I tried to put a response into a question/comment that Triston made. He said that my comment about abortion was "Cryptic and confusing". I believe that he was referring to the statement I'd made about abortion, "It's rarely as simple as right or wrong I'm afraid."
So, my comment is too long and I've almost lost it. Rather than try to rewrite or shorten it, I'll just make it into a new post and ask your patience as it is late and I don't know that I've really finished editing it yet, so it may be very rough at present.
I didn't intend to be cryptic; I simply meant that, for many reasons, I find abortion a rather complicated issue. For as much as I dislike someone speaking for me when I've been asked a direct question (I assume if it is a general question then all are free to contribute), Ted actually seems to understand part of what I was thinking in his “goodness gracious, Triston” comment. So, if anyone is confused, I suggest you go back to the quoted comments towards the end of the last post.
I have known and seen the anguish close up that Ted speaks of, and from a time when Roe v Wade was only a few months old. In all that time I don't recall, for all the tears and anguish I saw, a woman ever deciding to deliberately "murder" a baby. What I saw were desperate women that were confused and scared and following what society said was right. We were taught that life began at birth. We saw it on the news with the little JFK baby – born alive to die shortly thereafter. If he’d been born dead it would be, in the eyes of the church, as if he’d never been born at all and very simple. But since he’d lived a few minutes or hours, he was treated very differently. The live birth was what made the difference – and we watched and listened as we grew up to those stories and took away their lessons.
So, we learned from the news; we learned in others ways as well and used words like conceptus and fetus, not baby. We also were taught societal values, deeply ingrained, not Biblical principles, and therefore made decisions based on faulty information. Southern society lives on not causing humiliation to your family; thou shalt not call boys was elevated to the level of the 10 Commandments, so we rejected them all, at least I certainly did. And yet, if you asked any of us if Jesus was the Christ and if He was the only way to heaven, we would have agreed and said, "surely yes". To this day I still believe “surely yes” was a real representation of what we believed, what we were trusting our eternal destinies to.
And yet, there we were, making decisions based on faulty data. We weren't talking about murder. Gosh, how can it be murder when you didn't even recognize life? Yes, it was so much less clear than it is to you now. So, in remembering the confusion and miscommunication and lack of Biblical training, do I look at those women or at myself and say, “murderer”? No, I do not. I just grieve for what the deceiver accomplished. I wouldn't walk up to a person on the street or at an abortion clinic and "murderer" either. I would try to build a relationship so that I could teach them about Christ and then let the Holy Spirit do His work.
I still remember the day my views on abortion changed, what I was doing, where I was. I was traveling with a work colleague, also a man from my church. He and his wife trained at L’abri. We talked, a lot, as we drove about the South Georgia countryside. He asked me why and I told him. It was a similar tale for many, in laws, preparation, parents, horror, sadness, despair. Then he asked what I thought of God, if he was sovereign. A "yeah duh" answer. But he pressed the point home. He asked me to follow my thoughts through to the logical conclusion. God started something and I finished it; I put myself in the place of God, made His decision for Him deciding that I knew better what the future should hold for many people than did He. It was as if time stood still and an out of focus microscope suddenly focused in on an object in 100X detail and I knew he was right. God started it so God needed to direct it; He needed to make the choices, not me.
So, it has very little to do with murder for me. It has only to do with the fact that God is sovereign and for me that settles it. So, is abortion murder – maybe so? It is not so clear for me as it is for you Triston. What is clear to me is that the creation of life is God’s business, from start to finish, not mine. To wrest control from His hand by choosing an abortion is plain and simple idolatry.
Hope this makes my position more clear to you now.
139 comments:
"What I saw were desperate women that were confused and scared and following what society said was right."
And that's so true, even today.
However, there's so much more that happens in an abortion. You have the abortionist, the father of the child, and the family.
But the most important thing is that this human being is begun by God, as you said Susan.
The Lord gives life, and the Lord takes it away, blessed be the name of the Lord.
We are, I think, to see each huamn life as precious. And we are to be compassioate toward all. For, if not for the grace of God, there go I.
Thanks for sharing that Susan. Lord bless and fill you with His joy this day that He has made.
Not every woman who has an abortion is a Christian. Even so, there can only be a handful who callously have their child aborted, on a whim.
I would suggest that at least 95% of women, whether believers or not, will suffer mentally and emotionally through an abortion.
I don't believe in abortion as far as I am concerned, but then I don't believe in killing. What other women do is their concern and it is not for me to condone or condemn. Jesus didn't condemn, so what gives us the right to condemn.
Thanks for that, Susan. I guess I've never understood how anyone cannot recognize that it is a life they are ending (e.g. heartbeats, ultrasounds, movement, etc.) and I still don't understand it. You are right that it is very clear to me because it is clearly ending a human life. That seems so obvious and crystal clear to me because there would be so many walking, talking men and women today if they had not been aborted. I doubt my position will change...but maybe you have helped me to show more sympathy in the future.
Thanks.
"What other women do is their concern" -Lorenzo
I really have a problem with that approach because if the woman "chooses" to give birth, the father sure does not have the right to "chose" whether he will take financial responsibility for the child, so the idea that women should have the right to choose to have an abortion is morally wrong on many grounds. Not just that it is a human life that they are choosing to destroy but also because the father should have much say so in the matter regarding what the mother does with his baby.
To Luther: re your last comment on Hebrews.
Are you now telling me that we can ignore all the laws in the Old Testament because we have a new covenant?
"Not every woman who has an abortion is a Christian." -Lorenzo
I would think that it is only a tiny number of people who have had abortions after they have become real Christians. Just like (I would hope) there are only a tiny number of genuine Christians who have physically committed adultery, blasphemy God, and other like behaviors after becoming Christians.
Not all the laws, Lorenzo. I went over this with you in the past: Moses gave us three types of laws. Moral laws are still binding. The sacrifical laws have been fulfilled by Christ. There is debate on whether judical laws still apply, but no body thinks the sacrifical laws still apply.
Thanks for your grace, Susan.
Surely part of the pressure for some of them- perhaps many- was in realizing what rejection or distancing they likely would have received from family, "friends", and even from too many "Bible-believing" churches and believers- sad to say, to have a baby out of wedlock. At least in their minds. I would imagine that's part it as well?
It shows how out of touch I've been that I haven't heard of many such admissions, except (I think she meant that) recently).
...that WAS part of it.
(end of second paragraph)
still difficult, but I think it is much better now.
And I think you would be wrong Triston. Everyone who names the name of Christ sins and will continue to have that potential until the day they die. What we do have is a promise that although we choose to, we do not have to sin. We have, through the Holy Spirit, been given the ability to live holy lives. That does not, sadly, mean that we do.
I wonder if, perhaps, what makes it hard for you to comprehend is that you weight and rank categories of sin. Certainly some types of sin carry different types of consequences, of that I will not disagree. But scripture clearly tells us that the wages of sin is death. Sin is not subdivided nor is the result. Sin=death. Sin is all inclusive and required that Christ die. He didn't die for just the ones that are "big" in your eyes. He died for the "little" ones as well, such as speaking to others in a condescending tone thereby murdering with pride.
Luther you speak like so many men I know and it is that that gives men such a bad name.
Of course loads of men don't support their children, or their wives, or their mistresses and then feel they have a right to dictate to women exactly what is right and wrong.
How Jesus hated the hypocrites!
I follow Jesus teachings and he did not condemn sinners. OK, he told us to 'sin no more' and we try to, but we also said 'do not judge' and there seems to be an awful lot of judging from you Luther!
I guess I see things differently. I perceive that Litl-Luther loves life and is willing to put his neck on the proverbial chopping block for the little ones who cannot speak for themselves.
In my own opinion, the world would be a better place with more men like him.
On judging:
Discernment based on visible (or audible) "fruit" = good, useful and proper.
Condemnation based on assumed knowledge of the undisclosed heart or mind of a person = bad.
"Condemnation based on assumed knowledge of the undisclosed heart or mind of a person = bad." Absolutely Craver, well said.
I think what Llama (am I right Llama?) and I are objecting to is just that. It sounds as though women are being condemned, not only as murderers, but also as evil manipulators of men.
Whether this is what Triston intends, only he can (and I hope will) say.
If you look at the situation from that vantage point, and many still do, a woman in a really hard place with pressure being put on her from without and within is not viewed and treated with compassion but rather labeled and condemned.
The idea of any baby dying is tragic. When a baby's life is terminated on purpose, I disapprove most vehemently. It is not an anti-woman thing. Where is the father? What about the ones who perform the procedure? It is not a secret notion of the heart that ends the baby's life. We are talking about an outward, observable action - visible fruit. That is why it can be said that abortion is bad.
Let me make this clear: I hate abortion. That does not mean that I hate the mothers of aborted children. What's more, I don't know any pro-lifer who does (hate the mom).
A person who sinned and seeks forgiveness may find it, but the one who chooses to keep on sinning is without hope. My goal is not to condemn, but to rescue. That applies to the mothers in crisis as well as the unborn babies.
The beauty of Christianity is that Jesus' power to cleanse and forgive is mightier than the grip of sin. His work of redemption and restoration is awesome!
Also I neglected/forgot to mention this morning, thanks for sharing your perspective, Susan. We who have not been in your place, and places with others need to hear this.
We need as Christians to understand this side and hold it as part of the mix on this issue.
"..a woman in a really hard place with pressure being put on her from without and within"
This can be true, but there are different degrees of pressure I would think.
My daughter was chatting with a group of women on Facebook, and one woman found out her pregnancy was a girl, and she wanted a boy, and so she was thinking an abortion would be a good idea.
You have rape victims. You have birth defects. And so on.
There's a lot in abortion; and about abortion to talk about.
Bottom line would be does this innocent child have more right to live then the woman has to be pregnant.
Aborted babies since 1973: 48,589,993
Total Abortions. (WikiAnswers)
Susan I appreciate you allowing us to discuss such a difficult subject. It's very, very, very emotional. Christians need to remember to be compassionate first and foremost, but also speak the truth, and most of all share the Gospel of grace.
You're right Don. The pressures, especially from family and society can be very different depending on the circumstances of the pregnancy. It's shifting sand if you try to make a decision based on "public opinion". I think that's why, for me, the question goes back even further than abortion. It goes back to God's sovereign nature.
My thoughts - He ordained the conception, therefore the conception should be allowed to proceed until He deems otherwise. I did not always think in this fashion or I would not have made the choice I did. However, one walks in the truth one has at the moment, so I am compassionate towards others who have not had a chance to rest in God's sovereignty. My desire is always to introduce them to a God who can be trusted with every aspect of their lives.
...evil manipulators of men...
Susan: I honestly don't look at this as a men against women thing. If anything, I think biblically God holds men accountable for the actions of the women in their lives. I see it as “parents” (fathers and mothers) aborting their children, not merely women aborting their children. That being said, and as Craver pointed out, I am more concerned with the ones who have no voice and are given no voice in this matter—more so than I am concerned with the feelings of women who think it is their right to abort.
If anything, I think women should be disappointed with the picture you paint of them, Susan. "We were taught that life began at birth....[we] used words like conceptus and fetus, not baby."
Women are not stupid, but you make them out to be stupid people. What do women think is growing inside them: A tumor? A stalk of broccoli? A goat? You are not giving women nearly enough credit. They are much smarter than that. They know a baby is growing inside them and yet many still choose to end that baby’s life. You are trying justify actions that are unjustifiable and making women sound dumb, when in reality they are just as smart as men!
What is the difference if I were to say “My wife isn’t giving me sex often enough and so I choose to go dating and have sex with other girls.”? And then I go on and say “We men were always taught that sex is natural, and we need it. We men can’t help it. It is biological for us to think about sex all the time…….” I could go on and on and on with this line of reasoning but all I would be doing is making excuses for my sin, and making men sound dumb. Your arguments are from the same approach and have no merit, accept that we should show compassion. I completely agree on that one thing.
"except"
not "accept"
...and "compassion" takes many forms. The most destructive form of compassion is the watering down of actions: calling sin something other than sin.
The most "compassionate" thing we can do is help people realize they are true sinners and need a Savior. Worldly compassion is based on making people feel better about who they are, making excuses for what they had done and boasting their “self” esteem. Godly compassion is telling the truth in love and helping people recognize the depths of their depravity and their desperate need for the salvation Jesus came to bring.
What I would like to see as Christian action is not so much burning down abortion clinics or picketing the doctors and women as "murderers." What I would rather see, and I think would be far more effective and easily accomplished, is for Christians and other pro-lifers to lobby Congress to: (a) make adoption a much simpler and less expensive process; (b) legislate that abortion clinics show give women viable options to see and hear the ultrasound; and (c) mandate that clinics guide women through the option of putting up their child for adoption.
I would like to adopt at least one child someday. God places the lonely in families (Psalm 68:6?), and it would be a wonderful expression of our own "adoption" by God as his children.
"Actually Triston, I think women are much smarter than men", she says with an evil laugh. :)
We are though, as described in scripture, more easily deceived than men. Even the most logical of us still thinks with her heart.
I will be a delighted Grandmother, Andrew, regardless of where the children originated.
"..one walks in the truth one has at the moment, so I am compassionate towards others who have not had a chance to rest in God's sovereignty. My desire is always to introduce them to a God who can be trusted with every aspect of their lives."
Amen.
My wife came to me back in 1972, and told me she was pregnant. I suggested an abortion. She cried. I actually didn't know the truth of abortion.
We were married at 19, and we now have been married 36 years.
The first child was premature, and lived only a day. I was able to see her for a minute, but Patti never did see her.
We had a funeral for her.
God is very merciful. The Creator of the universe has compassion and forgiveness in abundance. And oh how that feels so good. Especially for this sinner.
Thank you Lord for the Cross. And for dying for such a wretch as I. And for allowing me to have joy unspeakable, and peace that passes all understanding, and also a pure sorrow, which is good for the soul. Amen.
I think I know Ted fairly well, so before he yells at me for saying to Susan “You are justifying the unjustifiable”, let me say you are right. I probably should have worded that better. Perhaps I should have said, “I do not find the reasons you are giving for women having abortions persuasive. It is unjustifiable.” Or perhaps I could have said, “The reasons you gave for why women are having abortions are mere excuses for sin.” I’m sure there are many ways the same sentiment could be said—some more thoughtful than others. I was not trying to decipher Susan’s motive, however, only discredit what I believe to be flawed arguments.
Thanks for that Don. I'm so sorry to hear of the pain you and Patti went through.
My best friend, Dave Fontz, and his wife, Sandy, went through a horrible ordeal: Sandy was at her 40th week of pregnancy and had the sense that she needed to give birth NOW! So she went to her doctor, but he talked her into waiting another week and then he would induce. During that week, the umbilical cord wrapped around the babies neck and it (she) died. The baby was stillborn. They keep a large photo and footprints of the child on their wall. This was by far the most painful experience either of them ever went through. No one could tell them that because that "fetus" was not born alive that it wasn't a baby (triple negative!). They lost their precious daughter.
Actually, I wasn't arguing with you Triston, nor offering anything as an excuse or justification for sin. Rather I was offering you a glimpse into a human heart - mine.
I hoped it might allow you some insight into why, especially for someone from the generation that Don and I belong to, it might be a complicated issue. I was trying to answer the question you raised as to why I thought it was more complex than simple right or wrong.
Zechariah 10:2 expresses it so very well I think; we were lost sheep wandering about, believing falsehoods and lying visions and dreams. It was as Don says, "I actually didn't know the truth of abortion." Perhaps you will listen to him better than you do to me.
Whether we understood or not though, we suffer the consequences for our own sin just like King David did. I wonder sometimes that the greatest tragedy is not the baby who returns immediately to the Father, but the tortured souls left behind who never find, as Don says, "a pure sorrow, which is good for the soul".
I hope the various things I've written have not come across as "holier than thou". On the contrary. I so relate to Paul's self-evaluation that he was the chief of sinners. I sincerely consider myself the chief of sinners among us (despite my virtues: like rescuing my soul-mate in distress from a vicious dog. I do not consider that a sin by any stretch of the imagination).
It is amazing to me the crap I have had to listen to from Maalie, Lorenzo and even privately from Susan regarding how I killed that dog. And yet, when it comes to the topic of ABORTION it is like “Hands off buddy. Don’t go there!” It doesn’t seem to matter that (as Don has often pointed out) that the bodies of babies in the womb are often ripped apart and suffer a more gruesome death than did that dog I killed (who attacked my wife and I at least 50 times before I finally killed it). It doesn’t get much attention that babies are usually aborted for merely selfish reasons. Hand’s off. Don’t go there! Let’s focus rather on that poor, poor dog. Hypocrisy with a capital H! Maybe this is why I come across as unapologetic (though I would never apologize for killing that dog any way—no need to). But there are some seriously screwed up values communicated here, which is extremely upsetting. Actually, it makes me want to not come back to this site again….but for some reason I’m addicted to this blog, or I would have abandoned it along time ago.
I can remember you, Susan, coming to me by email privately and saying how you so wished I had not told the dog story at your blog. How it made me look other than I am. Basically you told me how bad it made me look. Yet, when it comes to your abortion or that of other women of your generation, we should just have compassion, and try and understand where you are coming from, and so on and so forth. You don't see the contradiction between how you were bothered (and Maalie and Lorenzo were horrified!) by how I killed that dog? And yet it really does come across that you think people like me are so insensitive, and that it is uncalled for, for us to equate abortion with murder? It is a glaring contradiction to me. Utterly amazing and disheartening.
Lorenzo the Llama persuaded me to look in here as she thinks I might have something to say. I can do so safe in the knowledge that I am about to disappear to do fieldwork in darkest Europe and will have no chance to get embroiled in the aftermath. For ease of reading I will break it up into three separate comments.
Abortion
I must say that I have huge respect for what Andrew (of Turkey) says, for he addresses the issue of “we are where we are, what shall we do?”. His approach is the same is mine. However, I would add that counselling should be secular, not based on the superstitions of any religious cult but based on sound information and evidence. Part of that could be a scan of the foetus if the woman asks for it, but it ought not to be thrust upon her in an attempt to make her feel guilty or “sinful”.
Termination of pregnancy is a moral, not a superstitious matter, and a matter for an individual’s conscience. There are plenty of atheists who are passionate “pro-lifers” and plenty of Christians who are in favour of choice. What I detest is the sentimental, sensationalist nonsense (I will not stoop to Litl Luther's depths and use the cr*p word) that surround the issue. A blastocyst of 2, 4, 8, 16 or 32 cells is not a “baby” and the host is not a “mother”. A foetus is not a baby until it is capable of independent sustained life, though the threshold gets younger by the year with improved medicine and a very generous margin should be allowed on this.
Osama Obama does not commit infanticide, his responsibility is to the electorate he represents, with particular regard to the majority who elected him and gave him a mandate.
Dog death
Litl Luther, it is not the fact of you killing a dog that horrifies us; it is the boasting and gloating way in which you described it. It is perfectly clear that you sought revenge on the hapless animal (as Simon said, its behaviour was the result of human influence anyway) and you appear to have taken great delight in causing a little suffering and "punishing" it first (it cannot have been a quick death). If you needed to destroy it you could have done so secretly it and then shut up about it.
Hypocrisy
Litl Luther and others have mentioned hypocrisy. It is your own Bill Maher who said: “Religion is a cause of many of society's problems and the practices of religion are mired in hypocrisy”. Spot on, in my opinion. Any Christian who accepts the science of medicine, or who will condemn a man to the electric chair based on a conviction through DNA fingerprinting evidence; and yet rejects the same science when it appears to contradict their superstitions; or those who subscribe to one peer-reviewed journal but reject another on the grounds of a “different interpretation”, without offering that interpretation for peer-review; all this is hypocrisy in its bleakest form; there is no other word for it.
It is like a vegetarian who wears a leather belt for fashion (you use leather, don’t you Lorenzo? Peter told me you wore all your leather gear to entice him into your life).
Arrogance
I see I was referred to somewhere as “arrogant”! That is actually quite flattering because that puts me in the same bracket as the geniuses Dawkins, Darwin, Einstein and even Mozart! It was the Great Man (Dawkins, of course) that said we should be pleased when people start to use ad hominem against you, for it shows they are unable to refute the evidence and so resort to attacking the person instead!
Now, I expect that, in my absence, I will be vilified as a Nazi, a swine or even (dread, dread) as “arrogant”. Maybe I will peep in here sometime in the future to see, but in the meantime, feel free to get on with it. And I suggest you reflect a little on Andrew’s comment (if it is not too arrogant to suggest that – LOL!).
Have a good summer everyone!
I skim read a lot of the comments until I got to Maalie's, and I must say I agree with everything he said.
It is true that Humanists are usually pro-life and they are not Christian. I know Christians who are pro-choice. Maalie is absolutely correct. It is a moral issue.
I was also going on to say that what sticks in the gullet with Luther and his famous dog, is the way he boasts of it and is pround of what he has done, only Maalie put it so much clearer than I can. As I said before, you can tell a lot about a person by the way they treat animals.
Yes, I am a hypocrite because I wear leather shoes. (Maalie you promised not to tell anyone about the way I seduced Peter!).
I notice that it is the men who talk about where the father is in all this, when women feel that abortion is the only choice. Well, I'll tell you. Generally they have buggered off and don't want to know. It is women who carry a child, give birth and then bring the child up. AND it doesn't stop when they leave home. They are always your child, you always care for them. you always worry about them, they give you grandchildren and then the cycle begins again. Children are for life, not just for Christmas, as a British phrase goes.
And yes, I'm sure you worthy Christian gentlemen will snort and snuff and say what wonderful parents you are, and I'm sure you are. But you are not in the majority. Even married men just let their wife get on with it, and just do the 'nice' things with the children and totally abrogate responability when the going gets tough.
It's so easy for men to pontificate about what women should and shouldn't do, especially when it comes to their bodies. So stop banging on about all your moral issues. If you men had to bear a child, give birth and bring it up you would be shouting very different lines.
Lorenzo: The reason I bang on about the dog (not merely because of the dozen or so times that you have brought it up again and again over the months, not letting it rest) is because I think it is a good measuring rod of where we are today:
Animals are overly valued.
Humans are devalued.
That is where the hypocrisy comes in. Not from any certain comment from anyone, but from the past responses I got publicly and privately about the dog, and the present comments that have surrounded abortion. Put it all together and, generally speaking, hypocrisy is the correct word.
"It's so easy for men to pontificate about what women should and shouldn't do, especially when it comes to their bodies." -Llama
Some men do for sure. And others don't.
Abortion is the killing of life, plain and simple. Everyone agrees even at conception there's life, that's undeniable.
The question is, Is this life a person; a living soul.
If this life is no more important then a maggot, and a maggot is life, then surely we can trash it.
But, if this new life is a person, and a living soul, then it's a huge deal.
I believe each one of us, at one time, was conceived, and became an embryo, a fetus, and a child.
My second daughter was born at 2 pounds, and by God's great grace she survived.
There are millions of babies who are 2 pounds that are killed in this world every year.
There's much to be discussed about abortion, but I believe the bottom line is that the life is a person, created in the image of his or her Creator.
It's good to see you stop by Maalie.
May God have His way in our lives this day.
Yes Donsands. Go ahead and trash any living creature, whether it be a maggot, a dog, a cat, a cow. Anything. It doesn't matter. After all, God doesn't see every sparrow fall does he?
Luther your behaviour about the dog was disgusting, and you are proud of it. You say it is because of your wife you did it.
Just say your wife was pregnant, and you both were told that if the pregnancy was not terminated, she would die. This does happen, you know. What would you do then? Where would your sanctimonious sentiments be then? Would you let her die because of your moral stance, or would you say, let her live?
Lorenzo, in that case where my wife would die if she went on with the pregnancy, then I would want to save my wife's life. You are right. If that was the only way to save my wife’s life, then I too would probably “choose” abortion. But didn't I try and eliminate these "gray areas" before?? I mentioned that 7% of abortions are said to be due to rape, or because of the mother's health or the child's health. This is the "gray area", when probably in some cases abortion is necessary. But all along I've been talking about the other 93% of cases where the choice of abortion is usually made merely for selfish reasons.
And another thing. Do you believe every sperm is sacred? Dare I ask if you use contraception?
BTW: If 1000 maggots, and 1000 dogs, and 1000 cats, and 1000 cows had to die to save one human life than I would without question choose to save that one human life, at the expense of all those animals, and more animals than that if necessary.
