Should Christians Get Tattoos?

The question of whether or not tattoos are acceptable for Christians came up recently in a Facebook discussion and I thought I would post my thoughts on that here.

The only verse I know of that could be construed as forbidding tattoos is Leviticus 19:28: "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD."

It is a little unclear about whether or not this is a moral or ceremonial law as written. Moral laws are still binding on us today while ceremonial laws were given to the Jewish nation and do not apply to Christians today. In this case, the prohibition on tattoos is preceded by a verse about not cutting the corners of a beard (probably a ceremonial law) and followed by a prohibition on prostituting one's daughter (obviously a moral law). The final part of the verse, however, seems to indicate at least a moral component in this law. If the reason for prohibiting cutting and marks in the flesh is that God is the Lord, it would suggest that this law (or at least the reasoning behind it) is enduring since God is still the Lord. It appears that body modification such as cutting and tattooing is not approved by God.

Since there is a little bit of uncertainty about that verse, I think that some Biblical principles should be considered that apply to this issue. One of these is the direction to take care of our bodies as a temple of God. Tattooing isn’t all that safe or healthy. This principle also means that our bodies are not ours to do with as we please since they belong to God as His temple. We should be doing only what pleases and glorifies God.

It is also true that Christians have historically abstained from tattoos as being a pagan practice. And even in our culture today, people still recognize tattoos as being a sign of rebellion and not practiced by Christians. In that light, even if the prohibition on tattoos in the OT was not binding on us today, we would do well not to hinder our Christian witness by marking ourselves in ways that make others associate us with being non-Christian.

Another thing to think about is that at least part of the reason for the prohibition of tattoos, even if it was a ceremonial law, was to set the people of God apart from the world. That part is still in effect. We Christians, as followers of Christ, are to look and act differently than the world. Refraining from tattoos is certainly one good way to do that.

So, a cumulative case against tattoos for Christians can certainly be made. Between wisdom and issues of the body as a temple, our Christian witness, being separate from the world, and an outright prohibition in the OT that appears to have a moral component, it's best not to get one.

Is it a sin to get a tattoo? It depends. For some people, especially those who don't know any better, it may not be. Some things are immoral, whether someone knows it or not and some are only a sin when the person knows to do better and doesn't. I would put tattoos in the latter camp. Keep in mind that if your purpose in getting a tattoo is to fit in with the world or to flaunt your "freedom in Christ," regardless of the effects on your Christian witness, then yes it is a sin.

Those not convinced that getting a tattoo is a sin would do well to remember Paul's warning that not all things are beneficial (I Corinthians 10:23). The mature Christian uses wisdom and discernment to stay away from unwise things, not just those things that can be absolutely identified as sin.

A More Accurate Political Spectrum

People often have a mistaken view that fascism and communism are opposites, with modern conservatives and liberals somewhere in between.

Picture reference

This political spectrum has communism as being to the far left and fascism as being to the far right. The argument is that while liberals are more like communists, conservatives are more like fascists. Part of the confusion on this issue stems from the fact that this political spectrum is actually taught in colleges. However, it is completely false (and I'm certainly not the first to point this out).

The truth is, communism and fascism have more similarities than differences. Both communism and fascism are forms of government that involve little or no freedom of the people. Both forms of government trample on the innate inalienable rights of the people. They also have many other similarities such as unlimited patriotism/nationalism (the country matters more than individuals or their rights), government-controlled media, government control of industry and trade, and lots of pro-government propaganda. Are you seeing a trend here? Fascism and communism are just different forms of overbearing and bloated government. They aren’t opposites at all.

A better understanding of the political spectrum is to rank forms of government by the amount of freedom the people have (or, inversely, how big and powerful government is). So, on this scale we have anarchy on one side and totalitarian regimes (such as communism and fascism) on the other.
 

Picture reference

 
Obviously, while anarchy offers complete freedom and no government oversight at all, the people have no one to protect their rights except themselves. It is difficult to protect one's life and property all alone against the rest of the world. One must be constantly ready to fight (think of the Wild West where there was little or no government) and the weak are easily taken advantage of. Thus, people form governments in order to protect their own rights. Anarchy simply isn’t a viable way to live for long.

However, on the opposite extreme we have governments that trample on the rights of the people. In this scenario, the greatest threat to one's life and property is not a solitary criminal but one's own government run rampant and unchecked. A government with unlimited power is even more to be feared than no government at all. At least in the case of anarchy one might have a chance of staving off an attack from lone predators that wish to do harm. But an organized and powerful government is something that no one person can stop.

The question is, what form of government and what level of governmental power is the best balance? The goal is to protect the people's inalienable rights (that is why they need government, after all) in order to promote freedom, not infringe upon it. One must have enough government power to punish and deter evildoers (those that infringe upon the rights of others). However, one must have a small enough government that the government itself does not infringe upon the rights of the people. In other words, you want the balance where people's rights are best protected. Since government out of control is more greatly to be feared than anarchy, the best balance is to have the smallest possible government that can protect the rights of the people adequately. This is also the most efficient use of resources because the smaller the government, the smaller the number of government middlemen that must be paid.

As for modern conservatives and liberals, liberals tend to move toward greater government power and conservatives tend to move toward lesser government power. The only thing we need to determine is which side of that ideal balance of governmental power we are currently on in order to determine which political view is best. Should we move toward greater or lesser government power in order to reach that balance point?

In order to answer that question, we need to first ask, do we have enough government power to provide for the punishment and deterrence of crime and other forcible infringement of rights? In other words, is our government's power sufficient for its most basic and necessary tasks? I believe so. Of course, crime still exists (as it always will), but we do have a government that is capable of investigating and punishing it. And we have a government that is capable of defending from outside invasion by those who would take away the freedoms of the citizens. So while this aspect might need some adjustment in details, government definitely has enough power to fulfill its mission to protect the people's rights. If it is failing to do so effectively enough, it is not from lack of power, but from lack of efficiency.

So, next we need to ask, is our government getting too powerful, infringing upon the people's rights and liberties itself? Yes, we are beginning to see some signs of government abuse of power and infringement of the people's rights and liberties. Therefore, we need to move back toward a smaller and more limited government where the people's rights are more secure and there is greater freedom.

 

Three Logical Prerequisites for Biological Evolution

One central question that proponents of biological evolution must answer is: How did the information in DNA arise? We might disagree on how much information is present in living things or even on how to quantify or define it, but pretty much everyone agrees that the DNA of living things contains information not found in non-living things and that complex organisms have more of it than simpler organisms.

So how did that information get there? Can information be added, bit by bit, through unguided natural processes? That’s what evolution claims. Yet, thus far, this step by step addition of information has not been observed. Until it is observed, the idea of common ancestry of all life is merely conjecture.

Of course, even if we could show that there are some instances in which information is added by unguided natural processes, that would be necessary to support common ancestry, but not sufficient. In order to even begin to make a solid case for biological evolution, one must show three things. If even one of these prerequisites is false, the modern theory of evolution (i.e. universal common ancestry via unguided natural processes) cannot be true. If any one of them cannot be shown to be true, evolution remains unverified and thus belongs to the realm of speculation, not science.

1: It is possible to add biological information.

Richard Dawkins describes evolution with an analogy of "Mount Improbable" which looks like an impossibly steep cliff on one side, but can be climbed by tiny little steps up the back. This is the evolutionist's concept of adding biological information in tiny steps, so that over time they add up to all the complexity we see among organisms today. However, Mount Improbable cannot be climbed unless it is, at some level, possible to go upward. If an organism only ever takes downward or level steps and cannot step upward, it will never get to the top, no matter how much time or how shallow the slope. Thus, in order to prove evolution, it is necessary (but not sufficient) to show that it is possible to add functional genetic information through unguided processes.

2: There are more upward steps than downward steps (or at least a way to get more upward steps than downward steps at least some of the time).

We know that genetic information is corrupted and destroyed through mutation. We know that there are many, many harmful effects when an organism's DNA is altered. In order for evolution to overcome this downward current toward catastrophic information loss, there must be an even stronger current upward (at least some of the time) in order to explain how the information was able to increase from that present in a tiny and simple organism to the information in a larger and more complex one.

Again, using the Mount Improbable analogy, it is impossible to get to the top by taking three steps downward for every step upward. There must be an overall trend toward increasing information. So even if there are a few examples of increasing information, they are not sufficient to prove evolution. If evolution is true, these upward changes must be the rule, not a rare exception.

3: There does exist a gradual genetic pathway that can be climbed in tiny, incremental steps.

In order for evolution to be true, not only does information have to be added over time, but each successive change must occur in a living organism and it must be conserved by being passed on to offspring. Thus, the change cannot kill the organism or seriously disable it, or the change will not be passed on. This must be the case for every step in the entire evolutionary sequence, no matter how small. At every step, there must be a functional organism. Thus, the changes must be gradual enough that the tiny upward steps (if they exist) can achieve each new level without killing or disabling the organism or impeding its ability to reproduce.

To use a simplistic analogy, if one tries to change from one word to another by changing one letter at a time (cat to cot to dot to dog, for example), there must, at every step, be an actual word that can be reached by changing one letter. In the Mount Improbable analogy, this means that there can be no upward jumps in the trail. If the maximum possible upward step is 6 inches, then there can be no 6 foot cliffs along the trail, or even 7 inch steps. If ever there is a step which requires more information than unguided evolution can provide, then evolution is falsified in that instance. It cannot account for the change in information in such a case.

---

The problem with these three points is that, not only have they not been demonstrated, they aren't even adequately addressed by modern science.There has been a bit of discussion on Point 1, with a handful of examples that might show information increase, depending on the definition of information. However, even these are controversial and far from settled. There has yet to be shown any clear-cut examples of the addition of functional genetic information by unguided, natural means. There are plenty of examples of genetic change that benefits the organism, but being beneficial and showing an increase in information are not the same thing. While we have many instances of demonstrated change in organisms, it is not clear that these cases show the kind of change that is necessary to account for how the current genetic information in living things got there in the first place. Demonstrating a true gain of function mutation has proved very difficult, to say the least.

In addition to this, some cases of beneficial mutation appear to be non-random and thus may be a programmed response of the cell to change its DNA in response to specific conditions. This would be a directed mutation, not a random one. In such a case, no information has been added as the programming to cause this mutation was already in place.

So Point 1 above has not yet been conclusively proven. We don't even have adequate evidence that upward evolution (spontaneously increasing information) is possible. But that's just the first step.

Points 2 and 3 aren't even discussed, much less demonstrated. In fact, there is good evidence that Point 2 is false. Simply the fact that there are only a few cases where an increase in information is even postulated, compared to the huge number of examples where genetic change is known to destroy information, suggests that the downward current is stronger and that genetic information is far more often destroyed than built.

Furthermore, Point 3 is usually just assumed without any discussion. The assumption appears to be that the theoretical gradual pathway of increasing complexity is real, without bothering to determine whether the proposed intermediate steps produce a functional living organism or whether or not there are information cliffs, so to speak, that cannot be climbed in small, gradual steps.

There is also some very good evidence that large jumps in information would be necessary. Many critics of evolution have pointed out examples of irreducible complexity in which a system exists that cannot be produced by gradual changes, but requires several parts to all be present and properly placed and oriented in order to produce any function at all. Such irreducibly complex systems would be examples of informational cliffs that cannot be produced by small, incremental steps.

Unfortunately, the fact that someone can imagine a gradual pathway of increasing information that results in a living organism at every step doesn’t mean it actually exists. Science requires more than mere speculation to make a valid theory. Until these issues are addressed and evidence is provided that all three prerequisites are true, it is more than premature to speak of evolution as fact – it is downright dishonest.

---

For further reading on this topic:

• Behe, Michael. The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. Free Press, 2008.
• Carter, Robert. Can Mutations Create New Information? http://creation.com/mutations-new-information
• Sanford, John. Genetic Entropy. 4th edition. FMS Publications, 2014.

What is Personhood?

What is humanity? What is personhood? What makes a human being so uniquely a human being? Are all human beings equal? These are questions we must answer.

Not answering these questions – as individuals and as a society – means we have no way to apply the law equally to all human beings. If we don’t know who is a human, how do we know who has human rights? If we don’t know what a person is, how can we tell if we are mistreating one? There has to be a conclusive answer and we have to find it. It’s not good enough to say that no one knows and leave it at that. If it’s really true that no one knows, then we are guilty of criminal ignorance because we have not answered this extremely important question. How can we even pretend to have a just law or any measure of equality if we can’t even determine who it is that is supposed to be equal?

Of course, that doesn’t mean that it’s an easy question to answer. Defining personhood is difficult. But not because it’s too complicated or esoteric or unanswerable. It’s difficult because we don’t like the obvious answer. We want to make it more complicated so we can avoid the question or relegate it to the realm of unanswerable mysteries. The implications of the obvious answer are as profound as they are unsettling.

The simple truth is that all living biological organisms with human DNA are human persons, regardless of their race, ethnicity, age, stage of development, location, gender, disability, or any other characteristic. Those things are only ways of describing a person. They don’t define one.

The problem is that we humans are really good at ignoring or denying this simple fact. We have a really bad track record when it comes to how we treat other humans. We’re very good at rationalizing our prejudices and bad behavior. One way we rationalize this mistreatment of each other is to deny that the other person IS a person. We tend to explain away the humanity and worth of our fellow humans so as to justify treating them differently. We say we want equality, but we really mean “equality” for people like ourselves.

History is full of examples. Trying to separate humanity and personhood, as if they were different things, has been done throughout the ages by those who wish to trample on the rights of others. In Nazi Germany, it was the Jews, the physically and mentally disabled, and the gypsies (among others) who weren’t “persons.” In US pre-Civil War times, it was the African Americans who weren’t “persons.” Even women were once considered less of a person than men. And those are just a few of the more recent examples. But every time we have tried to separate humanity and personhood, we have been wrong. And it has led to horrific crimes against other people.

On this side of history, we see the mistakes of the past and we wonder how anyone could think it was okay to murder, rape, and enslave other human beings. Couldn’t they see how wrong it was? And yet we still haven’t learned our lesson. We still try to define personhood as some esoteric property that some humans do not possess.

I’m referring, of course, to abortion. The murder of the unborn.

We aren’t as enlightened as we think we are. We’re still trying to pretend that some humans aren’t people so we can justify mistreating them. We just changed the criteria. Rather than looking down our noses at people of another skin color, we are ignoring the rights of the youngest and weakest among us. Why? Well, they look different. Same argument, different wrapping paper.

Not only do we ignore the rights of the unborn, but we pat ourselves on the back for our cleverness in defining personhood in the process. We’re so proud that we’ve given up defining personhood by superficial characteristics like skin color or gender. We have better criteria now.  Personhood has to do with self-consciousness. Or maybe it’s about being able to survive outside a womb. Or maybe it’s a heart beat. Or brain waves. Or eating chocolate. Ok, maybe we aren’t sure. But we are sure that those unborn children aren’t the same as us. The details aren’t important. They don’t have whatever it is that makes us a person, so it’s not like it’s murder to kill one. Until they develop that property – whatever it is – it’s okay to end their lives.

The problem with this argument is that “human-ness” or personhood – this elusive quality that makes us uniquely valuable and gives us human rights – is an either-or proposition. You either have it or you don’t. You either are a person or you aren’t. There are no gradations of humanity. We can’t be partially human or almost human. We don’t have some people that are more of a person than others. We have people that are bigger or older or more developed. We have people that are richer or poorer, taller or shorter, more or less capable. But we’re all equally human and equally valuable. We don’t gain our humanity by gaining any physical or mental abilities; nor do we lose it if we lose those abilities. We have this personhood attribute when we begin to exist and we have it for as long as we exist. There is no in-between.

Since development is a gradual process, taking tiny steps of growing ability, it cannot bestow humanity. Personhood must be gained all at once – going from “not a person” to “person” in one giant leap. It cannot be achieved gradually because there are no gradations of humanity or personhood. You can’t gradually develop personhood as you gradually develop consciousness or body functions.

In the end, we see that all attempts to separate humanity and personhood fail. Race doesn’t provide a logical basis for denying personhood. But neither does development. We have to face the facts, no matter how uncomfortable we find them.

The ONLY event that objectively and categorically produces a new human being where there wasn’t one before…

The radical event that we can all point to as the beginning of life…

The time when development starts and a new and unique individual is formed…

…is fertilization.

Only fertilization meets the criteria for an event that creates a new human life. All humans must be persons. Fertilization creates a human. So at fertilization we achieve our humanity and our personhood. The two cannot be separated.

Nothing else makes sense.

 

15 Facts About Me

For those of you who are wondering who this blogger is who writes about inalienable rights and abortion and conservatism and marriage and who posts recipes too...here's a list of 15 facts about me. This list thing has been going around facebook so I thought I would join in.

1) I met my husband at a Creation Research Society conference. We're both science nerds and we hit it off right away.
2) I talk loudly when I get really excited or upset about something.
3) I've lived in 6 states: Georgia, Arizona, Tennessee, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Virginia. I've been to 21 states and Canada.
4) I am the oldest of 7 kids and the youngest is 21 years younger than I.
5) I like snakes, but hate spiders. My first response to hearing there is a snake (or pretty much any reptile) about is to immediately look for it and try to catch it.
6) I raised guinea pigs for several years as a teenager. Anything you want to know (or don't want to know) about guinea pigs, I can probably tell you.
7) My husband was my first and only boyfriend, and I was 24 before I went on my first date.
8 ) I've never broken any of my bones.
9) I'm the oldest child, my mom was an oldest child, and her mom was an oldest child. We're three generations of firstborn girls. And then I had a girl first too.
10) I learned to read when I was 3 and I've loved reading ever since.
11) I didn't learn to drive until I was almost 22...mostly because my younger brother made a great chauffeur. I finally learned to drive in desperation after realizing that he was not going to be attending college with me any more. It took me 3 weeks.
12) That saying about being pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen...is a summation of my married life, and I love it. When Katelyn was born, I had been pregnant for roughly half of our marriage.
13) I have never colored my hair.
14) I am not artistic or sentimental. All those cute baby books and scrapbooks and artsy crafts are totally foreign to me. I have no idea how to do them and it doesn't interest me.
15) I love to cook and create new dishes. I almost never make anything according to the recipe. I have to modify it. And I never measure unless I'm baking. Thankfully, my husband never complains about being a taste-tester.

Linked up with WLWW.