Posted on 02/06/2018 5:06:31 AM PST by Kaslin
Last week, I ran a column urging pastors to do more than simply tell their congregants to be bold in their faith. I also urged pastors to be specific by taking a stand themselves on specific issues. The example I gave was defending the unborn. In the process, I suggested that pastors needed to teach congregants how to defend the unborn from a scientific and philosophical perspective. This provoked several angry emails from Christian readers who insisted that we need to defend the unborn solely from scripture. I write today in response to those misguided critics.
My pro-life Christian critics understand why human life has value. The fact that we are made in the image of God makes us all valuable from the point of conception. There is simply no need to explain this to someone who is truly seeing the world through the lens of a Christian worldview. But Christians sometimes need help understanding how pro-abortion choice advocates view the world. I can help to do that because I work with such people daily.
Put simply, the pro-abortion choice advocate is usually a secularist who believes that human beings are the ones charged with assigning value to other humans. In other words, they think our rights come from man rather than God. This position creates a necessary tension with one of the secularist’s other professed values. Christians need to know what those values are before they engage important issues with these secular opponents.
To be sure, the secularist professes allegiance to a number of different values. But two of them are of specific relevance to the debate over abortion. One is the commitment to science as a means of advancing the human condition. The other is the outcome of human equality as the ultimate goal or end of advancing the human condition. In a nutshell, the secularist wants to use science to advance mankind, but only if we are equally situated after all is said and done.
The secularist’s professed love of science provides pro-lifers with a rare opportunity to destroy the opposition on their own playing field by appealing to scientific consensus. It is true that scientists are in disagreement about a number of things. The existence and extent of global warming provides a salient example. But there is no lack of scientific consensus on the issue of when life begins. You simply cannot find a credible embryology textbook that disputes the fact that life begins at conception. Yet somehow the Bible thumping pro-life fundamentalist insists on avoiding the strongest argument against abortion in the eyes of the very people he seeks to influence. He would rather re-read his Bible than take the time to look at an embryology textbook. This is the height of arrogance and intellectual laziness.
The importance of emphasizing science becomes obvious when we recognize that the vast majority of pro-abortion choice arguments are question begging. In other words, they simply assume what they are trying to prove – namely, that the unborn is not human. For example, when they say abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare” they assume abortion does not kill a living human being. Otherwise, they would not casually assert that it should be “safe” or “legal.” Similarly, when they argue that we should not force women to bring “unwanted children” into the world they are implicitly proposing abortion as a means of reducing child abuse. But abortion only reduces child abuse if you assume that the entity aborted is not a human child.
By relying upon science, the pro-lifer forces the pro-abortion choice advocate to either admit that abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being or abandon his sworn allegiance to science. Ultimately, he must do the former. Thus, he is forced to find a philosophical reason for allowing abortion despite the fact that science tells us it kills a developing human being. These philosophical justifications are dangerous to the pro-abortion choice advocate because they pose a threat to his stated value of human equality as the end of advancing the human condition.
Of course, every pro-lifer has heard these philosophical justifications. But few take the time to stop and think about their implications. I recall the example of the feminist who told me she was insulted by my suggestion that a “mere fetus” had the same value as she did - even when it was “as small as a raisin.” But by suggesting that the value of life varies with body size she was undermining her case for feminism. Clearly, women are smaller than men on average. Therefore, her argument that smaller humans are less valuable translates into a case for male superiority.
Another obvious example is the argument that the unborn are less valuable due to the fact that they are less developed. This offensive logic could be used to argue that killing a college graduate should be punished more severely than killing an illiterate. Or that killing the illiterate should be punished more severely than killing someone with Down syndrome. Such brazen arguments cannot be squared with the secularist’s commitment to social equality.
Finally, those who posit dependency as a factor reducing the value of human life run into similar problems. Those who view the unborn as “parasites” toy with a dangerous idea. If accepted, others might use this mindset to purge the welfare rolls through the means of mass murder. Such a position cannot be squared with the secularist’s commitment to socioeconomic or racial equality.
In the end, the pro-abortion choice advocate must decide whether he will choose science or remain committed to anti-science fundamentalism. Next, he must choose between a philosophical commitment to abortion and a philosophical commitment to human equality. But he cannot have both.
Meanwhile, the pro-lifer must decide whether he will continue thumping his Bible or whether he will learn to master the arguments that exploit his opponent’s weaknesses.
Please Freepmail me, if you want to be added, or removed from the ping list.
>>>The fact that we are made in the image of God makes us all valuable from the point of conception.<<<
Actually . . . this is wrong. ADAM was made in the image and likeness of God - then he fell and lost his innocence. All of his children which includes us are all made in the image and likeness of sinful man - the glory was lost in Eden.
“God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:26-27).
When we are individually redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ we receive new status as a ‘new creature in Christ’ and ‘Christ in us the hope of glory.’
>>>The fact that we are made in the image of God makes us all valuable from the point of conception.<<<
Actually . . . this is wrong. ADAM was made in the image and likeness of God - then he fell and lost his innocence. All of his children which includes us are all made in the image and likeness of sinful man - the glory was lost in Eden.
“God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:26-27).
When we are individually redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ we receive new status as a ‘new creature in Christ’ and ‘Christ in us the hope of glory.’
>>>anti-science fundamentalism<<<
???
Given that God is omniscient, and He would know that Adam would fall, I think He said exactly what He meant.
We are all made in His image--and that is evidenced by our eternal soul.
Mike Adams has long been popular here, but he’s badly miscalculated with this choice of headline regardless of the point he’s attempting to make.
And all of us have immeasurable worth because Christ shed His blood for us. That is what imparts value to human life, nothing less.
Nothing *less*--true. But that is NOT what imparts value to human life. Christ shed His blood for us *because* we are made in His image. Being made in His image is what imparts value to human life. Being made in His image is so much greater than anything else, it's difficult to imagine.
The problem is that Churches take a stand on abortion makes it look like this is merely a religious issue. It is not. Abortion is wrong whether if you are a believer or not.
When churches get involved in politics, it alienates half the congregation. We left the UMC over politics.
That happens whenever a church gets involved in shining the light anywhere. Politics tends to hit a nerve in everyone (or at least the vast majority). But that should not prevent the church from proclaiming Truth from the pulpit. If the congregation finds it offensive, perhaps they should compare the message to Scripture and their own viewpoints, and see which one fails the test.
A 5 second search of the scriptures shows that innocence is not the image of God. Even after the fall the Bible affirms the image of God in man ...
You are making a grave error here ...
For example ... James 3:9 ... when discussing the tongue ... he specifically says
9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God;
The institution of capital punishment and death of an animal who kills a man is all based on the image of God in man. If we did not possess the image of God, even after the fall, there would be no reason for capital punishment.
Then there is 1 Cor. 11:7, the clearest NT passage that affirms the image of God in man AFTER the fall.
No one will dispute that the image of God in man has been infected by the fall ... but we still are a reflection of God in form, function and rulership.
Do you also judge a book by it's cover? If so, than shame on you.
I Corinthians 11:7 in context is speaking of blood-washed believers who have had that image ‘restored’ through salvation. Man reflects the image and glory of God, but the poor woman in the passage only reflects the glory of the man.
Same with the passage in James . . . only born again believers may bless the Father.
As far as James ‘likeness’ of God . . . it is handy to have so many translations of the Bible because it lets folks make it say what they want it to say.
Similitude speaks of a resemblance, it is that man is a tripartite creature (body, soul and spirit).
Yes but the same light can shine for or against Abortion. That’s the problem. When churches get involved in politics, they have to compromise.
I attend a church that is pro-life. But they have to temper that message because people start to equate a person’s stand on abortion with their Salvation. Even Saved people can be ignorant when it comes to politics.
Pro-abortion people are anti-science and illogical. You find them everywhere
>>>innocence is not the image of God<<<
Adam and Eve were created perfect just as is the Lord Jesus Christ. He was covered in God’s glory which was lost at the fall (which is why they knew then that they were naked).
Sinful man is not perfect in any sense . . . but the redeemed man is perfect in Christ.
>>>innocence is not the image of God<<<
Adam and Eve were created perfect just as is the Lord Jesus Christ. He was covered in God’s glory which was lost at the fall (which is why they knew then that they were naked).
Sinful man is not perfect in any sense . . . but the redeemed man is perfect in Christ.
I read the article and still find the headline unnecessarily offensive toward a large segment of his readers, a headline that judges a book by it’s cover. Bible thumpers? He sounds like an atheist or an FR rad-trad Catholic.
I think Adam’s point is that the pro-lifers need to formulate an position that allows the argument to be effective on their turf.
you do realize that Mike Adams is pro-life, do 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.