Good news: 61 abortion workers have quit after 40 Days for Life campaigns: pray for them

Obama’s America: Million Dollar Lottery Winner Still Collecting Food Stamps — the title says it all, though it isn’t just Obama, it is Liberalism in general.  With a straight face she rationalizes why she should still get food stamps.

Wise tips for children in worship.

Does Homosexual Behavior in Animals Mean it’s Natural for Humans? — Of course not, but that tired and transparently bad argument still gets a lot of mileage.  Do you really want to base human morality on what is natural in animals?  Male dogs may try to mate with multiple female dogs, “underaged dogs” (i.e., the equivalent of pedophilia), male dogs, your leg, your coffee table and more, but that hardly seems to be a good proxy for what to teach children as being normative.  And as Glenn noted in the comments, the “it’s good enough for me if the animals do it!” philosophy wouldn’t work so well if people started killing those who get too close to their nests or started eating their young.

Genetic evidence: another reason to doubt Mormonism — One of the many falsehoods in that religion.

Jim Winkler thinks nuclear weapons are super-bad, but gee, since we have them then it is OK for Iran to have them as well.  In a completely unrelated note, the UMC continues to shrink.

Randy Alcorn Q&A on Heaven

Kirk Cameron Responds to Criticism after Calling Homosexuality ‘Unnatural’ in Piers Morgan CNN Interview — Good for him!  Liberal interviewers love to put Christians on the spot.  Christians should just turn it around and ask what the Bible says.

A sad story about a woman who insisted on “selective reduction” (i.e., killing) of two of her triplets.  If this couple stays married it will be a minor miracle.  Abortion is so transparently wrong it is easy to argue against it in purely logical terms, but it is illuminating to read real stories about it as well to capture how awful it is.

Roxanne on Way to go, Liberalism!, addressing the amount of guys expecting sex on the first date:

Try getting a woman of the ’70s to believe this.  As I keep saying, those babes got to date men who were raised differently, who were excited, not entitled, when women slept with them.  Then they raised a bunch of men who think that all normal, healthy adults have sex, and now we’re to the point at which the Third Date Rule is looking a little antiquated.

Way to go, ladies. Way to go. [Golf claps] Now that near-total strangers, who could have incurable STDs, wives, girlfriends, hang-ups, bad BO, or corpses in the back yard, demand that you be alone with them, let them penetrate your body, and potentially impregnate you, let me know how that whole sexual revolution thing has worked out for you.  Seems like it’s worked out better for the men that the revolution was supposed to liberate you from.

7 thoughts on “Roundup”

  1. Thank you for the link!

    Morality aside, is it not just common sense to not be alone with a man you do not know well? “Hey, Mandy! Todd – you know, Todd from the bar – invited me over to his house in the country for dinner.”
    “Um, are you sure that’s safe? Can’t you stick to a public place for the first few dates?”
    “But we’re going to have sex after dinner, and we can’t do that at Applebee’s.”
    “CLEARLY, then, you have nothing to worry about. Be alone in the guy’s house! I’m sure, since he wants to have sex with you, he’s not married, doesn’t have AIDS or herpes, and won’t beat you to a bloody pulp. Don’t even bother calling the next morning or giving me the guy’s last name (since you don’t know it either); everything will be fine.”



  2. Great roundup! And, Roxeanne – you’re absolutely right! If you haven’t found it yet, you’ll *love* the blog “What Women Never Hear” [].


  3. Great roundup, Neil!

    The DNA evidence against Mormonism has been out for a good decade, which forced them to rewrite the introduction to the Book of Mormon, which I find to be very amusing. Great video I just found today, 1:21 in length, gives 10 top problems with the LDS:

    As for using animal behavior to support human behavior, that comes from the horrid philosophy of evolutionism which says we are just another animal. But with that logic, of behaving as animals (which is really taught by the gov’t in their “sex education” classes), we may as well eat our young and kill anyone we feel gets too close to our nest! (house)


  4. Jim Winkler thinks nuclear weapons are super-bad, but gee, since we have them then it is OK for Iran to have them as well.

    I can’t possibly see anything wrong with nuclear weapons…in the hands of a country whose leadership is fanatical enough to believe that a nuclear war will bring about the Islamic version of Armageddon or the return of the 12th imam or whatever the heck it is they believe. I don’t see a thing wrong with doing nothing while said country develops them while being very public about their intention to use such weapons on a neighboring nation. Or with sitting on our hands while the rest of the Middle East also goes nuclear in order to protect themselves from Iran. (Saudi Arabia has already said it will begin its own nuclear program if Iran gets the bomb. It does not like Iran any more than we do.) It was bad enough when India and Pakistan both went nuclear or when North Korea did; say what you will, but at least those three are governed by leaders that want to live.

    And you know, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, right? I mean, it’s exactly the same thing as entrusting them to “the one country that has actually used them.” Right? RIGHT? Because, as you all know, the first thing the United States did with the bomb is use it to irradiate the Soviet Union in the late 40s, before the Russians set off their own nuke in 1949. Oh wait…we didn’t nuke the Soviets when we had the chance, did we? My bad.

    But yeah, other than that, Iran having nuclear weapons is exactly the same as Western countries having them.


  5. Neil, I thought you might want to read this book, “Christians and the Common Good“. Reading the description, I was a little iffy on how sound it might be, but considering it gets a forward from Jim Wallis (and the Kindle version is free for a limited time), I thought you might want to read it, just to pick it apart. 🙂 And if you don’t have a Kindle, you can get a free “Kindle to PC” download, so you can still read it for free.


    1. Thanks for the link, Kathy. That book sounds perfectly awful! I was glad to see Amazon had this review:

      Gutenson, the CEO of Sojourners, the Christian anti-poverty group, has written a treatise designed to help persuade evangelicals to heed the Bible’s emphasis on social justice. Gutenson, who previously taught at Asbury Theological Seminary, brings conservative credentials to bear. He makes valid points about how some Christians take Scripture out of context or draw misleading connections between select biblical passages and modern-day controversies such as abortion or homosexuality. But his insistence that one can rightly discern God’s intentions relies on the same hermeneutical method used by his opponents-those who discern God’s intentions in individual salvation rather than social action. Moreover, his support for government safety nets such as Social Security, Medicare, and living wage laws sound like Democratic Party bumper stickers. Evangelicals searching for a social action platform may appreciate the book, provided they are willing to wade through turgid academic prose.

      Looks like the author dismisses abortion, even though the concept of “social justice” makes no sense if you can kill unwanted human beings. What a collection of false teachers!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s