- Dec 3, 2006
- 9,714
- 6,632
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
James Talarico doubles down on pro-abortion stance: 'The Bible is silent'
- Thread starter Michie
- Start date
- Status
- Mar 18, 2004
- 71,952
- 8,440
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
If that’s what he meant, then it is likely that is what he’d have said.
Upvote
0
childeye 2
Well-Known Member
- Aug 18, 2018
- 6,554
- 3,504
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
That’s not how language works though. People often use shorthand, metaphor, or culturally loaded terms. Unless he defined his meaning, we can’t replace his intent with our assumptions. Interpretation is allowed; imputation is not. We don’t get to decide what someone else meant; we only get to interpret what they said. Meaning belongs to the speaker.
Upvote
0
childeye 2
Well-Known Member
- Aug 18, 2018
- 6,554
- 3,504
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Earlier you said you knew what he meant. If that’s the case, then tell me what you think his meaning was. I’ve looked at the context, and my understanding is that it was about transgender children, but that still doesn’t tell us what his semantic intent was when he used the term “nonbinary.”
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2004
- 71,952
- 8,440
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Why would he have said something so politically charged in a state like Texas if he didn’t mean it and knew it would cost him votes?
Lost Witness
Ezekiel 3:3 ("Change")
- Nov 10, 2022
- 1,797
- 1,091
- 40
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
childeye 2
Well-Known Member
- Aug 18, 2018
- 6,554
- 3,504
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Your question is what is called a loaded question because it assumes a specific meaning behind Talarico’s use of the word “nonbinary” that hasn’t been established. I can’t even answer it without first accepting that assumption, and that would be intellectually dishonest.
This is why I keep emphasizing that we don’t get to decide what someone else meant. When we assign a meaning the speaker didn’t define, we risk mischaracterizing them and at that point we’re no longer interpreting their words but projecting our own assumptions onto them. Once that happens, we’re not dealing with what they said anymore, but with a version of their words that we created. That’s how people unintentionally end up saying things about others that aren’t true.
A good example is @Vambram. He seems to interpret “nonbinary” as implying that God is both Father and Mother. But the term “nonbinary” doesn’t imply “mother,” and it doesn’t negate “Father.” That conclusion came from a projection about the word, not from anything Talarico actually said.
This is exactly why I’m cautious about accepting premises that haven’t been clarified, The Holy Spirit doesn't wouldn't want us to slander anyone. Until Talarico defines what he meant, the only responsible approach is interpretive humility, not certainty about a meaning he never stated.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
childeye 2
Well-Known Member
- Aug 18, 2018
- 6,554
- 3,504
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
In theology, “Father” often refers to the source or seed of the image one bears. For example, Scripture speaks of the serpent’s seed, and Christ is the seed sent by God. So “Father” is not merely a biological category but a relational and revelatory one.
At the same time, Scripture itself uses maternal imagery for God; God comforting like a mother (Isa 66:13), God compared to a mother who nurses and cannot forget her child (Isa 49:15), and even God described as the one who “gave you birth” (Deut 32:18). Jesus compares Himself to a mother hen gathering her chicks (Matt 23:37). None of this makes God “a Mother,” and none of it contradicts God’s revealed name as Father. It simply shows that God transcends human gender categories.
That’s why interpreting “nonbinary” as “God is both Father and Mother” is a projection, not a meaning contained in the word. The term doesn’t imply “mother,” and it doesn’t negate “Father.” It only takes on that meaning if we read our own assumptions into it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 9,714
- 6,632
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
The Lord God describes Himself in the Bible as GOD the FATHER, GOD the SON, and GOD the HOLY SPIRIT.
Upvote
0
childeye 2
Well-Known Member
- Aug 18, 2018
- 6,554
- 3,504
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't see Talarico disputing that. He probably means God transcends creaturely categories. “There is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28)
My guess is that Talarico triggered a response when he said, “There’s nothing wrong with transgender children.”. Those who are triggered might hear “He’s pushing gender ideology into theology.”
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 9,714
- 6,632
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Franklin Graham, others blast Talarico for claiming 'Bible is silent' on abortion: 'An absolute lie'
Evangelist Franklin Graham joined a chorus of Christians who pushed back Texas state Rep James Talarico for claiming the Bible is silent on the morality of abortion
www.christianpost.com
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 40,402
- 30,160
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
The Bible is, explicitly, silent on abortion.
The Bible may say things, implicitly, about abortion--but there isn't any biblical text that immediately addresses abortion.
The historic Christian view on abortion is rooted not in explicit biblical texts, but a received moral tradition about the dignity of all human beings; however, that moral tradition is itself rooted in the biblical text. Ergo, we can speak of how the Bible implicitly says something about abortion.
We can say, yes, absolutely: the historic Christian witness has always been in opposition to abortion; early Christians condemned the use of abortifacients.
The case for Christian opposition to abortion is strong, both in Tradition and also Scripture.
But to suggest the Bible says anything, specifically or immediately, about abortion would be incorrect. The Bible is, technically, silent on abortion.
There are a lot of things the Bible is specifically silent about. For serious readers and students of God's word, this shouldn't be seen as a problem.
The Bible may say things, implicitly, about abortion--but there isn't any biblical text that immediately addresses abortion.
The historic Christian view on abortion is rooted not in explicit biblical texts, but a received moral tradition about the dignity of all human beings; however, that moral tradition is itself rooted in the biblical text. Ergo, we can speak of how the Bible implicitly says something about abortion.
We can say, yes, absolutely: the historic Christian witness has always been in opposition to abortion; early Christians condemned the use of abortifacients.
The case for Christian opposition to abortion is strong, both in Tradition and also Scripture.
But to suggest the Bible says anything, specifically or immediately, about abortion would be incorrect. The Bible is, technically, silent on abortion.
There are a lot of things the Bible is specifically silent about. For serious readers and students of God's word, this shouldn't be seen as a problem.
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 9,714
- 6,632
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 9,714
- 6,632
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Psalm 139:13-16
Jeremiah 1:5
Job 10:8-12
Isaiah 49:1
Galatians 1:15
Luke 1:41-44
Exodus 21:22-25
Upvote
0
- Aug 3, 2012
- 31,498
- 31,154
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
You might want to look up the definition of the word "explicitly." The only one of those passages that comes anywhere close to explicitly mentioning abortion is the one in Exodus 21. The passage from Psalm 139 can be used to argue against abortion, but the rest are irrelevant to the question.
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 9,714
- 6,632
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
ALL of those verses are extremely relevant. You might want to look up the definition of the word "relevant."
Upvote
0
Delvianna
Well-Known Member
- Sep 10, 2025
- 1,041
- 1,263
- 40
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Divorced
The Bible doesnt use the modern English word "abortion." However, it does repeatedly addresses the intentional killing of innocent human life.
Genesis 9:6 (NKJV)
"Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man."
Exodus 20:13 (NKJV)
"You shall not murder."
Deuteronomy 27:25 (NKJV)
"Cursed is the one who takes a bribe to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!'"
Proverbs 6:16-17 (NKJV)
"These six things the Lord hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood,"
Jeremiah 19:4-5 (NKJV)
"Because they have forsaken Me and made this an alien place, because they have burned incense in it to other gods whom neither they, their fathers, nor the kings of Judah have known, and have filled this place with the blood of the innocents (they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),"
Deuteronomy 1:39 (NKJV)
"Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it."
So its not whether the Bible contains the modern word "abortion." It's whether unborn children are innocent human beings. If they are, then the verses above are directly relevant because scripture consistently condemns the shedding of innocent blood and the killing of those who have committed no wrong doing. Theres also more verses that I haven't posted either.
Now, please quote book, chapter, and verse where the Bible explicitly permits the intentional killing of unborn children.
- Aug 3, 2012
- 31,498
- 31,154
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The Isaiah and Galatians passages are about being called from an early age, not about the status of a fetus. There are plenty of ways to use scripture to defend unborn life, but those passages aren't it. To make a point about abortion is such a stretch that it undermines your credibility.
Regarding the Exodus passage, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that it provides support for abortion by making a miscarriage punishable by only a fine. The English translation isn't clear what it means by "harm" or "no harm" - it could mean "harm to the mother" or it could mean "harm to either the mother or the baby." If it's assumed that the miscarriage results in the baby's death, then the "harm" would refers only to that suffered by the mother and the passage treats the fetus as property. Again, Exodus isn't clear on this point, but Hammurabi's Code, which is similar in many respects to Jewish law, predates it, and was in place in the same region, is clear:
So, there's cultural precedent for handling things that way.
There's also Numbers 5, which prescribes a forced abortion and sterilization as punishment for infidelity.
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 9,714
- 6,632
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Isaiah 49:1 and Galatians 1:15 very specifically says that God called and knew them in the womb. Your credibility is being stretched because it appears that you refuse to acknowledge this.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
