Tag Archives: Politics

Christian worldview, Favorites, Politics

Religious pluralism is intellectually bankrupt

Leave a comment

pluralism.jpg

There are two main kinds of religious pluralism.  One is good, and one is intellectually bankrupt.

Good pluralism: Numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society.

Bad pluralism: All religions are true and equally valid paths to God.

Pluralism can be a good thing if it means we should tolerate the beliefs of others. Jesus, God in the flesh, didn’t force anyone to convert, so why should we think we can?

Christianity should flourish in a society with good pluralism, as the Gospel can be shared freely without pressure to fake one’s beliefs.  Sadly, we often get complacent in such atmospheres, and Christianity spreads just as well or better in times of persecution.  It tends to weed out false believers and teachers more effectively.

Of course, each religion has some truths. Still, there are irreconcilable differences in their essential truth claims regarding the nature of God, the path to salvation, their view of Jesus, etc.

Here are some examples:

One of the following is possible when we die, but under no circumstance could more than one be possible:

  1. Reincarnation (Hinduism, New Age)
  2. Complete nothingness (Atheism)
  3. One death, then judgment by God (Christianity, Islam, others)

Jesus was either the Messiah (Christianity) or He was not the Messiah (Judaism and others), but He cannot be the Messiah and not the Messiah.

God either doesn’t exist (Atheism), He exists and is personal (Christianity), or He exists and is impersonal (Hinduism).

Jesus either died on the cross (Christianity), or He didn’t (Islam).  The Koran repeatedly claims that Jesus did not die on the cross (Sura 4:157-158). What evidence does Islam offer? One guy with a vision over 500 years after the fact. That is not what we base history upon, especially when scholars of the first century — whether Christians or not — agree that a real person named Jesus died on a Roman cross.

God either revealed himself to us (many religions), or he didn’t (Atheism, Agnosticism).

Jesus is the eternally existent God (Christianity), or He isn’t (everything else, including the Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness). In fact, in Islam, it is an unforgivable sin to claim that Jesus is God, so there is no way to reconcile Christianity and Islam.

Some people believe that God will be whatever you conceive him to be in this life.  That is one of the most bizarre religious views I have heard.  I’m not sure how they concluded that every human gets a designer god and that, at death, it will be just as one wished.

Consider the view of Mahatma Gandhi and Hinduism in general:

After long study and experience, I have come to the conclusion that [1] all religions are true; [2] all religions have some error in them; [3] all religions are almost as dear to me as my own Hinduism, in as much as all human beings should be as dear to one as one’s own close relatives. My own veneration for other faiths is the same as that for my own faith; therefore no thought of conversion is possible. (Mahatma Gandhi, All Men Are Brothers: Life and Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi as told in his own words, Paris, UNESCO 1958, p 60.)

Yet the exclusive claims of Christianity prove Gandhi’s worldview (that of Hinduism) to be false.  The Bible claims at least one hundred times that Jesus is the only way to salvation.  It also commands us not to worship idols and that we die once and then face judgment (it does not hold to reincarnation).  Those are key elements of the Hindu faith.  So, if Hinduism is true, then Christianity cannot be true.  But if Hinduism is correct in stating that all religions are true, then Christianity must be true.  But Christianity claims to be the one true path, so if it is true then Hinduism is not.

Also, Hinduism claims that Christianity is true, so if Christianity is false, then so is Hinduism.  Either way, the logic of Gandhi and Hinduism collapses on itself.

When I share the Gospel, I do so as respectfully as possible.  But I always try to work in examples like the above to highlight that under no circumstances can we both be right about the nature of God and salvation.

I used to hold the position of religious pluralism.  We studied world religions about 30 years ago in an Adult Sunday School class and, sadly, didn’t dig very deep (I was attending church but not really a believer . . . at best, I was “saved and confused”).  Most of us walked away thinking the religions were “all pretty much the same” and with no incentive to go out and make a case for Christianity. 

So why did I—and so many people today, including Christians—embrace bad pluralism? I think it is typically due to a lack of clarity on the topic. When you examine the essentials of these faiths, it is not that hard to show how they are irreconcilable.

Political correctness and fear contribute as well.  It is easy to deny the exclusivity of Jesus (or the truth claims of whatever faith one follows) if one wants to avoid controversy.  But as unpopular as it is to make truth claims, it is really a rather logical thing to do.  The one claiming all religions are true needs to back up that claim with their evidence and logic.  Just rattle off a list of religions, sects, and cults and ask why they are all true.  Just be careful saying things like, “Hinduism has a lot of sects.”  If you say it too quickly, people will have surprised looks on their faces.

Sheer laziness is another factor.  Knowing enough about one’s faith to defend it in the marketplace of ideas is hard work.  Religious pluralism is a great excuse not to evangelize.

