A couple passages for those who deny or twist what Paul wrote

False teachers and ignorant church members often dismiss what Paul wrote because they think he is out-dated or just wrong.  They tip their hands by denying that the Holy Spirit was behind the writings.  But Paul shows how Christians accept the word of God as what it really is.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

So by denying that scripture is scripture they concede their unsaved nature and/or their ignorance.

And Peter teaches that the “ignorant and unstable twist” scriptures “to their own destruction” and how Paul’s writings are scripture (“as they do the other Scriptures”).

2 Peter 3:15–16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Of course, the “Christian” Leftists will say that Peter didn’t write 2 Peter and will probably deny that Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians.  Such is their predictable lot.  But use these passages anyway.  Best case is that they are convicted by them.  Worst case is that it makes them squirm and honors God by speaking his truths.  Either is fine.

Also see Paul vs. Jesus?  Not exactly.

Still not “born that way”

dna2.gifThe “gays were born that way” saying has taken on a life of its own and has an overwhelming impact on public policy and even religion.  Is it true?  If it is true, does it matter?  Some thoughts . . .

1. I’m highly skeptical of “proof” that it is genetic (either a “gay gene” or genetic predispositions), as these studies have all been proven to be false in the past.  There is no study showing that it is, and many showing that it isn’t.

2. Even if it is genetic, that doesn’t change the morality of the behavior.  You don’t get an “ought” from and “is.”  Gay-bashing is a sin, but on LGBTQX logic those people could claim they were “born that way.”

3. If it is genetic, the number of gays will be dramatically reduced in a generation or so.  Heterosexual parents will be quick to abort their children with predispositions to be gay.  And the Liberals won’t do much to stop them, because they typically love abortion rights more than gay rights.  Any time I pose that hypothetical situation to pro-abortion/pro-LGBTQ people, they always choose abortions over gays.  They haven’t changed their views even for gender selection abortions (which virtually all involve the killing of females for the sole reason that they are female), so they probably won’t change them for gays, either.

I think that would be a bad thing, of course, as I’m against abortions except to save the life of the mother, regardless of whether the baby has a predisposition to be gay.

4. I’ve seen lots of evidence that many people are gay because of sexual abuse and/or relationship issues.  I agree that anecdotes don’t make a full case, but I’m talking about a lot of anecdotes from people who come across hundreds or even thousands of gays.  I’ve read of many counselors who said that virtually all of their gay patients had been abused or had serious relationship issues.  And here’s a quote from gay activist / journalist Tammy Bruce from The Death of Right and Wrong:

Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood – molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult.  The gay community must face the truth and see the sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the “coming-of-age” experience many regard it as being.  Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS.

She wasn’t trying to dispel the “born that way” notion, but I thought her comment was compelling.

And nearly all the lesbians I know were abused by their fathers or husbands.  It is tragic that their “solution” just makes things worse.

5. It doesn’t have to be one traumatic event.  It could be the complete dynamics of a relationship in place from birth that would make someone think they were “always that way.”

6. Gays who choose that lifestyle would be predisposed to say they were born that way.  Otherwise, the whole “civil rights” demands would have even less reasoning behind them.  Just watch what happens when famous people claim they changed to be gay or lesbian.  The LGBTQX lobby goes into attack mode.

7. How many times do you see a newborn and say, “Now there’s a gay baby!”  Be sure not to unfairly stereotype youths as gay just because they have non-traditional characteristics.  How about nurturing and encouraging them for who they are and what interests they have?

8. Why are some people so eager to insist on the genetic link?  Seems kinda homophobic to me, as if they think the lifestyle would make an undesirable choice.

And don’t just say, “They are picked on, so who would want that lifestyle?”  That reasoning wouldn’t apply to people with true genetic differences that have made people a source of disapproval in the past.

Also, gay approval is at an all time high – “pride” parades, recognition as employee network groups at many businesses, civil unions & marriages – even apostate church weddings, almost universally favorable media treatment, etc.

9. Here’s one lady who doesn’t claim she was “born that way.”  She says feminism led her to lesbianism (go figure!).

Ms Wilkinson, Professor of Feminist and Health Studies at Loughborough University, said: “I was never unsure about my sexuality throughout my teens or 20s. I was a happy heterosexual and had no doubts. Then I changed, through political activity and feminism, spending time with women’s organisations. It opened my mind to the possibility of a lesbian identity.”

Try asking non-believers, “What do you think I believe?”

a

Why can’t non-believers understand the Gospel?  OK, I know the reason they can’t believe it.  Absent the Holy Spirit making them spiritually alive they are incapable of believing.  But you’d think that they could at least properly articulate what it is we believe.

In my experience, no matter how many times you explain what we really believe usually assume we think we are saved by works.  It is often fascinating to hear non-believers describe what they think we believe.  I shared the Gospel many times with one guy who continually came back and distorted what I’d said.  I finally made a little progress after I wrote this to him:

I also want to clarify my views on Heaven / Jesus for you.   . . .  I just think it is completely reasonable for me to correct your misunderstandings of what I believe.  I must not have explained it well on the phone so I thought I’d try it in writing.  This doesn’t make my beliefs true – although I am always ready to defend their accuracy and historicity – but if there is a misunderstanding I’d like to correct it.

So here it is: Yes, I have great confidence that I’m going to Heaven, but it is not because I behave in a better than average way.  One of my primary verses to point to is this: 1 Timothy 1:15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

That isn’t false humility, that is an accurate assessment of who I am and what I know about myself.  So yes, I think I’m going to Heaven, but I’ll do so in spite of what I’ve done and because of what Christ did on my behalf.  That’s it.  It is available to anyone who repents and believes.  He is the one true God and everyone will answer to him someday.  Making a god in one’s own image will gain a person nothing but an eternity in Hell.  You don’t set the terms and conditions, God does, so every person should seek and meet those terms with all their heart and strength.

To this guy’s credit, he called and said he realized he’d been misstating my views.  He still doesn’t believe, but I’m all for planting seeds.

So if you think someone doesn’t understand the real Gospel, try asking him to state what he thinks you believe.  You’ll get an insight into what he thinks and you can correct him from there.  It is also a charitable way to converse.

The sort-of official DNC response to the Wikileaks emails

“Even though countless people were on all those incriminating emails and the way we ran the primaries was such that you didn’t even need the emails to know our strategy, we were totally surprised by them are sincerely sorry [that we got caught].  It is all Debbie’s fault, which is why she was immediately picked up by Hillary’s campaign.  No, wait, it is Trump’s fault.  And Donna is now in charge, even though her emails said the same thing as Debbie’s.  So the Bernie people should just chill and bow down to Hillary.

Oh, and of course, Hillary’s server had **much** better security so there is no way those emails were compromised.”

If Black Lives Matter really wanted to help blacks they would abandon the Democratic party

b

In other words, they are fighting the wrong people.  The Left has been using blacks for half a century.  Some do it out of malice (think: Clinton, Obama, etc. who abuse the poor to gain more power), some out of ignorance (think: bleeding hearts who like to sooth their consciences by giving away your money and rights) and some for both reasons. Here are a few examples of how the Left harms blacks.

  1. Illegal aliens take the jobs and/or suppress the wages of low income blacks. This is a simple and indisputable impact of the law of supply and demand.  Leftists love illegal aliens pouring into this country because it is an easy way for them to buy votes.
  2. Abortion kills blacks at a rate over three times that of whites, and the Left’s dream of taxpayer-funded abortions will take that even higher.  If literally taking the lives of innocent black children in this way doesn’t enrage BLM, then they are ignorant or complicit.
  3. Leftist government, education, media and entertainment continue to encourage out-of-wedlock sex and single parenting, which inevitably leads to poverty, crime and prison.  This happens regardless of race but happens more in black communities because of how the Left targets them with their welfare programs.
  4. Minimum wage policies will take away even more low-income jobs.  These jobs were never designed to support families.  Minimum skills will always yield minimum wages.  But these artificial, un-Constitutional wage increases inevitably cost jobs via automation (at some point a machine will be more cost-effective than a human) or lost hours (see the Leftists at Starbucks who have been mugged by reality).  The real minimum wage is always going to be zero, and more and more minorities are experiencing that thanks to the Left.
  5. Fostering racial tensions, especially with the police.  Obama & Co. have done everything possible to start race wars.  They have made poor neighborhoods more dangerous with the “Ferguson Effect,” where police have a drastically reduced incentive to respond quickly or to do any defensive maneuvers.  If you are going to be shot at or called a racist no matter what you do, why not just show up after the bodies are cold and fill out a report?  I feel for the law-abiding people who are slowly entering into anarchy.  But some BLM leaders actually want there to be no police.  What could go wrong?
  6. Gun grabbing.  The Left never misses an opportunity to exploit tragedies to try and take the guns of law-abiding people.  It is too bad no one represents the poor but law-abiding people in South Chicago to let them buy guns to legally defend themselves.
  7. Out of control schools.  When hoodlums are given a free pass to behave in any way they like in schools and not be kicked out then the good kids suffer.  The Left now considers it racist if minorities are disciplined more often than whites, regardless of the actual infractions.  The social contract to provide education to all children should have a caveat that if you don’t behave well then the parents are responsible.  And as always, the government unions and politicians just take turns giving each other your money instead of helping the children.  Even Leftists like FDR knew those unions should be forbidden.

