Friday, August 4, 2006

Do You Know What An Apologist Does --- No. 13, Part 2

.
An Apologist Doesn't Apologize for the Church's Actions.

An Apologist Defends the Faith of the Catholic Church and its Interpretation of Holy Scripture!

Would You Like to Become a Good Apologist?

John Martignoni at the Bible Christian Society is an apologist and has a free newsletter that gives instructions on how to be a better apologist when you feel called upon to defend the Church when you hear someone say or write something that is incorrect.

John's instruction system makes a lot of sense. He prints a question that he has received; then he explains how a question like that should be handled; and then then he gives his answer. If you would like to be better able to speak confidently about your Catholic faith, why not visit John's web site and subscribe to his newsletter. He also has audio tapes that he will send you for free (he will accept a free will offering, though).

Here is an example of the information he sent in today's newsletter:

General Comments

Introduction Issue No. 13, Part 2

This is the 2nd half of Was Hitler Right? (Or: Why Atheists Have No Rights). The first half can be found in Issue #13, Part 1.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Was Hitler Right? (Or: Why Atheists Have No Rights); Part 2

As stated in the first half of this article, we have value because God loves us. That is an objective moral standard. Any other argument that attempts to give value to human life, and leaves God out of the equation, ultimately boils down to someone's subjective opinion. We don't have value because I say we do, or you say we do, or because anyone else says we do...we have value because we are loved by our Creator.

So, the question then becomes, when did we acquire this value? When did God start loving us? At the moment of our birth? When we became self-aware? When we were baptized? When we were first able to express belief in God? When did God start loving us? In Jeremiah 1:5, it says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. God knows us before he forms us in the womb. And this verb, “to know”, when used in this context, means an intensely personal and intimate knowledge and love. And, in Jeremiah 31:3, it says, “...I have loved you with an everlasting love...” So, God loved us before He formed us in the womb and He loves us with an everlasting love.

So, when do we, as human beings, acquire our value? Obviously, we have value from the very first moment we come into existence...from the very first moment of our conception! God loved us...at the moment of our conception...as much as He loves us right now. That is an awesome thing! Think about it! When you were just one tiny little cell - a zygote, which is the scientific name for this one-celled human being - when you were just one tiny little cell traveling through your mom’s body...God loved you! And He has loved you ever since and ever will!

Scripture tells us that God loves us even before He forms us in the womb and that He loves us with an everlasting love. So, if that’s the case, was there or is there ever any stage of your development as a human being, whether in the womb or out, that God did not and does not love you? No! Which is why the pro-life position...that life is valuable and should be protected from the very moment of conception...is the only rational and reasonable position for a just and humane society to take. God’s love for us is what makes this position valid.

And that’s why an abortion that results in the death of the tiny one-celled human being is just as abominable in God’s eyes as an abortion that results in the death of the baby at 7, 8, or 9 months of development. It is just as abominable as the murder of a 6-yr. old or of a teenager or of an adult. Because God loves us with an everlasting love no matter what stage we are at in our lives. From a one-celled human being to a human being with billions of cells. From the tiniest baby to the oldest man. God loves us. That is what gives us value, and that value never changes.

So, your value as a human being does not depend on whether or not you have been born. Your value as a human being does not depend on whether or not you have a boyfriend or a girlfriend, or a husband or a wife, or children. Your value as a human being does not depend on whether or not you have a job, or how much money you earn at your job, or what title you hold at your job. Your value as a human being does not depend on what kind of car you drive or what kind of house you live in. Your value as a human being does not depend on how old you are, what you look like, or whether or not you have physical or mental handicaps. Your value as a human being does not depend on how smart you are. Your value as a human being does not depend upon your “quality of life.”

Your value as a human being depends on God’s love for you. That’s it. And His love you have always had and always will have. So, each individual human life has value because of God’s love for that life. Now, let’s stop there for a moment and go back and answer the questions I asked in Part 1. How does the “world” answer the question of why do we, as human beings, have value? And, what is the prevailing answer to that question here in the United States?

Essentially, the “world” answers that question by saying that a person has value only if they are “wanted,” or if they are “useful.” For example, let’s say a woman is five months pregnant and looking forward to this baby being born. If a man comes up to her and shoots her or stabs her, and even though the woman lives, her unborn child dies as a result of this attack...what happens? Well, that man can possibly be charged with murder...he took the life of the unborn child. But, let’s say that same woman decides she doesn’t want her child and she goes to an abortion mill and has her baby killed by a doctor who literally rips the baby to pieces to remove it from the mother’s womb...what happens? Nothing. Nothing!

Think about that. If a woman pays money to someone, an abortionist, to kill her unborn child, then that’s perfectly acceptable in the “world’s” eyes. But, if some stranger whom she hasn’t paid money to kills her unborn child, then it’s called murder. Same woman, same child. Does that make any sense whatsoever? What’s the only difference in both situations? Whether the baby is wanted or unwanted. In essence, our society here in the United States, and in many other countries around the world, is saying that a child has value - that human life has value - only if it is "wanted" by someone else. This attitude not only diminishes the unwanted child, but it also diminishes the “wanted” child, as well. I mean, after all, you could just as easily not have wanted the child that you “allowed” to be born. The wanted child does not have any value of its own, but simply because it was “wanted” by someone else. That attitude devalues all life.

And that leads us to the question, that if a mother has a “right” to kill her child up to the moment of its birth, then why does that “right” just magically end with the birth of the child? What if the “wanted” child becomes an “unwanted” child a year after it’s born? Why can’t mommy take little Johnny or little Sally down to the unwanted infant clinic and mercifully put him or her to sleep? After all, they're just not wanted anymore. And what kind of life would an unwanted child have...better to just end it early, right? Well, that’s actually the direction we’re headed in. More and more voices are calling for parents to have the “right” to kill their child up until the child turns one or two years old. You see, that would give the parents time to decide if the child is to their liking or not. And to make sure that taking care of a child is not too burdensome...or doesn’t cause too much disruption to their lifestyle. In other words, if t he child stops having value in the parents' eyes, then the child no longer has value and it's okay to throw it out with the rest of the garbage.

And why stop the killing at a person’s second birthday? I mean, after all, there are all these people out there who are no longer useful...who are a burden to society...they don’t have value to anyone. No one "wants" them. People with chronic illness, old people, the mentally and physically handicapped. The homeless. Drug addicts. What kind of life do these people have? What use are they to anybody? What value do they have? They have no quality of life. Why not just humanely put them out of their misery? Wouldn’t that be the best thing for them and for society? Wouldn’t that be the compassionate thing to do?

In other words, folks, if we get away from the notion that human life has value simply because it is human life...that every human life has value because of God’s love for that life...and we turn to the standard that human life is valuable only if it is “wanted” or “useful” or has a certain "quality of life"...if we do that...we have opened wide the gates of Hell.

If we allow human life, any human life, to be devalued at any point from conception to natural death, then we are opening the door to every human life being devalued at every point between conception and natural death. If we do not fight for the right to life of every human being, no matter how small...if we do not fight for the dignity of every human life, no matter the particular circumstances of that life...if we allow some human beings to pass laws that classify other human beings as non-persons...then we should not be surprised when one day, someone passes a law saying that our life no longer has value. That we are no longer useful. That we are no longer “wanted”. That our quality of life doesn’t meet someone’s else’s arbitrary standard. That we have become a “non-person.” Maybe there will be a knock on our door, and we’ll open it to find that a van is sitting out front waiting to take us to the troublesome teen “clinic.” Or to the old folks "cl inic." Or to the handicapped “clinic.” Or to the redhead "clinic." Or to the Jewish "clinic." Or to the Catholic "clinic."

What happened in Nazi Germany is happening now in the United States. A whole class of human beings have been labeled as “non-persons,” and it is acceptable and permissible to kill these non-persons. Whether for the “right” to choose, as in abortion; or for “science,” as in embryonic stem cell research; or for the “quality of life,” as in euthanasia.

Was Hitler right? Most of those who advocate these horrible things, are never made to think through the position they’re advocating. That’s why I always ask them, “Was Hitler right to kill 6 million Jews.” If they say he was wrong, but they don’t argue that he was wrong from the standpoint of an objective moral standard (the fact that God exists and we have inherent value because of His love for us), then they are left with merely their subjective personal opinion that he was wrong...they cannot claim that he was morally wrong, the best they can do is say that he was wrong...in their opinion.

They are afraid to argue from the standpoint of an objective moral standard, because, as I mentioned in the 1st half of this article, that objective moral standard can and will be used against them when it comes to abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and other issues that they hold near and dear to their hearts.

I had one friend of mine who took issue when I said that his position regarding Terri Schiavo was immoral (he was in favor of deliberately starving her to death). After he objected to my characterization of his position as being immoral, I attempted to dialogue with him on morality. I asked a simple question, "What are your core beliefs." His response? He said he had no "core" beliefs. But, he said the following statements carry weight with him and he proceeded to quote from a few different religious and secular figures, one of whom was Jesus Christ. Guess which quote he chose for Jesus? From Matthew 25, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren..." I then asked him if Terri Schiavo wouldn't be considered as one of the least among us, which would mean that he was in favor of starving Jesus to death, since whatever we do to Terri we are doing to Jesus. I also pointed out that the passage he quoted from Matt 25 has Jesus saying, "For I was hungry and you fed me," and I mentioned it seemed kind of hypocritical to claim that passage informed your beliefs about morality, yet you are all in favor of starving someone to death. He quit replying to my emails after that.

In Conclusion

They have no response. At least, not a coherent, rational, intellectual response. They may have an emotional knee-jerk response, but that's about it.

Without God, folks, there are no objective moral standards by which to steer our lives. It boils down to whoever is the strongest gets to make the rules...might makes right. So go out and tell an atheist that you're with him 100%, and oh, by the way, you hope he doesn't mind too terribly if you use him as bait when you go fishing for great whites. After all, it would be so mean to put a helpless little fish on a hook.

As always, comments are welcomed and will be read. And, as always, if you like what you're reading, please think about sharing it with those on your email list and let them know about our website. Thanks!


One last thing, please remember to let folks know about us and about our free tapes and CDs at www.biblechristiansociety.com. By the way, we have 3 new talks at the website: 1) Which Came First, the Church or the Bible? 2) Debate: Sola Fide (Are we saved by Faith Alone? 3) Two-Minute Apologetics. Check them out if you haven't already!


If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and click on the "Newsletter" page to sign up. It will take you about 10 seconds.


If you would like to see similar Apologetics questions from John Martignoni that have been posted on this blog, click on our Apologetics category, also found in the sidebar.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment