Embattled N.C. pastor resigns, says he was misunderstood

[Craigbythesea]

I'm not saying that I agree with how he did what he did. However, I do maintain that we ought to be calling our church members to live out their Christian beliefs and teaching them that those Christian beliefs ought to impact and influence every aspect of our lives including (but not limited to) who we elect to represent us in our government.

The Democratic Party stands for the very values that Christ explicitly preached and taught, the same values that were at the very heart of the New Testament Church and apostolic teaching.

Matt. 19:20. The young man *said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?"
21. Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
22. But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

Acts 20:35. "In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' "

Gal 2:9. and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
10. They only asked us to remember the poor--the very thing I also was eager to do.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, stands for the very values the Christ explicitly preached and taught against.

Mark 7:20. And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.
21. "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
22. deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
23. "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."

Luke 12:15. Then He said to them, "Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions."

Rom. 1:28. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29. being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30. slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31. without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32. and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Heb. 13:5. Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have; for He Himself has said, "I WILL NEVER DESERT YOU, NOR WILL I EVER FORSAKE YOU,"
6. so that we confidently say, "THE LORD IS MY HELPER, I WILL NOT BE AFRAID. WHAT WILL MAN DO TO ME?"

The parents of millions of children in the United States work for wages that are so low that the families cannot afford any kind of insurance and suffer the most absolutely grievous agony because they cannot afford to go to a doctor or dentist, resulting in the most horrible deaths from cancers that could have been treated, the amputation of limbs due to infections that could have been treated, ugly, rotten teeth, etc., etc. And yet the Republican Party has consistently fought against increasing the minimum wage. And now the Republican Party is fighting to reduce Social Security benefits rather than raise the cap on income that is taxable by the Social Security Administration. The sins of covertness are condemned throughout the New Testament, but they are the very hallmark of the Republican Party. Instead of being thankful for the opportunity to pay taxes to care for the poor and lift them out of poverty, they fight tooth and nail for tax cuts to pad their own wallets. Their litmus test is not any of the multitude of sins that the Republican Party stands for; their litmus test is the abortion issue because it doesn’t cost them any money! Abortions were very common in the time of Christ—but He never even mentioned the subject—His priority was the children who have already been born and their needs—the very antithesis of the philosophy of the Republican Party!

And of course there is also the matter of racial discrimination, bigotry, and the other abominable sins of the Republican Party, but when I was serving as the senior pastor of an inner-city church, I never once preached politics—I preached only the Bible, and I expect the same from other Baptist pastors.

(All Scriptures are from the NASB, 1995)

 

[Liz Ward]

Craig, what were you doing to make it clear, in the early stages of the running when the candiudates were being chosen, that Kerry, being in favour both of abortion and homosexual marriage, was not an acceptable presidential candidate for those Christians who wanted to vote for the Democratic party? Anything at all? Or is the truth that in fact YOU BELIEVE in abortion and / or homosexual marriage?

Liz

Liz

 

[Bible-boy]

Hey Craig,

Looks like to me you just preached a sermonette on politics. If the text of Scriputre addresses a political issue then the preacher must address that political issue when he preaches that text.

Jesus did not have to teach against abortion because His Father had already done that with a fairly short verse back in Ex. 20 that says "Thou shall not commit murder." This command includes the prohibition against the murder of unborn babies.

In your argument above you have completely disregarded the areas of the Democratic Party's platform that fall woefully short of biblical requirements for Christians. Likewise, you focused all your attention solely on things about the Republican Party that could be interpreted as being anti-biblical. Yet, you negelected to point out where they do line up with the Scripture. You are not being intelectually honest. I am not calling you a liar here, just pointing out that you did not present a complete picture of either party. You used a select and microscopic view of each party in an attempt to present your argument which is not sound logic and makes this entire portion of your argument invalid.

Likewise, you attempted to use Scripture to make your point that the Republican Party is full of all kinds of sinfullness but provided no evidence to prove that they are doing what you indicate by the sins listed in the Scriptures quoted. It is all just accusation without evidence to support the claim.

