Does Church history support the notion that abortion is a human right? (From a January 4, 2021 podcast by Dr. Albert Mohler) What is the Christian churches historic position on the sanctity of human life? And here, I want to refer to the fact that if you look at the history of the Christian church, there has been an extremely consistent affirmation of the sanctity of unborn life and the condemnation of abortion. We could go back to the very first century of the Christian experience, the very first century of the Christian church, between the years of 80 and 120 AD. There, you had an official teaching of the church that was shared by the churches in that first and second century of the church's experience, and was tied to the authority of the disciples themselves. The dedicate stated that the teaching of the Christian church comes down to the way of life versus the way of death. The way of life commands that Christians shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not murder a child by abortion or commit infanticide. Both abortion and infanticide were common in the Roman empire, but Christians were forbidden to murder any child, born or unborn, and the way of life as the dedicated made clear honors the sanctity of life. The leaders of the church, the Christian church in its early centuries such as Clement of Alexandria, who lived between 150 and 215 made clear the sin of women who "in order to hide their immorality, use abortive drugs, which expel the matter completely dead, abort at the same time their human feelings." Tertullian, another early church leader in the years 160 to 240 taught even more comprehensively. Tertullian wrote, "For us, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth," said Tertullian, "is just a speedier man-killing. Nor does it matter when you take away a life that is born or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one. You have the fruit already in the seed." Those are just two examples of the pro-life commitment of the early church, a position that included affirmation explicitly from early church leaders, including Athenagoras, Hippolytus, Basil the Great, Ambrose, Jerome, John Chrysostom, and Augustine. A document from the fourth century known as the Apostolic Constitutions states the pro-life position this way, "Thou shalt not slay the child by causing abortion nor kill that which has begotten. For everything that is shaped and have received a soul from God, if it be slain shall be avenged as being unjustly destroyed." Michael J. Gorman in his book Abortion in the Early Church states the matter very clearly, that "all Christian writers opposed abortion." Every mention of abortion in the early church rejects it, and does so forcefully. Gorman writes this, "Writers of the first three Christian centuries laid the theological and literary foundation for all subsequent early Christian writing on abortion." And he went on to say that there were three important themes that emerged during these early Christian centuries. Number one, the fetus is the creation of God. Number two, abortion is murder. And number three, the judgment of God falls on those guilty of abortion.
God Is So Not Pro-Life By Brian Bolton A prominent fundamentalist Christian minister and television celebrity regularly proclaims that the unborn child has a God-given right to life, that life is a gift from God, and that abortion is the sinful destruction of God's sacred creation. These and similar assertions are thoroughly refuted by "God's word," the holy bible. Defenders of women's reproductive rights should know what the bible actually says about abortion and, by extension, related issues, including contraception, the morning-after pill, in vitro fertilization and fetal tissue research. Scriptural truths Ten biblical episodes and prophecies provide an unequivocal expression of God's attitude toward human life, especially the ontological status of "unborn children" and their pregnant mothers-to-be. Brief summaries: • A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25). • The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31). • God enumerated his punishments for disobedience, including "cursed shall be the fruit of your womb" and "you will eat the fruit of your womb," directly contradicting sanctity-of-life claims (Deuteronomy 28:18,53). • Elisha's prophecy for soon-to-be King Hazael said he would attack the Israelites, burn their cities, crush the heads of their babies and rip open their pregnant women (2 Kings 8:12). • King Menahem of Israel destroyed Tiphsah (also called Tappuah) and the surrounding towns, killing all residents and ripping open pregnant women with the sword (2 Kings 15:16). • Isaiah prophesied doom for Babylon, including the murder of unborn children: "They will have no pity on the fruit of the womb" (Isaiah 13:18). • For worshiping idols, God declared that not one of his people would live, not a man, woman or child (not even babies in arms), again confuting assertions about the sanctity of life (Jeremiah 44:7-8). • God will punish the Israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb, or never even be conceived (Hosea 9:10-16). • For rebelling against God, Samaria's people will be killed, their babies will be dashed to death against the ground, and their pregnant women will be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16). • Jesus did not express any special concern for unborn children during the anticipated end times: "Woe to pregnant women and those who are nursing" (Matthew 24:19). Biblical atrocities The 10 incidents and declarations surveyed above document God's complete rejection of the anti-abortion crusaders' claims about the sanctity of life and a divine right to life. There is clearly no biblical justification for the radical theology they espouse. This section summarizes God's monumental history of murderous behavior as recorded in holy writ.
Someone who says God doesn’t exist, the Bible’s a fairytale, attempts to teach from the Bible? Everything you posted is taken so far out of context it’s laughable. Just stick with your atheistic rants.
Teach? Lol. Just pointing out what's actually written in the Bible is hardly teaching Yeah sure, same old out of context chestnut . You like it, then it's the word of God. You don't like it, then it's out of context. puleeze. If one thing is clear, it's stuff like the Bible and religion which generally have the capability to clearly make followers fundamentally dishonest enough to excuse or ignore the innumerable atrocities promoted within their doctrines.That must surely debase any of the innate concerns for fellow humans which precede religion. Grievous and abominable acts of violence, usually carried out for, or by, a monstrous God character, (which again without any moral rectitude, hypocritically is claimed to love everyone) are hand waved away with comments like "out of context". I suppose Mein Kampf must be "out of context" too. Not something anyone should teach in my view. More reasonably, something to be ashamed of.
%% LOL/good rebuke. And Samson, [cartoon]despite his faults/ is still in the Hebrew hall of fame/faith Hebrews chapter 11.........................................................................................
Should Christians Take a Public Oath? (The following is the opinion of Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. and does not represent my own personal view. It is therefore likely to be presented to participants/learners in any educational program I establish simply for their consideration and not as information they should necessarily accept as true.) Some Christians wonder about the president taking an oath or affirming an oath. Doesn't the Bible say that we should not take oath as Christians? Didn't Jesus reference this in the Sermon on the Mount? Doesn't the book of James refer to this, saying, "Let your yay be yay and your nay be nay?" It's actually a very interesting question and a somewhat complicated question because even in Hebrew 6, God is said to vow. We are also told that angels have made oath or made vows. By the way, in English, vow generally refers to a private affirmation. An oath refers to a commitment that is made in public, but that's not always particularly clear because marriage vows are most significant because they are also public, so we'll just consider that the words vow and oath refer to basically the same thing. In Matthew 5, Jesus says, "Do not take an oath at all either by heaven for it is the throne of God, or by the earth for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem for it is the city of the great king." Now, that's in the Sermon on the Mount. James refers to the very same principle in James 5:12, "Let your yay be yay and your nay be nay." Does that mean that Christians should never swear an oath, as in giving testimony in a court or entering an office like president of the United States, or for that matter, entering into the sacred vows of marriage in a marriage ceremony? Most Christians have understood that both Jesus and James are referring to the fact that, number one, Christian should never vow or take an oath to do something that they do not intend to do. Secondly, they should not take a vow or make an oath to undertake something that it is not within their power to do, and go on and say a third thing. They should not have to claim a divine or other authority to add credibility to their yes or their no. So, if we're talking about Christians, using God's name or making a vow or taking an oath as a way of buttressing our own character saying yes or no, well, Jesus and James would tell us that's a problem, but in so far as we enter into an office or take an oath, or we enter into the responsibility to give testimony in public, we may take an oath or swear an oath because it is what is required of every member of the population under the same circumstances. It is not as if we are claiming a divine sanction because we're not trustworthy. It is because we are willing before God and humanity to say we are, before God, going to say what is true. We're going to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or as the President of the United States will say with hand uplifted and often with a hand on the Bible, he will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and all the other words of the presidential oath. Now, finally in conclusion, the last words you probably remember of the presidential oath are the words, so help me, God. Most presidents have used those words. Historians debate whether George Washington used those words, but the point is this. The presence of those words is a way of making very clear that every human being taking that oath of office understands that there is a divine judge who is watching.
Should a Christian use gender-neutral pronouns? Perhaps I should avoid the use of gender pronouns, because this would circumvent the problem of misgendering other people, right? Plus, it would reduce the salience of gender in everyday interactions, which would likely be a good thing for women, regardless of whether or not their assigned sex at birth was female, correct? Moreover, if I fail to use preferred pronouns, I am essentially invalidating an individual's identify. It's like I'm saying they don't really matter to me and I don't respect them at all as a person, isn't it? Well, I'm sorry if they feel this way, but to be honest, I don't trust myself to discern what's best for me or anyone else, because only God knows everything. So, I look to Him for guidance. And Scripture conveys in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 the desirability of my being sanctified completely—spirit, soul and body. And with this in mind, Ephesians 6:11 teaches that I do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against...spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places; with Satan being chief among them, who according to the Gospel of John (8:44), does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him, but is in fact a liar and the father of lies. The Messiah Himself said that if I abide in His words, I will know the truth, and the truth will set me free; and Romans 1:18 warns that people will suppress the truth by unrighteousness. So, it's no surprise that Romans 12:2 informs me that I should not be conformed to this world, but that I should be transformed by the renewal of my mind, that by testing I may discern what is the will of God. Ephesians 6:11 encourages believers to stand against the devil's schemes/strategies/evil tricks—with deception being chief among them. So then, I cannot participate in delusional beliefs, such as the idea that a man can become a woman simply by claiming to be one, because I know there are dark spiritual forces behind such affronts to the natural order, even if the people putting forth these ideas are themselves unaware of it. Jesus warned, "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." That's just the way it is. Jesus also said that, "He who created them from the beginning made them male and female." So then, I don't wish to offend any person. But, I would hate to offend God even more so, seeing as how my spirit hangs in the balance. P.S. The Bible warns believers that the devil attacks us with deception, so we should wear truth for protection—as part of God's armor. The battleground is in our minds, so my problem is not with any individual, it is with the devil. That is who I am at odds with. But, if possible, Satan will use people to come against me, even without them being aware that this is what's going on, and I simply cannot yield to such spiritual assaults.
Should a Christian use gender-neutral pronouns? For more practical, reasonable, and truthful explanations of such questions, those who can think for themselves tend use a dictionary not a Bible.
%% Great points . People curse the business man with no ethics, but the one with a social conscience recieves praise from all. People curse the one who hoards grain, but pray blessings on the one who is willing to sell/sells it Proverbs 11,TRP, NIV, NKJV. I try to stay out of court, but you have to raise your right hand if on the witness stand....... IS the Dave Ramsey joke about the gov of NY + CA needing to ne changed like a dirty diaper right ?? Yes LOL