Oh yes Luther, you always have a convenient back out don't you.
Why have an abortion after rape? It's not the baby's fault it was conceived thus.
Who are you to judge the 93% and the 7%?
Well thankfully it won't be me judging your actions.
I would never say a woman should have an abortion because she was raped! I only know that this is another area many consider a gray area. That's why I included it.
Sperm are not human beings, so why would I care about them?
Maalie - I hope that you have a successful field trip. It was good of you to stop by.
"or those who subscribe to one peer-reviewed journal but reject another on the grounds of a “different interpretation”, without offering that interpretation for peer-review; all this is hypocrisy in its bleakest form"
if that were truly the definition of a hypocrit then guilty I would stand - and apparently bleakly too :)
"A foetus is not a baby until it is capable of independent sustained life, though the threshold gets younger by the year with improved medicine and a very generous margin should be allowed on this."
if we used your "independent sustained life" definition, then neither Don's daughter nor my Andrew were be around. Two pound babies take some significant medical support. However, Andrew will smile at the fact that you referred to him as Andrew from Turkey. He does love that country! He will be pleased that you finally responded to one of his comments since you have chosen to dodge all the scientific ones.
Again - best wishes on you upcoming trip. Grace and peace.
Llama - leather - yuck! It's so, uncomfortable! How about a nice, soft macrame belt?
I know you find all taking of life distasteful - but I'm going to have to disagree with you on maggotts, mosquitoes, cockroaches and laboratory animals. I'm not very fond of round worms (the kind dogs get) or tapeworms either for that matter.
"Yes Donsands. Go ahead and trash any living creature, whether it be a maggot, a dog, a cat, a cow." Llama
Actually Llama, maggots trahs themselves don't they. I mean, I find them in my trash can, and they seem to enjoy squiming about in the trash.
As for dogs, I like dogs. Cats are cool. My daughter has a neat cat: Mr Jenkins.
And cows? Well, I drink their milk, and I eat them as well. Actually, I suppose I eat Cattle.
May the Lord bless you.
I would like to apologise for, and correct, a definite poor choice of words I made, about "independent sustained life". That was intended to include sustenance by means of medical support; hence my reference to "a generous margin" because premature care is constantly improving. I mean independence from the placenta, including with medical care. I am not qualified to say when exactly this is, but it clearly gets younger all the time, hence the need for a very generous margin of allowance.
But now I really have to go, I have to prepare my house for invasion by builders before I depart for the European swamps.
All the best to all.
Don, you are correct. We need to remember not to vilify either gender. I think perhaps the Llama and I have been bossed around just a bit too much over the course of our lives and then left with full responsibility for raising children alone, so we are a bit sensitive on the issue.
I must agree with you - as far as I am concerned, life begins at conception. What happens from that point forth should be left to God. I do not object to medical support at all, but I do object to the ending of the life by any means other than God's intervention alone. I wonder, with my Andrew, how different things would have been if our generation as well as those who enter clinics today, were able to see a live ultrasound of a beating heart?
One more thought that I forgot. The point I'm trying to make is that life begins at conception, and this life that is undeniable is a living soul; a somebody, as we all were.
Do you agree with this point Llama?
I think that I know your blood pump Maalie - you would save as many as you could as early as you could and then take them to the swamps and woods and fields to chase birds!
Whatever are you having done to your home? And you are going off while they are working in it? That is ever so brave.
Enjoy your field work!
LOL! Final comment!
I am having my kitchen ripped out and replaced with an all-singing all-dancing one, ready for Lorenzo's and Peter's visit to celebrate the Festival of Yule. With any luck it will be all finished when I get home. I am more than happy to give the builders the key and instruct them to get on with it!
Lorenzo,
Please take special care to make sure no ants, termites or mice are killed during Maalie's kitchen rebuild. Just kidding! :)
'Renzo, I wish there were a way to wipe the slate of human experience clean, in order that we might discuss this without supercharged emotions. Compassion for these innocents is paramount to me, but if I can't plead their case without hurting you, then I will try to be more careful with the zeal I put into the discussion.
I just wish you could see their lives more worthy, and that the enthusiasm for their well-being would not be less than dogs and maggots and such. I think it is unfair to equate the honest concern for little ones with chauvinism. I hope that is not happening here.
I value human life more than animals and bugs. I do not see a problem with that.
Maalie,
I know you'll be gone, but: Since you and I both acknowledge biological sciences as important, how about we evaluate a fetus on the basis of the traditional characteristics of living organisms?
1. Based on a genetic code (DNA or RNA) -- Many biologists now consider the ability to pass on hereditary information the key tenet of living things. Therefore even the earliest self-replicating RNA molecules could be considered.
2. Made of one or more cells -- Yup, fetuses are made up of cells.
3. Reproduce -- Of course fetuses cannot immediately reproduce, but after a period of cellular differentiation they do have reproductive organs. And of course you would not call an impotent or sterile adult male non-living.
4. Need energy -- Last time I checked, fetuses needed glucose and carried out respiration just like you and me.
5. Grow and develop -- Don't we look to fetuses as the most marked examples of growth and development? Even from the earliest zygotic stages this happens.
6. Respond to stimuli -- Fetuses do respond to toxins, noises, motions, etc.
7. Carry out homeostasis -- Fetuses are able to regulate body temperature, water levels, etc. They have functioning kidneys, integumentary systems, etc. Of course, this is much more controlled by the mother herself, but the fetus fits this definition nonetheless.
So by all standards of "living things," fetuses can be reckoned alive. This is not like viruses, which lack reproductive structures and machinery and must rely on host cells to do so. Viruses are only loosely cellular, even by prokaryotic standards. Viruses also do not carry out metabolic functions.
Donsands. I agree with you that life starts at conception. Don't forget I'm a catholic!
Craver, I'm probably being very dense here, but I don't understand what you are saying to me
I hope I'm wrong, but I think we're being more harsh on those who earnestly try to defend an innocent human life than those who tolerate the "right" to end it.
"I hope I'm wrong" Craver
I think you are.
Seems to me to be an open discussion, with a lot of emotion.
The whole sphere Abortion causes feelings to erupt for sure.
I remember holding a sign at an abortion clinic in my neighborhood years ago, which said: "Abortion Kills Babies". I went with a pro-life friend from church because he asked me.
As I stood there and held the sign--actually, the law stated that you had to keep moving at such and such a distance--People would drive by and yell and beat the horn and make bad gestures, and some good gestures.
An older man was walking by, and he stopped and asked: "Do you really believe that?"
I looked at my sign for a quick moment, and then looked back at the passerby, and said, "Yes, absolutely, don't you?"
The man went berserk, and began to cuss me out like crazy. I said, "Man, what's your problem?"
He walked off cussing.
The whole abortion contention can be quite ugly at times. There's hatred on both sides. I have seen it.
We truly need to be in prayer that the Lord fill us with His wisdom and compassion, and so we can speak the Gospel of peace to a dark world. And also speak our heart's convictions, and not shrink back, but always remember: "But for the grace of God..."
Ok, a quick break from packing!
Andrew I never meant to imply for one moment that a blastocyst, embryo, foetus, whatever is not alive; in the same way that the placenta that nourishes it (or the mother's heart upon which is depends more indirectly) are "alive". Or that a cell scraped from inside my cheek is "alive" and can be grown in a laboratory culture!
My point is more semantic than scientific. An embryo may be "alive" in that sense, but when does it become a "life". And, particularly, in the context of my comment, when are we entitled to call it a "baby"? Presumably not when it is 2, 4, 8, 16 or 32 cells big. I would call that a "potential life".
So when? The definition that I have heard, and align myself with is, that we may call it a "baby" when it has developed to the stage when it can survive independently of the placenta (and allowing a generous time for premature perinatal care).
What I object to is the use of manipulative emotive hyperbole or euphemisms. Craver Vii in his latest comment makes my point very eloquently when he refers to "an innocent human life". No it's not, it is a potential life. The word "innocent" has no relevance, it is put there as an emotional distraction.
According to Donsands, a new-born baby (in my sense of the word) is a "bundle of sin" (quote). I should like to ask, when does it become such a bundle of sin? When a spermatozoon penetrates the ovum? When the blastocyst is 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 cells? Or how many, exactly?
It all seems very simple to me. If you don't like the idea of terminating a pregnancy (and I for one don't), then you don't have to do it. But at the same time, don't use ancient incantations of superstitious mumbo-jumbo about God and sin and lakes of fire in order to scare those who feel they need recourse to the last resort: let them make up their own minds.
It is a matter of personal value judgement. If a majority of people take one view or another, it will become law. As I said before, there are plenty of passionate pro-life atheists around.
Right, I'm off to bed, busy day tomorrow.
Best wishes to all.
Yes. There but for the grace of God, goes Craver. I hope I can learn to speak, gifted with wisdom and compassion on the matter. And that it can be equally received.
The desired outcome for me is not that people feel condemned, but stirred to action. That the voice for the voiceless eventually results in better understanding from society as a whole, and particularly in legislature.
In the matter of whether the unborn baby is given legal status as a human, my word "innocent" has no bearing. I'll concede to that. But if this is a human being, and that is where I disagree with Maalie, the word is important, as he or she has done nothing to deserve a legally permissible but morally problematic termination.
And when I say innocent, I only mean that the child has not committed any crime deserving human judgment. I am not factoring Original Sin into my use of the word.
But we have no right to judge. That's all I'm saying.
Personally I think life starts at conception, others when the first beat of the heart can be detected on ultra sound, some when the baby is able to live without a placenta. It really doesn't alter things. These are just words.
What matters is the integrity we conduct our lives.
"I should like to ask, when does it become such a bundle of sin?"
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm of King David 51:5
I believe these words are inspired by the Lord and Maker of heaven and earth, and so since the fall, all humans are conceived in sin.
We're not so much sinners because we sin, though that is true, but we sin because we are sinners.
God cursed this universe, when His creation rebelled. There is still beauty, and wonder in God's creation, but it is doomed under God's curse.
However, and this is a huge however, God redeemed His creation through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, by giving Him up to become a curse in our stead, and in fact the whole universe is being made new, and one day will be completely and wonderfully perfect, where the lamb will lie with the leopard!
All weapons will be turned to tools of joy, and the best part is that Christ wants us to be heirs with Him. If we only come to Him in repentance and trust His sayings above all other words. And abide in his word.
So humans are "bundles of sin" in one sense, and yet humans, though rebels, are endeared by God.
Why would He bother with rebels? Because He has set His love upon them. Why would He love them? I'll never know the answer to that one.
Well said, Don - well said indeed!
And tongue in check - the "sin" just travels through the seed of man right, not the seed of women :)
Check your facebook email.
"What matters is the integrity we conduct our lives." -Llama
But these are just words to, right?
the "sin" just travels through the seed of man right, not the seed of women :) -Susan
I'll be the first to say that I think there may well be truth in that statement. We all are born into sin, and we all have human fathers. Jesus was not born into sin, probably because Jesus did not have a human father. I thing this makes sense because even though Adam and Eve both sinned, it is only "Adam's" sin that has been imputed to us—not Eve's. So perhaps the guilt of Adam's sin does pass on through fathers. It sure doesn't appear to pass on through mothers otherwise why is it that Jesus was born without Original Sin?
Though it may just be a “pronouncement” (imputation of guilt) when conception takes place between a man and a woman and not actually sin swimming to an egg.
That was pretty funny Triston - sin swimming to an egg. My goodness can't you just see the Veggie Tales version of that? :) Have you seen those videos? I'm not a cartoon person at all but I love Veggie Tales - especially King David and the Rubber Ducky!
Susan,
This video is a very funny segment from the Cobert Report, which includes a Veggie Tales clip. I find Stephen Colbert hilarious, but unfortunately he has been known to make bad jokes about Jesus sometimes.
I've never heard of him before, but you're right, it was pretty funny - poor Larry boy!
If only the mass slaughter of baby seals, whales, giant pandas and the excavation of all elephant tusks could bring an end to abortion, the choice would be so simply (Green peace, PETA and other nut jobs would fight to end the decimation of endangered animals and still support abortion, and most Christians would stand up on behalf of the innocent babies. Wait a minute. That is exactly where we find ourselves today!!). Umm. Baby seals. So tender and delicious. Yum.
is this a debate fest, or what?
abortion, politics, religion, science, vacation, house construction, animal rights, and the list goes on and on...
yet, all of you are a group, and know eachother's likes, dislikes, opinions, and more. in other words there is someting that keeps you all together. though i would not even think to name any reasons, fearing it may start another debate.
oh...why not...i actually think you all love eachother. you are birds of a feather in how you communicate.
you are lovers of debate.
sad but true...you are hooked.
nancy: I resemble that comment!
So now you are knocking Greenpeace are you? How about Amnesty International?
But there again, I suspect you don't believe in global warming?
Thanks for stopping by, Nancy. Good to have another woman's opinion.
I don't mind a good conversation at all - even a decent discussion (Craver and my Andrew have personal experience on that one :) but I'm afraid debate never was my thing. I cringe at it and honestly, it sounds wrong to me. I feel as though there's a lot of talk with little understanding sometimes.
Llama, with the crazy summer we've had in Chicago, you'd be hard pressed to get us to take global warming very seriously based on our experience. Maybe global equilibrium? Gives me pause to think about making sure the garage is nice and tidy for the car this winter based on how cool the summer has been.
Though deliberately inflammatory - read that as, "no, no, bad Triston":( - Trison's comment does bring up the point that we, as a society, are rather out of balance. In part this is because we are a country of free speach, so the screams of small, radical groups seem louder than those o the silent majority. Or at least I'm betting that most folks, given that they'd need to give up eating meat and profiting from discoveries of medical research, wouldn't support a group like PETA, especially if their tactics were revealed.
But we do see the lack of balance he refers to where animals are treated with more respect and dignity and honestly, sometimes valued more highly, than people. And it's not just the unborn that fall to the bottom of the heap beneath some movie star's favorite animal of the week, it's children, homeless, hungry, sick and the elderly as well - just to name a few. It is certainly a sad state of affairs when there is no dignity in human dignity.
I don't know what PETA is.
I agree with you Susan. The way old people, unborn, animals, homeless, etc. etc. are treated in abmysmal.
Must go back to bed now. My head is swimming about and I'm feeling a tad nauseous as Joe is frying bacon!
>I suspect you don't believe in global warming?
Lorenzo, may I gently correct you? (I better be nice about it or you won't let me stay at your place on my way to the European swamps!).
Evolution, global warming and anything scientific isn't to do with "belief"; belief is the prerogative of those who have no evidence, who adhere to dogma. If I may take the liberty of recasting your question, it is better put:
Litl Luther, I suspect you don't accept the evidence that suggests that the observed rise in the mean annual average global temperature is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels?
In that case would you care to offer an alternative explanation?
PETA - a radical protest group - "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" - except their protests have involved killing people like me. Doesn't sound to ethical to me, I'm afraid.
Maalie - gosh, one of you is inflammatory and the other is smug! Whatever will I do with you men! And yes, you'd better be very nice and kind to the Llama. She isn't well and needs to be taken care of! Now be a good big brother, not a bothersome one!
Now - a serious question Maalie. There are solid reports in support of both positions - global warming and no global warming, so I think it's a bit more up in the air than you present. However, what I am interested in this crazy weather our part (and I think Don Sands part did last winter as well) of the US is having. We had this same discussion over the winter I believe because it was abnormally cold here - and it still is, relatively speaking. Wouldn't "global" warming indicate just that - GLOBAL? Seriously, it's the middle of the summer and with the windows open it's 22C. It should be about 28C at this time of the morning on a clear summer day.
Halfmom, nobody really knows yet, is the honest answer. I am not a climatologist, but the IPCC latest report considers there is a 90% likelihood (P = 0.9) at AGW is true. They are pretty good odds and are good enough for most people.
The biggest mistake is to confuse "local weather" with "global climate". The predictive models (and these are advancing and becoming more trustworthy by the year) indicate that the warming will be accompanied by instability and huge regional variation. You may be experiencing lower than average temperatures but in Spain right now they are experiencing almost desert conditions, soaring temperatures and widespread forest fires. Likewise recently in Australia. As I said before the key measure is mean annual global temperature, not local temps. There is no argument that this is rising, the controversy is about "when" and "how much".
I see it as a global experiment like this: What happens to the climate if we burn the fossil fuels, that took 30 million years to lay down, in just a few decades? It will not (can not) ever be repeated. When we find out, it will be too late to do anything. Many argue that we are already past the tipping point.
The problem that fundamentalists have is that they don't believe that fossil fuels could take 30 million years to form, because the world is only a few thousand years old. They say that god put all the oil and coal there ready formed. So you will never get a fundamentalist to even think about the damage we are doing to the planet, because they say it has already been pre-ordained. In the same way that I am not elected.
Yes, my sister has always been a bit smug. One of charming idiosyncrasies. But I must get on, my time is running out.
Smug? Me? Maalie, how very dare you! It's tofu for you tomorrow night.
"In that case would you care to offer an alternative explanation?" -Maalie
If I could chime in, I have a well done video on "climate global warming change" which I believe, whoops, which I conclude, gives evidence the media will never allow to be aired:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF_2bP9n3R0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdlsands.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F07%2Fglobal-political-warming-or-climate.html&feature=player_embedded
---Because it's so politically incorrect.
The 'global warming', now called 'climate change', (for political interest I'm sure) is a hoax, and it reminds me of the "WWE Smackdown" wrestling fans, who actually believe these phony wretlers are really wrestling, and not just going through the motions for entertainments sake.
Or the way people follow a false TV evangelist like Benny Hinn.
The evidence is very obvious of the phoniness, but people swallow this stuff hook, line, and sinker.
I wish they would have a debate in Washington DC between good scientist, with integrity, on global warming. If I were President, I would have them debate the evidence. But that ain't no way gonna happen with Chairman Obama.
So we're going to taxed and taxed and taxed to high heaven.
Good morning to all. Have a lovely weekend all.
>So we're going to taxed and taxed and taxed to high heaven.
Yes, I agree, that is the usual conspiracy theory put about by the deniers. After all, it's not going to trouble us in our lifetime is it?
I think they should start reading the actual peer-reviewed climatological literature rather than the media.
I do think global warming is occurring, but what we need to realize is: The earth's temperature and ice volume have always undergone major climatic changes over history!
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/paleoclimate/index.html
However, the warming trend has been increasing at a more-rapid-than-normal rate since the beginning of the 19th century, and we humans need to be good stewards of the earth entrusted to our care. That is, you know, part of Christians' calling.
That is an interesting Link Andrew (of Turkey), I have just read it. You clearly place some credence in it, and the geological principles therein, or you would not have cited it (I think).
Therefore, may I ask you how you personally reconcile this statement:
>Fifty million years ago, global temperatures were so high that there were no large ice sheets at all
with the biblical view that the world is only a few thousand years old?
"However, the warming trend has been increasing at a more-rapid-than-normal rate since the beginning of the 19th century"
That's a bold statement. I guess it depends on who you listen to, or read, doesn't it. I definitely don't listen to Al Gore.
However, I will listen to proven scientist, but even then they make huge predictions that never take place don't they:
"The world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age" (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of "ominous signs" that "the Earth's climate seems to be cooling down," meteorologists were "almost unanimous" that "the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century," perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, "The Cooling World," April 28, 1975). -From an article by George Will
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021302514.html
This is why I would love to see a nationally televised debate by both sides, with climatologists who have had integrity over the years, and who don't have a political agenda. Is that even possible?
"George F. Will has blurred the line between independent journalist and political advocate. Will helped Ronald Reagan prepare for his 1980 debate against Jimmy Carter, breaking with the journalistic tradition of neutrality...
George Will is a Republican. He is biased and you would expect him to say what he says.
Please cite the peer-reviewed scientific literature, not a second class journalist with a political agenda.
He was simply quoting Newsweek, and other sources. Hey, what's wrong with reading the facts and reporting them.
Republican or Democrat, makes no difference to me, as long as you journal the facts and truth.
Will is surely biased, as I am, and you are Maalie, and every other human being.
But with our bias do we have integrity? I believe George Will does, and has proved it.
And I don't agree with all he says BTW.
Maalie,
Even if global warming is true (and I'm inclined to think there is something to it after all the record-setting temperature I've seen reported in various places over the last decade), the majority of players are saying that sea levels will only rise 4 inches in the next 100 years and that at this rate it would take thousands of years for the polar ice caps to melt. The temps in those regions always stay well below the thawing point. And warmer temps will cause more snow to accumulate, making the ice sheets expand, not shrink.
Susan: I wasn't trying to be inflammatory. I really do think baby seal would be juicy and delicious. Put a little mesquite rub on the meat before gently laying a slab on the grill. Perhaps some barbeque sauce, or soak the meat in teriyaki sauce and serve it with rice. Sounds scrumptious. I’m getting hungry…. Where’s that dog of mine? Tuki? Tuki has been my loyal K-9 pet for the past 9 years, and I haven’t killed her yet!
Smug - my Llama - my goodness no. I think that gene was expressed in the first born only :) Now be a good Maalie and offer your little sister something to make her feel better - preferrably something healthy!
I'm inclined to fall on the side of my Andrew's observations and feel that I don't do a very good job of stewardship here - certainly not as good as I could.
Microclimate instability makes good sense, especially given the climactic extremes you state in other places in the world, Maalie (I've had my head buried for much of the last 6 months I'm afraid, so I didn't realize the other extremes taking place)
Tuki just reminded me that it has been over 10 years she has been by my side.
If I was a lover of debate, it would be reflected on my own blog, wouldn't it? No Nancy, I'm genuinely trying to persuade these friends of mine about ideas that I am passionate about (things that I crave). Truth be told, some of these spirited discussions are reflected in elevated blood pressure readings. I don't enjoy the fruit of debate, which might include disagreement and/or misunderstandings.
But you are right about the other thing. I love these people, and they are like an extension of my own family.
yeah, craver.
i guess i got carried away on the debate theory, as i know that you and others here are not that hot on it, but still, you are all very interesting. it would make a great tv or radio show as it would appeal to a wide ranging audience.
and...i am glad to hear that you agree on the love thing here. i really do think that is true that you all care for and even love one another. what a group!
i have never seen this many comments anywhere else, and them being all over the map in range of subject matter.
I like debate too much, Nancy. You hit the nail on the head with me.
...and I love these people too. You hurt the ones you love, right?
Aw shucks Craver, and I love you too!
today's word is gobingie
A slightly different bent to the question of abortion is the question of death.
Recently a famous conductor and his wife went to Switzerland to commit euthanasia, which is officially illegal in this country. I say officially with tongue firmly in cheek.
Does anyone have any strong views on this subject?
Killing yourself is sin too, but I'm not going to go on a crusade to try and stop people from doing it.
I'm against euthanasia, but it's a different issue all together than abortion. These people want to die. But I haven't heard of a single baby, of the 50 million who have been aborted, get to make that decision for themselves.
Abortion is murder and a holocaust of evil in our world. Hitler would be proud. Euthanasia, however, is people making the choice to murder their own body, to end their own suffering (but in reality they are going to a much more painful place).
However, if a genuine Christian commits the sin of suicide, I'm confident that person will still go to Heaven. Our salvation depends on Christ alone.
"Hitler would be proud." -Triston
I'm not so sure brother.
On euthanasia, Joni [http://www.joniandfriends.org] says:
"Euthanasia promotes the attitude that life lived in suffering provides no meaning, that life lived with a handicapping condition is not worth living. Euthanasia promotes the premise that suicide is preferable to life lived in a wheelchair.
Society seems to have a double-standard: If a homeless, jobless woman went before a court asking for help to end her life because she couldn’t endure her circumstances, that judge would send her to a shelter for the homeless and put her in a jobs skill training program. But if a severely disabled person confesses that he wants to end his life because he can’t endure his circumstances, he would most likely find empathy. We are basically saying that a person with multiple sclerosis makes a reasonable, rational choice if he wants help in ending his life. There are all sorts of options to help a disabled person live life in a meaningful way: independent living services, personal care assistance, group living, adaptive equipment, support groups, and so on. Christians must not allow society to redefine the word compassion as “3 grams of Phenobarbital in the veins.” Compassion is coming-alongside a suffering person to provide help and hope in Jesus Christ."
The particular couple I was talking about was a elderly woman who had terminal cancer and had a few weeks to live and her husband of 50+ years who was a famous conducter but was losing his sight and hearing. They decided to make an end together in a Swiss based 'hospital' called Dignitas.
I have no real strong feelings about this. Personally, even in all the crap that has happened at times in my life, I have never wanted to end it. Life is too exciting, even when it's awful. I don't know how I would feel in this particular lady's circumstances though.
Hi Don,
I certainly am against euthanasia too, but my "Hitler would be proud" comment was just about abortion.
Cease and desist on the topic of abortion please, Triston.
Llama, I hope you are feeling better today!
Okay Susan. Though this is one of the only times that we have stuck with the topic of your post: abortion.
We've all had enough of it Luther.
Bit better today thanks Susan. Mozied down to the deli for a coffee with Father Ann, but felt bad once I got there. I think I must do things slowly until I get my strength back!
Maalie's been and gone leaving havoc in his wake! He wanted me to steralize any plates, cups etc. before he would eat out of them!
Susan, have you heard the story about my recent encounter with a suicidal man? He was in a drunken stupor, and came to me at the food pantry for counseling. (Some people there insist on calling me a pastor even though I have repeatedly corrected them.) He wanted to know that he would still go to heaven if he killed himself. His quest for theology was poorly timed; methinks deep thoughts are (usually) wasted when a person is inebriated. I do not believe that suicide is a reversal of salvation, but I wasn't even sure that this man truly believed, so I avoided a direct answer and explained that he was talking about "murdering himself." Then I asked him if he thought murder was a sin. With that, he was convinced that he should not kill himself. He poured the last of his flask on the ground and we used our resources to help him get back on his feet.
Good work Craver! You dealt wisely with that man.
I often think Craver, that true thoughts often come out when people are drunk.
Naturally aggressive people behave aggressively, morbid people behave morbidly, amorous people behave amorously etc. etc. I've often spouted 'wisdom' when I've had a gin too many, but mostly, I fall asleep.
A little crafty perhaps, but wise? Thanks for the compliment! I'm not a quick thinker, so I think that idea was a gift from above.
'Renzo, I think you're on to something there, and that's why I will not allow myself to get drunk anymore (since I turned 21). It lowers the inhibitions, and I just might say something that I really mean, but ought to be left unsaid. I don't want to ruin relationships like that. I limit myself to two drinks.
Are you feeling better today?
Craver: I'll drink to that!
Two drinks is just right, if it is beer or wine, but if the two drinks are two glasses of scotch, then it is too much (at least for me).
I'm happily amazed to find out how many of you guys drink. Nepali Christians think any Christian who would take a drink must be backslidden. So I just drink with my Western friends or drink alone, with nobody else, except George Thorogood.
Craver, I find the food pantry to be a very hard place to work. I don't mind the work, but it's really hard for me to be as cheerful as the rest of you. It breaks my heart when I see how downtrodden the people are, and that shows in my face immediately. I'm glad you were able to answer the man in a wise fashion, especially for his sake. I never tell them it's not an unforgiveable sin either, by the way, even though I don't think it is. I don't want to give them any encouragement in that direction!
Bit better today Craver but still not very chipper!
It's only non-conformist chapels that don't drink here. In the Anglican and Catholic churches you get proper pukka wine to drink and it all has to be finished. Every drop, because it is holy.
Jesus liked a drop of the hard stuff from time to time too. I often think there must have been an awful lot of falling over, singing and rowdy behaviour on the way back from the wedding at Cana.
"..from the wedding at Cana."
Jesus first miracle!
It's a marvelous miracle indeed, turning the water into wine.
Here's the fruit: "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him."
Jesus Christ is glorified, and His disciples believed.
"I often think there must have been an awful lot of falling over, singing and rowdy behavior on the way back from the wedding at Cana." -Renzo
It doesn't say Jesus even drank at that party, but you're right that people probably did get inebriated because all the wine at the party was already drunk (Jn. 2:3), and it would appear that some people had already had too much to drink before Jesus made them more wine (v. 10). But with Mary saying to Jesus "'They' have no more wine." may indicate he was not drinking. In fact, Jesus' annoyance with Mary when he said "why do you involve me?" probably does indicate he wasn't drinking on this occasion, though Mary may have gotten plastered!
Nothing new on this blog! Buried with comments.
We had a nice time in Ohio, and glad to be back. I especially enjoyed the part on abiding in Christ in Scot McKnight's "Jesus Creed," a most excellent book I'd highly recommend to everyone!
Lorenzo,
Glad you're feeling better. That you're on the mend. :)
The mention of wine here reminds me as well of Jesus' saying that he is the true vine and his Father is the gardener.
And how we in Jesus are the branches connected to the vine, dependent on it for life.
We are united with Jesus so that we may bring forth much fruit, to the Father's glory as Jesus' disciples.
Good passage to meditate on. (they're all good, but this one is one I've been pondering lately).
Amen, Don.
And that, the first of Jesus' signs was to point people to himself beginning with his disciples, to the uniqueness of who he is, that all in the end might believe- those signs continued in the gospel of John.
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
John 20
It didn't say that he didn't have any wine either. He certainly drank wine. Everyone did, and he said at the last supper that he would drink any more wine until he was in the Kingdom.
Glad you're on the mend, Llama.
I wonder what Mary's motivation was in asking Him to make wine in the first place. She knew a lot because the angel told her early on about who Jesus would be; but, I wonder what she had seen or knew that told her He could do make the water in to wine to start with.
Mary was a righteous woman. She was highly favored by the Lord, and she was very godly in all her ways. It's by God's grace, and her faith in the Lord, but she was an exceptional saint. And God has exceptional saints, and all kids of saints, from Lot to Daniel, from Paul to Peter.
Bottom line is that the just shall live and walk by faith, not sight.
Though Mary had seen angel's, and so much evidence in her life of who Jesus was, when he turned twelve, and was left behind in the Temple, Mary said to Him when she found Him: "Why did you do this. Your father and I have been looking for you for three days with great distress."
Jesus said, "Why were you looking for Me? Didn't you know I would be in My Father's house."
And Mary did not understand what her Son was saying, the young Lord and Christ of the universe.
I think Mary is a fine example to us all how our faith can be strong at times, like her's was at the wedding, or weak, as it was when she was looking for Jesus.
I know I am weak in trusting Christ at times, and try to make things happen by exertion of my own will: Leaning on my own understanding, and not trusting God.
Other times I'm able to simply trsut the Lord, and say "Your will be done Jesus, not mine."
And it's then that great things do happen, and it may even get down to "blood, sweat, and tears", but it's that easy yoke Jesus spoke of just the same.
"Trust me", Jesus said, "and I will give you rest. Take my yoke, for it is easy, and My burden light. Learn of Me, for I'm humble and gentle, and you will find rest for your souls."
Llama I agree 100% with you. Jesus definitely drank wine, fermented in fact, but the text you refer to doesn't say he drank at that wedding. That's all I was saying. Nevertheless, Jesus certainly drank wine:
Jesus said, "John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.” (Matt. 11:18-19)
Clearly Jesus admits to drinking a beverage containing alcohol: wine of course. That's why I will always contend with those who say drinking is wrong. Drunkenness is sin but not drinking. Jesus certainly never got drunk.
Don, good words on Mary. I'm sure she is one of the greats among the saints and no doubt she was favored by God more than any other woman, to be given the undeserved privilege of being the mother of Jesus.
Pretty good words I think from Scot McKnight's very good, The Real Mary, : 63-70.
"When Jesus challenged the limits of the honor-your-parents command some twenty years later at the wedding at Cana, the event began a public turning point in Mary's life. Mary, the mother, would learn to be obedient to her son. What she would have to learn, what she would have to struggle with in the real world- was that Jesus was in fact the one before whom she was to have no other gods. Mary would discover that obeying the First Commandment, honoring God above everything else, meant surrendering her own honor by following her own son!
"At a wedding in Cana the real Mary learned this kind of obedience.
"At the wedding in Cana something happened that put the wedding family's honor at risk. According to later rabbinic records, the groom was under the honor code to provide plenty of food and drink for his guests. Mary detected that they had run out of wine. Why Mary was concerned is not clear, but perhaps she was concerned about this because she was family or perhaps she was catering the wedding banquet or perhaps because it put her own honor at risk. For whatever reason, Mary decided to approach Jesus about the draining of supplies and said to him, 'They have no more wine.'
"....Details aside, it is clear that Jesus understood his mother's words as carrying an honor code, fifth-commandment-claim-as-a-mother on him to do something about the wine.
"Mary expected Jesus to honor her and her request, but Jesus was about to put the Fifth Commandment to honor one's mother in its proper place....
"The question Jesus asked of his mother at the wedding...-'Why do you involve me?'- made it clear to Mary that she had intruded into his space and into God's plan for his life....
"'My hour has not yet come,' Jesus said to his mother. These words in John's Gospel are profoundly important for understanding a new development in Mary's relationship with Jesus....
"Now observe this, and see what Mary would have understood: If Jesus alone knew God's will, then the only ones who knew God's will were the ones to whom Jesus revealed that will. For Mary to know and do God's will, she would have to follow Jesus....She would have to allow her son to become her Lord....
"Mary's response turned the key that unlocked the door to Jesus' first miracle. Let us not minimize Mary's role in this first miracle, as we Protestants are prone to do. Because Mary directed the servants to do as Jesus said and because the servants obeyed, Jesus converted six thirty-gallon jars of water into the best wine yet served at that wedding. The groom and his family were spared a public shaming, and Jesus 'revealed his glory'....
"The wine miracle, when unfolded by contemplating the biblical images, speaks of joy, it speaks of the final banquet, and it speaks of new life. In addition, this profuse, abundant wine speaks of the transformation of Jewish purity jars into Jesus' wine of joy and of the old covenant being transformed into the new covenant. But mostly this water-become-wine reveals something about Jesus: that he makes all things abundantly and joyfully new and brimming with life. In fact, the sign here tells us that Jesus is himself the one who provides joy for those who will taste him and his provisions, who listen to his words, believe his words, and receive his words as words from the Father. The claim of the sign at Cana is that Jesus' life, brimming as it is with God's living presence, will never run dry and will always sustain his followers.
"There are many spiritual riches here to contemplate, and it is doubtful that Mary or anyone at the wedding grasped the potency of the sign when it occurred. But, all of this was there- in rudimentary and elementary form- so that the eyes of faith could be opened to see who Jesus was.
That sign was triggered when Mary said, 'Do whatever he tells you.' We often forget her role here. Jesus did not perform the miracle-become-sign, the water-becoming-wine, until Mary directed the servants to do whatever Jesus said. Mary meddled in Jesus' business, Jesus revealed to her that he did only what the Father told him to do and only when the Father wanted it done, and Mary trusted those words of her son. By trusting Jesus, Mary unlocked the doors to a mighty miracle. But, Mary first had to surrender her own honor to her son. The Gospel of John suggests Mary stumbled into this, the way many of us stumble into faith."
Catholics believe that Mary was asked to ask Jesus about the wine running out.
This gives us our philosophy of Mary interceding on our behalf with Jesus. That is one of the reasons why Catholics pray to Mary, asking her to intercede with Him on our behalf.
I don't expect any of you to go along with this, and I expect an ourpouring of denial from you. I'm just saying what Catholics are taught.
" Mary meddled in Jesus' business, Jesus revealed to her that he did only what the Father told him to do and only when the Father wanted it done, and Mary trusted those words of her son." -Ted
Good thoughts there Ted; from McKight that is.
Hey Llama, If you can find somewhere in the Bible where Jesus tells us to pray to Mary, I'll be the first one to do so, really.
Thanks for that Ted. I too also found Scot McKnight's explanation very inspiring -- especially the idea that on Mary that "She would have to allow her son to become her Lord." How profound and true! ...but I'm not sure about his explanation of the wine. It seems pretty over spiritualized to me.
One thing is for sure. People had been already drinking wine, and then Jesus made them a lot more -- 180 gallons of the best tasting wine. There were some buzzed people at that party!! I know this is not the point of the story but it is true nonetheless. Actually, it should probably make us reevaluate what should be considered "excessive" drinking.
Don is right. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church is they base so many beliefs on what some pope said, rather than on what God's Word says. You will never find a single text in the Bible that even alludes to the idea that Christians should pray to Mary. Search all you want, you won't find it because it is not there. It is sin to pray to Mary, plain and simple. Mary, the mother of Jesus, would be the first person to beg you not to pray to her.
If we base our beliefs on Scripture and not on superstition, then we know there is only one person we can go to and go through to reach God the Father:
"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." (I Timothy 2:5)
The Bible tells us there are not two mediators: Jesus & Mary. There is only one mediator: Jesus. You really need to choose whether you are going to believe the lies and myths people tell you, or are you going to base your beliefs on what God teaches us in His Word, the Bible.
This is A SCARY VIDEO CLIP on how Islam is taking over Europe, while the Europeans themselves are a dying race (Example: The non-Muslim French have 1.3 babies while the Muslims in France have 8.1 babies on average. Europe will be conquered by Muslim dominance in our life time. It looks like it will eventually happen in America too, but it will take longer (The one way this might not happen in America is through the Catholic and Protestant South American immigrants. They have more babies. Let them come! All of them! I would much rather have a land full of Mexican and Cuban immigrants from Christian backgrounds in the USA than for our country to be dominated by demonic Islam.
I know you don't want to talk about the subject of abortion anymore, but it is the fault of abortion that our birth rates are so low in the West! And because of our low birth rates, Islam is taking over the world!! It is probably a curse from God for the sin of abortion. Yes. I say it is a curse from God because of abortion. Thank you Roe vs. Wade for destroying the world!!
The Catholics do have this much right: that God chose Mary to bring his Salvation into the world.
From Augustine and the Catholics comes the idea that Mary had to be sinless by grace, which I don't agree with as I don't find that supported in Scripture (but that was/is their theology), but Jesus and his salvation was necessary even for that in their theology.
And certainly they believe that Jesus is the one mediator between God and humans. I read from Pope John Paul (the last pope) who in a book spelled that out quite clearly, and that indeed is a part of their official doctrine, even if some other things in their teaching (one thing I have in mind) misunderstood might obscure it.
Unfortunately some teachings that have been added on in their tradition, such as asking/invoking Mary to pray for them (along with other saints) tends to obscure that, and some people end up not really believing that Jesus is their salvation.
But we Protestants don't honor Mary the way we should, while the Catholics overdo that, I believe.
The only reason Augustine taught the sinlessness of Mary was because he was trying to understand how it could be that Jesus was born without original sin, if Mary had original sin. The RC Church distorted Augustine's teaching and made it about Mary when really his reason for it was for Jesus' sake--though of course Augustine was wrong about Mary. She was indeed born in sin and committed sin.
A simple explanation I have heard is that Adam's sin is communicated through the seed of man, and since Jesus was not brought into the world through union with a man, he did not carry Original Sin.
Amen Craver. That's what I believe.
Of all the population growth in all of Europe since 1990, 90% has been from Islamic immigration. How frightening! You should tell your daughter and grand daughter to get ready to wear a Burka, Renzo! Already in Belgium and Holland 50% of the babies born there are Muslim, and that number will only increase. Germany admits it is already irreversible. Germany will be a Muslim nation by 2050, they say. It is amazing what is happening in Europe. England has had a 30-fold increase in its Muslim population in the last 35 years. Europe’s rejection of Christ has its consequences, and America may be going down the same road.
"But we Protestants don't honor Mary the way we should, while the Catholics overdo that, I believe."
That's true, for the most part. And there are always exceptions.
Here's another deep passage to consider and ponder, if you like:
"And his [Jesus'] mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”
Is Jesus saying, "Here is my family, those who will sit with Me in My kingdom, and have such joy, that it's impossible to desribe!"
And of course Mary is included, but Jesus likes to go against the grain, in order to make us think deeply, and use our minds, and ask Him qusetions, and allow the Holy Spirit to enlighten our minds, and encourage our hearst with His truth, promises, and love.
Have a great weekend everyone.
Gives "family" a whole new definition, doesn't it Don - and being a mom too. I'm thinking a lot today about being a mom.
I hope that you have a wonderful weekend as well. I have some straightening to do around the house - moving aftermath in the old childhood bedroom and the garage and I have a lesson to finish preparing for Sunday - we're doing a series of Sunday School classes for our youth leaders - teaching the teachers, gosh I've gotten old! So, the weekend will be quiet but productive.
Yes, Don. Scot has a great chapter in his book, "The Real Mary" on that, as well.
Well stated by you, there.
Post a Comment