Dr Paul Allen

Moral equivalence has two purposes.  One is to enable the morally confused to hide their confusion.  The other is to allow the immoral to hide their immorality.  Here are two examples as applied to the Israeli-Arab conflict: 1. One is the assertion we hear regarding the latest Israel-Hamas war by members of the Western Left, Muslim supporters of the Palestinians and even by a few individuals on the right: “Palestinian babies are as precious as Israeli babies.” Professor Cornel West, a lifelong progressive running for president as a Democrat: “As I have said for the past 50 years, a precious Palestinian child has the same value as a precious Israeli child.” David Cronin, an editor at Electronic Intifada, a large pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel website: “Palestinian babies are just as precious as my new daughter.” Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has called the hospital blast a "devastating loss of innocent life".  Anthony Albanese calls for the protection of Israeli and

The presuppositional approach to apologetics attempts to make a case for the reasonableness of Christianity by defending the faith against objections (cf. 1 Pet 3:15) and by refuting the claims of other worldviews and religions that are antithetical to Christianity (cf. 2 Cor 10:5). Although presuppositionalism may place more emphasis on the active refutation of contrary belief systems than other schools of apologetics, all schools of apologetics agree on these basic tenets. Two Myths Busted Two main principles, however, distinguish presuppositionalism from other schools of apologetics like evidentialism or “classical” apologetics. The first is that the notion of neutrality is a myth. Because God is the Creator of the world , nothing falls outside the realm of His Lordship. This means that nothing—not even facts or knowledge—is neutral. All things are either (a) in submission to or (b) are hostile to Christ’s Lordship. The second principle is that the notion of human autonomy is

John Piper (theologian) (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Euphemistically justifying murder as a “women’s rights” issue is at once disgusting and dumbfounding. Disgusting that anyone might use women for political posturing and sully their name by insisting that it’s a virtue for them to exercise murderous violence against their own children. Dumfounding because I can’t quite believe that these people are really convinced by their own arguments. As John Piper demonstrated clearly in this excellent blog post (which, if you haven’t already read, you should): We all know we’re killing children—human persons—and the most defenseless of human persons at that. We are just willing to sacrifice the innocent so we can give vent to our lust, immorality, and selfish ambition. And so I’ve been listening to the various “defenses” of this legalized murder, and I think to myself, “Can he really believe that something that grows, moves, consumes , is distinct from the mother, and has its own chromosom