RC Talk - The Official Blogs of Ratio Christi Chapters

Marriage is something a lot of us think about. When I was growing up and finishing high school, I was waiting to get married. I got through Bible College and was still unmarried. Around me, my friends were getting married. I went off to Seminary and lo and behold, I had established a circle of friends. In a twist, from that group I have been the first to get married.

continue reading →

Faulty reasoning behind the claim that opposition to gay marriage is an irrational prejudice.
by Matthew J. Franck in First Things

In the contemporary debate on the future of marriage, there appears to be, amid many uncertainties, one sure thing. Those who publicly defend traditional marriage can count on being denounced as haters, bigots, or irrational theocrats—and perhaps all of these at once. So I learned after publishing an article in the Washington Post last December titled “On Gay Marriage, Stop Playing the Hate Card.” I was not making a full-fledged argument against same-sex marriage—only urging Post readers to reject the use of reckless charges of “hate” to shut down debate, and asking them to respect the defenders of marriage as people in possession of an argument. Sadly, many readers leapt to the challenge of confirming my thesis, writing e-mails or commenting online that I must indeed be a hating, bigoted, irrational theocrat.

continue reading →

Dr. Peter Williams and Philip Evans of Tyndale House Cambridge talks about the internal evidence for the reliability of the New Testament.

(Listen below)

continue reading →

“The ‘Art of War’ is painted with a Philosophers   pen.”-Unknown

This is a brief study of the religious, and philosophical weapons that Post-modern Democrats, are using against the chief cornerstone of liberty—the Christian worldview. Their goal is simple—marginalize Christianity, and thus liberty, and replace our great heritage with a forgery—Secular Humanism. My purpose is to point out the philosophical  weapons that Progressive/Post-modern-Democrats are using in our culture, and encourage conservatives to engage our fellow Americans with a reasoned argument.

Please note: the terms Progressive, Post-modern, and Humanism are used somewhat interchangeably. Although there are differences in their meaning, their arguments against conservatives are similar. My goal is also to reach out to both Independents, and Democrats to disengage from the Democrat party rhetoric—which is nothing more then a swindler’s list of false slogans. I know this to be true because I use to be one of them. I have since become an Independent and staunch Christian conservative.

I want to make a brief distinction between the traditional Blue-dog Democrats, and the Progressives/Post-moderns. Blue-dog Democrats believed in the same values as our Founders did—that our liberties come from God, and not too much government intervention. This is not what the Progressive/Post-modern-Democrat believes today—they are hostile to this concept. I point this out because  both my Father and Grandfather were hard working Blue-dogs. Our enemy here is not the people—it’s their vain ideologies.

Sadly, many of the traditional working-class Blue-dogs, still to this day, are not aware of the skullduggery committed in the hijacking of their party. Therefore, because of their innocent oblivion   it concerns me that president Barack Obama may be re-elected. If the Democrat party wins back the House—the Founding Fathers doomsday prophecy of America falling under a tyrannical government could well be fulfilled. Remember, half the battle in any fight is knowing your opponent, the other half is knowing their strategy.  Our opponents are the Progressive Democrats, the enemy is their ideas–So lets get busy.

The four weapons of the Post-modern-Progressive Democrat–a brief history.

It was Alexis de Tocqueville who said, “The Americans who combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.” Sadly this statement by the French philosopher is no longer true. The religion he was referring to was Christianity.

50 years ago in 1962-(63), Christianity—the chief cornerstone of American Exceptionalism, and vanguard of liberty was removed from public education. It’s replacement was a deceptive religion, a philosophy of supposed moral neutrality called Secular Humanism. Born from the words of the Dragon of Eden, and proffered during the Enlightenment period, this was the religion of man as the center of all things—a breeding ground for government largess—and that was the plan. This would be the primary weapon for Progressive Democrats in which all vanity would build upon.

To further popularize Humanism—the new vanguard of our republic, three vain philosophies: Naturalism, Moral Relativism, and Religious Pluralism would form a rather unholy, but complementary alliance with Secularism in the pilfering of American values. This would not only challenge the Biblical worldview, but Natural law, and The Correspondence theory of truth, and indeed it was successful. In spite of all the circular reasoning, and contradictions these vain ideologies brought forth—America seemed bewitched by these charming tales.

Traditionally it was always understood that true propositions corresponded to reality—to which the Biblical worldview exclusively fit. The Post-modern rejection of Natural law, and Aristotelian logic sent a shock-wave through the fabric of our culture; setting us back academically, and socially from prior years with some ugly metrics such as: lower SAT scores, an increase in crime, personal debt, teen-pregnancies, divorce, and a host of other moral calamities. Here are some disturbing graphs.

Not dissuaded by the moral and academic decline, the Progressive-Democrat swindle continued. The strategy was simple: marginalize the Biblical worldview in all facets of American culture, so that in time our nation would cycle through a new generation of like-minded professional Progressive-Humanists. Influential positions such as: teachers, professors, media moguls, judges, even theologians, and of course politicians, would capitulate to this atheistic way of thinking. Big government would be the “God” of their lives.

This cultural confusion that we are currently witnessing is somewhat reminiscent of the Marxist-Leninist Communist takeover in Russian 1917. Aside from whipping up the working class, and union infiltration, another similarity was being played out at our universities since the early 20th century,  the theory of Naturalism.  The belief that man came from natural organic evolution, as opposed to super-natural means. This would be the second weapon in the Progressive-Democrat playbook, borrowing from the Humanist playbook.

The intellectual offspring of Naturalism was Evolution. The theory goes as follows; that life evolved from the simple to the complex via Natural Selection, Mutation, and Genetic-Drift. Personally, I think Darwin should take a back seat in the classroom. Achieving life from non-life has never been witnessed. The theory seems contradictory on it’s face— something from nothing—simple to complex…considering a greater agency would be needed, and where are the fossils of these transitional forms ?

Weapon number three is a simple deduction–if man was not created, then definitions of right and wrong are not absolute. In fact they were relative to the person, or culture. This is called Moral Relativism: a belief that universal truth, in a absolute objective way does not exist. Think about that for a moment…if truth is just a preference, like ice-cream flavors, then for certain, Moral Relativists would find the Christian witness of Jesus only, an a aggressive and false belief. Moral Relativism in summation, is self-refuting.

However, considering America has become a great melting pot of varied worldviews and religions, thanks to the graciousness of our Christian heritage, Secular Humanist’s could not afford to simply force people to drop their worldviews. They did something much more ingenious. The fourth weapon deployed would be philosophy of Religious Pluralism.

This charming sophistry would create the false impression that all religions are equally valid, hence true in the classic meaning,  irrespective of their contradictory truth claims. This is also a classic Post-modern-Democrat slogan as well. An easy example to understand this if I may. Imagine you are trying to find the capital of our nation, Washington, D.C., and you ask for directions, and you hear the following… “it doesn’t matter what highway you take, they are all equally valid!” Folks it doesn’t get much sillier then this.

Finally, these four philosophical weapons have effectively obfuscated our cultural values of thrift, hard work, and the belief in universal truth;  and more then anything—hope. Perhaps a word of wisdom from Aristotle would be apropos. In book 12 of Meta-Physics he says, “ That there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all the wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world, and we are able to discover a good deal about this being.”  For a man who lived a few centuries before Christ, he was able to see the footprint of God through creation and logic.

Folks our worldviews matter. Our moral positions either add to civility or subtract from it. Some worldviews do not make sense in the world we live in. Think it through and vote sensibly.

A special thanks and credits to the folks at Stand to Reason and Answers in Genesis of which I have learned a great deal. I encourage any person that is truly interested in engaging our confused culture with a rational and winning argument to review their web-sites.

Tags: Barack Obama, blue dog democrats, Christianity, conservative values, Democrat attack machine, evolution, Founding Fathers, God and Government, Liberal propaganda, Politics, post-modernism, progressives, secular humanism, Separation of Church and State

continue reading →

By Robert Leonardo

www.Robertleonardo.com / www.ConservativeDailyNews.com

Marriage between a man and a women, once a joyous occasion with no cultural back-lash other then a few of your old buddies (man’s perspective) teasing you about being hen pecked may now be in danger of becoming a cultural litmus test before the “I do”. The politically charged debate is now in the cross-hairs of the ever-ready Obama war machine.

President Obama, has managed a War on Guns, a War on Women, a War on Big oil, a War on Wall St., and amazingly a War on Terror; tapping out the number one villain in the world Osama Bin Laden. Only Pharaoh could boast so much—until one day he met a man called Moses who took him on a humbling swimming lesson in the Red sea. This War on Marriage may just be the stretch run gambit the president regrets later in life.

We must ask ourselves, does President Obama, like his historical, and egotistical Egyptian predecessor, have the interests of the people at heart ? Does this president agree with the interests of those involved in the Gay and Lesbian persuasion as he “evolves” on the issue, or are they being used as political pawns to be discarded after the election is over ? Here is a preview of what I think the presidents War on Marriage playbook might look like based on what I have seen so far.

First off, our president is not without help. His Hollywood and Big Media troubadours continue to create a narrative that points to a Boogieman—that would be you an me. Mothers, fathers, parents who believe deeply in their conviction that marriage is a sacred vow since time immemorial between a man and a women–it’s never been any different.

However, the President’s chief henchmen, Eric Holder is smart enough to know that time does not make an argument, after-all slavery had gone on for a long time, and so the equivocation of slavery and same sex marriage is a fairly easy sell—but a flawed one. False comparisons with ethnicity and behavior will be their narrative.

Secondly, the administration could play the racist segregation theme as well; that mothers and fathers, parents that want to uphold traditional marriage are one and the same with those bigots who were against blacks and whites marrying one another long ago. We hear these straw man arguments already, and I find those kind of comments truly offensive.

Considering that both President Obama, and Attorney General Holder are both black men who have experienced racism in their lives, yet overcame such discrimination with grit and determination, I suspect their words may resonate particularly well with those who are still struggling in life be it financially or otherwise.

Thirdly, are the issues of benefits. It would seem unfair to deny health care and certain tax benefits to a couple in love. After-all, does it seem fair to deny a sick person health care ? Considering the Obama-Care is now in the hands of the Supreme Court, I expect the president to maneuver and associate the same sex marriage debate as part and parcel of the controversial health care legislation.

If he can successfully tie that narrative in, he will pressure the Supreme’s who are no different then you and me in their human desire to be loved and respected. The strategy is simple: obfuscate the issue of same-sex marriage with healthcare enough, ultimately so you can’t have one without the other.

Finally, so what are people who believe marriage is between a man and a women to do ? Considering the above strategies in some form or another will intensify, I think the following three steps should be on every conservatives mind in some form or another.

Number one, stay on subject—marriage. This is what the debate is about, nothing else. Not healthcare, not slavery, not racial intermarriage, not even people who claim their in love. Its about an institution that has the biological advantage of having a mom and a dad for children to learn from each parent with their unique gender advantages.

Gays and Lesbians have the right to do as they please, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for all of us. Having no children is not an argument against traditional marriage any more then it is an argument for same sex marriage. It’s about upholding values that sustain civility for society.

Number two, marriage is a biological must for the human race to progress into a civil and technologically advanced society—it is more then just survival of the human race. Without it, I doubt seriously I would be here writing this piece, and frankly there would be few of you who would know how to even read it—let alone on a computer.

We need to be thankful to someone for this grand institution called marriage— I will leave that up to you who that is.

Number three, we need to concern ourselves with those who we disagree with on these major issues. I have had a similar conversation with some in the gay community. I care for their survival, their health, their prosperity—and as a Christian their ultimate welfare. I must admit I wasn’t always this way. Show you care, engage people you differ with in dialogue—have conversations that don’t burn bridges—the cause is worthwhile.

In the end, some may think I may be falsely mis-characterizing the president. I have thought about this, and I don’t think so. Reading both his books, (still not finished) watching him for almost four years now, seeing him instructing his Attorney General not to enforce DOMA ( Defense of Marriage Act), I believe he is making a pure political calculation no more no less.

Yet, as personable and likable as he comes off, I believe his vision for America is dangerous and most uniquely disguised as peaceful–a rare trait. For me and my family, I think the president is sailing in sacred waters which may well sink his hope and change chariot.

Special thanks to www.nationformarriage.org.

continue reading →

What are the inherent philosophical presuppositions about the nature of society and about society’s relation to the individual?

“Supporters of same-sex marriage believe that ALL traditional notions about gender, marriage and family result from artificial social institutions rather than from an immutable human nature endowed to us by God or nature.  This is the social construction theory of human nature and institutions.

Contrast this with what opponents of same-sex marriage believe to be true.  They maintain that sexual egalitarianism, the belief that all sexual practices are equal, is false.  They hold that informed consent is not a necessary condition for an act to be permissible legally or morally.  And they assert that traditional notions of gender, marriage and family are best understood as the result of moral reflection on human nature and history.  However varied these notions have been expressed throughout history, they are part of the furniture of the universe and are essential to maintaining the moral ecology of society.”

Quoted from the book “Relativism: feet firmly planted in mid-air,” by FJ Beckwith and G Koukl Baker Books, 1998, pages 120-121.

continue reading →

The upcoming vote on North Carolina's constitutional amendment draws attention to the ongoing debate about the position government should take on the issue  of homosexual marriage. This topic of same-sex marriage is extremely controversial, and discussion on the topic is often heated. I believe that many people miss the key point of this debate.   

continue reading →

Apologetics is an interesting discipline in Christian theology. In simple terms, apologetics is giving a defense of the Christian faith. There are many applications and views of apologetics in Christian culture. There are those that put too much emphasis on it; simply striving to “prove” themselves and their thoughts to be correct. Some say it is not useful and refute it outright. There are even some that say it is not useful, yet use apologetic techniques unknowingly. The proper application will be discussed briefly in this blog. This approach sees apologetics as a resourceful theological tool to bring people to the transformational message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Apologetics is not intended to replace faith, but to strengthen and enhance your faith. Many apologists will quote 1 Peter 3:15 that states we need to always be prepared to give a defense or give an answer for the hope that we have in Jesus (paraphrase). Apologetics is generally given through scientific, philosophical, and historical approaches. 

continue reading →

When we’re growing up and doing math, we learn that both sides of the equal sign have to be identical. One side says “4.” The other says “2 + 2.” Neither side says the exact same thing, but both sides are saying the same thing since 2 + 2 is indeed equal to 4. That is the only way you can have an equal sign there.

This doesn’t just apply in math. It applies everywhere else in life. You cannot say legitimately that two things are the same if they are not the same. The equivocation fallacy however does that. It takes a term to mean the same thing when it’s used in two different ways and really doesn’t have the same meaning.

continue reading →

Imagine you were watching an episode of Jeopardy and you saw the category of “Ancient Literature.” You get a question on “Who wrote the Harry Potter series?” You would certainly agree that the Harry Potter series should be considered a literary work, but they should not be considered ancient literature. Imagine your greater shock if the next question was “In what year did Columbus discover America?”

continue reading →