I identified as prolife my entire life but my personal values were actually abolitionism. It wasn’t until I heard about abolitionism from Russel’s videos that I realized I was in the wrong camp. I now talk to my other prolife friends to make sure they know the difference. Many don’t. Abolition of abortion is the only way to glorify God and obey His Word.
It seems like people want to make this a complicated issue but it's really not. A child in the womb is a human being, made in the image of God, deserving of all the protections under law as everyone else. Apply the laws that exist for murder to all murders including abortion. Anything other than that is unjust.
The difference is that women don't see the baby as a human being and the fear of pregnancy/parenthood/whatever situation they are in that makes them want to have an abortion supersedes any sort of connection they would feel toward the unborn baby. I had a miscarriage last year at around 6 weeks. I never saw the baby on ultrasound because it was too early. I didn't feel any sort of connection yet either, because I didn't feel like I had a human being inside me. And this is not uncommon. Many of my pro-life friends said they only realized they carried a human being starting in the second trimester, when they could feel the baby move. So no, a woman having an abortion is not equivalent to someone straight up killing a born person that they can see with their own eyes.
@@LykaLo No one cares if you "see" the baby as a human being or not. Your feelings are irrelevant. You kill the baby and we put you in jail. That's justice.
@@LykaLoAnd this is part of the reason equal protection laws are important. As the Bible says the law is a tutor. The incremental laws are part of what leads people to believe that abortions are ok early on. Also, how much a miscarriage affects a woman has to do with her knowledge of when life begins, how long she knew she was pregnant, & if she wanted to be pregnant.
@@LykaLoit's still equivalent even if YOU don't see. Ignorance doesn't excuse crime. If you are pregnant then you know there is human inside you even if you don't FEEL it yet. Your feelings do not adjust legal rights.
What form of law is described here? Deuteronomy 18:10 LSB - “There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire," There is no room for incrementalism in this matter. Obey the word.
Why is it that they cannot understand that the bills for abolition cannot and do not modify the legal consequences for murder. The bills are equal protection. That means, murder is murder for all humans. Every state has their own set of penalties regarding the crime of murder. It's a separate fight. A worthy fight, but separate. This was Jeff's point with Sam.
So, if a state has no death penalty, Russell is arguing that the death penalty must be enacted alongside/before the abolition bill for justice to be established? Correct? I am struggling with this because lots of states don't have the death penalty although, I think, and it seems even harder to get them to add it. Yet, biblically, a murderer is to be executed. We don't not do things just because it's hard. The legislative system may show mercy, but justice must be established. David committed adultery with Bathsheba and God took the life of their child instead of David's. God still enacted justice. Did I understand Russell correctly?
@@beksc9209 No. He would argue that they are separate. Immediately pass equal protection everywhere, federally if possible. You can work at the same time to update the punishments for specific crimes. They are two separate efforts. No equal protection bill touches on specific punishments. They only extend what it means to be protected under the law to unborn humans.
@@elijahmthompson2313 Google how laws work. Been working with legislation for a while now and would also argue scripture contends we don’t criminalize people but rather actions. Your argument is based on a word fallacy.
@@WiseInspector open to discussing this Mike, but the definition of "criminalize" seems to indicate it is for the act and the actors. Im still searching different definitions to find if there are any that do not include the actors.
@@elijahmthompson2313 Brother the way laws work are that they punish actions. For instance a woman is not automatically a criminal because she is a woman, she becomes a criminal when she acts in disobedience to a law, she transgresses it. Every definition I have ever seen talks about criminalizing the act of preborn homicide not the woman. To make a whole subset of people illegal is nonsensical and does not exist. It is dangerous to play into the prolife mischaracterization of what we are aiming to do. We are aiming very specifically to abolish the act of prenatal homicide by making the act of prenatal homicide against the law and punishing all culpable for that act. Every piece of legislation we have put forward in Ohio is criminalizing the act not a person. I have worked on the legislation in Ohio, I have read almost every bill put out and not one of them criminalizes a person because it is not how legislation works. I hope this helps. I address this very direct because this is an issue among abolitionist, we need to be precise with our legal language or risk not being taken serious or misrepresented even more by legislators that a legally trained.
Great discussion. I was definitely in the smashmouth incrementalist camp just a year or two ago, so I think patience with brothers is absolutely essential in this conversation. But I still think it's fair to point out logical inconsistencies: 1 - Because men are guilty of X, women shouldn't be punished for Y. 2 - Because their laws are _really_ unjust, it's okay for our laws to be _kinda_ unjust. 3 - God will approve of our efforts because our intentions are good even though we promote laws that are bad. Abolition is both biblically and logically sound.
You guys are doing great things by having this conversation out loud. It is iron sharpening iron, and a beautiful example of how Christians can strongly disagree, but in a way that is aimed at building each other up.
Thankful that you folks had Russ back. Abolition is a symptom of obedience. It’s a symptom of Christianity. And so is honest and thoughtful discussion among brothers. The only incrementalism we need is more and more folks heading these discussions and coming over to abolition. Thank you for they opportunity to have this discussion on your platform.
Thanks for this conversation. Really commend you guys for wrestling through these issues with Russel. I came away more affirmed in abolitionism but great respect towards the way in which you guys were coming at it from immense scrutiny. This is an altogether good thing to do to take reasoning and drive it to the test. Great job.
44:44 in the Sanctuary City the man slayer/murder is judged by a judge and he is either acquitted or put to death if found guilty according to the law.
I think the main thing that the host was missing is that the "avenger of blood" in Numbers 35 was the one to enact justice for the death and not some vengeful vigilantly.
Abolitionist: We must obey God's clear commands and seek to establish justice and just punishments for murder! Incrementalist: Yeah, but what about this iffy connection with more obscure laws? Isn't it therefore wise to allow some murder to go unpunished for now? Abolitionist: But those laws actually reiterate how heinous murder is in God's eyes, so... no.
I literally have all notifications turned on, set a reminder and still couldn't find this video. I have been subscribed ever since the debate with russel and a pro life guy yet when i search on UA-cam "the standard" nothing came up. Took me quite a while to find this. UA-cam did a pretty good job hiding it
Laci & Conner's law calls the unborn humans and says if you kill a pregnant woman you get a separate murder charge for the unborn, they are a legal victim. There's just a clause in there that gives mothers "special murder rights" as Russell rightly puts it. You don't need an exegesis Bible study to know God's opinion on baby decapitation.
I believe this would be analogous, and I would love someone to consider this from the perspective of incrementalism and let me know your thoughts. In Daniel chapter 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego know from what is written in verse 11 that if they do not bow down to the golden image, they will be thrown into the fiery furnace. More importantly they knew from the second commandment given to Israel at Mount Sinai that they are to bow down to no other gods. They also know that the only true God values the preservation of innocent life. My question is this: despite knowing that bowing down to the statue would be an abomination to Yahweh and a breaking of his commandments, should not these three men have instead sought to preserve their lives, especially given their positions of authority and the good they could continue to do for God and God’s people in Babylon? After all, they knew this statue was no real god and so in good conscience could they not say they were still worshiping Yahweh and yet also appease Nebuchadnezzar? They knew they did not have the “votes“ (if you will) to remain faithful to Yahweh and yet also preserve their own lives and by proxy the lives of God’s people in Babylon by remaining in their positions of authority (Governor/Senate/House seats if you will). So again I ask, were they wrong to remain faithful to God and to trust him to either preserve their lives and the lives of their people or to not? In the context of abortion, I do not see how the incrementalist must not, at least in principle, also agree that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego would have been better off to preserve their own lives and their positions of authority despite being a “little” unfaithful to the commandments of the one true God. I wonder if we too many times pre-suppose that God prefers our hope that a few more humans might be born (heartbeat bills, etc.) as opposed to preferring his people remain faithful, trustful, and obedient to his commandments. In any case, I appreciate your thoughts in addressing this specific question.
In regards to Numbers 35, just reading that chapter itself shows that the, "avenger of blood" was not a vigilantly but a bringer of justice. When the murderer was stoned, the "avenger of blood" was related to the victim somehow and would be the first to cast a stone against the murderer. So if the "manslayer" did not reach the town in time or left before the next priest took over, the "avenger of blood" was not murdering the "manslayer" but was bringing justice for the murder of the victim.
1:22:45 - 1:25:12 is the FINISHER and he had scriptures that clearly states to not do this literal thing. Thanks Russ! Keep fighting! Why do we let the enemy get us off track to disobey ! Let’s just obey and accept the consequences. We have to do better yall
He way too committed to a devil's advocate approach. Seems to me to be a poor podcasting habit to press against whatever position is being brought forward, no matter how bad; a commitment to opposition instead of truth-seeking. It was especially frustrating with tripling down on illogical hypotheticals instead of discussing real-world scenarios playing out. So stuck in the abstract that falls apart when the intellectual blinders come off.
God says, "Do this", and man says, "I can't because I abdicated and made the woman responsible but somehow I still feel responsible when she spills her baby's blood, because of the abdication, it feels wrong to put her away for murder, so how can I abdicate more. Maybe if we end the man's vote and forbid men from war and government. Will that be enough abdication for men to not feel guilty when the woman chooses child sacrifice?
I think once the text on the sanctuary city was read and not just talked about, it was clear it did not support incrementalism. No hate to any non-abolitionist but I think it’s clear and I pray God moves all in that direction
I've paused it at 49:32 and want to make a quick note about Numbers 35. In the video, there seems to be a misunderstanding between the speakers about what the text is saying, and I think Daniel's point is key. I think Daniel is saying, according that text, if one person murderers another, than the murderer has forfeited his life. So his executors are not murderers, assuming they follow due process; but if someone commits accidental manslaughter, his life is still forfeit *unless* he follows a specific procedure by going to live in a different city. So if the avenger of blood kills the manslaughterer, the avenger of blood is NOT committing murder. He's carrying out justice. Another way to think of it is, the consequence for murder is death. The consequence for manslaughter is *either* death or living in the city of refuge. So if the manslaughterer doesn't stay in the city of refuge when he's supposed to, then his life is forfeit due to the blood he has shed. This is NOT God allowing for murder; He's allowing for capital punishment of the manslaughterer if the manslaughter hasn't "chosen option b" by going to the city of refuge.
Sorry for the rudeness, but you guys are called The Standard, meaning God’s Standard, which is his Word. Not your standard, or society’s standard, or today’s standard. Even if there is some mild amount of truth behind the way God wrote Laws in order to deal with the hearts of Israel, that does not mean that we can do the same. God has giving us our Standard to follow, which is to not write iniquitous decrees.
This is a hard pill to swallow especially for those of us born in the 1960s until now because society has made this practice OK and our religious leaders have caved to societal and political forces. It's just a clump of cells... No. It's a human life. It's also interesting to have watched The Standards lowered in the military and why they're 45k below their typical recruiting numbers. I know it's not the same, but standards exist to maintain the bare minimum expectation.
@@DeSmith-o4b it’s not any better for generations born since the 60’s either. Your right that the church has had a moral failing and fear has gripped many of us. Being unwilling to proclaim the truth or dismantle lies has done extreme damage to our culture. Our church needs men that are willing to be like the profits in the Old Testament, and our country needs the law to be a tutor again.
51:55 The California Pro-Life Catechism: Question 1: When can you murder a baby? Answer: When the baby does not have a detectable heartbeat or or can feel pain. Question 2: Is abortion murder? Answer: No. Abortion is healthcare that ought to be regulated and kept safe women.
Boys, we got a problem with Numbers 35... Lots of respect for Joshua and for Toby Sumpter (you guys are a tremendous encouragement), but they should really exegete the text in Numbers before hanging so much on it. I don't mean that disrespectfully, but I'm afraid this example cannot support the weight they're trying to make it hold. Daniel nailed it with his exegesis of Numbers 35 at around 44:50, and I think that should be taken seriously. If we understand what the text is saying, it cannot be used to justify what the incrementalist is wanting to make it say. The question is, "can we support a decree that acquits the guilty and positively legislates that we can do something God hates". Joshua and Toby cite this example to show that God "regulates murder, which is something He hates". You're right, boys... He does hate murder, but the blood avenger is not committing murder in the text, and is nowhere in the text acquitted of murder. This text is actually a pretty air-tight argument for due process and the immediate punishment of convicted murderers. The blood avenger is, in this system, the deputized individual appointed by God to bear the sword. It is not as if it is a matter of vigilante justice run wild that is being regulated by God. He's the guy that is supposed to execute the murderer... he's deputized to take his life. THE BLOOD AVENGER IS NOT COMMITTING MURDER. He is carrying out justice. The text is ensuring that the manslayer is given due process (a trial in the city of refuge) and protected from being executed unjustly if it was an unintentional killing. But, if the man were convicted of murder, he is handed right back to the blood avenger for justice to be carried out. Because remaining in the city of refuge for the appointed time is the manslayers punishment for the unintentional killing, if he evades that punishment and leaves the city, his punishment for that (leaving the city and evading his punishment) is execution by the deputized blood avenger. The text forbids the blood avenger from murdering the man, and it forbids God's people from acquitting the guilty murderer. If we were to apply this to the discussion in a way that was analogous, we would be questioning what to do with a woman who had killed her child and we would be asking "how does this text instruct us?"... Did she kill the baby on accident? If so, what do we do with someone who kills a person on accident? Did she kill the baby on purpose with malice aforethought? If so, what do we do with someone who kills a person intentionally with malice aforethought? It seems abundantly clear that if we take our ques from this text, we would give the woman a fair trial and, if she is found guilty of murder, we would hand her over to the deputized party to bear the sword and carry out justice. The text would be an indictment against failing to give her due process, and an indictment against failing to carry out justice. It makes no sense to try and make this text prove that God regulates murder and gives us permission to do the same. It's the exact opposite. I appreciate the sharpening, guys... I've benefitted tremendously from the discussion and look forward to working toward greater clarity and unity.
So glad to see someone break down Numbers 35 like you did. I paused the video and just read the chapter and saw how flawed the host's thinking was in regards to that chapter.
The murder they are describing when discussing the topic on the avenger of blood in the Old Testament is an accidental death which would be the equivalent of man slaughter today. Abortion is an intentional murder. The Old Testament called for capital punishment against premeditated murder which is what abortion is. They are making a categorical error when equivocating between accidental murder and intentional murder.
You have misunderstood the argument here. The manslaughter part wasn’t the murder that God regulated, it was in the situation, where the person who accidentally killed, somebody would be killed by that person‘s brother if the manslaughterer didn’t make it to the city of refuge. In that case, it would be a premeditated murder that got regulated.
@@TheStandardcastit actually wouldn't be premeditated murder. The avenger of blood would be justified in God's law. He would be under duty to hunt down the manslayer. However, because God recognizes the fact that it was sometimes unintentional, he gives him a hard, but merciful way out. He has to leave his home and go to a city of refuge. If the avenger of blood caught him and killed him, he is specifically said to NOT be guilty of innocent blood. "and the avenger of blood finds him outside the boundaries of his city of refuge, and the avenger of blood kills the manslayer, he shal not be guilty of blood." You kept saying it was regulating murder, but the word of God specifically says this isn't murder. He is not guilty of blood, or as some translations have it, he is not a murderer. Again, this shows how seriously God takes the shedding of innocent blood, even if it is unintentional. God leaves an escape for him, one that is hard and difficult, and not without danger, where even if he leaves his imprisonment he could be killed. This argues the opposite of what smashmouth incrementalists need it to argue. It needs to be God relaxing the consequences of the shedding of innocent blood. God no where does that.
I somewhat believe in incrementalism, but I think it's in a slightly different way than it's spoken of here. I believe abortion should be outlawed entirely, unborn babies should have equal protection under the _federal_ law - where I think we need to move in increments is when it comes to the mother. Prosecute the doctors, they already know _exactly_ what they're doing, but a lot of women don't. Not that it's an excuse, in this age of information it is not, but we can still do a better job of combating the lies of the abortion industry. Before throwing women in prison, we need to properly & thoroughly teach people so they understand fetal development & the different abortion procedures - I think just that alone will save a lot of lives. And we don't have to wait for a federal bill criminalizing abortion to finally pass to do that either, we can do that right now; we need to be advocating for better education at the same time as advocating to abolish abortion.
59:00 - That argument right there can easily clear all women from dumping their newborn into the trashcan cause the father wasn't there so it is not fully her fault.
Wisdom isn’t nice. She mocks when terror strikes scoffers and fools. She laughs at their calamity. But Wisdom is kind. Russell isn’t nice. But he is kind.
Ya did lose me as a subscriber today. Because of the lack of Utilizing the Holy Word of GOD (although, the Ginger Viking should continue pressing on in That Holy Word!!-), while talking like GOD Is unjust and just misrepresenting HIM, and acting like its Script. i hope to be back to chec Ya out some more. But, i hope to hear from Ya on tgose couple questions; verrry Genuine and i care with all i am. Viking in the middle -well Done! Appreciate all of Y-o-u, Gentlemen. i had wondered why Toby wouldnt debate EAN but came here! Keep up the Good Work, persevering till the End with Great Endurance! Grace, Peace, n LOVE in The HOLY KING
If I'm gonna err on one side, I'm gonna err on the abolitionist side. I cannot pretend that God cares about babies less than me, and thus I have to assume he would make the incremental approach much more obvious in the Bible. Instead there are a couple very fringe cases like divorce and blood avengers. Whereas in the Bible you have tons of verses about justice, unequal weights, God's love for the vulnerable and children etc.
46:27 sorry, I don’t know names here. Mustache man is using a definition of murder that is not biblical. Murder is an unlawful intentional taking of human life.
Question: At my church I lead a women’s group called regeneration. We often talk about abortion as we move through the 12 steps and healing. Abortion is also a part of my personal testimony. However, if I use the actual language of abortion (killing, pulling, cutting, murder, etc) I am admonished by my higher ups. They do not want me using this language. Any advice on this? I feel like my testimony is being watered down and I’m being encouraged to tell a relatively false version of it.
34:10 The Kinsmen Redeemer is not a murderer even if he kills a an innocent man slayer while chasing them to the city of refuge. The Kinsmen Redeemer is the sword bearing Executive of government God established in Israel. To say that the Kinsmen Redeemer is a murderer to say that state and federal executioners in the United States today are murderers. Sometimes innocent people die at the hands of the state and that doesn’t necessarily mean a murder happened.
Sounded like Russell won over the host who was indecisive at beginning and had to leave (sorry forgot name) His last comment about 3% and then said Russell gained one more! I hope so!
Honestly, I am not sure the death penalty vote is the same issue, if you were to take that viewpoint to the logical extreme, you would have to vote no on every single bill out there that fell short of every commandment given to us, instead of tackling them command by command. If the bill in commie land stated that abortion would be considered murder, and the murderer would face the full extent of the law in regards to murder, that is a win on the abortion front, now you need to tackle the unjust law of allowing murderers to not be executed for their crime. Russell, if you took that same approach, wouldn't you have to vote no on even the strictest of abolitionist bill if it also didn't change the law to also give the death penalty to kidnappers, or people engaging in bestiality etc.
We shouldn't use God's perfect law to excuse going against God's perfect law. If He gave further instructions in one law, we can't then hijack those instructions and use them to justify our own form of righteousness.
ua-cam.com/video/ZqQcRJR8HxY/v-deo.html - Babies are the fruit of two, but the murder of a human doesn't necessarily involve both or even either the mother and father. They are doing the same thing the pro-choice side does. Just cherry pick the situation to the extreme so it best fits their agenda. That's for the judge. The default should be: murderers should be tried for murder. Full stop. Easy enough? If the father was involved, prosecute them. If the mother was involved, prosecute them. If neither? Well, neither. If the father didn't do it, don't wag your finger and say "it takes two to tango". If the father didn't do it, they aren't going to be tried for the crime. Adultery has nothing to do with murder. This sounds exactly like pro-choice rhetoric.
43:03 we have a government in America and there’s a government in Tennessee that has an executive branch. People in the United States of America should not go practice the act of being an avenger of blood because we have a government that has an executive branch and bears the sword on our behalf.
¿So, "the evil is more wicked" against someone chopping off Your legs, compared to chopping off mine!?! i heard you say that you believe that, but We are CHRISTians, and must Hold Fast to The STANDARD!!-) Explain this and wherebits coming from -i do not see it in Holy Scripture. What i do see Is that "Made in the Image of GOD" We are indeed, knit Together in Our Mothers womb". What i did there to show the value of Humans was use GOD'S Holy Word as my actual Standard. Rather than having my own ideas and finding ways to make them fit in the Bible, i reasoned from What's Revealed -starting there and following the same.
The government God established in Israel had the Kinsmen Redeemer as an Executive arm of the government. Avengers of blood were never committing murder according to God’s law.
The only thing I disagree with Russell on is the idea that you should catch a Petri dish over a born baby. Joshua makes a good point that suffering adds to the wickedness, and our impulse as believers should be justice, which factors in important things like suffering.
I think he was arguing that we have been brainwashed into giving more value to one than the other, or that what makes the act wrong is pain and not the taking of a life when before God both are of same value and should receive the same justice. You can see this way of thinking even with miscarriages.
@@mamimalista7924 Sure but one experiencing both pain AND death means that we ought to prioritize it in that sort of hypothetical situation more than the one just experiencing death. Doesn’t mean one is more valuable than the other, but we can and should still factor that in. I would save an infant out of a burning building over two elderly people. Does that mean the elderly people aren’t valuable human beings? Absolutely not. Not to insinuate that elderly people don’t feel pain, just giving another example where there are other factors to consider.
@@jaredlowry970 I agree that there are other factor to consider, but they shouldn’t be based on how much value we give to each life, and that is the type of brainwashing he was talking about. We don’t know what a fetus feels or doesn’t feel, you can only see the pain of the born baby and that is why you would pick him. How do you know that pain as a factor is extra wicked before God, maybe there is something that happens to the fetus that could be extra wicked. I am not saying that you are right or wrong, I am just saying that we were taught to think this way.
@@mamimalista7924 But you just said it’s about how much value we give to each, but that is not what I’m saying. I believe it would be my moral obligation as a Christian to save a child from a fire over a senior citizen. That’s not the same as saying one is more valuable than the other. Similarly, I believe it would be my moral obligation to catch the baby over the Petri dish, but one is not more valuable than the other.
@@jaredlowry970 and I’m not talking about your example about the senior citizens, you changed the example. He is talking about how we have been taught to think about babies in every stage. I am not saying that I would pick the fetus over the born baby, what I’m saying is that you are basing it on how much pain is involved, but you don’t know that. But you base it on pain because the born baby’s pain is visible, so therefore you give his pain more value.
5 sins (which still end in murder; tho more than one worthy of death, by The STANDARD) are worse than the one, murder. That is a quantitative difference. When it comes to how much a victim can physically feel and how sinful something is, Based Off THAT (the Ability of the Victim to feel pain) rather than the straight forward "though shall not" (whether the Person can feel it or not, dulled or sharp) Command of GOD -HIS LAW WORD PREVAILS .
I think having an equal protection bill codified in a city, county, state etc. that does not have God's procedure for justice (for example, Deut.17:7 & 19:15) is compromise, incrementalism etc. If not; why not. Thanks. 1 John 4:10,11
Abolitionists are not arguing that we need to solve all problems at once. They are arguing that we should not pass laws that are in and of themselves unjust laws.
Also - Divorce is still biblically permissible. There isn't some expectation that it will be eliminated before glory. God hates divorce, but not all divorce is wholly sinful, which is why God permits it, in part. Same for slavery. But there is no form of permissible child sacrifice. So Toby's entire argument collapses in on itself.
I love Joshua, but I really really really can't get with the incrementalist perspective. Not to be insulting, but the arguments feel so much like a provisionalist explaining Romans 8 & 9 (Or really anything in Romans 🧐)
Meh. What about a Provisionist explaining John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:8, 2 Peter 2:1, Jeremiah 18 and many other verses that show God's love and sacrifice for the whole world, and man's accountability because of his ability to choose (whole counsel of scripture)? Not even a close comparison, although the consistent Calvinist does paint a pretty terrible picture of God (the author of evil) if they take the time to think about it.
Regulated divorce and slavery was to protect victims, regulations on abortion protect the perpetrators. From Zack Conover from apologia. Hope that helps clarify @abolitionistsrising @thestandard @joshuahaymes
Wow! Bro, that's what Ya came out-the-gate w as the teas.. Woe. Really, very first statement made about humans feeling pain, and slicing Them up into pieces isn't as immoral when they can't feel it. So, i am a Paralyzed Veteran, U.S. ARMY SAPPER, who now Is a slave of CHRIST, privileged to minister to and for Our KING. That said, for good reason -my paralysis does allow You to chop of a limb or two, right now off of my body, and i wouldn't feel pain the same way you would. Let's hear that again‽ Better, where is that in Holy Scripture? What's the Context of the Book, Chapter, and Verse to support ..what You're leaning on -may it never be your own [lack of] understanding.
1:11:38 How do you teach the culture anything good with these Smash Mouth Incrementalism laws? I truly don’t see a jumping off point into teaching and evangelizing the culture in a way that aligns with God’s law in the Smash Mouth Incrementalism strategy. In this Smash Mouth way you actually have to undo what you taught with the law while teaching the culture.
This'll be good. Thanks for hosting these, guys.
The pro life movement does not seem to want abortion abolished at all.
Yep that’s a fact down here in SC. The establishment republicans don’t want the freedom caucus abolishing abortion
But hey, who doesn't want a cleaner _____‽ Oh. Good Point
I identified as prolife my entire life but my personal values were actually abolitionism. It wasn’t until I heard about abolitionism from Russel’s videos that I realized I was in the wrong camp. I now talk to my other prolife friends to make sure they know the difference. Many don’t.
Abolition of abortion is the only way to glorify God and obey His Word.
Thank you for having Russel on again!
It seems like people want to make this a complicated issue but it's really not. A child in the womb is a human being, made in the image of God, deserving of all the protections under law as everyone else. Apply the laws that exist for murder to all murders including abortion. Anything other than that is unjust.
Exactly. They are not putting the punishment in the bill. It's a separate issue.
The difference is that women don't see the baby as a human being and the fear of pregnancy/parenthood/whatever situation they are in that makes them want to have an abortion supersedes any sort of connection they would feel toward the unborn baby. I had a miscarriage last year at around 6 weeks. I never saw the baby on ultrasound because it was too early. I didn't feel any sort of connection yet either, because I didn't feel like I had a human being inside me. And this is not uncommon. Many of my pro-life friends said they only realized they carried a human being starting in the second trimester, when they could feel the baby move.
So no, a woman having an abortion is not equivalent to someone straight up killing a born person that they can see with their own eyes.
@@LykaLo No one cares if you "see" the baby as a human being or not. Your feelings are irrelevant. You kill the baby and we put you in jail. That's justice.
@@LykaLoAnd this is part of the reason equal protection laws are important. As the Bible says the law is a tutor. The incremental laws are part of what leads people to believe that abortions are ok early on. Also, how much a miscarriage affects a woman has to do with her knowledge of when life begins, how long she knew she was pregnant, & if she wanted to be pregnant.
@@LykaLoit's still equivalent even if YOU don't see. Ignorance doesn't excuse crime. If you are pregnant then you know there is human inside you even if you don't FEEL it yet. Your feelings do not adjust legal rights.
What form of law is described here?
Deuteronomy 18:10 LSB -
“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire,"
There is no room for incrementalism in this matter. Obey the word.
💯
THEOnomy.
i see Your Bout It, tho!
Know anyone in The ILL-State? Trying to get a group going here, explicitly representing CHRIST against this evil.
@@CHRISTSlave7
(Backwards, no gaps)
moc . Xmg @ hturt dna yaw
Under the video sort by "Newest comment" and return to this one.
@@CHRISTSlave7
By all means electronically hail me.
I'm using poetic language.
Why is it that they cannot understand that the bills for abolition cannot and do not modify the legal consequences for murder. The bills are equal protection. That means, murder is murder for all humans. Every state has their own set of penalties regarding the crime of murder. It's a separate fight. A worthy fight, but separate. This was Jeff's point with Sam.
So, if a state has no death penalty, Russell is arguing that the death penalty must be enacted alongside/before the abolition bill for justice to be established? Correct?
I am struggling with this because lots of states don't have the death penalty although, I think, and it seems even harder to get them to add it. Yet, biblically, a murderer is to be executed. We don't not do things just because it's hard.
The legislative system may show mercy, but justice must be established. David committed adultery with Bathsheba and God took the life of their child instead of David's. God still enacted justice.
Did I understand Russell correctly?
@@beksc9209 No. He would argue that they are separate. Immediately pass equal protection everywhere, federally if possible. You can work at the same time to update the punishments for specific crimes. They are two separate efforts. No equal protection bill touches on specific punishments. They only extend what it means to be protected under the law to unborn humans.
Oh, okay! That makes more sense!! Thank you!! @@sevencrickets9258
You cannot criminalize a person. You criminalize actions.
Google "criminalize" definition
@@elijahmthompson2313 Google how laws work. Been working with legislation for a while now and would also argue scripture contends we don’t criminalize people but rather actions. Your argument is based on a word fallacy.
Abolitionists want to criminalize the act of abortion. Not specific subsets of people.
@@WiseInspector open to discussing this Mike, but the definition of "criminalize" seems to indicate it is for the act and the actors.
Im still searching different definitions to find if there are any that do not include the actors.
@@elijahmthompson2313 Brother the way laws work are that they punish actions. For instance a woman is not automatically a criminal because she is a woman, she becomes a criminal when she acts in disobedience to a law, she transgresses it. Every definition I have ever seen talks about criminalizing the act of preborn homicide not the woman. To make a whole subset of people illegal is nonsensical and does not exist. It is dangerous to play into the prolife mischaracterization of what we are aiming to do. We are aiming very specifically to abolish the act of prenatal homicide by making the act of prenatal homicide against the law and punishing all culpable for that act. Every piece of legislation we have put forward in Ohio is criminalizing the act not a person. I have worked on the legislation in Ohio, I have read almost every bill put out and not one of them criminalizes a person because it is not how legislation works. I hope this helps. I address this very direct because this is an issue among abolitionist, we need to be precise with our legal language or risk not being taken serious or misrepresented even more by legislators that a legally trained.
Great discussion. I was definitely in the smashmouth incrementalist camp just a year or two ago, so I think patience with brothers is absolutely essential in this conversation. But I still think it's fair to point out logical inconsistencies:
1 - Because men are guilty of X, women shouldn't be punished for Y.
2 - Because their laws are _really_ unjust, it's okay for our laws to be _kinda_ unjust.
3 - God will approve of our efforts because our intentions are good even though we promote laws that are bad.
Abolition is both biblically and logically sound.
You guys are doing great things by having this conversation out loud. It is iron sharpening iron, and a beautiful example of how Christians can strongly disagree, but in a way that is aimed at building each other up.
Thankful that you folks had Russ back. Abolition is a symptom of obedience. It’s a symptom of Christianity. And so is honest and thoughtful discussion among brothers. The only incrementalism we need is more and more folks heading these discussions and coming over to abolition. Thank you for they opportunity to have this discussion on your platform.
I love these.
Please keep doing them! You’re a great moderator too
This was such a good video. Praise God for you all. Join the abolition movement we’d love to stand side by side!
We need to criminalize the ACT.
It feels like we forget that God has authority to do things we can't.
Excellent observation. Should have been said in the debate. More straightforwardly that is.
No hate on the first convo, but this one was even more 🔥🔥🔥! Loved it!
What a great conversation. Thank you for making such edifying content. Looking forward to the next one.
Excited for the continued conversation. Had a good talk with a close friend of mine after the first debate. Keep it coming, guys!💪🏼
I can't wait for more of these conversations!
Thanks for this conversation. Really commend you guys for wrestling through these issues with Russel. I came away more affirmed in abolitionism but great respect towards the way in which you guys were coming at it from immense scrutiny. This is an altogether good thing to do to take reasoning and drive it to the test. Great job.
A very edifying and constructive conversation. Thank you.
44:44 in the Sanctuary City the man slayer/murder is judged by a judge and he is either acquitted or put to death if found guilty according to the law.
I think the main thing that the host was missing is that the "avenger of blood" in Numbers 35 was the one to enact justice for the death and not some vengeful vigilantly.
Wow. This has been really helpful hearing him go into detail about this.
YES!
🔥🔥🔥
Not a hoof left in Egypt! Wow, what a great analogy.
Thanks for doing this.
Abolitionist: We must obey God's clear commands and seek to establish justice and just punishments for murder!
Incrementalist: Yeah, but what about this iffy connection with more obscure laws? Isn't it therefore wise to allow some murder to go unpunished for now?
Abolitionist: But those laws actually reiterate how heinous murder is in God's eyes, so... no.
💯
I literally have all notifications turned on, set a reminder and still couldn't find this video. I have been subscribed ever since the debate with russel and a pro life guy yet when i search on UA-cam "the standard" nothing came up. Took me quite a while to find this. UA-cam did a pretty good job hiding it
Man, that really bums me out. Our big tech overlords really don’t like this content.
Laci & Conner's law calls the unborn humans and says if you kill a pregnant woman you get a separate murder charge for the unborn, they are a legal victim. There's just a clause in there that gives mothers "special murder rights" as Russell rightly puts it.
You don't need an exegesis Bible study to know God's opinion on baby decapitation.
We’re back for round 2!
Russel is a better CN than the Idaho guys because he actually wants morality legislated 😂
I believe this would be analogous, and I would love someone to consider this from the perspective of incrementalism and let me know your thoughts.
In Daniel chapter 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego know from what is written in verse 11 that if they do not bow down to the golden image, they will be thrown into the fiery furnace. More importantly they knew from the second commandment given to Israel at Mount Sinai that they are to bow down to no other gods. They also know that the only true God values the preservation of innocent life. My question is this: despite knowing that bowing down to the statue would be an abomination to Yahweh and a breaking of his commandments, should not these three men have instead sought to preserve their lives, especially given their positions of authority and the good they could continue to do for God and God’s people in Babylon? After all, they knew this statue was no real god and so in good conscience could they not say they were still worshiping Yahweh and yet also appease Nebuchadnezzar? They knew they did not have the “votes“ (if you will) to remain faithful to Yahweh and yet also preserve their own lives and by proxy the lives of God’s people in Babylon by remaining in their positions of authority (Governor/Senate/House seats if you will). So again I ask, were they wrong to remain faithful to God and to trust him to either preserve their lives and the lives of their people or to not? In the context of abortion, I do not see how the incrementalist must not, at least in principle, also agree that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego would have been better off to preserve their own lives and their positions of authority despite being a “little” unfaithful to the commandments of the one true God.
I wonder if we too many times pre-suppose that God prefers our hope that a few more humans might be born (heartbeat bills, etc.) as opposed to preferring his people remain faithful, trustful, and obedient to his commandments.
In any case, I appreciate your thoughts in addressing this specific question.
Polygamy and divorce do not belong in the same category as child sacrifice or murder. That's a big category error!
Polygamy and divorce are allowed in God’s law. Because They are necessary in rare cases. But they became abused by evil men.
Amen!
Russel's answer at 1:22:15 is so good
Something is even right or wrong. The time it happens, the amount of times it happens, doesn’t change that.
In regards to Numbers 35, just reading that chapter itself shows that the, "avenger of blood" was not a vigilantly but a bringer of justice. When the murderer was stoned, the "avenger of blood" was related to the victim somehow and would be the first to cast a stone against the murderer. So if the "manslayer" did not reach the town in time or left before the next priest took over, the "avenger of blood" was not murdering the "manslayer" but was bringing justice for the murder of the victim.
Choose this day whom you'll serve
1:22:45 - 1:25:12 is the FINISHER and he had scriptures that clearly states to not do this literal thing. Thanks Russ! Keep fighting!
Why do we let the enemy get us off track to disobey ! Let’s just obey and accept the consequences. We have to do better yall
Why is the guy with the mustache fighting so hard to regulate abortion?
I keep asking the same thing
He is playing devil’s advocate at times.
Because he hasn’t repented yet
Probably guilt
He way too committed to a devil's advocate approach. Seems to me to be a poor podcasting habit to press against whatever position is being brought forward, no matter how bad; a commitment to opposition instead of truth-seeking.
It was especially frustrating with tripling down on illogical hypotheticals instead of discussing real-world scenarios playing out. So stuck in the abstract that falls apart when the intellectual blinders come off.
Doing the right thing can be costly but that doesn't make it any less right to do.
God says, "Do this", and man says, "I can't because I abdicated and made the woman responsible but somehow I still feel responsible when she spills her baby's blood, because of the abdication, it feels wrong to put her away for murder, so how can I abdicate more. Maybe if we end the man's vote and forbid men from war and government. Will that be enough abdication for men to not feel guilty when the woman chooses child sacrifice?
I think once the text on the sanctuary city was read and not just talked about, it was clear it did not support incrementalism. No hate to any non-abolitionist but I think it’s clear and I pray God moves all in that direction
He said "you got one more" ❤❤❤
Let’s goooo!!!
Commenting for the algorithm
Thank you for clarification. I now see why the prolife movement will never criminalize child sacrifice.
Im ready
1:19:32 California never gets anywhere close to this hypothetical if we keep following the Smash Mouth Incrementalist strategy there.
Such a bad hypothetical. Requires leaping over a dozen impossibilities to get to an impossible hypothetical scenario.
Probably should change the name of the podcast to ‘the slippery standard’ 😂
Where do i get the EQUAL PROTECTION; EQUAL JUSTICE shirt?
Abolitionist Rising website store. I’ve ordered many shirts and sign. Good quality.
@@erica981 sweet! Thanks
I've paused it at 49:32 and want to make a quick note about Numbers 35. In the video, there seems to be a misunderstanding between the speakers about what the text is saying, and I think Daniel's point is key.
I think Daniel is saying, according that text, if one person murderers another, than the murderer has forfeited his life. So his executors are not murderers, assuming they follow due process; but if someone commits accidental manslaughter, his life is still forfeit *unless* he follows a specific procedure by going to live in a different city. So if the avenger of blood kills the manslaughterer, the avenger of blood is NOT committing murder. He's carrying out justice.
Another way to think of it is, the consequence for murder is death. The consequence for manslaughter is *either* death or living in the city of refuge. So if the manslaughterer doesn't stay in the city of refuge when he's supposed to, then his life is forfeit due to the blood he has shed. This is NOT God allowing for murder; He's allowing for capital punishment of the manslaughterer if the manslaughter hasn't "chosen option b" by going to the city of refuge.
The point of the city of refuge is to get a fair trial.
Sorry for the rudeness, but you guys are called The Standard, meaning God’s Standard, which is his Word. Not your standard, or society’s standard, or today’s standard. Even if there is some mild amount of truth behind the way God wrote Laws in order to deal with the hearts of Israel, that does not mean that we can do the same. God has giving us our Standard to follow, which is to not write iniquitous decrees.
This is a hard pill to swallow especially for those of us born in the 1960s until now because society has made this practice OK and our religious leaders have caved to societal and political forces.
It's just a clump of cells...
No. It's a human life.
It's also interesting to have watched The Standards lowered in the military and why they're 45k below their typical recruiting numbers. I know it's not the same, but standards exist to maintain the bare minimum expectation.
@@DeSmith-o4b it’s not any better for generations born since the 60’s either. Your right that the church has had a moral failing and fear has gripped many of us. Being unwilling to proclaim the truth or dismantle lies has done extreme damage to our culture. Our church needs men that are willing to be like the profits in the Old Testament, and our country needs the law to be a tutor again.
41:32 Mic drop. Hope this gets pulled out into a short.
51:55 The California Pro-Life Catechism:
Question 1: When can you murder a baby?
Answer: When the baby does not have a detectable heartbeat or or can feel pain.
Question 2: Is abortion murder?
Answer: No. Abortion is healthcare that ought to be regulated and kept safe women.
Boys, we got a problem with Numbers 35...
Lots of respect for Joshua and for Toby Sumpter (you guys are a tremendous encouragement), but they should really exegete the text in Numbers before hanging so much on it. I don't mean that disrespectfully, but I'm afraid this example cannot support the weight they're trying to make it hold.
Daniel nailed it with his exegesis of Numbers 35 at around 44:50, and I think that should be taken seriously. If we understand what the text is saying, it cannot be used to justify what the incrementalist is wanting to make it say.
The question is, "can we support a decree that acquits the guilty and positively legislates that we can do something God hates".
Joshua and Toby cite this example to show that God "regulates murder, which is something He hates".
You're right, boys... He does hate murder, but the blood avenger is not committing murder in the text, and is nowhere in the text acquitted of murder. This text is actually a pretty air-tight argument for due process and the immediate punishment of convicted murderers.
The blood avenger is, in this system, the deputized individual appointed by God to bear the sword. It is not as if it is a matter of vigilante justice run wild that is being regulated by God. He's the guy that is supposed to execute the murderer... he's deputized to take his life. THE BLOOD AVENGER IS NOT COMMITTING MURDER. He is carrying out justice.
The text is ensuring that the manslayer is given due process (a trial in the city of refuge) and protected from being executed unjustly if it was an unintentional killing. But, if the man were convicted of murder, he is handed right back to the blood avenger for justice to be carried out.
Because remaining in the city of refuge for the appointed time is the manslayers punishment for the unintentional killing, if he evades that punishment and leaves the city, his punishment for that (leaving the city and evading his punishment) is execution by the deputized blood avenger.
The text forbids the blood avenger from murdering the man, and it forbids God's people from acquitting the guilty murderer.
If we were to apply this to the discussion in a way that was analogous, we would be questioning what to do with a woman who had killed her child and we would be asking "how does this text instruct us?"...
Did she kill the baby on accident? If so, what do we do with someone who kills a person on accident?
Did she kill the baby on purpose with malice aforethought? If so, what do we do with someone who kills a person intentionally with malice aforethought?
It seems abundantly clear that if we take our ques from this text, we would give the woman a fair trial and, if she is found guilty of murder, we would hand her over to the deputized party to bear the sword and carry out justice. The text would be an indictment against failing to give her due process, and an indictment against failing to carry out justice.
It makes no sense to try and make this text prove that God regulates murder and gives us permission to do the same. It's the exact opposite.
I appreciate the sharpening, guys... I've benefitted tremendously from the discussion and look forward to working toward greater clarity and unity.
So glad to see someone break down Numbers 35 like you did. I paused the video and just read the chapter and saw how flawed the host's thinking was in regards to that chapter.
Russell has become the standard bearer for life or a modern day Moses for Commandment #6.
The murder they are describing when discussing the topic on the avenger of blood in the Old Testament is an accidental death which would be the equivalent of man slaughter today. Abortion is an intentional murder. The Old Testament called for capital punishment against premeditated murder which is what abortion is. They are making a categorical error when equivocating between accidental murder and intentional murder.
You have misunderstood the argument here. The manslaughter part wasn’t the murder that God regulated, it was in the situation, where the person who accidentally killed, somebody would be killed by that person‘s brother if the manslaughterer didn’t make it to the city of refuge. In that case, it would be a premeditated murder that got regulated.
@@TheStandardcastit actually wouldn't be premeditated murder. The avenger of blood would be justified in God's law. He would be under duty to hunt down the manslayer. However, because God recognizes the fact that it was sometimes unintentional, he gives him a hard, but merciful way out. He has to leave his home and go to a city of refuge. If the avenger of blood caught him and killed him, he is specifically said to NOT be guilty of innocent blood.
"and the avenger of blood finds him outside the boundaries of his city of refuge, and the avenger of blood kills the manslayer, he shal not be guilty of blood."
You kept saying it was regulating murder, but the word of God specifically says this isn't murder. He is not guilty of blood, or as some translations have it, he is not a murderer.
Again, this shows how seriously God takes the shedding of innocent blood, even if it is unintentional. God leaves an escape for him, one that is hard and difficult, and not without danger, where even if he leaves his imprisonment he could be killed. This argues the opposite of what smashmouth incrementalists need it to argue. It needs to be God relaxing the consequences of the shedding of innocent blood. God no where does that.
Not a necessarily needed edit because I’m sure he’s used to it, but Russell’s name is spelled with two “L”s. (One might say he is a beautiful loser😉😂)
Thanks! I will change that actually!
@@TheStandardcast reminder 👍
Bump 😊
1:26:18 I knew it! Russ just confessed to being an Old Earther!
28:45 #nailedit
I somewhat believe in incrementalism, but I think it's in a slightly different way than it's spoken of here. I believe abortion should be outlawed entirely, unborn babies should have equal protection under the _federal_ law - where I think we need to move in increments is when it comes to the mother.
Prosecute the doctors, they already know _exactly_ what they're doing, but a lot of women don't. Not that it's an excuse, in this age of information it is not, but we can still do a better job of combating the lies of the abortion industry. Before throwing women in prison, we need to properly & thoroughly teach people so they understand fetal development & the different abortion procedures - I think just that alone will save a lot of lives.
And we don't have to wait for a federal bill criminalizing abortion to finally pass to do that either, we can do that right now; we need to be advocating for better education at the same time as advocating to abolish abortion.
thats the same as what they were talking about in regard to pro life.
Stop infantilizing women. Women know what they are doing when they unalive thier children. This is a crazy argument
59:00 - That argument right there can easily clear all women from dumping their newborn into the trashcan cause the father wasn't there so it is not fully her fault.
Wisdom isn’t nice. She mocks when terror strikes scoffers and fools. She laughs at their calamity. But Wisdom is kind. Russell isn’t nice. But he is kind.
Ya did lose me as a subscriber today. Because of the lack of Utilizing the Holy Word of GOD (although, the Ginger Viking should continue pressing on in That Holy Word!!-), while talking like GOD Is unjust and just misrepresenting HIM, and acting like its Script. i hope to be back to chec Ya out some more. But, i hope to hear from Ya on tgose couple questions; verrry Genuine and i care with all i am. Viking in the middle -well Done! Appreciate all of Y-o-u, Gentlemen. i had wondered why Toby wouldnt debate EAN but came here! Keep up the Good Work, persevering till the End with Great Endurance! Grace, Peace, n LOVE in The HOLY KING
40:54 California is Nineveh and it needs to be called to repent.
Funny because Toby is Murray’s dog that eats all the FotC mousepads.
lol.
If I'm gonna err on one side, I'm gonna err on the abolitionist side. I cannot pretend that God cares about babies less than me, and thus I have to assume he would make the incremental approach much more obvious in the Bible. Instead there are a couple very fringe cases like divorce and blood avengers. Whereas in the Bible you have tons of verses about justice, unequal weights, God's love for the vulnerable and children etc.
Furthermore - if this discussion was about beheading 2 year olds, it wouldn't be a discussion at all.
46:27 sorry, I don’t know names here. Mustache man is using a definition of murder that is not biblical. Murder is an unlawful intentional taking of human life.
Question: At my church I lead a women’s group called regeneration. We often talk about abortion as we move through the 12 steps and healing. Abortion is also a part of my personal testimony. However, if I use the actual language of abortion (killing, pulling, cutting, murder, etc) I am admonished by my higher ups. They do not want me using this language. Any advice on this? I feel like my testimony is being watered down and I’m being encouraged to tell a relatively false version of it.
34:10 The Kinsmen Redeemer is not a murderer even if he kills a an innocent man slayer while chasing them to the city of refuge. The Kinsmen Redeemer is the sword bearing Executive of government God established in Israel.
To say that the Kinsmen Redeemer is a murderer to say that state and federal executioners in the United States today are murderers. Sometimes innocent people die at the hands of the state and that doesn’t necessarily mean a murder happened.
Sounded like Russell won over the host who was indecisive at beginning and had to leave (sorry forgot name) His last comment about 3% and then said Russell gained one more! I hope so!
Honestly, I am not sure the death penalty vote is the same issue, if you were to take that viewpoint to the logical extreme, you would have to vote no on every single bill out there that fell short of every commandment given to us, instead of tackling them command by command. If the bill in commie land stated that abortion would be considered murder, and the murderer would face the full extent of the law in regards to murder, that is a win on the abortion front, now you need to tackle the unjust law of allowing murderers to not be executed for their crime.
Russell, if you took that same approach, wouldn't you have to vote no on even the strictest of abolitionist bill if it also didn't change the law to also give the death penalty to kidnappers, or people engaging in bestiality etc.
Yeah because does God allow us to sin? Absolutely and still be saved.
But shall we continue in sin? God forbid
We shouldn't use God's perfect law to excuse going against God's perfect law. If He gave further instructions in one law, we can't then hijack those instructions and use them to justify our own form of righteousness.
Off topic: I see some KZ iems.
ua-cam.com/video/ZqQcRJR8HxY/v-deo.html - Babies are the fruit of two, but the murder of a human doesn't necessarily involve both or even either the mother and father. They are doing the same thing the pro-choice side does. Just cherry pick the situation to the extreme so it best fits their agenda. That's for the judge. The default should be: murderers should be tried for murder. Full stop. Easy enough? If the father was involved, prosecute them. If the mother was involved, prosecute them. If neither? Well, neither.
If the father didn't do it, don't wag your finger and say "it takes two to tango". If the father didn't do it, they aren't going to be tried for the crime. Adultery has nothing to do with murder. This sounds exactly like pro-choice rhetoric.
43:03 we have a government in America and there’s a government in Tennessee that has an executive branch. People in the United States of America should not go practice the act of being an avenger of blood because we have a government that has an executive branch and bears the sword on our behalf.
¿So, "the evil is more wicked" against someone chopping off Your legs, compared to chopping off mine!?! i heard you say that you believe that, but We are CHRISTians, and must Hold Fast to The STANDARD!!-)
Explain this and wherebits coming from -i do not see it in Holy Scripture. What i do see Is that "Made in the Image of GOD" We are indeed, knit Together in Our Mothers womb". What i did there to show the value of Humans was use GOD'S Holy Word as my actual Standard. Rather than having my own ideas and finding ways to make them fit in the Bible, i reasoned from What's Revealed -starting there and following the same.
The government God established in Israel had the Kinsmen Redeemer as an Executive arm of the government. Avengers of blood were never committing murder according to God’s law.
What is a smash mouth incrementalist? I understand “incrementalist” but what is “smash mouth”?
32:36 what particular kind of slavery does God condone? I am actually just curious because I have seen this argument
The only thing I disagree with Russell on is the idea that you should catch a Petri dish over a born baby. Joshua makes a good point that suffering adds to the wickedness, and our impulse as believers should be justice, which factors in important things like suffering.
I think he was arguing that we have been brainwashed into giving more value to one than the other, or that what makes the act wrong is pain and not the taking of a life when before God both are of same value and should receive the same justice. You can see this way of thinking even with miscarriages.
@@mamimalista7924 Sure but one experiencing both pain AND death means that we ought to prioritize it
in that sort of hypothetical situation more than the one just experiencing death. Doesn’t mean one is more valuable than the other, but we can and should still factor that in. I would save an infant out of a burning building over two elderly people. Does that mean the elderly people aren’t valuable human beings? Absolutely not. Not to insinuate that elderly people don’t feel pain, just giving another example where there are other factors to consider.
@@jaredlowry970 I agree that there are other factor to consider, but they shouldn’t be based on how much value we give to each life, and that is the type of brainwashing he was talking about. We don’t know what a fetus feels or doesn’t feel, you can only see the pain of the born baby and that is why you would pick him. How do you know that pain as a factor is extra wicked before God, maybe there is something that happens to the fetus that could be extra wicked. I am not saying that you are right or wrong, I am just saying that we were taught to think this way.
@@mamimalista7924 But you just said it’s about how much value we give to each, but that is not what I’m saying. I believe it would be my moral obligation as a Christian to save a child from a fire over a senior citizen. That’s not the same as saying one is more valuable than the other. Similarly, I believe it would be my moral obligation to catch the baby over the Petri dish, but one is not more valuable than the other.
@@jaredlowry970 and I’m not talking about your example about the senior citizens, you changed the example. He is talking about how we have been taught to think about babies in every stage. I am not saying that I would pick the fetus over the born baby, what I’m saying is that you are basing it on how much pain is involved, but you don’t know that. But you base it on pain because the born baby’s pain is visible, so therefore you give his pain more value.
5 sins (which still end in murder; tho more than one worthy of death, by The STANDARD) are worse than the one, murder. That is a quantitative difference. When it comes to how much a victim can physically feel and how sinful something is, Based Off THAT (the Ability of the Victim to feel pain) rather than the straight forward "though shall not" (whether the Person can feel it or not, dulled or sharp) Command of GOD -HIS LAW WORD PREVAILS .
I think having an equal protection bill codified in a city, county, state etc. that does not have God's procedure for justice (for example, Deut.17:7 & 19:15) is compromise, incrementalism etc. If not; why not. Thanks. 1 John 4:10,11
Because the law in and of itself can be good and complete, even if it is not enforced correctly.
Abolitionists are not arguing that we need to solve all problems at once. They are arguing that we should not pass laws that are in and of themselves unjust laws.
@@IronFire116 Good point; i'll try to think that through.
The conversation turned to “turd talk” 😅
Also - Divorce is still biblically permissible. There isn't some expectation that it will be eliminated before glory. God hates divorce, but not all divorce is wholly sinful, which is why God permits it, in part. Same for slavery. But there is no form of permissible child sacrifice. So Toby's entire argument collapses in on itself.
I love Joshua, but I really really really can't get with the incrementalist perspective. Not to be insulting, but the arguments feel so much like a provisionalist explaining Romans 8 & 9 (Or really anything in Romans 🧐)
Meh. What about a Provisionist explaining John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:8, 2 Peter 2:1, Jeremiah 18 and many other verses that show God's love and sacrifice for the whole world, and man's accountability because of his ability to choose (whole counsel of scripture)? Not even a close comparison, although the consistent Calvinist does paint a pretty terrible picture of God (the author of evil) if they take the time to think about it.
Regulated divorce and slavery was to protect victims, regulations on abortion protect the perpetrators. From Zack Conover from apologia. Hope that helps clarify @abolitionistsrising @thestandard @joshuahaymes
And that is a great point. Zach Conover seems to really get it. I appreciate him.
Wow! Bro, that's what Ya came out-the-gate w as the teas.. Woe.
Really, very first statement made about humans feeling pain, and slicing Them up into pieces isn't as immoral when they can't feel it.
So, i am a Paralyzed Veteran, U.S. ARMY SAPPER, who now Is a slave of CHRIST, privileged to minister to and for Our KING. That said, for good reason -my paralysis does allow You to chop of a limb or two, right now off of my body, and i wouldn't feel pain the same way you would. Let's hear that again‽ Better, where is that in Holy Scripture? What's the Context of the Book, Chapter, and Verse to support ..what You're leaning on -may it never be your own [lack of] understanding.
1:11:38 How do you teach the culture anything good with these Smash Mouth Incrementalism laws? I truly don’t see a jumping off point into teaching and evangelizing the culture in a way that aligns with God’s law in the Smash Mouth Incrementalism strategy. In this Smash Mouth way you actually have to undo what you taught with the law while teaching the culture.
God prefers obedience over sacrifice so why do Christians put Trump up on such a high pedestal and compromise?
I’m working on my Christian faith but these “pro life” weak Christian’s aren’t helping. Russel with another W
Toby is weak