Why is thinking these so popular?

[Assyrian]

One of the most disturbing arguments I ever heard about abortion was back before I was a TE, a preacher claimed unborn children aren't really alive. Until it is born and takes that first breath, it does not have the God given 'breath of life' and so is not really a living soul (Gen 2:7).

 

[The Barbarian]

Logically consistent, if you assume inerrant scripture. But still deeply troubling.

 

[Doveaman]

The cross was certainly a part of the plan for this universe, and evolution was one of the tools God used to make it come about.

My problem with evolution is how is it that people believe in it without the actual observation of it taking place, something like our observation of a caterpillar changing into a butterfly.

They seem to be basing their conclusions on similarity of features in bones or whatever else.

It seem to me that evolution is just a big blind guess at what might be possible, but not what actually is, since there is no actual evidence for it.

Should a Christian put his or her trust in such blind faith?

 

[Dark_Lite]

actual observation of it taking place

Evolution has been observed. Go read up on speciation.

As for "blind faith," creationism takes far more of that than evolution. Unlike creationism, there is actually evidence for evolution.

 

[Doveaman]

Evolution has been observed. Go read up on speciation.

Give me an animal or two and I'll go check it out.

As for "blind faith," creationism takes far more of that than evolution. Unlike creationism, there is actually evidence for evolution.

I do agree that some 'creationist' rely on blind faith sometimes, especially when it comes to the age of the earth; 6 to 10 thousand years sounds to me a bit off in light of the fossil records.

I don't think scientists have an accurate knowledge of the age either; 4 to 5 billion years is just another blind guess, in my opinion.

 

[vossler]

How very convenient!

That's what God's Word is, convenient.

But we can both be wrong.

Agreed, except one of us is probably more wrong.

That is the point to be established. The bible does not suggest that abortion is murder or equivalent to murder. The bible prescribes the death penalty for murder, adultery, blasphemy and a number of other sins, but never for abortion. If it really was thought of as murder, there would be case law in the bible for it.

The Bible says that we are to choose life. It also states that God formed me and you in our mother's womb. If the taking of another life doesn't bother you that's between you and God.

Again you assume what has not been established. And you also forget what James told us: if you offend in one point of the law, you have offended. You cannot take credit for not murdering if at the same time you steal. You cannot take credit for a strong stance against abortion if at the same time you vote for tax reductions instead of day care.

So because I believe the taking of another life is murder your response is I shouldn't take a stand on it because at some point in my past or present I've stolen. Is it any wonder why I made my original point?

Yes. Unless one holds strictly to "thou shalt not kill" no matter what the circumstances. As long as there is a distinction drawn between killing and murder, the line of distinction must be set out. This is especially so when one makes a crusade against one type of killing. It must be clear that this is indeed murder.

Consider another case. The biblical injunction on adultery prescribes capital punishment. In some parts of the world "honour killings" of women are still considered acceptable. In biblical times to kill an adulterer was not murder. But today we are shocked when the Taliban applies that standard and consider the executions of women for adultery to be judicial murder.

So, yes, it is important--if one is claiming biblical support--that the bible identify abortion as murder. And it does not.

If you wish to split hairs as to what the Bible specifically says is or isn't murder that's up to you. I'm sure there are countless ways you can kill someone that aren't mentioned in the Bible, so according to you they must all be legal. Now who's being the literalist? Once again, this just proves my original point.

Make what easier?

To twist Scripture to your liking of course.

 

[gluadys]

That's what God's Word is, convenient.
Agreed, except one of us is probably more wrong.
The Bible says that we are to choose life.

But it also draws a distinction between taking life and murder.

If the taking of another life doesn't bother you that's between you and God.

Oh, it does. That is why in addition to not supporting abortion I do not support war, capital punishment, tar sands development, refusal to act on climate change, wages and social assistance below poverty lines, failure to provide universal medical care, failure to cancel third world debt and much, much more.

All of these take lives. None of them are murder.

So do you choose only the life of the unborn or do you choose life in all respects?

Now who's being the literalist?

Indeed, I am often more of a literalist than those who claim to be. As has often been noted, all of us choose what to interpret literally and what to interpret figuratively. We just choose differently.

To twist Scripture to your liking of course.

Oh? It has always been easy to twist scripture to one's liking. One can find dozens of examples from defending slavery to promoting witchhunts to supporting the divine right of kings and anti-semitic pograms. Not to mention the huge amount of scripture twisting necessary to defend literal inerrancy. Conservatives do it as much or more than TEs. How does accepting evolution make it easier?

Are you not just expressing your own bias when you call an interpretation of scripture you disagree with "twisting" scripture? Why not just call it an interpretation you do not support?

 

[vossler]

But it also draws a distinction between taking life and murder.

Is abortion choosing life? What do you call it when someone takes life?

So do you choose only the life of the unborn or do you choose life in all respects?

I especially choose the life of the unborn because they have no voice of their own. With regard to war I support defending yourself whether it be against an intruder in your home or in your land and that defense includes death. Sometimes such a defense might even mean a good offense. Capital punishment is something I have questions concerning, there appear to be not enough safeguards on how it is implemented. The other topics are clearly not relevant so I won't comment.

Indeed, I am often more of a literalist than those who claim to be. As has often been noted, all of us choose what to interpret literally and what to interpret figuratively. We just choose differently.

So for you unless an act is clearly defined in the Bible as murder, you believe the act should not be considered murder. Am I correct?

Oh? It has always been easy to twist scripture to one's liking...Conservatives do it as much or more than TEs. How does accepting evolution make it easier?

If you can twist something as simple as Genesis then it makes it so much easier to twist the rest.

Why not just call it an interpretation you do not support?

Because the Bible says "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

 

[gluadys]

Is abortion choosing life? What do you call it when someone takes life?

Depends on the situation. I think in some cases abortion is murder and in others it may be justifiable homicide.

I especially choose the life of the unborn because they have no voice of their own.

Children depending on food stamps don't have a voice of their own either. Neither do women being raped by militias in Darfur. Nor girls subjected to genital mutilation. Nor do young women working in export processing zones--the law denies them the opportunity to unionize. Nor young boys forced to be child soldiers. Did 15-year old Omar Khadr have a voice of his own when he was thrown into Guantanamo? And our Prime Minister---alone of all foreign heads of states--refused to request his repatriation to his home country. In fact, our Supreme Court had to order him to make the request--after he has been in that hell-hole for 6 years.

And what of the hundreds of species going extinct because of deforestation, desertification and climate change? Will you speak up for them? What voice do they have other than ours?

I don't begrudge you speaking for the unborn. It is focusing on them while neglecting or even opposing the needs of others. And it is also the means of focusing on the unborn---through condemnation rather than compassion for the needs of their mothers and siblings and even their future selves.

That is why I think of the usual anti-abortion tactics as a distraction: like tithing dill and cumin while neglecting what is truly important: life in all its dimensions. I include the life of the unborn in that, but I don't set the life of the unborn above or against the life of everyone else.

With regard to war I support defending yourself whether it be against an intruder in your home or in your land and that defense includes death. Sometimes such a defense might even mean a good offense. Capital punishment is something I have questions concerning, there appear to be not enough safeguards on how it is implemented

So you too make a distinction between killing and murder. Taking life is not always murder. Choosing life does not always mean choosing not to kill.

The other topics are clearly not relevant so I won't comment.

Do you really think killing at a distance or indirectly makes it irrelevant?

So for you unless an act is clearly defined in the Bible as murder, you believe the act should not be considered murder. Am I correct?

No. There are actions the bible does not call murder which I would call murder. The genocide of the population of conquered cities for example.

If you can twist something as simple as Genesis then it makes it so much easier to twist the rest.

But it is already easy. I see a great deal of twisting of scripture by those who accept the same interpretation of Genesis as you do. It doesn't seem to matter whether one accepts evolution or not when it comes to misusing scripture.

Because the Bible says "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Which tells us absolutely nothing about interpreting scripture! You and I can both believe in the inspiration and usefulness of scripture and still come to different conclusions about what it means. Why do you have to call an interpretation you disagree with "twisting"? Why not just "an interpretation I do not support"?

 

[herev]

:heavy sigh:

You really make it more complicated than it is. Simply put, I believe TEs and non-believers (I will limit my comments to TEs) support evolution because it gives them the ability to believe whatever it is they wish instead of being held accountable to God and His Word.

sounds like you are believing whatever you wish about TE's rather than actually letting them tell you what they believe.

For the TE, here's how it plays out.

oh do tell

If I am able to take the plain meaning of Scripture in something as simple as the creation story and twist it to say something entirely different

there is no such thing as a "plain meaning."

then the door has been thrown open to take other truths of God's Word and manipulate them as well,

Jesus is God's Word, The creation stories are in our scripture. To confuse the two is idolatry.

all in an effort to cover our personal sins.

reallY? And while you are believing whatever it is you want to believe about TE's, you are also judging motive incorrectly, assigning subterfuge where none exists. Sometimes the "plain reading" of a TE is the best

Remember, sin is something many of us wish to sweep away and pretend didn't exist

probably more than you think and this is not limited to those who believe in evolution.

because if held accountable we would then be held responsible for changing our behavior

perhaps, but it doesn't take belief in evolution to go there!

and we all know how popular change is, especially any change that requires an effort that could be painful.

as a long standing TE in this fora, you are right on the money!

Why change when you can simply justify your sin by twisting Scripture to accommodate it?

but no one is twisting anything. You keep assuming improper motive where none exists. They are interpreting it differently than your interpretation.

When we can appease our guilty conscience by twisting Scripture to state that which is sin to be good, well then we can do just about anything.

does that mean you think TE's can fly, walk through fire, stop bullets with their minds?--all because you think they know how to twist scripture?

Please, if you want to know what we TE's believe--ask us--we're actually easy to get along with and open to questions

 

[herev]

I can't speak for you or anyone specifically, all I can do is give you my observations. I know that almost 100% of the time when I speak to someone who claims to be a Christian and they believe in things like abortion, gay marriage, etc. they are evolutionists. You may see this as fictitious but it's in my face all the time. So yes, there are TEs who believe in the fall, in the incarnation, etc. but I would submit they cherry pick the doctrines they support and believe. It's my belief they do this so they won't have to confront their own sins. BTW, this clearly explains why TEs are all over the theological map of doctrinal beliefs.

and do you suggest that you DON'T cherry pick which parts of the Bible you "believe in?"
how about that part about not trimming your beard?
How about that part of not wearing polyester?
How about that part that says God has wings?
How about that part that says do no work on the sabbath?
You do believe that all of them are literal and binding today I assume?

 

[herev]

As are creationists; there are creationists who are Catholic and Lutheran, evangelical, and even cults or other religions. So why does it surprise you that TEs are doctrinally all over the map?

You have to determine which set is larger. Certainly, many of those who are proponents of abortion and gay marriage also accept evolution. It does NOT logically follow that the converse is true. I, for example, am extremely conservative, and yet I accept TE.

hello old friend, long time no see

 

[vossler]

Depends on the situation. I think in some cases abortion is murder and in others it may be justifiable homicide.

This explains a lot, murdering a helpless child could be considered justifiable homicide. Right now I couldn't be happier that I'm not an evolutionist.

I don't begrudge you speaking for the unborn. It is focusing on them while neglecting or even opposing the needs of others.

Anyone who stands up for those who can't stand for themselves should never be discouraged regardless of who else they choose to stand for. The fact that you find this a problem I find very disturbing.

...but I don't set the life of the unborn above or against the life of everyone else.

Neither do I or any other people I know.

So you too make a distinction between killing and murder. Taking life is not always murder. Choosing life does not always mean choosing not to kill.

The premeditated killing of an innocent life is always murder.

Do you really think killing at a distance or indirectly makes it irrelevant?

They're not relevant to my points or this discussion. All it would do is deflect attention from something else.

No. There are actions the bible does not call murder which I would call murder. The genocide of the population of conquered cities for example.

How convenient.

But it is already easy. I see a great deal of twisting of scripture by those who accept the same interpretation of Genesis as you do. It doesn't seem to matter whether one accepts evolution or not when it comes to misusing scripture.

Sure there are plenty of people who twist scripture to their benefit and yes some of them are Creationists. However, just because they're a Creationist doesn't give them a free pass, at least not from me. However without a doubt those who accept evolution are far more prone to do it.

Which tells us absolutely nothing about interpreting scripture! You and I can both believe in the inspiration and usefulness of scripture and still come to different conclusions about what it means. Why do you have to call an interpretation you disagree with "twisting"? Why not just "an interpretation I do not support"?

Martin Luther once said:

"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."
​

This corresponds to my own belief that I must defend Scripture as best I can and should never shy away from stating my beliefs. I try to do that and will only change my opinion when shown, primarily via Scripture, that my view is incorrect.

 

[Mallon]

This explains a lot, murdering a helpless child could be considered justifiable homicide. Right now I couldn't be happier that I'm not an evolutionist.

What does evolution have to do with it? My YEC pastor always taught that abortion is justifiable if the life of the child-bearing mother is in jeopardy. Better to save one life than to lose two.
What do you think about that?

 

[vossler]

What does evolution have to do with it? My YEC pastor always taught that abortion is justifiable if the life of the child-bearing mother is in jeopardy. Better to save one life than to lose two.
What do you think about that?

I always hear this justification for abortion, this one is a favorite. Instead of focusing on the justifications for over 99% of abortions they hone in on this obscure one in order to find some way of supporting their view of how 'humane' they are by allowing abortion. Sounds really good, doesn't it, save one life rather than lose two? Let's see, of the 52 million abortions performed in the US since Roe I'll bet there probably were, at best, a couple thousand that fall into this category. Yet this is the one people continually use. So let's murder 51.9 million so that we can save 2,000.

To answer your question, no I still wouldn't support it. I'd rather save the child than the mother and in my mind so would any real mother.

 

[Mallon]

I always hear this justification for abortion, this one is a favorite. Instead of focusing on the justifications for over 99% of abortions they hone in on this obscure one in order to find some way of supporting their view of how 'humane' they are by allowing abortion. Sounds really good, doesn't it, save one life rather than lose two? Let's see, of the 52 million abortions performed in the US since Roe I'll bet there probably were, at best, a couple thousand that fall into this category. Yet this is the one people continually use. So let's murder 51.9 million so that we can save 2,000.

Not quite sure you get the argument. The argument is that only in those cases where the mother and child are both in danger is abortion permissible. I'm certainly not arguing that all abortion is permissible. I'm not advocating the death of thousands to save one unborn child.

To answer your question, no I still wouldn't support it. I'd rather save the child than the mother and in my mind so would any real mother.

Sometimes it's not that straightforward. Particularly with preemies.

Still don't know why you blame abortion on evolution...

 

[vossler]

Not quite sure you get the argument. The argument is that only in those cases where the mother and child are both in danger is abortion permissible. I'm certainly not arguing that all abortion is permissible. I'm not advocating the death of thousands to save one unborn child.

Like I said, that's a wonderful sounding argument but in reality it is truly worthless because no one who argues that view argues strongly to eliminate all other abortions.

Sometimes it's not that straightforward. Particularly with preemies.

Do you know of anyone who ever fit that description?

Still don't know why you blame abortion on evolution...

I don't blame abortion on evolution, I blame evolution for allowing the 'twisting of scripture' to permit the support of abortion.

 

[Mallon]

Like I said, that's a wonderful sounding argument but in reality it is truly worthless because no one who argues that view argues strongly to eliminate all other abortions.

If the argument is that abortion is only permissible in such circumstances, then obviously abortion under other circumstances in impermissible. It's true by definition.

Do you know of anyone who ever fit that description?

Yes. Believe it or not, miscarriages are not uncommon and are often quite dangerous to the expectant mother.

I don't blame abortion on evolution, I blame evolution for allowing the 'twisting of scripture' to permit the support of abortion.

Like I said, my YEC pastor advocated abortion under certain circumstances. Maybe it's YECism that twists Scripture instead...
Or, you know, maybe one's stance on origins has nothing to do with the issue of abortion.

 

[gluadys]

This explains a lot, murdering a helpless child could be considered justifiable homicide.
The premeditated killing of an innocent life is always murder.

Is it? I think even the Catholic Church permits abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. And that is just as premeditated as any other.

They're not relevant to my points or this discussion. All it would do is deflect attention from something else.

Choosing to find something irrelevant or deflecting attention can also be a form of twisting scripture. After all this thread is not really about abortion. It is about your perception that accepting evolution calls for twisting scripture and so puts one in the habit of doing so---which might also lead to accepting, even promoting, abortion and other actions you consider sinful.

When you dismiss the things I consider sinful as irrelevant, then, why do I not have the right to consider that you are the one twisting scripture? Would it not make just as much sense for me to say rejecting evolution requires twisting scripture and puts one in the habit to do so---and the evidence is that most people who reject evolution accept, even promote, actions I consider sinful--some of them equivalent to murder.

Sure there are plenty of people who twist scripture to their benefit and yes some of them are Creationists. However, just because they're a Creationist doesn't give them a free pass, at least not from me. However without a doubt those who accept evolution are far more prone to do it.

I am not saying anyone should get a pass. I am saying that what constitutes "twisting" scripture is most often in the eye of the beholder. It is more a matter of not listening to each other and taking each other's concerns seriously. I don't think you have established at all the truth of the last statement above. All you really establish is that those who disagree with you on evolution are likely to disagree with you on other matters. But who is and who is not interpreting scripture correctly cannot be determined on the basis of how closely they agree with you.

Martin Luther once said:

"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."
​

This corresponds to my own belief that I must defend Scripture as best I can and should never shy away from stating my beliefs. I try to do that and will only change my opinion when shown, primarily via Scripture, that my view is incorrect.

Again that doesn't establish "where the battle rages" or where it should.

 

[Assyrian]

Martin Luther once said:

"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."
​

This corresponds to my own belief that I must defend Scripture as best I can and should never shy away from stating my beliefs. I try to do that and will only change my opinion when shown, primarily via Scripture, that my view is incorrect.

Wasn't one of the major battles raging in Luther's day geocentrism? And literalist Luther was actually on the wrong side, calling Copernicus a fool for contradicting the plain meaning of scripture. Did the church change its opinion about the geocentric interpretation because they were 'shown primarily via Scripture, that their view was incorrect' or did they learn this from science and simply go back to scripture to find a better way to interpret these passages because science had shown them the traditional literal interpretation was wrong?

Personally I am amazed at the lengths Creationist go to to twist the literal meaning of the geocentric passages to make them fit what they know and believe from science about the movement of the solar system. Your own take on it is pretty unique Vossler, insisting we have to take the plain meaning of a passage, as your sig says, for Genesis anyway. But somehow the rule doesn't apply with the geocentric passages on the basis of an arbitrary escape clause you make up that you don't think the geocentric verses are important doctrinally so the rule does not apply. Never mind the bible says all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, never mind the fact that when heliocentrism was an issue, people did think heliocentrism threatened doctrine and the very inspiration of scripture itself. I think an exegetical rule that has to be applied when it suits you and can be dropped whenever it doesn't is the essence of twisting scripture.