No, YOU are like a catholic pope claiming to be an infallible know-it-all who needs to learn nothing from fellow Christians who have greater understanding of Scripture. True insights edify others/help them to end goodly.
Applying God's Word to Politics
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No, YOU are like a catholic pope claiming to be an infallible know-it-all who needs to learn nothing from fellow Christians who have greater understanding of Scripture. True insights edify others/help them to end goodly.
I'm the one in this conversation advocating FOR accepting all the Lord says in His Word.
Try to keep up will ya?
Good, so you acknowledge that in scripture, God declares that His Word is a person, not something written down, and also that in scripture, that we are told that there is knowledge about God to be gained from creation in addition to the human written scriptures.
So nice to know that you are coming around and possibly recognizing that "sola scriptura" refers to only doctrines not all knowledge about God.
Yes, God's Word is Logos, Truth, Love, creation, Jesus, Holy Spirit and Scripture.
It is sola all of those!
We are in the world but not of it. I have a friend whose daughter was told she was a boy, at school behind his back. Somewhere along the way she must have let it slip. He called a meeting and when I passed the school that evening that parking lot was packed from the school down the hill and to the highway. We have to get involved in politics because the left is taking social issues and making them part of the gov't.
Amen! And social issues are moral issues.
Schools are perverting kids because Marxist college professors are corrupting the older generation,
so we need to get involved in meetings for the purpose of firing treasonous and immoral profs.
Oh but they are. And Massachusetts just proved that. You can't run as a Dem if you don't support abortion.
No, abortion is murder, it has nothing to do with religion.
No, abortion is not a right under the Constitution.
Life begins at conception according to the Bible.
Ahh but we do! A certain babe recognized our Savior and lept in the womb.
When life begins is not yet universally recognized. Even those citing the Bible cannot agree, this makes the beginning of life an OPINION not a fact, and citing a religious text to support your OPINION moves the discussion into the realm of FREEDOM OF RELIGION, which is a Constitutional right.
And citing John the Baptist leaping in the womb requires that the account be factual, not mythic, and the the fetus be developed enough to react, which it would not be at conception, it would not even yet be in the womb.
Now if Congress were to establish when life begins in a way that could withstand a Constitutional challenge, it would be possible to make a firm decision on abortion, but given the Bible's ambiguity, and science's silence, we remain at a conumdrum.
An example of an issue not specifically addressed in Scripture is abortion. How does biblical teaching apply to the abortion debate? Two passages (Exo. 21:22-25 & Luke 1:41-44) seem to suggest that an unborn baby should be considered a person at least by the time of quickening (cf. Psa. 139:13-16). Perhaps Exo. 20:13 can be understood as implying, “Thou shalt not murder thy baby”. However, because believers do not dictate government policies, they need to share logical as well as biblical reasons for not aborting babies.
Logically, the crucial question is this: “When does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life so that to kill it is murder and warrants punishment?” Considerations other than the advent of personhood are irrelevant, unless someone would use the same rationale to justify the killing of children and adults. As a person considers two pictures: one of a seven-month-old fetus in the womb, and one of a seven-month-old preemie outside the womb, he/she should understand that location and mode of breathing is not a valid basis for defining personhood.
Those who view conception to be the criterion of personhood should mourn miscarriages in the same way they would death of post-birth babies, but there is logical reason to consider personhood beginning the same way doctors use to consider a person to be dead: brain death or the absence of certain brain wave activity detected by an electroencephalogram (EEG). We might call this stage “sentience”, when the fetus has brain life of the type detectable in a person deemed to be alive and to have the civil right to life.
Thus, everyone should agree that the fetus becomes sentient and a legal person at least by that stage of development. In the absence of definitive Scriptural teaching, this is only a partial solution, but it is better than allowing abortion throughout pregnancy. It recognizes that people may reasonably disagree about the status of the fetus between conception and sentience. Implementing this solution requires educating people about fetal development until society develops a consensus that when a fetus becomes sentient, abortion is a type of manslaughter or murder and should be punished appropriately.
In Ancient Roman Society, a baby did not gain recognized humanity simply by being born.
- The Ritual: Eight days after birth for a girl, and nine days for a boy, the family held a purification and naming ceremony called the dies lustricus.
- The Law: Until this naming ceremony occurred, the child was not considered a full person (non complere personas). If a father decided to reject a newborn—due to deformity, poverty, or questionable legitimacy—the infant could be legally "exposed" (abandoned outside or in city dumps) without it being classified as murder. Because they lacked a social identity, babies who died before their dies lustricus were typically left nameless and buried without standard funeral rites.
Do you agree with that? Should we go by those religious beliefs?
In early Germanic traditions, the transition into recognized personhood depended strictly on the start of oral feeding.
- The Ritual: When a child was born, they were placed on the floor. If the head of the household picked up the child and permitted it to be fed (often symbolized by tasting milk or honey), the child officially entered the family.
- The Law: Once the infant swallowed food or drink, it was granted a right to survive. Killing or abandoning the child after this point was viewed as a serious crime or murder within the clan. Prior to that first feeding, however, exposure was a legally accepted practice.
How about those religious practices? It was Christianity that changed these practices and gave personhood to children at conception or in the womb. But that hardly matters considering there are places around the world that have personhood.
Whanganui River, New Zealand
Ganges and Yamuna Rivers, India
Mount Taranaki, New Zealand
Turag River, Bangladesh
Mar Menor Lagoon, Spain
Te Urewera Forest, New Zealand
Magpie River, Canada
Atrato River, Colombia
Legal personhood means the law treats an entity—whether a human, a corporation, or a mountain—as a legal actor with its own rights, protections, and duties, rather than as mere property.the mountain/river/forest owns itself.
The mountain etc. can sue or be sued in its own name. If a corporation pollutes the mountain's slopes, a lawsuit can be filed on behalf of the mountain itself for the damage done to it.
The mountain possesses the legal right to own its own land, resources, and surrounding air space. Humans cannot buy, sell, or exploit parts of the mountain without violating its rights.
So, let's start at the beginning. Life begins at conception. And it is wrong to take that life, it is murder.
It is factual.
No, we don't. Even if you don't agree with life at conception, life starts before the baby comes through the birth canal. To abort that baby is murder.
God is a Person Who commissioned His Word to be put in to written form.
One cannot know God without knowing what He said which He commissioned to be put in to written form.
Sounds like you have been tricked by the same scam satan used on Adam and Eve resulting in ignoring what the Lord has already said which leads to spiritual death which is to be separated from the Lord due to ignoring what He has said.
God and His Word cannot be separated. Some have to learn the hard way.
I have also argued for life beginning with human-like brain wave patterns appearing, and most abortions occur before this time. As for the clear issues of late term abortions, I would ask, how many have experienced the loss of a fetus in late term? Typically, by then the parents are at least considering a name, if not settled on one, and preparations have begun for an infant to be brought home. An abortion at this time is not a casual choice but rather a heartwrenching one, why add to the pain with charges of manslaughter or murder just to soothe the conscious of someone not directly involved? Christianity is a religion of love, not legalism and law.
But what is important is not that we follow some Christian or biblically based opinion to tell non-believers how to behave but rather that we follow some logic that is independent of religious connections. Some Jewish traditions even cite the Bible for determining that life begins only when an infant draws its first breath for example, and it is widely acknowledged by medical experts that between 20-25% of all pregnancies result in spontaneous abortions, aka miscarriages.
Let the law-loving pharisees howl in objection.
As you pointed out, Exodus contains the reference to njury to a pregnant woman resulting in an untimely birth, but from the context of the passage it seems that the mischief relates to the injury to the woman.
However there are scriptures that reference the "untimely birth" in the OT .
- "Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light " .Job 3:16
- "...like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun." Ps 58:8 (Referring unto the wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.)
- "I say, that an untimely birth is better than he." Eccl 6:3
SCOTUS own decision couldn't even withstand a Constitutional challenge when they reversed their own decision in Roe v Wade that limited abortions to 26 weeks. By overturning their own decisions and turning it over to the States, females now can have an abortion at full term in some jurisdictions.
- Alaska
- Colorado
- District of Columbia
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- Oregon
- Vermon
Abortion in the United States Dashboard | KFF
The Abortion in the U.S. Dashboard is an ongoing research project tracking state abortion policies and litigation following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
www.kff.org
I encourage you not to stop with simply saying abortion is murder but to continue by advocating for funerals and the appropriate punishment: execution?
Glad we agree regarding the definition of life, but let us also agree that love is expressed by the appropriate punishment
of wrong-doing.
Again, the crucial question is this: “When does a developing fetus become a human person with the God-given right to civil life
so that to kill it is murder and warrants punishment?”
Considerations other than the advent of personhood are irrelevant, unless someone would use the same rationale to justify the killing of born children and adults.
Applying God-given logic/right reasoning regarding this issue is necessary/unavoidable because Scripture is silent on this topic.
Scripture is the c ontext, but politics is also in this specific thread. In the USA, where many posters live, our political situation includes the USA's Constitution which guarantees freedom of religion, thus in the USA we may not take a completely Christian stance with regards to the law but rather a stance that is compatible with all religions.
As for appropriate justice, that can vary greatly depending on circumstances. I have read about a case where a man's daughter was raped and violently killed. The killer was caught and tried but got off on a technicality. The man found the killer as he was leaving the courthouse, drew a gun and shot him, killing him. The man was promptly arrested, tried and found guilty of discharging a firearm in public. I find that to be justice in that specific case. Other cases of shooting and killing another person require different responses to be just. In war, soldiers shoot and kill other people and are often rewarded with medals for doing so, shooting and killing a spouse in a domestic situation demands a different response to either of the above in many cases. Justice is not a "one size fits all" response in our physical world.
Yes, both Christianity and the US Constitution give the right to be wrong.
And yes, just consequences depends on circumstances, which is why logic affirms Scripture indicating that unrepentant souls are destroyed after justice is attained in hell.
In abortion cases, current ignorance of fetal development as well as the confused court decision Roe vs. Wade indicates that need to move the Overton Window via education of the masses in accordance with what I suggested (which is based on my own experience):
As a person considers two pictures: one of a seven-month-old fetus in the womb, and one of a seven-month-old preemie outside the womb, he/she should understand that location and mode of breathing is not a valid basis for defining personhood. However, there is logical reason to consider personhood beginning the same way doctors use to consider a person to be dead (brain death or the absence of certain cortical brain wave activity detected by an electroencephalogram/EEG), which would be brain life or the presence of the same brain wave activity per an EEG that typically occurs about the seventh week of fetal development (IMU).
We might call this stage “sentience”, when the fetus has brain life of the type detectable in a person deemed to be alive and to have the civil right to life. Thus, everyone should agree that the fetus becomes sentient and a legal person at least by that stage of development.
Does everyone agree?
Scotus rules on arguments for or against constitutionality. In some cases, a superior argument is presented after a previous case has been heard and thus a prior ruling is overturned.SCOTUS own decision couldn't even withstand a Constitutional challenge when they reversed their own decision in Roe v Wade that limited abortions to 26 weeks. By overturning their own decisions and turning it over to the States, females now can have an abortion at full term in some jurisdictions.
- Alaska
- Colorado
- District of Columbia
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- Oregon
- Vermon
Abortion in the United States Dashboard | KFF
The Abortion in the U.S. Dashboard is an ongoing research project tracking state abortion policies and litigation following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
But regarding abortions, you do realize don't you, that in since the latest ruling the number of avoidable maternal deaths in pregnancy has increased due to the more restrictive abortion bans but in place? Situations where the choice is between the abortion of the fetus or the death of both the fetus and the mother are in many cases erroneously favoring the death of both due to legislation supposedly favoring the life of the fetus.
As for states allowing late term abortions, these late term abortions were legal under Roe v Wade, so there is nothing new here. But what you seem to wish to ignore is the emotional toll that deciding on a late term abortion takes on the family. It is not an easy choice, but one that is taken at great emotional cost as if the fetus does not have a name yet, it is likely that names are under consideration and also likely tat preparations have begun for the baby to be brought into the home. Factor those things in when you denounce these late term abortions rather than abstractly pontificating against them. There are real people bearing the emotional cost of these events, they are rarely easy choices made on a whim.
And SCOTUS ruled that the previous decision made by the supreme Court in Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) were egregiously wrong and had to be overturned. So they ruled their own decision was unconstitutional, right? The basis for their decision was that abortion was not a right protected under the U.S. Constitution.
If a pregnant woman lives in a state that bans abortion then why do they flee from the abomination of desolation?
Probably because virtually every U.S. states with total abortion bans or early gestational limits include an exception to save the life of the pregnant person, though the availability of other exceptions varies widely by state.
So am I supposed to start chanting "set Lindsay Clancy free" at this point?
As do anyone who loses a loved one.
Yes, i denounce the taking of human life and I believe that when the fetus opens the matrix they are endowed by their Creator with the right to life at that point.
Once they open the matrix then the living soul cannot be evicted from the womb they occupy in the house of their mothers without an eviction order, and evicting does not mean killing. Late term abortion infer the period of time that the child fully developed.