Besançon, Julius Ceasar and Vercingetorix, Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump, Richard and Christopher Hays, A short screed about Free Speech, and the Actual Mercy of God
The Hays thing is really saddening. Reading Hays on sexual ethics is one of the things in the early ‘00s that helped turn me back to an orthodox view and this turn me around from a self-destructive path.
I have a friend— a bridesmaid in my wedding— who gave me great advice for avoiding the temptation of SSA I experienced for a time. I’ll always be thankful for that. However, she has since divorced and embraced lesbianism. We’re still in touch, and I pray for her often.
The 2nd link in Anne’s “Take” Four deserves much attention, as it truly gets to the heart of the issue underlying the rapidly fading “evangelical” movement. Every church, every pastor, every Christian ministry should unequivocally declare where they stand on the issue of “universal” salvation (not in the sense that salvation is available to all, but in the sense that salvation is the ultimate outcome for every human who has ever lived):
“Their advice, not intentionally of course, is cruel since it promises final salvation for those headed for everlasting destruction. Such words may seem unduly harsh, but mercy only makes sense in a world where there is judgment, yes final judgment.4 And the witness of Scripture is clear: God doesn’t have mercy on all. Universalism is clearly outside the circle of God’s self-revelation as Michael McClymond has shown in his astoundingly excellent and massive study on the question.5”
“…but the picture given is skewed since they don’t reflect on the fact that virtually the whole world is destroyed in the flood, and the flood is picked up in the New Testament as a type of the judgment to come. Yes, mercy is available, but judgment isn’t withdrawn, as anyone reading Jesus’ words on the danger of hell realizes (Matt. 5:22, 29–30; 10:28; 18:9; Mark 9:43–49; Luke 12:5; cf. John 3:36).”
I applaud Florida's attempt to limit abortion, although I think a ban at 6 weeks might not be politically sustainable. If I were DeSantis, I would have gone with 8 weeks. I must confess to be a bit confused why so many conservatives are calling for a federal law banning abortion. Didn't we spend the last 50 years arguing that the Constitution doesn't mention abortion and that the question should be left to the states? I just think it would be the height of hypocrisy to push through a federal ban now.
I realize that conservatives really want to end abortion, and I do as well. Unfortunately, overturning Roe v. Wade was actually the easy part. Now we have to convince people to give up the convenience of abortion, and the vast majority of Americans (especially women) are strongly opposed to this. Rather than face up to this difficult task, it seems that many conservatives would prefer to jam through a federal ban and call it a day. But such a law, even if it could get passed, would surely be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Barring that, it would get overturned in an electoral backlash.
It seems that abortion is going to be with us for the foreseeable future, but I think sometime in the next few decades it may just get banned out of necessity. For we are surely going to have a major depopulation crisis.
It’s not hypocrisy to advance a federal law after defeating a Court decision. The Court is supposed to interpret the law, not make new ones. When Roe was decisive, it invented a law that was not found in the Constitution. In other words, you can’t really analyze how Constitutional a law is for something the Constitution does not address. But that doesn’t mean you can’t make a new law that the Constitution doesn’t address, but it should be through the proper channels— the new law needs to be made in the legislative branch, which is what some are trying to do. No conflict there.
I agree with you that a federal abortion ban may not be the best way to go about fighting abortion. It won’t get passed through the legislative branch, and it is NOT something that any President should do by executive order. I do believe an executive order for such a law WOULD be hypocrisy to our insistence that the Courts shouldn’t make the laws— because neither should the executive branch make the laws, only the legislative branch.
The Hays thing is really saddening. Reading Hays on sexual ethics is one of the things in the early ‘00s that helped turn me back to an orthodox view and this turn me around from a self-destructive path.
I have a friend— a bridesmaid in my wedding— who gave me great advice for avoiding the temptation of SSA I experienced for a time. I’ll always be thankful for that. However, she has since divorced and embraced lesbianism. We’re still in touch, and I pray for her often.
The 2nd link in Anne’s “Take” Four deserves much attention, as it truly gets to the heart of the issue underlying the rapidly fading “evangelical” movement. Every church, every pastor, every Christian ministry should unequivocally declare where they stand on the issue of “universal” salvation (not in the sense that salvation is available to all, but in the sense that salvation is the ultimate outcome for every human who has ever lived):
“Their advice, not intentionally of course, is cruel since it promises final salvation for those headed for everlasting destruction. Such words may seem unduly harsh, but mercy only makes sense in a world where there is judgment, yes final judgment.4 And the witness of Scripture is clear: God doesn’t have mercy on all. Universalism is clearly outside the circle of God’s self-revelation as Michael McClymond has shown in his astoundingly excellent and massive study on the question.5”
“…but the picture given is skewed since they don’t reflect on the fact that virtually the whole world is destroyed in the flood, and the flood is picked up in the New Testament as a type of the judgment to come. Yes, mercy is available, but judgment isn’t withdrawn, as anyone reading Jesus’ words on the danger of hell realizes (Matt. 5:22, 29–30; 10:28; 18:9; Mark 9:43–49; Luke 12:5; cf. John 3:36).”
https://cbmw.org/2024/08/28/a-review-of-the-widening-of-gods-mercy-sexuality-within-the-biblical-story-by-christopher-b-hays-and-richard-b-hays/
I applaud Florida's attempt to limit abortion, although I think a ban at 6 weeks might not be politically sustainable. If I were DeSantis, I would have gone with 8 weeks. I must confess to be a bit confused why so many conservatives are calling for a federal law banning abortion. Didn't we spend the last 50 years arguing that the Constitution doesn't mention abortion and that the question should be left to the states? I just think it would be the height of hypocrisy to push through a federal ban now.
I realize that conservatives really want to end abortion, and I do as well. Unfortunately, overturning Roe v. Wade was actually the easy part. Now we have to convince people to give up the convenience of abortion, and the vast majority of Americans (especially women) are strongly opposed to this. Rather than face up to this difficult task, it seems that many conservatives would prefer to jam through a federal ban and call it a day. But such a law, even if it could get passed, would surely be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Barring that, it would get overturned in an electoral backlash.
It seems that abortion is going to be with us for the foreseeable future, but I think sometime in the next few decades it may just get banned out of necessity. For we are surely going to have a major depopulation crisis.
It’s not hypocrisy to advance a federal law after defeating a Court decision. The Court is supposed to interpret the law, not make new ones. When Roe was decisive, it invented a law that was not found in the Constitution. In other words, you can’t really analyze how Constitutional a law is for something the Constitution does not address. But that doesn’t mean you can’t make a new law that the Constitution doesn’t address, but it should be through the proper channels— the new law needs to be made in the legislative branch, which is what some are trying to do. No conflict there.
I agree with you that a federal abortion ban may not be the best way to go about fighting abortion. It won’t get passed through the legislative branch, and it is NOT something that any President should do by executive order. I do believe an executive order for such a law WOULD be hypocrisy to our insistence that the Courts shouldn’t make the laws— because neither should the executive branch make the laws, only the legislative branch.