Letter to the faithful on the Notification sent to Speaker Nancy Pelosi

You mean, progressive "pretend-Christians."

Socially, progressives are confused. For a cause they love (such as baby killing) they say, "Don't put your rules on us!" But when it's something they don't like (such as private firearm ownership for self defense), they turn around and say, "Why won't you let us put our rules on you?" Then they try to divert our attention from their hypocrisy by calling us hypocrites. The common denominator: they oppose defending the weaker from the stronger in both instances. Conservatives must stand up for the weak. Progressives should be ashamed of themselves for failing to do so, but they don't.

 

The scalpel and the gun are both tools. Each can be used for good or for ill, to preserve life or to take life. It makes no sense to ban either the scalpel or the gun. The issue is the heart motive of the person who wields the tool.

A few bad men wield the gun out of evil or mental illness. A few bad men wield the scalpel for financial gain. Deal with the root of the problem, not the tools.

 

The subject is hardly a LOL one though, is it.
.

 

Oh, I don't know about that. I had this mental image of a doctor about to begin the abortion procedure when an infant's tiny arm sticks out of the mother, revolver in hand and the barrel shoved up the abortion doc's left nostril, and a little voice saying in its best Clint Eastwood imitation, "Do ya feel lucky?"

Seeing a little baby brandish a firearm to stop the doctor from murdering him.... wouldn't that image make a funny cartoon? I mean, the people who seem to be taking offense at the mere pointing of a gun don't seem the least bit bothered about the grim reaping the doctor is doing; why is that?

 

I tend to think of it as overcooked.

 

They are not individuals, though. Their existence is physically, biologically shared with, and inseparable from, the mother. The fetus exists not of itself, but through the mother. That which exists as a part of, and through, another, is not an individual, by definition. It is the physical nature that separates and therefore individuates beings, whether rational or not, at least in the traditional Christian understanding.

And lest I be misunderstood, their not being individuals or persons need not mean that we can simply do whatever we like with them in a morally neutral way. It simply means that the mere termination of a pregnancy, under whatever moral circumstances, is not murder. Something can be wrong or objectionable without being murder. I am not "pro-abortion"; my goal is to counter extremist rhetoric that poses as Christian teaching yet lacks a biblical and rational foundation.

 

I respectfully disagree with the concept that the unborn child "exists not of itself." The child is a discrete, unique human being and a separate existence from the existence of the mother, yet wholly dependent upon the mother. If medical science were advanced enough, the unborn child could in theory be separated from the womb as early as post-fertilization; the fact that we cannot yet do so does not negate the separate existence of the unborn child which is demonstrably not of the same genetic makeup as either parent. The issue is actually one of dependency; the embryo/fetus cannot live independently, yet neither can a week-old baby live independently. Although the unborn child is physically connected to the mother, this element of the dependency does not render the child a non-human being or a non-individual; consider siamese twins, a situation in which two people are so connected physically that they cannot live independently, yet they are two unique human beings.

 

The conjoined twins example is an interesting one, and one to which I have given some thought before. Our moral intuition is such that we would want to affirm that there are actually two persons present despite their possessing a single body (with some common organs). I suppose under the premodern Christian definition I have been referring to, we might refer to such a case as that of actual, but partial, persons. But that would mean an amputee is a partial person as well, which is counterintuitive. The premodern definition isn’t without its problems. However, on the whole, it is more satisfactory than the “ghost-in-the-machine” anthropology that came out of the Rationalist wing of the Enlightenment, or the Skeptical denial of enduring personhood altogether that was formulated by Hume as a reaction to it.

 

You are totally missing the point about RCs. It isn't that they have a secular religion - it is that they are brainwashed to believe there is NO OTHER religion so even if they disagree with its precepts, they can't leave, it's almost impossible, especially for older RCs. You impute too much malice to RCs who disagree with their church.

 

This is the problem with over-systematizing your faith (especially when relying on extra-biblical authority, as the RC church with Aquinas). The Reformers advanced sola Scriptura as the first of the five solas for a reason. Anglicans express this sentiment in Article VI of the 39 Articles:

The Bible is sufficient. We don't need anything else. Systematic theologies are fine in terms of edification and illumination of Scriptural teaching, but at the end of the day they are still opinions on what Scripture says. They are not Scripture. The Roman Catholic Magisterium likewise has been the fount and sustainer of much error over the centuries.

 

"The Roman Catholic Magisterium likewise has been the fount and sustainer of much error over the centuries."

As indeed the 39 Articles state.

 

You're right, coercion is the wrong word. My point was that abortion has very real consequences on men too.

Where I am, the father can't just unilaterally opt to terminate his parental rights. If the mother says he's the father and she wants child support, he's stuck.

 

Yeah, it's a wonder the young fathers-to-be haven't jumped on the 'slogan' bandwagon: "My finances, my choice!"

 

Indeed it does. That is why it is so important to make sure views on that subject are aligned beforehand.

 

Is this man preaching THE GOSPEL of peace to sinners in this clip? Or is he advocating and instigating cold blooded MURDER of sinners in - God's name?

Should there be a penalty for that?

My point is this. How far can it be possible for a worldly spirited preacher of hate to depart from the Gospel that Jesus Christ has entrusted us preach and live-out, before he becomes a heretic? I mean particularly this verse: - Luke 9:55 and [Jesus] said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; for the Son of man came not to destroy men’s lives but to save them”.

Discuss: -

 

Obviously, that fella is a nut and a disgrace.

 

He's also probably preaching to an empty room. Hang out on TikTok for about five minutes and you'll see nutcases of all social viewpoints and strata venting insanity at the camera. The only thing to take away from stuff like that is that America doesn't have enough insane asylums. Which we already know.

Also, Tiffy, you're linking stuff from the "friendly atheist" now? That's what you're using as a source?

 

I don't know who the atheist concerned is actually befriending but I'm sure that the nutcases you rightly refer to, bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ into such disrespect that ignorant atheists are inclined to tar all Christin believers with the same 'insanity' brush that the 'nutcases' unabashedly paint themselves with in God's name when legitimately claiming that "The Bible says so". Literally speaking these 'empty room TikTok preacher nutcases' are right though. The Bible DOES say that, so they DO have their followers believing the truth they purpotedly preach. But is their faith CHRISTIAN or is it a hate filled version of an Israelite, pre-Christ, law based, Bronze Age, religion?
.

 

Do you take the position of Marcion that we should just jettison the Old Testament entirely? That the God of the Old Testament and that of the New Testament are fundamentally different beings?

You're quoting Leviticus here, which I have been taught is still Holy Scripture -- though the ceremonial and dietary laws have been fulfilled in Christ and are no longer practiced, the moral law is still fully in effect (the Decalogue, essentially).

The Apostle Paul spends a lot of time in Romans chapter 7 talking about how the Law (Jewish Torah) is "good", but that men cannot follow it -- our hearts are prone to evil. It is by God's grace that we are saved and not by the Law; the Law simply exposes the evil in our hearts. If it were not for the Law, we would not know what evil is; the Law convicts us because it shines a spotlight on our sin. This is why the Christ was incarnate as the man Jesus and sent to us -- unable to save ourselves through the Law, we had to be saved by grace through the sacrifice of our Lord on the cross as a propitiatory sacrifice to God the father to cover our sins.

Is it your take that the Law itself is bad (which means that God, who instituted it, is bad)? If not, what is your point? If it's that men are evil, you're simply making the same point that the Old Testament itself is making, which is to say, that the Law cannot save anyone -- not because it isn't good (it is good, since God instituted it); but because men cannot follow it.

Even our Lord Jesus Christ said of the Law in Matt. 5:18: "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Christ does not reject the Law; he fulfills it.

EDIT: I'd also like to know what your take is on Acts 5:1-11, Tiffy. (It's the story where Ananias and Sapphira are struck dead by God for defrauding the church.) This to me has always been the counter to people who claim that God "changed" between the OT and the NT. Nope, God is the same -- eternally. The wage of sin is death. Sometimes immediately, and at the hand of God himself.

 

No. I am not a Marcionist and certainly do not want to get rid of the Old Testament part of The Bible. I just want to have a health warning posted over it all saying, "Fundamental interpretations of this section may seriously damage your Christian faith, and walk with Christ"

The sections of the Old Testament Holy Scripture that I quoted were both from Leviticus and though they contain rules and very good advice on avoiding very bad habits they also contain the tariff of sentences for deliberately breaking those very sensible rules. That tariff of sentences no longer applies in the current Age of Grace. Christians are not allowed by God to line up queers against the wall and shoot them in the head, like victims of the Nazis or the KKK, (and their blood shall not be upon them). Judicial Murder is no longer sanctioned by God, He didn't enjoy the crucifixion.

The law is not just 'GOOD' it is 'PERFECT'. However the law is incapable of saving the human race from sin, it was never designed by God for that purpose.

No.

Quite!

But this is the Age of Grace in which WE are to "go and proclaim the kingdom of God."

They didn't 'defraud the church', (they didn't HAVE to give anything), they lied about the extent of their own generosity to men and worse to God, and expected God to do nothing about it in an Age of Grace. Every moment of everyone's life is given by God's grace, and God is perfectly at liberty to bring anyone's life to an end at any instant, and God incurrs no guilt for doing so, since life, for every one of us was entirely within God's own gift, at all times. We are all under God's grace and God reserves the right to end our physical life at any time, to perhaps rescue our spiritual life from eternal damnation or for the benefit of others. I could wish God would be less gracious to Putin but that would be ungracious of me.
.