Removing God from the Abortion Debate: Questions and Facts

by Barbara Buzzard



Excerpts from the book, God and Hillary Clinton:

There is nothing more sacrosanct to Hillary Clinton than a “woman’s right to choose.” It is her alpha and omega, beyond doubt her highest priority. I wrote an entire book on the faith of Hillary Clinton, and the one thing that struck me above all else, from start to finish, was her absolute fealty [loyalty] to Roe v. Wade. It is Hillary’s hill to die on. I believe Hillary Clinton would give her life for Roe v. Wade.

Author Paul Kengor discovered that Hillary’s doctor (Harrison) was the state’s leading abortion doctor who boasted of having performed thousands of abortions.

Like Hillary, Harrison saw legal abortion as moral. He waxed religious in searching for words to characterize it. He described his patients as “born again,” even while conceding, “I am destroying life.” He candidly called himself an “abortionist” — a term of derision employed by abortion foes. “You don’t understand,” he reprimanded me. “I consider what I do very pro-life. I am saving lives when I do abortions.” 

The United Methodist Church (UMC) at the time officially supported legal abortion, and was a member of the hideous Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, which, mercifully, it finally withdrew from only this past April. The UMC’s liberalism on abortion appealed to Hillary and her abortion-providing doctor.

Now, however, the UMC mourns the high abortion rates and opposes partial birth abortion. Hillary continues to call herself a Methodist.

And so we have on the one side:                                          And on the other:

Scripture:                                                                              Hillary:

“Destruction is certain for those who                                     Advocates even for partial

say that evil is good and good is evil” (Isa. 5:20a).               birth abortion,calling it moral

Hillary Clinton is clearly hostile to biblical teaching; her actions do not harmonize with a Christian view. She praises and endorses wickedness.

LifeNews.com poses these questions to Hillary:

1. Why do you think an unborn child has no constitutional rights?

2. Should an unborn child have any legal rights before he’s born?

3. Why do you think Christians should be forced to change their views on abortion?

4. Why do you think it’s okay to abort babies just because they have Down Syndrome?

5. Why did you pick a running mate who claims he is a Catholic in good standing while contradicting the pro-life views of the Catholic Church?

6. Why do you “admire” population control activist Margaret Sanger?

7. Why did you defend Planned Parenthood when it was caught selling aborted baby parts?

8. Why did you laugh when someone removed “under God” from the pledge of allegiance?

9. Why do you support late-term abortions on babies after 20 weeks? (Why are you prepared to abort a child at full term, murdering and dismembering it?)

10. Why did you compare the majority of Americans who are pro-life to terrorists?

Also from LifeNews.com: 

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas doesn’t mince any words in a new editorial he posted on the web site of the Catholic archdiocese he heads. He says Hillary Clinton’s running mate Tim Kaine is just a “cafeteria Catholic” because he supports abortion.

Naumann’s column is so eloquent nothing needs to be added to it:

In the Oct. 4 vice presidential debate, Senator Kaine acknowledged he was blessed with great Irish Catholic parents and grew up in a wonderful faith-filled family. He also mentioned proudly that he is a graduate of Rockhurst High School, crediting the Jesuits with instilling within him a desire for public service and a commitment to advocate for the poor. I wish that was the end of the story.
It was painful to listen to Senator Kaine repeat the same tired and contorted reasoning to profess his personal opposition to abortion while justifying his commitment to keep it legal. He said all the usual made-for-modern-media sound bites: It is not proper to impose his religious beliefs upon all Americans. He trusts women to make good reproductive choices. And when all else fails, there is always: Do we really want to criminalize and fill our jails with post-abortive women?.
Why is Senator Kaine personally opposed to abortion, if he does not believe that it is the taking of an innocent human life? I hope in his science classes at Rockhurst he learned that at the moment of fertilization a new human life has begun with his or her own distinct DNA — different from the genetic code of both the child’s mother and father.
It is difficult to imagine that Senator Kaine has not seen the ultrasound images of his children and grandchildren when they were in their mother’s womb. Is the senator unaware that abortion stopped the beating hearts of 60 million American children aborted legally since 1973?
If he knows these truths of biology, why would he believe that anyone has the right to authorize the killing of an unborn human being? This is where the reproductive choice euphemism breaks apart. Does anyone really have the choice to end another human being’s life? Our choices end where another individual’s more fundamental rights begin.

As Naumann concludes:

Unfortunately, the vice-presidential debate revealed that the Catholic running for the second highest office in our land is an orthodox member of his party, fully embracing his party’s platform, but a cafeteria Catholic, picking and choosing the teachings of the Catholic Church that are politically convenient.

An Extraordinary Person

by Barbara Buzzard

Anthony and I were blessed this past week to attend a talk by Gianna Jessen, abortion survivor. Gianna has testified before Congress twice on behalf of the unborn, has spoken abroad and accepts speaking engagements all over the country. She survived a saline abortion attempt and was burned over 95 % of her body as well as having internal damage. She has cerebral palsy but refuses to give in to its devastating effects. Rarely have we ever experienced such raw emotion; she is a passionate Christian.

Gianna has actually run two - 26 mi. marathons – running on her toes – taking over 8 ours to complete. She is motivated by Scripture as she determines: I WILL run the race marked out for me. I will never surrender.

At 17 months she entered her second foster home. Her foster mother was told that she would not even hold up her head, let alone walk or function. She challenges us with this: how many of you can walk from here to there without even thinking about it? Then stop whining!

More of her thoughts:
• We are mostly passive as Christians.
• We don’t care enough!
• There is no national outrage against the killing of the unborn!!
• That popular cocktail party Jesus who doesn’t demand much is not the real one.
• If you are going through hell – make sure that you take everything you can out of it!
• Use whatever is in your hand. Example: Gianna may have to revert to a walker, which she dreads, because she has been more mobile than that. But the idea came to her that if she has to use a walker, she can put a large white board on the front of it with Scripture and Bible-based Truths. She has dedicated her life to being a fisher of men and knows that God can use the weakness in her legs to be of benefit to others.
• We are made for epic love, not average love.

It is her mission to return to God all the passion He has given her.

She speaks directly to both men and women who have in any way had anything to do with the abortion industry and urges them to repent in order to overcome the accompanying guilt and shame.

Gianna is a firebrand; what a force for good! Why do we as a society have to be screamed at to make us see reason – i.e. the killing of a 3 yr. old is murder, the killing of a preborn 3-mo. old is murder. She is 39, childless, having spent her entire life defending other people’s children. Her passion against this hideous practice we have in our so-called Christian country is a mighty witness against it. Abortion is a raging fire in our society, and there is lifelong damage that can come of having a part in the aborting of a child.

Dave Hazard and Guy Condon have written an enlightening book, entitled Fatherhood Aborted. The book speaks of the emotional devastation of many men once they realize what they have done. The book is no longer in print but free digital copies are available at Care-net.org. There is always a price to pay even if it seems not. Many who have had abortions speak of having a ghost with them for the rest of their lives.

The Pope recently corrected Tim Kaine by saying that you cannot be Catholic and approve of abortion. But can you be a Christian and approve of abortion?! Can you be a Christian and be silent about the murder of the pre-born.? The true measure of a society is how we treat our children. Any vote for choice is a vote for abortion - is a vote for the murdering of innocents.

It was Erma Bombeck who said that she hoped that on judgment day she could say to her Maker: I have nothing left – I used up everything you gave me. May we all be moved to compassionate action by the knowledge of murder in our land. You will be blessed by helping to defend the most vulnerable of all lives.

Getting Serious Here: A Time of Universal Deceit

By Barbara Buzzard

A recent article in a traditional conservative women’s magazine was entitled “One man’s confession: “I’m happily married…and I watch porn.” It was written anonymously of course, and the author thinks he is really quite a decent guy. He didn’t claim to be a Christian, but reliable statistics say that “1 out of every 3 men in America has an ongoing relationship with pornography.”[1] And the author in question actually quotes Ph.D.s who say they see no link between pornography and being unfaithful; basically they see nothing to worry about. Whoaa! It’s time to start speaking truth to ourselves.

The man in question has a moral problem. He filibusters around it, deceiving himself that he is doing no harm, blind to the possibility that his feelings/desires will crescendo. He is a promise/covenant breaker with no respect for his victims, a man blinded by the darkness of his own lusts. He is a possible homewrecker, ignorant of the perils of trying to fill a bottomless pit.

What a very different picture this would be should the man repent and choose the Christian walk. Then he could be challenged to take his feelings to Scripture and have them named (lust, pride, etc.). Once named, he could no longer plead innocence. He is being deceived into thinking that such feelings can be innocent, but Scripture could set him right – some yearnings are blessed and some are forbidden.

Job could be a wonderful mentor for this man. Job saw the brilliant results of being in/under covenant: “I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?” (Job 31:1). It is remarkable that such a simple yet profound answer would solve the writer’s problem. Ah, yes, but it would require obedience.

There is so much help from those who have gone before us. Ps. 101:2b-4: “I will lead a life of integrity in my own home. I will refuse to look at anything vile and vulgar…I will reject perverse ideas and stay away from every evil.” 1 Cor. 6:12 – “You may say, ‘I am allowed to do anything.’ But I reply, ‘Not everything is good for you. And even though ‘I am allowed to do anything,’ I must not become a slave to anything.”

These very telling words were heard in the movie, ‘Fireproof’: “A parasite is anything that latches onto you or your partner and sucks the life out of your marriage. They’re usually in the form of addictions, like gambling, drugs, or pornography. They promise pleasure but grow like a disease and consume more and more of your thoughts, time, and money. They steal away your loyalty and heart from those you love. Marriages rarely survive if parasites are present. If you love your spouse, you must destroy any addiction that has your heart. If you don’t, it will destroy you.”[2]

Sin, when it is indulged in this way, is defiling, whether the sinner knows it or not. This man has the gall to say that his is a relatively healthy secret. He is glad that his wife does not know. But character is who you are when no one is looking; and for the Christian it is remembering Whose you are. The concept of “putting on” restraint and other good qualities and “putting off” unholy and forbidden actions is crucial to the choices we make. And casting off restraint is not a good condition to be in (Pro. 29:18).

A wise person has put it this way: “Sin will take you further than you want to go, keep you longer than you want to stay, and cost you more than you want to pay.” It is the old rule that ‘who feeds you – owns you.’

1 John 2:216 – “For the world offers only the lusts for physical pleasure, the lust for everything we see…These are not from the Father. They are from this evil world.”

But the good news is this: “… if you do sin, there is someone to plead for you before the Father” (1 John 2:1). There is no need to live with sin or with guilt. The most blessed provision has been made for us, and Jesus’ yoke is gentle as well as dependable. What relief there is to pull into this safe harbor!

---

[1] Joel Belz, ‘Keep it quiet, please’, World magazine, Jan. 23, 2016

[2] Stephen Kendrick, The Love Dare Day by Day: A Year of Devotions for Couples

Abortion Madness part 2

By Barbara Buzzard

Because of a conversation in the grocery checkout line this morning I have altered what I was going to write about. Normally the pro-life badge which I wear only receives furtive looks or an embarrassed glance but this morning the cashier actually asked me about it and was genuinely interested and wanted to know more. I became concerned that I was holding up the line when the lady behind me asked me where I got my badge and I could sense a kindred spirit there too. She said that her college age son had received such hate speech from being pro-life on the internet, that he no longer participated.

I continue to be appalled by abortion madness, the murder of the most vulnerable members of our society; the very ones we should be protecting – we are slaughtering, and with government license. A civilized society does not demand the right to kill its most vulnerable citizens. As Mother Teresa said: abortion is the most serious level of poverty that a culture could encounter. The most dangerous place for an African American baby is in the womb of its African American mother – this is indeed madness. Why do black lives not matter in the womb?

There are many organizations devoted to the pro-life cause. One of the best I have found is LifeNews.com because they give weekly updates of the most recent quotations and events surrounding this issue. Most recently the headlines include these:

·       Thousands flood the streets of Berlin for the March for Life to protest abortion.

·       Child euthanasia centers in Netherlands expected to open soon, allowing
Drs. to euthanize children, no age restriction.

·       Gloria Steinem says that “forced childbirth is the single biggest cause of global warming.”(!)

·       The world’s smallest baby- 8 oz. at birth-is now healthy and thriving.

·       Some pro-choicers say: abortion makes me happy! Shout your abortion!

·       Cecile Richards feels that her finest accomplishment will be to make Christians pay for abortions.

·       My daughter survived abortion. I am so glad she did!

·       There have now been 59 million pre-born babies killed by abortion in the U.S.

Also, it is of note that a dramatic shift in the pro-choice rhetoric is taking place. This includes Hillary Clinton’s statement that a pre-born child has no constitutional rights whatever. Some think that this was not a gaffe but a sort of precursor to the new thinking. The “new think” is this: (since it is no longer intelligent to deny that the baby is a person)  “it is a life worth sacrificing.”! Some in the pro-choice movement are openly arguing that some lives matter more than others. The fetus is so obviously human that it is no longer being dehumanized; rather it is being treated as if it has no rights and no value. Chilling in the extreme!

4 Reasons Why Every Christian Should Speak Out. 

1. All humans are equally valuable because we are made in God’s image.

2. Abortion is not compatible with being a good Samaritan.

3. Abortion is child sacrifice/murder.

4. Science tells us that abortion kills a human being.

           

            One pro-life advocate says this: abortion has never been about “choice”. It is about escaping the consequences of that choice by taking all choice away from another human being. Amen!

            From The Human Coalition pro-life site: “We continue to affirm that abortion will not be ended in the courts…it will be ended in the culture.” Tragically, I think that abortion also will not be ended by the church as the church seems to have dropped the ball on this. At the moment it is as if our society has ADD in relation to abortion.

            We will never be able to say to our Father or to our Messiah that we didn’t know this was happening. And we mustn’t believe Satan’s lie that there is nothing we can do about it. Please become an activist in saving lives and please pray earnestly for an end to this holocaust. We are to hate bloodshed; in this country there are over 3,000 murders of pre-born babies each day. Jesus says: “I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these…you were refusing to help me.” (Mat. 25:45, NLT)

Prayer in the Bible

From Did the First Christians Worship Jesus by James Dunn.

In the synoptic Gospels Jesus speaks on several occasions about praying (proseuchesthai), with the assumption that prayer is made to God [i.e., Mat 6.5-13/Luke 11.1-4]…

The less prominent term deesthai, ‘ask, request’ can be used both of requests to other individuals and of requests to God. In the narratives of Matthew, Mark and Luke we find both usages, with requests made to Jesus[1] and Jesus talking of making requests to God.[2]

Another word with a similar range of usage is aitein, ‘to ask for’ [Mar 6.22-25; Matt. 27.20; Mar 15.43 pars.]…Presumably the request of James and John for the top seats in his glory falls into the same category (Mark 10.35-38). But Jesus also uses it of requests in prayer to God.[3]

 

John’s Gospel uses none of the common words for prayer (proseuchesthai, proseuche, deesthai, deesis)…[Jesus] repeatedly promises that whatever his disciples ask (aitein) in his name the Father will give them (15.16; 16.23-24), even promising that he (himself) will do whatever his disciples ask (aitein) in his name, ‘so that the Father may be glorified’ (14.13). And he adds, ‘if you ask me for anything in my name, I will do it’ (14.14). Requests to the Father in Jesus’ name are of a piece with requests to Jesus himself; the common factor is ‘in his name’. ‘In that day you will ask (erotan) the Father on your behalf; for the Father Himself loves you’ (16.26-27). If the disciples abide in him and his words abide in them they may ask (aitein) whatever they want and it will be done for them (15.7).

Elsewhere in the NT writings, ‘prayer’ as such (proseuchesthai, proseuche), explicitly or implicitly, is always made to God…in Acts 8.22, 24, where Simon is urged to ‘pray (deesthai) to the Lord’ that he might be forgiven; the reference to ‘the Lord’ is ambiguous.[4] But deesis is used in the Epistles always for prayer; that is, prayer to God. 

…in the Epistles aitein is used almost exclusively in prayer contexts. For example, ‘I pray (aitoumai) that you may not lose heart over my sufferings’ (Eph 3.13); God ‘is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask (aitoumetha) or imagine’ (3.20); ‘we have not ceased praying (proseuchomenoi) for you and asking (aitoumenoi) that you may be filled with the knowledge of God’s will’ (Col 1.9[Jam 1.5-6; similarly 4.2-3; 1 John 5.14-16])…

In Acts and the Epistles [parakalein] regularly appears in the everyday sense of ‘urge, exhort [2Cor 1.3-7; 7.4-7, 13]…The only obvious case [of it] being used in a prayer context is 2Cor 12…parakalein here is used in the sense of an appeal in prayer…to the Lord Jesus Christ. This can safely be concluded not only because ‘the Lord’ in Paul is almost always the Lord Jesus (apart from its occurrence in scriptural quotations)[5] but also because the grace and power that the one appealed to promises Paul in answer to his appeal is specifically identified as ‘the power of Christ’…Paul understood the exalted Christ as one who could be appealed to for help, a request or petition that can readily be understood as prayer.[6]

 

Another passage that calls for attention is [1Cor 16.22; cf. Rev. 22.20]. The fact that it appears in Aramaic strongly suggests that it had become a regular feature in early liturgies—rather like the continued use of the Aramaic ‘Abba, Father’ in the prayers of the Greek-speaking churches (Rom 8.15; Gal 4.6)…Yet perhaps we should recall that according to the Gospels, when Jesus cried out on the cross, some of the bystanders thought he was calling on (phonei) Elijah; that is calling for him to come and help him (Mark 15.35-36). Elijah, it should be remembered, had been taken to heaven…and there was a widespread expectation that he would return from heaven before the day of the Lord [Mal. 4.5; cf. Mark 6.15; 8.28; John 1.21[7]]. However, we have no examples of appeals to Elijah being made in Second Temple Judaism for him to return or to help someone,[8] though we should also recall Alan Segal’s observation that in Jewish mystical texts all kinds of angelic beings are invoked.[9] [Yet, Jesus’ crucifixion] may provide evidence that the contemporaries of Jesus could well conceive of an appeal being made to one who had been transferred to heaven that he come (again) to earth.

To call upon Jesus (in prayer[10]) was evidently a defining and distinguishing feature of earliest Christian worship. 

The most explicit prayer language is used exclusively of prayer to God. Jesus himself is remembered as regularly praying to God and giving instruction on prayer to God. With the less explicitly prayer language of ‘asking, requesting and appealing to’ the picture is somewhat different. Again, where it appears in prayer, the request is normally addressed to God. But in John’s Gospel repeated emphasis is placed by Jesus on his disciples’ future praying to God ‘in his [Jesus’] name’. Paul both appeals directly to Jesus for help from heaven and reflects a commonly used appeal for the Lord Christ to come (again) from heaven. And the earliest Christians are known as ‘those who call upon or invoke the name of Jesus’. If, speaking with tightly focused precision, ‘prayer’ as such was not usually made to Jesus in the worship of the first Christian congregations, at least he was regarded as one, sitting at God’s right hand, who could be and was called upon, and to whom appeal could be made. 

“Looking back over the first centuries of the Christian era, we may come to this conclusion: to judge from all that survives in documents and accounts of the Church’s life in this period, liturgical prayer, in regard to its form of address, keeps with considerable unanimity to the rule of turning to God (repeatedly described as the Father of Jesus Christ) through Christ the High Priest…It was not until the end of the fourth century that we meet by way of exception prayers to Christ the Lord, and these are not within the Eucharistic celebration proper, but in the pre-Mass and in Baptism. On the other hand we know that in private prayers, both in apostolic times and later, the prayer to Christ was well known and customary.” J.S. Jungmann, The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer (London: Chapman, 1965, pgs. 164-6).

