Or so claims an article that is making its rounds on the internet recently. Over at the Atheist Forums message board one of the members exuberantly posted a link to the infamous article and exclaimed that Christian opposition to same-sex marriage “may not be quite as long-held as they think.” Curious, and ever the skeptic, I clicked the link to see what he was so willing to share without any critical comment—and what I found was a dubious article reproduced at Livejournal by an unknown author who presents an everything-you-were-told-is-a-lie type of argument that does not reference any material other than the largely discredited work of one John Boswell.

Why, I wondered, am I alone in my skepticism over the multitude of red flags being raised by that article? Why did that member find it compelling enough to uncritically share? And did anyone else find it compelling? (Well, it would seem that there are at least five others who did, giving his post a thumbs-up.) The pronounced absence of skepticism denoted an appalling level of uncritical credulity that ought to have been embarrassing—although I suspect that they were not embarrassed.

So I decided that I would not only perform my usual due diligence but also, given the nearly viral popularity of that article on the internet, publish the results for the sake of getting truth and history right, putting this silly twaddle in its place.

The article that he cited was not even original. It was a full reproduction (with some initial commentary) at a Livejournal account of an article published by an individual who wrote under the pseudonym ThosPayne; the article was published 24 August 2008 on the web site for Colfax Record, the online presence of a local newspaper in Colfax, California, [1] apparently under his myColfax personal blog. [2] That article no longer exists at its original location, although there exists an archived copy of it. [3] For whatever reason, that particular member could not be bothered to do even this most basic of searches in order to reference original source material—something that is of particular interest to skeptics and critical thinkers.

But what about the article itself that he cites? It is an intellectual train wreck that any skeptic would give a wide berth. Allow me to demonstrate for readers and visitors here who might be as credulous as him what skepticism and critical thinking looks like.

[Professor] John Boswell … discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents …

This label of “heterosexual marriage” is disingenuous, misleading, and question-begging, for it carries the implication that Christian liturgies recognized any other form of holy matrimony, thus preparing the reader to accept that homosexual marriage was one of them, as the cited article would subsequently attempt to argue. One must not assume the very thing to be proved, which the label “heterosexual marriage” attempted to do by implying that marriage was not strictly between a man and a woman. Although there were same-sex unions (adelphoi genesthai), these rites were neither homosexual nor were they marriages.

… there were also ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” … and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” …

According to Shaw, who is sympathetic to same-sex marriage but does not tolerate scholarly incompetence, these titles are mistranslated. “Boswell’s translation of their titles (akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin and parallels) as ‘The Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men’ or ‘Office for Same-Sex Union’ is inaccurate. In the original, the titles say no such thing. And this sort of tendentious translation of the documents is found, alas, throughout the book” (which the article in question is predicated upon). When these words are translated in a straightforward manner, “they impart a quite different sense to the reader.” [4]

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied [sic] in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Not one single piece of evidence is cited to support any one of these claims, leaving the reader with no reason to accept any of them. Worse yet, given the detailed refutations by scholars such as Shaw, Young, and Woods, there exists manifold reasons to be highly skeptical of the claims. Consider for example the “holy union” of Basil and John. Although Basil was arguably a homosexual, the ceremonial in which the two were united was not one of matrimony. Boswell translates the text of historian Theophanes into English as saying that Basil “honored him with the title protospatarius and granted him intimacy with him on account of their earlier shared life in ceremonial union.” There are two misleading translations occurring here, as Young points out. [5] First is his translation of parrhesia as “intimacy,” which is misleading because the context of his argument gives a sense to the reader which the word simply does not convey. The intimacy being referred to in the text is not the romantic sort shared by lovers; rather it refers here to the freedom granted John to speak his mind plainly and boldly to Basil, which is what parrhesia means. [6] Second, the earlier ceremonial union spoken of was not a marital one; the Greek clause reads "kai tes pros auton parresias metedoke dia ten phthasasan koinonian tes pneumatikes adelphotetos," which is properly translated as “previous association in spiritual brotherhood” [7] (pneumatikes adelphotetos)—although, contrary to Young, the meaning of koinonia conveys something deeper than mere “association,” as attested in Scripture by its use in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper and the powerful communion shared by those in Christ. [8] (And therefore, contrary also to Boswell, it does not denote a union of lovers joined in holy matrimony either.)

[The curious icon] shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Since the preponderance of evidence weighs in favor of the Christian church recognizing marriage only between a man and a woman, to say that this icon depicted a “wedding” scenario of a “married couple [who] are both men” is to illegitimately beg the very question. The author must not assume the very thing to be proved. Given the extensive historical evidence for Christian rites which bless adelphopoiesis or the making of a brother, it is more probable that this is the sort of union being depicted in that icon; as such, the author shoulders the burden of proving that it depicts something else. His conclusion is not impossible, but it is certainly improbable—and cannot be assumed from the outset.

The full answer [as to whether or not the icon depicts Christ sanctifying a gay wedding] comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. … In the definitive 10th century account of their lives …

Although the author references a tenth-century account, he does not cite it; evidently the reader is supposed to just take his word for it, including his claim that this text states that Sergius was the “sweet companion and lover” of Bacchus, a statement which seems rather crucial to his conclusion about what the icon depicts. But then the author also does not explain how this unnamed account from over half a millennium after Sergius and Bacchus had died can be meaningfully considered “definitive,” never mind reliable.

Sergius and Bacchus’s close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers.

This is a significant claim of great import to his conclusion, so where are the references to these “many modern scholars”? Who are they and where is their research that shows Sergius and Bacchus were lovers? A red flag to any skeptic, the author does not cite any support whatsoever for this claim, using what Wikipedia contributors would flag as “weasel words.”

But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek, describes them as erastai, or “lovers.” In other words, they were a male homosexual couple.

This is likewise a significant claim of great import to his conclusion, so why is it that the author neither cites nor includes a Greek quote from this “oldest text of their martyrology”? It would be valuable to those interested in assessing the accuracy of the claim and its interpretation. I submit that his reason is perhaps the same as or similar to the reason why Boswell neither cited nor quoted from the specific original text and its context: because the claim is utter fiction. As a salient matter of fact, the word erastai is simply not there! Starting at page 373 of Analecta Bollandiana, Vol. 14 (Indiana University Press), the skeptic can access the original Greek text of “Passio Antiquior Ss. Sergii et Bacchi” for himself and see that this claim is entirely fictitious. The author and Boswell are not content with their revisionist history; they have to further their dishonesty by inventing support.

One Greek 13th century rite, ‘Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union,’ invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus and called on God to “vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints.” The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded.” … Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic ‘Office of the Same Sex Union,’ uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

And here we have a direct quote; but, like before, there is not a single citation for it. The reader is simply to take the author’s word for it. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, a red flag always goes up (and should) when a Google search of a quote never points anywhere but the same article and its various reproductions. This should lead the reader to be highly skeptical of the supposed quote, to say the least.

The actual text for these Christian rites which bless adelphopoiesis—the making of a brother—comes from an eleventh-century Greek manuscript (Grottaferrata B. ii.) for Akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin (translated by Boswell as ‘Office for Same-Sex Union’), which Shaw cites and quotes using Boswell’s translation of it, while inserting “some of the significant original Greek words in transcription” [9]:

I

The priest shall place the holy Gospel on the Gospel stand and they that are to be joined together place their right hands on it, holding lighted candles in their left hands. Then shall the priest cense them and say the following:

II

In peace we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For heavenly peace, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For the peace of the entire world, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For this holy place, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That these thy servants, N. and N., be sanctified with thy spiritual benediction, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That their love [agape] abide without offense or scandal all the days of their lives, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That they be granted all things needed for salvation and godly enjoyment of life everlasting, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That the Lord God grant unto them unashamed faithfulness [pistis] and sincere love [agape anhypokritos], we beseech Thee, O Lord…

Have mercy on us, O God.

“Lord, have mercy” shall be said three times.

III

The priest shall say:

Forasmuch as Thou, O Lord and Ruler, art merciful and loving, who didst establish humankind after thine image and likeness, who didst deem it meet that thy holy apostles Philip and Bartholomew be united, bound one unto the other not by nature but by faith and the spirit. As Thou didst find thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus worthy to be united together [adelphoi genesthai], bless also these thy servants, N. and N., joined together not by the bond of nature but by faith and in the mode of the spirit [ou desmoumenous desmi physeis alla pisteis kai pneumatikos tropi], granting unto them peace [eirene] and love [agape] and oneness of mind. Cleanse from their hearts every stain and impurity and vouchsafe unto them to love one other [to agapan allelous] without hatred and without scandal all the days of their lives, with the aid of the Mother of God and all thy saints, forasmuch as all glory is thine.

IV

Another Prayer for Same-Sex Union:

O Lord Our God, who didst grant unto us all those things necessary for salvation and didst bid us to love one another and to forgive each other our failings, bless and consecrate, kind Lord and lover of good, these thy servants who love each other with a love of the spirit [tous pneumatike agape heautous agapesantas] and have come into this thy holy church to be blessed and consecrated. Grant unto them unashamed fidelity [pistis] and sincere love [agape anhypokritos], and as Thou didst vouchsafe unto thy holy disciples and apostles thy peace and love, bestow them also on these, O Christ our God, affording to them all those things needed for salvation and life eternal. For Thou art the light and the truth and thine is the glory.

V

Then shall they kiss the holy Gospel and the priest and one another, and conclude.

“It is this ceremonial,” Shaw observes, “and blessings like these, that Boswell claims to be part of a lost, or deliberately suppressed, tradition of church-legitimized same-sex marriages between men,” which he then proceeds to thoroughly refute. The point that I wish to raise here—aside from citing and properly quoting the rites which the original article made a complete mess of—is the fact that nowhere in any of this material is there so much as a hint of homosexual marriage, and that it is moreover entirely consistent with the well-established and recognized historical church rite of making a brother (adelphopoiesis).

“But it says they were to kiss!” Indeed it does. But is that a romantic kiss between newlyweds? Of course not; observe that they were to “kiss the holy Gospel and the priest” as well. Furthermore, such kissing in that culture and period was entirely customary (e.g., Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14) and did not connote what it largely does in the modern West. “The ancient and medieval world about which Boswell writes was not riven by the same anxieties and repressions that mark our own,” Shaw writes. “In that world, public and affective bonds between men were typical, even banal. But this is not the same thing as the legitimization, or the sacralization, of homosexuality.” [10]

Records of Christian same-sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand years from the 8th to the 18th century. …

Again, there certainly were same-sex unions (adelphoi genesthai) but these rites were neither homosexual nor were they marriages. If the author wishes to argue otherwise, he needs to do far more than simply point to the well-attested historical evidence for adelphoi genesthai church rituals. “The ‘new’ documents that Boswell has unearthed,” notes Shaw, “are nothing more than a few additional texts that shed more light on a primitive and basic power linkage between men in the ancient Mediterranean, and the rituals attendant on its formation.” [11]

[Professor] Boswell’s academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality. For the church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

Whom Boswell’s embarrassing work “poses a fundamental question for” is Boswell himself, whose so-called research is fraught with selective citations, revisionist history, inaccuracies, mistranslations, misleading equivocations, and other various disreputable errors that are an affront to proper scholarship. There is a reason why “Boswell’s methodology and conclusions have been disputed by many historians.” [12] There is no good reason for this embarrassing substitute for good scholarship to be taken seriously or propagated by skeptics and critical thinkers.

[1] 233 S. Auburn Road, Suite 205, Colfax, CA 95713.

[2] At the original article the author name is hyperlinked to a my.colfaxrecord.com user profile.

[3] http://web.archive.org/web/2009121908482…91429.html

[4] Shaw 1994.

[5] Young 1994.

[6] Ibid. (cf. Foucault 1983).

[7] Ibid.

[8] Koinonia. (2012, January 16). Wikipedia. Accessed 13 May 2012.

[9] Shaw 1994. Shaw’s inserted Greek words are placed within square brackets.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Saints Sergius and Bacchus. (2012, May 13). Wikipedia. Accessed 13 May 2012.

REFERENCES:

The Bollandists, “Passio Antiquior Ss. Sergii et Bacchi,” Analecta Bollandiana, Vol. 14, §19 (Indiana University Press), 373ff.

Michel Foucault, “Discourse and truth: The meaning of the word ‘parrhesia’.” From a lecture given at the University of California at Berkeley (October–November 1983).

Brent D. Shaw, “A groom of one’s own?” The New Republic (1994, July), 43–48.

David Woods, “The origin of the cult of Ss. Sergius and Bacchus,” University College Cork, Ireland (2000, April). This is a revised version of his paper, “The Emperor Julian and the Passion of Sergius and Bacchus,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 5 (1997), 335-367.

Robin D. Young, “Gay marriage: Reimagining church history,” First Things 47 (1994, November), 43-48.

On April 2, 2012, the Australian Senate closes invitations from the public on their opinion regarding the legalisation of same-sex ‘marriage’. This is not the first time the Senate has been requested to do so; the last time was back in 2009. Yet the political climate in Australia is markedly different now. In 2009, the Labor Government had as it’s official party policy to support marriage as man-woman only; likewise the Opposition Government. The Bill put forward to redefine marriage to “any two persons”, the Marriage Equality Amendment Act 2009, by the Greens (a progressive left party) was resoundly dismissed. Yet this time round, we have a Labor Government who altered their party platform late last year to support same-sex ‘marriage’ and we have three bills being reviewed by the Senate to amend the Marriage Act 1961. One of the those bills is again from the Greens: the Marriage Equality Amendment Act 2010. It’s the latter bill that presents the most radical of change to the current definition of marriage in Australia. And its to that bill that I’ve composed the following submission:

Senate
Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Senate,

Re: Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010

I write to the Senate Inquiry Committee to voice my opposition to the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 and to lend my support of traditional man-woman marriage. I note my reasons in the following paragraphs, providing supporting references where appropriate.

Full equality already exists under current law

Marriage, for all Australian constituents, is an institution in which there already exists a full equality under the law; there is none to whom the Marriage Act 1961 unjustly discriminates. In order for anyone to marry, all must pass the prescribed criteria: 1. Be of marriageable age; 2. Be not already married; 3. Must not marry a close blood relative, and; 4. Must marry a member of the opposite sex. All Australians, irrespective of their sexual identity, are expected to meet these criterions; there is no inequality of law in their application to either the homosexual or the heterosexual. Both the homosexual and the heterosexual have the same restrictions.

