Category Archives: Uncategorized

Why “pro-choice” really means “pro-abortion”

Pasted Graphic.tiff

choice |CHois|

noun

an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities: the choice between good and evil.

The word choice is a funny thing. It really only has one meaning, but when it comes to determining the rights of a woman who is faced with an unexpected pregnancy that is either the result of carelessness or a bad situation that she had no choice over (which statistically is far less prevalent than what the media and our current society would lead one to believe), that choice can only lead in one direction: abortion.

“Women’s rights!” they scream at the top of their lungs. But when a woman walks into a crisis pregnancy center, likely knowing full well that the options she is going to be given will not include murdering the child, then the woman is said to be oppressed. She is oppressed because she wasn’t given “every” choice. She was denied the choice to murder another human being in the face of her crisis. Because obviously that’s the logical response to a bad situation. Just look at Timothy McVeigh. Can you blame the guy?

No. The options presented to a woman in her time of fear after finding out that she is pregnant should not actually be an all-encompassing list of choices that she can choose from. The only real choice she should have is to abort, because if you don’t offer a woman (living in a society where abortion is the assumed next most logical response after birth) the option to murder the human being growing inside her, you are no better than the Taliban who beat their women and rape their daughters.

Many “pro-choice” individuals and organizations would argue – ironically – against the right of a woman to choose life for her unborn baby if she is not first made completely aware of the fact that she can have it aborted for free. Or nearly free. Or not at all free, but still, it’s the best for everyone, right?

The world they live in – trigger warning here – is a world of flat out denial of truth and reality. They call “choice” what others would call an agenda to abort as many babies as possible. They call “anti-choice” what any sane person would see as a mother refusing to abort her unborn baby, simply because she didn’t mean to get pregnant. They think that the only logical response to finding out you are pregnant when you weren’t planning on becoming pregnant is to kill another human being. A defenseless, offenseless, tiny, cuddly, chubby, bald, toothless human being.

I take that back. They aren’t offenseless. They grossly offend any individual on the progressive left by their mere existence. It matters not whether the child was planned, accidental, or conceived in rape. They hate that child. Wholeheartedly and unapologetically. And they really do little to mask this hate either. They’re no better than Hillary claiming “what difference does it make anyway?” They know that they have a completely see-thru agenda, and they don’t care.

You know why they don’t care? Because they have a rich uncle named Sam who will get their back and fund their evil regardless of what the majority want. The minority is a vocal one, and they thirst for blood. Fetal blood, specifically.

Choice has only one meaning: selecting one of two or more possibilities. In reality, pro-life advocates are more “pro-choice” than the “pro-choice” group, because they give women actual choices in the face of crisis. And the left can’t stand that. They have only one choice in mind when faced with the decision to let an unplanned baby live or die comes up: that baby must die. In light of this, it is no surprise when  they think that a pro-life crisis pregnancy center needs to advise its clients about the available option to murder an unborn child. Since when do 95% of Americans not know about the option to abort an unborn child? It’s the 2nd most debated issue in nearly every realm of society.

This really is the same reason these same people who call themselves “pro-choice” can’t stand the idea of individuals owning guns: they are completely opposed to the defenseless being defended.

Any individual who claims to be “pro-choice” is really only anti-life, or they would be open to a woman choosing life for her baby without being force-fed the abortion options.

Advertisements

Our intentions really don’t count for much.

Deuteronomy 12:29-31

“When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations whom you go in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, take care that you be not ensnared to follow them, after they have been destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods?—that I also may do the same.’ You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.”

So many people I know, including myself in the past, would read this verse and say, “well, at least it doesn’t mean that to me!”

I used to celebrate Christmas. I never knew about the evil roots from which christmas actually originated, but when I first heard about it, my attitude was “well it doesn’t mean that to me.”

Since that time I’ve heard countless people defend their acceptance of evil rituals that have been recycled and reused to supposedly worship our Creator by saying something like “it doesn’t mean that anymore,” or, “it doesn’t mean that to me.”

And while that certainly may be the case that you aren’t thinking about the evil spirits behind certain images or symbols or practices, the fact remains that at one point in time, that’s what they stood for. And to our Creator and King who transcends time, it still does.

Before you think to yourself that just because those images and practices don’t carry that meaning to yourself, and that somehow G-d adapts to our intentions, read through that passage again.

It really doesn’t matter whether you think certain scriptures are still applicable or not. Our G-d, the Creator of the universe, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, who never changes and never waivers, told us very clearly that it doesn’t matter if our hearts are in the “right place” or not. Things that our King deems abhorrent should also be considered abhorrent by us.

You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods

I love Jesus and Jesus hates gay cake.

Look, I know you think you’re winning brownie points with God or something by turning people away and refusing to offer them your services because of their sexual preference. But honestly, I think it would be a bigger ministry to people, and give much more respect to our Creator’s awesome Name (not to mention it would make you look like much less of a hypocrite/bigot/zealot/fool/whatever) if you — instead of touting your own holiness and “punishing the sinners for Jeezus!” by refusing to make their cake, bouquets, or invitations — just sell them the darn cake/bouquets/invitations rather than condemning them and spreading hate behind the mask of Christianity.

Jesus doesn’t require your cakes. He requires you to love people and not condemn them by somehow thinking that their sexual sins are worse than your own. Notice I didn’t say anything about “not judging anyone.” This is because it is utter baloney to think that we are prohibited as followers of Messiah from judging anyone. We are told to judge rightly. Judge fairly. Judge according to God’s standard, not your own. But definitely judge. Otherwise you’re susceptible to the lies and tricks of the devil.

This guy decided he would no longer sell wedding cakes at all at his Colorado based cake shop due to complaints that were filed against his business by a gay couple for refusing to sell them a cake for their “civil union.”
Look, I get it. You’re trying to prove a point by cutting off the majority in order to punish the few. It’s not a new form of logic. It’s not a very logical form of logic, but it’s still not new. There are other ways around it. Take “wedding cake” off your product list, and just tell everyone you don’t make wedding cakes, but still allow people to buy “ordinary cakes” that have the “special decorations” on it. That way your conscience is clean when the gays decide to be married, eat cake, and do other grotesque and bizarre gay people things.

I know, ridiculous.

Equally ridiculous, is when, in an effort to not be labeled “homophobic” by the masses, you claim that you’re only denying them cakes for their weddings, but you’ll do business with them for anything else, adding to your claim that it’s because “gay weddings destroy the sanctity of marriage.” It that truly is your desire, and your actions are not just driven by a greater fear of people than of the Creator, then you need to start asking people whether the wedding for which they are ordering a cake is their first. If your intent truly is to uphold the sanctity of marriage only (and also not to boost your own business’ publicity by making people mad and causing them to blast you on social media and the news, which is deception — something else Messiah condemns), you’ll deny wedding cakes to previously married straight couples as well as the gay couples. Statistically, divorced people do more to destroy the sanctity of marriage than the gay community ever will.

You could even include a note with your product that says something like “despite disagreeing with your lifestyle because the Bible calls it a sin, I will still offer my services to you because that is what my Savior would do, in addition to offering you eternal life for turning away from your sins, including but not limited to your sexual habits.” I think this would do a much better job of preaching the message that Messiah came to deliver, rather than throwing a tantrum like a 3 year old and punishing everybody because you don’t want to share with certain people. How does it glorify God if your business gets shut down by the corrupt society we live in, all in the name of standing up for your own personal belief that the sins of the gays are worse than the sins of the divorced heterosexual? It’s no secret that the world hates what God loves. It will always be against us. Yes, there is a great honor in your life being destroyed for the purpose of glorifying God, but you can do much more for the kingdom alive than dead. Even just in terms of your business.

If nothing else, if you really think about it, the “civil union” will most likely still take place regardless of whether they have a cake from your shop or not, so denying the service doesn’t help anything at all. It only makes you hated by the general public and doesn’t speak the words of Messiah. Messiah didn’t deny the prostitute her life because he disagreed with her promiscuous lifestyle. He also didn’t stop offering salvation to the majority of sinners because some of them might be gay, in an effort to spread His name farther. It’s not how He works. It’s not how we should either.

Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists

The Final Letter, as Sent:

“To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen

“The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

“I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.”

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Continue reading Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists

Discrimination or simple recognition of facts?

If you haven’t read or heard about the transgender who is suing Crossfit for not allowing “her” to compete in the women’s division of the Crossfit Games, don’t bother. It’s another story about a LGBT crying  to mommy State because someone told “her” that because of the fact that she was actually born a male, she had an unfair advantage over the rest of the female competitors, and therefore could not compete with the women.

Discrimination!

Hate!

Violation of rights!

I can hear the liberals screaming even now.

I know it’s been said a million times, but just because it is available to you does not mean you have a “right” to that thing. Personally, I don’t want to hear about someone else’s (IMO) gross personal decisions, but if they’re going to use those choices as grounds for calling the rest of us haters just because they’re a freak, I feel the need to say something about it.

As a nation – and especially in my generation – there is an overgrowth of pseudo-rights. Things that just because they are available to us, we think we are entitled to them.

The example that comes to mind the quickest is driving, and having a driver’s license.  That license is not something you are entitled to. It is not a god-given right. It is not something that – I hope – anybody would lay their life down to protect. A 16 year old begging to drive cannot reasonably claim that they are “morally or legally entitled to have or obtain” that driver’s license. It just doesn’t work that way.

In the same way, there is no moral or legal obligation to allow a person to participate in a competition simply because they prefer to be called Stella instead of Steve. It just doesn’t exist in this reality. Taking part in such activities and competitions is a privilege that comes from living in a society that allows for free enterprise and capitalism, where people can choose to take part in those activities.

And what’s more, the transgender wasn’t even being barred from competing! The Crossfit authorities simply decided that any person taking part in the competition, in an effort to rule out any unfair advantages, has to compete with the gender group in which they were born. They were still allowing her to compete, just not in a group in which she had an unfair advantage.

Now, the major argument being made (while largely ignoring the fundamental issue) is that she should’t be discriminated against in this way.

What? Discriminated against? How is telling somebody that they can’t participate with a certain group discrimination? It really doesn’t matter how long a man has taken female hormones,  or how long it’s been since he had his nip/tuck, there are still HUGE physical,psychological, emotional, genetic, physiological differences between a woman and a man who had his penis removed and grew breasts. Heck, even just looking at the glamorous “selfie” posted in the CNN article you can see the distinguishing traits that set apart the transgender from any average woman, even a weight lifting woman. The broad shoulders, the large beefy fingers, the swelling trapezius and deltoid muscles, the thick neck, wrists, and biceps. I’m not sure if you’ve ever seen a female weight lifter, but there’s still a definite difference in overall appearance and build between a female weight lifter and a transgender “woman.”

Have we come to a point in our society where we cannot even recognize the inherent differences between a man and a woman? Since when is it discrimination to say “you are not built like a woman, because you were not born one?” There’s no hateful speech being made, it’s simply a recognition of unavoidable facts, and the left can’t stop crying “hate!”

I think it’s important to note that a scenario similar to this played out last year when world-famous Neil Armstrong was stripped of all of his titles and medals from the Tour d’France because he was –wait for it – creating an unfair advantage for himself by using steroids. Where was the outcry from the LGBT community that time?

My tongue does the digging for me

There’s no excuse for it really. I don’t honestly know what inspires me to say what I do sometimes. Sometimes I have no filter. I really don’t know why. I don’t set out trying to hurt people or offend anyone. Sure, if someone is provoked to conversation with me because of what I say, sometimes that’s a motive behind it I guess, but I never intentionally say anything that I think will hurt anyone personally. I sometimes poke hot sticks at other people’s politics or ethics, but that doesn’t mean I’m a hateful person. Does it? If you can’t allow your own beliefs (political or religious/ethical) to be challenged or questioned, you’ll never grow as a person. I won’t ever apologize for believing that.

There are a few exceptions. If you think it’s okay to kill unborn babies I will never apologize for saying that you deserve to die in the same way as the 100s of millions of innocent victims of the crime of abortion have. That is, having your limbs slowly ripped from your body one by one while neither you nor anyone else are allowed to express any outward sign of protest, shortly before you have your skull crushed mercilessly and your remains tossed in the local dump. Don’t like that picture? Good. Eat it up.

If you think that the words “janitor” and “Jew” are even somewhat similar, to the point that you “slip up” and say the latter when you mean the former, I will not hesitate to let it be known that I think you are an imbecile and likely pro-islam. Seriously. I’m not one to promote the ridiculous, pedophilia-based pseudo-psychology of Freud, but there is no way that kind of thing is a “slip of the tongue.” They’re not even phonetically similar.

