. . . now is a great time. I’ll be leading a Kairos Prison Ministry weekend this October 11-13. If you have any interest please contact me for more information. It is a highly effective and rewarding ministry. There are roles for men inside and outside the prison and roles for women outside (and everyone gets to go inside the prison chapel for the closing ceremony to hear how the weekend went).
And as a bonus, the first 10 people to sign up get a free prison tattoo! Just kidding! Probably!
I’ve yet to find a theologically Liberal falseteacher who didn’t support the evils of Planned Parenthood. The “social justice” crowd either ignores abortion (and thus implicitly supports it) or explicitly supports it by supporting Planned Parenthood, taxpayer-funded abortions and more.
The endless shamelessness of these baby-killers/statutory rape-hiders is evident in their new ads.
Uh, your baby will thank you for what — having her crushed and dismembered because you didn’t want her?! It is right up there with the deadly cynicism of their “Care. No Matter what.” slogan. Gee, that sounds like a bit more like a pro-life slogan, not a pro-abortion slogan. I mean, if you really cared, wouldn’t you have the baby instead of killing her?
The entire climate change industry is a shameless tautology* designed to dupe people into thinking that the only solution is to give the government more power, regardless of the costs. These ghouls will exploit any tragedy, such as the Oklahoma tornadoes,to further their agenda. Don’t be fooled.
I’ve been getting lots of traffic on this older post: Wendy Wright schools Richard Dawkins. For some reason it was mentioned on a Facebook page (but I can’t tell from where) and fallacious comments poured in from Darwin fans. Feel free to read the post and the recent comments and feel sad (about the education/mainstream media/entertainment brainwashing that led to this) or glad (about how well the Christian worldview stacks up against those false views and how Dawkins is a self-parody). It is leading to quite a few views of the minimal facts approach to apologetics, so that is good!
Good things to remember if you are going on mission trips. If you don’t have an effective plan you are wasting time and money, and may be doing things that are counterproductive to the Kingdom. I actually had to persuade people at my former church that we should prepare people to share the Gospel as part of the training for missions (of course, they should do that anyway, even if they don’t go on mission trips). It was predictable that they judged the speaker for judging.
The book’s official website is now live. Go there to pre-order your copy now — do so by April 30th, and receive 43% off and receive four bonus digital books. As someone who has read the book, I can assure you: This is a book not to be missed. If you thought Signature in the Cell was ground-breaking, wait till you get a hold of this.
There is a special term for Republicans who endorse government recognition of “same-sex marriage” — Democrats (RINO just isn’t strong enough)
Speaking of PP, here’s an update to my summary post on them. They aggressively promote filth to youth. Watch the videos if you have the stomach for them, and remember that they are marketed to children with your tax dollars. They assume that every relationship will involve sex and that you will go from one sex relationship to another. They pretend that people will actually follow their advice (Yeah, sure, people will always use condoms for oral sex. Because kids and gays would never rebel and break any safe sex rules!).
“Preparing” your child for such a world is a euphemism for condemning him to life as a citizen of progressive hell. If mankind is to have a rational, moral future, that future will ultimately belong not to the damaged survivors of public school, but to the “unprepared” and “maladjusted,” namely the bug-studiers, stargazers, and bookworms: those whose intellects and character were permitted to develop naturally, with curiosity, not fear, as their impetus, and self-sufficient adulthood, not “socialization,” as their goal.
Something has gone terribly wrong with the modern world, and public education is at the heart of the problem. The solution will not and cannot come from a publicly educated population. Begin the process of liberating children’s souls now, so that in the future there will once again be Thomas Jeffersons and Benjamin Franklins to do what will need to be done.
How to change the world – Pro-aborts hate when pictures or videos of abortions are shown, and for good reason: They change hearts and minds.
Capitalism has its rough edges, but it is far, far better than any other -ism ever considered. Free markets, the rule of law and private property ownership (all supported by both the Old and New Testaments) do more to reduce poverty than any counterproductive program ever dreamed up by the Left.
Contemplative prayer is a mystical practice that is making inroads in all sorts of churches. Don’t be taken in by it. If you really contemplate on scripture and then pray to God, that’s great. But that isn’t what is meant by contemplative prayer. It involves repetition of phrases, in opposition to what Jesus taught (Matthew 6:7 “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words.”). It implies that there is formula you can use to “experience” God.
Prayer is the primary way you talk to God, not the primary way He talks to you. If you want to hear from God, read the Bible. If you want to audibly hear from God, then read the Bible out loud. If God communicates to you other ways then that is his prerogative, not his obligation.
I saw this well designed but self-refuting graphic on Facebook.
Those are fairly common sentiments of atheists. If I had more time I’d re-write it all sorts of different ways, but I’ll just share what another person noted:
If you are hungry, that’s too bad. If you are thirsty, find a water fountain. If you are cold, get to the shelter. If you are in need, good luck. If you are in trouble, don’t bother me about it. I have this attitude because I have no concern for ultimate reward or consequence. I can act like this because it’s right for me. I am an atheist.
That highlights the flaws in the picture. If you get to make up your own standards then you can proudly follow them all you like. But you can’t explain why it is a universal good to be proud of them. And you can even be proud of not adhering to your standards, provided that one of your standards is hypocrisy. Note that I’m giving the benefit of the doubt to the atheist in question that he actually does all those things.
And you can’t “know them to be right” if everyone gets to set their own standards. Such is the endless problem of atheists, having no grounding for moral claims yet not being able to go three sentences without making them.
One atheist wrote this, ignoring that he has no evidence for his position, that we’re not worried and that we do enjoy our lives. They think it is meaningful to prove that life is meaningless.
Sorry but I have to admit: There is no god. So stop worrying and enjoy your life!
Their worldview can’t explain ours — other than positing that Darwinian evolution randomly led to me convert from atheism to trusting in the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus — but our worldview can explain theirs.
Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
I was watching a theological liberal do his usual false teachings on this thread and noted with amusement how the atheists cheerily agreed with his religious views. I pointed out that both should be concerned over that. If they agreed on their favorite sports teams that would be fine. But if an atheist or someone from another religion agreed with my foundational points about God I’d be very concerned.
Yes, militant atheists can be annoying, but I’ll take twenty of them over a fake Christian any day. At least the atheists are fulfilling their job descriptions and there is no confusion over roles. But the fake Christians really confuse the discussions and fuel the atheists’ false assertions that disagreements within Christianity mean that the religion can’t be true. Their argument fails on many levels, but the actions of the false teachers give them ammunition. That was a key theme on the link above: “Christianity must be false because Christians disagree.”
Of course, Christianity clearly predicts divisions:
Many warnings of false teachers and many references to the importance of sound doctrine.
The fact that Christians learn more over time — “milk/meat,” growing in knowledge (Philippians 1:9), etc.
God’s guidance about disputable matters in Romans 14 and elsewhere reveals that He knew we’d have disputable matters and gave us guidance in how to handle them.
Some people think they are saved but aren’t (“I never knew you” from Matthew 7, testing your salvation in 1 John, etc.)
We are told not to violate our consciences, so people are right to worship in denominations that align best with their views on non-essential issues.
Based on that, if all Christians agreed on everything then that would be evidence that the Bible’s predictions failed. The essentials are what divides Christianity from other religions: Jesus deity, his exclusivity, etc. You can’t take the Bible seriously and miss those, which is another way of highlighting false teachers. Example: The fake at the thread thought I was wrong to say that Christians must hold the view that Jesus is the only way to salvation. My point was simply that if the Bible mentions it 100 times then it seems like something Christians should agree with.
Christianity has fought a two-front war from the beginning: Persecutors on the outside and false teachers on the inside. Things haven’t changed, so we need to be on guard for both.
I actually like when pro-aborts use the “parasite” argument. It may get virtual high-five’s from other pro-aborts, but it is so transparently bad that it reveals to the middle-ground folks just how perverse the pro-abort thinking is. It is like a concession speech.
This doesn’t always work, but I typically point out that their view would mean that the baby could be fully delivered but still be attached via the umbilical cord and she would still be a “parasite.” Therefore, you could kill her any way you liked. They have usually painted themselves in a corner by that point and may actually agree that they’d be OK with that. Again, I’m glad to let the middle ground see that kind of immoral thinking. People who advance that argument are extremely unlikely to be moved from their position, but they aren’t the target audience of most pro-life reasoning.
Most pro-legalized abortion arguments — and especially ones like the “parasite” argument — are based on emotions and ignore the humanity of the unborn (human zygote, human fetus, etc.). They trade on sentiments how the woman (or child) will be impacted in the areas of poverty, education, love life, etc.
When doing pro-life reasoning training I always start by distinguishing between the psychological complexity of the abortion issue (financial, educational, family pressures, etc. issues are real and powerful and need to be addressed) and the moral simplicity of it (you shouldn’t kill innocent human beings for any of those reasons, regardless of how intense they are).
One of many problems abortion proponents have is sending mixed messages about getting one. Whether to act glib and risk offending normal sensibilities, or to act serious and risk humanizing the baby, that is the question.
. . .
And then the abortion. It ends up only looking sick and pathetic for a father to go so far as to willingly watch the baby he loves and wants being killed, all to support that child’s mother. And why all the drama if it isn’t human children being killed by abortion?
Scott Klusendorf is one of the world’s best pro-life apologists. He had a good analysis of Ray Comfort’s 180 movie (go watch it if you haven’t yet). You can only put so much in a 30 minute movie, so here are some things to be aware of if people have questions about the movie. (Scott had lots of good things to say as well. I just included the critiques here.)
My concern: The film overlooked some important distinctions:
1) The distinction between people in the film (Venice Beach?) and the public at large—The sample used in the film is not only small; it’s not where most people are in terms of historical knowledge. . . .
2) The distinction between shouting a conclusion and establishing one–A sharp abortion-choicer could easily say, “Ya, I value human life. What Hitler did to Jews was wrong, but the unborn are not valuable human beings, so the comparison fails.” To succeed, pro-lifers must first establish that the unborn are indeed human (which the film does through images rather than scientific evidence), but then show that none of the differences between the embryos we once were and the adults we are today justify killing us at that earlier stage of development. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency, are not value giving in the way that abortion-advocates need them to be in order to make their case. In short, jumping from killing Jews for bad reasons to killing the unborn for those same reasons leaves out important premises in the pro-life argument.
3) The distinction between killing a “baby” and unjustly killing human beings—Perhaps I am nitpicking here, but I think Comfort asks the wrong question when he points to a 6-week fetus and says, “Doesn’t that look like a baby?” What if the critic says “no?” End of discussion. . . .
4) The distinction between voting for pro-life candidates and voting pro-life–Put simply, what does it really mean to vote pro-life? . . .
5) The distinction between intentional killing and killing that is merely foreseen–Is it always wrong to kill an innocent human being? What about ectopic pregnancy? . . .
Despite these concerns, the film is worth seeing and Comfort gets huge accolades for his courage in confronting abortion head-on. Say what you want, at least he’s doing something about it and for that I am immensely grateful. Before ripping him, his evangelical critics need to ask themselves what they are doing to stop the bloodshed. Are they taking this holocaust as seriously as Comfort does? I can only pray that one day they will.
DNA can only be produced with the help of at least 20 different types of protiens. But these proteins can only be produced at the direction of DNA. Since each requires the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other. Apparently, this entire manufacturing system came into existence simultaneously. This implies Creation. (Walter T. Brown, Jr., In the Beginning, p.6)