The more we legislate Christianity, the less powerful it is as a force of real change in person's life.
This is why legalism is so damaging to the reputations of some Pentecostal churches: when you force righteousness, it is no longer righteousness.
Don't you see that as Christians, the life we live now is not a life lived in the confines of various laws written to keep our lives good and pleasing to the Lord? The basis of of Christianity is relationship-- it is His love for us first and then our love for Him. So it is out of LOVE and DEVOTION, we strive to live our lives in a way that is pleasing to Him, not out of adherence to the law.
So for people who are unsaved, forcing them to live their lives by a code of laws that we can not even measure up to in the end is not realistic.
Although many of our founding fathers considered themselves Christian, our country was never meant to be a Theocracy. We need to remember that when in our religious fervor, we try to Christianize a heathen nation without a relationship with Christ.
My friend, if you keep reading, you will come to a post of mine where I suggest that since ours is a secular society, this is about extending the same rights to the unborn human that you and I enjoy... first and foremost, LIFE....
the argument isnt simply one of Christian value, althought I belive all Christians have the same right as everyone else in this nation, to bring their beliefs to the table....
the argument is one of liberty in a secular society. When we refuse to protect the most helpless among us, we do not deserve liberty.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
My friend, if you keep reading, you will come to a post of mine where I suggest that since ours is a secular society, this is about extending the same rights to the unborn human that you and I enjoy... first and foremost, LIFE....
the argument isnt simply one of Christian value, althought I belive all Christians have the same right as everyone else in this nation, to bring their beliefs to the table....
the argument is one of liberty in a secular society. When we refuse to protect the most helpless among us, we do not deserve liberty.
Yeah I didn't realize just how many posts there in this thread already....
Question: Do you think there is a situation is which abortion should be permissible?
If you have already answered his, please answer it again as I do not have the patience to scroll through all the pages of this 50+ page thread.
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
Your question wasn't based on a real situation. Answer reality.
You are tactfully avoiding my question, and it most certainly could be based on a real situation.
When does sanctioned murder end? When the victim is 9 months old?
How about we extend it to 1 year old, that way if the child is physically handicapped, mentally challenged, just plain mean, etc, that way, the mother can decide within the first year whether or not to have the child euthanized.
My question to you is plain and simple - when does the opportunity for legally sanctioned murder end, in your mind?
__________________ "Many people view their relationship with God like a "color by number" picture. It's easier to let someone else define the boundaries, tell them which blanks to fill in, and what color to use than it is for them to take a blank canvas and seek inspiration from the Source in order to paint their own masterpiece"
The essence of Law isn't morality. It's social stability. Many Laws aren't moral. It's not moral to allow Playboy magazine to be produced and sold....but in a free country the choice of reading material is something we just have to leave in the hands of individuals.
Who defines what social stability is?
Isn't the idea of social stability based on someone's morality? After all, "social stability" is so vague. Our idea of what constitutes this notion is arbitrary, at best.
What criteria do we use to determine that murder, theft, and child abuse are wrong?
The law is based, in principle, on someone's moral views.
I think the basis of law was morality but as they discovered that everyone does not believe the same things they have had to continue to tweak it to make it fair. If one religious group believes that you must live in a windowless box with no electricity, it is not fair to other people to have those beliefs forced on them, just as it is not fair to force the religious group in the windowless box to come out of the box...
You are tactfully avoiding my question, and it most certainly could be based on a real situation.
When does sanctioned murder end? When the victim is 9 months old?
How about we extend it to 1 year old, that way if the child is physically handicapped, mentally challenged, just plain mean, etc, that way, the mother can decide within the first year whether or not to have the child euthanized.
My question to you is plain and simple - when does the opportunity for legally sanctioned murder end, in your mind?
I don't see it as "sanctioning murder". I see it as an issue where a woman's life and/or health may be at issue. I believe that the Government is incapable of properly defining, policing, and enforcing restrictions. If my wife were on the table and there was the possibility of needing an abortion and doctors were divided or the option were to be seriously considered, I’d much rather that decision belong to me and my wife, not some Government bureaucrat who might fight to deny her an abortion and as a result possibly kill her, just to score points with the anti-abortion lobby. It’s my wife, my child, and as I see it, our responsibility and our choice. Would I support my wife’s choice of abortion? Only if her life and/or health were on the line. Therefore, though I know that the choice might be abused, I think the most equitable position is one of choice that places the responsibility to choose morally on the individual.