While this response may be unsatisfactory to many homosexuals, it must be noted that the existing criterion for marriage in Australia does not require desire or love between the two being married. Although love and desire are important to the marital union, it is not required by law, but assumed. Government does not regard desire as key to the marital union because such unions encompass not only love but also provide a unique social good¹.
Read the rest of this entry

An interesting newspaper headline caught my eye this morning on my daily commute regarding a family court ruling where the Judge ordered that a five year old boy be enrolled in a ‘religiously neutral’ school. The case came about as the two – divorced – parents involved could not come to an agreement as to how the boy was to be raised. As the brief article describes it, the mother is a ‘church-goer’ and wants her son to be sent to a (presumably) Christian school, while the father is a self-described humanist who is adamantly opposed.

It is an unfortunate dilemma (all custody cases are) as the court was essentially asked to adjudicate between two conflicting convictions. The articles I could find on the case were limited in depth and presented mainly the arguments put forth by the father – perhaps to skew the story in his favor? – so it is on his points that I will respond to individually below.

The father states:

“I now have strong humanist views, but do not hold religious beliefs. In fact, I have become opposed to religious dogma and organised religion.”

Or it could just be that, given this case is just one of the consequences of a divorce involving children (which typically are not cordial affairs), he is more interested in just opposing his ex-wife’s wishes. As a side note, it would be interesting to know if the opposing views within the marriage toward Christianity had any part to play in the parent’s separation, especially considering the ex-husband’s terse humanist convictions.

“I oppose religious dogmas being thrust on young minds.”

But apparently it is quite ok for the father to thrust his humanist dogmas on his own son. Presumably, he believes that his position is one of neutrality, but in reality there is no such position. There is simply a religious position and a non-religious (or anti-religious) position and the father obviously favors the latter.

He also weights the debate by assuming that all religious ‘teaching’ is not teaching at all, but a form of brain-washing. He assumes too much; he is actually trying, in effect, to thrust his religiously ‘neutral’ dogma onto his son by name-calling his ex-wife’s preference out of the debate. There is no real substance here.

“I have seen the evidence of people who profess to be Christian and then act in a manner which can best be described as un-Christian.”

Obviously, the father knows of Christians who aren’t Christians. (I wonder if he thought that argument through?) I would be interested in knowing by what standard he judges who is a Christian and who is not, but we are not privvy to this information. In any case, while it may be true that some people who profess to be Christians aren’t in practice, it does not mean that Christianity as a religion is a bad thing. That he raises this as a line of argument tells me that he is fearful of his son turning into a religious hypocrite. A fair enough fear, easily countered – I dare say – by: 1) understanding what Christianity deems is appropriate behavior, and; 2) working with his ex-wife to ensure his son taught accordingly, especially since he is unintentionally implying that proper Christians have favorable behaviors. But I’d simply wager he does not have interest in working with his ex on this – paint me skeptical.

I think the Judge, Magistrate Stewart Brown, thought he was likewise taking a “cautious approach” when he ruled that the boy be enrolled in a non-religious school. In actuality it was a ruling in favor of the father’s position which, as I’ve argued, is not at all neutral. The mother now needs to prayerfully work harder on instructing her son regarding her Christian faith – frankly, that’s not a bad thing (even if the ruling went her way she should be doing this anyway as that is an appropriate Christian behaviour) and I’d encourage her to do so.

Read the full article below and do share your thoughts.

References:

• Judge forced to decide for parents warring over son’s religion

In the lead up to the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP) National Conference this coming weekend, at which will be tabled a discussion to change the Party’s official policy from supporting traditional one-man, one-woman marriage, this exhortation from preacher John Piper is a stirring reminder for Christians to weep with sorrow and compassion over the sins of their cities. No less ought we in Australia weep if God’s natural law of traditional, monogamous marriage is ever legislated out of existence.

Jesus died so that heterosexual and homosexual sinners might be saved. Jesus created sexuality, and has a clear will for how it is to be experienced in holiness and joy.

His will is that a man might leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and that the two become one flesh (Mark 10:6-9). In this union, sexuality finds its God-appointed meaning, whether in personal-physical unification, symbolic representation, sensual jubilation, or fruitful procreation.

For those who have forsaken God’s path of sexual fulfillment, and walked into homosexual intercourse or heterosexual extramarital fornication or adultery, Jesus offers astonishing mercy.

Such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:11).

But last weekend {at a gay pride event held in Minneapolis last June} this salvation from sinful sexual acts was not embraced. Instead there was massive celebration of sin …

The Bible is not silent about such parades. Alongside its clearest explanation of the sin of homosexual intercourse (Romans 1:24-27) stands the indictment of the celebration of it. Though people know intuitively that homosexual acts (along with gossip, slander, insolence, haughtiness, boasting, faithlessness, heartlessness, ruthlessness) are sin, “they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:29-32). “I tell you even with tears, that many glory in their shame” (Philippians 3:18–19) …

Not only that, we are moving from celebration to institutionalization. On June 24 the New York legislature approved a Marriage Equality Act. This makes New York the sixth state where so-called homosexual marriages will be institutionalized: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, (and the District of Columbia).

My sense is that we do not realize what a calamity is happening around us. The new thing—new for America, and new for history—is not homosexuality. That brokenness has been here since we were all broken in the fall of man. (And there is a great distinction between the orientation and the act—just like there is a great difference between my orientation to pride and the act of boasting.)

What’s new is not even the celebration of homosexual sin. Homosexual behavior has been exploited, and reveled in, and celebrated in art, for millennia. What’s new is normalization and institutionalization. This is the new calamity.

My main reason for writing is not to mount a political counter-assault. I don’t think that is the calling of the church as such. My reason for writing is to help the church feel the sorrow of these days. And the magnitude of the assault on God and his image in man.

Christians, more clearly than others, can see the tidal wave of pain that is on the way. Sin carries in it its own misery: “Men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:27).

And on top of sin’s self-destructive power comes, eventually, the wrath of God: “sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming” (Colossians 3:5–6).

Christians know what is coming, not only because we see it in the Bible, but because we have tasted the sorrowful fruit of our own sins. We do not escape the truth that we reap what we sow. Our marriages, our children, our churches, our institutions—they are all troubled because of our sins.

The difference is: We weep over our sins. We don’t celebrate them. We turn to Jesus for forgiveness and help. We cry to Jesus, “who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians 1:10).

And in our best moments, we weep for the world. In the days of Ezekiel God put a mark of hope “on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in Jerusalem” (Ezekiel 9:4).

This is what I am writing for. Not political action, but love for the name of God and compassion for the city of destruction.

“My eyes shed streams of tears, because people do not keep your law.” (Psalm 119:136)

Taken from John Piper’s blog, Desiring God: “My Eyes Shed Streams of tears” – Thoughts on the new Calamity

Approximately 24 hours ago Ray Comfort and his Living Waters Ministry released the short 180 Movie regarding the subject of abortion, which has not only exploded across social media but also reignited conversations all over North America over the moral question about abortion. A bit skeptical about the film, given the hype and build up to its release, I decided to give it a viewing, mostly because I knew I would encounter conversations about it in my circles and wanted to be properly informed. And good thing, too, for the conversations have been plenty. While many of those conversations have regarded the biblical and theological integrity of the Way of the Master gospel witnessing techniques, one of them tonight regarded the issue for which the film was made in the first place, which I want to share with you here. While I have changed the young man’s name to protect his identity, the following is the conversation that we had tonight over the moral question about abortion. He did not explicitly state his position on the subject but I gathered that for him the issue remains a somewhat open question (due to things he had said prior to the part I am sharing here), having not settled definitively on one side or the other. He is a Christian but converted quite recently, a matter of a few months ago. We pick up the conversation mid-stream, where he is critically evaluating the merits of defining life in the womb as human.

~ * ~

JOHN: I don’t think the biological distinction between “human” and “non-human” is the morally relevant question.

DAVID: What then is the morally relevant question as it pertains to valuing human life?

JOHN: It’s like I said: “persons” are afforded full dignity and value. In fact, we already know that not all persons are human beings anyway.

DAVID: Who or what defines personhood?

JOHN: Oh, well God, I should think.

DAVID: Does Scripture give any indication at which point such personhood becomes morally relevant?

JOHN: I have looked and, actually, I don’t think it’s very clear.

DAVID: So the Bible is unclear about human life in the womb?

JOHN: It doesn’t seem to be very clear on that issue.

DAVID: Are you familiar with Psalm 139:13-15 and Jeremiah 1:5?

JOHN: Yes.

DAVID: What is unclear about the moral relevance question in those passages?

JOHN: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” I don’t see how that is going to make your case.

DAVID: That rather clinches it, I should think. Not only does God knit together the human life in the womb, but that life belongs and is known to him before that life is even conceived. Does that not indicate fairly clearly the moral relevance pertaining to the value of human life?

JOHN: It seems to be a statement of God’s foreknowledge, more than anything. I don’t think you can extrapolate anything else from that, particularly not anything helpful about dealing with a full-fledged person in the womb.

DAVID: That bothers me somewhat, that you don’t think anything beyond God’s foreknowledge can be extrapolated from that—such as, for example, his purpose for that human life, to which it is already set apart (consecrated) before it is even formed in the womb. The text rather explicitly states this. Ergo, you certainly can extrapolate more than God’s foreknowledge from this—not to mention what can be understood from this text and Psalm 139 about human life belonging to God.

JOHN: But the verse isn’t about that. It’s about God’s purpose for Jeremiah and foreknowing his destiny. I’d be more convinced if that verse was combined with more explicit statements about the topic, but that seems to be as good as it gets.

DAVID: How is what you said essentially different from what I said (vis-a-vis God’s foreknowledge and purpose for that human life)? You repeated what I said as if it was different from what I said.

JOHN: So, God making statements about foreknowing Jeremiah’s destiny implies that human life begins at conception? Non-sequitur.

DAVID: God foreknows Jeremiah’s destiny because he ordained it; before he was born God knew him, God consecrated him, God appointed him to a particular purpose.

JOHN: Yeah, right. So?

DAVID: What it implies, again, is that God not only knits together the human life in the womb but that human life belongs and is known to God before it is even conceived. That indicates rather clearly the moral relevance vis-a-vis the value of human life.

JOHN: Right, and God also foreknew that his parents would get together in the first place. I don’t think any relevant conclusion could be drawn from that, could it?

DAVID: John, that life is knit together in the womb by God; that life belongs and is known to God before it is even conceived. That life does not belong to itself, or to the mother or the father. It belongs to God. That is the morally relevant question as it pertains to human life.

JOHN: Yes, before he was even conceived God knew him. Obviously before he was conceived he wasn’t actually a person.

DAVID: Indeed. And yet even then that life belongs to God—because he is the one who brings it forth, knitting it together, having a purpose for it. If that life belongs and is known to God before conception, what about at conception or thereafter? You see what I mean?

JOHN: Okay, but in the situation outlined by the verse itself, God states that before Jeremiah was conceived God knew him. I think the “before” part is actually a problem to the argument.

DAVID: I cannot imagine how.

JOHN: Because if God knew Jeremiah even before he was conceived, then it must be that his parents had to get together or they’d be doing something wrong, frustrating God’s plans, not forming the life which is properly his, etc. And that seems highly implausible.

DAVID: That is an interesting and separate question from the one we are looking at.

JOHN: Well, I am arguing that perhaps the verse should not be taken in that direction, at the risk of implausible conclusions.

DAVID: Okay, let me address that. First, this subsequent issue you are raising pertains to the parents and their coming together, whereas our question pertains to the issue of moral relevance with respect to the value of human life. Therefore, it is a fallacious avenue to pursue (ignoratio elenchi). Second, we can certainly pursue that question if you like, but not until after the present question is settled. Third, your objection, at any rate, carries the implicit assumption that it is possible the parents could fail to come together (and thus do something ‘wrong’).

JOHN: I’m employing what I understand to be an analogous argument to yours about the nature of the verse, to demonstrate a reductio.

DAVID: See the second point.

JOHN: Yeah, I realize you think they are separate issues. But it strikes me as the same sort of reasoning being applied to different parts of the verse.

DAVID: Let us assume for the sake of argument that the verse carries the implication that I am arguing for. Let us continue in that vain. So, if that verse carries the implication I am arguing for, then what does that tell us about the moral relevance pertaining to the value of human life?

JOHN: That’s a loaded question (which is, by the way, what I think Ray Comfort was doing).

DAVID: An ‘arguendo’ does not a loaded question make.

JOHN: No, that’s not it. It’s the term “human life.” But setting that aside for a moment…

DAVID: Do we need to get into imago Dei? I would point to Psa 139:15 (cf. Job 10:9–11) as answering that question with its implicit reference to Genesis.

[A pause in the conversation for a few moments.]

JOHN: I think I lost track of what exactly I should answer—what the consequence would be of agreeing the verse implies that God directed the development of Jeremiah in the womb, or of agreeing that God directs the development of everyone in the womb? Sorry, I’m getting tired.

DAVID: You raised the issue of what the morally relevant question is with respect to valuing human life (with respect to the abortion issue in the context of The 180 Movie). My answer, calling upon those two texts from Scripture, seeks to answer you on that score, showing that the morally relevant question is answered by the fact that all human life belongs to God—not only in the womb but even prior to that. That is, abortion is wrong because that life belongs to God. Not to itself, nor to its mother, but to God. That answers what the morally relevant question is.

JOHN: Right, okay, which to me seems to leave us precisely where we started—namely, what counts as “human life.” The fact that God knew Jeremiah even before he was conceived (when obviously Jeremiah the person, the human life, was not around) doesn’t help to settle that question.

DAVID: If that person belongs and is known to God before it is a human life, would that not also apply to when it is a human life?

JOHN: If I accepted your interpretation of the verse for the sake of argument, that God knitting Jeremiah in the womb suggests that any developing embryo, fetus, etc., belongs to God and therefore only God has the right to direct what will or will not happen to that (developing) life, then yeah, I could see how that could apply to the morality of abortion. But I would suggest that that is a different argument than relying on defining a blastocyst as a human person or life or whatever. And I think that is a lot of weight for a single verse to carry, when the verse isn’t explicitly about that.

DAVID: Answer that question I asked you, please: “If that person belongs and is known to God before it is a human life, would that not also apply to when it is a human life?”

JOHN: You are assuming it all counts as human life. That is precisely what I question.

DAVID: I am getting to that.

JOHN: Okay. Then yeah, I granted that with my previous comment. (Also, I need to get going soon, after your next point.)

DAVID: All right, now observe the following. If that person belongs and is known to God before it is a human life (which answers the question of moral relevance), and if that person constitutes a human life upon being born (infant), then the moral relevance of abortion is answered at every stage in between—from conception to infancy.

JOHN: Right, which I just granted.

DAVID: At what point you happen to consider it a human life is irrelevant if that person belongs and is known to God even before it is a human life.

JOHN: Well, it wouldn’t be a person. But yes, I granted that.

DAVID: It would not be a person according to who or what?

JOHN: If the issue is that the (developing) human life or person “belongs to God” and therefore only God has the moral right to direct its progress or non-progress, then okay. That is an argument different from arguing that it is wrong because the blastocyst is a human life or person.

DAVID: Right. Whether it is a person, a human life, a potential human, etc., all of those points are irrelevant, given the answer to the moral relevance question.

JOHN: Okay. And I did explicitly state in the other conversation that a different argument could be advanced using a different morally relevant fact. So I think I will tentatively agree that, if I grant that interpretation of the verse, the argument could then follow.

DAVID: There are countless ways to answer this question. I have simply advanced two.

JOHN: Sure.

DAVID: The prior one I never actually got to finish because our conversation was hijacked.

JOHN: Yeah, the topic can rile people up.

DAVID: Are you too tired to argue for how that interpretation creates a problem for my argument?

JOHN: I think so. I am supposed to get up fairly early tomorrow. But, if you’d like, I’m game to pick it up another time.

DAVID: Sure thing.

JOHN: Okay, cool.

~ * ~

Have you watched The 180 Movie? Has it sparked conversations in your life about the moral issue of abortion? Do you have any positive encounters to share?

Recently, apologist Frank Turek has written a short but excellent article on the hypocrisy of LGBT activists who accuse Christians who oppose homosexual behaviour of being bigots. He also shows how they abuse the term “bigot” by mis-applying it to everybody who disagrees with their position, even when they have valid reasons for doing so. In the process, they expose themselves as the real bigots. Here is Turek’s article in full:

George Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” When you tell the truth about homosexuality today, you can be sure that the central tools of deceit—name-calling and bullying—will be unleashed.

I recently was having a respectful conversation with a homosexual activist, but after I made a point he couldn’t answer he called me a “bigot.”

I asked, “What’s your definition of bigotry?”

He said, “Fear and intolerance.”

I said, “The definition of bigotry is not ‘fear and intolerance.’ It’s making a judgment without knowing the facts. I have written a book about the problems with same-sex marriage and the destructive medical consequences of homosexual behavior. So my convictions on those issues are based in fact not ‘bigotry.’ With all due respect, if anyone is engaged in bigotry it is you for judging my position as wrong without even knowing why I hold it.”

He was also falsely equating my opposition to a behavior as prejudice toward people who engage in that behavior. That’s the central fallacy in virtually every argument for homosexuality—if you don’t agree with homosexual behavior, you are somehow bigoted against people who want to engage in that behavior. How does that follow? If conservatives and Christians are “bigots” for opposing homosexual behavior, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing Christian behavior? And if we are bigots for opposing same-sex marriage, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing polygamous or incestuous marriage?

Everyone puts limits on marriage—if marriage had no definition it wouldn’t be anything. Recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman is not bigotry, but common sense rooted in the biological facts of nature. That’s why the state recognizes marriage to begin with—not because two people love one another but because only heterosexual unions can procreate and best nurture the next generation.

Everyone also puts limits on behaviors. But opposing behavior is not the same as opposing or “hating” people. In fact, to really love people, we often have to oppose what they do! Parents know this, and all former children know it as well.

Original Article

• Frank Turek  - Who Are the Real Gay Bigots and Bullies

The debate over the increasing acceptance of LGBT lifestyles in mainstream culture is one issue which — at least in Canadian society — has been more or less dominated by one side, which seeks to label all dissenters as “bigots,” “homophobes,” and even “extremists.” If you do not give them your unconditional assent and affirmation, they will level the most relentless forms of criticism against you. And this is precisely the case in the recent controversy over Toronto city mayor Rob Ford’s decision not to attend the annual Pride Parade.

To give a little background to people who are unfamiliar with this issue, Rob Ford is one of the most Conservative city mayors that Toronto has had in a long while. This particularly manifests in his policies regarding LGBT issues. He has publicly stated that he disagrees with same-sex marriage during his mayoral campaign, has refused to show up at a Pride flag raising at a public square, and has at least once threatened to cut public funding to the city’s annual Pride Parade. After all, why should the city spend public funds on such a parade anyway? Shouldn’t the LGBT community get its own funding if it wants a parade? Mayor Ford isn’t even targeting the LGBT Pride Parade in particular on this issue, since he has said in an article for The Star that “the public sector shouldn’t be funding parades, no matter what parade it is … The private sector should be sponsoring these parades.”[1] Be that as it may, the Pride Parade still got the funding that it wanted. There is just no stopping the LGBT agenda these days.

That being said, however, the biggest faux pas he has made recently (at least from the standpoint of the politically correct Left) was his refusal to attend the pride parade which took place earlier this month, on the grounds that it conflicted with a family tradition where he would spend the long weekend in a cottage away from the city. The responses that have been produced by Leftist pro-LGBT commentators and activists on newspapers and blogs have been merciless; most of them show relentless criticism of Mayor Ford for his personal choice. Now, if that isn’t ironic, I don’t know what is. These activists who demand society to affirm and support their ungodly lifestyles and personal preferences become very militant when others make personal choices that contradict the party line that LGBT activists force everybody else to follow. It seems that these days, their unofficial slogan is, “Support our campaign against bullying. If not, we’ll bully you until you do.” Read the rest of this entry

On Valentine’s Day, 2011, gay lobby group Australian Marriage Equality, in partnership with the progressive activist group, GetUp!, released a short video advertisement¹ promoting gay “marriage” in Australia. Predictably, they used the standard term employed by gay “marriage” advocates, “marriage equality”, serving the perception that there is nothing equal about the current legal status of marriage. While intentionally innocuous, the term “marriage equality” is nevertheless stuffed with worn-out and rebadged rhetoric: why oughtn’t two people who love each other be allowed to marry?; gender has nothing to do with marriage; its not fair that John and Jim can’t marry each other, but that Dean and Denise can.

Yawn. I’m getting sleepy already.

Yet the proud tag line on Australian Marriage Equality’s website² follows that same hum-drum line: “Marriage is about love and commitment, not your partner’s gender.”

Further, GetUp!³ state on their website for this campaign that “all love is equal and all relationships deserve recognition.”

Well, no. Not all (romantic) love is equal, and neither is marriage founded on love and commitment alone. Marriage is very much a gender-based institution no matter how much organizations like Australian Marriage Equality or GetUp! espouse the “love is all” card. Read the rest of this entry

In response to opposition of same-sex marriage, an often used retort from homosexual activists and their supporters is “Same-sex marriage will not affect you, so why not let homosexuals marry each other?”

Firstly, as Bill Muehlenburg wrote in his book “WHY vs WHY Gay Marriage”, the evidence shows that countries with pro-homosexual legislation and same-sex marriage have been a disaster for heterosexual marriage and the well-being of children. Consider Scandinavia. Stanley Kurtz, who has a doctorate in social anthropology from Harvard University, has documented how marriage and children have suffered there. In 2004 he wrote:

Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of firstborn children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend towards the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern – including gay marriage – is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was [already] increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birth rates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood is acceptable.

Later in 2006, Kurtz wrote:

Shifting to a broad ‘menu’ of experimental family forms may feel liberating to some, but it is really a recipe for thinning out society’s commitment to children. Each unconventional experiment reinforces the others, ultimately yielding a significantly less stable family regime. Which is to say, gay marriage undermines marriage.

Read the rest of this entry

Modified: 11 December 2010 (“Objections and questions”)

For some of our readers and most of our staff, this argument is not exactly new. It was an argument I had formulated back in May of this year, in support of an article Adam had written against “pro-choice” rhetoric on abortion (Morgan, 2010). After having evaluated this argument from different angles and subjecting it to several tests from critical opponents, it appears that the argument is unassailable. Thus I want to use it as an illustration of what a strong argument is and what goes into it.

The anatomy of an argument

First, a few words about arguments, starting with what they actually are. Most people think of arguments as being a quarrel between two people, such as spouses or siblings, in which heated words are exchanged, voices raised, doors slammed and so forth. While that is the colloquial or informal sense, it is not how the term is used here, which is the formal sense of being a set of propositions intended to establish a conclusion. (A hat tip must be given to Michael Palin for this definition, which he expresses in the comedy sketch “Argument Clinic” in Monty Python’s Flying Circus [Cleese, 1972]. Sure it was comedy, but his definition of an argument was spot on). So to give an argument is to demonstrate the reasoning by which some belief is reached, where the belief functions as the conclusion that is then established by supporting reasoning.

Now there are two tests an argument must satisfy in order to be persuasive: it must be valid and it must be sound. Validity is the primary or most important test because the truth of the premises must logically guarantee the truth of the conclusion, otherwise the truth of the premises is made irrelevant (by failing to justify the conclusion). That is why the other test, soundness, is predicated on validity and thus secondary. In other words: (a) an argument is ‘valid’ if and only if the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion; (b) it is ‘sound’ if and only if the argument is both valid and the premises actually are true. Consequently, an argument that is valid and sound should be persuasive. ^[1] (It is worth pointing out that only arguments can be valid or invalid, not propositions, and only propositions can be true or false, not arguments.)

An example of a strong argument

Having said that, I would like to present what appears to be a sound argument; i.e., it is logically valid and the premises are actually true. In the face of critical evaluation by myself and several opponents, the argument holds firm. Even though the conclusion is highly controversial, neither premise can be easily denied.

Read the rest of this entry