‘Unholy collusion’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The fate of Donald Trump’s presidency transcends politics. Moral and ethical concerns about the president pose a test of religious principles for people of faith. The soul of American evangelicalism is at stake.
Evangelicals’ loyalty to a corrupt and immoral president has damaged the reputation of Christianity in the United States.
Yet a chance exists for a measure of redemption. After the House of Representatives voted for impeachment on Dec. 18, the hope to restore a high ethical standard for the presidency lies with those who call for removing Trump from office. The method of removal — by the Senate in an impeachment trial or by the voters in November — is less important than the outcome and that Christians who oppose Trump take a public stand.
As Anabaptists, we distance ourselves from political loyalties and stand ready to critique the actions of any elected official. When President Clinton was impeached 20 years ago, MWR advocated censure by Congress, in addition to impeachment but not removal from office, as a “permanent black mark on his place in history.” Today, the question of whether Christians should expect moral leadership from secular authorities remains an important topic for dialogue among people of faith.
That dialogue got a jolt of energy last month when a leading voice in Christian media rebuked evangelicals’ submission to Trump. Christianity Today drew huge attention when it published an editorial calling for the president’s removal from office.
The magazine characterized the case against Trump as a broad judgment of deficient moral leadership, beyond any specific offense. The abuse of power by attempting to coerce a foreign leader to discredit a political opponent is only one example of ethical failure. Trump “has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationships with women, about which he remains proud,” editor-in-chief Mark Galli wrote. “His Twitter feed alone — with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies and slanders — is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.”
If Trump could be impeached for ethical and temperamental unfitness to lead, it might have happened long ago. Risking war by ordering the assassination of Iran’s top general is the latest and most dangerous example of impulsive, reckless action.
The evangelical conversion to Trumpism is not complete. Red Letter Christians, a progressive-leaning evangelical group, expressed its dissent after the Jan. 3 rally that launched “Evangelicals for Trump.” “We must not lend support to compromised evangelicals with our silence,” said Lisa Sharon Harper, representing Red Letter Christians. “History will remember this unholy collusion between white evangelicals and Donald Trump.”
Others who insist character matters include secular conservatives who’ve organized the Lincoln Project to oppose Trump’s re-election. Presidents “become part of our national character,” the group’s leader say. “Their commitment to order, civility and decency is reflected in American society.” Instead of these virtues, America today reflects Trump’s manner of coarse attack, shameless falsehood and stirring of racial and religious division. Or, perhaps it is Trump who reflects the normalization of these sins, a consequence rather than a cause.
As many evangelicals accept unstable and amoral leadership, diverse people of faith claim the conservative task of trying to restore what has been lost.
Tags
Who is online
220 visitors
The evangelical conversion to Trumpism is not complete. Red Letter Christians, a progressive-leaning evangelical group, expressed its dissent after the Jan. 3 rally that launched “Evangelicals for Trump.” “We must not lend support to compromised evangelicals with our silence,” said Lisa Sharon Harper, representing Red Letter Christians. “History will remember this unholy collusion between white evangelicals and Donald Trump.”
(emphasis mine)
Hypocrites one and all. They are beyond faux christian it's not funny, it's sad
I have no respect for Christians that voted for this guy
What are his sins of commission and omission?
What actions has he taken that you disagree with?
Why should Christians support any of the Democrat contenders?
no real christians voted for that pompous asshole except for the most gullible and ignorant among them
That's nice.
Prove it.
Funny how the ones who have nothing, squeal 'prove it'
Nice comeback. Consider it would require proving a God exists, then proving that God is the God Christians worship, then proving that God considers any human a "real" follower of theirs doing exactly what that God desires, you may not want to hold your breath for proof...
You'll likely want to just chalk it up to a loose generality, much like those used by many professed "real Christians" who support this completely corrupt inept moron of a president they elected but have such oversized and unwarranted pride, or perhaps such narrow minds and throats, they refuse to swallow it.
Those same Christians called Bill Clinton an adulterer and much worse but have nothing to say about trmp's indiscretions
You could have simply said you couldn't prove his statement.
Short, to the point, and extremely accurate.
No need for the rest.
no need. your response just did that for me.
Or, in truer words, you simply can't.
That is what I figured when I asked, but figured I'd give you a shot at it anyways.
golly, same thing happens to me when I demand proof of god from a thumper moron. all hat, no cattle.
I have no respect for anyone who voted for tRump
Maybe you shouldn't be asking morons to enlighten you then.
Doesn't seem like it is working out very well.
Iran's down, China's on and the Dow's through the roof. I love me.
'I love me'
[Deleted]
Good times!
It already has been, starting in 2016 and ongoing since.
Because we were supposed to vote for that tramp, the wicked witch instead? Really? You could make a case we should have not opted to vote at all or vote 3rd party but then that thing would have become President and none of our goals or objectives would Have been achieved.
WWJD?
Mrs Clinton is a staid church going Methodist matron who has been married for forty five years to the same man. Hardly a "Tramp". Unlike Melania though she never posed nude or did porn. Bill was flat broke when they married so she surely didn't marry him for his money...
With Tramps, er, Trumps in the White House you had best not throw stones.
How would Hillary Clinton be described if she were a Republican. Or the reaction to Trump if he had run as a Democrat. Would a D Trump be held in such high regard if he had won with that wrong letter next to his name?
Gee and only if be of you managed to reply without using demeaning and denigrating words to call others and it wasn't Texas. That says something right there.
Now, now.
I am sure that the name-caller is doing his or her very, very best.
We should applaud the attempt--just not the results.
I find it amusing how so many people who seemingly support a woman's rights also feel free to criticize a woman's choices.
I know some we can say that about when God is the direct conversation
not vote for Hillary. I voted 3rd party last time but won’t make that mistake again.
Bill Clinton said Hillary got more you know what over the years than he did.
huh? is that comment supposed to make sense?
And you are in position to make the call between "real christians" and "fake christians" how again?
I'm sure he knows a few Christians.
Doesn't that make him an expert?
You make no sense as usual
[Deleted]
ezpz. please refer to pertinent scripture if there's any questions.
what scripture? I'm questioning your "authority" to declare somebody a "real" or "fake" christian.
Bingo.
[Deleted]
,,,see the same from many all over the internet. Good call devangelical.
The Bible does says what the marks of a Christian are...
...here is an example...
Galatians 5:22-23 New International Version (NIV)
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Please refer to Mr. Hampton's comment at .
Anyone who has ever read any of the Red letters in the New Testament should have a pretty good idea of what a real Christian is.
You can read minds, now, can ya, Wally?
Which version. The bible as a whole has more edits than a hollywood script. It's also laughable that you refer me to a book of stories that has been used to justify the slaughter and enslavement of millions.
What part of the bible called for:
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
"Moral and ethical concerns about the president pose a test of religious principles for people of faith."
