Refuting The Priests of Molech

I’m sure many of you reading this have noticed that there are a few recurring themes in the coverage of the Planned Parenthood fiasco.  This post is an attempt to deal with those themes and show you how to respond to them. These are the major categories:

1) It’s a Hoax
2) The video was edited
3) The means were dishonest
4) Look at all the good we do, and those horrible people over there want to take that away!

There are major issues with each of these, but we’ll give examples of each, so you can see how they work.

It’s a Hoax:

You may also see ‘bogus,” “fraudulent”, or some other derogatory term applied.  The key to this application is an equivocation on the synonym they choose to use.  A “hoax” could mean a) something made up out of whole cloth – an invention or b) something established or accepted by means of something fraudulent, or bogus – something factual, but established by means of something dishonest.  In other words, they are using the term(s) to imply that the videos are inventions – that it wasn’t really their people talking, saying what they did say, about the subjects that they were speaking of – but not actually saying so. What they aren’t going to come out and say is that the full, unedited videos – raw videos, of the entire encounters, from start to finish – have full transcripts, bolded where the shorter videos take their footage from.  You can watch for yourself.  Full Video 1 Full Video 2 Full Video 4 As of this posting, the full video of the 4th release had not been posted, although the transcript had been. The 3rd video was not an “undercover” video.

If these were inventions of CMP; Why would Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards apologize for the tone of Deborah Nucatola, the PP representative in the first video? Is she an invention? Is Mary Gatter an invention?  Why would Cecile, again, say that the videos “entrapped doctors” – if they were fakes? If they were CGI creations, or overdubbed, with special effects used to make the mouths move, why would she bother saying these things?

UPDATE: White House press secretary on videos –

“There is ample reason to think that this is the tried-and-true tactic from some extremists on the right to edit this video and selectively release an edited version of the video that grossly distorts the position of the person who is actually speaking on the video

Notice – this is not CGI, not overdubbing, not tampering, in regard to the originals. Watch the frame counter in the top left. Watch for skips, jumps – signs of editing. Not there. If they were, in fact, fake, would there be calls (preposterous ones) for investigation into the legality of the means by which the videos were obtained? No. They would be… fictional movies. Which have no possible question as to how they were “obtained.” Do they?  You have to pick one story, or the other – you can’t have it both ways.

Of course, he also admitted to not having watched the videos – and that he was “merely repeating what has been publicly stated by Planned Parenthood.”  Well, that’s nice to know. Now we know you have an utterly one-sided conception of the situation, don’t we?

If you never get around to watching the videos, and you just take people’s word on it, use of terminology such as this implies that the videos are forgeries – that they are not real.  Yet, of course, they are.  Many of us have watched them – and I recommend that you do, if you intend to get into discussions on this topic – because most people you talk to will not have done so.  When this occurs, you can, with utmost assurance, inform your interlocutor that you have, in fact, watched the full video. Have they done so, in order to have an informed opinion?  Odds are, they haven’t – and probably haven’t watched the shorter one, either.

Secondly, if these were really inventions, why on earth would someone invent them dancing around the issues, euphemistically describing processes, using double-speak platitudes, assuring the “buyers” that they would never do anything against the law, skirting the edges of the acceptable, and the like?  In truth, the very arguments that they are using in the “edited” claims militate against the claims that this is a “hoax”. How hard would it be, in this day and age, to make a video that made “her” say whatever they wanted her to say?  The very slippery nature of the conversation militates against it being a hoax of the sort it is being portrayed to be.

In short, this is use of deceptive language – intentional obfuscation.  I used “equivocation” above, because that is an informal logical fallacy.  It is one thing when your pal next door uses one.  It is another thing when professional speakers or writers do so.  They know very well what is fallacious, and what is not. They also know that fallacies will almost definitely succeed in persuasion when cogent argumentation will not – for enough people to make it worth their while, at least.  For such people, it is an intentional deception. They know better. They do it anyway, with a particular goal in mindto convince enough people that what they say is true to give a counter-opinion traction in society.

The Video Was Edited:

Here’s an example from Media Matters;

A deceptive video from a conservative group purports to show a Planned Parenthood official discussing prices for the illegal sale of fetal tissue from abortions. But the full, unedited footage and transcript released by the group (emphasis mine) undermines their sensationalist claims, showing at least three crucial edits that reveal the Planned Parenthood official was instead discussing the reimbursement cost for consensual, legal tissue donations.

On the other hand, we have Snopes saying this:

In addition to the above-displayed video, the Center for Medical Progress also released what they claimed was an unedited version of the conversation (which other sources maintain was in fact edited).

So, which is it? The Media Matters article clearly states that the full video is unedited – and uses their transcript!  Snopes says that this MM article maintains that is “was in fact edited.”

As to Media Matters’ claims, you should note several things.  First, if their intent was to deceive, why release the full, unedited video, with transcript, simultaneously with the “edited” video?  They did an exceptionally poor job of deception, if so.  If Snopes is right, why didn’t Media Matters ever say what Snopes says it does, instead of using the “full, unedited” video transcript to “prove” their point?  Media Matters claims that Nucotola’s insistence that “nobody should be “selling” tissue” means that nobody is selling tissue.  Ought does not make is.  The problem is, with an investigation like this, you’re not going to get someone to come right out and say what it is they are doing.  Not unless they are utterly braindead. Again, if this is true, however – why is StemExpress, who is brought up in both videos by the nominal buyer, advertising profitability for partnering clinics?  “Financially profitable” – “Fiscal growth.”  Richards’ reply in her Sunday interview was: “That’s a for-profit company. Planned parenthood is a 100% nonprofit company.” You just completely dodged that question, Cecile. The brochure isn’t talking about their profitability – but your profitability.  One of your management team is the endorsement on the flyer, too. Who else is StemExpress talking to?  The “donors”?  Furthermore, why does ABR inform their partners of a nominal fee – in addition to, note the word “also” – the fee for processing/preservation/shipment? The first fee is for the clinic to “enable ABR to execute its tissue acquisition and distribution programs.”  This is not a fee for the latter “service.”

Again, we can read the transcript as well as anyone.  We know what is being said. The problem is whether we should believe it to be the unvarnished truth passing from their lips.  There is an entire discussion about the costs involved with “waste disposal”, and the merits of whether or not to buy incinerators.  There is a mention of “disposal service,” and the pros and cons of such a practice – and Nucatola mentions that disposing of “everything” would be “a huge sell, a huge, huge sell.” Would that not be a financial consideration? Then, of course, there is the Lambo comment.  Also, we must realize, these were not the last videos.  Both professionals showed a keen awareness of their place in the fishbowl of public opinion.  As such, they would naturally be wary of saying anything explictly illegal to a mere potential business associate at a first meeting.  All the talk about “deceptive editing” concentrates on the “virtuous” statements that PP has no intention of breaking the law.  What else would you expect to hear?  When you cover politicians, do you take them at their word?  If so, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona…

I hate to break it to you, but every documentary is edited. Just about every interview you see on tv is edited.  John Stewart? Edited. That’s what you do with video when you want to show something in particular.  If I can be even more clear – the author, and his fellow contributors here are not most interested in whether or not Planned Parenthood violated the laws that CMP say they did.  What they are interested in is the utter, callous, brutal disregard for the life and humanity of the babies they murder, and arrange the murder of.

The full, unedited video of the entire exchanges were put on YouTube within 30 seconds, at most, of the edited ones.  You ever see blooper reels? The unedited, without special effects video of movies, tv shows, documentaries, or the like?  The “cut” footage that gets discovered years later, that everyone makes a bit deal about finding, after it being lost?  In this case, they are posting the raw footage right alongside the short exchanges they consider most important.

1) The “edits” are not what have us outraged, upset, or calling for Planned Parenthood’s defunding, closure, or what have you.  What has us outraged is the sheer unmitigated depravity of the Planned Parenthood representatives.  It is truly sick to be talking about dismembering children over wine and salad.  It is filthy and demented to joke about wanting a Lamborghini right after you say you will check to see if someone else is getting more than the quoted reimbursement – for the eviscerated leavings (acquired by “less crunchy” means) of what was formerly a living child – just like our children.

2) As I am sure you can attest, the ones MOST outraged are the ones who have watched the unedited video.  Almost entirely without exception.  I know, personally, because we follow a rather large percentage of the folks who have been most outraged by this issue.  Contrary to the utter lack of mention by the New York Times in their fluff piece of July 22nd, lots and lots of us have watched the full version.  As Jonathan Merritt puts it in his article concerning the NYT story –

The Times also claimed the video was unreliable because it was “edited.” They are correct that the full video was nearly three hours long while the edited version was only nine minutes. So what? These comments in the longer version do not invalidate those in the shorter version. While editorial board hopes to convince readers that The Center for Medical Progress was deliberately only telling part of the story, but they fail to mention that the full video was also posted online and available. So who is withholding information here? And, by the way, the full video is just as repulsive as the shorter version. In fact, it’s about two hours and 50 minutes more repulsive.

As he goes on to say, all of these pieces completely ignore the real issues that we have with the video.  It addresses only the concerns that their own camp might have with the video.

The most embarrassing part of the Times article, though, is not what they say but what they do not say. The editorial board totally ignores the most disturbing content in the videos. Actually, they ignore the content of the videos almost completely. None of the quotes at the center of the outrage are discussed.

