Tag Archives: “Christian” Left

Random post-election thoughts: Generally positive

Somehow the Republicans (or someone posing as them) got my mobile number and sent a dozen or more texts for donations.  Before blocking them permanently, I’d usually reply as follows: “Try again after you start the wall and defund Planned Parenthood.”  I’ve been thrilled with much of what Trump has done, but the Congress has no excuse for not starting the wall and for not continuing to let Planned Parenthood and Democrat politicians take turns giving each other my money.

That Senate majority is huge.  They can get lots done and more quickly now that people like Murkowski are superfluous.

Make no mistake: As painful as the Kavanuagh nonsense was to go through, if the Democrats hadn’t done such unethical things with it they would have won the Senate.  And their stunts will harm them for years.

Trump is already epically trolling the Dems by supporting Pelosi.  They will make people afraid to support her and/or undermine her if she wins.

Prediction: The House Dems will overplay their hand and push independents to the right, or they will underplay it and de-motivate the Leftist extremists (which is pretty much the entire party these days).  Either way, Trump will probably be better off than if the House had barely stayed in Republican hands.

Keith Ellison and other Dems accused of sexual misconduct won, which will give the Republicans fodder for pointing out the Leftist #MeToo (“PoundMeToo”) hypocrisy.  After all, he had a credible and much more recent allegation of harming women that the Democrats and the Leftist media deliberately ignored.

People say gridlock like it is a bad thing.  I think some gridlock is good.

Stunts like demanding Trump’s tax returns will distract the Leftists from realizing their leaders are accomplishing nothing.  There is nothing in the returns which would harm Trump, or the IRS would have done something already and probably leaked it.  The economically illiterate Leftists couldn’t understand the financial and tax concepts anyway, and they’ll be the only ones fooled if the Dems try to distort what is in the returns.

Maxine Waters gets more power!  Great move, Dems.  If you created a fictional character like Maxine, it would be considered extreme racism.

Beto was a perfect example of Leftist deception. While not fleeing the scene of accidents he caused while under the influence, he pushed eminent domain abuses to help his billionaire father-in-law. Yeah, he’s a real man of the people. And looser borders? Insanity. But of course the Left bought into his cult of personality bit (“Oooh, he skateboards!!  And uses the F-bomb in concession speeches!!”). So glad they wasted their money.  Sure, run him for President and we can watch more videos of him getting blasted by the Hispanics whose property he was trying to steal.

It was sweet, sweet schadenfreude to know that people like Racist Held Evans, who bragged about giving lots of her money to the Beto campaign (even though she lives in Tennessee), lost so badly.  Bonus: Marsha Blackburn won big even though Evans and Taylor Swift came out in favor of Bredesen.  Love it!

Advertisements

The Left’s trick of labeling opponents as fascists is straight out of the KGB playbook

We are used to seeing Antifa — aka AntiF(irst)A(mendment) — reflexively label anyone they disagree with as fascists.  If the topic wasn’t so serious and if Antifa wasn’t so violent you could just laugh them off.  Yeah, we conservatives are such fascists that we want citizens to be armed, we want limited government, less regulations, etc.  Seriously, we were the original anti-fascists.  If we used a fraction of the tactics that Antifa does it would be in the news 24×7.

I just saw this fascinating historical fact in a book I’m reading about the Cold War.  The book was published in 2012, so it predates Antifa by many years.  The author was describing the spread of the secret police (the NKVD / KGB) into Eastern European countries and how they relentlessly went after fascists, or more specifically how they called anyone they didn’t like a fascist as a pretext to imprison or kill them.

But in every country occupied by the Red Army, the definition of “fascist” eventually grew broader, expanding to include not only Nazi collaborators but anybody whom the Soviet occupiers and their local allies disliked. In time, the word “fascist,” in true Orwellian fashion, was eventually used to describe antifascists who also happened to be anticommunists. And every time the definition was expanded, arrests followed.

Some of these “fascists” had been identified in advance . . .

Applebaum, Anne. Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944-1956

So there is more evidence that Antifa and their apologists on the Left are just running the Communist playbook.  They disingenuously call their opponents fascists to deflect attention from their Communism.  And make no mistake: If they had the power of the KGB they’d start arresting and punishing conservatives today.

Rachel Held Evans claims that the Bible “fails massively at getting to the point”

It would be true if she said that the Bible fails to get to her points – that is, her basic “Christian” Left views that God approves of LGBTQX perversions, abortion, coveting, egalitarianism, etc.  But the Bible doesn’t fail at all in what it God wants to teach us.

