I was speaking with a friend last night about the reasons why we do things. He made the point that we are called to do all things in the Lord. He pointed out that in doing so it sometimes seems as if we are motivated simply to store up rewards in heaven or to avoid hell, and these motives seem, well, less than they should be. I know what he is saying, but I think things are not so simple. Let me use a couple examples from family life to explain what I mean.
Look at it from a parent-child perspective. I ask my children to do certain things for a variety of reasons. They may obey only because they want to avoid punishment or receive a reward. They may obey because they understand and agree with my request or because they love me and know that I love them. As a parent, I would prefer the latter two reasons, but if I cannot have these, obedience solely to avoid punishment or to seek reward is acceptable. Sometimes that is all that they can give.
What about in a mature relationship? I sometimes do things so that my wife is not displeased. Too much time at the computer or reading one of my books instead of being with the family can make a spouse understandably unhappy. No one likes it when someone is angry with them - in fact it can be rather unpleasant. Avoiding this, especially with someone so important to me, motivates me. Is this the same motivation as turning off the computer because I would rather spend time with the family I love? No, they are not. The latter is a much better motive. But the first motive is still valid - and sometimes that is all I can give.
Here is what I conclude from this. Is it better to obey because we love God? Yes. Is it better to obey because we understand and take his command as our own law? Yes. Is it alright if all we have is obedience to gain reward or avoid punishment? Indeed it is. However we each need to grow beyond this if our relationship with God is to mature beyond that of a child. Though even in a mature relationship, sometimes these “lesser” motives have their place.
9/11 Attack on World Trade Center
Father,
On this anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy, I thank you for letting me live in this great country.
May I always remember those who died because they are Americans.
May I strive to make my country worthy of the blood that has been spilt for her.
May we as a nation, along with those who love peace and freedom around the world, remember the cost of freedom.
May we be worthy of the price that has been paid, and stand ready to pay when the need arises.
I ask this through Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever.
Amen
The video below is from CatholicVote.com. I have transcribed the text below. In the end, your vote represents what you hold sacred. Choose wisely.
This November
America’s future hangs in the balance
Catholics across the nation
Will have the responsibility
To make their voices heard
Many issues are at stake
Some are more important
Than others
No issue can be ignored
But none are more crucial
to the foundation of our country than…
Life
And family
The family
Must be strengthened
Not redefined
Human life is paramount
And must be protect
From conception to natural death
Catholics have been integral to the success of America
Since the beginning
Catholic immigrants helped build this country
And their children fought to preserve it
Now more than any other time in history
A new generation must stand for truth
The strength of our nation
Is not only in its military
Or economic power
But in our commitment to moral values
For the good of the world
67 million Catholics in America
Working alongside countless others
We can protect the values
This great nation was built upon
Life, faith and family
This Election Day
Everything you hold sacred will need your vote
Vote your conscience
In expressing his admiration for Govenor Palin, Barack Obama admitted that he is not up to the job.
“I’ve got two [kids] and they tire Michelle and me out,” he [Obama] said. ref
I think he is implying one of two things. Is he saying that he would abort all of the others because he couldn’t handle it? Or is it that he couldn’t possibly be qualified for president because he has all he can handle right now? I find this a very worrying trend. That brings up an the question of whether his children are adequately cared for now. If he is tired out merely from raising two children, I can’t imagine how neglected they are when he is on such a demanding campaign stump. Clearly a woman like Governor Palin has time to be a good mother and a public servant, clearly putting to shame poor tired old Barack Obama who can’t handle his two.
There is a third alternative, but I certainly hope that he was not implying that women with more than two children should be excluded from public service. That would be sexist.
Regardless of exactly what he meant, it is certainly clear that Obama is not up to the task of running a country the size of the United States if he can barely handle heading a household of four. Barak Obama is woefully inadequate and he all but admits that here.
In case you don’t know about this story, a woman was accused, convicted, and now sentenced for killing her month old baby in a microwave. Note the judges description.
DAYTON, Ohio (AP) — A woman was sentenced Monday to life in prison without the chance for parole for burning her baby daughter to death in a microwave after fighting with her boyfriend. Common Pleas Judge Mary Wiseman lashed out at 28-year-old China Arnold….
“No adjectives exist to adequately describe this heinous atrocity,”Wiseman said. “This act is shocking and utterly abhorrent for a civilized society.”
I think the judge is exactly right. But how does this differ from the late term abortions that Democrat candidate Obama supports? A month? It isn’t burning, because we know that abortionists inject saline to burn the babies in the womb. They also jam things into their skulls and rip off their limbs. So what is the difference? How does candidate Obama defend this? Defending it isn’t above his pay grade, because he and his wife have defended it for some time.
Is it possible that the senator from Illinois is simply OK with the heinous, the utterly abhorrent?
I think this is indeed the case. Candidate Obama has argued against the partial birth abortion ban. The senator’s wife, in a fund raising letter for her husband, said that partial birth abortion was “a legitimate medical procedure.” This is the procedure where the abortionist sucks the brains out of a child in the birth canal or shoves scissors into their skull or decapitates them at the neck.
The senator voted against the protection of infants born alive after an abortion and is the only person in the Illinois senate to actively speak against this act. In Illinois, babies born alive after an abortion were left to die. The babies would suffocates because their lungs were not fully developed. This excruciating process could take hours before resulting in the infants death. These infants, discarded by their parents would be put out of the way without ant medical treatment until they died. Presidential candidate Obama thinks this is a valid activity our society and defended this evil. For Obama, nothing is more important than a woman’s right to kill her child. Nothing.
In fact, candidate Obama has said that the “the first thing I’d do as president” would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would overturn every local, state, and federal abortion law passed in the past 35 years. Come on in abortionists, bring your hooks and your scissors and your vacuums and your saline. Have a place to toss the live births you didn’t want, because president death will be in the White House if candidate Obama is elected. He would finally win his fight to destroy the lives of children in as gruesome a manner as that of one month old Paris Talley described in the story above. What is the difference? Just one month.
Killing the most defenseless members of our society is a heinous and utterly abhorrent act. Candidate Obama disagrees. He wants to defend the legality of suffocating innocent life for hours. He defends the legality of abortionists sucking the brains out of infants in the process of being born. Perhaps the only thing as abhorrent as the evil act of infanticide are those that have the unmitigated gall to defend and advocate it.
If you are only paying attention to the mainstream media, you would not be aware of the persecution that Christians are undergoing at the hands of hindus. Churches have been burned. Christians have been murdered, including by being burned alive. Even Mother Theresa’s sisters are being harassed for caring for the poor.
From the west we hear only the deafining sounds of silence. If you are at all disturbed, you should first become informed.
Orissa: six more churches set on fire, hundreds of homes destroyed
Orissa: thousands of refugees and new victims, massacre of Christians continues
Faithful killed, homes and churches burned, thousands flee: pogrom of Indian Christians (OVERVIEW)
Orissa: burning and looting continues, Christians beaten and cut to pieces
Orissa: Hindus torch Christian homes and churches, three die asphyxiated By Nirmala Carvalho
Orissa: Hindu extremists burn one nun alive, rape another
The first thing to do is pray. The second is to spread the word about these pogroms. The third is to look for opportunities to support the Church in India and other areas where she is being persecuted. We need to look beyond our borders and remember our brothers and sisters in need.
The Birth of the Virgin Mary - Esteban Murillo (Louvre, Paris)
Today we celebrate the birth of Mary, the mother of God. This perfect fruit from the trunk of Jesse through the branch of David became the living tabernacle, the living ark of the new covenant. Through her our salvation was born into the world. And as Christ our Lord hung on the Cross, he gave her to all of us and all of us to her to be mother of us all.
So, remember your mother Mary’s birthday today and say a prayer. Ask her to pray for you. She will. Remember too that Christ listens to his mother. How blessed we are to have her. Thank God most high for the wonders he has done in and through and because of her and that most glorious fiat.
Over at Thoughts of a Regular Guy, there is a discussion about abortion. Most of the abortion apologists remain anonymous and rant often incoherently. Getting one to make an actual argument is tough. However, one has and I replied. She couldn’t help the dig at my IQ, but I don’t expect better when someone remains anonymous. I did want to provide my reply. I think that the exchange highlights the basic difference between the positions. What follows is the text of my reply
One of the anonymous said:
A fetus is indeed human, you are smart afterall, well done. A child, like an adult, exists as a physically independent entity. A fetus cannot exist as a sovereign entity, but requires a host to survive. A fetus’ so called right to life boils down to the “right to remain in the womb”—and such a “right” is only possible by the violation of the actual right of the pregnant woman to her body. In contrast, observe that a child’s right to life does not contradict the rights of anyone else. The principle here is that any alleged “right” that by nature entails the violation of the rights of another is not a right. There is no such thing as “trading one’s rights for the rights of others.” Proper rights, i.e., rights that are objectively defined, are non-contradictory.Abortion is an inalienable right. Abortion is not a violation of any right, because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside) of another human being as a parasite, i.e., against the will of that person. This is why making abortions will remain legal in this free country.
Here is the crux of the argument for abortion. It boils down to two points.
1. There is no basic right to life for all human beings - there are classes of humans that do not possess this basic right and that class is those that are completely dependent for sustenance and protection.
2. There is a right to manipulate one’s body any way a person sees fit and the right to manipulate one’s body is the most basic right.Your arguments, though made eloquently are false.
I’d like to start with your second point because it is important to the first point. You claim that a person has a right to manipulate their own body however they see fit. This is patently false. Similarly, my right to swing my arm ends before it hits another’s nose (I presume you would agree with that). There is no right to take one’s own life - it is not even recognized as a license in most of the country. Even if you won’t grant that, I suspect that you might agree that a person does not have the right to load their body with explosives and detonate it in the middle of a crowded bus. That is definitely not a legitimate manipulation of a persons body. So clearly, I cannot do whatever I want with my body.
The line of what is permissible and what is not seems to lie along whether I intentionally do harm to another human being. Certainly, I cannot rightly manipulate my body so as to cause the destruction of others (as in packing myself with explosives) and in swinging my arms. So, the body argument just doesn’t work. It is not the ultimate right that all other’s rights must bow to. So the real crux of your argument lies in the infants right to life.
Your first point rests on the notion that an unborn child is a parasite, that is completely dependent on its mother for sustenance and protection. Because it is completely dependent, it has no rights. You argue that no other humans are completely dependent on another for sustenance and protection. That is not true. We can identify other human beings that are completely dependent on another person for sustenance and protection. These might include a newborn infant, or a small child, or an invalid parent, or someone who has experienced an accident, or is ina coma. Do these persons not have a right to life either? In essence you are arguing for a right to not be imposed upon by another and this right trumps all others - even the most basic human right.
Your argument is the best for your position, but it is usually presented as a person being forced to help another. There is a problem here to0. We can talk about a persons rights and what they are before a critical event and after a critical event. No one has a right to make a woman do anything that would cause her to conceive a child. Period. No one. To do so would be a violation of her basic rights as a human being at a most fundamental level. We need to do everything to keep anyone from forcing a woman to do what it takes to conceive another human being. Indeed, if she does not want to conceive she should not do what is required to conceive a child.
Whether a woman voluntarily does what is required to conceive or is forced to against her basic rights, if the conception occurs, another human being is created and that human being is endowed with certain inalienable rights, first and foremost is the right to life. These rights are not dependent on whether the individual is incapable of providing sustenance and protection for themselves. At this point, a woman cannot justly manipulate her body to deprive this human being of the most basic right in the same way that my right to swing my arm (or a knife) stops before it hits another person.
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Palin delivers a knockout
Perhaps the media and Democrats would have been better advised to set expectations high for Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech tonight at the Republican convention. After ridiculing her as a small-town yokel for the better part of three days, Palin would have looked good if she managed to avoid drooling during her speech. In the event, though, they could have set expectations as high as a Barack Obama acceptance speech, and Palin would still have exceeded them in a tremendous debut on the national stage.
Palin made it clear to the condescending media and her Democratic critics that she is no pushover, no cream puff. Her nickname, “Sarah Barracuda”, seems a lot more fitting after tonight. Not only did she defend her small-town upbringing, she attacked Barack Obama on almost every possible front, and for good measure went after Joe Biden and the mainstream media as well.
Here are my two simple, straightforward thoughts at this point.
1. The more I see, and hear about Sarah Palin, the more I am impressed and excited for the future.
2. John McCain showed brilliant leadership in picking her.
If (hopefully when) they win, this doesn’t just change Washington. This doesn’t just give a shot in the arm to those who value life. This begins the transformation of the Republican Party. John McCain is injecting fresh blood into the heart of the old beast. This could change things not just now, but in the next go around.
At the very least, I see hope.
