Apologetics – Page 33 – Restless Pilgrim

What Planned Parenthood does and does not do

July 23, 2015 pilgrim 29 comments

A few days ago I posted a link on my Facebook wall to one of the videos concerning the recent Planned Parenthood scandal. In a response, one of my friends wrote “…in low income and rural areas planned parenthood is the only clinic available to women for women’s health”. My friend Rachel asked what kind of services they provide, but never received a reply.

Well, undeterred, Rachel did some digging and yesterday she posted a link on my wall to something posted by Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood employee. I wanted to reproduce it here in its entirety:

This is for people who say Planned Parenthood provides so many services for women. Here are the facts. Planned Parenthood should NEVER be your “go to” for healthcare.

Planned Parenthood does NOT provide:

-Mammograms
-Prenatal Care
-Breast Biopsies
-Breast Cancer Diagnostic Care
-Primary Health Care
-Diabetes Treatment
-Treatment for Elevated Cholesterol
-Treatment for Elevated Blood Pressure
-Holistic Medicine
-Obstetrical Care
-Pediatric Care
-Care for HIV Positive Individuals
-Infertility Treatments
-Natural Family Planning Instruction
-Care for Uterine Fibroids
-Treatment for Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome
-Adoption Placement
-Prostate Exams
-Uterine Laser Ablation
-Cervical Laser Ablation
-Miscarriage Management
-Bladder Disorders and Urinary Problems
-Prolapsed Pelvic Floor Concerns
-Laparoscopic Procedures
-Hysterectomy
-Treatment of Endometriosis
-Polyp Removal
-Endometrial Ablation
-BRCA Testing
-Bone Density Testing
-Treatment of Pelvic Pain
-Treatment of Vulvar Pain
-Molar Pregnancy Follow Up

Planned Parenthood DOES provide:

-First and Second Trimester Abortions
-Limited STD testing and treatment
-Pap Smears for Women in Child Bearing Years
-Limited Contraceptive Methods

Just wanted to put some of the myths to rest.

Apologetics

History and the dog who never barked

May 23, 2015 pilgrim One comment

A while ago, during a discussion in the comment section of this blog, I made the assertion that the historic Church of Christianity was the Catholic Church. A non-Catholic disputed this claim, asserting that the Catholic Church only came into existence with the reign of the Emperor Constantine.

In response to this claim, I shared with her my post entitled Before 300: Pre-Constantinian Christianity, where I provide evidence for twenty-one doctrines which were believed by Christians prior to AD 300 and the rise of Constantine. The original purpose of that post was not only to show that the Catholic Church was in existence long before Constantine arrived on scene, but also to provide non-Catholics with a simple way to compare their own beliefs to that of the early Christians.

After reading that article, my internet friend appeared to concede that the Catholic Church did actually exist from the earliest of times. Wonderful! However, despite denying its existence only moments before, she now claimed that the Catholic Church had persecuted the “true” Christians in the early centuries! I’ve heard similar claims in the past made by other Protestants as well as Muslims, in an effort to explain why the belief system that we find in the Early Church is incompatible with their own.

Today I would like to examine the assertion that the Catholic Church suppressed “true” Christianity in the early centuries and I will attempt to dismantle it using an argument which may be referred to as “The dog who never barked”…

Protestantism: Agreeing on essentials?

May 19, 2015 pilgrim 3 comments

When Catholics critique the contradictory beliefs held in different parts of the Protestant world, we are often told that “Protestants agree on all the essentials”. A statement like this, of course, this begs two questions:

1. Which doctrines should be considered “essential” and which “non-essential”?

2. Who gets to make that categorization?

The second question is particularly important. Who gets the final say as to what is “essential” and what is “non-essential”? After all, what happens when two Protestants disagree on what is “essential”?

To pick an example from the dawn of the Reformation, Luther and Zwingli came into conflict concerning their respective understandings of the Eucharist, so much so that this ruptured their relationship. Could we still say that these two fathers of the Reformation agreed on “essentials”?
Read more

Apologetics

Enemy of the Bible?

May 17, 2015 pilgrim One comment

A while back I did a post where I gave a “Quick Apology” concerning the charges that the Catholic Church chained Bibles. I came across this article from Dave Armstrong this week where he gives a fuller response:

Explaining the mess up…

May 16, 2015 pilgrim One comment

A little while ago, I was discussing with a Protestant the issue of baptism in the Early Church. The exchange was quite typical in that he rejected the beliefs of the Early Church, choosing instead to trump the witness of history with his own personal interpretation of the Scriptures.

Why did the Early Church “get it all so wrong”?

In response to this, I did something unusual, departing from my usual strategy. Rather than trying to demonstrate to him that the Early Church was correct, I asked him, in his opinion, why did the Early Church get it all so wrong? After all, the question of whether baptism washes away sin isn’t some trivial doctrine, but one which relates to the question of our very salvation!