Tag: abortion

Sense and Goodness Without God Part 16

What do I think of Carrier’s politics? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

There’s not much to be said on morality at this point and there’s really very little in the basic chapters on beauty, so I’m going to skip ahead to the last major section which is on politics.

I’ll be upfront about my politics in discussing this so all can be warned of any bias on my part. I am a conservative. I often refer to myself as so conservative I only fly on planes that have two right wings. I have lately in fact chosen to not identify that much as a Republican since many of them seem just as problematic to me as their Democratic opponents.

Carrier describes himself as a moderate. In fact, he is quick to point out that the moderate is the most rational political animal in any society.

Gotta love that humility huh?

When Carrier describes his reaction to media reports, he says on page 385 to

“Look at it all, but assume most of it is false or deceptive–and, sifting through it all, try to identify on your own what is most likely true, and what most likely isn’t.”

Apparently, the exact same approach used for Scripture.

Carrier also says we don’t need to worry about someone who is a saint in their private life. What matters is how they will live in their public life. I can’t help but see this as quite naive. If someone will lie and cheat and steal in private, why should I think they won’t do so in public? If they don’t, they are in fact living a double life and one side of those images is false and I’m willing to bet it’s the public one.

Of course, none of us can be perfect. We’re all going to have our moral failings. Still, we should seek someone who is trying to live the good life in private as well as in public.If I had children, why should I trust you with public policy of mine if I knew you were something like a deadbeat Dad at home?

When it comes to what should be done about our problems, apparently Carrier has a great idea. As we read on page 395,

“But the simple act of paying off massive public debt is undeniably useful.”

Why yes! Paying off the public debt is simple! Why didn’t we think of that earlier? Now that we know this, we should be able to eliminate the national debt in no time! No one would of course doubt that it would be “useful” to pay off the debt, but it is not simple. Still, Carrier has a plan.

What is it? The government can buy up all the commercial forests. Then, it will rent the land out to lumber companies. Since the government has to maintain this source of revenue, it will then maintain the forests making sure they’re kept environmentally safe. Next would come the mining and oil companies.

Yes. All of this together would pay off the trillion dollar debt.

And who is going to pay for this massive operation? Who is going to pay to hire all these employees in charge of all of this? Who is going to pay for all the new regulations going on? In turn, it will simply give the government even more power over all the basic goods we have in our lives.

I can’t help but wonder what makes Carrier think he’s someone I should take seriously on economics.

Naturally, this government that Carrier wants will have a commitment to secularism. As we see on page 403.

“Likewise, there is no valid ground for criminalizing abortion, for there is no sufficient evidence to convince any objective court of law that people can exist without a brain (see section III.6 “The Nature of Mind”), so elective abortion before the formation of a cerebral cortext (usually sometime between the 20th and 24th week of gestation) does not violate anyone’s rights by any standard except a solely religious one. Only educated medical professionals are capable of determining precisely when a cerebral cortex has formed, or when an abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life, and these facts will vary with every case. Thus, it is not something that can be honestly legislated, without imposing religious beliefs on people, hence depriving them of their religious freedom.”

This must be news to people like the secular pro-life alliance that are staunchly pro-life without religious reasons. But alas, perhaps we should say that Carrier has spoken and the case is closed. It’s clear then that when secularism rules the day, all other cases are seen as secondary. If you believe something for religious reasons, it will automatically be discounted. As we will see later, Carrier has a strong penchant for opposition of a fierce kind to those who oppose him.

But, I suspect that will be next time and that could be when we wrap up this series.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Sense and Goodness Without God Part 15

Does naturalism have a good basis for a moral theory? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

We’re continuing with our look at Sense and Goodness Without God by Richard Carrier. Right now, we’re discussing moral theory. Again, I only wish to bring out a few highlights from the chapter of points that I find problematic.

On page 317, Carrier claims that homosexual sex on J.P. Moreland’s view is immoral when supposedly in reality, it harms no one and if you repress your desires, well that does lead to harm. (This would be news to several Christians I know who live happy lives despite having homosexual attractions they don’t act on. It would also be the same for those with heterosexual attractions they don’t act on.) Amusingly, on the same page he describes unsafe sex as risky behavior stating that immoral behavior is risky.

For the first part, I want to note immediately that Gatean Dugas is unavailable for comment. It is hard to have read a book like “And The Band Played On” about the spread of the AIDS epidemic in America (Note originaly it was called GRID, Gay-Related Immune Deficiency) and not see that the behavior is risky. In fact, it is inherently risky. Homosexuals like Larry Kramer wrote about the problems in the homosexual community and others realized that the bathhouse culture opened itself up for numerous risks as most people did not follow “safe” procedures. If you go to the CDC web site today and look up STD’s, you’ll even find specific statements about homosexual sex.

By the way, if anyone wants to think my source for “And The Band Played On” is a homophobic bigot, keep in mind that Randy Stilts who wrote the book was himself a homosexual who died of AIDS.

Yet I also can’t wonder if it’s possible for sex to be risky even if all the “safe” procedures were followed. Could it be that cheap casual sex is also just as risky? Could there not be several psychological reasons for thinking that? For those who are interested in hearing such reasons, I recommend listening to my interview with Freda Bush on the hook-up culture available here.

Now I do agree with Carrier of course that immorality is bad for you, yet it is interesting to hear him say about people who are bad will live with some debilitating factor such as chronic anger or depression. He writes of how they will try to replace the hole in their lives with luxuries, distractions, etc. It will never be enough. The pleasures will be fleeting and they will never know the genuine happiness Carrier speaks of.

At this point, I’m surprised there isn’t an altar call in the book.

Now I do think of course that God has made us for Him, but I would say do not come to God because He will make you happy, though He will in the long-run to be sure. Come to Him because He is true. If you want a religion to bring you comfort and joy, well Christianity offers that, but it definitely promises suffering as well. What Christianity will also say is it is rooted in a historical reality.

