Jimmy Carter vs. Abortion

Former president Jimmy Carter is calling on the Democratic Party to change its pro-abortion stance:

Appearing on the radio talk show of conservative radio host Laura Ingraham today, former President Jimmy Carter said he believes the Democratic Party should moderate its position on abortion, which it currently supports without limits and funded at taxpayer expense.

Carter said toning down the stridently pro-abortion position would help win back Republicans who abandoned the Democrats because of abortion and other liberal social issue positions.

Carter said:

“I never have believed that Jesus Christ would approve of abortions and that was one of the problems I had when I was president having to uphold Roe v. Wade and I did everything I could to minimize the need for abortions. I made it easy to adopt children for instance who were unwanted and also initiated the program called Women and Infant Children or WIC program that’s still in existence now. But except for the times when a mother’s life is in danger or when a pregnancy is caused by rape or incest I would certainly not or never have approved of any abortions.”

“I’ve signed a public letter calling for the Democratic Party at the next convention to espouse my position on abortion which is to minimize the need, requirement for abortion and limit it only to women whose life are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest. I think if the Democratic Party would adopt that policy that would be acceptable to a lot of people who are now estranged from our party because of the abortion issue.”

via Jimmy Carter: Democrats Should Abandon Pro-Abortion Position | LifeNews.com.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://abitibibob.hubpages.com/ Bob Hunter

    I’m sure singer Ethel Waters, a product of rape, was happy her mother didn’t abort her.

  • http://abitibibob.hubpages.com/ Bob Hunter

    I’m sure singer Ethel Waters, a product of rape, was happy her mother didn’t abort her.

  • Michael B.

    “who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest.”

    I thought the reason abortion was wrong is because the fetus is a person. How is the fetus that’s a product of rape or incest less than a person? I suppose it’s the girl’s sex life that is mostly as issue. If she’s a good girl who is pregnant through no fault of her own, such as in rape, well then she can get an abortion. But if she’s a dirty girl who willingly gives it up and then wants to get an abortion — well then that’s not okay.

    “Republicans who abandoned the Democrats because of abortion and other liberal social issue positions.”

    The issues are linked. Anyone on herepro-life and pro-gay marriage? (crickets). Similarly, if you think gays should have the right to marry, you probably think women should have the right to control their own bodies.

  • Michael B.

    “who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest.”

    I thought the reason abortion was wrong is because the fetus is a person. How is the fetus that’s a product of rape or incest less than a person? I suppose it’s the girl’s sex life that is mostly as issue. If she’s a good girl who is pregnant through no fault of her own, such as in rape, well then she can get an abortion. But if she’s a dirty girl who willingly gives it up and then wants to get an abortion — well then that’s not okay.

    “Republicans who abandoned the Democrats because of abortion and other liberal social issue positions.”

    The issues are linked. Anyone on herepro-life and pro-gay marriage? (crickets). Similarly, if you think gays should have the right to marry, you probably think women should have the right to control their own bodies.

  • http://drhambrick.com drhambrick

    Put another way: “I’d like to submit that we go back to allowing the camel to only put its nose in the tent.”

  • http://drhambrick.com drhambrick

    Put another way: “I’d like to submit that we go back to allowing the camel to only put its nose in the tent.”

  • SKPeterson

    I think that making adoption a much, much easier and less expensive process could address the abortion issue very effectively. We often hear about how nobody wants to adopt and that children will just be warehoused. Not true. The problem with adoption is that it often costs $15 – 25K or more per child. While much of that costs goes toward covering the medical expenses of mother and child, it is also largely driven by the complex legal issues surrounding adoption. Making those laws and processes simpler and less expensive would be of great benefit to the children involved, their adoptive families, and society as a whole.

  • SKPeterson

    I think that making adoption a much, much easier and less expensive process could address the abortion issue very effectively. We often hear about how nobody wants to adopt and that children will just be warehoused. Not true. The problem with adoption is that it often costs $15 – 25K or more per child. While much of that costs goes toward covering the medical expenses of mother and child, it is also largely driven by the complex legal issues surrounding adoption. Making those laws and processes simpler and less expensive would be of great benefit to the children involved, their adoptive families, and society as a whole.

  • Dan Kempin

    I wish he would have advocated for this when he was in office. Or afterwards. Or at any time in the past 36 years.

    This statement of Carter is more “this abortion thing is killing us in the polls” than a principled stand. Jimmy Carter was the archetype of the “I support it even though I am personally against it” model of political speak.

    Ah, but then I don’t mean to be a grump. This is overall good news.

    Michael B, #2,

    “The issues are linked . . . if you think gays should have the right to marry, you probably think women should have the right to control their own bodies.”

    An interesting point. That is probably true. Why do you think that is so?

  • Dan Kempin

    I wish he would have advocated for this when he was in office. Or afterwards. Or at any time in the past 36 years.

    This statement of Carter is more “this abortion thing is killing us in the polls” than a principled stand. Jimmy Carter was the archetype of the “I support it even though I am personally against it” model of political speak.

    Ah, but then I don’t mean to be a grump. This is overall good news.

    Michael B, #2,

    “The issues are linked . . . if you think gays should have the right to marry, you probably think women should have the right to control their own bodies.”

    An interesting point. That is probably true. Why do you think that is so?

  • Dan Kempin

    sk, #4, +1

  • Dan Kempin

    sk, #4, +1

  • Joe

    There is a lot to nit pick here: his motivation, the lack of logic to extending abortion to rape and incest, other stuff. But I am just going to be happy that a fairly major figure of the left is talking about walking the democrat’s abortion position back toward the correct position.

    Let’s all be happy for this, yeah?

  • Joe

    There is a lot to nit pick here: his motivation, the lack of logic to extending abortion to rape and incest, other stuff. But I am just going to be happy that a fairly major figure of the left is talking about walking the democrat’s abortion position back toward the correct position.

    Let’s all be happy for this, yeah?

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Mike @ 2,

    Psst.. it’s not her body. It’s somebody else’s.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Mike @ 2,

    Psst.. it’s not her body. It’s somebody else’s.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    BTW, for the record a stopped clock is right twice a day. Kudos to former President Carter for this stance, although I doubt he will get any sort of concession on it.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    BTW, for the record a stopped clock is right twice a day. Kudos to former President Carter for this stance, although I doubt he will get any sort of concession on it.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    President Carter is the best ex-president we ever had, with his tireless work on mostly non-partisan justice issues.

    It is likely that he will be completely ignored by the abortion defenders, but I am pleased that he has made this statement. All abortion is wrong, but if enacted, this would be a big step back towards what is right and good.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    President Carter is the best ex-president we ever had, with his tireless work on mostly non-partisan justice issues.

    It is likely that he will be completely ignored by the abortion defenders, but I am pleased that he has made this statement. All abortion is wrong, but if enacted, this would be a big step back towards what is right and good.

  • V.Williams

    I agree with Dan @5… it’s political, but I also agree with Kevin’s point @10. At least it would be A step closer to what is right and good.

    I am not sure I agree with SKP @ 4 though. There was a time that may have been true, but there is a HUGE social change in the “unmarried oops I’m pregnant” segment of the population, whereby it is no longer socially unacceptable to be unwed and pregnant. It is NOT socially frowned upon by these folks’ peers to have an abortion, but it IS “unacceptable” for them to allow their child to be adopted. Their logic these days seems to be more in line with: If I can’t raise my child then no one can. They seem to think they are horrid people for wanting to give their child away, but it’s somehow less horrid to kill it.

    It would certainly be worth a try to limit the financial constraints that discourage adoption, and I’m all for that. But I think it would have been more effective a decade or three ago, before the social stigma became adoption rather than abortion.

  • V.Williams

    I agree with Dan @5… it’s political, but I also agree with Kevin’s point @10. At least it would be A step closer to what is right and good.

    I am not sure I agree with SKP @ 4 though. There was a time that may have been true, but there is a HUGE social change in the “unmarried oops I’m pregnant” segment of the population, whereby it is no longer socially unacceptable to be unwed and pregnant. It is NOT socially frowned upon by these folks’ peers to have an abortion, but it IS “unacceptable” for them to allow their child to be adopted. Their logic these days seems to be more in line with: If I can’t raise my child then no one can. They seem to think they are horrid people for wanting to give their child away, but it’s somehow less horrid to kill it.

    It would certainly be worth a try to limit the financial constraints that discourage adoption, and I’m all for that. But I think it would have been more effective a decade or three ago, before the social stigma became adoption rather than abortion.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I might have my own issues with some of what he has said, but I do think it is a step in the right direction and would love to see the Democrats go that way. then again it might give them more clout and open the doors for all sorts of other things I don’t like. conservatives have a hard enough time the way it is it seems. But I tell you I’d take many a social program if it meant getting rid of abortion.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I might have my own issues with some of what he has said, but I do think it is a step in the right direction and would love to see the Democrats go that way. then again it might give them more clout and open the doors for all sorts of other things I don’t like. conservatives have a hard enough time the way it is it seems. But I tell you I’d take many a social program if it meant getting rid of abortion.

  • DonS

    Although the left loves to hold up Jimmy Carter, and even arrange for him to get the Nobel Prize, when he attacks current Republican presidents, this stance of his will garner no Democratic attention. The abortion lobby has the Democratic party in its pocket, which is why Obama and Pelosi sacrificed any possible constitutionality of Obamacare to ensure that free contraception and abortifacients were mandated in health insurance policies.

  • DonS

    Although the left loves to hold up Jimmy Carter, and even arrange for him to get the Nobel Prize, when he attacks current Republican presidents, this stance of his will garner no Democratic attention. The abortion lobby has the Democratic party in its pocket, which is why Obama and Pelosi sacrificed any possible constitutionality of Obamacare to ensure that free contraception and abortifacients were mandated in health insurance policies.

  • Tom Hering

    There’s no reasoning with us Democratic-leaning types. Go ahead – try me.

  • Tom Hering

    There’s no reasoning with us Democratic-leaning types. Go ahead – try me.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael B (@2) said:

    I thought the reason abortion was wrong is because the fetus is a person.

    Indeed, and most pro-lifers I know of would agree with you on that, and criticize that aspect of Carter’s statement. So your “good girl/dirty girl” criticism only applies to President Carter, not the majority of pro-lifers.

    Anyone on herepro-life and pro-gay marriage? (crickets)

    Of course, you didn’t actually wait for anyone to reply. Are you here to engage in dialogue, or just to announce your conclusions? I, for one, am not opposed to allowing gays to legally marry. I am, though, opposed to abortions for any reason other than to save a life.

    if you think gays should have the right to marry, you probably think women should have the right to control their own bodies.

    What if those women haven’t been born yet? Do they still have that right?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael B (@2) said:

    I thought the reason abortion was wrong is because the fetus is a person.

    Indeed, and most pro-lifers I know of would agree with you on that, and criticize that aspect of Carter’s statement. So your “good girl/dirty girl” criticism only applies to President Carter, not the majority of pro-lifers.

    Anyone on herepro-life and pro-gay marriage? (crickets)

    Of course, you didn’t actually wait for anyone to reply. Are you here to engage in dialogue, or just to announce your conclusions? I, for one, am not opposed to allowing gays to legally marry. I am, though, opposed to abortions for any reason other than to save a life.

    if you think gays should have the right to marry, you probably think women should have the right to control their own bodies.

    What if those women haven’t been born yet? Do they still have that right?

  • SKPeterson

    Oh, Todd – you know there’s no such thing as sex-selective abortion.

  • SKPeterson

    Oh, Todd – you know there’s no such thing as sex-selective abortion.

  • DonS

    Michael B @ 2: I agree, for the most part with what tODD said @ 15. Few people who are pro-life because they consider the unborn child to be a human being from conception agree with President Carter’s exceptions for rape and incest. Those are political exceptions many agree to as a compromise to try to reduce the number of legal abortions, but there is no intrinsic difference between an unborn human being conceived legitimately and one conceived because of rape or incest. They are equally entitled to the life bestowed upon them by their Creator. Whether a child is born or unborn, a woman’s rights to control her own body extend only so far as the point where they infringe on the human rights of another person, in this case an unborn child or dependent infant.

    tODD and I disagree on the issue of gay marriage. I oppose allowing gays to marry with state sanction, though I would oppose laws prohibiting them from joining themselves together in a relationship they call marriage. Of course, were the people of my state to pass a law establishing state-sanctioned gay marriage, I would accept that political outcome as being legitimate, though I would disagree with it, and perhaps work through the political process to overturn it. What I definitely oppose is court-ordered gay marriage, in opposition to the will of the people.

    However, regardless of our views on gay marriage, your linkage of the two issues of gay marriage and abortion makes no sense. One can certainly be legitimately pro-life and anti-gay marriage. And I don’t understand this statement: “Similarly, if you think gays should have the right to marry, you probably think women should have the right to control their own bodies.” Just because you support gay marriage doesn’t mean you necessarily support the unrestricted right of women (or men) to control their own bodies, regardless of the effect of that control on third parties. What if I control my two hands to strangle you? Do I have an unrestricted right to do that, under your philosophy? If not, why not? And why is the issue any different when it involves a woman misusing her general right to control her body to kill the human being inside her?

  • DonS

    Michael B @ 2: I agree, for the most part with what tODD said @ 15. Few people who are pro-life because they consider the unborn child to be a human being from conception agree with President Carter’s exceptions for rape and incest. Those are political exceptions many agree to as a compromise to try to reduce the number of legal abortions, but there is no intrinsic difference between an unborn human being conceived legitimately and one conceived because of rape or incest. They are equally entitled to the life bestowed upon them by their Creator. Whether a child is born or unborn, a woman’s rights to control her own body extend only so far as the point where they infringe on the human rights of another person, in this case an unborn child or dependent infant.

    tODD and I disagree on the issue of gay marriage. I oppose allowing gays to marry with state sanction, though I would oppose laws prohibiting them from joining themselves together in a relationship they call marriage. Of course, were the people of my state to pass a law establishing state-sanctioned gay marriage, I would accept that political outcome as being legitimate, though I would disagree with it, and perhaps work through the political process to overturn it. What I definitely oppose is court-ordered gay marriage, in opposition to the will of the people.

    However, regardless of our views on gay marriage, your linkage of the two issues of gay marriage and abortion makes no sense. One can certainly be legitimately pro-life and anti-gay marriage. And I don’t understand this statement: “Similarly, if you think gays should have the right to marry, you probably think women should have the right to control their own bodies.” Just because you support gay marriage doesn’t mean you necessarily support the unrestricted right of women (or men) to control their own bodies, regardless of the effect of that control on third parties. What if I control my two hands to strangle you? Do I have an unrestricted right to do that, under your philosophy? If not, why not? And why is the issue any different when it involves a woman misusing her general right to control her body to kill the human being inside her?

