Last winter camp, we had a wonderful time hanging out with friends, listening to messages, hearing testimonies from youth group alumni, making bonfires, and playing in the SNOW! We hope you can join us! It’ll definitely be an unforgettable way to spend your winter break.

Save the dates! The dates for the Middle School & High School Camps are…

12/16 (Fri)-12/20 (Tues)

Middle School: @ Camp Alta

High School: @ Sierra Lodge

More instructions for signup are coming very soon! Come back to this post to get updates! Meanwhile,

1) Let us know in the comment what you most look forward to at Winter Camp!
2) Check out pictures from Winter Camp 2010. Hope you are excited!

I just wanted to write to inform you about some exciting things that have been happening at InterHigh.

As you know, for the past year we have been providing worldview and apologetics training to youth in the Bay Area. Through our InterHigh Monthlies and Rise events, we have had over 800 students come get trained and mentorship from our college student mentors. We’re very thankful that we could help provide this kind of training and resources.

In June 2010, we started a new program called InterHigh Church Services. Through this program we have been sending small teams to 9 churches in the Bay Area that don’t have a youth pastor/leader and the resources to provide one. Our staff has been busy creating sunday curriculum, receiving training and going out to these churches on a weekly basis. Through this program we have been able to provide sermons and messages as well as a larger youth group that they can attend for weekly Bible studies and retreats for those who are interested. This program has been a blessing both to the students and to the staff who serve them.

Having done this for almost a year, we are excited about offering our services to more churches without the resources to provide a youth service. Our hope is to be an “interim youth pastor” until the church that we serve is able to offer a permanent youth pastor.

As you may have noticed, we have shifted our attention away from the monthlies and the large Rise events and will focus on reaching out to churches that sorely need an interim youth worship service solution. We will continue to offer larger events and hope that you will be able to join us when we do.

Thank you for being a part of InterHigh,

Pastor William Kang

PS. Our next InterHigh Monthly will be Satuday, May 21st. We are inviting Bill Jack, who teaches at the Worldview Academy. More information to come!. Please mark you calendars, and I hope you can join us.

As promised, this is Part 2! See Part 1 if you haven’t:
“Manhattan Declaration: Freedom of Speech or Expression? Part I”

I had a chance to read some of the blog comments discussing the Manhattan Declaration exclusion. I was quite frustrated at some of the invalid accusations, illogical arguments, and how many often spoke out of emotion rather than fact. But I was also quite delighted to find commentors who used sound logic to refute some of the critical bashing directed towards Christians and those in defense of the Manhattan Declaration. Not all of these are done with tact and could be written better, but it does give us a sense of confidence that sound logic is always more persuasive and compelling. Also it is encouraging to know that despite the differing values of our culture, we can be persuasive and compelling as long as we are willing to put the work of thinking things through and develop our minds.

Hope you find these intellectually stimulating…
Note that all the names were replaced with “users”.
I’ve bolded a few good statements.

Here are some comments groups excerpted :

Intolerant of the Intolerant

User A: “Bigotry? Self-righteousness? Did you even bother to read what they’re saying? This group simply feels strongly about how marriage and family should be defined and they are trying to connect with people that agree with them and are trying to promote their message. Bigotry and hatred have nothing to do with this. If someone feels that homosexuality is wrong, they absolutely have a right to believe that and this is in NO WAY “hatred” or “bigotry.” it’s called an “opinion” and in this free country… each person has a right to his or her opinion. It saddens me that people who throw around words like “tolerance” choose to be intolerant of people who have beliefs different from their own. Only someone woefully undereducated would suggest that “believing that homosexuality is a sin” is equal to “showing hatred toward homosexuals.” I would suggest such people look up words like “hatred” and “bigotry” in the dictionary before attempting to use them.”

User B: “so, you’re saying that the tolerant are intolerant since they are not tolerant of intolerance – interesting point . . .”

User C: “No hes saying that you can’t call yourself tolerant, then try to impose your opinion on everyone, and throw a sissy fit and call people self-righteous bigots just because they don’t share the same opinion as you.”

Again everyone has different opinions on what is tolerant, not tolerant, acceptable, not acceptable. If someone thinks homosexuality is a sin, that doesn’t mean they’re intolerant, just like one isn’t intolerant if they think murder is a sin.”

Non-Existence of God is a Fact! Really?

User A: “Apple can do what it wants – it’s their app store.
However, would they do the same if this were an Atheist group promoting their belief system?”

User B: “Atheism is NOT a belief system. The non-existence of God is a fact, unless proven otherwise…”

User C: “That is not a true statement…you cannot prove beyond doubt that there is not a God, just like a Christian cannot prove beyond doubt that there is a God. That IS why it’s called Faith. Which, by the way, we all have. We all have faith in SOMETHING…not everything in life is empirical and provable…”

User D (in response to User B): “Wrong. That is flawed logic. You’ve been reading too much Stephen Hawking. The non-existence of anyone cannot be considered fact unless proven otherwise. If that was the case, I do not exist unless I can prove to everyone that I do. The possibility of someone’s existence must be weighed equally and proven either way, there is no default.

If I met someone named John Sanders, and I know that was his name, I know for a fact that he exists, however I cannot prove to anyone that he exists. Opinion, perspective, and limited knowledge (which is what we all have) cannot define fact.”

Immoral vs. Hate Mongering

User A: “Look at their response “We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct.”.

Their wording states that they consider homosexuality “immoral conduct”. If you call a group of people “immoral”, to me that is hate-mongering.

BTW, I am a heterosexual married male with a young son, of one-time Christian belief. If he determines that he is gay, I will continue to love him, and stand with him in all things. I would never consider him “immoral” because of it.”

User B: “The word immoral means unchaste. These people view homosexual practice the same way they view unchastity or infidelity. There is a basic difference in fundamental beliefs here that will never be breached. If someone is cheating on his wife, by my beliefs, that is immoral. If someone cheats on a test, that is dishonest by my beliefs. That is simply defining and describing. That is not hate-mongering. In face, your tone is more hateful than that of the paragraph in the article.

The belief that there is a right and a wrong is widespread, although there are differences in specifics. Believing that some things are simply wrong, or immoral, does not exclude the possibility to love and respect people. The perspective of morality (right and wrong) laid out in the Bible has been around for thousands of years – right and wrong do not change. The United States was built on that concept, and only recently has it come under very heavy attack. Regardless of the opinion of society, it stands firm.

If your son is a kleptomaniac, will you support him stealing things? Or will you still love him and help him understand that stealing is wrong and that desire should be resisted? That is the law of the land. Homosexual behavior is against the law of God, and those who believe in that law should not be attacked for respectfully supporting it.”

User C: “Nonsense…
‘Immoral’ means “we’re better than you” to these types.
Its time to stop pretending that these attitudes are harmless.
These people are a direct cause of the epidemic of gay teen suicides, and are nothing but hate speech, which is NOT protected. Particularly on a private forum such as the app store.”

User D: “GQB, you have that completely wrong. Did you read the excerpt? You say:

‘Immoral’ means “we’re better than you” to these types.

but in the quoted passage, they say:

We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives.

How do you read “we’re better than you” when given the words “We, no less than they, are sinners”? Looks like a direct incompatibility between the logic you are trying to impose here, and the actual words they used. Or more likely a reading comprehension problem on your part.”

User E: “Stealing is against the law. Would I still love my son? Yes. And I would stand by him before, during and after any punishment that was instituted.

Homosexuality is not against the law. It is in the law of your god.

Should the extreme followers of Islam, that are calling for Jihad and the killing of non-believers, be allowed an App in the App Store espousing such? To their god, it is law, or at least allowable. To the law of the land, it is not.”

User D (in response to User E):

“Homosexuality is not against the law. It is in the law of your god.”

Exactly, so why don’t you respect the beliefs of others?

“Should the extreme followers of Islam, that are calling for Jihad and the killing of non-believers, be allowed an App in the App Store espousing such?”

They’re condoning violence and hate, so no. Read their defense:
“We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity;”

“Equal dignity”

They respect your belief, and still believe you are a human being of equal dignity, they just believe what you do is wrong. Me and you may disagree with them but that doesn’t give us the right treat them with any less dignity than they deserve, and they deserve their right to free speech. In a way they are more tolerant of gays, than you are of them.”

Freedom of Speech Goes Both ways

User A: “I am in total agreement with the pulling of this APP. As a heterosexual male, married, with children, a Christian church goer, and of course a flyfisherman, this drivel is not for my Mac,iPad,iPhone nor household. The wording is just tooooooooooooooo judgmental in tone and verse. My App store should not be a place for bigotry, self-righteousness, nor religious litmus testing.”

User B: “Sounds a whole lot like you are being a bigot and self-righteous towards those who are bigots and self-righteous.”

User C: “Yeah buddy, tolerance goes both ways. While I support gay marriage I also support free speech, one of the principles our nation was founded on. Who are you, apple, or anyone to determine what people should and should not be allowed to read on a platform as large as iOS? If you don’t want the app, fine, DON’T DOWNLOAD IT, I won’t be either, but by not respecting the views of others, your just as intolerant of others opinions as this App is. Read what they said “We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity.” Sounds like your the self-righteous bigot for thinking your opinion should be imposed on everyone, and those who disagree should be silenced…”

User D: “I agree. As a gay Hispanic male, there are things out there that are highly offensive to me and are aimed at me for either being gay or Hispanic. Regardless of that, I respect their right to free speech. All speech. In doing so, we gaurantee that it lives on.”

User E: “Their defense:
“we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity”

They may belief what you do is immoral, but they respect your decision as a human being of equal dignity.

Your argument:
“My App store should not be a place for bigotry, self-righteousness, nor religious litmus testing.”

YOUR app store? Who’s self-righteous again? Tolerance goes both ways, and your the bigot if you think they should be denied they’re first amendment right just for disagreeing with you.”

User F: “I don’t see what they are saying as bigoted. I might not agree with them but there is a big difference between not agreeing and bigotry. That seems to be the card that the gay community plays: if you don’t agree with me, you are bigoted. Nonsense. Nobody is requiring anyone to get or read the app. I never even heard of it till now. Once Apple starts censoring, where will it end? Not good when Apple caves in to special interest groups – it shows Apple’s “bigotry.””

Burden of Proof is on the Believer?

User A: “by your logic, there is an invisible naked man under your bed at this very second. I mean, you have to prove that he’s not there, right? And there is also a teapot orbiting Mars. After all, no-one has proven that there is NO teapot orbiting Mars!

You will quickly understand that the correct way to go about this, is for people to prove the existence of the person/thing they think exists, instead of proving that it does not exist. I mean, how do you prove that there are no UFOs? Or Loch Ness monster? Sure, your could comb the lake for the next ten years, but people could still say that “Nessie is just really good at hiding”. You can’t really prove a negative, so the burden of proof is on the believers.

Besides, we are all atheists. Some of us just go one god further.”

User B:
“User A:
There are gaps in your logic. Here are a few of the issues:

1. We’re not talking about Russell’s teapot or any other being among beings. All Christians (and Muslims and Jews) agree that God is the very source and sustenance of being. Thus, the comparison to a teapot orbiting Mars is silly and non analogous and a straw man argument. Want to see what professional contemporary philosophers think of Russell’s teapot? Do a search for “Maverick Philosopher teapot” or “Ed Feser teapot”

2. We’re not all “atheist” in regards to Zeus, Poseiden or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I’m a Christian in regards to each of them. It’s not that I have beliefs about their non-existence (positive atheism in their regard), but that I have Christian beliefs that rule out their possibility, just as your atheistic worldview rules out their possibility without you ever considering the evidence or lack thereof.

3. Those claiming that atheism is not a belief system need to catch up on their science The cognitive science of religion has made leaps over the past few years, including showing rather clearly that we all have metaphysical beliefs about the existence or non-existence of a god. You may want to see the work of Justin Barrett in this regard. We all have belief structures related to these topics, and these belief structures form worldviews that affect our ethical decisions, metaphysical assumptions and all sorts of daily decisions. Beliefs concerning the existence of a god factor into all sorts of other beliefs that you have, and form your belief system. Claiming that atheism is merely the “lack of belief” in a god does divert defending the burden of proof for their metaphysical claims, but goes against our growing scientific knowledge of cognitive belief structures.

Your comment parrots typical cliches that have become far too common after Dawkins TGD, but I would suggest you keep searching for better answers and dont become satisfied with (bad) cliches. Study, research and consider all of the options. Personally, this led me away from agnosticism into Christian faith (with the help of the Holy Spirit), but you may not end up where I am. Regardless, keep an open mind and keep seeking the truth.”

I hope that was helpful. Reading the back and forth discussions can really give us a better sense of what is a good way (or bad way) to approach a debate. I hope you found it intellectually stimulating as well as encouraging.

• Did you find any arguments good? bad?
• What stood out to you?
• What is your stance on this matter?

Let us know your thoughts on the matter below

“America is rapidly becoming a secular culture in which the teachings of New Testament Christianity are regularly mocked and marginalized.  What we have needed for some time are venues that inculcate serious worldview training to Christian youth.  For this reason, I am very encouraged to hear… InterHigh Fellowship [is launching] to meet this desperate need.  I know the staff very well, and they have my highest respect.  I hope to be a part of InterHigh Fellowship and give my full endorsement to this important ministry.”

-JP Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology.

William Dembski – Author of End of Christianity

“Today’s young people face enormous challenges. Lied to at every turn by an increasingly secular culture obsessed with worshipping everything but the one true God, they need help. What they need is a radical apologetic that empowers them not only to calm their hearts and minds against deception but to boldly face and overcome the attacks on Christian faith in the public square. For this reason I heartily recommend InterHigh Fellowship. InterHigh provides youth with the spiritual and intellectual training they need to be heroes in the great war for men’s souls.”

-William A. Dembski, author of The End of Christianity

William Lane Craig – Research Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology

“In our increasingly secular culture, today’s high school and university students are intellectually assaulted by every sort of anti-Christian philosophy, conjoined with an overwhelming relativism. Too many Christian students find themselves defenseless in the face of this assault because neither their parents nor their churches have adequately trained them in the discipleship of the mind. As a result, many lose their faith on the basis of objections that could have been quite easily answered if only they had been adequately trained.

“InterHigh is a new ministry designed to serve students by providing them worldview and apologetics training. It will teach students to think Christianly about life’s most important questions and to give reasons for what we believe as Christians and answers to the tough questions unbelievers raise. More than that, InterHigh Fellowship also aims to provide mentors to guide students in living out the Christian life and a peer group that will reinforce one’s commitment to live a life worthy of a disciple of Christ.

“I’ve met the leaders who are behind InterHigh. They are intellectually engaged Christians who have been successfully ministering at UC Berkeley for over 25 years. They have a passion for reaching students, and they understand the crucial need for worldview and apologetics training. InterHigh is a very positive development worthy of our support.”

- William Lane Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology

Sean McDowell- Author and Speaker

Apologetics and worldview training is one of the most important things we can offer young people today. I have personally seen students transformed by learning how to defend their beliefs as well as seen many have their faith derailed for lack of preparation. I thank God for InterHigh Fellowship, and am thrilled to hear about all they are doing to equip youth and youth leaders alike. The ministry has integrity, vision and provides a powerful tool to help us prepare our students to boldly stand firm in their beliefs.

-Sean McDowell, Author and Speaker

Chuck Colson – Author, Prison Fellowship