Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 26 results found
Is there a conflict between faith and science? I think not. Rather, I think the current quarrel between the two has been contrived. A specific error—an arbitrary definition of science— is holding science hostage. I’d like to suggest a solution. One book serves as a helpful launching point for reflection on this error. Though published in 1988, it remains a useful foil for a discussion on the issue.
The embryonic stem cell research debate is remarkable because neither side—pro-life or pro-abortion—seems to understand the moral logic of its views. Presumably, people who are pro-life hold their views for a reason and are not just emoting. The same could be said of pro-choicers. I’ve long suspected that’s not always the case, though. The recent debate about embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) confirms my doubts.
When we justify killing of a fully developed human child through partial-birth abortion, we are not defending abortion. We’re promoting something much more chilling. Even the mothers involved know what’s going on.
Does the archeological accuracy of the Bible have anything to do with it’s truth claims? Not according to many world-class archaeologists. There’s a catch, however, which tells us volumes about modern man and his dilemma.
Eight years ago an election-year slogan circulated among Christians that sparked considerable controversy: "It's a sin to vote for Clinton." The same slogan returned with vigor four years later. This year’s election slogan is different. Bill Clinton is not on the ballot and his successor, Al Gore, offers little enticement to Evangelicals. Something else is at stake, though, captured in a new slogan: “It’s wrong to vote for anyone who is not consistently pro-life.”
Have you ever taken a verbal beating when trying to talk about Jesus? If so, I’ve got a tip for you. It’s the simplest tactic imaginable to help stop a challenger in his tracks, turn the tables, and put you back in the driver’s seat. And it can be done almost effortlessly. Here’s an example.
Virtually every Christian with a theological point of view thinks his view is scriptural. Why shouldn't he. He has a prooftext he can quickly quote in his defense.
Imagine living in a world in which you couldn't separate truth from error. You wouldn't be able to tell food from poison, or friend from foe. You couldn't tell good from bad, right from wrong, healthy from unhealthy, or safe from unsafe. Such a world would be a dangerous place. You wouldn't survive long.
How do Christians answer the present spirit of the age, currently the most insidious challenge to Christianity: relativism? The following discussion is adapted from an interview with Summit Ministries, Manitou Springs Colorado, July 1998. Summit is a Christian educational organization training young people in Christian worldview leadership. Summit Ministries: What exactly is moral relativism?
When you look up into the midnight sky do you see stars? Or are the lights in the heavens mere appearances, images created in transit? The answer settles the question of whether the creation of the universe was recent or ancient.