One Single Argument

Throughout the ages, dark forces all over the globe have advanced one single argument, an argument which has resulted in the torment and death of millions of human beings. The contours of this argument are adjusted to fit the particular historical setting in which the argument is introduced, but the basic form of the argument remains unchanged: certain human beings are intrinsically less valuable than other human beings and may therefore be exploited or exterminated.

Neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people nor intended to be included in the general words used in [the Declaration of Independence]....They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order…and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect…[They were] bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise.

– Dred Scott vs. Sandford, 1857

There are still Jewish lackeys today who attempt to disrupt our storm attack on the Jewish world rulers, trying to stop us or even cause us to fall. The following hints show how one can reply to these arguments by our opponents, or even turn their arguments against them….

Argument 7: “The Jew is a human being too!” — Counterargument: “Of course the Jew is a human being too. None of us has ever doubted it. But a flea is also an animal. But not a very pleasant one. Since a flea is not a pleasant animal, we have no duty to protect and defend it, to take care of it so that it can bite and torment and torture us. Rather, we make it harmless. It is the same with the Jews.”

Argument 8: “Everything with a human face is equal.” — Counterargument: "Thirteen years ago, the 'Stürmer' carried a cartoon. In it, a miserable pig looked up from his sty to a royal lion. 'Everything with an animal face is equal!' But what did the lion growl in reply? 'That’s what you swine would like to think!'"

– Unser Wille und Weg (Nazi publication), 1936

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’….Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.

– Journal of Medical Ethics, 2012

This one single argument is really quite strong. By any criterion that can be empirically measured, human beings are not equal. Some are strong; some are weak. Some are smart; some are stupid. Some are beautiful; some are ugly. Some are rich; some are poor. Some contribute to society; some drain society's resources. There is no scientific basis on which to assert that Albert Einstein and an Aids orphan have the same intrinsic value.

To this formidable argument, I know of only one answer, and that answer is entirely irrational and hopelessly impractical:

Love one another as I have loved you. 

- Jesus

"Wanderlust" Letter to the Editor

This is a letter I wrote to the editor of Chimes, Biola's student newspaper:

I am convinced that there is nothing more lethal than legalism. No mindset is more antithetical to life in Christ. That is why I am so concerned by the recent review of the film “Wanderlust.”

According to the author, “Wanderlust” is a “raunchy comedy” filled with “gratuitous, full-frontal group nudity.” Despite this, it is clear that the author does not believe he has committed a sin in watching this film. On the contrary, he appears to have enjoyed it immensely. Going into the movie, he knew it “could be nothing but hilarious” and was not disappointed. The movie was “darn entertaining.” “Grotesque amounts of nudity not withstanding, ‘Wanderlust’ is another very, very funny comedy.”

In these words, the author has revealed that he is a thorough legalist. Contrary to the popular misconception, a legalist is not one who condemns activities not explicitly condemned in Scripture. Many legalists certainly do this, but so do all Christians who condemn abortion, slavery, or pornography. A true legalist is one who believes that righteousness consists in the external. Legalists have clean hands and filthy hearts. Legalists are “white-washed tombs.” The essence of legalism is the attempt to drive a wedge between inner and outer, between heart and hands, between soul and body.

No doubt, the author considers it a sin to engage in the activities depicted in “Wanderlust,” but he clearly does not consider it a sin to enjoy them. This is one of the most fundamental and devastating misunderstandings of Christianity. The popular slogan “What Would Jesus Do” fails to capture the goal of the Christian life, which is nothing short of total conformity to the image of Christ. Such conformity does indeed include our actions, but it also includes our affections. Not only are we to do what Jesus would do, we are to enjoy what Jesus would enjoy. This requires a total transformation, accomplished only through daily participation with Christ in his death and resurrection.

I am fairly certain that Jesus would not find “Wanderlust” funny. I believe his emotional response to this film would be markedly different than the emotional response described by the author. As the only true human, we should seek to follow Jesus body and soul. God help us.

A Biblical View of Hell

“I couldn’t hold someone’s had to a flame for a moment. Not an instant. How could a loving God, just because you don’t obey him and do what He wants, torture you forever, not allowing you to die, but to continue in that pain for eternity. There is no criminal who would do this.”

– Charles Templeton

I think Mr. Templeton has a point.

In the face of this dilemma, many Christians have turned to Annihilationism or Universalism. Annihilationists hold that only those who believe in Jesus will receive eternal life; thus those who reject Christ will merely cease to exist. Universalists hold that all men will eventually come to believe in Christ, either in this life or after death, and thus all will be saved.

I certainly hope that one of these two views is correct. However, I do not think that either view is necessary to solve the dilemma that Mr. Templeton has posed.

As I child, I remember a “hell-fire and brimstone” preacher attempting to explain how it could be possible to burn for eternity. He suggested that the fire would first melt off your skin, burning through each layer of nerves. Then your flesh would be consumed. Finally, when your bones were charred, God would magically restore your body, and the cycle would begin again.

This preacher was not too conservative; he was too liberal. He was not being true to the Bible. He was bending the Scriptures to fit his own agenda.

The true, Biblical view of Hell is not the macabre fantasies that sprung up in the Middle Ages, when almost no one could even read the Bible.  For the following 3 reasons, I believe that the Scriptures do not teach the presence of literal fire in Hell:

1. There are degrees of suffering in Hell

2. The imagery of fire is a metaphor for divine judgment

3. Men in Hell are not literally on fire

First, the Bible teaches that people will experience different degrees of torment in Hell (Luke 10:14, Mathew 11:24). Romans 2:5-6 teaches that the punishment one experiences will be based on his life, “according to what he has done.” Revelation 20:13 teaches that unbelievers will be judged “each one according to his works.” It is extremely difficult to reconcile the belief that all people will literally feel their flesh burning for all of eternity with the belief that they will be in different levels of torment.  How can one flame be "more tolerable" than another? 

Secondly, the imagery of fire is an extremely common metaphor in Scripture used to depict divine judgment. In Exodus 15:7, the “burning anger” of God was said to have “consumed” the Egyptian soldiers “like chaff,” but in reality they were drowned in the Red Sea. In Isaiah 42:25, the Lord unleashed “the fury of His anger” on Israel, and it “set him on fire” and “burned him.” In Zephaniah 1:18, the destruction of Judah was foretold in that “the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of His jealousy.”  Many more such examples could be provided.  In John 15:6, Jesus described the believers who did not abide in him as braches that would be thrown “into the fire” and “burned.” In Hebrews 10:26-30, we read that the Lord will judge “His people” with a “fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.” In 1 Corinthians 3:12-15, Paul says that the believer whose “work is burned” will be saved, “yet so as through fire.” Unless one imagines that there will be literal structures in heaven representing each person’s work, this fire must once again be understood as a figurative expression of God’s judgment. It is also interesting to note that while many maintain there is literal fire in Hell, no one supposes that there is a host of undying worms in Hell (see Mark 9:43-44 in reference to Isaiah 66:24, 14:11). Clearly figurative language is being used!

Finally, and most importantly, the belief that Hell involves literal fire seriously conflicts with the single glimpse into Hell that the Scriptures give us:

The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented.  And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’  Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’

- Luke 16:22b-30

Even though this man is being "tormented" in “flame,” he is still able to engage in a thoughtful dialogue. Though I have never experienced this, I would imagine that if even part of my hand was dipped in gasoline and lit on fire, I would not be able to carry on a coherent conversation: I would be screaming uncontrollably! (Also, my first request would not be for a drink.) This man is clearly not "on fire" in the way we understand that condition.  Therefore, those who hold a high view of Scripture must abandon the idea that Hell involves an eternal sensation of burning identical to what we experience in this body.  Furthermore, it is important to remember that this was a wicked man (Luke 16:19-21) who willfuly rejected God's revelation (Luke 16:29), and therefore the degree of torment that he experienced was certainly much more severe than what most in Hell will endure.  

In conclusion, it is impossible to argue that the Biblical doctrine of Hell punishment is unjust, because all the Bible really tells us about Hell punishment is that it is just.  Each man will be punished according to his deeds by the God who is Himself the definition of Justice.  The details concerning the exact nature of this punishment are not revealed to us. 

The Scariest Place in the Bible?

For many Christians, Romans 9 is a frightening passage for mature believers only.  For many skeptics, Romans 9 is a revolting argument that gives the lie to all of the Christian talk about a loving God.

In The Bondage of the Will, Martin Luther made this comment concerning Romans 9:13:

"The love and hate of God towards men is immutable and eternal, existing, not merely before there was any merit or work of ‘free-will,’ but before the world was made; [so] all things take place in us of necessity, according as He has from eternity loved or not loved ... faith and unbelief come to us by no work of our own, but through the love and hatred of God."

In short, people burn in hell for all of eternity because they do not believe in Jesus, and people do not believe in Jesus because God hated them before they were born.  Wow.  No wonder the "Romans Road" bypasses this chapter!

I believe Romans 9 has been seriously misunderstood. Below is a diagram I have put together to illustrate two competing interpretations of the passage. The boxes in the middle are those points of Paul's argument which I take to be undisputed. The boxes on the left explain how I perceive Paul's argument to be understood within the TULIP system. The boxes on the right contain my interpretation of the passage.

I believe Romans 9 is the very heart of Paul's gospel.  This passage does not teach that God has chosen who will have faith; it teaches that God has chosen to save all who have faith.  It is a glorious passage that defends God's universal offer of salvation and lays the foundation for the invitation in the following chapter:  "Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved" (10:13).

Romans 9 is not rated M for Mature; it is rated E for Everyone!

The Pro-Choice Quiz

Are you really pro-choice? Take this simple quiz to find out now!

Question 1: It is alright to tear apart a newborn infant if...

A)  The mother cannot afford to care for the child.
B)  The child is mentally handicapped.
C)  The mother was raped.
D)  All of the above.
E)  None of the above.

If you selected (A) through (D), you are pro-choice. If you selected (E), you might be pro-choice; proceed to the next question.

Question 2: Is a human fetus a human (i.e. a member of the species Homo sapiens)?

A) No
B) Yes

If you selected (A), you are pro-choice. If you selected (B), you might be pro-choice; proceed to the next question.

Question 3: The value of a human is determined by…

A) The human's size.
B) The human's level of development.
C) The human's degree of dependency.
D) All of the above.
E) None of the above.

If you selected (A) through (D), you are pro-choice. If you selected (E), you are not pro-choice; welcome to the ranks of the anti-choice fanatics.

Posted here on the Live Action blog.

No Disassembly Required

“Babies are born perfect.” “Take your whole baby home.” “No disassembly required.” Such are the slogans of a small but vocal movement devoted to ending the practice of infant circumcision. They are not activists; they are “intactivists.” 



Several days ago, the Bay Area Intactivists decided to protest the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which recently declined to join their anti-circumcision campaign. On January 21, a small group of intactivists picketed outside of a church where the ACLU was hosting a pro-choice brunch to promote abortion rights. Ironically, intactivist Jonathon Conte claimed that the protest was well received by many of those who attended the brunch:

The reaction towards protesters was overwhelmingly positive by…attendees of the brunch…In addition to giving an enthusiastic thumbs-up while driving into the parking lot, several of those attending the brunch walked over to to voice their support and to thank Bay Area Intactivists for being there. Some were shocked to learn that the ACLU has had such a poor track record in regard to ending the forced genital cutting of boys.

I would love to meet someone who is pro-abortion and anti-circumcision. If any of my readers have met one of these fascinating individuals, please send them my way. I have many questions. What ethical principle leads one to determine that it is wrong to slice off the foreskin of a premature infant, but acceptable to rip off the entire penis, along with the arms, legs, and head, of a viable fetus? If a baby survives an abortion attempt, is it still wrong to circumcise him? Prenatal surgeries are occasionally performed; would prenatal circumcision be acceptable? How about “partial-birth” circumcision, in which the doctor would circumcise the baby before he is completely out of the womb?

In the medical textbook Abortion Practice, abortionist Dr. Warren Hern describes the dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure used in later abortions:

The procedure changes significantly at 21 weeks because the fetal tissues become much more cohesive and difficult to dismember. This problem is accentuated by the fact that the fetal pelvis may be as much as 5cm in width. The calvaria [head] is no longer the principal problem; it can be collapsed. Other structures, such as the pelvis, present more difficulty…A long curved Mayo scissors may be necessary to decapitate and dismember the fetus.

In sworn testimony before the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell admitted that the fetus is often still alive throughout much of this procedure: “It’s not unusual at the start of D&E procedures that a limb is acquired first…prior to anything having been done that would have caused the fetal demise.” In a prior interview with Cincinnati Medicine, he explained that the procedure could take up to 45 minutes, due to “the toughness and development of the fetal tissues.”

Regardless of your views on circumcision, those of us in the pro-life community can agree that the intactivists have great slogans. Babies are born perfect. No disassembly required.

Posted here on the Live Action Blog.

Is Abortion Wrong?

Before we can answer this question, we must first answer three others:

1. What is abortion?
2. What is a fetus?
3. What is wrong?

What is Abortion?

There are essentially two types of surgical abortion procedures: the Suction Curettage procedure used in earlier abortions, and the Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) procedure used in later abortions.

Suction Curettage

This is sworn testimony by abortion doctor Martin Haskell describing the Suction Curettage procedure:

When we do a suction curettage abortion, you know, roughly one of three things is going to happen during the abortion. One would be that the catheter as it approaches the fetus, you know, tears it and kills it at that instant inside the uterus. The second would be that the fetus is small enough and the catheter is large enough that the fetus passes through the catheter and either dies in transit as it’s passing through the catheter or dies in the suction bottle after it’s actually all the way out.

Dilation and Evacuation

This is sworn testimony by Dr. Haskell describing the Dilation and Evacuation procedure:

Let's just say…we left the leg in the uterus just to dismember it. Well, we'd probably have to dismember it at several different levels because we don't have firm control over it, so we would attack the lower part of the lower extremity first, remove, you know, possibly a foot, then the lower leg at the knee and then finally we get to the hip. And typically when the abortion procedure is started we typically know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move as we're making our initial grasps or if we're using some ultrasound visualization when we actually see a heartbeat as we're starting the procedure. It's not unusual at the start of D&E procedures that a limb is acquired first…prior to anything having been done that would have caused the fetal demise.

When you're doing a dismemberment D&E, usually the last part to be removed is the skull itself and it's floating free inside the uterine cavity…So it's rather like a ping-pong ball floating around and the surgeon is using his forceps to reach up to try to grasp something that's freely floating around…So typically there's several misdirections, misattempts to grasp. Finally…the skull is brought out in fragments rather than as a unified piece.

This is an excerpt from the medical textbook Abortion Practice by abortion doctor Warren Hern:

The procedure changes significantly at 21 weeks because the fetal tissues become much more cohesive and difficult to dismember. This problem is accentuated by the fact that the fetal pelvis may be as much as 5cm in width. The calvaria [head] is no longer the principal problem; it can be collapsed. Other structures, such as the pelvis, present more difficulty…A long curved Mayo scissors may be necessary to decapitate and dismember the fetus.

This is an excerpt from an interview with Dr. Haskell in Cincinnati Medicine:

D&E's, the procedure typically used for later abortions, have always been somewhat problematic because of the toughness and development of the fetal tissues.… I just kept doing D&E's because that was what I was comfortable with, up until 24 weeks. But they were very tough. Sometimes it was a 45-minute operation.

In summary, abortion is a procedure to "decapitate and dismember the fetus." 

What is a Fetus?

Consider the differences between a human fetus and a human infant:

All of the differences between these two can be summarized as follows:

• Difference in size
• Difference in level of development
• Difference in degree of dependency

A human fetus can move, suck her thumb, sleep, dream, fight with her twin, enjoy music, and feel the pain of an abortion.

Now consider the differences between a human infant and Barrack Obama:

The differences between a human infant and Barack Obama are far greater in degree than the differences between a human fetus and a human infant. However, all of the differences can still be summarized as follows:

• Difference in size
• Difference in level of development
• Difference in degree of dependency

In short, a human fetus and a human infant differ only in those ways in which any human at any stage of development differs from any other human at a different stage of life.

What is Wrong?

Is it wrong to kill a human infant?  After all, a strong case can be made for infanticide:

1. Abortion costs money, and many poor people do not have the money to spare on abortion, especially in developing countries. Infanticide, on the other hand, is absolutely free. The procedure requires no doctor’s consultation, no medication, and no follow up visit. It requires no special equipment and can be performed with any number of common household items, such as a kitchen knife or even a shoestring.

2. Criminalizing infanticide is dangerous for women. In societies where infanticide is illegal, young women who do not want their child, but who have neglected to have an abortion, are forced to secretly dispose of their babies in back alleys or public restrooms. Giving birth alone, without any medical care, is extremely dangerous, especially in such unsanitary environments. When legal, however, infanticide is 100% safe. There are absolutely no health risks associated with the procedure.

3. Women have the right to choose. To rob a woman of her infanticide rights is to rob her of her reproductive freedom. Don’t like infanticide? Then don’t do it!

4. Infanticide prevents unwanted children. For example, some mothers do not know that their child is physically or mentally handicapped until after the child has been born. It is a great injustice that these mothers are now forced by the state to raise a child they do not want.

5. Infanticide is ultimately better for children. Unwanted children are much more likely to experience abuse or neglect; infanticide ensures that every child is a wanted child.

6. Infanticide benefits society. In developing countries, particularly those affected by the Aids epidemic, orphanages are overcrowded and the streets are swarming with homeless children. Countless millions are expended every year to keep these children alive, when the money could be used much more effectively to build economies and create jobs. Infanticide, administered systematically on a large scale, would relieve societies of this burden, thus creating a better world for all.

7. Criminalizing infanticide violates the separation of church and state. Those who oppose infanticide rights do so because they believe it is evil to kill children, but this assertion cannot be proven empirically by the scientific method. Thus it is merely a personal opinion based on religious beliefs, and as such, it cannot form the basis of public policy in a secular democracy.

So do you really believe that infanticide should be illegal?  Why?