Unwanted pregnancy and a woman's choice. If God allows rape, then he allows abortion. He believes in free-will. They should too.- Rhology What you're missing is that God is patient and does not destroy sinners just before they sin or right after... He usually waits a long time before judgment comes on them. But His clear commands are not to rape and not to murder.
Yet He redeems and brings good out of evil, even the gift of life out of being raped.
On our blog we have a lovely testimony published just last week about a woman who was raped and who loves her child.
Another one from a couple of months ago.
http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com
Don't love death and don't mock God. - Unwanted pregnancy and a woman's choice. I don't believe in your God.
If a woman wishes to keep a product of rape, that is her CHOICE.
That would not be my choice.
You God gives people free-will. Who are you to take their free-will from them?
I will mock your god. You god does so many horrific things to people that don't deserve them.
God lets bad things happen to good people and people like you call it God's will.
If God is so against abortion, I suggest he stop giving his little gifts to those that will abort. While he is at it, he might want to stop giving little gifts to those that will abuse it after it is born. Your relationship with your god is the most abusive relationship ever. I chose not to be in such an abusive relationship. - Rhology \\ I don't believe in your God.\\
Unsurprising.
\\You God gives people free-will. Who are you to take their free-will from them?\\
I don't believe God gives people free will. Free CHOICE, sure. Maybe that's what you meant.
I am no one. God however has commanded us not to do certain things. Some choices are wrong.
*YOU* want to remove "free will" from those who'd like to rape a woman, so your objection has no teeth.
\\I will mock your god.\\
He's crushed; I hope you know that.
\\You god does so many horrific things to people that don't deserve them.\\
He thinks we all deserve Hell and extends mercy to people so that we all have longer lives than we have merited.
What's your argument that we don't deserve horrific things? How do you know what is deserved?
\\God lets bad things happen to good people and people like you call it God's will.\\
That only happened once, and He volunteered.
There are no good people.
If you disagree, please let me know what your standard of measurement for goodness and badness is. Don't say "society", don't say "my instinct", and don't say "science" - those are answers for fools. What is it?
\\If God is so against abortion, I suggest he stop giving his little gifts to those that will abort.\\
I'm sure the Almighty will take your suggestion under advisement.
\\While he is at it, he might want to stop giving little gifts to those that will abuse it after it is born.\\
What you're missing is that God is patient and does not destroy sinners just before they sin or right after... He usually waits a long time before judgment comes on them. But His clear commands are not to rape and not to murder.
Yet He redeems and brings good out of evil, even the gift of life out of being abused as a child.
On our blog we have a lovely testimony published just last week about a woman who was molested as a child and who loves her child, born of her molester.
http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com
Don't love death and don't mock God.
\\ Your relationship with your god is the most abusive relationship ever\\
This is nothing more than a rant, pure emoting. Not an argument driven by reason.
Monday, October 29, 2012
On Mourdock's remark about God and rape
Sunday, October 28, 2012
If you can't join 'em, make weird arguments, Part 3
Continuing from last time...
-Just because you legally prohibit something doesn’t mean that people will never do or consume that thing again-
So we should have never legalised rape or murder.
I'm tired of hitting this same topic with you. Either make some progress or just repeat yourself in your own echo chamber.
-at least in a medical environment there is so kind of control-
You'd think, but the evidence shows otherwise.
Plus, an abortuary is not a medical environment. Its very reason for existence grossly violates the Hippocratic Oath. These are for-profit death houses.
-There also is a certain amount of accountability if procedures are not properly followed. However, when it comes to abortions being done in homes or in the black market it is just pure chaos.-
Like Kermit Gosnell's "clinic"!
-There are no real consequences for making rape or murder illegal. You’re trying to compare a violent action to a product or service. -
What if I just, like you, redefine murder as a "service"? See? All better!
-. What if a teenager or seriously poor person really can’t afford contraceptives? -
That's stupid.
1) Condoms are cheap.
2) You don't HAVE to have sex, you know.
- Now you either have a potential abortion on your hands or you have another welfare baby that needs to be supported. -
Or adoption.
But the abolitionist drive is to convert the culture so that
1) such situations as this are not numerous
2) people love to adopt.
-he prohibition of alcohol and the abolishment of abortion are both bans on a substance or service that some people desire whereas making murder illegal is ban on a violent action that comes naturally to mankind-
1) Abortion is a violent action that comes naturally to mankind too.
2) Murder is often hired out. Ever heard of a hit man?
Your rationalising doesn't make any sense.
And you keep forgetting that
a) we want to change the culture
b) a nation that persistently murders its children faces God's judgment, which is fearful
-On the other hand, making murder illegal carries no negative consequences-
Sure it does. We throw people in jail for it, tie up court systems, and have to execute citizens at times. And that is also very negative for the murderer.
You're just making stuff up, and it's not working.
- When I said that prostitution is wide spread I meant that it is wide spread across the nation from Las Vegas to Oklahoma and from Seattle to Miami.-
But it's MORE widespread in Vegas. Why?
Because it's legal there.
-they don’t call prostitution the oldest profession for nothing.-
BTW, that is a really ludicrous adage.
FARMING is the oldest profession. Sheesh.
-Instead of making unhelpful comments just explain what I’m missing.-
Consider my criticism an opportunity to read what's already been written on our site. I'm not going to retype it for you.
-Which option do you choose? For me, option A is the obvious choice.-
1) You don't know that the preborn child feels what you said he feels. You're guessing.
2) You left out God's command not to murder, that God loves human life.
3) "Option B" enjoyed good things in his life, too. Got to enjoy the beauty of God's creation, had a wife, had the ability to move around and breathe and eat and live.
I'm not saying he was Bill Gates. I'm saying you can't do any of that if you're dead.
4) You don't have any idea what it's like never to have lived. Whether you prefer Option A is irrelevant, for you are unqualified to make any judgment on the matter.
-In this fallen world we live in sometimes there is only a choice between evil and a lesser evil.-
Untrue.
-My hope is that Jesus will come back sometime soon and set all the wrongs right, and that we will live in a kingdom where there is no suffering.-
if I were you, I wouldn't be impatient to see Jesus come back. He doesn't take kindly to those who spend their time defending baby murder.
Repent, while you still have time.
-Wow, I didn’t know that you are God. -
SMH
That's the refuge of the shallow thinker who can't really engage the issue at hand, and who has no idea what it means that God has entrusted His people with a proclamation to repeat after Him what He has already said.
- Wait there’s a problem because the AHA website says that is justifiable to abort a dying baby if the mother’s life is in danger.-
That's sloppily stated. What else is new?
-Since AHA says that abortion is justified then that means abolitionists aren’t Christians either. This also means that your revelation to me, the AHA website, is evil too so you can’t be God—you’re just a false god.-
[speechless at the foolishness]
-From our limited dialogue I could conclude that you are a self-righteous white washed tomb; and a modern day Pharisee. -
If you were to make that accusation, you'd reveal that you don't have any idea what "Pharisee" means, or what Jesus meant in Matthew 23 when He said "whitewashed tomb".
-As to abolition, I’m not on the bandwagon because I think that it would make society worse, not better-
Yes, Keith thinks it is BETTER to continue murdering babies. 54 million dead, that's BETTER.
-. I sincerely think that God does not expect us to support things that we think could hurt our neighbors.-
What about MURDERING your neighbors? I guess God's totally Ok with that as long as you think you can rationalise that away, and as long as you arbitrarily un-label them "neighbors".
Nothing to see here. Move along.
- You are a pregnant teenage girl who doesn’t think abortion is one of the greatest evils on the face of the earth because you didn’t grow up in youth group.-
I didn't learn abortion is evil from "youth group", FYI, but OK.
- Can you see that when you are looking at things from her perspective it looks like there is no choice?-
Yuo didn't say "SHE THINKS there is no choice" before. You're moving the goalposts. You'd said "there is no choice". Whether she knows about that choice is a totally different question.
-I’m alluding to John 8:1-11.-
1) Are you aware that's a textual variant and not actually in the original manuscript of the book of John?
