- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostThe Only Way and Our Only Hope
- Next Post »Free Stuff Fridays
A La Carte (3/11)
- 03/11/11
- 16
I’m on the way to South Carolina to speak at one of the Psalm 119 conferences on discernment. I’m looking forward to spend time with guys like Todd Friel and Trevin Wax. And of course, sharing a couple of messages on why to be discerning and how to be discerning well.
The Prince of Wales and John 14 - “Prince Charles has read from John chapter 14 as part of an online version of the King James Bible. The idea is the brainchild of the King James Bible Trust and is the latest event to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the translation.”
How to Have a Good Argument - Yes, it’s another article about Rob Bell. But skip to the second half of the article and this blogger has some good things to say about a good argument.
100 Shares - It was 25 years ago that Microsoft went public. Here’s an article about what you’d be sitting on if you had been one of the buyers.
Shedding the Spines - Sometimes evolution pretty much parodies itself. “Genetic comparison with chimps suggests that losing chunks of DNA - including one associated with penis spines and facial whiskers - played a crucial role in making us human.” Seriously?
Kids and the Bible - Erik writes about how he helps his children read and understand the Bible.
iPad 2 - Daring Fireball, the source for Apple news and reviews, gives his take on the iPad 2.
Planned Parenthood - This is a horrible video, but that’s kind of the point. (HT:Z)
The truly wise man is he who always believes the Bible against the opinion of any man. —R.A. Torrey
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (16)
Interesting passage for Charlie to read, given that he denies the truth it teaches about the exclusivity of Christ, desiring to be titled “defender of faith” when he becomes king, rather than “defender of THE faith”.
That ad about Planned Parenthood is genius….so horrific but so true. We are praying they will stop receiving government money! Groups like “Live Action” have been so instrumental in getting all the wicked activities of PP out into the public eye!
I’m curious as to why you’d assert that the research outlined in that article is a parody of itself. Seems like careful and rigorous work to me.
Writing it off like that, with one glib statement, makes me think that you’d prefer to just avoid engaging with it.
Of course, true engagement would take a fair amount of biological study on your part, so perhaps glib assertions are easier.
Once I saw the doctor placing the bunny in the blender, I couldn’t bear to watch the rest of it. Please tell me that this was not real!
Lauren, right before you stopped it, the screen goes black and they only show text.
Lauren,
I think the point is that people should not want to look…but don’t get hung up on the bunny! Think about the BABIES!!!:)
The video conveniently omits the fact that tax money given to PP is prohibited from funding abortions. There are still plenty of reasons to cut it off anyway, but I’m not convinced doing so would reduce the number of abortions they provide, which is the clear connection the video’s producers are hoping the viewer makes.
Side note on Rob Bell, this quote:
People come to Jesus in all sorts of ways. Sometimes people use his name; other times they don’t.
Seems to match up with what C.S. Lewis suggested (allegorically) in the last few pages of The Last Battle. Anybody know if he (Lewis) ever explicitly supported or denied what the book implied? If he didn’t, it seems inconsistent of evangelicals to be so ready to reject Bell while still lionizing Lewis. On the other hand, to my knowledge Lewis never rejected the idea of hell, so that would distinguish him from Bell.
The video conveniently omits the fact that tax money given to PP is prohibited from funding abortions.
Probably because it’s irrelevant.
Suppose PP has a budget of $10, 50% of which is designated for abortions. Then, PP receives an additional $10, but is prohibited from spending it on abortions. Maintaining the original budget, the funding for abortion funding just doubled to $10. PP can even drop the % designated for abortions and still increase the $$ spent on abortions.
You can adjust those hypotheticals any way you want, and PP still gets more $$ to spend any way it wants.
Do you think PP would perform significantly fewer abortions if it didn’t receive Title X money? I don’t. In order for its removal to have that effect, its presence would need to be significantly depressing the price PP charges for abortions.
No, I don’t, either. But at least I wouldn’t be paying for it.
Let me refine the question a bit then. Do you think PP would start charging more for abortions if the Title X funds were yanked?
Do you think PP would start charging more for abortions if the Title X funds were yanked?
One could assume so, but that might depend on additional factors. If providing abortions is high enough in priority — and I think it is obviously very high — they would do all they could to avoid raising the price. They might cut costs in other areas and raise prices for other services. PP is driven by ideology, not profit, and I believe it would rather do anything than reduce the ease of acquiring an abortion.
Still, less $$ quite likely would force cuts that might close some PP locations, making abortions more difficult, or even impossible, for some to acquire. So I guess I do think no taxpayer funding might cut abortion numbers. But those are just pragmatic considerations. I cannot, in good conscience, pay for an abortion, nor should I be forced to pay for anything PP does.
What is your point, anyway? You began by saying taxpayer $$ can’t be used to fund abortions. In reality, they are, if indirectly. That’s wrong, period, no matter how I answer any of these other questions.
My point is that if removing Title X funding doesn’t result in fewer abortions then it isn’t actually supporting abortions. It’s supporting all the other stuff PP does that it would have to cut in order to keep providing abortions in the absence of Title X. So the video strikes me as somewhat disingenuous.
And I refer back to my first comment (#9). All PP support funds abortion. The separation between abortion-prohibited funding and general funding is, for practical purposes, artificial.
“All PP support funds abortion.”
That statement only seems true if removing the funds would result in fewer abortions. If you yank the funds and abortions stay the same, but they stop offering “all the other stuff”, then one could reasonably argue that the Title X money wasn’t funding abortions.