10 January, 2011

Tiny broken hearts « Friar Rick's Blog

Add to this article the news that in excess of 40% of all pregnancies in New York end with an abortion, and it becomes clear just how rooted the 'culture of death' has become in our western society. These stories do not discourage believers, but it does add to our conviction that we must redouble our efforts to help people come to see that in the opinion of Christians (as supported by science and genetics - it's not often we can claim science on our side!) that life begins at conception and deserves the protection of human rights.


I point out too that this type of story should bring feminists into the pro-life camp as once again we see gender selection working against the birth of females in favor of males. We need only look to the demographic horror that has unfolded in China where its 'one child only' policy has led to a dramatic unbalancing of the gender of their population with way too many males and not enough females. We DO NOT want to walk that path as it will lead to massive problems down the road for us as well.

Tiny broken hearts « Friar Rick's Blog

33 comments:

  1. People forget that a child is a gift from God given to them to nurture and protect and, as parents, lead them back to God. I do not understand how , as a parent, you could EVER choose 1 child over another...we need to pray that we will all have rightly formed consciences and generous hearts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is not only feminists who should come into the pro-life camp, but how Atheists, who claim to be "clear thinking". Let’s see your clear thinking in action!

    Cliff

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anon:
    "It is not only feminists who should come into the pro-life camp, but how Atheists, who claim to be "clear thinking". Let’s see your clear thinking in action!"

    Ok, I'll ask a question, then, as an atheist presumably ignorant of the finer points of doctrine:
    What happens to an aborted fetus' soul?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Ok, I'll ask a question, then, as an atheist presumably ignorant of the finer points of doctrine:
    What happens to an aborted fetus' soul? "

    Good question!

    Let me guess? It is a mystery, right!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nope. No mystery at all. The souls of those children have never had the opportunity to either sin or be baptized. They are with God in heaven.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good answer Father Tim!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Now that your question has been answered ANRI, can you and will you answer my question?

    Cliff

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fr. Tim said: "Nope. No mystery at all. The souls of those children have never had the opportunity to either sin or be baptized. They are with God in heaven."

    How do you know Father it is only a belief unless you got a revelation from God, Him or Herself?

    Why did it take so long to get rid of Limbo then?

    Ireland have many unmarked graves of babies that died without being baptized because of Limbo.

    Now that is no mystery.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Larry Green13 January, 2011

    We are conceived with the stain of original sin.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Larry: Yes, and that is true for fetuses who are aborted as well. But we were born and given the new birth of baptism. Through a sinful act committed upon them, these victims of abortion were not granted the opportunity for them to be baptized. Do you honestly believe that God would deny paradise to these nascent beings simply because they were denied baptism be reason of being the victim of a sin? I don't believe that you would hold such position because you know that even though God's human face (the Church) might be ugly to behold, He himself is perfect love and charity. He would not punish such innocents no matter how they were conceived.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  11. Larry Green13 January, 2011

    Tim: You said “Larry: Yes, and that is true for fetuses who are aborted as well. But we were born and given the new birth of baptism. Through a sinful act committed upon them, these victims of abortion were not granted the opportunity for them to be baptized. “
    These propositions do not hold the same conviction and certitude as in your prior conviction “
    Nope. No mystery at all.”

    The ‘straw man’ doesn’t help at all.
    God’s human face is inseparable from God Himself and therefore, by virtue of definition “ ugly to behold “ can’t be said of His human face. I believe that the church is the temple of God but He so much easier to find in the middle of the most stench-filled dump.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It is a belief system the good Father holds as well as so many others.

    They are just repeating what they were told by the Church. It is taught to them in most cases by their family members also. One does need to remember learning all these dogmas & rules by repeating over & over until it is so part of their brain that there is no room to even think of other possibility may be possible.

    It all depends on the individual interpretation of scriptures. You can have 10 people read a scripture verse & they will give their own interpretation of that verse. Base on historic facts, language used, what God/god told them personally, etc..

    In this case the only gender that seems to call the shots here are the males.

    Very interesting?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Larry: Forgive me for it has been a tiring day, but please tell me again what it is you are saying in your last post. I don't understand your objection.

    I state that the Church, the Bride of Christ, has rendered herself ugly through sin, but that God is love, forgiveness and would not deny these souls paradise. No straw man intended nor present!

    I state that I know you to be a man of good heart. No insult of any sort intended yet you choose to take insult.

