I am an infrequent user of an app called PrayerMate. You enter a list of people or things you want to pray for or about (it coaches you and suggests categories), and each time you access it, it picks from those in a round robin fashion so that you will have prayed about everything and everyone in your list over a period of time. I have it set up with all our family, friends old and new, organizations and causes I admire, etc. I mean to get serious about using it every day, and I'm going to add a category: people who mean me harm.
Who would that be? Who means me harm? Thinking about it, I have to say I don't know of anyone who wishes me personally any harm. And why would they? I'm not a person of any significance that would provoke anyone's anger. If I were to say something offensive, I doubt anyone is listening. I'm not in authority over others so I can't enforce my will over them against theirs.
But I know there are people who are actively working for political and social causes that will, eventually, bring Christians into conflict with them, mostly because they will insist that we approve of them. It will not be enough that some things which are currently illegal will now be legal. It will not be enough that some of these things will be granted the status of rights. It will not be enough that we are prevented, by law, from speaking out against these things. No, we will be required to call these things good. And since we know these things are evil, we cannot do that.
God tells us that we aren't in a war with people, but rather evil spiritual forces, so I should not, I cannot pray harm on those who would harm me. I need to pray for their good, that their families are happy, their health is good, their jobs are secure, that they are blessed by God. Because their greatest good, their greatest blessings can only come if they are in a relationship with God, I will need to pray something that will seem to them to be harm, but in the end can only be good.
I will be praying that God will open their eyes to the evil in these causes so they see the truth. I will pray that God open their eyes about the evil things in their lifestyles, in their beliefs, in their politics. For their family cannot really be happy unless it is living according to God's will. Their health will suffer if they continue in practices God has forbidden. Their work will be blessed in proportion to how much it is furthering God's kingdom. And because this is exactly the sort of prayer God loves, I might get to see this happen, to see the truth set people free. I know that many people will continue as they have been even when they see the truth, because that's what people do most often. Their pride will not let them admit they are wrong, even though they know it. I've done the same thing myself, and that leads me to what I really wanted to write about.
The number one thing I expect to happen when I start to pray that others see the light is that God will make sure I am one of the first ones He enlightens. I am sure there are positions I hold on political, social and theological issues that are wrong, and I expect God will show me the truth about these. When He has done this in the past, He has been fairly gentle with me. There have been no grossly public humiliations--I'm no politician or megachurch pastor so nobody is watching! But I know I'm not likely to learn or change unless there's a sting I can really feel. God will bless me by making me wiser--which really means less foolish. And the same things I will pray for my enemies are the things God will do for me: bless my family, my health, my job, my everything. In addition to, not instead of, what He does for them.
But this is how it works with God: He blesses us when we bless others. We cannot ever out-give God, but I think He is pleased when we try. If I want God to bless me and my family, I need to focus on blessing others. And I don't mean this in a prosperity gospel sort of way - I don't expect to win the lottery. It is not the blessings themselves that are the best part of this, it is the changes in my heart that God makes when I am in working with Him that make me more able to be blessed. In other words, He will make the field more fertile so the increase in the harvest will be greater than the increase, if any, in the seed that is sown. A greater harvest of blessing, to be shared with my family, friends, and even those who mean me harm.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Tuesday, March 03, 2015
What is God like?
It seems that many criticisms of God, or arguments against His existence, are based on the misbehavior of His followers. If He did exist, or was truly good and all powerful as some claim, His followers would never kill or hate or do anything bad in His name. This presupposes that He would control us like robots or puppets.
If this were so, there wouldn't be anybody who wasn't a Christian, and nobody would be raising this objection. It's kind of funny to me how these critics would wish themselves out of existence. Since they think of themselves as free thinkers, unencumbered by religion and dogma, wouldn't they find such an existence, to be completely in the control of Someone else, intolerable? Could they call such a being good or loving? Wouldn't He be the kind of tyrannical, freedom-hating despot they profess to hate above all things?
No, they wouldn't mind. They'd be programmed not to.
I can't fault that argument as far as it goes: I too have never seen any evidence that such a controlling God exists.
So instead of a micromanaging deity, what if God allows us to make our own decisions? What if He allowed us even the freedom to act as if He didn't exist? Isn't that the kind of God such people would approve of? Almost. If God were like that, they'd have to shut up.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Are the Unborn Alive?
To be established: elective abortion unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being.
Premise #1: intentionally killing an innocent human being is morally wrong
Premise #2: elective abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being
Conclusion: therefore, elective abortion is morally wrong
Note - we are talking about morally wrong, absolutely wrong. Wrong yesterday, wrong today, wrong tomorrow. Not just in my opinion, If you don't accept premise #1 above, you can stop reading now. Nothing that follows will make any sense. Elective abortion means we are excluding those circumstances where the physical life of the mother is threatened, such as an ectopic pregnancy.
So, the central question is, is the baby in the womb a human being? If it is not, no justification for elective abortion is necessary, but if it is, no justification is adequate.
From a scientific point of view, we can conclude: yes, the unborn baby is human. It has all the characteristics of a human being: 1) it is complete, all the information necessary is present (unlike in the case of the sperm or egg). 2) it is unique, genetically distinct from its mother. 3) it is living, growing, developing, responding to stimuli. 4) "taxonomic-ally", it is human; living things always produce after their kind, so humans beget humans.
Note that these things are all true the moment an egg is fertilized.
How it the unborn different? It is smaller than born humans, It is less developed. It is in a different environment. It is more dependent on its mother than the born human. But none of these disqualify it from being human; a toddler is also smaller, less developed and more dependent, but nobody would say a toddler is not human.
So from a scientific point of view, the unborn is human.
How about from a historical perspective? History tell us that there are terrible consequences when we separate humanity from personhood. The reasons are inevitably used for nefarious purposes. We have, at various times and in various places, dictated that blacks, Indians, women, and Jews are not persons.
From a human rights perspective: if you believe in universal human rights, then you believe all humans have them inherently. The Declaration of Independence called that "self-evident". They are not granted to them by man, by law, by governments. If the preborn is human, it has these rights.
These are the reasons why I say elective abortion is morally wrong.
This raises the question: but what about the rights of the mother? And this is a question we can't just set aside, Though it takes male and female to create a baby, the burden of pregnancy falls completely on the female. We might ask, is this fair? "Fair" does not enter into a situation like this. It is "the way things are", the nature of our species and how we reproduce. This is not because of privilege or social constructs; it is biology. Is it fair that men cannot bear children? Is it fair that birds can fly and humans can't? We recognize these are silly questions just in the asking of them.
The pro-life position therefore necessitates the placing of an enormous burden on the woman who finds herself pregnant against her desires (possibly against her will). Of course, many laws place burdens on us: we are required to pay our taxes, restrict our speed, comply with community standards regarding dress, alcohol consumption, etc. If we were to construct a scale to represent how much of a burden we bear, the pregnant women's score would be very high compared to others: set a value of 100 or 1000 or 1000000 to it, and recognize it is a great burden. But the burden of the child killed through elective abortion must be scored higher yet. It has been deprived of life itself. No matter the desperation of the mother's situation, it is less than that of her child. Even in cases of rape or incest, the child's life should not be taken. It is an innocent party in the matter. And, let's be honest. Rape or incest applies to a very small percentage of elective abortions.
Premise #1: intentionally killing an innocent human being is morally wrong
Premise #2: elective abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being
Conclusion: therefore, elective abortion is morally wrong
Note - we are talking about morally wrong, absolutely wrong. Wrong yesterday, wrong today, wrong tomorrow. Not just in my opinion, If you don't accept premise #1 above, you can stop reading now. Nothing that follows will make any sense. Elective abortion means we are excluding those circumstances where the physical life of the mother is threatened, such as an ectopic pregnancy.
So, the central question is, is the baby in the womb a human being? If it is not, no justification for elective abortion is necessary, but if it is, no justification is adequate.
From a scientific point of view, we can conclude: yes, the unborn baby is human. It has all the characteristics of a human being: 1) it is complete, all the information necessary is present (unlike in the case of the sperm or egg). 2) it is unique, genetically distinct from its mother. 3) it is living, growing, developing, responding to stimuli. 4) "taxonomic-ally", it is human; living things always produce after their kind, so humans beget humans.
Note that these things are all true the moment an egg is fertilized.
How it the unborn different? It is smaller than born humans, It is less developed. It is in a different environment. It is more dependent on its mother than the born human. But none of these disqualify it from being human; a toddler is also smaller, less developed and more dependent, but nobody would say a toddler is not human.
So from a scientific point of view, the unborn is human.
How about from a historical perspective? History tell us that there are terrible consequences when we separate humanity from personhood. The reasons are inevitably used for nefarious purposes. We have, at various times and in various places, dictated that blacks, Indians, women, and Jews are not persons.
From a human rights perspective: if you believe in universal human rights, then you believe all humans have them inherently. The Declaration of Independence called that "self-evident". They are not granted to them by man, by law, by governments. If the preborn is human, it has these rights.
These are the reasons why I say elective abortion is morally wrong.
This raises the question: but what about the rights of the mother? And this is a question we can't just set aside, Though it takes male and female to create a baby, the burden of pregnancy falls completely on the female. We might ask, is this fair? "Fair" does not enter into a situation like this. It is "the way things are", the nature of our species and how we reproduce. This is not because of privilege or social constructs; it is biology. Is it fair that men cannot bear children? Is it fair that birds can fly and humans can't? We recognize these are silly questions just in the asking of them.
The pro-life position therefore necessitates the placing of an enormous burden on the woman who finds herself pregnant against her desires (possibly against her will). Of course, many laws place burdens on us: we are required to pay our taxes, restrict our speed, comply with community standards regarding dress, alcohol consumption, etc. If we were to construct a scale to represent how much of a burden we bear, the pregnant women's score would be very high compared to others: set a value of 100 or 1000 or 1000000 to it, and recognize it is a great burden. But the burden of the child killed through elective abortion must be scored higher yet. It has been deprived of life itself. No matter the desperation of the mother's situation, it is less than that of her child. Even in cases of rape or incest, the child's life should not be taken. It is an innocent party in the matter. And, let's be honest. Rape or incest applies to a very small percentage of elective abortions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)