What was missing from the debrief of the conversation was the acknowledgement that being a pacifist doesn't simply mean doing nothing in those sticky situations. Being a pacifist means using non-violent resistance to fight evil. It takes creativity and thinking out of the box to find solutions that value life in all circumstances. And that's why it is most often the hardest response to tough situations because it often goes against our fight or flight instincts of self preservation. This is what Jesus refers to as the greatest love is for a someone to lay down their lives for others: when someone without using violence puts themselves in harms way to protect or help others. A current day example would be Christian Peacemaker Teams
Man. I think I saw Shane at an Urbana like.. 10 years ago-ish? Don't remember much, but he definitely left an impression as a human swimming both against the tides of broader culture but also against many of the prevailing tides of the (American) Christian church even then. And that spirit seems to have persisted. A really interesting conversation about painfully messy topics built on ultimately a very simple truth.
I don't like abortion either, but there are so many ways that are not only more effective at preventing them, but also more humane to those who are pregnant. We need to prevent them at their source, which is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. We need robust universal healthcare, social safety nets, better education (including age appropriate sex education, which also helps prevent sex abuse), more affordable contraceptives, and a better adoption and foster care system.
I am wondering about the name of the book that Phil’s mother was reading about how Christianity changed under Constantine? There are many of course but this sounded like something she was reading in particular that was very good, esp since she recommended it to Phil??
Ultimately we need to break the culture of policing. Destroy their pride in what they have done, because what they have done is at best mixed. Make police motivated to change policing - if they’re fighting to save what they currently are, they’re part of the problem. As a side note, I’ve had some interesting discussions with some Orthodox Jewish friends about when and how it is acceptable to use a non-Jew to accomplish tasks that they are forbidden to do on the Sabbath. Christians not being allowed to be abusive police but eagerly willing to let others do it has obvious parallels. Same applies to abortion when it comes to the social impacts.
A good person can be a cop, but any cop that is willing to enforce unjust laws, or be complicit with those who do, is a bad cop, even if they're an otherwise good person.
I appreciated Skye’s attempts to have Shane explain more precisely why abortion alone, is complicated. If we are honest, all of the discussed life-denying activities are complicated. When newly pregnant Mary greets her aunt Elizabeth, John (at 6 months) leaps in her womb & Elizabeth refers to the tiny life in Mary as her Lord. He was already the person of Jesus. He didn’t just have the potential to be Jesus. If killing is always wrong, even in the case of those who have wantonly and savagely killed others, how is it EVER right to kill a totally helpless and defenseless human being, no matter where they are in their development? The only way this is more complicated than the other activities, is that man, in his limited reasoning, has made it so.
Because there is no such thing as a 100% uncomplicated pregnancy. Every pregnancy carries a risk of damage, disability or even death for the mother. Thus the issue includes *both* the right to life for the child and the bodily safety of the mother due to where the child is located. The issue is then not only "kill child vs dont kill child," which is as clear as could be. Its also asking the mother to follow through with an act of *personal sacrifice.* Trouble is, the entire concept that sacrifice is integral to love and charity is mostly lost to the default modern culture. Words like sacrifice, responsibility, duty, charity, greater good, honor, selflessness, humility, etc etc simply do not compute. Without a greater good to consider, and an understanding of loving sacrifice as *intrinsically* noble, many pro-choice activists can only interpret the pro-life position as "forcing" women to carry pregnancies to term *for no good reason.* I believe that this philosophical regression away from loving sacrifice and responsibility is a cause for sorrow and horror. But it is consistent with the philosophical world we live in now. And I have no idea how to translate between the two positions, even having once been radically pro-choice myself. I dont know how the switch in my mind flipped. I do know that my previous pro-abortion self would have read the above paragraphs about duty and sacrifice and mocked myself as advocating patriarchal oppression, etc etc. The best I can say is, try not to categorize pro-choice activists as cruel, child-haters, or advocating "killing defenseless human beings." For the most part, they truly know not what they do.
@@fiercearmadillo6850 thank you for you thoughtful and rational response. You bring up some good points. I agree that the idea of true sacrifice is a foreign concept to many of our young. They think ARGUING for a perceived oppressed group is sacrificing for them. I think it is rooted in the idea that words are violence. Simply SAYING something is DOING something. I agree that some may not know what they do, but the rise in number of those militant pro-aborts (i.e. “celebrate your abortion”, “abortion is a sacrament,” “abortion is reproductive justice”, etc. ) reveals that there are many who know full well what they do. Also, just because someone doesn’t fully know what they do certainly doesn’t mean we step back and do nothing. A life is at stake. It is counterproductive to call people nasty names, and as a Christian, I am called to love my enemies. But it is not unloving to speak truth. It’s actually more loving than tickling their ears with untruths for which they will be held responsible. I’m simply speaking a warning and that child’s reality when I say “In an abortion someone dies”.
It's interesting Phil mentioned Constantine, because that's what went though my mind - his supposed dream where he saw a cross, which he took to mean (I guess), if he put a cross on his flag and was nice to Christians, that he would win his wars. Was that dream from God? Did he misinterpret? Contrasr to Jesus' teaching about "taking up the cross", and how anyone who want to save their life must loose it. So in his wake Christians went from the persecuted to persecutors. In Kenneth Scott Latourette's "A History of Christianity" he mentions this period as when the trouble started in the church - the merger of church & state introducing corruption. Which is the historic Baptist viewpoint (Latourette was a Baptist). So the Constantine shift - metger of church & state and lessons for today might be a good topic for a future podcast.
The problem is there is none. There really is no need for it because it's not worth it. Imperfect people are not wise enough to decide that someone's life deserves to end. The risk of killing even one innocent person is a price that is not even remotely worth it. Not to mention the racist way it is applied. And as far as winger goes, he uses the old testament when in the New there is no mention of it at all
Life in prison may not be seen as a "just" punishment for some crimes, compared with the death penalty, but it actually holds a number of advantages. From a traditional Christian point of view (that I don't actually agree with, but that's another topic), executing someone who isn't in Christ condemns them to suffer eternal conscious torment in hell. Keeping them alive in prison gives them more opportunities to accept Christ. Also, the death penalty is a very long process, due to the numerous appeals and other legal procedures that need to be done before the execution can actually occur. Because of this, life in prison without parole actually gives more closure to victims and friends or family of victims of the crimes that have been committed, even if it doesn't feel that way to some individuals sometimes. With life in prison with no parole, it's obvious that the person will stay in prison and their fate is all but certain (escape or very unlikely legal shenanigans notwithstanding). With the death penalty, if their death is being relied on for closure, their fate is very much not certain. It actually delays the closure that people can experience, rather than providing it. Because the death penalty is such a long process, it's also an expensive process. It's actually cheaper to keep a criminal imprisoned for life than it is to execute them. It's possible to decrease the time and cost of using the death penalty, but the only way to do this is to reduce the number and quality of appeals and the other legal requirements that are involved in carrying it out. The problem is that these are in place for a very good reason: they reduce the number of innocent people that are executed. Seeking to make the death penalty easier, faster, and cheaper to carry out is effectively killing innocent people for money.
I love the Holy Post and that you all delve deeply into the hard issues and give new perspectives on so many things. I am curious when Shane talks about Christians never being able to kill what he would say in a situation where someone is attempting to kill you and/or your family does he think that rule still applies there?
“Turn the other cheek” taken to the logical conclusion… Jesus didn’t defend himself when his life was threatened either. Not sure I buy either of those arguments, but they are definitely rooted in the life and teachings of Christ. Self-defense can be broken down into two basic approaches, though - the Han Solo problem of shooting back or shooting first. That’s a murkier line than I’d like, and Christ didn’t even “shoot back.”
There are 338,000 churches in the country and 500,000 abortions. Churches are filled with retired people who could watch infants while mom works. It's around $200-300 to have the supplies needed to take care of an infant. The churches have every ability to serve single mothers but are far too busy judging mothers to serve them.
In the "City of God," St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great. The Emperor angrily demanded of him, "How dare you molest the seas?" To which the pirate replied, "How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a pirate and a thief. You, with a great navy, molest the world and are called an emperor." St. Augustine thought the pirate's answer was "elegant and excellent." We should never be willing to allow the government to do something that we're not willing to do ourselves. If we're not willing to execute someone ourselves, then we shouldn't be willing to pay the government to do it for us. At that point, the government is merely a hired gun, a mercenary that we pay for. This goes beyond the death penalty. If we aren't willing to personally throw someone in jail over violating a nonviolent, victimless, unjust law, then we shouldn't be okay with the government doing it either. If we're unwilling to personally take people's money (especially those who are already poor) without cause and donate it to the government, we shouldn't be okay with predatory and unjust government systems that do that either. To clarify, this isn't about taxation. It's about financially penalizing people for victimless "crimes".
@Christian, as a Christian pacifist, I believe that the power I have is not my strength of arms but Christ in me, otherwise only the 'strong' would have power, Jesus says, it is the meek who shall inherit the earth. Maybe I should be more prepared to sacrifice my life than take someone else's.
Shane reminds me a little bit of John Woolman, who from what I read was rather a pain in the butt - and no doubt a horrible dinner guest because he wouldn't touch anything tainted by slavery. So how does anyone cook for him? And yet we need these types to enlighten society and at least discourage injustice. In Biblical times we'd call them "prophets". (At least God gave Ezekiel a break and allowed him to cook with cow dung instead of the human type).
Whenever and wherever the death penalty is used, there's always going to be a risk of executing innocent people. The question of whether or not certain crimes deserve capital punishment is a different question than whether or not there is a suitable way to determine who gets to actually enforce it and under what circumstances. Even if there are crimes that are worthy of death, who gets to decide that and actually do it?
Except that Genesis clearly shows God making a covenant with man, and demanding the death penalty for those who murder, and thus execution is not murder. That covenant was made with Noah to be until the final judgment as made clear by saying he would never agin destroy the earth with water, but with fire.
@@thebishopoftherailway4719 let's take a look at this: Then God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every animal of the earth and on every bird of the sky; on everything that crawls on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea. They are handed over to you. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I have given everything to you, as I gave the green plant. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. I certainly will require your lifeblood; from every animal I will require it. And from every person, from every man as his brother I will require the life of a person. “Whoever sheds human blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made mankind. “As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.” Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying, “Now behold, I Myself am establishing My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you; and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the livestock, and every animal of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, every animal of the earth. I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be eliminated by the waters of a flood, nor shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.” God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations; I have set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall serve as a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. It shall come about, when I make a cloud appear over the earth, that the rainbow will be seen in the cloud, and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the rainbow is in the cloud, then I will look at it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.” Genesis 9:1-17 NASB2020 bible.com/bible/2692/gen.9.1-17.NASB2020 Saying that men who shed blood should have their blood shed by man wasn't the only command that He gave. He also said that meat shall not be eaten that still has its blood. How do you eat steak? Hopefully not medium rare. Or does that no longer apply to us? Also, God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. Is that still binding on Christians today? Are those Christians who deliberately choose to not have children disobeying God?
"SPEAKING AGAINST abortion, someone has said, "No one should be denied access to the great feast of life," to which the rebuttal, obviously enough, is that life isn't much of a feast for the child born to people who don't want it or can't afford it or are one way or another incapable of taking care of it and will one way or another probably end up abusing or abandoning it. ... How would Jesus himself decide, he who is hailed as Lord of Life and yet who says that it is not the ones who, like an abortionist, can kill the body we should fear but the ones who can kill body and soul together the way only the world into which it is born can kill the unloved, unwanted child (Matthew 10:28)? ..." - Frederick Buechner from "Whistling in the Dark"
How many “planned & wanted” children, even children whose parents desperately sought advanced fertility measures to have a child end up poor or abused or neglected? This is a flawed & prejudiced argument. So rich kids can live but it’s humane to kill poor kids? NO. I am one of those children conceived by rape. My mom & I were beaten by my father, I was the poorest kid in my class, got bullied and made fun of, was abused by a neighbor boy, BUT heard the Good News at 16 and was rescued spiritually by Jesus. I’m now a grandmother who has tried to help others and show the love of Jesus in tangible ways. I hope I have done a tiny bit to make the world a better place. Why do we think we have the authority to kill innocent children? It is the highest level of pridefulness to think we are God.
I don't believe that the death penalty should be a thing at all, under any circumstances. The "sword" that Paul wrote about in Romans 13 was a short sword, or, more properly, a dagger. This was the most common weapon that Roman soldiers (the first century equivalent to police) used to enforce Roman law. This was quite different than the long sabers used in capital punishment. Paul's point was about the government's authority regarding daily life concerns, especially taxes, which was a hot issue at the time due to a recent rebellion due to taxes that caused all of the Jews to be expelled from Rome shortly before Romans was written. Paul was discouraging them from further rebellions against the government in order to not get them into any more trouble than necessary. Even if we assume that Paul's words in Romans 13 advocated for the death penalty, which is far from certain, that doesn't mean that this should be enforced in all cultures in all times. Paul's words were also used to justify slavery, despite how barbaric it became in later centuries. Cultural and historical context matters for understanding and applying Scripture. Lots of things are "Biblical". Stoning disrespectful and disobedient children is "Biblical". We need to go beyond that, and ask what is Christlike.
@@thebishopoftherailway4719 even if that's the case, does that mean that the state should have the power of the death penalty? Because they could go to war and kill others?
Regarding abortion, asking when life begins is the wrong question. I'm a fully living and breathing human being made in the image of God, and I don't have the moral, ethical, or legal right to have the government force people to give up their bodily autonomy to save my life. Here's the relevant question when it comes to how the law should be written regarding abortion. At what point does the rights of the fetus override the rights of the person carrying them?
We either believe children are created by God, not just the “planned and wanted” children, or they aren’t. Children are either Imago Dei or they aren’t. I believe Scripture teaches both of these. Who are we, with our pea sized reasoning and no authority, to decide that the better thing is to kill a child. A pregnancy lasts a limited amount of time. Death is permanent.
@@makejesusgreatagain7220 can the government force a new technology without long term studies on people who have questions? Can the government imprison Japanese Americans based solely on their race? The government has forced people to do lots of things. It is disingenuous to use some random example you know I would say is not ok to justify dismembering innocent children who are not exiting with your vital organs. They simply need to grow for 9 or so months in their mom. if they are inconvenient, are perceived as a burden, are going to require financial investment then by all means, just dispose of them so I can live my best life and think only of myself. Most, but not all, women are pregnant as a result of their behavior. We understand that a consequence of sex could be a pregnancy. Yet mothers and fathers have refused to take responsibility for their actions about 65 MILLION times in the last 50 years. They would rather their child suffer those consequences.
@@janweaver327 it's not disingenuous. It's government overreach in all of these cases, but you're wanting to make an exception because you're placing more value on the unborn than on those who are already here. I'm sure you're aware of this, but pregnancy and carrying a fetus to term is hardly "simple" and is far more than an "inconvenience" to those who don't want to carry the fetus to term. Pregnancy causes greatly increased risks to everything in life, including domestic violence. It's not just a medical issue. Do pregnant not people matter too? You said that most people are pregnant by choice. What about rape victims? Should they be treated as nothing more than an incubator and forced to carry the fetus to birth? What's to stop rapists from having children with unwilling people? Our legal system isn't very effective at deterring it. Yes, pregnancy is a possible result from having sex. Car accidents are possible effects of drunk driving. Should we not intervene and save the driver's life just because they made a mistake?
@@janweaver327 is human life worthy of protection from conception? If so, what about IVF treatments? Should we make that illegal too? Should we deprive those who are having challenges with fertility the chance to have children? What if there's a burning building and I only have time to save a two year old or a container with 100 fertilized embryos? Which should I save?
I've been a pacifist a good while, but even I am not convinced it is a simple dictate of scripture. If kings and rulers have a great responsibility as the Bible would seem to suggest, it would seem a duty of theirs to protect their people by being willing to kill/issue executions and etc. They almost certainly sin when doing so, but to *not* do so might be shirking their God-given responsibilities too! Sometimes, we'll not see the bad consequences of our sins...be they by action or inaction. So, perhaps the best thing is to seek to align ourselves with God's character as we understand it in the moment, realize we may occasionally do the wrong thing for the right reason, work out salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12-13), and never forget we are saved by grace. *shrug*
God has the power to stop all the evil and doesn't. Ultimately the people who engage in evil are responsible for their actions. If God wants an act of evil to be stopped he will provide the way. Ultimately, we are learning that we don't want to know evil and will recant that when we die. The Mormon church trains their members that the knowledge of evil is essential because they want their members to cling to that sin. I'm sure God will ask if we want to continue to know good and evil on judgement day. The answer is obviously "no."
Perhaps we are the way God will stop an act of evil. To use this argument we cannot interfere if someone is being oppressed. We cannot stop sex trafficking or domestic violence or predatory lending by banks or pollution or anything else. Perhaps defending the cause of the widow and orphan means we have to DO something to stop it.
@@janweaver327 exactly. But the way to stop evil God provides is always moral. If there is no moral way to stop it, then it's suffering we will have to contend with.
Whew. I need to disagree right away. We *do not* have a policing crisis on our hands. I can say this with authority as my life is deeply affected by many in the policing and first responder sectors by immediate family, extended family, and friends who feel like family. I also have family who have been victims of terrible awful policing. Just like any profession, there are abusers of their authority and many times their behavior results in tragic consequences. Unfortunately the media fixates on the disgusting behavior of the abusers within a profession. We need to stop being and claiming to be victims when it’s not warranted and then holding people responsible for their actions in a just manner. Stop highlighting the bad. Instead focus on the good, helpful, and respectful but deal properly with the issue creators
I would argue that qualified immunity protects bad law enforcement officers in addition the actual roots of modern policing in the United States leads to biases and prejudices. It’s a crisis when law enforcement officers are responsible for mental health crisis, domestic violence, child abuse cases, etc and see the worst of humanity and it affects them. Unfortunately many Law Enforcement officials suffer from alcoholism and take their own lives. Somehow some cities when from “ To serve and protect” to “ I have to make it home” which sets up a binary dynamic. It actually might be a crisis in the fact that there is an actual shortage of police officers around the country. This doesn’t mention the relationship that some police departments have with some predominant communities of color.
Being “consistently pro life” means opposing abortion in any and all instances. It means abolition of the practice and reclassification of it as capital murder. It has nothing to do with war nor capital punishment. War is a horrible necessity at times which should always be a last resort as well as defensive, never offensive. Capital punishment is a just penalty in CERTAIN instances for violent crimes, and is also biblical. That is the biblical position and response to the premeditated murder of people. Age, size and location are irrelevant. We’re not “unhitched” from the Old Testament despite what false teachers such as Andy Stanley says. We obey the Law BECAUSE we are saved, not to get saved. Apart from grace through faith in Christ alone obedience to the Law has never saved nor will ever save a single wretch.
Being “consistently pro life” means opposing war/cap. punishment in any and all instances. It means abolition of the practice and reclassification of it as capital murder. It has nothing to do with Abortion. Abortion is a horrible necessity at times which should always be a last resort as well as defensive (life of the mother), never offensive. Not a statement of my belief mind you; just interesting how easy it is to swap the issues in your statement. Why is there no room to discuss abortions in extreme situations; but room to discuss war? The old testament has been fulfilled and we are now living under the freedom of Jesus. Let's focus broadly on care about life "in any and all instances" rather than opposing abortion specifically.
@@MFCI_Orange Yeah….nothing that you stated has any biblical basis in any way shape or form. You need to provide a biblical exegesis rather than an emotion when stating a worldview. What I mean by that is provide the chapter and verse number(s) (in proper context, of course) validating what you are stating. You did pose a question, which I guess you are entitled to an answer, if you are sincerely looking for an answer: There is never a need or justification for an abortion. Ever. Under any circumstances. A premeditated murder of a human being is the killing an image bearer of God which is a capital crime. That is why it is very important for Christ followers to be made aware of and become involved in Abolitionist ministries such as Choice For 2, and Free The States, similar to how our church forefathers in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches were involved in the original abolitionist movement to kill chattel slavery. There are isolated cases where war is the only option (simply to use one example, World War II.) The sovereign Lord used war numerous times in scripture to bring judgement on nations. We are very blessed to currently be in an age of grace.
@@patrickc3419 there is, however, a wicked society that seeks to exploit and punish those that dare to get pregnant and goes out of its way to try and encourage pregnancy with the glorification of promiscuity (especially male promiscuity, where virginity is seen as failure). Ending abortion will mean upending the ways of the world and “the Patriarchy” as many call it: The patriarchy is the root cause. Crush that, repent of it and reject it, and solving abortion is easy.
@@patrickc3419 You have this way of describing your argument as infallible, but you still hand select all the scripture you use, yes there is an early scripture that gives an overt punishment for ending a pregnancy through violence externally from the family, but the fact that there is another scripture that prescribes a method to get rid of a pregnancy that is through infidelity should complicate matters for you, not just because that it prescribes it, but because paraphrasing your words "whomever ends a pregnancy is due capital punishment", but through prescribing that action the husband was given credence to end a pregnancy, but the husband is not condemned to death if the pregnancy ends. That should atleast give you the idea that there is far more complexity going on in this matter than just "no" "even at the risk of the mother". Also are you for abolition now? I thought you condemned David French for having an Abolitionist stance before?
I am prolife but the no abortion ever just doesn’t make sense of reality. Women die if that is carried through. Babies die in utero. And there are cases, rare, but they exist where it is either the life of the mother or the life of both. The world is just more complicated than the absolutes and drawing hard lines in these cases is not an example of good ethics is is a case of making the world simpler than it really is with real consequences.
There are ways to do policing that are decidedly non-violent. Those, for the most part, aren’t the police we have in the US, who are trained to escalate to violence as a way of establishing authority through fear. Don’t think anyone has any trouble with the bomb disposal squad’s duties.
No he’s center left, don’t see how pushing for student debt forgiveness would be constructed as right wing or the biggest climate bill in US(despite it not being enough.
@@BighomieRich I can see that from a purely American perspective, but from a global perspective that takes the entire political spectrum into account, he's center right. It's just that Republicans have gone so far to the right that everything that opposes them seems like it's on the left by comparison.
Her defense of violence assumes God's view of human life experience is the same as humans. It is looking for the image of humanity in God instead of God in humanity. An all knowing God, who has a system that ask us to learn service and sacrifice in this life for peace, healing, glory in another. Why would this God care about how you killed to defend a human experience? A life who's existence on this earth is a blip that's majority of existence will be after this world. What they are doing, have done, is trying to create God in their image not looking for God's image in them.
@@Justanotherconsumer They do little in the way of actually using scripture. When God gives the death penalty command to Noah, God’s reason is BECAUSE of the sacredness of human life. Human life is so precious, that a person who would end it without cause has forfeit their own right to live. This podcast very rarely takes scripture as whole to find what it means, rather they just take commands like ‘love your neighbour’ and use that to mean whatever they want, without actually figuring out what Christ meant by it. (Hint; “Love does no wrong to a neighbour, thus love is fulfilling the law. The law Paul was talking about in Romans was the mosaic law. And yes, we can’t obey the law perfectly, that’s why we need our Saviour, but Christ kept the Law of God, so guess what conforming to Christ looks like)
@@thebishopoftherailway4719 so the early church was also absolutely wrong in opposing it? The modern US situation is different in that capital punishment is about whether you had a good lawyer and the right media spin (which definitely has nothing to do with race no sir), not whether you did the crime. Regardless. Cooper comes across as childish and petulant when throwing that kind of insult. Whether he’s being misrepresented here and his actual argument was more thoughtful than the “short, quippy, and wrong” version given here is not something I can determine at this point.
@@thebishopoftherailway4719 Love is explained in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Love is the fulfillment of the law, the law is not the fulfillment of love. God is love, not the law.
What was missing from the debrief of the conversation was the acknowledgement that being a pacifist doesn't simply mean doing nothing in those sticky situations. Being a pacifist means using non-violent resistance to fight evil. It takes creativity and thinking out of the box to find solutions that value life in all circumstances. And that's why it is most often the hardest response to tough situations because it often goes against our fight or flight instincts of self preservation. This is what Jesus refers to as the greatest love is for a someone to lay down their lives for others: when someone without using violence puts themselves in harms way to protect or help others. A current day example would be Christian Peacemaker Teams
Man. I think I saw Shane at an Urbana like.. 10 years ago-ish? Don't remember much, but he definitely left an impression as a human swimming both against the tides of broader culture but also against many of the prevailing tides of the (American) Christian church even then. And that spirit seems to have persisted. A really interesting conversation about painfully messy topics built on ultimately a very simple truth.
I don't like abortion either, but there are so many ways that are not only more effective at preventing them, but also more humane to those who are pregnant. We need to prevent them at their source, which is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
We need robust universal healthcare, social safety nets, better education (including age appropriate sex education, which also helps prevent sex abuse), more affordable contraceptives, and a better adoption and foster care system.
I appreciated the balance at the end. I certainly respect Shane and the perspective he brings but I also respect the considered analysis at the end
This conversation reminded me of that 80's movie "The Mission."
I am wondering about the name of the book that Phil’s mother was reading about how Christianity changed under Constantine? There are many of course but this sounded like something she was reading in particular that was very good, esp since she recommended it to Phil??
Ultimately we need to break the culture of policing.
Destroy their pride in what they have done, because what they have done is at best mixed.
Make police motivated to change policing - if they’re fighting to save what they currently are, they’re part of the problem.
As a side note, I’ve had some interesting discussions with some Orthodox Jewish friends about when and how it is acceptable to use a non-Jew to accomplish tasks that they are forbidden to do on the Sabbath.
Christians not being allowed to be abusive police but eagerly willing to let others do it has obvious parallels. Same applies to abortion when it comes to the social impacts.
A good person can be a cop, but any cop that is willing to enforce unjust laws, or be complicit with those who do, is a bad cop, even if they're an otherwise good person.
I appreciated Skye’s attempts to have Shane explain more precisely why abortion alone, is complicated. If we are honest, all of the discussed life-denying activities are complicated.
When newly pregnant Mary greets her aunt Elizabeth, John (at 6 months) leaps in her womb & Elizabeth refers to the tiny life in Mary as her Lord. He was already the person of Jesus. He didn’t just have the potential to be Jesus.
If killing is always wrong, even in the case of those who have wantonly and savagely killed others, how is it EVER right to kill a totally helpless and defenseless human being, no matter where they are in their development? The only way this is more complicated than the other activities, is that man, in his limited reasoning, has made it so.
Because there is no such thing as a 100% uncomplicated pregnancy. Every pregnancy carries a risk of damage, disability or even death for the mother. Thus the issue includes *both* the right to life for the child and the bodily safety of the mother due to where the child is located.
The issue is then not only "kill child vs dont kill child," which is as clear as could be. Its also asking the mother to follow through with an act of *personal sacrifice.*
Trouble is, the entire concept that sacrifice is integral to love and charity is mostly lost to the default modern culture. Words like sacrifice, responsibility, duty, charity, greater good, honor, selflessness, humility, etc etc simply do not compute.
Without a greater good to consider, and an understanding of loving sacrifice as *intrinsically* noble, many pro-choice activists can only interpret the pro-life position as "forcing" women to carry pregnancies to term *for no good reason.*
I believe that this philosophical regression away from loving sacrifice and responsibility is a cause for sorrow and horror. But it is consistent with the philosophical world we live in now.
And I have no idea how to translate between the two positions, even having once been radically pro-choice myself. I dont know how the switch in my mind flipped. I do know that my previous pro-abortion self would have read the above paragraphs about duty and sacrifice and mocked myself as advocating patriarchal oppression, etc etc. The best I can say is, try not to categorize pro-choice activists as cruel, child-haters, or advocating "killing defenseless human beings." For the most part, they truly know not what they do.
@@fiercearmadillo6850 thank you for you thoughtful and rational response. You bring up some good points. I agree that the idea of true sacrifice is a foreign concept to many of our young. They think ARGUING for a perceived oppressed group is sacrificing for them. I think it is rooted in the idea that words are violence. Simply SAYING something is DOING something.
I agree that some may not know what they do, but the rise in number of those militant pro-aborts (i.e. “celebrate your abortion”, “abortion is a sacrament,” “abortion is reproductive justice”, etc. ) reveals that there are many who know full well what they do.
Also, just because someone doesn’t fully know what they do certainly doesn’t mean we step back and do nothing. A life is at stake. It is counterproductive to call people nasty names, and as a Christian, I am called to love my enemies. But it is not unloving to speak truth. It’s actually more loving than tickling their ears with untruths for which they will be held responsible. I’m simply speaking a warning and that child’s reality when I say “In an abortion someone dies”.
Great interview and debrief, thank you for hosting these thoughtful conversations.
It's interesting Phil mentioned Constantine, because that's what went though my mind - his supposed dream where he saw a cross, which he took to mean (I guess), if he put a cross on his flag and was nice to Christians, that he would win his wars. Was that dream from God? Did he misinterpret? Contrasr to Jesus' teaching about "taking up the cross", and how anyone who want to save their life must loose it.
So in his wake Christians went from the persecuted to persecutors. In Kenneth Scott Latourette's "A History of Christianity" he mentions this period as when the trouble started in the church - the merger of church & state introducing corruption. Which is the historic Baptist viewpoint (Latourette was a Baptist).
So the Constantine shift - metger of church & state and lessons for today might be a good topic for a future podcast.
Y'all need to have Mike Winger on to talk about the biblical case for the death penalty.
The problem is there is none. There really is no need for it because it's not worth it. Imperfect people are not wise enough to decide that someone's life deserves to end. The risk of killing even one innocent person is a price that is not even remotely worth it. Not to mention the racist way it is applied. And as far as winger goes, he uses the old testament when in the New there is no mention of it at all
Cuz a religion that worships a man who was executed by the government should be pro-death penalty.
Life in prison may not be seen as a "just" punishment for some crimes, compared with the death penalty, but it actually holds a number of advantages.
From a traditional Christian point of view (that I don't actually agree with, but that's another topic), executing someone who isn't in Christ condemns them to suffer eternal conscious torment in hell. Keeping them alive in prison gives them more opportunities to accept Christ.
Also, the death penalty is a very long process, due to the numerous appeals and other legal procedures that need to be done before the execution can actually occur. Because of this, life in prison without parole actually gives more closure to victims and friends or family of victims of the crimes that have been committed, even if it doesn't feel that way to some individuals sometimes. With life in prison with no parole, it's obvious that the person will stay in prison and their fate is all but certain (escape or very unlikely legal shenanigans notwithstanding). With the death penalty, if their death is being relied on for closure, their fate is very much not certain. It actually delays the closure that people can experience, rather than providing it.
Because the death penalty is such a long process, it's also an expensive process. It's actually cheaper to keep a criminal imprisoned for life than it is to execute them.
It's possible to decrease the time and cost of using the death penalty, but the only way to do this is to reduce the number and quality of appeals and the other legal requirements that are involved in carrying it out. The problem is that these are in place for a very good reason: they reduce the number of innocent people that are executed. Seeking to make the death penalty easier, faster, and cheaper to carry out is effectively killing innocent people for money.
I love the Holy Post and that you all delve deeply into the hard issues and give new perspectives on so many things. I am curious when Shane talks about Christians never being able to kill what he would say in a situation where someone is attempting to kill you and/or your family does he think that rule still applies there?
“Turn the other cheek” taken to the logical conclusion…
Jesus didn’t defend himself when his life was threatened either.
Not sure I buy either of those arguments, but they are definitely rooted in the life and teachings of Christ.
Self-defense can be broken down into two basic approaches, though - the Han Solo problem of shooting back or shooting first.
That’s a murkier line than I’d like, and Christ didn’t even “shoot back.”
There are 338,000 churches in the country and 500,000 abortions. Churches are filled with retired people who could watch infants while mom works. It's around $200-300 to have the supplies needed to take care of an infant.
The churches have every ability to serve single mothers but are far too busy judging mothers to serve them.
Lots of good things to seriously consider in this episode, and I appreciate the spirit of the discussion
In the "City of God," St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great. The Emperor angrily demanded of him, "How dare you molest the seas?" To which the pirate replied, "How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a pirate and a thief. You, with a great navy, molest the world and are called an emperor." St. Augustine thought the pirate's answer was "elegant and excellent."
We should never be willing to allow the government to do something that we're not willing to do ourselves. If we're not willing to execute someone ourselves, then we shouldn't be willing to pay the government to do it for us. At that point, the government is merely a hired gun, a mercenary that we pay for.
This goes beyond the death penalty. If we aren't willing to personally throw someone in jail over violating a nonviolent, victimless, unjust law, then we shouldn't be okay with the government doing it either.
If we're unwilling to personally take people's money (especially those who are already poor) without cause and donate it to the government, we shouldn't be okay with predatory and unjust government systems that do that either. To clarify, this isn't about taxation. It's about financially penalizing people for victimless "crimes".
GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL....
We need the Hunter-Shane conversation.
Enjoyed the commentary after the interview.
@Christian, as a Christian pacifist, I believe that the power I have is not my strength of arms but Christ in me, otherwise only the 'strong' would have power, Jesus says, it is the meek who shall inherit the earth. Maybe I should be more prepared to sacrifice my life than take someone else's.
Shane reminds me a little bit of John Woolman, who from what I read was rather a pain in the butt - and no doubt a horrible dinner guest because he wouldn't touch anything tainted by slavery. So how does anyone cook for him? And yet we need these types to enlighten society and at least discourage injustice. In Biblical times we'd call them "prophets". (At least God gave Ezekiel a break and allowed him to cook with cow dung instead of the human type).
Whenever and wherever the death penalty is used, there's always going to be a risk of executing innocent people.
The question of whether or not certain crimes deserve capital punishment is a different question than whether or not there is a suitable way to determine who gets to actually enforce it and under what circumstances. Even if there are crimes that are worthy of death, who gets to decide that and actually do it?
“Those without the capital get the punishment.”
It’s such an unjust system that there’s little to excuse it.
@@Justanotherconsumer exactly. There are two criminal "justice" systems in America, and neither of them are just.
Except that Genesis clearly shows God making a covenant with man, and demanding the death penalty for those who murder, and thus execution is not murder. That covenant was made with Noah to be until the final judgment as made clear by saying he would never agin destroy the earth with water, but with fire.
@@thebishopoftherailway4719 it also demanded the death penalty for a lot of other things. Are we going to follow those as well?
@@thebishopoftherailway4719 let's take a look at this:
Then God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every animal of the earth and on every bird of the sky; on everything that crawls on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea. They are handed over to you. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I have given everything to you, as I gave the green plant. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. I certainly will require your lifeblood; from every animal I will require it. And from every person, from every man as his brother I will require the life of a person. “Whoever sheds human blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made mankind. “As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.” Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying, “Now behold, I Myself am establishing My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you; and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the livestock, and every animal of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, every animal of the earth. I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be eliminated by the waters of a flood, nor shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.” God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations; I have set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall serve as a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. It shall come about, when I make a cloud appear over the earth, that the rainbow will be seen in the cloud, and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the rainbow is in the cloud, then I will look at it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”
Genesis 9:1-17 NASB2020
bible.com/bible/2692/gen.9.1-17.NASB2020
Saying that men who shed blood should have their blood shed by man wasn't the only command that He gave. He also said that meat shall not be eaten that still has its blood. How do you eat steak? Hopefully not medium rare. Or does that no longer apply to us?
Also, God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. Is that still binding on Christians today? Are those Christians who deliberately choose to not have children disobeying God?
There is no right or left in Christ.
"SPEAKING AGAINST abortion, someone has said, "No one should be denied access to the great feast of life," to which the rebuttal, obviously enough, is that life isn't much of a feast for the child born to people who don't want it or can't afford it or are one way or another incapable of taking care of it and will one way or another probably end up abusing or abandoning it.
...
How would Jesus himself decide, he who is hailed as Lord of Life and yet who says that it is not the ones who, like an abortionist, can kill the body we should fear but the ones who can kill body and soul together the way only the world into which it is born can kill the unloved, unwanted child (Matthew 10:28)?
..."
- Frederick Buechner from "Whistling in the Dark"
How many “planned & wanted” children, even children whose parents desperately sought advanced fertility measures to have a child end up poor or abused or neglected?
This is a flawed & prejudiced argument. So rich kids can live but it’s humane to kill poor kids? NO. I am one of those children conceived by rape. My mom & I were beaten by my father, I was the poorest kid in my class, got bullied and made fun of, was abused by a neighbor boy, BUT heard the Good News at 16 and was rescued spiritually by Jesus. I’m now a grandmother who has tried to help others and show the love of Jesus in tangible ways. I hope I have done a tiny bit to make the world a better place. Why do we think we have the authority to kill innocent children? It is the highest level of pridefulness to think we are God.
I don't believe that the death penalty should be a thing at all, under any circumstances.
The "sword" that Paul wrote about in Romans 13 was a short sword, or, more properly, a dagger. This was the most common weapon that Roman soldiers (the first century equivalent to police) used to enforce Roman law. This was quite different than the long sabers used in capital punishment.