You’ll find no mention of how a Planned Parenthood doctor determines which parts of the baby to “crush” In the Times article. You won’t encounter information about how a Planned Parenthood physician discussed using a “less crunchy” technique to retrieve “whole specimens.” And you definitely won’t read about how the Planned Parenthood doctor attempted to negotiate a higher price for tissue because she claims she wanted “a Lamborghini.” These are the most damning components in the videos, but the editorial board’s article never even mention them.The Times did not merely get the Planned Parenthood story wrong; they missed it completely.

Those parts that we are upset with are *exactly the same* in the full-length videos.  In fact, seeing the banality of the context and conversation surrounding such utterly horrendous description of dismembering, crushing, suctioning brains out of children just like ours – for more money than they already receive for such a filthy and disgusting murder of the most defenseless members of our society makes us about as angry as listening to Jeffery Dahmer speak in a monotone about his own murders. Yes, we put these people in the _exact_ same category as serial killers.  We put Planned Parenthood in the same category as the Nazi death camps, too – except Planned Parenthood’s body count is far, far higher.

Strategy Sessions:

How can we we push about these allegations of “deceptively edited” videos?

First, push the basis of their claim of “deception.”  What do they mean by that? The vast majority of their claims go out the airlock as soon as we note that the full raw video was released simultaneously.  Were they edited?  Sure. How else can you condense 2 hours of footage into an 8 or 9 minute video?  Did it show the most damning portions of the conversations?  Of course they did!  Why else did they make the videos, and engage in this project?  What we need to ask them is this: If there was intent to deceive, why did they release the full video and transcripts of the entire encounter simultaneously with this “deceptively edited” version? Why, if it is so deceptive, are reporters defending Planned Parenthood citing the transcript as if it is accurate? Again, the transcript provided by the “deceptive” editors.

Second, push the conflicting accounts from their sources.  New York Times says that the full videos weren’t released until later. That is not true – and is still not corrected in their initial piece,  or the following editorial – with no correction or apology issued to date.  Snopes says that Media Matters says that the full videos were edited.  Snopes apparently can’t read – because Media Matters says no such thing.

Third, push the spin coming out of Planned Parenthood, and point out that the “deception” involved in “editing” the comments of their own staff seems to be coming from their side.  Look, when even George Stephanopolous asks the question: “When these doctor are talking about less crunchy ways to perform these abortions so that the organs can be preserved, what’s happening, are they just lying?” and Richards response is: “All of this is taken out of context.” – it’s obvious that is not an answer.  She flat out evades that question.  Here is the context, from the transcript.

Buyer: Definitely, yea that would be helpful. So even though you don’t have high volume, I see that their are other niches you could fill for us. Don’t you think so?

Gatter: Here is my suggestion. Write me a three of four paragraph proposal, which I will then take to Laurel and the organization to see if we want to proceed with this. And then, if we want to pursue this, mutually, I talk to Ian and see how he feels about using a “less crunchy” technique to get more whole specimens. Then, if we agree to move forward, the steps, I would need to apply for a waiver at PPFA, in order to do this, we need to have a contract, do you have a contract?

Buyer: What we’ve used in the past is a materials transfer agreement. And obviously, that’s open to discussion.

“Less crunchy” is the term Gatter uses, without prompting, in the middle of her own suggestion. It is her description of how to get more useful specimens.  This is Richards’ only reply to the question actually asked.  The rest of the response is a lecture about how we must obviously hate science.

Right after, and I’m not sure whether George is making a dig that she doesn’t get, or just as clueless as she is – but he prompts Richards; “As long as the procedures are never altered” – her response; “Exactly.”  Now, if there is no change; what is the word “less” in Gatter’s description for?

From the transcript, again.

Buyer: The intact specimens, I wanted to touch on that. What I was trying to say is if the 10 to 12 week specimens, end of the 1st trimester, if those are pretty intact specimens, that’s something we can work with.

Gatter: So that’s an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem, which may not be a big problem, if our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient,“We’re not doing anything different in our care of you.” Now to me, that’s kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn’t object to asking Ian, who’s our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen, but I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing something and we’re signing something saying that we’re not changing anything with the way we’re managing you, just because we agree to give tissue. You’ve heard that before.

Buyer: Yes. It’s touchy. How do you feel about that?

Gatter: I think they’re both totally appropriate techniques, there’s no difference in pain involved, I don’t think the patients would care one iota. So yeah, I’m not making a fuss about that.

So, whether or not Gatter thinks the argument is specious – are the procedures altered? Gatter says yes, but that it doesn’t matter, in a pragmatic sense.  Richards says no, absolutely nothing changes – and then throws a bunch of dust in the air.  Hmm.  Who is editing what?

How can we push them on their own moral ambiguity?

First, stress that there is a legal concern, and a moral concern.  The legal concern is not the primary moral concern. It is ancillary to the moral concern.  It would not, could not be a concern apart from the primary moral concern.  That moral concern is what brought us all out swinging, so to speak.

Second, stress that their questionable use of “deceptive” is a very thin straw to hang their whole case on.  It is by no means obvious that the repeated assertion that Planned Parenthood is uninterested in profiting from, “tissue” that is donated to it has anything to do with whether they are selling it, and just investing the dividends in their own company, or employees – which a non-profit can do, and still not be a for-profit concern. That thought makes the Lambo comment a bit more pointed, doesn’t it?  Ignoring the counter-arguments made to demonstrate that there is financial gain involved by insisting that you are a non-profit only looks evasive. Freely acknowledge that there are ambiguities in the discussion- by the very nature of the discussion involved – but that such ambiguities do not lie squarely in our laps, but need to be thoroughly investigated. After all, a politician will always insist that he’s only accepting campaign contributions even when his vote is being bought – won’t he?

Third, stress the discontinuity between consensual donation of your own tissue vs. the donation of someone else’s tissue. Yes, they will complain about “begging the question” – but that merely opens them up to a return charge, on exactly the same grounds.  We aren’t talking about two-headed, four-legged women here. It must also be discussed that part of the law they are so busily engaged in saying Planned Parenthood didn’t violate is to ensure that women don’t have babies specifically to “donate” them. The law itself says that it is illegal to “solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue.” (42 U.S. Code § 289g–2)  If this is the case, what are the implications for the fetus-is-part-of-the-woman argument? Explore them.

Fourth, don’t concede the euphemisms.  Their entire virtuous certainty about the rightness of their cause is enveloped in their ability to use euphemisms for each and every stage of the murder and dismemberment of a human being.  What the fourth video did is blow the lid off of the people they are claiming to “protect” – the workers in the clinic use the terms baby, boy, etc. In other words, the only ones duped by these euphemisms are the supporters of Planned Parenthood. Scientists don’t use those terms, medical professionals don’t use those terms, and neither do the abortionists, while working at their grisly trade. They will get upset, but I’m not really overly sympathetic to objections on those grounds.  Take care not to be needlessly combative if you learn that they are themselves the living victim of an abortion – but also keep in mind that they had their own child killed.  God forgives even murderers – but they have to admit they are murderers, and repent.

The Means Were Dishonest:

So were Rahab’s. So were Moses’ and Joshua’s, for that matter. So were the Hebrew midwives’. So were Samuel’s. So were Jesus’ – twice.  So were Nathan’s. The Village Atheist, at this point, is going to be screaming YESSSSSSSSS! At the top of his lungs, no doubt.  However, as we know, they have the exegetical skills of mouldering jello – so we will leave them to their celebratory interpretive dance, while we talk about the real issue at hand.

Richards said, and I quote here, I’m not making thus up, that “the most disgusting the part of this to me is these folks lied, lied to gain access to clinics, you know, what doctors and clinicians face to actually provide health care to women in this country is already pretty incredible.”  Yes, because, of course, it’s really a right-wing conspiracy to deprive people of pap smears. Because we hate women. Obviously. Despite a goodly percentage of the people up in arms at her right now being women.  What she can’t say, and won’t say, is that she very well knows precisely why they engaged in such subterfuge. Because we think they are genocidal monsters who slaughter children like Hitler slaughtered Jews – and call it healthcare – precisely so that they can lump it in with their sideline of legitimate “health care for women” – and call us all mean names for it.  We get it.  Thanks. Got the memo.

 

Further, challenge them on this sudden concern for the morality of the means involved.  They didn’t seem to care about the morality of a Kermit Gosnell, who pickled baby’s feet as trophies – they weren’t concerned about the “extreme violation of patient privacy” inherent in retention of “post-abortion fetal tissue neither patients nor health care professionals authorized” then, were they?  Furthermore, the entire issue is hidden behind Orwellian Newspeak so impenetrable that it ceases to be meaningful language.  For instance, Richards believes that: “every woman needs to make their own decision” about when life begins. “For me, life began when I delivered them.”  Again and again I have seen people, with no citations whatsoever, deride our counter to that as “anti-science”.  Really?

See that? The first two are textbooks. The last one is a hostile ethicist, who argues that post-partum infanticide is equally ethical. “Human” is short for “human being”. It is an ontological category, as can be discerned from the word “being”. We don’t say, however, that we are “having a fetus”, as Joe Carter bitingly suggests Planned Parenthood supporters do, for the sake of consistency. They say, of course, “we’re having a baby.” Why, if the child is unwanted, does that child’s status suddenly become unclear? Are ontological categories suddenly subjectivistic? I thought our world was thoroughgoingly materialistic?  It happens because this materialism that the world is so proud to display goes utterly by the board when it comes to any subject which is inconvenient for their materialism.  Then, we switch categories to something that is a “personal choice”.  Of course, challenges to that “personal choice” mysteriously become… anti-science.  Imagine that.  Pay no attention to the immaterialist behind the curtain, Dorothy.

For further reading, two important posts: Spies and Lies and The Ethics of Righteous Video Sting Operations

Strategy Sessions:

Challenge them about their ethical priorities.  There is an absolute antithesis between our moral codes in view, at this precise point.

First example: As the LA Times points out, there is a huge outcry over the trophy hunting of an African lion named Cecil – simultaneous with the (primarily) Judeo-Christian outrage over selling baby parts.  I’m sure you have seen comparisons posted everywhere.  While the LA Times author sees a point to compromise on here – it is because he doesn’t know why, exactly, we’re outraged.  To some extent, that is because most secularists tend to read the more politicized (and therefore, in general, less theological) sources on the “right.”  Another reason is that we often don’t express theological tenets in ways that “outsiders” understand to be such.  Our shorthand references are, in many ways, a mystery to them.  Also, sadly, many simply don’t ever express their theological principles – or don’t have them. They are just “politically” conservative.  The reasons could be multiplied.  This article, however, is written with Christians, and specifically, apologetically minded Christians in mind.

What the LA Times article didn’t cover is that while many of us would disagree about the merits of trophy hunting for sport – this author is not particularly exercised about it either way – we would, for the most part, be disgusted at the virtual depopulation of the African elephant for ivory.  It is a waste, and very commonly cruel, besides.  Also pertinent is the name of one of the founders of the RSPCA – the original SPCA chapter – William Wilberforce.  That name is important, because he was also one of the leaders of the movement for English Abolition of slavery.  We dislike cruelty to animals – first, because they are God’s. We are only caretakers. Secondly, because we were created to care for them!

“For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, And everything that moves in the field is Mine.” – Psa 50:10-11

Or consider this:

“A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But [even] the compassion of the wicked is cruel.” – Pro 12:10

On the other hand, there is a very direct comparison made – by Jesus Himself.

“Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?” – Mat 6:26

We answered the way we did because: a single lion, no matter how badly killed, is not worth as much as a child is, let alone 330,000 of them a year.

“Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made man.” – Gen 9:6

This is not to say that we should have no concern for lions, or forests, or whales, or any number of other areas of our fallen world – but that our chief concern is about those created in the image of God – in Latin, the Imago Dei.

Second Example: Accusations of taking “rights” away from women – coupled with “healthcare” are excellent indicators of where we are mutually opposed.  Abortion – the murder of a human child in the womb – is something that Christians, and the Jews before them, everywhere, always, have opposed.  We opposed it in Rome, we opposed infanticide there, the Scripture was implacable against the deeds of Molech worshippers, who sacrificed their firstborn children in fires.  The replies you will get, when you bring this up, will be the typical EvilBible retorts.  Be ready for them.  However, in addition to that, they have been conditioned to believe a number of preposterous things about what an unborn baby is. Not only that, they have been conditioned to believe a number of preposterous things about what rights are. Further, they have been conditioned to feel an almost superstitious reverence for the “proper” term for something – as long as they were told that this term was “proper” by someone in authority.  Lastly, they have been conditioned to believe a number of preposterous things about what makes something moral, or ethical.

When someone tells you, with a straight face, that a 17 week old baby is a “clump of cells” – they haven’t watched these videos. They haven’t looked at any previous pictures of aborted – or living babies of that age. They haven’t studied even the most rudimentary embryology.  They haven’t studied the most basic ontology. Or they are inveterate liars – or so self-deceived that it beggars the imagination. They are telling you, at that very moment, that they are 1) Lying through their teeth about the subject or 2) Utterly self-deceived, and suppressing that knowledge 3) Utterly pig-ignorant of any relevant field of study.  In a word, they are liars, self-contradictory, or ignorant.

Know how to reply to each sort.  For a liar, cite the medical journals. Make it abundantly clear that they are only in this conversation to justify themselves, and have no interest in the truth. This conversation, on your part, is likely for the sake of the person watching you both. Push them to inconsistency until they break.  For the inconsistent, push them until they won’t hear any more, or admit that they need to be consistent.  Then teach.  For the ignorant – teach.  The ignorant can be just as nasty – sometimes more so – and sometimes you have to rap their knuckles to get their attention – but once you do, and they are listening, teach.

All of the remaining three issues, at base, are really about subjectivism.  They most likely won’t know that they are – but you should.  Are rights objective – or are they subjective?  (At this point, you will likely have to correct misapprehensions about what “objective means” – because nobody reads anymore.)  Do they realize that Exo 21:22-23 are about the rights of the unborn?  If you don’t, you should!  So should they. You aren’t saying anything we have always said.  This new “right” to murder children is nothing new – remember Molech, or Rome – but it is certainly not something our society has considered a right. Where do “rights” come from, anyway?  Push that back.

Are words objective, or subjective?  What “makes” the phrase “product of conception” superior to “baby”?  To “fetus”?  To “clump of cells”? To “tissue”? Do they even know?  Probably not.  Should you? You betcha. Subjectivity in language is something that none of them actually believe, however.  They expect you to understand them, don’t they?  It isn’t about the “facts” – as some neutral, depends on how you think about it subjective gobbledygook.  It is about the meaning of the facts.  They say that “the facts” mean one thing. We say they mean another.  Why? Because they adhere to a particular subjective standard.  They will say that it is objective – but people say a lot of things.  Appealing to science, when it doesn’t agree with you in the slightest, and then turning around and appealing to personal experience – or someone else’s – when that doesn’t work, is nothing but a cadge.  An evasion. It is a shell game.  The euphemisms are intended to sound medical – but as soon as they are pushed to absurdity, the conversation turns to their subjective understanding.  Push those, and unmask the contradiction.

Lastly, who determines what is right?  What is moral about killing babies?  If they object, ask them why it’s wrong to say babies, or killing? Pay attention to their web of appeals – because that will give you the strings to pull to get down to the next level of their worldview – and pull those strings again, and see where they go.  For many, they were simply told that this was how things are.  Unborn babies are clumps of cells, who feel no pain, who aren’t really human, can’t be a person, and whom (note how language works – properly, you have to use a personal pronoun there – interesting, isn’t it?)  are not really alive unless and, until, they deem it so.  Notice the staggering amount of claims involved, and how many things they are simply assuming – with no reason whatsoever to do so.  Push that. Hard.  Every time they appeal to science says, remind them that science is not a monolith – which scientist says?  Counter the claim. Fact, meaning of the fact.  Be relentless – in love, and in patience, but do not relent.  This article is prohibitively long – and I hope to do some more specific responses in the near future – but this is at least a comprehensive overview of the current apologetics issues. Don’t be afraid to dig in. Also don’t be afraid to ask us, or any other knowledgeable Christian on this issue. For many of us, we’ve waited for decades for an opportunity like this, If you want to be engaged, we will do all we can to help.

Look at all the good we do, and those horrible people over there want to take that away!

Item the first – like what? Yes, yes, they are going to shoot us all their little factoids. Cozy little sound bytes about “healthcare for women!”.  The problem is, they provide almost nothing in the way of “healthcare” that any other medical professional would consider as such.

Let’s be very clear here.  What Planned Parenthood, and those like them, are primarily engaged in is genocide on a massive scale; and where 94% of their pregnancy-related contacts end up with abortions.  As a recent ACLJ article noted;

According to Planned Parenthood’s own reporting, we know that they perform 327,653 abortions per year. We can also estimate that they provide services to roughly 4,000 prenatal clients and make only 1,880 adoption referrals per year. When approximately 327,000 of 333,000 pregnant mothers are funneled into abortions, it’s not difficult to determine the business model of Planned Parenthood.

Look, we know that they have a sideline, to make them look like something other than mass-market butchers.  We also know that they pad those numbers artificially in order to make it seem like their sideline is the bottom line.  The problem is, they ARE mass-market butchers – and as long as they are, hiding behind their sideline to cover over the genuine bottom line doesn’t work.  Without the 500 pound gorilla in their business model, they are a peanuts clinic chain that offers very little.  Something that any other clinic chain can replace – and one that any other clinic chain should replace, with non-murderous options.  In fact, if I may be so bold?  That needs to be in our top 5 priorities in this discussion.

What is dishonest is all the smokescreens being thrown up about “denying healthcare to women” – as if the ripple in genuine healthcare would be even noticed.  As an article that Planned Parenthood so conveniently (in our opinion) RTd today reveals, 8 of 10 visits to Planned Parenthood involved contraceptives (including abortifacients, of course, given their perverse stance on the topic) – not “healthcare” in any meaningful sense.

However, let’s pull their fangs.  Offer an alternative they can’t deny – genuine women’s health clinics that actually… minister to women’s health, exactly the thing they are screaming about the potential loss of.  They already exist in many, if not most, of the areas they imply that they are the sole healthcare provider to. Let’s work on getting that word out, doing healthcare the right way – the real way – and doing it better than they do, as anyone must be able to.  Support local clinics, ones who won’t kill babies, will provide healthcare to women, and will connect them to help and services for themselves and their children.

