This is a post from 2010. Thought I’d reblog it – hope you like it.
I had no idea that it had been 50 silent years for the SETI project. Material World on Radio 4 (BBC) interviewed Dr Frank Drake (Chairman of the Board of the SETI Institute) inventor or originator of what is known as The Drake Equation. The equation is a series of guesses based on the assumption that life is ‘out there’ resulting in what scientists might call a best guestimate. [I hope I’ve not misrepresented here as this is not my intention at all.] The interview on Material World was fascinating. Dr Drake was faced with the fact of 50 years of total silence. Did this put him off – not a bit of it. I suppose in the end it comes down to wishful thinking. I was tempted to say faith – but true faith must have an object. But because there is no evidence of life, in fact no life, no object, no faith, just wishful thinking. There must be life ‘out there’ because, well there just must be.
This is interesting – and tragic – because if Dr Drake applied a similar set of guesses and called it The God Equation he would be convinced in far less time than 50 years that there is a divine creator. The evidence of a creator is overwhelming. But Dr Drake and others simply do not want to believe it – so it can’t be true because well it just can’t be.
What I do applaud is the honesty of Dr Drake. There was no attempt to falsify or weasel his way out of the argument. He’s a believer just like Mulder – though with less proof – and will not be dissuaded.
As Christians we should praise and thank God because left to ourselves there is no difference. We suppressed the truth about God because we didn’t like where it led us – to God. Even with overwhelming evidence of a God and a Saviour, still we would not bow the knee to King Jesus. Ah but He sends His Word & Spirit – it’s all of His grace. There’s real hope then for people like Dr Drake because it’s not dependent on how bright we are but how Gracious God is.
I can’t believe this has sat in my ‘Drafts’ box for almost a year. It’s true. So with a few edits and additions it should still make sense as this year I aim to hit the deadline!
July 8th is the anniversary of the most famous – or infamous – sermon preached by Jonathan Edwards at Enfield, Connecticut July 8, 1741 on the text ‘Their foot shall slide in due time’ Deut. 32:35 with the title; ‘Sinners in the hands of an angry God’.
On July 7th (2014) I was talking to a Christian work colleague about this sermon though completely unaware of the date. They had never heard of it. The very next day I discovered ‘Issues etc’ had reviewed the sermon on July 7th (2014) in ‘celebration’ of the following historic day. I related this the following day at work. Then on that Sunday evening (2014) it was mentioned again (unaware of the date I think) as part of the introduction to the ministry at our Church. So as the sermon is ‘still’ on my mind I’ll get to it..
It’s been some while since reading the sermon and because I suspect a good number of people will be completely unaware of the sermon by Edwards I mention it here. Before saying much I needed to re-read the sermon. The sermon text is formatted very well for reading or printing HERE.
You will find the sermon text appearing in anthologies in many University departments, and not just in Departments of Religion but in English & History departments and will probably find it in Psychology as well. Check out your University Library catalogue. It will mostly be an object of wonder and incredulity that such a great mind was able to produce something so utterly horrific – so would say the secular mind and sadly I suspect many Christians. The fact that Edwards was one of the greatest minds America has ever produced was a source of amazement to Perry Miller. Miller thought Edwards religion ‘a waste of an intellect’. I think this quote is in Millers’s volume on Edwards. Funny how it didn’t stop Miller spending most of his life studying him and The Puritans though!
I was surprised to find Issues etc both critiquing and criticising the sermon, especially for its lack of Gospel content. It was an eye opener for me (my naivety) regarding Lutheranism – at least that section of it. I completely disagree. Set in the context of Edwards target parishioners, the sermon and the fact that it wasn’t his regular topic should make us cautious in analysing the sermon. Back in Edwards day there was an acceptance that God hates and judges sin. I also disagree as to its Gospel content or application. It blazes out against the backdrop of God’s wrath. The context of the sermon is that in the midst of a ‘Revival’ where many sinners are turning to Christ for salvation the people in Enfield are careless about the things of God, careless for their souls and are not embracing the Saviour by responding to the Gracious invitation of The Gospel. This is stated in the very first sentence of the sermon – ‘…. God’s visible people, and who lived under the means of grace; but who, notwithstanding all God’s wonderful works towards them, remained (as in verse 28) void of counsel, having no understanding in them’.
