RU 486

WASHINGTON, (christiansunite.com) -- Misleading conclusions are being drawn in news stories based on a study that has indicated that the RU486 abortion drug is no more dangerous than surgical abortions.

"Reporters are drawing the erroneous conclusion that this study means RU486 is completely safe. That's not what the study says, and nothing could be further from the truth," said Operation Rescue Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger. "Women are dying at an alarming rate from RU486 abortions and its widespread misuse in the abortion industry. That has not changed."

The study indicates that future pregnancies are equally affected by RU486 abortions and surgical abortions. However, it is a leap in logic to say that either are safe when the study simply shows that the risks to future pregnancies of both abortion methods are equal.

"Women who have had abortions have greater risks of miscarriage and infertility than women who have not had abortions. It is no accident that the study refused to compare these two groups of women, because we know they would have found that abortion hurts women, and that is obviously a conclusion that they did not want to reach," said Sullenger.

RU486 is a drug approved for abortions in pregnancies under six weeks. Three office visits are usually required for this kind of abortion. Some reports indicate that RU486 has a 15% failure rate, meaning that many women who receive the drug must also have a surgical abortion to completely remove the pre- born baby and other pregnancy tissue.

"Women aborting with RU486 can pass their babies anywhere. This has created a lot of emotional trauma for women who do not expect to come face to face with a tiny baby complete with arms, legs and a recognizable face," said Sullenger.

"The reputation of RU486 has suffered recently because of the publicity generated by a number of abortion deaths related to the drug. The media distortion we are seeing is a simple case of public relations damage control," said Sullenger. "Hiding the possibility of RU486's life-threatening dangers from women really shows that there is more concern for selling abortions than for protecting and informing women. This misinformation campaign is really a horrific thing when you think about it that could needlessly cost women's lives."

Read more here.

When I was younger I was quite ambivalent about abortions. One of my neighbours when I was a kid did not practice any kind of birth control. When her children got too many she resorted to abortions to reduce their number. One of her kids was born without fingers and toes, and I believe that was a result of a failed abortion.

I think there are worst things in life than being pregnant. Whatever reasons that are given by those who have had abortions, it all boils down this - having a child is an inconvenience. I do not buy the "mental health" reason for having an abortion. Except for a serious risk to the mother's life, abortion should be banned. Rape and incest, give birth to the child, and give it up for adoption. Two wrongs do not make a right.

A woman's right to privacy ... what a lot of bull! Abortion is sanctioned murder.

Gay Church in Malaysia?

Muslim-majority Malaysia will block a plan by the country's first and only openly gay pastor to establish a church embracing homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals, a minister said Monday.

Reverend Ouyang Wen Feng, an ethnic Chinese Malaysian ordained in the US, caused controversy after saying he wanted to set up the church by 2010.

The government would block the plan, Tourism Minister Adnan Tengku Mansor told AFP, adding the country had always sought to portray itself as a "family-oriented" holiday destination.

"We have no intention of being portrayed the same way like other cities such as Bangkok or those other cities in that league," Mansor said, apparently referring to the Thai capital's sex industry.

"We are here to be seen as a multicultural country with people who are good, excellent followers of their respective religions," Mansor added.

Homosexuality falls under a Malaysian law prohibiting sodomy, which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison and whipping.

Ouyang's plan to start the church had stirred anxiety, Reverend Wong Kin Kong, the secretary general of Malaysia's National Evangelical Christian Fellowship, said last week.

This was "because Christians do not want others to assume they condone such a thing," he said.

But Ouyang remained unfazed and urged a congregation of about 80 people -- including his male partner -- to "reclaim faith and celebrate our sexuality" in an underground mass Sunday.

"For some of us, especially our gay brothers and sisters, we have experienced first hand that Christianity has been used to persecute minorities," Ouyang told the mass, according to press reports.

Source: Yahoo News

Why do you think Ouyang was quite brazen about starting a church in Malaysia even though he is a practicing homosexual? Is it because he was trained in the US where homosexuality and same sex unions are acceptable in some Christian churches?

I won't be surprised if that was his primary motive. He has become one of those liberal Christians who choose to ignore clear biblical teachings about sexual purity, and sodomy. Listen to what he says about Christianity being used to persecute minorities. If he thinks that emphasizing biblical teachings and wanting your flock to adhere to those teachings is persecution, then is it persecution too if the church admonishes its unmarried members from abstaining from sex before marriage?

I don't know what Bible Ouyang is reading but my Bible does not teach me to "reclaim [our] faith and celebrate our sexuality". The only celebration of our sexuality that the Bible clearly teaches is within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman.

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 2 Timothy 4:3

How true!

Can you be a Christian and a Muslim at the same time?

Is it possible to be a Christian and a Muslim at the same time? That idea is both illogical and contradictory, if not heretical! Apparently it is not illogical or contradictory for the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding a clergy woman of the Espiscoplian church of St. Mark's in Seattle, Washington.

In Islam, Jesus Christ is merely a prophet, even lower in esteem than Mohammad. In Christianity, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, and this doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ, and salvation through Christ only is totally incompatible with Islam.

But then the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding is one of those liberal Christians who rejects the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. It is therefore not surprising that she can embrace both Islam and Christianity.

Rev. Redding should be thankful that she was a "Christian" first before she decided to embrace Islam at the same time. If it had been the other way around, I doubt her Muslim superiors would be as understanding if she had decided to embrace Christianity while remaining a Muslim!

I agree with Dr. Emir Caner, dean of The College at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, when he described Redding’s faith conviction as “an extraordinary illustration of what has become Postmodern Christianity in America.”

Further Readings:

Christian Theologians: 'Episcopal Muslim' Faith is Illogical, Contradictory

An Episcopal Muslim?

Pray to Allah?

The Bishop of Breda, Tiny Muskens, wants people to start calling God Allah. He says the Netherlands should look to Indonesia, where the Christian churches already pray to Allah. It is also common in the Arab world: Christian and Muslim Arabs use the words God and Allah interchangeably.

Speaking on the Dutch TV programme Network on Monday evening, Bishop Muskens says it could take another 100 years but eventually the name Allah will be used by Dutch churches. And that will promote rapprochement between the two religions.

Read the rest of the story here.

I understand what this bishop is saying, and why he is saying it. I understand the "what" but I cannot agree with the "why".

I come from a background where the word "Allah Taala" is used to refer to God Almighty. And I do not refer to God as "Allah" because I want to promote rapprochement between Islam and Christianity.

What needs to be emphasized here is that the word "Allah" has been in existence long before Islam. The word "Allah" when referencing to God cannot be exclusively used by Islam even though Islam would like to claim the word for their own. In Malaysia, the bible in the Iban language was banned for a time because of the use of terms that are found in the Qu'ran. The reason for the ban was that the Iban Bible might confuse the Muslims, which in my view, is a ridiculous claim.

When Christians in the Middle East, Indonesia and Malaysia use the word "Allah" to refer to Almighty God, they are most definitely not referring to the Muslim God. This is where I dissent with Bishop Muskens. He makes no distinction between the Christian Allah and the Muslim Allah when he encourages people to start calling God Allah.

When I use "Allah Taala" to refer to Almighty God in my mother tongue I know which Allah I am referring to. I am referring to Allah the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God who brought the Israelites out of Egypt. I am referring to Allah who is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. I am referring to "Allah" the God who is the redeemer of my soul, the pioneer and perfecter of my faith.