This [quote] also reminds us that a more prominent theme in the NT is Jesus as the one who prays for his followers rather than the one prayed to…Hurtado notes that in the NT ‘any direct prayer or appeal to Christ is always to be framed by the sovereignty of the one God, and is in fact very limited in scope and frequency’ (Origins 104)… 

[Another] important side to the question of whether Jesus was prayed to [is] the thought of Jesus as the heavenly intercessor [and his functioning as High Priest, Heb 7.24-25]…intermediary between God and humans [1Tim 2.5]…Christ can emphasize with and help those who come to God through him…Equally, indeed more, important for many of these Christians was the assurance that Jesus was praying for them. Here again we find ourselves with the two-sidedness of the first Christians’ esteem for Christ, both as the mediator between God and man, the one through whom they would come confidently to God, and as the one who was also conjoint with God in the worship [and prayers] they brought to God.

---

[1] Luke 5.12; 8.28, 38; 9.38 (the same request made to the disciples—9.40).

[2] Matt. 9.38/Luke 10.2; 21.36; 22.32 (Jesus makes a request on behalf of Simon Peter). The noun deesis is used exclusively of requests made to God (Luke 1.13; 2.37; 5.33).

[3] Mark 11.24; Matt. 7.7-11/Luke 11.9-13; Matt. 6.8; 18.19.

[4]…as in the other ‘Lord’ = God references in Acts, the influence of the OT usage suggests that Luke was thinking of worship [and prayer] to God.

[5] 19 times in the Pauline corpus…However…the OT eschatological expectations of ‘the day of the Lord’ seems to have become the Christian hope for ‘the day of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1Cor 1.8; 2Cor 1.14)…in several instances Paul quotes an OT reference to the Lord (Yahweh) and refers it to the Lord Jesus Christ [Rom 10.9-13]…[this means] for Paul either that Jesus is Yahweh, or, more likely, that Yahweh has bestowed His own unique saving power on the Lord [Jesus] who sits on His right side, or that the exalted Jesus is himself the embodiment as well as the executive of that saving power…

 […if Ps 110.1 allows the concept of two Lords, the second given his plenipotentionary status by the first, then there is presumably no reason (why such passages) should not be referred to the second Lord…That God was understood to pass divine authority to others is indicated by the various individuals who were thought to play the role of heavenly judges—Adam & Abel (T. Abr. 11,13), Melchizedech (11QMelch 13-14), Enoch and Elijah (1 Enoch 90.31; Apoc. Elij. 24.11-15)—including the saints themselves (Matt. 19.28/Luke 22.30; 1Cor 6.2-3). Cf. Hurtado’s careful formulation: ‘Early Christians saw Jesus as the uniquely significant agent of the one God, and in their piety they extended the exclusivity of the one God to take in God’s uniquely important representative, while stoutly refusing to extend this exclusivity to any other figure’ (Lord Jesus Christ 204.)].

[6] ‘Paul’s easy recounting of his actions suggests that he expects his readers to be familiar with prayer-appeals to Jesus as a communally accepted feature of Christian devotional practice [1Cor 1.2] (Hurtado, Origins 75).

[7]…we should stress that there is no thought of Elijah being worshipped [or prayed to] in any of these accounts. But again the precedence for the belief that Jesus had been exalted to share in heavenly glory should not be ignored.

[8] Hurtado, Origins 77.

[9] In common Greek epikaleisthai is regularly used of calling upon a deity [BDAG, 373. Alan Segal, ‘Paul’s “SOMA PNEUMATIKON” and the Worship of Jesus’, in Newman, et al. (eds.), Jewish Roots 258-76, notes that the terminology is characteristic both of pagan magic and of Jewish mystical texts: ‘In the Hekhaloth texts, all kinds of angelic beings are invoked with the terminology’ (274)…the motif of angelic intercessors was already familiar within Second Temple Judaism [e.g., Job 33.23-26; Tobit 12.15; 1 Enoch 9.3; 15.2; 99.3; 104.1; T. Levi 3.5; 5.6-7; T. Dan 6.2].

[10] Cf. “call upon”, Acts 7.59; 9.14, 21; 22.16; Rom 10.12,14; 1Cor 1.2; 2Tim 2.22. This defining feature of these early Christians…marked them out from others who ‘called upon (the name of)’ some other deity or heavenly being...’Jesus’ cultic presence and power clearly operate here in the manner we otherwise associate with a god’ (Hurtado, Origins 80).