Posted on 06/05/2016 11:45:46 AM PDT by Morgana
Gallup released a new poll this week that examines people’s positions on abortion based on their religious affiliation.
The poll asked people about a series of moral issues, including abortion and doctor-assisted suicide, and then examined their answers based on their religious affiliation. Researchers found major differences among religious groups, with Protestants, Catholics and Mormons taking a pro-life stance and Jews and the non-religious taking a more liberal stance.
Gallup reports:
Jews and those with no religious preferences have virtually identical views on the morality of abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, gay-lesbian relations and cloning animals. Jews are somewhat less likely than nonreligious Americans to believe having a baby outside of marriage is moral, 68% to 80%.
Mormons, Protestants and Catholics believe that abortion, doctor-assisted suicide and cloning animals are not morally acceptable practices. Mormons are more conservative than Protestants and Catholics on abortion, gay-lesbian relations, doctor-assisted suicide and out-of-wedlock births, but not on cloning animals.
Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
… The United States is one of the more religious western nations, and Americans’ religious identity influences the way they view matters of morality. The Mormon religion and many Protestant faiths promote strict moral codes that frown on abortion and out-of-wedlock births, with those values mostly endorsed by adherents of those religions. Catholic Church doctrine also instructs Catholics how to think about moral issues, but American Catholics’ views on many moral issues, including premarital sex, the death penalty and gay-lesbian relations, do not reflect the church’s positions. Nevertheless, Catholics tend to be more conservative on morality than those with no religion and Jewish Americans.
Mormons were the least likely to say that abortion is morally acceptable (18 percent), followed by Protestants (33 percent) and then Catholics (38 percent), according to the poll. Jewish responders were the most likely to say abortion is morally acceptable (76 percent), with the non-religious at a close second (73 percent).
The poll found that people are less opposed to doctor-assisted suicide, a growing threat in the U.S. The poll showed 30 percent of Mormons, 43 percent of Protestants and 47 percent of Catholics saying it is morally acceptable. Those who are Jewish and non-religious called the deadly procedure morally acceptable 73 percent and 77 percent of the time, respectably.
The poll confirms research from previous studies showing the influence religion has on people’s moral beliefs. The Christian tradition teaches that human lives are intrinsically valuable because they are created in the image of God, and this belief has led to a strong Christian presence in the pro-life movement.
A 2010 Pew poll found a strong correlation between religion and abortion:
On the issue of abortion, 26% overall say religion is the most important influence on their opinion, including 45% among abortion opponents.
Just 9 percent of those who support legalized abortion say religion affected their conclusion about it.
Religion is more influential on abortion views compared with other hot political topics as just 19 percent say religion influenced their stance on the death penalty, only 10 percent said it influenced their stance on poverty programs, 7 percent on immigration issues and just 6 percent on the environment.
I agree with you. I am strongly pro-life.
But you only mentioned the New Testament, so I wanted to add in the baby reference in the Old Testament.
No, when I said “Biblical” I was referencing both. It’s a simple fact that the Bible is a product of its times, and in those times, men did not concern themselves with things like rape, abortion, child porn, the environment, and many other concerns that are important to us today.
The simple fact is that the Bible is the word of God (holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit). God is immutable - He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. What He said to mankind thousands of years ago is every bit as relevant today as it was "back then". The nature of man doesn't really change so what was truth remains the truth because truth is absolute.
You claim that the Bible doesn't address "things like rape, abortion, child porn, the environment, and many other concerns that are important to us today". You couldn't be more wrong. Have you READ the Bible? Every one of those issues is addressed in the Bible and if not specifically then indirectly. On the topic of abortion, we can learn from Scripture:
From http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-abortioninthebible.html:
Personhood in the Bible
A number of ancient societies opposed abortion, [2] but the ancient Hebrew society had the clearest reasons for doing so because of its foundations in the scriptures. The Bible teaches that men and women are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). As the climax of God's creation mankind has an intrinsic worth far greater than that of the animal kingdom placed under His care. Throughout the Scriptures, personhood is never measured by age, stage of development, or mental, physical, or social skills. Personhood is endowed by God at the moment of creation - before which there was not a human being and after which there is. That moment of creation can be nothing other than the moment of conception.
The Hebrew word used in the Old Testament to refer to the unborn (Exodus 21:22-25) is yeled, a word that “generally indicates young children, but may refer to teens or even young adults.” [3] The Hebrews did not have or need a separate word for unborn children. They were just like any other children, only younger. In the Bible there are references to born children and unborn children, but there is no such thing as a potential, incipient, or “almost” child.
Job graphically described the way God created him before he was born (Job 10:8-12). The person in the womb was not something that might become Job, but someone who was Job, just a younger version of the same man. To Isaiah, God says, “This is what the Lord says - he who made you, who formed you in the womb” (Isaiah 44:2). What each person is, not merely what he might become, was present in his mother's womb.
Psalm 139:13-16 paints a graphic picture of the intimate involvement of God with a preborn person. God created David's “inmost being,” not at birth, but before birth. David says to his Creator, “You knit me together in my mother's womb.” Each person, regardless of his parentage of handicap, has not been manufactured on a cosmic assembly line, but has been personally knitted together by God in the womb. All the days of his life have been planned out by God before any have come to be (Psalm 139:16).
As a member of the human race that has rejected God, each person sinned “in Adam,” and is therefore a sinner from his very beginning (Romans 5:12-19). David says, “Surely I was sinful at birth.” Then he goes back even further, back before birth to the actual beginning of his life, saying he was “sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5). Each person has a sinful nature from the point of conception. Who but an actual person can have a sinful nature? Rocks and trees and animals and human organs do not have moral natures, good or bad. Morality can be ascribed only to a person. That there is a sin nature at the point of conception demonstrates that there is a person present who is capable of having such a nature.
Jacob was given prominence over his twin Esau “though not yet born” (Romans 9:11). When Rebekah was pregnant with Jacob and Esau, Scriptures says, "The babies jostled each other within her" (Genesis 25:22). The unborn are regarded as “babies” in the full sense of the term. God tells Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you" (Jeremiah 1:5). He could not know Jeremiah in his mother's womb unless Jeremiah, the person, was present in his mother's womb. The Creator is involved in an intimate knowing relationship not only with born people, but with unborn people.
In Luke 1:41,44 there are references to the unborn John the Baptist, who was at the end of his second trimester in the womb. The word, translated baby, in these verses is the Greek word brephos. It is the same word used for the already born baby Jesus (Luke 2:12, 16) and for the babies brought to Jesus to receive His blessing (Luke 18:15-17). It is also the same word used in Acts 7:19 for the newborn babies killed by Pharaoh. To the writers of the New Testament, like the Old, whether born or unborn, a baby is simply a baby. It appears that the preborn John the Baptist responded to the presence of the preborn Jesus in His mother Mary when Jesus was probably no more than ten days beyond His conception (Luke 1:41).
The angel Gabriel told Mary that she would be “with child and give birth to a son” (Luke 1:31). In the first century, and in every century, to be pregnant is to be with child, not with that which might become a child. The Scriptures teach the psychosomatic unity of the whole person, body, soul, and spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:23). Wherever there is a genetically distinct living human being, there is a living soul and spirit.
The Status of the Unborn
One scholar states: “Looking at Old Testament law from a proper cultural and historical context, it is evident that the life of the unborn is put on the same par as the person outside the womb.” [4]
When understood as a reference to miscarriage, Exodus 21:22-25 is sometimes used as evidence that the unborn is subhuman. But a proper understanding of the passage shows reference is not to a miscarriage, but to a premature birth, and that the “injury” referred to, which is to be compensated for like all other injuries, applies to the child as well as to his mother. This means that, “far from justifying permissive abortion, in fact grants the unborn child a status in the eyes of the law equal to the mother's.” [5]
Meredith Cline observes, "The most significant thing about abortion legislation in Biblical law is that there is none. It was so unthinkable that an Israelite woman should desire an abortion that there was no need to mention this offense in the criminal code." [6] All that was necessary to prohibit an abortion was the command, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). Every Israelite knew that the preborn child was indeed a child. Therefore, miscarriage was always viewed as the loss of a child and abortion as the killing of a child.
Numbers 5:11-31 is an unusual passage of Scripture used to make a central argument in A Prochoice Bible Study, published by Episcopalians for Religious Freedom. [7] They cite the New English Bible's peculiar translation, which makes it sound as if God brings a miscarriage on a woman if she is unfaithful to her husband. Other translations refer to a wasting of the thigh and swelling of her abdomen, but do not take it to mean pregnancy, which would presumably simply be called that directly if it were in mind.
The woman could have been pregnant by her husband, assuming they had been having sex, which Hebrews couples normally did. It appears that God was expected to do some kind of miracle related to the bitter water, creating a dramatic physical reaction if adultery had been committed. The text gives no indication of either pregnancy of abortion. Indeed, in the majority of cases of suspected adultery, there would be no pregnancy and therefore no child at risk.
The Prochoice Bible Study that cites the NEB's unique translation suggests if God indeed causes miscarriage, it would therefore be an endorsements of people causing abortions. This is a huge stretch, since neither the wife, husband, nor priest made the decision to induce an abortion, nor would they have the right to do so. The passage does not seem to refer to a miscarriage at all; but even if it did, there is a certainly nothing to suggest any endorsement of human beings initiating an abortion.
Child Sacrifice
Child sacrifice is condemned throughout Scripture. Only the most degraded societies tolerated such evil, and the worst of these defended and celebrated it as if it were a virtue. Ancient dumping grounds have been found filled with the bones of hundreds of dismembered infants. This is strikingly similar to discoveries of thousands of dead babies discarded by modern abortion clinics. One scholar of the ancient Near East refers to infant sacrifice as “the Canaanite counterpart to abortion.” [8] Unlike the pagan sacrifices, however, with abortion, child killing need no longer be postponed till birth.
Scripture condemns the shedding of innocent blood (Deuteronomy 19:10; Proverbs 6:17; Isaiah 1:15; Jeremiah 22:17). While the killing of all innocent human beings is detestable, the Bible regards the killing of children as particularly heinous (Leviticus 18:21; 20:1-5; Deuteronomy 12:31). The prophets of Israel were outraged at the sacrifice of children by some of the Jews. They warned that it would result in the devastating judgment of God on their society (Jeremiah 7:30-34; Ezekiel 16:20-21, 36-38; 20:31; compare 2 Kings 21:2-6 and Jeremiah 15:3-4).
Abortion and Church History
Christians throughout church history have affirmed with a united voice the humanity of the preborn child. [9] The second-century Epistle of Barnabas speaks of “killers of the child, who abort the mold of God.” It treats the unborn child as any other human “neighbor” by saying, "You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not slay a child by abortion. You shall not kill that which has already been generated" (Epistle of Barnabas 19:5).
The Didache, a second-century catechism for young converts, states, "Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant" (Didache 2.2). Clement of Alexandria maintained that "those who use abortifacient medicines to hide their fornication cause not only the outright murder of the fetus, but of the whole human race as well" (Paedogus 2:10.96.1).
Defending Christians before Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 177, Athenagoras argued, “What reason would we have to commit murder when we say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God? …The fetus in the womb is a living being and therefore the object of God's care” (A Plea for the Christians, 35.6).
Tertullian said, "It does not matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. In both instances, destruction is murder" (Apology, 9.4). Basil the Great affirmed, "Those who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons" (Canons, 188.2). Jerome called abortion “the murder of an unborn child” (Letter to Eustochium, 22.13). Augustine warned against the terrible crime of “the murder of an unborn child” (On Marriage, 1.17.15). Origen, Cyprian, and Chrysotom were among the many other prominent theologians and church leaders who condemned abortion as the killing of children. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger comments, “It is really remarkable how uniform and how pronounced was the early Christian opposition to abortion.” [10]
Throughout the centuries, Roman Catholic leaders have consistently upheld the sanctity of human life. Likewise, Protestant reformer John Calvin followed both the Scriptures and the historical position of the church when he affirmed:
Modern theologians with a strong biblical orientation agree that abortion is the killing of a child. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who lost his life standing up against the murder of the innocent in Germany, argued that abortion is “nothing but murder.” [12] Karl Barth stated,
In the last few decades it has become popular for certain theologians and ministers to be proabortion. The Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, for instance, has adopted the motto, “Prayerfully Prochoice,” and prochoice advocates point to it as proof that conscientious Christians can be prochoice. Yet the arguments set forth by such advocates are shallow, inconsistent, and violate the most basic principles of biblical interpretation. Their arguments are clearly read into the biblical texts rather than derived from them. [14]
The “Christians” prochoice position is nothing more than an accommodation to modern secular beliefs, and it flies in the face of the Bible and the historical position of the church. If the church is to be the church, it must challenge and guide the morality of society, not mirror it.
Conclusion: The Bible and the Children
Even if church history were unclear on the matter, the Bible is very clear. Every child in the womb has been created by God, and He has laid out a plan for that child's life. Furthermore, Christ loves that child and proved it by becoming like him - He spent nine months in His mother's womb. Finally, Christ died for that child, showing how precious He considers him to be.
Christ's disciples failed to understand how valuable children were to Him, and they rebuked those who tried to bring them near Him (Luke 18:15-17). But Jesus called the children to Him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” He did not consider attention to children a distraction from His kingdom business, but an integral part of it.
The biblical view of children is that they are a blessing and a gift from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5). Society is treating children more and more as liabilities. We must learn to see them as God does - “He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing” (Deuteronomy 10:18). Furthermore, we must act toward them as God commands us to act:
Are you suggesting it's now ancient history and unneeded?
What we deem as “morally acceptable” doesn’t mean much. The scriptures shows that we are not moral creatures. When everyone does “what is right in his own eyes”, time and time again we prove that we will choose the most reprehensible moral acts. And this is just about where we are at today-doing what right in each of our eyes. Hence the survey.
So it isn’t a question of what is morally acceptable. It is a question of what is right and wrong (or good verses evil). Thus if someone were to ask the questions as:
Do you think abortion is good or evil?
Do you think doctor-assisted suicide is good or evil?
Do you think cloning animals is good or evil?
Do you think gay-lesbian relations are good or evil?
Do you think having a baby outside of marriage is good or evil?
One might get a completely different answer.
Few people think in terms of good and evil any longer. The questions become a matter of right and wrong but what exactly is the yardstick? If one were to use the scriptures, the questions become more black-and-white rather than shades of grey. But the real question is what is the yardstick?
Clearly the Jews don’t see what you are seeing. Maybe because, like a liberal looking at the 2nd and 4th Amendment, you see things that aren’t there. If God or Jesus had cared about abortion, racism, rape, etc, they’d have addressed them directly. After all, look at the first four Commandments: all about honoring and worshiping God. He could have said that once and then used the next three for making clear statements about abortion, rape, slavery, limited government. But he didn’t, because he is the construct of the Middle Eastern mind and times, and these were not issues.
Abortion is prohibited to all mankind by the Hebrew text of Genesis 9:6. The so-called “Ten Commandments” are specific to Jews and do not negate the commandments given to all mankind previously.
In the case of Nazis in regards to the Jews and anyone else in regards to the unborn is they have to view their victims as not human. Then it is easy to justify the killing. That is the precondition to wholesale slaughter.
Not likely, as since good vs evil is the same thing to the lost as morally acceptable/unacceptable.
? If one were to use the scriptures, the questions become more black-and-white rather than shades of grey. But the real question is what is the yardstick?
Indeed, and the departure from committed corporate consent to Scripture as the accurate, wholly inspired and authoritative Word of God, with its self-evident interpretation of itself, is what is behind the moral anarchy of America today.
As this statement by Daniel Webster prophetically foretells,
• And let me say, gentlemen, that if we and our posterity shall be true to the Christian religion, if we and they shall live always in the fear of God, and shall respect His commandments, if we and they shall maintain just moral sentiments and such conscientious convictions of duty as shall control the heart and life, we may have the highest hopes of the future fortunes of our country; and if we maintain those institutions of government and that political union, exceeding all praise as much as it exceeds all former examples of political associations,...It will go on prospering and to prosper.
But if we and our posterity reject religious institutions and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifile with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity. Should that catastrophe happen, let it have no history! (“The Dignity and Importance of History,” address to the Historical Society of New York, February 23, 1852. Source: Shewmaker, 130-137 http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/speeches/dignity-history.html
Likewise the following which is attributed to Daniel Webster:
If religious books are not widely circulated among the masses in this country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If truth be not diffused, error will be; If God and His Word are not known and received, the devil and his works will gain the ascendancy; If the evangelical volume does not reach every hamlet, the pages of a corrupt and licentious literature will; If the power of the Gospel is not felt throughout the length and breadth of the land, anarchy and misrule, degradation and misery, corruption and darkness will reign without mitigation or end." (Tryon Edwards, “A Dictionary of Thoughts: Being a Cyclopedia of Laconic Quotations from the Best Authors of the World, Both Ancient and Modern ,“1908. p. 49)
More by God's grace.
I don't think your Genesis verse will work. Otherwise it would prohibit war, capital punishment, killing slaves, and disobedient children... no, I think it's time to face the cold, hard facts: abortion wasn't an issue back then and your all-seeing all-knowing God didn't foresee this situation enough to specifically prohibit it. The Jews are right. It's a non-issue that Christians have simply glommed onto in their efforts to battle sexual freedom. Losing battle.
Right and wrong are scales. Good and evil are absolute. If you think I'm wrong about this just substitute the word "evil" every time someone does something wrong. That will get a quick response.
I thought Rush Limbaugh explained this very well one time. Liberals tend to think and argue in terms of right and wrong. Thus they can push their scale further along. You will NEVER get a liberal newscaster to say ISIS is evil. You can't even get the president to admit it. That is why, from time to time, you'll hear the president (and other liberals) say that ISIS (Iran, Cuba, etc.) has some legitimate complaints. They don't look at things in absolutes.
Conservatives (at least true conservatives) tend to think in terms of good and evil. There is no way we would accept ISIS as chopping off heads of Christians as a solution to having legitimate complaints. They are EVIL.
The problem with Christians today is few look at things around us as good and evil. We tend to view it as right and wrong. Thus there are a number of Christian homes accepting divorce, abortion, etc. It isn't much different then the Samaritan woman at the well telling Jesus what difference does it make where I worship God at? Hey, having six or seven husbands is OK just as well. It's the "I'm OK, Your OK" idea.
God deals in absolutes. There are very few shades of grey. There is no greater example of this then where someone is going to spend eternity. People who say God won't send someone to hell for eternity that don't know Jesus as their Lord and Savior are sadly mistaken.
I agree. When we have no absolutes established outside of our own minds, then NOTHING can be deemed right OR wrong. With no absolute truth, everything becomes relative and people with that mindset will do "what is right in his own eyes". Allowed to continue, anarchy results and we have yet to see the utter evil desperately wicked hearts can imagine - though we're getting close.
If you don't even believe in God, why argue for what you think He should have said? If you had read the Bible passages I referenced in my post - those that counter your claim that nothing was said abut those issues - you would have seen that there was an overriding principle behind God's laws concerning the value and sanctity of human life. That we are created in the image of God (no animal is said to have been) sets that worth. There's no "reading into" those passages what is plainly stated and directly addressed. That you don't see it is maybe because like a liberal you won't see things that ARE there?
Issues of abortion, rape, slavery, limited government and the environment are certainly not new nor are they recent concerns of modern man - they have been around since humans have existed. Though certain specifics may be different based upon societal norms of the times (i.e.; slavery vs. indebted servitude), the underlying morality of doing unto others as we would have them do to us remains the same. Without God and His established moral truths, mankind drifts towards anarchy, dictatorship and suppression of human rights. Is that how you think we should live?
I just don’t think you should claim that God is against abortion when you don’t have any Biblical proof.
What do Jews think about gas chambers?
Exactly. It was the thinking behind the justification of slavery in this country (slaves were counted as 3/5 of a man), were seen as personal property whose owners had total control and who could be killed if the master/owner desired without fear of murder charges. The unborn are seen as the property of the mother who has been given the "right" of life or death over her child. Some proabortion people have gone so far as to describe the fetus as a "parasite" (disgusting!). Anything to dehumanize the person so that they can justify their actions.
Oh how right he was!
There IS Biblical proof - you just won't acknowledge it. Is the unborn child an innocent human life? Yes - the Bible says so. Is it wrong to murder innocent human life? Yes - the Bible says so. You can't claim God is in favor of abortion, can you?
Thanks, though i said that was the case to the lost as morally acceptable/unacceptable.
I thought Rush Limbaugh explained this very well one time. Liberals tend to think and argue in terms of right and wrong. Thus they can push their scale further along. You will NEVER get a liberal newscaster to say ISIS is evil.
Sadly that is the norm. Only men like Limbaugh are evil in the liberal universe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.