2) Who's condemning anyone? Calling abortion sin = condemnation?
3) Sounds like you'd want to give the post-abortive girl a pat on the back and an "attagirl". You seem like a big fan of abortion to me.
4) Stoning? I mean, I don't even know what to say to this. So stupid.
- I just don’t think that I can fully support your cause because I believe that prohibitions only make things worse.-
No, you believe that prohibitions of SOME things only make things worse, and you're too shallow or biased to see how your rationalisations are idiotic.
-I just don’t think that banning abortion can be justified if the ban just leads to mother and child dying during a home abortion.-
The ban wouldn't lead to that. The decision of the person to defy the ban would lead to it.
"I just don’t think that banning murder can be justified if the ban just leads to a murderer dying by lethal injection. -Keith"
-Just because you legally prohibit something doesn’t mean that people will never do or consume that thing again-
So we should have never legalised rape or murder.
I'm tired of hitting this same topic with you. Either make some progress or just repeat yourself in your own echo chamber.
-at least in a medical environment there is so kind of control-
You'd think, but the evidence shows otherwise.
Plus, an abortuary is not a medical environment. Its very reason for existence grossly violates the Hippocratic Oath. These are for-profit death houses.
-There also is a certain amount of accountability if procedures are not properly followed. However, when it comes to abortions being done in homes or in the black market it is just pure chaos.-
Like Kermit Gosnell's "clinic"!
-There are no real consequences for making rape or murder illegal. You’re trying to compare a violent action to a product or service. -
What if I just, like you, redefine murder as a "service"? See? All better!
-. What if a teenager or seriously poor person really can’t afford contraceptives? -
That's stupid.
1) Condoms are cheap.
2) You don't HAVE to have sex, you know.
- Now you either have a potential abortion on your hands or you have another welfare baby that needs to be supported. -
Or adoption.
But the abolitionist drive is to convert the culture so that
1) such situations as this are not numerous
2) people love to adopt.
-he prohibition of alcohol and the abolishment of abortion are both bans on a substance or service that some people desire whereas making murder illegal is ban on a violent action that comes naturally to mankind-
1) Abortion is a violent action that comes naturally to mankind too.
2) Murder is often hired out. Ever heard of a hit man?
Your rationalising doesn't make any sense.
And you keep forgetting that
a) we want to change the culture
b) a nation that persistently murders its children faces God's judgment, which is fearful
-On the other hand, making murder illegal carries no negative consequences-
Sure it does. We throw people in jail for it, tie up court systems, and have to execute citizens at times. And that is also very negative for the murderer.
You're just making stuff up, and it's not working.
- When I said that prostitution is wide spread I meant that it is wide spread across the nation from Las Vegas to Oklahoma and from Seattle to Miami.-
But it's MORE widespread in Vegas. Why?
Because it's legal there.
-they don’t call prostitution the oldest profession for nothing.-
BTW, that is a really ludicrous adage.
FARMING is the oldest profession. Sheesh.
-Instead of making unhelpful comments just explain what I’m missing.-
Consider my criticism an opportunity to read what's already been written on our site. I'm not going to retype it for you.
-Which option do you choose? For me, option A is the obvious choice.-
1) You don't know that the preborn child feels what you said he feels. You're guessing.
2) You left out God's command not to murder, that God loves human life.
3) "Option B" enjoyed good things in his life, too. Got to enjoy the beauty of God's creation, had a wife, had the ability to move around and breathe and eat and live.
I'm not saying he was Bill Gates. I'm saying you can't do any of that if you're dead.
4) You don't have any idea what it's like never to have lived. Whether you prefer Option A is irrelevant, for you are unqualified to make any judgment on the matter.
-In this fallen world we live in sometimes there is only a choice between evil and a lesser evil.-
Untrue.
-My hope is that Jesus will come back sometime soon and set all the wrongs right, and that we will live in a kingdom where there is no suffering.-
if I were you, I wouldn't be impatient to see Jesus come back. He doesn't take kindly to those who spend their time defending baby murder.
Repent, while you still have time.
-Wow, I didn’t know that you are God. -
SMH
That's the refuge of the shallow thinker who can't really engage the issue at hand, and who has no idea what it means that God has entrusted His people with a proclamation to repeat after Him what He has already said.
- Wait there’s a problem because the AHA website says that is justifiable to abort a dying baby if the mother’s life is in danger.-
That's sloppily stated. What else is new?
-Since AHA says that abortion is justified then that means abolitionists aren’t Christians either. This also means that your revelation to me, the AHA website, is evil too so you can’t be God—you’re just a false god.-
[speechless at the foolishness]
-From our limited dialogue I could conclude that you are a self-righteous white washed tomb; and a modern day Pharisee. -
If you were to make that accusation, you'd reveal that you don't have any idea what "Pharisee" means, or what Jesus meant in Matthew 23 when He said "whitewashed tomb".
-As to abolition, I’m not on the bandwagon because I think that it would make society worse, not better-
Yes, Keith thinks it is BETTER to continue murdering babies. 54 million dead, that's BETTER.
-. I sincerely think that God does not expect us to support things that we think could hurt our neighbors.-
What about MURDERING your neighbors? I guess God's totally Ok with that as long as you think you can rationalise that away, and as long as you arbitrarily un-label them "neighbors".
Nothing to see here. Move along.
- You are a pregnant teenage girl who doesn’t think abortion is one of the greatest evils on the face of the earth because you didn’t grow up in youth group.-
I didn't learn abortion is evil from "youth group", FYI, but OK.
- Can you see that when you are looking at things from her perspective it looks like there is no choice?-
Yuo didn't say "SHE THINKS there is no choice" before. You're moving the goalposts. You'd said "there is no choice". Whether she knows about that choice is a totally different question.
-I’m alluding to John 8:1-11.-
1) Are you aware that's a textual variant and not actually in the original manuscript of the book of John?
2) Who's condemning anyone? Calling abortion sin = condemnation?
3) Sounds like you'd want to give the post-abortive girl a pat on the back and an "attagirl". You seem like a big fan of abortion to me.
4) Stoning? I mean, I don't even know what to say to this. So stupid.
- I just don’t think that I can fully support your cause because I believe that prohibitions only make things worse.-
No, you believe that prohibitions of SOME things only make things worse, and you're too shallow or biased to see how your rationalisations are idiotic.
-I just don’t think that banning abortion can be justified if the ban just leads to mother and child dying during a home abortion.-
The ban wouldn't lead to that. The decision of the person to defy the ban would lead to it.
"I just don’t think that banning murder can be justified if the ban just leads to a murderer dying by lethal injection. -Keith"
Saturday, October 27, 2012
If you can't join 'em, make weird arguments, Part 2
Continuing from last time...
- but from what I’ve seen here and on the AHA website it appears that you haven’t really thought through the negative consequences of abolishing abortion, or you just don’t care that women could be harmed and that abolition would be hard to implement legally.-
You haven’t read enough, then.
Women won’t be harmed if abortion were abolished. You’re talking about when it’s banished to the darkness, but that’s not our goal.
You ASSERT it would be hard to implement legally, but as I already said and you didn’t comment on, targeting the providers would get us most of the way there.
Women won’t be harmed if abortion were abolished. You’re talking about when it’s banished to the darkness, but that’s not our goal.
You ASSERT it would be hard to implement legally, but as I already said and you didn’t comment on, targeting the providers would get us most of the way there.
-We do know that about 68,000 women die around the world from illegal abortions, so obviously making abortion illegal doesn’t completely stop it,-
Illegalising it is only one step. Not the end goal.
-some of the abortions being done are botched. -
Plenty of legal abortions in for-real “clinics” are botched too. Don’t forget that.
-We also know that similar prohibitions such as the ones against alcohol and drugs have failed and exacerbated the problems they were trying to eliminate.-
How about the prohibitions against rape and murder?
- I presume by using birth control, until they were in their 30’s and 40’s because they were so busy going to school and starting their careers-
A much lesser evil than murdering children in droves, I have to point out.
-This brings me back to the point that we should concentrate on preventing unwanted births through education and making sure that contraceptives are available for those who need them.-
1) Yes, let’s prevent unwanted pregnancies.
2) Yes, let’s educate.
3) Better yet, let’s share the Gospel wide so people will have hearts transformed by Jesus to love holiness.
4) Anyone can buy contraceptives. Too often this is code language for “let’s make sure the gov’t can tax the populace heavily, waste most of its revenues and then give the rest so SOME people can get free condoms and the pill”. The pill is not justifiable. Condoms are fine; let people buy them themselves.
2) Yes, let’s educate.
3) Better yet, let’s share the Gospel wide so people will have hearts transformed by Jesus to love holiness.
4) Anyone can buy contraceptives. Too often this is code language for “let’s make sure the gov’t can tax the populace heavily, waste most of its revenues and then give the rest so SOME people can get free condoms and the pill”. The pill is not justifiable. Condoms are fine; let people buy them themselves.
Friday, October 26, 2012
If you can't join 'em, make weird arguments, Part 1
One JW Wartick has contracted the abolition bug and we're glad to have him on board.
His declaration of abolition has drawn a few criticisms, and I decided to jump in and deal with them in the combox.
=========================
POSTED BY | OCTOBER 20, 2012, 6:45 PM
=========================
His declaration of abolition has drawn a few criticisms, and I decided to jump in and deal with them in the combox.
=========================
Keith,
The health of the mother is very rarely a concern in real life abortions. And you should say her LIFE; her health is affected, there’s no question. But just b/c someone adversely affects one’s HEALTH, one is not justified in killing him.
See the Abolitionist FAQ – it deals with this issue in detail.
http://www.abolishhumanabortion.com/faq
It also deals with the “back alley abortion” canard.
http://www.abolishhumanabortion.com/faq
It also deals with the “back alley abortion” canard.
If prohibitions against rape and slavery don’t prevent all rapes or enslaving, I suppose we should just legalise those activities, yes? And murder, since people still murder? You need to address this issue, badly.
I may not be able to tell you with certainty what the legal and judicial implications will be, but the nation faced the same when slavery was abolished. It was still necessary and justified to abolish it.
It is also irrelevant to the actual issue that abortion murders tiny children.
It is also irrelevant to the actual issue that abortion murders tiny children.
=========================
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Brian McLaren encounter, post mortem
One Terry has taken issue with my comments related to Brian McLaren. It's instructive to see the back and forth.
For the record, I don't endorse Anonymous' tone or verbiage. That's probably one of the reasons why he's anonymous.
But a few responses since Terry made accusations publicly:
So you're claiming he gave up his confession of the Gospel of Jesus for the sake of popularity?
Either that, or because he loves to contradict Jesus for the sake of contradicting Jesus. I figure I was being charitably by picking the former.
That's a judgement of character for which you have no basis.
As a matter of fact, I have plenty of basis; I didn't want to review 7 years of history in one post.
Let me suggest that it would have been wiser for you to ask me what basis I have rather than to assert I have no basis.
How do you know that's not just what he believes?
B/c he's in a position to know about the critiques of his position and has chosen never to comment on them. He has made no progress in the argument over the course of his popular-book-writing. B/c he says he has read the Bible many times and has come to these conclusions, yet an honest reading of the Bible could never lead someone to the beliefs he holds. It doesn't matter how many times one makes the ridiculous counterargument that "we all have our own interpretations"; that's disingenuous tomfoolery. He resorts to that hand-waving 'argument' ONLY when it comes to the Bible (and not when it comes to any other text, most certainly not his own) because he knows the Bible would never support what he goes around teaching like he knows what he's talking about.
He's a textbook false teacher. Just like the devil wrote it up.
hat if I were to say that you're only saying the things that you do because you want to be well thought of by whatever clique you're in?
The difference is that I have plenty of basis to say what I said, and there is a great deal of evidence against your assertion.
I have no idea if that's true because I don't know you!
True, you don't know me, but if you could point to evidence from my years of writing, you'd be in a different situation. I'm not ignorant of McLaren's public statements.
