tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11935092922972705322024-03-22T00:25:09.679-04:00Surviving The Suffering®The Challenging Christian LifeTim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-31009130563460744912020-03-21T13:37:00.004-04:002020-03-21T13:37:52.546-04:00So God Created a Virus<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 6px; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
“It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, remorse, or fear. And it will not stop, ever, until you are dead.” That quote from a 1980’s movie seems to sum up how a lot of people are feeling about this new virus. I believe that if you know the absolute truth about this virus, it will help you to understand what will work and not work, and what will have to happen for us to get past this disease. It is not an entirely pleasant truth, but at least surprises can be avoided.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
I wrote an article several years ago while under the influence of a nasty cold called, “Noah and the Bugs”. I described the difference between bacteria and viruses, specifically that viruses require a living cell for their existence; they cannot survive outside the human body for extended periods of time. The virus invades a human cell, hijacks its DNA/RNA system to make copies of itself, and then after enough copies have been made, it ruptures the cell to spread to other cells— and people. The common cold is typically a rhinovirus or coronavirus, and there are hundreds of varieties of cold viruses, so it is impossible to become immune to all of them, explaining why we keep getting colds each year. If you have lived long enough and had several colds, you probably have had some type of coronavirus before. One advantage that we have with viruses is that once infected with a virus, our bodies develop antibodies to it, preventing a recurrent infection. You can get a bacterial infection over and over with the same bacteria, but that is rare with viruses. Once infected, we become immune, sometimes permanently. Some people, uncommonly, can carry a virus, and develop neither symptoms or immunity.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
So, when Noah loaded up the ark to preserve all of the species, I don’t know where he kept the viruses, except in himself and his family. In theory, the bacteria could have been kept alive in cultures, but the viruses needed a human host. Noah, Ham, Shem, Japheth and their four wives would have had to carry not only several hundred cold viruses but all of the other horrible diseases—Ebola, Yellow Fever, and so forth. God would have had to spare their lives from these deadly illnesses, so I presume they were the first carriers.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
Which brings us to the new coronavirus. If you are exposed to the new coronavirus, there are four possible outcomes. You will get the disease and recover, becoming immune, get the disease and die, or get the virus and become a carrier (rare). The fourth possibility is that you may have had enough coronavirus exposure in the past to have enough immunity to the new virus that you will not become infected.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
The virus is not going to give up and go home because of our public health measures. Handwashing, social distancing, or quarantining will not make it go away. There are only two things that will make the virus go away. It is not a bacterial disease or plague that can be eliminated by sanitation or antibiotics. The virus can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, remorse, or fear. It will not stop, ever, until there is enough global immunity to the virus. There is a second possibility that there will be a vaccine, which will probably prove difficult to develop and probably not be available soon enough to blunt the epidemic.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
Enough people HAVE to be infected so that there are enough people immune to the disease so that it doesn’t have anywhere to go. It is unclear how many people have to be immune to stop the viral spread. This depends on how contagious the virus is, and it doesn’t have to be 100% of the population. I have seen estimates as low as 60%, but more typically 80%. This explains how the flu goes away each year. Some people have had enough prior flu attacks that they are immune to the new flu strain that year, and that year’s flu vaccine taken before the epidemic may help provide immunity. But until enough people are immune, the flu keeps spreading.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
So, you can go live in a cave and wash your hands, but when you come out of your cave, if enough people have not been infected and developed immunity, the virus will still be out there circulating for you to catch. The purpose of all of our current public health measures is not to stop the new coronavirus. It is to slow the spread of the virus. By doing this, our hospitals and health care system can handle the huge numbers of critically ill patients. We will save lives if we have the capacity to treat the sick, but if we overwhelm that capacity, many without care will succumb.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
The bad news is that this slowing will delay not only the spread of the virus, but the development of global immunity. We prolong the epidemic. Instead of a raging inferno, we have a smoldering burn; exactly the same number of trees shall be ignited, but perhaps our firefighting resources will be able to douse more of them. The virus will not stop, ever, until this global immunity has been achieved. Whereas the flu reaches a rapid peak, immunity is quickly developed and flu season comes to an end in a few months, by blunting the coronavirus peak we may be looking at not a season but year or years, and instead of a single “curve” there may be waves, with each successive peak getting smaller. Slowing the spread of the virus may also allow time for a vaccine to be developed.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 6px 0px; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
God is our eternal creator, designer, sustainer, and sovereign master. Before the sin of Adam, I presume that man and microbe coexisted peacefully in the Garden. But since that sin, suffering has been unleashed on the world. Although we do not understand why, all that God has decreed is for His glory. What we do understand is that we are here to glorify God in what we do and how we live. As Christians, this and other sufferings, trials, and catastrophes are an integral part of our existence. The Christian is concerned, but not living in fear or panic. We pray for those who are ill, and for those who are at most risk to avoid the illness. Our conduct must honor God; we take what we need but leave some for others. We will need to endure some privations, and what may appear to be Draconian restrictions. The hospital beds will fill, but hopefully each and every patient that needs one will be able to get one. God has not gifted us with foreknowledge of when this will all come to an end, but for those of us who have accepted His Son as Savior, He has given us the assurance that He will sustain us, comfort us, and bless us now during this season and the infinite seasons to come in eternity.</div>
Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-16353149185698448442019-09-01T07:04:00.001-04:002019-09-01T07:04:58.689-04:00The Proud Christian<br />
There is a Far Side cartoon that shows a dog in the back seat of a car as he
is being driven past the dog in the yard next door. The dog in the car
leans his head out the window, and with his tail wagging, boastfully declares,
"Ha ha ha Biff. Guess what? After we go to the drugstore and post
office, <em>I'm </em>going to the vet's to get <i>tutored</i>."<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
It seems that the fleshly part of us would like nothing more than for us to
think better of ourselves than others. That sin nature is lifted up by
another's misfortune. This is despite Paul's strict warning, "Let
nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind
let each esteem others better than himself" (Philippians 2:3). <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
This is simply not the way the world seems to work. Our competitive
drive becomes a comparative drive. We judge how well we are doing by how
others are doing. A "zero-sum game" is a game where all of the
players' gains minus all of the of the players' losses equals zero. I
can't do better unless you do worse. Having played football in high
school and college, I am fully aware of the competitive drive, and we
couldn't win a football game unless the other team lost. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
The good thing about competition is that it fosters a drive to
excel. I believe that doing everything that you can do to be the best you
can be is a Godly goal. In the movie, <em>Chariots of Fire, </em>the
British runner Eric Liddell explains his desire to be a champion runner to his
sister saying, "I believe that God made me for a purpose. But He
also made me fast, and when I run, I feel His pleasure." He was able
to run in Olympic races because his desire was to be the best and fastest
runner he could be. Winning a race meant that the other runners would
lose, but the desire was not to defeat the others so much as to run the
best race that he could.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Where we go astray in this urge to excel is when we decide that
being a better person means better than someone else. In fact, pride
and humility form something of a "zero-sum game;" the more pride
that you have, the less humility. You must realize that you wouldn't
be able to achieve anything if it were not for what God has given
you. Every bit of skill, talent, and fortune is from Him. Yes,
you must put effort into it, but even that ability comes from the
Lord. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
So it is with our salvation. As Christians, we can be prone to esteem
ourselves better than others because we are saved. We see the worldly
success of others or are treated badly by them and we comfort ourselves in the
knowledge that at least we will be going to Heaven. The Apostle
Paul clearly saw this tendency and deplored it in Ephesians 2:8-9, saying,
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not
your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no
one may boast." You are not allowed the least bit of pride at being saved,
because you did not earn it, do not deserve it, and received it only as a gift
from God. You don't get to hang your head out the window and taunt the
others because you are on the way to Heaven.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
A surprising twist on this was seen in Mark 9:33-7, where Jesus caught the
disciples arguing over who was the greatest. Simply to be accepted
into eternal life in Heaven should be a most satisfactory gift for
anyone. To desire more than this, to be ranked ahead of another Christian
brother in the eyes of the Lord, is a selfish and prideful desire, a greedy ego
seeking undeserved approbation.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
When we think of our status as one of the saved, we must not think of
salvation as a "zero-sum game." In a football game, if one team
wins, the other loses. Yet because you are saved does not mean that
another must be damned. And it is much more than a game. Those who
do not accept Christ face an eternity of unimaginable suffering. This is
not a matter of sums but of division, with the condemned being permanently
divided from God and their suffering divided by zero, meaning infinite.
Even if you are the least of those in Heaven, you will enjoy forever what will
be denied to the best person in Hell. When you look upon someone who
denies Christ as their Savior, you must realize what awaits them. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Our drive to excel must be in the service of God, and part of that service
means helping others to know Him. Being proud of your status as a
Christian does not lead others to the Lord. In fact, the higher you
esteem yourself as a Christian the worse you are doing as far as He is
concerned; the more you see of yourself as winning the more you are
losing. The Godly do not wish to see anyone suffer for eternity, and
when we seek the salvation of others everyone wins. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-62721418714887353852019-08-07T22:16:00.001-04:002019-08-07T22:16:03.715-04:00The Things That Cannot Be Said
<br />
<div style="background: white; margin: 0in 0in 4.5pt;">
<span style="color: #1d2129;">The recent mass shootings have
dominated the news lately: one in El Paso, one in Dayton. Far and away the most
attention has been directed at the shooters and their ideologies; there was
quite a race to see to which political candidates they were aligned. As one
reads the news, listens to the broadcast media, or spends time on the social
media websites, every single aspect of these deaths is analyzed, and
responsibility is assigned to multiple different potential causative factors. I
remember in medical school we were taught the ABC's of assessing a crisis
situation that went awry. Not Airway, Breathing and Circulation, but Assess
Blame and Criticize.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; margin: 4.5pt 0in;">
<span style="color: #1d2129;">When ruminating over things
such as gun control, left-wing and right-wing ideologies and the like, we are
trying as humans to make sense of the often senseless. There are certainly
decisions to be made to try and prevent such tragedies, and it is wise to try
and understand which causative factors need to be addressed. Much progress is
unlikely to be made if these factors cannot be agreed upon. If you believe that
the most important issue to address in the shootings is gun control, and I
believe it is the lack of societal morality, then it will be difficult for us
to come to some effective solution, particularly if we deny each other's
beliefs. As individuals, we will not be able to put in place either gun control
or God back in schools but can only vote for politicians and judges that share
our views. I would submit, however, that the most important part of all this
discussion is entirely missing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; margin: 4.5pt 0in;">
<span style="color: #1d2129;">I have heard all week about
Democrats and Republicans, Warren and Sanders and Trump, white supremacists and
socialists, leftists and God. And although I have heard about
"Christians" as a group, that term is often used as a pejorative. In
all that I have heard and read this week, not once have I heard anyone mention
Jesus Christ. Christians yes, Jesus Christ no. And from an eternal perspective,
nothing is more important. Until Christ comes again, we will always have
murders and tragedies befall our civilization. Tragic, senseless deaths began
in the second generation of man when Cain slew Abel. We will always strive to
prevent early death, whether it be from a bullet, sharks, a car accident, or a
heart attack. We can certainly take steps to prevent mass murder, warn people
about dangerous wildlife, make our cars safer, and reduce the incidence of
heart disease. But we will never, ever obtain victory over death on our own as
humans.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; margin: 4.5pt 0in;">
<span style="color: #1d2129;">Listen to the words of Jesus
Himself in Luke 12:16-21, the Parable of the Rich Fool. A man had acquired more
than he needed and made many plans of his own. God, however, had different
ideas, and "...God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of
you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?'" Read that
again: "This night your soul is required of you." The shoppers in El
Paso, the Dayton night club patrons, that day their souls were required of
them. They did not know that day; the question is, were they prepared?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; margin: 4.5pt 0in;">
<span style="color: #1d2129;">A holy God cannot allow sin
into heaven. Even worse, the wages of sin is death. Since the fall of Adam and
Eve, man is condemned to die. We all wish to die of old age and are shaken when
we see people die tragically and early. But know this, all of mankind is born
to live eternally, and forever is an infinitely long time. The thirty or forty
or seventy years these people were deprived of while living on earth is a
pittance, a fraction of a millisecond, compared to the eternity they now face.
God has decreed that because of sin, we are all condemned to die physically and
eternally. If I was to say that all the people that died in El Paso or Dayton
last week deserved to die and spend eternity in Hell, you would be shocked. But
it is true. And not only that, but you deserve to die and spend eternity in
Hell, and so does your mother, father, wife, husband and children. I deserve to
die and spend eternity in Hell. God's justice demands that sin be punished by
death, and we all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God (Romans
3:23).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; margin: 4.5pt 0in;">
<span style="color: #1d2129;">Do not misunderstand and
think that I am saying that God is the causative factor in these deaths. But
His sovereign will, in which all things are under His control, allowed them to
happen as the result of sin. There is no question that the killers were morally
evil and committed immoral acts. And in a fallen world, sometimes God's
creatures will mortally wound us, unlike in the Garden of Eden, and unlike in
the heaven to come.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; margin: 4.5pt 0in;">
<span style="color: #1d2129;">There is no way to avoid physical
death, either after a long life or a short one. That cost is fixed, immutable.
But God did give us a way to avoid eternal death spent in Hell, and only one
way. He gave us His son Jesus Christ. And when we receive Jesus as our Savior,
we change our eternal destiny. Yes, I am saddened that many people died in El
Paso and Dayton last week, and sad for the loss experienced by their families.
But it is a far, far greater tragedy that many died suddenly, only to in the
next moment find their souls in eternal torment.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; margin: 4.5pt 0in;">
<span style="color: #1d2129;">These are very unpleasant
things that cannot be said these days. We can pray for the families that have
lost loved ones. We can pray for our leaders to protect us. We can pray for the
safety of our friends and families, and even ourselves. But the single most
important thing that we must pray for here is for the lost. It is too late to
pray for the victims of a week ago. Some may have been believers in Christ and
are in the arms of the Father now. Others are not, and we can be fairly certain
where the Dayton killer is residing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background: white; margin: 4.5pt 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: #1d2129;">God
requires that no sin enter heaven, He requires that sin be punished by death,
and He requires our souls. Are you and your loved ones prepared for your last
day on earth, no matter when it may be? It matters not when or where you are
when He requires yours, but it will matter for all eternity where you will be
after He has required it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-6411340301066757962019-07-31T20:30:00.001-04:002019-08-04T21:03:55.848-04:00The Grieving Christian<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can tell
from many of the posts here, as well as with our friends and acquaintances,
that several have lost loved ones that were dear to them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although I cannot relieve their pain, perhaps
I can lend some hope. Believe it or not, I will begin with a brief physics
lesson. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
"Annus Mirabilis" is a Latin phrase meaning "extraordinary
year" (or "year of miracles"), and although it has been applied
to many different years, one of the most significant was 1905. It was in
that year that Albert Einstein published not one, but four ground-breaking
papers, on the special theory of relativity, the photoelectric effect, Brownian
motion, and mass-energy equivalence. The last of these four yielded his
famous equation, e = mc<sup>2</sup>, but it is the first of these that I would
like to explore.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
In the special theory of relativity, Einstein took a good, long, hard look
at existing physics and found it wanting. Physics up until that time had
been dominated by the theories of Sir Isaac Newton. He turned the world of
existing Newtonian physics upside down by making a surprising assumption.
