But you can prove a negative!
There is no way to disprove God. There is also no way to disprove unicorns, leprechauns, the Loch ness monster or Odin. The inability to disprove does not prove existence.
I hear a lot of people say this and it surprises me, to be very honest. This sort of argument is an enthymeme, that enthymeme being “we can’t prove a negative”; we can’t prove that God does not exist, or that leprechauns, the Lock-ness monster or Odin do not exist. This is “simply” completely wrong. One of the core laws of logic — the law of non-contradiction (a proposition cannot be both true and not true) — is itself a negative. The rule of double negation also allows us to state any claim as a negative (Proposition P is equal to not-not P). For instance you can prove you exist, just as you can’t prove you aren’t nonexistent. In other … (Read more)
What does monogamy have to do with it?
For the past few days I’ve been thinking about this view that Christians can be practicing homosexuals as long as that practice is kept within a ‘long term, monogamous, loving relationship’. There are a couple things I have a hard time understanding with this sort of argument. The first thing is that it seems to me as if we have biblical command’s (i.e., Genesis 2:20–24) being ignored and followed at the same time. In the case of Genesis most of us would have no problem with the ‘long term, monogamous, loving relationship’ part. Yet at the same time a lot of us would have a problem with the reality that it mentions, quite explicitly, that such a relationship is supposed to be heterosexual. We might say that just because it doesn’t mention homosexual relationships, doesn’t mean they’re forbidden. In the same breath, we would not point out that just because… (Read more)
The Myth of Moral Relativism
Peter Kreeft warns that relativism is the single most important issue of our age; for the society that adopts relativism, collapse is not too far behind. The question is then why has the West adopted, by and large, this philosophy of relativism? The reason, says Allan Bloom, is that “the relativity of truth is not a theoretical insight but a moral postulate, the condition of a free society, or so they see it.… Relativism is necessary to openness; and this is the virtue, the only virtue, which all primary education for more than fifty years has dedicated itself to inculcating. Openness — and the relativism that makes it the only plausible stance in the face various ways of life and kinds of human beings — is the great insight of our times“1. Tolerance necessarily requires moral relativism.
As my title would suggest, I believe there is a significant … (Read more)
Morality as a fiction
Over the past couple of days I’ve been writing a post on relative and absolute morality (and it’s been very slow in coming, I’m having some difficulty writing it… Or in wanting to write it) and I encountered the following quote by Mussolini which I thought was very interesting (it was brought to my attention by Peter Kreeft in one of this lectures). In any case, I don’t think relativism necessarily leads to fascism (though I imagine if not fascism then something equally worse), however, Mussolini’s words should still worry us.
Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he … (Read more)
Say what?!
Tony Jones has responded to the sort of argument I used in my previous reply to him and the response has me scratching my head. The core of Tony’s response is that first of all, everything is relative (this isn’t surprising). Second of all that the Biblical narrative as such doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter that the creation narrative only mentioned the creation of man and woman for each other. It also doesn’t matter that Jesus affirmed this in the New Testament; the book of Matthew and the Sermon on the Mount and in other places. Tony Jones equated the lack of mention of bisexuals, homosexuals, hermaphrodites etc., in Genesis and the sayings of Jesus with the fact that Jesus cast demons named Legion out of a man instead of calling this man’s ‘problem’ schizophrenia. That therefore, in the same way that a schizophrenic isn’t excluded from the kingdom of … (Read more)
Exclusively Inclusive
I was browsing through An Emergent Manifesto of Hope in the hope of finding something semi-substantial to write on. Luckily I encountered a contributing author by the name of (Pastor) Samir Selmanovic. In his article he writes:
When we say that only Christ saves, Christ represents something larger than the person we Christians have come to know. He is all and in all. And Christ being “the only way” is not a statement of exclusion but inclusion, an expression of what is universal. If a relationship with a specific person, namely Christ, is the whole substance of a relationship with the God of the Bible, then the vast majority if people in world history are excluded from the possibility of a relationship with the God of the Bible, along with the Hebrews of the Old Testament who were without a knowledge of Jesus Christ–the person. The question begs to be … (Read more)
Response to Tony Jones on Homosexuality
Just over a week ago Tony Jones asked a question:
OK, I’m serious about this. I’m not even being snarky. Really.
If you are one who thinks that homosexual sex is sinful, can you please explain to me WHY a gay or lesbian person who is in a long-term, monogamous relationship would not be able to wholeheartedly follow Christ?
My only stipulation is this: You may not quote one of the six verses in scripture that mentions homosexuality. Instead, you must use theological and/or philosophical arguments to attempt to convince me that when you have genital contact with someone of your own gender, it somehow inhibits your relationship with Christ.
Thank you in advance for your civility in answering this question.
Without appealing to the ‘six clobber verses’ it seems to me that any argument — ‘theological and/or philosophical’ - against a ‘long-term, monogamous (homosexual) relationship’ would … (Read more)
The Bible, Propaganda?
Speaking of The New Christians, Tony Jones said something else that caught my attention:
“The Bible is propaganda.… Propaganda has a point and a purpose.… It doesn’t claim to be objective. It’s trying to convince someone of something. It’s trying to get people to join a cause, to join a movement. Isn’t that exactly what the Bible is?.… It is a living, breathing document that makes a claim on its readers’ lives. It’s like the pamphlets surreptitiously printed by Paul Revere and his compatriots in 1776 — propaganda in that sense. It’s God’s manifesto, Jesus’ Little Red Book“1
Depending on what one means by propaganda, yes and no. If by propaganda one means simply ‘to propagate information’ with the modification ‘as accurately as possible’ then yes, the Bible is and so are many other things, such as school text books, certain history books, medicine bottle labels, instructions, … (Read more)
The Resurrection?
Lately I’ve been watching and reading about the debate surrounding the resurrection of Jesus and the historicity of such an account. This reminded me of a brief dialogue Tony Jones presented at the beginning of The New Christians. The argument was meant to show the deficiency of foundationalism, however, it concerns something that is brought up more often than not in popularized ‘resurrection dialogue’. I’m going to modify the dialogue somewhat and then go from there. Thus, beginning with Tony Jones modified dialogue:
“I believe the resurrection account because of Biblical testimony.”
“Well, how do you know the Bible is true and accurate?
“I believe what the Bible says on the resurrection because the Apostles were martyred for their belief, and people don’t knowingly die for a lie.”
“What about the 9/11 terrorists?”
“They were deceived. They didn’t know they were dying for a lie. The apostles had … (Read more)
Early Marriage
As I myself married “early” (23) I found the following article by Al Mohler to be of some interest.
Excerpt:
In reality, American evangelicals are not “becoming slow and lax about marriage.” To the contrary, this is now a settled pattern across the evangelical landscape. Regnerus gets the facts straight, reporting that the median age at first marriage is now 26 for women and 28 for men – an increase of five years since 1970. As he notes, “That’s five additional, long years of peak sexual interest and fertility.” Though evangelical Christians are marrying at slightly earlier ages than other Americans, Regnerus correctly observes that this is “not by much.”
At this point, Regnerus delivers his bombshell:
Evangelicals tend to marry slightly earlier than other Americans, but not by much. Many of them plan to marry in their mid-20s.Yet waiting for sex until then feels far too long to most of … (Read more)
Recent Comments