Comments on: Abortion Truths

By: ilona

ilona — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:31:36 +0000

The reason the abortion debate is so explosive is because people hate to have their consciences troubled. Que sera sera, don’t rock the boat, let people do their own thing. Whichever way you express your own indifference towards abortion dictates your approval of it. There is no middle way. Let your yes be yes and your no be no; sitting on the fence makes God want to puke. (I think Jesus used colloquial language too) How gutless are we when we don’t take a stand? Either way, take a corner and be counted. I speak to the masses not the activists who at least voice their opinion. The wishy washy who say, ‘I don’t like it but I go along with it, is a decision in itself, it says – Go ahead, do it. When deciding for Christ there is no middle way, its a yea or a nay – God understands, you have made a choice. The inability for man to take a stand or the avoidance of the debate entirely is wrong. The unborn if they could judge would say – you never spoke up for me! That’s if you agree the unborn are ‘one of us’ and that does not require proof. People are pregnant with people, dolphins pregnant with dolphins. I wonder the hue and cry if we dragged unborn babies dolphins out of their mothers. Would we be debating whether they were dolphins or not? Need for proof is only needed by those who want to avoid the real issue the morality of what they do. It’s playing the devil’s advocate, get them debating proof of personhood and we keep them off the real issue – taking a life. In the meantime babies die.
Ilona Sturla

By: John Angelico

John Angelico — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:52:12 +0000

Sadly, Ewan, I agree that most “pop” Christian authors don’t understand the worldview problem.

Try looking for authors like Francis A Schaeffer, or the likes of RJ Rushdoony, David Chilton, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, Ray Jordan (all of the “reconstructionist” label, but don’t let that put you off) and Cornelius Van Til the so-called “founder” of the line of Reformed thinking called “presuppositional theology” which treats fundamental world-views fully.

John Angelico

By: Bill Muehlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:58:07 +0000

Thanks Ewan
Although I think at times different methods or approaches can be rightly used.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

By: Ewan

Ewan — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 06:49:45 +0000

I’m pleased to hear that. I have not read any of Beckwith’s books. Beckwith must be the exception to the rule then since it seems most Christian lobbyists leave the worldview issue alone and just try to battle with the secular humanists on their turf with pragmatic type arguments that often make it appear the Christian worldview is subservient to the humanist worldview. I think this is true of the ACL in particular.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria

By: Bill Muehlenberg

Bill Muehlenberg — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 03:18:38 +0000

Thanks Ewan

Beckwith does exactly that in his various books.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

By: Ewan

Ewan — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 01:28:58 +0000

All true but I don’t consider the argument to be convincing to a humanist. Even science proves that preborn children are genetically human. The humanist simply believes he has the right to arbitarily decide who lives and who dies. This is the difference. Peter Singer is a good example of this.

In the example of abortion and most other moral issues, the fundamental difference between the Christian position and the humanist position is one of conflicting worldviews. It is at this level where the real battle rages and at this level where we should be concentrating our efforts. Christians need to both attack the false worldview of secular humanism whilst defending our own.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria