Obama, Bill Ayres, Praying for Authorities and Luther's Explanation of the 8th

Started by anonymous, November 14, 2008, 10:22:20 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Lutheran_Lay_Leader

Quote from: Gary Schnitkey on November 16, 2008, 12:39:47 PM
If you can make an argument for allowing unlimited abortion from a Christian perspective, I would like to hear it (I mean that sincerely.) 

That isn't all that difficult. There are many acts of sin that, from a Christian perspective, we do not outlaw. We "allow" people to worship Satan, in that there is no law against worshiping Satan. We "allow" people to take the Lord's name in vain, in that there is no law against blasphemy in America. We "allow" people to dishonor their parents, as there is no law forbidding that act of sin. We "allow" people to covet totally unchecked by any sort of legal constraints.

I can understand how a Christian could hold the position that just because something is a sin is not sufficient reason to make secular laws against it. I hold that opinion myself about a great many activities that are sins against God but that are not crimes against the state. I may not agree that abortion belongs on that list of non-crime sins, but I can understand how some might believe so.


Jay

Quote from: G. Erdner, a Layman on November 16, 2008, 02:07:53 PM
Quote from: Gary Schnitkey on November 16, 2008, 12:39:47 PM
If you can make an argument for allowing unlimited abortion from a Christian perspective, I would like to hear it (I mean that sincerely.) 

That isn't all that difficult. There are many acts of sin that, from a Christian perspective, we do not outlaw. We "allow" people to worship Satan, in that there is no law against worshiping Satan. We "allow" people to take the Lord's name in vain, in that there is no law against blasphemy in America. We "allow" people to dishonor their parents, as there is no law forbidding that act of sin. We "allow" people to covet totally unchecked by any sort of legal constraints.

I can understand how a Christian could hold the position that just because something is a sin is not sufficient reason to make secular laws against it. I hold that opinion myself about a great many activities that are sins against God but that are not crimes against the state. I may not agree that abortion belongs on that list of non-crime sins, but I can understand how some might believe so.



Precisely.  In one kingdom, abortion is an evil act under most circumstances, but in the other kingdom, decisions are made based on factors other than whether an act is evil or not. 

Distinctions have to be made.  For example, the personal distinction I would make in the event Roe v Wade is reversed (thus returning the issue of abortion regulation to the states), is that I would be in favor of greatly restricting abortion in most cases by sanctioning doctors who perform them.  I would not, however, be interested in branding women who get an abortion as felons who should be sent off to prison.   

peter_speckhard

Quote from: G. Erdner, a Layman on November 16, 2008, 02:07:53 PM
Quote from: Gary Schnitkey on November 16, 2008, 12:39:47 PM
If you can make an argument for allowing unlimited abortion from a Christian perspective, I would like to hear it (I mean that sincerely.) 

That isn't all that difficult. There are many acts of sin that, from a Christian perspective, we do not outlaw. We "allow" people to worship Satan, in that there is no law against worshiping Satan. We "allow" people to take the Lord's name in vain, in that there is no law against blasphemy in America. We "allow" people to dishonor their parents, as there is no law forbidding that act of sin. We "allow" people to covet totally unchecked by any sort of legal constraints.

I can understand how a Christian could hold the position that just because something is a sin is not sufficient reason to make secular laws against it. I hold that opinion myself about a great many activities that are sins against God but that are not crimes against the state. I may not agree that abortion belongs on that list of non-crime sins, but I can understand how some might believe so.


The question was whether the unlimited abortion license could be defended from a Christian perspective. That challenge remains unanswered. Every agrees that some things that are wrong, e.g. idol worship should nevertheless be legal. Nobody was talking about any of those things. I do know of some people who defend the abortion license on Christian grounds and I tend to be sickened by their arguments (though they are nice and very well educated people). Would anyone here make those same arguments?

Lutheran_Lay_Leader

Quote from: peter_speckhard on November 16, 2008, 05:38:43 PM
The question was whether the unlimited abortion license could be defended from a Christian perspective. That challenge remains unanswered. Every agrees that some things that are wrong, e.g. idol worship should nevertheless be legal. Nobody was talking about any of those things. I do know of some people who defend the abortion license on Christian grounds and I tend to be sickened by their arguments (though they are nice and very well educated people). Would anyone here make those same arguments?

I believe that is what I answered. An unlimited abortion license (in the sense that "license" means no legal prohibitions) can be defended by Christians on the grounds that it is not the church's rightful position to turn to the state to regulate sin. As I said, I do not agree with that position, but I understand it.

If you're asking if anyone in here would make "those same arguments", perhaps you might tell us what "those same arguments" you are referring to are? I can think of none other than the one example I posted. I have heard Christians defend abortion, but never using what anyone could possibly construe as "Christian" grounds. 


jrubyaz

George brings up some  very valid  points,  (don't go into shock, George  ;) )which gets us back to the two kingdoms. I can't defend abortion from any possible Christian perspective. By the same token, neither can I can defend  war, torture, malnutrition, or homelessness from any possible Christian perspective.  Perhaps the first from a Just War construct, which is manmade, and not from our Lord.

Jeff Ruby   

Quote from: G. Erdner, a Layman on November 16, 2008, 05:54:36 PM
Quote from: peter_speckhard on November 16, 2008, 05:38:43 PM
The question was whether the unlimited abortion license could be defended from a Christian perspective. That challenge remains unanswered. Every agrees that some things that are wrong, e.g. idol worship should nevertheless be legal. Nobody was talking about any of those things. I do know of some people who defend the abortion license on Christian grounds and I tend to be sickened by their arguments (though they are nice and very well educated people). Would anyone here make those same arguments?

I believe that is what I answered. An unlimited abortion license (in the sense that "license" means no legal prohibitions) can be defended by Christians on the grounds that it is not the church's rightful position to turn to the state to regulate sin. As I said, I do not agree with that position, but I understand it?

If you're asking if anyone in here would make "those same arguments", perhaps you might tell us what "those same arguments" you are referring to are? I can think of none other than the one example I posted. I have heard Christians defend abortion, but never using what anyone could possibly construe as "Christian" grounds. 



Steven Tibbetts

#50
Quote from: jrubyaz on November 16, 2008, 08:24:02 AM
Last, no ONE has ever answered my comment about McCain. If we are going to keep bringing up the mud about Ayers, what about Keating? Is Sen McCain a criminal?  Evaluate that.


Sen. McCain's associations with Keating -- which included running some interference with S&L regulators (one of the things federal legislators are expected to do on behalf of constituents) -- were thoroughly investigated as part of the Keating Five scandal.  He was cleared of any criminal wrong-doing, but his judgment was harshly criticized by the investigators.  McCain himself said his efforts on behalf of Keating were a terrible mistake on his part and he seems to have learned from that episode of poor judgment from over 20 years ago.

FWIW, I have never voted for Sen. McCain when he has appeared on my ballot.

Pax, Steven+
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Steven Tibbetts

Quote from: jrubyaz on November 16, 2008, 06:03:39 PM
I can't defend abortion from any possible Christian perspective. By the same token, neither can I can defend  war, torture, malnutrition, or homelessness from any possible Christian perspective. 

Hmm.  I'm trying to imagine someone performing/committing malnutrition or homelessness.

It is worth noting that the ELCA Statement on Abortion endorses legal restrictions on the abortions, though you won't hear ELCA lobbyists mentioning that.

spt+
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Gary Schnitkey

Quote from: G. Erdner, a Layman on November 16, 2008, 02:07:53 PM
Quote from: Gary Schnitkey on November 16, 2008, 12:39:47 PM
If you can make an argument for allowing unlimited abortion from a Christian perspective, I would like to hear it (I mean that sincerely.) 

That isn't all that difficult. There are many acts of sin that, from a Christian perspective, we do not outlaw. We "allow" people to worship Satan, in that there is no law against worshiping Satan. We "allow" people to take the Lord's name in vain, in that there is no law against blasphemy in America. We "allow" people to dishonor their parents, as there is no law forbidding that act of sin. We "allow" people to covet totally unchecked by any sort of legal constraints.


Except, of course, that no one dies in anyone of the items you mentioned above.  You can worship "Satin" and not cause direct harm to me.  In a free society with limited government, laws generally are put in place to prevent individuals from doing harm to others.  In your examples, harm is not done directly to others (You can argue with me about indirect effects).

You have also failed to give a "Christian" perspective for abortion.  I would suspect that most liberal Christians who support abortion would generally have to view an unborn child as a not being a person.

Scott5

Quote from: G. Erdner, a Layman on November 16, 2008, 05:54:36 PM
I believe that is what I answered. An unlimited abortion license (in the sense that "license" means no legal prohibitions) can be defended by Christians on the grounds that it is not the church's rightful position to turn to the state to regulate sin. As I said, I do not agree with that position, but I understand it.

One of the basic roles of the state is to provide a space for life to exist.  That's why it can outlaw murder.  Yup.  It can do that.  Protecting the life of the born and unborn is well within the purview of the kingdom of the left.

Lutheran_Lay_Leader

Quote from: Gary Schnitkey on November 17, 2008, 06:28:42 AM
Quote from: G. Erdner, a Layman on November 16, 2008, 02:07:53 PM
Quote from: Gary Schnitkey on November 16, 2008, 12:39:47 PM
If you can make an argument for allowing unlimited abortion from a Christian perspective, I would like to hear it (I mean that sincerely.) 

That isn't all that difficult. There are many acts of sin that, from a Christian perspective, we do not outlaw. We "allow" people to worship Satan, in that there is no law against worshiping Satan. We "allow" people to take the Lord's name in vain, in that there is no law against blasphemy in America. We "allow" people to dishonor their parents, as there is no law forbidding that act of sin. We "allow" people to covet totally unchecked by any sort of legal constraints.


Except, of course, that no one dies in anyone of the items you mentioned above.  You can worship "Satin" and not cause direct harm to me.  In a free society with limited government, laws generally are put in place to prevent individuals from doing harm to others.  In your examples, harm is not done directly to others (You can argue with me about indirect effects).

You have also failed to give a "Christian" perspective for abortion.  I would suspect that most liberal Christians who support abortion would generally have to view an unborn child as a not being a person.


Prohibitions against actions that cause others to die are not uniquely Christian. Muslims, Hindus, and atheists also support laws against actions that cause others to die. Murder was a crime in Soviet Russia, and it a crime in Red China -- neither of which are bastions of Christianity. So, one cannot make an argument that laws against actions that cause death are "Christian", except as coincidence.

And I did not fail at anything. There is no Christian justification for having an abortion. There is no Christian justification for regarding abortion as anything but an act of sin. I said as much. You asked about "unlimited abortion license". Those were your exact words. I was careful to point out that I understood your question using the term "license" to mean "no legal prohibitions", which were my exact words. I presented the only possible Christian justification for "unlimited abortion license" meaning the preservation of the status quo that says there may be no laws passed prohibiting abortion. That is what it appears that you asked for, and that is what I provided.

I also asked you to give some sort of example of "what 'those same arguments' you are referring to are?" Don't presume to take me to task and say that I failed to answer your question when I did do so to the best of my understanding of your question, and when I directly asked you for further clarification which you failed to provide. Unless, of course, your statement "view an unborn child as a not being a person" is the straw man you are attempting to knock down.

And I especially don't appreciate being responded to when repeating something that I specifically stated was a case that others might make that I do not personally agree with as if I had to somehow defend that position. I get the impression that you're simply challenging someone to step forward and do intellectual battle with you by taking a side you wish to fight against. I don't wish to play that game.

jrubyaz

Steven,

Certainly, as with abortion, government policies, laws, judiciary and Presidents can either encourage  or ignore these things. That was the point.

Jeff Ruby


Quote from: Pr. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS on November 17, 2008, 03:36:10 AM
Quote from: jrubyaz on November 16, 2008, 06:03:39 PM
I can't defend abortion from any possible Christian perspective. By the same token, neither can I can defend  war, torture, malnutrition, or homelessness from any possible Christian perspective. 

Hmm.  I'm trying to imagine someone performing/committing malnutrition or homelessness.

It is worth noting that the ELCA Statement on Abortion endorses legal restrictions on the abortions, though you won't hear ELCA lobbyists mentioning that.

spt+

peter_speckhard

Whatever justification there might be for being pro-choice on abortion ought logically to apply to being pro-choice on child rape and incest. Yet I never hear anyone say he's personally opposed to incest and wouldn't commit it but also wouldn't want to force his religiously based morality on everyone else via the government. No child chooses to be a victim of abortion or incest, and therefore the "pro-choice" take on the issue simply fails to take into account half the picture.

As for the topic of this thread, we pray for PE Obama in very general terms in the service, of course, usually they our leaders be given the wisdom and courage to lead as God would have them lead. 

jrubyaz

Peter,

Just to clarify your own position, if the mother is dying, are you opposed to abortion even if an abortion  would save her life? ? I think titles like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" cover a broad range of understandings that are painted with a very broad brush.

Jeff Ruby


Quote from: peter_speckhard on November 17, 2008, 09:52:43 AM
Whatever justification there might be for being pro-choice on abortion ought logically to apply to being pro-choice on child rape and incest. Yet I never hear anyone say he's personally opposed to incest and wouldn't commit it but also wouldn't want to force his religiously based morality on everyone else via the government. No child chooses to be a victim of abortion or incest, and therefore the "pro-choice" take on the issue simply fails to take into account half the picture.

As for the topic of this thread, we pray for PE Obama in very general terms in the service, of course, usually they our leaders be given the wisdom and courage to lead as God would have them lead. 

Scott5

Quote from: jrubyaz on November 17, 2008, 10:34:17 AM
Peter,

Just to clarify your own position, if the mother is dying, are you opposed to abortion even if an abortion  would save her life? ? I think titles like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" cover a broad range of understandings that are painted with a very broad brush.

Jeff Ruby

While I'm not Peter (I'll bet my drive to the basket is better), in previous discussions most folks from the "pro-life" side on this board have said that in instances where there is no hope for the baby given the current state of medical technology and where the mother's life is truly at risk (an ectopic pregnancy being the prime example where both of these come together), the baby may have to be killed to avoid the death of both mother and baby.

Here, "abortion" hardly seems to fit as the proper term.

It also makes stark the mourning involved in the passing of the baby's life.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Sc ott Yak imow on November 17, 2008, 07:19:39 AM
Quote from: G. Erdner, a Layman on November 16, 2008, 05:54:36 PM
I believe that is what I answered. An unlimited abortion license (in the sense that "license" means no legal prohibitions) can be defended by Christians on the grounds that it is not the church's rightful position to turn to the state to regulate sin. As I said, I do not agree with that position, but I understand it.

One of the basic roles of the state is to provide a space for life to exist.  That's why it can outlaw murder.  Yup.  It can do that.  Protecting the life of the born and unborn is well within the purview of the kingdom of the left.

Don't forget that the kingdom of the left can also legalize murder: exterminating "undesirables" who could be criminals (e.g., murders), Jews, the handicapped, Native Americans, the elderly, etc.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk