An Interview with Apologist Greg Koukl and a Conversation about Racism and the NBA

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

[Download MP3]

Dr. Brown interviews well-known apologist Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason and then takes your calls on the NBA’s treatment of Clippers owner Donald Sterling, banned for life and fined $2.5 million for his racist comments. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.

 

Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Yes, there are many mysteries in the Faith, but without a doubt our Faith is reasonable, upright, and sound!

 

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: As we discuss issues of racism in the NBA, let us be determined to have more light than heat and let us be constructive in our interaction!

SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY! 
This week, you can pre-order a signed and numbered copy of Dr. Brown’s new groundbreaking book, Can You Be Gay and Christian?, for $30 Postage Paid! (Release Date May 6th)
Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!

Other Resources:

Will EPSN Reporter Become a Media Martyr for Sharing His Christian Beliefs?

Dr. Brown Interviews Dr. William Lane Craig and Takes Your Apologetics Questions

Forgiveness and Restitution (and the Korean rapper Psy); and Who Says the World is Supposed to Like Us?

82 Comments
  1. There are three basic laws of logic.

    1. Law of Identity

    purposeful equals purposeful

    meaningful equals meaningful

    meaningless equals meaningless

    purposeless equals purposeless

    2. Law of Non-Contradiction

    meaningless cannot equal meaningful

    purposeless cannot equal purposeful

    3. Law of the Excluded Middle

    meaningless cannot equal meaningless AND meaningful

    purposeless cannot equal purposeless AND purposeful

    Atheist scientists agree that the universe is without God and is therefore purposeless and meaningless.

    Dr. George Gaylord Simpson:

    “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.”

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Gaylord_Simpson

    Dr. Jerry Coyne:

    “For to the best of our knowledge evolution,

    like all natural processes, is purposeless and unguided.”

    http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2012/7/17/what-s-the-problem-with-unguided-evolution#

    Dr. Larry Moran:

    “That evolution is a blind, purposeless process is difficult to grasp, yet it is a fundamental part of understanding biology.”

    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/03/richard-dawkins-on-purpose.html

    Dr. P. Z. Myers:

    “Yes, it is a meaningless universe; the universe doesn’t care about us, doesn’t love us, and is mindless and indifferent.”

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/13/ken-ham-baffled/

    Since our universe is purposeless and meaningless, then, by definition, everything our universe contains and produces is meaningless. It cannot be meaningless and yet meaningful (Law of the Excluded Middle).

    Consider this logical syllogism:

    Major Premise: Every part of this universe is purposeless and meaningless.

    Minor Premise: All humans and their thoughts and actions are a part of this universe.

    Conclusion: Therefore, all humans and their thoughts and actions are purposeless and meaningless.

    Humans are a product and part of this universe; therefore, everything about us is purposeless and meaningless. Every thought we think, every feeling we have is purposeless and meaningless. Good and evil are meaningless, truth and error are meaningless; liberty, life, death, love,hate, murder, everything we think and do which we consider “good” are all nothing more than meaningless sparks in our meaningless brains.

    When atheists like Van post their opinions, they are trying to act purposefully and meaningfully in a meaningless and purposeless universe. Not only are their thoughts and acts illogical, they are irrational, because they are in denial of the meaningless nature of themselves, their thoughts and acts, as part of a meaningless universe. Why should we listen to someone that is inherently illogical and irrational? What would a government be like which was run by illogical and irrational people?

    But could it be that Van is driven to post here in a meaningful and purposeful way because he is created in the image of a meaningful and purposeful God?

  2. Jon,

    It doesn’t matter if Mr. Sterling made these comments in his home or in the public square, that absolutely does not excuse the condition of
    his heart and of accountability. Again, this is not a political issue, nor is this about homosexuality. Let’s address the issue at hand and refrain from confuscation.

    This comes regarding Mr. Sterling’s heart condition, and what was said in secret has been brought to the light. I deem his comments to be racist, just as G-d did Aaron and Miriam’s, from which He acted swiftly. There have been no knee-jerk reactions as you assume, the NBA acted accordingly after weighing everything out. Cuddo’s to them for sending a clear message that racism will not be tolorated, no matter who it comes from.

    Shalom

  3. Well Brian the NBA will be a model in the future to take a sermon out of context and quickly change ownership to the state and change ownership to the state. It takes just a simple misrepresented out of context comment and the public will vilify you. anyone can call it racism or homophobia it is all the same in the eyes of the secular state. Racism the definition and all the conditioned drones accept the politically correct definition. Christianity is a form oh homophobia and sexism with racism. Tape in part of the conversation play it for the media and give ownership to the state. Case closed in less than one week.

  4. Aaron C,

    Keep in mind that Van will not answer you…except with something like, “That’s hilarious” along with an insult. He really will not answer logically or reasonably because he can’t and still maintain his unfounded faith and unreasonable stance. He will not play by his own rules because he thinks that he is above the rules. He thinks that he is god. He is not really an atheist…he is a god that rejects all gods but himself.

    “I do not think there is a demonstrative proof (like Euclid) of Christianity, nor of the existence of matter, nor of the good will and honesty of my best and oldest friends. I think all three are (except perhaps the second) far more probable than the alternatives. The case for Christianity in general is well given by Chesterton…As to why God doesn’t make it demonstratively clear; are we sure that He is even interested in the kind of Theism which would be a compelled logical assent to a conclusive argument? Are we interested in it in personal matters? I demand from my friend trust in my good faith which is certain without demonstrative proof. It wouldn’t be confidence at all if he waited for rigorous proof. Hang it all, the very fairy-tales embody the truth. Othello believed in Desdemona’s innocence when it was proved: but that was too late. Lear believed in Cordelia’s love when it was proved: but that was too late. ‘His praise is lost who stays till all commend.’ The magnanimity, the generosity which will trust on a reasonable probability, is required of us. But supposing one believed and was wrong after all? Why, then you would have paid the universe a compliment it doesn’t deserve. Your error would even so be more interesting and important than the reality. And yet how could that be? How could an idiotic universe have produced creatures whose mere dreams are so much stronger, better, subtler than itself?”

    Shalom

  5. Or, they ran across Solomon when he was in one of his funky moods:

    “All is vanity, emptiness.”

  6. “Conclusion: Therefore, all humans and their thoughts and actions are purposeless and meaningless.”

    > Yes there is no purpose or meaning to life. This is not a bad thing. It allows each one of us to give whatever meaning and purpose to our lives we want to. How great is that? You have chosen to let OTHER PEOPLE tell you what purpose your life MUST have. How sad it is that you will waste your life in intellectual servitude to false beliefs. All you had to do was learn just a tiny bit about science or get a whiff of common sense and you could have easily seen through the lies of your religion. I feel so sorry for all of you.

  7. See! I told you Van would have no good answer or present any facts. Just insults and foolish reasoning. He has let other people make the rules for him as much as anyone. He just doesn’t know it or, more precisely, won’t admit it. He has blind faith in his supposed experts.

  8. Van—“Yes there is no purpose or meaning to life. This is not a bad thing. It allows each one of us to give whatever meaning and purpose to our lives we want to. How great is that? You have chosen to let OTHER PEOPLE tell you what purpose your life MUST have. How sad it is that you will waste your life in intellectual servitude to false beliefs. All you had to do was learn just a tiny bit about science or get a whiff of common sense and you could have easily seen through the lies of your religion. I feel so sorry for all of you.”

    You haven’t brought any reasonable arguments as to why we shouldn’t believe in the God of the Bible. Bring your strong reasons why and I’ll consider them. Meanwhile, who are these “OTHER PEOPLE” you’re referring to because there weren’t any “OTHER PEOPLE” in my life telling me what to believe. You’ve made broad, generalized statements from day one which only shows the weakness of your basic premise. “Us people” against “Your people” I suppose.

    You mention “intellectual servitude” as if you’re completely free of it without giving thought to your own enslavement. I think perhaps you’re not strong enough to go against the grain of those theories taught as if they were fact. Bring your strong evidence, Van. Show me the imperical evidence of your science. I’ve not seen anything other than insults presented by you. H*@^, give me a book to read! I’ll actually read it! I’d love to have something, anything that sums it all up in your opinion because you honestly believe that all of us are intellectual lightweights which only proves to me that you’ve not cracked open the first book, nor listened to the first recording of any Christian apologist alive today. How intellectually honest is that? At least go educate yourself as to the opposing viewpoints available to both of us and then come back better prepared to do battle with today’s educated Christians or just give it up. There’s a phrase, I think it’s from the Book of War, that says, “Know your enemy” and considering that that’s what you consider us it’s best you take the time to do that as opposed to slinging insults at us that just wash over our backs. You should have learned by now that we’re not going to lie down so you can walk over us. The new Christians of today are better equipped than ever to answer the new atheists thanks to the giants of our faith that fight the good fight everyday. You might say they’re raising up an army of Christian soldiers. Maybe you’re familiar with that song? Anyway, I’m ready to begin when you are.

    Bring your strong reasons, we’re waiting…

  9. Oops, I must have clicked a button and accidentally deleted part of my post. The part about the meaninglessness of life. Oh well, maybe I’ll work it up again later.

  10. I don’t know how many people can listen to the show live, but there’s a clip with Ravi Zacarias in it where he expounds on the reality of moral absolutes and where the notion of good and evil comes from. The commercials are cut out by the time they’re posted here so if you can take a listen.

  11. Van wrote:
    “Yes there is no purpose or meaning to life. This is not a bad thing. It allows each one of us to give whatever meaning and purpose to our lives we want to. How great is that?”

    Is it really great, Van? Are you really happy when someone decides to rob you or to molest young children? If it gives them purpose and meaning, why should you condemn them? Why is it that you do not allow us give whatever purpose and meaning to life that we want to? Why do argue against what trips our trigger? You, once again, have proven your hypocrisy and lack of reason.

  12. So van gets some, maybe most, of his meaning and purpose in life by opposing, insulting, and slandering what gives us meaning and purpose. He does not want everyone to be able to choose what gives their lives meaning and purpose…unless it is more closely what supposedly gives his life meaning and purpose. He wants us to validate what he thinks gives his life meaning and purpose. His life must be lacking in meaning and purpose for him to need to cut us down for our meaning and purpose in an attempt to validate his meaning and purpose…which is obviously lacking.

  13. Van–“Yes there is no purpose or meaning to life. This is not a bad thing. It allows each one of us to give whatever meaning and purpose to our lives we want to. How great is that?”

    Here’s an example of meaninglessness:

    One woman bears children and raises them up with what she believes to be the principles between right and wrong, good and evil, and they go on to become pillars in their community and they raise their children up the same way and so it goes.

    Another woman bears children and raises them up with beatings and prejudice and they’re subjected to molestation and hunger and they go on to neglect, and beat and molest other children in the same way, and so it goes.

    According to you, there’s no difference between the two because they each chose how they would live their lives and, accordingly, there should be no punishment for the ones who chose a negative course for their lives because all is meaningless anyway.

  14. “…but there’s a clip with Ravi Zacarias in it where he expounds on the reality of moral absolutes…”

    Oh, I absolutely LOVE knocking down this stupid argument. Name something that is always wrong.

  15. Van says, “Yes there is no purpose or meaning to life. This is not a bad thing. It allows each one of us to give whatever meaning and purpose to our lives we want to. How great is that?” It is not great; it is illogical and meaningless. If there is no God, everything we think and do is meaningless–including giving “whatever meaning and purpose to our lives we want to”. To do what Van says is to act in an illogical and irrational manner, pretending that there can be meaning in a meaningless universe–a direct contradiction of the Laws of logic.

  16. Someone whose beliefs are an insult to logic and common sense should not be talking about the laws of logic. Once again I challenge the Christians and once again they ignore the challenge and continue to preach nonsense to me. Nae something that is always wrong. You are jealous that I am free to make up my own mind while your minds are being controlled by OTHER PEOPLE.

    “According to you it is always wrong to believe in a moral creator of the universe.”

    > According to your oppressive religion it is wrong to doubt the existence of such a creator. This is a most destructive teaching of Christianity. This makes Christianity the enemy of truth and the faculty by which humans discover truth: reason.

  17. Van—“Oh, I absolutely LOVE knocking down this stupid argument. Name something that is always wrong.”

    You’re kidding right?!!

  18. Van,

    They changed Ravi’s message after I wrote that. You can find it, though, on many of his messages from Youtube or his website.

    Reasoning encompasses much more than one liners. Tell us how you would argue against moral absolutes in a reasonable way.

    How are the doctrines of Christianity oppressive?

  19. They changed Ravi’s message after I wrote that. You can find it, though, on many of his messages from Youtube or his website.

    > There are many websites that debunk all of Ravi’s ridiculous arguments. I suggest you read these refutations so you will no longer be fooled by his nonsense and lies. I have heard him preach and he has a very shallow understanding of the things he preaches about such as atheism and philosophy and a reckless disregard for the truth.
    And like all Bible believers he knows absolutely nothing about science.

    Reasoning encompasses much more than one liners. Tell us how you would argue against moral absolutes in a reasonable way.

    > Why are you so afraid of all of my challenges? Step up to the plate and name something that is always wrong, and then I will demonstrate why you are always wrong.

    How are the doctrines of Christianity oppressive?

    > Because they teach that some important things are above questioning and to do so is wrong and immoral. This makes Christianity the enemy of truth and the faculty by which humans discover the truth: reason.

  20. Someone who continues to try to act meaningfully in a meaningless universe should never criticize anybody about anything, because everything he says is illogical and irrational.

  21. Sheila, I would say that rape is always wrong. However the Bible clearly and repeatedly sanctions the rape of young women. I’ll just mention a couple of the many disgusting Bible passages that sanction rape:
    “Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, “Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, ‘Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn’t find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'” So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.”

    > Clearly the Bible sanctions rape.

    “Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.”

    > Once again, the Bible sanctions rape. So for a Bible believer rape is not always wrong and in fact NOTHING is always wrong. As long as Bible believers believe their God is commanding rape, murder, genocide, infanticide or any other crime against humanity it is not only permissible it MUST be done. This is called Divine Command Morality, it comes right out of the Bible and it is insane. So your argument is a gigantic fail.

  22. Aaron,
    You are not hiding your envy and jealousy very well at all. It just eats you up that I can define my own life, I can give whatever meaning I want to my life while you have let OTHER PEOPLE do all of that for you. You have the freedom to change all that but I doubt you will ever have the courage. Very sad indeed.

  23. VaIn,

    I think that you have been leaving a letter out of your stage name. Just like you used to spell Bore us, “Boris” in the past. There really does need to be an “I” in your name, since you are so enamored by yourself. As I have said and proven many times, you do not understand English and context. Also you pull quotes out of context and point your finger at YHWH instead of yourself or mankind. Anyone with a 8th grade education can see through your tactics.

    The story in Judges 21:21-25 about what was left of the tribe of Benjamin obtaining wives is a story about what the Israelites decided to do, not about something that YHWH told them to do. There is nothing in the passage about rape. It is quite interesting that you leave out verse 25 in your quote since it is the end of the story.

    Ju 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

    This is exactly how you think everyone should live…giving their life meaning however they want to. The end of this story tells us that the book of Judges is about Israel trying to live the way you preach instead of how YHWH instructs. Three fingers pointing back at you once again.

    The other passage that you fail to give a reference for is Numbers 31:13-18 and it does not sanction rape either. It is a story about mercy upon a totally corrupt society. Those girls that were left alive were spared and then given places in families and married. How long would they have survived if left to fend for themselves? Why did you not show the passage about the statutes for this kind of thing?

    De 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
    11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
    12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
    13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
    14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

    So, if the woman, after 30 days of getting used to the idea and after trying things out is unwilling to be his partner, what other reason is there that she does not please him, she is set free to go where and to whoever she wants. In this situation, a young woman loses her whole family and has the possibility of being cared for and even set free if she doesn’t like the situation. Sounds better than being killed or left to die to me. And it is not about rape, but marriage.

    Now concerning your non-answer to Sheila.

    You wrote:
    ““…but there’s a clip with Ravi Zacarias in it where he expounds on the reality of moral absolutes…”

    Oh, I absolutely LOVE knocking down this stupid argument. Name something that is always wrong.”

    Sheila responded:
    “Let’s just start with rape, Van. It’s always wrong!”

    And you VaIn, did not show her how rape is not always wrong. You loose once again.

  24. Van,

    I feel like you tried to set me up, but, regardless, you could have just brought the topic up yourself as it’s one that seemed at first glance a bit minimized to me as presented in the Bible. I’ll gladly reason out anything that’s in the Bible with you. The law of Moses states that the man only shall die in the case of forcible rape of a married woman, “or” he shall marry the woman if she is a virgin. Deu 22:25, 29

    At first it seems that the virgin gets the short end of the stick but in a society where women were not as equally valued, it’s actually for her benefit that the law states what it does for if she were found to be with child from the rape, she would have a husband to care for her and since he was the one who overpowered and thoroughly shamed her it’s only right that he marry her. It’s not like she could go out and find a job or that any other man would marry her now that she’d been defiled. It was that or live in her father’s household for the rest of her life. The married woman was defiled and shamed as well, because even though she wasn’t a virgin, she could still be pregnant from the rape and the sacred union between that married couple was forever violated. So, it seems that to rape a married woman held a more severe penalty than the rape of a virgin. The man would be forced to marry the virgin but seeing as the married woman had a husband, that’s not possible. It’s the same today; if you know the penalties of breaking the law and you do it anyway, you suffer the penalties.

    Our modern society doesn’t give the death penalty for rape in either instance. However, it’s always wrong and you didn’t argue as to why it’s “not” wrong as the Bible never sanctions it. The example you gave states that they may take those unmarried women for wives. You can argue that the killing of the others was wrong but it doesn’t say take the virgin women and rape them. It says to take the women for wives. It’s only in the case of marriage that sexual relations were acceptable in Biblical times. For the Israelites, there was no such thing as casual sex.

    In the Bible, we don’t deal with many stories of women as the main characters, although there were certain of them that we hear more of than others, however, if you’ll notice in the stories involving rape, it always ends very badly. I think the negative stories only lend more credibility to the Bible as what actually happened at different times in ancient Israel. Why would a people include such negative publicity if it weren’t true? See that’s part of the atheist dilemma; you pounce all over stories like that on the one hand and on the other you deny the Bible all together as fantasy. You can’t have it both ways, Van. Either discount both types of stories or none.

    In the context of a patriarchal society the Torah actually protects the honor of the woman. The women who were raped in the Bible age felt just as much shame as any would today and the stigma would have been equal to modern day, perhaps even moreso, the difference being that we don’t kill the perpetrator nor do we make them marry the one they rape.

    Notice in 2 Samuel 13 the story of one of David’s sons, that the rape of a half sister, in which it was acceptable practice to marry a half sister, ultimately ended in the death of two of David’s sons, Amnon and later that of Absalom. We don’t know why Amnon wasn’t made to marry Tamar except that we’re told he, afterwards, hated her more than he loved her. Obviously he had some real mental issues. David, as king, could have, and perhaps should have, as we’ll see, forced the marriage. She was forever disgraced and no longer marriageable and she would have spent the rest of her days without a husband and in David’s household. Her brother, Absalom, plotted revenge and killed Amnon two years later for raping his sister, Tamar. I believe Absalom should have been brought to justice right then for the murder but in the end of it all, Absalom comes against his father, King David, and seeks to kill him yet he ends up losing his own life with no heir to keep his name alive. He died by the blows inflicted on him while hanging on a tree that he was caught up in. The Torah says, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.” Absalom’s line was cursed with no more descendants.

    All this story began with the rape of Tamar. Seems to me like divine justice prevailed.

  25. What was the “real” curse on Absalom? He had sons so that wasn’t it. I imagine the curse was that he never became king. Maybe. I’ll be thinking on that one…

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*