Posts Tagged ‘abortion’
“For all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God…” Paul to the Romans, chapter 3, verse 23
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life…” John the Apostle, chapter the third, 16th verse.
Today, my attention was drawn to this post at a certain ‘that which is not to be named’ blog. It is a serious blog post. It is seriously depressing. And it is seriously stupid. (I’m sorry if you had the unfortunate ‘pleasure’ of reading it. I wish I didn’t have to link to it, but you may need context for my words.)
There I said it: It is stupid. I’m sorry. I feel badly about writing it, but there is simply no other way to express my outrage and heart-brokenness.
I know that is harsh and mean and if anyone from ‘that side’ bothers to comment on this post they will most certainly point out that I ‘missed the point’ or that I am ‘ignorant of the facts’ or that I am ‘a stupid non-Christian who is so unconcerned about abortion and the plight of the unborn that I ought to be defrocked (even though I was never frocked to begin with) and run out of the church to the tune of tar, feathers, pitchforks, torches and labeled anathema.’ To be sure, ‘they’ will probably point out that Jesus does not approve of what I am about to write in this post because Jesus hates abortion.
There I said it: The post is stupid.
I am willing to run the risk that I might be labeled by others in order to point out the sheer stupidity of the post mentioned above.
Did I mention the post is stupid? It has been a long, long time since I read something so incredibly insensitive at a blog claiming to be a voice for the Kingdom of God. I’m sorry. I’m desperately trying to be objective and compassionate. Can’t. Can’t. Can’t. I have read the post four or five times now trying, searching, scanning for hope and I just cannot find it. The most hope we can expect out of this post is that we might enjoy some ‘hauntingly beautiful hymn-like‘ music. If an expectant single-mother or a suddenly pregnant husband and wife swimming in debt is debating her/their pregnancy right now read that post, she/they would be left despairing and hopeless; feeling nothing but condemnation.
There is nothing about the Gospel. Nothing about the hope of Christ. Nothing about the penal substitutionary atonement death of Jesus. Nothing about forgiveness of sins. Nothing about grace. Nothing about repentance. Nothing about the new heavens and new earth. Nothing about resurrection. For someone who writes so passionately, so wonderfully about the damnable offense that is abortion, I just cannot believe that there is no mention of hope for forgiveness. No mention of reconciliation. No mention of peace in Christ. No reconciliation. No ransom. No redemption. No substitution. Just condemnation. *Shakes head.*
For someone who so frequently castigates preachers and churches and bloggers for not including a (the) message of the Gospel, I cannot believe the best there is to offer in that particular post is that we might get some good music out of it at the end of the day. No mention whatsoever of how people who have had abortions can be forgiven and changed by the work of Christ Jesus. (As if a purely moralized America is equivalent to the Kingdom of God.)
I’d like to begin by noting a few things for the careful reader of this blog. You may not agree entirely, but I’ll bet we are close. What I’d like to do, is offer the invitation here, at Life Under the Blue Sky, that was not offered at SOL. I begin, however, elsewhere:
- It is wrong to steal.
- It is wrong to have gay sex.
- It is wrong to lie.
- It is wrong to cheat.
- It is wrong to fornicate.
- It is wrong to commit adultery.
- It is wrong to be racist.
- It is wrong to get drunk.
- It is wrong to be arrogant.
- It is wrong to be prideful.
- It is wrong to be gluttonous.
- It is wrong to murder.
- It is wrong to get an abortion.
- It is wrong to lust.
- It is wrong to lie about the preacher.
- It is wrong to gossip.
- It is wrong to abuse your spouse or children.
- It is wrong to worship idols.
- It is wrong kidnap.
- It is wrong to disobey your parents.
- It is wrong to swindle.
- It is wrong to be greedy.
- It is wrong to rape.
Yes. Yes. I could go on and on and on. I agree with the post at SOL: Abortion is a heinous, despicable, vile, disgusting offense. I don’t know anyone here who disagrees with that assessment. Those things mentioned above are wrong; they are sin, abortion included.
But it is not the unforgivable sin. Never has been. Never will be. In the crazy economy of the kingdom of God, a person could have 490 abortions in one day and repent and God, in his mercy and grace, would forgive that person because of Jesus Christ. I mean, why wouldn’t he since he expects us to do nothing less? I don’t think God expects people to do things that he himself isn’t willing to do. Thus, forgiveness.
