Posted on 09/11/2013 8:00:17 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
In the letters to the seven churches in Revelation he also told the churches to repent.
Capital punishment is not necessarily “vengeance,” by the way. It is simply obedience to God’s imperative command for a certain unique crime: the shedding of the blood of innocents.
Life and equal protection are intrinsically “all or nothing.”
You’re either alive, or you’re dead.
And either all are protected equally, or the rights of none are secure.
You are mistaken to think that a child ‘s mother cannot be healed (very well) from such a incident...you are limiting what can be by ‘assuming’ it’s cut and dry and beyond recovering from.
Further...have you actually seen the statistics of woman having conceived in our country from rape?......Compare those to the actual number of abortions and you cannot justify the numbers....I dare you to try.
Rape is being “USED” to justify taking the life of the unborn child and a comman argument Progressives have framed and declared since Roe vs Wade.... that does not hold water with the ‘millions’ of babies being killed for the sake of the mothers “comfort” and/or as a birth control method....when in actuality it is all about getting rid of the “natural” evidence of a sexual union after the fact.
“Kids conservative talk radio superstar Sean Hannity”
that’s another way of saying “juvenile Catholic” (childish formation) calling such children “evil seed”.
It was exceptions that opened the door to abortion on demand in this country, and it is the exceptions mindset that keeps abortion on demand going. Because once you give up the principles of equal protection and UNALIENABLE rights, there are no moral, constitutional or legal weapons left to use against abortion on demand. You’re disarmed. You’ve surrendered. You’ve been utterly defeated.
You could flip that around, though: No woman should be FORCED to capitulate through social stigma to the spirit of the times and destroy that child, bringing upon herself the (involuntary and uncontrollable) guilt of taking the life of her child. It works both ways.
..”You will never convince an unsaved person that the seed of a rapist is a “treasure” in her womb”...
The sanctity of life does not rest on being saved or not...or a belief in God....it’s ‘valuing human life’ period. Even athiest can or not ‘chose’ to value life.
.....When man no longer values ‘life’...then the whole ‘system of life’ begins to crumble...and eventually nations that do so will always fall in time.
We shudder when woman roll there car into the sea with their children in it...or leave a newborn in the gutter to die..or bury them in the back yard. Yet this generation which does so knew the generation before had determined that life of a child is not precious....that they had “sanctioned” killing of the unborn. We lead the generations that follow by example...and they will always go to the extremes of the one prior...good bad or indifferent.
...”Because once you give up the principles of equal protection and UNALIENABLE rights, there are no moral, constitutional or legal weapons left to use against abortion on demand. You’re disarmed. You’ve surrendered. You’ve been utterly defeated.”....
Exactly! It only takes a ‘foothold’ to become a “stronghold”.
If you think that James is about a law-works theology, reread chapter 2 and 3.
That big-point James gives throughout is precisely that which American Christians need to hear: real faith has results, period. If there is no result/work/change in your life because of faith, then that faith is dead and useless.
It is worth ZERO as an initial doorstep into heaven.
I don't know about that; it provides a very clear example of what Christians are supposed to do, and as the sermon on the mount says it's what we disciples do that causes them to glorify God the Father: see 1 Pet 2:12 — Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
Thus, if we were to live as we should [which James is very good at explaining]*, that itself would be witness to the veracity of the gospel — therefore, I disagree: it has much to do with being a doorstep into heaven. (see 1 Peter 3:15)
James is for already-made believers.
On this I agree; but isn't that who the typical person in the pew
is going to be? (Or at least profess to be?)
* - Read the first few verses of Chapter 5, then consider our tax-system, especially withholdings… would a Christian populous stand for such a system? I think it could not in good conscience condone the theft of wages and/or the forcing of the employer to commit fraud by paying less than the agreed amount. (That depends on when withholdings occur, while the money is the employer's, or when it is the employee's.)
That is why I said that the one's view on the sanctity of life depends *almost* exclusively on belief in God. I did the "* *" thing for added emphasis, yet you failed to copy 'n paste that significant part of my post.
Sure, an atheist can be opposed to abortion, and a Christian can be in favor. But all polling that I've ever seen demonstrates clearly that a majority of Christians are opposed to abortion while a majority of non-Christians are either in favor or indifferent.
This has also been my observation in my personal life among friends and colleagues. Is your experience different?
You stated you are seeing this from your "Personal life among friends and colleagues"... that of course would depend on who you travel life with rather than those you meat outside that circle.
As for polling....pfftt! Not worth much in the long run and can change on a dime in the short run all depending on the pollsters and their own leanings.
Well, I’ll go with my fifty years of personal experience. In all the states I’ve lived in, in all the countries I’ve worked in, in all the churches of which I’ve been a member, I can probably count on just one hand the number of Christians who were indifferent on abortion (none outright in favor). All the pro-abort people I’ve encountered have been either atheist or agnostic.
Save
So you're saying you would murder your grandchild?
Yes.
and accusing a person of a serious crime falsely is a very serious crime also.
No, it is not. In America, false accusation of rape is rarely treated as a serious crime. Here is a recent example:
http://wtkr.com/2013/08/19/coast-to-serve-two-months-for-committing-perjury/
Crystal Mangum was not even charged for her false accusations of rape in the Duke lacrosse case.
It’s been many years, they have both gone on to marry and raise wonderful children sired by loving, involved, and present fathers.
It’s been a while since I discussed this with either of these women, true, but based on what they told me - frankly, openly and unhesitatingly - I do not believe they give the matter a moment’s further thought.
The baby conceived in rape has just as many rights as a baby conceived in love and that right includes the Right to Life.
We can no more abort babies conceived from rape than we can kill people whose father was a criminal.
Here’s the nub of it; you want to bear and raise the child of a violent rape, please, feel free.
But folks like you can get down off their high horse once they begin to argue that when a 13 year old victim of a violent rape becomes pregnant, the force of law ought to be brought to bear to ensure that the rape has the most traumatic possible effect on her life.
Folks of that mind set are NOT occupying the high moral ground.
The high moral ground consists of integrating one’s morals and ethics into one’s own life, and allowing others to wrestle with their moral choices without interference or hectoring from the sidelines - or worse, using government to do the interfering and hectoring by proxy. That’s what statists do.
Utter nonsense; morally and rationally indefensible.
Utterly dishonest argumentation. Shame on you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.