Ages ago I wrote two blogs entitled Love 1: Brandy and Love 2: Hosea. I'm fairly sure that I had five of those blogs in mind at the time. I don't remember all five but I do remember the third one and so this is it. Love 3: a sinful woman.
"Jesus is coming." someone shouted as they walked through the sleepy little Judean town.
There was a lot of excitement up ahead and the local prostitute wondered about what was going on. She snuck up quietly as the crowd listened to this man ranting about someone coming to town.
She listened as she heard Jesus' name mentioned. Even ladies of the night had heard of Jesus in these parts. He was like this rogue Rabbi that the other teachers of the law seemed to not get on with... more importantly: He was a miracle worker, healer, speaker of the Words of God and forgiver of sins.
Some even think He is the Christ, she thought to herself, I would love to see Him. He would never want to see me though.
As she walked on alone, away from the crowd, downcast because a Rabbi would never be interested in seeing a person like her; she reflected on her life.
She was to be married once, to a nice boy from the next village over. At least that is what her father told her he was. The other family changed it's mind and she ended up on her own. A woman in Israel alone had two ways to make money. The first was to beg as the widows did. She was no beggar though and would not stoop to such practices. The other was to enter a life of prostitution.
This was the life she was consigned to choose. She had no other option. It was the most dangerous of lives. If she was caught she would surely be stoned to death. Everything she did she had to do carefully in the black of night and in secret. She never used her name. Most people in the village didn't even know her name. It wasn't all that important anyway she wanted to keep her head down and get on with things. They knew her simply as 'the prostitute' in this town. She didn't matter to them. She didn't matter to anyone.
She had been saving some money up. She hoped it would help her to escape from the life she had gotten herself into. She knew something more precious than that money was in town today though and ran to fetch the money. Buying a jar of perfume that cost all the money she had she took it to Simon, the Pharisee's house, for she heard that it was there that Jesus would be eating that day.
When she got there the fear welled up again. Would she be allowed to see Him? Would He even want to see her? Would she leave here rejected as she had been many other times in her life?
She made it into the house and saw Him seated there at the table of the Pharisee's house. She stood behind Him and began to weep as she recalled all the things she had done in her life. Met with this man's presence she was overwhelmed by how imperfect she was.
She got on her knees and began wiping Jesus' feet with her hair, washing them with her tears. Then she kissed those same feet and anointed them with the expensive perfume she had bought.
Up until now she had been able to ignore the dissenters. There had been people gasping at what she was doing, and at her very presence in the room.
She could not ignore what Simon, the Pharisee said: "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner."
Apparently Jesus couldn't ignore Simon's comment either and came both to her defence and to explain how things worked to the teacher.
"A certain money-lender had two debtors," Jesus began, "One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?"
Simon answered with the one that had the greater debt cancelled and Jesus replied, "you have judged rightly."
Then Jesus turned to her. This was the first time He had looked at her and she looked at Him. Their eyes met. The holiest being on earth and the most sinful, as she thought of herself. There was overwhelming love there and it moved her again. It was pure love, it was perfect love, it was complete love.
Jesus kept looking at her but said to Simon: "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little."
Then He spoke to her... "Your sins are forgiven."
She knew He meant it, she knew she was forgiven. She knew that God no longer counted all the things she had done against her.
Somewhere in the middle of this overwhelming array of feelings she noticed more grumbling. It was different this time. For the first time in her life the grumbling was not about her.
She was shocked to discover this for she believed the Pharisee and his guests would be talking about her. Who they were talking about shocked her even more.
"Who is this, who even forgives sins?" they were mumbling among themselves.
Jesus completely ignored what they were saying, "your faith has saved you; go in peace." He said to her.
She left the room a different person than the person who had entered not too long before. She had met love personified. She had met her Saviour and she would not stop telling people about Him as long as she had the breath to.
I don't know if this is exactly how things happened in her story but to my heart and mind it makes sense.
Saturday, 13 July 2013
TotD: Gay 2- Is there such thing as a gay person?
I retitled the section of blogs to be 'gay' instead of 'homosexual' so I can post the links and access the post myself. This is not a change that intends to offend it is simply one of convenience. Again this post focuses mainly on male homosexuality.
I don't know if you know much/anything about gay culture, as it is known. The bits we see are Pride Parades and gay bars, which are seemingly bright, colourful and happy in appearance.
If one is to dig a little deeper one can find a different story.
As mentioned in the previous blog homosexuality (if not genetic as would appear to be the case these days) is caused, at least to some degree, by a sexual encounter that should not have occurred.
'A Guy Who Was Gay's author said that it was when he saw a pornographic magazine in a bin that his homosexual attraction was born. Another story I have read involved sexual abuse from an older man and the younger man went on to have sexual relationships with older men... similar stories exist with abuse involving a skinny coloured man, best friend, butch blond guy and long black haired slightly older man. In each case the sexual abuse led the person abused to have homosexual feelings towards the a similar person as their abuser.
I do not know how widespread those ideas are but I have read them in Christian works, psychological works, articles on homosexuality, and from women's magazines. This seems widespread enough to me to make me believe that there is a possible connection between abuse/rape victims and homosexual tendencies.
I no longer recall the title of a book I read when I was 14-15 but it was one of two I was reading on psychology at the time (I wanted to be a counsellor in those days). The book was a secular look on some psychological issues had been dealt with by the particular counsellor writing. It contained a lot of material I was probably too young to read but I, even at the time, was impacted by the writers views on homosexuality.
She started off by saying that when a younger person came to her and confessed to being gay she would encourage them that such a thing was perfectly natural and that it should be embraced and held on to.
A number of patients, I believe it was three, were sent back to her and after a lot of discussion she revealed that she discovered the three boys had also been sexually abused by men or had a sexual experience involving men or images of men that they should not have had and did not choose to have. She said that on counselling them two of the three came to terms with what had happened to them and began to get on with their lives and that, after a year or two, the homosexual tendencies they had been displaying began to disappear.
The Christian book, as I recall, said a lot about what causes it and how it is wrong whatever causes it and offered suggestions that an overbearing mother could cause her son to be gay and a distant father coupled with a very affectionate mother (but who was otherwise unfeeling) could cause it in daughters.
Recently in IBI we were talking about people suffering from depression and how we should see them as people and not depressed people. In the same way as we should see people who sin in any way as people who sin not as sin people... e.g. the one who sleeps around isn't a promiscuous person they are a person who is stuck in sexual sin or a person who has murdered someone isn't a murderer but a person who has unlawfully killed someone. There are still people there. Similarly a man who has romantic feelings/lustful feelings (more accurately) for another man is not a gay man but is a man who has homosexual tendencies.
Often Christians will throw words such as 'lifestyle choice' around when it comes to homosexuality and many of us will admit that we believe homosexuality is more a choice than it is something people are born with. The thing about gay culture is that it has given birth to this myth, which has infected society, that people are gay and that is that. Therefore when a Christian says homosexuality is a choice, or anything close to that, expect the person suffering from homosexuality you are talking to to turn off and not listen anymore.
Though there are elements of choice involved it is something that is very deep inside them and needs to be dealt with sensitively, carefully and lovingly.
The big trap that many young people who feel as if they might be gay is that when they ask questions they are told that they are and that's who they are and to get on with life they need to embrace that part of themselves and make it part of their identities.
I don't know if you have ever been in a conversation where a person randomly tells you they are gay (when it wasn't even close to the topic of discussion, they just felt the need for you to know). I have had that experience a couple of times. It reminds me of Christians who cannot but help talk about Christ because He is (or at least should be) such an integral part of our identity.
As Christians our identity is Christ, as people our identity should be in Christ. It always makes me sad when you see people call themselves Gay Christians... Firstly because it's an oxymoron and secondly because it isn't Christian Gays, the thing that comes first is gay and Christ comes after.
Ok so here is the point of this blog: The idea that a person is gay is a myth!
If you want to talk to a gay person about their life and direction you need to ignore their choices and talk about their identity. What is it in? What do they live for?
Christ offers so much more than gay culture, promiscuity and the possible eventuality of having a partner (which is a whole other issue because often these break up when the guys run off with much younger guys because their feelings are based on lust... that's not all cases but there are some I have heard of)
Christ offers so much more!
"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."
(Genesis 1:27 ESV)
If you have questions on this blog, or any of my other blogs, and want to ask a question about it you can do so anonymously by clicking (or copying and pasting if it doesn't appear as a link) the following url http://ask.fm/Wavey1111
Go mbeannaí Dia dhuit mo chairde.
I don't know if you know much/anything about gay culture, as it is known. The bits we see are Pride Parades and gay bars, which are seemingly bright, colourful and happy in appearance.
If one is to dig a little deeper one can find a different story.
As mentioned in the previous blog homosexuality (if not genetic as would appear to be the case these days) is caused, at least to some degree, by a sexual encounter that should not have occurred.
'A Guy Who Was Gay's author said that it was when he saw a pornographic magazine in a bin that his homosexual attraction was born. Another story I have read involved sexual abuse from an older man and the younger man went on to have sexual relationships with older men... similar stories exist with abuse involving a skinny coloured man, best friend, butch blond guy and long black haired slightly older man. In each case the sexual abuse led the person abused to have homosexual feelings towards the a similar person as their abuser.
I do not know how widespread those ideas are but I have read them in Christian works, psychological works, articles on homosexuality, and from women's magazines. This seems widespread enough to me to make me believe that there is a possible connection between abuse/rape victims and homosexual tendencies.
I no longer recall the title of a book I read when I was 14-15 but it was one of two I was reading on psychology at the time (I wanted to be a counsellor in those days). The book was a secular look on some psychological issues had been dealt with by the particular counsellor writing. It contained a lot of material I was probably too young to read but I, even at the time, was impacted by the writers views on homosexuality.
She started off by saying that when a younger person came to her and confessed to being gay she would encourage them that such a thing was perfectly natural and that it should be embraced and held on to.
A number of patients, I believe it was three, were sent back to her and after a lot of discussion she revealed that she discovered the three boys had also been sexually abused by men or had a sexual experience involving men or images of men that they should not have had and did not choose to have. She said that on counselling them two of the three came to terms with what had happened to them and began to get on with their lives and that, after a year or two, the homosexual tendencies they had been displaying began to disappear.
The Christian book, as I recall, said a lot about what causes it and how it is wrong whatever causes it and offered suggestions that an overbearing mother could cause her son to be gay and a distant father coupled with a very affectionate mother (but who was otherwise unfeeling) could cause it in daughters.
Recently in IBI we were talking about people suffering from depression and how we should see them as people and not depressed people. In the same way as we should see people who sin in any way as people who sin not as sin people... e.g. the one who sleeps around isn't a promiscuous person they are a person who is stuck in sexual sin or a person who has murdered someone isn't a murderer but a person who has unlawfully killed someone. There are still people there. Similarly a man who has romantic feelings/lustful feelings (more accurately) for another man is not a gay man but is a man who has homosexual tendencies.
Often Christians will throw words such as 'lifestyle choice' around when it comes to homosexuality and many of us will admit that we believe homosexuality is more a choice than it is something people are born with. The thing about gay culture is that it has given birth to this myth, which has infected society, that people are gay and that is that. Therefore when a Christian says homosexuality is a choice, or anything close to that, expect the person suffering from homosexuality you are talking to to turn off and not listen anymore.
Though there are elements of choice involved it is something that is very deep inside them and needs to be dealt with sensitively, carefully and lovingly.
The big trap that many young people who feel as if they might be gay is that when they ask questions they are told that they are and that's who they are and to get on with life they need to embrace that part of themselves and make it part of their identities.
I don't know if you have ever been in a conversation where a person randomly tells you they are gay (when it wasn't even close to the topic of discussion, they just felt the need for you to know). I have had that experience a couple of times. It reminds me of Christians who cannot but help talk about Christ because He is (or at least should be) such an integral part of our identity.
As Christians our identity is Christ, as people our identity should be in Christ. It always makes me sad when you see people call themselves Gay Christians... Firstly because it's an oxymoron and secondly because it isn't Christian Gays, the thing that comes first is gay and Christ comes after.
Ok so here is the point of this blog: The idea that a person is gay is a myth!
If you want to talk to a gay person about their life and direction you need to ignore their choices and talk about their identity. What is it in? What do they live for?
Christ offers so much more than gay culture, promiscuity and the possible eventuality of having a partner (which is a whole other issue because often these break up when the guys run off with much younger guys because their feelings are based on lust... that's not all cases but there are some I have heard of)
Christ offers so much more!
"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."
(Genesis 1:27 ESV)
If you have questions on this blog, or any of my other blogs, and want to ask a question about it you can do so anonymously by clicking (or copying and pasting if it doesn't appear as a link) the following url http://ask.fm/Wavey1111
Go mbeannaí Dia dhuit mo chairde.
Wednesday, 10 July 2013
TotD: Homosexuality 1, Can it Change?
Just to say from the outset that this is a Christian article looking at homosexuality that is attempting to see biblical principles with what is happening around us in the world, in terms of homosexuality, today. It will largely deal with male homosexuality as that is what is most extensively written about.
What we see today:
Lady Gaga's song "Born This Way" has come to be a placard of the idea that God makes people LGBT and that they are therefore 'born this way'. Some lyrics from this song include the lines: "There's nothing wrong with loving who you are she said (Gaga's mother), 'Because He made you perfect babe..." and "Cause baby, you were born this way. No matter gay, straight or bi, Lesbian, transgendered life, I'm on the right track baby..."
Similarly, scientists have invested large amounts of time attempting to discover what they have titled 'the gay gene'. The implication of all these things are that homosexuality is a result of birth and therefore is eternal, part of your make up and cannot be changed.
If today (10 July 2013) you search for the gay gene you will find many many pages about how it doesn't exist. Science has decided it isn't real. The thing they are looking for now is shifting DNA from mother to son, father to daughter that could explain homosexual tendencies. (Genetic switches)
Santa Barbara University, Cali and Uppsala in Sweden have declared "Sexual orientation has nothing to do with genetics."
Yet this idea that it is in inbuilt into people in the post-modern period.
This idea has some obvious implications. One such is that homosexuality cannot change.
This idea has seeped into the Church with organisations such as True Freedom Trust (the UK/Ireland Christian Organisation involved in ministering to homosexual people of faith), the Anglican Communion (at least in the Western World) and now Exodus International (Reduce Fear) becoming accepting that there can be such thing as a 'gay Christian'.
Really 'born that way?"
In studies done into sets of identical twins it was found that in 50% of cases a gay twin had a gay twin. Now in identical twins, if they were born that way by some gene or genetic switch, one would expect the results to be much closer to 100% not half and half. (Half and half seems like a cop-out from the researchers to me anyway).
However, if you have identical twins what is the likelihood that both of their environments will be the same. Often you will see parents of twins dressing, treating them, talking to them, doing the same things with them. Also twins have the increased likelihood of sharing experiences with one another.
The other theory out there that talks of the origins of homosexuality talks about the environment of the child. One with homosexual tendencies could read this thinking 'but my sibling doesn't...' How alike were both of you treated? The exact same? You had the same friends? The same experiences? Learned about sex the same time? How?
No two people share the same environment exactly. With identical twins the environments are much more alike and that could account for the 50% chance that an identical twin who has homosexual feelings and tendencies also has a twin who does.
"At the present time there has been no definitive evidence presented to establish a biological cause for homosexuality despite what the popular press may say. No gay gene has been discovered, and there are no posited biological pathways to explain how such a gene or genes may work even if they did exist." - Dr. Trevor Hunter (quoted in What Some of You Were, Mattias Media, 2001)
The Bible on 'gay Christians':
To be this is the same thing as saying you can be a Murdering Christian or an adulterous Christian.
Homosexuality appears a number of times in the Bible on a list of sins (in Leviticus with other sexual sins and in Romans and Corinthians with other sins more generally).
The Corinthians passage is an interesting one though, and one which I wish to quote in full here: " Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV) Here Paul is specifically referring to male homosexual acts but in Romans he refers to male and female acts and desires: "For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:26-27 ESV)
What I want you to note from those two passages is highlighted.
So the biblical principles here seem to run completely the opposite to the ideas of the modern age. TFT and Exodus say that it is fine to be a gay Christian as long as it is not acted on.
Romans seems to disagree with them. They also say that same sex attraction (SSA) is given by God and cannot change, which 1 Corinthians would appear to disagree with.
Change?
There actually is evidence for change. There are books written by people who were once homosexual and in committed homosexual relationships. One such book is "A Guy who was Gay" another is "What some of you were". Exodus International, back when it was an ex-gay, reparative therapy movement, had many articles about people being changed. Christianity Today recently included two stories of people who were gay/lesbian and no longer are (christianitytoday.com)
There is evidence out there calling out against the voices of society today that say things such as people are born gay. In the UK, and probably other countries, they have begun this practice which locates young people, as young as 4, that may be showing homosexual tendencies (a boy playing with Barbie in pre-school). The teachers are then expected to help the child to realise and embrace/move in the direction their sexuality appears to be pointing them. I think it's funny that in that environment governments are making it illegal to point minors in the opposite direction and if they show homosexual behaviour you cannot offer them help to change.
The Alternative:
The alternative to change is being a gay Christian, or a Christian living with homosexual tendencies.
"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:1)
We all have to live with the mistakes of our past. We will all have to struggle with the sins that once bound us. However, the continuation of homosexual tendencies appears to be a cop-out.
I mean no disrespect to Alan Chambers and Jonathan Berry and the countless others who are homosexual but also Christian and have asked God to take it away countless times in what I am saying here. I cannot understand their situation. I only hope and pray that God will continue the good work He has started and see it unto completion.
The Church of England, and other groups, claim homosexuality is okay as long as it is not manifested in actions. The claim is then that attraction to a person of the same sex is okay. In fact the CoE goes as far as to say that a Civil Union with a member of the same sex is okay as long as there is no sex involved.
They say that homosexual feelings are God-given... I wish to ask what exactly is defined as homosexual feelings? Heterosexual guys, although they would be slow to admit it, will recognise things such as muscles etc of other men. Then is a homosexual feeling not when a man, for instance, looks at another man and imagines kissing him, sleeping with him, being involved in a sexual relationship with him?
How can someone who holds to the testimony of Scripture attest that such feelings would be okay when Jesus Himself said, "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)
Now one may put forward the argument that this specifically says women. Many commentators say that this command is not restrictive to just those in a married relationship but also applies to those who are single. This is not to say that noticing a woman, or man, is good looking is a sin, but to think of sleeping with them is.
If this can apply to married and unmarried men it stands to reason that the women in the verse is interchangeable as well. Jesus spoke into His context in which homosexuality was not prevalent as Jewish society and law forbade it anyway.
I cannot reconcile the Scriptures with the idea that continued and uncontrolled homosexual feelings are not sinful.
"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
(Philippians 4:8 ESV)
"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..."
(2 Corinthians 10:5 ESV)
How to change?
This is the hardest of all the topics possible subsections.
I understand people still stuck in experiences of SSA have cried to God long into the night and the next morning and every night after that until right now and nothing has happened. I feel the desire to say only God, and truly repenting, relying on and giving all to Him will make you change. I believe that from the bottom of my heart. All the stories I have read and experienced have a point where the person realises it's all about God and submit to Him and commit all their lives to Him.
However, if homosexuality isn't from nature it is from nurture. The stories of lives changed have recognised an event that led them to begin a life of homosexuality. From seeing male porn magazines in the bin at the age of seven to being abused sexually at a young age.
Interestingly the people people struggling with homosexuality tend to be attracted to are people who look, act, or have the same or a similar position in their lives as the person/thing that first activated the homosexuality.
In order to be truly free from homosexual tendencies the event that began it all needs to be identified and dealt with: spiritually, mentally, emotionally and possibly physically. Forgiveness will be a big part of this, especially for those who were abused, if you cannot let go of your hurt and forgive how can you let go of your sexuality and desires?
This may require professional counselling to get past.
Either way I think this should certainly be an avenue explored before the person just accepts their lot and labels themselves as a gay Christian, Christian who is gay or Christian who struggles with life long homosexual tendencies. I cannot see how a Christian could think it is okay to have gay feelings and accept it when the Bible says it can change and that lust is wrong. I would search and search and search continuously until it was sorted, not become resigned to my circumstances.
What we see today:
Lady Gaga's song "Born This Way" has come to be a placard of the idea that God makes people LGBT and that they are therefore 'born this way'. Some lyrics from this song include the lines: "There's nothing wrong with loving who you are she said (Gaga's mother), 'Because He made you perfect babe..." and "Cause baby, you were born this way. No matter gay, straight or bi, Lesbian, transgendered life, I'm on the right track baby..."
Similarly, scientists have invested large amounts of time attempting to discover what they have titled 'the gay gene'. The implication of all these things are that homosexuality is a result of birth and therefore is eternal, part of your make up and cannot be changed.
If today (10 July 2013) you search for the gay gene you will find many many pages about how it doesn't exist. Science has decided it isn't real. The thing they are looking for now is shifting DNA from mother to son, father to daughter that could explain homosexual tendencies. (Genetic switches)
Santa Barbara University, Cali and Uppsala in Sweden have declared "Sexual orientation has nothing to do with genetics."
Yet this idea that it is in inbuilt into people in the post-modern period.
This idea has some obvious implications. One such is that homosexuality cannot change.
This idea has seeped into the Church with organisations such as True Freedom Trust (the UK/Ireland Christian Organisation involved in ministering to homosexual people of faith), the Anglican Communion (at least in the Western World) and now Exodus International (Reduce Fear) becoming accepting that there can be such thing as a 'gay Christian'.
Really 'born that way?"
In studies done into sets of identical twins it was found that in 50% of cases a gay twin had a gay twin. Now in identical twins, if they were born that way by some gene or genetic switch, one would expect the results to be much closer to 100% not half and half. (Half and half seems like a cop-out from the researchers to me anyway).
However, if you have identical twins what is the likelihood that both of their environments will be the same. Often you will see parents of twins dressing, treating them, talking to them, doing the same things with them. Also twins have the increased likelihood of sharing experiences with one another.
The other theory out there that talks of the origins of homosexuality talks about the environment of the child. One with homosexual tendencies could read this thinking 'but my sibling doesn't...' How alike were both of you treated? The exact same? You had the same friends? The same experiences? Learned about sex the same time? How?
No two people share the same environment exactly. With identical twins the environments are much more alike and that could account for the 50% chance that an identical twin who has homosexual feelings and tendencies also has a twin who does.
"At the present time there has been no definitive evidence presented to establish a biological cause for homosexuality despite what the popular press may say. No gay gene has been discovered, and there are no posited biological pathways to explain how such a gene or genes may work even if they did exist." - Dr. Trevor Hunter (quoted in What Some of You Were, Mattias Media, 2001)
The Bible on 'gay Christians':
To be this is the same thing as saying you can be a Murdering Christian or an adulterous Christian.
Homosexuality appears a number of times in the Bible on a list of sins (in Leviticus with other sexual sins and in Romans and Corinthians with other sins more generally).
The Corinthians passage is an interesting one though, and one which I wish to quote in full here: " Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV) Here Paul is specifically referring to male homosexual acts but in Romans he refers to male and female acts and desires: "For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:26-27 ESV)
What I want you to note from those two passages is highlighted.
So the biblical principles here seem to run completely the opposite to the ideas of the modern age. TFT and Exodus say that it is fine to be a gay Christian as long as it is not acted on.
Romans seems to disagree with them. They also say that same sex attraction (SSA) is given by God and cannot change, which 1 Corinthians would appear to disagree with.
Change?
There actually is evidence for change. There are books written by people who were once homosexual and in committed homosexual relationships. One such book is "A Guy who was Gay" another is "What some of you were". Exodus International, back when it was an ex-gay, reparative therapy movement, had many articles about people being changed. Christianity Today recently included two stories of people who were gay/lesbian and no longer are (christianitytoday.com)
There is evidence out there calling out against the voices of society today that say things such as people are born gay. In the UK, and probably other countries, they have begun this practice which locates young people, as young as 4, that may be showing homosexual tendencies (a boy playing with Barbie in pre-school). The teachers are then expected to help the child to realise and embrace/move in the direction their sexuality appears to be pointing them. I think it's funny that in that environment governments are making it illegal to point minors in the opposite direction and if they show homosexual behaviour you cannot offer them help to change.
The Alternative:
The alternative to change is being a gay Christian, or a Christian living with homosexual tendencies.
"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:1)
We all have to live with the mistakes of our past. We will all have to struggle with the sins that once bound us. However, the continuation of homosexual tendencies appears to be a cop-out.
I mean no disrespect to Alan Chambers and Jonathan Berry and the countless others who are homosexual but also Christian and have asked God to take it away countless times in what I am saying here. I cannot understand their situation. I only hope and pray that God will continue the good work He has started and see it unto completion.
The Church of England, and other groups, claim homosexuality is okay as long as it is not manifested in actions. The claim is then that attraction to a person of the same sex is okay. In fact the CoE goes as far as to say that a Civil Union with a member of the same sex is okay as long as there is no sex involved.
They say that homosexual feelings are God-given... I wish to ask what exactly is defined as homosexual feelings? Heterosexual guys, although they would be slow to admit it, will recognise things such as muscles etc of other men. Then is a homosexual feeling not when a man, for instance, looks at another man and imagines kissing him, sleeping with him, being involved in a sexual relationship with him?
How can someone who holds to the testimony of Scripture attest that such feelings would be okay when Jesus Himself said, "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)
Now one may put forward the argument that this specifically says women. Many commentators say that this command is not restrictive to just those in a married relationship but also applies to those who are single. This is not to say that noticing a woman, or man, is good looking is a sin, but to think of sleeping with them is.
If this can apply to married and unmarried men it stands to reason that the women in the verse is interchangeable as well. Jesus spoke into His context in which homosexuality was not prevalent as Jewish society and law forbade it anyway.
I cannot reconcile the Scriptures with the idea that continued and uncontrolled homosexual feelings are not sinful.
"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
(Philippians 4:8 ESV)
"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..."
(2 Corinthians 10:5 ESV)
How to change?
This is the hardest of all the topics possible subsections.
I understand people still stuck in experiences of SSA have cried to God long into the night and the next morning and every night after that until right now and nothing has happened. I feel the desire to say only God, and truly repenting, relying on and giving all to Him will make you change. I believe that from the bottom of my heart. All the stories I have read and experienced have a point where the person realises it's all about God and submit to Him and commit all their lives to Him.
However, if homosexuality isn't from nature it is from nurture. The stories of lives changed have recognised an event that led them to begin a life of homosexuality. From seeing male porn magazines in the bin at the age of seven to being abused sexually at a young age.
Interestingly the people people struggling with homosexuality tend to be attracted to are people who look, act, or have the same or a similar position in their lives as the person/thing that first activated the homosexuality.
In order to be truly free from homosexual tendencies the event that began it all needs to be identified and dealt with: spiritually, mentally, emotionally and possibly physically. Forgiveness will be a big part of this, especially for those who were abused, if you cannot let go of your hurt and forgive how can you let go of your sexuality and desires?
This may require professional counselling to get past.
Either way I think this should certainly be an avenue explored before the person just accepts their lot and labels themselves as a gay Christian, Christian who is gay or Christian who struggles with life long homosexual tendencies. I cannot see how a Christian could think it is okay to have gay feelings and accept it when the Bible says it can change and that lust is wrong. I would search and search and search continuously until it was sorted, not become resigned to my circumstances.
Saturday, 15 June 2013
TotD: Prophecy 2: God speaking through people.
Normally when I write a blog I write it theoretically. All this stuff comes from the logic in my brain... This one will be different. I want to share with you what God did today. There are some that may perceive this as gossiping, which it is not intended to be. Some people will recognise the alluded to situations but I am trying to keep it as anonymous as possible for it is not my intention to gossip; merely to pass on how amazingly encouraging God has been in the past ten minutes or so...
I have an ask.fm now (found at ask.fm/Wavey1111) and someone posted the question: What is the best thing you have learned this week. I looked at that earlier and I had no answer to it. There was nothing I considered the best thing I learned. So I asked God and went out to buy some lunch and met two Christians... I should have learned which Church they are from.
Anyway they stopped me and one said Wavey, the other said Waves. I know neither of them and I don't think they know me...
The first one, a grey haired gentleman named Doug said God wanted to say something, he had called me Wavey. He talked about how sometimes there are things we do that we need to ask forgiveness for and there are other things that we are accused of, and may have felt we need forgiveness for it, but the things I am being accused of in recent times I am completely innocent of. He said because of salvation God sees me as innocent anyway but of these things I am actually innocent in deeds and feelings.
He mentioned that I have apologised to the person saying the things and that, although relationships-wise it was probably a good thing to do that I shouldn't have apologised. It is he that is to apologise and I have nothing to apologise for.
He said that I and the other people involved on the accused side are doing all the right things but need to rely on Him and trust in Him more.
On the negative side here He said that I, and we, have been lying down and letting these accusations affect us negatively physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. God said, through this man, that we have talked about going on the offensive a lot but never done it and that it is time to start standing up for myself, even if they won't.
The other person, a girl in her twenties I'd say, said that I had been trying to change how I relate to people, specifically the people closest to me. But I felt as if they weren't noticing those changes. She said that God wanted me to know He sees everything I am doing and that He is proud of me and happy with me for doing them. He said it's a long road to me being properly good at relating to people but that I was on the right road...
She also said that He says He misses me, the way I used to be... which she was quick to add was nothing to do with what she previously said, that I used to be more interested in Him and that I needed to remember my first love and not let draining accusations... drain me so much that I am not spending time with Him and becoming like Him.
The other guy finished the conversation by saying He says He loves me endlessly and has such plans for my life but at the moment it's like walking in the grass beside the path but following the path.
Well that's enough honestly for one blog post I think... I just had to share that!
I have an ask.fm now (found at ask.fm/Wavey1111) and someone posted the question: What is the best thing you have learned this week. I looked at that earlier and I had no answer to it. There was nothing I considered the best thing I learned. So I asked God and went out to buy some lunch and met two Christians... I should have learned which Church they are from.
Anyway they stopped me and one said Wavey, the other said Waves. I know neither of them and I don't think they know me...
The first one, a grey haired gentleman named Doug said God wanted to say something, he had called me Wavey. He talked about how sometimes there are things we do that we need to ask forgiveness for and there are other things that we are accused of, and may have felt we need forgiveness for it, but the things I am being accused of in recent times I am completely innocent of. He said because of salvation God sees me as innocent anyway but of these things I am actually innocent in deeds and feelings.
He mentioned that I have apologised to the person saying the things and that, although relationships-wise it was probably a good thing to do that I shouldn't have apologised. It is he that is to apologise and I have nothing to apologise for.
He said that I and the other people involved on the accused side are doing all the right things but need to rely on Him and trust in Him more.
On the negative side here He said that I, and we, have been lying down and letting these accusations affect us negatively physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. God said, through this man, that we have talked about going on the offensive a lot but never done it and that it is time to start standing up for myself, even if they won't.
The other person, a girl in her twenties I'd say, said that I had been trying to change how I relate to people, specifically the people closest to me. But I felt as if they weren't noticing those changes. She said that God wanted me to know He sees everything I am doing and that He is proud of me and happy with me for doing them. He said it's a long road to me being properly good at relating to people but that I was on the right road...
She also said that He says He misses me, the way I used to be... which she was quick to add was nothing to do with what she previously said, that I used to be more interested in Him and that I needed to remember my first love and not let draining accusations... drain me so much that I am not spending time with Him and becoming like Him.
The other guy finished the conversation by saying He says He loves me endlessly and has such plans for my life but at the moment it's like walking in the grass beside the path but following the path.
Well that's enough honestly for one blog post I think... I just had to share that!
TotD: Running a Country
Reading back over my past few blogs I see a recurring trend that the present method of governing Ireland is failing, at best, or has failed, which I would be more inclined to argue myself.
I have mentioned a new system being needed and I am going to outline what I think should be done on the political scene in Ireland in this blog post.
Over the past two terms of the Dáil we have seen the failure of all the political parties in government.
The PDs and Greens are effectively gone and should stay such. Both parties are a joke anyway. The Progressive Democrats were established to be an alternative to Fianna Fail but ended spending their only time in government with Fianna Fail.
The Greens are sell outs to Fianna Fail, I am happy their party leader resigned before they entered government with them in 2007, that was honourable.
Fianna Fail caused the ruination of this country by mismanagement and inviting the Trioka in.
Fine Gael have done no better than Fianna Fail, traditionally they are the same party anyway so it makes sense no real change would be introduced under their rule.
Labour, my belovéd Labour Party, have broken every promise they made and should bow out now before the Irish public destroys them over the next two general elections and they go the way of the PDs and Greens, as well they deserve.
