01 January 2009
Comments and reflections on a Prager column
The following column has appeared, in two parts, on Townhall.com at http://tinyurl.com/78fr9u. Mr. Prager seems to make a lot of sense, from my view, and the Scriptures. In particular, let me point out Paul's writing in 1 Corinthians 7: 1-5:
1 About the things you wrote: [a] "It is good for a man not to have relations with [b] a woman." [c] 2 But because of sexual immorality, (A) [d] each man should have his own wife, (B) and each woman should have her own husband. 3 A husband should fulfill his marital duty (C) to his wife, and likewise a wife to her husband. 4 A wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does. Equally, a husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. 5 Do not deprive (D) one another—except when you agree, for a time, to devote yourselves to [e] prayer. Then come together again; otherwise, Satan may tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (Holman Standard Christian Bible)
WHEN A WOMAN ISN’T IN THE MOOD
By Dennis Prager
Given our preoccupation with politics and economics, it is easy to forget that for most of us micro issues still play a greater role in our lives. So here are some thoughts that, as heretical as they might sound, have been found extremely helpful, sometimes even marriage-saving, from listeners to my radio show, which features a “male-female hour” every week.
The subject is one of the most common problems that besets marriages: the wife who is “not in the mood” and the consequently frustrated and hurt husband.
There are marriages with the opposite problem — a wife who is frustrated and hurt because her husband is rarely in the mood. But, as important and as destructive as that problem is, it has different causes and different solutions, and is therefore not addressed here. What is addressed is the far more common problem of “He wants, she doesn't want.”
It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom.
First, women need to recognize how a man understands a wife's refusal to have sex with him: A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him. This is rarely the case for women. Few women know their husband loves them because he gives her his body (the idea sounds almost funny). This is, therefore, usually a revelation to a woman. Many women think men's natures are similar to theirs, and this is so different from a woman's nature, that few women know this about men unless told about it.
This is a major reason many husbands clam up. A man whose wife frequently denies him sex will first be hurt, then sad, then angry, then quiet. And most men will never tell their wives why they have become quiet and distant. They are afraid to tell their wives. They are often made to feel ashamed of their male sexual nature, and they are humiliated (indeed emasculated) by feeling that they are reduced to having to beg for sex.
When first told this about men, women generally react in one or more of five ways:
1. You have to be kidding. That certainly isn't my way of knowing if he loves me. There have to be deeper ways than sex for me to show my husband that I love him.
2. If this is true, men really are animals.
3. Not my man. He knows I love him by the kind and loving way I treat him.
4. You have it backwards. If he truly loved me, he wouldn't expect sex when I'm not in the mood.
5. I know this and that's why I rarely say no to sex.
Let's deal with each of these responses.
1. You have to be kidding. …
The most common female reaction to hearing about men's sexual nature is incredulity, often followed by denial. These are entirely understandable reactions given how profoundly different — and how seemingly more primitive — men's sexual nature is compared to women's.
Incredulity is certainly the reaction most women have when first being told that a man knows he is loved when his wife gives him her body. The idea that the man she is married to, let alone a man whose intelligence she respects, will to any serious extent measure her love of him by such a carnal yardstick strikes many women as absurd and even objectionable.
But the question that should matter to a woman who loves her man is not whether this proposition speaks poorly or well of male nature. It is whether it is true. And it is true beyond anything she can imagine. A woman who often deprives her husband of her body is guaranteed to injure him and to injure the marriage — no matter what her female friends say, no matter what a sympathetic therapist says, and no matter what her man says.
(Very few men will confess to the amount of hurt and eventual anger they experience when repeatedly denied sex).
Of course, there are times when a man must simply refrain from initiating sex out of concern for his wife's physical or emotional condition. And then there are men for whom sex rarely has anything to do with making love or whose frequency of demands are excessive. (What “excessive” means ought to be determined by the couple before the refusals begin, or continue.) But the fact remains: Your man knows you love him by your willingness to give him your body.
2. If this is true, men really are animals.
Correct. Compared to most women's sexual nature, men's sexual nature is far closer to that of animals. So what? That is the way he is made. Blame God and nature. Telling your husband to control it is a fine idea. But he already does. Every man who is sexually faithful to his wife already engages in daily heroic self-control. He has married knowing he will have to deny his sexual nature's desire for variety for the rest of his life. To ask that he also regularly deny himself sex with the one woman in the world with whom he is permitted sex is asking far too much. Deny him enough times and he may try to fill this need with another woman. If he is too moral to ever do that, he will match your sexual withdrawal with emotional and other forms of withdrawal.
3. Not my man.
Many women will argue, understandably, “My husband knows I love him. He doesn't need me to have sex with him to know that. And this is especially so when I'm too tired or just don't want sex. Anyway, my man only enjoys sex with me when I'm into it, too.”
The importance of mutual kindness to a marriage is impossible to overstate. But while necessary, it is not sufficient. Women can understand this by applying the same rule to men. Most women will readily acknowledge that it is certainly not enough for a man to be kind to her. If it were, women would rarely reject kind men as husband material. But as much as a woman wants a kind man, she wants more than that. If a man is, let us say, lacking in ambition or just doesn't want to work hard, few women will love him no matter how kind he is. In fact, most women would happily give up some kindness for hard work and ambition. A kind man with little ambition is not masculine, therefore not desirable to most women.
Likewise, a kind woman who is not sexual with her husband is not feminine. She is a kind roommate.
Furthermore, a woman who denies the man she loves sex is not kind.
4. You have it backward.
Every rational and decent man knows there are times when he should not initiate sex. In a marriage of good communication, a man would either know when those times are or his wife would tell him (and she needs to — women should not expect men to read their minds. He is her man, not her mother.)
But, to repeat the key point, rejection of sex should happen infrequently. And it should almost never be dependent on mood — see Part II next week.
5. I know this and that's why I rarely say no to my husband.
This is a wise woman. She knows a sexually fulfilled husband is a happy husband. (At the same time, men need to recognize that complete sexual fulfillment is unattainable in this world.) And because a happy husband loves his wife more, this cycle of love produces a happy home.
In Part II, I will explain in detail why mood should play little or no role in a woman's determining whether she has sex with her husband.
I conclude Part I with this clarification: Everything written here applies under two conditions: 1. The woman is married to a good man. 2. She wants him to be a happy husband. If either condition is not present, nothing written here matters. But if you are a woman who loves your husband, what is written here can be the most important thing you will read concerning your marriage. Because chances are the man you love won't tell you.
In Part I, I made the argument that any woman who is married to a good man and who wants a happy marriage ought to consent to at least some form of sexual relations as much as possible. (Men need to understand that intercourse should not necessarily be the goal of every sexual encounter.)
In Part II, I advance the argument that a wife should do so even when she is not in the mood for sexual relations. I am talking about mood, not about times of emotional distress or illness.
Why?
Here are eight reasons for a woman not to allow not being in the mood for sex to determine whether she denies her husband sex.
1. If most women wait until they are in the mood before making love with their husband, many women will be waiting a month or more until they next have sex. When most women are young, and for some older women, spontaneously getting in the mood to have sex with the man they love can easily occur. But for most women, for myriad reasons -- female nature, childhood trauma, not feeling sexy, being preoccupied with some problem, fatigue after a day with the children and/or other work, just not being interested -- there is little comparable to a man’s “out of nowhere,” and seemingly constant, desire for sex.
2. Why would a loving, wise woman allow mood to determine whether or not she will give her husband one of the most important expressions of love she can show him? What else in life, of such significance, do we allow to be governed by mood?
What if your husband woke up one day and announced that he was not in the mood to go to work? If this happened a few times a year, any wife would have sympathy for her hardworking husband. But what if this happened as often as many wives announce that they are not in the mood to have sex? Most women would gradually stop respecting and therefore eventually stop loving such a man.
What woman would love a man who was so governed by feelings and moods that he allowed them to determine whether he would do something as important as go to work? Why do we assume that it is terribly irresponsible for a man to refuse to go to work because he is not in the mood, but a woman can -- indeed, ought to -- refuse sex because she is not in the mood? Why?
This brings us to the next reasons.
3. The baby boom generation elevated feelings to a status higher than codes of behavior. In determining how one ought to act, feelings, not some code higher than one’s feelings, became decisive: “No shoulds, no oughts.” In the case of sex, therefore, the only right time for a wife to have sex with her husband is when she feels like having it. She never “should” have it. But marriage and life are filled with “shoulds.”
4. Thus, in the past generation we have witnessed the demise of the concept of obligation in personal relations. We have been nurtured in a culture of rights, not a culture of obligations. To many women, especially among the best educated, the notion that a woman owes her husband sex seems absurd, if not actually immoral. They have been taught that such a sense of obligation renders her “property.” Of course, the very fact that she can always say “no” -- and that this “no” must be honored -- renders the “property” argument absurd. A woman is not “property” when she feels she owes her husband conjugal relations. She is simply wise enough to recognize that marriages based on mutual obligations -- as opposed to rights alone and certainly as opposed to moods -- are likely to be the best marriages.
5. Partially in response to the historical denigration of women’s worth, since the 1960s, there has been an idealization of women and their feelings. So, if a husband is in the mood for sex and the wife is not, her feelings are deemed of greater significance -- because women’s feelings are of more importance than men’s. One proof is that even if the roles are reversed -- she is in the mood for sex and he is not -- our sympathies again go to the woman and her feelings.
6. Yet another outgrowth of ’60s thinking is the notion that it is “hypocritical” or wrong in some other way to act contrary to one’s feelings. One should always act, post-’60s theory teaches, consistent with one’s feelings. Therefore, many women believe that it would simply be wrong to have sex with their husband when they are not in the mood to. Of course, most women never regard it as hypocritical and rightly regard it as admirable when they meet their child’s or parent’s or friend’s needs when they are not in the mood to do so. They do what is right in those cases, rather than what their mood dictates. Why not apply this attitude to sex with one’s husband? Given how important it is to most husbands, isn’t the payoff -- a happier, more communicative, and loving husband and a happier home -- worth it?
7. Many contemporary women have an almost exclusively romantic notion of sex: It should always be mutually desired and equally satisfying or one should not engage in it. Therefore, if a couple engages in sexual relations when he wants it and she does not, the act is “dehumanizing” and “mechanical.” Now, ideally, every time a husband and wife have sex, they would equally desire it and equally enjoy it. But, given the different sexual natures of men and women, this cannot always be the case. If it is romance a woman seeks -- and she has every reason to seek it -- it would help her to realize how much more romantic her husband and her marriage are likely to be if he is not regularly denied sex, even of the non-romantic variety.
8. In the rest of life, not just in marital sex, it is almost always a poor idea to allow feelings or mood to determine one’s behavior. Far wiser is to use behavior to shape one’s feelings. Act happy no matter what your mood and you will feel happier. Act loving and you will feel more loving. Act religious, no matter how deep your religious doubts, and you will feel more religious. Act generous even if you have a selfish nature, and you will end with a more a generous nature. With regard to virtually anything in life that is good for us, if we wait until we are in the mood to do it, we will wait too long.
The best solution to the problem of a wife not being in the mood is so simple that many women, after thinking about it, react with profound regret that they had not thought of it earlier in their marriage. As one bright and attractive woman in her 50s ruefully said to me, “Had I known this while I was married, he would never have divorced me.”
That solution is for a wife who loves her husband -- if she doesn’t love him, mood is not the problem -- to be guided by her mind, not her mood, in deciding whether to deny her husband sex.
If her husband is a decent man -- if he is not, nothing written here applies -- a woman will be rewarded many times over outside the bedroom (and if her man is smart, inside the bedroom as well) with a happy, open, grateful, loving, and faithful husband. That is a prospect that should get any rational woman into the mood more often.
10 November 2008
Baker's Dozen Meditations #2
#2 INFANTS IN EVIL
Verse: 1 Corinthians 14:20. “Brethren, don’t be childish in your thinking, but be infants in evil and adult in your thinking.” (HCSB)
We often see and comment on how a child implicitly trusts their father and mother, in ways that an adult would not trust even a parent. Although sometimes that trust is misplaced, such is rare. And it is important, because the child does not always realize the danger offered by walking across a street or highway, listening to the blandishments of a stranger, or dealing with adult tools and equipment.
Children often try NOT to see evil, bad things, and do not look forward and consider what can go wrong. Yet, they are trusting and all too often, we as Christians think that it is this sort of childish behavior that we are to imitate. Paul corrects that misunderstanding in this passage. An adult anticipates and plans for things to go wrong, instead of just “hoping” that all will go right. Then (childlike), the adult does not think of evil to do to respond when things go wrong. It is not ungodly to take actions to avoid and respond to evil, whether physical or spiritual. Indeed, it is wisdom as God defines such. But like a little child, we should exhibit faith and be free of malice, and not acquiesce in evil deeds, either by submitting to them or allowing someone (or ourselves) to be forced into doing evil in return, as a result of the evil done to us.
Read also: Hebrews 5:12, 14, and 2 Peter 3:18.
Song: Children of the Heavenly King (http://cyberhymnal.org/htm/c/o/cofthehk.htm)
13 September 2008
Appointments Everyone Must Keep
1. Birth (see Ecclesiastes 12:7) Our spirit, soul, and mind is created/given to us by God.
2. Death (physical death) (see Hebrews 9:27; Romans 5:12) All men die: only two are recorded in history as having bypassed death and gone to God's presence (Enoch and Elijah), if we understand Scripture right.
3. The Resurrection (see 1 Corinthians 5:12 and 19; Acts 24:15; Revelation 1:7; John 5:28-29; John 6:54; and 2 Timothy 2:18) This resurrection is yet to come, and should not be confused with those who were brought back to life such as Lazarus, Dorcas, or the others recorded in Scripture, except for the Christ Himself, who is the "First Born" (Colossians 1:18).
4. The Judgment (see Acts 17:31; Matthew 13:40-43; 1 Corinthians 15:51-58; Revelation 20:12-13) Judgment will be according to our works (John 12:48; Matthiew 7:22-23: 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8); Mark 13:31-33; 2 Peter 3:10-13; 2 Thessalonians 5:2). Mercy will be given us, however, for without His mercy our failure to be perfect condemns us (Titus 3:5; Hebrews 4:16, Romans 9:15-18). The time of that judgment is unknown (Matthew 24:44-46).
There is one other appointment which is optional: men may fail to meet this very important appointment, but will suffer the consequences of doing so. It is an appointment with the Gospel of Jesus Christ:
a. It must be met in order to obtain glory (2 Thessalonians 2:14)
b. It must be preached (1 Corinthians 9:16)
c. It must be obeyed on pain of everlasting destruction (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9)
d. It is the Gospel of Him who is the source of eternal salvation and must be obeyed (Hebrews 5:9)
We humans were created to live forever, but to do so, we must meet these five appointments. Physical death and Judgment are only steps on the way to eternity, but where will we spend eternity? If we reject our appointment with the Gospel, we have no more mercy available from God on Judgment, and we cannot obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:14).
2 Thessalonians 2:16-17: "16 May our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal encouragement and good hope by grace, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good work and word. "
16 August 2008
Baker's Dozen Mediations #1 Builders
Throughout history, the builder has frequently also had to defend what they have built against those who do not want the building done. Sometimes it is a spiritual “building project,” and sometimes it is a physical project with a spiritual aspect. Whether it was the Anasazi defending their cliff dwellings against nomadic raiders, a contractor protecting his equipment and job-site against eco-freak “monkeywrenchers,” or an inner-city ministry defending their chapel against a street gang, they can all appreciate the situation in the rebuilding of Jerusalem 2500 years ago.
Prayer is essential; it is a powerful weapon in the arsenal of the believer. But Nehemiah and his fellow builders in Jerusalem were careful to recognize that faith inspires works. As Nehemiah 4:15 records, they stood watch against their enemies “with their swords, spears, and bows.” While trusting the Lord, they were prepared and ready to fight if needed. They understood that they were not to depend on their own ability, though. They knew that “Our God will fight for us.” (4:20).
This sound Biblical principle applies to all endeavors we undertake, spiritual and physical. James tells us (2:17), “faith, if it doesn’t have works, is dead by itself.” “Watching” was clearly, to Nehemiah and his pioneers, more than just being alert and sounding an alarm. It included an active defense and required weapons. An unarmed watchman is worthless.”
Yes, they still trusted to the Lord that they were prepared enough, that He would keep them alert and ready “unto every good work,” even when that work required physical defense against those attacking them, their work, their families, and their community.
Are we able to do the same today?
Read also: James 2: 22-24, and Psalm 127: 1-3.
Song: Remember Me, O Mighty One
Baptism saves!
Most American Evangelicals reject this statement: Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals of all types. A web search will reveal more attacks on the Biblical teaching that baptism saves than supporting it. Why? Many believe that baptism is something that we do for God and for others. Ironically, most of those claiming to be Christians in the rest of the world believe this statement as well as the historic church, apostate or not.
Even the apostate “historic” churches have confessed that baptism provides for the forgiveness of sin. In the third article of the Nicene Creed, many confess “We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sin.” This creed is confessed by the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, as well as Reformed churches. They will and do reject the idea of some modern “Baptist” and “Bible” churches that the one baptism is a “Spirit baptism” and not involving water (although these “historic” churches mostly believe that sprinkling or pouring can replace immersion).
Definition of Baptism
The Greek words mean to wash, immerse, or dip. There are two: the noun, usually translated “baptism” is baptisma. The verb is baptizo, translated usually as “baptize.” Both words are used throughout the New Testament for cleaning and washing (see Mark 7:4, Luke
Why Baptize?
This starts with Jesus and John the Baptizer. While Jesus did not require baptism, he shows us that baptism is associated with the Holy Spirit as well as an action that God approves of. When John questioned Jesus’ need for baptism, Jesus replied "Allow it for now, because this is the way for us to fulfill all righteousness." (Matt
When Jesus was baptized, we see the entire Godhead. God the Father approves of what God the Son just had done; and God the Holy Spirit descends on Jesus. This marks the beginning of the Jesus “public” ministry. Fulfilled righteousness was now to be proclaimed.
When He met with Nicodemus, Jesus stated " I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the
At the completion of Jesus’ earthly ministry, he returns to baptism. He makes baptism a part of making disciples. “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. “ (Matt. 28:19-20a). Baptism is part – an obviously essential part - of making disciples. Note that it is listed before teaching. If baptism is part of making a disciple, then it is more than just an action we do.
What does Baptism do?
In the Acts of the Apostles, we see baptism play an important role in the growth of the young Church. Baptism has many benefits for the believers, but certainly one is the forgiveness of sin. The first time we hear this is then Peter tells those in
When Paul was recounting his conversion, Paul stated that he was to be baptized which washed away his sins (Acts
Peter writes about baptism is his first letter. He states that the Great Flood was a symbolic form of baptism for Noah and his family since it saved them. Peter clearly teaches that baptism now saves us. Baptism is the pledge of a good conscience words God. Baptism saves us by Christ’s resurrection. This is consistent with what Paul wrote in Romans 6.
It is wrong to conclude that baptism is the only way of salvation. Baptism is the way of salvation that God has given us. We find examples of those who were saved through baptism and those saved prior to baptism or with no baptism at all: but those were under the Old Covenant; under the New Covenant, we have but the one way that God has given us. Does this limit His power to save? No, of course not – but He is the Lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22).
Who is doing the Work?
When you read these verses, who is acting and who is passive? God is active in baptism while we are passive. We can only receive what God gives through baptism. God is acting through the person administering the baptism, so if we were to claim that the person doing the baptism is saved by doing so, we would indeed be preaching “salvation by works,” but that isn’t the case.
In Acts 2:38, Peter states that we receive both forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism. We are the passive participants in this action: our only action is submission to the Savior.
In both passages from Romans and Titus, it is clear that we are passive in this act. Titus 3:5-6 states that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are the active players “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit”. In Titus 3:6, the only part we play is passive “. . . so that having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.” An heir does not merit their inheritance, but is given to them by the generosity of another.
Who should be baptized?
Jesus states that we are to baptize all nations – plain and simple. There is no limit to sex, ancestry, nationality, or age in his command: the only limit is that it is necessary to believe (Acts
It is clear that this resolves the claims of many that John
Anyone who believes that Jesus is Lord, and like those in Jerusalem on that long-ago Pentecost, repent of their sins, may confess His name and put on His name in baptism, submitting to His will and being buried with Him in baptism to rise to a new life. Anyone.
11 December 2007
Critical Comments on a Horrible Event
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-09-missionariesshot_N.htm
Let’s start with the good news: one woman with a gun, a church member, a volunteer with training, saved dozens of lives.
Why? Because:
(1) the leaders of that church (yes, a denominational church) faced facts (in today's society, just as in the time of Jesus, violence (sometimes random and irrational violence) was a fact of life, and no one is immune to it),
(2) fear did not drive their decisions (especially irrational fears about some of their own members carrying weapons, or about scaring away members of their church because weapons might be present in the meetinghouse),
(3) love DID drive their actions (concern for both the spiritual AND physical wellbeing of their fellow members in their church and those who visited); and
(4) they believed that self-defense was scriptural. It was taught by the Lord Himself, it is clearly a principle expressed in both the Old Testament and New Testament, and it does not mean that we do not trust in the Lord to save us or protect us.
Since
Notice: there was NO ONE armed at the
(1) “it can’t happen here,”
(2) "it is too dangerous,"
(3) "it might scare off people who would otherwise come to worship," and
(4) “we trust in God, not in evil weapons.”
Each of these excuses (and many others) can be answered simply and directly. This very incident (and dozens more across the years and around the world) show that it CAN happen here: yes, even in churches of Christ and even to faithful brethren. Just as floods, tornadoes, fires, vandalism, family violence, and other bad things can happen. Weapons are no more dangerous than any other tool: we don't ban electricity in the meeting house because there is a chance of electrocution, we don't ban baptisries in the meeting house because there is a chance of drowning (and sadly, over the years, children HAVE died from drowning in a baptisry), but too many are so fearful of "guns" that they are willing to ban them. If people are so fearful of weapons that it will keep them from worshipping God, it is THEY who are showing no trust in the Lord, nor in their fellow Christians: and the work of the church to educate them about the real dangers they should fear is obvious. Finally, if we are to trust in the Lord in the matter of self-defense and protection from attacks, why do we NOT "trust in the Lord" when it comes to fire, flood, vandalism, and car accidents: this argument makes paying for liability and auto accident insurance a sin of lack of faith in God. If we are to trust in the Lord in all physical things (an argument that has been advanced more than once to me), why do we have heaters in church buildings: do we not trust the Lord to keep us warm and safe from storms?
There are too many churches where leaders (sadly, elders and deacons) are willing to make fun of those who DO want to carry, asking “what are YOU afraid of?” and “why are you so fearful and distrustful of God?” Perhaps these needless deaths in Arvada and Colorado Springs will make a few wake up and and understand that when brethren are willing to and do carry weapons, openly or concealed, it is about LOVE and not fear: love for their brothers and sisters in Christ, love that says, in very physical terms and not just in pious words that if Christ was willing to die for us, we should be willing to put our own lives in danger to protect our brothers and sisters in Him, the visitors to our assemblies, even our neighbors and, yes, even strangers from both physical and spiritual dangers.
Reprint from Apologetics Press: Is all religion bad?
|
|
|
In logical discussions, a straw man is a weak, illogical position that is easily refuted. The more powerful, logical position is then coupled with the straw man, and both are said to fall together, yet the stronger position never actually is refuted by the opposition. For example, suppose a person stated that he owned a congenial, safe dog. The man’s neighbor argued that such was impossible. The opposing neighbor then recounted a story about a family’s pet pitbull that went berserk and killed someone. Then he stated that this incident proves that all pets are dangerous. Does his argument follow from the evidence? Of course not. He might have proven that one family’s pitbull was dangerous, but he did not prove that all pets are dangerous. In fact, it would be easy to multiply numerous examples of dangerous pets, but proving those specific pets to be dangerous could not logically be applied to all pets.
This idea must be understood when reading modern atheistic writings that purport to prove that the ideas of God and formulated religion are detrimental to society. Their argument, in a nutshell, goes like this: Since we can list examples of religions and religious fanatics that were (or are) harmful or detrimental to society, then all religions or ideas about God are harmful or detrimental to society.
So that the reader does not think that this author is, himself, constructing a straw man, let us consult the writings of a very popular, militant atheist by the name of Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens has been critically acclaimed as “one of the most prolific, as well as brilliant, journalists of our time” according to the London Observer. The Los Angeles Times stated that he is a “political and literary journalist extraordinaire.”
One of Hitchens’ most popular recent books is titled god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Notice that his subtitle is broad enough to lump all religions into it: Islam, New Testament Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Hitchens then proceeded, in the pages of his book, to list many horrible things that people have done in the name of “religion.” He said: “Religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow” (2007, p. 6). Hitchens even titled chapter two, “Religion Kills.” In it he wrote: “Here, then, is a very brief summary of the religiously inspired cruelty I witnessed... ” (p. 18). He then recounted horror stories of several moral atrocities perpetrated in the name of “religion.” Furthermore, Hitchens stated: “If one comprehends the fallacies of any ‘revealed’ religion, one comprehends them all” (p. 126).
Can Hitchens and others document atrocities performed in the name of religion? Of course they can. Does this prove that all religion is false, and that if a person can spot a flaw or comprehend a fallacy in one religion, then he has effectively disproved the validity of all religions? Absolutely not. Can you imagine what would happen if this type of argument were used in other areas of life? Apply such thinking to food. Many foods are poisonous and kill people, thus all foods should be avoided. Apply it to electricity. It is the case that many people have died while using electricity, thus all electrical use is detrimental to society. Or apply it to activities like swimming. Many have drowned while swimming, thus all swimming leads to drowning and should be avoided. What if it were applied to surgery? Since it is true that thousands of people have died during surgery, or as a result of surgery, then all surgery should be avoided because it all leads to death or is in some way physically detrimental to society. Obviously, the ridiculous idea that all religion is detrimental to society because it can be proven that some religions are, should be quickly discarded by any honest, thoughtful observer.
New Testament Christianity does not stand or fall based on the validity of other competing religions. In fact, Hitchens and others are right to assert that many religions are detrimental to society. But they are wrong to lump true Christianity in with the rest of the useless lot. New Testament Christianity is unique, logically valid, historically documented, and philosophically flawless. It does not crumble with various other religions that are filled with “vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Timothy
[NOTE: It should not be understood that Hitchens and others attack Christianity solely using the straw man argument. They do present other, more specific arguments that are answered in other Apologetics Press materials. It should be observed, however, that the straw man is a frequently used, favorite tactic that needs to be understood and specifically refuted.]
REFERENCES
Hitchens, Christopher (2007), god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (
Copyright © 2007 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Bible Bullets" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
230 Landmark Drive
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
14 October 2007
How important is a "quibble over a word"?
I've written this informal study in an attempt to answer that question:
Dear friend:
I am sorry that you believe I am just quibbling over a word. I am not saying that it is an insult in itself, but an insult because it is wrong. If I, an engineer, am called either an "architect" or a "technician" it is wrong: it may not be an insult, especially not an intentional insult, but none the less it is wrong because I am neither. Would you accept being called a "Doctor" when you are a nurse? Or being called a "nursing aide" when you are a nurse? When someone should or does understand the difference between one profession and the other, it is insulting to be called the wrong thing, even if unintentional.
Mr. Baldwin states that he is very much a believer in the Scriptures, and that he follows the tradition of "Sola Scriptura" - the Bible only. He states that he believes that the Bible IS the inspired Word of God, and not that it "contains" the Word (as so many people do). He wants people to follow the Bible. I applaud his effort, but fear he is not sincere in it. He has added (or accepted traditions of men) to God's Word. It is very clear in the New Testament that there is a very great difference in the role or offices of pastor and preacher.
A preacher, evangelist, or minister is an individual who publicly proclaims the Word of God to both christians and nonchristians; from the pulpit and in public places; who may also be a teacher (although that is a separate role, as well). If we accept the usual division of the mission of God's church into three parts: "evangelism, edification, and benevolence," his primary concern is the first: evangelizing. It may be done in foreign fields (a "missionary") or locally - but the primary purpose is to reach the lost. A preacher may be completely on his own (example, Phillip or Peter) or part of a team (Paul and Silas, Paul and Barnabas); he may be located in one place for years (Titus, Peter in Joppa or even Paul in Corinth) or move from one location to another frequently (Paul's missionary journeys, Phillip; what today we call itinerant preachers). There are no requirements as to age, experience, family status, education, or similar things stated in the Bible: we know that Timothy was very young, Phillip of middle age, and there are other examples. As part of their duties (Titus is one example) they are to appoint shepherds or overseers in churches. An evangelist may be full-time (that is, supported by others) or part-time (supporting himself to do the work, as Paul did by making tents). I know that some people believe that no one should be completely supported by others because this creates a "hireling" mentality and creates a temptation to "tickle people's ears" when they are paying for you to do your work.
A pastor, bishop, shepherd, elder, presbyter, or overseer (all biblical terms for what is the same role or office, emphasizing the wide ranging nature and functions) is one of the leaders of a community of believers: a local community or congregation. All the examples and commands in the New Testament make it clear that there is _always_ more than one co-equal shepherds or overseers in a congregation - I believe to prevent the dangers of one-man rule. Their primary concern is the well-being, spiritual _and_ physical, of the congregation which they are among: the "edification and benevolence" parts of the church's mission. To carry out this mission, they may do it themselves or have teachers (for the edification) and deacons (for the benevolence). The qualifications of these bishops are very clearly stated in New Testament - twice in fact. Among other things, they are to be husbands of one wife and have believing children (I believe this is, among other things, because the viewpoint and wisdom of both a man and a woman are essential to performing the duties, and because properly raising a family is strong evidence that they have the wisdom (and patience)). They are, of necessity, of mature years. As part of their responsibilities, they are to resolve disputes, ensure that sound doctrine is preached and practiced, and see that things are done in good order. Most people that I know believe these should always be "part-time" - that is, not paid for their work (for the same reasons: a "hireling" mentality) but do not exclude retired men who actually do work almost full-time in this role,
Mr. Baldwin, like many many others, has confused these two very distinct offices and has a defacto clergy-laity distinction that is not found in the Bible and has led to the degraded state of "christendom" today. To call a preacher a pastor is like calling a Lieutenant a General: it is inappropriate, and when done by a civilian might be brushed off due to lack of knowledge, but when done by someone who is a military scholar or a military member, is an insult because it is so inappropriate. The development of one-man rule, the merger of individual churches into dioceses or synods or whatever, the "hireling" mentality, the splitting of churches into a privileged clergy supported by a laity; all these things have produced great evils. Worse, the word "pastor" (and for that matter, "bishop" and "elder" and even "shepherd") have been turned into titles, almost as bad as titles of nobility: together with the titles or honorifics "reverend" (reserved in the Bible for God alone) and "father" and "saint" - elevating some people over others. Bishops/overseers are not to "lord it over the flock" and there is night and day difference between "let no one despise your youth" and the way "Pastor" is fawned over in many congregations today.
I know of many men who are preaching in Wyoming and South Dakota and Nebraska who would agree with the idea of the Black Regiment who are preachers - not many "full-time" preachers but still ministers of the Word. They live in Sheridan, Rawlins, Cheyenne, Rapid City, Huron, Omaha, perhaps even Alliance and Hot Springs and Spearfish. They all preach, most of them two or three times a week in public worship services and public and private Bible classes in their communities. If someone calls them "Pastor" one time they will, to a man, correct the person gently and explain that they are not elders or bishops or pastors, just preachers or ministers. (Some of them may work in churches where there are shepherds that oversee them just like the rest of the congregation.) If someone calls them that again, and it is clearly not just a matter of habit, they will treat it as evidence that the person rejects the explanation or doesn't care enough to remember - either an implied insult, even if unintentional.
Just as I consider Mr. Baldwin's lack of any response whatsoever to my e-mail to be one of several things:
(1) he could simply be unable yet to respond due to press of time (my assumption for now)
(2) he is working on a response
(3) he knows he is wrong, ignores it, and therefore ignores any challenges
(4) he does not consider the argument to be worth considering because of who is making it
Sadly, the first two do not seem to be the case, as it has been three or four months without an answer. So I must reluctantly conclude that it is one of the two latter. He has apparently decided that he is not, after all, a believer in "Solo Scriptura" - that he can with impunity accept or add things to God's Word. Therefore, he is not in fellowship with God. I cannot participate with him in his effort, however noble or highly motivated it might be, because it is a religious effort, if he is not in fellowship with God.
21 November 2006
Reprint from Apologetics Press: Embryos are People
| Embryos are People by Dave Miller, Ph.D. |
| Printer version | Email this article |
The polarizing national debate over the use of embryonic stem cells for the purpose of seeking solutions to medical ailments continues to rage. The most recent development entailed the passage by the Senate of a bill to permit government funding for research using human embryonic stem cells (Babington, 2006a). President Bush vetoed the bill on the grounds that such research entails the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others (Babington, 2006b). At the formal signing of the veto, the President was surrounded by babies and young children who began life as frozen embryos that were created for in vitro fertilization, but who remained in suspension after the fertility treatments were complete.
What further proof is needed? Nothing was done after conception to change these children from embryos into humans. They became human at conception. From that point onward, they were merely allowed to grow—transferred to the womb to continue their development. No difference exists between a pre-birth infant and a post-birth infant—both are simply at different stages of human growth and development. As the children produced from “adopted” frozen embryos encircled the President with their parents, proof that embryos are people was staring the nation and the world in the face. How blind can we be? Are we of those who “seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matthew 13:13)?
Apart from the fact that the scientific community’s insistence that embryonic stem cells will be the panacea to cure disease remains both unproven and highly suspect, and despite the fact that adult stem cells have, in fact, shown the most promise and have been used successfully (Harrub and Thompson, 2004; Harrub, 2006), the only concern in the discussion ought to be the moral, ethical, and spiritual implication. On this basis alone, the entire matter ought to be—and can be—settled.
If the God of the Bible exists, and if the Bible is His Word, then human life begins at conception. To deliberately terminate that life—for whatever purpose—is the taking of human life, identified in Scripture as murder. David insisted that his development as a human being, his personhood, was achieved by God, prior to his birth, while he was yet in his mother’s womb (Psalm 139:13-16). Elizabeth’s pre-born baby is represented as a living human being (Luke 1:39-44). In fact, the term “baby” used in verses 41 and 44 to refer to the pre-born John is the exact same term that is used in chapter two to refer to Jesus after His birth as He laid in the manger (Luke 2:12,16). So, in God’s sight, whether a person is in his or her pre-birth developmental state, or in a post-birth developmental state, that person is still a baby! John the Baptizer is referred to as “a son” from the very moment of conception (Luke 1:36). All three phases of human life are listed in reverse order in Hosea 9:11—birth, pregnancy, and conception (see Miller, 2003).
The national discussion regarding the use of embryonic stem cells is “cut and dried” for those who believe in and respect the God of the Bible: “[D]o not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked” (Exodus 23:7). God hates “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17). The fact that we even are debating this subject demonstrates the extent to which the nation has strayed from its commitment to and reliance on the God of the Universe—yet another unmistakable manifestation of America’s downward spiral into moral and spiritual depravity.
Babington, Charles (2006a), “Senate Passes Stem Cell Bill; Bush Vows Veto,” Washington Post, July 19, A01, [On-line], URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/ AR2006071800182.html.
Babington, Charles (2006b), “Stem Cell Bill Gets Bush’s First Veto,” Washington Post, July 20, A04, [On-line], URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/ AR2006071900524.html.
Harrub, Brad (2006), “False Marketing of Embryonic Stem Cells,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2976.
Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2004), “Presidential Elections, Superman, Embryonic Stem Cells, Bad Science, and False Hope,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2621.
Miller, Dave (2003), “Abortion and the Bible,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1964.
Copyright © 2006 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "In the News" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
