The Gift That Ends The Giving

If you have that someone on your list who is just hard to buy for, who has everything, who is sexually active and will need birth control, that STD treated, or even an abortion in the near future, then consider this - Planned Parenthood is now offering Gift Certificates.

Ever since the early days when Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger and targeted the poor, black communities to:

a. to raise the level and increase the intelligence of the population.

b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.

c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

(Plan for Peace by Margaret Sanger

Never has it be easier to give the gift of death to someone you love or care for, or to that person you think should not reproduce.

"The most merciful thing a large family can do for one of its infant members is to kill it." - Margaret Sanger

My Thoughts On "the homosexual issue"

I recently read a blog by Tony Jones, an emergent theologian (of sorts) who recently endorsed same-sex marriage (of sorts) (it is always "of sorts" with emergents).

His blog offered the opportunity to comment so here is what I wrote and it seemed the best I've been able to put down my thoughts on this issue:

Mr. Jones definitely is struggling with this issue, but it is based not on the
rule of God's law but on one's own experience.

We Christians tend to twist our role in the world as the policemen of God's Law to the world when, actually, we are to see the sin of the world and use that to police ourselves. We should not "hate" the person engaging in homosexual behavior any more than we should hate ourselves for our lusts of the flesh.

Sin is sin to God, and the difference is that we Christians are at war with our flesh through the Spirit for our soul. Those without Christ do not have the spirit so they are at war with their own image of themselves. So, to put homosexual behavior as any worse (or any better) than any other sin is ludicrous and we should be repentant about that.

However, to sanction a sin is another thing. I have seen this with heterosexual couples living together, in church, and no one saying anything in tacet approval.
We are called to be God's Ambassadors. That means we speak the truth, in love, about the sins of ourselves and others. We approach people as co-conspirators against God, the difference being that we know the Truth and want to share that Truth.

We cannot do that by screaming or by staying silent.

What causes one to have Homosexual desires is still unknown. It may be part of a genetic aspect and a developmental aspect, but most of the homosexuals I know have this preoccupation with sex (kind of like the rest of the world). It is an idol and holds bondage over them. The best response is to love but not endorse.

This is a fine line to walk, a difficult line to walk. Love is doing that which is in the other person's best interest. We should preach the Gospel while cleansing their wounds. We should heap coals that both burn and warm. Sanctioning will not change their hearts, but condemning will not save their soul. We should support their needs without supporting their sin. We should comfort them in this world while warning them of the dangers to come.

To do otherwise is to fail in our duty to love Christ.

Well, that last line about sums up my sense of it. We are to do our duty in the love of Christ towards others. Tell them the Truth about their condition but treat them with kindness, respect, dignity, and always with their best interests in mind.

It is tough, and I often fail to do so (and that is NOT a "sort of") but I still need to run that race.

That Which The Lord Hates part 6

(Proverbs 6:16-19) There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

The fourth thing that is an abomination to God - "a heart that devises wicked plans".

It is one thing to do wrong, it is another to plan to do this.  

In law, premediated crimes tend to carry a harsher punishment than those that just happen in the spur of the moment or by error.   There is always rooms for mercy and for understanding.

What this verse says about God is that He has that mercy and understanding, but doing evil on purpose, and especially when planned out, His wrath is deserved.

Today's modern portraits of God hold Him to be this loving and kind god, almost a door mat, but He is not.  He gets angry, He finds actions detestible, He has a deeper sense of justice and righteouness than we can even begin to fathom.

So, what are we to do with that concept?

It should cause us to tremble with respect for the perfection of God, and to have a deep thankfulness for any mercy He gives to us.

Today we lost an election, but the truth of our ideals have not been defeated.

I posted this on my facebook page.

Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. -- Matthew 6:34 (NIV) The people have spoken. It is not the first time I disagree, but I recall how glad I was when Bush won and it is good to feel a sting of loss. We need to remember, though, that a losing does not have to mean we are defeated. Our political history is one of ups and downs. Some years we do a good job of selling our ideals, other years other circumstances take precedence. Liberals never are defeated. As a former one, we tried for the incremental, and when that failed, we got back up and tried again. We know that a wall is built or torn down one brick at a time. Conservatives, however, have a flaw - we tend to be all or nothing at all people. We see ourselves as trying to hold the wall together instead of building (or removing) one. We tend to give up. Wilberforce and John Q. Adams stood against slavery for all their lives. Wilberforce saw the fruit of that effort, Adams did not, but both men were wall-builders. They saw victory even in their defeats because, like Edison, they learned what did not work. We are at war with a set of ideals that leads to destruction. History shows that when a society becomes morally and economically liberal, it will soon fail - Greece, Rome, USSR - all collapse inward first. We must take this battle one step at a time. Our arguments are valid and compelling but we need to learn to speak them rather than shout them, to convince rather than overwhelm, to help to understand rather than impose. To trust the power and plan of God rather than the strength and wisdom of any man. Today we lost an election, but the truth of our ideals have not been defeated.

What will come

It is election eve of "the most important election, ever", or so I have heard for the 9th time.  Every election is the most important ever.

We will see change.  We always do.  No new President has ever carried on the policies of the old one, or even been elected promising to carry them on.  That concept is for parliaments where one elects a party and not individuals.  In the US we have conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans.  Very often someone becomes a particular party because that is the one that gets him/her elected.

I grew up in the Detroit area, and the battle for most of the elections were during the primary.  It was a given that from the Congress to the dog catcher, the Democrat would win.   Some of the people elected were really Republicans, though, at least philosophically or ideologically.  They had more agreement with that party platform than the one offered by their own party.

Which brings us to the problem of what is Christian.  In this election, interestingly, we have two men who claim to be Christians, but theologically they are far from that (though I base this on their own statements about how they view their "faith").

One attends a church where Jesus is not viewed as God and the "Christian" faith is about liberating people from their oppressors.  The other attends a church occasionally and his Jesus is wearing a red, white, and blue robe and who has blessed this nation because it deserves to be blessed because of its greatness.

Given their world view points, I expect to see more pragmatism, more growth of a secular viewpoint, more repression of overt Christian expression in the public square, and the continued marginalizing of Him.   Maybe God is sending a message to His church - seek first Him and His Righteousness, then vote, then become a political force not from the pulpit but from the heart of men.

We need to remember that neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. McCain can thwart the plans of God.  The one who is elected will be there because God allowed it, and allowed it for His purposes, not because one was more closer to His throne than the other.

I will disclose that I am voting for Mr. McCain, somewhat with my nose held because Mr. McCain's viewpoint of government and issues is closer to mine.  Since we all fall short, every choice is about the lesser of two evils, and the laws that are passed, or repealed, show how much lesser they are.

I have a sense about who will win this election and it will be interesting come tomorrow night (or most likely Wednesday morning), but my hope lies not in either candidate, either party, nor no legistlative body or rule of law.  My hope is in Christ and Him crucified.  My hope is in the working of the Holy Spirit on my life.  My hope is in the Father as He directs the course this world until the return of His Son, Jesus.

Our response to the election is to remain steadfast in the hope of God and not be discouraged when we lose...or win.  Let Him be glorifed through you.

FHG,

Tom