SHOULD CHRISTIANS BE AGAINST ABORTION

[Moonwood]

FYI
The people in Judges 19 are identified as an old man and a Levite----who gave up the women to the homosexuals.
The story of Lot's incest with his daughters is Genesis 19.

Yes, we’re discussing Lot in Genesis 19, specifically his offer of the daughters to the mob. Judges 19 is a different episode with the Levite and the old man. The point under discussion is Lot’s action in Genesis 19 and how it’s interpreted in moral theology.

The statistics of why people murder babies are in post #4
Abortion-----charity, responsibility-----address the heart.....You are not really going to know the people that the law stops from having abortion. So you are not going to know their story.

Now we have suicide hot lines......should we have abortion hot lines.......Single mother hot lines......adoption hot lines?

Civil law can forbid the act, but it can’t see the interior reality of the people involved — fear, pressure, trauma, diminished freedom. Christian moral theology isn’t trying to replace civil law; it’s explaining what God judges in the heart, which civil law can’t access.

We don’t need to know every individual story to affirm both things at once: the act is intrinsically evil, and God judges the interior responsibility with justice and mercy. That’s the distinction I’m making — civil law addresses the external act; Christian moral reasoning addresses the heart.

Ya know I suspect that demons walk the halls of abortion clinics, maybe Satan himself maybe there and spreads his wings and does a dance of joy as he watches mothers get naked and lay down on table that could serve as an altar to the devil and spread their legs as a monster get between her legs to horribly murder her baby. The screams of the baby would probably be music to his ears.
You will not likely see videos of this because Satan does not want people to see the house of demonic horrors. Sometimes the baby is dissected in the mother, sometimes murdered after its head passes the birth canal and sometimes the baby is murdered outside the mother. We don't get to see it, but God sees it.

The imagery doesn’t change the point I’m making. Christian moral theology evaluates both the moral object of an act and the interior responsibility of the person, because God judges the heart as well as the action. Civil law can forbid the act, but it cannot see fear, coercion, trauma, or diminished freedom.

Nothing in that distinction minimizes the gravity of abortion. It simply keeps the categories clear: the act is intrinsically evil, and God judges the interior reality with perfect justice and mercy. Emotional descriptions don’t replace moral analysis, and they don’t collapse the difference between moral absolutes and culpability.

 

[Grailhunter]

Yes, we’re discussing Lot in Genesis 19, specifically his offer of the daughters to the mob. Judges 19 is a different episode with the Levite and the old man. The point under discussion is Lot’s action in Genesis 19 and how it’s interpreted in moral theology.

Go to your Bible and look it up. In Genesis 19 Lot has sex with his daughters. The person in Judges is not identified as Lot.

 

[Grailhunter]

Civil law can forbid the act, but it can’t see the interior reality of the people involved — fear, pressure, trauma, diminished freedom. Christian moral theology isn’t trying to replace civil law; it’s explaining what God judges in the heart, which civil law can’t access.

We don’t need to know every individual story to affirm both things at once: the act is intrinsically evil, and God judges the interior responsibility with justice and mercy. That’s the distinction I’m making — civil law addresses the external act; Christian moral reasoning addresses the heart.

diminished freedom! Is abortion freedom! And Yeshua's judgment will be just but you do not know the mind of Yeshua. What they do will be judged.
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 2nd Corinthians 5:10 No mention of intent or heart or feelings.

 

[Grailhunter]

The imagery doesn’t change the point I’m making. Christian moral theology evaluates both the moral object of an act and the interior responsibility of the person, because God judges the heart as well as the action. Civil law can forbid the act, but it cannot see fear, coercion, trauma, or diminished freedom.

Nothing in that distinction minimizes the gravity of abortion. It simply keeps the categories clear: the act is intrinsically evil, and God judges the interior reality with perfect justice and mercy. Emotional descriptions don’t replace moral analysis, and they don’t collapse the difference between moral absolutes and culpability.

1st Corinthians 6:9-10 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God”

Galatians 5:19-21 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Again no mention of intent, heart, or feelings.

 

[Moonwood]

Go to your Bible and look it up. In Genesis 19 Lot has sex with his daughters. The person in Judges is not identified as Lot.

Yes, I’m aware of that. The point under discussion isn’t the later incest narrative but Lot’s offer in Genesis 19, which is the action being analyzed in moral theology. Judges 19 is a separate episode entirely. The question on the table is how Lot’s offer is interpreted within Christian moral categories — moral object, culpability, and narrative description — not whether the two passages refer to the same person.

diminished freedom! Is abortion freedom! And Yeshua's judgment will be just but you do not know the mind of Yeshua. What they do will be judged.
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 2nd Corinthians 5:10 No mention of intent or heart or feelings.

