Templestream

April 29, 2013

10 Myths and facts about gay rights and marriage

One of the most pernicious myths of the present gay movement is the notion that Christians who embrace the biblical view of homosexuality should hate and/or kill homosexuals. The New Testament is based on proactive love-based ethics versus the often vindictive law-based ethics portrayed in the Old Testament. Jesus emphasized the differentiation between the old covenant and the new one in his very first sermon noted in the introduction of the New Testament. The gay rights movement today is steeped in misinformation and there is a need to bring some important facts to the table.

The American Dream Blog has pointed out how politically correct hegemony is being used as a means for unfounded discrimination. As noted in a recent incident, "A 14-year-old student at a public school in Texas was suspended from school for saying that he believes that homosexuality is wrong." When LGBT marriages are adopted as a civil right, then we will see less overall justice in the system because the minority will have limited the basic free speech rights of the majority.

Christians and any theists who believe homosexuality is morally wrong will become increasingly subject to legal and governmental harassment simply for holding and expressing our views. As Christians, we aren't promoting any "hate speech" at all, but teachings based on love in truth.

I have some gay friends and acquaintances who I believe do deserve to be protected with rights as citizens and as domestic partners, however, there are a number of reasons why civil marriage between LGBT partners is not a good idea in my opinion. I've found that there are at least 10 myths being presented in concert with the present gay agenda.

We live in a day when many nominal Christians and neoconservatives do not wish to be identified with the Christ of scripture or the teachings of scripture in general. There is a hesitancy to take a stand when the winds of politically correct doctrine are contrary. However, Jesus described the correct attitude of his followers, saying, "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot." (Matthew 5.13 NIV)

Whether it's for a sense of validation, monetary reasons, or any other reason, there is a lot of political pressure today to affirm alternative sexual lifestyles and codify alternative marriage forms as a civil right. Last month, for example, the neoconservative MSM talking head Bill O'Reilly claimed that people who take a biblical perspective on life, "Bible thumpers" as he calls us, do not have any valid argument that could possibly be used to question the ascendance of alternative marriage forms as a civil right:

"The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals. That’s where the compelling argument is: ‘We are Americans. We just want to be treated like everybody else.’ That’s a compelling argument. And to deny that you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side."

O'Reilly's claim that all conservative Christians can do is "thump the Bible" is quite false. The fact is that fundamentalist Christians, such as William Lane Craig, have been trouncing secular humanists in public debates on a variety of issues, including questions about morality. And the most prominent secular atheists make all kinds of absurd excuses for not debating Craig. But the way the system works today, serious public debate on critical subjects is almost always avoided. When people behind a spurious agenda have weak arguments or a lack of valid philosophical justification, they tend to use media hegemony and political hegemony as opposed to engaging in serious public debate.

For a basic outline on the biblical perspective on homosexuality and Christianity, I would recommend two blog posts by William Lane Craig. One is entitled, "Christian Homosexuals?" and another is entitled, "A Christian Perspective on Homosexuality"

We will probably never see Bill O'Reilly invite a serious defender of biblical views onto his show, such as William Lane Craig, because the PC hegemony simply cannot stand up to such logical reasoning. Instead, we will likely witness the continuous evisceration of basic civil rights in favor of spurious ones based not on objective facts, but on subjective feelings. But those who are familiar with the reliable truths of scripture understand that truth and love win in the end, no matter how much lying, injustice and hatred is projected against us in our day.

Once LGBT marriage is granted and affirmed as a civil right, then a Pandora's Box of increasing confusion and delusion will have been opened. For example, if the bisexual identity is protected as a civil right, then it would only follow that bisexual marriage should be protected as a civil right. In this case polygamy will become a civil right because, after all, the sexual orientations and appetites of bisexuals deserve equal marriage status. When you do the math, one biological male bisexual would be entitled to a male and a female in marriage. One biological female bisexual in marriage would be entitled to one male and one female. That would make four people entitled to a single marriage union, that is, unless either of the two additional marriage partners were in love with 5th and 6th parties. It could go on mathematically with no end

Before diving into this subject, it helps to understand and clarify two key currently-used terms: gender identity and sexual orientation. The term "gender identity" refers to a subjective self identification that does not really have anything to do with a person's biologically born equipment. Sexual orientation refers to a person's sense of physical attraction. Both terms are based on the subjective feelings of the individual.

Myth 1: Disagreeing with the behavior of homosexuality means that you must "hate" LGBT people.
Fact 1: The most basic interpretation of the biblical New Testament Christian view is based on loving all people.

Myth 2: There is conclusive scientific evidence that genetics alone causes people to be gay.

Fact 2: No 'gay gene' has been discovered and there is no conclusive evidence genetics alone is responsible.

If people do these things when the tree is green...

Scientists around the world claim that trees are dying at an unprecedented rate for a host of reasons. What does this mean in terms of biblical prophecy?

If you are a student of scripture, then you are likely familiar with this verse and its context:

"For if people do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?" (Luke 23.21 NIV)

This verse is especially interesting when you consider that the AAAS journal Science and other scientists are claiming that large, old trees around the world are dying at unprecedented rates. I had recently written an article on this subject:

Why are large, old trees disappearing globally?

There are different interpretation of what Jesus' metaphor means. He could have been offering a contrast between the times he was living in and the times that would come upon the earth, as noted:

Truth and Comedy: Jon Stewart and Bob Coy

Sometimes, when you want to talk about something really important, a little humor helps. It helps to break down barriers. We live in a society today where everyone seems very busy. And, whether you are talking about important political issues or spiritual truth, a lack of time is often given as an excuse not to engage. But most people will make time for some type of entertainment regardless of how busy their lives are. And many people today will evaluate everything they see, hear and read based not on its truth value, but on its entertainment value. I try to encourage the use of critical thinking when I discuss God, philosophy and politics, but a lot of people are turned off by this suggestion. For these types of people the use of comedy offers perhaps an opportunity to break through.

Jon Stewart is considered one of the most effective satirists today and his show is hugely popular, even as he raises some pretty controversial news. Bob Coy is widely considered one of the most entertaining preachers today who does not mince words when it comes to subjects such as sin and hell. Consider how they both use their gifts of humor in order to break through the barriers that often keep people from considering serious subjects.

Maybe you've heard some of the excuses I've heard:

1. Yes, it's an important subject, but I just don't have time.

2. It's depressing. Let's talk about something light.

3. It's not on the mainstream news, so it mustn't be very important.

Ukraine Christian Adoption Trend Spreads

You've probably heard of banks "too big to fail" but have you heard of orphans “too small to ignore?”

The concept of adoption holds a special place in scripture and in God's heart in particular. Perhaps that is why the Church in Ukraine is coming together in a focused effort towards adopting the nation's orphans.

This movement is sweeping across Ukraine and other former Soviet countries as well and it can't be traced to any one church or denomination. Perhaps that's one of the most beautiful aspects of this dramatic adoption movement.

How to Analyze a Philosophical Argument

Stephen Law and some atheists at my blog believe that merely offering an opinion on a summary of a philosophical argument (not considering the actual structural form or specific premises) is adequate as an "assessment" of a philosophical argument. I'd asked Professor Law to acknowledge that his assessment of The God Delusion was inadequate. But his response was basically to tell me to "sod off." And Law continues to stand by his assessment of the philosophical argument that he had presented in a video-taped lecture entitled, "The Strengths and Weaknesses of The God Delusion" at The University of Oxford, as noted here. William Lane Craig had provided a logical analysis of central argument of The God Delusion, as noted here. The comparison between Law and Craig is striking. Professionals in the field of philosophy offer that there are objective factors that should be considered in evaluating a philosophical argument, and this post touches on three key aspects.

I. Identifying the actual argument is important.

II. Valid forms and true premises are important.

III. Logical consequence is important.

How Pride Limits Truth Awareness

The scriptures are filled with examples of how pride limits our understanding of truth. One of the main aspects has to do with the fact that the knowledge of truth is progressive and requires continuous steps in the right direction. We can either move towards the truth or move away from it. One recent example stands out to me. I had pointed out a major oversight by an atheist professor and it seems that he is unwilling to acknowledge his obvious mistake. Instead of acknowledging his mistake he has come up with some pretty poor excuses that only serve to underscore that his pride is most likely the main reason for his desire to dig in his heals and resist acknowledging objective facts. This example serves as an object lesson of how not to approach the question of truth in life.

Three Questions Stephen Law Won't Answer

Stephen Law has refused to answer three simple questions. He had deleted my most recent comment at his blog, which actually included a couple of logical arguments. I'd taken a screenshot of the comments, however, before he deleted them and I've posted this image in this article. Law's recent behavior is just a punctuation mark on a long series of examples wherein he eschews logical discourse in favor of alternative forms of rhetoric. Prior to deleting my comment, Law stated, "And I'll look forward to seeing your stuff in print. Or not."

Within Law's comment is a veiled presupposition that academic stature automatically grants philosophical superiority to those who have studied their way to the top of secular academic positions. Do you believe that academic stature alone gives a person a free ticket to avoid logical arguments in a pretense of intellectual and philosophical superiority? I don't.

How Logic Helps to Reveal Spiritual Blindness

Logic is very useful. Some would even call it necessary. Nonetheless, some seem to go out of their way to deny the use of logic and the question of why this is so can be an interesting one. For example, the most widely endorsed book supporting atheism today is a book entitled, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. However, there's one little problem with the book: the main and central argument of the book is illogical. The book's conclusion does not logically follow from the six preceding premises. This is an objective fact, not a personal and subjective opinion. Yet, a litany of atheists continue to deny that this is true.

Remember When WL Craig Refuted The God Delusion?

William Lane Craig published a formal refutation of Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion in a 2010 book entitled On Guard (p.121). And there are videos of the Sheldonian Theater presentation where Craig critiqued the book as well. In his critique, Craig outlined obvious and objective logical flaws with Dawkins' "central argument", as Richard Dawkins defined it and presented it in premises and a conclusion in chapter 4 of The God Delusion. Many are familiar with the allegorical statue of lady Justice holding scales as a symbol of fair and consistent judgement. A tractor holding a crushed car would probably be the most appropriate symbol of how basic logical observations may be used to basically crush the central argument of The God Delusion.

If an atheist philosopher acknowledges that Dawkins' central argument is based on spurious reasoning and contains fatal logical flaws, then the book has become fairly useless and embarrassing from a philosophical perspective because, well, it is perhaps one of the most highly praised books that secular humanists have promoted for quite some time and it completely fails to argue logically against God's existence.

Slander, Logic and Venn Diagrams: Adventures in Internet Apologetics

For those who like to debate God's existence and to reason with unbelievers, "Slander, Logic and Venn Diagrams" may be even more entertaining than "Sex, Lies and Video Tape" was in the 1990s. I don't like information censorship and comment screening, and this is how the adventure began in the first place. A common tact with regard to comment slander and Internet etiquette is to simply ignore this kind of abuse. While I do generally take this approach, once in a while I will throw in a summary of the person's actual documented comments to help set the record straight.

This past week, however, the slander level at my blog seemed to reach a crescendo with a comment poster from Russia calling me a liar from one post to the next for the duration of five consecutive blog article posts. He has joined the ranks of two other secular atheists who come to my blog to post false slander. I would like to outline the three false accusations against me and then offer a logical explanation as to why this occurs. I chose to use Venn diagrams because they are a simply means of demonstrating logical truths.

A Templestream Trilogy: Three Adventures in Internet Apologetics

1. Anonymous and the mystery of overlapping word meanings.
2. Imnotandrei and the adventures of a philosophical contortionist.
3. Havok and the search for the home of the unsupported claim.

Peter Singer's Infanticide at Princeton University

There is some trivia about Princeton University that many people are not aware of. When I ask someone, "Did you know that Princeton University has helped to support infanticide and bestiality for the past 14 years?" - there is usually a look of disbelief. Many Americans have a difficult time accepting the fact that a practicing professor at Princeton University, Peter Singer, would be able to promote such activities as infanticide and zoophilia, also known as bestiality, there at that institution. This goes to show how much America has changed and how out of touch many people are with these changes. My father is a Princeton alumnus of 1953 who regularly receives the PAW alumni news, but he is neither familiar with Singer nor aware of the passionate protests that surrounded his appointment.

The motto of Princeton is "Under God's Power She Flourishes", and, obviously, the moral code of Princeton today is much different from the theistic moral code envisioned by its founders. The low moral condition of this Ivy League university helps to underscore that the US is experiencing a severe moral crisis of values in this generation. Singer is considered a distinguished Ira W. DeCamp Professor at Princeton and has been serving there for 14 years. In a 2009 Daily Princetonian article, "Peter Singer reflects on a decade at Princeton", the official opinion of the leadership at the university was noted: "Despite the controversy, those responsible for hiring Singer stand by their choice."

Waiter Standing Up for Special Needs Boy Offers Valuable Lesson

A waiter in Houston, Michael Garcia, has come to know many of his customers as though they are family. Thus, when he saw some unfamiliar customers making rude comments about 5-year-old Milo Castillo, a child born with Down's syndrome, Michael felt the need to speak up. Apparently, one of the customers said, "special needs children need to be special somewhere else." And Michael responded by saying, "I'm not going to be able to serve you, sir."

Peter Singer's Flawed Logic on Ethics

There is no rest, no peace for the wicked. But a person with a clean conscience can sleep like a baby. Is there any objective basis for moral right and wrong or are pangs of the conscience based on a completely subjective morality? One expert on secular morality, Sam Harris argues there is such an objective basis, while another expert on secular morality, Peter Singer argues that there is no such basis. According to the rules of logic, only one of these secular experts can be correct on this issue.

World's "Top" Atheists: Dawkins, Singer and Woody Allen

There are a number of websites offering lists of "top" atheists, as defined by various criteria. The American Humanist Association offers a list of the top sexiest male and female atheists along with photos for viewers to "enjoy" at their website. Atheist Connect offers a list of The Top Ten Smoking Hot Atheist Women. I'll try to focus more on the top intellectually-fulfilling lists of atheists.

Why Science Still Cannot Answer Moral Questions

Sam Harris has spent a great deal of effort writing books and preparing seminars in order to present a case that science can offer an objective basis for human morality. An anonymous atheist posting comments at my blog for a number of days has been attempting to prove the same thing. The belief that science can answer all the important questions in life is called Scientism, and secular atheists seem to be a bit desperate at times to try and prove that this view is true.

Record Number of Journalists Killed in 2012

Yes, it's documented, 2012 was a record-breaking year in terms of free-speech abuse and the imprisonment and killing of journalists. The International Press Institute offers the numbers, listing the deaths for each year at its "death watch" page. As interest in mainstream news has decreased statistically, interest in independent, cutting-edge alternative news has increased, but so has the pressure and backlash. Totalitarian regimes are the worst offenders. Simply shedding light on these types of issues can help to expose corruption and extreme censorship.

NY New Year 2013: A Major Philosophical Flop

Last night, my wife and I saw some of the New York Times Square New Year's events streaming live on the Internet at new.livestream.com, which offered free access around the world. As I later reflected on the situation, I couldn't forget about the major philosophical disconnect in the presentation. First of all, 2013 was probably the most commercialized New Year celebration I've ever seen. Almost everyone in the crowd was waving commercialized Nivea foam wands and wearing Nivea foam hats. The commentators actually refer to the stage as "The Nivea Stage" and, well, a "Nivea New Year" does have a nice ring to it. This excessive capitalism was only fitting, I suppose, considering the celebration was in the epicenter of Times Square where gigantic billboards offer a kaleidoscope of capitalistic fervor.

The epitome of irony arrived during the climactic count-down song. In the middle of this intensely commercial and capitalistic zone, during the climax of the event when the clock was in the final count-down phase, a candle-holding children's choir was singing John Lennon's "Imagine" and imagining a world with "no possessions," i.e., no private property or capitalism. Ironic indeed. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. This philosophical dyslexia represents fundamental aspects of a society being pulled in very different directions. Nether capitalism nor communism is the ultimate answer, but this event does raise some important questions.