December 7, 1999
Disregarding airport signs, Myron joked about carrying an atom bomb in his suitcase. He soon found himself surrounded by airport security who would not listen to his claims about freedom of speech. Joke or not, bomb-talk is off limits in airports. Myron eventually agreed that human rights should have some restrictions. Here, flippancy could alarm or panic other passengers so he promised to refrain from bomb jokes.
Theaters and libraries share similar restrictions. They can toss out or arrest anyone who shouts ‘fire’ in a crowded theater (when there is no fire). This falls under ‘public mischief.’ It is against the law because terrified people can trample one another. People generally frown at loud talk in a library too. For a long time, any violation meant loss of privilege. Today’s library patrons may not respect this rule, but most readers wish they would. The downside is that respecting others’ rights usually means giving up some of our own.
However, those who support freedom of speech never quibble about airport restrictions on bomb-talk, nor do they argue over laws against yelling ‘fire’ in crowded theaters. In these cases, human safety takes precedence over freedom of expression. Isn’t it logical to apply this solution to another library issue: access to pornographic Internet sites?
Some argue free expression. That is, anyone can go online and view any Internet site they wish. Others say that we should allow no one access to this material, especially children. We should eradicate this form of “expression” and if that is impossible, we should protect young people by limiting what they can see or download.
Monitoring the Internet is usually at the discretion of local servers. For instance, many of them refuse to host web pages that physically threaten other people. Yet for the most part, the Net is open to whatever anyone wants to put on it, all in the name of free expression.
Although the Bible does not talk about television, videos, pornography or the Internet (at least in those terms), God has plenty to say about impure hearts and thoughts. He also warns us about what we put into our minds. One psalmist offers this prayer, “Turn my eyes away from worthless things; preserve my life according to your word.”
Apart from guarding our own minds, the Bible tells us to love others. This command does not mean romantic love (eros) but uses a word that means wanting the highest good for others. The implication is that biblical love involves personal sacrifice that someone else might benefit.
When God says we should avoid lust, sexual sin and pornography, He is thinking about our best, but also the good of others. All these illicit activities involve exploitation and no matter how you slice it, exploiting a person is not the same as loving them.
People defend their personal right to express themselves, yet pornography infringes the rights of others too. It harms those who view it yet even if they consent to that harm and it harms those who are unfortunate enough to be the subjects in the pictures. No matter how much a “model” is paid, no amount of money can replace what they have lost. A child is robbed of his or her innocence. Men and women lose both dignity and purity. They are being used. Their bodies are objects to feed lustful thoughts and incite lustful activities. Also, this so-called ‘freedom of expression’ puts people in bondage to these sinful desires.
Physical danger should be no more important than moral or emotional danger. We have strong laws that protect people from hurting others if their “free expression” includes bomb-talk, yelling fire, or spreading slander, libel and defamation of character. Why don’t we have laws that protect us from the forces that can destroy innocence and purity?
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Friday, October 27, 2017
Friday, August 11, 2017
Human Rights? .......... Parables 626
January 19, 1999
Will the VLT question ever be settled? A provincial vote recorded public opinion but somehow the matter is still up in the air. Human rights continue to blur the issue.
Rights, a worldwide hot topic, spans the extremes. For instance, minority groups cry for the right to be heard and teenagers demand the right to drive the family car. Women ask for equal pay for equal work and my grandchildren each want the right to the TV remote. Criminals ask for the right to vote and dissatisfied spouses think they have the right to be unfaithful. Writers demand their copyrights and everyone wants to stand at the front of the line.
Which demands are legitimate? How can anyone know? In many cases, if all are equally valid still some must give in to others. So who decides which rights take priority?
It is irrational to give looters the right to enter broken windows and take what they want whenever they want it. It is also irrational to give angry people the right to express their feelings by spraying a shotgun in a school ground. Is it irrational to give people the right to gamble?
Of course playing VLTs is not the same as stealing or killing but excessive or compulsive gambling takes a toll on innocent people. How much is excessive? Can human rights have limits in this case? Is it possible to agree on what those limits should be?
Endless questions with debatable answers should make us ask what God says but the Bible says nothing about VLTs and very little about gambling. It does mention human rights.
God defines rights and freedom far differently than we do. While He allows us choices, He does not define that freedom as a right to do whatever we want. Instead, He says “not all things are beneficial.” In God’s mind, making choices is a privilege, a responsibility, even an opportunity. He also says if we think we are free to fulfill our own wants, we are actually slaves.
How can this be? To understand God’s perspective, we have to realize that the essence of sin is selfishness. When we do our own thing contrary to the commands of God, we sin. The New Testament book of Romans asks, “Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey . . . ?”
God says: choose to either serve Him and be free to become all He intended when He created us, or choose to be a slave to ourselves and sin. This is strong talk, but He gives no other options.
Slaves are unpaid workers who cannot say no to their boss. This sounds like a person addicted to gambling. VLTs rarely pay back the people who use them. Instead, they are designed to make a profit. Not only that, they rob people of discernment. In thinking they are doing as they please, gamblers are actually in bondage to an expensive, thrill-seeking habit they cannot break.
Families of gambling slaves also pay the price of this so-called “freedom.” They lose their “rights.” Money for their groceries and utility bills is spent on “roads, education and health care” or it goes into the pockets of whoever owns the establishments that house the machines.
You and I also pay a price for this “freedom.” Our taxes go up because families draw more deeply from social services. Gamblers who want to quit need therapy too, and someone must pay for their increased needs. We also pay in pain if the addicts are people we love.
Those who make money on the machines are caught in a “love of money” trap that the Bible calls the “root of all evil.” They cannot set themselves free and will eventually “pierce themselves with many griefs.” This demand for “rights” is costly and deceptive, not true freedom.
Freely giving everyone the “right” to gamble results in huge losses. Everyone is trapped by one side of it or another — and everyone pays a price.
Will the VLT question ever be settled? A provincial vote recorded public opinion but somehow the matter is still up in the air. Human rights continue to blur the issue.
Rights, a worldwide hot topic, spans the extremes. For instance, minority groups cry for the right to be heard and teenagers demand the right to drive the family car. Women ask for equal pay for equal work and my grandchildren each want the right to the TV remote. Criminals ask for the right to vote and dissatisfied spouses think they have the right to be unfaithful. Writers demand their copyrights and everyone wants to stand at the front of the line.
Which demands are legitimate? How can anyone know? In many cases, if all are equally valid still some must give in to others. So who decides which rights take priority?
It is irrational to give looters the right to enter broken windows and take what they want whenever they want it. It is also irrational to give angry people the right to express their feelings by spraying a shotgun in a school ground. Is it irrational to give people the right to gamble?
Of course playing VLTs is not the same as stealing or killing but excessive or compulsive gambling takes a toll on innocent people. How much is excessive? Can human rights have limits in this case? Is it possible to agree on what those limits should be?
Endless questions with debatable answers should make us ask what God says but the Bible says nothing about VLTs and very little about gambling. It does mention human rights.
God defines rights and freedom far differently than we do. While He allows us choices, He does not define that freedom as a right to do whatever we want. Instead, He says “not all things are beneficial.” In God’s mind, making choices is a privilege, a responsibility, even an opportunity. He also says if we think we are free to fulfill our own wants, we are actually slaves.
How can this be? To understand God’s perspective, we have to realize that the essence of sin is selfishness. When we do our own thing contrary to the commands of God, we sin. The New Testament book of Romans asks, “Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey . . . ?”
God says: choose to either serve Him and be free to become all He intended when He created us, or choose to be a slave to ourselves and sin. This is strong talk, but He gives no other options.
Slaves are unpaid workers who cannot say no to their boss. This sounds like a person addicted to gambling. VLTs rarely pay back the people who use them. Instead, they are designed to make a profit. Not only that, they rob people of discernment. In thinking they are doing as they please, gamblers are actually in bondage to an expensive, thrill-seeking habit they cannot break.
Families of gambling slaves also pay the price of this so-called “freedom.” They lose their “rights.” Money for their groceries and utility bills is spent on “roads, education and health care” or it goes into the pockets of whoever owns the establishments that house the machines.
You and I also pay a price for this “freedom.” Our taxes go up because families draw more deeply from social services. Gamblers who want to quit need therapy too, and someone must pay for their increased needs. We also pay in pain if the addicts are people we love.
Those who make money on the machines are caught in a “love of money” trap that the Bible calls the “root of all evil.” They cannot set themselves free and will eventually “pierce themselves with many griefs.” This demand for “rights” is costly and deceptive, not true freedom.
Freely giving everyone the “right” to gamble results in huge losses. Everyone is trapped by one side of it or another — and everyone pays a price.
Friday, June 10, 2016
Human Value and Values .................. Parables 443
October 18, 1994
Losses from 40 years of highway and drowning accidents added to the loss from over 115 years of war (including the Boer, WW I, WW II, Korean, and Persian Gulf wars) equals a total death count of nearly 360,000 Canadian people. In less than half that time, from 1970 to 1991, there have been 1,249,601 abortions.
Statistics from the United States reveal 1,300,000 died in the American Revolution, the Civil War, WW I, WW II, the Korean and Vietnam wars. The number for legal abortions in the U.S. to 1981 is over 12 million. Many more have occurred since.
The law says swimming pools must hire life guards so people will not drown. Speed limits are enforced to make driving and highways safer. For the same reason, automobile manufacturers are given a list of standards they must meet. World leaders hold extensive and expensive summit meetings trying to end war. Yet, according to the above statistics, there are inconsistencies in how our leaders evaluate human life.
What is Canadian policy on population? We supposedly need more people, thus we open our doors to immigrants from other countries. Unlike China, we have no laws telling couples one child only. The laws is not against numerical growth, but we do have a law that allows destruction of our greatest resource.
Some who favor abortion argue human life does not start at conception. To them, it is not a person until it is actually born, or at least well along in development. But it is alive. The heart beat begins 28 days after conception. Brain waves can be recorded very early. If it is not a live human, what is an unborn child?
Others say the pregnancy was unplanned and the baby unwanted; it is better to abort than bring an unwanted child into the world. What about those parents who want babies and wait up to seven years before any are available for adoption?
Maybe the problem has more to do with values. In that regard, God is far more consistent than we are. To Him, life is important from the womb to the tomb. He even expresses interest in every stage of development.
For example, consider what King David of Israel said: “From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.... You created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”
Jeremiah is another instance. The Lord said to him: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
A third example is a young woman who was told she would have a child. He would be “great and will be called the Son of the Most High... he will reign... and his kingdom will never end.” This child was conceived before she was married. The man to whom she was engaged knew the baby was not his.
If Jeremiah’s or David’s mother had decided to abort, we would not have the 23rd and a host of other Psalms, nor would we have some of the most amazing prophetic utterances in Scripture. If Mary and Joseph had decided they did not want their baby, the whole world would be without a Savior.
Freedom of choice supposedly makes life better. In this case, statistics can give us only numbers. We may never know what we have missed.
Losses from 40 years of highway and drowning accidents added to the loss from over 115 years of war (including the Boer, WW I, WW II, Korean, and Persian Gulf wars) equals a total death count of nearly 360,000 Canadian people. In less than half that time, from 1970 to 1991, there have been 1,249,601 abortions.
Statistics from the United States reveal 1,300,000 died in the American Revolution, the Civil War, WW I, WW II, the Korean and Vietnam wars. The number for legal abortions in the U.S. to 1981 is over 12 million. Many more have occurred since.
The law says swimming pools must hire life guards so people will not drown. Speed limits are enforced to make driving and highways safer. For the same reason, automobile manufacturers are given a list of standards they must meet. World leaders hold extensive and expensive summit meetings trying to end war. Yet, according to the above statistics, there are inconsistencies in how our leaders evaluate human life.
What is Canadian policy on population? We supposedly need more people, thus we open our doors to immigrants from other countries. Unlike China, we have no laws telling couples one child only. The laws is not against numerical growth, but we do have a law that allows destruction of our greatest resource.
Some who favor abortion argue human life does not start at conception. To them, it is not a person until it is actually born, or at least well along in development. But it is alive. The heart beat begins 28 days after conception. Brain waves can be recorded very early. If it is not a live human, what is an unborn child?
Others say the pregnancy was unplanned and the baby unwanted; it is better to abort than bring an unwanted child into the world. What about those parents who want babies and wait up to seven years before any are available for adoption?
Maybe the problem has more to do with values. In that regard, God is far more consistent than we are. To Him, life is important from the womb to the tomb. He even expresses interest in every stage of development.