All the things that we think are constant in this material world, things such
as size and shape, mass and time, are not truly constant depending on when and
how the measuring is done. The only thing that is constant is the speed
of light. This leads to some rather amazing conclusions. For
instance, as you accelerate an object, it actually shortens in length and gains
mass. For speeds such as we see usually see here on earth, this is
imperceptible. At speeds approaching that of the speed of light, the
effects are profound; it is like dividing by zero. An object at the speed
of light would be infinite in mass and infinitely shortened. And this
explains why according to the theory of relativity, nothing can ever travel
faster than the speed of light. The closest we can come is when scientists use
particle accelerators, and by moving particles near the speed of light, these
changes can begin to be detected. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
The word "relativity" was meant to describe events as they were
"relative" to an observer. If a person was in a spaceship
accelerated to near the speed of light, they would not notice these
effects. It is the observer who measures the increase in mass and the shortening
of length. And time undergoes changes as well, when measured by an
outside observer. For the person in such a spaceship, they would
experience the normal passage of time, and the outside observer would
experience their usual passage of time, but these would actually be quite
different. Time would run much slower in the ship, the so-called
"time-dilation" effect, and a journey that would seem only a few
years in the ship travelling to and from Earth near the speed of light would last
hundreds of years for the observer here on Earth. Each would objectively
measure the same event with different results.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
People have used the word "relatively" to describe things a little
differently than "relativity", and when applied to other matters
"relatively" describes a subjective sense. It has been jokingly said
that the duration of time is "relative" to which side of the bathroom
door you are standing on. Clearly some things seem to be over in an
instant, and others drag on endlessly, but our clocks are not running faster or
slower because of some phenomenon of "relativity", and it is only how
we perceive the passage of that time in those circumstances.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
When your loved one tells you that they are going to the store for fifteen
minutes to pick up some milk, do you grieve? Or if you came home and
unexpectedly found a note from your spouse that they had run to the hardware
store for a short time, would you be devastated? I would expect not, for
you know that they would return in such a brief time that their momentary
absence would not make you feel deprived in the least. It would hardly be
noticed. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
As a heart surgeon and physician, I occasionally must deal with the death of
a patient, someone's parent or spouse. I am of the age that occasionally
friends and acquaintances pass away, and I have also lost loved
ones. I know the heart-wrenching grief and sense of loss that comes with
this, and would never try and console someone by minimizing what they are
experiencing or sugar-coating it. But for the Christian, there is some
hope in understanding the nature of God's time.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
The saved Christian will spend eternity in heaven with God and other
Christians. Just as travelling at the speed of light causes changes that
are like dividing by zero and infinite, God's eternity is like dividing time
not by days or weeks or months or years, but like dividing by zero. Eternity is
infinite time. You may miss your loved one dearly, and depending on the
time of loss, may miss them for years or decades. But you will be
reunited with them in heaven, and their absence will seem so very, very
brief. If you recall the final verse of "Amazing Grace":<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
When we've been there ten thousand years<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Bright shining as the sun<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
We've no less days, to sing His praise<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
than when we'd first begun.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
After you have been reunited with your loved one in heaven for the first ten
thousand years, the twenty years you were apart on Earth will seem like only a
moment, that they had only gone for a quick trip around the corner to the
store. And after the next ten thousand, and the next, it will seem even
shorter still. The passage of those years of loss on earth will
eventually seem like a split-second. We can look to our future in heaven
with the truest of joy, for eternity with those who have meant so much to
us. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Newton was right and Einstein was wrong. "Amazing Grace" was
written by John Newton, and in this case I think that this Newton, not
Isaac, described God's time. Einstein was an agnostic, and
although he did not deny the possibility of God, he did not believe in a
personal God at all. However, I think that some of his underlying assumptions
are true. All the things that the world thinks are constant, mass and size and
time, are really not constant at all. They will all fade away when
Christ returns. It truly is only light that is constant, the Light of the
Glory of God, which will shine forever. <o:p></o:p>Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-78327136893678819622019-07-21T14:33:00.009-04:002022-04-20T19:15:55.708-04:00The Accused Christian, Part II
<span style="background-color: #3d85c6; color: white;"><br />
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: #3d85c6; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Helvetica; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span><span style="color: white;"> It has become common parlance to label people with whom you
disagree as having bad motives. This is a sloppy form of trying to win an
argument or advancing a point. In logic, this is called the ad hominem fallacy,
meaning that instead of attacking the opponent’s position, you attack the
person. Today, Christians are accused of being “intolerant”, when nothing could
be further from the truth. We are labeled with all kinds of ugly
characteristics. </span></span><span style="color: #1d2129;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Helvetica; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><span style="font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Helvetica; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The first thing
to get settled is whether or not there is an objective truth. This causes many
people difficulty today, in our post-modern society where many have decided
that each of us is allowed to determine what truth is for us; what is true for
you may not be true for me. That leads to moral relativism, where we each get
to determine our own moral laws. The logical law of non-contradiction prohibits
this. That law basically says that a thing cannot be true and not true at the
same time (or "A" and "not-A") in the same relationship.
The animal is a dog or it is not a dog; it can't be a dog and a non-dog at the
same time. This means that a truth is true for me and must be true for you as
well. There are physical truths, mathematical truths, and even moral truths.
The laws of particle physics are not different for you and me, and for both of
us, four plus four must equal eight. The real problem arises when people claim
that there is no objective moral standard. In that case, Mao, Stalin, and
Hitler were justified in what they did because it met their moral standards.
The next time someone claims that each of us is entitled to determine his own
moral truths, take his wallet, and tell him that your morality thinks that it
is just fine to steal.<o:p></o:p></span></span><span><br />
<span style="font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Helvetica; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><span style="font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Helvetica; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">A belief is one
step removed from an objective truth. The truth is what it is, and a belief is
what a person thinks is truth. We can certainly believe untrue things.
Believing the wrong thing does not change the truth. My favorite example of
this comes from Christian author Frank Turek, who asks, "If you decided
that you didn't believe in gravity, would you just float away?"<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: white;"><br />
</span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Helvetica; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="background-color: #3d85c6; color: white;">The word
tolerance comes from the Latin tolerantia, meaning to "endure". It
means that if you tolerate something, you endure it or live with it. Generally,
with regards to other people, you tolerate one of two things: their beliefs or
their actions. Almost universally, we tolerate other people's beliefs, even if
we consider them to be untrue. One of the foundational principles of our
country was religious tolerance. As Christians, we tolerate the Hindus, the
Muslims, the Buddhists, and so on, and we expect them to tolerate our beliefs
as well. We do not always tolerate other people's actions; although we may
tolerate the radical Muslims and their beliefs, we do not tolerate acts of
terrorism. </span><o:p style="background-color: white;"></o:p></span></div>
<span><span style="font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Helvetica; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><span style="font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Helvetica; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Acceptance,
however, is a totally different matter. I may tolerate your beliefs, but I am
under no compunction to accept them as true. The sky is blue, you may believe
it to be green, and I can certainly tolerate your viewpoint, but please don't
demand that I also believe the sky to be green. And therein lies the problem
where one group of people demands that another group of people not only
tolerate their beliefs but accept them as true. I happen to get my moral truths
from the Bible and God's instructions for us. Not everyone does.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Helvetica; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><span style="font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Helvetica; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">And where these
aggrieved groups fall off the lexicographic cliff is when they take those who
do not accept their beliefs as true and label them as intolerant
"haters" or “ists” or "phobes". Because I believe the sky
to be blue does not make me a green-sky "hater”, a “greenophobe”, or a
“colorist”, and you are not suffering because I do not accept your belief in a
green sky. Please, do not even consider calling me intolerant.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="color: white;"><br />
</span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: #3d85c6; color: white; font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Helvetica; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">You may believe
that stealing is morally perfectly acceptable, but I will not tolerate your
behavior, stealing from me, and I will not accept your belief in theft as
morally correct or true. Although I am intolerant of your actions, that does
not make me a hater, and I would reject your attempt to make me the moral
villain. You may desire my DVD player and feel that you are suffering because
you do not have one, but I am not causing you to suffer by denying you the
right to take mine.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #3d85c6; color: white;"><br />
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "inherit",serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Helvetica; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="background-color: #3d85c6; color: white;">I am hopeful
that at least some people will not accept the rampant name-calling today as a
valid form of argument, whether they be called racist, bigoted, intolerant, or
any kind of “-phobe”. An illusion is a deceptive appearance or impression, and
those who would toss those words around are trying to create the illusion that
not only do they have a valid argument, but the moral high ground as well. I
would claim that they are actually suffering from a delusion, which is a belief
that has no evidence in fact.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-91665273656651133982019-07-14T21:23:00.002-04:002019-07-14T21:23:55.477-04:00The Accused Christian
<br />
One of the charges occasionally leveled at Christian conservatives is that
they are not compassionate. This often wounds us as such, leading to
confusion and even feelings of guilt because this is such a serious
accusation. Christians, who are supposed to be our brother's keepers,
have a hard time responding to people who basically are saying that we do not
care about others, and not only are we guilty of that sin, but we are also
guilty of hypocrisy. It is really two accusations in one.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
The word compassion comes from the Latin "com", meaning
"together", and "pati", which means "to
suffer". We are to come along side of those who suffer and do what
we can to alleviate it. For the Christian, our instructions are
clear. We are to be generous and helpful to those in need. James
1:27 tells us to, "...visit orphans and widows in their
trouble..." In Matthew 25:35-36, Christ commends those who act out
of compassion: "I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you
gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed
Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to
Me." And Luke 16:19-31 tells us of the story of Lazarus and the rich
man, and the perils of ignoring those in need.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Christian charity blesses both the recipient and the giver. All of us
are to be dependent on God, who promises us that our basic needs will be
met. For other needs, we are to pray, and for those who are needy, God
uses charity to answer those prayers and meet those needs. The giver is
submissive to God's will, and God directs and moves his heart to be obedient,
to give to those in need, and in doing so he is also blessed. Those of us
who are blessed more are to in return bless others. This is the very
essence of Christian compassion.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
However, I can tell you what Christian compassion is <em>not. </em>It
is not socialism. If you had a neighbor in great need, perhaps due to
illness, you might be led to help that person financially. But if you
received a knock on the door with some official forcing you to turn over your
earnings to pay someone else's medical bills, that would be a different
matter. The forcible taking of something from one person and giving it to
another is not compassionate or Biblical. In this situation, the
government becomes God, and the command of God to be generous becomes the
demand of the state to fork over money, to be distributed as the government
sees fit. Rather than God directing our hearts to give to those in need,
the government decides how much it will take from one, and how much and to whom
it is to be given. Neither person receives a blessing from God; one
receives a legal demand and the other an entitlement.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Our system of government is not perfect, nor is our capitalist economic
system. As Winston Churchill stated, "it has been said that
democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that
have been tried from time to time." As for economics, you must
remember that all the major religions originated outside of Western
civilization (Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.) and all
the major economic systems came from the West (capitalism, fascism, socialism,
communism). Capitalism incorporates more Christian ideals than any of the
other forms of economics, particularly in the concepts of individual
responsibility to God for one’s choices and behavior. Is capitalism
compassionate? Yes. Of all the economic systems, capitalism
provides the greatest benefit for all, the highest standard of living, the
greatest freedom, the least dependency, and the greatest opportunity for
charity. The countries with the greatest differences in incomes, with great
wealth and great poverty, are the socialist ones.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is why great numbers seek to come
here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>East Berlin had to build a wall to
keep people in; we are going to need a wall to keep people out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Accuser points a finger and says,
"How can you be a Christian and not want to give this or that government
benefit?" Christian compassion comes from the heart, not the
Treasury. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Christian compassion is not erasing the law. We do not live in a
theocracy, but rather God has ordained civil government to pass laws to
organize society and protect citizens. The morality of individuals is the
church's concern, and civil order is the state's. Laws are enacted to
guard the public, and the Bible enjoins us as good citizens to obey those laws
unless they clearly conflict with the Word of God. A law that is not
enforced or obeyed is no law at all. We have many illegal immigrants in
our country, who have not obeyed the laws of this land, and these laws are not
being enforced as they should. If there are good reasons in this
country for passing immigration laws, and there are, then they are to be
obeyed and enforced. The illegal immigrant came here by choice, not
obeying those laws; to allow this to continue, or grant amnesty,
invalidates those laws, and encourages further lawlessness. The Accuser
condemns the conservative believer, "How can you Christians call
yourselves compassionate and not want to help those who have come here to seek
a better life?" Christian compassion seeks
to ease suffering, but does not enable law-breaking.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Christian compassion is not violating the Word of God. God has given
us His own set of laws, and where they are clear, we are not to allow misguided
compassion to overturn His commandments. God forbids the taking of
innocent life, so no amount of compassion for a single mother allows us to
support aborting her baby. God forbids sexual immorality, and compassion
does not permit us to endorse such immorality, even if those who desire it
would consider themselves to be profoundly unhappy if they could not live in
sexual sin. The Golden Rule does not permit sin. Do unto others as
we would have them do unto us does not mean to help others to do whatever
they wish. The Accuser contests our beliefs, saying, "How can you
Christians have so little compassion that you do not condone others living
as they wish?" Christian compassion understands the unhappiness of
others, but does not compromise His Word. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Compassion not considering Christian morals is devastating in its
consequences. Compassion that forces one to pay for another is theft, and
this encourages further dependency. Compassion that
permits illegality invalidates the law, and this encourages further
law-breaking. Compassion that violates God's law is itself immoral
and encourages further immorality. Christian compassion is not socialism,
does not condone crime, and does not compromise with sin. Christian
compassion is furthering God's kingdom with charity, according to His
Word.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the ultimate in caring.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-30011873975293410122019-04-16T22:13:00.000-04:002019-04-16T22:15:09.487-04:00The Church and FireMuch has been written and said on the fire at Notre Dame de Paris, the grand cathedral. It took nearly one hundred years to build, from 1160 to 1260. I have had the privilege of visiting it a few times, and it was always a magnificent experience. For a fee, you could climb to the top and have a panoramic view of Paris, and pass many gargoyles as you walked on the upper levels. As many have already remarked, the stained glass windows were the most impressive anywhere. It was the pinnacle of architecture in its day. <br />
<br />
In the Catholic church, a cathedral is not just any church, it is the seat of a bishop. The builders of Notre Dame built a huge, soaring Gothic building, as an honor to God. And the purpose of a church, any church, is to provide a physical location and environment for people to come together to worship God. This is primarily done by studying and hearing the Word of God, participating in sacraments, and prayer. Worshipping in these means is assisted by music, as well. <br />
<br />
Thirteen million people visit Notre Dame de Paris each year, as tourists. I am unable to find out how many people actually attend Mass or services there, but I suspect it is a fraction of that number. And although the beauty and grandeur of the cathedral are immense, it was not built to be a tourist attraction. The Catholic church does not own Notre Dame, it is owned by the French government. Although it does still serve as a house of worship, for the French, it is more a symbol of national identity, rather like our Washington Monument or Lincoln Memorial. In fact, in France, as well as the rest of Europe, there is a rapidly declining need for churches of any kind.<br />
<br />
Church attendance in Europe has plummeted. The Church of England closes 20 churches a year, the Catholic church in Germany around 50 a year. In the Netherlands, two thirds of the Catholic churches will close by 2025 and 700 Protestant churches will shutter before 2020. So what happens to those buildings? They are often sold and converted to other uses, such as skating rinks, supermarkets, bookstores, or gymnasiums. According to the Wall Street Journal, (the reference for much of this data), one church was even converted to a circus training facility. <br />
<br />
This is the result in a decline in Christianity in Europe. Although 70% of Western Europeans identify as Christian, only a small number are actively participating Christians attending church. In 2014, only 4% of people in the UK went to a Church of England Christmas service. The number of people identifying as Christian is declining, while that of Orthodox Jews is remaining stable, and the number of Muslims is increasing. <br />
<br />
We are seeing some of the same trends here in the United States. The Presbyterian church has lost 40% of its members and 15% of its churches. About a third of Americans attend religious services between once week and once a month, down from 49% in the 1950's (Gallup, Barna), and "religious services" includes Jews and Muslims. This data is from self-reporting polls, and when you look at the actual number by observational studies, it may be half of that. We are seeing churches closing and being converted here in the United States, as well.<br />
<br />
It is truly a tragedy that fire consumed Notre Dame de Paris. It may be rebuilt one day, a tremendous building that will once again draw millions. But it is also a tragedy that thousands of churches around the world are ceasing to exist, not from fire which consumes, but from a lack of fire in believing Christians who no longer devote themselves to attending houses of worship. Millions wished to visit Notre Dame as tourists, many other millions would rather stay home from their churches on Sundays. Salvation in no way requires church attendance, yet the believing Christian is commanded to join together with their local body of Christ, their fellow believers, to worship our Lord. Unfortunately, there will be no tourists in Heaven. Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-83913243109900202842016-07-06T21:03:00.001-04:002016-07-06T21:03:54.533-04:00The Losers WinI had the great fortune and privilege to play football for eight years, four in high school and four in college. I am not making any claims to greatness; I only started for one of those years, my senior year in high school, although I lettered in other years, including in college. Although I was not a starter on several of those eight teams, we had some great ones. My senior year in high school we went all the way to the state semifinal game, and my senior year in college we were 11-1 and in the top ten in the country. Even when not playing, it was an amazing experience to be a part of something great. <br />
<br />
We learned much on the practice fields and in the classrooms. We learned discipline, work ethics and habits, teamwork, obedience, and sacrifice. These lessons would serve us well later in life, for you find that the work you put in during the week, the hours and hours of preparation, paid off on Friday nights or Saturday mornings. <br />
<br />
In all those eight years, I was only on one losing team, my sophomore year in college. There are so many variables that make for a winning or losing season. That year was our coach's first year, and he came in following a very successful coach who had many winning seasons. Our new coach tried to introduce a very different system on offense and defense, and it didn't work out well that year. That same coach would lead us to that 11-1 season, a bowl game victory, and national ranking only two years later. <br />
<br />
Although every team, unless undefeated, wins some games and loses some games, being on a losing team is a very different experience than being on a winning one. If a team is going to lose most of its games, this usually starts early in the season. After a couple of losses, everyone begins to get discouraged. Coaches and players try to figure out what is being done wrong, changes are made, players are replaced. Confidence sags, doubt creeps in, and as games are approached, fear of another loss can predominate. And since the team represents the school, the team is subject to criticism from those who don't even play. The worst part comes towards the end, when everyone just wishes the season was over. Players and coaches get blamed.for what went wrong, and sometimes the players even quit the team.<br />
<br />
Everyone wants to be associated with a winner, to be on the winning team. No one wants to be a loser. We even see in our politics that some candidates pick up enormous momentum once they start winning-- the voters start to identify with someone who is winning and want to vote for a winner, to be on the winning team. People start to drift away from losers, and the bleachers are empty, the crowds quiet, the players with their heads down as another final whistle announces the end of a game where you don't want to look at the scoreboard.<br />
<br />
The Jews of Christ's time were looking for a win. They had suffered under the Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, and finally Roman occupation. They expected the Messiah to come as a conqueror, to lead them to victory. When Jesus came as just a lowly man, a carpenter, they rejected Him as the Christ. When he was taken prisoner and crucified, He appeared as just another loser. The apostles were discouraged at being on a losing team in a losing season.<br />
<br />
And now, as twenty-first century Christians, how do we feel about our team and our season? The other side, that hates Christ, seems to be winning more and more. In other lands we see Christians martyred for their faith, and the cross has become a bulls-eye. Europe is largely godless. In our own country, we see the secularization and profaning of our culture and government. Isaiah 5:20 talks about "those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter" We see ungodliness in our government leaders and courts and legislatures. Behavior that would have been unthinkable in decades past is now popularized and promoted. Laws and rulings come down from on high assaulting the very core moral practices of the Christian. Those who believe in Jesus are scorned and mocked in our media and movies, whereas those who despise our faith are celebrated. More and more people are unchurched and unbelieving. The influence of Christianity on our nation recedes despite our prayers for revival and a return to our Christian heritage. Picking up the newspaper each day or turning on the television is like looking at the stadium scoreboard, and it looks worse with each passing quarter. We are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of our countrymen.<br />
<br />
When on a losing team, the individual player must remember many things and put them into practice and play. First and foremost is to remember that our God is sovereign. He is not unawares of what is going on, and it all occurs on His created playing field. He ordains the outcome of the game, but the teammate must give his Utmost for His Highest; regardless of what is going on the scoreboard, the player plays to the utmost of his abilities. He must maintain his discipline. . He must encourage his fellow teammates. And never, never give up playing until the final whistle.<br />
<br />
As Christians, it looks like we are losing America. And there is a role for praying for revival. But no matter how bad the scoreboard looks, we must remember that God knows what is going on, and it is part of His sovereign will. We must continue to give our utmost to Him, who created us to do just that. We must maintain our disciplines in prayer and going to church. We have to encourage our fellow believers. We cannot give into discouragement, doubt, and criticism. We cannot "quit" the team and we must never, never give up on our faith in Jesus Christ. He who endures to the end will be saved (Matthew 24:15), and if we endure, we shall also reign with Him (II Timothy 2:12).<br />
<br />
And here is the final score: Christ returns with a resounding victory. No matter what the game looks like now, "Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us" (Romans 8:37). It may look like we are on the losing team now, but Christ and His chosen will conquer. In defeat, every member on the other side will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Philippians 2:10-11). Our world may embrace paganism and hatred of Christianity, just as it did thousands of years ago for the early Christians, and we may currently be on what seems to be the losing team. Jesus Christ does not lose this game or the season, and neither do we. And don't worry about making the All-American team, you are already on the All-Christian team.<br />
<br />
<br />Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-43638533846236220362015-07-28T20:31:00.001-04:002015-07-28T20:38:02.524-04:00Who's Afraid of God?<em>Enmity </em>is a feeling of hatred or hostility towards something. Natural man has enmity towards God. Romans 8:7: "The carnal mind is enmity against God." James 4:4: "Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?" It is difficult to believe, but people who have not accepted Christ as their savior are actually enemies of God. Romans 5:10: "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." Colossians 1:21: "And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled..." It is not surprising that enmity and enemy sound so much alike, as they both originate from the Latin <em>inimicus.</em><br />
<br />
The Bible also tells us that God has wrath. This is an unpleasant notion, but the Word of God is clear on that subject. Romans 1:18 states, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men..." Jesus Himself said in Luke 12:4-5, "My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him, who after He has killed, has power to cast you into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!" These are the very words of Christ. And if we believe the words of Jesus, and if there is a Supreme Being with wrath, we should be fearful of Him. Yet man finds this intolerable, that there should be a Person who is greater than him, of whom he should be afraid. How does man resolve the problem of being the enemy of a God, all-powerful and all-knowing, who is capable of great wrath?<br />
<br />
The first way is to deny He even exists, and the atheist solves his problem right there. You can't be an enemy of someone who does not exist, and there is no need to fear the wrath of an imaginary entity. This, then, allows you to live in any manner you wish, without worry of any temporal or eternal consequences. This is a group of people who are not believers in Christ or God or the Spirit, and threats from the Bible do not have any relevance for them.<br />
<br />
The second way to deal with this is to remake Him into the image that we desire. We claim that God exists, but that He does not have any wrath. Many look upon the Old Testament as just that, "Old", and see a God capable of all manner of wrath and destruction, but have replaced Him with the image of a completely kind and loving Father who would never be angry with anyone. Some have looked upon the Old Testament God as a frightful, judging Being, and He has now been superseded by His Son Jesus, the gentle Lamb of God who is all-loving. <br />
<br />
There are several problems with this viewpoint. First of all, it goes against what Jesus Himself said in Luke 12, Secondly, it ignores the full divinity of Christ, who is indeed the Lamb of God but also the Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Revelations 5:5). When Jesus returns, He will bring judgment upon the world. In fact, Jesus tells us in John 5:22, "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son." Thirdly, although Jesus was meek and loving, He never condoned sin and was capable of great anger when the need arose, as in the temple with the moneychangers. Lastly, Jesus is the Word Incarnate, and the Word itself is a two-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12), with the good news of the Gospel and the frightful news of pending judgment.<br />
<br />
Those who deny the existence of a God with wrath or a do not believe in a wrathful God are making a serious error. The first group is free to make up any moral system they desire, and the second is free to disobey God's moral system; both are free of any consequences. They are inappropriately not fearful of God's wrath. We certainly see this playing out daily in our lives. The people who would dismember a child in the womb and sell its body parts are not afraid of God. The lawmakers who pass laws that violate God's natural order for man and wife, and the judges that approve, are not afraid of God. The leaders of our country who pass laws for our healthcare by lying to us, bearing false witness, are not afraid of God. <br />
<br />
Even on an individual level, we know people who claim to believe in God, but are sinning and unafraid of God's wrath. We are afraid to confront them, afraid to upset them, afraid that we will not seem loving, but our fear of these things should pale in comparison to the fear of God that <em>they</em> <em>do not have</em>. If we love them , we would speak to them of their sin so that they would avoid His judgment and wrath. <br />
<br />
There is a third way to resolve the problem of being an enemy of a God with wrath, and that is to be reconciled with Him. This is done through faith in His Son Jesus Christ. Those who do will be spared His eternal wrath, and can rest peacefully in that promise. There will still be painful things to deal with: chastening for disobedience, pruning for sanctification, and spiritual warfare, but we need not be afraid of these things or God Himself. Our loving God sustains us through these. <br />
<br />
There are some Christians, who are reconciled to Him, who still carry an unhealthy fear of Him, worried that the slightest misstep will result in punishment; they often interpret any bad thing that happens to them as an expression of God's wrath. The are inappropriately afraid of God's wrath. The best way I know to overcome this is by repeatedly reading the Word and His promises to look after us, to care for us, and to comfort us. If Psalm 23 tells us that because of our Lord we "will fear no evil", then how much less do we need to fear that same Lord who is perfectly good?<br />
<br />
Those who do not believe in God have every reason to be afraid of His eternal wrath. Those who believe in God but do not believe he is capable of wrath will stand before Him in judgment and there will not be an opportunity to offer excuses for disobedience. Only those who in humility confess their faith in Christ Jesus as well as confess their sins have nothing to be afraid of. <br />
<br />
And I'm afraid that's about all I have to say on the matter.<br />
<br />Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-25122516913633967802015-07-21T21:31:00.000-04:002015-07-22T07:27:09.521-04:00Doveryai, no ProveryaiI have just finished a tremendous biography of Charles Ponzi, of the eponymous "Ponzi Scheme." He began his project in 1920 in Boston, promising to give people a 50% return on their investments in 45 days. He actually had a notion of how he might do that, using the difference in values of currency in other countries and their exchange rates in postage, but soon after accepting investment monies he realized it wasn't workable, and so he paid off the early investors with money coming in from new investors. His first investor only put in a few hundred dollars, but soon he was taking in $10,000 a week, then $100,000 a week, and then a million dollars a week. People trusted him with their money, in some cases their life's savings, and when it all fell apart they were wiped out. <br />
<br />
One of my earlier articles described the difference between truth and belief, terms that are frequently misused. In summary, a thing that is true cannot be untrue at the same time; this violates the law of non-contradiction. A true thing must be true for all people. A belief, however, can be correct or incorrect. You may believe something to be true that is not, or believe something that is not true that is. Your belief, however, does not change the fact that something is true or not. <br />
<br />
"Trust" is a belief. If we trust someone or some thing, it means that we hold a belief that person or thing is true or reliable. If I trust you, I believe you to be reliable; it does not guarantee that you are in fact reliable. Trust is a vital and essential property for any relationship to succeed. We have to have trust in the grocer that our food is unspoiled, trust in the pharmacist that our medicines are correct, and trust in our banker that our money will not be stolen. The Bible has many, many verses on love, but I would submit that trust is a predicate for love's fulfillment. It is possible to love someone that you do not trust, even love your enemies, but love in its fullest sense requires trust.<br />
<br />
Another pair of words that are commonly misused, or at least used in only their negative sense, are prejudice and discrimination. "Prejudice" actually means to "pre-judge", and in many cases this is also an essential practice. In fact, it may even be life-saving. I confess that I am prejudiced about rattlesnakes. If I see a rattlesnake, I may pre-judge it to be highly dangerous and likely to strike me, based on what I know about rattlesnakes. It is not feasible for me to get to know each and every rattlesnake, to determine if every single one is nasty or if some like to have their bellies rubbed. I therefore pass judgment rather quickly, and this saves time and prevents envenomation. To discriminate means to "divide" or "separate". This is also a necessary part of life. I chose to marry a human, not some other species. I discriminated on the basis of sex, and chose to only marry a woman. In fact, I discriminated against all other women by choosing only one, eliminating the legions of other women that I could have chosen. Well, maybe not that many. A few. A couple of them. (In fact, it was my wife that discriminated and chose me from all the other men.)<br />
<br />
Trust and mistrust, prejudice and discrimination, are therefore essential parts of daily living. I trust my airplane mechanic to make sure that all the parts on my 1993 plane are still in working order. I am prejudiced against every single grizzly bear. And I discriminate against many fruits (wishing Eve had done the same). Prejudice and discrimination are wrong when they are done unfairly.<br />
<br />
It is when someone violates our trust that our foundations in our relationship with that person are shaken. We judge someone to be reliable, we trust them to do something for us, and they let us down. Now our trust is broken, our belief in their reliability is shaken, and we must determine if this is a single event or if it requires us to define them as untrustworthy. Do we become prejudiced against them, and assume that we must now "pre-judge" their future reliability, and do we discriminate against them, separating them from the people that we do trust?<br />
<br />
The Bible give us some direction. First, as Christians we are to love them. If we have a problem with them, we are to take it to them. If they still do not see the error of their ways, we are to take other Christians with us to discuss the matter. If they repent, we are to forgive them. If they reject us, we are then entitled to mark them as untrustworthy, meaning judge them as untrustworthy, and discriminate against them. We are still obliged to love them and forgive them, but it does not mean that we do not see the truth about them. <br />
<br />
In the 1980's, Ronald Reagan had many negotiations with the leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan frequently appropriated and used a Russian proverb when dealing with Gorbachev, "doveryai, no proverai", meaning "trust, but verify", and it was through Reagan that this phrase actually entered modern discourse. However, I would submit that this is a false proverb. If you have to verify that someone is truthful or reliable, you can not really trust them. An accurate belief of trust does not require verification. <br />
<br />
Many of us are too trusting, and will be shaken time and again when we find our beliefs to be untrue. Many others are incapable of trusting, and will never be able to have fulfilling relationships or even successful lives because at some level a basic level of trust is a requirement to function in society. Only the recluse or hermit has one person that they can trust, themselves--to some extent.<br />
<br />
There are some lessons for the Christian here that are essential if we are to deal with our fellow man. First, we are to ardently strive in advance to determine if someone is worthy of our trust. The Ponzi investors were looking for something that would make them rich quick, and they failed to assess the man or his methods to correctly decide if he merited their trust. The Bible warns us in Psalms 118:8, "It is better to put trust in the Lord than confidence in men." Secondly, none of us are perfect, and others will let us down from time to time. We must not rush to judgment, nor become incorrectly prejudiced against them, or unnecessarily discriminate against them. We are to continue to love them and forgive them. Yet nowhere are we to be commanded to be fools. We must use our God-given wisdom to evaluate and discern how to proceed. As mentioned earlier, love in its fullest sense requires trust; to love those we do not trust we must trust in God.<br />
<br />
Thirdly, we must always strive to ensure that no one ever has any doubt to trust us, and it is sobering to ask yourself, "Have I ever done something that would cause another person not to trust me?" Fourth, the hermit or recluse, and even ourselves, must be careful about trusting in one's self. We learn in Proverbs 3:5 to "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding." Finally, there are three persons that are perfectly and always trustworthy, the Father, Son, and Spirit. There never needs to be any verification of their reliability. In fact<em>, not</em> trusting in them will result in spending eternity with Satan, the most untrustworthy being of all. You don't have to trust me on this, just His Word. And I don't care how cute your pet rattlesnake is, I don't trust him.<br />
<br />Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-56151436702065457032015-07-15T20:45:00.000-04:002015-07-15T20:45:33.843-04:00Picking and ChoosingOne of life's most important duties is made in the choosing of people. Choosing the right person for the job, our friendship, and our other associates is so crucial, yet so often it is done with less deliberation than it requires. Sometimes, the choosing is done carelessly or even randomly. Choosing the leaders of our country is so important that the consequences of choosing poorly can be catastrophic for our nation; we have seen in recent weeks the results of choosing Supreme Court justices who do not much believe in the Constitution.<br />
