Posted on 06/02/2014 12:29:42 PM PDT by topher
This “pastoral letter” was sent by Planned Parenthood and it reads:
Many people wrongly assume that all religious leaders disapprove of abortion. The truth is that abortion is not even mentioned in the Scriptures—Jewish or Christian—and there are clergy and people of faith from all denominations who support women making this complex decision.
The letter text:
The decision to have an abortion is personal. Though your reasons may be complicated and private, you’re not alone. As religious leaders from a number of religious traditions, we’re here to support you in your decision.Many people wrongly assume that all religious leaders disapprove of abortion. The truth is that abortion is not even mentioned in the Scriptures—Jewish or Christian—and there are clergy and people of faith from all denominations who support women making this complex decision.
The beliefs of each person are deserving of respect, and each person deserves care and compassion. No one should be allowed to force their faith teachings on anyone else.
We believe this decision is yours, made with your doctor and anyone else you choose to bring into the conversation, such as a spouse, partner, parent, or clergy person. …
God loves you and is with you no matter what you decide. You can find strength, understanding, and comfort in that love.
(Excerpt) Read more at youngcons.com ...
I read your profile and found it a bit in error:
“The first example is the Battle of Lepanto. It took courage for the Western nations of Europe to band together and stand against the Turkish fleet — which might have overrun Western Europe with the Islamic faith.
In this great battle, all of the sailors were ordered to pray. It became not only a military battle but also a spiritual battle for this reason. The Christian forces seemed to be on the verge of a military defeat when there seemed to be a Divine intervention — a change in the wind that was extremely unfavorable to the Turkish fleet and gave the victory to the Christians.”
You attribute the Battle of Lepanto to Western Europe and Christian forces. Actually Northern Europe/Protestant nations did not and would not participate. It was Catholic Nations and Catholic Forces. It seems your copy and paste job is a little too general or generous, and inaccurate.
No thanks. Sounds dreadful.
Something I wrote about 20 years ago:
There is in the Torah, in the Book of Exodus, Chapter XXI,
verses 22-25, a passage that has been used as a rationalization
for a pro-choice position. In the King James version it reads,
“If two men strive together, and hurt a woman with child (Ishah
Harah - pregnant woman), so that her fruit (Yelodehah - her
child) depart, and yet no harm (Ahsoon - misfortune, accident)
follows, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s
husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges
determine. But if harm follow, then thou shalt give life for
life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
Some have taken this passage to mean that, since the causing
of a miscarriage is not considered to be homicide, and since the
KJV calls the fetus “her fruit”, this is a sign that G-d wants
abortion legalized. Some modern translations have gone so far a
to insert “cause her to miscarry”, and many people actually
believe that this is what it says. Therefore, any Christian or
Jew who is pro-life is a hypocrite. My cousin, a Hebrew
teacher, made this very argument to our Rabbi, who was pro-life.
At my request, she translated this passage word for word,
and she no longer can use it as a rationalization for a pro-
choice position. She may still be pro-choice, but she can no
longer use this passage as her rationalization.
First, the fact that it says “V’yatzoo Yelodehah - and her
child departs, or goes out” not “and her fruit departs” as the
KJV so delicately puts it, or “and causes her to miscarry” as the
modern versions translate, makes it clear that what is in her
womb is a child, not an orange.
Second, as my cousin pointed out, the passage says “if no
harm follows”, but does not specify upon whom the harm is not
inflicted. It does not specify mother or child.
Third, even if the pro-choice interpretation is correct, it
does not support a pro-choice position, nor invalidate a pro-life
one. If the causing of a miscarriage through negligence is not
homicide, it is still described as a serious crime. What does
that say of an intentionally caused miscarriage, ie. abortion?
I don’t understand what true Christian leader could say it’s ok, that’s a wtf moment for me.
There are many false prophets and teachers in the last days.
We must be in the last days.
Amen. Right on the money.
AND we’re to love our neighbors as ourselves, and that little baby is the most innocent of our neighbors.
One can find ‘religious leaders’ advocating any particular sin from A to Z.
This does not legitimize the sin; it identifies the amount of wisdom the ‘religious leader’ has. In this case, none.
> I don’t understand what true Christian leader could say it’s ok, that’s a wtf moment for me.
There are many false prophets and teachers in the last days.
We must be in the last days.
I don’t think there has been any time in history quite like we are in now. Similar yes but the technological advances we’ve made have taken control and power to an unprecedented level which is truly frightening. Events are lining up, prophesies are bearing themselves out, and we are seeing things we never thought would come to pass...Surely we are there...
PP thrives on the killing of nascent, human life.
1. The Torah (Religious books)
2. People
3. Unborn Babies
From this, Jewish tradition says that the unborn are viewed the same as people in terms of burying them in a Jewish graveyard.
Father Paul Schenck was raised as an Orthodox Jew, then he converted to Evangelical Christian. At that point he learned Aramaic and Greek, so he could read the Bible in its original form.
Finally, Father Paul Schenck converted to the Catholic faith and was ordained a priest.
As a pro-lifer, he had a case go to the US Supreme Court, which ruled 8-1 in his favor.
He is my source for this when I worked at PFL and he was a pastoral associate.
You call the truth *insidious*?
Romans 5:6-8 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
God does love us, no matter what because God is love.
The error that too many people fall into, however, is equating that great, unconditional love for us into license to sin.
God is just and sin must be punished, even in those He loves.
To claim that God does not love us even while we are sinning or in the midst of sin, slanders God.
My children are my children no matter what they do. I love them and always will, not based on performance, but based on my relationship with them as their parent, and their being my children. But not for one second did that ever mean that I overlooked their disobedience.
We need to combat the "no more wire hangers" motiff of pro-death forces with no-more-scissors symbolism.
People are afraid to confront what "late term abortion" really means.
There is no way in HELL that God approves of this.
Of Course he doesn’t approve, he makes us, he knows us while we’re still in the womb.
I refuse to have anything to do with it. I don’t facebook, I don’t support pink ribbon crap, anything I find out that has anything to do with supporting abortion I fervently oppose.
I tick a lot of people off, but I don’t care, it’s God I answer to, not them.
Rather, Rose is actually an argument against being a RC. This article was posted and refuted before here by God's grace, and i even debated him on his blog, but after posting his response he allowed no more responses to the thread, then deleted our entire exchange , so i posted mine here and told him so, and never heard from him. Staples also refused to post mine rebuttal to the last one i saw here.
He discusses the whole thing about every Protestant has a different interpretation of the Bible. The most insidious of this letter is that God loves us no matter what. He loves us but if we reject Him, he cannot make us be with Him.
He can work to make you willing, and does so in warning against falling away, while the idea the SS equates to antinomianism is absurd, as is the idea that the Unitarians or liberal Prots upheld Scripture as the wholly inspired assured Word of God and supreme authority. In actuality, those who most strongly do so are the most unified in basic key Biblical beliefs*. Reformers (not Joel Osteen perfectly pleasing preachers) clearly taught the only kind of faith that is salvific is one that effects the obedience of faith.
In his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is, "a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]
if obedience and God’s commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil’s own doings, although it were even so great a work as to raise the dead... [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:244]
“This is why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works, so that one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him. It goes to the foundation and there accomplishes a renewal of the entire man; so, if I have previously seen a sinner, I now see in his changed conduct, manner and life, that he believes. So high and great a thing is faith.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]
And Scripturally what one really believes is not what is professed, but what one does and effects manifests this, (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:18) and which for Rome is that of treating even known public proabortion prosodomite pols and laity as members in life and in death, and thus fostering the same - in contrast to the very evangelicals Rose and RCs attack.
77% of Catholics polled "believe a person can be a good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday, 65 percent believe good Catholics can divorce and remarry, and 53 percent believe Catholics can have abortions and remain in good standing. 1999 poll by the National Catholic Reporter. http://www.catholictradition.org/v2-bombs14b.htm
40% Roman Catholics vs. 41% Non-R.C. see abortion as "morally acceptable"; Sex between unmarried couples: 67% vs. 57%; Baby out of wedlock: 61% vs. 52%; Homosexual relations: 54% vs. 45%; Gambling: 72% vs. 59% http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx
31% of faithful Catholics (those who attend church weekly, 2004) say abortion should be legal either in "many" or in "all" cases. 2004, The Gallup Organization Gallup Survey for Catholics Speak Out: 802 Catholics, May 1992, MOE ± 4%
Committed Roman Catholics (church attendance weekly or almost) versus Non-R.C. faithful church goers (see the below as as morally acceptable): Abortion: 24% R.C. vs. 19% Non-R.C.; Sex between unmarried couples: 53% vs. 30%; Baby out of wedlock: 48% vs. 29%; Homosexual relations: 44% vs. 21%; Gambling: 67% vs. 40%; Divorce: 63 vs. 46% ^
Comparing 16 moral behaviors, Catholics were less likely to say mean things about people behind their back, and tending to engage in recycling more. However, they were also twice as likely to view pornographic content on the Internet, and were more prone to use profanity, to gamble, and to buy lottery tickets. ^
Catholic women have an abortion rate 29 percent higher than Protestants. Alan Guttmacher Institute http://www.catholicleague.org/research/Catholic_women_and_abortion.htm
26 percent of Catholics (2007) polled strongly agree with the Church's unequivocal position on abortion Catholic World Report; 2997 survey of 1,000 Catholic Americans by Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut
46 percent of Catholics who say they attend mass weekly accept Church teaching on abortion; 43 percent accept the all-male priesthood; and 30 percent see contraception as morally wrong. ^
A 2002 nationwide poll of 1,854 priests in the United States and Puerto Rico reported that 30% of Roman Catholic priests described themselves as Liberal, 28% as Conservative, and 37% as Moderate in their Religious ideology. 53 percent responded that they thought it always was a sin for unmarried people to have sexual relations; 32 percent that is often was, and 9 percent seldom/never. However, nearly four in 10 younger priests in 2002 described themselves as conservative, and were more likely to regard as "always a sin" such acts as premarital sex, abortion, artificial birth control, homosexual relations, etc., and three-fourths said they were more religiously orthodox than their older counterparts. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_2_39/ai_94129129/pg_2
71 percent of priests responded that it always was wrong for a woman to get an abortion, 19 percent that it often was, and 4 percent seldom/never. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_2_39/ai_94129129/pg_2
28 percent judged that is always was sin for married couples to use artificial birth control, 25 percent often, 40 percent never. ^
96% of evangelical leaders worldwide disapprove of abortion at least conditionally, with 51% (59% in the “Global South,” including Africa) affirming that abortion is always wrong, with 45% saying it is usually wrong. 84% say that society should discourage homosexuality, and 79% say that men should serve as the religious leaders in the marriage and family, and 71% of the leaders are male, yet 75% think that women may be allowed to serve as pastors. (in contrast to historical Protestantism). http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Christian/Evangelical_Protestant_Churches/Global%20Survey%20of%20Evan.%20Prot.%20Leaders.pdf
A study which broke down Mainline Protestants, Evangelical Protestants, and non-Hispanic Catholics into the three subgroups of traditionalists, centrists, and modernists, found that 5.3 percent of the population qualified as traditionalist Catholic, 5.4 percent as centrist Catholics, and 4.9 percent of were modernist Catholics. The Henry Institute, A Pre-Election Analysis http://www.calvin.edu/henry/civic/CivicRespGrant/rel&08election.doc
Traditionalist Catholics disagreed that “abortion should be legal and solely up to the woman to decide” 71 to 21 percent, centrist Catholics agreed 54 to 40 percent, and modernist Catholics agreed 80-16 percent. ^
For those in black Catholic churches, political affiliation or leaning in 2007 was 17%/74% Republican/Democrat, and 11%/76% for black evangelical churches. Opposition to homosexuality 37% by black Catholics and 58% by black evangelicals. Opposition to abortion was 35% by black Catholics and 53% by black evangelicals. 66% of black evangelicals and 36% of black Catholics say they attend services at least weekly. http://www.pewforum.org/A-Religious-Portrait-of-African-Americans.aspx
71% of Evangelicals, 35% of Protestants and 25% of Catholics said that a candidates position on abortion would have a lot of influence on their decision of who to vote for in 2012. Likewise 63% of evangelicals, 35% of Protestants and 19% of Catholics and said a candidates position on homosexual marriage would have a lot of influence on their decision. Barna, April, 2011 http://www.barna.org/transformation-articles/482-voters-most-interested-in-issues-concerning-security-and-comfort-least-interested-in-moral-issues
73% of Catholics polled say they believe Catholic politicians are under no religious obligation to vote on issues the way the bishops recommend, with 75% disapproving of denying communion to Catholics who support legal abortion, while 70% of Catholics say that the views of Catholic bishops in the US are unimportant to them in deciding for whom to vote, and 69% of say they feel no obligation to vote against candidates who support abortion. Belden Russonello & Stewart, "Secular and Security-Minded: The Catholic Vote in Summer 2008," Catholics for Choice, July 2008. http://www.catholicvote.net/page7/page22/page22.html
65% of Catholics supported a tax increase for the wealthiest Americans in 2006, up from 52 percent in 2002. Majorities of Catholics support issues traditionally considered planks of the Democratic Party platform: universal healthcare, pro-labor policies, access to abortion, and social welfare programs for the poor. http://cara.georgetown.edu/NewsandPress/PressReleases/pr061808.pdf
50% of all Protestants converts from Catholicism said they stopped believing in Catholicism's teachings overall. Only 23% (20% now evangelical) were unhappy about Catholicism's teachings on abortion/homosexuality (versus 46% of those now unaffiliated); 23% also expressed disagreement with teaching on divorce/remarriage; 16% (12% now evangelical) were dissatisfied with teachings on birth control, 70% said they found a religion the liked more in Protestantism. Pew forum, Faith in Flux (April 27, 2009) http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/fullreport.pdf
Latino evangelicals are more than 20 percentage points more likely than Catholics to say that abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances. http://www.nhclc.org/news/latino-religion-us-demographic-shifts-and-trend
73 percent of Catholics rejected Catholic teaching artificial methods of birth control. Catholic World Report; 1997 survey of 1,000 Catholic Americans by Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut
74% of Evangelicals, 73% of Mainline Protestants, and 68% of sexually active Catholics women use birth control. 3% of the Catholics rely on natural family planning. Attendance at religious services and importance of religion to daily life are largely unrelated to use of highly effective contraceptive methods. Countering Conventional Wisdom: New Evidence on Religion and Contraceptive Use, Guttmacher Institute, April. 2011
88% of Catholics believe that they can practice artificial means of birth control and still be considered good Catholics. New York Times/CBS News poll, Apr. 21-23, 1994, subsample of 446 Catholics, MOE ± 5%
98% of self-identified Catholic women ages 15-44 who have ever had sexual relations have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point in their lives. .” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98-percent-of-catholic-women-use-contraception-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html?wprss=fact-checker
40% of 18- to 29-year-old Catholics said the church’s “teachings on sexuality and birth control are out of date.” http://www.barna.org/teens-next-gen-articles/528-six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church
59% of all Catholic women of childbearing age practice contraception—a rate of usage statistically equivalent to that of the general population (60%). Calvin Goldscheider and William D. Mosher, "Patterns of Contraceptive Use in the United States:
58% of Catholics 52% if they are voters) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception;
50% of white Catholics support this requirement, versus 47% who oppose it, along with 38% of white evangelical Protestants an 50% of white mainline Protestants. Public Religion Research Institute, February 2012 http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/
54% of Hispanic Catholics believe that churches and other places of worship should be required to provide health care coverage that includes contraception, compared to 41% Hispanic Protestants. African American & Hispanic Reproductive Issues Survey by the Public Religion Research Institute, July 2012
So?
The Devil does exactly the same thing...
4 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’[b]”
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[c]”
7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”
11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
Did anyone else notice that no tradition or Scripture interpretation was seen in the above dialog?
It helps PP’s argument if they skip over the “...be fruitful and multiply...” part.
Also that pesky Psalm 139 thing; too.
YeaH...
this one, too!
|
Are you still killing your unborn? -- GOD |
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.