For example, consider what King David of Israel said: “From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.... You created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”
Jeremiah is another instance. The Lord said to him: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
A third example is a young woman who was told she would have a child. He would be “great and will be called the Son of the Most High... he will reign... and his kingdom will never end.” This child was conceived before she was married. The man to whom she was engaged knew the baby was not his.
If Jeremiah’s or David’s mother had decided to abort, we would not have the 23rd and a host of other Psalms, nor would we have some of the most amazing prophetic utterances in Scripture. If Mary and Joseph had decided they did not want their baby, the whole world would be without a Savior.
Freedom of choice supposedly makes life better. In this case, statistics can give us only numbers. We may never know what we have missed.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Reasonableness and repetitive stress............. Parables 363
March 30, 1993
Several hundred members of the American workforce have initiated lawsuits because they have RSI. In fact, some estimate these civil actions will cost computer manufacturers up to $4 billion over the next few years.
RSI stands for repetitive stress injuries. These injuries account for over 50% of occupational illnesses in the United States and many of those who suffer are computer operators. Over-use of their muscles and tendons in fingers, arms, hands, and shoulders has produced permanent physical damage. When we wrote strictly with pens, we had a much milder form of RSI: writers’ cramp.
Interesting that the manufacturers of computer equipment are being blamed for these injuries. Granted, the design of certain hardware, such as keyboards, might create pressure points, and some software is more physically demanding than others, but it seems to me that overuse, not design, is the cause of RSI.
Beyond the questionable logic behind these lawsuits lies another issue. I remember a service station owner telling us about a woman who sued him after he told her he was too busy to work on her car that day. Instead, she would have to wait 2 or 3 days. She was angry and proceeded to take the man to court demanding her personal rights — to the exclusion of common sense. In this case, the judge did not agree with her demand and dismissed the case, reprimanding both lawyers for wasting the court’s time.
It looks as if RSI complainers will get more attention during their day in court. For one thing, there are more of them; for another, they do have a legitimate problem. However, does this make their demands reasonable or even logical?
It seems fair and logical that service station owners have a right to schedule their own work load. On the other hand, it is not always easy to let fairness and logic prevail. There have been occasions when I didn’t want to accept responsibility for my own actions so shifted the focus by accusing some innocent bystander.
Worse yet, I have even blamed God for pain I myself caused, even said something like: “If you had not made the world like this, I would not be hurting right now” or “If You had given me the strength I needed, I wouldn’t be having so much trouble with this temptation...”
The Bible is much more logical. It puts responsibility where it belongs and refuses to allow us to point our fingers at anyone else. James focuses on our tendency to blame God for our failures: “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God” for God cannot... tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death” (James 1).
Hurting ourselves with hard work at a computer may not be sin but the principle is the same. Blaming God or suing the next handiest scapegoat does not help. Even if the courts do order computer companies to pay up, anyone who demands unjust compensation shoots themselves in the foot. Not only are they stuck with an uncured RSI, but in the long run the cost comes back to the customers in higher prices or less service... infringing the rights of other computer operators.
Someone has said that when demands for personal rights escalate there will eventually come a time when no one has any rights at all. The end of this escalation has to begin with four words: “It was my responsibility”.
Several hundred members of the American workforce have initiated lawsuits because they have RSI. In fact, some estimate these civil actions will cost computer manufacturers up to $4 billion over the next few years.
RSI stands for repetitive stress injuries. These injuries account for over 50% of occupational illnesses in the United States and many of those who suffer are computer operators. Over-use of their muscles and tendons in fingers, arms, hands, and shoulders has produced permanent physical damage. When we wrote strictly with pens, we had a much milder form of RSI: writers’ cramp.
Interesting that the manufacturers of computer equipment are being blamed for these injuries. Granted, the design of certain hardware, such as keyboards, might create pressure points, and some software is more physically demanding than others, but it seems to me that overuse, not design, is the cause of RSI.
Beyond the questionable logic behind these lawsuits lies another issue. I remember a service station owner telling us about a woman who sued him after he told her he was too busy to work on her car that day. Instead, she would have to wait 2 or 3 days. She was angry and proceeded to take the man to court demanding her personal rights — to the exclusion of common sense. In this case, the judge did not agree with her demand and dismissed the case, reprimanding both lawyers for wasting the court’s time.
It looks as if RSI complainers will get more attention during their day in court. For one thing, there are more of them; for another, they do have a legitimate problem. However, does this make their demands reasonable or even logical?
It seems fair and logical that service station owners have a right to schedule their own work load. On the other hand, it is not always easy to let fairness and logic prevail. There have been occasions when I didn’t want to accept responsibility for my own actions so shifted the focus by accusing some innocent bystander.
Worse yet, I have even blamed God for pain I myself caused, even said something like: “If you had not made the world like this, I would not be hurting right now” or “If You had given me the strength I needed, I wouldn’t be having so much trouble with this temptation...”
The Bible is much more logical. It puts responsibility where it belongs and refuses to allow us to point our fingers at anyone else. James focuses on our tendency to blame God for our failures: “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God” for God cannot... tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death” (James 1).
Hurting ourselves with hard work at a computer may not be sin but the principle is the same. Blaming God or suing the next handiest scapegoat does not help. Even if the courts do order computer companies to pay up, anyone who demands unjust compensation shoots themselves in the foot. Not only are they stuck with an uncured RSI, but in the long run the cost comes back to the customers in higher prices or less service... infringing the rights of other computer operators.
Someone has said that when demands for personal rights escalate there will eventually come a time when no one has any rights at all. The end of this escalation has to begin with four words: “It was my responsibility”.
Monday, September 21, 2015
God-playing and Spare Parts ................ Parables 329
August 4, 1992
Have we lost our ethical and moral minds? One would wonder after reading the summaries of two article placed beside each other in a magazine called Current Thoughts and Trends.
The first article is called FETAL TISSUE: THE NEW CANNIBALISM. It is about a bill under consideration by the American Senate that would force the national health institutes to finance fetal tissue transplants “harvested” from babies killed by induced abortions. The rationale behind such a move is that sufferers from diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s would be saved. The gruesome side of it is this tissue must be fresh — so the fetuses must be removed from the womb while alive, then killed for their valuable parts.
The other article is about a baby named Theresa who was born without a brain and had no hope of living. Her anguished parents decided to request she be declared legally dead so her vital organs could be donated to other babies needing transplants. Their request was declined — on the basis that “it would open the door to regarding the sick as just collections of spare parts.” When Theresa died only 18 days after being born, her organs had deteriorated to the point of being useless for transplants.
One does not have to be Christian or even a believer in God to wonder what is the criteria for establishing who is fair game and what are the rules donating spare parts. According to both these stories, the donor must be healthy not sick, yet must also be doomed to die anyway. This second criteria demands further inspection.
It is not uncommon for an adult to donate their organs for medical purposes when they realize they only have a few months to live. Of course such donors are allowed to die before their organs are removed, even if they are criminals who have received a death sentence for crimes committed.
Sometimes relatives or persons with compatible tissue-type donate kidneys to others whose corresponding organs have failed because their own survival does not depend on having two kidneys, but all other tissue donors are dead when the tissue is removed.
Yet this rule is abandoned for the so-called blob of tissue called a fetus even though this creature is obviously alive or its organs would have no value. Nor is the fetus usually sick. Malformed or otherwise imperfect fetuses are aborted but most abortions are not for that reason. Rather, someone has decided this living mass of tissue must die and there is no choice on the part of the donor. Furthermore, the fetus does not die before its brains and pancreas are removed (without anaesthesia) but after — because it has lost organs it cannot live without.
Contrast the situation of Baby Theresa. Even though she would soon die, her parents wanted to bring meaning to her short existence — life to others because she had lived. Instead “science” would not allow even that.
Something stinks. If unborn human tissue is simply a “blob” (never mind that it is alive and able to pass on life to others), science does not mind devaluing “it” by using the spare parts before killing it — but add two to five months and that same “blob” cannot donate any tissue. It must die along with anyone else it might save.
God gave life purpose: He told Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you ordained you a prophet to the nations.” Yet the same God also gave death purpose: He sent His Son to die, a mission that the Son willingly accepted because through His death others would gain life.
In our God-playing it seems we have a few things backwards.
Have we lost our ethical and moral minds? One would wonder after reading the summaries of two article placed beside each other in a magazine called Current Thoughts and Trends.
The first article is called FETAL TISSUE: THE NEW CANNIBALISM. It is about a bill under consideration by the American Senate that would force the national health institutes to finance fetal tissue transplants “harvested” from babies killed by induced abortions. The rationale behind such a move is that sufferers from diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s would be saved. The gruesome side of it is this tissue must be fresh — so the fetuses must be removed from the womb while alive, then killed for their valuable parts.
The other article is about a baby named Theresa who was born without a brain and had no hope of living. Her anguished parents decided to request she be declared legally dead so her vital organs could be donated to other babies needing transplants. Their request was declined — on the basis that “it would open the door to regarding the sick as just collections of spare parts.” When Theresa died only 18 days after being born, her organs had deteriorated to the point of being useless for transplants.
One does not have to be Christian or even a believer in God to wonder what is the criteria for establishing who is fair game and what are the rules donating spare parts. According to both these stories, the donor must be healthy not sick, yet must also be doomed to die anyway. This second criteria demands further inspection.
It is not uncommon for an adult to donate their organs for medical purposes when they realize they only have a few months to live. Of course such donors are allowed to die before their organs are removed, even if they are criminals who have received a death sentence for crimes committed.
Sometimes relatives or persons with compatible tissue-type donate kidneys to others whose corresponding organs have failed because their own survival does not depend on having two kidneys, but all other tissue donors are dead when the tissue is removed.
Yet this rule is abandoned for the so-called blob of tissue called a fetus even though this creature is obviously alive or its organs would have no value. Nor is the fetus usually sick. Malformed or otherwise imperfect fetuses are aborted but most abortions are not for that reason. Rather, someone has decided this living mass of tissue must die and there is no choice on the part of the donor. Furthermore, the fetus does not die before its brains and pancreas are removed (without anaesthesia) but after — because it has lost organs it cannot live without.
Contrast the situation of Baby Theresa. Even though she would soon die, her parents wanted to bring meaning to her short existence — life to others because she had lived. Instead “science” would not allow even that.
Something stinks. If unborn human tissue is simply a “blob” (never mind that it is alive and able to pass on life to others), science does not mind devaluing “it” by using the spare parts before killing it — but add two to five months and that same “blob” cannot donate any tissue. It must die along with anyone else it might save.
God gave life purpose: He told Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you ordained you a prophet to the nations.” Yet the same God also gave death purpose: He sent His Son to die, a mission that the Son willingly accepted because through His death others would gain life.
In our God-playing it seems we have a few things backwards.
Friday, June 5, 2015
It’s okay to be sad .............. Parables 283
September 4, 1991
The American constitution and even television commercials declare we have the “right” to be happy. In fact, the pursuit of happiness occupies a major portion of the typical North American’s life, so much so that when someone is sad, someone else usually insists they “Cheer up.”
Imagine the reaction if a sad person responded to encouragement with: “NO! I have every right to be sad. In fact, being sad is good for me...” Would we put him in a strait jacket?
The truth is, some sorrow has a valuable place in our lives. There is “a time to weep and a time to laugh... (Ecclesiastes 3:4) and sorrow is sometimes appropriate. The Bible says to “... mourn with those who mourn (Romans 12:15) and Jesus Himself even experienced that kind of sorrow. Certainly anyone who jokes and laughs at a funeral is out of place.
Beyond being an expression of human grief, the Bible says sorrow has spiritual value: “Sorrow is better than laughter, because by it the heart is made better” (Ecclesiastes 7:3). This means a kind of sorrow that feels grief over sin, and thus our attitude toward sinning is changed.
Jesus referred to this heart-changing sorrow when He said, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.” The Bible explains this “mourning” as a sadness for one’s own sin: “Now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended... Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: ...earnestness, ...eagerness to clear yourselves, ...indignation, ...alarm, ...longing, ...concern, ...readiness to see justice done...” (2 Corinthians 7).
Again, this kind of sorrow is the grief some people feel when they have sinned against God. It is so important to God that He says if we don’t feel that way about our sin, we should make an effort to do so: “Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom...” (James 4:9).
One reason this kind of sorrow is so important is that grief over sin is the only way to ultimate joy. When Jesus said that mourners will be comforted, He was not talking about ordinary grief over a death in the family (Many who grieve are not comforted) but preaching a sermon about the characteristics of those who will be children of God. He said they will be “poor in spirit,” not having what it takes to please God, mourning over their sin, submissive to Him, and having a hunger and thirst for a godly righteousness which they realize they do not have (Matthew 5,6,7). The Greek word Jesus used for “mourn” signifies the greatest grief imaginable, an utter sense of loss and sorrow because the mourner has realized his utter bankruptcy. He cannot please God... but it is that person who will be comforted, by forgiveness now and a heavenly reward eventually.
What if a person rejects that kind of sorrow? What if they insist they are okay; sin is not an issue to get dejected about; they have a right to be happy and life is here and now only, a party to be lived?
First, nothing happens to their heart. It stays in the same condition as described by Jeremiah: “deceitful and desperately wicked.” Secondly, they never receive the comfort of forgiveness. They will be separated forever from the love God offered through the sacrifice of His Son. Thirdly, a heavenly reward is out of the question. Eternal condemnation is the only other option.
So the next time someone says “Cheer up,” try this: “No, my sorrow is helping me to think about the way I live, change my ways and stop doing all the things that are not good for me...!”
The American constitution and even television commercials declare we have the “right” to be happy. In fact, the pursuit of happiness occupies a major portion of the typical North American’s life, so much so that when someone is sad, someone else usually insists they “Cheer up.”
Imagine the reaction if a sad person responded to encouragement with: “NO! I have every right to be sad. In fact, being sad is good for me...” Would we put him in a strait jacket?
The truth is, some sorrow has a valuable place in our lives. There is “a time to weep and a time to laugh... (Ecclesiastes 3:4) and sorrow is sometimes appropriate. The Bible says to “... mourn with those who mourn (Romans 12:15) and Jesus Himself even experienced that kind of sorrow. Certainly anyone who jokes and laughs at a funeral is out of place.
Beyond being an expression of human grief, the Bible says sorrow has spiritual value: “Sorrow is better than laughter, because by it the heart is made better” (Ecclesiastes 7:3). This means a kind of sorrow that feels grief over sin, and thus our attitude toward sinning is changed.
Jesus referred to this heart-changing sorrow when He said, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.” The Bible explains this “mourning” as a sadness for one’s own sin: “Now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended... Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: ...earnestness, ...eagerness to clear yourselves, ...indignation, ...alarm, ...longing, ...concern, ...readiness to see justice done...” (2 Corinthians 7).
Again, this kind of sorrow is the grief some people feel when they have sinned against God. It is so important to God that He says if we don’t feel that way about our sin, we should make an effort to do so: “Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom...” (James 4:9).
One reason this kind of sorrow is so important is that grief over sin is the only way to ultimate joy. When Jesus said that mourners will be comforted, He was not talking about ordinary grief over a death in the family (Many who grieve are not comforted) but preaching a sermon about the characteristics of those who will be children of God. He said they will be “poor in spirit,” not having what it takes to please God, mourning over their sin, submissive to Him, and having a hunger and thirst for a godly righteousness which they realize they do not have (Matthew 5,6,7). The Greek word Jesus used for “mourn” signifies the greatest grief imaginable, an utter sense of loss and sorrow because the mourner has realized his utter bankruptcy. He cannot please God... but it is that person who will be comforted, by forgiveness now and a heavenly reward eventually.
What if a person rejects that kind of sorrow? What if they insist they are okay; sin is not an issue to get dejected about; they have a right to be happy and life is here and now only, a party to be lived?
First, nothing happens to their heart. It stays in the same condition as described by Jeremiah: “deceitful and desperately wicked.” Secondly, they never receive the comfort of forgiveness. They will be separated forever from the love God offered through the sacrifice of His Son. Thirdly, a heavenly reward is out of the question. Eternal condemnation is the only other option.
So the next time someone says “Cheer up,” try this: “No, my sorrow is helping me to think about the way I live, change my ways and stop doing all the things that are not good for me...!”
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Bias? .............. Parables 279
August 7, 1991
The Canadian Radio and Television Commission has been considering an amendment restricting “abusive comments” made on the basis of sexual orientation. Apparently some media people have made snide remarks offensive to the gay community and their complaints have made an impact. One response to this proposal suggested that anyone reading the Bible on a Sunday morning broadcast could be prosecuted under this restriction.
In contrast, a Canadian Christian organization says it complains to the CRTC regularly about anti-Christian comments on the air, but nothing is done. It seems that Christians do not have the same clout. After all, evangelicals make up less than 10% of the Canadian population and certainly are not making nearly as much noise about what we want as are other groups. We have become a “silent minority” that does not matter, a “radical fringe” group that can’t seem to roar loud enough to be heard.
With everyone demanding their “rights,” Christians might do well to remember what Jesus told His disciples: “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you...” (John 15:18-20).
If we live as we ought to live, can we expect an equal voice? God says if we sin, we can expect Him to chasten us, but if we live godly lives, we can EXPECT some abuse and persecution. Being ignored by the CRTC should not be a shocking surprise.
Beyond that, after two thousand years of persecution, Christians have demonstrated that our faith can endure abuse. In fact, the CRTC might think we are tougher than any other minority, that we need no assistance from them to defend ourselves. Actually, if they think that, maybe they have something.
Scripture abounds with God’s promises to protect His people from those who deal unjustly with them. He tells Christians not to be anxious about the things others do, that He Himself will eventually deal with them.
However, Christians must keep their lives right before God. He says if we have a good conscience, others may speak evil of us, but our purity should cause them to become ashamed of making their false accusations. Even if they do not, it is better we suffer for doing good than doing wrong (1 Peter 3).
This CRTC decision does not affect me directly, yet I have prayed about the matter and mailed my protest to the Director. If the amendment goes through, radio preachers will have to make a different kind of decision. They will have to consider the time Peter and the other apostles were told not to talk about Jesus Christ. Their response? “We must obey God rather than men!” We who are Christians need to determine from Scripture our position regarding both media content and how to speak up against unbiblical lifestyles. More importantly, we need to act upon what we determine. Our action may be persistent prayer; it may be personal involvement. Whatever it is, when we are denied the right to make God’s Word known, we need to be concerned.
Someone has said that for evil to prevail, all good men have to do is nothing. If our voice is not heard, if we don’t act while we have the freedom to do so, the day could soon come that it will be a crime to be a Christian.
The Canadian Radio and Television Commission has been considering an amendment restricting “abusive comments” made on the basis of sexual orientation. Apparently some media people have made snide remarks offensive to the gay community and their complaints have made an impact. One response to this proposal suggested that anyone reading the Bible on a Sunday morning broadcast could be prosecuted under this restriction.
In contrast, a Canadian Christian organization says it complains to the CRTC regularly about anti-Christian comments on the air, but nothing is done. It seems that Christians do not have the same clout. After all, evangelicals make up less than 10% of the Canadian population and certainly are not making nearly as much noise about what we want as are other groups. We have become a “silent minority” that does not matter, a “radical fringe” group that can’t seem to roar loud enough to be heard.
With everyone demanding their “rights,” Christians might do well to remember what Jesus told His disciples: “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you...” (John 15:18-20).
If we live as we ought to live, can we expect an equal voice? God says if we sin, we can expect Him to chasten us, but if we live godly lives, we can EXPECT some abuse and persecution. Being ignored by the CRTC should not be a shocking surprise.
Beyond that, after two thousand years of persecution, Christians have demonstrated that our faith can endure abuse. In fact, the CRTC might think we are tougher than any other minority, that we need no assistance from them to defend ourselves. Actually, if they think that, maybe they have something.
Scripture abounds with God’s promises to protect His people from those who deal unjustly with them. He tells Christians not to be anxious about the things others do, that He Himself will eventually deal with them.
However, Christians must keep their lives right before God. He says if we have a good conscience, others may speak evil of us, but our purity should cause them to become ashamed of making their false accusations. Even if they do not, it is better we suffer for doing good than doing wrong (1 Peter 3).
This CRTC decision does not affect me directly, yet I have prayed about the matter and mailed my protest to the Director. If the amendment goes through, radio preachers will have to make a different kind of decision. They will have to consider the time Peter and the other apostles were told not to talk about Jesus Christ. Their response? “We must obey God rather than men!” We who are Christians need to determine from Scripture our position regarding both media content and how to speak up against unbiblical lifestyles. More importantly, we need to act upon what we determine. Our action may be persistent prayer; it may be personal involvement. Whatever it is, when we are denied the right to make God’s Word known, we need to be concerned.
Someone has said that for evil to prevail, all good men have to do is nothing. If our voice is not heard, if we don’t act while we have the freedom to do so, the day could soon come that it will be a crime to be a Christian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)