In a recent interview for the New York Times, Supreme Court of the U.S. Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was asked what she would do if she were a lawyer again, what would she want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda. She replied,

"Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often. "

She was then asked,

"Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?"

To which this was her response, a response that I think we all need to remember, as I am sure she is not the only one who believes this.

Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong."

Did you catch that? she thought that at the time of Roe V Wade,  there was concern about population growth, among populations that we don't want to have to many of.

Now, I want to ask you, what population was she thinking of, when she said "among populations that we don't want to have to many of" Was Roe V Wade, decided, as a way of limiting the members of another race, and not so much giving "reproductive rights" to women? Was Roe V Wade, the beginning of a eugenics fight?

It is common, these days in some circles, to whine and complain about the government. Frankly I am tired of it, as Christians we should know better. In Romans 13, we are told that there is no governing authority that God did not institute. Verse 4 goes a little bit further, and says that a ruler is God's servant for good. 

During most of the time that the New Testament was being written, the Christians were under the persecution of Nero. The Apostle Paul, was familiar with persecution, both from the ruling authorities of the Jewish religon, and those from the ruling authority of the Roman empire. Yet, Paul still said that we need to obey the ruling authority. Our only out, seems to be a verse in the book of Acts, where the Apostles, tell some Jews that they (the Apostles) needed to obey God rather than man.

Which is true, we need to obey God, in those instances where God's commands, violate the laws of man. We see this in particular, with Daniel in the Old Testament, when he violated a law and ended up thrown in a den of lions. But there are certain things, that some Christians, seem to elevate to a spot equal to, or just slightly below the Bible. Take for instance, the 4th amendment, now the Bible does not give us a right to be free of search and seizure, so if the Government wanted to pass a law that limits, the 4th amendment, we as Christians, should not refuse to obey the new limits. 

Under our constitution, we have the right to petition our government, but the Bible does not seem to say anywhere "you have a right not to be searched by the government" so we cannot refuse to obey the new limits. We can write to our representatives, and work to get the law changed, but until it is changed, we have to obey the law, as the Bible is silent on the issue.

I think it is dangerous, to get into areas, where the church building, is used to house illegal aliens, so that the illegals are not deported. There is no verse in the Bible that I know of, that can be used to say, I must obey God and house these illegals, in violation of human law. I think we need to walk a fine line here in America, between exercising our constitutional rights to petition the Government for a change, and obeying the governments laws and rules.

In conclusion, while it is true, that we have a duty, to obey God rather than man, the reverse is also true, we have a duty to obey man, where God is silent.

I was going to write about something else, but I decided to write this instead. It is not a real deep theological question, but it is one that has raised it's head on occasion recently. That is the question of money and christianity.

Is it christian to be rich? I don't believe that God is going to send you to hell, if your checking account balance hits a certain point. I think God cares more about what you do with your wealth, then how much money you have. If you look at the story of the talents. Jesus did not condemn the servant who recieved 5 talents, and worked to get 5 more. Jesus did however speak poorly of the man who got one talent, and did nothing to get more.

It is common in some circles, to object to Christians being rich or having money, by pointing to Luke 9:58 and using it as proof that Jesus didn't have a house. However, they seem to forget verses like Mark 2:1 which when used together with Matt 4:12-13 seem to suggest that Jesus had a home in capernaum. So Luke 9:58 must mean something other, than Jesus being dirt poor, please don't get me wrong. I am nut suggesting that Jesus was a rich millionaire. Only that he had more money than we might give him credit for. So if Luke 9:58 does not mean that Jesus was homeless, what does it mean?

Let's view the whole thing in context. As always, all scriptual references are in the English Standard Version.

Luke 9:51-58 "⁵¹When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. ⁵²And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make preparations for him. ⁵³But the people did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. ⁵⁴And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, "Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" ⁵⁵But he turned and rebuked them. ⁵⁶And they went on to another village.

The Cost of Following Jesus

 ⁵⁷As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." ⁵⁸And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head."

Does it make a little more sense now? Jesus had gone to one village, and the people rejected him, because he was going to Jerusalem. Back then, you couldn't just go to a motel 6 and plunk down a talent or two and get a room to rent. You would instead, enter a town and someone if they had an empty room, would hang something in the door. If you saw that, you could turn in and use the room for the night. This town had rejected Jesus, He and his followers literally had no place to sleep that night. They had been tossed out on their ear, and here is someone who wants to follow Jesus. So Jesus warned him how hard it would be. It was not a general statement about being poor. It was a local statement, that talked about that particular point in time.

As I said at the beginning, I think God cares more about what we do with the money he has given us, than he does with how much. We need to be generous and loving with what he has provided for us.

What do you think? Is it Christian, to be rich?

Many times people say things that have been passed down through the years. However, many times they say them, with no idea what the saying means, or they say it in such a way, that the listener doubts the validity or the honesty of the quote,  Here are some of my favorite worn out cliches, and stupid sayings. For most of them, I have sarcastic comments in () after the quote

"This will hurt me, more than it does you"  (did any kid really buy it?)

"When you point a finger, you have three more pointing back at you"

"I want to teach you the value of a dollar." (btw the dollar is worth 13.2 Mexican pesos.) ( make sure before using this one, you hide the credit card statement, showing you owe them thousands)

"We are all God's children" (Hate to break it to you, but we aren't)

"Respect must be earned" (except you must show me respect, after all I am your parent)

"It's the thought that counts" ( I was too busy to buy you something)

What is your favorite cliche?

Someone who subscribes to my site, did a post a couple days ago, where he had an open letter he wrote, to the leaders of his denomination. I am going to take the same approach, but my letter is written to those who believe the pre trib futurist viewpoint.

I went to a church in Vermont, and the pastor, was pre-trib and the sunday school teacher for the class that I went to, was post-trib futurist. He said that he was shocked when the pastor made a pre-trib comment in a sermon. He (the sunday school teacher) could not believe that anyone would believe that a loving God, would make his children go through the tribulation. That comment, was filed away in my brain, and I would pull it out every now and then, and look at it. So the following, is a letter to the people who agree with the sunday school teacher, that a loving God, would not make his children, (christians) live through the tribulation. If this is not your particular viewpoint, then the letter is not addressed to you. the same thing applies, if you are a re trib futurist, but disagree with the sunday school teacher, that the pre trib futurist position is correct, because a loving God, would never let his children live through the tribulation. :)

Dear Pre Trib Futurist,

So, you believe that a loving God would simply not let his children, live through something as horrible as the tribulation. I am not a futurist myself, but if I were, I would have to be a post trib futurist, it seems to me to be against the Bible, for God to simply come down from Heaven, and take his children home, while everyone else suffers. Here is why.

During the ten plagues on egypt, God allowed the Children Of Israel, to suffer through some of the plagues that he sent. All of the water was turned to blood, and all of the land of egypt was covered in frogs to name two. If God was in a habit of rescuing his people from tribulation, why did he not protect them from these plagues?

Elijah, David, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Elisha, Esther, Abraham, Joshua, Moses, and a few other people, went through various times of trial in the Old Testament. Some of it directly caused by God himself,  like when he asked Abraham to sacrifice the child of promise Isaac. If God is going to protect Christians from the tribulation, why did he not protect these people from trials and tribulation?

Jesus in the book of Matthew, 5th chapter, verses 10-12 talks about how we are blessed when persecuted. The apostle John, in the 15th chapter, verse 18 of the gospel named after him, records jesus as saying that the world will hate us. Two verses later, jesus declares that Christians will be persecuted.

Acts 5:40 records what I believe is the first recorded instance of Christians being persecuted. it says that the early apostles were beaten and told not to speak in the name of Jesus.

In, Matthew 10:23 Jesus tells his disciples that when they are persecuted in one town, they were to flee to another.

Let's face it, out of 15 apostles 13 of them died for the gospel.  John, died of old age, after he wrote the book of Revelation. the other apostle, not to die for the gospel was of course Judas. That is not a very good track record.

John who as i just said, did not die for his faith, was still boiled alive in oil.

James (brother of John) was put to death by the sword.

Matthew according to legend, died in ethopia of a sword wound.

Bartholomew aka Nathanael, was flayed to death by the whip

Andrew was whipped by seven soldiers, then tied to an X shaped cross, where he proceeded to witness to his guards for two days before he died.

Thomas was stabbed to death by a spear in India

Matthias (judas' replacement) was stoned and then beheaded to make sure he was dead.

Paul was tortured and then beheaded by Nero.

Peter was crucified upside down

James the brother of Jesus,  while not an apostle, still died for his faith, when he was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple, according to legend, he survived the fall, so they beat him to deaht with clubs.

Millions of Christians, have died throughout the ages since the death of those who knew Jesus. If persecution and trial, and death were good enough for them, why should we escape what was promised to us in the New Testament? If these are the end times, why should Christians, now escape the "tribulation"? why are we so special, that Jesus would return and rescue us? The Bible says that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If God promised us persecution, and let those who gone before us be persecuted. Why would he stop us from being persecuted? There are verses in the NT, that talk about persecution  being useful in bringing forth good virtues. Why would God, skip a tool to teach us? Persecution may not be a pleasent thing to go through at the time. But persecution does tend to lead to a deeper faith, a good demonstration of the fruit of the Holy Spirit, not to mention a good harvest of souls. I think that if God were to take us out before the tribulation, we would miss a lot of oppertunity for growth.