Can I Kill It?

88% of abortions happen between this stage and before 13 weeks. This represents 48 million babies since Roe v Wade. In the USA alone...

The hardness of our hearts will blind us to the straightforward: “Those pictures pro-life activists flash are real,” Mary Mahoney told the Observer. “That is what a fetus looks like when its head is crushed.” AND YET she can conclude, “When you see the procedure, you must decide, as a pro-choice person, whether you are in or out,” said Mahoney, adding: “I have never been more in.” Forgive them, God, though they know what they are doing.

While using the word “murdering” to describe what pregnant mothers and doctors do when they choose abortion (and by extension those who support them) seems inflammatory and controversial, using the word “killing” must be immediately clear to everyone as appropriate. Murder, we could probably all agree, is the unjustified killing of an innocent human being. But using medical words like “fetus” rather than “baby” causes some to think that what’s in the womb isn’t quite human (even after they look at the pictures), yet if we did think that what we killed in the womb was a human being, then why shouldn’t we call it murder? So all the red herrings about women’s rights aside (I say red herrings because it is putting the cart of rights before the horse of identifying what it is abortion does), here’s what I propose we do. Before getting embroiled in a heated emotional rant about which side is eating babies or oppressing women, we need to answer a simple question.

That question is: Can we kill it?

Kill what? A developing human being or something that is quite living but isn’t quite human yet and therefore morally neutral to kill? I think the science speaks for itself. What we have is an individual with its own DNA and blood type quite distinct from the body of the mother with a functioning brain, heart, nervous system, and all the other necessities to sustain a mammalian life form. The woman’s body is not at issue here as much as the body of the little creature developing inside her which gets conveniently left out of the discussion. It seems logical to suppose that traversing the birth canal doesn’t magically bestow humanity on anyone, but that it has more to do with our nature, genetics, and our mind. Clearly, the fetus has human genetics and an active mind which should lodge her firmly in the “human” category.

So here’s the argument that many Pro-Choicers want to avoid and others just haven’t thought about yet:

1) It is wrong to kill an innocent human being without proper justification.

2) Elective Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being without proper justification.

3) Therefore, abortion is wrong.

It’s hard not to think of taking someone’s life for our own convenience as anything but murder. What else could it be? But, there’s good news amidst all of today’s infanticide. Good news for those who have been involved in it. God grants forgiveness through the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Like the soldier falling on a grenade to save his comrades, Jesus physically took the death penalty in our place for the sins we’ve historically committed. They cannot be erased, except by the grace of God and the blood of Christ, for it would not do justice to simply forget evil and sweep it under the rug. All sin is punished either in us or in Jesus for those who trust in God to be true to his promises. And God proved the truth of this good news to everyone for all time, by physically raising Jesus back from the dead.

Merry Christmas! Is it or isn’t it? Metaphor-schmetaphor.

Nativity Scene by G Cuffia

Either Christmas happened or it didn’t. To call the gospel historically false and yet try to save it in order to make it matter, to create a metaphorical middle ground that can inspire us all, is to be patronizingly dismissive to the audacious level of the claim itself. No matter how inspiring a legend may be (say Robin Hood for instance), the details themselves aren’t truly significant (that is the poor people that Robin Hood allegedly helped weren’t in fact helped). But if the legend were true, then it does not merely inspire or instruct but can actually affect the course of human history. Take that to the level of an account about God becoming human for you and I (“What if God was one of us? Just a slob like one of us?”) and then we see just how patronizing it is to make it into some kind of useful fable to merely inspire happy or holy feelings. If it didn’t happen, there’s absolutely no need to “fall on your knees” to a false god. Wisdom indicates we not simply justify whatever sounds good. Rather, a humble “ask, seek, knock” seems the best method for coming to a conclusion about life and death issues like this. Take a moment to examine your heart and mind. Do you find yourself asking or telling? Seeking or hiding? Knocking or walking on by?

Jesus was right.

In Jesus’ day, there were some who didn’t really care what he said, but they were bound and determined to use his words against him. For example Jesus said, ‘”Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?”’ (John 8:51-53)

People are still twisting God’s word to make it seem like contradictory nonsense. I actually read one rant that insisted the Bible condoned cannibalism! This is either an elementary reading problem or else it must just be spiteful propaganda. Or is it? Perhaps it is merely symptomatic of their blindness. At any rate, since thankfully there aren’t many people jumping in with the biblical cannibalism ranter here are some more popular misconstruals: The Bible endorses slavery or genocide. The Bible says things like wisdom is pointless folly but other places praises wisdom so therefore we should dismiss it out of hand as God’s Word. Or depending on which gospel you read, Jesus acts like a different person entirely. And they mislead with various other details. These accusations are no less ignorant than Jesus’ audience in John 8 who forced a meaning on his words that he had no intention of conveying and didn’t bother to try to clear it up with him. And I know this not by some superior schmartz or an inside chat with God, but by the context of John 8 and also by simply reading how Jesus spells it out in John 11:25-26, ‘Jesus said to [Martha], “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”’

I’m not arguing that this proves Jesus was God. Even if Jesus wasn’t God, these hearers twisted his words. He’d be wrong if he wasn’t God, but at least what Jesus was saying would be coherent. However, Jesus was right to say believers would “never see death” or “never die” if what he was saying were true. He wasn’t saying they would never die a natural death first (so his hearers got all upset over nothing), because Jesus had resurrection in view.

So how could they (or we) know that Jesus wasn’t just crazy or lying? Many ways come to mind including his own resurrection and miracles and his integrity, but for the sake of a short blog post, here’s a prophecy he gave which we can immediately agree—whether one is Christian or not—came true and keeps on coming true. And I should note that while a clever mind can always think of probable ways around an undesirable outcome, I believe the cumulative evidence makes only one view the most plausible, and that is that Jesus was right.

In Kenya, Oct 27, 2011: “The [six] attackers believed Hassan had converted to Christianity from Islam, according to Compass Direct News. They hit Hassan on the head, face, back and legs with a metal bar; cut his hands with knives; and stomped on his stomach after he fell to the ground.” Hassan was left for dead but thankfully someone rushed him to a hospital where he even needed a blood transfusion to survive. However, others do not live through similar attacks.

Kenya, Nov. 5, 2011: Suspected extremists sympathetic to al-Shabab threw a grenade into a church elder’s home outside Garissa, Kenya, killing 8-year-old Winnie Mwenda Mutinda and 25-year-old John Kikavu. Three others in the house were seriously injured.

In Israel, c. 33 A.D.: “The hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me. But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you.” (John 16:2-4)

In the first century, it was among Jews who thought they served God with violence against Christians (and some still do). In the middle ages, it was from others calling themselves Christians, from Muslim conquerors, and from government heads. In recent centuries, it has been from Fascists and even Communists (serving the “greater good”), the K.K.K., superstitious tribes, and radical Hindus and Muslims. And the martyrdoms have only increased.

Looks like Jesus knew what he was talking about.

Jesus said he came to… what?

I’ve read these days that Jesus didn’t primarily concern himself with afterlife issues. That later, Christianity got “too heavenly minded to be any earthly good.” But where do they get these historical convictions which remove a person’s hope for eternal life? They’d better have a pretty good explanation because according to Paul “if in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor 15:19 ESV). At least Paul seems to be under the conviction that Jesus taught about eternal life. He’s not the only first century Christ follower who said they were passing on this idea from Jesus himself. Here are just some of Jesus’ intentions for his mission, including his own words on it.

He is said to have come…

to be a sacrifice for sins (salvation).
After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high… (Heb 1:3, see Heb 10:1-10)

to teach truth about God.
Long ago . . . God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, . . .
(Heb 1:1-2)

to preach the Kingdom and repentance.
[Jesus] said to them, “Let us go on to the next towns, that I may preach there also, for that is why I came out.” (Mark 1:38)
Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt 4:17)

to bring salvation to the sinners (e.g. to seek the lost).
Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, . . . For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” (Luke 19:10)

to give eternal life (i.e. salvation).
“And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.” (Matt 19:29)
I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. (John 10:10)

to heal the sick and give sight to the blind and to set the captives free.
(Luke 4:16-22)

to oppose oppression and oppose the devil.
The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
(1 John 3:8 )

for judgement (already but not yet).
(John 9:35-39, Acts 17:30-31)

to make distinctions and division between good and evil
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth…”
(Matt 10:34, Matt 25:31-46)

These are what the leaders commissioned by Jesus and who had followed Jesus were saying that they learned from him. They were saying this in the first century. To say that they say otherwise is to do some embarrassingly twisted mental gymnastics.

