One of the greatest challenges of marriage is how you speak to your spouse.
Science is often portrayed as entirely unbiased and indisputable. So when scientists say that mankind’s genetic diversity couldn’t have come from a single original couple – when they say they’ve disproven Adam and Eve – many, Christians among them, will treat that as the final word.
But this ignores the assumptions that underly scientists’ conclusions. Science doesn’t make pronouncements; some scientists based on their assumptions make pronouncements that other scientists might well dispute. Recently two Intelligent Design (ID) proponents used their own starting assumptions and discovered – voila! – that the data can be made to fit easily enough with an original starting couple. Their findings still don’t fit with a recent creation – they put the date for this common couple as being half a million to two million years ago – but, of course, ID proponents and creationists also operate from different starting assumptions. Christians have to remember and remind the world that there is a huge difference between unchangeable, unassailable truth, and what some scientists conclude based on their data and starting assumptions.
Alan Shelmon nominates 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 and explains why politically incorrect is also powerfully correct.
This 10-minute read is well worth your time, as apologist Greg Koukl demonstrates how we can use truths people already know – God’s law written on their hearts (Romans 2:15) – to point them to God.
In showing how Christians can, in their volunteer roles, be a light to the surrounding community, John Stonestreet is inadvertently making the case for single-income families – after all, it’s hard to volunteer when both mom and dad are busy with their day and maybe night jobs. So is this an attack against families who have to have both mom and dad working full time? No, parents need to provide, and if that’s what it takes, then that’s what it takes.
But, the thing is, for many that isn’t what it takes and yet we still do it. Why? Part of it might be because the world judges worth by the size of a person’s paycheck, or by the status of their career. Thus many women are influenced to then choose to work full time outside the home to prove their worth. Part of it is due to our young men settling, early on, for jobs that might well provide a plush income for a single man, but won’t be nearly enough for a family man, which then necessitate double incomes. If we want to be a community of volunteers, part of it will involve being a community in which young men are taught they should start businesses or seek out jobs and careers that will provide for all the financial needs of their family. That often isn’t possible. But when it is, it opens up possibilities..like letting our light shine through volunteering.
If “man” and “woman” have no set meaning, then how can transgender advocates argue that a man can feel like, and actually be, a woman?