‘When Isaac Watts received the printed version of the sermon he wrote on his copy: “A most terrible sermon, which should have had a word of Gospel at the end [of] it, though I think ’tis all true”. Edwards had offered this one brief Gospel word, but if one had taken this sermon as characteristic of his preaching, it would have been dreadfully out of balance. Edwards could take it for granted, however, that a New England audience knew well that Gospel remedy. The problem was to get them to seek it.’
Also see Iain Murray’s book ‘Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography’ page 169 ff.
The sermon is mentioned on page 87 in ‘America: A Narrative History’ by George Brown Tindall & David Emory Still (1997, 4th Edition) as ‘his most famous sermon’. ‘America’ was a course textbook for A History of America course that I took while studying for a BA at Warwick University.
The sermon was preached by Edwards several times, at least twice anyway. According to Harry S. Stout it was preached at Edwards church in Northampton with little effect (The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards, Hart, Lucas, Nichols, Eds. p.43). But when it was preached at Enfield ‘the effects were extraordinary’. An eye-witness account by the Reverend Stephen Williams tells that, ‘before ye sermon was done there was a great moaning and crying out throughout ye whole House. What shall I do to be saved-oh I am going to Hell-oh what shall I do for a christ etc. etc.-so that ye minister was obliged to desist. [The] shrieks and crys were piercing and Amazing. (p.43)’. It seems then, Edwards was unable to finish the sermon due to cries of the affected people crying out for mercy.
I’ll just make a few observations with appropriate quotes from the sermon. Followed by a closing application.
Before moving on however, let’s note the title. Three words that do not sit well with our modern world – Sinners, Angry & God.
Once the meaning is grasped and even if it isn’t, people do not like the idea of being called a ‘sinner’. Never have, and never will. Why do people take umbrage and think there is something special about them that entitles a free pass? It’s our pride that is offended; though there is nothing to be proud of before Almighty God. We are all in the same boat. The Bible plainly tells us ‘all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God’. Apart from the Grace of God we are all condemned. It’s a great leveler.
Being angry these days is not an option. Anybody that is angry is in danger of receiving at the very least a bad press or even the sack. But we should be very careful and never think that God’s anger is like ours. God’s anger is always a Righteous & Holy anger. The object of His anger is anything that doesn’t conform to His Glorious character – that’s us. We are rebel sinners, shaking our fists at God – either consciously or unconsciously. And we don’t like anyone pointing that out to us. Frankly, if we had any sense and were in our right mind, this sermon should scare the pants off us and drive us to Christ in repentance and faith.
Note Edwards God (The God of The Bible) is not the modern manifestation of God – a whimsical fluffy deity able to be manipulated by His creatures. Typically, recent discussions in the CofE and the ‘Gay’ marriage debate vision a God that moves with the times without a care for what He has said in His Word (The Bible).
Note the following passages that should disabuse sinful pretentious men of a fluffy view of The Almighty in their rebellion against God:
‘The observation from the words that I would now insist upon is this.
“There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell,
but the mere pleasure of God.” By the mere pleasure of God, I mean his
sovereign pleasure, his arbitrary will, restrained by no obligation…’
Edwards moves on setting out several ‘considerations’ that back up this truth about God:
‘…. There is no want of power in God to cast wicked men into hell at any moment. Men’s hands cannot be strong when God rises up. The strongest have no power to resist him, nor can any deliver out of his hands.-He is not only able to cast wicked men into hell, but he can most easily do it. Sometimes an earthly prince meets with a great deal of difficulty to subdue a rebel, who has found means to fortify himself, and has made himself strong by the numbers of his followers. But it is not so with God. There is no fortress that is any defense from the power of God. Though hand join in hand, and vast multitudes of God’s enemies combine and associate themselves, they are easily broken in pieces. ….’
God stands as the Potter. We are but clay. Rebellious clay at that. These are terrible truths. In the last paragraph of the section where he lays out our plight before God, he writes:
‘…. thus it is that natural men are held in the hand of God, over the pit of hell; they have deserved the fiery pit, and are already sentenced to it; and God is dreadfully provoked, his anger is as great towards them as to those that are actually suffering the executions of the fierceness of his wrath in hell, and they have done nothing in the least to appease or abate that anger, ….’
Edwards moves into his application and tells us again the purpose of the message. ‘The use of this awful subject may be for awakening unconverted persons in this congregation. This that you have heard is the case of every one of you that are out of Christ.’ Sometimes we hear sermons and it can be difficult to know just who the preacher is addressing. Not so with Edwards. It’s those people in the congregation that are rejecting the Gospel and yet still presume come the day of wrath God will welcome them into heaven. This is a sermon of compassion, of love for the people and love for the honour of God and His truth as found in the Gospel of Christ.
To hear sermons on this topic today are relatively rare. Are they rare because as people, including preachers, we are not so conscious or aware of God’s Holiness and His burning purity or hatred of sin. That’s a bad thing. The fault is in us, not with Edwards. And yet probably like you I’ve sat under so-called Hell-Fire’ preaching where the people are completely unmoved. Some years ago I had the opportunity of preaching to a congregation of elderly people. This meeting would happen once a month. As you stand at the end and they file past to have their cup of tea they say something along the lines of ‘lovely sermon’. You have just preached to them the dreadful consequences of being lost, of not repenting, of rejecting Christ and they say ‘lovely sermon’. They are unmoved – at least outwardly. O how we need the Spirit of God to move in the hearts of the unregenerate, to awaken them (maybe you) to their need. I do not criticised these things, but it’s not our polished delivery, it’s not our pulpit eloquence or our deep learning that raises the dead – it’s the Spirit of God.
Edwards in the final sections of the sermon urges his hearers;
‘And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day! To see so many others feasting, while you are pining and perishing! To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of heart, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit! How can you rest one moment in such a condition? Are not your souls as precious as the souls of the people at Suffield, where they are flocking from day to day to Christ?’
‘And let every one that is yet out of Christ, and hanging over the pit of hell, whether they be old men and women, or middle aged, or young people, or little children, now harken to the loud calls of God’s word and providence’.
‘Therefore, let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come. The wrath of Almighty God is now undoubtedly hanging over a great part of this congregation: Let every one fly out of Sodom: “Haste and escape for your lives, look not behind you, escape to the mountain, lest you be consumed.”‘
Observations & Comments
It’s true, it is a terrifying sermon. And yet, it will continue to be dissected, critiqued and criticised. It will also be ignored. Did they not do this with Jesus too when upon the earth.
Even many Christians have never heard of it. Are we embarrassed by it? By its plainness of speech. Does not Edwards accurately describe our condition before a Holy God. Does not Edwards rightly expose us all to the God of the Bible? This is no whimsical deity that can be manipulated by our supposed good deeds. There is only one remedy for our hopeless estate – the blood of Christ!
An Application for Today
Just as Edwards people were not embracing the Gospel, we in the West take for granted the love of God and are just as careless for the things of the true and living God. There’s a lot of talk about God’s love today, but not a lot of talk about it being a Holy & Righteous love. It’s spoken of as if we somehow are doing God a favour by allowing Him to love us. The attitude is that God will love us anyway no matter how much we reject and twist His Word. We re-define marriage, we murder children in the womb, we abuse His good gifts of male & female and yet expect Him to just roll over, ignore His Word and love us anyway. We expect to Him love us with no repentance and without The Gospel. Politicians – like David Cameron & Barrack Obama – speak loosely of ‘The Christian Faith’ or of the love of God but utterly reject His Word and treat The Lord Christ as if He was just one option out a plethora of religions. There are no options. They are presumptuous, in many ways the worst kind of sinner. Christ is the ONLY way, the ONLY truth and the ONLY life. To reject Him is to reject God’s way, God’s truth and God’s life as offered in the Gospel. The are only two options – it’s either repent & believe the Gospel or expect to be cast into hell. The sermon by Edwards is criticised, rejected as abhorrent, as Politically Incorrect, as divisive, as Hate Speech, but is it loving to tell people, sinners, that all will be well when the truth is their Christ rejecting ideologies will sweep them into Hell & Judgement. I say no.
Those of us that by the grace of God have been brought to repentance faith – we know our hearts are wicked and depraved and without the grace of God would be swept into hell. Our hearts too are ‘idol factories’ and are no better than the worst of sinners. Like Paul we know in some measure the terror of the Lord and so persuade men to repent and believe the Gospel of the grace of God.
We perhaps work with people or have family members that have heard ‘the joyful sound that Jesus saves’ but say it isn’t for them. They assume all will be well – whatever that means. But all will not be well. The judgement upon those that have been surrounded by Christians will be truly awful. It isn’t just a case of passing over Christianity in preference for another religion, or even no religion, but they have in fact rejected the grace of God. They are in the world but without hope. They will be lost to the torments of hell.
May we as God’s people be challenged to consider just how gracious and merciful God has been to us. Will you, O lost sinner not see your danger and flee to Christ.
When I first read this it seemed like an excellent definition of Ideology. It still is, here it is below for your consideration. The quote is from: Above All Earthly Powers: Christ in a Postmodern World by David F. Wells. page 25.
‘What the Enlightenment ideology did was to provide an interpretive grid, an all-encompassing understanding, that was laid over the whole of life. This understanding was not much a worldview as an ideology. Ideologies, we might say, are worldviews with an attitude. The intent of every ideology is to control. With the passage of time and the desire to be triumphant, ideologies tend to become simplistic. They find acceptance because they tap into our need, the Canadian writer John Saul says, “to believe in single-stroke, cure all solutions” often presenting us with stark alternatives: “Accept the ideology or perish. Pay the debt or go bankrupt. Nationalize or starve. Privatize or go moribund. Kill inflation or lose all your money.”
Because they leave only one way out, they become coercive. At the same time, ideologies create a sense of inevitability about themselves. They produce passivity in people because what is inevitable cannot be resisted. And they breed intolerance of those who might be opposed to their understanding of life or might raise questions about it. It is these characteristics which help explain why it is so difficult to challenge an ideology once it has been socially ensconced. And yet this is exactly what has been happening with the Enlightenment ideology since the 1960’s.’
2 Why do the nations rage[a] and the peoples plot in vain? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying, 3 “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.”
4 He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. 5 Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, 6 “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.”
7 I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. 8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. 9 You shall break[b] them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. 11 Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
It’s funny thing to carry on as if nothing is happening, or has happened. Most will though, and simply carry on as if nothing has happened. But while we all (rightly) go about our daily business Free Speech & The Freedom of Religion has taken another battering. The ruling over Asher’s Bakery means the end of conscience. It’s clear from todays ruling that conscience, that most precious gift from God, must be aligned with another’s subjective view of how conscience is to be informed. As Christians we believe our conscience is to be informed primarily by a right application of the Word of God – The Bible. There can only be one, ultimately, objective source of ‘right & wrong’ of morality. In our day we are seeing the last vestiges of a ‘right’ means to inform the conscience being dismantled. While the Word of God and the Christian faith continues to be sidelined we ask what is the standard to be applied. It does appear to be the case, that where a conflict occurs between ‘rights’ it will in most cases automatically defer to the Anti-Christian position. But the reality is this; without an objective view of morality supplied by the Word of God the West collectively will slowly but surely itself be sidelined in favour of other civilisations. There is no ‘God-given’ ‘right’ to the West. It will eventually implode on itself. That doesn’t mean the West will disappear, or cease to be a strong economy or the place where many people will seek to find refuge. But it does mean morality will be defined ‘on the hoof’. The situation, or money, or power, or personality, or sexual orientation will decide on all moral cases. This is what must happen when the Bible is abandoned.
This mornings interview (BBC ‘Today’ programme) with Theresa May was truly terrifying. Amazingly John Humphreys actually asked her if someone were to have a different view about Same-Sex Marriage or Homosexuality: would they fall under the cudgel of her totalitarian proposal. She manged to side-step the great JH but he asked her again, and again but eventually gave up as Ms May gave him the old one two and slipped past him until the topic changed to a more convenient one.
I have no idea what she means by ‘British Values’ or just ‘Values’ but she just kept repeating it like a mantra instead of telling us what it is. ‘British Values’ is one of the clubs Ms May will be beating us with. I suppose we are all supposed to just roll over and go back to sleep and let the Government machine bump its way over our freedoms. Freedoms, I might add, that were fought for by our Fathers. They NEVER fought for this. The other two words used were ‘Extremism’ and ‘Tolerance’. No explanation was forthcoming.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master— that’s all.”
Best get Humpty Dumpty to define them for all the good it will do to get a definition out of Ms May. We’ll find out what they mean soon enough when more Christians (and probably others, including Atheists) are hauled before the courts for daring to buck the secularist / ‘tolerant’ ideology.
David Cameron is to set out a string of new powers to tackle radicalisation, saying the UK has been a “passively tolerant society” for too long.
The PM will tell the National Security Council a counter-extremism bill will be in the Queen’s Speech on 27 May.
The bill will include new immigration rules, powers to close down premises used by extremists and “extremism disruption orders”. Mr Cameron will say a “poisonous” extremist ideology must be confronted.
And of great concern is this little gem:
She said: “What we are proposing is a bill which will have certain measures within it, measures such as introducing banning orders for groups and disruption orders for individuals, for those who are out there actively trying to promote this hatred and intolerance which can lead to division in our society and undermines our British values.
“But it will be part of a bigger picture , a strategy which will also have as a key part of it actually promoting our British values, our values of democracy, rule of law, tolerance and acceptance of different faiths.”
The measures, she added, will focus on “extremism of all sorts… that is seeking to promote hatred, that is seeking to divide our society, that is seeking to undermine the very values that make us a great country to live in”.
Nowhere are any terms defined. But don’t worry, I’m sure Humpty Dumpty will be on hand to provide one as required. It’s completely bonkers and terrifying. Ironically The Queen is ‘Defender of the Faith’ but will be approving measures designed to destroy it on 27th May.
Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God. They collapse and fall, but we rise and stand upright. O LORD, save the king! May he answer us when we call.
Psalm 20: 7-9
Dr White of Alpha & Omega Ministries has concluded his response to Dr David Gushee. I recommend you all watch / listen to these. With Churches collapsing and falling over themselves to affirm Same Sex Marriage and the LGBTQ totalitarian ideology Christians need to be prepared. I watched part of a BBC Q & A session last evening (05/05/2015) with Northern Ireland leaders as part of the election coverage over here in the UK. They just were floundering to affirm LGBTQ rights. There was a Christian in the audience that spoke out and despite assurances to the contrary it was obvious his fears will probably be confirmed. Among words used and forcefully expressed by members of the audience were Bigot & Homophobe. As Dr White says ‘it isn’t a slippery slope it’s a cliff’ and we are teetering on the edge looking over. O Lord our God in wrath remember mercy (Habakkuk 3:2). Videos below. (Go to the bottom of this page for Audio Links) I don’t know Dr White but I take him to be a sane level-headed man not given to scare-mongering. He’s far more aware of what’s going on than I am so I take his warnings seriously.
Video 1 – Responding to Dr. David Gushee’s “Reformation Project” Presentation
‘I began a multi-part, full response to Dr. David Gushee’s presentation at the Reformation Project conference back in 2014 on today’s 90 minute long program. Gushee has taken the position of “lead ally” and scholar in support of the “gay Christian” movement, asserting that the church is guilty of hurting her “sexual minorities.” It is important to understand the arguments Gushee is putting forth, for we will all be hearing them repeated in the months and years to come. I managed to get 22 minutes into the hour long presentation today, and will continue the response on Thursday’s program.’
Video 2 – Continued Response to Dr. David Gushee (Part 2)
‘Here is another 90 minutes of response to Dr. David Gushee in response to his presentation at the Reformation Project back in 2014. I only got through about 12 minutes today as I took more time to expand upon particular points. If you are enjoying this response and finding it useful and edifying, please, share it with others!’
Video 3 – Finishing Up Review/Rebuttal of David Gushee “Reformation Project” Presentation
‘Finished up a five hour response to David Gushee on his presentation identifying the biblical view of homosexuality as a message of “contempt.” We hope to put the entire five hours into a single audio file available for download. Given the recent events at the Supreme Court, this is a vital discussion.’
Audio Links Below (I’ll try to change this to a single file when I can)
2. exercisingcontroloverthefreedom,will,orthoughtofothers; authoritarian;autocratic. (One might add, over the conscious of other as well – my comment)
Those two definitions pretty much cover it.
If you follow the Wiki totalitarian link above you will read the line below
‘a totalitarian regime attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life including economy, education, art, science, private life and morals of citizens.’
This is exactly what is happening.
And to prove it, try disagreeing, preaching, having a contrary view or holding to a ‘traditional’, better known as Biblical, view of marriage. It is now required that everyone ‘affirms’ and embraces the LGBTQ lifestyle or else.
When demolishing an existing building to make way for a shiny new one, local councils will refer to a Bat Report. There are very strict guidelines when it comes to Bats.
There’s a very helpful article on the RSPB website titled ‘Bats and the law‘. I looked this up partly out of curiosity and partly because I needed to know as part of my job. On reading through the article if was difficult to contain my laughter at the ridiculousness of the regulations. For your education and amusement I will quote from part of the article below – before drawing out my conclusion.
Just in case you think I’m kidding here is the relevant legal detail:
“The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) protects bats and their roosts in England, Scotland and Wales. Some parts have been amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW) which applies only in England and Wales.
The Conservation (Natural Habitats,&c.) Regulations 1994, better known as the Habitats Regulations, implements the Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora – better known as the Habitats Directive. All bats are listed as ‘European protected species of animals’.
Bats may also be protected by site safeguard measures, for example if their roost site or feeding grounds are notified as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC)or a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).”
Bat protection – snippets
It is an offence for any person to:
intentionally kill, injure or take a bat. Under the Habitats Regulations it is an offence to deliberately capture or kill a bat.
intentionally or recklessly* damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place that a bat uses for shelter or protection …
intentionally or recklessly* disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place that it uses for shelter or protection …
It is not illegal:
to take a disabled bat, for the sole purpose of tending it and releasing it when no longer disabled, as long as that person can show that it was not disabled unlawfully by them.
to kill a bat, as long as that person can show that the bat was so seriously disabled, other than by their own unlawful act, that there was no reasonable chance of it recovering.
It is laughable for a while, until one realises this is serious. Forgive me for thinking that Bats are obviously worth far more than babies. A Bat is safer than a baby in the Womb. It should be disturbing how our society mainly thinks of babies with any serious defect that they are so ‘seriously disabled, other than by their own unlawful act, that there was no reasonable chance of it recovering.’ One of my own grandchildren under this rubric would be in the trash.
A baby spends its first nine moths in the womb – the ‘habitat’ if you will. Is it safe there? No it isn’t! the reality is a Bat is safer and better protected than a Baby.
You can invade its habitat, you can chop it into tiny pieces, liquefy it and then extract it by means of suction. You can’t do that with a bat, but you can do it to a baby in the womb. Isn’t there something wrong?
In our crazy God rejecting world Bats are worth more, maybe worth far more than a baby, than human life.