I serve the congregation of First Baptist Church in Farmersville, TX. Farmersville sits at the northern shores of Lake Lavon. Earlier this week, a maintenance crew in the area found beside a dirty pond near the lake the body of a six-year-old special needs boy. He was significantly decomposed. His body showed evidence that he had been fed with a feeding tube for some period of time. Forensic examiners found no obvious evidence of trauma. Apparently, he died and then somebody just dumped him out at the lake (or dumped him out and left him there to die).
Learn more about the story here.
Dr. Russell Moore has recently reminded us that our treatment of a dead body says something about our attitude toward that body. I agree in part and disagree in part with Dr. Moore (grist for the future blogging mill?), but he is absolutely correct in noting that the treatment of dead bodies is loaded with significance.
To throw away the body of a child is to reveal one's heart in an incontrovertible way. To whoever dumped that body, that child was about as valuable as a broken-down washing machine. Each year, of course, millions of babies' bodies are thrown away into the trash, and the collective statement made by that fact is deafening and eloquent.
By the way, not only does our treatment of throw-away babies say something about us, but the something that it says about us it further says to God. Cain's blood cried out to God from the ground. From the medical incinerators and landfills and from a stagnant pond near Lake Lavon, a message rises to God that drowns out our formulaic prayers at official functions and our self-indulgent appeals to Heaven for materialistic largesse. Indeed, we ought to be ashamed, but we also ought to be fearful.
123 comments:
Bart,
Dont you think that this de-valueing of human life has a lot to do with evolution? I know that the human heart is sinful and all; but it just seems that human life was looked upon as less valuable whenever people started looking upon humans as ascending from some mud hole in Africa, or somewhere.
David
This tragic situation in Texas is that common? Of course Bart knows this is not the case.
Not only is this child exposed to the indignity of his body being treated with disrespect, he has it used as a shameless means to back into an anti-abortion argument.
Bart, the death of this child is tragic in itself; it requires not a linkage to another issue to provide it sufficient weight.
If you must use this child as an example to undergird an argument, choose one that is relevant to his life. Linking his life to abortion you treat him as a means to something that is irrelevant to his being and his final moments. Hasn't he suffered enough? Must he suffer from the pen of one of God's own, too?
bh,
It is the exact same thing. Someone who would do this to a child would also have no qualms about slicing up a child inside of their mother's womb to make it easier to get them out. That is why all Christians only vote for candidates who are anti-abortion if they have that choice. That is the first criterion they consider--"Will this person help put anti-abortion judges on the bench and be willing to sign anti-abortion legislation?"--even if that candidate was for something they disagreed with, like tax breaks for companies or the war in Iraq.
Christians have an obligation to vote against candidates who are pro-abortion.
BH,
Hardly irrelevant. It is precisely the same thing. Precisely. It is the discarding like yesterday's newspaper of an inconvenient human being. Any differences between the two exist only in the minds of those who would justify themselves.
David,
I agree that there is a connection. I'm not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg, but I agree that there is a connection.
Bart: BH, Hardly irrelevant. It is precisely the same thing. Precisely. It is the discarding like yesterday's newspaper of an inconvenient human being. Any differences between the two exist only in the minds of those who would justify themselves.
Fact In Texas: Little boy, dead or dying but now dead, left beside pond.
Bart’s conclusion: Abortion is bad.
Questioner: Abortion?
Bart’s Response: Yes. Little boy, dead or dying but now dead, left beside pond.
Bart, you do not honor the life or death of this boy, rather you use it to launch into an anti-abortion argument, which is not relevant to his life or death. You must abstract his life to such a degree that you miss the concrete reality that he experienced and that needs to be spoken about by its own merits. At the end of your piece this little boy cannot stand alone for his life is not of sufficient weight; he needs the associated fires of medical incinerators burning aborted fetuses in order to give him sufficient meaning, and thus us sufficient guilt. To the contrary, our guilt is complete with his demise. His alone. Our guilt requires nothing more for he was nothing less.
Hi BART,
There is now a new way of thinking among some Christian people about going 'beyond' the present pro-life movement and going forward with establishing homes for un-wed mothers, where after the birth of their child, they may live with the child, get an education, and be counseled to be able to become independent. At all stages of this process, the young woman is given the caring support necessary for her to 'get on her feet' and make a home for her child.
And people of faith in many states are going forward with private facilities to help residential special-needs children who have severe medical complications.
I must tell you that the private facility where my Down Syndrome son lives has many residents with profound medical needs, and yes, among them are patients with feeding tubes. So, when I read your post, I thought of them and about the loving-kindness of the Christian people who provide a place where the residents could be so beautifully and professionally cared for, with nurses on staff and doctors on call.
So, if Christian people in Wyckoff NJ can do this, that is an encouragement to the Christians in Texas, where I sure, the need is as great.
The commitment required is a deeply serious one: the average cost for the care of a resident at my son's facility is seven thousand dollars a month, with the staff to patient ratio at one to four. Even at night.
When Christians take a stand for life, from conception until natural death, they take on a lot.
But the life of the little boy whose body was found in that pond was worth a whole lot more than seven thousand dollars a month.
Perhaps in time, people will come to help other special-needs children in his memory.
When Christians take a stand for life, from conception until natural death,
Translation--Only people who support government entitlement programs and redistribution of wealth are real Christians.
A Christian who opposes any expansion of abortion including the government funded abortions from the recent health care bill signed by the most pro-abortion President ever and who only votes for candidates who will work while in office to place anti-abortion candidates on the bench and sign anti-abortion legislation is NOT "inconsistent" in their pro-life stance.
Pro-life is the only biblically defensible choice. Government redistribution of wealth (taking from hard working people to give to lazy people who aren't willing to work) is nowhere mandated or suggested in scripture. That's why Christians oppose it.
Joe: ... taking from hard working people to give to lazy people ....
But, Joe, what if one is not lazy?
I tend to comment on sites when I disagree. Can't find anything to disagree with here, but wanted to comment anyway.
Amen!
"lazy people who aren't willing to work. . . "
I look at the residents of Eastern Christian Childrens' Retreat, and yes, they do a lot of sitting down, in wheelchairs;
and yes, many of the residents never get up and pull their own weight at all,
they have to lifted from their stretchers and brought over to where they are washed.
You're right.I suppose they don't do much, Joe.
Well, my Down Syndrom son doesn't have any excuse either because at least he is able to walk.
But he doesn't do much either. About ten times a day, he will get up and select a toy from the shelf and carry over to one of the stretcher-bound residents, and he will lay it gently in their hands.
I guess you're right, Joe.
Lazy . . . don't work . . . a burden on society . . .
Joe, if you're right, and Christian people really feel that way, then we have some insight into why someone might have left a disabled child all alone in a place where the angels would come and take him Home.
Joe, you know I love you, but sometimes you disappoint me a little.
Quite obviously I was not talking about people who are not ABLE to work. Most of the people on government assistance are not mentally or physically impaired. There are programs for those individuals and I support those programs. Further, if all churches were doing what they should to help people there would be no need for government programs. However, I have no objections to paying for the programs that we have with tax money for those who due to age, disability, etc, who are not able to care for themselves.
Again, though, most people on welfare do not fall into that catagory.
Further, I got a really good laugh out of being lectured as if my statement applied to those who cannot do for themselves by people who would vote for a man who would deny medical care to victims of botched abortions. Um, hypocrite much?
Joe,
It is not that all those people are lazy. (Although many of them are.)
It is that many people are just plain sorry and have wicked souls.
And Baptist Heretic,
For you to make one single negative comment about the content of this post gives evidence to the fact that you are a sorry, low-minded dog who is not fit to haul guts to feed a circus bear.
You are a sorry excuse for a human being. I don't know what kind of a rock you climbed out from under, but I am amazed as to why any school would let you teach in it. I would not let you feed my dog.
I wish we were in the same room together right now. Because even though I am getting old and have slowed down a lot, for that low comment of yours, I would slap you five times before you could move and there ain't one thing you could do about it. And if you tried, I would slap you five more times.
You really are sorry and low-minded.
Joe,
It is not that all those people are lazy. (Although many of them are.)
It is that many people are just plain sorry and have wicked souls.
A rose by any other name....
At least, that's my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Did you go to the A-Day game? How did Saban have the guys looking?
Joe,
I did not go to the A-Day game. I was tied up with some ministry things that were very needful, so I had to stand down on going. But my sons went.
They had a great time and said the SANANATION is looking strong and we are going to be very deep in talent this year.
They said our linebackers will be second to none. September is coming. And we'll see. :-)
CB: ... Baptist Heretic ... you are a sorry, low-minded dog ... You are a sorry excuse for a human being. I don't know what kind of a rock you climbed out from under ... I wish [to] ... slap you five times before you could move ... And if you tried, I would slap you five more times. You really are sorry and low-minded.
bapticus hereticus: Let’s see -- you would slap me, and then you would slap me again. OK. We low down dogs, sorry excuse for human beings, that live under rocks and are low-minded are like that. I’ll even turn my cheek again, CB, so you can repeatedly beat the love of Jesus in me.
I wish we were in the same room together right now. Because even though I am getting old and have slowed down a lot, for that low comment of yours, I would slap you five times before you could move and there ain't one thing you could do about it. And if you tried, I would slap you five more times.
I totally understand your feelings here, CB. Between bh, Debbie Cough-man, Don Quixote, and Gene Scab-borough, a person could get blisters on their hand dispensing some much needed beatings.
Bart:
You are much better than using this as an anti-abortion piece.
Were you just throwing out the red meat to the ones who would show up and have a hissy fit? and they did
Writings like this is why the weighter issues of life never get solved.
Solutions please??
Well, one solutino would be for Christians to vote the way they should and only vote for anti-abortion candidates.
The Christians who have decided that it's just too hard to stand up for what the Bible calls right and have decided to cave and vote for people like the Obamassiah should be ashamed of themselves.
If they have trouble sleeping, they can just count all the dead babies they helped murder.
"Accompany Them with Singing" by Thomas Long is a very helpful resource in this area. He too bemoans the de-personalization of modern funerary practices.
And to refer (way) back to BH's statement, "the death of this child is tragic in itself; it requires not a linkage to another issue to provide it sufficient weight.", he is right...and so are you to link it to abortion. Even the Romans, against whose burail practices Christian funerals stood in stark contrast, found the desecration of the unborn to be more appaling than cremation or abandonment of the body.
bapticus hereticus: Joe, you write of the other needing to behave in a manner consistent with being Christian (e.g., voting behavior), but you then make comments such as “a person could get blisters on their hand dispensing some much needed beatings.” For the inconsistency you perceive and write about concerning the liberal, you miss the inconsistency in self, unless you hold a different standard for yourself, and are thus dismissed from norms that most Christians follow, notwithstanding theological orientation. Do you and CB really think it helps your argument or your standing, even among those that support an anti-abortion position, when you suggest that those that differ from you deserve beatings from other Christians? Please moderate the testosterone; we are way past the schoolyard and surely of greater cognitive, moral, and spiritual development.
Joe: The Christians who have decided that it's just too hard to stand up for what the Bible calls right and have decided to cave and vote for people like the Obamassiah should be ashamed of themselves.
bapticus hereticus: Granted, there is a difference of belief on what scripture will support, but I know of no difference in the fortitude of those on either side of the abortion debate in terms of “standing up” for what they believe. That one disagrees with you does not suppose that he or she is weak or is acting with any less integrity than those that agree with you. You are sincere concerning your beliefs about abortion, and I further believe you are acting within the dictates of your faith, thus on this point you are consistent and are to be admired, that is, your yes is yes and no is no, but you, however, belittle your faith and attenuate your consistency when you use language such as “Obamassiah, Cough-man, and Scab-borough” to demonize your opponents, your brothers and sisters in Christ.
That one disagrees with you does not suppose that he or she is weak or is acting with any less integrity than those that agree with you.
Oh, they have intergrity in that they're standing up for what they believe is right. It's simply that their belief has nothing to do with anything resembling something like what's in the Bible.
No one can justify legalized infanticide without twisting and contorting scripture. Therefore, mainstream/moderate/liberal christians are being unfaithful to the word of God whereas Christians who vote for anti-abortion candidates are being faithful to vote the way God would have us vote.
Bart:
I am really suprised that you allow some of the comments on this blog from one certain individual and I believe you can fairly easily guess who I speak of.
Joe: No one can justify ... infanticide ....
bapticus hereticus: I agree, Joe. Who is advocating infanticide?
Tom,
Joe is having another 'horrible, no good, very bad day'.
With most of us, some days are better than others.
With Joe, some days are worse than others.
And somedays, there is no living with him at all.
Oy.
:)
Yeah, Tom, I'm pretty surprised he allows you to comment here, too.
BTW, you had your panties all in a wad when someone was making comments about a blogger as "you know who". So when they do it, they've commited a mortal sin but when you do it, not so much? How does that work?
bapticus hereticus: I agree, Joe. Who is advocating infanticide?
Anyone who supports keeping abortion legal since abortion is infanticide.
Oh, and please none of the "...life of the mother or incest/rape..." garbage. Most abortions are NOT due to health complications or incest/rape. If they were the only instances abortion is legal there was be exponentially fewer abortions.
The cremation issue is pure silliness.
To be cremated is a sin?--What Chapter, What verse?
Baptist Heretic,
I would not care if you turned your cheek or not. The result would be the same.
And I would not be trying to "beat the love of Jesus into you." That is impossible. If it were possible, I would do that to someone on a daily basis.
The reason I would slap you is because you are so low-down dog, unfit to haul guts to a circus bear, immoral, vicious advocate for the murder of children.
You need slappin' just on general principle.
Bart has brought up something that is very difficult to face in a straight-forward manner.
He has done something important in tying in the death of the six-year old 'thrown away' child with the abortions of many unborn.
The tie is 'life'. And what is the respect due for even one human life?
Just one, however fragile, or broken, or 'unwanted', or a 'burden on society'. What is the dignity and honor due to even one human life?
And if a baby yet unborn can be thrown away, we protest, but some are not yet able to make the connection of the value of the unborn innocent to the value of life in ALL OF ITS STAGES, from conception to natural death. Not yet.
So now we may speak of the value of 'one human life'. There is a teaching that can help us to understand. It is the story of the shepherd who leaves the ninety-nine and goes in search of the 'one'. Why? some say. That's not practical, some say. Foolish, could be expensive if the ninety-nine get hurt in the shepherd's absence, some say. Why not just let that lamb go, and cut your loses? Aren't the ninety-nine worth more than the one?
But the lesson is clear: the shepherd patiently searches out, finds, and brings the lost 'one' safely home. In caring 'for the one', each and every lamb among the ninety-nine is truly valued by the shepherd. Not one among them will wander away without being cared for. All are important. All are valued. Each one for itself.
When six-million died in the Nazi death camps, there were those who argued, 'no, no, it was only two million', 'it was only three million' . . . 'not so bad as six million'.
The reply to these people was this:
'That even 'one' died was enough.'
Someone abandoned a special-needs child alone by a lake.
The sadness of this transcends even the calls for 'who do we blame', and moves us to consider what can we do in his memory.
"And if a baby yet unborn can be thrown away, we protest, but some are not yet able to make the connection of the value of the unborn innocent to the value of life in ALL OF ITS STAGES, from conception to natural death. Not yet."
L's,
This may be the most true statement you have ever made in a comment thread in an isolated form away from your normal agenda for commenting.
But let me say to you with knowledge;
It is not Bart, Vol, the two Tims, Joe, cb and a host of others that you are so often critical of who do not understand the truth of the value of life in all of its stages.
You need to direct that isolated comment to many who you compliment and join in against us so often here in Blogtown.......And you need to direct it to yourself also. Because you have not yet learned the value of all stages of human life as of yet either.
And C.B., while you are speaking of 'hitting people', what have you learned ?
Joe: Anyone who supports keeping abortion legal since abortion is infanticide.
bapticus hereticus: Not likely will you have much of an impact on the abortion debate or reducing the event of abortion given your extreme language and mis-representation of the view of others that disagree with you, thus instead of getting more of what you desire, you may actually be making things worse than they might otherwise be or become.
CB: Baptist Heretic, I would not care if you turned your cheek or not. The result would be the same. And I would not be trying to "beat the love of Jesus into you." That is impossible. If it were possible, I would do that to someone on a daily basis. The reason I would slap you is because you are so low-down dog, unfit to haul guts to a circus bear, immoral, vicious advocate for the murder of children. You need slappin' just on general principle.
bapticus hereticus: CB, I would turn the other cheek and then remove myself from your presence for I have no desire to be to you as you would be to me. Like Joe, your rhetoric likely does not advance your viewpoint beyond those that already share it, thus it likely has little or no positive impact on those seeking reason rather than emotion founded on adolescent bravado. That said and with an acknowledgement that abortion is a complicated issue that needs continued attention, and that you are not without an argument, you might, however, seek professional help if you think violence against those that have an opposing viewpoint is reasonable or acceptable behavior.
I had read somewhere that you were working on a doctorate. I wish you well, but I caution you that if you respond similarly to the thoughts of others in academe that have an opposing viewpoint, you will quickly marginalize yourself and compromise the potential influence of your work.
some are not yet able to make the connection of the value of the unborn innocent to the value of life in ALL OF ITS STAGES, from conception to natural death. Not yet.
Translation--People who are not willing to allow the government to redistribute income from those who are willing to go out and work for it to those who are lazy, sorry, and don't want to work** are hateful people who don't truly value life.
**Since apparently I have to spell this out now, I am NOT talking about helping people who are not able to work.
reducing the event of abortion given your extreme language and mis-representation of the view of others that disagree with you,
Abortion is legalized baby murder. Period. If that language seems "extreme" and causes you to loose sleep, you can just count all the dead babies you and those of your putrid ilk have helped murder. What the blazes else do you call it when you slice a baby up inside of its mothers womb to make it easier to extract? Just because you are such a monster that you won't call it murder doesn't mean that people with intelligence and compassion don't call it that--since that's what it is.
Joe: [1] Abortion is … murder … [2] your putrid ilk … murder … [3] you are … a monster ….
bapticus hereticus: Again, Joe, this is rhetoric that does not help your argument or influence. Given both the premise and the conclusion of the above comment do not enjoy sufficient support in this country or even among Christians in this country, it is even more important to allow some air for a constructive dialogue, which for some reason you seem unwilling to do.
Just because some liberal christians claim abortion is not murder does not change the fact that real Christians recognize that it is murder.
Therefore, the premise that abortion is murder and anyone who supports it is a murderer which makes them a monster is completely supported.
Joe: Just because some liberal christians claim abortion is not murder does not change the fact that real Christians recognize that it is murder. Therefore, the premise that abortion is murder and anyone who supports it is a murderer which makes them a monster is completely supported.
bapticus hereticus: You have made your argument a bit more complex by denying liberal christians the capacity of being considered Christian in any real sense. Such statements, unfortunately, sow discord in the body of Christ and attenuate its efficacy in the world. Second, if I have a share in the corporate guilt due to abortion (note, importantly, that abortion is legal), do you not also share the same guilt? And if by that guilt I am also a monster, how is it that you are not, or at least perceive the need to only attach said state to myself and other like-minded individuals?
Well, it should be painfully obvious but you voted for Obama. Duh. We could have gotten at least one possibly two Supreme Court Justices that would have been willing to rule correctly on abortion issues. Instead we have a Wise Latina who believes that we ought to base our laws on what other coutries do.
Since I did not and do not vote for baby murderers, my conscience is clear.
Joe,
Amen.
David
Joe: Well, it should be painfully obvious but you voted for Obama. Duh. We could have gotten at least one possibly two Supreme Court Justices that would have been willing to rule correctly on abortion issues. Instead we have a Wise Latina who believes that we ought to base our laws on what other coutries do. Since I did not and do not vote for baby murderers, my conscience is clear.
bapticus hereticus: Well, yes, Joe, I voted for Obama, as did most Americans. Concerning, Sotomayor: If another country develops a solution to a problem or at least a better way to manage one, should we not learn from such a country and then enact a law or policy that suits who we are as a people? Should, instead, we be just another short-sided people that assert “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”
L's,
Thank you for your question:
"And C.B., while you are speaking of 'hitting people', what have you learned ?"
That is a fine question.
Let me tell you what I have taught others through the years, and what has been my experience in hitting people.
Rule #1. Never strike a woman, child or an infirm man and if at all possible spare all non-combatants from harm regardless of gender, age or health.
Rule #2. When you do know a strike is necessary; strike first, strike hard and strike until your opponent is no longer a threat. Then move away. Never torture or gloat.
Rule #3. There are times when a guy just needs slapped on general principle. So forget the rules of engagement and give him a good, educational slap or two or maybe five. It will certainly help him and probably the better welfare of the human race. Now I think five is a good number in the Baptist Heretic's case. What do you think? Is five enough or does he need a little more?
"...I gave him a little adjustment on the top of the head..."
Attitude Adjustment
HW, Jr
Baptist Heretic,
Your need to be slapped naked has nothing to do with academia, emotion or gaining a hearing or achieving a political advantage for a worthy cause like the end of legalized abortion in this country.
You need a good slappin' just on general principle because you are of a lower moral character than a snake's belly. It is my experienced opinion that a good slappin' would probably improve your character a great measure.
Why don't you go to the faculty lounge and ask the most conservative male faculty member present if he would help your moral character out by giving you good slappin'?
I bet you would get a half-dozen takers to help you with that. I even bet you would get some regular run-of-the-mill liberals to volunteer to help such a demented infidel as you are.
I am sure there are just plenty of people who work around you who would pay to get the chance to help you with a good slappin' in order to improve your character a little. Don't you?
CB: I wish we were in the same room together right now. Because even though I am getting old and have slowed down a lot, for that low comment of yours, I would slap you five times before you could move and there ain't one thing you could do about it. And if you tried, I would slap you five more times.
CB: Rule #1. Never strike a woman, child or an infirm man and if at all possible spare all non-combatants from harm regardless of gender, age or health. Rule #2. When you do know a strike is necessary; strike first, strike hard and strike until your opponent is no longer a threat. Then move away. Never torture or gloat. Rule #3. There are times when a guy just needs slapped on general principle. So forget the rules of engagement and give him a good, educational slap or two or maybe five. It will certainly help him and probably the better welfare of the human race. Now I think five is a good number in the Baptist Heretic's case. What do you think? Is five enough or does he need a little more?
bapticus hereticus: Thus now it is an educational (i.e., verbal) slap instead of a physical slap? Let’s see why the ‘educational’ is not plausible in the original comment.
I wish we were in the same room together right now.
Physical presence
… even though I am getting old and have slowed down … I would slap you five times before you could move ….
Physical condition, physical behavior, and physical movement
And if you tried [to move], I would slap you five more times.
Physical movement and physical behavior
Advocating violence against another, CB, can be a serious offense that could result in significant jail time, to which your comments are aligning, thus I understand why you might wish to ‘walk-back’ what you have stated. But instead of stating that your comments were over-the-top, you are apparently trying to finesse them, even as the evidence is not supportive of the concept ‘educational (i.e., verbal),’ apparently hoping others will not perceive the underlying dynamic manifest in and latent to your words.
But instead of promoting a more civil dialogue, now those with an opposing viewpoint are considered combatants, whose treatment is determined by rules of engagement. Is this militaristic and violent way of thinking about US citizens having differing viewpoints, Christian or otherwise, becoming a new norm for adherence to conservative ideology and theology?
CB: Baptist Heretic, Your need to be slapped naked has nothing to do with academia, emotion or gaining a hearing or achieving a political advantage for a worthy cause like the end of legalized abortion in this country. You need a good slappin' just on general principle because you are of a lower moral character than a snake's belly. It is my experienced opinion that a good slappin' would probably improve your character a great measure. Why don't you go to the faculty lounge and ask the most conservative male faculty member present if he would help your moral character out by giving you good slappin'? I bet you would get a half-dozen takers to help you with that. I even bet you would get some regular run-of-the-mill liberals to volunteer to help such a demented infidel as you are. I am sure there are just plenty of people who work around you who would pay to get the chance to help you with a good slappin' in order to improve your character a little. Don't you?
bapticus hereticus: Me, being the low-life of this forum, in particular, and in life, generally, to which you and Joe either wish to cause or are advocating for causing me physical and mental pain is doing what exactly for the cause of Christ, which you have denied that I know anything about, CB?
CB, most on this board are closer to your theological persuasion than to mine, thus support for my positions from others would be sporadic, whereas such would be much more forthcoming with you, assuming, of course, civil language. But, apart from Joe, who is backing you on your discourse with me? The likely reason that you are not receiving support is not that regulars disagree with your anti-abortion perspective, they are likely embarrassed by your rhetoric and don’t want to be associated with such incivility. Again, it is not that I am beyond criticism, but I or anyone else on this blog, notwithstanding theological perspective, should be beyond the woefully inappropriate remarks you have allowed in some of your posts. Perhaps you will find a way to have a spirited debate/conversation that befits one pursuing a terminal degree? But, if you wish, however, to engage in civil disobedience, please know that it may be pursued without demonization of the other. In fact, it works best when such is avoided.
Bapticus hereticus,
CB can correct me later if I read him wrong on this but an “educational slap” is indeed a physical slap. It is known as “having some common sense slapped into you”. And after reading your posts on this blog, I would say that you could use a good dose of common sense.
I'm sitting here laughing. And I just figured out why. Sooo, here goes:
C.B., if you don't tell B.H. that you were joking about 'hitting', I will tell him where to find that wonderful comment about you buying a teddy bear.
I'll do it, I tell you.
Don't think I won't.
P.S. Just be glad I'm not gonna tell him about the 'wabbit' thing.
I wouldn't really want to do this, of course, but he needs to have picture of your image that is more 'fair and balanced' if you are going to continue with the 'hitting' stuff. :)
Cut it with the "hitting" stuff, or I will out you over the teddy bear and the 'wabbit'. Think of your image, man. Besides, a little humility is good for the soul.
Now, what's this I hear about you are working on your PhD. ?
John: Bapticus hereticus, CB can correct me later if I read him wrong on this but an “educational slap” is indeed a physical slap. It is known as “having some common sense slapped into you”. And after reading your posts on this blog, I would say that you could use a good dose of common sense.
bapticus hereticus: That you are apparently supportive of CB physically slapping another individual raises civil discourse how, John? That you wish for me to have greater common sense is appreciated, nonetheless, for I would favor greater cognitive capacity, too, but is doing violence to another the way we wish to bring about an enlightened society? Did Jesus have it wrong when he asked Peter to put down his sword?
This has been an interesting thread. Bart wishes to tell us that we don't respect the body as we should, but several Christians share that we should, given the practical benefits, do violence to the bodies of people whom we disagree. Thus, those obvious ungodly and non-Christian people that hold to a pro-choice perspective should have their bodies violated as they allow for the violence of the unborn child. Is this really the message that one wishes to defend? And that gives one a moral edge in what way? Doesn’t one then become just as ungodly and un-Christian as those that one once decried?
Thus, those obvious ungodly and non-Christian people that hold to a pro-choice perspective should have their bodies violated as they allow for the violence of the unborn child. Is this really the message that one wishes to defend?
Well, speaking only for myself, I don't think all pro choice people deserve to be slapped. Just those liberal christians who are pro choice since it is biblically indefensible. Real Christians recognize that anti-abortion is the position the bible clearly takes.
Baptist Heretic,
You have misunderstood me greatly.
By the phrase "educational slap" I meant that you need to be literally slapped, hard and often when its done. John got it right. You need some common sense beat into you.
You would be a far better person if you will go to a fellow faculty member and ask him to slap you hard and repeatedly until your moral character begins to engage right thinking and conduct.
As I said earlier, I am sure you can get volunteers from among your faculty peers to help you. Certainly there are many of them who would love to give you a good slappin' in order to help you join the human race and stop living under a rock with the rest of the snakes.
Tell you what; You let me know the names of some of you fellow faculty members and I will do a poll among them to see who wants to slap you the most. In order to keep you from any permanent harm and damage, we will let only the first fifteen volunteers slap you.
"In order to keep you from any permanent harm and damage, we will let only the first fifteen volunteers slap you."
This is an improvement?????
Oy vey !
In order to keep you from any permanent harm and damage, we will let only the first fifteen volunteers slap you.
CB
Can you just see the fights that would break out? "I want to slap him." "No, I'm number 15." "Nuh-uh, I was here first." "You broke in line. I was h..." "You're both wrong. I was here before both of you."
OK L's,
Be truthful. You know you would really like to whack Ole Baptist Heretic upside his infidel head. You know he deserves a good whackin'. And you know it would do him a world of good. I even bet the Pope would like to take a whack at him. Well, maybe not the one you have now. But I bet you a dollar John Paul II would have been more than glad to whack the Baptist Heretic just on general principle.
That was one tough Ole Boy, John Paul II was. He would have certainly agreed with me that Baptist Heretic would be greatly helped by a little time on the rack or a good slappin'. Or maybe both.
Joe,
The line would be so long it would stop traffic. They would have to close down classes at the school where Baptist Heretic teaches because no faculty member would be in class in time to teach. They would all be in line to get to slap the Heretic.
Joe: ... [not] all pro choice people deserve to be slapped. Just those liberal christians who are pro choice ....
CB: By the phrase "educational slap" I meant that you need to be literally slapped, hard and often ... go to a fellow faculty member and ask him to slap you hard and repeatedly ... love to give you a good slappin' in order to help you join the human race ... we will let only the first fifteen volunteers slap you.
bapticus hereticus: Praisegod Barebones, where one can go to hear conservative Christians opposed to the viewpoints of others encourage others to do violence to them. Is this what the SBC conservative movement is now about, Bart? Do conservative Christians now wish the blood of liberals or at least enjoy entertaining the possibility of such? Merritt once spoke of bloodletting as necessary. Now, real and as fantasy, it is sport. Congratulations on the transformation and renewing of mind.
Now, now, now . . .
what half the Baptist World would pay good money to see is for YOU, C.B. Scptt and YOU, JOE Blackmon, to get in the ring for a good ten rounds or so.
Honestly, it would raise more for the missions than Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong combined.
Think of it. A packed house. We are talking big money here. You could do it for entertainment at the next SBC convention, that will give you enough time to get your costumes and sequin capes designed.
Wade could come and referee. Well, no, maybe not Wade. I know! DEBBIE.
She LOVES the missions.
This could be BIG.
well . . . what do you guys think?
I can see it all now . . .
And I will even design your costumes for free. I think we will use velvet for capes. . . . . or satin if you prefer.
Maybe what the both of you guys really need is to get some of that over-the-top aggressive 'energy' out in a productive way. You know, this is not a bad idea at all, and the mission funds will sky-rocket.
You will be heroes!
I'm patting myself on the back here, for such a brilliant idea. :)
WAIT, WAIT,
Before you two decide that you don't want to get into the ring together, I can offer to call my niece Ana Maria to make your outfits.
She designs and tailors the stage clothes for the RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS. No kidding.
You would look SO GREAT.
:)
Bapticus hereticus,
As long as open hand slaps are being administered, I don’t think that you will bleed. That is, unless you have thin skin. Then again, after reading all of your posts……… you probably do.
John: Bapticus hereticus, As long as open hand slaps are being administered, I don’t think that you will bleed. That is, unless you have thin skin. Then again, after reading all of your posts……… you probably do.
bapticus hereticus: So the norm for theological conservatives is that if one did not bleed, then it was permissible to slap said individual. You do realize that advocating violence against another/others is likely illegal, but is against the policies of Blogger, even if such is not apparently opposed to emerging conservative theological thought. Liberals are faulted for being supporters for violence against a fetus, and thin-skinned for being opposed to violence against individuals. I understand the dynamic that is operative among some (even if the logic is faulty), but if we are faulted for our inconsistency (and likely some does exist), what consistency do conservatives bring to the table with your apparent line of thinking, notwithstanding the presence of blood? Whether as real or as entertainment, the behavior on display in this thread is not flattering to conservative Christianity in particular and Christianity in general. For many it is just another example of why Christianity is irrelevant to the needs of the present generation.
While the exchange concerning slapping has been entertaining and good for a few chuckles, I find greater cause for sadness. How sad is it that one can be so delusional as to claim the moral high ground by taking great umbrage at a lighthearted exchange about slapping while at the same time having no qualms about supporting the proliferation of the gruesome, torturous murder of babies?
I guess when your position is indefensible, you have to turn the conversation to something trivial.
How sad is it that one can be so delusional as to claim the moral high ground by taking great umbrage at a lighthearted exchange about slapping while at the same time having no qualms about supporting the proliferation of the gruesome, torturous murder of babies?
I guess when your position is indefensible, you have to turn the conversation to something trivial.
That was too good to only be in the comment thread once.
See, bh, that is the problem real Christians have with your kind. You blather constantly about "civility" in conduct and discourse all the while fighting for the rights of women to have babies cut up into little bitty pieces inside their wombs. Um, that's not very civil. In fact, murdering a baby is much less civil than slapping you.
JOE,
Do you believe that there are any instances where the termination of a pregnancy is moral ?
Joe,
Let me say that your statement is so good that it needs to be in print again also.
Allow me the privilege:
"See, bh, that is the problem real Christians have with your kind. You blather constantly about "civility" in conduct and discourse all the while fighting for the rights of women to have babies cut up into little bitty pieces inside their wombs. Um, that's not very civil. In fact, murdering a baby is much less civil than slapping you."
Most excellent.
Now L's how can you argue against this statement of Joe's? As a woman, you should stand up and cheer for a man who sees truth so clearly as opposed to the Heretic who is so clearly vile.
Hi C.B.
I am trying to find out if B.H. and both of you have some 'common ground' on which to talk 'in a civil manner' (it is possible, you know) so that you can begin to really communicate with each other.
Right now, that is not happening.
BTW, what do you think about my IDEA?
You and Joe have been given natures that are tuned towards a certain way of dealing with people. So, why not use that as a 'strength' to make money for the missions, rather than in a destructive way?
If you agree, what colors and design would you want your costume to be? I am thinking Joe might like his outfit made up in Alabama U. colors, and he could wear an 'elephant' head-dress coming into the ring. I can see it now. :)
L's
Fair question. Let's take two examples--one from my personal experience and one I read about yesterday.
Dude I worked with and his wife were expecting. They found it to be a tubal pregnancy. The baby was growing and would continue to grow until it ruptured the mother's tube in which case she had a very good chance of dying. They, of course, did an abortion.
Do I believe abortion is immoral? Yes. Do I believe it would be wrong for both the mother and baby to die in this case? Yes. Are those to statements in conflict? Yes. I don't have an answer for that one that satifies me. The procedure was done. He and his wife ended up having another baby.
Now, 10 year old girl was raped and ended up pregnant. I have no idea if a 10 year old could even deliver a child vaginally nor if it is even safe to allow her to carry the child to term. Do I believe abortion is wrong? Yes. Could I look at the girl and her mother and say that baby had to carry a baby to term? I couldn't do it.
Now, THAT is not the issue, L's. Most abortions are NOT due to rape, incest, or the life of the mother being in danger. MOST abortions are because someone (man, woman, or both) doesn't want to accept responsibility for their choices. If abortion was ONLY allowed in the two cases above, I'd be willing to allow the matter to drop. I don't have a solution to those cases. Fact is, those are NOT the only cases where abortions are performed and those are NOT the reasons a majority of the time abortions are performed.
Joe,
there are medical circumstances, as in the case you described, where the termination of the pregnancy was not sought as the primary goal. The primary purpose of that surgery would be to save the life of the mother.
As far as whether or not a child can give birth at a very young age is, I believe, a consideration. I know that there are times when it might be better to leave the decision to terminate in the hands of those who can determine the risks to the mother.
BTW, how do YOU like my IDEA about you and C.B. raising money for the missions. You would look great in crimson velvet. And an elephant head-dress ? Go for it . . . :)
John Young:
You said:"Bapticus hereticus,
As long as open hand slaps are being administered, I don’t think that you will bleed. That is, unless you have thin skin. Then again, after reading all of your posts……… you probably do."
What an unchristian comment, would it have not been better Mr. Young to have typed nothing?
Matt: While the exchange concerning slapping has been entertaining and good for a few chuckles, I find greater cause for sadness. How sad is it that one can be so delusional as to claim the moral high ground by taking great umbrage at a lighthearted exchange about slapping while at the same time having no qualms about supporting the proliferation of the gruesome, torturous murder of babies? I guess when your position is indefensible, you have to turn the conversation to something trivial.
bapticus hereticus: Thus, Matt, you find it acceptable to talk about slapping another, that is, it is funny to play with the notion of slapping a liberal? And do recall, I gave CB somewhat of an out (but demonstrated its inplausibility, nonetheless) concerning a verbal/written slap, but he informed me that such was not his meaning. He indicated a real, physical behavior was his desire. Efforts to make light of his words fail to address the associated rhetoric accompanying his desired outcome. CB is walking a thin line with the law and is in violation of Blogger policy on speech associated with hate and violence. And given Bart is not moderating CB’s speech, he may be placing his blog in jeopardy. If you find these exchanges as entertaining, in addition to what you might think of me, it is more than me, Matt, that something is being implied.
Being pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion, although abortion is a possibility. And again, murder is a legal concept and by definition legal abortion is not murder, but such would be a distinction without a difference among one given to a pro-life position on abortion. That I am pro-choice does not preclude a concern over the number and type of abortions that are conducted, but why introduce a bit of reason into a conversation that might attenuate subsequent replies encouraging depersonalization and demonization?
Yes, I understand your point that I am inconsistent, but where is your consistency? I have previously asked this question, but I have not received a response. I claim no high moral ground, especially as I consider my own struggles, I am simply asking how your position is superior given the demonstrated behavior in this thread. And please explain to me in a discussion about ideas and issues how it is acceptable to call another dog, snake, wicked, putrid, monster, sorry excuse for a human being, etc.? I realize abortion is an important issue, but are conservative Christians capable of a discussion on such without such inflamed rhetoric? The depth of one’s feelings on an issue is not contingent on the demonization of the other that differs in perspective.
Joe and CB: See, bh, that is the problem real Christians have with your kind. You blather constantly about "civility" in conduct and discourse all the while fighting for the rights of women to have babies cut up into little bitty pieces inside their wombs. Um, that's not very civil. In fact, murdering a baby is much less civil than slapping you.
bapticus hereticus: That I am wrong given the results of pro-choice being uncivil to a fetus makes it acceptable for you to be uncivil toward me?
Bapticus hereticus,
I didn’t say that I thought you had thin skin because you are “opposed to violence against individuals”. I threw it out there because of your response to what is being said to you here. You don’t get it.
Read Matt Brady’s post again; it was spot on.
What did you expect when you logged on here to defend this position? While I haven’t posted on Bart’s blog before, I am a frequent reader. I don’t think that I would be wrong in stating that most of the readership is pro-life. In addition, I would say that most are Christian.
Personally, I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is a morally reprehensible act. And I believe that most of the readers would feel the same way. I have never met this species known as a “pro-choice Christian”. The few pro-choice people that I know do not claim to be Christian.
Is this the label you embrace? “Pro Choice Christian?
In addition, because I fear we are using the same terms but different meanings; would you please give us your definition of “pro-choice”. Also, if you may, give us your definition of a Christian (noun). Maybe you could even elaborate on what it means to be a Christian (verb).
John: Bapticus hereticus, I didn’t say that I thought you had thin skin because you are “opposed to violence against individuals”. I threw it out there because of your response to what is being said to you here. You don’t get it.
bapticus hereticus: And my point in using said language was to acknowledge the latent thought among conservatives that pro-choicers, in general, and me, in particular, are inconsistent. A point that was later confirmed by Matt.
John: Read Matt Brady’s post again; it was spot on. What did you expect when you logged on here to defend this position? While I haven’t posted on Bart’s blog before, I am a frequent reader. I don’t think that I would be wrong in stating that most of the readership is pro-life.
bapticus herticus: Well, John, I don’t expect to be called a monster, vile, dog, snake, etc.. Notwithstanding disagreement or the nature of such, I find such language to be counter-productive to dialogue. That most are pro-life is not disputed, and I have respect for said position, but I did not realize that pro-lifers only wanted to ‘hear’ or communicate from and with their own? Do you know something that I don’t?
John: In addition, I would say that most are Christian.
bapticus hereticus: I am, too, and such is a draw for me.
John: Personally, I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is a morally reprehensible act. And I believe that most of the readers would feel the same way.
bapticus hereticus: I respect that and believe such is most likely normative on this blog.
John: I have never met this species known as a “pro-choice Christian”.
bapticus hereticus: We are human beings, too, but with a different perspective. Sometimes we are referred to as dog, snake, skunk, barnacle, etc.. It is depersonalizing language, thus it is understandable that our species is in doubt.
John: The few pro-choice people that I know do not claim to be Christian. Is this the label you embrace? “Pro Choice Christian? In addition, because I fear we are using the same terms but different meanings; would you please give us your definition of “pro-choice”. Also, if you may, give us your definition of a Christian (noun). Maybe you could even elaborate on what it means to be a Christian (verb).
bapticus hereticus: I know pro-lifers and pro-choicers that make no claim to be Christian and some actually distain all things religious. But by far most pro-life and pro-choice people I know are good Christian people.
OK, but first explain to me what you think pro-choice means and how you define Christian (noun) and elaborate on what it means to be a Christian (verb). Thanks.
murder is a legal concept and by definition legal abortion is not murder,
That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read. So if something is legal then it is moral?? So because it was legal to pile Jewish people into ovens and burn them alive in Nazi Germany then it was moral??
Murder is the unjustified killing of another human being. Abortion, regardless of its legal status, is the unjustified killing of a human being. Abortion is murder.
You're welcome.
I have never met this species known as a “pro-choice Christian”.
And you won't. Pro choice and Christian are mutually exclusive. You cannot be both.
Well, that is unless you redefine Christian to mean someone who doesn't believe in the exclusivity of salvation through Christ alone and the need of repentance. Of course, that would mean defining Christian to be the exact opposite of what it is.
BH,
The reason I find the exchange amusing is simply because CB is clearly making sport of you and you are jabbing back. I find the exchange humorous from both sides. The humor has nothing to do with physical violence. Furthermore, as I pointed out, I really find more to be sad about than to be amused about.
As for your comment that "legal abortion is not murder," perhaps we are working from two differnt rule books. If you are willing to accept the non-unanimous ruling of nine supreme court justices then you are absolutely correct, however, if you are to accept the teaching of our Creator, then you have not a leg to stand on. God called the killing of innocents "murder" long before 1973. Herein lies the issue that Joe keeps bringing up. A Christian is one who has surrendered to the lordship of almighty God. Jesus is not Savior unless He is also Lord. Defending abortion is indefensible for one who claims to be under the lordship of Christ.
Joe: That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read. So if something is legal then it is moral?? So because it was legal to pile Jewish people into ovens and burn them alive in Nazi Germany then it was moral?? Murder is the unjustified killing of another human being. Abortion, regardless of its legal status, is the unjustified killing of a human being. Abortion is murder. You're welcome.
bapticus hereticus: No, Joe, it does not follow that legal and moral must be overlapping concepts/realities, but that would be the goal, of course. For one to be a murderer, one must commit murder and then be convicted of such. If providing a legal abortion, one cannot be classified as a murderer. However, even though one may claim the legality of abortion, it does not follow that one may also claim the morality of such. Whereas you view abortion as murder, such is not the case in any legal sense given extant law.
I see that you are uncomfortable with some situations that involve abortion, and that is not unexpected, but given cases that vex the wisest among us, do you think it helps the situation and the subsequent healing of parties involved by calling said individuals murderers? For that rare situation in which the 10-year-old girl that is impregnated by a serial rapist that you would allow to abort the fetus, would you wish to call her and others associated with the decision murderers? Or in this case, would you allow for the abortion as a ‘justified killing?’ If so, then you are at least softening your stance and taking context into account. Not unreasonable in my estimation.
Given the strength of the pro-life and pro-choice movements, to which both are populated with Christians, little change is expected in extant law in the near or intermediate future. Instead of expending energy in seeking less and more restrictions by the more liberal and conservative, respectively, what are ways in which abortions may be reduced? I am not asking you to actually answer the question, but to consider that given many pro-life and pro-choice individuals are in agreement that too many abortions are being performed, there is a good amount of common ground that exists to foster a strong voice in pushing for legislation that address conditions antecedent to pregnancy and once pregnant, perceived acceptable alternatives. Both sides can, however, push for the elimination of the other as a viable position, but not likely will the line move in any significant direction from its current resting place. The more extreme one side becomes, the more extreme the other will become in response. Lewin addressed these change issues many decades ago, but we don’t seem ready to embrace them. When ‘murderer’ no longer works, it will then become ‘damn murderer,’ and then, well, as the language becomes more coarse, it must, due to feedback effects, become even more coarse. Thus we truly become clanging symbols instead of a people seeking a better way.
Matt: BH, The reason I find the exchange amusing is simply because CB is clearly making sport of you and you are jabbing back. I find the exchange humorous from both sides. The humor has nothing to do with physical violence. Furthermore, as I pointed out, I really find more to be sad about than to be amused about.
bapticus hereticus: Thus CB is using me to have fun, that is, he is using me as a means to an end in which I am the joke. Is that what passes for acceptable humor among conservative Christians these days? Tell me, Matt, just what exactly is funny about the following?
you are a sorry, low-minded dog
You are a sorry excuse for a human being
I don't know what kind of a rock you climbed out from under
You really are sorry and low-minded
Follow that up with:
your putrid ilk
you are … a monster
Matt: As for your comment that "legal abortion is not murder," perhaps we are working from two different rule books. If you are willing to accept the non-unanimous ruling of nine supreme court justices then you are absolutely correct, however, if you are to accept the teaching of our Creator, then you have not a leg to stand on.
bapticus hereticus: If I accept the exogenous aspect of your argument then I will have no issue with its endogenous conclusion. But I don’t accept the former, thus I will have a problem with the latter. Whereas we both work with scripture, we work with different methodologies and hermeneutical principles, thus both the exogenous and endogenous character of our arguments will differ. In the end it will become ‘did too, did not’ but such is not productive to resolve an important issue: too many abortions. With extreme arguments neither you or I will budge, but given you (corporate you) have the most to gain and that I (also corporate you) am willing to give, it behooves you (corporate you) to moderate more than you (corporate you) have thus far. There are pro-choice people willing to place greater restrictions on abortions, but are not willing to deny a woman’s choice to say yea or nay. The reality is you (corporate you) can join with pro-choice advocates to reduce abortions or expend energy denying a woman’s right to such, and instead of looking for ways to prevent pregnancy and reduce abortions once impregnated, pro-choicers will instead use their energy to protect the right to choose. The tragedy is that more unnecessary pregnancies will result and abortions will be performed.
Matt: God called the killing of innocents "murder" long before 1973. Herein lies the issue that Joe keeps bringing up. A Christian is one who has surrendered to the lordship of almighty God. Jesus is not Savior unless He is also Lord. Defending abortion is indefensible for one who claims to be under the lordship of Christ.
bapticus hereticus: As you interpret scripture, that is the case. I had this conversation with a conservative pastor on this blog within the past six months. I would invite you to review the record so that we need not cover old ground. Thanks.
BH,
First, let me say it again, perhaps a little more clearly this time. I was not, nor am I amused that you are being made fun of. I was amused by the give and take conversation between everyone involved in the exchange.
You don't have to follow the Baptist blogging world long to know how to take CB.
Secondly, as you encourage me to review the archives because, "we need not cover old ground," let me say that I have no desire to cover this ground with you for one simple reason. We are starting from two different premises. As you said, "We both work with scripture, we work with different methodologies and hermeneutical principles." Correct. I try to accept God at His Word and you try to explain it away. There is no other way to defend abortion with Scripture than to deny the infallibility and intent of the texts. I have no desire to continue discussing with you in vain. Until you come to accept the lordship of Christ and the authority of His Word, both of us will simply be wasting our time.
Matt: BH, First, let me say it again, perhaps a little more clearly this time. I was not, nor am I amused that you are being made fun of. I was amused by the give and take conversation between everyone involved in the exchange. You don't have to follow the Baptist blogging world long to know how to take CB.
bapticus hereticus: If I have misappropriated your words, you have my apology. Thus you would rather admonish me than CB, whose on-line behavior is apparently known and dismissed, notwithstanding its appropriateness?
Matt: Secondly, as you encourage me to review the archives because, "we need not cover old ground," let me say that I have no desire to cover this ground with you for one simple reason. We are starting from two different premises. As you said, "We both work with scripture, we work with different methodologies and hermeneutical principles." Correct. I try to accept God at His Word and you try to explain it away.
bapticus hereticus: Such discussions are long and involved, as you are aware, just as you surely know that your words immediately above are a perfectly acceptable way in which to remove air for any potential dialogue?
Matt: There is no other way to defend abortion with Scripture than to deny the infallibility and intent of the texts. I have no desire to continue discussing with you in vain. Until you come to accept the lordship of Christ and the authority of His Word, both of us will simply be wasting our time.
bapticus hereticus: Who needs data when one has a good theory?
Whereas you view abortion as murder, such is not the case in any legal sense given extant law.
So when black people were told to sit on the back of the bus it was moral because it was legal?
When Jews were cooked in ovens in Nazi Germany that was a moral act because it was legal?
Simple yes or no answer.
Given the strength of the pro-life and pro-choice movements, to which both are populated with Christians,
Since the pro-baby murder side does not base its position on anything in scripture they are, by definition, not Christian.
but given you (corporate you) have the most to gain and that I (also corporate you) am willing to give, it behooves you (corporate you) to moderate more than you (corporate you) have thus far.
I'd much rather grind you and the rest of you filthy vermin into dust.
You cannot produce one, single, solitary biblical arguement for pro-choice--period.
Joe: So when black people were told to sit on the back of the bus it was moral because it was legal? When Jews were cooked in ovens in Nazi Germany that was a moral act because it was legal? Simple yes or no answer.
bapticus hereticus: Joe, I tried to address this issue in my previous post to you, and I will try again, but I don’t think I can do a better job. All things being equal, moral and legal positions would be congruent, but human existence often reveals that our notions of morality are ahead of our legal behavior. But, such has not always been the case.
Joe: Since the pro-baby murder side does not base its position on anything in scripture they are, by definition, not Christian.
bapticus hereticus: I think on many issues, in time, we will look back and state, ‘we did that? Given what we know now, we surely cannot continue.’ It’s a possibility that is founded on a prior reality. I don’t believe our Christian status was negated, but it surely would have attenuated our Christian experience. Who among us, even now, will assert that their Christian experience is not attenuated? Who among us is as we would desire, or even close to such? Not me. You?
On this issue?
Yes.
OK.
All others?
No.
I understand.
BH:
Hereticus: "Thus you would rather admonish me than CB"
Matt Brady: Apples and oranges my friend. I did not admonish you nor CB nor anyone else concerning the conversation. My only admonishment was for anyone who would seek to justify the torturous murder of babies while making a big deal out of silly banter.
Hereticus: "your words immediately above are a perfectly acceptable way in which to remove air for any potential dialogue?"
Matt Brady: You are correct. If you are unwilling to accept Jesus as Lord and His Word as absolute authority, then there is indeed no breathing room for productive dialogue between the two of us, at least not as fellow Christians. I will not deny my Lord, and it seems that you will not accept Him as Lord. If that is the case, we are indeed at an impasse.
Hereticus: Who needs data when one has a good theory?
Matt Brady: I am glad that you understood my point exactly. You think that Scripture is "good theory." I think that Scripture is God's Word. Again we come back to the difference in our basic premise.
If I am mistaken, and you do believe that Scripture is absolute and authoritative, then I encourage you to defend your position on abortion from the text of the Bible. If you have Biblical "data" of which I am unaware that would dispel my Biblical "theory," I would be most interested in hearing of it.
Joe: I'd much rather grind you and the rest of you filthy vermin into dust.
bapticus hereticus: Is this more humor that should invoke a side-splitting laugh?
Joe: You cannot produce one, single, solitary biblical arguement for pro-choice--period.
bapticus hereticus: Should I be looking for something that supports grinding up a fetus, like filty vermin, into dust?
Matt Brady: Apples and oranges my friend. I did not admonish you nor CB nor anyone else concerning the conversation. My only admonishment was for anyone who would seek to justify the torturous murder of babies while making a big deal out of silly banter.
bapticus hereticus: Well, Matt, that is an admonishment, no? Again, what comments do you wish to make concerning:
you are a sorry, low-minded dog
You are a sorry excuse for a human being
I don't know what kind of a rock you climbed out from under
You really are sorry and low-minded
your putrid ilk
you are … a monster
And the latest: I'd much rather grind you and the rest of you filthy vermin into dust
And would you be good enough to point out: 1) where I justify torturous murder, 2) of babies. Thanks.
Matt Brady: You are correct. If you are unwilling to accept Jesus as Lord and His Word as absolute authority, then there is indeed no breathing room for productive dialogue between the two of us, at least not as fellow Christians. I will not deny my Lord, and it seems that you will not accept Him as Lord. If that is the case, we are indeed at an impasse.
bapticus hereticus: Again, Matt, who needs data when one has a good theory?
Matt Brady: I am glad that you understood my point exactly. You think that Scripture is "good theory." I think that Scripture is God's Word. Again we come back to the difference in our basic premise.
bapticus hereticus: Actually, Matt, it was not a statement about my belief in scripture, rather it was about your apparent belief about my belief in scripture.
Matt Brady: If I am mistaken, and you do believe that Scripture is absolute and authoritative, then I encourage you to defend your position on abortion from the text of the Bible. If you have Biblical "data" of which I am unaware that would dispel my Biblical "theory," I would be most interested in hearing of it.
bapticus hereticus: Again, Matt, the comment was not about abortion.
"Should I be looking for something that supports grinding up a fetus, like filty vermin, into dust?"
There is no need for you to look for such a thing Heretic.
It is with us at the moment. It the Supreme Court decision of 1973, known to all of us as Roe V. Wade.
BH:
I would be inclined to agree with you concerning the continued tone of the banter if I thought you were indeed offended and not just using it to sidestep the real issue.
Nevertheless, I must step aside from the computer for the evening. I hope that any discomfort you have had from the conversation will serve to remind us all of the much greater discomfort felt by thousands of truly innocent children every day.
BH:
After checking one last time, I see that I am correct to step aside for the evening as you have no intention of turning to the Scripture to defend your position or to correct me in mine.
Matt: BH[,] I would be inclined to agree with you concerning the continued tone of the banter if I thought you were indeed offended and not just using it to sidestep the real issue.
bapticus hereticus: Thus, statements such as:
you are a sorry, low-minded dog
You are a sorry excuse for a human being
I don't know what kind of a rock you climbed out from under
You really are sorry and low-minded
your putrid ilk
you are … a monster
I'd much rather grind you and the rest of you filthy vermin into dust
only have relevance if I am offended? Am I the only concern?
One more time: Yes, I understand that some on this blog think pro-choicers are uncivil to unborn children, and yes, I understand that comments about civility will seem to be hypocritical and inconsistent. I get that. I understand what you are saying. What I want to know is why it is permissible for pro-lifers to make comments such as:
you are a sorry, low-minded dog
You are a sorry excuse for a human being
I don't know what kind of a rock you climbed out from under
You really are sorry and low-minded
your putrid ilk
you are … a monster
I'd much rather grind you and the rest of you filthy vermin into dust
and still maintain that they are the ones with a higher regard for the individual? Please, let’s not argue that these statements are innocent attempts at humor. Such is not credible.
I am willing to step back from my position and see it as object as the other would and does, and thus criticize its shortcomings. Is anyone from the pro-life position on this blog willing to do the same and call out individuals using rhetoric such as:
you are a sorry, low-minded dog
You are a sorry excuse for a human being
I don't know what kind of a rock you climbed out from under
You really are sorry and low-minded
your putrid ilk
you are … a monster
I'd much rather grind you and the rest of you filthy vermin into dust
as inappropriate and inconsistent with a high regard for human life?
Matt: Nevertheless, I must step aside from the computer for the evening. I hope that any discomfort you have had from the conversation will serve to remind us all of the much greater discomfort felt by thousands of truly innocent children every day.
bapticus hereticus: And greater discomfort will be faced if Both sides of the debate don’t learn to moderate their inflamed rhetoric and call it to task when it occurs.
Bapticus hereticus,
In your quote to Matt Brady… “Actually, Matt, it was not a statement about my belief in scripture, rather it was about your apparent belief about my belief in scripture.”
Seeing how you punted the opportunity to answer the questions in my last post, how about another try… What exactly is your belief of scripture?
And what is your definition of being pro-choice and do you embrace that view.
Matt: BH[,] After checking one last time, I see that I am correct to step aside for the evening as you have no intention of turning to the Scripture to defend your position or to correct me in mine.
bapticus hereticus: And your intention of supporting with scripture comments such as:
you are a sorry, low-minded dog
You are a sorry excuse for a human being
I don't know what kind of a rock you climbed out from under
You really are sorry and low-minded
your putrid ilk
you are ... a monster
I'd much rather grind you and the rest of you filthy vermin into dust
is indicated where?
STOP !!!!!
Stop the 'noise' and the 'berating' and instead, think about what CAN BE DONE to help young mothers who have no one and might seek abortion.
For example, have you ever heard of the Good Counsel Homes ? You can't establish something like that and have any time left over for calling people names and berating those who disagree with you.
You only have time to REALLY help the ones you are trying to protect.
Think of how you might try a different approach to the problem of abortion by working together to make it possible for there to be a HOME where a young woman may bring her infant until she can build a new life for them both.
Put the name-calling of one another aside, and come together to work to help the ones you want to help. Make a difference, not a 'noise'.
Here is the story of a Christian who made the 'Good Counsel Homes' possible. He is 'different'.
Don't hold that against him, or the fact that he is old and shabby.
He gets tremendous positive results without cursing the darkness.
Name-calling and vitriol never saved an unborn child. Meet Benedict who found a another way that did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZePc6hIMio
It has been fun Heretic, I must say. But let's leave off the fun and games for a moment.
When I said to you:
"I would slap you five times before you could move and there ain't one thing you could do about it. And if you tried, I would slap you five more times".....,
you were very offended. The truth is, you had a right to be. You should be able to live your life as a human being without such a thing happening to you.
But the truth is Heretic, a skilled person could do such a thing to you and there is not one thing you could do to stop it. Not one thing could you do except bear the pain and humiliation of being degraded by a person who is highly skilled and experienced in perpetrating violence upon another human being.
Heretic, it happens all the time and we both know it. Neither of us like it, but it happens nonetheless. Bart's post was about a human being who became victim to someone larger and willingly brutal enough to do such a thing.
Heretic, do you not see that abortion is the exact same thing?
Let us say an abortion doctor doing a partial-birth abortion has a live baby all the way out of the birth canal except for the baby's head. He takes a sharp instrument and sticks it into the baby just below the skull in the back of that baby's neck. He moves that instrument around about five good strokes to kill that baby. But for some reason that baby moves or makes a sound. So the doctor gives another five good strokes just to make sure the baby is dead.
Now the baby is dead. There is not one thing that baby could have done to stop a larger, very skilled human being from taking his just as much human life as that of that doctor.
Now just think about that Heretic. If I or someone like me decided to beat you to a bloody pulp, there is nothing you could do except bare the pain and humiliation for the rest of your life.
But that baby is dead Heretic. The entire experience of that baby from the moment the abortionist penetrated the back of his innocent and helpless skull is terrible pain and then death.
You think about that Heretic. You think about that a lot while you are being so offended about something that will never happen to you. At least not by my hands.
L's,
You are a little late with your sermon. People like me have been helping those like you describe for all of our Christian life. And I will bet the farm so does Bart, Vol, Matt and Joe.
And some people need to be called what they are: Murderers. And the Scriptures teach very plainly that all unrepentant murderers will have their part in the Lake of Fire.
L's abortion is murder. Never forget that. I even knew that when I was lost. You don't kill the Innocents. Killing of the Innocents is murder.
Abortion is the murder of the innocents.
John: Bapticus hereticus, In your quote to Matt Brady… “Actually, Matt, it was not a statement about my belief in scripture, rather it was about your apparent belief about my belief in scripture.” Seeing how you punted the opportunity to answer the questions in my last post, how about another try… What exactly is your belief of scripture? And what is your definition of being pro-choice and do you embrace that view.
bapticus hereticus: As I indicated earlier to you, I will answer your questions which were about pro-choice and the definition of Christian (noun) and will elaborate on what it means to be a Christian (verb). And I also said I would do so if you did so first. If you wish to add belief in scripture, I will also make a comment or two. But I will only do so if you begin the conversation.
Recall, I am not in this conversation to build a biblical case for a pro-choice perspective; I entered to criticize Bart for using the tragic situation of a little boy to back into an abortion argument, to which many on this board have reacted negatively, but some have provided support. I will criticize an argument and am open to being criticized. Concerning abortion and pro-life and pro-choice positions: we know the arguments, pro and con, and such is of little value in repeating them again for the criticisms will be the same, thus leading us to infertile grounds. Sometimes it is best to let the ground rest before trying to plant new seed. But if someone has something new to add at this point, I am listening and will respond and listen patiently to his or her criticisms. I have nothing to add from what I have stated in the past and have no desire to cover old ground. But if a conversation does eventually result, perhaps we can do better than, “Jane, you ignorant slut.”
CB: It has been fun Heretic, I must say. But let's leave off the fun and games for a moment.
bapticus hereticus: CB, the treatment of today is like the treatment of yesterday, the day before, and the day before that.
CB: When I said to you: "I would slap you five times before you could move and there ain't one thing you could do about it. And if you tried, I would slap you five more times"....., you were very offended. The truth is, you had a right to be. You should be able to live your life as a human being without such a thing happening to you.
bapticus hereticus: Mostly, CB, I was puzzled and still am. For said language is consistent with how you have reacted to me since I began posting on this board. Not that it was unexpected, rather I was puzzled at how it could be consistent with a high regard for one’s being. If you wish to make the argument that life is regarded, it helps to regard those that you are in engaging in a conversation.
CB: But the truth is Heretic, a skilled person could do such a thing to you and there is not one thing you could do to stop it. Not one thing could you do except bear the pain and humiliation of being degraded by a person who is highly skilled and experienced in perpetrating violence upon another human being. Heretic, it happens all the time and we both know it. Neither of us like it, but it happens nonetheless. Bart's post was about a human being who became victim to someone larger and willingly brutal enough to do such a thing. Heretic, do you not see that abortion is the exact same thing?
bapticus hereticus: I perceive it could be the same thing, CB, but it is not necessarily the same thing. At the point a fetus has emerged into a sentient being capable of processing pain, I am in agreement and tight restrictions on abortion are reasonable. Till that point in a pregnancy, I do not agree we are dealing with a human being or an entity that takes precedence over the female.
CB: Let us say an abortion doctor doing a partial-birth abortion has a live baby all the way out of the birth canal except for the baby's head. He takes a sharp instrument and sticks it into the baby … You think about that Heretic. You think about that a lot while you are being so offended about something that will never happen to you. At least not by my hands.
bapticus hereticus: It is not unreasonable at this point in a pregnancy, CB, to deny aborting the child, absent a very special situation (e.g., life of child or mother at stake). I have indicated this in the past. That one has a choice to abort or not abort does not assume a moral choice has been made either way. The morality of the choice depends on a milieu of factors, such as child, mother, environment, etc.. How one balances the right of the one over the control of one’s body with the right of the one developing in said body will likely always be a point of contention and not always a clear-cut decision. But, even with the risk of a poor choice, I want said decision, generally, in the hands of the individual rather than the state. Moreover, what we need to promote are environments where these types of decisions do not arise as often as they do, but when they do arise, the availability of a wider range of alternatives will likely mitigate a decision to abort. We are not going to make much leeway in reducing abortions by dealing with the issue mainly on the back-end; significant advances, i.e., reductions, will only come with stronger reinforcements in the environment that are preventative for pregnancy. Absent that, a perception of hope in a meaningful future must be developed and supported.
Heretic,
You do have an inflated concept of your own intelligence, don't you?
Therefore, your arguments are usually long and "wordy." But, in the end are, as in this case meaningless and hollow.
You said:
"Moreover, what we need to promote are environments where these types of decisions do not arise as often as they do, but when they do arise, the availability of a wider range of alternatives will likely mitigate a decision to abort."
Heretic,
Since Cain murdered Able, the strong of humankind has been abusive toward toward the weak.
Many times cultures throughout history have stated, what "we need to promote are environments where these types of decisions do not arise as often as they do."
But, you know and I know the baser of humanity has always made "decisions" to abuse and kill the weak, the helpless and the innocent.
Never in history has there been an "environment" in any human social structure wherein these "types of decisions do not arise" far too often, because the abuse or murder of even one person is far too many and it happens far too often.
I have read your comments often on the subject of abortion Heretic and the ultimate reality is always the same.
The problem you have which always tragically flaws every argument you ever make for your position is:
You do not truly believe an unborn child is as fully a living human person as is a post-birth living human person.
You really do not consider the unborn as human beings.
You will deny that maybe. But it will be true all the same.
I pity you.
CB: Heretic, You do have an inflated concept of your own intelligence, don't you? Therefore, your arguments are usually long and "wordy." But, in the end are, as in this case meaningless and hollow.
bapticus hereticus: In what way does this help your argument, CB?
CB: You said: "Moreover, what we need to promote are environments where these types of decisions do not arise as often as they do, but when they do arise, the availability of a wider range of alternatives will likely mitigate a decision to abort." Heretic, Since Cain murdered Able, the strong of humankind has been abusive toward toward the weak. Many times cultures throughout history have stated, what "we need to promote are environments where these types of decisions do not arise as often as they do." But, you know and I know the baser of humanity has always made "decisions" to abuse and kill the weak, the helpless and the innocent. Never in history has there been an "environment" in any human social structure wherein these "types of decisions do not arise" far too often, because the abuse or murder of even one person is far too many and it happens far too often.
bapticus hereticus: Because others have failed we have no responsibility to learn from past mistakes and then enact plausible strategies based on our best knowledge? I recall the Kristofferson song on beating the devil and how he, against and in spite of the odds, refused to accept the fatalism from his nemesis. It’s an uphill battle, CB, and yes we are to consider the costs of action, but we are also taught that with God all things are possible. But we are in agreement about the weak, which also includes many of those that find themselves in a position of having to decide.
CB: I have read your comments often on the subject of abortion Heretic and the ultimate reality is always the same. The problem you have which always tragically flaws every argument you ever make for your position is: You do not truly believe an unborn child is as fully a living human person as is a post-birth living human person. You really do not consider the unborn as human beings. You will deny that maybe. But it will be true all the same. I pity you.
bapticus hereticus: In time our knowledge concerning a developing fetus will increase and we will be better able to determine when language of ‘human being’ and ‘child’ are appropriate. While said knowledge will not likely end all concerns, it will aid us, nonetheless, in developing law and making moral decisions of greater clarity.
" In time our knowledge concerning a developing fetus will increase and we will be better able to determine when language of ‘human being’ and ‘child’ are appropriate."
So then, Heretic, you do admit that I am correct in saying you do not consider the unborn as human beings.
How terribly pitiful you really are should now even be obvious to anyone in this comment thread.
BTW, You would use Kris Kristofferson to make a point about your position? Well, it does not really matter does it? You will never be able to use the Scripture to make your argument will you? So, I guess Kristofferson is as good of a source material as you need.
CB: So then, Heretic, you do admit that I am correct in saying you do not consider the unborn as human beings. How terribly pitiful you really are should now even be obvious to anyone in this comment thread. BTW, You would use Kris Kristofferson to make a point about your position? Well, it does not really matter does it? You will never be able to use the Scripture to make your argument will you? So, I guess Kristofferson is as good of a source material as you need.
bapticus hereticus: To a degree, yes, CB. I’ll accept the notion of ‘human being’ when the fetus emerges to a sentient being capable of processing pain. Being unborn does not preclude such a state, which typically emerges in the third trimester. Given such, partial-birth abortions are problematic and demand careful attention.
Concerning Kristofferson: No more or less than any minister using a poem or illustration to underline a point; in fact, it was a very conservative janitor, whom served in his (much more conservative) church as the youth minister, at a church I once attended that brought the song and its message to my attention.
Bapticus hereticus,
I stated that I thought that abortion was morally reprehensible. In my opinion, any attempt of dialog with a person who defends such a position would not be enjoyable. Holding on to a sliver of a chance that I have you pegged wrong, I asked you to define your self appointed label of “pro-life Christian”.
Your response: “You go first”
I should have known.
How refreshing it would have been if you would have stated: “Thanks for the questions John… , I define being pro-choice as………, and this is how my position relates to the definition”. Or; “to me, being a Christian means…….”.
But “You go first”?
I’m guessing that you are hesitant about pulling out your liberal dictionary.
Also, in response to your statement; “I am not in this conversation to build a biblical case for a pro-choice perspective; I entered to criticize Bart for using the tragic situation of a little boy to back into an abortion argument….…” While you didn’t start commenting on the defense of a pro-choice position, it is obvious that your criticism of Bart is due to your position. I believe that he hit a nerve. In my opinion your attempt to justify your criticism of Bart has failed.
Now, keeping it simple on both items:
I would define the pro-choice position as one who desires the ability to either kill the baby in her womb or continue with her pregnancy.
Next: A Christian is one who has been reconciled with God. This reconciliation is achieved only through the work of the perfectly sinless Son of God; Jesus Christ, because we could never do it for ourselves. A Christian is saved and reconciled by grace through faith in Christ when we repent of our sins and believe.
Finally, I take my leave of this conversation.
For example, have you ever heard of the Good Counsel Homes ? You can't establish something like that and have any time left over for calling people names and berating those who disagree with you.
You only have time to REALLY help the ones you are trying to protect.
Give.me.a.break.
Our church supports a shelter for folks who need help in situations like this. So don't lecture me that I'm not trying to protect anyone.
It does not matter if they have the resources, however, to care for the child. They still should not have the right to have the human being (which, bh, is a human being at the moment of conception when the sperm fertilizes the egg--all Christians know that) sliced up into little bitty pieces or poked with a poisonous needle which the baby tries to get away from.
Don't you DARE lecture me about being prolife from birth to death when you are not prolife for those still in the womb.
It is an act of kindness to help those mothers out--what you want is a bribe. "Here--we'll pay you money not to kill your baby" The goal of Christians is NOT abortion reducetion. The goal is to make abortion illegal which will result in abortion reduction.
I want Kahlar, a 16 year old girl, to find out she got pregnant when she and Worf had sex and worry herself sick about how she's gonig to tell her family not to mention how she's going to care for the baby and finish school and NOT HAVE THE LEGAL OPTION OF AN ABORTION. I bet her friend Meylota will think twice before she puts herself in a position to get pregnant after she sees how hard it is for Kahlar.
At that point, Kahlar will have two options--sink or swim. It's called consequences. Deal with it.
John: Bapticus hereticus, I stated that I thought that abortion was morally reprehensible. In my opinion, any attempt of dialog with a person who defends such a position would not be enjoyable ….
bapticus hereticus: Three things, John – (1) in dialogue questions will arise, but it is not about taking an exam (e.g., please provide Christian as noun and verb), but I was open to you nonetheless, 2) if this is truly a conversation you wish, then put something on the table. 3) If Bart wished to use an example that was relevant to abortion, I would not have objected, but said boy is at least six years passed abortion and such did not contribute to his death. Although I am pro-choice, my entrance into the conversation had nothing to do with such, my concern was for the life and memory of the little boy. One could also place the same emphasis on the child and be pro-life, thus it does not follow that the pro-life or pro-choice perspective must be related to said criticism.
John: Now, keeping it simple on both items: I would define the pro-choice position as one who desires the ability to either kill the baby in her womb or continue with her pregnancy.
bapticus hereticus: Pro-choice emphasizes and places the right to choose in the hands of the female, who has autonomy over her body. Some will advocate full autonomy notwithstanding the state of the fetus. I advocate for some moderation in that the state of the fetus is an important consideration, especially once it reaches a state of sentience and ability to process pain. At the heart of the matter are rights of competing entities and which entity takes precedence. In general I place greater weight on the female, but as pregnancy lengthens, I think it reasonable to restrict the conditions in which a choice for abortion is permissible. It does not follow that the female will choose to abort or that she should, at least by my estimation, but an inability to say no is a denial of an ability to say yes. The right to choose also reinforces commitment to the care and nurturing of the forming entity and subsequent child. But these decisions are highly personal and those that know the situation best are those directly involved. Once the fetus reaches a sentient state, again, it is reasonable for its interest to be given greater weight.
John: Next: A Christian is one who has been reconciled with God. This reconciliation is achieved only through the work of the perfectly sinless Son of God; Jesus Christ, because we could never do it for ourselves. A Christian is saved and reconciled by grace through faith in Christ when we repent of our sins and believe.
bapticus hereticus: I take no issue with this and affirm its validity. I, too, am partial to John 3.16 and Romans 10.10. Defining Christian is a task the church has been about since its inception (e.g., to cut or not to cut), thus a single statement that all Christians will embrace is not likely. I prefer perhaps the earliest affirmation of some in the church: Jesus is Lord. Working this out is the subject of many writings, but in essence the Gaither tune about keeping your eyes upon Jesus is a great start.
John: Finally, I take my leave of this conversation.
bapticus hereticus: You have said nothing about Christian (verb) or scripture.
"Spontaneous abortion (also known as miscarriage) is the expulsion of an embryo or fetus due to accidental trauma or natural causes before approximately the 22nd week of gestation"
"Between 10% and 50% of pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman."
"The most common cause of spontaneous abortion during the first trimester is chromosomal abnormalities of the embryo/fetus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
The number of spontaneous abortions dwarf the number clinical abortions. For every two children born, there is one spontaneous abortion. For the six billion people presently on earth to be born, there were three billion spontaneous abortions. The embryo was so tiny in most cases the woman was not aware of it.
Is God going to populate heaven mostly with people who have never lived, save for a few unconscious weeks inside their mother's womb? 83% of those in heaven will be such people if 10% of people presently living eventually become true Christians (math based on the above assumptions).
Does the Bible say a one week old embryo is person?
"Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being," Gen. 2:7.
Adam had a fully formed body and yet was not considered a "living being," -- not until God breathed into him and gave him a conscious, animated existence.
I read through all the versed listed to support article XVIII in the BFM 2000 (the article containing the pro-life statement "Children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord."). Below I've listed the subset of these verses (there are only two) which have some bearing on a pro-life position. I've put my comments in parenthesis after each verse.
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me," Psalm 51:5 (The pronoun "me" is used in this verse, but is the intention of the psalmist to state when live begins? No, the verse is a poetic and forceful way to state that man is utterly sinful.)
"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb," Psalm 138:13 (But the psalmist never says "when" in the womb he became a living being.)
In addition I'll add the verse, (which is speaking of John the Baptist) "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb,"Luke 1:15. (Again, the Bible does not say "when" in his mother's womb John was fill with the Spirit.)
Conclusion: The Bible never says "when" in the womb a embryo becomes a person. The Bible suggests a living spirit is coincident with a conscious, animated life -- and therefore coincident with human brain and neurological activity.
Additional thoughts:
1) More abortions are caused by people trying to have babies than by clinical abortions. People having fewer children and less sex would be the greatest way to curtail abortions (if prevention of the destruction of early embryonic life was the goal). Do we want to advocate that Baptists have fewer children and less sex? Does this not point out the unnatural, unbiblical conclusions produced by an overly aggressive pro-life position.
2) One can still believe in the value and protection of most embryonic life on the basis of natural law assumptions given the position advocated here.
I will not be able to interact with other bloggers until late tonight or tomorrow.
Hi JOE,
you wrote 'Don't you DARE lecture me about being prolife from birth to death when you are not prolife for those still in the womb.'
I believe that life is to be valued from CONCEPTION until natural death.
Vitriol never makes things better, Joe. That is not lecturing you, it's telling the real truth.
Look, I know you might really want to see abortions end. But what you are doing is so ineffective, I thought I would show you an example of someone who IS effective.
Let's put it this way. Benedict doesn't waste his time cursing the darkness. He doesn't need to do something like that in order to see that pregnant mothers are offered a real home, where they can stay as long as it takes for them to get on their feet. And the 'process' is a 'people' process: they are be-friended like they were members of a Christian family. They were alone, and now they have someone to help them and guide them towards a better 'LIFE', and as a result, their infant lives.
Not a 'quick-fix', Joe.
No laws, or screaming, or name-calling, or vitriol can ever take the place of Christian compassion and active caring for the people we are trying to help.
Benedict knows that.
He is called 'grampa' by many affectionately because he has become 'family' to the ones who needed that.
People love Benedict , because he loves Our Lord, and lives 'for Him'.
And if Benedict is humble, that is because he knows what you cannot now know: the powerful effect of living Christ's Law of love is greater than the 'problems' we are trying to end.
We have to trust the power of Christ.
We have to live as instruments of Christ's loving-kindness.
Not 'curse the darkness'.
Let's put it this way: talk is cheap.
More is needed in the vineyards of the Lord.
Christ calls you to something better, Joe. And maybe you are so angry because you really, deep down, know that already.
I definitely agree that supporting ministries like that is something all churches ought to be a part of. I think if someone needs help in a situation like that, Christians should help. Our church is involved in that ministry.
That does not mean that it's ok to vote for pro-baby murder candidates. Anyone who voted for Obama is ok with children being cut up in the womb. That is not being pro-life at conception.
Christiane,
You seem to say that we can either work to protect the unborn by stopping abortion OR help mothers in crises. I would dare say that to the men you are lecturing it is seen not as an either/or but as a both/and.
You know of a man named Benedict who helps mothers and that is commendable, but you might be surprised to find out that the men you are lecturing don't have to point to someone they know who is helping, but could, if they were not so humble, point to themselves, as ones who are helping first hand through adoption, foster care, crises pregnancy centers and a myriad of other ways.
It is not logical, loving, nor pro-life to excuse ourselves for turning a blind eye as babies are slaughtered as long as we try to help a few of the ones that aren't.
Why can we not both cry out against abortion as well as help mothers in need? If we are silent and do not cry out, we are guilty.
"If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain;
If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?"
Proverbs 24:11,12
Christiane,
One last thought. Jesus not only commanded us to do good, but He also rebuked evil.
It takes both poles on your battery to start your car. Focussing on the positive is well and good, but if your negative cable is not making connection, your not going anywhere.
Is it 'okay' to vote for a political party that has worked to deny health care to children in the past?
Reason: it cost money
The 'issue' with voting 'Republican' is whether or not a person can justify supporting a group of people that have used the 'abortion issue' in a political way, all the while showing contempt for the common good of life at all stages from birth to death.
I give no more moral edge to Republicans than to Democrats when it comes to those who use abortion as a political issue. Remember: eight years of Republican majority rule made no difference.
The answer is not going to be political.
Abortion is not a political issue except for some Christians who have changed their stance on abortion when it suited their leaders politically to do so.
A great Catholic university received Obama with respect and at times applauded him, because they understand that he is NOT one of those leaders who has tried to manipulate their vote on the abortion issue. If Notre Dame called him to speak and if while Obama was there, he did speak openly of differences that were unreconcilable, and if he was applauded for his honesty and openness with them, perhaps it is because Notre Dame recognized that he is not one to try to manipulate their vote using the important issue of abortion.
They understood what you cannot.
If a Republican even tries to use abortion as an issue to manipulate MY vote, he has already lost it.
Hi MATT BRADY,
Thank you for commenting to me.
Joe and C.B have already seen this, so I will share this with you. Meet Benedict:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZePc6hIMio
Here is the story of a Christian who made the 'Good Counsel Homes' possible. He is 'different'.
Don't hold that against him, or the fact that he is old and shabby.
He gets tremendous positive results without cursing the darkness.
Name-calling and vitriol never saved an unborn child. Meet Benedict who found a another way that did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZePc6hIMio
Perhaps it is the way of the fundamentalist to dwell on evil and to draw authority to do it from Christ,
but we know that Jesus condemned the religious hypocrites of His day as evil.
He did not show contempt for the people who were 'harassed and helpless and without a shepherd'. For them, He had compassion and He offered help. That is what I know.
Christiane,
Either you completely missed my point or you completely ignored it. Thank you for once again reminding me of Benedict. Did I not in my previous comment note that you had already mentioned him and did I not commend those who try to help others in need?
You accuse fundamentalists of dwelling on evil while you presumably I am guessing choose to dwell only on good. The reality is that "fundamentalists" do not dwell on evil, we just choose not to ignore it.
The slaughter of babies and the election and promotion of those who seek to continue the abhorrent practice cannot be smoothed over and covered up by a youtube video, no matter how lovely the sentiments of that video may be. Nice try though.
Sensing that this conversation is leading to naught, I will bid you adieu and allow you the final word.
Bapticus hereticus,
I was not trying to give you an exam. Once again, my attempt in asking you to define and explain your positions was simply to see if dialog would proceed. Using the same terms in a conversation yet being unsure about how the other person defines said terms is pointless.
Now,… you stated “You have said nothing about Christian (verb) or scripture.”
You are correct. As it was late and I was rushed to turn in for the evening, that part was left out.
How about this……….
Why don’t you go first?
Here's my final word on the matter--
Voting for candidates that are anti-abortion is the only Christian way to vote.
There is no biblical defense whatsoever for a Christian to vote for a pro-baby slaughter candidate.
One does not have to be for government funded handouts to people who are capable of working but will not work as hard as necessary to provide for their families to be "consistantly pro life" whatever that's supposed to mean.
Churches should do more to help those in need. However, there is no biblical mandate whatsoever for the government to make up for any lack or perceived lack of assistance.
So JOE,
you advocate supporting someone who SAYS that they are against abortion?
I'm sorry. That doesn't work for me.
People will say a lot of things to get your vote, you know. I'm past taking them 'at their word'.
Most Americans despise manipulation. But some of them are still naive and will put their faith in men. If you want to get 'biblical' about it, that is not what we are advised to do.
I would look at a whole lot more than just a candidate's 'words', particularly if he came on the scene spouting all the talking points designed to polarize this country, one way OR the other way.
Joe, we don't need anymore of his kind, 'conservative' or 'liberal'.
I'm not buying your argument, Joe.
Not today, not tomorrow, and certainly not in 2012.
Ah, yes L's. You have the moral high ground on this. I mean, you voted for a man who SAID that he was pro-abortion and SAID that infants who survive their attempted murder should be DENIED medical care.
Hm, yes 8 years of Republicans didn't change anything. You're right. And we had how many justices on the Supreme Court bench waiting for a pro-abortion president to take office before the retired? Gee, that might have a little something to do with it.
By the way, just because they say they're against abortion and against farting away government money by giving it to people who believe they're entitled to be taken care of even though they are able bodied and able to work but are not willing to work as hard as they need to does not mean that they on SAY they're against abortion. It means they're against abortion and government entitlement programs.
The two are perfectly consistant.
Your buying or not-buying of any argument is irrelivant. What is relivant is that there is not even one single solitary shred of anything resembling something like biblical support for a pro-choice position. Voting for baby murderers is as bad as killing the babies.
Ah, yes L's. You have the moral high ground on this. I mean, you voted for a man who SAID that he was pro-abortion and SAID that infants who survive their attempted murder should be DENIED medical care.
Hm, yes 8 years of Republicans didn't change anything. You're right. And we had how many justices on the Supreme Court bench waiting for a pro-abortion president to take office before the retired? Gee, that might have a little something to do with it.
By the way, just because they say they're against abortion and against farting away government money by giving it to people who believe they're entitled to be taken care of even though they are able bodied and able to work but are not willing to work as hard as they need to does not mean that they on SAY they're against abortion. It means they're against abortion and government entitlement programs.
The two are perfectly consistant.
Your buying or not-buying of any argument is irrelivant. What is relivant is that there is not even one single solitary shred of anything resembling something like biblical support for a pro-choice position. Voting for baby murderers is as bad as killing the babies.
John: Bapticus hereticus, I was not trying to give you an exam. Once again, my attempt in asking you to define and explain your positions was simply to see if dialog would proceed. Using the same terms in a conversation yet being unsure about how the other person defines said terms is pointless. Now,… you stated “You have said nothing about Christian (verb) or scripture.” You are correct. As it was late and I was rushed to turn in for the evening, that part was left out. How about this………. Why don’t you go first?
bapticus hereticus: Not if you want my involvement. Given my theological orientation is a bit more progressive than most on this blog and others like it, I regularly receive responses such as, "are you really a Christian, and if so how do you define it and what is your view of scripture; do you believe that Jesus is ... “ and so forth. Allow me to catch you up to date: I am and have been a Christian, now going on fifty years. If you wish to accept such, fine, and if you wish not to accept such, fine. But what I will not do for you or anyone else on this blog, as I have already done for some on this blog, but to no avail, is answer an endless series of questions in order to ‘prove’ to the satisfaction of the one asking the question whether or not I am a Christian. According to Bart, I think he said there are three people in which he had doubts concerning their Christian status; they include Barrack Obama, Jimmy Carter, and myself. For me, and I assume you, too, that communicates a good amount, even if we perceive the communication differently. I don’t behave like that toward others and will no longer accept (i.e., respond to) such behavior from others directed toward me, especially if coming from Christians. Whereas I will consider all and be considered by all and accept what others may legitimately assign (and subsequently act consistent within a framework that has theological integrity), I am accountable to no man, woman, or governing council for my faith. For such I am accountable only to God, in whom I live, move, and have my being. Thus, if you wish to talk of various issues instead of treating them as a test of my commitment (i.e., playing judge), then put something on the table and I may respond. My participation will be moderated by my interest and availability.
Three funerals at the church this week, as well as a busy end of last week. I regret that I have not been able to participate very much...I think. :-)
Allow me to jump into the thread with the central point: This young boy is an example of people finding the body of an inconvenient child not even worthy of a proper burial. The same is true of the aborted child. I've been turning something over in my mind—a law to require proper burial of aborted babies. This would not violate Roe v Wade, would restore some fraction of the warranted dignity to these murdered babies, and would force those involved in the babarity of abortion to face up to the reality of what they are doing.
And with that, I depart the thread.
Joe B:
Do you know what it means when you say you are going to give your final word and then continue giving it?
Tom,
Do you know what it means when someone says "The Bible CONTAINS the word of God but the entire Bible isn't inspired" ?
I call it someone who got WAY better than they deserved in the CR.
Post a Comment