Evangelizing the imagination

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-VrCTpwXAc

1. This is Bishop Barron doing what he does best. He presents a very winsome version of Catholicism, albeit a Catholicism that in key respects didn't exist until about the mid-20C or so. 

In his interpretation, fiction writers like Lewis were literary evangelists proselytizing the imagination. They realized the need to express the old faith in a new way if they hoped to reach an increasingly secularized audience. Tolkien's fiction is a Catholic pill. An exercise in pre-evangelization. That's an interesting thesis, but I find it questionable:

2. I think it's more likely that, first and foremost, they were evangelizing themselves. Their allegorical fiction creates theological analogues for traditional Christian doctrine. It's a of making traditional Christian theology more believable for themselves (i.e. Lewis, Tolkien). They translate some core doctrines and biblical accounts into fictional analogues that that they find more credible than the original accounts. 

3. There are roughly three ways you can view biblical narratives:

i) They are imaginary, like Alice in Wonderland.

ii) There's a real event that lies behind the account, but the account itself is a fictional analogue of what happened, like Godspell.

iii) The narratives provide realistic descriptions of real events.

4. I think in some cases their position corresponds to (ii). If so, one basic problem is that we lose touch with the truth that (on this view) lies behind the account. If the original account isn't a realistic description of what happened, but just an allegory of what happened, then we have no frame of reference to determine what parts of the analogy correspond to the underlying event. We can't say which analogies are closer to the event than others. We're just left with variations on some archetypal motifs, stock characters, and type-scenes. The specific setting, characters, dialogue, and plot are imaginary.   

5. On this view, allegories may replace the original account, because the original account is in itself a fictional analogue for whatever really happened. The theological allegories of Tolkien and Lewis are just as legitimate as the original, and have the added benefit (on their view) of being more believable than the original. 

(I realize they resist the classification of their fiction as allegorical. I'm not going to get hung-up on a pedantic or idiosyncratic definition of allegory.) 

Does God know the future?

Peter van Inwagen is one of the most brilliant philosophical theologians of his generation. I'd say he's the equal of Alvin Plantinga. He's a freewill theist, and here he concedes that libertarian freedom is incompatible with knowing the future:

https://www.closertotruth.com/series/does-gods-knowledge-quash-free-will#video-48360

Don't like abortions?

1. Don't like murders? Just ignore them. Like you ignore aborted babies.

2. In general, I've read conservatives give more than liberals when it comes to charity or philanthropy. For example, even the New York Times concedes as much. I couldn't find information about adoption rates between conservatives and liberals, but maybe someone else can.

3. There's a burgeoning adoption movement among conservative evangelical Christians. Several Christian leaders like John Piper, Russell Moore, and Justin Taylor have adopted kids, I think. However, liberals and progressives criticize and attempt to put roadblocks to prevent conservative Christians from adopting (e.g. "The Trouble With the Christian Adoption Movement").

4. I'd never suggest for a second it's good for a child to be in foster care or anything similar. However, consider the attitude of Robert Kim Henderson in comparison to the "victim" attitude of the left. Henderson was a foster kid who served in the USAF, graduated from Yale University, and is currently a PhD student (psychology) at the University of Cambridge. Henderson writes:

There aren’t many conservative students at Yale: fewer than 12 percent, according to a survey by our student newspaper. There are fewer former foster children. I am one of the rare students on campus who can claim both identities.

My unusual upbringing has shaped my conservatism. My birth mother was addicted to drugs. As a young child, I spent five years in foster care. At age 7, I was adopted, but for a long time after that I was raised in broken homes.

Foster care, broken homes and military service have fashioned my judgments. My experiences drive me to reflect on what environments are best for children. Certainly not the ones I came from.

Where I came from can be understood through my name: Robert Kim Henderson. All three names were taken from different adults.

Robert comes from my supposed biological father. The only information I have about him is his name from a document provided by a social worker responsible for my case when I was a foster child.

My middle name, Kim, comes from my biological mother. It was her family name. She succumbed to drug addiction, rendering her unable to care for me.

And my last name: Henderson. It comes from my former adoptive father. After my adoptive mother left him, he severed ties with me in order to hurt her. He figured that my emotional pain from his desertion would be transmitted to my adoptive mother. He was right. The three people who gave me their names have something in common: All abandoned me. None took responsibility.

Last year, a fellow student told me I was a victim. Yale is the only place where someone has said this to me. I responded that if someone had told me I was a victim when I was a kid, I would never have made it to the Air Force, where I served for eight years, or to Yale. I would have given up. When I was 10, a teacher told me that if I applied myself, I could alter my future. This advice changed my life.

Spark of life

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. (Deut 30:19-20)

Some people talk about the origin of life in this way. What caused inert matter to come alive? What catalyzed inert molecules to self-organize into self-replicating lifeforms? What's the spark that ignited life? What vital force keeps life going?

Indeed, there are many theories for abiogenesis. There are many theories about some élan vital. However, all of these people would agree it'd be marvelous if we could discover this promethean fire that first set life alight. It'd be wonderful if we could see the origin of life unfold. In action, in real time.

Ironically, many people miss what's right under their noses. Every single baby from the moment of its conception is a self-catalyzed, self-organized, and self-replicating lifeform. From a single-celled zygote to embryo to fetus to newborn. This wonderful and marvelous little cell is alive! How is that possible? This little cell starts as the tiniest of sparks, then a mere flicker, then a burning flame, and finally bursting forth in glorious day. It's no wonder past generations considered every life a miracle, for life itself truly is a miracle of sorts, a "miracle" that even secular scientists would marvel to see.

However, abortionists wish to extinguish this precious little life. They wish to douse the spark of life as soon as they can. For what reason? Because life isn't expedient for them at this time. Abortionists live in a culture of death.

(To be fair, other creatures have life. That's amazing too. However, humans are unique. That's obviously true from a Christian perspective given the imago Dei. However, even short of this, there are arguably distinctive features about us that other earthbound creatures don't have - I can't comment on alpha centaurians! Our ability to create, discover, and/or appreciate art, music, literature, mathematics, and so on is the tip of the iceberg.)

Be still, my beating heart

Rachel Willis

We need to stop calling it a “fetal heartbeat law” it should be called an “embryonic cardiac vibration law” because it’s not considered a fetus until the 10th week of pregnancy (8th week from conception)

1. You could just as easily call some adult hearts "cardiac vibration" units. More on this below.

2. The distinction between a human embryo, human fetus, human baby, and a human adult is in essence the same distinction one would make between a canine embryo, a canine fetus, a puppy dog, and an adult dog. The point is embryo, fetus, puppy, and dog represent different stages of development in the exact same creature. If we aborted a canine embryo, we wouldn't say we aborted a mere clump of cells. No, we'd say we aborted a dog. Why not the same for a human being?

3. What relevant distinction does Rachel see in "weeks after pregnancy" vs. "weeks after conception"? Is she referring to a woman's last menstrual period? From what I've seen, physicians and scientists (embryologists) generally talk about weeks after conception.

4. Medical terms and stages and so forth are based on systems developed by physicians and scientists. A system is a general way to gauge roughly where the creature is along in its development in comparison to the majority of other creatures developing. However, it's not a hard and fast rule let alone scientific law. In fact, in a sense, the system is arbitrarily selected inasmuch as the system is based on a creature's external physical features which can vary between individuals in the same kind of creature and which can vary in different situations.

5. Importantly, the terminology and stages are based on physical characteristics. It's not as if doctors and scientists are able to directly detect and measure the internal élan vital (there's likely a better term for this) that drives and propels the creature toward continued development, toward life. Nevertheless we can infer this vital force exists.

and it’s not actually a heartbeat because in the sixth week (of pregnancy. 4th week from conception) an embryo does not have a developed heart, (or brain, or spine) it has a cluster of cells that can be detected vibrating or pulsing.

1. Some adults don't have fully developed hearts (or brains or spines), or even "beating" hearts, or even any hearts at all, but they're no less human beings. Simply consider people with artificial hearts, mechanical heart pumps, replacement heart valves, bioprosthetic hearts, and so on.

2. Not to mention some people undergoing major heart surgery (for example) will need to have their hearts stopped, then they'll be placed on a cardiopulmonary bypass machine that provides blood and oxygen for them while their heart is stopped. Does it mean they're no longer human beings when their heart isn't beating, but they instantly become human beings again when their heart starts beating again?

3. No, the baby's heart is not merely "vibrating". The heart beat may start as a flutter, but doesn't remain a flutter. The baby's heart will begin to beat at 4 weeks after conception (though usually it's not loud enough to be detected with common machines used in a doctor's office until a couple of weeks later).

4. What's the relevant distinction between "pulsing" (or pulsating) and "beating"? Doctors and nurses take your "pulse" which is a measure of the presence and rhythm of your heartbeat. Call it what you will, the point is that certain cardiac cells are conducting electrical signals which cause the heart to beat or pulse in a particular rhythm.

It is not doing the work of a human heart and is a weird and completely non-medical goal post with no connection to the start of personhood.

Why does having a heart beat matter in determining whether one is a human being? I've taken a dead frog's heart, applied various chemical solutions to the heart, and caused the heart to beat in a dead frog. Similarly, in some organ transplantations among deceased organ donors, their hearts are kept beating. So why the focus on the beating heart?

If it feels significant to someone wanting a baby, I can understand that, but it’s not science.

Your comments are riddled with unscientific and other deficiencies.

It’s main significance to a potential mother, depends entirely on the circumstances surrounding that pregnancy. To want a “heartbeat” and hear one is a beautiful thing. Just like peeing on a stick that says you’re pregnant is magic, if you want a baby. But just because you love the idea of a baby doesn’t magically make your urine a life.

Wut. What does urine have to do with heartbeats?

Pregnancy is sometimes or oftentimes detected based on the levels of a hormone called b-HCG (beta human chorionic gonadotropin) in a woman's urine. If the b-HCG levels in the urine are high enough, then it's likely the woman is pregnant.

However, if you wish to go with b-HCG levels, then b-HCG hormones begin being secreted in the very first week after conception! Much earlier than the first heartbeat.

And our poetic associations with heartbeats, and hearts cannot be the basis for stripping American women of their constitutional right to medical care.

But scientific ignorance can be used to argue for murdering babies?

Expository gaps

I'd like to revisit an issue I often discuss, with some additional considerations:

1. The secular interpretation of Dan 11 is that most of Dan 11 is "prophecy" after the fact, but then the author goes out on a limb and makes an actual prediction about the fate of Antiochus, only he gets it wrong. By contrast, conservatives postulate a chronological gap. They say it's not about Antiochus but the future Antichrist. That can look suspiciously like special pleading. An ad hoc, face-saving postulate to salvage the prophecy.

2. And, of course, there are false prophets and "psychics" who make failed predictions. So that's a legitimate issue.

If we have extrabiblical evidence that some people have genuine premonitions, then that establishes the principle. So we approach the text of Daniel knowing that's both possible and sometimes actual. And it only takes a few verified examples to establish that a phenomenon is real. The prophecies of John Knox might be a good candidate. Likewise, Craig Keener includes some uncannily accurate predictions in his book on miracles. There are other examples. 

3. If the author of Daniel got it wrong, why didn't he just edit the prediction to make it retrospectively correct? Did he die before the demise of Antiochus? Or if it circulated before the demise of Antiochus, why was it even preserved by posterity when Jews on the scene, who'd be in the best position to know, could tell that the prediction was a bust? 

4. In Scripture, the default mode of prophetic inspiration is visionary revelation. And the book of Daniel is no exception. It contains revelatory deems and visions. However, it also contains futuristic exposition. Take the angel who tells Daniel what will happen. One question this raises is whether Daniel's experience alternates between visions in which he foresees the future and auditions in which an angel tells him what will happen. In principle, he could see what the angel is describing. In a sense, the angelic exposition is for the benefit of the reader rather than Daniel.

I don't think it's coincidental that the shorter material takes the form of visual descriptions while the longer material takes the form of verbal exposition. When there's too much ground to cover, the reader is given a verbal summary rather than a vision description. But this doesn't imply that Daniel had a different experience. Rather, it seems more likely that he consistently has visions, but some of the visions are distilled into verbal summaries to save space.  

5. Let's take a comparison: movies consist of consecutive scenes. In terms of the plot, there are chronological gaps between the scenes. The interval between one scene and another may be a matter of minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, or years. 

The movie viewer isn't shown the gaps. He watches a seamless series of scenes. It's not like there's a scene, then it goes black or blank, then there's another scene. 

But the viewer is expected to understand that while, in terms of the viewing process, there's no time lapse from one scene to the next, changing scenes usually implies a time lapse, in terms of the plot–even though the viewer isn't shown the passage of time in-between scenes. 

And that's not just a fictional convention. The same convention exists for documentaries and biopics. Chronological gaps in historical narration are routine and necessary. 

6. That's overlooked in Dan 11. Even before we get to the question of Dan 11:36-45, or 11:40-45, the series of events leading up to that oracle contains many unspecified chronological gaps. It sketches the rise and fall of empires and the succession of kings: Neo-Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Ptolemies, Seleucids, and Rome. But it doesn't provide a minute-by-minute, day-by-day, week-by-week, month-by-monthly, or even year-by-year account. It skips over many intervening stretches of time, choosing to focus on key figures and events. 

7. This may also have a bearing on oracles that say a future event is "soon", "near", "at hand". In a vision, the seer views each event following right on the heels of the prior event. Within the continuity of the vision, a particular scene may be sooner or later in relation to the series of images. Just like, in a movie, one scene may be close to another scene, in the sense that there are no chronological gaps in the flow of the imagery. The scenes were shot at different times, sometimes out of order, but edited into a continuous succession of scenes. 

Yet in terms of how the scenes track the plot, there is a lapse of time between one scene and another, even though that's not shown. By the same token, the way visionary revelation corresponds to reality needs to make allowance for the difference between the flow of images in the vision and how that lines up with the future.  

Skeptics, seekers, and Acts

In addition to a sophisticated defense of the historicity of Acts, Craig also gives an inspiring account of his conversion:

http://www.craigkeener.com/acts-podcast/

https://anchor.fm/skeptics-and-seekers/episodes/Episode-45-Craig-Keener-e3udqr

https://d3ctxlq1ktw2nl.cloudfront.net/production/2019-4-5/14113064-44100-2-71db6fb2a6a69.mp3

Misanthropic feminism

Fun fact: If my younger sister was in a car accident and desperately needed a blood transfusion to live, and I was the only person on Earth who could donate blood to save her, and even though donating blood is a relatively easy, safe, and quick procedure no one can force me to give blood. Yes, even to save the life of a fully grown person, it would be ILLEGAL to FORCE me to donate blood if I didn’t want to.

See, we have this concept called “bodily autonomy.” It’s this….cultural notion that a person’s control over their own body is above all important and must not be infringed upon. 

Like, we can’t even take LIFE SAVING organs from CORPSES unless the person whose corpse it is gave consent before their death. Even corpses get bodily autonomy. 

To tell people that they MUST sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months against their will in an incredibly expensive, invasive, difficult process to save what YOU view as another human life (a debatable claim in the early stages of pregnancy when the VAST majority of abortions are performed) is desperately unethical. You can’t even ask people to sacrifice bodily autonomy to give up organs they aren’t using anymore after they have died. 

You’re asking people who can become pregnant to accept less bodily autonomy than we grant to dead bodies. 

Commenting on this statement, Christian philosopher Tim Hsiao said:

There are at least two problems with this line of argument.

First, the relationship between a parent and a child is very different from a relationship between siblings. Parents have a special responsibility to care for their children in a way that siblings do not. Why? Because they are the ones who are responsible for their children's existence. More specifically, they caused their children to exist in a state of great vulnerability, need, and dependence. In doing so, they incur an obligation to provide for the well-being of their children. That's why parents are often referred to as the guardians of their children.

If I push you into deep water as part of a swimming lesson, I owe it to you to make sure that you don't drown. The reason is because I have done something to put you in a position of great vulnerability. The same thing is true of the parent-child relationship.

Second, abortion is not just the mere withholding of treatment or refusal to act. It actively seeks out the death of the unborn. I may not have an obligation to give my blood to my brother, but does that mean I can go ahead and blow out his brains? Of course not. The fact that I may refuse to assist someone does not allow me to do some positive action that brings about his death. So even if the message is correct, it does not give the mother the right to actively seek out the death of her child.

This graphic takes a very low view of women. It treats pregnancy as if it were some kind of disease or pathology. But that is not at all the case. Reproduction is a natural part of the human experience, and to treat something so wonderful and joyous in such a negative light is dehumanizing.

Speaking for myself, I'd add that:

i) I think there's certainly a moral obligation for one sibling to donate blood to another sibling. I'd go beyond that: as a rule, a sibling has a duty to donate a kidney or half their liver to another sibling (unless the sibling has abused their health).

ii) Or take someone unrelated to me. Suppose I find an abandoned child at a rest stop. Minimally, I have a duty to temporarily care for it until I get hand it off to the authorities. But suppose there's no one else to care for it. That was commonplace in the ancient world. Children exposed to die. Foundlings. Even though I didn't create the situation, even though I'm not responsible for the situation, there are circumstances in which I can have social obligations despite the fact that it's unfair and burdensome.

Boys need real men

In a time and place where you have absentee dads, due to divorce, loss of custody, and broken homes, it wouldn't surprise me if many adolescent boys are sexually confused because they lack normal male role models and have a hunger for natural (platonic) male affection that can be exploited by homosexual men:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/05/15/i-felt-gay-attraction-for-years-counseling-helped-me-build-a-different-life/

Sex strike

Happy Mother’s Day! What an amazing gift it is to have these two wonders and prepare them for life and love.

A very wise friend told me yesterday we have a singular purpose on our short time on this planet, “to love and to be loved.”

I concur. I wish you all a beautiful day. pic.twitter.com/azMffTaMfZ

— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) May 12, 2019

Our reproductive rights are being erased.

Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy.

JOIN ME by not having sex until we get bodily autonomy back.

I’m calling for a #SexStrike. Pass it on. pic.twitter.com/uOgN4FKwpg

— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) May 11, 2019

Her initial tweet has been getting lost of buzz. A few observations:

i) The assumption is that a sex boycott hits men where it hurts the most. It hurts men disproportionately. That plays on the misandrist stereotype that women don't like sex: sex is just an onerous favor that women do for men, like a reward for mowing the lawn. Or a bargaining chip to get what they really want in exchange for sex. 

But if women have so little interest in sex, why are they getting pregnant in the first place? Why are the getting abortions? Why do they clamor for abortion as a fallback in case of pregnancy? In almost all cases, their pregnancy results from consensual sex. Remember the supermodel who dumped Tebow because he refused to have premarital sex with her? 

ii) With the proliferation of sexbots, women are more expendable in that regard. Of course, sexbots are a pathetic substitute for the real thing. But they're easier to get along with than feminist banshees like Milano and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

That's not a recommendation. I'm not making a moral assessment. I'm just responding to Milano on her own crass grounds. 

iii) If women wish to have sex without getting pregnant, why aren't they using contraception? Evidently, Milano thinks women are so lacking in foresight and impulse control that they engage in activity with easily foreseeable, but undesirable consequences. 

Even if, for argument's sake, we cast the issue in terms of bodily autonomy, this is not about denying women the right to control their own bodies, but the failure of many women to exercise self-control. If they don't want kids, practice abstinence or use contraception. Abortion is a fallback for women who are able but unwilling to control what they do with their bodies (prescinding the fraction of pregnancies cause by rape). 

If feminists think women are that reckless and impetuous, why should they be in positions of authority and responsibility? Why should they have the right to vote or be public officials in policymaking positions? 

iv) Then we're treated to the euphemism of "reproductive rights," as if prolifers want to pass laws making it illegal for women to reproduce. But what prolife laws actually reject is a murder exception for women–or mothers in particular. We don't think being a woman exempts you from the prohibition on murder. If it's okay for a mother to kill her baby, it is okay for husband to kill his wife? 

v) Pregnancy is how every feminist came into the world. Suppose a ship capsizes and a passenger climbs into a lifeboat. He then fishes a floundering women out of the water. But when a girl swims over to get on board, the second passenger kicks her away, causing her to drown. The second passenger was rescued but rather than rescuing another passenger, kicks her away. And what if that was a mother who turned her daughter away? 

Abortion operates with a Nietzschean philosophy, but if Nietzschean ethics is the yardstick, then men have all the rights. If it boils down to ruthless power, men come out on top.  

In another tweet she poses as the proud mother with her kids. But if she thinks she has the right to kill her children before they are born, does she have the right to kill them after they are born? Likewise, if abortion and infanticide are rights, does that mean matricide and patricide are rights? Do grown children have a right to do to parents what parents have a right to do to babies? 

Shotgun marriage

If abortion is illegal then men abandoning their child should also be illegal. If this was a permanent decision for me then it is for you as a father also.

— Ricky Spanish (@5headshawtyyy) May 12, 2019

This comment has gotten a lot of buzz. 

i) She acts like she's never heard of marriage

ii) Skimming her tweets to locate the original tweet, this is example of what happens to people with no Christian frame of reference. Utterly lost. A stimulus-response organism. They act like animals in heat. Utterly selfish. No realization that if babies don't have rights, why should women have rights? It boils down to raw power. 

iii) It doesn't occur to her that she hangs around the wrong kind of men, then complains about what she ends up with. It's so predictable. 

iv) There are fathers who want to keep their child, but current law gives the mother the unilateral choice to abort. Fathers of the child have no legal say in abortion. They've been disenfranchised from having a claim on their own child. In addition, women divorce men at much higher rates than men divorce women. Women usually get custody while the dad is stuck with child support even though he doesn't have custody or joint custody and even visitation rights may be iffy. So the "deadbeat dad" trope is often slanderous to well-meaning men who have all the responsibilities but none of the rights. If you want responsible men, you must give them a stake in the transaction. 

Do the Gospels Record Jesus Teaching in Greek?

To follow up on Steve's witty post from Williams, see the following that makes a good case that not only did Jesus know Greek, but the Gospels likely record interactions in Greek that he had with Greek speakers.

https://legacy.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/Library/TynBull_1993_44_2_01_Porter_JesusTeachGreek.pdf

https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2000_a_04_Porter_JesusUseGreek.pdf

http://jgrchj.net/volume12/JGRChJ12-10_Porter.pdf

Peter, Greek, and Ehrman

https://twitter.com/DrPJWilliams/status/1129511859462266884

Peter J. Williams

‏Thread: clearly, as Bart Ehrman says, Peter was an Aramaic speaking peasant.

He knew no Greek.

He came from Bethsaida (John 1:44), which became a Greek polis (city) around AD 31 but studiously avoided learning Greek.

He traded in fish, but made sure he only sold to Aramaic speakers.

He lived in Capernaum on an international trade route, but avoided talking to foreigners.

He fished on the Sea of Galilee, but if in the middle of this little lake his boat met boats of fishermen from the Greek-speaking Decapolis on the far shore he made sure only to use Aramaic or sign language.

His parents somehow managed to give his little brother Andrew a Greek name uncommon for Palestine, but knew no speak Greek.

The fact that they chose names for both their sons which work in Greek (Simon & Andrew) was actually just to spite Greek speakers.

He signed up with an itinerant rabbi (teacher), but did not receive any language education.

He travelled as a preacher in the linguistically mixed villages of Palestine, but always spoke only to Aramaic speakers.

He travelled to the Decapolis & Caesarea Philippi, but always remembered to block his ears when the locals spoke Greek.

If he travelled from Palestine in later life, he worked hard not to learn Greek.

Because...

we all just KNOW he was an Aramaic speaking peasant.

Linguistics & New Testament Greek Conference 2019

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2DisXS8LigZjkwFHQrEF81hD7XwWzIy0

Are church councils an ultimate criterion?

High churchmen typically reject sola Scriptura. They appeal to church councils to determine orthodoxy and heresy. But here's a problem with that: if they use church councils as their criterion for theological truth, how do they determine which church councils are authoritative? High churchman don't regard all or even most church councils as authoritative. Indeed, they think some church councils are heretical or illegitimate. 

Do church councils determine what's true, or does truth determine which church councils are true? If church councils are your starting-point, how do you decide which ones to start with? If you use church councils as your criterion, how do you decide which ones to trust? Unless you have independent access to the truth, apart from church councils, how do you winnow church councils that teach true doctrine from church councils that teach false doctrine? If you use church councils as your doctrinal criterion, what's your doctrinal criterion to assess church councils? There are competing conciliar claimants. What about Arian church councils? 

Abortion and the soul

1. I notice that many prolifers shy away from appealing to the soul. They confine their arguments to genetics and embryology. They rest their case on physical properties. The moment of conception. A heartbeat. Unique DNA. A separate body. 

But treating a baby as just a physical organism can be counterproductive. If human beings are reducible to body parts and organic molecues, is that an adequate basis for human rights? 

It leads to equivocation about the "humanity" of the "fetus". Human hair, toenails, and even excrement are human. Just because something is human–in that sense–doesn't ipso facto make it entitled to protection. 

2. The strategy appears to be in part that that's a scientific argument. In addition, that's a secular argument. Many prolifers seem to think that appealing to the soul is inherently religious, and therefore lacks common ground when reasoning with unbelievers. 

However, arguments for the soul aren't necessarily religious. Take the hard problem of consciousness, or veridical near-death  experiences and postmortem apparitions. We can present philosophical and empirical arguments for the soul. 

3. Also, we shouldn't avoid religious argument. For one thing, it's impossible to justify human rights or women's rights on a secular basis. So we can put the abortionist on the defensive. That's an opportunity to deploy the moral argument for God's existence. 

You can't simply assert religious claims when addressing unbelievers. That begs the question from their standpoint. An illegitimate argument from authority.

But you can give reasons for Christianity. And that, in turn, undergirds appeal to Christian ethics. Many unbelievers have no idea that there is any evidence for Christianity. They think it's all a matter of sheer faith. Make-believe and wishful thinking. By avoiding religious arguments, prolifers reinforce that damaging stereotype. 

Spontaneous abortion and induced abortion

A common argument that abortionists deploy against Christians is the phenomenon of miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. They say God is the greatest abortionist of all, given the number of miscarriages. Therefore, opposing abortion is tantamount to opposing God. I've discussed this before, but I'd like to add some additional considerations:

i) Scripture treats miscarriage as a tragedy. Therefore, the fact that miscarriage occurs in the course of ordinary providence doesn't mean it's good, from a biblical perspective.

ii) In Scripture, the fact that something providentially occurs doesn't automatically mean we have no duty to infer with it. For one thing, we live in a fallen world. Death is a providential event, yet Scripture treats death as evil. Providence by itself is not a reliable guide to our duties.

iii) Miscarriage is one of many natural causes of death. But in general, we don't think the fact that some deaths are due to natural causes is a reason to accept the status quo. Much of medical science is directed at preventing death by natural causes, where possible. Death by disease is natural or providential. That's no different from miscarriage. 

iv) Scripture treats disease as a natural evil, yet Scripture also has cases of miraculous healing. So healing isn't impious. 

v) Insofar as many miscarriages are beyond the ability of medical science (at present) to prevent, there's no duty to prevent them. That doesn't mean there's no obligation to save individuals from gratuitous death, where that's preventable. 

vi) In a fallen world, combatting providential evil can be a good thing. For instance, it cultivates soul-building virtues. God puts some obstacles in our way in order for us to overcome the obstacles. 

vii) There's a sense in which some deaths are morally worse than others. Murder is worse than accidental death. 

Why you can’t believe rape is wrong if you don’t believe abortion is wrong (Video) . . .

. . . and you can’t believe abortion is wrong if you don’t have an objective, universal, moral standard (i.e. God’s law).

What makes Jesus the Good Shepherd?

3 So he told them this parable: 4 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? 5 And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’ 7 Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance (Lk 15:3-7).

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. 2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” 6 This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.

7 So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” (Jn 10:1-18).

What makes Jesus a good shepherd? His determination and ability to protect his sheep. Not one will be forever lost. If his flock loses sheep, then he failed. He failed to protect his sheep from deadly harm. 

Now, a freewill theist might say Jesus protects his sheep so long as they remain within eyeshot of the shepherd, but if they separate themselves from the flock, they expose themselves to danger. Jesus doesn't protect them from wandering away of their own accord. 

But that's what endangers sheep. If they stray, the wolf can pick them off because they are too far away for the shepherd to protect them. So protecting the sheep must include reclaiming stray sheep–otherwise it's no protection at all. The peril lies in getting separated from the shepherd. And that's why the shepherd retrieves sheep that wander off.

A freewill theist might object that I'm pressing the metaphor. It's just a metaphor. Every analogy has limitations. 

That's true, but what else is there to the metaphor of sheep and shepherds? It's chosen to illustrate a principle since it plays on the popular stereotype of lost sheep, endangered sheep. That's what sheep do. Left to their own devices, they wander off into the waiting jaws of the bear or the wolf pack. And the job of a shepherd is to protect the flock. In the OT, David is the paradigmatic shepherd who protected his flock from wild predators. Does Jesus do less for his sheep than David? 

Challenging Muslims in their own language

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/since-they-started-learning-our-language-and-challenging-us-in-our-mother-tongue/