Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 61 results found
What is the nature of marriage? Is marriage about love? When people are in love, they get married. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what gender the person may be, so the argument goes.
When scientists claim that any intelligent design inference is an example of God of the Gaps, they are presuming that there actually is an explanation gap, that is, there simply is no explanation for the phenomena in question. The “God of the Gaps” complaint comes up when theists suggest that design is a better explanation than a naturalistic one in certain areas of science, particularly the beginning of the universe, the origin of life, and the development of life from simple to complex over time.
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.
The controversy about same-sex marriage churns principally around the definition of marriage. Activists deny the traditional view that marriage is about children. Instead, marriage is an ever-changing, socially-constructed institution constantly being redefined by society. There is no essential connection with children. Rather, at the core of the enterprise are two people in love.
Once I participated in a debate on California’s Initiative 161 concerning physician-assisted suicide. My opponents charged that I was forcing my religious views on others. They didn’t realize they were making some religious assumptions of their own.
Is life a gift with a transcendent purpose to be fulfilled, or do we own ourselves and have the right to do with our bodies whatever we please? This question can be answered in part with a little reflection. Why do we feel compelled to talk someone out of suicide? Why try to dissuade them? The reason is that we have an intuitive sense that life has transcendent purpose. We're so sure of this that we try to stop people from killing themselves and "wasting" their lives.
Two thoughts here: Why it's not necessary to have a "passion for the unborn" in order to do something meaningful to save them, and why "life chains" may do more harm than good. Our last caller raised an issue I actually intended on talking about today. His question was about pro-life "life chains."The last two nights I was at different crisis pregnancy events-- a maternity home on Friday night and a crisis pregnancy center on Saturday night-- working really hard to raise funds for them. I'll be speaking at another fund-raising banquet later this week.
“Life a ‘beautiful choice?’ It’s not so beautiful for an unwanted child.” Believe it or not, a pastor made this comment. I had to ask myself, “Why isn’t an unwanted child’s life beautiful?” The answer is, because he’s unwanted. But this alone doesn’t make anyone’s life miserable. There’s more to it than this. What makes an unwanted child’s life miserable? Other people do. Unwanted children are unhappy because of the way they’re treated.