And the Immoral and unethical things this Pres. has done while in office..... compared to what other Politicians and other Presidents have done in office.....is what again ?
I swear that the only thing that I dislike more than a true blue secular progressive believer is an establishment republican or former Republican now “independent” never Trumper who would rather burn the Republican Party Down to the ground than give its base any power any time. They should just leave and never come back. Let them make common cause with secular progressives
So, you dislike fellow believers?
I totally agree. Everyone who is even slightly politically to the left of you should abandon the damn gop right now. After all, there is reason for them to stick around the gop where you do not fit anymore and where they are not appreciated...
That would means at least about 30,000,000 or so more formerly gop voters abandoning the damn gop. I guess the Democrats will have to take all there votes instead now...
[Deleted]
I swear that the only thing that I dislike more than a true blue secular progressive believer
---------------------------------
So, you dislike fellow believers?
JOHN 13:35
By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.
Oops! HA must have skipped over that verse
I assume you are referring to "Good Christians" such as Ted Cruz.? Here's what Cruz said about Donald Trump:
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has staked his campaign on Indiana -- where polls show him trailing Donald Trump by double digits.
And as voters head to the polls Tuesday, Cruz launched into a seven minute rant on Trump, accusing the front-runner of being a "pathological liar," a "narcissist" and "utterly amoral."
There would be virtually no Republicans leaving as I’m to the left of many Republicans and very few abandoned the party because Trump won the nomination. I was for another outsider, Ben Carson in 2016
Actually what Never Trumpers should do is "go get there brand back" starting this fall! Give it Trump—Never!!!
A secular Progressive true believer is by definition not a fellow believer in Christ.
Baloney, who are you to say who is a true believer or not. You don't know what others believe and doesn't matter what political persuasion a person is. You are NOT God
jesus to thumpers at the pearly gates - "I don't know you"
Next person in line, holding a rainbow cake...
Come on in, join the party.
A secular Progressive true believer is by definition not a fellow believer in Christ.
interesting that I’ve never read anything remotely close to that in the Bible. You’re in for a surprise when ya realize that your, and God’s definitions don’t align.
Parse the sentence also: What can a "secular Progressive [+] true believer" be?
1. This is the damage, the rot, that occurs when people listen to corrupting influences which direct them to think shallow and not deeply. That any set, collection, or group of believers will accept what Donald Trump defines is a proper believer stuns the mind!
2. That Donald Trump is indirectly acceptable, while progressive believers are considered personal non grata with some evangelicals speaks volumes about the wrongness of this!
It is a race to the bottom then, so who do we employ next, It is Me? According to the way you see it going: How much lower shall we go; you do realize that it can get worse, yes?
Their reputation was not exactly stellar to begin with.
And it was still better than who he ran against.
Angry rhetoric anchored in thin air.
Or vote for a candidate that is pro [Deleted]
Such a conundrum for Mennonites and other Evangelicals .....
Awesome post in its entirety. 👍
I think this article misrepresents the dilemma Christians face concerning Trump. It puts the dilemma in terms of personal worthiness of Trump, the man, for the position of President. How, the article implies, can a moral Christian vote for such a reprehensible man? In order to begin to repair the reputation of Christendom we must get this man out of the Presidential office, goes the thinking. This is myopic, at best.
The Bible is full of imperfect people that God uses in order to accomplish His goals. Moses was a murderer. Jacob was a liar, manipulator and cheat. God even called Pharaoh and other enemies of the Hebrews His servants. The point is that God will work out His plan regardless of the qualifications of His tools. That is to say, regardless of what we may think about the moral character of His chosen tools. The Christian needs to keep this in mind.
This isn't to say that the Christian should vote for just anyone. Fortunately, we don't have to. The reality is, there's only one of two possible choices in an election. Sure, there's always more than two candidates but that's a technicality. Only one of the two main party candidates has a chance of actually attaining the office.
That said, the dilemma isn't whether voting for Trump, the man, is moral or not. I think most Christians recognize that Trump is, in and of himself, not a particularly moral person on the Christian scale. The real dilemma for the Christian is, which candidate will act in ways that most effect our desires for our country. For instance, which candidate will take actions concerning issues that will most align with our values? Will they be anti-abortion? How will they address the question of religious freedom and what that freedom looks like? What kind of person, along with their values, would the candidate fill the judiciary with? And many other issues.
It does no good, in my opinion, to reject a candidate simply because you don't like them as a person. You may very well feel good and pat yourself on the back for not voting for a candidate because you don't like them, morally, but in doing so you are leaving all the other issues by the wayside. You might be able to say to yourself, well, I helped prevent such a morally deficient person into office, but did you really? If, by not voting for that person, you allowed into office someone who supports the things you abhor morally, are you not responsible for that? That's the cost for preferring to feel good about yourself.
In the end, I think the Christian would do well to realize that we are not, nor should we, vote for the man. We should vote for his policy or against it.
You're suggesting that the man/woman can be viewed as separate from their policies. That's ludicrous.
Why?
Why not? Trump's no good unholy policies are Trump's awful godforsaken policies. He owns them. Especially when he contravenes longstanding proven practices and established good standards. Trump went out of his way to pick Department heads who are steadfastly opposed to the missions of the departments they are to lead. Betsy Devos is opposed to public education. Ben Carson is opposed to affordable housing programs. Rick Perry is opposed to environmental standards. Mike Pompao is not even a diplomat and Bill Barr is plainly not interested in justice. It is all Trump's ballgame...
No it’s not. One can vote for a person because of their ideas and policies instead of personal matters. If it were ludicrous as you said, Clinton would be our President now.
So if Lucifer ran and said all the same shit Trump said, you would vote foe him?
You did say "One can vote for a person because of their ideas and policies instead of personal matters"
I really want to see this "defense."
So basically if w reelect fat fuck, we will be undoing the US government.
Like what Trump's idol Putin is doing in Russia.
Because you are ultimately the sum total of your moral or immoral actions.
While I generally agree with your statement I'm not sure who the "you" refers to in your statement. Are you referring to the candidate or the person deciding whom to vote for?
If you mean the voter I would like to reiterate that the choice goes beyond the apparent moral fitness of the candidate. How has one succeeded morally by not voting for a candidate one find morally objectionable in his behavior if it increases the likelihood of a candidate who's policies (some of them) one finds morally invalid?
For example let's assume that Elizabeth Warren is the democratic nominee against Trump. Further, let's assume Evangelical Christians vote as a block for one or the other (because generally, that is what the point of the article is). Finally, let's take abortion rights as a policy issue.
The question, then, is how Christians can claim to have acted morally in not voting for Trump when not doing so will almost certainly result in greater efforts to strengthen the ability to murder unwanted babies? (You might have an issue with my putting it in those terms but it is valid as that is the way most of Christianity sees the issue) And this is just one issue.
This is my problem with the article. It myopically looks at the issue as only about Trump. The issue is much larger than that. Basically, which of two choices is the least evil as pertains to a Christian worldview.
Actually, you would take the broad view if this was about another moderate president who is of a better character and liberal with his or her policies?
How about a former president who did not act on narrowing or ending abortions; but, weighed in the balance, was a stellar president for the country and a first of his race? What is your opinion of the policies of former President Obama. Did/do you see him as a boogey man in ways similar to your fellow republicans who continue to demonize his name and record (Including Donald Trump)?
The deeper issue is, there are people in our country of diversity ethnic groups and races, who wish for life choices you (or I) don't and won't choose for ourselves. And yet a certain type of evangelical appears into the market with intentions of pushing one agenda far and beyond the pail on all us others.
Afterwards, Donald Trump is given a title (through hook or crook) and he is told to metaphorically set on a white horse and go forth conquering in the name of conservativism and largely white evangelicals.
Do no pretend that this "earthly conquering king" is doing good for the masses of the citizenry. Your crooked king is using your so called, "goodwill" to solidify his own power structure. Your crooked king is manipulating you even as you use him.
Because conservatives are experiencing somethings that they have thirsted after for long, long, years; you all have mistaken the hand that is supplying you as bought into your concept of Jesus. It is a big mistake on your parts!
Remember this, Donald Trump when asked once before about it - did not understand why he needed to "repent" or "be forgiven." Why? Because Donald Trump does not accept that a man should humble himself before God or anybody else—including right-wing evangelicals.
Conservatives "crowned" Trump as their king and sword. You will catch it trying to get both title and weapon back from him. Now this man has pissed and crapped his presidency, all in an effort to give you what want, and conservatives are standing behind him with a steady hand on the clean-up supplies!
Other parties in the country are not confused. If President Donald Trump has messed himself up in his first term; only a foolish group of people would be willing to give him full reign over the country for another set of years when he is uncompletely unbridled from the Rule of Law and without personal constraint and without shame.
Lucifer is not a Person.
But he is one of God's creations
True. He is an imaginary character.
Shore i M
He’s an evil angel. The leader of his pack.
What's he done specifically that's so evil? Especially in comparison to the evils god has done?
God has not done any evil at any time. Period. All evil that has ever happened in the universe traces back to Lucifer who is now called the devil or Satan.
Genocide isn't evil to you? Acts of terrorism? Because those things tend to fall under the "evil" category.
I'm still waiting for you specify what Satan has actually done that's evil. Mere accusations mean nothing unless you have something to back it up.
You call acts of genocide and terrorism are evil acts and accuse God of committing them., yet imply that Satan has done none of it. I will flatly say you are wrong and both of those actwere were the result of actions taken and committed by none other Satan.
An unsupported declaration.
Prove me wrong then
That's not how this works. You made the claim; it's incumbent on you to back it up.
I expect you'll have some trouble, as you'll first have to prove the existence of Satan. You know you can't, which is why you attempt to shift burden of proof to me. It reveals that you know your case is weak.
You made a positive assertion that genocide and terrorism are acts of Satan. Okay. How do you know this? What evidence led you to that conclusion?
As an example of why that is illogical, I declare that Trump sold his soul to the devil in return for the presidency. Prove me wrong.
I know it the same way Gordy a no d others of you know it was God's doing.
Don't you?
Either outright committed it or sanctioned/condoned it.
So answer the question: What has Satan done that is so terrible, especially compared to what god has done as far as evil acts go?
That's nice. Prove it! The bible tells of what god did and it supports my assertion with multiple examples. What did Satan do?
Prove yourself right first!
Would you mind restating that in a more coherent manner? Thank you
Gordy doesn't believe God exists, and therefore doesn't hold him guilty of anything.
Well others will refer you to the Bible where God explicitly commits these acts. But nowhere in the Bible do you find Satan doing it.
Since the Bible defines the characters of God and Satan, one can make statements about said characters based on the Bible. Just like one can make statements of characters in any book.
You have thus not answered my question. Now that I explained how others can speak of what God did it is up to you to back up your claim. Good luck.
In truth....Trump sold his soul to the Devil for money and fame loonng before he ever thought about the Presidency. His personal history attests to that.
there is nothing you secular progressives can say or do to shake our faith in our God or to deflect blame away from your Satan.
You remember that when you accuse somebody else of having a closed mind.
One's mind has to be open before it can be closed. I don't see that is the case.
I see what you mean, but I think I'm going to have to respectfully disagree here. The entire point of religious indoctrination is to prevent one from opening one's mind to doubts. There is a reason religious instruction is carried on from early childhood - to keep the mind closed from early life onwards.
That makes no sense (big surprise). You are accusing secular progressives of believing in and supporting Satan. Think about that for a second ... figure out why that is ridiculous.
That makes no sense and has no relevance to what Sandy said. She said if one makes a claim, they need to back it up. So I'm not sure how you interpret that to think someone is trying shake your faith.
That's his MO - post declarations with little relevance but a lot of defiance against imagined persecution, copiously. Rinse, repeat.
The same thing happened in ancient Israel.
People wanted a leader that God din't want them to have. He (King Saul) was immoral, and corrupt, and God warned them that it was not yet time for his leader to take Kingship. They were impatient and demanded a king anyways. God even said that in their choice, he knew they were rejecting him. He gave them what they wanted anyway.
It was one of only two times, that I know of, that the Bible says God was sorry for doing as he did. He regretted ever making Saul King. It caused strife and hardship for the entire kingdom, and lingered for years. The curse of his behavior as king stretched into every aspect of civic, economic, political and family life.
God very well allows humans to suffer the consequences of their own choices, even when it leads to destruction.
Not really comparable to what is happening now. In Israel's case, we know without doubt who God intended to be King in Israel. Himself. What was so bad about what the Israelites did was, basically, they were saying they wanted a mere man to be king over them rather than God. We don't have that in this situation. It isn't as if we know who God's choice is and Christians are attempting to reject God's choice.
This I agree with wholeheartedly. God quite often does just that and it may be that President Trump is just such an example. It also may be that Trump is president because he fulfills some purpose for which only God can see. Who knows except God?
But nobody else in Israel knew that.
What was so bad about what the Israelites did was, basically, they were saying they wanted a mere man to be king over them rather than God.
That was not all that was wrong with their choice. They were impatient as they wanted an earthly leader sooner rather than later. They were rejecting God sure, but in the same way that folks still today. Just as in ancient Israel, it came down to pragmatic, everyday matters.
The same way that political decisions effect things such as our livelihood, civic life, safety, justice, also effected the citizens of ancient Israel. It's not that they wished to worship a man as God, they wanted someone to tke care of the work of administration, They wanted protection from their enemies. They wanted to feed their families. ...and they decided that the way God was doing that, would be better if they had a human king doing that.
Trump fulfilling a godly purpose implies God ensured Trump was elected to fulfill said purpose. If free will is a gift from God why would God compromise free will and interfere with an election?
Is that one of those chicken or egg questions?
I do not know; depends on how you are interpreting this.
From my perspective, if God grants free will and then sporadically injects Himself to make decisions for us, then that is not really free will. If God is actively directing the show then at least admit that free will is only a partial or limited free will. (Which, by the way, it must be anyway since our biology and environment hugely influence / force most of our decisions.)
What you wrote is 'conflicted' plain and simple. President Donald Trump is using the office of president to undermine this republic as it stands. And conservatives can only see their 'goals' accomplished as the trade off. The Democrats have presented that there is room for everybody's ideas and attitudes at the public table in the name of diversity and a greater society. That proposal is anathema to republicans and conservatives, who think themselves doing God a favor to force people outside of their way of thinking-secular or religious-to obey a conservative worldview and nothing but it.
Actually, Christians, and you and me, know that God hates liars, and cheaters of widows and orphans. Why does God hate liars? Because liars are running away from the truth (the truth is not in them). Why does God hate cheaters of widows and orphans? Because among mankind, these ones prayers go unanswered.
This president does not repent or ask to be forgiven for any action and set of activities he engages in. Thus, making himself a liar and a cheater who is arrogant enough to think that God is like him. That is hubris.
As you well know God loves the humble. Why does God love the humble. Because humble people are teachable. Stiff-necked people persist in handling matters in their way irrespective of humility.
"Our Values"?
What is "the Christian View" on abortion and the issue of a woman's right to choose?
It appears that you are making the assumption that "Christians" all have the same view on that issue-- which certainly not the case!
Okay. Please present your argument how God or the Bible supports "right to choose". Present a Biblical justification for it.
Does the Bible forbid abortions?
No, it does NOT, but it does give instructions on how to make a woman miscarry(abortion) if she is unfaithful.
Well, but that's the husband's choice. Totally ok for a man to want to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy occurring in his property's body. The property's views on the subject are irrelevant, Biblically speaking.
Is that your argument? That God or the Bible doesn't specifically forbid abortions?
Here is what the Christian view should be.
God obviously sees unborn children as people. I find it difficult to understand how anyone claiming to follow Christ, which is what being a Christian means, could see the so called "right to choose" as a God approved concept. How does one follow Christ yet reject his word on the matter?
The bible and God did NOT write our laws...you want to live by the bible, go live in the middle east where they live by theocracy or by an island and start your own theocracy because the US will never be ruled by theocracy
Don't like abortion, don't get one.
And you are the determiner of what a Christian's view should be why? Why is your interpretation of the Bible the only true interpretation? What makes you an expert & infallible? Are you God?
You asked me what the "Christian View" was. I did so. Apparently you don't disagree because you are attempting to change the subject.
Because God called me to follow Him. In order to do that I have to know who He is and what he wants.
Did not say it was. However, I did ask lady in black to provide Biblical support for abortion. I invited her to try because I don't think such a thing can be done, but if she could present a reasonable argument that was Biblically based, we could see whether or not my interpretation holds up.
I didn't claim either of those attributes. Further, it is not necessary to have such attributes in order to make a claim. That is, it is a logical fallacy you employ in order to dismiss my argument.
No.
Yeah you did.
You conveniently ignored part of her comment - the allusion to Biblical instructions for an abortifacient. Supposedly inspired by God himself.
Because it is irrelevant to the conversation as this example had to do with infidelity, not abortion. And even if it were relevant we see that God Himself is the one who judges, not the humans involved.
The Bible is irrelevant to Christianity?
Do tell.
I'm afraid I don't see where you think I made such a claim.
You choose to declare those verses irrelevant. They are in the Bible. You are therefore claiming that the Bible (well, a part you don't like, anyway) is irrelevant. AKA cherry picking.
Yep
You can interpret all you want, you can try to hide the fact that the bible condones abortion for an unfaithful wife. No where does it condemn abortion
Yahweh spoke to Moses and said,
12 'Speak to the Israelites and say: "If anyone has a wife who goes astray and is unfaithful to him,
13 if some other man sleeps with the woman without the husband's knowledge, and she secretly makes herself unclean, without any witness against her, and without anyone catching her in the act;
14 if, then, a spirit of suspicion comes over the husband and makes him suspicious of the wife who has disgraced herself, or again if this spirit of suspicion comes over him and makes him suspicious of his wife even when she is innocent,
15 the man will bring his wife before the priest, and on her behalf make an offering of one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal. He will not pour oil over it or put incense on it, because this is a cereal offering for a case of suspicion, a memorial offering to recall guilt to mind.
16 "The priest will then bring the woman forward and place her before Yahweh.
17 The priest will then take fresh water in an earthen jar, and on the water throw dust that he has taken from the floor of the Dwelling.
18 After he has placed the woman before Yahweh, he will unbind her hair and put the commemorative cereal offering (that is, the cereal offering for a case of suspicion) into her hands. In his own hands the priest will hold the water of bitterness and cursing.
19 "The priest will then put the woman on oath. He will say to her: If it is not true that a man has slept with you, that you have gone astray and made yourself unclean while under your husband's authority, may this water of bitterness and cursing do you no harm.
20 But if it is true that you have gone astray while under your husband's authority, that you have made yourself unclean and that a man other than your husband has slept with you . . .
21 Here the priest will impose an imprecatory oath on the woman. He will say to her: . . . May Yahweh make you the object of your people's execration and curses, by making your sexual organs shrivel and your belly swell!
22 May this water of cursing entering your bowels, make your belly swell and your sexual organs shrivel! To which the woman will reply: Amen! Amen!
23 "Having written these curses on a scroll and washed them off in the water of bitterness,
24 the priest will make the woman drink the water of bitterness and cursing; when the water of cursing enters into her, it will become bitter.
25 "The priest will then take the cereal offering for a case of suspicion from the woman's hands, and hold it up before Yahweh with a gesture of offering, and so carry it up to the altar.
26 He will take a handful of it as a memorial and burn it on the altar. "After this, he will make the woman drink the water.
27 After he has made her drink it, if it is true that she has made herself unclean and been unfaithful to her husband, the water of cursing then entering into her will indeed be bitter: her belly will swell and her sexual organs shrivel, and she will be an object of execration to her people.
28 But if she has not made herself unclean, but is clean, then she will go unscathed and will bear children.
29 "Such is the ritual in cases of suspicion, when a woman has gone astray and made herself unclean while under her husband's authority,
30 or when a spirit of suspicion has come over a man and made him suspicious of his wife. When a husband brings such a woman before Yahweh, the priest will apply this ritual to her in full.
31 The husband will be guiltless, but the woman will bear the consequences of her guilt." '
Uh, thanks? Where's the abortion part???
19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.” 23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
And you think this means the Bible condones abortions???
Do you think the Bible commands that which it does not condone?
That seems counterproductive, to say the least.
What is your interpretation for the parts in blue?:
21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.” 23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
Um, not sure where to go from here. I mean, this whole thing rests on marital unfaithfulness, not abortion. It's pretty self evident. So, presumably, if you think this is Biblical license to have abortions on demand then I guess you think you first have to marry someone, then be unfaithful to that man by having sex with some other man who may or may not have gotten you pregnant so that you can have an abortion. This seems logical to you?
Further, very few translations actually call for putting it as "miscarriage". Even so, we can't tell from the verses whether the accused is actually pregnant at the time. It is actually more likely that these verses is a curse against ever being able to conceive, let alone carry a baby to term.
Lastly, there's a big difference between a human getting an abortion on demand as opposed to God carrying out His judgement.
But none of this will make a difference to you, will it?
That's what you wish to focus on. It does not negate that the Bible contains commands to perform abortions.
A woman who is not pregnant cannot miscarry. Whether it is supposed to happen to an existing pregnancy or a future one, causing a woman to miscarry is an abortion.
So, where in the Bible does God forbid abortions specifically? We've already shown you where he commands them to be performed. Your claims that he forbids them are based on his supposed dislike for killing people, although he both kills people and commands that people be killed for him in great numbers. So, he doesn't seem to mind killing all that much. Only some life is precious, it seems.
No, actually, you haven't. You've just taken some scripture you found and warped it until it fits what you want it to. Good luck finding a Christian that agrees with your interpretation. Not really much point in continuing this.
All that sounds better than being stoned to death for adultry, don't you think?
Looks to me that you have taken the very same scripture and warped it to meet your needs. I have seen this quite a few times now. The most notable example is when one actually argues that this passage ...
... is not clear evidence that God condones slavery. That reading the Bible as a whole shows that God is actually against slavery, ...
Mosaic law revealed very brutal times where human beings were so naive and morally immature that they deemed the death penalty for relatively minor offenses. Amazing that people today cannot realize that a supreme entity that is perfect, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. would not likely demand such punishment. (Because if He did, there would be a lot of infidelity killing taking place right now.) That is, it is amazing that people cannot realize that the Bible is not divine but is merely words by ancient men pretending to be God.
I think it is far more logical for one to believe in a sentient creator but to stop there. If there is a sentient creator then nobody apparently knows anything about this entity. Nobody knows its plans (if any), wishes (if any), personality, moral positions, etc. All that we could know about this entity is inference based upon what it created. So best we spend our time marveling at the amazing universe in which we live and trying to understand the creator through what it created rather than pointlessly attempt to read divine meaning from errant, contradictory words of ancient men.
The bible specifically states that that life begins at first breath.. So even by the bible's standards, there are no, "unborn people".
I neither wrote nor interpreted the Bible. If there's any warping to be done, it wasn't by me. The words are there. It's not my fault you don't like them. Look to the source.
And many Christians don't really know all that much about their own scriptures, and don't really examine it objectively when they do. Many criticize (rightly) the treatment of women in Islam, but either don't know or disregard the fact that much of Sharia Law originated in Mosaic Law, which also treats women badly.
👍👏
So what you're saying is that Christians should abandon their moral standards for a candidate for a price. As long as they get something out of it, who cares what their candidate does, right? As long as they get conservative justices who are more likely to rule against Roe v Wade, then letting corruption run rampant in the administration is okay? As long as their President is pushing their religious freedom agenda then he's allowed to obstruct justice and abuse his power? The tales of people selling their souls to the devil aren't doing it for free, they believe they are getting something in return and, in their minds, often believe they will somehow come out on top, only to be slapped back to reality when they realize the price they paid wasn't worth what the devil gave them. While I don't believe in any actual devil, I do believe Christians who support dishonest Donald are effectively making a deal with as close as you can get to a devil in human form, and I have no doubt they will soon deeply regret making such a deal.
No, what I said was, when presented with two bad choices one should choose the lesser evil.
And Hillary was clearly to us by far the greater evil 🦹♀️
And that includes The Devil himself!
Of course, one should do both. Since when do Americans put people in power that are known liars cheats bigots and morons? That has never before been the "policy" of the American voter until Trump came along.
If you're not psychologically and ethically qualified to be president of the United States, you're not fit for office. Find someone else to promote your policy choices.
This whole argument that God chose Trump is absurd.
Sorry John but there is no such verbiage as a qualification to run for and win POTUS. Granted, they can use the 25th section 4..............but that's it and not applicable at this point. And there is always the 23rd but I think that 23rd is what has liberals scared shitless.
Since when do Americans put people in power that are known liars cheats bigots and morons?
It's a simple question. In the 240 year history of the country voters always took the candidate's character into account when they voted. Now we are supposed to believe that God chose this dishonest moron to lead the country. It's ridiculous.
Well if what you say, your opinion only shared by some, is really a simple question, since 2016
As they did in 2016. That you don't like it is your problem. Sorry for your luck.
"Since when do Americans put people in power that are known liars cheats bigots and morons?"
When did polititions start seeking office?
Isn't it amazing that supposedly well-educated people who keep up with the news have never heard of the Keating Five, Boss Tweed, Blago, Huey P. Long, Ray Nagin, Kwame Kilpatrick, etc., etc.??
Baloney! Christian principles can allow for a woman's right to choose as regarding abortion: Justice Blackmun quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes: "[i]t is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past."
There is a plethora of reasons for a girl or woman to use the 'tools' of science to advance not having a child or giving birth at an inopportune time. It has never been proper for society to appropriate a policy on causing the unborn to be born. It is something a segment of the population has taken it upon themselves to master purely as a means of controlling 'outsiders.'
Justice Blackmun: "The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies."
Justice Blackmun was a lifelong republican and a Methodist.
Hillary Clinton is a methodist. And, we all know she was ill-treated and demonized by conservatives who want this false 'hand of god' Donald Trump to push their unadvanced issues down the throats of liberals.
If you're going to make an argument for Christian principles allowing for a woman's right to choose, why are you trying to prove your case with secular sources? Why not show me, Biblically, how your argument has merit.
A battle over whose heavily poetically licensed interpretation is divine truth?
Well you made your case from the Bible to Krishna and did not carry it forward to me. I made my argument to begin based on two people, Justice Blackmun and politician Hillary Clinton who were relevant to our law (Blackmun on abortion) and policy (Clinton who you consider "more evil than" I presume).
Now we can discuss separation of Church and State; secular or religion; or straight bible on the topic. What I am is tired of this compelling by those believers who choose to do so by employing means which seek after its own justification above every other consideration!
Actually, in its sincere form, it will be a discussion between two brothers as we attempt to reason together. You may take issue with the use of the word, reason. You can, but not in the 'arena' of faith and belief.
I applaud that CB.
Whom do you follow, CB? Jesus or the state? Do you honestly think Jesus would support abortion?
Whom do I follow? I follow Jesus and the State. And I suspect that you are not a lawbreaker; you follow the state too. Yes or No?
The question is not appropriately balanced. Abortion is a tool of science for which the world uses it to aid women in a difficult or set of difficult situations. Let's be clear: Abortion is not the best of choices and for their part women do not engage it as 'sport' or a delightful activity/ies.
Furthermore, Jesus offers support to girls and women who are guilt-ridden from having an abortion as often as Jesus offers support to all who have broken marriage vows ending in divorce.
In addition, if the sin is fornication resulting in pregnancy it can be forgiven. If the sin is an unfortunate married couples dilemma (a crossing into of two or more complex set of factors) resulting in pregnancy it can be forgiven too.
Take it to the Lord in prayer. Seeking to find solace there.
Question: What is the biblical unforgivable sin, Drakkonis?
I'd say it's biblicalky "Christian principles" which restricted or is used to justify restricting women's rights, including their right to choose and abortion. Fortunately, it's "secular principles," based on yhr Constitition that acknowledged and protect a woman's rights
I think you need to figure out who you work for as a Christian, CB. The correct answer is that Jesus would not support abortion on demand. He created each one of us. Do you think he doesn't mind it when we kill unborn babies that are the work of his hand? Do you think Jesus considers abortion as just "a tool of science?" When you stand before God's judgement, do you think he's going to accept your view on abortion because the state said it's okay?
This isn't a matter of what can and can't be forgiven. It is a matter of, are those who claim to follow God going to stand by when the state enshrines something as evil as abortion on demand? We may as well be throwing babies into Baal's fires.
How do you know?
That's nice. Prove it!
Who are you to speak for or know the mind of Jesus?
Emotional platitude.
Emotional based and sanctimonious tripe.
You did an end-run around what I shared when I asked: What is the unforgivable sin? You know it, I'm confident you do. So speak it! It is only one. All other sins can be forgiven accordingly. Jesus often demonstrate the process of total dismissal with a single all-encompassing phrase. 'Woman/man, your sins are forgiven you.'
God, Jesus, and the Spirit can be grieved by a great many things groaning in the Earth; and, yet God allows such things to happen as a matter of the carnal (fleshly) nature of man. For God knows we are fleshly creatures and not spiritual creatures imbued with spiritual power. You know this.
The State is placed in its position for the good. Just laws are given for the good. Your conservative group is in manifest error. I will move the discussion forward by way of reminding you Paul asked: 'What does the believer have to do with passing judgement on people outside of the church?' Signifying church power is within the believers to judge the House of God. The state judges those outside. You know this.
In this manner, it is enough for believers to labor in the field of repairing the schism which have led away from oneness of the spirit.
I know it is true though I can not prove it, that we believers will never gain our proper respect as long as we attempt to 'lord' over secularists while our own 'house and yard' is scattered and in disarray.
Abortion is not the evil you have been led to believe it to be. It is a dreaded procedure that no one should and probably never could undertake on a whim or with joy.
What has occurred here is the pro-life movement has a mission. And, the mission has become a thing unto itself. And, people are told generationally to go out and commit themselves to bothering in the life of their neighbors.
Lastly, let's move to discuss why God gave man civil laws in our land. And, why as a believer, I can agree with a tenet stating believers should not be aborting babies. What does a Christian set of rules have to do with unbelieving citizens who think differently in a republic?
Believers will do well to made a distinction between spirituality and non-spirituality. Make a distinction between Christian law and liberty and civil law of the land. And then not forget.
I find it disheartening that you hold this view. Abortion is the evil we believe it to be. Have you ever heard of the practice of exposure? It's the old world form of abortion. Had a girl when you wanted a boy? Got a boy but it had a defect? Take it out to the town dumb and leave it there. Ever heard of eugenics? We love Grandma but we have to put her to sleep because she's just too much drain on the family finances and besides, her quality of life just isn't what it used to be so, really, we're just doing her a favor.
CB, you need to stop trying to live in two different worlds. God will not share your devotion with anyone but Him. You can't serve both Him and the world. The world is run by Satan and you know this.
And blasphemy against the Holy Spirit's work in the world through Jesus is the unpardonable sin, if that has any relevance to the discussion. If you think because all other sins are forgivable that Jesus' attitude toward abortion is some version of, "I don't like abortion but if you really feel you need it I'll forgive you for it, so go ahead. Do what you think you have to and I'll forgive you for it when you've done it", you need to think again. What you're advocating for is just do whatever you want and then ask God's forgiveness. Not how it works.
Abortion has been around since the dawn of man long before God was a concept
If so, then God allows Satan to do so. Satan and his role of world ruler is thus part of God's plan. Very strange situation, people must somehow continuously distinguish between the wishes of Satan and the wishes of God when neither are clearly stated. The religious admit that one cannot really know the mind of God yet must somehow guess correctly in life's decisions lest ...
... God deems them as advocating whatever they wanted and punishes them for it.
As an example, when a family chooses abortion to save the life of the mother (rare but happens), have they succumbed to Satan or followed the wishes of God?
Did Pelosi, et. al. act for Satan to impeach Trump or did God place Trump as leader only to have him impeached for some divine purpose?
Paragraph 1. Abortion is a human matter, like other human matter. It is not a spiritual issue. Abortion is lawful and not an evil, even though it is (and should be) undesirable. Moreover, you are inflating other extraneous issues with abortion. And to what end? I am willing to go deeper with you if need be on this.
Paragraph 2. You can not just make this assertion about me. For example, clarify how you understand me to be living in two worlds. And, clarify how you view me to be living in the flesh and not in the spirit.
Paragraph 3. I did not state nor insinuate "commission." @6.8.12 paragraph 8 thereabouts I wrote: "I can agree with a tenet stating believers should not be aborting babies. What does a Christian set of rules have to do with unbelieving citizens who think differently in a republic? It this manner, again, I demonstrate that abortion is not a trivial human matter—especially for believers.
Now if you want to have this discussion "full-blown" so as to clear up a great deal of confusion about what I believe on it, and may I add, to back away from what so many pastors and teachers drill into their congregations cyclically I look forward to it "anywhere" we can do it.
If you wish, you can address @6.3.6 to me and we can begin there.
Well, given that Jesus was a liberal, I doubt he would support it but I do think he would allow people to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies.
Back to this millenium, I think anyone dictating to another person what they can do with their own bodies smacks of slavery and, pretty sure that's illegal. Besides, if you don't like abortions? Don't get one.
Problem solved.
You sure? That's the entire premise behind the "born again" crowd. Screwed up? Just be born again, as many times as you want, without repercussions.
But more to the point. If abortions were outlawed, (very unlikely), how many of these babies are you prepared to adopt? 100? 1000? Would you be in favor of increasing welfare funding to support all of these new mouths to feed? My guess is you, like most conservatives, would keep on voting to reduce welfare funding. Quite the contradiction, yes? You want more babies to be born, but don't want to help raise them.
My point? You want more babies to be born by outlawing abortions? Fine, be prepared to adopt them and increase welfare funding.
One more thing: I do see a use and dare I state a need for pro-life facilitation. It can be a counter-balance to abortion clinics. It can help those inexperienced girls and women who are deeply conflicted, confused, and may be even threatened to come to a proper decision about keeping a life out of this world as it evenly is to bring a life into the world.
The issue or where raw bone is struck for me is when the pro-life movement takes strives at going too far. The movement has weaponized the courts, the states, nearly anything and nearly everybody who agrees with it, to absolutely reject a girl's or woman's right to privacy. It tells girls and women to forsake thoughts and ideas of health, life, all sorts of "damages," and the separate damage of being ill-prepared to raise a new innocent once it arrives, thus harm befalls that child as victim.
When pro-lifers hold discussions and quietly "peddle" their points of views by standing and offering pamphlets, I see no problem with it. However, when they contend with the decision of a girl, a parent or both parents, or push through aggressive tactics and, long-term strategies, and harming people with violence and death, the movement becomes a danger to liberty and gone way beyond its mission.
You are so right on in what’s you said and that last point was a perfect description of the way it is.
Is there a way to speak privately to someone in this environment?
God as our Creator has been known to us from day one of our existence
I pulled this out as a demonstration of just how much rhetoric is being pitched by the pro-life movement: Can you clarify for me exactly what is an "unborn baby"?
Such groups as pro-life (which you and Drakkonis obviously participate in) inflame their talking points and afterwards fan them out into the marketplace for consumption and mindless spreading. A baby materializes once it is brought out into the world where it is properly affected by the furtherance of life and law. Mind you, affected by life and law. Abortion law is written and judiciously approved as actionable on a number of the unborn. It is not the prior class of activities done by women to remove the unborn in an unlawful manner.
there are private notes and their is chat though the latter may be able to be spied upon by those with moderating powers. There is an in group seed that describes abortion and it’s advocates exactly right in this group. https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group/189/we-the-people
what is a private note and how do I go about it?
At the upper right corner of your screen, click on your user name. That will open a dropdown menu. Private notes will be one of the tabs.
Thank you. I appreciate your help.
You're welcome.
Once again, all don't believe in your god or any god so your point is moot
why would any person of faith be concerned with the private personal decisions of others? what business is it of theirs? why aren't those that don't share unamerican anti-secular ideology able to exercise their god given free will and SCOTUS decided protected freedom of choice? religious police have no jurisdiction in america. even the bible says from first breath to the last, which is why abortion didn't make the 10 commandments. the bottom line is that the USA is a secular country by law. ie: the Constitution. any concept of spirituality is just as valid as every other here. thumpers need to get used to that and mind their own business. their religious dogma is irrelevant in the national discourse. besides, their lord doesn't need any help, it's all predestined, remember? relax.
You can use the options others have supplied you. Also, there is this group ran by me : https://thenewstalkers.com/cb/group/202/christian-state-of-mind for being off the beaten path, though it will still be public and available for others to read and even comment. Many commenters will defer on doing the last. The group is "centered" on a Christianity worldview.
Because we believe in God, and therefore, in the day of judgement, where every soul will give an accounting for what they have said and done. That another may not believe this doesn't absolve the Christian from trying their best to help others avoid an eternal Hell. The constitution and SCOTUS will not be a defense before God.
And abortion did make the Ten commandments. You shall not murder.
It's presumptuous to attempt to force one's unsubstantiated beliefs on others, no matter how sincerely one believes that one's intentions are benevolent.
Generally, I agree. For instance, I abstained from voting when legalized same sex "marriage" came up in my state. Although I believe such "marriages" are against God's will and not really marriage I don't have the right to prevent them from doing what they choose to do.
I make an exception for abortion because it involves murdering the defenseless. I have every right to involve myself in helping those who cannot defend themselves.
I have sent you a private note. Use the uppermost right quadrant (Your name) to facilitate finding it. ("Private Notes.")
thanks, but no thanks. abortion isn't murder and it's legal, and all religious dogma is equally irrelevant to that issue.
You still haven't even proved there's a god to begin with. So you don't actually "know" anything. You only believe you do. Big difference.
Abortion isn't murder. So your statement is factually incorrect.
No you don't! Not when it comes to a woman's personal choice and rights. That is most certainly none of your business!
It is NONE of YOUR business what a woman decides to do with an unplanned pregnancy.
I disagree.
I disagree. You can put words on a piece of paper to your heart's content but that doesn't make it right or wrong. That is, you can say the constitution says this or that and you may be right (or wrong) but in the end it's a piece of paper with words on it some men thought up. Hitler wrote a lot of words on paper and the result was a lot of dead Jews, Christians, Gypsies, homosexuals and others. Stalin and Mao wrote a lot, too.
According to what or who?
That is the proper question to ask. And when the answer by an individual is 'God' the immediate problem then is how we can unambiguously and certainly acquire the divine truth on a matter. The Bible does not accomplish this since it is ambiguous and, based on its self-contradiction, it is not the divine word of a perfect god.
You can disagree all you like but it is NOT your business what a woman decides, it is HER medical decision, NOT yours
And the bible is full of WORDS and its a piece of paper that men thought up
"According to what or who?"
Where in the Bible does Jesus Christ specifically say abortion is bad?
Knew someone was going to say this. Would have been disappointed if no one had.
Yes, the Bible is full of words on paper. As to whether men thought it up or it comes from God one has to decide for themselves. And that's kind of the point. You or anyone else can point to sources that say babies aren't really people until they are born but all you're really doing is stating you agree with someone else's opinion on the subject. I cite the Bible as the authority for my view. In either case there is not some force that decides between the two of us. Not at present, anyway.
That said, telling someone they have no business doing this or that is only supported by opinion you happen to hold on the subject. You don't actually have any more concrete evidence that your opinion is any more valid than mine is. You could attempt to cite law but really, it's the same thing. There's nothing you can point to that says that any given law is actually good and right. You can only point at the law and the law can change anytime.
He doesn't. Why? Are you going to make the argument that because he doesn't specifically address it then it must be okay? Like, mom told me not to have any cookies before dinner so my appetite wouldn't get spoiled so I will eat some of the cake because she specifically didn't mention cake?
Then it must not be as bad as some claim
Drakk, as a point of discussion, it is your position that this country's constitutional law and governance should mirror or be one and the same as bible-driven law?
This is what I 'hear' loud and clear in your comments. It is a little disconcerting too. Because most right-leaning evangelicals I read and experience attempt to pair constitution and bible separately together. Albeit bent to their group will and conservatism.
Yes! And one way to decide is to see if the ostensibly divine word of a perfect god contradicts itself. ( and it does )
The authority is the word of ancient men. That much we know based on the evidence. There is no evidence supporting the claim of divinity.
Personally, I would go with modern knowledge and reason rather than blind acceptance of words penned by ancient men claiming to be those of the grandest possible entity.
I believe in the laws of this country over the bible any day, if you want a theocracy then leave the US because this country will never ever be a theocracy
The law itself for starters.
Then you are wrong, plain and simple. So I suppose you wouldn't mind if someone attempted to intrude in your business or choices?
You just described the bible too.
I do not think government should be a theocracy. It rests solely on the idea that humans do not have the right to claim who and who isn't human. I'm pretty sure I would feel this way even if I were an atheist. Down that road we have seen people euthanize people because they were defective in some manner. Born retarded or some adverse medical condition, etc. Discarded because they were born the wrong sex.
The idea that you're not a person until you're breathing atmosphere is an arbitrary one. The argument is, you aren't human until your umbilical is cut. Until then, you're just some mass of tissue because you can't live on your own. Until your umbilical is cut you're regarded not as a person but a parasite. This is stupid and idiotic as the baby is still dependent after birth. It's going to die without someone to take care of it. So, why is birth the beginning of personhood? Why isn't it when you no longer have to depend on someone else in order to survive? If we're going to have something as arbitrary as birth, why not allow "abortion" at any time after birth until the child can demonstrate it can survive on it's own?
And what about those who, from birth, are hooked up to machines in order to keep on living? Are they to be considered non-people because they can't survive on their own? Are they parasites as well, since they aren't able to survive on their own and are just sucking up resources? There have been plenty of people and civilizations who thought such people were not human.
I do not wish to end abortion on demand because I think it will somehow force women who want to abort a child to somehow accept Gods will. I don't wish to end abortion on demand because I think it will somehow make our nation more Godly. I want to end it because I believe the child growing in it's mother's womb has a right to the life we all have. To know and do and grow. My focus isn't on the woman, but the child. The child should have rights too, even though it isn't breathing atmo yet.
A fair point. The immediate qualifying question of course is when the fetus is indeed a person. Do you consider a human zygote to be a person with a right to life?
Consult your bible then.
Until your umbilical is cut you're regarded not as a person but a parasite.
Who has said this ? So far it's your words.
My focus isn't on the woman, but the child.
That's clear but it's a woman's choice what happens to her body, you see she has bodily autonomy which is a fundamental human right. She and her doctor would determine the course of a pregnancy. That's it.
Actually, the 'threshold point' has been established by human courts.The decision was a practical matter, which takes account of a myriad of factors, including a truth that women used to irreparably injure themselves, and kill themselves just because they did not wish to bear a child. The injure/kill rate in girls and women was astronomical and unspeakable.
Interestingly, the threshold point for being a viable birth for delivery into this world is legally established well ahead of umbilical cord cutting. And Drakk, this topic is harsh enough without a 'detonation' of loaded words!
The court listened to the voice of the child-bearer and decided it is not the court's purpose to give girls and women unprepared for raising a child that child.
Rightly stated, God raises up just judges, to choose between two conflicting and divergent actions: to deliver a child to term or to end its life before it can cross its threshold period.
However, The Spirit works on the spirits of humanity. It would be far too easy to simply change hearts and minds with a large spreading around and expressing of power.
Even our churches look upon church teachings differently. Why? Because we are without our Shepherd - Jesus who is away and we have to utilize men (and women) as leaders who reiterate a two-thousand plus set of writings. Timeless though we accept it to be, our bible has suffered a unique problem over the passage of time leaving some questions unanswered in the face of people enlightened by corresponding future events enough to put forward some ponderous questions.
Our national has a constitution. That document establishes a two-tier system of governance which leaves churches to their liberties, separate doctrines, traditions, and public assemblies. The constitution leaves the irreligious with their means to be distinct and separate from the liberties, doctrines, and traditions of religious folks. This is by design in the document.
In this manner, the believers' in our nation certainly exist in two different worlds: A world of religion, God, faith, ceremony, ritual, and hymns, and a world with its own civil Rule of Law.
The irreligious have as their guide merely a national civil Rule of Law. The irreligious have no obligation to any God. Therefore, it is manifest error fo us as religious people to hold expectation that nonbelievers should comprehend the height, depth, length, and width of our spiritual leanings, confessions, and convictions.
So yes, we believers do live in two worlds or worldviews in this country. And the two worlds and two worldviews are not capable of being blended into one. Our faith is for believers alone. Our constitution encompasses all this nation's citizenry.
Probably because that is when someone is a separate, autonomous individual.
So when is the point when an embryo/fetus becomes a "person?" And why that particular point?
Good, neither do I and neither did the Founding Fathers. I suspect most people feel the same way too.
WHat about them?
Technically, yes.
It's not about whether one thinks they're human or not. I doubt anyone would suggest they are not. It's about quality of life and whether extreme measures to keep people alive like that is feasible or not. Typically, when there is no hope of recovery or no quality of life, the family makes the decision whether to continue with such interventions or withdrawal of them. Of course, there are other factors to consider, not the least of which are legal issues.
That is merely your belief. But not everyone shares that belief nor do you get to impose your beliefs onto others.
There is no way to grant the "child" rights without taking away the rights of the woman. Doing so will make the woman "less human"
The soul is dog shit. American Evangelicals have shown many times, but none more plainly than their support of Trump, that their religious and moral values are complete nonsense. They don't have any. Their value(s) are basically "I support ideas and people that are good for me, or at least I think they are, personally and fuck everyone else."
So people should only support ideas and people who are bad for them?
SMMFH!
Do you "Support" things that are bad for you ?
I know i do.
I support wild women, good booze and nice cigars.
A triple threat as it were ......
I can get behind that, Lol
61 Bible Verses About Leadership
So let me get this straight. A group of people who are part of a religion that is responsible for the slaughter of MILLIONS is suddenly worried about morals and ethics?
Yup, to small c christians and evangelicals and tRump supporters, god is green and he folds.
Stop Spending money !
It has the word "God" written on it !
I hear that "Bitcoin" is to die for these days !
But what of John the Baptist? Anabaptist tradition is based upon John the Baptist, isn't it?
What of Simon Zelotes? What of Judas Iscariot? There were 12 chosen disciples. The 12 were not chosen for their piety or virtues. The 12 were not chosen for their popular appeal, oratorical skills, or experience.
Who are you to judge piety and virtue when Jesus sought out John the Baptist and accepted the 12 disciples?