Planned Parenthood vs. Planned Parenthood

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? 

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?! 

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.

Do you carry pepper spray or a concealed carry weapon?

I’ve had a concealed carry permit for about 10 years, but there are many places where it can’t be used legally or is impractical. As one friend said, so many places he goes have too many innocent people around to be able to use a concealed carry weapon. Still, it is good to have that option, and our training was excellent.

But I’m also a big fan of pepper spray. My family and I carry some wherever we go and have extras in our cars. You never know when you might need it, and the consequences of misuse are much lower than with a gun.

Things are getting weirder by the day in this country, so I encourage everyone to have a plan in case they are attacked.

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

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.

—–

One 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 #1 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:

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

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.

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.)

Sorry, but Mary can’t save you or even hear you. Don’t pray to her.

This showed up in my stats from 2009, so I thought I’d update and rerun it.  It is still wrong to pray to anyone other than the Trinity.

---

I finally figured out how to turn comments off.  I think 308 is enough.  Thanks to all the commenters for participating.  Everything has been said multiple times by now.  If you don’t like something, just keep reading, and you’ll find someone who agrees with you.

The comments at Dawn Eden’s place were the same arguments refuted here.  Ironically, she titled her piece Attention, Catholic apologists: Share Mary with a skeptical Evangelical, thus tipping her hand that it is just as much about sharing Mary as it is about sharing Jesus for them.  While I might talk about Paul, Peter, or others in the Bible, it would never occur to me to say I would “share” them with someone.  It should all be about Jesus when it comes to that.

For the record, I am not skeptical at all.  I am highly confident that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.  I am equally confident that his mother, while a sinner in need of a Savior, was a great woman of God whose life teaches many important lessons. But under no circumstances should we pray to her or bow down to an idol of her, and under no circumstances are we required to have a relationship with her to get to Jesus.

Here are some of the more common arguments of the “Mary defenders.”

—

A common false dichotomy was that you are either on the Catholic bandwagon for Mary or you are dishonoring her.  There is at least one other option: A proper understanding of her role.  This came up over and over.

—

They agree that the Bible is infallible, which should be a great foundation for us both to reference.  However, they then dive into a circular reference where they insist that you need the authority of the Catholic church to determine what the Bible really says.  But where do they get that authority?  I challenged them to demonstrate it from the Bible and no one offered anything.  Even if they found something, it would be circular.  They often beg the question and assume that “church” means “Roman Catholic Church.”

As noted elsewhere, if we can’t read the Bible and understand it without the Catholic church’s interpretation, what guarantees that we’ll be able to understand the Catholic church’s interpretation?   Of course, it is helpful to have experts and study guides, but the Bible doesn’t require that.

—

There are many non-sequiturs about how Jesus loved his mother, so [fill in the blank]. Yes, Jesus loved his mother, but that doesn’t mean we should pray to her or bow to her idol.

—

The immaculate conception argument about Mary goes in circles.  They want to claim that she had to be without sin so Jesus could be born un-tainted.  But then it stands to reason that Mary’s parents must have been born without sin as well, and their parents, and their parents . . .  otherwise Mary would have been tainted.  Then they backtrack to say that something special was done at Mary’s birth.  But, uh, why couldn’t that have been done at Jesus’ birth as well?  Back to the beginning.

—

Read the New Testament and look for mentions of Mary.  The Book of Acts: one passing note that she was in the room.  That’s it.

Romans?  Zero.  1 Corinthians?  Zero.  2 Corinthians?  Zero.  Hebrews?  Zero. And on and on.

I am not dismissing her importance, but the facts are clear: She was not a part of the Gospel message.  There are no references to her leading people to Jesus, answering prayers, appearing to anyone, etc. 

The apparitions of Mary typically have unbiblical or anti-biblical messages.  Therefore, they are not from God.

—
Despite claims to the contrary, there is much evidence of people praying to Mary and other saints and bowing to idols of her. I’ve seen it myself, and many on this thread conceded that they pray to saints—not just talk to them but pray to them.

Here is a sample of documentation.

—

A common argument was that we ask friends to pray, so we can ask the deceased to pray as well.  I think the difference is fairly obvious:

1. The deceased are deceased, unlike friends here who are alive.
2. The Bible says not to contact the deceased.
3. The Bible does give examples of asking the non-deceased to pray.
4. The Bible does not even hint that the dead have omniscience or anything close to it.

—
A common claim was that if the Catholic church got the Bible right, all tradition is infallible. Does anyone see how that doesn’t follow?  Paul got his letters just right, but not everything he did was inspired.

They don’t demonstrate how the organization that administered the Canonization process is synonymous with the Roman Catholic Church.

They ignore the laundry list of errors the church has committed.  Again, I’m not saying the Protestants get everything right.  But they aren’t claiming infallible traditions, either.

We agree that the Bible is infallible, which is a great starting point. However, no one has ever demonstrated from our common source that the Catholic church’s tradition is infallible.

—-

I’ve heard of people praying to Saint so-and-so when they lose their keys.  Then they find the keys and treat that as validation.

But remember that Satan knows where your keys are. If you pray to the dead in clear violation of Scripture, then God is under no obligation to answer you or protect you.

—–

The “infallible tradition” position and the notion that we have to have the Roman Catholic Church interpret the Bible for us fail in other ways.

First, consider that the Bible teaches how to handle disputable matters in Romans 14. Now if the church was infallible and couldn’t get the interpretation wrong, why would the Bible mention such a thing?

Second, how do you know if you properly understood the church’s message? If you can’t be trusted to understand the infallible Bible, then why can you be trusted to understand the church’s allegedly infallible interpretation of it? Think carefully about that. It is bulletproof.

—–

When addressing the false teachings about praying to saints, I typically start by pointing out that the Catholics have the burden of proof to demonstrate from scripture that the saints can hear the prayers of nearly 8 billion people 24 x 7 x 365 in any language.

I read countless “just so” stories and hypothetical situations, but none with scriptural evidence and many that were in direct violation of scripture.

We should only pray to God.  Simple stuff.
—–

Update: A special welcome to visitors from Dawn’s blog!  Feel free to comment or look around.  We will probably not agree on Marian devotion, but you might enjoy some of the pro-life, pro-family, and other pieces.

—–

I greatly respect Dawn Eden’s pro-life endeavors and her promotion of abstinence in her book, The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On.  She makes winsome and compelling cases on some important issues.

But a sad side of her life transformation is that she has wholly embraced Catholicism and its false teachings.  Please note that I know many Catholics who hold authentic Christian beliefs about the essentials.  They are “bad Catholics” in the sense that they don’t buy the un-Biblical dogma from the bowels of the Roman Catholic Church, such as Mary worship, praying to the saints, purgatory, salvation by works, Papal infallibility, etc.  Their local parishes actually teach fairly sound doctrine.  I think there are many saved people in Catholic churches, just as there are many unsaved people in Protestant churches.  It all comes down to having true faith in Christ.  But we should seek to avoid all errors and find the most sound churches we can.

Dawn recently had a link highlighting a video about a man struggling spiritually. He was crying out for help. Guess who saved him? Jesus? No, it was Mary. The “highlight” of the video was a vision of Mary that shifted to a statue of Mary. It was just your basic idol worship.

I’ve read the Bible a bunch.  I see remarkably few passages about Mary and none that even hint at the role the Catholic church ascribes to her.  Granted, Protestants sometimes overreact in the other direction and ignore her, but they are far closer to the truth than Catholics.

I submit that if a vision of Mary comes to you, then it isn’t the real Mary.  It is Satan who is leading you away from the truth.

Mary can’t save you.

Jesus can.

I encourage commenters to focus on the post itself and not just attempt to recreate the Reformation (as great as the first one was!). The video in question wasn’t just about admiring Mary. The protagonist specifically cries out for God, and Mary appears. That’s really, really bad theology.

Ballroom dancing tips

Against all odds, I picked up the hobby of ballroom dancing thirteen years ago.  I realize that isn’t the normal fare here, but I wanted to share a few tips.  I can’t teach you how to dance, but I have lots of suggestions on how to improve your experience if you try it.

• Be nice to yourself.  It can be very humbling, especially in the beginning. Compare yourself to the dancer you were yesterday, not to those who have had hundreds or thousands of lessons.
• Like all hobbies, this has costs.  The big-name studios like Fred Astaire and Arthur Murray tend to be more expensive and high pressure, though we had great experiences our first few years at a Fred Astaire studio.  The local studios tend to be less costly but still very good.  We’ve been going to one for over 8 years and really enjoy it.  But you don’t have to take lessons for life.  If you learn some basics and practice them, there are many low-cost dance venues you can go to.
• Take videos of your instructors demonstrating the dances.  That has saved me countless hours of time and frustration because I quickly forget choreography.  Your studio may have a curriculum where you can go online and see the figures done from various angles and in great detail.
• Don’t succumb to high pressure.  Our studio is great and just meets people where they are, but we’ve known of other studios that pressured people into spending too much.  Some just want social dancing, some want to compete, and some want to do “showcase” numbers.
• Practice! Duh, right? Too often, I think I’ll remember a new figure, and then 15 minutes later, it is gone. So repeat them often until you have them wired in, then create amalgamations/routines of 8-10 figures and go through those regularly. You’ll remember them much better that way.
• Ideally, if you have a partner, learn at the same pace.  I’ve seen disconnects where one partner is much more serious than the other, and it can cause friction.  Just have fun together.
• Take advantage of group lessons. They are less expensive than private lessons, but you still learn a lot and get plenty of practice.
• Aside from the physical benefits, there are proven mental benefits as well.
• And enjoy rule #1 of dancing: The man always leads and the woman always follows.  Your mileage may vary.

At the risk of appealing to your ego, if you learn a few basic moves in dances like the Cha Cha or Rumba, people will lose their minds the next time you do a little dancing at a wedding or social event. We dial our dancing way back at those venues to not be the center of attention, but it is fun for people to see you learning new things.

Again, I never thought I’d be an amateur dancer and do competitions, showcases, and social dancing.  It has been a great and fun way to exercise.  You don’t consider it exercise because you focus on dancing and having fun.  Mrs. Eternity Matters loves it.  We have had years of built-in date nights.  We’ve met lots of long-term friends.  We’ve learned many new genres of music.  And more.

Lifting: Keep it simple!

As I’ve aged, I’ve learned to keep my weightlifting simple. You don’t need to do 8 different exercises to work your biceps. Just some dumbbell curls will suffice.

The basics—push-ups, pull-ups, and some squat variation—can give you fantastic results. I highly recommend these Bulgarian split squats, which provide a great leg workout with or without weights. If you do those three exercises for a few sets 2-3 times a week, you’ll be surprised at how quickly you strengthen and firm up. But start slowly!

If you expand and do more, that’s great. But these things can be done at home at a low cost. I do recommend investing in push-up bars, as they can help your wrists greatly.

If you can afford them, PowerBlock dumbbells are fantastic. I’ve used them for decades. They save a lot of space and give you great flexibility.

If you have any questions, leave a comment! And be blessed on your fitness journey.

Rest-pause weight training

Rest-pause weight training is a way to work your muscles harder and faster. You do one hard set, rest briefly, then do a few more repetitions, then rest briefly, then do a few more repetitions. Rest-pause sets are effective from both a time and intensity standpoint. It is like getting 3 sets in one without having to rest so long between them.

I use them for many exercises and almost exclusively for shoulders and arms. For example, I’ll do a set of dumbbell curls to failure (or close to it), then rest for about 15-20 seconds (I find it easier to count 10-12 breaths than to watch the clock), then do another 2-3 reps to failure, then a short rest, then a final 2-3 reps to failure.

For me, the “as many reps as you can” is usually 2-3. But those are the hard final reps, so you get a lot of benefits from them in a short time.

If you are an experienced lifter, you might want to give these a try.

Fitness

As I wrap up my blogging, I will post a few fitness items. It seems odd to do so now, and with my extensive cancer treatments, my weight and strength are at the lowest they’ve been in years. But these things have helped me greatly over the years, and I wanted to share them. Every doctor and nurse has said that being fit has aided in my recovery.

First, a caveat: I recommend taking advice from natural lifters only. I ignore all the tips from steroid users, as that is a completely different game. The recovery times, workout intensity, and duration you can do are completely different.

I’ve always been lean, but I’ve loved lifting for the last 45 years. It is fun to be strong (relative to my capabilities) and helps with many basic things in life. It is also a great stress relief. The challenge of fighting gravity and competing with yourself is endless.

I’ve always balanced lifting with some other activity – a decade of volleyball, then a decade of jogging, and for the last 13 years, our ballroom dance hobby.

I think that taking good care of yourself – while avoiding narcissism – has countless benefits, including showing love to your friends and family and giving you more energy to serve others.

My main philosophy for people is to just do something.  Anything.  Just get off the couch.  I’ve seen lots of people come into the dance studio and lose lots of weight without even trying.  They weren’t even doing things that are overly strenuous, but they went from doing nothing to doing something, and the results were amazing.

That said, I do have a preference for some kind of resistance training. All other things being equal, I think it is much more practical for daily living and sustainability than high-impact activities. Are you more likely to lift something around the house or to have to run away from a bear? But if you can run 40 miles a week without injuries, good for you! Pilates is also a great program to consider, as it is very natural and focuses on overall strength.

There are many good fitness sites, but quite a few are just thinly disguised supplement businesses.

Also, many sites don’t differentiate their advice between natural lifters and steroid users or between younger and (ahem) older people.  But those are enormous divides.  Again, things that work for steroid users would not only be ineffective but counterproductive for natural lifters.  I’ve always been natural, and all the advice here will assume that the readers are too.  And as I’ve aged I’ve had to change some strategies (e.g., I don’t even go to the refrigerator without warming up first).

Enjoy!  Or don’t!  And feel free to share any tips in the comments section.

John 10:25-30 – assurance and so many other eternal truths in one short passage

I’ve been focusing on this passage a lot. It contains one fascinating and important truth after another. The context is the “Good Shepherd” narrative, where Jesus speaks to the Pharisees. They asked Jesus if He was really the Christ, but they didn’t want the answer.

John 10:25–30 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

It is crucial to note that these people have seen Jesus face-to-face many times and even seen his miracles firsthand, yet they still don’t believe.

John 10:25 I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe . . .

Remember when skeptics say they’d believe if only they got a sign from God.  The Bible says they have already been given plenty of signs to know about God:

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

And Jesus warned against asking for signs:

Matthew 16:4 An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.

And just ask atheists if they’d worship God even if they were provided evidence that met their standards.  Many will admit that they still wouldn’t follow him.

Why didn’t the listeners believe even when they talked to the incarnate Christ in person and saw his miracles?  Because they weren’t his.  The Father hadn’t given them to Jesus.  And as Stan noted in the comments section, they believed because they were his sheep.  They didn’t believe and then became his sheep.

but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep . . . My Father, who has given them to me . . .

How are his sheep identified?  They believe in Jesus, they follow Jesus, and they persevere over time.

but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

So when “Christian” Leftists and other false teachers deny the Bible – which Jesus affirmed (the Old Testament) and authorized (the New Testament), then you can know they are wolves.  They don’t believe in Jesus.   They don’t follow him; they follow the world.

One of the hidden blessings of the LGBTQX movement is that it clearly distinguishes between sheep and goats. No one will have an excuse for following a false teacher.

This is an important truth for evangelism.  We should scatter the seed of the Gospel broadly and not try to guess who is and isn’t in Jesus’ flock.  We’ve all seen people who seemed highly unlikely to believe (I witnessed that often doing prison ministry) and those who you’d think would believe but don’t.  It glorifies God to proclaim the truth about Jesus regardless of whether people accept him.  But if people are hostile to the Gospel, they either aren’t his sheep, or it isn’t their time to believe.

And note the double assurance of perseverance: No one will snatch you out of Jesus’ or the Father’s hand. You didn’t save yourself, you won’t un-save yourself, and no one else will un-save you. That isn’t to say that you should never test yourself; just that if you have repented, believed, and trusted his Word, then your default setting should be assurance.

It isn’t such good news if you can’t have assurance. Catholics think it is wrong to claim assurance of salvation, but that tips their hand they they think you are justified by works. Ironically, they are the self-righteous ones, thinking that if they are righteous enough, they’ll merit Heaven.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!

If you work really hard, you can ignore the concept of predestination and salvation by grace and not work in this and other passages :-).  There is no hint that Jesus thinks that if He just badgers them some more, they will become his sheep.  Also this:

My Father, who has given them to me . . .

And note Jesus’ divinity here.  His hand = the Father’s hands. And this:

I and the Father are one.

The whole passage is so clear about sheep, goats, evidence, evangelism, predestination, perseverance of the saints, and salvation by grace.  It is no accident that the “Christian” Left works overtime to dismiss the authority of the Gospel of John (and more).  Every time they do so, they prove Jesus’ points.

Meditate on this passage today and enjoy the beautiful truths!