<br />
Other than choosing to follow Christ, there is no more important choice to be made in this earthly existence than the person we marry. A key choice to be made is where to worship, and under whose direction. Many people, especially young people, would be much better served if they chose their friends carefully, for often times our close associates have more influence on us than we would like to admit. <br />
<br />
In the Bible, there are several instances where people were carefully chosen for their duties. In Judges chapter 7, we are told of instructions God gave to Gideon as he prepared his army to attack the Midianites. God felt that it was important to demonstrate His divine providence by having Gideon obtain victory in circumstances that would be otherwise impossible. He did not want Gideon winning the battle with a large number of men. In verse 2, "The Lord said to Gideon, 'The people with you are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel boast over me, saying "'My own hand has saved me.'" First, God told Gideon to dismiss anyone who was afraid, and promptly 22,000 up and left, leaving 10,00 behind. Then He told Gideon to send his men down by the water, and told him to separate the men by the way that they drank the water, and he retained only the 300 men that brought the water to their mouths by their hands. And with only those 300 carefully chosen men, Gideon and his small army defeated the Midianites.<br />
<br />
In Luke chapter 6, verse 12, we hear about Christ praying all night before a decision about choosing people: "In those days He went out to the mountain to pray, and all night He continued in prayer to God. And when day came, He called His disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom He named apostles." We can see by studying our Savior how important it is to choose people carefully, and consult God when we do so.<br />
<br />
As a physician, I can assure you that it is extremely important when you need treatment to choose your doctor carefully. Likewise, it is critical that we choose the correct people to become doctors and train in the art and science of medicine. There are many who resent physicians, claiming they are paid too much and have undeserved prestige. However, the fundamental laws of economics, rewards and penalties, costs and benefits, play a role in who becomes a physician. When a profession becomes unattractive financially or burdened by regulation, fewer people desire to expend the costs to enter that profession. We have seen an unbelievable decline in people who want to train in my own specialty, Cardiac Surgery, over the last few decades. <br />
<br />
When I applied for a residency in heart surgery, it was a highly sought after specialty, and you pretty much needed to be near the top of your class to get a training spot. Shortly after I entered private practice, and Medicare reimbursement began to be cut drastically, we began to see a sharp fall in the people who would be willing to spend four years in college, four years in medical school, and eight years in residency to be an open heart surgeon. In 1997, the number of applicants still exceeded the number of training positions, although the number of those positions had been reduced. At that time, there were 176 people in America who wanted to train in the 143 slots available. Currently, because so few people want to be a heart surgeon nowadays, the number of training slots has been reduced to 102, but only 80 people applied for those positions in 2012; only 80 people in a country of 300 million wanted to be a heart surgeon. As the residency programs still need to fill their positions in a time of declining demand, the quality of the trainees declines. Last year saw the highest failure rate on the Thoracic Surgery Board Examinations ever. <br />
<br />
Likewise, we see entire medical school classes graduating where no one wants to go into General Surgery. It has become obvious to the residency programs that the quality of those entering such training has also diminished. Up to <em>one-third</em> of doctors graduating from General Surgery training are felt to need remedial training. When the number of people applying to train in General or Cardiac Surgery plummets, the residency directors can 't be picky about who they let in any more.<br />
<br />
Even if you think that health care is a right and there should be a nationalized health care system providing care to Americans that they do not individually have to pay for, and that physicians should be paid much less because they are over-valued, you cannot force people at gunpoint to exchange valuable years of their lives and hundreds of thousands of dollars in educational debt to become doctors and not see commensurate rewards. And this leads to a severe shortage in qualified applicants. <br />
<br />
I am not writing this to whine or to seek pity. I have had a good career that is clearly over half-way over; I am trying to address the problems the patients of the future will face with their doctors. You may feel that doctors are overpaid and over-valued by society. But with increasing regulations, paperwork and other governmental burdens, compounded by declining reimbursements, we see that the number and quality of physicians in some specialties is falling off a cliff. You may want to pick your doctor carefully, but you need to be aware of the "pool" of applicants from whence he came. <br />
<br />
Now we come to the real tectonic shift in the grounds for choosing who will be a doctor. When I applied for medical school, only one in seven applicants was accepted, and at my particular medical school, it was one in twelve. One of the tests we all had to take was the MCAT, Medical Colleges Admissions Test, sort of like an SAT for aspiring physicians. Not only did we have to have decent grades, we had to score well on this test. We were tested on the knowledge we had acquired as undergraduates that we would need to succeed in medical school and as practicing doctors. We were tested on biology, anatomy, chemistry, physics, and biochemistry. It was an exceedingly rigorous examination, designed to select only those with an aptitude for learning the intricacies of the human body and its diseases. In medical school, we would later learn every muscle, tendon, nerve and bone in the body. We would learn every single chemical reaction and hormone, and the derangements of these functions as they caused illness. <br />
<br />
The powers that be have now decided that a new test is needed to choose the doctors of tomorrow. The new MCAT will test medical school applicants with questions designed to test their knowledge of "psychology, sociology, and the biological foundations of behavior." There will be a review of "social inequality, class consciousness, racial and ethnic identity, 'institutional racism and discrimination', and 'power, privilege, and prestige'".<br />
<br />
The MCAT's are going to qualify these people to become doctors not on their knowledge of all things medical, but by testing for their comprehension of "social inequality", "class consciousness", and so forth. I don't know about you, but when I go to the doctor, I could not care less about their views on such matters. I want them to have a deep and full understanding of how my illness needs to be diagnosed and treated. I really am not interested in how much you know about "institutional racism and discrimination", I want to know how much you know about curing my thyroid problem or my cancer. If I am seeing you as a patient and you are a surgeon, when you walk into the examining room I will wonder if you were one of the one in three who had to do remedial training before you were released to perform surgery without supervision, and who cares what your views are on "power, privilege, and prestige"?<br />
<br />
God is sovereign over all, and yet we are allowed to make choices. He has shown us in His Bible the importance of picking and choosing wisely. Ironically, those who choose who will be a doctor today will likely one day in advancing age be patients who will need the utmost of skill and knowledge to diagnose and treat their illnesses, and will they then regret their choices? Those who vote for leaders that create the unwelcome environment in which physicians practice will also be receiving care from doctors that were poorly qualified applicants who were some of the few available for positions where there was not much competition. Unfortunately, almost all of us at one time will need healing services delivered by those chosen not for their aptitude for medicine but for their politically correct social beliefs. As a physician and Christian, my counsel to you would to be to pray to never get sick. <br />
<br />Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-72389492132474550392015-06-30T20:16:00.001-04:002015-07-01T05:32:30.693-04:00TEKELThere is a very powerful old movie from 1961 that I recently watched again called, "Judgment at Nuremberg". It requires some stamina to watch the entire film, for it is over three hours long, and its subject matter is often painful and difficult to watch. It is about one of the trials of Nazi war criminals held after World War II in Nuremberg, Germany. After the Allies had defeated the Axis, war crime trials were held in Germany to hold accountable the Nazis who had led their war effort and committed atrocities. There were actually many sets of trials; the first was for the Nazi commanders, and there was another series of twelve trials for other defendants. The most famous of those twelve trials was the Doctor's Trial, where physicians were tried for human experimentation and mass murder. The movie dealt with another of those twelve trials, the Judges Trial. Accused of ordering the deaths of innocent civilians and arranging for millions to be sent to concentration camps, the Nazi judges claimed they were only following the laws as written. Those laws were primarily directed at the Jews.<br />
<br />
Those laws crept insidiously into the German landscape, in only the span of a generation. Many of you will remember Surviving the Suffering articles from a couple of years ago (Not Quite Human) documenting the growth in German society of widespread anti-Semitism. In the late 1800's, the Jewish people in Germany were granted full citizenship, but by the turn of the century, the public at large began to turn on the Jews. There eventually was a nationwide boycott of Jewish businesses. A law was passed called, "The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service," which prevented Jews from holding any civil service jobs. The Nuremberg Laws, named for the same city in which the trials would be held decades later, stripped the Jews of their citizenship, and Jews were forbidden to marry non-Jewish Germans. A few years later, there was a night where there was widespread destruction of Jewish businesses, called <em>Kristallnacht </em>(Crystal Night), so named because of the broken glass that littered the streets. By the end of the war, six million Jews had been sent to their deaths in the camps.<br />
<br />
All of this occurred in Western Civilization less than a hundred years ago; there are people alive today that lived through this, and I have met them. It is nearly impossible to believe that a country could change like that, and that there would be so much outrage directed against a particular religious group. But public opinion changed in Germany in the first half of the twentieth century, and the leaders of the nation incrementally added laws in a step-wise fashion to achieve their ends. Aided by the judges who claimed to only doing their duty, the unimaginable occurred, and it is still within living memory of many. <br />
<br />
This last week saw our own Supreme Court judges create their own laws, essentially legislating while claiming not to do so. In the case of the Affordable Care Act, they took a law that very explicitly said one thing, and declared that it did not really mean it; this was not a constitutional question, but simply a matter of interpretation. With gay marriage, they invented a right that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. As the writer Kevin Williamson put it, in the first case they took a law that said one thing and said it didn't, and in the second case they took a Constitution that didn't say something and said that it did. One of our Fathers, John Adams, described the ideal government as, "a government of laws, not men." Sadly, our government has become the opposite, where judges that are not accountable to the electorate create and change laws, in a step-wise fashion, to suit the purposes of the government, not the people. Who will hold these judges accountable; who judges the judges?<br />
<br />
Our heavenly Father is the ultimate judge, and His Son Christ will render judgment when He returns. No one, not a single person, will escape judgment. If you are a sincere Christian, you are aware of how fallen you are, and how little you deserve entry into heaven. It is only because of God's mercy and your faith in Christ Jesus that you will be judged righteous and allowed to live in eternity with Him. Each of us will have to appear before Him and give account of our deeds. All earthly judges will likewise stand in the presence of our Sovereign Lord and Master, but not to try and use tortured legal reasoning to explain why they created rulings that defied Him. God has given us our Law very clearly, and there is not a case to be brought before Him to overrule his decrees. <br />
<br />
There is also precedent for judgment in the here and now, before the return of Christ. Our country has nearly completed the process of turning its back on God and His moral instruction, just as it has turned its back on the Constitution. The former necessarily precedes the latter. As John Adams also stated, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." When the people are no longer moral and religious, the Constitution becomes useless to them. If we discard God, we may as well throw out the Constitution, and then the judges-- men-- rule, and not the law. Society may turn against Bible-believing Christians, and we may experience ostracism and outrage as we practice our faith, and the attitudes of the country will have changed in only a few decades, in only the span of a generation. We are already seeing the boycotting of Christian-run businesses, as public opinion changes in the first half of this century.<br />
<br />
God has and does judge nations and people. In Daniel, chapter 5, King Belshazaar of the Chaldeans held a feast, and while drinking wine a hand wrote on the wall of the palace these words: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. Daniel interpreted these words for the king. Upharsin meant that his kingdom would be given to the Medes and Persians. Mene meant that the days of the kingdom had been numbered and it would be brought to an end. <br />
<br />
TEKEL was interpreted thus: "You have been weighed in the balances and found wanting." America is on the scales, and God is checking the balances. If we are found wanting, TEKEL, then it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:31) and have Him pronounce MENE, MENE. I do not know what the fourth word of the sentence would be for America; I suppose there is a remote possibility it could still be UPHARSIN, the Persians, into whose hands we could be given if they obtain nuclear devices. Yet as we appear to live in the time of the judges, it is appropriate to look at the book of the same name, Judges 21:25, wherein it states, "Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." I am afraid that the sentence God will pass on America is MENE, MENE, TEKEL, YOURSELVES.<br />
<br />
<br />Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-26999112282675182072015-05-19T05:36:00.002-04:002015-05-19T05:36:55.780-04:00Frozen ChosenLet me be clear; I am a heart surgeon and not a theologian. I cannot claim to be a definitive authority on complex biblical issues, but that doesn't stop me from trying to understand God's works and purposes in this world. The intersection of medicine and Christianity can become quite complex, and many of the technologies that have developed only in the last few decades have made it difficult to apply His purposes and principles to certain situations. For thousands and thousands of years, man has had no confusion about what the Bible has to say and what God commands. Only in perhaps the last fifty years have we been clouded by technology.<br />
<br />
For centuries, philosophers argued about the existence of the soul, but the Bible makes it clear that there is one given to each human that has been conceived. In addition, for those who have accepted Christ as their Savior, the Holy Spirit comes to reside within them. Wherein lies the soul and Spirit in the body, and when do they enter, and when do they depart?<br />
<br />
The ancients at times believed the soul lay hidden in the heart, and sometimes even the liver was suspected of being a residence. The Christian view is that the soul does not have its existence dependent on the corporeal body, and in fact survives when the body dies. The soul is thought to enter the human body at conception, and depart upon death. From a medical standpoint, we know that the soul does not reside in the arms or legs, for they can be lost. From a cardiac surgeon's standpoint, the soul is not in the heart; I have taken the heart from a deceased person and transplanted it into another living person, but the recipient's mind and soul remained their own. It would seem, however, that although the soul can exist apart from the body, it manifests its presence in the brain. I believe a <em>mind </em>is a prerequisite for having a <em>soul.</em><br />
<br />
A dead person has neither soul nor can be indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The only thing that remains is the deteriorating flesh of what was once a vital person. The soul does not live in a woman's eggs or a man's sperm, but once life is created, enters within. Although the brain does not yet exist in reality in the embryo, with thoughts and consciousness, there is the full potential for a functioning, thinking, rational human being, and the soul awaits the blossoming of brain waves, then conscious thought, birth, and speech. <br />
<br />
I can think of two cases where a body is alive, but there is no functioning brain, thought, or consciousness. The most obvious is the brain-dead patient, from whence we obtain those organs for transplantation mentioned earlier. I have been called upon in my career to make brain death determinations. There is often a quite detailed list of assessments that must be made. The first is an apnea test, to see if the patient will breathe on their own, without a respirator; they usually must be disconnected for ten minutes to see if they will draw a breath. Another is to do an EEG or electroencephalogram, to see if any brain waves are present. There is the test for reflexes, usually the last of the signs of physical life to leave, such as stroking the corneas with a cotton swab to see if there is blinking, or even putting cold water into the ear canal to see if the eyes will twitch. The back of the throat is stimulated, to see if there is any gagging. If the body makes no attempt to breathe, has a flat EEG, and has no reflexes, they are declared brain dead. They are simply a body of flesh with some functioning organs that is kept alive by machines. Whatever made them a person is gone. I feel fairly confident that their soul has departed and the Holy Spirit does not reside within. <br />
<br />
The second instance is an infant born with anencephaly. This is a catastrophic birth defect where a child is born essentially without a major portion of their brain. In particular, the cerebrum and the skull are absent, and this is where thinking and consciousness occur. These unfortunate infants have a lower brain portion and spinal column, and may have some reflexes, but will die within a few hours or days without ever having a conscious thought. Their appearance can be quite distressing, but here is an illustration that is not unduly gruesome and gives you the general idea:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjx1xImRSTH778zVem1eSYtXOUgPUyv49-NJ6PoJLeTxbExi03lKZsnw1NNYzrkEUsuOUEfa2tW_G1iSuTKQV-QOgEG2GSIhunGHMi33dq6r8RVyitTPrS6d4MzPlvELRtyMgLZsO5n-w/s1600/Anencephaly-web.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjx1xImRSTH778zVem1eSYtXOUgPUyv49-NJ6PoJLeTxbExi03lKZsnw1NNYzrkEUsuOUEfa2tW_G1iSuTKQV-QOgEG2GSIhunGHMi33dq6r8RVyitTPrS6d4MzPlvELRtyMgLZsO5n-w/s1600/Anencephaly-web.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
(Wikipedia)</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
It would seem to me that with no consciousness and no potential for consciousness, a soul would never be able to be manifest, and God only knows if there was one from conception until death. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Where we run into real problems, from the anencephalic at conception to the brain-dead at death, is all the cases in between. Does a severely mentally disabled child have a soul? It think so. However, I have seen someone that for all intents and purposes was brain dead, with no spontaneous breathing, no brain-waves on EEG, and all reflexes gone except the blink reflex in one eye when the cornea was stroked. Is there still a soul in that body? I doubt it, and indeed in that person event the blink reflex eventually disappeared. And what about those in comas, or vegetative states, do they still have souls? In that case, I think they still do. And those at the other end of life with severe dementia, I certainly believe that they still have a soul residing within. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I do not have the ability or the authority from God to make these determinations in all cases. Life belongs to Him. The anencephalic child will die according to His will; the mentally disabled, comatose, and demented will live and struggle according to His plans, and for His purposes. For those who accepted Christ before their coma, dementia, or brain-death, I think they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and will receive eternal life. For those who are born without the ability to rationally understand or accept Jesus, I believe God will have a dispensation of mercy, as it is thought by many that He does when a young normal child dies.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
To make matters even more difficult, there is the question of all those embryos. There are a lot more of them out there than you think there are. Depending on whose statistics you believe, it is possible that there are up to three times as many embryos created that will not make it to a functional pregnancy as those that will, and of the confirmed pregnancies, fifteen to thirty per cent will have a miscarriage. It is also felt that of all these embryos that do not make it to a live birth, sixty per cent were defective in some form, in a way that would have precluded them from drawing a breath outside the womb. Though somehow deformed in their development, and with God's sovereign will declaring their death before life, from a Christian standpoint, each was endowed with a soul at conception. Many also believe that God will grant mercy to these unborn children as well as the born, and entry into heaven will be allowed. Then there are the million babies deliberately sacrificed in the womb with legalized abortion. They have souls, and in their innocence, I believe God will spare them, too. If you think the world is full of strangers now, it is possible that heaven will be filled with three times as many people that never saw the light of day. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<em>In vitro </em>fertilization is a sensitive subject, but it needs to be brought up. In this process, eggs are harvested from the woman and combined with the man's sperm. Several embryos are created. Some will die in the culture dish, and of those that survive, the best-looking specimens under the microscope will be implanted, in hopes of a pregnancy. Only thirty per cent of <em>in vitro </em>procedures will result in a pregnancy, so seventy per cent of the implanted embryos will die of a miscarriage. The ones that are <em>not </em>implanted will be destroyed, which is essentially the same as an abortion. My wife and I, who are childless, could not allow ourselves to participate in this process and create embryos that would be potentially destroyed. Embryos apparently can be adopted out; they can also be stored. This means <em>frozen. </em></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
We see in the news that a well known actress and her husband created a bunch of embryos (I would call them <em>people</em>), then froze them for later use. They since have divorced, and are now fighting over their embryos or property (I would call them <em>people</em>). These embryos, the first stage of life, who in the womb would continuously grow and develop until leaving the mother's birth canal to draw breath, learn to speak, take steps, go to school, learn and play, are now in a freezer. And what of their souls? I assume the souls entered into the embryos at conception, and since they are not dead, still reside there. What does a soul do in a freezer? Are God's purposes for the life He created fulfilled in sub-zero storage? How arrogant of man (and woman) to do this with a life, when all life belongs to Him.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Those of us who are Calvinists believe that God choses His elect. And we jokingly refer to those who have accepted Christ yet seem to lack fervor as the "frozen chosen". Some of those embryos were ordained by God before the beginning of time to be born and grow to love His Son Christ and receive Him as their Savior, destined to be indwelled by the Holy Spirit. They were chosen by Him as His own, and now they are frozen. They lie in suspended animation, awaiting to be born, and just as the aborted fetus cries not to be put to death, the frozen embryo cries to be put to birth. For this, they must be thawed, just as God needs to thaw the glacial hearts of those who put them into the icebox.<em></em></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-36066765999683201572015-05-11T12:54:00.002-04:002015-05-11T12:54:59.384-04:00Morbid FelicityNext weekend my wife and I will host our annual barbecue. We generally have a couple of hundred guests and provide them with hickory-smoked ribs and pulled pork, beef brisket, wings, Brunswick stew, baked beans and coleslaw. We have been doing these events for over a decade now, and it is wonderful to see all of our friends and watch them enjoying themselves and the food. It is an enormous feast. The food is not in keeping with the most modern of nutritional principles, but is full of red meat and calories. I suspect many of our guests will leave at least a couple of pounds heavier than when they arrived. As a practicing heart surgeon, I strive to keep everyone's cholesterol and sodium levels as high as possible; it's good for business. Seriously, occasionally indulging in a meal of this sort is not a problem at all. It becomes a problem when there is a pattern of overeating.<br />
<br />
Obesity is a real problem in the United States. A third of the population is overweight and another third is obese. In case you think that I have never struggled with being overweight, I can share with you that I used to weigh forty-five pounds more when I was playing football in college. Putting the weight on is easier than taking it off and keeping it off. And for some poor souls, the repeated eating of too much causes them to be <em>morbidly obese. </em>This used to be defined as being twice the ideal weight or a hundred pounds overweight, but now is defined based on height and weight calculations. Feasting too much, too often, can cause real problems.<br />
<br />
Our modern world has taken many biblical principles and inverted them, and that is why the Christian is to be in the world but not of it. There is a central tenet regarding the nature of man that is in diametrical opposition between Christian and secular world views, and this is so crucial that it is a defining principle for Christians. In fact, the answer to this question can tell you if a person is a Christian or not with a high degree of reliability. That question is, "Is man born basically good or bad?" Modern teaching and the secular world would have it that all people are born good, yet it is the corrupting influence of society that makes men do bad things. The Christian knows that the Bible teaches that all men since Adam are born in sin, with a central sin nature. It is only faith in Christ that can deliver us from that nature. <br />
<br />
The secular world would have us believe in the essential requirement of "self-esteem." As we discussed some time ago, this means "self-estimation" and comes from the same root word as estimate, as in to appraise the value of something. We are told that people are dysfunctional because they have low self-esteem, a low sense of self-worth, and that causes all manner of ills. The Christian knows that the problem is sin, cured by faith in Christ, but the humanistic world tells you that the problem is low self-esteem, and the treatment is to get some more. And one of the ways to do that is by praise. <br />
<br />
We love to hear words of praise. They soothe us from the moment they caress our ears, and lead to a warmed heart and make us feel good about ourselves. But I would tell you that we should not let the words of another determine our worth. God would look at us and see a derelict sinner deserving damnation, but for Christians he sees the righteousness of His son Jesus Christ; our value and worth to God is what is given to us by His grace through His Son. When a Christian hears words of praise for his deeds, he should react in two ways. He should first be encouraged that he is doing what God would have him do, and doing it correctly. If the Christian hears this praise repeatedly, it may be inferred that he is good at what he is doing. Secondly, he should never take the words of man and decide that they declare him a good person, better or superior to others. Philippians 2:3 teaches, "Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself." And Paul tells us in Romans 12:3, "For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith."<br />
<br />
A good person will do good things; however, you cannot infer the opposite, that someone who does good things is always a good person. Even bad people can do good things. And even if someone repeatedly does good things, or does things well, it does not certify their good status before God. Only faith in Christ can do this. This week we have seen the NFL report on their investigation of Tom Brady and his team deflating footballs for a playoff game to make them easier to grasp and catch. You may say that Tom Brady is good at playing football, and even that he is a good quarterback. But can you say that Tom Brady is a good person? According to the report, he cheated, and that is stealing, taking from the opponent a fair chance at play. And cheating usually violates a second commandment, that of bearing false witness, because cheaters will not tell the truth about what they have done. Why would a multimillionaire, full of fame and fortune, with so much worldly success, resort to cheating? <br />
<br />
Jesus described the problem in John 14:44, "...for they love the praise of men more than the praise of God." We can so enjoy the praise of others that we feast upon it. It becomes nourishment to us, and even an addiction for some. We savor each flattering word that enters into our ears, and we strive to do anything that will yield us more of these delicious morsels. I confess that I have been guilty of this. And even Paul tells us that this once was a vice for him in Galatians 1:10, "For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ." The word "felicity" can mean "happiness" or "joy". I would say that if you overindulge in food continuously you can end up with morbid obesity, but if you continue to relish the praise of men and rely on that for your happiness or joy you are suffering from <em>morbid felicity. </em><br />
<br />
We are born in sin, and only faith in Christ Jesus can release us from that bondage. All the words of praise from men will not make us good, and should not lead the Christian to believe that, nor should he crave it. The only source of goodness and righteousness is God, and our "self-esteem" is irrelevant; it is only "God-esteem" that counts, and He determines our worth through His son Jesus. If you feast on full meals over and over, you get an expanded waistline. If you feast on the praise of men over and over, you get a swollen ego. The first makes it hard to slip on your clothes over your hips, but the second makes it hard to put on Christ's white robe of righteousness over your big fat head. Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-78804904487879825782015-04-27T20:22:00.000-04:002015-04-27T20:22:21.219-04:00God's MistakeChristians understand in principle that Jesus Christ died for their sins. We read our Bible and watch Christian movies, and are saddened to see someone brutalized and murdered who did not deserve it. But there are many things that make His death seem as merely a historical event, an action taken by God, and not something of personal import. There are several reasons that is so.<br />
<br />
Christ's crucifixion occurred over two thousand years ago. It occurred long before we were born, and certainly we were not there to witness it or even have anything to do with His trial and execution. Most people alive today cannot even relate to World War II, occurring only seventy years ago. Although Christ's atonement was the most significant occurrence in the history of all mankind, it is difficult to relate personally to any event that happened so long ago. <br />
<br />
Secondly, although His death was ordained by a sovereign God, so are all historical events. This can seem like simply another page in history, a matter of fact, no different than the building of the Pyramids of Giza or the burning of Rome. It was part of God's plan all along and decreed by His will.<br />
<br />
Lastly, in the Bible itself His upcoming execution is often described in general and impersonal terms. In Matthew 16:21 we read, "...Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and raised the third day." That sounds rather clinical, doesn't it?<br />
<br />
Jesus is a little more descriptive in Matthew 20:18, although He refers to Himself in the third person, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes, and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify. And the third day He will rise again."<br />
<br />
Jesus rarely uses the word "I" in verses alluding to His death; He usually refers to Himself as the "Son of Man" when referring to His crucifixion. Even when He tells us why He is going to do this, as He states in Matthew 20:28, "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many." He becomes a little more personal when He states that "I am going away" in John 8:21 and in 14:3 "I a go to prepare a place for you." The one place where he does use the word "I" in direct reference to His upcoming death is in John 10:15 "...I lay down My life for the sheep."<br />
<br />
So, all in all, Christ's death can seem like an ancient historical event, a done deal long before we were born, something that we had no role or part in. It was part of God's plan for our salvation, and for Calvinists God has sorted that out before the beginning of time, eons ago. Christ made some largely general proclamations about what was going to happen and what He was going to do, but we weren't there to hear them. It was all over thousands of years ago. <br />
<br />
If you truly embrace the Gospel and all that message contains, you are aware of your sinful nature. You know of the sins you committed before your salvation and the ones since, the big ones and the little ones. I myself sit upon a veritable mountain of accumulated sin. Now suppose that Jesus Christ were sitting beside you. Here is a man who did not sin, who lived a life of generosity, compassion and healing. Perhaps you have come to realize that not only is this God's son, but God Himself, who created the universe and everything within it. Yet He is also a man, fully human, your friend and brother, and He looks at you squarely and says, "I am going to die for you."<br />
<br />
Your first reaction would be to be startled. His statement would not make any sense. "Excuse me, what did you say?"<br />
<br />
"I am going to die for you."<br />
<br />
"You can't be serious. Why would you do that?"<br />
<br />
"You have sinned, and will continue to sin while you live. You cannot enter My Father's heaven because of your sin; He cannot allow sin into heaven. I will go and die for you, and My Father will accept My death as payment for your sin."<br />
<br />
Now <em>that </em>is personal. This perfect, sinless man, who has never wronged anyone, been untruthful, lusted, coveted, or robbed in any way, is going to die a horrible death. For you. Is it any wonder that Peter, in Matthew 16:22 tried to rebuke Jesus, saying "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!" Would you also try and rebuke Jesus? Would you try and discourage Him from doing this for you? <br />
<br />
After Jesus was scourged, beaten and flayed, as you watched Him bleeding and battered carry His cross outside of Jerusalem to Calvary, on His way to be affixed to that cross with nails through His flesh, would you cry to Him, "Stop! This is wrong! Don't die for me! You didn't sin, I did!" You know that you were commanded to love God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength, yet have failed to do so. The bloody man struggling up the hill did, yet God will take His life, not yours. Would you offer up an anguished prayer to God the Father, "Don't do this to Him! I am the one who coveted and lusted and lied and did not honor You! God, you are making a mistake!"<br />
<br />
I think it helps us to understand what God gave us and what Christ did for us when we can somehow, some way erase the two thousand years between then and now. Yes, it was an historical fact, decreed by God, but it was very personal and you do have a role in it. Because you, a sinner, born in sin, filled with sin, and living in sin, will get to live forever with God in heaven. You will not deserve this, nor have earned or merited it. God will take in trade the death of Christ for your mountain of sin. God never makes mistakes, and certainly not with salvation. I confess a doubt, however. Some question God's goodness because of suffering in this world (a topic for another day). I question God's wisdom at letting me into heaven. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-22033251857550620742015-04-21T18:43:00.003-04:002015-04-21T18:43:50.179-04:00Christ the Baker?Believe it or not, I think there is real hazard in approaching problems with the question, "What would Jesus do?" The safest way to use a biblical approach is to use the Bible, and a more correct question would be, "What did Jesus say?" We are indeed left with the vast teachings of Jesus, and He pretty much covered all of the Ten Commandments as well as other aspects of the Law. To try and use "What would Jesus do?" outside of what He <em>said</em> requires us to use subjective human imagination and speculation. When people do this, all manner of doctrinal error may result, as they say, "Well, <em>I</em> believe that Jesus would do this or that." "Image" and "imagine" come from the same Latin root (<em>imago</em>), and it is a very human tendency, a failure of fallen man, to try and remake God in our image, to imagine that He would think the way that we do. <br />
<br />
There were some matters that Jesus did not address specifically, and for those we have both the Old and New Testament instructions from God to lead us in our decision-making. Unless Christ directly changed a practice, such as Jewish dietary law, then the Old Testament principles still stand. What also changed with the New Covenant is that we no longer live in a theocracy, and the power to make and enforce laws, with the power of the sword, is granted to civil government, and civil authority is ordained by God. We are to live our lives by biblical principles, yet obey the civil authorities unless to do so would violate God's commands. <br />
<br />
We are now seeing a huge divergence, a widening gap, between what our Holy God instructs us and what our lawmakers legislate. And the majority of people in this country will now no longer turn to the Bible to decide which is correct. Their opinions are shaped and formed not by Scripture, but by what the general public wants-- popular opinion, and this is a derivative not of objective moral law handed down by God but assembled from a morally relativistic framework. Forget God, the Bible, and the Constitution, it is Judges 21:25 all over again, "...everyone did what was right in his own eyes." The Supreme Court issues Roe versus Wade, and regardless of what the Bible teaches, that becomes the law of the land and legitimizes abortion in the minds of those who believe that it is government that decides and grants rights, not God.<br />
<br />
We have recently seen conflict between those who are in states that legally allow for gay marriage and those who are Christian who do not wish to participate in a ceremony that they believe is a sinful union. Laws have been passed to provide religious freedom in some instances, but in other cases there are bakers who have been disciplined for not making wedding cakes for gay weddings, photographers in trouble for not providing wedding photography for these ceremonies, and caterers who have been attacked for not participating in such events. The Christian, who follows the Golden Rule, does not wish to discriminate unfairly, but neither can he accommodate sin. What would Jesus do? Let's look at what Jesus <em>said.</em><br />
<br />
First, Jesus did not retreat from calling out sexual sin of any kind, and He did not condone it. In John 4, He meets the woman at the well and explains that He knows of her adulterous relationship. Later, in John 8, when the adulterous woman is presented to Him, He turns the angry mob away, yet does not condone her adultery. He instructs her, ".. and from now on sin no more."<br />
<br />
Secondly, Jesus did not disagree with His Father's pronouncement of judgment on sexual immorality. In Matthew 10:15, referring to towns that would reject the Apostles, He said, "Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city." Likewise, He did not express disapproval in Luke 17:29 when He refers to the fire and brimstone that "destroyed them all."<br />
<br />
Thirdly, Jesus was emphatically clear on what marriage means to God in Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6, "And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, "'For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.'" There can be no doubt about what Jesus said here and His full agreement with his Father on what constitutes marriage.<br />
<br />
Finally, Jesus held us to a higher standard, not a lower one, than the Old Testament teachings on sexual immorality. Matthew 5:28: "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." To lust for anyone, outside of a God-defined marriage, is sexual sin. Any other arguments about what someone thinks Jesus would do or what God desires for marriage are invalid. Even if such an argument comes from a pastor, minister, bishop, or priest. <br />
<br />
How would Jesus deal with gays? Remembering that homosexuality was an offense punishable by death (just as adultery was) openly gay people would have been unheard of, and that would likely explain the lack of biblical accounts of such an interaction. We know that Jesus mixed with a wide variety of sinners, even dining with them (Matthew 9:10 and Mark 2:13.) I believe He would associate with them, teach them, preach to them, and heal them. But would Jesus bake them a wedding cake? <br />
<br />
Jesus was not a baker. But there was a time in His life when He did provide ordinary services to others. In Mark 6:3, He is identified as a carpenter: "Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon?" So what would happen, what would Jesus say, what would Jesus do, if He was approached and asked to make a gay couple a wedding chest? At the risk of ignoring my own admonition, using my own subjective human imagination and speculation, here is what I think would happen. <br />
<br />
Jesus would not hesitate to identify sexual sin. He would not repudiate His Father's works in dealing with it. He would stay true to God's definition of marriage. He would hold people to the higher standards He set. He would not turn the gay couple away; we do not see Christ shunning those who sought Him out, even those in spiritual error. I believe He would very plainly and simply state, "I will make for you a chest, but it will not be a wedding chest. For what you have is not a wedding."<br />
Christ lived a sinless life, and was would never participate in or approve of an activity opposed by His Father, or contrary to His own teachings. He would not attend a gay ceremony, cater it, or change their water into wine. This would be a line He would not cross. Although Jesus declared Himself a servant (Mark 10:45), He would not allow His service in any way to run contrary to the clear Word of God. <br />
<br />
As Christians in these morally straining times, we must hold fast to the Bible as our source of real and objective truth. We should strive to serve others within the bounds of God's Word, and Christ was the Word Incarnate. A group of people declares, "All we want is to be treated equally." We must treat all people as made in the image of God, but we cannot treat all behavior equally. We are not to treat people badly or unfairly, regardless of who they are, but standing on biblical truth is not bad or unfair. The Golden Rule does not in any way permit sin; do unto others as we would have them do unto us does not mean to help others to do whatever they wish. Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-73085735135041211562013-12-22T22:21:00.000-05:002013-12-24T08:31:47.987-05:00Morality By the NumbersA fellow named Phil Robertson, from the popular cable television show <em>Duck Dynasty, </em>made some comments about homosexuality based on his religious beliefs, and an uproar has ensued. The television network, Arts and Entertainment, suspended him from the program. A lot of people on opposite sides of this issue have reacted strongly. In the midst of all this furor, it behooves the thinking Christian to know where the real problem lies.<br />
<br />
First of all, this is not a free speech issue in any sense. The First Amendment guarantees that congress will make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That certainly did not occur in this case, and no law prevented Mr. Robertson from speaking his mind. He does not face any legal repercussions from doing so. However, assuming the contractual language is correct, the A&E network is within its rights to stop doing business with him if they so desire. Believe it or not, your employer can fire you in most cases if you speak out in ways they do not like. Your freedom to speak is guaranteed, but not your job security. Your boss can fire you if you publicly endorse the KKK platform or teachings of the Nazi party.<br />
<br />
And in this great land of ours, with its free markets, we can refuse to buy products at any time we wish, for whatever reason. A boycott is not in any way illegal. You could boycott A&E for allowing Mr. Robertson to make his statements or you could boycott them for suspending him. <br />
<br />
What we are seeing here is morality by math. A&E knows that the Duck Dynasty program is a huge money-maker with a wide audience. But they also know that speaking out against homosexuality is going to offend a larger number of viewers. So they calculate which is going to do more harm, supporting or suspending, and act accordingly. I have found the Cracker Barrel weather vane more like a windmill. Here is a company that had employment policies in the 1990's that dismissed employees that did not display "normal heterosexual values"; they actively opposed gays and their lifestyle. In this latest brouhaha, they did the math, reversed course, and decided that they would offend paying customers by continuing to carry merchandise with Mr. Robertson's image. So they decided to discontinue those products, hoping to keep their customers as well as burnish their image as tolerant. They were the first corporation after A&E to take such an action. However, when toting up the numbers they discovered that their math added up the wrong way, and after their clientele bombarded them with messages supporting Mr. Robertson they reinstated those image-bearing products. It seems that few things are as effective at determining the correct moral stance as money. <br />
<br />
GLAAD, which used to stand for "Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation", but now just stands for "GLAAD", decided that its Biblical expertise and interpretation of the Scriptures enabled it to make the following declaration: "Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe." And: "By taking quick action and removing Robertson from future filming, A&E has sent a strong message that discrimination is neither a Christian nor an American value."<br />
<br />
To look at that first statement, a Christian must ask one question: "Is homosexuality a sin?" It is a simple yes or no question. And the Bible is not silent on that issue. In both Old and New Testaments, God tells us generally and specifically that the answer is yes. I could list numerous passages wherein the Bible specifically addresses homosexuality. However, if you decided to discard those, there is the issue of sexual immorality in general. Looking at the Westminster Catechism, we learn in questions 137-9 that the Seventh Commandment, which forbids adultery, also forbids "fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts." The Heidelberg Catechism
similarly tells us in questions 108-9, "That all unchastity is cursed by God... he forbids all unchaste acts." In general, if I need to know what God's opinion is on a topic, and what true Christians believe, I would look to the Scriptures before a GLAAD press release.<br />
<br />
As far as the second statement, it is important to understand what is meant by <em>discrimination.</em> In one sense of the word, it means simply to recognize and understand the difference between one thing and another. As Christians, we are in all cases to discriminate between good and bad, between things that are sin and not sin, between the things of God and the things of this world. We cannot look to popular culture or even our laws to do this. Although murder and theft are illegal, adultery and dishonoring our parents is not; indeed, our government, its system of transfers, and political electability is now largely based on encouraging one group of people to covet another. The Christian uses his Bible, not popular opinion or statutes, to aid him in discriminating between right and wrong.<br />
<br />
In the other sense of the word, discriminate means to take unfavorable action against those with whom we do not favor. The Christian is enjoined not to do so. James tells us in 2:1-13, "My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, 'You sit in here in a good place,' while you say to the poor man, 'You stand over there,' or, 'Sit down at my feet,' have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?" Phil Robertson did not discriminate against anyone by treating them unfavorably; he was discriminated <em>against. </em>All he did was speak the truth from the Bible as he knew it. <br />
<br />
As Christians, we are not to treat poorly those who hold beliefs differently than our own. However, we are not to passively let the world and popular culture dictate what we believe, either. That same world and culture will oppose us vigorously. The Word of God is no longer popular currency among those whose morality is not shaped by it but who seek to shape it in a form that suits them; rather, the currency that shapes their morality is often of the green paper kind. We are never right to deny what the Word of God instructs us, and we are never wrong to proclaim it. <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
</div>
Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-87886160409364454292013-12-08T20:34:00.000-05:002013-12-08T20:54:20.478-05:00The Serpents of TodayI grew up in a medium size town in North Carolina called Wilson, with a population of around thirty thousand back in the early 1960's. My family and I went to church there, and there were the usual church activities for children available for us, such as Cub Scouts and youth choir. Outside of church, there were the sporting leagues for football and baseball, sponsored by the city recreation center. All-in-all, as children we were around adults much of the time from Scout leaders to choir directors to coaches to Sunday School teachers and so on. <br />
<br />
Looking back, we uniformly respected our elder adults, and this was certainly a part of the culture at the time. We respected their knowledge, experience, and appreciated their concern for our well-being and development. One thing in particular is noteworthy, as I recall growing up in this environment. We never had any reason to doubt that these grown-ups were ever less than completely honest. As children, we experienced the fibs and falsehoods of other children, but I cannot remember an adult telling me a lie. (The only exceptions were Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.)<br />
<br />
As I grew older and went to college, my experience was similar, with professors and coaches being honest people. Then came medical school and residency for my career, which was another twelve years. Those years were spent basically living in the hospital, with not much exposure to the real world of buying houses and cars and dealing with businesses. And in those years you pretty much believed another's word; deception was not part of the culture in those institutions, either. In many ways we were sheltered from the harshness of everyday reality. <br />
<br />
It really wasn't until I got out into the real world, in my thirties, that I found out that people will lie to you. At first, it was dealing with an unscrupulous homebuilder here or car dealer there, but it was quite surprising given my previous experience. I later worked along side people who had little integrity, and it was always a sad thing to discover. I have often wondered why these things seemed to appear in my later life, and I guess things like this were always going on around me as a young man, but I simply didn't see them. Lying wasn't just invented yesterday-- the serpent started in Genesis chapter three.<br />
<br />
As Christians, we try to be humble, and Paul advises us in Philippians 2:3, "Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself." We try to esteem others as better, and this often leads us to be very trusting and giving others the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I wrote earlier on this in an article, "Doubting the Benefit." The problem arises when those others in fact are dishonest, because nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to be gullible. <br />
<br />
As children, we are taught to respect our government and its leaders, and that same Bible does command us to pray for them. I Timothy 2 tells us, "Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority..." This is easy to do when our leaders are trustworthy men of integrity. But God, who appoints all authorities (Romans 13:1) sometimes sees fit to appoint leaders who are dishonest and lack integrity. His sovereign will, for reasons that are not clear to us, decrees that we who are Christians will at times live in a country governed by those who would lie to us. <br />
<br />
Our current president is not the first in his office to be dishonest, but a precedent of dishonesty by others does not offer one an excuse for his own behavior. The sheer magnitude of deceit we have seen in the last few years from this administration, and its supporters in congress, far exceeds anything I have seen in my fifty-plus years. I may not be an expert on foreign policy or national defense or agricultural affairs, but I am an expert on our health care system and I believe I have probably delivered more health care than any of the individuals who have devised the newest attempt at government run health care delivery. And the things that were promised to the American people by this administration were false and known to be false. I have been asked on several occasions to speak to different groups on health care economics over the last several years, and all of the problems we are now seeing with the Affordable Care Act were known and the consequences foreseen since it was enacted. The promises that people would be able to keep their insurance, keep their doctor, and that it would all cost them less have always been untrue. The only people who are shocked by what is going on now are the people who believed the lies. <br />
<br />
There are several lessons here for the Christian. The first is to realize that people really will be dishonest with you in order to advance their own agenda. God knew that just as sin entered the world through the first lie told by the serpent that lies would be a part of human existence ever since. The second lesson is that God despises lying. Proverbs 6:16-19 tells us that God hates a lying tongue. Leviticus 19:11 commands us not to lie to one another. And make no mistake about it, making false promises is lying. Some have said, "Well, all politicians do it. It is just a <em>political </em>lie." That is absurd. It is a lie no matter how many others may do it, and a "political" lie can be just as damaging and harmful as any other. It teaches us that our government and leaders are not to be trusted, and damages the integrity of these institutions.<br />
<br />
Why do people believe lies in the first place? For one thing, it is easy to swallow a lie if it is telling you something you want to hear. Eve thought it would be wonderful to be as knowledgeable as God. And many people who wanted to see our health care system changed wanted to believe that this new program would do what they said it would do. Secondly, believing a lie is often the easy thing to do, the lazy thing. When presented with a proposition, it takes actual work to go out and research whether or not the facts are true and the arguments are supported. It is easier to just say, "Well, that sounds good to me." The fact of the matter is that not only are people who tell lies not supposed to do that, the people on the receiving end have a responsibility to educate themselves and study what is being proposed before deciding to accept it. The Bereans in Acts 17 were commended because they "searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." Christ Himself warned his disciples to not be gullible, to be "wise as serpents" (Matthew 10:16). So a third lesson is that we are not to take these things at face value, we are to study them, that we may not be easily deceived.<br />
<br />
Asclepius was the Greek god associated with healing. He had a symbol called the "Rod of Asclepius", which had a rod surrounded by a single serpent:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5PAWCeGiVBMh2k5H_NqeqN3_ftDaRh4uBTvTfnEwMcXQS8eQy17crJPCg_Iu5cE1GhDX8o85inKN_4lmXdg4VOzNZ5bVPmWtRURL0qED_yCu3mlP68oLO3DGqodBNN3BHN1Nt323xnCM/s1600/170px-Rod_of_Asclepius2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5PAWCeGiVBMh2k5H_NqeqN3_ftDaRh4uBTvTfnEwMcXQS8eQy17crJPCg_Iu5cE1GhDX8o85inKN_4lmXdg4VOzNZ5bVPmWtRURL0qED_yCu3mlP68oLO3DGqodBNN3BHN1Nt323xnCM/s320/170px-Rod_of_Asclepius2.jpg" width="99" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div align="left" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
This symbol has long been associated with the healing arts and medicine. Unfortunately, because people did not study the origins of this symbol, another symbol became accepted into medicine instead, called the "Caduceus":<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-S_mUiMVt2bhc3zu-ecS0qCuaiWv0t5YDyV8Xgp37ifdHKnP_OfItJdUrXMqaSIuCzjtFRe2GiEyx_5TnzKsxKs5iwAqqTK8tWiDu8YyK7YmV2O9wb7_gDYAhinsnFqhFH-DgHimoViQ/s1600/299px-Caduceus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-S_mUiMVt2bhc3zu-ecS0qCuaiWv0t5YDyV8Xgp37ifdHKnP_OfItJdUrXMqaSIuCzjtFRe2GiEyx_5TnzKsxKs5iwAqqTK8tWiDu8YyK7YmV2O9wb7_gDYAhinsnFqhFH-DgHimoViQ/s320/299px-Caduceus.jpg" width="268" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div align="left" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div align="left" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div align="left" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
This symbol is that of the Greek god Hermes, and it associated with "commerce, eloquence, trickery, and negotiation" (Wikipedia). It is definitely <em>not </em>the symbol of medicine. Hermes was the patron of thieves and liars. It was a lack of study and diligence that led to the mistaken use of the caduceus to represent many medical institutions. <br />
<br />
The final lesson is that we are to recognize the dishonest for what they are. When one successfully lies, he is emboldened to continue in this practice. It becomes easier each time. Such a person will continue as long as they are able. We can do what we can to expose their falsehoods, but it is up to God to deal with them, their sin, and lack of repentance. Psalms 102:6 states, " He who works deceit shall not dwell within my house; he who tells lies shall not continue in my presence." A person with a pattern of dishonesty is not to be trusted and is to be avoided. As I was a child and young adult, these warnings would have seemed so unnecessary; as an older and wiser adult, I am saddened that they are. Just as the serpent deceived with the first lie, the twin serpents of dishonesty and false promises are entwined today around the caduceus of government run healthcare. <br />
<div align="left">
</div>
Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-46603635528915131642013-11-03T21:02:00.000-05:002013-11-03T21:02:05.917-05:00I'm Okay, I'm Not OkaySome of you will remember a book from 1969 by Thomas Harris entitled "I'm Okay, You're Okay." In it he used a form of psychotherapy called transactional analysis to try and sort out people's problems so that ultimately they would come to the conclusion that all was well with themselves and others. It was a phenomenally popular book, with nearly fifteen million copies sold. However, there is a much bigger selling book that deals with our mental state and its problems, and that book was completed around two thousand years ago.<br />
<br />
Many of us, before we become Christians, feel pretty good about ourselves because we do not see the sin in our lives. We go forward in life with an opinion about ourselves that say's "I'm Okay." We get our reference by comparing ourselves to others, and we usually don't rank ourselves all that badly. I doubt anyone has said to himself, "You know, I really am as bad as Hitler." And the unfortunate thing about this is that the majority of people also believe that because they are "Okay" they will get into heaven. They do not see the need to be forgiven of their sin.<br />
<br />
Then comes the day that you are moved to accept Christ as your Savior. You begin to understand what sin truly is, your guilt before God, and the need for forgiveness. You realize that you are not "Okay." You read the Scriptures and learn that all have fallen short of the glory of God, especially you. You cannot enter heaven in your sinful state, because God cannot allow sin into heaven. You are worse than "Not Okay." You are <em>doomed.</em><br />
<em></em><br />
Yet by accepting God's Son as your Savior, you come to know that you are forgiven of your sins. They are imputed to Christ, and He imputes his righteousness to you. You didn't do a thing to earn this transaction or deserve it. It's a great deal. All you have to do is turn your life over to Him, and in return you get all your sins washed away, and eternal life in Heaven. There is nothing on this earth that could compare to that future eternal life. And so now you come to know that because of Christ's work on the cross, you are Okay with God.<br />
<br />
But you continue to sin. Now matter how hard you try, you cannot stop it. Even the Apostle Paul struggled with this. In Romans Chapter 7, verse 15, he tells us about himself, "For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do." And verse 19: "For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil that I will not to do, that I practice." He was pretty troubled by that feeling. Verse 24: "O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" I understand the feeling. I can finish my morning prayer time and have three sinful thoughts before I walk out the door to work in the morning. So once again, I'm not feeling Okay. I'm still a sinner who can't stop sinning.<br />
<br />
Paul provides us the answer to his question in the next sentence. "I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!" We are not only cleansed or our sins in the past by our relationship with Christ, we are forgiven of our ongoing sins, when we ask for that forgiveness. God still forgives us, because of the work of Christ on the cross, and we are washed clean, even of that sin you committed five minutes ago. So really you're Okay.<br />
<br />
The problem for me as a Christian is that the more I walk with Christ, the more acutely aware I become of how short I have fallen of the glory of God. I used to be troubled by the bigger sins in my life, but now I repent over the small ones, too, things that would not have troubled me before. And even though I can go over and pull the Repent lever on the Sin Exchange machine and get instant Forgiveness, it does not relieve me of the awareness that I sinned or of my sin nature. Although I am constantly pointing to Christ and telling God to look at Him, because Christ has taken my sin away, I know who really committed the sin. Even though I can lay it all on Christ, surely I'm not Okay.<br />
<br />
