Thursday, February 16, 2017

Gay ‘marriage’: It’s not gay, and it’s not marriage

Gay ‘marriage’: It’s not gay, and it’s not marriage

Featured Image

Dale Ahlquist

(CrisisMagazine) - One of the pressing issues of Chesterton’s time was “birth control.” He not only objected to the idea, he objected to the very term because it meant the opposite of what it said. It meant no birth and no control. I can only imagine he would have the same objections about “gay marriage.” The idea is wrong, but so is the name. It is not gay and it is not marriage.

Chesterton was so consistently right in his pronouncements and prophecies because he understood that anything that attacked the family was bad for society. That is why he spoke out against eugenics and contraception, against divorce and “free love” (another term he disliked because of its dishonesty), but also against wage slavery and compulsory state-sponsored education and mothers hiring other people to do what mothers were designed to do themselves. It is safe to say that Chesterton stood up against every trend and fad that plagues us today because every one of those trends and fads undermines the family. Big Government tries to replace the family’s authority, and Big Business tries to replace the family’s autonomy. There is a constant commercial and cultural pressure on father, mother, and child. They are minimized and marginalized and, yes, mocked. But as Chesterton says, “This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.”

This latest attack on the family is neither the latest nor the worst. But it has a shock value to it, in spite of the process of de-sensitization that the information and entertainment industries have been putting us through the past several years. Those who have tried to speak out against the normalization of the abnormal have been met with “either slanging or silence,” as Chesterton was when he attempted to argue against the faddish philosophies that were promoted by the major newspapers in his day. In 1926, he warned, “The next great heresy will be an attack on morality, especially sexual morality.” His warning has gone unheeded, and sexual morality has decayed progressively. But let us remember that it began with birth control, which is an attempt to create sex for sex’s sake, changing the act of love into an act of selfishness. The promotion and acceptance of lifeless, barren, selfish sex has logically progressed to homosexuality.

Chesterton shows that the problem of homosexuality as an enemy of civilization is quite old. In The Everlasting Man, he describes the nature-worship and “mere mythology” that produced a perversion among the Greeks. “Just as they became unnatural by worshipping nature, so they actually became unmanly by worshipping man.” Any young man, he says, “who has the luck to grow up sane and simple” is naturally repulsed by homosexuality because “it is not true to human nature or to common sense.” He argues that if we attempt to act indifferent about it, we are fooling ourselves. It is “the illusion of familiarity,” when “a perversion become[s] a convention.”

In Heretics, Chesterton almost makes a prophecy of the misuse of the word “gay.” He writes of “the very powerful and very desolate philosophy of Oscar Wilde. It is the carpe diem religion.” Carpe diem means “seize the day,” do whatever you want and don’t think about the consequences, live only for the moment. “But the carpe diem religion is not the religion of happy people, but of very unhappy people.” There is a hopelessness as well as a haplessness to it. When sex is only a momentary pleasure, when it offers nothing beyond itself, it brings no fulfillment. It is literally lifeless. And as Chesterton writes in his book St. Francis of Assisi, the minute sex ceases to be a servant, it becomes a tyrant. This is perhaps the most profound analysis of the problem of homosexuals: they are slaves to sex. They are trying to “pervert the future and unmake the past.” They need to be set free.

Sin has consequences. Yet Chesterton always maintains that we must condemn the sin and not the sinner. And no one shows more compassion for the fallen than G.K. Chesterton. Of Oscar Wilde, whom he calls “the Chief of the Decadents,” he says that Wilde committed “a monstrous wrong” but also suffered monstrously for it, going to an awful prison, where he was forgotten by all the people who had earlier toasted his cavalier rebelliousness. “His was a complete life, in that awful sense in which your life and mine are incomplete; since we have not yet paid for our sins. In that sense one might call it a perfect life, as one speaks of a perfect equation; it cancels out. On the one hand we have the healthy horror of the evil; on the other the healthy horror of the punishment.”

Chesterton referred to Wilde’s homosexual behavior as a “highly civilized” sin, something that was a worse affliction among the wealthy and cultured classes. It was a sin that was never a temptation for Chesterton, and he says that it is no great virtue for us never to commit a sin for which we are not tempted. That is another reason we must treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with compassion. We know our own sins and weaknesses well enough. Philo of Alexandria said, “Be kind. Everyone you meet is fighting a terrible battle.” But compassion must never compromise with evil. Chesterton points out that balance that our truth must not be pitiless, but neither can our pity be untruthful. Homosexuality is a disorder. It is contrary to order. Homosexual acts are sinful, that is, they are contrary to God’s order. They can never be normal. And worse yet, they can never even be even. As Chesterton’s great detective Father Brown says:  “Men may keep a sort of level of good, but no man has ever been able to keep on one level of evil. That road goes down and down.”

Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the order. And the Catholic Church teaches that it is a sacramental order, with divine implications. The world has made a mockery of marriage that has now culminated with homosexual unions. But it was heterosexual men and women who paved the way to this decay. Divorce, which is an abnormal thing, is now treated as normal. Contraception, another abnormal thing, is now treated as normal. Abortion is still not normal, but it is legal. Making homosexual “marriage” legal will not make it normal, but it will add to the confusion of the times. And it will add to the downward spiral of our civilization. But Chesterton’s prophecy remains: We will not be able to destroy the family. We will merely destroy ourselves by disregarding the family.

Reprinted with permission from Crisis Magazine



Sent from my iPhone

A Two-Minute Clip on Homosexuality Every Christian Should Watch

A Two-Minute Clip on Homosexuality Every Christian Should Watch

                       

Sam Allberry—editor for TGC, speaker for RZIM, founding editor of Living Out, and author of Is God Anti-Gay?—addressing the Church of England General Synod in London this week.

Related:

Show Comments 


Sent from my iPhone

Sunday, February 12, 2017

When you have a cold, I want you to know why I’m not giving you an antibiotic

When you have a cold, I want you to know why I’m not giving you an antibiotic

I want you to know about colds, and integrity.

Every day I see a hand full of colds. Viral upper respiratory infections. Bronchitis. Coughing, sneezing, congestion, fever. You come to me because you are miserable, and I appreciate that you trust my advice. I want you to know that I can commiserate with you. I don’t want you to feel miserable either.

Truthfully, as odd as this sounds, I wish could find something bacterial — something “curable” on your exam or testing. Not because I want you to be sick, but because I can “do” something. And frankly, a lot of the times it would be easier. If you have strep throat, I can give you an antibiotic, counsel you, and send you to get well.

Over 90 percent of all office visits, for cold or bronchitis-like symptoms, if lasting less than 7 to 10 days, are for a viral infection. That is a real, studied number: over 90 percent. Viruses, unlike bacteria, have no antibiotic that can “cure” you. The treatment is rest, supportive care (usually with over the counter supplements), and time. There is no pill or treatment that cures a viral illness.

These numbers can be difficult for your physician. Most of us joined this profession because we want to participate in the relief of suffering. Occasionally, we may feel that we are doing the opposite when you come in for your cold and we don’t prescribe an antibiotic. Maybe we feel, and you as a patient feel, that we did nothing.

When you have a cold, I want you to know why I’m not giving you an antibiotic. I want you to know that sometimes doing nothing is doing something. Sometimes, doing nothing is in your best interest.

When I see a patient for a cold, their visit takes more time for me than a straightforward case of strep throat or ear infection does. I take the time to explain the difference between a viral and bacterial infection. I explain that prescribing antibiotics for a cold provides no symptom relief, and adds the adverse risks of diarrhea, allergic reactions, and more.  Antibiotics carry even more serious risks, such as Clostridium difficile diarrhea. Sometimes antibiotics are necessary and outweigh the risks, but if not necessary, it’s my job to protect you by not prescribing them.

If you come to me for your cold, however, I will do everything in my power to not send you away empty handed. I want to know what about your cold is bothering you the most and what you’ve tried at home. We will discuss honey, lozenges, salt water gargles, over the counter pain relievers and more depending on your symptoms. I want you to leave my clinic knowing how important it is to me that I provide you with relief.

I started my letter with the intention to not only discuss colds, but integrity. I’ve mentioned that outpatient viral illnesses, in general, take more time than simple bacterial infections for me. Physicians know what I’ve written. We know that over 90 percent of the time, with less than seven days of symptoms, normal testing and no signs of bacterial infection on exam, that you have a cold. We know that antibiotics do not serve a purpose in your cold. We know the risks of prescribing antibiotics for a cold. But I also know that sometimes, offering an antibiotic, a “cure” makes for a shorter visit, possibly less explanation, and that sometimes we send a patient home happier. We’ve done something.

For many of us, the choice is tempting. We want to send a patient home happy — to send them home feeling we’ve done something. It’s tempting to say, “Ah, here’s an antibiotic and you should feel better in a few days,” rather than to explain in depth why you don’t need an antibiotic. Giving antibiotics can shave time, and can improve your sense of trust in us. But I want you to know that what is easy isn’t always right.

I want you to know that as a physician, I feel a pang of insecurity, guilt, and sadness when a patient tells me they’re upset because I won’t write an antibiotic.  I don’t want you to be sick or miserable. I understand how inconvenient and sometimes life altering a cold can be. I desperately, desperately wish that I had a cure for your cold, but none of us do. I also want you to know that for every antibiotic I over-prescribe, that I run the unnecessary risk of making someone even more sick, even to the point of hospitalization or death. I went into medicine to help you and to relieve your suffering with integrity — and that by giving you antibiotics without indication, I am betraying my own purpose.

I hope that you won’t ever catch a cold. But, if one day you do and your physician tells you, “antibiotics won’t help you, but let’s discuss some other options that might help,” know that your physician did not make that decision lightly, and they did it because they knew they were doing the right thing.

Disclaimer:

Symptoms and courses of illness change.  Viruses are a predisposition to bacterial illness, so it is absolutely possible to go from a cold one moment, to a bacterial infection to the next. Please see your doctor if you have a concern.

Eileen Sprys is a family physician.

Image credit: Shutterstock.com



Sent from my iPhone

Thursday, February 9, 2017

A FARM KID WRITES HOME AFTER JOINING THE MARINES – THIS IS PRICELESS

A FARM KID WRITES HOME AFTER JOINING THE MARINES – THIS IS PRICELESS

Here’s a little pick-me-up that will help you get through the day!

country

From The Daily Headline:

Dear Ma and Pa:

I am well. Hope you are. Tell Brother Walt and Brother Elmer the Marine Corps beats working for old man Minch by a mile. Tell them to join up quick before all of the places are filled.

I was restless at first because you get to stay in bed till nearly 6 a.m. But I am getting so I like to sleep late. Tell Walt and Elmer all you do before breakfast is smooth your cot, and shine some things. No hogs to slop, feed to pitch, mash to mix, wood to split, fire to lay. Practically nothing.

Men got to shave but it is not so bad, there’s warm water. Breakfast is strong on trimmings like fruit juice, cereal, eggs, bacon, etc., but kind of weak on chops, potatoes, ham, steak, fried eggplant, pie and other regular food, but tell Walt and Elmer you can always sit by the two city boys that live on coffee. Their food, plus yours, holds you until noon when you get fed again. It’s no wonder these city boys can’t walk much.

We go on “route marches,” which the platoon sergeant says are long walks to harden us. If he thinks so, it’s not my place to tell him different. A “route march” is about as far as to our mailbox at home. Then the city guys get sore feet and we all ride back in trucks.

The sergeant is like a school teacher. He nags a lot. The Captain is like the school board. Majors and colonels just ride around and frown. They don’t bother you none.

This next will kill Walt and Elmer with laughing. I keep getting medals for shooting. I don’t know why. The bulls-eye is near as big as a chipmunk head and don’t move, and it ain’t shooting at you like the Higgett boys at home. All you got to do is lie there all comfortable and hit it. You don’t even load your own cartridges. They come in boxes.

Then we have what they call hand-to-hand combat training. You get to wrestle with them city boys. I have to be real careful though, they break real easy. It ain’t like fighting with that ole bull at home. I’m about the best they got in this except for that Tug Jordan from over in Silver Lake . I only beat him once. He joined up the same time as me, but I’m only 5’6″ and 130 pounds and he’s 6’8″ and near 300 pounds dry.

Be sure to tell Walt and Elmer to hurry and join before other fellers get onto this setup and come stampeding in.

Your loving daughter,

Alice



Sent from my iPhone

Sunday, February 5, 2017

Scientists discover cells of aborted babies living in their mothers’ brains

Scientists discover cells of aborted babies living in their mothers’ brains

Featured Image

January 3, 2013, (JillStanek.com) - Scientific American termed the research findings another way: “Scientists discover children’s cells living in mothers’ brains.”

But I wanted to drive home a touching point: Mothers who terminate their pregnancies apparently don’t completely rid themselves of their babies. The cells of murdered children live on inside their mothers to help – or perhaps – hurt them:

Cells may migrate through the placenta between the mother and the fetus, taking up residence in many organs of the body including the lung, thyroid muscle, liver, heart, kidney and skin. These may have a broad range of impacts, from tissue repair and cancer prevention to sparking immune disorders.

It is remarkable that it is so common for cells from one individual to integrate into the tissues of another distinct person. We are accustomed to thinking of ourselves as singular autonomous individuals, and these foreign cells seem to belie that notion, and suggest that most people carry remnants of other individuals.

I need to stop and note that this politically incorrect article correctly defines preborn babies as “distinct person(s),” “people,” and “individuals.”

Click "like" if you want to end abortion

Moving on….

As remarkable as this may be, stunning results from a new study show that cells from other individuals are also found in the brain. In this study, male cells were found in the brains of women and had been living there, in some cases, for several decades. What impact they may have had is now only a guess, but this study revealed that these cells were less common in the brains of women who had Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting they may be related to the health of the brain.

We all consider our bodies to be our own unique being, so the notion that we may harbor cells from other people in our bodies seems strange. Even stranger is the thought that, although we certainly consider our actions and decisions as originating in the activity of our own individual brains, cells from other individuals are living and functioning in that complex structure….

They examined the brains of deceased women for the presence of cells containing the male “Y” chromosome. They found such cells in more than 60 percent of the brains and in multiple brain regions. Since Alzheimer’s disease is more common in women who have had multiple pregnancies, they suspected that the number of fetal cells would be greater in women with AD compared to those who had no evidence for neurological disease. The results were precisely the opposite: there were fewer fetal-derived cells in women with Alzheimer’s. The reasons are unclear.

A post-abortive mother who gives any of this much thought will reach either distressing or comforting conclusions, depending on whether she has made peace.

Reprinted from JillStanek.com.



Sent from my iPhone

Bonhoeffer on Marriage

Bonhoeffer on Marriage

FB profile 7xtjw  Ah, if only this stander had been so eloquent on the witness stand in pouring God’s truth over the System’s lie of “irreconcilable

In your love you see only your two selves in the world, but in marriage you are a link in the chain of the generations, which God causes to come and to pass away to His glory, and calls into His kingdom.  In your love you see only the heaven of your own happiness, but in marriage you are placed at a post of responsibility towards the world and mankind. Your love is your own private possession, but marriage is more than something personal – it is a status, an office. dietrich_bonhoeffer-grossJust as it is the crown, and not merely the will to rule, that makes the king,  so it is marriage, and not merely your love for each other, that joins you together in the sight of God and man. dietrich_bonhoefferAs you first gave the ring to one another and have now received it a second time from the hand of the pastor, so love comes from you, but marriage from above, from God. bonhoeffer (2)As high as God is above man, so high are the sanctity the rights, and the promise of marriage above the sanctity, the rights, and the promise of love.dietrich-bonhoeffer-1It is not your love that sustains the marriage, but from now on, the marriage that sustains your love.  God makes your marriage indissoluble. ‘What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder’ (Matthew 19:6). God joins you together in marriage; it is His act, not yours.Dietrich BonhoefferDo not confound your love for one another with God.  God makes your marriage indissoluble, and protects it from every danger that may threaten it from within and without; He wills to be the guarantor of its indissolubility. bonhoeffer12It is a blessed thing to know that no power on earth, no temptation, no human frailty can dissolve what God holds together; indeed, anyone who knows that may say confidently: What God has joined together, can no man put asunder.pastor_bonhoefferFree from all anxiety that is always a characteristic of love, you can now say to each other with complete and confident assurance: We can never lose each other now; by the will of God we belong to each other till death.


Sent from my iPhone