[Editor’s Note: AP auxiliary staff writer Dr. Stearsman holds an M.A. in Bioethics and Medical Humanities from the University of South Florida, as well as the Doctor of Pharmacy degree from the University of Florida. He has taught courses in the University of South Florida College of Medicine and the University of Florida College of Pharmacy.]

Q:

Can vaccines be used in good conscience if the vaccine was developed using tissue from aborted fetuses?

A:

In 2015 a group by the name of Center for Medical Progress set up a fake company called Biomax that infiltrated Planned Parenthood, exposing some of its inner workings.¹ Biomax interviewed people in high positions and exposed how Planned Parenthood stood to profit from abortions by selling recovered fetal tissue to researchers. The videos ignited a media frenzy and sent shock waves throughout the nation. In response, Raegan McDonald-Mosley, the Chief Medical Officer for Planned Parenthood, denied any wrongdoing in The New England Journal of Medicine as he reported that 1% of approximately 700 health centers nationwide assist patients who wish to donate fetal tissue following abortion.²

Advancing to 2020 with the race to find a safe and effective vaccine for treating COVID-19, questions have arisen concerning the development of potential vaccine candidates from aborted fetal cell lines. In June of 2019 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) suspended funding for research within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) where acquisition of new fetal tissue would be required.³ While contracts within the NIH that use new fetal cell lines have been discontinued,⁴ cell lines from decades-old aborted fetuses are still being used in developing a vaccine candidate.⁵ If a candidate is developed from decade-old fetal cell lines, would consenting to vaccines or administering vaccines be justified in God’s eyes? Can a straight line be drawn from abortion to patient use?

Examining the morality of vaccine use involves looking at individual patient choices in view of the larger public and global health. Vaccines are intended either to prevent or treat disease.⁶ Individual patients vaccinate to prevent or treat disease that ultimately could be fatal. From a public health perspective, vaccines are intended to protect the larger public from disease and possible death but, as with any human action, it is important to consider God’s thinking on the matter before acting.⁷

The History and Origin of Vaccines

For more than 80 years, aborted human embryos and fetuses have been used to research and develop vaccines.⁸ As far back as the 1930s, Olitsky and others used brain tissue from human embryos to grow poliovirus.⁹ Since that time, vaccines against measles, rubella, chickenpox, shingles, rabies, Hepatitis A, and polio have been created using fetal tissue.¹⁰ In addition to vaccines, fetal cell lines are used in research or treatments for Parkinson Disease,¹¹ HIV, Hepatitis B and C, retinal disease, and fetal development.¹² In 2014, the National Institutes of Health funded 164 projects using fetal tissue totaling $76 million and more than $152 million in embryonic stem cell research for the same period.¹³

Several prominent cell lines exist that are the products of abortion. HEK-293 is a cell line that originated from the kidney cells of an aborted embryo from 1972¹⁴ and that is cited in more than 28,000 articles.¹⁵ This cell line is commonly used in gene therapy where adenovirus is used to deliver experimental genes.¹⁶ Other cell lines include: PER.C6 which was isolated from the retinal cells of an 18-week-old fetus in 1985,¹⁷ WI-38 from lung tissue of an aborted 12-week-old fetus, and MRC-5 from lung tissue of an abortion of a 14-week-old fetus.¹⁸ The WI-38 cell line goes back to a single abortion in 1961.¹⁹ To be clear, these cell lines do not require multiplied continual abortions today, but rather are the product of single abortions that happened decades ago. ²⁰

The Language of Abortion

Understanding the language of abortion is essential in examining questions of conscience since sometimes the technical language can be quite confusing.²¹ The way doctors may technically use terms may be quite different from the way the public uses them. In medical texts, like Williams Gynecology, abortions are distinguished as either therapeutic or elective (voluntary) and either spontaneous or induced.²² The language in medicine can be confusing and disturbing to mothers. For example, a physician might call a spontaneous delivery (miscarriage) an abortion because pregnancy ends.²³ If a mother were to hear this verbiage she might be shocked, especially when she bears no moral guilt for the fetal demise and when the death was clearly out of her control. Morally, such cases are quite different than when a mother aborts for economic reasons, convenience, rape, or incest. Electively killing the unborn is a conscious choice made by some mothers and supported medically by practitioners and abortion advocates.

Streamlining the Moral Questions

Moral concerns are voiced in how vaccines are researched. If vaccines are created from research that uses embryos or fetal tissue recovered from an elective abortion, can one in good conscience consent to the use of the vaccine for himself or a loved one (e.g., child)? The concern here is that consenting to a vaccine makes one a participant in abortion or, at the very least, implies an endorsement of abortion. What are the grounds of this concern? Are vaccine users contributing to the death of the unborn?

In analyzing this multifaceted issue, two clear moral questions arise. First, is it moral to abort?  Second, is it moral to use aborted tissue? Morally, these are two distinct acts.  In examining the moral and scientific evidence, let us examine if one can morally consent to a vaccine while not consenting to abortion. Or, is consenting to certain vaccines necessarily consenting to, or even encouraging in some way, abortion?

Moral Principles and Abortion

Morally, there are several principles that come into play in examining abortion. One principle is that human life, including the life of the unborn, is ultimately valued by God Who created man in His image (Genesis 1:27).  God gives and sustains the very breath of life of all mankind (Genesis 1:30; 2:7; Acts 17:25). The ancients understood that life had value prior to birth (cf. Exodus 21:22-25). Roughly 700 years prior to Christ, God said: “Ephraim’s glory shall fly away like a bird–no birth, no pregnancy, no conception” (Hosea 9:11, ESV). From this passage, there can be no doubt that those of old possessed some knowledge of maternal changes and fetal development. Job and Jeremiah understood the value of human life prior to birth (Job 3:1-3,11; 10:18-19; Jeremiah 20:14-18). This life created by God possesses dignity that calls for respect and sanctity that calls for reverence.²⁴

Second, human life is not only valued, but the destruction of innocent human life is condemned by God (Proverbs 6:16-17, Deuteronomy 19:10, Psalms 72:12-14). Elective abortion destroys innocent human life when pregnancy is terminated.  This taking of innocent human life is condemned by God (Mark 7:21).

Third, a human owes a duty to his neighbor (Luke 10:25-37). This involves looking to exactly when a human becomes a neighbor. A human becomes a neighbor precisely at the point of fertilization—the joining of sperm and egg.²⁵ Prior to fertilization no specific or separate human existed. God says that man has a duty to love his neighbor as himself (Matthew 22:39). Elective abortion violates the Golden Rule that states whatever we wish others would do to us, we should do to them (Matthew 7:12). Note that one’s relationship to his neighbor is not predicated on how he has been treated—the principle of reciprocity. Instead, God entreats a higher moral standard to treat people how “we wish” they treated us. The Golden Rule points to a higher moral framework, a Divine path that acts, instead of reacts. Every mother that practices abortion deprives a separate life of the opportunity that she enjoys. The glory of this distinct life that is so dependent on her is tragically cut off. These three principles prove that the act of abortion is sinful. But what about the second question: is it moral to use aborted tissue?

Research and Being Complicit

To answer this question, the moral principle of complicity needs to be considered. One is complicit when he consents to the acts of others, either for good or for evil. If one grants approval to evil, one bears culpability and guilt in that evil act (Romans 1:32).²⁶ Interestingly, there seems to be no market or bank of tissue deposits that come from miscarriages or instances of natural fetal demise. The majority, if not all, of the fetal tissue comes from elective abortions. Does that mean that research on vaccines encourages abortions? Can a direct line from abortion be drawn to patients who use them?

Although recent limitations have been enacted, in public research there is certainly a market for the tissue of the unborn. The Federal Government recognized that this market may create unethical incentives and has set up certain restrictions that Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) monitor for compliance so that human subjects are protected in research. That federal statute states:

§45 CFR 46.204 Research involving pregnant women or fetuses.

• ~ (a) – (g)
• (h) No inducements, monetary or otherwise, will be offered to terminate a pregnancy;
• (i) Individuals engaged in the research will have no part in any decisions as to the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate a pregnancy; and
• (j) Individuals engaged in the research will have no part in determining the viability of a neonate.²⁷

This statute intends to prevent research from increasing the number of abortions to achieve certain research ends. While there may be a desire to use aborted tissue, the researcher is put at a distance to prevent influencing one to abort. If the statute is followed, no direct line exists between researcher and abortion. The desire for tissue is separated from the actual cause of death. Therefore, a direct line from vaccine user to abortion does not exist.²⁸

Parallel in Organ Recovery

Tissue from organ donors is recovered after death in the United States for medical use and clinical research. Medical uses include a myriad of transplantation and graft procedures. Research uses are even broader and include donations for education. In medicine, the goal of these donations is to benefit a particular patient. In research, the goal is to advance general or applied knowledge on a topic.

There are several ethical risks that often surround organ donations or anatomical gifts. One is that medical staff will end the life of a person prematurely simply to recover their organs for some benefactor. State laws address and mitigate these issues head on by limiting incentives for providers in recovering organs. Hospital administrators will notify recovery organizations, but then largely step out of the way as separate staff recover vital organs. In the state of Florida, for example, an attending physician who certifies the death may not be paid or reimbursed for participation in organ recovery or be employed by a procurement organization.²⁹ In medical practice, those who care for those near the end of life (like attending physicians, hospitalists, or hospice providers) are different from those who recover the organs (the recovery organization).

One might wonder how organ recovery relates to the use of cell lines that originated from aborted fetal tissue. Where these two cases differ is in how one dies. In organ recovery cases, doctors attempted to preserve the life of the donor, and healing and comfort are offered up until death. In abortion, however, the unborn life is not offered this same courtesy.

What then is the similarity between organ recovery and tissue recovery following abortion? The parallel is that in both instances tissue is recovered following death.³⁰ Neither the need for organs nor the desire to advance research are the means by which death occurs or the impetus for it. Both merely involve how tissues are used after death has occurred.³¹ There are two distinct moral acts under consideration. One act is abortion, which is biblically wrong. Another act is the use of tissue after death which, in the case of vaccine research, has nothing to do with the mother’s decision to sinfully abort the child in the first place.

Conclusion

In summary, man should continue to stand against the evils of abortion. Further, viable embryos should be protected and not destroyed in the name of research or medical practice. Concerning the conscientious use of vaccines, there is no direct causal line between abortion and vaccine use. Given that the moral question of how one dies is materially different from what one does with the body after death, one can in good conscience consent to a vaccine without necessarily consenting to abortion.

Endnotes

The post Abortions & Vaccines appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure—then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing. The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”—here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it”’” (NIV).

Skeptics claim that these verses prove that the God of the Old Testament condones abortion. As Atheist John Hamill wrote: “The verses appear to describe explicit divine support for abortion. In fact, the context in which it seems that Yahweh approves of abortion, is when a husband wishes to force his wife to terminate a pregnancy (even against her will) if he suspects he may not be the biological father.”¹ Do these verses condone abortion?²

First, it is important to ask why the skeptic believes this passage discusses abortion. The bulk of the passage has to do with adultery and nowhere even mentions pregnancy. The accusation of condoning abortion is based primarily, if not entirely, on the final verses that say of the woman “your womb miscarry” and “may this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your womb miscarries.” In truth, the NIV in this case provides an unfortunate and inaccurate translation of the terms in the passage. Compare how these terms from verses 21 and 22 are translated in other versions.

NKJV: “when the Lord makes your thigh rot and your belly swell…and make your belly swell and your thigh rot.”

KJV: “when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell…to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot.”

ESV: “when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell…and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.”

ASV: “doth make thy thigh fall away, and thy body to swell…and make thy body to swell, and thy thigh fall away.”

Notice that other translations say nothing about a miscarriage or miscarrying. The term that the NIV translates “womb” is yarek. This word actually means “thigh, loin, side, or base.”³ It can be used to describe both males and females. It is used in Genesis 32:25 to describe the area that God wounded on Jacob when they wrestled, described as “the socket of his hip” (NKJV). It obviously could not have been Jacob’s “womb.” Judges 3:16 contains the word, describing Ehud’s dagger that he fastened “on his right thigh.” Furthermore, the term translated “miscarry” is the Hebrew word naphal, which means, “to fall, waste away, rot.”⁴ It can be used as broadly as an animal falling into a pit (as in Exodus 21:33), a sword falling from one’s hand (Ezekiel 30:22), or a violent or untimely death (Judges 5:27). The word could possibly be used to describe the death of an unborn infant, but is not in any way confined to the idea of a miscarriage and should only be translated as such when there is a very clear connection to a baby. When the word describes what happens to “the thigh” (yarek), there is no verbal connection to any type of pregnancy or child and should not be translated as miscarriage, which is why the other major translations say, “thigh fall away,” “thigh rot,” etc. Furthermore, it should be noted that the curse is directed at the woman. It is her thigh that shall rot off if she is found guilty of adultery. It is her belly, abdomen, or middle section that will swell. In order to accuse God or the Israelites of condoning abortion, there must be a clear statement or connection to an unborn baby in the text. Needless to say, that connection does not exist. Thus, we can dismiss the accusation that this passage proves that God was instructing the Israelites to perform abortion.

Let us then move on to what the passage actually discusses. In the context, if a man believes his wife has committed adultery, he takes her to the tabernacle where she is instructed to drink “holy water” that has some dust from the tabernacle floor and some type of parchment or paper fragments that are scraped into the water (Numbers 5:23). If the woman is innocent, then nothing adverse happens to her (Numbers 5:28). If she committed adultery, then her thigh would rot, her belly would swell, and she would “become a curse among her people.” Notice that this entire procedure implies the fact that divine judgment is directly at work in this case. There is no secret formula in the water that somehow is able to detect whether or not the woman has committed adultery. No special chemicals are concocted to cause sickness if adultery has occurred, but that are harmless if she has been faithful. The entire ordeal is designed to make a public example to show that God was working personally in the lives of the Israelites.

When we look more closely, we notice that the text mentions that there were no witnesses to the supposed adultery and the woman was not caught (Numbers 5:13). Some have argued that the Bible writers are showing favoritism here because no man is accused with the woman. The point is, however, that the husband suspects the wife of adultery, but has no physical evidence of her suspected accomplice. There is no favoritism toward the man in this instance, since the Old Testament clearly states that if a man and woman are caught in adultery, and there are witnesses, then both of them were to be punished equally (Deuteronomy 22:22). In this case, the woman is suspected of adultery and only God knows (besides the potentially guilty parties) whether or not she is guilty. If she is guilty, then it is God who sees and knows and will punish her. There is nothing inherent in the water that makes her sick in the case of adultery, but does nothing in the case of innocence. [As an aside, when God did act in such cases, and the woman fell ill and was cursed, there is no reason to think that God would let the guilty man go unpunished. Moses’ admonition to the men of the tribes of Reuben and Gad, when he stated, “be sure your sin will find you out” (Numbers 32:23), would surely apply in this case. The stories of David’s adultery and the sin of Achan illustrate God’s ability and willingness to be directly involved in the reparation of sin.]

The skeptic’s accusation that Numbers 5:21-22 shows that God or the Israelites condoned abortion is groundless. The text never mentions a pregnancy, and the NIV translation of the terms “miscarry” or “miscarries” is unfounded. The punishment for any adultery that took place is directed at the woman. And God’s involvement in the ceremony is necessary for it to have any significance. There was nothing in the water that would or could cause an abortion, cause sickness, or differentiate between a guilty or innocent person. Only the all-knowing God could manifest the woman’s guilt or innocence.

Endnotes

The post Bitter Water that Causes a Curse: Does Numbers 5:11-22 Condone Abortion? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Among others, two key principles must be used when trying to gather the meaning of a Bible passage before prematurely assigning a meaning to its terms: carefully consider (1) how the Bible defines its own terms and (2) the context of the passage. Those principles are especially crucial when Scripture speaks of “life.” For example, animals and humans are both described in Scripture as having a similar kind of physical life that can die.⁵ This kind of life is described as being tied to their breath and blood, but humans (unlike animals) are also described as having a completely different kind of life—a soul or spirit—that will exist after we die. Plants are described as having life in a sense, since they can die (John 12:24), and yet they have no blood. Scripture speaks often of spiritual death which results from one’s sin, not his blood loss (Romans 6:23; Isaiah 59:1-2). Similarly, it speaks of death in reference to the spiritual state of those who have not heard and believed in Jesus (John 5:24). This spiritual death refers to the separation that occurs between humans and God when we fail to obey Him (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; Isaiah 59:1-2). While scientists disagree about how to define “life” in the physical sense, they at least agree that a cell—whether it be the simplest cell on the planet, a blood cell, or a zygote (a fertilized egg cell)—is alive. The chasm between a living cell and non-living matter is so immense that not only has abiogenesis⁶ never been observed to occur in nature, neither have scientists been able to artificially give life to non-living matter in a controlled laboratory.⁷ A cell, whether or not it is a blood cell, is definitely alive, and provides irrefutable evidence of a supernatural Being that gave it life.

So, in the case of Leviticus 17:11, to what was God referring when He said that “the life of the flesh is in the blood”? The context of Leviticus 17 clearly precludes those biblical descriptions of life that are referring to spiritual life, as well as the life that plants, insects, and any other living creatures have that do not utilize blood. Leviticus 17 is discussing the kind of life that both humans and certain kinds of animals have (vs. 13), which further precludes the unique kind of life that only humans have by being made in the image of God and having a soul. The context also narrows what it means by “life” to those creatures that currently have blood (i.e., not those creatures that have not yet developed blood cells). Verse 13 delineates the life to which God is referring as “any animal or bird that may be eaten.”⁸ God told Moses that the life of those specific kinds of creatures is in their blood. Notice that this is not to say that life cannot exist in all other living creatures—those creatures are not being discussed. God is merely describing the life force of those particular creatures that are currently carrying blood. Their blood was not to be eaten.

That said, was God telling Moses that the life and blood of all those creatures that have blood in their bodies are one and the same? If so, then would it not be the case that a blood transfusion would transform humans into a different life? Is it not also the case that there are those who have blood in their veins and even a pumping heart, but without any brain activity and thus are acknowledged to be dead? Merely having blood does not guarantee that a person will live, as there are myriad ways a person can die without actually losing his blood. One can have blood and still be dead. Does the text contradict such reasoning? No. Notice carefully that Leviticus 17:11 says that the life of the flesh is in its blood. The idea being conveyed is that if these specific creatures lose their blood, they will die. Blood sustains the life of the creatures referred to.

Scientists now understand that at a certain point in the development of a child in the womb, he becomes too large to live without the life-sustaining nourishment provided by transported blood. The child is alive before that point—complete with living cells and DNA—but after 22 days, the child’s life must be sustained through blood being pumped through its body. The child was alive prior to that point, but blood becomes necessary afterwards to keep him alive, when his body has grown large enough to require its life-sustaining properties. Does Leviticus 17 support these discoveries of modern science with regard to the life-sustaining purpose of blood? Amazingly so. In Leviticus 17:14, God’s statement to Moses helps to clarify what He meant by saying that “the life of the flesh is in the blood.” “For [blood] is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life [“is its life”—ESV].”⁹ “Life” is not synonymous with “blood.” Rather, blood sustains the lives of those specific kinds of creatures—life which exists separate from blood.

Bottom line: Leviticus 17 does not provide support for the contention that life does not begin in a baby in the womb until he has developed red blood cells. Rather, Scripture indicates that a baby is a human life at the point of conception, even though he does not yet have blood or a heart to pump it.¹⁰ At a certain point, the baby will need blood to continue to live, but that does not mean he is not alive before that point. More important, that precious human being in the womb is endowed with a special kind of life that has nothing to do with his blood and which sets him apart from the animal kingdom. A baby has a soul from the moment of his conception—several days before he has blood—and his death will occur when his soul separates from his physical body, regardless of whether or not he has blood at that point (James 2:26). It is noteworthy that when Adam was brought to life by God, it was not through God injecting him with blood. It was when God, unlike His creative work with the animal kingdom, breathed into Adam’s “nostrils the breath of life,” making him a “living being” (Genesis 2:7). That special life—granted to humans by God, Himself (Acts 17:25; 1 Timothy 6:13)—must not be extinguished by mankind without express permission from God. The consequences for so doing would be dire, indeed (Genesis 9:6; Proverbs 6:16-19; Revelation 21:8).

Endnotes

¹ Dave Miller (2003), “Abortion and the Bible,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=445&topic=25.

² Ibid.

³ “Development of Blood Vessels and Fetal Circulation” (no date), Lumen: Anatomy and Physiology II, https://courses.lumenlearning.com/ap2/chapter/development-of-blood-vessels-and-fetal-circulation/.

⁴ Paola S. Timiras (2007), “Circulatory Changes at Birth,” UC Berkeley Molecular and Cell Biology, https://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb135e/fetal.html; “Prenatal Form and Function—The Making of an Earth Suit: Unit 4: 3 to 4 Weeks” (2018), The Endowment for Human Development, http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit4.php.

⁵ “The Origin, Nature, and Destiny of the Soul [Part I]” (2000), Reason & Revelation, 20[2]:9-15, February.

⁶ Abiogenesis is life originating from non-living substances.

⁷ Jeff Miller (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11.

⁸ Leviticus 11 describes those clean animals that the Israelites could eat.

⁹ “At a basic level this is obvious: when an animal loses its blood, it dies. Its blood, therefore, gives it life” [Gordan J. Wenham (1979), The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans), p. 245.].

¹⁰ Cf. Miller, 2003.

Suggested Resources

The post If “the Life of the Flesh Is in the Blood,” Is Conception When Life Begins? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Her fellow sorority sisters discovered her crime, found the baby in the trash, and alerted authorities. Weaver was charged with murder. “A jury found her guilty of aggravated murder, abuse of a corpse and two counts of tampering with evidence.”² The judge sentenced her to life in prison without parole. He stated that she was selfish and that her baby was to her “an inconvenience, and you took care of it.”³

The judge and jury were exactly right. Weaver did murder an innocent person and abuse a corpse. She certainly deserved severe punishment. That being the case, so do the hundreds of doctors around the country and the pregnant mothers who come to them for abortions every day. These doctors literally pull babies apart, limb from limb, while they are in their mothers’ wombs. They inject saline solution that burns babies to death, then they abuse the corpses of these little innocent, murdered children and throw them in “biological waste” containers in operating rooms and hospitals. Many of these doctors have been involved, not in one or two murders, but thousands.

Not only do these murderers go untried and unconvicted, they often make massive amounts of money, some of which is given to them for their services by the United States government. How can we continue to stomach such grotesque inconsistency? Emile Weaver did to her child the same thing abortion doctors do to almost 2,500 babies everyday, and she was given life in prison. “O Lord God, to whom vengeance belongs—O God, to whom vengeance belongs, shine forth! Rise up, O Judge of the earth; render punishment to the proud. Lord, how long will the wicked, how long will the wicked triumph?” (Psalm 94:1-3).

Endnotes

The post Our Nation’s Grotesque Inconsistency on Babies and Life appeared first on Apologetics Press.

One on-line petition which seeks “Justice for Harambe,” calling for an investigation of the parents, has already received more than 500,000 signatures.⁴ Princeton University bioethics professor Peter Singer and animal rights activist Karen Dawn insist: “As animal advocates, we don’t automatically deem the life of a boy as exponentially more important than that of a fellow primate.”⁵ PETA was quick to scold the zoo even for having gorillas and other animals in captivity,⁶ where they are “exploited” and “gunned down.”⁷ PETA Primatologist, Julia Gallucci, chided: “This tragedy is exactly why PETA urges families to stay away from any facility that displays animals as sideshows for humans to gawk at.”⁸

For those whose minds have been shaped by the perspective of divine truth—as most American minds, for most of American history, once were—the confusion regarding the value of human beings in contrast with the animal kingdom are shocking, disturbing, and depressing. How can a civilization slump so far into outright animism, paganism, and atheism? Such should not be surprising since, once the Christian worldview is jettisoned from any society, the ideologies that will quickly fill the vacuum will inevitably be humanistic, heathen, irreligious, depraved, and idolatrous. Indeed, the half-century long descent into the abyss of moral and spiritual confusion that has characterized America is strongly reminiscent of the societal circumstances that prevailed in the Roman Empire during the first century:

[A]lthough they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man–and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen (Romans 1:22-25).

The passage proceeds to delineate the moral filth that ensues for such a people—a portrait of America’s own moral decline, including the acceptance and practice of homosexuality and other forms of sexual immorality, covetousness, and haters of God, to name a few (vss. 26-32).

The substantial infiltration of academia by evolution and atheism has resulted in precisely the social conditions that now prevail in America with regard to the nonsensical and inflated sense of importance assigned to animals and the physical environment. Any individual, who would have even a split second of hesitation to kill a gorilla (or any other animal) to save a human child, has unwittingly become a victim to the massive inundation of humanist propaganda that fails to assign the proper value to animals.

For those who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He literally left the heavenly realm and came to Earth to atone for sin, and that He now reigns in heaven itself, and will one day bring the entire physical Universe to a fiery conclusion (2 Peter 3:1-11), the value of Harambe the gorilla is a settled matter. Jesus spoke directly and definitively—several times—to the issue.

In Matthew 6, Jesus reassured His disciples that God’s care for them meant that they need not worry unnecessarily about acquiring food and clothes. His reasoning included this admonition: “Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” (vs. 26, emp. added; cf. Luke 12:25—“Of how much more value are you than the birds?”).

On another occasion, Jesus challenged the disciples not to fear the hatred, intimidation, and opposition of those who would seek to deter their efforts to teach and preach His message. Why? He explained: “Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows” (Matthew 10:29-31, emp. added; cf. Luke 12:7). Observe that animals have some value in this world. God created them for specific purposes. However, there is literally no comparison when it comes to evaluating their status and their worth in relation to humans. Animals are expendable. But Jesus adamantly insisted that humans are much more valuable than even many animals.

On yet another occasion, Jesus answered those who sought to condemn Him for healing—on the Sabbath—a man whose hand was shriveled and deformed. The Lord’s logical prowess was piercing and penetrating: “He said to them, ‘What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?’” This question was a reflection of Deuteronomy 22:1-4. It was part of the Law of Moses designed to promote care and concern for one’s fellow man. In an agrarian society, the preservation of farm animals was a serious matter. A family’s survival was dependent on its animals for food and clothes. So Jesus reasoned, if it is proper to intervene to save the life of a farm animal so that human beings might be provided for, “of how much more value then is a man than a sheep?” (Matthew 12:11-12). Do sheep have some value? Certainly—they are vital to providing the basic necessities of humans. But they are mere animals—they do not have souls like humans, nor were they made in God’s image like humans (Genesis 1:26).⁹ Jesus’ point was poignant. He was, in essence, stressing an important contrast between animals and humans. He was essentially saying, “If you see the value of preserving the life of a dumb, soulless animal for the good of humans, why in the world would you question My action which will improve the life and well-being of a human?” Indeed, Jesus demonstrated that even His religious enemies were clear thinking enough to know that animals are not even to be compared to the value of human beings.

Whatever might be said about parental responsibility to discipline their children and train them to be obedient when parents warn children of the potential dangers that exist at zoos, and whatever might be said about the value of animals—from zebras and gorillas to tarantulas and boa constrictors—nevertheless, according to Deity, human beings are of much more value. As a nation, our depraved moral sensibilities are on display when our citizens show more concern for a 17-year-old gorilla than for the 56 million innocent human babies that have been slaughtered by abortion since 1973.¹⁰

REFERENCES

The post Are You Not Much More Valuable than an Animal? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Since the infamous Supreme Court decision in 1973, murderous hands have reached into the wombs of willing mothers—designed to be a safe haven for the innocent—and butchered millions upon millions of precious babies. Many are the excuses given to justify such barbaric practices. One of those reasons is “research.” A recent scientific breakthrough may bring salvation for many of those innocent souls yet to be carelessly tossed aside.

Due to President Obama’s March 2009 executive order, restrictions on embryonic stem (ES) cell research that President George W. Bush had signed into effect were lifted. The order allows federal funds to be used for ES cells from “donated surplus embryos originally made for reproduction” (Hyun, 2014, p. 28). So, living embryos that were not used during in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures can be used for ES cell research. In vitro fertilization is a procedure in which a woman’s ovaries are stimulated to generate several eggs, which are sucked from the ovaries and put into a sperm bath in a Petri dish for a few days. Selected embryos are then implanted by catheter into the uterus. The process has been used successfully for decades, with over 200,000 IVF babies being born since 1981 (Nivin, 2015).

From a biblical standpoint, is there anything wrong with this procedure? There are various issues with IVF from a Christian perspective, but one significant problem is the death of many fertilized eggs—i.e., babies—whether intentionally or unintentionally. According to the Bible, the life of a human begins at conception (cf. Jeremiah 1:4-5; Isaiah 49:1; Miller, 2006, p. 36ff.), making IVF essentially premeditated murder. In IVF, only selected embryos are implanted into a woman. The rest are discarded or frozen (typically, eventually to be discarded). Of those that are implanted, most miscarry. Transabdominal selective reduction is further utilized in the process to wipe out those implanted zygotes that are deemed “inferior.” [NOTE: Transabdominal selective reduction is a procedure in which the number of fetuses present in a uterus are reduced (through abortion), typically by inserting a needle through the mother’s stomach, into the uterus, and then into the desired fetus, injecting a potassium chloride solution into the baby, which burns and poisons it, ultimately stopping its heart (Healthwise Staff, 2014). Fetuses chosen for survival are selected on the basis of gender and health status (“Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction,” 2013).]

ES cell researchers step in at this point. In ES cell research, the goal is to grow cells that can be used for various purposes. Researchers hope to use those cells to learn about the human body and growth patterns and, especially, for harvesting cells that can be transplanted into individuals with various physical conditions (e.g., macular degeneration, leukemia, spinal cord injuries, etc.). Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) is typically used in ES cell research—the process used to clone the famous sheep, Dolly. In SCNT, the nucleus is removed from an egg and the nucleus from a skin cell is transferred into the egg. The egg recognizes that it has been fertilized and begins growing like a normal embryo. The embryo is subsequently destroyed to harvest its cells for the generation of ES cell lines.

You might ask, “Why not use adult stem cells instead of embryos?” The reason is that cells differentiate as they grow—i.e., change into cells with specific functions. For example, a cell will differentiate from a naïve embryonic state during development to acquire the unique characteristics of, say, a bone or liver cell. For many medical purposes, however, researchers need undifferentiated cells without those cell-type specific programs. So, ES cells are used. Scientists could not figure out how to reprogram a differentiated cell back to an undifferentiated state until 2006. Elizabeth Landau, a science reporter for CNN, explained that

[t]he first developments in the field of stem cell research used leftover embryos created by the union of sperm and egg fromin vitro fertilization. But embryonic stem cell research is controversial because to use the stem cells for developing medical treatments, the embryo is destroyed. Embryos have the potential to develop into a fully formed human [NOTE: Christians would argue that they are already fully humans—JM], bringing up ethical questions. Scientists later realized that it’s not necessary to use embryos to obtain stem cells that match patients. Shinya Yamanaka won the 2012 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for discovering how to make “induced pluripotent stem cells,” or [iPS] cells (2014).

And that brings us to the good news.

Shinya Yamanaka and Sir John Gurdon received the Nobel Prize in October 2012, when Yamanaka’s lab discovered that “mature cells can be reprogrammed to become pluripotent”—i.e., they figured out how to reprogram cells by defined factors after they had already specialized (“Shinya Yamanaka—Facts,” 2014). By doing so, they made iPS cells, pluripotency being that characteristic of “stemness” that is required for medical purposes. They discovered how to reprogram almost any kind of cell by inserting genes into “mature cells that already have specific functions,” turning back the clock on those mature cells (Landau). First, Takahashi and Yamanaka succeeded in reprogramming cells back to an undifferentiated state using differentiated, embryonic fibroblasts in mice (2006). Subsequently, Yu, et al. (2007) successfully applied the process to differentiated, embryonic fibroblasts in humans, while Takahashi, et al. (2007) successfully applied the process to adult human somatic cells, rather than embryonic cells.

This groundbreaking research promises to eliminate the need for cloning embryos for ES cell purposes. Deiter Egli, senior research fellow at the New York Stem Cell Foundation, explains that “[t]he cloning method takes a few weeks, and is not significantly faster than generating [iPS] cells” (as quoted in Landau). So, time is not a factor in the process. In fact, Egli notes that nuclear transfer advantages “would have to be considerable to beat out [iPS], which is ‘much more efficient and less ethically contentious’” (Landau).

Gretchen Vogel, writing in Science magazine, highlighted in 2014 that several states have banned human SCNT research. She explained: “The political energy needed to overturn those laws might be hard to generate given that there’s now an embryo-free alternative to producing patient-specific stem cells” (p. 462). And that is good news. How can anyone justify destroying embryonic human life when he can get the human cells he needs without embryos? Thank God for Yamanaka and Gurdon, whose research may help repair the breaching dam holding back the proverbial river of American baby blood shed at the hands of abortionists.

REFERENCEs

Healthwise Staff (2014), “Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction,” WebMD, reviewed by Kathleen Romito and Femi Olatunbosun, http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/tc/multifetal-pregnancy-reduction-topic-overview.

Hyun, Insoo (2014), “Regulate Embryos Made for Research,” Nature, 509[7498]:27-28, May 1.

