Connect with us

Culture and Religion

John Pavlovitz’s “Christian” fail in attacking Pro-Life position

Published

on

The abortion argument is a boring, but crucial argument. When engaging in debate with the pro-abortion side, they usually have three responses. The first is about moral personhood. This classic debate where the pro-abort argues that the unborn are not human. The second response is the classic feminist bumper sticker logic. Basically, unless you’re a woman (or identify as one), you don’t have a say.

This fallacious logic’s response to a pro-life woman is to say that’s their choice but you can’t decide for me. Lately, the pro-abortion side has come to the understanding that unless the pro-life side supports expanding entitlement programs, their logic is invalid. To me, they employ the “pro-birth” argument because the other arguments have failed the test of time, so if they can detract the conversation to other topics, they can put the pro-life side on defense. John Pavlovitz is unique in that he is attacking the pro-life side using Response #3 while claiming to be a Christian.

If you are unfamiliar, John Pavlovitz is a heretical pastor who delves in universalism and the ever so present “social justice gospel” heresy. To him, Islam worships the same God, homosexuality is not a sin, hell?, support for entitlement programs is a direct reflection of one’s compassion, and Christianity’s biggest enemy, in America, are those who are conservative theologically and politically. As a result, he’s the left’s shining religious star in their Resistance.

He posted an article claiming that the Pro-Life side is losing.

The best-case scenario right now for you, is an eventual overturning of Roe V Wade, and the criminalizing of abortion. That’s really always been the end game here, and I imagine that prospect propels you now.Yet you and I both know that this reality won’t save any lives, that it will actually endanger more.

This point is made and conveniently abandoned to avoid scrutiny. Pavlovitz didn’t want the reader focus on his miscalculation. But alas, I can’t help but do the math. Let’s say there are 300000 abortions every year in America, a low estimate but a round number for this exercise. We overturn Roe v Wade and criminalize abortion just as he says. That’s 300000 lives saved right? Not quite. I think we would all agree that the criminalizing and punishing of an act serves as a deterrence to some degree. So it’s not like these 300000 would be illegally getting an abortion. The thing is: criminals don’t follow the law; they break the law. Like the Purge movies when murder is made legally permissible, murder becomes rampant. Such is the case in America where we have some of the most permissible abortion laws in the world. So if 300000 were to be the rampant number, might I suggest 3000, 1%, would be the number of criminal abortions. 297000 lives saved right? Not quite. The pro abortion side loves to (ironically) emphasized the safety involved with abortion. If we are to presume these black market facilities to be unsafe, as they so strongly suggest, then there is the additional loss of life. Let’s say complications from mob abortionists kill 1/6 women. We could total our calculations at 300000 lives lost with abortion and 3500 lives lost with abortion outlawed. With no other metric, especially subjective ones regarding quality of life, being equal to the value of human life, a scenario without abortion has a preferable outcome. This proves John Pavlovitz point to be incredibly wrong.

The professed Christian then attacks biblical sexuality, specifically, sex is for marriage. Because this letter is addressed to actual Christians, this argument is especially secular as well as feminist.

We know this because of the Evangelical Christian teen purity culture built around abstinence has failed miserably. Its hardline stance, vilifying of sexual activity, and rejection of birth control have never prevented young people from having sex—only ensured that when they do, they will be unprepared, uneducated, and unprotected.

Forced abstinence and outlawing have only yielded more unintentional pregnancies (despite you claiming God wants them), created more parents ill-equipped to raise children, put more stress on already overwhelmed social systems, and birthed more vulnerable people who you’ve already shown you have little or no desire to care for.

I would agree that many in the Church struggle with sexual immorality. It’s disturbing and disheartening to those who follow God’s word, in their relationships, to see so many in the church who do not and furthermore remain unrepentant in their sin. The solution, to this, is not to change God’s word, which is a hardlined stance. Sex outside of marriage isn’t new and has existed far too long, and with consistency, to be considered an epidemic. Perhaps the church should change it’s approach to positively recognize the utility in following God’s word in the bedroom. Yes, we should all be anatomically informed. However, giving young girls birth control, for no medicinal purpose other than promiscuity, is unbiblical. Birth control is widely known to fail, especially with imperfect use. But as a church we should not be educating our daughters in how to properly use birth control in the event they have sex outside of marriage. We are not called to teach our children, teens, how to sin smart.

John Pavlovitz does want to save face and act as though abortions are bad, though doesn’t go so far as to say sinful. He first wants to establish that no one on the left celebrates abortion which is untrue. The argument he makes is just as ironic as that of Planned Parenthood prevents abortion.

No group of progressives or women’s rights activists or secular humanists stand around high-fiving one another when anyone chooses to terminate a pregnancy…

We all want fewer abortions too, but we also believe responsible sex education and birth control are the best way to ensure this.

If Planned Parenthood didn’t push for abortions, let alone celebrate them, I would reckon their adoption referrals would be much higher than 1 adoption for 82 abortions. The “pro-choice” organization isn’t fairly rendering options to the susceptible woman they’ve prospected (through clinics and birth control). This 82-1 is more like a final closing rate for their abortion racket. Furthermore, the most efficient means to reduce abortion is to criminalize it, as the thought exercise above shows.

Millions of people exposed to poverty, sickness, instability, adversity, and violence by and through this President—all so you can keep telling yourself this America is moving pro-life.

Pavlovitz moves to a classic and tragic case of TDS, which is a primary focus of his website. By no means is violence being promoted by the president. On the contrary Maxine Waters can be credited with an increasingly adversarial society. Trump isn’t increasing poverty in America, quite the opposite, or sickness. Instability is subjective, and while Trump isn’t a unifying figure, he doesn’t champion a pseudo-insurrectionist hashtag, like Pavlovitz. By no means is there data that shows that “life” is losing by John Pavlovitz’s own inferior metrics.

Identity Politics and Heretics

As Christians, our identity is in Jesus Christ. It is not in Trump, for or against. John Pavlovitz has his identity in (opposing) Trump. But his opposition to Trump is not due to his faith but rather a desire to maintain popularity in spite of being ousted by churches. He was a heretic before Trump, seeing as with decades of pastoral experience, he has a wavering belief in hell nor does he believe in the accuracy and authority of the bible. It’s unfortunate, but unavoidable, for Trump to be a ladder for heretics to ascend to internet fame. The left calls him the “digital pastor of the resistance” which is a slight aimed at the definitive doctrines of faith. The fellowship of Christ allows for disagreement among nonessential, like politics. But there should be unity in Christ and in essential doctrines. Christians who are not conservative in their politics need to find a different pastor to champion, one who actually knows Christ. John Pavlovitz will only mislead you.

I’ll conclude with 2 Timothy 4:1‭-‬5 NASB

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

Culture and Religion

How likely is it that a single protein can form by chance?

Published

on

How likely is it that a single protein can form by chance

To really answers the question of whether life was created or came about by random chance, we need to take a mathematical look at things. It may be easier to form our opinions based on something we read in a junior high science book, but there really is more to it than the surface questions asked and answered by scientists and theologians alike.

For the faithful, it comes down to faith. For the scientific, it also comes down to faith. Whose faith is more likely to be correct?

Part of the answer can be found in this short video. Those who think there’s no faith associated with scientific theories clearly don’t understand the mathematics behind the science they claim to hold dear.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

When will people be forced to apologize for anti-Christian Tweets?

Published

on

When will people be forced to apologize for anti-Christian Tweets

There’s a trend that has been growing for some time that is reaching a tipping point now. The trend is this: when someone becomes a big story in the news, their Twitter accounts are scoured from beginning to end in order to find Tweets that offend a particular group or protected class. In many cases, this offended group has been the LGBTQ comunity, such as the recent cases of Kevin Hart and Kyler Murray.

Hart was set to host the upcoming Academy Awards when it was “discovered” the comedian used anti-LGBTQ slurs in the past. He deleted the Tweets and apologized, but still felt it necessary to pull out of the Oscars after so much backlash.

Murray, the Heisman trophy winner, was forced to apologize after reports of his Tweets used the same slurs when he was 14- and 15-years-old.

Bigotry in all its forms is contemptible. But where do we draw the line between actual bigotry and unfortunate uses of words or opinions in the past that have been deemed unacceptable today?

Should President Obama (and for that matter, Hillary Clinton) be demonized by the LGBTQ community, mainstream media, and leftists for their perspectives a decade ago? Lest we forget, both announced sharp opposition to gay marriage when they were running for president in 2008. Which is worse, a potential head of state calling for marriage to be defined as being between a man and woman or a teenager in high school referring to someone as a “fag”?

Democratic politicians are apparently allowed to evolve in their beliefs, but comedians and college football players are not.

Anti-Christian Tweets

Sadly, some of the very people who demonize others on Twitter for using unacceptable terms in the past are the same people who also demonize Christians today. I’ve been combing through Tweets of many of the most outspoken proponents of LGBTQ rights, accusers of Islamophopia, and other anti-bigotry leaders. In many cases, these people who are against bigotry demonstrate their own bigotry towards the Judeo-Christian faiths without being big news stories.

I’m not posting the Tweets here. I will not participate in whataboutism, nor do I condone using someone’s past Tweets to highlight their alleged bigotry. There’s a difference between the militant and inexcusable posts by people like Louis Farrakhan and the posts be people like Murray, Hart, or the anti-Christian posts of their detractors. They might see it as okay to demonize people like Hart and Murray for their Tweets, but I will not participate in Twitter witch hunts on the opposite end of the spectrum. Both practices are wrong.

So the question really isn’t about when we start calling out anti-Christian Tweets. It’s about why we should openly debate each other’s perspectives without being condemned for our own perspectives. If someone Tweets something against the Judeo-Christian faith, I wouldn’t expect the Oscars to ban them from being their host. I would see it as an opportunity to share my own perspectives and hopefully show some who are against my faith that there’s something worth exploring.

Today, if you Tweet something deemed unacceptable by the LGBTQ community, you’re in jeopardy of losing much. If you Tweet something against the Judeo-Christian faiths, the left sees it as acceptable. Social media is the most hypocritical medium around.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

9 discoveries that confirm the Bible

Published

on

9 discoveries that confirm the Bible

In this extremely interesting short video detailing archaeological discoveries that confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible, the folks at World Video Bible School highlight some amazing evidence. I don’t know much about WVBS, but I can endorse this video itself.

Here’s the first of the 9 discoveries:

The Pilate Inscriptions

In 1961 in an Italian sponsored dig in Caesarea, archaeologists uncovered a stone that had a Latin inscription on it that said “Pontius Pilatus… prefect of Judea.” That Pilate is mentioned in the Gospel accounts on several occasions. You read in John 18:29:

Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

The find verifying the New Testament statement that Pilate was the prefect of Judea.

8 more

All of these discoveries are proper, indisputable archaeological finds. It’s one thing to contest the Bible’s authenticity as the Word of God, though its very presence and the takeaways we can draw from it point the faithful to the truth. However, claiming it as being historically wrong is being debunked regularly.

The authenticity of the Bible as a historical document is no longer a valid argument against it. As more archaeological evidence points to its physical truths, so too should its words and lessons be completely trustworthy to those seeking the truth.

 

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report