The Democrats do all these at the expense of low-income blacks, but history shows that the blacks will vote for them anyway.  So why change?

So if you are a conservative and anyone asks what you are doing to help blacks, let them know that you are doing a lot: Fighting abortion that kills blacks at a rate three times that of whites, fighting illegal immigration that take the jobs and/or suppresses the wages of low-income blacks, improving their police protection, fighting for their right of self-defense, fighting minimum wage increases that will take their jobs, and more.

Dilemma of the day: Should it be legal to abort [hypothetically] gay children?

Originally posted on Disqus where it got predictable, mostly pro-abortion responses.

First, a little background: I’ve actually asked the title question for many years, but a commenter on a Disqus Religion thread thought she’d play a “gotcha” and asked me the same thing. She even pre-gloated by assuming I’d try to evade the question:

“What if the baby in the womb was destined (hard-wired) to be gay. (And “not possible” is not a valid argument. Hard-wiring is real, e.g., left-handedness, eye color, etc.) Does that fetus have any worth? If so, why? If not, why not? Simple question. Please check all dancing shoes at the door. ;)”

Guess who was doing the dancing after I quickly and clearly told her I would choose life for the “gay” child? I also pointed out that if her hypothetical came true that most parents – even the pro-LGBTQX kind — would choose abortion, just like they abort the majority of children with Down Syndrome or any other suspected disability.

And yes, of course I oppose all abortions except the extremely rare cases where they save the life of the mother. But I’ll take whatever exceptions I can get because every life counts. The real burden of this question is on the pro-LGBTQX / pro-abortion people (and yes, it is pro-abortion if you want taxpayers to fund them so there can be more).

So this conservative, Bible-believing Christian firmly and unequivocally says: No, of course not! The unborn are human beings from fertilization (scientific fact – check out any of those pesky mainstream embryology textbooks — human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc. Same human being at different stages of development) and are deserving of life regardless of their tendencies towards certain sins. We are all sinners in need of a Savior (and thank God for that wonderful Savior!). Anyone who comes to God on his indescribably gracious terms will be loved and forgiven by him. How dare we kill innocent people made in his image, regardless of whether they are in the womb or not?

Interestingly, every conservative, Bible-believing Christian I’ve posed that question to has said the same thing: No, don’t abort them (and I’ll be surprised and disappointed if any have alternate views here). Isn’t that odd for a group that allegedly hates gays?

But it gets better – by which I mean, much worse: Every pro-choice/pro-LGBTQX person I’ve posed the question to has always said they’d favor abortion rights! If you agree with Jesus that homosexual behavior is a sin then the Leftists call you a hater and worse, while they are actively preserving the [hypothetical] right to kill gays up to their first breath*.

