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.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Culture and Religion

The Bible Project: The new humanity

Published

on

The Bible Project The new humanity

Nothing can replace reading the Bible, praying, and living our lives by the lessons we learn from both. There are resources available that should not act as replacements but that can often help us to understand what we learn in the Bible through simplification and analysis. One such resource is The Bible Project, a series of videos that discusses complex aspects of the Bible in layman’s terms.

Their latest video is almost too simple, but in a world that is growing increasingly antagonistic towards Christian teachings, it is a benefit that can help those new to the Bible or possibly confused by its lessons to understand arguably the most important: Why Jesus walked the earth in the first place. This is straightforward to many Christians, but others have a hard time comprehending the purpose of His life, death, and resurrection outside of the basic and repeated concept that we needed Him to die for our sins.

The resurrection represented a new beginning, one in which a man who was broken and killed because of the sins of others would be redeemed and thereby redeem us in the process. It also gives us the hope of our own new beginning, our rebirth into the faith and the transformation believers are promised. It’s a beautiful story that is too-often framed by non-believers as unfair. To the anti-Biblical mind, fairness is the only thing that matters, and the whole story seems to unfair to be believed. Only the Holy Spirit can change the hearts and minds of those who refuse to see the truth.

We are promised a gift of a transformed, eternal life as long as we believe. This is easier than some think, as the faith required to appreciate our Lord’s sacrifice is within all of our grasps.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The far-left hates liberty. Isn’t it time to stop praising them as being liberal? Part II

Published

on

By

The far-left hates liberty Isnt it time to stop praising them as being liberal Part II

If we want to defeat socialism and Conserve Liberty, we have to stop using the reality defying language of the Left.

Bernie Sanders recently gave a speech inverting reality to redefine socialism. It was replete with some modernized versions of the tired old tropes of the Communist Manifesto. But the key part included some absurd assertions on Liberty that would have made a younger version of George Orwell proud.

Apparently no one can be ‘free’ unless they have a claim on the time, labor and property of others in society. In the Orwellian mindset of Bernie Sanders and others of the national socialist Left, Liberty means that you should be ‘free’.. to enslave others. No word on whether the people forced to provide their time, labor and property to Bernie voters that are ‘free’.

It is a fact that every living being from bacteria to Brontosauri has had to exert effort in order to survive. However, the Leftist mindset sees an opportunity to control every aspect of everyone’s life in trying to alter this essential fact of life. For if they can assert that every individual has a collective obligation to society at large, they get to enforce that obligation, since they consider themselves to the moral superiors of everyone else. They know this because they are the moral superiors of everyone else.

In this inversion of Liberty from the Left, freedom means that you should be provided with free healthcare, free housing, free college, free food, free childcare and just about any free benefit they can conjure up. Never mind that there isn’t enough money to provide all of these ‘freedoms’ or that the people forced to provide them could hardly be considered to be ‘free’. We’re also to forget about the fact that these ancient ideas run contrary to human nature and that they have never worked in the 400 years that this ‘social’ experiment has been run.

Part I of this series proved that the Far-Left has become the enemy of Liberty while they use labels that falsely imply the polar opposite. Even though Leftists have become increasingly hostile to freedom and basic reality, they still falsely claim to be ‘Liberal’. Part II will present the case for a two-step approach in rhetorically cutting them off at the kneecaps in depriving them of this deception.

The Orwellian language of the enemies of Liberty on the Left.

Ideas are conveyed and considered through the shorthand of language. A positive word connotes a positive thought or feeling on a particular issue, while a negative word has the opposite effect. If Leftists are good at anything, it’s in word selection and exploitation. It’s the reason they put so much effort in trying to control free speech and dictating the terms of debate.

This is why it is imperative that we of the Pro-Liberty Right avoid being trapped into using the language of the Socialist-Left, debating the issues on their terms. This unnecessarily places us in an immediate disadvantage when it’s just a question of choosing the proper words and having the discipline to use them properly.

Eleutheros to Libertas.

There is a reason the Left loves to exploit the derivatives certain ancient words. The first has its origins in Greek: free (liberated), unbound (unshackled); (figuratively) free to realize one’s destiny in Christ.

The second is a derivative of the first, howbeit the etymology is somewhat murky. The second is the Roman personification of Liberty and freedom. The ancient term Libertas has a number of positive and similar sounding derivatives with the two-syllable ‘liber’ common to the words Liberation, Liberty and Liberal.

Each of these three derivatives convey the positive idea of being unbound and free from restraint. When used by the Far-Left this runs contrary to their true meaning because their socialist ideology has the opposite effect, the assertions of Bernie ‘we must be free to enslave others’ Sanders notwithstanding.

Leftists love thinking of themselves a ‘Liberators’ or the vaunted protectors of Liberty, but it is their incessant use of the term Liberal that needs to be corrected. Far too many people wrongly associate socialistic slavery with this contrary term. While many falsely apply some sort of post-modernism ideas to the term, it cannot be denied that Liberal connotes the same positive ideas of freedom as the words Liberty and Liberator. Many associate the real enslavement of society with being Liberal and by extension Liberty and Liberation to the point that the media contradictorily uses the term to refer to socialism.

Defeating the Socialist-Left by depriving them of their false labeling.

Defeating the Leftists on this subject is just a two-step process of taking back the word and having the discipline to use Leftist instead of Liberal. Then it’s just a question of rhetorically pounding Leftists as being hypocrites in trying to sell socialistic slavery as ‘Liberation’ or ‘Liberty’.

We have already made the point that true Liberals belong on the right side of the political spectrum here, here, and here. The fact is, the Conservative-Right side is represented in the Liberal party in Australia. Consider the through the looking-glass mindset of the Left characterizing a win of the Australian Liberal party entitled as ‘How Liberalism Loses’ taking note that they scrupulously avoid using the actual name of the Liberal party in Australia.

Why it is extremely important to use the term Leftist instead of Liberal.

It should be an easy fix to the situation, given that both words start with the same letter and have the same length. It’s just a matter of understanding the vast difference in the meaning of the two words and why we all need to have the discipline to just use Leftist in referring to those people.

Those using the term Liberal when referring to the Left are complicit in perpetrating their deception on who they are. Leftists don’t consider Liberal to be a pejorative. They smile when we use the odd phrases such as ‘Owning the Libs’ because that reinforces their supposed ‘Liberal’ street cred. The same holds true for any variation of terms that have a ‘Lib’ portion.

The Word Salad approach to labeling the Left.

While many understood the logic in this effort, there are still some on the Conservative-Right that still use a ‘Word Salad’ approach when referring to the Left. They will begin using Leftist and switch to Liberal at some point, followed by the term Progressive in another instance, then perhaps switching back to Leftist in another.

No one is really impressed by the undisciplined use of these terms, there really is no point in continuing the practice. One word is sufficient, the Far-Left has no qualms about using the term ‘Far-right’ in referring to the Pro-Liberty side of the aisle. This refers back to one of the Left’s biggest lies: that the Nazis weren’t socialists. But that doesn’t stop them from trying to reinforce that lie at every opportunity where up is down and Left is Right – meaning a socialist workers’ party of the Left is somehow of the ‘Far-Right’.

It is time to fight back on this front instead of conceding the language of the Left, it is how they lie about who they are and what we are. It is how they deceive people who are unaware of their true nature.

The Takeaway.

The Socialist-Left revels in being ‘Liberators’, the defenders of Liberty and of course as being Liberal.
Those positive sounding attributes belong to the Conservative-Right, that why it is important to use the correct word.

Using Leftist instead of Liberal takes away one of the Left’s biggest deceptions, why wouldn’t anyone follow that advice?

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

There are still 10 Commandments even if most Christians only believe in 9

Published

on

There are still 10 Commandments even if most Christians only believe in 9

If you ask an average evangelical Christian if they believe in the 10 Commandments, most say yes. In fact, a majority of Americans believe nine of the ten Commandments are still important today. Only one commandment in a poll last year was accepted by less than half of Americans. Only 49% believe keeping the sabbath day holy still applies.

But the Bible is very explicit about the Commandments. From Genesis to Exodus, the sabbath is mentioned as being kept, including by post-resurrection Christian leaders like Peter and Paul. Nothing in the Bible indicates it has changed. In fact, it was the actions of men attempting to claim the Christian faith as their own and merging it with the pagan religions of their day that prompted a change to Sunday as the day of worship. It wasn’t by decree from a prophet of God. It was men trying to make things easier to rule their people who decided to change times and laws.

The Bible is unambiguous. In Exodus 20:

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Now is not the time to debate misinterpretations of Paul’s teachings, the ones most often pointed to when pastors and Christian scholars try to justify their acceptance of the anti-Biblical change in both scope and details surrounding the permanent law of God laid forth for all men and for all time in the 10 Commandments. I’ll leave a video below from 119 Ministries that goes into the details and offers a scriptural basis for keeping the sabbath. I do not believe in all of their conclusions, but it’s a great reference nonetheless.

For now, I’d prefer to appeal to logic. Before Jesus Christ died, after His resurrection, and any time He has appeared in the Bible, neither He nor anyone else talks about moving the sabbath. I’ve heard Bible scholars infer that it was changed to somehow represent His rising and the changes that happened in the world as a result, but that does not explain why the sabbath was kept by Christians throughout the early days of the church even after His death. Historians and the Bible all agree that those who were closest to Jesus continued to keep the sabbath.

It takes a tremendous amount of eisegesis to work that change into the Bible somehow. Moreover, it completely ignores historical records that show why the leaders in the 3rd century changed the day of worship to match with the pagan day of worship, Sunday, and to separate themselves from any attachment to the non-believing Hebrews.

The Bible tells us to keep the sabbath. At no point does it tell us to stop keeping the sabbath. Instead of listening to the traditions of men who were appeasing pagans, why don’t more Christians trust the Word of God?

Here’s the video:

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending