The Human Right No One Wants To Talk About

From the declaration of independence, the bill of rights, and letters from the founding fathers, of the once-most-free nation on earth, we see a RIGHT of the people, that no one wants to talk about because of what it entails:

The Right of Revolution

The very opening of the Declaration of Independence we see a shadow of it:

“…it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…”

Then, in the second paragraph, it hits:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…

” THE RIGHT of the people to…

alter or to abolish it… “

Now, revolutions and abolishing the government is NOT and SHOULD NOT be a knee jerk reaction to something that is oppressive to the people.

These evils should be suffered, endured; and change from within, peacefully, should be sought first and foremost.

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

BUT, when the government resists change, grows in oppression, and continues in evil; despite the people’s peaceful attempts to change it…

THEN this RIGHT is justifiably exercised:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government“

The colonies suffered through these oppression.  They tried to get the government they fell under to change its oppressiveness toward them.  But, it resisted them.  It grew in oppression.  So, the time came to exercise their RIGHT:

“and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.“

And is futile if only a couple of people agree to, it takes an entire community.  Roughly 33% of the colonist were pro-revolution and about 13% of the colonist actually participated in the revolution.  These 13% of brave, selfless, bold men received support from only more 20% of their communities.  And that was it.  Everyone else was either comfortable in their peaceful slavery and abuse or were loyalists and received some sort of benefit for being loyal to the crown.

But, we see here, that feelings, don’t trump rights.  The feelings of the peaceful slaves, and the feelings of the Loyalist, didn’t trump the feelings of the revolutionaries.  The peaceful slaves didn’t want change and the Loyalist didn’t want a new form of government.  Yet, the revolutionaries strived for both.  The offense of others does not negate what out of necessity, needs to be done.

We also see that the “common good” neglected 1/3rd of the community so that 2/3rds could be comfortable.  This abuse and neglect of the smaller portion of the community for the betterment of the larger portion of the community was not a justifiable reason to continue on and endure the government abuse.

What Lead Up To The Revolution

The Stamp Act was passed by English Parliament in March 1765, which put a direct tax on the colonies for the first time.  Every single thing, made or mailed to and from the colonies must have an official Stamp, and to get the Stamp, they had to pay a tax.  They didn’t complain that the tax as too high, but that it was so low it was more of an inconvenience AND they didn’t have representation when it was passed. Benjamin Franklin testified in Parliament in 1766 that Americans already contributed heavily to the defense of the Empire.

The Sons of Liberty formed that same year in 1765, and they used public demonstrations, boycott, and threats of violence to ensure that the British tax laws were unenforceable.  In Boston, the Sons of Liberty burned the records of the vice admiralty court and looted the home of chief justice Thomas Hutchinson. Several legislatures called for united action, and nine colonies sent delegates to the Stamp Act Congress in New York City in October. Moderates led by John Dickinson drew up a “Declaration of Rights and Grievances” stating that taxes passed without representation violated their rights as Englishmen, and colonists emphasized their determination by boycotting imports of British merchandise.  Parliament agreed and repealed the tax on February 21, 1766, but they insisted in the Declaratory Act of March 1766 that they retained full power to make laws for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever”. The repeal nonetheless caused widespread celebrations in the colonies.

In 1767, the Parliament passed the Townshend Acts which placed duties on a number of staple goods, including paper, glass, and tea, and established a Board of Customs in Boston to more rigorously execute trade regulations. The new taxes were enacted on the belief that Americans only objected to internal taxes and not to external taxes such as custom duties.

In January 1769, Parliament responded to the unrest by reactivating the Treason Act 1543 which called for subjects outside the realm to face trials for treason in England. The governor of Massachusetts was instructed to collect evidence of said treason, and the threat caused widespread outrage, though it was not carried out.

In February 1768, the Assembly of Massachusetts Bay issued a circular letter to the other colonies urging them to coordinate resistance. The governor dissolved the assembly when it refused to rescind the letter.  A riot broke out in Boston in June 1768 over the seizure of the sloop Liberty, owned by John Hancock, for alleged smuggling. Customs officials were forced to flee, prompting the British to deploy troops to Boston. A Boston town meeting declared that no obedience was due to parliamentary laws and called for the convening of a convention. A convention assembled but only issued a mild protest before dissolving itself.

On March 5, 1770, a large crowd gathered around a group of British soldiers.  The crowd grew, throwing snowballs at them. There was no order to fire, but the soldiers fired into the crowd anyway. They hit 11 people; three civilians died at the scene of the shooting, and two died after the incident. The event quickly came to be called the Boston Massacre.

In 1771, at Great Alamance Creek, 2,000 Tar Heel farmers called Regulators had led an uprising, the largest armed rebellion in any English colony to that time. They wanted to “regulate” the governor’s corrupt local officials, who were charging huge fees and seizing property. The royal governor, William Tryon, and his militia crushed the rebellion at the Battle of Alamance.

In June 1772, American patriots, including John Brown, burned a British warship that had been vigorously enforcing unpopular trade regulations in what became known as the Gaspee Affair. The affair was investigated for possible treason, but no action was taken.

In 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act to lower the price of taxed tea exported to the colonies in order to help the East India Company undersell smuggled Dutch tea.  Colonists in Boston, Massachusetts, had thrown shipments of tea into the harbor rather than pay Parliament’s taxes on the tea.  This came to be known as the Boston Tea Party and word spread of the act all throughout the colonies.

The British government responded by passing several Acts which came to be known as the Intolerable Acts.  The first was the Massachusetts Government Act which altered the Massachusetts charter and restricted town meetings. The second act was the Administration of Justice Act which ordered that all British soldiers to be tried were to be arraigned in Britain, not in the colonies. The third Act was the Boston Port Act, which closed the port of Boston until the British had been compensated for the tea lost in the Boston Tea Party. The fourth Act was the Quartering Act of 1774, which allowed royal governors to house British troops in the homes of citizens without requiring permission of the owner.

In June 1774, the Massachusetts legislature issued a call for all of the colonies to meet at Philadelphia to consider these problems.  But Royal Governor Josiah Martin refused to call a meeting of North Carolina’s legislature in time (on purpose) to select delegates to go to Philadelphia.  So the colony’s Whigs (those who favored independence) formed a provincial congress that sent representatives to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in September.

Then, in 1774, the the Massachusetts Bay Colony elected ruling council was abrogated and replaced with a British military government under Gen. Thomas Gage, the commander of all British troops in North America.  He began warlike operations all throughout New England such as seizing stores of weapons and powder.  But, the Sons of Liberty and Committees of Correspondence dispatched Paul Revere December 13, 1774, to issue a warning to local allies.

In 1775, Gen. Gage then received orders to arrest of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress.  In a letter to him it stated, “arrest and imprison the principal Actors and Abettors in the [Massachusetts] Provincial Congress.”

In April 1775, British soldiers, called lobsterbacks because of their red coats, and minutemen—the colonists’ militia—exchanged gunfire at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts.  Described as “the shot heard round the world,” it signaled the start of the American Revolution and led to the creation of a new nation.

And then, the revolution began.

What Were Their Justifications for Revolution?

We can take from their justifications in the declaration of independence and the events that took place in history, and see how they were justified in exercising this right.

1. The head of the government (The King of Great Britain) refused to let the people create for themselves local laws that would directly benefit them, individually.  He lorded power over them.
   “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance”
   “For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever”
2. He refused to allow the colonialists the right to be represented in the government.
   “He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature”
   “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people”
   “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people”
   “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent”
3. The government then purposefully made it difficult for the people to participate in the system.
   “He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.”
   “He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected”
4. The government did not have a fair and just, Justice System, that The People felt was just for their communities
   “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers”
   “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries”
   “For protecting them [government Soldiers], by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States”
   “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury”
   “For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences”
5. The government imposed a Police-State without The People of that communities consent; not subject to The People.
   “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures”
   “He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power”
   “For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us”
6. The government imposed OTHER foreign authorities over The People, imposing foreign laws not passed by them.
   “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation”
7. The government waged a War against its own people
   “He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us”
   “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people”
   “He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation”
   “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands”
8. The government ignored the peaceful petitions of it’s people and refused to change.
   “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
   “We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.”

Then, in conclusion states this:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

This made them “rebels” and “revolutionaries.”

In the eyes of the state, they were “domestic terrorists”

In the eyes of the 33% of loyalists, they were “extremists.”

They banded together, organized, formed an allegiance, and were willing to sacrifice their lives, fortunes, and honor for freedom.

Patrick Henry’s speech on March 23, 1775, sums it up very well, in part:

“For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery… Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven… Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir.  These are the implements of war and subjugation… what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission?… They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging.  And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years… we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on…  If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!.. Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?..  we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty… we shall not fight our battles alone.  There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.  The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave… There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come… Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

These “People” formed a “more perfect union” and sought to correct all the things that the previous government failed.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. – The Constitution, Preamble

When you look at their justifications in the Declaration of Independence, you see The Bill of Rights.

“shall make no law…”

1. “respecting an establishment of religion”
   No official state religion, to counter the Church of England’s power in the English Government*
2. “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
   No law can prohibit the free exercise of any religion.  There is ZERO authority given to the government to influence any sort or religious practice.
3. “or abridging the freedom of speech”
   Abridging means to “shorten, omission of words, reduce, lesson, curtail, and deprive.”  That means, NO LAW has ANY authority to shorten, omission of words, reduce, lesson, curtail, and deprive speech.
4. “or of the press”
   No law can abridge the ability to document, write, journal, publish materials in public or private.
5. “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”
   Notice they pointed out that this, in and of itself, is a right on its own standing.  THE RIGHT to peacefully assemble.  NO LAW can prohibit or abridge peaceful assembly.  The government CANNOT prevent The People from peacefully assembling.
6.   “and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”
   No law can prohibit or abridge the people’s ability to petition the government “to set right, make up for, remove the cause, exact reparations for” whatever it is the grievance is.

#6 is extremely important.  It is what justifies the absolute right of revolution.  The government can not say the people exhausting all other peaceful options before resorting to violence.  It is then the fault of the government for ignoring the petitions for redress.  The People can have a clear conscience that they did everything else possible to avoid this, to avoid exercising this ultimate right.

What happens when the government makes laws prohibiting and abridging these rights and ignores the petitions for redress?

We have the 2nd Amendment:

1. “A well regulated militia...”
   “Militia” is not a formal national Army.  The founding fathers would have just stated Army as they did in the Declaration of Independence.  They chose not to use that concept.  Instead, the militia here is organized by each state independently, exactly how it was during the revolution.  Separate organizations to the Continental Army.   The unconstitutional Militia Act of 1903 tried to redefine and reinterpret what a Militia of The People was manipulating the word the idea of  “well regulated…”.  Article 1, Sec. 16(8), of the Constitution says the federal government must “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia” but the State is given “the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”  A People of a State may appoint its own officers, and training their own militia as long as it is done in line with how Congress regulates its National Army; and Congress has to help.  But, these State militias of The People “may be employed in the Service of the United States”
2. “being necessary to the security of a free state”
   The security of [each] state, in the context of the founding fathers, included outside forces, AND internal.  They were still dealing with British Loyalists causing all sorts of disturbances.  Thus, the militia in that state would respond to remaining enemy forces that they just freed themselves from.
3. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”
   Again, the use of another right, in and of itself, is a right on its own standing.  The right to KEEP and bear [fire]arms.  At the time this was written, The People kept and used military issued firearms.  An exception was NOT included in this right.  Also, notice it says not to just keep your guns but also bearing them, is part of this absolute right.
4. “shall not be infringed”
   An absolute statement.  “shall NOT be” and the word “infringed” means:  “to encroach upon in a way that violates” and “to commit a breach or infraction or trespass.”  So not just the idea of taking but the idea of making a small attempt to begin taking…

The idea of the need for the 2nd Amendment is what the founding fathers knew was necessary for THEM to exercise their absolute right to abolish oppressive governments.

The Right of Revolution, includes the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

Now, consider Congress now.

Are those who are in Congress actually representing YOU?

Are they imposing laws that go against your local communities needs?

Has Congress made the system so complicated and difficult for YOU to actually participate in?

Is YOUR local justice system fair?

Do the Police act as a “standing army” imposing laws you did not participate in creating and act superior to The People of their community?

Does your government and Congress address and fix your Petitioned for Redress, or is petitioning just pointless and vain?

Is your freedom and liberty being abridged by laws and Congress?

Doe you feel like your vote even counts?

Do you enjoy your peaceful slavery or want to live dangerously free?

Remember, it was a peace of paper that revolutionized the government… it was their right to revolt put into action.

Arguments For Abortion

We will logically, rationally, and, with the use of research and science, consider the arguments for abortion to determine if they are, in fact, logically and rationally, justified.  If you have any other arguments not addressed, please contact us so that we may consider them and determine a response.

Argument #1:  Women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies.

Response #1:  Can women walk around in public naked?  Nope.  Can women legally elect to clone themselves?  No.  Can a woman, who has a conjoined twin, choose to kill her conjoined twin?  No.  Can a woman choose to have sex in public?  Nope.  Can woman choose to become prostitutes or not register as porn stars, yes, but it is illegal.  We can go on and on about examples of what woman can not do with their bodies.

The injection of the word “moral” does not change the context of the subject, which is, freedom to do with their bodies as they choose.  Further more, this “right” is not in the constitution, in fact, the constitution DOES limit this idea in the sense that some choices may interfere with the rights of others.  Therefore, we can logically  and rationally conclude that woman (and men) do not have an absolute right to decided what to do with their bodies.

Lets look the the ‘moral’ addition.   Who’s morals are we imposing here?  If the morality is determined by the current trend in society, than that is a problem.  “The Moral Majority” justified slavery, segregation, oppression of woman’s rights, and is actually just subjective totalitarianism and authoritarianism disguised as a “universal morality” and forced on to the population by the advocates of this argument.   Logically, historically, these were the people that used this same line of ‘moral’ logic that justified the Holocaust.  They are not “moral” simply because they say they are or they just feel as though they are.

It is hypocritical for Christians to make this argument.  Aside from the fact that threw out the bible, pregnancy is stated as a “reward” and “gift” from God (Gen. 25:21, 29:31, 30:1, 22; Deut. 7:14; Psalm 127:3).  What exposes the contradiction and hypocrisy with this argument for any person claiming to be Christian is this:  “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).  Therefore, for Christians, their “body is not your own.”  and in demanding this right is in contradiction to their faith.  Jesus, himself, in the Bible actually states this:  “Jesus said, “Leave the children alone, and don’t try to keep them from coming to Me, because the kingdom of heaven is made up of people like this.” (Matthew 19:14).  Abortion would actually be disobedient to the command Jesus gives here.  Christians who support abortion aren’t even obeying Jesus or even in agreement with the book that they claim is from God.

Argument #2:  The right to abortion is vital for gender equality.

Response #2:  The trend in abortion rights legislation actually seeks to exclude husbands and fathers from the decision process; thus, not seeking equality but superiority.   If the husband and or father objects to the abortion, there is no legal standing for the husband or father to prevent the abortion of his unborn off-spring.  Therefore, the argument for abortion as vital for gender equality, is false, in that, it actually gives a unequal superiority to one gender over the other.

Argument #3:  The right to abortion is vital for individual women to achieve their full potential.

Response #3:  The assumed idea as part of this argument is that women who are stay-at-home moms are not achieving their individual full potential.  There are mothers who see being a successful mother as the ultimate fullness of life.  This argument also degrades single mothers who are successful in raising children and working; that the success of their children is directly caused by them achieving their full potential.  The idea of “full potential” is subjective and is dependent on the beliefs and values of different people.  To say that a woman, who has an abortion so that she will not have anything to interfere with their career, can now achieve her full potential is an insult to women who see raising children as a greater achievement.  Therefore, this argument is solely subjective.

Argument #4:  Banning abortion puts women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists.

Response #4:  The case of the legal abortion Doctor, Dr. Gosnell provides a problem for this argument.  A woman died in his care, and he was a legal abortion provider.   According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics there were only 39 women who died from a botched abortion in 1972.  That is lower than people who have died from other basic procedures of the same year.  The claim that thousands died in illegal botched abortions is just untrue and nonfactual.

The secondary argument is that those doctors were untrained and did not have the proper medical equipment.  The secondary response to that is according the former medical director of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Mary Calderone.  She wrote an article in 1960 for the American Journal of Health where she cited a 1958 study that indicated 84% to 87% of illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing.  By 1960, Dr. Calderone said that 90% of abortions, illegal though they may be, were performed by trained physicians.  The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology also disagrees with the increased risk of illegal abortions.   In 1978, they stated that Roe V Wade “has had no major impact on the number of women dying from abortion.”  They cited their own study which supported Dr. Calderone’s claim that 90% of illegal abortions had been performed by licensed physicians.

Notice that in the first argument, the word “moral” was used.   This argument essentially calls for the legalization of an unjust act; which is, of itself, immoral.

A third argument uses stats from other countries and their maternity death rates.  They pick data from countries will more legalized abortion showing a lower maternity death rate with other countries where abortion is more restricted with higher maternity death rates and assume its due to the access to abortion.   The response is this:  What they fail to consider is the healthcare systems themselves in each country.   The highest-mortality nations are developing countries with poor maternal health care; the lowest-mortality nations are developed countries with advanced maternal health care.  This is true irrespective of abortion policy.  Some countries, for example, permit abortion and have high rates of mortality because their health care system is lacking.  Other countries prohibit most abortions and have very low rates of maternal death (often lower than that of the U.S.)  These countries include Chile, Ireland, Poland, Malta, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Lebanon.

Therefore, given the facts of abortions prior to legalization and now, the argument for an increased risk is untrue.  It is more like a bias dishonest talking point, and straw man argument.  How do we know there exists dishonest data?  Take it from the fundamental Abortion advocate, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the NARAL co-founder who helped lead the effort to legalize abortion.  He actually later acknowledged that his movement’s claims about the number of deaths from illegal abortion were wildly inaccurate:

“It was always “5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.” I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the “morality” of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.”

Argument #5:  The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a “fundamental right” guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Response #5:  This argument is a failed argument when considering history alone.  The supreme court justified slavery and segregation.   This is a disproved subjective metric for justifying anything.

Argument #6:  Personhood begins after a fetus becomes “viable” (able to survive outside the womb) or after birth, not at conception.

Response #6:  The viability of a fetus is problematic.  Where the fetus must be able to survive outside of the womb to be considered a “person” and be granted constitutional rights.  The logical problem with that is a 1 year old, born a year after exiting the birth canal, still can not survive on its own, alone.  A 1 year old needs the parents to supply them with food, shelter, and care.  A 1 year old does not know how to gather its own food and feed itself.  If left alone, it will die.  Logically, there is no different between a 1 year old and a 23 week old fetus.  There are sick 3 year olds that require constant medical care to survive.  According to the viability of a fetus logic, they can not be considered a person either.

The secondary argument is the stage of development.  But again, runs into the same logical problem.   A 23 week old fetus is still developing.  But, the human brain does not stop developing until 20 to 30 years old.  Most humans don’t stop physically fully developing until the age of 18 years old.

The third argument is that the fetus still requires development inside the womb.  But, a 21 week fetus, has survived outside of the womb born in San Antonio, Texas, in 2014.  That is 19 weeks less than a full term pregnancy.   Did that baby not deserve a right to live?  This argument is still dependent on the idea that the fetus requires assistance for development which goes back to Argument #1.

Argument #7:  Fetuses are incapable of feeling pain when most abortions are performed.

Response #7:  This argument focuses on a primary instance.  If the fetus DOES feel pain, does it then deserve a right to live?  For the sake of argument, let us assume that this would be the deciding factor.  But, there is a serious flaw with this.  Unlike with blood pressure or body temperature, for example, there’s no definitive way to measure pain. Fetal pain is so controversial because pain is always a subjective experience, said Dr. Anne Davis, an OB/GYN and the consulting medical director for Physicians for Reproductive Health.  People do have ways of communicating how much pain they’re feeling; for example, doctors often ask people to rate their pain on a scale of 1 to 10. But the experience of pain is fundamentally subjective, Davis said.   In other words, what might be very painful to one person may cause very little pain to someone else.  “Pain occurs in [the] brain,” Davis said. When a person is injured — say, you stub your toe, for example — a signal travels from the foot up through the nerves in the leg to the spinal cord, and then from spinal cord up to the brain, Davis said. Once that signal gets into the brain, the information is transmitted through a complex web of neurons to an area of the brain called the cortex, she said.

Receptors in the skin that sense injury are developed around the 7th week and continues on into the 15th week.  Around the 15th to 19th week, the spinal cord develops the neurons that transmit the sense of injury to the brain.  Dr. Anne Davis then states some fetuses may develop a little earlier, and some fetuses may develop a little later.

If a fetus can potentially feel pain at around 19 weeks, is it worth risking the mothers self perceived “fulfill life’s achievements” to cause that level of trauma to another human life?  If “pain” determines “a living human” than “pain” is no longer the question but the sacrifice of that pain feeling human for the “betterment” of the host?   Should choosing to cause extreme pain and death to another human even be a  choice?

Therefore, because science is increasingly showing us that a fetus can feel a perceived pain earlier than expected, than this argument is ignorant of the science and is actually risking the pain and death of another human life.

Argument #8:  Abortion gives pregnant women the option to choose not to bring fetuses with profound abnormalities to full term.

Response #8:  This argument is truly morally repugnant.  At its premise is the idea that special-needs children are a burden and less valuable in life.  This is the antithesis of discrimination against the disabled and special-needs.  That life may be some how better without them.  If this is an argument that someone truly believes, they are heartless, inhuman, intolerant, and subconsciously hateful toward special-needs persons; as they are more willing to sacrifice the fetus than to raise a special-needs child.

Argument #9: Reproductive choice protects women from financial disadvantage.

Response #9:  So let me understand this argument a little better.  Aborting a fetus so that a woman does not have to raise a child saves them money.   The goal of this is money.  Apparently, being a very good mother, raising a child for the betterment of the future, while having to live at a financial disadvantage; is not worth it.  The issue here is how the person views the value of parenthood and motherhood.  To someone who wants an advantage financially, and values that over motherhood; of course, abortion would be more desirable.  But this again, brings us back to the ‘moral’ aspect.  What is more valuable, motherhood or money?

Argument #10:  A baby should not come into the world unwanted.

Response #10:  A person who chooses to perform acts that creates fetuses, and does not use the readily available contraceptives and protections; is surprised by pregnancy?  This argument attempts to justify the behavior without the consequences.  It indirectly implies that the consequences, a baby, is less valuable.  Simply put, abortion should be an option simply because the mother does not want to be a mother.  This elevates the desires of a person above the value of human life itself.   This logic would also then justify this:  A adult should not remain in the world if others do not wanted them.   Congrats, this argument justifies suicide and assisted suicide- even genocide.

A secondary argument to this is that it would be morally wrong to bring a child into poverty and hardship and about the fetus to save a life from suffering.   The response to this secondary argument is three fold.  First, how do these proponents suddenly know the future life of that fetus?  They are so selfishly blind, they disregard all the successful happy individuals that were raised in abuse and poverty.  Second, suddenly there is a moral element of the wrongfulness of suffering and hardship that this future person shouldn’t experience.  And some how, imposing a hardship and causing suffering of the fetus is excused from the immorality of hardship and suffering.  This hypocrisy is only justified when morality is relative, which ultimately makes it arbitrary.  Third, the argument disregards, eliminates, and discriminates against the rights of that future person to choose for themselves what they want to do with their body.  At the core of the secondary argument is contradictory and hypocritical justifications which renders the argument invalid and completely ignorant of its own arguments.

An argument for abortion to prevent future pain and suffering of that future person is the same logical argument for infanticide, genocide, and forced euthanasia all the while denying the rights of that future person.

Argument #11:  Many religious organizations and people of faith support women’s reproductive choice.

Response#11:  Much like Argument #5, this is a terrible metric for justification.  Many religious organizations and people of faith supported slavery, segregation, and in many parts of the world today, don’t even support woman’s rights as a whole.  This is nothing more than subjective ‘feel-good’ self justifying argumentation.

Argument #12:  A fetus, up till birth, is just a group of cells.

Response #12:  The logic behind this argument is almost laughable.  Technically, we are all a group of cells.  Does the number of cells constitute a human life?  Does the look/development of a fetus constitute a human life or not?  The problem is that the human body is constantly growing and replacing cells, throughout all your life.  The human body is constantly developing and replacing cells.  This argument is nothing more than an attempt to make someone feel better about abortion and to dehumanize a human fetus.

Argument #13:  A fetus is no different than any other organ in the mother.

Response #13:  The implied argument is that by removing the fetus, it would be no different than a medical procedure to remove tonsils or spleen.  The issue with this is that a fetus is far more complex than a single organ.  In fact, the fetus has its own organs; the same kind of organs as the mother.

On day one, the fetus has its own DNA, different from the mothers.  The fetus’s own brain begins to form at 7 weeks.  At 10 weeks the kidneys, intestines, brain, and liver are developed and starting to function.  At 11 weeks the fetus can now hiccup but is too small for the mother to feel.  At 12 weeks you can start to hear the heart beat.  At 14 weeks the fetus’s kidneys are functioning and releasing urine into the amniotic fluid.  At 19 weeks the fetus can hear the mothers heartbeat.  At 24 weeks the fetus’s taste buds are developing and hair may even be growing.  At 27 weeks, the fetus’s lungs are developing but won’t be fully functional for several more weeks.  The fetus may be “practicing” for life on the outside by inhaling and exhaling amniotic fluid, sleeping and waking up at regular intervals, opening and closing his eyes, and sucking its fingers.  All before the 3rd trimester.   Does this sound like just another organ of the mother?  It is far more complex than ALL other organs of the mother.  It has all the same (gender-less) organs as the mother, of its own!  To call this fetus, just another organ of the mother, is to be willingly or unwillingly ignorant of science.

Argument #14:  The Bible says life begins at first breath.

