Jesus said:
Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Matthew 5:28
John, empowered by the Holy Spirit wrote:
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him."
I John 3:15
Questions to Consider:
If you can commit adultery without ever touching her, be a murderer without even killing him, how much more a murderer if you don't even hold the scalpel... but merely give money for the funding of abortion?
Is a man a murderer if he pays another man to push his wife into the path of an oncoming bus? Is the man, therefore, who gives money to the abortionist guilty of killing the unborn?
Does abortion kill children? In almost every case. Is killing children wrong? Is it murder? What if the unborn is late term and viable OUTSIDE the womb? Is it murder then?
135 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-- John Piper, link
You think you know a lot, and I won't argue that, but what you know, I think, clouds you prodigious mental acuity to the more simple things. Kill means "Kill"
Don't over think it.
Referring back to my Axioms of Interpretation:
1) God cannot lie, therefore
2) The truth of one statement cannot negate the truth of another statement
3) If the truths two or more verses appear to be contradictory, the verses must be viewed as possessing dissimilar contexts"
Sez you. As discussed, the Exodus 21 remains in dispute. Without a clear and definitive translation, one must run with all else that touches on the subject. It would be difficult to find other areas that would support the notion that the unborn is not on par with the born. Of course, babies and toddlers were never addressed, so how can we be sure they were or were not included? In addition, where in Thou Shalt Not Kill, if it has to do with one's bro or sis, does it mention the age of the bro or sis? Your platform is extremely shakey trying to avoid the obviuos regarding the humanity of the unborn. Why do you bother?
Fruit departs...no mischief premature labor...child lives
if any mischief follow...life for life
Child dies...you die
Sounds pretty clear.
You're over thinking it again.
-----
"He disappointeth the devices of the crafty, so that their hands cannot perform their enterprise. He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong. They meet with darkness in the daytime, and grope in the noonday as in the night."
--Job 5:12-14
"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Therefore let no man glory in men. "
--1 Corinthians 3:18-21
"[We] have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."
--2 Corinthians 4:2
"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive..."
--Ephesians 4:14
It doesn't take a bible scholar to understand the bible. Nor does it take a degree written on vellum. Anyone with a fifth grade education and a steadfast heart can make heads and tails of the scripture. After all, it is through the scriptures we have faith in Christ, for without the scriptures there would be no sure record of God and/or Christ...
To quote Pete Townsend's Tommy
"And Tommy doesn't know
What day it is
He doesn't know who Jesus was
Or what praying is
How can he be saved,
From the eternal grave?"
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
--Romans 10:13-17
The truth of the scriptures is for EVERY man, not just scholars and folks with fancy degrees. The first century churches weren't filled with great scholars. The epistles weren't written only for the spiritual elite. They were written for everyone; the rich, the poor, the free, the bond, the Jew, the Greek, the rich in spirit, the poor in spirit, the hungry, the lame, the halt... everyone.
You do not have a monopoly on spiritual truth. Not here. Not anywhere.
What Eric said.
Feodor, Eric is correxct. You are trying to find messages in thje Bible that simply aren't there. It is what it is. God intended it that way so that even you can understand it, if you don't overthink it.
"You do that because you aren't reading the Bible, you are reading a nineteenth century reading of the Bible."
You are welcome to this opinion, of course, but it is only that. I believe it's due to the fact that you don't like our conclusions.
But your suggestion that it is an antiquated understanding suggests that there is some kind of discernable advancement in the nature of man that requires new thought to this ancient tome. If so, I totally disagree with the premise. We are no different than were the people of Genesis. Cain would still have been jealous of Abel even if brought up with Big Wheels and Playstations. Madonna would still be a tramp, even if she was born at the time of The Madonna.
The Bible is for that part of mankind that remains unchanged by time and technology.
I remember the first time I saw one of your posts. I WAS interested. You've lost me along the way. I've been reading Eric, MA and Neil much longer. Their ability to interact with all is good. May you find more tolerance and compassion towards believers in Christ Jesus. mom2
Feodor, I have never once seen you show any sign of tolerance toward anyone who might disagree with you.
You self righteous snob.
Beams and motes and all that.
What is so difficult for you worshipers of death and confusion over there on the other side of every single argument from Eric, Marshall and myself, about giving the benifit of the doubt to LIFE?
If one verse says THOU SHALT NOT kill, and another is unclear about when someone becomes human, or a being, or whatever, then WHY NOT protect that person until it can be determined FOR SURE whether they are a person or not?
Why is it so important to you people to kill the most innocent form of human life for the sake of your own convienience?
And what do YOU do to eradicate those ills you list, ills that are mostly self-inflicted by people who have forsaken their personal responsibilities to themselves and their own in favor of self-gratification, greed and lust. My "fourth grade" understanding of the Will of God is enough to prevent and overcome all those ills, while your pseudo-sophisticated serious spiritual mind can't discern the obvious causes of those ills, but blame those who use their God-given talents to be all they can be. Motes, my ass, pal. You've got a freakin' cord of wood in your eyes right now. None of that sanctimonious crap is justification for such a low opinion of those so unfortunate as to be invited into existence by people as uncompassionate as yourself. I shudder at the thought of YOU adopting a child and passing on to it your notion of faith and Christian worldview. God have mercy on any children you DO have.
How about this solution...
What if we all agree to stop Abortion and adopt the unwanted children, but kill the mothers instead?
After all, the child is not the one who created the problem, the mother is.
That way seems a lot less morally repugnant to me than your way does...
Jesus said... "neither do I condemn you. go and sin no more."
He called it sin, yet did not condemn.
Also, Tugboat's last statement looks more like a rhetorical flourish than the accurate map of the landscape of his heart.
Perhaps the same care should be given to interpreting this man's words, that you say must be given to interpreting scripture.
"Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: and I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant
...[!]"
--Matthew 25:24-26
Surely you can recognize waste and sloth when YOU see it. No need for sarcasm... or a holy writ from God.
"Is the man, therefore, who gives money to the abortionist guilty of killing the unborn?"
Yes, if he willingly gives. However, in this country, we have no choice. Our taxes are used to fund abortions in this country, and now, thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, we are funding the entire world's butchers.
Does the phrase, "No taxation without representation" mean anything to anyone?
If you can commit adultery without ever touching her, be a murderer without even killing him, how much more a murderer if you don't even hold the scalpel... but merely give money for the funding of abortion?
Is a man a murderer if he pays another man to push his wife into the path of an oncoming bus? Is the man, therefore, who gives money to the abortionist guilty of killing the unborn?
No one seems to want to address those. Perhaps because the answers are simple... and inconvenient.
Is a man a murderer if he pays another man to push his wife into the path of an oncoming bus? Is the man, therefore, who gives money to the abortionist guilty of killing the unborn?
No one seems to want to address those. Perhaps because the answers are simple... and inconvenient."
You contain the answers to your questions within your examples.
A man who pays another to murder his wife, has INTENT to murder his wife.
Do you think anyone has the INTENT to commit abortion by paying taxes? Is it more likely we all have INTENT to improve our common and personal good with taxes.
That's why Obama isn't a murder, and neither are you even though you pay taxes. You don't intend for your money to go to abortions. If you had a choice would you pay taxes knowing all your monies went to prenatal care and unwanted pregnancy prevention materials?
Do not let perfect be the enemy of good.
If those poor children are better off dead, then why don't we do ALL poor people a big favor and round them up and shoot them? (For their own GOOD, dontcha know!)
YOUR LOGIC.
You don't get to claim the moral high ground for your misguided idea of killing poor children in order to spare them from poverty.
Seriously!
And you question MY Christianity!?
As to being responsible without actually doing the aborting, we all pay taxes, so tax-paying alone isn't a qualifier for complicity. However, to vote for someone because one of their positions is supporting abortion rights, THAT is being complicit in the abortions. Thus, Obama's pro-abortion positions, particularly since they are the most radical to come down the pike, demonstrates his complicity in each abortion that takes place since his involvement led to removing current restrictions, and since he's done nothing to prevent them.
Now, what about Bush? Well, we know he made moves to restrict abortions, especially since Obama just lifted some of them. Any move Bush made regarding the issue was toward reducing tax monies and other anti-abortion moves. He is NOT complicit since he never pushed for pro-abortion legislation.
Do you understand the fact that in order to solve ANY problem, the real cause of the problem must first be determined and adressed?
Or is that a concept that is over your head?
It doesn't matter anyway, because I'm about done wasting time with you about this.
I realize that for you to admit that you might be wrong about this would be for you to admit that your opinion about it makes you a child murderer. (Or at least a supporter of the practice of murdering children.)
And for me to admit that you might be right would force me to deny the humanity of the most innocent form of human life.
You do not have to answer to me for it anyway.
Let's all hope, for the sake of your Soul, that your answer, when an answer is finally required of you, is the right one.
Ha! Your looking to impose YOUR ethic of life upon us. But as Tug suggests you have to overlook much to get to YOUR ethic of life.
If you see your neighbor pushing around other neighbors, does it make you judgemental to acknowledge that the guy is a bully? Or does your idea of love require you leave him to his bullying and his victims to their suffering?
I would ask the same of ER who does no works.
Those people obvioulsy would have been better off if they had been killed before they were born.
Think of the suffering that would have been avoided.
No one here but YOU has said anything as cold and heartless as "Poor children do not deserve to live".
That one is all yours.
You're getting awful judgmental.
BTW I love it when WL's play the look how many poor black "friends" whose names I can list. What is this some kind of a contest?
Nothing you have written here was inspired by Christian love.
Nothing.
Just as nothing that I have written was inspired by hate.
I do not for one minute believe that you are so busy fighting poverty that you do not have time to stand up for the right of human beings in the womb to be allowed to live.
I do not believe that your misguided support for their slaughter in utero or your ridicule of us for our opposition to this sickening practice is inspired by your understanding of Jesus' teachings.
Who's the liar now?
Answer for my hate? Absolutely.
I will be required to answer for whatever hate I may harbor within my heart.
And so will you.
Now if you want my address, you must send me all your excess money because as you know, I'm currently unemployed, boo-hoo, and I can't do for myself wah-ha, I'm just a victim of the man.
Where does it tell us to encourage the poor to kill their children in order to relieve their suffering?
I haven't seen a verse like that but you apparently have.
Please enlighten me.
That's just common sense.
What the Bible DOES tell me is that LIFE comes from GOD.
And whether you recognize the humanity of a "fetus" ("child" in Latin), or the viability of it at a particular stage of development, even YOU cannot deny that it is a form of life, can you?
The "Viability" argument is perhaps the most evil of all. ("Kill it now, while it's the most helpless!")
Do you really believe that your position is the Christian position in this discussion?
Really?
If so, then show me the commandment of God from the Bible.
And I just can't do that.
I'm just not that heartless.
My Christianity prevents it.
Sorry.
I pray he could find better things to do. mom2
If Thou Shalt Not Kill applies to "unborn babies," why did it not apply to Canaanites?
_____
mom2 makes an idol out of empty interjections.
The Holy Spirit can change the heart of anyone willing to listen to His voice-- his calling. Hitler himself could have found forgiveness had he genuinely repented, and had the Holy Spirit been dealing with him; there is no repentance without the prompting of the Holy Spirit.
Season tickets to what?
As to your Canaanite's question, I'll hazard a guess that God saw the Canaanites as wicked. Much like He saw the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in like manner... wicked. God told the Israelites to kill them. Who were they to question God?
Why did God tell Saul to kill all of the Amalekites? Even their cattle? Are we to assume, then, because Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho, Ai, Amalek, were killed because God said it was okay (despite the Commandment not to kill) that killing the unborn is likewise allowable? Where did God command us to kill 50 million unborn children, a holocaust nearly 4 times that of Hitler's?
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of
knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and discipline...
Wisdom calls aloud in the street,
she raises her voice in the public squares;
at the head of the noisy streets she cries out,
in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:
'How long will you simple ones love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?'"
Thank you for the prayers for my marriage. I don't know why anyone would suppose it's in need of extra prayers, since it's so solid, but what a nice sentiment from such a goofy loon!
I'm currently in the middle of Walter Isaccson's bio of Franklin. I've taken to him quite nicely, thank you. I've taken to quite a number of imperfect people. Don't count yourself among them just yet.
I don't speak for anyone without first stating so. What I DO engage in is trying to interpret poorly articulated positions. Some on the blogs like to call it "mind reading", but that's just loser talk.
As for God's destruction of the peoples on the way to the Promised Land, I think it's pretty clear that He was also punishing the original inhabitants all along the way. The Bible doesn't spell out specifically in each instance, but, as you mentioned, the Canaanites were worshipping a false god and that by itself would have been enough, as God was in the process of demonstrating that HE was the One True God throughout the entire exodus. Add to that the liklihood that those who worshipped false gods at that time were likely engaged in other forbidden activities, and the result is that only the small minded who speak of "serious spiritual minds" would demand more from the text.
As for this:
"So if you want to make the case that the fetus should not be "killed" because the fetus has not stolen, has not made an idol, has not worshipped other gods, keeps the Sabbath, honors it's (? - even the genderless, right?) father and mother), then you go ahead and make that argument."
What buffoonery brought THIS on? The case is being made that the fetus is a person endowed by its Creator with the same unalienable right to life as anyone else, and as such, to kill it as is being done through abortions and the reasons for doing so are proofs of murder. If you'd pay attention and stop pretending you're clever, there would be less confusion on your part.
Now Mom2, Eric and myself, as well as Mark and Bubba and others respect wisdom well enough. Someday perhaps you'll demonstrate some for us.
But it's still not what Jesus asks of you.
The Canaanites had other gods. They could be killed."
By this measure the United States can kill as many jihadi terrorists as it pleases, without a trial! By this measure Israel can nuke Gaza if it wants. After all, they won't be killing Jews... just unbelievers (once they evacuate any Christians living there, that is). Just nuke 'em all cause God only expects "believers" to follow the Ten Commandments despite Paul's statement in Romans 2:14-15,
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another..."
Your interpretation of the sixth commandment is not merely distorted, it's flat out 180 degrees wrong. Every one who dies without Christ will be judged for their works... according to the Law.
Thou shalt not kill applies to everyone: Jew, Christian, AND Gentile.
If God Himself directly commands me to kill you, you've had it.
Show me in the Bible where Jesus taught us that it is acceptable to kill the poor in order to ease their poverty.
Show me where we are commanded to sacrifice our very children to the god of irresponsibility and convenience.
Show me ANYTHING that directly supports your side of this discussion, or stop trying to beat us over the head with your Bible.
When she decides to do it to the body of her child, thats another thing entirely.
The time for a woman to make the decision to have a child or not is while she still has her pants on.
It's not the WOMAN'S body we are talking about here.
As to your other question, that would be YOU.
Children do nat cause poverty.
Abortions do absolutely nothing to ease poverty.
You are the one who attempted to tie the two issues together.
It's been nice talking to you.
You haven't shown you've thought anything through, systematically or otherwise. You show the same poor reasoning as Dan, but with a worse attitude and demeanor. To pretend that there's no connection between the Sixth and abortion is about as weak as you could be. Is this the discernment of a serious spiritual mind? Hardly. To insist that the Bible must speak directly of abortion shows no disernment whatsoever. You're a fraud, and not even a very good one.
Only human subjectivity motivated by sexual self-gratification suggests that what is conceived by the act designed to bring forth new human life can be anything else but another human being. Thus, to end that life for any reason besides saving the mother's life is tantamount to murder. At the same time, anytime God directly commands a people to annihilate another, it is NOT murder or killing covered by the commandment. Yours is a seriously confused mind.
If that's love. I'd hate to have to experience Jesus' hate.
Abortion is simply a regrettable choice brought about by poverty.
There is no hate or killing, or babies...
Only tissue masses and women's rights, and gut wrenching regret.
The only problem here is the fact that all of us Righty lunatics won't just shut up about it and go away.
Jesus obviously had no problem with the issue of Abortion... If He had, then surely He would have adressed it directly.
Right?
So, go and sell all your stuff and give to the poor, and stop whining about the rights of tissue masses who have no voice.
What's wrong with you anyway?
I don't know. I guess I just have a heart.
Feel free to join in. This discussion needs a new voice. We're getting no where with the Libs.
Again you misunderstand. I merely give the Lord His due by accepting that His complete Will might not be understandable to me, while His Will for me as revealed in Scripture doesn't require anything more than to read It.
At the same time, you fail to remember that He will judge each of us and as per Christ's own words, not everyone who calls on His name will He know. It is one thing to speak of a loving God. It is quite another to ignore that He is a vengeful, wrathful God, that very part of His nature from which Christ died to save us.
You do yourself a disservice by trying to make complex that which is easy to understand. For what proclivities are YOU trying to get permission?
What about the tsunami a couple years ago? Act of God? Or freak of nature?
I do not support abortion. I don't find abortion to be absolutely necessary in our society. I believe there can be moral acts of prevention and, in cases where prevention did not happen, there can be moral acts of support to care for the mother and the resultant child either together or separately.
What I also cannot support are absolutist claims to a science for human life from conception. Current science is inconclusive and technically unable to define human life. I also cannot support those who use such absolutist claims to scientific precision because I find their motives to be untrustworthy upon examination, their means to be sordid polluters of their expressed ends, and their theological reasoning to depend upon a allegorical reading of ancient texts without acknowledging that the Gospel reframes them, fulfills them, and witnesses to the life of God, Christ, and Christ's body that is working to perfect and transcend them. There is no one or set of magical words in scripture that can be lifted out clean from all the other words. There is, I think, a center, a core message by which the rest can be evaluated with relative success. Jesus Christ is God's son, sent in love, born in flesh, sending out his disciples to show love with one another and service to the people whom they meet.
And so, my decision is that I cannot enter into moral persuasion of women who must make their own moral decision without violating conscience and faith in God in whom rests all things.
My own humble, and not doctrinal position, is that "human life" means that there is a symbiotic and active relationship between a human body - post gestational morphological changes - and an incipient self-consciousness. The degree of ambivalence in some of these words and the process to a state they describe is reason to predicate all thought on God's grace and mercy.
What about Sodom and Gomorrah?
The plagues of Egypt?
The parting of the Red Sea?
God has no control over weather? seas? the elements?
Are you sure?
"...who were the objects of God's wrath?"
I won't presume to know the answer.
I only offered biblical references. Katrina and the tsunami are well outside the biblical canon.
I'm 69 years old and I trust the Bible and Jesus Christ. As the old hymn says "I am satisfied with Jesus", I need not search man's books and ideas. You are free to search outside the Bible if you wish and if you are seeking The Way, The Truth and The Life; you will find no better source than the inspired Word of God. mom2
"Give me an example of God's wrath in the last one hundred years."
Biblical examples aren't enough for you? That Christ came to save us from it isn't enough for you? His wrath will be meted out on any He feels hasn't met His terms. How can this possibly not be part of your understanding? Maybe you think it means He'll scream at you.
"Give me an example of God's taking a life for no reason in the last one hundred years."
I never said He does. I'm saying He will if He wants to. Call it a perk of having the only Supreme Being gig. What's important is that one may not undestand why a given person was taken, may not see the point, may not be privy to God's master plan.
So, you can pay attention, discuss like a competent adult, or continue playing games with your silly questions. I'm game either way. It ain't my blog.
Now for some more education:
Here is a great site that explains the humanity of the unborn quite well, from the perspective of scientists who would know. Science has indeed confirmed what honest and reasonable people see as self-evident. And most do so without a serious spiritual mind! Imagine that! Perhaps if you'd engage your brain...it might give YOU a headache, but give it a try.
Wow.
"You ascribe attributes to God's nature but cannot point to anything except the ancient cultic understanding of Israelites..."
So, you also reject the authority of Scripture to which Jesus Himself adhered. Interesting.
"For God so loved the world, he gave his Son, his only Son to show us how to love, not condemn."
Really. Please state which NT book, chapter and verse you extracted that quote. I'm guessing that's from the Book of Feodor, which the early Church rejected for poorly drawn stick figures and bad penmanship.
Jesus may have taught us about loving our neighbors as ourselves, or about loving our enemies, but God sent Him to be the perfect sacrifice that would atone for our sins. That was His ultimate purpose, that we all might avoid the wrath of God that we deserve for our sinfulness. You see, you learn this when you're reading an actual Bible and not a comic book version.
And to be clear, what you're feeling is not hate by my words, it's frustration, and perhaps a bit of contempt for such a lame understanding of plainly explained teachings couched in condescension and arrogance, not to mention overly wordy prose meant to impress. And also pity for your inability to discern through the use of your allegedly serious spiritual mind, such as it is, the sanctity of human life, from conception on.
When God uses the word it means punishment.
God is love but He is also just. God made the rules. We must live by them or face the just wrath of God.
I think Feodor reacts to the negative connotation of the word, "wrath". It may be an unpleasant word to some, but it is nevertheless, the truth.
Be that as it may, because God sets the rules, God is the only one Who has the authority to change them if He sees fit.
Who can say what catastrophes or blessings come from God, and which ones are simply natural outcomes of things He set in motion centuries ago?
The OT writers had God's inspiration to enlighten us. We have only our theories. But I would venture to say, some of the seemingly needless and wasteful deaths and catastrophes are indeed caused by God for His own reasons, and some are simply the natural consequences of the environment.
An environment, by the way, that God created.
Either way, God is at least indirectly responsible for all percieved pain and all good.
"Perhaps you could make a study of "mercy" with some seriousness, some spiritual intent, with your mind engaged in order to overcome your hate, frustration, and anomie."
Perhaps you could make a study of not being an ass, provoking with your condescension, arrogance and poor interpretations followed by admonishing the provoked with calls to study Scripture. I am not the least bit moved by your faux piety that flares up like Dan's when the weakness of your position is exposed. I do not pretend to be something I am not, only a struggling Christian as opposed to Christ Himself. Don't bore me with your nonsense.
He said that you are a hypocrite and that you don't impress him.
Can you understand it now?
I try to keep up with things around here, even though I'm not able to comment as often as I'd like. But something big must have happened, since it appears that some got mad, left, and took all their toys...er...comments home with them. What a shame.
Whether I agree or disagree with a particular point being made, I appreciate Eric's commitment to trying to be a good and faithful servant of Christ. And I applaud his willingness to engage others in a spirited discussion of the things he think's worthy of serious attention.
Now, to the subject(s) at hand...
I've thought for some time that, when the "committed adultery in his heart" passage is considered along with James 1:14–15, it's pretty clear that Jesus was warning people to be vigilant and not allow sin to gain that initial foothold which, if not rejected at some point, seduces you and eventually gives birth to the sin that (when fully grown) brings death.
As for the abortion questions: I think things get very complicated for a number of reasons. Since abortions are legal - and, also, because many people have been convinced that it isn't even a person, yet - I don't see how one can unequivocally say that it is "murder" (since murder usually requires some kind of malicious intent). But it is at least the termination of nascent human life - and that alone should be reason enough not to do it (except in extreme cases). But human history shows that reason often has little or no real influence when it comes to the things we've made up our minds to do.
I think that late-term abortions are a no-brainer (no matter what one's position on abortion otherwise): It is an evil procedure. And the killing of a viable fetus is morally murder, even if not legally so. But there were equally evil practices going on in Jesus' day, but neither He, nor His disciples, seemed to get nearly as caught up in society's ills as modern day culture warriors do. (One gets the impression that Jesus wouldn't have been nearly as impressed with giant protest marches as people are today. He seemed to think that faithfully following Him and loving your neighbor as youself was the best way to change the world we live in.)
The question of, "is paying for an abortion murder", is also a difficult question to navigate. If the man providing the money is a murderer, then is the tax-payer guilty of at least manslaughter in the case of Federally funded abortions? And how far down that road do we go? Until everyone is guilty??
Jesus said to pay taxes - even though He surely knew that those taxes were helping finance a corrupt, oppressive, pagan political system. Were Christians who rendered unto Caesar guilty of the innocent blood spilt by Caesar?
Jesus rarely seemed to make big pronouncements about the greater ills of society - choosing to focus, instead, on small groups and individuals. And that seems to be the way the Kingdom is to be modeled until He returns. We are to be about the business of loving each other deeply (Jesus said that's how the world will know we're His disciples) - and loving the broken and lost in the society outside the Church (just as Jesus loved us while we were yet sinners). Living the Good News of the Kingdom would have a far greater impact on the world around us than talking about it.
I think what surprises me most, about some of the discussions that take place here (and elsewhere), is how many false dichotomies people raise to hide behind (e.g., feeding the belly vs. feeding the soul; valuing the poor vs. valuing the unborn; interpreting scripture literally vs. interpreting scripture 'sophisticatedly', etc). Seriously, when is anyone ever forced to choose between such things?
Can anyone even begin to plumb the incredible richness of the scriptures - and the abundant fullness of life that Jesus promises those who love Him - if one takes an either/or approach to interpretation? (Read carefully back over the discussions of this post and others, and see how often the more literal-minded resort to a sophisticated reading of inconvenient verses - and how literal-minded the sophistcated get when it serves their purpose.)
If one tries to be perfectly consistent on every issue, they'll just end up burned-out or crazy. Consistency is a very good thing, but trying to pursue it down too many rabbit holes can be maddening. Not everyone can - or should be expected to - be equally passionate about the same issues. But we can (or should) all be able to focus on the source of our salvation and JOY.
Scripture makes it abundantly clear that different members of the Body of Christ have different functions. So why do people get so worked up when a foot isn't devoting itself to the concerns of a hand? Why is the mouth criticised for not trying to be an ear?? We're to be focused on Christ (who is the head of the body) and what He's called us to do - not obssessed with what He's having other parts of the body do.