Is everyone a child of God?

Pastor Jermin shares a letter that he wrote to a friend who made that claim:

Regarding your assertion that the Bible ‘ultimately teaches that all of us are God’s children.’

The short response would be this: While the Bible is clear that all people are God’s creation (Colossians 1:16), and that God loves the entire world (John 3:16),  it is equally clear that only those who are born again are children of God (John 1:12;11:52; Romans 8:16;1 John 3:1-10).

The longer answer is :

Outside of the 10th through 13th verses of John Chapter 1, which say (as translated in the King James Bible or KJV) :

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

I can see where that would be a logical conclusion, especially in light of the many times that we see words like ‘all’ or ‘every’ or ‘world’.

The key becomes, in every case then, what the context of the Word usage is.

The only way to get to the intended meaning of a text (the only accurate meaning) is by asking and answering the following questions:

1) Who is speaking?

2) To Whom are they Speaking?

3) What was the intent?

A good example is the contention that God wants all people to be ‘saved’ using 2 Peter 3:9 as proof text. In the KJV, it is translated as: 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The words any and all figure prominently here, and at first glance it is quite easy to see how the conclusion can be drawn.

But a more careful reading of the verse shows that the word ‘us-ward’ precedes ‘any’ and ‘all’. We’re then forced to ask the question: ‘Who are the ‘us’ of whom Peter speaks’?

Verse 1 of the Chapter has a clue:  It says: ‘This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance’

This means then, that this is a second letter. This implies then, that there is a first.

Thankfully we have that letter, and it is in the Canon of scripture. The Epistle of 1st Peter begins:  Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

From this we can deduce the following re: 2 Peter 3:9 what he is really saying is: The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward (the Elect of God) , not willing that any (of the Elect of God) should perish, but that all (of the Elect of God)  should come to repentance.

This is in keeping with the statements made by Jesus Christ (as recorded in the Gospel of John, Chapter 6:

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.  41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

It is fairly clear that Jesus is not speaking of everyone in that he makes the distinction that ‘all that the Father Gives me’ will come, meaning of course, that not all people were given to Him by the Father. This is borne out by the fact that after the crucifixion and resurrection the Bible records fewer that 500 believers.

Jesus is even more succinct in the 8th Chapter of John’s Gospel, when in a discussion with the Pharisees, beginning at verse 39:

Our father is Abraham!” they replied. “If you were Abraham’s children,” Jesus told them, “you would do what Abraham did. 40 But now you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do this! 41 You’re doing what your father does.”

“We weren’t born of sexual immorality,” they said. “We have one Father—God.”

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, because I came from God and I am here. For I didn’t come on My own, but He sent Me. 43 Why don’t you understand what I say? Because you cannot listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the Devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of liars. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Who among you can convict Me of sin? If I tell the truth, why don’t you believe Me? 47 The one who is from God listens to God’s words. This is why you don’t listen, because you are not from God.”

Consider these other NT passages:

Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:26

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.  – Ephesians 1:5

The children of the flesh … are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.  – Romans 9:8

He that committeth sin is of the devil … Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil.  – 1 John 3:8-10

As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.  – Romans 8:14

Now this does not mean that God does not Love everyone: As one of my favorite preachers, John MacArthur says:

“The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation is no proof that God’s attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere love. We know from Scripture that God is compassionate, kind, generous, and good even to the most stubborn sinners. Who can deny that these mercies flow out of God’s boundless love? Yet it is evident that they are showered even on unrepentant sinners.

Scripture clearly says that God is love. “The Lord is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works” (Ps. 145:9). Christ even commands us to love our enemies, and the reason He gives is this: “In order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45). The clear implication is that in some sense God loves His enemies. He loves both “the evil and the good,” both “the righteous and the unrighteous” in precisely the same sense we are commanded to love our enemies.

In fact, the second greatest commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mk. 12:31; cf. Lev. 19:18), is a commandment for us to love everyone. We can be certain the scope of this commandment is universal, because Luke 10 records that a lawyer, “wishing to justify himself … said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’” (Lk. 10:29)—and Jesus answered with the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The point? Even Samaritans, a semi-pagan race who had utterly corrupted Jewish worship and whom the Jews generally detested as enemies of God, were neighbors whom they were commanded to love. In other words, the command to love one’s “neighbor” applies to everyone. This love commanded here is clearly a universal, indiscriminate love.”
But it does not say that everyone is God’s Child.

3 Questions from a seeking youth…

A young sister sent me three questions after spending time with family members who are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Here are her questions, and my responses…

1) If Jesus is God why did he call God his father when he was on the cross?

Let us be clear, Jesus (Yeshuah is his Jewish name, and this will be important in a few moments) consistently referred to YHWH (GOD) as his Father. Throughout the Gospels, we see this. What we have to seek to do first in order to properly understand any time we read the Bible, is to try to hear what the original hearers heard. This is important here, since to the Jews, Fathers and Sons had the same attributes. Here is an example: Read Matthew 13:54-56, and its parallel passage Mark 6:1-5. Note that in Matthew’s account, he (Jesus/Yeshuah) is referred to as ‘The Carpenter’s son’. That is his identity in the community, and that is why they could not hear him or receive from him. Carpenters were just that carpenters, and nothing else. Mark parallels this, referring to him in this same event as ‘the carpenter’. Two things to note here: 1) You are identified with your Father, and 2) You do what your Father does.

I hope you’re with me so far. Here’s why: Jesus identifies himself as being ‘one’ with God in John Chapter 10. Please read verses 22-39, focusing on verses 30-33 in particular. Did you notice WHY they are picking up stones to stone him? Then look at what he says to them in verses 37-38. Whose works is he doing?

Now thinking back on what we read earlier in Matthew, knowing that for the Jew, you did the works of , and had equality with, your Father, what is he then saying to them? He is identifying Himself by His Works, to the ONLY one who could do those works, YHWH (GOD). Better yet, what did they understand? That He was proclaiming Himself to be equal with God. Knowing that to the Jew, GOD has no equal , the implication here is clear. Jesus is calling Himself GOD.

There are many other times that this type of thing occurs, another good one is when He declares to them EGO EIMI (I AM)

Most Jews is Jesus’ time read their Bibles (The Old Testament, as at the time there was no New Testament) in Greek, the document was called ‘The Septuagint’

(… from the Latin word septuaginta (meaning seventy). It is a translation of the Hebrew Bible and some related texts into Koine Greek. The title and its Roman numeral acronym LXX refer to the legendary seventy Jewish scholars who completed the translation as early as the late 2nd century BCE. As the primary Greek translation of the Old Testament, it is also called the Greek Old Testament (Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα). This translation is quoted in the New Testament, particularly in the Pauline epistles, and also by the Apostolic Fathers and later Greek Church Fathers.. – source Wikipedia)

In the Septuagint, when Moses asks God Who should he say is sending him, God responds ‘I Am’ – Exodus 3:14 –  “And God spoke to Moses, saying, I AM (ego eimi); and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM’(ego eimi) has sent me to you.”

Now turn to John Chapter 8, and read from verse 48 to 59. Note that he says, before Abraham was ‘I AM’, and can you guess what Greek phrase is used there? You got it, EGO EIME the same name that GOD/YHWH uses with Moses.

Do you see what happened next? They picked up stones (to try to kill him) Why? Because of WHO he was saying that He was/is…

With the preceding point in mind now, (that for Jews, there was equality between Father and Son) let’s take a look specifically at Luke 23:33-3433 When they arrived at the place called The Skull, they crucified Him there, along with the criminals, one on the right and one on the left. [34 Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing.” ] And they divided His clothes and cast lots.

Knowing what you now know about the context in which Jesus spoke, what is so unusual about this? Nothing. He was doing as He always had, declaring Himself one with/equal to, GOD

Please note that the disciples identified him as God as well. Here are a couple of examples:

2 Peter 1:1  – “Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:”

He is not, as some might claim, referring to two beings, He is referring to only ONE Jesus Christ (Yeshuah Ha Maschiach) who he calls ‘our God and Savior.’ As in one being both attributes… How do we know this? It is a reference to the doctrine of imputation. The righteousness of the Messiah, was imputed to men, and their sin was imputed to him.  Imputation means to replace missing data/information/elements with substituted values. It is what the Jews clearly understood from Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. The sin of the family is imputed to the animal that is to be sacrificed, and that animal’s blood is then shed in atonement of sin. The animal in effect, becomes/takes on the sin of the person, and the animal pays the price for the sin, with its blood (its life). Sound familiar? It should, It is the point of the cross. As Paul said: ‘He who did not have any sin, became sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God.’  – 2 Corinthians 5:21

That is imputation.

Paul says of the Jews (his brothers ethnically), in his letter to the Roman church:

Romans 9:1  I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience is testifying to me with the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have intense sorrow and continual anguish in my heart. 3 For I could almost wish to be cursed and cut off from the  Messiah for the benefit of my  brothers , my own flesh and blood. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple service, and the promises. 5 The ancestors are theirs, and from them, by physical descent, came the Messiah, who is God over all, praised forever.  Amen .

