Ah ah ah, well, well, well, well, well, well, well.
I was slippin' into darkness
When they took my friend away
I was slippin' into darkness
When they took, when they took my friend away
You know he loved to drink whiskey
Oh oh oh oh
While laughing at the moon.
Slippin' into darkness
Takes my mind beyond the trees
I was slippin' into darkness, yeah
Takes my mind beyond the trees
Well, i talked to my brothers
Oh oh oh oh
Who never said their names.
Slippn' into darkness, yeah
All my troubles though i choose
I was slippin' into darkness, yeah
All my troubles though i choose
I got a wife and a baby, yeah, yeah
Oh oh oh oh
Now my love has gained its fame.
Slippin' into darkness, yeah
When i heard my mother say
I was slippin' into darkness, yeah
When i heard my mother say
You've been slippin' into darkness
Oh oh oh oh
Pretty soon, you're gonna pay.
Yeah, yeah.
How I long for the good old days of great music, pop-and-lock dancing, and Bob Cassady clothing styles! Back in the 1970s, the funk group War hit the national music scene with songs such as "Low Rider," "Cisco Kid," "Spill the Wine" (with one of Pastor John's favorite lead vocalists, Eric Burdon of The Animals), "Why Can't We Be Friends," and a host of other songs laden with politically-charged lyrics common of the times. What made the group War famous and enjoyable to listen to was their upbeat music and easy going attitudes. Their songs combined elements of Latin, rock, reggae, soul, blues, and rock-and-roll into an eclectic, funky sound and unique 70's dancing experience!
The other day I was online checking out various news stories when an article from The Telegraph slapped me upside my head! The title of the article was "Killing Babies No Different From Abortion, Experts Say"! As soon as I read the title, I thought of a song done by the previously mentioned music group War - "Slippin' Into Darkness." The song was about bad experiences and choices the singer lived through or made and how his life was continually slipping away into a darker and darker realm of horror. The title of the newspaper article was the just a reminder to me of the recent movement our country is experiencing as it continues to slip into its own darkness! With that thought in mind, I want to comment on the newspaper article. I copied it below along with my comments.
By Stephen Adams, The TelegraphParents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
"Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed." Who made the parents the final arbitrator on whether their children should live or die? Why should their determining decision only be limited to their child when they are a baby? Many parents would love to "kill" their "children" when they become teenagers!
"Morally Irrelevant" - says who? The "Experts"? Who are they and who determined that they are qualified to tell the rest of society what is acceptable and what is not? What if the same standard of "morally irrelevant" was applied to them? Should they then be killed?
"Ending their lives is no different than abortion?" Who ever said that abortion was a good or right thing to do? What objective standard do they refer to when they make these kinds of pronouncements? How do they know its no different than an abortion? If a born baby's life is "no different" than a fetus life, could we not use that logic for any group of people?
"Medical ethicist linked to Oxford University" Medical ethicist? What or who determines what they believe to be right and wrong? Once again, is there some sort of standard that we can all agree upon or is it an opinion of these "experts" that should be accepted by the rest us unchallenged?
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
Newborn are not "actual persons"? What are they then some type of subhuman, animal, or alien species? Also, when does a child attain "humanness" or become an "actual" person?
Do not have a "moral right to life"! Once again, by whose standard? My standard says they do have a right to life! Whose standard are we going to use? I would like to know what these so called "experts" consider "moral" and "immoral"? I've got a pretty good idea!
The parents can have their baby killed if it is defective or disabled at birth! How about these "academics" whose thinking is clearly defective and disabled in mid to late life, what should we do with them?
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
The article's author's have received death threats! Aren't these "authors" advocating the same thing that they are being threatened with -death threats to the unborn or newborn? It's okay to kill the people they consider "non-human," but it is offensive to suggest someone kill these "academics" who are "more" human?
These threats were made by "fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society??? There we go - use the old-fashioned technique of demonizing your enemy and misrepresenting their position! Maybe I'm wrong, but the United States Declaration of Independence states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Who are the real "fanatics" who are opposed to the "values" of a liberal society? It seems to me that they are the ones trying to change the already established values of their society!!!
Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Both lack those properties that justify the attribution or a right to life to an individual! What "properties" are they talking about that would deny the right to life of these children. Aren't they alive already and, if so, don't they fall under the "unalienable right" to "life"?
Again, how did they determine that the "moral" status of a fetus is equivalent to that of an infant? Please show us the criteria! Using their nebulous criteria, anyone could be accused of "lacking those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life"!
As our nation continues to slide down the slippery slope of human autonomy at a more accelerated pace, we will reap the judgment of God in greater and greater measure. Verses in Deuteronomy contrast the end results of either obeying or disobeying God's Holy Law:
If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth. All these blessings will come upon you and accompany you if you obey the LORD your God: - Deuteronomy 28:1-2
However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: - Deuteronomy 28:15
May the church seek God and his holy anointing as we attempt to turn the nation back to God. If we fail or are slack in our mission, the words of the group War will ring out prophetically:
You've been slippin' into darkness
Oh oh oh oh
Pretty soon, you're gonna pay.
Yeah, yeah!
Stay Holy, My Friends!
Pastor Don
No comments:
Post a Comment
Readers - I'd love to hear your comments! - Pastor Don