What sick socialist bastard would want to provide free healthcare for the poor? - FB meme

I am beyond astonished at how the Left will continue to repeat ad nausem the same arguments over and over again no matter how many times the truth is pointed out. It simply doesn't matter to them that the things they assert are false. The same arguments return as if yesterday hadn't happened. Today is a new day and all the arguments get a reset.

Witness the below picture. In 14 words there are at least six outright falsehoods, misrepresentations, and/or insinuations not justified by the facts.

The Defining Moment, and Hillary Rodham Clinton - Robert Reich

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

-------------------------------

Dr. Reich apparently lacks the ability to put two and two together. He's complaining about Obama's America. Obama's economic plan. Obama's stimuli. Obama's tax plan. Obama's compassion.

Does Dr. Reich remember who's in charge? Before someone pipes up and blames the Republicans, may I remind you that the Left always blames the president? The Bush deficits. Reagan was stupid. Big oil buddies. Corporate cronies. 

So Dr. Reich yearns for a bold Democratic voice, like Paul Wellstone or Teddy Kennedy. Doesn't Dr. Reich recall that these Leftists were in charge when all the bad stuff was being installed, nurtured, and expanded? These "heros" were rich and wanted to stay that way.

We have Obama, the perpetuator of black inequality, the Great Divider, this is the man who Dr. Reich claims is successful. ACA is successful. He likes the deficit. All under the Obama presidency.

But for Dr. Reich, it's Big Money's fault, not Obama's. Obama, who raised $715,150,163 to get re-elected, compared to Romney's $446,135,997. Hmm, maybe it is Big Money. Big money contributors like  

1 University of California $1,350,139

2 Microsoft Corp $815,645

3 Google Inc $804,249

4 US Government $736,722

5 Harvard University $680,918

And not only does Dr. Reich like Big Money Obama, he wants more of the same thing, while expecting different results. Read on:

-----------------------------------------

The beatitudes compared to the eight-fold path of Buddhism

Someone recently claimed that the beatitudes are the same as the eight-fold path of Buddhism. Compare for yourself:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Here is the eight-fold path:

1. Right Understanding (Samma ditthi)
2. Right Thought (Samma sankappa)
3. Right Speech (Samma vaca)
4. Right Action (Samma kammanta)
5. Right Livelihood (Samma ajiva)
6. Right Effort (Samma vayama)
7. Right Mindfulness (Samma sati)
8. Right Concentration (Samma samadhi)

1 Corinthians 13 and the "perfect"

Because the cessationists are so sure that this passage is telling us that the "perfect" is the Bible, I decided to publish the passage in paragraph form, so that the flow and context of Paul's presentation can be seen.

I start the quote at 12:27 and end at 14:1. This is important for seeing Paul's train of thought. My comments in bold.

----------------------------------

Up to this point Paul has been explaining how the Body of Christ ought to work and what it is like. He explains the variety of Spiritual Gifts which are apportioned by the Holy Spirit, and how they are to work together for the common good. He now turns to his audience and tells them that he's talking about them:

Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 

Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? But eagerly desire the greater gifts. 

He tells the Corinthian church that everyone has spiritual gifts, but not everyone has all gifts. There is variety, and in fact, a hierarchy of Spiritual gifts. Thus, tells the Corinthians to pursue,  ζηλόω (zeloo), to desire one earnestly, to strive after, the greater gifts.

Aborting the post-born - FB conversation

I posted this article on FB, and this conversation ensured.
------------------------------------------

M.C.: That's an interesting ethical argument, though I completely disagree with their conclusions. What I dread now is seeing this article pop up as an argument against abortion rights.

Me: It is an argument against abortion rights.

M.C.:  That's not how I read it, considering they are talking about value of postnatal life. But I see where fanatacists can grab hold of it without regard to context and turn the headline into a fear-mongering tactic.

Me: You seem to misunderstand. By arguing for the morality of killing unwanted post-born babies, these pro-choicers have abandoned their argument entirely.

Since a "person" now means “an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her,” the door is now open for the wholesale elimination of anyone deemed undesirable.

M.C.:  You are the one misunderstanding. These are not 'pro-choicers' making the argument; it is a group of medical ethicists publishing a scientific article. They make the argument based on a supposition that most scientists (myself included) would not agree with, and just because it is published does not mean it is infallible. That is the point of scientific inquiry.

Me: No, it's a political article. Science is not invoked. They make an argument in favor of a position based on morality. Didn't you read the article?

M.C.:  Yes, and I even comprehended what I was reading. The Telegraph article linked above is reporting on a scientific article published in 'The Journal of Medical Ethics'. All of the quotes in the Telegraph are in regards to that article and the argument presented is summarized from it.

Me: Ok, so let's clarify the situation. Do you support or oppose the conclusion of the scientists, and what is your basis for deciding?

M.C.:  I disagree with their conclusions based on the summarized argument presented in the Telegraph article. As I haven't read the actual journal article (and I'm willing to bet you haven't either), I won't engage in uninformed debate on its merits.

Me: What is your basis for deciding?

M.C.:  I disagree that a postnatal infant lacks "properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual".

Me: Explain.

Maddie Chapman No, I think that explains my position succinctly.

Me: I see. So you don't know why you disagree?

M.C.:  Nice try. I refuse to be drawn into a debate of false equivalencies based on willful ignorance of science. Have a nice day.

Me: There's no need to be condescending. I am only asking you questions. If you can't answer, that's fine.

Willful ignorance of science? As noted, we are not talking about science, we are talking about morality and politics.

Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation by Dave Miller, Ph.D. (part 2)

Part 1 is here. Continuing on with the analysis. Our comments in bold.
------------------------------

Holy Spirit Baptism

Where does the baptism of the Holy Spirit fit into this discussion? Today’s alleged practitioners typically associate the expression “Holy Spirit baptism” with the phenomenon that enables the believer to speak in tongues, heal someone, or work other miracles. In other words, Holy Spirit baptism is simply a generic reference to miraculous empowerment. Anyone who can speak in a tongue or perform any other miraculous action is said to have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. He is said to be “Spirit-filled.” However, it might surprise the reader to find that the Bible alludes to Holy Spirit baptism in a very narrow, specialized, even technical sense. Just because a person could speak in tongues or work miracles did not necessarily mean he had been baptized in the Holy Spirit.

The very first allusion to Holy Spirit baptism in the New Testament is John’s statement: “I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me...will baptize you in the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 3:11, emp. added). From this statement alone, one might be tempted to assume that Christians in general would be baptized in the Holy Spirit. But this assumption would be a premature conclusion. John was not addressing a Christian audience. He was speaking to Jews. Nothing in the context allows the interpreter to distinguish John’s intended recipients of the promise of Holy Spirit baptism—whether all humans, all Jews, all Christians, or merely some of those in one or more of these categories. (Every word John the Baptist spoke was to Jews. Almost all that Jesus spoke [the Samaritan woman at the well is one notable exception] was to Jews. If this is the author's criteria, very little of what Jesus said applies to us as well, and we can safely ignore it, apparently.)

Likewise, the exact recipients of the baptism of fire (i.e., hell) (Hell? We don't think so. Acts 2:3 is certainly not hell. Neither are 1 Cor. 3:13-14, 2 Tim 1:6, 1 Thes. 5:19, Heb. 1:7, 1 Pet. 1:7, or Rev. 3:18. Fire can mean judgment, punishment, and/or hell, but it also can mean purity, zeal, or passion.

The author presents himself as a biblical scholar, but he seems peculiarly reluctant to actually quote the entire verse at this juncture. Here is the full quote:  

“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." 

Do you notice something here? The author stopped his quote, leaving off "and with fire." Why would that be? "And." Because, it seems, those three words are inconvenient. John the Baptist doesn't say, "some will receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and others will receive a baptism of fire." No, he uses the word "and." Which means both things. Not one or the other.) 

Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation by Dave Miller, Ph.D. (part 1)

Originally found here. Our comments in bold.

Part two is found here.
----------------------------------

This is a long and sometimes pedantic article. Many of the claims made we have refuted elsewhere, so we will not rehash those arguments. If you wish, you can find everything we have written on the subject here.

Thus, it is our ambition here to endeavor to address any new claims. Read on:

------------------------------------

Numerous religious groups commonly claim the assistance of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Famed religious television personalities boldly announce the active influence of the Holy Spirit even as they speak. Supposedly, the Holy Spirit talks to them personally, heals viewers instantaneously, and enables them to babble uncontrollably in an “unknown tongue.” All of this is claimed to be “proof positive” of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. ("Proof positive" in quotes, which either means the author is quoting someone, or they are scare quotes. So, did someone say that manifestations are "proof positive?" Or is the author using a rhetorical device to impute motives to certain people or groups?

This is the tenor of the author's entire presentation: He has a repeated tendency to attribute words and motives to unnamed parties, then refutes what essentially are straw men. 

However, we are looking for the Scriptural documentation for the author's claims. Sadly, we will soon discover that the author is only tangentially interested in making his case from Scripture.)

The 15 smartest US presidents of all time - Natasha Bertrand

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

------------------------------------

What is of particular interest to me is if there might be a correlation between intelligence and success. One does not guarantee the other, but it helps. Sometimes it hinders. 

First is a list of of successful presidents. I suspect that success is defined as achieving legislation. If so, a president's success in passing his agenda is not necessarily a good thing for the country. 

1 George Washington Died at 67 (1732-1799)
2 Abraham Lincoln Died at 56 (1809-1865)
3 Thomas Jefferson Died at 83 (1743-1826)
4 Theodore Roosevelt Died at 61 (1858-1919)
5 John F. Kennedy Died at 46 (1917-1963)
6 Franklin D. Roosevelt Died at 63 (1882-1945)
7 Dwight D. Eisenhower Died at 79 (1890-1969)
8 Ronald Reagan Died at 93 (1911-2004)
9 James Madison Died at 85 (1751-1836)
10 Harry Truman Died at 88 (1884-1972)
11 John Adams Died at 91 (1735-1826)
12 Bill Clinton age 69
13 James Monroe Died at 73 (1758-1831)
14 Andrew Jackson Died at 78 (1767-1845)
15 George H. W. Bush age 91

You'll note some surprises here. Ronald Reagan, for instance. That he even made the list is remarkable. He has been mercilessly attacked and impugned from the time he came into public life up to even the present day for his "trickle down" economics, the "Star Wars" missile system, his supposed stupidity, and general ineptness. Yet despite the full-on smear campaign by the Left, Reagan somehow remains a popular president.

Another surprise is Bill Clinton. Though he had some notable accomplishments (much of which can be attributed to the Republican congress), his presidency will forever be tarnished for lying under oath to a grand jury, for his sexual indiscretions, and for being impeached and disbarred.

And last, George H.W. Bush, of "read my lips" fame. What successes he might have had continue to elude me.

-----------------------