Christianity and abortion

August 1 marks the first day of the implementation of one provision in the "Obama care" law that forces the Church and other faith-based organizations to furnish components in healthcare that oppose their faith.  The President, and DC Democrats support the legality of abortions throughout the entire nine month gestation.   It never ceases to amaze me to consistently see the cohabitation of two completely opposed thoughts, ideas, values and practices surviving in the same mind of any individual.  How could one hold the value of Christianity and abortion at the same time?  I understand the theory of cognitive dissonance where the individual strives for reduction of any one of the dissonant elements.  But how could a Democrat/Christian even remotely reduce the element of Christian values and relationship in favor of the practice of abortion becoming dominant in value and practice?  There must be a bunch of Democrat/Christians in DC with a terrific headache!    Or perhaps that is the reason they have no compunction in forcing faith-based organizations, including the Church, to finance components in healthcare that oppose their faith and value system.

Jim Killebrew   

What's next?



I wonder if the most important question to ask during an election season is the question, "What's next?"  That especially becomes the question to ask about the incumbent since it will be a re-election for that person.  The incumbent has a record of most recently being in the office sought, so the incumbent's record becomes vitally important if the voter wants more of the same. 

Although many in our society seem to lose track of historical facts and events, it really is true we seem to live a cyclical life often repeating what we have done in the past.  When we fail to understand our own history our routine behaviors of life tend to bring us around to the same forks in the road.  Without remembering the outcomes of our last decision at that same fork, we tend to take the road for which we have a propensity to take.  The result is visiting the same calamity we have experienced before.  It is like being lost in a forest.  Rescue experts indicate the person lost will wander in what they think is a straight path, but in reality they are walking in a large, circular pattern; usually the direction of their dominate side, right if right-handed or left if they are left-handed.

Making decisions about whom we choose as our leaders must be carefully thought out and researched for evidence to ensure the person who seeks the office will represent our own beliefs and desires for the future of our own lives and the lives of our loved ones.  Look at the person and the person's record of accomplishments.

The incumbent has the record that represents what s/he has already accomplished while in office.  In the current 2012 election cycle the President has been in office for more than three and one-half years.  By election day it will have been almost four years.  The voter would be better informed to vote if the President's record is examined.  To begin that process one must look at what has already been accomplished.  The following short list of accomplishments have been selected as a sample of what the President has done in office.  The voter would be wise to examine those accomplishments, look at the immediate consequences and outcomes of those accomplishments, and then ask the question, "What's next?" if the President is re-elected for a second four-year term.  Start with the President's centerpiece legislation he and his party worked for and he signed into law.

National healthcare.  This is a signature piece of legislation touted by the President as being the answer for curing the nation's ills regarding healthcare.  It has been passed without a single Republican vote from a Congress that was controlled in both Houses by Democrats.  It has been reviewed by the United States Supreme Court and found constitutional.  It will control about 1/6th of the US economy.  It mandates that people buy products they do not want and will pay a penalty (tax) if they don't.  It forces faith-based groups to furnish contraceptives they don't believe in.  The question to answer is "What's next?"

Gun Control.  There is an on-going effort to take the guns away.  This seems an on-going debate for every election cycle, but the so-called Fast and Furious program that created a Congressional  investigation ended in Congress voting to hold the US Attorney General in Contempt of Congress.  The President has countered with Executive Privilege to counter the Congressional vote in the House of Representatives.  So, if re-elected, "What's next?"

Unemployment.  Policies enacted by the current President have worked to continue to keep unemployment high.  In 2007 the Democrat Party assumed total control through a majority of the US Congress; both Houses were given majorities.  In 2009 the Executive Branch of government was taken by the Democrat Party.  Unemployment from the previous President's Administration averaged 5.26 percent from 2001 to 2008 when the newly elected majority of the Democrat Congress assumed control.  From 2008 to 2012 during the current Administration the unemployment has maintained an 8.2 percent unemployment with real unemployment being closer to 15 percent.  The President has not met with his Jobs Council for the past six months.  "What's next?"

Energy.  The President has closed the public land for purposes of drilling for more oil and continues to import oil from Canada, Mexico and the Middle East.  Additionally, the President has disapproved the building of the Keystone Pipeline which would have brought oil from Canada to the Gulf and benefited the Americans by keeping the price of gasoline lower.  Again, "What's next?"

Enacted Executive Orders.  More than any other President, the current Administration has by-passed Congress to affect the laws of the United States  with immigration, appointments, welfare laws, which no longer requires a person to look for work while on unemployment.  If re-elected, "What's next."

Take-over of private business and banking.  Through the stimulus money collected from the taxpayers the auto and some in the banking industries have been brought under the control of the Federal Government.  Even with a less than accountable explanation of what the stimulus money was spent on, and by whom, the President continues to want to have more stimulus bail-outs with even greater amounts of money from the taxpayer.  If re-elected, "What's next?"

Bowing to foreign Heads of State.  The President started out almost immediately on an "apology" tour across the globe to several countries soon after his inauguration.  During several of those visits the President apologized for what he felt was inappropriate behavior on the part of America and accentuated his apologies with waist-deep bowing to the leaders of those foreign countries he visited.  If re-elected, "What's next?"

Highest national debt in America's history.  Since George Washington, all the way through the Administration of George Bush, the President has amassed a national debt greater that all the previous Presidents together.  At the conclusion of the previous Administration the total cumulative debt amounted to 6.37 Trillion dollars.  In the three and one-half years of the current President he has amassed 6.477 Trillion dollars in debt.  If re-elected, "What's next?"

Taxpayer money investments.  The President has engaged in "venture capital" investments with tax payer money focused around his "Green Policy" in an effort to impact energy use with a reduction of fossil fuels and an increase of "alternative fuels."  The President has invested tax payer money in Solyndra for 535 million dollars; Ener 1 for 118 million dollars; Abound Solar for 70 million dollars, Olsen's Mills Acquisition for 10 million dollars; and, Evergreen Solar for 5.3 million dollars.  Each one of these companies have gone bankrupt losing the tax payer's money.  If re-elected, "What's next?"

There are many other things that could be listed regarding the President's tenure.  There is a significant increase in the number of regulations on businesses in America; the appointment of Czars without Congressional oversight and confirmation;  a movement much closer by the Iranian government in completing their nuclear capability, and the promise of the President to the Russian government to hold off on their plans until "after the election" so it will give the President "more flexibility."  If re-elected, "What's next?"

Jim Killebrew

Bible in prison

I have a dear friend who has volunteered his time and energy for the past 30 years with a small group of other men going to the local prison to engage in a "Prison Ministry."  Through those years hundreds of men have changed their lives by submitting to Jesus.  They have studied, prayed, read their Bibles throughout their long days in lock-up, experienced testimony from each other that has led those released to change the course of their former life of crime to a life of love, productivity and contribution to society-at-large.  The prison system is administered by the government who incarcerates the men as sentences are carried out by judgments of having been found guilty of various crimes.  Prison Administrators and Guards often admit that having prayer meetings, Bible reading and life conversions help quell the problem issues in the prison populations.

Tell me then, if the Bible, prayer and teaching of Christian principles have such impact in our prison systems, why is it so important to completely ban the Bible and prayer in our public educational systems?

Happy Birthday America

America's Revolutionary War broke out in April 1775.  The British Empire had poked the people living in the thirteen colonies living across the Atlantic.  Great Britain had treated the colonists as subjects of the King who needed to pay taxes from their sweat and toil without having anyone to represent their interests. 

The battles throughout the Summer, Fall and Winter of 1775 had been met with some indifference by many of the colonists who had not yet worked up enough dissent to rebel against the King.  Sentiments were changed, however, by Britain's tyranny and cruelty, along with the growing number of battles and emotions that were fueled by statements written in the paper, "Common Sense" by Thomas Payne. 

Great Britain's King had exacted taxes unduly, the King's men were unjustly cruel and the people had been reading the words of Thomas Payne:

"Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the Christian world hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!"

"As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All anti-monarchial parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchial governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their governments yet to form. Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's is the scriptural doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchial government, for the Jews at that time were without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans."

"Near three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases, where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of republic administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lords of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of kings he need not wonder, that the Almighty, ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven."

"Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to." 

So, according to Payne, continuing with submission to the King of Great Britain was the same as participating in the sin the Israelites of old had perpetuated from "heathen" nations.  The only answer was to sever ties and declare independence.

With the motivation from the "Common Sense" and the white-hot words of Thomas Payne ringing in their ears the Continental Congress met at what is now the Independence Hall in Philadelphia, the city of "Brotherly Love."  Virginia's delegate Richard Henry Lee called for the colonies to demand independence from Great Britain.  Throughout June the debate raged in the Congress no doubt recalling some of the battles and the unfairness of the taxation imposed by the King.  With the persuasive words of Thomas Payne and others who wished for secession ringing in their ears, the Continental Congress called upon Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, John Adams of Massachusetts, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania and Robert R. Livingston of New York to write and submit for consideration a draft statement that would serve as justification for secession of the colonies from Great Britain.  

 By July 2, 1776 the smaller committee from the Continental Congress had presented the Declaration of Independence, written primarily by Thomas Jefferson over a two day period, to the Continental Congress on July 2nd.  The Congress voted for independence on that day, but on July 4, 1776 the Continental Congress formally adopted the Declaration of Independence as their singular voice to the Monarch of Great Britain they would no longer be subjects belonging to him.  On this day in our history, July 4, 1776 Americans took a stand against tyranny and injustice.

Happy Birthday America!

Jim Killebrew  

Now what?

Just when we think we have everything figured out a decision like the one Chief Justice John Roberts made comes along. Nobody thought that Chief Justice Roberts would make such a decision regarding the healthcare issue.

Isn't that the way it is when we pray to God? We have something in our own mind an answer that we think is a logical answer, but God comes along and gives an answer that is not the way we thought it would be; but it always turns out to be just the right thing. We need to trust God that he is in control and the right decision has been made, because The God of the universe does not make mistakes!

Now...

In light of the ruling by the SCOTUS regarding healthcare, consider the following:

 The Christian has a responsibility to recognize the government and obey the laws and the leadership of the government.

 Corruption was identified by Solomon in his book of Ecclesiastes when he recorded for us the following information:

 “If you see the extortion of the poor or the perversion of justice and fairness in the government, do not be astonished by the matter. For the high official is watched by a higher official, and there are higher ones over them! The produce of the land is seized by all of them. Even the king is served by the fields.” (Ecclesiastes 5:8-9)

 Corruption and perversion of justice completed at all levels of the government bureaucracy. Resources produced by the people are seized at every level, including the king. Instead of manna from God given to the people, it is personal property taken by the government to support the layers of officials from the lowest official to the court of the King.

 God had ruled with Wisdom beyond the human mind. But with human government ascending to leadership, wisdom waned as it trickled through the layers of bureaucracy. The third King of Israel, Solomon, wrote again in Ecclesiastes the following insight on the matter:

 “Who is a wise person? Who knows a solution to a problem? A person’s wisdom brightens his appearance, and softens his harsh countenance. Obey the king’s command, because you took an oath before God to be loyal to him. Do not rush out of the king’s presence in haste – do not delay when the matter is unpleasant, for he can do whatever he pleases. Surely the king’s authority is absolute: no one can say to him, ‘What are you doing?’ Whoever obeys his command will not experience harm, and a wise person knows the proper time and procedure. For there is a proper time and procedure for every matter, for the oppression of the king is severe upon his victim. Surely no one knows the future, and no one can tell another person what will happen. Just as no one has power over the wind to restrain it, so no one has power over the day of his death. Just as no one can be discharged during the battle, so wickedness cannot rescue the wicked. While applying my [Solomon] mind to everything that happens in this world, I have seen all this: Sometimes one person dominates other people to their harm.” (Ecclesiastes 8:1-9)

 We must be satisfied with the wisdom of men to rule with the wisdom of men if we have turned from the Wisdom of God and His rule.

 Now for the Christian all of this history of God’s people abdicating God’s rule to man’s rule may not seem relevant. However, from the writings from the Apostle Paul we find it is the Christian’s responsibility to be submissive to Civil Government. In his letter to the Christians in Rome, Paul gave the following word as inspired by the Holy Spirit:

 “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities but also because of your conscience. For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to governing. Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.” (Romans 13:1-7)

 We are not talking about any specific form of government here except “governing authorities.” We must take from this passage the authority of the Apostle Paul in his admonition to submit to the governing authorities. The reason is simple: “There is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God.”

Keep in mind, however, if the government forces us to turn away from God or requires us to not obey God we must resist. In the earliest beginnings of the Church we have an excellent example from the Apostles Peter and John who had healed a lame man through the power of Jesus. This disturbed the leaders who commanded the two Apostles to cease speaking of Jesus. The writer of the Acts of the Apostles [Luke] recorded for us the results of this matter:

 “And they [the leaders] called them [Peter and John] in and ordered them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, ‘Whether it is right before God to obey you rather than God, you decide, for it is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard.’” (Acts 4:18-20)

Therefore, our first responsibility is to submit ourselves to God and His Will. We must obey the laws of the land and obey the government in regard to taxes, laws and requirements for living. The exception is when the government attempts to require us to disobey God, or substitute our worship of God to any other than the One and Only True God of the universe.

 Jim Killebrew

Two world views

   

Two world views

The following discussion was initiated when I wrote an opinion about evolutional theory having taken over the public school system in America and tenaciously holding the educational system as a "belief" system almost the same way Creationists demonstrate their faith in their  world view.   I began with the following statement:

"Evolution must start on the premise that 'something' was already available (Big Bang, ocean, etc.) and from that available 'something' life forms began to evolve. In the beginning of many evolution books, especially text books, on about the second or third page tucked away in the middle of a paragraph, inside a sentence is a little phrase that usually says, 'the inorganic became organic.' The writer then moves, without fanfare, to build the theory of evolution on the foundation of that little phrase without ever stopping to explain how that event happened."

"Public education in the United States has accepted this theory almost without question. School children almost universally within that system accept the theory and internalize it as a basis for their world view. When a belief takes root that becomes so pervasive as to capture the thoughts of most students passing through the leaning system, it renders the learners to such a position of rigidity they will not even entertain a competing thought that may change their desired course of thinking. When that happens, one can finally say their belief has become a form of religion carried forward only by faith."

 "So when School Boards and the local, state and federal governments push to extend the teaching of evolution exclusively, isn't that violating the principle of 'separation of Church and State'?"

Several responses came in that agreed with the premise, but one took issue.

Two responses from men who are ministers were in basic agreement.  One said, "Amen. Good thinking."  The other offered some further thoughts:  "Yes. Humanism was and probably still is represented in the campus directory of religious organizations on many State Colleges campuses. One of the tenets of Humanism is evolution. Humanist organizations hold the same tax exempt status as do churches. The irony is that evolution in the strictest sense of the definition of faith is no different than believing in creation and a creator. Neither can be proved empirically. It makes little difference that the arguments for creation are far superior that any apology that can be given for those trusting in evolution. If education is the pursuit of knowledge one wonders why they would put up detour signs to avoid going down the street of discovery. Amazing don’t you think."

To continue the discussion, my response was, "James you mentioned humanism and the basis of its belief. I think the educational system is humanistic and has been so for at least the past 75 years. Perhaps the greatest influence on the modern thought began with the destruction of the Absolute."

"Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is studied in universities around the world. He was a German philosopher who looked at the paradigm of absolute Truth in the model of relativity. He described an idea (thesis) as being affected by the 'antithesis' of that idea or belief, that eventually evolved into a 'synthesis.' From that it became a new idea or belief. Of course this is oversimplified and understated, but the paradigm shift proposed by Hegel was significant. It represented a shift from the Absolute Truth to a relative truth that was situational at best."

"The current, post modern, educational system in America is steeped in the Hegelian thought, as is our very public domain. Everyone who has graduated from high school from the early 1960's on has been under the influence of defining truth with a little "t". It is ingrained in our political, social, economic, public and private lives. Generations have been tutored in humanistic thought and the destruction of Absolutes. It carved out the thoughts of Fletcher, who brought us "Situational Ethics" where the environment, or situation details the morality of the behavior. My grandchildren think I am ancient because I can say I lived before the internet. For them to believe when they become teenagers or young adults that there is anything that relates to an "Absolute" will only exist in what they think of as "science." For that generation we are beyond post modernism."

 "Modern education, government, science and even our own posterity will eventually not see any need for discovery since they will have lived their lives like the little hamster in the small, clear ball in which he uses to roll around the room. Eventually that will be their universe."

One minister replied, "Well said Jim! Biblically two things comes to mind that addresses our insanity."  At this, to lay a foundation for his point, the minister quoted Scripture.  "Isaiah 55:8, 9 says;

8 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,'  declares the Lord.

 9 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways

and my thoughts than your thoughts.'  He continued, "Ecclesiastes 1:9 states 'there is no new thing under the sun.'"  The minister's conclusion to his point was,

"Anyway the point I am trying to make is simple. God has spoken truth and we don't like it so we make up our own truth. We give them all kinds of titles and call it something classical. The bottom line is that God has final say with what is and isn't. A professor I had at Ozark said there is no such thing as intellectual unbelief just moral rebellion. The world is getting to be a really scary place."

At this point in the discussion a professor of physics weighed in with his thoughts on the subject:

"I have spent most of my professional life (of over 40 years) doing scientific research and teaching in the area of physics. I have got to say that in that time I have never read or heard a credible scientist say anything resembling your portrayal of evolution. While I cannot claim that there are not people or school districts that promote your parody of evolution, it would certainly be misleading and unfair to present that as the state or content of science. Of course it is true that science does not deal in absolutes since one must always allow for the possibility of new evidence which compel new perspectives. The theory of evolutionary change is tentatively accepted (rather than believed) as the most plausible explanation thus far produced for the empirical evidence available (primarily the evolutionary fossil record and our understanding of the biochemical basis of mutation and reproduction). Moreover, a great deal of effort has gone into developing plausible scenarios where inorganic chemical environments will produce the complex organic building blocks necessary for life and evolution. Indeed many steps in this process have been repeatedly demonstrated in the laboratory. While science may be imperfect and at times even wrong, it is the only game in town when it comes to attempting to understand the universe with logical, rational interpretation of the empirical evidence rather than dogmatic assumptions taken from some allegedly divine source. Good science and education promote the critical analysis and challenging of world views, not their dogmatic or uncritical acceptance."

The minister commented on the physic's discussion of the issue.  "I for one appreciate your kind and even keeled comments. Although I am not as well versed as you or Jim on this topic let me suggest that you view Ben Stein’s documentary produced under the title; 'Expelled' and you will see why I express my concerns. I do believe that it will demonstrate that dogmatism does exist."

To summarize my point I again directed my final comments to the physics professor:

"Ray I really appreciate your thoughts shared in this very unscientific venue. It may surprise you when I say I do agree with what you have written. I think you covered at least two important, significant points that are the foundation of this issue."

"I agree with your statement, 'While science may be imperfect and at times even wrong, it is the only game in town when it comes to attempting to understand the universe with logical, rational interpretation of the empirical evidence rather than dogmatic assumptions taken from some allegedly divine source.' You have stated two world views in which one is built on empirical evidence, while the other is built in large part on faith. Now, it is unlikely that these two world views will ever agree on a majority of their differences, but that is precisely the point I am making."

 "'Science,' as you said, 'may be imperfect and at times even wrong' and likewise, people of faith are sometimes 'dogmatic' in their beliefs. All of that is true; but they are still world views. That being the case, there will always be a struggle between the two. However, there is a commonality between the two as well. As with any world view it is usually internalized as a belief held by the individual who holds the view. It may only be 'tentatively' accepted as you mentioned, nevertheless it is held by the individual as a guide or motivation from which to view life. Therefore, any challenge to that world view demands a response of some kind from the individual holding that view. The response could be pragmatic, relatively unbiased or visceral for that matter."

"I was making the point that our public educational system has for all practical purposes adopted the world view of science, scientific methods, variability of discovery, which includes the 'tentatively accepted' theory of evolution to teach. As such, as you said, 'science does not deal in absolutes since one must always allow for the possibility of new evidence which compel new perspectives.' Aside from your use of the absolute 'always' I believe we are in agreement. Science, of which evolution theory is a part, has taken the lead in public education and will not 'allow the possibility of new evidence which compel new perspectives' to enter into the educational mix."

"Just to prove that point, let's do a scientific experiment, albeit 'social' scientific in nature. Let's randomly choose 100 public school districts across the nation, representative of as many factors as possible in the grades across the nation. Let's propose we begin in the first grade teaching both world views equally for one randomly assigned sub-group; only the scientific world-view for a second randomly assigned sub-group; and only the faith-based world view for the third randomly assigned sub-group. Continue that pattern until each of the students graduate from high school. Test each of the students to determine if there is a difference in the student's perspectives regarding the two world views."

" Of course you and I know that would never happen. Our first objector would likely come from the individual school boards, the second objector would be the ACLU, the third objector would be the Teacher's Union, but the legal objector would be the local, state and federal governments. It is my opinion all those groups, and many others are not interested in gaining 'new evidence which compel new perspectives' if that evidence being presented has any relation to faith that relates to what you termed an 'allegedly divine source'".

Jim Killebrew

Evolution religion



Evolution must start on the premise that “something” was already available (Big Bang, ocean, etc.) and from that available “something” life forms began to evolve. In the beginning of many evolution books, especially text books, on about the second or third page tucked away in the middle of a paragraph, inside a sentence is a little phrase that usually says, “the inorganic became organic.” The writer then moves, without fanfare, to build the theory of evolution on the foundation of that little phrase without ever stopping to explain how that event happened.

Public education in the United States has accepted this theory almost without question.  School children almost universally within that system accept the theory and internalize it as a basis for their world view.  When a belief takes root that becomes so pervasive as to capture the thoughts of most students passing through the leaning system, it renders the learners to such a position of rigidity they will not even entertain a competing thought that may change their desired course of thinking.  When that happens, one can finally say their belief has become a form of religion carried forward only by faith.

So when School Boards and the local, state and federal governments push to extend the teaching of evolution exclusively, isn't that violating the principle of "separation of Church and State"?

Jim Killebrew