I expect many non-Christians to say that all paths lead to God, but it really bothers me when those claiming the name of Christ do so.  They should meditate on this passage, among others:

Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Roundup

Favorites, Politics, Pro-life

(Somewhat) Effective Biblical arguments against capital punishment

Leave a comment

gavel.jpgAs noted in my post on Ineffective Biblical arguments against capital punishment, capital punishment (CP) is a completely Biblical proposition if properly applied.  Most of the arguments against it use very poor Biblical analysis.  Having said that, I have some concerns about how it is currently administered in the U.S. If I had to argue against it, here is what I would focus on.

  • Just because the Bible permits capital punishment doesn’t mean we have to use it.
  • Some people on death row have been found not guilty.
  • The Bible requires that accused criminals be justly convicted, and our system doesn’t take perjury very seriously.

Just because the Bible permits capital punishment doesn’t mean we have to use it. This argument isn’t perfect, but it is serviceable and could be used fairly well in a debate.  The reasoning would be that if capital punishment were put to a vote, a Christian could, in good conscience, vote against the death penalty.  This doesn’t argue against CP, but it says you wouldn’t have to argue for it.

Some people on death row have been found not guilty – I think these numbers are overstated because the convictions that have been overturned were based on technicalities and not on the innocence of the accused.  And they also point to the fact that the system works, at least sometimes: The convictions were overturned before the death penalty was carried out.  Had they been sentenced to life in prison they would probably still be in jail.

But the issues with the Houston DNA lab, for example, point to system problems.

The Bible requires that accused criminals be justly convicted, and our system doesn’t take perjury very seriously. God loves justice.  Here’s just one of many verses one could point to:  Micah 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Remember that when I say He loves justice, that doesn’t mean he loves it when the innocent aren’t punished.  He also loves it when the guilty are held accountable.  This can help rehabilitate the criminal, protect others from the criminal, and deter others from becoming criminals.

The Bible requires two or more witnesses for the death penalty: Numbers 35:30 Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.

Then, those witnesses were required to put him to death: Deuteronomy 17:7 The hands of the witnesses must be the first to put him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.

It also required justice for the poor, so they must have adequate legal counsel: Exodus 23:6 “Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits.

The U.S. legal system goes beyond what the Bible requires in some areas, such as Miranda rights and DNA evidence.  But it falls short in a crucial area: The integrity of witnesses.  According to the Bible, perjury was punishable by death.  Yet perjury doesn’t appear to be taken seriously in our country (and I’m not just talking about the Bill Clinton thing, though that didn’t help matters).

I was on a jury a few years back in Conroe, Texas (Population: Several).  A man was accused of fondling a 16 yr. old boy.  The boy’s testimony was pretty compelling, but the story had some holes.

The main problem was that witnesses on both sides were lying repeatedly.  (Here’s some free legal advice: If you are ever on trial and decide to invent an alibi witness who is an old buddy, no one will be able to locate via the phone or other records, then don’t change his last name part way through your testimony.  It looks a little suspicious.)  It appeared that some type of incident had occurred, but we didn’t have enough evidence to find him guilty.  Yet no one seemed to care about the perjury!

Now contrast our current system with the Biblical model for perjury:

Deuteronomy 19:16-21 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Did you catch that?  If you lied at a trial you were putting yourself at risk for the same punishment as the accused.  Couple that with the fact that two witnesses were required to convict someone of murder, and you have a pretty reliable system in place.  At least God thought so.
One drawback of these arguments is that they are easier to label as Israelite-specific than the universal commands of Genesis 9:5-6: And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.
But I don’t think the answer is to end capital punishment because that same reasoning could lead us to suspend all punishments.  Many murderers are guilty beyond dispute (“Free Tookie” and Karla Faye Tucker come to mind), so there is no chance we’re executing an innocent person there.  The answer is to tighten up on perjury.  People need to know that lying under oath has serious consequences.

I am still in favor of capital punishment because I think the controls in place are adequate and, in some ways, more stringent than the Biblical model, but if I had to argue against it, I would play the “soft on perjury” card.

Let me close by putting the death penalty back in perspective.  Anyone making that argument had better be pro-life unless they can explain being for the legal killing of innocent human beings and against the destruction of guilty murderers.  Also see Abortion and Capital Punishment.

Favorites, Politics, Pro-life

Ineffective Biblical arguments against capital punishment

2 Comments

gavel.jpgCapital punishment (CP) is a completely Biblical proposition if properly applied and is actually a pro-life position. In my next post, I’ll make some arguments from a Christian worldview against capital punishment as currently administered in the U.S. But first, I wanted to address some anti-CP arguments I would not use.

(Note that I don’t use the cost issues in either scenario – i.e., “Putting them in prison for life is too expensive” vs. “The legal costs of the death penalty are too expensive.”  Justice ain’t cheap.  We shouldn’t go one direction or the other just because it might cost more or less.)