Oh, and if you still aren’t convinced? Here are a bevy of alternative options. Another. Another. Another.

CPCs have one thing in common that Planned Parenthood lacks: a choice architecture that really gives women options, good choices, and doesn’t use our tax dollars to ensure that 94 percent of pregnancy-related contact results in an abortion, as it currently does under the direction of Cecile Richards.

Strategy Sessions:

Don’t let these claims fool you. Push back on them. Don’t let them get away with the “big lie” routine.  Planned Parenthood knows it is lying.  You should inform their supporters, too.  Show the alternatives.  Take apart their infographics.  They don’t have anything that will stand up under scrutiny.  Push that right back at them and show how utterly incredulous they have been to believe such a bunch of nonsense.

The Takeaway:

Planned Parenthood, and their supporters, have precisely nothing in their defense right now.  Nothing whatsoever.  They have a whole lot of experience at making things look the way they want them to look – but the mask was ripped off. Keep them running, keep them on the defensive, and show their pack of lies to be precisely what it is.  This is something we all have to keep at, have to keep momentum going on.  The Big Lie only works if there is nobody to oppose it vigorously and comprehensively.  We must understand that we are dealing with an entire nation of self-deceived people.  An entire nation of people illiterate about the most basic fundamentals of the human condition. We must teach as much as we refute.  We must strongly condemn this atrocity, while speaking that truth of condemnation in love.  His grace is sufficient for us.  He will give us the words to say, when the time comes.  In the meantime, get ready, and always be ready to give a defense for the faith – and a defense for the defenseless.


A Carnival of Faulty Planned Parenthood Rebuttals

So, you’ve probably seen, or at least heard of the Planned Parenthood videos by now, right?  Sure you have.  I’m also sure you’ve seen the storms of controversy flying around them, too.

It’s a Hoax: By now, I’m sure you’ve seen the absolute avalanche of stories with “hoax” in the title, the lede, or tucked conspicuously into a significant paragraph.  Right?  Watch. Click this.

Now, your first thought is going to be “Man, EVERYONE is calling it a hoax!”  Why not? A bunch of the big names you read seem to be on that list!  Well, first off, that is an argumentum ad populum – an informal fallacy which appeals to the popularity of something as the determiner of the truth of it.  That isn’t a kosher appeal.

Okay, you say, but you don’t accept that – fine, watch this.  As I’m sure you’ve noticed, there are a lot more people outraged in your personal circle about this issue than there are defending Planned Parenthood.  Unless you live in a really little bubble, of course.  It has trended on Twitter and Facebook for over week now.  It really isn’t especially surprising.  Again, however, as I say, that’s hardly the reason something is true or false.  It isn’t a hoax video.

Why?

1) Cecile Richards apologized for the “tone” of Dr. Deborah Nucatola in the first video.  If it was a hoax – why apologize for the tone of a hoax? A fraud?  That was really her saying those very things everyone is outraged about.  If I can offer one more word of advice, too – the outrage is only secondarily, at best, about “selling body parts.”  More on that in a bit, though.

2) If it were really a hoax, would there really be so much dancing around the issue, euphemisms, and skirting the edges of what they were talking about?  I mean, how hard would it be, in this day and age, to make a video that made “her” say whatever they wanted her to say?  The very slippery nature of the conversation militates against it being a hoax of the sort it is being portrayed to be.

3) Keep in mind that “hoax” as you are most likely defining it – a complete fraud, something that was made up out of whole cloth – is not the way it is being used in the majority of the articles which use the term.  They are using the technical definition – established or accepted by fraudulent means.  Yes, we are all aware that they lied to get the footage they did.  We’re also aware that Planned Parenthood lies about what they do all the time.  A tit for a tat, as they say.  But before you get too up in arms – we’ll address that later, too. I’ll leave you with something to think about:

Here is a related point:

The Video Was Edited: I hate to break it to you, but all your documentaries are edited. Just about every interview you see on tv is edited.   That’s what you do with video when you want to show something in particular.  If I can be even more clear – the author, and his fellow contributors here are not most interested in whether or not Planned Parenthood violated the laws that CMP say they did.  What they are interested in is the utter, callous, brutal disregard for the life and humanity of the babies she murders, and arranges the murder of.

I know why you’re saying this.  The media can’t turn around without attaching the word “edited” to the short excerpts that have been most-watched.  I get it.  I also get that you can’t turn around without #PPSellsBabyParts on Twitter.  I completely understand.  I see a good bit of #StandWithPP tags, too – because we follow a lot of “progressive” sorts, being a Christian apologetics group and all.  So yeah, we see that hashtag war going like a house on fire.

The problem is, folks, the full, unedited video of the entire exchanges were put on the CMP website within 30 seconds, at most, of the edited ones.  You ever see blooper reels? The unedited, without special effects video of movies, tv shows, documentaries, or the like?  The “cut” footage that gets discovered years later, that everyone makes a bit deal about finding, after it being lost?  In this case, they are posting the *raw footage* right alongside the short exchanges they consider most important.

1) The “edits” are not what have us outraged, upset, or calling for Planned Parenthood’s defunding, closure, or what have you.  What has us outraged is the sheer unmitigated depravity of the Planned Parenthood representatives.  It is truly sick to be talking about dismembering children over wine and salad.  It is filthy and demented to joke about wanting a Lamborghini right after you say you will check to see if someone else is getting more than the quoted reimbursement – for the eviscerated leavings (acquired by “less crunchy” means) of what was formerly a living child – just like our children.

2) The ones MOST outraged, folks, are the ones who have watched the UNedited video.  Almost entirely without exception.  I know, because we follow a rather large percentage of the folks who have been most outraged by this issue.  Contrary to the utter lack of mention by the New York Times in their fluff piece of this morning, lots and lots of us have watched the full version.  As Jonathan Merritt puts it in his article concerning the NYT story –

The Times also claimed the video was unreliable because it was “edited.” They are correct that the full video was nearly three hours long while the edited version was only nine minutes. So what? These comments in the longer version do not invalidate those in the shorter version. While editorial board hopes to convince readers that The Center for Medical Progress was deliberately only telling part of the story, but they fail to mention that the full video was also posted online and available. So who is withholding information here? And, by the way, the full video is just as repulsive as the shorter version. In fact, it’s about two hours and 50 minutes more repulsive.

Most interesting to you may be what he says just a bit later.

The thrust of the article’s argument is that it is perfectly legal for Planned Parenthood to offer “fetal tissue” from aborted babies for research. That may be true, and as more facts become available, we will likely discover whether these transactions are illegal “sales” or legal “donations.” But this is not the primary issue for the pro-life advocates I have spoken to. These conservatives are calling for defunding, not incarceration.

The central matter for many pro-life Americans is not whether Planned Parenthood’s practices are legal, but whether they are just.

So, they not only failed to deal with what the opposition is actually concerned about, what else did the NYT do?

The most embarrassing part of the Times article, though, is not what they say but what they do not say. The editorial board totally ignores the most disturbing content in the videos. Actually, they ignore the content of the videos almost completely. None of the quotes at the center of the outrage are discussed.

You’ll find no mention of how a Planned Parenthood doctor determines which parts of the baby to “crush” In the Times article. You won’t encounter information about how a Planned Parenthood physician discussed using a “less crunchy” technique to retrieve “whole specimens.” And you definitely won’t read about how the a Planned Parenthood doctor attempted to negotiate a higher price for tissue because she claims she wanted “a Lamborghini.” These are the most damning components in the videos, but the editorial board’s article never even mention them. The Times did not merely get the Planned Parenthood story wrong; they missed it completely.

Those parts that we are upset with are *exactly the same* in the full-length videos.  In fact, seeing the banality of the context and conversation surrounding such utterly horrendous description of – and you need to hear this, because this is what we’re thinking – dismembering, crushing, suctioning brains out of children just like ours – for more money than they already receive for such a filthy and disgusting murder of the most defenseless members of our society – which we are fully aware that you refuse to accept as members of society, persons, or a host of other things other persons who HAVE rights are given [deep breath] – makes us about as angry as listening to Jeffery Dahmer speak in a monotone about his own murders. Yes, we put these people in the _exact_ same category as serial killers.  We put Planned Parenthood in the same category as the Nazi death camps, too – except Planned Parenthood’s body count is far, far higher.

Look, we get that everyone you read or listen to – except for the person that sent you this link – is pretty much saying that this is nothing.  Even SNOPES is being a tad dishonest on this one. Yes, yes, it says   UNDETERMINED – but that isn’t the issue.  Check this out.

On 14 July 2015, The Center for Medical Progress posted a video purportedly showing a leading Planned Parenthood doctor, Dr. Deborah Nucatola

No, it actually shows her. Even Planned Parenthood says so.

In addition to the above-displayed video, the Center for Medical Progress also released what they claimed was an unedited version of the conversation (which other sources maintain was in fact edited)

Follow the link.  Where does Media Matters say the UNEDITED (notice, they say this repeatedly, throughout the article) video was EDITED?  Nowhere.  So, like I said, Snopes is being a trifle dishonest here, isn’t it?

It’s not edited to change content. The raw footage is even worse.  We aren’t upset because the women aren’t consulted, or aren’t giving consent.  We are upset because these people are clinically discussing systematic genocide – for money.  Donation money, wholesale, retail – we don’t care.  The sale is just an insult added to injury.  We have children in the womb the exact same age as the ones they are talking about crushing and dismembering – then parceling off.  These are babies who were *alive* – now they are dead.  The fact that their mother hired PP as their hitman is only relevant in that it’s “legal”, by fiat, in a “right” created via legislation from the bench, not the legislature, to murder children if you don’t want them. As long as they are in a particular location, and a certain age.  It sickens us immeasurably.

You might want to also understand that we, as Christians, were the ones who used to save babies left exposed to die in ancient Rome – because their mothers didn’t want them.  After they were born.  We’ll do the same today. Heck, let’s do a quid pro quo. If you help us get the insanity of the domestic adoption process straightened out, we’ll help you find and fund an alternative for the tiny minority of things Planned Parenthood does that isn’t abortion – like all the medical services they tell you we don’t care about.  Which is, roughly, about 3% of their operation.  We don’t always seem to care because, let’s face it – they kill 300,000 people a year, that we’re more worried about saving.  It’s a triage thing. Think about that.  Think about my quid pro quo, too.  Fast track adoptions, and we’ll fast track alternative medical clinics.  Which, frankly, probably isn’t as hard as you think it is.  We sort of have a history of doing that sort of thing, in the sort of places you say you need it, too, don’t we?  If we don’t have to burn money opposing the murder mills, I would sure as sunrise put that toward medical clinics instead.

See the problem yet? It isn’t a hoax, and it isn’t edited.  Does putting things in so slanted a fashion – so… deceptive… a fashion, constitute accuracy?

They Acquired Their Footage Fraudulently: Yup.  Look, we can go round and round, like most pundits will, about who did who to who, when – but here’s the central issue.  We already mentioned that PP murders the equivalent population of a midsized city every year? If this was 20-20 doing an undercover investigation, would you be as upset?  If it was the guy posing as store clerks, floor associates, salesmen, or food service employees to do magic tricks for television – would you be as upset about him “lying”?  Of course not.  This is a group who spent a very long time and a huge amount of effort setting up an elaborate undercover investigation, complete with hidden cameras, actors, over the course of years – not to make money, or to get famous – but to save the lives of people who have no rights.

Yeah, it was underhanded.  You seriously want to compare a shell corporation and false pretenses to mass murder, though?  Yeah, they’re activists.  I thought you guys liked activism?  Call him extreme if you want.  For all I know, he is.  What I do know, however, is that this isn’t about “hating women’s health” to us.  It is about saving children from butchers – and those who feed them to those butchers.  over 300,000 a year!  Think about that!

How much reality television do you folks watch?  A lot?  What is it about this reality television that you don’t like?  Have you even watched the videos?  This is real reality television, folks.  I keep hearing that we’re just opposing the yuck factor.  Yes, abortion is yucky.  That is irrelevant, in the main.  What is relevant, and what we chiefly oppose, are those who say that some human lives are not equal in value to those of others.  Who then murder those humans – and callously talk about trafficking their corpses. For science?  For who cares, folks?   It’s dark, when you see what human life is worth to these people. When you see an older lady talking about kids and grandchildren *right after she talks about murdering those of others*.  It’s so shockingly, brutally heinous that is like a bucket of cold water to the face.

Call those babies, fetuses, tissue, whatever you want – but the mask slips in these videos.  The euphemisms falter.  That’s the horrifying power of it. There is this seamless, polished talk of “tissue”, “extraction”, and the like – then there is a sudden shift to “arms”, “legs”, “livers, hearts and lungs” – what kind of livers? Human livers.  Human legs.  How many legs does a body have?  2, right?  So if you donate two, how many do you have left? Zero.  Yet, the patient walks out with two legs.  So, whose legs were donated?  Those of another body.  Whose liver? Someone else’s. Heart. Lungs. Brain. Someone else’s. Someone else’s parts.  Not “my body, my choice” anymore, is it? Human body parts are valuable to science.  Thus, human body parts are harvested.  Not those of the body of the patient giving consent, however.  Remember all those neat arguments about “consenting adults”?  What happens to those when a woman *signs her (very) minor child over to be murdered and vivisected*?  You can’t give consent to murder someone, because you have… parental rights.  And it is clear that you aren’t giving consent for your own body – those aren’t your parts.  So which rights are they that you just used? Parental ones.  Which means that you not only didn’t get your thirty pieces of silver – but you paid for a hitman.

God forgives sin.  Even murder, “legalized” or no.  God won’t forgive us as a nation if we keep slaughtering the most helpless of us.  We, as Christians, are likewise unable to refrain from trying to save them, either.  We must plead, we must protest, and we must dissent from the most vicious genocide in human history – and look at the numbers, folks.  Estimated 55 million babies murdered in the US alone since Roe vs. Wade.  That is an insanity – a monstrous evil greater than that of any society in human history.  Euphemism won’t make it go away. Nor will recourse to sophism or semantics.  We kill babies and traffic in their corpses.  It needs to stop.


Attacking Apologetics Blogs?

Just a short note from us, due solely to this comment:

The fellow then attacks Apologetics “Discernment Blogs” for a while…

Since the opener to the post says:

A blog we haven’t heard of from a person we haven’t heard of (Chris Bolt), was tweeted to Pulpit & Pen by…

I figured it might be helpful to introduce the author to the following pertinent facts.

Chris is an SBC pastor.  He is one of the founding (and Emeritus) members of Choosing Hats. He has well over 500 posts on this site; our most prolific contributor. You can also see his debates, his contributions to the In Antithesis Journal, and his contribution to The Portable Presuppositionalist.  He has appeared on Reformed Forum, as well as Backpack Radio.  He has been a member of Dr. White’s #prosapologian since 2006.

He is anything but anti-apologetics blogs.  He, like the rest of the contributors here, distinguish the Biblical exercise of apologetics from so-called “discernment” blogging. I find it odd, given that half, or more, of the P&P staff are regulars or former regulars of #prosapologian, yet the author states that “we” (the P&P staff, presumably) do not know Chris.  Hopefully this will rectify that situation.


Nothing is Pure

To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.  They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed. – Titus 1:15-16

As I’m sure many of you have been following, Planned Parenthood has been getting lambasted on social media in the aftermath of the sting operation by Center for Medical Progress. This is not to discuss the video in question – although the casual brutality of Deborah Nucatola, the Planned Parenthood senior director of medical services, while discussing the vivisection and murder of children, was horrifying – not titillating, as Slate speculated. That very sort of comment is the problem we need to address, however – to the defiled, nothing is pure.  You can’t have a righteous anger.  It can only be frothing rage.  You can’t be appalled by the sheer casual brutality in which dismemberment and murder is discussed.  You have to be sexually excited by the discussion – as abjectly filthy as the very idea of that prospect is to us.  Yet, that is what their support base is fed – in tiny morsels of untruths.  You can’t have a genuine horror at the atrocity being perpetrated on children just like our own- in my case, like mine, in my wife’s womb, and of a similar age to the ones spoken of being torn apart, crushed, and murdered in such a cavalier fashion.  You can’t possibly imagine, for instance, the tiny body of your stillborn daughter – purposefully torn apart by a murderer like those who haunt abortion clinics.  It’s titillating.  The very thought of such abomination makes me physically ill – but that’s what they think of you, folks.  While yes, it is lurid – and grotesque – it is an accurate depiction of what actually happens when they murder children – every day.  But, you know – nobody can actually believe that matters.  What about women’s rights to reproductive health? (Well, except the 26 million we’ve murdered.  But they, apparently, had it coming.)

Yet, of course, as Planned Parenthood assured us today, they do apologize for the tone of Ms. Nucatola’s remarks.  Right.  As if the symptom is the actual cause.  No, while that tone “does not reflect that compassion” that Planned Parenthood says it has as their “top priority” – notice what they said there.  “Our top priority is the compassionate care that we provide.”  To the crushed and/or vivisected baby?  Oh, wait.  What?  Do they really think the actual concern is that talk of crushing and vivisection of the baby is horrifying people because it is inconsiderate of the living patient?  Now, don’t get me wrong – I don’t believe that for a minute.  However, it is obvious that they don’t care about the babies.  They are tissue, remember?  Back to that in a second.  It is equally apparent that they know that we do, however.

See, it is simultaneously crafted to gull the unwary into thinking that they intend to be compassionate to the babies AND the mothers – but to also put one in the eye of their critics who know better – and actually read English proficiently, by the by.  What they actually just said was that it was inconsiderate to literally describe what they do to other human beings – after all, a lack of euphemisms (aka compassion) drives away paying customers.  Got to have that bedside manner intact so they won’t be bothered so much by our sucking their babies’ brains out through a tube.  After we punch a hole in their heads.  This is the problem, folks.  Yes, yes, all sorts of people hashtagged #PPSellsBabyParts – the problem is, the other side doesn’t care.   Nobody who has deceived themselves into thinking murdering over a million children per year for their own convenience is okay will bat an eyelash over “use for medical research.” Nobody.  Not one.  Why? Because you don’t have any common ground with such a hellish worldview, Christian.  They redefine human beings into unpersons, reduce them to “parasitic tissue,” schedule their murders, fry their skin off, suck their brains out, hack their limbs off, dump them into an incinerator – but it’s an issue for them that someone uses that corpse for science?  Think about this.  Not only do you have nothing in common with such a hellish worldview, but you want nothing in common with it.

The real issue, as always, is a heart issue.  A mind issue.  Their conscience is defiled. A man who is convinced that a proper solution to the slaking of their own lusts – or that of another’s –  is to kill the one person innocent of that crime is a monster of gargantuan proportions.  In our last post, we spoke of the modern Molech.  Caananite society was to be wiped from the face of the earth for precisely this reason – the murder of innocents on the altar.  Except nowadays, the altar is that of our own convenience and “liberty”.  Liberty from the consequences of our own sinful actions – and isn’t that a handy scapegoat? The one incapable of defending themselves.  It is a horror, an abomination.  A blight on the face of this earth that rivals that of every death camp Germany ever built.  Yet, in their minds, it is just our titillation at the carnage.  Their minds are defiled.  Sin has a noetic effect. This, friends, is what “nothing is pure” means.  It means that our hatred for sin is seen as perversion, and that their murders are seen as virtuous exercise, and a loving, compassionate thing to do.  Everything is topsy turvy. They call evil good, and good evil.  Those woes?  Just a myth!

There is no reasoning from there to here.  The entirety of man is depraved.  You cannot appeal to his “better nature”.  Man is a slave to sin. He does his master’s bidding – and finds it very good. He loves it.  Not only that, but the checks on sin have been removed, and common grace’s blessing is slowly withdrawn from us, as a people.  There is no commonality, no point of contact which we both, as antithetical worldviews, possess as a point of contact.  There is nothing that you can point to, from that system, that you can grab on to, and say, look, this is real, this is rational.  Everything is topsy turvy.  Their liberty is slavery.  We are not only down the rabbit hole, we are in the midst of the Red Queen’s coterie, and pleading for a single sane ear to heed us, in the busily chattering crowds of sycophantic drones.  You will find none.  All is madness, death, and vanity.

But God. I know you like those two words.  I know I do, too.  You probably know this already, but if you don’t, look up the instances where “But God” is used.  Your pastor probably won’t thank me for it – because that’s a great sermon transition I just ruined for him – but trust me, it’s worth it.

But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God.  But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.” – 1 Cor. 1:27-31

See, while there is horror, abomination, and depravity all around us – But God.  He chose us.  The foolish.  The base. The despised.  It is by His doing that we are united to Christ, to His wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption!  So, why do we want common ground with that horror, abomination, and depravity, anyway?  The next verse in Titus, to return to that book, is very important.

Chapter 2 starts with this:

But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.

Another but – but with our practical command.  They will do what they do.  Sinners gonna sin.  As for you – speak fitting things. Sound doctrine.  In verses 5 and 7, notice a word that shows up in both. Pure.  Notice in verse 4 – so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children – needed, timely advice – the elder are to instruct the younger.  They are both to be sensible. σωφρονέω, in opposition to the ἀδόκιμος νοῦς of Romans 1:28.  The μεμιαμμένοις – the defiled – have a mind that is μιαίνω – defiled.  The ἁγνάς – the pure – have purity – ἀδιαφθορία.  This continues throughout the rest of the chapter. Purity of doctrine.  Sound in speech, beyond reproach.

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. – Titus 2:11-15

Grace instructs. Deny ungodliness, and worldly desires – desires that have been twisted into lesser echoes of their initial created state.  Live sensibly – with a clear mind – be transformed by the renewing of your mind.  See sanctification above.  Live righteously, for God – in this present age.  (Which is now, folks!)  Looking ahead to the hope heralded by the return and appearing of the glory of Christ.  We were redeemed, in order that He might purify us. That is the answer for the depraved mind. For the defiled mind.  The only point of contact for fallen humanity is in their creation in His image.  In their innate knowledge of Him, as His creatures, which they cannot escape, and is ever before and within them; ineradicably stamped upon every molecule, and upon their very soul, tattered and torn though it may be.   Press the antithesis between what they know they are, and what they say they are.  Push every inconsistency of their patchwork belief system to absurdity.  But keep bringing it back to who they really are.  A person made in the image of God – who knows what He should do, doesn’t do it, and thus sins against his Maker. Someone who needs to repent of their sins, cast themselves upon His mercy, and seek the one who is Just and Justifier.  The only one who can make them clean, and forgive their trespasses.  They can’t repair their soul.  They can’t make themselves love good, and hate evil.  They are slaves.  But God…

We know the only One who can set men free – even from their abominable slavery to the slaughter of innocents, and so many other heinous offenses against the Most High.  These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.


The Modern Molech

Molech still receives sacrifices. Now they call the altar the blood of the unborn runs down by the name “women’s health”, and “reproductive rights.” Except for the 26 million women whose health and reproductive rights were terminated – with extreme prejudice. So, tell me, folks. Are you prepared to say that these are persons being murdered? If not, what are they? Sub-persons? (Or unpersons? Hmm.) Where have we heard that argument before?

But let’s grant that for the sake of argument, for those of you still unconvinced. If they are sub-human, are they animals? If they are animals, why would this even be a problem? The Planned Parenthood representative doesn’t seem to have one, does she, while, as Patricia Heaton put it, she “swills her chianti”? Let’s just be accurate, and call them butchers – and package that “tissue” however you please, if you please. If that doesn’t strike your fancy, then why are they superior to animals, but still inferior to persons? Further, why is packaging their body for sale (excuse me, donation… in exchange for a small donation, of course!) any more offensive than packaging a cow, or a pig?

Words have meanings. Meanings have consequences. Consequences occur in real life – sometimes, while unconcernedly eating a salad, discussing dismemberment of babies – at almost precisely the same developmental stage as my wife and I’s currently womb-inhabiting Philippa.[1] And, incidentally, about the same stage as our Lilith, who died in the womb[2] – whom many of you offered condolences for – and practically any of you reading would have offered condolences for, had you heard.

She had a name. I held her in my arms after she was stillborn, and we buried her – I visit her grave, at our church graveyard – which has a headstone with that name. Tell me, fellow humans, created in the image of God – what is the difference – and what gives anyone the right to murder and dismember a child in the womb – not necessarily in that order?

“For the fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, and it is a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.” – Calvin, Commentary on Exo 21:22

  1. [1]And yes, that was an announcement!
  2. [2]http://razorskiss.net/2011/06/blessed-be-the-name/

I’m Neither a Prophet nor Son of a Prophet

But if my guess is correct, this week’s news cycles will be all about hate speech. Ours. Or what they want to represent as ours. You see, with a Friday ruling, and so much near-instant access to our churches’ sermons, you can almost bet that they will be trolling our sermons for sound bytes. You see, while there will be much trumpeting that Kennedy’s majority opinion states the following:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

Note that it also says this:

Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied.

Now, when the right to advocate is the only one specifically mentioned – does that include the right to refuse to perform such marriages? It simply does not say. As far as I can tell, that simple fact means that it is almost inevitable that someone will challenge that. They may have even done so today, so that they might file suit tomorrow. As Thomas points out in his dissent:

The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph, ante, at 27. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition. Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.

Roberts says this, about the same section in Kennedy:

The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. . . . The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

So, two things for next week.

There will be some hoopla about a homosexual couple requesting marriage at a dissenting church. Probably not reported on in the mass media, but I could be surprised.

Secondly, there will be a consistent, repetitive mass media saturation concerning hate speech from churches and/or religious institutions – and at first, the crazier the better. From there, they will move on to the folks from the SBC and their like. I might be wrong, but everywhere else this has been instituted, there have been hate speech laws enacted swiftly thereafter. We’re on the accelerated track, so I do not expect this to be slow, at all. It will follow inevitably.

I know what you might be thinking. Isn’t this alarmist? Why should we expect anything different? Has human nature changed lately? We are seeing glowing examples every day that it hasn’t.

Expect things to progress swiftly and precipitously. If they don’t, and we are granted a small measure more of common grace, we will be pleasantly surprised. However, you have no more time to wait before you start preparing your children, your spouse, and yourself for the wrath of God being poured out on this nation.

Be prepared with counters to the common objections. Comparison to racism? Race doesn’t exist. It is a societal invention, of whole cloth – just like SSM. Judge not? Certainly that doesn’t mean we judge the merits of nothing. After all, we are told to judge with righteous judgement. We just posted about the silliness of the mixed fabrics objection.

There are a host of resources here, at AOMin.org, AskDrBrown.org, and a wealth of other places for you to make your preparations, for those who truly thought it would “never happen here.” They thought that a lot of places, and in a lot of times. Now that you know it is happening here, be wise, and get to work.

Now a short warning for those who support SSM, however:

Make no mistake: the political implication of the recent fiat from scotus is disastrous; but not because of any expectation of a loss of power or influence. It is just another evidence, along with Roe, that this nation is under the judgement of God. Barring a Jonah for our Nineveh, it means that we will perish as a nation. Like Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, Rome, or any other in history. It has nothing to do with the political element of the equation save a warning to flee the wrath to come. The judgement has been plain to see since I was a child, despite claims of any majority, moral or otherwise. All we have “accomplished,” for lack of a better term, has been at best, limited; a temporary holding action. There are all the claims of progress, progress; but the only progression has been toward the grave.

If you are currently celebrating a “civil rights” victory, this is merely emblematic of the root issue between what you and we consider good, peaceful and just. I am sure that pleases you. I am equally sure that it grieves me. The root difference is that a rather large percentage of what you call a laudable good, we call a monstrous. Our ideals are the enemy of yours, and vice versa. If you haven’t grasped that we truly are at odds on the majority of what we believe, then please, understand that we are not angry, except in the sense that we are cognizant of the wrath of God hovering over your shoulder that will crash down upon us all, and we know that you don’t see it. My children and yours will suffer for our collective rebellion as a nation. You will scoff at this. You will find it to be madness. We know. We expect that too. We also expect you to participate in that madness when it occurs. When you do, remember what you are reading now.

We also, incidentally, and with full understanding of the history we hold dear, expect not only to suffer hardship, but actual persecution – maybe even to die for expressing these very thoughts you read, within a very short time frame, if that judgement is swift. We hope not, because that will give us more time to prepare our children for something outside our recent experience, but well within our historical experience. Yet we expect, very soon, to face persecution, prison, death, and the forcible removal and reeducation of our children. Mock if you must, but remember; we have experienced this for millennia. We don’t expect better from people now. Why should you be any different from the people whose history you are currently repeating, and even exceeding in evil? Your “shining beacon” of modernistic subjectivism changes opinion like sand or tide. The only direction this country has moved for the last century is toward an orgiastic self-immolation.

These are the things we speak of out of your hearing. That we not only expect to stand up to you, but to be imprisoned or killed for it. We are well aware of the ones who claim our name but are happy to accede to your cultural demands. There have been the same sorts at every point in history, too. We read our history, and take note of it. Remember these words when you see the things you scoffed at happening all around you, and begin to wonder how it all happened to us all. It happens because we forget what men are capable of, and believe them good and great, not petty and vicious. When we trust ourselves to do rightly and justly. Remember, once we start to disappear, our children are relocated next door, when you stop hearing our voices, because you clamored for them to be silenced – and when you start to join us at the whim of others. We warned you of the wrath to come.

It won’t happen because of this decision alone. We’re already guilty, millions of times over, for allowing (and celebrating!) the wholesale murder of innocent children on a scale that will soon dwarf Auschwitz and the rest of the concentration camps combined. That, my friends, is a national evil of which very few of the worst hated regimes in history can be said to be guilty of. This particular issue, our opposition to a wealthy, influential, and popular minority with über-rights will, however, be the excuse used to silence us. We will not say Cæsar est kurios in this land any more than we did in others. We are, however, not surprised, athough some have been sleeping in their unprecedented comfort. This is why we are told to be vigilant. While some have been negligent, perhaps, others have been sounding warnings of this for years – for decades. We are told to expect persecution, and we know that the recent past of this nation has been a historical aberration. Remember, though, when the things you scoffed at become commonplace, and the barbarians are at the gates. It has happened before. The difference is, we knew it would happen again, and why. Mock if you will. But remember. We can not be silent. So you will silence us, because you cannot bear to hear the truth. Oh, we know you say you won’t do it. We don’t believe you. Remember.


Do you wear clothes with mixed fabric types?

This is one of those FAQs asked to Christians who, as the bible teaches, believe that the definition of marriage only allows for a union between one man and one woman.  Christians will have to continually articulate why they believe this, especially in the current climate.

The question asked assumes a lack of coherency  in Scripture when it comes to how God’s people should live. What’s really being asked is this

“If both homosexuality and wearing clothes with mixed fabric types in the bible are condemned in the OT, why is one still wrong and not the other.”

Now, aside from pointing out that homosexuality is explicitly condemned in the NT (Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 6:9 being just a couple of examples), it is also helpful to start understanding how the Old Testament and the New Testament is to be read as a whole. I would encourage everyone to purchase a book on Biblical Theology (any resource by G.K. Beale, D.A. Carson, and/or Vern Poythress would be an excellent place to begin). Robert A.J. Gagnon also provides excellent  resources particularly on the topic of how both the Old and New Testaments address  homosexuality.

Recently, someone asked me to “explain why one part of the old law does still apply, while another part doesn’t.”

Here is my answer :


Questions such as “Do you wear clothes with mixed fabric types” are loaded with the assumption that homosexuality and the mixing of fabrics are both equally condemned in the New covenant.

But the question doesn’t try to understand the categories of the mosaic law, or the goal of the Law.

“So, explain why one part of the old law does still apply, while another part doesn’t.”

It isn’t that the Law doesn’t apply, it is that it applies differently, because it is administered differently. Galatians 3:15-23 explains that the mosaic administration (Old Covenant) was intended to be the guardian and tutor of the children of God. The sacrifices, the ceremonies, the dietary laws, all of these things guarded God’s people. But they all were shadows of Christ (who was the substance/reality). These ceremonies also set Israel apart, made them look and appear differently than surrounding nations. This won’t make sense unless you follow the whole story, from Adam to Moses. (Romans 5:14) Nor will it make sense if you refuse to continually disallow the NT to speak for itself.

But the reality, the substance, has been revealed

” Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.”

Christ fulfilled the law in His life, and work, so He mediates on behalf of those who have faith in Him. So there is no need for the ordinances, because they were there to point and lead. Not only that, Christ tore down the ethnical barriers, so that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile (Col 2:14)

But the moral law still applies, because it reflects God’s character. The 10 commandments say what God’s character is like by telling us what ought not be done. But the moral was in place long before the 10 commandments. Otherwise death would not have reigned over humanity from Adam to Moses, on account of sin.

“And while we are at it, let’s see the part where Jesus said “and homosexuals shall not be united in marriage.”

Jesus’ implies His understanding of marriage in Matthew 19:4-5“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”

Jesus upheld the fullness of the law. Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil. He agreed with Leviticus 19:18 as His repetition of it indicates “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.”

He would have said amen to Leviticus 18:21-23 which states
(1) Don’t sacrifice your children to false gods, I AM the LORD
(2) Don’t lie with a male as a man lies with a female, this is an abomination (repeated again in Leviticus 20:3)
(3) Do not have intercourse with animals (this is a perversion)

[As an aside, do you think it’s wrong to sacrifice children to entities that don’t exist? Do you think it’s wrong to have intercourse with an animal? If so, why? If not, why shouldn’t it be allowed?]

Jesus emphasized His ministry as a continuation of Moses’ (John 5:46-47; Matthew 5:17). However the Old administration of the Law, with Moses as mediator, only existed to give way under the New Covenant (Luke 22:20; Matt 26:28)

“Now Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later, but Christ is faithful over God’s house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope” (Heb 3:5-6)

I believe that the full teaching of Scripture is coherent in and of itself, and that its message in part and in whole is infallible (being the Word of God)

I do not buy the idea that just because Scripture has a story in which things are administered in x way at t1, but now in t2 administered in a way that has some discontinuities from x, that therefore Christian belief is incoherent.

I also believe that any attempt in understanding the bible in a way that denies its coherency will

(1) demonstrate a misunderstanding on the part of that person, and

(2) it will also lead to an inaccuracy of representation concerning my view

If you don’t believe (1), we can talk about it. I can understand that. But (2) is important, because if you cite a theory that we both agree is incoherent, and then fail to show how that it belongs in my own view, then you will simply beg the question (you will assume that the bible is incoherent in showing that the bible is incoherent)


The Tyranny of Death

Death is a tyrant.

Only one, however, has ever experienced the entirety of the curse of death. Everyone else will experience it in part, or never cease to experience it. The fullness of that tyranny rests its claws upon only one; He upon whom the wrath of God, and all the terrible and righteous fury that implies, was poured, and who bore it for the sake of His elect. Christ, our Lord and King.

The first death, the promise of Adam’s curse, attends us all. This is a pittance, a vapor, in comparison to that of the second. It is that which Christ bore for His people, and for that we should be on our knees for, in thanksgiving and tears – repenting of the sins for which He died, and growing in His grace and knowledge.

However, we must understand that our culture is in love with death. It promotes the murder of children as a “right”, and discards the creation of life as the centerpiece and purpose for marriage – as well as its import as a picture of Christ’s love for His church. This culture of death, which “celebrates” the destruction of life, is showing clearly the nature of the tyrant which rules it, and holds it captive to dissolution.

Earlier today, we announced the impending birth of our 7th child – Philippa Rae. Prior to this happy pregnancy, however, we lost two children to miscarriage. The very same people who have been so tirelessly promoting the “marriage” of two people unable to create children, who cannot be united as “husband” and “wife”, who are not “male and female” – are in most cases the same persons who would champion and likewise promote the wholesale murder of unwanted children. I am the father of many – yet I have held a miscarried babe in my arms, attended their funeral, and mourned them. Babes that same age are ripped into pieces, burned alive, and discarded like trash – daily – all over this country. It is, therefore, no surprise that the union of two who cannot create such a life are being touted as an alternative, is it not?

I am not only the biological father of many, but we are a blended family. I am no stranger to the fatherhood of choice, along with that blood. The family redeemed is likewise a Scriptural theme, and one which resonates with me, deeply. The corruption – the twisting of such a redemption into the grotesqueries of a “family” consisting of “two dads and their children,” or the like, is deeply, and exceptionally, emblematic of the same cause which incites death’s tyranny. Sin.

You see, sin is a parasite. It is not something which can exist of itself. Something sinful is unsustainable. It requires something else diametrically opposed to it to gorge itself upon, and thus to corrupt. Aborted children do not murder other children, after all – do they? Homosexual partners cannot reproduce themselves. They must, of a necessity, be societal parasites. Like, I might add, the celibate priesthood of the Roman Catholic church must be.

So, what is “equal” about a societally parasitic “union” calling itself a “marriage”? I’m not talking about a couple who should be able to procreate, yet due to the curse, has lost that ability through no specific fault of their own. I am speaking of a supposed ‘union” which lacks the capacity to procreate without parasitism upon other members of that society, and withholds one element of parentage from the resultant offspring purposefully – the mother or father – to be replaced by “two mothers” or “two fathers” – which is, by definition, neither marriage, nor a family unit. It is a polyamorous, parasitic amorph of questionable, and indeed, negative value. Sin always involves parasitism and lack. That is what defines it as such. Using terms like “equality” of so-called “same sex marriage” is merely Newspeak, and holds no meaning for thinking people.

It doesn’t matter who calls it “equal.” Using comparisons to racism is equally vacuous. In fact, it is an insult to those who suffered that scourge of sophistry. Race, as I have repeatedly argued, is not even a coherent category. It means nothing. It, too, is an amorphous, parasitic quagmire of illogic.

This movement must, and does, steal from the real to clothe its unreality. Their symbol, the rainbow, is itself emblematic. It was a sign that God will never again flood the earth to destroy men for their evil. By flaunting it, they do precisely what Romans 1 cites them for – they are enflamed by their lusts, and those passions are degrading for both them, and for everyone they influence. Now, sadly, that influence will extend, legally, to “their” children.

Sin is a parasite. Death is a tyrant. Tyrants, of course, are a sort of parasite. As death’s sting sinks into the world around us, we must recall that light and life is of God. While those who love darkness and their own evil “celebrate” them, remember whose you are. If you are reading this, and you are offended by my words concerning your chosen sins, consider this: If I don’t say this, you’d consider me contemptible, because you know I _should_ believe it, if I think Scripture is true, right? I consider your actions an offense, but they are not an offense against me. I am not offended. God is. God is the one to whom you must answer. Your celebration of death in this life deserves only only more death in the next. Thus, you must repent of your rebellion, and be given life – because those to whom this life is given have had it purchased by the One who suffered the second death in their stead. That, friend, was not a celebration. It was a purification of all the corruption, rottenness, twistedness and emptiness that sin is – a cleansing fire that burned it away that life might return and that restoration might begin. A life more abundant, and not a life that is a mere shadow of that which it should be – life that begets life – not a shambling horror of death that begets only still more death.

Only one has ever experienced the entirety of the curse of death. Don’t make your life a living death, and follow it with the second, which will never end. All you can do, apart from God, is live under the tyranny of sin and death. Being enflamed by this lust, or any other, only results in your ruin. But there is redemption from any sort of ruin. For such is why Christ came – to seek and save the lost.


Three Ways Apologetics Will Change in the Near Future

Apologetics change based upon the context in which they are used. In the years to come, apologetics will change in at least three ways:

1. Necessary Apologetics

Apologists will be lobbyists rather than hobbyists. The necessity of defending the Christian faith will be impressed upon Christians in a way it has not been in recent years. Look for apologetic arguments to focus more upon defending Christians from unnecessary persecution by the society and the state and less upon abstract theological particulars or classical theism.

2. Explanatory Apologetics

As biblical illiteracy and anti-intellectual emotionalism continue to permeate the church and loose the bonds of common grace the apologetic task will increasingly consist of mere explanation of the Christian worldview. Theological beliefs which were once widely held or assumed will be called into question and relegated to obscurity, leaving the apologist a blank canvas that needs to be painted before it can be sold.

3. Cultural Apologetics

Christians are moral people. The contrast between the cultural contributions of Christians and the relative lack of non-Christian ones must be exploited for the sake of showing that Christianity is not only true, but good and beautiful as well.

Please note that each of these three “changes” are nothing new to the realm of apologetics. The Church has already been to the places she is going, even apologetically, but these changes may be new to us.

Thankfully, each of them is perfectly consistent with the apologetic methodology set forth through the pages of this website.


A Conversation About Categories

There are particular buzzwords in the air these days. Of course, there are buzzwords in the air every day – and always have been. One of the hot-buttons these days is “transgender”. With the media circus surrounding Bruce Jenner, it is in an impossible glare. The media’s feeding frenzies know no bounds, and the level of rhetoric and sheer hyperbole is shocking, even to a jaded student of mass media narrative creation.

The problem is, the left is in a pickle when it comes to “transgender” – much as it is in a pickle concerning “bisexuals.” With the latter, on the one hand, there is the push for monogamous same-sex unions. On the other hand, there are “bisexuals,” who, by their very stated desires, require polygamous unions with both sexes. Similarly, there is an ideological incompatibility between feminism and transgenderism. An old school feminist rejects, most vehemently, the idea that inclusion into the ranks of female is accomplished by surgical means. The “war” between these two ideologies can be introduced here, in a general way.

The entire conversation about “gender identity” is anything but simple. In fact, it is complicated terribly by the ever-multiplying definitions that are tossed around by various proponents. It is also complicated by the odd, and often jarring insistence on binary genders, in movements that you might be surprised to see those insistences in. If, of course, you weren’t aware of why those retentions exist. As Biblical complementarians, we need merely to look at the Scriptural witness to see the basis for such surprising “holdovers” from the creation ordinances.

That brings us, however, to that frank discussion about categories. The entire gender discussion in modern society revolves around the same category that most anthropological heresies do. So, let’s be frank here, as we must. The real issue with “gender identity” is anthropological heresy – which, in turn, arises from a theological one. Mankind, seeking to exchange the Creator for creation, supplants God’s ordinance with their own.[1] ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως (from the beginning of creation[2]) God has made them male and female. In a similar phrase, ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου (For since the creation of the world[3]) His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. They know God. They know how things should be. However, [f]or even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

The knowledge of God here discussed is explained over the course of the previous verses; it is revelatory, it is sufficient, it is inescapable, and it is clear. It is revelatory, because the text tells us it is. God made it manifest to them. It is sufficient, because (a) God is who has made it manifest, and (b) It renders men indefensible before God. It is inescapable, because man is a creation of God, in His image, as well as a part of creation – he cannot escape himself, and neither can he escape his environment. It is clear, again, because God has made it thus. The text says, expressly, that what God has revealed is clearly seen, and understood. Paul’s argument is inexorable, it is perspicuous, and it is unavoidable. Men are without an excuse, because they know God, know who He is, what is required of them, and that they have a necessary covenantal relationship with Him as His creatures. Yet, they neither glorify God as they are required to do, nor do they thank the God they know for what they know He has given them, in His common grace. In their suppression of the truth (which they are in possession of) their foolish hearts are darkened. All of their deliberations, their speculations, or arguments (διαλογισμός), are useless, worthless, or futile (ματαιόω). They have no apologetic for their lack of proper response to the God they know, and are required to glorify and give thanks to.[4]

The narrative of the “trans” movement is essentially both old and new come again. It is a confusion of categories intended to blur the distinctions, yet validate their “identity.” On the one hand, there is the push to “identify” as a particular “gender” – but in the process of so doing, there is a concomitant push to redefine that gender. Interestingly enough, this very idea clashes with the the feminist redefinition of gender – and will inevitably clash with other, even more “progressive” ideas concerning gender – many of which already exist (especially in non-western cultures, apart from a judeo-christian moral ethos), but have not yet had the public glare strike them as fully. Indeed, it is difficult to reconcile the seemingly contradictory goals of bisexuality and polyamory advocates with their collective identification with homosexual advocacy – as can be seen in the ubiquitous LGBTQ alphabet soup. Lesbian and Gay – but bisexual? We hear the drumbeat of “monogamous same-sex unions” – but how can that possibly work with “bisexual” in the mix? Transgender? Or the even more dizzying spectrum of ideas found within Q?

Endemic to the problems raised by “gender identity” is that same dizzying self-contradictory problem of mutual exclusivity. On the one hand, we are told that “self-identification” is the basis of this “identity” – but that merely begs the question. Identified with what? If all we really have are subjectivistic labels, what, exactly, are they labeling? How can they be referenced meaningfully by anyone who is not the subject? If, in essence, all rules can do is prove the exceptions, what then do we actually know, objectively, about these so-called identities? What ontological status do they or any other ontological category, have – or can they have?

With the abject failure of subjectivist philosophy to say anything meaningful about anything whatsoever – why should we expect subjectivistic gender theory to say anything meaningful? The flood of self-contradiction is not a danger by any logical standard. The problem is that they exist because there are no logical standards in operation in the context that such things are discussed. All the angst-ridden nobody-understands-me drivel aside, there is a core of truth to it. Nobody can understand something which intentionally sets out to erase intelligibility. Any quest for “freedom” which undertakes a project of category demolition which as a stated aim, is the erection of intentional, subjectivistic pseudo-categories is doomed to never be understood – or meaningful in any rational sense. So, have a conversation about these categories – with your children, family members, co-workers, or friends – but don’t buy the redefinitions when they are gibberish. You don’t have to agree that “`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves. Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.” That is nonsense. Just like gender identity is.

  1. [1]Romans 1:23
  2. [2]Mar 10:6
  3. [3]Romans 1:20
  4. [4]Whipps, Exposition of Romans 1:16-2:16 – The Knowledge of God, In Antithesis Vol. 1, No. 1, pg 52