Landau, Elizabeth (2014), “Cloning Used to Make Stem Cells from Adult Humans,” CNN Health, http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/28/health/stem-cell-breakthrough/.

Nivin, Todd (2015), “Infertility and In Vitro Fertilization,” WebMD, http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/guide/in-vitro-fertilization.

Miller, Dave (2006), Sexual Anarchy: The Moral Implosion of America (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

“Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction” (2013), The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics, Num. 553, February, http://www.acog.org/-/media/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Ethics/co553.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20151005T1420301791

“Shinya Yamanaka—Facts” (2014), Nobelprize.org, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2012/yamanaka-facts.html.

Takahashi, K., K. Tanabe, M. Ohnuki, M. Narita, T. Ichisaka, K. Tomoda, and S. Yamanaka (2007), “Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Adult Human Fibroblasts by Defined Factors,” Cell, 131[5]:861-872, November 30.

Takahashi, K. and S. Yamanaka (2006), “Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mouse Embryonic and Adult Fibroblast Cultures by Defined Factors,” Cell, 126[4]:663-676, August 25.

Vogel, Gretchen (2014), “Therapeutic Cloning Reaches Milestone,” Science, 344[6183]:462-463.

Yu, J., M.A. Vodyanik, K. Smuga-Otto, J. Antosiewicz-Bourget, J.L. Frane, S. Tian, J. Nie, G.A. Jonsdottir, V. Ruotti, R. Stewart, I.I. Slukvin, and J.A. Thomson (2007), “Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Somatic Cells,” Science, 318[5858]:1917-1920, December 21.

[SPECIAL THANKS TO: Dr. Michael Kareta (Ph.D. in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from The University of California, Davis), currently at the Department of Pediatrics & Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine at Stanford University, for reviewing this article.]

The post Promising News for the Unborn appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Just a few miles from our offices at Apologetics Press, doctors perform such appalling procedures on living, unborn human beings on a weekly basis. According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly 10,000 innocent unborn children were slaughtered in Alabama in 2011 (“State Facts About Abortion: Alabama,” 2015). Many of these abortions were performed at the Reproductive Health Services of Montgomery, which “has provided abortion services and other health care for women for more than 30 years” (2015). Consider some of the feedback from various patients that this abortion clinic highlights on its website:

• “Thank you for your hard work and for changing people’s lives with your compassion and dignity.”
• “Keep up the good work. As my very religious friend told me, I was against abortion until my own fifteen year old daughter became pregnant.”
• “To all who work to allow me to keep that right to choose: What you do is important, empowering and fine. I chose to have an abortion because it was theright decision for me at the time….”
• “I am saying prayers for your safety and success.”
• “Keep up the good work….”
• “Thank you for your brave work for justice and freedom for women.”
• “Every woman I know who has exercised her right to abortion made that decision with thoughtfulness, tortured consideration and integrity. All the recent talk of heroes comes into focus for me when I think of people like you who’ve been on the front line for so long. Please know you are supported not only with good thoughts and thanks but with resources, will and active determination.”
• “I thank God I was given a choice in September 1973. Abortion was just legalized a few weeks earlier” (emp. added).

Compassion. Dignity. Integrity. Justice. Fine, heroic, and good work. Prayers for success. Even thankfulness to God! These are the thoughts that various ones in our community have toward those who shed the blood of the most innocent among us?! Even President Barack Obama, in support of Planned Parenthood, the organization that murders more unborn children than anyone else in the United States, has stated:

No matter how great the challenge, no matter how fierce the opposition, there’s one thing the past few years have shown—it’s that Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere. It’s not going anywhere today. It’s not going anywhere tomorrow. As long as we’ve got a fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way. Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you. (“President Obama…,” 2013).

God bless you?! The Obama administration has proudly published the video from which these comments were made on the White House YouTube Channel.

What’s more, so committed are some elected officials to the murderous cause of Planned Parenthood that when evidence recently surfaced that the organization was not only killing hundreds of thousands of unborn children every year, but also attempting to sell their body parts, some Democrats in Congress petitioned the Department of Justice to investigate, not Planned Parenthood, but the whistleblowers (Ludden, 2015). And, apparently, the DOJ “agreed to look into…the group” (Mershon and Ehley, 2015). Did you catch that? There are some who are more up in arms about exactly how an undercover video was procured, rather than “whether Planned Parenthood illegally trafficked baby body parts” (“Obama DOJ…”). Why? It seems, at least in part, because some have vowed to fight to ensure that Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere today…or tomorrow.

These are sad and absurd times in which we live. Rather than “abhor what is evil” and “cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9), millions in the U.S. (including many so-called Christians) reject the Creator’s standard of right and wrong, choosing rather to do what is right in their own eyes (cf. Judges 21:25). As in Isaiah’s day, they “call evil good, and good evil” and put “darkness for light, and light for darkness” (5:20). Though God is the giver of life (Acts 17:25) and “hates…hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:16-17), many actually proceed as if they can pray to Him for the “success” of abominable abortion clinics and thank Him for the legality of willfully destroying innocent human life. God said to the degenerate city of Jerusalem in Isaiah’s day, “When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood” (Isaiah 1:15, emp. added). The once-“faithful city…full of justice” and “righteousness,” had become a city “full of…murderers” (1:21).

What is the message to America, to the world, to those who are wandering in darkness, and to those hypocrites who claim to be Christians, yet act nothing like the Christ? Repent (Luke 13:3,5; Acts 2:38). Stop calling evil good and good evil. Stop glorying in sin and shame—such “are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is destruction” (Philippians 3:18-19). “Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rebuke the oppressor; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Isaiah 1:16-17). Stop provoking Almighty God to anger and submit to His Son and His Will. He can (and will!) save a sinner—but not before the sinner comes to grips with the reality that God hates sin and can have no fellowship with it (Isaiah 59:1-2; 1 John 1:5-6).

“Come now, and let us reason together,” says the Lord, “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword;” for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.

REFERENCES

“Abortion Methods” (2010), http://www.lifesitenews.com/abortiontypes/.

Ludden, Jennifer (2015), “Sting Videos Part of Longtime Campaign Against Planned Parenthood,” NPR, July 22, http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/22/425314909/sting-videos-part-of-longtime-campaign-against-planned-parenthood.

Mershon, Erin and Brianna Ehley (2015), “IPAB’s on the Horizon—House Republicans Vow to Subpoena Planned Parenthood Official—Casey Takes on Foster Children’s Health Insurance,” Politico, July 23, http://www.politico.com/politicopulse/0715/politicopulse19266.html.

“Obama DOJ Plans to Investigate…The Group That Busted Planned Parenthood” (2015), The Federalist, July 23, http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/23/doj-investigate-planned-parenthood-video/.

“President Obama Speaks at the Planned Parenthood Gala” (2013), The White House YouTube Channel, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laYQ2DDFmCg, April 26.

Reproductive Health Services (2015), http://www.rhs4choice.com/index.html.

“State Facts About Abortion: Alabama” (2015), Guttmacher Institute, https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/alabama.html.

The post Calling Abortion “Good”—Really? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

For those who believe in the God of the Bible, this decision is encouraging—not because of any financial hardship that would have been imposed on the employer, and not because of the erroneous claim by liberal politicians that the health of women is endangered—but because killing unborn babies is murder and deserves absolutely no support or encouragement from government. The Bible plainly teaches that human life commences at conception (Zechariah 12:1; Job 10:11-12; Ecclesiastes 11:5; Psalm 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:4-5; Galatians 1:15). It also teaches that the term “baby” (brephos) applies to a person in utero as well as in the crib (Luke 1:39-44; 2:12,16; for more biblical allusions, see Miller, 2003).

The culture war being waged in American civilization is a life and death struggle for Christianity, Christian morality, and whether America is going to continue to enjoy the favor and blessing of God. This is America’s most pressing concern (see Miller, 2012).

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2003), “Abortion and the Bible,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=445&topic=25.

Miller, Dave (2012), America’s Most Pressing Concern DVD, Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=456.

“Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in Contraceptive Mandate Challenge” (2014), Fox News, June 30, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby/.

The post Victory for the Children! appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Consider the nature of a contradiction in light of the pro-abortion movement and related laws in America. How is it that the same unborn child can be a human being and not a human being at the same time? For example, if a mother and her six-month-old unborn baby boy are brutally murdered while walking into a hospital, the perpetrator may likely be charged with “double murder.”³ Why double murder? Because both the mother and her unborn child are human beings. However, if that same mother walks into a medical facility to have someone remove the (alleged) non-human “appendage” from her body, the mother and her accomplice are protected by the law (in many states, even when the unborn child is nine months old). These positions are so blatantly contradictory that even Heather Boonstra, Vice President for Public Policy at the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute, once stated: “The law cannot hold both that a pregnant woman is two persons and at the same time allow her to have an abortion.”⁴

It is no secret that former President Barak Obama strongly supports the pro-abortion platform. He has been a consistent advocate of pro-abortion policies for many years. It is also no secret that Washington, D.C., has some of the least restrictive abortion laws in the United States,⁵ allowing for abortion for any reason at any point during the mother’s pregnancy. Astonishingly, when President Obama occupied the White House, policies on tours of the premises “require[d] pregnant visitors to count their unborn child as a person for tours of the executive mansion.”⁶ So, in our nation’s capital, a pregnant woman could visit the President’s home (at least at one time),⁷ only if she first filled out paperwork in which she counted her unborn child as a human being. Yet, that same mother was free to leave the White House, enter a D.C. abortion clinic, and have her unborn child murdered under the protection of a blatantly contradictory law that a past and current President endorses.

The fact is, at best, the pro-abortion movement in America is absurd—leaving behind reality at every turn. At worst, it is a repugnant blight on society—so evil that the horrific shedding of innocent blood is actually considered proper by millions of Americans. “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20-21).

Endnotes

¹ Aristotle, Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.4.iv.html, 4:4.

² Cf. W. Stanley Jevons (1928), Elementary Lessons in Logic (London: Macmillan), p. 117.

³ Cf. Steven Ertelt (2009), “California Man Convicted Killing Both Pregnant Girlfriend and Unborn Child,” http://www.lifenews.com/state4210.html.

⁴ As quoted in Stephanie Simon (2001), “Debate Grows on Whether Fetuses Should Have Special Legal Status,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6A, June 17, http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1683&dat=20010617&id=G8AaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XjAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6739,6695111.

⁵ “State Policies in Brief: An Overview of Abortion Laws” (2013), Guttmacher Institute, June 1, http//www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf.

⁶ Dave Boyer (2012), “Security at Pro-Choice White House Counts Unborn Children,” Washington Times, May 8, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/8/security-white-house-counts-unborn-children/?page=all, emp. added.

⁷ It is unclear as to whether this is still the policy.

Article updated 7/1/2022

The post Preposterous Pro-Abortion Position appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Those opposed to the bill, especially members and spokespeople for Planned Parenthood, railed against it. Murry Newbern, a lobbyist for the organization, said, “The bottom line is that a woman, not politicians, should make the informed decisions when it comes to her own pregnancy” (Parker, 2013). Such thinking is as illogical as it is immoral. Would anyone contend that a mother should make the “informed decision” to shoot her 18-month-old because he is an inconvenience to her? Would right-thinking people argue that a mother has the right to decide if her five-year-old deserves to live based on her own economic situation or unwillingness to provide for the child? Certainly not. One of the primary duties of our government is to protect the lives of its citizenry, born or unborn; a duty that our government has criminally neglected to do for the last 40 years.

Praise God that there are still some in our nation who have not given up the fight for life. As Jerry Cox, the President of the Family Council of Arkansas, stated about the recent bill and other similar legislation that passed in the Arkansas Senate: “These bills are some of the best pieces of pro-life legislation in the nation and today they all got positive votes” (as quoted in Parker, 2013). Would to God that every person with a conscience and concern for human life would take a stand against the murder of innocent children. Let your voice be heard among those demanding that all human life is valuable, including and especially, that of innocent children.

[NOTE: The Bible clearly teaches that human life begins at conception, not at the point at which a heartbeat is detected (see Miller, 2003). The Arkansas Senate bill prohibitions makes illegal a bulk of the abortions that currently take place in the state, and in that sense, is a major step in the right direction. In truth, Christians should not stop fighting for unborn life until all human life from the point of conception is recognized as sacred.]     

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2003), “Abortion and the Bible,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=445&topic=25.

Parker, Suzi (2013), “Arkansas Senate Passes ‘Fetal Heartbeat’ Law to Ban Most Abortions,” Reuters, January 31, http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/arkansas-senate-passes-fetal-heartbeat-law-to-ban-most-abortions.

The post Applauding Arkansas’ Fight for Life appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Same-Sex Marriage

Without question, shock waves of seismic proportion were sent across the entire world when the highest executive official in our land announced his endorsement of same-sex marriage (Stein, 2012). All the angels in heaven must have wept. Such an unconscionable action that reflects our downward spiral into moral depravity stands in stark contrast to the political leaders at the beginning of the nation who openly avowed attachment to God and Christian virtue. Indeed, the Founders—to a man—would be horrified. After serving two terms as vice-president alongside President George Washington, on October 11, 1798, the second president of these United States, John Adams, delivered a speech to military officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts: “[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (1854, 9:229, emp. added). In his State of the Union address, the father of our country explained that the Republic may be sustained only if citizens “discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness—cherishing the first, avoiding the last—and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws” (1790). The homosexual movement flaunts laws instituted at the beginning of the country designed to hold in check sexual immorality, opting instead for licentiousness. As Samuel West explained in a sermon preached in 1776 before the Massachusetts House of Representatives: “When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he becomes the slave of base passions and vile lusts; he introduces confusion and disorder into society, and brings misery and destruction upon himself” (1776).

Irish statesman, political theorist, member of the House of Commons, and one who supported America during the Founding era, Edmund Burke, understood this critical tenet of freedom:

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites….  Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters (1791, 68-69).

Another outside observer of American freedom was Alexis de Tocqueville who, in extolling the glories of American morals and marriage based on Christianity, made this insightful observation about what happens to a country when those sexual standards are relaxed: “In Europe almost all the disturbances of society arise from the irregularities of domestic life. To despise the natural bonds and legitimate pleasures of home is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart, and fluctuating desires” (1845, 1:304, emp. added). Indeed, when the Christian religion and Christian morality no longer characterize the people, and this spiritual framework is therefore excluded from the political process, we can fully expect the nation, in time, to collapse. God Himself obliterated cities from the surface of the Earth for homosexuality (Genesis 19), and caused the land to “vomit out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:22-25).

Abortion & Innocent Blood

A second critical moral issue that has been politicized in America is abortion. God’s view on killing children is clear and decisive:

And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin (Jeremiah 32:35).

It never entered God’s mind to have people kill their children. Yet, in the United States of America alone, since the ungodly judicial decision to legalize abortion in 1973, over 53 million unborn babies have been butchered. The human mind is incapable of grasping the import of this statistic.

Isaiah 59:6-7 well describes the abortion industry that has developed in America: “Their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands. Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood.” One of the things that God hates is “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17). If ever there was “innocent blood” on this Earth, it is the blood of the unborn. In the wake of the heinous act of murder, God declared to Cain, “The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10). If the blood of righteous Abel cried out to God, imagine the sound of 50+ million shrieking babies crying out to God. While you and I cannot hear such pitiable, heart-wrenching sounds, the God of eternity can. He announced to the Israelites: “So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it” (Numbers 35:33, emp. added). Looking down from heaven, God must surely see the streets of America running with blood—atonement for which can only be made by punishing the civilization that has implemented and tolerated such horror.

One reason given for why God subjected Judah to the destruction of enemy marauders was because of the innocent blood that King Manasseh had shed—“for he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, which the LORD would not pardon” (2 Kings 24:4, emp. added). “But I thought God would pardon anything!” National sins are punished by God in time by physical destruction. Hence, we as a nation are overdue for receiving the punishment that comes from shedding innocent blood for nearly 40 years! Those precious innocents must surely be asking God the very same question He was asked by the slain martyrs of the Domitianic persecution of the first century: “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” (Revelation 6:10, emp. added). Make no mistake about it—God will avenge the blood of the innocents. It’s only a matter of when.

When one contemplates the magnitude of this moral atrocity that is rampant in the land—and one which wicked politicians have brazenly taken it upon themselves to champion—one can only wonder why anyone would think the economy is the “big issue” in the election, or whether a segment of the population is getting sufficient entitlements from the government, or even whether the politicians are going to create jobs. When God finally wreaks vengeance on our deserving nation, the condition of one’s personal finances will be of little concern.

What May Be Done?

While the ultimate solution to our nation’s woes is recommitment to God and the moral precepts of the Bible, one immediate strategy ought to be that Christians do more to control the political forces that are running amok. In the words of President James A. Garfield:

Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If that body be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. [I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation…it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces (as quoted in Taylor, 1970, p. 180, emp. added).

On Friday, June 20, 1788, in the Virginia convention assembled to debate ratification of the federal Constitution, James Madison reminded his colleagues of the only ultimate safeguard for national preservation:

But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them (Elliot, 1836, 3:536-537, emp. added).

Without a doubt, the current elections will provide direct insight into the virtue, intelligence, and wisdom of a sizable number of Americans. We pray God that a majority will have the good sense to be “spiritually minded” (Romans 8:6) and cast their vote first and foremost on the basis of these critical, life-threatening moral issues.

[AUTHOR UPDATE: With the encroachments of homosexuality and abortion have now come transgenderism and polygamy. Christians ought to resist candidates who favor acceptance of these sexually aberrant behaviors. They should also keep in mind that U.S. Presidents have the power to appoint nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, and that the Court is presently dominated by those who are hostile to Christian morality and the original intention of the Founders.]

REFERENCES

Adams, John (1854), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company).

Burke, Edmund (1791), A Letter From Mr. Burke To A Member of The National Assembly (Paris: J. Dodsley), http://books.google.com/books?id=CEgJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA69&dq= Edmund+burke+passions+forge+their+fetters&hl=en&sa=X&ei= HeOOUMXvNoOK8QTVwIHIBw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v= onepage&q=Edmund%20burke%20passions% 20forge%20their%20fetters&f=false.

Elliot, Jonathan, ed. (1836), The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington, D.C.: Jonathan Elliot), http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/ lled003.db&recNum=547&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field% 28DOCID%2B@lit%28ed0032%29%29%230030003&linkText=1.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Is America’s Iniquity Full?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/305.

Miller, Dave (2006), “Destruction of Marriage Equals Destruction of America,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3105.

Stein, Sam (2012), “Obama Backs Gay Marriage,” The Huffington Post, May 9, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage_n_1503245.html?ref=mostpopular.

Taylor, John (1970), Garfield of Ohio: The Available Man (New York: W.W. Norton).

Tocqueville, Alexis de (1945 reprint), Democracy in America (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).

Washington, George (1790), “First State of the Union Address,” U.S. Government Info., http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/ref/blfirstsou.htm.

West, Samuel (1776), A Sermon Preached Before the Honorable Council and the Honorable House of Representatives of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay (Boston, MA: John Gill).

The post Vote Morality! appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Inherent in all of these accounts is the fact that fleas are viewed as undesirable creatures to be eradicated. Their presence on other animals allegedly constitutes abuse by humans. So how should we deal with the nasty flea problem that causes the animal police to punish animal owners? The ASPCA offers the following advice for handling fleas on dogs and cats: “Speak with your veterinarian about choosing the right flea treatment product. Common options include a topical, liquid treatment applied to the back of the neck, shampoos, sprays and powders. Some products kill both adult fleas and their eggs, but they can vary in efficacy” (“Fleas,” n.d., emp. added; cf. “Controlling Fleas…,” 2012). “Also, it is important to treat your yard as thoroughly as your house. Concentrate on shady areas, where fleas live, and use an insecticide or nematodes, microscopic worms that kill flea larvae” (“Fleas,” emp. added). And how does PETA propose to deal with the flea problem?

Although PETA encourages nonlethal methods of insect control whenever possible, we realize that lethal methods sometimes must be used to combat insects…. For a flea infestation, sprinkle carpets with diatomaceous earth…, leave it down overnight, then vacuum it up. This will kill most fleas (“What is the…?,” n.d., emp. added). Vacuum your house as frequently as possible, and stow the vacuum bag inside a plastic bag in your freezer to kill any fleas or flea eggs that you happened to vacuum up…. Diatomaceous earth…will kill fleas by causing them to dehydrate…. Keep your grass cut short, and try dousing it with beneficial nematodes―these are roundworms who are more than happy to dine on flea larvae (“The ABCs of…,” n.d., emp. added).

Observe the self-contradiction and utter hypocrisy of the left: Dog owners should be prosecuted for allowing their pets to become flea infested. But how does one prevent dogs from becoming flea infested? Kill the fleas, of course. But wait! What about the fleas? Who is sticking up for their rights? Don’t they have the same right to life as dogs? And where is the consistency in treating a flea problem by attacking the environment with insecticide, let alone promoting interspecies conflict by assisting one specie (nematodes) to devour another specie (fleas)? Causing slow death to fleas by dehydration is surely as cruel as starving a dog.

Such is the absurdity and insanity of any viewpoint that conflicts with the Creator’s communication regarding the environment and its constituent variables. “Celebrating” animals is conspicuously tantamount to “worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25)—a social circumstance that signals a depraved period in history in which people became “futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:21-22). Such a period is inevitably accompanied by “vile passions” and a militant refusal to “retain God in their knowledge” (vss. 26,28). Does this social scenario not describe America today?

What should one expect when 50 years ago American school children began being taught in earnest that they owe their ultimate origin to naturalistic, mechanistic forces of “nature”—rocks and dirt if you will? What should one expect since God and the Bible have been systematically banned from public education? We should fully expect to see precisely what we’re seeing in American civilization—hedonism, the increase of atheism, embracing and welcoming animism and pagan religion (i.e., Hinduism and Buddhism), and a host of other maladies that will spell the demise of the Republic.

Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars and man hours have been spent in the last few decades to protect animals and punish those deemed cruel to animals. Yet paralleling this period in America, unborn humans have been slaughtered by the millions. Moral sensibilities can be defined and governed only by God, since “the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23). As God and the principles of Christianity are jettisoned from American culture, so consistent, logical living of life must dissolve as well. The solution is to saturate the American mind once again with the truths of the Bible. There is no other solution. As the 8^th century B.C. prophet plainly declared: “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).

[DISCLAIMER NOTE: The author is not suggesting that no concern whatsoever should be given to the cruel treatment of animals. The Bible reflects a measure of concern in this regard (e.g., Proverbs 12:10; Deuteronomy 22:6-7). The problem is that those who neglect or abandon the Christian worldview inevitably develop an inflated preoccupation with animals as pets and assign a value and significance to animals that is unwarranted and ultimately counterproductive to civilized society.]

REFERENCES

“The ABCs of Cruelty-Free Flea Control” (no date), PETA, http://www.peta.org/living/companion-animals/The-ABCs-of-Cruelty-Free-Flea-Control.aspx.

“About Us: Overview” (2011), The Humane Society, September 19, http://www.humanesociety.org/about/overview/.

Berke, Ned (2012), “23 Dogs Recovered From Sheepshead Bay Couple,” Sheepshead Bites, February 16, http://www.sheepsheadbites.com/2012/02/breaking-bay-couple-arrested-for-cruelty-to-animals-20-dogs-recovered-from-two-homes/.

Braden, Tyra (1992), “Woman Fined For Housing Flea-infested Pets Lehighton Resident Convicted Of Cruelty To Animals, Other Charges,” The Morning Call, November 11, http://articles.mcall.com/1992-11-11/news/2887493_1_cruelty-trash-disposal-animals.

“Case Updates” (2009), Pet-Abuse.com, March 8, http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/14626/MO/US/#ixzz1tFexUsg2http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/14626/MO/US/.

“Controlling Fleas and Ticks on Your Pets” (2012), The Humane Society, January 23, http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/resources/tips/controlling_flea_ticks_pets.html.

“Dogs Neglected, Flea Infestation Stonington, CT (2009), September 4, Pet-Abuse.com, http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/15777/CT/US/.

Eims, Penny (2012), “Florida Man Arrested on Two Counts of Animal Cruelty for Neglecting Dogs,” Examiner, April 13, http://www.examiner.com/article/florida-man-arrested-on-two-counts-of-animal-cruelty-for-neglecting-dogs.

“Flea-infested, Emaciated Dog Thrown from Truck Manteca, CA” (2011), Pet-Abuse.com, July 25, http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/18389/CA/US/.

“Fleas” (no date), ASPCA, http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/dog-care/dog-care-fleas.aspx.

Michigan Animal Abuse Cases (2011), http://files.meetup.com/1258100/MichiganAnimalAbuseCases_v1.pdf.

“Six Dogs Seized From Flea Infested Property Iron Mountain Lake, MO” (2008), Pet-Abuse.com, September 25,
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/14626/MO/US/#ixzz1tFexUsg2http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/14626/MO/US/.

“What is the best way to get rid of fleas and ticks?” (no date), PETA, http://www.peta.org/about/faq/What-is-the-best-way-to-get-rid-of-fleas-and-ticks.aspx.

The post Who Cares for the Fleas? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Some 80 years later, God severely punished Egypt for their wrongdoings. He brought ten dreadful plagues upon Pharaoh and all his land (Exodus 7-12). Moses described God’s “great” and “mighty” judgment upon Egypt as “the chastening of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 7:19; 11:2). The psalmist wrote how God “cast on them [the Egyptians] the fierceness of His anger, wrath, indignation, and trouble, by sending angels of destruction among them. He made a path for His anger; He did not spare their soul from death, but gave their life over to the plague, and destroyed all the firstborn in Egypt” (78:49-51). Granted, Egypt’s sins were many—from their idolatry, to their mistreatment of the Hebrews, to their refusal to let God’s people leave Egypt—but do not think for a minute that Jehovah had forgotten Egypt’s massacre of Abraham’s innocent descendants. Those precious children were “a heritage from the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Jehovah had “graciously given” them to Israel (cf. Genesis 33:5). He created them in His own image and gave them life (Genesis 1:26-27; Acts 17:25; Ecclesiastes 12:7)—life that Pharaoh had no right to choose to take from them (only God has that right; see Butt, 2009, 29[12]:89-95).

Three thousand six hundred years ago, Egypt was plagued with baby murderers. From the tyrannical king, to all those who assisted him in drowning Israelite infants in the Nile River, Egypt revealed itself as a bloodthirsty country. (Interestingly, the first punishing plague God sent upon Egypt was turning water to blood, while the last was striking down all of Egypt’s firstborn.) Scripture repeatedly affirms that God detests the sin of murder. In patriarchal times, murder was wrong, and punishable by death: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed” (Genesis 9:6). Under the Law of Moses, the prohibition of murder was listed as one of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13), and likewise carried a punishment of death (Numbers 35:30). The wisest man who ever lived (aside from Jesus, of course) noted in the Old Testament book of Proverbs: “[T]he Lord hates…hands that shed innocent blood” (6:16-17; cf. 1 Kings 3:12). According to the New Testament, governments have the God-given authority to take away the physical life of murderers (Romans 13:4). Furthermore, impenitent murderers will also “have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Revelation 21:8). From Genesis through Revelation, God emphasized the sanctity of human life, while simultaneously making clear His hot displeasure with those who disregard it.

CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD

In ancient Egypt, only Pharaoh was considered to be like a god, the supposed incarnation of the Sun god, Ra. Pharaoh also was thought to be the sole person who bore “the image of god.” The Egyptian canal digger and the merchant, the taskmaster and the Hebrew slave, all were thought innately inferior because they were not divine image bearers (or so they had been told). Such a designation was not applied to the common man in Egypt, nor anywhere else for that matter. Outside the Bible, archaeologists and historians have never found where mankind in general was said to have been created in the “image” of a particular god. Three Akkadian texts from the Sargonic period of Assyria’s history use the Akkadian cognate of tselem (“image”), but it is employed only in a context where kings are being discussed (Miller, 1972, 91:294-295). The rulers of empires were the sole beings referred to as “images” of gods.

According to the first chapter of the Bible, however, the Creator of the Universe has honored all humans by endowing them with certain qualities that are intrinsic to His nature. Genesis 1:26-27 describes all mankind with language that previously had been applied only to the supreme rulers of nations:

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female
He created them.

Make no mistake: “In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God” (Genesis 5:1). [For a discussion of what being made in the image of God means, see Lyons and Thompson, 2002.] Thousands of years after Creation, James warned Christians not to curse men because they “are made after the likeness of God” (3:9, ASV, emp. added). [NOTE: The English verb “are made” (ASV) derives from the Greek gegonotas, which is the perfect participle of the verb ginomai. The perfect tense in Greek is used to describe an action brought to completion in the past, but whose effects are felt in the present.] Although Adam and Eve are the only two humans to have been specially created by God (Genesis 2:7,21-22), all humanity shares the honor of being made in God’s likeness—which is why God condemns murder. Following the Flood, God said, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6, emp. added). Murder is forbidden because man is made in the image of God.

The newborns that Pharaoh drowned in ancient Egypt were Divine image bearers. Likewise, the infants that Herod slew some 1,500 years later also bore the likeness of God (Matthew 2:13-18). They were all 100% human beings. They were not rocks or plants. They were not animals. They were not merely blobs of living tissue. They were humans who had been given living spirits by “the Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12:9). What’s more, these babies were pure and sinless. They were (by creation) children of God, who had never separated themselves from Him (Ezekiel 18:20; cf. Matthew 18:3-5), and who now live in the afterlife in Paradise (cf. 2 Samuel 12:23).

ABORTION

Pharaoh slaughtered infants for population control purposes. Herod butchered babies in hopes of killing the King of kings. These men were wicked rulers who implemented hideous policies and practices. However, what is taking place in America today is no less revolting. The morally inept leadership of the United States, and those who willfully chose to put them into office, are just as guilty as the bloodthirsty, tyrannical baby killers of the past. Why? Because every year in America far more babies are brutally murdered than were killed in Egypt and Palestine in the days of Moses and Jesus.

More than one million innocent, unborn children are slaughtered each year in the United States of America (“Facts…,” 2008). In 2008, Guttmacher Institute reported that “from 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred” (“Facts…”). Forty-five million! That is more people than currently reside in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee…combined. The murder of unborn children has occurred with such frequency since the Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973 that few people ever stop to consider the brutality involved. I recently became aware of one high school student who went to school pregnant, left to have an abortion, then returned to finish the school day. (No, her parents were not informed of her “choice” beforehand.) “Just a casual procedure in a doctor’s office, that’s all it was.”

In truth, there is nothing casual about the slaughter of an innocent child. Have you ever considered what mothers and doctors do in order to abort a baby? (Most abortionists don’t want you to know, much less see, how abortions are performed!) In a murderous abortion procedure called “suction aspiration,” doctors use a knife-like device, and suction from a powerful hose and pump (“29 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner”—“Abortion Methods,” 2010), to chop and suck a baby out of the mother’s womb. In the “dilation and evacuation” abortion procedure, doctors actually use plier-like devices to twist and tear four-month-old unborn babies into pieces. Usually this requires crushing the baby’s skull and snapping the child’s spine in order to extract them. When mothers choose to abort their unborn babies who are older than four months, doctors often use a procedure called “saline injection” (i.e., salt poisoning). The strong salt solution that doctors inject through the mother’s abdomen acts as a corrosive and burns the baby inside and out. Normally, the child will suffer for an hour or more before dying. However, in some cases the children survive and are born alive. In most of these instances, they are helplessly left to themselves to die outside the womb. Still, a few have survived and lived to tell their story (see “Gianna Jessen,” 2006). When performing partial-birth abortions doctors normally deliver all of the baby except the head, then puncture the base of the skull with a pair of scissors, before removing the child’s brain with a hollow tube (“Abortion Methods,” 2010). This is sick! This is sadistic! Today’s abortions make Pharaoh’s command to cast the neonatal Israelites into the river sound like compassionate killing. No doubt, the cries of America’s innocent infants are being heard by the Creator. The shed blood of these blameless babies has been witnessed by our holy, just God who “hates…hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:16-17).

THE HUMANITY OF THE UNBORN

Some people believe that unborn humans at various embryonic stages are more animal-like than human. Ernst Haeckel first proposed this idea in the latter part of the 1800s. He insisted that what lived inside a woman during her pregnancy was not human until the latter part of the gestation period. Even though science disproved Haeckel’s ridiculous idea long ago, it is a myth “popular culture has never fully abandoned” (Gould, 2000, 109[2]:44). Sadly, some pro-abortionists still try to comfort themselves by insisting that the human embryo may be going through the stages of our alleged evolutionary ancestors, and thus they supposedly are not really human when aborted (see Jackson, n.d.). Other pro-abortionists seem happy to just take a “leap of faith” and hope that what is inside a pregnant woman is not a living, human being. Still others, like pro-abortion President Barack Obama, claim not to know when an unborn child is fully human. In a Presidential Candidates Forum on August 16, 2008, then-Senator Obama declared that knowing when an unborn child deserves human rights is “above my pay grade” (“Saddleback…”). Though the President claims ignorance on the matter, his hypocritical actions speak volumes: he still strongly supports pro-abortion policies. If President Obama truly does not know when an unborn infant deserves human rights, then why is he “a consistent champion” of allowing millions of Americans to mutilate their unborn children (“Women,” 2009)?

The fact is, common sense, science, and Scripture all show that an unborn embryo/baby is a living, human being. Do nonliving beings hiccup, suck their thumbs, or respond to touch, pain, cold, sound, and light? Of course not. Yet unborn babies do all of these things (see “Fetal Development,” 2003). They have a beating heart and a working brain. They are, beyond any doubt, living, human beings! Only the cold, callous heart would think otherwise. [For information on life beginning at conception, see Major, 1995.]

Although she recanted her views about abortion several years ago, relatively few people know that “Jane Roe,” the pseudonym that Norma McCorvey assumed as the lead plaintiff in the infamous Roe v. Wade case, no longer supports abortion. After over 20 years of supporting the pro-abortion platform, McCorvey suddenly began opposing abortion and has been for several years now. Why did this pro-abortion poster child become pro-life? What led to her change in thinking? Why does she now adamantly oppose the slaughtering of innocent unborn babies? According to McCorvey, the “straw that broke the camel’s back” came while she was working in an abortion clinic and was instructed to enter a room where aborted fetuses were kept. Her assignment was to count the body parts of an infant that had just been aborted—to make sure the doctor had retrieved the entire baby from the mother’s womb. McCorvey, who had previously worked in at least three other abortion clinics, stated, “I went back to the parts room, and I looked at this tiny little infant, and I freaked” (as quoted in McGrew, 2002, emp. added). “Jane Roe,” the woman who symbolized a woman’s right to have an abortion (i.e., Roe v. Wade), was forced to look upon the body parts of an aborted “fetus” and became convinced that it was a human being. Why? Because it looked like a human being. Unborn babies look like humans beings because they are human beings!

When Samuel Armas was a 21-week unborn baby, USA Today photojournalist Michael Clancy snapped what arguably would become the most famous pre-natal photograph ever. On August 19, 1999, Dr. Joseph Bruner, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, performed spina bifida surgery on Samuel while he was in utero. During the surgery, Samuel, who was only about half way through the normal gestation period, was pictured with his tiny hand resting on one of the doctor’s fingers. Samuel was born 15 weeks later. When Samuel’s surgery was first reported more than 10 years ago, many eyes were opened to the preciousness and humanity of early unborn children (for more information, see Miller, 2009). More recently, however, another baby, who further testifies to the humanity of unborn children, captured the headlines. Her name: Amillia Sonja Taylor. She was born on October 24, 2006 in south Florida. What makes Amillia so special? Doctors believe she “spent less time in the womb than any other surviving infant” (“Florida Baby…,” 2007). Amillia’s mother, Sonja, carried Amillia for less than 22 weeks. At delivery, she was only 9½ inches long and weighed less than a can of soda. But, she was a living human being. Four months later, Amillia weighed 4½ pounds, was 15½ inches long, and was almost ready to go home for the very first time (“Doctors Extend…”). Two years later, she was a healthy toddler (“Amillia…”).

Amillia did not turn into a human 15 to 18 weeks later—when most babies are delivered—she was a human at 22 weeks, had been human since she was conceived, and deserved rights like any other human. She was not lifeless matter—a mere blob of tissue. She was not a plant. She was not an animal. She was a living, growing human being. Millions of “Samuel Armases” and “Amillia Taylors” have been brutally mutilated on the holy grail of a “woman’s right to choose.” How can anyone look at pictures of an unborn child such as Samuel Armas, or a 10-ounce baby such as Amillia Taylor, and come to the conclusion that at 22 weeks old they are not human beings?

Consider some things that science has discovered about unborn babies in the first trimester of a mother’s pregnancy.

Day 22—heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, often a different type than the mother’s

Week 5—eyes, legs, hands begin to develop

Week 6—brain waves detectable; mouth, lips present; fingernails forming

Week 7—eyelids, toes form; nose distinct, baby kicking and swimming

Week 8—every organ in place; bones begin to replace cartilage, fingerprints begin to form

Weeks 9 and 10—teeth begin to form, fingernails develop; baby can turn head, frown

Week 11—baby can grasp objects placed in hand; all organ systems functioning; the baby has fingerprints, a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation

Week 12—the baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including the nerves, spinal cord and thalamus (“Diary of an Unborn Baby,” n.d.).

In addition to the support that common sense and science give for the living humanity of unborn children, Scripture is equally clear on the subject.

In the Law of Moses, God specifically addressed the life and value of an unborn child in Exodus 21:22-23. He informed Moses: “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life.” Notice how God equates the life of all humans—both the unborn and the already born: “life for life,” He said. If God did not view a “premature” baby as a living human being, then one could not take “life for life.” Rather, it would be more like “a living human for a blob of matter.” But unborn children are not merely blobs of tissue; they are lovely, living, human beings (cf. Miller, 2004).

When the angel Gabriel informed Mary about the pregnancy of her cousin, Elizabeth, the angel of God said that she had “conceived” (Luke 1:36). Conceived what? What was inside of Elizabeth? A mass of meaningless matter? A non-living non-human? An animal evolving into a person? What had Elizabeth conceived? Gabriel informed Mary that Elizabeth had “conceived a son.” What’s more, when Mary went to visit Elizabeth prior to the births of John the Baptizer and Jesus, Luke, the physician, called the unborn baby in Elizabeth’s womb a “babe,” and even noted that he “leaped in her womb” (Luke 1:41,44). Luke used this term (Greek brephos) at least four other times. Twice he used it in reference to Jesus lying in a manger after His birth (Luke 2:12,16), once when referring to young infants whose parents had sought the Lord’s blessings (Luke 18:15), and once in reference to the babies that Pharaoh had exposed in ancient Egypt (Acts 7:19; cf. Exodus 1:22).

In each of these cases, brephos refers to children, to boys and girls, to sons and daughters—to living human beings whom the psalmist said are fearfully and wonderfully made, formed, and woven by Almighty God (139:13-16). Man should be careful tampering with Jehovah’s creation whom He fashions in His image!

AMERICA, ABORTION, AND THE ABSURD

Mommas Can Murder, But Daddies Can’t?

Few things enrage a community more than finding out that a pregnant woman has been murdered. Towns struck with such an atrocity often rise up and declare that justice must be served: “Violators should be charged with two counts of murder, not just one.” In recent times, men committing such heinous crimes have been charged with double murder. From Missouri to California, from Ohio to Utah, prosecutors have been pushing for maximum penalties by charging men, who allegedly have killed their pregnant wives (or girlfriends), with two counts of murder. Just last year, a California man was convicted of murdering both a mother and her unborn baby after he brutally stabbed the mother (and child) repeatedly with scissors (Ertelt, 2009).

It is encouraging to know that our judicial system has seen fit to prosecute those who murder unborn babies, and to make the guilty pay the highest penalties allowed. In these situations, our judicial system has treated the unborn baby as he/she really is—a human being. “A person guilty of murdering an unborn child is guilty of murdering a person.” This is what we are being told over and over again by those who seek to charge men, who take the lives of a woman and her unborn baby, with double murder.

But wait a minute! How can an unborn child be considered a human being in one situation (when a man takes the life of a woman and her baby), but then, when a pregnant woman wants to take the life of her unborn child, the baby becomes an “appendage” of the mother’s body? “The baby is not a human being, just an extra lump of tissue that the mother can discard at will.” If the father intentionally kicks a baby while in the mother’s womb, killing the child, he likely will be sentenced to prison, or possibly to death (and rightly so—Genesis 9:6). On the other hand, if a mother goes to an abortion clinic and pays a doctor to insert an instrument into her uterus literally to pull and shred the baby into pieces, snapping the spinal cord, and crushing the skull, she has done nothing illegal.

How, in the name of common sense, can our courts rule that when a woman takes the life of her own child, “it is a choice,” but when someone else takes that life, “it is murder”? Such reasoning makes no sense. Abortion-rights activists, at least, are consistent in this regard. As Heather Boonstra, senior public policy associate at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, stated: “The law cannot hold both that a pregnant woman is two persons and at the same time allow her to have an abortion” (as quoted in Simon, 2001).

Inhumane to Kill Dogs, but not Humans?

In August 2007, many people, including myself, were disappointed to learn that a well-known professional football player (Michael Vick) pled guilty to sponsoring, financing, and participating in the brutal sport of dog fighting. Vick even admitted that he was partly responsible for hanging and drowning a number of dogs that did not perform well in certain “test” fights (see United States v. Michael Vick). For his crimes, Vick was sentenced to 23 months behind bars, most of which were served in a federal prison in Leavenworth, Kansas.

I certainly believe that Vick’s actions (i.e., the drowning of dogs, etc.) can be described as appalling and somewhat sadistic. What’s more, he knowingly participated in a sport which has been outlawed in every state in America. He deserved some kind of punishment for his actions. But, we must recognize that Vick’s acts were done against animals. Though dogs may be “man’s best friend” (and I happen to love dogs), they still are just animals—not humans. They are every bit as much an animal as cows, crows, chickens, deer, monkeys, horses, and pigs.

How absurd, inconsistent, and immoral is the United States’ judicial system when a person must serve nearly two years in prison for fighting, hanging, and drowning animals, yet,
if a woman slaughters a 22-week-old unborn human, she supposedly is blameless! The fact that doctors in the United States can legally rip unborn babies to pieces, chop them up with knife-like devices, or puncture their skulls with a pair of scissors before sucking out their brains, is atrocious. Are we to believe that Vick’s actions against dogs were “inhumane,” but what happens to approximately one million innocent, unborn babies every year in America is not? What could be more inhumane than willfully, selfishly, arrogantly, and brutally taking the life of a human—one of God’s image-bearers (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6)? Baby murderers freely walk the streets of America every day, but dog fighters are jailed for inhumane acts—against animals? How absurd!

Overpopulation Problem?
Don’t Pollute the Planet with Babies?

More than 3,500 years ago, Pharaoh observed that the children of Israel were growing and multiplying so rapidly that he became fearful of problems such a large number of slaves might cause. Exodus chapter one makes clear that Pharaoh gave two separate execution orders upon Israel’s newborn sons because of what he perceived as an overpopulation problem. Sadly, such “reasoning” is still used today.

In 2006, evolutionary environmentalist Dr. Eric Pianka was named the Distinguished Texas Scientist of the Year. At his award ceremony in Beaumont, Texas, attendee Forrest Mims reported how Pianka

began laying out his concerns about how human overpopulation is ruining the Earth. He presented a doomsday scenario in which he claimed that the sharp increase in human population since the beginning of the industrial age is devastating the planet. He warned that quick steps must be taken to restore the planet before it’s too late. Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number…. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years (Mims; cf. Butt, 2008).

Most people find Dr. Pianka’s suggestions insane. Who in his right mind would propose spreading airborne Ebola around the planet for the purpose of reducing the world’s population? Ridiculous? Before dismissing Texas’ 2006 “Distinguished Scientist” as a raving lunatic, consider a more palatable form of population reduction.

In 1977, Paul and Anne Ehrlich and John Holdren (who currently serves as President Obama’s “science czar”) penned a book titled: Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment. In the book, Holdren and the Ehrlichs assert that “there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…. [U]nder the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted” (p. 1280). What kind of “population-control programs” exactly? They specifically noted: “compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion,” which “could be sustained under the existing constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger society” (p. 1280, emp. added). Is there really much difference between the Pharaoh of Exodus one and President Obama’s science czar (cf. Matthew 5:21-22; 15:18)?

The United Kingdom’s Daily Mail ran a story a few years back about a woman (Toni Vernelli) who “terminated her pregnancy in the firm belief she was helping save the planet” (as quoted in Courtenay-Smith and Turner, 2007, emp. added). According to Vernelli, “Having children is selfish…. Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population” (2007). Vernelli indicated her desire to “save the planet—not produce a new life which would only add to the problem.” She went on to describe procreation as “something negative” and claimed that there were many others with similar planet-saving ideas. The Daily Mail concurred, saying, “Toni is far from alone” (2007).

Thirty-one-year-old Sarah Irving was in complete agreement with Vernelli. “[A] baby,” she said, “would pollute the planet…. [N]ever having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do” (2007, emp. added). Sarah and her fiancé Mark Hudson told the Daily Mail, “In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child…. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth” (emp. added). In the minds of environmentalists and atheists, including Freedom from Religion’s President Dan Barker, murdering unborn children can be considered “progress” and a “blessing” (see Barker, 1992, p. 135; see also Barker and Rankin, 2006), while bringing children into the world may be “negative” and “morally wrong.”

CONCLUSION

Some 2,700 years ago, the prophet Isaiah warned of those “who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter…who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight” (5:20-21). Sadly, Isaiah’s description of the ungodly fits America to a tee. In this country, we call unbridled lust “love,” we describe immodest apparel as “stylish,” we refer to homosexuals as being “gay,” and baby murderers we call “pro-choice”—protectors of “women’s rights.” (Whatever happened to children’s rights?)

What will become of those who “call evil good, and good evil”? What is God’s reaction to those who “rejoice in iniquity” rather than truth (1 Corinthians 13:6)? Isaiah spoke of God’s judgments and punishment:

Therefore, as the fire devours the stubble, and the flame consumes the chaff, so their root will be as rottenness, and their blossom will ascend like dust; because they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. Therefore the anger of the Lord is aroused against His people; He has stretched out His hand against them and stricken them, and the hills trembled. Their carcasses were as refuse in the midst of the streets (5:24-25).

According to the psalmist, “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God” (9:17).

Both the Bible and history teach us that God does not tolerate wicked, bloodthirsty nations forever. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fire from heaven. He raised a mighty army to punish the wicked inhabitants of Canaan (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-12). He sent “angels of destruction” upon Egypt, and gave them “over to the plague, and destroyed all the firstborn” (Psalm 78:49-51). What will be America’s fate? If our “Christian” country’s murderous methods do not cease, what can we expect? We can expect that God will severely judge our nation in this life, while individually rendering “each one according to his deeds” in the afterlife (Romans 2:5-10). In the meantime, may our longsuffering Savior grant Christians the courage to “take up the whole armor of God” and “be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might” (Ephesians 6:13,10).

REFERENCES

“Abortion Methods” (2010), http://www.lifesitenews.com/abortiontypes/.

“Amillia Turns Two” (2008), http://growingyourbaby.blogspot.com/2008/10/amillia-taylor-turns-2.html.

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom From Religion Foundation).

Barker, Dan and John Rankin (2006), “Evolution and Intelligent Design: What are the Issues?” http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/ID_Debate.mp3.

Butt, Kyle (2008), “The Bitter Fruits of Atheism [Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 28[7]:49-55, July, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3740.

Butt, Kyle (2009), “Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?” Reason & Revelation, 29[12]:89-95, December.

Courtenay-Smith, Natasha and Morag Turner (2007), “Meet the Women Who Won’t Have Babies—Because They’re Not Eco Friendly,” Daily Mail, November 21, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879.

“Diary of an Unborn Baby” (no date), National Right to Life Foundation, http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/fetusdevelopment.html.

“Doctors Extend Hospital Stay of Tiniest Premature Baby” (2007), Associated Press, February 20, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252878,00.html.

Ehrlich, Paul, Anne Ehrlich, and John Holdren (1977), Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Company), http://www.scribd.com/doc/22480029/Ecoscience-Population-Resources-Environment-1649-Pgs-John-Holdren.

Ertelt, Steven (2009), “California Man Convicted Killing Both Pregnant Girlfriend and Unborn Child,” http://www.lifenews.com/state4210.html.

“Facts on Induced Abortions in the United Sates” (2008), Alan Guttmacher Institute, http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.pdf.

“Fetal Development: From Conception to Birth” (2003), National Right to Life, http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/fetaldevelopment.html.

“Florida Baby Delivered at 21 Weeks Won’t Go Home as Planned” (2007), Associated Press, February 20, http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-20-tiny-baby_x.htm.

“Gianna Jessen” (2006), http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/giannajessen.asp.

Gould, Stephen Jay (2000), “Abscheulich! (Atrocious),” Natural History, 109[2]:42-50, March.

Jackson, Wayne (no date), “The ‘Link’ Between Evolution and Abortion,” Christian Courier, http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/958-the-link-between-evolution-and-abortion.

Lyons, Eric and Bert Thompson (2002), “In the ‘Image and Likeness of God’ [Parts I/II],” Reason & Revelation, March/April, 22:17-23,25-31.

Major, Trevor (1995), “The Value of Early Human Life,” Reason & Revelation, 15[2]:9-15, February, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/259.

McGrew, Jannel (2002), “‘Jane Roe’ Tells Story of Change at Fundraiser,” Prattville Progress, May 1.

Miller, Dave (2004), “Abortion and Exodus 21,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2598.

Miller, J. Maxwell (1972), “In the ‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ of God,” Journal of Biblical Literature, September, 91:289-304.

Miller, Joshua Rhett (2009), “Ten Years Later, Boy’s ‘Hand of Hope’ Continues to Spark Debate,” Fox News, May 6, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519181,00.html.

Mims, Forrest (2006), “Dealing with Doctor Doom,” The Citizen Scientist, http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html.

“Saddleback Presidential Candidates Forum” (2008), August 16, http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/08/17/full-transcript-saddleback-presidential-forum-sen-barack-obama-john-mccain-moderated-by-rick-warren/.

Simon, Stephanie (2001), “Debate Grows on Whether Fetuses Should Have Special Legal Status,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6A, June 17, http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1683&dat=20010617&id=G8AaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XjAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6739,6695111.

United States v. Michael Vick (2007), 3:07CR274, http://sports.espn.go.com/photo/2007/0824/vicksummary.pdf.

“Women” (2009), The White House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/women.

The post Abortion and the Ungodly Irrationality Surrounding Unwanted Infants appeared first on Apologetics Press.

As the Christian moral framework on which the nation was founded has experienced significant erosion, many citizens have embraced the self-contradictory viewpoint that they can appreciate, and even “celebrate,” a host of mutually exclusive religions, ideologies, and behaviors. Homosexuality and killing unborn babies are supported and affirmed, while those who profess a non-Christian religion like Islam are also being welcomed—though Muslims believe abortion is a crime and homosexuals ought to be executed. Polygamy has always been immoral and illegal in American civilization (Miller, 2006; Miller, 2009), yet the Quran teaches that a man may have up to four wives (Miller, 2004, 3[4]:9-R), and the thousands of Muslims that are coming to America obviously are not foregoing their polygamous relationships. The result? Complete social and moral confusion.

The God of the Bible declares: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20). Regarding those who engage in immoral behavior, Christians are admonished to attempt to “save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh” (Jude 23). All people are called upon to “[a]bhor what is evil. Cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9). Sadly, few these days seem even to know what is good or evil.

Miller, Dave (2004), “Polygamy and the Quran,” Reason & Revelation, 3[4]:9-R, March, [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=4029.

Miller, Dave (2006), “The Next Domino: Polygamy,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4809.

Miller, Dave (2009), “Sexual Depravity Continues to Expand,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240099.

The post Abhor What is Evil? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Spiritually speaking, however, America has lost its moral compass. In reality, it is a filthy, ungodly nation. Instead of printing and disseminating Bibles (as did our Founding Fathers), which inform children that they are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), we print millions of taxpayer-funded textbooks that tell young people they came from slime. Instead of abhorring and detesting the sin of homosexuality (as did our first Commander in Chief [“George…,” 1778] and as does God [Genesis 19; Romans 1:24-32]), our current President embraces the perversion of homosexuality. Instead of hating the shedding of innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17), many millions of Americans elect representatives who support the murder of innocent, unborn children.

Oh, but do not think that evolution, homosexuality, and abortion are the only spiritual diseases infecting this country. Rather than acknowledge fornication, adultery, and impurity as sin (Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), most Americans, including many so-called Christians, embrace these actions as normal, fun, and innocent. Evil entertainment is more prolific and easily accessible than ever in our country’s history. The number one downloaded song on iTunes only a few weeks ago was Brittany Spears’ latest hit titled simply “3.” What is “3”? Only a song about “gettin’ down with 3P” (i.e., three people having sexual relations together at the same time). This former number one song glamorizes sin from beginning to end. Twice in the song Spears specifically mocks that which the Bible says separates man from God (Isaiah 59:1-2), saying, “Livin’ in sin is the new thing (yeah).” How many people in this “Christian nation” are walking around singing this song? How many “Christians” currently have this song on their iPod? [NOTE: I spoke with a small group of Christian teens recently, one of whom admitted to having already downloaded this song on her cell phone.]

How is it that a television series largely about single women’s sexual escapades (Sex and the City) gets nominated for 50 Emmy Awards (winning seven times) during its six seasons on television? Why are songs, television shows, and movies (e.g., The 40-Year-Old Virgin) that mock purity and celebrate sin so popular? Why is the fruit of the Spirit (faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, etc.) continually ridiculed, while the works of the flesh (sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, etc.) are constantly paraded as acceptable lifestyles of “good people”? Because most Americans, even many “Christian” Americans, have forgotten God and grown accustomed to calling “evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). Righteousness is ridiculed regularly, while sin is celebrated incessantly.

America most certainly was founded by men who professed faith in God, read the Scriptures regularly, and made many proclamations and policies that closely mirrored biblical teachings (see Miller, 2008). America was not founded by Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists. Our Founding Fathers claimed to be Christians, and believed that the God of the Bible was instrumental in the establishment of this nation. At one time in our country’s history, atheism, homosexuality, adultery, lewdness, etc. were considered repulsive and rarely celebrated publicly. Today, however, America is far from being a “Christian nation.” We live in a physically beautiful, God-given country which, sadly, is filled with ungrateful, ungodly non-believers and hypocritical “Christians.”

May God help the faithful children of God (1) to keep “unspotted from the world” (James 1:27), while (2) reflecting the light of Jesus Christ to a sin-stained country in need of a great spiritual awakening.

“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).

“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Isaiah 5:20).

 

Miller, Dave (2008), The Silencing of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

“George Washington, March 14, 1778, General Orders” (1778), The George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799, from ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit (gw110081)).

The post America the Beautiful? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In August 2007, many people, including myself, were disappointed to learn that a well-known professional football player (Michael Vick) plead guilty to sponsoring, financing, and participating in the brutal sport of dog fighting. Vick even admitted that he was partly responsible for hanging and drowning a number of dogs that did not perform well in certain “test” fights (see United States v. Michael Vick, 2007). For his crimes, Vick was sentenced to 23 months behind bars, most of which were served in a federal prison in Leavenworth, Kansas.

I certainly believe that Vick’s actions (i.e., the drowning of dogs, etc.) can be described as appalling and somewhat sadistic. What’s more, he knowingly participated in a sport which has been outlawed in every state in America. He deserved some kind of punishment for his actions. But, we must recognize that Vick’s acts were done against animals. Though dogs may be “man’s best friend,” they still are just animals, not humans. They are every bit as much an animal as cows, crows, chickens, deer, monkeys, horses, and pigs are animals.

How absurd, inconsistent, and immoral is the United States judicial system when a person must serve nearly two years in prison for fighting, hanging, and drowning animals, yet, if that same person slaughters a 20-week-old unborn human, he supposedly is blameless. The fact that doctors in the United States can legally rip unborn babies to pieces with plier-like forceps, chop them up with knife-like devices, or puncture their skulls with a pair of scissors before sucking out the babies’ brains, is atrocious (cf. Proverbs 6:16-17). Are we to believe that Vick’s actions against dogs were “inhumane,” but what happens to approximately one million innocent, unborn babies every year in America is not? What could be more inhumane than willfully, selfishly, arrogantly, and brutally taking the life of a human—one of God’s image-bearers (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6)? Baby murderers freely walk the streets of America everyday, but dog fighters are jailed for inhumane acts…against animals? How absurd! How atrocious!

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! Woe to men mighty at drinking wine, woe to men valiant for mixing intoxicating drink, who justify the wicked for a bribe, and take away justice from the righteous man! Therefore, as the fire devours the stubble, and the flame consumes the chaff, so their root will be as rottenness, and their blossom will ascend like dust; because they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel (Isaiah 5:20-24).

Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people (Proverbs 14:34).

United States v. Michael Vick (2007), 3:07CR274, [On-line], URL: http://sports.espn.go.com/photo/2007/0824/vicksummary.pdf.

The post Animals, Abortion, and the Absurd appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Our society, however, cannot consistently maintain the idea that fetuses are not human persons. For example, in April, a 38-year-old pregnant woman in the state of Massachusetts intentionally stabbed herself in the abdomen, killing her seven-month-old child (Lavoie, 2009). If she had gone to a clinic, and allowed a doctor to kill the child with forceps, saline solution, or a high-powered vacuum device, the “procedure” would be a routine “medical” occurrence resulting in the legal death of a “fetus.” Since she did the job herself, however, authorities are waiting for the results of an autopsy to determine whether the child could have survived outside the womb. If the child was “viable” outside the womb, then the authorities will be deciding “whether to…charge Chi-Xue with murder in the death of her unborn baby” (Lavoie, 2009). The tragic irony of the situation is that doctors routinely murder children who are viable outside the womb, but authorities never consider charging them with murder. So why would the case be different with Chi-Xue?

Apparently, our society thinks that “sanitizing” murder by calling it abortion, performing it in a hospital or clinic, and allowing “licensed practitioners” to perform the macabre act, justifies the resulting death of the innocent child. Yet when such distractions are absent, and the brutality of a mother stabbing her 7½ month-old unborn child comes before us, it seems clear to the most calloused, pro-choice advocate that a gruesome crime has been committed. How long, fellow citizens, will God allow a nation full of the blood of innocent children to continue? As it was in Israel in the Old Testament under the reign of Manasseh, so it is true today, we have filled the United States with innocent blood, which the Lord will not pardon (2 Kings 24:4).

REFERENCE

Lavoie, Denise (2009), “Mom Suspected of Killing Daughter, Stabbing Fetus,” [On-line], URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090417/ap_on_re_us/mother_stabbings.

The post Is It Murder? Depends on Who Does It appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITORS’ NOTE: This article is the second installment in a three-part series based on the author’s seminar and soon-to-be-released book—“The Silencing of God: The Dismantling of America’s Christian Heritage.” Part I appeared in the September issue. Part II follows below, and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

Summary

The butchery of babies and sexual perversion undoubtedly will go down in history as primary contributors to the moral and spiritual deterioration, decline, and collapse of American society (see Miller, 2006). Abortion and homosexuality are glaring proofs of the expanding rejection of God in American civilization. They show the extent to which Americans are severing themselves from the laws of God in exchange for wanton indulgence of human passion. Forget where a candidate stands on health care, the environment, and social security! We simply must lay aside all the other political issues that vie for our attention and affect our finances, and vote based on where a candidate stands on these two premiere moral issues that will spell the doom of our nation. If the nation is punished for its moral degradation, our finances will be the least of our worries.

The social turbulence of the 1960s created a revolution in societal mores among the baby boomer generation. The stated philosophy of “do your own thing” literally has “gone to seed” in American society. The result is that many Americans live their lives and make their day-to-day moral decisions on the basis of a hodge-podge of values drawn from a variety of sources. Situation ethics is the order of the day, and the average person simply acts on his feelings and personal opinions. Morality is now individualistic—with each person formulating his own belief system and then measuring his behavior against that subjective, personal, moral framework. Concomitant with the development of this circumstance is the corresponding sentiment that no one should “judge” anyone else’s beliefs or actions, and everyone should be “tolerant” of the diversity of viewpoints that permeate society.

The Founders were adamant in their insistence that the survival of the Republic depends

Thomas Jefferson

on its citizens maintaining unchanging Christian moral virtue. They would be deeply saddened to see the extent to which our civilization has slumped from its original high moral ground. In a letter from Paris dated August 28, 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison: “I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively” (Jefferson, 1789). He was simply expressing the widespread view of the Founders as well as the populace of the United States at the time. Indeed, he merely articulated biblical reality, in which moral value, good, and evil, are defined by the Creator in His Word, the Bible. By that Word and by that standard, every human life will one day be measured. In the words of Jesus Christ: “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).

At a time when French immorality was notorious, John Jay related two experiences he had while in France:

During my residence there, I do not recollect to have had more than two conversations with atheists about their tenets. The

John Jay

first was this: I was at a large party, of which were several of that description. They spoke freely and contemptuously of religion. I took no part in the conversation. In the course of it, one of them asked me if I believed in Christ? I answered that I did, and that I thanked God that I did…. Some time afterward, one of my family being dangerously ill, I was advised to send for an English physician who had resided many years at Paris…. But, it was added, he is an atheist…. [D]uring one of his visits, [he] very abruptly remarked that there was no God and he hoped the time would come when there would be no religion in the world. I very concisely remarked that if there was no God there could be no moral obligations, and I did not see how society could subsist without them… (as quoted in Jay, 1833, 2:346-347, emp. added).

Patrick Henry shared Jay’s assessment of France. In fact, Henry, who “realized as few men did the danger to the republican institutions of his country from the

Patrick Henry

undermining influence of French infidelity, set himself to counteracting its baneful influence by every means in his power” (Henry, 1891, 2:200). Hear his forthright denunciation of French morals:

But, as to France, I have no doubt in saying, that to her it will be calamitous. Her conduct has made it the interest of the great family of mankind to wish the downfall of her present government; because its existence is incompatible with that of all others within its reach. And, whilst I see the dangers that threaten ours from her intrigues and her arms, I am not so much alarmed as at the apprehension of her destroying the great pillars of all government and of social life; I mean virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed (1891, 2:591-592, emp. added).

After serving two terms as Vice-President alongside President

John Adams

George Washington, the second President of these United States, John Adams, delivered a speech to military officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on October 11, 1798. In this speech, Adams included an uncompromising affirmation of the essentiality of Christian morality:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other (1854, 9:229, emp. added).

In a letter written from Philadelphia to the Abbés Chalut and Arnoux

Benjamin Franklin

on April 17, 1787, Benjamin Franklin spoke positively of the relative calmness with which Americans were handling the “overturning” caused by the Revolution, which he attributed to America’s stable moral framework:

Your reflections on our situation compared with that of many nations of Europe, are very sensible and just. Let me add, that only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters (1988, emp. added).

Declaration signer and president of the Continental Congress (1784), Richard Henry Lee, emphatically affirmed on March 6, 1786: “It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the

Richard Henry Lee

people” (1914, 2:411, emp. added). Dr. Benjamin Rush added his blunt observation: “Without the restraints of religion and social worship, men become savages” (1951, 1:505, emp. added).

In his critique of France’s revolution, Founder Noah Webster spoke with displeasure of the French revolutionists’ “impious attempts to exterminate every part of the Christian religion,” and, referring to himself in the third person, insisted:

He is not yet convinced that men are capable of such perfection on earth, as to regulate all their actions by moral rectitude, without the restraints of religion and law. He does not believe with the French atheist, that the universe is composed solely of matter and motion, without a Supreme Intelligence; nor that man is solely the creature of education. He believes that God, and not education, gives man his passions; and that the business of education is to restrain and direct the passions to the purposes of social happiness. He believes that man will always have passions—that these passions will frequently urge him into vices—that religion has an excellent effect in repressing vices, in softening the manners of men, and consoling them under the pressure of calamities (1794, Vol. 2, Ch. 44, emp. added).

All of these Founders, and many more, understood and believed the biblical declaration: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34). We must rise up and petition political authorities in behalf of Christian morality. We have an evangelistic responsibility!

Consider the solemn, virtually prophetic, warning issued by James A. Garfield, who became the 20th President of the United States in 1880:

Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of

James A. Garfield

their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation…it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces (as quoted in Taylor, 1970, p. 180, emp. added).

And consider the relevant advice of the first Chief Justice of the first U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, who, in a letter to Jedidiah Morse on January 1, 1813, commented on whether Christians should elect non-Christians to public office:

Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab affords a salutary lesson (1890, 4:365).

Jay was referring to the query posed by Jehu: “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord?” (2 Chronicles 19:2). Jay further insisted that Americans must be diligent in their political selections since it was God who gave us this privilege:

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers (as quoted in Jay, 1833, 2:376, emp. added).

Noah Webster was in complete agreement:

[L]et it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will

Noah Webster

rule in the fear of God [an allusion to Exodus 18:21—DM]. The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted…. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands and elect bad men to make and administer the laws (1832, pp. 336-337, emp. added).

Jethro delineated for his son-in-law, Moses, four critical qualifications for political leaders that match God’s view of the matter: “Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness” (Exodus 18:21, emp. added). Or as Solomon stated: “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan…. The king establishes the land by justice, but he who receives bribes overthrows it” (Proverbs 29:2,4).

The fact is, we had better forget politics and party

Benjamin Rush

loyalties, and learn to think and act spiritually. We must view political issues from the perspective of God as indicated in His Word (Isaiah 55:8-9;Jeremiah 10:23). We must learn to make decisions in harmony with Christian morals and principles. Signer of the Declaration and physician, Dr. Benjamin Rush, put this matter in perspective:

I have been alternately called an aristocrat and a democrat. I am neither. I am a Christocrat. I believe all power…will always fail of producing order and happiness in the hands of man. He alone who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him (as quoted in Ramsay, 1813, p. 103, emp. added).

VI. Boycott Hollywood. Do not enable the entertainment industry in its wicked assault on morality. Hollywood does not represent what America has always been about. In fact, they are as antagonistic and hostile toward God, Christianity, and true patriotism as anyone can be. And many Americans are insanely enamored with the fluff and glitter of such frivolous pursuits. Indeed, with the passing of the World War II generation, succeeding generations of Americans have little or no interest in the higher, nobler aspects of human existence, cultivating moral excellence and the virtuous development of the human spirit. Instead, entertainment, pleasure, physical stimulation, and indulging fleshly appetites now take center stage. To show the extent to which Americans have degenerated in their sensibilities, who would have ever imagined that the day could ever come when an American Idol contestant would generate more votes than any U.S. President has received (August, et al., 2006, p. 23)? We ought to be ashamed—and alarmed. Does recreation and playing mean more to us than our souls, the souls of our children, and the survival of our society?

VII. Be resolute, steadfast, and unmovable. Do not give up. Stay with the battle. America’s current condition did not develop overnight. It will take time and persistence to turn the nation around.

To capsule these seven items: STAND UP AND SPEAK OUT! Verbalize and articulate the truth at every opportunity. The solution to all of the problems encountered by humans is the Word of God. The Bible has the answers!

What lies ahead for America when a sizable percentage of the citizenry no longer acknowledges or submits to the God of the Bible? What is going to happen to this country when many of our people no longer believe that a nation is blessed only if its God is the Lord? What does the future hold, given the direction we are going? When one examines the sweeping scope of human history, it becomes readily apparent that progress is not linear. Rather, nations rise and fall. The progress that they achieve is often lost to later civilizations, who must essentially “reinvent the wheel.” Archaeological evidence exists to substantiate the fact that highly advanced civilizations have preceded modern times, creating many enigmas for researchers. The Moche were a highly developed society that vanished centuries ago. The ancient Paracas performed medieval wonders in brain surgery using only crude metal instruments. The fabled Macchu Picchu achieved incredible engineering feats (“Inca…,” 1995). The Nasca (or perhaps their predecessors) produced massive drawings that stretch for miles and are thus visible/discernible only from the air (“The Lost City…,” 2000; “Nasca Lines,” n.d.).

What happened to such civilizations? Why are they now nonexistent? One would expect that the likelihood of a nation’s survival would increase in proportion to the technological, medical, and economic progress. One explanation for this circumstance (perhaps the explanation) is provided by the Bible. Simply stated, the Bible affirms that as a nation moves in the direction of spiritual and moral depravity, becoming increasingly alienated from God, that nation positions itself for inevitable destruction. That destruction may come in the form of natural disasters—such as volcanoes (e.g., Pompeii). It may come in the form of external invasion—as in the case of the fall of Babylonia or Rome. It can even come in the form of direct, miraculous intervention by God—as in the case of Sodom and the other cities of the plain (Genesis 19:29).

This principle is alluded to repeatedly in Scripture. When God promised to Abraham that his descendents would be given the land of Canaan as their homeland, He noted that this gift would not be given for several hundred years. Why the delay? “[F]or the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Genesis 15:16). God would not have displaced one group of people simply in order to give another group the land. That would be unjust and prejudicial—in direct contradiction to God’s nature (Deuteronomy 32:4). He eventually allowed the Israelites to conquer Canaan because the peoples that inhabited the land had grown exceedingly wicked. Coincidental to reception of the land, God used the Israelites to punish the Canaanites for their perversion and depravity.

For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you (for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore you shall keep My ordinance, so that you do not commit any of these abominable customs which were committed before you, and that you do not defile yourselves by them: I am the Lord your God (Leviticus 18:25-30, emp. added).

Observe that God gives civilizations a considerable amount of time—even hundreds of years—to choose the spiritual and moral direction they will take. If they are determined to spiral downward in an ever-deepening devotion to idolatry, covetousness, sexual impurity, etc., then God eventually “lowers the boom” and destroys them for their iniquity (cf. the Genesis Flood). The inspired writer of the book of Kings compared the wickedness of King Ahab to the previous inhabitants of the land of Canaan, noting the reason for their destruction: “And he behaved very abominably in following idols, according to all that the Amorites had done, whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel” (1 Kings 21:25-26).

This same principle is reiterated in the New Testament. Jesus summarized the history of Israel as one of frequent rebellion against divine precepts. He intimated that they were nearing the limit of God’s toleration and impending punishment when He declared to them: “Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt” (Matthew 23:32). It was as if an imaginary cup had been gradually filling up with sin, and that it was nearing the brim—at which time God would respond with appropriate destruction. Paul verified this very understanding when he accused his fellow Jews of having been the ones “who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost (1 Thessalonians 2:15-16, emp. added). As the Jews entrenched themselves against the will of God, they were guilty of piling sins on top of sins, until inevitable divine wrath would be forthcoming—as it did when the Romans sacked Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Writing centuries earlier, the inspired writer of Kings acknowledged this principle in his summary of the Jews’ national history:

And the Lord spoke by His servants the prophets, saying, “Because Manasseh king of Judah has done these abominations (he has acted more wickedly than all the Amorites who were before him, and has also made Judah sin with his idols), therefore thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘Behold, I am bringing such calamity upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whoever hears of it, both his ears will tingle. And I will stretch over Jerusalem the measuring line of Samaria and the plummet of the house of Ahab; I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. So I will forsake the remnant of My inheritance and deliver them into the hand of their enemies; and they shall become victims of plunder to all their enemies, because they have done evil in My sight, and have provoked Me to anger since the day their fathers came out of Egypt, even to this day’” (2 Kings 21:10-15, emp. added).

Observe that the writer compared the sin of the Israelites with the sin of the previous occupants of the land of Canaan, thus earning for themselves the same outcome: divine retribution and devastation. As the prophet Ezekiel reported: “‘Thus I will make the land desolate, because they have persisted in unfaithfulness,’ says the Lord God” (15:8).

Adams, John (1850-1856), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Company).

August, Melissa, et al. (2006), “Milestones,” Time, 167[23]: June 5, [On-line], URL: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1198884,00.html.

Franklin, Benjamin (1988), The Papers of Benjamin Franklin (Digital Edition), ed. Barbara Oberg (Los Altos, CA: The Packard Humanities Institute), [On-line], URL: http://www.franklinpapers.org/franklin/.

Henry, Patrick (1891), Patrick Henry; Life, Correspondence and Speeches, ed. William Henry (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons), [On-line], URL: http://www.archive.org/details/pathenrylife01henrr ich.

“Inca, Secrets of the Ancestors” (1995), Time Life’s Lost Civilizations Series, [On-line], URL: http://www.utexas.edu/cola/llilas/centers/outreach/resources/topic/inca.html.

Jay, John (1890), The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1763-1781, ed. Henry Johnston(New York: Burt Franklin).

Jay, William (1833), The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper).

Jefferson, Thomas (1789), “Letter to James Madison, August 28, 1789,” The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence, 1751-1827, Library of Congress, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?am mem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(tj050135)).

Lee, Richard Henry (1914), The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, ed. James Ballagh (New York: MacMillan).

“The Lost City of Nasca” (2000), BBC, [On-line], URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/nasca.shtml.

Miller, Dave (2006), Sexual Anarchy (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

“Nasca Lines” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.crystalinks.com/nasca.html.

Ramsay, David (1813), An Eulogium Upon Benjamin Rush, M.D. (Philadelphia, PA: Bradford & Inskeep).

Rush, Benjamin (1951), Letters of Benjamin Rush, ed. L.H. Butterfield (Princeton, NJ: The American Philosophical Society).

Taylor, John (1970), Garfield of Ohio: The Available Man (New York: W.W. Norton).

Webster, Noah (1794), “The Revolution in France,” in Political Sermons of the American Founding Era: 1730-1805, ed. Ellis Sandoz (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund), 1998 edition, [On-line], URL: http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/817/69415.

Webster, Noah (1832), History of the United States (New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck).

The post Is America Doomed? [Part II] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The dark, sinister clouds of political correctness have been steadily gathering over America for some 50 years now. The result? A drastic recasting of American culture from what it was (for the first 185 years) to what it is now. In the words of one of the current presidential candidates:

Whatever we once were, we’re no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we’re formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we’ve got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community (Brody, 2007, emp. added).

Nevertheless, the Founders and architects of the American Republic insisted that Christianity must be thoroughly embedded in the citizenry in order for their grand experiment to be perpetuated (see Miller, 2006a). But America has strayed far afield from that initial intention in the last half-century. If something drastic is not done, the future of the Republic is in question.

If Christians do not rise up and act, the downward spiral will continue, eventually resulting in inevitable catastrophe. So what may be done? What would God have Christians to do? “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3). Consider the following succinct listing of seven recommended actions that could turn the nation around if enacted by a sizable number of Americans:

I. Self-examination and rededication of one’s own life to serious devotion to God, Christ, and the moral principles on which the Republic was founded.

II. Diligent dedication of one’s own family to God and Christ. Consider homeschooling to shield children from the subversion of political correctness that has enshrouded public schools. Return to modeling the home according to the Bible’s directives, including:

And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up (Deuteronomy 6:6-7).

Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4). Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged (Colossians 3:18-21, NIV).

He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly. Chasten your son while there is hope, and do not set your heart on his destruction. Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod of correction will drive it far from him. Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, and deliver his soul from hell. The rod and rebuke give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. Correct your son, and he will give you rest; yes, he will give delight to your soul (Proverbs 13:24; 19:18; 22:15; 23:13-14; 29:15,17).

III. Pray fervently, consistently, and continually that God will help us. Hold public prayer meetings. That’s what the Founders did. In fact, during the seven years of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress issued no fewer than nine public proclamations to the American people, calling upon the whole nation to set aside entire days in which no labor would be performed so that the citizens could devote themselves to praying to God (Miller, 2006b). [NOTE: See the Resources section of this issue for two examples.]

The Founders were merely echoing the Bible’s own teaching regarding the necessity of petitioning God for national assistance and protection:

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? I tell you that He will avenge them speedily (Luke 18:7-8, emp. added).

However, keep in mind that a sufficient number of Americans may have so rejected God that He intends to punish America. The Founders were poignantly aware of this very possibility, as expressed by them in a proclamation they released to the American public on March 20, 1779: “Whereas, in just punishment of our manifold transgressions, it hath pleased the Supreme Disposer of all events to visit these United States with a destructive calamitous war” (Journals of…, 1909, 13:343-344).

The time has come to face the fact that America may have plummeted too far in its departure from God’s will to be recalled. Young King Josiah came to a similar realization when, having discovered the Book of the Law which had been lost amid temple debris, its precepts largely neglected by the nation, in panic he announced: “[G]reat is the wrath of the Lord that is aroused against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us” (2 Kings 22:13). Though God was pleased with Josiah’s humility and tender heart, disaster was inevitable:

Thus says the Lord: “Behold, I will bring calamity on this place and on its inhabitants…because they have forsaken Me…. Therefore My wrath shall be aroused against this place and shall not be quenched” (2 Kings 22:16-17).

If this be the precise predicament of America, we ought humbly to embrace the attitude of the psalmist when he said:

O Lord God, to whom vengeance belongs—O God, to whom vengeance belongs, shine forth! Rise up, O Judge of the earth; render punishment to the proud. Lord, how long will the wicked, how long will the wicked triumph? … Understand, you senseless among the people; and you fools, when will you be wise? He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see? He who instructs the nations, shall He not correct, He who teaches man knowledge? The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile (Psalm 94:1-3,8-11, emp. added).

The nations have sunk down in the pit which they made; in the net which they hid, their own foot is caught. The Lord is known by the judgment He executes; the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God…. Arise, O Lord, do not let man prevail; let the nations be judged in Your sight. Put them in fear, O Lord, that the nations may know themselves to be but men (Psalm 9:15-20, emp. added).

When we plead with God in behalf of the nation, our every petition must be tempered with the same resignation Jesus manifested in the Garden: “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will” (Matthew 26:39, emp. added; cf. James 4:15).

IV. Learn the Bible—deeply and thoroughly. Delve into God’s Word. Show respect for His thinking by pouring over its contents. Encourage family and friends to do the same. The Founders viewed the Bible as absolutely indispensable and integral to the survival of the Republic, citing it in their political utterances far more often than any other source (see Lutz, 1988, pp. 140-141). Indeed, consider the eloquent testimony to this fact, as expressed by a few of the Founders. For example, Constitution signer and Secretary of War, James McHenry, insisted:

The Holy Scriptures…can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses (as quoted in Steiner, 1921, p. 14, emp. added).

Patrick Henry believed that the Bible “is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed” (as quoted in Wirt, 1818, p. 402). John Jay wrote to Peter Jay on April 8, 1784: “The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next” (1980, 2:709). Noah Webster asserted: “The Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is good and the best corrector of all that is evil in human society; the best book for regulating the temporal concerns of men” (1833, p. v). He further claimed: “All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible” (1832, p. 339). Constitution signer, Gouverneur Morris, observed: “The reflection and experience of many years have led me to consider the holy writings not only as the most authentic and instructive in themselves, but as the clue to all other history. They tell us what man is, and they alone tell us why he is what he is” (1821, p. 30). Declaration signer, Dr. Benjamin Rush, declared that the Bible “should be read in our schools in preference to all other books from its containing the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness” (1798, p. 100). In a letter to Thomas Jefferson on December 25, 1813, John Adams stated that “the Bible is the best Book in the world” (1856, 10:85).

Indeed, Americans need a strong dose of the absolutely critical essentiality of the Bible to both national and private life, as stated by the Bible writers themselves:

I will never forget Your precepts, for by them You have given me life. Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day. You, through Your commandments, make me wiser than my enemies; for they are ever with me. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep Your precepts. How sweet are Your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through Your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way. Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path (Psalm 119:93,97-98,100,103-105, emp. added).

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews 4:12, emp. added).

If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free…. He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day…. Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth (John 8:31-32; 12:48; 17:17, emp. added).

The future of the Republic is inextricably linked with and inherently dependent on the extent to which Americans are willing to return to an intimate acquaintance with the Bible.

V. Petition politicians, school board members, and the media regarding spiritual (not political) issues, focusing simply and solely on morality—not money. As one steps back and evaluates the moral and spiritual condition of America, it is self-evident that our nation has strayed far from its moorings. America is now unquestionably characterized by rampant divorce, widespread sexual impurity, gambling, drunkenness, thievery, and the list goes on. Prisons are full to overflowing with more being built as swiftly as possible, in conjunction with early release programs. Crime statistics are at an all-time high in virtually every category. Yet, while sin (i.e., violations of God’s will—1 John 3:4) has increased in the land, two sins stand out from all others in our day. Two sins, particularly repugnant in God’s sight, have swept over America. These two sins have been politicized—instead of being left in the moral and religious arena where they belong. These two premiere moral issues facing the country are abortion and homosexuality. A nation can survive for a period of time even when murder, theft, adultery, and the like are rampant. (After all, sin is sin. All sin is destructive and eventually will be addressed by a perfect God.) However, history shows that when some sins become pervasive in a given civilization, its demise is imminent. The killing of children and sexual perversion are just such sins. Ultimately, America’s drifting from its spiritual moorings is climaxing in imminent moral implosion and inevitable retribution from God, based on these two critical moral matters. Please consider them briefly.

Abortion

Who could have imagined (the Founders most certainly could not have done so) that America would ever give legal sanction to a woman to kill her unborn baby? Yet, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court did just that by ruling that “the word ‘person’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn” (Roe v. Wade). Who could have imagined one day that more than 48 million babies would be butchered in the United States of America? And that figure does not include the millions more being sacrificed in the name of “embryonic stem-cell research,” as well as the millions more lost from selective reduction due to the use of fertility drugs. The killing of the innocent (Exodus 23:7), and the shedding of innocent blood—a thing that God hates (Proverbs 6)—are widespread in the land. If the voice of Abel’s blood cried out to God from the soil on which his brother had shed it (Genesis 4:10), the blood of millions of babies shrieking and screaming to God must be deafening.

If you care what God thinks, I urge you to read Exodus 21:22-25, Ecclesiastes 11:5, Psalm 139:13-16, Isaiah 49:1, Jeremiah 1:4-5, Zechariah 12:1, and Galatians 1:15. Read the three phases of human life in Hosea 9:11—conception, pregnancy, and birth. Read where God used the same word (brephos) to refer to John in his mother’s womb, and to refer to the baby Jesus lying in the manger (Luke 1:39-45; 2:12,16). God also used “son” to refer to John in utero (Luke 1:36). Read what is essentially an ancient description of the heinous practice of partial-birth abortion in Exodus 1:15-22. Read about God’s outrage at the Israelites for sacrificing their children to pagan deities—a reprehensible act that never entered God’s mind to enjoin (Jeremiah 19:5; 32:35). The Bible clearly teaches that God possesses personal regard for human life from the moment of conception. Our own medical science verifies the same thing. Samuel Armas was a 21-week, unborn baby when doctors at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee performed spina bifida surgery on him while he was still in his mother’s womb. During the surgery, his little hand flopped out of the incision opening and rested on the doctor’s fingers. Eyewitness photo journalist Michael Clancey insists that Samuel’s fingers gripped the doctor’s finger (see Clancey, 2001). In any case, Samuel was born 15 weeks later. Nothing about his exit from his mother’s body, suddenly transformed him from a nonhuman into a human. He was a human throughout his pre-birth circumstance (see Lyons, 2007; Imbody, 2003; Solenni, 2003).

A terrible and tragic inconsistency and incongruity exists in America. Merely taking possession of an egg containing the pre-born American bald eagle—let alone if one were to destroy that little pre-birth environment and thus destroy the baby eagle that is developing within—results in a stiff fine and even prison time. Yet one can take a human child in its pre-born environment and not only murder that child, but also receive government blessing to do so! Eagle eggs, i.e., pre-born eagles, are of greater value to American civilization than pre-born humans (see Miller, 2004)! What has happened to our society? This state of affairs cannot be harmonized in a consistent, rational fashion. The ethics and moral sensibilities that underlie this circumstance are absolutely bizarre (Miller, “Abortion and…,” 2003).

The combined population of the above red states is equivalent to the number of reported abortions in America since 1973.

The number of known abortions in America since 1973 is nearing 50 million—approximately 50 times more than all Americans lost in all of our wars. That figure is staggering, if not incomprehensible, to the human mind. That figure constitutes essentially one-sixth of the present U.S. population. If we awoke in the morning to face the terrifying news that terrorists had detonated nuclear devices in major urban areas, that resulted in the death of 50 million Americans, we would be shocked, panic-stricken, and heartsick. Or, imagine a deadly virus released by unconscionable terrorists that wiped out the populations of the above red states. Yet, Americans have tolerated the wholesale slaughter of that many of its children—entire generations of young people who will never see the light of day. I wonder if one of those would have found the cure for cancer. What untold potential and productivity has been snuffed out by a calloused, cruel, self-centered people! At least the pagans of antiquity killed their children for religious purposes, thinking they were pleasing a higher authority. We do it mostly for convenience—to evade the consequences of the sexual anarchy that runs rampant across our civilization.

The ethical disharmony and moral confusion that reign in our society have escalated the activity of criminals who commit a variety of heinous crimes—from murdering and maiming fellow citizens on a daily basis, to raping women and molesting children. Yet, a sizeable portion of society is against capital punishment. Many people feel that these wicked adults, who have engaged in destructive conduct, should not be executed (a viewpoint that flies directly in the face of what the Founders believed and what the Bible teaches [Romans 13:1-6; 1 Peter 2:13-14], since God wants evildoers in society to be punished—even to the point of capital punishment). So we rarely execute guilty, hardened criminals. But we daily execute innocent human babies! How can one possibly accept this terrible disparity, the horrible scourge of abortion? The latest polls verify our deteriorating morality. An ABC News/Washington Post Poll conducted in June of 2008, reveals that 53% of adult Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while a May 2008 Gallup poll found that 82% believe that abortion should be legal under any or certain circumstances, with only 17% maintaining that abortion should be illegal under all circumstances (see “Abortion and Birth Control”). The nation has embraced moral insanity. Abortion is a glaring manifestation of the expulsion of God from American culture. Mark it down: THE GOD OF THE BIBLE WILL NOT ALLOW THIS MONSTROUS ATROCITY TO GO UNCHALLENGED AND UNPUNISHED.

Homosexuality

As if killing the unborn were not enough to condemn a civilization to eternal punishment, America is experiencing another horror of seismic proportions. Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Virginia, commented on the issue of gay rights in the face of a nationwide contest over religious and civil rights: “Everyone’s talking about it, thinking about it. There are a lot of different ideas about where we are going to end up, but everyone thinks it is the battle of our times” (as quoted in Gallagher, 11[33], 2006; cf. Haynes, 2006). A sobering realization. Think of it: the battle of our times. Of those living today in America who were alive 50 years ago, few could have imagined, let alone predicted, that homosexuality would encroach on our culture as it has. In fact, it would have been unthinkable. The rapidity with which homosexual activists continue successfully to bully the nation to normalize what once was universally considered abnormal is astonishing. And toleration has not satisfied them. Allowing their views to be taught in public schools has not appeased them. No, they insist that societal endorsement extend to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.

A pernicious plague of sexual insanity is creeping insidiously through American civilization. Far more deadly than the external threat of terrorism, or even the inevitable dilution of traditional American values caused by the infiltration of illegal immigrants and the influx of those who do not share the Christian worldview, this domino effect will ultimately end in the moral implosion of America. Indeed, America is being held captive by moral terrorists. The social engineers of “political correctness” have been working overtime for decades to restructure public morality. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association deleted homosexuality from its official nomenclature of mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and the American Psychological Association followed suit in 1975 (see “Gay and Lesbian…,” 2002; Herek, 2002). Large corporations and businesses across the country have been subjecting their employees to mass propaganda under the guise of “sensitivity training.”

Among those who are attempting to coerce the country into altering its longstanding code of Christian moral values are activist judges. Their tortured interpretation of constitutional law demonstrates that they have no respect for God, existing laws, America’s history, or the will of the people. Instead, they apparently see themselves as qualified social architects to redefine marriage and morality by usurping their constitutional role and legislating from the bench. They have placed themselves at odds with the history of Western civilization. With no regard for American legal history and the body of constitutional law that has remained largely intact from the beginning of the nation until the mid-20th century, they essentially have brushed aside over 150 years of American judicial history with a flippant wave of the hand. They are literally restructuring the American moral landscape with an unflinching vengeance that is undaunted by the widespread national outrage to the contrary. Those who characterized governmental control and Christian morality in the 1960s as equivalent to Orwell’s “Big Brother” are now living a self-fulfilled prophecy—they are “Big Brother.”

These judicial junkies are aided by politicians from the left coast to the east coast, who have taken it upon themselves to issue marriage licenses for homosexual partners. Additionally, the public school system is being transformed into an incubator for nurturing the next generation of Americans, breaking down any resistance toward the impropriety of homosexuality that they might otherwise have had. These developments were inevitable in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s historically and constitutionally unprecedented elimination of state sodomy laws (Lawrence…, 2003). The high court’s decision was a reversal of its 1986 decision that upheld State sodomy laws and reinforced the historic stance that homosexuality is not a constitutional right (see Bowers…). What’s more, no bona fide scientific evidence exists to demonstrate any genetic cause of homosexuality—even as no genuine genetic linkage will ever be forthcoming to legitimize pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, or incest (Harrub and Miller, 2004, 24[8]:73-79). Indeed, homosexuality is nothing more than a behavioral choice.

The Founding Fathers of these United States would be incredulous, incensed, and outraged. They understood that acceptance of homosexuality would undermine and erode the moral foundations of civilization. Sodomy, the longtime historical term for same-sex relations, was a capital crime under British common law. Sir William Blackstone, British attorney, jurist, law professor, and political philosopher, authored his monumental Commentaries on the Laws of England from 1765-1769. These commentaries became the premiere legal source admired and used by America’s Founding Fathers. In “Book the Fourth, Chapter the Fifteenth,” “Of Offences Against the Persons of Individuals,” Blackstone stated:

IV. WHAT has been here observed…, which ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast…. But it is an offence of so dark a nature…that the accusation should be clearly made out….

I WILL not act so disagreeable part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which treats it, in its very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named; peccatum illud horribile, inter chriftianos non nominandum [“that horrible sin not to be named among Christians”—DM]. A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: ubi fcelus eft id, quod non proficit fcire, jubemus infurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquifitis poenis fubdantur infames, qui funt, vel qui futuri funt, rei [“When that crime is found, which is not profitable to know, we order the law to bring forth, to provide justice by force of arms with an avenging sword, that the infamous men be subjected to the due punishment, those who are found, or those who future will be found, in the deed”—DM]. Which leads me to add a work concerning its punishment.

THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our ancient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burnt to death; though Fleta says they should be buried alive: either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the ancient Goths. But now the general punishment of all felonies is the fame, namely, by hanging: and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made single felony by the statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 6. and felony without benefit of clergy by statute 5 Eliz. c. 17. And the rule of law herein is, that, if both are arrived at years of discretion, agentes et confentientes pari poena plectantur [“advocates and conspirators should be punished with like punishment”—DM] (1769, 4.15.215-216, emp. added).

Here was the law of England—common law—under which Americans lived prior to achieving independence. That law did not change after gaining independence. To say the least, such thinking is hardly “politically correct” by today’s standards.

How many Americans realize that while serving as the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, the Father of our country was apprised of a homosexual in the army? The response of General Washington was immediate and decisive. He issued “General Orders” from Army Headquarters at Valley Forge on Saturday, March 14, 1778:

At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th Article 18th Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose (“George…,” underline in orig., emp. added).

Click images to enlarge

Images courtesy of Library of Congress, Manuscript Division

Observe that the Father of our country viewed “sodomy” (the 18th-century word for homosexual relations) “with Abhorrence and Detestation.”

Homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original 13 colonies, and eventually every one of the 50 states (see Robinson, 2003; “Sodomy Laws…,” 2003). Severe penalties were invoked for those who engaged in homosexuality. In fact, few Americans know that the penalty for homosexuality in several states was death—including New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina (Barton, 2000, pp. 306,482). Most people nowadays would be shocked to learn that Thomas Jefferson advocated “dismemberment” as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect (1781, Query 14; cf. 1903, 1:226-227).

Where did the Founding Fathers and early American citizenry derive their views on homosexuality? The historically unequivocal answer is—the Bible. “Traditional” (i.e., biblical) marriage in this country has always been between a man and a woman. In the words of Jesus: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4-5, emp. added). He was merely quoting the statement made by God regarding His creation of the first man and woman (Genesis 1:27; 2:24). God created Adam and Eve—not Adam and Steve, or Eve and Ellen. And throughout the rest of biblical history, God’s attitude toward same-sex relations remained the same (Miller, et al., 2003).

In the greater scheme of human history, as civilizations have proceeded down the usual pathway of moral deterioration and eventual demise, the acceptance of same-sex relations has typically triggered the final stages of impending social implosion. America is being brought to the very brink of moral destruction. God’s warning to the Israelites regarding their own ability to sustain their national existence in the Promised Land is equally apropos for America:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination…. Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations…lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you (Leviticus 18:22-28, emp. added).

Mark this down, too: THE GOD OF THE BIBLE WILL NOT ALLOW THE ABOMINATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY TO GO UNCHALLENGED AND UNPUNISHED. Unless something is done to stop the moral degeneration, America would do well to prepare for the inevitable, divine expulsion.

“Abortion and Birth Control” (2008), Polling Report, [On-line], URL: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm.

Adams, John (1850-1856), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Company).

Barton, David (2002), Original Intent (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilders), 3rd edition.

Blackstone, William (1769), Commentaries on the Laws of England, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk4ch15.htm.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), [On-line], URL: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=478&invol=186.

Brody, David (2007), “Obama to CBN News: We’re no Longer Just a Christian Nation, CBN News, July 30, [On-line], URL: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/204016.aspx.

Clancy, Michael (2001), “Story of the ‘Fetal Hand Grasp’ Photograph,” [On-line], URL: http://www.michaelclancy.com/story.html.

Gallagher, Maggie (2006), “Banned in Boston,” The Weekly Standard, 11[33], May 15, [On-line], URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191 kgwgh.asp.

“Gay and Lesbian Issues” (2002), American Psychiatric Association Public Information, [On-line], URL: http://www.psych.org/public_info/homose-1.cfm.

“George Washington, March 14, 1778, General Orders” (1778), The George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799, from ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw110081)).

Harrub, Brad and Dave Miller (2004), “‘This is the Way God Made Me’—A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the ‘Gay Gene,’” Reason & Revelation, 24[8]:73-79, August, [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2553.

Haynes, Charles C. (2006), “A Moral Battleground, A Civil Discourse,” First Amendment Center, May 20, [On-line], URL: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=16664.

Herek, Gregory (2002), “Facts about Homosexuality and Mental Health,” [On-line], URL: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html.

Imbody, Jonathan (2003), “A Flash of Life,” Free Republic, October 31, [On-line], URL: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1012548/posts.

Jay, John (1980), John Jay: The Winning of the Peace. Unpublished Papers 1780-1784, ed. Richard Morris (New York: Harper & Row).

Jefferson, Thomas (1781), Notes on the State of Virginia, The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm.

Jefferson, Thomas (1903), Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert Bergh (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association).

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (1904-1937), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage.

Lawrence, et al. v. Texas, No. 02-102 (2003), [On-line], URL: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-102.

Lutz, Donald (1988), The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press).

Lyons, Eric (2007), “Tiny Babies Abortionists Would Rather We Forget,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: /articles/3280.

Miller, Dave (2003), “Abortion and the Bible,” Apologetics Press, [On-line]: URL: /articles/1964.

Miller, Dave (2004), “Babies, Eagles, and the Right to Live,” Apologetics Press, [On-line]: URL: /rr/reprints/babyeagles.pdf.

Miller, Dave (2006a), “America, Christianity, and the Culture War (Part I),” Reason & Revelation, 26[6]41-47, June, [On-line]: URL: /articles/2942.

Miller, Dave (2006b), “Are Americans Abandoning God?,” Apologetics Press, [On-line]: URL: /articles/3156.

Miller, Dave, et al. (2003), “An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,” Reason & Revelation, 24[9]:81, December, [On-line], URL: /articles/2577.

Morris, Gouverneur (1821), “An Inaugural Discourse Delivered Before the New York Historical Society by the Honorable Gouverneur Morris on September 4, 1816” in Collections of the New York Historical Society for the Year 1821 (New York: E. Bliss & E. White).

Robinson, B.A. (2003), “Criminalizing Same-Sex Behavior,” [On-line], URL: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws1.htm.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), [On-line], URL: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol= 113.

Rush, Benjamin (1798), Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia, PA: Thomas & Samuel Bradford).

“Sodomy Laws in the United States” (2003), [On-line], URL: http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm.

Solenni, Pia de (2003), “Miracles of Life,” National Review Online, September 30, [On-line], URL: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/solenni2003 09301002.asp.

Steiner, Bernard (1921), One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland: 1810-1920 (Baltimore, MD: Maryland Bible Society).

Webster, Noah (1832), History of the United States (New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck).

Webster, Noah (1833), The Holy Bible Containing the Old and NewTestaments, in the Common Version. With Amendments of the Language (New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck).

Wirt, William (1818), Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry (Philadelphia, PA: James Webster).

The post Is America Doomed? [Part I] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Similar advances have been occurring all along—apparently escaping the notice of politicians and the liberal establishment that continue their campaign for embryonic stem-cell research (see Miller, 2007). Two separate teams of scientists, one led by Dr. Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University and the other team led by Junying Yu of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, preceded the UCLA research in discovering a way to turn ordinary human skin cells into stem cells with the same characteristics as those derived from human embryos (Palca, 2007). Northwestern University researchers discovered that adult stem cells derived from bone marrow are capable of undergoing more diverse transformations than previously thought, and could be transformed into a wide variety of tissue types, not just blood cells (“Adult Stem Cells…,” 2006). University of Minnesota researchers showed that adult bone marrow stem cells can be induced specifically to differentiate into cells of the midbrain, which would be useful for treating diseases of the central nervous system, including Parkinson’s disease (“Adult Mouse Bone…,” 2003).

Conclusion? No justification exists for butchering human life on the alleged grounds that medical research to alleviate suffering necessitates it. Destroying human life to preserve human life? Two wrongs do not make a right. Shedding innocent blood is despicable (Proverbs 6:17).

“Adult Mouse Bone Marrow Stem Cells Can Become Cells of the Nervous System” (2003), Science Daily, August 19, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030819073513.htm.

“Adult Stem Cells Show Wider Potential Than Previously Thought” (2006), Science Daily, September 19, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060918201025.htm.

“Human Skin Cells Reprogrammed Into Embryonic Stem Cells” (2008), Science Daily, February 12, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080211172631.htm.

Irwin, Kim (2008), “Scientists at UCLA Reprogram Human Skin Cells into Embryonic Stem Cells,” UCLA Newsroom, February 11, [On-line], URL: http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/scientists-reprogram- human-skin-44173.aspx.

Miller, Dave (2007), “No Need for Embryonic Stem Cells,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3634.

Palca, Joe (2007), “Scientists Produce Embryonic Stem Cells from Skin,” NPR, November 20, [On-line], URL: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16470482.

“Researchers Reprogram Normal Tissue Cells Into Embryonic Stem Cells” (2007), Science Daily, June 7, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070606235430.htm.

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2001), “Human Cloning and Stem-Cell Research—Science’s ‘Slippery Slope’ [Parts I, II, & III],” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL: August, September, October.

The post More Good News About Stem Cells appeared first on Apologetics Press.