About that guy on the island . . .

Or in the jungle. Or in the Muslim country. Or wherever. You know, the hypothetical guy that people worry about when wondering whether God is fair if everyone doesn’t get an adequate revelation about Jesus.

For many it is an honest desire that the Gospel go to all people. For others it is a rationalization for the false teaching of universalism, where everyone goes to Heaven regardless of whether they know of or trust in Jesus. For others it is an excuse to rebel against Christianity.

I have good news: The real God is sovereign. No one seeks him on his own, but if God makes him spiritually alive then he will not only seek God but he will find him. As Acts 17 notes, God knows exactly where everyone is. No one will face God and be able to offer excuses.

Acts 17:26-27 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

So if you are concerned with the hypothetical character noted above, you have a lot of options in which to channel your energy:

1. Pray for them  (Matthew 9:37-38 Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.”)

2. Go see them yourself and share the Good News.

3. Donate to organizations like International Cooperating Ministries that build churches around the world.  $10,000 will build a church for a congregation of ~100 people that has committed to start 5 more neighboring churches.

4. Donate to organizations like Faith Comes By Hearing that get the word of God out to people in over 600 languages via audio Bibles (Praise report: A mission team just took the first batch of Kimeru language Proclaimer audio Bibles to Kenya.  Many people will be hearing the word of God for the first time!)

5. Support Stand To Reason or other excellent Christian apologetic organizations that help equip people to defend the Christian faith in a winsome and effective way.

6. Trust in God’s sovereignty.

But whatever you do, if you claim the name of Christ then don’t act as if He isn’t perfectly just.

Roundup

 

Great post by the Bumbling Genius about worldviews and voting.

Older people now, by handing their healthcare over to the government, is in essence handing it over to the up and coming generation, a generation that has been taught by the same older people that there are no absolutes, not even that everyone should absolutely get taken care of when they’re sick or broken.

But wait, it is even worse: That same generation has also been taught that it is all about their self-esteem and happiness and how wonderful they are. Combine that with their moral relativism and it will take about 15 minutes for them to rationalize away taking care of old people.

—–

I noticed that the Leftist media is working to keep the Akin rape comments issue alive and trying to pin it on Romney.  But Romney rapidly refuted Akin’s comments in a clear and thorough fashion.  That only leaves two options.

1. The Left agrees with Akin.  After all, if Romney strongly opposed Akin and the Left strongly opposes Romney, what other option is there?

2. The Left knows Romney disagreed with Akin but is so desperate to destroy Romney and avoid accountability for Obama that they have no choice but to lie.

—–

Should Anyone Be Surprised That MSNBC Cut The Speeches Of Republican Minorities?  If you only get your news from the Leftist media you are part of the problem.

(Red Alert Politics) MSNBC wants you to think the Republican Party hates minorities. So much so that the liberal news network cut minority speeches from it’s convention coverage.

—–

Hebrews and 1 Timothy Small Group Guides — they look good — and free!

—–

Responding to the top 10 excuses used to justify homosexuality — Hat tip: GCM Watch

—–

New study: smoking marijuana/cannabis permanently lowers IQ — Joints are called Stupid Sticks for a reason.

—–

Code Pinkos Descend on RNC Dressed as Giant Vaginas — They are so tone-deaf that they miss their obvious hypocrisy.  Shouldn’t they use these same arguments against those insisting that we pay for their birth control and abortions?

The protesters carried signs saying such things as, “Read my lips. Leave my vagina alone,” and argued that pro-life Republicans are waging a war against women.

 

False teacher profile — updated

Now I have even more proof that Dan Trabue is a false teacher and that he doesn’t have Christian love for me (not that I cared or was surprised).  You see, creepy blog-stalking false teacher Dan Trabue — who claims he loves me as a brother-in-Christ — has failed yet again to comply with the simplest request for love in the history of man: Do nothing. By that I mean that he was asked not to reply to my comments (just as he was asked not to comment on my blog and not to email me — after which he literally wrote to my pastor to complain!). You’ve been warned, people. Dan has proved yet again that he is a fraud, and he bears false witness against me with his libel by claiming that I am not telling the truth about these things.

I realize it is a risk to feed a narcissistic, attention-loving personality, but I am posting this as a public service.  While Dan Trabue is a small-time false teacher, he uses my blog to go to other sites to share his false beliefs.  He is predictably disingenuous, but it is very time consuming to replay the same conversations over and over.  Comment threads can literally go into the hundreds when refuting him.  He uses the same basic script, posing as an otherwise-orthodox Bible-believing Christian who was dragged kicking and screaming to his current pro-gay theological positions.  But the truth is something quite different.  He delivers a deceptive fallacy-fest on many topics.

Not surprisingly, he bears false witness about me by claiming I bear false witness about him.  Here’s what I mean: He knows he continued to comment at my site after being told to stop, that he continued to email me after being told to stop and continued to follow me to blogs and reply to me after being told to stop — and he even wrote my pastor!  These are all facts of history that he lies about in trying to claim slander, gossip and false witness — but of course he’s the one slandering, gossiping and bearing false witness.

Now before you act surprised, remember that he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing doing the work of Satan.  Of course he won’t doesn’t mind lying about these things.

—-

August 25, 2012 update: What is amusing is that when I post a link to this page after Dan denies my simple request and replies to me on blogs he has followed me to, he tries to claim I’m bearing false witness.  But his replies prove my point.  I made one more attempt to get Dan to stop bothering me by posting this at another site.  It only took an hour for him to ignore my simple request and prove my point about him.

Dan: “Where is the love? Where is the grace?
I sadly rebuke you in the name of Christ our Lord.”

Neil: Sorry, one last comment.

Thoroughly documented blog-stalking false teacher Dan Trabue claims that he views me as a brother in Christ and loves me. When one considers how love manifests itself, it usually involves some sort of sacrifice — giving of time, giving of money, or sacrificing health, safety or even life itself. At least that’s how Christians throughout the century showed love.

Now carefully consider what I have asked Dan Trabue to do to show his “love”: Nothing. Literally nothing. I don’t mean I didn’t ask him anything. I did ask make a request of him: Do nothing. Do not comment on my blog, do not email me, do not reply to me on other blogs.

So has Dan the “loving, tolerant brother-in-Christ” demonstrated his love by adhering to my simple request to do nothing? Nope. He continually responds to my comments even though I never address him.

So here we are once again, wasting valuable time because Dan cannot perform what is literally the easiest request ever made in the history of the universe: Don’t reply to my blog comments.

So prove me wrong, Dan. Don’t respond to this comment or to any other comment I ever make, and I’ll do the same for you. What could be easier? Just do nothing and you will have exhibited the tiniest amount of evidence that you can accommodate the simplest and easier request for love ever.

If you type so much as an “OK” in response or if you ever reply to me again then I’ll update the post on my blog and re-post it, noting how “loving” Dan Trabue literally couldn’t bring himself to do nothing in response to a request from someone he insists is a brother-in-Christ to him. (If you want to complain about me on your blog, then by all means do that. I don’t read it so I don’t care. I just don’t want to interact with you, ever.)

Will you comply with the easiest request in the history of man to give the slighest bit of evidence of your alleged love, or will you prove yourself a hypocrite for all time? Your call! I’m good either way.

—–

Most authentic Christian blogs ban Dan once they figure him out, though some perform a great public service and keep him engaged and limit the damage he does elsewhere (sort of like how engaging Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons keeps them from sharing their false teachings with your neighbors).

People like him can be confusing to seekers and he and his kind are the ones causing great divisions in the church.  Therefore, it is important to demonstrate his errors in the most concise way possible.  Otherwise, he wastes an inordinate amount of your time and gets his (im)moral victory of leaving the impression that these topics are toss-ups for the real church.

Dan is the guy who contacted my pastor because I took away Dan’s commenting privileges here and asked him not to email me.  Yes, the Internet can be a creepy place.  My pastor and I had a good laugh over it, as he is a true man of God and quite comfortable with my theology.   Dan tried to say it was part of a Matthew 18 church discipline issue, but he begged the question by assuming that he is a brother-in-Christ.  My point was that someone with his views and approach is no brother-in-Christ of mine.

The false teachers highlighted in the Bible probably referred to themselves as “brothers,” but that meant as much as it does when false teacher Dan says it.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15  For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.  And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.  So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

So this will be a one-stop shopping post, complete with a shortcut link — http://wp.me/p1wGU-2SV . When Dan plays his game you can just link here to give an overview of his views and his mode of operation.  I’m glad to see people whale on false teachers who are more honest (in a perverse sort of way) about their heresies, but it is best not to feed one like Dan who poses as a Bible-believer.

“Prebuttal” to Dan: This isn’t slander, as you typically claim when I recount these facts, because slander is verbal and libel is written.  And it is all true, so it isn’t libel.  And it isn’t gossip because you open yourself to criticism when you post your heresies publicly.  I know you read this blog religiously (heh) even though I ignore yours.

Bubba is one of my all-time favorite commenters and has been remarkably thorough and patient in exposing Dan’s false teachings and style at other blogs.  He graciously let me borrow one of his comments to post here.  They include links to Dan’s and other sites as evidence.  There is so much more that could be added, such as his un-biblical views on the atonement and communion, but this should be sufficient.

Again, I normally have a “don’t feed the trolls” policy, but I think many of you will be glad to have a link like this handy as a shortcut in addressing Dan.  Many thanks to Bubba for his excellent work.

I’d like to make clear that my intent wasn’t to offer some exhaustive list of Dan’s character defects or most controversial statements, or even to document what I think are his worst traits.  It’s just that I believe that, in isolation, Dan Trabue’s comments sometimes gives the false impression that he’s a poltical and theological moderate who so thoroughly respects all of the Bible’s teachings that he wouldn’t make claims about the Bible that the text doesn’t make for itself.  Even if everything he writes only implies all this and the explicit claims are strictly accurate, the total effect can be misleading because there are substantial material omissions.  My goal is to provide the context that provides some of the more noteworthy details of his beliefs, in order to correct that false impression his writing may create.

I hope your readers notice that I do a lot of explicit quoting, linking to the original discussions so people can judge for themselves.  Even when I describe his position in my own words, I merely describe and try to do so without judgment.   I do not think it can be reasonably argued that it’s an ad hominem attack simply to provide neutral descriptions and sourced quotes of a person’s beliefs regarding the Bible.

So far as I know, Dan has never substantially changed his position on anything I quoted.  He has routinely claimed that I grossly misunderstand him, but he’s never explained how.  I’d love to hear an unambiguous clarification that, of course, Dan believes that God actually did command everything the Bible attributes to Him, that Christ’s death caused our salvation, and that His bodily Resurrection is a truly essential doctrine.  I’m not optimistic on that front.

Here’s Bubba’s original quote posted at this site.

Deriving from Lev 18 and 29 (and Gen 19) a universal prohibition of homosexual behavior may be like stumbling onto the right answer for a math problem despite some arithmetic errors. The destination’s right, but the route was wrong.

As a general rule, it’s not the case the Old Testament regulations for the nation of ancient Israel (the only true theocracy, governed by God through His prophets and judges) apply to the church under the new covenant.

Dan Trabue goes too far. Even if certain passages prohibit homosexual behavior only in certain contexts, it’s still true that the Bible condemns the behavior EVERY time it’s explicitly mentioned. That those times are few isn’t determinative, nor is the context of Canaanite behavior. AFTER ALL, Leviticus 18 and 20 also prohibit adultery, incest, and bestiality. The latter is mentioned even less frequently than homosexuality, so should we start examining whether our condemnation of sheep-bothering is merely cultural and not really biblical, on the pretense that it was forbidden only in the pagan temple but not in the bedroom or barn, as the case may be?

Dan concludes that the Bible doesn’t explicitly condemn every possible configuration of homosexual behavior, but Bible study alone simply does not explain the leap from that conclusion to the conclusion that God blesses ANY configuration.

He notes that fidelity, mercy, etc., are good for everyone, but it doesn’t follow that God condones all possible familial arrangements in which these qualities aren’t excluded — prudence is good, but God doesn’t bless bank robberies if they’re well planned — and it’s possible that God made us male and female for a reason, and that reason is lifelong heterosexual monogamy.

It’s true that the Bible permits deviations from that arrangement, celibacy being perfectly moral, divorce being an explicit concession to our hard hearts, and polygamy being perhaps an implicit concession to a fallen. But, just because the Bible permits SOME exceptions, it doesn’t follow that it permits ALL exceptions — or this PARTICULAR exception of so-called “gay marriage.”

Anyway, we shouldn’t look primarily to the Old Testament when the New Testament is clear enough about which rules are carried forward. In its concluding chapter, Hebrews tells us not to worry about dietary regulations (13:9), but we should keep the wedding bed undefiled (13:4). Paul wrote that we shouldn’t be judged by what we eat but should refrain from “porneia,” sexual immorality (Col 2:16, 3:5).

Paul is also quite clear in Romans 1: because of man’s idolatry, God gave up the unrighteous to impurity (1:24), to dishonorable passions (1:26), and to a debased mind (1:28), leading to all manner of evil, including envy, murder, and slander. Even if one were to put a heavy emphasis on the fact that this consequence of homosexual behavior was in the context of idolatry, it’s still impossible to conclude that homosexual behavior is biblically permissible.

AFTER ALL, God wouldn’t “hand over” an idolator to behavior that is good or even morally neutral. “They were idolators, and so God gave them over to prayer and almsgiving” DOES NOT WORK as a logical progression, nor does the idea that they were idolators, and so God would give them over to morally neutral behavior like square dancing and poetry readings.

If that weren’t enough, Jesus Christ Himself made clear, in Matthew 19, that God made us male and female so that a man (male) would become one flesh with his wife (female). He immediately included celibacy as a righteous alternative, but nothing else: divorce was permitted only as a concession. The fact that this passage occurs in the context of divorce isn’t determinative: the principle, rooted in man’s very creation, is obviously universal and has wide-reaching consequences. It’s completely incoherent to tell a man that God made him male to become one flesh with a woman, only to turn around and say that God blesses a “marriage” with another man.

I’ve never met a Christian who had a plausible argument that the Bible permits such an arrangement, and I believe I know the Bible well enough to know that I never will.

I certainly don’t expect such an argument from Dan Trabue. It’s been a while since we’ve cross swords, but he and I have spent literal years and thousands of words in verbal combat.

My opinion of him is not very high at all, to understate things drastically, and Dan insists that I constantly misunderstand him. It may help those who don’t know him to have a little context about his beliefs, from his own hand.

Here, Dan laments when word games and biblical exegesis are used “for political ends,” but it’s not as if he’s a political moderate or an agnostic, and it’s not as if he has a problem invoking Christ’s name on the subject of politics. On his own blog he has written, “in my experience, the vast majority of US/western type of socialism/communism supporters are supporting a more egalitarian, just, equitable system that looks to take seriously the teachings of Christ.”

On the other hand, he wrote a poem for “W and his spawn” accusing free-market conservatives of deicide and the idolatrous worship of a bloodthirsty god. The poem must be read to be believed, and Dan is proud enough of the work that he published it twice in two years.

Here, Dan writes that he loves the Bible. Elsewhere he has written, “I DO love the Bible, but I DON’T accept that every line is a perfect representation of God’s Will.”

What lines are questionable? Well, the Old Testament passages where God commands wars of annihilation, Dan speculates that they could be essentially revenge fantasies: “Sometimes in the Bible, you have a powerless people who have been oppressed and it is completely natural for them to want to see a God that would take revenge for them, or allow them to take revenge. It’s a natural human response to oppression and we ought not judge it too harshly, especially we who have never known oppression.”

He entertains the possibility because he believes that the Old Testament attributes to God commands to commit literal atrocities:

“When we read that ‘God says’ to kill disrespectful children or that when we invade a country, we are to kill everyone – including the children and babes, BUT to save the virgin girls so we can make them our wives – when we read passages like that, we don’t need a Bible verse to straighten that out for us. CLEARLY, our God-given sense of logic and morality shouts out that such behavior is atrocious and wrong.”

(He does this on the way to arguing against the OT prohibition of homosexuality. Here he writes, “Sometimes, rules in the bible are time/people-specific.” Apparently, sometimes, the rules are altogether immoral for all people, or so Dan believes.)

The New Testament has its own problems, as Dan believes that it is “doubtless” that some of Paul’s letters betray some combination of sexism and homophobia.

Here, Dan writes that he esteems the Bible as a “book of truths.” Elsewhere he has elaborated on that position, writing, “that is not to say that I consider all the stories therein to be likely strictly fact-based.”

He even stated it more bluntly: “I think the Bible is a book of Truths. Not facts.”

What facts does he doubt? On the Passover — the central event of Judaism, commemorated annually for literally millennia, and the event through which Christians understand Christ’s death — he writes, “I find it hard to believe as a literal historic event.”

Dan affirms the “Big Truths” of the Bible, but not necessarily the “little details.”

Little things, like the story of Jonah, the Tower of Babel, and — ahem — THE VIRGIN BIRTH…

“For myself, if I were to find out that Mary was not actually a virgin or that Jonah was not actually swallowed by a great fish or that the tower of Babel story is just a mythological explanation of how people learned different languages, not a factual explanation, if I learned any of that to be factual, my faith in God would be intact because, well, my faith is in God, not these details.”

…and THE BODILY RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.

“Why can the resurrection spoken of in 1 Corinthians not be metaphorical? …if he were raised spiritually, not bodily, is that not a resurrection, too?

“Why can’t we be wrong on details as long as we get the big Truths right?”

Dan will be clear to state that he believes in the bodily Resurrection, but then again, he’s written, “I and my company are not of the sort that insist upon a literal interpretation of the Creation or even the Resurrection story.”

So far as I know, Dan has never written that the Crucifixion is one of those dispensible little details — but he hasn’t written otherwise, either, and he denies the direct causal connection between Christ’s death and our justification, forgiveness, and salvation from sin. He believes that we are saved by God’s grace but not Christ’s death, and that the latter is only an expression of the former.

“I believe we are saved by grace AND because of that grace, Jesus died for us. In THAT sense, one might say that our salvation is caused by Jesus’ death (as it is a representation of God’s grace). As I have said, it is not a scriptural phrasing of how we are saved (ie, the Bible does not SAY our salvation is caused by Jesus’ death) so I don’t think it’s the most biblical way of expressing it.”

I think one should keep all of this in mind when evaluating Dan Trabue’s positions on the teachings of the Bible.

Roundup

John Calvin’s admirers agree that he wasn’t the most charming fellow at times (Calvin appears to have conceded that as well). But was he a heretic-burning maniac as he is often portrayed?  Not quite.

—–

How do prostitutes stay in business in an era of hook-up sex? — Good points by the Wintery Knight.

—–

Ayn Rand says “I told you so.”  I found Atlas Shrugged tedious at times but amazingly accurate.  It is funny to watch her haters try to dismiss anyone who agrees with her premise, but they ignore that she was pro-abortion.  So do they think they are wrong on that topic?  It is important to note that the government-creep goes on with Republicans, too.

—–

The NY Times has been covering for Communism for a long time.

—–

Professional atheist Richard Dawkins was in his usual form lately, explaining why adultery is OK but investigating suspected adultery is really bad (Darwinism gives him an oddly precise moral compass!).  Then he opined on the Bible as if he had actually read it and understood it.  He tried to say that the New Testament writers didn’t seem to care if Jesus was real.  He should start with 1 Corinthians 15 then read the rest of the passages mentioned in the post.  No wonder he runs away from William Lane Craig!

—–

Kevin DuJan from Hillbuzz has keen insights into the gay community and how aggressively hateful they are against Christians.

—–

Yet another “hate hoax.”  You don’t see the media reporting on these once the hoaxes are discovered.  It is the same silence and cover-ups as with the pro-gay FRC shooter.

—–

Via UCC Condemns Boy Scouts — shocking!  By which I mean, not shocking at all.

This is one of those “I can’t believe we’re having this conversation” topics.  Even if you are part of the apostate UCC or some random fake Christian who spouts pro-gay theology, you should see the wisdom of not having males who are attracted to males camping with boys.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong?  Lawyers would have field days suing the Boy Scouts when abuses would occur (“They knowingly let gay men spend time alone on camping trips with boys — what were they thinking?!  Please make that multi-million dollar, Boy Scout-bankrupting check out to ______”).  It is about as logical as letting men camp with girls.

The one good thing about this topic is that those like the UCC are basically screaming out that they could care less about God’s word and common sense.  They just want to advance the gay agenda and try to destroy the Scouts.

Then there is this shining example of love, tolerance and common sense: The Atlantic Wants to Kill Boy Scouts Like Rabid Dogs.  But that definitely isn’t hate speech.

—–

Pregnancies from rapes are difficult to address, but one solution that shouldn’t be considered is killing the innocent child.  I’d entertain capital punishment for the rapist if Liberals want to advance that, but I don’t follow their knee-jerk reaction to kill the innocent.  Post-abortion trauma is similar to post-rape trauma, so it isn’t like an abortion makes the rape go away.

And remember, your taxes help Planned Parenthood hide statutory rape.  Abortions often hide the crimes of rape and incest.

Shocking: Apostate UCC condemns Boy Scouts for having common sense

By which I mean, not shocking at all.  See UCC Condemns Boy Scouts « Juicy Ecumenism.

This is one of those “I can’t believe we’re having this conversation” topics.  Even if you are part of the apostate UCC or some random fake Christian who spouts pro-gay theology, you should see the wisdom of not having males who are attracted to males camping with boys.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong?  Lawyers would have field days suing the Boy Scouts when abuses would occur (“They knowingly let gay men spend time alone on camping trips with boys — what were they thinking?!  Please make that multi-million dollar, Boy Scout-bankrupting check out to ______”).

As an Eagle Scout myself, I consistently resent revisionist attacks against this wonderful institution and its prudent decision. An overwhelming majority of parents wanted the BSA to persevere in its stance. They had problems with their sons going on long camping trips in the woods with openly-gay men. No, homosexuality is not the same as pederasty, nor does this policy prevent all abuse. But in the post-priest scandal and post-Sandusky age, concerned fathers and mothers are wary as ever when it comes to potentialities. And there are stronger potentialities. A comparable situation would be for straight men to go on camping trips with Girl Scouts (whose standards, one must admit, are much more progressive). A man may mean well and never cause trouble, but the potentiality would be enough for parents to worry.

The references to Sandusky and the priests are apt, as is the obvious analogy to men camping with girls.

Should we be surprised by the UCC?  Of course not.  They employ people like false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie who even takes little girls to gay pride parades.  

The one good thing about this topic is that those like the UCC are basically screaming out that they could care less about God’s word and common sense.  They just want to advance the gay agenda and try to destroy the Scouts.

 

Boomerang.

So the Democrats are going to run with the “Akin’s gaffe applies to all Republicans even though almost 100% have denounced it” theme at their convention and they are going to trot out Bill Clinton to speak there and in swing states?  Please feel free to remind people of the following:

  • A President who abused his power to have sex with an intern doesn’t make the best pro-women role model — especially when he was in the process of completely destroying her before he found out about the dress.
  • Just because he was President in the 90’s doesn’t mean he gets credit for everything good that happened then.  Remember that two of his better moves — welfare reform and NAFTA — were more Conservative than Liberal and that the Republican Congress stopped him from doing a lot damage with healthcare reform and more.  He should send New Gingrich a thank-you note every year.  Oh, and there was that little thing called the PC Revolution / Internet Bubble that did marvelous things for the economy in general and tax revenues in particular.  Clinton got the bubble and Bush got the damage when it burst.  But I don’t recall Bush blaming Clinton.
  • If Democrats really care about rape, then they should whale on people like Whoopi  Goldberg who said basically the same thing as Akin, and they should really pounce on people like accused rapist Bill Clinton.
  • Clinton was (is?) a serial adulterer.  Tell me again how that is pro-women?
  • Even Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill was on record saying that, “I don’t want my daughter near him.
  • Democrats love abortion so much that they will ignore all the horrible things Clinton means for women as long as he lets them kill their unborn children.
  • If Obama is so pro-“equal pay,” why are women underpaid in his White House?
  • If the Democrats are so pro-women, why don’t they oppose gender-selection abortions, nearly all of which crush and dismember females for the sole reason that they are unwanted for being female?  It is the ultimate misogyny, fully supported by the Left.
  • Remind them of Al Franken’s jokes about raping reporter Leslie Stahl.
  • Remind them that unemployment has been worse for women and blacks under the Obama administration.
  • If they really care about rape, then ask them why they don’t protest Planned Parenthood for systematically hiding statutory rape and sex trafficking.  The audio and video evidence against them is overwhelming.  Start by asking them, “Are all rapes pretty much equally bad, as Akin’s critics have noted?  OK, so let’s talk about Planned Parenthood . . .”
  • Also, ask them how it qualifies as pro-women to cheer at the funding losses of the Komen Foundation just because they dared to cut a tiny fraction of Planned Parenthood’s funding.
  • Pretty much anything you can mention about Ted Kennedy should be effective as well.

Don’t let the Left get away with whitewashing Clinton and their anti-women policies.  Make their claims boomerang on them just like the silly dog issue (yeah, Romney had his on the roof of his car, but Obama ate a dog).  And then there’s the latest “Oh, the humanity” reaction that Romney made a birth certificate quip.  Somehow that is unacceptable, unlike accusing your opponent of being a cancer-causing felon and abandoning tradition to make waves during his convention.

The war on women – yet pandering to Islam.

Watch how Akin’s comments are treated versus similar gaffes

Senate candidate Todd Akin said some garbled and erroneous things about rape and abortion and has since clarified them.  It appears that he was trying to distinguish between statutory rape and the more violent form, but he used the unfortunate and false term of “legitimate” to describe the latter.  He obviously wasn’t trying to say that some rapes were legitimate in the sense of being acceptable, but that isn’t how the media and the Left are playing it.  If anything, he was implying that statutory rapes were less severe.

His broader point of defending the children of rapists from death and destruction was lost.

While Romney and Ryan were quick to do the politically expedient thing in distancing themselves from Akin, I’m disappointed that their response was an endorsement of abortion in the case of rape.  I would have preferred the following:

We disagree with Akin’s botched descriptions of “legitimate rape,” of course, because he knows and we know there is no such thing.

But we agree that as awful as any type of rape is, it is never a justification for killing the innocent human being who was conceived by the rape.  Killing the unborn does not undo the rape.

We also want to note that statutory rape is still rape, and that Planned Parenthood has a long and detailed history of systemically hiding those atrocities.  If elected, one of our first acts will be to investigate them and defund them so that victims of statutory rape and sex trafficking will be protected and that your tax dollars will not support the protection of their abusers.

If we had journalists who were even remotely unbiased, they’d do the following:

  1. Report on the statutory rape and sex trafficking cover-ups at Planned Parenthood.
  2. Give more attention to the FRC shooting, where a pro-gay person — apparently fueled by the ironic hate speech of the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Left in general — planned to shoot those who hold the same views about marriage that Barrack Obama did until a few months ago.  They were barely reporting on this story as it was.  Now it will disappear completely.
  3. Note that Akin is obviously not pro-rape.  He just misspoke in a very bad way.
  4. The current President defended infanticide.
  5. Note that the gaffes of Biden weren’t mistakes (reporting on that will disappear today as well

When this topic comes up I hope that pro-lifers will be quick to point out that all rapes are evil and that killing the children conceived in rapes is also wrong.  Ask pro-choicers if they oppose all rapes, and if so, why aren’t they alarmed that Planned Parenthood doesn’t just misspeak about rapes, as Akin did, but they systematically cover them up?

Roundup

Two excellent and free resources to download — a robust Gospel tract and a brief but thorough refutation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.

Click to download

Gospel tract: The Great Exchange

Mormons & Jehovah’s Witnesses: Who’s Really Knocking at Your Door?

—–

The White House leaks should be a huge issue in general, and especially for this campaign.  If these leaks were made out of stupidity it would have been bad enough.  But they were made for personal gain.  In a rare display of the Left crossing the aisle, even some Democrats have admitted the leaks are wrong.

Intelligence and Special Operations forces are furious and frustrated at how President Obama and those in positions of authority have exploited their service for political advantage. Countless leaks, interviews and decisions by the Obama Administration and other government officials have undermined the success of our Intelligence and Special Operations forces and put future missions and personnel at risk.

The unwarranted and dangerous public disclosure of Special Forces Operations is so serious — that for the first time ever — former operators have agreed to risk their reputations and go ‘on the record’ in a special documentary titled “Dishonorable Disclosures.”

—–

A great summary of the “tolerance” movement:

Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant. Then it tries to silence good.

That is exactly what has happened in this country.

—–

I was glad to see Kevin DuJan writing again at Hillbuzz.  Good tips about ways to stay up on pop culture references without wasting time and money on lousy movies:

I love the website TheMovieSpoiler.com because it offers “spoilers” of films currently in theaters.  A “spoiler” is a detailed synopsis of a movie that I can read very often the day a movie comes out and know everything that happens in it even if I never intend to see it.  I like doing this so that if a movie hits big in pop culture I can get any jokes derived from it even if I’ve never seen it myself.  When I was a kid growing up in Catholic School in Cleveland the nuns who taught us used to take a weird pride in not knowing anything at all about current movies, TV shows, music groups, etc.  ’Oh, I don’t know who that is,” they’d delight in saying, claiming to have never heard of Indiana Jones or Darth Vader or whomever.  I really don’t think they were kidding, either, or just trying to pretend that they didn’t know anything about current movies to make them seem more pious or whatever.  They really thought it was best to completely avoid pop culture and not “contaminate” themselves with it.

I think a lot of conservatives do this too, even in the year 2012, and I think it’s stupid.  You don’t need to sit through 2 hours of a bad movie just because it’s currently popular, but you should at least try to know what people are excited about in pop culture.  The Left beats conservatives in the ever raging culture wars because conservatives think “taking the high road” means avoiding knowledge of what’s currently hip and popular, but that’s just idiocy.  So many dumb things Republicans do are attributed to “taking the high road”.  Aren’t you tired of this, yet?

—–

Can a materialist question Darwinism without having his career ruined?  Short answer: No. It is an analysis of how even atheists get destroyed by the Darwin lobby for daring to point out its flaws.

Darwinism beyond the level of simple micro-evolution has never been observed or tested experimentally. And what’s more – the proponents of Darwinism do not want their theory to be subjected to criticism or testing. It fulfills a religious purpose, and therefore they are very concerned that it not be taken away from them. They are fighting against having to care what God things, and they will strangle any good experimental science that shows that their religion is wrong. You can see the same fundamentalism at work in the atheistic war against the experimental science that confirms the Big Bang theory, which describes the origin of the universe out of nothing.

—–

I’m glad to see some Darwinists admit that the movement really did think there was “junk DNA.”  Too bad so many of them are trying to re-write history and not admit the failure of their theory.

—–

12 QUICK REFUTATIONS OF JIM WALLIS’ LEFTIST, PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES — nicely done response to an article by Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis

Avoid John Eagle Honda

If you want a Honda in the Houston area, I encourage you to avoid John Eagle Honda.  I highly recommend contacting Ali Fard at Russell & Smith Honda, or almost any other dealer.  Ali gave us the most competitive quote right away, worked quickly and never surprised us.

John Eagle has been using the typical slippery sales tactics for well over a decade.  They offer seemingly good prices via email, then tack on $2,000 or so of non-optional options (yes, that’s what I meant) such as paint sealant (aka wax), fabric protection, etc.

They use the tactic of deliberately making you wait to see how eager you are to buy the car.  Don’t let any dealer get away with that.  Let them know that your time is valuable.

John Eagle will continually remind you about their service department and how allegedly swell it is, but that ignores a few very important things:

  1. When buying a car, you are dealing with the sales department, not the service department.  Different departments with different levels of customer satisfaction.
  2. Believe it or not, if you buy a Honda at another dealership the John Eagle Service Department will service your vehicle if you give them money in exchange.  I am not making this up.  Therefore, you don’t have to buy the car there to get their service.
  3. Their service department may have good ratings, but they are way over-priced.  I can typically get the same services in less time and at less cost (sometimes as much as 2/3 less) at Christian Brothers Automotive.

Read their reviews at DealerRater.com to see what I mean.  Here’s a good example:

Being a savvy shopper, I asked for pricing quotes for a new Honda from all the major dealers in the Houston area. I received an Internet quote from Terry, who is the Internet Sales Manager.

Upon my arrival at John Eagle, Terry was unaware of the number of the vehicles he had in stock of the model I wanted. Second, he was unfamiliar with their location around the small John Eagle lot. He was amiable during our test drive, but when we arrived back in a cubicle to negotiate, I discovered a very traditional car salesman with many years of experience.

Every tactic to pad the sale in favor of the dealership was used. The very classic model of trying to fudge numbers by making the deal seem like it was all tied to a monthly payment amount was the goal. When they low-balled my trade appraisal and I balked, he went back to “ask” the sales manager. Obviously all along everyone knew the numbers. This waiting game is sadly common in some dealerships. After 15 minutes, Terry happily came back to offer an additional $2,000 on my trade. Of course he could offer that much–the dealership was planning to make up for the money with non-optional options they’ve tacked on.

These “options” are things such as paint sealant (aka wax), fabric protectant (aka Scotchguard), Nitrogen-filled tires ($199 for air…hmm), data dots, and the list goes on. None of these items could be removed. All told, the extras inflated the pricing by nearly $2,000. When I informed Terry I was late for a meeting, he again disappeared for a few seconds and reappeared with a “closer”: Peggy. What a sad, worn-out sales gimmick. Then, when I finally was allowed to leave, both Terry and Peggy tried desperately to get me to commit to a time I would return that evening. Terry went so far as to offer a car to drive–all so I would come back ASAP before I talked with other dealers or did more research.

Another gimmick utilized was the phrase “up to”. If you haven’t researched this, I highly recommend Googling. Any time the customer gives a number, the salesman replies with “Up to?” in order to subliminally make the customer feel that they may need to offer more. Psychologically, it works very well, but it is a dishonest way to do business.

I happily purchased a new Honda from another Houston dealership that does not pressure their clients nor add extras to their vehicles to swindle customers. I feel badly for those who do not do homework and fall prey to the old-school, dishonest tactics used by John Eagle Honda.

About that “brother’s keeper” verse . . .

I rarely see Genesis 4:9 used properly, where Cain kills his brother and then cynically answers God:

Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?”

That’s the only place it appears in the Bible, yet President Obama and many false teachers* use it as a trump card to justify wealth redistribution.  Dinesh D’Souza exposes this hypocrisy in How I became George Obama’s ‘brother’, where he actually helps the impoverish literal brother of our rich and powerful leader.

As D’Souza notes, the argument — if true — that George has exhibited some bad behavior would not let the President off the hook for helping him.  After all, it is a Liberal mantra that George’s social conditions are the real culprit.

George’s brother is a multimillionaire and the most powerful man in the world.  Moreover, George’s brother has framed his re-election campaign around the “fair share” theme that we owe obligations to those who are less fortunate.

One of Obama’s favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: “We are our brother’s keeper.”  Yet he has not contributed a penny to help his own brother. And evidently George does not believe, even in times of emergency, that he can turn to his brother in the White House for help.

. . .

Obama’s refusal to help George is especially surprising because George doesn’t just live in American-style poverty but rather in Third World poverty.  He lives in a shanty in the Huruma slum in Nairobi.  He gets by on a few dollars a month.  Obama also has an aunt named Hawa Auma, his father’s sister, who ekes out a living selling coal on the streets of a small village in Kenya.  She says she would like to have her teeth fixed, but she cannot afford it.  Obama hasn’t offered to help her either.

What’s going on here?  Why is President Obama so hesitant to help family members in need?

A couple of years ago, George teamed up with a British journalist Damien Lewis and the two of them published George’s story in a book called “Homeland.” Yet according to Lewis, shortly before the book’s publication in America, the publisher Simon & Schuster decided to shred the entire print run, more than 20,000 copies.  Lewis tried unsuccessfully to get an explanation from Simon & Schuster but to no avail.  He now suspects that the White House convinced Simon & Schuster that George’s story might prove embarrassing to the president.

In 2010, George also applied for a visa to come to the United States and was refused.   While George confesses that in his younger years he was a delinquent, he has never been convicted of any crime.  Moreover, he has a very good reason to visit the United States: his mother Jael Otieno lives in Atlanta.  So why would the U. S. embassy in Nairobi refuse a tourist visa to the brother of the president who just wants to spend time with his mother?

. . . So what’s the real story here?  Where’s George Obama’s “fair share”?  George’s tragic situation exposes President Obama as a hypocrite.  Here is a man who demands that others pay higher taxes to help the poor—even poor people who are not related to them—while Obama himself refuses to help a close relative like George.

Yet I believe there is a deeper explanation that goes beyond hypocrisy for why Obama wants nothing to do with George.   After all, it would cost Obama so little to raise George out of poverty, and yet he won’t do it.  This isn’t mere negligence; it suggests an active animus.   . . .

No wonder President Obama despises George, doesn’t want him around, doesn’t care to hear George’s views circulated in America, and won’t lift a finger to help him even when George’s son is in the hospital.

 

Christians love to give their own money to help the truly needy.  But the Bible is clear: If you can work but don’t, then you don’t eat.  And it isn’t charity to ask “Caesar” to take from neighbor A by force to “give” to neighbor B.

Even if that verse meant that we are to be our “brother’s keeper” in the sense that they use it, then we’d be obliged to do that with our money, not our neighbor’s.  And those using that line should start with their literal brothers.

*False teachers include people like Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis and race-baiting Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie, who reflexively take the “brother’s keeper” line out of context.  

Fake Christian Chuck Currie sheds crocodile tears about FRC shooting

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie took a break from taking little girls to gay pride parades to pretend to be upset about the shooting at the Family Research Council.  If you read the post you’ll see that it he just fakes concern so he can advance his anti-gun agenda and pile on Bible-believing Christians as haters — Shooting At Family Research Council Must Be Condemned; Shows Need For New Gun Controls.

He called FRC a hate group because someone else has called them a hate group.  Golly, that’s good logic!

He claimed the shooter’s motives weren’t known, but that is false.

And he subtly blames the FRC for the shooting, noting that they didn’t call for prayers for the Colorado or Sikh temple shootings.  Yeah, Chuck, the FRC guard really got what he deserved!  Maybe they really prayed about it as individuals and didn’t just pretend to care like you do.  Your lack of sincerity on this shooting is indicative of your lack of sincerity in your calls to prayer (and you pray to Satan, anyway!).

And isn’t it obvious, using Liberal Logic, that Chuck & Co. are to blame for this?  They have perpetually demonized real Christians as haters, and then they act surprised when their words have incited violence.

I’m always tempted to say Chuck has hit a new, but that would be an exaggeration.  He just stays low.