Josiah Concept Ministries

I wish I could take credit for this thought, but I can’t.  It originated with John Crane from The Daily Detour.  It is a deep thought, and one worthy of consideration by everyone on each side of the abortion debate.

Why is it that when an outside party causes the death of unborn children, it is considered murder whereas if the mother causes the death of the unborn child it is considered a choice?

Here’s the situation: a pregnant teller was shot during a bank robbery.  She was pregnant with twins and she lost both babies.  The shooter is no longer considered a bank robber–he is now a murderer.  He rightfully should be!  He caused the death of two innocent children.

But what if the mother had decided to terminate the pregnancy?  Well, that wouldn’t be murder for some reason in the eyes of the law.  It would be considered a choice.

The children have the same rights as a full-blown human in the first scenario.  They have no rights–they are simply fetuses in the second scenario.

Why?

I have noticed that the Christian position tends to be the most consistent position in any argument between theists and atheists. Here is yet another shining example of the inconsistency of the atheist position:

Christian extremists have long sought to replace science education with religious indoctrination. If science contradicts biblical teaching (and it most certainly does), then science must go. When it became clear that this was not going to happen, they tried to insure that creationism would at least be included in the educational curriculum, going so far as to claim that it should be taught as an alternative to evolution. (source)

He expresses joy over this news but then adds:

Sadly, we can’t celebrate the defeat of creationism just yet. Even though it is nice to see Texas board members understanding that creationism (in its various forms) is not science, this is merely one battle in a much larger war. . . . Before we praise these school board members for making the right decision, we must realize that they may also be determined to amplify controversy where little exists.

He refers to the fact that the article states that the school board wants textbooks that more throughly examine the weaknesses in the theory of evolution. He laments, “Clearly, more work is needed to make sure our nation’s children receive the science education they need.”

So, what’s the matter? Chicken? If your theory is so solid, then surely it will stand up to close scrutiny, right? Why the objection to looking at the theory more closely? Because the goal of the atheist is the same as what he accuses the Christian of: indoctrination. He wants no controversy to appear to exist with the theory of evolution, so that children don’t even think that holes exist, that they simply believe, de fide, that evolution is the explanation for everything. That is indoctrination, pure and simple.

It reminds me of this:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Rom 1:18-21, emphasis added)

And:

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 The 2:9-12, emphasis added)

Next, we have a clear case of an atheist proving the wrong point, but not realizing it.  John Ray, a professed atheist, makes the following point:

One small point that I would make about the article I have referenced concerns the idea that atheists characteristically subscribe to moral relativism. I think that is broadly true and it does make nonsense of the condemnations uttered by such atheists. How can they say religion is wrong while at the same time saying that there is no such thing as right and wrong? (source, emphasis added)

Which pretty much sums up what the majority of Christians believe about the mindset that atheism leads to.  Note that we don’t say that atheists themselves are amoral, only that they way that they think leads to this type of inconsistency.  Jeff Haws from The Atheocracy, answers thus:

Is this guy really an Atheist? First of all, I’ve very rarely (OK, never, actually) heard an Atheist say religion is “wrong” from a moral perspective. They’ve said religion is wrong, as in “incorrect,” and they might say it’s mostly harmful to society, but I don’t think they’d say you’re morally wrong for being religious. (source)

Christopher Hitchens, in his book God is not Great, has a chapter entitled “Religion as Original Sin” and another called “Is Religion Child Abuse?”  Therefore, I would have to disagree with Jeff’s analysis that atheists never proclaim that religion is wrong from a moral perspective.

Jeff concludes:

Secondly, no Atheist that I know of says “there’s no such thing as right and wrong.” What they say is there’s no central authority to determine what’s morally right and wrong for everyone. . . .  Each individual has to be responsible to him or herself. If you choose to do stupid, morally bankrupt things, there will be consequences for that in this life. Once you die, you’re off the hook, but that’s a bold loophole to take advantage of. There is “right and wrong;” there’s just not a book to scare you into behaving in order to avoid a fiery future.  (emphasis added)

Done.  Jeff has proven that moral relativism rules in atheism, and that there is no objective right and wrong.  Yet atheists continue to appeal to objective right and wrong, even looking for a source for it in evolution. It looks like John Ray is more astute than Jeff Haws thinks he is!

Normally, I have many unkind things to say about Wal-Mart.  But today, I have something good to say about them, or at least about one of the pharmacists.

Brent Beams, pharmacist at the Springfield Wal-Mart near Columbus, OH, refused to sell the Plan B pill to a young couple.  Plan B, the so-called “morning after pill,” is available over-the-counter to patients over the age of 18.

The very fact that these pills are so available speaks volumes for the society that we live in.  It is as if it is socially unacceptable to take responsibility and face the consequences.  A possible consequence of unprotected sex is pregnancy.  People who take Plan B or get an abortion aren’t facing their problems, they are punishing the baby–the innocent one–for their shortcoming.  That baby had nothing to do with what they did, and yet it will suffer for that.

My wife and I are trying to have a child.  We have both face potential difficulties in this area.  A child would be nothing short of a blessing from God.  I can’t put in to words how thrilled I would be to be someone’s daddy.  It makes me sick to read about people who treat their God-given ability to have children with such a cavellier attitude as to go buy a pill that will end this potential life within them.  A life, by the way, that God chose to bless them with.  And they simply scoff at it.  They stamp it RETURN TO SENDER and mail it back. Then they get back to the only thing that they are good at: focusing on themselves.

Maybe this is an angry and bitter article, but I think everything here needed to be said.