Driving to work this morning I listened to a radio talk show in which the hosts and their callers were discussing the hoopla over Mitt Romney running for President of the U.S. The hoopla, of course, concerns the fact that Romney is a Mormon. Most conservative Christians understand that Mormonism is a pseudo-Christian cult. They believe things that are antithetical to essential Christian doctrines. For example, Mormons believe that God was once a man on another planet who lived a good Mormon life and then graduated to become a god himself and form and populate his own planet with his own spirit children. And they believe that we, the spirit children of this "god", can likewise achieve godhood by our being good Mormons and then move on to rule over and populate our own planets.
Pretty wild, eh? And because Romney, as a Mormon, probably believes these anti-Christian doctrines, many Christians are saying that they could never vote for him for President. One caller to the radio program adamantly insisted that he could not vote for a man who advocates what he, as a Christian, considers sin. And Romney's heretical beliefs are sinful. Ergo, he cannot vote for Romney. This attitude I believe to be fairly common among conservative Christians. But, this attitude toward Romney is totally and completely wrong-headed. What's more, it is patently unbiblical. And I say this as someone who agrees that Mormonism is a cult and that Romney's beliefs are sinful.
A few centuries ago, the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther said, "I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian." His point was that being a Christian did not automatically make one a good ruler. And, on the flipside, being a Muslim (or follower of some other false religion) did not automatically make one a bad ruler. Good rulership falls under the rubric of God's common grace and natural revelation and it falls on the Christian and the non-Christian alike. Luther believed that unbelievers can and do establish just governments and that being a Christian was not a requirement for being a good government leader. Unbelievers can have the wisdom and knowledge required to rule a nation.
Where did Luther get this idea from? He got it from the Bible! The Bible gives us many examples of political leaders who were not followers of the one, true God; who were idol worshippers no less than Mitt Romney, and portrays many of this rulers as just and wise. It portrays their rule and authority as legitimate in the eyes of God and worthy of Christian submission and respect. Examples include Nebuchadnezzar who was served faithfully by Daniel and his friends Shadrach, Mishach, and Abednego; Darius of Persia who Daniel also served; and then there was Cyrus of Persia whom God called, "My annointed one" (Messiah). Think also of Ahaseurus whom Esther married and submitted to along with her uncle Mordecai. And there is Ben-Hadad of Aram who was served by Naaman, the soldier converted to the true faith by Elisha. In the New Testament, think of Felix and Festus who were given respect and obedience by Paul--they were not perfect morally or religiously, but their rule was seen as legtimate and to be submitted to. Consider as well how the apostle Paul commanded all Christians everywhere to submit to the governing authorities whoever they were--because they are ordained by God (Rom 13). Paul said this when Nero was on the throne of Rome.
I point all of this out to argue that there can be no theological reason to refuse to vote for Mitt Romney. Unless one has been deceived into believing the view called theonomy (and its half-baked sister, the Religious Right) which holds that Christians have an obligation to work for the establishment of specifically Christian governments, then there can be no objection per se to electing a Mormon. The only issue that matters is: what does he stand for? What are his values and principles? What policies will he implement? Will he establish and maintain justice? The Bible does not teach that we have to have Christian governments; it only teaches that we should have just governments. And a government can be just whether or not the President and other leaders are Christian.
Apr 5, 2007
Mar 21, 2007
Skepticism and Faith
I recently received a form letter from Kendrick Frazier, editor of the magazine Skeptical Inquirer, invinting me to subscribe to that publication. For those who don't know, the Skeptical Inquirer is a magazine dedicated to questioning and debunking myths, superstitions, conspiracy theories, urban legends, and other ideas that the publishers consider hair-brained--like religion. That I would get such and advertisement is not all that interesting. What was of interest was something Frazier said in that part of his letter where he set out a definition of the term "skepticism." He wrote: "skepticism is just a common-sense unwillingness to take anything on faith."
When I read that definition my first response was bewilderment. My second response was to chuckle. My third response was to shake my head in a brief exertion of pity for Frazier who is apparently in the grip of a powerful self-delusion. Why would I say that? Because it is patently and obviously false that anyone can live with an unwillingness to take anything on faith. That is, it is impossible not to take at least some things on faith. And if skepticism is defined as an unwillingness to take anything on faith, then no one is (or even can be) a skeptic--least of all Frazier and his skeptical cohorts at the Skeptical Inquirer!
Let me prove my point by listing a few items that I am fairly confident that Frazier believes but that he has no choice but to take on faith:
1. There is a mind-independent external world.
2. There are other minds than his own.
3. He has existed for more than 5 minutes.
4. His cognitive faculties (intellect, senses, etc.) are reliable.
5. Consciousness is a physical/natural phenomenon.
6. Evolution occured.
7. Science is the only (or most authoritative) source of knowledge.
8. He can live without taking anything on faith.
None of the above beliefs can be proven with certainty. Many of them cannot be proven in any sense, but must be assumed or presupposed. In either case, faith is involved.
When I read that definition my first response was bewilderment. My second response was to chuckle. My third response was to shake my head in a brief exertion of pity for Frazier who is apparently in the grip of a powerful self-delusion. Why would I say that? Because it is patently and obviously false that anyone can live with an unwillingness to take anything on faith. That is, it is impossible not to take at least some things on faith. And if skepticism is defined as an unwillingness to take anything on faith, then no one is (or even can be) a skeptic--least of all Frazier and his skeptical cohorts at the Skeptical Inquirer!
Let me prove my point by listing a few items that I am fairly confident that Frazier believes but that he has no choice but to take on faith:
1. There is a mind-independent external world.
2. There are other minds than his own.
3. He has existed for more than 5 minutes.
4. His cognitive faculties (intellect, senses, etc.) are reliable.
5. Consciousness is a physical/natural phenomenon.
6. Evolution occured.
7. Science is the only (or most authoritative) source of knowledge.
8. He can live without taking anything on faith.
None of the above beliefs can be proven with certainty. Many of them cannot be proven in any sense, but must be assumed or presupposed. In either case, faith is involved.
Mar 5, 2007
The Tomb of Jesus Still not Found
Last night I watched the Discovery Channel special The Lost Tomb of Jesus. In the program, it is hypothesized that a tomb discovered in 1980 in Talpiot, Israel (near Jerusalem) held the bones of Jesus of Nazereth and his family, in particular, his wife Mary Magdalene and his son Jude, the Virgin Mary, and James, Jesus' brother. The clear and undisputed facts are that the tomb contained 10 ossuaries (bone boxes), one carrying the inscription "Jesus, son of Joseph," and others with the names "Mary," "Mariamne Mara," "Jude, son of Jesus,"and "Matthew." From these facts, it is (tentatively) concluded that this timb is very likely the tomb of the Jesus worshipped by Christians for 2,000 years.
The problems with this hypothesis are so numerous that it would take a book to explain them all. Below I will briefly mention a few of the more prominent problems. For those who want more, let me encourage you to take a look at the blogs of NT scholars Ben Witherington and Darrell Bock:
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/
http://dev.bible.org/bock/
The major problems, as I see it, are these:
1. The statistics. The maker of the documdrama hired a statistician who concluded that there was a 1 in 600 chance that the tomb was NOT that of Jesus of Nazareth. IOW, it is a high probability that this is Jesus' family tomb. But, this conclusion is based on some unwarranted assumptions. First, that the first "Mary" in the tomb was the "Jesus" in the tomb's mother. There is no evidence to indicate that. It could have been a sister, a cousin, a wife, etc. Second, there is no evidence that the second "Mary" (Mariamne Mara) was Jesus' wife--again, even given the DNA testing, it could have been a half-sister or a cousin or an aunt. So, the program is totally bogus when it asks how many Jesus's in Jerusalem would have had a father named Joseph, a mother named Mary, and a wife named Mary, and then concludes that it's 1 in 600 that this wasn't Jesus of Nazareth. What should have been asked instead was how many Jesus's in Jerusalem would have had a father named Joseph and two female relatives named Mary--and the answer is: a whole heck of a lot! Joseph, Jesus, and Mary were very common names in 1st-century Israel (e.g., 1 in 4 women were named Mary!). One statistician on Witherington's blog calculates that the actual odds that this IS Jesus' tomb are (at best) 1 in 400--IOW, highly unlikely! And if you throw in the fact that we have no evidence at all (outside this tomb) that the NT Jesus had a son or a close relative named Matthew, then the odds get even worse.
2. The Names. The program postulates that Mary Magdalene was also known as Mariamne (a dimunitive form of Mary), and they cite a second century Gnostic text, The Acts of Philip, as proof. There are two problems here. First, there is no evidence from the first century to confirm this view (Mary Magdalene is consistently referred to as "Mary" in the NT) and simply taking the Gnostic text's word for it is anachronistic. Second, the Mariamne in the Acts of Philip is described as the the sister of Philip and is nowhere identified as Mary Magdelene. Also, the show says that the term "Mara" on the same ossuary means "master", and thus shows that Mariamne (Mary) was a leader in the Christian Church and this supports the view that it was Mary Magdalene in that tomb. However, "Mara" is a well-known, shortened variant of "Martha." So, the ossuary inscription simply reads "Mary Martha" and indicates either that one woman had two names or that two women were buried in the same ossuary.
Also, it is important to point out that Jesus is nowhere called by his friends and followers in any documents we have "son of Joseph" (cf. Luke 3:21). The fact that this phrase occurs on the ossuary is a huge prima facie reason to deny that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. And when we add that another name in the tomb (Matthew) is nowhere else associated with Jesus' family, the basis for that denial is even stronger.
Have they found the lost tomb of Jesus? I don't think so.
The problems with this hypothesis are so numerous that it would take a book to explain them all. Below I will briefly mention a few of the more prominent problems. For those who want more, let me encourage you to take a look at the blogs of NT scholars Ben Witherington and Darrell Bock:
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/
http://dev.bible.org/bock/
The major problems, as I see it, are these:
1. The statistics. The maker of the documdrama hired a statistician who concluded that there was a 1 in 600 chance that the tomb was NOT that of Jesus of Nazareth. IOW, it is a high probability that this is Jesus' family tomb. But, this conclusion is based on some unwarranted assumptions. First, that the first "Mary" in the tomb was the "Jesus" in the tomb's mother. There is no evidence to indicate that. It could have been a sister, a cousin, a wife, etc. Second, there is no evidence that the second "Mary" (Mariamne Mara) was Jesus' wife--again, even given the DNA testing, it could have been a half-sister or a cousin or an aunt. So, the program is totally bogus when it asks how many Jesus's in Jerusalem would have had a father named Joseph, a mother named Mary, and a wife named Mary, and then concludes that it's 1 in 600 that this wasn't Jesus of Nazareth. What should have been asked instead was how many Jesus's in Jerusalem would have had a father named Joseph and two female relatives named Mary--and the answer is: a whole heck of a lot! Joseph, Jesus, and Mary were very common names in 1st-century Israel (e.g., 1 in 4 women were named Mary!). One statistician on Witherington's blog calculates that the actual odds that this IS Jesus' tomb are (at best) 1 in 400--IOW, highly unlikely! And if you throw in the fact that we have no evidence at all (outside this tomb) that the NT Jesus had a son or a close relative named Matthew, then the odds get even worse.
2. The Names. The program postulates that Mary Magdalene was also known as Mariamne (a dimunitive form of Mary), and they cite a second century Gnostic text, The Acts of Philip, as proof. There are two problems here. First, there is no evidence from the first century to confirm this view (Mary Magdalene is consistently referred to as "Mary" in the NT) and simply taking the Gnostic text's word for it is anachronistic. Second, the Mariamne in the Acts of Philip is described as the the sister of Philip and is nowhere identified as Mary Magdelene. Also, the show says that the term "Mara" on the same ossuary means "master", and thus shows that Mariamne (Mary) was a leader in the Christian Church and this supports the view that it was Mary Magdalene in that tomb. However, "Mara" is a well-known, shortened variant of "Martha." So, the ossuary inscription simply reads "Mary Martha" and indicates either that one woman had two names or that two women were buried in the same ossuary.
Also, it is important to point out that Jesus is nowhere called by his friends and followers in any documents we have "son of Joseph" (cf. Luke 3:21). The fact that this phrase occurs on the ossuary is a huge prima facie reason to deny that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. And when we add that another name in the tomb (Matthew) is nowhere else associated with Jesus' family, the basis for that denial is even stronger.
Have they found the lost tomb of Jesus? I don't think so.
Jan 31, 2007
Hooked on 24
Encouraged by other Christian philosopher-friends, I try not to watch a lot of TV. There are only a couple of shows I watch on a regular basis. One of them, fairly recently acquired, is 24. The show is addictive, and I have to say that I am hooked. It must be the incessant cliffhanger endings on each episode.
However, the more I watch the program, the more I find myself analyzing its underlying philosophy and worldview. There is no doubt that the show is "politically conservative" and that's why a lot of conservatives rave about it, I'm sure. But, all kinds of ethical issues and questions come up if you pay close attention. Questions about the justice of war. Questions about the morality of torture in wartime. Trust and honesty (or the lack thereof). Many of the ethical decisions made by the characters (esp. the main character Jack Bauer) seem based on utilitarian considerations--the idea that what's right is bringing about the most happiness for the most people--though there are times when Jack makes more principled decisions as a deontologist would.
I would be very interested in what any readers out there think about 24 from a Christian and/or ethical viewpoint. Are the themes in the show and the actions of its protagonists consistent or inconsistent with Christian belief? Or sometimes consistent and sometimes not? How and when?
However, the more I watch the program, the more I find myself analyzing its underlying philosophy and worldview. There is no doubt that the show is "politically conservative" and that's why a lot of conservatives rave about it, I'm sure. But, all kinds of ethical issues and questions come up if you pay close attention. Questions about the justice of war. Questions about the morality of torture in wartime. Trust and honesty (or the lack thereof). Many of the ethical decisions made by the characters (esp. the main character Jack Bauer) seem based on utilitarian considerations--the idea that what's right is bringing about the most happiness for the most people--though there are times when Jack makes more principled decisions as a deontologist would.
I would be very interested in what any readers out there think about 24 from a Christian and/or ethical viewpoint. Are the themes in the show and the actions of its protagonists consistent or inconsistent with Christian belief? Or sometimes consistent and sometimes not? How and when?
Dec 7, 2006
Should the Qur'an be Used for an Oath of Office?
Recently elected Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is a Muslim, and he wants to use the Qur'an and not the Bible to take his oath of office. Take a look at the editorial posted on Doug Groothuis' blog responding to this issue which outlines the problems with Ellison's request and the potential cultural disaster that could result if it is granted. Groothuis' blog is found at:
http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/
http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/
Dec 1, 2006
Will Muslims Take Over the World?
I have been reading a facinating and troubling book entitled America Alone by Mark Steyn. The thesis of he book is that within a few decades at most America will be standing alone against a fascist Islamic empire that encompasses not only the Middle East and a lot of Asia, but most of Europe as well. This empire will not come about by military force. It will come about because Muslim immigrants will take over many European countries from the inside.
The possibility for this Islamic conquest has arisen because, while the Muslim birth rate in these European countries is high (and their populations growing), the birth rates of the native French, Italians, Germans, Spanish, etc., is in serious decline--in fact the birth rates in these countries is low enough to invite the possibility of the extinction of these European peoples.
Consider thre birth rate in the United States. Steyn reports that in the U.S., there are 2.1 births per woman--the level which demographers claim is barely sufficient for a stable population. In other words, Americans are having just enough children to replace those who die. If this rate of birth continues or increases a little, then America can escape an Islamic take-over from within. But, the birth rates among non-Muslims in these European nations is well below 2.1. They are in serious population decline. This also means that the native populations in Europe are getting "older"--there are more senior citizens compared to younger citizens. This forecasts economic disaster for these European welfare states before very long, with many of the younger Muslims (who will be in the majority soon) poised to seize control of the governments of these nations.
Charles Martel is turning over in his grave! What he did in 732 by defeating the Muslims at the Battle of Tours (preventing them from moving from Spain into central Europe), is being undone by the economic stupidity, political correctness, and self-indulgence of his descendants.
What can we do about this Muslim take-over of Europe and (possibly) the world? If Steyn is right, it is probably too late for Europe. "Eurabia" (as he calls it) is likely a foregone conclusion. And even if the Europeans could do something to prevent this disaster, they don't have the political guts to do it. As for America, we need to do two things. First, we need to educate people about this threat. We don't want to live in an Islamic theocracy. But that may lie down the road if we don't wake up. Second, we need to start having babies.
So, ladies and gentlemen, lisen up! Forget about that new house or new boat you want to buy. Forget about the dream vacations you can take when you're not saddled with children. Let go of your self-indulgent lifestyle! The common good is at stake here! Go home. Put on some romantic music. Turn the lights down low. Get into bed and start saving the world!
The possibility for this Islamic conquest has arisen because, while the Muslim birth rate in these European countries is high (and their populations growing), the birth rates of the native French, Italians, Germans, Spanish, etc., is in serious decline--in fact the birth rates in these countries is low enough to invite the possibility of the extinction of these European peoples.
Consider thre birth rate in the United States. Steyn reports that in the U.S., there are 2.1 births per woman--the level which demographers claim is barely sufficient for a stable population. In other words, Americans are having just enough children to replace those who die. If this rate of birth continues or increases a little, then America can escape an Islamic take-over from within. But, the birth rates among non-Muslims in these European nations is well below 2.1. They are in serious population decline. This also means that the native populations in Europe are getting "older"--there are more senior citizens compared to younger citizens. This forecasts economic disaster for these European welfare states before very long, with many of the younger Muslims (who will be in the majority soon) poised to seize control of the governments of these nations.
Charles Martel is turning over in his grave! What he did in 732 by defeating the Muslims at the Battle of Tours (preventing them from moving from Spain into central Europe), is being undone by the economic stupidity, political correctness, and self-indulgence of his descendants.
