Muslims, atheists and the “Christian” Left agree!

They agree on lots.  Among other things, they insist that:

  1. Jesus is not divine
  2. Jesus is not the only way to salvation
  3. The Bible is not the word of God

Here is where they differ: The first two have beliefs consistent with what they call themselves.  The third lie for a living.  Poster boys of the the “Christian” Left: Mark “Jesus is not my God” Sandlin and Chuck “Jesus is not the only way but He sure is a bigot” Currie, and Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis.

Run, don’t walk, from false teachers who deny the essentials of the faith.  Anyone who follows people like that is obviously making a god in his own image.

A superb use of the “trot out the toddler” argument

One of the best ways to respond to almost an pro-abortion argument is to “trot out the toddler.” Via Stand to Reason:

Many of pro-choice arguments would be unthinkable if applied to a toddler.  It’s a good tactic to “trot out the toddler.”  Show the absurdity of the argument by showing what it would mean if applied to a toddler.  It refocuses the argument on the one question that matters:  What is the unborn?

This is a perfect example used by the mother of a Down Syndrome child when a cashier suggested that she should have aborted the boy.  Via Sometimes I Forget…. .

Like the cashier that gave me sad eyes and spit poison in a whisper,

“I bet you wish you had known before he came out. You know they have a test for that now…”

Shock, horror, hurt and fury coursed through my body. I considered jerking her over the register and beating her senseless. I looked her up and down, I could take her….

Instead I used whit: I smiled a crazy lady smile “I know right?! It’s so much harder to get rid of them once they come out. Believe ME I’ve tried…” Jackpot! Her mouth dropped open and she stared at me in shock. I leaned over the register and whispered to her,

“What you’re saying is that it’s okay for me to kill him while he’s inside, but not outside? In my book there isn’t a difference. For the record, we knew EVERYTHING about him during my pregnancy. He is our son now and he was our son then. There is no way in hell that I would let any harm come to either of my children. Including during the time that they’re so ridiculously considered disposable.

via

The gender confusion business is so bad that even Lefties make fun of it

Watch and enjoy.

If you really love God and your neighbors you won’t let people get away with pretending that there isn’t a difference between men and women.

Trans regret

Something is very wrong with transgender people. While some may think that is mean and politically incorrect to say, Captain Obvious says it couldn’t be more factual. If something wasn’t wrong, then why would they want to undergo a radical surgery to change themselves?

The question is whether the body is wrong or whether the mind is wrong. I suggest working on the mind part, which would be much less expensive and destructive.  It is sad to see people mutilate themselves in the hopes that it will make them happier.  It is more sad to see their regret and how they are ostracized by the LGBTQX community in the same way that any ex-gay people are.

If you really love people, you will never encourage their trans desires.

Via Trouble In Transtopia: Murmurs Of Sex Change Regret:

Our culture seems pretty much “to each his own” when it comes to elective bodily mutilation and the regret thereof. And there’s a lot of regret out there. According to a British poll, a whopping 65 percent of those who’ve had various cosmetic surgeries regret it. People who regret their tattoos, plastic surgery, or more extreme body modifications (here’s a sad Buzzfeed pictorial on the effects of ear gauges) can read up on the Internet and find an open array of remedies. Plastic surgeons make money both puttin’ it in and takin’ it out.

Hollywood stars can speak openly about misgivings over their boob jobs and whatnot. Regarding her lip enhancement surgery, Courtney Love said: “I just want the mouth God gave me back.”

But the difference between Love and the guy with phantom penis syndrome is that the guy isn’t allowed to talk about his regret. Not openly. The transgender lobby actively polices and suppresses discussion of sex-change regret, and claims it’s rare (no more than “5 percent.”) However, if you do decide to “de-transition” to once again identify with the sex in your DNA, talking about it will get you targeted by trans activists. So it’s a challenge to understand the scope of regret for sex change surgery. It’s out there, but…

‘It’s Genital Mutilation’

Let’s start with Alan Finch, a resident of Australia who decided when he was 19 to transition from male to female, and in his 20s had genital surgery. But then, at age 36, Finch told the Guardian newspaper in 2004:

. . . transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists. . . .You fundamentally can’t change sex … the surgery doesn’t alter you genetically. It’s genital mutilation. My ‘vagina’ was just the bag of my scrotum. It’s like a pouch, like a kangaroo. What’s scary is you still feel like you have a penis when you’re sexually aroused. It’s like phantom limb syndrome. It’s all been a terrible misadventure. I’ve never been a woman, just Alan . . . the analogy I use about giving surgery to someone desperate to change sex is it’s a bit like offering liposuction to an anorexic.

Finch went on to sue the Australian gender identity clinic at Melbourne’s Monash Medical Center for misdiagnosis. He also was involved in starting an outreach to others called “Gender Menders.” The reaction from the transgender community was fast, furious, and abusive, particularly in the Susans.org discussion forum as described in Sheila Jeffrey’s book, “Gender Hurts.”

Since then, Finch’s outreach website has been archived and there is no further information online. In fact, Finch’s subsequent silence is the norm for those who change their minds. This is perhaps not surprising, given the vigor and vindictiveness of the transgender community in persecuting those who have the temerity to suggest that all is not well in sexual La-La Land. But if you look you can find rogue headlines every now and then that even Hollywood’s fawning over “all things trans” can’t quite control. There’s much evidence that the carefully crafted pictures of transgender “authenticity” and “happiness” are more fiction than fact.

Buried Stories of High-Profile Regret

Rene Richards and Mike Penner remain fairly well known as male-to-female transgenders, the former from the 1970s and the latter recently. Both have stories of misgivings and sorrows that cannot be explained away through the old standard “it’s-society’s-fault” routinely trotted out by the transgender lobby.

Tennis champion Rene Richards was one of the first to go through sex-change surgery and was something of a sensation in the 1970s. As such, you might expect Richards to be a tower of strength, offering encouragement to those in similar circumstances today. Well, not so much. This is what Richards had to say in an excerpt from a March 1999 interview attributed to Tennis Magazine (unavailable in full online):

If there was a drug that I could have taken that would have reduced the pressure, I would have been better off staying the way I was—a totally intact person. I know deep down that I’m a second-class woman. I get a lot of inquiries from would-be transsexuals, but I don’t want anyone to hold me out as an example to follow. Today there are better choices, including medication, for dealing with the compulsion to cross dress and the depression that comes from gender confusion. As far as being fulfilled as a woman, I’m not as fulfilled as I dreamed of being. I get a lot of letters from people who are considering having this operation…and I discourage them all.’ —Rene Richards, “The Liaison Legacy,” Tennis Magazine, March 1999.

I encourage you to read it all.

 

Responding to the Left’s “care” for the homeless

I’m all for finding practical solutions to homelessness and we are long-time contributors to a local Christ-based shelter.  But when the “Christian” Left is busy “caring” about the homeless with other people’s money, be sure to ask a few questions:

1. Are you willing to house them yourselves?  If not, you don’t really care about them.  That’s the homeless version of their fallacious pro-abortion argument claiming that we don’t care about the children after they are born.  We do care, of course, and do a lot with our own time and money.  And we would obviously protest infanticide and toddler-cide just as much as we oppose killing children in the womb.

2. I thought you liked government micro-managing our lives with soda sizes, making people pay for others’ birth control, etc.  Why pull up the drawbridge now?  Have you considered that there are downsides to to giving the government that much power?

3. Have you ever studied the issue carefully enough to realize that if you make it too easy to be homeless that you remove incentives for them to change?  Go talk to them yourselves!

The many lies from the Scopes trial

The impact of the false reporting of the 1925 Scopes trial still impacts the Darwinian evolution debate today.  Here are a few of the nine lies documented at Mencken’s Mendacity at the Scopes Trial:

First, Mencken lied about the key point at issue in the Scopes Trial, which was not whether the theory of evolution could be taught in Tennessee’s public high schools, but whether the evolution of man from “lower animals” could be taught as a scientific theory to high school students, in a state where a solid majority of parents in the state of Tennessee opposed the teaching of such a theory to their children, on both moral and religious grounds.

