Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 43

How to Start a Conversation with a Muslim Friend

Alan shares two starting points when engaging Muslims in conversations about faith. 

The Government Isn���t Neutral on Personhood

In Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, Frank Beckwith explains why the government���s position on fetal personhood is not neutral:

[In the Roe v. Wade decision,] Justice Blackmun argues that since experts disagree as to when life begins���when and if the fetus becomes a human person���the Court should not come down on any side. But contrary to his intent, Blackmun fails in his argument to establish government neutrality. When the state leaves the choice of pregnancy termination solely to the individual, it affirms that the fetus is not worthy of state protection and therefore can be discarded without requiring any public justification. Whatever one may think of this public policy, it certainly is not neutral���.

Imagine you are back in the nineteenth century and the Court is confronted with the issue of enslaving African-Americans. Suppose in the name of state neutrality that it delivers the opinion that it takes no stand on the issue. On that basis it allows white Americans to own blacks as property. The Court may verbally deny taking any position on this issue, but its allowance of slavery is actually morally equivalent to taking a side���that African-Americans are not human persons. Likewise, the Court���s verbal denial of taking a position on fetal personhood is contradicted by its conclusion that abortion is a fundamental constitutional right and that fetuses are not persons under the Constitution.

By permitting abortion during the entire nine months of pregnancy, abortion-rights advocates have decided, for all practical purposes, when full humanness is attained. They have deemed this moment to occur at birth. Despite their claim that ���no one knows when life begins,��� abortion rights advocates act as if protectable human life begins at birth. Thus, far from being neutral, the Court���s opinion in Roe affirms a particular perspective on what constitutes a human person.

If one is not sure whether or not fetal human beings are persons, the only rational, responsible thing to do is to not kill them. You can read philosopher Peter Kreeft���s explanation as to why this is the only morally permissible option for those who are skeptical about fetal personhood here.

But there���s no need to be skeptical about fetal personhood, because every human being is a person, as Kreeft also explains:

Surely the correct answer [to how ���person��� is to be defined] is that a person is one with a natural, inherent capacity for performing personal acts. Why is one able to perform personal acts under proper conditions? Only because one is a person. One grows into the ability to perform personal acts only because one already is the kind of thing that grows into the ability to perform personal acts, i.e., a person.

Links Mentioned on the 8/07/15 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: Do Moral Atheists Exist? (0:00)

STR Cruise to Alaska ��� August 6-13, 2016
Greg's Facebook page
Greg's post on the article "Some Correspondence with an Atheist" (includes comments cited)
Some Correspondence with an Atheist by Albert W. Alschuler
Hitchens's Challenge Solved by Amy Hall
No Good People by Melinda Penner

Questions:

��� Announcements: 

Upcoming events with STR speakers
CrossExamined Instructor Academy

1. Would you apply 1 Corinthians 5:11 to "gay Christians" in the church? (0:26)

Brian Godawa
Cruel Logic (stars Tony Hale!)
Brian's author page on Amazon
Word Pictures: Knowing God through Story and Imagination by Brian Godawa
Hollywood Worldviews: Watching Films with Wisdom and Discernment by Brian Godawa

2. Practical consequences of predestination and Arminianism (0:47)

3. Study habit suggestions? (0:52)

How to Read Less More by Greg Koukl

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.

Living as Expatriates

As Christians, our place in the culture has changed, and there has been a lot of talk recently about how we should proceed from here. I like what Tom Gilson has to say about how we should view ourselves:

Claiming that we are exiles mistakes our mission. For if an exile has any mission at all, it���s to get back to the homeland, and do what needs to be done back there���. ���Exile��� does not accurately describe who we are, nor does it identify what we���re about, as we live our lives in a postmodern culture���. We are not exiles from Christendom. We are expatriates from heaven.

An expatriate is a person living for a time outside his own country to accomplish some plan or purpose. The term encompasses students and businessmen, diplomats and missionaries.

Our country indeed seems less like home than it once did. It���s becoming foreign to us. But that fact does not make us exiles, waiting here for the chance to return home ��� that is, to a more Christian-friendly America ��� so that we can get to work once we���re safely there. Instead, like expatriate students or diplomats, we���re here on mission right here and now. We long for no other home; none but heaven, and when [we] get there our mission will have been accomplished. For now we are exactly where we belong, at the time and place where God put us.

���Expatriate��� evokes���a quiet, patient sense of duty. You are far from home for a season with a job to do. It will demand discomfort and sacrifice. You might never be recognized for it, at least in this life. All this is true���.

Let���s discuss what it means to be expatriates, here on purpose and on a mission, for as long as God leaves us here. We may not be at home, but we���re right where He wants us. And we���ve got work to do.

Read the rest of Gilson���s article.

Links Mentioned on the 8/05/15 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: Planned Parenthood Videos ��� Interview with Tim Barnett (0:00)

Videos one, two, three, four, and five (full, unedited footage here)
The Planned Parenthood Videos: Organ Donations and Euphemisms by Amy Hall
Three Lies Exposed in Fifth Planned Parenthood Video by Amelia Hamilton
10 Quick, Important Developments on the Planned Parenthood Scandal by Mollie Hemingway
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva
The Death of Humanness (PDF) by Greg Koukl
How Should We Use Graphic Images? by Amy Hall
Planned Parenthood "Hacking" Sure Looks Like an Orchestrated PR Stunt by Sean Davis

Questions:

1. If "age of accountability" is true, won't Heaven be full of people with no conscious experience of earth? (0:27)

When a Baby Dies by Ron Nash
Safe in the Arms of God: Truth from Heaven about the Death of a Child by John MacArthur

2. Why believe in an age of accountability? (0:42)

Isaiah 7:14-15

3. A vision of the future to share (0:52)

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.

Moving People from Offense to the Truth

Oftentimes, when you disagree with someone���s views���particularly their religious and moral views���the person will take offense. When that happens, don���t get bothered or irritated. Just ask a question: ���Why are you offended?��� When they respond with some version of, ���You think I���m wrong,��� gently remind them this is precisely what they think of your view(s) as well. And I also quickly add that I am not in the least bit offended when they think my views are wrong. Why not? Because I want the truth. If my views about Christianity or some current social issue are wrong, I want to know. 

In fact, a crucial indicator of my closest friends��� love for me is their willingness to speak the truth to me. Do you know who loves me most? My wife. And can you guess who offends me more than anyone else? That���s right, my wife. Sometimes, while driving on California���s frenzied freeways, my wife will lean over and gently correct me. ���Honey, you really shouldn���t yell lethal threats at other drivers.��� It���s a risky move because my first response is often offense. ���That guy was tailgating me!��� But as she continues to gently speak truth to me and I slowly remember my goal to pursue truth in all areas of life, I open up to the truth of her words and the error of my ways. It often takes awhile but I (usually) come to see that my wife���s truth-telling is evidence of her deep love for me. 

In the same way, sharing the truth with our non-Christian friends is evidence of our love for them. Assure your friends you���re not trying to unnecessarily offend them. Make it clear the pursuit of truth, in love, is your motivation. Diffuse their defensiveness by suggesting you could possibly be wrong in your views too. If you can help your friends see that love and truth are not mutually exclusive, you can ensure that a potentially offensive discussion is a productive one. 

Once they���re convinced you care, bring truth front and center. Gently ask, ���Would you want to know if you were wrong? Would you want to know if your beliefs were false?��� If they answer yes, they���re probably ready to hear more of the truth.

Some Christians get nervous at the suggestion we could be wrong. But there is no need for worry. First, to suggest we could possibly be wrong is not the same thing as suggesting we are probably wrong. Logically speaking, it���s possible Christianity is false. However, we have good reason to think it���s true and therefore have nothing to fear. Second, it models for the non-Christian the kind of open-mindedness we desire from them. When people sense you are open and fair-minded, they are more likely to engage in conversation. 

Give Greg a Call Today

Greg is live on the broadcast today, looking forward to talking with callers.

Ask your question. Share a piece of your mind. Call with your question or comment at (855) 243-9975, outside the U.S. (562) 424-8229. The broadcast is live today 4-6 p.m. P.T. ��� commentary and your calls. Streaming live online.

Listen live online. Join us on Twitter during the program @STRtweets.

The program is two hours now, and one hour podcast episodes are posted on Wednesday and Friday.

Sinning by Omission?

Why isn���t God guilty of ���sinning by omission��� when he doesn���t prevent something bad from happening?

The Planned Parenthood Videos: Organ Donations and Euphemisms

The horrific nature of the undercover Planned Parenthood videos has overwhelmed me. You can view videos one, two, three, and four (along with the full, unedited footage) here. No, I shouldn���t say you can. You should. You must. This is what we���re currently allowing, and it must be seen. The abortion industry has been hiding behind a curtain of euphemisms for so long that even you, pro-lifer, have become somewhat accustomed to its existence. Let these videos shake you back into reality.

As with other social movements to correct injustices in the past (e.g., slavery and civil rights), images can reveal truth, playing a key role in helping us understand with our minds things that would otherwise only be a vague idea to us. As the ancient Roman poet Horace said, ���Less vividly is the mind stirred by what finds entrance through the ears than by what is brought before the trusty eyes.��� This, I think, will be the most important result of these videos, regardless of what comes of the legal accusations against Planned Parenthood.

You can read about 10 Quick, Important Developments on the Planned Parenthood Scandal and learn a little about the legality and ethics involved in supplying fetal body parts to research facilities here.

What���s Morally Different about These Organ Donations?

Leaving aside the morality of abortion itself for a moment, why should anyone object to Planned Parenthood supplying organs to research facilities? What makes the donation of these organs morally different from a mother's donation of her baby���s organs after the child���s tragic death? The difference can be found in the doctor���s words explaining what makes the giving of these human organs possible:

We���ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that [researchers want these], so I���m not gonna crush that part, I���m going to basically crush below, I���m gonna crush above, and I���m gonna see if I can get it all intact.

The organs are requested by the research facilities while the healthy organ ���donor��� is still living, and then the wanted organs are obtained by carefully crushing the organ owner to death. This changes the moral picture.

The Legal Step That Needs to Be Taken

The heart of the moral problem with Planned Parenthood���s organ donations (again, leaving aside the morality of the abortion on its own) needs to be legally addressed: No individual or organization should be legally allowed to donate organs if they���re responsible for the death of the organs' owner. Period.

If there���s a beneficial transaction to be had from the death of a human being, then you can���t be allowed to participate in that transaction if you���re the one bringing about that human being���s death. (This applies whether you���re personally directly benefitting or the person you���re donating to is directly benefitting; for in the second case, the one who directly benefits is likely to return the favor with indirect benefits to encourage more donations���i.e., more killing to facilitate more giving.) To allow such a thing incentivizes killing and will inevitably lead to abuses. 

If we���re going to talk about legal steps that need to be taken, this seems like it should be one of the first.

When Abortion Doctors Drop Their Euphemisms

As the doctor in the fourth video picks through the baby parts, she says, ���It���s a baby,��� and announces, ���Another boy!��� Planned Parenthood workers may tell women to their faces that it���s up to them whether the ���clump of cells��� inside them is a baby, but this is how the doctors talk behind their backs. They speak the plain truth. They speak of human organs. They speak of genders. They speak of babies.

My prayer is that these videos will break the spell of the abortion industry���s insidious euphemisms.

Links Mentioned on the 7/31/15 Show

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

Guest: Jennifer Roback Morse ��� Will Our Country Listen to Religious Freedom Arguments? (0:00)

Why Religious Liberty Arguments Aren't Working by Jennifer Roback Morse
Ruth Institute
Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty
The Sexual Revolution and Its Victims by Jennifer Roback Morse
Love and Economics: It Takes a Family to Raise a Village by Jennifer Roback Morse
Smart Sex: Finding Life-Long Love in a Hook-Up World by Jennifer Roback Morse
Kids' Divorce Stories ��� Ruth Institute
What Every Child Needs: The Unique Contributions of Fathers and Mothers ��� Collection of studies
Fathers Don't Mother by Amy Hall
Why Same-Sex Marriage Can't Afford to Be Tolerant by Amy Hall (Quoting Matt Anderson)

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.