Over at LifeSite News, I was monitoring the developing convo to see how my friends the Abolitionists were faring (they fared quite well) in the combox reactions to the House's passage of the Pence amendment which seeks to remove Planned Parenthood's federal funding.
One Stephen Whitworth dropped by and told us that he had expressed himself rather rudely about this issue and invited anyone interested to interact at the combox there. To his credit, he has not deleted any comments to my knowledge, but the convo over there, while interesting, has not attracted a great deal of deep thinkers on the pro-baby-murder side of the aisle. I reproduce here my comments.
3
Rhology - Feb. 18 - 8:41 pm
Hi! Linked over from Lifesite. You promised vulgarity and implied immaturity, and you didn’t disappoint!
You said:
–”Teabagging hordes that galloped to a U.S. Congressional majority”
1) Saying “Teabaggers” and suchlike reveals you to be a leftist, biased tool. Just FYI. Can you really not resist the temptation?
2) The Tea Party has no position on abortion. I unsuccessfully tried, for example, to have the Planned Parenthood vigil for victims added to my local Tea Party mailing list update.
You said:
–”Think abortion is wrong? Don’t have one! No problem! See? It’s easy to get along and respect each other’s different beliefs!”
Think kidnapping is wrong? Don’t kidnap people! No problem! See? It’s easy to get along and respect each other’s different beliefs!
You said:
–”don’t you dare push your bizarre, preindustrial superstitions”
Did you know that this is a logical fallacy, a derivative of the genetic fallacy, called the argument from modernity? Just b/c you come later in chronology doesn’t mean you’re right.
Does it bother you that you’ve used a logical fallacy in your argument?
You said:
–”babies and fetuses aren’t the same thing”
Tbh, I’d say that is THE central topic of the whole abortion debate. I’d like to ask you: When does a fetus become a baby? And how do you know?
You said:
–”You know when they became legal? After women were allowed to vote, work and choose their own destinies. ”
Yes, a lot later. Like 54 years later, in the USA. That’s a pretty large separation of time to prove correlation. Do you have an argument that would compel us to accept your reasoning here?
You said:
–”since nobody wants abortions”
Then why is Planned Parenthood requiring that all of its “clinics” PERFORM abortions by 2013, or else be cut off from PP funding?
This is obviously false.
You said:
–”Women want and need sex education, dependable birth control and doctors and health workers”
1) Defunding PP doesn’t mean that PP won’t get any money anymore. It just means the US gov’t won’t subsidise them. They’ll have to compete now.
2) What about all those ppl who like to remind us that PP is all about contraception and raising awareness? Wouldn’t PP have to constrict, tighten its belt, in order to continue to offer its most important services, while trimming the fat? Or is it that, contrary to what we keep hearing from the PP apologists, abortions really are their stock and trade and their favorite activity? What happened to safe, legal, and rare? As far as I can tell, they and their ilk are only interested in the “legal” part of that triumvirate. So, if they stopped funding contraception and all that stuff and focused on abortions, seems to me that the blame would rest squarely on their shoulders, not on the shoulders of those calling for reform.
You said:
–”South Dakota talked about making it sort of legal to murder abortion doctors. ”
Help me understand your reasoning here. It’s OK to kill fetuses b/c the law says so. It’s not OK to kill older fetuses b/c the law says it’s not OK. But what if the law were changed to allow killing of any and all fetuses? What’s your specific complaint?
Peace to you,
Rhology
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Notes from my reading of the Qur'an
I recently finished reading the Muhsin Khan translation of the Qur'an. I am glad to have done so, and I'm perhaps happier to be finished! I took copious notes during my reading, looking for various topics of interest to me, and as requested I will share the notes here.
Of particular interest should be the topic of Jihad and compulsion in religion as well as the Biblical allusions. I come away from my reading of the Qur'an even more convinced that Islam is intellectually and spiritually bankrupt. Perhaps the single most striking portion of the book was Surah 4:159:
My notes on that aya are as follows:
Of particular interest should be the topic of Jihad and compulsion in religion as well as the Biblical allusions. I come away from my reading of the Qur'an even more convinced that Islam is intellectually and spiritually bankrupt. Perhaps the single most striking portion of the book was Surah 4:159:
And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), but must believe in him ['Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), as only a Messenger of Allah and a human being], before his ['Iesa (Jesus) or a Jew's or a Christian's] death (at the time of the appearance of the angel of death). And on the Day of Resurrection, he ['Iesa (Jesus)] will be a witness against them.
My notes on that aya are as follows:
S4.159 all must believe in Jesus. Astonishingly it says that Jesus will be a witness against Christians at judgment day. Imagine that - Islam turns Jesus into the judge and avenger against Christians! Thus is truly Antichrist.There were numerous "Whoa" moments for me in my reading, but that one remains the most memorable.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Tweeting about Planned Parenthood
I've been going back and forth with a couple of Twitter users but the convo has become too long and fragmented to continue to participate in 120-character (after using up some with the @handle) bursts.
piisalie has commented here before, but not under that same handle. Anyway, here is where we are right now.
Rhology
@piisalie $350 mil is only "absurdly small" if u r numb 2 what money like that rly means. It's not small. Would u like a $350 mil gift card?
Rhology
@piisalie Wrt "war", you'll have to be more specific. Which war?
Rhology
@piisalie Since PP is clearly OK with aiding major crimes like sex trafficking minors, "but they do good!" arguments don't interest me much.
1) piisalie @Rhology my point is, if you defund PP, it would spike, if not double or worsen the ab rate.
2) piisalie @Rhology They are not aiding in sex crimes, they first provide services to help. Didn't Jesus help prostitutes?
3) piisalie @Rhology that argument only makes sense if you are numb to what the fed budget is, or are unable to grasp large numbers.
4) piisalie @Rhology Any war that involves killing of innocents.
See what I mean? I'd like to continue here by responding to each. I've numbered them to keep them straight.
1) Defunding the largest abortion provider in the USA, thus driving up their costs (since they wouldn't be getting all those gov't subsidies) would raise the abortion rate?
a. What about all those ppl who like to remind us that PP is all about contraception and raising awareness? Wouldn't PP have to constrict, tighten its belt, in order to continue to offer its most important services, while trimming the fat? Or is it that, contrary to what we keep hearing from the PP apologists, abortions really are their stock and trade and their favorite activity? What happened to safe, legal, and rare? As far as I can tell, they and their ilk are only interested in the "legal" part of that triumvirate. So, if they stopped funding contraception and all that stuff and focused on abortions, seems to me that the blame would rest squarely on their shoulders, not on the shoulders of those calling for reform.
b. How does that work, economically speaking, if PP were indeed to cut its abortion offerings or raise the price? Does piisalie expect new abortuaries to spring up overnight to provide the spike he's warning of?
2) Clearly piisalie hasn't watched the videos and is thus just dealing in ignorance now. He truly needs to educate himself.
Yes, Jesus helped prostitutes. I admit I missed the part in His ministry where He aided and abetted those who were exploiting children as sex slaves, pimping out their sexual services for money, so it would be great if piisalie could point it out to me. Any translation of the Bible will suffice.
Also, he did not respond to my counterargument. Just b/c PP does some good things does not mean they should not be held accountable for the very bad things they've been shown to be doing and willing to do. I'd like to ask piisalie to consider that almost never is anyone wholly evil. Does he think Charles Manson never petted a dog or watered a plant or something? Something, yet that doesn't stop us from making decisions about whether ppl/groups are sufficiently evil to stop supporting them. I don't know if anyone would argue that aiding and abetting the sex trafficking of minors is not a big deal.
Rather, supporters of PP argue that that's not really how it went down. I think they're kidding themselves - the ppl on the vids said what they said, and why else fire some of the employees if they did everything like they were supposed to?
3) piisalie accuses me of losing sight of how small $350 million is, which is approximately how much PP received in taxpayer money last year. Since the new proposed US budget is over $3 trillion, how much difference does $350 million make?
It's amazing to hear liberals talk like that. I don't even know what to say, except to marvel at piisalie's amazing economic ignorance.
4) piisalie asked me earlier: @Rhology What of war? We have spent orders of magnitude more on war, do you oppose that?
