William Lane Craig answers questions from Reasonable Faith readers

A pot-pourri of questions for Dr. Craig from visitors his Reasonable Faith web site.

The MP3 file is here. (30 minutes)

Questions:

  1. Is the view that God doesn’t know the future compatible with the Bible?
  2. What is natural evil, (as opposed to human-caused evil)?
  3. What is postmodernism? Is it compatible with Christianity?
  4. What is the static, B-theory view of time? Is it compatible with the concept of now?
  5. Dating advice for a Christian man who is dating a woman who is New Age?
  6. How is philosophy related to theology and the Bible?
  7. Why isn’t the Bible more detailed about science and other areas of knowledge?

More questions and answers on the Reasonable Faith web site.

Police threatened to charge man who defended his wife with attempted murder

From the UK Daily Mail, the latest on the story about the couple who was arrested for wounding four burglars who invaded their home with a legally-owned shotgun. (H/T Dina)

Excerpt:

The couple held by police over the shooting of two intruders at their isolated cottage spoke yesterday of their ‘living nightmare’.

Andy Ferrie said he ‘plumbed the depths of despair’ when police told him he could face a charge of attempted murder.

Tracey Ferrie said being kept in a police cell away from her husband had ‘petrified’ her and she was haunted by the ‘stomach-churning’ experience.

Mr Ferrie, 35, and his 43-year-old wife were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm after he called police to report that he had discharged a shotgun, hitting two of four men who had broken into their home.

They were held in separate cells and handcuffed for a court appearance where detectives sought more time to hold them for questioning.

Mrs Ferrie, a saleswoman, said: ‘I was completely petrified. Being locked up in a police cell just yards from my husband, but banned from talking to him, was agony.

‘When I can get some sleep now I wake up with a start and think I’m back in the cell. It’s mortifying and stomach churning.’

She said their cottage at Welby, near Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, looked like ‘something out of CSI’ as police swarmed around the hamlet following the incident early last Sunday.

Mr Ferrie, who runs a mobile home repair business, said being told he could ultimately face an attempted murder charge had left him too anxious to eat during almost three days and nights in custody.

[…]‘I was petrified, scared stiff,’ Mr Ferrie told The Sun. ‘I only did what any other bloke would have done given the situation. I’m no hero or hard man. I did what I did to protect my precious, lovely wife.

‘I was only a few feet away, I could have shot to kill but I didn’t. I was relieved later when I was told the injuries I had caused were not life-threatening. The events of the last few days have scarred us for life.’

Mr Ferrie, who plans to emigrate to Australia with his wife next year, said that during his time in custody he was ‘told my case had been upgraded to attempted murder’.

He added: ‘I just crumpled. I saw myself being sent to prison for a long, long time. I was offered food but didn’t eat for the whole 66 hours we were held.’

Last week, a court heard how the couple were woken by the sound of banging and breaking glass as the intruders forced their way inside just after midnight. Mr Ferrie confronted one of the alleged raiders in their bedroom.

If there were any justice in the world, the police and Crown lawyers responsible for this tragedy would all be sacked, right up to the top of the police force. A civil suit by the victims of the crime would make a nice end to it. Too bad the liberal pro-criminal politicians who criminalized self-defense in the UK won’t be forced to spend a few years in jail. That wouldn’t even be enough to punish them for what they did to those law-abiding citizens right after they were traumatized by a home break-in.

We have to be very careful in this country about politicians on the left who oppose property rights, gun ownership and self-defense. Politicians on the left are always moaning about the rights of criminals and the need to ban guns and prohibit self-defense. This story from the UK shows what their plan does to ordinary people. Why would any man get married and start a family in a country run by feminist leftists who put a man in jail for taking up the role of protector of his family and his home?

Studies show HIV infection rates still rising among gay men (MSM)

From left-leaning Time magazine.

Excerpt:

As the world’s leading AIDS researchers gather for the International AIDS Conference in Washington, D.C., scientists report that despite gains in controlling the spread of HIV, the disease has continued to spread at an alarming rate in the very population in which it first appeared — gay men.

In a series of papers in the Lancet dedicated to the dynamics of HIV among gay men — a group epidemiologists define as men who have sex with men (MSM) — scientists say that the continued burden of AIDS in this group is due to a combination of lifestyle and biological factors that put these men at higher risk. Rates are rising in all countries around the world.

In one study, led by Chris Beyrer, of the Center for Public Health and Human Rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, researchers analyzed surveillance reports and studies of HIV among MSM, including data that were part of routine United Nations reporting from member nations. Rates of HIV among gay men ranged from 3% in the Middle East to 25% in the Caribbean. In all reporting nations, rates were on the rise, even in developed nations like the U.S., Australia and the U.K. where HIV is declining overall.

In fact, says Beyrer, income does not seem to matter when it comes to HIV trends among MSM. In the U.S., for example, infection rates among gay men have been increasing by 8% each year since 2001, contributing to a 15% prevalence rate and putting the U.S. on par with countries like Thailand, Malaysia and some African and Caribbean nations where neither awareness of HIV/AIDS nor drug treatments are as widespread. HIV prevalence rates among MSM in Brazil, Canada, Italy and India range between 11% and 15%, while many western European countries have lower rates of around 6%.

[…]HIV has always been more common among gay men, but Beyrer and his colleagues say the traditional risk factors may not entirely explain the surge in many cases. Traditionally, HIV experts have pointed to high-risk behaviors such as unprotected sex, having multiple partners, injection drug use and drug use in general for making gay men more vulnerable to infection. But there may be biological reasons for the enhanced risk as well. For example, there is an 18 times greater risk of HIV transmission through anal sex than through vaginal sex, which may explain why the virus continues to thrive in gay men, despite the fact that they still receive the bulk of HIV awareness and treatment public-health messages.

I took a look at one of the research papers mentioned on PLOS Medicine and it looks pretty solid. That’s peer-reviewed literature, and Johns Hopkins is a good school for medicine. My impression of this research is that we should not be encouraging anyone to get into this lifestyle. We should not be subsidizing it. We should not be celebrating it. It’s not good for the gay men themselves that we continue to push this lifestyle onto them as normal. We wouldn’t push cigarette smoking onto people, whether there are biological factors that predispose them to it or not. I would not want to be responsible for encouraging anyone to prefer harmful behaviors. The article makes it clear that the problem isn’t “acceptance of gays” or reducing “bullying”. The problem is the promiscuity of the lifestyle itself, as well as the mechanics of anal sex. This problem cannot be solved by persuading everyone that the gay lifestyle is normal and praiseworthy. It’s a problem rooted in reality, not in people’s opinions. And we are all paying for this HIV research and HIV treatment at a time when we as a society cannot afford to be voluntarily incurring the costs of one group’s risky choices.