Abortion by Sex| Read Then Weep http://ow.ly/bnSzN
Tag Archives: abortion
Read this is you are appauled by “Abortion by Sex.” This is an excerpt*
THE ABOLITION OF TRUTH AND MORALITY
The basic problem of the Christians in this country in the last eighty years or so, in regard to society and in regard to government, is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals.
They have very gradually become disturbed over permissiveness, pornography, the public schools, the breakdown of the family, and finally abortion. But they have not seen this as a totality – each thing being a part, a symptom, of a much larger problem. They have failed to see that all of this has come about due to a shift in world view – that is, through a fundamental change in the overall way people think and view the world and life as a whole. This shift has been away from a world view that was at least vaguely Christian in the people’s memory (even if they were not individually Christian) toward something completely different – for a world view based upon the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its present form by impersonal chance. They have not seen that this world view has taken the place of the one that had previously dominated northern European culture, including the United States, which was at least Christian in memory, even if the individuals were not individually Christian.
These two world views stand as totals incomplete antithesis to each other in content and also in their natural results – including sociological and governmental results, and specifically including law.
It is not that these two world views are different only in how they understand the nature of reality and existence. They also inevitably produce totally different results. The operative word here is inevitably. It is not just that they happen to bring forth different results, but it is absolutely inevitable that there will bring forth different results.
Why have the Christians been so slow to understand this? There are various reasons, but the central one is a defective view of Christianity. This has its roots in the Pietistic movement under the leadership of P. J. Spener in the seventeenth century. Pietism began as a healthy protest against formalism and a too abstract Christianity. But it had a deficient, “platonic” spirituality. It was platonic in the sense that Pietism made a sharp division between the “spiritual” and “material” world – giving little, or no, importance to the “material” world. The totality of human existence was not afforded a proper place. In particular, it neglected the intellectual dimension of Christianity.
Christianity and spirituality were shut up to a small, isolated part of life. The totality of reality was ignored by the pietistic thinking. Let me quickly say that in one sense Christians should be Pietists in that Christianity is not just a set of doctrines, even the right documents. Every doctrine is in some way to have an effect upon our lives. But the poor side of Pietism and its resulting platonic outlook have really been a tragedy not only in many peoples individual lives, but in our total culture.
True spirituality covers all of reality. There are things the Bible tells us as absolutes, which are sinful – which do not conform to the character of God. But aside from these the Lordship of Christ covers all of life and all of life equally. It is not only that true spirituality covers all of life, but it covers all parts of the spectrum of life equally. In this sense there is nothing concerning reality that is not spiritual.
Related to this, it seems to me, in fact that many Christians do not mean what I mean when I say Christianity is true, or Truth. They are Christians and they believe in, let us say, the truth of creation, the truth of the virgin birth, the truth of Christ’s miracles, Christ substitutionary death, and His coming again. But they stopped there with these and other individual truths.
When I say Christianity is true I mean it is true to total reality – the total of what is, beginning with the central reality, the objective existence of the personal – infinite God. Christianity is not just a series of truth but Truth – Truth about all of reality. And the holding to that Truth intellectually – and then in some poor way living upon that Truth, the Truth of what is – brings forth not only certain personal results, but also governmental and legal results.
Now let’s go over to the other side – to those who hold the materialistic final reality concept. They saw the complete and total difference between the two portions more quickly than Christians. There were the Huxley’s, George Bernard Shaw (1856 – 1950), and many others who understood a long time ago that there are two total concepts of reality, and that it was one total reality against the other and not just a set of isolated and separated differences. The Humanist Manifesto I, published in 1933, showed the crystal clarity of their comprehension of the totality of what is involved. It was to our shame that Julian (1887 – 1975) and Aldus Huxley (1894 – 1963), and others like them, understood much earlier than Christians that these two world views are two total concepts of reality standing in antithesis to each other. We should be utterly ashamed that this is the fact.
They understood not only that there were two totally different concepts but that they would bring forth two totally different conclusions, both for individuals and for society. What we must understand is that the two world views really do bring forth an inevitable certainty not only personal differences, but also total differences in regard to society, government, and law.
There is no way to mix these two total world views. They are separate entities that cannot be synthesized. Yet we must say that liberal theology, the very essence of it from its beginning, is an attempt to mix the two. Liberal theology tried to bring forth a mixture soon after the Enlightenment and has tried to synthesize these two views right up to our own day. But in each case when the chips are down, these liberal theologians have always come down, as naturally as a ship coming into home port, on the side of the nonreligious humanist. They do this with certainty because of what their liberal theology really is is humanism expressed in theological terms instead of philosophic or other terms.
“An example of coming down naturally on the side of nonreligious humanist is the article by Charles Hawthorne in the January 21, 1981, issue of The Christian Century, pages 42 – 45. It is, “Concerning Abortion, an Attempt at a Rational View.” He begins by equating the fact that the human fetus is alive with the fact that mosquitoes and bacteria are also alive. That is, he begins to assume that human life is not unique. He then continues by saying that even after the baby is born it is not fully human until its social relations develop (though he says the infant does have some primitive social relations an unborn fetus does not have). His conclusion is, “Nevertheless, I have little sympathy with the idea that infanticide is just another form of murder. Persons who are already functionally persons in the full sense have more important rights than infants.” He then, logically, takes the next step: “Does this distinction apply to the killing of a hopelessly senile person or one in a permanent coma? For me it does.” No atheistic humanist could sat it with greater clarity. It is significant at this point to note that many denominations controlled by liberal theology have come out, publicly and strongly, in favor of abortion.
Doctor Martin E. Marty is one of the respected, theologically liberal spokesmen. He is an associate editor all of The Christian Century and Fairfax M. Cohen distinguished service professor at the University of Chicago Divinity school. He is often quoted in the secular press as a spokesman for “mainstream” Christianity. In a Christian Century article in January 7 – 14, 1981, issue (pages 13 – 17 with an additional on page 31), he has as an article entitled: “Dear Republicans: A Letter on Humanisms.” In it he brilliantly confuses the terms “being human,” humanism, the humanities and being “in love with humanity.” Why does he do this? As a historian he knows the distinction of these words, but when one is done with these pages the poor reader who knows no better is left with the eradication of the total distinction between the Christian position and the humanist one. I admire the cleverness of the article… (Quoted from The Christian Manifesto by Francis Schaeffer)
*after which I hope you buy the book. (It can be purchased at Amazon or other fine book stores.)
“A Christian Manifesto” Chapter One
by Francis Shaeffer
NOTE: read these to see he was not exagerating!
The Communist Manifesto, 1848.
Humanist Manifesto I 1933
Humanist Manifesto II 1973.
“In a victory for Christians everywhere, Planned Parenthood has decided to end its legal attack on Arizona’s Abortion Consent Act.”
“A woman’s right to make a fully informed choice is more important than Planned Parenthood’s desire to profit from abortions.”
“The Arizona Abortion Consent Act prohibits non-physicians from performing surgical abortions, provides for women to receive full and accurate information at least 24 hours before an abortion, protects health-care workers who object to performing or facilitating abortions, and requires notarized parental consent for minors seeking abortions.”
“The appeal in the case, Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Horne, was filed on behalf of legislators, doctors, and numerous organizations who all sought to intervene in the case to defend the act’s protections. The Court of Appeals granted intervention to most of the parties.
Above are quotes from the article.