Blog | Reproach of Men

Lawful and Unlawful

Yesterday, while out and about, I observed a bumper sticker on a car that stated the following:

“Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong”

Now, it should not surprise anyone that I saw this in Fayetteville, and immediately outside the confines of the University. Immediately I thought of the lack of understanding that accompanies this question as framed. I would expect this from a child with no background in history, or knowledge of society. Particularly, I would expect this of a child who had never read the Scripture.

In addressing this, first the rather simple logic of the deterrent effect of the death penalty, and the respect of the rights of others will be touched on. After that, we shall see what the LORD God has to say about the death penalty.

I did a Google search on this question as that would likely yield the best results. After all, if it’s on a bumper sticker, its probably on the internet too. I was not surprised to find that it was indeed on the web. What I was surprised to find were sites that had this question, and the answers given in response to it. To say the least, the answers reveal a lack of depth in the thought processes of the respondents. Need I say this does not (more…)

Moving Forward (I think)

After some time of neglect (I really cannot put it any other way) I returned my attention to my website — Reproach of Men and began to deal with some of the issues created by the browser wars (primarily IE6 and below). I finally gave up on trying to have a decent fluid layout for IE6 and below and set everything for IE (up to version 6), to a fixed-width of 800 pixels. I hate that as I like liquid and elastic layouts ((Yes I know, this theme is fixed-width — I didn’t catch that when I first looked at it. However, I like the theme, but cannot find the author to talk about changing it — so I am in the process of making it liquid.)). However, I cannot tolerate the quirks and weirdness of IE6, and so I am forced to do something I don’t like.

For the rest of the standards-compliant browsers out there ((if you don’t have one, please get one — they’re usually free to download and use — besides, your web experience will be so much better)), the layout remains liquid from 400 to 1200 pixels (there is a limit you know). After that the page is a column in the middle of the screen with a black background. I know, kinda stark, but it draws your attention to the content, and only the content.

I am also in the middle of revising the coding for all the hymns pages, which ought to be done in the near future. Then, LORD willing, I will rework and actually properly format the rest of the articles on the site. I really do not want to do content management for the site, but may be forced into it if things ramp up considerably.

However, before I quit this post, I would like to say one last time how very much I hate IE. In fact, I really don’t care for Microsoft either. Particularly since Bill Gates is such a liberal and donates a considerable sum to causes that are destroying America and its people. Unfortunately, time is the most precious commodity I have, and it takes time to learn a new OS like Ubuntu Linux. For now, I am kind of stuck – just like having to code for IE.

That’s really not moving forward is it?

Oprobio de los Hombres blog

After considerable delays, the Español page has information directing those who speak Spanish, or who are acquainted with Spanish speakers, to the blog for the Oprobio de los Hombres website. The blog is not complete as the Spanish language version of WordPress is not entirely in Spanish. However, I expect that to change in the not too distant future. Along with that, the theme of Oprobio de los Hombres blog will change as well.

Anti-Christ

Throughout most of the last 20 centuries, separate, independent, groups of Christians, generally labeled “ana-baptist” and specifically called Paulicans, Novatians, Donatists, Henricans, Waldenses, Albigenses, Bogomils, Lollards, and many other less complimentary names, have been persecuted for holding fast the specific teachings of the New Testament. They consistently held the New Testament church to be a local, visible, autonomous body of believers covenanted together to serve their Lord and Savior. For this, they were horribly persecuted by their opponents. The fiercest of these opponents was not the pagans that they invariably lived among. Rather, it was a church that called itself “Christian” — the Catholic Church. Its head, the Pope, was declared to be the vicar of Christ by their own councils. In so doing, he became Anti-Christ. They shut up the Bible to the “common” man declaring that it would “only cause confusion,” and then proceeded to warp and twist the doctrines to insure that their followers have no chance for salvation. The list of the sins of this horrid institution are so numerous as to almost defy cataloging. Yet, the Pope is honored by the governments of today.

My how we have forgotten history!

So we will remember, the following is from J.M. Carroll’s Trail of Blood. This excerpt briefly details the falling away that led to the formation of the Catholic Church and it’s ungodly head. Many more works, such as The Martyrs Mirror, and A History of the Baptists detail it more completely.

From The Trail of Blood . . .

“During the first three centuries, congregations all over the East subsisted in separate independent bodies, unsupported by government and consequently without any secular power over one another. All this time they were baptized churches, and though all the fathers of the first four ages, down to Jerome (A.D. 370), were of Greece, Syria and Africa, and though they give great numbers of histories of the baptism of adults, yet there is not one of the baptism of a child till the year 370.” (Compendium of Baptist History, Shackelford, p. 43; Vedder, p. 50; Christian, p, 31; Orchard, p. 50, etc.)

7. Let it be remembered that changes like these here mentioned were not made in a day, nor even within a year. They came about slowly and never within all the churches. Some of the churches vigorously repudiated them. So much so that in A.D. 251, the loyal churches declared non-fellowship for those churches which accepted and practiced these errors. And thus came about the first real official separation among the churches.

8. Thus it will be noted that during the first three centuries three important and vital changes from the teachings of Christ and His Apostles had their beginnings. And one significant event took place, Note this summary and recapitulation:

(1) The change from the New Testament idea of bishop and church government. This change grew rapidly, more pronounced, and complete and hurtful.

(2) The change from the New Testament teachings as to Regeneration to “baptismal regeneration.”

(3) The change from “believers’ baptism” to “infant baptism.” (This last, however, did not become general nor even very frequent for more than another century.)

9. “Baptismal regeneration” and “infant baptism.” These two errors have, according to the testimony of well-established history, caused the shedding of more Christian blood, as the centuries have gone by, than all other errors combined, or than possibly have all wars, not connected with persecution, if you will leave out the recent “World War.” Over 50,000,000 Christians died martyr deaths, mainly because of their rejection of these two errors during the period of the “dark ages” alone–about twelve or thirteen centuries.

10. Three significant facts, for a large majority of the many churches, are clearly shown by history during these first three centuries.

(1) The separateness and independence of the Churches.

(2) The subordinate character of bishops or pastors.

(3) The baptism of believers only.

I quote now from Mosheim–the greatest of all Lutheran church historians. Vol., 1, pages 71 and 72: “But whoever supposes that the bishops of this golden age of the church correspond with the bishops of the following centuries must blend and confound characters that are very different, for in this century and the next, a bishop had charge of a single church, which might ordinarily be contained in a private house; nor was he its Lord, but was in reality its minister or servant. . . All the churches in those primitive times were independent bodies, or none of them subject to the jurisdiction of any other. For though the churches which were founded by the Apostles themselves frequently had the honor shown them to be consulted in doubtful cases, yet they had no judicial authority, no control, no power of giving laws. On the contrary, it is as clear as the noonday that all Christian churches had equal rights, and were in all respects on a footing of equality.”

11. Up to this period, notwithstanding much and serious persecutions, Christianity has had a marvelous growth. It has covered and even gone beyond the great Roman Empire. Almost, if not all the inhabited world has heard the gospel. And, according to some of the church historians, many of the original churches organized by the Apostles are yet intact, and yet loyal to Apostolic teachings. However, as already shown, a number of very marked and hurtful errors have crept in and gotten a permanent hold among many of the churches. Some have become very irregular.

12. Persecutions have become increasingly bitter. Near the beginning of the fourth century comes possibly the first definite government edict of persecution. The wonderful growth of Christianity has alarmed the pagan leaders of the Roman Empire. Hence Galerius, the emperor, sent out a direct edict of more savage persecution. This occurred Feb. 24, 303 A.D. Up to this time Paganism seems to have persecuted without any definite laws to that effect.

13. But this edict failed so utterly in its purpose of stopping the growth of Christianity, that this same emperor, Galerius, just eight years thereafter (A.D. 311) passed another edict recalling the first and actually granting toleration–permission to live the religion of Jesus Christ. This was probably its first favorable law.

14. By the beginning of the year A.D. 313, Christianity has won a mighty victory over paganism. A new emperor has come to the throne of the Roman Empire. He evidently recognized something of the mysterious power of this religion that continued to grow in spite of persecution. History says that this new emperor who was none other than Constantinehad a wonderful realistic vision. He saw in the skies a fiery red cross and on that cross written in fiery letters these words–“By this thou shalt conquer.” He interpreted it to mean that he should become a Christian. And that by giving up paganism and that by attaching the spiritual power of the Christian religion onto the temporal power of the Roman Empire the world could be easily conquered. Thus the Christian religion would in fact become a whole world religion, and the Roman Empire a whole world empire.

15. So under the leadership of Emperor Constantine there comes a truce, a courtship and a proposal of marriage. The Roman Empire through its emperor seeks a marriage with Christianity. Give us your spiritual power and we will give you of our temporal power.

16. To effectually bring about and consummate this unholy union, a council was called. In A. D. 313, a call was made for a coming together of the Christian churches or their representatives . Many but not all came. The alliance was consummated. A Hierarchy was formed. In the organization of the Hierarchy, Christ was dethroned as head of the churches and Emperor Constantine enthroned (only temporarily, however) as head of the church.

17. The Hierarchy was the definite beginning of a development which finally resulted into what is now known as the Catholic, or “universal” church. It might be said that its indefinite beginnings were near the close of the second and beginning of the third century, when the new ideas concerning bishops and preacher-church government began to take shape.

18. Let it be definitely remembered that when Constantine made his call for the council, there were very many of the Christians (Baptists) and of the churches, which declined to respond. They wanted no marriage with the state, and no centralized religious government, and no higher ecclesiastical government of any kind, than the individual church. These Christians (Baptists) nor the churches ever at that time or later, entered the hierarchy of the Catholic denomination.

And the head of the Catholic Church is honored by the rulers and governments of today. How very shameful.

A Political Solution?

A couple of weeks back my attention was drawn to some charges leveled against a gentleman I know, and a column he writes for a gun magazine. Now, knowing someone through the internet is a difficult proposition at best, and one can never really be certain if a person is who they say they are. Even when one knows someone face to face, frequently their true character is not known. Thus, the only real evaluation one can go by is the consistency of statements made and the consistency of the positions held. If a person is consistent time and again, it can be reasonably inferred that they are indeed what they claim to be. If not, then we know the answer to that one don’t we?

However, this article is not about a particular individual, but about appearances, misconceptions and underlying causes. The preface above is necessary as the following quotes illustrate a common problem today among individuals who say they support this or that, yet do not put enough effort in to really understanding the root cause of the problems of our day. This is particularly true of evangelicals and fundamentalists and their approach to resolving the problems of this nation.

In the following quotes, Mr. Codrea is David Codrea of War on Guns blog, and the quotes are excerpted from some Letters to the Editor concerning a column he wrote in which he contended that the Second Amendment did not grant the right to keep and bear arms.

I’d like to comment on Mr. Codrea and his recent article about the second amendment not guaranteeing the right to bear arms. My thought is maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. The fact of the matter is we don’t need clowns like this idiot pointing this out to the antigun crowd.

I would suggest you take a long, hard look at what Codrea writes in the future, because in my opinion he could very well be a Trojan horse. ((http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_4_54/ai_n24358964))

David Codrea’s article “Privileges” ought not to have been written. What’s wrong with this guy? He sounds like an anti-gunner. What he said may totally confuse some people. ((ibid))

Aside from the fact that the comments of the letter writers are ugly and unwarranted in their tone, they reveal an ignorance of where the Founders of this nation determined that all our individual rights come from. To be blunt, one has to be utterly ignorant and devoid of knowledge of the English language and its construction to not understand the plain text of the Declaration of Independence. Moreover, one would also have to ignore the documents that form the foundation of our constitutional form of government. One of the texts used was John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, in which Locke’s entire thesis is predicated upon the fact that God created man, and man exists in this world to fulfill the will and purpose God has for him. Hence, our individual rights existed long before the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Thus, the Second Amendment did not and does not “grant” anything. Rather, it only recognizes a pre-existing right God gave to man. Being that man is evil, and ever given to acts of evil, the right to keep and bear arms is essential for the control of man’s propensity for wickedness.

Now, how does this apply to fundamentalists and evangelicals today?

In Scripture, which is supposed to be the beginning and ending of everything a child of God does, it is very apparent — plain even, that all the problems of man spring from our wicked and unregenerate hearts. The Lord Jesus Christ was very plain and clear in explaining this:

And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. (Mark 7:20-23)

Now, it should not be necessary to recount all the references in Scripture that speak to this very thing and prove that it is our individual hearts which are the problem. Moreover, it should also not be necessary to prove that a man thinks and conceives of something prior to doing it. These things ought to be self-evident (like the statement in the Declaration of Independence), and need no explanation or proof by repeated citation of evidence.

So then, why is it that so many fundamentalist and evangelicals always want to seek the solution to America’s egregious moral and political problems through the vehicle of politics? Why is it that they want to hang their hats (so to speak) on the likes of Mike Huckabee, et al, instead of applying themselves to the task of setting forth Christ in every aspect of their lives? Is it that being a witness for Christ is not glamourous enough, or that it puts people off and makes them uncomfortable? Is it that playing politics is “fun,” whereas teaching the word of God isn’t? Or, it is really that you get to meet the “important, influential people” in government and society, and you don’t have to deal with “ordinary” people of you community?

You know, I have to ask: Whenever did politics change the heart of an individual?

If the statement of the Lord Jesus Christ is true and all problems spring from the heart, isn’t it also true that if the heart is made right so that it is not evil, those very problems would go away? Isn’t it true if you change the heart of an individual, you would also change the way they think about things, and thus the decisions they make would indeed be different? Didn’t Christ state that “evil thoughts” proceed out of the heart? Isn’t it true that, if we think well of our neighbor and fellow man, we would never do anything to harm them, or infringe upon their rights? Moreover, if we have Christ’s thinking in our hearts, wouldn’t we love our countrymen and respect the boundaries drawn by the Constitutions, State and Federal?

Beyond doubt, our “political leaders,” judges and such like do not come from Mars. No, they come from among us. They are our neighbors, members of our respective communities across the land. Our elected and appointed officials come from among us and our society, which is made up of — individuals.

Perhaps if fundamentalists and evangelicals put far more effort into reaching the INDIVIDUALS in our society, and less effort into politics, we would change the very character of those running for office in the first place. It is inarguable: if a society consists of predominantly good individuals, then those standing for political office are also going to be predominantly good as well. However, if all that is done is a continual chasing after political influence, then those standing for political office are more than happy to pander to another “special interest” group so that they can garner the votes needed to be elected. And, as we have seen, turn out to be not at all what they claimed to be.

No, I am afraid that the vast majority of fundamentalists and evangelicals are like the letter writers quoted at the beginning of this post — blind to the truth of the matter. Like the letter writers, fundamentalists and evangelicals cast away a solid foundation in favor of the whim of man. After all, if the right to keep and bear arms comes from Almighty God, who can take it from us? Instead, we would have to give it up by abdicating our responsibility. Even so, should a child of God cast away the most powerful, influential message ever to reach the heart of man — the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, in favor of a political solution?

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isaiah 55:8-11)

Fighting Crime? – Pt. 2

Yesterday, I discussed the logic behind abortion and how abortion itself reduces our respect for the rights of others, particularly the right to life. I also demonstrated that abortion condemned the innocent and allowed the guilty to go free, and that we, as a nation, had codified it into law. The last statement I made was “I wonder what the LORD has to say about that . . .”

There really is no need to wonder. If we can figure out logically that abortion condemns the innocent, does not respect the right to life, and destroys the most defenseless among us, it is not difficult to know what the LORD thinks about abortion and allowing it to exist under legal protection. Nonetheless, we would do well to look into the word of God so that we can understand why we are being judged as a nation, and what our end will be.

Before beginning, it ought to be understood that the LORD God used Israel as an example for all nations to look to pertaining to what He will tolerate, and what He will not. The LORD made this very plain in both Leviticus 18, verses 24-28, and Deuteronomy 18, verses 9-18, when He plainly told Israel what they could not do as the Canaanites did, as those were the reasons the Canaanites were being driven out of the land. In so doing, the LORD God lets us know that all nations are held to the same standard of conduct, whether they acknowledge the LORD or not. Indeed, we would do well to remember, the LORD God’s existence is not predicated upon whether anyone believes in Him. The LORD God is the I AM and nothing is going to change that.

In beginning, it is essential to understand that the LORD God is a God of judgement, and that plainly means that when someone is guilty, they are held accountable. Moreover, the innocent are never to be made to pay for the crimes of the guilty.

Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked. (Exodus 23:7)

Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen. (Deuteronomy 27:25)

Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place. (Jeremiah 22:3)

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)

The above makes it very plain that the LORD God is not pleased with those who deem it necessary to destroy the innocent for the convenience of the guilty. But that is not all. It becomes even more egregious when it is a child who suffers for the sake of the parents. To the LORD, children hold a special place. In all His creation, a little child is a precious thing to the LORD:

Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 18:10)

Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. (Matthew 18:14)

Now the statements the Lord Jesus Christ made sit in the context of the salvation the LORD offers to all through the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross. Such a comparison, being drawn by the LORD Himself, shows the gravity of looking down upon children, and the egregiousness of killing a little child for the convenience of the parents. When the LORD compares the despising and destruction of little children and that loss; to the loss of a soul, it is a clear picture of what the LORD thinks of those who despise and kill little children.

The why of this is also plain in the rest of the Scripture.

Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. (Psalm 127:3-5)

This alone is enough to show what is wrong with abortion. After all, a child in the womb is a direct gift from God. It is a blessing he bestows. Yes, it is indeed a consequence of actions taken, but there are few consequences so full of joy and the potential for joy as this one is. Thus, to reject it — is to reject the LORD and is an affront to God. Moreover, as previously shown, it is to deny the responsibility for one’s actions.

However, that is compounded by the fact that children, particularly those in the womb, are the most innocent among us. No child in the womb has done anything to anyone, at any time. They did not ask to be there, and they have no choice in the matter. Hence, to kill them is to commit the most egregious of all crimes. The LORD condemned Israel for this — and they did not touch those in the womb. Instead they took their babies and sacrificed them to the “gods” of the heathen:

They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them: But were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works. And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them. Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. (Psalm 106:34-38)

Surely at the commandment of the LORD came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did; And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the LORD would not pardon. (II Kings 24:3-4)

What innocent blood did Manasseh shed? It was the sacrificing of little children to the heathen gods so that Manasseh could be absolved of his sin. ‘Ah,’ the advocates of abortion would say, ‘we are not sacrificing little children to gods, therefore we cannot be held to this.’ However, they miss a very important statement made by the Lord Jesus Christ to the scribes and Pharisees when challenged about being the Son of God:

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (John 10:34-36)

Of course, the law He spoke of was Psalm 82:

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. (Psalm 82:6)

Thus, the “gods” the little children in the womb are sacrificed to, are none other than the parent(s) of the unborn child. Like “gods,” the parent(s) take upon themselves that which belongs to God only — the determination of who lives and who dies. Indeed, this is worse than the slave owners of old, who the LORD instructed they were not to take the life of their slave, nor were they to arbitrarily punish those under their power. Here, we have a child that has done nothing at all, and yet the parent(s), decide to usurp a prerogative of God only, and put the child to death. Not to justify Manasseh and the ancient Israelites, but at least they allowed the child to be born. As we can see, the LORD God destroyed them for their wickedness.

No, for this thing there is no excuse. Moreover, in our heart and soul we all, even those who perform the abortions and those who have them done, know that this is egregiously wrong. The LORD God is angry at America for this, if for nothing else. Moreover, like ancient Judah, we will not be pardoned either.

Fighting Crime? – Part 1

“London, England (LifeNews.com) — A trio of economists have released the results of a new study disproving the supposed link between the legalization of abortion and a reduction in crime. John Donohue and Steven Levitt first introduced the repeatedly-criticized theory in 2001 and another report shows it’s untrue.” ((http://www.lifenews.com/int692.html))

“The economists also note that US crime rates fell in the 1990s but that the rates fell not only among younger Americans born after Roe v. Wade, but fell among older Americans as well – indicating abortion likely had no effect on crime.

“Given all this, it seems highly unlikely that the legalization of abortion can, as Donohue and Levitt hypothesized, explain the dramatic drop in crime observed in the US in the 1990s,” the economists write.

The authors also reject the hypothesis that abortion reduced the number of unwanted children who were more likely to commit crimes.

“Prior to the legalization of abortion, unwanted babies did not necessarily become unwanted children,” they wrote.

The authors point to data showing adoption rates in England were significantly higher before abortion was allowed than afterwards — showing many so-called unwanted children were adopted by loving families who wanted them.

“The rate of infants under five who had been adopted at birth decreased from 16 per thousand in the mid-1960s to about 5 per thousand just 10 years later,” they said.

“Rather than just reducing the number of unwanted children, abortion legalization appears to have reduced the number of unwanted infants who would have ended up (through adoption) being wanted children,” they write.” ((ibid))

You know; we didn’t need a study to prove that. That apparently rare thing, “common sense” dictates that abortion would not decrease crime, and would actually increase it. How can that be? Let’s look at the logic behind abortion and see what is actually there.

The advocates of abortion claim abortion is necessary as the child is unwanted, and therefore would be a burden upon the mother and/or the family into which the child would be born. Moreover, since that child is unwanted, it will not be treated well and will grow up in an environment that would cause it to become a social misfit, and would be more likely to commit crime. The child would be a particular burden upon poor, unwed women who cannot provide properly, and would drag that family further down into poverty. We can even go so far as to say that the child, who is unwanted and not aborted, would themselves be far more likely to become a burden upon society as they, being raised in a poverty-stricken home, would also end up on welfare.

In all the justification given above, and I have read and heard all the above-mentioned justifications, it all starts with “the unwanted child.” You know, that’s funny, and not in the ha, ha sense either; it is funny in that the reason the child exists in the first place is ignored. Last I knew, children didn’t just suddenly appear in the womb. No, there is always a cause, and that cause demands the actions of two individuals. Otherwise, children simply don’t exist, and cannot exist. A child comes about as a result of a deliberate act committed by two individuals. Generally speaking, this act is freely engaged in, and usually without thought to the consequences. In other words, the child did not ask to be here, yet now it is here, as a result of the deliberate behavior of two other individuals.

So then, according to those who advocate abortion, the proper response to that is to relieve the responsible parties of their deliberate actions, and make the child pay for what its parents did. An analogy to this would be making the victim of a crime, pay for the criminal’s actions. It seems to me that this is turning justice on its head.

However, not to be deterred, the advocates of abortion have a rejoinder that goes somewhat like this: ‘It’s not really a child as it’s not viable while in the womb. It requires special conditions to live, and thus is not really a person, particularly under the law.’

Really? I suppose then we have had instances of women giving birth to snakes, turtles, pigs, ducks and the like? No? Why is it that every time, all throughout human history, women always give birth to little humans that look remarkably like their parents? Just why is that?

Perhaps it is because that fertilized egg in the womb is actually a person after all, and has all the processes of life occurring in it from the moment it was fertilized? Or is it that all our biology books, and the decades of biological research are in error? And as for special conditions for life, I would tend to think that needing an adequate amount of water every day is a special condition for life. I think that one ought to be able to subsist on coffee, and anyone who drinks water requires special conditions for life. Silly isn’t it? The reality is that determining what special conditions for life are, is very much like beauty — it is in the eye of the beholder. Moreover, if the life of a person you love is at stake, no condition required for them to live is special. On the other hand, if it is someone you hate, well, simply allowing them to breathe air is too much to ask isn’t it?

Perhaps it really all boils down to this: we don’t want to be held responsible for what we do, and the activities we engage in: no matter the consequences.

Isn’t that the logic of criminals? It certainly is utterly selfish isn’t it? It is the “I don’t give rip about anyone else, I want what I want, and I don’t care who it hurts.” attitude.

It seems to me that this kind of attitude fosters and engenders an increase in crime, and not a decrease. It also fosters the abdication of personal responsibility, which is precisely what we have observed since the decision of Roe v. Wade in 1973. Moreover, that attitude of ‘I’m not responsible’ permeates throughout all society and affects every portion of our life.

Additionally, we do know, whether we consciously admit it or not, that we are making the innocent pay for the crimes of the guilty. You know, we are outraged when a criminal sues the victim of his or her crime because the criminal was injured either on the victim’s property, or by the victim, and the criminal wins the lawsuit. But we think nothing of the woman who aborts her child because it is “unwanted,” or she “can’t afford it.” At least when the criminal brings a civil lawsuit, it doesn’t result in the death of the victim of their crime. This not to say that I think criminals should be allowed to sue victims of their crime — they shouldn’t. It is merely to point out a dichotomy in our thinking. We are outraged by one, but not the other — wonder why?

No, if we really sit down and look at our society and the changes it has undergone since 1973, we can see the outworking of the underlying attitudes and thought processes present in the whole concept of abortion. Common sense dictates that not only would crime not drop as a result of abortion being legalized, but would actually increase. Even if the way crime is reported is changed so that the statistics don’t seem so bad, we can still see the degradation of society and the loss of respect for the rights of others.

We all know, whether we are willing to admit it or not, that abortion is taking an innocent life. We have codified the ability of the guilty to take the life of an innocent, and that taking of life is entirely without consequence under the law. In short, we have said that certain innocent parties have no right to life under the law. Just how do you think that impacts the rest of our rights, since all other rights must have the right to life to be effective?

Think about it: what an oxymoron to say that we can reduce crime by killing innocents.

Wonder what the LORD has to say about that . . .

A Hymn of Repentance

There are some hymns that are very simple, yet they capture the true perspective of their particular subject. One such hymn is Fanny Crosby’s Jesus My All, which is set to the melody “Bethany (Mason) composed by Lowell Mason.

Repentance is one of the great gifts that the LORD God bestows upon man. Without the LORD bestowing this gift upon us, we would have no hope of salvation. In and of ourselves, we will never repent. The Jews of old knew this as they replied to Peter after he rehearsed the conversion of Cornelius and the bestowing of the Holy Ghost upon them:

When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. (Acts 11:18)

We are also reminded by the Lord Jesus Christ that repentance is utterly necessary for salvation:

There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. (Luke 13:1-5)

Even after salvation, repentance is still necessary as we are not freed from this flesh and all its wickedness. We are reminded that we are to continually grow in Christ, else we are subject to lose the ability to repent, and will then be set on a shelf, totally unused of the LORD.

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (Hebrews 6:1-6)

What a terrible way to stand before our Lord and Saviour — to suffer the loss spoken of in I Corinthians, chapter 3:

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. (I Corinthians 3:11-15)

With that, I leave you with the words and a link to the melody.

Jesus, My All
Bethany (Mason)

Lord, at Thy mercy seat, humbly I fall;
Pleading Thy promise sweet, Lord, hear my call;
Now let Thy work begin, oh, make me pure within,
Cleanse me from every sin, Jesus, my all.

Tears of repentant grief, silently fall;
Help Thou my unbelief, hear Thou my call;
Oh, how I pine for Thee! ’Tis all my hope and plea:
Jesus has died for me, Jesus, my all.

Still at Thy mercy seat, Savior, I fall;
Trusting Thy promise sweet, heard is my call;
Faith wings my soul to Thee; this all my song shall be,
Jesus has died for me, Jesus, my all.

Words: Fanny Crosby, 1866.
Music: Bethany (Mason), Lowell Mason, 1856.

An Answer to David @ War on Guns

The following is an answer to David Codrea who runs the War on Guns blog. He disagreed with my assertion that it is wrong to lie – period. This disagreement arose over the issue of the Olmert government in Israel taking government issued guns away from settlers, and the settlers giving them up. David held that it would be fine to lie to the government. I hold that it is never right to lie, as that is a sin before God.

Please be advised, this is a much longer article than I normally publish on the blog. However, I do believe you will be blessed by it.

I know David, you think you’ve got me. That’s all right. However, my reply will not be short, as you require a decent, proper answer to your assertion.

To begin, the commandment of the LORD God is very plain:

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Matthew 19:16-19)

Moreover, to lie, is to follow after the father of lies, the Devil:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44)

Thus, lying is not an option as it directly disobeys the express command of God. Thus, it appears that we are left between a rock and a hard place by your scenario. However, there are some things that are beyond our limited understanding, but not beyond the understanding, scope and power of the LORD God.

Now, I will not tell you that one must blindly believe and trust the LORD God for the outcome for such situations as that would be superstition. The LORD does not operate through, nor does He acknowledge superstition. Instead, one must operate by the instrument of faith.

Thus, the instrument of faith is extremely important to understanding everything that follows. (more…)

Another god

By embracing the wage issue as a core part of their message, progressives have seen direct political gains. In an era of frayed relationships with the faith-based community, the issue has created an alliance for progressives with religious leaders, especially Catholic and other denominational officials who have made living wage issues a core part of their social justice teachings. It gives progressives what the Rev. Steven Copley, who led a recent successful minimum wage drive in Arkansas, calls “a moral issue, a faith issue and a family values issue” to rally supporters. ((http://www.progressivestates.org/content/483/))

I have to ask: Just who do you serve Stephen? Do you serve the LORD God, or man in the form of a communist, humanist agenda? By the way, just what does the “minimum wage” have to do with preaching the gospel? Where is that in the “great commission?” If it is there, I sure don’t find it at all. Moreover, I cannot find it anywhere in the New Testament either. Would you mind citing chapter and verse for me?

But that is not all you are involved in is it? Somehow, you find it necessary to ally yourself with socialist and communist causes under the guise of “progressivism.” ((http://www.reproachofmen.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/Progressive_States_Network-_-Networks_Board_of_Directors.pdf)) You know, as one who has to work for a living, and has been underpaid at times, I really do not appreciate what you are doing. Why? Because it is simply not your job.

As a supposed minister in the Methodist denomination, do you really think you are helping the cause of the gospel of Jesus Christ by your actions? Or, is that simply a cover for your political and social leanings, which are actually communist?

I have to ask, as I am compelled to preach the gospel and show forth Christ in every aspect of my life. What about you Stephen? Or, has Methodism drifted so far away from service to God that they tolerate, and even encourage one of their ordained ministers to engage in political and social activism?

Just what god do you serve Stephen?

You are of course aware that you will be held particularly accountable for wrapping yourself with the name of Christ, and using it as a front for wicked, humanistic purposes don’t you? Are you also aware that you are to be obedient to the laws of the land, beginning with the Federal Constitution? Moreover, this includes immigration law as well? After all, it is written:

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. (I Peter 2:13-15)

You know, I don’t see the Apostle Peter or the Apostle Paul overthrowing the Roman system, or even advocating for changes in its laws anywhere in the New Testament. Moreover, it is utterly plain that the Lord Jesus Christ, who you claim to serve, did not do so either.

You know what Stephen, it appears to me that you actually need the gospel just as much as Vladimir Putin. Funny how that all your studies in seminary never seemed to get that point across to you. Perhaps it is because you didn’t actually enter seminary to learn to be a preacher anyway, but found it a easy way to ride the gravy train. After all, what really is expected of a “professional minister” anyway?

A couple of last things Stephen; if you don’t recognize the passages, I won’t be surprised.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20)

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (I Corinthians 1:17-18)

Oh, and as for your “title” of Reverend, I know that you will eat that one day:

He hath shewed his people the power of his works, that he may give them the heritage of the heathen. The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness. He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever. (Psalm 111:6-10)

Finally, you remind me very much of Jeremiah Wright, since you two seem to have the same agenda. You and he both remind me of what the Scripture has to say about those who pretend to serve God, all the while serving themselves:

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. (II Peter 2:1-3)

It seems to me you serve another god Stephen. You would do well to comprehend that its awful hot in Hell and that eternity is a awful long time to be there.