XCVI. Abortion's Slope vs. Ryan's Hope

Ask yourself this question before reading:  Where do you draw the line on abortion?

 

Former vice-presidential candidate of the doomed-before-it-got-started GOP 2012 campaign, Paul Ryan stated that he hopes to live in a world where abortion is not even a consideration.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/paul-ryan-abortion_n_3065932.html  Of course some of the media (actually only MSNBC) criticized the conservative senator for losing women's attention, respect, and possible votes.

 

Back in the 1970's when Roe v. Wade happened some argued that if we let abortion become legal then that would open the way for all kinds of abortions to happen.  Some of the opposing side used the argument that the conservative side was non-sense and stated:

• all the court case did was allow a woman to choose for herself what to do with her body
• abortion should be a constitutional right. 
• no one would ever take it to the next level.

Since then we have things called late-term abortions.  Back in the early 1990's this was the new argument and both sides dug in again to state their case.  Again, the argument was that it could open the way for other issues of abortions to be allowed and on other side the same argument of all it did was allow a woman to choose for herself what to do with her body.  Then in the late 1990's we had what was called partial-birth abortions.  Same arguments.  Yet, here we are again and now we hear how of a doctor in Philadelphia has "aborted" babies that were outside the womb.

 

The slippery slope argument is not a defense anymore in this world.  The culture of the world has gotten so disgusting that the slopes have all vanished.  Abortions have gotten worse.  The court case has not saved women from back alley abortions like they say.  All it did was give precedent for more ways to be aborted.  It is not a legitimate defense against conservative values.  For in the past 40 years we have seen abortions go from unaccepted to protected by law to procedures being expanded to out right murder.  How can anyone argue against it now?  Easily, liberalism will find a way to rationalize what the doctor has done.  Once the baby is out it is not about the woman's body anymore.  But, watch.  The new argument will be about how in a world where health care is so hard to get that people will do drastic things this.

 

This though is where Mr. Ryan's hope comes in.  The problem actually is not with abortion.  It is with the culture that feels it is an option.  It is a culture that feels sex now, pay later.  A culture to where the only consequences are paid by someone else.  It would be a better world if abortion was not an option because people did the right things when it came to sexual practices.

 

If you can read these two articles from the links below and not feel the evils about abortion then you have no heart, no conscience, no soul.

 

http://words-beyond-me.blogspot.com/2009/05/letter-from-aborted-child-to-mother.html

http://articles.philly.com/2013-04-13/news/38494337_1_gosnell-employee-tina-baldwin-abortions

 

Maybe we can finally open our eyes and see that abortion can be rationalized but not be rational.  It is murder.  Case closed.  Sooner or later someone will win a court case that allows someone to kill another based on the constitution.  Don't believe that?  Those who say this is just another slippery slope argument or that this will be an isolated case will only have to look at history to understand they are wrong.  The slippery slope has slipped down the slope.

 

Adoption...the only alternative choice.

 

For those who have had abortions, take heart, there is forgiveness.  God can heal the pain.

XCV. Let No Man Put Asunder

Proposition 8, the California marriage law was passed by the citizens of California but has been appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States since it was passed by California a few years ago and the outcome was not accepted by those who opposed it.  Many of those opposed to the law blame of course the "religious right".  Does California even have a religious right?  A huge argument by some is that marriage is based in religion and that is why there are marriage laws.  But a question is raised that no one ever answers: who should be allowed to get married?  They want to answer but realize they can't.  Before that issue is tackled here are some other things we need to know about marriage.

1. All cultures have a form of marriage.
2. Not all marriages in history had to be sanctioned by the state.
3. Ceremonies were not always used to "formalize" the union.
4. There have been many types of marriages that have been allowed and many that have been banned by all cultures.
5. It seems that all cultures have placed rules on marriages:
• age, economic status, families, how many, race, religion
• family obligations, succession, divorce, sexual actions
• ceremonies, records
• and yes...types of marriages

And since this seems to be universal then religion is not the only thing that creates marriage laws and traditions.  The culture as the whole in every historical society and age has decided what marriage is.  Cultures do this to allow for property rights, social boundaries, and for the continuation of their culture.  The culture decides what traditions and/or laws define marriage.  Yes, sometimes these cause what some may call discrimination.  Please see end of Thought to get full picture before criticism.

Now since the United States was founded on Christian values, not necessarily Christianity itself, there is a direct correlation between marriage laws and Biblical ideas.  However, the United States is even more strict than what the Bible says.  For instance, the Bible says you can not marry your sister but cousins are within your right.  The United States does not allow certain cousins.  The Bible does not limit the amount of how many wives a man can have, yet the United States bans many polygamous unions.  Although, it is implied in the Bible that it should be limited to just two people.  Adam and Eve are named for each other only.  All major Biblical figures have one person they are committed to.  Some have more than one marriage but they are committed to only one.  The Bible does allow for "civil unions", e.g., concubines, marriages for alliances, marriages not based on love, etc.  The United States though has not allowed civil unions, until the last few years.  So, to say that marriage laws are religious only is actually not the full story, inaccurate.  The government actually has had more influence than religion.  Maybe the government is the problem.

So why can't people answer the question, "who should be allowed to get married?"?  Well, due to our changing culture the question is one know one knows how to answer if one wants to be completely undiscriminating.

The question can be answered but many will not accept it or it will always be argued what the stipulations are.  Those who are for marriage equality of any sort can not answer it.  Because if they answer it what would they say?  Some would say that marriage should be allowed between any two consenting adults.  But, they can't because that would be hypocritical.  Here is why.  If you say "two" people, then why not three, or four people?  If you say "consenting", does that mean that people who have mental disabilities who may not understand the concept of marriage are not allowed?  Wouldn't that go against personal freedom?  If you say "adult", then what is an adult?  Here in the United States 18 is considered an adult, but in other countries, especially throughout history some 12 year olds were considered adults.  So, someone 17 years and 364 days old is not a consenting adult but one day later they are?  The problem with this answer is that as soon as they say two consenting adults, then discrimination happens.  They have placed rules on marriage.  Since this then would not be an answer that is viable then some would have to say that marriage should have to be completely open.  But they can not say this either because if they say that marriage should be completely open then the slippery slope becomes an actual slope.  Marriage has to be one or the other.  Either there has to be stipulations or it has to be completely open.

Here is the point every one needs to understand but many will not like.  Who created marriage?  God.  It is ordained by God.  It is defined by God.  But as always man takes what God had designed and makes their own rules.  One major rule is love each other faithfully.  Civil unions, which are different, should be allowed.  Marriage, by definition, is one man loving one woman.  Not by culture, not by race, not even by religion.  Let no man put asunder.

XCIV. It's the Culture

As Resurrection Sunday (Easter) was this past week many television stations chose to air movies and TV specials about the Crucifixion of Christ. The one that of course that is most notorious of our age is the Passion of the Christ. There is a scene in the movie that explains it all about our culture. Well, actually the Bible explains it all but in the day of electronics who is going to literally read pages?

The scene is when Pilate has given the choice to the Jewish people whom he would release to them as part of a tradition of releasing a prisoner for Passover. The two choices were Jesus of Nazareth or Barabbas. The crowd overwhelmingly chose to release Barabbas. To understand this story more and what it has to do with politics you have to look at the underlining themes. One thing neat about the Bible is the circular pattern of the writings. Hardly any verse or any part of the history can stand alone. The names of these two men we usually hear in Greek since most of the New Testament was written in Greek. Traditions, and the Hebrew translation, state the full names are actually Y'Shua Ha'Natzeret and Y'Shua Bar-Abba; Jesus the Nazarene and Jesus Barabbas, respectively. Oddly enough they had the same what we would call first name. Nazarene of course means the first Jesus was from Nazareth. But what does Barabbas mean in English? Bar means "son of", Abba means "father", or "God". So the choices that people had for release was Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Son of God.

Why is that important to the Church? Because metaphorically speaking the real Son of God was the one who people humiliated, punished, beaten, mocked, spit on, bruised, and ultimately crucified while the fake son of God was let go. The truth was sacrificed for what mankind thought was the truth. Too many times Biblical truth is sacrificed to be politically correct.

The same it is with today's truth. People think that what they feel is correct and just because others back their feelings up then they feel they are justified. They take the truth and beat it up. They stretch it. They bruise it. They mock it. The truth becomes the lie to them, while the actual lie lives on. Those who stick up for the truth are made to sound like they are idiots or bigots.   Liberalism in its modern form is the lie.

 

Church leaders have embraced this idea.  The idea that the Church should change due to the culture becoming more liberal is what is killing the Church.  The new way of thinking is "succumb" to the culture.  Don't say things that the culture doesn't want to hear because then they won't show up to church.  Well, no one is supposed to show up to church, the church is supposed to show up to them.  All the church cares about today are the numbers.  One of the first things we see in any church bulletin is the attendance number.  The church building is not for the lost, it is for the ones who already know Christ.  Christians are supposed to be witnesses---OUTSIDE the church building.  And sometimes that means going against the culture, staying true to the truth.  Acceptance of life actions, practices, and styles are now common.  This seems like it is the right thing to do but this is why the Bible says there is a way that seems right to a man but in the end it only brings death.  Just because it seems like the right thing does not mean it is.  That does not mean compassion for those who are lost should be stopped, on the contrary, telling someone the truth is more compassion than letting someone live a lie and die in their sin.  Sometimes the truth hurts but the truth is what sets you free.  Stop accepting the lies of this world.  We need to change the culture.


Note:  This thought is also located at www.ideasoftim.blogspot.com but focuses on the political aspect of our culture.