What Trump Said

Before you read any further, please watch the YouTube clip above - starting at 9:40 and going all the way to the end of the clip. I watch quite a bit of CNN, and I'm sure neither I nor anyone else who watches CNN or some other news channel or even listens or reads news coming from the popular media could avoid hearing the firestorm which erupted following presidential candidate Donald Trump's answer to interviewer Chris Matthew's question to him last week regarding abortion and whether a woman should be "punished" for seeking one or having one if abortion is made illegal. First a disclaimer: I don't support Trump in his presidential aspirations and I'm not one to often agree with Trump - not even now. Not even now especially since he backtracked and walked back his comments concerning abortion. Who knows what he really believes? Trump has changed his stance on a great many things over the years. I think that his answer concerning abortion was probably an attempt to appeal to what he thought his base believes.

Let's take Trump out of the equation. I'm much more concerned with issues and arguments than I am with people when it comes to these kind of things - particularly when the person or persons in question are those for whom there is often a knee-jerk gag reflex or rejection. So, let's take Trump out of it and think about the substance of what was said and the larger issue of abortion and punishment itself. The media have framed Trump's "should be punished" comment as if it were an absolute. The question had not been framed in that way. The way it was framed was in the context of abortion being illegal. This fact is very important to note. If we take off our ThoughtCrime and SpeakCrime filters it shouldn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that if someone does something illegal there ought to be some kind of penalty.  Mathews should be commended for the consistency evident in his question and for his callingTrump (and by implication the Pro-Life side) to consistency in the issue. Can you think of any other illegal action for which this is not the case? You can call it a "penalty" or you can call it a "punishment" - the two are similar enough it shouldn't matter. Simply put, for any legal system to have teeth and to indeed make any kind of sense, there must be some kind of penalty for illegal actions.

When we understand that illegal actions should have some kind of penalty, then the substance of what Trump said (before he backtracked later) has a logic behind it that's unassailable. That is much more than I can say for much of the popular Pro-Life movement who are distancing themselves, virtually tripping over themselves, to disassociate their movement from any notion that the woman seeking the abortion or getting the abortion is anything more than a victim. They (much of the Pro-Life movement) evidently are more concerned with being invited to the right parties and having the right political friends than they are with being consistent in their position. I do NOT respect this at all. After all, if (as they say) abortion is the intentional taking of the life of a fully-human person who has not been convicted of any crime warranting death, then our legal system should call it "murder." Consequently, if it is murder, then should there not be some kind of penalty for the person who essentially hires a hit man (the abortionist) to do the dirty work? Sure, there are often complicated circumstances and even a degree of coercion involved, but this is also the case for the intentional killing of human persons who are killed outside the womb. Should the killer of a two-year-old, a five-year-old, or a thirty-year-old escape all punishment because they were "victims" in the sense that they may have had very unfavorable life circumstances contributing to their committing a crime? Is it not possible to be guilty in one sense while nonetheless being a victim in another sense? Yes it is possible. I'm sure it is even very common. The categories are not mutually exclusive. We punish killers of two, five, and thirty-year olds. We even punish those who don't actually do the physical killing itself but still willfully contribute to the killing of these people. Where is the consistency when it comes to abortion - the willful killing of those in the womb? 

I have more respect (definitely more respect in regard to intellectual integrity) for the pro-choice person who denies the human personhood of the unborn and therefore says abortion should be legal at any stage than I do for the "pro-life" person who boldly proclaims the unborn are human persons worthy of the legal protection you and I enjoy in regard to life but then entirely throw away their consistency when faced with the prospect of their view being deemed "extreme" or some other hated label. If the Pro-Life movement is to succeed, it needs to be bold. It not only needs to be bold, but it needs to be consistent. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. If the Pro-Life movement proffers a consistent argument then it and its adherents may suffer disrepute, scorn, and loss of friends, but I see this as the only way to eventual victory not to mention the only way to be truly obedient. Furthermore, as Christians (which make up the bulk of the Pro-Life movement), we should ultimately be most concerned with honoring Christ. Christ is the embodiment of Truth, and so our thoughts, words, and actions should be the epitome of truth and consistency. Also, like Christ, we should be ready and willing to bear with humility the pejorative labels affixed to us for our principled stands. Many in the Pro-Life movement - including political figures affirming the Pro-Life position need to do some soul-searching and repent of their inconsistency and cowardice. 

We Have Bad Words All Wrong

When people become aware I'm a Christian some will curb, lessen, or apologize for their F-word or S-H word usage around me because they think it offends me.  I appreciate their consideration.  However, they'll go right on with their exclamations of "Oh my God!" and "Jesus Christ!" to indicate surprise, astonishment, or disgust - obviously not intending to invoke the Lord's help or reference him in any reverential way.  Sometimes they'll even use those words ("Oh my God!, "God!" etc.) and I'll have no idea why they're using them - other than perhaps as filler words.  Believe it or not, the typical "4-letter" swear words don't offend me at all. They're nothing but coarse and profane language - even though It's better not to use them in polite company.  Using God's name in an empty and/or flippant way however makes me wince.  It something's going to offend, it's going to be that.

I'm convinced many believe those empty references to God are totally benign, morally-neutral, and non-offensive - because after all, they don't "mean anything" by it.  That's precisely the point though: If they don't mean anything by their usage, it is a vain (i.e. empty, worthless) usage and thus a direct violation of The Third Commandment's "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."(Ex. 20:7)  Even when we remember the first part of that commandment, we tend to forget the second part, don't we?  The second part ("...for the LORD will not hod him guiltless...") should really drive home the fact that this is serious stuff; the words we use have consequences even if the people around us might not care.  

I have the same attitude and response regarding empty, ceremonial prayers.  I'd rather there be no prayer at all than it be one of these prayers.  Unfortunately this type of prayer is the preferred type of prayer by politicians and at political functions.  It's the PC prayer.  It's the prayer that by it's invocation of no God in particular in fact invokes no God at all. If you take Jesus Christ out, if you ignore the actual character of God and make him a bland old nice Grandpa-type God and ask His blessing on things and actions which Scripture clearly militates against - it can't be anything else than a stench in His nose and a heaping up of wrath.  It's using His name in a vain and worthless way - at the very least. 

