Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 50 results found
Greg talks about Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner from a biblical perspective.
When Adam surrendered his choice not to sin by sinning, there was a breaking in human nature that we have inherited. Even though we can say “no” to particular sins, it is not possible for us not to sin. How can we say “no” to individual sins, but even with the help of the Holy Spirit, we still sin?
Years ago, I debated a physician-assisted suicide initiative. I was against it for what they considered religious reasons. Therefore, they thought I was forcing my religious point of view on other people. I pointed out that their point of view was equally religious. Certainly suicide will end the physical misery here, but what happens afterwards?
Excerpt about abortion and adoption from the February 17th, 2015 podcast with Greg Koukl.
A frequent response to the evidence against the origin of life by Darwinian evolution is, “All the difficulties with the evolution of life only apply to life as we know it. But what about other kinds of life?”
If Darwinism is true, then there is no purpose or meaning to life, there is no morality, there's no qualitative difference between humans and animals, there's no life after death, and there's no purpose to human history. Now, are you trying to tell me that it doesn't really matter if people believe we evolved or not?
Those who hold that science, by nature, cannot be integrated with theological views about the nature of the world, are out of step with a long history of science. This arbitrary, modern division between science and theology, making them enemies, was not made in the past. Most of the founders of modern scientific disciplines were Christians whose world-view was thoroughly integrated with their scientific practice. For example:
Has anyone else but me noticed an inherent contradiction in the underlying convictions that drive annual “Earth Day” celebrations? The vast majority of those who attend such fetes are Darwinists who believe humans have a moral obligation to protect the environment? My question is: Why?
It’s common of late to justify one’s “sexual orientation” by an appeal to nature. The claim “I was born this way” is all that’s needed to stem moral criticism of homosexuality. But why settle for this approach? Why think that the state of nature is an appropriate guide to morality?
The result of criminalizing hate under certain circumstances is that only certain types of people get protected. In a state with hate crime legislation, penalties levied for an assault on me would be milder by statutory requirement than for the very same assault on a homosexual. Why? Because as a straight, white male I do not belong to a class protected by this law.