Khaled - Our government is an institution of man. God (as understood by Christians)gave His creation free will and Americans have not come to a consensus on abortion. I guess that begs the question what good is prayer if it doesn’t yield an immediate result. It’s a tough one to answer. I can only say prayer connects us with God, it does not bend him to “our” will. I think it is His will that we, while on earth, struggle with moral issues. I hope you are not suggesting that because God has not moved our leaders to end abortion that abortion is moral in His eyes. Slavery was legal in America for close to a century; Abortion has only been legal for about 35 years. And I don’t want to put too much stock in a media poll, but Gallup recently reported 51 percent of American consider themselves “pro-life.”

Khalid-

I understand the point you are trying to convey, but you could paint a barn in one stroke with the brush you are using. Arguably the most visible pro-life activists are Catholic. They also belong to a Church that is the largest private provider of social services in this state as well as the largest philanthropic organization on the planet. Poverty eradication, adoption, healthcare, etc. are all provided by the Church and its organizations. This clearly contradicts your statement, “Anti-abortion activists insist on calling themselves Pro-life yet show scant concern for the poor.”

Furthermore, prayer is powerful. However, it is not always answered and that does not imply that one’s actions are wrong or in vain. Could some abortion activists do more? Certainly. However, your post implies that their prayers are not being answered out of some lack of sincerity.

Also, I would like to state that Scott Roeder is mentally ill. It is a fact, not something up for debate. I am tired of the media portraying him as some sort of fanatical Christian terrorist, yet conveniently omitting the fact that he was prescribed medication and was not taking it. One must be rather deluded to indict a large part of society based upon the actions of a mentally ill individual.

Finally, I like how you used Gandhi and Mandela in the same post. Gandhi was quoted numerous times stating that native South Africans were beneath Indians and similar to Indian Untouchables. Gandhi definitely had some skeletons in his closet. He may have changed later in life, I am not sure, but this fact is often glossed over. I just included this last part as an interesting historical tidbit.

Mr. Hamid, as a man of faith the answer should be very obvious to you. It is clear that this country has turned its back on God. This country supports abortion and the Democrat party which supports abortion. Why should God answer us? We have strayed from Him. He will send his rath down on the U.S. for this. Read the various comments on the various blogs.
Most of the posters mock relgion.

I am personally pro-life myself and also do not believe in the death penalty as I believe that only God can take a life at any time. However, I am curious why Democrats who support abortion, yet are anti-death penalty.
How do you differentiate the two? Why should innocent babies die, but murders should not be put to death? This is inconsistent thinking.

Joe,
Thank you for your comment. In the Qur’an it is stated: “God does not change the condition of a people until they change themselves”. I gave the examples of two wonderful people Gandhi and Mandela to show that prayers do work but we have to sacrifice and change ourselves. Sometimes you have to fight for change but change as a result of violence is not as good as peaceful change. Over 150 years after the Civil War majority blacks in USA still live with the scars of slavery (just visit most of north St Louis city). In contrast India, 60 years after colonialism, has made a lot of progress.

The term Pro-life is very troubling because it is used very hypocritically as I point in the blog. And it is this hypocrisy that God does not like, as noted in the Book of James. It would also be good to remember that abortion is not the problem. The problem is the actions that lead to abortion. And changing actions requires changing behavior. Laws don’t change behavior, they just fill up the prisons. The drug laws passed twenty some years ago did nothing to reduce drug use in America but they tripled our prison population. People of faith should focus on the behavior changes needed if they want a positive change in society. That is what Gandhi and Mandela did.

Wowee,
From personally knowing a number of people in the Catholic church who are doing wonderful work on helping the poor, I can tell you many of them are pro-choice and very strongly so. The catholic church is a big organization. Look at people. Those people who are protesting against abortion how many of those people go and work with the poor?

Your comment about Gandhi is I am afraid all too typical of what anti abortion people do. Denigrate anyone and anything contradicting them. I really hope you read the passage above from the Book of James. So let me take it in a positive light. If Gandhi has skeletons in his early life and CLEARLY overcame them to do the wonderful work he DID accomplish, then maybe there is hope that anti abortion activists can also change and stop using hate filled language sometime in the future.

Khalid-

You state that these Catholics are strongly pro-choice. Do they believe in the real presence? Do they believe in apostolic succession? The point I am trying to make is that as Catholics, one may not agree with all of the teachings, but one must be humble enough to accept the inerrant moral and theological teachings of the Church to be considered Catholic. By rejecting the sanctity of human life and replacing the Church’s teachings with the more convenient position, I would definitively state that your friends are not in full communion with the Church.

Might they be moral individuals who help the poor? Yes. Do they believe in one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, as they would profess weekly? If they are strongly pro-choice, then the answer is clear.

Centrist,

umm…Khaled Abdel Hamid is a dear friend of mine. The name Khalid is one of the most common Muslim names (with some spelling variation).

Wowee,
“he who is without sin…..”. I think is dangerous to start judging other people. Look, at least 30% of the catholics did vote for Mr. Obama and the President of Notredame University is a person of the cloth right? There is a saying of Prophet Muhammad “if you call someone an Unbeliever then one of you two certainly is one”. They consider themselves catholic and have done decades of sincere service to the church, do you REALLY want to roll the dice with them on who is in full communion and who is not?

Sorry, but there’s nothing to suggest that prayer is anything more than hope formalized.

Khalid,

This has hit to the very core of everything that I have been both, studying (prayer) and that has been the focus of much of my attention much of this week (abortion). But the main focus that God has been bringing me back to is to worship Him in sincerity as He calls us Christians to do as written in our guide, the Bible.

You have hit on every single thing here that God has been stirring up within my soul for a while now and where I just today have made some new commitments within my own life where I have been failing in my part to do all that is within my power to reflect my faith in God and His word.

The main thing God has been dealing with me over is that worship of Him apart from how it is shown to us in scripture, (a Christian’s only point of reference for all that we need to know about God and Christ and all that we are to believe and do) is ALL in vain if we leave out even one command of His that we have been instructed. The message that God has been convicting me with in my heart for a long time now is, “Worship Me in spirit and in truth”.

Kahlid, you are a blessing to all who read your articles here and I am certain to anyone who knows you or have had contact with you.

D. Walker,
Thank you for your kind words and God bless.

EJ,
I get a nagging feeling that your cynicism is a facade below which there is a core of belief. Perhaps there is strong aversion to orgnanized religion due to something in the past. Either ways, peace be with you. What is real what is an illusion, can anyone really tell. Einstien said “All of reality is an illusion. Only it is a very persistent illusion”. Prayer is as real as you make it.

Wonderful observation about prayer.

If people speak always as in prayer, I think a big difference would occur.

Prayer is a safe place. Imagine speaking with the freedom of that safe place in all our thoughts and words.

Khalid-

In your last post it seems to me you are conflating voting for a pro-choice candidate and as you put it earlier, being strongly pro-choice. I do not agree with voting for a pro-choice candidate, but that is a personal choice. However, being “strongly pro-choice” is beyond the pale. A Catholic cannot hold that position and accept the sacraments. Yes, I will say that a pro-choice Catholic, not one that simply voted for a pro-choice candidate, is not in communion.

Furthermore, you seem to view helping the poor and being pro-life as mutually exclusive. I would go so far as to say that you are viewing the issues through a purely partisan lens.

Khalid… I’m agnostic. There’s no way for me to know any ultimate truth in this realm. The only thing I can say for sure is that the truth exists — I just don’t know what it is. One day I may.

Mr. Shah,

The God of the Christians answers all prayers: His response is either yer, no or not right now. The world still experiences slavery, you only have to look at much of the Muslim world to see this. Child sacrifice has also been around for a long time in different forms: now we call it abortion. I would love to change everyone’s heart so that all could love one another and themselves as God does. I think we could give Earth a better name: Heaven. You are most correct in that all should put their faith to work. You are most hurtful when you say these people or those people aren’t doing enough. There is enough hateful speech on both sides of the abortion debate. I for one am glad that the unborn have a voice. The facts are that most abortions are of convinience not necessity. Can’t we agree that this segment should be addressed? To get to the cause, as you would like to do, would require a change of heart, not an increase in income or education.

Wowee,
There seems to be some language problem here. Far from considering Pro-life and helping the poor as mutually exclusive I consider them synonomous. The point is that so called Pro-life people by their actions contradict this. (see below as well)

John,
I can only repeat, we live in the richest nation in the history of the world and we have 30 million people in poverty. How can any person of faith not be hurt by this? Secondly, we live in a state where recently abhorent cuts have been made in services to the poor by officials overwhelmingly supported by anti abortion activists. And if you think the two are not related, there were protests by religious people against these cuts but churches active in the anti abortion movement were visibly absent. Finally, looking at the recent blogs on this site I have to strongly disagree that there is enough hateful speech on both sides of the abortion debate. The great majority of vitriol is by anti abortion activists. If you do not believe me just look at the entries in the last few weeks. Respectfully, Khalid Shah

I am afraid I will be out the first half of tommorow and will look in in the afternoon.

SADC leaders should exert concerted political pressure, insisting on a clear political reform agenda that includes dismantling security structures and reforming the police and other repressive institutions. An end to corruption and human rights abuses are absolute requirements for a settlement of the crisis. SADC leaders must not accept any deal short of that.

Until that happens, the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe — and its harmful and spreading effect on the rest of the region — will continue.

hrw.org/en/africa/south-africa

How is nelson living now?

As Zimbabwe’s health ministry declares a national emergency over its cholera outbreak, Zimbabwean refugees fleeing deprivation there are living in South Africa in dismal conditions. Many are living without shelter, exposed to the weather and without regular access to toilets, food and clean water, increasing the likelihood that cholera and other disease will spread. The outbreak has been fueled by the total collapse of the health care and public sanitation systems in Zimbabwe, which has recorded more than 650 deaths and 12,500 cases since August. The World Health Organization says the death rate is three times that for cholera outbreaks handled properly. In its 2008 report on Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa, “Neighbors in Need,” Human Rights Watch documented how cholera outbreaks in Zimbabwe are increasing as Zimbabwe’s water and sanitation systems collapse.

India-
Pointing out that victims of caste-based discrimination suffer a hidden apartheid of segregation, modern-day slavery, and other forms of discrimination as a result of having been born into a marginalized group or caste, Rikke Nöhrlind, coordinator of the International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN), stated: “This issue has been skilfully hidden by certain governments, and Dalits are simply being treated as lesser human beings and denied justice.”

Determined to keep fighting for their rights and to try and get the international community to listen, a sizeable delegation of Dalit representatives has travelled to Geneva to stage a number of side events and raise their voices against the wall of silence they are met with at the Durban Review Conference.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/04/22/un-racism-conference-fails-caste-based-discrimination

Wow these countries are great examples

India-
However, when the facilitator probed further, raising questions about how discrimination and abortion affected each other, commotion ensued. I heard some horrific stories and tapped into a charged debate that highlighted some dangerous implications for women’s rights in the country.

Skewed gender ratios have caused justified outrage in India, where there are 927 girls for every 1,000 boys. The picture is even grimmer if one looks at the gender ratio based on birth order — 250 girls for every 1,000 boys for the third child. The widespread use of sex-determination tests and resulting sex-selective abortions contributes to this disturbing imbalance.

The Indian government is taking some measures to curb the “supply” side of sex-determination. The Parliament passed a law regulating medical professionals’ use of sex-determination technology and made it illegal to advertise such services. Most people are in agreement with such an approach.

In fact, despite legalizing abortion several decades ago, India continues to lose thousands of women to unsafe abortions every year. A whopping 90 percent of the estimated six million abortions occurring annually are performed illegally. Unsafe abortion contributes to 10 percent of the estimated annual 117,000 maternal deaths in India.

Great strides.Example for us all.

Khalid Shah,

It looks to me like abortions are going down - at least the ones we know about.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rMAxfwIn4i-JeIPG_P8tjxA&gid=0

Why do you report prayer is not working? Is it because reporting a reduction in abortions does not support your socialist desires?

Why has God not answered the prayer to end abortion? Perhaps God has answered the prayer by giving us the tools to be activist for whatever side of this issue we fall upon. Perhaps the question should be “what are anti-choice activists doing to end abortion?” Often they take an approach that also eliminates the educations and tools for unwanted pregnanies. Unfortunately, some unwanted pregnancies end in abortion.

Perhaps God said “NO” (as in, just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean there wasn’t an answer).

Perhaps God said “I gave you an anti-abortion President and anti-abortion majority in Congress and they did nothing”.

Davel,
Thank you for pointing out the data. There was a significant drop in 1998. Since then the number is essentially flat. You can see the graph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States . But let me ask did you read the entire blog? Did you read the passages from the Book of James? Do you see the caution they suggest in our actions and in our words? Why label someone ’socialist’? Can’t we make our point without name calling?

The most certain way to know that a mirror has been held up to someone is to observe their reactions.

I think there is a valid point being made here. And, as Christians, we need to be careful of what we say, who we say it about, and to be careful to live according to the public things we do say.

Further, a lifetime of observation suggests to me that the most dangerous thing for the Church corporate to do is to build alliances with those seeking political power. In truth, it can be argued that there are religious principles being espoused by both major political parties, that there are differences of interpretation and emphasis there. I would ask, how many congregations have split and re-formed themselves due to the vehemence of politics spilling over into the church?

And, do the very real and public battles within the churches and between the churches keep us from doing the work of the Great Commission? I would argue that yes, they do. After all, the bottom line of being ‘out there’ doing the work that is demanded of us is simple: If you’re doing that work, you’re going to be running into people who have messy lives, who have real problems, and who want real answers. Further, out ‘there’, our differences matter much less than our agreements. When the time comes for worship and prayer, I’ve found it doesn’t matter what the fellow believer sitting next to me thinks about this host of subjects that divide us here. Is that person trying to live their life the best they can? Are we sharing study, and prayer, and the breaking of bread together? Am I reaching out a hand to help him, knowing that his hand will be there to help me later (or was there first?).

I agree, sometimes prayers are answered “yes”, sometimes they are answered “no”, and sometimes they are answered “not yet”. Consider this: Jesus prayed that all his disciples would be in Unity. My observation is that the church, in particular, is bent on disunity, every single day. Unity, by the way, does not mean agreement. It’s something different from that. Unity (my opinion) has to do with purpose, and with willingness to accept others where they are, rather than demanding they change into ‘my’ version of what they should be.

..that hope is anything more….

hope–noun 1. the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best

Hope formalized is not a useful thing?

It is not necessary to believe in God to gain the benefits of prayer, to speak powerfully for yourself to yourself, or to whoever may listen for you.

The power to speak what you want in your life may be the first free act of a creative endeavor by a being.

For those who believe, God spoke both creation and love into being. These did not exist until they were spoken.

Language is how we exist for each other. Relationship exists in the power of language. For those who believe, relationship is the realm of god, where God is experienced.

All of this, as the power of being, is available without a belief in God.

If stopped by the idea of God, consider that what believers consider the laws of God are consequence, the what so of the world as it is.

to Khalid’s point, if our prayers are not being answered it may be powerful to consider we are not being authentic in them, and the power is to look to ourselves, not blame, not sin, not righteousness, but who we are being.

To his examples, those who are authentic in their being are successful in making a difference in life.

Making it about others, i.e. India, or the wrongness of a sinner, will not make a difference for you, only justify righteousness and hold your place in the world as it is.

As a mantra or prayer, What you resist will persist.

hs,

I believe all prayers are answered. Why only in the form of yes, no, or maybe?

This is contrary to the belief that God has given us free will, and will not interceed to compromise that covenant. There is consequence in this world as God has created it. There is us, there is freedom, and there is choice.

What you ask for will be provided. It is the power of being. The confusion may be in the pretense in what we are asking for and who we believe is providing it. God will honor the being and the intent without compromising free will and its consequence (some would say without judgment) even if it provides evil into the world.

It is at the heart of the false accusation of God that God allows evil. God’s integrity honors choice. Evil is the consequence for some of this freedom. God is not the source of evil nor does God permit it.

God will not honor inauthenticity.

Mr. Shah,

First off, I am a bit offended at the moniker you use for those opposed to abortion. We are pro-life. I am certain you would be equally offended if I were to call you anti-life.

To say that the problem with abortion is solely the acts leading up to it, is a little out of touch with reality. If you get angry and murder your neighbour, would you say that the real problem of that act was that you got angry?

In spite of your pro-abortion rhetoric, I do see some valuable words of wisdom in your post. We are a lazy nation and mostly inconsiderate of the poor and needy. While Catholic organizations are very generous and supportive of the poor and those in need, many Catholics are not. I know I could do more, but I am too comfortable in my life. People of faith need to do more.

There is nothing more symptomatic of this laziness than abortion itself. It is much more convenient and irresponsible to undo the life than to accept the gift and take care of it. There is no person more poor and needy than an unborn child.

For the people who do not pray and slaughter our next generation of children, is it any wonder that they have a hunger and thirst for power over the dead bodies of the unborn? Is it any wonder that people like yourself spend more energy to achieve political gain than to heed God’s word? Abortion is your rise to power and you will not let it go no matter what God tells you.

“If you get angry and murder your neighbour, would you say that the real problem of that act was that you got angry?”

Yes! What provides the anger is a conversation you have with yourself that blames the neighbor as being wrong for something and therfore justifies your action. It begins in the heart, first thought, then word, then deed.

There is no person more poor and needy than an unborn child.”

No! In God’s eyes, an unborn child wants for nothing. To cast an unborn child as “needy”, as having less than what God’s wants for them, serves no good purpose. It only fuels the fear of those who believe they may not be able to provide for that “needy” child, the mother.

God’s promise to us is that all has been provided. Share this faith, and the fear will disappear. This is what you can do.

To the point of the post, it may justify righteousness and judgement to pretend to speak for the child to condemn the mother. Jesus does not speak this way.

On the subject of prayer: So many people use prayer as a sort of divine slot machine, and treat God as a sort of celestial butler, who gives us what ever we want. And, when we don’t get it, we pout like little kids.

The longer I live, the greater is my understanding that there is truly one one prayer that is always appropriate, and will always be answered in a positive way: “God, grant me knowledge of your will, and grant me the ability to carry it out.” All other prayers are marginal, at best.

Since Khalid is going down the road of quoting James extensively, I consider this verse as one that convicts me greatly: “…If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “go in peace, be warmed and filled.” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?” James 2:15,16 How many Christians are silent when the political leaders of our day DO exactly that, in our name?

The more I study, the more I’m convinced, by the way, that many of the texts that we cite as individual demands…and use to justify our personal behavior….are ALSO applicable to us as a nation, as a society. Matthew 25, in the parable of the sheep and the goats, starts by stating, “When the son of Man comes, he will gather the NATIONS before him…..” What if we took that literally? That we, as a nation, will stand before the judge of all things? And that the criteria set up following will be applied to us, as a nation? That is not a good thought, is it?

To all, what would happen if we actually read these texts (and others), and refused to filter them through our various political persuasions? How can these verses be seen as “advocacy of socialism”, for example? What if, instead, we looked at these verses as demands on us as individuals and as a nation, and applied them as written?

Well said, that would have integrity, and require a shift in how we listen for the word.

Just got back from a hard days work (seriously). and there is quite a bit to say. But last things first.
hs, good prayer. Muslims go a step further (please forgive my partisanship here). The favorite prayer is ‘Lord grant us (don’t ask just for yourself that is too selfish) in this world that which is good and grant us in the hereafter that which is good and protect us from the agony of hell fire’. Who knows better than the Creator what is good for us. This prayer is actually in the Qur’an. God does always answer our prayer it is just that sometimes what we get is not what we thought we were asking for. I want a ferrari but walking is much better for my health. So if I ask for good health and a ferrari then I may get good health and not the ferrari. The prayer was answered, it is just I who is ignorant.

Think,
I agree with much of what you write and the sentiments you express are indeed pro-life. However, I must tell you in writing blogs for over six months and talking about this issue a number of times you are the first person who has identified themself as pro-life AND expressed such sentiments. One swallow does not make a spring. Instead of repeating everything, let me refer you to a previous blog of mine that dealt with this issue solely and not ONE person identifying themselves as ProLife said that yes we should do more on education and health care and for the poor http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/civil-religion/abortion/2009/03/are-pro-choice-people-more-pro-life/. So if you are hurt please channel that to useful purpose and work on those who you consider like minded in becoming ProLife not just about abortion but all issues of life.

I won’t defend some of the things you wrote. If you are interested in truth I have written enough to make my position quite clear. I will just summarize and say that the Anti Abortion movement is now clearly very distructive for our nation. It has shown no positive elements in it and is infact even impeding efforts to reduce abortions. There are many reasons for abortions but the very high number we have is fed in large part by sexual promiscuity. This is a moral issue. We cannot legislate it but shouldn’t churches be doing something about it? ‘hs’ has in the past brought to attention the point that sexual conduct among teenagers who attend strict churches (teaching abstinence) is no different than general teenager population (please correct me hs if I am misquoting). This has been clear for a while with no improvement in whatever the ‘AntiAbortion Churches’ are teaching. I wish all the Anti-Abortion people had sentiments like yours and then I would be very happy to refer to them as Pro-Life but as things stand it is most inappropriate to label this movement as anything but simply Anti-Abortion.

Although ‘Another’ gave a very appropriate response to ‘what what’, I would like to add.

It is most unfortunate and almost a knee jerk response of Anti Abortion activists to tear down anything that they percieve is against them. One can only hope that they will stop this one day.

Yes India and South Africa today have real serious problems. News flash so does every other nation on Earth. Is the point that overcoming Aparthied and Colonialism weren’t great achievements? Does anyone think life would have been better under Aparthied or Colonialism?

Gandhi and Mandela both made enormous personal sacrifices and beyond that displayed exceptional love for God and for God’s creation in working for their causes. And with the help of God they were successful and millions of people have much better lives because of their efforts. They didn’t solve all problems for all times but they did, with the help of God, get rid of the biggest problem their people were facing.

Khalid wrote
Yes India and South Africa today have real serious problems. News flash so does every other nation on Earth. Is the point that overcoming Aparthied and Colonialism weren’t great achievements? Does anyone think life would have been better under Aparthied or Colonialism?

Were Apathied and Colonialism truly overcome.Symbolically and on the surface maybe yes.But at the heart of many of the people obviously not.
My statements were neither of blame or judgement just areality check on success.

Many times and again Mandela would do both as it pertains to America,blame and judge.Negating all that America has done for muslims in bosnia, kuwait to name a few and focusing on the negatives of Iraq where many muslims were freed from the tyranny of sadaam.Are there still serious problems there yes.News flash there are problems all over the world.Does anyone think life would have been better for them without U.S. involvement.

Has america or pro-life people done anything to improve the lives
and problems of their time.It was through resistance that Mandela and ghandi changed their world.I am not seeing the difference from the pro-life people as many are there for women after they have chosen abortion and dealt with the guilt involved.Khalid is very biased and myopic in his views of the greatness of the muslim community vs. that of christians.
If you would like to compare something.
Compare the way the Jesus and the first followers of christianity spread their message originally, and how muhammed and the first followers of Islam spread their message.And to the mantra of resistance by Another,
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
We are called to pray and serve God the results are solely left to Him,in response to or in spite of those who are involved.What we do now is not so much for now, as it is for eternity.

Likely, Krishnamurti didn’t pray, but I’d argue he made a big difference.

At their essence prayer and meditation have the same purpose: emptiness. I read the words of Krishnamurti and agree very much http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1933-the-art-of-listening/jiddu-krishnamurti-the-art-of-listening-10.php

It is only in a state of emptiness that we can recieve. Tolle calls this ‘no-mind’. I was priviliged to have participated in a hindu prayer/meditation and as the swami said most people will not appreciate the significance because there is only silence. But having experienced it made me realize the deep connection between prayer and meditation.

I think as Krishnamurti is explaining, his problem is with semantics and rituals whose meaning has been encrusted and hidden by ‘add-on’ traditions. This problem is real and an issue in all faith traditions, including popular Hinduism. But underneath the encrustation the potential is there and a devotee can pursue further in any faith tradition if they choose. I think I had suggested looking at Tolle’s Power of Now which shows this connection in all religions in a very understandable and practical way.

resist–verb 1. to withstand, strive against, or oppose: to resist infection; to resist temptation.

Jesus to Satan, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

and then from his mouth..”Away from me, Satan!”

Jesus suggest we put Satan behind us, and not to engage.

If you choose to engage Satan and put yourself in opposition to Satan, you waste yourself on meaningless things.

James is close to Jesus. James is not Jesus. The Bible provides these powerful distinctions for us. The Bible provides us with the story of Jesus, and the story of the apostles. They are different views. One divine, one inspired.

Resist your temptation and you hold the temptation in place for yourself, unending. why? Much time is spent in therapy to determine the nature of addictions. Nothing is more addictive than self righteousness and judgement. In the end, it is inherent in humans to be righteous.

Jesus advices acceptance.

Accept that it is a temptation, choose not to engage it (put it behind you), and it will soon disappear.

Engage it in opposition and you are commiting to a never ending swirl. The pleasure you gain is your own self righteousness.

Those who speak the words that inflame a war of righteousness are in this swirl. Engaged in opposition with the enemy. They have lost their sight.

If we are quoting James, then he has advice on prayer that speaks to Khalid’s point that if we are not making a difference in abortion we should look to ourselves. Turning up the rhetoric of judgement and righteousness will provide only more of the same.

“What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don’t get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.”

Our motives may be questionable, maybe self righteousness and looking good? Who can find fault in the world with condemning an evil thing? Sounds safe, and self fulfilling to me. We have too much of it.

Resist the temptation that what we are engaged in is a war of words of judgement and condmenation of sin and sinners and it will persist. Its only purpose to hold itself in place.

Do not acknowledge that this is what we are up to and it will continue while we pretend to consider ourselves the better for it.

In the meantime, we do not practice faith, we practise the rhetoric of righteousness.

I find your concluding remarks to be thoughtful and well grounded. If those who were against abortion actually worked to provide appropriate education about human sexuality, worked as helpful advocates for women who had unwanted pregnancies, and defended women’s rights in the face of rape and incest, the rates of abortion in the United States would substantially drop. Instead, huge amounts of money are put in advertising about abortion, mobilizing political campaigns, and working to stop programs that would lead to fewer abortions. In my experience, it is the people who support a woman’s right to choose who also work to provide services and education which could reduce the rate of abortion. But abortion is approached in this country as an emotional issue shrouded in the guise of morality. Little attention is actually given to actual statistical analysis related to causes and effective ways to reduce the number of abortion. As a moral, social justice, and public policy issue, I support a woman’s right to choose. I fundamentally understand my position as being nothing less than being in support of life.

mailfk,
Amen and ditto. The real tragedy is that if we would have had only the simple social policies of England, France, Germany the abortion number would have been cut by 50% or more. Still a high number but it is complete immorality not to do something when you KNOW it works.

Another,
I like your thoughts. Just have one comment. Perhaps we need to remain clear in the important distinction between righteousness and self-righteousness. I think self-righteousness is addictive (I am always right! how nice for me!). Righteousness by contrast is usually much more subdued and an elevated place. We all (or I should say I do) fall prey to self-righteousness but it is a devil we need to be on constant guard against. thank you for your comments.

EJ,
Not to be presumptious but have you visited the local Vedanta society (on Skinker….I am assuming you live in St Louis)? They are followers of Rama Krishna and you may find them very pleasing.

Probably because there is no evidence that prayer is anymore than meditation. Are folks actually waiting for a large man-god with a beard to fix things that they see as wrong?

One needn’t look any further than the greatest choice ever made. A young Jewish girl pledged to be married to a young Jewish man. She becomes pregnant before the wedding, oh no! What will they do? Should she be sent away or should they call the marriage off? Should they kill the unborn child? Thank goodness they did none of those things; God had other plans. In fact all the plans are laid out. All one has to do is read and study. Can it be that simple? Try it out. Instead of looking left or right to assess blame and who isn’t doing enough……..press forward. We live in a wonderful world, there are wonderful people all around, you have but to reach out and connect.

John R.

I must say I am not completely familiar with the biblical account of the birth of Jesus but I was not aware of Joseph being involved in the decision process of the birth. This catholic source talks of very significant differences in the narrative in Matthew and Luke’s Gospels. However they make no mention in either of Joseph BEFORE the birth of Jesus. Joseph is no where in the story of the birth of Jesus. http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Jesus-Birth.htm .

I hope this is not inappropriate, but to me taking such artistic liberties with narratives from a scripture is sacriligous. Not ever to be done deliberately. Perhaps I am mistaken and it is ok in christianity to do this with the Bible. I hope not. By the way, the narrative in Luke is closer to the Quranic version (but Qur’an has two very significant additional items).

Khalid: in Matthew’s version, it says that Joseph considered “putting her (Mary) away quietly”, which in the context of the day meant that he could have canceled the betrothal without making a big to-do about it.

At that point, the Angel appeared to him and told him that she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit and that he should not be afraid to take her as his wife.

(See Matthew Chapter 1, after the begats.)

Mr. Shah,

I believe that adding to the Bible or changing it in anyway is a sacrelige. I did no such thing. Please be careful to research before you post. I fear many times that, although your ideas are heartfelt and a good starting point, your research is not.

Dear hs,

Thank you for your support. However the customs of the time were much more serious than you portray. To be betrothed in that time period in Judaism essentially meant that the contract had been ratified by both parties and that a final ceremony was a celebration of such union and a mere formality. A little different than today’s American version of marriage. I should say that Joseph (or the groom’s family) was even within his/their rights to have Mary stoned to death or whatever punishment fit. Yet another choice that could have been made. Again, thank God that although we make plans, He guides our footsteps.

I did go and read Matthew and I do stand corrected. I also read what is written in Luke and it too can be interpreted as you have written. Thank you for the correction.

I think every Christian should mind their own business…don’t believe in abortion.. then don’t have one. Abortion is wrong.. but war is not? Abortion is wrong.. but the death penalty is not? Amazingly so, this abortion issue is successful in it’s intention to distract the American public from politcal economical issues. Sheep mere sheep what can I say!

Khalid,

The distinction you make is a powerful one. It is common to collapse God’s righteousness into our righteousness. It appears as, “I am not being self righteous, God is saying these things.” Followed by the denial of self righteousness.

I acknowledge, I may be very alone in this. The addiction to being right is overwhelming. As created by God, we have no righteousness. It is God’s, not ours. In short, any use of righteousness is of our self.

Judgement and righteousness are God’s. To claim to be speaking “for” God, and repeating only what God has already determined as “right and wrong” with the intent to influence another or serve our selves is self righteousness.

God will judge what is righteous, not us. Claiming to “know” what God considers “right and wrong” is claiming a “moral authority.” Is it yours, or God’s? (rhetorical) It is yours for you to take on and share the impact in your life. It is not yours to place on another or claim to know.

Claiming moral authority on anything is self righteousness. Only God may use this power. Claiming a connection and understanding of God that is above others and used to judge others is self righteousness. This is the distinction of arrogance and humilty, faith and fear.

The examples you give spent very little time judging or condemning others. There is no need for righteousness when one chooses who they are in the world and has faith in that choice. Even evil knows this, and will use righteousnes to tempt.

This distinction is not easily apparent. It is contrary to human nature.

Example: “My belief in God inspires me to love life and not kill.” Or, “My belief requires I obey God’s law and not kill.”

Example: “It is God’s law to not kill, and you are wrong if you do, I am right if I do not.” This is righteousness, and when we use it, it can only be self righteousness.

More importantly and this is to integrity, “..you are wrong if you do, I am right if I do not.” will make not difference in anything. It will cause harm, it will generate an automatic resistance. It is human nature. Calling out a sinner only serves to fix into place more tightly what is. Evil know this, and works to engage us in this.

Secular laws create mischief when they are based in righteousness. They are more effective when they deal with agreement and what works. For example, we have agreed that we will honor a law that says we may not kill each other. Its inspiration is apparent. Nobody wants to be killed. The right or wrong of it makes no difference. Yet we will debate ad nauseum about who is right and who is wrong. The work here is only to determine what happened and honor the agreement in the law. We make it only about right and wrong so we can be right, and justify unhealthy feelings and thoughts about who we determine is wrong. Of course, it is not us.

This debate only serves our righteousness. I am good because I did not kill. They are bad because they did. God will determine the good and the bad.

so then, how do we know. Do we rely on those who may desire to place themselves between us and God and claim to know God’s righteousness? Are do we take on our relationship with God, and what is within us? Do we each choose who we are, trust in God, and share this?

When we claim to be right, we are being righteous.

I may not live to see the day when we give up the knowledge and language of right and wrong and return to the Garden as God created the world for us. The temptation is to great to take on God’s power and pretend we know.

As long as we remain committed to the use of right and wrong, we will hold sin in this world to serve our own righteousness.

Gods is not the source of sin, we are. What are we doing that is the cause of it? we are dealing in it. Acknowledge it, give it up, and it will disappear.

Mr. Shah,

To say that the Pro-Life movement does not seek to prevent abortions is ridiculous. You say that promiscuity and hardship are some leading contributing factors to most abortions. Tell me, which group of people in this country promote promiscuity? Are you implying that Pro-Life people do so? Guess again. The side you have aligned yourself with is the culprit here. Abortions have been growing in this country because of your support. You cannot blame us for the mess created by the people you support.

We all can do more and we all should do more to help. However, condoning abortion because you think people should help more, truly is a twisted view of reality.

Another,

In my example of anger leading to the murder of a neighbor…

I agree with you that people should not get angry, but people will get angry unless they are drugged up on anti-depressents. You are also right that we should do more to prevent the anger that caused the murder. However, just because the anger wasn’t prevented, it doesn’t mean that the murder was OK.

Likewise, we must do more to prevent unintended pregnancies. However, just because two people made a bad choice, does it mean that killing to undo the choice (and avoid the responsibility) is OK?

If you say yes, then where do you draw the line? When does the killing become not OK?

Thank you, Khalid, for a very intriguing article. I was raised theologically, and don’t bother with it now, but I can say you hit the nail on the head for how I feel about the anti-abortion/pro-life movement. It bothers me incredibly that the same party (yes, individuals haves varying individual opinions, but most still vote republican) vigorously opposes abortion, but that this same party cares little for the poor, cares little for health care, wants to teach proven-to-be-faulty abstinence only sex ed which will lead to more unintended pregnancies, favors the death penalty, and favors war. Other than abortion, you would not say that the right wing of the political spectrum is pro-life. It reeks of wishing to punish those that indulge their sexual desires. The pro-life movement would be something I could get behind if I actually believed that they valued life, not just fetal life.

If ending “abortion as birth control” is the goal…and I think that is a good way to state it…then the solution has numerous components.

Reflecting back to the passages Khalid quoted, I see several things, and I see other things based on my life experience.

First, James reminds us that words DO have power, both for good and evil. James also reminds us that if all we do is talk, and take no action, then we’re actually worse off than before.

Second, I reflect that ministry is best handled on an individual basis. I ask myself, which action is most likely to prevent a particular person from having a non-medically indicated abortion? Screaming at her as she enters the clinic and thrusting pictures of dismembered fetuses at her, or actually taking the time to engage her individually in conversation and sincerely trying to determine why she is there and what drove her to the decision? I would suggest the second. However, there is a warning here: if I intervene in a person’s life, and they make a decision based on my intervention, then I have some responsibility for the future of that decision. In some circles, it is even argued that I have to take personal responsibility for that changed life forever into the future.

Finally, one other significant social change that has to happen here, and I haven’t got a clue how to get there. This whole debate is still phrased in terms of what WOMEN can and can’t do, or should and shouldn’t do. You know, there is another participant in every pregnancy. Figure out a way to get men to take responsibility for THEIR actions, and I guarantee the numbers of problem pregnancies will go down. The wives and girlfriends have a share of this, to be sure. But, if men believed that they could wind up both financially and physically responsible for the children they fathered, then some of them might, just might, think about it before they unzipped.

First, I am amazed how the P-D allows a Muslim to attack the Catholic faith, yet I have never seen anyone post anything derogatory about the Muslim faith, In fact, if you even post a comment that is somewhat derogatory of the Muslim faith, you will be deleted. As always, the double standard at the P-D is alive an well.

ACB - thank you for the stereotyping! Very typical. In fact, I am personally pro-life. So naturally, I am against the death penalty and anti-war.
I see no need to overturn Roe v Wade. If people want babies aborted that will most likely turn out to be more Democrats and people in need of state services - so be it. Abort away. I will not stand in your way. By the way, I also support healthcare insurance for all.
I also personally and financially support causes that assist the poor.
And I vote Republican. I believe the GOP has a large tent and they have never asked me to leave. So what’s the problem?

A Centrist,
Thank you for providing a bit of light humor (you are joking right?). I mean you are against the death penalty and war but vote for a party that brings the death penalty to your local state and started a major illegal war in Iraq that has done enormous damage to our nation. You help the poor yet vote for people who cut funding that would have helped your donation dollar go further. You are for healthcare insurance but also for the party that opposes it. It can see where the centrist moniker is coming from. It is from the tug of war between the reasoned left and kneejerk right impulses.

Sorry a better person would have refrained but really please just read what you wrote and you be the judge. It was just too tempting. As for criticizing the Muslims, please go for it, be my guest. If you have to unburden as long as it is not foul language I will let it appear on my blog entries. It will be my pleasure. Peace and thanks again!

You post the ideals of abandoning right and wrong,ascribing to the notion that your analysis is right and those who blame are to blame.

Think,

Thank you for your response. You bring up a number of issues that deserve to be dealt with in detail. And I will make a note and do that at a later time because this may take more than one blog. As someone corrected me today, I want to make sure before bringing the information up. But as a starter let me suggest if you take a look at one of my previous three blogs on the abortion issue. http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/civil-religion/abortion/2009/03/challenge-to-faith-is-religion-a-blight-upon-humanity/ It covers the issue of a positive correlation between abortion and church attendance across 8 western nations. That such a correlation was found across multiple western societies has very strong implications and we dealt with it extensively in that blog. But some of the other issues I will, God willing , hope to address in the future.

Wow,Khalid,
Apparently dark sarcasm and judgemental, condescending arrogance, are accepted in the muslim faith.

hs,
Two comments about what you wrote. I think the abortion rates for women who are married (need to separate out those that are separated/divorced) is much lower so that does point to the very important effect if the man takes responsibility.

When you write about individual ministry what comes to mind is the systemic nature of social behavior. Many recognize a ‘herd’ mentality among teenagers when it comes to fashion, music etc. But all of us are modified in behavior by our environment. I came to USA in 1976 and did not return for a visit to Pakistan for nearly 10 years. On my first visit back I became aware of how many of my responses were so different. Social behavior is influenced by societal environment. What I am trying to say is that sometimes good national social policy means recognizing this systemic nature of social behavior and nudging policy in a direction to have a positive effect. I think carefully crafted social policy has a lot of potential for dramatically bringing down the abortion rate in our country.

whatwhat,

I have never said I was right in my thinking. You make a good point, and it is a constant consideration. In other words, you are right:)

I am not advocating that we ignore the jaragon of right and wrong. It is the world we lve in. Yet within a safe place of faith, we can discuss the possibility, practise it, and provide it as an example to the world in our being, if not in our language. This is what the master’s do.

Of course, there is great risk in this because we will certainly love them, then hate them, mock, inprison, or kill them, then love them again.

Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison “being” free.

It is a very distinct line, the difference between being and judging. I am no master at it. I appreciate your remark.

Think,

Thank you for a thoughtful repsonse. There is a powerful distinction in anger. It is the outcome of blame. These are red flags for us. If we are experiencing anger, blame, or righteousness as in someone is occurring for us as wrong , we are in judgement. There is nothing wrong in this. It is what we do, and it will not make a difference.

One possibility is to acknoledge it, give it up, and create something else for ourselves in that moment. Something that inspires us, that touches something else within us, and share that with the target of our blame or judgment.

This is to Khalid’s earliar comment about the intent of prayer, (or a time out for a child) the practise of giving up of ourselves, of letting go of all that we know, and to be open for that which is possible.

A master brings nothing of themself, and in that moment of nothing what is possible? Everything.

Thank you both for listening for what I am sharing.

Mr. Shah, glad I could provide you with some amusement on such a gloomey day and that you accept your frailty. Bottom line I agree more in principle with the GOP than the Dem party. Also, I won’t take the bait and attack you or your religion as I am not an expert on it. Personally, I find it odd, however, that Muslims and Baptists voted Democrat, yet I believe their religions are opposed to gay marriage and abortion. Have you attacked them for voting for a party that does not go along with their core religious beliefs? Don’t Muslim countries actually kill people for even being gay?

Do I think the GOP is perfect and agree with them wholeheartedly? No, and I think anyone that doesn’t question their political party and believes everything they promote, should re-think that. Mitt Romney, for instance whom I supported, actually had the same healthcare plan as Obama. The GOP are not quite as congruent a group as Democrats. Democrats just seem to go along and accept everything that Reid and Pelosi say. I don’t trust any of them.
Democrats will pander and say anything to whatever group just to get their votes and their only goal is to control everyone, but they just can’t see it. How sad. I believe in freedom and distain the Marxist, socialist, Communist control of the Democrat party. Weak people want to be controlled and they will be.

Also, Mr. Shah, why do you think the media totally took at pass on a Muslim shooting an American soldier in Little Rock? Why hasn’t anyone posted a blog piece about it to discuss the first Islamic terrorist attack on American soil under the Obama admin.? Why the double standard?

I doubt we will see the P-D report this:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/06/hijab-wearing-muslim-fanatic-crashes.html

I also assume you are aware that most Democrats also voted for the war in Iraq. I would not have voted for it.

Another,
Perhaps it is a cultural thing. The definition of righteous I grew up with was someone standing at ready to obey God. An upright person, a pillar of the village community, helper of those who need aid, quiet and humble in demeanor, short of speech, kind and gentle, yet strong. I agree with what you have written but from where I stand it is difficult to understand what is the distinction between righteousness and sel-righteousness for a human being in what you are stating?

Applying the word to the Creator is also muddling. It is not a quality I associate with the Creator. Trying to figure out why the only thing I can come up with is, and perhaps I just don’t understand this word, that righteous in with respect to or towards another. The Creator has no equals and so how does one apply a relativistic term to the Creator? One cannot.

A long time ago an old man said to me, ‘Allah has everything?’, ‘No Allah does not have humility (actually he used the persian word ‘aajazee’ which is humility and dependence)’, ‘I offer Allah something Allah does not have, my humility’. It made me realize that there are terms that do not apply to the Creator.

God answers all prayers. Sometimes the answer is “no”. Sometimes it’s probably, “you’ve got to be kidding”. Maybe because for many it’s more about punishing people who have sex than it is about life? Joe Garagiola tells the story of Jimmy Pearsal batting and Yogi catching, and Jimmy, who had had some emotional problems at one time (with Cleveland, I believe, and I think I was there at the time; he may have got them from me, but I digress), went out in front of the plate and drew the sign of the cross in the dirt. Yogi went over to him and said, “Yogi, why dont you just let god enjoy the game?” Story not relevant to this blog item, but still a good story.

Permit me to muse a little. Are we, today, seeing God’s judgment being rendered?

Consider that for years, the religious pro-life groups have been praying to end abortion. Further, for years, they’ve been praying to (a) remake the supreme court so that it would have a rock solid pro-life majority, and (b) to build a solid pro-life legislative and executive majority to craft suitable pro-life law.

For a six year period, between 2000 and 2006, just such a majority existed in Congress, with an adamant pro-life President in the white house. During that time, no major pro-life legislation ever made it out of committee for debate, much less for a vote. Since then, the Republican party has seen a severe decline in it’s political fortunes.

I hesitate to assign God a part in such things….and yet…..

On the more general subject at hand, Khalid talks about the difficulty of assigning righteousness to God. I was raised with a very clear understanding that ‘I’ will always get myself in trouble when I try to specify what God will or will not do. God, after all, is by definition omnipotent and omniscient. Ultimately, God will do what GOD will do, and only occasionally will God do things my way. On prayer, I say frequently that I should always be careful what I pray for, I might just get it. The classic example is that one should never pray for patience. Most likely, the answer will be you finding yourself in a situation that requires infinite patience.

Tiller reaped what he sowed.

Obedience is a “good” thing, and it works as a discipline. Yet, it is only an act of discipline on the journey to being. Wax on, wax off.

Practise obedience and the way “may” occur automatically. What is still missing for an obedient person is to choose for themselves that which is the source.

Here is another way to view it. To your post, view the outcome, do the ends justify the means?

Do you do what you do to be right, or to honor your chosen way of being. Choose a way of being, and with integirity, the outcome is righteousness as viewed in God’s eyes.

Is a winner a winner in their own eyes, or do they work at their passion an the outcome is winning in your eyes? Do you see past the winning?

Do you not kill because you honor righteousness, or because you love and honor life?

Do you honor the elder in your community because they are righteous, or with respect for the virtues the elder honors.

For me, God has humility.

humble–adjective 1. not proud or arrogant; modest:

My view of God is that God is free of pride and arrogance. These or symptoms of righteousness. Only God can has power over righteousness.

For me, God has authenticity. God’s righteousness is not a strategy, but the outcome of “being” who God “is” when viewed by another. We do not honor the being when we see only in this way.

We are like God in this, as most things, in that we are in God’s image.
It is the same with judgement.

To your comment regarding terms, the distinction is, we do not apply them, we witness them, both in ourselves and in others.

If on judgement day, God chooses to apply them, God will, but not until then.

Much shorter version and after being more with your thoughts.

It is not possible to “be” right or righteous. It is inauthentic to claim it as a way of being. To your point, God can not “be” righteous. God can/may judge. We can not.

We may choose to be many things: accepting, powerful, free.

We can no more “be” right than “be” love. We access these through our choices in being.

Acceptance is our access to love. Judgement is our access to right and wrong (righteousness).

We may act in a righteous manner. These are only other’s views of us made in judgement. We may be judged as righteous. To your point, do we dare judge God as righteous? god may speak this only of God’s self.

Jesus says of himself. “I do not judge, and if did I would be right.” Very powerful. speak it for yourself, both as God would speak it and then as you as human would speak it, both as power over it, and as warning to it. the key to getting it as the word is jesus is not boastful.

We may not truly “be” righteous. Thank god.

Even shorter, there is no glory in “being” right.

At best, it is a booby prize. Those with integrity and faith are up to other things.

Tarnishing this prized possession of the believers will not make me popular, I am sure.

It is Jesus message to the Pharisees, and his call to be born again.

It is perfectly acceptable to get angry; Christ himself was angry when He overturned the moneychanger’s tables. We should get angry at sin.

Too many times Christians turn their backs on the world and their brothers who are trapped in sin or are temped by sin: it’s not my problem, I shouldn’t judge. What a shame, you stand up for nothing, you’ll fall for anything.

Christians are called to be obedient to God’s teaching.

Another–God doesn’t say don’t kill, He says don’t murder (premediated killing). He also understands that there will be accidents (see old Testament about an axehead flying off and killing your neighboor-Duet. I believe)

Righteousness is trying to think and live according to a set code, e.g. the Bible. If we are called to be like Jesus, shouldn’t we strive to be righteous?!? I agree self-righteousness is not a quality that should be desired.

I identify myself more so with the Republican party than others because more often than not they are more conservative. I believe in self reliance, most people should work for what they have. Some people cannot do that and they need help, the help should atart at the community level.
I don’t believe it is the government’s responsibility to take care of me or anyone else on a personal level.

Another,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and the effort you are putting into them. One message I am getting is the futility of words how they can imprison our ideas. You are using some of the terminology of Tolle so I am assuming you are familiar with his work. From reading what you wrote I realized that I am using the word righteousness in a very different manner. In Islam we are engrained in the idea that there are no absolutes of qualities for human beings only for the divine. Mercy, love, justice, whatever these qualities only exist in perfection in the Creator (Al-Lah The Undefinable). So when talking of them with respect to us I have (unconciously) implicitly thought of them as relative qualities. So righteousness is our attempt at being in harmony with the Creator’s intent. It cannot be a fixed set of actions. Life is a growth process (hopefully!) and so our understanding of the Creator’s intent should also evolve. Righteousness would then be evolving our actions to keep working on achieving harmony with the Creator’s intent.

I know we have digressed far from the original intent of this blog (but c’est la vie!) but in a way understanding prayer (or meditation if you will. Again lets not get hung up on words) as our connection to the Creator is essential to understanding everything else. Fatima Mernissi in her book ‘Beyond the Veil’ ( which was a critical look at male domination in Muslim Society) talks of the comfort of prayer. She talks of women praying and how it comforted them in a world full of oppression. If nothing else prayer can be a refuge for the oppressed. But used properly it can be like a beacon steering us to do God’s will.

The problem is that people do not pray. They go through the motions but there is no communication. Their actions that need to evolve through the guidance of prayer instead get frozen in the direction they chose at an early point and no wonder they steer off course.

Peace.

I will offer another view.

Instead of anger, Paul suggests it is appropriate to experience grief in the face of sin.

anger–noun 1. a strong feeling of displeasure and belligerence aroused by a wrong; wrath

Anger is aroused by judgement of a wrong. Wrath is fierce anger with deep resentful indignation, vengeful and punishing. If this does not demonstrate the distinction of Old and New Testament, I do not know what will.

Consider it takes great strength and faith to be in the presence of sin, and accept responsibility for it. Even when as a person we are not the source. It is automatic in us to take this on universally as God does, as Jesus does for us. We are in God’s image.

The pain of it is too much for us to bear, we are tempted to judge and blame to numb the pain and grief of sin. We can not bear the responsibility of it. To use judgement and righteous indignation in this way is not Godly.

It is not wrong. It is what we do. Jesus has taken this on for us. We no longer need to blame in the presence of sin. We are given freedom from judgement.

I shared your view of Jesus and the money changers. I remember pictures of an angry Jesus in a picture in my Sunday school class driving out the money changers.

Interestingly, there is no mention of Jesus being angry in the scripture. Only that he overturned the tables and drove them from the temple. Then he went about healing. One cool dude.

Judgement is not neccessary to take action. We are called to action by who we are, not the sin of another or the fear and anger in its judgement.

The temple has an intent. There was a lack of integrity in what was occurring. Jesus, a rabbi, took action to realign it with its intent. No anger.

A choice, a commitment, and integrity is all that is required to be called forth to take action.

The idea that action must be justified has many purposes, none have integrity.

Truth be told, we are inspired to act. Any action that is undertaken in the context of anger is suspect in that it is several layers removed from the inspiration that we are. Those layers are reason and justification to hide our guilt at acting in anger from judgement, because we want to be seen as strong and righteous in our anger.

For me as a discipline, it is more effective to be obedient than righteous. In obedience, an inspiring choice, commitment and integrity are required. In righteousness, justification and judgement are required.

I accept your distinction of murder and killing. I would debate the use of justification in killing, but for another time.

Look to the words. Jesus is this word incarnate. What a blessing, our God.

Khalid,

My most recent post was for John R.

Clarity in word is essential to prayer. If it is not in our laguage, and clear in our use of it, it does not exist for us.

People pray as they speak.

Thank you for your work in this.

Mr. Shah, thank you for deleting my comment asking why you are ignoring my comments. What? They weren’t funny enough for you this time? Come on respond. I’d like to read what you have to say. Why hasn’t the Muslim community issued a statement regarding their last terrorist act in America?
At least the pro-life community condemned Dr. Killer’s killing.

A guy driving peole with a whip and physically overturning tables isn’t angry? Not my interpretation, but to each his own.

Obedience to God’s will results in righteousness. If you are obedient to Him, you will begin to hate sin as He does, but you will also be able to love everyone as He does. A compelling duality most cannot comprehend or achieve.

Interesting about your clarity in word for prayer. I take a different approach to prayer: I begin speaking plainly enough, but most of the time end speaking in my prayer language. I also use prayer to allow God to change me instead of the other way around. I feel that this leads me to a deeper peace and understanding.

Back on topic, it’s always interesting to follow the money. Research the abortion industry and follow all of the money that flows through them. Also, if you ask doctors if they would perform an abortion most will not.