So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. (John 10:7-11)

The apostle closest to Jesus says this about him and orthodoxy:

Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that he made to us—eternal life. I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. (1 John 2:24-26)

Skepticism Fulfilled Scripture

And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots. Then they sat down and kept watch over him there. And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.” Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left. And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” (Matthew 27:35-40 ESV)

As I understand it, the events recorded in this passage are generally taken by the majority of scholars to be historical facts about how Jesus died.* That is he was crucified by the Roman official Pontius Pilate at the request of the Jewish leaders, that he was mocked and his clothes were gambled away, that he had said he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, that he claimed to be the Son of God/Messiah, and that the sign of the charge against him read “the King of the Jews.” But I am not now interested in posting quotes of scholars to authenticate each of those pieces, rather in this post, I want particularly to discuss the fact that many mocked him and his claim to be messiah by asking him for proof of divine power—just as they do today. Some skeptics would rather look for (even demand) any other evidence but what is offered. This was apparently true in Jesus’ day too as he also pointed this out. He pointed out that people find ways to ignore evidence by judging appearances or demanding that it meet their expectations, rather than looking on with wisdom and discernment and conforming to what is:

“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates,

‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’

For 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 at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.” (Matthew 11:16-19)

And also: “He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” (Luke 16:31)

But let us consider just these few facts which we do have reported to us, handed down through those who claimed to be witnesses of Jesus’ crucifixion. Let’s look and see what these events tell us when compared to documents written hundreds of years before Jesus was born. One of those facts in the passage from Matthew cited above was that the people mocked Jesus. “So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, ‘He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, “I am the Son of God.”’” (Matthew 27:41-43)

Interestingly enough, their skepticism (actually more like bare unbelief) which leads them to ask for proof (which they likely wouldn’t believe even if he gave it) itself becomes a proof in fulfillment of prophecy about the Messiah. A huge one comes from the twenty-second psalm.

But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by mankind and despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;
“He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him;
let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”
(Psalm 22:6-8)

Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.
On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
Be not far from me,
for trouble is near,
and there is none to help.
(Psalm 22:9-11)

This from the Psalm which begins “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Jesus (personally meaning every word of it as God had indeed forsaken him in that hour) offered it as proof to those who would hear it when he quoted from this psalm moments later. We can see into what must have been in Jesus’ heart and mind as he was hanging there on the cross by reading the rest of Psalm 22, though it was written hundreds of years earlier by Jesus’ ancestor King David. Our scenario from Matthew fulfills even more prophetic writing than that, though I will only offer a couple more to keep the post short. The first one is again from Psalm 22.

For dogs encompass me;
a company of evildoers encircles me;
they have pierced my hands and feet—
I can count all my bones—
they stare and gloat over me;
they divide my garments among them,
and for my clothing they cast lots.
(Psalm 22:16-18)

By the way, David wrote this psalm hundreds of years before crucifixion was even invented. A very large section of Isaiah (one of several) also refers to the future messiah, and the parallels are specific and striking. Only one man could fulfill all of Isaiah 53. Only one man did. Here’s a sampling.

In Isaiah:                                                          Jesus:

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,    (didn’t speak to mockers and accusers)
yet he opened not his mouth
(Isaiah 53:7)

And they made his grave with the wicked  (hung between two robbers and died)
and with a rich man in his death,               (buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb)
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.        (He was innocent and sinless)
(Isaiah 53:9)

So what is the meaning of this? So what if an innocent man claiming to be the Son of God died unjustly? Isaiah completes the sections with a gospel statement about the meaning of this good news packaged in such a terrible tragedy.

Therefore I [God] will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, (The messiah will live again in victory)
because he poured out his soul to death       (because he died purposefully—
and was numbered with the transgressors;             a clear reference to resurrection)
yet he bore the sin of many,                          (to take the sins of many on himself)
and makes intercession for the transgressors. (and intercedes by reconciling sinners (Isaiah 53:12)                                                  with God)

That same message of the good news of reconciliation with God is still being offered today. As it was said in the first century, so also it applies to us now, at least while we have breath: “Brothers, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to us has been sent the message of this salvation. For those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets, which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them by condemning him. And though they found in him no guilt worthy of death, they asked Pilate to have him executed. And when they had carried out all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he appeared to those who had come up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people.”
-The Apostle Paul, former enemy of Christ (Acts 13:26-31)

*“[Jesus’] execution on the charge of being a messianic pretender (‘king of the Jews’) is generally reckoned to be part of the bedrock data in the Gospel tradition.”
-James D. G. Dunn (“Can the Third Quest Hope to Succeed?” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, 34.)
“The majority of scholars . . . accept the titulus [Pilate’s sign of the charge against Jesus] as historical and genuine.” -Craig Evans (Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, 24.)
“There can be little doubt, historically speaking, that Jesus was executed as a messianic pretender.” -N.T. Wright (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol 2; 522.)
[The 3 quotes above taken from William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed., 305]

Why should I think Homosexuality is immoral?

Is homosexuality immoral? If so, what makes it so eeevil? No one’s getting hurt as long as both people are interested consenting adults, right? But adults are discerning enough to know that “hurt” doesn’t always appear instantly with a wince and an “ouch” when something bad is done. Please bear with me, as I am acutely aware that this is a touchy topic in this day and age. This is one of those issues that people are entrenched on one side or another and neither willing to discuss reasons for assumed conclusions. I bear no ill will toward gays, will stand with them to prosecute people who do violence to them, and fully believe I can be loving them and yet disagree with such a lifestyle. In fact, I believe I wouldn’t be loving if I didn’t disagree because, if I’m right about the immorality of it, it’s objective reality for everyone not just me so then those who hear may actually benefit from listening. I’m not singling out homosexuals as particularly bad people any more so than I would be, rather I’m just singling out this one particular issue to discuss. Personal choice and autonomy is where the arguments like to stay but I’ll choose instead not to skip the moral question from the get-go, but try to explain a few reasons why I think homosexuality isn’t moral.

The nature of the issue actually seems clear except by those of our culture, because even gender has been relativized and asserted away so that what’s probably the best argument against same-sex marriage has been conveniently removed, that being that gender matters to marriage. Boys and girls were made for each other. I know that sounds tremendously reductionistic to many but it sounds like an understatement to others. Even atheists have spoken out to this effect, so I know I’m not sitting on this issue with a merely “religious” (i.e. subjective personal belief) complaint. Nor am I suggesting that whatever relationship doesn’t work to “multiply” the species isn’t worth uniting. I’m merely advancing that we think about the reasons why it may or may not be moral, which gets to the nature of humanity and marriage.

First, what reasons does the same-sex marriage advocate give for arguing that it is moral? They’re the ones with the burden of proof since what they are fighting for is virtually unprecedented in human history. Also, if morality, marriage, and family are relative terms, relative to what? Personal wants or reality? We can’t all be right about reality, but we can all be wrong. When it comes right down to it, this issue as any other will bring us to a battle of worldviews. Those that think there is a nature or design inherent in the concept of marriage and those who think marriage is whatever we say it is. Also The Maker figures into it. If there’s a God, what evidence is there and what evidence is there to support that he’s even communicated to us? And why aren’t we even trying to find out as enthusiastically as we look for entertainment? Why is it that even when we know a moral issue when we see one that we don’t follow it anyway? What is morality even founded upon, if not God himself? Who are you to judge, right? God is the only one big enough and fair enough to be the judge. If so, and if God has made his designs and purposes clear to us, then because He says so would be enough and obedience would be for our good, but then I’m the curious type who always wants to know why He says so. In my experience, there are always good reasons.

Second, if it’s between consenting adults, what’s the matter with it? This seems to be the number one reason why same-sex marriage should be a thing. In other words, mutual actions that don’t harm anyone must be moral. Does not hurting people always constitute moral behavior? What do we mean by hurt? Consenting adults should hardly be the bar we set for what’s granted special status let alone moral.

Third, why’s it bad? 1) Changing the concept of marriage changes the very elementary, most basic unit of society, the family. This is already happening. Media tries to portray a variety of family types as perfectly normal above and beyond what they call “the nuclear family.” It’s not “normal family?” Sure a single mom deserves respect for the hardship of raising a child well, but it does little to deny that having been married to a dad to help carry the hardship would’ve been better, and wisdom dictates having one dad and one mom (the natural design) is healthier and better than having two moms or two dads. Advocates of same-sex marriage insist the numbers are fair and that families of gay parents don’t suffer, but others show the very opposite numbers. Instead of being alarmed and calling for a redo, most see this as proof that we all need to choose for ourselves because everyone’s studies are fixed. Normal is what we make it, we’re told, not dependent on nature or design. In other words, humans are somehow above their nature or design? The most basic element of our society is at stake (much like how “no fault divorce” has messed families up by creating new “varieties” of family). If marriage is just a contract, then that’s going to be bad for business… 2) it actually goes against basic nature. Some studies try to show that gay sex happens in nature, but even if they’re right (so what? Animals and humans are worlds apart), these studies end up proving that even in nature homosexuality is a rare deviation from nature. Wisdom at the very least indicates that we try our best to include reality and nature in the way we live, yet we resist wisdom because we are “born that way” as if that excuses us from growing up. This curious phenomenon seems unique to the human. We know the oughts but yet don’t do them. By nature I mean to make a distinction between living naturally according to design and succumbing to our baser nature of sinful desires. Homosexuality, like other harmful (vs. beneficial) lusts, is the later.

Far from allowing the homosexual man or woman to “be themselves” the insidious deceit of homosexuality causes the man or woman to rebel against being themselves. Their DNA says one thing, but they are doing another. Thus homosexuality represents not something glorious and evolved about humanity but humanity’s rebellion at its most extreme by rebelling even against itself, who we’re made to be. It’s a snake eating itself. The wrong inherent in homosexuality is a profound prevention of freedom to be themselves. As an American, that’s a good reason to oppose the moral approval of it alone, but the stakes are even higher for those who realize that we live in a theistic universe, that is, one purposefully made by God. All three of the world’s main monotheistic religions clearly place homosexual behavior and lust in the category of sin, not arbitrarily because priests wanted all the boys to themselves but due to humanity’s design and purpose in being beings of worship made in the image of God to reflect his awesomeness. Everybody worships. It’s just a matter of who or what we worship. The truth of the object of our worship then makes all the difference.

Tolerance is not the key to Harmony, conforming to the Truth is. But until then, the same-sex marriage advocate needs to tolerate others’ convictions that marriage isn’t whatever we say it is.

My Interracial Marriage should legally be Gay (part 2)

On Comparing Gay Marriage to Interracial Marriages:

Is same-sex marriage a civil rights issue? It’s often said that “gay is the new black” and that the laws of the recent past against interracial marriages compare favorably to resistance to adding laws that allow for same-sex marriages because both are said to go against people’s rights to their “pursuit of happiness.” However, for starters the laws against interracial marriages have nothing to do with the far more ancient institution we call marriage. There were societies that accepted interracial marriage before the US had those rules because it’s still a marriage. But while that may show that these laws were unfairly imposed on an already existing institution called marriage and were not themselves a redefinition of it, that doesn’t hit the same sex marriage supporter’s objection on the head exactly. They would still say the two issues still relate to civil rights. Do they? Or is this a category mistake?

Gender has to do with biology and even the way we think and act, our gender makes us different in kind not merely by appearances. Whereas different skin colors do not constitute a difference in kind. The laws against interracial marriages were bigoted based on rejection of mere appearances (skin color) and arbitrarily calling other races subhuman. At that time, the genders of those involved in a marriage (being male-female) were part of what made it a marriage whereas the color or mere appearance of those involved had nothing to do with it being a marriage or not. It was a ban put on the institution, an imposition not natural to the thing called marriage. Justice was done when the ban was lifted. Defending marriage from being redefined to include same sex couples is not a hostile imposition, it is a defensive position. There’s no prohibition for same sex couples to marry. They can marry just like any one else. What is being prohibited is a regime change for the concept of marriage.

“Humans can marry each other” is basic (e.g. a black man and a white woman are both human). “Same sex couples love each other” makes sense, that’s not in debate here, but “Same sex couples can marry each other” is not basic and doesn’t even seem to fit the words being given. It’s like “I make my own destiny” or “married bachelor”—we can say the words but the meaning doesn’t fit. But what does gender and sex have to do with marriage right? Gender and sex obviously have a great deal to do with marriage while skin color doesn’t. This ought to be immediately apparent as honeymoons are still popular excuses for having sex, and marriages are still the way we keep society going by way of families. There are exceptions, but these are by definition of “exception,” not the norm. It may have to be pointed out to we who already assume that gender identity and sexual orientation is up on the list of life choices along with what college to attend, that same-sex couples generally speaking are not a natural pairing of genders. While marriage is a meeting of the minds is it not a mere meeting of the minds. While it involves romance, it is not simply romance. While it entails a lifelong commitment, it is not simply a lifelong commitment. While marriage is difficult to define, nobody thinks it is hopelessly arbitrary.

The details as well as the whole must be in view here if there is a case to be made to change what marriage is, institutionally. Marriage never was whatever the government or people says it is, and whoever says that is just plain wrong on the face of it. Why? Those who say so are being totally inconsistent, for if marriage is whatever we say it is, then why fight for same-sex marriage with such tenacious vehemence as if God were on their side? If it is justice we want, then we can’t appeal to such slippery logic as “marriage is whatever our generation says it is.” If it’s tolerance they want, they’ve already got it. Tolerance is for whomever you disagree with, not the opposite. But it isn’t tolerance they want, obviously, for they have said openly that they want complete moral acceptance, but this presupposes the answer to the very question I posed in my previous post, “Is homosexuality moral?” Proponents of “gay rights” who want to turn this into a civil rights issue assert that injustice is being done against gays, that the moral depravity lies on the other side, not theirs. How about you? Have you dared to ask or do you repeat what’s popular because it has been so often repeated? The subjectivity with which morality has been treated makes it difficult to even explain why I think it is immoral. I’ll try though, in my next post…

Be Critical? That’s passe’. My interracial marriage should legally be Gay!

Why not? If the issue is about changing definitions, then anything goes as long as enough people agree right? If you answered no, then we’re on the same page so far. What is the truth about marriage? Is it a particular thing that we’ve labeled or is it an arbitrary concept that depends solely on whatever a particular culture decides it is? Normally, I don’t get involved in moral issues on this blog, preferring to stay historical or answering questions and objections about the Bible. But sometimes these things intertwine. Plus, I’m getting tired of hearing that if I simply disagree about homosexuality being morally praiseworthy that somehow that makes me an enemy of love. A cheating husband can love his mistress, but their love shouldn’t be a consideration that forces me to praise his adultery.

What is Marriage?

First of all, what are we even talking about? No two sides can discuss very effectively if both disagree on terms. If marriage is not a thing in itself but instead something we can just do with what we want, redefining it to whatever suits the culture, then marriage isn’t anything at all worth arguing about and the same exact logic can be applied to all sorts of absurd cases being put forth in the present (or that we find absurd for now at least). This is the slippery slope logic which reveals the weakness of the same sex marriage crowd’s arguments. Yes, I know that marrying a dog and such is ridiculous too, but what stops anyone else from presenting the very same arguments that are being presented for same sex marriage as say cases for polygamy, incestuous marriage, an elementary teacher marrying her student, etc? Almost nobody is for these things. My point is not that all these will become normal if we let a homosexual foot in the door, but that the same sex marriage activists, using the arguments that they are, have to account reasonably for why they have a case and those using the same logic don’t.

It seems we’ve long since forgotten whether we should even be asking about the morality of it all, even while both sides are clearly making moral assertions about justice and equality. But is anyone afforded the honest pursuit of the question, “Is homosexuality moral?” No one in our culture, Christians especially, is exempt from thinking through this question. I’m not asking, can gays commit or contribute to society, obviously they can, but is it moral? And by moral I don’t think “as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone” is sufficient alone to define moral. Someone may be quick to point out that even “hurt” can be too subjective. The moral question goes beyond the scope of this post, and I don’t expect my reasons for defending marriage as a heterosexual endeavor will matter to those pre-committed to their opinion, but I do expect to be listened to with grace just as I’d hope also to behave.

Same sex marriage is always promoted as a civil rights issue. The resistance to adding homosexual unions to the thing called marriage is compared to bans that have been imposed on interracial marriage. Why isn’t that the same? “Are same-sex marriages a civil right?” is a question I’ve given some thought to since I have one of those interracial marriage things. But that’s for the next post…

Enlightened Thinking or Enslaved Thinking?

A comment on raising our children “gender neutral”:

(Referenced article and this photo from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13581835)

We ought always be alert and humble, asking ourselves whether what we believe follows from good reasons or merely follows good sounding reasons. Do the parents in this article follow the spirit of the age or are they really examples of reasonable and wise, cutting edge thinkers? If this were a matter simply for opinions, it wouldn’t matter one way or the other no matter how strongly one felt. But if there are strong reasons to believe that these people aren’t “just different” (and there are plainly many or else it wouldn’t be news), then with those reasons in hand we’re fair in avoiding their genuinely confused thinking. I don’t expect their methods will become the norm, but even the few are valuable enough to worry about here. Will the next generation of these “cutting edge” thinkers be raising kids without “imposing” a “species identity” on them? Or a moral identity for that matter? The poor little kids… or will they call them little-beings?

These parents are a prime example of the extremes that can come out of a “follow your heart” purpose for life—as if life were for us to custom design. We can become blind to whatever purpose was already plainly there and we miss it. Just telling someone “It’s a boy!” is “voyeuristic?” Come on, that’s really twisting the truth. Isn’t gender a bit more than what’s between our legs? Isn’t it also embedded deeply within our DNA at conception? Living with reality is complex enough without this sort of confusion!

Good Friday as it was written in Hebrew Bible

A look at the prophecy pertaining to Good Friday and the hope of salvation in:
Isaiah 53
Psalm 22
(boldface added)

Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.

By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.

Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.
(Isaiah 53 ESV)

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?
O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, but I find no rest.
Yet you are holy,
enthroned on the praises of Israel.
In you our fathers trusted;
they trusted, and you delivered them.
To you they cried and were rescued;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.

But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by mankind and despised by the people.
All who see me mock me;
they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;
“He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him;
let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”
Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.
On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
Be not far from me,
for trouble is near,
and there is none to help.

Many bulls encompass me;
strong bulls of Bashan surround me;
they open wide their mouths at me,
like a ravening and roaring lion.
I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint;
my heart is like wax;
it is melted within my breast;
my strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to my jaws;
you lay me in the dust of death.
For dogs encompass me;
a company of evildoers encircles me;
they have pierced my hands and feet—
I can count all my bones—
they stare and gloat over me;
they divide my garments among them,
and for my clothing they cast lots.

But you, O LORD, do not be far off!
O you my help, come quickly to my aid!
Deliver my soul from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dog!
Save me from the mouth of the lion!
You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen!
I will tell of your name to my brothers;
in the midst of the congregation I will praise you:
You who fear the LORD, praise him!
All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him,
and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel!

For he has not despised or abhorred
the affliction of the afflicted,
and he has not hidden his face from him,
but has heard, when he cried to him.
From you comes my praise in the great congregation;
my vows I will perform before those who fear him.
The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied;
those who seek him shall praise the LORD!
May your hearts live forever!
All the ends of the earth shall remember
and turn to the LORD,
and all the families of the nations
shall worship before you.

For kingship belongs to the LORD,
and he rules over the nations.
All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship;
before him shall bow all who go down to the dust,
even the one who could not keep himself alive.
Posterity shall serve him;
it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation;
they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn,
that he has done it.
(Psalm 22 ESV)