Whoever fears the Lord walks uprightly, but those who despise him are devious in their ways (Proverbs 14:2)
I’ve mentioned both these before. I have been told “We can’t all live that way!” I’ve watched programs that are supposedly scientific begin with “Is it possible?” I’ve also had people ask, “Well, couldn’t God have used evolution?” People also frequently ask such questions as, “Well what about the poor teen whose father raped her and now she’s pregnant?” These are all progressive statements – not because they are used by people who call themselves Progressive, but because they are the beginning of a progression.
“We can’t all live that way.” Technically, I’m not sure we can’t, but I agree, it’s not likely that we will. In any normal population, approximately sixty-eight percent of the population will be well defined by the norm. Another twenty-seven percent won’t be well-defined by the norm, but will still substantially fit in. Approximately five percent will live significantly outside of the norm. However, because we can’t all live that way, therefore we should be “tolerant” of those who don’t live that way. We should never shame them or suggest that they are in any way responsible for their inability to live that way. In fact, we shouldn’t even suggest to anyone that they should live that way, and we should applaud the five percenters who “bravely” live outside of “that way.” In the end, the five percenters dictate the behavior of the ninety-five percent.
At the beginning of the hour, the “scientific” program asks, “Is it possible?” They spend the next five minutes telling you what the program is going to explore, three minutes laying the groundwork that leads to the “Is it possible?” question, and ninety seconds telling you what they’ve covered before the first commercials. When they come back, they spend ninety seconds telling you what they’ve already told you, then launch into “It might be possible” for five minutes. They add three minutes on discoveries they claim are connected to the issue, then ninety seconds telling you where they’re going to go next. And so it goes through the next segments of “It could be… It is possible…” and “Ergo: It IS!”
Exasperated, someone cries, “Well, couldn’t God have used evolution?” Of course, if you say “No,” you’re saying God isn’t omnipotent. If you say, “Yes” then supposedly you’ve lost the battle because if He could have then of course (just as with the progression above) you’ve proven that evolution did happen, because “could have” equals “did.”
And what about those poor, unloved, abused, raped-by-their-fathers girls who end up pregnant. Don’t they deserve our pity? How dare we claim to be compassionate while denying them abortions? And because denying any abortion might result in one of these victims’ heart-ache, we must not only permit but fund and even “shout” every abortion. Approximately five percent of rape victims end up pregnant as a result. That’s about thirty-three thousand per year. That's at least thirty-four thousand too many. But there are nearly a million abortions per year. Thirty-three thousand justifies a million?
In each case, the progression starts with a merchant’s lie – something that seems easy to agree with, or hard to disagree with. As soon as you agree with their first statement – no matter how reluctantly, you trapped, and they know it. That’s why they begin with those devious “little” claims and those emotional arguments. Do I need to point out that they all lead away from God?
“We can’t all live that way.” Technically, I’m not sure we can’t, but I agree, it’s not likely that we will. In any normal population, approximately sixty-eight percent of the population will be well defined by the norm. Another twenty-seven percent won’t be well-defined by the norm, but will still substantially fit in. Approximately five percent will live significantly outside of the norm. However, because we can’t all live that way, therefore we should be “tolerant” of those who don’t live that way. We should never shame them or suggest that they are in any way responsible for their inability to live that way. In fact, we shouldn’t even suggest to anyone that they should live that way, and we should applaud the five percenters who “bravely” live outside of “that way.” In the end, the five percenters dictate the behavior of the ninety-five percent.
At the beginning of the hour, the “scientific” program asks, “Is it possible?” They spend the next five minutes telling you what the program is going to explore, three minutes laying the groundwork that leads to the “Is it possible?” question, and ninety seconds telling you what they’ve covered before the first commercials. When they come back, they spend ninety seconds telling you what they’ve already told you, then launch into “It might be possible” for five minutes. They add three minutes on discoveries they claim are connected to the issue, then ninety seconds telling you where they’re going to go next. And so it goes through the next segments of “It could be… It is possible…” and “Ergo: It IS!”
Exasperated, someone cries, “Well, couldn’t God have used evolution?” Of course, if you say “No,” you’re saying God isn’t omnipotent. If you say, “Yes” then supposedly you’ve lost the battle because if He could have then of course (just as with the progression above) you’ve proven that evolution did happen, because “could have” equals “did.”
And what about those poor, unloved, abused, raped-by-their-fathers girls who end up pregnant. Don’t they deserve our pity? How dare we claim to be compassionate while denying them abortions? And because denying any abortion might result in one of these victims’ heart-ache, we must not only permit but fund and even “shout” every abortion. Approximately five percent of rape victims end up pregnant as a result. That’s about thirty-three thousand per year. That's at least thirty-four thousand too many. But there are nearly a million abortions per year. Thirty-three thousand justifies a million?
In each case, the progression starts with a merchant’s lie – something that seems easy to agree with, or hard to disagree with. As soon as you agree with their first statement – no matter how reluctantly, you trapped, and they know it. That’s why they begin with those devious “little” claims and those emotional arguments. Do I need to point out that they all lead away from God?
Comments
Post a Comment