    You seem to be having a bad day. Sorry if I made it worse.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  14. Larry Green13 January, 2011

    Anoymous:
    What is the speed of light ?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Larry Green13 January, 2011

    You have it all wrong again Tim.
    No insult taken at all.It seems you may be projecting again.I am really having a great day and I feel great.
    Read it over tomorrow when your fresh.
    Leave your revised version out of it , your making a mess with it , I hope for your sake not intentionaly.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Larry Green13 January, 2011

    Tim :
    See if you can find how many ungrounded assumptions you have drawn about me.I'll give you a clue.
    There are several.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "The Romish doctrine was so horrible and so unacceptable to the laity that it was necessary to invent a third realm, the Limus Infantum, to which unbaptized infants are sent, in which they are excluded from heaven but in which they suffer no positive pain. The ecumenical councils of Lyons and Florence and the canons of the Council of Trent declare positively that unbaptized infants are confined to othis realm. The primary purpose of the Church of Rome in excluding unbaptized infants from heaven is to force parents to commit their children to her as soon as possible. The long range plan is to bring all people into subjection to her, to put her stamp of ownership on every person possible." Loraine Boettner -Roman Catholicism.

    I am not sure if this is still the doctrine of Rome for unbaptized babies. Maybe Tim knows.

    It is possible Rome may have dropped this doctrine of Limbus Infantum (Limbo) since this was written. It would certainly not be very acceptable to the laity, particularly with regard to the aborted babies who were not baptized. But Rome has claimed to be an infallible church for some time. So I am not sure how they manage to change doctrines like that and still claim to be infallible. It would require soome mental gynastics.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Larry: Thank you for your understanding. Good night.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  19. Larry: Fresh from a good nights sleep I took your advice and reviewed our dialogue in the thread and I see your point. In my defense, all of the assumptions I made were not groundless for all of them were based upon the innocence of unborn children, and the goodness of God and you!

    Nevertheless, I got confused between different posters and we got off on a confusing conversation. I was glad though to hear you are in good form and humor. That is how I remember you from my days at the Cathedral and it's good to see that it continues.

    Have a great day today!

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  20. Larry Green14 January, 2011

    Tim: Home on early lunch. Good to hear this from you.
    I enjoy participating in this blog of yours , it sure is stimulating and really is fun.
    Given the fact that neither you or I have any desire to water down what we perceive to be the truth , we will have encounters which will lead to ‘ dropping the gloves to the ice’ but so what , that’s who we are.
    You have a great day too.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Tim,

    I think the reason aborted babies would go to heaven would be God's grace in election. You said they never did sin, but you perhaps forgot the doctrine of original sin from the fall of Adam and Eve still applies. However, God's grace in election, would likely apply to them, just as it does to everyone else who are the elect. They still have the sinful nature, but may be redeemed by the blood of Christ, just as any other one of God's elect who were born into the world. The reason for this hope is because Jesus said suffer little children to come unto me for such is the kingdom of heaven. Have a great day.

    ReplyDelete
  22. STG: I didn't forget the doctrine of original sin. I acknowledged it in one of these comments. As to your use of the term 'grace in election', I completely agree. NO ONE CONCEIVED is without need of the redemption won for us by the blood of Christ, even these pre-born children. The glory is that Christ redeemed all through his one perfect sacrifice so most assuredly these little souls are in heaven.

    Hope your day goes well too!

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Tim,

    With respect to "original sin", I wonder how you can view it as a cogent doctrine?

    If God is truly just and loving, how can God subscribe to a version of justice that holds the innocent guilty for the sins of others?

    Does that not seem rather primitive and retrograde to you?

    After all, if I could be tried and convicted in an earthly court for a crime committed solely by my father, in what sense would we ever regard that earthly court as being "just"?

    And if you answer that God's justice is beyond our human ability to understand, then in what way is it even possible to have a meaningful relationship with a being who is utterly incomprehensible and foreign to us? Why even bother?

    If we are "created in his image" does this not imply that there is some common ground between the "created" and the "creator"? If so, how can the creator be so alien to us?

    Lastly, God is allegedly the architect of his own moral order. Why create a moral order that incorporates "original sin" when it is unnecessary to the concept of "free will"?

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  24. The atheists sure can stick handle around a question without giving a legitimate answer.

    Cliff

    ReplyDelete
  25. Larry Green15 January, 2011

    Hi Martin :
    God IS Justice. There is no ‘ other ‘ version of justice in justice itself.. The line which in part states “ the innocent guilty for the sins of others” presupposes the false notion that there exists two groups - the innocent and the others. The reality is one species = one group. No one is ’ guilty’ of original sin nor will anyone be tried and convicted , it is a necessary reality bound to the natural process of generation. All the necessary information to form your being was written into the first particle of matter which was to become you. There is absolutely no way at least not yet, to extract the actions and affections to the form that you inherited from your parents or theirs and so on …Medical and psychological scientists have for a very long time observed empirical evidence to show the natural transmission of physical and formal mutation through reproduction . Darwinism , evolution. The very fact that God Himself has entered into the equation by taking on human form changes everything about the effects of original sin.
    We are created in His image with reference to our capacity to reason ( unlike the fish in the sea ) . In this way we are said to be like God but God is in no way like us. It is the noetic capacity to understand that renders us most fully human and at the same time it is where the divine element resides within. Far from alien , this union between God and man is infinitely more intimate than humanly possible without His doing.
    You are correct in asserting that It is possible to create beings with free will and are without original sin and that is in fact the way in which we were created. It is only because human form is affected by human action that the sin as it is attached to the good is transmitted from human to human and generation to generation.
    I ‘m happy with the way God chose to create us . Aren’t you Martin … even a little bit ?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Martin,