  • Steve Billingsley

    Where was this Jimmy Carter in 1976? You know when he actually had influence in the direction of the Democratic Party.

    As to his status as an ex-President – I actually have a lower opinion of his performance in that role as I do of his performance as sitting President. And I think he was a horrible President. A few photo ops for Habitat for Humanity and overseeing some international elections (most of which require photo ID – which seems anathema to most Democrats today) doesn’t justify his playing footsie with thug dictators, financing the Carter Center with Saudi money and undermining U.S. foreign policy when he doesn’t agree with it. Most former Presidents understand that the protocol is to maintain a distinguished silence on foreign policy (they do typically campaign for their party’s candidates). A good summary of his post-Presidency performance is below….

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/our-worst-ex-president/

  • Steve Billingsley

    Where was this Jimmy Carter in 1976? You know when he actually had influence in the direction of the Democratic Party.

    As to his status as an ex-President – I actually have a lower opinion of his performance in that role as I do of his performance as sitting President. And I think he was a horrible President. A few photo ops for Habitat for Humanity and overseeing some international elections (most of which require photo ID – which seems anathema to most Democrats today) doesn’t justify his playing footsie with thug dictators, financing the Carter Center with Saudi money and undermining U.S. foreign policy when he doesn’t agree with it. Most former Presidents understand that the protocol is to maintain a distinguished silence on foreign policy (they do typically campaign for their party’s candidates). A good summary of his post-Presidency performance is below….

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/our-worst-ex-president/

  • Michael B.

    @Bror Erickson
    “But I tell you I’d take many a social program if it meant getting rid of abortion.”

    We couldn’t disagree any more, and your statement really makes me angry. What does this mean to the hard-working man who plays by the rules? My father taught me I’m expected to be able to support a family, and that I shouldn’t have children out of wedlock. Why should hard-working guys have to support the bastards of “men” who keep knocking up girls, as well as the slut mothers that love these kind of guys?

  • Michael B.

    @Bror Erickson
    “But I tell you I’d take many a social program if it meant getting rid of abortion.”

    We couldn’t disagree any more, and your statement really makes me angry. What does this mean to the hard-working man who plays by the rules? My father taught me I’m expected to be able to support a family, and that I shouldn’t have children out of wedlock. Why should hard-working guys have to support the bastards of “men” who keep knocking up girls, as well as the slut mothers that love these kind of guys?

  • Michael B.

    @Todd@15
    “I, for one, am not opposed to allowing gays to legally marry. I am, though, opposed to abortions for any reason other than to save a life.”

    I have to say I was surprised to read this. Are you sure I’m not misinterpreting you? When I say pro-life, I don’t mean people who are only personally opposed but still support a woman’s right to choose. And when I say pro-gay-marriage, I mean someone who believes gays have the RIGHT to marry, as much a black man and white woman have the right to marry. You’re really pro-life and pro-gay-marriage at the same time? This would greatly surprise me.

  • Michael B.

    @Todd@15
    “I, for one, am not opposed to allowing gays to legally marry. I am, though, opposed to abortions for any reason other than to save a life.”

    I have to say I was surprised to read this. Are you sure I’m not misinterpreting you? When I say pro-life, I don’t mean people who are only personally opposed but still support a woman’s right to choose. And when I say pro-gay-marriage, I mean someone who believes gays have the RIGHT to marry, as much a black man and white woman have the right to marry. You’re really pro-life and pro-gay-marriage at the same time? This would greatly surprise me.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Michael B.

    I have read most of your comments and I have come to the conclusion that most of what you say is a “bit”. My only question is if it is intentionally an attempt to be funny or not.

    Whatever the joke is supposed to be, I don’t think it is particularly funny.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Michael B.

    I have read most of your comments and I have come to the conclusion that most of what you say is a “bit”. My only question is if it is intentionally an attempt to be funny or not.

    Whatever the joke is supposed to be, I don’t think it is particularly funny.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael B (@19), I’m with Steve (@21) on this one. Are you joking? It sounds like you’re intentionally adopting a persona — one that says things you don’t actually believe.

    I, on the other hand, meant exactly what I said (@15). You don’t get out much, do you? I say this not only because of the surprise you expressed, but because of the oddly narrow-minded way you attempted to reformulate what I wrote.

    When I say pro-life, I don’t mean people who are only personally opposed but still support a woman’s right to choose.

    Man, you are knee-deep in the lingo, aren’t you? “A woman’s right to choose” … to abort her child. Anyhow, yes, I believe abortion involves killing a human child, so I don’t believe that’s something women (or men) get to choose.

    And when I say pro-gay-marriage, I mean someone who believes gays have the RIGHT to marry…

    If you have to phrase it that way, you’re going to lose me, because of your (typically liberal) insistence on formulating everything in terms of “rights”. No, I will repeat my original assertion (@15), which I assure you is sincerely written: I, for one, am not opposed to allowing gays to legally marry.

    You really don’t understand that abortion is an issue that involves human death, do you? You just see this in terms of fictive “rights” as determined by of-the-moment popular sentiment?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael B (@19), I’m with Steve (@21) on this one. Are you joking? It sounds like you’re intentionally adopting a persona — one that says things you don’t actually believe.

    I, on the other hand, meant exactly what I said (@15). You don’t get out much, do you? I say this not only because of the surprise you expressed, but because of the oddly narrow-minded way you attempted to reformulate what I wrote.

    When I say pro-life, I don’t mean people who are only personally opposed but still support a woman’s right to choose.

    Man, you are knee-deep in the lingo, aren’t you? “A woman’s right to choose” … to abort her child. Anyhow, yes, I believe abortion involves killing a human child, so I don’t believe that’s something women (or men) get to choose.

    And when I say pro-gay-marriage, I mean someone who believes gays have the RIGHT to marry…

    If you have to phrase it that way, you’re going to lose me, because of your (typically liberal) insistence on formulating everything in terms of “rights”. No, I will repeat my original assertion (@15), which I assure you is sincerely written: I, for one, am not opposed to allowing gays to legally marry.

    You really don’t understand that abortion is an issue that involves human death, do you? You just see this in terms of fictive “rights” as determined by of-the-moment popular sentiment?

  • Michael B.

    I meant the post seriously. I don’t think we should celebrate a woman having kid-after-kid out of wedlock with the state supporting her and her kids. I ask again, what does this means for the people who pay by the rules, who are married before they decide to have kids, and who can financially support them? I’m not saying we should just write the kid off (it isn’t his fault), but at the same time the state should be discouraging this. It should not be unreasonable for the state to ask these unwed pregnant mothers have to do some sort of work to get state support.

    To Todd: I don’t want to shy away that from the fact that abortion kills a human fetus. I totally acknowledge that. But we have to be consistent. If we are to say that all fetuses are persons, then we can’t say that a third trimester fetus is any more valuable than a zygote. The birth control pill also causes the death of a fetus, by not allowing a zygote to implant in the uterus. Intercourse during specific times also puts the zygote in an inhospitable environment (one of the reasons why the rhythm method can be somewhat effective). In many abortions, the woman thinks her period has just started at an wrong time, and it’s written off. Why should these fetuses be any less worthy of our moral concern?

  • Michael B.

    I meant the post seriously. I don’t think we should celebrate a woman having kid-after-kid out of wedlock with the state supporting her and her kids. I ask again, what does this means for the people who pay by the rules, who are married before they decide to have kids, and who can financially support them? I’m not saying we should just write the kid off (it isn’t his fault), but at the same time the state should be discouraging this. It should not be unreasonable for the state to ask these unwed pregnant mothers have to do some sort of work to get state support.

    To Todd: I don’t want to shy away that from the fact that abortion kills a human fetus. I totally acknowledge that. But we have to be consistent. If we are to say that all fetuses are persons, then we can’t say that a third trimester fetus is any more valuable than a zygote. The birth control pill also causes the death of a fetus, by not allowing a zygote to implant in the uterus. Intercourse during specific times also puts the zygote in an inhospitable environment (one of the reasons why the rhythm method can be somewhat effective). In many abortions, the woman thinks her period has just started at an wrong time, and it’s written off. Why should these fetuses be any less worthy of our moral concern?

  • P.C.

    tODD,

    Sorry for digressing from the subject at hand. The vast majority of the time I enjoy your pithy comments. But can you give me just one Christian reason, based on Scripture (Book and Verse), that supports your view on homosexual marriage.

  • P.C.

    tODD,

    Sorry for digressing from the subject at hand. The vast majority of the time I enjoy your pithy comments. But can you give me just one Christian reason, based on Scripture (Book and Verse), that supports your view on homosexual marriage.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael B. (@23), okay, so you meant it (@19) seriously. I still think you’re missing Bror’s point by a mile. The question isn’t whether government programs supporting out-of-wedlock children are awesome or not.

    Bror’s statement was that he’d “take many a social program if it meant getting rid of abortion”. Which is to say that, no matter how intrusive, expensive, and ineffective such a program might be, it is still preferable to the current state of legal infanticide.

    That you took Bror’s statement and merely found reasons to complain about such a hypothetical program (and not only that, but to toss out the word “slut” in the process) doesn’t appear to speak too well of your concern for, you know, the abortion status quo.

    The birth control pill also causes the death of a fetus, by not allowing a zygote to implant in the uterus.

    We’ve had this discussion before, Michael. Your first clause there is, at best, an overstatement.

    First off, there is not only a single formulation of The Pill (combined oral contraceptive, or COCPs), so if you’re going to make claims like that, you’re going to have to specify which formulation you’re referring to.

    Secondly, go and read the Wikipedia article on The Pill’s mechanism of action. COCPs primarily prevent ovulation (not abortifacient). All COCPs with progestogen furthermore inhibit penetration of sperm into the uterus (also not abortifacient). As such, fertilization has a very small chance of occurring during COCP usage. Therefore, there is likewise a very small chance that any post-fertilization mechanisms (should they exist in a given formulation) would be able to actually inhibit implantation.

    I’m not saying that a person who is legitimately pro-life doesn’t have reason to be concerned about COCPs. I do think your argument still rings disingenuous, if for no other reason that you repeatedly distort the facts.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Michael B. (@23), okay, so you meant it (@19) seriously. I still think you’re missing Bror’s point by a mile. The question isn’t whether government programs supporting out-of-wedlock children are awesome or not.

    Bror’s statement was that he’d “take many a social program if it meant getting rid of abortion”. Which is to say that, no matter how intrusive, expensive, and ineffective such a program might be, it is still preferable to the current state of legal infanticide.

    That you took Bror’s statement and merely found reasons to complain about such a hypothetical program (and not only that, but to toss out the word “slut” in the process) doesn’t appear to speak too well of your concern for, you know, the abortion status quo.

    The birth control pill also causes the death of a fetus, by not allowing a zygote to implant in the uterus.

    We’ve had this discussion before, Michael. Your first clause there is, at best, an overstatement.

    First off, there is not only a single formulation of The Pill (combined oral contraceptive, or COCPs), so if you’re going to make claims like that, you’re going to have to specify which formulation you’re referring to.

    Secondly, go and read the Wikipedia article on The Pill’s mechanism of action. COCPs primarily prevent ovulation (not abortifacient). All COCPs with progestogen furthermore inhibit penetration of sperm into the uterus (also not abortifacient). As such, fertilization has a very small chance of occurring during COCP usage. Therefore, there is likewise a very small chance that any post-fertilization mechanisms (should they exist in a given formulation) would be able to actually inhibit implantation.

    I’m not saying that a person who is legitimately pro-life doesn’t have reason to be concerned about COCPs. I do think your argument still rings disingenuous, if for no other reason that you repeatedly distort the facts.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    P.C. (@24), I can answer your challenge, but first, I need to address the underlying assumptions of your question.

    I said (@22):

    I, for one, am not opposed to allowing gays to legally marry.

    Please note: “legally”. It’s not an opinion about whether such unions (or anything to do with them) are God-pleasing or not. You then asked me to justify this stance from the Bible. Which makes me wonder: do you think all laws allowing things need to be justified scripturally? That is to say, do you think our civic laws need to mirror God’s Law?

    Should it be illegal for people to not worship God? Should it be illegal for people not to love their neighbors as themselves? Should false religions even be allowed to exist? Is it the job of the government to preach God’s Word, or has that job been given to another entity?

    Something to think about. Anyhow, you asked for:

    just one Christian reason, based on Scripture (Book and Verse), that supports your view on homosexual marriage.

    And my reply is: Matthew 19:1-9. Now, obviously, the passage doesn’t mention homosexual marriage explicitly. But the careful reader will note that this is a discussion of how Israel, under laws written by God himself, had legalized divorce. Even though God hates divorce! Ponder that. And then read Jesus’ explanation of why God allowed this legalized sin.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    P.C. (@24), I can answer your challenge, but first, I need to address the underlying assumptions of your question.

    I said (@22):

    I, for one, am not opposed to allowing gays to legally marry.

    Please note: “legally”. It’s not an opinion about whether such unions (or anything to do with them) are God-pleasing or not. You then asked me to justify this stance from the Bible. Which makes me wonder: do you think all laws allowing things need to be justified scripturally? That is to say, do you think our civic laws need to mirror God’s Law?

    Should it be illegal for people to not worship God? Should it be illegal for people not to love their neighbors as themselves? Should false religions even be allowed to exist? Is it the job of the government to preach God’s Word, or has that job been given to another entity?

    Something to think about. Anyhow, you asked for:

    just one Christian reason, based on Scripture (Book and Verse), that supports your view on homosexual marriage.

    And my reply is: Matthew 19:1-9. Now, obviously, the passage doesn’t mention homosexual marriage explicitly. But the careful reader will note that this is a discussion of how Israel, under laws written by God himself, had legalized divorce. Even though God hates divorce! Ponder that. And then read Jesus’ explanation of why God allowed this legalized sin.

  • Joe

    tODD – I have pondered the application of those verses to homosexual marriage as well. Would you have time to expound the rational for extending it beyond the specific context at issue in the verses (i.e. the former allowance of divorce).

    I would love to hear people’s thoughts on this as well. I have to admit, I am not sure whether the application is appropriate.

  • Joe

    tODD – I have pondered the application of those verses to homosexual marriage as well. Would you have time to expound the rational for extending it beyond the specific context at issue in the verses (i.e. the former allowance of divorce).

    I would love to hear people’s thoughts on this as well. I have to admit, I am not sure whether the application is appropriate.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Joe (@27), I don’t really get your question.

    Usually the argument goes that it would be wrong for us to legalize Bad Thing because Bad Thing is declared to be sinful by God. Aside from the fact that I have yet to meet a person who is consistent in applying this argument (for instance, arguing for the criminalization of all heterodox teaching, or of gluttony, or selfishness, etc.), I find that this principle is contradicted by the Matthew 19 passage. Or, really, by the part of Deuteronomy it refers to — it’s just that Matthew 19 also explains the “why” behind Deuteronomy.

    So I don’t think of it as “applying” the lesson of Matthew 19 in different contexts, so much as using Matthew 19 to prove false a rule that some would have us abide by (sort of, sometimes). Having done that doesn’t actually tell us what laws we should have, and I could imagine someone coming up with a reason to oppose same-sex marriage outside of the Criminalize Sinful Things rubric.

    Did that explain anything?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Joe (@27), I don’t really get your question.

    Usually the argument goes that it would be wrong for us to legalize Bad Thing because Bad Thing is declared to be sinful by God. Aside from the fact that I have yet to meet a person who is consistent in applying this argument (for instance, arguing for the criminalization of all heterodox teaching, or of gluttony, or selfishness, etc.), I find that this principle is contradicted by the Matthew 19 passage. Or, really, by the part of Deuteronomy it refers to — it’s just that Matthew 19 also explains the “why” behind Deuteronomy.

    So I don’t think of it as “applying” the lesson of Matthew 19 in different contexts, so much as using Matthew 19 to prove false a rule that some would have us abide by (sort of, sometimes). Having done that doesn’t actually tell us what laws we should have, and I could imagine someone coming up with a reason to oppose same-sex marriage outside of the Criminalize Sinful Things rubric.

    Did that explain anything?

  • Joe

    I see what you’re saying and I am not saying I disagree. I think we are all in agreement about what the passage teaches us about the Mold osaic divorce law, but I am not sure what it teaches us about our civil laws today.

    Let me walk through some of my past thinking on this and see if that helps (given that I have already admitted I am a bit confused by what to do with this — clarity may not be the result).

    What I see here is an example of God’s mercy and desire for order in the Kingdom of the Left. He allowed divorce because the people could not live up to the actual standard re: marriage that was commanded. So for good order, he grants divorce. Out of mercy he grants divorce in order to prevent something worse (in a temporal sense) from resulting out of the situation (domestic abuse, murder, etc.) I freely admit that I might be reading too much in the motive here and welcome correction.

    Now, what we also see in the passage is that Jesus does not continue the prior practice of no fault divorce. Instead, he abolishes it and reasserts the moral principle. The ancient church followed this teaching and did not recognize divorce as valid beyond what Christ specifically stated. So, the former practice ends; it is not continued or expanded.

    The fact that Christ ends the Mosaic divorce rules seems to indicate that the prior practice (God creating an exception to the Law in order to keep order in the Left Hand Kingdom) is no longer the operative standard and thus should not form the basis of our decision making today.

    But the fact that Christ abolishes it needs to be understood in the context that Christ goes on to justify us and take the punishment for all of our sins. But can it mean that, we can legalize other sinful behavior in the Left Hand Kingdom and instead look to our salvation in the Right to work out our sin/salvation? If the answer is yes (which it might be), how does that actually work? What then becomes the standard for what we decriminalize. We can all agree murder would be too far, etc. Does the decision turn on keeping good order?

    I hope this helps explain my thinking a bit. I’d love to hear you response.

  • Joe

    I see what you’re saying and I am not saying I disagree. I think we are all in agreement about what the passage teaches us about the Mold osaic divorce law, but I am not sure what it teaches us about our civil laws today.

    Let me walk through some of my past thinking on this and see if that helps (given that I have already admitted I am a bit confused by what to do with this — clarity may not be the result).

    What I see here is an example of God’s mercy and desire for order in the Kingdom of the Left. He allowed divorce because the people could not live up to the actual standard re: marriage that was commanded. So for good order, he grants divorce. Out of mercy he grants divorce in order to prevent something worse (in a temporal sense) from resulting out of the situation (domestic abuse, murder, etc.) I freely admit that I might be reading too much in the motive here and welcome correction.

    Now, what we also see in the passage is that Jesus does not continue the prior practice of no fault divorce. Instead, he abolishes it and reasserts the moral principle. The ancient church followed this teaching and did not recognize divorce as valid beyond what Christ specifically stated. So, the former practice ends; it is not continued or expanded.

    The fact that Christ ends the Mosaic divorce rules seems to indicate that the prior practice (God creating an exception to the Law in order to keep order in the Left Hand Kingdom) is no longer the operative standard and thus should not form the basis of our decision making today.

    But the fact that Christ abolishes it needs to be understood in the context that Christ goes on to justify us and take the punishment for all of our sins. But can it mean that, we can legalize other sinful behavior in the Left Hand Kingdom and instead look to our salvation in the Right to work out our sin/salvation? If the answer is yes (which it might be), how does that actually work? What then becomes the standard for what we decriminalize. We can all agree murder would be too far, etc. Does the decision turn on keeping good order?

    I hope this helps explain my thinking a bit. I’d love to hear you response.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Joe, did you notice how, in your comment (@29), you went right from discussing the government’s role into discussing the Church’s role, without making a distinction?

    Jesus didn’t introduce a new rule in Matthew 19 — he bases his explanation solely on Old Testament passages. But he attacks the legalistic interpretation that had become attached to the Old Testament passages (as he had done in the Sermon on the Mount with several of the Commandments).

    It had always been sinful for a man to unlovingly divorce his wife. Jesus spells this out for New Testament believers, but it is not, as such, a new teaching for believers — that is to say, for the Church.

    That is the distinction I’m drawing here, between the Church and the government. The Church (i.e. believers, as I’m referring to Old Testament times) had always been about proclaiming God’s Law, while the government was instituted for order.

    It was not the government’s job to preach, much less enforce, God’s Law, and we see this in the government that God created for the Israelites, which allowed divorce. That God allowed divorce to be legal does not, however, indicate that it was not sinful — and several Old Testament passages confirm this (from Genesis to Malachi, even).

    So I agree with you that the Mosaic divorce rules are “no longer the operative standard and thus should not form the basis of our decision making today” — if we are talking about the Church.

    But, again, I disagree if you are talking about the government.

    But can it mean that, we can legalize other sinful behavior…

    You’ll pardon me if I’m a bit baffled by this. Don’t you frequently lean libertarian?

    Regardless, there are whole swaths of sins that are already legal — and which almost everybody, even the biggest legalist, agrees should remain legal.

    I’ll agree that the Bible doesn’t give us a whole lot of direction on what laws our government should enforce. But I believe that’s kind of the point.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Joe, did you notice how, in your comment (@29), you went right from discussing the government’s role into discussing the Church’s role, without making a distinction?

    Jesus didn’t introduce a new rule in Matthew 19 — he bases his explanation solely on Old Testament passages. But he attacks the legalistic interpretation that had become attached to the Old Testament passages (as he had done in the Sermon on the Mount with several of the Commandments).

    It had always been sinful for a man to unlovingly divorce his wife. Jesus spells this out for New Testament believers, but it is not, as such, a new teaching for believers — that is to say, for the Church.

    That is the distinction I’m drawing here, between the Church and the government. The Church (i.e. believers, as I’m referring to Old Testament times) had always been about proclaiming God’s Law, while the government was instituted for order.

    It was not the government’s job to preach, much less enforce, God’s Law, and we see this in the government that God created for the Israelites, which allowed divorce. That God allowed divorce to be legal does not, however, indicate that it was not sinful — and several Old Testament passages confirm this (from Genesis to Malachi, even).

    So I agree with you that the Mosaic divorce rules are “no longer the operative standard and thus should not form the basis of our decision making today” — if we are talking about the Church.

    But, again, I disagree if you are talking about the government.

    But can it mean that, we can legalize other sinful behavior…

    You’ll pardon me if I’m a bit baffled by this. Don’t you frequently lean libertarian?

    Regardless, there are whole swaths of sins that are already legal — and which almost everybody, even the biggest legalist, agrees should remain legal.

    I’ll agree that the Bible doesn’t give us a whole lot of direction on what laws our government should enforce. But I believe that’s kind of the point.

  • Michael B.

    @Todd@25
    “Therefore, there is likewise a very small chance that any post-fertilization mechanisms would be able to actually inhibit implantation.”

    Okay, so you at least concede that it’s possible the birth control pill can result in the death of a fetus. The wikipedia article you cited agrees. So does Planned Parenthood (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm). So do many pro-lifers. (http://www.thepillkills.com/pillkillsbabies.php)

    For the purposes of argument, let me go ahead and grant you that the likelihood of an fetal death is low if a woman is using the birth control pill. Now, I’m not saying a fetus is a baby — you are — but it seems to me that anything that would put the life of a baby at risk is evil. For example, there’s a very small chance that a small child will die if you refuse to put him in car seat , and yet, we would hold a parent responsible for the death if their child died because the parent didn’t use a proper child car seat.

  • Michael B.

    @Todd@25
    “Therefore, there is likewise a very small chance that any post-fertilization mechanisms would be able to actually inhibit implantation.”

    Okay, so you at least concede that it’s possible the birth control pill can result in the death of a fetus. The wikipedia article you cited agrees. So does Planned Parenthood (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm). So do many pro-lifers. (http://www.thepillkills.com/pillkillsbabies.php)

    For the purposes of argument, let me go ahead and grant you that the likelihood of an fetal death is low if a woman is using the birth control pill. Now, I’m not saying a fetus is a baby — you are — but it seems to me that anything that would put the life of a baby at risk is evil. For example, there’s a very small chance that a small child will die if you refuse to put him in car seat , and yet, we would hold a parent responsible for the death if their child died because the parent didn’t use a proper child car seat.

  • Joe

    tODD – Thanks for your response, it is helpful and your right – I did blur the Kingdoms in my comment. I guess that is kind of where I need to start. I need to delve much deeper into Two Kingdom Theology. I guess I have my summer reading figured out.

    “You’ll pardon me if I’m a bit baffled by this. Don’t you frequently lean libertarian?”

    True – My instincts are very much to lean libertarian. And, I believe that to be a proper proclivity. But I test it often (debate it internally and with others). I was curious to see your position because I thought (correctly) it would be a benefit to my thinking. Where I am now is trying to answer these questions:

    “What then becomes the standard for what we decriminalize. We can all agree murder would be too far, etc. Does the decision turn on keeping good order?”

    I think keeping good order/ preventing harm to others is probably the appropriate limit of gov’t power.

  • Joe

    tODD – Thanks for your response, it is helpful and your right – I did blur the Kingdoms in my comment. I guess that is kind of where I need to start. I need to delve much deeper into Two Kingdom Theology. I guess I have my summer reading figured out.

    “You’ll pardon me if I’m a bit baffled by this. Don’t you frequently lean libertarian?”

    True – My instincts are very much to lean libertarian. And, I believe that to be a proper proclivity. But I test it often (debate it internally and with others). I was curious to see your position because I thought (correctly) it would be a benefit to my thinking. Where I am now is trying to answer these questions:

    “What then becomes the standard for what we decriminalize. We can all agree murder would be too far, etc. Does the decision turn on keeping good order?”

    I think keeping good order/ preventing harm to others is probably the appropriate limit of gov’t power.

  • Joe

    opps — strike “probably” from the last sentence.

  • Joe

    opps — strike “probably” from the last sentence.

  • P.C.

    tODD,

    Using the rationale of Matthew 19, Jesus plainly states that marriage is between and man and a woman (vs 4-6) and Moses, not God, permitted one to divorce his wife because their hearts were hardened. Furthermore, Jesus plainly states that divorcing one’s wife, except for martial unfaithfulness and marries another is committing adultery (8-9). So I’m not sure where you are coming from.

    I guess your question concerning whether civil law should have basis in the Word I would suggest that, in fact, it does and always has since God’s law is written in every man’s heart. Prostitution is legal in many counties of Nevada, however, it is still sin in and therefore, Christians should not say, “oh well, it legal and therefore I can accept it even though I wouldn’t do it myself.” The same goes for homosexual marriage, don’t you agree?

  • P.C.

    tODD,

    Using the rationale of Matthew 19, Jesus plainly states that marriage is between and man and a woman (vs 4-6) and Moses, not God, permitted one to divorce his wife because their hearts were hardened. Furthermore, Jesus plainly states that divorcing one’s wife, except for martial unfaithfulness and marries another is committing adultery (8-9). So I’m not sure where you are coming from.

    I guess your question concerning whether civil law should have basis in the Word I would suggest that, in fact, it does and always has since God’s law is written in every man’s heart. Prostitution is legal in many counties of Nevada, however, it is still sin in and therefore, Christians should not say, “oh well, it legal and therefore I can accept it even though I wouldn’t do it myself.” The same goes for homosexual marriage, don’t you agree?

  • Joe

    P.C. You can’t say Moses allowed something but God did not unless you will also take the position that the Bible is the work of men not God.

    However, you go onto state: “Christians should not say, “oh well, it legal and therefore I can accept it even though I wouldn’t do it myself.”

    that kind of is the question isn’t it? Why can’t Christian say this. Or more accurately, why can’t a Christian say, “Prostitution is wrong, immoral and sinful. The Church must preach against it, the Church must condemn it and the Church must forgive those who have engaged in it and are repentant.” And, at the same time say, “gov’t’s role is to keep order among the people. While prostitution is sinful, the efforts to ban it have been ineffective and have caused greater temporal harm to people because it has driven the practice underground where it is controlled by career criminals who use violence to keep control of their market share. Therefore, legalizing it might be in the public interest in that it will eliminate the violence currently inherent in prostitution, allow for gov’t health and safety regulations, etc.”

  • Joe

    P.C. You can’t say Moses allowed something but God did not unless you will also take the position that the Bible is the work of men not God.

    However, you go onto state: “Christians should not say, “oh well, it legal and therefore I can accept it even though I wouldn’t do it myself.”

    that kind of is the question isn’t it? Why can’t Christian say this. Or more accurately, why can’t a Christian say, “Prostitution is wrong, immoral and sinful. The Church must preach against it, the Church must condemn it and the Church must forgive those who have engaged in it and are repentant.” And, at the same time say, “gov’t’s role is to keep order among the people. While prostitution is sinful, the efforts to ban it have been ineffective and have caused greater temporal harm to people because it has driven the practice underground where it is controlled by career criminals who use violence to keep control of their market share. Therefore, legalizing it might be in the public interest in that it will eliminate the violence currently inherent in prostitution, allow for gov’t health and safety regulations, etc.”

  • P.C.

    Joe

    You said, “P.C. you can’t say Moses allowed something but God did not unless you will also take the position that the Bible is the work of men not God.”

    Sure I can! Moses allowed divorce, God does not, except for infidelity. Re-read Matt 19. Moses was a sinner just like us. Remember he sinned and therefore was not allowed to cross the Jordan River into the Promised Land. Moses made the same argument that you do, that because of the hardening of Israel’s heart, he allowed divorce, i.e., in the best interest of the people.

    The same goes for homosexual marriage (no such thing in reality). It may be legal” in six or so states but as Christians we should not support its legality or other “legal” sins such as abortion. Sure we may be prosecuted for our beliefs, even to the point of death, but that is sometimes what being a Christian is all about, as millions of martyrs before us have experienced.

    So how can a professed Christian support or accept homosexual marriage? The answer is quite obvious…we can’t.

  • P.C.

    Joe

    You said, “P.C. you can’t say Moses allowed something but God did not unless you will also take the position that the Bible is the work of men not God.”

    Sure I can! Moses allowed divorce, God does not, except for infidelity. Re-read Matt 19. Moses was a sinner just like us. Remember he sinned and therefore was not allowed to cross the Jordan River into the Promised Land. Moses made the same argument that you do, that because of the hardening of Israel’s heart, he allowed divorce, i.e., in the best interest of the people.

    The same goes for homosexual marriage (no such thing in reality). It may be legal” in six or so states but as Christians we should not support its legality or other “legal” sins such as abortion. Sure we may be prosecuted for our beliefs, even to the point of death, but that is sometimes what being a Christian is all about, as millions of martyrs before us have experienced.

    So how can a professed Christian support or accept homosexual marriage? The answer is quite obvious…we can’t.

  • Joe

    P.C. are you saying Moses made up Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which creates law for the Jews for dealing with divorce?

    “So how can a professed Christian support or accept homosexual marriage? ”

    Neither tODD nor I have said we would support it. What do you mean by accept it? I “accept,” in the sense that I obey or at least don’t civilly disobey, lots of laws I don’t like. But, I don’t accept them as good or right. Indeed, regardless of its legal status homosexual marriage is wrong. And changing its legal status would not change that. And, I would demand the Church preach against it and not recognize gay marriages preformed by the state or heterodox church bodies. If the gov’t attempted to church to recognize them, then we would have a different issue all together.

    So I guess it is it safe to assume you are also the local coordinator for the effort to repeal no-fault divorce and replace it with a system that only allows divorce for infidelity.

  • Joe

    P.C. are you saying Moses made up Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which creates law for the Jews for dealing with divorce?

    “So how can a professed Christian support or accept homosexual marriage? ”

    Neither tODD nor I have said we would support it. What do you mean by accept it? I “accept,” in the sense that I obey or at least don’t civilly disobey, lots of laws I don’t like. But, I don’t accept them as good or right. Indeed, regardless of its legal status homosexual marriage is wrong. And changing its legal status would not change that. And, I would demand the Church preach against it and not recognize gay marriages preformed by the state or heterodox church bodies. If the gov’t attempted to church to recognize them, then we would have a different issue all together.

    So I guess it is it safe to assume you are also the local coordinator for the effort to repeal no-fault divorce and replace it with a system that only allows divorce for infidelity.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    P.C. (@34), you’re missing the point. You seem unable to distinguish — at least in the case of gay marriage — between what is sinful and what is legal.

    You claim that, since homosexual marriage is unscriptural, it is therefore incumbent on Christians to support the criminalization of gay marriage. But by that logic, the Mormon church should also be illegal. As well as any other religion that teaches less than the pure truth of God. Selfishness in every form should be illegal. Not loving your neighbor as yourself should be illegal. And so on. Is that your argument? That all these things should have laws against them?

    If that is your argument, we disagree on the role of government, as compared to the role of the Church.

    If it is not your argument, then we agree: not everything that is sinful should be criminalized. The question then becomes: which sinful things should be criminalized, and why?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    P.C. (@34), you’re missing the point. You seem unable to distinguish — at least in the case of gay marriage — between what is sinful and what is legal.

    You claim that, since homosexual marriage is unscriptural, it is therefore incumbent on Christians to support the criminalization of gay marriage. But by that logic, the Mormon church should also be illegal. As well as any other religion that teaches less than the pure truth of God. Selfishness in every form should be illegal. Not loving your neighbor as yourself should be illegal. And so on. Is that your argument? That all these things should have laws against them?

    If that is your argument, we disagree on the role of government, as compared to the role of the Church.

    If it is not your argument, then we agree: not everything that is sinful should be criminalized. The question then becomes: which sinful things should be criminalized, and why?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    P.C., when Joe said (@35), “You can’t say Moses allowed something but God did not…”, you replied (@36):

    Sure I can! Moses allowed divorce, God does not, except for infidelity. Re-read Matt 19. Moses was a sinner just like us.

    Wow. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone toss out the inspiration of Moses just to make such an inconsequential point before. That is incredibly short-sighted. Have you really thought this through?

    Because you might notice that all the books of the Bible were written down by sinful men. If your argument that a man’s sinfulness means that God cannot inspire them to write down the truth, then the rest of your argument is sunk — you cannot quote Scripture anymore to back up your point, including Matthew 19. You undermine your own case with your argument.

    Besides, one might notice that Jesus approvingly quotes Moses in Matthew 19 (cf. v.4). What are we to understand from your argument, that we can’t know if anything in the first five books of the Bible is true or not unless Jesus himself approvingly cites it?

    No, your argument requires too much (besides being self-refuting). Jesus doesn’t condemn the law allowing divorce. How could he? God himself gave the law (again, cf. Deuteronomy 24) — read Deuteronomy 4 to see that these are not Moses’ laws, they are the “commands of the Lord your God”.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    P.C., when Joe said (@35), “You can’t say Moses allowed something but God did not…”, you replied (@36):

    Sure I can! Moses allowed divorce, God does not, except for infidelity. Re-read Matt 19. Moses was a sinner just like us.

    Wow. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone toss out the inspiration of Moses just to make such an inconsequential point before. That is incredibly short-sighted. Have you really thought this through?

    Because you might notice that all the books of the Bible were written down by sinful men. If your argument that a man’s sinfulness means that God cannot inspire them to write down the truth, then the rest of your argument is sunk — you cannot quote Scripture anymore to back up your point, including Matthew 19. You undermine your own case with your argument.

    Besides, one might notice that Jesus approvingly quotes Moses in Matthew 19 (cf. v.4). What are we to understand from your argument, that we can’t know if anything in the first five books of the Bible is true or not unless Jesus himself approvingly cites it?

    No, your argument requires too much (besides being self-refuting). Jesus doesn’t condemn the law allowing divorce. How could he? God himself gave the law (again, cf. Deuteronomy 24) — read Deuteronomy 4 to see that these are not Moses’ laws, they are the “commands of the Lord your God”.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    P.C., one last thing. I notice that the things you’re railing against, wanting them to be illegal, are the typical whipping boys of Culture War Christians: gay marriage and abortion.

    The thing is, it’s easy to take a stand against sins that you don’t particularly struggle with, as such. It’s easy to argue that gay marriage should be illegal if you’re straight — it won’t affect you.

    But which of your own sins, according to your argument here, should be made illegal?

    Might I suggest, first of all, your disdain for the Word of God?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    P.C., one last thing. I notice that the things you’re railing against, wanting them to be illegal, are the typical whipping boys of Culture War Christians: gay marriage and abortion.

    The thing is, it’s easy to take a stand against sins that you don’t particularly struggle with, as such. It’s easy to argue that gay marriage should be illegal if you’re straight — it won’t affect you.

    But which of your own sins, according to your argument here, should be made illegal?

    Might I suggest, first of all, your disdain for the Word of God?

  • P.C.

    tODD,

    I stand by what Jesus said in Matthew 19, as you should.

    Please don’t simply associate me with the ” Whipping Boys of the Culture War,” even though that is a convenient way (more commonly of the Left) to hush dissenters.

    True, abortion and homosexual marriage are concerns because how they negatively affect our culture in so many ways, but you are correct there are many others sins (actually all sins) that tear away the fabric of our family/culture. My innumerable sins are included in that destruction.

    Your comment “Might I suggest, first of all, your disdain for the Word of God?” does not deserve a reply and I’m sure you regret writing that.

    Sorry, I would like to respond in greater detail to your responses but I have to go and attend to a family event that, although sad, yet because of the promise of the resurrection, is really the ultimate joy of our faith.

    May you and your family have a blessed Easter rejoicing in that same promise given to us from the One who Was, and Is, and Is to come.

  • P.C.

    tODD,

    I stand by what Jesus said in Matthew 19, as you should.

    Please don’t simply associate me with the ” Whipping Boys of the Culture War,” even though that is a convenient way (more commonly of the Left) to hush dissenters.

    True, abortion and homosexual marriage are concerns because how they negatively affect our culture in so many ways, but you are correct there are many others sins (actually all sins) that tear away the fabric of our family/culture. My innumerable sins are included in that destruction.

    Your comment “Might I suggest, first of all, your disdain for the Word of God?” does not deserve a reply and I’m sure you regret writing that.

    Sorry, I would like to respond in greater detail to your responses but I have to go and attend to a family event that, although sad, yet because of the promise of the resurrection, is really the ultimate joy of our faith.

    May you and your family have a blessed Easter rejoicing in that same promise given to us from the One who Was, and Is, and Is to come.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    P.C. (@41) said:

    I stand by what Jesus said in Matthew 19, as you should.

    Do you really not see the inconsistency here? The Gospel of Matthew was also written by a sinful man. If you can’t trust Moses to transcribe God’s laws for his people, then nor can you trust the author of Matthew to tell you what Jesus said. This is all the direct consequence of your argument that tossed Moses’ inspiration out the window.

    …you are correct there are many others sins (actually all sins) that tear away the fabric of our family/culture. My innumerable sins are included in that destruction.

    And you have yet to answer whether you believe that all of the sins that you commit should be criminalized. What work are you doing to ensure that they are being made illegal? You’re certainly putting more effort in this thread into criminalizing things you don’t struggle with. Why is that?

    Your comment “Might I suggest, first of all, your disdain for the Word of God?” does not deserve a reply and I’m sure you regret writing that.

    I do not. You denied Moses’ inspiration in writing the Pentateuch. You took part of God’s Word and declared it nothing more than the mistaken opinion of a sinful man. Don’t get upset with me if I call a spade a spade. I don’t think you’ve fully realized the fundamental spiritual problems you’ve created in a short-sighted attempt to bolster your argument for criminalizing gay marriage.

    I have to go and attend to a family event that, although sad, yet because of the promise of the resurrection, is really the ultimate joy of our faith.

    I’m sorry to hear that. May God comfort you and your family by reminding you of rest we have in Christ. And may you also have a blessed Easter.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    P.C. (@41) said:

    I stand by what Jesus said in Matthew 19, as you should.

    Do you really not see the inconsistency here? The Gospel of Matthew was also written by a sinful man. If you can’t trust Moses to transcribe God’s laws for his people, then nor can you trust the author of Matthew to tell you what Jesus said. This is all the direct consequence of your argument that tossed Moses’ inspiration out the window.

    …you are correct there are many others sins (actually all sins) that tear away the fabric of our family/culture. My innumerable sins are included in that destruction.

    And you have yet to answer whether you believe that all of the sins that you commit should be criminalized. What work are you doing to ensure that they are being made illegal? You’re certainly putting more effort in this thread into criminalizing things you don’t struggle with. Why is that?

    Your comment “Might I suggest, first of all, your disdain for the Word of God?” does not deserve a reply and I’m sure you regret writing that.

    I do not. You denied Moses’ inspiration in writing the Pentateuch. You took part of God’s Word and declared it nothing more than the mistaken opinion of a sinful man. Don’t get upset with me if I call a spade a spade. I don’t think you’ve fully realized the fundamental spiritual problems you’ve created in a short-sighted attempt to bolster your argument for criminalizing gay marriage.

    I have to go and attend to a family event that, although sad, yet because of the promise of the resurrection, is really the ultimate joy of our faith.

    I’m sorry to hear that. May God comfort you and your family by reminding you of rest we have in Christ. And may you also have a blessed Easter.

  • P.C.

    tODD,

    It is late but I must respond to your misinterpretation of what I have written. I truly believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Inspired Word of God, the Bible, tells of sin, death, destruction, and denial of the Christ (Peter comes to mind and he eventually gave one of the greatest sermons ever and wrote two very much INSPIRED books in the New Testament). Please once again reread Matthew 19. God has never authorized divorce and as you said long ago, “hates divorce.” Moses permitted divorce, not God. Don’t you understand that?

    I’ve never said anything about criminalizing homosexual marriage. What I have said is that I believe marriage should only be as instituted by God, between a man and a woman (remember Matt 19 v4-5). My original question to you is where in the Bible is there support for your position. You stated Matt 19 which supports my position. I think we both realize that there isn’t anything you can offer to Biblically support homosexual marriage so perhaps we better leave it at that point.

    No doubt you are a bright guy. But I think, and this isn’t a slam, that you (and me) need to be tweaked. For fun, lets reread Romans (my favorite book) and soak in what Paul has to say about a variety of what ails our culture and us individually.

    Thanks for your kind comments.

  • P.C.

    tODD,

    It is late but I must respond to your misinterpretation of what I have written. I truly believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Inspired Word of God, the Bible, tells of sin, death, destruction, and denial of the Christ (Peter comes to mind and he eventually gave one of the greatest sermons ever and wrote two very much INSPIRED books in the New Testament). Please once again reread Matthew 19. God has never authorized divorce and as you said long ago, “hates divorce.” Moses permitted divorce, not God. Don’t you understand that?

    I’ve never said anything about criminalizing homosexual marriage. What I have said is that I believe marriage should only be as instituted by God, between a man and a woman (remember Matt 19 v4-5). My original question to you is where in the Bible is there support for your position. You stated Matt 19 which supports my position. I think we both realize that there isn’t anything you can offer to Biblically support homosexual marriage so perhaps we better leave it at that point.

    No doubt you are a bright guy. But I think, and this isn’t a slam, that you (and me) need to be tweaked. For fun, lets reread Romans (my favorite book) and soak in what Paul has to say about a variety of what ails our culture and us individually.

    Thanks for your kind comments.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X