Daytime TV and the general population now finds vain usage of the Lord's name perfectly acceptable - but in the final analysis it is a much more serious thing than the crude 4-letter swear words you think are so much worse.  Somehow even the Christian community has seemed to have forgotten this.  As for me, I'd much rather raise up children who occasionally use typical 4-letter swear words than children who think lightly of treading God's name underfoot and who think nothing of it when they hear it done.  American culture and even the church (generally) seem to care more about propriety and fitting in with polite society and current cultural mores than we do about the Law of God.  Christians, we need to reassess our commitments and attitudes.  We can start with ourselves and our families. 

The "Do Babies Go To Heaven?" Question

The "Do babies go to heaven?" question ranks up there with "Is my grandma/grandpa/mom/dad/loved one in hell?" as the most uncomfortable for serious Christians to be asked.  A common answer when the question is asked about unbelieving adults is "I don't know...God will judge."  While this is a true answer - as far as it goes - , it often ignores serious issues and the logical implications (if we trust Scripture) of things we already might know beyond a reasonable doubt, so in this way it's somewhat deceptive.  What's even worse is an assumption that the "good" unbelieving deceased is automatically is in a "better place" by virtue of dying - as if death itself is the only prerequisite for eternal happiness.  Well, the "better place" answer is used for just about everyone except really "bad" (as we deem them) people such as Hitler et. al. - as if the rest of mankind is basically "good" and surely have earned the right to eternal happiness/heaven - or at least "a better place."  We lie to ourselves so badly! Such answers may be comforting to the grieved, but when we are pretty darn sure the deceased had no love of God or trust in Jesus as Mediator/Savior/Lord our answers are non-thinking at best - lies at worst.  Does it really please God to ignore what we supposedly believe to be true about Scripture, death, heaven, and hell - and give ourselves or others false assurance?  For an issues as serious as God, salvation, and eternal destinies, I am convinced it does not.  

This is a indeed a very sensitive and emotionally-laden topic.  When the heaven question concerns babies and the unborn it is even more sensitive. We are faced with the difficulty of  these precious human beings (as far as we know) never having heard or accepted the gospel.  We sidestep this frequently sidestep this difficulty because we perceive them to be "innocent" - so they must go to heaven, right?  The big problem with this is that they're not innocent.  They are innocent on a human scale - but they are not innocent on a cosmic scale; they are not innocent before God.  If they are human beings, they are "in Adam" and as such have sinned in Adam and are guilty before God.  This is the doctrine of Original Sin I'm referring to.  Either Adam somehow represented all mankind in the garden as our federal head and thus we all not only inherit a sin nature but also guilt before God - or we (all humanity) were in some sense actually there in the garden, sinning with Adam and becoming guilty that way.  Many professing Christians today find this doctrine distasteful, but they can't escape the fact that it has been part of historical Christian belief since at least Augustine.  I would argue that it was part of Christian belief since Paul, and before that, Jesus - but the doctrine became more officially recognized with Augustine.  Since that time, those who would deny the doctrine of  Original Sin were seen as outside the faith and not Christian at all.  If, as a Christian you deny original sin and original guilt you must realize you are putting yourself outside the sphere of historical Christian orthodoxy and into a realm of thought both Catholics and Protestants have rejected throughout history.  This should at least give you pause. 

Another big problem with the "all infants and/or all aborted children go to heaven argument" is that it puts us into the position of either (logically) hoping to be barren (so that we are not bringing into the world any who will go to hell - OR (logically) hoping our unborn and born babies will somehow die so that they will have a 100% chance of going to heaven - since heaven is infinitely better than this life. This might not only be mistaken thinking, but also dangerous thinking. Think of Andrea Yates and the bathtub drownings of her infants for instance.  Thankfully, most parents who take this position are not as consistent as Yates! We have children and pray they will LIVE. We teach, train, and pray for them. We rejoice when they show reasoning capability to make important decisions rather than lament because this would mean a greater chance of hell due to greater accountability.  Do we pray that our children will be severely mentally disabled so that they will be "innocent" like a child and therefore go to heaven?  Concerning accountability, many Christians will also posit the idea of an "age of accountability" before which time a person is not accountable to God for their sins because of not having the level of understanding supposedly needed to be accountable for wrongdoing.  They say that those who die before this age (usually said to be thirteen) will go to heaven.  Biblical support of this is weak - and, furthermore the "age of accountability" doctrine should be suspect because it would necessarily compromise the more universally recognized and historic doctrine of Original Sin.  

So, do all children and unborn who die go to hell?  No, I don't think they do.  I can't prove it - but I would say "no."  The case of King David's deceased son "...I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." (2 Sam 12:22-23) might be evidence for babies (at least some) going to heaven.  I think that it is - but I don't think it provides airtight proof that all unborn, babies, or children do.  My wife and I have suffered a miscarriage - so the whole issue of babies going to heaven is not just an abstract and academic topic with us. It is emotional and personal as well. We hope that our miscarried child is like King David's young son that died by God's command and that we will someday meet our child in heaven. Even with this being said, I have to say the "all...go to heaven" argument has significant difficulties - and some caution and prudence is needed because of these difficulties.  We go to heaven because of the work of Christ - not our own work or any perceived innocence we could attribute to ourselves.  A heaven-bound baby who dies in the womb, in infancy, or later as a child will go there (heaven) because of the work of Christ.  The usual mechanism for being joined to His saving work is personal faith in Him and His work.  However, at the core, it is all due to Him - His work.  He saves us.  In the end we must simply trust in God and His Purpose - and that He will do whatever is right.  We do not see the big picture.  We see only part.  He however sees the whole picture - the whole plan.  He not only sees it but he made it.  His ways are higher than our ways. As God and judge of the whole earth and of all creation, He only does those things which are right.  It comforts me to leave it at that.

Jesus the Sith Lord?

I'm a big Star Wars fan - a really big fan.  I have a large Star Wars collection, have seen the movies many times, and even have a big Yoda image decorating the hood of my car.  Make no mistake though.  Star Wars' Light Side and Dark Side are not comparable to Good and Evil in the Christian worldview.  The "Force" is not the Holy Spirit.  When I was a child and young teen, I thought it was kooky and extreme how some Christians would be critical of Star Wars, cautioning Christian parents against it by citing the Eastern mysticism and other non-Christian philosophies it presents cloaked in Jedi goodness.  As an adult, though still an avid Star Wars fan, I now see the reason behind their wariness.  Watch the following clip.  It is from the third prequel movie, one of the coolest lightsaber duels of the whole saga, but the thinking Christian should be able to detect some worldview problems:

[Be advised that this is not a G-rated fighting scene; it contains some scenes of anguish at the beginning and some slightly gruesome images toward the end]

If you know your Scripture well, you will notice that Anakin virtually quotes Jesus (Matt 12:30) soon after Obi-Wan confronts him:

[Movie dialogue is in bold]

ANAKIN: "If you're not with me, you're my enemy." 

OBI-WAN: "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes. I will do what I must." 

Again, here are Jesus' words in Matt. 12:30:

[Jesus' words are in red]

"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

Do you see how similar Jesus' statement is to dark-side-turning Anakin's statement?  The Jedi are supposed to be good guys - like disciples of Jesus or something.  Hmmm.  In the Star Wars universe however, thinking in black and white terms means you're thinking like a Sith - the bad guys.  Jesus would seem to be a Sith Lord!

As a matter of fact, Jesus issues many absolutistic statements in Scripture.  Here are several:

"I am the bread of life" (John 6:35,48,51).

"I am the light of the world" (John 8:12).

"I am the door of the sheep"(John 10:7,9).

"I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11,14).

"I am the resurrection, and the life" (John 11:25).

"I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).

"I am the true vine" (John 15:1,5).

By Obi-Wan's standard, It seems like Jesus has the makings of a Sith Lord.

Later, same duel, Obi-Wan and Anakin do a philosophy reversal - and don't seem to be aware of it:

ANAKIN: "I should have known the Jedi were plotting to take over . . . "

OBI-WAN: "From the Sith!!! Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil." 

ANAKIN: "From the Jedi point of view! From my point of view, the Jedi are evil. 

OBI-WAN: "Well, then you are lost!" 

OK, let me get this straight.  First, Anakin is told by Obi-Wan that only Sith Lords deal in absolutes - then when he reasons in a relativistic fashion and avoids absolutes, Obi-Wan issues an absolutistic statement about Chancellor Palpatine being evil and pronounces condemnation on him for the conclusion he had come to!  I hope you see the problem here.  

In short, the dialogue really shows both Obi Wan and Anakin turning to hypocrites before our very eyes.  I don't think that was Lucas' intention, but the critical Christian reader/watcher should be able to discern this even if others don't.  The original three movies (Episodes IV-VI) are much more philosophically consistent, and for this reason I enjoy them more - even though the lightsaber duels are not as cool.  In the original three I can make sense of the bad guys being the bad guys and the good guys being the good guys - and though the worldview of the old movies was not perfectly consistent with a Christian worldview, it was at least enough so that I could feel good about the Jedi being good and the Sith being bad.  

There is much more that could be critically examined about the Star Wars saga - and others have done that in great degree.  Much of this was done nearly 10 or more years ago when the prequels started coming out.  I wasn't much bothered by Anakin's virgin birth in Episode 1 ("The Phantom Menace") came out, but it still seemed to signal the establishing of parallels to the Biblical account of Christ where there should not be parallels.  After all, we knew Anakin later becomes Darth Vader.  The Jesus of Scripture never has a similar huge fall from goodness; he never falls at all because he was and is sinless!  Episode III ("Revenge of The Sith") is much more troubling in its more overt promotion of relativism and its philosophical confusion.  

 For me and my family, we still watch and enjoy Star Wars - but I am convinced that the saga needs to be enjoyed in the context of knowing what Scripture actually teaches about the universe, God, the Person of Jesus, the Person of the Holy Spirit, and the nature of Good and Evil.  In this way the movies can be a critical thinking tool as well as awesome entertainment.  When making comparisons and observing parallels we must also be able to make and recognize the contrasts.  Without a well-grounded knowledge of the contrasts, Star Wars could prove a stumbling block for a Christian who is more well-versed in the Star Wars universe and Jedi teachings than in the real (God's) universe and Christian Scripture.  Illegitimate parallels and comparisons could easily be made - leading to a non-Biblical view of goodness and of God.  Sadly, this would be the danger for many in modern watered-down Christian larger community.  As awesome as Yoda and Obi-Wan are, a Christian should not desire to be fully Jedi-like - or for that matter, fully Sith-like.  A Christian should seek to be Christ-like.

Old Catechism For The Young: Not Impossible At All

Since moving away from a somewhat conventional and broadly-evangelical seeker-sensitive church that never went too deep into historic Christian doctrine and into a more historically aware and doctrinally-defined practice and churches, I have come to appreciate the value of catechism.  Until that time, I had only heard the word "catechism" in the context of Roman Catholicism.  What a shame! I had no idea what it was!  Now, for my specific theological expression and practice I use the Westminster Shorter Catechism - a teaching tool composed in the mid-1600's.

A catechism is a series of logically-ordered questions and answers; each building upon the foundation of the preceding question and answer.  The mid 1600's saw the creation of both the "Shorter" and the "Larger" catechisms.  The "Shorter" was composed with the young and the (relatively) spiritually immature in mind.  The "Larger" catechism was composed for adults and the more advanced.  I like memorizing things - and I like to have answers to questions - so about a decade ago I started memorizing the 107 questions and answers of the Shorter Catechism.  This took me about two years.  Since that time.  For me and for many unaccustomed to specific, doctrinally-sound answers, the answers to many of these questions were not "short" at all!  However, they are very satisfying.

Here are the first seventeen (in bold):

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Q. 2. What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?
A. The word of God, which is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.

Q. 3. What do the scriptures principally teach?
A. The scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.

Q. 4. What is God?
A. God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.

Q. 5. Are there more Gods than one?

A. There is but one only, the living and true God.

Q. 6. How many persons are there in the godhead?
A. There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.

Q. 7. What are the decrees of God?
A. The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.

Q. 8. How doth God execute his decrees?
A. God executeth his decrees in the works of creation and providence.

Q. 9. What is the work of creation?
A. The work of creation is God's making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.

Q. 10. How did God create man?
A. God created man male and female, after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, with dominion over the creatures.

Q. 11. What are God's works of providence?
A. God's works of providence are his most holy, wise and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions.

Q. 12. What special act of providence did God exercise toward man in the estate wherein he was created?
A. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.

Q. 13. Did our first parents continue in the estate wherein they were created?
A. Our first parents, being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God.

Q. 14. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

Q. 15. What was the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created?
A. The sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created was their eating the forbidden fruit.

Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, 

descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.

Q. 17. Into what estate did the fall bring mankind?
A. The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.

I have found this kind of memorization very helpful in answering my own questions as well as answering the questions of others.  I can give the rote, memorized answer - or I can quickly mentally access and silently rehearse the rote memorized answer and then regurgitate it in a more simplified or modern-English version for the questioner.  

Early on, after I was convinced of the usefulness of the catechism, I started teaching the whole family these questions and answers.  All it took was carving out a little time each day for practice.  It doesn't take more than 15-minutes a day.  I also became aware of a more modern catechism versions specifically made for children.  My initial thought toward these versions was "why?"  That is, why create an even shorter catechism than the one already called "Shorter"?  Why create an even shorter and more simplified version for 20th and 21st century children when ordinary non-genius 17th century children were able to memorize the original "Shorter" catechism.  These are still my sentiments now!  

Here is my encouragement for you: You may look at the questions and answers and think they are long.  You may wonder how a young child can do this.  Let me tell you that both you and they can - if only you take the time.  I've successfully done so with my two oldest daughters - both beginning at roughly age eight.  I'm also currently doing so with my son (age seven) and my youngest daughter (age five).  They are both learning and progressing well.  We are currently at question 17, and we have been going at the pace of one question every 1-2 weeks. Two weeks for the longer questions and answers; one week for the shorter and easier ones.  What I am most impressed with is the ability of my five-year-old to memorize these questions and answers.  I did not even intend to formally catechize her until she was at least six - but since I was taking the after-dinner time to catechize her older brother (which also served as review for the older sisters who had gone through the whole thing already) she was being exposed to the information and hearing the recitation.  She eagerly expressed her desire to try answering the questions the rest of the family was getting!  So, I thought "why not?" She was four-years-old at that point.  It's been more than four months since I started including her, and since that time she has demonstrated her ability to memorize these questions and answers.  Needless to say, this has pleased and encouraged me.  To keep it low-pressure, I keep the time investment to about 15-minutes per day and I don't press her as hard as I press the older kids.  This keeps it a fun and do-able challenge for her.  

I encourage and recommend any and all my Christian brothers and sisters to start catechism practice as a family.  Just make it a habit and stick to it.  Before you know it, you will have 10+ questions and answers memorized and so will your kids.  Keep it low-pressure though!

Starting Points Matter In The Life Issue

In the Life/Abortion issue, recognizing starting points is vitally important.  Starting points can also profoundly influence the way words are used - so in this way words are important too.  One thing I always see as a red flag is the way words are being used.  When you see something like: "This is what people trying trying to restrict a woman's right to choose actually think and say."  It's the "right to choose" verbiage that I find so insidious - because at face value it sounds so innocuous.  The object of the choice is many times left out.  I suspect it is because it would quickly become apparent that this is not the "right to choose" which gas station to fuel your car at, which ice cream to buy, which clothes to wear, or even which health plan to select - but rather something much more serious.  Many times some detail is added, but it will be something like "...what to do with her own body" or something using the words "reproductive rights" or "family planning."  The word "abortion" (i.e. "...right to have an abortion") is even sometimes used.  The pro-choice side, in order to be intellectually honest, needs to be very upfront.  It needs to say "...right to choose death without a trial and without any means of defense for the little human being inside her."  That's pretty long, so maybe it should be "...right to choose death for an innocent human being."

Starting points.  What I said about starting points earlier amounts to this: The Pro-Choice side either denies the humanity, the personhood, or the equal value (compared to post-utero human beings) of the unborn human in the womb.  The Pro-Life side vigorously AFFIRMS those three things.  Given the starting points of the Pro-Choice side, whether it be one or all three, its easy to see why it thinks it is utter madness and ridiculousness for the Pro Life side to want to legally restrict or ban abortion.  It's also easy to see why the Pro-Life side will seek to legally ban abortion at any stage including abortion in the case of rape.  Some pro-lifers will waver at the "any stage" or waver in cases of rape, but I think this severely weakens their case against abortion in general.  After all, if the little human life is an innocent human being, why is it OK to put it to death for the crime of the biological father? Or, if  the little human being is very very small and/or undeveloped (think first few weeks of pregnancy) and thereby more OK to put them to death, then why wouldn't it be more OK to give less legal protection (i.e. permit the killing of) the Down-Syndrome (or simply less-intelligent or disabled) person to death?  For that matter, why wouldn't it be OK to legally put a senile Grandpa to death over you or me...or put me to death over a super-genius or super-athlete.  The examples abound.  So, keep starting points in mind when you analyze the statements or Pro-Life people, including bumbling pro-life congressmen who should have more polished answers.

Does it matter if a pro-lifer stumbles at or doesn't know the answer to why a woman would seek an abortion?  No.  Why?  Because, given his starting point (see paragraph above) the answer to the question is irrelevant.  In other words, if it is the legal protection of innocent human life we're talking about, knowing the reasons someone would want to take those lives is of 2nd order importance, not first.  Take this example: You want to give legal protection to children against adult-child sex and sex acts.  Currently (in the alternate reality I'm inviting you to for this example...or it could be ancient Greece) adult-child sex and sex acts is legal.  Many will say it's even a "good" thing.  You however, know it's wrong.  You believe that a child should be legally protected against the power and control of a sexually -hungry adult.  You see the harm and the wrongness of popular practice, but you have not seriously investigated why an adult might want to seek out children for sex and have sex with them.  The interviewer asks you "What do you think makes an adult male want to have sex with a child?"  You give a stammering "I don't know" kind of answer.  Well, now you're disqualified from legislating against things you don't understand, right?  Wrong!  In the same way, the congressman doesn't need to understand the motivations of the woman seeking an abortion.  He just needs to understand the status of the object he is trying to protect (i.e. why it should be protected.)   Granted, the congressman would do well to polish-up his interview skills and be ready for all types of questions likely to be asked, but a  bumbling answer to the question regarding a woman's situation or a woman's motivation does not disqualify the congressmen (or anyone) from the argument.

About "Reproductive Rights" language:  Legal rights should not include the right to kill an innocent human being who has committed no crime.  All the pregnancy hardship and other womens' hardship cases in the world don't change the fact that the Pro-Choice side favors taking away legal protection of life from the most innocent of human beings.  I shudder to think that this is supposed to be subsumed under the umbrellas of "Reproductive Health."  Health?  Seriously?  Whose health?  Abortions "safe" and "rare"?  Whose safety?  Even if the mother is kept safe 100% of the time (which won't happen - even with the best technology), a 'successful' abortion results in the death of an innocent human being 100% of the time.  Again, starting points are important.

A Short Easter Message

Whether you call today's holiday "Easter" or whether you call it "Resurrection Sunday" - or even if you follow the Puritan example and don't celebrate a specially designated day at all, the message I want to share and celebrate with you is the same - and it is appropriate for every day of the year:  He is risen!  Jesus rose from the grave and lives forevermore! He conquered Death!  

The message of the resurrection was so central to the apostles that Paul vigorously argued in his first letter to the Corinthians that their faith was "vain" (i.e. empty, useless, without worth) if indeed Christ was not raised.  Yes, both they and we who trust in Him are still dead in our sins if he is not in fact raised. Truly, this stuff is important - because if we are still dead in our sins then there is no hope for escaping the just wrath of a Holy God.  Christ is the Last Adam - not a failure like the first.  He is the Perfect Prophet, Priest, and King.  He is the Unblemished and Perfect Lamb.  He is also the Lion.  He is the Bread from Heaven.  He is the Good Shepherd.  He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  He is The Resurrection and the Life. (John 11:25).  Right now, he stands at the right hand of the Father and makes perfect intercession for His sheep. 

I encourage you to read through the gospel accounts of His death, burial, and resurrection.  If you don't read all four, read at least John's Gospel.  I also encourage you to read 1 Corinthians 15 - where Paul labors the point of the importance of the resurrection.  May you find perfect peace and rest in Jesus Christ.

Being In Adam

[Note: I made some minor changes (links to cited Scripture and better explanation of the participation concept) the morning of 4.6.2014]




Several nights a week after dinner I lead my family through catechism practice.  We use the Westminster Shorter Catechism, and have been taking 1-2 weeks for each question.  This evening we started a new catechism question, question 16: 

Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.

This question is perhaps one of the most significant questions out there - and when explored beyond a surface level, the most enigmatic.  The question is important because if not all mankind fell, then "The Fall" was not as significant an event as Christianity historically posits it to be.  Why?  Because if the The Fall did not involve all mankind (i.e. was not universal) then there is the possibility that there are some people out there who have not sinned - and thus would not need a savior.  I will not explore all the necessary implications of this, but suffice to say it would change our view of mankind, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  

I said in the previous paragraph that I will not explore all the implications of a non-universal fall, but I will touch on one: If there are some people out there who do not share in the sin nature and indeed have not sinned, then the problem of evil and the problem of pain becomes much trickier.  The "thorns" of daily life and toil, the presence of death and disease, and the pain, suffering, and sadness these non-sin nature sinless people experience (like the rest of us do) would be unjust.  We could justly ascribe unjustness to God for causing all these things - since these things would affect the unfallen person as well as the fallen person.  For God to be just, the presence of the little "thorns" in life as well as the great calamities needs to be deserved.

We might resort to postulating that while Adam's posterity might not have automatically fallen at his fall, none of his posterity would be able to live a sinless life in thought and action.  That is, just like Adam, they would have to choice whether to choose Good or Evil but would, like Adam, not be able to withstand the temptation of evil.  This sounds good - until you think about babies, severely mentally-deficient people, and the unborn.  How could any sort of pain, sorrow, death, or calamity be "deserved" for these types of people?  If we say they are not deserving of it, we immediately are confronted with creepy solutions of the Andrea Yates variety (i.e. killing them while they are "pure" to ensure they go to heaven.)  Yes, this is creepy stuff - but how do we escape the seeming rationality of that kind of 'solution' unless we posit that we are all fallen and that there is not one innocent among us?

I love my seven-year-old son, and I love his questions.  He's a very thoughtful boy.  He immediately had questions of his own when I introduced WSC Question #16.  He wondered how we could have sinned "in Adam."  He wondered how we know we would do the same thing as Adam if we had been in The Garden.  He was pretty sure that he (my son) would not disobey as Adam had.  Isn't that the way many of us think? I tried the best I could to explain that he in fact would do the same thing - that in fact we all would.  I mentioned the fact that he does and thinks things everyday that he knows are wrong - and so do his parents! With this obvious fact in front of us, what makes us so sure we would be able to withstand the Serpent's craftiness and be perfectly obedient in that context...continually and forever?

I also explained the concept of representation to him.  This can be found fairly clearly in Romans 5:12-21 as well as 1 Corinthians 15:22, although it is also implicitly found throughout all of Scripture. Adam perfectly represented us.  As our congressmen and sports teams represent us and we necessarily share in both their victories and their failures, Adam perfectly represented us.  However, Adam perfectly represented us - because he was specially appointed by God to be our representative.  Our sports teams and congressmen are chosen by us - fallible human beings who do not possess all the facts and who also have very uncertain and fickle judgment.  I explained the concept of God standing outside of the timeline yet acting freely at all points in the timeline while we ourselves are time-bound and cannot do the same thing.  God, standing outside the timeline, possessing all the facts, knowing the end from the beginning, and working all things according to the counsel of His will, appointed Adam as our representative.  We, those of us who lived at any point in subsequent history, in some mysterious but nonetheless very real way, were so perfectly represented by Adam that in the main current of Christian theological history we have been said to be "in Adam" and to have sinned "in Adam."  This identification is so close to actual participation that the "Realist" view (i.e. that we and all mankind were in fact there and participated in Adam's sin) was formally postulated by St. Augustine and has been a viable and orthodox interpretation throughout Christian history.  Whether federally imputed to mankind by perfect representation or whether by some mysterious kind of actual participation, both views leave us with a fallen nature and thereby make sense of all the trials and tribulations we face - which would in either view be perfectly just and perfectly deserved.  This is deep! This is the stuff that makes theology so exciting for me - but also the stuff that makes things very frustrating for a seven-year-old boy.  

I did not have all the answers though.  No one does except for Him to whom we owe worship and all adoration and thanks.  Things are the most interesting when we don't have all the answers, but do have enough to understand the problem and make sense of some kind of solution.  When we don't understand the problem and have no answers it's boring - especially when we're not even able to identify that there is a problem at all.  When we have (or think we have) all the answers to something it becomes uninteresting and boring as well - because there is nothing left to explore; nothing to investigate.  I love my son.  I love him all the more because he cares about stuff.  He identifies weighty issues and he seeks to investigate - as I am convinced we all should.

Eschatological Wars

A picture is worth one-thousand words - figuratively speaking.

Shortly into the Bible study, Greedo discovers that Han doesn't agree with his eschatology.

Health and Happiness

What I have to say here originated as a response (commentary) to someone's Facebook post.  The post was a brief statement pointing out a correlation between poor heart health and hostility, patience, and holding grudges.  Some thoughts immediately came to mind.  The following paragraph is just a minor edit of my Facebook commentary.

 I think it has to do something with being comfortable in your own skin - and your heart is like your life-force.  It is your primary pump.  If it ceases to function, you die.  Also, activities that strengthen it also strengthen and improve the health of the rest of your body. You're with your body 24 hrs a day, and are especially aware of it during waking hours. If you have a malfunctioning and/or sluggish and inefficient body, this has got to be more frustrating than driving a put-put unreliable engine-stalls-on you kind of car. After all, you can easily remove yourself from the car and get back in. You can't do the same with your body. The frustration and misery must be compounded if the situation is such that you KNOW you could do better and that much or all of the blame points to yourself. This has to be a terrible feeling!  People who have an unavoidable disease or unavoidable physical hardship are in a completely different category.  I don't think they would become nearly as negatively affected (i.e. hostility, impatience, holding grudges) because they know they've done their part; there is no personal gnashing of teeth regarding "coulda's" and shoulda's." They can even look upon their hardship as a challenge to be fought valiantly - and in doing so can be an inspiration for others. 

For most of us, we know we can do more.  We know we can take better care of ourselves and honor our God-given gift of life.  Far from being just a selfish pursuit or something that just affects you, taking care of yourself is a way to make things better for others - and in some way take care of them too.

My Christian Testimony

I thought it may interest some to hear about my Christian testimony.  I'll try and be brief - but I don't think I'll succeed in this brevity goal...

From my earliest memories I remember some kind of knowledge of and affection for Jesus.  I can't remember a time in which I came to believe in God or trust in Jesus.  From my earliest memories, I always did.  There was no "I was saved" moment for me. This is perhaps one of the best gifts parents can give a child - to be brought up in "...the nurture and admonition of the Lord"(Eph. 6) in a way that Christ was always in his mind as the Savior, Lord, and also his Friend.

As a child, I thought of my mom as a spiritual rock.  She constantly exercised what I later came to know as Christian virtues.  She was and still is a kind of human "Giving Tree"(remember the Shel Silverstein book?)  She also defended the faith.  I can remember arguing against divine creation and FOR naturalistic Darwinian evolution after reading much from our copious collection of Time-Life books - all coming from naturalistic presuppositions.  Mom patiently and lovingly listened to my questions (while she washed dishes) and responded with reason and Biblical faith.  Her answers are not the intellectual debate-winning type I seek and try to use now, but they are the type that demonstrate conviction and ones I still respect.  I admire her for the way she lovingly dealt with my bouts of near-agnosticism.

My dad modeled all the Christian virtues, but I later came to discover he probably didn't have the faith in the One who is the Foundation for these.  My dad was and continues to be something of an enigma concerning his spirituality and spiritual convictions.  Possessing orthodox Christian faith or not, my dad was an is as close as many will get meeting a Jesus - type man.  I don't mean to flirt with blasphemy when I say this.  All I'm trying to say is that as far as his character and actions are concerned, people are hard-pressed to find fault with him.  His honesty and integrity is undeniable, and I love this about him.  I want to be like him.  Even if I were not a Christian, the compelling influence of my dad and the character he possessed would push me to live as a Christian should - but many fail at.  I continually pray he will come to know, love, and cling to Christ.

Mom always made it to church if she could.  It was pretty much expected and required I go to.  This was just normal.  I didn't consider questioning it! We attended two different First Baptist churches during my youth.  Dad didn't attend most of the time; most Sundays he was working - putting food on the table and presents under the tree by his hard work.  Of course, as I alluded to earlier, he might not have preferred to go to church anyway.  I actually don't gravitate towards churchiness myself - but I understand it is a good thing to go and congregational worship is not only assumed but also commanded by Scripture.  Dad and I share a certain uncomfortableness being in groups and crowds - so if I wasn't convinced that church-going was a good thing, I'd probably lead a more monk-cell-type worship life.  Anyways,  I was baptized at age 12.  I know this pleased my mom, but it was not just to please her.  I had and continued to have a real faith in Jesus Christ the Savior.  I met my future wife (the one I'm married to now) in church.  It was the 2nd of the two First Baptist churches I attended as a youth.  We were married at that certain First Baptist Church.

My Christian faith was real, but it was not particularly theologically deep.  I didn't know it then, but I later came to discover the type of worship and type of teaching I was getting at the churches I grew up in was not particularly deep either.  I always had Christian faith, but it would be weak at times.  I know I frightened my wife a little with my interest in reading Isaac Asimov's Guide To The Bible as well as my 'Devil's advocate' type of questions I would frequently bring up early in our marriage.  I was reading solid and dense stuff from non-believers but had been fed less substantial stuff from a believing (Christian) perspective.  Early in my marriage my wife and I were invited to attend some meetings with some friends I met from work.  They were very friendly and as far as I knew, the teaching was Biblical.  However, I wanted to make sure I knew what we were getting into.  This concern was the initial catalyst, providentially-ordered, for a major strengthening of my faith and a renewing of my way of thinking.

My concern for finding out what we were getting into launched me into finding out about the historical tenets of the Christian faith I had always professed.  I immediately began reading from authors defending and explaining the Faith; I became immersed in books of the Apologetics genre - the defense of the Christian faith.  I cut my teeth on R.C. Sproul.  I also read some other Christian apologists and writers and thus broadened my perspective a little more.  This was also my introduction to historically "Reformed" Christianity; the Protestantism of the Reformation.  I really hadn't known what a Calvinist was or what an Arminian was before this point.  Now I did.  As it turned out, I was attending a theologically Arminian church (not "Armenian" but "Arminian") which espoused a futuristic dispensational eschatology.  However, I was not these things - or at least was now not these thing.  No matter, I would still attend because it was still a Christian Church - just with some non-essential differences.  By the way, my personal reading and study shortly convinced me that the group we had been meeting with was a group I did not want us to meet with any longer.  I don't know whatever happened to those friends.  We lost touch.

A turning point soon happened which caused us to leave the church we had been attending.  The church was allowing a woman to guest-pastor on Sundays the regular pastor was out.  The reading I had been doing for many months by that time had convinced me that Scripture teaches a certain division of labor and a certain order to the way a church runs and who holds office.  The fact that our church was letting a women guest-pastor when I'm pretty sure there were men who were Biblically-qualified to do it was a problem for me.  I sent a lengthy e-mail to the regular pastor regarding my problem with this.  I used Scripture, reason, and asked questions.  He didn't give me the sort of thoughtful and careful response I was looking for.  Without waxing long about this, his apparent lack-of-concern for the question caused me to look elsewhere for a church home for me and my young family.  We soon found one.  I now knew how to theologically describe myself.  I was Christian, but I was also Reformed, Presbyterian, and Postmillennial.  The most important thing though is that knowing God and Scripture had become important for me - and important for my wife.  I will call many non-Reformed, non-Presbyterian, non-Postmillennial Christians "brothers" and "sisters" in Christ - but I cannot honestly regard a "Christian" who doesn't care or who is indifferent about the Scripture or knowing God as real Christian.  We may come to some different conclusions about certain non-essential theological and eschatological points, but can a true Christian be indifferent about knowing God or Scripture?

Though admittedly a little Spock-like much of the time, I also have some inherited emotional tendencies I think come from mom.  I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing.  It's actually a good thing when it's governed by the bedrock of Scripture instead of governed by our own sinful and deceitful hearts.  When I first began to explore and realize the majesty of God, His sovereignty, His depth, his Tri-Unity, His Awesomeness, the loftiness and Authority of Scripture, the multi-dimensional aspects of Jesus and richness of His teaching, the profundity of Love - and how it is much more and much deeper than the type taught and absorbed by popular culture - well, I would frankly have weeping moments.  I still do. I would have them while driving and doing other solitary things - not around others.  Mom is a weeper too.  What joy it was to imbibe God's word!  What a joy it is to trust in God's Providence!  I would read the Bible, memorize Scripture, and read books about the Bible as much as I could. Whereas I always had Christian faith, it felt stronger and more meaningful at this point.  My wife's own faith changed and strengthened too.

In order not to make this blog post into a super-long entry, I'll close it up now.  My wife and I are Christians.  We can talk about deep issues together and with our kids.  Our kids profess trust in Christ.  I have no reason not to believe any of them.  This is a wonderful comfort and happiness for me.  I love the Faith and the life that God has given me.  It is all His gift - not something I have earned or merited in any way.  Man is fallen and has a sin problem.  We are separated from God.  God has provided a Perfect Savior in the Person of Jesus Christ the Son.  He stands in for those who trust in Him.  He stands in for sinful me who would never have a relationship with the Father if it wasn't for the work of the Son.  He lovingly sustains us and causes me to joy.  He causes me to consider eternity and not be afraid.  He gives purpose to my life, my marriage, and my family-raising other than the empty and fleeting goals of materialism and, "having fun."  I have plenty of fun, but it's a better and richer type of fun than I think I would have had otherwise.  Perhaps one of the most important things I've come to understand is that life is not all about me or about you; it's about God and His Glory.  This is really key, and it's what I think enlightened saints through the ages have come to understand.  Paradoxically, if you understand that life is about God and His Glory, you will end up having more joy yourself!  In fact, you will have more joy than if you focused on your own joy.  I hope this helps you on your journey.

The Polygamy Question

Recent court cases in Utah as well as the "slippery-slope" argument many Christians make based on current mostly-secular attempts to re-define marriage (e.g. "same-sex" or "gay" marriage) made me think about polygamy.  No, it didn't cause me to consider polygamy for myself...but it caused me to think about the history of the institution and whether it might be employed or accepted again in the church as well as outside of the church.  For the record, I am NOT an advocate of polygamy nor do I believe the Bible approves in it in the same way it does man+woman marriage.  However, I think there are several issues that we need to be aware of - especially Christians who either will lump polygamy in the same Biblical category as same-sex marriage or who will caution that it (polygamy) is just the next step in the slippery slope down from acceptance of same-sex marriage.  Below you will some thoughts of mine, lifted and edited from (as usual) some Facebook comments I made to a post. 

One would expect that the Scripture would have a stronger condemnation against heterosexual polygamy - akin to the indisputable and obvious condemnation (death sentence for example) it offers against homosexual activity.  Since a marriage implies sexual activity, it stands to reason that a homosexual "marriage" would be equally condemned by God even though the Bible itself is silent concerning the prohibition of same-sex/homosexual marriage - but this is because marriage is already defined in Scripture by Jesus in Matthew 19 and Genesis 2 as a union between a man and a woman.  Therefore, the Bible simply does not consider same-sex "marriage" to be marriage, so it doesn't talk about it.  However, even though Scripture defines marriage as a union between TWO of the opposite sex, we often find instances of one man + multiple wives which are not condemned outright.  In fact, often these same men are praised by God - albeit for things other than their plural marriage.  To make a thought comparison, one would not expect a homosexual Jacob or other patriarch, or a homosexual King David (No, don't even try and suggest he and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship) to receive like praise and blessing from God as the Biblical polygamous Jacob and David do.  I believe one could even envision a church or churches, otherwise orthodox, and especially those strongly advocating "patriarchy" (father-rule) becoming either tacitly or boldly accepting of polygamous marriages in the near-future provided that the husbands in such marriages do not seek church office - (since there is explicit Biblical instruction regarding that those seeking and keeping church office be husbands of ONE wife.)

If the Church is faced with polygamous families and men seeking church membership, I think families and men should be welcomed.  Divorcing or "putting away" wives who are probably significantly dependent on the husband's financial provision - not to mention the damage caused by severance of children/mother ties that would necessarily ensue, would be cruel and sinful in God's eyes unless it were a direct command coming from Him. However, those in such marriages should not seek church office and should also be confirmed to acknowledge that the God-given design of marriage is 1 man + + 1 woman.  Traditional, Biblical, Jesus-defined 1 man + 1 woman marriages should continue to be promoted by the Church as God's preferred arrangement.   

What about polygamous marriage and the secular culture?  What about polygamous marriages and theologically liberal churches?  I think the modern mainstream/liberal "Church" will be loathe to accept polygamy even though they are quick to accept and embrace homosexuality and same-sex "marriage." In other words, though acceptance may be a logical slippery slope, the logical slippery slope would not necessarily result in acceptance. Why? Homosexuality and same-sex marriage is acceptable to the secular culture of the West - and the churches who follow the "world" rather than the WORD (or who follow the WORD only when it agrees with the "world") object to polygamy not because it doesn't conform to Scripture's definition of marriage, but because they believe it subordinates women. In other words, it goes completely against the Feminist agenda and would move womens' rights (as they see it) backward more than Biblical man-woman marriage.  Therefore, polygamy and polygamous marriage would be abhorrent to them.  For them (these churches) polygamy would always be extreme and unacceptable; homosexuality and same-sex marriage loving and acceptable.

Here's another thought: Even though the The LDS "Church" is known historically for its past practice of polygamy, the LDS church (now) actually has better grounds to militate against polygamy than traditional Bible-believing Christians - especially Sola Scriptura Reformation-minded Protestant Christians. Why? They (Mormons) don't have a closed canon. They always have a living "apostle" to steer the ship - doctrinally and otherwise. So, when their then-living prophet said that polygamy was to be no more, they were internally consistent when they subsequently abandoned it and forbade it.  The Roman Catholic Church also will have an easier time being internally consistent regarding prohibition of polygamy; they have the Magisterium and the pope.  Biblical Protestant Christians on the other hand don't have that handy "thus saith the Lord" type of condemnation ready to issue.  It will be interesting to see history unfold.  For as for me and my house, we're staying non-polygamous!  

The Clock Stops For No One

As I get older, I have become more aware - or at least dwell more upon - the passage of time.  Thirty-five used to be "middle-aged" to me.  Now it is my age.  Time doesn't stop for anyone.  What shall I do within the time allotted to me?  Lengthy self-examination often just leaves me feeling wasteful and selfish in the end.  The time to act is now.  Find time for reflection and navel-gazing, but not too much.  I have found some ways to combat over-reflection and the stress and waste it often produces.

Why do I enjoy long distance running and other exercise so much?  One of the reasons could be that both I and others find that the dizzying array of options are cut down to just a few while engaged in a long training session.  There are only so many things one can do while running or cycling after all.  Mental/emotional/psychological peace is gained when the time at hand and its usage is made simple.  Perhaps it a good time for the reflection and navel-gazing I mentioned earlier.  This can be done as you tick off the miles.  If not reflection (which I slip into all too easily), it is a good time for listening via i-pod to lectures, books, or music.  It is also a good time for blunting pain of other sorts.  The physical discomfort of exertion has a way of submerging emotional and mental pain.  Sometimes, the harder the better.  Finishing your planned distance is also a concrete "done" feeling.  It is a task completed - and with an endorphin high to boot.  The run (or the ride) mirrors the run/race of life.  We all have our appointed course.  We all run our course, and hope to finish well.

I get impatient with those who claim boredom in their lives.  How can there be boredom?  There is so much to do!  Open the eyes, open the ears, realize that there is a finite amount of time allotted to this mortal life, and get passionate about something...but don't stress about it.  Find what you're good at, and then do it!  What you're good at will often be the thing or things which you can find true enjoyment in.  Don't beat your head against the wall trying to do those things for which you have no aptitude for.  Don't do too many things, but do a few things - and do them well.  Accept the fact that you will not be good at everything - or even many things.  Accept that you will not have time for many things - and that if you try and find the time for them it will end in frustration, stress, and disappointment.  I have found this works for me.  At least, it helps make life more enjoyable.  Use time well.  The clock stops for no one.  

Going Back To The World That Was

I have to admit that as much as I find religion and politics important and necessary areas of thought and other engagement, I often wish to escape from all concern of them and the unavoidable divisions they make manifest - and to go back to a time of blissful ignorance when the only world to care about was the house and yard around me, and my parents were the two smartest, wisest, strongest, and fastest people in the world.  The closest I get to this now is to escape for a  long run or bike ride, and then to come back home to my kids to play the part my parents played to me.  Oh how I must savor this time!  It is to be a hero in someone's eyes, and in a world not yet made complicated.

Vain Raging and Hopeful Attempts at Breaking Restraining Cords

It's been a while, hasn't it?  However, recent events and postings from others have inspired me to post.  My thought for the day is from the Psalms (Psalm 2):

 1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people murmur in vain.
 2 The kings of the earth band themselves, and the Princes are assembled together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
 3 Let us break their bands, and cast their cords from us.
 4 But he that dwelleth in the heaven shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

...and another from Paul's letter to the Romans:
31 Which men, though they knew the Law of God, how that they which commit such things are worthy of death, yet not only do the same, but also favor them that do them.


The voice of the people ("vox populi") is not the voice of God ("vox Dei").  Furthermore, God is the only origin of what may be properly called "fundamental rights."  We mock God and provoke his wrath when we put ourselves in His place, ignore his law and limits, and pretend we are speaking for Him.