Rick Warren and Barack Obama

Actually, most abortions are not done on teenage girls; some of the stats are:

The back-alley abortion scare is exaggerated by the pro-choicers. Many women are injured today in abortion clinics themselves. Even so, it is not right to support abortion because some women might be injured in getting an abortion.

Young girls can give babies up for adoption - there are many married couples who would like to adopt. They are "thrust into womanhood" when they choose to have sex.

I speak as a former pro-choicer of many, many years. Most abortions are done for the sake of convenience - that was true among all the women I knew who had abortions and the statistics also show that.

 

I think you missed my point.

Proponents of abortion rights, gay marriage, and other such things have reasons for their positions. No pro-choice advocate gets joy from abortions - rather they see it as a lesser of two evils. We need to be willing to discuss things with these people and to show them that while they made have legitimate points in their arguments the end result of abortion is never the lesser of two evils - rather it is always the greater.

Sitting around hurling epithets like "baby-killer" is not going to change anyone's heart on the matter.

 

No, Charles, I don't think so. I was responding directly to some of what you said about abortions re teenage girls and back alley abortions.

I would prefer to say that they put in those reasons terms that make them sound like good ones. I used to say these things so I am less apt to give them credit when credit is not due. Ultimately, many of the reasons are selfish (I'm in school and can't stop to have a baby; I don't want to compromise my career to have a baby; etc.). People are morally desensitized these days - amorality rules the day. I don't see any legitimacy in most reasons for abortion.

Why do you throw this in? I never say this and most Christians don't. This is a straw man.

 

No I don't think that is the straw man. Have you noticed how many on this board have used the term "baby killer"? Well fair enough - for that is what abortionists are - but I do not think that every pro choice individual should be shunned as a "baby killer".

I'm glad that you changed your mind about these things long ago.

Obviously (in my job as a physician) I deal with many people who see it proper to keep abortion as an option. They cite many arguments - all of which I assume you already know.

The point is that these people perceive themselves as holding the moral high ground!!

As I said there are many on this board who would say something like, " we have no business having baby killers in our church much less having them speak from the pulpit".

That attitude will not win any converts and will do nothing to address the issue. Many people are "pro choice" because they see this as the moral high ground. We need to be willing to discuss issues and show them the error of their ways. If we decide just to isolate ourselves then abortion will become more entrenched (as an accepted option) than it already is.

 

You are right. A lot of the abortion issue is not for any other reason than to make money. Did you notice that several years ago when Minnesota required the parents to be notified first that the teen age pregnancy went down to 25% of what it was? Planned Parenthood probably made less money during those days. Have anyone noticed where the greatest teen age pregnancy rates are?

 

Webdog,

Let me seeee postmodernism is the belief that man must be relevant, up to date, that as society evolves so to must communication and meaning. At its core is relevancy. For instance why do we have 200 versions of the English bible? Is it because people cannot understand the KJV or is it because people want words to be relevant to their needs. I mean, after all if we read and quote enough versions surely we will find a verse that condones what ever we wish to believe.

Is it not New Age and Emergent church doctrine that say forgiveness is the key to personal freedom? Does not the practice of overlooking blatant sin and embracing an unsaved person as a spiritual equal equate to a forgiveness that should and can only be offered by God? How can two walk together unless they agree?

There is nothing in Obama’s life that would indicate to me he is saved, where is the fruit from the fruit tree? Rick Warren is acting more like his mentor at the Crystal Cathedral and the question is why? Answer, he wants to be seen as relevant before the masses that he represents therefore what he says is relevant truth.

It is one thing to make the scriptures come to life in light of our culture it is another thing to make the scriptures say what they do not. We do not condemn the sinner but we certainly don’t embrace him as a spiritual equal either, no matter what we agree on.

Instead of attacking me for my stand I would invite you to do the research on New Age and Emergent Church doctrine for I am certainly not an expert on these things and could use some instruction.

I will agree that I have some strong cautions concerning Mr. Warren and his teachings. But at no time have I suggested he is not a believer and though my posts may come across as attacks I assure you they are not. A man is known by the company he keeps. You have cautioned me not to be so quick to label and I would respond that if I were you I would not be so quick to defend.

Time will reveal truth and obviously we both believe something different concerning Mr. Warren. That is fine perhaps we can look back one day and share a smile as we realize that neither of us was as right as we thought.

thjplgvp

 

I'm not particularly a fan of either Bro. Warren or Sen. Obama but I do believe in fairness. The following was carried on the FIDE-O blog on Monday. It's described as an e-mail sent out by Rick Warren to members of Saddleback Church. Here's part of it:


Another blogger claimed I've invited Barack Obama to preach in my pulpit to the Saddleback congregation. Of course that is untrue. I'd never invite ANY politician to speak from the pulpit to our congregation. Never. The blogger got his facts wrong but he told everyone to call our church office and complain. Many of these people were quite rude and vicious to our receptionists this past week.

Next week, the Global Summit on AIDS and the Church will be held on the Saddleback campus. It is not a church service, but an international summit for pastors and world leaders. Leaders from churches, denominations, health, NGOs, Christian organizations, governments, businesses, and entertainment will meet together to discuss how they can work with churches to end AIDS.

Sen. Obama is one speaker at a conference which includes Republicans and Democrats, Christians and non-Christians, pastors, business leaders, and all kinds of races from around the world. Yet the vitriol and unChristlike slander was over the top.


Full text at http://fide-o.blogspot.com

 

not really surprised bloggers got it wrong...

particularly around here

 

It really doesn't matter why why Mr. Warren invites or who he invites. Either way you slice it, Mr. Warren is a false teacher(IMHO).

