6/16/2015

Winning the battle... and losing the war.

Winning the Battle...

Exodus 21:12  He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. 
A response to 'When Perfection Kills'.

Have been a little frustrated recently watching the debates between Abortion Abolitionists and 'Incrementalists'... which is to say your run of the mill pro-lifer.

First of all, let me be quick to say that the incrementalists are wrong. And the Abolitionists are, more or less, right. But neither one of them seems capable (the incrementalists less so than the abolitionists) of framing the actual debate in such a way as to bring forward the very real, very deadly issues. Let me be very clear: with each 'victory' the incrementalists win, they sacrifice more ground. With each baby they save, they kill ten more.

Abolitionists are fond of standing on the moral high ground and shouting out 'It isn't right!'. And they are right. It isn't right. But they tend to cede the pragmatic low ground: tacitly seeming to acknowledge that their opponents are right 'down there': that their tactics in the legislature actually save people on a daily basis. But there they are both wrong. The incrementalists tactics actually kill far more than they save.

The debate tends to be framed, by the incrementalists, as 'we do this or we do nothing'. Now nothing is, sometimes, the right thing to do, and we should compare to it. If a new drug came on the market and we found more people died with that drug than if they 'did nothing', then that disproves that drug, anyway.

But usually we don't 'do nothing'. Usually a new drug is  best compared not against nothing, but against the old drug, or a different new drug. And in this case 'incrementalism' fails dramatically against the 'old drug'. So let's examine the issues:

Political Realities

Matthew 22:21  They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. 

The incrementalists, in this discussion, focus a great deal of their rhetoric on so-called 'political realities'. Now that's an oxymoron for you. Unfortunately the abolitionsists don't seem to notice the oxymoron, and just go on about their moral high ground.

In politics there is no such thing as a 'reality'. Politics is the art of the surreal, but, above all, it is the art of, well, politics. It is the art of telling people 'I would make a better candidate than person X', and then convincing them of it. There is no way that Margret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul, or Adolf Hitler fit within their societies 'political realities'. They were all radical outsiders who sold themselves and their policies to those who did not, at that time, fit those policies.

Incremental Disaster

Psalms 15:1-2  A Psalm of David. LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?
He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart. 

The 'incremental' strategy has been an unmitigated disaster. Oh, they may have had some successes at various regulations and the like, but while they have been fiddling, Rome has burnt.

We are now faced with a society where any kind of Christian morality has been thoroughly washed out of the public conscience. These 'incremental' leaders forgot that their job was to lead: to actively teach, and preach, and call a society to Godliness. "This is the best we can get" is hardly a moral clarion call.

So for every one child they have 'saved', they have lost ten more. By abandoning their role as moral shepherds, they have won a few battles, and lost an entire nation.

Not Nothing

Micah 6:8  He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? 

Abolitionism is being portrayed as 'doing nothing'. Or, rather, 'waiting' until the political winds change before doing anything: doing nothing in the meantime.

And some abolitionism seems like that. But that is not what it is supposed to be, not what it is defined to be, and not what they have been in history. William Wilberforce, their hero, did not 'do nothing'.

One 'nothing' that they don't do is to state, and state clearly, their goal: the abolition of all child murder. To the extent that any pro-lifer states that their goal is to eliminate all child murder (even if they call it the weasel word 'abortion') they are, to that small extent, an abolitionist.
An abolitionist can never say 'I want to get rid of most abortions' or 'all abortions except'. They must desire to end all abortions.

Nor is there anything to prevent abolitonists from supporting 'incremental' legislation... as long as the legislation is not deceptive and has a clear goal: the elimination of child murder. The problem is that 'incrimental' legislation is almost always written in an untruthful, indeed deliberately deceptive, way. It does not speak of 'child murder' but of 'the health of the mother'.

Speaking the Truth

John 17:16-19  They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. 

Abolitionists, indeed all Christians, are required to speak the truth. Incrementalists...  not so much it seems. Let's take one sentence from the article:

Ahmad patiently explained that he was not deciding which girls could be enslaved and which could not.

That sounds good... but is it true? Do you notice that one thing we don't see in the example is the legislation itself? What does it actually say? 

It is actually possible to write legislation in the fashion described... but it is not usually done. Most legislation, and all of the recent 'pro-life'  has seemed to be of this type, reads something like this:
"No abortion shall be carried out *except* those before 20 weeks gestation...."

Do you see? They have, actually, put the 'exception' into the law. They have not actually spoken the truth in their description. Let us see what a 'true' incremental law might look like:
"All so called 'abortions' are murder. The state of Texas, in this legislation, provides for the following penalties for these murders if carried out after 20 weeks gestation..."

There. That's still a horrible law, but it is, at least, honest. It would have the same practical effect as the other. Why is it not passed? Because the dishonesty, itself, was part of the 'comprimise' that allowed the first bill to pass. The obligation to lie was part and parcel of the 'political reality' that the incrementalist spoke of... and part of the reason why no abolitionist could support the bill.

Ten Plagues

Exodus 9:14  For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. 

The article linked begs the obvious counter-argument of Moses and the slaves he liberated. But neither side seems to realize that Moses didn't just come forward and say 'my way or the highway'. He didn't say 'all the slaves or nothing'. What he said was 'all the slaves or face the wrath of God'.

We have not been divinely sent and equipped to call forth ten physical plagues upon our country. But in the light of the false argument of 'political realities', here are ten plagues we can call forth:

  • I) Stop speaking of  'abortion'. Ever. Call it 'child murder'. Speak of 'child murderers'. Recognize that society should treat these murderers as they treat other murderers... if not even more severely.
  • II) Stop speaking of 'doctors' and 'nurses' in the context of child murder. Speak of 'murderers' and 'assistant murderers'. Even the receptionists, guards, parking lot attendants... the 'teachers' in universities. We should speak of them as murderers and murderers assistants, and seek to treat them as murderers.
  • III) Stop speaking of 'Christians' in the context of those who murder children. Someone who murders children for a living is not a Christian. Someone who supports it is not a Christian. God may know their heart, but we are forced to judge by their actions. And their actions are not Christian. Indeed, they are anti-Christian.
  • IV) Stop speaking of 'women's health' in the context of those who murder children. Few things could have been as nauseating as 'pro-life' speaker after 'pro-life' speaker got up in Texas a couple of years ago and spoke of how their 'pro-life' bill was 'for the health of women'. Except for the women being murdered by child-murder, this was either an obvious lie or, worse, a total miscarriage of justice.
  • V) Stop lying. It is one oft hinted at but never seemingly acknowledged feature of the incrementalist position that they do a great deal of lying. "Health of the mother", "clean safe facilities" and the like. Yes, you are motivated by your religion. Yes, child-murder is a sin. Yes, you are legislating morality. Yes, you are a Christian. Yes, everyone else is going to Hell.
  • VI) Get your children out of government schools. Having your next generation trained up in all of the lies of government school, including pro-murder, pro-statist, and pro-Sodomite propoganda, is hardly the way to be 'pro-life'.
  • VII) Support capital punishment. It was God Himself that pointed out that the only appropriate way to reflect the value that He puts on life is to execute murderers (and kidnappers, etc.)
  • VIII) Get your children married young, and frutifully. Nothing is so good a witness for the 'pro-life' cause as young, fruitful, marriages.
  • IX) When you support 'incrimental' legislation, be honest about it. In your preamble state, "Whereas all child murders are murder most foul, and a dreadful insult to God and man, and yet whereas too many legislators are too cowardly to support the outright repeal of all child murder in our state, be it enacted that no left-handed three and a half month old children may be murdered except with the signature of three so-called doctors indicating that the woman who wishes them murdered will be 'harmed' if they are not murdered."
  • X) Remember that honoring God will always result in God fighting your battles for you. Above all, honor God. Give God the honor, and praise, and glory for anything 'you' do.

One point of the above ten plagues is none of them are outside of the 'political realities' of the pro-lifer's position. Each and every pro-lifers is physically capable of doing thiese things. They may not want to. Indeed I doubt they want to. But they are capable of it. They cannot whine that these are outside of the 'political reality'.

Another point is that these will all spell disaster for our country's false civility on the issue of child murder. It is very difficult to sit down and chat about upcoming legislation with someone you are calling a child murderer. And that is how it should be.

And they will be plagues to the current system of indoctrination. If even one national leader, let alone all of those who claim to be pro-life, were to adopt even half (and they should adopt them all, and more) of the plagues above, our system of indoctrination would fall apart. A 'real' politician willing to speak of abortion is 'murder'? Willing to call out the other politicians, 'doctors', 'nurses' and the like and call them murderers and murderers accomplices? That would change the way our country looks at the universe!

Let us not be fooled, our country will be, and is, undergoing God's own plagues, sent down from on high and, if we do not repent, they will destroy us. But that does not absolve us of our responsiblity to speak His truth, will we be heard or no.

More of this debate can be found starting here.











.. Note to the Canadian Human Rights Commission: This article may cause people to have contempt for certain groups, including those who murder innocent children, 214th District Court Judge Jose Longoria, Judge Keith Dean , and members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I support The Constitution Party. Items copied from Life Site News are: Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

4/04/2015

My View of Baptism

I hold to a covenental view of Scripture, and also hold that the NT ordinance of Christian baptism is an ordinance designed to apply to those who have confessed Christ; or those whom Christ has confessed.

I hold that NT baptism is not a continuation of or replacement of circumcision, but is a continuation of, indeed a fulfillment of, the OT rites of baptism (ceremonial washings, 'mikveh'). I believe that John the Baptist was the forerunner of Christ in this as well as in so many other things. That it is a baptism of repentance, for those who have repented.

I do not hold, unlike so many of my credo bretheren, that paedo-baptists, at least those who have afterward confessed with their own mouths and lives the saving work of Christ, and who 'confirm' their earlier baptism, are unbaptized and thus in continual disobedience to the Word of God.

I hold that baptism is best performed by complete immersion but, again, I do not hold that those baptized by other means, provided they confess their faith and trust in their baptism, are unbaptized.

While I do believe that it is allowed for a former paedo-baptist, who having come to believe their baptism was wrongly administered, to ask to be immersed, as a believer, as a witness to the church and their faith; I generally hold that all of other forms of rebaptism are wrong: such as those asked for on joining a church or denomination.[1] And I believe it is fully acceptable for a former paedo-baptist who comes to credo views to still hold that their former baptism is valid, and to 'confirm' it.

I hold largely to the LBC (1689) with certain exceptions.

I do not hold to 'adult' baptism but to 'credo' baptism. I do not object to baptizing 'children' but to baptizing 'non-confessors'. I hold that the grammar of the commands such as 'repent and be baptized' indicate that baptism is both an event that requires an active subject, but also a passive recipient. The individual submits to baptism as the wife submits to her husband: an active role in submission.

This contrasts both with what I see as the totally passive nature of circumcision, where fathers are required to circumcise their sons, male slaves, their sons, etc; and the active/active nature of other forms of sacrifice, where the same believer both believes and performs the sacrifice.

I consider the doctrine of an 'age of accountability' to be entirely unScriptural, and not only unnecessary to a right doctrine of baptism, but contradictory to it. 

Besides having no Biblical warrant, the age of accountability strikes me as a lack of trust in God's sovereignty, and a naive belief in baptismal regeneration. As if something had to be done to 'save' those too young to repent and be baptized.

In contrast to many of my credo-baptist brethren I do believe that there are great benefits promised to the children of believers. I hold that all men are under God's overarching covenant but that the children of believers (in parallel to the physical children of Abraham) are under special blessings and potential curses.

I believer that the Jewish religious leaders did not react as if John the Baptist was inventing an unknown rite, or ending circumcision, but as if he was fulfilling an expected prophecy in an unexpected way.

I believe that the baptism of John, and then of Christ, can be best understood in light of the OT washings that implied full body immersion in running water.

I believe that both paedo (having to do with one's physical lineage) and credo (having to do with one's stated belief or other action) signs of the covenant have been present from the beginning.

I do not believe that the commands given specifically to the physical household of Abraham have ceased.

I am a theonomist. I believe that God's law is holy and perfect and that, while parts of it may have fulfilled their purpose, the various civil laws are still binding on all of mankind.


[1] I would make an exception for Jewish Christians who, not calling it baptism nor claiming it is a NT ordinance, continue the Jewish ceremonial washings, such as that for a woman's time, demanded of them in the law... Note to the Canadian Human Rights Commission: This article may cause people to have contempt for certain groups, including those who murder innocent children, 214th District Court Judge Jose Longoria, Judge Keith Dean , and members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I support The Constitution Party. Items copied from Life Site News are: Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

3/10/2015

Full Time Parenting

I was recently sent a review copy of Israel Wayne's book 'Full Time Parenting'. I told him it was foolish to let me review his book, but he insisted :)
The book is obviously of interest to us here on True Love Doesn't Wait, since we are so wrapped up in the various aspects of family life, including parenting. We do hold that all couples should be open to having children, but that doesn't mean we don't also believe they should raise those children in Godliness. So a book on that is, obviously, very relevant.
Let me start my review by saying that I think the overwhelming majority of modern parents will have their parenting improve several fold if they were to read and follow the guidance in this book. When I say I am disappointed in it I am saying nothing against that. Most of the criticisms I level are of the form, "... but it would have been better if..."

This made a lot of sense to me

god-s-promises-to-abramProverbs 2:1-6 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;
So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;
Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
One of the problems when a lifelong Christian starts speaking is that they take their Christian upbringing for granted. Thus they will say things like, "This makes a lot of sense to me". (Proper Nutrition) This is a problem not because what they say isn't true, or doesn't make sense to me, but because it is a weak reed to rely on. The reader will read this book and then another book with a completely opposite message, and find both of them talking about what 'makes a lot of sense' to the author.
Missing in Action
But a Christian should bring a lot more to the table than any mere author. The Christian should bring not just his wisdom to the table, but the wisdom of God. And I believe that Mr. Wayne does... but he does not do so overtly. Many of his ideas, passages, and chapters are derived from the wisdom of God, but he does not make that clear. He does not do the necessary linking and even exegesis to show his readers how he is speaking, or at least explaining, God's words not his own.

Easing in

ships-in-the-stormy-sea-1866.jpg!xlMediumDeuteronomy 6:4-9 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.
Mr. Wayne suggests that families 'ease in' to the idea of, say, daily family worship. I cannot agree, either practically or Scripturally. First of all, it is never right to do the wrong thing. So if daily worship is a Biblical concept (and it is) then failing to do it is wrong, and no 'easing in' is proper.
But secondly, and this is what we see in Scripture even in such stories as Nineveh, true repentance and change is truly done when it is done truly. The father who has failed to insitutute daily family worship will be better off spending the first couple of sessions, full long sessions, fully explaining what he has done wrong and what they will be doing in the future than just kind of quietly 'easing in' his family to longer and longer unexplained times.
Like Nineveh there are times when we need to sit around in sackcloth and ashes. All of us.

Finding a Virtuous Wife

maid-with-garland-1843.jpg!xlMediumProverbs 31:10-12 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
A particular nitpick of mine, which leapt out at me because I write on this subject: Mr. Wayne says that Proverbs 31 is about a 'Mother teaching her son how to find a virtuous wife'. This is false on several levels.
It is a mother, that is true. But there is nothing about 'how to find'. In fact the text specifically denies this. It literally says 'who can find?'. It literally denies that such a wife is 'find-able'. And we read elsewhere in Proverbs why: it is only God who can provide such a wife.
And there is nothing to indicate that the mother is telling the son to do the finding! There is nothing to indicate any 'who' in the finding.
What the text is about is what that wife will end up looking like after years of marriage. What the 'end result' of marriage to a virtuous wife will be.

Why children leave the faith

the-prodigal-son-in-modern-life-the-departure-1880Proverbs 22:6  Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
One chapter in this book seems literally contradictory. In the chapter on why children leave the faith Mr. Wayne speaks of families who 'seemed to do everything right'. He then proceeds through the chapter and lists things that they did wrong. If they visibly did these things wrong, and their children left as a result, then they don't seem to be the families he promised to talk about. But if they did these things wrong, and he didn't see it, then how does he know these things happened and were the cause of the loss of these children?

Successful handoff into adulthood

on-his-holidays-norway-1901.jpg!xlMediumJeremiah 35:18-19 And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you: Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.
Here is one area where I believe Mr. Wayne departs dramatically from what Scripture teaches. The 'baton' analogy is simply not at all Scripural, the 'pass off' is simply not what Scripture teaches. There is no such thing, in Scripture, as an 'adulthood' where the 'baton has been passed'. There is, instead, a vision of multi-generational patriarchy: of arrows that, even as they leave the quiver and the bow, take aim on the enemies of the father, and do his will. Of sons, sent out into the world so that they can bring that world under the authority of their father.

The missing chapter

the-new-suitor.jpg!BlogJeremiah 29:6  Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished.
This book is dramatically missing a chapter. The chapter on finding your son a wife, of giving your daughter to a husband, of seeing your children's children, the crown of your old age. And of teaching that.
Readers of our site should find plenty to read about that here, though.

The final chapter

pregnantRomans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
The final chapter in this book is almost excellent. Indeed I think everything that is needed is there, I just miss the tying together.
The final chapter is all about 'Grace'. Of how, even when everything is done wrong, God is still capable of bring blessing. And that is very, very true. But it is only half the truth.
We need to remember Paul's curse on those who would sin 'that grace might abound'. That we are called to obedience, even when saved by grace. It think that ties together both of this threads, and indeed his whole book.
We as father's are called to do most (albeit not all) of the things in Mr. Wayne's excellent book. And, indeed, we are called to more. And God promises blessings on those who raise their children 'in the nurture and admonition of the Lord', which includes so much of what Mr. Wayne teaches in this book.
And God speaks of His Grace, which can take even those lost in sin, dead in trespasses, having been raised to serve the evil in the world... and save them. And bring them out from darkness into light.

Conclusion

224_0012 Timothy 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
I end where I started: this is a good book. It is not the great book I think Mr. Wayne capable of, but it is a good book. A good book with some flaws. I would encourage the father who buys this book to read it with Bible and notebook in hand. (If you don't have three hands, feel free to use a table.) And then, as he reads each line, to ask himself how that accords with Scripture? What Scripture adds to or subtracts from what was said. What examples Scripture gives of this... or what counter examples?
But I do recommend the book..

2/25/2015

Homeschool or work from home job opportunity

My son is looking for a programmer to work with the company he is working for. It's a small company programming aps or some such. I've never been real clear smile emoticon
Anyway, looks like a opening level position for a programmer, great for a homeschooler or someone else who wants to work from home.:
https://quip.com/ZJlWAZXoU0T5
.. Note to the Canadian Human Rights Commission: This article may cause people to have contempt for certain groups, including those who murder innocent children, 214th District Court Judge Jose Longoria, Judge Keith Dean , and members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I support The Constitution Party. Items copied from Life Site News are: Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

2/07/2015

Render Unto Caesar -A Christian response to the vaccine controversy


My FB wall has been overwhelmed in the last few weeks by posts for and against vaccines. Altho, truth to tell, it isn't really 'pro' and 'anti' vaccine, per se. The real debate has concerned the morality of government force in regards to forcing people to take vaccines; versus the 'stupidity' of those who do not take them.

This has kind of distorted what we mean by 'pro- and 'anti'. If one is 'pro' most things, say, McDonalds, one likes to go there one's self. And, to a certain extent, one might be 'pro' convincing one's friends and the general public to go to McDonalds. And, similarly, if one is 'anti' McDonalds, one does not spend one's own money there, and may even object to having a friend do so. One might even be inclined to write nasty blog posts telling the general public why they shouldn't go.

And occasionally the 'anti' McDonalds might give some reason why they believe McDonalds (or WalMart) should be shut down by the government. But almost never does one have a 'pro' crowd that believes the government should force people to eat at McDonalds!

So the sides are interesting in this debate, and I find myself in a very interesting potion. My position, based on the various positions, as expressed on the web, is this: I am an 'anti-pro-vaxxer'.

