Skip to main content

The Stupidity of People Who Condone to Abortion and Condemn the Death Penalty at the Same Time

One of the greatest hypocrisies of people today is that they are against the death penalty while they are for abortion.  By the Word of God, this is really hypocritical considering the reality that the Bible both condemns abortion and orders the death penalty for certain crimes.

I hear more often than not that the death penalty is barbaric and inhumane.  I hear people whine and say that death penalty supporting states are barbaric.  At the same time, a lot of these people (not all) say that abortion is perfectly okay because the fetus is "just a glob".  That is a huge lie considering that science proves life begins at heartbeat.  Even introductory biology shows that the fetus is a living person otherwise it would not grow, it would not be able to kick the mother's womb, it would not take nourishment and it would not be born as a child.  It is not an "it" but a he or a she.

Do you know that God considers the life of the fetus to be sacred?  Below is the verse that shows that God has ordained a crime against any damage to an unborn fetus.  
Exodus 21:22-23 - "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,"

One can say, "Oh that is just Old Testament Law.  It is obsolete." never mind that person saying that line may hate the entire Bible.  What people do not realize is that the moral law has not changed.  You may go ahead and eat shrimp and bacon all you care because of Peter's vision in Acts 10:1-16.  While I do not advocate the eating of carnivorous and/or rabies carrier animals due to the health hazards but eating of pork, shrimp, squid, octopus and the like can be considered safe with proper safety measures.  If the Old Testament was become completely obsolete then murder, thievery, human sacrifice, incest and every other sin condemned under the moral law should be perfectly okay.  But no, when it comes to the moral law - it more or less remains the same.

The death penalty was prescribed against murderers.  People can go ahead and say that death penalty is now obsolete because we are in the New Testament.  They can also misquote Jesus' case with the adulterous woman out of context without realizing that her trial was not even legal to start with.  In John 8:1-11, the whole issue was about talking the Law into your hands.  The Pharisees sought to trick Jesus into breaking the Law.  Jesus showed compassion to the repentant adulterous woman.  At the same time, know that the prescription of adultery required both the man and the woman (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22) to be stoned.  The man was nowhere there plus there was no due process.  The death penalty required a due process to prevent innocent people from getting killed.

In the proper use of the death penalty, it was never about revenge but protection of society.  When we have the eye for eye, tooth for tooth system, it was meant to be the standard for punishing offenses and not about carrying one's personal vendetta.  The Old Testament did not even encourage revenge as Deuteronomy 23:35 says that the LORD alone will avenge for every wrong.  When He said eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, it means He will also avenge wrongs in due time and it was also set that punishment must be dealt with according to offense.  Littering meant you paid a fine, stealing meant you need to restore with interest and coldblooded murder meant you paid with your life.  It is not a harsh or unjust law but it kept society safe and in check.

The Bible recommends that perjury can also put a person to death (Deuteronomy 19:18-19).  Many innocent people go to jail because perjury is not treated as a criminal offense.  Judges who do not punish perjury had refused to think how much the person suffered for a crime that they did not commit.  Lying in court to get an innocent person punished is a huge crime in the eyes of a holy, righteous God.  It should not be just a slap in the wrist.  If perjury cases got the punishment meet for the false accuser's intent then there will be much less cases.  If false witnesses either had to spend jail time or even get the death penalty depending on the criminal offense they accused the innocent party of doing then there would be a huge drop of lying in court.  Doing so is not an unjust act but it protects people from getting punished for what they did not do.

In their quest to be "pro-life", how can they be pro-life if they refuse to execute murderers and other dangerous criminals while they support the abortion of defenseless unborn babies?  Unborn babies are truly innocent and dangerous criminals are a threat to society.  The death penalty for dangerous criminals or to shoot down a dangerous criminal protects human rights.  To go against just and proper death penalty is a real violation of the rights to life.  To abort a child is a violation of the unborn to life.  Society today no thanks to their rebellion against God has fallen into more foolishness than you can imagine when it comes to their definition of pro-life.

See also:

Popular posts from this blog

Ken Ham's Illustrations on Spiritual Warfare Against Humanism

Dr. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis made these beautiful illustrations to show what's wrong with the church today. Let's take a look at the two illustrations on how Christians engage their spiritual warfare. 
The first illustration reveals the following:
One member is asleep when he should be doing something.Another person is firing at the balloons because the person who's supposed to fire it is asleep on the job.Somebody is focused on deflecting cannon balls than hitting the source of the cannon balls.Somebody is treating the whole situation like a game.  
By doing so, humanism is victorious whenever the local church is asleep. This is the problem to why Christians tend to fall down in battle at times:
Ezekiel 22:30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before Me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.
In short, if you're not going to stand in the gap on behalf of the land then who will? It's the…

The Ridiculous Roman Catholic View That Marriage Must Be Done Inside Their Church or It's Invalid

I remembered reading through the seven sacraments or ordinances of the Roman Catholic institution in a catechism. One of the teachings is that marriage must be treated as a sacrament. What it also implies is that if your marriage is done in a civil court that even if it was duly registered, that both couples were in a sexually pure union then it's not a marriage. So does that mean that a person can marry in a civil court, get divorced and marry his next spouse in the Roman Catholic institution?

Let's address the issue of civil marriage that is pure and holy. In short there was no incest, no adultery and it was between two people who are eligible for marriage. So why should the Roman Catholic institution even think that two people who got married with the sexually pure prerequisites in the eyes of God should be rejected. Is it because unless it's a priest who performs the marriage then the marriage can't be validated? It's a problem with how Roman Catholics have thei…

No Moral Absolutes Means No Human Rights

We have the truth that human rights activists are everywhere who reject the truth that there are moral absolutes. Many of them have their idea of "Judge not and you will not be judged." As for the atheistic human activists, they tend to carry out Richard Dawkins' quote from the River Out of Eden which says that there's no good, no evil but only pitiless indifference. They think that there are no such thing as moral absolutes. So if they believe that there are no moral absolutes then why are they fighting for human rights which requires moral absolutes to determine them? After all, Dawkins just said there is no purpose but only pitiless indifference.

Here's another problem with atheists' appeal to human rights. Why do they appeal to human rights when they claim that there are no moral absolutes and morality is relative? Human rights are determined by moral absolutes that God made. When God made His Ten Commandments and gave the whole Law - He made it as the st…

James 2 DOES NOT Teach Works Salvation

In a hasty attempt to defend works salvation, they would appeal to James 2.  It would be time to actually clear the fact that Paul and James DO NOT contradict each other. James 2 DOES NOT teach works salvation in which now can be clearly seen when this whole chapter is being dissected to show that James 2 does not defend the heretic crowd.  So let's try to check out what James 2 really is saying.
So first, it's time to think about these facts to debunk the heretical argument of using James 2:
1.) James 2:14-18 is not talking about works salvation but rather, again showing one's faith by one's works.  James 2:18 is a challenge to show one's faith.  Want to know about faith?  Hebrews 11 talks about the results of faith with some of the heroes of the Bible.  Try to coincide Hebrews 11 and James 2 and one sees the results of faith.  As said, when one says that a faith without works is DEAD because true faith produces good works to validate faith.  That's really th…

Does Salvation by Grace Through Faith in Jesus Christ Grant a License to Sin?

Here's a commonly heard argument saying, "Well salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ is unjust and grants a license to sin." which is frequently done by most world religions.  They demand people must work for their salvation and for one, it's NOT even realistic or practical as it promotes the idea of a dictator God PLUS it's nothing more than asking for the impossible because God's standard of holiness is a LOT higher than all the good works man does.  Despite all the good man does, still they will fall into sin and the followers of almost every false religion this world has to offer shows that like how your average religious person attends religious services yet he/she falls into sin for the rest of the week, showing he/she is WEAK in the flesh.
Now it's time to really correct the whole erroneous argument as false.  Why?  The Bible says otherwise about what God's salvation by grace through faith really does- it transforms the individual to resist…

What Does Pisseth Against the Wall Mean?

It's really getting bad for some of my Independent Fundamental Baptist brethren to actually even take the words "pisseth against the wall" which appears at least six times in 1 Samuel 23:22, 1 Samuel 25:34, 1 Kings 14:10, 1 Kings 16:11, 1 Kings 21:21 and 2 Kings 9:8 where the King James actually has the words "pisseth against the wall".  Now I am a King James only-ist but I do not support the stupid interpretation of "pisseth against the wall" by some IFB preachers who have become in some way similar to the Catholic Faith Defenders that they argue against when they should spend their time soulwinning.  Actually I even heard that rather outrageous "pisseth against the wall" sermon by Steven Anderson that was so taken out of context.
So what does pisseth against the wall mean? Let us take a look at these six verses and take it on a exegetic view NOT an eisegetic (out of context) view:
1 Samuel 23:22- "And so more also do God unto the ene…

What's Wrong with the Ang Dating Daan Movement?

The Ang Dating Daan movement is by the Members Church of God International spearheaded by its pastor (and so-called "prophet") Eliseo Soriano.  While claiming to be an expositor of the Scriptures with his "Itanong Mo Kay Soriano" or "Ask Soriano" In English, this religious group actually isn't Christian as some of the ignorant would want to believe.  Though the group claims the Bible is their only authority (as some cults do) but the problem is that they believe only Eli Soriano may interpret the Scriptures.  This is utter heresy!  Not even a great man in the Scriptures, Charles Spurgeon ever made such a preposterous claim!  This is no better than the "true church" movement by Darwin Fish which is exposed by Pastor Phil Johnson as a heretical movement.  In fact, I'm not going to waste my time debating with ADD members, they are a total waste of my time as every other debate.
Unlike John F. Macarthur of Grace to You that actually encoura…