Guiding Thoughts

• Abortion has been a topic intensely debated ever since Roe v Wade  was passed in the supreme court on Jan 22, 1973.
• It has become a question of the value of human life as well a question of what are the biological/ethical criteria that makes us human.
• What are your thoughts and opinions about abortion?
• How has this topic affected you emotionally?
• If you found out that one of your non-disciple friends were considering abortion, what would you do?
• How would this affect your relationship with them if you find out that they had already undergone the procedure, or have undergone the procedure in the past?
• What if this happened to a disciple?
• “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” ~Galatians 2:21
• If we didn’t need grace then Christ died for nothing and God would not be able to show us His love by sacrificing Himself for us.
• “But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.” ~2 Corinthians 12:9
• We all make mistakes, but God suffered and extended his grace to us to show us how powerful and loving He is.
• For someone affected by abortion, this brings into stark contrast God’s love, and we should remember that God is a god of healing and comfort“As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue—no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”~President Barack Obama

http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/on-the-39th-anniversary-of-roe-v-wade.

Current Political Climate

• What does “sacred” mean?
• Things that are “sacred” or “holy” are set apart or set aside; things that deserve extra veneration.
• For the Christian, or anyone else who is spiritual, many things are sacred, including life.
• Dr. John Holdren (BS MIT, Ph.D Stanford, Harvard Professor of 13 years, advisor to President Obama for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology) has published a book arguing for the abortion of children up to the age of two.
• Secular reasoning cannot apply ethical value, and therefore sanctity, to anything, including life.

Scriptures against abortion

• “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” ~Jeremiah 1:5
• “My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written; the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.” ~Psalm 139:15-16
• God views embryos as people before they are born.
• Obviously, if embryos are people, and the murder of people is a sin, then the murder of embryos is also a sin.
• “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.  But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.” ~Exodus 21:22-23
• Under Mosiac law, the Hebrews understood that the rights of the unborn should be protected.
• This shows that even before a child is born, is capable of making decisions, or has been fully developed, an embryo has the right to live and be protected.

A Question to Ask Pro-Abortionists:

• Often, the best debate tactic against is abortion is to do the following:
• Bring your hand around hip level and say “I have a two-year-old next to me, under what circumstance would it be okay for someone to terminate the two-year-old’s life?”
• For example, if someone argues that it should be legal to abort an embryo because it will be born mentally handicapped ask the same question as thus:
• “I have a mentally handicapped two-year-old next to me, under what circumstance would it be okay for someone to terminate this two-year-old’s life?”
• If it is not okay to kill a mentally handicapped two-year-old, then it is not okay to kill an embryo that will be born mentally handicapped.
• The same question can be used in any other circumstance:
• “I have a two-year-old that is the product of rape next to me, under what circumstance would it be okay for someone to terminate this two-year-old’s life?”
• “I have a two-year-old who is growing up in an abusive household next to me, under what circumstance would it be okay for someone to terminate this two-year-old’s life?”
• “I have a two-year-old whose mother is still in high school, under what circumstance would it be okay for someone to terminate the two-year-old’s life?”
• Regardless of any circumstance that might be offered, the argument to say that it is ethically correct to  terminate a pregnancy will be viable only if you can make the same argument to terminate an adult for the same reason.
• What if the birth of the child may endanger the life of the mother?
• “I have a two-year-old next to me whose mother died giving birth to him/her, under what circumstance would it be okay for someone to terminate this two-year-old’s life?”
• What if the child will be born with serious medical issues and birth defects?
• “I have a two-year-old next to me born with serious medical issues and birth defects, under what circumstance would it be okay for someone to terminate this two-year-old’s life?”
• Can you name any other circumstance that might be used?

The Ethical Debate:

• Often the ethical debate is framed that either

1. At a certain stage of development an embryo or infant becomes human or
2. At the moment of conception an embryo is human.

• We understand that even though a human might be bereft of certain parts (arms, legs, kidneys, and other organs) the human remains as a human.
• Mental states (like being brain dead) can give someone the legal to right cease life support.
• Does this mean that if someone isn’t fully mentally developed that they aren’t fully human?
• Abortion brings up many issues like:
• What does it mean to be human?
• Do humans have a soul?
• At what point of time do they have a soul?
• At what point of time can a person on life support be considered dead or non-human?