Christians everywhere know of God's love and His forgiveness. The Sin Exchange machine will never run out of tokens, and for that we can rejoice. The answer to the dilemma that we face as sinners still rests on Christ's work. You are Not Okay, but that's Okay. You are a sinner, and will continue to be a sinner who sins, but God loved you enough to put His Son to death so that you will never be separated from Him. He loves you, even though you are Not Okay. And if you are troubled, as Paul was and I am, about continued sinning, there is a promise. Philippians 1:6 says, "...being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ." One day, you will sin no more, for you will be <em>Perfect. </em>And that's a whole lot better than Okay. Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-26236514175587256792013-10-20T19:47:00.001-04:002013-10-20T19:49:52.260-04:00Myocardial ProtectionIn modern heart surgery, we usually must stop the heart to operate upon it. Their are chiefly two reasons for this; the first is that it is easier to perform delicate maneuvers on a still heart, and the second is that we must open the heart in cases where we work on the valves or other interior structures. The heart, a muscular organ, receives its own blood supply from the coronary arteries which arise from the aorta just as it leaves the heart. So what we do is to place the patient on cardiopulmonary bypass (the heart-lung machine) and drain blood from the heart down to a pump that puts oxygen into the blood. The blood is then returned to the aorta into the patient's body. At this point no blood is passing through the patient's own heart and lungs. We place a clamp on the aorta above the coronary arteries and instill a medicine into the aorta that flows down the coronaries and paralyzes the heart. Just as you have heard of the terms <em>paraplegia </em>and <em>quadriplegia</em>, this medicine is called <em>cardioplegia</em>, because it paralyzes the heart. <br />
<br />
While the heart is still and not beating, it consumes very little energy and requires very little oxygen or nutrition. And the cardioplegia is usually cold, chilling the heart and reducing its energy consumption even further. But there is a limit to how long you can do this. Eventually you must restore blood supply to the heart, for even the best cardioplegia cannot replace the function of blood. This presents real challenges with difficult operations. Thirty or forty minutes of stopping the heart is of minor concern. Three or four hours can result in a very weakened heart. Therefore, the cardioplegia solution often has other agents in it to give the heart muscle cells nutrition and protection during this period of semi-starvation. And the whole strategy of how we stop the heart with cardioplegia is called <em>myocardial protection. </em><br />
<em></em><br />
We didn't always have cardioplegia. Modern heart surgery was invented in the 1950's, and cardioplegia didn't arrive on the scene until the late 1970's. And the first decade or so after that was spent refining and developing the chemistry of myocardial protection. And early on, occasionally it simply didn't work. When that happened, the heart was very, very weak at the end of the procedure. In the worst cases, when the clamp was removed, the heart would contract once into a tight ball of muscle and then never work or beat again. That condition was called <em>stone heart.</em> I saw a case of this one time, over twenty years ago, when I was in training. A stone heart is always fatal.<br />
<br />
Yet all of us, in our natural state, have hearts of stone. The most beautiful message I have read on this was from Charles Spurgeon, entitled, "The Stony Heart Removed," and delivered May 25, 1962. He describes in great detail the natural qualities of our stony hearts, their hardness and coldness and resistance to change. The heart of man can be warmed for a while, but then returns to its natural cold state. As he says, "<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: large;">Such is the heart of man. It is warm enough towards sin; it grows hot as coals of juniper, towards its own lusts; but naturally the heart is as cold as ice towards the things of God. You may think you have heated it for a little season under a powerful exhortation, or in presence of a solemn judgment, but how soon it returns to its natural state</span>!</span></span><span style="font-size: large;">"</span><br />
<br />
We cannot perform open heart surgery upon ourselves. Likewise, we cannot change our hearts of stone by our human efforts. Only God can do this by Christ's work through the Holy Spirit. As God told Ezekiel in 36:26 (and similarly in 11:19), "I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." To quote Spurgeon again, "<span style="font-size: large;">But while such a thing would be impossible apart from God, it is certain that God can do it. Oh, how the Master delighteth to undertake impossibilities!"</span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><br />
The person who has received Christ as their Savior is assured of getting this operation. And as I have done thousands of heart operations, I have seen hearts in all sizes and shapes, and all conditions, with some operations easy and some difficult. While God could instantaneously soften the heart of all believers, in His sovereign will He takes longer with some than others, and the pain and recovery will be difficult in those cases. I am one of those, and daily heart surgery is no fun. <br />
<br />
We must also, along with the Father, attend to our myocardial protection. As the prophet Jeremiah tells us in 17:9, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" Our natural hearts tend towards sin and lusts, and we must protect our hearts from such things. Proverbs 4:23 advises us, "Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it." These same sins and lusts that the heart desires damage it, scarring it and leaving it cold and callous. We must pray diligently for God to work with us to guard our hearts and protect them from temptation. <br />
<br />
In heart surgery, a stone heart is incurable. Not so for God and our hardened hearts. He can and will cure us. The coronary arteries that provide blood and nourishment for our hearts encircle it like a crown, and that is where the name "coronary" comes from, from the Latin word "corona" or crown. When we give myocardial protection into that crown of arteries, we are able to perform life-saving heart surgery, the gift of physical life. And if we protect our hearts from sin, what happens? James tells us in 1:12, "Blessed is the man who endures temptation,; for when he is approved, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him," the gift of spiritual life. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-70602892869580105202013-09-24T13:36:00.001-04:002013-09-24T13:36:50.691-04:00Subscribing by E-mailI have heard that some of you are not getting the posts by e-mail after attempting to subscribe, and as I check the subscription lists several of you are "unverified". <br />
<br />
To subscribe by e-mail takes a few quick steps. <br />
<br />
The first step is to click on the button "Subscribe By E-Mail."<br />
<br />
The second step is to enter the letters you see into the box below; this is done to prevent spammers from using automated systems to sign up.<br />
<br />
The third step is the most important. You will receive an e-mail asking to verify that you do indeed want to subscribe. If you do not respond to this, your subscription will not be activated.<br />
<br />
E-mail me at <a href="mailto:Dr.Moore@SurvivingtheSuffering">Dr.Moore@SurvivingtheSuffering</a> if you have any problems.<br />
<br />
Thank you.Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-89221201241444807042013-09-16T18:31:00.000-04:002013-09-22T08:26:10.520-04:00O.K. You're Human. So What?We have spent the last several weeks looking at what it means to be human and the lethal consequences when society declares a person or group of people "not quite human". In the case of Nazi Germany, the declaration of the Jew as "sub-human" led to the slaughter of over six million people during World War II. Because many have declared the fetus to be not quite human, over fifty million abortions have been performed in the United States in the last forty years. Still, the truth of humanity cannot be suppressed forever. In horror, people look back on the Holocaust and wonder how the Jews could have been thought of in that way. And it is getting harder and harder to look at the unborn child and say that it is not human. <br />
<br />
Where I think we may be headed is an even darker place than the land of untruth. It is the land of uncaring. It may be that modern society recognizes the unborn as a real <em>bona fide</em> human being, but then sees no problem with killing them. When we last looked at late term abortions, we discussed the partial birth abortion, where an unborn child is partially extracted from the womb and then killed before fully removing it. That practice has been illegal since the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. But late term abortions are still performed. The law said you could not extract a live fetus. It didn't say anything about killing the fetus and then extracting it. The current procedure now is to use a long needle and inject digitalis into the unborn baby's heart, killing it, and then it is dismembered, removed, and discarded.<br />
<br />
If you remember our discussion in <a href="http://www.survivingthesuffering.com/2013/08/not-quite-human-part-iii.html" target="_blank">Part III</a>, we talked about the Nazi euthanasia program, <em>Aktion T4. </em>The Nazis decided that the "unfit" did not deserve to live and they began putting "defective" infants to death in 1939. This was expanded to older children and then adults. Over 70,000 German citizens were killed in this program. When the German public at large became aware of what was going on, there was an outcry and the protests forced the Nazi leadership to officially abandon the program, although it was continued in secret for several more years.<br />
<br />
Today, euthanasia is making a comeback in the modern world, and there is no secrecy and no protest. To be clear in our discussions, we must make a distinction between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. In the latter, the physician gives to the patient the fatal medicine, and the patient takes it himself. In euthanasia, the physician actually administers the lethal poison to the patient. Both physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are now legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg; all three countries were defeated in World War II by the Nazis and opposed them. They are now embracing Nazi euthanasia ideology. <br />
<br />
On this side of the Atlantic, Quebec seems likely to be the first to blaze the euthanasia trail, as they have considered legalizing it with Bill 52. We do not have euthanasia in the United States, but physician-assisted suicide is legal in Washington, Oregon, Vermont, and essentially in Montana. We have not yet caught up with Europe, but there is still time.<br />
<br />
Well, what if someone is suffering and wants to die? Why should we care if someone submits to voluntary euthanasia? They are only harming themselves, and they should make the decision about how and when to end their life, right? <br />
<br />
What if the euthanasia, like the Nazi T4 program, was <em>involuntary?</em><br />
<br />
I am sure that you think that such a thing does not exist. I would like to refer you to the Groningen Protocol from the Netherlands. It was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and is referenced below. It describes in great detail the selection process for putting infants to death in that country. It requires a very smart and dedicated team of physicians and health care workers who evaluate the infant and determine that it should be euthanized. Belgium liked the way the Dutch were doing things so much that they took the Protocol and fashioned a bill to take to their parliament last November, and it now seems close to passing. The Belgians are likely to expand euthanasia to those with Alzheimer's disease and dementia, and a report in the Canadian Medical Association Journal suggests that already nearly a third of euthanasia cases in that country do not involve a patient request. According to the British Medical Journal, a fifth of cases in the Netherlands do not involve a patient request. Although involuntary euthanasia is currently illegal in all countries (with the exception of the Groningen Protocol babies), it continues to be practiced, not prosecuted. The right of a human to put himself to death or to request to be put to death becomes the right to put the human to death.<br />
<br />
Personal choice, not God's sovereignty, seems paramount these days. Someone has to choose in these matters: the mother aborting her child, the patient requesting assisted suicide, or the doctors practicing involuntary euthanasia make a choice. The fetus whose heart is being injected with digitalis, however, does not get to choose, nor does the baby being examined by the doctors under the Groningen Protocol or the patient with Alzheimer's who is euthanized. What happens when the <em>state</em> starts making the choice? Under China's One-Child Policy,<em> three</em> <em>hundred and thirty-six</em> <em>million</em> abortions have been performed since 1971, many of which were forced. And in Western Civilization, we have the National Health Service in England and its Liverpool Care Pathway. Although it is not euthanasia, it involves withdrawing food and water from patients the NHS health care team decides are not long for this world. It turns out that of conscious patients, <em>half are not told this will be done</em> <em>to them</em>. If I recall correctly, the choosing of the time of one's death is to be done by God. <br />
<br />
So we try very hard to get these people recognized as human, and even if we succeed, it won't matter because human life is becoming devalued. We can convince a society through evidence and reasoning that these people are human, but we cannot force a society to value human life. We talked last week about the "collapse clause" in the <em>Roe v. Wade </em>decision, where it was stated that if the fetus could be shown to be a person, the argument for abortion would collapse, and the fetus would be protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. That Amendment states that no one may be deprived of life without "due process of law". Well, look at the Groningen Protocol and the Liverpool Care Pathway, and there is your due process.<br />
<br />
Thinking of these things as medical "procedures" seems to make them so much more acceptable, and even dignified. As I mentioned in an article earlier this year <a href="http://www.survivingthesuffering.com/2013/01/whats-your-life-worth-anyway.html" target="_blank">("What's Your Life Worth, Anyway</a>"), I am unable to find anywhere in the Bible a passage on death with dignity. It is interesting that often those who are proponents of death with dignity are also supporters of abortion. I cannot think of a less dignified way to die than to be scraped and torn apart in the womb. The Jew facing the brutal Nazi gas chambers declares, "I am not a sub-human!" The fetus inside its mother pleads "I am human!" The Chinese mother facing forced abortion cries, "My baby is human!" The elderly person with dementia implores, "I am still human!" And before the fatal procedure is administered, the last thing they hear is "You're absolutely right. But we don't care."<br />
<br />
1. Verhagen, E, and Sauer, JJ. The Groningen Protocol--Euthanasia in Severely Ill Newborns. New Eng J Med 2005;352:959-62.<br />
<br />
2. Chambaere, K, Bilsen, J, Cohen, J, et. al. Physician Assisted Deaths Under the Euthanasia Law in Belgium: A Population-Based Survey. CMAJ 2010;1-7.<br />
<br />
3. van der Wal, G, and Dillman, RJ. Euthanasia in the Netherlands. British Med J 1994;308:1346-9.<br />
<br />
4. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255054/60-000-patients-death-pathway-told-minister-says-controversial-end-life-plan-fantastic.html">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255054/60-000-patients-death-pathway-told-minister-says-controversial-end-life-plan-fantastic.html</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-31581507190153137802013-09-15T21:02:00.000-04:002013-09-15T21:02:22.812-04:00Not Quite Human, Part VWe have spent the last several weeks looking at what happens when a society declares some of its members "sub-human" or "non-human", as in the case in Nazi Germany and the Jews in World War II. A mood of anti-Semitism that had been present for many generations was transformed into a new truth over the course of only a few generations by continuous teaching and preaching-- that Jews were not human. This led to the slaughter of over six million people that were previously acknowledged by the Germans to be human and certainly following the Holocaust are clearly known to be human today. The horrible abuse inflicted on the Jews will never be forgotten, even by the Germans, where denying the reality of the Holocaust today is actually a criminal offense, punishable by imprisonment for three months to five years.<br />
<br />
We would think that something as simple as the definition of a human being would be straightforward and not open to change or debate. Yet we saw an entire country change the meaning of human being for several decades and then change it back. Something so simple as a change in definition lead to the deaths of millions. Today, we have over a million abortions performed in the United States, in part because the fetus is not defined as a human being. <br />
<br />
Most people would agree with the following premise: <br />
<br />
An innocent human being must not be killed<br />
<br />
The qualifier "innocent" is used here because the state has the authority to take the life of someone who is found guilty of a capital crime. Furthermore, if it is established that the fetus is human, it clearly is innocent. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity, we will leave out the term "innocent."<br />
<br />
All arguments against abortion must destroy both halves of this premise, which can be restated as:<br />
<br />
If it is a human being, it must not be killed.<br />
<br />
Either half of this premise can be attacked. You can argue that the fetus is not a human being. Or, you can argue that it is acceptable to kill human beings. In fact, both sides of this premise are regularly assaulted by its pro-abortion opponents. Today, we will look at the attacks on the fetus as a human being; next week we will study the other half of the premise.<br />
<br />
For many decades now, it has been argued that the fetus is not a human being. In fact, this was one of the foundational definitional issues in the <em>Roe v. Wade </em>decision made by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1973. In fact, the decision has within it what is known as the "collapse clause", which states, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course collapses, for the fetus' right to life would be guaranteed specifically by the (Fourteenth) Amendment." It was the interpretation of those Justices that voted in favor of the decision that the fetus was not a person or human being. In fact, they noted that "...the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life,<em> as</em> <em>we recognize it</em>, begins before live birth..." (emphasis mine).<br />
<br />
If you are secure in your knowledge that a portion of a premise is false, there is no need to attack the other portion. In fact, to do so makes it appear that you may not really be so certain about your position. If it is absolutely true that the fetus is not a person, then there is no need to make any attacks on the portion of the premise that states that "it must not be killed." In other words, if a fetus is truly not a person, then there should be no issue whatsoever in destroying it. You do not need to make any arguments about women having a right to choice, women having the right to control their own bodies, or women having the right to "reproductive rights." Likewise, if it is acceptable to kill human beings, based on women's choice, control, or reproductive rights, then there is no need to spend so much effort claiming that the fetus is not human. <br />
<br />
The primary problem faced by the pro-abortion crowd today is that the fetus <em>is increasingly being recognized as a human being.</em> Advancing medical science has demonstrated several things in this regard. Over and over again it is shown that the fetus has a functioning heart within six weeks of conception, brain waves can be detected at eight weeks, fetal breathing movements at ten weeks, and body movement begins at twelve weeks. It is difficult to claim that this is not human life. <br />
<br />
For the vast majority of people, their death, when they cease to be a living human being, will be determined when their heart stops beating. For a few who are kept alive by life support devices, their death will be determined by when their brain waves cease, or "brain death." As a cardiac surgeon, I am very well acquainted with the beating and still heart and occasionally have been involved in brain death cases, usually where issues of organ donation for transplantation were involved. If it is accepted that cardiac standstill or brain death denotes the death of a human, it would stand to reason that evidence of a heartbeat or brain waves indicates that human life is present.<br />
<br />
The second area where advancing medical science has changed the whole notion of life has to do with the changing notion of viability. Premature infants less than twenty-two weeks gestational age are now surviving. The law may not recognize life until after live birth, but these small infants, that could fit into the palm of your hand, are clearly not recognizing the law. The Supreme Court, in 1973, thought viability was established at twenty-eight weeks, a difference of a month-and-a-half from current viability. You cannot incorporate the concept of viability into the definition of a human being when you do not know when that viability occurs.<br />
<br />
When does this human life begin? The notion of a "trimester" is a man-made creation; we arbitrarily take the 39 weeks of gestation and divide it into 13-week thirds. The developing fetus does not recognize this systematic nomenclature. From the time of conception until the baby takes its first breath and cries, there is a seamless and undivided progress from embryo to fetus to child. There is no point where you can say that this is not a human life today and then say it is a human life the next day.<br />
<br />
We have been looking at the development of the fetus in a forwards direction; let us now do so in a reverse manner. To do so will involve some gruesome and explicit terms, but this is what has been done and is being done in this country. Most people would agree that to murder an infant is illegal, immoral, and unacceptable. However, the United States had to actually pass a law, in 2002, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, to give legal protection to live babies that had survived abortions. <br />
<br />
Yet up until 2003, it was legal to perform partial birth abortions, medically known as "intact dilation and extraction." In that procedure, an infant yet to be born was turned around in its mother's womb until the feet were grasped and the infant is pulled part of the way out of the vaginal canal. The infant is extracted until only the head remains inside. At that point the base of the skull is punctured and the brains are suctioned out, killing the infant and allowing the skull to collapse. The dead child is now delivered. The key component here was the abortion doctor's thumb, which held the skull inside the vaginal canal while it was punctured and suctioned. If his thumb slipped, the head would be delivered and he would now have a live baby in his hands. The six inches of the vaginal canal, the distance the head would travel, changed the definition of the child from unborn fetus, which seemingly was not yet human and had no rights, to that of live infant, with all the rights of any human. Today, although partial birth abortions are illegal, late term abortions are performed up until 35 weeks of gestation.<br />
<br />
What the fetus doesn't know can kill it. The twenty one week old fetus doesn't know that if he can hang in there just one more week he might be viable and therefore human in the eyes of some. The late term fetus undergoing a partial birth abortion, feeling the cool air on his body, arms and legs, didn't know that while his head was warm and still inside his mother that his skull was about to be punctured because he wasn't quite human yet. <br />
<br />
The Bible does not talk about "viability" and "trimesters." Psalm 139:13 says, "For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made." Even further, in Jeremiah 1:5, we are told that God said, "<em>Before</em> I formed you in the womb I knew you." God knew us as people, as humans, from the very moment we were conceived. He doesn't say that He only knew us after we became viable or exited the birth canal. Everything that makes us human, every gene and chromosome, is present from the moment of conception. <br />
<br />
However, being a human may not be enough. There are many who do not believe human life is sacred. As we began this series, we looked at Genesis 9:5-6, "Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning, from the hand of every beast I will require it and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man's brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man." Man's life is special and belongs to God alone. Man plays God when he decides who gets to be human and when, and he plays God when he decides which life should be ended and when. The latter we will look at next week.<br />
<br />
By defining Jews as not quite human, Germany was able to justify killing six million of them. By defining the fetus as not quite human, America has been able to justify killing over fifty million babies since 1973. Just as the Jews reclaimed their humanity from their horrible suffering, our unborn children may yet one day reclaim their humanity after losing millions of their unborn brothers and sisters.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-34466016311355464092013-09-08T21:08:00.000-04:002013-09-08T21:16:40.190-04:00Not Quite Human, Part IVWe return now after a few weeks to look at what happens when a society declares a group of people to be "sub-human" as well as the source of problems in that society. We have seen how the Jewish people came to be despised in Germany, with full-blown anti-Semitism developing by the early twentieth century. We followed this as it developed into all forms of persecution, closing Jewish businesses and resulting in beatings and other abuse. <em>Kristallnacht </em>in 1938 was one of the culminations of generations of Germans who had been taught of the evil and sub-human Jew. <br />
<br />
Most Jews who could leave Germany did so, and less than half a million remained by the beginning of the second World War in 1939. By that time, Hitler and his physicians had already begun the process of mass extermination of infants and small children that they had deemed "unfit". First with chemicals, those selected to die were involuntarily euthanized, and when chemicals proved to be too expensive and inefficient, carbon monoxide gas was used. Having begun solving one "problem", that of the "undesirable" children (and later adults), the Nazi leadership began to work on the much larger "Jewish problem". It was after the onset of World War II, with the invasion of Poland and Eastern Europe, that there were large numbers of Jews that came under Nazi control.<br />
<br />
During that first year of the war, Jewish people were required to be identified and wear a yellow star. many Jews were sent to concentration camps. Initially, these camps were simply holding places, although forced labor was required. A portion of Warsaw was walled off, the "Ghetto", where living conditions with starvation and disease all but precluded survival. The real effort at exterminating the Jews, however, began not in these camps and ghettos, but in the villages and towns throughout Poland. The Nazis organized <em>Einsatzgruppen</em> from the <em>Schutzstaffel, </em>(or "SS" as it is commonly known) for the purpose of disposing of Jews in the newly conquered territories. I must warn you that the following material is quite graphic.<br />
<br />
These <em>Einsatzgruppen </em>roamed the Polish countryside, raiding homes and farms and businesses. The men and women, boys and girls, young and old were usually rounded up to some central location and then shot. The mass killings were usually performed by having the victims lie prone and then receive a bullet to the back of the head. Hundreds and then thousands of these executions were performed. The killings were not restricted to <em>Einsatzgruppen, </em>however. Even ordinary German citizens who were too old or unfit to serve as soldiers worked in police squads that were employed for the work of eliminating Jews. If a Jew was found in a home or hospital and was too weak or ill to make it to the killing site, they were simply shot in bed. If they escaped to the surrounding countryside or forest, they were hunted down. As opposed to firing at enemy soldiers across a battlefield, innocent people had the backs of their heads blown off at close range. The killers were frequently covered with blood, brains, and skull fragments. All in a day's work, I suppose. Get cleaned up and go out the next day to start another job.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwXHOICE5CPjsf2ZCSVX7X59QhyC4Bp3p7B8eFPk9DlRSqbCBuSlFf9JOsc6cv4z8kJ1uwgXUBwCSHhZnbzwb6du1P5Pm-KIRttvK8xaBagj0QQMNe4aMIb3GH26ENUdRm3J713y99N9Q/s1600/shot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="279" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwXHOICE5CPjsf2ZCSVX7X59QhyC4Bp3p7B8eFPk9DlRSqbCBuSlFf9JOsc6cv4z8kJ1uwgXUBwCSHhZnbzwb6du1P5Pm-KIRttvK8xaBagj0QQMNe4aMIb3GH26ENUdRm3J713y99N9Q/s320/shot.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Woman and Child</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
(yadvashem.org)</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The killings soon expanded into Russia in 1941, and the picture above of the woman holding her daughter is presumed to be from Ivangorod. In Babi Yar, near Kiev, 35,000 Jews were shot and killed over two days. But this was not efficient enough. The lessons learned from the Nazi euthanasia program would soon be put into use. That same year, the first executions using carbon monoxide gas were carried out in Chelmno, Poland, using mobile vans.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEq_iuS-mcoLVLlrbikFhkP5SaB5wtIr_dzEasPKttACVS0-hQWL0NQdzDDg0RpU4S7WdJx9biQPDgBpetKy_oRGnm6EYh7Q4a-8IalEIKg1w0LFuvos8nRgPyjITfJYGjRBg2mLTamnQ/s1600/chelmno_gas_van.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEq_iuS-mcoLVLlrbikFhkP5SaB5wtIr_dzEasPKttACVS0-hQWL0NQdzDDg0RpU4S7WdJx9biQPDgBpetKy_oRGnm6EYh7Q4a-8IalEIKg1w0LFuvos8nRgPyjITfJYGjRBg2mLTamnQ/s320/chelmno_gas_van.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
(inconvenienthistory.com)</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The "Jewish problem" was considered big enough by the Germans to convene a large meeting known as the Wansee Conference in 1942. Wansee was a small town outside of Berlin, and there the Nazi leaders gathered together under the leadership of <em>Obergruppenfuhrer</em> Reinhard Heydrich to come up with the "final solution", once and for all with how to eliminate the Jews. Two new camp systems were developed from the concentration camp model: the extermination camps and the work camps. The purpose of both was to kill the Jew; the work camps simply extracted labor from the Jew until they died of starvation and exhaustion. The names of the extermination camps, all in Poland, will be forever remembered: Auschwitz, Belzec, Sobibor, Chelmno, Treblinka, and Majdanek. Of note is that Auschwitz was a combined extermination and work camp. Upon entry into the camp, those thought fit enough to work were spared immediate execution. Numbers were tattooed on the forearms of those kept alive, and Holocaust survivors from Auschwitz with those tattoos can still be seen alive today. And Auschwitz was where Zyklon B, a form of cyanide gas, was introduced to the killing system.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Eight to twelve hundred Jews could be gassed in these chambers. Their teeth with gold fillings were extracted, and their bodies were burned in the crematoria ovens:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBer_IEap-a8ddTQqdVcxP__YDqDvadjiIwZb0Zzn8RTF4pB9fmFk5XLRV6GYiog7x5GjdbckwhEMasBIPcxKXpHRjPaXPVeV_hCyfmmFEZkCrRtvV6dmPZa-Z2M0ZH1sDp5EpotSiSNY/s1600/oven.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="245" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBer_IEap-a8ddTQqdVcxP__YDqDvadjiIwZb0Zzn8RTF4pB9fmFk5XLRV6GYiog7x5GjdbckwhEMasBIPcxKXpHRjPaXPVeV_hCyfmmFEZkCrRtvV6dmPZa-Z2M0ZH1sDp5EpotSiSNY/s320/oven.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
(israelarbeitergallery.org)</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
There are many, many more horrific pictures and stories available to the interested reader on multiple websites. Before it was all over, it is estimated that over six million Jews died at the hands of the Nazi regime. Yet it must be remembered that "Nazi" was a political party, just as we have political parties in this country. Not all Germans, or even German military members, were Nazis. In his book, <em>Hitler's Willing Executioners, </em>Daniel Goldhagen shows how Germans from all walks of life were complicit or involved in the process. Generations of anti-Semitism had led the Germans to see the Jews as "sub-human" and the source of almost all of Germany's problems. Even if the average German did not actually break a storefront or shoot a Jewish child, it seemed like a reasonable thing to do. Looking back today, we cannot comprehend how the unthinkable was thinkable. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Several things came together to make all of this a reality. It wasn't so much that <em>human</em> life was devalued, it was that the Jew was <em>not really human. </em>Many are familiar with the word <em>Ubermensch</em> which was created by Freidrich Neitzsche, meaning "superman". But there was another word in German, <em>Untermensch,</em> which came into use in the 1920's before Hitler and his Nazis were in power. It means "underman", or "sub-human." Later, in his book, <em>Der Untermensch, </em>Heinrich Himmler described the Jewish <em>Untermensch</em>: "The sub-human-- that biologically same shaped creation with hands, feet and a kind of a brain, with eyes and mouth, is nonetheless a totally different, terrible creature, is only an approximation of man, with human-like facial features--spiritually, psychologically, however standing lower than any animal." It only took a few generations of teaching and preaching this point of view for it to be widely accepted. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The Jews were a problem to be eliminated, and why not use murder to extinguish something that was not human? There was no need to keep this secret from the German people, as had been the case with the Nazi euthanasia program. And medical science had provided some of the breakthroughs in the mass execution process, for it was easier to exterminate people from behind a cement wall with gas than it was to actually put a bullet in the back of someone's head. The execution process had now become a "procedure". </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
We are fortunate now to live in a world where nothing like that could ever happen again. Basic truths about life and what it means to be a human will not change because of a few generations of teaching and educating. Our modern society values human life far too much to take lives to serve its own purposes. We would never look at the human condition and its difficulties as a simple "problem" needing a simple "solution." We would never allow medicine, with its wondrous ability to preserve life, to be used to perform "procedures" to eliminate human beings. We would never, in this world today, put to death people without their knowledge or consent, as the Nazi euthanasia doctors did, simply because someone decided someone else was "unfit." Something like this, suffering on an unimaginable scale, could never happen again. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Right?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEip67YEe8jc1mmoympG2RgA2tPmBR_arN6acODR-1OYMCvcip3HymZybG1xyIYctZrQwvQmN65NkirCayUl4Tv6IxXIErjzi4ooojo6EOG8ZKEgqBZ8iS29UAniZT3dNtIbR-Xbxnmxh8U/s1600/Fetal-Life.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEip67YEe8jc1mmoympG2RgA2tPmBR_arN6acODR-1OYMCvcip3HymZybG1xyIYctZrQwvQmN65NkirCayUl4Tv6IxXIErjzi4ooojo6EOG8ZKEgqBZ8iS29UAniZT3dNtIbR-Xbxnmxh8U/s320/Fetal-Life.jpg" width="319" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
(doctortipster.com)</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
"...that biologically same shaped creation with hands, feet and a kind of a brain, with eyes and mouth...is only an approximation of man, with human-like facial features."</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Part V to follow...</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div align="center">
</div>
Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1193509292297270532.post-65420183222234407052013-08-18T12:27:00.001-04:002013-08-19T06:25:55.807-04:00Not Quite Human, Part IIIMedicine has never been completely and totally science. Those of us who practice this profession know it as "the art and science of medicine." Although there is a scientific foundation to medicine, the art comes from applying science to human beings. Pure science has no inherent ethics or morals. It is the application of testing to theories to confirm hypotheses, and in doing so provides explanation for how things work. The proven hypothesis becomes a scientific fact and may then be used to direct further efforts at shaping ourselves and our world. In medicine, it is the application of those facts to living, breathing people that is the art, and the art requires moral judgment.<br />
<br />
When people do not have a system of moral judgment other than the one they construct for themselves, moral relativism results. What I consider moral may not be the same as what you consider to be moral. And what is tragic is when moral relativism infuses the art of medicine. Throughout history, people in all societies have held a special regard for their healers. Few things are more terrifying than to have a broken body, and the people with the knowledge to heal are elevated in the minds of the public. Although it is human nature to be suspicious of those things that we do not understand, when we find that a science that is incomprehensible to many can cure illness and disease, that suspicion is often replaced with awe and respect. This leads many to accept and obey the pronouncements of scientists and doctors as dispensers not only of healing but truth itself. (Of course, as a doctor, I kind of like it that way myself.)<br />
<br />
We have been looking at Germany in the first half of the twentieth century and developments in that society as the Jews were defined as "sub-human", capable of great evil and seen as the greatest threat to that nation. Decades of teaching and reinforcing this notion led to it being widespread in German thought. Even before Hitler rose to power, there was the "Jewish problem," and much debate was carried forth on how to address it. Hitler and his Nazis brought this to the forefront of national consciousness, with much resulting abuse of the Jews. We left off our discussion in 1938, following the terrible <em>Kristallnacht</em>, but for today we will turn our attention to another Nazi program, <em>Aktion T4. </em>To do that, we will need to follow scientific thought from the turn of the century.<br />
<br />
Charles Darwin published <em>The Origin of the Species</em> in 1859, and in it he described how species developed over time with continual improvement due to the natural selection of superior species. A good deal of his thought had derived from his study of the breeding of animals. It was actually his cousin, Francis Galton, who developed the notion that societies could actually improve its members by <em>artificial </em>selection, choosing those with the best genes. This led to Galton coining the term <em>eugenics </em>(from the Greek, "<em>eu-</em>", meaning "good" and "<em>genos</em>", meaning birth). Over the next many decades, eugenics looked not only at choosing the best members of society breeding with each other but eliminating the most undesirable elements from breeding. In the United States, many states in the early 1900's had forcible sterilization laws for the mentally disabled or epileptic. For over fifty years in this country, more than 60,000 people were sterilized because someone had deemed them "unfit." You must remember, for states to carry out these laws, someone had to be invested with the power to decide who was "fit" and who was "unfit."<br />
<br />
The notions of eugenics were a large part of Nazi ideology and the idea of racial superiority. But simply preventing the less desirables from breeding was not enough. Hitler was very much interested in eliminating those undesirables directly. The Nazi party promoted the idea of euthanasia throughout the 1930's. Requests for mercy killing from parents with deformed children were funneled directly to Hitler's office. And in 1939, a child that was born with congenital defects was chosen to be the first to be eliminated. Eugenics, "good birth," had now become Euthanasia, "good death" (<em>eu = good, thanatos = death</em>). <br />
<br />
Hitler's personal physician, Karl Brandt, was put in charge of developing the program of euthanizing infants. A large medical bureaucracy was created, with a system put in place to process these killings. The program was later known as <em>Aktion T4, </em>with the "T4" being an abbreviation for <em>Tiergartenstraβe 4, </em>the address of the "Charitable Foundation for Curative and Institutional Care." Initially parental consent was needed for these killings, but that was eventually dropped. Doctors and midwives were ordered to report any defective babies at birth, and although originally decisions were made after examining the infant, simply filling out a questionnaire was sufficient to make the decision to euthanize. Six centers were set up around Germany to handle these children, first infants and then the older ones. Parents were told that their child was going to a special center, and then after the child was euthanized, they would receive a phony death certificate and cause of death. The parents were often suspicious of these reports, especially if their child who had no appendix supposedly died of appendicitis.<br />
<br />
It didn't take long for the Nazis and their physicians to realize that they could eliminate disabled adults as well. The "mercy killings" soon became a way to exterminate all undesirables from the German gene pool. The mentally ill and retarded, the epileptic and schizophrenic, those with dementia or any illness that required prolonged institutional care were deemed candidates for euthanasia. <br />
<br />
Initially, people were put to death with injection, but this was slow and costly. It was much more efficient to use carbon monoxide gas, and gas chambers were set up at the killing centers. The bodies were cremated. This process of gas execution and cremation would later be utilized on an industrial scale during the Holocaust. There was one huge difference between the Nazi euthanasia program and the slaughter of the Jews, however. The euthanasia program was kept secret.<br />
<br />
This was necessary because Hitler knew that the German people would be outraged at the state-sanctioned killing of German citizens. In fact, when word finally got out, the German people protested to the point where the program was officially ended only two years later in 1941. However, it continued unofficially until the end of the war. Over 70,000 Germans were euthanized.<br />
<br />
Several points need to be taken in here. The "science" of eugenics and its cold calculations of genetic inferiority and racial superiority were translated into the "art" of killing, a machine for assassination carried out by the German medical profession. Someone somewhere had to make a decision that you were "fit" to live or were "unfit"; you did not make that decision yourself. The science was divorced from an objective God-given morality and coupled with a man-made morality, where it was seen as morally desirable to execute the undesirable. Finally, it was a "medical procedure" that made it all possible, first injection and then the more efficient gassing. <br />
<br />
All of these lessons learned by the Nazis from the murder of children would enable them to exterminate millions of Jews. The striking difference was that the German public objected to the forced deaths of other German "humans." There would not be the same outrage at the elimination of Jewish "non-humans", nor any need to keep those programs secret. After only a few generations of being taught that the Jew was not a human were necessary to remove them from the conscience of the German country. Next week we will look at the Holocaust itself, and how Germany developed the "Final Solution" to the "Jewish Problem".<br />
<em></em><br />Tim Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03356312785710931717noreply@blogger.com0