# Help my friend answer college hostility.



## BobVigneault (Dec 17, 2007)

*UPDATE! The Rebuttal. Help my friend answer college hostility.*

Click to go to rebuttal here.

Every Saturday morning I have coffee and fellowship with one of my dearest friends at a coffee shop. In an hour and a half we discuss reformed theology and solve the worlds problems. My friend, Dave Heesen, is a reformed Baptist and is the head of Secretarial Services at Beloit College - a lone Calvinist in a post modern bastion of liberal morals and politics. Recently he wrote two letters to the school newspaper answering proposals for banning Christian literature from a crisis pregnancy center and the handing out of condoms to solve the aids problem.

The response he received was complete with strawman arguments and hostility toward a Biblical presupposition. If any of you have the time to help out my brother, I'm publishing the entire response from the editor here and would greatly appreciate any tips or tacts on how Dave should reply to Mr. Harrison. I would love to tell Dave, "Here are some suggestions from the greatest reformed thinkers in the world." Thanks.





> Beloit College Round Table 12/10/2007
> 
> *Mr. Heesen - use your brain, not your bible by Steve Harrison, Editor-in-chief*
> 
> ...


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 17, 2007)

How do you answer something like that? Any attempt to reason with this person will degrade into a apologetics context witha person who thinks they are a "god" and can correct the God of the Bible. This is one for folks with a lot more patience than I. Could it be casting your pearls before swine?


----------



## Davidius (Dec 17, 2007)

It's important for anyone to note that he never once explains why the bible isn't valid, even though he makes this claim over and over. He repeatedly asserts that Christian morality is illogical but never gives a proof. This is a prime example of what the unbelieving arguments against God's perfect Word boil down to: hatred of God, not reasonable argumentation. He _doesn't like_ the bible, that's all. There is no explanation for why God's laws in the Old Testament were unjust because he has no philosophical reason why they would be. He just doesn't like God's justice, most of all because he himself is a sinner standing in judgment.


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 17, 2007)

I believe this does need to be answered. It's past time for Christians to boldly go back into these "Mars Hill" settings and bring a Christian Worldview that his consistent and coherent and demonstrate that these knee jerk arguments are toothless and only work because a non-theistic worldview is assumed. This man's premise is based on his own assumption that the Bible is irrelevant and irrational. We can demonstrate the opposite and/or demonstrate that he is beginning with a philosophical assumption as well. In a college atmosphere they should encourage the use of logic and proper rules for debating instead of getting away with strawmen and unsupported bias.

My 4 year old son was so expressive in last night's Christmas program that an older woman came up to me and said, "I hope he's going to be a preacher." When I told my wife she said, "I hope not!". I asked, "Why not?" She said, "Think of the persecution he'll have to endure."

I have a much more optimistic attitude. I see the young people in our church who are being home schooled and trained to defend the faith. I really believe we are going to see the tables turn on the new militant atheists. They are drawing attention to themselves and that is their downfall. It is going to be so easy to demonstrate that the 'emperor isn't wearing any clothes.' We and our children will need to be prepared but this is a battle that we will use to further the Kingdom. We need to bring the fight to the skeptics from now on.


----------



## BJClark (Dec 17, 2007)

When I have a little bit more time I'll read over the letter and see if I can help think of a response...


----------



## BJClark (Dec 17, 2007)

Blueridge Baptist;




> How do you answer something like that? Any attempt to reason with this person will degrade into a apologetics context witha person who thinks they are a "god" and can correct the God of the Bible. This is one for folks with a lot more patience than I. Could it be casting your pearls before swine?



You answer it prayerfully.

And something we need to remember is that this is for the school newspaper, so it is not only this person who would be reading the response, but others as well. God may not use the response to reach this one man, but He may desire to use the response to reach someone else...if we look only at the one person 'reading' the response, then certainly I may agree with you about casting pearls before swine, but given the fact it is a response that will be read by many other people...I don't see it that way.

Let's look at the bigger picture here, this man puts the response in the newspaper, say 100 people read the newspaper and the response causes even one or two people repent..is that not for God's glory that even the one or two repent; even if the one that is being addressed doesn't?


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 17, 2007)

I like what Gary DeMar had to say about this type of debate. I really appreciate what American Vision did in the Dothan Evolution Debate, they brought the argument to these smaller venues. I live by the 10-10-80 rule when it comes to these type of give and takes. 



> *Winning over the “Etch-a-Sketch” crowd*
> by Gary DeMar
> 12/03/2007
> 
> ...


----------



## Davidius (Dec 17, 2007)

> Beloit College Round Table 12/10/2007
> 
> *Mr. Heesen - use your brain, not your bible by Steve Harrison, Editor-in-chief*
> 
> First let us examine a few of “god’s laws” and then we’ll approach the bible as a source of morality This is a list of IN CONTEXT bible quotes assembled by my brother and me over the past year (some parts underlined for emphasis).



Firstly I would point out that these quotes are NOT in context. Quoting a couple sentences doesn't equal the context of systematic or biblical theology. 



> In support of slavery:
> However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
> 
> When a man strikes his slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)



I'm not really sure how to defend against this other than by returning to his inability to provide a reason why slavery is categorically immoral. Your friend could also point to the discussion of slaves in Paul's epistle to Philemon.



> The inferiority of women:
> You wives will submit to your husbands as you do to the Lord. For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; he gave his life to be her Savior. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5:22-24 NLT)
> 
> Women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes,, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty (I Timothy, chapter 2 NAB)



Even if these texts were teaching the inferiority of women, this man (again) would have no reason to assert gender equality. People have decided that it is a good thing (this decision by "society" is something he actually refers to later in the letter) but so what? Morality cannot be statistical average. If that should be the case, then women would have been "inferior" to men in previous times but have somehow become equal through nothing more than a change in public opinion. It can be shown that he doesn't actually consider public opinion a source of truth.

Furthermore, the bible doesn't teach the inferiority of women. It teaches an _essential_ equality but a _functional_ hierarchy. Of course he refuses to quote the passages showing women to be made in the image of God and that there are no longer male or female in Christ. He's only concerned with "what women are allowed to _do_" (symptomatic of our culture's general obsession with practice over theory) according to the bible. Well, we can't be ashamed that this is what the bible teaches. Remind him that he has no rational reason to assert that things should be otherwise.



> Punishment for rape victims:
> If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to the girl because she did not cry out for help though the was in the city and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
> 
> Kill a woman on her wedding night if she does not have proof of virginity:
> But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girl’s virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)



Deuteronomy 22:23 is not talking about rape. It is referring to consensual sex between a man and an engaged woman. This would be clear if he had actually provided the verse in context (something he arrogantly claims at the beginning of the letter). That the woman was in the city and didn't cry for help means that she wasn't averse to the man's advances! Verses 22-23 talk about adultery and verses 25-28 talk about rape. 

I'm not sure how to respond to the second passage since this is one I've wondered about myself. Moses is apparently talking about the intact hymen as proof of virginity but it is my understanding that the hymen can be gradually destroyed without having sex and is not even very large to begin with in some women. I'll let someone else take this one.



> The sun stops in the sky (otherwise known as the sun moves around the Earth):
> The sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. (Joshua 10:13)



Ever heard of a figure of speech? Sheesh. He wouldn't criticize other works of literature this harshly. 



> Eye for an eye, hand for a testicle:
> If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
> 
> If kids mock you, send bears to eat them:
> From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. “Go on up, you baldhead!” they said. “Go on up, you baldhead!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths. (II Kings 2:23-24)



Again, there is no rational reason why these punishments are unjust. 



> While the bible explicitly says that slavery is acceptable, women are inferior to men, and that rape victims should be stoned to death, I never came across a passage that said “thou shall not abort an embryo” or “evolution is a lie perpetuated by heretics.” I find it odd that people like Mr. Heesen want everyone to fall in line with god’s teachings when they refer to things that are inferred, though not expressly stated, in the bible. The rules of morality that are clearly written in the bible seem monstrous to any rational person (see page 6) yet are never touted by people like Mr. Heesen, and I challenge him to try and support any one of the laws stated above. *I mean, I would dislike being mocked by youths or receiving a blow to my testicles but I would never respond by killing the children or cutting off a woman’s hand, like our oh-so-moral god would have us do. *If god were running for president, the bible would be his voting record — would you support a candidate with those kinds of skeletons in their closet?
> Then why do so many people want us to follow these laws if they reflect an outdated, uneducated, sickly version of morality? Because it is a convenient replacement for reasoned thought that adds immediate weight behind an argument. Some bible-phile has an agenda and wants support, so they claim that god is on their side and POOF!, instant solidarity.



The section I have set in bold type is important. He is saying that he should be God and that he should be able to determine morality. This is his "logic." Then he throws out some more hot air about Christian morality being "outdated, uneducated, [and] sickly." He talks about "reasoned thought" but has absolutely nothing to show for it. 



> *Our society evolves over time. Guided by science and a sense of true morality*, we have slowly learned that women are equal to men, slavery is deplorable, and that the sun does not revolve around the Earth. Over time ideas that are initially labeled as heretical eventually become common sense. In the next century I am confident that oppressing gays will be as distasteful as segregation, abortion will not be equated to murder (most people will differentiate between a collection of cells and a breathing, thinking human being), and evolution will be regarded in the same way as gravity — as truth. A staunch anchoring to these religious ideas simply slows progress, it cannot stop it.
> 
> Think long and hard for yourself, Mr. Heesen. Many people would agree with you that the number of sexually active young people has its consequences, but why tarnish your argument by siding with a school of thought that supports the death penalty for being raped?



I really try not to get so angry when reading something like this that I can't think straight. There's zero intellectual substance here. He commits every informal fallacy in the book but thinks that he's defending rationality and logic. It's amazing to me that he thinks that the secular world has some kind of accepted morality. 

Does morality really evolve? Or is it just that we evolve and begin to get a grip on morality? If the former, why should one be moral? If the latter, of what metaphysical stuff does morality consist and where did it come from? And where did the logical principles come from with which we derived this nonexistent accepted body of morality?

What I've added here is certainly basic but there's nothing here that goes past the basics.


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 17, 2007)

Well done David. Thank you very much. Great stuff.


----------



## BJClark (Dec 17, 2007)

BobVigneault;

While yes, all of these things (even if taken out of context) are God's laws for mankind in order to protect man from destroying itself in sin, are we to only look at the physical effects of sin, or should we be compelled to also consider the eternal consequences of sin?

Should we not also ask, for what purpose did Christ die? Was it not to pay the penalty of sin? Was it not to pay the price for the wife who has not submitted to her husbands authority, was it not to pay for the sins of the rapist or adulterer/adulteress, the murderer? So again, while all of these things are God's judgment and laws, Christ came and paid the price already. So should we as His creation trample on that payment and continue to do these things? 

Or should we as Christians in Society stand up and speak out against these things sharing with others how God who created us has already made payment for them, so that while there may be worldly consequences they we may personally face such as jail or divorce, there are also eternal consequences that have already been paid.



It is also apparent his understanding of submission is skewed, based on what he's saying he has a tyrants view of submission and that should be addressed, sharing the differences of a Hitler/Stalin/Moslem submission with a biblical view of submission expressed by the love and understanding as a partner/helpmate/equal of a wife to her husband in a marriage with different responsibilities towards the household..


----------



## BecomingReformed (Dec 17, 2007)

Maybe as an "oppressed" Christian woman, I can answer some of his comments.




> Beloit College Round Table 12/10/2007
> 
> *Mr. Heesen - use your brain, not your bible by Steve Harrison, Editor-in-chief*
> 
> ...



First of all, Mr. Harrison is NOT using Bible quotes in context. Here is the entire passage from Ephesians 5:22-33:



> Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
> 
> 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. [1] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.



As a Christian woman, I see that I am to submit to one man: my husband. Galations 3:28 assures women that all are equal in Christ: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (ESV) Here, Paul is laying out a hierarchy: Christ is the head of the church and the husband is the head of the family. Modern life is also filled with hierarchies: e.g., the CEO is the head of a company, and the principal is the head of a school. How is this hierarchy any different from those hierarchies? Are all corporate employees oppressed? 


Furthermore, in case the husband would be tempted to oppress his wife, Paul gives a clear illustration of exactly how a husband is to treat his wife. The husband is to love his wife as himself. Even more, he is to love her as Christ loved the Church. That means that a husband is to love his wife so much that he would lay down his life for her. How is this oppression? Reading this as a Christian woman, I see an assurance that I am valuable enough to expect a husband who will be faithful to me and love me enough to die for me.



> Women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes,, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty (I Timothy, chapter 2 NAB)



Well, I am not sure how an exhortation to let my deeds rather than my clothes characterize me is oppression. Secondly, for a book that oppresses women, the Bible does a surprisingly bad job at it. Ruth and Esther have whole books dedicated to them. A prostitute named Rahab was courageous enough to save her own family and was listed as an ancestor of Jesus. The first person to spread the news that Jesus is the Messiah was a Samaritan woman. The first person to see the risen Christ was Mary Magdalene. Yes, the Bible does forbid women to preach in church to the full assembly of believers. However, women are encouraged and even commended for teaching their children, other women, and even *gasp* discipling men. 


> Punishment for rape victims:
> If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to the girl because she did not cry out for help though the was in the city and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
> 
> Kill a woman on her wedding night if she does not have proof of virginity:
> But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girl’s virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)



Here Mr. Harrison provides a list of punishments out of context without providing any evidence for how the law was actually administered. For the first instance, this is not a case of rape. This is the case of a young woman willingly committing adultery. Second, any person accused of the previous crimes would have been given a trial by the Sanhedrin. The Institute for Public Affairs of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America is an Orthodox Jewish group seeking to examine issues confronting modern society using the law of God. (That's right-there are still a whole lot of people who seek understanding from those rules that are "monstrous to any rational person.") In a study of the American death penalty by Nathan J. Diament, the Director of the IPA, the administration of the Torah (the first 5 books of the Old Testament) by the Sanhedrin was discussed:



> A Sanhedrin that executed [more than] one person in a week is called a "murderous" [court]. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya states: "[More than] one person in 70 years [would be denoted a murderous court]." Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva state: "If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, no defendant would ever have been executed." (IPA: Judaism and the Death Penalty; Of Two Minds but One Heart)



For the death penalty to be administered at all, exemplary witnesses had to be present:



> Other well known safeguards include requirements for two simultaneous witnesses to the crime who were not only viewing the perpetrator but also saw each other and had time to properly warn the perpetrator of the nature of his crime and punishment prior to his committing the act. (IPA: Judaism and the Death Penalty; Of Two Minds but One Heart)



Current American law does not insist that two witnesses be present and that they had to have warned the perpetrator that he or she was committing a crime for the death penalty to be administered.


> The sun stops in the sky (otherwise known as the sun moves around the Earth):
> The sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. (Joshua 10:13)


How is this an indication that the sun was moving round the Earth?




> While the bible explicitly says that slavery is acceptable, women are inferior to men, and that rape victims should be stoned to death, I never came across a passage that said “thou shall not abort an embryo” or “evolution is a lie perpetuated by heretics.”


 For a treatment on slavery, see the book of Philemon. I believe I have discussed the other two issues previously. There is clearly a commandment on abortion: Thou shalt not kill.



> Our society evolves over time. Guided by science and a sense of true morality, we have slowly learned that women are equal to men, slavery is deplorable, and that the sun does not revolve around the Earth. Over time ideas that are initially labeled as heretical eventually become common sense. In the next century I am confident that oppressing gays will be as distasteful as segregation, abortion will not be equated to murder (most people will differentiate between a collection of cells and a breathing, thinking human being), and evolution will be regarded in the same way as gravity — as truth. A staunch anchoring to these religious ideas simply slows progress, it cannot stop it.



Respectfully, I disagree. I pray that life will always be considered sacred. I believe this quote sums up my belief about biblical law:



> Among the Torah's seminal and timeless gifts to the world -- a world that has seen societies that have endorsed everything from ancient child sacrifices to false gods to modern campaigns of ethnic cleansing -- is this teaching of the infinite value of each human life. (IPA: Judaism and the Death Penalty; Of Two Minds but One Heart)


----------



## Ivan (Dec 17, 2007)

Hi Bob, 

I really don't have anything to add here. However, I did run across the website of your friend, Dave Heesen. Seems like a wonderful person. Now I find out he is your friend. What a small world! I pray Dave will hold forth the truth simply and purely.


----------



## Davidius (Dec 17, 2007)

I was reading through the archives of Brian Bosse's logic blog and found the transcript of a recent debate between himself and an atheist. The issue of a geocentric solar system came up and, since his response was much more thorough and hard-hitting than mine here, I felt it would be worth sharing.



> *Argument 1
> 
> In the Bible it is quite explicit that the world is stationary and all other objects revolve around it.*
> 
> ...


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Dec 18, 2007)

Greetings:

A _prima facie_ reading of the passages which the editor cites when interpreted from a Postmodern viewpoint would indict these passages as being immoral. However, when one looks at the literary and cultural context in which these passages arise, then one can be assured that these passages are not immoral at all.

While the editor properly points out that the Bible condones slavery he has failed to realize that the Bible does not condone the abuse of slavery:

*Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven, Col. 4:1.*

*Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. Eph. 6:8,9.*

All Christians are servants (or slaves) of Jesus Christ - who is our master - Matt. 23:8. But Christ is a kindly master, and so should such treat their slaves. The idea of the master/slave relationship is also extended by Christians into the modern day workplace. Thus, Christians would fully support efforts to eliminate slavery if there is abuse in the system. It is slave abuse that makes slavery odious to any rational thinking human being.

The Equality of women:

Sure. We believe that men and women are equal. But, we are not so blind as to think that they are equal in all things. A rational person will realize that men cannot have babies. Thus, we celebrate not only our equalities, but our inequalities as well. There is also a mountain of psychological evidence showing differences between the way men and women respond to various stimuli. And none other than Phyllis Schlafly has written an article on why women should be forbidden from ground combat. Women in ground combat are forbidden by Pentagon regulations and Congressional law. The laws forbidding women in direct combat roles does not come from the Bible, but from some secular humanist philosophy. The editor of the paper is naive to think that men and women are equal in all things.

Women are not being treated "inferior" but are being treated as women. This is a recognition of their personality and distinctives as human beings. That the wife is to "submit" to her husband is given the same dignity as the husband is to "submit" to Jesus Christ, love his wife, and lay down his life for her. Is it too much to ask of her to listen and follow his directions when he is willing to give so much for her? Feminism sounds vain and childish in this light.

The Bible does not punish rape victums:

The editor claims that he is reading the passage in context, but the context clearly does not indicate rape. A woman who is bethrothed to a man has sexual relations with another man within a city "and does not cry out for help" is not being raped. By not resisting and screaming for help she is condoning the act, and is in agreement with it. This is clear from the context:

*But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. Deut. 23:25-27*

The benefit of the doubt is given to the maid, because she was in a field where no one would be able to hear her cry out for help. In this we see the Bible upholding the sanctity of marriage and is protecting the good reputation and virginity of a maid.

The death penalty for non-virgin wives:

There are ceremonial laws and penalties that have been done away with by the coming of Jesus Christ. The Jewish-culture here assumes that the wife did not have relations before being married. This would not apply to widows who are being remarried nor to women who may have been raped in the field (as above). But to a woman who fraudulantly advertises herself as a virgin to her betrothed. The law indicates the worth placed upon a woman's character and purity in that culture. Today, in our Postmodern culture, the purity of a woman is fodder for jokes and ridicule. That God holds these things more serious than man does is not "unjust" of God. Such also goes for a woman handling the private parts of a man who is not her husband.

That the Bible regulates the clothing of women is seen as oppressive? No, rather it is wisdom. Rapists often argue in court that the woman was "asking for it" because of the sexy clothing she was wearing, and many of these cases are won with a predominatly female jury. Such a defense was forthcoming in the William Kennedy Smith case back in 1991.

We see in all of this the respect paid to women for their integrity of character and purity. What we see in the "equality" movement is disrespect for women as people of character and purity.

Elijah was a prophet of the Most High God. To mock such is to bring the curse of God down upon you. This was a punishment administered by God, and not by man. There is no social or governmental equivalent.

Meterologists today still use terms like "sunrise" and "sunset" even when they know that a literal interpretation of the words is not correct. According to the editor scientists who know better are factually incorrect. There is a famous song entitled, "Morning has broken" are we to take those words literally as well? 

The above would be an outline as to how I would answer this person. 

Hope it helps,

-CH


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 18, 2007)

Ivan, you and Dave and several here on the board are just some of the obvious evidences that I have the BEST friends in the world. 

I wish you could all know Dave Heesen and his dear wife Karen. They are humble and unassuming saints of whom the the Lord has used to strengthen the Church and further His Kingdom. Dave has a beautiful bass voice and gave me goose bumps as he sang "Who may abide?" from the Messiah a few years ago. He is a great example of the art of subtly and patiently bringing the Doctrines of Grace into an armenian setting. Karen is a teacher of the blind in a school for the vision impaired, she is a selfless servant and an incurable punster. Her eyes see no light but she has filled countless souls, young and old, with the light of God's glory. They are the proud parents of five believing children. Needless to say, it's a privilege to know them both.

Thank you Ivan for the opportunity to gush about my friends.




Ivan said:


> Hi Bob,
> 
> I really don't have anything to add here. However, I did run across the website of your friend, Dave Heesen. Seems like a wonderful person. Now I find out he is your friend. What a small world! I pray Dave will hold forth the truth simply and purely.


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 18, 2007)

Thank you so very much to all who have responded on behalf of Dave. I am in your debt.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Dec 19, 2007)

Saw this the other day, didn't have time to respond then, carved out a few minutes today....



> Mr. Heesen - use your brain, not your bible by Steve Harrison, Editor-in-chief



I fail to see how neurons in a soggy grey matter filled noggin can help here. Will our brain help us come to correct moral beliefs? Well, materialists like Paul Churchland have stated that there are no such things as "beliefs." They are a hold-over from "folk-psychology." Thus we should "eliminate" them.

*eliminativism* - The view that, because mental states and properties are items posited by a protoscientific theory (called folk psychology), the science of the future is likely to conclude that entities such as beliefs, desires, and sensations do not exist. 

Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind - eliminativism

So I guess the question is, "Do you have a positive cognitive attitude, viz., a belief, that Heesen should use his brain?" 



> First let us examine a few of “god’s laws” and then we’ll approach the bible as a source of morality. This is a list of IN CONTEXT bible quotes assembled by my brother and me over the past year (some parts underlined for emphasis).



No, what follows is disproof by quotation. No exegesis is offered. No historical analysis. Nothing but citing verses which, apparently, he doesn't like. He takes them to be instances of immoralities. But, no positive case for ethics is put forth, and no attempt to show how, precisely, we have an "immorality." He doesn't want the reader to critically think. What if I were to tell you this story about an immorality:

"A man came to my house looking for his wife. he asked if I knew where she was. I told him that I didn't, even though I did. I think this is a good way for people to live their lives."

Gasp! Oh, the immorality! Lying is a good way to live your life.

Now, let's add some historical context. The man looking for his wife was trying to kill her. The man in the story lied to protect her. Thus we can see how details affect the situation. We can see how we should investigate the story and not just take someone's sloppy account of the most basic facts. All this to say, I think Mr. Harrison is asking his readers to not use their brain. After all, he told his readers that he's covered the work of context for them. Check your brain at the door, Mr. Harrison is doing all the work for us!

Furthermore, what "context" is he referring to? The "historical context?" Nope, that wasn't included. The "literary context?" Nope, that wasn't given. What, then? Apparently quoting more than one verse is what counts as taking things "in context." Boy, for starting out chiding someone for not using your brain, I'd say that your title was simply a psychological projection.



> In support of slavery:
> However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)




No context is given. Is Mr. Harrison an expert on ANE slave conditions? Is he arguing from emotion? That is, using terms that, today, have severely negative connotations. When one references "slavery" one, in modern times, *immediately* thinks of the African Slave Trade AST. Then, if this common sense assumption is allowed to stand, the inference is, obviously, that the Bible condones something like AST. Viola! Immorality. But, of course, we know that AST was man stealing and the Bible condemned this (see Ex. 21:16). Or, one could see that slave-trade was condemned in Eze. 37:13. John also condemns Roman practices of slave-trade in Revelation 18:13.

But, there are many forms of slavery - not all were bad, or immoral. In fact, in the ANE this was, for some, a job. A way of paying back debt. Are ALL forms of slavery bad? If so, then I should not be a slave to Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 7; Eph. 6)! If "slavery" was so harsh and degrading, then why would Paul have used this imagery? Obviously "slavery" didn't automatically conjur up images of harsh, immoral realities for the people in biblical times, especially those associated with the acceptable forms of slavery. Mr. Harrison is simply being lazy here.

In the ANE royalty would have slaves that served as writers, entertainers, craftsmen, and myriad other skilled professions. Their lives were not, at all, representative of the African slave the west had.

These slaves were "bought." They were not stolen as oh so many Africans were. Indeed, the foreigner living in Israel could by *Israelites.* "If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself" (Deut 25:47-48). Thus it doesn't appear that the *Israelite* (or a foreigner) thought this was some horrible, dreadful institution.

Israel treated their slaves appropriately. Indeed, they had laws unlike any other nation: Deuteronomy 23: 15 "You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him."

Now, is this law going to be chastised too? Or, are only *some* of the OT laws picked out as representative of "biblical morality." If we are going to condemn "biblical morality" then let us condemn this too! Or, are we saying that we, as people who use our brains, will try to balance the scales in our favor to "win" debates? Give half the story. Or, are all the "good laws" representative of "secular thinking" and the "bad ones" are representative of "biblical thinking?" Is it using one's brain to engage in special pleading?

So, not only is the slavery mentioned not that of the AST-type-slavery - thus trashing the images Mr. Harrison hopes is conjured up - Israel had laws for the just treatment of slaves. As Glenn Miller points out:

(1) "Although slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households, the latter were not free to brutalize or abuse even non-Israelite members of the household. On the contrary, explicit prohibitions of the oppression/exploitation of slaves appear repeatedly in the Mosaic legislation. In two most remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh charges all Israelites to love ('aheb) aliens (gerim) who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Like Exodus 22:20 (Eng. 21), in both texts Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her slaves. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to Yahweh himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities." [Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. Ken Campbell, p.60]

(2) The classic alienation of insider-outside social stratification (a major component of Western and even Roman slavery) was minimized in Israel by the inclusion of the domestics in the very heart-life of the nation: covenant and religious life. This would have created social bonds that softened much of any residual stigma associated with the servile status. This was accomplished through religious integration into the religious life of the household:

"However, domestic slavery was in all likelihood usually fairly tolerable. Slaves formed part of the family and males, if circumcised, could take part in the family Passover and other religious functions. Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household (note: allowing easier access to family bonds)" [The Israelites, B.S.J. Isserlin, Thames and Hudson:1998, p.101]

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html


Moving along...



> The inferiority of women:
> You wives will submit to your husbands as you do to the Lord. For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; he gave his life to be her Savior. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5:22-24 NLT)



Again, what is supposed to be the argument here? Well, here he is appealing to the women in his audience, specifically the feminists. He's hoping to gain a gut reaction from them. This is so *obviously* wrong, is it not? Notice that the submission to the husband is actually submission to God. Thus Mr. Harrison doesn't think women (or men) should submit themselves to God! A strange conclusion. Does Mr. Harrison suppose that this is a blank check for men to beat their wives? Degrade them? No. the women are told to submit, the husbands are told to *love* their wives. Mr. Harrison actually leaves *that part* out. Does he think *that part* is immoral? Oh, he must be using his brain and picking and choosing again. How convenient. I wish I could use my brain too. 

Notice that the submission is that of the church to Christ. Christ is the model husband. He is the strong leader. He is the defender too, even laying down his life for his wife. (Maybe our wives should give their lives for us? Or both of us give our lives for eachother. Leave our chldren without parents. Wouldn't want inequality; make sure it's equal 'n all.) The problem here is that with a faulty view of male leadership, Mr. Harrison draws faulty conclusions. The reason this verse gains the force it does for him is that men have failed at their job. In fact, they are supposed to follow Christ. How did Christ lead? He *served.* The argument only has force because Harrison is assuming the husband is an Al Bundy type character. A buffoon. A bumbling idiot. A beer swilling moron. A man who goes to Hooters on a regular occasion. Well, who wants to submit to *that kind* of a guy? And, as C.S. Lewis has pointed out, what do you do in a marriage when you have a conflict of opinions? When you have exhausted discussion. Who makes the final decision for the family? One person is going to have to submit to the other - or should we "switch off:" "No honey, look at the calendar, you made the last final decision." "No, it was you, babe." Anyway, if all the data is gathered this doesn't look problematic, at all.

Continuing...

Let me take just one more since that should provide sufficient inductive justification for the claim that I could make all of Harrison's comments look un-thought-out. I mean, he plays the intellectual bully card very well, but his work is actually anti-intellectual. Would he give a passing grade to a student who reasoned so sloppily? Who left out gobs of context and detail?



> Punishment for rape victims:
> If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)



What is wrong here? Apparently he takes it that the woman was a *rape* victim. But, where do we find that in the text? The woman didn't even "cry out for help!" I mean, if she was "in the city" then she would have people close by that could come to her aid. In fact, the "rape" is spoken of in the portion Mr. Harrison *didn't* quote:

Deut. 22:25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her. 

Does anyone get the feeling that they're getting the wool pulled over their eyes? In the case of "rape" the woman "has done nothing wrong" and so "isn't to be punished." But, Mr. Harrison couldn't make a case with that so he takes a case of adultery and calls that rape! That's not using your brain Mr. Harrison.

Lastly, about all of these quotes, we must ask, what is Mr. Harrison's justification of morality? Does he have a secular justification of it in terms of which he can make these condemnations? What standard is he appealing to when he condemns the Bible? What *makes* these actions right or wrong? How do we *determine* that actions are right or wrong? And, how do we fit this in with our other considered beliefs, viz., evolutionary naturalism?

Moving on...



> While the bible explicitly says that slavery is acceptable, women are inferior to men, and that rape victims should be stoned to death, I never came across a passage that said “thou shall not abort an embryo”



We've dealt with "slavery," Ephesians never used the word "inferior" and "rape victims" are "not to be punished." Mr. Harrison has come across anti-abortion texts by *inference.* You know, if you use your brain (um, mind), you can draw valid inferences. So, one could argue thus:

[1] Murder is the unjust taking of life.

[2] Most abortions unjustly take life.

[3] Therefore, most abortions are murder.

[4] All cases of murder are immoral.

[5] Therefore, most abortions are immoral.

But, what is his argument supposed to prove. He seems to assume that Christian believe that something is only moral or immoral if it is explicitly commanded or condemned in the pages of the Bible. But surely this is a straw man. I wonder if he could use his brain and do some research whereby he can justify this attack. If not, then is he arguing against a straw man? But that's not using your brain.



> I find it odd that people like Mr. Heesen want everyone to fall in line with god’s teachings when they refer to things that are inferred, though not expressly stated, in the bible. The rules of morality that are clearly written in the bible seem monstrous to any rational person (see page 6) yet are never touted by people like Mr. Heesen, and I challenge him to try and support any one of the laws stated above.



I already addressed some of the rules. Anyway, notice that he claims that: "The rules of morality that are clearly written in the bible seem monstrous to any rational person." Okay, let's look at some of these "clearly written, monstrous rules:"

12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you. 

13 "You shall not murder. 

14 "You shall not commit adultery. 

15 "You shall not steal. 

16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. 

7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her. 

8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father. 

9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. 

10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you. 

11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister. 

12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative. 

13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative. 

14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt. 

15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her. 

16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother. 

17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness. 

18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living. 

20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her. 

21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. 

23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. 

So it appears that laws that are "clearly written" which are "monstrous to any rational person" include laws in favor of honoring your parents, not lying, not committing murder, not committing adultery, not committing incest, not sleeping with animals, &c. We thus have an admission from Mr. Harrison that he doesn't think these things are immoral!! If he disagrees with my analysis, then he was sloppy, careless, and lazy. That's not using your brain.

Also, we need a standard of morality in terms of which you can make these claims.



> Our society evolves over time. Guided by science and a sense of true morality, we have slowly learned that women are equal to men, slavery is deplorable, and that the sun does not revolve around the Earth. Over time ideas that are initially labeled as heretical eventually become common sense.



What is the "true morality?" Maybe this:

In The Descent of Man Charles Darwin writes: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races."

Or perhaps, "The idea that one species of organism is, unlike all the others, oriented not just toward its own increated prosperity but toward Truth, is as un-Darwinian as the idea that every human being has a built-in moral compass--a conscience that swings free of both social history and individual luck." (Richard Rorty, "Untruth and Consequences," The New Republic, July 31, 1995, pp. 32-36.)

Dawkins admits that “it is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious ones” (The God Delusion, 233).

Again, thus saith Dawkins, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”

Quotes and Excerpts from Richard Dawkins

Indeed, we are meat machines. Bags of chemicals. Is it wrong to rape a machine? 

Thus the Dawkins, “We are survival machines--robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.”

Quotes and Excerpts from Richard Dawkins

And, given that we are survival machines, why think our cognitive faculties are aimed at producing true beliefs? Thus the evolutionist materialist, Patricia Churchland,

"Boiled down to its essentials, a nervous system that enables the organism to succeed in...feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle [sic] chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. Improvements in their sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances for survival. _Truth, whatever that is, takes the hindmost_." (Praticia Churchland, "Epistemology in the Age of Neuroscience," Journal of Philosophy 84 (October 1987): 548. Cited in, "C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea," Victor Reppert, IVP, 2002, pp. 76-77).

And Vitzthum,

"A revised and modernized materialism concludes from all this that human thought and feeling is the product of a series of unthinking and unfeeling processes originated in the big bang." (Richard C. Vitzthum, "Materialism: An Affirmative History and Definition," Prometheus Books, 1995, pp.218-219,)

"Materialism should no longer wink at such nonsense but insist that the foundations of all human thought and feeling are grossly irrational." ( Richard C Vitzthum, "Materialism: An Affirmative History and Definition," Prometheus Books, 1995, p. 220.)

Thus Darwin,

"With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" -Charles Darwin

And atheist J.L. Mackie wants to weigh in:

"If their were objective values, then they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe. Correspondingly, if we are aware of them, it would have to be by some special faculty or moral perception or intuition, utterly different from our ordinary ways of knowing anything else" (J.L. Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, 1977, p.38).

And so why think that there is an "objective morality," let alone a "true" one, and if there were both these, why think we could know it? As Mackie says, they would be queer entities. As Darwin says, why trust our beliefs? Seems to me that Harrison needs to show how he can account for the reliability of his cognitive faculties, and the existence of objective moral in terms of which he is criticizing the Bible.



> Over time ideas that are initially labeled as heretical eventually become common sense.



It is simply historically inaccurate to say that the idea that the earth is not the center of the universe was labeled "heresy." See D'Souza, What's So Great About Christianity, pp. 100-111.



> In the next century I am confident that oppressing gays will be as distasteful as segregation



And the century after that - pedophiles! Why stop there? Follow the logic of your "brain." Why oppress them for the way momma nature made them? They can't help who they love. Harrison is simply a puritanical prude, according to the more enlightened. And, who said that "oppressing" gays was what the Bible commanded? Surely, if it is a sin, then it should be called for what it is, no? Harrison isn't offering arguments here. He's simply appealing to the unthinking mass of people called - college student. It is Christians, on the other hand, who want you to reason and think about these things. Put forth actual *arguments* for positions. Enough of the assertions of a priest who holds the office of "Editor in chief."



> abortion will not be equated to murder (most people will differentiate between a collection of cells and a breathing, thinking human being)



So if someone was knocked out (and hence not thinking) and also not breathing, would he or she not be a "human" anymore? Do you have to be breathing AND thinking? If so, that's why many secularists are in favor of infanticide. Infants, so the data tells us, don't think. if it is one or the other, then what of brain dead people who have the lower functions still operating? Was what happened to Schiavo "murder," then? Lastly, it is scientifically inaccurate to call the unborn a mere "collection of cells." I mean, at this level of abstraction, Mr. Harrison is a "cluster of cells." No, the fetus, from the moment of conception, is a unified individual. it has a DNA that is *distinct* from both mother and father. It will continue, if left undisturbed, to develop into an infant, and then a teenager, and then an adult. It only needs food, water, and oxygen to develop - nothing more. It is in its natural environment for its stage. This is why the medical field is almost unanimously agreed that the conceptus is a human being. Now, if Harrison wants to grant that but, along with the more sophisticated pro-choicers, claim that the fetus is not a *person,* then we can have that argument; but that argument isn't the one he made.



> Think long and hard for yourself, Mr. Heesen. Many people would agree with you that the number of sexually active young people has its consequences, but why tarnish your argument by siding with a school of thought that supports the death penalty for being raped?



Not only have we covered this, but why is Harrison "tarnishing" his side of the argument by employing obvious fallacies, viz., guilt by association. I could just as easily ask him why correctly points out that rape is immoral, but tarnishes his side of the argument by siding with macro-evolution:

R. Thornhill et al., A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (MIT 2000) 

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com

"Evolutionary psychology often stomps where other branches of science fear to tread. Case in point: A Natural History of Rape. Randy Thornhill, a biologist, and Craig T. Palmer, an anthropologist, have attempted to apply evolutionary principles to one of the most disgusting of human behaviors, and the result is a guaranteed storm of media hype and debate. The book's central argument is that rape is a genetically developed strategy sustained over generations of human life because it is a kind of sexual selection--a successful reproductive strategy."

[...]

From Publishers Weekly

"Can we get rid of rape? If not, how can we reduce it? Biologist Thornhill (University of New Mexico) and anthropologist Palmer (University of Colorado) contend in this already highly controversial book that prevailing explanations of why men rape and how we can prevent them rely on wrong, dangerous and outmoded dogma. The right explanations for rape, they contend, as for all other human behavior, rely on Darwinian models of natural selection. Rapists want sex, they say. Rape, or the drive to rape, is an adaptation: some of our ancestors increased their reproductive success by mating with unwilling partners, and the brain-wiring that led them to do so got passed on to their male descendants." 

Amazon.com: A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion: Books: Randy Thornhill,Craig T. Palmer,Margo I. Wilson



And if rapists have evolved that behavior because it had/has survival value, why are they condemned? Isn't nature red with tooth and claw? Can we become self-aware and cast off our inherited traits? The very fact that a Darwinian can put this much conscious distance between himself and his evolutionary wiring empowers him to suppress or contravene his instinctual code of conduct. Thus what about the "good" traits we have inherited? Perhaps we can cast those off like so many other chains and hindrances. Or, perhaps moral rules are like platonic forms, existing necessarily. Isn't it odd that nature "just happened" to produce creatures that "just happened" to be the kind of creatures that could benefit from these laws and we "juts happened" to develop the kind of cognitive faculties that could come into contact with these invisible forms? What, exactly, is Mr. Harrison’s account of moral epistemology and ontology. His theoretical account. His action-guide account? I'm afraid Harrison is so much bark and not much bite.



> ‘With that said, let’s leave the religion out of this and debate this like rational people. You said that our school distributing condoms was comparable to giving matches to a child. At the onset of puberty teenagers receive a hormonal push to have sex.



Yes, rational people. So, not only do teenagers receive a hormonal push to have sex, pedophilic teenagers receive that hormonal push to have sex with young children. Since this is wrong, then why can't the former be? Having said "push" isn't necessary or sufficient to underwrite the morality of an action. Yes, rational people, yes. 



> This is an evolved mechanism that screams “I AM NOW PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF MAKING A BABY!” and unfortunately evolution was rather careless and neglected to compensate for human society Though young people are driven to copulate, they are for the most part unequipped to deal with some of the potential consequences of said copulation (babies, STDs).



If evolution is so careless, why look to it for an account of morality? Where does he get his moral theory, then? Is it written in the sky? Perhaps from his "gut." But Hitler's "gut" differed from your gut. In Richard Overy's monumental and authoritative tome, "The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia," we read this, "In neither case did those who ran the two regimes regard as criminal or immoral the vicious persecution unleashed against its enemies, both real and imagined. It is unlikely that Stalin and Hitler spent sleepless night bothered by the thought of the millions victimized at their behest" (p. 265). So, where does he get his morality. Furthermore, the lack of resources enabling you to cope with a situation doesn't mean you can engage in immoral actions. If handing out condoms to unmarried kids is immoral, then it doesn't matter much what they are ill-equipped to handle. Indeed, when they become a certain age they may also get the urge to commit violence (cf. the school shootings), this is the natural build up of aggression. In this case neither does their "push" or their inability to cope with the urge give them license to engage in said behavior. Harrison is begging the question against Mr. Heesen. I mean, kids are going to shoot other kids at school, so, give 'em machete's rather than guns. That way less damage is caused.



> Logically, the safest bet is to abstain from sex until marriage and limit mating to that marriage. Unfortunately, the hormonal influx doesn’t care about logic — it just screams a singular message. This is why abstinence-only programs do not work.



How about *morally.* That was the question at hand, Mr. Harrison. Harrison seems to refuse to want to use his brain and follow the conversation. Indeed, if the *logical* thing to do is to promote abstinence, then is Mr. Harrison advocating *illogicality!* Furthermore, why the appeal to *pragmatism?* What justifies *that* move? Say children were murdering other children, would it make it all right to give them guns if we found that not given them guns and telling them not to kill didn't "work?" Mr. Harrison just can't seem to engage Mr. Heesen at the level of Heesen's argument. We began talking about morality. Thus the question here is the morality of handing out condoms. This is a *moral* question, not a *pragmatic* question.

I think the final analysis is that Mr. Harrison's more "powerful" secular reasoning ability simply failed at every level. He should abstain from debating religion, morality, or theists. It is his brain that needs to abstain, otherwise he will spread his seeds of illogic to the brains of our youth. Our youth need to be protected from being pregnant with child, and pregnant with bad ideas and poor reasoning skills. I think Mr. Harrison needs to "abstain" from using his brain if he's going to use it in such an irresponsible way. If this "doesn't work," perhaps someone can recommend a good prophylactic.


----------



## Zenas (Dec 19, 2007)

Someone may have already mentioned this, as I am being lazy and have not read the entire thread, but correct me if I am wrong here. Is it not Darwanism that would support the subjugation of inferior races and genders under the heel of a superior race/gender? I am not well read on Darwin himself, but I believe some of his writings would give credence to these conclusions, if not outright support them. (I have heard Darwin was a monumental racist and sexist.)

Even if Darwin himself doesn't explicitly support these conclusion, it is easily logically reached if you apply his suppositions, ergo it is the secularist who is the proponent of slavery, racism, and sexism if he is consistent and logical in his application of his beliefs. It would indeed be a show if the secular editor came out and questioned Darwin though, the biology department would no doubt begin preparing the stake and gasoline for him.

Past that, his non-existant exegesis of those passages shows the extent of his expertise and knowledge of the Scriptures (He has none.) I am confident wiser men than I have given a more fuller explaination why earlier in this thread, so I will refrain from doing so myself unless asked to do so.

The grace of God be upon our brother Heesen as he navigates through this apologetic task. Be ready in season and out of season. 

Edit: Ahh, I see Tom beat me to it with the Darwin point, and added a nice quote from the ever helpful Richard Dawkins. That man does more to help in apologetics than he will ever realize.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 19, 2007)

Good stuff Paul. I'm glad you had a "...few minutes...."


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 19, 2007)

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Paul, you are a national treasure. Thank you friend for your thorough treatment. I don't know how your soggy grey matter pumps that out. Blessings sir.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Dec 20, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Good stuff Paul. I'm glad you had a "...few minutes...."



I was assuming that kind of language was acceptable, what, given the penchant for abusing normal, every day talk exhibited by Mr. Harrison.

Btw, I'm surprised he didn't dust off the old "rabbits don't chew the cud" canard.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Dec 20, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again - Paul, you are a national treasure. Thank you friend for your thorough treatment. I don't know how your soggy grey matter pumps that out. Blessings sir.




Re-reading my post, seeing all the spelling and grammatical errors, I definitely do have the soggiest of grey matter.

I hope your friend can make use of some of the info in the posts here.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 20, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > Good stuff Paul. I'm glad you had a "...few minutes...."
> ...



 I'm just always impressed by the depth of your presentation and patience to take things apart.

I have the patience in certain areas to do that but not in aplogetics. I don't know that I'd ever have the patience to deal with mockers of God the way you do.

I'm with Bob, I really appreciate your work. You have an incredible talent for answering the fool according to his folly. I enjoy it the same way I laugh when I read Elijah taunting the priests of Baal.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Dec 20, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I have the patience in certain areas to do that but not in aplogetics. I don't know that I'd ever have the patience to deal with mockers of God the way you do.




As my Roman Catholic Grandma tells me about her ability and patience in knitting quilts for people: "I'm trying to even out all that sinning I do."


----------



## BobVigneault (Jan 14, 2008)

*The Rebuttal*







My friend Dave Heesen saw your replies and was greatly encouraged by your willingness to help. He read them and boiled them down, added his own flavorings and stirred it into a smooth and gracious rebuttal. If I may take some pride in my friend I think it's one of the finest rebuttals that I've ever read. 

Thank you so much again, here is his answer to Mr. Harrison:



> Editor
> Round Table
> January 14, 2007
> 
> ...


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Jan 14, 2008)

Excellent rebuttal.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jan 14, 2008)




----------



## Davidius (Jan 14, 2008)




----------



## Zenas (Jan 14, 2008)

That should be circulated to more than one institution. I find it ironic that unbelievers call us stupid, when reality, logic, and most of all, Scriptrue, all make it blatant that their minds are darkened; they have no understanding.


----------



## HaigLaw (Mar 9, 2008)

I agree with the praises for the rebuttal. I am late to this discussion, and would only add a few thoughts.

It is ontologically and philosophically inconsistent for atheists-agnostics (AA for short) to deny the word of God and then use the word of God to ridicule God. I think it's is apologetically permissible for us to challenge these railers this way: Why are you invoking the Bible if you don't believe in it or recognize its authority? I would be happy to discuss its meaning if you concede its authority. Why would you debate its meaning if you reject its authority?

As a Van Tillian presuppositionalists myself, I think we are on stronger ground if the common ground we insist on with the unbeliever, AA or otherwise, is that of created beings. One of the givens of being creatures is that we cannot understand the things of God without the Holy Spirit. So to discuss Scripture in terms of its meaning with an unbeliever is to imply that his opinions are on an equal plane with ours -- when we know that is not the case as we have the indwelling Holy Spirit to show us understanding.

As to whether this inflames the discussion and creates an impasse -- the discussion was already inflamed from the outset, and you're going to have a quick impasse with the AA anyway; the only issue is whether the impasse is on his terms or God's.

I recently had a discussion with some AAs on my Xanga blog. I would not call it a debate. I'm not confident I did all that good a job. But I did seek to be faithful to what God has shown us in His word.

I think another issue raised in this debate is whether we're advancing the gospel of the Kingdom of God or merely defending current political policy. The promise of Isa. 55:11 is to honor God's word, not man's word. The issue of whether we should distribute condoms as a public-health matter can be debated biblically, but I submit it comes more under liberty of conscience than a universal ethical mandate of scripture. 

This is not to defend the distribution of condoms; rather, it is to say the focus of our witnessing should be redemption through faith in Christ as we can know Him through Scripture. 

During my decades in the religious right, one of the things that mystified me was to travel to other countries and fellowship with Christians who could not see the universal ethical mandates I thought I was advancing in the religious right in this country. 

It was a given to me for many years that the party whose name starts with an R was opposed to abortion and the one with a D favored it. But I came to question whether the R platform was merely lip service, and whether the D's had a program that effectively reduces the number of abortions. 

The point here is a question -- are we pushing the Christian gospel, or so-called conservative political correctness?

Make sense?


----------

