This Flow Chart That Destroys Religion’s Case Against Gay Marriage Is So Easy, Any Zealot Can Use It - by Scott Bateman

Found here. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------------

This is one of those biblically illiterate, self-congratulatory, sarcastic "refutations" of Christians. Frankly it's so embarrassing that I'm surprised it was published.

Before we address Scott Bateman's contentions, since he appeals to Jesus for support for gay marriage, might we ask him if he considers the Bible authoritative; and also, do the other sayings of Jesus as recorded in the Bible also carry weight with him? If not, what criteria does Mr. Bateman employ to make his delineation?

The first point in his flow chart is that Jesus never mentioned gay marriage. This is a "duh" comment, for the concept of gay marriage is a modern-day expression. Jesus never mentioned sustainable energy or tax the rich, and there is nary a word about Medicare or infrastructure as well. An argument from silence is not an argument.

Perhaps Mr. Bateman would have a bit more credibility here, had he restricted his comments to simple gayness instead of gay marriage. But even then he is on shaky ground, for we note that Jesus did speak about marriage. Since the author values what Jesus said, I'm sure the author will also value these words from Jesus:

"And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?' He answered, 'Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.'" (Matt. 19:3–6).

Jesus was affirming the O.T., particularly Genesis 1:27: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." And Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." It seems pretty clear, even to the casual observer, that Jesus affirmed the traditional expression of marriage.

Jesus also spoke of sexual matters, contrary to Mr. Bateman's position.

Mark 7:20-23: "What comes out of a man is what makes him `unclean’. For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man `unclean’.”  

Jesus' words, not mine. The word "immorality" is used many times in the N.T., so Jesus' statements are part of a thread of understanding that is found throughout the N.T.. In each case it is used to describe various kinds of sexual impropriety, like for example in 1 Corinthians 5:1 where Paul writes against the church for its toleration of a man who is having sex with his father's wife. In other words, Jesus put boundaries on sexual behavior. Some sex is good, other sex is bad.

Further, we also find an account of an adulterous woman who was brought to Jesus.

John 8:10-11: "Jesus straightened up and asked her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no-one condemned you?' 'No one, sir,' she said. 'Then neither do I condemn you,' Jesus declared. 'Go now and leave your life of sin.'" 

Notice Jesus does not "condemn" her, that is, he doesn't pronounce sentence against her in punishment. But He does say, "leave your life of sin." Thus, it is not condemnation to call the sinner to repentance. Jesus has a standard, and he is not shy about imposing his morality.

So clearly Jesus isn't on the side of the gay lifestyle or Mr. Bateman. We again appeal to how much Mr. Bateman values Jesus' teachings, and assume he will either abandon his previous admiration of Jesus, or he will conform to his new-found knowledge.

It isn't hard to discover that the rest of N.T. teaching is also in harmony with Jesus, which means that Paul's writings mesh perfectly with Jesus' teaching. Thus the frequent practice of the Left to dismiss Paul or isolate Jesus is unjustifiable.

Mr. Bateman's flow chart now appeals to dietary restrictions and tattoos. However, since we do not have to rely on the O.T. for our defense, this objection is rendered moot. This is because the legal prescriptions of ancient Israel are not relevant to us, for we are not Jews. We do not sacrifice animals, for Jesus is the Lamb of God, offered for our sin as the one perfect sacrifice. We need not build a tabernacle, for the Body of Christ, that is, the Church, is the dwelling place of Deity. We do not have to stone anyone. We have no requirement to wipe out cities, or any of the other O.T. stuff. We are not Jews.

It is the moral law, timeless and enduring, which we must obey. Those O.T. moral principles were restated and affirmed by Jesus as binding upon us.

Matt. 5:17-18: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." 

Thus in two sentences Jesus makes the whole of the moral law a requirement and simultaneously negates Mr. Bateman's arguments.

The Hoax of Climate Denial - by Naomi Oreskes

This post first appeared at TomDispatch. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

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

This is a very long and often pedantic article, so I'm editing out sizable passages that I don't want to comment upon. Also, it's worth noting that Ms. Oreskes is a geologist. She's not a climate scientist.

Read on:
-----------------------

[...]

...compared to many of his colleagues, [John] McCain looks like a moderate. They have dismissed climate change as a fraud and a hoax, while conducting McCarthy-esque inquiries into the research of leading climate scientists. (Hmm. And how do her and her ilk treat climate change deniers? Well, they question their veracity, uniformly accuse them of collusion with Big Oil, they're liars. They will even subpoena them to testify. We note the irony that these all meet Ms. Oreskes' definition of a witch hunt.)

Many of them attack climate science because they fear it will be used as an excuse to expand the reach of government. (Ms. Oreskes leaves this to dangle without comment, I suppose because it's undeniable that government's reach has and will continue to expand as a result of climate change.)

5 Signs of a Dying Church - by SHANE IDLEMAN

A very good article.
-----------------------------------

Church is boring for most because the power of God has vanished from many congregations ... there is a lack of desire to pursue Him in the pulpit as well as in the pew. Like Samson, they "know not that the Spirit of the Lord has departed" (cf. Judge 16:20).

High attendance is not the gauge of success, faithfulness is. Granted, a healthy church should experience seasons of growth, but even cults generate large numbers of followers.

Here are 5 simple ways to gauge the health of a church as well as a believer:

1. Is prayer an after-thought or a priority? Nights of prayer and worship are often replaced with Bingo and fundraisers.Many are in a hurry to burn through a sermon, scurry through worship, and head to the nearest restaurant. This is a sure sign of a dying church. If churches are too busy to pray—we're too busy. "When faith ceases to pray, it ceases to live" (E.M. Bounds). We should never allow our relationship with God to suffer because we're too busy. "We must spend much time on our knees before God if we are to continue in the power of the Holy Spirit" (R.A. Torrey). Spiritual life and prayer go hand-in-hand. You can't have one without the other.

2. Is the church known for either emotionalism or dead formalism?Unfortunately, Christians often embrace one of two extremes when it comes to the topic of the Holy Spirit. At one extreme are those who embrace pure emotionalism and hysteria—"if it's odd it's God" is often their motto. All weird behavior is excused. The other extreme resembles a cemetery. There's no living, vibrant spiritual life taking place. The church is dead, cold, and lifeless; talk of revival is either dismissed or ridiculed. Both extremes are wrong and offer a false impression of genuine Christianity ... both are characteristics of a dying church.

3. Is sin excused and holiness minimized? In short, has the fear of the Lord vanished? Some time ago, a pastor of a large church in my area made an unforgettable statement, "We should avoid mentioning the fear of the Lord. It makes people feel uncomfortable." Just writing that sentence makes me feel uncomfortable. The fear of the Lord is mentioned frequently throughout the Bible as the beginning of knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. "The LORD takes pleasure in those who fear Him..." (Psalm 147:11).

Fear can also motivate a person to repent. Jesus said, "Do not fearthose who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fearHim who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28). Jesus spoke more on the fear of hell than on the glory of heaven. "That makes me both love Him and fear Him! I love Him because He is my Savior, and I fear Him because He is my Judge" (A.W. Tozer).

The present condition of the church (and America) leads one to wonder if this lack of fearing the Lord is contributing to her spiritually dead condition: "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth..." (Revelation 3:15-17).

4. Is love a concept or a reality? True love is a "choice" and a commitment that we make to do good to others; it is not a "feeling."If love is the greatest commandment, it should be our first priority. Love hopes for and believes the best in others. It is demonstrated through our actions and our words. The Bible is clear: If you have not love, it profits you nothing (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:3). You can be well read in all sixty-six books of the Bible, preach as well as Whitefield, Moody, and Spurgeon, and have a Ph.D. in theology, but if you don't have love, you have nothing.

5. Are difficult truths neglected, watered-down, or avoided in the hope of "not offending"? Ironically, churches that are "all about love" forget the other side of the coin: judgment is never mentioned; repentance is never sought; and sin is often excused. They want to build a church rather than break a heart; be politically correct rather than biblically correct; coddle and comfort rather than stir and convict. This leaves people confused and deceived because they believe in a cross-less Christianity that bears no resemblance to Jesus' sobering call to repentance. Christianity only makes sense in light of the consequences of sin. The good news about Christ can only be appreciated with the bad news as the backdrop. There are times when the saints must be fed, and there are times when the sinners must be warned (C.H. Spurgeon).

Pastors (including me) must find the balance—preach the difficult truths as well as the joyful ones; preach the cross and the new life; preach hell and preach heaven; preach damnation and preach salvation; preach sin and preach grace; preach wrath and preach love; preach judgment and preach mercy; preach obedience and preach forgiveness; preach that God "is love," but don't forget that God is just. Ironically, it's the love of God that compels us to share all of His truth, including those things that are hard to hear.

Although disheartening, this trend away from God's Word (absolute truth) is not surprising. The apostle Paul warned centuries ago: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine [God's Word], but according to their own desires ... they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables" (2 Timothy 4:3-4). If this isn't exactly what we see today, I don't know what is.

TONGUES OF PENTECOST? BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Mr. Finnell wanders into unfamiliar rhetorical territory, with a "have you ever noticed" comment. We doubt he has ever noticed, because we doubt he's ever been to a charismatic church. He'd rather lob rhetorical bombs from a distance than obtain a first-hand witness. 

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

HAVE YOU EVER NOTICED THAT CONTEMPORARY TONGUE SPEAKERS NEVER CLAIM TO SPEAK IN TONGUES LIKE PETER AND THE ELEVEN APOSTLES SPOKE ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST? (Two things. One, what tongues speakers claim or do not claim is clearly something unfamiliar to Mr. Finnell. Many tongues speakers have actually spoke in other, known languages. 

Two, Mr. Finnell artificially restricts the expression of tongues to what happened on the day of Pentecost. He gives no reason for this, since tongues were widespread in the early church.

And three, what does or does not happen in contemporary churches has nothing to do with the biblical case for tongues. Mr. Finnell, and all cessationists, must demonstrate from the Bible that the charismatic gifts have ceased. We have yet to read a persuasive biblically-derived argument from any cessationist advocating for their position.)

10 Solutions to Fight Economic Inequality - by Jared Bernstein, Melissa Boteach, Rebecca Vallas, Olivia Golden, Kali Grant, Indivar Dutta-Gupta, Erica Williams, Valerie Wilson

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

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

It is interesting indeed when Leftists start talking economics. You will note that there is precious little in these lists that has anything to do with the market. In fact, nearly every proposal has to do with a government action. It is ironic in that government action is largely the cause of economic inequality. Yet it is a requirement to be Leftist to believe that every problem be solved by government.

Also of note is the idea that economic inequality is a something that needs to be addressed in some fashion. In other words, these folks apparently want ditch diggers and brain surgeons to make the same amount of money. Maybe that is an extreme example, but we must realize that when we start down the road of making peoples' economic situation more "equal," we have no logical reason to stop at any point on the continuum. 

I suppose that leftists will call that a slippery slope argument, but sometimes the slope is actually slippery. And we certainly know that the Left, being "progressive," always presses on. "Inequality" will persist, and thus every day it needs to be solved once again. That is the nature of progressives.

One other thing. These folks are described as experts. But none of them, other than Valerie Wilson, have any training or experience in private sector economics. They are nothing more than activists. I have noted their education in each section.

Read on:
---------------------------------

Why Are Crisis Pregnancy Centers Not Illegal? - By Meaghan Winter

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

(Typical hyperbolic rhetoric for the Left, in that the author's concerns and complaints are strangely reminiscent of what abortion clinics regularly are doing. It is a feature of the unhealthy mind to project on others exactly you do yourself. 

It's also a handy diversion to accuse others of what you yourself are doing. Manufactured outrage over pro-life clinics is designed to create an emotional response, which again is a frequent leftist technique. 

In the below article, we will find these techniques used multiple times, while at the same time there will be a lack of actual evidence of atrocities in pro-life clinics.

Read on:
-------------------------
Last month the California State Assembly passed the Reproductive FACT Act, a bill that would require so-called crisis pregnancy centers (As compared to so-called "family planning clinics?")

to inform their clients that California “provides free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services, prenatal care, and abortion, for eligible women.”

Sounds simple enough, but such disclosures are anathema to crisis pregnancy centers, (Ironic considering the rejection of ultrasounds, disclosures regarding fetal development, etc. The pro-choice crowd flatly rejects any initiative that would even hint at dissuading a women from obtaining an abortion.)

or CPCs, which often use misleading advertisements—sometimes even posing as abortion providers—and regularly dispense inaccurate information in order to dissuade women from accessing contraception and abortion, as NARAL Pro-Choice America has documented. A 2006 congressional report found that federally funded CPCs informed patients seeking abortions that the procedure “could increase the risk of breast cancer, (Hardly "inaccurate," since the science on this remains uncertain. There is a recent study that does establish a correlation, however. So it is disingenuous to claim that increased risk of breast cancer is "inaccurate.")

result in sterility, (Which is a low, but real risk)

and lead to suicide and ‘post-abortion stress disorder.’” (Again, the risk is low, but real.)

EVERY RIGHT-WING ‘CHRISTIAN’ SHOULD READ THIS 2009 OP-ED BY PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER

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

The writer lionizes Jimmy Carter for giving up his principles and abandoning his long-held faith. This is heroic, apparently. However, when someone like Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe of Roe vs. Wade) abandoned baby-killing and became a Christian, well, there was no parade for her. The Left didn't applaud her principled decision. 

I wonder why? Was it because the Left is all about the agenda? Of course. The Left will accept any technique, employ any rhetoric, and denigrate any person for the sake of the agenda. The ends always justify the means.

And we need to wonder why the author needs to recommend his version of Christian doctrine. Is he trying to "improve" the faith? Does he have some helpful suggestions? 

No, he's wanting Christians to read it because Christians need to change. In the face of less-than persuasive rhetoric from former President Carter, which the author thinks is devastating to the historic Christian perspective, Christians apparently should be so ashamed that they change for the sake of getting back in Carter's good graces.

Read on:
------------------------------

Former President Jimmy Carter has taken a stand for equality in a big way — by giving up his church. In a 2009 op-ed titled Losing my religion for equality published in The Age, Carter explained his “painful and difficult” decision to leave the Southern Baptist Convention after his six decade-long association with the religious group.

“I HAVE been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years,” Carter wrote. “My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world.”

“So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult,” Carter wrote. He says that it was unavoidable, given the faith’s views on women: (Views which the SBC stubbornly won't change to suit Carter or contemporary secular culture.)

It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention’s leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam (The SBC was "Claiming?" Ge. 2:21: 

"So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh." 

Now, it's up to you to decide whether or not you believe this passage, but there is no "claiming" involved. It is a real, unadorned, word for word quote from the Bible.)

and was responsible for original sin, (I spent a considerable amount of time trying to locate such a statement on the part of the SBC. I could find no such reference, although there are some others out there who do make the claim.)

Libertarianism is for white men: The ugly truth about the right’s favorite movement Republicans' demographic challenges have been well documented - by CONOR LYNCH

Originally found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------

The author fails in his analysis, because first he either doesn't understand or is unable to correctly present libertarianism; and second because he filters his analysis through his leftist world view. As such, he is unable to engage in a nuanced understanding of the issue, or, he prefers to misrepresent it in order to further his agenda. 

Read on:
---------------------

Why are libertarians so overwhelmingly white and male? ("Overwhelmingly?" As we will find out, there are plenty of libertarian women and minorities. No where enough, of course, but this is to be expected regarding a less well known political world view. And given the constant misrepresentation of libertarian perspective in the leftist media, it's no wonder. If they're not misrepresenting it, they're ignoring it. 

And the Libertarian Party itself was only formed in 1971. Thus it is not surprising at all that people are only now discovering what libertarianism really is. As a result, the numbers are growing, especially among those who are dissatisfied with the wishy-washy Republicans.

Pew took a poll, which the author later misuses. This poll reveals that about 11% self-identify as Libertarians and can accurately tell what Libertarians believe. Pew also supplies us with this helpful chart, which must be terribly alarming for the author:

Notice it is young, highly educated people who are gravitating to the Libertarian perspective. And there are a lot of Hispanics, which also violates the author's assertions. And lastly, notice about 6% of Democrats identify as libertarian.

Pesky facts like these are always the downfall of the Left. They happily spout their regurgitated talking points ad nauseum without regard for any real facts. Remember this as you read the rest of the article.)

The Hatreds of the Left - By John C. Wright

Found here. An excellent article.

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

A boorish reader takes me to task for speaking the plain truth bluntly. He greatly surprised me by backing away from his boorishness for a moment, and, to return his courtesy, I owe him an answer to his question.

This is the statement he doubted, saying this had nothing to do with Marxism, and saying that Leftism was a term I had not defined.

"They [the Left] hate money making. Hatred of being productive is the core of their thinking, next to hatred of truth, beauty, life, love, unborn babies, and Christ."

Hatred is the emotion that accompanies a desire to abominate and destroy the object of hatred. Hence, without being a mind reader, the hatreds of the Left can be rightfully deduced by their acts and their rhetoric. They do not hide what they believe.

1. They hate making money.

While there are heterodox Leftists, the core of Leftism orthodoxy is the mistrust of something called Capitalism, which is a deceptive mischaracterization of the free market.

In the free market, free and equal men exchange goods and services through indirect barter to their mutual benefit.

In capitalism, a coherent class called Capitalists manipulates the power of the market and the state to deceive the proletarian class into a situation of exploitation: per Marx, the value of a good is based solely on the labor expended on making it, and this is equal to the contribution of the laborer.

If you don't like the interaction you're having with police, just try obeying the law

If Sheriff Mike Lewis really said this, he's quite possibly an idiot.

False assumptions:

1) Police only have interactions involving criminals
2) Obeying the law means you'll never have an interaction with the police
3) The police always do the right thing in every situation
4) If things are not going well in your interaction with police, it's your fault

A Case for Cessationism - by Tom Pennington

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------------

This is a long and almost scriptureless presentation.

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

Strange Fire Conference

(...)

Well it is my joy, this morning, to look at a biblical case (Italics emphasis added throughout. In vain we will wait for Mr. Pennington to make good on his promise.) 

for cessationism. 

(...)

So what is it that cessationists believe the Spirit has ceased. Let’s be very clear. We only believe He has ceased one function and that is He no longer gives believers today the miraculous spiritual gifts, gifts like speaking in tongues, prophecy and healing. (After a long introduction, Mr. Pennington finally provides his thesis. Let's see if he will establish his case. From Scripture.

And we note that all spiritual gifts are miraculous.)