Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 143 results found
Jesus said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength" (Mark 12:30). Loving God with the mind is not a passive process. It's not just having thoughts about God. Rather, it's coming to conclusions about God and His world based on revelation, observation, and careful thinking.
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.
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.
The key to answering the claims of same-sex marriage advocates is understanding the basic rule of justice: Treat equals equally. If parties are not equal in a relevant sense, then there is no obligation of justice to treat them the same.
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.