Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 42 results found
Western civilization is shuddering under a tidal wave of activism in favor of same-sex marriage. Here is a careful response to their most compelling arguments.
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.
Christianity has been called cruel because it teaches that Jews killed Jesus and that Jesus is the only way to Heaven. The first incites persecution; the second denies that goodness matters in God’s assessment. This challenge, though, misunderstands both the nature of history and the nature of justice.
For some, ethics is nothing more than a social contract to insure survival. Compliance is the highest good, breaking ranks the greatest evil, regardless of the issue. This may make sense on television, but it doesn’t work in the real world.
Pro-lifers around the country are getting tight-lipped on abortion. Here’s why we’re shying away from speaking frankly about the moral crime of the century and how you can be equipped to engage this problem.* The last few years have witnessed a stunning development in the pro-life movement, one worth considering, especially since this month marks 30 years since the landmark legal decision of Roe v. Wade.
A solid argument can be built just like a solid house: walls first, then the roof. Here's a building plan, plus three ways arguments collapse. I want to teach you how to assess a basic argument. How can you know if an argument is a good one or not?
Is homosexuality “natural”? Do gays have a “right” to adopt children? Rosie O’Donnell is the latest celebrity to go public as a homosexual and take the stand as a champion of gay adoption rights. Her challenge has reignited the controversy about rights and wrongs based on what is “natural.”
As ambassadors for Christ, we often never know the true impact of our efforts. Yet every once in a while we get a glimpse.... Radio is an odd medium because it is hard to know what kind of impact we’re having. For the most part, the communication is all one way. I sit in the studio and talk. Three lines are flashing, callers waiting. My screener and engineer watch through the glass as I speak. An audience of five.
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.
Some ideas have the tendency to self-destruct when given the opportunity. Your job is simply to point it out, and then watch the view quietly commit suicide.