Saturday, December 20, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
No Birth Control for Baptists
In a sermon to the students of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary earlier this month, Dr. Thomas White said taking birth control pills is a “sin” and “murder,” according to a report on the WFAA TV website. The crux of his argument is that “although the pill is supposed to work by preventing the release of an egg, it can also prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall.”
While his comments were certainly polemical, it is important for Christians to have a clear understanding of birth control. For those of us who believe that life begins at conception is there an ethical difference between abortion and birth control methods that prevent implantation?
What do you think?
HT: Jim West
- Prevent Ovulation
- Prevent Conception
- Prevent Attachment
- "Morning After"
Now, here's my view on it. I'm going to keep it short, simple, and straight. Preventing ovulation, to me, is not the end of the world, as there is no zygote created, thus no life. I think that this is a poor decision, mostly because I don't imagine the pills being very good for you.
Preventing conception, also not so bad. The sperm has not reached the egg, and again, no life has been created. This is fine, imho, and I have nothing against it. But frankly, I don't know how this works, and wouldn't use it either, as stated above, pills like these cannot possibly be good for you.
The next one is where I start to have a problem with it. Preventing the embryo from attaching itself to the uterus. I have heard arguments that because the body naturally aborts this way, that it is not wrong to cause it. Well to be straight up, does that mean aborting at eight and a half months wrong then? What about when babies die before they're born? It it happens at anytime in the womb, does that mean doing it with human intervention wrong? Of course it does! Just like shooting your next door neighbors dog is wrong, but running over it with your car isn't (Joke. Do not attempt ;-). But the basic principle is still the same. At no time is it right to kill a life.
The final one, is the "Morning After" pill. Not only is this a bad idea (pills yet again), but it actually ABORTS the embryo after attaching itself to the uterus. So this means, even for the people who argue that the blood streams of the woman and child have not yet started, thus no life, means that it's still killing someone. This is also known as the emergency pill.
Now, here's my take on the overall view of this type of... stuff. If you are not capable of taking care of a child, you are not responsible enough for intercourse. The only one that I don't have a problem with would be a condom, and not to prevent STD's. This one is only if you're trying to oranize having children at certain times/don't want children as a married couple.
That's all for today. Expect Part 2 tomorrow: Abortion.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Here were the 'pros' to the passionate relationship:
- There is no commitment; no relationship, thus no strings attached, fun, and provides excitement
- Most times it leads to a future relationship/better relationship
Okay, now it's time for me to debunk those.
1) Read Exodus 22:16:
16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.So, to have sex outside of marriage means that they have to be married. So, rather than "no strings attached", I think it's "We're attaching all the strings now". And really, as far as excitement goes, why do you need to have sex before hand. Why can't you do that when you're married? No other creature in the wild has sex just for fun. Its purpose is to produce offspring, with the exception of a few species that do it just cause (humans, a type of whale, and a type of monkey or ape). Really, are you ready to have a child? I don't think so, not in high school. And if you're out and you want one, adopt! There are lots of children in need.
2) How on earth can it lead to future relationships? It, in no way can't, at least not without sex being the focus of the entire relationship. I just can't fathom how this is an argument, and have absolutely no idea how to argue such a ridiculous notion.
The cons to a passionate relationship:
- Sexually Transmitted Diseases
- Loss of virginity
- ...and lots of other things
2) Most people think this is great, for some wacked reason. It's not. Imagine being able to tell your future wife that you held out for her. It just shows that you cared. It isn't something that should just be thrown away.
3) According to 1Corinthians 6:9,10,18,19:
According to the Bible, you shouldn't be able to get to heaven even. We know that sins are forgiven through Christ, but they are that sever that this would be in there. Or how about Hebrews 13:4:
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
18 Run from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body. 19 Don’t you realize that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourself, 20 for God bought you with a high price. So you must honor God with your body.
Again, the Bible says that it should not just be thrown around as if it were dust. Sex was meant to be in marriage only. Or lastly, how about 1 Corinthians 6:12,13:
4Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
This is saying that just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should. (Look up "Doug eats dirt" by Everybodyduck). It's also saying that unlike food, where you can say you eat to live then live to eat, our bodies were not meant for impure sex (aka premarital sex).
12 You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is good for you. And even though “I am allowed to do anything,” I must not become a slave to anything. 13 You say, “Food was made for the stomach, and the stomach for food.” (This is true, though someday God will do away with both of them.) But you can’t say that our bodies were made for sexual immorality.
Now, lots of people seem to think that a compassionate relationship is not the way to go. Here were the listed 'cons' of a compassionate relationship:
- Boring; makes people cheat
- Leading cause of divorce
2) I found sound leading causes of divorce, here we go. (Original):
- Sexual Problems
- Hollywood Ideas
As you can see, the leading causes of divorce are money and alcohol problems. And chances are that you're going to cheat on your wife if you don't value sex as something special. Which also brings something to think about. If sex isn't important, why does one's spouse get mad if you sleep with someone else? Chew on that.
Now, for some pros to a compassionate relationship:
- They are your best friend
- There is no unrealistic bar set; no pressure
- Proves ones willpower
- Is a great way to start off by giving something to the love of your life, rather than some girl at a party.
2) By not "setting a bar" from a previous sexual relationship, you are not 'rating' them on how good they are. Also, by not comparing them, you are showing acceptance as to who they are.
3) It shows that you have the willpower to resist one of the biggest temptations that have been around since the beginning of time.
Anyhow, that's my argument on why a compassionate relationship is better than a passionate.
Now this brings me to another topic. Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
Support for religious pluralism is an important part of Canada's political culture. According to the 2001 census, 77.1% of Canadians identify as being Christians; of this, Catholics make up the largest group (43.6% of Canadians). The largest Protestant denomination is the United Church of Canada. About 16.5% of Canadians declare no religious affiliation, and the remaining 6.3% are affiliated with religions other than Christianity, of which the largest is Islam numbering 1.9%, followed by Judaism at 1.1%As it stands, if we are nearly 80% Christian, why are we a pagan nation? The UN classifies us as one. Maybe diversity isn't as good as we thought it was. Not if one has to bend rules so 'all religions are satisfied'. Maybe religious diversity is not the answer. I'm not saying that it's wrong to accept people as they are, with their religion, but I am saying that it's wrong to force 80% of a population into not being allowed to go to a public school, and talk about Christ simply because it could offend someone. Perhaps it's time to take a step back and realize what Canada has become. To put it plain as day, we've become soup. Maybe the States is right. Maybe it's time to reconsider how things are done, time to put back our position as the world peace keepers, and be an active country. A real country. One nation under God.
August Burns Red "An American Dream" lyrics:
Suffocation. Suffocate with no room to breath.
Forgive us for 'now' is too late.
This is not an American dream.
This is no longer an American dream. We're trying to breath underwater.
The few, the proud, no longer sing their song.
One nation under God, it's us against the world.
We've cut the tongue from society, forcing consumption, never hearing "no."
We've brainwashed our children to believe this is destiny.
Spoiled rotten, still counting their 1, 2, 3's.
Forgive us for 'now' is too late.
Forgive us for fueling the flame.
This is not an American dream any longer,
As we've become spoiled, rotten, counting our 1, 2, 3's.
Disease infesting our young, beauty has become the beast.
I must say, these lyrics, at first glance, look like, well, not much, but if you dig much deeper, there is more. Here's my take on them. It's so true. How often are parent's encouraged to teach their children right from wrong? And even more, how often are they permitted to punish their children properly without the government putting their fat noses in, and even getting involved? You can't touch your child without a lawsuit following it. We brainwash our youth that homosexuality, on top of being not only accepted, that it should be counted as an actual union of two people! And while we're at it, why not take it yet one step further. Why don't we prosecute our pastors and priests because they refuse to 'marry' (and I use that term very loosely here) a woman and woman or man and man? If we're supposed to have religious acceptance, THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED THEN! It is not only disgusting, and a great way to spread disease, but also wrong. Romans 1:28-32:
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
As you can see, that is where we are at right now. And it's only getting worse. Indeed, as the song ends on "Beauty has become the beast", you can interpret that several ways. Canada as a nation, starting out very noble, has become a faithless country. But also, as mankind in whole; we are wrecking ourselves, and only doing further damage by convincing both ourselves and our youth into thinking otherwise.