Roundup

 

Safeguards schmafeguards: “a little wave and they were gone” – the creepy, evil and inevitable expansion of euthanasia.  It isn’t a slippery slope in the fallacious sense.  It is a “cliff” in the sense that the reasoning used to justify the original euthanasia exceptions (reducing suffering, some lives not worth living, etc.) provide the foundation for the scope creep.

[Two 45 yr. old brothers born deaf] chose to be euthanized when they learned they were going blind. Dufour gave them each a lethal injection 11 days before Christmas.

In 2000, Holland became the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia. Two years later, Belgium followed suit, legalizing euthanasia for people over 18. The law requires that the person wishing to end his or her life is able to make that wish clear, and a doctor must judge that the person is suffering “unbearable pain.”

It’s worth paying attention to how euthanasia works in countries where it’s legal. Because with the legalization of assisted suicide in Oregon, Washington and Montana, we’re on that  road as well.

And how it works is that once a law is in place, the safeguards in it are quickly swept aside–or simply ignored.

Euthanasia: an “ever-widening interpretation” of the law

Notice that the Belgian law stipulates that the person must be suffering unbearable pain. The twins were neither terminally ill, nor apparently in any physical pain. They probably were depressed–understandably–at the thought of losing their sight.

But since when is depression a capital offense?

. . .

And now the Belgian government is considering a law that would extend legal euthanasia to children–”if they are capable of discernment or affected by an incurable illness or suffering that we cannot alleviate”–and people with dementia.

An incurable illness. Like, say, blindness? Epilepsy is incurable, too, and dwarfism, and developmental disabilities, and a host of other conditions.

. . .

A civilized society offers comfort, help and care in such a situation. One descending into barbarism offers simply death instead.

—

Coca-Cola has a new anti-obesity commercial.  Oddly, there are no fat people in it.  Friendly reminder: If you exert less effort than people have typically done throughout history and you consume lots of caffeinated sugar water instead of regular water, bad things might happen.  Sodas should only be used as treats, never a part of a regular diet. 

—

Chicago United Methodist Bishop Misrepresents Denomination’s Position – she lobbies for “same-sex marriage” even though her denomination explicitly opposes those. 

She isn’t qualified to be a Bishop. Or a pastor. Or a lay leader. Or even a member. She is on the anti-biblical side of the most straight-forward and important issue in her denomination today (because it is splitting the church). She is shaking her fist at God 24×7 in rebellion and mocking her employer. It is as if a salesman for HP publicly said that people should buy Dell. Good for them to expose how deceptive she is being.

—

NAIVE LEGISLTORS ON GUN CONTROL – Mike has a great summary of their mistaken positions.  Sample:

2) “At what point do you say, ‘No more innocent loss of life’?”

Hey, innocent people have been dying since the dawn of time; and they always will.  It’s part and parcel to the fallen nature of humanity.  I wonder if cavemen put strict stick and rock possession laws on their books when there were mass stonings and clubbings?  No, they probably served swift justice on the violators.
By the way, do legislators recall the details of the 9/11 attacks?  What brought down those twin towers in New York…airplanes.  Not guns — not clubs or rocks — but airplanes.  And what brought down those big airplanes?  Not guns.  Not potato cannons.  But box cutters.  When used skillfully, darn near anything is a viable weapon.

Also keep in mind that those shouting for no more innocent loss of life are 99% likely to be pro-abortion.

—

Let Freedom Ring – Great points about how the inability of any authentic (read: Bible-believing) Christian to say the inaugural prayer is not such a bad thing.  Now people can quit kidding themselves that the opposition has any desire for compromise or rationality.  Pick a side and go with it.  Here’s part of it, go read it all.

Let us be free from the false hope that heroic deeds and quiet agreeableness can atone for the sin of orthodox conviction.

Let us be free from the wishful thinking that good works and good manners can appease the Great God Tolerance.

Let us be free from the misplaced assumption that faithfulness to God can go hand in hand with worldly congratulation.

If it is “anti-gay” to believe that the normativity of male-female sexual union is taught by nature and nature’s God then let us wear a Scarlet Letter around our necks. Christ bore much worse.

If the culture of free love is going to hate those who believe marriage was made with God-given limits then let the opprobrium fall on us. We will despise the shame.

If henceforth we shall be considered the scum of the earth for believing what the Church has taught for 2000 years then let us be the scent of death to some. We shall be the aroma of life to others.

And lest anyone think this is a call to arms or a manifesto of malediction, it is not. If we are reviled, we shall not revile in return. If we are hated we shall pray to God for more love. If we are excluded from polite society, we will still include all Christ-exalting, Bible-believing, broken hearted sinners in the fellowship of the redeemed. And if we are esteemed by some as better off dead, we will not cease to offer the words of life.

We will not stop serving where we can. We will not stop repenting when we sin. We will not stop speaking the truth about our Lord and about his law.

There are likely far bigger disappointments to come than the one that dropped last Thursday. We did not choose this culture war and it is not about to leave us alone. The media, the academy, the government, the libertine elite–they may sully our reputation and shame our convictions, but they cannot steal our joy. We can pray more, sing more, and smile more than any of the party-goers making mud pies in the slums. We do not have to fit in down here so long as we fit in up there. We do not need a president’s approval if we have the affection of our King. Our hearts and our Bibles are wide open. Our salvation is firm. Let freedom ring.

—

Some excellent time management tips – I’d summarize lots of them with the O-H-I-O theme: Only Handle It Once.  Have a system to do something with whatever email or paper you come across.  I do that well sometimes.  When I don’t, I waste lots of time.

—

What should Christians think about global warming?  A good list of questions to ask.

1. Is the earth warming?
2. If the earth is warming, is human activity (like carbon dioxide emissions) causing it?
3. If the earth is warming, and we’re causing it, is that bad overall?
4. If the earth is warming, we’re causing it, and that’s bad, would any of the proposed “solutions” (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol, legislative restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions) make any difference?

I would add one: Are the people advancing the global warming / global climate change policies profiting from them?

—

A great set of graphs showing the growth of government spending and who really pays taxes — All the Numbers You Always Wanted on Government Spending (But Were Afraid to Ask).  Here’s an example.  Anyone think this is sustainable?

Government Keeps Growing

In 1902 (the first year for which data are available), government spending in America (federal, state, and local—all of it, combined) took up only 6.9% of the economy (GDP); in 2010 (the last year for which data are available), it was 41.0%.

In other words, in just a few generations, the government has gone from well under a tenth to representing more than two fifths of all economic activity in the country.

Technorati Tags: Religion,Christianity,politics,pro-life

Apparently only non-Christians can pray at the inauguration

Randy Alcorn literally wrote the book on grace and truth (ok, maybe not the book but a book).  Jesus had the perfect balance of grace and truth.  We do not, so it is a constant struggle to aim at that.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Randy is one of the most balanced writers I’ve seen.  He shows it in Perspectives on Louie Giglio, the Homosexual Issue and What It Means to Be a Christ-Follower in This Culture.  It is a thorough and excellent message about how Giglio is no longer welcome to give the inaugural prayer because of an 18 yr. old sermon he gave noting that homosexual behavior was a sin.

There are some great lessons here.  No matter how hard you try to please the world, it won’t work.  Of course many of them hate the message.  They are spiritually dead and will always hate it.  If they aren’t properly offended then you delivered the message wrong.  But you honor God by speaking the truth in love.

As I listened to the message, I was struck by the gentleness and kindness of Louie Giglio’s words intended to invite in, not push away, those of homosexual orientation. He offered love and forgiveness for homosexual sin just as for heterosexual sin and every other sin. Giglio was careful to say that people with a homosexual orientation were loved and welcome in his church. Yes, the agenda of homosexual advocates was warned against, and that’s an appropriate warning. But there was no homophobia, no revulsion against homosexuals as individuals. Rather, Louie spoke with both grace and truth.

This 54-minute message is biblically clear yet careful and balanced, saying that homosexual behavior is one of many sins, and we should not hold it out as unacceptable while our personally preferred sins are ignored. It was a good sermon then, and in my opinion, still is.

If this message is “hate speech,” as it is called in some by some responders, then the Bible is hate speech, and no one can preach the whole Bible without being guilty of hate speech. Some people believe that and are honest enough to say it.

If Louie Giglio, despite his people-loving track record, is viewed as a bigot because he believes and teaches the Bible, then it’s guaranteed you and I will be seen as bigots. Unless, of course, we either outright deny the Scriptures or are so quiet about our belief in them that no one finds us out. (Imagine an ambassador who lives in fear of divulging his King’s policies.)

Many of the articles and comments concerning Louie Giglio reflected this perplexing idea that good Christians must NOT believe the Bible. And, indeed, many professing Christians agree with Jesus only when he speaks about love. When he takes moral stands and says there’s an eternal hell to punish sins, that’s a different story. They take a cut and paste approach to the Bible—when I like what it says I’ll quote it, when I don’t like it, I’ll ignore, reinterpret or deny it. That means the Bible is not my authority. Rather, this culture is my authority. I am my authority.

Once we deny parts of God’s truth, then we are no longer under Scripture’s authority. We are winging it. And if Christians try to be relevant and accepted by making up truth on the fly, then the Jesus we speak of will not be the Scripture-believing Jesus of the Bible who was full of both grace and truth. He will just be the “loving Jesus” remade in our culture’s image, in which we redefine love as tolerance.

Among the comments, I discovered some Christians who seem astonished that the world opposes many Christian beliefs. Of course we will be mocked and despised—the Bible promises us that. Jesus said “A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20). He said, “In the world you will have tribulation” (John 16:33). Paul said, “all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12). Peter said, “Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you” (1 Peter 4:12).

If we are not opposed for our allegiance to the gospel, isn’t it because we are not living and proclaiming the gospel?

. . .

I saw comments in which several people spoke up in Louie’s defense, but then said, essentially, “Someone shouldn’t be judged for what he’s believed and said nearly twenty years ago. He’s probably changed his mind and we should forgive him. Let’s give him a chance.

But of course, for Louie to change his position would require him to repent of what the Bible teaches. It’s one thing to say “I was wrong,” it’s another to say, “God was wrong.” To do this, he would not be a Christ-follower in the historic sense. (True Christ-followers don’t deny God’s Word, they lovingly affirm it.) It’s one thing, years later, to say you would phrase some things a bit differently; it’s another to deny what the Bible actually says.

Trying to fly under the radar of our culture on moral issues is no better than the always-in-your-face method. The grace-only approach, in the end, is as deficient as the truth-only approach. Jesus came full of both grace and truth (John 1:17). So should we.

I’m convinced that we need a good, simple set of pro-real marriage and pro-life apologetics to use as segues to the Gospel.  I have come across more and more people who have bought Satan’s lie that you shouldn’t even consider Christianity because of the stances it takes on abortion and homosexuality.  The goal, of course, is to get them to the word of God as quickly as possible, but you may need to do some prep work.

It concerns me when those who profess to be Christians simply redefine what it means to be a Christian to accommodate whatever the culture currently believes. They oppose Giglio, they suppose, because they are more loving, kind and relevant Christians.

. . .

Too many Christians labor to airbrush Jesus and the Bible, to make them as attractive as possible. In doing so we distort both the Living Word, Jesus, and the Written Word, the Bible. We redefine sin, and minimize it in a misguided attempt to win people by saying what they’d rather hear.

What bothered me most as I read dozens and dozens of comments was seeing professing Christians distance themselves from Louie Giglio. These new kind of “Christians” are a mirror image of this culture, craving popularity and acceptance. If that’s you, please understand—and I am trying to be honest, not cruel—that you bear no resemblance to what it has meant for two thousand years to be a true follower of Christ. Believe what you choose to, but please, in the interests of accuracy, stop calling yourself a Christian.

Preach it, Randy!

Our job is not to be God’s speechwriters and revise his words on his behalf, but to speak his words humbly. Our job is not to be God’s PR team, but to be his ambassadors, not making policy but simply representing what God has declared to be true.

This episode, I believe, points out the futility of trying to reach the world through being acceptable to the world. If you spent any time with the Giglios, you’d probably think that they are better, nicer and kinder than you are. So if Louie Giglio’s efforts against human slavery haven’t delivered him from moral outrage, your works and mine won’t deliver us. (We should do those works, of course, but out of love for God and people, not to be popular.)

Ask yourself whether you are living for the approval of this culture, or the Audience of One. Ask yourself, “In the end whose judgment seat will I stand before?” The homosexual advocate’s? The White House’s? The news media’s? The social media’s? The church’s? Or will we stand before God’s throne, where His “opinion” (truth), as expressed in Scripture, ultimately will be non-negotiable.

Christ’s followers are full of grace and truth. They are both loving and holy. Make no mistake—an unholy world will never be won to Christ by an unholy church.

How pro-life apologetics–and a little common sense–could have swayed the elections

A few gaffes – most notably by candidates Akin and Mourdock – cost the Republicans two Senate seats and possibly the White House.  But with just a little common sense and some simple pro-life arguments they could have easily turned this to our advantage.  Romney and others could have done the same thing whether the specific rape/abortion questions came up or not.

The errors resulted when the candidates tried to articulate theological concepts that can’t be distilled into sound bites and that are virtually certain to be misinterpreted by the media and voters.  If you are running for office you should be skilled at knowing what hot topic questions you’ll get and how to steer the answers to your advantage.

So when the topic of abortions in the case of rape and incest came up, they didn’t need to get theological.  They could have noted any or all of the following.  Consider how simple yet accurate these arguments are and how they would resonate with the average voter – even pro-choice voters, the majority of whom side with pro-lifers on topics like parental notification, late-term abortions and taxpayer funding of abortions.

• Rape is an incredibly serious crime and I support punishing it to the full extent of the law.
• Incest, in this case, isn’t about 30-something siblings who are attracted to each other, it is about innocent young girls being abused by relatives.  That means it is rape.  Here’s a perfect example.
• Statutory rape is rape, and the most rampant kind in our society.  Planned Parenthood has been caught countless times on audio and video systematically hiding statutory rape.  If elected, I will not only fight to stop their Federal funding but I would work tirelessly to hold them accountable for their crimes of hiding these rapes. If a 28 yr. old guy is statutorily raping your 13 yr. old daughter or granddaughter then Planned Parenthood will be glad to destroy the evidence and hide the crime – funded by your tax dollars!  They have also been caught hiding sex traffickers, and the opposition to sex trafficking is one of the few issues where Democrats and Republicans have common ground.   Surely we can all agree that we don’t want our tax dollars to fund organizations that hide that crime!
• If you want to entertain capital punishment for the rapist then we could debate that, but why would the innocent child have to suffer for the father’s crimes?  It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique human beings from fertilization.  Go check out any embryology textbook.  Let’s put the focus on punishing the guilty rapists and those who hide their crimes.
• If you want to understand the theology about God’s sovereignty I’d be glad to share it with you, but that is beyond the scope of this debate and would take some time to explain.  But you don’t have to be a theologian to know that rape is evil and hiding the crimes of rapists is evil.
• Roe v Wade won’t be overturned and even if it was it wouldn’t make abortion illegal — it would just turn it over to the states.
• Remember that the official platform of the Democrats is now pro-abortion, not pro-choice.  They want abortions without restriction — which would include partial-birth abortions (aka infanticide) — and they want pro-lifers to fund them with their taxes.  That means Democrats want more abortions, not less, and they want others to pay for them.  Obamacare is already forcing people to pay for some abortions, and it is deliberately violating religious freedoms and conscience clauses.

They could also respond by asking some of the questions the media never asks pro-abortion candidates:

1. You say you support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you wouldapprove of?

2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover storyon “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the “eugenics” movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate “weeding out” of those our society would deem “unfit” to live?

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

8. You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?

9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

How hard would that be?  Instead, Akin, Mourdock et al answered foolishly and cost us Senate seats and possibly the presidency, and they missed an easy opportunity to educate people on the most important moral issue of our time.

Please equip yourself with basic pro-life reasoning and be prepared to share it.

Facebook memes

A friend linked to a “Liberal and proud of it” Facebook page and I read some of their, uh, arguments.  I should note that many Conservative memes are pointless.  I think it is always worth asking if the joke would work on the other side if you just changed the names.  If so, I don’t click “like” or share it.  Just saying, “Obama is stupid,” or attacking his wife’s appearance is about as productive as the Left’s obsession with Sarah Palin.  We have endless facts about his record and beliefs to point to. Why dilute the message with pettiness?

But when the Liberal pages try to make a logical point it is typically loaded with fallacies.  A few samples I saw plus the comments I left:

It is only charity when you donate your money and time. Forcing others to “give” at the point of a gun doesn’t qualify. Jesus didn’t tell anyone to ask Caesar to take from neighbor A to give to neighbor B. Coveting is still a sin.   Even if his definition of giving matched the dictionary he would still be wrong on two counts. First, he pretends that we aren’t already “giving” vast amounts to the poor. Worse yet, he assumes that more of this “giving” will actually help the country.

This assumes that oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” is a civil right, but you haven’t proved that. You have about as much right to that as you do a square circle.

It also assumes that gays and lesbians can’t be “married” today in fake churches and live together as they like. They can do that all-day, every day and we won’t complain. There is simply no need for the government to get involved in their relationships, because by nature and design they do produce the next generation.

Like nearly all pro-abortion arguments, that ignores the body of the innocent human being destroyed in the abortion.The scientific fact (http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq) is that a new human being is created at fertilization.

Anyone who supports taxpayer-funded abortions is pro-abortion.  They think that pro-lifers don’t have a choice as to whether they should have to fund abortions, and they think that one of our society’s problems is that we aren’t killing enough unwanted human beings.  The Democratic platform is officially pro-abortion.

If it isn’t a political issue, why do the Democrats want to force pro-lifers to pay for abortions?

Yep, we oppose gender-selection abortions — nearly all of which destroy unwanted females — and the Left fights for them. Tell me again who hates women?

Oh, and abortions kill blacks at a rate three times that of whites. And who are the racists who want to increase that rate with taxpayer-funded abortions?

Other commenter: Please quote your source for taxpayer-funded abortion. Fox News? Bzzzz. They definitely don’t happen at Planned Parenthood. Please come back when you can argue without using strawman arguments or false equivilencies.

Hi — would the 2012 Democratic Platform be an acceptable source for you? “Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose. 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.”  http://assets.dstatic.org/dnc-platform/2012-National-Platform.pdf

Thanks for making the day of this conservative. I hope you reconsider your views once you realize you were just shouting from Stereotype-Land (I don’t watch Fox News — not that there is anything wrong with that).

The Democratic platform called for taxpayer-funded abortions. That would increase the rate of black abortions beyond the current rate, which is three times that of whites.

Democratic policies keep blacks dead or dependent. Coincidence?

Roundup

An excellent summary of why you should avoid avoid Joel Osteen — in his own words! Hat tip: Glenn

KING: If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They’re wrong, aren’t they?

OSTEEN: Well, I don’t know if I believe they’re wrong. I believe here’s what the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe. But I just think that only God with judge a person’s heart. I spent a lot of time in India with my father. I don’t know all about their religion. But I know they love God. And I don’t know. I’ve seen their sincerity. So I don’t know. I know for me, and what the Bible teaches, I want to have a relationship with Jesus.

—–

Skip the “cleanse” diets. They are basically counter-productive starvation diets. Just eat a little less, eat a little healthier and exercise a little more. And ignore what celebrities say.

What you need to know:

The cleanse diets make 2 claims: 1) clean your guts an 2) lose weight fast.

With respect to weight loss, they are right – this is basically a starvation diet. Your body loses mostly fluids at first, then starts to lose muscle and fat in order to keep basic bodily functions running. There is a potential for serious bodily damage for people who maintain calorie deprivation for several weeks. . . .

With respect to detoxification – guess what? That’s what your liver is for. Our body is an amazing machine that knows how to rid itself of toxins without any intervention. Calling these starvation diets “detox” plays off people’s fear that there are poisons lurking in their body that can be magically removed by subjecting oneself to days of a concoction that tastes bad.

Scientifically there is no evidence that cleanse diets do any good. Most people who go on rapid weight loss diets often gain the weight back with a vengeance.

Dear Lucy – lose a little less weight but do it the right way. Keep eating healthy food, exercise, and be patient.

One last note to celebrities – please DON’T share your diet tips and tricks with us mere mortals. The fact that your are gorgeous and can sing and act (at least some of you) does not mean you know anything about nutrition. Our idolizing societal norms mean that you are setting examples for millions of people. That’s too much of a responsibility for you to pass off quack diets to your fans.

—–

Stay classy, LGBT activists — What Happens When You Let Gay Philly Activists Into the White House — They pose for pics giving Ronald Reagan’s portait the finger. That was just the beginning. They are just like the groping blind men of Sodom.

—–

An excellent point by Haemet related to my Roundup note that Socialized Medicine Euthanizes 130,000 Old People per Year in UK.

To put it another way, if the American medical system killed the same proportion of people as does the NHS, then we would lose approximately 643,000 people a year . . .

While any death from a lack of access to health care (or food, or shelter) is a tragedy, the phrase “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” comes to mind. Equal opportunity early death is not the solution to inconsistent access to health care.

The next time someone says that our health care system “kills” 46,000 per year, be sure to remember that even if that claim was true it should result in victory laps, not a dismantling of our system.

—–

A good overview of the history of Social Security — My only objection was the perpetuation of the myth of a “trust fund.” The grand total of money saved from prior contributions to fund future obligations is — wait for it — $0.00. Zero. Anyone hinting otherwise is not well informed on this topic. This is a Ponzi scheme waiting to crumble.

The Essentials of the Christian Faith

GotQuestions.org had a good summary of the essentials of the Christian faith.  It is a great site for Christians and non-Christians to get answers to common questions about Christianity.

The Bible itself reveals what is important and essential to the Christian faith. These essentials are the deity of Christ, salvation by God’s grace and not by works, salvation through Jesus Christ alone, the resurrection of Christ, the Gospel, monotheism and the Holy Trinity. These are the main “essentials” that we should understand and believe if we are followers of Jesus Christ. Let’s look at all of these in a little more detail.

I encourage people to go read about those in more detail at the link.

You don’t have to be a Bible trivia expert to be saved (see the criminal on the cross in Luke 23, the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4, etc.).  But if you are really saved you shouldn’t be denying the essentials as so many self-proclaimed Christians do.  The essentials are the foundational, “can’t miss” things of the Bible, such as how the exclusivity of Jesus for salvation is noted over 100 times (not just John 14:6).

As the saying goes, in essentials – unity, in non-essentials – liberty, and in all things – charity.

Debate the non-essentials all you like.  Just don’t make me come to the meetings.

Deny the essentials all you like as well.  I respect your religious freedom to do so.  We even have a name for those who do that: Non-Christians.  My irritation is with those claiming to be Christians who can’t stand behind the foundations of the faith.  They are either saved and confused or false converts.  If you aren’t on board with the essentials, please do some careful study and then pick a lane.

From the “I am not making this up” category

How can the Supreme Court — or any thinking person — require college groups to let their ideological enemies be leaders?

When the Supreme Court ruled that a Christian student group could only be recognized at a small public law school if it accepted non-Christians and gays as potential leaders, some lawyers and campus advocates grew nervous.

via Supreme Court Decision on Religion Upends Campus Religious Groups 

This is such a transparent trampling of religious freedoms. Would the Supreme Court permit Christians to join the Muslim, gay and pro-abortion clubs en masse, vote themselves into leadership and then change the views and charters of the organizations?  Hey, come to think of it, that would be a great idea — except for the dishonesty part.

This reminds me a bit of my experiences with the Compaq and HP Diversity groups when I led the Christians @ Compaq / HP employee network groups. They always assumed we were out to get the gay employee groups, even though we never said a word about them — even when they advertised their “drag queen contest” team building trips on company web sites.  One HR person asked if we would let gays in our Bible studies (as if they wear signs saying they are gay — such stereotyping!).  I said of course they’d be welcome if they weren’t disruptive.

What I thought, but didn’t say, was that there is no place I’d rather have them than hearing the word of God.

The Titanic movie is back, and still misses the best real account

Just re-running a post I enjoyed and adding the bonus picture above. Several interesting things about the Titanic that relate to Christianity.  It is too bad they didn’t put item 3 in the movie.

1.  Just because a fictional account predates an event doesn’t mean the event didn’t happen.  A book titled The Wreck of the Titan was written 14 years before the Titanic sank but had some remarkable parallels*.  But that doesn’t mean the Titanic didn’t really sink.   This analysis of the Zeitgeist movie (a film with many spurious claims, such as that Christianity was just borrowed from other religions) notes the following:

Did you know there’s a book that was written around the turn-of-the-last-century about a ship that was an unsinkable ship, which hit an iceberg on its maiden voyage and sank?  The name of the ship was the Titan.  This is remarkable because some 15 years later the Titanic sunk on its maiden voyage after hitting an iceberg.   Now what if you had read the novel and then later heard that a ship called the Titanic had actually sunk?  I’m sure you can see that rejecting the story of the Titanic on its face would be foolish only because you’d read a novel similar to the actual event.   Whether or not the Titanic sank is determined by the evidence for its sinking, unrelated to any other fictional stories that were like it.

By the same token, the story of Jesus described in the primary source documents, the historical documents we know popularly as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, stands alone on its own merit.  The story stands or falls on the strength of the historical evidence.

There are many other reasons to dismiss the copycat religion claims leveled at Christianity.

2. Just because there are differing accounts of an event doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.  Some eyewitnesses thought the ship split in two pieces before sinking (they were ultimately proved right) and some claimed it did not.  But what did they all know with certainty?  The ship sunk.

The application to challenges to the accounts in the Bible is this: Even though there are, in my view, satisfactory explanations for alleged discrepancies in eyewitness accounts in the Bible, even if they were truly different it wouldn’t mean the event didn’t happen.  Even if two people gave slightly different accounts of the post-resurrection events it doesn’t mean the resurrection didn’t happen.