 

Well, at least you stated that it WAS your opinion. :saint:

 

Yeah, I was being very nice.

 

Wonder why that article is on some bloggers site rather than on Rick Warren's main Saddleback site? Not on there anywhere. Could it be the blogger is just trying to defend Mr Warren? You would think Rick would have it on his own site

 

Unless, for some reason, RW feels no need to defend himself to YOU. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I think first of all, there is a difference between using the term "baby killer" on this Board and saying it to someone's face. I am not defending this, just pointing this out.

Secondly, I do not think that many on this Board have used the term - even if 6 or 7 have recently (and I am not counting), that hardly represents the vast majority of Christian pro-lifers.

I don't want to give pro-choicers any hint that I think abortion is understandable. I may understand that they think they have good reasons, but that is different from giving the idea that I can sympathize with someone wanting to abort because
1. They are busy in school
2. They are busy in their career
3. They have too many children
4. The baby is coming at a bad time

Well, it wasn't that long ago that I changed my mind - it was 1991. When I found out I was pregnant in 1981 (and I am not talking as a teenager - I was not all that young at the time), I made an appt for an abortion at the Feminist Women's Health Center in Atlanta where I took the pregnancy test. Why did I make this appointment only minutes after finding out I was expecting? Simple - because I was not married and did not want a child at that time, and abortion was acceptable. After all, I knew lots of women who had had abortions and it was legal.

The more common something is, the more acceptable it is and the easier it is to become part of it. Fortunately for my son and for me, God intervened (that's another story and I only realized it was God after becoming a Christian) and he was born, not aborted. Nevertheless, I held my pro-choice position until 1991, about a year after becoming a believer.

Yes, I realize that.

But no one is trying to win converts here. They are expressing an in-house issue on an in-house debate, which is very different from talking to an unbeliever. We are talking here about a Christian with a high public profile inviting another Christian leader to speak, one who believes abortion is morally okay. So in this case, we are dealing with believers, not unbelievers.

 

Why not read 2 Peter 3 for a REAL definition of what a "false teacher" is all about.

 

If you go to the Fide-O site, you'll see that there is a tone of skepticism in his comment, even though he does not pass judgment on the e-mail. He's not defending RW at all.

 

How about let both of us take a gander at it, all scripture, and line it up with some of the garbage that Mr. Warren spits out?

 

Have any idea where the highest teen pregnancy rate is in the U.S.?

 

Charles,

I appreciate what you are saying, and I imagine what I am about to say you already know, however...

A fellowship of Christians assembling for church should be a body of believers. Thus, unrepetent baby killers should not be a concern for attendance nor speaking but rather believers should go out from the assembly and win the baby-killers and other sinners to Jesus Christ. If baby killers believe they have the moral high ground, then it suggests that they are natural man without natural affection and are in desperate need of a saviour.

As to the usage of the "baby-killer" term...

The Holy Bible describes those that leave the natural use of the woman as being sodomites (can be used as well for any crime against nature). The world describes this unnatural behavior as being "gay" or "alternative lifestyles". A Christian who uses the term "gay" according to the use of this word in scripture, should be describing showy colorful clothing. According to traditional usage of this term they could be describing something or someone that is happy. However, there is nothing happy about being a sodomite as it is a path to destruction. Perhaps, if we used the Biblical term, then folks would be reminded of the end of the city that name came from. In the time that Christians have compromised in using the expression "gay", has the sodomite agenda increased or decreased?

The Holy Bible describes "aliens" as being individuals that are foreign to the land (and never in the context of little green men). Once upon a time Christian Americans called people from a foreign land that were here illegally, "illegal aliens". The world has taken to calling these individuals "undocumented immigrants". In the time that Christians have compromised in the use of this term have illegal aliens in our land, increased or decreased?

The Holy Bible is very clear on murder and that we should not do it. It is also clear that God knits us in our mother's womb. Thus, when we take to destroying the life that is in the womb or supporting those that are in favor of these actions, they are, as you have agreed, baby killers. My usage of calling Barack Obama a baby killer was really a soft term for Mr. Obama, as he is the more heinous of the heinous for he is a supporter of "partial-birth abortion". Thus, it would be accurate to say that Obama supports the crushing of a partially birthed baby's skull and the vaccuuming of their brains through a tube. Of course, pointing this out is about as easy to take as it is to consider that a mother would microwave her own baby thus,"baby-killer" is likely a bit more palatable. Similar to the previous examples, Christians have compromised on this term, in favor of terms like "abortionist" or one who is "pro-choice". In the period where Christians have compromised on these terms, have we seen the murder of babies increase or decrease?

I believe Christians have played the world's politically correct game long enough and it has not helped the cause of Christ. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...I, for one, am in favor of calling it a duck.

"Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood." - Psalm 106:37-38​

 

Rufus,

For me abortion is different than prayer in schools, gay marriage, etc. babies are dying each day. I would like to see abortion stopped. I am not only concerned to expound the truth but also to have an actual effect. I would like to be able to explain to many of these people that while they may perceive they have reasons (and yes Marcia you are right - they are not valid reasons) what they are doing is in reality abhorrent.

In truth they are baby-killers. But I think that we have a better chance of being able to turn the public opinion tide by interacting with these people. As I was saying to Marcia these people view themselves as having the moral high ground - and that is the "party line". I see this as akin to Roosevelt's announcment (WW2) that the allies would accept only unconditional surrender - effectively saying that the allies were winning the war - at a point when strategically they were not! But this has an effect in the way this is presented as a national issue.

For us to just yell scripture verses and picket clinics will not have much effect other than to solidify the opposition.