I’ll address these arguments:

  • Jesus would forgive
  • We might be eliminating the condemned killer’s opportunity to place his trust in Christ and thus causing him/her to miss out on eternal salvation
  • Jesus is against capital punishment / Jesus reversed the Old Testament teaching on capital punishment
  • We might be killing someone innocent
  • Capital punishment is not a deterrent
  • The Bible says, “Thou shall not kill”

“Jesus would forgive” – Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason points out that Mother Teresa once used this argument to argue against a California capital punishment.  It is flawed for a few reasons.

First, Jesus would forgive if the criminal repented.  I don’t know if the condemned killer repented in that case or not, but many times they do not.  And, of course, only Jesus would know if the repentance is authentic.

Second, Jesus offers divine forgiveness, but he doesn’t always remove the earthly consequences of our actions (examples abound—see King David and Bathsheba, other Bible characters, you, me, and others).

Third, and most importantly, this argument proves too much.  The rationale that “Jesus would forgive” presumably means we shouldn’t apply the death penalty.  But those arguing against capital punishment typically drop back to a punishment of life in prison.  But if Jesus would forgive, how could we put this person away for life?  How about just 20 years in prison?  No, Jesus would forgive.  And so on.  The literal application of the “Jesus would forgive” position would keep us from punishing anyone, ever.  And no, that isn’t a slippery slope argument.  It just means that if you say society must forgive because Jesus would, and you define forgiveness as eliminating consequences, then why apply any punishment?

Another bad reason for this and the remaining arguments is that the ACLU would hate them because they mention the “J” word (sarcasm intended).  Actually, they might like the arguments.  Sometimes, people will relax their standards when something benefits their position.  I haven’t done precise Venn diagrams on this topic, but it seems like the “Jesus would forgive” crowd overlaps a lot with the “separation of church and state” crowd.

“We might be eliminating the condemned killer’s opportunity to place his trust in Christ and thus causing him/her to miss out on eternal salvation.” I am big on evangelism, and I love to hear the stories of people who repented and believed despite horrible circumstances and backgrounds.  David Berkowitz, the Son of Sam, is a powerful example.  I am involved with the Kairos prison ministry and support ministries like Prison Fellowship that take the Gospel to prisoners and care for their families.  But this argument just doesn’t work for me.

First, anyone who puts it forth would have to acknowledge that the murder the criminal committed is an even worse crime than the state recognizes.  After all, the government is punishing the person for taking someone’s earthly life.  If you truly believe that an opportunity for eternal life was taken, then the crime is significantly greater, perhaps infinitely so.  That would imply the need for a stronger punishment, not a lesser one, so you are arguing against your own position.

Second, this argument ignores God’s sovereignty. Both Calvinists and Arminians believe that God knows which way we’ll choose. If someone holds a different view, they must revisit my first objection. I don’t think any non-believers will convince God that if only they had lived longer, they would have repented and believed.

Third, it takes many, many years before a convicted murderer is put to death.  He/she has plenty of time to consider whether to put his/her faith in Christ.  Condemned killers probably have more time than their victims did and, certainly, a greater sense of urgency to consider their eternal destiny.

“Jesus is against capital punishment / Jesus reversed the Old Testament teaching on capital punishment.” – This is much simpler to refute than most people realize.  Consider the following two arguments:

  • Capital punishment for murderers was God’s idea (For example, Genesis 9:5-6: “And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.  Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.”).
  • Jesus is God.
  • Therefore, capital punishment for murderers was Jesus’ idea.
  • The Old Testament clearly teaches that capital punishment is an appropriate punishment for justly convicted murderers – both inside and outside the Israelite culture.
  • No New Testament teachings reverse this teaching.
  • Therefore, capital punishment is still an acceptable punishment for justly convicted murderers.

Foreshadowing: My next post on “(Somewhat) Effective Biblical arguments against capital punishment” will focus on the “justly convicted” part.

It is possible that Jesus could have changed this teaching, but there are no passages to support this notion.  The Bible indicates that capital punishment was prescribed for more than a dozen Israelite-specific transgressions.  But capital punishment for murderers goes back much farther, all the way to Noah.

Peter and Paul both point to the government’s authority to punish people. In Romans 13, Paul specifically mentions that rulers do “not bear the sword for nothing.”   Presumably, the “sword” was for capital punishment, not corporal punishment.

When Paul was threatened with the death penalty in the book of Acts, he didn’t object to the penalty itself; he just pointed to his innocence (Acts 25:10-11).  Jesus did the same when He was on trial.

The “turn the other cheek” passage sometimes used to assert that Jesus was against CP is a misapplication.  That teaching is about personal relationships when you are insulted, not for government punishments of condemned killers.  It is hard to turn the other cheek when you are dead.  Think about it.

And while turning the other cheek when you are insulted is noble and Christian, turning the other cheek when someone weaker is threatened or killed is cowardice.  Read it in context, and you’ll see that it has nothing to do with the government administration of the death penalty:

Matthew 5:38-42 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

But what about the command to “love your enemies?”  Again, this is a passage to Christians, not the government.  It doesn’t even hint that the government wouldn’t hold people accountable for crimes committed against Christians.  If someone assaults you, you need to forgive them.  But jailing them may be the loving thing to do if it protects others (remember, you need to love your enemies and your neighbors).

Some people misinterpret the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11) and think it means Jesus was against capital punishment.  First, the earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not include this passage.  If it is authentic, it is not primarily about capital punishment.  It is about Jesus out-witting the Pharisees and pointing out their inconsistency and hypocrisy.  But note that Jesus applied the Biblical model: There were no longer two witnesses to condemn her.  He never revoked the penalty.  He told her to go and sin no more.  (I wonder if those who quote this against capital punishment also quote it to oppose adultery?)

To make the case that capital punishment, in general, is un-Biblical, one would need at least one passage to that effect.  And it simply doesn’t exist. And, of course, anyone who likes to argue from silence (“Jesus didn’t say anything specific about ____, so _____”) would have to concede that Jesus did not overturn the death penalty.
“We might be killing someone innocent.” – If a Biblical model of justice is followed, the odds of this happening are very, very low.  And God was willing to take that chance.   This argument has some merit, as the U.S. has drifted from a more Biblical justice model.  I’ll address that in the follow-up post.
This is an unusual side note, but please consider that if someone is truly innocent, then their conviction is much more likely to be overturned if they are given the death penalty than if they have a sentence of life without parole. This is because a death penalty sentence has automatic appeals and legal support not available to someone with a sentence of life without parole.  Ironically, then, an innocent person sentenced to life without parole is more likely to die in prison than an innocent person given the death penalty.  This isn’t a major point either way, just one of those unusual twists.

Remember that many times, there is no doubt about the guilt of the accused (Remember Karla Faye Tucker and “Free Tookie,” among others).

“Capital punishment is not a deterrent” – Is so.  Romans 13:3: “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.  Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?  Then do what is right, and he will commend you.  For he is God’s servant to do you good.  But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.  He is God’s servant and agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”  Sounds like a deterrent to me.

Please spare me any statistics that allegedly show that capital punishment increases murders or has no effect.  I appreciate a good study, but if you can find one that eliminates all issues like more fatherless kids, less religious influence, etc. – not to mention the interminably long process required to carry out an execution – I would like to see that one.  When in doubt, I’ll stick with clear Biblical teachings over man-made surveys.

Also, I think it is rather obvious that stronger punishments are greater deterrents.  I can prove it in 10 seconds: Do you think driving behavior would change if traffic tickets only cost a nickel or the punishment was life in prison?  Oh, and God says they are a deterrent:

And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you.(Deuteronomy 19:20, ESV)

And, of course, we can be 100% sure that capital punishment certainly deters murderers from killing again.  Many murders have taken place when murderers were set free or when other prisoners were killed.  If we love our neighbors, we will seek to protect them.

Does it deter everyone from killing?  Of course not.  But since when was that part of the criteria for establishing laws?  We have a criminal justice system because some will always break the law.

“The Bible says, ‘Thou shall not kill.’” Actually, it says you shouldn’t murder, which is killing an innocent human being.  And that is such a great crime that it brought the death penalty.  People who think that it is ironic to kill murderers are missing the point.  Life is so valuable that to take a human life is to commit the greatest crime possible.  

Anyone making that argument had better be pro-life, or they need to be prepared for me to point out the hypocrisy of being for the legal killing of innocent human beings and against the destruction of guilty murderers.  Also see Abortion and Capital Punishment.

Pro-life

Planned Parenthood vs. Planned Parenthood

Leave a comment

Marc T. Newman, Ph.D., President of MovieMinistry.com, gave a terrific presentation at a CareNet Pregnancy Center fundraiser years ago. One of the most intriguing things he mentioned was a Planned Parenthood advertisement published in 1964 to promote birth control (click the link or go to the end of this post).  Read the whole thing, then consider this from the Q&A section:

Is it [birth control] an abortion?

Definitely not.  An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.  It is dangerous to your life and health.  It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it.  Birth control merely postpones the meaning of life.

There you have it!  Straight from the experts at Planned Parenthood.  Read that again and try not to drown in the irony.

So Planned Parenthood used to teach that abortion kills a baby and poses medical risks to the mother.  As Dr.  Newman asked, what did Planned Parenthood learn since the early 1960’s that caused them to change their stance on what abortion really does?  carenet-walk-05-55.jpg

Could it be the sonograms and 4-D ultrasounds?  No, those do more than anything to promote the pro-life view.  Technology is the enemy of pro-legalized-abortionists, and it always will be.  They might have gotten away with the “blob of tissue” argument in the 60’s, but not today.  The scientific fact is that life begins at conception.

Could it be the studies showing the impact of abortion on women?  No.  Despite major political pressure, more studies continue to show the adverse impact abortion has on women – both physically and emotionally.

Or could it be the megabucks they make from abortions that caused them to change their minds?!  money.jpg

Folks, always remember that when it comes to abortion, Planned Parenthood had it right the first time:

An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.  It is dangerous to your life and health.

Be sure to quote them on that whenever you can, especially when talking to Christian(?!) pastors who support Planned Parenthood.

More on Planned Parenthood here — just your basic well-documented serial felonies of covering up statutory rape.  Your tax dollars at work.PPPlanYourFamily63

Pro-life reasoning

Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born?

4 Comments

Jill Stanek, pro-lifer extraordinaire, posed this question on a defunct blog: Are pro-lifers going to adopt all the unwanted babies?  We should welcome this objection by pro-abortionists. It lets us explain the underlying fallacy of their question and how they never apply it in situations outside the womb, how pro-lifers do a lot to help before and after delivery, and how the same obligation of caring falls on them.  They may not convert, but any objective middle-grounder will see the merits.

fireman pro life

—–

baby1.jpgOne of the most common sound bites/jokes that pro-choicers make about pro-lifers is that we are infatuated with the fetus but don’t care about kids after they are born.   The message is that if we don’t adopt all unwanted children, then we have no right to complain about abortion.  It is an important sound bite to be able to address because it is very common, and even pro-lifers I know are not only intimidated by it, but they have used it themselves as a reason to remain silent about abortion.

The “Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born” line is one of my favorite arguments to rebut.  I teach people how to do it in pro-life training sessions in a two-step approach.  The tone of the conversation is important.  These arguments are powerful and quite effective if they are laid out in a calm, reasoned approach.  You probably won’t convert the rabid pro-choicers, but most middle-grounders will get the point.

First, show that pointing out a moral wrong does not obligate you to take responsibility for the situation.

If your neighbor is beating his wife, you call the police.  The police don’t say, “Hey, buddy, unless you are willing to marry her yourself, then we aren’t going to stop him from beating her.”  You can use child or animal abuse as examples as well.  Most people get the point pretty quickly.

Or ask the pro-choicer what they would do if the government decided to reduce the number of homeless people by killing them.  Could he protest that without having to house and feed them all himself?

You can also use the “trot out the toddler” approach promoted by Stand to Reason and ask if it would be acceptable to object to murdering a toddler even if you aren’t willing to adopt her.  Of course, the pro-choicer will always recognize the moral good of protesting toddler killing.  Then you can point out that killing innocent human beings is immoral and that the unborn are human beings.  So pointing out this moral wrong does not obligate us to do anything further.

Second, explain that while we aren’t morally obligated to help after the babies are born to be able to speak out against abortion, Christians do many things with their time and money anyway – orphanages, Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs), food pantries, etc.

When I’m teaching CPC volunteers, I remind them of all that they and the center do: Pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, food, clothes, diapers, life skill training, parenting training, post-abortion counseling, and more – all for free!  And, of course, we share the Gospel with the clients if they are interested (Saving lives now and for eternity!).

The workers are mostly volunteers and the leaders make below-market wages because they believe in the cause.  Most centers receive no government funding, so all the money comes from donations.  There are far more Crisis Pregnancy Centers than there are abortion clinics.

When I tell people about CPCs, the typical reaction is, “I had no idea.”  Most people aren’t aware of all the good being done there.  In theory, CPCs are something pro-choicers could support as well.  After all, if women choose to keep their children, this is a great way to help them.  But Planned Parenthood et al. consider them public enemy because we take away some of their business.

You can also ask pro-choicers what Planned Parenthood and the like do for hurting women once the babies are born.  It is a really, really short list.  Do they provide free post-abortion counseling? (Of course not, because who would need that, right?)  Do they give diapers, formula, etc.?  Hey, they don’t even give free abortions (though they would love for your tax dollars to fund some).

Having said all that, I think the church can and should be doing even more in the area of adoptions and support for orphans.  Not because having pro-life views requires that, but because it is the right thing to do regardless of whether abortion is legal or illegal.

Here’s a bonus argument: A recent Stand to Reason Podcast brought up another good point that I hadn’t thought of.  Here’s an additional response to use: Unless someone concedes to being truly pro-abortion (i.e., they expect women to always have abortions or raise the children with no help from the public), then the pro-choicers are obligated to adopt the children as well.  Either that or give up espousing their pro-choice views.  After all, if you claim to be pro-choice and the women choose life, then the same caregiving obligation falls on you.

Think about it.  It may seem subtle at first, but it is a completely consistent argument.  Pro-lifers don’t think it should be an option to kill the unborn, so pro-choicers use the false logic that we can’t complain about abortion if we won’t adopt all the kids and raise them to adulthood.  But if the woman decides to choose life, then the pro-choicer would have the same moral obligation to raise the kids.

Here’s how I played this out in this comment thread:

Pro-legalized abortion commenter: Hard decisions belong between a pregnant woman and her caregivers, not “holier than thou” intruders, unless they personally are willing to raise, including medical care, education, and life care, all those fertilized eggs.

My response: Another canard.

Answer me this: Let’s say the government decides to solve the problem of homelessness by killing homeless people. Can you protest this without being willing to house them yourself?

You can also substitute other examples (Can you call the police if your neighbor is abusing his wife and children without having to marry her and adopt the kids?).

It is a simple question designed to point out the primary error of your argument: You don’t have to take ownership of a situation just because you protest a moral evil.

And even though I don’t have to raise those human beings (the ones you like to call fertilized eggs) just because I protest the evil of abortion, I actually do a lot with my own time and money via CareNet Pregnancy Center.

And by the way, unless you are truly pro-abortion, then you are obligated to help as well. After all, if you claim to be pro-choice and the women choose life, then the same care giving obligation falls on you.

So that argument self-destructs in at least three ways.

Finally, consider if the child was outside the womb. Do the women and her caregivers get to decide if the toddler lives or dies? Of course not. So the only question is whether the unborn is a human being. Since it is a scientific fact that she is, then people shouldn’t get to decide whether to kill her. And Christians especially shouldn’t support anyone’s right to kill her.

Other commenter: BTW, half of fertilized eggs don’t implant in the uterus, so is it illegal for a woman to have mensus?

My response: Are you seriously claiming that you don’t see the difference between the following?

1. Human being dies of natural causes.

2. Human being is crushed and dismembered by another human being.

I think most people can see the difference, whether 1 and 2 occur inside or outside the womb.

I’ve heard all the pro-legalized abortion sound bites many times and will be glad to debunk more for you. I hope that you are intellectually honest and reconsider your position on this crucial issue.

In summary, pointing out the moral evil of abortion does not obligate one to adopt all the babies.  But pro-lifers do help anyway.  A lot.  And they do it with their own time and money, not their neighbors’.

When pro-legalized abortion people try to put you on the defensive by asking how many kids you have adopted, use the reasons above to respond.  Also, you can ask how many they adopt from orphanages.   If they haven’t adopted any, then according to their logic, they couldn’t protest their destruction.

__________

Here’s a list you can copy and paste when someone accuses you of being inconsistent:

Do you know how much time and money I donate to help the poor or how much I pay in taxes?  [Pause]  Didn’t think so.  So why not stick to the topic, which is whether you should be able to crush and dismember children in the womb?  The “pro-lifers don’t care about those outside the womb/haven’t adopted all the children/etc.” canard is false on many levels. 
 
1. If people were slaughtering toddlers, the elderly, or anyone else the way they do unborn children, I guarantee that we would be protesting that as well.  So we are completely consistent in protecting innocent human lives regardless of location, and yes, we do care for life post-birth.  
 
2. You can speak against moral evils all day, every day, without being obligated to care for all the victims for life. If mothers were killing toddlers for the same reasons they give for abortions (money, career, love life, pressure from boyfriends/parents, etc.) would you stay quiet? Would you lodge the same criticism at those who spoke against toddler-cide without adopting all the children? Hopefully not. The question is whether the unborn are human beings. They are. At least, that’s what all the embryology textbooks say. Just because they are smaller, more dependent, and in a unique environment (formerly synonymous with a safe place) doesn’t mean their lives aren’t worthy of protection.  The right to life is a foundational human right.
 
3. The premise is false.  Countless pro-lifers help women and children before and after birth with their own time and money.  Pregnancy Resource Centers offer an array of free services. Planned Parenthood and the like make millions via abortion.
 
4. Asking the government to take money by force from others to supposedly help the poor does not qualify as charity on your part.
 
5. Do you criticize the American Cancer Society for not working on heart disease?  If not, why are you being prideful about your preferred ministry over what others feel called to?  That is if you actually do anything for others at all.  Using your logic, William Wilberforce didn’t do much because he “only” cared about abolishing the slave trade (not true, of course, as he did more than that, but it shows how ridiculous the pro-abortion argument is).
 
6. Unless they want forced abortions, pro-choicers have the same obligations to help that they put on pro-lifers.
 
7. The claim that we don’t care about children outside the womb is demonstrably false.  But even if their claim was true, it seems like the greater sin would be to approve of a child being literally crushed and dismembered rather than just not personally feeding someone else’s living child.
 
8. Imagine saying something similar to justify keeping slavery legal: “You think slavery is wrong but won’t help them get jobs, etc.”
 
9. Your basic reasoning is this: “It is OK to kill the child but not to risk her being impoverished.”
 
10. If you actually help them outside the womb with your money, we could swap labels and dismiss you: “You only help them outside but let them be killed inside.” Still illogical, but that’s what you get.
Here’s a handy jpeg you can use as well:
Pro lifers don't care about those outside the womb
Bible, Christian worldview, False teachers, Favorites

Churchgoers who support “same-sex marriage” are indistinguishable from the world

3 Comments

In other words, they aren’t Christians.  This is a devastating but unsurprising summary of their views.  The data is right here.  While comparing the first two columns of numbers is illuminating, what really stuck out to me was the similarity of the 2nd and 3rd columns.  Note how the churchgoing people who support SSM are nearly identical to the population average in every category.  These churchgoers are even more pro-porn and pro-abortion* than the average person!  Yeah, you can tell how committed they are to Christ.

And the Gay & Lesbian “Christians” are wildly more in favor of porn, fornication, abortion, threesomes, etc. than even secular straight people.  Anyone surprised?  And this survey was done before the “trans” phenomena took off, but I’m sure that category would be no different.
Regnerus-Graph

This is just more confirmation of one of the theological Left’s biggest lies, namely that we are just misreading the Bible on the verses about homosexuality.  But if that was the case, these “Christians” who support SSM should at least be more aligned with us than with the world when it comes to porn, abortion, divorce, etc.  And keep in mind that two out of the three types of pro-gay people** (religious or not) agree with Bible believers that homosexual behavior is a sin.

Please read this carefully and note how it perfectly describes churchgoers who support SSM:

1 John 2:15–16 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.

Or see this:

James 4:4 You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

Or this:

Philippians 3:18–19 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.

Or pretty much anything in the book of Jude:

Jude 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

I wish they would have added a question about whether Jesus is the only way to salvation.  That is a simple litmus test because it is taught over 100 times in the New Testament.  Anyone who disagrees with that should not claim to be a Christian.  In my experience, there is a remarkable correlation between pro-SSM people and those who deny the exclusivity of Jesus for salvation.  So you can test their authenticity without even bringing up the LGBTQX topic.

The theological Left and its false teachers love the world, not God.  They have access to the truth but delight in living out the opposite and blame others for the incredible destruction caused by violating God’s guidelines for sex.  If it weren’t for them, abortion would be illegal, Planned Parenthood would not get taxpayer funding, schools wouldn’t be teaching pro-gay propaganda, and we wouldn’t be losing our religious freedom, parental authority, and freedom of speech at such an alarming rate.

Churchgoers who support “same-sex marriage” are identical to the world. In other words, they don’t appear to be Christians.

—–

* Per the “Christian” Left: “According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.”  They think Jesus is fine with killing children for any reason up to that time, including the “partial-birth abortion” (aka infanticide) procedure that even most pro-choice people oppose.

** The three general types of pro-gay theology people:

  1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong, but it isn’t the word of God.” (Obviously non-Christians)
  2. “The Bible says it is wrong, but God changed his mind and is only telling the theological Left.” (Only about 10 things wrong with that.)
  3. “The Bible is the word of God, but you are just misunderstanding it.” (Uh, no, not really.)
Bible, False teachers

Black Letters Matter!

1 Comment

The “red letter” Christians are nearly always false teachers who pretend that the only words of the Bible that really matter are direct quotes of Jesus (i.e., the words that are printed in red in some Bibles).  Their logic fails on many levels, and they can’t even get their own pet verses right.

If they were the least bit consistent they’d agree with Jesus’ “red letters” that say you should live on all the letters.   Matthew 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, “ ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ ”

So, the second set of red letters teaches us to live on all the letters.  Why don’t they obey that simple teaching?

Also, note that “red-letter Christians” tip their hands at their foundational error. Jesus is God and agrees with all of scripture. He quoted the Old Testament extensively and referred to its most controversial elements without apology: Sodom and Gomorrah, Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah, etc.

Jesus didn’t hand-write the Gospels. Like the epistles, the authors had some eyewitness accounts and some reliable second-hand accounts, and all were inspired by God.

Finally, they never seem to quote the red letters from Revelation, especially Jesus’ messages to the seven churches.   The “Christian” Left / Progressive “Christians” are the ones pushing sexual immorality and the “deep things of Satan,” as bolded below.

“ ‘I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works. But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden. Only hold fast what you have until I come.(Revelation 2:19–25, ESV)

The “red letters” crowd is full of nonsensical hypocrites.  They should be dismissed as wolves.

Black Letters Matter!

False teachers, Politics, Sexuality

Simple responses to Romans 1 pro-gay theology errors

3 Comments

The entire Bible is very clear that any sex outside of a one-man, one-woman marriage is a sin*, yet “Christian” Leftists and atheists use all sorts of fallacious sound bites to deceive and distract people.  One of the passages they work the hardest to dismiss is Romans 1:26-27.

First, read or even memorize this passage.  Also, review the entire chapter to note the context: Paul explains how the world is upside down in rebellion against God and that deep down, everyone knows it.  Then, he gives this “Exhibit A” as an example.

Romans 1:26–27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Pretty clear, eh?  It describes the behavior of gays and lesbians and notes how it is a prime example of rebellion against the created order.  Note that if you keep reading the chapter, you’ll see that we all have rebelled in multiple ways, so don’t be smug just because homosexual behavior isn’t a temptation for you.  But the point here is that the passage does clearly state that homosexual behavior is a sin.  Yet countless wolves, such as Matthew Vines, use easily refuted sound bites to deceive people (many of whom are eager to be deceived).

Here are some of their objections to Romans 1 and some simple responses.  Note that you can give much more detailed responses, but those usually aren’t necessary.  Just these basics will show people how ill-informed they are on this topic and reveal whether they love the world or whether they love God.  For starters you can ask people when the last time was that they read Romans carefully.

“But Paul didn’t know any better about homosexuality” (and similar responses). This is a big tip-off that you are talking to a non-Christian, if the person saying it is a leader, or a layperson who is “saved and confused” at best.  Paul’s writings are just as much scripture as any of the Gospels.  Those writings are from Paul and the Holy Spirit and turned out just as God intended.  Paul does not disagree with Jesus.  And those using that argument have no proof that Paul wouldn’t have known about homosexual relationships.  In fact, he describes them precisely in the passage.  Also see this refutation of the related “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality” sound bite.

“The passage was about temple prostitutes.”  The passage doesn’t mention temple prostitutes, temples, or prostitutes.  And I have seen zero evidence, ever, that lesbian temple prostitutes have ever existed, so the description of lesbian behavior also refutes that.  You don’t need to know Greek to see that simple truth.

“The passage was about pederasty (adult/child) or coercive relationships.”  No, the passage refers to “men” and “women” every time. And note how they “gave up” relationships willingly and “were consumed with passion for one another.” There is no hint of coercion.

“The passage is about people abandoning their natural desires, so the real sin is if a gay behaves in a straight manner or vice verse.”  That is the most laughable objection, but you hear it often.  First, the Greek word is tied to natural functions, not desires. And it notes that they “gave up” natural relations.

And using their logic this key passage applies to exactly no one.  Think about it: Whatever anyone did — gay/straight/bi — they could claim was their nature, so they hadn’t sinned.  And very few people do things they don’t want to do, so everyone could cite that as proof that they are sinless on this account.

“They were born that way.”  No, they weren’t.  The causes can be complex (abuse, bad relationships, rebellion, or some combination of those), but even if they were born that way, everyone could use that excuse for the laundry list of sins at the end of the chapter.  Good luck with that on judgment day.

I hope you commit those to memory or refer back here when you encounter these objections.  They are so simple to refute and should convict those who use them of how badly they are butchering scripture.  You don’t need a degree in theology or Greek to see how clearly and quickly the pro-LGBTQX arguments fail.

If you really love your neighbors, you won’t lie and tell them that this behavior is without consequence.  The same goes for other sexual sins and other sins in general.  Don’t love the world and your popularity more than you love God.

1 Corinthians 6:9–11 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Homosexual behavior is rebellion against God.  Affirming anyone in that behavior or in other sins means that you have joined them in the rebellion.

Romans 1:32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

More stuff!

The main categories of pro-gay theology and why they are all false and un-biblical.

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology

Responding to same-sex marriage arguments

*The Bible couldn’t be more clear. Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people** (religious or not) can see these truths:

– 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior describe it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
– 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
– 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
– 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions of any kind. There are no exceptions for “committed” relationships.
– 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to LGBT couples parenting children.

Having said that, I believe that Christians should support and encourage those who are fighting same-sex attraction. And no one needs to grandstand on the issue before getting to the Good News of the cross.  Here’s an example.

** The three general types of pro-gay theology people:

1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong, but it isn’t the word of God.” (Obviously non-Christians)

2. “The Bible says it is wrong, but God changed his mind and is only telling the theological Left.” (Only about 10 things wrong with that.)

3. “The Bible is the word of God, but you are just misunderstanding it.” (Uh, no, not really.)

Roundup

Roundup

2 Comments

Here are more “red letters” teaching you to read the black letters. 

Mark 12:24 Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?”

__________

__________

https://twitter.com/i/status/1548323323838312449
Roundup

Roundup

3 Comments

I always make short prayers, so I’m safe here. Seriously, watch for the pastors – especially at megachurches – who are all about their glory and not that of Jesus. Also, note that some sins have greater consequences than others. All sins separate us from a perfect and Holy God, but not all sins have the same temporal or eternal consequences. 

Luke 20:46–47 “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love greetings in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”

__________

__________

__________

Yes, this is super-gross. This food delivery company made a video telling gays how to get less feces on their penises when having sex. Ironically, while the homosexual lifestyle is disgusting, they exploit the “ick” factor in knowing that most people don’t want to talk about what they actually do. But toilet paper is a 20+ billion dollar industry for a reason. The fact that gays have to be encouraged to use condoms — and often still don’t! — is an additional sign of their pathology. There is nothing wrong with periodically reminding people that homosexual sex involves feces-covered genitalia.

Classic.