“Diminished freedom” doesn’t mean abortion is freedom; it refers to fear, coercion, trauma, pressure, or manipulation that can reduce a person’s interior responsibility. Christian moral theology has always distinguished the moral object of an act from the culpability of the person, because Christ judges both the act and the heart.

2 Corinthians 5:10 doesn’t deny interior judgment; Paul explicitly teaches elsewhere that Christ judges the secrets of the heart (Romans 2:16) and will bring to light the motives of each person (1 Corinthians 4:5). Civil law can only see the external act; God sees the interior reality, which is why Christian moral theology keeps those categories distinct.

1st Corinthians 6:9-10 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God”

Galatians 5:19-21 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Again no mention of intent, heart, or feelings.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21 list external acts, but they don’t deny the reality of interior judgment. Paul explicitly teaches elsewhere that Christ judges the secrets of the heart (Romans 2:16) and will bring to light the motives of each person (1 Corinthians 4:5).

That’s the distinction I’m making: Christian moral theology evaluates both the moral object of an act and the interior responsibility of the person, because God judges both the act and the heart. Civil law can forbid the act, but it cannot see fear, coercion, trauma, pressure, or diminished freedom.

Nothing in that distinction minimizes the gravity of abortion. It simply keeps the categories clear: the act is intrinsically evil, and God judges the interior reality with perfect justice and mercy. Emotional descriptions don’t replace moral analysis, and they don’t collapse the difference between moral absolutes and culpability.

 

[Grailhunter]

Yes, I’m aware of that. The point under discussion isn’t the later incest narrative but Lot’s offer in Genesis 19, which is the action being analyzed in moral theology. Judges 19 is a separate episode entirely. The question on the table is how Lot’s offer is interpreted within Christian moral categories — moral object, culpability, and narrative description — not whether the two passages refer to the same person.

Lot is not in the story of Judges 19 and it is a much later time period. By the time of Judges lot is long dead. Where you are error is to say "Lot's offer" Lot was not there. The person that offered up the girls was referred to as the "the old man or the owner of the house"
On the other hand judging Old Testament characters or even God by Christian standard would not be fair. There are 613 Mosaic Laws and within those laws women are considered property. And were handled accordingly. From their perspective much better to give up property than for men to lose their lives. By our standards the men would be considered cowards.
So his concubine is raped to death and the Levite cuts her body up in twelve pieces and send the pieces to the 12 tribes and started a war.

 

[Grailhunter]

2 Corinthians 5:10 doesn’t deny interior judgment; Paul explicitly teaches elsewhere that Christ judges the secrets of the heart (Romans 2:16) and will bring to light the motives of each person (1 Corinthians 4:5). Civil law can only see the external act; God sees the interior reality, which is why Christian moral theology keeps those categories distinct.

Secrets of the Heart is not necessarily a good thing they can further damn you.
As they say The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and The end does not justify the means.

 

[Grailhunter]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21 list external acts, but they don’t deny the reality of interior judgment. Paul explicitly teaches elsewhere that Christ judges the secrets of the heart (Romans 2:16) and will bring to light the motives of each person (1 Corinthians 4:5).

That’s the distinction I’m making: Christian moral theology evaluates both the moral object of an act and the interior responsibility of the person, because God judges both the act and the heart. Civil law can forbid the act, but it cannot see fear, coercion, trauma, pressure, or diminished freedom.

Nothing in that distinction minimizes the gravity of abortion. It simply keeps the categories clear: the act is intrinsically evil, and God judges the interior reality with perfect justice and mercy. Emotional descriptions don’t replace moral analysis, and they don’t collapse the difference between moral absolutes and culpability.

What the heck is "interior judgment"
What all you have been saying with your posts sounds like double talk. You see I am getting the impression from you that you believe you can get away with some very sinful things with matter of intent and matter of the heart. If you murder someone the act is done and what is left is damnation when judged. With what you are saying it sound like you would be a dangerous person to be around because you could justify some awful things. Like Lindsay Chancy when she killed her children.

 

[Moonwood]

Lot is not in the story of Judges 19 and it is a much later time period. By the time of Judges lot is long dead. Where you are error is to say "Lot's offer" Lot was not there. The person that offered up the girls was referred to as the "the old man or the owner of the house"
On the other hand judging Old Testament characters or even God by Christian standard would not be fair. There are 613 Mosaic Laws and within those laws women are considered property. And were handled accordingly. From their perspective much better to give up property than for men to lose their lives. By our standards the men would be considered cowards.
So his concubine is raped to death and the Levite cuts her body up in twelve pieces and send the pieces to the 12 tribes and started a war.

Yes, I’m not conflating the passages. Judges 19 is the Levite and the old man; Genesis 19 contains both Lot’s offer to the mob and, later in the chapter, the incest narrative. The point under discussion is Lot’s offer in Genesis 19:8, because that’s the action being evaluated within Christian moral categories — moral object, culpability, and narrative description.

I’m not judging Old Testament characters by Christian standards; I’m distinguishing what the text narrates from what Christian moral theology treats as a moral norm. Narrative description isn’t moral prescription, and the existence of Mosaic civil laws doesn’t erase the difference between what Scripture reports and what Christians are called to imitate.

Secrets of the Heart is not necessarily a good thing they can further damn you.
As they say The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and The end does not justify the means.

What the heck is "interior judgment"
What all you have been saying with your posts sounds like double talk. You see I am getting the impression from you that you believe you can get away with some very sinful things with matter of intent and matter of the heart. If you murder someone the act is done and what is left is damnation when judged. With what you are saying it sound like you would be a dangerous person to be around because you could justify some awful things. Like Lindsay Chancy when she killed her children.

“Secrets of the heart” can reveal sin, but that doesn’t negate the point: Christ judges both the act and the heart. “Good intentions” can damn, and evil intentions can damn — but interior responsibility is still part of what God judges. “Interior judgment” simply means that culpability is evaluated alongside the moral object of the act; it doesn’t mean anyone “gets away” with sin.

Saying “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions” or “the end does not justify the means” doesn’t erase the distinction Christian moral theology makes between the intrinsically evil act and the interior responsibility of the person. The act remains evil, and the end does not justify the means — but God still judges the interior reality, including fear, coercion, trauma, pressure, or diminished freedom.

Scripture itself teaches that Christ judges the secrets and motives of the heart (Romans 2:16; 1 Corinthians 4:5). That’s why Christian moral theology keeps both categories in place: moral absolutes on the level of the act, and culpability on the level of the heart.

 

[Grailhunter]

Yes, I’m not conflating the passages. Judges 19 is the Levite and the old man; Genesis 19 contains both Lot’s offer to the mob and, later in the chapter, the incest narrative. The point under discussion is Lot’s offer in Genesis 19:8, because that’s the action being evaluated within Christian moral categories — moral object, culpability, and narrative description.

I’m not judging Old Testament characters by Christian standards; I’m distinguishing what the text narrates from what Christian moral theology treats as a moral norm. Narrative description isn’t moral prescription, and the existence of Mosaic civil laws doesn’t erase the difference between what Scripture reports and what Christians are called to imitate.

Mosaic Laws were given by Yahweh they are not civil. And in following these 613 Laws at times are contrary to Yeshua's and the Apostle's teachings. The religious beliefs are different the Divine directives are different and the culture is different. Christian moral categories — moral object, culpability, and narrative description???? What are you talking about?

but that doesn’t negate the point: Christ judges both the act and the heart.

Find the scripture that something in your heart could save you from Hell on judgment Day.

 

[Grailhunter]

the distinction Christian moral theology makes between the intrinsically evil act and the interior responsibility of the person. The act remains evil, and the end does not justify the means — but God still judges the interior reality, including fear, coercion, trauma, pressure, or diminished freedom.

Find the scriptures for this belief. It still sounds like you believe a sin can be justified by circumstances or what is in your heart. You say things you believe without scriptures to back them up. Which means you are coming up with your own beliefs separate from the scriptures.

 

[Grailhunter]

Scripture itself teaches that Christ judges the secrets and motives of the heart (Romans 2:16; 1 Corinthians 4:5). That’s why Christian moral theology keeps both categories in place: moral absolutes on the level of the act, and culpability on the level of the heart.

But these scriptures do not say the secrets and motives are going to save you on Judgment Day. It just means we cannot hide anything from Yeshua.

 

[Moonwood]

Mosaic Laws were given by Yahweh they are not civil. And in following these 613 Laws at times are contrary to Yeshua's and the Apostle's teachings. The religious beliefs are different the Divine directives are different and the culture is different. Christian moral categories — moral object, culpability, and narrative description???? What are you talking about?

The Mosaic laws were indeed given by Yahweh, but they functioned as the civil and ritual structure of Israel’s covenant life. That’s why the New Testament can both affirm their divine origin and also teach that they are not binding on Christians. The difference in covenant, culture, and purpose is exactly why Christian moral theology doesn’t treat Mosaic civil practices as universal moral norms.

When I refer to moral object, culpability, and narrative description, I’m using the standard categories Christian moral theology has always used to distinguish what an act is, why a person willed it, and how Scripture presents it. Narrative description is not moral prescription, and the fact that Genesis reports an action doesn’t mean Christians are meant to imitate it.

So the point remains: Judges 19 is the Levite and the old man; Genesis 19 contains Lot’s offer and, later, the incest narrative. The action being discussed is Lot’s offer in Genesis 19:8, and the question is how that action is evaluated within Christian moral categories — not whether Mosaic laws or cultural norms make it morally exemplary.

Mosaic Laws were given by Yahweh they are not civil. And in following these 613 Laws at times are contrary to Yeshua's and the Apostle's teachings. The religious beliefs are different the Divine directives are different and the culture is different. Christian moral categories — moral object, culpability, and narrative description???? What are you talking about?


Find the scripture that something in your heart could save you from Hell on judgment Day.

Find the scriptures for this belief. It still sounds like you believe a sin can be justified by circumstances or what is in your heart. You say things you believe without scriptures to back them up. Which means you are coming up with your own beliefs separate from the scriptures.

But these scriptures do not say the secrets and motives are going to save you on Judgment Day. It just means we cannot hide anything from Yeshua.

I’m not saying anything in the heart “saves” a person from judgment. Interior judgment simply means that Christ judges both the act and the heart, not the heart instead of the act. Nothing in Christian moral theology teaches that fear, coercion, trauma, pressure, or diminished freedom erase sin or replace repentance.

The point is that culpability is evaluated alongside the moral object of the act. The act remains intrinsically evil, and the end does not justify the means — but Scripture also teaches that Christ judges the secrets and motives of the heart (Romans 2:16; 1 Corinthians 4:5).

So I’m not claiming that interior motives “save” anyone on Judgment Day. I’m saying exactly what Scripture says: God sees the interior reality, and that’s why Christian moral theology distinguishes moral absolutes on the level of the act from culpability on the level of the heart.

 

[Grailhunter]

the question is how that action is evaluated within Christian moral categories — not whether Mosaic laws or cultural norms make it morally exemplary.

Of course Christians would consider offering up the ladies would be wrong and sinful. But was it wrong for during that time period. Whether we like it or not morality changed between the Old and New Covenant. So you have to consider it from their perspective. Later on in the Old Testament a man sacrificed his own daughter because of a pledge he made with Yahweh that if he won a battle he would sacrifice the first person that walked out of his house. That person was his daughter. Different morals and different traditions.

 

[Moonwood]

Of course Christians would consider offering up the ladies would be wrong and sinful. But was it wrong for during that time period. Whether we like it or not morality changed between the Old and New Covenant. So you have to consider it from their perspective. Later on in the Old Testament a man sacrificed his own daughter because of a pledge he made with Yahweh that if he won a battle he would sacrifice the first person that walked out of his house. That person was his daughter. Different morals and different traditions.

Yes — that’s precisely the distinction I’m making. You’re describing how ancient Near Eastern culture operated under the Mosaic covenant, with different civil structures, different social norms, and different narrative practices. That’s exactly why Christian moral theology doesn’t treat those actions as moral models.

When I talk about moral object, culpability, and narrative description, I’m explaining how Christians distinguish what Scripture reports from what Christians are called to imitate. Narrative description — like Lot’s offer or Jephthah’s vow — isn’t moral prescription.

So yes, morality looks different across covenants and cultures. That’s why Christians evaluate actions like Lot’s offer in Genesis 19:8 using Christian moral categories rather than assuming that ancient practices automatically define moral norms for today.

And that’s exactly the point I’m making when I say morality looked different under the Mosaic covenant: you’re describing the same distinction Christian moral theology makes between what Scripture narrates and what Christians are called to imitate.

And this ties directly into the point about God’s sovereign justice. The reason morality looks different under the Mosaic covenant is not because God breaks His own law, but because God Himself establishes the covenantal framework in which those laws operate. His justice is always internally consistent: He never contradicts His own nature, and He never violates His own moral law. That’s why Christians evaluate Old Testament narratives through Christian moral categories rather than assuming that ancient covenantal practices define moral norms for today.

That’s why I distinguish the moral object of an act from the culpability of the person. Ancient Near Eastern practices — like Lot’s offer or Jephthah’s vow — belong to a different covenantal and cultural framework, and Christian moral theology doesn’t treat them as moral norms.

So your point about “different morals and different traditions” fits directly with what I said earlier: God judges both the act and the heart, and that’s why Christian moral theology keeps moral absolutes on the level of the act and culpability on the level of the heart.