Tuesday, February 28, 2006

A perspective rarely heard from

I found a comment in my e-mail from someone named Jessi, left on my post from November detailing my views on aborting children that are the result of rape. Jessi's mother was raped when she was 16, and Jessi was the result. We rarely hear from women that kept the child resulting from rape - we hear from the children even less. The attitudes that Jessi has had to face are ones that we should all speak out against, any time we are given the opportunity. No one should be made to feel worthless or ashamed because of something they cannot help or change.

I know this post was from a long time ago, however i feel compelled to post. I have,for greater part of my life, known of my mothers kidnapping and rape when she was 16. Although my mother loved me more then anything in the world i felt isolated.. as did she when family did nothing to support her if she kept "it". What disturbs me is so many people justifying abortion if she was raped. They say..well what if the girl was raped then it shall be just... and they all nod and say thay're right. So many times I have wanted to yell out, "Whats that make me?!"... society has made me feel worthless and everyday I fight and tell myself i should make so much of my life that i can someday speak out and say "see?? your little baby could do it too". I would like to thank you for all your words of encouragment. And if anyone is reading this that has worn my shoes, know that you are worth as much life as the rest of them.

Friday, February 17, 2006

An old debate continued, part II

Kjos Ministries have quite a few sections from book III of Mere Christianity which they evidently believe to be false or full of errors. Go here to read their excerpts in entirety.

One such passage which they feel to be in error:

"Now Faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods." [Ch. 11, page 140]

I have no problem with that statement. Do any of you? That seems a good summing up of one kind of faith.

Here's another one:

"Faith in this sense arises after a man has tried his level best to practise the Christian virtues, and found that he fails, and seen that even if he could he would only be giving back to God what was already God’s own. In other words, he discovers his bankruptcy.... What he [God] cares about is that we should be creatures of a certain kind or quality—the kind of creatures He intended us to be—creatures related to Himself in a certain way. I do not add ‘and related to one another in a certain way’, because that is included: if you are right with Him you will inevitably be right with all your fellow-creatures."[Ch. 12, page 145]

(Kjos Ministries apparently chose to place the sentences they had the largest quarrel with in bold - the emphasis is not C.S. Lewis')

Okay - first things first. G-d is indeed concerned with what kind of creatures we are - He wants us to be His sons, new men in Yeshua. That is, as far as I can tell from the Scriptures, His ultimate goal as concerns humanity.

And what is the nonsense about quarreling over a statement that if we are right with Him that we will be right with everyone? That's true! Absolutely true! Yeshua was right with YHWH, and because of that Yeshua was right with His fellow-creatures. Now, being "right" with his fellow-creatures didn't mean that He lived in peace and harmony with all men - obviously, they would not have put Him to death if that is what they had meant. What it meant was that His behavior towards them was exactly what it should be. Compassionate to those that came to Him in need, instructive towards His followers, unrelenting against the Pharisees.

And that, as far as I can tell, is exactly what C.S. Lewis meant by that sentence.

An old debate continued

Some may remember an old debate which took place partly on Eaglewood's Nest over whether or not C.S. Lewis was a Christian. That debate is sparked by the information presented on this site.

Well, I have yet to read The Abolition of Man (as I forgot to pick it up from the library when it came in on a hold I had placed), however I did just finish Mere Christianity.

On Kjos Ministries, they refer to excerpts of Mere Christianity and The Abolition of Man to make their case that C.S. Lewis had some grievous errors in his writing, such that some people questioned whether or not he was truly Redeemed (Christian).

Quite frankly, I do not understand the problems that Kjos Ministries had with certain elements of Mere Christianity. Here are the opening quotes which they see as bad:

"...taking the race as a whole, they [people] thought that the human idea of decent behavior was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right.... I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. [Chpt. 1, page 5]

"If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man..." [Chpt. 1, page 5]

C.S. Lewis is correct. From the first chapter of Romans:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

From the second chapter of Romans:

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Well, this is just going to be part I, because otherwise my post would have to be rather long to address some of the other issues.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

My apologies

I just haven't been inspired to write anything for a little while. Fortunately, I haven't had to contend with full-blown morning sickness yet - just some nausea. Unfortunately, it is very cold, at least for Florida. We actually had frost on the grass this morning! This wouldn't really be a problem - if not for the woman whose house we are sharing. In order to use the A/C unit as a heating unit, a switch must be manually flipped on the A/C unit itself. Our housemate doesn't trust us to be able to do this without breaking her A/C unit, so here we are with no heat. I'm not bitter - much. =P

I'm trying to maintain a good attitude about living here, but I really, really want my own place again. I miss being mistress of my own domicile.

Update: well, turns out this unit should be able to be adjusted from the main thermostat, without any extra work involved. The heat is just broken. =(

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Thought I would point out...

...there has been a change to my blog. See above. =)

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Doing the Wrong Thing for the Right Reason

The abolitionists that supported the War of Northern Aggression* because they believed the Southern slaves should be freed were wrong to do so. Freeing slaves does not justify approving and encouraging a war which cost approximately 550,000 lives - and those are just the soldiers that died. Who knows how many women, children and elderly died because they did not have the food and resources necessary to survive?

The South never fully recovered from the damage done to its economy during the war, nor the damage done to its natural resources and ecology during the reconstruction. Besides what happened to the South, the war also allowed the Federal Government to take more control than what was allowed by the Constitution - and we are seeing the results of that to this day, in a government that grows more tyrannical with every year that passes.

No doubt the expediency of freeing the slaves through war was attractive, but the price paid was a terrible one. The Abolitionists should have had more patience, and contented themselves with helping to change the opinions and beliefs of those that supported slavery, and with helping the slaves themselves. Instead, they chose to force an ending to Southern slavery.

It is my belief that had slavery been allowed to die a natural - and relatively painless - death in the South, that it is unlikely that movements such as the Klu Klux Klan would have gained such prominence. The racial tension that exists in the South to this day would probably have been greatly lessened. After the ending of the war, the Southerners faced living as paupers under the thumb of Northerners that wished to punish them for the war. The Southerners, in turn, lashed out at those they came to hold responsible for their troubles - the freed slaves.

I've seen people state that if the United States had not been the superpower that she became as a result of keeping the Union together, she would not have been able to help bring an end to World War II and the Holocaust. This may be true, or it may not. Just because one can trace good that came from bad, does not mean that the bad was justified, or that it should no longer be recognized as bad. Our sin brought Yeshua into the world - yet our sin is not justified.

I accept what occurred and know that it cannot be changed, but it is important to me that the events of the War of Northern Aggression not be glossed over or lied about.

Truth is always important.

*That's what it was. Calling it a civil war was a deliberate obfuscation on the part of Lincoln and his ilk, as they did not want to appear to be going to war with another country in the eyes of other civilized nations - nations that were unlikely to step in and take part in a civil war, but which might have thrown their support in with a fully recognized Confederacy.