The Domain for Truth has another review on her latest disingenuously titled book, “Inspired” — Analysis of Rachel Held Evan’s Book “Inspired” Part 6.  I admire SlimJim for reading it all so we don’t have to!  I’d read excerpts that Evans posted and analyzed them here.

The link notes how Evans, as usual, works overtime to undermine the authority of scripture.

It [the Bible] fails massively at getting to the point.

That is spoken like a non-Christian. The Bible teaches over 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation (it isn’t just John 14:6, though that would be enough). What could be more clear? But a spiritually blind wolf like Evans can’t see that — and obviously doesn’t believe it.

And she is wildly pro-LGBTQX perversions, even though the Bible couldn’t be more clear and consistent about God’s views on sex.  Consider the following truths and how Evans’ perversion-affirming god teaches the opposite:

  • 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.
  • 100% of the verses referencing 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.

Even two out of three types of pro–gay theologians* concede those points, yet the “doubt-filled” Evans has zero doubts about affirming every sexual perversion in the LTBTQX spectrum.

She once again tips her hand that, despite her disingenuous book title, she absolutely does not think the Bible is the inspired word of God. She’s worse than a Bart Ehrman or a Richard Dawkins, as she says the same sorts of things about the Bible that they do.  But at least they are open about not being believers.

She also creates a straw-man argument where she pretends that we don’t think that different situations may require different actions.  Of course we know better.  An ectopic pregnancy may require an abortion to save the mother while the child will die either way. But wolves like Evans use that to dismiss truly universal truths that killing children for the other 99.9% of reasons is evil.

The Bible doesn’t fail at all.  It accomplishes just what God wants it to (Isaiah 55) and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3) — all things that Mrs. Evans and her followers desperately need!

As usual, run, don’t walk from wolves like Racist Held Evans.


*Pro-gay theology tends to fall into one of three categories. They are all wrong, but for varying reasons. Sometimes they overlap categories.

  1. The Bible is either not the Word of God, or most parts of it aren’t. This view claims that we can ignore the prohibitions against homosexual behavior because they were written by homophobic Jews.
  2. The Bible is the Word of God, but it doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is wrong. This view holds that people just aren’t reading the Bible properly, and that God’s Word is actually affirming of gay relationships.
  3. The Bible is the Word of God and does clearly and emphatically describe gay behavior as sinful. However, the Holy Spirit has given additional revelations such that this behavior is now acceptable. This view holds that God has changed his mind on this moral issue and not only is it now acceptable, but it is sinful if you don’t affirm this behavior and same-sex relationships.

Faux-lifers and loving your neighbor

One of the easiest ways to out faux-lifers (that is, pro-abortion people who pretend to be pro-life) is to keep them talking.  They often claim the name of Christ and that they love their neighbors.  They ever-so-briefly concede the humanity of the child and say how they would never have an abortion and wish they didn’t have to happen.

But they quickly forget about their neighbor in the womb and launch into tortured rationalizations about why they vote for politicians and support groups like Planned Parenthood that fight for unrestricted abortions to the child’s first breath.  They use every sound bite that the professional pro-aborts use.

So just ask them this: If you were in the womb, would you want someone to protect you from being crushed and dismembered?  And if you were going to be destroyed that way, would you at least want to be given anesthetic first?  After all, the faux-lifers fight to keep abortion legal to the child’s first breath and without anesthetic (they know that laws requiring anesthetics would remind people that the children do suffer when being killed, and they must prop up the lie that the children aren’t “really” living until their first breath).

The pro-aborts will squirm and go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to rationalize their inconsistency.  They’ll realize their reasoning is poor, so they’ll resort to attacking you instead. But just keep pointing back to their neighbor in the womb.  If they truly love their neighbors, how can they not try to protect their lives?

I also keep this jpg file handy to share with those who repeat the pro-abortion canard that pro-lifers don’t care about children after they are born.  I find that to be the #1 pro-abortion argument on the Internet.  It lets the pro-aborts pretend to kinda-sorta oppose abortion while attacking the character of pro-lifers.  There are nine things wrong with their sound bite.  Actually more, but the font was getting too small.  Feel free to use without attribution!

The “Christian” Left can’t make it past the first chapter of the New Testament without rejecting essential doctrines

I say that without exaggeration.  If you were reading a book that claimed to be the word of God and the explanation for this life and for eternity and for how to be on right terms with God, yet you completely rejected two of the religion’s foundational premises in the very first chapter, wouldn’t you just give it up and find another religion?  Not the “Christian” Left.  Consider these simple passages, clearly not written as illustrations but as specific truth claims (they immediately follow the genealogy of Jesus so it would be a non sequitur to shift genres).

Matthew 1 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

So we have two claims that the father is not human but that the conception was from the Holy Spirit.  The Left’s opposition to the virgin birth isn’t some side issue, because it goes to Jesus’ claims of deity that they typically deny.  Wolves like Mark Sandlin explicitly deny his divinity.

Then there is Jesus’ purpose for entering his creation.

21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

23  “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,

and they shall call his name Immanuel”

(which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

So Jesus’ purpose was explicitly stated: To save his people from their sins.  Yes, He came for other reasons, but the opening of this Gospel focused on the main reason.  Also note the additional claim to the virgin birth.

Of course, the more you read the Bible, the worse it gets.  The “Christian” Left thinks they like the Sermon on the Mount, but they’d hate it if they understood it.  They only agree with a few parts of it because they get them wrong.

Run, don’t walk, from the “Christian” Left.  Their beliefs are indistinguishable from the world’s.

Good news for fornicators! “Christian” Left pastor says it is only a sin if you were “called” to celibacy.

I am not making this up.  “Christian” Leftist reverend Stacey Midge posted this on Twitter:

Isn’t that convenient?  If you aren’t “called” to obey God’s commands then they are optional.  And better yet, guess who decides what that vague “calling” really is and whether or not you’ve received it?  You do!  This just keeps getting better for sinners.

Of course that’s the “good news” the average person wants to hear: Just keep sinning!  No need to change!  And the “Christian” Left preaches that all day, every day — even as they are claiming that you can’t understand anything clearly in the Bible (because apparently the Holy Spirit wasn’t involved . . .).

Of course she couldn’t answer the simplest questions about this, such as how she knows that about God or whether she tells her congregation each week how she is just making stuff up (because the Bible isn’t clear enough for her to interpret it for you).

She also couldn’t provide examples of where she tries to silence “Christian” Leftists who think the Bible is plenty clear when justifying abortion to the child’s 1st breath, or advocating for socialism, open borders, LGBTQX perversions, etc.

I used to feel sorry for people in “Christian” Left churches, but anyone follow this lady obviously loves the world more than God.

Run, don’t walk, from the “Christian” Left.  Repent and believe in the true Jesus.

A dialog with a professional child-killer

I’ve taught pro-life reasoning for over 10 years and debated countless people online, but had never dialogued directly with an abortionist until now.  Professional child-killer Willie Parker is not just an abortionist, which would be bad enough, but he claims to be a Christian and that his work is for the Lord.  As an introduction, this Newsweek interview with him has the usual pro-abort rationalizations.

  • He thinks of himself as heroic by aborting the child of an incest victim, as if killing her child solved her problems.  The abortion industry routinely protects sex traffickers, rapists and those who commit incest.  Not only does killing the child not undo the crimes, these abortionists send the victims back to their abusers!
  • He refers to “reproductive justice,” but that’s when you don’t kill the child who has already been reproduced.
  • He says he won’t do abortions for those who express race or gender differences, yet he simultaneous claims that those he kills aren’t people yet.
  • He claims to be a Christian yet says the Bible supports sexism – i.e., he admits to disagreeing with the Bible.
  • He spouts gibberish like this, which of course would justify anything anyone would ever do: “If God is in everything, and everyone, then God is as much in the woman making a decision to terminate a pregnancy as in her Bible.”
  • He says women will do unsafe abortions if he doesn’t do them, ignoring that many women do unsafe abortions even when legal, that making them legal increases abortion rates, and that one is never obligated to make it safer for someone to have her child killed.
  • He gladly performs abortions like these: “women in poverty and women of color. He has seen patients from a recently divorced mother of three, with a 1-year-old at home, to a 21-year-old middle-distance runner trying to trim seconds off her 800-meter time to qualify for the Rio Olympics.”
  • In the Newsweek article he denied that life began at conception, but he admitted it during the Twitter exchange.

So that’s a little about Willie.  Someone reTweeted him so I commented and he actually responded.  A few of the comments and my replies (multiple Tweets sometimes combined into one):

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — As someone who provides abortions and who witnesses the relief and gratitude of women who obtain them safely, I could say, TOLD YOU SO!, but gloating is overrated. Abortion doesn’t cause depression, but pro-birth zealots sure do. [There was a link to an article alleging that many women don’t feel guilty about having abortions.]

Note how he calls us zealots, yet later whines about alleged name-calling on my part for my precision in calling him a child-killer.  I choose my words carefully.  Some call the unborn babies, and I know why.  But it lets pro-aborts say that isn’t the correct term.  They still try that when I say children, but then I point them to the dictionary.  Same thing when they deny personhood.

eMatters‏ — Whether your conscience is so thoroughly seared that you don’t regret killing your children is irrelevant. It will always be morally wrong.

My reply was actually about whether the mothers felt guilty, but he took it personally.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — My critics are many. Occasionally, I reply to make a point, like fetuses aren’t people, women are. My reply: If the world were as simple as you think it is, you’d be right. But since it isn’t & since I’ve never killed a child, you didn’t make a point, you stated the obvious.

eMatters‏ — You are wildly ignorant of science. Check any embryology textbook: A new human being is created at fertilization. Must have been too busy learning to kill at school What else would two humans create?! http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/   And see http://dictionary.com . You kill CHILDREN.  Oh, and the seared conscience comment applies to the MOTHERS as well. They should feel guilty for paying you to kill their children, but whether their consciences are seared is irrelevant. I meet lots of unrepentant murderers doing prison ministry. They were still wrong.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ –Insults don’t make your point. Fetuses are human beings, because women don’t give birth to puppies, but to be a human being is not the same as being a person. In my “scientific ignorance” I know the difference between a frog & a tadpole, and an acorn & an oak tree. Do you?

eMatters‏ –Yes, you are ignorant of science. And vocabulary. Once again, the nice folks at http://dictionary.com  can help you out: Person: a human being, whether an adult or child: a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.  So your anti-science word games fail you again. You kill human children for a living. That’s sick.  Surely you know the logical fallacies with your acorn / oak tree illustration, right?  https://apologiabyhendrikvanderbreggen.blogspot.com/2008/10/acorns-and-oak-treesand-abortion.html

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — Women die during childbirth, but we don’t outlaw childbirth. Check any person who delivers babies.

eMatters‏ — Gracious of you, as a professional child killer, to put these fallacious sound bites out there for all to see. You’re the pro and that’s all you’ve got? Willie says women can die during childbirth, therefore it is OK to kill children to their 1st breath. Non sequitur much?  Conflating death by natural causes vs. actively killing them? Such great pro-abort logic. Most people can see the difference: A. Human being dies of natural causes (inside or outside the womb) B. Human being is deliberately killed by a 3rd party (inside or outside the womb)  The fetus in question is a human being at a particular stage of development: Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc. Always human and always worthy of protection.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — Developmentally your argument is that human conceptions are persons throughout: fetuses are babies are toddlers are college graduates. Embryo and fetus are scientific terms, baby and toddler are not. How deftly you switch from science to culture, key for embracing pseudoscience.

eMatters‏ — That’s completely false. Why do you feel the need to deceive like that? I couldn’t have been more clear. It is a human fetus. Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc. Same human being at different stages of development.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — Given that your thinking is linear, your arguments circular and legalistic, and your reference materials are Webster’s dictionary and live action news, you get to have the last word, insults and all. I’ll keep honoring women’s decisions, and you can judge them and call me names.

eMatters‏ — Yeah, referring to dictionary definitions and medical textbook citations for the specific words being debated is legalistic. 🙂 Pretty lame dodge, Willie. Live Action was just quoting PP. Your attack is an example of the genetic fallacy.  If I call you a professional child killer, I am being very precise. You get paid, and by medical and standard dictionary definitions, you kill human children. Killing the children when mothers pay you is a peculiar way to honor them.  And you never demonstrated any circular logic. I just pointed to scientific facts: Every fetus you have killed was a human being at a particular stage of development. You tried to weasel word you way out by calling them [non-] persons, then I showed how you were wrong.  I hope you repent and believe someday – and soon, before you kill too many more children. We are all sinners in need of a Savior. If you don’t, you’ll have eternity to be punished for your countless crimes against God.

And it was just as creepy seeing all his fans calling him a hero and such for being so caring.

P.S. And of course, I got the usual pro-aborts chiming in with fallacies about how we don’t help the poor after they are born.  I usually post this when I get those comments.