So to recap my experience:
– Conservative, Bible-believing Christians say not to kill [hypothetically] gay people regardless of location
– Leftists – including “Christian” Leftists — approve of killing [hypothetically] gay children up to their first breath

I hope the Leftist commenters here prove me wrong and say why they’d oppose abortions for those children. But my guess is that most of them will be smart enough to think 5 seconds into the future and anticipate the next question: If you think it is wrong to kill “gay” children in the womb, why is it OK to kill “straight” children? It is sort of like how the feminists get tied in knots over gender-selection abortions, nearly all of which, in the ultimate misogyny, kill females for the sole reason that they are female. The feminists surely don’t like those abortions but they love the overall concept of abortion more than the lives of countless female victims. And it is like the supposedly pro-black Leftists who conveniently ignore that abortion kills blacks at a rate over three times that of whites — and how that will go higher when they get their dream of full taxpayer-funding for abortions. And yet they’ll say pro-lifers are the racists . . .

OK folks, on to our dilemma of the day: What do you love more, gays or abortion? That is, should it be legal to kill [hypothetically] gay children up to their first breath?

Bonus question for those choosing abortion rights over gay rights: Will it make it harder for you to pretend that conservative, Bible-believing Christians hate gays when you think it should be legal to kill them in the womb but they think it should be illegal? I mean, if killing someone isn’t hateful then what is? Do you still think it is fair to use the petty and fallacious “homophobe” personal attack if you would accept killing gays in the womb while Christians oppose it?


*The “Christian” Left is far more extreme in their pro-abortion agenda than the average pro-choice person, as they agree with Democrats’ platform of unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortions – even “partial-birth abortion” (aka infanticide). They insist that life begins at the first breath and that Jesus is fine with killing unwanted children until that point. I realize how ridiculous their views sound and how many people must think I’m making a straw-man argument. But that is just because their own words are so clear and extreme: “According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.” More here about how to respond, with full, in-context quotes from them.

ARG is right: Antibiotic Resistant Gonorrhea

Via: Dear @LaurenDuca: Could You Please Define ‘Sexually Active’ More Clearly? : The Other McCain

Just walked into my 17-year-old son’s room and
said, “Three words: Antibiotic-Resistant Gonorrhea.”
Then walked out. https://t.co/TjJbqbA7JE

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) June 30, 2016

I wonder how the The Left — including the “Christian” Left —  will address this lovely new sexual development: Antibiotic Resistant Gonorrhea?  Prediction: They will ignore it until they come up with a way to spin it.

They might try this strategy, where a slut* was shocked — shocked!, I say — that sleeping with lots of guys could lead to a STD.

If one in six people had genital herpes, how was I the only person I knew to do the ultimate walk of shame from the student health center clutching a stack of STD pamphlets? . . . On a logical level I knew that getting herpes had nothing to do with my actions and didn’t say anything about my character; it was simply luck of the draw.

Yep, nothing at all to do with her actions . . . just bad luck.  Ahem.

I encourage you to read McCain’s post in full.  He also gives some history on the AIDS issue that the Left has whitewashed.

In 1982, the CDC reported that that the “median number of lifetime male sexual partners” for gay men diagnosed with AIDS was 1,160.

Over one thousand partners.  Think about that soul-crushing fact.  And the Leftist education/media/entertainment complex has managed to convince the average person that all gays want to do is settle down for a life of monogamy.  If only the haters wouldn’t get in the way they wouldn’t have had hundreds of sex partners!  Seriously, how could you have that many partners and not get AIDS?!

You’d think at some point these fools would consider how the Christian model works so much better: Parents for the kids, no STDs, lots of married-people sex, etc.

—–

*If you’re offended, I don’t care.  Words mean things, and that’s the best word to use here.  And it isn’t bad enough that she has Herpes, but she’s encouraging young people (in Teen Vogue and elsewhere) to do the same things that got her this life-long disease.

Poor arguments to make with theists

circle-slash.jpgThis is a companion piece to Poor arguments to make with atheists.  I deliberately used theists instead of Christians to keep things simple, though I did use some Christian examples below.  I accumulated these from various atheist web sites or comments made here.

I enjoy questions with people who are willing to have a charitable dialogue.  I don’t waste time with people who come by with poorly reasoned sound bites they picked up from their Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris trinity or the Big Book O’ Atheist Sound Bites.   My hope is that people will reflect on at least one of these and realize how they’ve been repeating things without thinking about them carefully. And if they were misinformed on these simple things, then where else have their instructors misled them?

It is also written to encourage believers when they hear these things in the secular world — and in some churches!  We live in the world that the one true God created, so there will always be reasonable explanations to the nothing-made-everything fantasy sound bites of atheism.

1.  There are lots of denominations within Christianity and lots of religions with differing truth claims.  There must be a solid majority with complete agreement for God to be real, so this is evidence that there is no God.

And where did they arrive at this piece of spiritual truth?   But if the truth is determined by a majority vote, then there must be a God.  There are far more religious people than atheists.  But the truth is the truth no matter how few agree, and a lie is a lie no matter how many agree. And if the majority rules with respect to truth claims then atheism is false, because most people believe there is a God.

Christianity claims to be the narrow road.  Jesus didn’t expect a majority to follow him.  And the Bible addresses many false teachings and warns of others to come.
Also, as one atheist noted when trying to rally people to do “raiding parties” on theist sites, “Atheists as we all know from bitter arguments on this site, embrace a pretty broad range of views.”  So by their logic they must have a false worldview, right?
2. Why is it that religious people resort to imaginary answers (faith) built on the circular reasoning that the bible provides those answers? Does god exist? Yes, because the bible says so. D’uh!.

That is an actual quote.  I got this a lot from the Dawkins’ blog “raiding party.”  I call this the fallacy-within-a-fallacy argument.  They make a straw man argument about us making a circular argument.

I never made that claim about the Bible other than noting that the Bible does claim 3,000 times to speak for God and that it is a sort of necessary condition to be considered the word of God.  We have lots of reasons to believe it is the word of God, but we don’t need circular reasoning for it.

He also uses a non-Biblical definition of faith.  We have faith in something, and it isn’t a “blind faith” or a faith in spite of the evidence.

3. Arguing from incredulity: You just have a made-up invisible friend in the sky, etc., etc.  Do you probably believe in santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?

This charming ad hominem attack works both ways.  I submit that A is far more incredible to believe than B, and could have expanded on A for days.

A. The universe was created from nothing without a cause and organized itself into the spectacular level of complexity we see today, including life being created from non-life, and it evolved to create the “fictions” of morality and consciousness.

B. The universe was created by an eternally existent God.

We have lots of evidence for the existence of God: Cosmological (”first cause”), teleological (design), morality, logic, the physical resurrection of Jesus, etc.  If atheists don’t find that compelling, then so be it. I’m on the Great Commission, not the paid commission. But to insist that we have no evidence is uncharitable in the extreme and makes reasoned dialogue virtually impossible.

4. Arguments from ridicule (also see #3).  You can sprinkle in some ridicule to make an argument more entertaining, but using it as your primary argument is weak and fallacious.  Having visited quite a few atheist websites this seems to be their main line of reasoning.

5. As a Christian, you deny all gods but one. As an atheist, I deny all gods. We’re practically the same.

This is a cute but horribly illogical argument.  Saying there is no God isn’t a little different than saying there is one God, it is the opposite.  That’s like saying, “You deny all other women as your wives except one, so you’re practically the same as a single person.”

6. You don’t have empirical evidence for ____ (God, the resurrection, etc.).

To quote Bubba: “Can one prove that only empirical evidence is trustworthy? Better yet, can one prove this by using only empirical evidence?”

The answers, of course, are no and no.

The argument is a “heads we win, tails you lose” trick.  They say that you can only consider natural causes for the creation of the universe, and since they have nothing to test then there could not have been any supernatural cause, right?

And we do have lots of evidence for the resurrection.  Lots more evidence for God’s existence and for Christianity here and here.

7. Parents shouldn’t be allowed to indoctrinate / brainwash their children with religious beliefs.

The brainwashing must not be working, because so many people leave the church.  And why isn’t it brainwashing when the schools do it with evolution and their sickening strategies to take away the innocence of young children?  These freaks are telling 5 year old children that they can pick their gender!  That’s child abuse.

I find it interesting that with such low church attendance, general Biblical illiteracy and the monopoly that materialism has in public education that most people still don’t buy the macro-evolution lie.  No wonder evolutionists are so frustrated!

Some parents may go overboard with the fear of Hell thing.  But parents have rights, and more importantly, strong warnings are only inappropriate if the consequence in question is not true.

8. The Bible teaches _____ [fill in hopelessly (and deliberately?) wrong interpretation].

Please learn more about the Bible and the faith you are trying to criticize.  Straw-man arguments are unproductive.  This is perhaps the most common error I come across.  It seems like a week rarely goes by without someone using the “shrimp/shellfish argument,” which is full of holes but is appealing to many because so few bother to study the passages. I address five serious problems with it in flaws of the shellfish argument.

9. Christians disagree on what the Bible teaches (or Muslims disagree on the Koran, etc.) so there can’t be one right answer.

Just because a book is capable of being misunderstood doesn’t mean it is incapable of being understood.  Disagreements in science don’t mean everyone must be wrong.

If you have actually studied the Bible you’ll note that it addresses many false teachings and warns that there will always be false teachers.  So the concept that people disagree on what the Bible says isn’t exactly newsworthy.  It is Biblical, in fact.

10. Why do religious people keep quoting bits out of a book written long ago by stone aged (or bronze aged) and ignorant men?

The men who wrote the Bible were quite intelligent.  The Apostle Paul, for example, was well educated, articulate and a clear thinker.  Go read the book of Romans and see what I mean.

The age of the book is completely irrelevant, of course.  If God wrote it the message would be timeless.  And of course, if it were written last week they’d complain that it was too late.

The complaint that our responses are old is also invalid.  The objections are old as well.  The funny thing is that over the last 2,000 years brilliant theists have wrestled with the same questions the New Atheists have, except with more clarity and thoughtfulness.

11. Why do religious people not understand the scientific and philosophical arguments against the existence of god which clearly refute its existence?

This commenter didn’t share any of those arguments or refer to any sources, so it is difficult to answer even if the objection didn’t have a flawed premise (it is basically a “have you stopped beating your wife” type of question that anyone on any side of an issues could use).  Many of us know and understand the arguments and how to respond to them.

12. I can’t understand or conceive of why God would set things up this way, so He must not exist.

We call this “creating God in your own image.”  See the 2nd Commandment.  The atheists making claims like that paraphrase are actually making ironic theological statements, because they claim to know what God should “really” be like.

If you create your own universe with working DNA and such, you can make your own rules.  But whether you like it or not you play by God’s rules in this universe and you’ll have to give an account for your life.  Ignorance is not an excuse.  If you suppress the truth in unrighteousness you will experience God’s wrath for eternity.  You will be judged by God for all your sins, including your darkest, most shameful secret thoughts and deeds.  And the standard won’t be some other sinner like me, it will be the perfect righteousness of Jesus.

Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Romans 2:15-16 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

13. Some people who call themselves Christians do and/or say stupid things, so Christianity is false.

That doesn’t disprove Christianity any more than atheists doing and saying stupid things proves that there is a God.

In fact, Christians saying and doing stupid things probably bothers us more than it does atheists.  Believe it or not, we have some common ground there.

14. Religion poisons everything!  What about the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.?!

That is unproductive hyperbole.  Religion has done many great things – helping the poor, advancing education for the masses, helping women, building hospitals and schools, great art, etc.

You don’t judge an ideology based on the actions of those who violate its tenets.  Click the link above for more.

The Salem Witch trials killed 18 people.  The Inquisition killed about 2,000.  That is 2,018 too many, to be sure, but keep in mind two things: The perpetrators did the opposite of what Jesus commanded and 2,018 murders was a slow afternoon for atheists like Stalin and Mao.

Here’s a quote from a guy trying to rally atheists to their cause by raiding theist blogs like this one – to rescue the world from this religious poison, I suppose.  Messiah complex, anyone?

In a very real (but perhaps overly dramatic sense) the fate of the planet is at stake.

Uh, yes, “perhaps.”  But if atheism is true then who cares if the planet dies?  You must use empirical evidence to prove why it would be a bad thing :-).

I have noted that these critics focus almost exclusively on Christianity.  When you point this out to them they squirm and say it is the one they are most familiar with.  But with the growth of radical Islam and the perversions of the caste system in India you’d think they’d spread their evangelical atheism out a bit.

