Applying God's Word to Politics

[GWH]

Sorry you live in a State that permits abortions, the State I live in prohibits licensed medical professionals from providing services resulting in an "untimely births" except in cases that the life of the mother is at risk. In such the medical professional are allowed to separate the unborn from the mother's womb in manner that doesn't destroy, damage or mutilate the unborn nor damages the uterus or any other internal organs of the mother.

So yes, I approve of the status quo in my State. But I am a progressive.

It sounds like you live in a MAGA state, whereas the Dem policies are regressive.
I hope every state will become like yours, and limiting abortion to pre-sentience,
which is stricter than viability by about three months, is progress toward that goal in the Dem states.

 

[OMC]

The reason the scriptures never teach the two stage model is because one has to have a teacher first. If your teacher didn't teach man how to read and write the written spoken word then you must believe that man taught himself how to read and write. So did you?

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again John 3:7

That argument actually proves the opposite of what you're trying to prove. The fact that a teacher is required before reading and writing does not establish a two‑stage ontology of human existence; it establishes that knowledge is transmitted.
Genesis does not say Adam first existed as a nonliving seed and later became a living being after instruction.
It says God formed the man, breathed into him the breath of life, and man became a living soul (Genesis 2:7).
The becoming occurs at the union of body and breath.
Likewise, when Jesus says, "Ye must be born again" (John 3:7), He is not teaching that a person first exists spiritually as one thing and later becomes another through teaching.
He is teaching the necessity of spiritual regeneration by the Spirit of God.
A teacher may proclaim truth, but the new birth itself is God's work (John 1:13; John 3:6-8).
So you're moving from "instruction requires a teacher" to "existence requires a prior two-stage model," and that leap is not found in the text.
Scripture certainly teaches that learning requires teachers, preaching, and hearing (Romans 10:14-17), but it never uses that fact to redefine when a human becomes a living being or to support a seed‑first, person‑later framework.

 

[OMC]

Not every person accepts the Bible as authoritative, thus they cannot be expected to comply with its demands just because you choose to. That is a simple fact and one protected by the US Constitution, it is called FREEDOM OF RELIGION. You are not allowed to force your religious views on another person. You may personally hold whatever views you want, but forcing another person to hold your views is anti-American, nor is it loving, which makes it anti-Christian. The Bible never teaches that you should FORCE its teachings on another, you may present them, show by your own life that you live them and hopefully your life is righteous enough that another wishes to follow your lead, but you are not to force them on the other person. Those who attempt to force their understanding on others are called in the Bible Pharisees. Are you a Parisee?

You're changing the subject from "Is it morally wrong?" to "Can the government force you to agree?"
Those are not the same question.
A Christian arguing that abortion is the intentional taking of innocent human life is making a moral claim, not establishing a state church.
Freedom of religion means the government cannot compel worship or prohibit it; it does not mean moral arguments are disqualified from public discussion.
By that logic, a Christian could not oppose theft, murder, perjury, or exploitation if his reasons came from Scripture.
The real issue is whether the unborn are human beings and whether intentionally killing innocent human beings is morally permissible.
Simply saying, "Not everyone accepts the Bible," does not answer either question.
People disagree about every moral standard, yet laws still exist because societies make judgments about right and wrong.

The Pharisee comparison also misses the target.
The Pharisees were condemned for hypocrisy, elevating their traditions above God's word, and burdening others while refusing to obey themselves (Matthew 23).
Merely appealing to Scripture as an authority does not make someone a Pharisee.
In fact, if two Christians are debating what Scripture teaches, then both sides have already accepted Scripture as the authority under discussion.
The question becomes: what does the text say?
If the text presents the unborn as children in the womb, known by God, formed by God, and never excluded from the command against shedding innocent blood, then the argument must be answered from the text itself, not by appealing to constitutional rights or religious pluralism.
The world-system being echoed here is relativism: shifting the debate from whether something is true or morally right to whether everyone agrees with the authority being cited. Truth is not established by majority acceptance, and Scripture never teaches that a moral claim becomes false simply because some people reject God's authority.

 

[rewriter]

You're changing the subject from "Is it morally wrong?" to "Can the government force you to agree?"
Those are not the same question.
A Christian arguing that abortion is the intentional taking of innocent human life is making a moral claim, not establishing a state church.
Freedom of religion means the government cannot compel worship or prohibit it; it does not mean moral arguments are disqualified from public discussion.
By that logic, a Christian could not oppose theft, murder, perjury, or exploitation if his reasons came from Scripture.
The real issue is whether the unborn are human beings and whether intentionally killing innocent human beings is morally permissible.
Simply saying, "Not everyone accepts the Bible," does not answer either question.
People disagree about every moral standard, yet laws still exist because societies make judgments about right and wrong.

The Pharisee comparison also misses the target.
The Pharisees were condemned for hypocrisy, elevating their traditions above God's word, and burdening others while refusing to obey themselves (Matthew 23).
Merely appealing to Scripture as an authority does not make someone a Pharisee.
In fact, if two Christians are debating what Scripture teaches, then both sides have already accepted Scripture as the authority under discussion.
The question becomes: what does the text say?
If the text presents the unborn as children in the womb, known by God, formed by God, and never excluded from the command against shedding innocent blood, then the argument must be answered from the text itself, not by appealing to constitutional rights or religious pluralism.
The world-system being echoed here is relativism: shifting the debate from whether something is true or morally right to whether everyone agrees with the authority being cited. Truth is not established by majority acceptance, and Scripture never teaches that a moral claim becomes false simply because some people reject God's authority.

Christian morals apply to Christians. Generic morals belong to the government. Theft and generally recognized murder are generic morality, but abortion is not generally recognized as murder, not even all Christians can agree on that point.

I am not shifting the argument, rather you are shifting it. Freedom of religion is the law of the land, seeking to impose Christian morality on non-Christians is a violation of freedom of religion. As Christians we need to work within the governmental boundaries whether we agree with the limits or not. Remember, Jesus said to render to Caesar the things that are of Caesar, and to God the things that are of God. Governmental laws are human matters, not God's. We can seek to influence the governmental laws to more closely align, but that is all

 

[HamShack]

Conservative politics often align with core biblical values. Not perfectly — no human system is — but conservatism generally emphasizes principles that resonate with Scripture:

• Sanctity of life (Psalm 139)
• Personal responsibility (Galatians 6:5)
• Moral order (Romans 1)
• Family-centered society (Genesis 2:24)
• Limited government that respects God-given freedoms (1 Samuel 8’s warning about overreaching rulers)

Scripture consistently shows God’s people engaging their culture — from Joseph influencing Egypt’s policies to Daniel shaping Babylon’s leadership. Faith was never meant to be private only; it shapes how we live, lead, and steward the society God placed us in. We must fight to keep GOD in politics so we can save our freedoms. Jesus is our lord and keeping him above all means we need to fight for him.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Genesis does not say Adam first existed as a nonliving seed and later became a living being after instruction.

But Genesis instructed you that Adam was a fully formed man that became a living soul after he begin breathing.

 

[OMC]

Christian morals apply to Christians. Generic morals belong to the government. Theft and generally recognized murder are generic morality, but abortion is not generally recognized as murder, not even all Christians can agree on that point.

I am not shifting the argument, rather you are shifting it. Freedom of religion is the law of the land, seeking to impose Christian morality on non-Christians is a violation of freedom of religion. As Christians we need to work within the governmental boundaries whether we agree with the limits or not. Remember, Jesus said to render to Caesar the things that are of Caesar, and to God the things that are of God. Governmental laws are human matters, not God's. We can seek to influence the governmental laws to more closely align, but that is all

Killing the innocent is murder according to scripture. Take it up with God.

 

[OMC]

But Genesis instructed you that Adam was a fully formed man that became a living soul after he begin breathing.

According to the Bible, life begins when a living being comes into existence, but Adam's creation was unique and cannot simply be used as the pattern for ordinary human conception.
Adam was not conceived, carried in a womb, or born. Genesis 2:7 says God formed Adam from the dust and "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Adam became a living soul when God directly gave life to a body specially created from dust.
In contrast, Scripture describes ordinary human beings as already existing and known by God within the womb (Psalm 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:41-44).
Therefore, while Adam's life began when God breathed life into him, that does not necessarily establish that every human life begins at first breath, because Adam was a one-time direct creation, whereas all other humans come into existence through reproduction.
The connection is that in both cases life comes from God, but Adam's creation account is describing the origin of the first man, not explicitly defining the moment life begins for every descendant of Adam.

 

[rewriter]

They are all tares. Fake Christians

Christians don't murder their babies because the Holy Spirit does not lead anybody to do such a thing.

Are they all fake Christians by your definition or by God's. The Holy Spirit does not lead people to sin. Do you sin? If you say you do not then the truth is not in you according to 1 John, yet by your own standard, if you do then you are a fake Christian.

 

[rewriter]

One issue that seem to be overlooked, likely because it is inconvenient, is that some states have legislated that after 6 weeks, any action to end a pregnancy must include action to preserve the life of the fetus. This can lead to situation where a woman goes to the ER with a known problem and gets advised that there is noting that can be done at present. Her fetus is doomed, it is going to die, and its death will cause a potentially fatal situation for the mother, but until that crisis occurs, there is nothing that can legally be done to ensure that she does not die also, at least not in that specific state.

Now who wants to potentially place themselves, their partner, sister or other female relative in that situation? Who would even claim that it is Christian to place a woman in that situation where to preserve an already doomed by God life is to threaten her own because of human ego.

 

[OMC]

One issue that seem to be overlooked, likely because it is inconvenient, is that some states have legislated that after 6 weeks, any action to end a pregnancy must include action to preserve the life of the fetus. This can lead to situation where a woman goes to the ER with a known problem and gets advised that there is noting that can be done at present. Her fetus is doomed, it is going to die, and its death will cause a potentially fatal situation for the mother, but until that crisis occurs, there is nothing that can legally be done to ensure that she does not die also, at least not in that specific state.

Now who wants to potentially place themselves, their partner, sister or other female relative in that situation? Who would even claim that it is Christian to place a woman in that situation where to preserve an already doomed by God life is to threaten her own because of human ego.

You are arguing against a medical and legal scenario, not against the principle that unborn children are human lives deserving protection.
If a pregnancy is nonviable and the mother's life is genuinely threatened, the question becomes what medical intervention is necessary and when.
Most pro-life Christians would not argue that a woman should be denied lifesaving treatment simply to preserve a child that is already dying or cannot survive.
The problem, if it exists, is not that Christians value unborn life too highly.
The problem would be a law that prevents doctors from providing legitimate lifesaving care to the mother.
Those are two different issues.
You also assume that preserving the mother's life and rejecting elective abortion are mutually exclusive positions.
They are not.
A person can believe that unborn children are human beings worthy of protection while also believing that medical treatment should be available when a pregnancy becomes a serious threat to the mother's life.
Framing the issue as "human ego" versus compassion oversimplifies the matter.
Both sides claim to be motivated by concern for human life.
The disagreement is over how the lives of the mother and unborn child should be protected when tragedy occurs, not whether either life has value.
From a debate standpoint, the strongest response is to separate pro-life ethics from specific legislation and medical protocols. Otherwise the discussion quickly shifts from "Is the unborn child a human life?" to "Did a particular state write a bad law?" which is a different argument altogether.

 

[rewriter]

You are arguing against a medical and legal scenario, not against the principle that unborn children are human lives deserving protection.
If a pregnancy is nonviable and the mother's life is genuinely threatened, the question becomes what medical intervention is necessary and when.
Most pro-life Christians would not argue that a woman should be denied lifesaving treatment simply to preserve a child that is already dying or cannot survive.
The problem, if it exists, is not that Christians value unborn life too highly.
The problem would be a law that prevents doctors from providing legitimate lifesaving care to the mother.
Those are two different issues.
You also assume that preserving the mother's life and rejecting elective abortion are mutually exclusive positions.
They are not.
A person can believe that unborn children are human beings worthy of protection while also believing that medical treatment should be available when a pregnancy becomes a serious threat to the mother's life.
Framing the issue as "human ego" versus compassion oversimplifies the matter.
Both sides claim to be motivated by concern for human life.
The disagreement is over how the lives of the mother and unborn child should be protected when tragedy occurs, not whether either life has value.
From a debate standpoint, the strongest response is to separate pro-life ethics from specific legislation and medical protocols. Otherwise the discussion quickly shifts from "Is the unborn child a human life?" to "Did a particular state write a bad law?" which is a different argument altogether.

Then why praise states that have passed and uphold such laws? Why seek to impose Christian standards that are debatable as not all Christians hold them, on non-Christians? What an individual does or does not do is an issue between the individual and God, why encourage and support the involvement of the state (politics) into the argument.

God acknowledges that HUMANS have created the state (politics) and tells Christians to follow the rules of the given political system under which they reside as far as possible, but where does God call for Christians to seek to use the political system to force others to follow what a specific group of sinful Christians believes is the proper action?

 

[OMC]

Then why praise states that have passed and uphold such laws? Why seek to impose Christian standards that are debatable as not all Christians hold them, on non-Christians? What an individual does or does not do is an issue between the individual and God, why encourage and support the involvement of the state (politics) into the argument.

God acknowledges that HUMANS have created the state (politics) and tells Christians to follow the rules of the given political system under which they reside as far as possible, but where does God call for Christians to seek to use the political system to force others to follow what a specific group of sinful Christians believes is the proper action?

If Christians are not called to use the state to enforce every other sin, why make abortion the exception?
The New Testament repeatedly shows believers changing hearts through preaching, persuasion, and discipleship, not through political power.
You also cannot separate these laws from their consequences.
If a law delays treatment for a woman carrying a nonviable fetus until her condition becomes life-threatening, then praising that law requires defending those outcomes as well.
The real question is not whether abortion is sinful.
The question is where Scripture commands Christians to use the state to compel unbelievers to follow a disputed Christian moral position.
I see commands to preach, teach, and persuade.
I do not see commands to legislate Christian conduct for those outside the faith.

 

[GWH]

If Christians are not called to use the state to enforce every other sin, why make abortion the exception?
The New Testament repeatedly shows believers changing hearts through preaching, persuasion, and discipleship, not through political power.
You also cannot separate these laws from their consequences.
If a law delays treatment for a woman carrying a nonviable fetus until her condition becomes life-threatening, then praising that law requires defending those outcomes as well.
The real question is not whether abortion is sinful.
The question is where Scripture commands Christians to use the state to compel unbelievers to follow a disputed Christian moral position.
I see commands to preach, teach, and persuade.
I do not see commands to legislate Christian conduct for those outside the faith.

Well, the real question is complicated because it has several sub-questions:

1. What is abortion?
2. Is all abortion murder?
3. How should abortion murder be punished?
4. Should there be funerals for still-born babies?
5. Should all abortion be legal until all abortion is made illegal?
6. If interim compromise is desirable and on what rationale?
7. How do we avoid a repeat of the prohibition fiasco?
8. What civil rights do pre-born babies have?

 

[OMC]

Well, the real question is complicated because it has several sub-questions:

1. What is abortion?
2. Is all abortion murder?
3. How should abortion murder be punished?
4. Should there be funerals for still-born babies?
5. Should all abortion be legal until all abortion is made illegal?
6. If interim compromise is desirable and on what rationale?
7. How do we avoid a repeat of the prohibition fiasco?
8. What civil rights do pre-born babies have?

Those are all legitimate questions, but they are downstream from the point I raised.
Before asking how abortion should be punished, what civil rights the unborn possess, or what compromises are politically prudent, we must first answer whether Scripture calls Christians to use the state to enforce their moral conclusions on unbelievers.
My point is not that these questions are unimportant.
My point is that many Christians assume political enforcement is the obvious biblical solution without first establishing that premise from Scripture.
The apostles lived under a pagan government that permitted many things they considered sinful.
Yet their emphasis was preaching, persuasion, discipleship, and church discipline, not lobbying Caesar to criminalize every sin.
Where in the New Testament are Christians instructed to use the civil government to compel unbelievers to conform to Christian morality? That's the question I'm asking.

 

[GWH]

Those are all legitimate questions, but they are downstream from the point I raised.
Before asking how abortion should be punished, what civil rights the unborn possess, or what compromises are politically prudent, we must first answer whether Scripture calls Christians to use the state to enforce their moral conclusions on unbelievers.
My point is not that these questions are unimportant.
My point is that many Christians assume political enforcement is the obvious biblical solution without first establishing that premise from Scripture.
The apostles lived under a pagan government that permitted many things they considered sinful.
Yet their emphasis was preaching, persuasion, discipleship, and church discipline, not lobbying Caesar to criminalize every sin.
Where in the New Testament are Christians instructed to use the civil government to compel unbelievers to conform to Christian morality? That's the question I'm asking.

Your question is part of my #8.
IMO it does not matter in what order the questions are asked as long as they are answered--
especially by those who claim to be prolife, because I doubt the sincerity or wisdom of those
who claim to be prolife but abet abortion by refusing to support efforts to limit abortions,
instead insisting that the government should prohibit everyone from aborting.
How did that work out regarding prohibiting everyone from drinking alcohol?

 

[OMC]

Your question is part of my #8.
IMO it does not matter in what order the questions are asked as long as they are answered--
especially by those who claim to be prolife, because I doubt the sincerity or wisdom of those
who claim to be prolife but abet abortion by refusing to support efforts to limit abortions,
instead insisting that the government should prohibit everyone from aborting.
How did that work out regarding prohibiting everyone from drinking alcohol?

We may disagree on strategy, but that actually reinforces my point.
If sincere pro-life Christians cannot agree on whether total prohibition, incremental restrictions, exceptions, or compromise are the best approach, then the political question is far more complicated than simply saying, "Christians must make abortion illegal."

Your prohibition analogy is relevant because legislation alone does not necessarily change hearts or eliminate behavior.
That is exactly why I keep returning to the New Testament model.
The apostles focused on preaching, persuasion, and discipleship rather than attempting to reform the Roman Empire through legislation.

If someone believes abortion should be restricted by law, they should make that case.
My question remains: where does the New Testament instruct Christians to use civil government to enforce Christian moral conclusions on those outside the faith?
Until that premise is established, the political solution cannot simply be assumed.

 

[GWH]

We may disagree on strategy, but that actually reinforces my point.
If sincere pro-life Christians cannot agree on whether total prohibition, incremental restrictions, exceptions, or compromise are the best approach, then the political question is far more complicated than simply saying, "Christians must make abortion illegal."

Your prohibition analogy is relevant because legislation alone does not necessarily change hearts or eliminate behavior.
That is exactly why I keep returning to the New Testament model.ovi
The apostles focused on preaching, persuasion, and discipleship rather than attempting to reform the Roman Empire through legislation.

If someone believes abortion should be restricted by law, they should make that case.
My question remains: where does the New Testament instruct Christians to use civil government to enforce Christian moral conclusions on those outside the faith?
Until that premise is established, the political solution cannot simply be assumed.

Yes, the NT method of persuasion is akin to moving the Overton window via education,
so we need to apply Scripture to politics by electing government that will educate everyone
including both prolifers and prochoicers.

 

[OMC]

Yes, the NT method of persuasion is akin to moving the Overton window via education,
so we need to apply Scripture to politics by electing government that will educate everyone
including both prolifers and prochoicers.

Your response shifts the discussion without answering the original premise. Saying that New Testament persuasion is "akin to moving the Overton window" does not establish that Christians are instructed to use civil government to enforce biblical morality on unbelievers.

 

[GWH]

Your response shifts the discussion without answering the original premise. Saying that New Testament persuasion is "akin to moving the Overton window" does not establish that Christians are instructed to use civil government to enforce biblical morality on unbelievers.

Persuasion is akin to education,
and Christian governors are God's enforcers (Rom. 13:1-5).