    The Scripture says "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Romans ch5 vs12

    A common question people ask is why are people who lived after Adam and Eve held accountable for what Adam did. The answer according to a book I have on the Westminister Confession of Faith explains "God has ordered human life by the principle of representation. By this principle, which is operative in many spheres of life, one person may act for another in such a way that the act of the one is regarded as the act of the other." p.75 of The Westminister Confession of Faith for Study Classes by G.I. Williamson.

    Examples of this principle at work are the father as head of the house, according to divine appointment. The civil ruler, king, or president represents the whole nation. If the ruler goes into war, the whole nation and every citizen is at war.

    "Only the first sin of Adam was performed for all. This was a probationary test, in which Adam acted as a representative person. But after that act had been performed, Adam no longer acted as a representative person. His other sins were therefore not laid to the charge of other men. As a president ends his term of office, and then no longer acts for others, so Adam terminated his representative actions with that one sin.... But after that, all of the acts of Adam were to his own account, as all of our acts are to our own account. However, the damage was done. He, and we, became totally depraved."

    There is a vast amount of information on this also available in Charles Hodge's book, Systematic Theology, which is available online to read for free at:

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology2.ii.html

    This subject is dealt with in depth in Volume 2. The above link goes to volume 2.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Larry writes: “The line which in part states “the innocent guilty for the sins of others” presupposes the false notion that there exists two groups - the innocent and the others.”

    Reply: How is this a false notion? According to your own scripture there were only 2 persons involved in the original sin, yet all humanity after them must bear the consequences of that original sin. These subsequent persons are not a party to the original sin - so yes – they are innocent of any guilt. Even your catechism states as much.

    Larry writes: “No one is ’ guilty’ of original sin nor will anyone be tried and convicted , it is a necessary reality bound to the natural process of generation.”

    Reply: So now you acknowledge that no one is guilty of original sin. Good for you. You now agree with your Church’s catechism on this point.

    However, you still have not answered why it is “just” for persons with no guilt to suffer a punishment for actions to which they were parties and for which they have no guilt.

    Is it not a basic tenant of natural justice that only the guilty should suffer punishment?

    Larry writes: “It is only because human form is affected by human action that the sin as it is attached to the good is transmitted from human to human and generation to generation.”

    Reply: If I commit a crime, my guilt does not attach to my physical form (or my genetics). It is not passed down to my descendants. Many Australians would be horrified to learn otherwise.

    What you describe is not a natural process despite your attempts to use the analogy of “inheritance” and “genetics”. Presumably your god has created this mechanism (i.e. that punishment can be passed on to one’s innocent descendants) because it is “just”. I am simply pointing out that inherited punishment transmitted to the innocent is not compatible any natural justice that I have ever encountered. Again – how is this “just”?

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  28. STG writes: “A common question people ask is why are people who lived after Adam and Eve held accountable for what Adam did.”

    Reply: What about people who lived before Adam and Eve? After all, the Catholic Church accepts evolution as a valid explanation of life on earth. If so, then were those who preceded Adam & Eve perfect in their natures? If a consequence of original sin is mortal death, then how did anyone die in order for evolution to take place? Why are those people not still alive today?

    STG writes: "God has ordered human life by the principle of representation. By this principle, which is operative in many spheres of life, one person may act for another in such a way that the act of the one is regarded as the act of the other."

    Reply: But in other spheres of life, we consent to representation by another. After all, I can always oppose a king with who I disagree, or I can switch my allegiance to another king or state. Why must I consent to have Adam as my representative?

    If I have no choice in the matter, what has happened to my free will? Why do I have free will in all matters except Adam’s representation on my behalf?

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  29. Martin,

    It doesn't matter what the Catholic church says about evolution because they are not inspired. There is no proof they receive revelations from God as they claim. Only the Holy Scripture is a direct revelation from God. The Bible describes how God created everything including Adam and Eve.

    God gave man a free will, but because of Adams fall, all mankind received a fallen, corrupt nature and does not have the ability to do good without the assistance of God.

    God ordained that Adam would be the representative of the human race until Adam fell. Since God is sovereign, he is not required to do things the way man might think he should. God does as he has decided in his eternal council and plan. Man is only a created being, and God owes man absolutely nothing. God is transcendent above the created universe and of infinite power and knowledge. Having said that, God is love and merciful as he demonstrated by sending his Son to die for his elect. It is wise to quickly acknowledge the majesty and decisions of God as according to his wise counsel because our life and breath is only because of the power of God.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Martin,

    I don't know if this will help answer a couple of your questions, but this is what the Westminster Shorter Catechism says. The link will take you to the whole thing which has Scripture references.

    Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam’s first transgression?
    A. The covenant being made with Adam,[40] not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.[41]

    Q. 17. Into what estate did the fall bring mankind?
    A. The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.[42]

    Q. 18. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
    A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin,[43] the want of original righteousness,[44] and the corruption of his whole nature,[45] which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.[46]

    Q. 19. What is the misery of that estate whereinto man fell?
    A. All mankind by their fall lost communion with God,[47] are under his wrath[48] and curse,[49] and so made liable to all the miseries of this life,[50] to death[51] itself, and to the pains of hell forever.[52]

    Q. 20. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
    A. God, having out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life,[53] did enter into a covenant of grace to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.[54]

    Q. 21. Who is the Redeemer of God’s elect?
    A. The only Redeemer of God’s elect is the Lord Jesus Christ,[55] who, being the eternal Son of God,[56] became man,[57] and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, forever.[58]

    Q. 22. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
    A. Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul,[59] being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, and born of her,[60] yet without sin.[61]

    Q. 23. What offices doth Christ execute as our Redeemer?
    A. Christ, as our Redeemer, executeth the offices of a prophet,[62] of a priest,[63] and of a king,[64] both in his estate of humiliation and exaltation.

    http://www.reformed.org/documents/wsc/index.html

    No man has free will in the sense he is able to keep the commands of God. He lost that ability at the fall of Adam. That means he is under the wrath and condemnation of God unless he is redeemed.

    Q. 82. Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God?
    A. No mere man, since the fall, is able in this life perfectly to keep the commandments of God, but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed.[173]

    Q. 83. Are all transgressions of the law equally heinous?
    A. Some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.[174]

    Q. 84. What doth every sin deserve?
    A. Every sin deserveth God’s wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come.[175]

    Q. 85. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse, due to us for sin?
    A. To escape the wrath and curse of God, due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life,[176] with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption.[177]

    Q. 86. What is faith in Jesus Christ?
    A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace,[178] whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.[179]

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hi STG,

    OK...so you don't think too much about the RCC's claim that they arbitrate the TRUTH. We share that much at least.

    However, I am interested to know how you reconcile evolution with your doctrine of original sin?

    Cheers...Martin

    ReplyDelete
  32. Martin,

    After a lot of work on my last posting, I hit a wrong key and it all disappeared.

    Life has been a struggle for me in some ways. By age 35 I was in a kind of crisis. But circumstances which I believe were divine providence, led me to hear the gospel being preached on the radio one evening. It spoke about 1 Corinthains ch15 vs1-4. How Christ died for our sins, was raised from the dead and that if we believe that we are saved. Also, Romans ch10 vs13 said whosoever shall call upon the Lord shall be saved.
    At that moment, I was looking at the wall in the apartment and thinking if there must be a hell and I don't want to go there. I cried out to the Lord to save me and believe according to God's Word that he did save me. I believe it was all by God's grace. God used circumstances such as my wife, who is a christian, a little Presbyterian church up the street with a good minister, and then this radio broadcast and particularly the message from 1 Corinthians ch15 vs1-4 and Romans to reach me.

    Fast forward 20 years to a different town further north. Professor Philip Stott came to town for a week of messages on creation science and evolution. He had been a strong believer decades earlier in evolution and atheism. However, by some miracle God opened his eyes and he saw the fallacy of evolution. He has since travelled to different countries giving a slide-show presentation at scientific conferences, and other meetings, church groups, showing how science is not infallible. There have been many errors through history in science. He talks about and gives photographs of various things related to the geological time chart, fossils, etc. and shows how creation as told in the Bible is a reasonable account of how God created everything. Prof. Stott is also a mathematician by profession and was able to show how the mathematical laws of probability are stacked against life happening by random chance processes.

    The conclusion is that I believe the account of creation in Genesis as accurate. All that is subsequently recorded in the Bible is also accurate. Our interpretation of some things might not be correct as some things are more difficult. But the way of salvation is fairly plain if one reads the New Testament with an open mind and God gives the gift of faith.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Lady Janus,

    I have to confess I need to study this more. I am not sure what the need for legislation is because I thought everyone was already protected under the charter of rights and freedoms. I also understand there are some people born with sexual organs of both genders and some born which are not clear. There may also be physiological problems where some people are struggling with this. It is something that I would like to keep an open mind on and know more about and see the arguments from all sides.

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics