The following report from the Age details some of the effects of not allowing children to have their innocence, by bringing them up in a society with views on sexualisation that are based on the perverted desires of adults rather than the good of children:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/children-involved-in-sex-club-20080913-4ft4.html
If children are not allowed time to grow up and mature before they are confronted with (a) information about sex (b) images of a sexualised/pornographied nature then it is no surprise that they become sexually aggressive and/or promiscuous. After all they are children, and if they try to force other children to give them toys by force, then why on earth wouldn't they use the same methods to procure sexual favours?????
We need to protect children from being prematurely exposed to both information about sex, and more particularly images that will form their views on what the sex act should look like. If their primary views on sex are formed by sexualised/porn images then they will likely not see sex as a loving thing (between a husband and wife-God forbid), since the images so often portray one party (usually the woman) in servitude to the other, and that's when there's only two people involved. They will also not be able to distinguish lust from love, and that lays a foundation for devastation and destruction in their lives. If we do not do something about this now, the next generation will likely never experience true intimacy which can only be experienced in the context of marriage, and many many more will fall victim to relationship breakdown and the devastation that accompanies that.
Sex is NOT a toy, a truth that adults need to model for children, rather than pandering to their own childish desires, damn the consequences.
God bless,
Bec
Showing posts with label Sin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sin. Show all posts
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Guglielmucci, Bentley & Success
It's disappointing to hear that Mike G's cancer story is a hoax. It's hard when something that looks so strong in the church is shown to be weak and sin-tainted. Similar thing happened this week with the revelations about Todd Bentley (although I have to admit no surprise on that one at all). As Christians I think we really love it when things look successful. Healer is a great song that has touched many people. Bentley's ministry looked flashy and successful. But both are now questionable.
First thing to say would be that God is entirely capable (and there is biblical evidence) for God using the ungodly for his purposes. To varying extents we are all sinful and yet God still uses us. So just because these men have been shown to be in sin does not mean that God is not at work through their ministries. I think it is illustrative that while Saul was in sin, God's anointing still rested on him as king of Israel.
Secondly, I would say that there is a problem as Christians when we love things that "look good". I think we want God to break in and establish His kingdom (and vindicate our witness) through big, flashy, undeniable displays of His power and sovereignty. I think the reason we love songs like Healer is that they do provoke deep feeling, and we think that's a sign that God is at work in a big way, and that somehow vindicates our witness. It's like evidence that supports what we've been saying. Same thing with big flashy healings. It vindicates us, brings us a bit back off the ledge, removes some of the risk of faith and witness. But I don't think that big and flashy is the way God necessarily chooses to work all the time. I think Jesus is a great example of this. He "emptied Himself and took the form of a servant", he didn't arrive as the big flashy political messiah that Israel was expecting. Instead He came and He washed His disciple's feet.
I think we should be more pleased when we see Christian leaders and the church displaying the CHARACTER of God, rather than necessarily the power of God. The power of God should be exercised in ways that are consistent with His character. I think this links in with the problems with the Church growth movement. It measures church success through numbers and tends to use marketing techniques to get people to church. I have been reflecting recently that much of what the church says to bring people to Christ sounds a lot like secular advertising. Secular advertising sets up false models of salvation. This product is going to make your life better by xyz. You are going to be bigger, better, faster, more beautiful by using product abc. This is very similar to the gospel that we sometimes preach - come to Jesus, find the purpose for your life, be happier, more at peace, God will heal all of your health issues in this life etc etc. But I don't think this is the true gospel. The true gospel is about dying, dying to self, taking up our cross and following Jesus. This is completely counter cultural, and does not look at all like the messages that we get flooded with by the world. I think the church should be functioning in ways that show this dying to self and mortifying the flesh.
The thing is that I think this is goes entirely against our ideas of success. I think our flesh loves it when we can count up church attendance and let that be a measure of what we are doing. When there are lots of people there, or lots of people buying our CD / crying during our song we see that as success, and our flesh loves it. The central point of the bible is the death of Christ--this absolutely looks like failure. The church needs to concentrate more on knowing and following Christ in His death. In the end this is all about God's glory, not the glory (success) of humans. We need to remember that His strength is made perfect in our weakness not our strength (success).
