Theological liberals vs. militant atheists — which do you prefer?

I was watching a theological liberal do his usual false teachings on this thread and noted with amusement how the atheists cheerily agreed with his religious views.  I pointed out that both should be concerned over that.  If they agreed on their favorite sports teams that would be fine.  But if an atheist or someone from another religion agreed with my foundational points about God I’d be very concerned.

Yes, militant atheists can be annoying, but I’ll take twenty of them over a fake Christian any day.  At least the atheists are fulfilling their job descriptions and there is no confusion over roles.  But the fake Christians really confuse the discussions and fuel the atheists’ false assertions that disagreements within Christianity mean that the religion can’t be true.  Their argument fails on many levels, but the actions of the false teachers give them ammunition.  That was a key theme on the link above: “Christianity must be false because Christians disagree.”

Of course, Christianity clearly predicts divisions:

  1. Many warnings of false teachers and many references to the importance of sound doctrine.
  2. The fact that Christians learn more over time — “milk/meat,” growing in knowledge (Philippians 1:9), etc.
  3. God’s guidance about disputable matters in Romans 14 and elsewhere reveals that He knew we’d have disputable matters and gave us guidance in how to handle them.
  4. Some people think they are saved but aren’t (“I never knew you” from Matthew 7, testing your salvation in 1 John, etc.)
  5. We are told not to violate our consciences, so people are right to worship in denominations that align best with their views on non-essential issues.

Based on that, if all Christians agreed on everything then that would be evidence that the Bible’s predictions failed.  The essentials are what divides Christianity from other religions: Jesus deity, his exclusivity, etc.  You can’t take the Bible seriously and miss those, which is another way of highlighting false teachers.  Example: The fake at the thread thought I was wrong to say that Christians must hold the view that Jesus is the only way to salvation.  My point was simply that if the Bible mentions it 100 times then it seems like something Christians should agree with.

Christianity has fought a two-front war from the beginning: Persecutors on the outside and false teachers on the inside.  Things haven’t changed, so we need to be on guard for both.

I think the bigger enemy is inside.

Do Christians want non-believers to go to Hell?

Of course not.  We spread the Good News because we want to obey Jesus and we want people to avoid eternal punishment.

But you wouldn’t know that by reading criticisms from some atheists.  They think we’re being big meanies by pointing out our belief in an eternal punishment for those who don’t repent and trust in Jesus.

They are missing something obvious, of course.  If we wanted people to go to Hell we’d do like the theological liberals and withhold the Gospel. We’d tell everyone that any path to God will do, or just to conceive God however you want him to be, etc. — basic fake Christian / Hindu / New Age / etc. beliefs.  Think of all the time and money we would save!  Think how much more popular we would be!

Oddly, these folks often give you the “But I like the definition [of being a Christian] being people trying to live according to the teachings of Jesus” view of Christianity as they are ignoring the reality of Hell, Jesus’ exclusivity and divinity, biblical teachings on marriage and the sanctity of human life, etc.  But Jesus’ teachings covered all those things.

How they conflate our warnings about Hell with their view that we want them to go to Hell is puzzling.  It is like saying that by warning people not to steal that you really want them to go to jail.

Jesus said Hell was real and He warned people how to avoid it.  He is the only way to salvation.  Here are a few verses on that topic.  I’ve got lots more if you need them!

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Acts 4:11-12 He is “‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.’ Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

Acts 16:30-31 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

1 John 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

1 John 5:11-12 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Luke 10:16 “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Luke 12:8-9 “I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.”

John 10:7-8 Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.

False teachers want to control your guns

The National Council of Churches and other false teachers want to control your guns, and they do it under the guise of their religion.  See Want Guns In Your Church? The NRA And Their Allies Do for a recent example of their flawed thinking.

Like the National Council of Churches, I maintain that: “Present-day violence is made far worse than it otherwise would be by the prevalence of weapons on our streets.”  

That statement is true but meaningless: Yes, if all weapons were taken away, including knives, fists, etc. then there would be less violence.

But I’ve noticed that people who are willing to steal and kill don’t change their behavior because you tell them they aren’t allowed to have guns.  They get them anyway — sometimes straight from the U.S. Government!  (See the Fast and Furious scandal.)

We need sensible gun control measures in our nation to protect the American people from gun violence, a public health crisis.  

It is sadly ironic that they consider gun violence a health crisis but are pro-abortion, including pro-taxpayer-funded abortion.

The NRA and their politicans in Congress want to expand the “rights” of gun owners so that they can carry weapons into churches and school yards across the nation.\

These false teachers are apparently too busy apologizing to Muslims to follow the news about how Christians are getting killed around the world, including violence in their own churches.  If someone wanted to kill Christians, what better place than a church on Sunday morning?  Are the killers going to care if there is a law against taking guns into churches?  I would be glad to have people armed and ready to defend the congregation.

Today The New York Times reports on the violence that has been caused by their victories at the state and local level.  People of faith and mayors are fighting back against the NRA.  As we approach the one year anniversary of the Tucson shootings it is time to double our efforts to stop gun violence in the United States.   

The NYT article was purely speculative and ignored how overturning gun control laws has reduced crime.

This is classically bad reasoning by the false teachers.  They claim to want to change people but consciously avoid sharing the real Gospel, which is the only biblical way to truly change hearts and minds.  Of course you can count the people who get hurt by guns, but what they fail to consider is the law of unintended consequences: What happens when criminals know the victims are unarmed?  Does that reduce or increase crime?  How about the lives saved because of people who could defend themselves?  And so on.

 

Kindergarten politics

And by the title I don’t mean the politics of Kindergarteners (as vicious as those can be!), I mean when elected officials do thoroughly childish things and think we won’t see through them.  The latest example is President Obama’s grandstanding on House Republicans rejection of a 2-month payroll tax cut.

Does anyone seriously think that a two-month extension would have a significant effect on the economy?  Of course not.  This is a transparent game to make it look like the Republicans are trying to “raise taxes.”  The Democrats remember how pressuring President George H. Bush to raise taxes worked to get Clinton elected, so they strive to trick Republicans into raising taxes again.  Hopefully the Republicans will continue to see through the games and force the hands of Obama and the Senate to accept or a reject a longer term deal to keep the taxes down.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, now that they took the short-term populist approach of cutting payroll taxes it will be almost impossible to raise them again.  No Republican will want to oppose letting the cuts expire, even though it technically wouldn’t be a tax increase.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Tuesday rejected legislation to extend a payroll tax cut and jobless benefits for two months, drawing a swift rebuke from President Barack Obama that Republicans were threatening higher taxes on 160 million American workers on Jan. 1.

Obama said the two-month compromise is the only way to stop payroll taxes from going up by two percentage points.

“Now let’s be clear,” Obama said in a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room after the House vote. “The bipartisan compromise that was reached on Saturday is the only viable way to prevent a tax hike on January 1st. The only one.”

Uh, the only one except the case where the Senate and Obama agree to a longer period.

Obama said failure to pass the Senate version of the payroll tax cut extension could endanger the U.S. economic recovery, which he described as “fragile but moving in the right direction.”

Obama is gearing up to run for a second term in next November’s elections and there have been suggestions he will borrow a tactic from a past president and charge that a do-thing Congress is responsible for the country’s ills.

Another option would be to get involved and actually lead.

House Republicans controlling the chamber instead of a two-month extension want immediate negotiations with the Senate on a year-long plan. But the Senate’s top Democrat on Tuesday again ruled out talks until the House passes the stopgap measure.

“President Obama needs to call on Senate Democrats to go back into session … and resolve this bill as soon as possible,” said the Republican leader of the House, Speaker John Boehner. “I need the president to help out.”

 

Reverse missionaries

u-turn.jpgTypical evangelism for any religion involves someone going out at some degree of expense and risk to share what one believes to be true.  It is a pretty simple and logical concept: If you think you know the true path to forgiveness, joy, peace and eternal life and you truly care about others, then of course you’ll want to share the Good News (regardless of how you define it).

However, some people hold the view that all religions are equally valid paths to God.  As I was reflecting on the discussions on the Jesus is still the only way thread, I was reminded that people who hold that view should have a completely different model of evangelism.  Wouldn’t it be most loving for them to send “reverse missionaries” to encourage everyone to follow their local religions?  After all, consider the persecuted people around the world who could avoid pain, suffering, economic loss, prison and even death if they just held beliefs more palatable to their culture.

For example, you’d want to send people to Christians in India, N. Korea, China, all Arab countries and more to explain to them that Hinduism/Islam/Buddhism/etc. are just as good and that they should leave Christianity to maximize their comfort and happiness.  If you follow any organizations like Voice of the Martyrs you are probably familiar with how much Christians suffer for their faith in many parts of the world.  Why suffer like that if other religions are just as good?

And loving universalists (those who believe everyone is going to Heaven, regardless of what they believe) should go to China to encourage people to be atheists.

What a tragedy that hundreds of thousands or even millions of Christians died unnecessarily for their faith over the centuries.  They should have just recanted and gone with the local religion, right?

What I’ve found is that religious pluralists and universalists do no such thing. They typically think their “home religion” is correct (why else would they belong to those denominations?) but are afraid to offend someone or risk rejection for sharing their view, or perhaps are unwilling to work to learn their beliefs well enough to defend them.

Shouldn’t false teachers who insist that all religions lead to God lend their time and money to being reverse missionaries?  Yet I never hear of them undertaking such efforts to reduce the “needless” suffering of Christians around the world.  Real faith is behaving as if what you say you believe is true.  Yet these folks don’t follow through to the logical consequences of their worldview.  This is one of the easiest ways to spot false teachers.

Of course, since I hold the view that Jesus is the one way to salvation then it is on my heart to share that with people.

If you encounter “Christians” claiming that other or even all religions are valid paths to God, ask them simply and politely if that means we should end Christian evangelism efforts and “evangelize” people to follow whatever “valid” religion will result in the least persecution for them.

Whoa — I agreed with Planned Parenthood again!

[Discerning readers will note the past tense in the title.]

First, it was their 1964 advertisement that accurately stated, among other things, that “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”  Even if I haven’t agreed with them since I was 1 yr. old, I’m always looking for common ground.

Now I found out that we agreed again on a similar truth: Life begins at fertilization.

OK well it was 1951 but still, Planned Parenthood said it!  The brochure, titled, “The Gift of Life” was discovered at a Berkeley estate sale by the San Francisco Weekly.  On page 21-22 you will read the following; “If one of the new male sperm meets and unites with an egg cell, a new life begins.”

Did they learn anything about science in the few years after that when they changed their minds about life beginning at fertilization and that abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun? Of course not. The facts of science couldn’t be more clear: A new human being is created at conception.   They just lie now for the money and to advance their worldview.  To make a living they crush and dismember innocent but unwanted human beings.
As always, I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.  When people bring up the “we don’t know when life begins” canard I highly encourage you to use this link about the scientific position plus the quotes by Planned Parenthood noted above .  Use them gently and people may see that Planned Parenthood and the like know the truth about when life begins as well as pro-lifers do, but they go on killing anyway.

Did your media inform you of these stories?

microphone.jpgIf not, you should consider expanding your horizons*.  This week’s list:

1.  NYT silent on shocking Hollywood pedophilia charges.  The evil Fox News had this story, but the NY Times did not.  (I don’t watch Fox, but I do read Hot Air).

Apparently, pedophilia is an entrenched part of Hollywood culture — but you wouldn’t know that if you only consulted The New York Times for news. Check out this Fox News account of just some of the muck that underlies Hollywood’s glamorous gilding:

If a spate of recent allegations proves true, Hollywood may have a hideous epidemic on its hands. The past two weeks have brought three separate reports of alleged child sexual abuse in the entertainment industry.

Martin Weiss, a 47-year-old Hollywood manager who represented child actors, was charged in Los Angeles on Dec. 1 with sexually abusing a former client. His accuser, who was under 12 years old during the time of the alleged abuse, reported to authorities that Weiss told him “what they were doing was common practice in the entertainment industry.” Weiss has pleaded not guilty.

On Nov. 21, Fernando Rivas, 59, an award-winning composer for “Sesame Street,” was arraigned on charges of coercing a child “to engage in sexually explicit conduct” in South Carolina. The Juilliard-trained composer was also charged with production and distribution of child pornography.

Registered sex offender Jason James Murphy, 35, worked as a casting agent in Hollywood for years before his past kidnapping and sexual abuse of a boy was revealed by the Los Angeles Times on Nov. 17. Murphy’s credits include placing young actors in kid-friendly fare like “Bad News Bears,” “The School of Rock,” “Cheaper by the Dozen 2” and the forthcoming “Three Stooges.”

What’s worse: Former child stars like Corey Feldman (“Lost Boys”) and Alison Arngrim (“Little House on the Prairie”) have said these three isolated, independent charges of child abuse are indicative of a much broader problem. Their quotes are chilling:

Corey Feldman [made] eye-opening remarks in August to ABC’s “Primetime Nightline” that “the No. 1 problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia. That’s the biggest problem for children in this industry … It’s the big secret.”

Alison Arngrim, the veteran Hollywood actress best known for her role decades ago as Nellie on “Little House on the Prairie,” has said, “This (the abuse of children) has been going on for a very long time.

“If a child actor is being sexually abused by someone on the show, is the family, agents or managers – the people who are getting money out of this – going to say, ‘OK, let’s press charges’? No, because it’s going to bring the whole show to a grinding halt, and stop all the checks,” says Arngrim. “So, the pressure is there not to say anything.”

P.S. Paging Lady Gaga … Wouldn’t this kind of child molestation qualify as bullying in a big way?

Yes, it seems like the anti-bullying stars (who only seem to oppose bullying of gays, whereas conservatives oppose all bullying) should be bold and brave and “out” the molesters.  But that might cost them something.

2. It is fair game to criticize Rick Perry and anyone else who forgets things they should know.  But does your media give equal time to Liberal gaffes

Said Obama while looking around the room: “We are honored to be joined by… one of the Justice of the Supreme Court Ruth.” At this moment the President made a move with his forehead and eyes saying “ah…” and then looked down at his papers and said “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is here.”

This of course is worse than when Texas Governor Perry who was clearly referring to a specific 8-1 ruling said “eight unelected Justices,” nor is the same as when Perry said “Not Montemayor,” knowing clearly that he does not have the correct name of Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Or how about the NY Congresswoman who hadn’t heard of “Fast and Furious?”  She not only misses out on it in the news but doesn’t even notice it at work!

3. ACORN was exposed by conservative journalists.  The Mainstream (Leftist) Media would have ignored them completely – just like they are ignoring that ACORN is back in the form of the Occupy Movement.

When the radical group ACORN was shut down, Jeff Quinton at Quinton Reports reminds us, the state and local chapters of ACORN reconstituted themselves as new non-profits. And guess what they’ve been up to lately?

In more than two dozen cities across the nation Tuesday, an offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street movementtook on the housing crisis by re-occupying foreclosed homes, disrupting bank auctions and blocking evictions.
Occupy Our Homes said it’s embarking on a “national day of action” to protest the mistreatment of homeowners by big banks, who they say made billions of dollars off of the housing bubble by offering predatory loans and indulging in practices that took advantage of consumers.

4. The “Fast and Furious” debacle has been barely covered by the Mainstream Media, especially the part about its goal to to undermine legal firearm ownership.

5. While the Obama administration is aggressively exporting its pro-gay ideology to other countries (basically forcing their beliefs on others), they are silent on religious persecution.

We all know about the report of the Obama Administration saying it will check to see what countries are doing on the gay rights front to make sure gays are not being persecuted. But at the same time the Obama Administration has decided to not reauthorize the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

The Commission investigates religious liberty issues around the world and informs the State Department about nations persecuting people because of religion, including Christians.

In other words, we’re going to start checking up on how countries treat gays and lesbians, but Obama wants to shut down the Commission that investigates how countries treat citizens who believe in God.

6. Do death threats qualify as bullying if they are made against Christians?  Apparently not.  See Charges Filed as Oklahoma City Pastor Paul Blair Gets Death Threats after Opposing Pro-Homosexual Ordinance.  Fortunately the legal system is stepping in here, but don’t expect to hear about this in any Liberal media outlets.

 

*One of the best time-savers when discussing politics with Liberals is to ask what conservative media they consume. Typical answer: [Crickets chirping]. Then you politely note that you consume plenty of media from both sides and then form your opinions. That isn’t what makes you right (well, it makes you Right but not necessarily correct), but it does mean you have examined the issues from both sides while they probably haven’t. (Yes, they could pose the same question to you, but I don’t know anyone who can only consume conservative media. The Leftist mainstream media is very, very hard to avoid.)