Is piisalie aware of any war that does not involve killing innocents? What does that mean? This enforced brevity is one of Twitter's weaknesses, so hopefully piisalie can flesh out what he means in more detail here. Deliberately targeting innocents? Collateral damage, accidental involvement of innocents? How does he define innocent? Is whether innocents get caught in the crossfire sometimes his only measure of whether a war is justifiable?
piisalie has commented here before, but not under that same handle. Anyway, here is where we are right now.
Rhology
@piisalie $350 mil is only "absurdly small" if u r numb 2 what money like that rly means. It's not small. Would u like a $350 mil gift card?
Rhology
@piisalie Wrt "war", you'll have to be more specific. Which war?
Rhology
@piisalie Since PP is clearly OK with aiding major crimes like sex trafficking minors, "but they do good!" arguments don't interest me much.
1) piisalie @Rhology my point is, if you defund PP, it would spike, if not double or worsen the ab rate.
2) piisalie @Rhology They are not aiding in sex crimes, they first provide services to help. Didn't Jesus help prostitutes?
3) piisalie @Rhology that argument only makes sense if you are numb to what the fed budget is, or are unable to grasp large numbers.
4) piisalie @Rhology Any war that involves killing of innocents.
See what I mean? I'd like to continue here by responding to each. I've numbered them to keep them straight.
1) Defunding the largest abortion provider in the USA, thus driving up their costs (since they wouldn't be getting all those gov't subsidies) would raise the abortion rate?
a. What about all those ppl who like to remind us that PP is all about contraception and raising awareness? Wouldn't PP have to constrict, tighten its belt, in order to continue to offer its most important services, while trimming the fat? Or is it that, contrary to what we keep hearing from the PP apologists, abortions really are their stock and trade and their favorite activity? What happened to safe, legal, and rare? As far as I can tell, they and their ilk are only interested in the "legal" part of that triumvirate. So, if they stopped funding contraception and all that stuff and focused on abortions, seems to me that the blame would rest squarely on their shoulders, not on the shoulders of those calling for reform.
b. How does that work, economically speaking, if PP were indeed to cut its abortion offerings or raise the price? Does piisalie expect new abortuaries to spring up overnight to provide the spike he's warning of?
2) Clearly piisalie hasn't watched the videos and is thus just dealing in ignorance now. He truly needs to educate himself.
Yes, Jesus helped prostitutes. I admit I missed the part in His ministry where He aided and abetted those who were exploiting children as sex slaves, pimping out their sexual services for money, so it would be great if piisalie could point it out to me. Any translation of the Bible will suffice.
Also, he did not respond to my counterargument. Just b/c PP does some good things does not mean they should not be held accountable for the very bad things they've been shown to be doing and willing to do. I'd like to ask piisalie to consider that almost never is anyone wholly evil. Does he think Charles Manson never petted a dog or watered a plant or something? Something, yet that doesn't stop us from making decisions about whether ppl/groups are sufficiently evil to stop supporting them. I don't know if anyone would argue that aiding and abetting the sex trafficking of minors is not a big deal.
Rather, supporters of PP argue that that's not really how it went down. I think they're kidding themselves - the ppl on the vids said what they said, and why else fire some of the employees if they did everything like they were supposed to?
3) piisalie accuses me of losing sight of how small $350 million is, which is approximately how much PP received in taxpayer money last year. Since the new proposed US budget is over $3 trillion, how much difference does $350 million make?
It's amazing to hear liberals talk like that. I don't even know what to say, except to marvel at piisalie's amazing economic ignorance.
4) piisalie asked me earlier: @Rhology What of war? We have spent orders of magnitude more on war, do you oppose that?
Is piisalie aware of any war that does not involve killing innocents? What does that mean? This enforced brevity is one of Twitter's weaknesses, so hopefully piisalie can flesh out what he means in more detail here. Deliberately targeting innocents? Collateral damage, accidental involvement of innocents? How does he define innocent? Is whether innocents get caught in the crossfire sometimes his only measure of whether a war is justifiable?
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Frank Turk and John Piper
This most recent phase of the issue I'll discuss here started when Frank Turk, aka centuri0n, wrote an open letter to John Piper last week.
Apparently his plan is to write one per week this year, and that's fine by me. I have enjoyed them all so far, but the letter to Piper left me scratching my head a bit. Apparently I am not alone.
Criticising Piper is still dangerous ground in many circles these days, but it is becoming more acceptable, and I think that is a good thing. He is good in many areas but there are also areas in which we must turn away from him.
I don't necessarily have a big problem with Mike Ratliff's post, tbh. If you ask me, Turk is in the wrong by giving Piper a pass. Warren is a bad, bad influence and we would all do well to give him the theological left foot of fellowship. Yes, we're not part of his church, but that doesn't mean we don't cut him out of ours!
Piper himself, as others have pointed out, has been devolving into the bizarre and even occasionally dangerous. Bizarre - inviting Warren to speak and looking past Driscoll's behavior (I'd say the Warren thing is worse).
Muddled - he apparently can't figure out whether he's a full Calvinist or not. I do not agree with everything in that video (in particular that the Arminian view of the extent of the atonement is heretical) but I post it for the sake of Piper's statements, particularly those beginning at 7m 16s.
And it's not so much the out of context "you must be born again into a Christian Hedonist" stuff - it sounds terrible, but I know what Piper means b/c I read the book "Desiring God". Didn't like the book much, but I read it.
The dangerous - Piper wrote "The Future of Justification", and it was a good rebuttal to the New Perspective on Paul. Then he writes "Future Grace" and seemingly takes it all back while muddying up the waters mightily. Now that's dangerous. http://trinityfoundation.org/PDF/197a-PiedPiper.pdf
Thing is, many of the commenters on Mike Ratliff's post should be ashamed of themselves for their behavior and quick triggers. Turk has his part in bringing this upon himself, however, in his inexplicably gentle treatment of Piper and Warren. If Turk had been in the mood to write an open letter praising someone, I can think of better addressees. Also, since it was an open letter, it would have been acceptable ISTM to throw in a few caveats about Piper, since Turk has said multiple times that he doesn't necessarily expect the addressees to read the letter. Further, there's nothing wrong with a mixed-bag letter.
For more on this issue, see my and Matt's from Vox Veritatis recent interactions with Defending.Contending. on the topic of separating from those who like Mark Driscoll. Let's just simmer down a bit, people.
Apparently his plan is to write one per week this year, and that's fine by me. I have enjoyed them all so far, but the letter to Piper left me scratching my head a bit. Apparently I am not alone.
Criticising Piper is still dangerous ground in many circles these days, but it is becoming more acceptable, and I think that is a good thing. He is good in many areas but there are also areas in which we must turn away from him.
I don't necessarily have a big problem with Mike Ratliff's post, tbh. If you ask me, Turk is in the wrong by giving Piper a pass. Warren is a bad, bad influence and we would all do well to give him the theological left foot of fellowship. Yes, we're not part of his church, but that doesn't mean we don't cut him out of ours!
Piper himself, as others have pointed out, has been devolving into the bizarre and even occasionally dangerous. Bizarre - inviting Warren to speak and looking past Driscoll's behavior (I'd say the Warren thing is worse).
Muddled - he apparently can't figure out whether he's a full Calvinist or not. I do not agree with everything in that video (in particular that the Arminian view of the extent of the atonement is heretical) but I post it for the sake of Piper's statements, particularly those beginning at 7m 16s.
And it's not so much the out of context "you must be born again into a Christian Hedonist" stuff - it sounds terrible, but I know what Piper means b/c I read the book "Desiring God". Didn't like the book much, but I read it.
The dangerous - Piper wrote "The Future of Justification", and it was a good rebuttal to the New Perspective on Paul. Then he writes "Future Grace" and seemingly takes it all back while muddying up the waters mightily. Now that's dangerous. http://trinityfoundation.org/PDF/197a-PiedPiper.pdf
Thing is, many of the commenters on Mike Ratliff's post should be ashamed of themselves for their behavior and quick triggers. Turk has his part in bringing this upon himself, however, in his inexplicably gentle treatment of Piper and Warren. If Turk had been in the mood to write an open letter praising someone, I can think of better addressees. Also, since it was an open letter, it would have been acceptable ISTM to throw in a few caveats about Piper, since Turk has said multiple times that he doesn't necessarily expect the addressees to read the letter. Further, there's nothing wrong with a mixed-bag letter.
For more on this issue, see my and Matt's from Vox Veritatis recent interactions with Defending.Contending. on the topic of separating from those who like Mark Driscoll. Let's just simmer down a bit, people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)