A couple passages for those who deny or twist what Paul wrote

False teachers and ignorant church members often dismiss what Paul wrote because they think he is out-dated or just wrong.  They tip their hands by denying that the Holy Spirit was behind the writings.  But Paul shows how Christians accept the word of God as what it really is.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

So by denying that scripture is scripture they concede their unsaved nature and/or their ignorance.

And Peter teaches that the “ignorant and unstable twist” scriptures “to their own destruction” and how Paul’s writings are scripture (“as they do the other Scriptures”).

2 Peter 3:15–16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Of course, the “Christian” Leftists will say that Peter didn’t write 2 Peter and will probably deny that Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians.  Such is their predictable lot.  But use these passages anyway.  Best case is that they are convicted by them.  Worst case is that it makes them squirm and honors God by speaking his truths.  Either is fine.

Also see Paul vs. Jesus?  Not exactly.

Still not “born that way”

dna2.gifThe “gays were born that way” saying has taken on a life of its own and has an overwhelming impact on public policy and even religion.  Is it true?  If it is true, does it matter?  Some thoughts . . .

1. I’m highly skeptical of “proof” that it is genetic (either a “gay gene” or genetic predispositions), as these studies have all been proven to be false in the past.  There is no study showing that it is, and many showing that it isn’t.

2. Even if it is genetic, that doesn’t change the morality of the behavior.  You don’t get an “ought” from and “is.”  Gay-bashing is a sin, but on LGBTQX logic those people could claim they were “born that way.”

3. If it is genetic, the number of gays will be dramatically reduced in a generation or so.  Heterosexual parents will be quick to abort their children with predispositions to be gay.  And the Liberals won’t do much to stop them, because they typically love abortion rights more than gay rights.  Any time I pose that hypothetical situation to pro-abortion/pro-LGBTQ people, they always choose abortions over gays.  They haven’t changed their views even for gender selection abortions (which virtually all involve the killing of females for the sole reason that they are female), so they probably won’t change them for gays, either.

I think that would be a bad thing, of course, as I’m against abortions except to save the life of the mother, regardless of whether the baby has a predisposition to be gay.

4. I’ve seen lots of evidence that many people are gay because of sexual abuse and/or relationship issues.  I agree that anecdotes don’t make a full case, but I’m talking about a lot of anecdotes from people who come across hundreds or even thousands of gays.  I’ve read of many counselors who said that virtually all of their gay patients had been abused or had serious relationship issues.  And here’s a quote from gay activist / journalist Tammy Bruce from The Death of Right and Wrong:

Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood – molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult.  The gay community must face the truth and see the sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the “coming-of-age” experience many regard it as being.  Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS.

She wasn’t trying to dispel the “born that way” notion, but I thought her comment was compelling.

And nearly all the lesbians I know were abused by their fathers or husbands.  It is tragic that their “solution” just makes things worse.

5. It doesn’t have to be one traumatic event.  It could be the complete dynamics of a relationship in place from birth that would make someone think they were “always that way.”

6. Gays who choose that lifestyle would be predisposed to say they were born that way.  Otherwise, the whole “civil rights” demands would have even less reasoning behind them.  Just watch what happens when famous people claim they changed to be gay or lesbian.  The LGBTQX lobby goes into attack mode.

7. How many times do you see a newborn and say, “Now there’s a gay baby!”  Be sure not to unfairly stereotype youths as gay just because they have non-traditional characteristics.  How about nurturing and encouraging them for who they are and what interests they have?

8. Why are some people so eager to insist on the genetic link?  Seems kinda homophobic to me, as if they think the lifestyle would make an undesirable choice.

And don’t just say, “They are picked on, so who would want that lifestyle?”  That reasoning wouldn’t apply to people with true genetic differences that have made people a source of disapproval in the past.

Also, gay approval is at an all time high – “pride” parades, recognition as employee network groups at many businesses, civil unions & marriages – even apostate church weddings, almost universally favorable media treatment, etc.

9. Here’s one lady who doesn’t claim she was “born that way.”  She says feminism led her to lesbianism (go figure!).

Ms Wilkinson, Professor of Feminist and Health Studies at Loughborough University, said: “I was never unsure about my sexuality throughout my teens or 20s. I was a happy heterosexual and had no doubts. Then I changed, through political activity and feminism, spending time with women’s organisations. It opened my mind to the possibility of a lesbian identity.”

Try asking non-believers, “What do you think I believe?”

a

Why can’t non-believers understand the Gospel?  OK, I know the reason they can’t believe it.  Absent the Holy Spirit making them spiritually alive they are incapable of believing.  But you’d think that they could at least properly articulate what it is we believe.

In my experience, no matter how many times you explain what we really believe usually assume we think we are saved by works.  It is often fascinating to hear non-believers describe what they think we believe.  I shared the Gospel many times with one guy who continually came back and distorted what I’d said.  I finally made a little progress after I wrote this to him:

I also want to clarify my views on Heaven / Jesus for you.   . . .  I just think it is completely reasonable for me to correct your misunderstandings of what I believe.  I must not have explained it well on the phone so I thought I’d try it in writing.  This doesn’t make my beliefs true – although I am always ready to defend their accuracy and historicity – but if there is a misunderstanding I’d like to correct it.

So here it is: Yes, I have great confidence that I’m going to Heaven, but it is not because I behave in a better than average way.  One of my primary verses to point to is this: 1 Timothy 1:15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

That isn’t false humility, that is an accurate assessment of who I am and what I know about myself.  So yes, I think I’m going to Heaven, but I’ll do so in spite of what I’ve done and because of what Christ did on my behalf.  That’s it.  It is available to anyone who repents and believes.  He is the one true God and everyone will answer to him someday.  Making a god in one’s own image will gain a person nothing but an eternity in Hell.  You don’t set the terms and conditions, God does, so every person should seek and meet those terms with all their heart and strength.

To this guy’s credit, he called and said he realized he’d been misstating my views.  He still doesn’t believe, but I’m all for planting seeds.

So if you think someone doesn’t understand the real Gospel, try asking him to state what he thinks you believe.  You’ll get an insight into what he thinks and you can correct him from there.  It is also a charitable way to converse.

The sort-of official DNC response to the Wikileaks emails

“Even though countless people were on all those incriminating emails and the way we ran the primaries was such that you didn’t even need the emails to know our strategy, we were totally surprised by them are sincerely sorry [that we got caught].  It is all Debbie’s fault, which is why she was immediately picked up by Hillary’s campaign.  No, wait, it is Trump’s fault.  And Donna is now in charge, even though her emails said the same thing as Debbie’s.  So the Bernie people should just chill and bow down to Hillary.

Oh, and of course, Hillary’s server had **much** better security so there is no way those emails were compromised.”

Try this with anyone you list as a reference on your resume and let me know how it works out

bTrump: We are both vying to be the top candidate for this job. If I win, will you give me a positive reference?

Cruz: Yes.
Trump: Thanks! Just FYI, if you win I won’t do the same for you. I’ll run as a third-party candidate or endorse Hillary and donate to her as I’ve done before. And my registered Democrat kids will do the same.
Trump: I had my buddy at the National Enquirer make up a story about you cheating on your wife. I know it will never be proved out, but some people will believe it.
Trump: I told everyone that your dad killed JFK.
Trump: I attacked your wife and posted unflattering pictures of her.
Trump: It is spectacularly well documented that I’m a serial liar, but I’m going to call you “Lyin’ Ted” every chance I get and my low-information supporters will repeat it.
Trump: No, of course I won’t apologize for any of that!
Cruz: I changed my mind and will not directly recommend you for this job.  That said, I won’t actively oppose you, either.   I will encourage people to support freedom and conservative principles — so if that’s what you’re about, that would be an endorsement of you.
Trump: I can’t believe you didn’t give me a reference for this job! I knew you were a liar!

I was really happy with what Cruz said and did.  I hope the country comes to its senses by 2020 – if it isn’t a pile of rubble by then.

Bonus: Historical facts!

  • Cruz’s speech was approved by Trump and the RNC and he stuck to the script.
  • He congratulated Trump.
  • He said nothing negative about Trump.
  • Trump’s vendetta against Cruz’s speech took all the focus off of Pence’s speech.
  • Trump is still fighting conservatives and not Hillary.

If Black Lives Matter really wanted to help blacks they would abandon the Democratic party

b

In other words, they are fighting the wrong people.  The Left has been using blacks for half a century.  Some do it out of malice (think: Clinton, Obama, etc. who abuse the poor to gain more power), some out of ignorance (think: bleeding hearts who like to sooth their consciences by giving away your money and rights) and some for both reasons. Here are a few examples of how the Left harms blacks.

  1. Illegal aliens take the jobs and/or suppress the wages of low income blacks. This is a simple and indisputable impact of the law of supply and demand.  Leftists love illegal aliens pouring into this country because it is an easy way for them to buy votes.
  2. Abortion kills blacks at a rate over three times that of whites, and the Left’s dream of taxpayer-funded abortions will take that even higher.  If literally taking the lives of innocent black children in this way doesn’t enrage BLM, then they are ignorant or complicit.
  3. Leftist government, education, media and entertainment continue to encourage out-of-wedlock sex and single parenting, which inevitably leads to poverty, crime and prison.  This happens regardless of race but happens more in black communities because of how the Left targets them with their welfare programs.
  4. Minimum wage policies will take away even more low-income jobs.  These jobs were never designed to support families.  Minimum skills will always yield minimum wages.  But these artificial, un-Constitutional wage increases inevitably cost jobs via automation (at some point a machine will be more cost-effective than a human) or lost hours (see the Leftists at Starbucks who have been mugged by reality).  The real minimum wage is always going to be zero, and more and more minorities are experiencing that thanks to the Left.
  5. Fostering racial tensions, especially with the police.  Obama & Co. have done everything possible to start race wars.  They have made poor neighborhoods more dangerous with the “Ferguson Effect,” where police have a drastically reduced incentive to respond quickly or to do any defensive maneuvers.  If you are going to be shot at or called a racist no matter what you do, why not just show up after the bodies are cold and fill out a report?  I feel for the law-abiding people who are slowly entering into anarchy.  But some BLM leaders actually want there to be no police.  What could go wrong?
  6. Gun grabbing.  The Left never misses an opportunity to exploit tragedies to try and take the guns of law-abiding people.  It is too bad no one represents the poor but law-abiding people in South Chicago to let them buy guns to legally defend themselves.
  7. Out of control schools.  When hoodlums are given a free pass to behave in any way they like in schools and not be kicked out then the good kids suffer.  The Left now considers it racist if minorities are disciplined more often than whites, regardless of the actual infractions.  The social contract to provide education to all children should have a caveat that if you don’t behave well then the parents are responsible.  And as always, the government unions and politicians just take turns giving each other your money instead of helping the children.  Even Leftists like FDR knew those unions should be forbidden.

The Democrats do all these at the expense of low-income blacks, but history shows that the blacks will vote for them anyway.  So why change?

So if you are a conservative and anyone asks what you are doing to help blacks, let them know that you are doing a lot: Fighting abortion that kills blacks at a rate three times that of whites, fighting illegal immigration that take the jobs and/or suppresses the wages of low-income blacks, improving their police protection, fighting for their right of self-defense, fighting minimum wage increases that will take their jobs, and more.

Dilemma of the day: Should it be legal to abort [hypothetically] gay children?

Originally posted on Disqus where it got predictable, mostly pro-abortion responses.

First, a little background: I’ve actually asked the title question for many years, but a commenter on a Disqus Religion thread thought she’d play a “gotcha” and asked me the same thing. She even pre-gloated by assuming I’d try to evade the question:

“What if the baby in the womb was destined (hard-wired) to be gay. (And “not possible” is not a valid argument. Hard-wiring is real, e.g., left-handedness, eye color, etc.) Does that fetus have any worth? If so, why? If not, why not? Simple question. Please check all dancing shoes at the door. ;)”

Guess who was doing the dancing after I quickly and clearly told her I would choose life for the “gay” child? I also pointed out that if her hypothetical came true that most parents – even the pro-LGBTQX kind — would choose abortion, just like they abort the majority of children with Down Syndrome or any other suspected disability.

And yes, of course I oppose all abortions except the extremely rare cases where they save the life of the mother. But I’ll take whatever exceptions I can get because every life counts. The real burden of this question is on the pro-LGBTQX / pro-abortion people (and yes, it is pro-abortion if you want taxpayers to fund them so there can be more).

So this conservative, Bible-believing Christian firmly and unequivocally says: No, of course not! The unborn are human beings from fertilization (scientific fact – check out any of those pesky mainstream embryology textbooks — human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc. Same human being at different stages of development) and are deserving of life regardless of their tendencies towards certain sins. We are all sinners in need of a Savior (and thank God for that wonderful Savior!). Anyone who comes to God on his indescribably gracious terms will be loved and forgiven by him. How dare we kill innocent people made in his image, regardless of whether they are in the womb or not?

Interestingly, every conservative, Bible-believing Christian I’ve posed that question to has said the same thing: No, don’t abort them (and I’ll be surprised and disappointed if any have alternate views here). Isn’t that odd for a group that allegedly hates gays?

But it gets better – by which I mean, much worse: Every pro-choice/pro-LGBTQX person I’ve posed the question to has always said they’d favor abortion rights! If you agree with Jesus that homosexual behavior is a sin then the Leftists call you a hater and worse, while they are actively preserving the [hypothetical] right to kill gays up to their first breath*.

So to recap my experience:
– Conservative, Bible-believing Christians say not to kill [hypothetically] gay people regardless of location
– Leftists – including “Christian” Leftists — approve of killing [hypothetically] gay children up to their first breath

I hope the Leftist commenters here prove me wrong and say why they’d oppose abortions for those children. But my guess is that most of them will be smart enough to think 5 seconds into the future and anticipate the next question: If you think it is wrong to kill “gay” children in the womb, why is it OK to kill “straight” children? It is sort of like how the feminists get tied in knots over gender-selection abortions, nearly all of which, in the ultimate misogyny, kill females for the sole reason that they are female. The feminists surely don’t like those abortions but they love the overall concept of abortion more than the lives of countless female victims. And it is like the supposedly pro-black Leftists who conveniently ignore that abortion kills blacks at a rate over three times that of whites — and how that will go higher when they get their dream of full taxpayer-funding for abortions. And yet they’ll say pro-lifers are the racists . . .

OK folks, on to our dilemma of the day: What do you love more, gays or abortion? That is, should it be legal to kill [hypothetically] gay children up to their first breath?

Bonus question for those choosing abortion rights over gay rights: Will it make it harder for you to pretend that conservative, Bible-believing Christians hate gays when you think it should be legal to kill them in the womb but they think it should be illegal? I mean, if killing someone isn’t hateful then what is? Do you still think it is fair to use the petty and fallacious “homophobe” personal attack if you would accept killing gays in the womb while Christians oppose it?


*The “Christian” Left is far more extreme in their pro-abortion agenda than the average pro-choice person, as they agree with Democrats’ platform of unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortions – even “partial-birth abortion” (aka infanticide). They insist that life begins at the first breath and that Jesus is fine with killing unwanted children until that point. I realize how ridiculous their views sound and how many people must think I’m making a straw-man argument. But that is just because their own words are so clear and extreme: “According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.” More here about how to respond, with full, in-context quotes from them.