Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Takeaways from Ferguson

            Let's try to look at this as color-blind as we claim to be. A "meek" man who would "flee from danger", as his family said, robs a convenience store and assaults a clerk. He and his friend are walking down the middle of the street with stolen goods when a police officer tells them to move because they are blocking traffic. The young man allegedly, as accounts and the bruises on the officer testify, charged and “punched and scratched (the officer) repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck” (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/24/never-before-seen-photo-of-officer-darren-wilsons-face-after-ferguson-shooting-released-as-part-of-grand-jury-evidence/). The officer is able to grab his handgun and shoot the 6'4", almost 300 lb. man. I would consider this reasonable self-defense. Now the kicker: the officer is white and the man he killed is black. Why does this change the self-defense case? I don't know. We have to move past assuming that because a white man kills a black man, it is automatically a racially-motivated murder. Things are usually much more complicated than that. If this would have been a white man killed, we wouldn't be seeing this on the news for an extended length of time, three months of riots that are still escalating, and so much rhetoric and ink spilled on the subject. Are we really looking at this objectively, or letting racial hysteria enter in?
            This isn’t a statement about black people or white people or race in general. This is a cut-and-dry criminal investigation that concluded with the obvious decision to not charge a police officer who killed a man in self-defense. But the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world, and of course the president, have to fuel the fire with their assumed racism. Blacks kill blacks and whites kill whites at much higher rates than one race kills another. And blacks kill whites twice as often, percentage-wise, as whites kill blacks. And just because a person of one race murders a person of another race doesn’t mean that the motive was racism.
            This is not about racism. I am not saying that there isn’t racism in the world. I’m not saying there aren’t killings and police brutality done due to race. But we can’t jump to an immediate conclusion that something is. Please tell me we are better than that as a society. I fear we aren’t.
            Doubtless a radical race-baiter would call me racist for daring to suggest that there could have been another motive besides race. His family said he was gentle. And the neighbors of the man who hid women’s bodies in his house in Cleveland thought he was okay too. Anyone can be blinded by their love for someone, but true character will eventually show. Robbery and assault don’t speak well of one’s character.
            Listen here, folks. I have more black friends than I could count. I have friends of all different backgrounds and minority statuses. I don’t care. Are there differences between us? Yes! And it would be boring if there wasn’t. But that doesn’t predispose us to hate each other and live in a cloud of mistrust. This nation has a history of racism, but that doesn’t mean we have to cling to it in the present. There are whites and blacks alike who want to, because of intolerance or victim-playing, but I think a lot of us see through that.
            It starts in the leadership of the black community. A man like Martin Luther King, Jr. is rolling in his grave. He didn’t preach hatred of whites, or mistrust simply because of race. That’s exactly what the white racists were guilty of. He preached unity and brotherhood. Many black leaders today don’t want the integration men like MLKJ fought for. Take Oprah berating Raven Simone for wanting to be called “American” instead of “African-American”. Blacks are just as much American as I am. I don’t call myself a European-American. Our ancestors have been here for the same amount of time. These “leaders” want to hold on to the race card and racial distinction for times of desired use.
            It starts with the leadership. And it starts with families teaching their children respect, and honor, and virtue, so kids, white black or whatever, don’t end up on streets robbing stores. What the common themes behind stories like Michael Brown’s is the failure in the family, the black community leadership, and society for failing them and allowing them to be in that position. That’s not an excuse for them. If you’re old enough to be robbing a store you’re old enough to know better. But kids are being put out into the world without proper instruction. This should be the takeaway from these stories. “How can we as a community and society avoid letting kids slip through the cracks?” Not, “How we can blame the police or white people?”
            As a friend of mine said: “Not all cops are bad. Not all black people are criminals. Not all white people are racist. Stop Labeling.”
            Will we ever see a day when people, black, white or otherwise, “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”?

            As for an immediate answer, just ask the city of Ferguson.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Pope Francis: What will he say next?

If you are Catholic, this will probably offend you. It is not my goal to offend, but to speak the truth. But as "The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness" (I Cor. 1:18), it will undoubtedly offend some. Look beyond pride and weigh what will be said.

            Pope Francis is no stranger to controversy. There are a number of unanswered questions from his time in Argentina during the Dirty War. Some produce evidence that he delivered two priests to the Fascist government. At the very least, he stood by without speaking out or helping those being targeted.
            The pope who has denied he is a Marxist stated this in one speech:

I do not hesitate to state, as did my predecessors, that equitable economic and social progress can only be attained by joining scientific and technical abilities with an unfailing commitment to solidarity accompanied by a generous and disinterested spirit of gratuitousness at every level. A contribution to this equitable development will also be made both by international activity aimed at the integral human development of all the world's peoples and by the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society…

The pontiff believes the Catholic church should be a “poor church for the poor”. The small detail omitted was the estimated $10 billion to $15 billion the Vatican has invested in divers places. The Holy See’s chief accountant in 2003 stated, “The Vatican's real estate is worth about 700 million euro ($1.21 billion), not including its priceless art treasures.” A cardinal’s finery can run over $20,000, and their luxury is dwarfed by the pope’s clothing. These men took vows of poverty at one time. I am reminded of what Revelation 18 says about the fall of Babylon:

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double. How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow…And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men. And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all. The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, And saying, Alas, alas that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! For in one hour so great riches is come to nought…

            Fireworks have been sent off by comments about homosexuals:

If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge? Being gay is a tendency. The problem is the lobby. The lobby is unacceptable, the gay one, the political one, the Masonic one…Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community…Are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities?

            The word “welcoming” was quickly changed to “providing for”, but the meaning in Italian was not lost. His push that “people with homosexual tendencies must be welcomed with respect and delicacy” as well as the divorced into the church was defeated at the synod. The pontiff warned the Catholic church of being too rigid and inflexible on such issues. This would have violated the Catechism, but he hasn’t seemed to take much issue with that.
            Cardinal Raymond Burke, an American, was again demoted recently by Pope Francis. The former archbishop of St. Louis has been openly critical of the pope’s indoctrinate approach, saying there is a sense the Catholic church is like a “ship without a rudder”. Burke has long been audibly against giving communion to politicians who support abortion. Burke isn’t the only American who takes issue with the pope; Philadelphia archbishop Charles Chaput said his administration has been one of “confusion” and “confusion is of the devil”.
            Lately, the pope weighed in on the origin of humans and the universe:

When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so…He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment…God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities. Evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.

            Sadly, this position is not a new one among popes. Pope Pius XII in 1950 said the Big Bang did not contradict Catholic doctrine, a sentiment echoed by Pope John Paul II. Coming from a church that used to persecute people for saying the world is round, this shouldn’t come as a major surprise.
            My Bible says something like this:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth…And God said, Let there be light: and there was light…And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so…And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so…And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so…

You get the idea. But let’s not forget about us:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1)

            He’s right, God is no magician. No magician can touch that power, can fashion everything so perfectly, to set everything in order. It takes something much more wise and powerful and intelligent than evolution or a Big Bang to create this.
            Now anyone who knows the Bible knows that there were various social classes in Israel. As God chooses to give some wealth (Ecc. 5:19) and tells the church to take care of the poor, these are of God. God gives some wealth to be a blessing to His ministry, which includes taking care of the poor, who must rely on God and whose faith is then built up by being in poverty. Taking care of the needy is the church’s job and charity’s job, not the government’s.
            To stand and say this as the leader of the Catholic church is the epitome of hypocrisy. The Vatican City is gaudy in its splendor and wealth. The pope’s outfit is worth more than most in the world make in a year. To call himself poor and simple is to call the White House a modest cottage. I understand the minimal salaries of priests over a parish, but at the top there is plenty of wealth to go around. (But it doesn’t, for that is apparently the government’s duty.)
            The Bible is also clear on its stance on homosexuality. I don’t think this is the issue at hand; the pope still believes homosexuality is sin. Now as a born-again Christian, I believe that it is not whether one is involved in a certain sin that gives them a relationship with God, but their stance in Christ. There can be homosexual Christians because salvation doesn’t depend on this issue. But those who are Christians will flee from sin.
            I actually agree with the pontiff in that we should not judge homosexuals. The media makes like he is the first “Christian” who has ever said this, when the alternative is being a hateful Christian who believes the same thing. I take issue in that he believes there is a role for homosexuals in the church. ANY sin, if perpetually done without regret or belief it is wrong, should disqualify someone from having a role in the church. Church (true church) is a place for sinners to come and repent, but a sinner cannot lead other sinners. (The word “sinner” here being used for being involved continually in sin.)
            As for Evolution, the idea is never mentioned in the Bible. Perhaps it’s somewhere in the Apocrypha, but not in the cannon of scripture. (Perhaps it is somewhere nestled in with purgatory, rehearsed prayers, intercession of the dead and indulgences.) Right off, God is established as the Supreme Creator who created the world through His wisdom and power, from nothing. No Big Bang spoken of, no evolving of humans. None of it. (If proof is needed for why Creation is the correct model, read the extensive body of evidence accumulated: http://joetrammell.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-case-for-biblical-creation-and-young.html.)
            All of this makes sense to someone who looks to the Bible alone for their doctrine, or sola scriptura, as the Catholic church says us silly Protestants believe (“Protestant” incorporating very diverse beliefs yet used as a catch-all). Such a radical idea is this use of the Bible alone:

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.

Where would this come from?

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. –II Timothy 3:14-17

Hmm, so it’s the holy scriptures that shows us the way of salvation and how to be capable of good works. Paul writes this to Timothy warning him to continue what he’s been taught from the scriptures because “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” Such as telling us that following traditions of church teaching that have no biblical basis are necessary for a relationship with God.
            In fact, the Bible clearly takes position against that:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. –Colossians 2:8

And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. –I Peter 1:17-21

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. –Matthew 15:9

            The Bible teaches that we are not redeemed with “vain conversation (actions) received by tradition from your fathers”, but with Christ’s blood; by HIM we believe in God. Teaching the commandments of men as doctrine is vain worship.
            The stances of Pope Francis, some of which are not only unbiblical but against Catholic teaching as well, is of no matter to the believer. To the Catholic, it begs a number of questions. When does the leadership of a pope end and the authority of God’s Word begin? If the pope teaches something unbiblical, is he or the Bible right? If God leads the cardinals to choose the pope, what was going on?
            I believe God did lead the cardinals to choose this pope, because it opens doors. What if tradition does conflict with what God commands in the Bible? Who made these traditions? Men. Even the greatest spiritual men have faults, are imperfect. God is not only Holy, but promises that His Word will not pass away (Luke 21:33), and furthermore tells us that He has exalted it even above His name (Ps. 138:2). God makes no such promises on the words of men, instead saying that there will be false teachers only getting more frequent and worse as time goes on.
            The Catholic church claims it is infallible (and so am I, because I said so). This is based on the belief that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”. The true church, the blood-bought children of God, will not be touched by Hell, because God has “delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins…” (Col. 1:13-14). God will not allow His children to parish (something else the Bible is clear on and will be expounded in a later post). When did this infallibility begin? Paying enough money will take away time from purgatory, as will following Pope Francis on Twitter. The former was one more thing that resulted in the Protestant Reformation. The money rolled in as parishioners were deceived into believing their money was buying God’s favor.
            Believing the Catholic church’s infallibility means condoning the Papal Inquisitions, the second greatest genocide in A.D. times. Between 50,000,000 and 75,000,000 people were murdered in gruesome ways over a span of several centuries for dissenting Catholic beliefs. While I disagree with many on areas of religion, I am not fearful of them to cause me to order their deaths. If something is right and true, it doesn’t need to violently offend against those who are not violent. Alas, these order came from the top, proving to us that Pope Francis is certainly not the first pope with questionable judgment:

Anyone who attempts to construe a personal view of God which conflicts with Church dogma must be burned without pity. –Pope Innocent III

            Head Inquisitors were appointed by popes with orders from the Council of Harbonne not to regard any husband for his wife or parent for helpless child. The Council of Toulouse adopted canons to make the inquisition permanent, much to the chagrin of Catholics who attempt to say the murder and torture didn’t come from the church leadership. Innocent IV ordered the creation of torture chambers, which produced some of the most infamous devices in history: the Rack, the Stocks, the Pear, the Wheel, the Head Crusher, the Breast-Ripper, etc. all inscribed with “Glory Be To God”. The victims of this were of all ages, social classes and sexes, although women seemed to have a soft spot with Inquisitors and Catholic leaders:

Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman. –Clement of Alexandria

Woman is a temple built upon a sewer. –Boethius

To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure... –Odo of Cluny

[N]othing [deficient] or defective should have been produced in the first establishment of things; so woman ought not to have been produced then. –Thomas Aquinus (implying that God made a mistake in creation)

Inquisitors assumed their sexual arousal was the fault of the women in bondage, and would fall upon their breasts and genitals with hot irons and plyers. The Archbishop of Treves burned 108 women and two men.

What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman...I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children. –“Saint” Augustine

            If this behavior is infallible, then I want nothing to do with Christianity. If it is of sinful, evil mankind, then we see the need for a Savior.
            Contrary perhaps to popular belief, I have a lot in common with Catholics. I have worked beside many faithful individuals in the pro-life movement. But I cannot believe the traditions of men are equal to the words of God.
            The choice is laid out before us. Do we obey the words of a man? Do we follow the renderings of councils of the past? Do we obey the legalistic rules of religion and its questionable past? Or will we deal directly with God and the Word He has given, without going through a middle-man or middle-church? Will we choose to look beyond how we have been raised and seek out truth, even if it conflicts with what we've been taught?
            Born-again Christians don’t need a thick Catechism of rules in how to live. As we continue on in our Christian walk God continues to change us more to be like Jesus. His Word provides the guidelines He has set out, and it tells us how we can be reconciled to God. We don’t need a church to redeem us or to confess our sins to. It is Christ alone who redeems and He alone who intercedes for us. The Catholic church didn’t sacrifice itself, taking my sin and my punishment for my sin. Jesus did. Salvation isn’t wrapped up in ritual or church membership, but in the One who has already won the victory.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. –Ephesians 2:8-9

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. –Galatians 2:21

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. -Acts 5:29

Saturday, November 1, 2014

That sounds bad. Let's rename it!

            As the great philosopher Red Green spoke about in one of his segments, things always sound better when they are substituted for another word. “You’re not cheap, you’re cautious.” This is something I’ve noticed over the past few years with liberals and libertarians alike. (Economically, these two vary greatly. On social issues, however, they are uncomfortably cozy.) Things that are clearly wrong to anyone with an attached conscience can simply be reworded to appeal to the masses of sheep.
            You may occasionally hear the word “abortion”, but even that has some negative connotation. Why address the issue itself when we can follow a red herring? It’s not an issue of life, it’s “women’s rights”. The proper term would be “dismembering of a human being”, but that doesn’t have a very happy tone to it. It’s much more convenient to use “termination of a pregnancy”. The fetus isn’t human, it is just a “clump of cells”, or if you are a bit more depraved, a “parasite”. Abortion advocate lingo is lengthy; read a pro-choice argument and the bases will be covered.
            “Sin” has been changed to “marriage equality”. Unnatural, ungodly sexual relations are now “hereditary”. Bullying of those who disagree with you is “tolerance”; telling someone out of love that we are all sinners is “intolerance”.
            Robbing from successful people to build an underclass of people who will reciprocate with votes is “redistribution of wealth”.
            A more extensive but certainly not complete liberal-to-English translation:

“I believe in a woman’s right to choose.”
-I believe a woman should not be able to choose her health care provider or if she wants to be a homemaker, but should be able to choose to kill her child.

“Bush lied, kids died.”
-We believe a man who was sent on a trip to Africa by his wife, and lied saying that he was sent by the vice president and CIA, who then lied that there was no uranium bought by Iraq, because we are against wars with Islam.

“Bill Clinton balanced the budget.”
-Besides his affairs, Clinton redirected money from Social Security to make it seem that the budget had a predicted surplus.

“Stay out of my uterus.”
-…unless you are an abortionist.

“We need to make our schools safe.”
-We insist that guns be taken from all citizens, for reasons you can’t ask about.

“You deny science.”
-I believe that, well, assume a particle, and it exploded to create the universe. Then, assume genetic material. It formed a cell from some goo. Then that through random mutations, of which we haven’t found any evidence of in fossils, it started to create more complex organisms. Then eventually, humans are here.

“George Bush”
-When anything Obama does that is questionable is brought up, W. is to blame.

“You’re just racist.”
-I’ve run out of things to say, but don’t want you to win the argument.

“Ronald Reagan was a Fascist.”
-Anyone who lowers taxes, defeats Communism, is anti-abortion, and a Christian cannot be a good person.

“Save the environment.”
-Looking at the last 30 years of data, a warming pattern has been noticed. Though before that a cooling pattern was seen, we insist temperatures will continue to rise, so we need more regulations.

“Climate change”
-I couldn’t decide if the Earth was getting warmer or colder, so naturally any natural phenomenon is due to emissions.

“Go green.”
Buy our expensive stuff. No, I insist.

“Equal opportunity”
-We have it now, but we need to make sure the results for everyone are the same as well.

“Affordable health care”
-For twenty percent of America. Everyone else, we can’t guarantee anything.

“Separation of church and state”
-We wanted to institute our own statist religion, so we created this to keep all the others out.

“Islam is a peaceful religion.”
-I understand the Quran like I understand the Bible.

“Stop patriarchy”
-I believe women should be given special privileges to put them ahead of men.

“Marriage equality”
-Heterosexuals, homosexuals, pedophiles, and zoophiles are all equal

“If homosexuality is wrong, why do you trim your beard or not still stone people?”
-I lost every book of the Bible but Leviticus.

-You are entitled to your opinion, as long as it is mine.

“America is an evil nation.”
-I am using my constitutional free speech rights to trash this country.

“You want to go back to back alley abortions.”
-You want to take away millions in campaign donations.

“We’ll have to raise taxes.”
-I’m taking more of your money and redistributing it to someone who will vote for me.

“You cling to your guns and religion.”
-You’re not who I want Americans to be like.

“Coming out is a very brave thing.”
-But by the time I’m done, it’ll be normal.

“Unfair attack”
-You shouldn’t have quoted me in context.

“Tell me what’s on Fox News tonight.”
-Though the last study done [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=207] showed liberals outnumber conservatives four-to-one in the media, I trust the ones that tell me what I want to hear such as CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times.

“Keep the government out of my body.”
-The government can interfere with my body every way except for telling me I can’t kill my child.

-A man who is pro-life

            Just the latest entry into the already extensive liberal-to-English translator involves the issue of physician-assisted suicide. Now generally, we consider to be suicide a bad thing, something that we would do anything to stop a friend from doing. But with the help of one who has taken an oath to do no harm (they must have went to school with abortionists), suddenly suicide is not only permissible but commendable.
            Now I understand, whether you choose to recognize I do, that fatal illnesses are horrible things. So don’t mistake my opposition for euthanasia for a heartless attitude towards those that are suffering.
            The ultimate goal for suffering is to ease it- to stop the suffering. Now this may be a difficult concept to understand for a liberal or libertarian that support the slaying of preborn humans, but this goal is to do what we can to end suffering. Suicide does not end the suffering, but the sufferer.
            See, in their usual fashion, liberals/libertarians have realized that the proper term, “euthanasia”, has developed a negative connotation. And its actual meaning, having someone else kill yourself for you, cannot do to advance their culture of death. Hence terms like “dying with dignity”. There is nothing dignified about killing oneself. This term implies that someone who hangs on and fights for as long as they can is undignified, while giving up and taking poison is “dignified”. What a backwards society.
            The insistence is that the suffering will end. But this creates an insurmountable obstacle. Because apart from a relationship with Jesus Christ, the sufferer will pass on to an eternity in Hell (“intolerance” comments in three…) where they will forever endure prodigiously more suffering. If one does have a relationship with Jesus, then they know that suicide is the wrong answer, but instead they are to use whatever remains of their lives to glorify God. There is no fear of suffering because what waits after is better than what we can imagine.
            Even apart from religion, a foreign lens I am still adjusting to looking through in my writings, suicide makes little sense, maybe even less sense. If this life was all we had, why not allow it to continue for as long as possible? Is not some life better than no life? If the goal is to carry on our names, why throw in the towel early? (Unless, of course, fame is the goal, as it is one of the locomotives for the Brittany Maynard case.)
            We’re trying to teach kids that suicide is not the answer, then praising someone who chooses it. Anyone reminded of the “certain circumstances” belief for abortion.
            Bottom line, none of us can know when we will die. Even someone with a date set can die before then. We all can have plans, but as the Bible says, we ought not to take tomorrow for granted, because we’re not guaranteed it. But we ought to value all human life, from the moment of fertilization to the moment of death. That includes valuing our own lives that we have been given.
            There was a woman slated to willingly have someone take her life today. Amazingly enough, she decided to put it off for a while because she is still laughing and enjoying time with family and friends. But how could she possibly get anything out of life with a terminal illness?!
            There are deep issues surrounding this case and euthanasia in general. It is a conversation worth having, as many other social issues are.

            But let’s avoid that. When you don’t have any defense to your actions and beliefs, you rename them and point fingers.