Is Abortion Evangelism?

Why not kill the child and send them straight to Heaven? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In my systematic theology class this morning, we had a discussion on original sin and at one point, the question came up of why not go ahead and kill babies if they will go straight to Heaven? Now I have thought about this over the years and have a response. I don’t want to risk anyone just thinking that I only thought about this briefly for the first time this morning and now I’m shooting out a response.

The first thought I have on this is that we do evangelism wrong. We have made evangelism all about getting to Heaven. It’s a quite wrong-headed goal. It’s as if our whole emphasis on marriage was just getting people to the altar. That’s important, but it’s only the first part. If we don’t focus on the purpose of marriage for the new couple, they could wind up worst off than before.

In the same way, Heaven is what happens when a Christian dies, but that does not mean that that’s our sole goal. After all, many of us become Christians at a young age and then live a few decades. What are we doing? Just putting in time until we die?

“Well we’re doing evangelism and spreading the good news.”

Which is the real point of our lives. We are there to bring about the Kingdom of God and look forward to that final fruition of it when we see the marriage of Heaven and Earth. When we emphasize Heaven far too much, we make it that that is the only purpose of life and then everything else in between is just like filler episodes on a TV series that are there to have something to do until you continue the story.

This means that we need to really improve our doctrine of Heaven as well. Most of us don’t have it worked out and honestly, we treat God like He’s an afterthought. It’s as if you get to go and live in a mansion and have streets of gold and see loved ones again and by the way, God’s there too if you’re into that kind of thing. For the record also, I’m not saying I described a view of Heaven that I hold, but I recognize it is common in the church.

The other point I made is that Paul said in Romans 3 that we should not do evil that good may result. There is never a good reason for a purpose to do that which is an evil act. A Christian can hold that God can bring good out of it, but it is still something that is harmful at least for the person who is doing it.

Abortion is an evil act and whoever does it does destroy the life of an innocent baby and likely harms several other lives, but they also do great damage to their own soul. Because of that, there is no justification for doing it. Abortion is not evangelism, but simply murder.

We as Christians are to celebrate children and new lives coming into the world. Abortion is anti-thetical to the gospel entirely.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Mark Hamill Is A Slimeball

What is Mark Hamill trying to accomplish? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We have all heard it several times. Pro-lifers are not really pro-life. They are pro-birth. Once a child is born, they don’t really care. Never mind that we are the ones that run the centers to help mothers who have children and don’t abort. Never mind we have so many adoption agencies out there as well. The facts really don’t matter. The rhetorical punch is all that matters.

One such example is Mark Hamill who is known for playing Luke Skywalker as well as voicing the Joker on Batman: The Animated Series. On Twitter recently, he decided to make a post and who knows what he was really trying to accomplish. It makes less and less sense. Anyway, here’s the link.

If you can’t access it, it’s basically a picture of the Joker and Harley Quinn saying “We will adopt your baby.” Apparently, the idea is that if you go with adoption, well you could get an evil pair of parents so you might as well kill the child just to be safe. It’s always in the best interest of the child to kill it apparently.

Now if Hamill wants to stick with the comics, we can do that. I am not a reader of the comics, but I do know how to do some research. I decided to look and see if I could find any superheroes in the comics adopted by evil parents. As it turns out, it was not hard to find.

It is not good in itself for anyone to be adopted by parents that are evil, but that won’t always be the end of the story. People if they want to can overcome a great deal. Fortunately, there are plenty more people who adopt children for the good of the children.

What looks like what is going on more is a sort of attack on adoption. Yet why should this be? What is accomplished by this? Perhaps the elimination of adoption somehow or having it presented as a less than noble alternative is a way to make abortion the best option. This does ignore what kind of option abortion is, but who cares?

Apparently, the abortion side wants it where you can’t win either way. Want to adopt? Well what kind of twisted people could adopt a baby? That’s too risky! Want to run a pro-life center? They will be attacked then. Yeah. It hasn’t been breaking news for some reason, but that has been happening.

Hamill meanwhile can deal with all the people who are ready to give pushback who have been adopted by loving parents. While I have shown there are superheroes who were adopted by supervillains, some superheroes were adopted by good parents as well. One such example Mark Hamill should know about is Luke Skywalker himself. Of course, none of this information that is more factual in nature is of any interest when one just wants to push emotional strings.

One aspect that should definitely happen in this country is that adoption should become easier. To adopt a child is much more expensive than is feasible for many people beyond the ordinary costs of raising a child. Perhaps if adoption was made to be as easy as possible, like abortion has been, then we could see more adoption.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Is The Pro-Life Position Religious?

Should we throw out the pro-life position due to being religious? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

When I have seen debates going on about abortion now, something that seems to come up consistently is that this is a religious position. We have separation of church and state. We are not to be controlled by religious laws.

Is this the case? After all, many people who are explicitly religious are pro-life. Would these people be pro-life if they abandoned their religion? If their reasoning is religious in nature, can we rule it out? Even if it isn’t, surely that is their motivation. Right?

To begin with, there are many laws that we have today that are found in religious texts. Most of us seem to think that murder and stealing are wrong and to some extent, lying, such as in cases of perjury, lying under oath. While there are people who are more loose than I think should be with sex, we generally tend to think you shouldn’t cheat on the person you’re with and condemn adultery.

Who among the most radical atheist would like to abandon the law against murder because it is found in the Ten Commandments? Anyone? Do you think it should be allowed for people to steal what belongs to you? Do you think your partner should be just fine with cheating on you?

Christians are often falsely accused of picking and choosing, but atheists do the same thing. They don’t want us to be ruled by ancient laws in the Bible, but they don’t seem to mind some of those laws. Let’s also keep in mind that those laws are not given as if they are new information.

Before the Ten Commandments, we see murder being condemned, even at the very beginning with the story of Cain and Abel. The Ten Commandments were not giving new information for the most part. They were giving beliefs that the Israelites already knew of and understood. It’s not as if they got the commandments and said “Whoa! Turns out murder is wrong!”

Now let’s suppose though that my motivation is largely religious, even if my argument is not. So what? That doesn’t matter. Imagine if you had myself here and with me was atheist Albany Rose. She is a well-known pro-life atheist on social media.

Let’s suppose that we each give the same argument for why abortion is wrong. Now my perspective you could believe was religious and that was my motivation. The same could not be said of Albany Rose. Is the argument valid when it comes from her but not when it comes from me?

Of course not. Arguments stand or fall on the merit of the argument and not on the merit of the person giving it. Now if you think that someone is untrustworthy and a liar, you can be possibly rightly suspicious of their evidences. However, suppose that those evidences do turn out to be true. If that is so, then the argument stands or falls on its own.

If it is the case that the person is not one who has a reputation of being untrustworthy, then pointing out the motivations of the person doesn’t matter a bit. Arguments are either true or false. They don’t have motives. Only the people presenting them do.

Saying someone is religious in their argument is not a refutation. It is just a dodge. Sure, if I quote the Bible and you don’t believe it, then you could say you reject on those grounds, but if I give a more natural law or scientific argument, that still stands or falls on the data itself. Dealing with the person will not deal with the argument.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Is Abortion Forgivable?

Is there hope if you have done this? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yesterday, I found myself in a Facebook post on this debate on abortion and had someone telling me that God says all sin is equal in His eyes. I asked where this is and I am still waiting. All sin will exclude you from God’s presence, but some sins are worse than others. All crimes will mean you don’t have a perfect record before the law, but it’s better to have a speeding ticket than it is to be charged with murder.

Yet in all of this, there is one debate that needs to be settled. Now I realize not everyone agrees that what is in the womb of a woman is a life, but for this post, I am going to be speaking to those who believe it is and whether they believed it or not at the time, now realize that they have taken an innocent life in abortion and struggle with guilt. Indirectly, this will also be something for the men who either pushed a woman to have an abortion and have guilt or did nothing to help a woman who came to them for help and have guilt.

Can you be forgiven? Can the blood be wiped off of your hands? Can you ever enter into the presence of God with joy? Assuming you made it into the joyful presence of God, would your child forgive you?

The good news is that the answer to all of those questions is yes.

If you have done this and you confess and repent and ask Jesus for forgiveness, you will receive it. You can become a Christian or renew your Christian walk just for the asking. It’s easy for us to sometimes see God as someone who would rather punish than someone who would rather show love.