So how does a naturalist account for value? (A term I would prefer not to use.) Carrier says “We merely place the highest authority, not the sole authority, in the findings of science.”

This is like the problem I expressed earlier about having a metal detector on the beach and not being able to find paper. What if these questions are not answered by science? If they are not, then science might be able to supplant another field, but it cannot do the work of that other field.

We are told that one could demonstrate that something is a good value for humans and therefore all ought to seek it since all human beings desire happiness. Why yes they do, but I find Carrier seems to have great faith in humanity and after the 20th century, I don’t share that great faith.

It would be great to say that if we all knew the facts, then we would know that these are good and we would all seek one another’s happiness, but does anyone really think that we would? Why should we? We in fact each know that most of the time, if it comes to choosing happiness, we choose our own over everyone else’s.

One of the great lessons learned in marriage is how you have to consistently sacrifice your happiness for someone else. Both persons in a marriage are expected to put the other one first. A husband might want to save up to buy himself something really nice, but he knows he needs to take his wife out to dinner. He might want to stay home and watch the game on TV, but she wants an evening on the town, so off he goes. A wife meanwhile might want to just stay home and watch TV, but she knows she needs to do the housework for her husband. She might not be exactly “in the mood” that evening, but she knows her husband desires sexual intimacy with her and so gives it. Both learn to sacrifice their good for that of the other, but it takes work.

I would furthermore love to see how Carrier would plan on sharing this insight with people in the Muslim community for instance. What happens if he meets any people who do not accept the findings of science supposedly? What does he do then?

Please note also that in all of this, there has not yet been a definition given of “good.”

When it comes to human nature, on page 328 we are told “it is obvious that in order to be called a ‘human’ one must possess certain qualities, therefore a ‘human nature’ exists. Q.E.D.”

Well sure, if you want to be included in group X, you must possess all the qualities of group X. Lions, tigers, and our little pet Shiro are all quite different, but somehow, all belong in the category of cat.

And humans are quite different. We have different races to us. We have different sizes. We have different personalities. We have different shapes. We have different sexes. Yet all of us possess this human nature.

The problem with Carrier’s position is that he states that we all have to possess these qualities. What qualities are they?

Your guess is as good as mine. They’re never listed. I suppose we have to take their existence by faith.

Now as a Christian, I would point out that we all have the image of God. We are endowed with rationality and the ability to choose the good and reject the evil. We could try to point to physical characteristics to establish our common bond, but they’re vastly different. We can’t even point to the 46 chromosomes in DNA since some people actually have a minutely different number. Those who have the 46 all have them quite differently.

Yet here’s a problem then. If we have no clear idea in naturalism of what these traits are, how can we say that we are all human? Could some not say others are not human? (This was done in Nazi Germany and is done today in the abortion industry.) Could that not in fact give us an excuse to exterminate those that do not fit the bill?

And if we value equality so much, then how is it that we can have a basis for equality in our society if in fact there is nothing that is truly equal about us?

Oh. Speaking of abortions, perhaps some readers would like this quote on page 329.

“And a newborn baby, deserving even greater compassion and respect, has more value than any animal on Earth, with the possible exception of adult apes or dolphins (or, perhaps, elephants.)”

So this newborn baby would possess this human nature, but apparently their human nature is not as special as elephant or dolphin nature. What exactly makes it less special? Who knows! If you think I’m not representing this fairly, just look at what is on the next page when Carrier speaks about Koko, the gorilla who supposedly understands much sign language.

“If in a dire circumstance I had to choose between saving Koko and saving a newborn human baby, it would be hard to justify saving the baby–only the baby’s value to someone else, and it’s potential to develop into a fully-effective human being, would weigh against Koko.”

Here we see where the problem will come from. How will Carrier determine what a fully-effective human being is? Recently, Boghossian has written about faith being seen as a contagion and how it needs to be listed as a mental condition. What would stop Carrier from seeing people of faith the same way as people carrying a disease and thus not being “fully-effective human beings.”?

We have a position similar to that of Animal Farm. All humans are equal, but some are more equal than others!

Carrier goes on to say that “The loss of a human being is a truly profound loss to the entire universe, and the development of a human mind is the greatest, most marvelous thing the universe may ever realize. But more importantly, each human shares our awareness of being, our understanding, our capacity for perceiving happiness and agreeing to help each other achieve it.”

Keep in mind that on page 259, Carrier said

“it is theism that often encourages arrogance, making man the center of the universe, exaggerating his importance in the grand scheme of things.”

Looks to me like atheism is doing a good job of it as well.

So which is it? Is it that theism is wrong when it does this but atheism is not when it does the exact same thing?

Carrier’s great faith however in humanity comes out even more on page 336.

“We tell the Nazis that his beliefs, like that Jews are not human beings and that they are plotting to take over the world, are factually false, and therefore his morals regarding Jews are in error. We also tell the Nazi that even if his belief that Jews are not human beings were true, it does not logically follow that their lives have no value, since nonhumans (even nonliving things) can have value and the special value assigned to human beings is not based on their species but on qualities they can in principle share with other species and that, as a matter of fact, Nazis clearly share with Jews, even if Jews really were a distinct species.”

Geez. I wonder why we didn’t try that! It’s all so simple! Just sit down and explain to Hitler the error of his ways and before too long, the Nazis will be out there turning their guns and tanks into plowshares and attending Bar Mitzvahs with their new friends!

Next we come to the topic of defining good and evil! It’s about time! So I got to this section eagerly looking forward to what was to be said.

I was disappointed. I was told that evil is a word used to refer to anything causing injury or harm. The good is the opposite.

This kind of definition would require much qualification.

The police officer no doubt harms the criminal when he puts a bullet through his skull, but many of us would recognize situations where this is justifiable, save for the most staunch pacifist out there.

The refrigeration industry in American history brought great harm to the ice industry. Several people in that business lost their jobs. We could say the same about what the automobile industry did to the horse industry. This caused harm. A surgeon will cause harm to his patient. (As one who went through Scoliosis surgery, I can assure you it does not feel pleasant!)

Further, some things we can think are beneficial are not. The example that springs readily to mind is the boy who decides to help a butterfly escape from its container by poking a hole in it with a pencil. The boy doesn’t know that the butterfly needing to break out assures it gets the strength this way to survive. By helping it, the boy has killed it. We can also picture giving a lollipop to a small child, an otherwise benign act (Except perhaps to a dentist), not realizing that the child is a diabetic.

And we could ask about helping people, helping them to what and to what end? What is the ultimate one good at the end? Is it happiness? If so, does this not imply a teleology, the very thing that Carrier’s system goes against since that is a principle of intelligent design from the outside? (Note by intelligent design, I do not mean in the mechanistic sense as in the modern ID movement).

Carrier also says that something would be good or evil regardless of what a society says, but that good and evil are defined by human convention. How could this work? What happens if two societies disagree? Who decides which one is right? How is this decided? We can say “We use science to determine this!” Let’s suppose the other society does not think science is the way to determine this. Why should the society that thinks otherwise automatically have to give in to the position that most Westerners hold to?

Finally, I wish to comment on the views of Jesus that Carrier presents. Carrier says that Jesus would have people rob and beat us. (Matthew 5:38-42). This is a common view of the turning of the other cheek, but it is false. The position described is a slap of the face which would not be a brutal attack, but would be an insult. It would also take place privately. Jesus is telling us then that in the private sphere, don’t try to outdo someone on insults and one-up them. Instead, leave the vengeance to God. Trying to outdo them only increases the cycle of evil. Of course, this does not apply in the public sphere where one’s honor would be at stake and it does not apply in the case of an actual attack.

He also says that we should forgive a criminal 539 times. (I have never read that number in the Gospels in the parable of the unforgiving servant.) To this we ask, why shouldn’t we? If someone comes and asks forgiveness, release them from the debt. This does not mean there are never any consequences, but it means you do not hold a grudge.

Finally, he points to Jesus telling the rich young man to sell all he has and give to the poor. Indeed, he did, because this rich young man placed all his joy in his riches. It was what was separating him from eternal life. For several of us, it could be something else entirely.

Carrier says Jesus holds these to be moral positions and says “But we hold that these are at best supermoral, and that it is immoral to expect such behavior from anyone.” Earlier he says “Evangelical Christians like Moreland would have us believe that early-term abortion or homosexual sex are immoral. But we hold they are not.”

So again we have the problem. Carrier’s view will say “We hold this and we are the enlightened ones.” Again, why should I agree with him? I already see that he can determine degrees of value for human beings so why think that more and more he will not choose to value those who are more like him than anyone else?

In fact, it’s human nature for us to tend to do that as I dare say we all to some extent do that. Carrier seems to have great faith in the goodness of humanity. I don’t see that on the evening news. I instead have great evidence that humanity has great potential to do evil and we willingly use that potential every day. I do not see our problem as simple ignorance of facts. Our problem is as Scripture says, our hearts. They are wicked.

Perhaps the prophets are right. What we need is not just new knowledge, which is good, but new hearts.

And somehow, I think you need God for that.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters 1/25/2014: Freda Bush

What’s coming up on this Saturday’s episode of the Deeper Waters Podcast? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Fredabush

Last time, we had Clinton Wilcox, a staff apologist from the Life Training Institute come on the Deeper Waters Podcast to talk about abortion. Much of the time was spent discussing philosophical issues and answering objections that people raise to try to justify abortion.

What about the medical aspects? What happens to a woman’s body when she gets pregnant? What happens while she is pregnant? What is going on medically with the baby? Can we chart the growth of the baby? What happens when the growth of the baby is suddenly terminated? For all of these, we need someone who knows medicine.

That’s why I’m bringing by a guest that has been on an episode prior to talk about the hook-up culture. That is Dr. Freda Bush, a gynecologist who works with the Ruth Institute at the It Takes A Family conferences.

Dr. Bush has been in the practice for several years and on our previous show, she talked about what she’s seen with the rampant sexuality in our culture. One aspect we did not get to spend too much time on in that show was the aspect of abortion. Now we get to make up for that.

For instance, there are some claims that a woman is more at risk for breast cancer if she has an abortion. Are these claims true? Are they false? Or are the results just inconclusive at the moment? We’ll discuss this with Dr. Bush and see if she brings up any other medical aspects that we don’t know about, which is quite likely.

Another aspect that needs to be discussed is what happens with the women after an abortion. Not only do they have any physical risks, but are there any psychological risks that are involved as well? How do women often times behave after an abortion? Do women wrestle with guilt as a result of abortion? Does the suicide or depression rate go up for women who have had an abortion?

Since we’ve talked about the hook-up culture, what does this especially do to young and unmarried women who might think that they have been coerced by their boyfriends so that the guys can get to enjoy the thrills of sex still without having to have the responsibility of being a father to a living child?

Also, be warned those of you who are squeamish, and I actually do include myself in this group. I do plan on asking what exactly goes on in an abortion and to show how squeamish I am, I can tell you that I already feel a little bit nauseous just typing in that sentence. (And my wife who was looking for the image to use for the show is feeling sick right now.)

So be sure to join us this Saturday from 3-5 PM EST to listen to Dr. Freda Bush talk about the medical aspects of abortion. The call in number is 714-242-5180. The link can be found here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/grok558/2014/01/25/deeper-waters-the-medical-effects-of-abortion

In Christ,

Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 1/11/2014: Clinton Wilcox

What’s coming up this Saturday on the Deeper Waters Podcast? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

At the Deeper Waters Podcast, I seek to bring you the very best in Christian apologetics by getting leading scholars in the field. I also try to get those who are rising up in the field and who I think are worth promoting. I’ve had several help me and I want to return the favor. This Saturday then, I’ll be having Clinton Wilcox on my show.

Okay. So I thus slipped up one Saturday….

Seriously, Clinton’s a great guy and I’ve been interacting with him on Facebook for a number of years and I know that abortion debate is one of his passions. That’s why he’ll be on my show in order to make a case for the pro-life position as January is the month that we are all reminded of Roe v. Wade.

Clinton is a staff apologist now in fact for the Life Training Institute. This is a pro-life ministry that is ran by Scott Klusendorf and is a ministry that is definitely worth supporting and the best ministry I can think of that you should go to in order to learn how to defend the pro-life position. If Clinton is an apologist with this group, that should tell you about his ability.

Clinton has also debated this position as he did in an episode of the Razor Swift podcast. Clinton will be using some of the best scientific and philosophical argumentation out there in order to bring home the fact that life is indeed something sacred, as we saw last week with Gretchen Passantino, and that the pro-life cause is a cause that is one wroth defending.

Abortion is still a major problem in our society and unfortunately, what I’ve noticed is a coldness about how we handle life issues. Many times when I debate pro-abortionists, it is often the case that the question of when life begins just doesn’t really matter. What matters is the personal autonomy and the freedom of the woman involved. Is this really the case?

If people like Clinton are right, and I believe that they are of course, what really matters is the fact that since abortion has become legal in our society, that it has resulted in millions of deaths of innocent babies and that the most dangerous place that someone can be on Earth today, is unfortunately in the womb of a mother.

I hope you will be listening in this Saturday so you can be equipped with the facts that you need in order to make a case for the pro-life cause. There are several lives that will never even get the chance to live outside the womb of a mother due to the wickedness that is abortion today.

The show will be airing at the usual time this week, from 3-5 PM EST. The date will be this Saturday as well. As always, you can call in with your questions at 714-242-5180. I hope that you’ll be part of our listening audience.

The link can be found here.

ClintonWilcox

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Letters To A Young Progressive

What do I think of Mike S. Adams’s book? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I’ve often said it’s good to read people you disagree with. It’s also good to read from people you hate, and like many of you, I hate Mike S. Adams. Who doesn’t? It’s the national pastime after all. It’s also why I was thrilled to receive his book as a Christmas gift.

This had been a book I’d been wanting for a long time. I check Adams’s facebook page everyday to see what he puts up and I get a kick out of a lot of it. He’s a blunt and in your face type who’s not afraid to offend those who disagree with him. Good for him. The cause of Christ needs more like that.

The format of the book is Adams writing letters to a student in his class who he has noticed, particularly after a remark made in the class by the student. The student, Zach, is actually a conglomerate of several kinds of students that Adams has seen in his classes.

Adams also writes from experience, having once been on the side of an atheist liberal progressive who came to Christ and began to renounce his past positions. He is writing then hoping that Zach, and all students represented by Zach, will learn from his experience.

Throughout the book, you will find writing on many issues, though the most prevalent one is likely abortion, and who can blame Adams for this one? Adams is disgusted by the thought of women killing their own children in the womb and frankly, we should all be disgusted by that.

You’ll also find other topics dealt with such as handling of crime, gun control, capitalism, claims of homophobia, antagonism towards Fox News, and a modern work ethic. While Adams is often blunt with his opponents, one does not see any hostility in the letters to Zach. One instead sees a sort of kind father figure wanting to come and guide a young man on the path that he should go.

The letters are also very short which means one can easily go through them and have something to think about. Of course, this means one cannot expect to find the most total answer in every one, but one can find satisfactory starting points and the willing student is one who can search further on his own and Adams rightly recommends using books and journal articles more than internet sources and cable news programs.

There are some areas I would like to have seen more on.

First, I wouldn’t mind seeing more pushback. I did not note much resistance on the part of Zach. The reader only sees one side of the dialogue. It would have been interesting to have seen something like Greg and Ed Boyd’s “Letters From a Skeptic.”

The other aspect is that I understand letters don’t come with footnotes or endnotes, but I would have liked to have had us have some of that anyway for the sake of we on the outside. Adams makes some great points and while he does mention books, it would be nice to see more referencing of where the claims come from in case one is ever asked.

Still, this is a great book. It’s going to give the reader enough to think about and it can be read quickly. I started one day and finished the next. I got halfway through it on the first day just enjoying everything I was reading.

If this is the kind of field you’re interested in, I do recommend it.

Oh, by the way, I just want to remind everyone that I hate Mike S. Adams.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 1/3/2014: Life Is Beautiful

What’s coming up on the Deeper Waters Podcast? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Well first off, the bad news. The bad news is we’re having to bump back the show with David DeSilva. My wife has a beauty pageant she’s due to be in with Joni and Friends to see if she can be Miss Shining Star. This is an important event for her and it’s on Saturday. DeSilva has said he will be back. As I’ve stressed many times to other apologists, family comes first and do you really think I’m going to miss a chance to see Allie in a beauty contest?

Fortunately, my good friend Gretchen Passantino Coburn has agreed to come in and talk about an issue near and dear to her heart. To work with the time, the show will actually air on Friday, January 3rd from 3-5 PM EST.

What’s that? Why it’s the beauty of life. She’s had to go through much with her husband having recovered from being in critical condition and has seen how these end of life issues affect Christians. Yet since January is the month of Roe V. Wade, it’s important to realize that these issues don’t just affect end of life issues, but also beginning of life issues.

Coburn already had much preparation to do such thinking. She has been one of the minds behind the apologetics ministry of Answers in Action for years. Her perspective will come with sound reasoning and with the devout Christian character that we should all seek to provide.

This is also an issue important to me knowing much about the sufferings of others. What about those who have considered suicide and even attempted suicide? Does the message of Jesus have anything to say to them about their own lives?

What about people who are diagnosed in the womb with disabilities. We have a couple at our church who told us that their baby was diagnosed as having Down’s Syndrome in the womb and the doctor tried to hint at the possibility of getting an abortion. It was totally out of the question. Was that the right response to have? Coburn will tell us what she thinks.

What Coburn will be discussing in answer is that all of our lives from the womb to the tomb belong in the hands of God and that He is the one in charge of when we go. Every life has value and purpose because it in its own way is a reflection of the image of God. Finally, suffering is not a waste. God can take the suffering that you undergo and redeem it for a far greater good.

I am highly looking forward to this show. Coburn has been a good friend of mine for some time and we’ve got to enjoy commenting on one another’s posts a number of times, plus she’s a very real and humorous lady to work with. I think you’ll find her presentation to be engaging and entertaining both.

The show will air Friday from 3-5 PM EST. The call in number if you want to ask Coburn a question is 714-242-5180. The link to the show can be found here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Abortion: Your Sex Life Is At Stake

Why would a guy want to support abortion? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I honestly looked at it the first time thinking it was a satire. Many of us in the pro-life camp could say that a man would encourage abortion so he can get the sex that he wants. Yet here I was reading it from the pro-abortion camp. Unfortunately, that was not satire.

Where was I reading it? Right here.

Okay. Some of you might not be wanting to click the link right now. Well I’ll just show you explicitly what he says in it to make it even clearer.

“Your sex life is at stake. Can you think of anything that kills the vibe faster than a woman fearing a back-alley abortion? Making abortion essentially inaccessible in Texas will add an anxiety to sex that will drastically undercut its joys. And don’t be surprised if casual sex outside of relationships becomes far more difficult to come by.”

Casual sex outside of relationships….

Really, I contend that there is no such thing.

Of course, I know that one-night stands happen and people do have sex casually, but I contend that the sex is never casual. That is a bond made with another person and it is something that will stick in their own minds and affect their relationships with other people.

This would usually be less so for guys. Men tend to be the ones in our culture that want sex the most. Of course, this is not to deny that women want it as well and can want it and be aggressive, but usually, the one that is gunning the most is the guy.

Women normally want something else. They want to be loved. They want security. They want protection. They want someone they can be trust. They want to be provided for. The old adage is that men give love to get sex and women give sex to get love.

Looking at it as if it were economics, women are more on the supply side and men are more on the demand side. When does it normally happen in a relationship? It happens when the woman decides that she is ready, and whenever she says that she is ready, well that’s the price she’s worth.

There’s a story about a man being on a plane next to a very attractive woman and tells her he’d like to spend the evening with her in a night of wild passion and he’s an incredibly wealthy man and he’ll give her $1,000,000 for it. She thinks about it and decides it’s a good idea. As they go about discussing arrangements, he says that he was frankly lying and he’s not that wealthy. Would she do the same for $10? Indignantly she asks “What kind of woman do you think I am?” He replies “I believe we’ve already determined that. We’re just haggling over the price.”

Ouch.

So what does a woman think she’s worth? Is she worth dinner? Is that all it takes to get her to go to bed with a guy? Is she worth dinner and a movie? Is she worth a week? A month? A year? Engagement? Women. Whenever you say yes, you are saying that that is what you’re worth. You are saying what it costs to “buy” you.

Once that price is paid, the man can easily think he doesn’t have to do anything more. Might he leave you if you stop giving? Perhaps, but he knows he can always go somewhere else, hence the culture of casual sex. He just has to go to someone who doesn’t cost as much.

What that means for you women who have made the price for you to be “A lifelong commitment in marriage” and are saving yourself for that, you should be ferociously opposed to all the other women out there who are selling themselves for a lesser price. They are lowering your value in the eyes of the world. They are making it so that men don’t have to bother so much with being romantic. They get what they want and just give the bare minimum.

Does a guy really want to have sex with you? Well see how far he’s willing to go to get it. Are you worth him making a lifelong commitment to you with the promise of till death do us part or not? Reality is that you hold all the keys in this case. You can control the market.

Based on how you decide, you will determine your worth and the worth of femininity as a whole. If all women take the attitude of the bare minimum, then sex is cheap. It can easy to come across and then won’t really be worth as much and I would add, quite likely won’t be as good.

In economics, there’s a theory on goods can be two of three things. Those things are good, fast, and cheap. Fast food for instance is fast (Rumor has it. Some places make me wonder) and it’s cheap, but a man taking his girl to McDonald’s for a romantic date is no Romeo. Something can be good and cheap, but you will have to wait. Something can be done well and quickly, but it won’t be cheap. Consider that if you get rush deliver an item on Amazon, it will usually cost more.

I encourage you women to in fact avoid fast and cheap altogether and focus on good. To be really good, be slow and be expensive. That will mean making a man earn you. The best way again to do that is to have it be that he has to make that lifelong commitment to you. He can’t just say he’s going to. He has to do it. Don’t treat yourself like a credit card where you give now and he pays later. Make the man pay upfront as it were with the lifelong commitment.

After all, look at what the writer says. He wants casual sex outside of relationships. If abortion is restricted, it makes it harder for him to have sex without having to do the costly stuff of actually forming a relationship with the woman.

The writer says that this is for men who like women, but I see nothing in here that indicates that the writer likes women. If you like a woman, you do not use her as an object. As C.S. Lewis would say, he doesn’t like the women but really likes the sex and the woman is the apparatus by which he gets that sex. If he could not get the sex at all, would he still like the woman?

As long as women let themselves be used that way, it hurts all of them. After all, why should the writer have to do the costly work of investment in a real relationship when he can just get what he wants so casually?

Another little tip for you women. You can really use this to your advantage as well. In this area, women do have a great power over men. This also extends to marriage. For most of us men, this is the best way that we can be empowered by our women. It is a way we know that we are your men and that you wish to please us. It is affirmation at its best.

Ironically then at the end of all of this, while it can be said that we who are Christians are prudes, the reality is that we just value sex more than many of our counterparts do. (Unfortunately, I also realize too many Christians are bending on pre-marital sex) Sex is a valuable treasure that we are to keep locked up until its proper time and place. As I told a friend recently, it’s like nuclear energy. It works fine in a situation where its contained properly and used for the right purposes, but if it’s released the wrong way and not properly controlled, Chernobyl can be the result.

It should not be because we think sex is “dirty.” Far be it from us! We Christians must realize that this is the good creation of God and it is something to be celebrated. While we condemn the writer’s attitude towards sex, we certainly do not condemn the desire to have sex. Sexual desire is given to us by God. He designed everything that goes with it and gave it to us as a gift. (In fact, I have a book on marriage where the author says that if an atheist asks you to prove God exists, all you need to do is say “sex” and give him a day to think about it. I have been tempted to use this apologetic before.)

It is also quite revealing that this writer is willing to do something that will put babies to death in order for him to have his sex. Sex has become a god in that case and the price that is willing to be paid is the lifeblood of innocent babies offered up at the altar of your local Planned Parenthood. Are we going to say sex is worth more than human life itself?

If it was not for the fact that abortion is connected to sex, it would quite likely be immediately condemned. It is a wish to avoid responsibility. Of course, there are couples who are married and don’t have children and use various means to avoid that for the time being including simply natural family planning, but all those should be willing to raise up a child if things go wrong. If you’re not in that committed relationship, it’s much more difficult. If a man is not willing to make a commitment to a woman, he’s certainly not willing to make a commitment to be a real father to a child.

Fortunately, we can thank the writer of this article for spelling out what many of us have been saying all along. Women who are reading should seriously take the time to consider their real worth. Men who are reading should be just as much opposed to this because this man lowers all other men. He helps fit that stereotype that men care nothing about women and just want sex. He makes it that much harder for women to trust men today. He deserves to be the object of shame to men everywhere.

For those of us men who don’t just like our woman, but in fact, love her, let this inspire us to do better. Those of us who are married should seek to still be romantic to our women so that they can know that we still think they’re worth everything. (For instance, if you’re like my wife and I and financially strapped, you can do simple things, such as a home-cooked meal with candlelight) If you’re married and think that means you can relax and your wife will still give, you are saying something about her worth to you. In a good and active marriage, it should be the case that both parties are seeking to please the other as much as possible.

We also need to be raising up the younger generation with biblical teaching on sexuality. Robert Gagnon, a Christian writer in this area, has said that every church should have a sermon on sexuality at least once a month. I agree. Many of our men struggle with pornography in the church (And to be fair, more women are nowadays as well) and temptation is all around us.

Youth groups are simply given a few verses from Paul and then sent out into the wild. That won’t cut it. Even I, someone with lessons in Seminary, had times when dating that I had to battle a strong temptation. Being tempted is not a sin. Every dating couple WILL be tempted. It’s how strong you are in the face of that temptation. I can say that it was my background in biblical studies on sexuality that kept me waiting until our marriage. What happens if someone does not have that foundation? It does not guarantee they will fail, but it makes it all the more likely.

Also, when we teach our youth, we are prone to give just the negatives. I still recall vividly being in a church service where the pastor said that if you have sex before you’re married, you’ll be doing it for selfish reasons. Okay. I can get that. I can even agree with it. Yet what were the reasons to avoid it?

You could get pregnant. You could get an STD. You could damage future relationships. You will be ashamed on your wedding night. You will have guilt.

Let’s not make any promises about what will happen that we can’t keep. Reality is many young people who grow up Christian have sex before marriage and feel no guilt whatsoever. If feeling guilt always resulted from wrong action, most of us would be better people. Our feelings are not the indicator of if we’ve done something wrong or not. Furthermore, looking at this list, these reasons all seem pretty selfish as well. They’re all about what it will mean to me.

There’s no mention of “I will be dishonoring my God” or “I will hurt my parents if they find out” or even a simple “It’s just wrong.”

At the same time, when teaching youth, we must look at the positives. By contrast, when I was growing up here, we had a speaker come by from a crisis pregnancy center who was all about sex and said “I am saving up for my honeymoon because after I get married, I am going to be having sex with my wife for two weeks!” This speaker left us excited and motivated and at the same time was proud to say he was a virgin (And how he even said it publicly before sports teams when he was in school) and the value of waiting until marriage. Such a message is far better.

It is essential that we tell our youth that we want them to wait, but it’s not because of how they’ll feel, but because sex is just something awesome and if it’s not used in its proper time and place, then it becomes something dangerous that will explode in the face of the person misusing it. We need to encourage them to not go for just one thrill after another with different people looking for the “best one”, but to learn what it means to make a commitment to one and have that part of the relationship grow better and better with time and practice. Marriage is the perfect place since both parties have already stated their worth and when treated as the lifelong covenant that it is, means lovers can come freely to each other knowing the other will always be there and not thinking their sexuality is being tested. A lifelong covenant isn’t too much of a price if a man really loves the woman. After all, a lover doesn’t want to be free. He wants to be bound.

We can win this battle, but it’s going to start with us learning to treat sex as the sacred item that it really is. Women need to raise the bar for what they’re worth and men need to rise to the challenge. If a man is not willing to pay that price, well that’s going to be his loss. That prize will go to a man who’s worth it.

Next, we start by training our youth. We don’t just teach them. We train them. Parents need to model before their children what a good and happy marriage is like. Of course when they’re older, that includes teaching about sex. Parents need to let their children know that sex is an important part of their marriage and the joy that comes from waiting and how if their children want to get married, that they want them to enjoy that too. As my friend J. Warner Wallace says, parents are the first line of defense.

After parents comes pastors and youth ministers. Both need to be giving biblical teaching on matters of sexuality. Women of the church need to be teaching the younger women and men of the church teaching the younger men. Youth ministers need to have their own monthly meetings with students discussing temptations that exist in the world and why it’s so important to wait until marriage. One of the best ways to stop abortion would be to stop the problem of sex outside of marriage after all.

Ultimately as I consider it then, it will take us men being more romantic and is that really a price to pay? Isn’t that what we should be wanting to do anyway? I also suspect many women don’t really have a problem with the guy being more romantic. (Provided he does it the right way. For that, I recommend couples read something like “The Five Love Languages” by Gary Chapman)

I hope I’ve encouraged you to go out there and fight this battle. For the women, you’re worth it. For the men, you’re women are worth it. For the babies in the womb, each of them is worth more than the universe itself and don’t need to die so we can have casual sex. They are especially worth it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 4/27/2013

What can we do to stop the national holocaust? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Abortion has been the law of the land since 1973. On the 40th anniversary, the death toll is severe. A lot of Christians are also watching this issue with the Gosnell case coming to trial. What is it that Christians can do in order to address the silent holocaust killing our children?

My guest will be Megan Almon of the Life Training Institute. The Life Training Institute is a ministry of Scott Klusendorf dedicated to helping make the case for life. With Megan on the show, we will be looking at the various reasons that people give for having an abortion and why those reasons fall short.

Many Christians aren’t sure what to do to stop abortion. We will have that covered. There are some techniques you don’t want to use, but there are some that you do want to use. Megan will be instructing us on how she has recommended people make the case for life with LTI.

Naturally, we will be giving the reasons against abortion. How is it that it can be known that what is being put to death is an innocent human life? Can we say it is really alive? Can we say that it is really human? Even if we say those, can we say that it is really innocent? Each of those will be a topic of discussion.

What about all those women who decide to not get abortions? What will be done for them? How is it that Christians should respond to women who are pregnant and had considered having an abortion but decided to go against that idea. Are there any ministries that will offer support to a woman in need?

What about the women (and the men) who have allowed abortions to take place? What is to be said to them to help them? Can the body of Christ minister to people who are mothers and fathers of dead children, dead by their own hands? Can we show the forgiveness of Christ to those people while condemning the sinfulness of the action?

Also, this month as you know is Autism Awareness Month. We will be spending some time on the show talking about abortion and the disabled. Sadly, some babies are killed just because they’re not seen as genetically fit as others are. I am thankful that Allie and I were born to mothers and fathers who do not have that kind of attitude and believe that all human life is precious by nature of being human life.

Abortion is a debate that we need to be having today as so many babies are put to death regularly in what should be the safest place on Earth, the womb of their mothers. It would be fascinating to know just how different the world could be today if we had given those precious human lives just the simple chance to exist and grace us with their presence.

The link to the show can be found here. Call in number is 714-242-5180 from 3-5 EST on Saturday. I hope you’ll listen!

In Christ,
Nick Peters

40 Years

Why do we oppose abortion? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Abortion has been the law of the land for forty years today. One of my friends strong in the pro-life movement tells me that as of today, 55 million babies have been killed by abortion.

Let that number sink in for a bit. 55 million.

Here for instance is a list of how many people live in each state: http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/21/pf/Census_2010/index.htm

The amount of babies killed is about a million away from the combined population of California and Florida.

It is about 3-4 million short of the population of New York tripled.

You could kill everyone in Texas twice and not get that number.

I live in Tennessee. The number of people killed by abortion is about 9 times the amount of people living in Tennessee now.

That’s a lot.

And why?

We are told it is in the name of freedom, but there is nothing free about it. It is in fact killing freedom. It is eliminating the freedom of someone else to live so that someone else can have the freedom to have sex or have a career or something of that sort.

Let this be understood. We know people have good reasons to want to have abortions. We are not saying sex is a bad thing. We are not saying a career is bad. We are not saying that financial security is bad. We are only saying one thing. We are saying that abortion itself is wrong.

The same people that will tell us that we ought not to judge will make a judgment about whether a baby gets to live or die. The people that tell us that we ought to be more tolerant refuse to tolerate the idea of bringing a baby into the world. Child sacrifice is still going on as human babies are sacrificed in blood offerings at the altar of political correctness.

I don’t care if that’s offensive. Neither should pro-lifers. It’s even more offensive that babies are dying.

I’d like to give my personal perspective at this point.

Readers of this blog know that I have Asperger’s. I don’t really hide it. I don’t make my blog all about that, but when I think it is relevant, I will bring it out. My wife Allie also has Asperger’s. I am thankful that neither my parents nor her parents ever once had any thought about abortion. True, they did not know we would be this way when we were in the womb, but I do not doubt for a moment that they would have acted any differently. We were their babies to love and cherish.

A lot of people would say a life like mine is not worth living.

Now I know there are people with far worse conditions, and the reality is, a lot of these people also have good lives. On my father-in-law’s Facebook recently, someone put up a video about someone who was born without arms and legs and is now a motivational speaker basing it all on the Lord Jesus Christ. He’s also married and has a baby on the way.

Somehow, he thinks his life is worth living.

I get to live my life in ways I never would have dreamed had I just given up early on, because schooling was not always easy. For me, the possibility of getting married seemed like a distant dream. Now it’s an every day reality. I get to go to bed each night and wake up each morning with the woman I love and who actually loves me back and accepts me as I am, something I never would have thought possible. I honestly many times have a hard time believing just how much this woman loves me, and I really don’t think I grasp all of it.

I get to do a work that I love. I love apologetics. My Christian faith has always been important and finding out about apologetics got me to where I could use my mind in a way I never would have dreamed possible. I have a number of bookshelves here and with a new Kindle from a friend of the ministry, I have many more books to read. I get such a great joy out of learning.

When you leave comments here on the blog that are encouraging, I smile. When you want to debate, I enjoy it. When I see myself being quoted or shared, I just marvel at the thought. I can keep thinking that a lot of people would say that I was one that the world should have just forgotten, but it seems that God does indeed use the despised of the world.

My wife and I have an excellent small group at our church and we are thankful for their blessing. It is amazing how much love they have showered on us and yet, they all delight in hearing us. They are a group that we can truly be ourselves around. They now understand how we are different with having Asperger’s and it’s made us all the more delightful to them. We still remember well our leader saying “I would love to hear the conversation between you two on your way home.”

We have a cat. He is a Turkish-Angora mix that we named “Shiro” which is the Japanese word for white, and he is the whitest cat I have ever seen. When we found him, he was abandoned and had we not took him, he would have gone to the pound. We decided to make our home his and he is a joy to our lives. This cat whines more than any cat I have ever seen. It is a laugh for us every night when we announce that it’s time for “DINNER!” to see what one of my friends calls the “white missile” come running through.

I know not everyone likes cats, but that’s their loss. This little guy enriches our lives and when I look at him, I think of the wonder of the creator who makes all varieties of life and how that life is good.

Just now, I finished having lunch before this blog and that is something satisfying as well. I had fixed myself some grilled cheese sandwiches in a device we bought just for that. I have my Brita water bottle here for a nice beverage and even before lunch had had a nice shower in our own house that we live in thanks to the generosity of my parents. It used to be my grandmother’s house. After she died and we needed a place to stay, they readied it for us. We live in our own house with our own furniture and everything ultimately that we need.

We are blessed.

I don’t deny there are tough times. Allie and I still have struggles. Right now, our financial situation is atrocious. (If you want to know how to support what we’re doing here at Deeper Waters, please let me know) Because of Asperger’s, we do have issues that we are working on. I know I can be too obsessive and worrying at times for instance. There are many times I can do something to hurt Allie without realizing it because I’m largely rationality and don’t see the emotional side of my words. She’d tell you I’m like Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory. (And that is another great joy of our lives. We try to watch that every night. I keep telling Allie it’s a series about four just perfectly ordinary guys and she never seems to agree with that.)

You know what abortion is saying? It’s saying that all of those goods that I have experienced should not be given to someone else a priori. Because they were conceived at the wrong place and the wrong time, we are to not let them live.

It amazes me that those who complain about the problem of evil often and how God will let innocents suffer seem to have no problem with the act of abortion where those who are the most innocent amongst us suffer the most.

Each human life is special and shows us something about humanity if we will let it. Yes. You might kill the next Beethoven or Jonas Salk or Martin Luther King. I’ve heard that before. That would be tragedy. You know what the real tragedy is?

You’d definitely kill a human and cheat them out of knowing the world and cheat the world out of knowing them.

That life is valuable because it is a human life and it is treasured because of that. It is a unique combination of the DNA of two different people that will never be again. Even identical twins are different in some ways.

The onslaught on innocent children has been going on for forty years.

Do your part. Let’s do what we can to make it not be forty-one years.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The Religious Excuse

Does it matter if an opinion is religious? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Last night on Bill O’Reilly, Greg Gutfeld filled in for O’Reilly and had as his last guest a lawyer from the ACLU. They were discussing abortion and in the midst of it John Flannery, the lawyer, says “You see by inches how people have made the religious notion that conception is the beginning of personhood as the standard which challenges both contraception and a woman’s right of choice to have an abortion.”

Did you notice it? Let’s take a look at it, except this time I’m going to take out one word. Try not to look back and see if you notice the difference.

“You see by inches how people have made the notion that conception is the beginning of personhood as the standard which challenges both contraception and a woman’s right of choice to have an abortion.”

What’s the difference?

The difference is that in the second one, I left out the word religious. Go back and look if you have to. How does that change it?

In the second one, you see a notion has been made and this is believed then to be a notion that can be challenged by the evidence. If you don’t know the source, you will study the claim or you will give arguments against the claim if you already believe that the claim is false. You will point to scientific arguments if you have them or philosophical and metaphysical arguments. This is a point that can be debated.

What happens when it’s made a religious notion?

Because of this, we have something called poisoning the well taking place. At this point, one does not need to challenge the claim then. One needs to just point out that the source is supposedly biased and therefore cannot be trusted. A huge number of people that oppose abortion in this country are religious. Of course, there are people who oppose abortion who are not. I do know of atheists who oppose abortion and I thank God for them. Still, even they I’m sure would agree most of the opposition comes from people of faith.

What do you do then? Simply. You just disregard them all at once.

The religious people don’t have any real reasons after all for thinking abortion is wrong other than that their holy book says so. Since we no longer take that as an authority in the public square today, then we can dismiss with that. Now if they don’t want to follow just what the Bible says, well that is their choice, but the problem is that a large number of people who are religious do not use just the Bible. We also have scientific, philosophical, and metaphysical arguments for why we believe what we believe about what is in the womb.

How do you know if the argument is religious or not? It’s simple. You just ask if you can take it out of the mouth of the religious person and put it in the mouth of an atheist and see if it is the exact same argument. Suppose I give scientific data for why I believe life begins at conception. Could an atheist not give the exact same data? If so, then the argument is not religious. It is scientific.

Of course, someone could reply that the reason someone wants to ban abortion is because of a religious reason. Certainly that could be the case, but that is also irrelevant to the argument. Let us suppose that someone committed a crime against some that I love, such as my wife. I give a testimony at a trial on why this person should be locked up and have the key thrown away. Will it damage the data I present to just say “Well of course you want that. It was your wife that was victimized?” No. The data stands or falls on its own. If you think i have bias that is causing me to misread the data, you must show that by looking at the data itself. If there is a misreading taking place, it can be demonstrated.

This is taking place in many of our debates today including the debate on redefining marriage. It is just assumed that the data that is presented cannot be correct. Why? Because it is being made by people of religion and we all know that because they are biased, they are to be discounted.

This allows the person who holds the position opposed to the person of faith to ignore the only question that matters. That question is “Is the position true?” There is no mention of the reason behind it any more. There is no mention of the data. There is no talk about having an argument. All that needs to be said is that the person who holds to the position is religious and automatically, it is assumed to be fallacious. (Do note this all fellow people who hold to a religion. This is also an insult as it implies the only reason you believe X is because your holy book says so and if it said otherwise, you would say otherwise.)

When a person brings up religion then, tell them to get on the subject. When you argue against abortion or against redefining marriage, you are not arguing to convert someone to your worldview concerning religion. You are arguing for an ethical position. Of course, those of us who are Christians will have no objections to someone becoming a Christian, but let’s be clear each time on what battle it is that we are fighting.

In Christ,
Nick Peters