Sinn Féin, well... we all know who they are... If you are too young to remember I'll give you a three letter hint (IRA) and not the good one from the history books that helped win freedom for this country, the terrorist organisation banned by the Irish government that has made relations between us and the North, and UK more generally, so sour. Bad idea to vote these people in. It's scary that they are the second most popular party in the Dáil according to recent poles and could form a coalition with Fianna Fáil in 2016.
The Socialist Party: enough said... We don't want communism thanks very much and could you imagine Joe Higgins as our dictator? He wouldn't be too bad but still... I like democracy ;)
The other parties are presently too small to make a difference really but there are some to watch.
I propose the abolition of political parties. That sounds Hitler-istic but hear me out.
Under a new governmental system free elections would take place. This means that the main positions in the Dáil would be up for grabs by anyone who wanted to run for them.
In essence An Taoiseach, An Tánaiste and other cabinet members would be voted for directly based on their promises for their ministry. The other Dáil seats with be made up of OTD positions (Ordinary TDs). These OTDs would be the opposition.
Voting styles like we see in the Dáil presently would go and there would be no forced party loyalties.
The Ministry of Finance would run on a different system. It would be made up of the top financial people in the country (the likes of heads of banks, University professors etc) who, as part of their job working in the State) would have to give some of their time towards discussing and preparing a Budget for the government. This committee would decide on how much of the governments funds are put into each department and the minister of this department, who is elected directly by the people, puts the money towards their mandated projects to the best of their capabilities.
Within such a government the office of Taoiseach could be combined with the office of an Uachtarán and thus saving the government 200,000+ Euro a year...
I have mentioned a new system being needed and I am going to outline what I think should be done on the political scene in Ireland in this blog post.
Over the past two terms of the Dáil we have seen the failure of all the political parties in government.
The PDs and Greens are effectively gone and should stay such. Both parties are a joke anyway. The Progressive Democrats were established to be an alternative to Fianna Fail but ended spending their only time in government with Fianna Fail.
The Greens are sell outs to Fianna Fail, I am happy their party leader resigned before they entered government with them in 2007, that was honourable.
Fianna Fail caused the ruination of this country by mismanagement and inviting the Trioka in.
Fine Gael have done no better than Fianna Fail, traditionally they are the same party anyway so it makes sense no real change would be introduced under their rule.
Labour, my belovéd Labour Party, have broken every promise they made and should bow out now before the Irish public destroys them over the next two general elections and they go the way of the PDs and Greens, as well they deserve.
Sinn Féin, well... we all know who they are... If you are too young to remember I'll give you a three letter hint (IRA) and not the good one from the history books that helped win freedom for this country, the terrorist organisation banned by the Irish government that has made relations between us and the North, and UK more generally, so sour. Bad idea to vote these people in. It's scary that they are the second most popular party in the Dáil according to recent poles and could form a coalition with Fianna Fáil in 2016.
The Socialist Party: enough said... We don't want communism thanks very much and could you imagine Joe Higgins as our dictator? He wouldn't be too bad but still... I like democracy ;)
The other parties are presently too small to make a difference really but there are some to watch.
I propose the abolition of political parties. That sounds Hitler-istic but hear me out.
Under a new governmental system free elections would take place. This means that the main positions in the Dáil would be up for grabs by anyone who wanted to run for them.
In essence An Taoiseach, An Tánaiste and other cabinet members would be voted for directly based on their promises for their ministry. The other Dáil seats with be made up of OTD positions (Ordinary TDs). These OTDs would be the opposition.
Voting styles like we see in the Dáil presently would go and there would be no forced party loyalties.
The Ministry of Finance would run on a different system. It would be made up of the top financial people in the country (the likes of heads of banks, University professors etc) who, as part of their job working in the State) would have to give some of their time towards discussing and preparing a Budget for the government. This committee would decide on how much of the governments funds are put into each department and the minister of this department, who is elected directly by the people, puts the money towards their mandated projects to the best of their capabilities.
Within such a government the office of Taoiseach could be combined with the office of an Uachtarán and thus saving the government 200,000+ Euro a year...
TotD: Abortion 3, Can't we be Civil?
This is a third posting on abortion brought on by some of the news articles and facebook postings I've been seeing all over the place about how the debate is taking place.
In my first blog on abortion I mentioned it being interesting in seeing how a debate on abortion being legalised would pan out for a referendum (this is also referenced in the second blog where I added I take it back). I believe, even the current legislation requires a referendum to pass under our constitution (see blog 2). In this blog post I want to adress some of the things happening as this debate rages, literally.
On the pro-life side.
Recently the Taoiseach and other TDs stated that they have been receiving abuse for being supporters of the Abortion legislation.
Pro-Life campaigners have been spitting on TDs, calling to these people's homes at all hours, threatening to slit TDs throats and burn down their homes.
The Taoiseach himself has been in receipt of letters written in blood (some claiming to be the blood of the babies Enda Kenny is allowing to be aborted) and plastic foetuses.
These are not the way to make a political statement, unless you want the opposite of what you are campaigning for to occur. Actions like these will lead those who are on the fence to vote the other way because of how appalled they are by your actions. All that these kind of actions lead to is damage to a pro-life campaign because it makes pro-lifers look insane.
On the Pro-Choice (specifically the actions of the TDs) side.
The right to vote freely in an issue that is of conscience is important. I read this article heading on RTÉ's page and I genuinely thought the article was going to be about how the majority of Dáil parties are stopping their members from freely voting on this legislation under threat of 'party discipline'. The heading was "Dáil hears of widespread intimidation of TDs over abortion legislation." (link: http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0613/456422-abortion-legislation-tds/)
Not allowing free choice in the voting on this legislation is morally wrong. This is an issue of conscience and should be treated as such. It is not an issue of party loyalty.
Having said that there appears to be very few TDs who would vote against the legislation. Most TDs back it. Therefore the government have very little to fear in allowing a free vote as the legislation would pass in the Dáil anyway.
However, in not allowing a free vote it appears that the party leaders are desperate to hold onto control which is more like a totalitarian dictator than it is a democratic process.
TDs represent people in the Dáil. If there was a Labour, Sinn Féin or Fine Gael TD who represented a constituency that was anti this law by the very nature of what a public representative is that TD should be voting no. Not allowing this is ridiculous and possibly even tyrannical in nature.
Also an Independent TD made a point earlier this week I believe that also appeared uncivilised and so it requires attention here. John Halligan, Independent TD for Waterford elected on the 11th count with 10% of the vote, ex mayor of Waterford City made the following statement:
"this organisation (the Roman Catholic Church) has no right to be the State's moral compass and is in no position to lecture anyone on human rights with the Catholic Church's blood-stained history, from pre-Medieval times to the Crusades across Europe and the Middle East... (and the) irreparable damage they have done to human beings, particularly children, across the world." (Article link: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/john-halligan-td-says-church-is-in-no-position-to-lecture-on-rights-1.1428027)
I am in no way saying that I disagree that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has made many, many mistakes. However, these issues are not the topic of debate and bringing them up is just throwing dirt and being petty.
People who give advice on how to handle conflicts and disagreement discussions always tell you it isn't the place to bring up the mistakes of the past because the whole discussion becomes overwhelming and breaks down. This is exactly what this TD has done, and others like him undoubtedly.
Admittedly, I do not know his story, there is a possibility, and unfortunately not an unlikely one, that he or someone he is close to was abused by the church and that is sad. Plus there is loads of pressure from the backlash TDs are receiving from Pro-Life campaigners (see above) which is atrocious too. However, none of that justifies what this man has done and said about the Church. If it was a general statement said outside of any debate it would be fine but to scape goat the RCC like this and make it look bad when the debate has nothing to do with those issues is equally atrocious.
I feel the need to pause the discussion here to reiterate the fact that I agree with Mr Halligan and he is correct in his assessment of the atrocities committed by the Roman Catholic Church and I am not a Catholic, nor do I agree with much of what the Catholic Church does or says. I even agree that is should not be seen as the State's Moral Compass.
The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church clergymen present in Ireland today did not support the 'Nazi' regime in Italy (which was called Fascism by the way, Naziism was in Germany) or take part or endorse the Crusades or take part in the blood staining the TD in question mentioned. There is a possibility that some of them were involved in the abuse of children but not all of them and you cannot tar the entire organisation by the actions of a few. If that were the case the entire Dáil could be written off due to the actions of one TD, which I am sure Mr Halligan would not agree with so why use a different standard for an organisation you Mr Halligan, disagree with than you would use for the organisation you a part of.
In related news:
The Labour Party has finally done something right, possibly the first thing since they fixed minimum wage after the shambles that was the Fianna Fail, Green, 'P.D.' government. The same TD quoted above called on Tánaiste and leader of the Labour Party Eamon Gilmore to condemn the Church for "attempting to intervene in the running of this State."
The Tánaiste responded: "All citizens of the State have every right to state their point of view to government on any issue which is of public importance."
I hope all this back biting can cease and we can just debate the issue without taking personal swipes at people and organisations just to be petty and throw dirt. I am not saying Mr Halligan is the only TD responsible for such actions either, he is just the one that is appearing in the news a lot at the moment.
Debate abortion when you're debating abortion, not everything else.
In my first blog on abortion I mentioned it being interesting in seeing how a debate on abortion being legalised would pan out for a referendum (this is also referenced in the second blog where I added I take it back). I believe, even the current legislation requires a referendum to pass under our constitution (see blog 2). In this blog post I want to adress some of the things happening as this debate rages, literally.
On the pro-life side.
Recently the Taoiseach and other TDs stated that they have been receiving abuse for being supporters of the Abortion legislation.
Pro-Life campaigners have been spitting on TDs, calling to these people's homes at all hours, threatening to slit TDs throats and burn down their homes.
The Taoiseach himself has been in receipt of letters written in blood (some claiming to be the blood of the babies Enda Kenny is allowing to be aborted) and plastic foetuses.
These are not the way to make a political statement, unless you want the opposite of what you are campaigning for to occur. Actions like these will lead those who are on the fence to vote the other way because of how appalled they are by your actions. All that these kind of actions lead to is damage to a pro-life campaign because it makes pro-lifers look insane.
On the Pro-Choice (specifically the actions of the TDs) side.
The right to vote freely in an issue that is of conscience is important. I read this article heading on RTÉ's page and I genuinely thought the article was going to be about how the majority of Dáil parties are stopping their members from freely voting on this legislation under threat of 'party discipline'. The heading was "Dáil hears of widespread intimidation of TDs over abortion legislation." (link: http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0613/456422-abortion-legislation-tds/)
Not allowing free choice in the voting on this legislation is morally wrong. This is an issue of conscience and should be treated as such. It is not an issue of party loyalty.
Having said that there appears to be very few TDs who would vote against the legislation. Most TDs back it. Therefore the government have very little to fear in allowing a free vote as the legislation would pass in the Dáil anyway.
However, in not allowing a free vote it appears that the party leaders are desperate to hold onto control which is more like a totalitarian dictator than it is a democratic process.
TDs represent people in the Dáil. If there was a Labour, Sinn Féin or Fine Gael TD who represented a constituency that was anti this law by the very nature of what a public representative is that TD should be voting no. Not allowing this is ridiculous and possibly even tyrannical in nature.
Also an Independent TD made a point earlier this week I believe that also appeared uncivilised and so it requires attention here. John Halligan, Independent TD for Waterford elected on the 11th count with 10% of the vote, ex mayor of Waterford City made the following statement:
"this organisation (the Roman Catholic Church) has no right to be the State's moral compass and is in no position to lecture anyone on human rights with the Catholic Church's blood-stained history, from pre-Medieval times to the Crusades across Europe and the Middle East... (and the) irreparable damage they have done to human beings, particularly children, across the world." (Article link: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/john-halligan-td-says-church-is-in-no-position-to-lecture-on-rights-1.1428027)
I am in no way saying that I disagree that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has made many, many mistakes. However, these issues are not the topic of debate and bringing them up is just throwing dirt and being petty.
People who give advice on how to handle conflicts and disagreement discussions always tell you it isn't the place to bring up the mistakes of the past because the whole discussion becomes overwhelming and breaks down. This is exactly what this TD has done, and others like him undoubtedly.
Admittedly, I do not know his story, there is a possibility, and unfortunately not an unlikely one, that he or someone he is close to was abused by the church and that is sad. Plus there is loads of pressure from the backlash TDs are receiving from Pro-Life campaigners (see above) which is atrocious too. However, none of that justifies what this man has done and said about the Church. If it was a general statement said outside of any debate it would be fine but to scape goat the RCC like this and make it look bad when the debate has nothing to do with those issues is equally atrocious.
I feel the need to pause the discussion here to reiterate the fact that I agree with Mr Halligan and he is correct in his assessment of the atrocities committed by the Roman Catholic Church and I am not a Catholic, nor do I agree with much of what the Catholic Church does or says. I even agree that is should not be seen as the State's Moral Compass.
The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church clergymen present in Ireland today did not support the 'Nazi' regime in Italy (which was called Fascism by the way, Naziism was in Germany) or take part or endorse the Crusades or take part in the blood staining the TD in question mentioned. There is a possibility that some of them were involved in the abuse of children but not all of them and you cannot tar the entire organisation by the actions of a few. If that were the case the entire Dáil could be written off due to the actions of one TD, which I am sure Mr Halligan would not agree with so why use a different standard for an organisation you Mr Halligan, disagree with than you would use for the organisation you a part of.
In related news:
The Labour Party has finally done something right, possibly the first thing since they fixed minimum wage after the shambles that was the Fianna Fail, Green, 'P.D.' government. The same TD quoted above called on Tánaiste and leader of the Labour Party Eamon Gilmore to condemn the Church for "attempting to intervene in the running of this State."
The Tánaiste responded: "All citizens of the State have every right to state their point of view to government on any issue which is of public importance."
I hope all this back biting can cease and we can just debate the issue without taking personal swipes at people and organisations just to be petty and throw dirt. I am not saying Mr Halligan is the only TD responsible for such actions either, he is just the one that is appearing in the news a lot at the moment.
Debate abortion when you're debating abortion, not everything else.
TotD: Abortion 2 Unconstitutional
A while back I wrote a blog about my view on abortion being made legal in Ireland in a time of change for my personal opinions on it. This is a second blog on that topic because it is coming up a lot again lately. This is only the fourth or fifth piece I have done on current affairs because I generally stay away from them (if you read this in a week it may no longer be relevant) but some things have been annoying me lately and I feel the need to blog about it.
In my last blog on abortion I ended with the idea that it would be interesting to see a referendum campaign on abortion occur throughout Ireland... I take that back!
In the first instance I need to say that I think it is absolutely disgusting that the Dail plans on passing legislation on abortion without a referendum. I believe this to be unconstitutional and I hope it is rejected by the President as such (however, with President Michael D. being a Labour man himself it is extremely unlikely that such a bill would be rejected as unconstitutional by such a president).
In case you were wondering by which article I propose abortion legislation to be unconstitutional it is Article 40.3.3 which states:
"The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."
Now the government are being really sneaky here. With the tragic death of Mrs. Halappanavar the government have made moves to introduce abortion legislation to Ireland under the middle bit of the above statement (with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother).
However, if abortion is legalised under the circumstances that we are talking about how is the right to life 'equal'? If the mother's right to life supersedes the unborn child's right to life we are no longer talking equal.
In one such instance the new legislation proposes to allow abortions if the woman is at risk of suicide due to the pregnancy. The rigmarole they have introduced with this clause (having to see three doctors first) will make it very unlikely that this clause will be enacted legitimately but people who aren't suicidal at all will use it to get rid of their unwanted pregnancies, thus abusing a stupid system in the first place.
The reason I say that it will unlikely be enacted legitimately is owing to the fact that people who feel suicidal often don't come forward as such, when you are hopeless and at the point of ending your life you don't go see three doctors about it.
Now undoubtedly the woman in the situation of genuine suicidal tendencies due to pregnancy has a right to life. However, constitutionally the unborn child has an equal right to life. This means that the State, under her own constitution, needs to protect both people in this situation. We need to provide appropriate care for the mother during, and after, pregnancy and not just offer ridiculous solutions that may provide temporary release but may also cause longer term emotional problems as the woman, who was already emotionally unstable if she was planning to take her own life, will undoubtedly suffer. How is the state looking after her well being then?
On a final note for this particular posting I wish to also highlight that it is even more disgusting that the political parties backing the bill (which I think is all of them) besides Fianna Fail (who are appearing like the best at the moment but are the party that got us into the mess we are in, let's not forget that Ireland) are not allowing free voting on this issue. The Irish political parties are telling their members in the Dail and Seanad Eireann they will be disciplined if they go against the party and vote no for this bill. I don't think anyone has the right to decide how a person, who is supposed to represent other people, who may all be opposed to the bill, how to vote on any Dail legislation.
On a final note, if the bill does pass it would be worthwhile having an alliance of Pro-Life people, including the Roman Catholic Church and other Churches in Ireland should bring the legislation to court on the issue of the equality being enshrined in the constitution. That might at least get a referendum...
In my last blog on abortion I ended with the idea that it would be interesting to see a referendum campaign on abortion occur throughout Ireland... I take that back!
In the first instance I need to say that I think it is absolutely disgusting that the Dail plans on passing legislation on abortion without a referendum. I believe this to be unconstitutional and I hope it is rejected by the President as such (however, with President Michael D. being a Labour man himself it is extremely unlikely that such a bill would be rejected as unconstitutional by such a president).
In case you were wondering by which article I propose abortion legislation to be unconstitutional it is Article 40.3.3 which states:
"The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."
Now the government are being really sneaky here. With the tragic death of Mrs. Halappanavar the government have made moves to introduce abortion legislation to Ireland under the middle bit of the above statement (with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother).
However, if abortion is legalised under the circumstances that we are talking about how is the right to life 'equal'? If the mother's right to life supersedes the unborn child's right to life we are no longer talking equal.
In one such instance the new legislation proposes to allow abortions if the woman is at risk of suicide due to the pregnancy. The rigmarole they have introduced with this clause (having to see three doctors first) will make it very unlikely that this clause will be enacted legitimately but people who aren't suicidal at all will use it to get rid of their unwanted pregnancies, thus abusing a stupid system in the first place.
The reason I say that it will unlikely be enacted legitimately is owing to the fact that people who feel suicidal often don't come forward as such, when you are hopeless and at the point of ending your life you don't go see three doctors about it.
Now undoubtedly the woman in the situation of genuine suicidal tendencies due to pregnancy has a right to life. However, constitutionally the unborn child has an equal right to life. This means that the State, under her own constitution, needs to protect both people in this situation. We need to provide appropriate care for the mother during, and after, pregnancy and not just offer ridiculous solutions that may provide temporary release but may also cause longer term emotional problems as the woman, who was already emotionally unstable if she was planning to take her own life, will undoubtedly suffer. How is the state looking after her well being then?
On a final note for this particular posting I wish to also highlight that it is even more disgusting that the political parties backing the bill (which I think is all of them) besides Fianna Fail (who are appearing like the best at the moment but are the party that got us into the mess we are in, let's not forget that Ireland) are not allowing free voting on this issue. The Irish political parties are telling their members in the Dail and Seanad Eireann they will be disciplined if they go against the party and vote no for this bill. I don't think anyone has the right to decide how a person, who is supposed to represent other people, who may all be opposed to the bill, how to vote on any Dail legislation.
On a final note, if the bill does pass it would be worthwhile having an alliance of Pro-Life people, including the Roman Catholic Church and other Churches in Ireland should bring the legislation to court on the issue of the equality being enshrined in the constitution. That might at least get a referendum...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)