Mirta Signorelli earned her Master's Degree in theology after having worked for years as a psychologist. She has until recently worked as a chaplain in Hospice Care facilities. For the past seven years she has served as a chaplain for the HOSPICE BY THE SEA, a non-profit organization that serves Palm Beach and Broward counties in Florida.
On February 23, she and other chaplains were told to "cease and desist" from using the words "God" or "Lord" in prayers and public presentations in staff meetings. Apparently some staff were not religious and the Administrator felt that such terms as "Lord" and "God" could be offensive to them. Signorelli had already been chastised for reading the 23rd Psalm which contains the word "Lord"; a word the Administrator thought sounded too Christian. Of course the 23rd Psalm is in the Old Testament and is a favorite text of non-Christian Jewish religion. Lord in the 23rd Psalm is not a reference to Jesus as anyone with any knowledge of Scripture should know.
The other six chaplains had no problem with the restriction. Signorelli resigned, saying she couldn't serve others with such restrictions. This event raises some important questions.
First of all, I am reporting what a Florida newspaper has reported and am responding to the report as written. I have no first hand knowledge of this story. Assuming the Florida report to be reasonably accurate, I think its worth reflecting for a few moments upon the story.
1. Why would a facility employ a chaplain and then ask them not to mention God. Why not employ a grief cousellor or psychologist if you prefer God not be mentioned.
2. Yes, but the restriction apparently was only in the context of staff meetings and not in relationship to the patients. Then why ask chaplains to attend staff meetings if they are not allowed to practice their chaplaincy in such contexts.
3. Of as much or more concern is why the other six chaplains had no problem with the restriction. Are they o.k. with being told that in certain circumstance they are not to mention God? What if the restrictions had extended to their relationships with the patients, would they have then had a problem? One would hope so!
4. What if the staff members who had a problem with the mention of God might happen to use a bit of profanity, would the Administrator point out that such speech offends the chaplain and that such language is forbidden? Or what if the staff members spoke of being atheists and ridiculed faith in the presence of the chaplain, would they have been told to "cease and desist"? Maybe they would have, but I wonder?
In an adult world we need to accept one another and tolerate one another. There are situations where I think certain language should be monitored. Profanity and such should not be allowed in the presence of children. However, as adults we realize that the real world is not composed of Christians only. Do you think Jesus corrected everyone who used profanity in his presence? People of that day had foul mouths such as some people of today. Since Jesus hung out with sinners and prostitutes, I imagine he was exposed to the same language as Christians are today. I'm not guilty for what someone else says or does. I can request that someone not use profanity or I can dismiss myself from the presence of someone who does, but I cannot expect administration to enforce my personal beliefs on everyone else. At the same time I should be allowed the freedom to express my thoughts whether religious or not without fear of being censored.
It would make as much sense for the elders to tell me not to speak of "Lord" or "God" because we might have some unbelievers Sunday morning as it does for a chaplain to be told not to use such words while serving as a chaplain.
As long as such censorship is isolated and not coming from Government agencies, its not quite as serious a concern. However, with the ever vigilant ACLU monitoring our speech and with hate crimes on the book, it may not be long before certain speech will be censored and outlawed. To call sodomy a sin could easily bring pain to a sodomist and thus be declared "hate speech". Thus certain scriptures might be illegal if read in public settings. I hope such never happens in America, but the climate is right for the enactment of these types of censorship.
"When they had brought them, they had them stand before the council. The high priest questioned them, saying, 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you are determined to bring this man's blood on us.'. But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than any human authority." (Acts 5:27-29)
Human authorities such as Administrators of Hospice facilities and Government agencies must not be allowed to silence the voice of dedicated Christians. My prayer is that we never have to choose between God and our employer or government.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
life de-valued and threatened
We're less than two months into the Obama era and already drastic changes have occurred. The economy continues to slide south. Those with funds available for investing are hesitant to do so because the administration does not seem to be business friendly. Of course those with funds to invest will soon have less funds as tax increases will take from the haves to give to the have nots so that we will have a more just society. Class warfare is being generated and now those subject to discrimination are not a race or a gender, but those who have been successful. Yes there are some bad rich people who take advantage of others and there are some bad businesses that play loose and fast with others money, but a whole class should not be deprived of their hard earned money because a few bad apples have been found. I am all for the rich giving more to help the poor and helpless, but those who take out mortgages they can't afford should not be rewarded for bad decisions and choices. When those who pracitice sound budgeting and buy only what they can afford are having to bail out those who made bad decisions whether they are banks, auto manufacturers, or house buyers it is not justice. When they will have to pay in taxes their children's inheritance to make possible the reduction of the amount of money owed by people who bought houses they couldn't afford, its not fair. Yet this is the new era of redistribution of wealth from the "haves" to the "needy" regardless of why they are needy.
Soon we will have universal health care. Sounds great doesn't it. People without insurance will have it and all will be well. Oh, did I mention that someone will have to pay for it. Those rascally business owners once again will be called on to make their contribution to the needy. It seems that most people who need health care even if they have no insurance can still receive it under our current system. Think about the number of illegal aliens who pay no taxes and yet receive care when the need is there. When we receive government health care, we will suddenly discover as they have in England, Canada and elsewhere that with government care, there is more government and less care. In Canada some medicines cannot be covered by the health care system because they are too expensive and even people with money are forbidden to purchase such medicines because it would be unfair to others who can't purchase them. There's a reason why the death rate for cancer is much higher in England then in America. There is also a reason why in England certain health care is rationed according to certain criteria concerning who should receive premium care. Oh, by the way, if you are 65 or older, it is amazing how little health care you need.
Yesterday, President Obama issued an executive order overturning President Bush's Executive order that prohibited government funded production of embryos for scientific research. Under Bush, private funds could be used for such research, but not tax dollars. Under Obama's E.O. tax money paid by Christians and others who believe life begins at conception, will be used to create life with the intent of destroying it. Tax payer funded murder will make implicit all tax payers in this practice.
Oh how I wish that churches of Christ and other conservative Christian bodies were as outspoken on this issue as the Catholic Church is. One of my favorite authors is Robert George who is professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. In an article today in the Wall Street Journal that he co-authored with Eric Cohen, he writes the following: "Mr. Obama made a big point in his speech of claiming to bring integrity back to science policy and his desire to remove the previous administration's ideological agenda from scientific decision-making." What Obama means by ideoloical is the Christian and scientific argument that life begins at conception. If life does not begin at conception, let science show us scientifically the moment life begins. At conception a new genotype comes into existence different from mom and dad. That genotype will develop and remain the same until he or she dies. Just because in its early stages the cells do not look like adult humans doesn't mean that they are not human.
Mr. Obama claims he's taking science out of politics by liberating science to make its own decisions. Yet, he tells us he's opposed to producing cloned humans. Why? If science is free from politics then who is to tell science that it can't clone? George, a Roman Catholic philosopher adds that "The question of whether to destroy human embryos for research purposes is not fundamentally a scientific question; it is a moral and civic question about the proper uses, ambitions and limits of science, it is a question about how we will treat members of the human family at the very dawn of life; about our willingness to seek alternative paths to medical progress that respect human dignity." No one seems to respect the slippery slope argument, but please be assured that the granting of a right to produce embryos in fertility treatments has made our society less concerned about stem cell embryonic research. The recent birth of octuplets reminds us of what fertility treatment can lead to. Yet I would prefer octuplets to selective embryo reduction which many prospective parents choose, which is abortion of unwanted multiple babies so that the birth of just one will occur. Normally when a prospective mother receives embryo transplants, she receives at least four embryos. This is due to the expense involved and the fact that the rate of miscarriages tend to be higher with artificially produced embryo transplants. Thus if the sonogram shows a multiple pregnancy, the physician will recommend selective reduction of babies until only one remains.
Mr. Obama had already announced a reversal of the Bush policy of not funding foreign agencies that performed abortions.
Internationally, North Korea has warned us that if we interfere with their missile test, they will retaliate against America and South Korea. Recently China tested Obama by having war vessels approach an American ship with threats. We expressed our concern. How long before these teasers become the showdown predicted by Obama's Vice President?
My new hero is the President of another country, Vaclav Klaus of Czech republic. Klaus is demonized by Al Gore and his colleagues who tell us that the biggest danger facing America and the world is global warming. Klaus has written a book challenging Gore and his supporters. Klaus is also a vocal voice in support of the free market. In a speech yesterday at Columbia University he said that "fighting for freedom and free markets is something we always appreciated here in this country(the United States) and it remains the task of the day. In his speech he reiterated that "global warming alarmism" is a major problem.
I want to make it abundantly clear that I'm not arguing for a Republican agenda as opposed to a Democratic agenda. I have plenty of issues with Republicans in Congress and I had issues with George W. Bush. No person and no party represents perfection. My problems with Mr. Obama are not with his sincerity or his patriotism, but my concerns are with the ethics of his agenda and the future that will be passed to my children and grandchildren.
In less than two months we have gone far down the road that threatens life and liberty. By the way, Hitler also respected science a great deal and science respected Hitler. Before anyone thinks that I am comparing Obama to Hitler, please let me disavow such. My only point is that science cannot be given autonomous authority over life and death because whatever is possible some unethical scientist will be willing to do. There must be ethical restraints placed upon both government and science.
To make stem cell research a matter of compassion for the diseased is to create an either/or situation when such is not required. No one has the right to save someone's life by taking the life of another with out his permission. To destroy an infant in the ebryonic stage when the infant can't defend itself is unethical. Furthermore great progress has been made in other stem cell research that holds great potential without resource to embryos.
Wonder where we will be in four years if the same rate of change occurs in the future as has occurred in the past few weeks. Please pray for our country and for innocent lives inside or outside of the womb. Our children and grandchildren are at risk and my prayer is that our elected leaders will sooner and not later realize what is at stake.
I am always reluctant to speak out on what many would consider political matters, but life, liberty and morality transcends politics. If Christians don't speak out on matters of right and wrong, then to whom shall we delegate that task? If its not right to gender hostility between business and labor, wealthy and poor, and science and religion then we must let our voices be heard. If its wrong to take innocent life, its wrong even if done by politicians or scientists. We must not fear those who would try to silence criticism by appealing to separation of church and state. Every society needs a conscience. What I am attempting to do is contribute to the conscience of our country. I am only one voice and my contribution is only as valuable as my facts and the logic of my argument. My task is to evaluate as best I can, not by pragmatism and political preference, but from the standpoint of right and wrong. Life should not be the restricted to political debate or the test tubes of the scientists.
My blog belongs to Ronnie Wiggins, the American citizen and not to the Church of Christ where I worship. As a Christian I express the values that I believe are Christian. Secularists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and others have the same right and I would not for a moment discourage them from doing the same thing. I do resent that on many college campuses across our land, tax dollars are funding a united voice that has nothing but disdain for religion and Christianity in particular. Recent surveys show that the number of Christians compared with the population in general is declining. Should we be surprised? We can blame the media, politicians, academia and I do. However, blaming won't increase the number of Christians in America and the world. If we don't like present trends then we must work the harder and pray more fervently to change the trends.
Soon we will have universal health care. Sounds great doesn't it. People without insurance will have it and all will be well. Oh, did I mention that someone will have to pay for it. Those rascally business owners once again will be called on to make their contribution to the needy. It seems that most people who need health care even if they have no insurance can still receive it under our current system. Think about the number of illegal aliens who pay no taxes and yet receive care when the need is there. When we receive government health care, we will suddenly discover as they have in England, Canada and elsewhere that with government care, there is more government and less care. In Canada some medicines cannot be covered by the health care system because they are too expensive and even people with money are forbidden to purchase such medicines because it would be unfair to others who can't purchase them. There's a reason why the death rate for cancer is much higher in England then in America. There is also a reason why in England certain health care is rationed according to certain criteria concerning who should receive premium care. Oh, by the way, if you are 65 or older, it is amazing how little health care you need.
Yesterday, President Obama issued an executive order overturning President Bush's Executive order that prohibited government funded production of embryos for scientific research. Under Bush, private funds could be used for such research, but not tax dollars. Under Obama's E.O. tax money paid by Christians and others who believe life begins at conception, will be used to create life with the intent of destroying it. Tax payer funded murder will make implicit all tax payers in this practice.
Oh how I wish that churches of Christ and other conservative Christian bodies were as outspoken on this issue as the Catholic Church is. One of my favorite authors is Robert George who is professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. In an article today in the Wall Street Journal that he co-authored with Eric Cohen, he writes the following: "Mr. Obama made a big point in his speech of claiming to bring integrity back to science policy and his desire to remove the previous administration's ideological agenda from scientific decision-making." What Obama means by ideoloical is the Christian and scientific argument that life begins at conception. If life does not begin at conception, let science show us scientifically the moment life begins. At conception a new genotype comes into existence different from mom and dad. That genotype will develop and remain the same until he or she dies. Just because in its early stages the cells do not look like adult humans doesn't mean that they are not human.
Mr. Obama claims he's taking science out of politics by liberating science to make its own decisions. Yet, he tells us he's opposed to producing cloned humans. Why? If science is free from politics then who is to tell science that it can't clone? George, a Roman Catholic philosopher adds that "The question of whether to destroy human embryos for research purposes is not fundamentally a scientific question; it is a moral and civic question about the proper uses, ambitions and limits of science, it is a question about how we will treat members of the human family at the very dawn of life; about our willingness to seek alternative paths to medical progress that respect human dignity." No one seems to respect the slippery slope argument, but please be assured that the granting of a right to produce embryos in fertility treatments has made our society less concerned about stem cell embryonic research. The recent birth of octuplets reminds us of what fertility treatment can lead to. Yet I would prefer octuplets to selective embryo reduction which many prospective parents choose, which is abortion of unwanted multiple babies so that the birth of just one will occur. Normally when a prospective mother receives embryo transplants, she receives at least four embryos. This is due to the expense involved and the fact that the rate of miscarriages tend to be higher with artificially produced embryo transplants. Thus if the sonogram shows a multiple pregnancy, the physician will recommend selective reduction of babies until only one remains.
Mr. Obama had already announced a reversal of the Bush policy of not funding foreign agencies that performed abortions.
Internationally, North Korea has warned us that if we interfere with their missile test, they will retaliate against America and South Korea. Recently China tested Obama by having war vessels approach an American ship with threats. We expressed our concern. How long before these teasers become the showdown predicted by Obama's Vice President?
My new hero is the President of another country, Vaclav Klaus of Czech republic. Klaus is demonized by Al Gore and his colleagues who tell us that the biggest danger facing America and the world is global warming. Klaus has written a book challenging Gore and his supporters. Klaus is also a vocal voice in support of the free market. In a speech yesterday at Columbia University he said that "fighting for freedom and free markets is something we always appreciated here in this country(the United States) and it remains the task of the day. In his speech he reiterated that "global warming alarmism" is a major problem.
I want to make it abundantly clear that I'm not arguing for a Republican agenda as opposed to a Democratic agenda. I have plenty of issues with Republicans in Congress and I had issues with George W. Bush. No person and no party represents perfection. My problems with Mr. Obama are not with his sincerity or his patriotism, but my concerns are with the ethics of his agenda and the future that will be passed to my children and grandchildren.
In less than two months we have gone far down the road that threatens life and liberty. By the way, Hitler also respected science a great deal and science respected Hitler. Before anyone thinks that I am comparing Obama to Hitler, please let me disavow such. My only point is that science cannot be given autonomous authority over life and death because whatever is possible some unethical scientist will be willing to do. There must be ethical restraints placed upon both government and science.
To make stem cell research a matter of compassion for the diseased is to create an either/or situation when such is not required. No one has the right to save someone's life by taking the life of another with out his permission. To destroy an infant in the ebryonic stage when the infant can't defend itself is unethical. Furthermore great progress has been made in other stem cell research that holds great potential without resource to embryos.
Wonder where we will be in four years if the same rate of change occurs in the future as has occurred in the past few weeks. Please pray for our country and for innocent lives inside or outside of the womb. Our children and grandchildren are at risk and my prayer is that our elected leaders will sooner and not later realize what is at stake.
I am always reluctant to speak out on what many would consider political matters, but life, liberty and morality transcends politics. If Christians don't speak out on matters of right and wrong, then to whom shall we delegate that task? If its not right to gender hostility between business and labor, wealthy and poor, and science and religion then we must let our voices be heard. If its wrong to take innocent life, its wrong even if done by politicians or scientists. We must not fear those who would try to silence criticism by appealing to separation of church and state. Every society needs a conscience. What I am attempting to do is contribute to the conscience of our country. I am only one voice and my contribution is only as valuable as my facts and the logic of my argument. My task is to evaluate as best I can, not by pragmatism and political preference, but from the standpoint of right and wrong. Life should not be the restricted to political debate or the test tubes of the scientists.
My blog belongs to Ronnie Wiggins, the American citizen and not to the Church of Christ where I worship. As a Christian I express the values that I believe are Christian. Secularists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and others have the same right and I would not for a moment discourage them from doing the same thing. I do resent that on many college campuses across our land, tax dollars are funding a united voice that has nothing but disdain for religion and Christianity in particular. Recent surveys show that the number of Christians compared with the population in general is declining. Should we be surprised? We can blame the media, politicians, academia and I do. However, blaming won't increase the number of Christians in America and the world. If we don't like present trends then we must work the harder and pray more fervently to change the trends.
Life de-valued and threatened
Stay tuned. I'll be back later today, and I have a lot to say. If you will listen, you'll be my friend forever, of course forever is getting shorter every day.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Since taking such a hit from the free falling Dow Jones, I thought I had finally found a safe investment only to learn that real patriots must pay their taxes and sacrifice for the planet. In 2008 Quilted Northern Ultra and Charmin Ultra increased sales by a whopping 40% in some markets, according to Information Resources Inc.. Finally I had discovered a product doing well and bringing joy and comfort to millions. What more could a Christian investor hope for? What a blessing I could help bring to the world by investing in such an enterprise.
