Tag Archives: Matt Slick

Confused Thinking About Homosexuality

Posted on by

A church sign says "I kissed a girl and I liked it then I went to Hell"In an article subtitled “Christian defense against Homosexuality,” the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) attacks homosexuality.  I’ve pulled out claims that need a response.

Homosexuals want others in society to think like them (and behave like them?).

Is this the fabled Gay Agenda® where homosexuals will make all Americans homosexual to weaken the country for an eventual Communist takeover?  Or something?

“If you have to ask, you are probably already under its pernicious influence and blithely hop-scotching your way straight to Hell.”  Thank you, Betty Bowers.

They want others to accept them.

Well, yeah.  Is that a problem?

What gives them the right to try and change society into what they want it to be?

I’m pretty sure that’s what they said about African Americans during the Jim Crow period.

Saying that homosexuality is natural because it occurs in the animal kingdom does not mean it is morally correct. Animals also eat each other alive, devour offspring, etc. Should we imitate those things as well because the animals do it?

So then do we at least agree that homosexuality occurs in nature and then is, by definition, natural?

As for morality, let’s not get cocky.  For barbarism, no one beats humans.  Only humans have invented Continue reading →

We Have an Admirer!

Posted on by

Well, not really an admirer—more like an antagonist.  But I say that in a good way.

Matt Slick runs the CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) web site.  He interviewed me on his radio show about a dozen times in 2007.  We reconnected recently, and he responded to my Science Answers the Big Questions post.

His reply is here.

Unfortunately, there’s not much to respond to.  Matt seems mostly concerned about sloppy thinking, making sure we put materialistic thinking into the “science” bin and philosophical thinking into the “philosophy” bin, making sure words are used correctly, and so on.  Nothing wrong with that, of course, but I didn’t find anything interesting enough to respond to.

But let me sharpen one point.  I said that science answers the Big Questions of Life.  It would probably be better to say that what science tells us about reality means that wedon’t need religion’s answers.  Science’s natural answers show that looking for a transcendental purpose or an ultimate mind are unnecessary.