15. Religion gets in the way of scientific progress.

That is simply untrue.  The Galileo story that people usually refer to has many mythical elements.  And how many people can cite an example besides Galileo?  And who knows, maybe Einstein’s presupposition of a static universe caused his error with the cosmological constant.  After all, an expanding universe certainly gives more support to a theist model than a static one.

Darwinistic philosophy caused errors like assuming that “Junk DNA” was really junk.

16. You don’t use reason and we do.

That is just patently false.  Atheists just don’t like the reasons.  Christianity in particular encourages and applauds the use of reason.  Countless great thinkers and scientists were Bible-believing Christians.  Darwinistic philosophy can’t even account for reason, because macro-evolution would select for survivability, not truth.

17. But the Bible condones slavery!  It is ironic that this is one of the most common excerpts from the Big Book O’ Atheist Sound bites. Why? Because on atheism there is no grounding to say that slavery is wrong. Survival of the fittest rules, baby. So for starters, they shouldn’t be so judgmental about what their worldview couldn’t rightly judge.

Also, this doesn’t sound like condoning to me: Exodus 21:16 Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

Please read that again, then realize that the critics of God use the logical fallacy of equivocation to make their point — that is, they assume that all forms of slavery are the same.

Oh, and don’t forget to praise the Christians who ended slavery.

And don’t forget to fight the Muslim and other slavery that goes on today and please stop using p*rn, which is directly tied to sex slavery. That is, if you really care about slavery.

More background on the Bible and slavery here, or just search on the Bible and slavery.  There are lots of thorough articles for those with sincere interest in the topic.

18. But the God of the Bible committed genocide!  First, if you create a universe from scratch you are welcome to deal with any of your creatures who rebel against your authority as you see fit.  He is sovereign over life and death for everyone and makes no apology for it.

But the clearing out of the Promised Land involved a one-time cleansing of a group of people who had committed the atrocities listed in Leviticus 18 for over 400 years.  If you want to judge God, a more logical question would be why He waited so long!

And that was it.  No wars of conquest.  No hints in the New Testament that Christianity should use any coercion to get people to believe.

19.  If it aligned with facts and logic, it would not be religion. It would be science. Logical fallacy: Category error. Science deals with the material. Religion deals with the immaterial and the material. Both use facts and logic.

—–

Closing thoughts: As frequent commenter Edgar has pointed out so well, even if every religion is completely false and atheism is true, then naturalism is to blame.  So it is irrational to get mad at religion or religious people.  We’re just doing what our genes tell us to.

And, of course, you would have absolutely nothing to be proud about.  You haven’t accomplished anything and haven’t generated any brilliant or meaningful ideas.  You are just a bag of chemicals that thinks you have.  Congratulations!  You have no reason for bitterness or grandstanding.

All fun aside, those who can stay away from time-wasting arguments and who want to engage in an actual dialogue are welcome.

I hope that atheists reconsider their views.  Eternity is a mighty long time.  The true God of the universe delights to show forgiveness and mercy, but you must come to him on his terms: Repenting and trusting in Jesus.

You can’t dictate the terms and conditions to parents, bosses, teachers, police, or even a McDonald’s cashier, so don’t be foolish and think you can do that with God. The rich young ruler walked away sadly when he didn’t like God’s terms and conditions but Jesus didn’t chase after him to negotiate.

The “stay out of my uterus!” pro-abortion argument

I just realized I never came up with a standard reply to that fallacious pro-abortion sound bite.  Here’s a draft — edits welcomed.  Feel free to use without attribution.

I have no interest in your uterus. I do care about the lives of innocent human beings, regardless of their location. And it is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings* from fertilization, and we should protect those human beings from being destroyed without adequate justification.

For the sake of consistency I’m sure you reject the support of pro-abortion men, because they should have no say over your uterus. And we should overturn Roe v Wade because it was passed exclusively by males.

And I’m sure you fight Obamacare and the like with the same sound bites. After all, if it is your uterus (and everything else) then you’d never be such a hypocrite as to demand that other people pay for its care, birth control, etc., eh?

There is nothing less attractive to me than a woman willing to kill her own child. So even if I wasn’t happily married I would never care about the uterus — or anything else — of a pro-abortion woman, regardless of her beauty or other traits.

*Go consult any mainstream embryology textbook or just read what pro-abortion leaders have conceded — http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/