Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 36

Links Mentioned on the 10/16/15 Show

The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:

Questions:

��� Announcements:

reTHINK Student Apologetics Conferences ��� Orange County on September 25���26, Dallas on October 23���24
Upcoming events with STR speakers
Greg is speaking at Bethel Church in Fairbanks, AK ��� November 13���15
STR Cruise to Alaska ��� August 6���13, 2016

1. Sister converted to Mormonism and is transitioning from female to male. (0:06)

Gay or Straight, We All Must Decide if We Love Jesus above All Else by Amy Hall
LDS View of Atonement Clarified by Amy Hall
Is God an Exalted Man? by Amy Hall
My Goal in Every Conversation with Mormons by Brett Kunkle
Why the First Hospital to Do Sex-Reassignment Surgeries No Longer Does Them by Amy Hall (with excerpts from and a link to Paul McHugh's article)
Here's What Parents of Transgender Kids Need to Know by Walt Heyer
Trouble in Transtopia: Murmers of Sex Change Regret by Stella Morabito
sexchangeregret.com

2. Jesus empowered the disciples in Matthew 9 and 10. Does He empower us in the same way today? (0:30)

3. Advice for talking to two doctors who support Planned Parenthood (0:46)

The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf
Precious Unborn Human Persons by Greg Koukl (Book, CD)
The S.L.E.D. Test by Alan Shlemon
Back to Science Class for the Science Guy by Robert George and Patrick Lee

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00���6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.

Platonic Relationships for Same-Sex Attracted Christian Men?

I was recently asked (by email) what I think of two male Christians with same-sex attraction (SSA) pursuing a platonic relationship together. By ���platonic,��� the questioner meant that these two men were attracted to one another, but they were not going to engage in sexual activity because they upheld a biblical sexual ethic. Below was my answer.

First of all, I can only imagine how difficult it is for Christians with SSA to develop healthy relationships with others of the same sex. I���m grateful for those I know who are trying to honor Christ in their relationships. They deserve our respect, love, support, and prayer.

My view is that it���s unwise for Christian men with SSA to form that kind of platonic relationship. I can think of at least three quick reasons. First, it will frustrate them. Their relationship will be in constant sexual tension because of their attraction to each other without the possibility of fulfilling those desires. Second, it will create unnecessary risk for sin (either lusting or sexual behavior). The longer you���re in a relationship where both of you are attracted to each other, the more opportunity there is for sinful missteps. Third, it will encourage each other���s same-sex attraction and habituate an unhealthy pattern of thought. Keep in mind, sexual desires towards people of the same sex are described in Romans 1 as ���degrading passions��� (NASB). That���s because it treats a person of the same sex as a sexual counterpart, which is a violation of the complementarity expressed in Scripture (Gen. 1:27, 28, 2:24, Matt. 19:4-6).

By the way, I would apply the same advice to myself in a similar heterosexual relationship. I would not carry on in a platonic relationship with a woman I���m attracted to (and she attracted to me). It would be unwise. Sure, I can talk to her when I see her, say ���hi��� here and there, but if we���re attracted to each other, it���s unwise for me (and her) to develop and maintain that kind of platonic relationship.

I���m not saying men with SSA should not form any relationships with other men. It would be better for them to form strong relationships with other men they���re not sexually attracted to.

Links Mentioned on the 10/14/15 Show

The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:

Commentary: Paying the Price for Engaging Critics (0:00)

Last week's podcast commentary on Bill Nye's abortion video
A Response to Bill Nye's Statement on Abortion ��� Greg's interview on Issues, Etc.
How to Get Out of a Corner by Greg Koukl (How to level the playing field: "Do you consider yourself a tolerant person or an intolerant person?")
Decide Here and Now by Amy Hall
STR's vision: "Confidence for every Christian, clear thinking for every challenge, courage and grace for every encounter"

Questions:

��� Announcements:

#STRask Podcast with Greg Koukl and Melinda Penner

1. How should a husband answer when his wife asks, "Am I attractive?" and the answer is no? (0:23)

2. Theology of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy? (0:47)

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00���6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.

How to Defuse the Accusation of Intolerance

What if someone who���s hostile to Christianity asks for your opinion on a controversial topic? Greg referenced this approach on today���s podcast:

If you���re placed in a situation where you suspect your convictions will be labeled intolerant, bigoted, narrow-minded, or judgmental, then turn the tables. When someone asks for your personal views about a moral issue, preface your remarks with a question.

Say, ���You know, this is actually a very personal question you���re asking. I don���t mind answering, but before I do, I want to know if it���s safe to offer my views.

���So let me ask you a question: Do you consider yourself a tolerant person or an intolerant person? Is it safe to give my opinion, or are you going to judge me for my point of view? Do you respect diverse points of view, or do you condemn others for convictions that differ from your own?���  

Now when my friend gives her point of view, it���s going to be very difficult for her boss to call her intolerant or judgmental without looking guilty, too.  

This response capitalizes on the fact that there���s no morally neutral ground. Everybody has a point of view she thinks is right and everybody passes judgment at some point or another. The Christian gets pigeon-holed as the judgmental one, but everyone else is judging, too. It���s an inescapable consequence of believing in morality.

Read the rest of Greg���s article here. I can think of a specific instance right now when I used this approach in response to a hostile questioner. It completely defused a very tense situation, enabling us to have a deep, profitable conversation about same-sex marriage that ended with him understanding my position and saying he believed I wasn���t a bigot after all.

Some people object to having tactical questions like this one in mind when speaking to non-Christians because they think tactics are impersonal, but it was the very use of this question that enabled me to be personal with my friend by defusing his anger and defensiveness. I recommend it to you. (See more on how tactics like this one work to increase communication and uphold people���s dignity.)

Thoughts on Our Sinful Nature

How can God punish eternally for sin when fallenness is something we are born with?

Thankful to Whom?

Today is Thanksgiving in Canada, and whether you celebrate it today or in November, if you are anything like me and my family, you will probably spend Thanksgiving weekend gathered around a table filled with delicious food and surrounded by your family and friends. One of our Thanksgiving family traditions is taking turns going around the table sharing one thing we are thankful for.

Even though this year has brought its challenges, there are so many things to be thankful for. I am thankful for the good health of my family, the lives of my three children, my freedom, and a new job with Stand to Reason, just to name a few.

I recently found myself reflecting on what it means to be thankful. Thankfulness for something only makes sense if there is someone to be thankful to���thankfulness is always expressed towards other persons.

Think about the statement, ���I���m loved!��� It only makes sense if there is someone out there who loves you. Simply stating that you are loved without any reference to anyone is meaningless. The statement, ���I���m loved��� naturally leads to the question, ���By whom?��� Likewise, the statement, ���I���m thankful��� invites the obvious question, ���To whom?���

For example, whom should I thank for the life of my unborn child? If this is only a material world, then there really isn���t anyone to thank. It would be a category error to ���thank��� my unborn child's impersonal genes, for the same reason it would be inappropriate to thank my car for getting me to work. We cannot thank objects in any meaningful sense. Moreover, if there really isn���t anyone to be thankful to, then why do I have this innate desire to be thankful? All natural desires find their fulfillment in reality. C.S. Lewis put it this way:

Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. (Mere Christianity) 

I believe the reason humanity desires to give thanks is that there is someone to give thanks to. So the next time you hear someone say, ���I���m thankful���, be sure to ask, ���To whom?���

Why You Shouldn���t Lose Heart When Prayer Is Difficult

John Newton found prayer to be difficult, but here���s what gave him hope:

How strange is it, that when I have the fullest convictions that prayer is not only my duty���not only necessary as the appointed means of receiving these supplies, without which I can do nothing, but likewise the greatest honor and privilege to which I can be admitted in the present life���I should still find myself so unwilling to engage in it. However, I think it is not prayer itself that I am weary of, but such prayers as mine. How can it be accounted prayer, when the heart is so little affected���when it is polluted with such a mixture of vile and vain imaginations���when I hardly know what I say myself���but I feel my mind collected one minute, the next, my thoughts are gone to the ends of the earth. If what I express with my lips were written down, and the thoughts which at the same time are passing through my heart were likewise written between the lines, the whole taken together would be such an absurd and incoherent jumble���such a medley of inconsistency, that it might pass for the ravings of a lunatic. When he points out to me the wildness of this jargon, and asks, is this a prayer fit to be presented to the holy heart-searching God? I am at a loss what to answer, till it is given to me to recollect that I am not under the law, but under grace���that my hope is to be placed, not in my own prayers, but in the righteousness and intercession of Jesus. The poorer and viler I am in myself, so much the more is the power and riches of his grace magnified in my behalf. Therefore I must, and, the Lord being my helper, I will pray on, and admire his condescension and love, that he can and does take notice of such a creature���. (Quoted in Newton on the Christian Life: To Live Is Christ���the best book I���ve read this year.)

Thank goodness ���my hope is to be placed, not in my own prayers, but in the righteousness and intercession of Jesus.��� May the difficulty you have praying today remind you of the riches of Christ���s grace and love!

God Didn���t Command Child Sacrifice

Here���s a charge I hear surprisingly often. From John Loftus in God or Godless?:

Child sacrifice was commanded of the Israelites by Yahweh, the biblical God. In Exodus 22:29���30 we read:

You shall not delay to offer from the fulness [sic] of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me. (RSV)

The context of this passage concerns offerings and sacrifices, and it says God requires firstborn sons to be literally sacrificed to him. Later on we find Yahweh admitting he commanded this in Ezekiel 20:25-26, where he purportedly said: 

Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD [Yahweh]. (RSV)

I���ll take those two passages one at a time, and then I���ll quote a passage that should definitively put an end to the idea that God required child sacrifice.

���Every Firstborn of My Sons I Redeem���

First, Exodus 22:29-30. In order to understand what is meant by ���give to me��� in reference to firstborn sons, we need to look earlier in the book of Exodus where God gives the specifics of how this is to be done, for Exodus 22:29-30 only addresses when the command is to be carried out; it doesn���t contain the instructions on how to do it (and contrary to Loftus, these verses aren���t anywhere near a section devoted to sacrifices). For the instructions, we need to go back to Exodus 13:12-13: 

���[Y]ou shall devote to the Lord the first offspring of every womb, and the first offspring of every beast that you own; the males belong to the Lord. But every first offspring of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck; and every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem.���

I don���t know how that could be clearer (and it���s repeated again in Exodus 34:20: ���You shall redeem all the firstborn of your sons���). They are to sacrifice the animals, but redeem the sons. It helps to understand why God commanded this, which is explained in the verses immediately following, Exodus 13:14-15:

���And it shall be when your son asks you in time to come, saying, ���What is this?��� then you shall say to him, ���With a powerful hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. It came about, when Pharaoh was stubborn about letting us go, that the Lord killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. Therefore, I sacrifice to the Lord the males, the first offspring of every womb, but every firstborn of my sons I redeem.������ 

These verses tie the firstborn-son command to God���s rescue of the Israelites in the Exodus. God was merciful to the firstborn of the Israelites by not destroying them along with the firstborn of the Egyptians, and as a result, now they all belong to Him. Exodus 13:1-2, the introduction to this chapter, explains:

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ���Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me.���

And just as God redeemed His sons from the death of the firstborn, so the Israelites are to redeem their sons. Chapter 13 sets all of this up immediately after the Israelites begin the Exodus. Child sacrifice fits neither with the specifics of these instructions, nor with the practice���s overall purpose of serving as a continual visual reminder of God���s redemption of the firstborn in the Exodus. If the Israelites had killed their firstborn, they would have been identifying their sons with the Egyptian firstborn who were killed under God���s judgment. That would obviously go against God���s stated purpose for commanding this in the first place.

God Gave Them Over to Statutes of Death

Now let���s look at the Ezekiel verses. They come at the end of a passage of judgment by God against Judah that recounts their rebellion even as far back as the 40 years in the wilderness. Here are excerpts to give verses 20:25-26 more context, in the more literal NASB:

I took them out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness. I gave them My statutes and informed them of My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live���. But the children rebelled against Me; they did not walk in My statutes, nor were they careful to observe My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live���. So I resolved to pour out My wrath on them, to accomplish My anger against them in the wilderness. But I withdrew My hand and acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. Also I swore to them in that wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands, because they had not observed My ordinances, but had rejected My statutes and had profaned My Sabbaths, and their eyes were on the idols of their fathers. I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live; and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the Lord���.

Will you defile yourselves after the manner of your fathers and play the harlot after their detestable things? When you offer your gifts, when you cause your sons to pass through the fire, you are defiling yourselves with all your idols to this day.

The first thing to note here is that God says they defile themselves when they burn their children. God is against it and ���pronounced them unclean��� because of it. We also see that God first gave them statutes ���by which, if a man observes them, he will live.��� This is what God wanted for them���life. But they rejected those statutes, returning to idols; and attached to those idols were statutes of death, by which they defiled themselves. They would not have statutes of life? Then, God says, here are your idols��� statues of death. God gave them over to these statutes of death so He could judge them for their evil through their own actions, showing that He is Lord and judgment awaits those who reject His life-giving commands. Romans 1:18-29 gives some insight into this idea:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness���. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures���.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice���.

The ���giving over��� of cultures to do evil is part of God���s judgment. Just as God did not command the people of Romans 1 to murder, so He did not command the Israelites to burn their children in the fire. But He gave both over to the evil they desired so that ���they might know that He is the Lord��� through His judgment of that evil. Since His judgment proves He is against that evil, ironically, the Ezekiel passage is merely more evidence of God���s hatred of child sacrifice.

An ���Abominable Act Which the Lord Hates���

Now we come to the nail in the coffin of the claim that ���the biblical God required child sacrifices for His pleasure������Deuteronomy 12:29-32:

���When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations which you are going in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, beware that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, ���How do these nations serve their gods, that I also may do likewise?��� You shall not behave thus toward the Lord your God, for every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.

���Whatever I command you [specifically, in this context, in how to properly worship God], you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it [i.e., by following the examples of the other nations��� worship practices].���

This passage is the definitive response to those who claim God required the Israelites to engage in child sacrifice, because it closes a possible loophole: Some atheists argue that the only problem God had with the Israelites sacrificing their children was that they burned them to other gods; but here, the command specifically says they ���shall not behave thus toward the Lord.��� They���re not to serve their God the way the nations serve their gods, particularly not in this way. Why? Because, the text says, burning sons and daughters in the fire is an ���abominable act which the Lord hates������not merely when it���s done for other gods, but when it���s done toward the Lord. When the text says, ���Every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods,��� it���s the acts themselves that are specifically being condemned.

In other words, the Israelites are not to learn how to worship Yahweh by watching how other nations worship their gods because the nations worship their gods with abominable acts the Lord hates. Further, by saying, ���For they even burn their sons and daughters,��� the act of ritual child sacrifice is cited here as being the ultimate example of an abominable act.

Loftus claims Ezekiel, in the sixth-century passage cited above (nearly a thousand years after Moses), tried to rationalize the Torah���s command to sacrifice the firstborn because ���in his time [he] had come to realize that child sacrifice was repugnant.��� But we don���t need to wait for the sixth century. We don���t even need to go beyond Moses and the Torah. Before the Israelites even entered the Promised Land, they were vehemently warned against sacrificing their sons and daughters to Yahweh.

Links Mentioned on the 10/09/15 Show

The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:

Commentary: Thoughts on Ministry: Major in the Majors (0:00)

Does God Whisper? Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 by Greg Koukl
The Ambassador's Guide to the Voice of God by Greg Koukl

Questions:

1. What's your take on Holy Yoga? (0:16)

The Yoga Boom: A Call for Christian Discernment Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 by Elliot Miller

2. In the Oregon shooting, were Christians obliged to stand up when asked? (0:37)

A Man for All Seasons
Dare to Be a Daniel? by Marvin Olasky

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00���6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.

Challenge Response: Isn't Selling Organs for Research a Good Thing?

Here's my response to this week's challenge: