First off, I like the headline for this article. “Church tells ‘obvious lies’ about gay marriage.” You’d think that maybe they’d give you an example…but no such luck. I’m interest in what “lies” were promulgated, but I suspect it was just an out of context quote that could have otherwise been recorded “I’m mad, and I’m going to make an accusation without having anything to back it up, because when you’re mad you’re allowed to do that.”
I’ve said this before. I don’t care much about gay marriage. I think that churches should have the right to decide whether they, in particular, marry gay people. They should adjudicate that decision based on what they value, for instance, the Bible. I’m not a huge fan of extending any ban beyond the church’s jurisdiction, as I really don’t see the point. Unlike abortion, which is much grayer, if not turning black, there is no victum in this instance. Legalizing gay marriage is like legalizing cocaine for drug addicts – knock yourselves out, it’s your life, I don’t much care.
That said, I find it hard to see how the church can desire to make gay marriage illegal while making divorce legal. The Bible is exponentially more clear on divorce than it is on gay marriage, which, of course, wasn’t even a concept in ancient times. You had gay mistresses (or whatever the word would be, concubines maybe) back then. So, why crack down on gay marriage and not heterosexual divorce? Because it’s a hell of a lot easier to condemn sins that you’re not entangled in than it is to condemn those that you also struggle with. We pick our fights based on whatever moral high ground we can hold on to, since we, Christian collectively, fail hypocritically on all of the useful sins. Perhaps our war should be directed against our own rebel hearts – there are battles aplenty to be waged there without going out in search of some foreign field.
Words 
They should have been more specific. I sat through a sermon about the sin of being gay and how it is an evil committed against God. It was shocking and it made me feel bad as a heterosexual woman to know I was listening to bigotry. It was in a black church. I believe most of the condemnation comes from evangelicals. I live in the bible belt and hear white and black people that attend these churches openly talking of the disgrace and evil of “deciding to be gay”. They are just echoing what is being told to them by their pastors and it is a shame.
I have to agree that the title is a little vague. Rick Warren is a man that has skewed religious beleifs anyway (they tend to go towards New Age and that is not a good thing). So his involvment in this is not a suprise. I personally don’t believe that being gay is right or natural but that is a sin a gay person will have to pay for in heaven not me. So that is their choice. I have had my sins as well so I am not able to preach on that. I guess Mr Warren thinks he is perfect. I believe all are human and we are to love or brother/sister, so regardless of your sexual orientation I will love you in Christ.
Rachel, I am so sorry you endured such a horrible sermon. I would love to have these subjects be off limits to pastors ( I know mine just doesn’t speak of them from the pulpit). I want you to know that not every churh or Pastor speaks this way.
Have a blessed day everyone.
They did give one example : “propagate what he called misinformation about the Supreme Court ruling, including that gay marriage would have to be taught to kindergartners”
That said, the state should be set up to recognize civil unions – a legal agreement between two people, regardless of sex. If you want to “marry” that is a religious service best carried out in the church of your choosing (or not at all).
I must be on the CNN referral list now. I tend toward Nessa and Bill’s position here. Civil unions exist for tax purposes, so far as I can tell. Marriage, as defined in the Bible, should be the sort of thing that Bible churches perform. If you want some spiritual sanction to your relationship, you can probably get a “church” to do it for you. Fine by me. Churches are fallible. I’m not a fan of spreading inaccurate doctrines, but the government is not in the business of legislating mediation on ecclesiastical disputes.
The forefathers of this country knew the dangers of state-sponsored churches, so they in their infinite wisdom they devised the Second Amendment. Now, homosexuals want to overturn that amendment. The fact of the matter is, the people of California have spoken. Marriage is a priviledge reserved for a man and a woman, not two men or two women. It was the Bible and other books of religion that have clearly spoken out against homosexuality. Now, these people want the church, the very place that preaches againt homosexuality, to bless a “union” that according to their own text, is clearly condemned by God. What next, should peodophiles be allowed to bring their toddler aged “lovers” into the church and have them “bless” their unions? I think not. Clearly, the perverts want to further pervert thier thinking, as well as that of the general public, and force this garbage on the church. I say again, the people of California have spoken. They do not want homosexual marriage in their communities. That is not “hate”; it is majority rules.
When I say “they {homosexuals} want to overturn the Second Amendment, what I mean is they are trying to get the Courts (government) involved in an issue that is clearly a religious one. The Courts have no business interfering in the teachings of the church and, according to the Constiitution, no business in imposing the will on a few on the rest of us.
Ummm, you’re totally and utterly WRONG. The law allowing same sex couples to marry does NOT force churches to marry same sex couples. Like churches have done for centuries, they personally decide, exactly how you stated in your blog response, who they will marry. You think legislating same sex marriage is a slippery slope? Churches are going to be forced to marry gay couples because they are being given equal rights? Wrong again. What about churches that make you take counseling, be a certain religin or other requirements that are in place to get married at a particular denomination. I don’t really care about what gays do, and thats the point. No one should have a say about the person you love. And the government shouldn’t take a stance either. This is an example, once again, of people sticking their noses where it doen’t belong. As if Christianity has all the answers. The “False information” probably is the oft cited “fact” that straight society will be corrupted by amoral same sex teachings. Are you kidding me? Do we teach our kids all about the joy of interracial marriage? No! That is not a schools place, and neither would smae sex marriage education. Other than that, you really have no argument. This is the same as the race argument, something new scaring people that are stuck in the past.
I think most people realize that no church will be “forced” to recognize same sex unions. If it gets to the point where tax exempt status is rescinded because of a church’s lack of recognition of such unions, then we have a huge problem. I think a lot of people fear that we’d be heading in that direction.
Meanwhile, I think that “tj21” brings up an interesting point. Those who support the right to abortion bolster their argument by the majority opinion. Those who support gay marriage refuse the majority decision. These are the same people, in many cases, at least from a party-line voting standpoint. There’s something schizophrenic about saying that the majority is only allowed to make decisions that agree with your decisions. Either we live in a democracy where the people make decisions…or we don’t. You can’t have it both ways.
By the way, I’m going to stop approving moderated comments for a few hours. Sorry! Man’s got to work.
Rachel, there is no sitting on the fence on this issue of same sex marriage. As a Christian the Bible is very specific on its views towards marriage, and sins against the body which includes homosexuality, adultery… you can’t pick and choose which portions of the Bible you believe to be true. It was either all true or all lies. Homosexuality is mentioned and condemned in both the Old and New Testaments it’s not about how we feel about the issue it is about what God’s word says about the issue that true Christians have to honor.
There is no doubt that everyone sins, but what is being asked of the courts is to intervene with the church and alter the fabric of religious beliefs. To my knowledge all religions are specific about marriage and that it is a union between man and woman, and God (or a God). This includes Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, etc. If the courts were to rule and mandate same sex marriages to be performed by churches it would be asking them to go against some of their core beliefs and in the case of Christianity discard what the Bible spells out. It is not the governments place or right to do this.
I personally believe that civil unions should be allowed, and tax breaks, benefits, and all the other aspects that a man/woman marriage get to benefit from should be received, but asking a church to perform a religious ceremony before God that goes against their bylaws is just wrong.
Bottom line is marriage is a religious ceremony and it is not the courts place to bend matters of the church to appease one small group of individuals.
On a separate note, let’s say the Democratic majority bring the issue back into the federal court system and pass federal laws mandating churches to perform same sex marriages. On Sunday’s pastors/preacher still need to teach the scripture and they get to Corinthians 6:9-10 which states “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” As a pastor you are held to a higher standard and judged more harshly by God because you have a greater responsibility, it is a sin to add to or take away from the word of God, the only Biblical choice is to address the scripture. The pastor addresses the scripture and the same sex couple that was married in the very same church a few weeks earlier takes offense and sues for discrimination and slander. Stating “I was married before God in a religious ceremony in this very church, but you preach as if we are not equals with traditional marriages… what now?
Get over it gay community. You lost because you keep trying to push your lifestyle in the face of heterosexuals. You also lost because you are trying to change the definition marriage that has stood for thousands of years…the one that makes biological sense. You have civil unions and all the attendant legal rights that married people have. The law just doesn’t call it marriage. That should be enough. Get over it.
The ‘lie’ that homosexuality will forced as a topic in school? Just look a Massachusetts; that is exactly what happened. Gay marriage was legalized, and the public schools did begin teaching it (kindergarden no less) and the school did tell the parents they had no right to pre-notification. So, where is the lie?
Homosexual marriages….nope…especially after I saw the homosexual teacher taking her first graders to her wedding during school time and kissing on the front steps of the court house with all these children standing on the steps…guess where… California. Do what you want to…live with whoever you want to….but marriage no.
WC… As a gay man… I am the expert here NOT YOU. If you think for one single minute that I would “chose” to have people like you hate me then you are a complete fool. You have no idea what is like to be born gay… you have no idea what goes through your mind as a child… the self-hate the loathing… because your church, your family, your friends all tell you that being gay is the worst possible sin ever. And suicide rates among gay teens are four times the rate among heterosexual teens.
You think that people CHOSE to be treated like that? You think gay people want to be vilified and hated? What sort of sick human being are you?
You do not know what you are talking about and you need to shut up and listen…
No one is demading that churches “bend” their rules to accomodate an individual group. Quite the contraray. I don’t know any couple who demands a church marry them. If a catholic/protestant couple wants to get married in the catholic church, one half of that couple must convert and be counseled (as if they are a lesser Christian) to have their union “blessed”. That is that couple’s choice. On the other hand, there are plenty of churches who are less judgmental and willing to unite the same two people looking ot share their lives together. THE POINT IS THAT THE STATE WILL RECOGNIZE THAT COUPLE’S UNION. “Marriage” is not only a religious rite, it is reflected elsewhere in society. If any particular church chooses not to bless a union because the couple is homosexual, that is their own bigoted agenda to rationalize, but the larger issue is that even if a church DOES marry a gay couple, it is not legally binding. The state will not recognize the marriage. So to all of you close minded bigots who somehow rationalize the astounding divorce rate in heterosexual marriages and to the churches that counsel couples struggling with adultery… it is not demanding that churches marry couples, it is not making them bend their rules against the will of God, it is not catering to an individual group, it is acknowledging people who love each other and want to share their lives with one another. If you believe it to be a sin,let them be judged in heaven as you believe you will be. It is not legislating churches and their doctrines, quite the opposite… if a church IS willing to bless a gay union, why must you legislate against that??!?!??! Or is it only churches that practice what you specifically belive in and agree with that should be protected from having to bed to the willof he evil gay community? People want to get married. That is all. Not convert your children to homosexuality. Not invade your schools and corrupt your values… the same values that make excuses for child molesters in parishes across the country, counsel adulterers, look past divorce and bind women with guilt in having to reconcile their faith with their individual freedoms. I suppose you are too busy worrying about who is allowed to love eachother to worry about preventing actual problems. Fear must be a heavy weight to carry. I pack light for heaven.
I’m not going to get in on the specifics of the above debate.
The conversation seems to be going in a somewhat gay-bashing direction and that raises a red flag for me.
Before you start pointing out the speck in your brother’s eye, remember to remove the plank in your own. Jesus did not come to condemn the world, but to save the world. As we engage in dialogues as Christians, it is important that LOVE reign in our words and our actions.
Turns out I don’t know enough to have an opinion on this particular bill. If marrying of whomever is compulsory for churches, I’m against it – not the government’s jurisdiction. If “civil union” and “marriage” mean different things from a governmental standpoint, then I’m not sure why. Let civil unions be the non-religious form of marriage.
If Christians are jealous to keep their terminology, fine, whatever. No one legitimizes a marriage under God save for God. I don’t care if some churches recognize some forms of union while others don’t. God gets the final say, and whichever church has led its congregation astray will be judged in the end. I don’t decide, so I’m not going to speculate. If my opinion counted, I’d have one – but it would have to be informed both biblically and politically.
One thing I do know…most people say what they want to say and leave. No one really cares what anyone else has to say. Until discourse develops, discord will deliver nothing but division.
And that’s the second time I’ve used those same words alliteratively. Somebody try and stop me.
I think that if the church cares so much about “keeping marriage sacred”, it should require heterosexuals to actually practice some sort of religion or be “spiritual” in some pretty seriously more-than-just-passable way before they’ll agree to [take money for officiating at] the marriage. Divorce and pre-nuptial agreements should be absolutely forbidden. Marriage should actually, 100% be about the sacred love of a man and woman for each other — no combined checking accounts, no changes in taxation, nothing. Nothing on paper at all, except an embossed doily with hearts and curlicues on it.
But at that point, the only people who would still want to get married are gays.
Only until people let them do it, then they’ll get bored too.
Most churches, especially conservative ones, require pre-marital counselling, most often with the Pastor or through a church designed program. It doesn’t work, and oftentimes it isn’t Biblically based (depending on the church), but they try.
Other than your snarky comment at the end I think I pretty much agree with you. The only way to avoid hypocrisy in this situation is to take your heterosexual marriage as seriously as you claim that it is. If you really held marriage to be sacred – and called upon the Bible as your justification on the definition of marriage, would you be having sex before it? Are you prepared to be mutually submissive, prepared to present your wife as pure and spotless before God? We just covered all of this in my Marrieds and Eric study last night…end of Ephesians 5 was the main draw.
Maybe I’ll write more about this someday. Probably after I study the topic more.
To elaborate slightly, I think that if the prospective marrieds are not fit for a religious/church-administered united-in-holy-matrimony arrangement — i.e., if they need a single thing more than meaningless ornate frou-frous to appear on paper — they are more than welcome to go ahead and enjoy the benefits of a Civil Union™. If they aren’t serious enough about the religious connotations of Marriage™, they shouldn’t be rewarded with the title.
Absolutely. I like it; let’s propose the legislation. Way to reach across the aisle.
And how about when “married” people get divorced, instead of splitting the settlement half and half, it should be split like 25%, 25% and 50% to some charity arrangement that they have to provide pre-marriage. But civil unions wouldn’t have that penalty. Let’s put our money where our mouths are.
Maybe that’s not even necessary. It’d be like getting a BS instead of a BA or a regents diploma over a regular diploma – you can feel better about the piece of paper, but it doesn’t really mean anything.
Ahh… the long winded commenter is back.
From a Biblical perspective, “gay marriage” is a non-entity. It does not exist and can never exist. Marriage was set up by God between a man and a woman. This is how God and the Bible view marriage.
Is being gay wrong? Again Biblically, it is. I don’t know how one could argue against the several Scriptures which address the issue. Are lying, theft, drunkenness, and adultery wrong? Yes, again, how could one argue otherwise when looking at Scripture. Should the church speak out against that which is wrong and does not honor God? Absolutely. Should a church preach the entire Word of God? Or, should they choose only those passages which don’t upset folks? Sadly enough, the way things are going, attempts to silence the church will most likely become more prevalent. See the following link for a case where an Albertan pastor has been fined for advocating his views publicly: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060902.html. He’s been ordered to publicly apologize and to also desist from sharing his views in any public forum. Would the same folks that vehemently argue for gay rights argue that his free speech has been violated? Feel like this site is slanted, maybe don’t believe it? Try this page: http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/419.asp
I think more to the heart of this issue, and other social/moral issues is the underlying moral system held by the society. Today moral relativism is en vogue. With a relativistic view an individual becomes the source of his/her own truth. If you are the purveyor of your truth, who is to deny you what you deem to be truth? After all, your truth comes from your own reference point. Thus with abortion, it is now for the individual to ‘choose’. With being gay, only the individual can know what is truth for him/her.
This probably sounds good to some people out there reading this at this point. However, is moral relativism a valid moral system? Are all views equally as valid? What makes a view not equally as valid as all other views? Let’s suppose a man working in a nursing home decides that for him all older people are a drain on society. They are deemed to be of lesser value than other folks. For him euthanasia on demand is deemed a good thing. Maybe he even decides to start taking the lives of folks living in his nursing home. Clearly, most people would declare justice be done and this man be tried and punished. Why would they decide this? Is there absolute Truth in existence here? Remember, this man has decided what is right from his perspective. If you adhere to a morally relativistic worldview, did he do anything wrong? The point is, there is absolute Truth. Whether or not the pro-abortionist or gay rights supporter like to admit it or not, Truth is not relative. Neither is morality. Morality descends directly from absolute Truth. Without absolute Truth, what stops murder from becoming morally right? The majority opinion? The majority opinion also has held other things at different times in history. The majority opinion for much of the world held that slavery was ok. Was it? Did the majority holding a paticular view make that view morally right? We talk about “rights”. Where do these “rights” come from ultimately?
For any who might pick, let me clarify my views briefly.
Do I advocate degrading gay people? Certainly not.
Are Christians called to love others? Uh, Yes!
Are not all sins dishonoring to God and His absolute Truth? Yes.
Are Christians guilty of dishonoring God in things besides being gay? Certainly.
Should Christians abstain from all sin? Yes. (Are they capable? No.)
Should non-Christians abstain from all sin as well and ultimately angering God? Uh, yes. (Are they capable? No.)
The topic has become a shibboleth, a line in the sand when there are so many bigger fish to fry. Because of a select few, people get the impression that Christians spend all their time thinking about abortion and homosexuality. I’ve been to Grace. I know Mark preached on homosexuality recently – and I know that he is moderate, I’m sure it was very tactful. But if you added up all of the sermons for the past 5 years, how many do you think would be on one of those subjects? Five at least for Abortion, since they do it once a year for Abortion Awareness Day or whatever it’s called. Maybe 2 or 3 for homosexuality? You’re looking at less than 10 out of 500 sermons – and that’s coming from a non-liturgical church that flies by the seat of its pants when it comes to sermon selection.
In my church, which is a little bit more restrained and structured along traditional biblical topics, I cannot in the 2.5 years that I have been there recalled any single sermon that was devoted solely to one of those topics. There were probably 5 sermons each that spent more than 30 seconds on either topic.
A lot of people would think that if they looked up Christianity in the dictionary, they’d find
Christianity: popular world religion that is opposed to abortion and gay rights.
I honestly think that you would have to write 10 single spaced pages about Christianity before either the word “abortion” or “gay” came up. Do you know how tangential homosexuality is to the Bible? I break the sabbath and just as unapologetically. The Bible spills so much more ink on that then homosexual anything, and you don’t see Churches picketing grocery stores that are open on Sunday.
I was actually serious regarding my discussion with Bess. I think we’re on to something there.
I’m not going to argue about this point too far, as we have a fundamental agreement in there somewhere. I don’t know if homosexuals are born gay. I don’t know if schizophrenics are born with schizophrenic tendency. I don’t know if alcoholics are born with chemical tendencies toward alcoholism. I do know that only one of those things is biologically ridiculous, apart from any moral implications. If you had a race horse that only mated with other male horses, you’d be like “what the hell is wrong with my race horse?”
Tell you what. Establish the concept of sin to a society that doesn’t think its an issue, then we’ll talk specifics. We are, again, looking at the effect and not the cause.
I think it’s important to point out that being gay doesn’t hurt anyone. Lying, theft, adultery, and drunkenness — and whatever other sins you mention — do have the potential to hurt someone besides the doer. Abortion doesn’t hurt anyone, either. You might argue that both gayness and abortion hurt the gay or abortion-having individual, but that’s really none of your business. It doesn’t affect you as a person, or society. Actually, I would even argue that YOU thinking that other people’s personal actions are your business is MORE detrimental to the idea of a democratic/free society than the actions themselves.
I could go on and on about this as usual — I’m not going to reiterate the same crap I always do just because there’s a new commenter here — but one new thing I’m glad Furstie & I agree on is that the church can continue to preside over holy marriages for its serious religion-practicing heteros, and everybody else (straight, gay, bi, transexual, asexual) can be united via civil union if they so desire. If you don’t take “marriage” seriously — as it is layed out in the bible or whatever — then why would you “get” to hold the title? I mean, would you go near your wife during her ominous monthly devil-wrought bleeding, knowing full well that plague will descend upon your crops? Of course not — Deuteronomy is pretty clear about that.
I think we need to consider what Jesus himself would think about abortion and gay marriage. Obviously he would think abortion is tragic — AS EVERYONE DOES — but would he be standing outside abortion clinics, throwing ketchup and telling 18 year-olds they’ll burn in hell? Would he even think that the “state” should dictate what is allowable in any respect? No, I think that Jesus was a trailblazer in kicking off women’s rights by not viewing women’s bodies as receptacles — viewing whores as people, too — and I’m sure he’d be sad about it — LIKE WE ALL, both pro-choice and anti-choice, are — but would he really put his foot down, ignoring the life of the woman, declaring it murder and siding with the laws that abolish it? Really, I’m interested in hearing what you think (or what Jesus’s actual views on the issue are, since I honestly don’t know).
What would Jesus think of gay marriage? I have a feeling he’d laugh hysterically at what a big deal it’s been turned into.
Abortion is decidedly counter-productive to the life of the baby. I’m not going to agree with you that it is victumless. That statement is borderline delusional. Of course Jesus wouldn’t throw ketchup. He only showed physical anger once, and that was for a much more theologically (and prophesied) important event. But there’s no way he’s coming down in favor of abortion – it’s one of those cultural non-issues that doesn’t get air time in the Bible…but it is an undercurrent, and it is ASSUMED that the baby is alive. There are punishments in the old testament for those who harm a woman such that the baby is harmed. The baby is, biblically speaking, a person.
It’s worth noting that though he dealt with the “whore” with love and refused to allow hypocrits to condemn her, he did tell her to cease her pattern of sin. I don’t think he’d condone gay marriage, as I don’t think he’d condone the concept in general. But here Jesus is silent. Paul offers more on it, but it’s hardly his focus either. The “big deal” comment might be accurate.
So the unborn baby is a “victim” but when we allow that baby to be born into a world where it’s unwanted and it turns to drugs and prostitution and your tax dollars, it then becomes an leeching burden to society, correct? THEN you kick it to the curb.
I think there should be a new rule: anyone who feels it’s his or her responsibility to keep somebody else’s fetus alive should be put onto a list to volunteer future babysitting, counseling, and Big Brother / Big Sister services for when that fetus becomes an adult. And since usually you’re speaking for all fetuses, you’d be employed in an on-call fashion 24/7 for pretty much the rest of your life. Why should involvement end at conception? So far the only person here practicing what she preaches — literally — is Lara.
Sorry, by “conception” I meant “birth”…
If you read that big long abortion thread, you would have seen that I was saying that the only morally consistent anti-abortion view was one where the anti-abortioners are also pro-adoption.
Meanwhile, there is another solution. I’d support tax payer dollars to tie the tubes of people who can’t stop getting pregnant – or people who can’t stop getting other people pregnant. How about we not get pregnant in the first place? What does sex exist for? To make babies. So if you’re not planning on making babies, stop having damn sex. No reason to murder an infant because you can’t live with the repercussions if your own decisions.
This, too, is why I’m not so ardently anti-abortion as some. It’s not the woman’s fault if she’s raped and ends up pregnant that way. It’s not sensible to require that a woman carry a baby to term if the baby is going to kill her on the way out. The personal culpability for one’s actions are important – that’s what needs to be maintained, and that is what is being eroded in society. I have no idea how to force someone who is raped to have a baby, even though the alternative is the murder of said baby. Very tacky indeed.
And yes, it is troublesome that only women live with the results of a mistake that also involves a man. Doesn’t mean that killing babies is the solution.
I know, I know, and I’m proud of you for what you said in the abortion thread, which is one of the reasons I stayed out of it. The other reason was that it was a conversation between two people of a very specific faith — with the tenets of that faith accepted as prerequisites to participation — making my input irrelevant.
But oh well, now we’re back to the abortion equals murder bit.
Mostly in response to Eric’s post on November 13th, 2008 at 10:16 pm:
1 – Does the church go on too much about homosexuality? Yes. I think we agree.
2 – Should the church be utterly silent on the topic? No. Again I think we agree.
3 – Do other sins (adultery, lying, pride, you name it . . .) do just as much to separate us from God? Yes. I know we agree.
4 – Why am I posting about homosexuality? I saw it as a topic brought up on this blog. I understood that this was where folks were exchanging ideas/worldviews on the subject.
Is homosexuality tangential to the Bible? I don’t think you mean that in the sense in which it can be construed. I think you mean that to harp on one sin while ignoring all others is counterproductive. Sin is certainly central to the Bible necessitating Jesus’ coming. As one of many sins (see question 3 above), it is part of the reason for all of us needing restoration. I think you use tangentiality in the sense of question 1 above. Making it THE focus is not a good idea. Again, why post on the subject at all? See number four above. Why would you (meant as a collective) post a response to this? See number four above.
Eric: “Tell you what. Establish the concept of sin to a society that doesn’t think its an issue . . .”.
That’s a hard one! Isn’t that sort of the point though on an individual basis. No one sees the need for any saving unless the concept of sin and its effect is grasped.
Bess,
1 – You indicate that abortion is tragic. What specifically makes it tragic?
Bess: “So the unborn baby is a ‘victim’ but when we allow that baby to be born into a world where it’s unwanted and it turns to drugs and prostitution and your tax dollars, it then becomes an leeching burden to society, correct? THEN you kick it to the curb.”
2 – If we could know ahead of time those that will become a burden to society, should we terminate them?
3 – What about those folks who already are a ‘burden’ now? Should their lives be terminated?
On reply one:
No need to restate anything that we both agree with. I was not challenging you to establish the concept of sin. I was saying that the church is responsible for showing people that they need saving, in general, before they can have the credibility to tell a certain people group that they need reformation, in particular. We probably agree on that primacy as well.
The main reason for the post was CNN’s insistence on titling their articles inaccurately. They offered no examples of Warren’s supposed comments – I was assuming that they did so because there were no good examples available. Warren is as magnanimous as they come.
Reply on two:
I get the feeling someone who disagrees with you is going to dismiss your statements as patently ridiculous. I, for one, agree with you that they are logical ramifications of her argument pattern. One can often times distill an argument to its core premises by taking it to its limiting case. Is a practice intrinsically good or bad? What happens if we take it a step further (infanticide of babies who are born with defects), is it still good or bad? How about another step further (toddlers that develop severe autism), is it still good or bad? If you end up with a smeared mish-mosh of moral conclusions, one that shifts somewhere in some nebulous gray area, it should make you wonder “am I qualified as a moral compass?” And if you’re not…who is? Answer is God. If the answer is “no one”, then, well, I guess none of it matters after all and we might as well start talking about sports.
1 – You indicate that abortion is tragic. What specifically makes it tragic?
It’s a difficult decision to have to make, and it’s sad and unfortunate to find oneself in such a predicament where one has to choose between her own life and the potential future (but not yet conscious or feeling) life in her womb. Nobody jumps for joy when they’ve taken every possible precautionary measure and end up pregnant anyway, whistling all the way to the clinic.
Bess: “So the unborn baby is a ‘victim’ but when we allow that baby to be born into a world where it’s unwanted and it turns to drugs and prostitution and your tax dollars, it then becomes an leeching burden to society, correct? THEN you kick it to the curb.”
2 – If we could know ahead of time those that will become a burden to society, should we terminate them?
Where above did I write that I believe we should force all women to terminate their pregnancies?
3 – What about those folks who already are a ‘burden’ now? Should their lives be terminated?
They — as thinking, conscious, living, breathing adults — can choose to terminate their own lives if they so desire, but nobody is forcing them to, just like nobody is forcing anyone to have an abortion.
Bess,
– Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I was simply posing a hypothetical, not trying to put words in your mouth. You never said “we should force all women to terminate their pregnancies.” I was curious about a hypothetical situation – one in which a woman could tell the future. In your opinion, if she knew that her baby would turn to drugs and prostitution, and become a burden to society, should she decide to have an abortion?
–
Bess: “. . . and the potential future (but not yet conscious or feeling) life in her womb . . .”
When does the potential future life come to be?
Tim, I have trouble conveying tone digitally. Please don’t take anything I’m saying as retaliatory jumping down your throat.
1. My opinion about whether she should decide to have an abortion is irrelevant. It’s her choice alone.
2. You know, I think we should actually go ahead and define life as officially starting at conception. Why haven’t we yet? Oh yeah, because then we’d have to give the fetus all the same rights as a living, breating U.S. Citizen — including forking over more taxpayer dollars than you can shake a stick at (has anyone ever run the numbers on that, btw?) — and charging backalley/coathanger abortion-seeking pregnant women with murder.
1 – So let’s carry the hypothetical down to you. It is only a hypothetical; we are not calling you a bad mother that will raise the child in question to be as he/she will be. That would be a ridiculous thing to do. So we will assume you can tell the future. We will have to imagine that your child will (it’s guaranteed in this imaginary world) turn to drugs and prostitution and be a drain on the system in general. Would you terminate your pregnancy?
2 – So when does the baby become a ‘life’? If it’s unthinkable for conception to be defined as the moment, where would you define it? Birth? Somewhere in between? What is the best place to define it?
1. Am I 18 or 30? Is the “father” my husband, boyfriend, rapist, or other? Have a just started my career or am I ready to take a few years off to start a family?
2. I didn’t say it was unthinkable — I just don’t understand why it hasn’t officially been defined yet, if not because the powers-that-be realized what kind of extra work and chaos would ensue. Women miscarry A LOT, especially in the first trimester. Do we hold funerals for miscarried fetuses? What if a woman’s miscarriage may have been caused by something she inadvertently did? Is that manslaughter?
2 – I don’t see how defining life as beginning at conception would create extra work and chaos. Don’t we already have chaos by deciding that life is not important enough to value and keep? Shouldn’t we just decide that Truth is truth, instead of basing it on what some consider to be desirable ends and/or means? As easy as that may seem in one’s mind — I guess, sadly, it’s not.
1 – Taking the same variables we’ve laid out, why don’t you tell me the remaining minimum set of variables that will lead to you choosing to abort the child. Or rather, you don’t have to. There’s no need to pin you down to an answer. You’ll probably still see the need for a woman’s “choice”, and I’ll still see each life (no matter how small) as having value. God makes us in His image and tells us to value the life which he has made precious by virtue of designer and likeness. We will either comply, or more often than not, we won’t.
1. Apparently 1.6 million abortions are performed in the U.S. each year. You’re telling me society would have no problem taking care of 1.6 million extra people per year, on top of the overpopulation that already exists increasingly by the year? Or would the first round of fetuses forced to term serve as a deterrent for future pregnant women, thereby driving the numbers down eventually?
2. I just firmly believe that if you feel like you should have a strong opinion about life forming in all U.S. women’s bodies, then you should have to put your money where your mouth is, and agree to support those unborn children throughout their lives. By having any say, you’re assuming the parenting responsibilities, and the receptacle who bears them should be let off the hook.