What can we do about this Muslim take-over of Europe and (possibly) the world? If Steyn is right, it is probably too late for Europe. "Eurabia" (as he calls it) is likely a foregone conclusion. And even if the Europeans could do something to prevent this disaster, they don't have the political guts to do it. As for America, we need to do two things. First, we need to educate people about this threat. We don't want to live in an Islamic theocracy. But that may lie down the road if we don't wake up. Second, we need to start having babies.
So, ladies and gentlemen, lisen up! Forget about that new house or new boat you want to buy. Forget about the dream vacations you can take when you're not saddled with children. Let go of your self-indulgent lifestyle! The common good is at stake here! Go home. Put on some romantic music. Turn the lights down low. Get into bed and start saving the world!
Oct 17, 2006
Skeptics Just Don't Get Moral Argument
In a recent edition of eskeptic (www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-10-03.html), Robert Eberle reviews Francis Collins's book The Language of God. Because Collins is a theistic evolutionist who believes in Darwinian evolution but believes that it is guided by God, Eberle has both praise and criticism of the book. He praises Collins for his defense of evolution, but goes on the attack when Collins offers arguments for God's existence, especially when he offers the moral agument for God's existence which contends that God is the best explanation for the existence of objective morality. Eberle writes,
To a large extent Collins relies on arguments from the works of C.S. Lewis for his justification that God must exist. He is particularly smitten by the idea of a universal Moral Law which, like Lewis, appears to him as being something that could only be divinely authored. It is obvious, Collins asserts, that something like the awareness of right and wrong has to have come from some higher power, else why would it exist across all cultures and be unique to the human species?
In fact, Collins asserts, beside this moralistic awareness, it is such things as “the development of language, awareness of self, and the ability to imagine the future” that are part of the enumeration of the specific characteristics of modern humans. The fact that language, for example, is the product of a reasoning mind that, over time, develops as a result of genetically derived mental improvements makes it difficult for the reader to accept the author’s declarations. If language is a uniquely human quality, and it has come about from genetically driven evolution, why no reasoning that provides the justification for the development of ethical behavior? To Collins, the very awareness of what is right and wrong can only be from some divine power, but his reasoning does not support it. Although elsewhere in the book he is highly critical of the “god of the gaps” argument employed by Intelligent Design creationists, who chase down the gaps in scientific knowledge to proclaim that this is where God intervenes, Collins’ deduction that evolution cannot account for the Moral Law is just another gap. He reviews some of the modern evolutionary explanations for the evolution of the moral sentiments, but he dismisses them as inadequate, and then draws his conclusion. This is the fallacy of personal incredulity — “I can’t think of how X can be explained naturally, ergo X must have a supernatural explanation.”
To a large extent Collins relies on arguments from the works of C.S. Lewis for his justification that God must exist. He is particularly smitten by the idea of a universal Moral Law which, like Lewis, appears to him as being something that could only be divinely authored. It is obvious, Collins asserts, that something like the awareness of right and wrong has to have come from some higher power, else why would it exist across all cultures and be unique to the human species?
In fact, Collins asserts, beside this moralistic awareness, it is such things as “the development of language, awareness of self, and the ability to imagine the future” that are part of the enumeration of the specific characteristics of modern humans. The fact that language, for example, is the product of a reasoning mind that, over time, develops as a result of genetically derived mental improvements makes it difficult for the reader to accept the author’s declarations. If language is a uniquely human quality, and it has come about from genetically driven evolution, why no reasoning that provides the justification for the development of ethical behavior? To Collins, the very awareness of what is right and wrong can only be from some divine power, but his reasoning does not support it. Although elsewhere in the book he is highly critical of the “god of the gaps” argument employed by Intelligent Design creationists, who chase down the gaps in scientific knowledge to proclaim that this is where God intervenes, Collins’ deduction that evolution cannot account for the Moral Law is just another gap. He reviews some of the modern evolutionary explanations for the evolution of the moral sentiments, but he dismisses them as inadequate, and then draws his conclusion. This is the fallacy of personal incredulity — “I can’t think of how X can be explained naturally, ergo X must have a supernatural explanation.”
The basic idea behind Eberle's critique of Collins is this: Since Collins can see how evolution can provide an explantion for language and mind, he ought to be able to see how evolution can provide and explanation for morality, too. He ought, that is, to avoid the god-of-the-gaps with regard to morality just like he avoids hte god-of-the-gaps with regard to language and mind. Unfortunately, Eberle's critique of Collins is doubly defective.
First, Eberle and Collins both think that science in general and evolution in particular can and do provide an adequate explanation for the origin of human consciousness and it's capacities for language, reasoning, etc. But, it does nothing of the sort. There is no scientific theory on the table anywhere in the world that even comes close to providing a naturalistic account of the mind--and this is something that even atheist philosophers and neuro-scientists are aware of. No evolutionary "just-so" story cuts mustard here. Even Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic and eskeptic admitted this fact in a recent debate with Doug Geivett at the Universtity of Alabama at Birmingham. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that a naturalistic account of mind is impossible, but the point is that Eberle and Collins ought to know better than to write and talk as if such an account is "in the bag". Not only is it not in the bag, nobody has the remotest clue as to how a naturalistic account of the mind might go. This is why it is disingenuous at best to accuse the intelligent design guys of the god-of-the-gaps.
Second, even if there were a naturalistic account of the mind and language, this would have no bearing on the question of morality. This is where I think Collins has got it right and Eberle has missed the boat. Eberle thinks that defenders of the moral argument simply commit his so-called fallacy of personal incredulity--we can't (yet) explain morality naturally, therefore, it must have a supernatural origin. Perhaps Collins' version of the moral argument for God commits this fallacy, but most philosophers who defend the argument do not. The problem for a naturalistic account of morality is not simply that it seems hard to explain it natually. Rather, it's that the existence of an objective morality seems postively inconsistent with naturalistic principles (as even failed naturalistic ethical theories seem to show). In fact, Eberle himself proves the point when he goes on to say. . .
Collins then compounds the problem with his arguments by asserting, without foundation, that altruism is unquestionably good, and that it can only be explained by the existence of the Moral Law. The fact that the goodness of altruism is a subjective judgment and open to considerable debate is ignored. Furthermore, he never addresses the studies that have shown that altruism is not unique to the human species, and he never explains why the altruistic behavior of a member of the group could not be something that evolved, initially, simply as a necessity for the survival of the group.
What Eberle says here is that Collins fails to realize that morality may not be objective. That is, moral properties and values may simply be subjective beliefs that we have adopted as a species in order to better survive--but, there is nothing objectively true or binding about morality. Here Eberle is echoing the sentiments of other evolutionary naturalists like Dawkins and Ruse who claim that morality is simply a social convention coughed up by evolution, but as such is jsut an illusion--there's nothing objectively good about altruism and nothing objectively bad about rape and murder. But, this is precisely why Eberle's critique of Collins' moral argument fails. Collins is trying to explain why a objective moral law exists. And naturalism just won't do as an explanatory hypothesis. Sure, if morality is a subjective illusion and there really isn't such a thing as right and wrong, then evolutionary naturalism provides a perfectly good expalanation for why we all mistakenly think that right and wrong exist. But, if an objective moral law really does exist, then naturalism is almost certainly false. And it would seem that even Eberle would have to agree in that case that no fallacy of personal incredulity has been committed.
Aug 31, 2006
What Must We Believe?
Are there things that I must believe if I can legitimately call myself a Christian? In our atheological age, it is always good to be reminded that there are indeed some essential doctrinal truths--truths that define the very essence or being of the Christian faith. Christians, of course, differ among themselves over many doctrinal issues. nevertheless, there at least seven doctrinal issues that Christians throughout the ages have considered essential. In what follows, I will describe these seven doctrines and provide a biblical justification for them. I invite readers to comment and ask questions.
1. The Deity and Humanity of Christ
It is essential to the Christian faith that Jesus of Nazareth is God incarnate. This means that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. As the Chalcedonian Definition puts is, Jesus is “truly God and truly man.” He has two distinct natures, human and divine, which are “unconfused, unchanged, indivisible, and inseparable.”
That Jesus is God is clearly taught in the Bible. John declares, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Paul wrote that Jesus was “in very nature God” (Phil. 2:6) and that in him “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Col. 2:9). The Lord Jesus himself, referring to Moses’ encounter with God in the burning bush, declared, “Before Abraham was born, ‘I Am’”—for which the Jews took up stones to kill him for blasphemy.
Jesus’ full humanity is also set forth plainly in Scripture. He was “born of a woman” (Gal. 4:4); he grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52); he hungered and thirsted (Luke 4:2; John 19:19); he died (John 19:30). Both John and Paul underscore the dual nature of Christ by teaching that in Christ God became a man. John says that the divine Word “became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14), and Paul explains that though Jesus was in very nature God, he “emptied himself. . .being made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7).
2. The Trinity
Belief in the deity of Christ necessitates affirming the doctrine of the Trinity. Some people, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, mock the idea the Jesus is God by asking such questions as, “Well, if Jesus was God while on the earth and he died on the cross, then who was running the universe while he was in the grave?” and “If Jesus was God, then who was he praying to in the Garden of Gethsemene?” What those who ask such questions fail to realize is that the doctrine of the Trinity is designed (in part) to directly address those kinds of issues! Since the universe was obviously still under divine control while Jesus was in the grave, and since Jesus would not likely pray to himself, there must be more than one divine person! This logic finds confirmation in the Bible. When Jesus (who is God) was baptized, we are told that the Holy Spirit descended upon him like a dove and a voice spoke from heaven and said, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased” (Matt. 3:17). Three distinct and divine persons are simultaneously present in this event: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Does this mean that Christians believe in three gods? Not at all. The doctrine of the Trinity is not the view that there are three gods. Neither is it the absurd view that there are three gods and one God at one time. Early church leaders explained that the Son and the Holy Spirit were of the same essence or substance with the Father, though they are nevertheless distinct personalities. Though containing an element of mystery that we may never fully understand, the doctrine of the Trinity asserts that there is one and only one God, who exists simultaneously in three personalities.
3. Original Sin
Having a right view of Jesus requires a right view of human beings. We believe that Jesus is our Savior. We believe that he died for our sins (see below). We in fact believe, as several biblical texts indicate, that Jesus had to die—his death is somehow necessary for our salvation (see Luke 24:26; Rom. 3:26). Moreover, as we will see, our salvation is secured not by any of our works, but by grace alone through faith alone. For all of this to make sense, human beings must all be in a certain condition. Theologians call this condition original sin. This means that every human being is born into a state of guilt and corruption inherited from our first parent, Adam. In other words, we are born sinners. We are born, that is, with a nature that is bent toward sin and rebellion and which is incapable of doing any good in the sight of God.
Romans 3:23 says that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Worse, “there is none who does good, not even one” (Rom 3:12). Worse still, “the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7-8). David explains why we are in such a terrible condition when he says of himself, “I was. . .sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5). Paul echoes this idea when he says that all of us are “by nature objects of wrath” (Eph. 2:3). We come into the world in a state of original sin because Adam, as the representative of the whole human race, sinned on our behalf: “the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men. . . . through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners” (Rom. 5:18, 19).
The implication of original sin is that we all naturally stand under the just condemnation of God with no hope that we can earn his favor and escape his wrath. This is where Jesus comes in.
4. The Substitutionary Atonement
Romans 5:8 announces the gracious news: “But God demonstrates his own love toward us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” We cannot save ourselves. We cannot do anything to escape God’s just wrath. But God the Father, in love and mercy, sent God the Son to die for us. For Christ to die for us means that he died on our behalf, for our benefit. More than that, however, he died in our stead. The Apostle John states that Christ “is the propitiation for our sins. . .” (1 John 2:2). That big word “propitiation” has to do with the satisfaction of God’s wrath; with the appeasement of God’s just anger toward our sin. Paul makes this even clearer in Romans, when he writes,
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement [ propitiation], through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26)
Notice that Paul not only uses the important word “propitiation” in this text, but he also clearly connects the death of Christ with God’s justice. Christ was presented as a sacrifice on the cross so that God might be seen as both “just and the one who justifies”—Just because he does not leave our sins unpunished, and the justifier because he punishes Christ in our place and imputes to us his perfect righteousness through faith (vv. 21-22).
All of this means that Christ’s death on the cross served as a substitutionary atonement. He died as our substitute to satisfy the demands of God’s holy justice regarding our sin. It is only because of the substitutionary death of Christ that those who believe are saved. This is why the substitutionary atonement is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith.
5. The Resurrection of Jesus
The Christian faith stands or falls on the truth of the resurrection of Jesus. Paul made it clear that “if Christ is not raised, then your faith is worthless” (1 Cor. 15:17). If Christ is not raised, then he is still dead and buried. If Christ is not raised, then we have no reason to believe his exalted claims about himself, namely, that he is the incarnate God who determines the eternal destinies of every human being. If Christ is not raised, then we have no hope that our sins have been forgiven—we would be, as Paul woefully laments, “still in [our] sins.” As the Apostle says elsewhere, Christ “was raised because of our justification” (Rom. 4:25). In other words, Jesus’ resurrection guarantees us that the Father accepted his death on the cross as payment for our sin. Without his resurrection, we would have a sure indication that his death on the cross accomplished nothing at all.
“But now Christ has been raised from the dead,” declares Paul (1 Cor. 15:20). He was seen alive again by Peter and the other apostles, as well as James and Paul, and even 500 people at one time (see 1 Cor. 15:3-8)![ii] So, those who believe may have assurance that their sins are forgiven, and that just as Christ was raised from the dead, so they will be, too.
6. Justification by Faith Alone
“Justification” is the act by which God declares sinners just or righteous in his sight. Every pseudo-Christian religion holds that faith on the part of the sinner plays a role in justification. Genuine Christianity, however, teaches that justification is by faith alone. Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, the Watchtower Society, the International Church of Christ, and other pseudo-Christian religions deny that justification is by faith alone. Rather, they teach that justification is by faith plus works. For example, though the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are clear that God’s grace is necessary to put a person on the road to justification, and to give him strength to pursue holiness, they also declare that justification comes at the end of a process in which the sinner, through moral effort and good works, achieves true, inward righteousness. In other words, for the Catholic (and others) justification follows sanctification.
The biblical view, however, is that justification precedes sanctification. By grace alone through faith alone, God declares sinners justified. Then, by the power of the Holy Spirit, justified sinners enter into the pursuit of holiness. As Scripture says, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:8-9). And how could it be any clearer than it is in Romans 4:5, where we are told: “However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.”
Salvation is an unmerited gift of God’s sovereign mercy. The doctrine of justification by faith alone is crucial to preserving this truth. If our good works play any role in acquiring justification, then salvation is not entirely by grace, and it would not be true (contrary to Eph. 2:9) that no one could boast.
7. The Second Advent of Christ
Though often left out of these types of discussions, it is another essential doctrine that Jesus Christ, who departed the earth shortly after his resurrection (Luke 24:50-5; Acts 1:9-11), will return bodily ot this planet. Jesus told his disciples before his crucifixion, "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and receive you to myself" (John 14:3). After his ascension, the angels told the disciples, "This Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come in the same manner that you have seen him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11). This is why the Apostles' Creed declares that Christ "ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead."
One of the reasons why the Second Coming if Jesus is essential is that Christians believe (and the Bible teaches) that we are currently living in what Scipture calls "this age" (cf. Mark 10:29-30; Luke 20:34-36; 1 Tim. 6:17-19, etc.), and age characterized by corruption, imperfection, sin, death, and pain. Christian believe and hope that "this age" is not the final state, that it will give way to "the age to come" in which we will live in incorruptable resurrection bodies that are free of disease, pain, sin, and death. The demarcation between "this age" and "the age to come" is the return of Christ. This is why Paul reminds us of the importance of pursuing holiness in this life. The reason is hat we are not citizens of this world or age, but "our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ (Phil 3:20).
CONCLUSION
Before I close this brief article, I want to head off a possible misunderstanding. I have called the six doctrines outlined above the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. By that I mean that these doctrines are of the esse of the Christian faith; that is, they constitute the very being of Christianity. Without these doctrines, there would be no Christianity. I have also said that these doctrines are necessary for a person to legitimately call himself a Christian.
Now does this mean that a person who does not believe all six of these doctrines is automatically lost and going to Hell? Does this mean that a person must understand and believe all six of these doctrines before he can be saved? The answer to both questions is “no.” I dare say that few people who are converted to faith in Christ have a full understanding of the Trinity, for example. Theologians have a hard time delineating exactly how much a person has to believe and understand before he can be converted, and so it is safe to not be dogmatic at this point.
However, this much can be said with confidence: any person who understands these doctrines and their significance for the Christian worldview, yet conscientiously denies any one of them—that person is not a Christian (or, at least, you and I have no reason to believe that he is a Christian). What this means is that a person may ignorantly espouse a heresy without being a heretic. But a person who knowingly embraces a heresy is a heretic whose eternal soul is in danger. This is why Christians must defend sound doctrine and reach out in love to those who are in error.
[Most of this article previously appeared in my "The Genuine Article: The Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith," Areopagus Journal 2:3 (July 2002): 31-35.]
1. The Deity and Humanity of Christ
It is essential to the Christian faith that Jesus of Nazareth is God incarnate. This means that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. As the Chalcedonian Definition puts is, Jesus is “truly God and truly man.” He has two distinct natures, human and divine, which are “unconfused, unchanged, indivisible, and inseparable.”
That Jesus is God is clearly taught in the Bible. John declares, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Paul wrote that Jesus was “in very nature God” (Phil. 2:6) and that in him “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Col. 2:9). The Lord Jesus himself, referring to Moses’ encounter with God in the burning bush, declared, “Before Abraham was born, ‘I Am’”—for which the Jews took up stones to kill him for blasphemy.
Jesus’ full humanity is also set forth plainly in Scripture. He was “born of a woman” (Gal. 4:4); he grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52); he hungered and thirsted (Luke 4:2; John 19:19); he died (John 19:30). Both John and Paul underscore the dual nature of Christ by teaching that in Christ God became a man. John says that the divine Word “became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14), and Paul explains that though Jesus was in very nature God, he “emptied himself. . .being made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7).
2. The Trinity
Belief in the deity of Christ necessitates affirming the doctrine of the Trinity. Some people, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, mock the idea the Jesus is God by asking such questions as, “Well, if Jesus was God while on the earth and he died on the cross, then who was running the universe while he was in the grave?” and “If Jesus was God, then who was he praying to in the Garden of Gethsemene?” What those who ask such questions fail to realize is that the doctrine of the Trinity is designed (in part) to directly address those kinds of issues! Since the universe was obviously still under divine control while Jesus was in the grave, and since Jesus would not likely pray to himself, there must be more than one divine person! This logic finds confirmation in the Bible. When Jesus (who is God) was baptized, we are told that the Holy Spirit descended upon him like a dove and a voice spoke from heaven and said, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased” (Matt. 3:17). Three distinct and divine persons are simultaneously present in this event: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Does this mean that Christians believe in three gods? Not at all. The doctrine of the Trinity is not the view that there are three gods. Neither is it the absurd view that there are three gods and one God at one time. Early church leaders explained that the Son and the Holy Spirit were of the same essence or substance with the Father, though they are nevertheless distinct personalities. Though containing an element of mystery that we may never fully understand, the doctrine of the Trinity asserts that there is one and only one God, who exists simultaneously in three personalities.
3. Original Sin
Having a right view of Jesus requires a right view of human beings. We believe that Jesus is our Savior. We believe that he died for our sins (see below). We in fact believe, as several biblical texts indicate, that Jesus had to die—his death is somehow necessary for our salvation (see Luke 24:26; Rom. 3:26). Moreover, as we will see, our salvation is secured not by any of our works, but by grace alone through faith alone. For all of this to make sense, human beings must all be in a certain condition. Theologians call this condition original sin. This means that every human being is born into a state of guilt and corruption inherited from our first parent, Adam. In other words, we are born sinners. We are born, that is, with a nature that is bent toward sin and rebellion and which is incapable of doing any good in the sight of God.
Romans 3:23 says that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Worse, “there is none who does good, not even one” (Rom 3:12). Worse still, “the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7-8). David explains why we are in such a terrible condition when he says of himself, “I was. . .sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5). Paul echoes this idea when he says that all of us are “by nature objects of wrath” (Eph. 2:3). We come into the world in a state of original sin because Adam, as the representative of the whole human race, sinned on our behalf: “the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men. . . . through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners” (Rom. 5:18, 19).
The implication of original sin is that we all naturally stand under the just condemnation of God with no hope that we can earn his favor and escape his wrath. This is where Jesus comes in.
4. The Substitutionary Atonement
Romans 5:8 announces the gracious news: “But God demonstrates his own love toward us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” We cannot save ourselves. We cannot do anything to escape God’s just wrath. But God the Father, in love and mercy, sent God the Son to die for us. For Christ to die for us means that he died on our behalf, for our benefit. More than that, however, he died in our stead. The Apostle John states that Christ “is the propitiation for our sins. . .” (1 John 2:2). That big word “propitiation” has to do with the satisfaction of God’s wrath; with the appeasement of God’s just anger toward our sin. Paul makes this even clearer in Romans, when he writes,
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement [ propitiation], through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26)
Notice that Paul not only uses the important word “propitiation” in this text, but he also clearly connects the death of Christ with God’s justice. Christ was presented as a sacrifice on the cross so that God might be seen as both “just and the one who justifies”—Just because he does not leave our sins unpunished, and the justifier because he punishes Christ in our place and imputes to us his perfect righteousness through faith (vv. 21-22).
All of this means that Christ’s death on the cross served as a substitutionary atonement. He died as our substitute to satisfy the demands of God’s holy justice regarding our sin. It is only because of the substitutionary death of Christ that those who believe are saved. This is why the substitutionary atonement is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith.
5. The Resurrection of Jesus
The Christian faith stands or falls on the truth of the resurrection of Jesus. Paul made it clear that “if Christ is not raised, then your faith is worthless” (1 Cor. 15:17). If Christ is not raised, then he is still dead and buried. If Christ is not raised, then we have no reason to believe his exalted claims about himself, namely, that he is the incarnate God who determines the eternal destinies of every human being. If Christ is not raised, then we have no hope that our sins have been forgiven—we would be, as Paul woefully laments, “still in [our] sins.” As the Apostle says elsewhere, Christ “was raised because of our justification” (Rom. 4:25). In other words, Jesus’ resurrection guarantees us that the Father accepted his death on the cross as payment for our sin. Without his resurrection, we would have a sure indication that his death on the cross accomplished nothing at all.
“But now Christ has been raised from the dead,” declares Paul (1 Cor. 15:20). He was seen alive again by Peter and the other apostles, as well as James and Paul, and even 500 people at one time (see 1 Cor. 15:3-8)![ii] So, those who believe may have assurance that their sins are forgiven, and that just as Christ was raised from the dead, so they will be, too.
6. Justification by Faith Alone
“Justification” is the act by which God declares sinners just or righteous in his sight. Every pseudo-Christian religion holds that faith on the part of the sinner plays a role in justification. Genuine Christianity, however, teaches that justification is by faith alone. Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, the Watchtower Society, the International Church of Christ, and other pseudo-Christian religions deny that justification is by faith alone. Rather, they teach that justification is by faith plus works. For example, though the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are clear that God’s grace is necessary to put a person on the road to justification, and to give him strength to pursue holiness, they also declare that justification comes at the end of a process in which the sinner, through moral effort and good works, achieves true, inward righteousness. In other words, for the Catholic (and others) justification follows sanctification.
The biblical view, however, is that justification precedes sanctification. By grace alone through faith alone, God declares sinners justified. Then, by the power of the Holy Spirit, justified sinners enter into the pursuit of holiness. As Scripture says, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:8-9). And how could it be any clearer than it is in Romans 4:5, where we are told: “However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.”
Salvation is an unmerited gift of God’s sovereign mercy. The doctrine of justification by faith alone is crucial to preserving this truth. If our good works play any role in acquiring justification, then salvation is not entirely by grace, and it would not be true (contrary to Eph. 2:9) that no one could boast.
7. The Second Advent of Christ
Though often left out of these types of discussions, it is another essential doctrine that Jesus Christ, who departed the earth shortly after his resurrection (Luke 24:50-5; Acts 1:9-11), will return bodily ot this planet. Jesus told his disciples before his crucifixion, "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and receive you to myself" (John 14:3). After his ascension, the angels told the disciples, "This Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come in the same manner that you have seen him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11). This is why the Apostles' Creed declares that Christ "ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead."
One of the reasons why the Second Coming if Jesus is essential is that Christians believe (and the Bible teaches) that we are currently living in what Scipture calls "this age" (cf. Mark 10:29-30; Luke 20:34-36; 1 Tim. 6:17-19, etc.), and age characterized by corruption, imperfection, sin, death, and pain. Christian believe and hope that "this age" is not the final state, that it will give way to "the age to come" in which we will live in incorruptable resurrection bodies that are free of disease, pain, sin, and death. The demarcation between "this age" and "the age to come" is the return of Christ. This is why Paul reminds us of the importance of pursuing holiness in this life. The reason is hat we are not citizens of this world or age, but "our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ (Phil 3:20).
CONCLUSION
Before I close this brief article, I want to head off a possible misunderstanding. I have called the six doctrines outlined above the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. By that I mean that these doctrines are of the esse of the Christian faith; that is, they constitute the very being of Christianity. Without these doctrines, there would be no Christianity. I have also said that these doctrines are necessary for a person to legitimately call himself a Christian.
Now does this mean that a person who does not believe all six of these doctrines is automatically lost and going to Hell? Does this mean that a person must understand and believe all six of these doctrines before he can be saved? The answer to both questions is “no.” I dare say that few people who are converted to faith in Christ have a full understanding of the Trinity, for example. Theologians have a hard time delineating exactly how much a person has to believe and understand before he can be converted, and so it is safe to not be dogmatic at this point.
However, this much can be said with confidence: any person who understands these doctrines and their significance for the Christian worldview, yet conscientiously denies any one of them—that person is not a Christian (or, at least, you and I have no reason to believe that he is a Christian). What this means is that a person may ignorantly espouse a heresy without being a heretic. But a person who knowingly embraces a heresy is a heretic whose eternal soul is in danger. This is why Christians must defend sound doctrine and reach out in love to those who are in error.
[Most of this article previously appeared in my "The Genuine Article: The Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith," Areopagus Journal 2:3 (July 2002): 31-35.]
Aug 22, 2006
Church for Skeptics
A TV ministry program called Church for Skeptics hosted by Dan Arsenault is now available online. Myself and other members of the Apologetics Resource Center staff participate in several episodes. Check it out at:
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=church+for+skeptics
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=church+for+skeptics
Aug 8, 2006
A Time for War
King Solomon in his masterwork Ecclesiastes (actually God's masterwork) wrote, "For everything there is a season." Among the things for which there is a season, he continued, there is a "time for war and a time for peace" (Eccl 3:8). I have come to believe in recent days that now is a time for war. No, I'm not talking about spiritual warfare--I'm talking about real, guns and bombs warfare.
In the last month, tha nation of Israel has been engaged in a life-or-death struggle with the terrorist army "Hezbollah." They are doing what any sane nation would do if attacked by such thugs. They are waging war to defend themselves and to secure a lasting and just peace. Yet, the cry from every corner it seems is that Israel must restrain herself. The U.N. and others are calling for a ceasefire, acting as if the worst possible scenario is further fighting and bloodshed. They are wrong. A worse outcome is a "peace" that is not just and not permanent. And this pseudo-peace will be the inevitable result if Israel does anything less than wipe Hezbollah from the face of the earth.
The pacifists and those who believe that "one man's terrorist is just another man's freedom-fighter" refuse to come to grips with the fact that there are people, organizations, and nations who are bound and determined by fanatical religious conviction to eradicate not only Israel from the Earth, but the U.S. and every other free nation as well. They have ipso facto declared war on all of us. There is no negotiating with them. There is no ceasefire possible with radical Islam--a religion of hate and violence. Any so-called ceasefire would only be an opportunity for them to reorganize and rearm and plot and plan more destruction.
I believe that the right course of action is for our government, and every other free government that is courageous enough to do it, to declare war on radical Islam. To vow to destroy and bring regime change any organization or nation that has cried "death to America" or harbors or supports Islamist terrrorism in any way. This means Hezbollah. This mean Syria. This means Iran.
It is a time for war.
In the last month, tha nation of Israel has been engaged in a life-or-death struggle with the terrorist army "Hezbollah." They are doing what any sane nation would do if attacked by such thugs. They are waging war to defend themselves and to secure a lasting and just peace. Yet, the cry from every corner it seems is that Israel must restrain herself. The U.N. and others are calling for a ceasefire, acting as if the worst possible scenario is further fighting and bloodshed. They are wrong. A worse outcome is a "peace" that is not just and not permanent. And this pseudo-peace will be the inevitable result if Israel does anything less than wipe Hezbollah from the face of the earth.
The pacifists and those who believe that "one man's terrorist is just another man's freedom-fighter" refuse to come to grips with the fact that there are people, organizations, and nations who are bound and determined by fanatical religious conviction to eradicate not only Israel from the Earth, but the U.S. and every other free nation as well. They have ipso facto declared war on all of us. There is no negotiating with them. There is no ceasefire possible with radical Islam--a religion of hate and violence. Any so-called ceasefire would only be an opportunity for them to reorganize and rearm and plot and plan more destruction.
I believe that the right course of action is for our government, and every other free government that is courageous enough to do it, to declare war on radical Islam. To vow to destroy and bring regime change any organization or nation that has cried "death to America" or harbors or supports Islamist terrrorism in any way. This means Hezbollah. This mean Syria. This means Iran.
It is a time for war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)