The Red Balloon: Truth is Truth Whether You Believe It or Not

This short video was shared on facebook by a friend (Thanks, Marty!) and I wanted to share it with you all here. It is a very simple illustration of the fact that truth is truth whether you believe it or not.

Truth has taken a beating in this postmodern age to the point where many believe we cannot know truth about anything from religious claims to historical claims. Instead we are left to interpret or construct our own truth & no one's truth is any "truer" than anyone else's. This video shows how ridiculous that really is.

The video also does a good job of making the point that when we stand up for truth, we are not being intolerant. If someone is presented with a truth that they choose not to believe, it does not make the truth relative, nor does it make the presenter intolerant. The truth is still the truth.

So if you're a believer in absolute truth, this video may give you another way to get your point across when engaging with someone who believes truth is relative. If you don't believe in absolute truth, watch this video, then give it some honest thought. Enjoy!

Summer Reading List

I just finished another semester of my master's program in apologetics at Biola University. It was very rewarding, but it was also a long one!! While I am very blessed to be able to be a stay-at-home mom for our 4 and 15 year old boys, having a little one in the house is not so conducive to good study time! When I do go back to work one day, I will have to take juice breaks and stop to play Candy Land every four minutes. I no longer know any other way!! :)

Now that I am on summer break, I can finally catch up on my housework (ugh!), spend many days at the park with my 4 year old, and many evenings at the baseball field cheering for my favorite 2nd baseman - my 15 year old. I am also excited about getting back to learning to play my new electric guitar! But what I have been anticipating all semester long is having the time to read all the books I've been ordering the past few months. They have been sitting in my office (which now has a clean, cleared off desk for the first time since January!!) waiting patiently for my attention. So with that in mind, I thought I would suggest a few of them for your summer reading list.

These books are not easy reading. If you already have something lighter on your list, save it for bedtime reading when you're too exhausted to think, or for when you take the kids to the park and the other 100 screaming kids make it impossible to concentrate! Save the heavier reading for those times when you can curl up in the quiet without too many distractions.

The first book I can't wait to start is: Signature In the Cell:DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C Meyer.
This book has been making a big splash in the scientific world recently. Dr. Meyer received his Ph.D from the Univ. of Cambridge in the philosphy of science. He is a former geophysicist and college professor. He currently directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. He knows what he's talking about!! An interesting side note: In 2004 a biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published Meyer's peer reviewed scientific article advancing intelligent design. A firestorm of media and scientific controversy was ignited because it advanced evidence against evolution. Hopefully, those who read his book will be more willing to follow the science wherever it leads instead of being so protective of their own agendas that scientific debate is not only unwelcome, but forcefully discouraged!

Endorsers of Meyer's book say, "A decisive case based upon breathtaking and cutting-edge science." (Dr. Philip S. Skell, member, National Academy of Sciences; Evan Pugh Professor Emeritus at Pennsylvania State University); and "This book is a landmark in the intelligent design debate and one which accurately draws together all relevant scientific research and information. It is elegantly written in a style that is accessible and laced with interesting historical and personal anecdotes. Signature in the Cell will pay rich dividends to everyone who turns its pages." (Dr. Norman C Nevin, professor emeritus in medical genetics, Queen's University, Belfast, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians

This book is 508 pages including Appendixes - but don't let that stop you! This is an important book in the intelligent design/evolution debate and those of us who believe in a Creator need to sharpen our knowledge in this area! (Other books on this subject for those interested are: The Creation Hypothesis by J.P. Moreland and Three Views on Creation and Evolution edited by J.P. Moreland, John Mark Reynolds, and Stanly N. Gundry. I hope to get through them all!!

Another book that I am excited about is The Cross of Christ by John R. W. Stott. This book was the 1988 winner of the ECPA Gold Medallion for Theology and Doctrine and has long been respected as "a work of outstanding value for...all who want to enlarge their understanding or to refresh their minds by focusing anew on what is at the heart of the Christian faith." (Robert Letham)

I'm excited to deepen my faith, love, and understanding in Jesus Christ with this valuable book!

If you're interested in life after death, a great book to check out is Beyond Death by Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland. I've started this book and it is a great mix of science and real life experience. The authors discuss and give riveting examples of near death experiences. They also talk about the soul, what it is, and how it relates to our physical bodies. And much more! You will learn a lot from this book and like the others, it is really important to know this stuff! (Another book to read on the soul/body is Body & Soul: Human Nature & the Crisis in Ethics by J.P. Moreland and Scott Rae.)

If you want to read something on apologetics and techniques, pick up Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air by Apologists Greg Koukl and Francis J. Beckwith. This is a lighter and quicker read than the others and has much to offer on combating the relativism that is so prevalent in our culture.

O.K. ~ That should get you started! :) A lot of great work has been done by these authors and we should definitely take advantage of it! So grab a deck chair or a sunny window and start reading...and learning!! Enjoy!

A Great New Apologetic Blog

I've added a new blog to the blogs I follow (you can find them on the right hand side of the page) that will be great for anyone interested in apologetics to keep up with. The blogger is one of my professors in the MA Christian Apologetics program at Biola University - Dr. Clay Jones.

I think you will find Dr. Jones thought provoking and very interesting! I continue to learn a LOT from him and his classes. So check it out soon and go back often!

A Great Sermon With Apologetic Lessons

If you haven't been checking out Lincoln Berean's sermon series called "Which Church Has it Right?" now is a great time to start, especially for those of us who love apologetics! This week's sermon had A LOT to say about truth, relativism, absolutism, and tolerance. As I've said on this blog and as I'm sure you've heard in other places, more than 50% of high school graduates will walk away from their faith in college. This is partly due to the pressure to leave the "unenlightened, unintelligent, archaic faith" that their parents taught them and instead embrace the "intelligent worldview" of relativism. Pastor Bryan Clark made the point in his sermon that relativism is NOT new, progressive, enlightened, or intelligent. In fact, it is higly unintelligent, lacking in integrity, and full of contradictions. Relativism refutes itself at many, many points.

So take some time and listen to this week's message, and if you haven't already, listen to the rest of the series as well. (You can find the links on the right hand side of this page under "Lincoln Berean Church Sermons.) It is a great series and I promise it will give you a lot to think about!

(And check back soon for more on the problems of evil!)

The Problems of Evil and Tips for Answering Them

Hi all! I just started a new class from Biola - "Why God Allows Evil". It is a topic that anyone engaging in apologetics at all (and we all should be!)should be familiar with. This is a huge topic, so I think instead of trying to cover a bunch in one post, I'll follow the class and do several posts on the interesting and extremely relevant things we're learning.

Part of our reading this week was The Many Faces of Evil by John S. Feinberg. The first thing I found helpful is Feinberg's argument that there is no "the problem of evil. There are, in fact, many problems of evil. One exampley is what Feinberg calls the religious problem of evil which is an experiential problem, which is different than the theological/philosophical problem of evil that is concerned with why evil in general exists if there is an all-powerful loving God. There is also a distinction between moral evil and natural evil (e.g. tornadoes, earthquakes, famine, disease, etc.). Then there are the problems of the quantity, intensity, and gratuitousness of evil. (The problem of gratuitousness of evil has to do with seemingly purposeless evils or evil that goes beyond what we think it should have to in order to serve a particular purpose.) Finally, there is the problem of hell.

It is important to distinguish between the problems of evil because how you address evil will be determined by which problem you are addressing.

An illustration will make this clear. Suppose your child has just been diagnosed with leukemia. Understandably, you are devastated. You don't understand why God is allowing this to happen to your family. You've been a faithful Christian, serving and loving God; you pray for your kids health and safety constantly. Your friend comes quickly to your side as soon as she hears the news. As you cry on her shoulder and ask why this is happening, your Christian friend launches into a lecture about evil being a necessary part of our world because we have a loving God who values our free will, but with that comes the ability to make the wrong choice, and so evil exists. Not only is this not the time for a lesson of any kind, but even if it were, this is completely the wrong one. You are giving the "free will defense" which answers the theological/philosophical problem of evil nicely (for those who hold free will as true), but it has very little to do with the religious/experiential problem of evil. This woman simply needs care and love, not lectures.

It's also important to distinguish between the problems of evil because you want to know what your argument is meant to answer. If you are offering the free will defense as an argument against moral evil, you would be right in doing so. But if the person you are talking with objects because the free will defense doesn't explain natural evil, or the quantity of evil, etc. he would be wrong in his objection. The free will defense isn't meant to answer all problems of evil, only moral evil. Just because it can't answer all the problems the presence of evil in our world presents doesn't meant it can't answer any of the problems evil presents. There are other arguments to address the other problems of evil.

Another good tip is to make sure an objector to your arguments is basing his objections on what you believe. For instance, if he were to say he doesn't buy your free will argument because God directs all our actions so that we could not do otherwise and is therefore responsible for all the evil in the world, but you believe God does NOT direct all our actions and we are free to choose between right and wrong, then his objection fails in this case.

So those are some things to be aware of when you find yourself in a discussion about one of the problems of evil. Get out there and engage! You'll get better at it the more you do it...but remember...always with gentleness and respect! It's not us against them - it's God working through us to bring them to Himself.

Blessings!

Much of the material for this post was taken from "The Many Faces of Evil" by John S. Feinberg, revised and expanded edition, published by Crossway Books in 2004.

Which Church Has it Right?

Hi everyone! I hope you all had a great Easter with your families and friends. My family attended a wonderful Easter service at our church, hosted Easter dinner in our home - my husband was happy to get to try his hand at smoking a chicken on his new Green Egg grill...and it was very good! - and had an Easter egg hunt for our little guy. It was a good weekend celebrating the resurrection of our Savior!

I wanted to let you all know about the upcoming sermon series at Lincoln Berean. I think it will be extremely interesting, valuable, and you may even be surprised by the answers! "Which Church Has it Right? This is the subject that will be explored using the letters to the seven churches in Revelation as a guide. If you aren't in the Lincoln, NE area, you can find the sermons on the right hand side of this blog under the RSS feed section each week. You can also find a link to Lincoln Berean under the links section, also on the right hand side. From there, you can access the sermons by clicking on the "resources" tab, then selecting "sermons" from the drop down menu.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this series as the weeks proceed, so post them here!

Enjoy, learn, & share!!

An Apologetic for the Resurrection

In less than a week, we will celebrate Easter. As much as I LOVE chocolate easter eggs, for Christians Easter is about something else altogether - the resurrection of our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ. Belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus is a central doctrine of Christianity. As the apostle Paul says, "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." (1Cor. 15:17-20)

With Easter at hand, you may have the chance to discuss the resurrection with skeptics, so what follows is a good apologetic means for doing so.

This material comes from a lecture from one of my classes given by an expert on the resurrection, Dr. Gary Habermas.

Since most skeptics will not grant that the Bible is true, it is difficult to use it as evidence for the resurrection. However, Habermas likes to use what he calls the "minimal facts approach" which are facts that about 95% of all scholars agree on. While there are about 20 facts that the vast majority of scholars will give you, this approach uses the best attested of these. This is the strength of this apologetic method when talking with skeptics because it uses facts even critical scholars will grant.

For apologetic purposes, 1 Corinthians 15 is the best text to use for the resurrection. All critics will agree that Paul wrote 1 Cor. and find him very reliable. Paul is in favor with the critics. 1 Cor. is a very early account of the resurrection, earlier than the Gospels. There is virtually no scholar that will disagree that 1 Cor. was written within about 25 years (54-57 A.D.) of this all-important miracle.

So the eyewitness accounts (those apostles from whom Paul received his material) are very early. It would be ludicrous for someone to say that an eyewitness to the death and resurrection of Jesus would not be able to remember the event 25 years after it happened. In fact, we have no problem trusting eye witness accounts for historical events that come much later than 25 years.

Nearly all critics will also agree that Paul believed he saw a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus on the road to Damascus, so skeptics will also need to explain Paul's own account if they want to deny the resurrection.

Before Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians, he was in Corinth and preached the Gospel which, of course, includes the resurrection. This would have been within about 20 years of the event. Paul says he passed on what he received from the other apostles who had seen the resurrected Jesus. Critics agree that what he received (the Gospel message) was from Peter and James in around AD 35 when he was in Jerusalem. As you can see, this is incredibly early - within a few years of Jesus's death and resurrection.

So the apostles believed they had seen Jesus risen from the dead. Critics will grant that. We can also be certain that men are not willing to die for what they know to be a lie. The next step is to go from what the disciples believed to the fact of the resurrection.

Important facts to keep in mind:
-Jesus did die by crucifixion
-The disciples believed they had seen Jesus resurrected from the dead.
-They were so convinced that they were willing to be martyred for their faith in Jesus.
-Paul, formerly the persecutor of those who followed Jesus, was so convinced he had seen Jesus physically resurrected that he became a believer and one of the best missionaries God's Kingdom has ever had.

Also:
-We have very early report of the resurrection - earlier than any other historical source for any other historical event that we trust.
-James, Jesus's brother became a believer after seeing Jesus risen even though he had not been a believer before Jesus's death.
-The resurrection was most certainly examined very carefully precisely because it was a central belief in the Christian faith.

So we have very good reason for believing the resurrection was an historical fact - God breaking in to history in a supernatural way - because all the available facts we have point to the reality of the resurrection. The fact that the disciples believed they saw the resurrected Christ, plus the fact that all other theories to explain away the resurrection fail and raise more questions than they answer, lead to the conclusion that Jesus did rise from the dead. Through Jesus, God defeated sin and death and provided a way back to Him for those who will accept it.

Happy Easter & Praise God!!

Disturbing Implications: Accounting for Morality Through Sociobiology

While I was running this week, I was listening to a Stand to Reason podcast (www.str.org) with host Greg Koukl. His guest, Brian Godawa, was talking about a couple of his projects as a Christian screenwriter, producer, and documentary maker.* One of the issues that was discussed was moral relativism, which the clip below addresses in an impactful way.

This is a 7 minute clip of what will be released as a full length feature film titled Cruel Logic. Among other themes such as the problem of evil, Cruel Logic explores the nature of morality. This clip powerfully shows that ideas have consequences, as one of the characters points out in a disturbing way.

For those not familiar with the sociobiolgical theory of morality, its proponents believe that morals are a result of social evolution. Morals are the result of our gene's felt need for them, not something objective and external to us. For instance, philosopher Michael Ruse, believes that morals are an illusion that our genes have foisted on us because we need to believe in morality in order to live together since we have become social beings. In other words, we need to believe there are objective morals, so our genes make us believe there are objective morals. Those tricky genes! (One could ask how Ruse has risen above the illusion to discover the truth; and now that he's exposed it, why any of us should accept the illusion and its morals any longer?)

As you watch this clip, notice how there is no valid reason why the serial killer should not kill based on the sociobiological theory...we are just products of our genes. It is an extreme case, but the point is there is nothing to stop one from going to this extreme if he or she chooses. Watch as this serial killer follows sociobiology all the way to its natural conclusion.



As Christians, we know that morals come from the one perfectly moral lawgiver, God. As such, morals are an external, objective standard of right and wrong that is binding on all humans at all times. Any other way of accounting for morality is subjective and relative and leaves us no room to claim anything right or wrong, which is a very bad place to be.

*Brian Godawa also wrote the award-winning The End of Wars which starred Keifer Sutherland, and a new documentary on stem cell research titled Lines That Divide,to name a few. You can find out more about him and his projects at www.godawa.com

The McDowells Answer Tough Questions

Hi everyone! I hope to be back with you soon. I'm taking classes again, and each one is condensed into just a few weeks, so I have little time for much else but studying! I'm learning a LOT and am really excited to share some great things with you soon...in the meantime, here is a video of Josh McDowell (author of More Than a Carpenter ) and Sean McDowell (author of Apologetics for a New Generation )answering tough questions during a live feed. I hope you enjoy and learn much from these experienced apologists!

Tackling Tough Questions: Josh & Sean McDowell from ConversantLife on Vimeo.

Upcoming Lecture With Apologetic Implications

Thursday evening, March 4, the Christian Leadership College (Lincoln, Nebraska) will host a lecture by Dr. Gerry Breshears, Professor of Systematic Theology at Western Seminary (Portland, OR) titled, "Is Christianity to Blame for Injustice in the World?" The Lecture will take place at 7:00 pm at Lincoln Berean Church. The lecture is free and open to the public. I hope to see you there. Invite your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers

Here is a brief description of Dr. Breshears lecture:

Critics charge Christianity with responsibility for so much injustice, war and violence. Christopher Hitchens asserts religion is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children." Karl Marx characterized religion as "the opiate of the people," used by power brokers to keep people in submission while they exploited them. in this lecture we will ask the question, "Can Christians answer these charges without dismissing the truth that is in them?"

Dr. Breshears will also be teaching a course on spiritual warfare at the Christian Leadership College March 3-6. The public is welcome to register to audit this class. For questions or to register for the class, contact Chasity at cstarkel@clcnebraska.com.

The Hope Venture

The Hope Venture is a newly founded compassion-based venture that I'm really excited about! It is a local (to Lincoln, NE) organization whose goal is to "bring help and hope to people around the world. Through trusted partnerships, The Hope Venture engages primarily in compassion-based projects emphasizing better education, health, clothing and shelter for children, orphans and the needy poor, for the honor of Christ." (emphasis mine). Their mission is to "foster a global community that is meeting the needs of people worldwide by compassionately connecting resources with needs." (Join The Hope Venture page on facebook for updates on projects)

One of the things that makes the Hope Venture exciting is that they really put themselves into the hands of people like you and me, asking that we use whatever forums we have to partner with them in spreading the word about their organization and giving more & more people the opportunity to make a difference.

The Hope Venture just finished their first project which was to fund 1000 backpacks filled with school supplies for an entire year to distribute in India. It was a very successful first project!!

The second project is to fund a new addition to the Home of Hope-Bangalore which takes children in from the streets. They are currently running over capacity and more room is greatly needed if the Home of Hope is to continue rescuing orphans. The Hope Venture wants to raise $11,000 to fund this project.

James 2: 15-16 says, "Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?"

What will you do to put your faith into practice? What good fruits will give evidence to God's Spirit in your life?

I hope you will prayerfully consider giving to help the Hope Venture fund this project. Any amount, no matter how small, helps. (Just click on the "chip in" button at the top of this post to make a secure donation. You will be able to print a receipt at the end of the transaction.) It all adds up, so also consider sharing this post with friends and family. We are children of God called to show Jesus' love to a hurting world - and what a privilege that is!

Teaching Teens to Argue

O.K. Stay with me. I know most teens don't need any lessons in arguing but that's not quite what I have in mind. I'm interested in teaching teens to direct their natural argumentative skills :) in the right direction, teach them to argue well, and in the right situations. Of course, adults should learn these things as well, but when statistics show that more than 50% of teens eventually leave the faith after graduating high school and moving out on their own, it seems clear that the earlier teens are able to defend their faith and recognize bad arguments against it, the better off they'll be. This series of posts will highlight different fallacies people make in arguing so that you will recognize them when someone uses them, as well as different tactics to use when defending the Christian faith.

Assertions & Supporting Arguments

In a book titled Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, (Koukl & Beckwith) the authors use the following example to show that it is important to challenge someone making untrue claims, and how to do so in the right way. In this example, a professor is promoting ethical subjectivism based on cultural relativism. (The idea that there are no moral absolute based on the fact that cultures seem to differ in their morals & values.)

A student who recognizes that ethical subjectivism does not follow from cultural relativsm might ask, "How does it follow that if people have different points of view, then nobody's right?"

The professor might respond, "If you believe in moral absolutes, what are they?"

Instead of defending her view, the professor has challenged the student to defend his view. (Nevermind that he has not claimed a view, he has simply asked a question regarding her view.)

A wise student will recognize that this may not be the time to present his arguments, but he can respectfully ask the professor to present hers. "Professor, it doesn't really matter what I believe. I'm not making the claim. You are. I may even believe as you do, for all you know. I'm just asking you to prove your point. I asked a fair question and you changed the subject, throwing it back on me. I'm not making any claim about morality. But you're teaching that morality is relative because you think cultures have different values. I'm simply asking if that works. So please tell me how your conclusion follows."

This example shows that Christians are not the only ones who need to defend their claims and it is okay to ask someone else to defend claims they have made. Stating something as if it were true does not make it true. Someone who does so is making an "assertion" which is making a claim as if no proof or evidence is necessary. If you catch someone doing this, gently & respectfully call them on it and ask them to give their arguments for making and believing their claim.

So two things to remember: First, recognize when someone is making an assertion - claiming something without offering any support for it. When they do so, ask them to support it with sound arguments &/or evidence. Second, anyone - not just Christians - making a claim needs to be able to support it. When you ask someone to support their claims, don't let them turn it around as if you're the one who's made a claim.

As always, remember to be gracious, kind, & respectful - your goal is not to win an argument but to show someone making false claims the flaws & inconsistencies in those claims. A great conversation might follow if you're non-threatening & non-defensive. And maybe God has been preparing someone for that very converstaion!

2010 ~ Do God's Morals Still Apply?

2010. Can you believe it? Wow...I remember thinking 1990 was exciting!!

As we begin yet another new year, I thought an appropriate apologetic topic might be the relevance of the Bible as a guide for living almost two thousand years after its last author wrote his last words.

Let's first take a look at what God considers immoral. In Mark, Jesus says this, "For from within, out of people's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immoralities, thefts, murders, adulteries, greed, evil actions, deceit, lewdness, stinginess, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness. All these evil things come from withing and defile a person." (Mark 7:21-23) Paul gives a similar list in Galatians. "Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and anything similar..." (Gal. 5:19-21a)

This is a good guide if we want to know how to live holy lives as God's image bearers and as His temples. This guide is said by some, however, to be outdated.


When skeptics throw the "the Bible is outdated" argument into the ring, they most typically have an agenda: They don't want someone else telling them how they should live. One blogger disgusted with the "outdated" laws of the Bible (and the uneducated people who still follow its teachings) writes that it should have "no more right to govern one's life than a copy of Cosmopolitan." Is that true? Are we culturally so far removed from the Bible that its laws and commands no longer have any relevance to us?

This is a very common claim.

So how do you respond to someone who says biblical commands are outdated and don't apply to our culture? You have to realize that most are not primarily concerned with living right according to God's Word. They aren't trying to figure out how to get it right given the cultural differences. They are interested in living according to their own pleasures and they don't want to be told that what they are doing is wrong. Ask them this: What basis do you have for your claim that some of God's laws no longer apply to us because they were only cultural? Most will never have given this any thought.

The one answer I have been given (over and over again)-in regards to claiming that sex before marriage is no longer wrong in our day-is that people in the OT days married much younger and God never expected people to abstain from sex into their late teens and beyond if they weren't married. So lets look at this answer. Problem #1: There is no basis whatsoever for this assumption about what God expected. Problem #2: Even if God never intended for people to wait so long before marriage, it doesn't follow that his law is thus invalid for people who do. (Pre-marital sex & homosexuality seem to be the biggest concerns when one is trying to get out from underneath God's laws by claiming they are no longer relavant today.)

Another question you might want to ask is this: Where do we draw the line when deciding biblical commands no longer apply to us? If some commands can go, why not all? Shall we throw out theft and murder as well?

Some will say that laws against murder, theft, and the like do still apply to our culture. But why? What is the difference that makes some laws still applicable & others outdated? Without a grounding in the Supreme Law Giver - the perfectly moral God - why should I submit myself to any laws? What makes "culture" able to tell me what is right and wrong. It's all just being made up as we go along. What do I care if it's good for the masses - why shouldn't I do what's good for me? Why should I choose to live by the laws of our culture any more than I choose to live by the Bible or the latest Cosmopolitan?

Others will say that things like murder and theft are crimes against other people. That's what makes them wrong. They'll argue that if the act isn't hurting anyone, on the other hand, it shouldn't be prohibited, and where the Bible does so, it is outdated. But is that the criteria for what makes something wrong or right - whether or not it can be percieved as hurting someone? Problem #1: Even if it was, we do not have omniscients view points. We cannot see how these things will affect anyone else in the future and so cannot guarantee that someone won't be hurt. Problem #2: If the criteria is whether or not it hurts someone else, can you tell me how these things were hurting people in ancient times that made God feel the need to prohibit these acts for just that time period? How were people being hurt then and why aren't they being hurt in the same way now? Problem #3: I don't think a case can be made that these things don't hurt people today. Just take a look around - STD's, unwanted pregnancies, tragic deaths at the hands of drunk drivers, betrayed spouses and children, sexually abused children, crippling financial debt, addiction,...the list goes on.

Frankly, there is no basis for claiming that any of God's commands are outdated. What was immoral, unholy, and unrighteous in biblical times is still immoral, unholy, and unrighteous today. The only thing that has changed is, well...nothing.