I linked to these abortion images in a comment at the blog of pro-abortion Christian who insists that he loves science but repeatedly denies the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception. He had told me to “think compassioniately,” so I pointed him to that excellent pro-life site and questioned his compassion.
That’s pretty disgusting Neil. Really.
My response back to him:
Why is it disgusting? I mean, I think it is disgusting viewing the remains of crushed and dismembered human beings. But for those who insist that it wasn’t a human being who was destroyed, it isn’t any more gross than your random episode of House.
We should use caution when showing images, but there is no reason they should not be part of the debate. After all, what could be more relevant than an image of what is being discussed? People have been in denial far too long about what abortion really does.
So which is more disgusting: Images of abortions or the abortions themselves?
The other blogger thinks it is the images. I think it is the abortions.
A recent commenter repeated the ridiculous “Hitler was a Christian” meme:
Hitler was a creationist, not an evolutionist. In fact, the Nazis banned Darwin’s books regarding evolution. If you read Hitler’s Mein Kampf, you will find several examples of Hitler citing (albeit in German) the “Creator” as his motivation for his “doing the work of the Lord”, as he put it. Although Hitler was a Catholic Christian, his anti-semitism was every bit as virulent as that of Martin Luther, one of the founders of Protestant Christianity. Please don’t try to blame Hitler’s genocidal acts on Darwinian evolution; remember, bearing false witness is against one of the main tenets of the Abrahmic faiths.
They cherry pick quotes from Hitler to advance their premise, ignoring quotes like this:
“When understanding of the universe has become widespread . . . Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.” Adolf Hitler
Even if anti-Christians can find some quotes by Hitler that they think provide support their conclusion, consider their composite views (this assumes they aren’t Holocaust deniers). Among other things, they would claim that Hitler:
- Killed millions of people. Millions.
- Repeatedly lied to his citizens and the world, often to justify war.
- Suppressed free speech.
- Didn’t lie about his “faith” to further his agenda.
Pretty ridiculous, eh? Those who advance that argument are wildly naive or disingenuous. So when they insist that Hitler was a Christian who opposed Darwinian philosophies I remain skeptical.
And regardless of what Hitler said about Darwinism, he executed the model quite well for many years. He and his chosen people were the “fittest,” and they eliminated what they viewed as the un-fit. I don’t see how any advocate of Darwinism has a foundation to criticize Hitler. Of course they should criticize Hitler, as we all know the man was evil. But their worldview is without foundation to criticize someone following the tautological Darwinian “rulebook.”
The Atheism is Dead blog addresses this in more detail.
Formalized intolerance training at universities — And you are only paying $45,000 per year for this!
Intolerant evolutionists biggest fear: a critical evaluation of evolution in the public square
Barack Obama outlaws capitalism: threatens Chrysler’s non-TARP creditors « Wintery Knight Blog
What does it mean when the President of the United States threatens and coerces private investors?
- Private property is abolished
- The free market is abolished
- The rule of law is abolished
- The Constitution has been abolished
- Private contracts are abolished
- Capitalism is abolished
It means that socialism has come to the United States, just as the rest of the world is abandoning a failed system.
The Pugnacious Irishman has a great follow up to the Day of Silence, not only in terms of analysis but in ways to charitably navigate through conversations with people to expose the flaws in the homosexual agenda.
Quote of the week (Hat tip: Slice of Laodicea)
People tell me judge not lest ye be judged. I always tell them, twist not scripture lest ye be like satan.
Great summary of the Carrie Prejean / Miss USA issue by Euripides. The hypocrisy of the Left, particularly on behalf of alleged Feminists, is greater than usual.
I admire her standing up and speaking the truth. Having said that, I’m not convinced that the implant / swimsuit competition elements of this make her the best pro-family spokesperson.
Obama’s first 100 days — That’s a lot of failure in such a short time!
One denomination has a slogan that “God is still speaking.” This would be true provided that it meant that God still speaks through his Word. However, liberal theologians tend to use this phrase to mean that God is changing his moral laws.
Remember, these are the people who didn’t believe what He said the first time around in his word. And I’m supposed to believe that He is speaking new truths through them?!
Some people appear to believe in Dalmatian Theology, the false notion that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots. But the “God is still speaking” folks have also completed Advanced Dalmatian Theology, where God is also changing spots and adding/removing spots, and, oddly enough, He is only telling theological liberals and progressives in the West.
They don’t think He communicated his laws in a discernable way in the first place (i.e., in the Bible), but they now think He is communicating with Swiss-watch precision to them.
Here’s an example: A Methodist pastor named Laurie Hays Coffman did a pro-gay theology piece that made the argument that she wants to “unfurl our corporate sails to catch today’s winds as the Spirit blows afresh.” She said she was challenged by the vision God gave to Peter in Acts 10-11 where God makes it clear that the Gospel is for the Gentiles, too, and that the Israelites’ ceremonial dietary laws are no longer in force.
Her reasoning is that in the same way that God overturned those laws that He is now overturning the prohibitions against homosexual behavior.
The problem is her poor Biblical analysis. There are at least nine things wrong with this view:
- The person with the revelation was Peter, one of Jesus’ inner circle and a key leader in the early church. It wasn’t made to you, me or someone like Ms. Coffman. That doesn’t mean God couldn’t reveal something important like this to us, just that it is highly unlikely.
- The visions were clear and emphatic. Peter was given the vision three times.
- Peter was inclined to reject the meaning of the vision, whereas these pro-gay theologians have views on human sexuality that are virtually indistinguishable from the prevailing culture and they are glad to accept this “new revelation.”
- There was external validation for Peter from the Roman centurion.
- This lesson showed up in the Bible, not outside it. I’m not saying miracles don’t happen outside the Bible. It is just that things appear in the Bible for a reason. God communicating that the ceremonial laws had been fulfilled was one of those “big deals.”
- This vision overturned a ceremonial law, not a moral law. There are zero examples in the Bible of God reversing his moral laws. In fact, the more Jesus talked the stricter the laws seemed to get, because He emphasized the spirit of the law and not just the letter (i.e., lust was akin to committing adultery, anger was akin to murder, etc.). The dietary laws never applied to Gentiles.
- The “God has changed his mind view” is primarily being “revealed” to theologically liberal Christians in the U.S. . . . the very ones who often deny his Word to begin with! So we can’t trust the accurate transmission of the original writings but we can trust their new revelations? Go figure.
- If God is revealing a change, why is it necessarily more liberal? Why couldn’t God make his laws more stringent?
- The Bible gives strong warnings not to add or take away from its teachings.
Other than that, she’s got a great premise.