Murder in the Name of the Lord?

Posted Wednesday, June 3, 2009, at 2:52 PM

By Charlie Crow

June 3, 2009

A man believes that he is right
Takes up arms and joins the fight
In a war deemed holy
In the sand he draws a line
Proclaims the Lord is on his side
Kills in the name of glory
--From "In the Name of the Father"
by Burton R. Collins and Karen Taylor-Good

Another murder was committed in the name of vigilante justice last Sunday. Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas doctor who had been well known as one of the small number of persons who perform late-term abortions--legal in Kansas--was gunned down by an anti-abortion assassin in cold blood as he stood in the foyer of his church. This tragic and senseless murder is the consequence of the irresponsible, reckless invective that has spewed from the dark alliance of radical religious zealots, extreme right-wing Republicans, Bible-thumping opportunists, firebrand talk media hotheads and self-appointed redeemers.

Let's be clear up front. Murder for any reason has no place in our society. Regardless of what one may think about abortion, there is zero justification for killing anyone, regardless of what they have said or done. Taking the law into one's hands to kill a person with whom one disagrees is the worst possible distortion of our system of justice.

For the past three decades, numerous persons in positions of high leadership in politics, religion and the media have used highly emotional and often distorted attacks on the right of women to control what happens to their bodies, including their right to determine whether and when they might bear children. The murder of Dr. Tiller was one more tragic consequence of irresponsible advocacy by so-called "pro-lifers" who fanned the flames of opposition to the point that an easily-influenced person felt justified in taking matters into his own hands. Details of the assassin's background and motives are still sketchy, but it is reported that the killer was a fellow-traveler in the pro-life movement, and an outspoken opponent of abortion. He is described as being possessed with a zealot's passion for stopping abortionists by any means. So it appears Dr. Tiller was stalked and shot down by a deranged self-designated avenging angel who was convinced he was justified in killing in the name of the Lord.

I was stunned when I read the public apology by Frank Shaeffer, a one-time anti-abortion religious leader, who, along with his late father and several other prominent religious leaders of the pro-life movement would meet in private to drink champagne toasts when other doctors who had provided legal abortion services had fallen to assassins' bullets. Shaeffer states: "Angry speech has become the norm in American religion...Words are spoken which -- when taken seriously -- lead directly to violence by the unhinged and/or the truly committed...When evangelicals on the right call President Obama a socialist, a racist, anti-American, an abortionist, not a real American, and, echoing the former Vice President, someone who is weakening America's defenses and making us less safe, the logical conclusion is violence. If you take these words literally you might pull the trigger to "make America safe" and/or free us from communism or to even protect us from -- what some "Christian" leaders claim -- Obama as the Antichrist."

Shaeffer, now an author who regrets this past association, has written books revealing the tawdry practices of the extreme religious right from which he came. He says while both he and his father were among those who preached against abortion and abortionists with a fiery passion, both would have been shocked if "someone (had taken) us at our word, walked into a Lutheran Church and pulled the trigger on an abortionist." He offers his deep regret at his role in encouraging such misguided behavior. He accepts responsibility for the effect of his past actions, and now advocates--as have many responsible leaders, including President Obama--that abortions should be safe, legal and rare.

There are few topics that generate as much heat and as little light as the debate over abortion. Legitimate issues abound on either side, and their advocates oversimplify in order to exploit the emotional impact of the issues. But heated words often morph into dangerous actions, leading to almost inevitable consequences when a vigilante mentality takes over. It is indeed a paradox that such persons see no conflict between their willingness to kill someone for their cause and their so-called "pro-life" stance.

If there is any encouragement to take from recent trends, it might be that more and more Americans say they would not personally chose abortion of a healthy fetus, and the environment favoring adoption of unwanted babies has improved greatly. The stigma of having a child out of wedlock has faded to the point that there are now fewer babies born to married couples than to unwed mothers.

Most women (and most reasonable men), however, still leave open the question of what they might do in the event of rape, incest or the endangered health of the mother. These are matters of the gravest sort which should be handled by the woman on a case-by-case basis, in consultuation with her doctor, her family and her minister. It is hard to justify, for example, forcing an 11-year-old girl who has been raped by her uncle to carry the product of such a cruel and violent act to term. Yet there seems to be little give on the part of the purists in the pro-life camp, who say that life is life, regardless of how it originated or its likelihood of viability. It is the hardness of these attitudes that makes it difficult to find any common ground.

It is puzzling that when Republicans take the helm, they seek to pass severe restrictions on abortion, and they oppose any program--within the country or without--that teaches young women how to avoid pregnancy and take care of their own bodies. The first programs extremist Republicans want to cut are those that support child care, early childhood education or preventive health. Small wonder that ethnic and racial minorities--whose reproduction rate is far higher than that of whites-- have little use for Republicans. Maybe Republicans are just afraid of sex.

The slaying of Dr. Tiller is a stark reminder of how uncivil our so-called civilization has become. It's as if both sides are convinced the Lord is on their side, thus justifying whatever they do for their cause. These opponents of abortion seem to feel that normal rules of society do not apply. That the fire-breathing talking heads of religious leaders can influence such violence in God's name is indeed frightening.

The noise level of radical rhetoric from both sides of the abortion issue must be lowered and federal and state authorities must pursue the advocates and practitioners of violence and murder to the full extent of the law. The promoters of "taking life to spare life" must also be held accountable for inciting the actual killers. If they can rationalize killing over abortion, they could easily advocate political assassination on the same grounds. God may forgive those whose single-minded zealotry has pushed their followers over the edge, but they should be judged here first.

By Charlie Crow © June 3, 2009

Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Mr.Crow:

Both the right and the left have zealots and all of these type people should be punished as you have said to the full extent of the law. These zealots give the rational thinking people on both sides a bad name. A open dialogue must be kept on all the explosive issues in our society so we may not fall into you have described as "murder in the naqme of the Lord" Thank you for your time.

-- Posted by stonemeth on Wed, Jun 3, 2009, at 3:10 PM

To all Sane Persons,

Talk about ZEALOTS! Another pot calling the kettle black. One of the most pathetic attempts at vilifying a whole class of people I've ever read. Some of us will be waiting for your apology to the 60 million unborn babies of this nation who have been murdered by those of a different persuasion in the past 35 years.

And though your confused brain is apparently not able to understand that any true Christian could not possibly tolerate murder which is strictly forbidden in Scripture, you clearly see nothing wrong with a full term baby having their brains sucked out through a tube by a man who has taken a Hippocratic oath to save life, not kill it.

Every new blog you write gets more pitiful.

You sir, are the kind that stirs up the haters in this nation!

Roy Hargrave

-- Posted by razorback on Wed, Jun 3, 2009, at 4:13 PM

Mr. Crow:

Where was your selective outrage when my friend was gunned down beside his pulpit in Maryville, Illinois this March by a deranged killer? Contrast the acid that drips from your pen [or ink cartridge] with the reaction the late Rev. Fred Winters widow displayed not long after her husband's murder: "Our vision and our purpose still remains the same. ... I refuse to let Satan win. ... He's not going to steal my joy. He's not going to steal my passion. He's not going to steal my desire to spread God's Word. I'm not going to hate."

For years, we heard about the grave threat that Americans might become crazed vigilantes and attack Muslims because of 9/11. Why aren't liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful" since most pro-lifers actually are peaceful.

According to Gallup, a majority of Americans now oppose abortion and 80 are percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade. But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as "terrorists," a term the Obama administration now doesn't even use for the Muslim mass murderers.

Dr. Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of babies able to survive outside the mother's womb. He made millions performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists in the entire country would perform them.

Yet pro-life groups have never called for violence against abortionists and have rightly condemned Tiller's murder.

Kansas law allows late-term abortions only to save the mother's life or to prevent "irreversible physical damage" to the mother. But Tiller was more than happy to kill viable babies, provided the mothers: paid him $5,000; and mentioned "substantial and irreversible conditions," but were never examined to verify such claims. In exchange for large donations Democrats ran a political protection racket for this abortionist.

As for apostate Frank Schaeffer's latest bilge against Christian pro-lifers, from which you have dredged up some flotsam for your blog, the Tiller murder provides the perfect excuse to promote the views of this sad ship-wreck of a man. Schaeffer, who publicly mocks his parents and all Bible-believing Christians, fails as miserably in his attempt to damage the pro-life movement as do you.

-- Posted by hogtransplant on Thu, Jun 4, 2009, at 7:35 AM

Hi Stonemeth,

I totally agree with your take on "These zealots give the rational thinking people on both sides a bad name. A open dialogue must be kept on all the explosive issues in our society"

Hogtransplant,

I think you are right with many of your sentiments. I did have some difficulty understanding this portion "Dr. Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of babies able to survive outside the mother's womb. He made millions performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists in the entire country would perform them." What exactly do you want us bloggers to get out of this?

Roy,

When I read Charlie's blog the first time..I had to step back so I would not respond emotionally. I felt like I was reading something from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. It seem to have a reactive, extreme or radical edge to it. But, it made me think.

Charlie,

Thanks for making us think, but I'm not convinced that people are afraid to have sex...if they were this issue would possibly not be as prevalent. Out of the programs you listed, I think younger women need to have timely education on pregnancy out of wedlock.

Mijo

-- Posted by Mijo on Fri, Jun 5, 2009, at 12:11 PM

Mijo,

I might remind you that God actually gave us emotions? I do however understand your concern about allowing one's emotions to go unchecked by cerebral influences. I assure you that my brain was engaged in my response.

I am somewhat surprised that you did not think Charlie's post to be highly emotional as well as incendiary in nature. His apparent anger at everyone who disagrees with his personal preferences in politics and religion seems to be the driving force of his politics. Disrespect maybe the word I'm looking for. Disrespect for leaders, Christians, Republicans, you name it, came through loud and clear to any rational person.

To tell you the truth I have found through past postings that you actually prefer much of his type of reasoning. Perhaps I'm misinformed about that and you could set me straight in the matter. I for one do not find his arguments cogent nor do I find them fundamentally sound.

I am therefore firm in my conviction that Charlie's post was simply out of line, outrageous and entirely without merit.

Furthermore his ilk foments more outrage than the unity he claims to promote.

Of course this blog will pass like the others. He will pontificate, some will laud his words, some will disagree, he will ignore them, and write another outrageous post so that we'll forget about his last stab at bloviating.

One more thought, if someone of my ilk had posted such outrage as in his latest post, I believe that yourself and others would be extremely outraged. But maybe I'm just being emotional.

Thanks for your time.

Roy Hargrave

-- Posted by razorback on Fri, Jun 5, 2009, at 3:47 PM

Abortion is a highly emotional issue with people on both sides who feel they and only they are right. It is an intensely personal decision to have to make and one we all hope to never have to confront.

I am not pro-abortion. I am not anti-life. I believe strongly in the sanctity of life and the right to make the choices that are best for me and my family. That gives you pro-lifers the opportunity to choose not to have an abortion, not to perform an abortion, even to condemn my choice if it is different from yours.

I value all life, that of a living, active mother and wife, that of young girl who has lived through and survived the horror of rape or incest as well as that of a precious unborn fetus. I hope I never have to make a choice between them.

There are many reasons women choose abortion, none of them simple or easy or without consequences. I admire those who make the hard choices which ever choice that is and I support the woman who puts herself at risk for the sake of her unborn child as much as I support the woman who chooses to leave that unborn child in the hand of God.

I would only ask that we all be respectful of the decisions of others whether we agree with that decision or not. If, Mr. Hargrave, it is the sin you believe it to be, the sin is between the woman and God, the doctor and God. It is not for you to interpret or to interfere or to judge. That would be God's job. I have the utmost faith that He can take care of it without our help.

Your writings, Mr. Hargrave, are so awfully hateful and condescending toward anyone who disagrees with you I can't imagine how you have the audacity to accuse anyone else of stirring up haters. I also can't imagine Christ would have been so angry and unforgiving and I can't believe He wants you to be either. Love was His preaching. Yours seems quite different.

It does seem that we can all agree that Dr. Tiller's murder is wrong as is the murder of your friend, hogtransplant. I don't remember hearing that was a hate killing, but it was tragic non-the-less. I am sorry for your loss.

In closing I will say that I enjoy a good discussion with someone with opposing views. I often learn something from listening to the other side and I sometimes score a point or two, myself. I do not enjoy contemptuous put downs because I disagree. I really do believe that most of us try to do what we think is the right thing and because we are human and God has given us the gift of free will there will, by His design always be differing perspectives. I appreciate reading yours.

-- Posted by finallyfine on Fri, Jun 5, 2009, at 9:58 PM

FinallyFine,

I'm use to it on this blog, but another example of your persuasion not actually engaging in any substantial argument by the apparent use of your righteous indignation at my approach is stunning, especially in this case. You said, "Your writings, Mr. Hargrave, are so awfully hateful and condescending toward anyone who disagrees with you I can't imagine how you have the audacity to accuse anyone else of stirring up haters." In what way have I stirred up haters? The record is on the blogs for your perusal.

It seems to me that you apparently have a double standard, because you have made no such remark toward Charlie's tirade in which he stereotyped his enemies. I do find it interesting that you as well as others have not responded to "my so-called friend" who pointed to Mr. Crow's failure to be indignant when Christians are killed in church for preaching the Word of God. Nor have you or others responded to multiplied millions of Christian's overwhelming generosity and love for those murderers unlike Charlie's pathetic indignation aimed at his enemies.

He said of Tiller's murder, that, "This tragic and senseless murder is the consequence of the irresponsible, reckless invective that has spewed from the dark alliance of radical religious zealots, extreme right-wing Republicans, Bible-thumping opportunists, firebrand talk media hotheads and self-appointed redeemers." For Crow a Bible thumper is one who actually believes the Bible and an extreme right-wing Republican is one who opposes the nonsense of the Democratic party. But you apparently give him a pass while vilifying my indignation at such petty pontifications out of Crow's own mouth.

Now, as far as you bringing up God's name as well as the Lord's name as Charlie did it makes it fair game in this case. I say this in the context of your statements such as, "Abortion is a highly emotional issue with people on both sides who feel they and only they are right," Also, "I believe strongly in the sanctity of life and the right to make the choices that are best for me and my family." Well, the Bible says, they'll be a day when everyone does what is right in their own eyes. I don't think it meant that as a compliment!

I have asked this before on the blog but nobody will answer the question, maybe you'll have the courage to do so. What is your standard of truth? Is it a philosophy? Is it what people in Hollywood believe? Is it what your friends believe? Is it what you feel good about in your heart? Is it possibly the Bible? Or is it a conglomeration of all these standards sort of like a homogenized worldview?

Now don't get mad and lets have a peaceful conversation about this. If, as you brought up when you stated, "If, Mr. Hargrave, it is the sin you believe it to be, the sin is between the woman and God, the doctor and God," you think that I determine what is a sin and what is not you don't know me or the Bible. It is God who has set forth the principle of sin as well as its consequences outside of the atoning work of the Lord (don't forget, you and Charlie brought the Lord into this conversation) on the cross for sinners, even people who practice abortions or have them if they repent according to the Scripture and believe in Christ alone for salvation.

Please, don't get upset about this, I'm trying to the best of my ability to relate to you in simple terms what my worldview is. Now we all know that one's worldview determines the way we look at life, love, death, politics, religions, etc. This may inform you as to who I am and why.

If the Bible is silent on abortion for instance, I should be silent. Let me state my convictions so that you can understand my views. I do not believe that abortion is the only issue in the universe of politics or religion. Nor do I believe that churches should major on political engagement. I'm against carrying signs about pro-life and screaming in people's faces about it, but that does not mean I'm not against it.

I believe every American should be engaged to some extent in politics, including preachers, but not as preachers but citizens. I find it ridiculous that many believe that churches should not preach against immoral practices or that preachers should not carry out their duty as citizens of this world to engage in conversations, debate and voting for candidates. To put it biblically we are to render to Caesar the things of Caesar as well as render to God the things that are Gods. Furthermore I don't believe politics can change the hearts of people, which is the fundamental problem, only the Gospel of Christ can do that in my view. For those who think a president or any man or group of people can change the hearts of people,is shear absurdity, only Christ can do that.

Now in that light let me state that many biblical text forbid either explicitly or implicitly abortion. It is a sin according to God's Word. Now, whether one wants to submit to the Word of God or not is not my responsibility and furthermore I am not in the business of judging the world, God has already done that (John 3:14-18).

Here are a few examples of biblical revelation on the subject of the sanctity of life in the womb:

The Psalmist's speaking of himself while in his mother's womb Ps 139:12-17 - {12} Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, But the night shines as the day; The darkness and the light are both alike to You. {13} For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. {14} I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. {15} My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. {16} Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them. {17} How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How great is the sum of them!

Speaking of Jacob and Esau in their mother's womb Genesis 25:21-23 - {21} Now Isaac pleaded with the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and the Lord granted his plea, and Rebekah his wife conceived. {22} But the children struggled together within her; and she said, "If all is well, why am I like this?" So she went to inquire of the Lord. {23} And the Lord said to her: "Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger."

Speaking of Mary as she spoke to Elizabeth in Luke 1:39-44 - {39} Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah, {40} and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. {41} And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. {42} Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! {43} But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? {44} For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

Speaking of John the Baptist before his birth: Luke 1:15 - {15} For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

The Apostle Paul about his call to be an Apostle of Christ Ga 1:15-16 - {15} But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, {16} to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood,

And explicitly taught is that killing a baby in the womb is murder and requires life for life Ex 21:22-23 - {22} "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, (In other words the baby lives) he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. {23} But if any harm follows, (the baby dies) then you shall give life for life,"

Now granted, your standard might not be the Word of God, but for me it is the standard that along can assure eternal life. You may think of me as you wish in these matters but I reserve judgment not only on myself but on others for ultimately it will be the God of the Bible that judges us. I am quite comfortable with that prospect and I hope you are as well.

Roy Hargrave

-- Posted by razorback on Sat, Jun 6, 2009, at 10:55 AM

Razorback, do you not recognize your own anger? Do you only read venom in the words of others? Or do you simply put your own opinion so high that you can only look down on the thoughts of those who do not agree with you?

As far as my standards, I agree with Mr. Crow that the killing of Dr. Tiller is a tragedy made more awful by the reasoning behind it. And that "radical rhetoric from both sides of the abortion issue must be lowered", a phrase you must have overlooked before you started your rebuttal. I am also saddened by the equally senseless death of Pastor Fred Winters, another passage you might have missed in my reply.

I also agree with Mr. Crow that we need to do more teaching about pregnancy prevention and making the means to do this more accessible instead of insisting on celibacy as the only option. For truth be known, it is often not the girl or woman who is given a choice so much as having the choice made for her. I agree that we should do less terrorizing and punishing and judging and more educating and supporting and caring for the women who carry our children. That includes decisions they make with which we disagree. Fewer abortions is my goal as well as yours.

I also agree with Mr. Crow, that certain individuals, not necessarily the average person and definitely not everyone on both sides, are more easily stirred to action and less likely to be able to temper their actions appropriately. For that reason we need to be careful with our words. Words are more powerful than we sometimes realize. Words released in anger and words that offer no room for disagreement are extremely dangerous to those people and are hurtful to many.

I am not sure that Charley's blog is the appropriate medium for you and I to use to discuss our standards of truth, but I will answer your challenge anyway, with apologies to all. My standard is admittedly very different from yours. My standard begins in my heart, which I believe is guided by God. The basis of my belief is Jesus Christ and His teachings, but not necessarily as it is interpreted in the Bible. I know that statement is offensive to some so I usually keep it to myself. I use the Bible as a foundation, but I listen to my heart for daily decisions and actions. My heart tells me that love is more important than anger, that everyone one is worth loving and that God loves us all and that we all have to be responsible for our own lives and our own relationship with God. It is not for me to tell you how to believe or how to live. Nor do I need you to tell me how to live and how to believe.

If you want to give me your email address I will be glad to discuss this with you ad nauseum, if you wish. But I will say no more about it on this blog.

Respectfully

Finallyfine

-- Posted by finallyfine on Sat, Jun 6, 2009, at 3:07 PM

I'm so glad to find your blog, and my response to this one is AMEN! Isn't it interesting that some folks can scrutinize the O.T. with a comb that would remove nits to find 'proof' that their stand is the 'right'eous one, when they could just as easily find numerous examples of support for a contrary view. And I think it's interesting, too, that so many of these 'Christians' resort to the O.T., comfortably eschewing Christ's teachings. Amazing.

Killing for God. Insane. How many of these 'right-to-lifers' oppose the death penalty? How many supported the invasion of Iraq or Grenada (whatever the hell THAT was about) or ... Vietnam ? I'm reminded of the words to a song written 46 years ago by a kid named Bob Dylan. The song is 'With God On Our Side'.

I'll be looking forward to reading more of your posts. I think you can comfortably count me among your devotees ...

-- Posted by YellerKitty on Sat, Jun 6, 2009, at 3:39 PM

FinallyFine,

Your answer was as I expected about the basis of your beliefs but of course it's your choice. It certainly explains the convolution in much of your writings in my opinion and I clearly disagree with your vacillating standards which explain much of today's confusion in the world. I must say that I respect you for being open and forthright about it, unlike others who seek to shroud it from others.

Concerning my "anger", I'll leave my motives to God's judgment since He alone knows the secrets of my heart. I must say that I do find it odd that you can call a man angry with words like,"You're writings, Mr. Hargrave, are so awfully hateful and condescending toward anyone who disagrees with you I can't imagine how you have the audacity to accuse anyone else of stirring up haters," I would suggest, physician heal thyself. Wasn't that anger toward me? Umm! I guess that doesn't count.

By the way, I remind you, Charlie brought up God and abortion and you brought up Christ on this blog, not me.

As a matter of fact you said to me, "I also can't imagine Christ would have been so angry and unforgiving and I can't believe He wants you to be either. Love was His preaching. Yours seems quite different." I'm glad to know that you listen to my preaching.

While ignoring your condescending and impolite words, I'll simply have to end with Christ's own words since you brought Him up in your previous blog.

Jn 8:42-47 - {42} Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. {43} Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. {44} You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. {45} But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. {46} Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? {47} He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."

Wow! Maybe you can write Him about His anger.Of course your theology comes from your heart, not the Bible.

I'm through answering your irrelevant questions about motives while ignoring substantial elements, but I do hope you have a happy life.

By the way, how can I get my email to you? You don't expect me to put it out on this blog do you? You know my name, I don't know you from Adam so look me up!

You concluded with, "If you want to give me your email address I will be glad to discuss this with you ad nauseum, if you wish. But I will say no more about it on this blog.'It is always wise when you're in a hole to stop digging!

Boldly anonymous and finallyfriendly

-- Posted by razorback on Sat, Jun 6, 2009, at 4:23 PM

I'd be interested to hear where the anti-choice faction gets the 'statistics' they quote with such reckless abandon and unquestioning assurance.

-- Posted by YellerKitty on Sat, Jun 6, 2009, at 6:57 PM

YellerKitty,

Welcome to the blog! The handle YellerKitty may get confused with YellowDog from time to time but that's OK with me if it is with you. I was glad to see that you're courteous unlike most of the rest of us when you said, "It was interesting too, to see that so many of these 'Christians' (that's sweet and kind) resort to the O.T., comfortably eschewing Christ's teachings. Amazing.

Perhaps you're not aware that the same God wrote both the Old and New Testament. You may not know that the Christ of the N.T. was the Creator in the O.T. For in Col 1:15-16 -- Paul states that Christ "{15} . . .is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: {16} For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"

Now I'm very familiar with those naysayers of biblical revelation who seek to place in juxtaposition two opposing God's in the Bible, one for the O.T. and another for the N.T. but that is blatantly false. The blessed Triune God is one and the same in both testaments. He is revealed as a God of wrath and justice, as well as love and mercy in both divisions of Scripture.

Now, to insinuate that Christians "resort" to the O.T., betrays your knowledge of Christianity itself, though you spoke as one who has sufficient knowledge. I will say, however, that I appreciate your post giving me the opportunity to explain the matter for clarity's sake. I know, I'm pompous and angry but I'm trying to be nice, but mainly informative.

Apparently your Hebrew is not up to par seeing that the Commandment not to kill (In KJV Bible) is the Hebrew word, "raw-tsakh" (transliteration) and unlike the Hebrew word "ha-rag" which means to kill, "raw-tsakh" literally means murder. Sorry for the unfortunate translation in the 1611 King James, "kill," but murder is actually the word. Now, even one like yourself should know the difference between killing and murder. Sometimes killing is necessary for the defense of a family member, friend, or nation, otherwise we might presently be saluting swastikas, killing Jews and marching in front of huge pics of Adolf himself. I'm sure you're glad that that's not the case.

There is no question that war is not always necessary and is at times entered into unwisely and out of improper motives, but to characterize all war as wrong or all killing as unjustified is absurd. Of course murder is never permitted in the Bible and those who engage in it should be killed. Now the original blog tries to implicate passionate Christians in the crime of murder and apparently you've attempted to continue the trend by implying it when you stated, "Killing for God. Insane. How many of these 'right-to-lifers' oppose the death penalty?" Well, did you mean killing for God as pro-life Christians or are you speaking about the depraved man who murdered the abortion doctor? It wasn't quite clear in your post. And furthermore, yes, many Christians are against abortion and for the death penalty.

I beg your pardon but I find it insane when people promote and desire the legality of the death of an innocent babe in the warm comfort of it's mother's womb, (for her convenience that is) but you don't want a murderer who dismembered six young ladies while raping them to pay for his crime. I'm sorry but that seems depraved to my brain.

"Killing for God," you said. Does that apply to the murder of infants that are helpless by doctors who make millions from the despair and fear of the mother, or killing terrorists who desire the death of you, myself and everyone else who salutes the American flag?

Now God told the Israelites to kill on many occasions and I could elaborate upon that but I'm sure your bent would not receive in well, so I'll leave that for you to take up with God when you meet Him. The point is the Bible states unequivocally before the Ten Commandments were given on Mt. Sinai or the ceremonial laws of Judaism were established, (The ceremonial laws that are often referred to by those arguing with Scripture were done away with when Christ came and fulfilled that law -- Read the N.T. book of Hebrews)

God however, pronounced a universal law when Cain murdered Abel in Ge 4:8-11 - {8} And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. {9} And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? {10} And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. {11} And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;" - That was murder's verdict from God!

Now in the N.T. that Bible teaches us that there is an authority that has the right to bear this sword of wrath and it is the government that was ordained by God to protect innocence by bearing the sword when necessary. In Ro 13:1-6 - {1} Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. {2} Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. {3} For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: {4} For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword (this is a euphemism in the Greek of the N.T.) in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. {5} Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. {6} For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

It would most likely bore you to explain this text but it ought to be abundantly clear to anyone who can read, not that I'm implying that you can't.

Conclusion: Killing is at times necessary murder is not to be tolerated by a civil society and it certainly won't be tolerated by God Almighty who will curse the land of a nation that fails to dole out the proper justice on behalf of innocence. Maybe that answers some of our present difficulties in this land.

I find liberalism run amok to be a form of irrational non-thought. But I don't hate liberals for Jesus said, love your enemies and honor all in authority.

Roy Hargrave

-- Posted by razorback on Sat, Jun 6, 2009, at 7:49 PM

Ahem, brother Hargrave, I was referring to the following, which you may have overlooked in your etymological pursuits ... I chose the KJV translation because you strike me as a KJV sort of guy.

Romans 12:19 "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."

and again:

Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

and

Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Now, it's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't feel obliged to resort to pretzel logic that, unless Jesus was speaking out of both sides of his mouth, he couldn't have meant what you claim he did. Of course, you know, that Jesus, man, he was a rabble-rousing liberal and a community organizer, to boot.

Have a nice evening *)

-- Posted by YellerKitty on Sun, Jun 7, 2009, at 12:06 AM

P.S. I felt it would be unduly ostentatious to try to present it in the original Aramaic ...

Oh, yes, and I do realize that the verse from Romans was from the epistle widely accepted to have been written by Paul to the members of the faith in Rome, but was written originally in Greek, as he was most likely in Corinth at the time & it was probably transcribed by his amanuensis, Tertius.

Don't mean to be tiresome about this, but I've noticed that you do seem to be obsessed with 'accuracy', and wouldn't want to give you further reason to feel compelled to provide another lengthy diatribe vis-a-vis analytical representation.

-- Posted by YellerKitty on Sun, Jun 7, 2009, at 12:57 AM

One last 'revelation', so to speak ...

You can confuse YellerKitty with Yellow Dog any time you like ... I'll consider it a compliment!

-- Posted by YellerKitty on Sun, Jun 7, 2009, at 1:04 AM

YellerKitty,

I must say that of all the people I've engaged in on this blog, you have given a response that actually addresses the substance of my post. I appreciate it more than you could ever imagine.

Though I must admit that our hermeneutic process would most likely vary by degrees and our conclusions would also follow suit, I'm impressed by your knowledge of original textual etymology of biblical revelation.

Now, as to the substance of your response, I am in fact, not a KJV sort of guy though I appreciate the general accuracy of its content in light of the limitations of the manuscripts that were available in the 17th century. Though I might add, that I find very few substantial mistranslations that would actually change to the most insignificant degree the interpretation of such passages.

And as you are well aware, earlier manuscripts (approx. 100 A.D) used to translate later English translations, which make up what is generically referred to as the minority texts (many of which were discovered in the 20th century) possess a few rudimentary differences from the Textus Receptus (approx. 700-1000 A.D) used by the KJV and earlier translations. Though again, I might hastily add that the hermeneutical substance is of little consequence in most cases.

On the other hand, the use of the Hebrew word, "raw-tsakh," (sorry for not having Hebrew and Greek fonts) as you well know, etymologically, properly translates into the English word murder as being distinguished from the Hebrew word for kill. This was the essence of my response to your general use of the word "killing" so as to distinguish its literal meaning from the Hebrew word "murder." In my mind, this distinction must be maintained in order to provide clarity when the subject you addressed by your words, "Killing for God. Insane. How many of these 'right-to-lifers' oppose the death penalty?" I'm sure you see the importance of such.

Furthermore, I'm aware of the evolution of language and the transference of one language's word into another language. Concerning the Aramaic that you referred to in your post and of which you are probably aware of its presence in a small portion of Old Testament revelation, the particular word of our discussion "raw-tsakh," (Hebrew for murder) is identical to the Arabic term "radaha," that is also properly translated murder.

Now finally, as to your N.T. quotes from such texts as Romans 12:19 "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." Matthew 5:39 "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." And Matthew 5:43 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy."

5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" I am in full and complete agreement with you.

Thanks for listening to my following explanation about these text as to your request. I must state that it is a theological point that even many practicing Christians fail to understand and it confuses many people because of that failure.

First, we both know that there are harsh words of wrath and war as well as kind words of love and mercy in the Bible. How then can we reconcile these two opposing views? We must understand to whom they were addressed within their context.

First, in the great verses and more that you addressed about loving our neighbors and doing good to those who persecute us, that is directed at us as individuals. For instance, I have no right or biblical mandate to go and avenge someone by murdering another person. We must, as individual believers be kind one to another, love one another as well as our enemies. We must pray from them and help them when it is in our power to do so. At the church I pastor I constantly remind our people to pray for Muslim's and for their salvation for instance. We've sent scores of people to the Middle East since 9-11 to minister to them and help them through difficult times and some have been converted to Christ. This is our duty as Christians.

We are also to pray for those in authority for all authorities come from God according to Romans 13. You know I don't agree with much of President Obama's policies in general, I'm a Republican, but there is not one day that goes by that I don't pray that the Lord give Him wisdom and strength. As a matter of fact my wife and children pray together every evening and I've always taught my children to honor those in authority (unlike so many did with Bush) and pray for them according to Romans 13, which commands us to do so.

Now, you may ask, well what about capital punishment or war (which I've already said is not always appropriate or properly motivated)? Well, again the Bible does not give individual Christians the right to show their vengeance as you so aptly reminded me in your post, but the governing authorities have the right to apply the sword (a euphemism for wrath) against evildoers who would seek to kill us and destroy our way of life. This is where so much confusion reigns in not distinguishing between the individual responsibilities of people and the government's responsibility to protect us against evildoers, through capital punishment and war if necessary.

I hope this clarifies my view to you though you may not agree. I really appreciate the tenor of your post and would appreciate more opportunities to correspond about such matters. I would appreciate it if you would share you own philosophy about the matters we've addressed, I would be greatly interested in it.

Please allow a couple of closing observations. First, you said, "[I] Don't mean to be tiresome about this, but I've noticed that you do seem to be obsessed with 'accuracy'." Is that a liability? I would hope we would all desire accuracy though in our human frailty we often fall short of the goal. Secondly, I thought your words, "Of course, you know, that Jesus, man, he was a rabble-rousing liberal and a community organizer, to boot," were in jest, I hope.

Here are His last words the night of His betrayal in His prayer to His heavenly Father -- Jn 17:6-19 - {6} "I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. {7} Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. {8} For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. {9} I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. {10} All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. {11} And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. {12} While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. {13} But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. {14} I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. {15} I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. {16} They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. {17} Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. {18} As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. {19} And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.

His community is not of this world but of an eternal Kingdom without end.

Truly grateful for your patience,

RAH

-- Posted by razorback on Sun, Jun 7, 2009, at 7:12 AM

Charlie Crow,

You have finally made me speechless, SHAME ON YOU!

How dare you paint a wide brush on an entire political side.

SHAME ON YOU!

-- Posted by SandraR on Mon, Jun 8, 2009, at 1:17 PM

Mr. Crow,

I am shocked at this! There is no way that you can justify Dr. Tiller! He got exactly what was coming to him, and you know it! He had bullet-proof everything! He knew it would happen, and he had the nerve to be in church! If you know anything about the Bible, you know that "you reap what you sow.". You are exactly what is wrong with this country, and you are just as awful and un-American as the, "right wing extremists, and religious zealots" you wrote about! If people like you, and all other fanatical liberal AND conservative people would shut their mouths, this country would be great! We can't expect anything to change until we get religion out of politics, and we get politics out of our nation! We as Americans need to stop bickering and arguing, and live by the moral codes that we ALL know are true. Morality transcends religion Mr. Crow, and bickering is causing our country to fall. How dare you pin a tag on a group of people, you should be ashamed of yourself! You are just as much to blame as anyone else! We are all at fault for not standing up for what is right a long time ago!

-- Posted by rectorstudent on Tue, Jun 9, 2009, at 11:37 AM

To the Readers and Commenters on this Blog:

I want to express appreciation to those who read and respond to the columns I write for this space from time to time. I especially want to thank those who have taken the time to write your opinions, whether you agree or disagree. One of the benefits of this medium over writing printed letters to the editor is that there is more space to express thoughts, even though the privilege may be abused from time to time.

What I write is my own opinion, and I make a conscious effort to avoid misrepresentation or distortion of fact. If I am wrong, I expect to be called on it. My comments are not directed at individuals (unless they are public figures) and at no time do I intentionally denegrate, insult, belittle or otherwise personally attack anyone who may express their opinion here. While it may be tempting to reply to personal attacks on me, I choose to let the readers make their own judgements about what they read.

With respect to my column entitled "Murder in the Name of the Lord?", it was my intent to raise the discussion of the appropriateness of killing a person for holding views or taking actions that may be different from one's own to a higher level than the regurgitation of simplistic hateful propaganda and harmful violence. Obviously, the subject of abortion is highly sensitive, and it has generated here an array of responses that demonstrate its controversiality.

Let us review: Every life is precious and unique. Taking another's life is wrong, no matter what the reason. Killing is illegal. It also is forbidden in the Ten Commandments. We are a nation of laws, and when one disagrees with a law, they work to change it, rather than kill people who disagree. Abortion in certain instances and jurisdictions is legal. Killing someone who performs abortions is wrong and against the law. What is it about murder not to understand?

While some gloss over its complexities, the decision to abort a fetus is among the most difficult and painful issues of our day. Opponents of abortion focus on the use of abortion as a means of birth control. There are many other legitimate reasons--including rape and incest, and those of a medical nature--to terminate a pregnancy, including the likelihood that the child will not survive birth and concern for the health of the mother.

We should be grateful that there are fewer and fewer terminated pregnancies for purposes of birth control, given higher interest in adoption and less social stigma for having a child out of wedlock. Many persons of my generation can name women who died attempting to get an abortion by a quack or to perform the act on themselves.

Our society is slowly facing up to this highly volatile issue. However, each instance like the murder of Dr. Tiller sets back the search for an acceptable solution which addresses each component of this highly complex subject. One can only hope that the violence will cease and that reasonable persons of opposing points of view will pursue a reasonable compromise in good faith.

In the meantime, it is comforting to know that there are more persons willing to express positive or differing opinons than just the "aginners" who seem to draw energy from their anger. I thank each reader and each person who takes the time to peruse this column and to express your views.

Charlie Crow

-- Posted by Charlie Crow on Wed, Jun 10, 2009, at 1:03 AM

Charlie,

As opposite as we are on our political viewpoints, it would be helpful if you would set the tenor of each blog seeing that you set the agenda, by using facts without so much vitriolic window dressing. That way we could have a somewhat peaceful exchange of ideas though we may disagree with the substance. It may actually change our minds about certain matters if you would set the foundation of conversation in a more pleasing fashion.

I appreciate your courage in putting these difficult if not extremely volatile topics out for debate, and I'm glad you put your name on it. However, your goal, I hope, is to be constructive and not merely confrontational or obstinate.

I know I'm much like you in my passion for my views, but I think the standard you set on this blog primarily among old friends from our past Rector days would make all the difference in the world.

Maybe this blog can start a new trend in a country gone mad! I think, at least hope, that all of us hold the following in common. We are Americans and we love this country and we hope and pray it will still be a great country for our posterity.

Respectfully to all you guys and Sherry (HA!),

Roy Hargrave

-- Posted by razorback on Wed, Jun 10, 2009, at 2:02 PM

Thank you Preacher Man for thinking of me, ..Stay out of the rain because you being a TURKEY you know what happens to those poor souls....LOL

-- Posted by sherrymoseleywallace on Thu, Jun 11, 2009, at 2:39 PM

Sherry, (One of my favorite Rectorites)

You've known me for a long time so there is no use in denying it. You know, once a turkey always a turkey. Of course you are aware that I inherited it from Steve. If you've got any inside info on him please always feel free to pass it on to me. It may finally give me the upper hand. And by the way, I won't let him know who the informant was.

RAH

-- Posted by razorback on Thu, Jun 11, 2009, at 5:25 PM

dang, i feel the love all the way down here in texas!! ;-)

-- Posted by arebyrd on Thu, Jun 11, 2009, at 5:53 PM

Arebyrd,

Keep the cussing down a little or we'll have to censure you. Plus, I didn't think there was any love down in Texas Longhorn country, only cheating and recruiting violations. Where have u been lately?

RAH

-- Posted by razorback on Thu, Jun 11, 2009, at 8:07 PM

that's a good question. where have i been?

-- Posted by arebyrd on Mon, Jun 15, 2009, at 2:11 AM

Ronnie,

Finally, I asked a good question. Then at least I deserve a good answer.

Have you noticed how this blog is deteriorating into LA LA LAND?

RAH

-- Posted by razorback on Mon, Jun 15, 2009, at 3:50 PM

i've been playing lots of music, riding my motorcycle, playing softball, and working on texas pulling out of this socialist land we call the united states!! j/k wana move down to my country?? ;-)

good music,freedom, and low taxes........sounds like a country we were raised in huh?? oh yeah, and pretty women, but you already have one of those...........ha

-- Posted by arebyrd on Tue, Jun 16, 2009, at 11:16 AM

Ronnie,

Texas may be my final resting place if we keep going the direction we're going in as a nation. Pick me out about 100 acres at rock bottom prices and I may join ye! I would still have to root for the Hawgs of course.

RAH

-- Posted by razorback on Tue, Jun 16, 2009, at 4:19 PM

Roy -- Why would anything that is happening or not happening in this country make you want to move to Texas? Just wonderin'.

And another question -- apart from the specific issues being discussed on this topic, I have always wondered this:

For those who consider and call abortion murder, assuming it is completely outlawed, what would be the punishment for a woman who has an abortion?

Would it be the same legal penalty as for other forms of murder, up to and including capital punishment.

I just wonder what criminal punishment outline will be forthcoming.

-- Posted by Ron Kemp on Tue, Jun 16, 2009, at 11:29 PM

Ron,

The following is a response to some questions you asked. This is simply my response to those questions. Here goes . . .

Higher taxes than normal human beings and small businesses can't afford to pay, seeing that trillions, not billions of debt are presently in play with more to come apparently.

Too much government and not enough good ole' private American ingenuity that helped make this country what it was for over 200 years.

The continuing decline of morality and decency within our borders as well as the encroachment of illegal immigrants who continue to take jobs away from actual American citizens.

The freedom to speak the truth as we see it without the thought police who manufacture "hate crimes" policies for those who disagree with their viewpoint. Illustrated to some extent by the recent Miss U.S.A debacle.

Conservatives are hardliners, fundamentalists, right-wingers, liberals are moderates, intelligent voices who are basically loved by Hollywood types and those who would like America to be more like Europe.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Though you most certainly would disagree with my assessment, that is of course the point isn't it?

Concerning abortion, murder is the proper view of it according to biblical revelation that I've clearly stated in an earlier post on this particular blog if you'll take the time to read it.

Now, as to your question about the woman who has an abortion and her proper punishment I would state first and foremost that the Doctor who performs the abortion is the most complicit one in the murder and it should not be a legal procedure, viz, Roe v. Wade decision in my opinion.

Furthermore, it would be quite different if Doctors were more forthright with prospective aborting mothers about the permanent damage that often occurs with women who have abortions, both physically and emotionally, if not spiritually.

Please don't bring up incest, rape, and danger to the mother. We all know that the percentage of abortions in those categories are infinitesimal. We can have the debate over that particular circumstance in the future if you would desire it.

It's the government's business to protect the innocent (Rom 13) not the guilty. You may disapprove of such a view, but I have a solid basis for my view, what is your basis or standard whereby you arrive at your conclusions?

One last word, concerning the Texas move, if you'll simply look back at my exchange with arebyrd's previous to the last post, you'll most likely note that it was entirely in jest, with a twist of course that keeps the juices flowing on this blog.

Respectfully,

Roy Hargrave

-- Posted by razorback on Wed, Jun 17, 2009, at 4:02 PM

Roy:

Again, I am not trying to get involved in the actual abortion debate, per se, but just wanting to ask what I consider to be some practical questions.

So, are you saying the woman who has an abortion should not be punished?

And, if a doctor performs the abortion, he should be punished?

If it is murder, should be doctor be subject potentially to capital punishment?

What if it is not a doctor who performs the abortion -- generally, what would the punishment be in that case?

I really think those are legitimate questions, don't you?

-- Posted by Ron Kemp on Sat, Jun 20, 2009, at 7:38 PM

Ron,

If you'll look back at some of my post, I've rarely had answers to questions that I brought up, which includes my questions to you in my last post. But I will answer yours, hoping that you'll answer the ones I posed in the previous post as well as the present. And yes, I believe your questions are legitimate.

Now, as we all know at the present time, it is not the law of the land to consider abortion murder. I believe that it should be in light of my biblical worldview.

Concerning my previous answer, I believe that the doctor performing an abortion, or anyone engaging in such a practice should be held accountable for the practice. Of course, today, that is not the law. If it were the law, as I would desire, clearly the person performing the abortion would be as culpable as the person allowing the abortion. The extent of culpability in all such crimes must be examined specifically, concerning the state of mind of the person, the circumstances and so forth. If capital punishment is called for, carefully considering all circumstances in the murder, it should be executed.

If abortion were considered murder as it is in the Bible then all involved, one case at a time, according to circumstances and state of mind, should be held accountable. Yes.

As to circumvent any misunderstanding on this or any other subject of sin,(as all have sinned according to Scripture) I believe in the grace of God to forgive the sinner, which is the essence of the gospel. Which I have witnessed in my own ministry (35 years) among women who've been so distraught of such a sin that they found solace, only in the blood of Christ and no other. But the personal responsibility of a person before God is not the same as that before the governing authorities whom God has ordained according to Romans 13:1-7, to "not bear the sword in vain," (vernacular of the 1st century Greek language) meaning death to the evil doers who are worthy of death in the case of murder.

By the way, the majority of Americans now believe abortion is wrong. I find that interesting, but that, of course, is not my argument, the Bible is.

Now please reciprocate by telling me the basis upon which you arrive at the legitimacy of abortion.

Is late-term abortion a proper procedure? Why not, if you accept the basic premise of a woman's choice?

At what point is a fetus a human being? What is your basis please?

Would you prefer that no abortions be performed? Why?

Do you believe a person's choice in "any or every matter" is legitimate? Upon what basis do you arrive at your conclusion?

So you'll know the basis for my firmly held beliefs, I've put the following information from biblical texts for you perusal as to the foundation of my convictions.

Here are a few examples of biblical revelation on the subject of the sanctity of life in the womb:

Please feel free to comment on your meaning of any of the above texts. I have others if you need them.

Furthermore, it is my conviction that such approval of abortion in our nation is one reason for her descent into the pitiful state we find ourselves in as a nation.

One more question. Do you believe in capital punishment for any crime against humanity? (As in the case of rape-murder, the brutal murder of children, etc.) Why or why not?

In your own words, do you believe these to be "legitimate questions?"

Respectfully

Roy Hargrave

-- Posted by razorback on Sun, Jun 21, 2009, at 8:59 AM

Blackcats and Yellow Dogs

Charlie Crow

- Recent posts
- Archives
- Blog RSS feed

- Comments RSS feed

- Login

Charlie Crow has had long-standing ties to Rector since 1954, when his family moved here to publish the Clay County Democrat. He graduated from Rector High School in 1958. After earning degrees at Arkansas State University in Jonesboro and the University of Texas at Austin, and service as a US Army Intelligence officer, he pursued an eclectic career in management. He served in the cabinet of Governor Dale Bumpers. His career experience encompasses state and regional governmental planning, investment banking, executive leadership of recycling technology companies in Alabama and Tennessee, and nonprofit management. He is semi-retired and lives in Little Rock with his wife, Anne.

Hot topics

Short Honeymoon?
(445 ~ 3:57 PM, Jul 23)

An Icon Passes
(4 ~ 7:07 PM, Apr 3)

A healthy (?) pause for reflection
(15 ~ 1:15 PM, Sep 19)

The "Wise Latina"
(1 ~ 1:43 PM, Jul 17)

Garden Postscript: Gardener, 3; Horned Devils, 0
(1 ~ 6:24 AM, Jul 5)