Abortion is not an unforgivable sin.
None of the things I mentioned is the or an unforgivable sin.
Friends, we have ample evidence in our world of all the things that are wrong with us and all the things we do badly and all the sin we have committed and all the idols we have worshiped and all the judgment we have invited into our lives and all the times we have crucified Christ all over again and again and again…
We have sufficient testimony to all the grievous destruction that our sin has wrought upon this earth.
We have enough people pointing out the sin that plagues the United States of America and Russia and England and Brazil and Antarctica and, well, you get the point.
Jesus did not tell us to go around moralizing did he? (This is not rhetorical.)
I’m not even sure he told us to go around pointing out sin, although, when the Gospel is properly preached I think that sin will necessarily be a part of the discussion. After all, it is terribly difficult to call folks to repentance if some mention of sin has not happened.
Jesus did tell us to go and preach the good news, the Gospel. “…He gave them power and authority to drive out demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick…So they set out and went from village to village, proclaiming the Good News and healing people everywhere” (Luke 9:12, 6).
We have good news! We are told to preach good news! Where’s the Good News in the SOL post? A musical legacy? For one who spends a lot of time criticizing the lack of Gospel in churches and pulpits, the post is decidedly barren of any hope and Gospel. Shall we merely criticize and condemn those who have had abortions or shall we offer them the hope of Christ Crucified and Resurrected?
Is there any hope for those who were the subject of the SOL post?
I hate to write this post, but the bottom line is that I have decided that I will make it my life’s ambition to teach the grace of God every chance I get. I want to find 100,000 ways to say: God forgives you in and because of Jesus Christ. I hate writing this post because some might conclude that I am not opposed to abortion, but that would be to miss my point. I am very opposed to abortion, but I also realize that people sin and that it was the sick, weak, broken, hurting, desperate sinners, like me, whom Christ came to save, redeem, ransom, and atone for.
Jesus didn’t come to condemn; why do we think he has assigned us that role?
The author of the SOL post did a great job pointing out a great sin, but the problem with the post is simple: She gave us a great picture of a moralized America where everyone plays in an orchestra or knits flags and worships at the throne of conservative politicians. It’s a powerful picture, but it is not necessarily one Christ has drawn. It is a terrible problem, but there was no solution offered. What’s the point of ranting about the problem when there is no solution offered at all?
She didn’t give us a picture of the Kingdom of God. She gave us a picture of her moralized America where there is condemnation for every perpetrator and no hope whatsoever.
The author would have us condemn all who have had abortions and reject them as mere weak Americans who lack courage and are interested only in their bank balance and credit card statements. Christ would welcome them into his kingdom as the very ones he came to save precisely because they are greedy, murderous, and lack the intestinal fortitude to be self-controlled–because they are sinners! Well, of course they are. That’s normally what happens when people do not know or have rejected Christ.
So here I offer what the author of Slice did not offer: Hope. If you have ever had an abortion or over-spent on your credit cards, if you have filed bankruptcy because you have no self-control, if you are a coward, if you are hopeless and think you are running on empty, if you have no where to go and you think you are out of options–there’s hope. There’s grace. There’s forgiveness of your sins. Christ has payed the price for your sins. There’s Good News! Christ has not rejected you. There’s still hope! There’s still a message of peace and forgiveness to you because of Jesus. Christ will take away your guilt. Christ will heal your wounds. Christ will save you from the hopeless, endless cycle of condemnation and death.
You can join us, all us sinners here, all us imperfect, unkempt, undone, depressed, forgiven-by-God sinners here. We welcome you to join in the story that Christ is writing and has written. We welcome you to taste and see that His Grace is Good. We welcome you to be forgiven in the Name of Jesus.
“…and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ.” The same Paul, to the same Romans, chapter 3, verse 24.
“…For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” the same John the Apostle, the same third chapter, the 17th verse.
Well, didn’t take president Obama long to get his feet wet did it? One of his first acts of manly US Presidential power: Reverse an executive order that prevented International Groups from receiving Money for ‘family planning.’
“For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us,” Obama said in a statement released from the White House. “I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate.”
He said the ban was unnecessarily broad and undermined family planning in developing countries.
“In the coming weeks, my administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world,” the president said.
I’m glad I didn’t vote for Mr Obama. Way to work on ‘reducing the number of abortions’ Mr Obama. Said a few members of the opposition:
“I have long supported the Mexico City Policy and believe this administration’s decision to be counter to our nation’s interests,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
“Coming just one day after the 36th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this presidential directive forces taxpayers to subsidize abortions overseas — something no American should be required by government to do,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., called it “morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to promote abortion around the world.”
“President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.
Click [National Right to Life] for more information on this decision.
Well…let’s see: Abortion is a primary function of the Obama administration. I’m trying very hard to be loving of Mr Obama, but right now I have no respect for him at all.
I have listened to people complain about the war for the last 6-7 years and how terrible it is that people have died as a result. Well, I think I will keep track, over the next four years, how hard Mr Obama works to ‘reduce the number of abortions.’ So far, he’s not working too hard is he?
I happened to be visiting Live-Science.com this evening and I came across an interesting article titled 10 Species You Can Kiss Goodbye. It is a picture essay listing ten different animals that are considered ‘endangered’ by someone who is, evidently, an expert. Doing my part to spread this disturbing news, I will here list the 10 species that are on the list and the cause of their endangerment.
- California Condor: poaching, lead poisoning, habitat loss
- Sumatran Orangutan: habitat loss
- Ganges Shark: rampant fishing, habitat degradation, river utilization (presumably by evil humans)
- Mountain Gorilla: deforestation, hunting, illegal pet trade, civil unrest by evil humans in central Africa
- Philippine Crocodile: habitat loss, death by dynamite fishing, human disturbance
- Black-footed Ferret: human development of grasslands, destruction of prairie-dog colonies, habitat destruction, pest-elimination programs by evil humans who hate pests, disease
- Siberian Tiger: habitat loss by evil humans who want the logs, development, poaching for fur and bones
- Red Wolf: devastation by predator control programs, habitat loss, dearth of breeding partners caused them to breed with coyotes reducing the number of genetically pure wolves
- Western Gray Whale: “Their only known feeding ground off the northeastern coast of Sakhalin
Island in Russia has since been annexed by oil companies whose
exploration and mining activities, including high-intensity seismic
surveying, drilling operations, increased ship and air traffic, and oil
spills, are driving the 30-ton mammals to extinction.”
- Sumatran Rhinoceros: Illegal poaching, destruction of habitat in the ‘name of [evil] human progress, zoos have little success breeding them in captivity.
Well, there you have it. I’d like to do my part to help out these animals, but I’d also like to, in the interests of the current presidential campaigns being conducted in America, contribute my own creature to the list of endangered species and cite the primary causes of their demise:
11. Human beings: Abortion, terrorism, sin.
Here’s hoping that our current presidential candidates will do everything in their power to get human beings taken off this endangered species list.
I realize the blog world is huge and so, at the risk of diminishing your constant support of my own blog, I have decided to step out a little bit and begin to highlight some other blogs that I happen to come across here at wordpress. I don’t know if I’ll get to it every day, but as often as I think about it I will. I want to expand my blogroll and hopefully make some new friends, join in some new conversations, and perhaps even increase my daily hit count (yes, there’s never anything done for purely unselfish reasons.
Today’s blog is called Eternity Matters. This is a well done blog written by a Christian whose name I have discovered to be Neil. The blog is family friend, and contains links to many well known Christian organizations and people like Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel, and more. There is an extensive blogroll and the host is decidedly pro-life. There are also many links to bible study websites and the host also includes a link to his personal website where one can find family photos and links to more Bible Study material.
So, these questions arise: Where do unborn humans and apes and born humans and apes allegedly without consciousness fit in the chain? Can you have ape abortions? Can you have ape infanticide? Is a 2 yr. old ape worthy of more protection than a 1 yr. old human?
His thoughts echoed thoughts that I had, although I think I was a bit more sarcastic:
You know, there is a great irony in all this. Here’s what I think. I don’t recall reading anywhere, in the vast annals of scientific literature, that the Great Ape ’societies’ and ‘cultures’ have developed medical facilities where female apes can go to get clean, sometimes free, discreet, safe abortions on demand, up to and including partial-birth abortions as late as 5 months into the pregnancy. I have read nowhere in any of these books about the Great Apes debating before a supreme court over whether or not it should be legal to kill another ape just because it is unborn. I haven’t read anywhere, in any scientific journal, that the great apes had developed a systematic, legal, mechanized manner by which they might efficiently and effectively destroy the lives of other apes just because they were unborn. And yet the same humans who have developed and done such things are now going to extend the courtesy of the ‘right to life’ to apes?!? Forgive me if I don’t put too much stock in the survival of the great apes.
Neil has many posts that are of interest. I Don’t Know But I’ll Find Out deals with giving answers to questions about faith; The Audacity of Being an Abortion Survivortells of Gianna Jessen who survived and abortion attempt, and also explains Barrack Obama’s position on abortion (this is a remarkable blog post); finally, What Jesus Didn’t Say? refutes claims that Jesus had nothing to say about abortion or homosexual ‘marriage.’ He summarizes this last post, writing:
So to summarize: Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, Jesus inspired all scripture, He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter, the “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were, He emphasized many other important issues that these liberal theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.), He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, etc.), and abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews.
I encourage you to visit Neil’s blog. You will be thoughtfully challenged on a variety of subjects and I found myself agreeing with much of what he wrote (not something I do frequently with any writer). Take a look at Eternity Matters, you will find a lot of challenging and thought provoking posts and comments.
What is strange about this post is NOT the content per se, but the seriousness of the quotations attributed to certain people, the seriousness with which people are approaching this issue, the pride people are taking in the decision of the Spanish parliament.
I can only hope that this is a joke, but it appears not so. Evidently, there really is a Great Apes Project! This is from their home page:
The idea is founded upon undeniable scientific proof that non-human great apes share more than genetically similar DNA with their human counterparts. They enjoy a rich emotional and cultural existence in which they experience emotions such as fear, anxiety and happiness. They share the intellectual capacity to create and use tools, learn and teach other languages. They remember their past and plan for their future. It is in recognition of these and other morally significant qualities that the Great Ape Project was founded. The Great Ape Project seeks to end the unconscionable treatment of our nearest living relatives by obtaining for non-human great apes the fundamental moral and legal protections of the right to life, the freedom from arbitrary deprivation of liberty, and protection from torture.
Also, there’s this:
The organization is an international group founded to work for the global removal of non-human great apes from the category of mere property, and for their immediate protection through the implementation of basic legal principles designed to provide these amazing creatures with the right to life, the freedom of liberty and protection from torture.
Well, this is all fine and good. It is important that apes are afforded rights that many, many humans on the face of the earth are not afforded. But they are apes; so, why not? Evidently, their motto is ‘Equality Beyond Humanity.’
So, this article by Reuters. Here’s the first bit:
MADRID (Reuters) – Spain’s parliament voiced its support on Wednesday for the rights of great apes to life and freedom in what will apparently be the first time any national legislature has called for such rights for non-humans.
Parliament’s environmental committee approved resolutions urging Spain to comply with the Great Apes Project, devised by scientists and philosophers who say our closest genetic relatives deserve rights hitherto limited to humans.
“This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades, which will doubtless go down in the history of humanity,” said Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of the Great Apes Project.
Here’s the last bit:
Philosophers Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri founded the Great Ape Project in 1993, arguing that “non-human hominids” like chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos should enjoy the right to life, freedom and not to be tortured.
The irony is that animals should enjoy ‘the right to life.’ Animals will not argue with such a sentiment. Animals do not ask to be put in the zoo, or the circus, or in films; animals do not even ask to be studied by humans. In fact, animals ask for nothing but to be left quite alone to hunt, eat, sleep, and reproduce at their leisure. Humans should be stewards, not tyrants. But that fact (animal ‘rights’) has nothing to do whatsoever with evolution; nothing to do whatsoever with genetic stuff; nothing to do whatsoever with science; nothing to do whatsoever with ‘scientific proof’ (since there is none whatsoever). But because a scientist says it, a philosopher ‘confirms’ it, and a politician makes it happen, it is something that should be done.
If this story were not so laughable I might actually think that apes were on the verge of constructing a great city or developing a microchip or planting crops instead of hunting and gathering. I was almost persuaded that the great apes were on the verge of writing novels to share with one another.
