Consequences of Putting Science Before Ideology

Yesterday, president Bush vetoes a bill allowing the federal government to fund embryonic stem cell research. In an AP report, "Bush vetoes embryonic stem cell bill", Deb Riechmann writes:

"Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said if she is elected president, she will lift restrictions on stem cell research. "This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families," she said.

Does Senator Clinton really want to put science before ideology?

That is what the Nazi's did; doing medical experiments on prisoners and the less desirables of society (as defined by the Nazi's) in order to better the needs of their families (i.e. the Aryan race). For an understanding of the horrors of letting science be the arbitrator of ethics, see "The Nazi Doctors" by Robert Lifton. The issue isn't about putting ideology before science but rather is the ideology a legitimate grounds for scientific ethics.

Second, Clinton's response is to Bush's statement:

"If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line." (emphasis added)

It is a scientific fact that a human being exists from the moment of conception. So Senator Clinton's position is either that these tiny humans can be destroyed in order to benefit others or she is saying these are not really human beings and thereby denying science.

Either way, her stated position leaves her no way to argue against the actions of the Nazi's. She unknowingly echoes the Nazi concept of lebensunwertnes Leben:

Some Life is Unworthy of Life

Becoming Children of God - part II

Yesterday, I discussed how self-described Christians were misinterpreting the concept of being a child of God. See "Becoming Children of God" for a review. The bottom line is that those who claim that individuals engaged in homosexual behavior are children of God because God created them and loves them destroy the very need for Jesus Christ and redemption.

But there is a second part that needs to be addressed: How then do we treat the sinner in our midst in a biblical and Christ-like manner?

The first point we need to remember is that we are the sinner in our midst. Activists have assaulted us with their homosexual agenda. In standing against that assault Christians need to remember that homosexual behavior is a symptom of our sinful nature just as heterosexual acts outside the confines of marriage. The same for things like adultery, murder, gossip, etc.

We are all created by God. This is where the "open and accepting" churches have it right. They Open their congregations to those engaging in homosexual behavior.

Unfortunately, these churches turn from dealing with the sin thereby implicitly loving only the physical body while ignoring the soul. Instead, they Accept the sin.

The proper Christian response is to come along side those who are in sin (here I do not speak of merely homosexual sin but any sin in which people are engaged) and help them. Be an accountability partner, pray with them, rejoice with them when they are victorious in their self-discipline, and provide a shoulder on which to cry when they fail.

This is true biblical love. This is allowing God's love shine through us onto the individual in spiritual need.

Unfortunately, the "open and accepting" churches have redefined love to mean "no condemnation". Well, more precisely, love is "no condemnation" toward behaviors that they deem acceptable. They jettison God's justice in favor of God's love seemingly unawares that without the justice of God there cannot be the love of God in any meaningful sense.

So they say to those of us that do have a heart for those in homosexual activity that we are not loving because we won't turn our heads and let them go about how they want to live.

That would actually be fine with me, if it was my creation. But it's not; it's God's creation. He designed it and us. He set forth the rules.

I can't make anyone turn their face toward God. That's between them and God. But for those who truly are seeking to come under the Lordship of Christ there are many Christians who long to show you the love of Christ and help you bear the struggles because they care about your eternal souls.

Becoming Children of God

Yesterday was the Gay Pride Parade in Portland, Oregon. I caught the report on one of the local TV news stations. One of the women interviewed belonged to one of the many churches marching in the parade. She made a comment to the effect (this is not an exact quote) "that God created everyone and so we are all children of God." The implication was that therefore God loves the homosexual and does not consider homosexual behavior a sin.

This is an interesting concept, one I have heard many times before from those who say they are disciples of Jesus Christ. The problem is that this is not a biblical concept.

The Bible does not say that because God created us we are children of God. No, as even my nine-year old noted: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, {even} to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12)

In other words, we are not "children of God" merely because God created us. The "children of God" are those that believe in Jesus Christ and are obedient to Him.

Eleven times the phrase "children of God" appears in the New Testament. Each time, it describes those who have turned their face from their sinful nature and toward Jesus Christ. (See context for John 1:12; 11:52; Acts 17:29; Romans 8:16, 21; 9:8; Philippians 2:15; 1 John 3:1, 2, 10; 5:2). That is what it means to believe in Jesus Christ.

So, this woman has a mistaken notion of what being a disciple of Christ actually entails.

Secondly, if we are all children of God simply because God created us and since he loves us He would condone our behavior what actions on our part would be sinful? Adultery? But God loves us; we are children of God because He created us. Murder? Gossip? Gay-bashing? Same problem. Meaning there is no problem.

This bumper sticker theology eliminates the need for God's plan of redemption. It eliminates the need for Jesus Christ because God, in His love, turns a blind eye to justice.

But that is not the message of the Bible. We all know we have committed moral crimes and we all know moral crimes should be punished. That knowledge points to an objective moral standard; that is, a moral rule that is put in place by something outside of ourselves and to which everyone is beholden.

But if we know we have committed moral crimes and we know that moral crimes should be punished then (here's the bad news), we know we should be punished.

Here's the good news: God, in an act of true mercy and true love, provided a way for us to escape His judgement. He became a man himself and took the punishment on himself.

That's why Jesus is important. He did the time for the crimes we commit so we can be pardoned and go free.

D-Day June 6, 2007

Sixty-three years ago today Operation Overlord, the largest invasion in history commenced against Hitler's "Fortress Europe". I am currently reading the book, "D-Day" by Stephen Ambrose, which is a stirring and often sobering account from interviews with many of the actual participants and from military records.

Had the Allied forces been repelled, how would Europe (or the rest of the world) look today? How would that have impacted the Eastern Front? We probably don't often think about these pivot moments of history.

That longest day in 1944 was a pivotal point in history, faced by men and women who grasped a higher cause above their own well-being at significant, and many times ultimate, cost.

For further information:

• National World War II Memorial
• Encyclopaedia Britannica's Guide to Normandy 1944 (contains maps, veteran's accounts, photos, etc)
• PBS' "American Experience: D-day"
• A friend of mine also recommends the book, "The Victors" by Stephen Ambrose

John Laird and The Test for Intellectual Honesty

Columbian Editorial Page Editor John Laird May 27, 2007 editorial contained some miscellaneous thoughts including the following:

One word, and a piece of paper - You gotta wonder about people who say they oppose gay marriage but support civil unions. In other words, they will allow every condition of marriage except the use of the word and the granting of a certificate.

That's like a country club telling an applicant of a different skin color: "OK, here's our offer. You can park in our parking lot, use our locker room, play on our golf course, win our trophies and eat in our dining room. But you absolutely cannot say you're a member of our country club, and you
cannot have a membership card. Oh, no, 'cause that would erode the sanctity of our institution."

John advocates same-sex marriage. In order to criticize the opposition, he has made a startling admission, that is, the concept of civil unions is no different from the concept of marriage. In response, I sent an email to John. Following is our email discussion:

Larry: Regarding the your May 27th column, sub-heading “One word, and a piece of paper”, I agree with your view that there is no meaningful difference between civil unions and marriage since civil unions “allow every condition of marriage.” You criticized opponents of same-gender marriage for saying there is a difference. Will you also publicly criticize the Oregon Legislature for passing legislation allowing “every condition of marriage” for same gender relationships thereby violating their state constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman?

Second, the phrase “gay marriage” is incorrect. Gays already have the same rights to marriage as every other citizen. John Laird cannot marry a male. Neither can a homosexual male marry a male. Both can marry a female. They have exactly the same rights and equal protection under the law. The real issue is whether government
should endorse the marriage relationship as strictly between opposite genders or also allow same gender relationships also.

This is important in regards to your illustration comparing this issue with race. A more apt comparison would be to say that men could now have unlimited access to women’s restrooms (or visa versa) only you can’t say you are using the women’s restroom.

John Laird: Thank you for reading the column and taking the time to respond. I appreciate it. We always get a lot of feedback on both sides of this issue. You make some very good points. Feel free to submit a letter to the editor if you like.

Larry: Thanks for your response. I was inquiring as to whether you would be willing to hold both sides to the same criticism that you voiced in your column since both sides are guilty of the same thing. Or if you only intend to criticize those with whom you disagree.

I can write a letter to the editor pointing out the one-sidedness of that particular part of your column. However, if you write about how both sides are misusing the concept of civil unions, it would show that you are being fair by
applying your critique to both sides of the issue. Just a thought.

+++

As of this writing, I have not received a response from John whether he will publicly apply his criticism to all whom it applies, including his side of the debate. I suspect that he will not since his past style has been to write in such a way that places those with whom he disagrees in the most ridiculous light possible.

But, if his criticism of same-sex marriage opponents is legitimate in regards to their view of civil unions then it speaks volumes of advocates who have pushed civil unions in Oregon in violation of their constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman.

The Test for Intellectual Honesty now stands before John Laird. Will he pass? Time will tell.

Silent Voices

This past Saturday (June 2, 2007), was the Walk for Life to raise funds for the local Community Pregnancy Center which helps women and teens facing unplanned pregnancies. A friend of mine co-wrote a song about the child with in the womb.

Both composers performed the song for our community's walk:

Silent Voices

In hidden shrouds new life has begun,
Deep within, a daughter or son!
Knit of God, but torn by a "choice,"
Can no one hear their innocent voice?
Silent voices, silent lives, unseen tears, unheard cries;
Silent voices, silently cry, God's precious gift is tossed a - side.

Never knowing simple delights,
Never having joy in this life,
Never sharing a hug or a kiss,
Silent pleas remain on their lips.
Silent voices, silent lives, unseen tears, unheard cries;
Silent voices, silently cry, God's precious gift is tossed a - side.

Hidden talents, silenced and stilled,
Vacant places - voids never filled;
Guilt leaves us with only the tears,
Till in heaven, their voices we hear.
Hear the voices of grateful lives,
Untold millions, no more cries;
Jubilant voices, no tears can be found,
God's precious gift is safe and sound.

Don't you know, our God always hears?
Each silent plea reaches His ears?
He also hears our cries of despair, even our grief is in His care...
Their precious life...Your precious life...
Each precious life is in God's care.

©1995 Bob Heberling/Pat Richardson