Paul's point was about the government's authority regarding daily life concerns, especially taxes, which was a hot issue at the time due to a recent rebellion due to taxes that caused all of the Jews to be expelled from Rome shortly before Romans was written. Paul was discouraging them from further rebellions against the government in order to not get them into any more trouble than necessary.
Even if we assume that Paul's words in Romans 13 advocated for the death penalty, which is far from certain, that doesn't mean that this should be enforced in all cultures in all times. Paul's words were also used to justify slavery, despite how barbaric it became in later centuries. Cultural and historical context matters for understanding and applying Scripture.
Lots of things are "Biblical". Stoning disrespectful and disobedient children is "Biblical". We need to go beyond that, and ask what is Christlike.
The Roman short sword was NOT A DAGGER. It was meant for close quarter combat, and was used by the Roman soldiers on the battlefield.
@@thebishopoftherailway4719 even if that's the case, does that mean that the state should have the power of the death penalty? Because they could go to war and kill others?
Regarding abortion, asking when life begins is the wrong question. I'm a fully living and breathing human being made in the image of God, and I don't have the moral, ethical, or legal right to have the government force people to give up their bodily autonomy to save my life.
Here's the relevant question when it comes to how the law should be written regarding abortion. At what point does the rights of the fetus override the rights of the person carrying them?
We either believe children are created by God, not just the “planned and wanted” children, or they aren’t. Children are either Imago Dei or they aren’t. I believe Scripture teaches both of these. Who are we, with our pea sized reasoning and no authority, to decide that the better thing is to kill a child. A pregnancy lasts a limited amount of time. Death is permanent.
@@janweaver327 do you think that the government should have the right to force you to donate blood or give up a kidney to save my life?
@@makejesusgreatagain7220 can the government force a new technology without long term studies on people who have questions? Can the government imprison Japanese Americans based solely on their race? The government has forced people to do lots of things. It is disingenuous to use some random example you know I would say is not ok to justify dismembering innocent children who are not exiting with your vital organs. They simply need to grow for 9 or so months in their mom. if they are inconvenient, are perceived as a burden, are going to require financial investment then by all means, just dispose of them so I can live my best life and think only of myself.
Most, but not all, women are pregnant as a result of their behavior. We understand that a consequence of sex could be a pregnancy. Yet mothers and fathers have refused to take responsibility for their actions about 65 MILLION times in the last 50 years. They would rather their child suffer those consequences.
@@janweaver327 it's not disingenuous. It's government overreach in all of these cases, but you're wanting to make an exception because you're placing more value on the unborn than on those who are already here.
I'm sure you're aware of this, but pregnancy and carrying a fetus to term is hardly "simple" and is far more than an "inconvenience" to those who don't want to carry the fetus to term. Pregnancy causes greatly increased risks to everything in life, including domestic violence. It's not just a medical issue. Do pregnant not people matter too?
You said that most people are pregnant by choice. What about rape victims? Should they be treated as nothing more than an incubator and forced to carry the fetus to birth? What's to stop rapists from having children with unwilling people? Our legal system isn't very effective at deterring it.
Yes, pregnancy is a possible result from having sex. Car accidents are possible effects of drunk driving. Should we not intervene and save the driver's life just because they made a mistake?
@@janweaver327 is human life worthy of protection from conception? If so, what about IVF treatments? Should we make that illegal too? Should we deprive those who are having challenges with fertility the chance to have children?
What if there's a burning building and I only have time to save a two year old or a container with 100 fertilized embryos? Which should I save?
Shane reminds me of Tony Campolo
I've been a pacifist a good while, but even I am not convinced it is a simple dictate of scripture. If kings and rulers have a great responsibility as the Bible would seem to suggest, it would seem a duty of theirs to protect their people by being willing to kill/issue executions and etc. They almost certainly sin when doing so, but to *not* do so might be shirking their God-given responsibilities too! Sometimes, we'll not see the bad consequences of our sins...be they by action or inaction. So, perhaps the best thing is to seek to align ourselves with God's character as we understand it in the moment, realize we may occasionally do the wrong thing for the right reason, work out salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12-13), and never forget we are saved by grace. *shrug*
God has the power to stop all the evil and doesn't. Ultimately the people who engage in evil are responsible for their actions. If God wants an act of evil to be stopped he will provide the way. Ultimately, we are learning that we don't want to know evil and will recant that when we die. The Mormon church trains their members that the knowledge of evil is essential because they want their members to cling to that sin.
I'm sure God will ask if we want to continue to know good and evil on judgement day. The answer is obviously "no."
Perhaps we are the way God will stop an act of evil. To use this argument we cannot interfere if someone is being oppressed. We cannot stop sex trafficking or domestic violence or predatory lending by banks or pollution or anything else. Perhaps defending the cause of the widow and orphan means we have to DO something to stop it.
@@janweaver327 exactly. But the way to stop evil God provides is always moral. If there is no moral way to stop it, then it's suffering we will have to contend with.
Whew. I need to disagree right away. We *do not* have a policing crisis on our hands. I can say this with authority as my life is deeply affected by many in the policing and first responder sectors by immediate family, extended family, and friends who feel like family. I also have family who have been victims of terrible awful policing. Just like any profession, there are abusers of their authority and many times their behavior results in tragic consequences. Unfortunately the media fixates on the disgusting behavior of the abusers within a profession. We need to stop being and claiming to be victims when it’s not warranted and then holding people responsible for their actions in a just manner. Stop highlighting the bad. Instead focus on the good, helpful, and respectful but deal properly with the issue creators
I would argue that qualified immunity protects bad law enforcement officers in addition the actual roots of modern policing in the United States leads to biases and prejudices. It’s a crisis when law enforcement officers are responsible for mental health crisis, domestic violence, child abuse cases, etc and see the worst of humanity and it affects them. Unfortunately many Law Enforcement officials suffer from alcoholism and take their own lives. Somehow some cities when from “ To serve and protect” to “ I have to make it home” which sets up a binary dynamic. It actually might be a crisis in the fact that there is an actual shortage of police officers around the country. This doesn’t mention the relationship that some police departments have with some predominant communities of color.
Being “consistently pro life” means opposing abortion in any and all instances. It means abolition of the practice and reclassification of it as capital murder.
It has nothing to do with war nor capital punishment. War is a horrible necessity at times which should always be a last resort as well as defensive, never offensive. Capital punishment is a just penalty in CERTAIN instances for violent crimes, and is also biblical.
That is the biblical position and response to the premeditated murder of people. Age, size and location are irrelevant.
We’re not “unhitched” from the Old Testament despite what false teachers such as Andy Stanley says. We obey the Law BECAUSE we are saved, not to get saved. Apart from grace through faith in Christ alone obedience to the Law has never saved nor will ever save a single wretch.
Being “consistently pro life” means opposing war/cap. punishment in any and all instances. It means abolition of the practice and reclassification of it as capital murder.
It has nothing to do with Abortion. Abortion is a horrible necessity at times which should always be a last resort as well as defensive (life of the mother), never offensive.
Not a statement of my belief mind you; just interesting how easy it is to swap the issues in your statement. Why is there no room to discuss abortions in extreme situations; but room to discuss war? The old testament has been fulfilled and we are now living under the freedom of Jesus. Let's focus broadly on care about life "in any and all instances" rather than opposing abortion specifically.
@@MFCI_Orange Yeah….nothing that you stated has any biblical basis in any way shape or form. You need to provide a biblical exegesis rather than an emotion when stating a worldview. What I mean by that is provide the chapter and verse number(s) (in proper context, of course) validating what you are stating. You did pose a question, which I guess you are entitled to an answer, if you are sincerely looking for an answer: There is never a need or justification for an abortion. Ever. Under any circumstances. A premeditated murder of a human being is the killing an image bearer of God which is a capital crime. That is why it is very important for Christ followers to be made aware of and become involved in Abolitionist ministries such as Choice For 2, and Free The States, similar to how our church forefathers in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches were involved in the original abolitionist movement to kill chattel slavery.
There are isolated cases where war is the only option (simply to use one example, World War II.) The sovereign Lord used war numerous times in scripture to bring judgement on nations. We are very blessed to currently be in an age of grace.
@@patrickc3419 there is, however, a wicked society that seeks to exploit and punish those that dare to get pregnant and goes out of its way to try and encourage pregnancy with the glorification of promiscuity (especially male promiscuity, where virginity is seen as failure).
Ending abortion will mean upending the ways of the world and “the Patriarchy” as many call it:
The patriarchy is the root cause. Crush that, repent of it and reject it, and solving abortion is easy.
@@patrickc3419 You have this way of describing your argument as infallible, but you still hand select all the scripture you use, yes there is an early scripture that gives an overt punishment for ending a pregnancy through violence externally from the family, but the fact that there is another scripture that prescribes a method to get rid of a pregnancy that is through infidelity should complicate matters for you, not just because that it prescribes it, but because paraphrasing your words "whomever ends a pregnancy is due capital punishment", but through prescribing that action the husband was given credence to end a pregnancy, but the husband is not condemned to death if the pregnancy ends. That should atleast give you the idea that there is far more complexity going on in this matter than just "no" "even at the risk of the mother".
Also are you for abolition now? I thought you condemned David French for having an Abolitionist stance before?
I am prolife but the no abortion ever just doesn’t make sense of reality.
Women die if that is carried through. Babies die in utero. And there are cases, rare, but they exist where it is either the life of the mother or the life of both. The world is just more complicated than the absolutes and drawing hard lines in these cases is not an example of good ethics is is a case of making the world simpler than it really is with real consequences.
Haha, the quickening... Someone has to bring up Highlander now, right? I'm disappointed Skye..
An eye for an eye..........
Nah..
Being a police officer might actually save lives. A good officer surely would. I think the guest is forgetting that
There are ways to do policing that are decidedly non-violent.
Those, for the most part, aren’t the police we have in the US, who are trained to escalate to violence as a way of establishing authority through fear.
Don’t think anyone has any trouble with the bomb disposal squad’s duties.
i love you,but there is you guys are so wrong about the bible.
Biden is not left. He is center right. A moderate concervative. That's his political position.
No he’s center left, don’t see how pushing for student debt forgiveness would be constructed as right wing or the biggest climate bill in US(despite it not being enough.
@@BighomieRich I can see that from a purely American perspective, but from a global perspective that takes the entire political spectrum into account, he's center right. It's just that Republicans have gone so far to the right that everything that opposes them seems like it's on the left by comparison.
It’s all relative. To a 13th century monarch Trump would seem radically progressive and “woke.”
@@Justanotherconsumer even with that being the case, it doesn't change the reality of our current situation.
@@makejesusgreatagain7220 he’s not aggressively pursuing social reform, to be sure.
Couple of window dressing projects.
Her defense of violence assumes God's view of human life experience is the same as humans. It is looking for the image of humanity in God instead of God in humanity. An all knowing God, who has a system that ask us to learn service and sacrifice in this life for peace, healing, glory in another. Why would this God care about how you killed to defend a human experience? A life who's existence on this earth is a blip that's majority of existence will be after this world. What they are doing, have done, is trying to create God in their image not looking for God's image in them.
Brother John Cooper refers to this podcast as the UnHoly Post. Among many, many others, this episode validates the name.
Hey man, I haven't watched the whole thing...what validates the name on this episode?
Name calling is the fastest way to discredit an argument and a source of information.
@@Justanotherconsumer They do little in the way of actually using scripture. When God gives the death penalty command to Noah, God’s reason is BECAUSE of the sacredness of human life. Human life is so precious, that a person who would end it without cause has forfeit their own right to live. This podcast very rarely takes scripture as whole to find what it means, rather they just take commands like ‘love your neighbour’ and use that to mean whatever they want, without actually figuring out what Christ meant by it.
(Hint; “Love does no wrong to a neighbour, thus love is fulfilling the law. The law Paul was talking about in Romans was the mosaic law. And yes, we can’t obey the law perfectly, that’s why we need our Saviour, but Christ kept the Law of God, so guess what conforming to Christ looks like)
@@thebishopoftherailway4719 so the early church was also absolutely wrong in opposing it?
The modern US situation is different in that capital punishment is about whether you had a good lawyer and the right media spin (which definitely has nothing to do with race no sir), not whether you did the crime.
Regardless. Cooper comes across as childish and petulant when throwing that kind of insult. Whether he’s being misrepresented here and his actual argument was more thoughtful than the “short, quippy, and wrong” version given here is not something I can determine at this point.
@@thebishopoftherailway4719 Love is explained in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Love is the fulfillment of the law, the law is not the fulfillment of love.
God is love, not the law.
onerace race oneblood