But other than that, I don’t set out with any intention of hurting people’s feelings just for kicks and giggles. I am not a merciless jerk who is hell-bent on setting people straight in every facet of their lives. Yes I speak my mind. Sometimes too quickly, I realize. But I will never hesitate to apologize or withdraw my statement if I find that somebody finds it personally offensive. I have no qualms with admitting when I am wrong and taking actions to right any wrongs that have stemmed from my actions. I don’t typically seek revenge. Certainly I want to make my intentions clear, and I sometimes talk till I’m blue trying to explain my actions, even if it is never heard by the intended audience. But I don’t seek out to destroy the soul of every person who has an opposing viewpoint. I want to talk about it, maybe even disagree or argue about it, but I don’t see why it should cause us to hate each other. If someone disagrees with me and doesn’t like hearing what I believe, they’re welcome to shrug off what I say or just not bring it up to begin with. But If someone is going to openly express their opinions in a place where I am likely to see it and disagree with it, they should expect somebody to say something. That is my honest opinion.

That being said, I have been known to say things without thinking about the way they sound, but it’s not out of malice. I’ve never claimed to be eloquent or intelligent. I say things. Sometimes I say things I really shouldn’t, and I realize it before it’s too late. Other times I unintentionally say stupid things without realizing it, and I can’t take it back. Even if I say it on a social media platform I can sometimes go back and edit the post, but that doesn’t mean nobody has seen it already.

But I’m not a jerk who unnecessarily stirs waters. I’m just not.

Really, I’m not.

I’ll never apologize for my views or beliefs in certain regards, but that doesn’t mean I won’t apologize for the way I express it. I’m human. I know I royally mess things up. A lot more than I care to admit. I’m not trying to shrug off responsibility for my actions. I know I should be more careful with the way I say or do things. It’s just that sometimes I realize that what I’m doing or saying is not okay a little too late, and it’s already affected someone.

As I’m writing this post, someone shared a quote:

I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel”

-Maya Angelou

Okay. I get it God. I can’t explain away my actions because that’s not what matters to people. It doesn’t mater how many times I apologize for my actions if what I said or did hurt the other person. I don’t know what to do. I don’t know how to change how I feel about certain things. I don’t know how to change my reactions to certain things that boil my blood. I don’t know how to say what needs to be said in a way that isn’t offensive to someone else. I don’t know how to shut up when it will only serve to anger someone by speaking up.

I keep forgetting that I’m not my own person. Besides my responsibility to my wife and son to respect them and protect them from idiots like myself, I belong to God, and I have a responsibility to represent Him

I mess up in that area. A lot, I’m finding.

I wouldn’t excuse some jerk being a certain way towards a woman and shrugging it off by saying “I’m just a guy,” so why do I think I get to shrug off my actions and words by saying “I’m just imperfect?”

I am a hypocrite. I just never realized it before. I really don’t want to be.

“The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness”
-Proverbs 15;2

1 + 1 = 1 old & 1 new? What happened between Malachi 4:4-6 and Matthew 1?

The book of Malachi is widely accepted as being the “last” book of the Hebraic scriptures. What do I mean by “Hebraic scriptures?” The term refers to the fact that what most people refer to as the “Old Testament” was written primarily in Hebrew. Whether that be Hebrew as it is known today, or the old “picture language” of Ancient Hebrew, where each of the letters were simple pictures that depicted some deeper meaning in addition to the plain letter quality. I use this term because “Old Testament” gives strong negative implications that the first two-thirds of the Bible – in which God gave His expectations of His Bride – are somehow separate and distinct from the remaining one-third which tells us about Messiah’s sojourn here on Earth. I disagree with this notion, since, as I have mentioned previously, I firmly believe that God’s expectations for His bride, which are laid out in the Torah, are still relevant for modern day believers in Messiah (See the books of James and 1 John, in any translation, for why I believe this). So, to believe that the entirety of Scripture is in unison and talking about the same thing – the Messiah – from Genesis 1:1 to the end of Revelations, and then to refer to one part as being “old” and the other as “new” completely contradicts this thinking. For this same reason, I refer to the “new testament” as the Apostolic Scriptures (you can probably deduce why on your own).

Now, if the entirety of scripture is one unit, in unison in its mission and message, from the first page to the last, then it is safe to say without risk of heresy that you can rip out that page in the middle of your Bible that separate Malachi 4:6 and Matthew 1:1, you know the one that is mostly blank except for the large print in the middle in a majestic typeface that reads “New Testament.” That page was not added in by any of the original authors, nor God Himself. That was added in by modern day translators of the Bible, who, in my opinion, completely misunderstand the mission and message of Messiah while He was on Earth. The editors of these different translations completely miss the point in certain instances, and skew it in others, and I believe it is accurate to say that they do not truly know Yeshua as they may claim, at least not if we accept the words of 1 John 2:6 to be accurate and inspired by God. If we don’t accept John’s words as such, then we should remove them from the Scriptures.

So, then, how is it that somewhere between the last words of the book of Malachi, and the birth of Yeshua in Matthew 1 (which I think – I’m not certain tho – was 100-200 or so years) that God changed His mind? Why would God, who is never changing, and adamant about certain things in the Torah being “eternal decrees” suddenly, without explanation, change His mind about it all? It is fallacy to believe that God spoke in no uncertain terms through the Prophet Malachi that Israel was to “Remember the Torah,” if within just a relatively short time, the Torah would be “done away with” as some believe. In addition to this, there is the issue of the Prophet Elijah being sent to Israel “Before the great and awesome day of YHVH,” (Mal 4:5). Did that ever happen? If we look in the book of John, we see that it was prophesied over John before he was even born that he would be filled with the spirit of Elijah.

Luke 1:17 (ESV)
…and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.”

This prophecy given to Zechariah by the angel of YHVH when he was presenting an offering in the temple lines up directly to the passage in Malachi 4:

Malachi 4:4-6 (ESV)
“Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and rules that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel. 5 “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. 6 And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”

If we are careful to understand this, even in its plain meaning, we see that Elijah will be sent to the people of Israel in order to turn their hearts back to God and prepare them for deliverance. It follows, then, that if that prophecy came to fruition, then the warning which was given along side it to “Remember the law” would also still stand before and after it manifested. Otherwise how were the people to be prepared, as it mentioned in Luke 1:17? We cannot accept the promise of redemption without the warning that is given if the command is not met. This is not to say that Yeshua would not have come if Israel had not heeded the command of God. However, if they did not heed the command and remember the Torah, their hearts would not be ready to receive Him or his deliverance. In much the same way, unless we familiarize ourselves with Gods Torah, not just in an academic sense, but in our hearts, we cannot consider ourselves prepared or equipped to receive His redemption.

So why do we as christians assume that we are no longer to remember the Torah? Many may make the point that Malachi’s prophecy is addressed to Israel. Are we not grafted into the root of Israel in Messiah? Were we not unified in Messiah when He broke down the wall of hostility that existed between Jew and Gentile? If so, then why do we so readily dismiss what God calls abominations as being “suggestions” or “guidelines” that can be ignored with little or no consequence? Why do we try to rationalize away certain things given by God to make Israel (to whom we are grafted in) different from the rest of the world by saying that “God only told them that because they didn’t have _______?” That is not a sound argument. If it were, then why didn’t the nations who didn’t partake in the Torah’s instructions regarding food have any negative side effects? It’s just to feeble of an excuse to be considered.

We should always carefully and respectfully study the Scriptures. We should take into consideration that God is unchanging and His statutes are eternal when we run into either an idea or a Scripture that seems to contradict any other part of Scripture. Never accept what anyone tells you simply because they’re trustworthy or in a position of assumed authority. Test everything against Scripture, and ask God to help you have an open heart, and open mind. Always be willing to challenge your faith, and be willing to be wrong when it comes to things that we believe to be true. We are fallible, imperfect beings. We should never be so bold as to accept something as truth if it goes against what our almighty King says, no matter how convincing the argument.

Can we at least agree on this one thing?

The modern tenets of the Cell Theory include:
1. all known living things are made up of cells.
2. the cell is structural & functional unit of all living things.
3. all cells come from pre-existing cells by division.
(Spontaneous Generation does not occur).
4. cells contains hereditary information which is passed from
cell to cell during cell division…
-Wolfe, (1972) “Biology of the Cell”

The cell theory in it’s modern form – readily accepted by all major scientists, biologists, and medical professionals (at least in the USA) – openly, and unashamedly recognizes that the absolute smallest detectable unit of life is the cell. In all it’s mind-boggling complexity, the cell is one of the most amazing facets of creation. Tiny little machines capable of self sustaining process that contribute to their own heredity and the decimation of harmful organisms and molecules, these small factories preserve and replicate the coding sequence for every individual detail that makes a person, animal, or plant unique and one of a kind, even among it’s own species. I won’t even begin on the issue of why these imperceivable gelatinous blobs of ultra complex machinery could never have spontaneously come into being, that would take far too long, and is not what I intend to address here.

No. What I intend to touch on here is the issue of the scientific community’s recognition that the cell itself is the very essence of life on earth. If NASA was to find even one solitary mammalian cell on another planet, they would excitedly declare that they had discovered “life. At the same time, these same scientists would turn around to be found lobbying in D.C. for the “right” of women to dispose of something that is – by their very own definition – alive inside of them, dismissing it as simply a “blob” or “fetus,” lacking enough mental capability to sustain life on its own. They would willingly go against the very root of what they hold as their primary criteria for life on another planet as being nothing more than an inconvenient disposable mass of “tissue” simply because it would allow them to continue their lifestyle of self-gratification and greed.

I recently read an article about a baby that was born who was considered a “micro-preemie” because she was born so early and was so tiny. She was born at only 5 months gestation, the previous maximum gestation period allowed in which to have an abortion in Texas. I have heard arguments made in the past that the reason it is okay to abort a baby that far along is because a baby cannot be considered “viable” until after that point. Yet this child not only lived after being born so unimaginably early, but went on to see her first birthday. How is that child’s life any different from the millions of unborn children that are slaughtered in out country’s selfish attempts to go on satisfying our own selfish impulses? At what point then, oh great open-minded masses of mainstream media swill-drinking “scholars” of twitter and facebook, does life enter into the unborn child? At what point would it be considered “not okay” in your book to abort the child? 6 months gestation? 8? 9? Postpartum? At what point in your mind does it become a child? I dare to argue that there is little physical or even mental difference between a full-term birth baby and that of a child who is born even 4 months premature. Certainly, a baby who s born at 5 months gestation needs significant help even breathing on their own, and will likely stay in NICU care until it is deemed safe to do so, but does that deem that child not a child? What is the medical difference between a 4 month premature infant on life-support and a 94 year old on life support? I assert that the difference is that the newborn has a much greater chance of living a healthy, normal lifestyle than the 94 year old. So then would you be okay with terminating grandma or grandpa simply because they need a little medical assistance in the areas of breathing and eating? Because they are not “viable” according to your terms? Where does the conflict lie?

This is not a question of “women’s rights” or the artificial “right” to be able to dispose of a human life simply because it is inconvenient for you. At the very core I think maybe this is an issue of who gets to decide whether an unborn child is alive or not. The courts? A lawyer? A doctor? A scientist? You? Me? A society so overtaken by it’s quest for instant gratification with no negative consequences that we think every person who claims to have a different taste for something should be given the right to impose it on everyone else? If I had to choose one of those, I think I would be compelled to choose the scientists. They seem to be the only ones who – even if unintentionally – admit that the child in the womb is at least a living being. Sure most of them will twist it around and say something different and probably show you reasons why you should believe them. But at the very root of the argument, there can be no denying by any “open-minded” person that the very smallest unit of life, and all living things are made up of at least one cell. Anyone who chooses to accept this and then argues that there is no such thing as life in an unborn child does not deserve to be counted with the great minds that contribute so much to modern medicine. Nor should suuch a person be given the right to go out and take part in the activities that lead to the creation of life. If we agree that any living thing consists of at least one cell, and that upon conception, a baby has at minimal one cell, and even more than that by the end of the first week, before which point it is almost impossible to even detect, can we not agree that that “clump of cells” is, by definition, a person? Probably not right? Because to do so, even at the cost of your own morals, admitting that that life is a person would mean that he is entitled to constitutional protection under the 14th amendment. Even the supreme courts said so in the Roe v Wade case. That is, if they were able to determine when life begins.

I know, I know, “what about victims of rape and incest?!” I’m not denying that there is real harm done by these horrible crimes. But since when does falling victim to one crime give us the right to commit another? If we were to live by that code of morals, every time a gas station clerk is held up by an armed robber, should he be allowed to go and beat up an unsuspecting, undeserving victim? Should the families of the victims of the terror attacks of 9/11 be allowed to get away with any one major crime of their choosing, just because they were the victims of a horrible crime? While I don’t for an instant believe that the punishment for rape should be less severe than what is currently assigned by courts, however, surely murder by any means can be held to a higher level of “wrongness” than rape. Yet most people would call me crazy for making such an argument. Why is there such a conflict about this? If the rape victim gets to kill the undeserving child who is a product of her misfortune, why shouldn’t the family member of a murder victim be able to go kill someone else?

I won’t naively argue that God intends for certain people to be the victims of horrible crimes. It’s not up to me to determine why God does or does not allow certain things to happen. But if I truly believe that God is just, and more powerful and more awesome than anything I can ever imagine, I have to trust that what happens to certain people – either for good or bad, whether to decent or awful people – is all in His control, and i have no right too question that.

Is rape a real thing? you betcha. Do the offenders of rape cases deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law? You betcha.

Does being the victim of a horrible crime like rape justify the actions taken by so many who decide that it would be more convenient to dispose of the unfortunate child than to have the reminder of the traumatic experience than to give it up for adoption? Does any rape victim ever fully recovers from the horrible experience enough to justify the idea that somehow aborting the child will make a difference?

These are questions I cannot answer.

What I do know is this: God is almighty. God is eternal. God is the most just judge to ever exist. His very nature is just, and He justly punishes those who deserve it, and He justly rewards those who deserve reward. I won’t say that rape victims deserve to be raped for some reason, but in all things, good and bad, God is in control.

New year, new blog, old thoughts

I’m never sure what to do with a blog. I’ve always got thoughts and opinions running around in my mind that I want to get out and share, but I usually either come off sounding angry/rude or just plain whiny. And I hate that. So I’m trying to decide where to go with this blog. I read people like Matt Walsh, and really like his style, but I obviously don’t just want to be a parrot of what he says or how he writes. I have my own opinions, just not sure how to share them in a way that anybody would care to read.

Then there’s the issue of the audience. Do I write just for the sake of expressing and letting out my thoughts? Or do I write in a way that would appeal to someone else who might be reading? Good question. I guess I’ll just see how it goes.

Some things about myself:
I’m the father of a 6 month old boy on a mission. He seems to be in a hurry to go somewhere. He’s been ahead of the curve from the night he was born. Maybe because he was nearly 41 weeks along before we finally forced him to come into this world and he feels like he has to make up for lost time. Well, he’s definitely done that. And then some.

I’m the husband of a gorgeous, funny, witty, quiet, loving, giving, red-headed Wonder Woman who has put up with me for the last 2.5 years as her goofball husband, and the 1.5 years before that since we met and started dating. We met on a chance through a friend who was interested in her at the time. But I didn’t let that hold me back. We were dating in just over a month after meeting. Life has been a fun, crazy, exciting, terrifying, heartbreaking, joyful, amazing adventure since that day exactly 4 years ago tonight. She deserves way better than the mess that I am, but she definitely loves me, so I consider myself blessed for that.

I’m Messianic. Except not really. But I’m not a “christian” either. At least not in the regular meaning. I believe that the Messiah has already come, and we are awaiting His return, just like most true christians. Only major difference between me and the general Christian public is that I call Him Yeshua, and I believe that He didn’t do anything new in regards to the Torah and the expectations that God has for His children. Other than that, I believe that the entire Bible is the true, living, inspired word of the one true God, who has set aside the nation of Israel (the Jews) as His people, and nothing about that, nor the Scriptures, has changed. Ever. I haven’t “converted” to anything, nor do I believe that christians/gentiles have to convert to judaism (or vice versa) in order to please God or be saved. That would be salvation by works.

Most of my opinions and thoughts are influenced by my faith. So because of that, I come off a bit harsh or rough when discussing certain things (like Islam and christianity. Their historical persecution of the Jewish people is frighteningly similar).

If you still care to read after knowing that, then awesome. If not, I won’t be offended. Because I won’t know.

If you do find yourself intertwined in this mess, thanks.