*updated* MODERN DAY-APOSTLES? BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Update: Mr. Finnell adds a new post about apostleship where he asks, 

"If there were apostles after the ones mentioned in the new testament and if there are apostles living today, why are their writings not included in the Bible? The apostles that Jesus selected wrote Scriptures."

We could do worse than democratic socialism - By Richard Mecklenburg

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

Mr. Mecklenburg (letter below) is responding to this letter:

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions - TED 2010

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

Sam Harris is one of the so-called New Atheists, a group of people who are attempting to breathe new life into atheism so as to bring this unpopular perspective into the mainstream. Mr. Harris is probably one of the less rigorous thinkers in the New Atheist camp, given to leaps in logic, presuming his premises, and weak reasoning.

It's such an unpopular thing to be an atheist, generally because being an atheist these days means to belittle, attack, and mock theists. Astonishingly, they think these techniques will persuade and convert theists. 

New atheists are missionaries, and their goal is to create a godless society, wiping out religion so as to create a rationalist utopia. 

In the below presentation, Mr. Harris attempts to demonstrate that morality can come from science. Or something.
------------------

Why Hillsong Music is Dangerous For Your Church - by Jeff Maples

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

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

It is difficult to pinpoint the author's complaint. He provides no documentation of his claims. He just knows for sure that Hillsongs is a cult.

It seems that the author's requirement for church music is that it must be a theological treatise. Or that it can't be emotional. Or it can't have electric guitars. Or it can't be from Hillsongs Church. Or something. He never really says.

Hillsong's songbook is extensive, with hundreds if not thousands of songs going back 20 years, attaining some fame when Darlene Zschech burst onto the scene with "Shout to the Lord." Yet the author wants to believe it's all evil because he can locate some that he has an issue with. Or actually, because the church has suspected heretical practices.

Dozens of songwriters writing on many topics. And they're all cultists writing emotional, sappy, superficial drivel? Does that even seem possible to you?

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

GOD'S COMPLETE REVELATION! BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

We have yet to find a cogent, persuasive explanation of the supposed cessation of the gifts. Mr. Finnell takes another shot at it, but fails miserably. You can review what we've already written about the subject here. 
--------------------------------

Diabolical Narcissism: GASLIGHTING - By Ann Barnhart

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. A very good article.

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

To review, a Diabolical Narcissist is a person who has freely chosen, exactly as the fallen angels (satan and the demons) did, to purge themselves of all charity and are thus voluntarily incapable of love or empathy, and whose entire emotional palate is thus limited to anger, hatred, jealousy and fear. Diabolical Narcissists are often of above-average or even genius-level intelligence, are usually accomplished in their fields, and can be desperately charming. They are also inveterate and facile liars, and almost all aberrosexuals (homosexuals, asexuals, transvestites, pedophiles, etc.) are Diabolical Narcissists. Diabolical Narcissists are vampiric and hold special malice for people who are loving, happy, grateful and empathetic – which is why children are often their targets. Diabolical Narcissists identify targets whom they then “hunt”, with the intent of crushing the target such that the target is likewise purged of all charity. And the wheels of the bus go ’round and ’round. Their sole motivation, like the demons, is pure, unadulterated spite.

Sen. Daines shirking his constitutional duty - By Dan Lourie

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

BAPTIZED WITH FIRE? by Steve Finnell

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

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

Finally Mr. Finnell takes on a new topic. Unfortunately, he once again fails basic Bible knowledge. He isolates a passage of Scripture from its context,  infers a conclusion, and then deems baptism with fire to be a bad thing.

I cover this in some depth with another post, so some of this will be a duplication.

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

FB conversation about abortion

A friend posted this on FB, and a "conversation" ensued:

Sarah G: Anyone who wants to outlaw abortion is not taking the mother's life and welfare into account. Plain and simple, if you want to control this aspect of another person's life you are denying them human rights.

Me: There is no human right to murder a human.

Sarah G: There is a human right to deny pregnancy, parenthood, and childbirth. You cannot control other people's futures in that way. Take away abortion, you take away rights from women, not to be controlled by a patriarchy notorious for restraining them through parenthood. Some people want children. Other people do not. It's not your choice, or your problem. You don't have a uterus. Nobody is going to knock you up and leave you to care for the result by yourself. And if they did, you'd have a choice to make. Automatically choosing one option is up to you, however you do not, nor does anybody else has the right to control other people's lives. Like it or not, that's the reality of it. If you think abortion is murder, then I'd like to alert you that your privilege is showing.

Me: If you could slow down on the bumper sticker slogans, it would help our dialog.

Sarah G: Speak for yourself.

Me: I will do so indeed. Are you interested in dialog, or talking points?

Me: Talking points it is. Here's a handy website for you to select a slogan: http://www.protectchoice.org/article.php?id=193

Nyk Z: The thing is, Rich, no matter what your opinion of abortion is, you are not a woman and it's arrogant to think that you have the right to even have an opinion on what she can or can't do with a fetus that is inside of HER body. Sure, it has POTENTIAL to become a human being, just like a seed in the ground has potential to become a tree, but it's not viable on its own. I know that you are dead set in your views and will never consider this from a woman's point of view because of your judgment, but the fact is....you will never have to make that choice. If men could get pregnant, abortion clinics would be as ubiquitous as Starbucks.

Nyk Z: Abortion is an act of love. To bring another human into this world is a very serious commitment and women should absolutely have the choice whether they want to endure that or not. If, for whatever reason, a woman is not ready to bear a child, it's nobody's business but her own.

Nyk Z: Rich, why don't you intelligently respond to what Sarah said, rather than accusing her of using "bumper sticker slogans"? She is making a very valid point.

Me: Ms. Z, you are not in a position to tell me what I can or can't have an opinion about. You are not a man, you can't possibly know what it's like. And, you don't know anything about my judgments or arrogance or whether or not I'm dead set in my views. They are empty accusations anyway, since you and everyone else in the world are also dead set in their views.

I would certainly respond to Ms. G, but I made a valid point before she did, to which she needs to respond.

You seem to be making a property rights defense regarding women and their bodies. Unfortunately, there is no absolute right to dictate one's property. Just like a landlord who rents to a tenant, a pregnant woman has ceded certain property rights. A person cannot sell their organs. A motorcyclist must wear a helmet. Marijuana use is still strictly regulated in many places. It is clear the the use of one's body is regulated and limited.

Maybe you have another "intelligent" point?

Sarah G: My body is not an object. My body is not for rent. My body, my life, my choice to become a parent or to refuse to become a parent, not someone who disagrees upon that fact based on moral standings. You insulted me, showing that you are not only incapable of having an intelligent discussion on this topic, but also a refusal to hear any arguments for the opposing side. You're frankly, too arrogant and stupid to debate with, so why waste my time? You're just going to spout a bunch of crap, so why don't you go find yourself a toilet to throw your demeaning and outdated ideas into. This is not an issue about morality. This is an issue surrounding control of women's lives through parenthood. If you gave a damn about the welfare and history of women on the earth, you might understand why an abortion can be a better option, than dealing with the repercussions of pregnancy and parenthood. Pregnancy is not a punishment for sex. This isn't the 1800's anymore and we're not going back to the way it was. I'm unsubscribing to this post because you make me sick, strutting around like you know better than I do about the law and morality and just being a general jackass. Kindly, GFY.

Me: Didn't take long for the name calling. Typical leftist.