Showing posts with label baby. Show all posts
Showing posts with label baby. Show all posts
Friday, February 08, 2013
Truly Sad Business
The Real Choice article, NAF Member LeRoy Carhart Just Killed Patient in Maryland shares information and links to more information regarding a 29 year old woman who died as a result of complications during a 33rd week late term abortion when her abortion doctor could not be reached.
The abortion business is truly a very sad business. The abortion profiteers promote their business as a caring industry that has the rights and needs of women as the primary motive. But when one looks at how these women are treated, care is not what one observes.
It is truly a sad and even dreadful sort of care that these women receive. After receiving dangerous drugs that are administered in lethal doses with the sole purpose of causing death, the death of the prepartum baby, and the insertion of material that gradually expands the cervix, then the mother is sent away, often to a hotel, to endure this process. The procedure is described at Late-Term Abortion - Induction Abortion - Also known as the “MOLD Technique”.
It is hard even to imagine how traumatic this must be for the woman.
Myself, I find myself torn emotionally regarding the death of this mother. My first emotional reaction is one of horror and grief over this woman being killed. I also feel rage that such doctors do such wicked things, both to the babies and to the mothers. Then I bounce to the thought, but if she had not chosen to have her baby killed, this would not have happened to her. And true as this is, I immediately bounce again to the anguish of the mother, who has been told that this is a safe procedure and has been misinformed about the identity and worth of her baby. The mother has been played by the abortion industry. Her fears have been exploited. And it this case, she was murdered. At the very least this was negligent homicide. And this is not the first time that this abortion doctor is guilty.
But is this so-called doctor the only guilty party? What about the rest of us who continue to allow Congress and the White House and the Supreme Court to promote this mass murder industry? How can we as a nation not share in the guilt? This mass murder industry was instituted and promoted within my lifetime. I was a teenager when this industry was birthed. It has been nurtured and brought to full growth. It is sustained with federal money. It is promoted in the government schools and social programs. It is preached through the media as right and good.
On rare occasions a few souls tortured by their awareness of this societal guilt have taken matters into their own hands and have become murderers. Under the delusion of righting a wrong they chose to commit the same evil themselves.
Indeed, from every possible view this is very sad business.
How sad may be expressed even more powerfully by contrasting this to the number of murders versus abortions in America. According to How many murders committed per day in US? there were about 45 murders per day in 2008. According to the FBI Report for 2011 the Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter total was 14,612, which would be about 40 per day.
According to American Life League there were 1.2 Million abortions in 2011, which is 3,288 per day. The CDC reports that there are 234 abortions per 1,000 live births. This means that the abortion rate is nearly 19 percent.
Imagine the outcry that would erupt if the number of daily reported murders went from 40 to 3,288.
Or imagine if the mortality rate for wanted babies jumped to 234 per 1,000 live births, equaling a mortality rate of over 23 percent.
The gestational period for humans is approximately 38 Weeks. The abortion procedure that resulted in this mother’s death was in the 33rd week.
What is wrong with us as a nation that we are not horrified by this?
If an abortionist is not concerned with the fact that a baby is being murdered with less than five weeks to go before parturition, how much concern can really be expected to be shown for the health and safety of the mother?
Sad business? This is sick. We are a very sick society.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Fascinating Videos
Tuesday was the Fortieth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that the privacy of the womb belongs only to the woman, and not to its occupant, not to the unborn baby.
Yesterday I found some fascinating videos that were produced regarding this issue. They are quite effective in evoking deeper thought concerning the issues of the reality that babies are people with hearts and souls and minds and are part of our society, part of the human race.
I don’t particularly like the notion of “potential” as the view towards a baby or any other human being. But these videos do demonstrate that something very important is being ignored by our society in the matter of abortion and the value human life in general.
In Roe v. Wade and Roe v. Wade - 410 U.S. 113 (1973) it is reported that the woman’s constitutional right to privacy as guaranteed in several amendments and particularly the Fourteenth and Ninth amendments was the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision against the unborn baby in favor of the woman’s right for no one to know. It seems ironic that the strongest arguments were based upon the right for privacy regarding Due Process. And so a woman and abortionist are protected under due process while the baby is not.
It is even more powerfully ironic that in his recent inaugural address Obama spoke of reasons to ignore people’s rights to privacy in various matters. The right to self-defense amendment is particularly under attack by a former Senator and now President who openly supports abortion as a right of women and especially of the abortion industrialists. Is it not ironic that a woman’s so-called right to privacy has now become a right to have the rest of society pay for the termination of her baby? Is it not ironic that the people who object to abortions on the basis of their belief that killing babies is ungodly no longer have any First Amendment rights whatsoever, even in many cases being denied the right of free speech?
The extent of the irony reaches into another area as well, as is reported at Ex-SEAL Zinke: 'Nearly Certain' Women in Combat Will Cost Lives.
It does not seem to be accidental that with the Roe v. Wade decision that the views of many women began to change significantly. In the past it was extremely uncommon for women to think of military service as a “right” of women. With the dehumanizing of babies and the devaluing of life in general, our society is more and more inclined to glorify warriors as role models. Killing and fighting are predominant themes in movies. Survival games are promoted as entertainment on TV. Sending troops overseas to invade other countries under the guise of National Security and the War against Terrorism has become accepted. Assassinations via drones has become accepted. Even the so-called collateral damage is hardly even counted anymore.
Are these issues divorced of one another? Is there no common link between them?
Should we not consider seriously how far we have wandered in our thinking and values as a society? Should we not also consider the things that have promoted this erosion and degradation and devolution of human decency?
+ + +
Saturday, May 05, 2012
A Tiny Nature’s Haven
Last week I began working to prune an Amur maple that had grown as a multiple stem tree and had overgrown the area in which it had been planted. The two secondary main stems needed to be removed, and it needed to be deadwooded and cleaned and headed back from the three walls and roof. As I began approaching the tree I found a baby rabbit in the enclosed bed looking up at me from the foot of the trunk of the Amur maple.
Then, as I began working in the tree I discovered a robin and her nest in one of the boughs to be removed. She was quite upset. She squeaked loudly and continually, which is an odd sound for a robin. Then she began swooping at my head, but without actually making contact. I warned her not to do this as I did not want to hurt her and I did not want to knock her baby and unhatched egg to the ground. The baby appeared to have been hatched that day, perhaps only hours earlier. I kept telling her that I was aware of her nest and that I would be careful not to destroy it. But she continued squeaking and squeaking. I kept assuring her that I would not hurt her babies and that I would move her nest to a new and safe location in the tree and that if she is a good momma that she will return to care for her babies.
Finally I changed my tone from apologetic to a firm and direct address, saying, “Listen, I know that you can understand me as the Lord can make my words understood to you, so listen. I will not hurt your babies. I will move the nest to a safe location and if you are a good mamma, you will return to take care of them.” After this she stood on the roof looking at me for a few moments and then flew away. I was able to relocate the nest to a safe place in the remaining tree branches and she returned to care for her baby and egg.
As I worked on the ground removing the two secondary mains, I was very much startled when a momma duck suddenly took flight as I was working. Her nest was in the corner behind me. After she flew off, making quite a startling flutter, I saw her nest with six or seven eggs. I was careful as I felled and dragged the large branches so as not to disturb her nest, nor the robin’s nest. Momma Duck also returned to her eggs after I finished working in that little alcove.
Both mommas returned to their precious ones shortly after I cleared my equipment and branches from the alcove. I was still working in the same area of the yard when they returned. Momma robin returned to her nest and sat overlooking the front lawn. Momma Duck flew back, landed in the grass and paced a bit, looking over her shoulder at me for a few minutes, and then flew back to her nest.
Such little adventures add considerably to the time required to do my work, yet I receive a sense of satisfaction and joy when I am able to save the little families from destruction. I have moved other nests in the past, too. If at least one of the eggs has already hatched, the rate of success is much higher. It also helps when the nest can be kept in the same tree. But even when it must be moved to another tree, if the babies have hatched so that they make some noise, sometimes the momma finds them and resumes her motherly care for them. This baby was so newly hatched that it did not even make any noises. But Momma Robin did find her babies.
Anyway, I thought that I would share this little bit of joyous success that I enjoyed this past week.
+ + +
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Oh no! Oh No! Oh NO!
This article, Aborted Babies Are Being Chopped Up And Sold To Researchers All Over America, presents a truly horrifying reality. Fetal body parts used for reseach is a more extensive article.
An example of the sellers of these parts and the extracted RNA and such from the baby parts is Agilent Technologies.
From the Page Info from the headers:
The first time that one visits this web page a little pop up screen appears providing a list of countries from which to choose so as to make available what parts can be sold.
Here are screenshots showing the first and last on this very comprehensive list.
Is Antarctica now a country? Are there research centers in Antarctica that are experimenting on body parts? Who would have guessed that Antarctica would be listed? Just how far does experimentation on humans extend? Who is monitoring what it being done in Antarctica?
From the article Aborted Babies Are Being Chopped Up And Sold To Researchers All Over America With The Full Approval Of The Obama Administration at The American Dream, in the comments section is a comment that shows how far this thinking truly goes. People who argue for this treatment of the unborn try to conceal how far this mentality extends. But here is what that person stated:
At what point does this become shocking? This person says that experiments AND the harvesting of body parts should be conducted on prisoners. Can it be that people are actually thinking this way? It certainly has happened before. Is it happening now? (Yesterday 5 people had “liked” her comment. Today the number is up to 19.)
Not surprisingly, this person has listed on her Facebook page The Animal Rescue Site.
In conjunction with this there is a very high likelihood that she judges God as cruel for such reasons as hell being reserved for those who reject His mercy in favor of bringing death to the human race.
As Leonard Nimoy is famous for saying, “Fascinating.”
Actually, I would say, “Horrifying!” Or perhaps also, “Sickening.”
This truly should be alarming to us all, that this mentality has been propagated among us. If this can be done to more than a million babies every year in the USA alone, not counting the many other countries doing this, and if the mentality is being expanded to include prisoners and mentally impaired people, who is next? It is actually already being done on the poor in certain countries.
+ + +
By the way, for clarity’s sake, I am an animal lover and I do support animal rescue. I do not, however, count animals to be more important than humans, not even more important than convicted violent criminals, not even more important than those who kill babies and harvest their body parts or support this inhuman industry, for that matter, not even more important than those who have brought great harm to me and my wife. My view of these things flows from the God who gave Himself into death for the sake of sinners of every sort, even those who scourged Him and nailed Him to a tree. If this view extends even to murderers and rapists, how can compassion not be held concerning the helpless?
+ + +
An example of the sellers of these parts and the extracted RNA and such from the baby parts is Agilent Technologies.
From the Page Info from the headers:
keywords: tissue, human, fetal, purified, application tested, mRNA, poly, A, A +, messenger RNA, RNA, pure, FirstChoice, MVP, Ambion, normal, Premium, Clontech, 778001, 778002, 778003, 778008, 778009, 778011, 778013, 778015, 778019, 778021, 778025,
description: Highly pure, intact, human fetal tissue poly RNA collection that is ready-to-use for Microarray, QRT-PCR, cDNA synthesis and Northern Blot Analysis.
title: MVP Human Fetal Tissue Poly(A)+ RNA
mosskeywords: tissue, human, fetal, purified, application tested, mRNA, poly, A, A +, messenger RNA, RNA, pure, FirstChoice, MVP, Ambion, normal, Premium, Clontech, 778001, 778002, 778003, 778008, 778009, 778011, 778013, 778015, 778019, 778021, 778025,
The first time that one visits this web page a little pop up screen appears providing a list of countries from which to choose so as to make available what parts can be sold.
Here are screenshots showing the first and last on this very comprehensive list.
Is Antarctica now a country? Are there research centers in Antarctica that are experimenting on body parts? Who would have guessed that Antarctica would be listed? Just how far does experimentation on humans extend? Who is monitoring what it being done in Antarctica?
From the article Aborted Babies Are Being Chopped Up And Sold To Researchers All Over America With The Full Approval Of The Obama Administration at The American Dream, in the comments section is a comment that shows how far this thinking truly goes. People who argue for this treatment of the unborn try to conceal how far this mentality extends. But here is what that person stated:
At what point does this become shocking? This person says that experiments AND the harvesting of body parts should be conducted on prisoners. Can it be that people are actually thinking this way? It certainly has happened before. Is it happening now? (Yesterday 5 people had “liked” her comment. Today the number is up to 19.)
Not surprisingly, this person has listed on her Facebook page The Animal Rescue Site.
In conjunction with this there is a very high likelihood that she judges God as cruel for such reasons as hell being reserved for those who reject His mercy in favor of bringing death to the human race.
As Leonard Nimoy is famous for saying, “Fascinating.”
Actually, I would say, “Horrifying!” Or perhaps also, “Sickening.”
This truly should be alarming to us all, that this mentality has been propagated among us. If this can be done to more than a million babies every year in the USA alone, not counting the many other countries doing this, and if the mentality is being expanded to include prisoners and mentally impaired people, who is next? It is actually already being done on the poor in certain countries.
+ + +
By the way, for clarity’s sake, I am an animal lover and I do support animal rescue. I do not, however, count animals to be more important than humans, not even more important than convicted violent criminals, not even more important than those who kill babies and harvest their body parts or support this inhuman industry, for that matter, not even more important than those who have brought great harm to me and my wife. My view of these things flows from the God who gave Himself into death for the sake of sinners of every sort, even those who scourged Him and nailed Him to a tree. If this view extends even to murderers and rapists, how can compassion not be held concerning the helpless?
+ + +
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
From the “Journal of Medical Ethics,”
After-birth abortion:
why should the baby live?
Can you believe that this is actually the title of the paper that was presented?
People mocked the Pro-Life supporters for warning that this was the next step.
Here is the abstract from the article:
This is hard to believe, even though it is the anticipated next step in the eugenics agenda.
The actual paper is found at After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?.
A condensed report of the paper can be viewed at Ethicists Argue Killing Newborn Babies Should Be Allowed.
From the body of the report, here is the basic argument:
So now new born babies are not persons.
They are human but they are not persons who have a right to life.
Mentally retarded individuals are persons but have no value and therefore no right to life!
The beginning paragraph for the conclusions section says:
This is no longer a “slippery slope.”
This is an Avalanche!
Unless you are in the elite group defining the list, sooner or later ...
- - -
After-birth abortion:
why should the baby live?
Can you believe that this is actually the title of the paper that was presented?
People mocked the Pro-Life supporters for warning that this was the next step.
Here is the abstract from the article:
Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
This is hard to believe, even though it is the anticipated next step in the eugenics agenda.
The actual paper is found at After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?.
A condensed report of the paper can be viewed at Ethicists Argue Killing Newborn Babies Should Be Allowed.
From the body of the report, here is the basic argument:
The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.
Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.
So now new born babies are not persons.
They are human but they are not persons who have a right to life.
Mentally retarded individuals are persons but have no value and therefore no right to life!
The beginning paragraph for the conclusions section says:
Conclusions
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.
This is no longer a “slippery slope.”
This is an Avalanche!
- Now both the unborn and the newborn are not persons but only potential persons and therefore have no right to life.
- Also, now, the mentally retarded, though persons, have no value, and therefore no right to life.
- Who’s next? It is not much of a stretch to say that people with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s and Cerebral Palsy have no value and therefore may be killed.
- Next, those with AIDS may be counted as a burden and having no value and may therefore be removed from the roles of the living.
- Next, the unemployed?
- Next, the uneducated?
- Next, the uninsured?
Unless you are in the elite group defining the list, sooner or later ...
- - -
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Christmas - Why as a baby?
Recently I heard a radio evangelist address the question of why Jesus was born as a baby. He said that it was so that we could relate to Him. He said that everyone can relate to a baby. They are cute. They are tender. They are helpless. They are . . .
While it is true that we all can relate to babies, having been babies ourselves, and finding them to be lovable and adorable and all that, is this really why Jesus came to us as a baby? Certainly it is true that we can relate to the babe born in Bethlehem. But is this the real reason that He came to us as a baby to be our Savior?
The Book of Hebrews makes a similar observation, but from a very different perspective.
This observation is that since Jesus was born as one of us, as our flesh and blood brother, having been born just as each of us are and having endured all that we endure throughout our growing years and adulthood, we therefore can look to Him as our true high priest who has taken into account absolutely every need that we possibly can have. He carried all of our sin and all of our sorrow and all of our burden. There is nothing left that we must face on our own. We can be absolutely certain that the payment has been made in full and that our redemption leaves nothing for us to do for ourselves. And so, yes, we can relate to Him fully in every need and in every trouble and in every time of doubt and fear and hurt. But this is entirely different than relating to the cuteness of babies.
Quite the opposite of the notion of being able to relate to Him as a baby is the reality. His being born as a baby is actually a cause of offense and stumbling. His weakness and helplessness are a cause for rejecting Him as the Chief Cornerstone and the Savior of all. At least this is the case from the standpoint of human emotions and reasoning. Our human reasoning does not behold the King of glory and omnipotence, but rather turns to the emotional and sentimental desire to hold the baby and make him feel safe. Trusting in this babe as the Redeemer and Savior of mankind can only occur through the faith that God generates in us to make us believers.
So why then as a baby? Well, as Hebrews declares, so that He could be our true high priest and offer the perfect sacrifice for our redemption. He had to be born as one of us. He could not come to us as the Son of God apart from truly being the Son of Man. He had to come as both. He had to be born of woman so as to be our true brother. He had to be born of the virgin so that His Father would be God. He had to come as a baby because this is how salvation comes.
He had to come as our salvation in the very way that we receive salvation. He had to be born or generated from above. He had to come as a baby born of woman in which the choice and decision was not His own according to His humanity. According to His human nature, there was no action taken on His part, not even the act of believing.
This is exactly how the Scriptures teach that salvation comes to us as individuals. The birth of Jesus as a baby teaches us that we do not become children of God by anything whatsoever that we do. We are babes born from above purely by the will and action of our merciful God. He generates us through water and Spirit. He nurtures us with the pure milk of His Word that our mother, the Church, feeds us as we nestle in her bosom. Furthermore we are nurtured with His body and blood in the blessed Sacrament to be made full partakers of His Holy Communion and to be brought into the maturity of the unity of the one true faith.
Surely this explanation can be given more fully and completely with many textual references, but this is in short why Jesus came to us as a baby.
+ + +
While it is true that we all can relate to babies, having been babies ourselves, and finding them to be lovable and adorable and all that, is this really why Jesus came to us as a baby? Certainly it is true that we can relate to the babe born in Bethlehem. But is this the real reason that He came to us as a baby to be our Savior?
The Book of Hebrews makes a similar observation, but from a very different perspective.
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.(Hebrews 4:13-16)
This observation is that since Jesus was born as one of us, as our flesh and blood brother, having been born just as each of us are and having endured all that we endure throughout our growing years and adulthood, we therefore can look to Him as our true high priest who has taken into account absolutely every need that we possibly can have. He carried all of our sin and all of our sorrow and all of our burden. There is nothing left that we must face on our own. We can be absolutely certain that the payment has been made in full and that our redemption leaves nothing for us to do for ourselves. And so, yes, we can relate to Him fully in every need and in every trouble and in every time of doubt and fear and hurt. But this is entirely different than relating to the cuteness of babies.
Quite the opposite of the notion of being able to relate to Him as a baby is the reality. His being born as a baby is actually a cause of offense and stumbling. His weakness and helplessness are a cause for rejecting Him as the Chief Cornerstone and the Savior of all. At least this is the case from the standpoint of human emotions and reasoning. Our human reasoning does not behold the King of glory and omnipotence, but rather turns to the emotional and sentimental desire to hold the baby and make him feel safe. Trusting in this babe as the Redeemer and Savior of mankind can only occur through the faith that God generates in us to make us believers.
So why then as a baby? Well, as Hebrews declares, so that He could be our true high priest and offer the perfect sacrifice for our redemption. He had to be born as one of us. He could not come to us as the Son of God apart from truly being the Son of Man. He had to come as both. He had to be born of woman so as to be our true brother. He had to be born of the virgin so that His Father would be God. He had to come as a baby because this is how salvation comes.
He had to come as our salvation in the very way that we receive salvation. He had to be born or generated from above. He had to come as a baby born of woman in which the choice and decision was not His own according to His humanity. According to His human nature, there was no action taken on His part, not even the act of believing.
This is exactly how the Scriptures teach that salvation comes to us as individuals. The birth of Jesus as a baby teaches us that we do not become children of God by anything whatsoever that we do. We are babes born from above purely by the will and action of our merciful God. He generates us through water and Spirit. He nurtures us with the pure milk of His Word that our mother, the Church, feeds us as we nestle in her bosom. Furthermore we are nurtured with His body and blood in the blessed Sacrament to be made full partakers of His Holy Communion and to be brought into the maturity of the unity of the one true faith.
Surely this explanation can be given more fully and completely with many textual references, but this is in short why Jesus came to us as a baby.
+ + +
Fetal Cells Heal Baby’s Mother
I read a very interesting article today entitled: Unborn child just a ‘parasite’? Cutting edge science shows fetal cells heal mother for life. It is a very interesting read.
My mind immediately jumped to 1 Timothy 2:15. I don’t think that St. Paul was referring to this link between baby and mother in this context, but my mind jumped here nonetheless. But since St. Paul was speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it is possible that the Lord was revealing something that we would not discover until a couple of millennia later. Even if this is so, it is not the primary point of the text. Still, it is an interesting thought.
Certainly this discovery would seem to provide a sense of explanation for the strong ties that mothers and their children have throughout life. Perhaps it also gives some information regarding why women have for so long outlived men. Perhaps also there is some explanation regarding why mothers tend to have such amazing stamina for long term care giving when everyone else in the family is sickly and weak. There are of course other factors, but this does leave one wondering about this particular one.
At the very least it brings to mind this wonderful passage from the Psalms:
+ + +
My mind immediately jumped to 1 Timothy 2:15. I don’t think that St. Paul was referring to this link between baby and mother in this context, but my mind jumped here nonetheless. But since St. Paul was speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it is possible that the Lord was revealing something that we would not discover until a couple of millennia later. Even if this is so, it is not the primary point of the text. Still, it is an interesting thought.
Certainly this discovery would seem to provide a sense of explanation for the strong ties that mothers and their children have throughout life. Perhaps it also gives some information regarding why women have for so long outlived men. Perhaps also there is some explanation regarding why mothers tend to have such amazing stamina for long term care giving when everyone else in the family is sickly and weak. There are of course other factors, but this does leave one wondering about this particular one.
At the very least it brings to mind this wonderful passage from the Psalms:
Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. (Psalm 139:12-16)
+ + +
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
The Suckiest Generation?
From time to time I visit the Cyberbrethren blog. He often has interesting information. Also, his perspective is a reasonable representation of those who today call themselves conservative or confessional Lutherans. Checking his blog as well as others reminds me of the direction that these Lutherans are heading. Lots of information is available on his blog.
In September one of his posts was “Willpower” and the Suckiest Generation. In his post he links to this post by the same title: ‘Willpower’ and the Suckiest Generation. The really striking part of this is the label pinned upon the baby boom generation.
I learned from this article that I am counted by the official demographers, whomever they may be, as part of this baby boom generation, or as this article labels it, the Suckiest Generation.
The opening paragraph of the article says:
In the past, and perhaps even upon my first reading of the article, I have been inclined to agree with this assessment. I have never understood the ways of “my” generation. I’ve never counted it as my generation. But as I have grown in knowledge of the globalist agenda, as well as simply learning more about the history that my government controlled education hid from me, and learning more about some of the history of past generations of my family as well as other families, I have had a bit of an attitude adjustment.
Is this really the “suckiest generation”? From where did this generation arise? Did this generation create itself? Did this generation simply choose to be who they are?
Are they not the children and product of the previous generations? Did this generation allow the international bankers to seize control of our money supply and enslave us to the debt that we now face? Did this generation establish the universities and train the liberal professors who promoted much of the destructive misunderstandings of this generation? Which generation paid for those professors to be trained? Which generation sent their children to be deceived by these goons? Which generation allowed the First World War? Which generation allowed the Second World War? Which generation allowed theology to be replaced by psuedo-psychology, that is, psychology which does not even admit the existence of the psuche or psyche, that is, the soul?
The list of things that were allowed and were perpetrated by the previous generations is endless. But as one examines the things that were done and tolerated in the previous several generations, how can anyone be surprised that a generation of confusion and disarray would be generated? Considering all of the compromises that were accepted, especially in the religious sphere and then also in the so-called realm of science, to what would this new generation anchor?
The movie industry immediately began working to reshape the thinking of its audiences. Promiscuity, licentiousness, and divorce were being presented as things that should not be counted as negative and to be shunned. Racial discrimination continued to prevail for many, while morality lost its place. The US government dragged the nation into unjustified conflicts around the world one after another. It was the previous generations who “killed God,” and allowed the insane religion of evolution to be established over the people to steal away their one true source of hope and identity. Family stability was being undermined more and more. Materialism and hedonism became more and more the way of life.
These things did not originate with the baby boom generation. But they did most assuredly influence them, shaping their thinking and beliefs, ultimately robbing them of the things that provide confidence and security.
Was it the baby boom generation that allowed the Social Security Act to replace family responsibility for the elderly? Was it the BBG who allowed the churches to be infiltrated by imposters who preached tolerance as the new love and turned the seminaries and churches into cesspools for the effluence of historical criticism?
Look at the way of the grandparents in the churches today? Are they holding fast to the Truth or are they just smiling and trying not to make waves? Do they even believe in making waves anymore? Who empowered the AARP to such levels of influence and power? Who continually cries that they should receive hundreds of times more in Social Security benefits than they ever contributed?
These things were not brought about by the baby boom generation. The baby boom generation reacted to these things. Many of the BBG reactions were exactly what they are accused of being, but they did not act alone, nor were they even the initial instigators.
Does this excuse the BBG of its inestimable number of flaws and mistakes and even evil choices? Of course not. But if the BBG is the only generation on whom the blame falls, then the truth will never be addressed.
Is it not amazing that those, and often of the preceding generation, who are the quickest to quote the Lord Jesus as saying, “Judge not, lest ye be judged,” almost always divorce this from its context? Moreover, is it not amazing how this admonition is used as an excuse for judging those who rightly discriminate against genuine injustice and wrongdoing?
Does “my” generation, the baby boom generation, need to hear the honest judgment concerning its errors? Is this not a silly question? However, does not the preceding generation and the one before that and the succeeding generation need also to seek the doctor to have the beams removed from their eyes before judging the baby boomers?
As I consider my own judgment of “my” generation, I feel considerable shame. What should be done about this? Well, on my part, I look to the Lord, who has forgiven me from eternity and has taken on my frail human form in order to redeem me and take my sins for me in order that I may receive the forgiveness that He pronounced already to the first two sinners of the very first generation and throughout history to every successive generation down to the present day. I will most surely point out what I observe as wrong, but not so much with the intent of blaming someone, but with the hope of showing the way to the path where all blaming is lifted from us and God’s own righteousness and holiness and reconciliation are declared to be ours. If even a few people will hear it, what a change they will experience in their own hearts and lives! What joy we shall share together, as we continually are called together by the Holy Spirit to receive the peace that only God can give and gives freely without measure or limit.
+ + +
In September one of his posts was “Willpower” and the Suckiest Generation. In his post he links to this post by the same title: ‘Willpower’ and the Suckiest Generation. The really striking part of this is the label pinned upon the baby boom generation.
I learned from this article that I am counted by the official demographers, whomever they may be, as part of this baby boom generation, or as this article labels it, the Suckiest Generation.
The opening paragraph of the article says:
I often joke with my wife that I wish my generation — the Baby Boomers — could die without taking me with them. I’d sure as hell like to be around to see them go. They ruined the culture of this country, threw away the untold riches bequeathed to them, betrayed and undermined centuries of wisdom, spread the use of drugs, legitimized divorce and abortion, and even managed to screw up the civil rights movement that might otherwise have been their signal achievement. On the other hand, they did give us pre-faded jeans, so I guess that’s something.
In the past, and perhaps even upon my first reading of the article, I have been inclined to agree with this assessment. I have never understood the ways of “my” generation. I’ve never counted it as my generation. But as I have grown in knowledge of the globalist agenda, as well as simply learning more about the history that my government controlled education hid from me, and learning more about some of the history of past generations of my family as well as other families, I have had a bit of an attitude adjustment.
Is this really the “suckiest generation”? From where did this generation arise? Did this generation create itself? Did this generation simply choose to be who they are?
Are they not the children and product of the previous generations? Did this generation allow the international bankers to seize control of our money supply and enslave us to the debt that we now face? Did this generation establish the universities and train the liberal professors who promoted much of the destructive misunderstandings of this generation? Which generation paid for those professors to be trained? Which generation sent their children to be deceived by these goons? Which generation allowed the First World War? Which generation allowed the Second World War? Which generation allowed theology to be replaced by psuedo-psychology, that is, psychology which does not even admit the existence of the psuche or psyche, that is, the soul?
The list of things that were allowed and were perpetrated by the previous generations is endless. But as one examines the things that were done and tolerated in the previous several generations, how can anyone be surprised that a generation of confusion and disarray would be generated? Considering all of the compromises that were accepted, especially in the religious sphere and then also in the so-called realm of science, to what would this new generation anchor?
The movie industry immediately began working to reshape the thinking of its audiences. Promiscuity, licentiousness, and divorce were being presented as things that should not be counted as negative and to be shunned. Racial discrimination continued to prevail for many, while morality lost its place. The US government dragged the nation into unjustified conflicts around the world one after another. It was the previous generations who “killed God,” and allowed the insane religion of evolution to be established over the people to steal away their one true source of hope and identity. Family stability was being undermined more and more. Materialism and hedonism became more and more the way of life.
These things did not originate with the baby boom generation. But they did most assuredly influence them, shaping their thinking and beliefs, ultimately robbing them of the things that provide confidence and security.
Was it the baby boom generation that allowed the Social Security Act to replace family responsibility for the elderly? Was it the BBG who allowed the churches to be infiltrated by imposters who preached tolerance as the new love and turned the seminaries and churches into cesspools for the effluence of historical criticism?
Look at the way of the grandparents in the churches today? Are they holding fast to the Truth or are they just smiling and trying not to make waves? Do they even believe in making waves anymore? Who empowered the AARP to such levels of influence and power? Who continually cries that they should receive hundreds of times more in Social Security benefits than they ever contributed?
These things were not brought about by the baby boom generation. The baby boom generation reacted to these things. Many of the BBG reactions were exactly what they are accused of being, but they did not act alone, nor were they even the initial instigators.
Does this excuse the BBG of its inestimable number of flaws and mistakes and even evil choices? Of course not. But if the BBG is the only generation on whom the blame falls, then the truth will never be addressed.
Is it not amazing that those, and often of the preceding generation, who are the quickest to quote the Lord Jesus as saying, “Judge not, lest ye be judged,” almost always divorce this from its context? Moreover, is it not amazing how this admonition is used as an excuse for judging those who rightly discriminate against genuine injustice and wrongdoing?
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)
Does “my” generation, the baby boom generation, need to hear the honest judgment concerning its errors? Is this not a silly question? However, does not the preceding generation and the one before that and the succeeding generation need also to seek the doctor to have the beams removed from their eyes before judging the baby boomers?
As I consider my own judgment of “my” generation, I feel considerable shame. What should be done about this? Well, on my part, I look to the Lord, who has forgiven me from eternity and has taken on my frail human form in order to redeem me and take my sins for me in order that I may receive the forgiveness that He pronounced already to the first two sinners of the very first generation and throughout history to every successive generation down to the present day. I will most surely point out what I observe as wrong, but not so much with the intent of blaming someone, but with the hope of showing the way to the path where all blaming is lifted from us and God’s own righteousness and holiness and reconciliation are declared to be ours. If even a few people will hear it, what a change they will experience in their own hearts and lives! What joy we shall share together, as we continually are called together by the Holy Spirit to receive the peace that only God can give and gives freely without measure or limit.
+ + +
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Baptism Questions
On another blog I responded to some statements that were made by someone who does not believe that the Scriptures teach that Baptism saves us and that babies are to be baptized. The arguments are very much like the usual arguments against these matters of doctrine and practice.
Much confusion and division exists among people claiming to be believers of the faith declared in the Bible. Many different conclusions are drawn in accord with the many different presuppositions that are imposed upon the Biblical texts that people read and try to understand.
These are not small matters. They actually change the entirety of the faith embraced by those holding the various positions.
I share here the content of what I wrote in response to this person’s objections. This certainly is not a comprehensive dealing with the matter. It does nevertheless address the issues and demonstrates at least some of the Scriptures that speak to these matters.
For your consideration:
† † †
I challenge you to consider several Scriptures regarding the positions that you have stated concerning Baptism.
In John 1:12-13 St. John plainly teaches that receiving Jesus is a passive act on the part of those who are born to become sons of God, that their regeneration or birth is “not of the will of man, but of God,” that is, not of human decision but of God’s action alone.
In John 3 the Lord Jesus teaches the Pharisee, Nicodemus, regarding the regeneration or above-generation or rebirth by which we are brought into the kingdom of God. First He says that except one be “gennethe anothen” = “generated from above” he cannot see or perceive the kingdom of God.
When Nicodemus demonstrated that he was not able to perceive the kingdom of God, Jesus further explained: “except one should be generated out of water and Spirit, not able is he to enter into the kingdom of God.”
So why would Jesus teach that one is not able even to see the kingdom apart from being born from above and then to say that one is not able to enter the kingdom apart from being born out of WATER and SPIRIT unless this were true? Give this serious thought and answer it for yourself.
In Titus 3 St. Paul writes:
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:4-5)
St. Paul says that God our Savior saved us how? “By the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,” and NOT by works of righteousness that we have done.
In Ephesians 2 St. Paul says that we are saved by grace through faith. He says that this IS NOT of ourselves and not a work of our own but a gift of God. He says that faith is NOT something that we do.
In 1 Peter 3 St. Peter says that Noah and his family were saved BY WATER (vs. 20). Then he says in verse 21, “baptism doth also now save us.” Did St. Peter lie or does baptism save us?
In Acts 2:38-39 St. Peter tells those in whom the Holy Spirit pierced their hearts with the preaching of the Word,
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
St. Peter says that the promise of Baptism is for “you AND your CHILDREN.” He says that the effects of Baptism are the forgiveness of sins (= salvation) and the gift of the Holy Spirit (= faith and communion with God). He says that this promise is for your children.
Which part of this is not a statement of the Scriptures? Which part is not true?
Does the fact that God has worked specially for someone like the thief on the cross so that he was saved, does this nullify the clear words of the Lord Jesus and His apostles regarding the effects and the promise of Baptism?
There is much more that can be said on this matter, but these questions are ones that you should give serious consideration. The statements are recorded in the Scriptures. The question is: why do people reject them and invent their own beliefs instead of what the Scriptures plainly teach?
St. Paul writes:
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12)
St. Paul calls Baptism the circumcision of Christ by which we are buried and cut off from the sins of the flesh. He calls faith the operation of God by which we are raised with Christ. This operation of God St. Paul links directly to His working in and through Baptism, the circumcision done without hands, that is, with water and the Word through which the Spirit comes and sanctifies from within.
Yet you and those who have taught you say these things are not taught in the Scriptures. Ask yourself why you follow those who reject these clear passages rather than believing what the Holy Spirit has recorded? What is the reason that you and many others do not believe these words of Scripture? Perhaps no one has ever presented them to you clearly. I do not know the reason, but you would do well to challenge yourself in this matter.
† † †
Much confusion and division exists among people claiming to be believers of the faith declared in the Bible. Many different conclusions are drawn in accord with the many different presuppositions that are imposed upon the Biblical texts that people read and try to understand.
These are not small matters. They actually change the entirety of the faith embraced by those holding the various positions.
I share here the content of what I wrote in response to this person’s objections. This certainly is not a comprehensive dealing with the matter. It does nevertheless address the issues and demonstrates at least some of the Scriptures that speak to these matters.
For your consideration:
† † †
I challenge you to consider several Scriptures regarding the positions that you have stated concerning Baptism.
In John 1:12-13 St. John plainly teaches that receiving Jesus is a passive act on the part of those who are born to become sons of God, that their regeneration or birth is “not of the will of man, but of God,” that is, not of human decision but of God’s action alone.
In John 3 the Lord Jesus teaches the Pharisee, Nicodemus, regarding the regeneration or above-generation or rebirth by which we are brought into the kingdom of God. First He says that except one be “gennethe anothen” = “generated from above” he cannot see or perceive the kingdom of God.
When Nicodemus demonstrated that he was not able to perceive the kingdom of God, Jesus further explained: “except one should be generated out of water and Spirit, not able is he to enter into the kingdom of God.”
So why would Jesus teach that one is not able even to see the kingdom apart from being born from above and then to say that one is not able to enter the kingdom apart from being born out of WATER and SPIRIT unless this were true? Give this serious thought and answer it for yourself.
In Titus 3 St. Paul writes:
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:4-5)
St. Paul says that God our Savior saved us how? “By the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,” and NOT by works of righteousness that we have done.
In Ephesians 2 St. Paul says that we are saved by grace through faith. He says that this IS NOT of ourselves and not a work of our own but a gift of God. He says that faith is NOT something that we do.
In 1 Peter 3 St. Peter says that Noah and his family were saved BY WATER (vs. 20). Then he says in verse 21, “baptism doth also now save us.” Did St. Peter lie or does baptism save us?
In Acts 2:38-39 St. Peter tells those in whom the Holy Spirit pierced their hearts with the preaching of the Word,
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
St. Peter says that the promise of Baptism is for “you AND your CHILDREN.” He says that the effects of Baptism are the forgiveness of sins (= salvation) and the gift of the Holy Spirit (= faith and communion with God). He says that this promise is for your children.
Which part of this is not a statement of the Scriptures? Which part is not true?
Does the fact that God has worked specially for someone like the thief on the cross so that he was saved, does this nullify the clear words of the Lord Jesus and His apostles regarding the effects and the promise of Baptism?
There is much more that can be said on this matter, but these questions are ones that you should give serious consideration. The statements are recorded in the Scriptures. The question is: why do people reject them and invent their own beliefs instead of what the Scriptures plainly teach?
St. Paul writes:
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12)
St. Paul calls Baptism the circumcision of Christ by which we are buried and cut off from the sins of the flesh. He calls faith the operation of God by which we are raised with Christ. This operation of God St. Paul links directly to His working in and through Baptism, the circumcision done without hands, that is, with water and the Word through which the Spirit comes and sanctifies from within.
Yet you and those who have taught you say these things are not taught in the Scriptures. Ask yourself why you follow those who reject these clear passages rather than believing what the Holy Spirit has recorded? What is the reason that you and many others do not believe these words of Scripture? Perhaps no one has ever presented them to you clearly. I do not know the reason, but you would do well to challenge yourself in this matter.
† † †
Monday, December 14, 2009
In the Womb
Don’t you know who I am? Can you not see me? Can you not feel me? Will you not acknowledge me for who I am?
This is National Geographic’s “In the Womb” video.
On a couple of other blogs the following video is presented. I present it here as well.
Thanks to Happenings and Mary Matthew for sharing this video.
Here is the full 89 minute video of “In the Womb.” This video tells more about the marvelous mystery of reproduction in humans.
This video makes some amazing observations and statements. One such amazing observation is the fact that from the instant that the first sperm penetrates the cell wall of the ovum the membrane of the ovum changes so that it is impenetrable to all other sperm. From this moment, the new human individual has come into being. This is the person that shall be ejected from the mother’s womb when the gestation is complete.
This is National Geographic’s “In the Womb” video.
On a couple of other blogs the following video is presented. I present it here as well.
Thanks to Happenings and Mary Matthew for sharing this video.
Here is the full 89 minute video of “In the Womb.” This video tells more about the marvelous mystery of reproduction in humans.
This video makes some amazing observations and statements. One such amazing observation is the fact that from the instant that the first sperm penetrates the cell wall of the ovum the membrane of the ovum changes so that it is impenetrable to all other sperm. From this moment, the new human individual has come into being. This is the person that shall be ejected from the mother’s womb when the gestation is complete.
Monday, January 05, 2009
As Little Children
At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:1-6)
Once upon a time, as a chaplain in a hospital, I had occasion to minister to a couple whose little baby was dying of liver failure. She was scheduled for a liver transplant, but her continual infections precluded the possibility of surgery. As time ran out for their precious little girl, the couple asked me to baptize her. The baptism was scheduled so that the four pairs of grandparents could also be present.
This illness was only one of the causes of pain in this family. This gathering allowed for an application of God’s grace not only to the little baby, but to the entire family. In the time of preparing for the baptism, I addressed the more prevalent family issues from the perspective of God’s will for the family, His good and gracious will for healing and forgiveness and peace through the merits of Jesus. The reason for Baptism was explained and all present acknowledged the Scriptures and what they declare concerning Baptism. Many tears were shed and arms reached out for hugs.
Then God received this precious baby through the Word laden water that I poured over her. One more dear saint had been washed into the Holy Communion. A few days later this new little saint would breathe her last on this earth. Her parents had to make the dreadful decision to grant permission for the artificial respirator to be removed. But they did so in the knowledge that their baby was safe in Jesus. I stood with them as they held their precious little one. Together we watched her turn the various terrible shades of death, turning bluish, then that horrible yellowish pale green, then finally that mournful ashen gray.
I was asked to preside over the funeral.
I visited the home of the parents and their other three little children. While Daddy and Mommy were busy with various phone calls and preparations, the little ones visited with me. They asked many questions. I explained further about their sister and what God had done for her in her baptism. They understood. They were glad for their baby sister.
Then they began asking about various characters in the Bible. They knew about many stories. However, they tended to blend the stories together and have people from more than one Biblical account together. But they wanted me to explain for them.
Mommy came in and was puzzled. She wondered how the children knew anything at all about these accounts since they were not a church going family and they never had devotions. One of the children went to the book shelf and brought back an illustrated Bible Story book that they had discovered. What they knew of God and of the Bible they had eagerly learned from this book, apparently relying on whatever reading skills the elder child possessed. Of all the books on the shelf, this was the one they used together and this is what they wanted to have explained to them. Mom had forgotten about the existence of the book, yet the children gathered to it.
At the funeral I gathered all the young ones together and explained to all the cousins as well as the adults what God had done through this Baptism. The children understood and for them the day was one of laughter and play and rejoicing. The adults heard and received the joyous good news, too, and they marveled at the children.
Truly, the joy of heaven belongs to those whom the Holy Spirit converts to be as the little children. Nothing can steal this joy from God’s children of faith. To make certain of this He has ordained His means of grace for His little flock on earth. To those who receive His means of grace as He has given them, the joy of His Holy Communion is as natural as life itself.
Truly the least are the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Those who hear the Gospel and believe it have all the wonders of heaven opened to them. They do not question God’s promises, for they know that God does not lie. God speaks and they hear. God declares them righteous through Baptism and they rejoice in His righteousness. God calls them to His table to receive the body of unity and the blood of life and they eat and drink and commune with God and live in His forgiveness and mercy all their days. How much greater can anyone ever hope to become? How much better life could anyone ever hope to live? How foolish the greater and wiser ones are to imagine any other way.
Friday, May 23, 2008
New Life
With spring comes new life to the world. Three days ago I found this baby robin in our flower bed. Upon my first discovery of this little baby it showed no fear. Now it hides in the bushes while Daddy and Momma do their best to draw my attention to them.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Pro-Choice
The so-called Pro-Choice movement leaves a person who ponders this objectively wondering how on earth such an atrocious lie could be blindly accepted by so many.
If at any stage the baby’s choice is considered, what would that choice be?
Those seeking to eliminate the baby’s choice had MANY opportunities to choose prior to the baby’s conception. But what choice is afforded the baby in this matter?
When you ponder this matter, at what point in your conception would you judge that your mother should have been granted the authority to terminate your development?
I have seen bumper stickers that say,
I’m PRO-CHOICE and I VOTE!
Bewildering!
If at any stage the baby’s choice is considered, what would that choice be?
Those seeking to eliminate the baby’s choice had MANY opportunities to choose prior to the baby’s conception. But what choice is afforded the baby in this matter?
When you ponder this matter, at what point in your conception would you judge that your mother should have been granted the authority to terminate your development?
I have seen bumper stickers that say,
I’m PRO-CHOICE and I VOTE!
Bewildering!
Friday, October 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