God bless,
Bec
First thing to say would be that God is entirely capable (and there is biblical evidence) for God using the ungodly for his purposes. To varying extents we are all sinful and yet God still uses us. So just because these men have been shown to be in sin does not mean that God is not at work through their ministries. I think it is illustrative that while Saul was in sin, God's anointing still rested on him as king of Israel.
Secondly, I would say that there is a problem as Christians when we love things that "look good". I think we want God to break in and establish His kingdom (and vindicate our witness) through big, flashy, undeniable displays of His power and sovereignty. I think the reason we love songs like Healer is that they do provoke deep feeling, and we think that's a sign that God is at work in a big way, and that somehow vindicates our witness. It's like evidence that supports what we've been saying. Same thing with big flashy healings. It vindicates us, brings us a bit back off the ledge, removes some of the risk of faith and witness. But I don't think that big and flashy is the way God necessarily chooses to work all the time. I think Jesus is a great example of this. He "emptied Himself and took the form of a servant", he didn't arrive as the big flashy political messiah that Israel was expecting. Instead He came and He washed His disciple's feet.
I think we should be more pleased when we see Christian leaders and the church displaying the CHARACTER of God, rather than necessarily the power of God. The power of God should be exercised in ways that are consistent with His character. I think this links in with the problems with the Church growth movement. It measures church success through numbers and tends to use marketing techniques to get people to church. I have been reflecting recently that much of what the church says to bring people to Christ sounds a lot like secular advertising. Secular advertising sets up false models of salvation. This product is going to make your life better by xyz. You are going to be bigger, better, faster, more beautiful by using product abc. This is very similar to the gospel that we sometimes preach - come to Jesus, find the purpose for your life, be happier, more at peace, God will heal all of your health issues in this life etc etc. But I don't think this is the true gospel. The true gospel is about dying, dying to self, taking up our cross and following Jesus. This is completely counter cultural, and does not look at all like the messages that we get flooded with by the world. I think the church should be functioning in ways that show this dying to self and mortifying the flesh.
The thing is that I think this is goes entirely against our ideas of success. I think our flesh loves it when we can count up church attendance and let that be a measure of what we are doing. When there are lots of people there, or lots of people buying our CD / crying during our song we see that as success, and our flesh loves it. The central point of the bible is the death of Christ--this absolutely looks like failure. The church needs to concentrate more on knowing and following Christ in His death. In the end this is all about God's glory, not the glory (success) of humans. We need to remember that His strength is made perfect in our weakness not our strength (success).
God bless,
Bec
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
So the Archbishop of Canterbury does have a spine
It appears that the Archbishop of Canterbury does have a spine, and a moral compass!
http://www.theage.com.au/world/american-churches-blamed-for-anglican-rift-20080804-3px1.html?page=-1
It is a good thing that he has stopped pandering to the liberal faction of the Anglican church and has finally called a spade a spade; yes there are divisions in the Anglican church and those divisions were caused by the US & Canadian bishops who have gone against the word of God, and the beliefs and traditions of Anglicanism.
God bless,
Bec
http://www.theage.com.au/world/american-churches-blamed-for-anglican-rift-20080804-3px1.html?page=-1
It is a good thing that he has stopped pandering to the liberal faction of the Anglican church and has finally called a spade a spade; yes there are divisions in the Anglican church and those divisions were caused by the US & Canadian bishops who have gone against the word of God, and the beliefs and traditions of Anglicanism.
God bless,
Bec
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Pornography Addiction amongst Muslims
It's odd the things one stumbles across on the internet, but this one is really fascinating: http://muslimmatters.org/2007/08/19/pornogrpahy-addiction-among-muslims-stories-tips/
It talks about muslims with porn addictions. It is interesting to read how they approach fighting the addiction, and how it is all in their own strength. So much of what they talk about in fighting the addiction is similar to what Christians would suggest in terms of praying more, doing more spiritual disciplines, drawing away from the world etc. But Jesus is missing, and the admission that they cannot change themselves is missing.
Really sadly there are many that talk about how they need to go and do extra good deeds to balance out their sins of lust. And they talk about fear of Allah being the major motivation for not continuing in this sin.
There's also testimony from a muslim wife about how she copes with her husband's problem, all without the agape of Christ in her to love her husband and support him in his struggle. She feels that fear is the only way that her husband will change and thinks that if she got in a car crash that would jolt him into changing.
I think this is very encouraging for Christians, to be reminded that we fight against sin for a God who loves us and who uses "kindness to lead us to repentence" not fear. And that it is Jesus' work in us that allows us to overcome sin, not our own striving and work. And that God does not expect or need us to balance up our sins, that it's all through His grace that we are accepted and will be rewarded in the end.
In reference to the muslim wife's comments, a Christian couple's love and support for each other in this area comes from Jesus and His strength. He empowers them. There is no way outside of Christ that a woman could deal with her husband's (or vice versa) betrayal like this, without the agape of Christ in her. It is impossible to show the required level of forgiveness and understanding towards someone who hurts you like that without understanding how great is your sin before God, and yet how gracious and forgiving He has been to you.
I think it's easy for Christians to fall into similar lines of thinking as these muslims. Reading that article for me was just a really good reminder of God's grace and that we need His grace more than oxygen, and how great and how good is Jesus Christ!!
I'd like to ask you to keep islamic sex addicts in your prayers. Perhaps in the desperation of finding themselves entirely powerless to this addiction, and completely unable to balance up their bad deeds with good deeds, they will hear Christ's call of love and forgiveness, and submit themselves to His grace.
God bless,
Bec
It talks about muslims with porn addictions. It is interesting to read how they approach fighting the addiction, and how it is all in their own strength. So much of what they talk about in fighting the addiction is similar to what Christians would suggest in terms of praying more, doing more spiritual disciplines, drawing away from the world etc. But Jesus is missing, and the admission that they cannot change themselves is missing.
Really sadly there are many that talk about how they need to go and do extra good deeds to balance out their sins of lust. And they talk about fear of Allah being the major motivation for not continuing in this sin.
There's also testimony from a muslim wife about how she copes with her husband's problem, all without the agape of Christ in her to love her husband and support him in his struggle. She feels that fear is the only way that her husband will change and thinks that if she got in a car crash that would jolt him into changing.
I think this is very encouraging for Christians, to be reminded that we fight against sin for a God who loves us and who uses "kindness to lead us to repentence" not fear. And that it is Jesus' work in us that allows us to overcome sin, not our own striving and work. And that God does not expect or need us to balance up our sins, that it's all through His grace that we are accepted and will be rewarded in the end.
In reference to the muslim wife's comments, a Christian couple's love and support for each other in this area comes from Jesus and His strength. He empowers them. There is no way outside of Christ that a woman could deal with her husband's (or vice versa) betrayal like this, without the agape of Christ in her. It is impossible to show the required level of forgiveness and understanding towards someone who hurts you like that without understanding how great is your sin before God, and yet how gracious and forgiving He has been to you.
I think it's easy for Christians to fall into similar lines of thinking as these muslims. Reading that article for me was just a really good reminder of God's grace and that we need His grace more than oxygen, and how great and how good is Jesus Christ!!
I'd like to ask you to keep islamic sex addicts in your prayers. Perhaps in the desperation of finding themselves entirely powerless to this addiction, and completely unable to balance up their bad deeds with good deeds, they will hear Christ's call of love and forgiveness, and submit themselves to His grace.
God bless,
Bec
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Slippery Slide
This seems to be the week for everyone who doesn't like monogamous heterosexual sex within marriage to come out in arms proposing their particular brand of perversion. First it was the "bad boys are more successful in relationships" thing, then it was the robot love thing, recently it was the change of laws in Calfornia to allow gay marriages, and now??
Well in what could seem like a surprising step of logic from gay marriage (which presumably is abhorent to Muslims as well as Christians), muslims in America are arguing that because of the principle behind the Calfornia ruling that the same rights should be extended to muslims who wish to have polygamous marriages.
Well I hear you say, one could expect that in America. Not only in America, today's Age reports that muslims in Australia are also pushing for the recognition of polygamous marriage. Laughably, they are arguing it on behalf of the rights of women, I could go on endlessly about the complete lunacy of the position that says muslim polygamous marriages is for the protection of women. It is quite obviously NOT about the women, but entirely about the lust of men that they refuse to take responsibility for controlling. As I said I could go on and on, but Bill Muehlenberg has done that already admirably on his blog today.
The point I would really like to make is that the minute you start relaxing the definition of marriage for one group, then you have to start relaxing it for every group. Mark my words, within 50 years there will be a strong and outspoken lobby promoting paedophilia as a "valid lifestyle" and seeking to gain legal protection for adult-child "unions". And what those that engage in bestiality? Should not their animal "partners" be accorded the same legal rights as a human partner?? Especially if they are in a long-term committed relationship! And what about necrophiles?? What legal rights should their "relationships" be accorded??
To quote Star Trek First Contact, "We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!"
And the line is this, sex was made, by God to be enjoyed by one man and one woman, once that man and that woman have made a lifelong covenant of unconditional love to one another, in the sight of God.
God bless,
Bec
Well in what could seem like a surprising step of logic from gay marriage (which presumably is abhorent to Muslims as well as Christians), muslims in America are arguing that because of the principle behind the Calfornia ruling that the same rights should be extended to muslims who wish to have polygamous marriages.
Well I hear you say, one could expect that in America. Not only in America, today's Age reports that muslims in Australia are also pushing for the recognition of polygamous marriage. Laughably, they are arguing it on behalf of the rights of women, I could go on endlessly about the complete lunacy of the position that says muslim polygamous marriages is for the protection of women. It is quite obviously NOT about the women, but entirely about the lust of men that they refuse to take responsibility for controlling. As I said I could go on and on, but Bill Muehlenberg has done that already admirably on his blog today.
The point I would really like to make is that the minute you start relaxing the definition of marriage for one group, then you have to start relaxing it for every group. Mark my words, within 50 years there will be a strong and outspoken lobby promoting paedophilia as a "valid lifestyle" and seeking to gain legal protection for adult-child "unions". And what those that engage in bestiality? Should not their animal "partners" be accorded the same legal rights as a human partner?? Especially if they are in a long-term committed relationship! And what about necrophiles?? What legal rights should their "relationships" be accorded??
To quote Star Trek First Contact, "We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!"
And the line is this, sex was made, by God to be enjoyed by one man and one woman, once that man and that woman have made a lifelong covenant of unconditional love to one another, in the sight of God.
God bless,
Bec
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Robot love???
I just read an article that I wish wasn't serious - http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/bscienceb-boffins-tip-robothuman-love-within-40-years/2008/06/20/1213770916042.html - a presumably very lonely scientist is predicting that there will be robots that humans can have relationships with within 40 years.
Given that our society already is fractured, and self-absorbed, such that real relationships are harder and harder to come by, I think this will cause many many many more problems than it will solve.
It's like the whole Wii Fit thing. In the olden days, kids used to play outside and so were healthy from getting exercise. Then we invented computer games and television, so that modern kids spend so much more time inside and thus are not getting exercise, and are getting fat. So the solution??? Let's invent an attachment for our computer game systems so that kids get exercise WHILE playing computer games. Is it just me or is the more obvious, healthy and affordable option TO SEND THEM OUTSIDE TO PLAY!!
This Robot love thing strikes me the same way. There used to be a higher rate of marriage, there used to be a higher rate of marriages THAT LASTED. Since the 60s with the so-called "free love" movement, marriage and long term relationships have suffered. We've created a world where sexual expression is about what feels good to me, regardless of the relational impact. Our desire for sexual gratification is promoted as being more important than bringing sexual fulfilment to our partners. Suddenly, sex has become all about ME. Therefore it is no wonder that it is getting harder and harder to form good lasting relationships, because we've built a view on sex and relationships that they are all about MY fulfilment. It is hard to love someone, and give yourself to someone else, when your primary objective is your own satisfaction.
An example from the article, the scientist believes that such robots could be used within human-human relationships, for instance when one partner is travelling. The other partner might say, "Take your robot, I don't want you visiting the red light district". Seriously, if the ONLY options when travelling are sex with a robot or sex with a prostitute, then there are bigger problems in that relationship than whether or not robot-sex is appropriate. There should only be one option when away from one's spouse--abstinence!
This human-robot-love solution that this scientist thinks will solve these problems is just a bandaid on the problem. An icky and disturbing bandaid, but a bandaid none the less. This idea is like that of the Wii Fit -- let's not deal with the real issue, let's let the existing problem fester under what might seem on the surface to be a solution.
God bless,
Bec
Given that our society already is fractured, and self-absorbed, such that real relationships are harder and harder to come by, I think this will cause many many many more problems than it will solve.
It's like the whole Wii Fit thing. In the olden days, kids used to play outside and so were healthy from getting exercise. Then we invented computer games and television, so that modern kids spend so much more time inside and thus are not getting exercise, and are getting fat. So the solution??? Let's invent an attachment for our computer game systems so that kids get exercise WHILE playing computer games. Is it just me or is the more obvious, healthy and affordable option TO SEND THEM OUTSIDE TO PLAY!!
This Robot love thing strikes me the same way. There used to be a higher rate of marriage, there used to be a higher rate of marriages THAT LASTED. Since the 60s with the so-called "free love" movement, marriage and long term relationships have suffered. We've created a world where sexual expression is about what feels good to me, regardless of the relational impact. Our desire for sexual gratification is promoted as being more important than bringing sexual fulfilment to our partners. Suddenly, sex has become all about ME. Therefore it is no wonder that it is getting harder and harder to form good lasting relationships, because we've built a view on sex and relationships that they are all about MY fulfilment. It is hard to love someone, and give yourself to someone else, when your primary objective is your own satisfaction.
An example from the article, the scientist believes that such robots could be used within human-human relationships, for instance when one partner is travelling. The other partner might say, "Take your robot, I don't want you visiting the red light district". Seriously, if the ONLY options when travelling are sex with a robot or sex with a prostitute, then there are bigger problems in that relationship than whether or not robot-sex is appropriate. There should only be one option when away from one's spouse--abstinence!
This human-robot-love solution that this scientist thinks will solve these problems is just a bandaid on the problem. An icky and disturbing bandaid, but a bandaid none the less. This idea is like that of the Wii Fit -- let's not deal with the real issue, let's let the existing problem fester under what might seem on the surface to be a solution.
God bless,
Bec
Friday, June 20, 2008
Treat 'em mean, what nonsense!!
There's an article in today's Age about a correlation between men having traits of "impulsiveness, narcissism, thrill-seeking and deceitfulness" and them having a "prolific amount of sex". It further reasons that this makes "bad boys" more "successful" in relationships, indeed the article is entitled, "Treat 'em mean: it works".
http://www.theage.com.au/news/relationships/treat-em-mean-it-works/2008/06/18/1213468480771.html
The article then goes on to define this so-called success, as being more "active in short-term mating" than nice guys.
There are a number of issues with this article, the first obviously being the underlying assumption that "short-term mating" is the goal of all men, therefore the definition of success in relationships. It is not accounting at all for a group of men (let's call them "nice guys") who actually want a long-term monogamous (god-forbid MARITAL) relationship with a woman. For that kind of man, the "nice guy", casual sex would NOT be the definition of relationship success, finding someone to settle down with WOULD. If a "nice guy" is not seeking casual sex, that would also be a contributing factor to them not having as many casual encounters. It stands to reason that if a guy isn't seeking casual sex, he won't have casual sex. It further stands to reason, that the "bad boy" who is defined as "impulsive, narcissistic, thrill-seeking and deceitful" and who IS seeking casual sex, would therefore have more casual sex. The big issue here is that they are comparing apples with oranges, both in terms of type of guy, and also in terms of each type's goal with regards to women.
The second issue with this article I think, is that it does not make any social commentary on WHY women might be attracted to bad guys. The following I think are a number of reasons a woman would find such men attractive:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/relationships/treat-em-mean-it-works/2008/06/18/1213468480771.html
The article then goes on to define this so-called success, as being more "active in short-term mating" than nice guys.
There are a number of issues with this article, the first obviously being the underlying assumption that "short-term mating" is the goal of all men, therefore the definition of success in relationships. It is not accounting at all for a group of men (let's call them "nice guys") who actually want a long-term monogamous (god-forbid MARITAL) relationship with a woman. For that kind of man, the "nice guy", casual sex would NOT be the definition of relationship success, finding someone to settle down with WOULD. If a "nice guy" is not seeking casual sex, that would also be a contributing factor to them not having as many casual encounters. It stands to reason that if a guy isn't seeking casual sex, he won't have casual sex. It further stands to reason, that the "bad boy" who is defined as "impulsive, narcissistic, thrill-seeking and deceitful" and who IS seeking casual sex, would therefore have more casual sex. The big issue here is that they are comparing apples with oranges, both in terms of type of guy, and also in terms of each type's goal with regards to women.
The second issue with this article I think, is that it does not make any social commentary on WHY women might be attracted to bad guys. The following I think are a number of reasons a woman would find such men attractive:
- They seem confident
- They are the kind of guys fathers hate
- The insistence with which they pursue women gives the impression that the woman is highly desired, which leads to woman thinking "they really love me", which is a woman's deepest emotional desire, to be loved and cherished.
- Alternately, the woman believes she isn't worth loving, and so this is as good as it gets
- She thinks they "need her" because they are obviously broken people (and since no one will ever "want her" she has to settle for someone who needs her if she's going to be with anyone at all)
- She thinks she can "fix them" and they will become a nice guy
So basically, it comes out of a bunch of a woman's own issues; rebelliousness and low self-esteem being the two key ones. My point is this - the kind of women who go for this kind of man are not emotionally stable themselves.
Once you start to deal with issues of rebelliousness and self-esteem and find that you don't need to rebel against anyone to be independent/your own self, and accept yourself for who you are, those bad guys cease to be attractive.
Knowing Jesus really helps with this :-) He has a way of wooing a woman to a place where she realises she must have great value for the Son of God to die for her! Suddenly instead, it's the guy who knows his bible, who is prolific in prayer, who will make a great father, and who is gentle and considerate that is unbelievably attractive. It's the man that takes time to be friends with you and to build the basis of the relationship on a foundation of mutual respect and friendship that is the kind of guy that gets the girl.
God bless,
Bec
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Child Sacrifice
I was reading Psalm 106 this morning. It's a record of God's faithfulness to Israel inspite of their unfaithfulness to Him. There are a couple of verses (37-38) that caught my attention in the middle:
Child sacrifice is really a low-light of the Old Testament. The nations surrounding Israel and Judah practised it (see for example 2 Kings 3:27 where the King of Moab sacrificed his son), and many of the corrupt Kings of Israel and Judah also practised child sacrifice to various idols (see for example Ahaz in 2 Kings 16 and Manasseh in 2 Kings 21).
I think it is really easy for us to shake our heads and wonder how could they do this to their own children. I think it is really easy for us to think that we are better than they were, that we are a more civilised people and that we would never ever do anything like this.
But I think we have to stop and look at some of our modern practises and look at whether we too practise child sacrifice. The gods we sacrifice to may not have interesting Canaanite names like Baal or Asherah, but I think we do still have gods that we sacrifice our children to. They are called "convenience" or "a woman's right to choose", "no consequence casual sex" etc etc.
Abortion is the most obvious modern day example of child sacrifice within particularly the western world. We have made up excuses for why it's ok, but an unborn child is still just that-- an unborn child. In the first 10-12 weeks after conception, while they still weigh between 4 and 14 grams:
They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons. They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood.
Child sacrifice is really a low-light of the Old Testament. The nations surrounding Israel and Judah practised it (see for example 2 Kings 3:27 where the King of Moab sacrificed his son), and many of the corrupt Kings of Israel and Judah also practised child sacrifice to various idols (see for example Ahaz in 2 Kings 16 and Manasseh in 2 Kings 21).
I think it is really easy for us to shake our heads and wonder how could they do this to their own children. I think it is really easy for us to think that we are better than they were, that we are a more civilised people and that we would never ever do anything like this.
But I think we have to stop and look at some of our modern practises and look at whether we too practise child sacrifice. The gods we sacrifice to may not have interesting Canaanite names like Baal or Asherah, but I think we do still have gods that we sacrifice our children to. They are called "convenience" or "a woman's right to choose", "no consequence casual sex" etc etc.
Abortion is the most obvious modern day example of child sacrifice within particularly the western world. We have made up excuses for why it's ok, but an unborn child is still just that-- an unborn child. In the first 10-12 weeks after conception, while they still weigh between 4 and 14 grams:
- The child's eyes have developed their colour
- Nearly all their organs have formed and are functioning
- Their fingers and toes have developed
- Their hair and nails have started to grow
- Their genitals are distinctively male/female
- The muscles in their intestinal walls have started to practise the contractions that will allow them to digest food
- Their vocal chords have begun to form
- Their liver starts to function
- The pancreas starts to produce insulin
There is some non-disturbing photos here and some rather disturbing ones here of murdered (aborted) children. Both show how early you can see that they really are human, they are not just "fetuses" or "lumps of tissue".
Abortion is modern day western child sacrifice. But I don't think it stops there. Forms of contraception that are potentially abortive also amount to child sacrifice. Barrier methods that prevent conception are ok, but those that act also in the event of conception to stop the child from implanting in the uterine wall amount to the same as abortion. This means the pill. The normal everyday pill as well as the so-called morning after pill. The normal pill works in two stages, it firstly tries to prevent conception by preventing ovulation. If this fails it uses a secondary method to prevent pregnancy -- and this is where the issue is. The secondary method is to thicken the mucus of the uterine wall so that the child cannot implant. This means that if a child is conceived they die. The morning after pill uses only the second method to prevent pregnancy.
In all of this, I do not mean to point fingers. I have in the past used the pill not knowing, or perhaps not wanting to know, the truth about it. My purpose in discussing this is just to draw attention to behaviours where we might hold one view when it's someone else doing it (i.e. condemning those in the bible who practised child sacrifice) and yet permit the same behaviour under another name, with some more modern reasons (excuses) behind it. I also want to draw attention to the fact that there are also parallels in the motivation. Whenever we do something outside of the will of God, that we think will make our lives better in some way, we are committing idolatry. We are saying that whatever it is that we are doing, will better serve our needs than God. We are placing (in this case) convenience, so-called women's "right to choose", "no consequence casual sex" in the place of Jesus, and sacrificing our children to those gods. When the Israelites practised child sacrifice it was to placate Baal or Asherah, we still sacrifice our children to idols-- the idols just have different names.
Let's return to Psalm 106. In all of this, despite our rebellion and sinfulness, God is still faithful. God still loves us, and there is forgiveness for those who repent. Jesus' death on the cross even deals with this sin of child sacrifice. There is real and total forgiveness, the bible says in Psalm 103:12, "as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us." This is not about condemnation, this is about renewing our minds, and seeing this from God's perspective. It's only when we do that that we have a chance to change our behaviour and our choices. Truth can be hard, and frankly I had a bit of an argument with God about writing this post because it is heavy and rather uncomfortable. But in Jesus truth comes hand-in-hand with GRACE.
God bless,
Bec
Friday, April 18, 2008
If this is art, then call me uncultured
I read today about a college student in the US who has been artificially inseminating herself, and then taking abortifacients in order to suffer miscarriage. She has been using video footage of herself having the miscarriages and the bloody remains of her murdered children, as ART.
If you think I am joking you can read all about it at http://yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513
This behaviour is entirely evil and abhorent. My response? Disbelief and heartbreak...
Come Lord Jesus. We so desperately need you. Our world is a mess. We are such depraved sinners. Lord, we need you. Please come and bring justice, peace and love. Please bring an end to all the suffering and the evil. Please come soon! Lord please have mercy on this girl. Please save her, and bring her into your Kingdom. I don't ask this because she deserves your love and grace, but because like the rest of us, she is a sinner deeply and profoundly in need of a Saviour. Only you can save us, Lord Jesus, please work in her what is pleasing to you.
In Jesus' name. Amen.
If you think I am joking you can read all about it at http://yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513
This behaviour is entirely evil and abhorent. My response? Disbelief and heartbreak...
Come Lord Jesus. We so desperately need you. Our world is a mess. We are such depraved sinners. Lord, we need you. Please come and bring justice, peace and love. Please bring an end to all the suffering and the evil. Please come soon! Lord please have mercy on this girl. Please save her, and bring her into your Kingdom. I don't ask this because she deserves your love and grace, but because like the rest of us, she is a sinner deeply and profoundly in need of a Saviour. Only you can save us, Lord Jesus, please work in her what is pleasing to you.
In Jesus' name. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)