While there are different interpretations of doctrine, this was not the point of the exercise. The point is that loudly it be stated that Tiller is in Hell, for the purpose of dethroning the spiritual relativism that hides behind Christian doctrine for the purpose of undermining that doctrine.
In other words, Tiller’s supporters like to pretend that what he did was somehow, through convoluted logic, morally ambivalent. This assuages their guilt, rationalizes their spiritual revulsion, and allows them to justify murder. They utterly reject that a fetus is in any way human, because if that realization is made, doubt is cast on their moral superiority in their own minds.
But to come out and say that Tiller is in Hell is confronting them head on. Bringing their doubts to the fore. Throwing into question their own complicity, and suggesting that they, too, may be condemned.
So while Christians could discuss the truth of the matter endlessly, for any of them to just come out and say it, and not back down, and to reject other Christian leaders opinions who would give redemption the benefit of the doubt, is to achieve a breakthrough against those that support abortion.
Because any of them have the credibility of life behind them. If they say that George Tiller is in Hell, then who would believe the killers who defend their actions as being somehow moral?
That is what I have found so puzzling in this subject. Take for instance, the title of this thread. At Tiller’s eulogy, they could not even mention the a-word. Think about it. I would imagine that 99% of people could admit who they are and what they do for an occupation. Yet in Tiller’s case, they don’t mention it. Why?
Euphemism is the order of the day on abortion. People use: pro-choice, reproductive rights, the woman’s right to choose.....anything except abortion. The euphemism is such that photos of the by-product of abortion (mutilated babies) are very offensive to people. But, those pictures don’t lie and vividly tell the true reality of what abortion is.
Another tactic of the left uses is to throw up qualifying exceptions like rape, incest, mothers live in peril, etc. In the end the left uses these exceptions in increased magnitude to somehow, moralize abortion in itself. Keep in mind that rape, incest, and mothers life in peril, represent an incredibly small percentage.....yet the left treat it as if they are the leading reasons for abortion. In all, it is an indirect justication....which really isn’t a justification at all.
I have asked myself this question: “what if I am wrong?” My answer to that is that I saw a moral and ethical delemma in abortion. After looking at sources like the bible, I choose a conservative and more restrictive position. If I am wrong, I can have no guilty conscience.
Can the pro-choice side answer that question? Do they have the courage to even confront it? I have estimated that since the 19th century, there have been approximately 1 BILLION surgical abortions world wide. That is 1/6 of the current world’s population. How can the pro-choice movement answer the question: “what if they are wrong?”
I think the on-going emphemism, indirect justifications and total avoidance of the reality of the matter is telling....and very troubling at the same time.
The last item is accountibility and how both sides view it. The pro-life side is very open to discuss accountibility and consequences of actions. The pro-choice side.....well, they avoid it like the plague. The thought of fetuses are more than tissue matter or that there is a heaven and a hell requires to acknowledge accountibility and consequences. The left is mute on this. And their silence is terrorfying.