This doesn’t mean that God will remove all the consequences of your actions. You could and likely still will have a lot of healing to go through. There are other people in your life you might have to make amends to, such as maybe parents who might have wanted a grandchild. There will be a lot of work, but forgiveness should never be an issue.

You are not loved based on your performance. You are loved because God is love and God loves you and says you are lovable. Your child in the Kingdom of God will have no hatred towards you. There is perfect forgiveness there as well. No one there will have anything against anyone at all.

If you are a woman who has done this and you are seeking healing, I urge you to get it. The first place I think of is Rachel’s Vineyard. This ministry, like the next one, is not just for women but is also for men. Men can have guilt for abortion just as much as a woman can. The benefit with this first ministry is that it specifically centers around abortion.

The second one I think of is Celebrate Recovery. This ministry normally will meet at an area church and is a Christian form of a 12-step program. I have even been in it myself and I came to really treasure the guys that I was in relationship with.

Either way, please get help. Get a good church family, a good therapist, and get the healing you need. If possible, try to share your story. Keep another young mother or father from making the same mistake you did.

You are loved. You can be forgiven. You can live life with joy.

Accept it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

To Lysistrata: Your Terms Are Acceptable

Will the move of Lysistrata work? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

There is a Greek play called Lysistrata where the women get sick of the men fighting in wars all the time so they decide to hit them where it hurts. No. I’m not talking about a well-placed kick, but a much harder hit to the body part in reference. They agree to have a sex strike. Now the women are unsure of this idea at first as they don’t want to give it up, but that is what they do. It does get the attention of the men and I leave you to read it to see how it turns out.

And in the world today, that idea is seeming to be popular.

Women are now saying that they will have a sex strike until “Women’s rights” are restored. Not only that, they are including a number of radical ideas.

These include ideas such as being extremely selective about who you have sex with as that person could be the father of your baby. This means practicing abstinence. (That idea that we were told will never work.) This means also not participating in the hook-up culture. This will get men all around the world to champion women’s rights to abortion.

To which many of us pro-lifers to this Lysistrata strategy of something to say.

Your terms are acceptable.

Seriously. For many of us, this is what we’ve been telling women all our lives. Take responsibility for your lives and your bodies. You’re demonstrating to us that abortion has made it easy for men to use you. (And you’re also showing us that all along, abortion has been a form of birth control.) If there are serious consequences to illicit sexual encounters, then strangely enough, people might become more responsible with sex and make wiser choices about who they sleep with.

This might sound strange, but maybe sexual joy could be found in not treating sex as if it was a casual activity.

Now I suppose someone could come along to me and say “Okay. Are you willing to avoid sex too?”

Yeah. Been doing that since I got divorced. Plan to do that until I marry again.

Women have said that sex is practically the holy grail for men. Well you know what? If you make it harder for men to receive that prize, you know who it will eventually go to? It will go to the men who prove themselves worthy. It will go to the men who show that they can provide for you and any children that they have with you.

Maybe also you will find a guy who doesn’t want you for just sex, but wants you for you and has decided that he only wants you. Maybe you will find a guy who isn’t saturated with porn and will treasure every time he gets to see your body. Maybe you will find that real joy doesn’t come from casual hook-ups, but it comes from being in a commitment with someone who really loves you and isn’t interested in using you and doesn’t have to make the consequences go away if you get pregnant.

Abortion is not enabling to women. It’s disabling. It allows women to be used by men who don’t want to take responsibility.

You see, the ideas in this sex strike, they are actually what many of us have told you all along. We have told you to take sex seriously, take your bodies seriously, and take yourselves seriously. We have told you abortion is not your ally. Pregnancy is not a weakness for you. It is what sets you apart. A woman should not want to be equal to a man in every way. She should want to be a woman because being a woman is something unique for her and what sets her apart.

Not only that, but with the transgender movement, women forgot that if they think that they are equal to men automatically, well, that means men are equal to women. This is why we have transgenders winning at women’s sports easily and then using the women’s facilities and locker rooms. Women have not been the victors here but have been the victims. Feminism has not uplifted women but torn them down. Men and women are different, but neither one is superior.

Women. Please take your sex strike. Go super far and declare that you won’t have sex until the man commits to you and provides for you and shows he can provide for a family. If you think sex with you is a holy grail, treat it like that. You’ll find who the real men are. They are the ones willing to do the work because they consider the woman a prize worth fighting for and working for. They will be the ones who are self-sacrificial.

Here’s to Lysistrata!

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

A Day To Remember

What difference did the 24th make? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have a hope that someday in the future June 24th will be declared a national holiday. I would be thrilled if it was the day we began to be truly woke, in the sense of woke up from our delusions on sexuality, and began ending the war against reality. When I heard the news, I was thrilled. I was in such a good mood that for awhile, even being at work didn’t bother me.

Now in reality, this doesn’t change a lot honestly. Most Democratic states will stay exactly the same. Most Republican states will stay exactly the same. I am in Tennessee now and I am not seeing anyone going crazy over what has happened. Most people I encounter aren’t saying anything about it.

Still, I’m happy. Life is being honored and upheld. If anything, the reaction I am seeing from people on the left is further demonstrating to me that this is the right decision. For people who have been saying we need more gun control, I have seen them showing images about how a gun could solve the Roe decision and a number of my friends unfriended others who were calling for violence. (Not unheard of. Remember someone tried to assassinate Kavanaugh.)

Also, this is not done. We still need to have Right To Life marches. Even if every states becomes pro-life, we should be having the marches regularly. We must never take the right to life for granted again.

For those on the left also, I am already seeing the posts about how this decision is racist. The more you play this race card over and over, the less seriously we take it. If anything, you are promoting anything as racism which damages the cases of real racism that are out there.

Ideas are already popping up that if those of us on the right did, would be called conspiracy theories. This includes getting rid of apps that track menstrual cycles and ideas about going camping instead of going to get an abortion. The about face I find simply incredible.

Now if you do want to get abortion back through the Supreme Court, then here’s what you really do. Make a case that is stronger than Roe and stronger than Casey. The case was just not argued well.

For those of us on the right, we need to keep reminding people of the importance of life and keep being there for women who are in crisis pregnancies, like we have been consistently already. Also, we definitely need to do something about adoption laws. Adoption costs way too much which is why plenty of people are going to other countries in order to adopt.

I also think we owe a thanks to Trump and Bush both for appointing judges that do uphold the pro-life position. Also, those judges who stood their ground and voted for life are brave souls indeed. These people were facing constant protests and threats and could have easily backed down and they never once did. I don’t know how many of us could have done the same thing.

The other side is right about one thing. The battle is not over. No matter what, life should never be taken for granted. Every life is a precious gift and every life has a right to life.

For now, let’s celebrate!

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Margaret Sanger and the Klan

Why do Margaret Sanger statues still stand? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have never supported the tearing down of statues. Our history is not perfect, but we often try to think we can erase it like it never happened. Ultimately, it’s about symbolism. On explaining that further, I highly recommend reading this book.

So many people had their statues torn down regularly, but surprisingly, one person seemed to be immune to this. I wasn’t the one who first noticed this. The Babylon Bee actually made a point of this. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, remained safe.

Some people have had statues, books, and paintings removed for the most tenuous links to racism, even if it was their ancestors and not them themselves. However, if anyone has some connections to racism, it would be Sanger. To start with, birth control was largely promoted by her in order to promote the favored races and stifle the reproduction of the unfavored races.

This was the Eugenics movement. Did we take that seriously? Yep. That’s because there was this guy in Germany at the time named Hitler who was doing this by exterminating the people that he deemed unfit. World War II quickly put an end to the Eugenics movement, at least officially.

However, in her autobiography, Sanger talks about speaking to a group of aroused supporters. She considered any group like that a good group to talk to. Therefore, she accepted the invitation and went to speak.

So what was this group?

See for yourself:

All the world over, in Penang and Skagway, in El Paso and Helsingfors, I have found women’s psychology in the matter of childbearing essentially the same, no matter what the class, religion, or economic status. Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing.

So let’s also consider the way the logic works here.

An aroused group is a good group.
The women’s branch of the KKK was an aroused group.
Therefore, the women’s branch of the KKK was a good group.

You can read the book here.