I will consider your view, that anger is good. I am struggling with that aspect of it that requires judgement of a wrong.

I have no difficulty seeing Jesus doing what he did in the temple without anger. I admire it. Anger, not so much. Especially in light of declaring for himself that he does not judge.

Grief and anguish maybe, yet it is not written there either. An obsolete form of anger is ire, anguish and/or grief I could accept. These are free of judgement, and rely on God within me in the presence of sin.

I even abide a hate of sin as intense aversion or passionate dislike in the same manner. This is different than me choosing to be offended, and to judge as wrong….? I struggle with God’s direct request, through Adam and Jesus, that I not use this knowledge, that God will provide what I need in this. I have only to listen.

I guess there could be anger by proxy. Yet then I would be placing myself between God and another. I think God would personally have to ask me to do this. I would not presume it. (half joking….)

Obedience to God’s will pleases God. God will judge the righteous. I would not collapse the two. It presumes too much, for me.

I have enjoyed our exchange.

John,
I like your point about ‘follow the money’ and I agree abortion is unfortunately an industry. You are right about that. But this point cuts both ways. If you follow the money on the Anti-Abortion side as well and look at what is spend opposing abortion versus what is spent on undesired pregnancy prevention and what is spent on other ‘life’ issues it is paltry by comparison. It is also an industry that is thriving on the abortion issue with very real political and economic benefits to those ‘running’ the anti-abortion campaigns. While the supporters may indeed want to see abortion abolished, that would not be in the financial interest of those running the anti-abortion campaigns. Money is corrupting both sides of this issue. Both ‘hs’ and I made the point that with control of both houses and the White House for six years there was not a single bill introduced. That should cause people opposing abortions to ponder, are they simply being manipulated. You wrote earlier that we can work on reducing abortions. I completely agree. We fundamentally disagree on when life begins and I hope that people can stop calling abortions as killing babies. That is very inflammatory and completely wrong. But if we can be civil I would love to see abortions reduced dramatically. That would require fighting the money interests on both sides of this. Money interests always prefer the status quo.

“I hope that people can stop calling abortions as killing babies.”

This is a prayer.

“That is very inflammatory and completely wrong.”

This is righteousness. You have taken what you have chosen for yourself in faith, and used it to make another person wrong.

This is only for God. It is for me the distinction between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance witholds action while keeping the judgement in place in the heart. (As an act of obedience to law, it serves the user and pleases God.) Acceptance removes the judgement, and gives it to God, providing me access to love and another. (As an act of being, it serves and pleases God.)

I can only speak for myself as a Christian. I am asked not to judge, and to live my life by example in hope, love, and faith.

I went ahead and deleted the comment about A Centrist and the change in email. It was an issue with another responder and I mistakenly attributed that to A Centrist’s email address. Sorry for the confusion.

Another,
I am not sure I get this:
“I hope that people can stop calling abortions as killing babies.”

This is a prayer.

“That is very inflammatory and completely wrong.”

This is righteousness. You have taken what you have chosen for yourself in faith, and used it to make another person wrong.

The first statement is not a prayer (which would be directed at God) rather is request.

The second statement is not judging the ‘other’ person’s faith rather it is confirming one’s own. When two faiths disagree each must follow their own path. I cannot judge you according to my faith and I ask you not judge me according to yours. That is all the second statement is saying (or at least I hope that is what the message is).

To my point earliar, that for me, God is within us all, and when we speak we speak to God, and all we say is as in prayer. It is a commitment that removes the barriers from what is for God, and what is not. All is for God. Every moment, every word, every breath.

The practise of devoting special times for prayer both alone and together is not meant to divide in this way, only to bind together those times when we fail.

A request is a petition or solicitation (prayer).

I am not going to continue a detailed conversation about the use of right and wrong in this thread. I have spent myself on it. I will leave it with one statement. It is possible to live a life of faith, glorifing and pleasing God, and never use or consider the words right and wrong.

Hello Mr. Shah,

I sometimes wonder about the value of prayer. Many Believers engage in it, but there are too few genuine examples “God” actually “answering” a prayer to convince me, or any rational, critical thinking person, of it’s power to persuade “God” to act. To be honest, all the examples that I have every heard described, such as miraculous cures, are actually the result of human intervention (doctors, for instance), not “God’s”. Do you (or any poster) know of an unambiguous intervention in human affairs by “God”? Setting up a test would be easy: in fact, we could reproduce Elijah’s test regarding “God” and “Baal”. (See I Kings 18:18-39)

Here’s a thought: Prayer is worthless and unnecessary for appealing to “God” for intervention. Of course, “God” is, in all likelihood, just a fictional character anyway and thus incapable of intervention, but let’s suspend that idea for the moment and consider this, instead.

“God” is defined to be omniscient (among other things), thus knows everything about everything and everybody including not only the past and present, but the future as well. Bible stories tell us this is so using plain language. Presumably, “God’s” omniscience extends to our thoughts as well because if it did not, then “God” would not know everything.

Furthermore, “God” is defined as being perfect in every way, thus everything “God” knows (which is literally every thing, including future events and thoughts) is known with certainty, and thus every bit of the future is absolutely certain. It is certain because “God” knows everything and because “God” is infallible. Thus “God” already knows what each of us will do and think, and more importantly, what we will pray for and why, and most importantly (and since all of this is already known by “God” and certain), then “God” already knows what “He” will do regarding each and every prayer.

In this situation (where “God” is both omniscient and infallible), prayer is unavoidable (because “God” knew it was coming), but the effects of the prayer were also already determined even before the petitioner offered the prayer.

It is possible that you, Mr. Shah, or some others may object to this analysis because it appears that “free will” is denied, that is, one cannot avoid prayer if “God” knows beforehand that one will occur nor can one one engage in prayer if “God” knows beforehand that one will not occur. Unfortunately, that is correct. If there is a real “God” who is omniscient and infallible, then every word of my post (and every typo that I corrected, and even the ones I missed) was known with absolute certainty long before I was born and certainly long before any of us started using the Internet or learned the QWERTY keyboard. Loss of “free will” is a valid consequence of the same analysis: if there is a real “God” possessing omniscience and infallibility, then there is no “free will” among creatures in “God’s” domain.

On the other hand, if “God” is imaginary (or fictitious), then the definitions can still be applied, but then prayer is ineffective because there is no real omnipotent being able to respond. Prayer may still have some value to the petitioner, but no “God” is going to respond.

Thus, in either case, prayer is ineffective at persuading “God” to intervene or intercede in events. Either “God” is imaginary, and no response is ever forthcoming, or there is a real “God” meeting the definitions of omnipotence, omniscience, and infallibility, then prayer is merely a formality or fulfillment of “God’s Plan” along with whatever consequences “God” knew would happen, or what actions “God” knew “He” was going to take.

Your examples of Ghandi and Mandela are inspiring, but misleading insofar as depicting a real “God” “answering their prayers” for progress in human rights issues. Their examples are closer to Benjamin Franklin’s observation that “God helps those who help themselves”, whereas Ghandi and Mandela (along with innumerable others who have succeeded similarly) merely announce their goals, hopes, dreams, and “visions” “through prayer” then inspire people to work until success (or some success) is achieved.

You are right about one thing! Anti-abortionist prayers are not being answered by “God”. I wonder if they think their prayers are being answered? Are they still offering their prayers that “God” halt abortions? What convinces them their efforts are succeeding? Thanks for suggesting they take action besides just prayer; we will have a better world once the problems leading to abortion choices are eliminated. It’s not “God” that’s going to lead us or get us there… we must do it ourselves. News to Anti-Abortionists: it’s going to take more than prayer, placards, and the murder of doctors to abolish the practice.