Atheist kids camp

[Times Online]

GIVE Richard Dawkins a child for a week’s summer camp and he will try to give you an atheist for life.

The author of The God Delusion is helping to launch Britain’s first summer retreat for non-believers, where children will have lessons in evolution and sing along to John Lennon’s Imagine.

The five-day camp in Somerset (motto: “It’s beyond belief”) is for children aged eight to 17 and will rival traditional faith-based breaks run by the Scouts and church groups.

Budding atheists will be given lessons to arm themselves in the ways of rational scepticism. There will be sessions in moral philosophy and evolutionary biology along with more conventional pursuits such as trekking and tug-of-war. There will also be a £10 prize for the child who can disprove the existence of the mythical unicorn.

Instead of singing Kumbiya and other campfire favourites, they will sit around the embers belting out “Imagine there’s no heaven . . . and no religion too”.

I have no issue with people advancing their worldview, though Dawkins et al don’t feel that way.  They think it is child abuse to teach your religion to your children.  Religious freedom is anathema to them, which is ironic considering that in their worldview all religions are the product of pure materialism.  You see, I just “think” that I see all this evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, but their “truth” is that it is just a function of macro-evolution.  Sure.

They really tip their hand with the unicorn bit.  I ignore atheists who try to equate the evidence for God (see thisfor starters) with the evidence for unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc..  It shows that they have such poor criticial thinking skills or are so blinded by their worldview that they think that is a serious argument.

Do they do nature hikes where they explain how things aren’t really beautiful, you just “think” they are beautiful because you, as a bag of chemicals, have evolved with some defects like that?

Hopefully their training will address scientific facts such as the Cambrian Explosion and its mockery of the Darwinian worldview.

Methinks they protest too much.

Hat tip: Confessions of a Recovering Pharisee

Advertisements

A great pro-life answer to a common pro-legalized abortion argument

A recent post brought out a common pro-legalized abortion argument that ignores the humanity of the unborn (and even her existence) while playing on the “autonomy of the woman’s body” sound bite.  The commenter takes the view that the unborn are parasites and that they are fair game for destruction given that they are dependent on the mother.

What that means is, if you give someone permission to touch your body, that permission can be withdrawn at any time.

As usual, pro-life apologist extraordinaire Theobromophile provided an excellent response (emphasis added).  This one is a keeper to use when you see this argument pop up at other sites.

By that line of reasoning, a woman would be totally justified in killing her baby a day before its due date. 

That absurdity aside, their analysis fails (at least legally, if not morally). While you are never responsible for keeping someone else alive, you are responsible for doing so if you created the situation in which they are dependent upon you. The classic example is a person who is drowning in the ocean. You, as a boater with a life preserver, are under no obligation to help them out of the water. If, however, you were the one who chucked her overboard, then watched her drown, you can bet that a jury would convict your immoral butt for murder, not for ruining her clothes by getting her wet.

Likewise, you are under no obligation to give a dying person a kidney to save his life, but, if you ripped his kidneys out of his body, you would be charged with murder if he died from those injuries. If the only way to avoid his death is to give him your kidneys, you can bet that your options are to fork over an organ or be charged with murder.

Just saying.

The Sin of Sodom

The sin that resulted in the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah has traditionally been viewed to be homosexuality (hence the term sodomy). 

But many pro-gay theology apologists now try to say that it was due to inhospitality or other reasons, but definitely not homosexual behavior.  They point to some verses that appear to support their view but ignore many others.

Check out this excellent piece for a thorough analysis supporting the traditional view —  Stand to Reason: What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Piecing together the biblical evidence gives us a picture of Sodom’s offense. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was some kind of activity—a grave, ongoing, lawless, sensuous activity—that Lot saw and heard and that tormented him as he witnessed it day after day. It was an activity in which the inhabitants indulged the flesh in corrupt desires by going after strange flesh, ultimately bringing upon them the most extensive judgment anywhere in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation.

Here’s an example of the flawed theologically liberal reasoning.  Some claim that the punishment was because the men of Sodom tried to rape the angels in attendance, but that doesn’t make sense.

Was the city destroyed because the men of Sodom tried to rape the angels? The answer is obviously no. God’s judgment could not have been for the rapacious attempt itself because His decision to destroy the cities was made days before the encounter (see Genesis 18:20). Further, Peter makes it clear that the wicked activity was ongoing (“day after day”), not a one-time incident. The outcry had already been going up to God for some time.

The inhospitality claim also falls flat.

. . . are we to believe that God annihilated two whole cities because they had bad manners, even granting that such manners were much more important then than now? There’s no textual evidence that inhospitality was a capital crime. However, homosexuality was punishable by death in Israel (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). Does God ignore the capital crime, yet level two entire cities for a wrong that is not listed anywhere as a serious offense?

Read the whole article and bookmark it for the inevitable objections you’ll get from theological liberals.  It is a great example of how to properly analyze biblical texts, and especially so for controversial or difficult passages.

Also see Responding to Pro-Gay Theology, which addresses the most common biblical fallacies of the movement.

More bad pro-abortion reasoning

Another bad pro-abortion post tried to wax eloquent about the rights of a woman to control her body:

No one has any right to your body but you. Your body is the one and only thing in your life that is unquestionably yours, that absolutely can never be “made up” to you in any way, shape or form should you lose it or should it be taken from you in any way. Your body, and everything inside it, must belong absolutely and only to you. There is no way that anyone else’s “right” to any part of your body whatsoever can ever trump your moral right to always and forever at any moment in time whatsoever decide what is being done with it.

What that means is, if you give someone permission to touch your body, that permission can be withdrawn at any time. There is no permission that gives anyone a right to the use of any part of your body that you can’t withdraw instantly and forever if you so choose. If you want to end your own life, nobody has any right whatsoever to prevent you from doing so; it’s your body. Nobody else has any right to ever end your life against your will; it’s your life. If you want to donate organs, you should not be hampered in the slightest; if you don’t want to, absolutely NOBODY gets to require that you do so by force. And most notably in the context of abortion, if you choose to use your uterus to cultivate another human life, that is ONLY and ABSOLUTELY and FOREVER your own choice, and as long as your uterus is being used for this situation, you have complete and total control over the course and duration of its use. If at any point you decide you are done with the situation, then that’s that. There is no further moral argument that can be brought to bear that supercedes your absolute right to control of your body, your organs, your life.

It was obviously advancing abortion rights from the perspective of the mother, but read that comment again from the perspective of the unborn.  Consider how well it applies and how firmly the argument was made.

Of course, that argument on behalf of abortion rights always begs the question on two counts.  First, the pregnancy wasn’t a government-forced in vitro fertilization nor an immaculate conception.  It was the logical consequence of an act. 

Second, as with virtually all pro-abortion arguments, it ignores the humanity of the unborn.  Here was my response:

That is an outstanding set of pro-life arguments. You correctly note that human beings have rights that include the right not to be killed. And since we know that it is an indisputable scientific fact that a new human being is created at conception, these rights apply to the unborn.  The unborn is a human embryo then a human fetus. That is a fact. I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.

Oh, wait, you were talking about the “rights” of the mother to have the unborn human being killed and were completely ignoring the rights of the unborn human being. How ironic.

Seriously, re-read your comments from the perspective of the unborn. Keep in mind that over 50% of the unborn human beings have a uterus as well. And gender selection abortions are the ultimate misogyny, as virtually all of them involve females being killed solely for being female.

Got questions?

question-mark.gifMarie reminded me of a link on my blogroll to Got Questions?  I recommend it to skeptics and believers.  The answers seem to be well thought out and readable.  Go do some browsing.  I’ll wait here.

Do you have a question about God, Jesus, the Bible, or theology?

Have you ever needed help understanding a Bible verse or passage?

Are there any spiritual issues in your life for which you need advice or counsel?

You can also subscribe to a Question of the Week by email.

If nothing else, the site provides 184,094 reasons (and counting) as to why it is false to say that people aren’t allowed to question Christianity or that we don’t applaud the use of reason and logic.

Roundup

I have to confess that until Wednesday of this week I didn’t even know who Mark Sanford (aka Stupidity On Steroids) was.  It has been analyzed to death, so I’ll just sum up the political side by saying that Sanford’s sins don’t impact the truth of conservative ideas and that he is the hypocrite, not Republicans (who actually do a much better job of policing their ranks than Democrats).

More importantly, I hope readers will focus on pieces like Randy’s that will help people avoid Sanford’s mistakes. 

I want to give a message to my sons and sons-in-law. Watch yourself carefully. If it can happen to this man, it can happen to you. Never, never develop a “dear, dear friend(ship)” with a lady. It can only lead to problems. In this case, Sanford apparently had a friendship with this lady for 7 years, before it turned sexual. In my opinion, his adultery started long before the last year. I firmly believe that you can’t have a close relationship with any woman other than your wife.

I heard a speaker on a Podcast (Family Life Today, I think) talking about the anatomy of an affair.  What was chilling was how there is a line couples almost always cross before getting physical such that the physical part is inevitable.  In other words, they think they are safe when in reality they have made an emotional bond that dooms them. 

Side note: His wife seems like a class act (seriously).

Speaking of hypocrites, did anyone notice Obama’s outrageous hypocrisy on his health care plan?  Liberal politicians oppose school choice because they aren’t sending their kids to public schools and they want to protect unions.  They oppose true health care competition because they don’t plan on using the services of the common man.  And so on.

Pastor Timothy has a list of the latest scams (I think he wants you to avoid them, not employ them)

Psychiatry Textbook Acknowledges that Homosexuals Can Change — Don’t hold your breath waiting for the MSM to report on this one.  Too many myths to prop up.  But keep it as a reference for when people trot out the “born that way” canard.

Could life have emerged spontaneously on the early Earth? — Great read by the Wintry Knight.  Short answer: Really, really, very unlikely — and that’s an understatement.

Great post at Marie’s place about eternal security (i.e., Can you lose your salvation?) — lots of good back and forth conversation about Reformed theology pros and cons.