Now I am consistent in that I think removing statues doesn’t work. If Planned Parenthood wants to keep the statue, they have that freedom. However, I notice that Sanger remains safe despite having ties like this. Not only that, but her organization of Planned Parenthood is celebrated as is the abortion that the organization promotes.

We know the reason why. No one dares to touch abortion since it is practically a sacrament to many on the left. We have seen with the news of the leak recently from the Supreme Court that people are going berserk because Roe V. Wade could be overturned.

This is why Sanger gets a lot more grace than anyone else does. Sanger goes and speaks to the KKK? No outrage whatsoever. Someone else was a descendant of someone who was thought to be a racist? We must expel them from our history!

I don’t expect consistency at all on this front. However, it looks like when it comes to which is more important, keeping abortion or removing any hint of racism, keeping abortion, which by the way can eliminate babies who are minorities, abortion wins.

Quite revealing.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Hook-Up Culture Ending?

Is this really a bad thing? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

With Roe v. Wade possibly being overturned, now women are telling men that they are wanting to end hook-up culture. It’s not worth the risk. Apparently, some guys are fine to sleep with, but they’re not good if they are going to be the father of your children.

Now these people are saying things like going on a sex strike to change people’s minds. Who are the minds they are trying to change? Largely, a lot of us conservative Christians.

You know, the ones who have long been pushing for abstinence until marriage and then sexual faithfulness in marriage?

Real convincing argument.

All we can say is “Your terms are acceptable.”

So what are some takeaways from all of this?

First, many of us were told we need abortion laws for cases of rape and incest. Sorry, but if you’re going out and hooking up with someone and wanting to get an abortion afterwards, you can’t call it rape. Now you could call it incest I suppose if you are going out and sleeping with your brother for a hook-up, but I really hope no one is doing something like that.

So thank you actually then for telling us what we have known all along. Abortion is not about those cases. It is about being used for contraception.

Second, you could very well wind up proving our case. Maybe it could actually mean people take sex seriously. After all, a woman usually has a lesser libido than a man does. I am not denying that there are some higher drive women out there, but statistically, men usually are the most eager to do the deed. A woman could want to have it, but she would be thinking, “But I don’t want to risk getting pregnant.” (Not only that, there are emotional ramifications of sex as well as STDs to consider.) She could be choosy then in who she gives herself to.

Now what does this mean for the men? Believe it or not, men might actually have to work to show themselves capable men to have sex. They might have to show that they can hold down a job and provide for a woman and the offspring. If they cannot do this, they do not get sex. Yes, women. You’ve had this power all along. You have no idea what a man is willing to do to get sex and if that means changing his life around entirely, well a man will go and do that. If you put sex out there as something easy for him to get, then he will stop generally at the level he gets it at and not go further from there. It’s a human thing. We tend to like to give the bare minimum.

Not only all of this, but if you have less sex, then you will have less need to go get an abortion which will mean fewer abortions anyway. Really, everything you’re doing here is a win for the people you want to go after the most, conservative Christians. I do know that there are plenty of secularists and atheists who are pro-life and I am thankful for that, but usually the position is associated with Christianity.

We will all be better off if we do take sex a lot more seriously because sex is a serious thing. The same applies to marriage. Women. In the end, you will have a better pool of people to date because the ones you want to be with will be the ones that work the hardest. Who gets weeded out? The men who are not willing to work to please a woman.

Why lower yourself by sleeping with a guy who’s not willing to give you his all anyway?

Welcome to what you have long been protesting. You could find this is one of the best things that ever happened to you.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

In Happiness and in Health

Should this guy marry or not? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I saw a couple of days or so ago a post on Facebook about a bride who wanted to change her wedding vows. She wanted to take out the “In sickness and in health” part and replace it with “In happiness and in health.” Why? She didn’t want to be stuck with a husband with a long-term illness. She went to Reddit to express this and thankfully, got slammed repeatedly. The story can be found here.

Let it be known also that through my entire marriage of ten years, I had to care for my ex-wife in many ways due to her mental illnesses. If someone wants to come to me and ask if I would be willing to care for someone with long-term illness, I can say I already have. This is not to complain about her either. Had she wanted to stay and work on our marriage, I would have kept caring for her.

We’re going to be looking at key parts of this article.

“Claiming that she hates “taking care of sick people”, the bride said she wanted to “live my life to the fullest” without being burdened with an ill husband.”

Okay. This is mainly being written for this husband. Dude. Take a look at this. She has come out and stated that if you get stuck with a major illness, that you will become a burden. She wants to live her life to the fullest. What is that all about? Her. For me, it was a privilege to get to care for my ex when she was sick. So possible future husband, she only wants you if you are in good health. If you come down with some long-term cancer or something like that, well she will be gone. She is not willing to be 100% faithful.

“While she said she has “no problem” with caring for him if he was sick with a cold or flu, she wasn’t prepared to look after him if he had a “chronic” or “severe” illness such as cancer.

She also outrageously said that she would put any of their future children up for adoption if they had a disability, saying “taking care of a disabled child for more than 18 years is too much”.

The post sparked an angry response on Reddit, with thousands criticising the bride for being “selfish”.”

And look at this. This woman has also said she will do the same with children. Those aren’t going to be just her children. They will be yours as well. Do you want to have to say bye to your children because your wife sees them as a burden? Do you want to have to explain to them years later that you gave in to that kind of treatment?

Reddit users are calling her selfish? Rightly so. This lady is entirely selfish and marriage will not change that. Your marriage will be all about her.

“However, the bride justified her stance, explaining that she’d spent a long time looking after her sick parents and wanted a break.

“This is harsh, but I hate taking care of sick people,” she wrote.”

Traditionally, the parents of the bride pay for the wedding. I can imagine if this happened that her parents are so happy to provide for their daughter who says she hated taking care of them. She is right on one thing. It is harsh.

““My siblings and I were always taking care of our parents whenever they get sick and I just hate it, I’m sick of it and I hate feeling bound or obligated to take care of somebody.

“My life is full of moments and events like this and I just finally want to live my life to the fullest.

“I’m going to be married soon to my lovely partner and the best guy in the world. I’m so lucky and happy to have him by my side.” “

Once again, it’s all about her. Surprisingly at least, she didn’t end this by talking about how she’s the best woman in the world in her mind and her husband will be lucky to have her by his side. She’s lucky and happy to have him, until he gets cancer. Then it’s off to find someone else as he’s keeping her from living her life to the fullest. He’s only the best guy in the world if he’s healthy after all.

“In her post, the bride said her fiancé was unhappy with her request to change her vows.

“We have been thinking a little about our marriage vows,” she said.

“My fiancé is going to have a traditional Christian one: ‘I, _____, take thee, _____, to be my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I pledge thee my faith.’

“I’m going to have an identical one but without the ‘in sickness’ part, I’m going to replace it with ‘in happiness’.”

I read “We have been thinking” as, “I have been trying to get my fiance to accept my new idea and he wants to go with this dumb traditional thing.” She is right that this is apparently a great guy. This guy is being clear in his vows. She’s wanting to change them meaning she’s not wiling to make the same commitment.

So to the guy again, here’s who is the one who’s least committed to the relationship. It’s the one who cares the least. You can give 110%, but it can still fall apart because of her actions. Do you want to risk that? Do you want to have a future divorce and be paying alimony and only get to see your kids when a judge says you can?

““My fiancé says that he will not accept this and he is very mad at me, he is even rethinking the whole thing.”

Good for him. He should. I encourage him to run for the hills and find someone more worthy.

““I just don’t want to feel obligated to take care of anybody sick for years of my own and only life.

“It’s so stressful and I think he is being very unreasonable right now, it’s just a marriage vow and I have the choice to change it.”

Look at that sentence. “It’s just a marriage vow.” For her, this is no big deal. Just a vow? This is her one and only life and you, hopefully no longer future husband, would ruin things for her if you got sick, which could well be beyond your control.” Note that you are being unreasonable in her eyes because you’re not willing to concede this whole thing to her.

“In response the extreme backlash, the woman said she was happy to care for her husband if he was suffering from a minor ailment.

“It depends on the disease, obviously – I’m going to have no problems taking care of somebody with a cold or some flu or some broken bones,” she said.

“However, if it’s chronic or severe and requires so much time and playing around (diets, restrictions, surgery risk, special conditions, frequent problems…etc) like Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, disabilities, cancer… etc then no.

“I had enough of those in my life.””

Again, how much warning do you need? This woman is not marriage material. She is only so much committed. Now let’s look at children again.

“When asked whether she would care for their future children if they had a disability, she responded: “If they are abnormal and the tests detected that, then I honestly would abort them.

“I made this clear to my fiancé before, even though we are both Christians),” she said.”

If this lady wants to claim she is a Christian, she really needs to rethink what a Christian is. Christians do not abort children because they have inconvenient sicknesses. To the man here, she is willing to kill children that are also yours. Get out now, set up blocks on email and phone and Facebook, and never look back.

“Otherwise, I would give them up for adoption. Taking care of a disabled child for more than 18 years is too much, almost like the past repeating itself but somehow reversed roles and worse and I just … I just can’t do that.

“Obviously it’s not for all cases. Like, if they got it when they are [age] seven or eight then I’m definitely going to keep taking care of them.

“It will be very unfortunate but as a mother, I would do my best to make their life better.

“However, if they had a disability at [age] two or three then I’m sorry but I just can’t do that. It will not be fair for them and it will not be fair for me and it will not be fair for my husband.

“At least I would give them the chance for a loving family that is capable of caring for them before getting too attached to me.”

Since the husband is a Christian, husband, consider this. What did Jesus say about the least of these? How you treat them is a picture of how you treat Jesus? This is how she would see her own children!

I will say I am thankful Reddit has been hard on this woman. At least there are still people in this world who see marriage as a serious vow. I don’t know their worldview, but they are treating this seriously. Kudos to them.

To the man, again, get out now. If you marry and things go wrong, you can’t say you weren’t warned. The bride is right about this being a one and only life to an extent. You don’t get to replay this. You deserve better. If you are willing to be 100% committed, find someone else who is. Physical beauty that drives us men so much will fade, but unfortunately, her attitude will stay forever and as appealing as she might be physically, her attitude is just ugly.

Get out now.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

The Strange Test In Numbers 5

Is this a misogynistic test? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In Numbers 5, we have a test that seems to us to be very strange. This is a test for faithfulness in marriage. If a man suspects that his wife is being unfaithful to him. In our continuing look at marriage and divorce, we are going to look at this.

In this test, a woman was required to drink a substance and if her abdomen swells and her thigh rots, then she has been unfaithful. There is no doubt, some euphemistic language here, but there’s nothing to suggest that an abortion or miscarriage is taking place. It could be rendering the woman infertile, however, which would indeed be a mark of shame in that culture.

Why would such a test be found in Scripture? Does God hate women that he puts them through this and the man doesn’t have to do anything similar? This test is not actually put in to demean the woman, but quite the opposite. It is there in order to protect her.

For the most part, a man is not usually in danger from the women in his life. Today, with something like a gun that is an equalizer, that can be different, but in the time of Scripture, when it came to physical power, men held that. It is certainly wrong for a man to be unfaithful, but generally, he would not have to fear that if he wound up being caught, his wife would beat him. (And even in unfaithfulness, wife-beating is never okay.)

A woman doesn’t have that benefit in the culture. Generally, women are physically weaker than men are and don’t have the upper body strength that men do. In many cultures, if a man got jealous, he could easily kill his wife if he so wanted to. If not kill, he could at least seriously injure her.

In this culture, God steps in and has a solution. Undergo a ceremony that can have real physical effects on a woman. The result would be undeniable in that culture and would settle the manner once and for all. At least one person would leave that meeting very shamed. A husband could leave if he has falsely accused his wife and she passes the test with flying colors. If she doesn’t pass, she will leave shamed with physical conditions that she will likely be stuck with because of her unfaithfulness. He could leave shamed as well knowing that his wife has been unfaithful to him.

This also illustrates that in Scripture, faithfulness in marriage is highly valued. Every time a man in Scripture was unfaithful in any way to his marriage covenant, it did not end well. The same happens with women who are unfaithful to their spouses. When we get to the New Testament, we will find that when it comes to the question of remarriage, there is differentiation between a spouse who has been faithful to a prior marriage and the spouse who has been unfaithful to the marriage covenant, but that’s for in the future.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

%d bloggers like this: