animal species and humanity. There are differences of degree, but nothing absolute, they contend. Previously, value-laden characteristics like ethics seemed inexplicable in terms of biology alone. But once evolutionary theory takes on a social element, that explanation no longer seems Read the rest of this entry »
John Wohlstetter’s book, The Long War ahead and the Short War upon Us, is a politically and culturally plain-spoken revelation about the ideological realities behind the already present and inevitably future conflicts facing Western Civilization. For details on the book, visit http://www.longshortwar.com/.
The best quote from the book is a famous one normally attributed to British General Charles James Napier from the 19th Century. It deals with the Hindu practice of Sati:
You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.
Unbelievably, the practice exposed by Napier’s quote is still sometimes referred to as “self immolation” and still defended as an honorable form of expression for women by some multi-culturalists. Jiminy Cricket!
This question is particularly addressed at kingdom-minded believers who claim that patriotism, military service, and government authority are the wrong places for Christians to live out their Christianity. It is a very simple question rooted in the golden rule (the universalization of ethical claims; what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.)
What do believers pray will come from government, from those in authority? Simply this: “…that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” 1 Timothy 2:2. How do “kings and all who are in authority” bring about such a condition? Although Romans 13 does make explicit that it is accomplished with the sword, that passage would not be necessary to figure it out. In all the affairs of men, it is the exercise of Read the rest of this entry »
How should Christian parents, church leaders, friends, and strangers react when they hear about the pregnancy of a young woman who is not married? This issue is very easy to address once confusion over it is resolved.
Where is the confusion? Well, when an unmarried teenager gets pregnant, there are actually two distinct issues influencing people’s behaviors and opinions: the sexual activity which brought about the pregnancy and the pregnancy itself.
Now there really should be no controversy regarding the sexual activity itself. Sex outside of marriage is precluded for those who follow Jesus. Admittedly, the presumption and even pressure of society is toward exactly what is precluded by New Testament Christianity, but there is no getting around passages against “promiscuity”, “fornication”, and the activities referenced by other lead-up and descriptive terms throughout the New Testament. But those prohibitions apply whether pregnancy is possible or not; even whether STD’s exist or not (and, duh, of course they do). So if an observer is not the parent of the pregnant teenager and does not have knowledge of the sexual activity of every non-pregnant teenager she is around then Read the rest of this entry »
A listener sent me the following story the day after I interacted with a caller about how abortion could be wrong even in cases of rape. There are many issues to be covered under that heading, but this letter touches on the key ones:
What seems like a contradiction in terms is actually a handy tool for analyzing almost everything people do, whether in isolation, in relationships, in society in general, or as a political body. The mechanism which produces the “problem with solutions” can be described behaviorally and seen in action everywhere. A quick look at ethics will produce the realization that there is a problem with such behavioral solutions. And finally, it needs to be made clear that Christian teachings oppose such behavior.
Humans have many behavioral and functional characteristics which are biological by nature, none of which makes us human. To be clear, they may be necessary to being human, but they are not sufficient. For example, it is necessary to eat to be human. But many non-human things eat. So what separates humans from, say, pigs? Not much, biologically. But plenty, if Aristotle has anything to say about it; reason, to be specific. So Aristotle calls man the rational animal. From his perspective the definition is sufficient because it distinguishes humanity from every other thing.
John Wohlstetter’s book, 
This question is particularly addressed at kingdom-minded believers who claim that patriotism, military service, and government authority are the wrong places for Christians to live out their Christianity. It is a very simple question rooted in the golden rule (the universalization of ethical claims; what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.)
