Tag Archives: religon

Whoa — I agreed with Planned Parenthood again!

[Discerning readers will note the past tense in the title.]

First, it was their 1964 advertisement that accurately stated, among other things, that “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”  Even if I haven’t agreed with them since I was 1 yr. old, I’m always looking for common ground.

Now I found out that we agreed again on a similar truth: Life begins at fertilization.

OK well it was 1951 but still, Planned Parenthood said it!  The brochure, titled, “The Gift of Life” was discovered at a Berkeley estate sale by the San Francisco Weekly.  On page 21-22 you will read the following; “If one of the new male sperm meets and unites with an egg cell, a new life begins.”

Did they learn anything about science in the few years after that when they changed their minds about life beginning at fertilization and that abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun? Of course not. The facts of science couldn’t be more clear: A new human being is created at conception.   They just lie now for the money and to advance their worldview.  To make a living they crush and dismember innocent but unwanted human beings.
As always, I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.  When people bring up the “we don’t know when life begins” canard I highly encourage you to use this link about the scientific position plus the quotes by Planned Parenthood noted above .  Use them gently and people may see that Planned Parenthood and the like know the truth about when life begins as well as pro-lifers do, but they go on killing anyway.

The slightly bright side

warning.gifAs frustrating as the oxymoronic “same sex marriage” debate is and as destructive as it is to the church, there is a bright side: It enables you to spot false teachers and churches with great precision.  They not only deny what the Bible clearly teaches about sinful behavior but they encourage the behavior.

As I’ve often noted, all Christians are saved and at least a little confused in that none of us have an absolutely perfect grasp on theology.  But at some point people aren’t just confused but are outside the realm of Christianity.

While Romans 1 has the clearest and most emphatic condemnation of homosexual behavior as sin in the New Testament, there is so much more to the chapter and the book.

Paul was laying out how upside down the world is, morally speaking, and how people suppress the truth about God in unrighteousness and what a grave sin that is.  He describes how their worship has gone completely wrong, and how they worship and serve created things rather than the creator.

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For 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. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Then he gives an example of just how wrong the world has gone behaviorally.  What does he pick?  Homosexual behavior is the prime example, where people mock their creator by using their created bodies in the opposite way from which they were intended.   

 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 

Then he lists other acts of rebellion.  Note the last section where he notes how they don’t just do these things but they encourage them:

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Ignoring sins is bad enough.  But when “churches” openly promote sin they are just poster children for Romans 1.  That is what you get with theologically liberal churches today.  They promote homosexual behavior, abortion (see the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice) and more.

As irritating as these false teachers are, at least they are waving a big warning flag.  They snuck into the church pretending to be authentic, just as Satan masquerades as an angel of light.  But they are quickly abandoning all pretense of subtlety. 

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

Pro-choice and pro-slavery reasoning

This is a rerun from 2007.

pro-choice-baby.jpgA couple readers were offended by one of the points in the Nancy Pelosi and bad pro-abortion reasoning post, so I thought I would clarify and expand on those thoughts.  Here is the offending section:

Ms. Pelosi also uses this poor reasoning to defend abortion:

“If you don’t want an abortion, you don’t believe in it, [then] don’t have one. But don’t tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their responsibilities,” Pelosi adds.

Slave-owners used the same argument: “If you don’t like slavery, don’t own slaves.”  But of course both arguments make a major, unproven assumption, namely that another human being isn’t involved in the equation.   

The most important thing to note is that I never said pro-choicers were pro-slavery.  I merely pointed out that slave-owners used bad pro-slavery reasoning that ignored the humanity of the slaves, and pro-choicers who use similar reasoning are ignoring the humanity of the unborn.   If people understand what I am saying there and are still offended, then I’m prepared to live with that.

It is a well documented fact that both pro-legalized abortion and pro-slavery people have used this type of reasoning on an extensive basis:

  • “It is acceptable, because they aren’t fully human.”
  • “If you don’t want one, don’t have one.  Don’t impose your moral values on me.”
  • “They are better off this way, otherwise they may be unwanted, poor or disabled.”

Slavery and abortion both deny the humanity and dignity of living human beings who have beating hearts and can feel pain. 

Slavery was once legal in the United States, but it was always immoral.  Abortion is currently legal, but it has always been immoral. 

When one human being gets to decide whether an innocent human being has enough worth to live freely – or to live at all – profoundly bad things happen.

The “safe, legal and rare” myth

This is a rerun from 2007, back for the political season.  Also see the timely post at Stand to Reason’s blog about Biden’s Blunder.  It should be must reading for all the people who insist that they are personally opposed to abortions but don’t want the government to do anything about them.

force-beliefs.jpgIt is a common phrase for politicians and others to say they are personally against abortion but don’t want to impose their morality on others, and that their goal is to make them safe, legal and rare.  (When pressed they will often admit that they think abortion kills an innocent human being.  For this analysis I’ll ignore the absurdity of being personally against killing innocent human beings but wanting it to be legal for others to do so.  Exhibit A: Rudy G.)

They obviously want abortions to be legal, so their words and actions are consistent there.  Most pro-choicers were outraged that Partial Birth Abortion (aka infanticide) was deemed illegal.

What about the safe part?  As with most pro-choice arguments, it assumes what it should be proving: that there isn’t another human life at stake. Abortion is never safe for the unborn.  Another 4,000 innocent human beings will be crushed and dismembered in the United States today.  Without anesthetic.

Do they fight for higher standards in abortion clinics or do they fight against them like the abortionists do?  Check out RealChoice for lots of examples of just how unsafe abortions are.  I don’t find them doing much in the way of safety at all.

Most importantly, what about the rare part?  Consider these things:

  1. Pro-choicers allege that abortion does does not endanger women’s health (that’s a big lie, but I’ll concede it for the purposes of this argument)
  2. The cost of a first-trimester abortion is comparable to the cost of a year’s supply of birth control pills
  3. Abortion allegedly has fewer complications and less medical risks for women than some of the most effective methods of contraception.

So if abortions are supposedly morally neutral and are as safe and cost effective as birth control, why make them rare?

From the Life Training Institute:

“. . . Dr. Jonas claimed that women’s reproductive rights were being threatened because there were less and less physicians willing to perform abortions. If women’s rights can be strengthened by having more physicians performing abortions, then why attempt to make them rare? Is it a problem if a woman simply chooses to forgo contraception and chooses to have an abortion every year? If it is a positive expression of her rights, why not?”

If they really want abortions to be rare, what are they doing about it other than encouraging the spread of disease and giving women a false sense of security by pushing birth control?  I’m not against birth control in a broad sense, just the way it is peddled as a perfect preventative. 

If they really want less women to elect abortion, then these politicians and other pro-choicers should be big fans of Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs, aka Pregnancy Resource Centers).  I realize that Planned Parenthood hates CPCs because they reduce abortions, but shouldn’t the “rare” crowd love them? 

CPCs don’t do anything remotely political, so they aren’t trying to take away anyone’s “choice.”  They are merely acknowledging that there is a choice and presenting their case.  They offer a variety of free services to women and girls in need, including: pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, counseling, life skills training, parenting classes, car seats, diapers, formula, clothes, post-abortion trauma classes and more. 

Pro-choice Christians should love CPCs as well.  After all, they just help the women and share the Gospel (if given permission).  But when I ask them if they support CPCs I am typically met with silence.

Planned Parenthood is the same way.  If they were truly pro-woman and pro-choice, they would be quick to refer women to CPCs.  But these people aren’t pro-choice, they are pro-abortion. 

Do pro-choicers really want abortions to be rare?  Do they encourage all girls/women to see ultrasounds before having the abortion?  Do they support waiting periods?  More information for the women?  Parental notification laws?  Do they donate to Crisis Pregnancy Centers that help reduce abortions, or do they demonize them?

Abortionists want abortions to be rare in the same way that McDonalds’s wants to sell less hamburgers.  Politicians who claim to want abortions to be “safe, legal and rare” typically do a lousy job of backing up those words.

I’ll close with this quote by the Pachyderm:

One of the big problems with the “safe, legal, and rare” philosophy is that nothing which is entirely safe, entirely legal, available, and inexpensive is EVER going to be rare. If you want abortion to be rare, you have to make it expensive, unsafe, or illegal.

Men wrote the Bible, so it must have mistakes?

bible.jpgA common objection to the assertion that God inspired the writings of the Bible is that men wrote it, so it must have mistakes.  Sadly, I have often heard this from committed Christians.

The argument usually goes like this:

Premise 1: Men wrote the Bible.

Premise 2: Men make mistakes.

Conclusion: God didn’t write the Bible.

But note that premise 1 is just another way of stating the conclusion.  If you are trying to determine who ultimately authored the Bible, your first premise can’t be that men were the sole authors.  So this “argument” doesn’t prove that God didn’t write the Bible, it assumes it. 

Here is another syllogism you may have heard:

Premise 1: Men wrote the Bible.

Premise 2: Men make mistakes.

Conclusion: The Bible has mistakes.

This one has a major problem as well.  It assumes that just because people can make mistakes that they will always make mistakes.  But lots of things get done without mistakes – perfect scores on tests, 300 games in bowling, diseases cured, etc.  If God was the author then an error-free Bible would be expected. 

Of course, this doesn’t prove that God did inspire the Biblical writings, just that these are bad arguments to use against the inspiration of the Bible.  We have separate, robust reasoning for why we can trust that it is God’s Word.  More on that another day, or just peruse the Apologetics links to the right.

P.S. Keep in mind that claims of inerrancy relate to the original writings, not to copies or translations.  If making a copy error invalidated the inerrancy claim, then any atheist could make a deliberate “mistake” and claim that it disproved the Bible. 

Hat tip: Stand to Reason

Fundy Founding Fathers?

This article about Faith of our Fathers at Stand to Reason gives a balanced perspective to the discussion of faith and politics.   

There is a canard that the Founding Fathers were predominately Deists and not Christians, but that view is not supported by the facts.  Here’s a key section:

It’s not necessary to dig through the diaries, however, to determine which faith was the Founder’s guiding light. There’s an easier way to settle the issue.

The phrase “Founding Fathers” is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists–Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin–this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.

This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55–a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

What Did the Founding Fathers Believe and Value?
When you study the documents of the Revolutionary period, a precise picture comes into focus. Here it is:

  • Virtually all those involved in the founding enterprise were God-fearing men in the Christian sense; most were Calvinistic Protestants.
  • The Founders were deeply influenced by a biblical view of man and government. With a sober understanding of the fallenness of man, they devised a system of limited authority and checks and balances.
  • The Founders understood that fear of God, moral leadership, and a righteous citizenry were necessary for their great experiment to succeed.
  • Therefore, they structured a political climate that was encouraging to Christianity and accommodating to religion, rather than hostile to it.
  • Protestant Christianity was the prevailing religious view for the first 150 years of our history.


  • The Fathers sought to set up a just society, not a Christian theocracy.
  • They specifically prohibited the establishment of Christianity–or any other faith–as the religion of our nation.

 Of course, the consequences and meaning of their faith on contemporary politics is a separate set of discussions.

Read the whole thing.  It is really quite good.


contradiction.jpgOne of my irritations with liberal theology is that it pretends to be slightly different from orthodox Christianity while it is usually 180 degrees apart on the essentials of the faith.  Please note that by “liberal theology” I don’t mean the theology of political liberals.  I am referring to people who call themselves Christians but deny the essentials of the historic faith (i.e., the kinds of things countless martyrs died for).

For example, claiming that Jesus is one of many paths to God isn’t a little different than saying He is the only way, it is the opposite.  There is either one way or there is not one way.

Claiming that Jesus isn’t God isn’t a little different than saying He is God, it is the opposite.  He is either God or He is not God.

Claiming that the original writings of the Bible were not inspired by God isn’t just a little different than saying they were inspired by God, it is the opposite.  The Bible is God’s Word or it is not God’s Word.  It makes roughly 3,000 claims to speak for God, so if liberal theologians think those are all false then why do they bother with the Book at all?

Claiming that miracles never happen (Virgin birth, loaves & fishes, healings, the physical resurrection, etc.) isn’t just a little different than saying they did happen, it is the opposite.

Claiming that marriage can be for two men or two women isn’t a little different than saying it is between a man and a woman, it is the opposite.  It is claiming that marriage is not just between a man and a woman and that “marriage” is now whatever we want to define it to be.

Liberal theology claims the opposite of what historic, orthodox Christianity claims regarding the essentials of the faith.   They are entitled to their opinions, of course, but it is disingenuous and misleading for them to call themselves Christians while espousing those beliefs.

They have invented their own religion, which is their right.  It would just be less confusing if they would give it a new name.  And it would be more intellectually honest to stop taking money from people who do believe in the essentials that those denominations were founded upon. 

As Total Transformation would say, they appear to worship a fictional Gandhi-Christ.  It appears to me that the most accurate description would be that of a Hindu sect (nothing personal, Hindus!).