Letting Go of Regrets

A compilation

http://anchor.tfionline.com/post/letting-go-regrets/
Audio length: 9:21
Download Audio (8.5MB)

If only…

Sometimes you feel that if only you could turn back time, retrace your steps, and undo mistakes, things would be so much better. If only you could apply what you know now to past situations, you could reverse painful experiences and possibly change the course of your life. But the truth is, those situations—mistakes included—have made you the person you are today. The most painful and trying circumstances gave you strength and maturity. Through your mistakes you have learned invaluable lessons. Mistakes also help you to be more humble and therefore more loving, and that makes you more empathetic of others and able to understand the troubles they face.

So instead of regretting the past, be thankful for what it has taught you.—Jesus, speaking in prophecy

*

We all make mistakes, have struggles, and even regret things in our past. But you are not your mistakes, you are not your struggles, and you are here NOW with the power to shape your day and your future.—Steve Maraboli

It’s not the end yet

If some choice you made seems to have had a bad outcome, or one that is not what you had in mind, remember that you probably haven’t seen its full effect yet. What looks like a stone or a serpent may yet turn out to be bread—or even a three-course meal.1Orson Welles once said, “A happy ending depends on where you stop your story.” Or, as someone else put it, “Everything will be okay in the end; and if it’s not okay, it’s not the end yet.” That principle is certainly true for those who love the Lord and look to Him for guidance, because He has promised to always work things out for our good in the end.2

It’s human nature to look back and have regrets about some of the things we did, or to wish we’d done them differently. God understands that and sympathizes. But it’s a mistake to overlook the good that also came from those experiences—the wisdom, maturity, and other lessons learned, which have helped to shape our character and prepare us for things to come.

When you look back on the past, make a conscious effort to count your blessings. Remember those “true, noble, just, pure, and lovely” things that also make up the story of your life.3 Thank God for the good decisions you made in the past, as well as those that He’s going to help you to make in the future.—Maria Fontaine

The city of regret

A significant hindrance to living life in the present is regret. It saps people’s energy and leaves little that enables them to do anything positive.

My friend Dwight Bain emailed me something called “The City of Regret” that tells the whole story:

I had not really planned to take a trip this year, yet I found myself packing anyway. And off I went, dreading it. I was on another guilt trip.

I booked my reservation on Wish I Had airlines. I didn’t check my bags—everyone carries their baggage on this airline. I had to drag it for what seemed like miles in theRegret City airport. And I could see that people from all over the world were there with me, limping along under the weight of bags they had packed themselves.

I caught a cab to Last Resort Hotel, the driver taking the whole trip backward, looking over his shoulder. And there I found the ballroom where my event would be held: theAnnual Pity Party. As I checked in, I saw that all my old colleagues were on the guest list:

The Done family—Woulda, Coulda, and Shoulda.

Both of the Opportunities—Missed and Lost.

All the Yesterdays—there were too many to count, but all would have sad stories to share.

Shattered Dreams and Broken Promises would be there, too, along with their friends Don’t Blame Me and Couldn’t Help It.

And of course, hours and hours of entertainment would be provided by that renowned storyteller, It’s Their Fault.

As I prepared to settle in for a really long night, I realized that one person had the power to send all those people home and break up the party: me. All I had to do was return to the present and welcome the new day!

If you have found yourself getting on a flight to the City of Regret, recognize that it’s a trip you book yourself, and you can cancel it at any time—without penalty or fee. But you’re the only one who can.—John C. Maxwell4

Admit your need

I see into your heart and know your regrets. I long to release you from their weight and take away the pain and hurt they cause you. You just need to give your regrets to Me; ask for help.

I am near to the broken-hearted and I save the crushed in spirit.5 Don’t try to hide the hurt in your heart from Me or yourself. Don’t try to pretend it’s not there. I already know everything about you, and it doesn’t change My love for you one iota.

You feel you deserve to bear the load of guilt and remorse, but that’s not the way it’s meant to be. You’ve made mistakes, but I died for the express purpose of lifting your mistakes and sins from your shoulders. Ask Me to forgive you, and I will both forgive you and free you from that weight and the burden of regret.—Jesus, speaking in prophecy

*

Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.—Philippians 3:13–146

Published on Anchor July 2016. Read by Jason Lawrence. Music by John Listen.

1 See Luke 11:11–13.
2 Romans 8:28.
3 See Philippians 4:8.
4 Failing Forward (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000).
5 Psalm 34:18.
6 KJV.

Read More

Pro-Life Striaght Talk 15-07-16: Dismemberment abortion and the US Supreme Court

Read More

Your Love Never Fails - Chris McClarney

Read More

Utah Bill to Legalize Assisted Suicide Would Encourage the Perfect Crime!

Attorney Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, which has fought assisted suicide legalization efforts in many states, and now Utah, made the following statement in connection with a bill pending before the Utah Legislature. (HB 264).

“The bill has an application process to obtain the lethal dose,” said Dore. “The process includes a written lethal dose request form with two required witnesses. One of the witnesses is allowed to be the patient’s heir who will financially benefit from the patient’s death.”

“A central problem with the bill is that a person assisting a suicide can have his or her own agenda,” Dore said. “For example, if the person will financially benefit from the patient’s death due to an inheritance, he or she will have a potential motivation to be sure that the death goes through. This may or may not be consistent with the patient’s choice.”

“This central problem is exacerbated by bill provisions that strip away existing patient rights. Dore explained, “Under current Utah law, patients have a right to informed consent regarding treatment alternatives. Under the proposed bill, patients instead have the right to an ‘informed decision,’ which limits their right to information. More to the point, they have no right to be told about alternatives for cure or to extend life.”

Dore said, “Another problem is that the bills allow someone else to speak for the patient during the lethal dose request process.” Dore elaborated, “There is no requirement that speaking person be the patient’s designated agent, for example, through a power of attorney. The person is merely required to be ‘familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating,’ for example, that the patient communicates with a stutter. This is obviously not a sufficient standard for a life and death decision.”

“After the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight,” Dore said. “No doctor, not even a witness, is required to be present at the death. This creates the opportunity for someone else to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his or her consent. If the patient objected or even struggled, who would know? The bill allows the perfect crime.”

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

“The bill seeks to legalize assisted suicide for people who are ‘terminal,’ which is defined as a doctor’s prediction of less than six months to live,” Dore said. “In real life, such persons can have years, even decades, to live. This is due to actual mistakes: The doctor evaluated another patient’s test results. More typically, doctors are wrong because predicting life expectancy is not an exact science.”

Dore concluded, “Utah’s assisted suicide bill, if enacted, will allow the perfect crime. The law will encourage people with years to live to throw away their lives.”

For more information:

1. Legal/policy analysis of HB 264, which can be viewed at these links:
https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/utah-memo-only-hb-264-07-12-16.pdf https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/utah-attachments-only.pdf
2. Margaret K. Dore, “‘Death with Dignity’: What Do We Advise Our Clients?,” King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, May 2009,https://www.kcba.org/newsevents/barbulletin/BView.aspx?Month=05&Year=2009&AID=article5.htm
3. Nina Shapiro, “Terminal Uncertainty: Washington’s new “Death With Dignity” law allows doctors to help people commit suicide-once they’ve determined that the patient has only six months to live. But what if they’re wrong?” Seattle Weekly, 01/14/09, available at:https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/terminal-uncertainty-w-o-ad.pdf

LifeNews Note: Choice Is An Illusion is a human rights organization, working to keep assisted suicide and euthanasia out of your state, and out of your life.

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/07/19/utah-bill-to-legalize-assisted-suicide-would-encourage-seniors-to-throw-away-their-lives/

Read More

Malta Government Rejects Legalizing Euthanasia Targeting Elderly and Disabled

Alternattiva Demokratika believes the debate on euthanasia to be ‘premature,’ calls for introduction of ‘biological will’
Last week, the Maltese government rejected euthanasia and decided to codify “living wills.” The Malta Independent news published a statement from government Chairperson, Professor Arnold Cassola.

Alternattiva Demokratika (AD) has called for a “real discussion” on the possibility of being able to draw up a “biological will” – a form drawn up while a person is mentally healthy to outline the medical intervention the person in question deems acceptable should there condition worsen.

AD believes that the current debate on euthanasia to be “premature,” echoing the same sentiment as ALS sufferer Bjorn Formosa, as reported on The Malta Independent on Sunday.

The statement in full:

“Alternattiva Demokratika considers that the current discussion on euthanasia is a very premature one and that instead the real discussion should be about the possibility for Maltese citizens to be able to draw up a 'biological will'.

“The two issues are totally separate. The euthanasia is basically a debate on assisted suicide. On the other hand, the possibility of drawing up a 'biological will' means that a person will have the possibility to, while still healthy or in full possession of one's mental health, to draw up one's will regarding the therapeutic interventions which the person deems acceptable in the eventuality of being unable to express one's opinion because of the seriousness of one's condition.

“It is pertinent to point out that patients already can demand withdrawal of treatment. The issue understandably arises if patients are not in a condition to make their own decisions.

“AD Chairperson, Prof. Arnold Cassola said:"A 'biological will' would allow a person, when still in full possession of one's intellectual faculties, to declare what kind of treatment to accept and whether to
prolong or not in an artificial way - through the use of machines or other artificial systems - a life that would otherwise have naturally come to an end. The standards of palliative care should also be looked into to guarantee dignified end-of-life care for everyone."

“Whilst AD does not agree with the termination of life through euthanasia, it is in favour of the drawing up of 'living wills' or 'biological wills.’”

Read More

Sibel Edmonds Dissects the Turkish Coup

Read More

For Your Splender

Read More

July 19th One-Take Devotional

Read More

Iran's secret giveaway?

More bad news about the Iran nuclear deal landed Monday — a dangerous secret President Obama has been keeping from the American people.
The Associated Press reports that the unpublished side deal is even more disastrous than the rest of the accord. It relaxes key restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in just over a decade, rather than the 15 years Team Obama has been touting.

As of January 2027, Iran can start replacing its mainstay centrifuges with thousands of advanced machines up to five times as efficient as what it now has.

Bottom line: The time Iran needs to produce a nuclear bomb would be cut in half, or worse. If Obama’s correct that the current rules leave Tehran a year from sprinting to the bomb, it’ll become at most six months.

And because the secret deal doesn’t spell out what happens after year 13, it could mean an end to all restrictions on centrifuges.

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security, a go-to agency on Iran’s nuclear program, says the side deal “will create a great deal of instability and possibly even lead to war.”

Yet just last week, the president boasted that his deal — which provides the mullahs with tens of billions in sanctions relief for use on terrorism — is “avoiding further conflict and making us safer.” Really?

All this proves that Israeli Prime Minister Bejamin Netanyahu, whom Obama openly mocked as a scare-monger for warning that Iran’s “breakout time” was six months or less, was anything but.

Since agreeing to the deal, Iran has kept on testing ballistic missiles that can deliver nuclear warheads. It’s also been caught in clandestine efforts to illicitly acquire high-level nuclear technology and equipment.

It’s becoming alarmingly clear that Team Obama played the American people — and the congressional Democrats who supported the deal— for fools.

Read More

British lawmakers back renewal of Trident nuclear deterrent

Reuters July 18, 2016:

A nuclear submarine is seen at the Royal Navy's submarine base at Faslane, Scotland, Britain August 31, 2015. REUTERS/Russell Cheyne/File PhotoMore

By Michael Holden and Kylie MacLellan

LONDON (Reuters) - Lawmakers voted strongly on Monday to renew Britain's ageing nuclear weapons system, a multi billion-pound project regarded as key to maintaining the country's status as a world power following its vote to leave the European Union.

Despite opposition from the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) and some in the opposition Labour Party, parliament approved the renewal of the Scottish-based nuclear-armed Trident submarines by 472 to 117 votes.

Some opponents said the vote was being used by new Prime Minister Theresa May to unify her party, which has a parliamentary majority of 16, after a bruising Brexit campaign, and embarrass Labour by highlighting its own deep divisions.

In her first statement in parliament as prime minister, May urged lawmakers to back Trident, not only to protect Britain from growing threats from Russia and North Korea, but also to protect thousands of jobs in Scotland and elsewhere.

"What this country needs to do is to recognize that it faces a variety of threats and to ensure we have the capabilities that are necessary and appropriate to deal with each of those threats," she said ahead of the vote.

Britain needed to retain a nuclear deterrent which had been an insurance policy for nearly 50 years, May said.

"We cannot outsource the grave responsibility we shoulder for keeping our people safe ... That would be a reckless gamble: a gamble that would enfeeble our allies and embolden our enemies; a gamble with the safety and security of families in Britain that we must never be prepared to take."

Parliament agreed in principle in 2007 to replace the deterrent system and Monday's vote was to rubber stamp the decision to approve the building of four submarines to ensure Britain can have nuclear weapons continuously on patrol at sea.

UK'S "OUTSIZED" ROLE

U.S. Defence Secretary Ash Carter said in February Britain must renew the submarines, based at Faslane, if it wanted to maintain its "outsized" role in world affairs.

During more than five hours of debate in parliament, many argued that failing to renew the system would mark Britain retreating from the world.

However, Scottish nationalists and some in Labour believe the weapons are no longer needed as they are little use against terrorists and the money could be better spent elsewhere.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who has been challenged by two candidates seeking to take the helm of the center-left party, questioned the need for Britain to possess "weapons of mass destruction" and said it should press for a nuclear-free world.

"I would not take a decision that kills millions of people, I do not believe the threat of mass murder is a legitimate way to go about dealing with international relations," said Corbyn, who had indicated his lawmakers could vote freely on Trident.

Many Labour lawmakers criticized their leader's view, which is in contrast with the party's official position on Trident.

SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson said the renewal was opposed by Scotland, where May's Conservatives hold just one of the 59 seats in the British parliament.

"It is obscene that the priority of this government ... is to spend billions of pounds on outdated nuclear weapons that we do not want, do not need and could never use," he said during the debate.

"This government has a democratic deficit in Scotland and with today's vote on Trident it is going to get worse not better."

SELF-HARM

Some military officials also oppose the outlay on Trident, saying the money would be better spent on maintaining the army and on more conventional technology, both of which have recently suffered cutbacks.

The Ministry of Defence has said replacing the four submarines would cost 31 billion pounds ($41 billion), plus a contingency fund of 10 billion pounds, with another 4 billion already allocated to the design process.

Defence firms BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce and Babcock can expect to benefit from a renewal, with the new submarines expected to enter service from 2028.

However, in response to a freedom of information request from Reuters in March, the ministry said it could not provide details of the costs for the nuclear warheads, support services infrastructure and running costs over the system's expected life.

Calculations by Reuters and Conservative lawmaker Crispin Blunt suggest it could reach 167 billion pounds ($220 billion) over 32 years.

Blunt, head of the parliament's foreign affairs committee, said on Monday the costs had increased and may eventually reach 180 billion pounds.

"I oppose the renewal of Trident because I care about the security of my country," he said in a statement. "I'm not prepared to be party to the most egregious act of self-harm to our conventional defense."

(Additional reporting by Elizabeth Piper and Sarah Young; Editing by Giles Elgood and James Dalgleish)

Read More