You know, there is a great irony in all this. Here’s what I think. I don’t recall reading anywhere, in the vast annals of scientific literature, that the Great Ape ‘societies’ and ‘cultures’ have developed medical facilities where female apes can go to get clean, sometimes free, discreet, safe abortions on demand, up to and including partial-birth abortions as late as 5 months into the pregnancy. I have read nowhere in any of these books about the Great Apes debating before a supreme court over whether or not it should be legal to kill another ape just because it is unborn. I haven’t read anywhere, in any scientific journal, that the great apes had developed a systematic, legal, mechanized manner by which they might efficiently and effectively destroy the lives of other apes just because they were unborn. And yet the same humans who have developed and done such things are now going to extend the courtesy of the ‘right to life’ to apes?!? Forgive me if I don’t put too much stock in the survival of the great apes.
If the great apes populations are in decline and need saving it is because humans have killed them too. Now we must protect them via legislation. I suppose before long the great apes will be asking us for freaking welfare too! Then they will want food-stamps. Then they will want tax-breaks. Then they will want free medical care. Then they will want social security. Damn, what has Spain gotten themselves into? If these apes ever figure out the way government really works, then we are up the proverbial creek without a paddle!
I know another endangered species that needs protection: Unborn human beings. Yes, that’s right. I believe that human beings, especially helpless, defenseless, voiceless, unborn human beings should have a Right to Life. This right to life should be as protected as that of the Great Apes–after all, we are much more closely related to unborn humans than we are to great apes.
You can learn more about the plight of humans by clicking the National Right to Life link I am providing. If you really, truly care about species survival, then write to your congressman and let him or her know that you think the United States should follow Spain’s lead and give unborn humans the same right to life as the Great Apes. I think this would be a good thing for evolution’s progress.
God have mercy on us! Lord we are so far from reality it is beyond imagination. Lord God, save us from ourselves and our own stupidity. Lord, don’t wait. And yet, give us the moral courage, fortitude, strength of conviction, and devotion to prayer to see an end to abortion and the destruction of unborn, innocent human life. And, have mercy on the great apes. Seriously. Because if the government is getting involved in their lives, the apes would be better off in zoos, circuses, and films.
PS–Good Job Spain!!
I am continuing my quest to post once per day during the month of June which will be difficult when I’m on vacation, but I will do my best. Today was a long day: Worship in the AM, then some NASCAR, then nearly 5 miles of walking, then yard work, then I built a bird-feeder in my wood shop, then laundry, then shower, then reading. What a day. After so much adventure you can imagine my dismay when I, for the merest of moments, popped over to atheocracy to visit my friend Jeff and found this post: Baby Jeebus Wouldn’t Vote for an Atheist if He were Old Enough.
Now there’s a lot going on in the post that I’m not going to bother with. It would be rather pointless for me to argue with Jeff about the merits of the Bush presidency versus the ‘merits’ of the Clinton party orgypresidency. We come from two different points of view on what makes a good president (besides having some class, dignity, and not using the oval office as a brothel). Be that as it may, I’m not even going to debate Jeff on whether or not President Bush is ‘responsible’ for the deaths of thousands, whether Clinton was a Christian in any sense of the word, whether Obama is even worth the time of day, whether Christians have ‘hijacked’ the Republican party (Conservative I may be, but I am not fan or member of the current manifestation of the Republican party that’s for damn sure!) or whether Christians ‘like all the attention.’ Frankly, I don’t care. Jeff is a dyed in the wool liberal (at least libertarian) and I am a red-blooded conservative and that is highly unlikely to change with any amount of debate.
That said, I did have an issue with Jeff’s post and it has to do with who Jesus may or may not vote for. Jeff wrote this:
And just think how horrible it would be if we elected an atheist at some point … he might be against churches being tax exempt, for gay marriage, against Hocus Pocus’s intrusion into our nation’s science classes, for women’s right to a safe, clean abortion if they choose to have one, for government funding of stem-cell research that could save lives and against waging war against non-Christian countries that are no threat to us amid calls of “Bring it on!” Can you imagine that? It’d be ……. well, maybe not that bad, actually. But he’d “have no morals! (trademark: Typical Baseless Christian Rhetoric, 2,000 B.C.)”
