One of Obama’s worst ideas

And he’s had lots of bad ideas.

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is a controversial bill that was passed by the House in 2007 and stalled in Senate 2008.  It was reintroduced to Legislature as of March 2009.  Obama has committed to passing it.

It is an awful bill that will do great damage to our economy.

Current Law (NLRA)  

• If 30% support union, NLRB grants a “Secret Ballot Election”. 
• Union certified if majority vote is YES.
• Companies must “bargain” in good faith but are not required to reach an agreement.

Proposed Law (EFCA)

• Card Check – If over 50% of cards affirm union support then the NLRB certifies the union without an election.
• If no contract is reached within 120 days, a binding arbitration guaranteed contract for 2 years is put in place without a vote.

Eliminating secret ballots could lead to union intimidation, unfair representation, etc.  Union organizers can follow people out in public, get in their faces, pressure them to sign cards, etc. 

Unfair binding arbitration will have all sorts of consequences.  Once you get a union it is almost impossible to get rid of it.  They cost jobs.  The U.S. automakers made lots of bad decisions over the years, but the unions were the biggest catalyst in their failures.  You simply can’t compete when your costs are that much higher than your competitors.

EFCA is profoundly un-American and bad idea.

George Tiller probably won’t RIP

It is between him and God, of course, but killing unborn children for a living hardly qualifies as good fruit – even if you do go to church on Sunday. 

And this guy didn’t just do abortions, he did “partial birth abortions,” AKA infanticide.  The pro-aborts are mourning him and even holding vigils.  Ugh.

And what kind of a church lets a guy like that be a member, let alone serve?

From AP:

Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation’s few providers of late-term abortions despite decades of protests and attacks, was shot and killed Sunday in a church where he was serving as an usher.

As Melinda noted at Stand to Reason, Killing Abortionists Is Wrong. Period.

A friend pointed out the irony of this statement about Tiller:

The family said its loss “is also a loss for the city of Wichita and women across America. George dedicated his life to providing women with high-quality health care despite frequent threats and violence.”

And more irony:

President Barack Obama said he was “shocked and outraged” by the murder. “However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence,” he said.

Of course we shouldn’t resort to killing abortionists, but abortion itself is a heinous act of violence.  If abortion isn’t violent, nothing is.  It should be illegal, just as killing Tiller was illegal.

—–

I saw one Christian writing that the murderer took away Tiller’s chance to repent.  Don’t worry, folks, God is sovereign. No one will be able to claim that they just needed a little more time to repent and believe.

—–

Another writer said to pray for his soul.  Uh, sorry folks, too late for that. 

Hebrews 9:27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment

—–

Also see The Wintery Knight blog, which “strongly condemns all abortion-related violence, whether it’s committed against the born or the unborn,” while asking if it is rational for atheists to condemn his murder.

—–

I subscribe to over 100 blogs.  Well over a dozen have commented on this.  I’ve yet to see one that didn’t condemn the murder, though I’m sure the MSM will ignore the clear and consistent principles of the pro-live movement and try to demonize and broad-brush us with this.

—–

Authorities Forbid Bible Study

Authorities Forbid Bible Study : Stop The ACLU – This has been reported on all over on blogs, but I wanted to make a quick note about it. 

When I first heard it I figured it must be some type of urban legend.  Apparently not.

Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary have been told that they cannot invite friends to their San Diego, Calif. home for a Bible study — unless they are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to San Diego County.

“On Good Friday we had an employee from San Diego County come to our house, and inform us that the Bible study that we were having was a religious assembly, and in violation of the code in the county.” David Jones told FOX News.

“We told them this is not really a religious assembly — this is just a Bible study with friends. We have a meal, we pray, that was all,” Jones said.

A few days later, the couple received a written warning that cited “unlawful use of land,” ordering them to either “stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit,” the couple’s attorney Dean Broyles told San Diego news station 10News.

But the major use permit could cost the Jones’ thousands of dollars just to have a few friends over.

They should win easily on appeal, what with that pesky First Amendment thingy that Obama hasn’t completely repealed yet.

The Immaculate (Mis)conception

I was recently corrected by a fellow blogger because I used the term “Immaculate Conception” in an erroneous way.  I always thought the term referred to Jesus’ conception, but it turns out that it refers to the false teaching that Mary was conceived without original sin.  My bad.

(As noted on the Sorry, but Mary can’t save you post, there is no biblical justification for Mary being sinless and plenty demonstrating that despite her unique role and great example she was a sinner in need of a Savior just like us.  If Mary “had” to be sinless, as many commenters claimed, then by that reasoning her parents had to have been sinless as well, and their parents, and so on.  And if she could have been sinless through some other means, then of course that could have applied to Jesus as well.  If you need more please read that thread.  I don’t want to replay that discussion here.)

But back to my mistake . . . there are a few takeaways from this experience.

Important life lesson: If you become sure that you are wrong about something then the best thing to do is quickly concede that point.  It is an effective strategy at work and at home.  Don’t let pride get in the way.  It just makes you look bad.

The person who corrected me was factual, polite and discreet, taking the time to gently correct me via email.  A comment on the blog would have been fine, but I appreciated his extra effort and friendly tone.  I let him know that I sincerely appreciated the correction.  I would have hated to continue using the term in error, so what he did was the loving, Christian thing.

Also, it is fun to point out to my critics that I’m not the rigid, dogmatic fundy they like to pretend I am.  You see, if you show me legitimate evidence that my views are wrong I will gladly change them.

It is just that I’ve exhaustively studied issues like abortion, oxymoronic “same sex marriage,” what the Bible teaches about human sexuality, the divinity of Jesus, the fact of Jesus’ resurrection, the exclusivity of Jesus, etc.  and am extremely confident that the facts support my views.  Is it possible, in a hyper-technical sense, that I could be wrong on any of those topics?  I suppose so, but the evidence just isn’t there to demonstrate that. 

But under no circumstance can they claim I’m not correctable.  I seriously doubt that they’ll be correctable on their false view that I’m not.  Abandoning life in Stereotype Land is just too hard for some people

Speaking of immaculate things, I do have faith in the Immaculate Reception and the Immaculate Interception.  Go Steelers!

“It’s nice to be nice to the nice”

Major Burns was kissing up to another character in the TV show MASH once (probably Margaret) and said the inanity in the title.  That reminds me of the Darwinian (“macro-”) evolution tautology about the survival of the fittest:

The survivors survived because they are survivors. 

How do we know they are survivors?  Because they survived.

Check.

If you don’t even understand the job description . . .

. . . you shouldn’t get the job.

All you need is 26 seconds to know that Sotomayar is unqualified:

This wasn’t some slip of the tongue or misstatement.  We should be charitable to anyone who makes an innocent misstatement and let them correct it.  But as one blogger put it, this was pure wink-wink-nudge-nudge.  She made no secret of how she really felt and the audience laughed along. 

Given her errors on the role of judges, she is not only unqualified to be a Supreme Court justice, she isn’t even qualified to judge a local dog show.  I mean that in the most literal sense.  Judges interpret laws, they don’t make them.  It couldn’t be more simple. 

I am the VP of an Internal Audit group.  We may make recommendations at times, but we don’t create the rules.  We just audit the organizations and see if they are in compliance.  It is a similar situation as with being a judge.  Different entities have different roles and responsibilities.  Things get really messed up in a hurry when one group does another group’s job.

I was very proud of my high school daughters when they read Obama’s views on judges and immediately realized he was 180 degrees from the truth.

Speaking at the Planned Parenthood conference in DC this afternoon, Barack Obama leveled harsh words at conservative Supreme Court justices, and he offered his own intention to appoint justices with “empathy.”Obama hinted that the court’s recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart — which upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion — was part of “a concerted effort to steadily roll back” access to abortions. And he ridiculed Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote that case’s majority opinion. “Justice Kennedy knows many things,” he declared, “but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor.”

Obama also won a laugh at the expense of Chief Justice John Roberts, saying that judgments of Roberts’ character during his confirmation hearings were largely superficial. “He loves his wife. He’s good to his dog,” he joked, adding that judicial philosophy should be weighted more seriously than such evaluations. “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

The Bumbling Genius has a great piece about the tragedy of this situation.  Check it out.

Side note: The news said she would make the sixth Catholic on the S.C.  No one seems to mind, though, because as a pro-abortionist she’s about as Catholic as I am. 

This is one of the greatest reasons the last election counted so much.  Shame on the Christians who voted for Obama.

Will she ultimately get nominated?  Sure, but the Republicans need to do their jobs and educate people on what judges are supposed to do.  One of Bush’s biggest failures was not communicating his message.  He could have stood up every week and explained why abortion is wrong, for example.

Roundup

Government run businesses = Epic fail — But hey, things are different now.  These guys can definitely run GM, the banks, all of our health care, etc., right?

—

Mormon women sure seem to get a raw deal — a summary of some lesser known teachings about marriage and how Mormon women supposedly get into Heaven. 

—

Domestic Divapalooza makes some good points on the No H8 campaign – The commercial starts with their favorite false dichotomies: Either you are fully behind the pro-gay agenda or you hate gays.   Either you support “same sex marriage” or you are anti-gay.  Sure.

Then they try the “equality” ploy.  But skin color is morally neutral and sexual behavior is not.  “Same sex marriage” is an oxymoron. They have as much right to it as I have to a square circle.  Pointing that out doesn’t mean I hate gays.

I know quite a few gays.  We get along great.  One is the retired dance teacher for the girls.  I saw him at the Cinderella performance and we hugged (Eek, right?).  A couple of the guys I performed with were gay.  We talked about family, work, etc.  Shocking, eh? 

Hopefully some counter-ads will explain these remarkably simple concepts.

—

Obama’s Supreme Court nominee looks like  a jurisprudence train wreck — I won’t blog much about her given that the news is everywhere on this.  Just imagine if a white guy had said a different version of the following:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

—

If You Care about Hygiene, Don’t Stay at the Hilton Chicago Hotel — Host to ‘International Mr. Leather’ Deviant-Sex-Fest – Caution: Graphic.  Just one more thing that your friendly liberal Christians support as a “Civil Rights” issue.

—

Pro-abortion Fallacies-R-Us and more

I participated on an interesting thread at a blog hosted by a guy named Ed. I typically make it a practice to ignore it when Ed links to my site. But it has been a while since he (the first person banned from commenting at my site) had linked, so curiosity got the best of me. I discovered that Ed had been lying about me multiple times and continued to do so on that thread. 

But what was most interesting was the non-stop fallacies they threw out to defend abortion.  I finally made a summary to I could just copy and paste the responses when they would repeat them.

1. I don’t throw the word “liar” around lightly. People can be mistaken, and that isn’t lying. But when one is corrected, when one clearly knows better and when one deliberately repeats untruths then we have a name for that person: Liar.

The pattern was repetitive: Ed uses a ridiculous logical fallacy, Neil calls him on it, Ed lies and said Neil did it, Ed fails to concede the obvious or apologize, Ed uses the fallacy again. I addressed Ed’s use of a guilt by association fallacy regarding Joseph Stalin multiple times on my blog. I also confronted him about it on other blogs. And he used it reflexively on his blog. So the origin couldn’t have been more clear. Just read the comments section of this post and search for Stalin. And as a dog returns to his vomit, so Ed returns to his embarrassing use of a logical fallacy.

But then I came back to this site and found that he had accused me of bringing it up!

I objected to Simpson’s off-the-wall claim trying to link Darwin to Stalin in an exchange some time ago.

It’s a reference to last year’s discussions with Simpson, in which he inaccurately tried to link Stalin to Darwin’s sins.

I couldn’t care less what Ed thinks of me, but I was surprised to see him lying to thoroughly and repeatedly. I figured a public service announcement was in order.

Ed also breaks his own rule a lot:

“Darrell’s Corollary of Godwin’s Law is that if posters in an internet discussion know to avoid the mention of Hitler to avoid their opponents’ invoking Godwin’s law, they’ll compare the actions to Stalin instead.”

After countless comments he finally conceded what he had done.  No accompanying apology, but I didn’t expect that.

2. You see, the most important and amusing part of the thread is that the Mr. Science People deliberately and repeatedly ignore the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception. They aren’t using intellectual honesty to follow the truth where it leads. They come to science with their biases and twist the data to conform to them. Propping up their pro-abortion views puts them at odds with scientific facts but they work hard to rationalize them away. They use (bad) philosophical arguments and not scientific ones.

If he was really pro-science he’d be pro-life. Embryology textbooks are clear about when life begins, but he chooses to rationalize that away to support the legalized crushing and dismemberment of 3,000+ human beings per day. It is so ironic that he cranks out posts about “dangerous, anti-science bigoted ignorance” when his views on abortion fit that title perfectly.

Nothing is more dangerous to the unborn than abortion. If you get out of the womb alive you are very lucky. Abortion constitutes 99% of all murders.

3. Nick repeatedly tried the Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born canard. I demonstrated multiple times that one can protest immoral acts without taking ownership of them. If the government decided to jail or kill all homeless people, Nick could protest that without having to let them all live with him.

I also pointed out how even though pro-lifers don’t have to adopt all the kids to protest the evils of abortion, we do all sorts of things to help with our own time and money.

4. Ed and Nick have lived in Liberal Land too long. The concept of personal responsibility is foreign to them. They continually argue that I am “forcing” these women to have babies.   I’m not sure if they thought I’m the father of 1,000,000+ pregnancies per year (Really, I’m not.  I’m a serial monogamist) or if they think these are all unplanned in vitro fertilizations.

But these people have already created new life. I’m just interested in protecting that new life. But Ed & Nick reflexively latch on to the prejudice that to be pro-life is to want to control women. Tell that to all the female pro-lifers.

5. They continually abandon scientific arguments and use faulty “if legal, then moral” reasoning. Yes, abortions are legal. But while slavery used to be legal, it was always immoral.

6. They ignore the scientific fact that these aren’t hypothetical human beings or potential human beings. They already exist on planet earth. They are at the proper stage of development for their age.

7. They both exercise anti-religious bigotry and prejudices to dismiss my views. I pointed out that while I am a Christian, I save biblical arguments for those who claim to be Christians. The pro-life case is so powerful that you don’t even need the Bible to demonstrate it. And of course, there is nothing illogical about using my religious views to inform my political views. No one seems to protest when I use my religious views to oppose stealing, perjury and murder. Oh, and there is also that First Amendment thingy.

They missed the irony, of course, that they also used religious arguments to justify their positions. Nick used a bad exegesis of Exodus to rationalize abortion. Not only did he cherry-pick a mistranslation to make his point, but he ignored the legions of pro-life verses, starting with “don’t murder.” But my main point is by his own reasoning Nick is forcing his pro-abortion religious views on innocent unborn children. What hypocrisy!

In addition, he just repeated his claim that Exodus supports abortion but never defended it with facts. He didn’t even attempt to refute the scholarship in the link that I provided, which went back to the original language and demonstrated how some poor translations led to pro-abortionists misusing the passage.

8. And of course they trotted out the “anti-women” ad hominem attack. They had no response to my questions about why they support gender selection abortions, virtually all of which destroy innocent female human beings. They ignore the reality of post abortion trauma and the chauvinism of abortion, which puts the burden on the woman to use it as a form of birth control. I also pointed out how the pro-life position is actually pro-women. Many women are pushed into abortions by men who won’t take responsibility for their actions.

I reject the reasoning that says women must have the ability to kill their unborn children to prove their worth and to fit into society, the workplace and politics.

9. Nick tried to act like I was hypocritical for not wanting to finance the care of unwanted children, but he didn’t realize that he was pointing fingers back at himself. In his “kindness” he unwittingly concedes that he would prefer that unborn human beings be destroyed rather than inconvenience him.

10. Ed objected to a link I posted with images of abortion. But if abortion is a moral good and doesn’t kill an innocent human being then what could be wrong with showing images of it? And why is Ed so concerned about the innocence of these alleged children who read his blog? He fully supported the “rights” of their mothers to have them crushed and dismembered before they were born, and now he wants to profess his concern that viewing images of this allegedly moral procedure will harm them?

11. They tried the angle multiple times that I don’t use evidence, but I’m the one who used evidence throughout: Evidence that Ed is a unrepentant liar, evidence that the book of Exodus does not support abortion and evidence that a new human life is formed at conception. They were the ones with the fact-free fallacy-fest.

12. Ed claimed that I want to poison Africa. Sure, Ed. I pointed out that I’ve been on mission trips there three times, have donated tens of thousands of dollars to various causes there and have had a World Vision Sponsor child there for ten years. I don’t say that out of pride, just to point out how ridiculous it is for him to say I want to poison Africa. I’m still waiting to hear just how much Ed has contributed to Africa in terms of his own time and money.

13. Ed added these new lies:

The point is that you advocate creationism to be taught to innocent children in schools.

Nick parroted Ed’s lie that I push for creationism to be taught in public schools and he made all sorts of vicious accusations in doing so. I challenged them to find any evidence of that in the nearly 1,000 posts I’ve done on my blog. They found none. I am on record for saying that I don’t want non-Christians or theologically Liberal Christians (but I repeat myself?) to teach the Bible in public schools. They would probably teach that all religions lead to God, Jesus is not God, there is no Hell, the Bible can’t be relied upon, God is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, etc.

Was Nick lying? I don’t think so. I think he was using bad discernment in trusting Ed without evidence and was prideful in failing to apologize for his outburst.

14. Nick claimed that since it would be ineffective to make abortion illegal because it wouldn’t eliminate all abortions. That reasoning would mean we’d get rid of all laws, because despite the risks people still steal, rape, murder, etc. So his argument is faulty because it proves to much.

15. Ed claimed I was bigoted for disagreeing with Rachel Carson because she was unmarried. The only problems with that are a) I didn’t know she was unmarried, b) it wouldn’t have mattered even if I had known and c) using that “reasoning” you could never disagree with a woman or any minority without Ed calling you a bigot.

16. Ed tried the miscarriage canard by implying that abortion must not be wrong if miscarriages happen so frequently. It is hard to believe I have to explain this, but killing an infant by chopping him up is a “little” different than if the infant succumbed to SIDS. In the same way, the unborn are scientifically proven to be human beings. Death via abortion is wildly different than a miscarriage.

17. Nick tried the “better dead than poor” line. I wonder why it took him so long. It is as fallacious as ever. The “your pro-life policies will result in more poor” line ignores the fact that Nick’s pro-abortion policies will result in more dead.

So according to Nick, it would be good to kill poor children.

It also ignores the fact that only 23% of abortions are due to inadequate funds at the moment, not that it would be a moral reason to kill an innocent human being.  The source of that figure was from Planned Parenthood’s research arm.

18. Ed tried the “keep government out of bedrooms” fallacy, which ignores that the government shouldn’t care where murders are committed. You can’t kill a toddler in your bedroom. And of course, if he really held that view he’d oppose Planned Parenthood funding and involvement in schools, as well as any government involvement with Gardasil.

19. Ed repeatedly used the viability argument, concluding that abortion was acceptable because the unborn weren’t viable. That fails on many levels. Lots of people outside the womb aren’t viable without care (e.g., infants) but we don’t let people chop them up. And many human beings who are aborted are viable. The viability argument is philosophical, not scientific. The science is clear: Abortion kills an innocent human being.

Also, that argument implies that Ed is firmly against partial birth abortions (aka infanticide), which, if true, he has never bothered to mention.

20. If you ban Ed from your blog for moronic, repetitive comments he accuses you of being a censor (I didn’t know I was the government and the only blog in town!). But he is glad to advance the idiocy that to even question macro-evolution is to be slowing down the cure for cancer, and he can’t stand the thought that schools would teach the strengths and weaknesses of his worldview — oops, I mean his pet (false) theory.

BTW, here’s a direct quote from Ed:

It’s absolutely true: Every dime spent advocating ID is a dime deprived from working for a cure for cancer. And, I’m still waiting for you to explain how your views on Darwin differ from Stalin’s.

I know that sounds made up, but it isn’t!

The irony is lost on him that while he is busy throwing around the guilt-by-association Stalin fallacy he is the one trying to shut down the free exchange of ideas. Hey, maybe the irony isn’t lost on him . . . he’s probably just cynical enough to do it deliberately. He doesn’t appear to have any shame. At least the guys exposed in Expelled! are a little more subtle than Ed.

—–

I’ve probably missed some things, but that will give you a flavor for their tactics and “reasoning.”

Summary: Normally I follow Proverbs 26:2 and ignore things like Ed’s petty personal attack above, but I decided that he needed a little lesson here. Plus, it was fun to demonstrate how anti-science he really was. And if he is such an unrepentant liar and his biases keep him from understanding “2+2” scientific concepts such as how a new human life begins at conception, why should I trust him on topics like evolution, DDT or Gardasil?

Abortion is the greatest moral issue of our time. Over 3,000 innocent human beings will be destroyed today in the name of “choice.” It is a scientific fact that these are human beings. It is a shame that so many allegedly in the pro-science crowd deny that truth.

Sorry, but Mary can’t save you

Update 2: I finally figured out how to turn comments off.  I think 308 is enough.  Thanks to all the commenters for participating.  Everything has been said multiple times by now.  If you don’t like something, just keep reading and you’ll find someone who agrees with you.

The comments at Dawn Eden’s place were pretty much the same arguments refuted here.  Ironically, she titled her piece Attention, Catholic apologists: Share Mary with a skeptical Evangelical, thus tipping her hand that it is just as much about sharing Mary as it is sharing Jesus for them.  While I might talk about Paul, Peter or others in the Bible, it would never occur to me to say I was going to “share” them with someone.  It should all be about Jesus when it comes to that.

For the record, I am not skeptical at all.  I am highly confident that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.  I am equally confident that his mother, while a sinner in need of a Savior, was a great woman of God whose life teaches many important lessons. But under no circumstances should we pray to her or bow down to an idol of her, and under no circumstances are you required to have a relationship with her to get to Jesus.

Here are some of the more common arguments of the “Mary defenders.”

—

A common false dichotomy was that you are either on the Catholic bandwagon for Mary or you are dishonoring her.  There is at least one other option: A proper understanding of her role.  This came up over and over.

—

They agree that the Bible is infallible, which should be a great foundation for us both to reference.  However, they then dive into a circular reference where they insist that you need the authority of the Catholic church to determine what the Bible really says.  But where do they get that authority?  I challenged them to demonstrate it from the Bible and no one offered anything.  Even if they found something, it would be circular.  They often beg the question and assume that “church” means “Roman Catholic Church.”

And as noted elsewhere, if we can’t read the Bible and understand it without the Catholic church interpretation, what guarantees that we’ll be able to understand the Catholic church interpretation?   Of course it is helpful to have experts and study guides, but the Bible doesn’t require that.

—

Lots of non sequitors about how Jesus loved his mother, so [fill in the blank].  Yes, Jesus loved his mother, but that doesn’t mean we should pray to her or bow to her idol. 

—

The immaculate conception argument about Mary goes in circles.  They want to claim that she had to be without sin so Jesus could be born un-tainted.  But then it stands to reason that Mary’s parents must have been born without sin as well, and their parents, and their parents . . .  otherwise Mary would have been tainted.  Then they backtrack to say that something special was done at Mary’s birth.  But, uh, why couldn’t that have been done at Jesus’ birth as well?  Back to the beginning.

—

Read the New Testament and look for mentions of Mary.  The Book of Acts: one passing mention noting that she was n the room.  That’s it.

Romans?  Zero.  1 Corinthians?  Zero.  2 Corinthians?  Zero.  Hebrews?  Zero. And on and on.

I am not dismissing her importance, but the facts are clear: She was not a part of the Gospel message.  There are no references to her leading people to Jesus, answering prayers, etc. 

The apparitions of Mary typically have unbiblical or anti-biblical messages.  Therefore, they are not from God.

—
Despite claims to the contrary, there is much evidence of people praying to Mary and other saints and bowing to idols of her.  I’ve seen it myself and many on this thread conceded that they pray to saints.   Not just talk to the saints, but pray to them.

Here are pictures and just a sample of documentation.

—

A common argument was that we ask friends to pray, so we can ask the deceased to pray as well.  I think the difference is fairly obvious:

1. The deceased are deceased, unlike friends here who are alive. 
2. The Bible says not to contact the deceased.
3. The Bible does give examples of asking the non-deceased to pray.
4. The Bible does not even hint that the dead have omniscience or anything close to it.

—
A common claim was that if the Catholic church got the Bible right, then all tradition is infallible. Anyone see how that doesn’t follow?  Paul got his letters just right, but not everything he did was inspired.

They don’t demonstrate how the organization that administered the Canonization process is synonymous with the Roman Catholic Church.

They ignore the laundry list of errors the church has committed.  Again, I’m not saying the Protestants get everything right.  But they aren’t claiming infallible traditions, either.

We agree on the infallibility of the Bible, which is a great starting point.  No one ever demonstrated from our common source how the Catholic church’s tradition is infallible as well.

—-

I’ve heard of people praying to Saint so-and-so when they lose their keys.  Then they find the keys and treat that as validation.

But remember that Satan knows where your keys are. If you pray to the dead in clear violation of Scripture then God is under no obligation to answer you or protect you.

—–

The “infallible tradition” position and the notion that we have to have the Roman Catholic Church interpret the Bible  for us fail in other ways.

First, consider that the Bible teaches how to handle disputed matters. Now if the church was infallible and couldn’t get the interpretation wrong, why would the Bible mention such a thing?

Second, how do you know if you properly understood the message of the church?  If you can’t be trusted to understand the infallible Bible then why can you be trusted to understand the church’s allegedly infallible interpretation of it?  Think carefully about that.  It is bulletproof.

—–

When addressing the false teachings about praying to saints, I typically start by pointing out that the burden of proof is on the Catholics to demonstrate from scripture that the saints can hear the prayers of over 6 billion people 24 x 7 x 365 in any language. 

I read countless “just so” stories and hypothetical situations, but none with scriptural evidence and many that were in direct violation of scripture.

We should only pray to God.  Simple stuff.
—–
I encourage newcomers to search for “Marie,”  “Glenn” or “Wintery Knight” and read their comments.  Great points.

Peace,
Neil

—–
Update: A special welcome to visitors from Dawn’s blog!  Feel free to comment or look around.  We will probably not agree on the topic of Marian devotion, but you might enjoy some of the pro-life, pro-family and other pieces.

—–

I have great respect for Dawn Eden’s pro-life endeavors and her promotion of abstinence in her book, The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On.  She makes winsome and compelling cases on some important issues.

But a sad side of her life transformation is that she has wholly embraced Catholicism and its false teachings.  Please note that I know many Catholics who hold authentic Christian beliefs about the essentials.  They are “bad Catholics” in the sense that they don’t buy the un-Biblical dogma from the bowels of the Roman Catholic Church such as Mary-worship, praying to the saints, purgatory, salvation by works, Papal infallibility, etc.  Their local parishes actually teach fairly sound doctrine.  I think there are many saved people in Catholic churches just as there are many unsaved people in Protestant churches.  It all comes down to having true faith in Christ.

Dawn recently had a link highlighting a video about a man struggling spiritually.  He was crying out for help.  Guess who saved him.  Jesus?  No, it was Mary.  The “highlight” of the video was a vision of Mary that shifted to a statue of Mary.  Just your basic idol worship.

I’ve read the Bible a bunch.  I see remarkably few passages about Mary and none that even hint at the role the Catholic church ascribes to her.  Granted, Protestants sometimes overreact the other direction and ignore her, but they are far closer to the truth than Catholics.

I submit that if a vision of Mary comes to you then it isn’t the real Mary.  It is Satan, who is leading you away from the truth.

Mary can’t save you. 

Jesus can.

I do encourage commenters to focus on the post itself and not just attempt to re-create the Reformation (as great as the first one was!).  The video in question wasn’t just about having admiration for Mary.  The protagonist specifically cries out for God and Mary appears.  That’s really, really bad theology.

More False Teachers ‘R Us

Just a quick Saturday morning fisk of the latest inanities of the “Reverend” Chuck Currie (the unrepentent liar and class act who thought Wanda Sykes’ bit for Obama was hysterical and who claims, without evidence, that some Christian aid groups only help heterosexuals).

Liberty University, the “school” founded by the late Jerry Falwell, has banned a student run Democratic Party club because:

“The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the “LGBT” agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc.)”

Let’s review the record:

• Democrats support economic policies that lift people out of poverty and create a more level playing field.  Republicans support economic policies that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor (those Jesus would have called “the least of these”) and middle class.

No, Democrats support socialism and job and wealth destroying policies.  Some of them have good intentions but know nothing about history, economics or basic human nature. 

Democrats support unrestricted destruction of the “least of these,” the unborn.

Democrats ignore the incredible success of the United States and capitalism, which has done more to lift people out of poverty than any other -ism.

Democrats ignore that conservatives give more of their own time, money and blood, while people like Currie advocate taking other people’s money at the point of a gun to fund their counterproductive ideas.

• Democrats are working toward the goal of universal health care.  Republicans opposed even expanding health care for children.

Regarding “expanding health care for children,” Republicans know a Trojan Horse when they see one. 

Univeral health care is an awful idea and is being sold with lies.

• Democrats back civil rights for all Americans.  Republicans oppose equality in many cases.

That is code for “Republicans don’t want to confer Civil Rights based on perverted sexual preferences.”  Yep.  Skin color is morally neutral, sexual preferences are not.

• Democrats are trying to stop global climate change.  Republicans, while taking money from polluters, often argue there is no climate change occuring.

Republicans aren’t suckers.  Democrats, while taking money from extreme Liberals, often argue that they have evidence for man-made global warming and that their “fixes” won’t destroy jobs.  They are wrong.

• Democrats are against torture.  Republicans embrace it.

Republicans oppose crushing and dismembering innocent human beings (warning: graphic link).  Democrats embrace it.  It is their #1 God-mocking issue.

Some Republicans don’t have an issue with waterboarding three known terrorist leaders to save countless lives. 

I wonder if Chuck would prefer to be waterboarded or to have his skull crushed and limbs ripped off without anesthetic?

God is not a Republican…or a Democrat, says Jim Wallis, and he is right.  But Liberty University itself seems pretty far removed from anything that resembles the teachings of Jesus.   

Wallis is one of the biggest fakes going.  He uses his “God is not a Republican . . . or a Democrat” sound bite ad nauseam then proceeds to explain why God supports all of Wallis’ Democratic policies. 

Chuck disagrees with Jesus on virtually everything (his divinity, his exclusivity, his views on the Bible, his views on marriage, his views on other religions, his views on murder, etc.) so it is laughable that he would criticize anyone for not being in sync with Jesus.  If you want to know what Jesus thinks it is a safe bet to take the opposite position of liberal theologians like Chuck.

And where are the shrill calls from the ACLU et al regarding Wallis’ imposition of a theocracy?  Oh, right, they only fight religious views they disagree with — or do they just intuitively realize that the Lefties are really worshiping themselves and not God?

Carl Sagan’s catch phrase: (Bad) philosophy, not science — UPDATED

Carl Sagan famously said, “The cosmos is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be.”

The irony is that each of those statements is philosophical, not scientific.  He merely tipped his hand for all to see.

The cosmos is all there is

No scientific evidence for that. 

all there was

No scientific evidence for that. 

and all there ever will be.

No scientific evidence for that. 

They say that Carl Sagan didn’t believe there was a God.  He does now.

UPDATE: Bubba made a good point in the comments section about the definition of cosmos (“the world or universe regarded as an orderly, harmonious system”).   Another irony is that as science demonstrates more and more spectacular fine-tuning of the universe, desperate materialists are having to posit the pathetic “multiverse” theory to prop up their worldview.  This is in direct conflict to all of Sagan’s erroneous statements and is just as unsupported factually.

Roundup

Great write-up on the Angels & Demons movie — What a shocker, a movie that perpetuates the religion vs. science canard.  Yawn.

—

A Good Reason Not to Use Your Cell Phone While Driving— — the driver of this upside down car is lucky to be alive

—

Homosexual propoganda indoctrination for 5 years olds — And parents can’t opt out!  You can’t make this stuff up.  And the theologically liberal “Christians” help advance this cause. 

—

Forty reasons to support conservatism — Only 40?  A few of my favorites:

• Once liberty is lost, it is rarely recovered.
• Private property and liberty are inseparable.
• A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
• Redistribution of wealth for the “greater good” is tyranny in disguise.
• You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
• The only thing that can cure poverty is wealth.
• That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.
• The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
• Civil society is a harmony of interest, not a zero sum game in which the politically powerful exploit the politically weak.
• Free people working in self-interested cooperation, and a government operating within the limits of its authority promote more prosperity, opportunity and happiness for more people than any alternative.

—

“Junk” DNA turned out to be less-than-junky — As usual, the evolutionary tautology (“things evolved because they evolved”) reigns supreme.  When they thought parts of DNA were truly junky that was evidence against a designer and for evolution (who would design in junk, right?).  Now that they realize that it is not junk then of course that is evidence for evolution.

Life as a Darwinist must be fun: you’re never wrong. You only have to reverse what you say every once in a while.

—

Where to start the dialogue

President Obama says he wants to have a dialogue on abortion, and I think that is a great idea.  Too many people have traded sound bites for too long and not thought deeply about what abortion really is.

If you are going to have a dialogue on any topic, the first thing you want to do is ensure you are careful in defining the subject.  What is an abortion, anyway?  In this debate it is the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.  It is a scientific fact that abortion kills an innocent human being.

It might be helpful for Obama and other pro-choicers to view these images to see what abortions do.

As Greg Koukl points out, the first and main question is, “What is the unborn?”  If it is not a human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary.  If it is a human being, then no justification is sufficient (except to save the life of the mother, of course, which is in concert with the pro-life ethic).

So once people understand the facts, they should be able to make moral judgments based on them.  If it is immoral to kill innocent human beings then abortion is immoral.  If we have laws to protect innocent human beings from being killed, we should have laws preventing abortions.

So bring on the dialogue, and let’s point to the facts. 

Obama also said, “Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term.”  If he means that, he should heartily endorse Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs).  He needs to talk to Planned Parenthood and the like, though, because they consider PRCs to be the enemy and are working to restrict them.

Car buying tips

I hate buying cars, primarily because I don’t like to be lied to.  But I know their games.  I’ll be buying another car this summer and have been getting psyched up for the experience.

Unless your current car is costing too much in terms of repairs, seriously consider holding onto it.  It is the least expensive car you’ll ever own.

Don’t just buy a new car to get better gas mileage.  Do a little math and you’ll find out that it will take years to pay back your investment.

Buy low maintenance cars and hold them a long time.

Don’t buy high-tech extras like DVDs and GPS systems.  They cost 4-5 times what portable versions do and will be outdated quickly.  They cost a lot to fix if they break.  You also can’t transfer them to other vehicles.

Don’t look too eager when talking to a salesman.  You must be ready to walk away.  They get serious about negotiations when you are walking out.

Make your best deal on the price, then tell them you don’t like surprises and you’re sure that they won’t add in any charges such as “advertising fees” when they do the final paperwork.  Those should be part of the negotiated price, but they often sneak them in later.  A guy did that to me and I told him the deal was off unless he removed the $250 charge.  He did.

Don’t let them tell you they are “only” making $25 (or whatever) on the car.  That is a silly partial truth they use to describe the intercompany profit when one division of Honda, for example, sells to another division.  It is meaningless, especially when they try it on a CPA.

Go through the fleet dealer at the dealership if you can.  Most dealerships have a sub-group that sells to businesses who buy multiple cars.  Those buyers don’t have time for the gamesmanship of spending a whole day negotiating over each car.  The prices tend to be lower and non-negotiable.  Individuals obviously don’t buy a whole fleet of cars but sometimes a group like a credit union will combine the purchasing power to get fleet deals. You can submit what you want on the web and within an hour you’ll have lots of quotes. 

Save up and pay cash.  When you tell them you’re ready to write a check when they agree to your price it gives you negotiating leverage.

Do your homework at a site like Edmund’s.

Roundup

Top Black entrepreneur analyzes gay activism – Excellent analysis and insights.  For the 10th time, skin color is morally neutral.  Sexual behavior is not.  Sexual preferences should not confer Civil Rights status.  Don’t let the homosexual agenda fool you.  It is doing away with free speech rights while advancing its “Civil Rights for sexual preferences” campaign.

—

God’s Plan for the Gay Agenda by John MacArthur — Yep.

—

Sweden rules ‘gender-based’ abortion legal — Virtually all gender selection abortions destroy unborn females, yet abortion is still considered a women’s rights issue.  Seems to me that having the “right” to destroy your unborn child is a pretty lousy demonstration of the worth of women.  Seems like something men made up to avoid responsibility for their actions.

Killing females for being female is the ultimate misogyny, and the Left supports it.

—

Intel hit with record $1.45 billion antitrust fine — Yea!  I always hated dealing with them when I was at Compaq / HP.  Every time I left a meeting I thought to myself, “There’s a reason monopolies are illegal.”  They used all sorts of trickery, even against their own customers. 

—

Some good questions to ask Muslims

—

Ann Coulter had a nice summary on the Carrie Prejean topic:

Christians aren’t people who believe they are without sin; they’re people who know they’re sinners and are awestruck by God’s grace in sending his only Son to take the punishment they deserve.

This is in contradistinction to liberals, all of whom believe they’re on a fast track to heaven on the basis of being “basically good” people — and also believe that anyone who disagrees with that theological view is evil.

A “blogment” conversation about abortion

A recent commenter made so many common pro-abortion claims that I thought I’d post my reply as a “blogment” (a comment turned into a blog post).  Sadly, these are common arguments, but they are easy to respond to if you do some preparation. 

He had claimed elsewhere, among other things, that genocide, the Holocaust and starvation were bad but that abortion was not, and he wondered how I could equate them.  I replied:

Genocide = dead human beings

Holocaust = dead human beings

Starvation = dead human beings

Abortion = dead human beings.

They seem similar to me.

The quotes are from the commenter:

Then I suppose you’re equating an aborted fetus with a conscious, adult human? Something doesn’t seem quite right there; unless, you are actually thinking of the adult human beings the unborn will grow into when you say abortion kills the same kind of human beings genocide and the other transgressions do.

What kind of fetus are you speaking of? If it is a human fetus then she is a human being at a particular stage of development deserving of having her life protected. She isn’t an adult, but neither are toddlers. Your rationale could plug in human toddler instead of human fetus and claim that the “toddler will grow into” being an adult, but it would still involve killing an innocent human being.

This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when I mentioned something about equating an unborn human being with one outside the womb. If you’re saying the fertilized egg is a human being are you saying there’s no difference between us and that egg?

Of course there are differences: Size, level of development, environment and dependency. My claim is that none of those differences gives rise to the right to destroy those human beings.

Does this sound reasonable to you? I’m pretty sure I have a lot more in common with a fish than a few cells. I’m pretty sure a newborn infant has a lot more in common with a fish than a dozen cells.

Fish aren’t human beings.

Personally, I would say that the fertilized egg has the potential to be a human being,

Then you would be in direct conflict with science. We aren’t talking about birth control here, which is what “potential” arguments relate to. The fertilized egg is a human being.

and I would add that I would love nothing more than to see that fertilized egg grow to be a wonderful individual who lives a fulfilling life,

That’s encouraging!

but I would also say that in general the welfare and livelihood of those of us in the here and now takes precedence over those who have not yet entered the world.

I was afraid the last line was too good to be true . First, you haven’t demonstrated that the rest of us benefit when innocent human beings are slaughtered.

Second, even if it was true your claim proves way too much. It could be used to rationalize the destruction of the homeless, welfare recipients, etc. I am pretty sure you don’t mean to advance that argument.

They don’t call it “coming into the world” for nothing.

I don’t see why euphemisms would trump science. We also say women are “with child,” but I doubt that gives you pause on your pro-abortion views. Just because you can’t see the unborn without an ultrasound doesn’t mean they don’t exist on this planet.

“If you mother had paid someone to crush and dismember you in womb would it have had a “negligible impact” on where you are today? When your skull would have been crushed, would that have been a “potential you” and a “potential” skull or a real you and a real skull?”

I feel like these sorts of hypothetical questions are frivolous. If I had been aborted, there would have been no impact on where I am today because I would have never existed.

Right!

There would be nothing to have an impact on. Since that fetus would not be the same organism you are talking to, I think it is perfectly correct to say that fetus was the “potential me.” I think it’s pretty clear that that fetus is not me and that I am not that fetus, but that fetus would eventually become me. As for the skull question, it would have been the skull of the fetus that eventually became who you are talking to now, and nothing else.

That’s odd, because the unique DNA of that hypothetically dead human fetus would have matched yours exactly. And if the skull had been crushed you wouldn’t be here.

I suppose it depends on how you define “me,” or “I,” or “you.” I’m pretty sure when we say those things, we are talking about the present us. If you really want to get philosophical, the “me” you will respond to after I post this will technically not be the same “me” as the one who wrote this because some time has elapsed and we are all in a constant state of change/growth.

Try committing a crime then sharing that philosophy with the judge. I’ll come visit you when I’m doing prison ministry .

I’ll spell it out for you: There is a 1:1 correlation between the human fetus and the subsequent human being. If you arm had been ripped off in utero, you’d only have one arm now. That was you in your mother’s womb, not a potential you. It was you at that particular stage of development.

Because for all practical purposes they haven’t joined the rest of society until after birth.

They are unique human beings. Your made-up definition of who gets to be considered part of society has all sorts of ramifications.

Once that developing human leaves the birth canal, however, the responsibility for its development shifts from that of the mother’s body to society and however we consciously decide to treat it.

That’s a fine argument if you are trying to advance infanticide as well.

Keep in mind the reasons abortions take place at all. Abortions do not occur out of some malicious intent toward a potential human being (as the word murder most often implies). Abortions occur out of practical purposes directly related to the individual(s) involved.

You really lost me there. Abortions tell the unborn one or more of the following:
- You are going to cost me too much money, so I’m going to kill you.
- You are going to get in the way of my love life, so I’m going to kill you.
- You are going to hamper my career or education, so I’m going to kill you.
- You are going to be a burden to society, so I’m going to kill you.
- You have (or may have) a disability , so I’m going to kill you.
- You are the wrong gender, so I’m going to kill you.
- Etc.

How very practical.

This brings up the other big issue I have. We as the whole of humanity illustrate daily that we are not taking adequate care of the children we already have.

Then do something about it or persuade others to. That’s what I do with my own time and money. In the mean time, I don’t use that as a rationale to kill those in the womb.

Why would you want to protect the lives of so many unborn, unwanted children who would simply join the ranks of those who are denied the life they deserve?

I find better slaughtered than poor to be a profoundly bad argument. I won’t even go into how you justify the “life they deserve” bit.

I don’t have the personal experience, but I would imagine there is not a whole lot worse than being an unwanted child, a derelict and burden to society.

Then why aren’t you advancing the cause of destroying orphans and foster children? Think of the money we’d save while putting them out of their misery!

I would rather see all our children live equally fulfilling lives than a few who have been deprived in various respects. Do you think orphanages are more appealing than a properly functioning family environment?

Those are multiple false dichotomies: Kill the unborn or others will be unhappy.

If we allow our mothers to consciously choose if or when they have children, we go a long way to eliminating unwanted children, and consequently providing all our children with the lives they deserve.

That is an argument for birth control, not murder.

Why is what I’m saying not cruel? Well, for one, who is this being cruel to? I would wager that a human fetus doesn’t have the nervous capabilities to experience pain as we perceive it.

Neither would orphans if you just gas them in their sleep. Murder without pain is still murder. I find your argument to be very uncompelling both scientifically and philosophically.

It certainly does not possess consciousness as we know it. Certainly a fertilized egg doesn’t have any of these capabilities.

So. What.

What I’m suggesting isn’t cruel because the subject doesn’t have the ability to experience cruelty, and as I’ve already said, there is usually little to no impact felt on anyone or anything by the existence of a new human being until the birthing process and afterward.

Again, very bad argument. Pain-free murder is still murder.

The unborn human being hasn’t actually experienced any life, so what life are we taking away?

Uh, the whole life? Using that logic it is only 10% murder to kill an old guy. That sentence makes the crime stronger, not lesser.

Why subject anyone to some form of unpleasantness or suffering when we can prevent it altogether?

Using your logic we should put over 90% of the world out of their misery.

I noticed something interesting about calling abortion “murdering an innocent human being.” What do you really mean when you say that?

I mean it is an indisputable scientific fact.

I realized something when I thought about all the other organic life that a fetus is most similar to. I mean just think about it for a second. If you were just holding a picture of a fetus and looked at its level of complexity, what other organisms is it most similar to?

What someone looks like at a stage of development doesn’t change what she is: A human being. And even with your “logic” most abortions are performed on human beings that are quite recognizable.

Cognitively speaking, there are thousands upon thousands of animals that possess a level of cognitive awareness closer to us than that fetus, but you say it’s still murdering an innocent human being, so I realized what you really mean when you say something like that is that we’re murdering the human being that fetus may or may not become.

That is scientifically false. She won’t become a human being, she is a human being.

When you say we’re murdering innocent human beings you’re really just mentally picturing the people those developing humans will become and saying it’s immoral to murder those fully developed human beings. You’re thinking in terms of potential.

No, I’m speaking in terms of facts and science.

Realistically speaking, however, we’re not murdering innocent human beings, because those innocent human beings haven’t even become a part of the world yet.

Really? What planet are they on? If they don’t exist on this planet then why have the abortion on this planet?

How many people does a bad economy affect? Would maintaining a healthy economy protect more human lives than abortion stops from coming into existence?

Your economic arguments are perhaps the most bizarre of all. Not only do they beg the question but they would rationalize the murder of those outside the womb.

Simply using the phrase “human being” seems to me a bit misleading.

Only if you are anti-science.

I am a human being; you are a human being; how can you logically equate the unborn with us?

Of course. They are human beings and so are we. Could I logically equate you with a newborn? Not in terms of size or age, but in inherent worth.

The only way I can possibly see you doing that is by thinking of the unborn not simply for what it is but for what it will become, in which case you’re thinking in terms of potential. If we’re thinking in terms of potential, we can’t literally be killing a physical human being like me or you; we’re instead killing the idea, the thought of that human being. Is it immoral to kill the idea of a human being?

That is gobbledygook. Seriously, if you think that view is accurate then women could just “imagine” that they are having an abortion.

Honestly, Neil, I think abortion is a sad state of affairs for any society; that circumstances permit individuals to find themselves in the process of bringing about human life they did not intend to is sad.

That is a bad argument. These people had sex. Pregnancy is a potential outcome of sex. They didn’t wake up one day and realize they’d had an accidental in vitro fertilization.

Do you find it sad that actions have consequences? Boo-hoo. But don’t kill an innocent human being over actions you regret.

If I had it my way, no one would ever have to get abortions.

Why not? You are fully convinced that they do not kill an innocent human being and you “know” they are safe, right? So they must be cost effective methods of birth control.

As it stands now, I’m more concerned with providing the kids we already have with the kind of life they deserve, and I think that if we can avoid consciously placing children in situations in which they are not reaping all life’s benefits I have no objection to doing so.

I don’t care how much you help the kids who are alive — though I wonder how much you are really doing — but I still find your “better dead than potentially poor” argument to be ghoulish and a horrible thing to say about most of the planet.

Major kudos for Stand to Reason, the ministry where I learned many of the arguments above, including the “trot out the toddler” technique and the SLED reasoning (how the Size, Level of development, Environment and Dependency don’t determine the worth of an individual).