Second, Mencken lied by omission, by failing to mention that Hunter’s Civic Biology, a pro-evolution science textbook that was cited at the trial, and which high school teachers in the state of Tennessee were actually required to use at the time, endorsed both racism and eugenics: it taught the the Caucasoid race was “the highest” races, described people with mental handicaps and genetic deformities as “true parasites“, and highly commended the practice of eugenics.

Third, Mencken mis-represented the religious views of William Jennings Bryan, depicting him as a Biblical literalist and a “fundamentalist pope,” when Bryan’s own writings showed that he was a Presbyterian of fairly liberal views, who believed in an old Earth, and who was open to the possibility that plants and animals had evolved by Darwinian natural selection, making an exception only for man.

Fourth, Mencken mendaciously attributed to Bryan the statement that man is not a mammal, when Bryan said nothing of the sort. What Bryan did object to was the portrayal of man in Hunter’s Civic Biology as an unexceptional mammal, “so indistinguishable among the mammals that they leave him there with thirty-four hundred and ninety-nine other [species of] mammals.”

Fifth, Mencken consistently portrayed Bryan as a petty, hate-filled character when others who were present, including Scopes himself, testified to his magnanimity, affability and pleasant personality.

 

One pro-abortion meme, so much bad logic

This meme shared by the the “Christian” Left was a spectacular fail.

(Heads up: trolls, concern trolls and contrarians will be “invited” to leave the page. We’ve seen it and heard it before — and we’re simply not buying it.)
Agree? Then spread the message around and sign the boycott for birth control: http://actionsprout.io/597AC1

Photo: Agree? Then spread the message around and sign the boycott for birth control:  http://actionsprout.io/597AC1

1. The “Christian” Left has to swear in their memes? Another meme today said, “Shut the f*ck up” and only commenter out of 30 had complained. Classy. Then again, they refuse to have any limits on child-killing in the womb, so what would you expect?

2. They use the same question-begging fallacy as most pro-abortion arguments, where they ignore the human being killed in the abortion. What about her choice?
Why are they anti-choice for the woman to own a gun whenever she likes, choose where her kids go to school, choose what size soda to drink, choose what the kids each for lunch (if they are allowed outside the womb), etc.?

3. The “Christian” Left is most certainly pro-abortion. Words mean things. Democrats are officially pro-abortion, not pro-choice. Why? Because they want taxpayer-funded abortions, laws requiring all health care plans to cover abortions, and no restrictions on anything, including “partial-birth abortion” (aka infanticide), late term abortions, gender-selection abortions, parental notification, etc.

From their platform (http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-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.”

4. It was cute how they pre-empted discussion as well. They are so open minded and tolerant!

5. They just got through quoting this verse, then they ignore it! What about the interests of the unborn?

Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Philippians 2:4 (ESV)

They also reflexively quote verses about the “least of these” and loving your “neighbor,” while ignoring that abortion destroys both of those.

The Molech-worshipers will always be pro-abortion.

6. They claim to be pro-choice because it is none of their “da*n” business, but they simultaneous want to force employers and taxpayers to pay for abortions. See any “choice” contradiction there? Worse yet, they link to a boycott page that is mad that companies like Hobby Lobby “only” offer 16 forms of birth control. You see, they don’t offer the human being-killing kind, so that makes the “Christian” Left sad.

And of course abortion kills human beings who have already been reproduced, so birth control is another topic.

—–

Pro-life reasoning is simple and accurate: It is a scientific fact and basic common sense (what else would two human beings produce?) that a new human being is reproduced at fertilization. Seriously, go check out any mainstream embryology textbook. I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice. Based on the settled science, it is then simple moral reasoning that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is what happens during 99% of abortions.

The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.) but morally simple (you don’t kill unwanted humans outside the womb for those reasons, so you shouldn’t kill them inside the womb for those reasons). Their size, level of development, location and degree of dependency are not reasons to ignore their right to life. Arguments about “bodily autonomy” ignore the body destroyed in the abortion.

In other words, it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification. Abortion does that. Therefore, abortion is wrong.