I am not an 'anti-vaxxer' per se. I find the question of vaccines, for myself and my children, to be suitably complex and nuanced that that position does not describe me well. Nor can I call myself 'pro' vaccines: both for the reason that this implies something about my view of government force and, again, because I believe that the issues are sufficiently complex that that any such general term does not work.

However given the nature of the 'pro' vaccine argument, I feel comfortable describing myself as 'anti-pro-vaxxer'. Now to describe my view.

Render unto Caesar

But the first thing I have to do, when taking that position, is to list an exception. If we take the 'pro' vaccine position that government should force people to use vaccines, then there is an exception: government schools.

Not, I would haste to say, because they are *schools*, but because they are government. If the government is going to have a school, then the government really should get to set their own policy.

Of course, for those who know me, you will know this is not much of a concession, since I don't believe that government schools should exist. And, taking the risk of offending people who might otherwise agree with me, can we not see how ironic it is that anyone who is pushing the idea of the jurisdiction of parents in the giving or taking of vaccines should send their children to government schools; the single most damaging thing they can do to their children.

No liberty minded person should send their children to government schools: they are the country's greatest destroyer of liberty. No Christian should send their children to government schools: they are the country's greatest force against Christianity. No small government conservative should send their children to government schools: they are an indoctrination factory for government solutions.

But as far as vaccines, let the dead bury their dead. Let the government set the rules for the government schools, but get your children out of government schools, and get your tax money out of government schools.

The Jurisdiction of the Parent

But as far as the rest of the uses of government force, no, they should not be allowed to force vaccines. The first issue is the jurisdiction of the parent. Does God give to the government, or to the parent, the responsibility for the health care of the child?

OT Quarintine laws

On that specific issue, for this specific case, Doug Wilson of 'Blog and Mablog', put forward the idea that the Old Testament quarantine laws give the government jurisdiction in this issue. This use of the OT law is, obviously, very interesting to anyone who writes a blog entitled 'the Practical Theonomist', and so I read the article with curiosity. Unfortunately for this debate, or at least one side of it, Doug's analysis of the issue fails in three fundamental ways: a) It incorrectly address who would be covered by this issue b) It fails to correctly state the appropriate action and c)It misses the mark as far as jurisdiction.

Addressing these in reverse order:

-The law in question (Leviticus 13) actually address the individual and the church, not the government. It is the individual who is responsible for bringing himself forward, the priest who is responsible for determining if the law applies (including a seven day quarantine), and the individual, again, who is responsible for implimenting the law. The government does not appear anywhere in the law.

-The action of the law of the leper does not involve great government camps, or exclusion from schools, or anything of the like. The leper is to live 'outside the camp' until he is pronounced healed.

-And the action involves a completely different person. The law of the lepers, not to put too fine a point on it, involves lepers: those diagnosed with the disease. It does not involve those susceptible to the disease.
And even if it did, the current debate would still have it wrong. If we really were going to quarantine based on susceptibility to disease, then we would have to include all of these cases
1) Those who have not received the vaccine due to religious or philosophical objections.
2) Those who have not received the vaccine due to coming from overseas or the like
3) Those not yet eligible for the vaccine
4) Those who cannot revive the vaccine because of disease etc.
5) Those who received the vaccine but it did not 'take' and
6) Those who have compromised immune systems due to taking drugs or having cancer, etc.
7) Those who have just received the vaccine
8) Those who have the disease

And yet, of those groups, it is only groups (1) and (2) who are proposed to be quarantined; along with (in some cases) group (8). Altho in many cases the idea of quarantining group (8) is actively opposed, even called 'prejudice'. No reason is typically given for this distinction but, reading between the lines, the reason is because these people 'can help it'. In other words, it is a punishment in disguise, not a disease fighting plan.

If we really wanted a disease fighting plan, and really believed that the state had authority over our health, we would not start with such a trivial thing as the measles vaccine. Once we got done locking up everyone with Aids, TB, and the flu, we would start looking at infants who aren't breastfed, children who go to school or daycare, etc etc.

Prisoners dilemma


Another interesting part of this debate is that one side, the pro-vax side, literally puts forth contradictory arguments. They (or some of them) argue that vaccines are safe, harmless, and the like even while others (or the same people in different contexts) understand that vaccines are a variety of 'prisoners choice': that any given individual is better off not taking the vaccine, but that society as a whole is better off if everyone takes the vaccine.

Thus anti-vaxxers are accused of being 'stupid' in one thread (because they don't understand that vaccines are 'safe' and that their children will be 'better off' if they take them) and 'selfish' in another thread (acting for what is for the obvious good of their children, but leading to a society that is less well off). One can only hope that, eventually, the pro-vaxxers will make up their minds.

Conclusion


I believe that the Christian position in the vaccine debate is to be 'anti-pro-vaccine'. To recognize that it is to parents, not the state, that all health decisions are given concerning their children. To recognize that vaccines are different and different vaccines have, at different times and in different ways, different pro's and con's to them, and to allow individuals and families to make their own choice.

We need to realize that the state has no jurisdiction in this area. That if we are to make an analogy to the OT laws, these would need to concern only those who are diagnosed with the disease, and would need to involve the individual and the church, not the state...

But, to my 'anti-vaxxer' friends, let us please cease the debate as to the government schools! Just get your children out of them, and realize that, if we are going to have government schools, we need to let the government decide when, and how, and why our children should be educated. Which is why we shouldn't have government schools! And definitely shouldn't send our children there.



Note to the Canadian Human Rights Commission: This article may cause people to have contempt for certain groups, including those who murder innocent children, 214th District Court Judge Jose Longoria, Judge Keith Dean , and members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I support The Constitution Party. Items copied from Life Site News are: Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

1/09/2015

The Epiphenomenon of Laicite

The great irony of Islam's continued clashes with the Western way of life — whether its widespread riots over a YouTube video or the murderous actions of a crazed minority— is that it has revealed, to the surprise of everyone but Pope Emeritus Benedict, that modern secularism is a kind of epiphenomenon of Christendom.To borrow from G.K. Chesterton, secularism is the second fermentation, where the wine of Christianity becomes the vinegar of laïcité. Force either of them into the mouth of a Muslim guest, and he will spit it out.http://m.theweek.com/article/index/274629/the-charlie-hebdo-massacre-and-secularisms-problem-with-islam

 I agree with most of it, and find little surprising, but I have no idea what he is saying at the end, starting with, "...modern secularism is a kind of epiphenomenon of Christendom."Russel Gold

 The article is behind the WSJ paywall, but she makes a point that bears repeating. Over and over, we hear Western politicians bleet that this attack or that attack has nothing to do with Islam, despite the overwhelming evidence that it was perpetrated by Muslims shouting "Allahu Akbar" or otherwise making it clear that *they* believe that they are acting in the name of their faith.Hirsi Ali notes, "If there is a lesson to be drawn from such a grisly episode, it is that what we believe about Islam truly doesn’t matter. This type of violence, jihad, is what they, the Islamists, believe."If you are not a Muslim scholar, you have no business asserting what is or is not true Islam, and it isn't relevant. What matters is that there are a lot of people committing and urging violence in the name of Islam, whether or not they are correct.
Hirsi Ali continues, "Those responsible for the slaughter in Paris, just like the man who killed the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004, are seeking to impose terror. And every time we give in to their vision of justified religious violence, we are giving them exactly what they want."
We are in a war; a war not of our choosing, but a war nonetheless. You win wars by persuading the others side to accept your terms rather than fight. By that standard, those who commit violence in the name of Islam (often referred to as "Islamists") are winning. Every concession we make, every time we urge one another not to do anything to "provoke" the Islamists,, makes us less and less capable of defending our way of life.
Many have pointed out the flaws in Western culture. Granted, we are imperfect. But compared to what the Islamists are offering, our way is spectacular. If we fail to recognize that and fail to defend ourselves, the micro-aggressions about which so many are complaining will be nothing compared to what women and minorities endure under in many Muslim nations.
Russel Gold

My friend, Russel Gold, and Orthodox Jew (and modern liberal) at times seems to me to be two different people. When speaking of conservative economic and some moral issues, he seems to be one person; when speaking of other issues a completely different person.
He can read and analyze the most bizarre NYT article with profound intelligence, but seems to go all to pieces (to quote AA Milne) when faced with GK Chesterton, CS Lewis, and the like.
In his mini-article review above he spends the majority of the time on a brilliant critique of the essential shallowness and ineffectiveness of Western culture, only to conclude that is 'flawed' but 'spectacular'.
And then he reacts to the 'the week' article by understanding everything but the conclusion.

What is meant by an 'epiphenomenon'?


I can't say I totally approve of the author's word choice here. It seems a bit over the top as far as word choice. I think I'll move the discussion into the realm of nuclear physics and biology call the issue one of a 'decay product' or 'waste product'.
A radioactive decay product is something that is produced by the decay of a given element. Uranium, or so I understand, spends most of its time becoming not-Uranium. You can Google it but there are a lot of other elements that Uranium 'decays into'. It loses very consituent bits: protons, neutrons, electrons, gluons, and the like and Uranium, left to itslef long enough, become Lead, or Carbon, or Boron or something.
Similarly in biology the body gathers together various interesting chemicals: sugar, oxygen, water, carbon, and the like, and waves its magic wand at them and produces energy for movement, or material for growth, or an interest in girls. But when that is over (not the interest in girls, which is permanent) there is some 'stuff' left over hanging around the cell, like empty soda cans and pizza boxes after the Super Bowl party. These are 'waste products'. (We will keep this article clean and not discuss what happens to them.)
Our author here is proposting that modern secularism, or 'laicite', is just such a waste product... of Christianity. (Note: Judaism has a similar waste product.)

A Complete Philosophy

For the purposes of this article I am going to oversimplify and say that the world contains several philosophies that are 'complete'. I will include Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and, say, Buddhism just to name a few.
Dealing with these as philosophies we see that, for the most part, they are what can be called 'complete'. They deal with, and answer, all of the major philosophical questions: what is man, who is God, what is man's purpose in life, how did the world come into existence, what is it's purpose, and the like.
What the author above is proposing is that modern secularism is NOT a complete philosophy. That it consists of a combination of refusing to answer certain questions, and moral inertia left over from Christianity. That it consists of Christianity perverted and stripped of its vital elements.

Secularism

The very name of the philosophy reveals this essential weakness. The term 'secular' is one half of a division. The other half is 'sacred'. The major religions are filled with elaborate rules or explanations for what things are sacred, and which merely secular.
Secularism does two things. It reveals itself as half a philosophy by denying one half of a two part division. It deals only with the 'secular' and has no 'sacred'.
At the same time it emmasculates itself as a philosophy by this same denying of the sacred. It is the sacred which drives the force of all full philosophies. It is the sacred which cannot be blasphemed, it is the sacred which promises life, and hope, and peace, and joy. It is the sacred for which men will die.
Thus secularism is, in the end, no philosophy at all, just a waste product of one. And as such, it cannot survive. Modern movies like to do 'zombies' but biologists know the issue with them. Only life can produce movement, thought, goals, actions. The phrase 'dead man walking' is, outside of its metaphoric value, a contradiction in terms. It is the very vital spark that religions posses that allow them to 'live'; a spark that secularism is missing and that will, in the end, produce its death.





.. Note to the Canadian Human Rights Commission: This article may cause people to have contempt for certain groups, including those who murder innocent children, 214th District Court Judge Jose Longoria, Judge Keith Dean , and members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I support The Constitution Party. Items copied from Life Site News are: Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

12/27/2014

What laws are immoral?

I was asked on a FB thread the following question:

On principle, what laws are immoral in your book anyway?

To which my obvious answer is 'any man made laws'. Only God's laws are moral, obviously. All that man can do is attempt to order society by God's laws.



... Note to the Canadian Human Rights Commission: This article may cause people to have contempt for certain groups, including those who murder innocent children, 214th District Court Judge Jose Longoria, Judge Keith Dean , and members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I support The Constitution Party. Items copied from Life Site News are: Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.
There was an error in this gadget

Blog Archive