Anthony Horvath is a speaker and author, addressing the importance of equipping the Christian Church for today's challenges. A former religion teacher and long time apologist, Anthony is in touch with today's shifting trends.
Posted 8/28/14 at 12:07 PM | Anthony Horvath
Most observers of Richard Dawkins are not surprised to hear that he has said something outrageous. More and more, even his fellow atheists are surprised when he says something sensible. The latest row is over his comments suggesting that people have a moral obligation to abort a child diagnosed with a defect (in particular, Down Syndrome). Again, even his fellow atheists were put off by this, since the party line on abortion it is morally neutral, and a woman can get one or not get one, as she pleases.
The reactions, from both foes and fellow travelers, imply that the crux of this issue is that Dawkins is being rude. From this perspective, there are certain things you don’t say in polite society, even if you think them, and Dawkins has found one of them (again). The problem, you see, is one of decorum and Dawkins’ irascible personality and a violated social contract.
Dawkins, however, insists that what he is saying “simply follows logically from the ordinary pro-choice stance that most [of] us, I presume, espouse.” He sympathizes with his critics, but notes that their point is “an emotional one not a logical one.” And oh, by the way, what he is saying is not in the slightest “advocating a eugenics policy.”
Never mind that he is rude. Is he wrong? He has invoked logic, implying that there are propositions, premises, and inferences not far back from his comments. Moreover, he expects that his own fans share these foundational views and is more than a little surprised that they have not taken them to their logical conclusions. And what views might these be? FULL POST
Posted 5/16/14 at 10:08 AM | Anthony Horvath
There comes a point in the evening when I’m totally tapped out. I hit about 10 p.m., and all I really want to do is go to bed. Unfortunately, I’ve always had trouble falling asleep. There are few things I hate more than laying on my mattress, staring at the ceiling for 2-3 hours, wishing for sleep. Others, I suppose watch TV, but I’m not much of a TV person. Reading a book or writing used to be my ‘go-to’ solutions but for at least a half decade now, my eyes glaze over and I get nowhere. Thankfully, there is a game out there that fills in this time period nicely, World War Two Online.
In brief, it is a military simulation game that re-enacts a phase of World War Two and allows genuine combined arms combat. You can play as infantry with a variety of weapons to choose from, grab a tank, fly a plane, drive a supply truck, takes to the seas as a destroyer, or the rivers in a patrol boat. The arena of conflict is Europe, at half-scale. Nearly every combatant one encounters is a real human player; only in a few cases are there ‘AI’ emplacements. It’s just cool to be advancing on a town with a dozen other soldiers with allied tanks creaking along next to you, watching a flight of fighter pilots screech overhead--knowing that all of these are real players, not programmed ‘entities.’ That many of the players are history buffs and have a deep appreciation of the sacrifice that soldiers made during the war, and make today, is a big plus. I find in many of the players kindred spirits.
The game started in 2001. I played it for a few years, took a long break, and then picked it up again about 2 years ago. I have always been drawn to the theological aspects of the game.
“Theological aspects of the game? Did you really just say, theological?”
Yea, that’s right.
Posted 3/25/14 at 10:42 PM | Anthony Horvath
Today’s headline on the Drudge Report did not surprise me in the slightest:
ABORTED BABIES INCINERATED TO HEAT HOSPITALS
The article linked to is this one in the Telegraph:
Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals:
The remains of more than 15,000 babies were incinerated as ‘clinical waste’ by hospitals in Britain with some used in ‘waste to energy’ plants
I had a variety of thoughts hit me simultaneously and in quick succession. I have read stories about abortionists tossing out sacks of aborted babies. I am aware of the use of fetal materials derived from aborted children to create vaccines. I know that there are companies using fetal remains to do experiments to perfect the taste of foods. (This link gives a good overview of both of those examples). Those are things already happening. Then, there are ‘bio-ethicists’ such as Jacob Appel proposing that women purposefully sell the parts of their aborted children on the open market; his article doesn’t speak to the ethics of, perhaps, a woman conceiving for the express purpose of financing her way through school by selling off the body parts of of her offspring. FULL POST
Posted 2/25/14 at 8:32 PM | Anthony Horvath
I was reading CS Lewis’s The Four Loves and came across the quote below. Obviously, Lewis is not specifically addressing universal health care or liberalism or the question of using the government to administer love. Even Christians can be found thinking that it is a noble expression of a loving society to have the government do the loving… and this with no apparent thought to the actual effect that this ‘loving’ will have on the people ‘loved’ and the attitude it fuels in the people-government doing the ‘loving.’ The most important thing seems to be that, well, people’s intentions are good, and it’s better to do something rather than nothing. Here is the quote:
This [is] Gift-love, but one that needs to give; therefore needs to be needed. But the proper aim of giving is to put the recipient in a state where he no longer needs our gift. We feed children in order that they may soon be able to feed themselves; we teach them in order that they may soon not need our teaching. Thus a heavy task is laid upon this Gift-love. It must work towards its own abdication. We must aim at making ourselves superfluous. The hour when we can say “They need me no longer” shall be our reward. But the instinct, simply in its own nature, has no power to fulfil this law. The instinct desires the good of its object, but not simply; only the good it can itself give. A much higher love- a love which desires the good of the object as such, from whatever source that good comes- must step in and help or tame the instinct before it can make the abdication. And of course it often does. But where it does not, the ravenous need to be needed will gratify itself either by keeping its objects needy or by inventing for them imaginary needs. It will do this all the more ruthlessly because it thinks (in one sense truly) that it is a Gift-love and therefore regards itself as “unselfish.” (pgs 50-51) FULL POST
Posted 7/8/13 at 4:27 PM | Anthony Horvath
In Paul's second letter to the Corinthians he makes a comment that I have always found intriguing: "... in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes." (2 Cor. 2:11)
I find this interesting, because as it seems to me, Christians continue to be outwitted by their chief Enemy and merrily remain unaware of his schemes. Of course, this applies to non-Christians, but that goes without saying, since they don't even believe he exists. Christians, the bulk of whom presumably believe Satan is real and active, seeking those to devour, have no such excuse.
Anthony Horvath is the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries and the Policy Intersections Research Center. He regularly blogs on apologetics and life issues at www.sntjohnny.com. Some of his research on the culture of death is available here.
The example I want to provide today of the devil's schemes, to be clear, is not something I am putting at the feet of Christians, as if to blame them. Instead, I submit it as an example of how devious and deceptive our enemy is; alert to his schemes, we perhaps won't allow ourselves to be outwitted.
The example is the news out of California yesterday that over a period of about five years, imprisoned women were sterilized without state approval. In some of those cases, it appears also that the women had not given consent. In others, it may be the case that they did not even know the procedure was going to be performed. It is hard to tell from the article. What is clear, is that some of the women who did 'give consent' were pressured into doing so.
This treatment of women, some would think, is the sort of thing that could never happen after Roe vs. Wade. Didn't it enshrine a women's right to do with her body as she pleased? This is one of the enemy's first deception, and one that I am afraid he has found many humans happily willing to knowingly go along with the deception. The 'right' to an abortion has little to nothing to do, in the eyes of the elites, with a woman's reproductive choice. They were concerned, and remained concerned, with only two things: population control and making a bunch of money for themselves, preferably on the tax payer's dime. "Choice" is a mere myth that popular society has imbibed and accepted, the elites, such as those who run Planned Parenthood, don't give a lick. FULL POST
Posted 4/17/13 at 12:12 PM | Anthony Horvath
What does Christianity have to do with life issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide? Aren’t these just political issues? Why should you impose your opinions on others? But what if the Gospel, which announces life eternal, itself requires a defense of Life? An online apologetics conference coming April 21-23rd will explore these issues. Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute is the keynote.
Register and learn more at http://onlineapologeticsconference.com
A Defense of the Faith
Defense of Life
AN ONLINE CONFERENCE FULL POST
Posted 4/9/13 at 11:50 AM | Anthony Horvath
A Review of Life Unworthy of Life by Derek Elkins by Anthony Horvath
Derek Elkins' Life Unworthy of Life came before my eyes, from his perspective, at the most opportune time. I was immersed in studying the philosophies and ideologies that had led to the Holocaust, and the T4 Project (which the book is about) was explicit foreshadowing of that later horror. I was instantly drawn into the manuscript. From my perspective, however, I could have chosen a better time to read it. Evidently, my plane had been moved to a different gate and they had been calling my name for the better part of twenty minutes... "Argher Heervreth blah blah blah..." ... "Theeny Hurgle, [indecipherable]..."
If it hadn't been for the fact that I suddenly thought it very odd that they had not begun boarding at my gate with just 3 minutes before takeoff and coming to the conclusion that it was unlikely they would fly a plane with just a single passenger, I would not have hurriedly checked the board, and I would not have, in a panic, flung myself in the direction of the gate where my plane actually was waiting for me.
"[indecipherable] Aneeny Gursheth?" the attendant said as I flew by her.
It was the spring of 2012. I was in St. Louis for some pro-life stuff. It was my task to select the winners for my ministry's annual Christian Novel Contest, and Derek's book was one of the finalists. Now, does making the judge nearly miss his plane count for a book, or against it?
The question remains unanswered; nevertheless, it ended up being the grand prize winner. Not long after that, I would extend an offer to publish the book. Derek would accept.
And now we are just two weeks away from its official release, on April 23, 2013.
My how time flies.
Fly, indeed. Today, calling someone a 'Nazi' or a 'fascist' is about the worst thing that you can say about someone, but few people actually have any idea what the terms mean or meant. And that is to be expected, I suppose. Another term similarly deployed is 'zealot,' but who can possibly recall the actual attitudes of such people who lived 2,000 years ago? And that, of course, is when Hitler lived and fascism thrived. People today are only vaguely aware of what happened seventy years ago. They're not going to know the true sentiments of people like the Nazis, who existed only in ancient history, millennia ago. FULL POST
Posted 3/21/13 at 1:49 PM | Anthony Horvath
In our country, there is a general feeling that only positions backed by actual fact should drive public policy. 'Religion' is perceived to be the realm of personal opinion. Even Christians tend to accept the view that people are allowed to have their opinion, but they aren't allowed to impose that opinion on others. The result is that many Christians refrain from acting 'politically' because they see their own beliefs as nothing more than 'mere opinion.'
Secularists tend to be people who have dispensed with 'religion' altogether, and like to think that they are entirely 'fact driven.'
When these ideas collide, we observe something very curious: secular humanists conclude that they can advocate for anything that they want in the public sphere, because nothing they believe is 'religious, ' while distinctly Christian viewpoints are forbidden from entering the public domain, since those will be, by definition, 'religious.' And again, even Christians gravitate to that view.
This tends to lead to debates and discussions and policy proposals that take the 'facts' of the secularists as the starting points. We are expected to proceed on their terms. And why not? Surely without the 'religious' component, those 'facts' are as close to actually being real descriptions of the world as one could get, right? FULL POST
Posted 1/28/13 at 4:26 PM | Anthony Horvath
Posted 12/13/12 at 9:36 AM | Anthony Horvath
It's that time of year again: the time for candy canes, gift giving, and holiday classics running non-stop on the television. It's the time for bright blinking lights and egg nog with a 'special ingredient.' Can you guess the season? That's right. The annual assault on religion by atheists is in full swing.
Folks like the 'Freedom From Religion Foundation', based out of Madison, WI., are especially sensitive to displays of religion in the public square, but it would be a mistake to see that as the real issue. Ultimately, anything that any Christian ever does in public, spurred on by their beliefs and values, is the target.
The best, most current example of this is Obama's insistence that religious organizations have to subsidize behavior they find immoral. The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting religion or prohibiting its free expression, but to hear Obama tell it, this translates into a mere 'freedom of worship.'
The argument, in short, is that you can do whatever you want within your church walls for an hour, once a week--but there it must stay. It is exactly the same argument that the FFRF is making. With stories of the baby Jesus being replaced in nativity scenes by Frosty the Snowman, it would seem that the argument continues to gain traction. FULL POST