Lying in politics to save lives from being aborted: acceptable?

I believe we make up our own mind on matters pertaining to our existence in daily affairs. To lie about God to advance an argument proving God is not acceptable.

Romans, 3:5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

Two examples women who lied and were proclaimed righteous in Christ's lineage.
Tamar
… Judah’s role is incriminating. He readily propositions a ‘prostitute,’ little dreaming she is his daughter-in-law. He soundly condemns Tamar when her pregnancy is revealed, and even intends to have her burned to death in a shocking case of a double standard. But Tamar has cleverly protected herself and the identity of her child’s father by holding Judah’s personal belongings—cords and a seal and staff.

Finally, we see some good action from Judah when he acknowledges his paternity and proclaims that she is more righteous than he is (Gen. 38:26). He was seeking an irresponsible sexual encounter; she was seeking to responsibly protect her future and even his, by providing a child who would live and produce offspring. She was indeed more righteous than he. In a culture when women had few rights, Tamar thoughtfully invested in the future (Gen. 38:27-29).

Rahab
Hebrews 11:31 By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.

Rahab wants a way out of the life she is living. She believes that the people of God will take her city because the fear of the Lord and what he is doing has fallen on her and the people in her land. She has heard the stories of how the Israelites came out of Egypt and how the Red Sea dried up to allow them passage across. She has heard of the defeat of her powerful neighbors across the Jordan River, King Sihon and King Og. She realizes that Jericho is the gate to Canaan and she wants to survive the attack she knows is coming. She, like Tamar, has cords that signify belonging. “Hang this scarlet cord in this window where you let us down, and we will spare you and all in your house,” the spies instruct her.
It happened as planned. Rahab and her family were saved during the compete defeat of Jericho by Joshua’s army. Later, Rahab marries Salmon, a Jew whom tradition says was one of the spies she hid. They have a son, Boaz, who grows up to become a righteous and godly man (Ruth 2:1).

These 2 women as humans engaged in behavior that would protect themselves and in doing so deception was a necessary component. We as humans may make choices that will advance our security or agenda. At what point do we cross that line? It is a given we cannot lie concerning the Gospel as Paul states in Romans.

Romans, 14:22
Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemns not himself in that thing which he allows.
23 And he that doubts is damned if he eat, because he eats not of faith: for what ever is not of faith is sin.

Adam56 said:

I wouldn’t describe it as contempt, but I can disagree with other choice, including abortion.

Click to expand...

I think it's a mistake to get an abortion, just like it's a mistake to fornicate, commit adultery, steal, lie, cheat, etc...But, as a sinner who was delivered from sin according to God's purpose, unto His glory, I have no place to stand in vainglory.

Adam56 said:

An argument I’ve heard Christians is “if you lived in the Holocaust, it’s morally justified to lie about keeping Jews in the attic.” (In case police investigate.)

So I have a thought experiment. Trump is Republican, which is the pro life party. If trump were to campaign and say “I’m not banning the abortion pill”, or “I’m not setting a 15 week ban it’s all up to the states”

And then he wins and in office, starts becoming strict on abortion, is that a sin? He would have lied to get in office, but it would result in less abortion.

So what’s the verdict?

Click to expand...

The verdict?
To presume that Kam Harris or any other politician is always truthful is the naivete of a 3 year old. Perhaps in some other universe, on another planet, or in a dream that may occur.
Sure Trumps a liar. They all are.

Adam56 said:

Abortion qualifies as murder.

From murderers.

Click to expand...

The 'Pro Life Party.'
Conservatives are not the only group of people who consider human life begins at conception.
It may be her choice, but it is not a woman's body. Don't blow any science bs my way. These are scientists, they are the front line.
The American College of Pediatricians also considers this to be true.

When Human Life Begins

… “Nonetheless, one could sensibly make the case that “personhood” can only exist in a living human being and that the division of these two entities is arbitrary at best.

In the last century, and particularly in the last decades, much more detailed observation has been made of the first 24 hours of the life of a human being. During this time the cell membranes of a sperm and ovum fuse and the first cell division occurs. When during this 24 hours does, a new human life begin? Embryologists are less united on this question. This Statement aims to clarify this issue.

During the first 24 hours, once the sperm and egg bind to each other, the membranes of these two cells fuse, creating in less than a second a single hybrid cell: the zygote, or one-cell embryo.13,14 To protect his or her bodily integrity, within minutes the zygote initiates changes in its ionic composition, releasing zinc in a spark that induces “egg activation,” first modifying the surrounding zona pellucida blocking further sperm binding to the cell surface.15,16,17 Cooperation between sperm and egg components to achieve replication of DNA, cell division, and growth occurs as maternally and paternally derived factors in the zygote begin interacting with and chemically modifying each other to initiate the final round of meiotic division in the maternally derived nucleus15,16 to enable DNA replication.

Finally, the nuclear membranes of the pronuclei break down (called syngamy—technically, pronuclear membranes). No new nuclear membrane encompassing both pronuclei is formed; rather, mitosis occurs and two cells, each with its own identical nucleus encased in a nuclear membrane, are formed.18

Furthermore, studies with mice embryos demonstrate that despite the plasticity of which allows disrupted blastomeres to form an entire organism, ordinarily the polarity of the embryo is determined by the site of sperm penetration.19,20 (Evidence from other mammalian species suggests that the same may be true in humans, but does not offer definitive proof).

Some embryologists consider fertilization a day-long process and regard the beginning of human life as occurring near the end of this process at syngamy,1,18,21 whereas others consider the time of cell membrane fusion when the embryo gives evidence of being a different kind of cell than either oocyte or sperm, to be the beginning of a new human life, since within minutes the new embryo acts to prevent the merger of another sperm with itself and starts the business of self-replication. The single-celled embryo is a very different kind of cell than that of sperm or oocyte, and contains a unique genome that will determine most future bodily features and functions of his or her lifetime.

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole, and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.”22

It is clear that from the time of cell fusion, the embryo consists of elements (from both maternal and paternal origin) which function interdependently in a coordinated manner to carry on the function of the development of the human organism. From this definition, the single-celled embryo is not just a cell, but an organism, a living being, a human being.
The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a process of fusion of their respective membranes and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or one-cell embryo, is created.

As physicians dedicated both to scientific truth and to the Hippocratic tradition, the College values all human lives equally from the moment of conception (fertilization) until natural death. Consistent with its mission to “enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being,” the College, therefore, opposes active measures23 that would prematurely end the life of any child at any stage of development from conception to natural death.

This was not directed at you Adam56. I agree with your statements. It is for those deceived children who proudly proclaim in ignorance the spoon fed rubbish doled out by the self serving world.

In the democratic system, in order to gain power you must lie to a voter base in order to secure their support. That's simply the nature of Liberal democracy.

Adam56 said:

Is lying justified then in politics?

Click to expand...

Lying in it's 'purest' form is never justified. Yet they all lie. And that includes you and I. 'Let God be true and all men liars.'
They are of the world as far as I see. I see no evidence that Kamala Harris is a believer in spite of her alleged faith. If she is indeed a true believer it is my duty to judge her behavior. I don't believe anyone that supports infanticide has much of a relationship with God.

Romans 1 speaks of the things which God does not approve of. While all men have sinned we as believers work toward perfection by aligning ourselves with the will of God by His Spirit. The last verse in Romans 1 speaks of the remedy and conclusion of not only those who do such things, but also those that accept or support this behavior.
If you read post #22 you have seen examples of 2 women in Christ's lineage. See also post #25 on infanticide.
If you as others I have seen here do not believe Trump to be a Christian then you judging him is really none of your business. It's Gods.
Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Adam56 said:

An argument I’ve heard Christians is “if you lived in the Holocaust, it’s morally justified to lie about keeping Jews in the attic.” (In case police investigate.)

So I have a thought experiment. Trump is Republican, which is the pro life party. If trump were to campaign and say “I’m not banning the abortion pill”, or “I’m not setting a 15 week ban it’s all up to the states”

And then he wins and in office, starts becoming strict on abortion, is that a sin? He would have lied to get in office, but it would result in less abortion.

So what’s the verdict?

Click to expand...

Trump has already stated many times ... he will support the Supreme Courts decision ... and that is the matter has been returned to the States.
Whatever is decided in the matter is up to individual states.

Fantine said:

Your hypothesis is hard for me to wrap my brain around.
He's not thinking about babies. He's thinking about votes.
Right now, he realizes his appointment of three judges who overturned Roe v. Wade is an election liability, especially considering the corruption of several justices and the failure of the Roberts Court to enforce ethics policies---even when a flag supporting insurrection flies on a justices house.
And he has to take heat for the terrible decisions these justices have made as well as their decision on Roe.
And so he's soft pedaling on abortion on the campaign trail.
But TBT, if he won, his priorities will be paying back his oligarchial sponsors--Musk, Thiel, and Silicon Valley--and implementing Project 2025.
The babies aren't on his mind at all.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if Trump wants to get more votes, he might want to shut abortion down. Heck, if Kamala wants to get more votes from the conservatives, she might want to back down on abortion except for emergency cases such as when both mother and child are at risk. Ahh, that is why I am gonna go third party in 2024.

Psalm 139:13-16 (NIV): "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

Protect the Unborn Devotional:

Fantine said:

He's not thinking about babies. He's thinking about votes.

Click to expand...

Are liberals thinking about babies? No just votes under cover of women’s rights. I’ll go with saving babies no matter what the motive!

Postvieww said:

Are liberals thinking about babies? No just votes under cover of women’s rights. I’ll go with saving babies no matter what the motive!

Click to expand...

No liberals are thinking about children a good 21 years after most Republicans have told them to pull themselves up by their toddler 2 bootstraps.
Harris doesn't love abortion. Harris thinks children are a blessing when the parents(s) are ready. To that end she supports comprehensive sex education and contraception for those who choose to use it. She wants government to help families and children through parental leaves, free school lunch, education and health care, affordable post secondary education--things Reoublicans don't support.

Fantine said:

No liberals are thinking about children a good 21 years after most Republicans have told them to pull themselves up by their toddler 2 bootstraps.

Click to expand...

Poor diversion from the issue of killing babies!

Fantine said:

No liberals are thinking about children a good 21 years after most Republicans have told them to pull themselves up by their toddler 2 bootstraps.

Click to expand...

Postvieww said:

Poor diversion from the issue of killing babies!

Click to expand...

Because we don't live in a theocracy, your accusatory strident comment reflects your personal opinion, which is not shared by all Americans or even all Christian churches.
The words "baby killer" is a conversation ender. I would even say it repels voters.

Fantine said:

The words "baby killer" is a conversation ender. I would even say it repels voters.

Click to expand...

Well it is much more accurate than the sanitized word "choice". But I do understand it is not comfortable to accurately describe what happens with abortions.

What is it about being for pro-life that reeks of theocracy? Murder is generally frowned upon in civilized nations.