Obama vs. the Bible – Abortion
This is the third in a series of articles on Obama vs. the Bible, demonstrating his preference for the tenets of political correctness and secular moral relativism over traditional Godly and Biblical values.
First up, a brief recap of Obama’s voting record on abortion.
Obama on Abortion: In 1997, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB 230, a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. In the US Senate, Obama has consistently voted to expand embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against requiring minors who get out-of-state abortions to notify their parents. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007. On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to take place.” (Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238-239 Aug 1, 2008)
When asked if he believed if life begins at conception, Obama replied:
“This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don’t presume to know the answer to that question.” (Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008)
And in a classic display of Biblical ignorance, Obama said the following during an interview with Pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California:
“…whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
Have you never read Psalm 139:13 or Jeremiah 1:5, Mr. President?
In another egregious exhibition of contempt for the sanctity of life, President Obama remarked:
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.” – Barack Obama
So, not only does Obama consider a precious, unborn baby in the womb as “punishment” for its mother, but he callously places the baby in the same general category as an STD – both “punishments.” The gist of his remarks makes it quite obvious that it’s better in Obama’s mind to exterminate the innocent baby instead.
It’s been said before and I’ll say it again: You don’t kill an innocent unborn baby for the sins or personal convenience of its parents. If they don’t want the baby give it up for adoption.
It’s no secret that Barack Obama claims to be a Christian. “I’m a Christian by choice,” the president said. “I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith.” Notice that President Obama’s public service actions are based on his Christian beliefs. Or so he claims. The evidence, though, is to the contrary.
Since Roe vs. Wade in 1973, and for the last four decades, the lives of some 50 million unborn American citizens, teachers, scientists, health care professionals, and taxpayers – enough souls to actually fund, in full, the Pelosi, Reid, and Obama Health Care bill, have been snuffed out on the altar of personal convenience and political correctness. And while many Republicans and Independents have likewise abrogated their moral responsibilities to the unborn, their moral turpitude pales in comparison to the dedicated left wing pro-infanticide crowd, and Barack Obama in particular.
What does the Bible say about when life begins?
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.” (Exodus 21:22-23)
Straight from the Jewish Torah, God immediately affirms the value of human life in a mother’s womb.
Next, a divinely appointed prophet from the womb:
Jeremiah 1:5 – ‘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.”
Other prophets and Biblical personalities ordained from their mother’s wombs:
Samson: Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, “A man of God came to me and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome. And I did not ask him where he came from, nor did he tell me his name. “But he said to me, `Behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and now you shall not drink wine or strong drink nor eat any unclean thing, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.’” (Judges 13:6-7, see also Judges 16:17)
John the Baptist: “For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother’s womb.” (Luke 1:15)
Jesus, the Son of God: Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” – Luke chapter 1
The Apostle Paul: “But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased…” (Galatians 1:15)
It is clear in scripture that in some way, God creates life in a mother’s womb.
Psalm 139:13 – ‘For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.’
Of course, the question for Barack and Michelle Obama and the pro-abortion crowd, is: What divine insight does the pro-abortion crowd think they have to where they can destroy in a mother’s womb that which God is somehow instrumental in creating? Mr. President? Michelle Obama? Anyone?
Those were future prophets to the nations and the Savior of mankind in the womb. But the pro-abortion crowd wants to pretend that instead of babies with divine plans, they were nothing more than unviable tissue masses. Well, God is not fooled, and neither are those who read and respect God’s word.
Barack Obama says that abortion needs to be more rare. Which begs the question – if there’s nothing wrong with abortion, then why does it need to be more rare? Mr. President? And if there is something wrong with the practice of abortion, then why isn’t Barack Obama pro-life? Can anyone answer that? Barack? Michelle Obama? Besides berating and apologizing for America, what did they teach in that church you attended for the last twenty years? Did they ever teach you what the Word of God says about how God creates life in a mother’s womb? Did you ever crack open your Bibles and read those passages with the same diligence and thoroughness as Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals? And if you did read it, why haven’t you taken it to heart?
Some might ask, “But what if the cause of the pregnancy was from rape or incest?” Examiner.com notes,
“There are numerous responses that could be given to that question, but one thing that needs to be acknowledged is that rape and incest account for less than one percent of all reported abortions. Those that use that argument would like you to believe that it is the most common reason for a woman having an abortion. Actually, the most common reason given for having an abortion is because the child is “unwanted” or “inconvenient.” That reasoning accounts for ninety-three percent of all reported abortions. In other words, ninety-three percent of abortions stem from the rejection of personal responsibility.”
It is the avoidance of personal responsibility that is one of the chief hallmarks of liberalism.
Infanticide down through the Ages
When Moses the Lawgiver was conceived, they killed the babies (Exodus chapter 1). When Jesus was born, they killed the babies (Matthew chapter 2). And now that the Lord’s return is imminent, they’re killing the babies again, only this time by the tens of millions.
The fact is that God has a plan for everyone, no matter how insignificant they may appear to be. The Bible is full of personal accounts of people who trusted in God, and who then went on to achieve great things. God respects life. America should also.
Mother Teresa on abortion:
“America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts – a child – as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters”
“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?”
Now, a question for pro-Obama Christians and Jews: Why do you vote for and support a man who condones, defends, and enables the horrendous act of infanticide against the innocent unborn? Is that not one of the most grievous practices in the whole universe – to rip the innocent unborn from a mother’s womb? A place where a baby is supposed to be nurtured and protected? But where instead the mother turns the helpless infant over for execution? And you support that man? The Word of God doesn’t mean anything to you?
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” – author unknown
And so today, the slaughter of the innocents continues.
America needs to reverse course and protect and respect the innocent unborn. There’s no other way around it. For the God who established America can darn well take our country from us and bring divine Judgment to our shores. Don’t think he won’t. Thomas Jefferson once noted:
“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781)
We are treading on very thin ice and there surely will be a personal and national price to pay for our continued, callous disregard of innocent life.
In November of 2012, protect life and vote Barack Obama and the pro-abortion congressmen and women of Capitol Hill out of office.
May God have mercy on our country.
Reference: Barack Obama on Abortion
Graphic images of aborted babies
Other Obama vs. the Bible articles:
Obama – America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U.S. President
Obama vs. the Bible – Redistribution of Wealth
Obama vs. the Bible – The Defense of Marriage Act and Gay Marriage
-The Righter Report
Obama vs. the Bible – Redistribution of Wealth
Obama’s Rev. Jim Wallis Misreads the Bible
by Rabbi Aryeh Spero
Though Barack Obama is not a deeply religious man, he realizes that most Americans are, and thus has enlisted a man of the cloth to sell to the public his plans for national redistribution of wealth. The President calls the Reverend Jim Wallis his “advisor” on these matters and chose him precisely because Wallis comes to most political matters with a well-known, decidedly leftist outlook regarding the economy, healthcare and the environment, and with the anti-Israel and sometimes anti-Western tilt voguish in leftist circles, especially religious leftist circles.
Wallis has appeared lately on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” on postings in the Huffington Post, as well as in his own magazine, “Sojourners”. He states that “redistribution of wealth is what the Gospels are all about. Absolutely.” He is also urging an “economic leveling of society.” The Rev. Wallis shares some of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s views, just toned down.
Wallis cites the extreme poverty in many parts of the world as a need for us to redistribute our wealth not only domestically but also across the globe, as a way to achieve what he calls “biblical justice”. But if Wallis wishes to alleviate poverty, why would he choose the very redistributionist plans that have caused poverty in those areas and, worse, wish to institute them here, on us? Instead of depleting ourselves of wealth, why not teach others how to achieve their own prosperity?
I suspect Wallis knows all this, but, like so many on the left, is bothered by the fact that some live better than others and that constitutes “inequality.” Rather than lift others, it seems “fairer,” to the left, to bring us down. It is easier, quicker and provides the redistributionist with a sense of moral superiority. Besides, there’s much more glitter in indicting the successful of one’s own country. Like many in the left-wing clergy, Christian and Jewish, Wallis arrived at the seminary with a leftist view of the world which subsequently colored his reading of Scripture.
Though a Democrat, Wallis says, “God is not a Democrat or Republican.” That is true, but neither is He a left-wing ideologue, and it would seem that a loving God would desire prosperity for as many of His children as possible and not wish to penalize those who live by the virtues of hard work, sacrifice, discipline and responsibility that He has bequeathed to us. It only makes sense that God favors a system that provides his children with the greatest opportunities and avenues for economic prosperity and its concomitant condition of human dignity, uniquely sponsored in the Judeo-Christian outlook upon which America’s economic system is fashioned.
The social justice that God expects of us is handled not through statist redistribution of wealth but through acts of charity. In the Old Testament, there are constant calls for giving charity but none for statist redistribution of wealth, nor calls for an economic leveling of society or for a lack of distinctiveness and differences among individuals. Doing so runs contrary to the notion of the individual as a unique and distinctive being, which is the meaning behind “human created in the image of God”, i.e., singular beings.
The Bible calls for acts of charity from the individual, for in being direct and personal, charity has the ability to elevate and ennoble the giver and provider. The direct act of giving changes the person and involves and partners him with God. Unlike Marxism, the Bible emphasizes the individual, not the state, the personal and not the “masses.”
Those who receive charity are taught the virtue of gratitude. When given everything by the state, however, through redistribution of wealth, recipients are taught not gratitude but a sense of entitlement. Imbibing a sense of entitlement negates and corrupts the virtue of work that God himself announces as something good for man: “Six Days Shall Ye Work”. But the leftist egalitarian is unwilling to accept a notion that there are benefactors and recipients, since it seems so “unequal.”
That the Bible never called for redistribution of wealth is obvious when considering that it required from its citizens only a tithing, a 10% giving. It mandated another 5% or so toward functionaries in the temple as a compensation for work they did in behalf of the citizenry, like civil servants. And while government certainly has a safety-net role, the state should eschew policies that enlarge dependency and certainly not manufacture conditions, as is the Obama Administration, that make redistribution of wealth inevitable.
The equality that God seeks is not in a manufactured across-the-board parity but in “Equality before the Law.” In matters of law and redress before the court, all are equal, be they rich or poor. A virtuous and Godly society is not one that redistributes wealth but distributes law and justice across its population.
The Rev. Wallis is correct that Wall Street exhibits “greed,” yet finds nothing wrong with the work-rules and “Cadillac provisions” of unions that are rooted in greed. Nor does he castigate the greediness of millions who, out of a sense of entitlement, do not work or pay but demand to be subsidized from the take-home pay of other people’s labors. Evidently, it is not greed but achievement born of capitalism that bothers Wallis.
A society that is leveled is a society in which all become equally disadvantaged. Yet, many liberals prefer an equality of mediocrity and lack of wealth over one of achievement and prosperity if, in the end, prosperity means some have more than others, even though the poor directly benefit and live better because of the success of others. This is not social justice but socialism, which is a political category, not a moral category.
The greater the ability to create wealth, the more money is available for charity and good works. It is America’s men and women of wealth, imbued with religious and civic responsibility, who have served as the greatest patrons of the civic infrastructure, be it hospitals, libraries, museums, the arts, or the charitable United Way. England once had those patrons, but they went away as redistribution of wealth came in.
The primary theme of the Bible is individual responsibility, not entitlement and dependency. God wants the individual to be robust. The Rev. Wallis and others like him see the Bible as endorsing pacifism, be it pacifism in national defense and security matters or pacifism in economic matters. The religious left doesn’t see man solving problems through robust free-market activity but calls for, as they do regarding environmental challenges, retreat. They lack a belief in man’s ability, in man himself.
It is ironic that men of the cloth endorse the views of Karl Marx who despised the Bible. Marx propounded his message and political outlook almost two millennia after the Bible was written. His outlook is not of the Bible. To him, religion was the opiate of the masses. Marx offered a new opiate for the people: redistribution of wealth and the welfare state. Clergy should think twice before endorsing the views of Karl Marx.
Opinion: Although giving and charity are commanded by the Lord, nowhere in the Bible does it say that giving must first be filtered through a bloated and inefficient government bureaucracy. The Bible says that a man shall reap what he sows, but it doesn’t say we should live off of what other people sow. What’s more, Scripture teaches that if a man does not work, he shall not eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Scripture also commands us not to covet what belongs to our neighbor:
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Exodus 20:17
From religion to our founding fathers to our Constitution we are taught that coveting others property is wrong. The Constitution guarantees us an equal opportunity not an equal outcome. We have the right to prosper and keep the fruits of our labors. This was central to the founding father’s vision for this country. We need to get back to that vision. Quotes on Redistribution of Wealth
A good couple of questions to ask the Obama Redistribution of Wealth crowd are, “Who’s your daddy? Is it God or the government?” If God, he doesn’t need the government to provide for you. It’s not very efficient and the way it’s structured now it’s not even Biblical. What’s more it’s decimating the economy. Redistribution of Wealth is, at its core, a radical left wing economic scheme centered in greed for other people’s money, rather than exercising personal responsibility and earning it one’s self. Obama and Company need to get back to Bible basics and give up on their failed socialistic idol worship.
Other Obama vs. the Bible articles:
Obama – America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U.S. President
Obama vs. the Bible – The Defense of Marriage Act and Gay Marriage
Obama vs. the Bible – Abortion
The Righter Report
Obama vs. the Bible – The Defense of Marriage Act and Gay Marriage
This commentary starts a new series of articles on Obama vs. the Bible that will continue on until Election Day 2012.
It’s no secret that Barack Obama claims to be a Christian. “I’m a Christian by choice,” the president said. “I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith.” Notice that President Obama’s public service actions are based on his Christian beliefs. Or so he claims.
But what does Barack Obama really believe, and does it coincide with what we find in the Bible? A close examination reveals that what Barack Obama believes and practices are quite often contrary to what Scripture teaches. Traditional, Biblically-based marriage is one such example.
For example, the Bible teaches that marriage is a covenant instituted by God (Malachi 2:14), and is a union between one man and one woman (Genesis 2). When God created a “helpmate” for Adam, it was a woman (Genesis 2:18-24) whom God created. Thereafter, Adam and Eve became one flesh. The Scriptures are clear that a Biblical Marriage is strictly between one man and one woman. For additional information on traditional, Biblical marriage visit here. Notice in the link that one of the purposes of a Biblical marriage is to create Godly offspring.
Concerning traditional marriage, on July 19, 2011 President Barack Obama publicly acknowledged his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – whereby the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. The law was passed by an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress and was signed into Law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
Evidently, based on his own ideas of political correctness, Barack Obama has turned his back on Christian values and the approved will of the people of the United States and arbitrarily declared The Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Amazing. It’s amazing since this was a personal declaration of Barack Obama and not an approved judgment or ruling handing down by the Supreme Court of the United States. What’s more, Obama’s sworn U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, is refusing to defend DOMA in legal challenges. That’s correct, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, who swore to uphold the laws of the United States of America, are now arbitrarily violating the law and violating the trust of the American people. Why? According to the New York Times, “Now President Obama says his views on same-sex marriage are ‘evolving,’ and as he runs for re-election he is seeking support from gay donors who want to know where he stands.” Obama is already on record as approving of gay civil unions.
In a new development, The Huffington Post reported the following on April 9, 2012:
President Barack Obama’s Minnesota campaign announced Monday that Obama opposes a state ballot initiative that would define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Vice President Joseph Biden is equally Biblically-challenged:
“I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” he told NBC’s David Gregory on Meet The Press
Update from Fox News, May 9, 2012: President Obama on Wednesday endorsed same-sex marriages, becoming the first sitting U.S. president to take that position following days of speculation about his “evolving” stance on the issue. The president used a hastily called TV interview to make his position clear.
“At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told ABC News.
He sure didn’t make that decision based on the Bible.
What’s more, now Obama is working to undermine traditional marriage.
Obama Calls for the Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act
What an absolute abomination.
Do we need to remind Obama, Biden, and their politically correct, liberal contemporaries that sexual unions between two men or two women are sinful and not ordained by God? Are there any Biblically-based leaders left in the Democratic Party?
Let’s review the Scriptures on homosexual sin and see what the Bible says on the subject:
Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
Romans 1:26-27 – “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
1 Timothy 1:8-10 – “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine…”
Jude 7 – “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”
There’s no gay marriage approved in the Old Testament; no gay marriage approved in the New Testament; no gay sexual relations approved anywhere in the Bible. Just the opposite – gay sexual relations are condemned in both testaments. God is consistent on that. And no gay marriage covenant is seen anywhere in Scripture.
Some may say Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality. That’s not really true. Jesus is God. As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Levitical law against gay sexual relations to begin with; and he’s the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sexual relations in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc.
It’s also worth noting that Jesus didn’t mention wife beating or other sins such as pedophilia either, and there are not many folks who would argue he approved of those behaviors. So Jesus was under no obligation to reiterate the moral laws against homosexual sin that already existed, unless there were clarifications to be made.
Now, does Obama not realize that there are negative consequences of sin that can effect an entire nation? Did he forget that the sin of one man – Achan (note Joshua 7) – resulted in the deaths of 36 fighting men? And that the sin of King David resulted in a plague that killed 70,000 Israelites (2 Samuel 24:15)? Has Obama never read Deuteronomy chapter 28 – the Blessings of Obedience to the Lord and the Consequences of Disobedience? Please remember too that when nations other than Israel got out of line with the Lord, they came under judgment also. So God’s laws and judgments are not just for Israel, or just for America either. That’s why Obama’s unbiblical decisions are a threat to America.
In conclusion, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Attorney General Eric Holder, and the Democratic leadership have turned their collective backs on Godly principles and the lawful will of the American people in order to oppose the traditional Defense of Marriage Act. Biblically-based Christians (and Jews and others who base their beliefs on the Bible) need to strongly take this into account in the next Presidential Election, and vote President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Attorney General Holder and Company out of office. And if their Pastors had any moral convictions based on Biblical principles, they ought to throw these apostates out of their respective churches as well.
Other Obama vs. the Bible articles:
Obama – America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U.S. President
Obama vs. the Bible – Abortion
Obama vs. the Bible – Redistribution of Wealth
- The Righter Report
-
Archives
- May 2012 (1)
- April 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (4)
- November 2011 (1)
- October 2011 (3)
- September 2011 (3)
- August 2011 (1)
- July 2011 (3)
- April 2011 (1)
- February 2011 (1)
- December 2010 (1)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