However, Leslie Kaufman of the New York Times has reminded me that "fluffiness comes at a price....millions of trees" must die for our comfort and my profit. Wow, I don't want to be a murderer. Its the comfort of humans vs the life of the trees. Being Pro-Life as I am, the choice seems clear. I must sacrifice money and comfort for the well-being of the planet. We should learn from the Europeans. Kaufman informs us that "In many European nations a rought sheet of paper is deemed sufficient".
We have so much to learn from the Europeans. They teach us that "big government knows best", universal health care can reduce life expectancy and save us money, higher taxes is always good, and that sacrificing comfort and money is the goal of all patriots of the planet. Fortunately we are blessed with some well trained teachers in Washington and New York who can provide us a crash course on the Eureka Europe Experience.
However, Leslie Kaufman of the New York Times has reminded me that "fluffiness comes at a price....millions of trees" must die for our comfort and my profit. Wow, I don't want to be a murderer. Its the comfort of humans vs the life of the trees. Being Pro-Life as I am, the choice seems clear. I must sacrifice money and comfort for the well-being of the planet. We should learn from the Europeans. Kaufman informs us that "In many European nations a rought sheet of paper is deemed sufficient".
We have so much to learn from the Europeans. They teach us that "big government knows best", universal health care can reduce life expectancy and save us money, higher taxes is always good, and that sacrificing comfort and money is the goal of all patriots of the planet. Fortunately we are blessed with some well trained teachers in Washington and New York who can provide us a crash course on the Eureka Europe Experience.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Trees are budding and blossoming, weeds are growing (as evidenced in my grassless lawn), and hope springs eternal. The high temperature forecast for today is 85 and we are still in February. I guess those global warming guys must be right. I wish I had the money to buy some carbon credits, but I've lost my purchasing power through investing in the future. Yet, its spring and I'm sure that if I have the audacity to hope, all will be well. I hope, hope, hope infinitum.
Well, this morning's blog will be the last dealing with the arguments of the atheists. I may, although I haven't decided for sure, present a few blogs on "reasons to believe in God". So much of this type of discussion takes us out of our comfort zone. A few years ago, historian Mark Noll wrote a work entitled THE SCANDAL OF THE EVANGELICAL MIND. His argument was that conservative christians ( some of whom are evangelical ) have produced precious little work that appeals to the mind, and addresses problems that secular academia have presented us. Our children go to institutions of higher learning and are presented with problems they can't answer because parents and churches have provided precious little help in preparing them for the education experience. Should we just give up the mind to the unbelieving world, or should we equiip ourselves to confront unbelief with facts and arguments that provide more than "well, I just believe".
Atheists usually explain "belief in God" as some form of projection or wish for a father, who will protect us and provide for us, as we navigate through a very dangerous world that threatens our very existence. Sigmund Freud is the father of psychoanalysis and it is he who has formulated the view that still prevails among atheists. "Religious ideas have arisen from the same needs as have all the other achievements of civilization: from the necessity of defending oneself against the crushing superior force of nature." Freud adds that religous beliefs are mere "illusions , fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind...As we already know, the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection---for protection through love---which was provided by the father...Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fear of the danger of life."
If Freud is right, then could one say that atheism results from a wish for "no father". Atheists would be quite resistent to such an idea, but Freud may have inadvertently opened the door to such a view. The previous quotes were taken from THE FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION, but of course Freud published many books. One of his earlier works was TOTEM AND TABOO, and in that work he writes the following: "Psychoanalysis of individual human beings...teaches us with quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed in the likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God depends on the relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes along with that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an exalted father". Might it not, therefore, be appropriate to examine Freud's relationship with his dad to help explain why he might reject God?
Sigmund seems to have viewed his father, Jacob, as a great disappointment. The family survived on money derived from the mother rather than the father. His dad was viewed by his son as weak and cowardly. Jacob allowed a notorious anti-semite to call him a "dirty Jew" and to knock his hat off without lifting a hand to defend himself. According to Dr. Paul Vitz, a psychologist who has served as professor of New York University, Freud declared his father to be a sexual pervert in a letter that he wrote. Jacob was a Jew and enjoyed reading the Old Testament and Talmud to his son. According to Vitz in his work FAITH OF THE FATHERLESS Sigmund saw his father as a "weak, rather passive 'nice guy' connected to Judaism and God, and also to a serious lack of courage and to sexual perversion, and other weaknesses very painful to young Sigmund". "Psychoanalysis" says Freud, "daily demonstrates to us how youthful persons lose their religious belief as soon as the authority of the father breaks down".
If Freud were the only well known atheist to have a less than desirable relationship with his father, we might dismiss his situation as an aberration, but in fact his experience seems to be the norm among atheists. Vitz documents similiar problems among a number of well known atheists of history. Some of the atheists had no living father during their childhood and that in itself produced lasting problems for their psyche. Among these were such notables as Friedrich Nietzsche, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus and Arthur Schopenhauer. Still others had abusive and weak fathers and this list includesVoltaire, Ludwig Feuerbach, Sigmund Freud and H.G. Wells. Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son wrote that "We rarely did anything together as a family. The hatred between my grandfather and mother barred such wholesome scenes." Albert Ellis, the founder of "Rational Emotive Therapy " was neglected by his parents according to biographer Daniel Wiener. Vitz writes that young Albert
was "abandoned by his father and has had to support himself and his mother" through life.
Historical data such as the above would seem to suggest that it is atheism that may be the product of projection. " If God is a father, then I wish not to have one " seems to be the echo heard from well known atheists through the centuries. Before closing, I want to share one more brief account of one of the most influential philosophers of the past 300 years.
No one has had more influence in the past 50 years or so upon art, music , politics and literature than Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). He pioneered the "God is dead" movement that came to prominence decades later. Nietzsche is often viewed as a prophetic voice of the future of the west. He had a deep hatred for Judaism and Christianity in particular. The Jews were viewed by him as bringing the most despicable religion of all time onto the stage of world history. The mild and gentle Jesus was seen as compensation for weak and cowardly people. These weak and cowardly people couldn't compete with the strong so they introduced a religion that awards "turning the cheek" and other passive, cowardly behavior. Nietzsche introduced the "superman" or heroic strong, self willed leader as the noble and religion as a compensation for the weak.
Nietzsche's father, Ludwig Nietzsche, was a minister in the Lutheran Church. He died just a few months before Friedrich's 5th birthday. Doctors diagnosed the cause of his death as a "softening of the brain". One biographer described him as "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound". Following his dad's death Friedrich wept for days. According to Neitzsche his father's death robbed him of the "superior guidance of a male intellect". Following his father's death he was raised by his mother and female relatives.
His autobiography ECCE HOMO includes the following observation: "The treatment I have received from my mother and my sister, up to the present moment, fills me with inexpressable horror...". His view of women is well illustrated in the following quote: "You are going to see a woman? Do not forget your whip."
Friedrich missed his father, but also viewed him as a failure. His dad had been sickly and according to Friedrich was lacking in "life force". Just months before his total mental collapse and admission to a hospital for the insane, Friedrich wrote that he was suffering from "nervous exhaustion (which is in part hereditary--from my father, who also died from the consequences of a pervasive lack of life force". "My father died at the age of thirty-six; he was delicate, lovable and morbid, like a being destined to pay this world only a passing visit--a gracious reminder of life rather than life itself". Friedrich's criticism of Christianity was that it lacked "life force" like his Lutheran father.
What complicated life for Friedrich was that he shared many of the same qualities that he viewed as defiencies in his father. As a child he was often picked on because of his frequent illnesses and weakness in appearance. He described himself as by nature warlike, but he looked like anything but a warrior. He was quiet, sickly and did not present himself as an imposing figure. As Vitz points out with regard to Nietzsche, he had "a strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak, a representative of what might be called a 'death force'--the very opposite of the Superman figure tht Nietzsche idealized. As one of his biographers put it, much of Nietzsche's life could be seen as a permanent 'quest for the father.' Indeed, the Superman may be interpreted as Nietzsche's idealized father figure."
Nietzsche's antisemitism influenced Hitler and his atheism influenced Marxism. The rise of nihilism and existentialism in art and music have been heavily influenced by an increased interest in Nietzsche.
Psychoanalzsing theists and atheists is a very speculative pursuit, but as the above shows, atheists cannot claim that theists are the only ones influenced by a need of a father. In my view the atheist argument to explain religion by projection or desire for a father is a mirror of their own father problem. Most atheists claim to depend upon reason for their conclusions, but claim that Christianity is rooted in psychological issues. They would be better served to avoid psycholanalysis and stay with arguments that appeal to reason. In such an arena I think Christianity can not only hold its own, but prevail.
Well, this morning's blog will be the last dealing with the arguments of the atheists. I may, although I haven't decided for sure, present a few blogs on "reasons to believe in God". So much of this type of discussion takes us out of our comfort zone. A few years ago, historian Mark Noll wrote a work entitled THE SCANDAL OF THE EVANGELICAL MIND. His argument was that conservative christians ( some of whom are evangelical ) have produced precious little work that appeals to the mind, and addresses problems that secular academia have presented us. Our children go to institutions of higher learning and are presented with problems they can't answer because parents and churches have provided precious little help in preparing them for the education experience. Should we just give up the mind to the unbelieving world, or should we equiip ourselves to confront unbelief with facts and arguments that provide more than "well, I just believe".
Atheists usually explain "belief in God" as some form of projection or wish for a father, who will protect us and provide for us, as we navigate through a very dangerous world that threatens our very existence. Sigmund Freud is the father of psychoanalysis and it is he who has formulated the view that still prevails among atheists. "Religious ideas have arisen from the same needs as have all the other achievements of civilization: from the necessity of defending oneself against the crushing superior force of nature." Freud adds that religous beliefs are mere "illusions , fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind...As we already know, the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection---for protection through love---which was provided by the father...Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fear of the danger of life."
If Freud is right, then could one say that atheism results from a wish for "no father". Atheists would be quite resistent to such an idea, but Freud may have inadvertently opened the door to such a view. The previous quotes were taken from THE FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION, but of course Freud published many books. One of his earlier works was TOTEM AND TABOO, and in that work he writes the following: "Psychoanalysis of individual human beings...teaches us with quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed in the likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God depends on the relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes along with that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an exalted father". Might it not, therefore, be appropriate to examine Freud's relationship with his dad to help explain why he might reject God?
Sigmund seems to have viewed his father, Jacob, as a great disappointment. The family survived on money derived from the mother rather than the father. His dad was viewed by his son as weak and cowardly. Jacob allowed a notorious anti-semite to call him a "dirty Jew" and to knock his hat off without lifting a hand to defend himself. According to Dr. Paul Vitz, a psychologist who has served as professor of New York University, Freud declared his father to be a sexual pervert in a letter that he wrote. Jacob was a Jew and enjoyed reading the Old Testament and Talmud to his son. According to Vitz in his work FAITH OF THE FATHERLESS Sigmund saw his father as a "weak, rather passive 'nice guy' connected to Judaism and God, and also to a serious lack of courage and to sexual perversion, and other weaknesses very painful to young Sigmund". "Psychoanalysis" says Freud, "daily demonstrates to us how youthful persons lose their religious belief as soon as the authority of the father breaks down".
If Freud were the only well known atheist to have a less than desirable relationship with his father, we might dismiss his situation as an aberration, but in fact his experience seems to be the norm among atheists. Vitz documents similiar problems among a number of well known atheists of history. Some of the atheists had no living father during their childhood and that in itself produced lasting problems for their psyche. Among these were such notables as Friedrich Nietzsche, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus and Arthur Schopenhauer. Still others had abusive and weak fathers and this list includesVoltaire, Ludwig Feuerbach, Sigmund Freud and H.G. Wells. Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son wrote that "We rarely did anything together as a family. The hatred between my grandfather and mother barred such wholesome scenes." Albert Ellis, the founder of "Rational Emotive Therapy " was neglected by his parents according to biographer Daniel Wiener. Vitz writes that young Albert
was "abandoned by his father and has had to support himself and his mother" through life.
Historical data such as the above would seem to suggest that it is atheism that may be the product of projection. " If God is a father, then I wish not to have one " seems to be the echo heard from well known atheists through the centuries. Before closing, I want to share one more brief account of one of the most influential philosophers of the past 300 years.
No one has had more influence in the past 50 years or so upon art, music , politics and literature than Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). He pioneered the "God is dead" movement that came to prominence decades later. Nietzsche is often viewed as a prophetic voice of the future of the west. He had a deep hatred for Judaism and Christianity in particular. The Jews were viewed by him as bringing the most despicable religion of all time onto the stage of world history. The mild and gentle Jesus was seen as compensation for weak and cowardly people. These weak and cowardly people couldn't compete with the strong so they introduced a religion that awards "turning the cheek" and other passive, cowardly behavior. Nietzsche introduced the "superman" or heroic strong, self willed leader as the noble and religion as a compensation for the weak.
Nietzsche's father, Ludwig Nietzsche, was a minister in the Lutheran Church. He died just a few months before Friedrich's 5th birthday. Doctors diagnosed the cause of his death as a "softening of the brain". One biographer described him as "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound". Following his dad's death Friedrich wept for days. According to Neitzsche his father's death robbed him of the "superior guidance of a male intellect". Following his father's death he was raised by his mother and female relatives.
His autobiography ECCE HOMO includes the following observation: "The treatment I have received from my mother and my sister, up to the present moment, fills me with inexpressable horror...". His view of women is well illustrated in the following quote: "You are going to see a woman? Do not forget your whip."
Friedrich missed his father, but also viewed him as a failure. His dad had been sickly and according to Friedrich was lacking in "life force". Just months before his total mental collapse and admission to a hospital for the insane, Friedrich wrote that he was suffering from "nervous exhaustion (which is in part hereditary--from my father, who also died from the consequences of a pervasive lack of life force". "My father died at the age of thirty-six; he was delicate, lovable and morbid, like a being destined to pay this world only a passing visit--a gracious reminder of life rather than life itself". Friedrich's criticism of Christianity was that it lacked "life force" like his Lutheran father.
What complicated life for Friedrich was that he shared many of the same qualities that he viewed as defiencies in his father. As a child he was often picked on because of his frequent illnesses and weakness in appearance. He described himself as by nature warlike, but he looked like anything but a warrior. He was quiet, sickly and did not present himself as an imposing figure. As Vitz points out with regard to Nietzsche, he had "a strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak, a representative of what might be called a 'death force'--the very opposite of the Superman figure tht Nietzsche idealized. As one of his biographers put it, much of Nietzsche's life could be seen as a permanent 'quest for the father.' Indeed, the Superman may be interpreted as Nietzsche's idealized father figure."
Nietzsche's antisemitism influenced Hitler and his atheism influenced Marxism. The rise of nihilism and existentialism in art and music have been heavily influenced by an increased interest in Nietzsche.
Psychoanalzsing theists and atheists is a very speculative pursuit, but as the above shows, atheists cannot claim that theists are the only ones influenced by a need of a father. In my view the atheist argument to explain religion by projection or desire for a father is a mirror of their own father problem. Most atheists claim to depend upon reason for their conclusions, but claim that Christianity is rooted in psychological issues. They would be better served to avoid psycholanalysis and stay with arguments that appeal to reason. In such an arena I think Christianity can not only hold its own, but prevail.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
"The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals." These are the words of Christopher Hitchens in GOD IS NOT GREAT, p.103. He adds the following: "There was no flight from Egypt, no wandering in the desert...no dramatic conquest of the Promised Land. It was all, quite simply and very ineptly, made up at a much later date."(p.103). His problem is not just with the Old Testament, but also the New Testament.
Chapter eight of his book is entitled "The 'New' Testament Exceeds the Evil of the 'Old' One". He quotes such biblical experts as Thomas Paine and H.L.Mencken as dismissing the New Testament as a "helter-skelter accumulation of more or less discordant documents"(Mencken). "But this argument takes place over the heads of those to whom the 'Good Book' is all that is required." (p.110). Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris have little respect for the intellectual acumen of the Christian community. He argues that Christians simply assume that the four gospels present an accurate historical account, when in reality all evidence points to the contrary. The Gospels he tells us "cannot agree on anything of importance" (p.111). He points to the Gospel of Judas which was in the headlines a couple of years ago as being "fractionally more credible than the official account", however, in reality we have zero evidence about the life of Jesus, and in fact that Jesus ever lived is "highly questionable" (p.114).
He accuses the Christians of suppressing reasonable questions about its truth claims: "...until recently, Christians could simply burn or silence anybody who asked any inconvenient questions."(p.115).
His authority in dismissing the accuracy of the Gospels and much of the New Testament is "Barton Ehrman". Ehrman in his book MISQUOTING JESUS describes his journey from a conservative Christian college to Princeton where he earned his Phd and now has a reputation as one of more renowned "textual critics" in America. A "textual critic" is a scholar who studies the many manuscripts of the Bible in an effort to determine the original text. Therefore, Ehrman is someone to be respected for his expertise, but not necessarily for his interpretation of Christianity. Ehrman as a teenager had what he described as a "born again" experience which led him to Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, Billy Graham's alma mater, before ending up at Princeton. At Princeton and in subsequent years he began to give up his conservative views and determined that the Bible is filled with errors.
Hitchens says that "long before I read Ehrman, I had some questions of my own."(p.121).
Well, what do we make of all this? Has he burst our ignorant bubble and revealed us Christians to be ill informed ignoramuses?
One way to test the power of one's argument is to test the factual claims made. In other words if an author is wrong about his facts then his interpretations are much more suspect. Interpretations can be debated, but facts are facts no matter what one believes about them. The sun is shining this morning, Thursday, February 19, 2009, 10:19 AM in Maypearl, Texas. Someone could argue that its raining outside, but their argument could be dismissed because the facts would expose the argument as fallacious.
Hitchens asserts several facts that are so contrary to the recognized truth that his knowledge and interpretations become suspect simply because his grasp of facts is lacking. This is ironic since the atheists always look down upon the ignorant and uninformed Christians. Their arrogance makes it hard to disagree with them without feeling insecure, but the facts speak for themselves. Let me share just a few of the facts presented by him that are patently false.
On page 59 he writes that "even the stoutest defenders of the Bible story now admit that if Jesus was ever born it wasn't until at least AD 4." This is blatantly false. I have 7,000 volumes in my library, and many are written by Christian scholars who discuss this very question. Not a single one argues for AD 4 as the year of Jesus' birth. Check out whatever sources you may have in your library or in the church library and see what they say. Nearly all Christian and secular scholars would agree that the birth of Jesus most likely occured in 4 or 6 BC. I dare say, you won't nor will Hitchens find a scholar that argues for AD 4, and to claim that "even the stoutest defenders of the Bible story now admit" that Jesus was born in AD 4 shows an ignorance unbecoming such a brilliant atheist.
On page 120, he refers to his one authority on the bible as "Barton Ehrman". This is no big deal, but in the interest of truth and accuracy, where did he conclude that the author's name is "Barton". Maybe he knows something that Ehrman's publishers don't know and that "Bart" has never chosen to reveal in any of his books. If you don't get Bart's name right, then I'm not sure I can trust you to understand his arguments.
On page 112, the Nag Hammadi texts discovered in Egypt more than 60 years ago are described by Hitchens as "scrolls" when in reality they were codices. The difference would be like describing a newspaper as a book. Informed people would not be impressed by the mistake in fact. Yet he is so bold as to describe Malcolm Muggeridge, a well known Christian writer of the past as "silly"and dismisses C.S.Lewis as lacking in reasoning ability.
I am writing a blog and not a book so I can't respond to every issues he raises. Some of his issues have more substance than others. For instance believers have for centuries struggled with the issue of the Old Testament and God's commands to annihilate certain countries and cultures. This is a serious problem and one that cannot be summarily dismissed. However, informed thoughtful answers have been presented that can harmonize the God of the Old Testament with the loving God described in the New Testament. Yet it is true that some believers of the past decided that such harmony could not be achieved and as a result they rejected the God of the Old Testament as evil. The Nag Hammadi documents from Egypt represent gnosticism which was known for viewing the God of the Old Testament as evil. This is probably the primary reason Hitchens gives more validity to these documents than to the writings contained in the New Testament. These documents are all late 2nd century or third century writings and have no claim to historical testimony contemporary with the life of Jesus and the early church. When the gnostics first appeared in history, the Christians dismissed them as heretics because their writings did not harmonize with the early historical accounts and often dismissed Jesus as little more than a phantom.
As to Hitchens' claim that the Gospels do not agree on any of the important claims of christianity, one would be hard pressed to find a more inaccurate statement from anyone claiming to be informed. One can quibble about details. How many angels were in the tomb when the women arrived? Was the Passover of the synoptics the same as the meal described in John's gospel? Was the Sermon on the Mount really delivered on the plains ( compare Matthew and Luke). Hitchens says that Matthew and Luke disagree as to whether Jesus was born of a virgin. Read the first 3 chapters of Matthew and Luke and you decide if they agree. I believe the birth, family of origin, their names, his baptism by John, the mount of transfiguration, his arrest, crucifixion and resurrection are confirmed in multiple Gospels. Not a one of these historical realities are denied or contradicted by any Gospel. Thus to make the claim that they don't agree on anything of importance is beyong "silly".
If Dawkins and Hitchens want to dismiss Christians as uninformed about science, let them at least admit that they themselves are woefully ignorant of Christianity. Maybe we all could learn from one another, but the tone of their works make it hard for Christians to feel comfortable in discussions with them. It would be hard to have respect for someone who has shown such disdain for you and your faith. Yet, as Christians we need to respect people who disagree with us even if it is the devil himself (not that I'm calling Hitchens the devil). Jude writes that false teachers of his day dare to "slander celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil..did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said 'The Lord rebuke you'. Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand.."(Jude 9, 10a). If someone speaks abusively against whatever they don't understand, let it not be us.
Chapter eight of his book is entitled "The 'New' Testament Exceeds the Evil of the 'Old' One". He quotes such biblical experts as Thomas Paine and H.L.Mencken as dismissing the New Testament as a "helter-skelter accumulation of more or less discordant documents"(Mencken). "But this argument takes place over the heads of those to whom the 'Good Book' is all that is required." (p.110). Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris have little respect for the intellectual acumen of the Christian community. He argues that Christians simply assume that the four gospels present an accurate historical account, when in reality all evidence points to the contrary. The Gospels he tells us "cannot agree on anything of importance" (p.111). He points to the Gospel of Judas which was in the headlines a couple of years ago as being "fractionally more credible than the official account", however, in reality we have zero evidence about the life of Jesus, and in fact that Jesus ever lived is "highly questionable" (p.114).
He accuses the Christians of suppressing reasonable questions about its truth claims: "...until recently, Christians could simply burn or silence anybody who asked any inconvenient questions."(p.115).
His authority in dismissing the accuracy of the Gospels and much of the New Testament is "Barton Ehrman". Ehrman in his book MISQUOTING JESUS describes his journey from a conservative Christian college to Princeton where he earned his Phd and now has a reputation as one of more renowned "textual critics" in America. A "textual critic" is a scholar who studies the many manuscripts of the Bible in an effort to determine the original text. Therefore, Ehrman is someone to be respected for his expertise, but not necessarily for his interpretation of Christianity. Ehrman as a teenager had what he described as a "born again" experience which led him to Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, Billy Graham's alma mater, before ending up at Princeton. At Princeton and in subsequent years he began to give up his conservative views and determined that the Bible is filled with errors.
Hitchens says that "long before I read Ehrman, I had some questions of my own."(p.121).
Well, what do we make of all this? Has he burst our ignorant bubble and revealed us Christians to be ill informed ignoramuses?
One way to test the power of one's argument is to test the factual claims made. In other words if an author is wrong about his facts then his interpretations are much more suspect. Interpretations can be debated, but facts are facts no matter what one believes about them. The sun is shining this morning, Thursday, February 19, 2009, 10:19 AM in Maypearl, Texas. Someone could argue that its raining outside, but their argument could be dismissed because the facts would expose the argument as fallacious.
Hitchens asserts several facts that are so contrary to the recognized truth that his knowledge and interpretations become suspect simply because his grasp of facts is lacking. This is ironic since the atheists always look down upon the ignorant and uninformed Christians. Their arrogance makes it hard to disagree with them without feeling insecure, but the facts speak for themselves. Let me share just a few of the facts presented by him that are patently false.
On page 59 he writes that "even the stoutest defenders of the Bible story now admit that if Jesus was ever born it wasn't until at least AD 4." This is blatantly false. I have 7,000 volumes in my library, and many are written by Christian scholars who discuss this very question. Not a single one argues for AD 4 as the year of Jesus' birth. Check out whatever sources you may have in your library or in the church library and see what they say. Nearly all Christian and secular scholars would agree that the birth of Jesus most likely occured in 4 or 6 BC. I dare say, you won't nor will Hitchens find a scholar that argues for AD 4, and to claim that "even the stoutest defenders of the Bible story now admit" that Jesus was born in AD 4 shows an ignorance unbecoming such a brilliant atheist.
On page 120, he refers to his one authority on the bible as "Barton Ehrman". This is no big deal, but in the interest of truth and accuracy, where did he conclude that the author's name is "Barton". Maybe he knows something that Ehrman's publishers don't know and that "Bart" has never chosen to reveal in any of his books. If you don't get Bart's name right, then I'm not sure I can trust you to understand his arguments.
On page 112, the Nag Hammadi texts discovered in Egypt more than 60 years ago are described by Hitchens as "scrolls" when in reality they were codices. The difference would be like describing a newspaper as a book. Informed people would not be impressed by the mistake in fact. Yet he is so bold as to describe Malcolm Muggeridge, a well known Christian writer of the past as "silly"and dismisses C.S.Lewis as lacking in reasoning ability.
I am writing a blog and not a book so I can't respond to every issues he raises. Some of his issues have more substance than others. For instance believers have for centuries struggled with the issue of the Old Testament and God's commands to annihilate certain countries and cultures. This is a serious problem and one that cannot be summarily dismissed. However, informed thoughtful answers have been presented that can harmonize the God of the Old Testament with the loving God described in the New Testament. Yet it is true that some believers of the past decided that such harmony could not be achieved and as a result they rejected the God of the Old Testament as evil. The Nag Hammadi documents from Egypt represent gnosticism which was known for viewing the God of the Old Testament as evil. This is probably the primary reason Hitchens gives more validity to these documents than to the writings contained in the New Testament. These documents are all late 2nd century or third century writings and have no claim to historical testimony contemporary with the life of Jesus and the early church. When the gnostics first appeared in history, the Christians dismissed them as heretics because their writings did not harmonize with the early historical accounts and often dismissed Jesus as little more than a phantom.
As to Hitchens' claim that the Gospels do not agree on any of the important claims of christianity, one would be hard pressed to find a more inaccurate statement from anyone claiming to be informed. One can quibble about details. How many angels were in the tomb when the women arrived? Was the Passover of the synoptics the same as the meal described in John's gospel? Was the Sermon on the Mount really delivered on the plains ( compare Matthew and Luke). Hitchens says that Matthew and Luke disagree as to whether Jesus was born of a virgin. Read the first 3 chapters of Matthew and Luke and you decide if they agree. I believe the birth, family of origin, their names, his baptism by John, the mount of transfiguration, his arrest, crucifixion and resurrection are confirmed in multiple Gospels. Not a one of these historical realities are denied or contradicted by any Gospel. Thus to make the claim that they don't agree on anything of importance is beyong "silly".
If Dawkins and Hitchens want to dismiss Christians as uninformed about science, let them at least admit that they themselves are woefully ignorant of Christianity. Maybe we all could learn from one another, but the tone of their works make it hard for Christians to feel comfortable in discussions with them. It would be hard to have respect for someone who has shown such disdain for you and your faith. Yet, as Christians we need to respect people who disagree with us even if it is the devil himself (not that I'm calling Hitchens the devil). Jude writes that false teachers of his day dare to "slander celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil..did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said 'The Lord rebuke you'. Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand.."(Jude 9, 10a). If someone speaks abusively against whatever they don't understand, let it not be us.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Vicki pointed out that today was also Abraham Lincoln's birthday and that he surely deserves at least a mention. Born on the same day and the same year, their contributions to history were significant and significantly different. I can identify with Abraham Lincoln. His family was poor and so was mine and so am I. It seems that he was destined to be president and I guess the parallel ends there. I am sure I was destined for something and until I discover what, I will continue to blog. His wife Mary Todd told her friends that "Mr. Lincoln is to be president of the United States. If I had not thought so, I would not have married him, for you can see he is not pretty." Gloria could have said the same about me except for the president part.
Some speculate that Lincoln might have been bi-polar. He definitely struggled with depression. "I never dare carry a penknife" as a caution against suicide.
Schweikart and Allen in their History write that "Lincoln was homely, but Mary Todd was downright sour looking, which perhaps eontributed to his having left her, literally, standing at the altar one time." Lincoln claimed that he was sick, but was it lovesickness or just sick?
Lincoln's religious faith or lack of it has garnered the attention of historians and not all agree. Some accused him of being a skeptic while others believed him to be a deist. However, not long before his death he was asked by a minister "do you love Jesus". His answer was revealing:
"When I left Springfield I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. Yes, I love Jesus."
We are the greater people for having been blessed with an Abraham Lincoln.
Some speculate that Lincoln might have been bi-polar. He definitely struggled with depression. "I never dare carry a penknife" as a caution against suicide.
Schweikart and Allen in their History write that "Lincoln was homely, but Mary Todd was downright sour looking, which perhaps eontributed to his having left her, literally, standing at the altar one time." Lincoln claimed that he was sick, but was it lovesickness or just sick?
Lincoln's religious faith or lack of it has garnered the attention of historians and not all agree. Some accused him of being a skeptic while others believed him to be a deist. However, not long before his death he was asked by a minister "do you love Jesus". His answer was revealing:
"When I left Springfield I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. Yes, I love Jesus."
We are the greater people for having been blessed with an Abraham Lincoln.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)