Opposing late term abortions is good morality and good politics

Republican politicians have a bad habit of either ignoring abortion or saying stupid things about it.  I addressed easy ways to fix the stupid things problem in How pro-life apologetics–and a little common sense–could have swayed the elections.  But that was more about making proper arguments when asked about the issue.

But does that mean they should otherwise avoid the topic?  Not at all, especially when considering issues like late term abortions, where 70% of people agree with us.  Remember, the Democrats are on record as pro-abortion extremists.  I say that without hyperbole.  Taxpayer-funded late term abortions are right there in their platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

Via A Winning Issue: Abortion and Pascal’s Wager, check out the impact of taking this issue on in Virginia, where Ken Cuccinelli found out too late how to take on Terry McAuliffe..

What moved the voters most was an attack on McAuliffe’s positions on abortion; a single phone message emphasizing McAuliffe’s support for unrestricted, late-term, and taxpayer-funded abortions shifted support a net 13 to 15 points away from McAuliffe and toward Cuccinelli. The cost per vote here was a remarkably cheap $0.50 per additional vote, and even less expensive still when targeting the most persuadable segment of the electorate.

. . .

Essentially, this paper presents the abortion issue as a political version of Pascal’s Wager. For a GOP candidate running for office and ignoring abortion is not possible. You have to decide to be either a sufficiently virulent variety pro-abort that makes it impossible for you to be attacked by Planned Parenthood or you have to be vocally pro-life and attack the issue head on.

The decision should be easy.  Abortion is criminal. There is no medical reason for abortion. Late term abortion is indistinguishable from infanticide. Abortion has nothing to do with women’s rights and everything to do with how we value the most vulnerable members of our society. Every culture that has embrace abortion has inevitably moved on to embraced post-partum infanticide and euthanasia.

There is no reason our candidates should refuse to take a stand against abortion, but especially against late term abortion. It is not only moral, it is good politics.

So be prepared with sound arguments and don’t avoid the topic!  Again, the Democrats are on record as pro-abortion extremists.  Republicans should remind people of that all day, every day.

P.S. Opposing all abortions is good morality and good politics as well, if you do it right.

Dear theologically weak churches: Here’s how to save millions on your next church building expansion!

Don’t expand, but preach the Bible more faithfully.  That will clear some space in the pews and the parking lot.

Sure, things have gotten crowded and you are sure you need more space.  But there is a win-win solution that is far superior to wasting more money on facilities: Just preach verse-by-verse through the Bible faithfully and accurately.  You won’t pull up all the tares, but enough of them will transplant themselves to other watered-down churches or leave altogether that you’ll have plenty of space.  And that’s OK!  Trust God with the process.

Worried about losing money?  That could happen, but my guess is that your committed believers are the biggest donors anyway.  And your faithful teaching will probably result in more authentic converts attending your church.

It comes down to this: Do you trust the word of God to accomplish what the word of God promises it will do, or do you have to edit it on his behalf?  Sounds absurd, right?  Yet that is what countless churches do.

Yes, you’ll chase some people away if you go verse-by-verse through Romans 1 and explain what it really means.  But here’s an easy out: Just tell them that if they don’t like it, their problem is with God, not you.  It completely takes you off the hook.

And yes, I know that some non-believers may be converted while at your watered-down church.  By God’s grace it happened to me, but it was in spite of the church I was attending, not because of it.  But again, do you trust

And maybe you’ll convict some people in the process.  The worst-case scenario is that you’ll honor God.

Warning: Your church might grow like crazy, though.  My youngest daughter’s church is in a very Leftist city.  Yet they joke that as they preached on sin (with a balance of grace, of course) each week through the book of Romans they grew dramatically.

If we did this right we could go decades without building new churches.  We’ve got all the buildings we need for those that are authentically seeking God.

One of the best blog posts I’ve seen. Really.

And I’ve read tens of thousands.  There is a reason that Matt Walsh’s blog readership is growing like crazy.  He has great writing and a sense of humor along with a solidly Christian worldview.

This is one of the best apologetic pieces I’ve seen, and a terrific eye-opener for the atheists who just spout silly sound bites.  Via Why do you Christians always throw the Bible in my face? | The Matt Walsh Blog.  Go read it all.

Seriously, it hurts. Stop it, will ya? Yesterday I walked by a church and the pastor barreled out of the door, ran into the street, screamed “BIBLE!” and chucked it right at my head.

Well, that didn’t LITERALLY happen. But he did say, “good afternoon, God bless,” which is basically the same thing.

In any case, Christians are always shoving their religion in people’s faces. Everything they say, every position they hold, every thought they express — it’s all RELIGION. Even if they don’t explicitly say, “I think this because of my religion,” we all know the score. If it comes from RELIGION, as a secularist, I must hate it. If it’s been heavily influenced or transformed by RELIGION or RELIGIOUS people, I must hate it. That’s why I’m not a big fan of art, architecture, democracy, science, medicine, philosophy, astronomy, the university system, the abolition of slavery, America, Natural Law, Natural Rights, mathematics, the justice system, literature, music, and civilization.

Devious. Devious Christians. It’s like they have this secret plot and they use all of these methods to subversively give glory to their fake sky wizard. That’s a good line, isn’t it? I take this idea of God; the uncaused cause, the first mover, the Creator, the Absolute, the Answer to the riddle that no quantum physicist has ever been able to solve, and I equate it to a “wizard.” As if belief in dimensions of existence that transcend our physical plane can somehow be fairly compared to belief in magical Disney creatures. It’s an effective tactic, isn’t it? Aquinas, DaVinci, Shakespeare, Washington — most of the intellectual giants and great leaders in the past two thousand years have been guided by this conviction, but I can utterly dismiss it with one sarcastic and belittling phrase. There are thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of Christian apologetics written by some of the smartest men and women to ever walk the face of the Earth, yet I can chalk it all up to something as absurd as the Tooth Fairy. And you know what? I can do that without even reading ANY of those pages! You know why? Because I’m a critical thinker, my friend.

A critical thinker — I think about criticizing things. And then I do, without understanding the depth, enormity and beauty of that which I mock.

Stupid Christians. Stupid Christians and their “truth.” You know what they do, don’t you? They all meet in dark rooms around small tables and plot their continued peaceful takeover of the planet. That’s why they prowl all over the Earth, trying to spread their “message” to the disaffected masses. These people – they’re everywhere. You can’t find a single corner, crevice, desert, or third world wasteland that isn’t infested by Christians and their “charities”, and their “hospitals”, and their “ministries”. Believe me, I’ve tried. Sure, it’s getting better here in this country. Christians did the work of settling, building and establishing our nation, but then, in the 1960s, us anti-theists chimed in and said, “thanks, but we’ll take it from here.” There just wasn’t nearly enough nudity, drug usage, and nihilistic apathy, and we knew there never would be if Christians kept running the show. Oh, AND we led the Civil Rights Movement.

Well, the icon of Civil Rights was a reverend, but still.

I’ve tried to escape these Christians. I went to Ethiopia, thinking, surely, I’ll be free of their propaganda in this forsaken pocket of poverty and misery. But what did I see? Christians. Christians down there in the muck and the dirt, serving and loving and healing. Nobody else. Just them. They can never mind their business, can they? Oh don’t give them credit for this “charity.” They’re only doing it out of obedience, reverence and faith. Selfish jerks.

And so I left that place and I traveled east, and then south, and then back north, and still I found them. Everywhere, I found them. I found them in places where their kind is tortured, murdered and persecuted. But they remain. They stay and they spread their Gospel like a virus. It’s quite sad to see those who are brainwashed by it. They smile in the face of pain and sing songs of praise — PRAISE — while they suffer. Christians are far more ravenous and extreme in destitute countries. Hopefully the Christians in America never borrow even a fraction of the enthusiasm and passion that their brothers and sisters in the Third World possess.

 

Roundup

This sums up theologically Left churches nicely.

Jesus

And yet another Leftist fake “hate crime” hoax — that “Those awful Christians left a mean note instead of a tip for the lesbian waitress” thing was a fraud – Another fake gay hate crime…with a twist

American Library Association Sticks Up for Porn in Libraries – And yet another reason my librarian wife refuses to join the American Library Association.

Educrats: Send Kids on Islamic Field Trip or They Will Be Officially Branded as Racists – Creeping Sharia.

Good news from the Middle East

We spent a few hours in the Dubai airport a couple years ago on our way to and from Kenya, but didn’t go out into the city.  It was a huge and wildly busy airport 24 hours a day.  Even from the airport windows the city looked beautiful.  I assumed it was as restrictive about Christianity as other Muslim nations, but apparently not.  Via Dubai: Amazing and Strategic City – Desiring God.

Proselytizing is against the law in the UAE. But what that means in essence is: You can’t pay someone to convert (as if that were possible) or unduly coerce them to change religions. But speaking the gospel of Jesus Christ abounds.

There are many Christian churches, and the ruler of the emirate is favorable to them for the sake of the expatriates. Only about 13% of Dubai’s local population is local Emirati people. The other 87% are expatriates, half of whom are of Indian descent. Thousands of these are Christians.

Therefore, the gospel sounds forth weekly in Dubai. And on the university campuses, there are organizations that aggressively seek to speak to students about what the Bible really teaches.

That is the best possible definition of proselytizing.  By definition, authentic Christian faith can’t be bought or coerced.  I hope and pray that this situation lasts and that the Gospel spreads from there to the rest of the region.

The Liberal / Leftist mindset summarized perfectly in one phrase — in their own words

Obamacare Supporter Surprised When She Loses Her Coverage

Alternate title: Mugged by reality.

Seriously, what could better explain their worldview?  The same thing happens weekly in theologically Liberal churches led by false teachers such as Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis.  They take verses out of context about helping the “least of these” — while hypocritically supporting the Democrats’ platform of unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortions that literally destroy the least of these — yet it never occurs to them that by definition you can only give your own money.  If you ask “Caesar” to take it from neighbor A by force to redistribute to neighbor B, then that isn’t giving.  See the good folks at Dictionary.com on the difference between giving and taxes if you need help with that.

Here is a better view of real giving, courtesy of the Holy Spirit:

2 Corinthians 9:6-7 The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

As evil and incompetent as the Obama administration is, they aren’t completely without intellect.  They are so committed to their horrific Cloward/Piven/Alinsky agenda that they don’t mind looking foolish as long as they get their end game: Universal health care and more government control of everything.  They know there is a tipping point after which it will be too late to stop it, short of a full-blown revolution.

But quotes from Leftist voters who are finally impacted by the consequences of their worldview do give a glimmer of hope.  Hopefully enough people will notice how Obama is pushing the next wave of bad news to just after the November 2014 elections and they’ll realize that he didn’t just lie to them once.

Republicans have a golden opportunity — which, admittedly, they will probably ruin — to reset voter expectations for a decade or more.  They just need to relentlessly point out the consequences of the Leftist mindset of “charity” and how superior and more fair the free market approach is.

Local church billboard: “Building strong families! Singles not welcome!”

OK, it didn’t say the part about the singles.  But it might was well have.  It had the obligatory cute family that might not probably almost certainly doesn’t attend that church.  And those churches never seem to market to singles.  My guess is that they treat them well when they attend and may even have ministries for them, but I prefer one-size-fits-all messages from churches.

I think of things like this when I see church billboards that advertise only to families, as if single people wouldn’t be welcome or wouldn’t want or need the church just as badly.

[A]re singles wrong when they say the church looks so much like a club for families that they don’t feel like they are normal, whole and blessed?…Did Jesus emphasize marriage as we do in most churches? — Robert Spenser

Don’t get me wrong.  I think marriage is super important and that Christianity has the best views on it.   I think those “shiny happy people” billboards can make people with significant problems think that they won’t fit in.  Anyone interested in finding the real God on his terms should be welcomed.

Hat tip: David from Facebook

Democrat Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist “Church” is still a Democrat

I love pointing out that Democrat Fred Phelps is a Democrat. The typical reaction from those on the Left is denial and disbelief. They just know that he must be a Republican, even though there is a good reason that the media never mentions his party affiliation.  After all, why would the Leftist media leave out such a key fact as his political affiliation (he actually ran for office) while they are trying to paint him as a right-winger? Oh, wait, I answered my own question.

Of course I’m not trying to imply that all Democrats are like Fred. I’m pointing to just another example of media bias and how they leave out key facts to distort the truth.

I encourage others to point out his official party affiliation every time that he or his Westboro Baptist “church” are mentioned.

Don’t just take my word for it or even that of (eek!) Wikipedia.  Go here and search for yourself – https://myvoteinfo.voteks.org/VoterView/RegistrantSearch.do .

fred phelps

If you trust the mainstream media you are not using wisdom and discernment.

Hat tip for the link to the voter registration site: Sifting Reality

 

“What ‘gay marriage’ did to Massachusetts” should be required viewing . . .

. . . for all those who have been saturated by the Leftist education, media and entertainment industries and who have been repeating the falsehood that it won’t impact other people.  Seriously, this is less than 30 minutes.  That seems like a small investment to counter the hundreds of hours of propaganda that you’ve been subjected to.

People who say that “same-sex marriage” won’t harm you or others are deceived or deceivers.

People who claim the name of Christ and support “same-sex marriage” or say that homosexual behavior isn’t a sin violate the two greatest commandments.

  • By disagreeing with the clear word of God they show that they aren’t loving him.
  • By putting their popularity over the welfare of their neighbors with LGBTQ temptations they don’t love their neighbors.

Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).planned
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind.

Here’s a direct link to the video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZX55HUPFSU .  Please bookmark it and share it with those who say this won’t harm others.

* The three general types of pro-gay theology people: 1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God” (obviously non-Christians) 2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling theological Liberals” (only about 10 things wrong with that) 3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

Poor arguments to make with theists

circle-slash.jpgA favorite updated for your reading pleasure.

This is a companion piece to Poor arguments to make with atheists.  I deliberately used theists instead of Christians to keep things simple, though I did use some Christian examples below.  I accumulated these from various atheist web sites or comments made here.

I enjoy questions with people who are willing to have a charitable dialogue.  I don’t waste time with people who come by with poorly reasoned sound bites they picked up from their Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris trinity or the Big Book O’ Atheist Sound Bites.

Also see a list of 300 disproofs of God’s existence (a parody on the common lines of reasoning often used by atheists).

1.  There are lots of denominations within Christianity and lots of religions with differing truth claims.  There must be a solid majority with complete agreement for God to be real, so this is evidence that there is no God.

And where did they arrive at this piece of spiritual truth?   But if the truth is determined by a majority vote, then there must be a God.  There are far more religious people than atheists.  But the truth is the truth no matter how few agree, and a lie is a lie no matter how many agree. And if the majority rules with respect to truth claims then atheism is false, because most people believe there is a God.

Christianity claims to be the narrow road.  Jesus didn’t expect a majority to follow him.  And the Bible addresses many false teachings and warns of others to come.
Also, as one atheist noted when trying to rally people to do “raiding parties” on theist sites, “Atheists as we all know from bitter arguments on this site, embrace a pretty broad range of views.”  So by their logic they must have a false worldview, right?

2. Why is it that religious people resort to imaginary answers (faith) built on the circular reasoning that the bible provides those answers? Does god exist? Yes, because the bible says so. D’uh!.

That is an actual quote.  I got this a lot from the Dawkins’ blog “raiding party.”  I call this the fallacy-within-a-fallacy argument.  They make a straw man argument about us making a circular argument.

I never made that claim about the Bible other than noting that the Bible does claim 3,000 times to speak for God and that it is a sort of necessary condition to be considered the word of God.  We have lots of reasons to believe it is the word of God, but we don’t need circular reasoning for it.

He also uses a non-Biblical definition of faith.  We have faith in something, and it isn’t a “blind faith” or a faith in spite of the evidence.

3. Arguing from incredulity: You just have a made-up invisible friend in the sky, etc., etc.  Do you probably believe in santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?

This charming ad hominem attack works both ways.  I submit that A is far more incredible to believe than B, and could have expanded on A for days.

A. The universe was created from nothing without a cause and organized itself into the spectacular level of complexity we see today, including life being created from non-life, and it evolved to create the “fictions” of morality and consciousness.

B. The universe was created by an eternally existent God.

We have lots of evidence for the existence of God: Cosmological (”first cause”), teleological (design), morality, logic, the physical resurrection of Jesus, etc.  If atheists don’t find that compelling, then so be it. I’m on the Great Commission, not the paid commission. But to insist that we have no evidence is uncharitable in the extreme and makes reasoned dialogue virtually impossible.

4. Arguments from ridicule (also see #3).  You can sprinkle in some ridicule to make an argument more entertaining, but using it as your primary argument is weak and fallacious.  Having visited quite a few atheist websites this seems to be their main line of reasoning.

5. As a Christian, you deny all gods but one. As an atheist, I deny all gods. We’re practically the same.

This is a cute but horribly illogical argument.  Saying there is no God isn’t a little different than saying there is one God, it is the opposite.  That’s like saying, “You deny all other women as your wives except one, so you’re practically the same as a single person.”

6. You don’t have empirical evidence for ____ (God, the resurrection, etc.).

To quote Bubba: “Can one prove that only empirical evidence is trustworthy? Better yet, can one prove this by using only empirical evidence?”

The answers, of course, are no and no.

The argument is a “heads we win, tails you lose” trick.  They say that you can only consider natural causes for the creation of the universe, and since they have nothing to test then there could not have been any supernatural cause, right?

And we do have lots of evidence for the resurrection.

7. Parents shouldn’t be allowed to indoctrinate / brainwash their children with religious beliefs.

The brainwashing must not be working, because so many people leave the church.  And why isn’t it brainwashing when the schools do it with evolution and their sickening strategies to take away the innocence of young children?

I find it interesting that with such low church attendance, general Biblical illiteracy and the monopoly that materialism has in public education that most people still don’t buy the macro-evolution lie.  No wonder evolutionists are so frustrated!

Some parents may go overboard with the fear of Hell thing.  But parents have rights, and more importantly, strong warnings are only inappropriate if the consequence in question is not true.

8. The Bible teaches _____ [fill in hopelessly (and deliberately?) wrong interpretation].

Please learn more about the Bible and the faith you are trying to criticize.  Straw-man arguments are unproductive.  This is perhaps the most common error I come across.  It seems like a week rarely goes by without someone using the “shrimp/shellfish argument,” which is full of holes but is appealing to many because so few bother to study the passages. I address five serious problems with it in flaws of the shellfish argument.

9. Christians disagree on what the Bible teaches (or Muslims disagree on the Koran, etc.) so there can’t be one right answer.

Just because a book is capable of being misunderstood doesn’t mean it is incapable of being understood.  Disagreements in science don’t mean everyone must be wrong.

If you have actually studied the Bible you’ll note that it addresses many false teachings and warns that there will always be false teachers.  So the concept that people disagree on what the Bible says isn’t exactly newsworthy.  It is Biblical, in fact.

10. Why do religious people keep quoting bits out of a book written long ago by stone aged (or bronze aged) and ignorant men?

The men who wrote the Bible were quite intelligent.  The Apostle Paul, for example, was well educated, articulate and a clear thinker.  Go read the book of Romans and see what I mean.

The age of the book is completely irrelevant, of course.  If God wrote it the message would be timeless.  And of course, if it were written last week they’d complain that it was too late.

The complaint that our responses are old is also invalid.  The objections are old as well.  The funny thing is that over the last 2,000 years brilliant theists have wrestled with the same questions the New Atheists have, except with more clarity and thoughtfulness.

11. Why do religious people not understand the scientific and philosophical arguments against the existence of god which clearly refute its existence?

This commenter didn’t share any of those arguments or refer to any sources, so it is difficult to answer even if the objection didn’t have a flawed premise (it is basically a “have you stopped beating your wife” type of question that anyone on any side of an issues could use).  Many of us know and understand the arguments and how to respond to them.

12. I can’t understand or conceive of why God would set things up this way, so He must not exist.

We call this “creating God in your own image.”  See the 2nd Commandment.  The atheists making claims like that paraphrase are actually making ironic theological statements, because they claim to know what God should “really” be like.

If you create your own universe with working DNA and such, you can make your own rules.  But whether you like it or not you play by God’s rules in this universe and you’ll have to give an account for your life.  Ignorance is not an excuse.  If you suppress the truth in unrighteousness you will experience God’s wrath for eternity.  You will be judged by God for all your sins, including your darkest, most shameful secret thoughts and deeds.  And the standard won’t be some other sinner like me, it will be the perfect righteousness of Jesus.

Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Romans 2:15-16 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

13. Some people who call themselves Christians do and/or say stupid things, so Christianity is false.

That doesn’t disprove Christianity any more than atheists doing and saying stupid things proves that there is a God.

In fact, Christians saying and doing stupid things probably bothers us more than it does atheists.  Believe it or not, we have some common ground there.

14. Religion poisons everything!  What about the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.?!

That is unproductive hyperbole.  Religion has done many great things – helping the poor, building hospitals and schools, great art, etc.

You don’t judge an ideology based on the actions of those who violate its tenets.  Click the link above for more.

The Salem Witch trials killed 18 people.  The Inquisition killed about 2,000.  That is 2,018 too many, to be sure, but keep in mind two things: The perpetrators did the opposite of what Jesus commanded and 2,018 murders was a slow afternoon for atheists like Stalin and Mao.

Here’s a quote from a guy trying to rally atheists to their cause by raiding theist blogs like this one – to rescue the world from this religious poison, I suppose.  Messiah complex, anyone?

In a very real (but perhaps overly dramatic sense) the fate of the planet is at stake.

Uh, yes, “perhaps.”  But if atheism is true then who cares if the planet dies?  You must use empirical evidence to prove why it would be a bad thing :-).

I have noted that these critics focus almost exclusively on Christianity.  When you point this out to them they squirm and say it is the one they are most familiar with.  But with the growth of radical Islam and the perversions of the caste system in India you’d think they’d spread their evangelical atheism out a bit.

15. Religion gets in the way of scientific progress.

That is simply untrue.  The Galileo story that people usually refer to has many mythical elements.  And how many people can cite an example besides Galileo?  And who knows, maybe Einstein’s presupposition of a static universe caused his error with the cosmological constant.  After all, an expanding universe certainly gives more support to a theist model than a static one.

Darwinistic philosophy caused errors like assuming that “Junk DNA” was really junk.

16. You don’t use reason and we do.

That is just patently false.  Atheists just don’t like the reasons.  Christianity in particular encourages and applauds the use of reason.  Countless great thinkers and scientists were Bible-believing Christians.  Darwinistic philosophy can’t even account for reason, because macro-evolution would select for survivability, no truth.

Closing thoughts: As frequent commenter Edgar has pointed out so well, even if every religion is completely false and atheism is true, then naturalism is to blame.  So it is irrational to get mad at religion or religious people.  We’re just doing what our genes tell us to.

And, of course, you would have absolutely nothing to be proud about.  You haven’t accomplished anything and haven’t generated any brilliant or meaningful ideas.  You are just a bag of chemicals that thinks you have.  Congratulations!  You have no reason for bitterness or grandstanding.

All fun aside, those who can stay away from time-wasting arguments and who want to engage in an actual dialogue are welcome.

I hope that atheists reconsider their views.  Eternity is a mighty long time.  The true God of the universe delights to show forgiveness and mercy, but you must come to him on his terms: Repenting and trusting in Jesus.

Confessing sins that you didn’t commit and forgiving actions not done against you

Kevin DeYoung makes some great points in Ruthlessness Accompanied by Unctuous Moralizing.  When people “confess” sins that they didn’t commit they are actually making themselves look pious when they aren’t.

It’s always right to confess sin, right?

When God pricks our consciences and brings us to the point where we can see our sin, hate our sin, confess our sin, and turn from our sin and turn to Christ, it is one of the surest signs of the work of the Holy Spirit.

But not all confession is created equal. Confessing faults we don’t really see, just to get people off our backs, is duplicitous. Confessing sins that aren’t really sins is the sign of a conscience gone awry. And confessing the mistakes and moral blindness of others usually amounts to tendentious manipulation. It may be from the best of intentions (or it may not), but it is a dangerous thing to loudly confess a host of sins we have not committed and for which we are not individually, or even corporately, responsible.

Read his entire post.  It is quite good.  Leftists are great at doing what he describes.

On the flip side, sometimes people offer forgiveness when they don’t have standing.  If someone didn’t sin against you, there isn’t anything to forgive.

Why conservative views are better

The title may sound a little brash, but if people are honest they’ll concede that they think their views are better.  Otherwise, why would they hold them?

So why are conservative views better?  They reflect a much better understanding of reality, specifically  human nature (e.g., original sin) and the Law of Unintended Consequences (things don’t happen in vacuums; if you change a law then people will react to that), common sense (why should someone hire you if you can’t help them succeed?) and more.

Just a few examples . . .

Abortion: Crushing and dismembering innocent yet unwanted human beings rarely solves problems.  Yes, it is unfortunate when unplanned pregnancies occur, but killing the unborn is wrong.

Liberals act as if conservatives are not compassionate towards women with crisis pregnancies, but go visit a Pregnancy Resource Center and see if it is funded, managed and staffed with conservatives or liberals.  Liberal “compassion” is to use murder to pretend to solve the problem.

The right to life is a true right.  Social justice begins in the womb.

Gun control: Liberals argue by anecdote that guns are bad and must be controlled.  Conservatives realize that while there will be exceptions, society at large is much better off with the option of being armed against criminals and bad governments.  Human nature is such that bad people and bad governments are less likely to act against potentially well-armed people.  Gun violence is greater where there are more restrictions.  I know from prison ministry that bad guys are similar to the rest of the population in many ways: They want maximum gain with minimum risk.  Why go where people are armed when there is somewhere they are unarmed?  It is foolish to think that disarming law-abiding citizens will improve crime rates.

Poverty: Conservatives want to help those who can’t help themselves, such as orphans and some widows.

Conservatives know that you get more of what you fund.  Give incentives for single mothers?  You get more single mothers.  Give incentives to illegal aliens?  You get more illegal aliens.

Anstudies show that by any measure — giving time, money or even blood donations — conservatives are more generous.  They just don’t lobby Caesar to “give” your money and count it as a good deed on their part.

Sex scandals: Both sides may have them, but Republicans generally kick their perpetrators to the curb (Mark Sanford is an exception, not the rule).  What about the Democrats?  Barney Frank had a male prostitution ring in his home.  Bill Clinton had many affairs, sex with an intern in a white house and strong accusations of rape.  If Monica hadn’t saved the dress he’d still be lying.  But he gets $100,000+ per speech and is still worshiped by countless Democrats.  Ted Kennedy (need I say more?).  The “Reverend” Jesse Jackson had adultery and used his organization’s funds to pay off a mistress.  The Democrats can’t bring themselves to kick out the San Diego mayor.  Anthony Weiner thinks people will overlook his continued bizarre behavior — and he may be right!  And on and on.

War: Neither side likes war.  Conservatives understand the simple truth of peace through strength.  Bullies don’t bully kids who are bigger or better armed.  It is pathetically naive to think you can live in a world without violence.

More on Facebook memes

Facebook memes can be clever and insightful, but often fallacious.  Even on the conservative side there are too many that just attempt to say “Obama is stupid” in a different way.  I find those pointless and counterproductive.  If your meme could be used by your ideological foes just by changing the names, then it proves nothing.

But the Liberal FB pages are true train wrecks of bad thinking.  Here are a few.  Feel free to borrow any of these responses without attribution.

The pictures didn’t paste properly for some reason, so I posted generic titles.

—–

Memes that imply we are making “same-sex marriage” illegal.

The Bible doesn’t say that oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” should be illegal. It also doesn’t comment on square circles. Here’s what it does say: The Bible couldn’t be more clear. Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
  • 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
  • 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind.

* The three general types of pro-gay theology people: 1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God” (obviously non-Christians) 2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind and is only telling theological Liberals” (only about 10 things wrong with that) 3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

The writer does not understand the 1st Amendment, which protects religious and political speech and does not restrict them. My religion also teaches me that you shouldn’t beat kill atheists and take their property. Using the logic of this meme, I must vote the opposite of that in the public square.

The writer also does not understand that we aren’t making “gay marriage” illegal, we are saying there are not good reasons to have the gov’t get involved in those unions.
There is no “right” to gov’t recognition of same-sex unions. Here’s why: 1. It is an oxymoron: “The same sex union of a man and a woman.” People have as much of a right to it as they do to a square circle. 2. By nature and design, homosexual couples can not produce children. 3. By nature and design, homosexual couples can never provide a mother and a father to a child, which is the obvious ideal whether you are religious or an atheist (there are no gay parents in Darwinian evolution). 4. Sexual behavior does not confer Civil Rights status.

Note that none of those reasons involve religious arguments, even though there is nothing wrong with letting our religious views inform our political views. If people want to know what Jesus thinks on the matter I’d be glad to tell them.

I anticipate several canards when addressing this topic, such as the “but they love each other” bit. Those arguments come from ignorance or disingenuousness. After all, no one — including all the Christians I know — is saying they can’t have relationships. Hey, they can go to any number of apostate churches and get “married.” The question is whether we want or need the government to regulate their relationships. We don’t.

What about hospital visitation, estate issues, etc.? They can be solved without changing the definition of marriage to “a union of any combination of things that we decide it to be.” For example, estate taxes are ghoulish and should be abandoned for everyone, not just gays (do you really want the gov’t to profit from your death?).

—-
-
Memes asking why we kill to show that killing is wrong

Poor choice of words: It should read, why do we kill people to show that murder is wrong. Murder is killing without adequate justification.

My guess is that the author and most of the people who liked this support the Democrats’ official platform of unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortions, all of which kill innocent but unwanted human beings. Where is the righteous indignation over that? It is a scientific fact — and common sense — that a new human being is created at fertilization, and abortion kills those human beings.

—–
Memes that imply we are forcing religious beliefs on others
That is gibberish.  First, we can make arguments against killing unwanted human beings (abortion) and against oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” without religion (though there is nothing wrong with religious arguments).  Second, you don’t have a freedom to kill others just because they are small and in their mother’s womb (what about their freedoms?) and you don’t have a right to a square circle (i.e., “same-sex marriage”)
.
—–

Anti-Wal Mart / anti-business memes

The owners of the company get the profits? Gee, when did that start? Their opponents are welcome to compete against Wal-Mart starting today.  They should quit complaining and start their own businesses! They’ll be superior employers, of course, and pay higher wages and benefits, so they’ll be able to take the best and brightest from those evil businesses. It will be a win-win — help the people and hurt your enemies, right?

Oh, but it will be hard work. Never mind..

—–
Memes comparing the favorable definitions of Liberal with the unpleasant antonyms 

The question is whether Liberals are really “liberal.” Tolerant? LOL. They are the most intolerant people I’ve seen. They fit the definition of bigot perfectly: big·ot – noun – a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Generous and charitable? Hardly. Conservatives give more time, money and even blood donations than Liberals and that politicians like Obama, Gore, Kennedy, etc. are notoriously cheap with their own wallets. http://spectator.org/archives/2008/06/06/liberal-scrooges

It isn’t giving when you ask the gov’t to take from your neighbor by force to give to someone else. That’s coveting.

And so on. That is why the term Leftist is much more accurate than Liberal.

—–

The typical “shellfish argument” meme

Bible lessons from non-believers are always entertaining.  The shrimp / shellfish argument is full of holes but is appealing to many because so few bother to study the passages. I address five serious problems with it in flaws of the shellfish argument.   http://tinyurl.com/shellfishflaws

—–

Memes pretending to know what Jesus is really like 

Jesus is the “author of life” and does not support crushing and dismembering innocent but unwanted human beings.  He also defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.  He is fully God and fully Man and the Bible turned out just as He wanted it to.

—–

Generic memes implying we are anti-freedom for opposing government recognition of “same-sex marriage”

That’s a great pro-life slogan! You are right, we shouldn’t deny the right to life to the unborn just because they are unwanted.

Oh, wait, you were pretending that by not having the gov’t recognize same-sex unions that we are denying them the freedom to be together? That’s a lie. They can get “married” in all sorts of fake churches and live together and love whomever they like.

—–
Memes saying how homosexuality is seen in nature / memes about “homophobia”
So you get your sexual ethics from animal behavior?  Male dogs will try to have sex with female dogs, male dogs, your coffee table, your leg, etc.  Remind me not to come to your house for dinner if that is your standard for sexual mores.

Many people play the fallacious “homophobia” card reflexively because so few call them on it.  If you really love people, you’ll tell them the truth.

“Homophobia” is a foolish pejorative manufactured to dismiss the legitimate claims of the opposing side.  After all, if your opponent is certifiably psychotic you don’t even have to respond to them.  Isn’t that convenient?!

The true homophobes are those who are so scared of the gay lobby and of being politically incorrect that they mock God, the Bible, natural law and common sense.   Verses about millstones, “woe to those who call evil good and good evil” and “I never knew you” come to mind.

—–

Memes about what Jesus is “really” like

Hey, how about loving the neighbor in the womb?

If you love them, you’ll tell them the truth: They are sinners in need of Savior.  If they don’t repent and trust in the real Jesus then they will pay for their sins for eternity in Hell.

—–

The meme pretending you are inconsistent if you are anti-abortion but aren’t spending equal time on the poor

That’s a false meme. Both are human beings, and I support laws preventing either from being crushed and dismembered because they are unwanted. I’m consistent. Pro-abortion Leftists are consistent as well — they aren’t helping either one.

You also falsely assume that if someone doesn’t fight every possible social ill with equal effort then it is bad on their part. That’s transparently false.

And studies show that by any measure — giving time, money or even blood donations — conservatives are more generous. They just don’t lobby Caesar to “give” your money and count it as a good deed on their part. See http://www.nationalreview.com/content/who-really-cares

Religious pluralism is intellectually bankrupt

pluralism.jpg

There are two main kinds of religious pluralism.  One is good and one is intellectually bankrupt.

Good pluralism: Numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society.

Bad pluralism: All religions are true and equally valid paths to God.

Pluralism can be a good thing if it means we should tolerate the beliefs of others.  Jesus, who was God in flesh, didn’t force anyone to convert.  So why should we think that we can?

Christianity should flourish in a society with good pluralism, as the Gospel can be shared freely and there isn’t pressure to fake one’s beliefs.  Sadly, we often get complacent in such atmospheres and Christianity spreads just as well or better in times of persecution.  It tends to weed out false believers and teachers more effectively.

Of course, there are some truths in each religion, but there are irreconcilable differences in their essential truth claims regarding the nature of God, the path to salvation, their view of Jesus, etc.

Here are some examples:

One of the following is possible when we die, but under no circumstance could more than one be possible:

  1. Reincarnation (Hinduism, New Age)
  2. Complete nothingness (Atheism)
  3. One death then judgment by God (Christianity, Islam, others)

Jesus was either the Messiah (Christianity) or He was not the Messiah (Judaism and others), but He cannot be both the Messiah and not the Messiah.

God either doesn’t exist (Atheism), He exists and is personal (Christianity) or He exists and is impersonal (Hinduism).

Jesus either died on the cross (Christianity) or He didn’t (Islam).  The Koran repeatedly claims that Jesus did not die on the cross (Sura 4:157-158). What evidence does Islam offer? One guy with a vision over 500 years after the fact. That is not what we base history upon, especially when scholars of the first century — whether Christians or not — agree that a real person named Jesus died on a Roman cross.

God either revealed himself to us (many religions) or he didn’t (Atheism, Agnosticism).

Jesus is the eternally existent God (Christianity) or He isn’t (everything else, including the Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness). In fact, in Islam it is an unforgivable sin to claim that Jesus is God, so there is no way to reconcile Christianity and Islam.

Some people hold the view that God will be whatever you conceive him to be in this life.  That is one of the most bizarre religious views I have heard.  I’m not sure how they came to the conclusion that every human gets a designer god and that at death it would be just as one wished.

Consider the view of Mahatma Gandhi and Hinduism in general:

After long study and experience, I have come to the conclusion that [1] all religions are true; [2] all religions have some error in them; [3] all religions are almost as dear to me as my own Hinduism, in as much as all human beings should be as dear to one as one’s own close relatives. My own veneration for other faiths is the same as that for my own faith; therefore no thought of conversion is possible. (Mahatma Gandhi, All Men Are Brothers: Life and Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi as told in his own words, Paris, UNESCO 1958, p 60.)

Yet the exclusive claims of Christianity prove Gandhi’s worldview (that of Hinduism) to be false.  Among other things, the Bible claims at least one hundred times that Jesus is the only way to salvation.  It also commands us not to worship idols and that we die once and then face judgment (it does not hold to reincarnation).  Those are key elements of the Hindu faith.  So if Hinduism is true then Christianity cannot be true.  But if Hinduism is correct in stating that all religions are true, then Christianity must be true.  But Christianity claims to be the one true path, so if it is true then Hinduism is not.

Also, Hinduism claims that Christianity is true, so if Christianity is false then so is Hinduism.  Either way, the logic of Gandhi and Hinduism collapses on itself.

When I share the Gospel with people I do so as respectfully as possible.  But I always try to work in examples like the above to highlight that under no circumstances can we both be right about the nature of God and salvation.

I used to hold the position of religious pluralism.  We studied world religions about 15 years ago in an Adult Sunday School class and, sadly, didn’t dig very deep (I was attending church but not really a believer . . . at best I was “saved and confused”).  Most of us walked away thinking the religions were “all pretty much the same” and with no incentive to go out and make a case for Christianity. 

So why did I – and so many people today, including Christians – embrace bad pluralism? I think it is typically out of a lack of clear thinking on the topic.  When you examine the essentials of these faiths it is not that hard to show how they are irreconcilable.

Political correctness and fear contribute as well.  It is easy to deny the exclusivity of Jesus (or the truth claims of whatever faith one follows) if one wants to avoid controversy.  But as unpopular as it is to make truth claims, it is really a rather logical thing to do.  The one claiming all religions are true needs to back up that claim with their evidence and logic.  Just rattle off a list of religions, sects and cults and ask why they are all true.  Just be careful saying things like, “Hinduism has a lot of sects.”  If you say it too quickly people will have surprised looks on their faces.

Sheer laziness is another factor.  Knowing enough about one’s faith to defend it in the marketplace of ideas is hard work.  Religious pluralism is a great excuse not to evangelize.

I expect many non-Christians to say that all paths lead to God, but it really bothers me when Christians do so.  They should meditate on this passage, among others:

Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

 

Roundup

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leftist “Evangelicals” are lying to Millenials. No surprise.

Via Why Liberal Evangelicals are Lying to Millennials – these people think it is OK to kill unwanted children and that nearly anything goes sex-wise.  They deny many essentials of the faith and are entirely worldly in their outlook.  So why be surprised with their politics disguised as religion tactics?  Stay away from these wolves.

Newark, N.J. Mayor and Senate hopeful Cory Booker is not known for proclaiming his love of Jesus or evangelizing to his fellow politicians and constituents. So as a 20-something evangelical, I find it curious that Mayor Booker is a featured key-note speaker at this weekend’s Catalyst Atlanta 2013, a Christian conference gathering together young evangelicals for worship, learning, and sharing their faith in Jesus Christ.

The mission of the Catalyst conference seems simple. So, why is Mayor Booker hoisted between speakers like Dave Ramsey and John Piper at a conference supposedly geared towards worshiping Jesus Christ, not catapulting Senate campaigns? There is an answer, but it is not so simple: Liberal Christians — despite how “apolitical” they claim to be — are feeding a repackaged version of evangelicalism to millennials for their own radical, yes political, agenda.

This year’s Catalyst conference is one such example of their crusade to spread liberal ideology, not theology. Why else would Catalyst invite Mayor Booker, whose speaker bio doesn’t even include the word Jesus, Christian, or God? Oh, but according to his political biography, as Democratic National Committee (DNC) co-chair he did advocate for no-restriction abortions and tax-payer funded abortions regardless of infringements to religious liberty.

Schadenfreude alert: Minister-turned-celebrity-atheist fired for lying on resume

I do give her credit for leaving the pulpit.  Far, far too many false teachers are obviously atheists who stick around for the perks of the job.  But it goes to show how the worldview of these celebrity “ex-Christians”* is hopelessly flawed.  And it shows how churches often do a terrible job of weeding out the fakes from membership and leadership.

Via ‘Atheist of the Year’ Fired From Harvard Uni. for Lying on Resume; Former Christian Minister-Turned-Atheist Admits Lie.

A former Methodist minister-turned-atheist has been fired from her high-ranking post at Harvard University last week after it was discovered that she had falsified her resume.

Teresa MacBain was formerly a United Methodist pastor in Florida before announcing at the American Atheists convention in 2012 that she had lost her faith and had decided to become an atheist. MacBain’s announcement led to a large amount of publicity, including the American Atheists organization naming her the “Atheist of the Year” for 2012. Additionally, she was named the organization’s public relations director in the same year.

Earlier in September, Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass. offered MacBain the job of project director for the college’s Humanist Community Project. The purpose of the newly-created project was to form local communities for humanists across the nation through schools and various organizations. MacBain’s job would have been to travel to these various places to start the communities.

Too bad they don’t give equal time to all the atheists who have become Christians.  
* I put “ex-Christians” in quotes because if she had really been a believer she would still be one. See 1 John.  Hopefully God will make her spiritually alive and she’ll become an authentic Christian.