2) Was Jesus an Arch Angel?

No, Jesus is not a created being, He is the Creator. This is especially hard for people who are Unitarians (as Jehovah’s witnesses are). To grasp the idea that one being can exist in three persons is unfathomable, and yet the Bible clearly maintains this truth.

Here is what the Apostle Paul says to the church at Colossae (where a similar debate was going on as to whether or not Jesus was deity or a created being.)

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For everything was created by Him, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and by Him all things hold together. 18 He is also the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He might come to have first place in everything.– Colossians 1:15-18

If he is the image of that which is invisible, he is that thing in representation. For example, if you look in the mirror, the reflection that you see is who? You. If everything was created by him, (that includes angels) He cannot have created himself, as such he is THE CREATOR, HE is GOD. All things have been created through and for Him. He is before ALL things, as such if he was a created being something/someone would have to have been before him, and by him all things (notice it says ALL THINGS) hold together. All clearly means ALL so there is nothing before Him, as such he MUST be GOD.

Compare this to: “Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone.“ – Isaiah 44:24

The Apostle John, at the beginning of his Gospel, declares:

The Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We observed His glory, the glory as the One and Only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15  John (the Baptist)  testified concerning Him and exclaimed, “This was the One of whom I said, ‘The One coming after me has surpassed me, because He existed before me.’”) 16 Indeed, we have all received grace after grace from His fullness, 17 for the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son— the One who is at the Father’s side— He has revealed Him. – John 1:14-18

Notice that John the Baptist is quoted as saying that Yeshuah is pre-existent. Chronologically, John was older than his cousin Jesus/Yeshuah (see Luke 1:26-45) yet he says that Yeshuah existed before him… This comment from John lends weight to the contention made at the beginning of the Gospel of John which we will discuss later in this tome.

See also Revelation 3:14-22 written to the church at Laodicea, a city quite close to Colossae,  in fact mentioned 3 times in the letter to the Colossian church, and a place where clearly the same heresy concerning Yeshuah’s Deity was active,  wherein Yeshuah identifies Himself as: ““The  Amen , the faithful and true Witness, the Originator of God’s creation” – Rev. 3:14

This is a very big issue, and here is one reason why I prefer that you not use the NWT.

Consider what EVERY OTHER BIBLE EVER TRANSLATED has to say re: John 1:1-3: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created.

Now this is what the NWT says: In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in [the] beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence (John 1:1–3 NWT).

Not only is this translation inaccurate, it is deceitful, and dishonest, because it seeks to intentionally change the writer’s statement re: the Deity of Christ (Yeshuah) by calling him a ‘god’ (note the small g’)

3) Is Jesus’ name Jehovah?

In a Word NO. But GOD’s name is not ‘Jehovah’ either. Why do I say that? First off, because there is no ‘J’ or j sound in Hebrew. So Jesus’ name isn’t Jesus either. So where did ‘Jehovah’ come from?

“The word “Jehovah is a hybrid, arising from a misunderstanding. The word “Yahweh,” which more nearly corresponds to the original Hebrew name, is preferable;” –  Bade The Old Testament in the Light of Today (Boston, 1915), pp. 313 f.

And this from the 1911 – Encyclopedia Britannica: “JEHOVAH (YAHWEH 2), in the Bible, the God of Israel.

“Jehovah” is a modern mispronunciation of the Hebrew name, resulting from combining the consonants of that name, Jhvh, with the vowels of the word Adonay, ” Lord,” which the Jews substituted for the proper name in reading the scriptures. In such cases of substitution the vowels of the word which is to be read are written in the Hebrew text with the consonants of the word which is not to be read.”

BritannicaJehovah

 

As such the better question is: Is Jesus/Yeshuah YHWH (Yahweh)?

The answer is YES! Let’s look at Philippians 2:9-11— The Apostle Paul says: Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Once again, we have to, when reading the Bible try to understand what the original hearers/readers would have understood. Paul’s readers (remember there was no new testament at the time of this letter’s writing) would have immediately identified that Paul was calling Jesus GOD, specifically YHWH. Why? Because he is drawing directly from Isaiah 45:20-25 –

20 “Come, gather together, and draw near, you fugitives of the nations. Those who carry their wooden idols, and pray to a god who cannot save, have no knowledge. 21 Speak up and present your case— yes, let them take counsel together. Who predicted this long ago? Who announced it from ancient times? Was it not I, Yahweh?* There is no other God but Me, a righteous God and Savior; there is no one except Me. 22 Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth. For I am God, and there is no other. 23 By Myself I have sworn; Truth has gone from My mouth, a word that will not be revoked: Every knee will bow to Me, every tongue will swear allegiance. 24 It will be said to Me: Righteousness and strength is only in the Lord.” All who are enraged against Him will come to Him and be put to shame. 25 All the descendants of Israel will be justified and find glory through the Lord .

*If the translation that you are using says ‘The LORD’ or something close, here is why:

Whenever the name LORD is printed in small caps in some English translation, it means the NAME: YAHWEH. For ancient Jews (and conservative modern ones), YAHWEH was the Name of names; so sacred that they would not speak it nor would they write it in full (they left out the vowels: YHWH). YAHWEH was the Holy One of Israel. Here is what it looks like:

yhwh-in-english

 

So let’s consider this:

As a Pharisee, (one of the most learned and trained Jews) Paul knew this text very well. He knew exactly what he was saying: Jesus of Nazareth is YAHWEH.

In The Psalms, we find this: “Into your hand I commit my spirit; you have redeemed me, O Yahweh, faithful God.” Psalm 31:5

The Apostle Stephen as he was being killed, said what? – Acts 7:59-60 “And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’ And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them.’ And when he had said this, he fell asleep.’”  What did Stephen believe abiout Jesus/Yeshuah, even to his death? That He is YAHWEH

The Prophet Joel says: “And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of Yahweh shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as Yahweh has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom Yahweh calls.” Joel 2:32

The Apostle Paul says:

8  On the contrary, what does it say? ‘The message is near you, in your mouth and in your heart’ (he is quoting Deuteronomy 30:14). This is the message of faith that we proclaim: 9 If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 One believes with the heart, resulting in righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, resulting in salvation. 11 Now the Scripture says, Everyone who believes on Him will not be put to shame, 12 for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, since the same Lord of all is rich to all who call on Him. 13 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” – Romans 10:8-13

The Lord who? Who does Paul say is Lord? What scripture is he clearly referencing? So what is He saying about Jesus/Yeshuah? Right, that HE IS YAHWEH

I hope that at least gets you started.

God Bless You, sister.

Please let me know what other questions you have

Much Love to you,

Pastor J

Debate with a Pro-‘Choice’ person

Recently, I was involved in an online debate with a person who is a Liberal Democrat, and vehemently Pro-‘choice’. In response to one of their posts, I wrote this, and thought I’d share. SDG…

Xxxxxx, please do not be sorry, and though I did not mean to ‘fire you up’, I am glad that you commented. I am sure that there are many other people who frequent my page who feel as you do, but will not comment. You are a surrogate for them today. On their behalf, I thank you.

I want to take a few moments to examine your post, as it covers most of the main Pro-Choice argumentation. Please note that I will use the words baby and fetus, not ‘clump of cells’, not ‘products of conception’

1)    “Pro choice is about a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body.”

This presupposes that the body (the life) growing inside the woman is not in and of itself a person, has no body of their own, as such has no rights, which I get is the main argument. (One woman I read recently straight up called the baby a parasite) but does this then not deprive the female unborn child (never mind the male) the right to decide what to do with her body? If this is fundamentally a women’s rights issue, what of the rights of these women?

2)    “Men have been making decisions for women for most of history.”

This is ‘The War on women’ argument, which is usually paired with the proposed notion that abortion (aka reproductive rights) is the way to cure this. (For clarity’s sake, I am aware that the term ‘reproductive rights’ encompasses a variety of things, however, most often when I see/read/hear the term used, it centers around abortion)

I respectfully disagree. In fact, I would propose to you that the real war on women is gendercide, in that the majority of abortions done in places like India & China for example, are sex selection abortions, and it is the female babies that are killed.

http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/pub/faculty/sumon/sexabortions_india.pdf

http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/gendercide-china-statistics

This argument, (much like the completely fallacious and incendiary ‘College rape culture’ claim) is used to make the claim that today in America women are patriarchally besieged, unable to decide who to sleep with and when, and what methods of contraception to use. Is that what is really being said?

3)    “So if you don’t get pregnant, then please don’t weigh in on this issue.”

This is equivalent to: ‘If you’re not X, you can’t have an opinion on X involved issues.’  It is a tactic used to silence any opposing viewpoints, thereby killing conversation and/or debate. It assumes that people cannot show/have empathy, and it is extremely unfair and problematic. We see this very mindset working division and strife in our country right now, when it comes to matters of epidermis, melanin, and the associated difficulties… There are many good people afraid to speak on issues that they care deeply about because they are afraid of being labeled, bullied, etc. It is sad and ridiculous.

So, as the son of a woman, the husband of a woman, the brother of a woman, the father of a woman, the uncle of a woman, cousin to many women, heck, as a person, I think that I am entitled both to a) Have an opinion and b) voice it. Just as everyone else is free to either agree or disagree. Why would anyone think otherwise?

4)    “You have no idea what it means to have to make that choice.”

Actually, you’d be surprised.

5)     “And what happens to an unwanted child once they are born? Do We think about that? Does the government care about whether they are housed, fed, clothed, educated, sent to prison, sick? I think not.”

This is the ‘It’s better to kill it now than to have it suffer later’ argument. On the surface, it sounds almost empathetic, even caring, but in reality, is it? This is the logic that causes 90% of babies with Down’s syndrome to be aborted. It is akin to theAktion T4 program. Which was started in 1939 to euthanize “incurably ill, physically or mentally disabled, emotionally distraught, and elderly people.” From 1939 to 1945 some 200,000 people met their end in this way.

Is it right to deprive a human being of life, on the chance that they may suffer later? Do you think that, given the choice, the nearly 60 million children aborted in the US since 1973 would have voted to be killed? I think not.

6)     “Respectfully, men have no right to decide or to legislate what a woman chooses to do with her body.”

It’s not an issue of legislation Xxxxxx. As Mrs. Clinton rightly says: These are the laws in our country (like them or not).  I would note though, that 38 states have fetal homicide laws, in those states, the law also says that if someone kills a pregnant woman they have killed two persons. Why is that? It is the undeniable fact of the personhood of the fetus, the personhood of the baby…

7)    “It’s her body AND for that matter, her soul to do what she wishes. I’m a social worker and I’ve seen what happens to these kids and overburdened and under resourced families.”

I am well aware that nearly 40% of the abortions performed nationally are women who are in or close to poverty. This is true, and lamentable. I am also aware that in NYC, black people are 25% of the population, but have 61% of the abortions. How is this explainable when free birth control and all kinds of sex education materials are readily available for free, abundant in schools, pharmacies, etc.?  How is it at all explainable that once again (as of the most recent data, 2014) More black children are aborted (27,367) than born( 23,680)  in NYC?  – https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/vs/2014sum.pdf

What this means is that abortion is being used as ‘birth control’, but I would argue that feticide is not birth control, it is population control.

Interesting that you would mention the soul. In my ‘line of work’, I have also had to deal with broken women unable to forgive themselves sometimes decades after abortions, (sometimes multiple ones) some of whom mark the days annually because they were unable escape the reality of the abortion: At the end of every abortion, someone is dead. Not a clump, not by-products, but a person. A person, innocent, full of potential and purpose, is dead. We all know this, no matter how hard we try to redefine, or change the terminology.

Or what of the women who had safe, legal abortions but were unable to carry to term later (there are more than you think, and no one talks about them, because of the ‘safe legal and rare’ narrative.) What of these completely preventable tragedies?

8)    “Are you willing to adopt some of these kids? Sorry. This fires me up.”

I’ve already been informed that I did not make enough to adopt, and then when I did, that we were too old.  We talked about this very thing last week, and at this point, have given up.Let me say this, and then I’ll stop:

This issue is not simply a women’s rights issue. It is a people issue. It is a human rights issue, and it is one that impacts most people very strongly. Why? Because again, we know what we’re really talking about: The taking of a life. Abortion is the purposed, intentional, taking of a human life.

In order to make the truth of this fact less repulsive, less fundamentally disquieting, we must dehumanize the baby. This is not an uncommon methodology; we do it all the time. Human beings know that others are human, just like dogs can spot eachother a block away, in a rainstorm at midnight. We just KNOW. So we have to make the person an ‘other’. In order to hate, enslave, fear, kill, we have to seek out the ‘otherness’ of that person. It temporarily assuages our primal discomfort…

Life is chock full of situations, circumstances and issues. That is the reality, and if you live long enough, you’ll have trouble. I just cannot ever agree, that imposing the death penalty on a person, especially an innocent one, ever solves the problem.

Looking forward to your response…

(I did eventually get a response. A response that bypassed all of my points and went right to feelings. There is no way to reason past that, so it ended.)