For example, one Gospel account mentions a single angel and another mentions two angels.  But there is no contradiction, because one doesn’t say there was one and only one angel at all times with the other claiming that there were two angels.  Perhaps one account just mentioned the angel that spoke, or there was just one angel present at the time being described.  But even if the claims were contradictory it doesn’t mean the tomb had a body or that there were zero angels.

And of course, if eyewitness claims were identical in all reported details then people would assume there was collusion.

3. John Harper was a real hero from the Titanic, calling out, “ Women, children and unsaved into the lifeboats!” and sharing the Gospel until he drowned.  How many Christians work to share the Gospel with the lost even when times are comfortable?

4. Marconi’s wireless had just gone mainstream in the previous few years and was the reason many people were rescued.

Hat tip for items 1 & 2 — Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason

* Similarities between Titanic and Titan:

• Unsinkable
  • The Titanic was the world’s largest luxury liner (882 feet, displacing 53,000 long tons), and was once described as being practically “unsinkable”.
  • The Titan was the largest craft afloat and the greatest of the works of men (800 feet, displacing 75,000 tons), and was considered “unsinkable”.
• Lifeboats
  • The Titanic carried only 16 lifeboats, plus 4 Engelhardt folding lifeboats,^[3] less than half the number required for her passenger capacity of 3000.
  • The Titan carried “as few as the law allowed”, 24 lifeboats, less than half needed for her 3000 capacity.
• Struck an iceberg
  • Moving too fast at 22½ knots,^{[citation needed]} the Titanic struck an iceberg on the starboard side on the night of April 14, 1912 in the North Atlantic 400 miles away from Newfoundland.
  • Also on an April night, in the North Atlantic 400 miles from Newfoundland (Terranova), the Titan hit an iceberg while traveling at 25 knots, also on the starboard side.
• The Unsinkable Sank
  • The unsinkable Titanic sank, and more than half of her 2200 passengers died.
  • The indestructible Titan also sank, more than half of her 2500 passengers drowning.
  • Went down bow first, the Titan actually capsizing before it sank.
  • The names being similar (Titan = Titanic – ic)

Photo credit

Pro-capital punishment = pro-life

I received a comment on this old post so I thought I would re-run it.

First, the comment.

I could only get through about the first few paragraphs before getting bored of the same old hypocrisy.  If killing people is wrong, then killing anyone is wrong. And that includes killing those that kill.

My reply:

Can you see the difference between A and B?

A. Innocent but unwanted human being crushed and dismembered in the womb with no appeals.

B. Convicted rapist / murderer put to death in least painless way possible after surviving 10+ years of appeals.

If you can’t, then rational dialog here will be impossible.

Too many people confuse the principle of capital punishment and the practice. There is nothing wrong with capital punishment in principle: A life for a life. There can be things worth debating about CP in practice.

There are 20,000+ abortions in the U.S. per week and one capital punishment. If anyone thinks CP is unfairly applied then they are welcome to oppose it. But if they are pro-legalized abortion then I will mock them until my fingertips are raw.

The original post

Huh?  How can a pro-capital punishment position be considered pro-life?  OK, I’ll concede that it isn’t particularly pro-life for the one receiving the death penalty.  But it is pro-life for the rest of us.  For what it is worth, I do prison ministry and know more murderers than most people do.  I’m not all hot-blooded about killing people, I just don’t like to see bad arguments on either side of the issue.

I realize that the media, pro-choice people and comedians like to mock the alleged inconsistency of pro-lifers who are also pro-capital punishment (“They oppose killing in the womb but don’t mind it for those outside the womb!  Ha!”).    I’ve heard many Christians poke fun at it as well.

But that argument is just a foolish sound bite, as it assumes that killing an innocent unborn human being is morally equivalent to killing a convicted murderer.   One is innocent, the other guilty.  If they want to argue against capital punishment then they need better reasoning than that.

Capital punishment is pro-life in that it regards the taking of innocent human life as the greatest crime, and thus deserving of the greatest punishment.  It also recognizes the deterrent effect as well as the prevention of future murders (executed criminals hardly ever kill again).  Therefore, it seeks to preserve additional innocent lives.  This is consistent with the pro-life view that abortions are permissible if the life of the mother is at stake.

If people want to make jokes about inconsistencies, a better example would be those who don’t mind the crushing and dismemberment of innocent human beings (without anesthetic) but protest when a convicted murderer is to be executed and who want to ensure he dies as painlessly as possible.

As always, I am pro-choice provided that the unborn get the same 10 years of appeals that convicted murderers do.

Perhaps we should just call capital punishment ”123rd trimester abortions.”  Then the pro-choicers would support it.

Finally, consider how many pro-legalized abortionists wax philosophical about how we just don’t know when life begins.  Aside from the scientific fact that life begins at conception, they never consider erring on the side of caution.  If you aren’t sure where life begins, wouldn’t it be prudent to err on the side of life?  But here’s the bigger irony: While they ignore that rather obvious point, they have no problem saying we should never use capital punishment because we might be executing someone who is innocent.

I realize that there can be legitimate concerns about whether capital punishment is always applied fairly, but that is a topic for another day.  Just for the record I do have concerns about how it is applied in the U.S. If we used a Biblical model for justice (i.e., two eye witnesses and punishments for perjury equivalent to the crime in question) then I’d be more comfortable with it.

Also see ineffective arguments against capital punishment and somewhat effective arguments against capital punishment.

Context counts and early church leaders on abortion

I was thinking of this today and wanted to rerun it.

One of the most important rules for Bible study is to never read (just) a Bible verse.  Countless errors occur when people pick and choose verses they like while ignoring the real meaning of the passage.  An individual verse can’t mean something different than it does in the broader passage.  I have accidentally quoted things out of context many times and am always glad to learn the correct way to interpret a passage.

The same goes for quoting other writers.  A theological liberal seminary student (read: false teacher) started posting comments on “pacifist wisdom.”  His first quote was from Athenagoras of Athens, circa 180 A.D. from A Plea For The Christians, and it followed some anti-capital punishment posts.  Perhaps this guy was a flaming pacifist, and perhaps the quotes from other writers will make his point, but this one missed the mark.

The portion that he quoted:

We cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly.

What I found interesting is that this quote doesn’t even make a pacifistic anti-capital punishment point.  Athenagoras notes that the death was just!  It gets worse when you look at the broader context, with the previous portion italicized:

For when they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly, who of them can accuse us of murder or cannibalism?

So the context wasn’t necessarily pacifism and definitely wasn’t only pacifism.  Read the whole passage in the link under the heading of “The Christians condemn and detest all cruelty” and see for yourself.  The Christians were accused of being murderers and cannibals, and the quote is from the section defending themselves against that charge.  Perhaps he should have been turning the other cheek, but it is obvious that he wrote that section to defend Christians against false charges.

Also, keep in mind the kind of death he was referring to.  Was it crucifixion, the cruelest form of execution ever devised?  Was it being killed by wild animals in the arena?  (Note the reference to gladiators and wild beasts.)  He and other church fathers might have been against those types of capital punishments – though that still wasn’t the context of the passage - but perhaps they would feel differently about lethal injection.

That’s nice, but what does the Bible say?  Even if the passage had been in context, it would have been much more meaningful if it would have referred to the how the early church interpreted scripture (I know it was pre-Canon, but most of the books were widely circulated and authoritative).  After all, just because you quote a few guys doesn’t mean their views meshed with scripture.

What I found really interesting was Athenagoras’ section on abortion:

And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very foetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it . . .

Again, he is trying to defend themselves against charges of murder and cannibalism by pointing out how they think abortion is murder.

It seems to me that true pacifists would quote the anti-abortion part because that was so clear.  99% of all murders are abortions, so wouldn’t pacifists want to start there?  That is, unless they are the typical pro-abortion pacifists or those who say they are anti-abortion but do and say nothing about it – including voting.

Here are a few more quotes from early church leaders on abortion.  I’m sure the pacifists quote these left and right in their pro-life efforts:

You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not slay a child by abortion. You shall not kill that which has already been generated. (Epistle of Barnabas 19.5; second century)

Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a new-born infant. (The Didache 2.2; second century catechism for young Christian converts)

It does not matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. In both instances, the destruction is murder. (Tertullian, Apology, 9.4; second century)

Those who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons. (Basil the Great, Canons, 188.2; fourth century)

Jerome called abortion “the murder of an unborn child” (Letter to Eustochium, 22.13; fourth century).

Augustine used the same phrase, warning against the terrible crime of “the murder of an unborn child” (On Marriage, 1.17.15; fourth century).

The early church fathers Origen, Cyprian and Chrysostom likewise condemned abortion as the killing of a child.

Quoting the Bible or anything else out of context is unproductive.

Yet another reason to like Tim Tebow

He even does prison ministry, including talking one-on-one to literally hundreds of death row inmates.

A funny bit via Doctors Recommended that Tim Tebow Be Aborted – Blog – Eternal Perspective Ministries.

He started the season as the third-stringer, and everyone freaked out. Then he got a start and won, and everyone freaked out. Then in his second start, he played horribly and got crushed, and everyone freaked out. Then he went on a winning streak, and everyone freaked out. Then he went on a losing streak, and everyone freaked out. Then he won a playoff game, and everyone freaked out.

Victim count: football scouts, football media, Tebow haters, Tebow supporters, John Fox, John Elway, his teammates, me, you. At some point along the way, he’s made everyone look stupid…

Brett Favre used to be the go-to name for members of the sports media in need of a column or segment topic. But he went away, and the collective football media panicked. Fortunately, in stepped Tebow. This alone could turn thousands of grateful sports media members to religion. And I’m as guilty as anyone else. In the past two months, I’ve written approximately 127 Tebow columns. But I’ve also started tithing. Thanks Tim!

…Will a wholesome, handsome ex-football star who can draw the religious vote and appeal to the tens of millions of Oprah-loving pop psychologists win 51 percent of the vote in the 2024 presidential election? No, he will win 91 percent of the vote in the 2024 presidential election. The 9 percent who don’t vote for him will just be hard-core Raiders, Chargers, Chiefs, Alabama, LSU, Georgia and Ron Paul fans.

…He can’t be stopped. He can’t be killed. He just keeps coming for you. Coming for us all. He doesn’t want to kill you. He doesn’t want to eat your flesh. He just wants to win. He’s the world’s first wholesome, positive zombie. The only screams you’ll hear are his … celebrating another touchdown.

Pro-choicers tend to hate Tebow because of his faith and because his life shows one of the many errors of their philosophy.  His mother was encouraged to abort him because he might have medical problems — as if we would kill human beings outside the womb for those reasons!

Having said that, it is creepy when some Christians seem to worship him.  He’s a great guy and an amazing role model, but still not Jesus.  Yes, God is sovereign, but it isn’t like He is going to make sure that Tebow completes every pass he throws.  I’m glad that they are rooting for Tebow, but I hope they use his example to get out and impact the lives around them for Christ.

It is sadly ironic that pro-choice women would oppose him.  Why wouldn’t they want to hold him up as a role model?  He wouldn’t try to have sex with them outside of marriage and take their innocence and purity.  He wouldn’t use them for his pleasure and not commit to them.  He wouldn’t encourage them to have an abortion if they got pregnant.  And on and on.

I’ve been a Steelers fan for 40 years and rooted for them last Sunday, but I have to admit that I was by far the least disappointed I’ve ever been at one of their losses.

Is forgiveness possible?

A friend reminded me of this clip so I wanted to run it again.  The video is fictional, of course, but the premise occurs countless times every day around the world: People need and want forgiveness, but the world tells them lies.

Christianity has the truth and the Good News, but far too many people claiming the name of Christ are unequipped and/or unwilling to share it, even when asked.  If that applies to you, then do something about it.  Right away!  I recommend Tactics by Greg Koukl as a great way to learn how to share your faith as an effective ambassador and apologist for Christ, just as the scriptures command.

2 Corinthians 5:20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.

1 Peter 3:15–16 (ESV) but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

—–

It was surprising but so encouraging to see that the clip below was on the TV show ER a couple years back.

The chaplain is the classic fake Christian you’d expect to find in most theologically liberal churches today.  I love how the patient doesn’t buy her “just make up a god in your own image” type of platitudes.

The money quotes from the dying patient:

All I’m hearing is some new age “God is love” one-size-fits-all crap . . . I don’t have time for this now . . . I want a real chaplain who believes in a real God and a real Hell . . . I don’t need to “ask myself,” I need answers, and all your questions and uncertainty are only making things worse . . .

I need someone who will look me in the eye and tell me how to find forgiveness, because I am running out of time!

Hey Christians, time to fire up!  Some people don’t want the truth.  But there are lots of real people like this in the world who need and want the truth.  They must be so sick of the lies and the politically correct “God is whoever you want him to be” nonsense taught by the world and by far too many churches.  Is it really so hard to understand that you do not get to tell the creator of the universe how eternity works?  You don’t set the terms and conditions of salvation any more than you get to tell your boss to triple your pay and give you 50 weeks of vacation, or tell your teacher that he must give you an A without you coming to class.

Are you ready to tell people the truth and the Good News?  Forgiveness, redemption and eternal life are possible, but only through trust in Jesus.

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.

Reverse missionaries

Typical 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.

The best pro-life site I’ve found

If I could only recommend one pro-life site it would definitely be Abort73.com.  They have thorough, accurate, eye-catching, easy to follow layouts and content.

I use their medical testimony page often, especially when encountering those who claim that we don’t know when life begins.  They list quotes from many mainstream embryology textbooks pointing out that a new human being is created at conception.

Please check out the site if you haven’t already, then bookmark it and share it!

On bullying: Why are products of Darwinian evolution surprised that products of Darwinian evolution behave like products of Darwinian evolution?

Sorry for the less-than-pithy title, but I spelled it out to emphasize the multiple inconsistencies of the Leftist/Darwinian crowd that poses as part of the anti-bullying movement.

First, I want to be clear that I oppose all bullying.*  For example, I know many gay/lesbian people, and I would defend them if they were bullied just as I would defend other sinners who were getting bullied.  I’m just predisposed to protect the weak and defenseless, such as the unborn.

OK, back to whaling on the Leftist Darwinists: For starters, they don’t mind bullying as long as they are the bullies.  See the Expelled! movie, for example.  They are so “confident” in their views that they delight in using their power to silence opposing views, end careers, etc.  Academic bullying is still bullying.  The root of bullying is cowardice and fear, and they display it regularly.

And if they really believed what they claim they’d concede that there is no grounding to criticize bullying.  Oh, we all know it is wrong, but in a molecules-to-man worldview you can write volumes trying to rationalize objective morality (and they do try!) but you always end up losing.  It turns out to be “truth is relative” morality that they have no logical grounds to expect others to follow unless forced to.

And of course, if there is no God and we are purely the result of the Darwinian mechanism, then it is to “blame” for bullying.  How could you hold the bullies accountable? They were born that way.

Finally, wouldn’t bullying be a positive in the Darwinian worldview?  You know, survival of the fittest, the strong preying on the weak and all that.  Why do they get squeamish and give up a core principle of their cherished worldview?

—–

* My official, one-size-fits-all anti-bullying policy, offered here for the public domain and available for use by all school districts, free of charge:

If you physically or verbally harass other students on or off school grounds, including the Internet, you will have swift and serious consequences. It doesn’t matter if you are bullying because they are gay/straight/fat/thin/smart/dumb/pretty/ugly/etc., or if it is just because you are a mean jerk.

Training over. You don’t need LGBTQ sex clubs in schools to prevent bullying.  That is just a Trojan Horse.