So he's somehow Satan incarnate?
No, he merely repeats Satan.
You're literally dehumanizing him.
No; sadly, his is quite literally the human condition, devoid of God's grace, given over to Satan to be used as Satan sees fit.
Not sure you can know the entirety of his dishonesty by reading his books or hearing him speak.
I certainly agree - I can't know the ENTIRETY of his dishonesty. I CAN know with sufficient certainty that he is dishonest from consuming his public material, however.
Hopeless lefties? What kind of statement is that?
A conclusion I have drawn based on the wildly irresponsible, foolish, and leftist propaganda that Robin Meyers expresses every time I read anything he says. And he's one of the principal preachers at Mayflower!
Someone who is a member at Mayflower will be continuously exposed to his evil rhetoric; "hopeless lefties" is, again, the most charitable thing I could think of to describe such a person. Other options include "intentional servants of the devil" and "complete idiots". As you can see, "hopeless lefties" is kind by comparison.
For some reason i can't imagine Jesus calling anyone hopeless.
When's the last time you read Matthew 23-24?
Or "Woe to you Bethsaida and Chorazin...!"?
Or John 9's "If you were blind, you would not be condemned, but since you claim you can see, your blindness remains"?
There's a great richness you're missing out on in the Scripture by turning your ear to deceivers like McLaren and Meyers.
Imagine being able to turn to ANY passage of Scripture and to see how it fits into God's grand plan of redemption! Instead of skipping over the parts that make you uncomfy because you can't account for them!
What if it was a room full of people just like you?
By God's grace, I actually take the Scripture seriously, so if it were a room full of people like me, we'd all be laughing at McLaren's idiocies and calling him to repentance to his face like I did.
much less condemn them to hell
The astute reader will note that I condemned no one to Hell.
how can you also claim to know what the entire room thinks about you or your people?
Why do you suppose everyone laughed at the joke I cited?
Your words do nothing but divide
1) Then I'm following in Jesus' footsteps, Who came to bring not peace, but a sword.
2) You're dividing away from me. You apparently think "dividing" is called for in some cases too. And for the record, you're right about that. So your criticism is self-refuting.
Doesn't ring of the ministry of reconciliation for which we've been called.
2 Corinthians 5: 18Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
The ministry of reconciliation is, in point of fact, the exact opposite of McLaren's message. He thinks that the basis for the ministry of reconciliation is "cosmic child abuse", and that God's not really angry toward sinners. And that forgiveness of sins refers mostly to horizontal relationships and "cycles of violence". Turn away from this false teaching and embrace what the Bible actually says.
you've made character judgements about someone because you disagree with their theology.
Jesus did too in such places as Matthew 7. With all due respect, I explained above why I do so.
I don't usually get engaged in comments b/c I haven't found it to be a fruitful endeavor.
I have, but I certainly understand when others don't think it merits their time.
I hope we can find time to get together. We'll talk about it offline. Lattés are on me.
For the record, I don't endorse Anonymous' tone or verbiage. That's probably one of the reasons why he's anonymous.
But a few responses since Terry made accusations publicly:
So you're claiming he gave up his confession of the Gospel of Jesus for the sake of popularity?
Either that, or because he loves to contradict Jesus for the sake of contradicting Jesus. I figure I was being charitably by picking the former.
That's a judgement of character for which you have no basis.
As a matter of fact, I have plenty of basis; I didn't want to review 7 years of history in one post.
Let me suggest that it would have been wiser for you to ask me what basis I have rather than to assert I have no basis.
How do you know that's not just what he believes?
B/c he's in a position to know about the critiques of his position and has chosen never to comment on them. He has made no progress in the argument over the course of his popular-book-writing. B/c he says he has read the Bible many times and has come to these conclusions, yet an honest reading of the Bible could never lead someone to the beliefs he holds. It doesn't matter how many times one makes the ridiculous counterargument that "we all have our own interpretations"; that's disingenuous tomfoolery. He resorts to that hand-waving 'argument' ONLY when it comes to the Bible (and not when it comes to any other text, most certainly not his own) because he knows the Bible would never support what he goes around teaching like he knows what he's talking about.
He's a textbook false teacher. Just like the devil wrote it up.
hat if I were to say that you're only saying the things that you do because you want to be well thought of by whatever clique you're in?
The difference is that I have plenty of basis to say what I said, and there is a great deal of evidence against your assertion.
I have no idea if that's true because I don't know you!
True, you don't know me, but if you could point to evidence from my years of writing, you'd be in a different situation. I'm not ignorant of McLaren's public statements.
So he's somehow Satan incarnate?
No, he merely repeats Satan.
You're literally dehumanizing him.
No; sadly, his is quite literally the human condition, devoid of God's grace, given over to Satan to be used as Satan sees fit.
Not sure you can know the entirety of his dishonesty by reading his books or hearing him speak.
I certainly agree - I can't know the ENTIRETY of his dishonesty. I CAN know with sufficient certainty that he is dishonest from consuming his public material, however.
Hopeless lefties? What kind of statement is that?
A conclusion I have drawn based on the wildly irresponsible, foolish, and leftist propaganda that Robin Meyers expresses every time I read anything he says. And he's one of the principal preachers at Mayflower!
Someone who is a member at Mayflower will be continuously exposed to his evil rhetoric; "hopeless lefties" is, again, the most charitable thing I could think of to describe such a person. Other options include "intentional servants of the devil" and "complete idiots". As you can see, "hopeless lefties" is kind by comparison.
For some reason i can't imagine Jesus calling anyone hopeless.
When's the last time you read Matthew 23-24?
Or "Woe to you Bethsaida and Chorazin...!"?
Or John 9's "If you were blind, you would not be condemned, but since you claim you can see, your blindness remains"?
There's a great richness you're missing out on in the Scripture by turning your ear to deceivers like McLaren and Meyers.
Imagine being able to turn to ANY passage of Scripture and to see how it fits into God's grand plan of redemption! Instead of skipping over the parts that make you uncomfy because you can't account for them!
What if it was a room full of people just like you?
By God's grace, I actually take the Scripture seriously, so if it were a room full of people like me, we'd all be laughing at McLaren's idiocies and calling him to repentance to his face like I did.
much less condemn them to hell
The astute reader will note that I condemned no one to Hell.
how can you also claim to know what the entire room thinks about you or your people?
Why do you suppose everyone laughed at the joke I cited?
Your words do nothing but divide
1) Then I'm following in Jesus' footsteps, Who came to bring not peace, but a sword.
2) You're dividing away from me. You apparently think "dividing" is called for in some cases too. And for the record, you're right about that. So your criticism is self-refuting.
Doesn't ring of the ministry of reconciliation for which we've been called.
2 Corinthians 5: 18Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
The ministry of reconciliation is, in point of fact, the exact opposite of McLaren's message. He thinks that the basis for the ministry of reconciliation is "cosmic child abuse", and that God's not really angry toward sinners. And that forgiveness of sins refers mostly to horizontal relationships and "cycles of violence". Turn away from this false teaching and embrace what the Bible actually says.
you've made character judgements about someone because you disagree with their theology.
Jesus did too in such places as Matthew 7. With all due respect, I explained above why I do so.
I don't usually get engaged in comments b/c I haven't found it to be a fruitful endeavor.
I have, but I certainly understand when others don't think it merits their time.
I hope we can find time to get together. We'll talk about it offline. Lattés are on me.
Monday, October 15, 2012
My encounter with Brian McLaren
So Brian McLaren came to the long-since-apostate "church" Mayflower Congregational UCC this past Friday for a lecture and book signing to promote his new volume of postmodern philosophy and pluralism.
Like the good subversive I am, I was in attendance along with two other brothers, street evangelists themselves.
McLaren fed us a typical presentation, truth mixed with error, wit and head-shakingly stupid assertions, jokes and backhanded insults against the backwoods fundy background against which he is reacting. Virtually nothing that would cause a semi-educated evangelical to take pause and say "Hmm, he's got a great point there that calls the Bible's divine source into question". But he certainly seemed to think that he was doing just that, and of course all the extreme lefties in attendance lapped it up and begged for more. It was sad and in its own way kind of pathetic.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Discussion with a Romanist on contraception
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Friday, September 07, 2012
Answering attacks - Bringers of the Light, Part 2
Continuing with Bringers of the Light from last time:
10. BotL contends:
God cannot be used to justify your arguments unless you either a) prove conclusively without a shadow of a doubt that God existsOK, well, proving conclusively without a reasonable doubt has been done.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt? Proof is not the same as persuasion, and in fact the Bible tells us not merely to prepare for, but to expect, wide unbelief in the God of the Bible. So if you're looking for an explanation as to why so many people don't believe in the God of the Bible, the Bible's own explanation (ie, humanity is sinful and rebellious, suppressing the truth and their knowledge that God exists, in unrighteousness) certainly accounts for all the facts.
admit that your viewpoint is based purely on your religious convictions and not facts as you so often claim..."I believe abortion is wrong because I believe in God's divine plan" is not even remotely close to "I believe abortion is wrong because the facts say so"a) This has already been addressed here and here.
b) BotL needs to argue, not assert, that the facts are not indeed on our side.
c) The facts are expressly laid out in Scripture, since BotL asked. There is literally no higher standard of truth, no more reliable witness, no more trustworthy informant, than the omniscient God Who never lies. Anything He says is the most certain of fact. And He has said that He brings good out of evil of all kinds. It doesn't matter whether BotL believes it.
d) The facts of the matter are actually pretty plain. When one male and one female mammal engage in conjugal relations, any life form that results is always the exact same species and is always just that - a life form. It is not a rock, nor a liquid, nor a computer screen. Not all products of conceptions are viable - ie, not all will go on to be born or survive delivery - but when two humans engage in conjugal relations, a human baby is the result of any conception.
The question to be debated is: What are our obligations, given this fact? What ought we do? On this question, empirical data can make no statement. Convictions about morality are necessary to know how to proceed, and those depend on different kinds of supporting argumentation. BotL has not, honestly, shown that he has thought through this issue with sufficient sophistication to realise this fact.
BotL is committing a category error and would need a way to bridge the IS/OUGHT gap before saying this kind of thing.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Clearly pro-aborts think highly of women
- about an hour ago · · 1
Philip Whimsical Richards because those underage girls are clearly so fit to be mothersabout an hour ago · · 1
Right, and they'll never grow up. far better to murder the child.
\\that Planned Parenthood employee messed up, if you're referring to the woman in the Live Action video\\
it's systemic, not one isolated incident; I recommend you pay attention to your surroundings a little better.
\\Planned Parenthood is taking the threat with an existential seriousness.\\
Of course they'll SAY that, but this kind of stuff has been exposed MUCH more frequently, for years before the Live Action video, many times by Lila Rose herself.
there is every reason to distrust Planned Parenthood.- Philip Whimsical Richards yes because teen mothers obviously grow up to reach their full potential all the time
my friend was in this situation, had she kept it, she wouldn't be in university right now, pulling a first in genetics 
Abolish Human Abortion \\yes because teen mothers obviously grow up to reach their full potential all the time\\
So let's put their babies to death b/c of immature mothers!
Say, what's the cutoff point for maturity? How mature do they have to be? How do you measure?
\\my friend was in this situation, had she kept it, she wouldn't be in university right now, pulling a first in genetics\\
So she traded her baby's life for a bachelor's degree. Are we supposed to be favorably impressed?- Philip Whimsical Richards the measurement is obviously if they feel ready
and yes, most people are impressed pulling a first in a difficult science degree, as opposed to what? sitting on benefits watching jeremy kyle with a kid who's probably not going to amount to much -
Abolish Human Abortion \\sitting on benefits watching jeremy kyle with a kid who's probably not going to amount to much\\
Wow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I don't believe this for a second, especially given the way PP is clearly willing to lie when underage girls call them wanting an abortion and wanting to hide it from their parents and hide their 30 year old boyfriend.