The Bio-Ethical Point of View

• While as a Christian we can affirm that humans have a soul, this is not the belief of everyone, and so debates based on the existence of the soul are not nearly as strong as bioethical debates based on the moment of conception as the moment a human begins existing.
• The human body as millions upon millions of living cells that are individually alive and are individually working to sustain their own life by working to together to sustain your life.
• Everyday, thousands of your body’s cells live and die
• Sex cells are cells that are individually alive like any other cell in your body.
• However, the moment when two sex cells combine to create a zygote they are much different than any other cell in your body.
• A zygote will have different DNA and different genes than the DNA and genes the mother will have.
• A zygote is capable of directing its own growth and cell function, and is not under the direction of the autonomic, semi-autonomic, or somatic nervous system of the mother
• Therefore, while the zygote is completely dependent on the mother for survival, it exists biologically as a separate entity from the mother.

Embryos Exist Separate from the Mother:

• A mucus sac forms around the embryo to help protect the embryo against the mother’s immunity system; if the sac did not exist then the mother’s immunity system would attack the foreign cells much like how it would attack an organ from a different human.
• The placenta, though attached to the uterine wall and extremely close to the mother’s blood system, does not allow the mother’s blood and the embryo’s blood to mix.  The placenta is connected to the embryo and is so close to the blood system of the mother that nutrients in the blood are passed on to the embryo while making sure the two blood systems don’t intermingle.
• Though zygotes are composed of living cells and a new cadaver also has living cells, a cadaver and a zygote are different from each other.
• While a cadaver that has been dead for five minutes still has some remaining cells that are still alive, it is much different than a living human being.
• While some of the cells inside a cadaver are still alive, the cadaver is incapable of directing its own growth of function and is not capable of sustaining life in their own environment.
• Zygotes and embryos are capable of directing their own cell growth and are self-sustaining in their environment.
• Therefore we can conclude that at the moment of conception, regardless of the level of development, that a human being has come into existence.

The Acorn is Not a Tree:

• Often pro-abortions try to use “the acorn is not the tree” analogy.
• This is true, an acorn is not a tree, however:
• If the acorn is from an oak, and has the potential to become an oak tree, then the acorn’s nature is that of an oak.
• If a baby is from a human, and has the potential to become an adult, then the baby’s nature is that of a human.
• To say that a baby is not an adult is true, however this is much different than saying that a baby is not a human.

Final Thoughts:

• The topic of abortion is a highly sensitive issue because most humans regard life (especially human life) as sacred and should be protected and nurtured.
• These feelings are magnified when it comes to the care of infants and children because infants and children require much care, attention, and gentleness and are incapable of making informed decisions due to lack of neurological development.
• God obviously is concerned with the care of children by outlawing the practice of Molech worship (Lev 18:21, 20:1-5), directing us to take care of the orphans and widows (James 1:27) and equating defending the helpless with righteousness.
• “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” ~Mahatma Ghandi

Let’s Review:

• What is the main question you can ask a pro-abortionist that counters any argument they can bring forth?
• At what point of time does a human biologically come into existence?
• What is something important that you have learned here?
• Has learning more about abortion changed your emotional and intellectual reaction to the topic of abortion?
• How are you planning on applying what you have learned to your life?
• Should we exercise our rights as citizens to vote this down, or should we focus on making more Christians?

1. What are some of your thoughts and opinions about homosexuality?
2. What are some reoccurring themes and opinions that you have heard about homosexuality and gay marriage while on campus?
3. What are some personal experiences you’ve had that have helped you define your opinions and observations about homosexuality?
4. How have you typically handled this topic while sharing your faith?
5. How has the all of this affected you and your ability to share your faith?

Homosexuality and Theism:

• Much of the theist argument for homosexuality begins by stating that the idea of the term is much different than what we understand it to be today
• These theists state that homosexuality as we understand it was normal in the ancient days
• They view that passages condemning homosexuality and homosexual acts are referring exclusively to either:
• Homosexual acts in the worship of other gods
• Homosexual acts which went against the natural heterosexual orientation of the person(s) committing the act
• Theists arguing for homosexuality note that “homosexual” does not appear in any Bible until 1946
• This is most likely due to the word not being introduced to the English language until 1892
• While the specific word for homosexual was not used, other terms were used instead (like “arsenokoites”)
• The idea of homosexuality has existed for several thousand years, the introduction of the word to the English language and the Bible is fairly new.
• Other arguments by theists for homosexuality say that because God made them this way and because God loves them He would not force them to do anything that would cause undue suffering.
• As we will soon see, this concept flies in the face of Biblical understanding

Homosexuality and the OT:

• OT laws can be typified into three different categories:
• Universal Moral Laws: Do not steal, kill, lie, etc.
• Cultural Universals: trimming your beard and ritualistic scarring/tattoos were all related to pagan practices and the occult, so the law is directed towards not practicing the occult.
• Ceremonial Laws: laws regarding sin offerings, priestly garments, et cetera, which have all been eradicated by the atonement of Christ (Hebrews)
• Since ceremonial laws have been superseded by Christ, we will be focusing on the first two types of laws.

“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” ~Leviticus 18:22
“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” ~Leviticus 20:13

• Theists who support homosexuality argue that because the context of these passages include ritual cleanness and pagan worship, that the practice of homosexuality is related exclusively to homosexuality in pagan practices.
• This however seems inconsistent, because these passages deal with prohibitions against incest (Lev 18:5-17, 20:17) and bestiality (Lev 18:23, 20:16), does this mean that incest and bestiality is allowable?
• Which category do these laws fall under (universal moral or cultural)?
• The majority of theists supporting homosexuality use the translation of “detestable” or “towebah” in reference exclusively to forbidden idolatrous practices

The word and its derivations appears 117 times in the OT, and is used in various ways:

• Egyptians not eating with Hebrews (Gen 43:32)
• Egyptian distaste for shepherding (Gen 46:34)
• Egyptian distaste towards the manner Hebrews sacrifice (Exodus 8:26)
• Dealing dishonestly (Deu 25:16)
• Cross-dressing (Deu 22:5)
• Paying a vow using the earrings of a prostitute (Deu 23:18)
• Remarrying a woman you previously divorced and who had her second marriage end (Deu 24:1-4)
• Being abhorred by your friends (Psa 88:8)
• A perverse or violent man (Pro 3:31-32)
• “There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.” ~Proverbs 6:16-19
• The simple translation is that whatever is being done is detestable or an abomination.

Genesis 9:20-27

• The reason why this passage is being brought up is because the sin of Ham is not directly made clear through the passage.
• Some have determined that Ham had sexual desire for his father, and then was cursed by Noah for this transgression
• This passage is difficult to interpret, and it is not recommended that you use this when defending against homosexuality,
• This passage is only mentioned here to help inform you.
• It is highly recommended that you commit yourself to some personal research on this passage before making a clear conviction about its interpretation.

“Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father’s nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.” He also said, “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave.”   ~Genesis 9:20-27

• “To see the nakedness” is a phrase that meant “forbidden sexuality” like fornication or sexual promiscuity (Exodus 20:26, Deuteronomy 23:1, Ezekiel 16:36-7, 22:10, 23:10, 29: Isaiah 47:2; Hosea 2:12)
• The Hebrew language used in the passage indicates that Ham actually uncovered Noah, and desired him sexually.
• Other Bible commentaries indicate that “Ham told his brothers with delight”, and as such was seen as a means to undermine Noah’s authority.
• The source of Ham’s curse could also be because of Ham’s incestuous desires, and not necessarily his homosexual desires.

Homosexuality and the NT:
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” ~1 Corinthians 6:9-10

• The Greek word for homosexual in this passage is “arsenokoites”, literally “a man in bed with another man”
• Theist arguing for homosexuality say that this passage is referring to idol worship
• Previous chapter refers to expulsion of a man sleeping with his father’s wife
• Anteceding chapter talks of avoiding sexual immorality
• Context of the passage is about avoiding sin and being righteous

“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done” ~Romans 1:26-28

• This passage is used in context of all people knowing who God is and rejecting Him.
• Because people rejected God, God gave allowed them to be taken over into sin.
• Some of the sins these people were in included homosexuality.
• Some theists arguing for homosexuality say that this passage is specific towards the aforementioned idol worship and going against the natural heterosexual orientation.

“When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.” Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?” The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.” Matthew 8:5-13 (see also Luke 7:1-10)

• Both the Matthew and Luke accounts of the centurion uses the word “pais” when describing the centurion’s servant.
• Some liberal scholars have interpreted the term to mean “a young, male slave meant for sexual pleasure”
• Similar scholars indicate that the servant might be a soldier in-training, or the head slave/servant of the household, but all agree that the centurion was having sex with this particular servant
• Greek translation of the word means “boy”, “girl”, “servant”, or “slave”
• Even if the liberal translation is correct, Jesus is not approving of the sexual behavior of the centurion, only the centurion’s faith.

Homosexuality and Secularism:

• The LGBT community advocates that the Church should conform their community’s standards to the LGBT community’s standards.
• If the LGBT says that the Church should conform to them, why can’t the Church say that LGBT should conform to the Church?
• The LGBT community advocates that their orientation is the result of genetics and therefore “natural”.
• Does this mean that pedophilia, psychopathy, sociopathy, alcoholism, and drug addictions should be considered socially acceptable as well?
• The LGBT community argues that since same-sex relationships are found among other mammals and primates (dogs, bottle-nosed dolphins, bonobos, etc.), then this is a sign saying that same-sex attraction is natural.
• Does mean that rape (in the case of orangutans), and infanticide (in the case of gorillas and lions) should also be applied to human society as well?
• The LGBT community contends that homosexuality is normal because it occurs in about 5% of the population.
• However, if we are supposed to define “normal” by argumentum ad populum, then because the chances of being homosexual are more abnormal than normal then homosexuality is not normal. (This works well against relativistic arguments)

The best question to defeat any secular arguments for homosexuality is:

“How does being homosexual help society?”

• From a bio-evolutionary standpoint, homosexuals are incapable of passing their genes along because their natural tendency is to mate with members who cannot pass on their genes.
• To argue that homosexual couples can adopt and place children in homes with parents or in a healthier environment is not conducive to helping society.
• If children lack parents or a healthy environment then this just means that society needs better families.
• Some pro-homosexual secularists say that because homosexuals are not harming anyone, then homosexuality is not morally bad
• This does not answer the question, “How does homosexuality help society?” because the question is not “How is it not bad?”, the question is “How is it good?”
• Many facts and statistics can be used to show how homosexuals have higher rates of drug abuse, depression, and suicide
• This, however, can be attributed to society’s persecution of homosexuals and not as a by-product of being homosexual
• Other statistics show that homosexuals have more partners and are thus more likely to contract STD’s like HIV and others
• Safe and/or monogamous sex are counterexamples to those statistics.
• Another argument is that homosexuals tend to have more sexual partners, and thus are able to provide sexual favors and social status climbing.
• However, being at the top of the social order is not necessarily a good thing, several historical figures were viewed as social pariahs and yet massively contributed to society as a whole.
• Other arguments dismiss objective values and instead rely on relativism as proof for homosexuality.
• However, pluralistic ideals collapse on themselves as soon as someone decides that there is objective values because their viewpoint instantly rejects all relative values.
• Relativistic values are also rife with self-contradictions (There is no absolute truth, everything is relative, et cetera)

Pro-homosexuality secularists disagree on Christians’ condemnation of homosexuals.

• While the Christian who does specifically condemn homosexuals are in the wrong, pro-homosexuality secularists who equivocate all Christians to condemning homosexuality are also wrong
• Christian do no condemn anyone, God judges and condemns
• For example, if I was to tell someone to “not lean on that rail or you’ll fall”, I did not condemn them to falling, gravity and their poor judgment did.
• This is the same for homosexuals; we can warn them of their actions, but it is the law and their own actions that in the end will condemn them.

Final Notes:
Paul seems more concerned about bringing people to Christ than trying to dictate what people outside the Church should do (1 Cor 5:12-13)

• When dealing with non-disciples are mindset should always be to not condemn them.
• What are some practical steps to help ensure the person we are sharing our faith with will feel positive about Christianity’s views on homosexuality?
• What are some practical steps to help ensure the person we are studying with will feel positive about Christianity’s views on homosexuality?

Resources:

http://threehierarchies.blogspot.com/2007/03/infanticide-major-factor-in-mammalian_16.html

http://carm.org/homosexuality

http://www.matthewnederlanden.com/bible-commentary/jesus-heals-the-centurion-matthew-8.php

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html

http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romhom.html

http://www.tektonics.org/TK-H.html (this is an alphalist, look for the word “homosexuality”)
“Toebah”

http://concordances.org/hebrew/8441.htm

http://concordances.org/hebrew/strongs_8441.htm

“pais”

http://concordances.org/greek/733.htm

http://concordances.org/greek/strongs_3816.htm

“Arsenokoites “

http://concordances.org/greek/strongs_733.htm

http://concordances.org/greek/733.htm

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password: