Category: Political

Book Plunge: Eve In Exile

What do I think of Rebekah Merkle’s book published by Canon Press? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I saw a quote from this book, and I do not recall which one it was, and I immediately went to Amazon to see if I could order it. Turns out, I had already ordered it. So off I went to find it in my Kindle library and enjoy it.

The main point of this book is how feminism has destroyed femininity. The #1 area that this is talked about in is in the area of being a wife and how being a mother is seen as a sort of letdown in life. Yeah. You could go off and have a career and make a lot of money and build up a name and do something good for the world, or you could become a mother. It’s as if being a mother is a lesser position. After all, all you’re doing is bringing a new human being into the world that could spend eternity in the presence of God.

The sad part is some people will then think that Merkle is automatically against women working at all and wants all women to be in the kitchen making their husbands sandwiches while pregnant. Not at all. Merkle never forbids a woman getting a job or an education or anything like that, but she does say to make sure your family comes first.

She also gives a history of feminism and who the major players have been in it. They weren’t Christians for sure. At the start, there were a lot of noble intentions, but it has gone more and more downhill so much so that feminism is often anti-feminine. However, there is a mistake conservatives can make.

Our mistake is we can look back on the past and think the 50’s were a paradise and have an Ozzie and Harriet type of family. Part of the problem was women were too complacent as technology was more and more doing everything for us and there was that desire to go out into the world and do more. We could say women wanted to be a lot more like men.

Merkle regularly makes it clear in the book that she is writing to Christian women and assumes her audience is female, which is fine, but men should read this too to understand feminism better. As she says in the end, most all of our negative major events have been led by women. Abortion? Women. Redefining marriage? Women. Transgenderism? Women. Now guess who’s being replaced in sports? Yep. Women.

If there is one more thing I would like to see in this book, it would have been more on how if women are to be wives and mothers and display the beauty of God in their lives, how should they relate to their husbands? Perhaps Merkle will write another book someday focusing on this on how the feminist movement has damaged marriage as well and how women are the worse off for it.

Either way, this book is a good book every woman should read and it couldn’t hurt the man to read it. Want to have a good book for a women’s Bible study at your church? Go with this one.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Holston Home And Freedom

What can you do with freedom? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In my last post, I wrote about the Holston Home and while I wrote on other aspects, I mainly wanted to answer one question. Are they being anti-semitic? I concluded that while that is a possibility, there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that and a multitude of other reasons why they would do this.

Consider this. Suppose a Christian mother knows she can’t care for a child and gives it to Holston. She just asks to please make sure that the child goes to a Christian home. Should the agency strive to fulfill this? Yes.

Could the State stop supporting Holston Home? They could, but if the home goes under without that support, what happens to the children? The State has to take care of them then and that could cost them even more. The State could enter into a tacit agreement that the Home does most of the work taking care of the children and then the State allows them to handle the children as they see fit as long as they’re not being abused.

However, here comes a Jewish couple and isn’t this anti-semitic? Why should a Christian agency cater to Christians only and place children in Christian homes? However, what if the shoe was on the other foot? Indeed, it can be.

Lo and behold, there actually are Jewish Adoption Agencies. What are the requirements? You have to be Jewish in order to adopt a Jewish child. Does this mean that these agencies hate Christians? No. They could hate Christians, but it doesn’t follow.

This is part of our problem in our world today. Whenever there seems to be some differences in a group or something that is perceived as mistreatment, the first idea we jump towards is racism or wrongful discrimination. There could be plenty of other explanations and in this case, there is.

Now from my perspective, I can fully defend the Jewish Adoption Agencies right to do what they want with the children. Now as a Christian, would I prefer to see children raised in Christian homes to know Jesus? Absolutely. However, that is where freedom of religion comes in. The Jewish community in America is free to live Jewish and raise their children Jewish. I don’t want Christianity to be forced in our country as I don’t think that is the way the gospel is meant to be spread.

My own Dad has sometimes shared stories on his Facebook about the Church of Satan wanting to do some public event. My response every time? Let them. That’s what freedom of religion means. Now if they’re wanting to do something specifically illegal, that would be another matter, but if they are not, then they have that freedom.

Not only that, but if I am sure that Christianity can win in the marketplace of ideas, why should I complain about others entering the arena? It’s not much of a win in a competition if you win by banning all your competitors from entering. I have to accept that if I want freedom, that will mean I get some things that I don’t want to happen.

I don’t think single people should adopt children as I think a child needs a mother and a father optimally, but suppose I decided I wanted to adopt a child and went to the Jewish Adoption Agency. Could they turn me down because I am not Jewish? Yes. I may not like that. Tough. That is their freedom.

Now as for the state, if they come in, they could wind up taking sides in a situation they have no right to speak on. Ultimately, my usual idea on most matters today is for the state to stay out of it and let the individual states decide for themselves. The Christian adoption agency has the freedom to run its organization in a Christian manner and the Jewish one a Jewish manner. if the Christian agency is anti-semitic, it is entirely consistent to say the Jewish organization is anti-Christian.

The sad reality is that too many people today look at how this hits them in the feels. Rhetoric wins over data most every time. Until we as a nation learn to decide matters with evidence instead of with our emotions, we will continue to go downhill.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Is Holston Home Practicing Hate?

Was a Jewish family the victim of hatred? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In a news story, a Jewish Couple went to Holston United Methodist Home for Children. They applied to adopt a child, but they were turned down because of their Jewish faith. Immediately, the conclusion was hatred and discrimination. Is this what’s really going on? Is the home anti-Semitic?

No, actually. Let’s suppose a family came that was Messianic Jewish and this included being Jewish by birth. They had come to embrace Jesus as the Messiah and agreed with the statement of faith of Holston. Would they get to adopt? Yes.

It’s not about being Jewish in the sense of genetic, but about is the child going to be raised in a home where their spiritual needs will be met, including being raised to believe in Jesus. The Holston group doesn’t want them to be put in a family where they will be told something false about Jesus and risk having their soul be lost forever. Whatever you might think of their actions, that is not a bad motive.

Now some secularists might complain, but that is misunderstanding the way a religious faith operates. Meeting the material needs is good, but meeting the spiritual needs is absolutely essential. A Christian organization cannot in good conscience deny such needs.

Suppose it was a Jewish organization that wanted to insist children be adopted into the Jewish faith and would not let anyone who believes Jesus is the Messiah or disbelieves in God adopt a child. That is their freedom. Suppose a Muslim organization didn’t want to give a child to a family that denied that Muhammad was a prophet. That was their freedom. Suppose an atheist organization didn’t want to have a child placed in the home of a crazy religious fanatic. That is their freedom. No adoption agency is obligated to give you a child because you want one.

This is also not denying that the families could be good and loving families. It is just saying that the belief system is the most important aspect. Rightly or wrongly, that is how it is and Holston should not be forced to act within their statement of faith.

In another link about this story, there is an interesting quote.

“The Tennessee Constitution, like the U.S. Constitution, promises religious freedom and equality for everyone. Tennessee is reneging on that promise by allowing a taxpayer-funded agency to discriminate against Liz and Gabe Rutan-Ram because they are Jews,” said Alex J. Luchenitser, associate vice president and associate legal director at Americans United. “Laws like House Bill 836 must not stand when they allow religion to be used to harm vulnerable kids and people like Liz and Gabe who want to provide those children with safe and loving homes.”

It’s amazing that within the first two sentences, Luchenitser contradicts himself. The Tennessee Constitution promises religious freedom. Then he says because of that, the Holston agency cannot turn down a couple because they are Jews. However, that is part of the religious freedom of Holston, to see that children are raised in Christian homes.

No one’s religious freedom is being denied except for Holston’s honestly. They are being told they have to put a child with a family even if it goes against their statement of faith. The Jews are allowed to be Jews still and there are plenty of other organizations they can adopt from.

I’m also unsure what is meant by religious equality? Is this saying that all religions are equal? All one needs to do is study them to see that isn’t the case. Is it saying that all religious beliefs don’t matter? That’s something the state should have no say on. What it is doing now is essentially saying “Yes, Holston. We understand you think a child needs to be raised in an environment where they can grow up to embrace Jesus, but we don’t think that matters and you must agree with us.” The people complaining that Holston is discriminating are wanting to push a discrimination of their own actually.

In reality, discrimination is to some degree unavoidable. We all do it. We all have to do it. If I drive somewhere and I don’t think the area is safe, I lock my doors. (I do that anyway, but I definitely make sure my car is locked if I think there’s danger.) When we choose where to go to school or who to marry or who to babysit the kids, we discriminate. A person could show up at your door and say “I want to babysit your kids for you” and you have no obligation to let them do it.

Imagine being an atheist and hearing someone wants to tutor your elementary school children. Okay. You might be interested. Then you hear that they’re a young-earth creationist who wants to teach them science. Do you accept that? Are you being discriminating if you say no? Are you denying a child an education?

The problem with a story like this is it pulls at emotional heartstrings way too easily and most of us think on how we feel about the story instead of how the story is. When you hear the story, it’s too easy to assume anti-semitism at the start. When you look, it makes sense why Holston is doing this, and you could think they are wrong in their beliefs and/or actions still, but I would hope you would at least understand it.

Also, whatever faith you are or lack of faith you are, remember that as soon as the state takes a side on any religion whatsoever, they could just as well do the same to you. Do I want the state to determine that all atheist households are unfit homes and no one can let a child be adopted into one? No. I want every organization to have the freedom to choose who they want the child to adopt to barring some physical exceptions, such as registered sex offenders definitely can’t adopt.

Some have said the state should cease funding the Holston Home. If they want to, they are free to do so. The state can tell them that unless they adopt to all, then they can’t get federal funding. I don’t think I agree with that, but the state doesn’t owe them anything. Technically, we could even say it should be up to the state taxpayers since they are the ones who are providing the state with the money anyway.

There is no doubt this is a complicated issue hinging on personal and religious freedom. One thing to avoid is accusations of moral turpitude. I can understand why the Jewish family wants to adopt. I can understand why Holston only wants to adopt to Christians as is clear from statements on their website.

That’s also the first step in resolving this. Truly understanding where everyone is coming from.

Too bad we never seem to get to that step.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

The Rush To Hate

Is the word used too easily? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Something I tire of in the world today is the quick rush to hate and the condemnation of hate. If there is disagreement against someone, it is assumed that the hatred of the person must be the cause. Accusations of moral turpitude are too easily thrown out there. (Hint to my leftist friends, and even enemies: I have heard the terms racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, bigot, etc. that nowadays I no longer take them seriously.)

Unfortunately for an age where we talk about unity and tolerance, immediately jumping to hate is not going to help us in discussions. How can you have an honest discussion with someone if you think they hate you? Now in all fairness, maybe they do, but shouldn’t that be checked on and not just assumed?

If all we are judging someone on is isolated actions without a context, we could be making really poor judgments. Suppose at my workplace I see a parent snap off to their child. Now i could be assuming that this person is a horrible parent and doesn’t really care about their child. I could be right. However, it could also be that they’ve had an extremely stressful time recently or gone through a personal crisis and their kid is just on their last nerve and they will regret the way they snapped at their kid later.

Here’s a good rule to consider. Always consider that it’s more likely that the other person’s motives are more pure than you think they are. Always also consider that your motives are less pure than you think they are.

Along those lines also, keep in mind good motives don’t always mean good actions and good results. It could be like the boy wanting to set the butterfly free without realizing his breaking the butterfly out is killing it. The butterfly needs to break free on its own so it will be strong enough to fly.

There are also people in fiction known as antiheroes who do good things, but do them for the wrong reasons. We just often don’t have enough information. That’s why accusations of moral turpitude are always serious.

Also, not all hate is bad. There are some things you ought to hate. Why is it that it’s not a good thing to be called a Nazi? Because you ought to hate Nazism. If you don’t hate Nazism, there’s something wrong with you. That doesn’t mean you will always feel hatred, and I hope you don’t, but you know who the bad guys are. At the same time, you shouldn’t hate Nazis. You should love them. You should love them so much you want them to see the error of their ways.

You should hate plenty of other things. You should hate sex trafficking. You should hate child abuse. You should hate rape. You should hate people unwillingly living in poverty. You should hate disease. The list could go on and on.

I also know conservatives do this as well. You won’t find me doing it. Hate is a word that describes something real, but I don’t use it as much as others do. I could on my own personal opinions of something, but I don’t generally express them.

Tomorrow, I plan on looking at an accusation of hate and see if it holds up.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Strange New World

What do I think of Carl Trueman’s book published by Crossway publishing? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This is one of those books that I was recommending practically immediately as I got into it. Carl Trueman has written a look at how the self has come to be in our times and the implications it has for our society. Now some of you might be curious about that. “Haven’t there always been selves? Why is this so strange to talk about the coming of the self?”

Yes, there have always been selves, but the self has not always been understood the same way. In the past, self was often connected with religion, family, and nation. Now, self has been disjointed. Self comes through who you are within. While we have always had feelings, those feelings have never defined us. Now, they normally do.

In the past, it was thought that culture civilized a man, but centuries ago, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued the opposite. Man was pure in his natural state. It is culture that makes him what he is often not. This would include the effect of technology and the sciences.

From here, we continue down a path of more and more looking inward to find who you are. Marx had his impact with putting man against society. Nietzsche announced the death of God and said the Earth had been untethered from its sun. Unlike today’s modern atheists, Nietzsche knew the serious ramifications of the death of God. Freud started us down the path of making our main identity be the sexual identity.

Today then, we live in a culture where we don’t know who we are and our identities are psychological. The problem is that psychology is often flexible and fluid so we have no stable basis for identity. At the same time also, how can you argue against what someone else is feeling? We live in a world where the feelings are true and when someone gets in touch with their feelings, they are experiencing their true selves.

Along the way here, we talk about being authentic. How can you deny your true self? Now in a sense, there is some good in authenticity. Jesus had a lot to say about hypocrisy, However, the problem comes with when we think that every feeling is something that must be lived out. It starts with assuming that man is innately good, per Rousseau, and we still have the effects.

Today, the biggest way we are seeing this is the LGBTQ movement. This is one of the biggest results of feelings being given the ultimate authority. Tolerance would never have worked for the LGBTQ movement because that would be seen as putting someone in a lesser state and denying their personhood. After all, if your identity is based on your sexual desires and behavior, then to question those is to question your humanity. If people have this mindset, love the sinner and hate the sin does not work.

The self has been redefined, but now we are going further. The family is being redefined. All of this is done as we keep looking inside ourselves to find out who we are. Emotions and feelings become the main moving forces in our lives and they are to be obeyed and treated as the main authority. Our courts are moving more and more this way and the path won’t stop.

We are becoming a society where the goal is to always feel good and be happy. This has even happened in the churches. Don’t like your church? Go to another one. Now some Catholics and Orthodox readers might say “We don’t have that problem” but they do as well. Church is a choice and the Catholic and the Orthodox have to be given a reason to keep coming to church. They can just as easily stay home.

As our culture becomes more and more of a self-focused culture, the church is going to be on the hard end of matters as we return more and more to Roman Empire times and the state assumes control. For all of us, the challenge will likely come sometime. Will we risk getting fired because we won’t use a certain person’s pronouns of choice? Will we have our businesses be destroyed because we refuse to bake a cake for a “gay wedding” ceremony?

This is definitely a book where I say to get it and read it and learn it. The one who told me about this book said they read it once every year. I could very well start that myself as well.

This book is also a smaller version of a bigger book of his on this topic, so it is also accessible for everyone. It would be one of the best books for a church book study to do. Bottom line: Get this book and learn it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

On The Military on Pride Month

What is the purpose of a military? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

“And when the SJW mob passes through your area, when they see the rainbow flag on your house or business, they will pass over, but if they do not see the rainbow flag on your house and business, they will unleash their fury to get you cancelled and they will show no mercy.”

Such is what I have on my wall for what a friend of mine calls “Liberal Passover.” I get up and pretty much everywhere I go I see Pride flags. I didn’t even see this much for Black History Month or for Women’s History or Asian History or even for my own Autism Awareness Month. Mine is the one I least expect to see it for. After all, we don’t go and form mobs and shut down people that refuse to endorse us.

However, this is the first year I have seen the U.S. Military take this route and put up a statement for Pride Month on the first of the month.

So I did a search. Maybe I just missed something. I looked for Autism Awareness Month and the U.S. military. Nothing was coming up showing they celebrated it. I then replaced Autism Awareness with Pride Month and boom, it was right there immediately. Well, maybe people on the spectrum can’t serve. That was false also. There have been and are people on the spectrum in the military.

Now in a sense, I don’t really want the military to get involved. The military is not about raising awareness for causes necessarily. The military just needs to purely be America first. That is no longer happening.

My great concern with this? If the military can’t stand up to the SJW front, how on Earth can I expect them to stand up to our enemies? I can definitely assure you that the Russian and Chinese militaries are not spending their time making sure they’re supporting Pride Month or using proper pronouns or anything like that.

It’s also disappointing to see that if this is the case with Pride, then apparently the military is saying that the cause of Pride matters more than all those other causes, and this is part of the danger when it becomes political. Many of us on the right are very concerned that our military is becoming weaker because SJW causes are more important than the real point of the military, that of winning wars.

Do I still support the military? At the time, yes, but I am concerned about our future with this. I am more and more concerned that we are becoming a nation that is focusing on feelings instead of focusing on reality. I’m especially thinking about this after a great recommendation from someone that I read the book Strange New World. I have just recently started it and I am reading it on Audible and I definitely plan to review it as I am concerned about the Strange New World we find ourselves in.

I really hope the military returns to winning wars instead of political acceptance.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Parasitic Mind

What do I think of Gad Saad’s book published by Regnery publishing? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

(Note that this was book was listened to through Audible so I cannot reference pages)

Gad Saad is a Lebanese Jew who is an evolutionary psychologist and probably more on the agnostic/atheistic side and is a Libertarian. I am a caucasian Christian apologist who has never left America and a solid Republican conservative. We are two very different people then and yet I think we would be able to converse on not only many areas we agree on, but many that we disagree on as well.

Saad is a professor and is seeing a contagion rise up in the university. This is a problem where we are more concerned about feelings than we are about truth. The university was meant to be a place where ideas were discussed and students were opened up to contrary thought and opinions. More and more universities are talking about safe spaces and microaggressions and trying to remove anyone who is a speaker that disagrees.

We all saw that when the 2016 election came to a close and soon numerous crowds were out in the public complaining constantly about the results and asking for safe spaces and therapy animals. We have people that are supposed to be either adults or preparing for adulthood and this is what happened. The same happened when Kavanaugh was being appointed to the Supreme Court.

This is also happening when people are allowed to put fear into everyone else because they feel offended. It happens when someone gets to a place of prominence and then something is found from ten years ago that they flippantly said on Twitter and then the Social Justice Warriors come out. This is a crowd that is hungry for blood and will raise their voices until their demands are met.

What is happening is more and more a world where feelings trump reality. If someone who is a boy says that they feel like a girl, well who are we to disagree? If someone then says they are a dog or a fire-breathing dragon or anything else, who are we to disagree? Feelings trump everything else.

This is also a world where anecdotal experience rules the day over real study. Consider the case of the idea that vaccines cause autism. Anecdotes are given of people who have a certain experience and that is supposed to overrule the studies that are done.

Many times, this is all done in the name of such ideas as diversity, inclusivity, and equality. Generally, these are thought to be good things, but not when they are weaponized. If you dare question someone, the first accusation that can be thrown out is racist or sexist or transphone or homophobe or any such claim.

Saad spends a lot of time talking about the whole idea of Islamophobia. He looks at the terrorists on the FBI most wanted list, the worst nations for women to live in, and other similar statistics and what do you know but there’s something that ties these all together. However, these people are said to not follow true Islam. Who does? Well your friend who claims to be a Muslim and eats pork and is gay. He is what Islam is all about.

Ultimately, Saad sees this as a war on reality and reason. I am inclined to agree. This does hit also in the area of science such as when a paper is given that says that women might not be as good as men at XYZ due to sex differences. This is not allowable because it’s sexist. It’s not asked “Is this true?” It’s instead asked “How does this make us feel?”

I did disagree with Saad some when he spoke so much about the scientific method, but this could be a difference in terminology and if we discussed we might find that we agree more than disagree. I would stress that not all things are scientifically verifiable and there are truths of math and logic and also truths of history that we uncover by studying historical documents.

Saad’s final message is that we stand up and let our voices be heard. Someone might unfriend you on Facebook? Big deal. Real friends don’t separate and pull apart just because they have political differences. There will be risks for all of us involved who want to stand up to what we see going on around us, but they will be worth it.

If you care about ideas and truth, get this book, learn it, and spread what you learn.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Abraham and Sacrifices

What could you have to give up? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yesterday, one of the pastors at my church spoke on Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac. Normally today, I would write about Memorial Day, but I honestly think these two ideas tie in together. After all, Memorial Day is all about being willing to make a sacrifice and acknowledging those who did make it.

When we look at the story of Abraham and Isaac, we who are Christians, and Jews many times, look at it and see a great story of devotion and sacrifice. Skeptics of Christianity look at the story and see God as a wicked monster and Abraham as a psychopath. For we in the apologetics world, our natural tendency is to leap into action and explain how they’re misunderstanding the story.

However, before we do that, let’s consider that they are at least taking the story seriously.

Consider what Abraham is being asked to do. He has wanted a son his whole life most likely and has been asked to sacrifice the son of the promised covenant that God Himself gave him. Also, Isaac was strong enough to go to the top of the mountain alone with Abraham and to carry the wood for the sacrifice so this is no toddler we’re talking about, but someone who is practically an adult at this point.

The way the story is told is also interesting. God tells Abraham to do this and the text in a practically nonchalant way says that Abraham gets up the next morning to do this. While Sarah dies in the next chapter, she is not mentioned here. If she was present, one can wonder how Abraham told the news to her if he even did.

What if it were you? What if you had to give up an only child? It might even be harder if you had multiple children and you had to choose one to sacrifice. Sophie’s Choice is never easy to make. How could it be done?

Abraham had to make a real decision. He had to really choose that he was going to go through with this. This was also the ultimate trust in God. God had specifically promised that it was through Isaac that the covenant would be fulfilled. Abraham had to trust that either he would be stopped or that Isaac would be resurrected, and resurrection had not happened before.

What of us today? What would be hard for us to sacrifice? Your child? Your spouse? Your parents? Your sibling? A friend? Maybe even a pet? What about a hobby or a job?

There are things we all have that are good in themselves that would be hard for us to give up. We wouldn’t want to. It’s why they’re called a sacrifice. If you gave up something you didn’t care about, it wouldn’t be much of a sacrifice. If you give up something that it’s easy to give up, that would also not be a sacrifice.

Suppose I gave $10,000 of my money to a charity right now. That would be a real sacrifice on my part. Now suppose someone like Elon Musk or Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos does the same thing. The charity would appreciate it, but for those guys, it would be chump change.

Before we explain the story of Abraham and Isaac, let’s listen to it really. We are called to make sacrifices in that we are to die to ourselves. We might have to make other sacrifices along the way as well.

Today, we honor those who did make sacrifices.

These were people who left their families and friends behind and knew there was a chance they would never see them again. What did these people think about when they died? Their wives? Their children? Good times with friends? We will never know.

And today, what will most of us be doing? Having a cookout. Now this is not to say that this is wrong, but let’s make it a point to remember those who have gone before us and are no longer able to join in. Some cookouts will have empty chairs there.

Thank you for all of those who have family members who are not there with us and who gave their lives so we could live free. They sacrificed themselves for what they would never enjoy. We should honor such as heroes.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

School Shootings And Evil

Is this proof there is no God? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Last night, I saw on Unbelievable? in Facebook a thread with a news story about the school shooting yesterday and showing it as proof that God does not exist. The problem with something like this is that proof is a strong word to use. I could understand skepticism, but most philosophers, even atheistic ones, agree that there would be no proof here. The logical problem of evil is not really used that much anymore.

Now I have some political thoughts on this event that I shared yesterday on Facebook and I plan on sharing here as an addendum to this post, but the theological ones are the ones worth talking about. I have said on another post that I do not understand the usage of the problem of evil in this way.

This is not about whether theism is true or not as this point cannot establish theism or atheism. This is on a more matter of living everyday and of practicality. We could consider it a sort of Pascal’s Wager point on how you would want the universe to be.

Let’s suppose we have two universes. In one, there is no God. Now right away, since I think God is necessary for the universe to exist in any way, I am granting a huge point, but this is just for the sake of argument. In this universe, matters are exactly the same for the most part and the school shooting has taken place.

Will the victims ever live again? Not a chance.

Will the parents ever see their children again? No way.

Will the teacher who was killed ever see their family again and vice-versa? Forget about it.

Will anyone who does such a crime and somehow gets away with it ever get justice? Not necessarily.

Is there any hope for healing? Perhaps, but it sure isn’t built in hope of resurrection.

In a Christian universe, all the answers are different. Now this does not show God exists, but it does show we should hope that God does exist. That an atheist wants to use this is practically a way to me of saying, “Let’s push some hopelessness!”

The pushback I received was mind-boggling. Unfortunately, that thread seems to have been eliminated so I will have to go by memory.

First I had said that good can come out of this, and so the reply was “So you’re saying what happened was good?”

Good grief. Do these people not read?

Let’s be clear. Evil is evil. That’s a tautology, but no one can make evil good. God doesn’t even make evil good. God makes evil people into good people and brings good things out of evil things. There is a difference.

But don’t I believe in Heaven in that this gunman could have repented right before death and received forgiveness and gone to Heaven?

He could have, though I think if someone is that bent on evil it is highly unlikely. However, would you honestly want it to be otherwise? If you would rather someone suffer for evil rather than realize the error of their ways and turn, then that reveals very little about the evildoer and much more about yourself. We should always hope someone will change their ways and repent. We should always hope someone would embrace the good.

Right now, I have an ex-wife. It would be easy to delight if something goes wrong with her and her desires and she has to suffer, but why should I want that at all? Note that this is even a woman who has accused me of being abusive to her and shattered my heart to pieces and I suffer everyday because of it. Why should I delight in her suffering? That will not help me at all in my life.

Instead, I pray for her constantly and that God will show her mercy and where I am in error, let justice and mercy come to me appropriately. If I were to pray that she suffer instead, then that reveals nothing about her and more about me.  Anyone can treat their friends well. It’s how you treat those who wrong you and your loved ones that shows who you are.

However, just because someone is in Heaven or in Hell doesn’t mean that it’s all equal. There are degrees of blessing and degrees of suffering. My ministry partner and I have talked about people who will be scrubbing toilets in the New Jerusalem.

There is also the claim that someone who is murdered if their murderer repents could be forced to spend eternity with the person who murdered them.

Yes? And?

That article is sufficient to deal with those claims.

I was also told that I said the murderer is good. Not at all. Scripture tells us none are good but God alone. The beauty of the Gospel is that it takes evil people and makes them good people, people like you and I.

To those who lost loved ones yesterday, Christianity offers hope of resurrection. It says that good can come out of the darkest places. It offers our Lord who Himself was in the darkest place and out of that came the greatest good. It also says that those who turn to Him can have hope.

From just a practical basis, I would hope Christianity was true and I would think any honest atheist would want to know that there could be a way that good could come out of evil and there will be hope. In an atheistic universe, I gain no practical benefit from this.

May we all pray for those involved yesterday and that includes the shooter’s family who has their own suffering as well.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Political addendum:

So after this shooting, I did watch and saw Biden make a speech where he pretty much immediately went after the gun lobby and called for the passing of stronger laws concerning guns.
I am old enough to remember where the politicizing of a tragedy was normally condemned right after it happened, but I guess that the rules change when the left has power.
But since it has already been done, here are some points to consider.
If someone is really willing to break a law against murder and even kill kids doing it, do you really think they are going to pay attention to a gun law? Does anyone think the only place to get guns is through a licensed dealer or a place that does background checks?
Here are some better ideas.
From now on, police investigate every claim about someone making any sort of threat whatsoever against a school. If it comes out sometime in this that the villain (And here’s a side point. Don’t mention their names. They don’t deserve credibility. Just call them the X shooter for whatever school it was) was reported many times and had a history of threats and the police never did anything, that’s on them then.
When we say a place is a gun-free zone, what we are really saying is “Come in here and start shooting because we can’t stop you!” Everyone should agree that most people who have guns in this country are good and law-abiding citizens. The overwhelming majority would never do what some idiot did today.
If gun laws won’t stop these people, and they won’t, what will stop them?
For one thing, enforce the laws we have. If someone commits a crime that results in the intentional taking of a human life, don’t dilly-dally on it. Get them in and get them in jail and keep them locked up. If we have to use the death penalty, we do. Let people see that crime has a price to it.
Second, there are countless veterans all over this country who would love to have a side job of some kind where they get to patrol our area schools and keep students safe. Let them take security positions in schools. Many of them would be glad to do it on even a volunteer position.
Third, any teacher who wants to should be allowed to have a gun with them. Don’t think you can trust them with it? Then why trust them with your kids? Teachers are adults who should have the right to arm themselves, especially to protect students that can often be like family to them.
A law will not stop a shooter, but what could stop them is the thought that there are several people in that school who could kill them just as quickly before they get to go on a mass shooting spree. The best defense is indeed a good offense. Let the criminals wonder who it is that has guns in a school or any other place for that matter and let them ask if they are willing to take that risk.
Gun laws do not work and gun-free zones do not work. If you want to murder someone, you will not be stopped by a law. Fear is what will work.

Margaret Sanger and the Klan

Why do Margaret Sanger statues still stand? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have never supported the tearing down of statues. Our history is not perfect, but we often try to think we can erase it like it never happened. Ultimately, it’s about symbolism. On explaining that further, I highly recommend reading this book.

So many people had their statues torn down regularly, but surprisingly, one person seemed to be immune to this. I wasn’t the one who first noticed this. The Babylon Bee actually made a point of this. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, remained safe.

Some people have had statues, books, and paintings removed for the most tenuous links to racism, even if it was their ancestors and not them themselves. However, if anyone has some connections to racism, it would be Sanger. To start with, birth control was largely promoted by her in order to promote the favored races and stifle the reproduction of the unfavored races.

This was the Eugenics movement. Did we take that seriously? Yep. That’s because there was this guy in Germany at the time named Hitler who was doing this by exterminating the people that he deemed unfit. World War II quickly put an end to the Eugenics movement, at least officially.

However, in her autobiography, Sanger talks about speaking to a group of aroused supporters. She considered any group like that a good group to talk to. Therefore, she accepted the invitation and went to speak.

So what was this group?

See for yourself:

All the world over, in Penang and Skagway, in El Paso and Helsingfors, I have found women’s psychology in the matter of childbearing essentially the same, no matter what the class, religion, or economic status. Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing.

So let’s also consider the way the logic works here.

An aroused group is a good group.
The women’s branch of the KKK was an aroused group.
Therefore, the women’s branch of the KKK was a good group.

You can read the book here.

Now I am consistent in that I think removing statues doesn’t work. If Planned Parenthood wants to keep the statue, they have that freedom. However, I notice that Sanger remains safe despite having ties like this. Not only that, but her organization of Planned Parenthood is celebrated as is the abortion that the organization promotes.

We know the reason why. No one dares to touch abortion since it is practically a sacrament to many on the left. We have seen with the news of the leak recently from the Supreme Court that people are going berserk because Roe V. Wade could be overturned.

This is why Sanger gets a lot more grace than anyone else does. Sanger goes and speaks to the KKK? No outrage whatsoever. Someone else was a descendant of someone who was thought to be a racist? We must expel them from our history!

I don’t expect consistency at all on this front. However, it looks like when it comes to which is more important, keeping abortion or removing any hint of racism, keeping abortion, which by the way can eliminate babies who are minorities, abortion wins.

Quite revealing.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)