How is John 11:11 consistent with the church's teaching on abortion and voting

  • Thread starter Thread starter hilarycotter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hilarycotter

Guest
It seems to me that by reflecting on John 11:11 - specifically “do you consider that it is better for you that one man should die instead of the people, so that the whole nation may not perish”, a Christian cannot accept the church’s teaching on proportionate reasons.

I am hoping someone can reconcile the two for me:)
 
ooooooooooooppppppppppppppppppppsssssssss - that’s John 11:50:)
 
Are you sure about your citation? Here’s John 11:11
11This He said, and after that He said to them, “Our (A)friend Lazarus (B)has fallen asleep; but I go, so that I may awaken him out of sleep.”
Click to expand...
This is with reference to Lazarus.

Peace,
Dante
 
Caiaphas was speaking of the death of Jesus, who gave up His life willingly. The so-called “proportionate reasons” for having an abortion still involve the taking of a life from someone who is not given the opportunity to choose – the fetus.

How can you compare the two?

Peace,
Dante
 
Hey Dante - I love your books!!!

Thanks for you response - but it seems to me that if I may abstract from the historical perspective there is a lesson to be drawn here - Caiaphas is saying - the end justifies the means, sure we do a little evil but by doing so we do a tremendous amount of good.

It seems to me that the Bible is again demonstrating that this is wrong - despite the particular circumstances in this case.

I am being wrong here? Does the innocence of Christ or the unborn child factor in here? Does Christ’s ability to choose for himself to avoid the evil to be wraught on him make it impossible for me to see a lesson that could be applied to those who could not choose?

Can I really not compare? It just seems to be the ultimate statement against proportionate reason, despite the respective circumstances.

Thanks for your reply.
 
hilary,

Do you think that just because John describes what Caiuphus said, that the Bible teaches it?
 
yikes…umm…ummmmmmm…I guess I did.

Look away folks, move on, nothing to see here. Moderator, how do I delete my embarrassing posts.
 
If you read on to the very next verse, John 11:51, you will see that this was a prophesy even though Caiaphas did not realize it. John is definately not saying that killing one for the sake of many was an OK thing. You can not look any one passage of scripture outside the context of the whole.

John is trying to get into Ciaphas’ mind here. I would highly doubt that John actually waltzed up to Caiaphas and asked him…“What were you thinking at this time.”

However…Caiaphas was very obviously trying to rationalize his thought of having Jesus put to death as Jesus was a danger to his authority.

I am not sure of how you are linking this passage of scripture to abortion and voting.
 
I am probably in error here jburgherr, but it seemed that this was an example of the fallacy of the philosophy the end justfies the means, or a little evil is ok as long as it does a lot of good, where the Vatican statement on proportionate voting seems to be the same thing.

In other words it seems to me the Vatican is saying, go ahead and vote for a pro-choice candidate if you are not voting for him/her because he/she is pro-choice but rather your vote for evil is for the greater good and by voting for this candidate you are choosing not to vote for an even worse evil.

Am I not correct in drawing this parallel?

Thinking isn’t one of my strong points:)
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are asking how can we vote for a canidate that is for abortion in the case of rape or incest, instead of one that is for abortion all the way (for example) with regards to John 11:50. The idea is that we do not stop at the “lesser evil”, but we get rid of it in chunks. The end is not abortions in the case of rape or incest, it is still the end of abortions all together. This unfortunately is the way it will probably be done as a good amount of people do not view that a person is created at the moment of conception, but do think that you should take responsiblity for your actions.
 
I think you vote for the “lesser of two evils” while actively working to eliminate all abortions. Staying home on election day and allowing the greater evil to prevail is not the answer.
 
perhaps its weakness of intellect here, but I find it hard to pull the lever on a pro-choice candidate period.
 
hilarycotter said:
perhaps its weakness of intellect here, but I find it hard to pull the lever on a pro-choice candidate period.
Click to expand...
Don’t confuse “weakness of intellect” with “resolution of your beliefs”.

And what are the ramification of your (lack of) vote?
 
By not voting or voting for only a pro-life candidate I am telling my party that if they want my vote they need to present me with pro-life candidates.

By voting for a pro-choice candidate I am telling my party pro-life does not count for me.
 
hilarycotter said:
By not voting or voting for only a pro-life candidate I am telling my party that if they want my vote they need to present me with pro-life candidates.

By voting for a pro-choice candidate I am telling my party pro-life does not count for me.
Click to expand...
By not voting, you are allowing a greater evil to further advance the “pro-choice” decision.

Take your pick.
 
Yes, I am allowing the greater evil to persist for the short term, but I am hopefully sending a message to the party saying if you want to win elections you have to present real prolife candidates.

The RNC is in the business to win elections not to elect pro-life or pro death candidates. It seems that the they will see that the way to win elections is through pro-life candidates.

Is my thinking wrong here?
 
hilarycotter said:
Yes, I am allowing the greater evil to persist for the short term, but I am hopefully sending a message to the party saying if you want to win elections you have to present real prolife candidates.
**
The RNC is in the business to win elections not to elect pro-life or pro death candidates. **It seems that the they will see that the way to win elections is through pro-life candidates.

Is my thinking wrong here?
Click to expand...
The RNC will hopefully (and we need to hold their feet to the fire) prevent any pro-choice Presidents from electing pro-choice judges. Could you imagine a nominee to the Supreme Court being voted down by their own party?!? 🙂
 
hilarycotter said:
By not voting or voting for only a pro-life candidate I am telling my party that if they want my vote they need to present me with pro-life candidates.

By voting for a pro-choice candidate I am telling my party pro-life does not count for me.
Click to expand...
I agree. History has shown (and it should be COMPLETELY obvious today) that voting for someone who is only “partly” pro-choice just means that the major parties will select even more rabid pro-abortionists (Democrat) or more weak-kneed abortion-compromisers (Republican). Refusing to support either is the only way to say “Give me someone worth voting for and I’ll consider doing so.”

I’m not a fortune teller (nor do I play one on TV), so I don’t try to predict the future and choose ahead of time “who can or can’t win”. As such, I vote only for 100% pro-life candidates, period.

Thankfully, there is ALWAYS at least one 100% pro-life candidate to vote for. That almost always means 3rd party, but if that is what the GOP wants, that is what the GOP gets.

I do have to say that I am COMPLETELY OVER the constant hand-wringing about Supreme Court nominations (7 of 9 current judges are GOP appointees anyway), and of the eternal cry of “But this is the most important election EVER!!!” :eek:

Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top