Life isn’t some clean, Leave It To Beaver, movie. Life is ugly and hard choices have to be made. In war, a soldier has to kill other soldiers. We execute criminals, although troubling estimates have presented us with the possibility that we’ve wrongfully executed Americans. A man has the right to buy a gun and shoot to kill to defend his property….even if there is the possibility of shooting his own son sneaking into the house one night. Life is ugly. I don’t see things like they are, should be, or ever will be a moral utopia where all things are always cut and dry, black and white. Some would ban handguns because they believe it would save lives. Some would outlaw the death penalty because they believe it would save innocent lives. Some would take an absolutist position of pacifism regarding war to save lives. Some would ban abortion to save lives. Some would ban drugs to save lives. Some would ban alcohol to save lives. Some would ban fast food to save lives. Some would ban all pest control cleaners to save lives. Some would ban gasoline engines to save lives. Some would ban oil factories from drilling and producing oil to save lives. Some would…
Let’s get over ourselves and allow individuals to choose when it comes to difficult issues that may affect their very life and health. Will some abuse this choice? Yes. But they will answer to an almighty God who will judge justly. Should we advocate choosing life? YES. Churches and private entities should continue educating women about abortion, contraceptives, family planning, aid in adoption services, and provide social relief for those in crisis pregnancies. The private sector can do more to reduce the number of abortions than Government can. If you don’t believe me….consider the fact that the abortion rate (based on maternal morbidity) was higher before Roe…and still nothing Government has done has significantly reduced the number of abortions. BUT, abortion clinics have closed in communities where women are educated and private entities aid women in crisis pregnancies. Women aren’t choosing abortion as much as they used to. That’s our doing….not the Government’s. Private solutions work.
I don't see it as "sanctioning murder". I see it as an issue where a woman's life and/or health may be at issue. I believe that the Government is incapable of properly defining, policing, and enforcing restrictions. If my wife were on the table and there was the possibility of needing an abortion and doctors were divided or the option were to be seriously considered, I’d much rather that decision belong to me and my wife, not some Government bureaucrat who might fight to deny her an abortion and as a result possibly kill her, just to score points with the anti-abortion lobby. It’s my wife, my child, and as I see it, our responsibility and our choice. Would I support my wife’s choice of abortion? Only if her life and/or health were on the line. Therefore, though I know that the choice might be abused, I think the most equitable position is one of choice that places the responsibility to choose morally on the individual.
Life isn’t some clean, Leave It To Beaver, movie. Life is ugly and hard choices have to be made. In war, a soldier has to kill other soldiers. We execute criminals, although troubling estimates have presented us with the possibility that we’ve wrongfully executed Americans. A man has the right to buy a gun and shoot to kill to defend his property….even if there is the possibility of shooting his own son sneaking into the house one night. Life is ugly. I don’t see things like they are, should be, or ever will be a moral utopia where all things are always cut and dry, black and white. Some would ban handguns because they believe it would save lives. Some would outlaw the death penalty because they believe it would save innocent lives. Some would take an absolutist position of pacifism regarding war to save lives. Some would ban abortion to save lives. Some would ban drugs to save lives. Some would ban alcohol to save lives. Some would ban fast food to save lives. Some would ban all pest control cleaners to save lives. Some would ban gasoline engines to save lives. Some would ban oil factories from drilling and producing oil to save lives. Some would…
Let’s get over ourselves and allow individuals to choose when it comes to difficult issues that may affect their very life and health. Will some abuse this choice? Yes. But they will answer to an almighty God who will judge justly. Should we advocate choosing life? YES. Churches and private entities should continue educating women about abortion, contraceptives, family planning, aid in adoption services, and provide social relief for those in crisis pregnancies. The private sector can do more to reduce the number of abortions than Government can. If you don’t believe me….consider the fact that the abortion rate (based on maternal morbidity) was higher before Roe…and still nothing Government has done has significantly reduced the number of abortions. BUT, abortion clinics have closed in communities where women are educated and private entities aid women in crisis pregnancies. Women aren’t choosing abortion as much as they used to. That’s our doing….not the Government’s. Private solutions work.
Hey Jesse Jackson...er I mean Chris...great non answer. Did you think if you talked long enough we would forget the question you always avoid answering?
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
If you vote for the man who condones abortion you are as guilty as he.
You can make all the accusations you want, try and convict me in the court of opinion, and my conscience would still be clear. The decision to abort or not to abort is best left in the hands of individuals, not lawmakers.
Linear Mode