Jesus did teach us that we, Christians, and thereby His Church ought to care for the hungry, widows, little children, the poor, etc. He never indicated that it was the government's responsibility to do so. You are taking requirements for the church/Christians and placing them upon the secular civil government (and namely upon the Republican Party). However, according to my view of the issue at hand every Christian voter ought to seek to support candidates who do support these things as well as seek to protect the life of unborn babies and protect the institution of marriage between one man and one woman etc.

Anyway, I am not making an argument for one or the other political party. I am talking about the individual beliefs and the issues supported by individual candidates regardless of their party affiliation. If they don't line up with my Christian beliefs then I can not support them with my vote. That is what was at the heart of what Chan was trying to teach his former congregation. The mainstream press is only focused on the fact that he made reference to support for John Kerry as being wrong. However, they totally disregarded the fact that Chan also pointed out that two Republican candidates should not have been supported by Bible believing Christians. Again, I don't agree with the way he attempted to make his point. However, his point is correct. One's Christian beliefs ought to impact and influence every aspect of one's life and that includes how one votes.

[ May 19, 2005, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.

Gene, I assume what was bolded is what you want to emphasize. I am curious in what sense you think Chan Chandler and the East Waynesville Church resorted to civil power to carry on its work?

Bible-boy, thanks for the link.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Bible-boy:
Is there more to the story?

Link to an article by one of Chan's SEBTS Professors

I article in the NY Times I thought did the best job of any I read. They did give both points of view from chruch members.

Jimmmy Carter is a democrat. I just can't imagine him supporting everything the democratic party stands for.

Anyone believe everything your pastor believes?

Anyone ever find a perfect church?

Evry pastor ought to know that he does not speak for every godly person.

Many know who W.A. Criswell is. He would have agreed with many of the abortionists as to when life begins. Clinton's pastor believed the same thing.

I have never found it of any use to preach politics. If the people are not sharing their faith they are dead and disobedient. If they are obedient and making disciples they have little problem knowing what scripture teaches.

If the church would mobilize its people the affect would be tremendous.

My own opinion is that I think the election was not so much about who was the better leader but about the lesser of two evils.

The US is still the leaderr in innovation but sends its innovation and technology to have it manufactured elsewhere. How is that biblical. Just yesterday I was talking with a man and he brought that up. He sees the Christians as voting for Bush and leaving America behind and exporting jobs. He sees that as unethical and the Christians supporting Bush enabling him ot do this.

It is not Christians who are leading big business. It is the greed eaters who will move their businesses from country to country in hopes of a feew more bucks. Just imagine how the non-Christian saw that scenario. The Christians voted for Bush and he is exporting jobs and technology. The man knows little about the Bible but sees it as an issue of not taking care of your own. There is also a push in some universities to become more diversified among the students so they are actively advertising for foreign students in their countries and giving them scholarships over the sons and daughters of Americans taxpayers.

At this time we are exporting American jobs and using American taxpayers money to educate foreigners.

Is that taking care of our own first. Imagine if the church ignored the biblical mandate of taking care of those of the household of faith first and began taking care of non-believrs first.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Liz Ward:
Craig, what were you doing to make it clear, in the early stages of the running when the candiudates were being chosen, that Kerry, being in favour both of abortion and homosexual marriage, was not an acceptable presidential candidate for those Christians who wanted to vote for the Democratic party? Anything at all? Or is the truth that in fact YOU BELIEVE in abortion and / or homosexual marriage?

Liz

Liz

Jesus never mentioned either abortion or homosexuality. No New Testament writers ever mentioned abortion. Paul made it explicitly clear that homosexuality is a horrendous sin, but equated it in seriousness with other horrendous sins. When I evaluate party platforms, I compare them first with what was important to Jesus, and secondly what was important to the apostles. That leaves abortion off the list all together.

My experience as a senior pastor taught me that the major contributing factor to homosexuality in men is a weak father figure in the lives of boys as they are growing up. The major contributing factor to the weak father figure is divorce, and the divorce rate among evangelical Christians in the United States has climbed 10 fold from 5% in 1970 to 51% in 2004 (even higher than among non-Christians). Another major contributing factor to the weak father figure is fathers who are too busy to be there for their sons. The homosexuality rate among the sons of evangelical pastors is alarming. Damning Kerry to hell from the pulpit is not the answer to homosexuality in the United States.

 

[Scott J]

That leaves abortion off the list all together.

Only if you operate on the erroneous assumption that a conceived child is not a life.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Bible-boy wrote,

Looks like to me you just preached a sermonette on politics.

I didn't preach it from the pulpit or claim tax exempt status under the 501(C)(3) section of the Internal Revenue Code.

If the text of Scriputre addresses a political issue then the preacher must address that political issue when he preaches that text.

The pastor is to address the issue as a Biblical issue; not as a political issue.

Jesus did not have to teach against abortion because His Father had already done that with a fairly short verse back in Ex. 20 that says "Thou shall not commit murder." This command includes the prohibition against the murder of unborn babies.

The Jewish community in which Jesus lived, preached, and taught did NOT regard abortion as murder or understand it to be prohibited in the Torah.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Bible-boy wrote,

In your argument above you have completely disregarded the areas of the Democratic Party's platform that fall woefully short of biblical requirements for Christians. Likewise, you focused all your attention solely on things about the Republican Party that could be interpreted as being anti-biblical. Yet, you negelected to point out where they do line up with the Scripture. You are not being intelectually honest. I am not calling you a liar here, just pointing out that you did not present a complete picture of either party. You used a select and microscopic view of each party in an attempt to present your argument which is not sound logic and makes this entire portion of your argument invalid.

Likewise, you attempted to use Scripture to make your point that the Republican Party is full of all kinds of sinfullness but provided no evidence to prove that they are doing what you indicate by the sins listed in the Scriptures quoted. It is all just accusation without evidence to support the claim.

Very true. I was parodying the grossly absurd Evangelical arguments against Kerry and the Democratic Party. The issue is NOT black or white—it is highly complex.

Anyway, I am not making an argument for one or the other political party. I am talking about the individual beliefs and the issues supported by individual candidates regardless of their party affiliation. If they don't line up with my Christian beliefs then I can not support them with my vote. That is what was at the heart of what Chan was trying to teach his former congregation.

I do not focus on one of two points—I focus on the overall teaching of the Bible and I find that the Democratic Party is in closer alignment with the teachings of the Bible than is the Republican Party. Both parties, however, come woefully short of upholding the values taught by our Savior. Pastors are to preach the Bible and leave party platforms in the political arena.

Again, I don't agree with the way he attempted to make his point. However, his point is correct. One's Christian beliefs ought to impact and influence every aspect of one's life and that includes how one votes.

Amen!

 

[Craigbythesea]

Only if you operate on the erroneous assumption that a conceived child is not a life.

I do not believe that a blastocyst is a human being—but I do believe that the people of Iraq that Bush has ordered to be killed are human beings. The “war” in Iraq is an illegal war, and thus it is murder—plain and simple!

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
The Jewish community in which Jesus lived, preached, and taught did NOT regard abortion as murder or understand it to be prohibited in the Torah.

Hello Craig,

Would you mind backing that statement up from the text of Scripture?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Would you mind backing that statement up from the text of Scripture?

The Scriptures are absolutely silent about abortions even though the ancient literature on abortions is extensive. Those who are familiar with this literature know that among both the ancient Jews and Christians, there has never been a consensus of opinion. It is, therefore, striking that neither Jesus nor the Apostles gave their teaching upon it. The only rational conclusion is that they did not see the issue as important as the issues upon which they did teach.

As for the Jewish perspective, going all the way back to Moses, I shall let the Jews speak for themselves, quoting from Daniel Eisenberg, MD, on a pro-life Jewish web site dealing abortions, including pre-embryo abortions.

