Sadly Misled
I read, with interest, a Blog pointed out to me by Ang today and tried to comprehend the mixed moral messages that were put forth under a post on abortion. The post actually had more to do with life, liberty and justice that it did with abortion per se. I always read these kid of morally mixed up Christian viewpoints while shaking my head and thinking “how can someone who has a bible misunderstand this?” So, in response to this post, I’d like to go over some of the moral issues presented, one at a time.
Abortion
Mrs. Vashti doesn’t support abortion. She doesn’t oppose it either. Early on she says “I believe in the sanctity of all life.” However, she is still “pro-choice.” Her main argument against outlawing abortion is that she doesn’t think the government should intrude upon our “rights” – in this case the right to end a life- in that manner. This argument completely misses the issue of whether or not abortion is morally right. Does the government intrude upon our rights when they say we can’t kill the guy who never uses his turn signals? I really want to kill him, I do. But alas, God says I can’t and our constitution agrees with Him.
Mrs. Vashti worries that a government who can ban all abortions could also force abortions or control how many children we have (i.e. China). Wake up my friend! If nine justices can determine the constitutionality of any issue and then legislate from the bench, as they did with Roe v. Wade, they can just as easily decide that in order to have “…the pursuit of happiness,” families need to have no more than three children to prevent overpopulation. God has determined what is morally right and wrong and you cannot turn your back on His word simply to protect yourself from an immoral government (or Supreme Court).
Aside from the moral issue, if Vashti believes in democracy, the only position she could take is that the individual states should have the power to decide upon abortions legality by a vote of their people. Representative government. The powers not expressly laid out in the constitution (abortion), are reserved for the states. This doesn’t make abortion nationally legal or illegal, it simply allows “we the people” to decide its legality on a state by state basis. And if the people were to have a vote, abortion might well become illegal in many states. It was illegal in 46 states back in 1973, before Roe. NARAL itself reports that if Roe were overturned, and people had a voice, 19 states would outlaw abortion and 19 more would follow suit.
To sum this up, she believes that we cannot decide when to kill ourselves (“ I don't believe that it is any human beings choice to decide when or how another should die. I don't think it is our right to decide when we should die (i.e. suicide).”) but we can decide to kill unborn children. So, if I understand this view correctly: God decides when we are born and when we die, and we shouldn’t override His decision about death, but we can choose to override His decision on who is born. Okay.
Extra crispy: The Death Penatly
Here’s where the waters get even muddier in her essay. She believes in the sanctity of all life, but doesn’t condone killing babies. But, she does believe that killing grown inmates is wrong. Here’s the big biblical secret that a LOT of Christians miss when it comes to “thou shalt not kill” and the death penalty:
If Christians will take the time to go back to the Hebrew translation of the bible, they will note that this commandment doesn’t say “Thou shalt not kill,” it says “thou shalt not murder.” “Killing” is all inclusive. “Murdering” by definition, is killing an innocent person. (Kind of like aborting an unborn child.) The guy who killed his wife and child and got caught on tape and left a knife with his fingerprints on it is not innocent. A jury of his peers found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, he’s likely had 20 years of appeals to challenge his guilt. He is not innocent and therefore can be put to death in good conscience by the most bible reading spiritual Christian on Earth.
War, huh, what is it good for?
Well, it’s really good for breaking away from Brittan and starting a republic in order to ensure a man’s religious freedom. It also comes in handy when people are getting gassed by an evil dictator or raped and tortured by one of his sons.
I do think about our soldiers that are killed. But I also think about the innocents that are being killed in much greater numbers. In the same way that Vishti misguidedly cares about the guilty being sentanced to die, she should also care about the people dying because of morally corrupt dictators. If all she cares about it saving lives, wasn’t it better for us to end Saddam’s regime and stop his killing spree? It has taken us around 2000 lives to get rid of him and lay the foundations for a democratic government, but have saved many more innocent lives in the process. And what about Africa? What about the thousands upon thousands that are being murdered there? Is it worth going to war to stop? Is it morally right for us, as Christians, to stand idly by and watch the slaughter when we could end it?
In summary, Christians like Vishti need to dig into the bible and really examine their motives and understanding when they decide about these issues. There is absolute truth and absolute right and wrong. God laid it out. Now have the courage and fortitude to learn about it and be morally clear. All the grey area surrounding abortion and government and the law clears up if you acknowledge the truth that God loves the inncocents and wants them to live.
Abortion
Mrs. Vashti doesn’t support abortion. She doesn’t oppose it either. Early on she says “I believe in the sanctity of all life.” However, she is still “pro-choice.” Her main argument against outlawing abortion is that she doesn’t think the government should intrude upon our “rights” – in this case the right to end a life- in that manner. This argument completely misses the issue of whether or not abortion is morally right. Does the government intrude upon our rights when they say we can’t kill the guy who never uses his turn signals? I really want to kill him, I do. But alas, God says I can’t and our constitution agrees with Him.
Mrs. Vashti worries that a government who can ban all abortions could also force abortions or control how many children we have (i.e. China). Wake up my friend! If nine justices can determine the constitutionality of any issue and then legislate from the bench, as they did with Roe v. Wade, they can just as easily decide that in order to have “…the pursuit of happiness,” families need to have no more than three children to prevent overpopulation. God has determined what is morally right and wrong and you cannot turn your back on His word simply to protect yourself from an immoral government (or Supreme Court).
Aside from the moral issue, if Vashti believes in democracy, the only position she could take is that the individual states should have the power to decide upon abortions legality by a vote of their people. Representative government. The powers not expressly laid out in the constitution (abortion), are reserved for the states. This doesn’t make abortion nationally legal or illegal, it simply allows “we the people” to decide its legality on a state by state basis. And if the people were to have a vote, abortion might well become illegal in many states. It was illegal in 46 states back in 1973, before Roe. NARAL itself reports that if Roe were overturned, and people had a voice, 19 states would outlaw abortion and 19 more would follow suit.
To sum this up, she believes that we cannot decide when to kill ourselves (“ I don't believe that it is any human beings choice to decide when or how another should die. I don't think it is our right to decide when we should die (i.e. suicide).”) but we can decide to kill unborn children. So, if I understand this view correctly: God decides when we are born and when we die, and we shouldn’t override His decision about death, but we can choose to override His decision on who is born. Okay.
Extra crispy: The Death Penatly
Here’s where the waters get even muddier in her essay. She believes in the sanctity of all life, but doesn’t condone killing babies. But, she does believe that killing grown inmates is wrong. Here’s the big biblical secret that a LOT of Christians miss when it comes to “thou shalt not kill” and the death penalty:
There is a difference between killing and murdering.
If Christians will take the time to go back to the Hebrew translation of the bible, they will note that this commandment doesn’t say “Thou shalt not kill,” it says “thou shalt not murder.” “Killing” is all inclusive. “Murdering” by definition, is killing an innocent person. (Kind of like aborting an unborn child.) The guy who killed his wife and child and got caught on tape and left a knife with his fingerprints on it is not innocent. A jury of his peers found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, he’s likely had 20 years of appeals to challenge his guilt. He is not innocent and therefore can be put to death in good conscience by the most bible reading spiritual Christian on Earth.
War, huh, what is it good for?
Well, it’s really good for breaking away from Brittan and starting a republic in order to ensure a man’s religious freedom. It also comes in handy when people are getting gassed by an evil dictator or raped and tortured by one of his sons.
“Think of all the innocent civilians being slaughtered, coldly referred to as "collateral damage." Think of all of our young men and women dying.”
I do think about our soldiers that are killed. But I also think about the innocents that are being killed in much greater numbers. In the same way that Vishti misguidedly cares about the guilty being sentanced to die, she should also care about the people dying because of morally corrupt dictators. If all she cares about it saving lives, wasn’t it better for us to end Saddam’s regime and stop his killing spree? It has taken us around 2000 lives to get rid of him and lay the foundations for a democratic government, but have saved many more innocent lives in the process. And what about Africa? What about the thousands upon thousands that are being murdered there? Is it worth going to war to stop? Is it morally right for us, as Christians, to stand idly by and watch the slaughter when we could end it?
I’ll never understand the “peace at any price” logic anyway. People that subscribe to that philosophy don’t understand that God gave us all free will. This free will results in man having the choice to be good or evil. And they can’t understand that some men will chose evil. The peace at any price crowd are the people who would enable the Stalin and Hitlers of the world because they won’t make a sacrifice to do what is right. Would God rather we help homeless people, or keep them from being killed? Probably both; but you can’t give someone low rent housing if they’ve just been murdered.
The bible is filled with tales of War. The old testament lays out how God chooses sides and commisions his followers to take them out. He even provides support for them. It is His will. If a people were unjust and morally corrupt, God would use His followers to pass His judgment upon them.
In summary, Christians like Vishti need to dig into the bible and really examine their motives and understanding when they decide about these issues. There is absolute truth and absolute right and wrong. God laid it out. Now have the courage and fortitude to learn about it and be morally clear. All the grey area surrounding abortion and government and the law clears up if you acknowledge the truth that God loves the inncocents and wants them to live.
posted by Adonai Jedi | 10:54 AM
|
3 comments
