Hi Tenchi
So yes, I stand against it as you do. But no, you will never see me marching or protesting or involved in some crowd of yelling and screaming "We have rights!!!!" folks. I'll try not to never denigrate someone who sadly may find themself in need of such a service, but I would take any opportunity to sit and ask if I could talk to them about their situation? If they allow, then I'd try to have a conversation that would steer us to a discussion of Jesus and faith in him. And that Jesus will still love her even if she goes through with the procedure, but my concern is for her. And if time runs out, before her appointment, I'd ask if she'd like to talk more and make those arrangements if so.
Brother, it doesn't matter what the law of man says in this matter. What matters is whether we tell them about Jesus.
And then you say in a later response to me concerning that very passage that I felt you were using somehow to not agree with me, but now say I seem to be purposefully missing your point that you were agreeing with me:
God bless,
Ted
Well, I guess it's a matter of you describing our response as being an 'outrage' that troubles me. Because I'm afraid some people understand that term to mean that they should be up in arms and in people's faces about it. As I've long since admitted, I'm against someone having an abortion. I also believe that a fetus is as you say. I believe that a believer should see it as a sin. A moral failure it you'd rather. But I don't think that our response should be some 'moral OUTRAGE'. We just need to let our yes be yes and our no be no and let the world go the way that the world is going to go.The moral outrage ought to exist regardless of secular law; for secular law does not always properly reflect what is moral and immoral, what is good and evil.
So yes, I stand against it as you do. But no, you will never see me marching or protesting or involved in some crowd of yelling and screaming "We have rights!!!!" folks. I'll try not to never denigrate someone who sadly may find themself in need of such a service, but I would take any opportunity to sit and ask if I could talk to them about their situation? If they allow, then I'd try to have a conversation that would steer us to a discussion of Jesus and faith in him. And that Jesus will still love her even if she goes through with the procedure, but my concern is for her. And if time runs out, before her appointment, I'd ask if she'd like to talk more and make those arrangements if so.
Brother, it doesn't matter what the law of man says in this matter. What matters is whether we tell them about Jesus.
Sorry, I didn't get the shift from seeming to not agree with my position in your first statement, to now agreeing with me.Are you purposefully missing my point? It sure seems like it here. I was drawing out in the section of 1 Corinthians 5 that I quoted the very thing you said Christians ought not to do: judge the non-believer. He called NON-BELIEVERS immoral; he called them drunkards, and swindlers, and idolaters. What, then, of judging non-believers? Paul did this very thing in the passage I cited.
And then you say in a later response to me concerning that very passage that I felt you were using somehow to not agree with me, but now say I seem to be purposefully missing your point that you were agreeing with me:
Well yea, isn't that what we're both saying? That there are immoral people outside and inside the fellowhsip and Paul is giving us instruction as to how to deal with both. One is to be judged by us and the other not. Right?Nope. You've spun the passage to make it appear to support your view, but Paul is clearly referring to two types of immoral person in the passage. See above.
God bless,
Ted