While the practical aspects of the Jewish approach to abortion are relatively agreed upon, the exact source and nature of the prohibition is not. Depending on the origin of the prohibition, the application to the pre-embryo will differ. For instance, while most halachic authorities consider the prohibition of abortion to be from the Torah, a few consider it to be Rabbinic in nature. It is interesting to note that both the person who performs the abortion as well as the woman who voluntarily allows it to be done are culpable.[7]

The most obvious place to look for the Biblical prohibition would be from the aseret ha'dibrot (Ten Commandments), "Thou shalt not murder"[8]. This prohibition, called retzicha, usually carries a death penalty for transgression. Nevertheless, it appears the Torah itself teaches that killing a fetus is not equivalent to killing an adult. The Torah specifically states[9] that if in the course of an altercation with a third party, a person causes a woman to miscarry, he pays only monetary damages, while if the woman herself were to die of her injuries, the aggressor would receive a death sentence. Rabbi Yehuda Ashkenazi, in his commentary on the Code of Jewish Law,[10] reasons from here that a fetus is not a full-fledged person, since regarding the one who hits the woman, causing her to miscarry, ". . . he pays the value of the child and we do not label him a murderer, nor do we execute him. . .."

Notwithstanding the statement of Rabbi Ashkenazi, several poskim rule that abortion does represent murder, but without the punishment of death.[11] This law is similar to the law of one who kills a treife[12] (a specific type of terminally ill person), for whom there is a prohibition of murder, but no death penalty.[13] If the pre-embryo is included in this prohibition, then very little short of the pre-embryo posing a threat to someone's life could justify its destruction. An independent threat to the life of a third party would not suffice to allow destroying the pre-embryo.

The argument regarding whether a fetus is included in the prohibition of murder is complicated and fascinating.[14] Both positions garner support from two sides of the same page of the Talmud. Arachin 7a states that the court should strike the abdomen of a pregnant woman to cause a miscarriage prior to her execution.[15] The life of the fetus seems inconsequential in that discussion. On the other hand, Arachin 7b states that the Sabbath may be desecrated for the life of a fetus, something which may only be done to save a life, for pikuach nefesh. This apparent contradiction is dealt with at length in the responsic literature.

But is the pre-embryo included in this prohibition? That question is best answered by evaluating the next possible Biblical source for abortion. When Noah and his family exited the ark, G-d commanded them seven laws, which apply to all of humanity. The usual translation of one of these laws is: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed."[16] The Torah clearly demands capital punishment for murder. While this prohibition appears straightforward, there is a fascinating twist.

The Talmud[17] attempts to prove that non-Jews, who are not obligated by most of the Torah's commandments given at Mount Sinai, are forbidden to perform abortions.[18] The Talmud brings the literal translation of the previously mentioned passage (with slightly altered punctuation), which is: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, within man, his blood shall be shed." It then asks: "What is the meaning of 'man within man'? This can be said to refer to a fetus in its mother's womb." This prohibition, as part of the Noachide laws, would apply to all people, Jew and non-Jew alike, although for technical reasons, the degree of severity would differ.[19]

Once the "standard" prohibition of retzicha (murder) is separated from that of killing a fetus, we may investigate how this difference might affect the status of the pre-embryo. From the Talmudic discussion of abortion, we might expect that pre-embryos are not covered by the prohibition of abortion, because they have never been implanted. The rationale for such a decision is based on the concept that a pre-embryo left in its petri dish will die. It is not even potential life until it is implanted in an environment in which it can mature.

Others derive the prohibition of abortion from the Torah's proscription of inflicting damage to one's self or others (chavala)[20]. One may not wound one's self without a valid reason (such a medical necessity as in surgery). Obviously, one may not damage someone else.[21] As a result, some claim that the prohibition of abortion arises from the prohibition of the woman wounding herself[22], while others feel that the derivation is from the prohibition of wounding the fetus.[23] Unlike murder, for which only a threat to the mother's life[24] could justify killing the fetus, the rationale of chavala allows greater leeway in allowing its abrogation. Particularly, if the wounding of the mother is the prohibition, her consent to being wounded might be considered a determining factor. Whether this prohibition applies to a pre-embryo is open to debate (albeit my personal opinion is that the prohibition of chavala does not apply at this level).

The last possible prohibition to consider is the Torah's forbidding of "wasting seed" (hashchatat zera).[25] This is the main prohibition involved in questions of male contraception (for example, condoms) as well as the laws governing gathering of sperm for analysis, IVF, or artificial insemination. The prohibition forbids the "useless" emission or destruction of sperm that could create life. Some halachic authorities have ruled that excess sperm from fertility treatments may be destroyed. Further, the emission of semen for analysis has been permitted as part of the process of procreation in those suffering from infertility.[26] (Nevertheless, according to most poskim, this prohibition does not apply once fertilization has occurred.) Since this ban may be waived for the sake of saving a life,[27] it is conceivable that destroying a pre-embryo to save someone's life (or potentially treat severe illness; this would bring us into the complicated question of "v'chi omrim lo l'adam chatei bishvil sheyizke chaveirecha" -- do we allow one to sin in order to save his friend, -- an issue beyond the scope of this article) would be permitted as part of the mitzvah of pikuach nefesh.

Two positive Biblical commandments bear on the obligation to save life (the obligation of hatzala). The Torah requires that we "Do not stand idly by as your neighbor's blood is being shed."[28] This mitzvah is interpreted by the Talmud[29] to require one to expend positive effort and even money to protect an endangered person. Maimonides learns the whole commandment for a qualified individual to heal his neighbor from the obligation to return lost objects. Regarding a lost object, the Torah commands: ". . . and you should surely restore it to him."[30] From an extra letter in the sentence, Maimonides[31] derives that if one must return a lost object, he must certainly return someone's "lost" health.

And here is another Jewish perspective,

Conservative Movement Statement on the Permissibility of Abortion Committee of Jewish Law and Standards
Adopted on November 21, 1983

Jewish tradition is sensitive to the sanctity of life, and does not permit abortion on demand. However, it sanctions abortion under some circumstances because it does not regard the fetus as an autonomous person. This is based partly on the Bible (Exodus 21:22-23), which prescribes monetary damages when a person injures a pregnant woman, causing a miscarriage. The Mishnah (Ohalot 7:6) explicitly indicates that one is to abort a fetus if the continuation of pregnancy might imperil the life of the mother. Later authorities have differed as to how far we might go in defining the peril to the mother in order to justify abortion. The Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards takes the view that an abortion is justifiable if a continuation of pregnancy might cause the mother severe physical or psychological harm, or when the fetus is judged by competent medical opinion as severely defective. The fetus is a life in the process of development, and the decision to abort should never be taken lightly. Before reaching her final decision, the mother should consult with the father, other members of her family, her physician, her spiritual leader and any other person who can help her in assessing the many grave legal and moral issues involved.

I am quoting these Jewish sources because the people whom Jesus taught were Jews and it is important to consider what they would have believed about abortion.

 

[rlvaughn]

Many facts have gone unreported or obscured ...I keep waiting to read or to hear the fact that at the same time Chan called on members to repent for voting for John Kerry, he also called on members to repent if they had voted for two Republicans. - Waylan Owens

If Owens' is correct, then it seems that the media, deliberately or unconsciously, put a certain slant on the story that emphasized parties over issues.

But, does a local Baptist Church have the right to determine its own membership criteria, qualifications for leadership, and doctrinal positions? Do we stand for that right generally or only when we agree with them?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
-BFM 2000

What is so unclear about this? If we are going to affirm a confession of faith, then we need to uphold it... all of it.

Ask any leader in the SBC about when the last time was they disciplined a church?

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Would you mind backing that statement up from the text of Scripture?

The Scriptures are absolutely silent about abortions even though the ancient literature on abortions is extensive. Those who are familiar with this literature know that among both the ancient Jews and Christians, there has never been a consensus of opinion. It is, therefore, striking that neither Jesus nor the Apostles gave their teaching upon it. The only rational conclusion is that they did not see the issue as important as the issues upon which they did teach.

As for the Jewish perspective, going all the way back to Moses, I shall let the Jews speak for themselves, quoting from Daniel Eisenberg, MD, on a pro-life Jewish web site dealing abortions, including pre-embryo abortions.

While the practical aspects of the Jewish approach to abortion are relatively agreed upon, the exact source and nature of the prohibition is not. Depending on the origin of the prohibition, the application to the pre-embryo will differ. For instance, while most halachic authorities consider the prohibition of abortion to be from the Torah, a few consider it to be Rabbinic in nature. It is interesting to note that both the person who performs the abortion as well as the woman who voluntarily allows it to be done are culpable.[7]

The most obvious place to look for the Biblical prohibition would be from the aseret ha'dibrot (Ten Commandments), "Thou shalt not murder"[8]. This prohibition, called retzicha, usually carries a death penalty for transgression. Nevertheless, it appears the Torah itself teaches that killing a fetus is not equivalent to killing an adult. The Torah specifically states[9] that if in the course of an altercation with a third party, a person causes a woman to miscarry, he pays only monetary damages, while if the woman herself were to die of her injuries, the aggressor would receive a death sentence. Rabbi Yehuda Ashkenazi, in his commentary on the Code of Jewish Law,[10] reasons from here that a fetus is not a full-fledged person, since regarding the one who hits the woman, causing her to miscarry, ". . . he pays the value of the child and we do not label him a murderer, nor do we execute him. . .."

Notwithstanding the statement of Rabbi Ashkenazi, several poskim rule that abortion does represent murder, but without the punishment of death.[11] This law is similar to the law of one who kills a treife[12] (a specific type of terminally ill person), for whom there is a prohibition of murder, but no death penalty.[13] If the pre-embryo is included in this prohibition, then very little short of the pre-embryo posing a threat to someone's life could justify its destruction. An independent threat to the life of a third party would not suffice to allow destroying the pre-embryo.

The argument regarding whether a fetus is included in the prohibition of murder is complicated and fascinating.[14] Both positions garner support from two sides of the same page of the Talmud. Arachin 7a states that the court should strike the abdomen of a pregnant woman to cause a miscarriage prior to her execution.[15] The life of the fetus seems inconsequential in that discussion. On the other hand, Arachin 7b states that the Sabbath may be desecrated for the life of a fetus, something which may only be done to save a life, for pikuach nefesh. This apparent contradiction is dealt with at length in the responsic literature.

But is the pre-embryo included in this prohibition? That question is best answered by evaluating the next possible Biblical source for abortion. When Noah and his family exited the ark, G-d commanded them seven laws, which apply to all of humanity. The usual translation of one of these laws is: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed."[16] The Torah clearly demands capital punishment for murder. While this prohibition appears straightforward, there is a fascinating twist.

The Talmud[17] attempts to prove that non-Jews, who are not obligated by most of the Torah's commandments given at Mount Sinai, are forbidden to perform abortions.[18] The Talmud brings the literal translation of the previously mentioned passage (with slightly altered punctuation), which is: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, within man, his blood shall be shed." It then asks: "What is the meaning of 'man within man'? This can be said to refer to a fetus in its mother's womb." This prohibition, as part of the Noachide laws, would apply to all people, Jew and non-Jew alike, although for technical reasons, the degree of severity would differ.[19]

Once the "standard" prohibition of retzicha (murder) is separated from that of killing a fetus, we may investigate how this difference might affect the status of the pre-embryo. From the Talmudic discussion of abortion, we might expect that pre-embryos are not covered by the prohibition of abortion, because they have never been implanted. The rationale for such a decision is based on the concept that a pre-embryo left in its petri dish will die. It is not even potential life until it is implanted in an environment in which it can mature.

Others derive the prohibition of abortion from the Torah's proscription of inflicting damage to one's self or others (chavala)[20]. One may not wound one's self without a valid reason (such a medical necessity as in surgery). Obviously, one may not damage someone else.[21] As a result, some claim that the prohibition of abortion arises from the prohibition of the woman wounding herself[22], while others feel that the derivation is from the prohibition of wounding the fetus.[23] Unlike murder, for which only a threat to the mother's life[24] could justify killing the fetus, the rationale of chavala allows greater leeway in allowing its abrogation. Particularly, if the wounding of the mother is the prohibition, her consent to being wounded might be considered a determining factor. Whether this prohibition applies to a pre-embryo is open to debate (albeit my personal opinion is that the prohibition of chavala does not apply at this level).

The last possible prohibition to consider is the Torah's forbidding of "wasting seed" (hashchatat zera).[25] This is the main prohibition involved in questions of male contraception (for example, condoms) as well as the laws governing gathering of sperm for analysis, IVF, or artificial insemination. The prohibition forbids the "useless" emission or destruction of sperm that could create life. Some halachic authorities have ruled that excess sperm from fertility treatments may be destroyed. Further, the emission of semen for analysis has been permitted as part of the process of procreation in those suffering from infertility.[26] (Nevertheless, according to most poskim, this prohibition does not apply once fertilization has occurred.) Since this ban may be waived for the sake of saving a life,[27] it is conceivable that destroying a pre-embryo to save someone's life (or potentially treat severe illness; this would bring us into the complicated question of "v'chi omrim lo l'adam chatei bishvil sheyizke chaveirecha" -- do we allow one to sin in order to save his friend, -- an issue beyond the scope of this article) would be permitted as part of the mitzvah of pikuach nefesh.

Two positive Biblical commandments bear on the obligation to save life (the obligation of hatzala). The Torah requires that we "Do not stand idly by as your neighbor's blood is being shed."[28] This mitzvah is interpreted by the Talmud[29] to require one to expend positive effort and even money to protect an endangered person. Maimonides learns the whole commandment for a qualified individual to heal his neighbor from the obligation to return lost objects. Regarding a lost object, the Torah commands: ". . . and you should surely restore it to him."[30] From an extra letter in the sentence, Maimonides[31] derives that if one must return a lost object, he must certainly return someone's "lost" health.

And here is another Jewish perspective,

Conservative Movement Statement on the Permissibility of Abortion Committee of Jewish Law and Standards
Adopted on November 21, 1983

Jewish tradition is sensitive to the sanctity of life, and does not permit abortion on demand. However, it sanctions abortion under some circumstances because it does not regard the fetus as an autonomous person. This is based partly on the Bible (Exodus 21:22-23), which prescribes monetary damages when a person injures a pregnant woman, causing a miscarriage. The Mishnah (Ohalot 7:6) explicitly indicates that one is to abort a fetus if the continuation of pregnancy might imperil the life of the mother. Later authorities have differed as to how far we might go in defining the peril to the mother in order to justify abortion. The Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards takes the view that an abortion is justifiable if a continuation of pregnancy might cause the mother severe physical or psychological harm, or when the fetus is judged by competent medical opinion as severely defective. The fetus is a life in the process of development, and the decision to abort should never be taken lightly. Before reaching her final decision, the mother should consult with the father, other members of her family, her physician, her spiritual leader and any other person who can help her in assessing the many grave legal and moral issues involved.

I am quoting these Jewish sources because the people whom Jesus taught were Jews and it is important to consider what they would have believed about abortion.

</font>[/QUOTE]Hey Craig,

We are starting to get way off the original topic of this thread. Our discussion of abortion and/or homosexuality is very interesting from both and an ethical and an evangelistic standpoint. I would love to continue the discussion. However, I think we should start a new thread topic for that purpose and leave this one for the discussion of the original topic.

I have some really good material on the topic of abortion on file at my house. I'll try to run home and get it tonight and start a new thread in this same General Baptist Discussions Forum.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Hey Craig,

We are starting to get way off the original topic of this thread.

I could not agree more

Our discussion of abortion and/or homosexuality is very interesting from both and an ethical and an evangelistic standpoint. I would love to continue the discussion. However, I think we should start a new thread topic for that purpose and leave this one for the discussion of the original topic.

Amen! However, I may decide not to participate in the new thread myself. I firmly believe that homosexual acts are a damnable sin; but my thoughts on abortion are not nearly so clear. I will probably read what you post and pray as to whether or not I should post any replies.

I have some really good material on the topic of abortion on file at my house. I'll try to run home and get it tonight and start a new thread in this same General Baptist Discussions Forum.

I very much appreciate the spirit of Christ that is manifest in your posts and I look forward to reading what you post. May God richly bless you.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
Good riddance to bad rubbish, as the saying goes.

I would hope that you are not calling a pastor, someone who God has allowed to be put into that position, garbage.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Jesus never mentioned either abortion or homosexuality. No New Testament writers ever mentioned abortion.

Jesus never mentioned the holocaust, rape, taking drugs, or racism. I guess these must be allright according to this standard.

 

[gb93433]

Jesus never mentioned a toilet or toilet paper either.