I’ll say this: if Dubya is a “moral, Christian” president, give me an amoral, atheist one every day of the week.
It is somewhat necessary to comment on these points in order to make the point I wish to make. Bear with me.
First of all, churches do not ask for tax exempt status because they are churches Jeff. Churches are tax exempt because they are non-profit organisations. Any non-profit organisation can be tax exempt if they wish. And just for the record, my church owns the parsonage I live in and you know what? We pay property taxes close to $3000 per year. That’s hardly tax exempt. I don’t think even an atheist would be stupid enough to pull tax exempt status from non-profit churches because then all non-profit organisations would be liable for taxes and that would kill a great deal of the liberal organisations in this country.
Second, what does gay marriage have to do with anything? The state of California is forging ahead rather nicely and they haven’t asked President Bush what he thinks of their state policy. The President’s opinion on this matter is for all intents and purposes a moot point due to state sovereignty. Furthermore, the current liberal congress would likely not bring the issue to the table.
Third, as for science in the classroom: Every classroom in the country, excepting private schools perhaps, teaches state approved curricula. While there are healthy debates, and there should be, I don’t know of a single classroom in the country where science is not taught according to those standards. Those standards are, necessarily, atheistic, Darwinist, and amoral. There is no God in any classrooms except for some very conservative small towns. But give it time, Jeff, and they too will succumb to the pressure. There is no ‘creation science’ or ‘ID’ taught unless it is approved by the state. The president, once again, has nothing to do with what is taught in the public classrooms of the 50 states of the union because curriculum is a state issue.
Fourth, legal, clean, safe and often state funded abortion is available in the United States for anyone who asks. Roe v. Wade is still the binding court decision. Abortion is still legal and even though there have been challenges to it, no one has yet mounted a substantial offense to overturn its legality and, to be sure, no one ever will. President Bush has had 8 years to work on this issue and, by and large, it has been a non-existent issue even when he had both houses of congress. The president, atheist or not, has nothing to do with whether a woman can get an abortion as late as the third trimester. What are you really complaining about here? (And, to be sure, we had a president who believed such a thing as you desire for 8 years. His name was Bill Clinton.)
Fifth, here’s what the president has said about federally funded stem cell research:
As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist” I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines ” where the life and death decision has already been made”, This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research” without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.” (White House) (Wikipedia)
In other words, it is a myth that there is no ‘federally funded stem cell research that could save lives.’ This document is from 2001 so likely there is even more available now.
Sixth, even your beloved Clinton waged war when he was in office. Harry Truman, a democrat, gave permission for two atomic bombs to be dropped on Japan in WWII killing thousands of non-Christians and Christians and innocents. Vietnam: Democrats. Hilary Clinton: Voted for the Iraq war. Look, the bottom line is that 3,000+ people died in the United States on 9/11 and president Bush took action to protect us. Like it or not. I don’t know how any reasonable, thinking person can say that Iraq posed no threat to us. And what does the fact that the these are ‘non-Christian’ countries have to do with anything? The United States of America is a Non-Christian country for crying out loud! There are plenty of Christians living in the Middle East (just google it). What the president did is exactly what Clinton wouldn’t do: He put those Islamic terrorists in their place and said: You will not get away with it on my watch. Seriously, Jeff, do you forget those who died on 9/11? Do you forget the first world trade center bombing? The USS Cole? Marine barracks in Beirut? Seriously, do American lives count for nothing? And what about protecting our political ally, Israel; and what about all the thoroughly Muslim countries we have not invaded?
Now, I certainly didn’t mean for this much to be discussed, so I must get on with the point of my post which really concerns who Jesus would and would not vote for. Jeff doesn’t think Jesus would vote for an atheist. My response: Don’t be so sure about that. First of all, consider what Jesus himself said to Pilate during his trial:
When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9and he went back inside the palace. “Where do you come from?” he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10“Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?” 11Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” (John 19)
Now, consider what the apostle Paul wrote in Romans 13:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (Romans 13)
My point in citing these two references is obvious I hope: Jesus votes for atheists to be in charge of governments every single day: Sometimes giving them the power, other times sustaining them in power, and other times deposing them from power. (Oh, I should note that Paul didn’t think churches should be tax exempt either. Neither did Jesus. They both agreed we should pay what is right.) But I digress. Fact is, most of the people running the world right now are atheists and since power and authority comes from above it seems to me that Jesus does vote for atheists.
I wonder, Jeff, is the world a better place with all these atheists in charge? Castro? Putin? Chavez? War lords in Africa? Amadinijab in Iran? Etc., etc.
I’m a different sort of person in this regard. Frankly, I’m not in favor of someone being president just because they are a Christian. In other words, Christianity is not the defining quality I look for so that when I find it I say, “Oh, he’s a Christian he’s automatically got my vote.” Most of them (politicians) say ‘I am a Christian’ just to pander to unthinking people who do just such a thing. Now that doesn’t mean I will vote for an atheist just because she is an atheist either. I vote for the person I believe a) best reflects the morals, ideas, and policies that I believe in and support and b) the person whom I believe to be the best qualified to hold that office (whether president of the US or mayor of McDonaldland). It is rather insulting for someone to assume that Christians are just such a bunch of dupes that we go into the polls blindly and vote for someone just because they have said “’I am a Christian’ and can fill up the collection plate.” That’s absurd.
Still, what I hope Jeff understands is that Jesus does vote and that more often than not Atheists do end up running things. I would think that the last 100 or so years of our nation’s history would be enough to demonstrate that. (I also realize this is fraught with all sorts of ‘Oh, so you are blaming God for Hitler, Stalin, and Castro!’ I would say yes. I don’t need to defend God in this respect, except to say that also a lot of people voted for these people to be their leaders and for the most part these people started out with some good intentions. He raised up Pharaoh in Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon. Caesar in Rome. Churchill in Britain. Lincoln in the US. Pilate in Judea. Etc. Etc. Etc. It’s not quite that simple and I’m not going to bother with all the details of providence and sovereignty because I don’t understand it all. I’m just saying that from a bare naked look at Scripture God has something to do with who is in power and when. What they do with that power once the have obtained it is something else entirely and would require many more posts than I have time for tonight.)
Anyhow, it was fun thinking through Jeff’s post. Feel free to leave a comment and let me know what you think.
PS–Jeff, you had your ‘amoral atheist’ president. Again, his name was Bill. And if Obama gets elected, you will likely have another. Thanks for entertaining me this evening.
I probably haven’t spent enough time, if any, posting here about the horrors of Big Abortion. I happened upon this youtube clip at CamponThis. I dare say you will be shocked when you watch/hear what takes place.
I would just redirect you, but I think this clip needs some wide exposure. Thanks Mr Camp for bringing this to everyone’s attention. Clips like this should bring much weeping.
For more information, please follow this link to Touchstone Magazine.
Read this story from the Associated Press.
ATLANTA (AP) — An animal research center was fined $15,000 for animal care problems linked to the death of a monkey, federal authorities said Monday.
Yerkes National Primate Research Center, part of Emory University, denied any willful wrongdoing, but agreed last week to pay the penalty, said U.S. agriculture department spokeswoman Jessica Milteer.
A Yerkes spokeswoman noted the research center reported the monkey’s death, and said the center is committed to humane care for animals. “We deeply regret that an animal died,” said the spokeswoman, Lisa Newbern.
So, the death of a monkey is worth $15,000, but abortion is a legal right with no associated fines?
Yes, I’m afraid this is America! Killing babies is OK, but Dammit Don’t you dare kill a stupid monkey, or allow global warming to wipe out polar bears! Those bastards! How could they kill a monkey! They should have been fined 4 or 5 times that amount! $15,000 is barely enough to cover the cost of the lost of one monkey!
I have been thinking much about this whole evolution thing. I have to stay on my toes because everytime and evolutionist, or Darwinist (which I recently learned is like an insult) comes here and visits they inform me of how much I don’t know. Then they take it upon themselves to ‘sit me down’ and instruct in the right way. Mrs. Heasley, my 10 grade biology teacher must not have done a very good job. Shame on her.
Let’s review, so far, what we have learned. First, we learned, from an atheist’s own mouth (or keyboard as it were) that evolution instills in a human no particular purpose whatsoever. Now a friend from another blog, Jeff, informed me that his life does in fact have a great deal of satisfaction and purpose but I’ll take him as a rare exception. Fact is, according to evolution, we are all trekking towards that great graveyard called the fossil-bed. Second, we learned that evolution has not yet been able to overcome death. Death has not been overcome–in fact, the average life expectancy hasn’t really been undone either. We might make it to 80, and some do live to be over 100; they are rare exceptions.
So far, Darwinian evolution is rather disappointing. I have no reason to go on living, and no reason to expect not to die. Here, I’d like to point out a third thing that evolution has not given us: Evolution has not given us a higher value of life. Or, to put it negatively, Darwinism has cheapened life. It has made life dispensible, valueless, cheap, expendible. It sounds terrible, but, sadly, it is only too true.
I’m willing to go out on a limb here and make a couple of statments that some folks may find rather offensive, but what choice is there? Darwinian Evolution has been the catalyst behind racial genocide (think Stalin, Hitler among others), human bondage (think slavery), and the deaths of untold millions of humans through abortion, eugenics, cloning, and euthanasia. These things are nothing more than survival of the fittest. Read this short essay for a glimpse of the ‘benefits’ of Darwinism: Eugenics (MORE ESSAYS ON THE ABOVE TOPICS).
Darwinian evolution has done nothing to created among human beings a more profound view of the grandness of life because it has taken away the most fundamental aspect of such an idea: That we were specially made in the image of a God who is Good. Consider this abstract from an essay on Darwinism and the Nazi’s:
Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’.
Now, to be fair, I must say this: Not all Darwinists are abortionists and not all abortionists are Darwinists (some are merely murderers; others are both). Furthermore, I would expect that even the most resolute Darwinist would denounce what happened in Germany and the Soviet Union in the last century. Nevertheless, we continue to see the structure of the whole ‘human life as an experiement’ built upon a foundation of Darwinian evolution whether it is genocide in Rwanda or abortion in America. It matters little.
To be sure, not all Darwinists are prone to such violence and not all have cheapened human life in the manner of a Hitler or a Stalin. I think what is frightening though is that if such structures were built once upon such a premise, isn’t it possible that such structures could be built again? What I mean is this: We all have a propensity for constructing the most evil we can out of the given resources. So what happens when life ultimately, because it is merely a struggle to keep a species alive, becomes meaningless because the value of the individual is rendered meaningless?
Furthermore, I don’t see any particular reason why Darwinists would try to combat such a philosophy. In what name can the Darwinist espouse a truly value filled picture of human life? Would it be based on mere humanism? Empathy? Altruism? Are human beings, sinners all, capable of constructing a ‘value of life’ philopshy on the foundation of something that necessarily devalues life? I sincerely doubt it, but I’m willing to be corrected.
If life is the meaningless rampage of our DNA through time and space how can there be any value on the individual? If life is the unguided process of the transfer of DNA from one generation to the next how can any individual hope to be of value? I read in A Case For a Creator by Lee Strobel that Stephen Hawking said, “We are such insignificant creatures on a minor planet of a very average star in the outer suburbs of one of a hundred thousand million galaxies. So it is difficult to believe in a God that would care about us or even notice our existence” (118). That is precisely the point I’m making: without God life is pure meaninglessness. Thus we can go about doing whatever we want in order that we cause our own survival; who else can save us? It seems to me, however, that even evolution is about survival (salvation?) of the species. It’s just that in evolution we do it ourselves without any help from anyone else, let alone a god.
Somehow that isn’t very encouraging considering the manner in which we treat each other. We’re like children at the lunch table saying, “Please tell little John to sit at another table because we don’t like him.” Human beings are beyond mean sometimes and if we treat each other like that at the lunch table as children then we go to war with each other kill one another as adults. No. Evolution has not taught us to value life or one another. It has taught us to survive by any means possible. It has taught us there is only one thing we can do: Make certain those few years between our first and last breath are survived. I don’t really think that is living.
On the other hand, someone said:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” (John 3:16-21, NIV)
I just can’t look a child or another human in the face and tell them: You are meaningless. And yet, every time Darwinian evolution is propounded and propagandized that is exactly what people are told. God says differently. He says, You have value, so much value in fact, that I sent my Only Son to die for you. His Only Son, my friend Jon says, is a liar, and pteradactyl, and a fairy King. Hmm. I see Darwinian Evolution hasn’t given us creative minds either. Those are the same things the devil says.
Soli Deo Gloria!