Reason #14:  This argument brings religion and The Bible into the discussion.  Seeing that this issue is directly related to morality, that would actually make sense.  So, let us consider The Bible verse used to justify late-term abortion.  “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being, (Genesis 2:7).

On its face value it seems this settles it, but, when we actually take time to think about the verse in its entirety and in full context, that is not the case.  According to this verse, these humans were formed from the dust of the ground… after that, they are formed in the womb.  So these, first persons, were unique in their origin.  From then on, in Genesis, it says that life is in the blood (Genesis 9:3-6) which the rest of the Old Testament continually affirms.  So THIS initial statement about “becoming a living being” is the initial beginning of humanity, not every person after.

Then, as we research more into what The Bible actually teaches, we find this verse: “Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me,” (Psalm 51:5).  Hu, how can a person be guilty of sin, before they are even considered a sinful person?  This verse reinforces the later Genesis verses about life (after Adam and Eve) is directly related to flesh and not breath.

The nail in the coffin for this breath argument is this:  “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret,” (Psalm 139:13-15).  The author makes it clear he was HIMSELF, a living person, made in secret (in the womb), before his first breath.

Since people want to bring in the opinions of God, let’s do that.  Here is a verse where God himself spoke through the author : “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5).  God himself, makes known, that we are a PERSON long before our first breath.  An Apostles of the Christian faith also affirm this when the Apostle Paul stated: “But when He who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through His grace” (Galatians 1:15).  Paul admits that he was a PERSON, before birth and his first breath.

The BIG dilemma for this argument is anyone of faith, who adheres to this problematic contradictory argument must then admit that JESUS, The Son of God, was NOT a person until his first breath… if that was the case, than he could not be The Son of God, or even God as Christians believe.

A second verse that some of these adherents use is Job 33:4.  But in full theological context, this is affirming the new life that God gives to those who come to faith and are “born again”.

A third verse is used, but usually, cut short to avoid the other verses after it.  It is this: “When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born prematurely but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment.   If there is an injury, then you must give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Exodus 21:22-24).  The “born prematurely, but there is no injury” does NOT mean the baby died.  It means there was no injury in the total situation.  That means, the baby, did not die.  BUT, notice verse 24, “If there is an injury, then you must give life for life…” That includes both wife and or baby.   THAT MEANS, if the baby died, then… “life for life…”  This is why it is important to read the context and include the totality of what The Bible teaches, not just out of context cherry picked verses.  That is real research for those who are searching for truth, not selfish justification.

But, given the full context and totality of Bible verses, we can conclude that The Bible does not support this argument, but, in fact, teaches the exact opposite; that an unborn person, is a person before birth.

A nagging related consideration is, what about people are on life support and do not breath on their own, and if left on their own, they don’t breath and die… are they no longer a person because they are not breathing on their own?

Argument #15:  The Bible collectively supports Abortion.

Response #15:  As noticed above, there are several attempted uses of Bible verses to compel Christians and justify abortion.  Please see Response #15(F).  Just as reasoned above, those have failed in their correct interpretation of the verses.  But, that doesn’t stop people from using those debunked misinterpretations and other misunderstood verses.  This is NOT a promotion for The Bible, but rather, an articulated response to the use of statements made in the Bible.

(A) Genesis 2:7 is always a go-to verse, but, as shows in Argument #14, it is ignorantly misunderstood and taken out of the full context.  Exodus 21:22-25 is also addressed and disposed in Argument #14.

(B) Then we get to Numbers 5:11-31.  This verse, at face value and in certain modern translations, supports a human induced miscarriage.  But much like other verses in scripture, there is more in the context, culture, and theological undertones that help us correctly understand.  For example, when Jesus explicitly said he is the door, he is not literally saying he is a literal door; even though that is exactly what was stated (John 10:9).  There are contextual and theological undertones that help us understand and correctly interpret what he is actually saying.  Same for Numbers 5.  So there are some external factors that must be incorporated into understanding this passage.

First, the ancient Jews, themselves, did not understand this verse in the context of abortion.  Ancient Jewish historian Josephus explained that verse, with no discussion of abortion  (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 3, Chapter 11, Section 6).  He did mention abortion in a previous book, however, but condemned it (Josephus, Against Apion Book 2, Chapter 25, Section 202).   Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sefer Nashim, Sotah 3:16-17 states that the point was not abortion but was an execution of the unfaithful woman AND man.   Even the Samaritans, who believed in the Torah (The Old Testament) understood this passage to be about a vindication of the innocent or execution of the sinner, and not about abortion (John Bowman, Samaritan Documents (Pickwick Publications, 1977) 72).  Even the early church did not see this verse about abortion but a vindication of purity.  According to multiple heretical, apocryphal “gospel” traditions, Mary and Joseph were both subjected to the test of the water and both came away unharmed (Protoevangelium of James, Section 16; Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, Chapter 12).  So, we must understand and interpret this verse how it was meant to be.  Given that no one until recently understand this verse as justifying abortion, we must see how they saw it; a test to curse adultery or vindicate those who were pure, and condemn the overly jealous husband.  The context was never about inducing a miscarriage.

Second, we can look at the context clues of the verse itself.  IF miscarriage did happen, due to the wife’s curse and death, that was a result from a curse!  Even if this verse was about abortion, it is still saying it is a negative outcome.  Induced miscarriage was part of the curse!  We can see that the purpose of this was NOT to CAUSE a miscarriage but to determine PURITY and expose SIN.   The sin of the unfaithful wife or the excessively jealous husband in contrast to the declaration of purity of the wife or husband.  Justifies one person and exposes the other.  That is the point.

Third, there is even debate in the biblical scholarly community whether or not that verse is contains the concept of miscarriage.  The New Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford University Press, 2007).  Renders the verse “And this water that brings the curse shall enter your belly, to swell the belly and make your thigh fall to pieces,” (Numbers 5:22, LXX).  Keep in mind that all the ancient Jewish scholars did not interpret the passage to be referring to induced miscarriages.

Fourth, the blessing in verse 28:  “she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.”  Why would she WANT to have children if this verse is justifying having a willful miscarriage?   Logic shows that this verse can not be justifying induced miscarriage if being “able to have children” is on the same lines of being “cleared of guilt”. 

(C) Then we hear that ‘life is not sacred according to Deut 28: 18-24.‘  There is a fundamental element missing in this logic.  It is God who determines what is sacred, not man.   An eternal Creator of all space, time, and matter is perfectly justified to declare what he determines to be sacred, when, where, and how.  He alone has that just authority.  We do not.  With that in mind, he is perfectly justified to curse those who are disobedient to him (verse 15).  This does not negate the sacred nature of humanity.  We are all still made in the image of God; and God is sacred (Gen 1:26).  He has the authority to curse, even that which he has declared sacred.  That means, he is the only logical authority that can make such a declaration and justified act.  Therefore, Life is still sacred and Deut 28 does not negate that.

Isa 13:18 is another that is attempted to be used to degrade the sacredness of life.  But those who us this verse as means to degrade the sanctity of infants fail, again, to remember the fundamental elements of God and humanity.  God is perfectly just and humanity are sinners.    Here, God is allowing humanity to do exactly what they do, sin, but he is using what mankind is already willingly guilty of, for his purposes in his divine judgement over the sinful Babylonians or Chaldeans with the sinful the Medes.  Life is still sacred because God alone is justified in how he judges sacred sinful humanity.

Hos 9:10-16 again talks about the judgement for sin, which included infanticide.  But notice this “But when they came to Baal Peor,  they consecrated themselves to that shameful idol and became as vile as the thing they loved…But Ephraim will bring out their children to the slayer.”  These people already were sacrificing their children!   Seeing as how they were already killing their children, God wasn’t going to allow them to have children to kill, “Ephraim’s glory will fly away like a bird— no birth, no pregnancy, no conception.”  This whole verse makes disposing of infants and children negatively!   Either by willingly sacrificing them or as the punishment of no pregnancy or conception.  Its not a positive light not matter what.  Restated in Hos 13:16.

(D)  Just like the reasoning of Argument #14(C), God, the eternal authority of all things can do all that he pleases.  When the bible says God will rip open pregnant mothers-to-be (2 Kings 8:12) he can do just that.  How so?  Because, according to God (the Bible) we are all sinners and sin is a capital offense.  The funny thing with the use of this verse is that it is not even talking about God in the first place.  Hazael is going to kill the pregnant mothers.  God just gave Elisha a heads up and Elisha is telling Hazael what he is going to do in the future (because of his sinful heart).  This verse has absolutely nothing to do with abortion and it just reveals the ignorance of some who try to use it for such.  There are many more verse that record evil and sinful people doing evil acts, such as killing pregnant women.  This is not a justification for it, just a narrative and record of it.  History books that record slavery and murder are not condoning it, just historically documenting it. (2 Kings 15:16).

In Psalm 137:9 we see the captive Jew author being mocked by their captors in Babylon.  The author is calling for justice to their oppressor.  Notice “happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us.”  followed by “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”  That is what they did to them; the author, a sinner, is asking for equal violent justice.  And only God can rightly deliver equal justice over sacred human life.

(E)  As shown, there are a lot of events in the Bible where it is recorded that pregnant women and infants are killed and miscarriages happen.  We must never forget two things when correctly understanding biblical passages.  #1:  Mankind are sinners before God and the just punishment is death.  #2:  God alone is the authority over what is sacred.  When the bible records murder, it is not condoning it, but recording it.  When the bible records a killing, only God can justify it. 

(F)  When atheists and non-Christians use bible verses.  They have a major logical dilemma.  Those who are not a Christian already begin with the premise that the bible is incorrect, faulty, and fallible.  Their lack of faith in its divine truth is proof of this.  How reliable is trusting information from someone who is completely dishonest and unbelievable?  By using the Bible as justifications for your arguments, that just validates the truthfulness of The Bible.  Which then, you would be contradicting yourself in your disbelief of The Bible; invalidating your whole argument simply because of your lack of trust in The Bible at your premise.  Some will use it in an attempt to expose, what they perceive to be, irrational beliefs.  But, hypocritically, they themselves, misunderstand and misinterpret the verse they are using.

When Is a Fetus, a Living Person?

This is THE question that answers all objections and arguments; and actually reveals at what point are people committing murder, the absolute universal moral wrong.

Does the stage of development determine our “Personhood”?  No, it cant, because WE are continually developing as young adults as well.

Does being dependent on the mother determine our “Personhood”?  No, because, even toddlers are completely and absolutely dependent on the mother for food, shelter, and care; or they too, die.

Does simply being in the womb exclude us from being a “human being”?  No, because it is the same in respect to dependency.   The only difference is the location.  So then does the location determine our “Personhood”?  No because that doesn’t change, who we are, no matter where we are at.  Even outside of the womb, infants and toddlers must remain intimately close to the mother.  When the mother feeds an infant they are, in fact, only inches away from where they were a few months before, in the womb…

Does not having certain organs or certain feelings, such as pain, determine our “Personhood”?  No, because one does not stop being human if they have an organ removed or are born without certain organs.  Even some adults don’t have the same feelings of pain or have neurological disorders that prevents them from feeling certain ways.  Are they less human?  No.

Does not looking human determine our “Personhood”? No, because there are people born without arms and or legs.  Some are born with deformities.  Are they less of a human? No.

Is a person, still developing, but has their own DNA and organs, who is completely dependent on the mother, and must live in close proximity to the mother, who does not have a certain organ or legs, can be financially and emotionally costly, and does not look like a normal person… is this “person” not a person?  Congrats, I just described a fetus and a toddler, at the same time.  Of which abortion justifies the killing of both.

The RIGHT No One Talks About

From the declaration of independence, the bill of rights, and letters from the founding fathers, of the once-most-free nation on earth, we see a RIGHT of the people, that no one wants to talk about because of what it entails:

Welp, There Goes Your Freedom

OMG it’s a scary virus, like the flu!   OMG, quick! burn the constitutions and ignore everyone’s constitutional and human rights, for the greater good.  Everyone, become snitches and dictators and tell people what they can and can not do with themselves, and if they don’t listen, become part of the modern Gestapo and snitch on them; yes, this is America, 2020.

Spark Spiritual Conversations

There is something that transcends this physical material world.  Every human knows it, feels it.  All humanity, atheists, humanists, agnostics, and all other religions all willingly or unwillingly, knowingly or unknowingly admit that there are two elements of the human existence; purpose/meaning and belonging.  These are the essential elements of human existence that will ALWAYS spark spiritual thought and lead to a gospel presentation.

Everyone knows they have a sense of purpose and meaning.  This is why people decided to feed themselves and keep themselves alive instead of the alternative.  This is why atheists don’t commit suicide when they claim to believe life has not real meaning or purpose, yet, they still willfully choose to exist and strive for some sort of meaning and purpose everyday.  Their argumentation alone proves they believe in some sort of meaning in life, if they feel a need to argue for what they believe.  They prove the existence of purpose, if they feel they need to argue for their beliefs in that it gives them a sense of purpose.  With this in mind, a simple question like “Why did you choose to do that?”  or “Why do you want that?” can lead down the spiritual road.

There is a universal transcendent sense of belonging and community.  Even those who are “loners” or deemed “anti-social” still subscribe to ideologies and beliefs of others and make those ideas their own; they in some sense satisfy their inherent need to belong.  Atheists belong to atheist communities and subscribe to a set of ideals and beliefs that gives them the sense of belonging, even if they don’t want to admit it.  With this in mind, a simple question like “Why do you think that?” or “Where did you get that from?” can lead to spiritual conversations.

• Why did you choose to do that?
• Why do you want that?
• Why do you think that?
• Where did you get that from?

These are all questions they, anyone, can ask you as well.

Atheist:  “Why did you choose to do that?”
YOU:     “Because it is the right thing to do.”

When that door has been opened by you simply injecting the concept of rightness, follow-up questions are critical.  Once you ask the question, you become the driver of the conversation.

YOU:  “What, you wouldn’t have chosen to do that too?  Why not?
Atheist: “Because I don’t think it’s right” or “Because I think something else is better.“

If you notice, they take the bait and entertain a discussion of rightness.  You start driving down a road that leads to the issue of morality, right and wrong, good, better or worse.  Again, as long as the person is open for discussion, keep driving down that road with follow-up questions.

YOU:  “How is it not right?”  or  “What makes something else better?”
Atheist:  “Because I think/believe…”  

At this point, they have just used some sort of standard by which they judge things to be right or wrong, better or worse, good or evil.  From there, you can go straight to the essence of the issue with first real spiritually related follow-up question:

YOU:  “What makes that right/good/better?”
Atheist:  “Because…”

Here they have just explicitly stated their moral standard and are officially now in a conversation about morality.  From there is just a simple inquiry of exposing contradictory, illogical, irrational thought of relativism and subjective humanism.  Big fancy words that basically lead them to admit that they can’t say rape and killing innocent people (murder) sanctioned by governments or cultures is wrong.  Because no matter their standard of right and wrong, it will always be determined by a government and culture of that time and age.  Thus, the specific example is, the Holocaust which was condoned by the German people and legal under the Nazi government.  This is how we know that universal transcendent morality, good, comes from outside of humanity.  But all those are arguments you have to study up on.  Here, we are addressing how to SPARK a conversation that would lead to a Spiritual conversation and ultimately a gospel presentation.

Follow-up Questions and Specificity are the two lanes of discussion that CAN lead down the road to a spiritual conversation.  Since YOU are the driver and see every interaction with God’s creation as a potential opportunity to glorify him; every conversation is Missional.

Conversations About Religion

IF and WHEN the conversation enters the specific topic of religion, it becomes a million times more easy to present the gospel.  Usually after the lines of questioning above, they will often say things like:

Atheist:  “Oh, your one of those Christians, aren’t you?”  or  “Are you a Christian?”  or “Are you religious?”

When this question comes up, more than likely, they already have a ignorant false assumed picture of what “Christian” is.  They may have gone to church when they were young.  They may have other “Christian” friends or seen Christian movies; whatever, it doesn’t matter.  You respond semi-vague as to not validate their assumed false image of Christianity and follow up with:

YOU:  “I have faith, yes.  But it’s not what you think it is.  What is Christianity to you?”  or  “Yes, I’m a Christian, but what does that mean to you?

How do you know they don’t actually know what Christianity is?  Because they don’t know Christ as their Lord and Savior.  They can read the Bible cover to cover, memorize a ton of verses, even win debates against other Christians but, that is nothing more than words on paper and reciting Harry Potter quotes to them.  If they knew Christianity, they would know Christ, and if they knew Christ, they wouldn’t be atheist. 

At this point, if they took the bait on the “What is Christianity” topic, they will more than likely give some kind of explanation about doing some moral to-do-list like following the 10 Commandments, or doing good works, and claiming to follow Jesus. 

And this is it.  This is where God has ordained YOU the opportunity to give the gospel.

Conversation Break Down

1. Most broad “meaning of life” question.
2. Where the “meaning of life” comes from topic.
3. That standard that gives “meaning” topic.
4. The topic of religion.
5. The topic of Christianity. 
6. The Gospel.

Notice from the start of the conversion, it could have been about anything and gone just about anywhere.  But, with follow-up Questions that continually narrowed the focus, you drive the discussion into a spiritual one.  With continued follow-up questions, you narrowed the spiritual conversation to Jesus.

Follow-Up Questions and Specificity drive conversation to the ultimate point and reason of discussion.  Notice, the last point, #6, directly answers in the most perfect way, the very first broad topic that kicked off the whole thing, #1. 

Is This Shady and Misleading?

This is in no way misleading or shady because we are simply navigating to the best answer for the premise of the conversation.  And by doing so, avoiding useless, fruitless, meaningless other spin off conversations and remaining focused to achieve the best possible answer.  It only feels shady and misleading to those who hate the gospel or to those who are ashamed of the gospel.

If you have any questions or comments about this article please CONTACT US, join our discussion FORUM, REPORT AN ERROR, or leave a comment below.

The Value of A Fetus

As addressed in our article Is a Fetus a Person?, we know that a Fetus is a person.  But to dive deeper, we want to understand HOW valuable this small developing growing person is in reality.  Is a Fetus of a different value than a grown adult?  Are they equal?  How can we know?  Does the situation of conception justify abortion, such as rape or incest, thus reducing their value?

Besides the fact that God himself recognizes them as a person and his creation, there are other areas in scripture were we can see the equal value of human life is granted to them.

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:22-25)

The context is a pregnant woman giving birth prematurely not caused by natural conditions.  The injury is not talking about the pregnant woman, there are other commandments (laws) that discuss compensation and punishment for injuring people.  This is talking about the child.  If there is serious injury, meaning, stillborn or injuries that lead to the babies death; “you are to take life for life“.  This places the premature baby equal in life to the life of the adult who caused it.  God declares this baby, prematurely born, equally valuable in life.

The excuses of rape and incest come up a lot.  Some Christians are confused on this matter and pro-abortion supporters jump all over their inconsistency and hypocrisy.  With their weak arguments aside, God settles the issue:

“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16)

As we have already established, God sees the pre-born baby as a person and equal in life.  Thus, abortion is killing the child.  Aborting a baby because they were conceived in rape or incest is perfectly addressed by God here.   The baby is not at fault for the sin of the father… the sin of rape or incest.  Therefore, abortion due to rape or incest is not justified in the eyes of God.

The next terrible argument to justify abortion is the risk or actuality of deformities.  That is like saying God made a mistake and so we must get ride of his mistake.  As established, that deformed person, is still a person, loved by God.  Secondly, God does not make mistakes.  To address the issue of deformities, God states:

“So the LORD said to him, ‘Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the LORD?'” (Exodus 4:11)

 “Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘He has no hands?’ Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What have you begotten?’ or to his mother, ‘What have you brought to birth?‘ This is what the LORD says—the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question Me about My children, or give Me orders about the work of My hands?” (Isaiah 45:9-11

“Yet, to shame the wise, God has chosen what the world counts folly, and to shame what is strong, God has chosen what the world counts weakness” (1 Corinthians 1:27)

“His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the works of God would be displayed in him“ (John 9:2-3)

Nicholas James Vujicic was born with no legs or arms, yet, he is more than glad to be alive and is a pastor with a family of his own.  Joni Eareckson Tada is a quadriplegic and initially struggled with it but now praises God for it.  The governments of Nazi Germany or Communist Russia would have legally dehumanized her worth.  Helen Keller was born blind and deaf, yet, came to faith.  She was not ashamed of her faith and had a book written about it.  All these people, would have been argued by pro-abortion ideologies to be aborted and dehumanized as ‘mistakes‘.  God chose them to show the world how weak their mindset is (1 Cor. 1:27).  The world counts them as weak, God declares them as equally and in some ways, greater (see verse below).  And what has happened to them is so that God’s works are displayed through them (John 9:2-3).  An honor and privilege that most people would not understand.  Their faith brings honor and glory to the Lord!

“Then an argument started among them about who would be the greatest of them.  But Jesus, knowing the thoughts of their hearts, took a little child and had him stand next to Him.  He told them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in My name welcomes Me. And whoever welcomes Me welcomes Him who sent Me. For whoever is least among you—this one is great.” (Luke 9:46-48)

We need to read that again, “Whoever WELCOMES this child in my name welcomes Me“.  For the growing person in the womb, how does aborting them welcome them?  Jesus goes on to say “whoever is LEAST among you, this one is great“.  A pre-born person IS without any doubt the least person.  Least in the sense of worldly worth, protection, support, and value.  Why?  Because they are in the greatest need for protection and support.

Just imagine the feeling of self worth if the pre-born person was able to understand that their own mother did not want them.  Their own mother called them an “IT” and wanted to get ride of them.  The pre-born person, with no one to speak up for them, except their mother; but their own mother see them as less valuable and an inconvenience to her life plans.  So inconvenient she would rather abort them.  Even considering the option of abortion reveals how devalued that person is.

Follow Jesus’ line of logic here:  Whoever welcomes little children [pre-born persons] in Jesus’ name, welcomes Jesus.  AND whoever welcomes Jesus, welcomes God Almighty.  BUT, whoever does NOT welcome little children [pre-born persons], does not welcome Jesus.  And whoever does not welcome Jesus, does not welcome God Almighty.  The key here is either welcoming them, or not.  Welcome them to the one who brings life, or stop them from living.

The defenseless, dependent pre-born person is in need of growing up and believing in the gospel; they are the greatest among us.  They are that valuable!

This leads us to the next issue:  Life, The Nature of God?

Back to: Abortion main page. 

If you have any questions or comments about this article please contact us or join our discussion forms

Is A Fetus, A Living Person?

This is the absolute key issue that impacts all areas of the debate surrounding abortion.  Knowing the answer to this makes addressing the issue clear as day.  If a fetus is not a child or a living person, what’s the harm?  It would not be much different than removing cancer or a parasitic growth.  BUT If a fetus is a living, growing, person and a small defenseless child… that would be a moral, ethical, eternal, game changer.  But how do we determine this?  Do we use Human law?  Scientific theories?  Do we depend on subjective human definitions?

We cannot use human laws, human government actions, or humanistic definitions to determine if a fetus is a living person.  The reason is, laws have and in some cases still do, dehumanized people; African Americans and Jews for example.  And just because human action neglects something, does not mean it was worth neglecting; Jews and Slaves are the example.  We can not rely on humanistic scientific theories because, they too, have been used to dehumanize entire people groups; African Americans and Jews for example.  We must go to what transcends humanity, humanistic thought, and human subjectivity; something outside of humanity, not bound by humanity, something objective, universal, and divine.  We must turn to Holy Scripture; which gives the value to life and defines life- because it came from the creator and giver of Life. 

“For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works and that my soul knows well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed, and in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them” (Psalm 139:13-16)

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5)

But when He who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through His grace” (Galatians 1:15)

“While they were there, the time came for the baby to born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son” (Luke 2:6-7)

Was Jesus not Jesus while he was growing in Mary’s womb?  The Son of God was just a blob of tissue until he was born and suddenly became The Son of God?  Was The Christ just an parasitic cancerous invader allowed to develop and grow in Mary’s womb?  Or was HE already known by God, was He a person?

God acknowledged us before we were formed. God knew us before birth.  We are loved, as a fetus just as a small person. We are given a purpose even before birth.  God sees US before we are even formed!  God takes ownership of us as we are growing in the womb.  He knew us personally, even as an embryo, as a fetus or whatever other modern medical term you want to call your pre-born self.  You were you, known by God, given a purpose, all before you were conceived.  Thus, given what God himself reveals in scripture, an embryo, fetus, human zygote, blastocyst, whatever, you are, they ARE a living, growing person, loved by God.

Injustice and Oppression is unwillingly forced on the less fortunate and those who do not have the ability to defend themselves.

“Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause” (Isaiah 1:17)

“Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.” (Proverbs 31:8-9)

Why is it we feel obligated to fight for the health and welfare of premature babies the very moment they exit the womb, and yet, could have aborted the same baby 30 minutes prior?  What changed in that 30 minutes?  Did they magically become a person?  Even before the entire baby is birthed, are they still not a person, all the while their head can be seen preparing to exit the womb?  Who decides at what moment do these babies suddenly transform into a person?  Do law makers invent a law that decides that?  Do courts decide that?  Does swaying cultural opinion decide this?  Are you defined as a person based on some other person’s view of you?  As previously established, they are a person, a person at conception; a person declared by God himself.  They are absolutely in need of our help.  They are mute, they are destitute, they are poor, they are the exact person God is talking about in Prov 31:8-9.

“So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” (Matthew 18:14)

Abortion is not God’s will, as Jesus stated.  Not only is it not in His will to let children perish, but it is a commanded duty of the church to defend them (Isaiah 1:17; Prov. 31:8-9).  They are the most in need.  Through this we begin to see how valuable they are; how valuable YOU were at that age.  Not just their own inherent value but their equal value as a person.

It is interesting that a lot of the LGBTQ community claim to have been born with their sexual “identity” yet, have no problem aborting babies that may be LGBTQ.  As a whole, they do not fight for the rights of the unborn LGBTQ persons; yet, claim to have rights because were born with that identity.

We, with our limited, frail, human understanding of biology, debate back and forth about when a fetus becomes a living person;  the moment of conception, the moment the heart starts beating, the moment the nervous system is developed and the fetus can feel pain, and on and on the debate goes.  We fail to see that we do not define life and that the creator of heaven and earth, creator of all things, the creator of LIFE itself, already has.  And THAT is the standard, his own, by which he will judge the world; not by our legal or scientific definitions but by what He has made known in his word.

Obviously, those who do not know God will not see the Bible as supernaturally eternally authoritative word of The Almighty Trune God.  And using Holy Scripture as the reasoning for why A Fetus is A Living Person seems vain.  But its not.  Because now, all those who do not know God, who see this article and hear its reasoning, are exposed to his divine word, rendering his divine judgement perfectly just.  Hearts were revealed and either they love the darkness more than the light or the Holy Spirit convicts and transforms them down the road.  Presenting and proclaiming scripture is never in vain, God’s own words, are never spoken in vain.  God’s words bring life out of nothing!  God speaks, and a person is declared.

This leads us to the next issue:  How Valuable is a Fetus?

Back to: Abortion main page. 

If you have any questions or comments about this article please contact us or join our discussion forms

The Worldly Construction of ‘Race’

In changing times and as cultural identities evolve, a constant issue has been and seems always will be the struggle of favoritism and discrimination of people who look and act different.  Even God’s people struggle with this issue to this day.  How we address the issue is not found in worldly political strategies and policies but in the truths in Holy Scripture and the Characteristics of God himself.

One Race

First we need to wipe our minds of what the world has taught us how to view racial favoritism and discrimination.  There is only one Race, the human race.  To state there is a ‘black’ race or a ‘white’ race is thinking the way the world wants you to think so that people are generalized, categorized, and marginalized.  These concepts of ‘black’ people and ‘white’ people are human constructs and do not actually exist. Proven by the fact that light skin individuals can be considered ‘black’ and dark skinned individuals can be considered ‘white’.  This construct of ‘race’ can not be based on where the person’s family linage is from; because we are all from the same place and same people.  This then brings us to the defining factor and WHO decides what defines a ‘race’.

Humanistic Construct of ‘Race’

Someone decided to be ‘black’ you have to be descended from (a) Africa and subscribe to certain sub-cultural (b) behaviors and (c) ideals [including languages].  These three culturally normative rules define what it is to be ‘black’ (or any ‘race’).  Who decided this?  This construct has been around in various forms throughout human history.  In ancient history, where you were from, defined you.  Because where you were from incorporated the ideals and behaviors of that region.  Our first big questions is; Is this social construct part of God’s original design for Humanity?

Even evolutionary biologist agree that all the different human ‘races’ came from one common ancestor and that all humans have the same melanin in our skins cells that give us the various shades of skin pigment (Gen 3:20).  Biologist also know that it only takes a few generations to get very distinct people groups with various shades of melanin.  From Adam to Noah, people seemed to have lived together.  They shared the same language and locations.  Then God dispersed them and confused their language.  In this dispersion some people would have went to different climate regions and created different daily habits causing the different melanin shades, behaviors, and ideals over the generations.

9 Generations of long living people from Adam to Noah all with the same language and general regions (Gen 4,5,11,12).  The children from Noah’s children became more and more diverse in culture and physical appearance by specific isolation in that gene pool in each splintered people group (Gen 10-11).  This example image helps understand the genetics and the gene pool isolation possible outcomes:

The same is true for physical features such as hair and eye thickness and color.  Eye shape, noise size, lip, chin, head, and muscle density;  all in DNA in each isolated people group developing the common genetics over the generations. The Holy Spirit declares there is only one race but many ‘pre-appointed’ unique people groups in their regions (Acts 17:26).

So back to our question: Yes and No.  Human DNA shows that even if the world did not sin, God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply.  In filling the earth and multiplying, there would be these genetic variations- unrelated to sin.  These genetic variations were ‘pre-appointed’ by a the Holy Almighty Creator.  BUT the cultural variations in the behavior and ideals were NOT.  God confused the languages and dispersed the people for a negative reason- because of the sin in the human heart.

Genetic Variations in different people groups is of God.  It should be celebrated and respected. Cultural Variations in different people groups is a judgement of God.  It was due to the sin in the human heart.  This is NOT to say, cultural norms should not be respected and celebrated; most are not wrong inherently, some even can glorify God.  BUT there are cultural norms that are sinful.

The current humanistic construct of ‘race’ is NOT of God:  It dis-unifies the human race and allows for sinful cultural norms to define and influence an entire people group; which leads to conflict between people groups.  The racial definitions are not transcended nor objective but evolve with the heart of whom ever is currently in control of the society that definitions it and is subjective in each generation.  The current humanistic construct of ‘race’ actually perpetuates favoritism and discrimination in the human heart.  How so?

Identity Confusion

You may have dark skin, adhere to all the social norms of a particular ‘race’ but may not have any linage to that race’s defined source.  Then it would be said that you were not really that race.   More commonly in our time is the same rejection of someone due to differing ideals.  Someone who identifies as ‘black’ may be rejected and dismissed by the ‘black community’ because of having different ideals.  Supporting a political candidate may cause the rejection and dismissal by the current leaders of the ‘black community’.  Not supporting a subjective cause which has been declared by leaders of the ‘black community’ as a defining factor would also lead to rejection and dismissing.  Labeling and insulting words such as ‘uncle tom’ are used to shun and shame that individual for not conforming to the subjective humanistic social norms of what it means to be ‘black’.  It discriminates against individuality and forces favoritism of a particular subjective worldly definition.  It is racist and hateful against someone of the same identity. It is hypocritical and slanderous.  It is the human heart; perpetuated by a humanistic construct of ‘race’ imposed by prideful and self glorified leaders of the ‘black community’.  It is oppressive and enslaving.

The truth that sets free from Identity confusion is resting your identity of what defines you and your individuality in Christ and seek the kingdom of God and his Characteristics.  What defines you is not of this world.  It is not based on cultural leaders formulating subjective rules that define a racial community; but is only found in Christ and defined by God alone.

Unequal Favoritism

When an ideal, behavior, or other people group interferes or threatens the defined construction of the particular ‘race’- an unequal unbalanced form of discrimination is imposed on that which is threatening, greatly favoring that which feels threatened.  It sacrifices the sovereignty of one people group for the unequal favoritism of the other.  This will continue to happen because it is an ever changing construct of evolving definitions of ‘races’.  The humanistic construct itself has built within itself the propensity for discrimination and unequal favoritism caused by the continual conflict of people groups and their collective wants and needs.  This too is oppressive and enslaving because the construct itself does not allow for an escape from conflict and peace except through forced favoritism through forced ‘justified’ discrimination.  To say one people group matter while remaining silent as another people group is slandered and discriminated against is unequal favoritism as well.  Long term forced focus on one people group alienates other people groups.  Continues to perpetuate inequality through favoritism and the disunity of humanity.

Unholy Norms 

Within each constructed ‘race’ there are norms that systematically ensures the humanistic construct continues.  In each ‘race’, acceptable generalizations are made and taught.  Even generalizations about the ‘race’ its self ensures that the subjective humanistic identity continues within the constructed race.  The hypocrisy is when a generalization from a different people group is imposed, then generalizing is seen as discrimination; when within that group, generalizing was acceptable.  For example:  “Black people are criminals” is deemed racist and wrong BUT “White people are wealthy” is seen as acceptable.  Both are generalizations based on a socially constructed idea about an entire people group based on the subjective definitions of their ‘race’.  Realistically and logically, both statements are discriminating and hypocritical judgemental ideals.

Another form of unholy social norms taught within particular people groups are subjective ideas of justified reasons to hate and cause violence.  Because the reasons to hate are ‘justified’ within the ‘race’, it is not viewed as hate.  Because the justification for violence is seen as ‘just’ it is not seen as violent.  Committing heinous and unnecessary crimes to ‘survive’, creating and supporting violent resistance to simple government laws, and imposing ‘justified’ generalizations of other people groups while going on witch hunts and ‘race-bait’ for undesirable generalizations are taught social norms within a people group that do harm to the people itself.  These generationally taught norms perpetuate the enslaving effect of the humanistic systematic construct of ‘race’ and maintain the blindness of the morally corrupt which is justifying hate and violence.

Ultimately when a people group is taught that they themselves are not responsible for their own decisions in the society but instead is due to historic injustices or a prejudice system and then impose unjust sanctions on another hypocritically generalized people group because of unrelated historic events; that people group are prevented from individual development through accountability and correction.  Essentially, lack of responsibility and accountability perpetuate their enslaving to the humanistic system of constructed races in combination with all the other effects of the constructed racial systematic divide.

Hypocritical judgementalism, blind hatred, accepted discrimination, allowed inequality, forced favoritism, condoning and committing violence, silence in the face of hypocrisy, support and action of breaking just laws, slander and generalize other people groups, lack of accountability and responsibility; all are unholy social norms built in a humanistic constructed subjective definition of races that which perpetuates the enslavement of the mind and soul of a society that believes in and embraces the humanistic constructed subjective definition of their ‘race’.

WHO Tells You What To Think

Where you taught to believe you belong to a particular racial group because you meet the qualities you were told? Are you ‘black’ or ‘white’ because you have dark skin, act, speak, and think a certain way?  Are you afraid of betraying your race if you change your ideals?  Who told you what it means to betray a racial definition that you did not define? Are you an individual defined by God or a humanistic subjective construct of what someone else says you are?  Are you free to be an individual?

Your Source

Those who have been granted faith in Jesus Christ have put to death their flesh and raised to a new life in Christ.  Their minds have been renewed and have been given a new heart.  Their eyes have been opened to see God and they have been BORN AGAIN.  They are not their old self.  They are no longer bound to their flesh and the limitations of it.  They are a NEW creation.  They are given a new life and empowered by the Holy Spirit.  Their identity is IN Christ, not in the flesh.  They may be defined as ‘black’ by the world, but are define as a Child of God which transcends how pigmented their skins is.  God is the greatest and most important defining factor in their life for all eternity.  They are not a black-Christian, or white-Christian, all are equally are eternally Christian.  There is NOTHING that makes being Christian better and there is nothing lacking when in Christ.

God’s Construction of ‘Race’

God made man in his image. All shades and physical features is the unique Human Race created by God and set a part from all other creation.  Each person, given their own unique qualities for the purpose of serving God in the community they were called out of while simultaneously remaining unified with the rest of the body of Christ made up of all nations.

• Romans 10:12 – “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;”
• Gal 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 
• Colossians 3:11 – “a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.”  

There are worldly humanistic labels and dividing distinctions that define people; and break up unity of humanity but only two ways for God; those who worship God and those who do not.  The world divides up, subjectively defines and labels, then marginalizes for the purposes of unequal favoritism and unjust discrimination.  God divides up for the purpose of graceful eternal salvation and the need for eternal salvation from his perfect righteous justice.

Missions

All Christians are called out of a culture in the world, reborn, renewed, and equipped to re-enter the world as a missionary to find the rest of the lost sheep; to make known the grace of God.  For those who come out of the ‘Black community’ or ‘Latin community’ are specifically equipped to go back as a missionary for those communities.  But again, they are no longer defined by the community they came out of.  Their citizenship is of heaven now.  This is the mistake Peter made and the mistakes many Christians make now.  They return to their familiar community and alienate everyone else.  They show favoritism for the specific community they came out of and neglect the rest of their Christian family from all other communities.  Favoritism and neglect are harmful to missions and the body of Christ as a whole.  This goes against the grain of the worldly constructed expectations for people.  The church needs to show that Black Lives Matter for example, without neglecting, belittling, and alienating the rest of the body of Christ form all the other people groups.  To show the world the unity of God that can only be seen through The Body of Christ who is made up of all people.

God and The Government

God sets up and institutes each government (Romans 13:1-4) which can be a positive or negative judgement on the people of that nation.  Some times God is not pleased with those whom people chose to lead the people but allows it (Hosea 8:4) and hands people over to their sinful heart and desire (Romans 1:24).  But how are Christians called interact with their ordained governments and what is their absolute Human Right?

Christians are called to pray for, ask for aid, and be thankful to the government institutions (1 Tim. 2:1-2) and that those who lead the governing institutions should be seen as brothers and not authoritative dictators, even if they are unjust (1 Timothy 6:1-2).  But those who are unjust authoritative dictators should also be respected because even they need to be shown grace and forgiveness too; thus serving unjust leaders is serving God (1 Peter 2:18-20; Titus 2:9-11).

Christians should expected and call for the government to defend the unfortunate and not violate their “human rights” (Prov. 31:4-5, 8-9) These leaders and institutions are also expected to seek truth and justice for evil and support what is good should (1 Peter 2:13-14). A leader and government that glorifies God should be sought and supported (1 Samuel 12:13-25).  

Should Christians Vote?
It is God that ordained a constitutional democratic republic governing institution (or any type of government); He has granted the people of that nation the ability to chose their leadership of their own, good or bad.  Because Christians are  allowed to take part in this type of government by God, they are then expected to, as service to the Lord through it (1 Cor 10:31).  The focus and appreciation for this type of allowed involvement is not on a worldly political party, but on the Lord, by supporting those who are seeking leadership that love the Lord. Voting in a government election is an opportunity to support and encourage citizens of heaven (Philippians 3:20). 

Obedience to the institutions and government leaders is serving God and trusting God’s will; thus civil obedience of a just governments is worshiping God when it is done for God (Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25).  God calls Christian leaders to not lord over people but serve people (Matthew 20:25-28).  Believers are commanded to honor and respect where honor and respect is due (Romans 13:7).

Also read SCOTUS and God

What about unjust institutions and governments?
Even when institutions and governments become unjust and do things that are immoral, Christians are still called to be civil (Matthew 22:20-21; 1 Peter 2:18-20; Titus 2:9-11).  Jesus and Paul used taxes as the illustration.  Understand that this illustration has a different meaning in our time.  In the biblical context, Rome was using the taxes they acquired from the Jews to fund wars and apply oppressive policies over the Jewish people, yet, Jesus still called them to pay the taxes; Paul reiterated this (Romans 13:6). Saul (Paul) was paid by Rome to hunt Christians; that money came from taxes taken from Christians. So there is something greater than carnal taxes and worldly ends that calls for Civil Disobedience than just immoral use of wealth and possessions.

Civil Disobedience?
This is permitted when the institutions and government attempt to prevent worshiping God absolutely (Daniel 3:12-18).  Yet, it is still required of all believers to do it in a respectful way that Glorifies God in the civil disobedience just as Daniel did.  Daniel respectfully disobeyed a legitimate (unjust) law which violated a human right and he continued to worship God knowingly violating that law (Daniel 6:10).  It is also permitted when The Gospel message is prevent by governing institutions (Acts 5:27-29; Romans 13:1-7).  Thus we see the greatest human right.

The Absolute Human Right
Even when our fundamental human right of worshiping God and teaching The Gospel message is violated and not permitted by institutions and governments; we still are held accountable to God for how we respond to these injustices.  We are commanded to still LOVE our enemy and PRAY for those who persecute us through violating our human right (Matthew 5:44).  We are commanded to continue to do what is good according to God even when the persecutions are heavy (1 Peter 2:18-20; Titus 2:9-11). How we serve God while living under an oppressive and unjust governing system can Glorify God.  Our love, prayers, and good will in the face of injustice is part of worshiping God that no government can prevent.  We can remain civil and right in our disobedience to humanistic attempts to prevent our service and worship to the Lord.

Other Forms of Civil Disobedience
In the civil rights era of the United States we see sound Christian leaders like Martin Luther King Jr remain civil before man and right before God in his disobedience to obstacles to proclaiming the Gospel and worship of God.  Smuggling missionaries, bibles, and the Gospel message into China, the Middle East and other governments that absolutely outlaw it is still serving and worshiping God.  Some governments attempt to regulate and limit the worship and proclaiming the gospel instead of out right outlawing it but again this is another humanistic attempt to control what belongs to God.  Remember, Paul wrote half his epistles in Roman Jail before being executed for proclaiming the Gospel; God still received his due Glory despite human efforts to limit and control the message of The Gospel.

Obey the Laws of the Land
If the ruling government enacts laws that does not prevent worshiping God or proclaiming the Gospel message we are commanded to follow those enacted laws. If a government imposes a curfew that interferes with church times; move the church times. If the government imposes specified ‘freedom speech zones’ move to those zones and continue to worship and proclaim the Gospel. If the government takes away tax exemption, churches then need to adapt and pay what is owed to Caesar.  Only when the absolute worship and teaching is prohibited, then civil disobedience is MADE necessary.  It is made necessary when the government attempts to prevent what is owned to God; worship and service.  Until then, we are instructed by God to civilly obey even if the laws are inconvenient (Romans 13:1-14).

Summery
The ruling government was instituted by God and we need to understand this. Either due to divine justice or favor.  Christians should take every opportunity within the government to worship and serve God; that includes voting. But when worshiping God and teaching the Gospel is suppressed, regulated, and controlled by governments; persecution and injustices come.  When it is outlawed; nothing changes. Nothing changes because Christians still give what is owned to God; worship and service, no matter the conditions of the the ruling government.  But under that oppression, Christians are still called to be civil and do good for God.  The ultimate focus is serving God, not man, and glorifying God despite man, while seeking civility and desiring peace without denying the glory due to God.