Pro Life, Pro choice

That is how I explain my position on abortion. I mentioned on a comment on another site that I would not enforce my pro-life stance on anyone, and I guess my position might require some clarification. What I meant was that although I am personally against abortion, and could never counsel anyone to have one, I would also not forbid the procedure to any woman who did want one, even though I believe it is unquestionably the taking of a human life.

Abortion is not illegal in Canada. And that is according to the will of successive governments. We live in a democracy, where the government reflects the will of the majority of the citizens. Not only do we get the government we vote for (some would say the government we deserve), we get the government that it is God's will for us to have (eg. Romans 13). No government, however good or evil, has any power that God does not allow it. That means that people like Morgantaler have the right to provide abortions and women who want them have the right to undergo them. Is it the taking of a life? Yes. Is it wrong? Absolutely yes. I believe that we as Christians have the obligations to speak out against them, to try to get others to see the wrong in them, but we don't have the right to prevent them when the majority of citizens seem (and I'm afraid I believe they are) in favour of them.

Personally, I couldn’t counsel abortion in ANY case, including rape, incest or even the danger to life of the mother, and I really don’t believe any woman who truly trusts God and seeks His will in the matter could have one. To put things into perspective, ask anyone to choose between their own life and that of one of their children. A life yet unborn is still no less a life than an infant, a toddler, or an older child. What would be the answer?

But I believe every little baby who has lost it's life through abortion is with Jesus right now. And every woman who has sacrificed those lives, and every abortion provider who took them will see them again. Those who have come to a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ will join them. Those who reject this offer of salvation will be judged by them (1 Corinthians 2,3)

Again, I quote from Revelation 22,

Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy. Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.

We live in an age of Grace. God has given everyone the freedom to make choices. Evil may seem to flourish for a season, but those choices will not go unjudged forever.

Take Care

PS: I hesitated to post this, wondering, after some thought, about the consistency of my position. In other words, if one saw a child in danger, would one not do one's best to safe its life? What, for instance, is the difference between rescuing a child from being hit by a truck and preventing an abortion? I can't really give a consistent answer. Thoughts anyone?

Giving Liberally?

From Here...

Ananias and Sapphira Must Have Been Liberals (Acts 5)

Liberals are generous with other people's money, and they make their generosity known at the polling places. And, having voted for the next in an endless series of proposed social programs, they brush their hands together as though they have done their duty. This is their equivalent of saying "I gave at the office," although what they really did at the office was vote for someone else at the office to give...

...But the data shows (actually, mountains of data show) that conservatives are overwhelmingly more generous to the needy than liberals. Conservatives donate far more money than liberals do, and when you examine the recipients that each donating group is likely to select, you see that liberals are far more likely to give to arts groups, film festivals, or museums -- at wine and brie fundraisers -- while conservatives are far more likely to give to medical missions, hurricane relief, etc.

Liberals are like Ananias and Sapphira -- they wanted to have the reputation of being far more generous than they were actually willing to be.

I wouldn't be surprised to see that conservative Christians are more generous givers than liberal ones. In fact, I would be almost positive they are. Why? There are probably many reasons, but I will hazard one guess. I think it follows point by point.
1) They see themselves as basically good, rather than inherently sinful.
2) Therefore they don't feel so great a need for forgiveness.
3) Hence they have less appreciation of the meaning of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
4) They don't have a full realization of just how great a debt has been paid on their behalf.
5) So they are not as thankful as a person who realizes the greatness of God's grace.
6) Giving is a sign of both obedience and gratitude, and the liberal feels obligated on neither count.

Just my take on it.

Take Care

No One Comes... Except Through Me (John 14:6)

I have been re-reading C.S. Lewis's Narnia series. One of my favourite moments occurs in "The Silver Chair." A young girl, Jill, is thirsty and comes to a stream. But the lion Aslan (the Christ figure in the Narnia stories) lies between her and the stream.

"If you are thirsty, come and drink,... are you not thirsty?" said the lion.
"I'm dying of thirst," said Jill.
"Then drink," said the lion.
"May I -- could I -- would you mind going away while I do?" said Jill.
The lion answered this only by a look and a very low growl. And as Jill gazed at its motionless bilk, she realized that she might as well have asked the whole mountain to move aside for her convenience.
The delicious rippling noise of the stream was driving her nearly frantic.
"Will you promise not to -- do anything to me, if I do come?" said Jill
"I make no promise, said the Lion.
Jill was so thirsty now that, without noticing it, she had come a step nearer.
"Do you eat girls?" she said
"I have swallowed up girls and boys, women and men, kings and emporers, cities and realms," said the Lion. It didn't say this as if it were boasting, nor as if it were sorry, nor as if it were angry. It just said it.
"I daren't come and drink." said Jill
"Then you will die of thirst." said the Lion.
"Oh dear!" said Jill, coming another step nearer. "I suppose I must go and look for another stream then."
"There is no other stream," said the Lion.

There is only one Way, only one Truth, only one Life. No other Name.

Take Care

Here is what our daughters are hearing

I Kissed a Girl (And I Liked It)- Katy Perry

This song is all the rage on the pop charts right now. I didn't post the video because I found it even less suitable for its intended audience than the lyrics.

This was never the way I planned, not my intention
I got so brave, drink in hand lost my discretion
It's not what I'm used to just wanna try you on
I'm curious for you caught my attention

chorus:
I kissed a girl and I liked it. The taste of her cherry chap stick
I kissed a girl just to try it, I hope my boyfriend don't mind it
It felt so wrong, It felt so right, don't mean I'm in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it. I liked it.

No, I don't even know your name, it doesn't matter
You're my experimental game, just human nature
It's not what, good girls do; not how they should behave
My head gets so confused, hard to obey

chorus

Us girls we are so magical; soft skin, red lips, so kissable
Hard to resist so touchable, too good to deny it
Ain't no big deal, it's innocent

This sexualization of young girls is not new, of course. My own two daughters were at the young and impressionable 'tween and early teen years early in Madonna's career. Madonna was one of the first artists to so blatantly, by her music lyrics and her videos, apply what I always felt was undue and premature sexual pressure on teen and pre-teen girls. One of the greatest jokes of irony, in my opinion, has been Madonna's joining the fight against AIDS, all the while promoting, by her words, actions, songs and videos, the very behaviour that most greatly leads to its spread. But she just doesn't get it. Her message seems hardly to have been diluted by time or maturity. Her videos are as blatantly sexual now as ever, in spite of her getting, "religion."

But Madonna and her "religion?" That's for another post.

Take Care

Bandwagons

You don’t need to watch this video if you don’t want. It’s just an illustration of my point here on bandwagons. You’ve seen these great flocks of birds before. They fly in great swarms but almost seem to be a single unit. I don’t know how they do it but the whole flock always changes direction all at once. Is there a leader? Are they all just that quick to react?

But so it goes with humans and their causes. Certain causes seem to come along from time to time that grab the public’s imagination and everyone jumps onboard. Public opinion seems to shiftextremely sharply and extremely quickly. Right now, gay “rights” seems to be one of them. It’s amazing to me just how quickly society changed course on this one, so that now even people in the church are taking positions they never would have taken a few years ago. Many of our kids are being indoctrinated in school with gay-friendly materials. To express an opinion that one believes same-sex sex to be wrong is to be open to charges of homophobia, hate speech and even human rights violations. I am not arguing against people having legitimate rights, but gay "rights" now are trumping freedom of speech and individual freedom of conscience. For example, same-sex marriage is now legal, but it has gone beyond the "right" of gays to be married, to the "non-right" of anyone not to participate (such as a photographer, a caterer or, someday soon, I believe, clergy), even though there are many others quite willing to perform the services.

“Climate change” is another. The whole world seems to have gone mad in this area to the point where our green activists and politicians are falling all over one another developing programmes that amount to trying kill an elephant with a pea shooter. The programs and suggestions being put forth will be insignificant in changing the problem, if indeed the problem can be changed at all. How much electricity would we have to save, for example, or how many miles per gallon would our cars have to improve, or how much less traveling would we have to do, to make up just for the forest fires currently raging in Saskatchewan or California. (I have no idea myself, but it would be interesting to see an answer) How far will any program Canadians can come up with go toward offsetting the emissions of countries like India and China? I am not here declaring there not to be a problem, but just trying to keep a reasonable perspective on things.

One example of a bandwagon that must change is seen Here...

Former Greenpeace activist favours nuclear energy

Patrick Moore has spent the years since he broke ties with Greenpeace trying to correct what he calls one of the "biggest mistakes" of the early environmental movement of which he was an integral part - namely that all nuclear power is evil.

"If it hadn't been for us, the environmental movement of the '70s, there'd be a lot less coal-fired power plants in this world today and a lot more nuclear plants that were not polluting the air and not leaking greenhouse gas into the atmosphere," said Moore.

The environmentalists long ago hitched ther horse to the anti-nuclear bandwagon, I'm guessing because they didn't want the power they used to be associated with the same material that could make bombs or something. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the NDP was pushing for coal-fired generating stations, back in the day, to keep East Coast miners working. but nuclear energy is, in my opinion, inevitible as the only way to go for clean NO emission energy. Solar and wind may help, but they can never begin to make up for the amount of energy we, as a society, demand. And now, enviromentalists are whining about wind generators because birds are flying into them and dying.

My opinion? These bandwagons are very often wrong-headed, and sometimes even turn out to be harmful or counter-productive in the long run.

Take Care

Happy Birthday Ringo

I just like this song. It's the simplest of songs, a catchy tune with absolutely no pretentions to "greatness."

Take Care

Morgentaler's Order of Canada

From Musings from the Muse

The award committee seems to be making a statement about Morgentaler - we think he's a great guy and deserving of this honour. Morgentaler agrees, in an interview he stated that he "deserved" the award (which should automatically disallow him)...

...The award was not made on the basis of anything he achieved, but rather to celebrate the place of death in western culture.

I guess this should not be a surprise - since our culture has an unhealthy addiction about death, the commercial availability of abortion fits nicely with that idea, as will the legalizing of euthanasia which is just around the corner. What better way to celebrate our fixation with death, than to name the man the media called 'Dr Death' to our country's highest order?

The next medical recipient should probably be the Dr who challenges the laws [against] physician-assisted suicide at the Supreme Court and has them struck down - thereby allowing our medical system to administer 'compassionate' and 'caring' death.

I wonder why the person who invented the 6-49 lottery should not be also named, as they've had a far larger impact on more Canadians that Morgentaler.

Take Care